It is sad state for Romance. In my humble opinion many women these days are bigget hypocrates in looking for a partner. One minute they are after "Brad Pitt" look alike, but also want a SNAG guy. Lot of women use buzz words like spirutal, honest man a great communicator blah, blah, while they do not have or exhibit any of these traits themselves. Many do not under the meaning of love and what makes a partnership work. As the saying goes - what is good for the goose is good for gander or what ever!.

Rachel Hills statement that:
"Hard as it may be to believe, some men do get intimidated, are burnt from past relationships, and even have normal human doubts and emotions." sounds condescending on men in general. In my opinion it is kind a statement one makes when someone got a problem with men!or consider them to be lesser mortal than oneself.Is there something I am missing here? Finally, girls there are lot of good availble men out there, find one and ask them out for a change. Remember looks change or goes with age other things like love, friendship is what will remain to the end.

I would agree Blackman that Rachel Hills is very condescending of men. She begins her article by mentioning the innumerable number of books, magazines and TV programs for women, then ends the article by saying that a book written by a man is “just "The Rules", marginally updated and packaged from a man's perspective.”

She seems to be suggesting that one book written by a male (amongst the plethora of such books and magazines written by women) is one too many. Hardly very egalitarian. However lets look at a web-site about male/female relationships that was developed by males and receives nearly 5,000,000 visitors per month. It would probably be the male equivalent of magazines such as Cleo or Cosmopolitan, which many women seem to find indispensable.

This web-site contains articles such as “12 Women to Avoid at All Costs” at http://www.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith_100/114_dating_advice.html

It starts with “Miss Feminist”, includes “Miss Take” (out for money), “Miss Romance” (lives too much in a fantasy world), “Miss Elusive” (likes to frustrate) etc.

But what happens if the male does unfortunately become involved with one of these non-recommended types of women, and there is actually marriage on the horizon. This is where the article on “prenups” becomes a must read for men at http://www.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith_100/133_dating_advice.html

It seems that for males, “prenups” are now as necessary as having a will developed, but for some reason “prenups” are rarely mentioned in women’s magazines. However “prenups” do not cover de-facto relationships, so maybe there needs to be a “predef” as well. But having a “predef” would mean that a de-facto relationship becomes formalised, which means that it is like a type of marriage anyway.

Has the whole system now become totally absurd, overly pre-occupied with money and highly unromantic. Seems to be that way, but who started it.

Timothy, pre-nups are not all that they are made out to be. I looked into them only to find that the Family law courts can over-ride them if they see fit.

My wife's solicitor even advised her not to accept my pre-nup as it was not in her interests. Considering that my asset contribution was far greater than hers it obvious why he suggested this.

Not only is the system 'overly preoccupied with money', but many women are too. My wife turned out to be one of these, even using the tactic of making false domestic violence allegations. And such deceitful tactics could just work as the judiciary has the mindset that most men are guilty of DV anyway so they often therefore err on the side of women.

But, I'd still like to think that for every example of selfish, man-hating women there are good ones also.

On Wednesday the 27 December 2000 pre-nuptial agreements became law throughout Australia. Before Wednesday the Family Court generally would not waste its time even looking at a pre-nuptial agreement. They were not binding at law.

Binding Financial Arrangements (BFA s), are contract that set out the division of assets should the relationship breakdown – they can be prenup, postnup, same sex or defactos.

They do not seem to provide the protection people are led to believe and it is claimed they only encourage further litigation. They need to comply with family law in the first place, and they can be set aside easily if they become outdated by substantial change in circumstances etc.

Here’s a link to a letter sent to WA lawyers warning of their pitfalls (especially risks to lawyers themselves). http://www.taxlawyers.com.au/Publications/New/bfaalert1.pdf

Here’s a new service offering professional wing women to men.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/01/22/1106334260671.html

Not sure if this approach is a further sign that “He's Just Not That Into You”, or exactly the opposite, because it overcomes his rejection aversion and allows him to make the first move even if he otherwise would not.

It appears that the whole system is directed towards “temporary” or “throw-away” type relationships. Trying to establish permeance, assurance or stability in the relationship is not considered an important factor.

A pre-determined plan of beginning, then ending the relationship is also being followed by many people.