While it is ok to live in reasonable comfort, I actually despise modern luxuries, and I assume that many men feel the same, though they may not be consciously aware of it.

More luxurious cars, nicer houses, expensive shoes or jewelry? Who needs that?

The only thing I really care about is the girl in my arms, and the orgasms I can have with her. If my sex life is optimal, I can live in a bamboo hut and use public transport... or even just walk, and that for many, many kilometers.

Many men feel like that. They spend money on luxuries, not because they enjoy them but because luxuries express status, and they want to express status because they want to attract attractive females. If being a homeless, begging monk would be most suitable to attract women, then you would see a very large number of men switching to that lifestyle.

But if luxuries are an unneeded diversion, what should men who earn a good income spend their money on?

I'd say it's about time that rich men divert some of their resource away from buying luxuries towards supporting political causes which are in their genuine interest: men's rights causes.

Unfortunately, so far, when it comes to gender issues, men, unlike women, seldom act in solidarity. This is the case because men are much more used to compete against each other, rather than defend shared interests.

There are political causes on which money is spent much more sensibly than on modern luxuries. And, for the record: it is more sensible to spend money on such causes now rather than having to spend it later on lawyers (as rich men increasingly do, because they get entangled in the anti-sexual nets of feminazi NGOs, Christian fundamentalist NGOs, and greedy accusers who fish for damages, totally out of proportion, and on trumped up or exaggerated charges).

Here a list of political causes, which rich men may want to support with funds:

- A relaxation of sexual harassment laws. Only in grave cases should sexual comments be an issue for the courts. Sexual comments may sometimes be bad style, but sexual language is necessary in the pursuit of sexual happiness, and sexual happiness is so close to the core of the meaning of life, that governments ought to impose as few restrictions as possible. Governments may recommend that women who are easily offended by sexual comments wear a type of clothing that sends as few sexual signals as possible. Or why not where a T-shirt or hat that states: No sexual comments, please.

- A return to a definition of rape as sexual intercourse through physical force or the thread of physical force, or with a person who is unconscious. Sexual intercourse obtained by a man by means of promises that later are not kept, may be immoral, or even constitute deceit, but such sexual intercourse is not rape. Laws in various countries (passed after extensive lobbying by feminazis and Christian fundamentalists), where rape meanwhile is defined as sexual intercourse with a woman who later decides that the man does not meet her expectations, should be changed back to previous definitions. Women have a responsibility to judge promises like "I love you forever" as an expression of a current mood on the part of the man, and should not be allowed to file rape charges if a man changes his mind at a later time

- Definite punishment for women who file frivolous rape charges against men. Unsubstantiated rape charges typically ruin the careers of men who are accused, even when a court returns a "not guilty" verdict. Women reporting rape all too often speculate on financial damages, or just seek revenge, but risk practically nothing if rape charges are later proven to have been unsubstantiated.

- Prison terms for the members of NGOs who accuse men of criminal sexual conduct if such criminal sexual conduct can not be proven in court.

- Non-disclosure in the media of the identity of persons accused in sexual offense cases before a guilty verdict, unless there are concurrent murder charges.

- The abolition of extraterritorial laws relating to sexual conduct (for US citizens, it is a crime to have sexual relationships outside the US with persons under the age of 18, even if the age of consent in both the state of a particular US citizen, and in the country abroad, is less than 18).

- The withdrawal of a UN resolution that uniformly defines anybody under the age of 18 as a child, and sexual contact with persons under the age of 18 as statutory rape. I have a 19-year old son in Germany, and he has a 17-year old girlfriend, and I assume that they have sex. The bigots of the US government may believe this is immoral , and they will continue to try everything to outlaw as much sex as possible (in the US and abroad), but I hope that the German government will withstand the pressure, and that there will be a trend reversal in the US (with some lobbying that may be funded by rich, non-Christian men).