<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Girlie Men The Marrying Type? (Trees And Things)</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/8/8/22575/17923</link>
<description>In a study of 400 British men and women, the woman &lt;a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070808/wl_uk_afp/britainsciencemen">ranked the men&lt;/a> with more feminine features as more likely to stay in a committed relationship. In your experience, do such assumptions bare out?</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 2007 10:08:27 EST</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:36:26 EST</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>ms sue: Re: Girlie Men The Marrying Type?</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/8/8/22575/17923#2</link>
<description>&lt;i>In a study of 400 British men and women, the woman ranked the men with more feminine features as more likely to stay in a committed relationship. In your experience, do such assumptions bare out?&lt;/i>&lt;p>&#10;Bearly.</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:36:26 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>port1080: Re: Girlie Men The Marrying Type?</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/8/8/22575/17923#1</link>
<description>I don't know, my anecdotal experience is that this isn't true.  My entire family is burly, hairy, and pretty high testosterone, but none of my grandfathers / cousins / uncles / etc have gotten divorced, and we're pretty much all in committed marriages.&#13;&#10;&#13;&#10;</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:14:08 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<textInput>
<title>Search Trees And Things</title>
<description></description>
<name>string</name>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/search/</link>
</textInput>

</channel>
</rss>