brightstar65, I am convinced you would blame the recent 8.0 earthquake on "feminism." You seem to have an incredibly low opinion of men - apparently, if women don't give them what they need, they simply "can't help themselves" and start fondling little girls. And you think that's the women's fault.

Many men are not as naturally adept as women at figuring out their needs and going for them-- an admitted failure of many men. Only a small fraction of admittedly 'sick' men would go touch innocent young kids.

Despite your fantasies, no adult person (male or female) is OWED physical contact by any other person.

I agree. But women do not have the built in problem men do in this regard, (so of course it does not exist if women do not have it-- they are incapable of empathizing with men, which I understand).

Nor is it true, by the way, that every woman in the world can get the physcial contact she desires just by being willing to have sex. Many women don't desire to have just any kind of physical contact with just any person; they want affectionate physical contact with someone they trust. (This is true of many men as well, although it seems like you would settle for anything.) This is not something they can get by just "spreading their legs."

I would not settle, I pass up the relatively few (but often enough) opportunities with women who express some interest in me because I have no sexual interest in them. In that way, I am actually discerning.

Choice in touch is great. Many men NEVER get touched. You think I am making this up? It is documented. Read up on it.

The solution for men who can't get physical contact is to get over their hangups, seek out one another, and cuddle together. (Sexual activity optional.)

Men's groups often do engage in exactly this non-sexual physical bonding, and they are usually harshly criticized by feminists and other women anyway.

Because if you think that women owe you physical contact just because you "need" it, it's no wonder you're not getting any.

Again, women owe men nothing (be it so simple to say women's expectations were the same, but they are not-- many women DO expect something from guys). Many men cannot negotiate or lack the skills to get what they want or need from women. Often you will read in the literature that many men who SHOULD otherwise be able to get women (because they are attractive or whatever) cannot because they lack the skills to engage women. What hope then is there for a not so good looking schlub who is also a socially incoherent nerd?

Men rely on women way too much, on this I agree. Really, it is in the best interest of men to begin to disengage themselves emotionally from women since women seem incapable of even the simplest glimmerings of empathy for the other gender. On this we agree.

If women can live without men, I do not see why men should not engage women on the same terms with even greater zeal.

I don't need to do that. Your ridiculous "point" was that women will have sex with anything that moves in order to get physical contact

I never implied that. Everyone has standards.

But, since you think you're so smart, riddle me this: Why don't you know the rhetorical difference between implying, as you did, "ALL women do this", as opposed to, "ANY woman COULD do this"?

Any woman is capable of getting loving from a range of men around them. They choose the best they can get or they live without. But the vast majority do not have to live without.

'Could' and 'do' are not the same, that is obvious. As I said, many women nurture extremely high standards of what they want in their ideal lover. Often women settle for less than that when they just need a man. Also, for women, just KNOWING that they could have sex if they really wanted it with some guy (then not going through with it) is a big esteem boost. Many men are absolutely certain they have zero options in this regard, which further erodes their esteem and sometimes even leads to desperate actions on their part. This joker on this pedophle website just took it one step further, turing it into a macabre cause celebre.

And if it's true that any woman could get her needs for physical contact met by "spreading her legs" for the next man who came along (and, eww, no, most of us don't, won't, and even CAN'T, but since you know women so much better than those of us who ARE women, naturally you must be right and we're all just whores),

If you are getting paid for your time, then yes.

well, as another poster pointed out, it seems to me that the men need to improve their standards. If y'all are so horny all the time that you'll screw someone who's unattractive just to get screwed, that's hardly our fault.

I talked about touch, not sex. But both genders rely on sexual relations to get their touch requirements met. This is not just a guy thing.

Your own argument has an obvious flaw - if women will spread their legs for the next clown who comes along, then why aren't all the clowns getting laid and satisfying their needs for physical contact?

By clowns, I mean ready and willing guys who turn the women on and who know how to ASK for it or get it. Women do not go for unsure, unconfident types, who are unable to negotiate with women, these men far outnumber the confident players. There are many of these clowns out there who have lots and lots of sex with lots and lots of women. This is by no means a one-to-one relationship between all men and all women, as you imply.

Which leads me to question your ability to reason.