Specifically since men don't have babies and therefore have to prove themselves to women by making sacrifices that damage themselves by, at the very least (and often this really is the least of it) diverting resources to others that they get no benefit from the use of, the instinct to preserve and advance ones well being is in conflict with the instinct to reproduce. For women their is no conflict: their long term well being and long term successful reproduction, i.e the well being of their offspring are served by the same things. For this reason men are more open to rationality to mediate this tension and women are more inclined to treat a summation of all their emotional responses as the final word on everything.

so I think you can pretty much rely on them doing something to try and prevent this situation from occuring.

but then they aren't and have never been as car dependent as the US. There is a lot of evidence that with a big investement there are different ways to power personal transportation.

so the benefits of doing things differently might just be greater here.

it is more productive and grows on marginal land

to help their oil industry friends for as long as they can. This time though the outcry over their obvious scheme forced them to back down.

obviously this requires captial investment beyond what it takes to grow a crop (although not power plant style, we're talking mostly plastic tubing). Sapphire energy claims they could, or nearly could, produce economically at current prices with technology they have in hand, but it's tough to get huge investments, private or public, for a massive scale-up when there's no guarantee oil prices won't fall by half or more any time.

and everyone will tell themselves they did what was reasonable under the circumstances.

are the only ones fit to reproduce and therefore will be expected to produce the entire population (since everyone else will be responsible and not have kids) it would appear that without a massive importation of third world populations we will be faced with devastating labor shortages.

just like lots of us have been trying to explain all along.

and men can't.

and an average man has to work at it by going to a specific place, paying more and taking legal risks. Yes EXTREMELY ugly men and women and EXTREMELY attractive men and women are in the same position: either no one will touch them or everyone will, but for the 90% of people who are not in one of those two categories women can do what they want when they want and men can't. No amount of denial will change this.

women can get all the happy endings they want from ANY male massage therapist, they just don't want them (or your friends don't or they don't tell you).

a lot of women don't like sex or at least don't care about it and just do it to keep the guy happy, when that is that case inevitably there will be many cases where they have to discuss how happy he should be. Or should the guy just dump her as soon as she stops demonstrating by frequent and intense initiation that she REALLY cares. A related question is how many years should he require this demonstration before he trusts her enough to marry her or have kids.

but most just aren't interested so for both of these reasons the subject is just less visible and less widely discussed.

obviously the answer is zero. I'm not saying women can't be frustrated. I'm saying the average women can always easily find an average guy to get her off and the average man isn't similarly guaranteed to find women. Why is it that whenever someone says women don't have a SPECIFIC problem so many women hear "women don't have ANY problems".

there is a difference between:

1) ANY women being able to pick any man on earth and be guaranteed that he will fuck her (not true), and

2) any average women being able to easily and quickly find lots of average guys who will fuck her (true), and

3) any average guy being quickly and easily able to find lots of average women who will fuck him (not true).

Does this sort it out for you?

have you read the original article, I'm sure you can figure out what to do.

and either way if he got them he'd have to pay extra which the women wouldn't.

You presume absolutely wrongly, there is no such practice and in fact in most situations it constitutes illegal sex and employment discrimination to have such a system because the added restriction has the potential to adversely affect female career performance. In male prisons for example female guards cannot be excluded from any jobs or practices, unless it is done for their own physical protection, because it might adversely affect their pay and advancement. Needless to say male employees in female prisons don't have their career prospects protected in this way.

"If a husband breaks a woman's back while anally raping her and he STILL says it isn't rape - even though she said no over and over and over..."

"And yeah, that means letting your wife get some sleep when she begs 'not tonight."

and the law and practice is different for men and women. The prison example is pretty clear cut and dramatic but the same rules apply generally.

seriously intended competent propaganda is much more insidious.

in fact there is MORE inequality between people as part of every country becomes rich and part stays poor when before everyone was poor. Not say the change is bad but it doesn't address the issue of inequality.

(apart from the fact that women, in reality, don't want them involved) is that rape has come to mean "anything women don't like".