(it could mean a lot of different things) what I said was it is literally not the case that women are as unwilling to live without men as men are to live without women, for the reasons that I explained. It's probably true in general but especially with this subject people read into what is said their own preexisting expectations and judgements on the topic.

my only claim is that there are different approaches for a reason(s) and it won't produce desireable results for anyone, even women probably, over the long run, if the discssuion of those differences is constrained in the pursuit of a political and social agenda, which it invariably is, whether fully conscious in every case or not.

In case you were thinking that it is only male instinctive responses that are capable of producing perverse real world results. I don't believe that for most men what a woman says makes no difference, what I do think, what I said, and what is clearly true as anyone capable of a direct observation of reality will admit, is that an attractive woman has to work a lot harder to get men to stop finding her attractive due to what she says than a man has to work to make himself unnattractive to women based on what he says.

Frankly, I believe that the biggest differences between men and women in matters of this type are culturally conditioned. And guess what, buddy? MEN created, and have dominated, the culture we live in. So if you're unhappy with the current situation, take it up with your white male forefathers. The rest of us are just starting to take back the rights we deserve that they kept from us for so long. And if you don't like it, that's tough. If you don't like living in a world where everyone has the same rights and power (a world we aren't even close to living in yet, by the way), I see that as emphatically your problem.

but in any case discussion can sometimes be illuminating of the true situation even if nothing is resolved.

You said: "there was a study which showed that a man had to be MORE attractive for a woman to be willing to have a one night stand with him than he had to be for her to MARRY him!"

All this tells me is that women look beyond the outer package when deciding to marry a man. Kudos to us! Since a one night stand is about a physical encounter that lasts, uh, one night, of course it should be about physical attraction. A marriage is about way more than that (for most of us humans, anyway).

And: "I don't believe that for most men what a woman says makes no difference, what I do think, what I said, and what is clearly true as anyone capable of a direct observation of reality will admit, is that an attractive woman has to work a lot harder to get men to stop finding her attractive due to what she says than a man has to work to make himself unnattractive to women based on what he says."

All this tells me is that men like that have lower standards than the women you're talking about, and are willing to keep someone around who looks good even if they don't particularly like her as a person. And this is a positive attribute of men? I don't think so. Again, kudos to us for not keeping around a hot guy who's a dick. Maybe you and every other guy who behaves this way needs to acquire some self-restraint and some standards. Don't blame it on us if you have no standards!

if a man is willing to give up all future sexual opportunities (which is the primary "cost" of marriage to a man) it isn't going to make him, and maybe his ultimately his wife, a happy camper if he figures out that after giving up all future sexual opportunities it turns out she wan't even attracted enough to him to sleep with him ONE TIME based on chemistry alone.

seriously good looks can provoke a real emotional response. This is the kind of thing I am talking about. By the way if someone looks "really good" there is probably something beyond bone structure contributing to the overall response to their "looks".

First of all, I didn't quite read through all of the responses so I apologize if I fail to take into account any important points made in the last ten pages.

- I don't really know how LW's boyfriend has treated her during the past six months. A lot of you seem to feel you have an extremely good idea of how he has behaved. I'm not sure why. THE NIGHT SHE TOLD HIM about the threesome he "cried and felt sick." "He became [past tense so I am assuming this is still referring to the night in question, though it's possible it has continued ever since]so angry with me that he began [again past tense] to pick at me, and it seems like everything I do [present tense so apparently this is ongoing] is wrong." The only thing that is clearly still occuring six months after the fact is "we hardly have sex anymore." Based on this brief account from LW, most everyone has concluded that her BF has been constantly absuing her for six straight months by being cold to her, screaming at her, withholding sex, etc. when there is scant support for this in LW's letter. If this is the case, obviously no one should ever put up with that, the guy is evil, and any issues about her sexual past are secondary at best. Maybe it's just because he went to seven individual counseling sessions and then group counseling sessions with LW but I'm not necessarily convinced this is that case and find myself wondering if the guy is being demonized just because he's afflicted with some unfortunate hangups.

- I'd like to second what some others have said that it is absurd and unfair to compare LW's boyfriend to all men and then talk about a sexual double standard between men and women. If the guy has had a lot of casual sex himself than he's a hypocritical prick. However, from LW's comments I don't get the feeling that this is the case.

- There's an important distinction between values and morals. A lot of people approve of acts and lifestyles even though they would never choose to engage in those acts themselves. There's a major difference between believing that casual sex is wrong and having personal values that sex should be about love and intimacy.

- Having sex is a choice. Even if you're feeling hard up (no pun intended) you can always jerk off, it just requires self discipline. Also, sex is mostly harmless but it's not entirely harmless. If you have casual sex there's the risk that you'll get an STD (admittedly close to non-existant if you use protection), the risk the other person might get the wrong idea, or the risk you'll end up getting hurt yourself. If you're aware of the risks and choose to have some casual sex then all the more power to you. I think it's a huge oversimplification though to act as though someone who has reservations about casual sex is trying to deny people the right to breathe and repress women.