Does anyone besides me gather that 'some' are tending to generalize from their views about male/female relationships and what is 'normal' and usual to a view of what they assume ALL of society does or believes? (Hard sentence to compose)


As to Monserrat's ""No man ever meets a woman without measuring the sexual potential between them. It may be zero, but he still measures it".... that is a pretty subjective analysis.

   I know 3 women that I could 'probably' find today ...long ago and in a far away state... whom I had 'friendly sex' with a couple of times, but who began and ended as just good friends. The brief sexual relationship was lovely and because we understood that's all it was, we remained good friends. I also know 5-6 women who I never had any kind of 'intimate' relationship with, but who were/are also good friends. I suppose the thought crossed my mind ...and perhaps theirs.. as to whether we 'might' be more than friends, but I never dwelled on it and don't remember ever even any 'flirting around the idea' with them. It simply was not an issue. Does that mean that I fall under Monserrat's rule? *shrug*...I don't feel like it.

as to Kendall's remark: "Men are hard wired to have sex with as many women as will have him."...hmm... I just think that's a bit of an exaggeration qua Homo sapiens. I know that male animals DO seek...and fight.. for sexual privileges, and that as primates, we humans are not too far(in anthropological terms) from that situation, but I believe that society HAS in the last few thousand year allowed for exceptions and that, although still common, seeking as many 'conquests' as possible is NOT universal. At the same time, more women are feeling free to safely (as we read above) to increase their 'no committment' relationships, simply for pleasure and companionship.

It is NOT a good idea to assume that the view YOU take on these matters is a given for others.