And women who demand that the man not be a foot shorter than them, or for that matter demand that he bathe regularly, are equivalently obsessed with the "packaging" and not the truuuue soul, etc. It is understood of course that the preferences motivated by instinct of women are inherently benign and the preferences motivated by instinct of men are inherently sinister and exploitive but lets at least be honest about what we think, OK?

that is kind of the point, it's nuts to fight nature. Control and channel maybe, but not declare war against. Obviously there is something less than universal consensus which is which and one of the big reasons for this lack of agreement is hormonal.

I know it feels pretty repetitive sometimes but as long as there is so much resistance to these basic facts what else is there to do.

I can assure you that the insurance tables, and even you, would consider her fat.

If this is true then why do ugly women, (or average women) turn down propositions from ugly men (or average men)far far FAR more often than the other way around. If two people claim to be starving but one refuses to eat an egg because it isn't cooked enough and is too runny can they both REALLY be equally hungry? I suppose you could try and stretch a point and answer "YES" if you were dealing in one case with a life threatening allergy.

At the very least we should admit that lots of women who attack men for being insufficiently deferential to women in the exact same manner that Laurel is doing actually agree with me on this point, like Smith. It's funny that when there are too possible positions on an issue people on BOTH sides attack, and consider themselves on the same side. It just demonstrates that it's really all about power and deference and not about the issue under discussion at all.

Would you criticise a woman for anonymously complaining about having to clean up after a drunk incontinent man? FWI since you are so concerned about her she has no idea I am doing this, but really do you not see what an INCRDIBLE assertion of privilige your statement implies?

if she wanted to she easily could have (admittedly this was a problem before the advent of viagra, but it no longer is).

if you watch someone at all you watch them get older, so all he is saying is that he doesn't want to see Hillary at all. Is this really his idea of an "argument" that anyone who didn't already completely agree with him would find meaningful. Probably not I suppose.

This is really the heart of the issue: men and women have different problems and it takes effort to see a point of view other than your own. The main reason men don't feel OK in their own skin is that the only problem they can't manage fairly effectively is the trouble they have attracting the opposite sex and they don't see why anyone who didn't have that problem wouldn't feel OK. Women of course, DON'T have that particular problem, at least not in the same form, and so they refuse to believe that men do either, or that if they do it is their own fault, not really a problem, etc. etc. and they refuse to belive men when men tell them that if men could fuck anyone they wanted anytime they wanted they SINCERELY would not care whether everyone hung on their every word or not.

It's good to see someone who is not a "misogynist" admit that women want it kept illegal in order to maintain scarcity and therefore value and leverage.

You are obviously confusing "overlooking why women might be angry" with "total acceptance of and support for everything an angry woman says". A common problem.

There are two possibilities: they are inviting APPLICATIONS, not actually saying they are avilable, or they are saying they are avilable to fewer than you think. OR

The signal isn't as clear as you think. You seem to suggest as much yourself when you say that the men are "oblivious".

the problem of course is that misdirected and ineffectual rebellion just further justifies the established authority.

but now that this is no longer true there is no justification, other than that of raw power, for this being the case.

Thanks for the info, now will you PLEASE instruct all the women out there, uh in here, going on about how women want it as bad as men, etc. to STOP LYING? Please explain to them that, yes SOME may, but given the MANY WOMEN LIKE YOU and the FEW MEN LIKE YOU there is a huge imbalance of interest and therefore many more opportunities for the women who are interested. Coming from you it will presumably not be taken as the ravings of a bitter woman hater.

It seems that some women regard it as a problem too, hence the desire to regulate the behavior of consenting adults in ways that would be considered absurd in any other context.

There is for instance the example of gay men. Among them, so I hear, everybody fucks everybody they like and when and if people find each other particularly interesting for whatever reason they may become more exclusive on that basis if they are so inclined. I suspect that men would be inclined to relate to women in a similar way given a lack of other constraints.

but if this "system" were used where women were involved many would opt out if they couldn't get "good" men. Oh, wait..

you don't either.

I have to say that the stalking comment screams projection. Not for you personally, necessarily, but it really does illustrate the hazards of not admitting that there are real differences between men, including gay ones, and women.