"If Paul, the first and most influential theological interpreter of Christ's life, took Genesis "literally", why shouldn't the average Christian do the same?"

Because Paul was mistaken to take Genesis literally.

The two creation stories in Genesis (yes, there are two!) contradict each other if taken literally. But if they are read in the context of being a spiritual/philosophical explanation, not history nor science, there is no contradiction.

"Fembots think women should be able to wear whatever they want, however they want, for as long as they want. They shriek that men cannot look at what they want, whenever they want, however they want.

That is, feminitwits think a gal should be "free" to wear a revealing blouse...but a guy should NOT be able to look at her revelations."

No, a guy should choose not to. At least not overtly.

"Why do men tolerate such crapola?"

Because men aren't in charge.

"Where is the respect for male sexuality?"

Thank you for a great laugh! 'Respect for male'?

"Females go to great lengths to find, buy, and wear "attractive" clothing. Then they protest when men are attracted."

You're missing the most important point:

In many if not most cases, women do not dress to attract, impress, or arouse men. (Of course there are exceptions, but I'm talking about the general case).

In general, women choose "attractive" clothing because:

1) They like how they look in the mirror (to themselves).

2) They like they look to *other women* (or a particular wonan) (not in a sexual way, in a competitive way)

3) They like how they look to men (or a particular man).

3) is far, far behind 1) and 2) almost all the time.

Males need to learn this simple Truth as young as possible. It will save them a lot of grief and frustration.

What makes it difficult for males is that, on the occasions when women are dressing a certain way for reason 3), they will often dress almost the same (if not exactly the same) as if they are dressing for reasons 1) and/or 2).

"The problem is, these days there's nothing that can't be criminalized."

True. It's all about context, and he said/she said.

There's also nothing that can't be sexualized. I never thought of bowler hats as being sexy until I saw Lena Olin in "The Unbearable Lightness of Being".

---

There is also the Candy Factory element.

I don't know if this story is true, but it illustrates a point.

I remember as a candy-loving kid asking how people could work in a candy factory without going mad, being surrounded by so much deliciousness all day.

It was explained to me that candy factories have leftovers and cosmetic rejects. The workers can have as much of that nonsellable candy as they want at break times.

What happens is that most new workers gorge themselves for a week or two, in a frenzy of delight. But soon the novelty of an unlimited supply wears off and they have a piece of candy now and then.

Because they can have as much as they want, almost whenever they want, for almost no effort, they don't crave it the way folks on the outside (the rest of us) do. Secure in the knowledge that their needs and desires for candy will be met, those needs and desires turn out to be rather modest, much less than if the management insisted that the workers never eat any candy in the factory.

The result is that the workers become very selective about what kind of candy they eat, when they eat it, what they have with it, etc.

Meanwhile the rest of us have our noses pressed against the candy store window, waiting for it to open, nervously counting our hard-earned money hoping we have enough for a chocolate bar or a bag of gumdrops. When we do get some, we treat it as a rare delicacy whose pleasure must be treasured and guarded.

I still wonder if the person who told me the story was really talking about candy.

"If childrearing is so fulfilling and just as dull as working, why aren't fathers doing it?"

Because they don't have the option of doing it.

I'm glad it works for your family. But you're the exception that proves the rule.

But in the overwhelming majority of families, dad simply doesn't have the option to stay home with the kids.

The reality of most families is that the decision is made on the basis of what's best for the family as a whole.

It may be that dad's job brings in more money/benefits than mom's, for a wide variety of reasons. So the family can better tolerate the loss of mom's income than dad's.

Another reason is that mom may not want dad to stay home, particularly when the kids are little, for a whole bunch of reasons ranging from she feels it's her role to she feels he's not qualified. Dad may feel the same way, too.

How many wives would accept the idea of their husband insisting that they (the wives) go back to work full time and support the family so that dad can stay home with the kids?

How many wives would even consider the idea even if dad didn't insist?

Nowhere in the article is the option of dad staying home mentioned.

--

The reality for many if not most American families today is that both parents have to work. The choice of either one staying home full time just isn't there.

In some cases it's money/benefits. In others it's the need to keep one's career alive. In many fields such as IT and health care, being out of the workforce for a few years will make you unqualified to work in your field because so much has changed while you were gone.