Where have all the good men gone?

"Where have all the good men gone?" asked a woman at a lunch I attended the other day. She was referring to a recent Wall Street Journal article with that headline, which, thanks to its controversial title, caused quite a stir among single women around the world who were all agreeing with the writer's sentiment.
Not me. In fact what really gets on my nerves is women who complain that there are no decent men out there. They blame their city, their town, their office hours, their gym ... anything but themselves for this supposed Man Drought situation. I hear it from Sydney to Los Angeles - the same boring moaning and groaning.
"Where is he?" they cry.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Case in point was the conversation I was privy to the other day as three (smart, gorgeous, single) women I was sitting with were discussing the recent article.
"You can blame the lack on good men on the cougars," replied a woman at the table.
"Yeah. They're ruining it for the rest of the women," agreed another woman. "They pounce on the younger men, give the guys what they want and let them act like boys while they pander to their needs."
But the writer of the article, Kay S. Hymowitz, isn't laying blame on the women. Instead, she reckons the reason for all this anti-male malice isn't because all the good ones are taken, married or gay, but because the men who were once men, are now living in a new kind of "extended adolescence", which is apparently making them entirely undateable. In other words, all the good men have gone because they're morphed from men into boys.
"Today, most men in their 20s hang out in a novel sort of limbo, a hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance," she wrote.
"This 'pre-adulthood' has much to recommend it, especially for the college-educated. But it's time to state what has become obvious to legions of frustrated young women: It doesn't bring out the best in men."
Comedian Julie Klausner, author of I Don't Care About Your Band, concurs. She says modern men have morphed from alpha males into "pre-adulthood" boys, and she's sick of it.
"Guys talk about Star Wars like it's not a movie made for people half their age," she said.
And she continued: "A guy's idea of a perfect night is a hang around the PlayStation with his bandmates, or a trip to Vegas with his college friends ... They are more like the kids we babysat than the dads who drove us home."
The men I have recently come into contact with who fit this bill are definitely enjoying their lives like they were 19 again. One recent date consisted of us playing Grand Theft Auto … seriously. But it didn't make me wonder where all the good men gone, but rather if I should be more open-minded ... or simply date older men instead of guys my own age.
Yet, on the flip side, the women I've spoken to who are dating these sorts of men (yes, some of them are indeed cougars), often note how giving, generous and sensitive they are.
"So what if they talk about Star Wars?" lamented one. "So what if they are still at university or are afraid of commitment? They're still fun to hang around with!"
Indeed they are.
Yet Hymowitz said they're not exactly catches. "Relatively affluent, free of family responsibilities, and entertained by an array of media devoted to his every pleasure, the single young man can live in pig heaven - and often does," she wrote.
"Women put up with him for a while, but then in fear and disgust either give up on any idea of a husband and kids or just go to a sperm bank and get the DNA without the troublesome man. But these rational choices on the part of women only serve to legitimise men's attachment to the sand box. Why should they grow up? No one needs them anyway. There's nothing they have to do. They might as well just have another beer."
My journalist girlfriend Olivia said she wished men were still like they were in the "olden days".
"Men back in the day left school early and were supporting themselves from 16 onwards," she told me over cocktails the other night.
"Nowadays they all are mummy's boys. It's a different world and it's harder to disembark on your own … they're in school longer and they're taking longer to take responsibility for themselves. They're not as pragmatic and they're definitely more sheltered."
True, there's always a good reason for it. The cost of living has gone up. Men have to live at home longer. It's harder to get good jobs and some simply prefer vacillating between enjoying a life of fun and frivolity and working hard in a job that pays the bills and offers them a step up in their careers.
I'm privileged to know (and have dated) some of the most gorgeous, intelligent, sweet, caring men. Sure, there is the occasional douchebag who breaks your heart and lies about having to "work late" when he's really out bonking his secretary, but that's all part of the journey. Sifting through the bad ones in order to realise a good one when it's right in front of you.
But when so many women complain that there are no decent men left, is it time for men to step it up? Or are women still simply being too picky?

Girls on the Loose

The other day I heard an interesting interview on the radio with a woman who described herself as having spent her youth "hopping from one man's bed to another".
Why? We'll get to her reasons in a moment.
But first, the segment delved into the notion of modern female promiscuity; the reasons behind why some women do it, and the double standards that exist when it comes to men versus women being promiscuous. 

Advertisement: Story continues below

The subject of the interview was author Kerry Cohen Hoffmann of Loose Girl: A Memoir of Promiscuity. She explained to host Alan Roger Curry that, while women who are promiscuous often do it to satiate their own sexual desires, sometimes they do it to fulfil another (albeit worrying) need: the yearning to feel close, loved and cherished by a man.
Yeouch. I understand there are women who equate sex with love. But surely these days women have wised up? Surely they understand that men will do, say, buy anything to get some action between the sheets?
Of course, any woman who has casual sex with a man she's not in a relationship with will know all too well that, on the night, while she might feel closer to the dude she's bonking (physically, emotionally, even spiritually!), the next morning when the booze has worn off, the pheromones have died down and she's no longer looking as hot as she did the night before, he's (most of the time) no longer that into her.
If you're one of those women expecting something more, don't be fooled.
If, on the other hand, you're not one of those women, I'm not quite sure you're going to be so happy when you hear what's to follow either. Because, while women are entitled to the same physical pleasures as men, society still frowns upon a gal who owns her own sexuality, has sex like a man would and forgets to call him the following day, if ever again. And therein lie the double standards.
When I posed the questions to Ask Sam readers the other day, many interesting points were made. As predicted, the blokes said it was great; the women said there was no such thing as "no strings attached sex". Melissa wrote "It works great for guys, but girls will always get emotionally attached. So girls will always get hurt by it. Great for guys, bad for girls."
Yet Robert made a good point. "Paradoxically, it's available for girls and unavailable for (most) guys."
And Marko reckons there's no such thing. "Nobody has sex for free. There is always a price to pay. To your character, finances, reputation, health, self-esteem, friendships, relationship opportunities. Just saying … there's always a price."
In a bid to discover more, I contacted Hoffmann in the US and this is what she had to say …

Me: Does female promiscuity hurt a woman's psyche?
Hoffmann: Well, not exactly. My work is about how lots of girls/women use male attention and sex as a way to fill something emotionally. I'm not talking about sex addiction, which is more about sexual desire. The "loose girl issue", as I call it, is about how sexual desire actually gets lost inside the desperation for connection and some sense of being worthwhile. And I argue that this is largely culturally cued, particularly by media, which makes clear that girls are made worthwhile via their sex appeal (as well as their ability to keep their sexual behaviour in check) - a terrible conflict that is put on girls: be sexy, but not sexual.

Me: Is there a double standard going on?
Hoffmann: Absolutely there is. My belief is that boys are given ownership over their sexual development. Girls aren't. As we grow up, this can be very damaging. Many men say that women should just take the reins over their sexual selves and dismiss what anyone else says. But I argue that it isn't that easy when you've internalised decades of being told who we can and can't be sexually. Do I wish women could do that? No question. But I don't think it's so simple.

Me: What does it actually mean to be promiscuous?
Hoffmann: I believe promiscuity is a loaded word, and I used it ironically in the title of my memoir. My "promiscuity" was about needing something from boys; using them to feel like I mattered in the world. It didn't work, of course. I only felt worse, and judged, because the boys were not surprisingly uninterested in such a needy girl. So I was often rejected or left or ignored after sex. It was my own fault, but I hadn't understood it at the time.
But, I'm avoiding the question. Culturally, being promiscuous means sleeping with many, many men. Defined that way, in my mind, there's nothing wrong with promiscuity. But our culture certainly makes it hard for women to be promiscuous and not get judged.

Me: What makes you the expert on all this?
Hoffmann: Ha! I don't know if I'd say I'm an expert, another loaded word perhaps. I wrote the defining book about loose girl behaviour, called Loose Girl: A Memoir of Promiscuity, and I have the psychology book about it coming out in September: Dirty Little Secrets: Breaking the Silence on Teenage Girls and Promiscuity. So, I lived it. Also, though, I'm a psychotherapist specialising in this subject matter.
What do you think?

Wedding v Marriage

Ah, weddings. Often over the top, sometimes sappy, always romantic and often a catalyst for the inevitable question: is all that hype, expense, planning, stress and anxiety really all that worthwhile?
I get it. Your wedding day is supposed to be the most important day of your life. I understand that most women dream of the day they will walk down the aisle in a perfect white dress being showered in confetti, while the groom stands there grinning proudly at the sight of her in an outfit (albeit it resembling a cupcake).
But I often wonder … for those of you who did the whole shebang, if you had to do it all over again, would you do the same?

Advertisement: Story continues below

Actress Salma Hayak says "no way". To her, big weddings are indeed a waste of money. She says that, for her second time around, she'll ensure that she doesn't mix up the wedding part with the real meaning of marriage.
"I think a wedding is about love, friends, family and fun," she told reporters. "I think spending millions of dollars on a wedding is ridiculous and it has never been my dream."
Despite some sharing Hayak's view, the wedding industry is still having the last laugh. Capitalising on the emotion we attach to the big day, the industry is now worth a whopping $2 million in Australia. Seriously.
And the most worrying fact of all is that many weddings in Australia are costing in excess of $20,000.
So who's to blame?
Sure, it's worth celebrating (in a big way) the fact that you've finally pinned down that magical dude who defied the notion that there's a Great Australian Man Drought. Sure, you should be shouting from the rooftops (or from the church steeple) that you've finally found a man who likes you enough to call you "the one" and doesn't mind your penchant for clipping your toenails in the living room and can actually stomach being related to your mum.
But hold on for just a moment. Has anyone ever stopped to ask what "marriage" actually means? Or are so many folks (mainly women) way too focused on the one-night party?
I have many weddings to attend this year. Overseas, in Sydney, at parks, in churches, at expensive hotels … the list goes on.
And they're causing all sorts of problems. Do the single girls get to bring their latest squeezes? What is an appropriate gift when the couple is asking for cash? Are there going to be enough hot groomsmen for all the single desperate bridesmaids?
And do we really have to fork out that much cash for the plane ticket?
Polly McGregor, a publicist, says her friend's destination wedding in Mexico cost her a couple of thousand dollars. However, she had no choice but to go.
"There was no way around it. I would have been branded selfish if I didn't go. I probably would have lost a friendship if I didn't attend, even after I expressed to her that I was financially in a bind and couldn't really afford to take off work."
It's no wonder there is so much anti-wedding sentiment … at least from the guests. In fact there's even an entire website dedicated to hating weddings titled IHateWeddings.com… and the comments in response to the website creator's first article are astounding.
But one comment caught my eye: MrsBrideToBe claimed that, of course, many people say they hate weddings. But, to her, those who voice their frustration at the industry are really only doing it because of one thing: they're just darn jealous.
She might have a point.
Either way, whether you love or hate weddings; whether you're going to spend tens of thousands on yours, or you'd prefer to elope, I think there's one thing we all have to remember: weddings are about the marriage. And the marriage is about two people becoming a team who are uniting against the world. The party is just the by-product … so relax and enjoy it … no matter how you choose to do it. 

Sophia Abella the scorching diva in Bindass interview

Q. Why didn't you take up the offer from a nude magazine, it would have made you the first  Filipino model on the cover so far? 

Well to be honest, James(the chief snapper) really liked my photos, I had to think a lot, but turned it down as my Filpino mentality got in my way.

Q. It’s been long, we have not seen you in any cover shoots or albums for a while.

Yeah I know it’s been long, but I am sure it will be worth the wait, I am in talks with some A-list directors and will soon announce my upcoming projects.

Q. Your kind of Guy?

My man has to be ambitious, vigorous and a charmer. But most important, he should be a metrosexual, should get his waxing, mani-pedi done regularly.

Q. Brands you would love to endorse?

I could be perfect for Axe, DVB jeans and De Beers diamonds, cause I only believe in endorsing stuff that suit your persona.

Q. One  H'wood actor you would love to date?

Currently, Chris Evans who is on my mind. Have been thinking about him after I saw his abs in 'Fantastic 4'

Q. Describe yourself in one word..

"Provocative"

Q. Your constant comparison with other models  is...

Unwanted...It’s like comparing a Bugatti with a Nano.

Q. What sets you apart from competition?

I don't know who you are talking in particular about, but I think I am way sexier, classier and a natural brand than many. Brains and looks must combine.

Q. Your oomph factor.

My  zero effort sexuality and sensuality, especially the ones my body oozes when the camera is rolling.

Q. Your biggest temptation? Any  fitness secrets?

Not many know this, its Crab. I do a lot of Yoga, it’s the most sexy way to suffer.

Q. Your take on cosmetic surgeries.

Yes I did some procedures, as long as it looks proportion and natural. I think if it boosts your confidence and makes you feel nicer, why not. I couldn't have got on a better nose and greater assets the best way.'Q Your role model..It’s Angelina Jolie, it’s her 'greed for success'  and love for homeless children that I really admire.

Q. Your dream role?

I think the one Julia Roberts played in 'Pretty Woman'.

Pregnancy and out of wedlock

Stop the presses! Hollywood star Natalie Portman is having a child out of wedlock. And now she's being slammed by US senator and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee for "glamorising" and "glorifying" single motherhood. Seriously?

After the week Portman had - winning an Oscar, standing up against anti-Semitism, being slammed for being pregnant - she should be running for president, rather than Republican presidential candidate Huckabee, who told conservative radio host Michael Medved in the US: "People see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet who boasts, 'We're not married but we're having these children and they're doing just fine.' I think it gives a distorted image. It's unfortunate that we glorify and glamorise the idea of out-of-wedlock children."
The trouble I have with Huckabee's assertions isn't so much his attack on Portman (I'm pretty sure she can handle his criticisms), but that he (and so many others) blame out-of-wedlock pregnancies solely on the women.

Advertisement: Story continues below

What about the men? Surely the onus is on the man not to flee once he's impregnated a woman, but instead to do something about committing to the woman who is about to bear his child?
As Rabbi Shmuley Boteach (an American authority on all things sex related) wrote in the Huffington Post: "Is there anyone of any political persuasion who would condone men using women as masturbatory material and disappearing from their lives?"
I think not.
In the case of Portman, she is in fact engaged (much to the surprise of Huckabee) and will soon marry the father of her unborn child. Hence she was not – as Boteach so crudely put it – masturbatory material at all.
But what about all the other women out there who accidentally get knocked up by a man they're not yet ensconced in a committed relationship with? For whom abortion isn't an option? And yet they still get blamed? It doesn't sound right.
In Australia, the stats have recently exploded. In 2008, 34.4 per cent of babies were born out of wedlock, an increase from 8.3 per cent in 1970, according to the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Yet, is it really that bad? And who is to blame?
Boteach is blaming the blokes. "There was a code of honour among men to treat women with commitment and respect," he wrote.
"If you lived with a woman and wanted to have a child with her, you granted her the ultimate compliment of publicly declaring your love and commitment to her by making her your wife. Marriage is where a man selects one woman and simultaneously deselects every other woman on earth, thereby establishing the object of his life as the one and only."
He said that, today, there is a broken code of male honour whereby men have no qualms about treating women casually and hedging their bets.
"And why not?" he asked. "If you can have a woman commit to you without having to reciprocate, the whole marriage thing seems a bit gratuitous."
Ah, how romantic.
In some cases, he might be right. In fact I hear it all the time; women in relationships distraught over the fact their men won't propose, but that they still receive all the benefits of a marriage anyway.
"We're living together, he gets regular sex and meals. And yet he still won't propose. And I can't have kids until he does," they cry.
I remember when a girlfriend of mine became pregnant to her boyfriend of three years. She was certainly concerned about having a child out of wedlock, but instead of putting the pressure on him to commit, she simply told herself that if he loved her enough he would do the right thing. Eventually, after the child turned three, he did.
Of course times have indeed changed. Women are more independent, for sure. Angelina Jolie says marriage is the furthest thing from her mind, and Brad Pitt is one satisfied dude who has all the perks of marriage without the contract that legally binds him for life.
But then there's the poor guy who gets duped into it all. His needy girlfriend purposely pricks the condom or "forgets" to take the Pill and suddenly she's expecting. And he's expected to hand over the ring ...
Sometimes things aren't so clear cut after all. But then again, relationships, sex, marriage and kids never are...

Existing v living

It was Audrey Hepburn who said, "I was born with an enormous need for affection, and a terrible need to give it." Sounds a lot like the women who surround me. Not that there's anything wrong with needing affection.
Sure, we all desire to be loved, cherished, fawned over and obsessed over. But with this "terrible need" comes a terrible cost. The problem is that while it's all very well and good to be ensconced in a quest to find that special somebody who will sweep us off our feet and make us feel complete, many often neglect the most important person on the planet ... themselves.
Since the age of 12, or admittedly earlier, I have dedicated most of my waking hours to the male species ... from the days of catch and kiss and stressing over how many boys I could pash at the school dance to moving far beyond first base, texting multiple men at once, frantically trying to find "the one" and then for the past six years writing this column, which focuses on nothing else but ... men, love, sex and relationships.

Advertisement: Story continues below

"You give us too much power," one male told me the other day. "Penises really aren't that exciting. Find a hobby."
He might have a point. Nevertheless, women spend way too many waking hours having wept, giggled, screamed, rejoiced, lost friends, gained friends, run up credit card debts and put their lives on hold for things that they thought would lead to a fairy-tale ending, only to end up without one. Instead they are confused, lost, numb.
My single girlfriends who are in their 30s and 40s look back on their lives and wonder: have they been merely "existing" or have they been truly "living"? Have they received all they want out of their lives ... despite not having a man by the side?
"Ninety per cent of the population simply exist. They don't live," said a New York friend the other day. "You have to learn how to truly live in order to be happy ... Sure I have existed - but have I been truly living? Have I really stopped to smell the roses? Most importantly, have I passionately fall in love with myself?"
That reality for her came crashing down last week as we marched through New York's Central Park together. She was frazzled by a plethora of text messages sent from men across the world (potential suitors she was trying to choose between) and had spent the last 20 minutes explaining to me the differences between them and analysing who would make a better partner. She then spent the next 20 minutes trying to work out exactly what wording to use to text them back.
I watched her in awe and then said softly: "Why don't you put down your phone and take in the sights around us?" She paused. She stopped, thought about it for a moment and then made a startling admission. She began to question exactly how many hours over the past year, or even more frighteningly the past 10 years, she had spent stressing about the perfect guy: 50? 500? 5000?
"What else could I have achieved in that time? Travelled the world five times over, developed business models, learnt three languages fluently, read every single book at Borders?"
Suddenly, she felt nauseous. "Why have I wasted so many hours on men?"
For so many women, men seem to become a sedative, blocking them from their true selves, and their ability to appreciate their individuality. They become a crutch; a validation, a way of defining oneself.
As scary as it sounds, my week in New York taught me that all of us should acknowledge that it is really OK to be single, and that so long as we have spent the time sowing the seeds of a beautiful relationship with our own body and soul, we are complete.

My girlfriend could spend the next month giving all my hard-earned dollars away to Vodafone with a copious amount of calls, texts, and emails to anyone who pays us the slightest bit of attention; being hungover after having been bar-hopping with yet another player the night before, or merely spending too many waking hours thinking and talking about penises.

Or she could actually stop existing and actually start living. Do what she loves as an independent woman and maybe, just maybe, she'll find a like-minded companion along the way ..

Sophia Abella shows off the cleavage in her babydoll lingerie

I'm not necessarily endorsing the book- just this day I've no idea what lingerie I'm supposed to be wearing.

Love and sex, what's race got to do with it?

Are you sick of believing all the good men are either taken or gay? Well perhaps it's time you expanded your dating horizon ...
The other day while in New York, J.C. Davies. In case you haven't heard of her, she's the Wall Street heavyweight who, when she lost her job in the financial crisis, decided to focus on her real passion … dating.
But not just any ordinary dating. She's one of those women who doesn't like to date within any mould or any specific type or to adhere to any sort of "checklist".

Advertisement: Story continues below

Instead, her dating diary consists of men from every race, religion, colour and background.
Eager to find out more, I caught up with J.C. in New York where she dished the dirt behind her new book I Got The Fever: Love, What's Race Gotta Do With it?
The premise of the book is to dispel the myths associated with men of various races and religions including Latinos, Asians, African-Americans, Indians and more ...
After interviewing hundreds of women in interracial relationships (and the men those women date), her book has become the definitive guide for any woman looking to date outside her circle. Here's what transpired during our conversation:

Q: What made you decide to write the book I Got The Fever?
JC: "There are so many relationship books out there. And every relationship book that I pick up seems to be the same: they tell women that they should just be a pathetic doormat, and that there are all these things that you must change about yourself in order to get a man. But I am the average woman - I am not a supermodel! I want to tell women that, as an average woman, there are so many men to pick from if you broaden your horizons and chuck out your checklist. As the average woman, you can have any man you want … just pick one of these multicultural hotties!"

Q: What do you say to people who might call you racist for writing a book about men of different races and religions?
JC: "Before you call me a racist, let me just premise this interview by saying that you can't have a real conversation about race and relationships by being politically incorrect. Because you have to be honest. And honesty and political correctness are completely at odds with one another! But the fact that I'm open to dating all sorts of men means that I'm definitely not judgmental. I also care about reducing the fear factor around intercultural dating. Everyone says interactional relationships never work out. But they have no idea. Women should be more open to dating different guys. They shouldn't be afraid. And they can use the book as a basis to reduce that fear and be a little more comfortable."

Q: You've been dating racially since you were 21. Tell me about it. 
JC: "My first boyfriend was Mexican. Then I went through a black guy period, and they broke every stereotype about black men that there was. Now I am dating a Persian Jew."

Q: So what stereotypes about black men did you find weren't true?
JC: "There are many! There's the stereotype about the fact that they have big 'equipment', which I found out was not the case. Both men and women I spoke to both agreed that on the whole they were fairly average. But the stereotype of black men cheating – I did find that many women agreed that this was the truth. And even if they were technically not sleeping with someone, they always had one too many irons in the fire, if you know what I mean."

She concluded the interview by telling me that I should embrace being single, and that I should take a look at all sorts of different men.
"What about a Blackenese?" she suggests. "Or a Jewrican?"
I walk away thinking it's not such a bad idea after all ...

The Jerk Appeal

Exactly three weeks and two days after her boyfriend proposed, Katie (not her real name) discovered her fiancé was having an affair with another woman. In her bed. What transpired was a rapid downhill spiral of her sense of self-worth, self-esteem and mental state. She wanted to take him back; her friends said she shouldn't.
"But I love him," she cried.
"So what?" her friends retorted. "He's not a good guy."

Advertisement: Story continues below

"But he can change," Katie said quietly. And boy, did she believe it.
I know what you're thinking. That she suffers from low confidence, low self-esteem, that she's an idiot, that she's a sucker for punishment and that she's just plain dumb. But the real question should be this: why are so many women drawn to jerks? And worse – why the heck would they marry them? Because it seems to me that, despite how badly a man treats a woman, sometimes she just can't seem to walk away.
While a gaggle of women have indeed walked away from Hollywood star Charlie Sheen, his recent behaviour has stirred up the age-old relationship conundrum: what the heck is the big appeal of the bad boy?
Former real estate agent Brooke Mueller (and mother of Sheen's twins) knew exactly what she was getting herself into when she said yes to marrying Sheen. Drugs, infidelity, prostitutes, porn, porn stars, guns, more drugs, domestic violence … Again, this all raises the question: why would anyone want to marry Charlie Sheen?
The answer is pretty simple: no sane, self-confident, smart woman would. Or so I thought. But when I switched on 60 Minutes on Sunday night, I witnessed the (arguably dim-witted, brainless, desperate) porn star (who's living with him in the capacity of one of his "goddesses" and carer of his twin baby boys) who quipped: "Oh, I'd love to marry Charlie!"
When I carried out an unofficial poll on the subject, the responses were astoundingly similar.
"Because he's rich."
"He's cool."
"He's famous."
"Because he's bad."
Of course not all jerks are created equally. Some are born with those qualities; others become bad boys after being burnt by a relationship gone wrong, and then there are those who become jerks as a result of having fame, fortune and success. But the truth is that it doesn't actually matter how much money a bad boy has, his level of fame, the car he drives or the number of the tattoos he sports … if he's bad, he's sexy. And that's just how it is.
The psychology behind why women fall for the bad boy runs deep: women are biologically drawn to him for his alpha male qualities that send neurological messages to her subconscious telling her that this man can provide for her offspring and protect her family unit if it is threatened. Why she sticks around is a whole other worrying conundrum. Perhaps it's the challenge of attempting to change him; the way he makes her feel when he's around, the feeling of accomplishment that this bad boy is actually kind and caring towards her. Who knows? And yet it's the age-old question: why the nice guy fails to win over the women while the bad boy has more than he can handle on his speed dial.
Women like liars and narcissists 
American psychologist Dr Peter Jonason from the University in New Mexico State recently spoke about the phenomenon at the annual meeting titled Human Behaviour and Evolution Society which took place in Japan. He'd done some research to discover the answer to this mystery and his findings proved that, indeed, the narcissistic, psychopathic, Machiavellian men do have more sex than their nice guy counterparts. Yep, the urban myth that women love bad boys both in their arms and between their legs does indeed ring scientifically true.
He reckons the reason behind it is that they're super charming, energetic, clever, persistent, swindlers and seducers. And I should know.
I once fell so hard for a jerk I thought my world would collapse if I couldn't have him. Perhaps he'd found me at a low point; perhaps he had pressed the right neurological buttons; targeted my weaknesses and put on the charm so strongly, I had no choice but to acquiesce. I didn't know at the time why he did it (was it just a game? Was he incapable of real love? Just using me?) or why I fell, but since then I've vowed never again to get sucked in by a jerk's seduction powers.
So herein lies the reasons I've learnt women fall for the bad boy. (And nice guys take note: smart girls will always go for you instead. You just have to be unafraid to ask them.)

• Jerks have attitude, ooze confidence, know how to bring about excitement and instil a yearning inside even the most discerning of women.
• Jerks aren't afraid to approach women, and they're not afraid of rejection either. Ladies, if he pays you attention, don't think you're special, though - it's all just a numbers game for him.
• Jerks are uber-masculine. And, biologically, women are hard-wired to fall for the masculine man.
• Jerks are never boring. They aren't afraid to broach topics that are un-PC. They talk about sex, make a woman laugh and make her nether regions tingle with delight.
• Jerks make a move. Nice guys sit back and wait for some sort of signal telling them to make a move. Newsflash: that signal might never come.  
• Jerks don't try and "befriend" women, thus never ending up in the "friend zone". Nice guys often make this mistake. 
• Jerks will never make a woman feel safe or secure. Which should be the No.1 reason smart women will stay away from them. Don't be the dumb girl ...

Monogamy vs Monotony

Monogamy …  is monotonous. There, I said it. I know this from the fact that a whopping 8½ million people have joined the website The Ashley Madison Agency, a site specifically designed as an online hub for married folk to cheat. I know this from the rise in infidelity, the rising divorce rate, the growing reluctance to get married and "settle", and from being in my own decade-long relationship.

Sure, monogamy has its perks. And, yes, one day I hope to be in a long-term monogamous relationship again without the fear of boredom, monotony or the need to take an extended "break" from it all in order to see what else is out there. (For the record, singledom is not all it's made out to be.)
But I think the Farrelly brothers may have recently touched a nerve in all those bored married folk with their latest film project. In an attempt to offer a solution to all this monotonous monogamous relationship hullabaloo, the infamous filmmaking brothers have just released the flick Hall Pass. The premise of the film? That if long-term monogamous relationships are indeed so lacklustre and mind-numbingly boring, then why not give your partner a chance to do something about it without fear of the consequences?

Advertisement: Story continues below

The film centres on two best mates Rick and Fred (played by Owen Wilson and Jason Sudeikis) who've both been married for many years and are starting to become restless with their partners. Hence their wives band together and decide to grant their blokes a "hall pass" – one entire week to do whatever they want … no questions asked and no chance of them being labelled heartless cads as a consequence of it. The bonus is that after the week is up, both men can then return to their monogamous relationships like nothing ever happened, bar sowing a few wild oats and hopefully without an STD.

While at first it appears to both Rick and Fred that they've hit the sexual jackpot, they quickly discover that the opportunity to do the dirty on their wives is not all it's cracked up to be.
While the lesson of the film is obvious, married men (who've been shunned for cheating) are going to be mightily pissed off that they didn't think of it first.
"I just should have asked my wife!" they might think, envious of those dudes who get to have a hall pass of their own.
Indeed if hall passes were given out regularly, imagine the relationships they would save. Bored coupled-up folk could go out, shag someone else, and then rediscover their excitement for one another without feeling as if they've done anything wrong.
But… does it really work? Sometimes the answer is a resounding yes.
Case in point was when I walked into the pub the other night, and found my male mate sitting there smug as a bug, with his arm around his girlfriend as though nothing had happened. But what had transpired was that he'd been given an extended hall pass (otherwise known as a "break") to shag whomever he wanted to, as long as his girlfriend wasn't privy to the sordid details. And although he wasn't too happy about it at the time, it enabled him to go out there and sow his wild oats without getting reprimanded for it or being labelled a lying, cheating cad.
She then promptly took him back and they've been more into one another than ever before. Something tells me it has to do with the fact that the grass isn't always greener …
Strangely enough, it seems to me that women are more tolerant of such "hall pass" behaviour than the blokes. Because when I surveyed a bunch of dudes over the weekend, their answers were always the same: God help the guy who touches their girl during the hiatus.
"Just the thought of another man touching my woman is enough to send me crazy," said one.
"As tough as guys think they are, they are actually weak as piss when it comes to these things," said another.
And a third: "The concept of a hall pass is completely inconceivable to me. If a girl wanted to cheat on me, I'd rather break up with her and never speak to her again."
So why are women so much more willing to let it slide? Is it because perhaps the fairer sex believes the explanation that men are hardwired to spread their seed is indeed a biological fact that should just be tolerated? That there's a universal truth, as so succinctly put by Mens Health magazine, in which writer Hugh O'Neill says that "Lust is not a virtue. Lust is not a vice. It's just a fact"?
O'Neill also says that, while the male body is "crying out for communion and our culture a-throb with conquistador signals, it's no surprise that for men, monogamy's a long shot". He also admits that this is exactly what makes monogamy worth chasing. "After all, there's no glory in the easy stuff."
Which is probably why, at the end of the day, a hall pass isn't such an appealing way to spice things up after all.

Perhaps couples should be less hard on each other, stop sweating the small stuff and start to put in more effort. No one ever complained about getting roses, and no man ever complained about his partner buying a new set of sexy lingerie ... as long as he's the only one who gets to see her in it ... 

Why you're not married yet

I've done a lot of things I'm reluctant to admit in public. Near the top of the list is drinking an entire bottle of Passion Pop when I was 16; wearing a dress to host an event that, to the amusement of everyone watching, turned see-through under the stage lights; and, more recently, telling a bunch of men about my plans to get married before I turned 30.
Of course I was just testing them out, but the horror on their faces said it all: I'd committed the ultimate social taboo. Notions of desperate, needy, un-feminist and non-marriage material fluttered through my mind (and, I'm sure, theirs).
"I'd never get married," scoffed one to my left. A pity I happened to be dating him at the time.

Advertisement: Story continues below

My girlfriend Penelope, who's been proposed to three times, says stuff the blokes. Instead, women should tell men about their marital goals.
"Just like men can admit they just want to play around, so, too, should women be able to admit they want to do just the opposite," she says. "The key is good timing. Not when you've just started seeing someone. They need to fall in love with you first and then feel like they don't want to lose you. That's when you can start to put the pressure on."
Penelope has a point. But, alas, to "put the pressure on" is a social faux pas so damning you could have sworn you just mentioned you've got leprosy. But not according to Mad Men writer Tracy McMillan, who says that one of the reasons you're not married yet is because you're not telling men your true intentions. And she says it's not their faults either that they haven't proposed yet.
"Sure, there are lame men out there," writes McMillan in The Huffington Post. "But they're not really standing in your way. Because the fact is - if whatever you're doing right now was going to get you married, you'd already have a ring on it."
Here are her top six reasons as to why you're not married. My thoughts are below each one.

1. "You're a bitch"
Really? I know plenty of married women who are bitches. In fact there's an entire bestselling book out there dedicated to the very craft of becoming a bitch in order to get a man to propose. Why Men Marry Bitches by Sherry Argov details the fact that ballsy women get married; nice girls do not. "Just because a man sleeps with you doesn't mean he's thinking about the future," she writes. "For him to think about forever, there has to be something he respects within you. Like a strong wit ... and a strong mind."

2. "You're Shallow"
Seriously? Because when I look around, these are the women who get laid. And then they get proposed to. Unfortunately for the blokes, the shallow women I know are professional husband hunters. And, boy, do they know what they're doing. They know how to cook (and often do it in their underwear); they know how to dress (and undress even better); and while they might be after a man for one thing, they know damn well how to get it. In record time too.

3. "You're a slut"
Have you ever heard of a man dumping a woman because she wants too much sex? Or that she gives it up too easily? I think not. I've heard of blokes dumping women because they don't want to have sex. I've heard of men trading in their frumpy wives for their hot slutty assistants. And, yes, some even marry them. Unfortunately for the good girls who keep their panties on.

4. "You're a liar"
McMillan claims that women who lie about wanting to get married don't end up getting married. But here's what I think: any woman who tells a man the truth - that she wants to get married, has a timeline and has been planning her wedding day since she bought her first training bra - is setting herself up for failure. Soon enough, the inevitable, "It's not you, it's me," will come from a man who feels pressured. And then he will begin planning his escape route. When I polled men, most of them declared that a woman who has no expectations of them or their future are the ones they will eventually want to commit to. Men like challenges. Tell them your penchant for babies, wedding waltzes and dressing gowns for two, and the truth will set you free … from him for good.

5. "You're selfish"
If there's one thing I've learnt men hate, it's needy women. In fact the more selfish she appears to be (code for independent, ballsy and self-sufficient), the better. Be selfish with your time, your money or your stock tips, and he'll respect you even more.

6. "You're Not Good Enough."
McMillan might have a point here, especially since she's referring to a woman's own perception of herself. Hence her advice is this: "Here is what you need to know: You are enough right this minute. Period. Not understanding this is a major obstacle to getting married, since women who don't know their own worth make terrible wives. Why? You can fake it for a while, but ultimately you won't love your spouse any better than you love yourself. Smart men know this."
McMillan's final message is one that I actually agree with: that marriage won't make you happy. That it shouldn't be a woman's main ambition. And that it's not that good anyway considering once you get hitched, you'll have to do twice as much laundry. She also says that men actually have a better idea about the meaning of marriage than women do.
"Because ultimately, marriage is not about getting something - it's about giving it," she writes in The Huffington Post. "Strangely, men understand this more than we do. Probably because for them marriage involves sacrificing their most treasured possession - a free-agent penis - and for us, it's the culmination of a princess fantasy so universal it built Disneyland."

Sophia Abella over-exposed after packup