DP dot com is something like a lox sandwich on a pumpernickel bagel. We aren’t for everybody, but for those of you that can stand the taste we are definitely good food.

2. DP, unless I’m mistaken you’ve surpassed the 10,000-comment mark. Considering your meager readership, that’s worthy of note.

3. I like my spaghetti with sauce on the side. Really. Sauce alone is good for me, too. Thank goodness my woman knows.

4. Tiffany, average sex and average spaghetti take about the same amount of time. Good sex often takes longer but it’s worth the effort. As with anything, the more regular the easier it is to set aside the time.

5. Alex 2.0, nice site, and nice extended musings on this subject there. You say you’re “only hearing what women should be sacrificing” (please go the site for context, people) and I can understand that. But I venture that what (most) men are looking for (many) women to “sacrifice” is the attitude that a man is just something else to fit into their lives. The acquisitive mode of our consumer culture is hard for some people to turn off.

6. Reality: any man and any woman getting into the most ideal of relationships will have to sacrifice… a degree of autonomy, if nothing else, ‘cause a relationship takes time and attention. But people who are really putting into their relationships view “sacrifices” as investments. Sorry to be all treacly.

7. Men should expect hetero sex from a woman and little else based on gender. (Yeah, even that first premise in some cases is fallacious, no pun intended.) Look, I love being a man and all that, but as Vee says, claim your position. If this is the natural order of things, shouldn’t things happen naturally? Again, nodding to Vee, what roles we take as males and females, let alone in relationships, is always changing. One of the main reasons for courtship is to determine compatibility between two people — not two genders — and this is a key area.

8. “All these dudes running around with lip gloss on and chicks with baldies have gotten the game twisted.” No, they’re playing a different game. There are still plenty of people in this one.

9. Miss Ahmad, Happy Birthday. I’ve got nothing against you hiring a housekeeper, but ain’t keeping house sexy? Probably matters less if there’s no man in it… but you’re out playing hard. It’s all good, but that’s not the same, at least to me, as finding someone with whom to be in a relationship. So no dig at you, I’m just using your language as a segue. And in case some wonder, I don’t mind scrubbing a toilet here and there for my woman. The home’s gettin’ love either way, which means it’ll be easier for us to live in it together.

10. Plenty of this centers on the scrilla, and we all need to diminish its power or it will continue to unduly corrupt relationships. Understand, it’s going to stay powerful anyway. But if what you earn or what you have in the bank is the primary way you determine your power, especially relative to a mate, then every layoff or cutback is going to have an immediate impact on the state of the relationship. It becomes him versus her instead of the two as a unit… when in most cases the unit is more powerful. As far as financial management… this is not the same as who brings home the bacon. I know lots of great earners, male and female, who are horrendous managers of money, and plenty of meager earners who know how to handle their biz. If a man and a woman are together, they need to figure out their priorities and allocate their resources accordingly. What happens with the gravy, if there is any, will matter a lot less then. The financial management skill set is not determined by gender, and couples’ success in this always depends on good communication… and my rantings come straight from the day-to-day of my profession.

11. Amadeo, here’s hoping that old McNair holds up this fall for the Ravens. I’m not feeling too great about my Brunell-led team. I’m with you on the “equate” line, but as for the rest, guys have to be real, whether or not they shed tears. If a man cries ‘cause some woman told him it was good, doesn’t that say all you need to know right there? Real men cry, eat quiche, all that — but not all men, definitely not all the time (even often), and most definitely not because they think that’s going to get some woman’s attention. And “placate” isn’t an inherently negative term. People who only placate are weak, though, and people who always seek to be placated are stuck on themselves. Damn. Never used that word three times so closely.

12. Antagonista and kindred sisters, I really do feel you. But the re-education should be quick. Get off the schtick and give brothers a chance, one at a time and with common sense. There are a lot of black men, and other men, who ain’t shit — true, true. But you’re not trying to be with them all. And again to quote Vee, “a single, 30+ or 40+ cat can easily sill bag a kitten. But watch how difficult it is…” That’s why I say be quick.

13. P-City, always nice to see those letters come across the ticker. You are way enlightened. And I tend to agree, women have it harder then men, all else equal — which of course is not always the case. You’re on point, too, with the observation that confidence from men separate from romantic pursuits tends to attract women while the converse tends not to be true. But is the “temp receptionist” always a sister who needs a man to take care of her? More importantly, is the career sister “competing” for the same type of relationship that a man might — I said might — have in mind for the temp receptionist? ‘Cause yeah, men might cast a bit of a wider net for sex, but when it comes to really getting with someone, overall compatibility is still paramount. And I say that if the temp receptionist sometimes fits with the striving brother, maybe the UPS delivery guy fits with the corporate sister. Again, this is all limited by generalities… in the end it’s two people.

14. Thanks as always, DP, BS, BC and crew for the brain food, both nutritious and delicious.

http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/08/23/Marriage-Careers-Divorce_cx_mn_land.html

An article in Forbes.com written by Michael Noer ‘Don’t marry a career woman.’ It sparked some debate and Forbes in all fairness decided to post a follow-up article ‘Counterpoint: Don’t Marry a Lazy Man’ by Elizabeth Corcoran.

Interestingly enough, not too long ago the NYTimes.com had an article that baffled many people about women with higher degrees of learning opting out of a career to be a house-wife.

— Two thoughts —
Why does the media look down upon housewives as if they’re not as important as todays career women?

And what’s up with sexless marriages? I hear people are complaining about that. Newsweek did an cover story on that a while back. ^Dallas, I hear the disgruntled rants coming from married cats.

Al Bundy would ashamed!
No Ma’am is alive and well, holla back.

Look, I was never looking for the “I don’t need a man” kind of sista’. But, it is hard to judge a woman that gets lumped in that category.

For us, chances to meet women are just a by-product of going out and handling our business. If we excel (or just compete) in business, athletics, writing, politics – you name it – then there will be a (good) woman there to notice and want to spend some time with us. Confidence = connections.

For women, the script is flipped. If she excels, so what? She still has to worry about competing with that temp receptionist who looks fly as hell in heels. Plus, the more she excels, the more she is likely to attract exacly what she ain’t looking for – the brother who needs a woman to take care of him, not walk alongside him. For women, too much confidence can easily equal a lifestyle of solitude.

Women must play two games: the career game, which doesn’t neccesarily attract potential mates; and the dating game, in which their career successes are tangetial at best.

That’s a rough road. Who am I to judge?