Understanding.

Since, in my previous post, I pointed out what I considered a backhanded comment, I feel it is only fair that equal time should be given to the ultimate understanding we have reached. I appreciate the candor of Scout, and I hope to dialogue more with said individual in the future, as it is heartening when one can admit error (unlike a certain President, alas.) I too, commited an error of better judgement and slung barbs. As warranted as I perhaps felt they were, no excuse can be made for their existance that is not of the juvenile variety. I hope we can continue speaking in a civilized manner, with only the content of our characters, not broad generalizations, as fodder.

Scout's comment:
At first view I thought you'd taken a hairy turn at my very first (tongue-in-cheek) line and gone off on a wild tirade of absurd apology. But having now re-read my post I have to agree that what was intended as somewhat tongue-in-cheek has come off as simply insulting. So I sincerely apologise Monkey.

My response:
As do I. After reading my post this morning I realized that I may have ranted a bit myself. Your commentary is obviously welcome. My hopes are soon, there will be a revolution in technology that can effectively express sarcasm, irony and a plethora of other conversational variances. As is, faceless interaction such as this does not do a good job of projecting nuance.

When I first published the original post I realized how slippery the slope was as the language was not easy in coming, and no matter what I wrote, and no matter how eloquently I tried to put it, it came across as arcane and Neanderthal, which made the emotions become even more unreasonable and compounded. Should I feel guilt for having said thoughts (not raping and killing, mind you, just 'lust' in it's basest and most primitive form.) How do we understand it without coddling it?

As men, we need to find a way of expressing our tendencies in a constructive and unapologetic manner. I’m not sure this is the forum for it, but it is a start. The reason I use the term 'unapologetic' is, just as a lion acknowledges its desire to eat mammals, we harbor these drives within, and I fear the suppression of discussion (not implementation, by all means) exacerbates the situation creating that unfortunate 51% statistic. ...Which might explain all those icky wars.