The point is that no man in the modern world, unless he is dealing with a women who needs his money to survive, would ever imagine that any woman would consider having anything to do with him if HE wasn't willing to do all of those things for her, and he would be right to think this, so the question is: when men ask for some of the same things from women that women demand of them as a condition of any relationship, why is it considered extraordinary? The answer obviously is that men just want it more and women don't really mind going without. Otherwise they would be willing to do some of what they demand from men as a matter of course.

"because he's just not that into you", so yes, you are that into it.

in a literal biological sense, this is the truth. It's true in more than a narrow sense too, I think, since even though it would in theory maybe be possible to dispense with women via an artificial uterus I can't, unlike the case with men, forsee any reasonable scenario where this would happen.

yes but the diffence is that the women, when they don't need the money, are much more likely not to be with the guy any more.

whew, glad we cleared that up. Everybody can relax now.

there would be an equal amount of (credible) gloating over that fact by both men and women and obviously there is not (or there would be none at all). It is probably true that men and women may want somewhat different things, or at least want them at different times.

Then YOU must explain all the female GLOATING over the fact that they don't want men and the fact that there is no equivalent CREDIBLE gloating from men. I'm not saying YOU are gloating but you can't rationally discuss the situation generally without acknowledging this fact and it's meaning (whatever it is).

and incur the (very high) risk of screwing it up.

the ideology of unrestrained capitalism has remained unchanged, in spite of numerous disasters and untold misery, for 150 years or more and the ONLY TIME it was UNABLE to use it's great power to con most people into supporting it was the 40 years from 1930 to 1970 when the memory of it's most catastrophic failure of all was still fresh.

if peoples brains weren't prevented from working by a multi billion dollar propaganda campaign lasting decades it would be obvious to anyone that a system this complex with no accountability would inevitably turn into a scam.

this is all fine provided it is understood that you are talking about significance in the narrow statistical sense and not trying to imply that therefore the differences are not or cannot be significant in the ordinary meaning of the term. I know you wouldn't do this of course, but others have.

yes, there are some people that it is impossible to be physically attracted to. That doesn't mean that that is all there is. Part of the problem is that women, unlike men, are more likely to be aware of and honest about the fact. A man HAS to be able to get it up to have a real relationship, but because women are capable of sex without erection a whole arena of confusion, ambivalence and delusion is opened up for them (and for the men they are around) that isn't available to men. Women have as much instinctual baggage as men, more actually, but the opportunity for self delusion is much greater for them as well.

but to accept instinct as something that can't be avoided and has to be given it's due. Of course if women only ever had sex with men who REALLY turned them on how many men would ever have sex, maybe not too many.

is that the doms (and subs) and more self aware and the doms wear "nicer" clothes.

Apparently female power is secure enough that nobody feels the need to bother to deny it anymore.

once men understand how/are willing to do it RIGHT everything will be fine.

Why is this any different/worse than a woman who is no longer interested in sex dumping her husband so she can live the life she wants to live without having to take any one elses point of view into account. This perfectly illustrates what the "gender wars" are all about: the things women are much more likely to want then men are held to be morally superior without any justification (that can withstand real scrutiny) other than the fact that women are more likely than men to want them.

Uh..what are you talking about. The only bad things I've heard anybody for weeks, months, really say about obama are either from republicans or from democrats who think he is being too accomodating to republicans.

didn't hear everything.

Regarding the specific issue referred to above Congress (and the Supreme Court) is going to have to clarify the law in this area for there to be any (semi)lasting resolution. It's not clear how much a statement from obama would accomplish at this point, why not let the republican political/cultural apparatus decompose a little more to make it softer work to clean up.

Bullshit.

as far as women being able to fuck around, unless they are under constant supervision they can fuck around all they like as long as they don't get pregnant. Nothing is stopping them, if they want to do it, and nothing has been for many many decades. For instance there is lots and lots of evidence that sex between young teenaged boys and adult women is very common, but it isn't an issue because no one ever complains.

than that she is an ambitious career woman. It is true that some women feel offended when success in their careers doesn't make them devastatingly attractive to all men.

I hope to god one of these is the truth.