I agree 100% with the above, but I'm wondering why you think it's contradictory. I'm not saying "women don't want sex." I've been pretty clear about that. I'm not even saying there aren't some women who want sex more than some men.

Inferior, I'll give you.

Inferior, I'll give you.

No? Nothing? I presume you went off to do research on the sociological evidence for an equivalence of value of sex by men and women, and that's why your reply is taking so long. Does the fact that you're actually having to go off and do research indicate anything to you? The fact that you seem to have taken the…

They're his tickets, though. His kids are traveling on tickets that he owns, so they would be A-list tickets.

You didn't actually give any evidence for your view, though. What's your actual evidence that women want sex as much as men?

I'm not sure what argument you're making.

The porn industry is almost entirely geared towards heterosexual men (why, we'll talk about in a minute),

I'm not sure I'd agree with that characterization (it's far too simplistic) but if you assume that it's true, then it leads to exactly my conclusion - men value sex far more than women do.

Again this is a nearly-universal finding in psychology and the social sciences. Men drive sexual markets (of all kinds) because…

First we have a culture where women are shamed for having sex, which makes them less likely to do so as freely as men, which in turn means that it's going to take more compensation to convince them to risk the social opprobrium (not to mention the physical effects) of having sex on camera.

I fully understand why a woman who just wants some no-strings sex couldn't proposition every man in view, but surely a woman who has single male friends isn't in this position?

A lot of people don't physically defend themselves because they can't overcome their own resistance to engaging in violence. If you're not a full-contact-sport athlete, then you've probably never so much as raised your hand to another person since early childhood, and without having practiced the use of force on…

I'm nobody at all.

They're like any other passenger insofar as they need a seat. But, like, you could bring them into the Members-only lounge and stuff.

It'd be easy to demonstrate that he's wrong, I guess, if there was. Otherwise he's right, the gate agent just made up a rule because she didn't want to give him what he'd asked for.

I don't see where it says that. (Priority Standby isn't the same as Priority Boarding.) It says he's entitled to priority boarding for each of his flights. He had three flights - the same flight, once for each of three tickets he bought.

He's the owner of all three tickets, it doesn't seem like these rules say he can't…

I don't see how it wouldn't be fair to the A-listers who don't have kids. I mean, I'm highly receptive to "kids != special privileges" arguments but this seems pretty cut and dry - obviously an under-18 child would "inherit" A-list status, so clearly they should all board together. They're all his tickets.

Presumably your boyfriend isn't a 9-year-old child. If you had A-list status and you bought a ticket for your kid, as well, yes, your kid would get priority boarding along with you. That's how it works on SW; the gate agent was just pretending that it doesn't. Or didn't know. Or couldn't be bothered.

He and both of his kids had priority seating, it's just that the gate agent acted like it doesn't work that way.

But it's actually not, in this case.

4 and younger only on SW.