Probably a case of different strokes for different folks. It may be a bit like going to the same barber for a haircut 100 times, if it is just a comfortable ritual. He may get to like her and enjoy her company even if the sex is not the only thing. He can also talk to her about all kinds of personal revelations and sexual topics that maybe he can't discuss elsewhere, so it may be therapeutic and relaxing to have this secret, alternate life.

Men get ripped on for their sexuality, but we all know women 'get off' by being coddled by massage therapists, some of whom gain a reputation for providing FULL RELEASE to women.

So, once again, women are proven out to be liars intent on constantly thwarting men's sexual needs, while the women themselves enjoy the same things they upbraid men for.

such feminism this is.

meet ass.

In other words, a group of which I'm a part can be utterly vilified and that's okay. But let me go verbally aggressive, and that's condescending.

In short, women can be trashed, but the Kzin had better be polite.

Right. For DECADES women could criticize relentlessly the men around them without anyone being able to stop the women, but God Forbid a man ever said anything less than flattering, he would be labeled woman hating.

Maybe it is the comeuppance we men finally need, a full 180 degree turnaround, where women cannot criticize men, but men can criticize women.

I cannot take anyone seriously that would call me or anyone a "troll" merely because I state my honest opinion. That is just tired chicanery on women's parts to try to rip into men who freely speak their minds. It makes you women DINOSAURS.

"Marriages were arranged based on status and wealth. Jane Austen wrote like 50 zillion books about it, and my ex-gf made me watch all the movies."

Jane Austen also sharply skewered husband-hunting women and heiress-grabbing men in her (many less than 50 zillion) books. Some of her heroines "married up" (eliza Bennett in "P&P", title characters in "Emma"), but only when there was mutual affection as well. And other heroines married "poorly" (particularly Elinor Dashwood in "Sense and Sensibility"), but happily. Most women who married solely for money/status (Lucy Steele in same; Maria Bertram in "Mansfield Park"; Lydia Bennett in "Pride and Prejudice"; Willoughby in "Sense", and on and on) suffered.

First, it's "you're", not "your" in this context. People who set themselves up as the arbiter of what should be set themselves up for grammar flames.

You are not the one to decide who or what I am or any woman is.

You are CERTAINLY not the one to say "well, you've got a doctorate so you're some sort of intermediate thing provided I like how you behave."

Don't you realize what you're doing? How much Kool-Aid did they make you drink?

If men were to get their comeuppance, they wouldn't like the results. What you really mean is that you'd like women, especially feminists, to get -their- comeuppance, or what you fantasize they deserve.

Nagging isn't going to do it.

A male nag. Fancy that.

Actually, I don't.

Look, let's be blunt about it. The only reason prostitution is illegal is that "it threatens the institution of marriage." What this really means is that it threatens the value of marriage and divorce.

Adding it all up ... she's costing him 20 k$/year or so. You're free to guess what that guy is making who can afford her at that price ... but if he married her (or if she could do the California Palimony gig) work out what his liability would be ... he'd still be spending the 20 k$/year ... but when she divorced him ... which she can do buy filing a piece of paper, no fault, then

* he'd owe her half his acrued assets from the period, and

* have his pension, and

* if she has a sharp lawyer she can probably keep the house etc ... and thats before she has a baby by him. Have a baby and then she's off to the races.

The only reason this is "immoral" is that the "women's union" sees it as scab labor.

If men were to get their comeuppance, they wouldn't like the results.

I need fresh ammunition to prove how much you women really do hate us men.

I get the sense, knowing how women think, that much of what women would place on that list would be not the result of anything men did to women or did not do for women but of what women REFUSED TO DO for themselves, preferring to try to blame men or force men to do something nobody is obligated to do.

Which is likely why women are too gun shy to bother trying to formulate this list of potential comeuppances in the first place, knowing it would be an embarrassment that would expose women and their true feelings for men more than anything.

Women seem to tend to gravitate toward "power". In ancient cultures, power was expressed in more blunt terms-- the ability to defend the clan, kill bears, build civic improvements, command others. The biggest buck generally got the bestest broad. Who chose whom is a toss-up. Maybe they chose each other-- maybe it just works out that way, I dunno.

Today the circumstances have changed a bit and the tokens of power have morphed and abstracted to fit the modern culture. Thus a man-- or increasingly a woman-- who has money has power, at least latently. Accordingly, money may be substituted for power in the feminine equation used to size up a mate. Traditionally one consideration was an assessment of how well the suitor could provide actual resources which could assist in her nesting. In the present, money is able to substituted and can be assessed for its abstract latent potential.

I find it intriguing that with the women's movement has also come an abstraction of the woman's mate-- i.e. from a live "he-man" to an abstract version in the guise of the various laws that have been passed to enable a woman to operate in a nearly self-contained manner using the various assemblage of laws as her abstracted "husband".

In past times, if the woman needed assistance she would turn to her male kinfolk to "defend her honor". In modern times a woman is more likely to turn to the "government" as her champion.

As more laws have passed and more of the construct has become viable, males have found it increasingly difficult to challenge or prevail (particularly legally) against the female's abstracted husband.

Personally I think a lot of the male's issue stems from a reluctance or inability to organize and develop a unified voice to push male issues in a manner similar to the woman's movement. But there may also be complicity on the part of the male with the feminine agenda either wittingly or otherwise, or often in in the guise of "caring/loving her" and wanting to support her concerns. (Which I am not suggesting is a bad thing, only that it would be nice if the sentiment were returned more by the distaff half.)

As a result of the abstraction of the male roles in modern society, men have been left scratching their heads and wondering what to do, how to act, how to behave, and trying to figure out what the message is. Some men are more perceptive and "get it" (have "gotten it") already, while others may perceive parts of it to varying degrees, while others are still completely clueless to the ramifications and reordering of the male and female roles in society.

Women, for their part do not seem to be overly charitable in their treatment and assistance to the men in understanding and adapting to new roles in society. They seem to instead be revelling in their newfound ability to be assholes and doing their best to simply reverse the roles. Supposedly feminism was supposed to be about the "lifting up" and "enlightenment" of all genders, but instead the reality seems to be a bit more one-sided to me. The reality of a truly egalitarian society still seems far off to me.

But overall society is changing for good or for ill. The ideas and basic premises surrounding the most fundamental concepts of gender and gender roles are being challenged and examined. What constitutes "male-ness" and "female-ness", as well as the various combinations of "male in female body" et al. I suspect it will continue to evolve and differentiate into even more "genders" as the ability to physically and meaningfully blur the roles technologically continues. Currently men are in the spotlight. But what will it do to the female psyche when technology is able to supplant the female womb and women are rendered obsolete in the reproductive process?

For one thing it WILL put men and women on equal reproductive terms-- and even more so if technology is able to create divisible cells from ANY combination of two individuals. Whatever the form, Men will contribute their portion, women theirs and then the whole conception and gestation process can take place in a nice sterile laboratory.

Men and Women might BOTH be freed from their reproductive shackles. Both parents will have the ability to control the pregnancy, the law will evolve to recognize both parents biological heritage and right to continue (or not continue) a pregnancy. Women will have to deal with traditionally male issues like child-support-- particularly having to support a child they didn't really want, if the man wants the pregnancy to continue. Etc-- the legal ramifications are endless. And of course the whole notion of surrogacy is carried to a brand-new level.

Is such a reproductive union souless? Do men and women lose the innate "beauty" of coming together to conceive a child? Will people be any less (or more) valued if they are manufactured instead of born?

Its interesting that most of the mainstream "feminist" rhetoric is hung-up over issues of "power". To me that is very deeply telling and indicative of the true goals and motivations of women. Whereas male issues tend to center more around sex and the access to female sexual organs-- whether for recreation or otherwise. And I find it equally interesting to observe that-- at least historically-- each has the commodity the other covets. So various convenient arrangements have been possible between men and women throughout time. But in this modern society, women are more able to meet their own needs, have their own resources, weild their own power, and be protected by their abstract legal husband constructs-- whereas men are still sort of stuck in the stone age when it comes to access to pussy.

And that I think is the rub.

We are witnessing the ascendancy of the woman-- and are uncertain as to the role of man in modern and future society.