i never actually said i had a problem getting laid, I suppose it's implicit that I think I have to work harder than women for it, or maybe(more of a stretch) "too hard" but that applies to most men, even the successful ones.

"The reason men do focus on it is because they can't take it for granted."

Why not?

women have more to lose in sex so for social and biological reasons they are more selective

...why can't men take it for granted just as much as you believe women do? Personally, I don't know that women do take it for granted, its just that, as you have just pointed out, sometimes the risks involved are just too high to take.

Anon, are you this obsessive and stubborn and self-defeating when you're out trying to meet women? Please, stop trying to globalize a very local problem -- which is, you have absolutely no idea how to relax, take the incessant focus off your pointless universal theories about male and female opportunity, and just enjoy the company of the specific woman in front of you. (Okay, now I'll wait for you to respond that you have absolutely no problem charming the ladies and you're merely enlightening us all to the facts of living in modern America.)

so I have a lot of time on my hands

Anon - how do you explain homosexuality and sterility - two situations that do not fit in at all with your biological theories about why men need sex more than women? How do you explain a study that was just published today noting that Queen bees sleep around even while they are pregnant, whereas the males only sleep with her? What exactly is your biological argument and does it relate to the whole animal kingdom or just human beings?

I'm mainly interested in human beings, well animals are interesting, but theres not much emotinal intensity involved in the issue there.

men can't take it for granted

I think in general, everyone (all adults, anyway) can take it for granted that sex is a part of a romantic relationship. I guess this isn't true for the subset of people who believe sex should wait until marriage, but I don't think we're talking about them here. :) I don't know any adult women who want to have romantic relationships without sex.

So, if that's the case, what it seems like you're saying is that you're annoyed that men can't take it for granted that they're going to get laid immediately, since I think they absolutely can take it for granted that they'll get laid at some point if the relationship is allowed to continue to the point where both parties feel that they know each other well enough to be so intimate. Please note that every person, whether male or female, has his/her own idea about when he/she is comfortable enough to be so intimate with another person, and this varies from one woman to the next, and in one relationship to the next. I once slept with someone on the first date (and we then went on to have a fifteen-year relationship); I've also been with men who I haven't slept with for a long time because the relationship hadn't progressed to that stage yet.

I can't really feel sympathy for the point of view that men should be able to take it for granted that sex will be in the picture immediately, because sex is such a personal thing and whether one feels comfortable sleeping with someone else involves so many variables. If a lot of women don't feel comfortable sleeping with someone until they know him pretty well, can you blame them? (Do I have to go through the whole thing about men being so much stronger, sex involving being alone in a private place and therefore putting the weaker person in a potentially dangerous situation, etc., again?)

Plus, there are women who will sleep with someone right away, so, again, it's not like there's a conspiracy to withhold it. And, believe it or not, there are men who won't sleep with someone right away. Dividing everything along gender lines isn't the only way to see the world, and I don't think it's very productive if you genuinely want to develop meaningful relationships with people of the opposite sex.

I've not met many. I know men can take it for granted, probably, if the relationship with a particular woman develops properly and as long as it continues to go (very very)well. Which can be a very very significant qualification. A qualification which, generally speaking, doesn't apply to women.

and I know that the concept has been and is widely misused, but there are a lot more things that DO, to a significant degree at least, than lots of people, for political reasons, like to admit.

Also, Anon, please don't think that you represent "the male point of view" (how can such a thing really exist?). Your point of view is your own.

I don't think most men I've been with have been interested in little more than sex. Their priorities in relationships are similar to mine-- finding someone who you enjoy as a person, share similar values with, and, yes, are physically attracted to, to have a relationship that involves sex but also a lot of other things.

By reducing the idea of "just sex" to "the male pov" as you did earlier frankly denigrates men, in my opinion, because it implies that they are one-sided individuals with one interest and that they are all the same. This last thing is actually the major issue I take with a lot of what you've said, because you seem to be implying that all women are alike and all men are alike. As a northeasterner from a liberal, secular community, I probably have a lot more in common with a man from that type of background-- in terms of expectations when dating-- than with, say, a woman from Utah who was raised in a religious environment (just as an example-- no offense to the Mormons!).

There are people of both genders who may, at certain times in their lives or in certain situations, be interested in having interchange with others that is about sex and little more, and frankly, this is fine for them. But if that's what the man wants, the woman he's interested in isn't compelled to go along just so she can seem to be validating his "pov". He just needs to find a woman with similar interests. If he is unable to find women with a similar goal, maybe that says something about that goal-- it certainly doesn't say that there's a female conspiracy against men or sex.

From the things that you've said, you seem to be upset that women now have enough independence to be able to act on our own desires, rather than going along with men's desires because we're dependent on men and have little other choice. I can't be sympathetic to this-- the idea of someone being compelled to behave in a way she/he doesn't want to in order to simply get by is repugnant to me. And please note that, in an earlier post, I agreed with some of your basic points-- so I'm not out to get you, and I am trying to understand your point of view. The problem is that some of the stuff you say, whether you mean it to or not, sounds really sexist and it's hard to get around that.