Before I get to the topic, I'd just like to say:

Yes, agore, causing intentional harm to someone's genitals by putting a dangerous (to the tissues involved) substance on something that's made to go there is certainly a fine way to end a relationship. Here's hoping you get the therapy you so obviously need, or failing that, time without parole.

Anyway, on to sane people.

As my username might lead you to believe, I'm male. However, I have two female roommates, both of whom inexplicably love Leykis. I can't figure that one out. Have you ever seen the guy? The notion that this guy is some font of pick-up artistry is just ridiculous. Though if he ever managed to get laid at all prior to getting rich, then I suppose technically he might be on to something.

But all that being said, what Leykis symbolizes to me is just the underhanded deviousness that's such a part of that sort of media. I don't dislike him any more than I dislike the women who write columns or books on how younger women can snare men into marriage as quickly as possible. It's just two sides of the same coin. Actually, in that respect, I suppose that Leykis is preferable, since at least there aren't generally lifelong reprecussions to what he's advocating.

Personally, I'd chalk this one up to OCD, though. I once had another roommate that was OCD, and as you must know by now, logic has nothing to do with those compulsions. That roommate wouldn't eat anything prepared by anyone else at home. Just wouldn't do it. Now, clearly we weren't infecting everything with a cocktail of salmonella and cholera, because we were all doing just fine, but that didn't change the fact that he COULDN'T force himself to do it. Logic was not what was in charge, there. And this may be the same sort of thing. Hell, it could even be that he doesn't really believe it himself, but just doesn't want to admit that this idea got stuck in his head and he CAN'T help it. Either way, I'd agree with what the article said - he'd have to start getting help with it, or there's really no point.

Oh, and about that bit at the end, about the ATM thing . . . I might actually try that one. It's one of those things that you have to acknowledge is underhanded, but it would only work on someone who was, themselves, attempting to be devious. That sort of irony appeals to me. And it's certainly less untruthful than lying or being misleading when asked about one's number of sexual partners, which puts me on the moral high ground in comparison to about 98% of the women around here.

This concept seems to have popped up often enough that I'd like to mention it.

Now, I realize that anything that implies that a man might ever reasonably distrust a woman will get bashed here. That's just a given. He's a misogynist. He has mommy issues. He hates all women, or distrusts all women in every regard, and depending on which letter you read, should have his penis destroyed, or alternatively, never have sex again.

Of course, I can't help but wonder why this logic doesn't work in reverse. Should women who opt for the morning after pill after their boyfriend murmurs, "No, I pulled the condom off after I was out, you just didn't see it. You're good." have their ovaries mutilated? Somehow, I'm guessing not. Call me a cynic.

But . . . re: Lindsay Beyerstein's comment . . .

Maiming?

"to inflict a severe and permanent injury on a person or animal, especially one that renders a limb useless"

We can ignore that last bit, since it does qualify it with 'especially', but even so . . . severe and permanent? Really? OK, so we're going with a little hyperbole here, clearly. This sort of goes with the expected bashing one's going to get in these situations, but oddly I'm sure that any exaggeration that goes counter to the "men who don't willingly and eagerly put their futures in the hands of women are misogynist bastards" line on here would be parsed into oblivion, it's originator mocked endlessly, and that would be fine. However, to come up with a line like this in support of the aforementioned point of view would be perfectly acceptable . . .