Theories abound. I'll share some of my own, since I share this paraphilia (but don't act on it to people's detriment, like the person in this story did):

There may be a difference between men and women in the intensity of sexual desire they generate and experience internally.

Phew, really? I already do this for women for free. I mean, I sometimes get something out of the interaction, too, but it's not an outright trade.

Other than the good looking part, there are plenty of eager sub guys out there!

> walking home in a hoodie

So what you're saying is that the actual truth of the thing matters?

Multimeter. With a current clamp.

Hardly. It's all right there for people to see, although I suppose you could go back and delete or edit your comments.

You really should have a look though that book. What you're doing is what the author calls "invalidation", where you're trying to hurt the self esteem of someone else to try to help your own self esteem. In this case, there's plenty of context for a wounded self esteem to be writhing for some soothing.

More attempts to malign me. I'd like to recommend you read through this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Nasty-People-B…
It's cheap, short, and very insightful. From this interaction, I estimate that you would gain from it.

There's the fingers-in-the-ears.

> though I'm sure you'll sit there and masturbate to your own successes.

See an earlier comment of mine in our thread: http://jezebel.com/it-sure-does-a…

I agree with Rabin that people should be ashamed of what they like and what attracts them. Sex needs to be one of the most highly regulated, scrutinized parts of our lives, and made uniform across all peoples, genders, races, etc.

> Or your income is sufficient to cover what the system deems as required. That's objective.

I also feel morally superior upon reading this article!!

But apparently it isn't. The people in question in this story are only in need by applying the powerful construction of selective consideration. They have a resources that they don't want to cash out, so if we don't consider that, then there is need. If we do consider that, there is not need, or that need is…

What a horrific false dilemma!

It sure does. Are you suggesting that aid ought to be needs based, rather than feature based? Features such as marital status, offspring status, gender, etc.

Who suggested tearing down the wall?