the issue generally is real attraction, women just don't have as much of it (or at the very least it is more delicate and more easily disrupted or killed off). Women are no "nicer" to men, in general, than men are to women, but the level of attraction is different. Often this difference is taken as EVIDENCE that women are in fact nicer or have harder lives or whatever than men. It is a good thing for women who want kids that men ARE less sensitive, if men (who don't want kids for themselves, or not only for themselves very often) WERE as sensitive as women in this area constant exposure to this attitude would have caused human reproduction to cease altogether in the last 40 years.

men and women have always needed each other and both have had the ability to "force" the other to compromise. When this is no longer the case what will happen. Will men and women continue to relate on the basis of men becoming completely compliant to everything women want, or will there be very little connection. Obviously the most attractive men will always be of some interest. Maybe, apart from the social powers "artificially" granted to men, very few men were ever of any real interest to women.

of being hypersensitive

(don't know what the connection is with Fiat, if any, but it sounds Italian).

and the fact that something CAN be done about it (losing weight obviously helps, but other things too).

just this: unless a woman is insanely horny for you you are an idiot to get married and TOTALLY INSANE to have kids.

In fact I predict that if men ever have available a means of birth control that doesn't ruin sex women will have a lot of trouble in this area. Maybe as a condition of the marriage/have-a-kid contract women will have to agree to have their sex drive/attachment maintained by pharmacology if needed.

and some (I'd VERY MUCH like to know the percentage) women, so it's actually a little disturbing to hear so many suggesting that staying together "for the sake of the children" is just dandy as long as everybody is quiet.

It's interesting how many people, both "traditional" and otherwise, want their sons, or other peoples, to become eunuchs (also known as "having the social and emotional resources to control their behavior") "for the sake of the children".

no one thing works for everybody though.

Staying together "for the sake of the kids" when the parents have grown apart means the mother doesn't care about sex (or can get it on the side with no effort) and the man is fucked-not. Any man who agrees to have kids with a woman who is not dripping for him continually for years is insane-and even then it is a risk.

Yes (you make a good point in general though).

when you seem to anxious to volunteer yourself and everybody else for it. Everyone is entitled to at least try to have a life, and yes, everyone is obligated to take care of their kids. What is a little strange, or maybe it isn't, is that so many people don't seem to WANT a system which provides the greatest opportunity for the most people to do both.

the masochistic surrender part doesn't seem to be much of a problem for anybody it's the further riches that are more elusive.

it wouldn't be so common

in other words "I will continue to pleasantly provide financial, child care, and housework assistance to the woman who no longer has, if she ever did, any sexual or romantic interest int me" it's the least you can do "for the children", and you are also setting a good example for your sons of how to successfully resist the temptation to become a patriarchal oppressor.

people know this, in theory, but they don't usually fully appreciate it. The parents lives shouldn't be over when they have kids either, and giving up everything "for the children" doesn't even help the children. It certainly doesn't set an example for how to have a life.

Exactly, men will have all the power that a 50s housewife had when her husband had no sexual or romantic interest in her. No more oppression of women.

One thing you can be absolutely certain of, no woman who has all the money is going to tolerate not getting her own way, i.e she will not allow herself to be "oppressed". It will interesting to see how men deal with this. I suspect that sexual desperation will result in complete capitulation. In fact it already has.

should be perfectly happy with their situation.

I wonder how accurate this is. Maybe the matriarchy really is changing the way people develop. When I was 12 everybody was flogging it frantically and believing that everyone other than themselves was having sex.

to ACTUALLY CONVINCE a teenaged boy that he REALLY DIDN'T WANT SEX you would have to scramble his brains so badly that it would take him the rest of his life and probably a lot longer to get his head out of his ass.

Nothing changes the fact that the kids came out of HER BODY and in her mind she OWNS them (it takes Talibanic levels of pressure to counteract this and even then it may not be successful); at least when a woman is taking care of the kids she is looking after her own. A man, even the father, doing it is doing work delegated from the REAL mother. This psychological/biological reality isn't going to change, no matter how much other social and economic power women have and how little men have.

men are truly irrelevant.

be sure to disinfect afterwards

of course there is a right time and place and a wrong time and place for (almost)everything but that does not appear to be what this is about.

their teachers, apparently.