@ Svutlov

I have to agree with bigguns, it's awfully hard to test your thesis that women in power would be a lot kindler and gentler than men in power. Speaking as one of the many teenage girls picked on in high school, it was always the other girls that were the cruelest, even without boys there to complicate the picture. The difference I've found from my experience is that girls are much subtler. The guy will come straight out and say "Thunder thighs"... a girl will compliment my jeans by proclaiming that she didn't know "oversized jeans could look so nice!"

@ClearBlue

Honestly, I find your assertion that you cannot have good sex with a longterm partner both interesting and troubling. First, you say right off the bat that longterm partners try to "control" you. Yet, aren't YOU controlling THEM by insisting that you come first? Don't get me wrong, I think a sex partner should be GGG, but your post makes it seem like a race, instead of a mutual enjoyment. And if you can communicate so thoroughly with a one-night stand, why such trouble and depleting sex with long term partners? This suggests, to me, that the problem is communication and trust. You obviously don't trust your one-night stands (so much so you demand you go first for fear they won't hold up their end of the bargain once they've had their fill) but from the sounds of your letter you don't trust your long-term boyfriends enough to be vulnerable and push the limits.

I think one of the biggest problems with the hookup culture is that it's implying that great sex isn't hard work. Great sex is build upon mutual attention, communication, and trust (letting a near stranger into your home, into your bed, into your body.) All these things take hard work to attain; one-night stands give the impression of these things without actually building them. So if you walk into a relationship with the assumption that great sex just "happens" like it does in a one-night stand superficial relationship, of course you'll be disappointed.

the problem is that women are attracted to fewer people and their attraction is more easily interfered with, so in any given situation it is just much less likely that the woman is going to be on the verge of blowing when they get around to having sex. It does happen though.

quite possibly they would have if they have lived in a society where females had the political power. Obviously large technological societies mostly have had men in charge (although there have been more exceptions than most people realize such as 18th century Russia) so it is impossible to test but we do have evidence from primitive human societies and closely related primates that females and males both participate in "genocidal" behavior or it's precursors. Which makes sense; females as well as males can have an interest in wiping out the competition for resources from those who are less likely to be of help to them.

Also Thatcher didn't start the Falklands wars. A fellow named General Leopoldo Galtieri did.

I agree. I change "started" with "carried out". I am amazed that a woman doesn't even try to solve the situation with dialogue. She only took some days to send the naval task force. Such a nurturing position. Women "get rid of" wars, as you said.

You want a woman of power who bathed in blood? There's the Countess Bathory who bathed in the blood of more than 600, young, female virgins.

There will be more if we search a little. Men have not the monopoly of evilness and crime, as history proves over and over again.

What gender was Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Franco, Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mugabe, Idi Amin, Somoza, Milosevic, and Ratko Mladić?

This argument is a fallacy and I am going to prove that.

There is a difference between my list and your list.

• Your list of Hitler, Stalin and so on gathers the greatest criminals in history. This is 1% of male head of state in XX century (think about all the male head of state in all the nations, of all the five continents, in all the years of XX century).
• My list contains the 100% of female head of state (except queens) in XX and XXI century.

If you cherry pick the greatest male criminals of history, of course you have a bloody list. I could have told you that Jesus, Budha, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King were also men. This does not prove that men are more peaceful than women, the same way that your list does not prove that men are more criminals than women. If you cherry-pick you can prove anything.

I haven't cherry picked anything. My list is complete (they maybe some other women who are head of state and I don't know but there were very few more. Now I am reminding of Cory Aquino and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, I will try to check their positions about military issues).

There is no evidence that women are more peaceful than men when they are in positions of power, like my list proves. The history proves otherwise. Period.

Your position is wishful thinking. You can say that women "will get rid of wars" when they are in charge. You can say that we will inmortal when women rule, if you want. You can say any BS that you want. But you have no evidence.

You delude yourself thinking that you are superior to men. You are the same than the male chauvinists that thought they were superior to women, than the racists that thought they were superior to black people (by the way, was not feminism about EKWALEETEE?). You can use any wrong argument you want to try to delude yourself with a false sense of superiority. But without evidence, you can say that pigs fly.

I will give you a few samples, which is something I rarely do, as I much prefer to write about sex, but these samples probably won't get banned, unlike my comments that contained graphic sex did.

In Africa I met a young man who at the age of 12 had been forced into the service of a rogue warlord, and then was forced to eat his own parents. In a South East Asian nation I met a jolly sex slave trafficker that liked to deal in girls as young as six.

Kind of makes your stern Lesbians seem almost benevolent, don't you think?