I take full responsibility for my rantings. Though I did warn you!
You see what you've done now?!!!
You said you'd take responsibility!
You're right, I did bring up that stat and I think you're right about instances of sexual abuse of children being pretty close in number between boys and girls. However, I didn't mean to steer this into a discussion of pedophilia, just to highlight the fact that sexual assault is a very relavent issue for a lot of women.
Full concord here. I've known a woman (my still-cohabitant ex) who is frankly a little damaged in part because of sexual abuse and physical abuse when she was young.
Oh good! I don't think you were here for the anti-rape condom thread (you think I've a lot to say on the subject in here!)
Those things are real? I thought they were a 4chan joke or something.
Personally, I would probably just carry a knife. They're lighter than guns and easier to use.
Yeah, but I don't think women are actually having more sex, do you?
As you said, the amount of sex is equal. I don't think women are having
more sex than men, but I do think
more women are having sex than men. There are some (admittedly sketchy) studies which somewhat bear this out. And, as a thought experiment, it makes sense.
I mean, I don't have any numbers on the topic. And remember, for every guy who thinks he's a loser there's a girl who thinks she's too fat, or too ugly, or her breasts are too small...problems with sexual self-esteem are not confined to the male gender!
But this of course assumes a monogamous system. Which it isn't. I find it more likely that there's a smaller subset of men who are managing to have sex with a larger subset of women, and I expect that even the losers on each side are not experiencing quite the same outcomes, because of the easier access I discussed earlier. This is actually the natural state of things, looking at many social animals, which leads me to my next point, namely that nature is terrible.
That said, I think we can agree, on a basement level, that there is at least some disadvantage to being a man, if the goal is only sex. If nothing more than it simply requires more effort for a man--which I think was Trekker's point, and which I think is a good one, even if it's concededly a bit whiney. Given the emotional toll such unrewarded efforts can take, I don't think it's a completely marginal point, either.
Sorry, but
Why

? This isn't inaccurate. In the First World, women have dominion and control over their own pregnancy. No one has to be pregnant, at least for long; theoretically, it is a voluntary decision.
(There's also birth control, but we assume for the moment that's failed.)
Now I pretty much agree with how things have shaken out, but I think it's improper to pretend there aren't some real problems with it, namely that women can choose to be parents, but men have the choice made for them. It's only that the alternatives either leave children and mothers destitute, or are so anti-woman that they're truly unconscionable.
So I'm putting the ability to abort in the plus column, since--as a statement of fact--it is a right which women possess and men do not.
Forty years ago, I would conclude oppositely. But with effective birth control and Roe, it turns that frown upside down.