Good points but Tyson is NOT scheduled to fight a woman in an exhibition match. It was just some lame PR for his upcoming exhibition tour.

Excerpt from Yahoo:

"STRONGSVILLE, Ohio (AP) -- Mike Tyson said fans should not expect much of a fight when he steps back into the ring.

But the 40-year-old former heavyweight champ promised an entertaining show Friday night when he launches the "Mike Tyson's World Tour" in Youngstown.

At a news conference at an Italian restaurant, Tyson said he would likely go just four rounds and that future stops on the tour might include bouts with women, possibly professional boxer Ann Wolfe.

Wolfe, from Waco, Texas, is 21-1 with 15 knockouts.

"She's such a prominent, dominant woman in the boxing field," Tyson said.

When asked if he was joking about fighting women, Tyson said, "I'm very serious."

Russ Young, a promoter for Wolfe, said such a bout will never happen.

"That's the first we've heard of it," Young said. "No state would sanction that. She would be outweighed by 60 to 70 pounds. Ann would never entertain the idea."

Tyson said the tour was meant to be fun and raise money for charity.

"It's all fun. I'm not Mike Tyson," he said, referring to the fierce boxer whose career was upended by a prison term. "I'm not 20 years old. I'm not going to smash anybody. I'm not going to talk about smashing anybody's brains. You're not going to see that guy no more."

Now this is the hilarious part:

"At the press conference, Tyson posed for photos with fans, signed autographs and campaigned for Maryland U.S. Senate candidate Michael Steele.

Tyson, wearing a white and blue Steele for U.S. Senate T-shirt, said he used to believe black Republicans were "sellouts." But Tyson said he changed his mind after researching the Maryland lieutenant governor."

I mean what staffer signed off on the idea of having Tyson campaign for him. Crazy stuff...

I think his point was that woman wanting sex with an anonymous stranger, demanding an orgasm and paying for it is neither foreign nor scary. The "American Gigolo" and other examples were just popular culture examples. There's noting new about "male escorts" as they are now called. You can find ads for them in the phonebook, on the internet, in the ad pages of the free weekly newspapers.

The only difference I can see between what Fleiss is doing compared to what normally goes on in and around Vegas is that she's aiming to set up a central male BunnyRanch.

Two words.

Ron Jeremy

Tag team? LOL! I'll throw Gary Busey into the gag worthy mix. Wait a second, we could be on to something here....

...if Ron Jeremy can be a success in his end of the biz, then Mike has a shot at his end.

Hit all the right notes. A subtler version of...say Penn and Teller's "Bullshit"

Oh btw, for those who are...(drumroll)..."busy raising the next generation"...(wild applause), unlike say, ever other generation that came before them, the boob thing, like the Carrie Bradshaw point, were examples not friends.

Though it's a neat trick how you manage to look down your nose at others while you're super busy in the "trenches of life" whereas they aren't doing anything at all with their lives except spouting theories, which since they don't apply to you and your much more serious life, are just silly "New York" meanderings.

"But once you have kids, and you're married, and you have a job and a mortgage, these arguments about what makes a real feminist become tedious. They are self-indulgent and appropriate only for undergrads and maiden aunts."

The article is not about what makes a real feminist. You seem intent on mischaracterizing it. It obvioulsy rubbed you the wrong way.

Also, my "parent" point to you had nothing to do with overpopulation. I was pointing out your rather obnoxious and self serving determination (as in you above quote) of "life" status and importance. Yes, I know you're not the enemy. I never said you were.

I have to second the applause for Mr. Peet. Where's the red stars when you need them?

In retrospect, despite your laying it on thick, I get where you're coming from. Salon's usual articles on this subject tend to be filled with precisely the sort of navel gazing pretensiousness that I think you're fed up with, BUT, I don't think that's the case here. What I liked about the article was that it questioned some of that dogma and trends.

Anyway, apologies if I was a bit harsh to you.

A couple of quick hits.

1. Susan, I won't pile on but you might want to consider that you are so proving Kipnis point about overly dramatized "wounded bird femininity". It seems a bit much given what you've told us about the incident.

2. While I have nothing against evolutionary biology, how's it's "used" by the "everything is hardwired" crowd certainly looks to be, as Kipnis called them, the dubious "flavor of the month" rationalization.

"Given that she was networking with him professionally, he was angry she wasn't charmed by his charms."

Except that it's NOT what happened. Nowhere in Susan's "Sex and The City" type preciousness/drama was there any indication that HE was trying to charm HER. He stupidly dissed her, by way of an overheard comment, based on a questionable supposition, or more likely, as a tacky effort to dodge her networking efforts and run out of a lame party. It seems like he and his boys couldn't get out of there fast enough and took the first excuse that was offered by any one of them no matter how dubious it was.

All this "What Does It All Mean For Womanhood" big picture posturing and babbling about who has "issues" or not is nonsense. Dang, I think donna35 really had a point earlier and so does Kipnis.