The Difference between us

As simply as it can be put (and still be intelligible to the Sex):  Men don't lie.  Men don't fake, or pretend, or lie to themselves.  If they say they feel something, they feel it.  If they say they dislike something, or it gives them the creeps, they do, and it does.  They don't "learn" to like or dislike things, they just do--and if you ask them, they'll tell you why.  There are no hidden agendas with men, no desire to be something they're not.  And the the difference between men and women is that women (and pussy-men) never believe that men aren't lying, or posing, or pretending, or faking something.  In fact, the surest way to tell if you are a woman (or a pussy-man) is, if a man tells you something about himself, or his likes or dislikes, and you say to yourself, "He can't mean that!  He must mean...instead," then you are a woman (or a pussy-man).

Case in point:  Dr. Philosophiae Camille Paglia, renouncing in pique and exasperation her doctoral dignity, and evincing herself to be just another clueless woman, taking what men say personally, and trying desperately, and evidently successfully, not to understand them:

'Because of the unblushing dishonesty of strident activists and campus "queer theorists," whose knowledge of science would fit into Marie Antoinette's thimble, we are ironically further from understanding homosexuality than we were in 1970, when popular culture was moving into the seductive gender-bending typified by the brilliant David Bowie.  With the emphasis on external "politics," all respect for psychology has been lost.  Did no one notice the grotesquely misogynous dialogue put into gay men's mouths on "Queer as Folk"?  That kind of catty aversion to the female body is learned, not inborn, and it can traced to early family relations, before personal memory has even gelled.'  [my bold italics]

And now a comment on the foregoing by that noted neo-con pussy-man Robert Stacy McCain:

'You take note of the "grotesquely misogynous dialogue" in "Queer as Folk," which you interpret (rightly so) as a "catty aversion to the female body."  This is something that has puzzled me for years. Everyone focuses on same-sex attraction as the raison d'etre of homosexuality and utterly ignores the obvious issue of opposite-sex aversion, which, as you observe [no, she didn't] seems at least equally important in defining gay identity.

It is possible to understand that some men might develop a fascination with male genitalia, or find especial pleasure in sexual relations with other men.  What is baffling is the gay man's utter aversion to the distinctive pleasures that a female partner might provide.' [my bold italics]