与母砸钱买公寓
方伟杰为结婚铺路
09/11/2015by 蔡欣盈
方伟杰住在20多层楼高，最爱家里的阳台。（受访者）
游子方伟杰曾四处租房居无定所，母亲砸积蓄买下大巴窑公寓，助儿子将来结婚娶老婆！
方伟杰10多年前从上海来到新加坡求学，住过很多地方，从丹戎加东搬到维拉三美路、红山、旧合乐路和惹兰红山皆是跟别人租房子，直至两年前，才在大巴窑买下自己的安乐窝。当时，方伟杰已入行赚到钱，跟妈妈合资买房，不过，母亲出了大部分，砸下大笔积蓄，两母子才终于在本地有属于自己的家。
母为他结婚‘铺路’
25岁的他笑说：“我妈妈把这个房子买下来，是为了给我结婚用的！”他解释，身为一个男人，结婚的时候要有经济上的安全感。“不管是新加坡，还是中国上海，买屋子其实是非常重要的事情，这间屋子我跟我妈买下来之后，我觉得可以，省下我10年的时间去拼搏。新加坡的房子很贵，省了很多事情。”
他认为，如果没有这间房子当“经济基础”，日后房价再涨，到时就不知道自己有没有能力买房子。“已经有这个房子，以后可以花下一个10年去买第二个房子，然后把第一个租出去，不知道以后发生什么事情，可能以后没有赚到这么多钱，也至少，在新加坡有自己的房子。”
房东欠钱屋被封 累他麦当劳当‘家’
方伟杰在理工学院就读时，住在红山。当时，房东拖欠相关单位的钱，屋子被封，因为不想麻烦友人，最后流连全岛各地，把麦当劳快餐店当成“家”。
试过无家可归的他说：“我觉得，有钱有车没什么，更重要是有一个家，有一个避风港，这个是很重要的。”
他和母亲是新加坡永久居民，日后希望在本地长住。“我来新加坡10多年了，有一个家非常温馨，从小到大一直在外面租房子，搬来搬去，没有一个归属感，现在有了家有了归属感。”并多次强调：“有家才是最重要的。”
最爱家里的阳台
他喜欢住家附近的环境，交通方便，四通八达，也靠近电视台。
说到此处，他失笑说：“但，（电视台）马上要搬了！本来想说，公司那么靠近我们就买这个地方，买下来之后，却要搬了，哈哈。”
家里方面，因住在20多层楼高，他最爱的是家里的阳台，可以登高望远、有风景。至于自己的房间，他先用了“简陋”再用了“麻雀虽小五脏俱全”形容。他说：“我以前和妈妈在新加坡是睡上下铺的，我妈睡下面我睡上面，这次不一样，我们一人有一间房，很开心。”
不过，他的衣服、鞋子多，房间不够位放，已经“侵入”母亲的房间，常被母亲念“你的衣服已经多到堆成山了，可以不要这样吗，你不要穿的就拿出来就捐给人家”，并笑说，衣服和鞋子的数量比母亲多五倍。
方伟杰之所以会自创服饰品牌“First Attempt”，也跟这个大巴窑的家有关。
一年多前，他邀好兄弟到家里看红魔曼联的球赛，“我们一边看球赛，一边聊衣服，点子很多，然后品牌就出来了，第二天就落实了。”
家中最特别摆设 舅舅‘女娲补天’
说到家里最特别的摆设，他说是住在上海的舅舅送的《女娲补天》画。
“只用了钢笔画的，舅舅从小就很会画画，可是他不是画家，当了医生。妈妈很喜欢，在上海跟舅舅要回来的。”
除此之外，另一个重要的“摆设”就是“红星大奖”的“最佳新人”和“十大最受欢迎男艺人”奖座。
两个奖座目前放在进出家门都看得到的地方，如未来拿到更多的奖座，才会买一个玻璃柜把奖座放进去。
- wong chee tat :)
Showing posts with label good looks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label good looks. Show all posts
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Monday, December 29, 2014
Jimmy Soul - If you wanna be happy
If you wanna be happy
For the rest of your life,
Never make a pretty woman your wife,
So from my personal point of view,
Get an ugly girl to marry you.
A pretty woman makes her husband look small
And very often causes his downfall.
As soon as he marries her
Then she starts to do
The things that will break his heart.
But if you make an ugly woman your wife,
You'll be happy for the rest of your life,
An ugly woman cooks her meals on time,
She'll always give you peace of mind.
Don't let your friends say
You have no taste,
Go ahead and marry anyway,
Though her face is ugly,
Her eyes don't match,
Take it from me she's a better catch.
Say man.
Hey baby.
Saw your wife the other day.
Yeah?
Yeah, she's ugly.
Yeah, she's ugly but she sure can cook.
Yeah?. Okay.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
S'pore rocked by spate of sex scandals in 2012
S'pore rocked by spate of sex scandals in 2012
By Claire Huang | Posted: 31 December 2012 1754 hrs
SINGAPORE: 2012 has been a year of sex scandals in Singapore.
In April, 44 men were charged with having sex with the same underage girl.
The number of men implicated in the online vice ring case swelled to 51 after some time.
The lack of details in the charges drew barbs.
"How is anybody going to know what he is charged for when you don't know who the girl is, you do not know what her age is? We just can't accept the word of the prosecution isn't it?" said lawyer Subhas Anandan.
"Well, we are going to ask the prosecution, the DPP, to give us further particulars. If they do not give us the further particulars, we will take it up in the High Court."
This was resolved later when certain details were disclosed to the defence.
As at mid-Dec 2012, more than 15 men have been dealt with.
The first was former principal of Pei Chun Public School, Lee Lip Hong. He pleaded guilty in April, and was sentenced to nine weeks' jail.
Following him was former executive director of the Singapore Environment Council, Howard Shaw, who was sentenced in July and aborted his appeal.
The saga is far from over as many have claimed trial, so there will be a spillover to 2013.
Outside of courts, the state of affairs was equally dramatic.
An apology came because of the indiscretion of the former Speaker of Parliament, Michael Palmer.
Mr Palmer's year-long affair with People Association's (PA) Laura Ong led to his resignation.
He said: "I have resigned to take full responsibility for a grave mistake that I have committed. I had a relationship with a member of the PA staff working in Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC. While the individual did not work with me directly, Punggol East used to be part of the GRC and continues to work with it. My conduct was improper and it was a serious error of judgement. I have resigned in order to avoid further embarrassment to the PAP and Parliament."
Former Hougang MP Yaw Shin Leong was also expelled from the opposition Workers' Party in February for alleged extra-marital affairs, nine months after he was elected.
Come January, three heavyweights will be jostling for the spotlight in courts.
Professor Tey Tsun Hang will start the ball rolling with his sex-for-grades trial on 10th January.
Then in January, ex-Civil Defence Force top gun, Peter Lim, will be in court for corruption charges. His trial is slated to end in late February.
In late January, the sex-for-contracts case against former Central Narcotics Bureau chief Ng Boon Gay, will be mentioned again.
In September, Ng's corruption trial took Singapore by storm, as he and key prosecution witness Cecilia Sue, gave graphic accounts of their relationship.
The judiciary looks set to get busier in the new year, when City Harvest Church's six core members return to court, on accusations of misappropriating funds.
- CNA/xq
- wong chee tat :)
By Claire Huang | Posted: 31 December 2012 1754 hrs
SINGAPORE: 2012 has been a year of sex scandals in Singapore.
In April, 44 men were charged with having sex with the same underage girl.
The number of men implicated in the online vice ring case swelled to 51 after some time.
The lack of details in the charges drew barbs.
"How is anybody going to know what he is charged for when you don't know who the girl is, you do not know what her age is? We just can't accept the word of the prosecution isn't it?" said lawyer Subhas Anandan.
"Well, we are going to ask the prosecution, the DPP, to give us further particulars. If they do not give us the further particulars, we will take it up in the High Court."
This was resolved later when certain details were disclosed to the defence.
As at mid-Dec 2012, more than 15 men have been dealt with.
The first was former principal of Pei Chun Public School, Lee Lip Hong. He pleaded guilty in April, and was sentenced to nine weeks' jail.
Following him was former executive director of the Singapore Environment Council, Howard Shaw, who was sentenced in July and aborted his appeal.
The saga is far from over as many have claimed trial, so there will be a spillover to 2013.
Outside of courts, the state of affairs was equally dramatic.
An apology came because of the indiscretion of the former Speaker of Parliament, Michael Palmer.
Mr Palmer's year-long affair with People Association's (PA) Laura Ong led to his resignation.
He said: "I have resigned to take full responsibility for a grave mistake that I have committed. I had a relationship with a member of the PA staff working in Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC. While the individual did not work with me directly, Punggol East used to be part of the GRC and continues to work with it. My conduct was improper and it was a serious error of judgement. I have resigned in order to avoid further embarrassment to the PAP and Parliament."
Former Hougang MP Yaw Shin Leong was also expelled from the opposition Workers' Party in February for alleged extra-marital affairs, nine months after he was elected.
Come January, three heavyweights will be jostling for the spotlight in courts.
Professor Tey Tsun Hang will start the ball rolling with his sex-for-grades trial on 10th January.
Then in January, ex-Civil Defence Force top gun, Peter Lim, will be in court for corruption charges. His trial is slated to end in late February.
In late January, the sex-for-contracts case against former Central Narcotics Bureau chief Ng Boon Gay, will be mentioned again.
In September, Ng's corruption trial took Singapore by storm, as he and key prosecution witness Cecilia Sue, gave graphic accounts of their relationship.
The judiciary looks set to get busier in the new year, when City Harvest Church's six core members return to court, on accusations of misappropriating funds.
- CNA/xq
- wong chee tat :)
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
More teens hit by sexual infections
More teens hit by sexual infections
Sun, Oct 25, 2009
The Straits Times
By Shuli Sudderuddin
More than 500 teenagers so far this year have been diagnosed with sexually transmitted infections at the DSC Clinic in Kelantan Lane.
Most of the girls were found to have chlamydia while the boys had gonorrhoea. Both sexes also had genital herpes and genital warts.
Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) have been on the rise among teenagers. Last year, 791 teens were diagnosed with STIs at the DSC, more than three times the 238 cases in 2002. As of August this year, the number was 526.
- wong chee tat :)
Sun, Oct 25, 2009
The Straits Times
By Shuli Sudderuddin
More than 500 teenagers so far this year have been diagnosed with sexually transmitted infections at the DSC Clinic in Kelantan Lane.
Most of the girls were found to have chlamydia while the boys had gonorrhoea. Both sexes also had genital herpes and genital warts.
Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) have been on the rise among teenagers. Last year, 791 teens were diagnosed with STIs at the DSC, more than three times the 238 cases in 2002. As of August this year, the number was 526.
- wong chee tat :)
Saturday, October 17, 2009
New network for singles to meet
New network for singles to meet
Channel NewsAsia - Saturday, October 17
SINGAPORE: The Social Development Unit—Social Development Service (SDU—SDS), the government matchmaker, has a new name. It is now called the "Social Development Network" or "SDN" in short.
Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports, Mrs Yu—Foo Yee Shoon, unveiled the new name at the opening of the annual Partner Connection Trade Seminar on Friday.
She also announced plans to extend SDN’s reach to all singles, linking them to a wider network of partners for dating services, events and information.
In collaboration with private dating agencies, SDN will also be providing a sampler dating package for singles.
SDU—SDS is the interim name for the merged Social Development Unit and Social Development Services. The SDU was formed in 1984 to promote marriages among graduate singles, while the SDS was set up a year later to promote marriages among non—graduates.
The two organisations merged in January this year to reap economies of scale, enlarge their database for singles and provide more opportunities for singles to meet.
Over the last 25 years, 186,000 members of both organisations have tied the knot.
— CNA/ir
- wong chee tat :)
Channel NewsAsia - Saturday, October 17
SINGAPORE: The Social Development Unit—Social Development Service (SDU—SDS), the government matchmaker, has a new name. It is now called the "Social Development Network" or "SDN" in short.
Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports, Mrs Yu—Foo Yee Shoon, unveiled the new name at the opening of the annual Partner Connection Trade Seminar on Friday.
She also announced plans to extend SDN’s reach to all singles, linking them to a wider network of partners for dating services, events and information.
In collaboration with private dating agencies, SDN will also be providing a sampler dating package for singles.
SDU—SDS is the interim name for the merged Social Development Unit and Social Development Services. The SDU was formed in 1984 to promote marriages among graduate singles, while the SDS was set up a year later to promote marriages among non—graduates.
The two organisations merged in January this year to reap economies of scale, enlarge their database for singles and provide more opportunities for singles to meet.
Over the last 25 years, 186,000 members of both organisations have tied the knot.
— CNA/ir
- wong chee tat :)
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
2008 saw largest number of marriages since 2000
2008 saw largest number of marriages since 2000
By 938LIVE
Posted: 28 September 2009 1839 hrs
SINGAPORE: Last year saw the largest number of marriages since 2000. The Department of Statistics (DOS') latest population trend report said nearly 24,600 marriages were registered last year.
About 75 per cent of these marriages were first marriages compared to 81.5 per cent in 1998.
DOS said this indicated that remarriages were becoming more common, especially among men here.
However, marriage rates fell for both men and women below the age of 30, marking the largest fall since 2000 for men aged 25 to 29 and women aged 20 to 24.
Mirroring the trend of marrying later, the peak age group for marriage among men moved from the 25 to 29 age bracket in 2000 to 30 to 34 in 2008.
However, the peak age group for marriage among women remained the same for the 25 to 29 age group. There was a delay in first marriage across all age groups.
The report also showed that divorce rates were up across all age groups, with the most cases among younger couples in the 20 to 24 age bracket.
More than half of the divorces were of marriages which lasted less than 10 years. A third of divorces occurred within five to nine years of marriage.
- 938LIVE/vm
- wong chee tat :)
By 938LIVE
Posted: 28 September 2009 1839 hrs
SINGAPORE: Last year saw the largest number of marriages since 2000. The Department of Statistics (DOS') latest population trend report said nearly 24,600 marriages were registered last year.
About 75 per cent of these marriages were first marriages compared to 81.5 per cent in 1998.
DOS said this indicated that remarriages were becoming more common, especially among men here.
However, marriage rates fell for both men and women below the age of 30, marking the largest fall since 2000 for men aged 25 to 29 and women aged 20 to 24.
Mirroring the trend of marrying later, the peak age group for marriage among men moved from the 25 to 29 age bracket in 2000 to 30 to 34 in 2008.
However, the peak age group for marriage among women remained the same for the 25 to 29 age group. There was a delay in first marriage across all age groups.
The report also showed that divorce rates were up across all age groups, with the most cases among younger couples in the 20 to 24 age bracket.
More than half of the divorces were of marriages which lasted less than 10 years. A third of divorces occurred within five to nine years of marriage.
- 938LIVE/vm
- wong chee tat :)
Sunday, September 27, 2009
What should I do to marry a rich guy?
Some one had emailed to me. An intersting perspective:
A young and pretty lady posted this on a forum:
Title: What should I do to marry a rich guy?
I'm going to be honest of what I'm going to say here:
I'm 25 this year.
I'm very pretty, have style and good taste.
I wish to marry a guy with $500k annual salary or above.
You might say that I'm greedy, but an annual salary of $1M is considered only as middle class in New York.
My requirement is not high:
Is there anyone in this forum who has an income of $500k annual salary?
Are you all married?
I wanted to ask: what should I do to marry rich persons like you?
Among those I've dated, the richest is $250k annual income, and it seems that this is my upper limit. If someone is going to move into high cost residential area on the west of New York City Garden, $250k annual income is not enough.
I'm here humbly to ask a few questions:
1) Where do most rich bachelors hang out?
(Please list down the names and addresses of bars, restaurant, gym)
2) Which age group should I target?
3) Why most wives of the riches is only average-looking?
I've met a few girls who doesn't have looks and are not interesting, but they are able to marry rich guys.
4) How do you decide who can be your wife, and who can only be your girlfriend? (my target now is to get married)
Ms. Pretty
The reply:
Dear Ms. Pretty,
I have read your post with great interest.
Guess there are lots of girls out there who have similar questions like yours.
Please allow me to analyse your situation as a professional investor.
My annual income is more than $500k, which meets your requirement, so I hope everyone believes that I'm not wasting time here.
From the standpoint of a business person, it is a bad decision to marry you.
The answer is very simple, so let me explain.
Put the details aside, what you're trying to do is an exchange of "beauty" and "money":
Person A provides beauty, and Person B pays for it, fair and square.
However, there's a deadly problem here, your beauty will fade, but my money will not be gone without any good reason.
The fact is, my income might increase from year to year, but you can't be prettier year after year.
Hence from the viewpoint of economics, I am an appreciation asset, and you are a depreciation asset.
It's not just normal depreciation, but exponential depreciation.
If that is your only asset, your value will be much worried 10 years later.
By the terms we use in Wall Street, every trading has a position, dating with you is also a "trading position".
If the trade value dropped we will sell it and it is not a good idea to keep it for long term - same goes with the marriage that you wanted.
It might be cruel to say this, but in order to make a wiser decision any assets with great depreciation value will be sold or "leased".
Anyone with over $500k annual income is not a fool; we would only date you, but will not marry you.
I would advice that you forget looking for any clues to marry a rich guy.
And by the way, you could make yourself to become a rich person with $500k annual income. This has better chance than finding a rich fool.
Hope this reply helps. If you are interested in "leasing" services, do contact me...
Bank CEO
What are your thoughts after treading this?
- wong chee tat :)
A young and pretty lady posted this on a forum:
Title: What should I do to marry a rich guy?
I'm going to be honest of what I'm going to say here:
I'm 25 this year.
I'm very pretty, have style and good taste.
I wish to marry a guy with $500k annual salary or above.
You might say that I'm greedy, but an annual salary of $1M is considered only as middle class in New York.
My requirement is not high:
Is there anyone in this forum who has an income of $500k annual salary?
Are you all married?
I wanted to ask: what should I do to marry rich persons like you?
Among those I've dated, the richest is $250k annual income, and it seems that this is my upper limit. If someone is going to move into high cost residential area on the west of New York City Garden, $250k annual income is not enough.
I'm here humbly to ask a few questions:
1) Where do most rich bachelors hang out?
(Please list down the names and addresses of bars, restaurant, gym)
2) Which age group should I target?
3) Why most wives of the riches is only average-looking?
I've met a few girls who doesn't have looks and are not interesting, but they are able to marry rich guys.
4) How do you decide who can be your wife, and who can only be your girlfriend? (my target now is to get married)
Ms. Pretty
The reply:
Dear Ms. Pretty,
I have read your post with great interest.
Guess there are lots of girls out there who have similar questions like yours.
Please allow me to analyse your situation as a professional investor.
My annual income is more than $500k, which meets your requirement, so I hope everyone believes that I'm not wasting time here.
From the standpoint of a business person, it is a bad decision to marry you.
The answer is very simple, so let me explain.
Put the details aside, what you're trying to do is an exchange of "beauty" and "money":
Person A provides beauty, and Person B pays for it, fair and square.
However, there's a deadly problem here, your beauty will fade, but my money will not be gone without any good reason.
The fact is, my income might increase from year to year, but you can't be prettier year after year.
Hence from the viewpoint of economics, I am an appreciation asset, and you are a depreciation asset.
It's not just normal depreciation, but exponential depreciation.
If that is your only asset, your value will be much worried 10 years later.
By the terms we use in Wall Street, every trading has a position, dating with you is also a "trading position".
If the trade value dropped we will sell it and it is not a good idea to keep it for long term - same goes with the marriage that you wanted.
It might be cruel to say this, but in order to make a wiser decision any assets with great depreciation value will be sold or "leased".
Anyone with over $500k annual income is not a fool; we would only date you, but will not marry you.
I would advice that you forget looking for any clues to marry a rich guy.
And by the way, you could make yourself to become a rich person with $500k annual income. This has better chance than finding a rich fool.
Hope this reply helps. If you are interested in "leasing" services, do contact me...
Bank CEO
What are your thoughts after treading this?
- wong chee tat :)
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Men prefer pretty bimbos to ugly, clever girls
Men prefer pretty bimbos to ugly, clever girls
ANI23 March 2009, 08:00am IST
ANI23 March 2009, 08:00am IST
It seems that beauty is more important than brains, for a new survey has revealed that men would prefer dating beautiful bimbos than ugly, clever women.
The study carried out by www.OnePoll.com has shown that more than 50 pct men would rather go for good looking girls because it was important to impress their friends.
Nearly 80 pct of the respondents said that they would be intimidated by a clever girl.
However, the responses from girls were completely opposite.
Almost three quarters of women said that they would go for brains over good looks because handsome men are too vain, and those with brains would be able to provide for them.
Only one in ten said that she would go for a good-looking guy rather than a clever one because the "sex would be better".
"It seems beauty is more important the brains after all," the Telegraph quoted a spokesman.
"It's only natural people go on first impressions but going on a hot date with a supermodel can only get you so far.
"Although it's worrying that we don't seem to appreciate people's intelligence. If someone is exceptionally bright then it should be congratulated - we shouldn't criticise them for not being attractive," he added.
- wong chee tat :)
The study carried out by www.OnePoll.com has shown that more than 50 pct men would rather go for good looking girls because it was important to impress their friends.
Nearly 80 pct of the respondents said that they would be intimidated by a clever girl.
However, the responses from girls were completely opposite.
Almost three quarters of women said that they would go for brains over good looks because handsome men are too vain, and those with brains would be able to provide for them.
Only one in ten said that she would go for a good-looking guy rather than a clever one because the "sex would be better".
"It seems beauty is more important the brains after all," the Telegraph quoted a spokesman.
"It's only natural people go on first impressions but going on a hot date with a supermodel can only get you so far.
"Although it's worrying that we don't seem to appreciate people's intelligence. If someone is exceptionally bright then it should be congratulated - we shouldn't criticise them for not being attractive," he added.
- wong chee tat :)
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Jimmy Soul - If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life
If you wanna be happy
For the rest of your life,
Never make a pretty woman your wife,
So from my personal point of view,
Get an ugly girl to marry you.
A pretty woman makes her husband look small
And very often causes his downfall.
As soon as he marries her
Then she starts to do
The things that will break his heart.
But if you make an ugly woman your wife,
You'll be happy for the rest of your life,
An ugly woman cooks her meals on time,
She'll always give you peace of mind.
Don't let your friends say
You have no taste,
Go ahead and marry anyway,
Though her face is ugly,
Her eyes don't match,
Take it from me she's a better catch.
Say man.
Hey baby.
Saw your wife the other day.
Yeah?
Yeah, she's ugly.
Yeah, she's ugly but she sure can cook.
Yeah?. Okay.
- wong chee tat :)
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Why pretty women like ugly men...
My friend emailed this 2008 article to me a few days ago.
Why pretty women like ugly men...
Jhoomur Bose / ibnlive.com
TimePublished on Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 08:46 in Lifestyle section
Has anyone noticed how weddings and common cold are similar? Both are contagious and seem to be affected by weather change. Nothing else explains how suddenly most people one knows are either sniffling or sending out wedding invites. It could also be the biological clock.
The first announcement was sitting in my inbox with the subject line jubilantly declaring, “I am getting married people!” A week back the same friend was single and mingling. Before one could react to that news, another friend called and declared she had a marriage proposal and was “seriously thinking” about it. Again, in a week from having no suitors she was suddenly thinking matrimony.
In the course of describing how their sudden decision to tie the knot had come about, both friends declared, “I am very happy. But the guy is not very good looking,” and then somewhat defensively, “but he’s a sweetheart.” Congratulations later and having seen their to-be spouse’s pictures, one realized that both girls – despite being downright stunning to look at – were marrying men who were rather plain. It reminded one of an old adage, “Langoor ke moonh mein angoor.”
Now a recent study by Columbia University suggested that good-looking people prefer to date equally good-looking people, at times even people who are better looking than themselves. Yet here were two of my very good-looking friends settling for rather plain men.
It’s not just my friends either. Many celeb couples too seem to follow the norm of pretty-woman-average-bloke: Ajay Devgan-Kajol, Azharuddin-Sangeeta Bijlani, Priyanka Gandhi-Robert Vadra, SRK-Gauri Khan (he wasn’t a superstar then!), Juhi Chawla-Jai Mehta… Since these were all love marriages one could perhaps say love perhaps is blind. Both my friends however are going in for arranged marriages and love is nowhere in the picture.
Jog your memories dear readers and tell me, how many times have you heard someone comment, “She is not pretty at all, how did she manage such a hot husband?” Or the other way round, “Look at him, he’s not good looking at all, how did he get himself such a beautiful wife?”
Several conversations and some research later one found that indeed the popularly held belief was: Ugly (or not-so-good-looking) men bag the prettiest girls. But is it really true?
Before you read further, tell us what you think:
1. How important are looks when it comes to finding a suitable partner?
2. Do good-looking people have better chances of finding love or a spouse?
3. ‘Plain’ people have good-looking partners: Myth or reality?
NEXT PAGE >>> What’s HE got that I ain’t got?
It’s no secret that most matrimonial ads, especially for girls, will read thus: ‘Good looking girl, well-educated, homely, working, etc.” Even ads for boys today – after mentioning ‘earns in six figures’ – will say how he is tall, good looking, etc. Given that pictures exchanged in the arranged marriage scenario are mostly professionally shot, it’s a case of showing your son/daughter/yourself in the best possible “light”. And then of course there is Photoshop.
How important are looks when it comes to falling in love or finding a life partner and how does one ensure not being left behind single? When it comes to responding to good looks, many a research has proven that other than some cultural differences, most people react to a similar set of signals or criterion.
From the symmetry of faces (which means symmetrical, cute babies), the size of the hips (a low waist-hip ratio means more fertile women), how another person smells and the facial features (‘feminine’ women and ‘masculine’ men have more chances of ‘mating’), there are some standard things that most people find attractive. And most of them have to do with eventual reproductive ability and how good a dad/mom you will make.
However, when you are looking at dating someone or catching an interesting prospect’s eye at the office party, you are hopefully not thinking babies instantly. If we keep marriage aside for the time being: What makes some ‘plain’ men and women more of a hit with the opposite sex?
In a quick survey amongst friends and colleagues, 57 per cent of those polled said that plain people score more with the opposite sex because they don’t rely only on their looks and usually have other qualities going for them. Like using their brains or their sense of humour.
“He makes me laugh” is something many women list as one of the most desirable traits in a man. “He likes me for who I am,” is another one, which basically means you don’t go comparing your woman to a swimsuit calendar model or some such thing. Some women said that a plain looking man treats women better than a good-looking one. Why? “Because a plain looker doesn’t think he is God’s gift to womankind,” replied one girl.
Then there could be other not-so-pleasant reasons too… No woman, pretty or otherwise wants to think that her man will stray. In such a scenario a man’s lack of looks can at times become insurance against his cheating on a woman. It is also thought that since good looking people will probably too full of themselves – both men and women – they will not have time for another person in their life.
Of course when it comes to marriage and making babies, we’re talking a different ball game.
NEXT PAGE >>> It’s neither love nor is it looks…
To start with, most researches and surveys say that men lay more importance on their partner’s looks even if the said man is not as good looking himself. Women on the other hand look for stability and the qualities in a man that can give her that stability.
A 2007 research by Thomas Pollet and Daniel Nettle of Newcastle University that was published in the journal Biology Letters says that in the marriage market it’s a man’s riches and not his looks that are the most important criterion. To put it simply: He who provides, gets the pretty bride. Does that mean that a really ugly but rich man can get a beautiful wife? Yes, if you look at cases like the VERY rich Donald Trump and Melania Knauss. But that doesn’t mean the plain guys have no chance…
“Have a big car, make her laugh, spend money on her and anyone can win over any woman,” jokes a hit-with-chicks male friend has to say who doesn’t even have a big car. “Look pretty all the time, talk smart only when he wants you to and laugh at all his jokes,” smirks a lady friend who makes men go weak in the knees has to say. Neither of them is good looking. Yet both of them seem to have some characteristics in common: Both can talk well, dress up smartly, have a sense of humour and are very confident.
It’s the same with marriage: It’s not about not about the looks as anyone with a little common sense will tell you looks don’t last, gravity always gets its way. Of course some will argue that in today’s age of medical and technological advancement, looks can be ‘upgraded’ or changed. However, not everyone can afford to do a Demi Moore at 43 years of age: She allegedly paid a whopping $ 420000 and even got her knees fixed.
To make a marriage last it takes more than looks: It takes patience, understanding, mutual respect for each other and a willingness to look past (some) faults and irritating habits. It also takes a fair bit of compromise and even a willingness to share your money. And these basics are the same whether you are good looking or not. Once the looks fade, you’ve got to make the other things work.
- wong chee tat :)
Why pretty women like ugly men...
Jhoomur Bose / ibnlive.com
TimePublished on Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 08:46 in Lifestyle section
Has anyone noticed how weddings and common cold are similar? Both are contagious and seem to be affected by weather change. Nothing else explains how suddenly most people one knows are either sniffling or sending out wedding invites. It could also be the biological clock.
The first announcement was sitting in my inbox with the subject line jubilantly declaring, “I am getting married people!” A week back the same friend was single and mingling. Before one could react to that news, another friend called and declared she had a marriage proposal and was “seriously thinking” about it. Again, in a week from having no suitors she was suddenly thinking matrimony.
In the course of describing how their sudden decision to tie the knot had come about, both friends declared, “I am very happy. But the guy is not very good looking,” and then somewhat defensively, “but he’s a sweetheart.” Congratulations later and having seen their to-be spouse’s pictures, one realized that both girls – despite being downright stunning to look at – were marrying men who were rather plain. It reminded one of an old adage, “Langoor ke moonh mein angoor.”
Now a recent study by Columbia University suggested that good-looking people prefer to date equally good-looking people, at times even people who are better looking than themselves. Yet here were two of my very good-looking friends settling for rather plain men.
It’s not just my friends either. Many celeb couples too seem to follow the norm of pretty-woman-average-bloke: Ajay Devgan-Kajol, Azharuddin-Sangeeta Bijlani, Priyanka Gandhi-Robert Vadra, SRK-Gauri Khan (he wasn’t a superstar then!), Juhi Chawla-Jai Mehta… Since these were all love marriages one could perhaps say love perhaps is blind. Both my friends however are going in for arranged marriages and love is nowhere in the picture.
Jog your memories dear readers and tell me, how many times have you heard someone comment, “She is not pretty at all, how did she manage such a hot husband?” Or the other way round, “Look at him, he’s not good looking at all, how did he get himself such a beautiful wife?”
Several conversations and some research later one found that indeed the popularly held belief was: Ugly (or not-so-good-looking) men bag the prettiest girls. But is it really true?
Before you read further, tell us what you think:
1. How important are looks when it comes to finding a suitable partner?
2. Do good-looking people have better chances of finding love or a spouse?
3. ‘Plain’ people have good-looking partners: Myth or reality?
NEXT PAGE >>> What’s HE got that I ain’t got?
It’s no secret that most matrimonial ads, especially for girls, will read thus: ‘Good looking girl, well-educated, homely, working, etc.” Even ads for boys today – after mentioning ‘earns in six figures’ – will say how he is tall, good looking, etc. Given that pictures exchanged in the arranged marriage scenario are mostly professionally shot, it’s a case of showing your son/daughter/yourself in the best possible “light”. And then of course there is Photoshop.
How important are looks when it comes to falling in love or finding a life partner and how does one ensure not being left behind single? When it comes to responding to good looks, many a research has proven that other than some cultural differences, most people react to a similar set of signals or criterion.
From the symmetry of faces (which means symmetrical, cute babies), the size of the hips (a low waist-hip ratio means more fertile women), how another person smells and the facial features (‘feminine’ women and ‘masculine’ men have more chances of ‘mating’), there are some standard things that most people find attractive. And most of them have to do with eventual reproductive ability and how good a dad/mom you will make.
However, when you are looking at dating someone or catching an interesting prospect’s eye at the office party, you are hopefully not thinking babies instantly. If we keep marriage aside for the time being: What makes some ‘plain’ men and women more of a hit with the opposite sex?
In a quick survey amongst friends and colleagues, 57 per cent of those polled said that plain people score more with the opposite sex because they don’t rely only on their looks and usually have other qualities going for them. Like using their brains or their sense of humour.
“He makes me laugh” is something many women list as one of the most desirable traits in a man. “He likes me for who I am,” is another one, which basically means you don’t go comparing your woman to a swimsuit calendar model or some such thing. Some women said that a plain looking man treats women better than a good-looking one. Why? “Because a plain looker doesn’t think he is God’s gift to womankind,” replied one girl.
Then there could be other not-so-pleasant reasons too… No woman, pretty or otherwise wants to think that her man will stray. In such a scenario a man’s lack of looks can at times become insurance against his cheating on a woman. It is also thought that since good looking people will probably too full of themselves – both men and women – they will not have time for another person in their life.
Of course when it comes to marriage and making babies, we’re talking a different ball game.
NEXT PAGE >>> It’s neither love nor is it looks…
To start with, most researches and surveys say that men lay more importance on their partner’s looks even if the said man is not as good looking himself. Women on the other hand look for stability and the qualities in a man that can give her that stability.
A 2007 research by Thomas Pollet and Daniel Nettle of Newcastle University that was published in the journal Biology Letters says that in the marriage market it’s a man’s riches and not his looks that are the most important criterion. To put it simply: He who provides, gets the pretty bride. Does that mean that a really ugly but rich man can get a beautiful wife? Yes, if you look at cases like the VERY rich Donald Trump and Melania Knauss. But that doesn’t mean the plain guys have no chance…
“Have a big car, make her laugh, spend money on her and anyone can win over any woman,” jokes a hit-with-chicks male friend has to say who doesn’t even have a big car. “Look pretty all the time, talk smart only when he wants you to and laugh at all his jokes,” smirks a lady friend who makes men go weak in the knees has to say. Neither of them is good looking. Yet both of them seem to have some characteristics in common: Both can talk well, dress up smartly, have a sense of humour and are very confident.
It’s the same with marriage: It’s not about not about the looks as anyone with a little common sense will tell you looks don’t last, gravity always gets its way. Of course some will argue that in today’s age of medical and technological advancement, looks can be ‘upgraded’ or changed. However, not everyone can afford to do a Demi Moore at 43 years of age: She allegedly paid a whopping $ 420000 and even got her knees fixed.
To make a marriage last it takes more than looks: It takes patience, understanding, mutual respect for each other and a willingness to look past (some) faults and irritating habits. It also takes a fair bit of compromise and even a willingness to share your money. And these basics are the same whether you are good looking or not. Once the looks fade, you’ve got to make the other things work.
- wong chee tat :)
Monday, August 10, 2009
Women are getting more beautiful
July 26, 2009
Women are getting more beautiful
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor
FOR the female half of the population, it may bring a satisfied smile. Scientists have found that evolution is driving women to become ever more beautiful, while men remain as aesthetically unappealing as their caveman ancestors.
The researchers have found beautiful women have more children than their plainer counterparts and that a higher proportion of those children are female. Those daughters, once adult, also tend to be attractive and so repeat the pattern.
Over generations, the scientists argue, this has led to women becoming steadily more aesthetically pleasing, a “beauty race” that is still on. The findings have emerged from a series of studies of physical attractiveness and its links to reproductive success in humans.
In a study released last week, Markus Jokela, a researcher at the University of Helsinki, found beautiful women had up to 16% more children than their plainer counterparts. He used data gathered in America, in which 1,244 women and 997 men were followed through four decades of life. Their attractiveness was assessed from photographs taken during the study, which also collected data on the number of children they had.
This builds on previous work by Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, who found that good-looking parents were far more likely to conceive daughters. He suggested this was an evolutionary strategy subtly programmed into human DNA.
He cited two findings from the Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a US government-backed study that is monitoring more than 15,000 Americans. The measurements include objective assessments of physical attractiveness.
One finding was that women were generally regarded by both sexes as more aesthetically appealing than men. The other was that the most attractive parents were 26% less likely to have sons.
Kanazawa said: “Physical attractiveness is a highly heritable trait, which disproportionately increases the reproductive success of daughters much more than that of sons.
“If more attractive parents have more daughters and if physical attractiveness is heritable, it logically follows that women over many generations gradually become more physically attractive on average than men.”
In men, by contrast, good looks appear to count for little, with handsome men being no more successful than others in terms of numbers of children. This means there has been little pressure for men’s appearance to evolve.
The findings coincide with the bicentenary of the birth of Charles Darwin, whose theory of evolution first described the forces that shape all species.
Even he, however, might have been surprised by the subtlety of the effects now being detected by researchers looking into human mating.
The heritability of attractiveness is widely accepted. When Elizabeth Jagger became a model, her mother, the former model Jerry Hall, said: “It’s in her genes.”
Women may take consolation in the finding that men are subject to other types of evolutionary pressure.
Gayle Brewer, a psychology lecturer at the University of Central Lancashire, said: “Men and women seek different things in their partners.
“For women, looks are much less important in a man than his ability to look after her when she is pregnant and nursing, periods when women are vulnerable to predators. Historically this has meant rich men tend to have more wives and many children. So the pressure is on men to be successful.”
- wong chee tat :)
Women are getting more beautiful
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor
FOR the female half of the population, it may bring a satisfied smile. Scientists have found that evolution is driving women to become ever more beautiful, while men remain as aesthetically unappealing as their caveman ancestors.
The researchers have found beautiful women have more children than their plainer counterparts and that a higher proportion of those children are female. Those daughters, once adult, also tend to be attractive and so repeat the pattern.
Over generations, the scientists argue, this has led to women becoming steadily more aesthetically pleasing, a “beauty race” that is still on. The findings have emerged from a series of studies of physical attractiveness and its links to reproductive success in humans.
In a study released last week, Markus Jokela, a researcher at the University of Helsinki, found beautiful women had up to 16% more children than their plainer counterparts. He used data gathered in America, in which 1,244 women and 997 men were followed through four decades of life. Their attractiveness was assessed from photographs taken during the study, which also collected data on the number of children they had.
This builds on previous work by Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, who found that good-looking parents were far more likely to conceive daughters. He suggested this was an evolutionary strategy subtly programmed into human DNA.
He cited two findings from the Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a US government-backed study that is monitoring more than 15,000 Americans. The measurements include objective assessments of physical attractiveness.
One finding was that women were generally regarded by both sexes as more aesthetically appealing than men. The other was that the most attractive parents were 26% less likely to have sons.
Kanazawa said: “Physical attractiveness is a highly heritable trait, which disproportionately increases the reproductive success of daughters much more than that of sons.
“If more attractive parents have more daughters and if physical attractiveness is heritable, it logically follows that women over many generations gradually become more physically attractive on average than men.”
In men, by contrast, good looks appear to count for little, with handsome men being no more successful than others in terms of numbers of children. This means there has been little pressure for men’s appearance to evolve.
The findings coincide with the bicentenary of the birth of Charles Darwin, whose theory of evolution first described the forces that shape all species.
Even he, however, might have been surprised by the subtlety of the effects now being detected by researchers looking into human mating.
The heritability of attractiveness is widely accepted. When Elizabeth Jagger became a model, her mother, the former model Jerry Hall, said: “It’s in her genes.”
Women may take consolation in the finding that men are subject to other types of evolutionary pressure.
Gayle Brewer, a psychology lecturer at the University of Central Lancashire, said: “Men and women seek different things in their partners.
“For women, looks are much less important in a man than his ability to look after her when she is pregnant and nursing, periods when women are vulnerable to predators. Historically this has meant rich men tend to have more wives and many children. So the pressure is on men to be successful.”
- wong chee tat :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)