Look, it's all a fancy way of saying "Stop leering so obviously".

"... unless I want you to leer."

> it's all a fancy way of saying…

Agree! And if they said it like that, most guys would comply.

But instead, it seems like a lot of silly women use those moments of mild intimidation as an excuse to cower in resentment about the challenging nature of adult sexuality. They build their entire personalities around wordy chatter about society has let them down… It easier to belittle the culture as sinister and malformed than reform their timidity & naivete.

For the record, Orion was not actually being that much of a dick in this comment stack. Yet. I kinda feel bad for harshing him/her out of the gate… But only a little.

I'll always believe he or she is Chinese (or something). He talks about a "spouse," not a wife. The superiority of those with degrees must always be honored. As with the airliner thing and all comments that have followed, a vague submission to authority suffuses the comments, as if the will of the Party must never be questioned. It's hierarchical and regimented, desiccated and joyless, straight out of Mao's little red book.

Whoops, that belonged two messages back "December 17, 2020. Linkredentials." Sorry for breaking the flow.

Feminists are just a subset of females. Lots of females will change their shape through exercise or mechanical augmentation. They will change their hair and skin color. They will don the most flattering clothes. They will even study American football. All in a quest to attract a "dick with a wallet." And to compete with each other in that quest.
I begin to feel objectified myself. If I ever need to file a restraining order, I'll go straight to that ultra-feminist law firm; Neadmore Cox.

Why shouldn't these people be mocked?

If a woman can afford all that money to pay for brand-new clothes, makeup, beauty parlors, etc., she can afford to support herself.

If a man wants children AND cares about their welfare enough to get married first, he obviously needs to be financially prepared to support his entire family, since accidents and disease can happen at any time. (Same goes for family-minded women, of course.) Therefore, you can't blame MOST women for wanting to marry men who are, at least, good at saving money. (Note: Many financial planners will tell you that most wealthy clients DON'T flaunt their wealth; clients who do are often in debt. Like Trump.)

But...if he DOESN'T want children, there's a good chance he won't see any point in getting married either - and even if he wants to marry, he won't see any point in supporting a childfree housewife. While childfree men aren't necessarily affluent, plenty of them are.

So, whether a man wants children or not, he has good reason to say one of the following:

"Why should we marry? How will you support us if disaster strikes me?"

"Why should we marry? Since we don't want kids, why should I pay any of your bills, just because I make more money?"

Well said, Lenona.

Women like to pretend that they do not also view men (the "right" men, of course) as sex "objects." The hypocrisy is evident when a woman is disgusted and aghast that a man might find conflict-free comfort with a sex doll -- at the same time that an artificial, detached male member resides in the drawer of her night stand. Which of the sexes is more "dehumanized" is certainly open to question.

One other thing: traditionally, women have brazenly (and, as Lenona notes, somewhat justifiably) also viewed men as "success objects." Many, if not most, women are now horrified that the tables are turning, with men now very interested in what monetary benefits women bring to the relationship. Just observe the outraged reactions of most women (of the relatively few) who have been ordered to pay alimony!

Most men will stay with their wife even after she gains 40 lbs and stops dressing sexy. But a woman will often NOT stick around if the husband loses his job (biggest predictor of divorce). Exactly who is objectifying whom?
Some feminists seem to resent the world the way it exists, with the attraction of men and women for each other somehow bugging them. That many of those same feminists are lesbians might explain this: being lusted after by men just might creep a lesbian out (just guessing here).
If you note down all the things that attract "the male gaze" and that women try to emphasize with their yoga pants and makeup, you will see that they all (and I emphasize all) represent youth, health, and fertility. In other words, a young lady in her prime baby-making years and condition. This makes perfect sense in a biological sense. If a 22 yr old man marries a 50 yr old woman, he is unlikely to have any children. Having a Ph.D. and a high income do not increase a woman's fertility nor a man's interest in her. Studies have shown that if you create fake dating site profiles emphasizing such things, the woman gets no more swipes than if she left those out. Men don't care.

Is all this "fair"? Of course not. We live in a physical world that is inherently not fair. But we all have a great deal of latitude in what we do with what we have been given, and women (and men) can and do compensate for not being movie star attractive. Being an angry feminist is NOT one of those things.

> The hypocrisy is evident when
> a woman is disgusted and aghast
> that a man might find conflict-
> free comfort with a sex doll

Um… There are a number of reasons for which a woman (and others) might be disgusted which have little to do with contemporary sexual politics or "hypocrisy"… I'll give'r a bye on that one.

> Is all this "fair"? Of course not.

You shouldn't ask your own questions.

Many, if not most, women are now horrified that the tables are turning, with men now very interested in what monetary benefits women bring to the relationship.
_______________________________________

"Men now very interested"?

Have you never heard of dowries? Do you think those are anything new or even relatively recent?

Even Western societies that may or may not have had that tradition still have had strong restrictions on what certain women could hope for.

How's that? Well, for starters, SOME rich men may have been unhappy about not being allowed, more or less, to marry poor, illiterate women, as opposed to having affairs with them, but if so, that certainly wasn't reflected in the more famous fairy tales. Namely: If you look at the thirty-plus, better-known Grimm tales that also include a wedding, only FOUR are about a woman from a working-class family marrying into royalty - and no, Cinderella isn't one of them, because her family was actually rich, so she had the breeding, manners and dance skills to fit in at the ball, not just the clothes!

On top of that, there are SEVEN tales of poor men marrying princesses. So men who expect to get almost as much money as they give is nothing new.

Nowadays, I would say the main difference is educational. That is, middle-class men don't necessarily go to college, while women are pushed to do so for the sake of security. But men who WANT to marry still can't afford to be lazy if they expect to marry well, just as women often feel forced to go to college and do well, whether they marry or not.

It's not quite true cc, that education doesn't effect your desirability.

When I got my Masters I started attracting more serious guys.

As someone who struggles with weight I've been just about every size under the sun, and always found people interested in my when I was single and looking.

But my Masters turned me from someone to date and consider to someone one wanted to bring home to Mom.

It is only leering if he works in the mail room.

“We live in a physical world that is not fair.“

Totally wrong. The physical world is completely fair: it is uniformly harsh. People think that the presence of buildings and electricity means that there is no jungle present.

They whine when they find otherwise, and sometimes they even riot, caught out in their childishness.

NicoleK, maybe the difference lies simply between men who do mostly online dating, and men who are more likely to date the women they already know pretty well and see every day, in class. Maybe the latter men are more grounded in reality and know it's better not to lose sight of it (or build up their hopes too much) by spending too much time staring at screens, whether we're talking about TV, porn, or dating sites.

In the same vein, most people will tell you not to marry your high school sweetheart (and certainly not right after graduation), but it's completely different when we're talking about marrying a high school FRIEND whom you didn't start dating until your twenties.

Or, Lenona, as in my case, marry your high school sweetheart, but wait to tie the knot until you both are educated and capable of making a professional living (seven years for us). The result? Still going strong after 40 years married! One huge benefit is that, in my mind, she is still the smokin' hot, sweet young sixteen year-old goddess that captured my eye, and then my heart. I knew a great thing when I saw it, and did whatever was necessary to make it happen. At times, there was some heavy-duty "mate guarding" going on!

How is it that I (mostly) agree with you twice in one thread? Who would have guessed that was possible? ;)