in this thread i had a long and ludicrous argument with several TRPs and MRPs that the fact that women get loads of "attention" from unattractive men is some kind of "Advantage" and that they WISH they had so many "options" and that the mere HAVING of so many "options", no matter how unsuitable or unattractive is an advantage.

Well, men, you too can have this "Advantage" and these "options". if you are in fairly good shape, i challenge you to go to a gay bath house tonight and drink in all the attention and size up your options.

CMV that this is not analogous to women having the "advantage" of 100 unsuitable unattractive "options" or that unsuitable "options" are in fact options at all

I am open to having my view changed,

But you must address the Core issue that would change my mind and not get sidetracked by the irrelevant "sexual orientation" aspect. The core of the argument is the TRP assertion here that women are "advantaged" and have "options" due to the fact that 100s of men they are not attracted to present themselves for dating.

My argument is that 100s of actual NONoptions offering themselves to a women is not an advantage and that (sexual orientation aside) it is no different that trying to say men have options because there are hundreds of gay men to whom they are NOT ATTRACTED they could choose. Sexual orientation is not relevant here, but the negation if these alleged "options" by the fact that attraction is lacking.

This is the specific V that needs C'ed. Claiming men aren't attracted to men if they aren't gay bolsters my point, it neither challenges nor refutes it.