That's why it seems like there are many more of them than there are.

I'm 47 and I've known four people in my life who had partners too many to count. One was a woman. All of my other friends and acquaintances, male and female, have been very selective and very emotionally involved with their partners.

What's surprising to me about this study is that the results were such a surprise to researchers. But I guess it just goes to show how even scientists can be taken in by society's myths.

Didn't we all work out our homonym issues back in eighth grade?

All men suck. They're just defective women. I'm sure I've had that message banged into my head 7 million times.

Hey! Poached salmon! I love poached salmon!

It's spelled "reigns" but it's pronounced "vagina."

So ironic to read this here where Rebecca Traister writes regularly. Her writing frequently and unabashedly promotes the stereotype of men as lacking in emotion and not having the same capacity for complex thought as women.

Reading Traister always make me more grateful for my Mom. She's never believed that men are inherently lesser than women in terms of emotional capacity. I didn't have to grow up ashamed of being male, didn't rebel against it by treating women like dirt and never gave much thought to the stupid, stupid battle of the sexes dialogue. Only as an adult did I realize how many people really buy into the idea that one of the sexes is more highly evolved than the other. I suppose that's plenty evidence there's little difference -- men and women both seem to believe the sort of stereotypes this study debunks.

Notice that the TIME magazine article referenced was written by a man, sorry, I mean "potential rapist?" Mmmmmmm-HM! It's so obvious that he wrote it to convince some female co-worker that he's sensitive so he can lower her defenses enough to rape her. The "scientists" that conducted this "study" were probably all men too. The fact that strong, hyphenated womyn like Clark-Flory fell for it sadly means that his ploy probably worked.

The obvious irony of the subject header "Shocker: Boys not heartless beasts!" appearing in Broadsheet aside...

What we're talking about here is control, ladies and gentlemen. Relationships at the core are about control. I can only speak from personal experience but there are two kinds of people: selfish and non-selfish. What a player expects is that their partner take complete responsibility for their own actions. Don't want to be loved and left? What did you expect? Most of us associate happiness with the beginning of a relationship and sadness with the end of a relationship. Most of us see sex as part of a relationship in the first place. It's not that attached for players. News flash, right?

The deal with adolescent love and the girls holding the reins is that there's tons of competition at that stage. It's when we get older (I'm 28) that the choices start becoming more scarce as people find their own homes and have their own, less social, lives and men seem to take the upper hand. I wasn't exactly a Don Juan back in high school but I do remember more than one of us guys getting sappy about being able to give whatever girl they were doting on at the time "the entire world". As if. Now, our perspective is informed with 10 or more years of relationship experience. Turns out life is not like a music video. Turns out life is not like Desperate Housewives. Turns out that it's about much more mundane stuff.

At its core is control. Control is applied using whatever natural leverage that exists (like scarcity or the lack thereof in high school) and whatever can be applied through shear will. Just because I'm using the word control, don't hear the word "dysfunctional". Anybody who has been in a relationship realizes that they're not exactly a meeting of equals. In a healthy relationship there is a delicate balance of control. In bad or abusive relationships it looks a lot more like one person having to submit to the whims of the other.

When we're all new at this relationship thing and trying to figure out our own way in the face of parents, religion, and ignorance about what is appropriate in relationships it can be expected that men - because we're needy (for status, for those early sexual experiences, etc.) - don't have the upper hand.

Of course, if you ruled the school, I'm not talking about you. You're different. But for the rest of us guys, the deck feels stacked against us until we get a little age on us.

Notice that a part of being a player is the idea of conquest. Conquest is about control. It doesn't require submission - their partner can be a player too - but it resists the very reins that are established with the thought of having a relationship.

How did I know that the bulk of the responses to this (especially the early ones) would be from our anti-feminist friends. Here they are with the same old boring comments about how women are horrible and men are victimized by them. *yawn*

The interesting part is that we now have proof that no matter what the topic, whether "friendly" or "unfriendly" to males, they have nothing to offer but bitterness and cynicism.

What sad lives they must lead.

So true! It's hilarious that most of the responses here to this positive peice about men are from the same whiny little dudes who are in here seven days of the week throwing tantrums and stamping their feet. Did they even read this? I so don't get why these little men sit around flaming Broadsheet all day and grinding their axes against women and then wonder why they aren't getting laid or having satisfying relationships. What sad little clowns!

I remember high school all too well. Who were the ones doing the breaking up? The girls. I never broke up with someone on my own until late college. Of course, boys are puppies under thrall. The girls have the power at that age, and they know how to use it. This isn't a bag thing, but it's the truth.