Gotta love Senator Zell Miller, you tagged Dowd perfectly--not to mention challenging Chris Mathews to a duel.

Ross is exactly right. There is NO reason for a man to marry a woman--under US divorce law--unless it is to have children.

Hence, when it comes to marriage, women have an expiration date.

Perfectly logical. This doesn't mean that an older woman couldn't be attractive or fun or a good date, but why on earth would a guy MARRY her and play financial Russian Roulette with three chambers filled?

What's interesting to me is that both Ross and Dowd are kind of saying the same thing. Dowd's book could easily have been titled "Are Men and Women Who Are Not Interested in Having Children Necessary to Each Other, Even If They're Heterosexual?" And both Ross and Dowd answer, "No." Both Ross and Dowd describe idealized scenarios in which their emotional and intellectual needs are met by groups of friends of their own gender. I've read more of Ross's stuff than Dowd's (because Ross's stuff is, well, posted for free on his site) but he describes the ideal woman as basically Cooter from The Dukes of Hazzard fit inside the body of a young Pamela Anderson. He goes on to say that he cannot find a woman who is interested in what's he's interested in, so he fulfills his conversational needs with other guys. Sounds to me like Dowd does the same thing with her group of female friends.

The thing to remember is that Ross and Dowd are both, well, older folks. Not ancient, but several generations removed from the current world. Ross is insulated in his Midwestern gun culture world, and Dowd is insulted in her rarefied New York glittery world. I don't think either have any experience with any other world, and neither of their experiences bear much resemblance to that of anyone more than 10 years their junior, much less the experience of twentysomethings. Modern young people in the US would look on both as something of a dinosaur, with varying degrees of amusement and sympathy.

I think they'd each be better off with a much younger person, while Dowd would probably have more luck finding a young, smart, sexy guy in NYC to date than Ross would have finding a young, hot girl to date, because both the young guy and the young girl would need some compelling reason to be attracted to someone much older, and Dowd's fame and money and ability to introduce someone into their circle would be a compelling reason. Ross seems to have some notoriety among gun enthusiasts, but only the aforementioned Cooter-dressed-as-Pam would find that more important than youth and sexiness that matched their own. Even a younger guy who wants to have kids someday feels like he has plenty of time, so can freely date older women well into his 30s. A young woman who wants to have kids does feel like she has less time, and while men can keep producing sperm until they die, the presence of sperm and the popping of Viagra doesn't erase old man smell or make gray pubic hair more appealing. For a certain strain of young woman, the presence of a large bank account does make those things tolerable, but Ross's complaints about money grubbing women on his site suggest that he couldn't compete on that field. Donald Trump doesn't give a single shit that Melania or any of the rest of them wanted his money, or that they spend it freely. He understands the game, and he can play it well. Ross can't play that game, but it angers him that the women he finds attractive can, and only want someone who is also a player.

To sum up: Dowd and Ross, similar dinosaurs, with no idea how young people couple and uncouple and recouple these days.

...but he has yet to refute anything John Ross has said. The shaming language he uses, red-herrings, attempts to discredit the messenger instead of the message, and mere dismissals have KStone showing the characteristics of a full-fledged MANGINA. A P.A.M. no better than many of the females on here using the same tactics who are out of touch with reality. People hate hearing the truth sometimes.

Why was my letter deleted? Aside from my list of uncomfortable truths about modern women, there was nothing even remotely offensive about it. If this is to be a robust forum the only letters that should be deleted are those that are completely off-topic, threatening, disclose another letter writer's personal information or are gratuitously scatological. Otherwise, all letters should stay.

And thanks, KStone, for preserving a part of my letter. That was kind.

John, I'm not going to go over this again. Wait - is that wild applause I hear from the rest of the letters section? Anyway, I'm not angry at all. I don't have any reason to be, but, it is plainly obvious that you're bitter.

"KSTONE, I don't consider pointing out risks to other men to be "whining." And I am skeptical of your implication that you are male."

You might not consider it whining but it is. You're not pointing out so-called "risks". Your "risks" are actually complaints based on extreme outcomes not the norm. Again, you're making very suspect assertions about marriage in general and projecting your well-mannered bitter reasoning and faux victimization onto other men. Do some guys unfairly get hosed? Sure. So do some women. The deck is not stacked against men. Why are you skeptical that I'm male? Because no male could possibly disagree with your assertions? Right... Well, you can believe what you like, but unless I have a sex change operation, your skepticism is misplaced.

"Btw, I'm thinking of starting a drinking game. Everytime you use the phrase "cash out", it's time for a tequila shot!"

Can't help myself, too many divorced men have told me the phrase is the most accurate they've heard... ;-)

"Or, the marriage rate has gone down since year whatever. So, your "logic" dictates that this is due to men not wanting to marry. Just like that. No fuss, no muss. As evidence for your statement, you provide a survey which purports to show that a whopping 22% of men say they will never marry. Of course this means that non-marriage minded men, who, using your logic, I suppose are trying to avoid cashing out vixens, are primarily responsible for the drop in the marriage rate? What else could it be!? This is really amateur hour stuff at this point."

Okay, how about I put it more simply: The divorce laws in the past 20-25 years have made it MUCH easier for a woman to strip a man of his family, and get money from him in the process. No-fault divorce means she doesn't need a more compelling reason than "I'm not interested in him any more." True, a man can divorce for the same reason BUT he won't get the kids, child support, and alimony from his ex-wife. For every man I've met that divorced his wife so he could marry his secretary or some other younger woman, I've known over a dozen men whose wives filed for divorce so they could keep the kids and the financial support, but get rid of the husband they were tired of. So I would say that it's a logical conclusion that the declining marriage rate is due to fewer men asking "Will you marry me?" rather than more women answering "No."

"First you counsel that men should only marry women who they think can produce intelligent and healthy kids. ...it's not as big of a howler as your subsequent advice. Namely, that if men don't want any/more kids then it's okay to date, but not marry a women older or their age, but, (here's the fun part) they must be wealthy and (wait there's more) they must be willing to share their dough with you. The arrogance implict in that advice is remarkable. As if those women should be grateful for such dubious attention."

The point of giving this "advice" about wealthy women was in the interests of thoroughness. I never said that rich women would be eager to share their wealth with any man who proposes. Indeed, maybe almost none of them would want to share it with ANY man. I'm only saying that if a rich woman too old for kids falls in love with you, marriage would probably not carry the normal massive financial risks that a union with a low net worth woman would. And keep in mind that the risk for the wealthy woman is low. If she gets tired of her husband, she can divorce him for a few thousand in legal fees and in almost all cases not pay him a dime in alimony. The only cost is the stuff she bought for him while she still loved him.

I still don't understand your hostility towards my position that there is no benefit to marrying a woman too old to have kids. The marriage contract has become a contract in which only one party (the husband) is bound. The wife can elect to break the contract at any time and cash out (drink your tequila shot) and the husband will have to pay, unless the wife is wealthy. If the husband wants out, he'll also have to pay, unless the wife is wealthy.

If the woman you love is too old for children, why not just live with her? By all means, buy her things if it makes you happy, shower her with affection, pamper her, leave her everything in your will, do whatever you want for her while she still loves you, but don't put yourself in a situation where if she falls out of love with you, you'll have to pay her for the priviledge of having her dump you.

"In other words, for Gawd's sake stop whining and going on about "The Good Old Days". You're making us guys look bad."

KSTONE, I don't consider pointing out risks to other men to be "whining." And I am skeptical of your implication that you are male.