When men say "settle" they mean they are willing to establish a relationship with a woman they like, who likes them, and who likes to fuck them and gives reasonable indications that she will continue to do so. Ordinary men will do this with ordinary women.

What WOMEN mean is that the guy will get in/stay in a relationship on HER terms alone, with as much or as little sex, or anything else he wants, as SHE ALONE sees fit, and will work hard for her indefinitely without thought, or at least action, to leave or find someone else. Ordinary women are highly offended that ordinary men won't do THIS for them.

The "confusion" comes from the fact, as anonymous2 spells out, that men are willing to put up with things from HOT women that women won't put up with from ANY man, not now anyway.

Yet another example of how the ideology of gender sameness is poison to rational thought, although the example of anonymous2 also demonstrates why there is little motivation to give it up: the ability to see reality doesn't imply any ability to see a way to deal with the situation which will be of any help; still it's hard to see how a solution will ever be found by denying reality.

this is NOT the difference. Men are as aware as women of their own shortcomings, the difference is that that men are BOTHERED in a way that women are not by the fact that they can't get someone who REALLY turns them on. Because womens sex drives are both less intense and less focused(at least now when access to men/sex is not a survival issue) they can more easily find a relationship reasonably satisfying with someone they like but who they aren't intensely sexually into, provided he doesn't give them any trouble of course.

you just admitted that most people are overweight so which is it?

what varies is that some people have to eat a LOT LESS than others to do it. Another source of confusion: women talk about being persecuted for sexual unattractiveness and SIMULTANEOUSLY being persecuted by unwanted sexual attention from men. It's very difficult for men to image feeling both things simultaneously.

This will earn him the privilige of living with a woman, giving her all his money, doing what she wants all the time and giving up all future sexual opportunities; if he wants someone who is actually sexually interested in him and who cares what he thinks enough for it to have any influence on her own behavior and inclinations the standard he will have to meet is MUCH MUCH HIGHER.

why is the discussion taking place in the context of "rejected persecuted woman/women" when everyone, male and female, seems to agree that it is women doing the rejecting. It reminds me of the kind of illogic and unreality that one encounters when talking to Republicans and religious nuts.

What men ARE disinclined to do is to swear off all future opportunities in order to establish relationships with women who aren't really into them. Like I said, men sometimes WILL do this for hot women and all the others feel discriminated against when they can't get the same treatment.

then there is the fact that every seriously shy person feels like they have aspergers or that they might as well have. Yes I know there is "social anxiety disorder" which sounds like another name for life, really, for 90% of the population, at least when they are interacting with people who have something they want. Medication is available, apparently, but given the side effects,"sexual side effects", nausea, and constipation what possible point could there be.

a man who lives without sex generally lives without real human connection of any kind, women are happy to give up sex and maintain satisfying social and emotional interactions with their friends, like anonymous2 does. In fact one of the big problems in marriage, as many women here who have had kids have admitted, is that women are sometimes inclined to convert their marriages into something like this; it usually doesn't work though because when a man is cut off from sex he is cut off from other kinds of emotional connection as well. Don't bother with the lecture about how I've got it backwards, that lecture is just another manifestation of the attempt to impose the view that there is only one right way for people to be: like women.

absolutely no matter what. A few points can be shaved off if they fuck things up completely.

it seems like they should be promoting it as a way to reduce the motivation for people to have sex with other people. Perhaps this is another of the many areas where fundies and feminists can find common ground and tools that they can both use.

basic logic makes this conclusion inescapable since legal abortion means safer abortion and more contraception means less abortion of any kind. Since conservatives oppose both things the only possible conclusion is that they are willing to accept the consequences of abortion being illegal and contraception being unavailable in order to try to achieve some other goal.

then men will not regard female clothing as demeaning or in fact have any other need to do anything to prove themselves. If women don't like the fact that men feel this need to differentiate themselves from/prove themselves to women it is ENTIRELY within the power of women to fix it. Otherwise STFU

(although obviously in this particular case, chemo and all, it would have been nice to make allowances)