You're quite right, Antiseptic, at least partially. I should have specified paranoid, anxious men rather than implying that recent gains in status by women are unfortunate for the vast majority of us. Personally, I know lots of feminists, none of whom regard men in general as "some sort of scary enemy" - rather, they are opposed to that minority of men who are unreconstructed patriarchal anachronisms.

As for "psychic legerdemain", perhaps you could look up the use of ethnographic analogy in archaeological reconstruction. As I said, there's a huge body of literature pertinent to this topic if you could be bothered consulting it.

Dear Proxy,

I thought only one wife at a time was officially
recognised?

Dear Cherful,

Some people will try to mend a marriage,
if it's at all possible, especially if
children are involved. And some marriages
can be saved. But, I guess it depends on the individuals
involved and the circumstances. We've got a friend who's
just gone through a divorce. He suffers from a bi-polar
disorder, and his wife quite frankly had enough.

As for soul-mates? Again I think that depends on what
you're looking for in a relationship, doesn't it?

In a mature love, individuals can be authentic,
instead of trying to impress or please others and
denying their real feelings and fears. The bottom line
is our relationships will only be as satisfactory as we
are in ourselves. Interestingly, Buddhists turn the truism
about having to love yourself first before you can love
another on its head, saying you come to love yourself
through the practice of loving others first. That's
something to think about.

I'm glad that you liked the bumper-sticker. It's one of
my favourites.

Dear Pat,

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander?

I prefer this saying:

"Don't argue about what a good partner is.
Be One!"

Dear Yabby,

You're full of surprises.
Although - it sounds like you've got nothing to
complain about. Your life sounds anything
but dull.

Dear Peter H.,

More interesting facts. Thank You.
Loved your milkman joke.

Dear Individual,

Interesting facts about Torres Strait.

Dear Psychophant,

Welcome Back!

Dear Pynch,

Loved your poem!

Dear Poirot,

"Your daddy ain't your daddy,
but your daddy don't know..."

This can be fixed nowadays.

Dear Anti,

Now with DNA testing of paternity -
perhaps this problem will improve
for both genders.

Dear Hasbeen,

Always interesting to get a glimpse of
different worlds to the one I lived in.
Perhaps I was just a bit too naive
growing up - and under strong parental influence.
I'll have to ponder about that.

Dear CJ,

We've come a long way with DNA.
(sounds like a slogan).

cont'd ...

Dear CJ,

You may enjoy this one:

"A woman who strives to be equal to a man
lacks ambition."

Foxy,
"I thought only one wife at a time was officially recognised?"
I would have thought that granting welfare benefits on the basis of being one of multiple wives constituted official recognition.

Foxy
It’s always good to be back amongst beautiful people!

CJ
The original condition must have been ignorance of paternity, which we shared with other non-human species. This conclusion follows from the theory of evolution. Since paternity was already recognised when history began, its discovery must have happened before then. How far back is a matter of speculation, but it seems likely for a number of reasons to have happened in just the last 10,000 years. In the 20th century there were still human societies that did not cognise paternity, including the Aranda people of Uluru that CP Mountford describes in 'Brown Men and Red Sand' 1949. Also in Biblical times it was thought that the man's 'seed' was the genitive factor, the woman merely providing a matrix or soil. And sperm and egg were not sighted under the microsocope until the 19th century.

The relatively late recognition of paternity means that the hard-wiring of human sexual and reproductive behaviour evolved in the long ages in which paternity was unknown; and therefore when a woman could not make a claim on a man in his capacity as father.

The fact that DNA testing can now establish paternity does not of itself provide any ethical justification for compelling men to pay contributions for the support of their biological offspring.

Some people of course argue that men have a moral "responsibility" to contribute to the support of their offspring, on the ground that the man has biologically caused the child to come into being. This is to argue that *factual causation* necessarily gives rise to a *moral justification* for the use of coercion.

But the fact that men biologically cause children, is no more a justification of coercing men to give satisfaction of women's interest in men's services, than is the fact that women biologically cause sexual desire in men, a justification of men raping women - of coercing women to give satisfaction of men’s interest in women’s services.

The argument is a complete non sequitur, a double standard, and a hypocrisy when argued by a woman who denies the moral validity of rape – and who doesn’t?