The problem is that we are just as likely to have a society dominated by authoritarian sexual hysteria when women are in charge as when men are.

It may be true, in fact it almost certainly is true, that freedom for everyone means some people will be in a better position than others. I am for freedom, but also for an acknowledgment of the truth: if men are in fact in a bad position denial won't really help them, and as the current political debates make clear it makes people stupid, which will only add to their problems. Living in a polluted environment where most people are poor isn't going to put men in a better bargaining position. Denial won't change anything, and whatever position men are in, shitty as it is, the only way to make whatever use can be made of whatever opportunities, limited as they are, that do exist is to deal with reality. Being stupid will make you even worse off.

I don't know, can a gay women really be sex positive, at least as far as men are concerned? Although considering how low, or maybe high, the "sex positiveness" bar has been set by (allegedly) straight women she may be able to do at least an average job of it.

and the the closed caption translated "Sarah Palin" as "Sarah discipline", even the computer can see it.

VERY unlikely, but i hope you don't seriously expect us to believe that that would change your behavior.

men thinking about (or at least communicating those thoughts in any form) sex, or at least sex involving women, in any way that some "authority" on women's thoughts dislikes is the equivalent to actually raping a woman and should be treated as such. Fortunately the patriarchy is ending soon and we will all be free.

but some of the polls seem to suggest otherwise. What is up with that.

Since the public discussion of prostitution is completely controlled by those who are both emotionally and politically committed to believing that all prostitution involves terrorized 12 year old being raped by pimps and customers the actual facts about the industry are not known by most people.

and for some of them their total focus seemed to be offense at the idea that MEN would have any political involvement in any aspect of the decision making process. It almost sounded as if they wouldn't really mind being forced to bear an unwanted child if if was women only doing the forcing. I tended to assume when I heard this attitude that even if there were something there that it would be filtered out by the rational mind if it were consciously focused on. I guess this is yet another demonstration that this is always a poor bet.

as long as women are running it.

that they are willing to undergo a significant amount of stress in order to deal with people who are not like them i.e the other sex. Men are willing and have always been willing to do this because if they are without sexual/romantic relationships they suffer even greater stress. Women in traditional societies have been required to make a similar, (and SOMETIMES greater) sacrifice because of social roles which limited them and made men necessary. The overwhelming weight of evidence now suggests that when women have good jobs/money/enforced child support and the freedom to do what they like they are unwilling to put up with this. Yes they would PREFER to be in a relationship, provided they can find someone they like who doesn't give them any trouble, but this is not the same thing. If men had this attitude the human race would be extinct in one generation.

It's the much broader issue of sexually charged social interactions and relationships, (or for old people -mostly-the memory of them) that has a different meaning and a different importance, especially when compared to other kinds of social interaction and relationships.

and, beyond the basics, usually on junk that women get some emotional benefit out of but is completely worthless to the man (other than that it keeps her happy) the fact that men work so hard proves my point.

and while it is a small group I think perhaps some conclusions can be drawn. What is unique in the modern era though is that women are freed, (at least by comparison to the past) from being tied to reproduction and the economic power that men, collectively, have had in the past based on physical strength and aggression has been removed by technology. Men are pretty flexible though when it comes to doing whatever it takes to get along with women. There are liable to be some consequences of this forced one way adaption though. Life will go on somehow, I'm sure.

even if it is a woman speaking it, because of course, no woman would talk or think using those images unless she were subconsciously (or even consciously) doing the work of oppressive patriarchy. It is perhaps somewhat positive that more and more women are being given reason to understand that feminist prudery is a real problem. Not the biggest problem, but a real problem, especially when it can be so easily made use of.

even if gayness can be shown to be completely innate there is no "scientific" way to stop people from regarding it as a birth defect if they want to.

now that it is being directed at a woman do you think it will finally become clear to people what this totalitarian anti sex thought policing is? People think about sex and sexuality in all kinds of way in all kinds of contexts, they even do this in relation to specific people! (shocking I know) it isn't a crime (although it would be if some people could find a way to make it one). Talking about these thoughts should not be a crime either.