you and I can both see that there indeed does begin to seem like a justifiable reason as to why women in the past took their sweet time getting to know a guy.

Even the most playerly man eventually betrays himself. It is women's prerogative, when they do use this method, to play with the man to get him comfortable enough to have him let down his guard and be himself. Good men cannot fail at this, they shine eventually, but the bad ones inevitably scram or expose themselves.

Sure it takes time and effort on women's parts. And frankly women today make that calculation in their heads: "Tonight I could have sweet sex with a guy who will forget about me tomorrow, or else I can spend lots of quality time with a so-so guy, get to know him and possibly turn it into something more". Over time, the one night stands take their toll, the girl becomes used to the lovelessness and harsh towards all men (she herself only having bothered to indulge the very men she tried to avoid at one time).

You want EASY? There is no easy.

Really, what do you women need from us men anyway? You have our sperm, our bankrolls (thru the sperm cooptation) and our attention when you need it. Do you really require a stinky man in your bed every night for the next 20 plus years? I think a lot of women have betrayed THEIR OWN lack of love for men in this manner and concluded that they prefer some combo of serial dating, one night stands, and being alone to being with one same person for decades, as loverly as he may be at first.

Men largely still do not have an equivalent option, which renders us second class citizens (but that is MY pet issue, not necessarily germane to THIS discussion we are having).

The alleged "chaos" of modern dating has benefited the men-children quite nicely. It's actually the more grown-up men who have gotten screwed, and they're the ones who were writing to her.

You are completely correct.

This is a downward, self-feeding spiral. As more men learn the player tricks in order to get on the gravy train, women become ever more cynical towards ALL men.

There, apparently, WAS a reason ancient societies felt that if the women had the chance to do as they please, the SOCIETY is LOST.

It is proving out as we speak.

This is the gigantic elephant in the living room that so many feminists-that so many women even who are not feminists- want to ignore (it's interesting that gay liberation has resulted in the puncturing of this illusion which is so essential to aspirations of feminist supremacy). The truth is that biologically men are HORNIER and MORE WILLING TO HAVE SEX UNDER MORE DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES than women. Women's point of view is no less hormonally based and no MORE "true", "right","evolved", etc. than men's. Until women are willing to understand this there can never be real equality or even good faith efforts to work towards it (whatever it is).

.. here is exactly what I always say- as Tracy says, it's about biology and spreading the seed and just guys getting their rocks off and feeling entitled to just that.

With no room for or thought about actual humanity.

Violent anger is also a biological instinct, but we have it socialized out of us (generally). It's only male soul-less, solely physical sexual agression and conquest that we've sanctioned.

My friend Drew said it best. I said to him: "Drew, why do guys suck?"

He responded: "Because we can't suck ourselves".

Some guys are angry because dating isn't easy if you're a nice person, and it seems so much easier if you're an ass.

They think "If I act like an ass maybe I can control how women respond."

The reality is naturally that you can control some women, but not all women. Most people think the women you can briefly control with this technique aren't worth having. Women who are the type of person these guys were originally looking for are offended. Some people suggest that if dating was easy, the cosmetic industry wouldn't be in business.

The cosmetic industry is also about control, about how "perhaps if I make myself look like this, I can control how things happen to me." The book is also about control - about trying to make women angry about guys being asses and change how they behave, maybe regress back to the days of yore when a guy didn't have to be an ass to control women.

The reality is that no one has any idea where they stand with anyone these days - men don't, and neither do women. Its easy enough to get either sex into bed, but what is the other person really looking for? No one knows!

Women don't generally respond to this problem by becoming bitches, and I think its a misrepresentation of guys to suggest that guys become assholes. Maybe some do, but I think the rest of us learn to be patient and genuine and that having to be someone you're not to be with someone isn't worth the effort involved.

So I'm not particularly worried about this particular dumbass.

Maybe feminists should not have painted men as inhuman in the first place.

now SLEEP in the beds you women made.

I'm not really violent, but if I hear one more person accuse women of having "power" by "granting access to sex" I might punch them in the face. It's disgusting. Gross, insecure men like you decided that sex is something to attain by conquering the foe, the woman, and then blame the woman for their own sickness and delusions.

It's like anti-semites accusing jews of controling the world.

You make me sick, and I feel bad for any chick desperate enough to sleep with any guy so inhumanly gross (not that there aren't a ton like you)!

do guys only listen to other GUYS about girls???

If you're just trying to "get" girls and "get to screw" girls, then most girls will think you're vile anyway.

If you're also just listening to gross men who have been "successful" by sticking to tramps and hos, you're just making a fool of yourself.

Talk to a real woman (not just an oversexed, insecure tramp bending to male commoditizations of sex) and realize how wrong y'all are!