I'm sorry to hear that you have such a low view of women, you must have been through some difficult things from women. Also women from the most repressive places and who have been through the most abuse from men often feel the most humiliated and the most unable to tackle the "boys with boys" thing and they have every reason to, given what they have been through.

I mean that this is simply not true. This is a misreading of what I've written. The current argument is still, again, ill-defined. I feel that you have a kind of Presbyterian view of sex that is making me uncomfortable. Sexual promiscuity is not a negative trait, in either gender. If you want to argue that it is, there's a whole category of feminist literature that is against that line of thought.

To back up my previous point, I never asserted "boys will be boys" due to nature. I asserted that they are that way rather than the "cause" of their way. Read carefully. I honestly don't know the cause of their being that way. All I know is that they are that way. Then, I asserted the moral claim that the way they are now is not necessarily "injust." Wanting to just have sex is not necessarily bad. Do we want to investigate ways in which wanting to have sex is bad? Only if it breaks somebody's intent, i.e., rape right? Which is an actual problem for women, rather than the one that you're currently establishing. Just because you want men not to be sexually promiscuous doesn't mean that they shouldn't be, if their actions are not amoral.

I don't think I have that low of a view of women. Again, I think you're misinterpreting my assertions. I said that I believed women were more superficial and nothing else. We could in fact, be more smarter and more deeply moral than men, which I subjectively believe is the case, but there's neither here nor there.

Finally, I don't know if that's true that men only view women as exclusively sex objects today. That hasn't been my experience at all, and I think you need to provide more evidence for your case.