so the subject doesn't hold much interest. TCF was really talking about how women are perceived while the men commenting are taking the issue more literally as in "how can I improve my ability to detect openness to casual sex" although of course as has been pointed out the concept of "casual sex" in the abstract is fairly meaningless. What all men, and probably all women, REALLY want is for the right people (this is a far larger group for most men than for most women) to be immediately (and not particularly casually) interested in sex with THEM (not other people) until THEY want to dial it back for whatever reason.

What is meant by suspicious is that I am(was) suspicious that you are actually male, otherwise it would be easier for you to understand my point. You might have been a female posing as a male. That is all I meant. I believe you are male although I think the indoctrination question is still open. Someone said "sincerity is everything, when you can fake that you've got it made" and it's much easier to fake it well if you can actually make yourself believe it. Since mens job is to appeal to women they really believe it.

This happens A LOT. Not to me but it is VERY COMMON.

because men have to perform to get women sexually interested in them and women don't have to do anything of the kind to appeal to men. The fact that this obvious and easily proven fact is not universally recognized is proof that "feminist" ideology has real power.

I don't really want them to

the fact that men have to prove themselves to women by being accomplished in some way in order to have sex and relationships and women are not required to perform in any comparable way.

that somebody has hit a nerve.

It's not very well hidden because none of the objections are rational. The REAL differences between Obama and Clinton are trivial in rational policy terms. Maybe for some people this fact doesn't interfere with it being well hidden.

and it is fairly interesting how unselfconsciously so many posters here are not only illustrating but actually acting out the very dynamic that was originally referred to.

when there is very little substantive difference between the two democrats. Whatever the reason for this it is a real phenomenon and denying the obvious invites suspicion of the motives of the denier.

men have to prove themselves via social accomplishement in order to have sex and women don't, so men resent women depriving them, in this case vicariously and symbolically, or the means to do so.

men are not good enough more than women are not good enough.

and being able to fuck any women he wanted any time he wanted, he would consider his wife optional (at least if she gave him any trouble) so it's reasonable to assume, (and there's a lot of evidence so you don't have to assume) that a lot of women have the same reaction.

men are willing, in fact are required, to put up with female behavior that is anything but reasonable (in both cases I am assuming an absence of economic necessity).

is that NOW that WOMEN aren't economically dependent on MEN, WOMEN can do this. Men, EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE MONEY, cannot fuck ANYONE THEY WANT. Some women may not want to fuck anyone ever but they are still fucking everyone they want as often as they want, in this case no one ever. Of course this doesn't apply to women who can't make decent money, but neither does any other social trend that gets widely discussed.

women, for biological reasons, have much higher standards and lower tolerance; they deny that this reaction is biological and then they use this fact about themselves to prove their own innate superiority, while claiming that they are only promoting equality. The immediately preceding letters are textbook examples of this, it's sort of funny how blatant it all is.

the greater the power, status, and options for the women and the less/fewer for the men.

Now we are getting somewhere, women are not willing to put up with abuse, also known as not having a man happily do everything your own way, for a man, but men ARE willing to accept not getting their own way all the time for a woman. Men's economic and social status used to compensate, or overcompensate, for this difference but it no longer does.

find me charming or interesting or fun to be around, or a wonderful person (more or less, no matter what) but women do not have a similar indiscriminately postive reaction to men.

or you would hear half the male population bragging about how they don't have sex because no one available is good enough for them.

yes, of course men have lower standards, maybe for long term commitment they are SOMEWHAT more equal, but men, much more than women, are willing to give a relationship a try for the sake of sex and see what develops, or IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ECONOMIC OR SOCIAL BENEFIT, to stick with a problem relaionship.

equating the statment "men are pickier than women" with the statment "men will fuck anything that moves" (unless you are suggestiing that women will fuck anything that just barely excess the "that moves" standard)

if men applied the same standard most marriages and relaionships that now exist would not.

enough to stick with her even though all she does, in a practical sense, is cost him money and even if she does whatever the hell she wants. Yes, 24% of women earn more than their husbands and you can be sure that if those relationships work out the husbands are VERY compliant.

sensitive subject, I see giant

right?

IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO DOING SO and that women both exploit and deny this reality.