Letters to the Editor
djbollman
Published Letters: 366 Editor's Choice: 13
-
Women want men... but not as much as men want women
[Read the article: Yes, Maureen Dowd is necessary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So when you take away the traditional reasons why women have needed men men really have very little leverage and they know it(although most can't/won't consciously admit it). Men, unlike women, become unnattractive to the other gender as soon as they start making trouble, so the influence that would be expected to flow from women's alleged "wanting" doesn't amount to much: if men make any attempt to use it, it disappears. Men's behavior would make a lot more sense to women if women were willing to face up to this fact.
-
the real market for this will be women who don't like men
[Read the article: Coming soon: Same-sex genetic parenting]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hilariously this is being discussed in terms of couples and gay men (who would still need the use of a womb anyway), but anyone can see that the real use would be for women who want kids and don't want to compromise with a man. The number of women who want to be mothers will always dwarf the number of gay male couples who want to be parents and I trust it's obvious that no straight man wants kids without a woman. It's true that women can find a sperm donor (formally or informally) now, but the fact that you are still dealing with a distinct genetic contribution from a male has both medical and psychological significance. Once men are TRULY obsolete the motivation for women to compromise will be further reduced which will make men even more neurotic and unappealing, etc. etc.
-
Don't assume too much concerning discovering a gay gene..
[Read the article: Coming soon: Same-sex genetic parenting]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What with the feminine(ist) desire for "strong and independent" girls and "non-women-objectifying-and-oppressing" boys the anti-sex right may at last achieve it's dream of an end of non-procreative sex (at least of the heterosexual variety). One should always strive to remain positve, cheerful and upbeat though and the thought of the forces of consevative prudery (in contrast to the feminist variety) achieving one of it's fondest dreams and enjoying it so little is truly heartwarming.
-
Why can't men be BOTH poor and treated as human
[Read the article: Looking for Mr. Mediocre]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It never ceases to amaze me what crap men put up with in our supposedly male dominated society. I guess there are explanations, but it grates anyway that women, unlike men, have the right to be both. Given traditonal feminist rhetoric of equality, mutual respect etc. it would be ironic if the effect on women of having the opporunity to be successful in the traditional male sense was to make it emotionally impossible for these women to treat men who have less money than they do as human beings
-
Blumenthal always makes me happy
[Read the article: Bush's betrayal of history]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Even though he paints a grim picture the fact that the facts are being clearly stated gives me hope that endless limitless lying will not ultimately succeed.
-
No woman would pay for sex from an average man
[Read the article: Finally, women can pay for sex too!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]when she can get it for free. Sure maybe a very rich very ugly woman MIGHT pay Brad PItt to fuck her if he could prove that he was REALLY into it but that is it. Women have fantasies that men get a lot more out of whores than they really do. No woman would pay for what men pay for.
-
If there were really a demand for this the supply would be huge
[Read the article: Finally, women can pay for sex too!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Most men spend most of their spare time kisssing a woman's ass to get her in the mood now(very few get to work their magic on teenage supermodels) so it seems reasonable that most of them would take money to do what they are doing already; even if you restrict it to the top 10 or 5 or 1 percent that is still a lot of people. Since there's a supply and, supposedly, a demand, the question has to be asked: why does nothing happen where it legally could? The only reasonable answer is that when it comes to action, rather than talk, very few women are willing to take the plunge into paying for sex.
-
i did read somewhere about a callboy service where men did women
[Read the article: Finally, women can pay for sex too!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and apparently it was a job requirement that the man cum. Most of the women checked the condom and if it wasn't full there was a very dissatisfied customer. I just "love" it when so many woman with often contradictory personal preferences assume that they represent all women.
-
In authoritarian (read traditonal) religions there is no distinction between
[Read the article: How the secular humanist grinch didn't steal Christmas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]being allowed to freely practice your religion and the right to use the police power of the govt., social intimidation, economic pressure, etc to force everyone to follow your sect's rules. The US was formally founded on the legal principle of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, everyone endowed with inalienable human rights, but when, after 200 years, steps were taken to create a society where these ideas had a practical applilcation and were not just an abstract and unpractced principle, by, among other things, outlawiwng the enforcement of a racial caste system, by allowing adults to talk, read, write about and practice sex without govt. approval, by allowing women to make medical decisons about their own bodies, etc. the right got up in arms and has stayed that way. Anyone who is not a commited religious zealot should understand and act politically on the knowledge that the right will never consider itself free from persecution until it can dictate how everyone will live; they will never be satisfied with less and compromise will acomplish nothing to solve the problem. Hopefully the Terry Schiavo fiasco has demonstrated this to people. If it didn't I don't know what it will take.
-
The right has been against the concept of public ownership of land forever
[Read the article: Republicans' wild Western land grab]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As James Watt indicated, the rapture is coming momentarily so why preserve anything when the fastest possible extraction of anything of value can be used the strenghten the influence of conservative religious rural communities and big corporations(which of course don't care about religion but will encourage it to keep the peasants in line). Jesus is coming momentarily to send all who haven't accepted rule by Pat Robertson and James Dobson to hell, so why preserve anything? This is the right wing; religious nuts and and corporate profiteers. I doubt the Senate will let this go through though; the poitical center of the body politic shows signs of stirring from it's 911 induced political coma.