What I do know is that gay men feel the same way about men as straight men feel about women but gay men never complain about being "objectified". The fact remains that objectification is a completely meaningless concept other than as a description of a situation where someone is thinking about sex with you (or you think they are), and letting you know it (or you think they are), and you don't like it (or you think you don't).

NOTE. The "you" is rhetorical.

I have personally never understand why a woman who is clear that she doesn't want to be pregnant the day before she has sex should be any less clear the day after or why anyone should expect otherwise. Still we've been told how "complicated" it all is for 40 years now, from all sides, so now lots of people believe it (and it is actually true, maybe, sometimes). Be involved but not too involved, care but don't care too much, take initiative but don't go to far, follow my lead but don't make me do all the work or feel responsible. Same old.

than the other way around.

everyone seems to agree that men are sorely lacking in what it takes to deal with women successfully while the reaction of women to similar "advice" is likely to be "we know everything we need to and more than we want to" or "why would we care". Or do you not agree that there really is a big difference here either?

it is true that men generally don't mind the idea of being lusted after and women often do but this difference in emotional response shouldn't be confused with a motive and of course the whole point of using the term is precisely to do just that.

"Objectification", ironically enough, gives women completely false and unrealistic expectations about what it takes to make an impression on people. Unless you are a hot woman it takes a lot more than any woman who has ever been "objectified" can probably imagine.

Those nukes could very well be a REAL problem for the Arabs if Derbig and the palestinians make real progress towards their goal of forcing the European colonists to swim back to Europe. It's probably better for both sides to agree to split the territory and stop fighting.

"No, No you go ahead, I don't think this is going to go on for too much longer"

and the second he wakes up he starts poking me again, after a few hundred rounds I will have pinprinks and he will have severe brain damage.

Does this mean that I am obliged or expected to not respond to the pin.

in the belief that it will all be worth it in the end because they will ultimately secure the removal of the "european colonists" I think you are sadly mistaken. It could have ended at any time and the longer it goes on the less the palestinians will have in the end and the more they will suffer in the meantime. But hey, if you and Hamas want to soldier on to ultimate victory, go for it.

and I have noticed that since the militia movment/Bush republican party took over the govt (and the US military officer corps) in 2000 the interest in gun control seems to have waned.

the fact that they are still trying to peddle the lie that if only the govt had done nothing during the 30s depression the magical marketplace would have solved everything better than anything the govt could do shows you that there are no limits. Obviously they had to wait till the people with direct experience had died to trot that one out with any credibility but the point is that they can and will spend whatever it takes and say whatever it takes and when you do that and can keep it up forever you will have influence. Hopefully enough people are sane that the influence will be limited. We've been hovering right at 50/50 in this area for a LONG LONG time. Hopefully necessity combined with leadership will get something accomplished.

remind me of the people we used to hear about in the old Soviet Union who believed: "No things aren't perfect but compared to the Dickensian squalor in the capitalist countries we have the better system".

The difference of course is that it took a great deal of information suppression to make them that deluded whereas wingnut Americans are stupid by choice (and 80 years of the best propaganda money can buy).

They already have gotten their way. Before Reagan was president you never saw people who were sleeping in the streets solely because of lack of money. The only homeless people/panhandlers you saw were drunks. The others just weren't there.

do against marriage. BOTH BUSH and Kerry were FOR civil unions and against marriage in 2004 and it didn't mean a thing. The real solution is to separate completely the legal contact(civil unions) from the religious sacrament (marriage) for EVERYONE.

then you do have equality.

Actually heterosexuality IS for most people, DEFINITELY not ALL.

maybe Ted Haggard would know.

Why would you even consider it a reduction if it is secular.

she can respond to him in ways that were not available, or were too costly, before (ok, maybe it "matters" at least sometimes, but it sure doesn't matter as much or in the same ways).

apparently you have never tried to interest a woman in having sex with you while you are unemployed.

to avoid conflict. Maybe ultimately the only way.

Except when a Bush, or other wingnut, it president that is.

Since the word marriage has religious connotations, why not refer to the civil/legal/contractual aspect of traditional marriage by another name and keep it separate from the religious aspect. I really genuinely do not see the problem.

and a women defines a man by what he can accomplish.