You don't want to take anti-yeast meds (and several other meds) if you have a pre-existing liver problem and/or if you cannot/will not abstain from alcohol while taking it: Doctors are supposed to screen out potentially at-risk patients.

My dermatologist gave me a scrip for Diflucan to be taken only once a week for 20 weeks. That's a low-enough dose that I didn't have to go in for liver function tests. But if I'd have been taking a higher and/or more-frequent dose (as for, say, a chronic candida problem), then at least monthly liver tests would have been in order.

I don't know enough about Xenical to determine whether taking extra fat-soluble vitamins and Omega 3's between meals would help, but--really!--someone who is knowledgeable about nutrition science should educate every individual who's considering taking the stuff long-term.

Face it: There is NO GETTING AROUND having to watch your diet and plan your meals. And this is especially true if you're considering taking Xenical or having bariatric surgery.

They probably entered professions that allowed them to "blow off steam" on the job.

Another possibility is that--during the dot com boom--spoiled-rotten employees were indulged at some firms*, and gym facilities WERE (maybe still are?) often a part of the office environment. (*I read a rather jaw-dropping article about that trend back then. Some cases were cited, for example, in which people were allowed to bring their unruly pets to work [including a bird that flew everywhere, crapping all over everyone's workstations wherever it went]--as a perk to induce them to not leave for another employer.) "Work hard/play hard" was the theme by which many of those start-up firms were run (people were expected to have, basically, no life outside of the office, so measures for them to "blow off steam" and/or indulge their other interests on the job were put in place).

One of my age peers confided to me that school had been pure misery for him. He had what is now commonly diagnosed as ADHD but was labeled "boys, being boys" back then. He told me that he wishes that he'd been dosed with Ritalin when he was a child, because sitting still had been pure torture for him. He went to a top-notch university, but his goal was to have a military career, not to sit in an office all day long ('though much of an officer's duties may involve office-sitting and paperwork-shuffling). Somehow, he's managed to calm down in middle age, and he's doing rather well as a software engineer. But until middle age slowed him down, he was a wild guy, always pulling pranks and getting snockered. The only reason that he didn't end up as one of the (what I'm cynically labeling) "gender victims" in the Newsweek article is that he had mega-brains to compensate for his deficiencies. Otherwise, he would have wound up as (what he calls) a "grunt" in the Army. AAMOF, he's pondered the course of his life, and he wonders whether he would have been more happy--and more successful in his military career--if he'd joined as an enlisted man, rather than as an officer. In other words, he would have liked to have been able to conform less and blow off more steam while on duty than he'd been able to do as an officer.

When I went to college (with the aforementioned age peer), there were often gender quotas in place. Females were limited to 30% of my incoming class. It's possible that a tolerance for guys who have trouble sitting quietly happened only because there were quotas in place at one time that favored second-rate males over top-notch females. --And now that colleges are accepting only the top-notch students in a gender-blind fashion, the females--along with males who are capable of behaving themselves--are the only ones who are being admitted.

I've become fond of saying that, "Being a Republican means never having to say that you're sorry," and that Ann Coulter is rather clever, really, in that she says the most outrageous things, and if her core audience agrees with her, then she can crow about it, and if she gets razzed, then she can claim that either the "Liberal Press" misquoted her or that her critics don't have the intellectual capacity to know satire when they see it.

...may have no trouble meeting men, BUT they also get hit on by the very men referenced in the article who are hostile toward aging women, and the "hotties" could waste years of their "peak attractiveness period" being with the sort of men who chiefly care about womens' looks.

An older woman has a built-in "sexst, agist jerk filter."

So, you have fewer men in your "dating pool"? I'd say that you're LUCKY!

This whole creepy affair tickles my "irony funny bone."

However, learning what makes these folks tick can sometimes be educational/useful.

I also agree that bitterness and anger are a FAR bigger turnoff than being a "schlub." Still, most of the schlubby "Brads" (ref. the comic strip "Luann") of this world seem to have been brainwashed into thinking that they're all entitled to "Tonis." And if they feel that they have to "settle" for a woman who's on their own level of attractiveness, they'll often take it out on her. It is all-too-true that the guys who kvetch about how women reject "nice" men (like themselves) are NOT nice guys. In fact, they are NEITHER cute-enough NOR nice-enough to attract the women whom they feel that they "deserve."

For example, someone on a board that I co-manage recently asked why NO moderate Muslims are speaking out publicly against the extremists.

That would have been a good question, IF it had not been based on a false premise. I mean, entire books have been written on the subject!