a candidate who is widely perceived, fairly or not, as participating IN ANY FORM in a "war against white people" in ANY FORM, CANNOT get elected. This is beyond stupid.

whether it can be discussed and dealt with seems to be another matter.

pointing out the unfairness of the situaion won't keep mccain out of the white house. Obama has to deal with it, it doesn't seem like most of his supporters are going to be of much help when he tries, if he tries.

is the inability to let consenting adults deal with their private lives in private.

That is EXACTLY right you should NOT have a political opinion on it because what consenting adults do or don't do in bed is their own business. Should a woman be considered unfit for public office if her husband says she is a cold fish? Where do you drawn the line with this crap? The only answer is to stay out of it.

am somewhat optimistic.

because the institution is giving up its ability to pressure people to accept something they'd rather not. Sure, it makes them go to the trouble of setting up their own congregation. It will be somewhat interesting. I actually think people will probably be more motivated to to set up separate congregations over gay issues than over women priests, even if they have to use the women priest issue as an excuse.

there was actually a strip club in portland where the girls did lap dances this way.

among other benefits it protected the girls from being accused of cooperating with the customers in the commission of forbidden activities.

that relationships which were formed and formalized in a process which excluded sex until the very end of the process were particularly likely to work out; yes under such a system people could often be forced to stay together but whether or not they have/had good relationships was another matter.

which are growing the fastest. It seems that a lot of people are attracted to an authoritarian approach.

(since the average woman doesn't jerk off over the idea of an average 18 year old guy letting her see him naked).

so this naturally has resulted in the evolution of different instincts and priorities.

must be very pleased with themselves.

men don't have to work any harder for sex than women do, science has proven it.

there are sometimes difficulties in womens friendships that are less likely to occur in mens friendships because women, unlike men, have an instinctive emotional investment in their non sexual relationships with other women that parallels in a lot of ways the posessiveness, jealousies, insecurities, competition, love-hate, etc. that occurs in sexual relationships. This is an instinctive response to the fact that women need other women to help them reproduce successfully almost as much as they need men, especially in a traditional agricultural or hunter-gatherer society. Men are much less likely to develop a similar "selfishly instinctive" emotional investment in specific other men. Of course I am not saying anything that should be construed as a denial of the fact that BOTH male and female humans are members of a social species.

that it did.

but a great many activists are lying when they say they are doing that because what they are really doing is trying to ERASE the distinction so that they can claim that ALL prostitution is rape.

so it takes balls for them to pretend to be promoting awareness of a distinction (between coerced and and uncoerced prostitution) that they are actually doing all the can to undermine.

it's more like handing out a crack pipe that makes you feel like you're smoking but you aren't actually getting high. The only reason people have sex with condoms is because they are desperate, condoms are probably one reason why so many people lose interest in sex when they reach middle age.

so I guess metamucil should be made illegal.

to try and establish that the only legitimate way to feel or to react to anything is the way that they do. Men and women often have different reactions to and feelings about sex, to pick an example at random, and rather than admit that these differences can lead to difficulties on both sides they prefer to pretend to believe that every time a man doesn't feel, think and act precisely as she feels entitled to demand that he should he is motivated by hatred.

it is worse for the woman? (In any case your test will only catch extremely stupid or pathologically honest "criminals" won't it).

and always will be regardless of circumstances. You guys don't know ANYTHING.

that your analysis allows for only three possible types of men:

1) those who slavisly toe the party line of whatever woman/women are around

2) those who hate women

3) those who have the decency to keep anything they disagree with women about to/among themselves and not soil womens psyches with it.

Like I said since you don't appear to be a total moron you obviously know this so it is interesting that you put it out so openly. Maybe you read the article about how the recession is only lowering mens incomes and employment levels and you are feeling confident.

technology has forced them to give up that dream but obviously nothing in their way of thinking has really changed.

This will never succeed as long as the chosen route to this goal is to insist that men can be or should be the same as women or should be forced to behave as though they were.