In my day, if a young lady wanted to make the beast with two backs, we didn't go through all this "oh, I feel threatened by female sexuality" foo-de-doo! By golly, we buckled down! We got to it! We got the job done! Because we didn't know any better, but dagnabbit, we LIKED it!

But for once in my life, when faced with a theory so ludicrous it begs to be shot down in a blaze of glory--and CATEGORICALLY BY ME--I'm at a loss for words.

Maybe sometime Boston University president and politically-incorrect whipping boy John Silber had the right idea when he said that the college's 35/65 male-to-female ratio was making every guy undeservedly feel like a stud. More and more women are matriculating at colleges, and while we fight with one another for the scarce eligible (and straight) men, the guys barely know what to do with all of us. No wonder they're bored.

I don't suppose it has anything to do with the decrease in male sperm count as a result of pesticide usage? I was surprised this fact wasn't mentioned in the article, as this may also be a reason that young men are facing these problems. It doesn't take a degree to put 2+2 together, and with the recent articles about this it seems like a big oversight that the Post didn't mention it. In a report published on National Geographic barely two weeks ago, researchers in Missouri found a decrease in sperm count and quality for men in Missouri compared with men in big cities around the country most likely caused by their exposure to pesticides. In another study from researchers in Scandanavia it was found that average sperm count for men in developed countries was half what it was of men 50 years ago. This is a startling and disturbing trend which deserves some attention. Instead of blaming the empowerment of women (which is an incredibly healthy and positive thing) for a decreased sex drive in men, it could be something that's actually toxic and poisoning all of us and causing untold devastation throughout the ecosystem.

I thought I was reading Salon.com, but apparently I inadvertently logged onto TheOnion.com.

Pretty good stuff. College guys are miserable because college girls want sex too much. Not your best satire, but not bad.

I read the article in Sunday's post, and it didn't strike me at all the way Traister is portraying it. It seemed like the majority of the blame for ED was indeed placed on alcohol and other lifestyle issues. The idea that Traister highlighted- that there is more sexual pressure on young men now that women have achieved a higher degree of sexual confidence- was mentioned, but I didn't see the post harping on it.

It's also not entirely clear to me why it is such a crime for a young guy to feel affected by this new pressure. Why should I be upset over this?

I hardly know where to begin...

Suffice it to say, that Ms. Stepp seems to have a "good college girl get's forced into having sex by overly horny drunken frat boy" fantasy going here and is understandably disturbed that today's college boys aren't going to fufill that fantasy for college girls like her anymore (perhaps she might like to try searching the web for her kind of man). The fact is, many boys will "screw anything that moves" from the onset of puberty until their early-to-mid 20's, when their hormones begin to drop to adult levels and if they're emotionally and psychologically healthy, they begin to limit their sexual activity to women (or men) with whom they're actually involved in a romantic relationship. In other words, healthy boys (and girls) always grow past the stage where "friends with benefits" are attractive to them. This is not a problem! IT'S CALLED GROWING UP! Ms. Stepp might like to try it sometime. At the very least, she might like to stop making the claim that young men who begin to act as if they are emotionally mature have lost their manhood while those who act and treat women like hormone-crazed 16 year olds are the picture of true masculinity.

At the very least, the article should have focused on all the well-known ways that life in the fast lane will surely make you lose your... erection.

The first part of the Washington Post article makes the statement that guys, by having the option of sex whenever they want it, find themselves unable to perform, and then the rest of the article fails to connect this theory to any of the examples given.

Sounds like a story funded by the usual suspects these days. That staff writer should be embarrassed, but like any shill, not likely.

...this is a dumb article about a dumb article?

As a man, I find the premise absurd. Not every woman does it for me, but eagerness has never, never been a problem. I find it hard to believe it is in any man, but I suppose when it comes to sexual desire anything is possible. Neverthless, I cannot beleive there is an empidemic of e.d. in young men due to such an absurd idea as too many overly eager young females seeking attention. On the other hand, the chance that a relatively inexperienced male might not realize he is with someone who will not rock his boat is much more likely than in an older and more experienced guy. We do not always know what we want when it comes to sex, and societal cues we believe when we are young can be very misleading. Even a super model may not have that je ne sais quoi that does it for a particular young man, but he might have a very hard time believing it until the moment comes. Everyone is so visual in today's world that young men in particular may not realize getting turned on is about a lot more than looks. To the extent that there is any factual basis underlying this erroneous premise I believe it is simply due to the higher likelihood that in today's world a young man might expect to function like a porn star without first engaging in a bit of physical exploration with the intended partner. Even then, he may not understand that his failure to react physically to a kiss is probably a bad sign. Agressively aproached by the right young woman in the right way, I expect that most, if not all, heterosexual men would not have e.d. with any frequency.