this doesn't preclude the men being assholes but it does strongly suggest that the stereotypical image of the loving wife being dumped by a guy who wants to go off with a hot young thing is not the, um, typical situation. Of course only a woman would be capable of ignoring the fact that only a tiny, tiny, minority of men is rich enough to act out this fantasy, whosever fantasy it is, in any case.

It's interesting to see a woman make this declaration openly, because the logic of it necessarily means that ANY women is NECESSARILY the superior of any man who is her equal in CURRENT achievement or status because without sexism the women would have gone further. I often encounter women who appear to have this attitude but it is always attributed to only a "few" whenever the issue is brought up for discussion. Maybe LOTS of women think and act this way and LOTS of men know it. It might explain a few things.

does anyone have the right to tell someone else where they can point their eyes? Maybe in the future everyone should wear portable brain monitors so that their thoughts can be monitored and corrected. After all thoughts have consequences and can affect other people indirectly.

the symbiosis between traditionalists and feminists. Obviously a woman can't get rid of a pregnancy she doesn't want without a man getting rid of one he (usually) doesn't want too. A lot of women would like to fix this injustice if they could, the only difference between feminist women and traditionalist women is whether or not they are willing to punish the woman too in order for the man not to get away with it.

WE do understand it, what is interesting though is that regarding a closely related situation i.e. that men have a fundamentally innately different attitude towards sex than women do (the two things we are talking about are manifestations of the same biological realities) is DENIED for political reasons by the very same people who talk up the point you are making. Maybe it is acceptable to talk about a fundamental difference in attitudes regarding physical threat but not regarding sex because in the case of the threat issue the "threatener" is always completely in the wrong and there is no question of granting any form of legitimacy to a view other than your own and those of people who see things the same way you do.

obviously puking is not the solution to overeating, not overeating is the first place is. The fundamental problem is that there is NOT a puking problem apart from an overeating problem for any but a TINY TINY TINY group of people, and literally millions of people with an overeating problem are using the extremely rare true anorexic/bulimic as a cover and excuse for their own problem with excessive eating.

a spring loaded tissue sampler. hit someone with it and it scoops out a piece of tissue, you can have a radio tag so it can be thrown and retrived later, it can be attached to you, maybe as a ring. Sure if the perp has time and energy to retrive it it wouldn't do any good, but it would allow a lot of people to be caught.

and it is only the desperation and insensitivity that women object to in so many other contexts that makes sex with a condom worth having at all.

Even if those boundaries extend to the inside of someone elses head?

a democratic president and democratic control of BOTH houses of congress.

custody decisions are not auctions where the person who puts up the most money is being discriminated against if they are not awarded the item.

since social status has a greater effect on reproductive success for males than for females (it has effects for females to of course, just not as much).

but if this mechanism didn't serve a purpose which has been selected for it is very likely that something would have evolved to counteract this delicacy.

not unless it can be defined and measured. If you BELIEVE you know what is in someone's head and can distinguish differences between the intentions of two people who exhibit the same "staring behavior" then you are indeed claiming knowledge of and authority over what is inside someone's head. I would really like to see your propsed legal code defining acceptable and unacceptable eye movement, as well as your plan for enforcement of this code.

the highest status females have the highest rate of reproductive success, which is an incontestable fact, whether this status influences the gender ratios is much less clear.

The idiocy of posing a false choice between either biology DICTATING an outcome in EVERY CASE or that biology cannot have ANY effect or influence on a situation AT ALL is the height of irrationality and scientific illiteracy.

EVERYONE has LOTS of thoughts about what is attractive, (obviously they mean whether or not THEY are attractive enough). If those thoughts are in any way fleeting then you are thinking about it a lot less than almost everyone else. Talk about unattainable and unrealistic ideals! (maybe that is the point, the ambition to lack concern with whether you can attract who you want may NOT be totally unattainable, at least for some women.)

fortunately society is going to be forced to find/invent them as a matter of economic survival.

if sexuality could be seen as a normal and appropriate process of development like any other process of physical and mental growth and maturity it might be possible for some sanity in this area. I'm not holding my breath.

his candidacy is fatally poisoned.

the only question really is, is mccain winning or not winning the most important issue here.

to fight the good fight aginst this double standard.