Conference quark::mennotes

 The way I value women cannot be rationalized with the economic model
proposed. Too many intangibles defy quantification.

    The economic model proposed is in my view one of the principal reasons
    for prenuptial agreements.  The future marriage is quantified in terms
    of things so that it can be dissolved as would a company be.  Bluntly,
    the future marrieds are less concerned with forging a successful union
    than they are with protecting themselves when, not if, things fail.  I
    see this for validation of what the Curmudgeon's Dictionary says about
    marriage:
    
        marriage, n.  Formerly, a lifelong contract for love,
        companionship, and mutual benefit between two parties of opposite
        sexes.  Presently, a socially acceptable agreement between two
        parties to share bed and board until they tire of each other's
        company.
        
            I shall marry in haste, and repeat at leisure.
        
        			- James Branch Cabell, "Jurgen"
    
    And I find this whole attitude extremely distasteful; I do not think it
    values people, of either sex, at all.
    
    -dick

I have a number of problems with that model.  In addition to the dehumanization
and comditization of the people and the relationship, it seems to presume
that the male will work and earn the major income (not a necessarily 
innacurate presumption unfortunately) and that the female partner will not
work outside the home.  I assume this from:

>	For example X number of years marriage would return a one time
>	payment of Y dollars plus a retraining allowance to allow the women
>	to return to the workforce

I dunno, this seems seriously sexist and unbalanced to me.  

I don't plan to get into another longterm relationship unless there is a very
clear understanding of equality and balance (course I thought that was what I
was doing in this last marriage, but ...). 

just some thots
jimc

I tend not to answer questions where the poser doesn't offer his personal
answer first.  It makes it sound like a survey.

    
    too tough to quantify....
    
    And besides, my daddy told me I was invaluable.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    By asking yourself is she worth it? ;-)

	One problem with this model is that is seems to imply that the
	man has no worth to the woman. 

	The whole idea though devalues women. And men. And the idea of a
	relationship based on love and other things not easily, if at all,
	quantifiable.

			Alfred

    I don't know if the basenoter had this in mind, but - there have been
    attempts, in recent years, to place economic value on the household
    tasks usually performed by women [not, please note, on the women
    themselves!], since historically it would seem that most economic
    studies have excluded all such work. [I don't know whether paid
    domestic service is included in, say, the gross national product; if it
    is, it seems that one might make an attempt at putting an equivalent
    value on "spousal" domestic service, even if the spouse in question
    might not be willing to perform those chores for anyone else.]
    
    The point behind such an exercise is to give tangible economic value to
    tasks often considered insignificant by society ("just a housewife");
    however, since most domestic-service jobs aren't considered very
    high-status anyway, I don't know that it's much better for people who
    _want_ to be homemakers to think of themselves as contributing to the
    economy vs. undertaking a labor of love...
    
    -b

The model I proposed in the base note was a provocation inspired by what was 
said in two previous notes.

Note 13.25

	"Boys are taught leadership skills and girls are taught domestic 
	skills that will never be truly appreciated, in any way, by the 
	society they live in."

Note 13.31

    	"..society does not pay people who are good at domestic skills..
	anywhere near the amount that men who become good leaders..
	are paid.  If value is equated to dollars then the typical chores 
	that women are traditionally taught are not valued anywhere near as 
	much as the leadership skills that are encouraged in boys."

It was also based on some work I'd read some time ago which dealt with the 
economic value placed on domestic tasks normally carried out by women. I didn't
mean women themselves and although I rushed the note before leaving for home 
on Friday I thought that did come across. 

Re.5 Eric.

I was only asking for other views and perspectives of how other men value 
the work their wifes do (and demonstrate it) - or to stretch the point - balance 
the needs of both partners ?
 
For example...

My wife is a Journalist with a University degree and to this point in her life 
hasn't wanted children. One of the reasons is that she studied for many years, 
she fought hard to find a good job and - at last ! - she earns good money. She 
says she FEELS that she's contributing to our lives in a way that cleaning the 
bathroom, for example, doesn't make her feel. She also says that she wants to 
make something of herself before having a child and that she doesn't want her 
father to feel that all those years of supporting her through college and Uni 
were a waste. 

Around the home I value and truly appreciate what my wife does for me and I 
demonstrate that with my love and affection. But I'm asking myself is that 
enough ? There are days for example when I don't feel very loving or very 
affectionate which means pay-day doesn't happen.

A friend of mine is in a slightly different situation. She stays at home 
looking after her 1 year old child. She works 18 hour days and for the most 
part finds it repetitive, boring and unrewarding. It's a labour of love and
as such unpaid. But what happens in situations like that when the love runs 
out ?. I know what happens - I've been there - so is there a better way ?
 
 - Paul.

>She also says that she wants to 
>make something of herself before having a child and that she doesn't want her 

    Of all I've done and will do, if I'm remembered only as being my son's
    father I will consider that I have made something of myself.

>A friend of mine is in a slightly different situation. She stays at home 
>looking after her 1 year old child. She works 18 hour days and for the most 
>part finds it repetitive, boring and unrewarding. It's a labour of love and
>as such unpaid. But what happens in situations like that when the love runs 
>out ?. I know what happens - I've been there - so is there a better way ?

    A cousin of mine stays home looking after his almost 1 year old child.
    He works 18 hour days and for the most part finds it very rewarding. He
    realizes that he's taking a hit career wise but believes it's in the
    best interests of his daughter that one of her parents stays home. The
    mother makes a lot better money so he won and gets to stay home.

    I don't think the idea of repayment for the spouse that stays home
    should be discussed in terms of valuing women. Sure it's still mostly
    women who do the staying home but that's not universally the case.
    Also framing this issue in terms of women staying home perpetuates the
    stereotype and makes it harder for men to be the one to stay home.

    Besides I personally believe that the person who gets to stay home has
    the advantageous position. If a marriage breaks up after children have
    been raised the person who got to stay home should repay the person who
    supported them if anyone is the be rewarded at all.

    			Alfred

Valuing people in economic terms is at best, a misleading academic exercise 
and at worst pernicious nonsense.  

If the topic here is giving a dollar value to work done, there are other, only 
slightly less troublesome issues.  Do we mean the maximum amount an employer 
would willingly pay to have the work done?  Or the minimum an employee
would work for?  Or the amount some third party decides is "just"?  Or the
amount society would pay to ensure that it is done?  Is it the market price
of the work?  What if the market is not completely free?  What if there are
significant differences in market power?

Economists have struggled with these questions for many years, without 
producing answers which satisfy me or them.

re 9 and 10:

If A and B do the same job, and A enjoys it and B does not, should they
be paid differently?  Who should be paid more and why?

My answer (given as requested by .4): pay them the same; B will seek a new
career and the field will be left to those who enjoy it.

.8>I don't know whether paid domestic service is included in, say, 
>  the gross national product

It is, and you are right about why some academic folks want to estimate
the value of spousal domestic service.

.9> so is there a better way ?

I don't know, but I suspect that economics is not the answer.  

Since my wife and I have common finances (among our friends some do and some
don't), it would be meaningless for me to pay her anything.

One alternative to the economic model is a self-respect model: I do what I do
because that is who I am and who I want to be, not because I am rewarded
for it.  I think this is a more stable model for parenthood, since whatever
the rewards, the day will come when the rewards are not there.  My idea of who 
I am is much more stable.

Of course, I am not a parent, by choice, so you can take my opinions with
a grain of salt.

    
    For me, I feel I get a great deal of personal satisfaction, and feel
    valued at my career here at work.  I doubt I could get this feeling
    complete out of child-rearing, so I doubt that whatever money you paid
    me to do child-rearing or homemaking would not give me the same
    internal rewards as a career.  
    
    The fact remains that I will probably eventually have children, and I
    will love and nurture them, and their father and I will share the
    responsibility and nurturing and caretaking probably fairly equally (he
    may do a bit more, not sure yet).  
    
    As for economic values, I pay someone $15 an hour to clean certain
    parts of my house that I find loathsome to clean.  That's quite a bit
    of money.  I'm sure live-in au-paires earn quite a bit also.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    
    How do men value women?  Wow I was initially glad to see this.
    Yet after reading the replies, it seems that it really isnt
    what I wanted to see.  My interpretation of the question is
    not linked to monetary or economic benefits.  Its more how
    are the women valued by the men in the non-tangible ways.
    What do the women in your life make you feel like?  What
    have the women in your life taught you?  What would your
    life be like if these women had never touched your life?
    
    As far as pay for domestic chores, I believe the most important
    job a person can be is a parent.  Just a personal belief, but
    I hold it rather high.  So to me, the "pay" for raising my kids
    would be the knowledge that I got to take an active role in my
    kids lives.  No amount of money could equal that feeling.  
    Of course, I have yet to actually be a parent so my feelings on
    that may change once reality hits.  
    
    
    Michele

    Add my voice to say that this strictly monetary accounting is
    meaningless. 
    
    Yes, work traditionally done by women pays less than traditional men's
    work. Beyond that, thinking of how much money certain work is "worth"
    is goofy.  Aside from any social or moral values associated with the
    work by a particular society, the value of work in economic terms
    cannot be rationally explained either.  An excellent first grade
    teacher will likely contribute more to the economic future of the
    nation than will an excellent computer engineer, but only in the long
    run, in ways that cannot be tracked as easily, and at the short term
    expense of the public which would likely not pay comparably to the
    engineer even if it understood those benefits. (Conversely,
    a poor first grade teacher will have a larger negative economic effect
    than a poor engineer).                                    
    
    Hence the teacher will never make what the engineer does. 
    
    As for child-rearing, I can tell you from the experience of one who is
    the main parent for 3 little ones that the issue is more complicated
    than whether the work is boring or interesting. In a nutshell,
    housekeeping is repetitious and mindless, while working for a computer
    company can be intellectually challenging. On the other hand, running a
    household is like being self-employed -- you're on call all the time
    but you run the show, and, with some skill you can find lots of
    interstices of rest and diversion in the long days.  More to the point,
    the thrill of raising kids, in my view, far outweighs the disadvantages
    of housekeeping.
    
    Kit
    like being self-employed

.13>    How do men value women?

Very high, as I value myself and men.  Not too specific, I'll admit, but 
it's the best I can do.

>    What do the women in your life make you feel like?  

Everything from heaven to hell.  The happiest and most miserable feelings I 
have had have been associated with women.

I'm glad to have these feelings, all of them.  

And I'm glad that the present woman in my life can accept and support 
me in all of them.

> What have the women in your life taught you?

What life is like when I have feelings.  Some ways that I can relate to 
my feelings.  Ways I can value myself and others that don't depend on thinking
or doing.  Different ways of looking at the world.

>  What would your life be like if these women had never touched your life?

I'd probably be a recluse somewhere, bathing once a month and doing all
my work over the Internet.

    	When I visited Morocco with my family I got a lot of offers for my
    elder daughter ranging from a bicycle to 10,000 camels. I was tempted
    by that offer until my younger daughter pointed out that we couldn't
    fit them into the garden. I think she was just jealous.

    
    >10,000 camels
    
      Hey that's alot of money, you got any phone numbers:-)
    
    
    David

    How do I value my wife??
    
    I can't ..my wife is priceless.
    
    After all...
    
    
    ..just look at the bloke she has to put up with!!
    
    
    hehehe.. TRUE!!
    
    
    Don
    *8-)

    A good wife is more valuable than rubies and gold--Proverbs.

    Commonly attributed to Solomon.  He should have known 8^).
    Having had one of the worst and one of the best myself, I can
    tell you he was right on.
    
    fred();

    re: .17
>>10,000 camels
>    
>  Hey that's alot of money, you got any phone numbers:-)
    
    	First you have to have a beautiful daughter. Then just think of
    having to muck out 10,000 camels every morning before going to work!
    
    	I didn't notice a 'phone number, but if you take your daughter and
    stand outside the spice shop on the square in Marrakesh (they also sell
    aphrodisiacs) you will probably get an offer. Just pretend you are
    sightseeing.
    
    	Even if you have the garden space I doubt if you could persuade the
    airline to exchange your daughter's return ticket for one for 10,000
    camels, though.

You could sell the camels.  I think though that "10,000" was just an
arbitrary large number.  If you had started bargaining, you would have
found out.  ["10,000!?"  I can't possibly take less than 20,000!"]

    Hummmmm..... Have you thought in trading in smaller animals? Like
    razorbacks, jackalopes, and mux's?:) You might pay less in frieght. And
    spend less time figuring how your going to get 10,000 camels in you
    garage.:)
    
    

    Actually, 10,000 camels sounds like good starter stock for a fertilizer
    business.  If you know people who run organic farms, you should be all
    set.

    Fertilizer and making punks. Remember those things? :) The look like
    incence minus the lovely colors and fragrences.:)
    
    But then again we have enough fertilizer from some of the replys in
    this string. Like mine:)

    I remember walking around in the Middle East (Israel) and being
    regularly offered camels and sheep for the women in our group. It
    was kind of a shock. A part of me just couldn't believe these were
    serious offers. Easier to believe it was a sort of "let's tease the
    tourist" sort of thing.

    The really interesting thing though was the looks and stares that the
    tall women (6 foot plus) in the group drew. A little more women than
    most there were used to. :-)

    			Alfred
    			Alfred

    
    they were on offer for two camels then eh?

    two camels, one sheep, sixteen mux's, and a partridge in a jitter pear
    tree.:)

    re .25
    
    Shoulda told them that for five camels you could maybe work
    somthing 8^).
    
    fred();

    
    
     Dang all I have is a son. Anybody want to trade:-)
    
    
    David

    Re .29: Uh, in some parts of the world, you might get offered more
    camels for _him_...
    
    -b

Okay, I'll bite. . .  What's a "mux?"

    Its a dho-dha that connects to a mux server.:) Not to be confused with
    a snipe, or Siberian water roller skis.:_]

================================================================================
Note 39.31                  How do Men Value Women ?                    31 of 32
COMET::BRONCO::TANGUY "Armchair Rocket Scientist"      1 line  11-MAR-1993 18:48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, I'll bite. . .  What's a "mux?"



I think he means this (from AHD):



	lum-mox   n.

		An oaf; lout.  [Orig. unknown.]

    and if you don't go broke transporting 10000 camels home, the
    cost of the vet exam and quarantine will get you.
    
    ed

    >.0 basenote
    Why bother with all this dollar value assessments? Although it would be 
    interesting for a few laughs to see how much value women would put on 
    their housecleaning time and sexual performance and THEN to see how
    much the husbands would figure it was worth. Why go through all that?
    Better, and easier, to just hire a part-time maid and/or hooker. At
    least you would have the option of variety if paying for sexual favors.

    .35

    Or how do women value their men? Besides changing their oil in the car,
    doing the manual labor of lifting heavy things at the job, and for many
    women who are home. Sending their husbands out to prostitute themselves
    at their daily jobs. Not all jobs are wonderful carriers as some
    women might have some disillusion about.
    

 I'd like to depart from the previous three dozen replies (and the basenote)
but explore the topic contained in the title. We seem to have reached a
consensus that trying to calculate a monetary equivalence for the various things
that women do for us is a fruitless and in many ways pointless exercise.
But the idea of how you as a man value women bears interest for me.

==

 I value women in many different ways and for many different reasons.

 There are certain attributes that I value in my mother, certain things about
my wife that I value, certain things about my daughters that I value and
certain ways I value the rest of the women in the world.

 How I value women often depends on what relationship I have with them (if
any.)

 I may value a female painter that I don't know strictly in terms of her art.
Another female painter who is a family friend is seen differently; both as
an artist and a friend.

 Some women are valued in terms of what they do. Some women are valued in terms
of what they are. Some women are valued in terms of what I imagine them to
be.

 There are a great many things I value about my wife. I appreciate the things
she does to keep the house running: domestic chores such as washing the clothes
and ironing, cleaning the house, etc, paying the bills, and stuff like that.
I value the way she is raising my children, and just for bearing children in
the first place. I value her female perspective on things- it adds dimension
to my life. I value our sexuality.

 Curiously enough, I tend to make a subconscious evaluation of women in
terms of their suitability as a sex partner/mate even though I am married.
I've done this as long as I can remember. When I see a new woman, an
analysis takes place that seems to go roughly as follows. I look at her face
and hair and then her body. Unless she is significantly unpleasant looking,
particularly unclean in appearance, or otherwise off putting, I will probably
try to get a reading of her mind. That is to say, just because a particular
woman may not "pass the test" of generating "mating" interest, she still
may be pleasant enough or intellectually stimulating enough to spend time with.
That the initial background process seems to check sexual attractiveness
first to me indicates why we call it a basic instinct. It is a very low level
check.

 Anybody else notice this sort of thing?

    I believe that Agatha Christie, in her autobiography, wrote that a male
    friend of hers said that it had been his experience that women tend
    to evaluate a man as a potential husband, and that men tend to
    evaluate women by two criteria:  how would she be in bed?  is she
    likely to go to bed with me?
    
    

    re .35, .36, I always thought people were supposed to be together, as
    couples, for love and companionship.  There are some things you can't
    get from hired help.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .37
    
    Much of what you say, Doctah, rings true for me.  I find myself in a
    continual battle with my nature, telling it that women are not bed
    partners; like me, they are people who have choices, of whom one has
    chosen to be a bed partner and some others have chosen to be friends
    and acquaintances.
    
    Re .39
    
    Lorna,
    
    Your thoughts may make sense to you, and they may even make sense to
    many others, but other cultures feel differently.  For the men of
    ancient Athens, a wife was for the purpose of getting children and
    managing her husband's household.  Hetaerae were for sex and female
    companionship, and homosexual partners were for love.
    
    -dick

    re:.38
    
    Sounds about right.

.37> Anybody else notice this sort of thing?

Yes, indeed.

My basic reaction to women seems to put them on a scale, one end of which gets
adjectives like: attractive, warm, young, well-dressed, healthy, well-groomed...

Women at this end of the scale are the ones I first prefer to talk with, 
listen to, be around and so forth.  As I get to know a woman, her own 
personality usually drowns out this first basic reaction.  But not entirely.

I suppose if I were more highly evolved, I would not have this reaction.  But 
I'm not, and I do.  So I work to get past this basic reaction, especially 
at work, where behaving on this basis is both unfair and illegal.

I don't think this is sexual, although it may have started out that way.  For
one thing, I still feel the reaction, although I am now quite monagamous.  
Also, I have this positive reaction to some women I know, even though I am 
fully aware that I do not match their sexual preferences at all.  Finally, 
I have known women who were sexually available and attractive that I did not
have a positive reaction to.

By what I read and observe, a lot of men react just the way I do.

One contrary opinion: somebody did one of those psychology experiments, 
flashing pictures for milliseconds and then asking questions about them.  
They found that men and women shown pictures of fully dressed men and 
women generally noticed the same thing first: the social class of the
person in the picture.

I have a similar basic reaction to men, although it is much less strong, and 
the positive end of the scale gets adjectives like: direct, well-groomed,
intelligent...

    Re .42
    
    Wally, you say you still have that basic reaction even though you're
    quite monogamous.  In .40 I said much the same thing.
    
    Do you think your (or anyone else's) monogamy is an instinctual thing
    as opposed to a conscious decision?  If monogamy is only a conscious
    decision, then that basic reaction may well be one that cannot be
    suppressed despite one's most sincere efforts.
    
    -dick

>If monogamy is only a conscious
>    decision, then that basic reaction may well be one that cannot be
>    suppressed despite one's most sincere efforts.

 It's gotta be a conscious decision. ;-)

    re .44, yeah, but, I think there are some people who really aren't
    interested in having sex with anybody other than their SO, and other
    people who are interested, but don't because they know it might ruin
    the relationship.
    
    Lorna
    

    	Well I've only had sex with one person (married for more than 20
    years now). I wouldn't say I wasn't *interested* in sex with another
    woman, but it's more an intellectual curiosity about what it would be
    like.
    
    	Dave

    All this talk about c.c.c.c.c.committment is giving me a terrible case
    of the hives.  ;')

    c.c.c.c.c.committment?
    
    silly me, and I thought it was mere health-consciousness for the 90s
    ... 8^}
    
    in other news, I'm purely confused about why someone would even _try_
    to short-circuit a healthy attraction.  I enjoy a healthy attraction
    for itself and follow-through [or lack thereof] is generally confined
    to the personal limits I've set for my behaviour.
    
      Annie

    re .46, if I were you I'd be curious, too.  There's a lot of variety in
    the world! 
    
    Lorna
    

I think monogamy is a conscious choice for me.  I suspect my polygamous 
tendencies are due more to culture than instinct, but I have not got
any convincing evidence or reasoning to support that statement.

.48> I'm purely confused about why someone would even _try_
>    to short-circuit a healthy attraction.  

Annie,

If your first name is a reliable guide, your position in our common culture
is different from mine.  Here are a few reasons why I resist my basic
reaction, reasons which may apply to many men

	women I know expect to be treated as thinking, feeling human beings
	(I also want to relate to them in these ways) and the basic 
	reaction can get in the way

	letting my basic reaction show in my behavior at work could lead to
	some very unpleasant discussions with personnel

	letting my basic reaction show in my social behavior could mislead 
	women into believing I have intentions that I don't have, which
	could lead to complicated scenes I would rather avoid.

    re.50, Wally
    
    Interesting, but I'm still missing a few vital pieces of the puzzle. My
    question in .48 was more focused on why some men apparently desire to not
    even _have_ these reactions; while your response indicates why you find
    it wise not to act upon them.
    
    > women I know expect to be treated as thinking, feeling human beings
    
    I could say the same about most of the men that I know ... at least the
    thinking part.  By the same token most of the women I know want to be
    perceived as physically attractive.
    
    > and the basic reaction can get in the way
    
    how so? is the basic reaction consistently overwhelming enough to
    inhibit discourse?

    > letting my basic reaction show in my behavior at work could lead to	
    > some very unpleasant discussions with personnel
    
    that would depend upon how one let it show, wouldn't it?

    > letting my basic reaction show in my social behavior could mislead 	
    > women into believing I have intentions that I don't have, which	
    > could lead to complicated scenes I would rather avoid.
    
    is it your experience of women that if you find them attractive they
    expect you to put out? or that they expect you to intend that they do?
    
    [I suppose that I can understand that, as I found that many men feel
    that if I find them attractive I will have sex with them ... I still
    think they're missing a few fashion steps, but it's common enough that
    I can draw the parallel]
    
      Annie

I think as I get older (I'm 491 months old), my sexual desires have changed.

When I was younger, the thought process went something like this:

	Gee, I'm attracted to her.

	Hey, maybe I'll find reasons to talk with her, so we can start something
	up so we can have sex together.

Of the times that this plan worked, all too often I'd end up deciding later
that now that we've had sex together, I'm not really interested in continuing
to see her.  But she still wanted to see me.  Not only that, she wanted a real
relationship.  I'd back off.  She'd be pissed.  I'd feel bad that I "broke
her heart".

These days my thinking goes a bit further:

	Gee, I'm attracted.

	Hey, maybe I'll find reasons to talk with her so we can start something
	and have sex.

	Hmmm, do I see the possibility of a relationship here ?

	Naaa, but sex sure sounds nice.

	Am I willing to risk the upset ?

	Naaa, forget it.

	But hey, how can you know whether there could be a relationship, you
	don't even know her.

	I dunno, I just don't think I'd want one.  I think I'll just back off
	for now.

/Eric

Each to their own. I like to get to know a woman first and then making love, if
it's going to happen within that relationship, will.

I like a woman who's personality shines through her eyes and her smile. Eyes
are important - I like a woman who's eyes sparkle. How a woman laughs is 
important too - does it come from deep down inside or is it on the 
surface, without substance. And I love how a woman smells. The right perfume
can turn me on like a light bulb.

I like a woman who's got something to say for herself, somebody who makes me
laugh and I feel comfortable with. Physical qualities are less important. I
don't have the physique of Arnie S. or the looks of Errol F. so why should she 
look like Michelle P. or Kathy I. I mean, let's be real here.

Then comes dinner. A nice restaurant, comfortable ambience and a good wine. Not
exaggerated, not too heavy, but enjoyable. A good conversation - about her, 
about me, about her dreams, about mine. Dinner has to last - I hate it in 
America when the waiter brings the check and I haven't even finished - "Hi I'm 
Don, would you like to pay now or ..." - urgh. Drop dead Don.

After dinner it's important if she allows me to help her with her coat. If she
does then is she tense and rigid or relaxed and comfortable with me so close.
If all things feel right so far then the timing of the first kiss - crunch 
time - has to be chosen with care. The kiss will tell you - both of you - 
exactly how love making will be. Tender, passionate, aggressive or just wet and
warm.

.51> question in .48 was more focused on why some men apparently desire to not
>    even _have_ these reactions

I may have missed something, but I don't think any guy here has said he would 
not want to have (as opposed to act on) this basic reaction.  I did say that 
if I were more highly evolved, I would probably not have this reaction, but
I don't know that I would want to be that evolved.  That was said with tongue 
partly in cheek anyway.

> is the basic reaction consistently overwhelming enough to
>    inhibit discourse?

Not consistently, but occasionally.  There have been attractive women in 
my life that I never had a coherent conversation with, because of the
basic reaction.  As I get older, the reaction is less overwhelming, so
I can now talk seriously with women that would have left me nothing but
a tongue-tied glandular reaction years ago.

>    that would depend upon how one let it show, wouldn't it?

My impression of the law and the culture is that there is currently no
reasonably safe way of letting it show at work.  That I am married 
is a factor here.

>    is it your experience of women that if you find them attractive they
>    expect you to put out? or that they expect you to intend that they do?

My experience is that if I show a woman I think she is attractive she will
believe I am making a pass at her.  Most likely she will be amused, annoyed 
or angry.  If she responds positively, she will probably be angry, annoyed 
or amused when I try to clarify the situation.

All of which reflects the fact that I am a little short of savoir-faire, 
and so are the people I hang out with.  I've been told that there are 
parts of our culture where people can communicate the message "I find 
you attractive, but I don't expect anything from you and I don't intend 
to do anything about it" without misunderstanding.

    Re .54
    
    There are ways of letting a woman know you think she is attractive
    without her thinking you are making a pass at her.  After some bad
    experiences of the sort you suggest, I have perforce learned a couple.