LockeColeMA wrote:
Look Alma, it doesn't matter to us what you think of yourself. To everyone else on this forum, and likely the world at large, you come off as a misogynist. You can cry to the high heavens about how it's completely wrong - but that's how you come off. Instead of insisting you're right, maybe you should try to see yourself like everyone else does. I'm honestly afraid you have a mental disorder that makes you unable to empathize with others (antisocial disorder? Not positive if that's the right one).
Saying stuff like "You always pay for sex" just isn't something a normal person says, even if it's "true." No one thinks in those terms unless they are extremely cynical or full of hatred toward the opposite sex. Or potentially a robot.
I clarified myself numerous times now. So, if for whatever reason, you believe the nonsense crap you just spouted, once again, that isn't fault of mine. It was a counter to the belief that prostitution is wrong because you shouldn't have to open your wallet for sex. You do have to open your wallet and EVERYONE says that, that's how you have that "buying the cow" expression.
So, if you want to insult me, then fine. IDGAF, but don't expect me to live in fantasy land believing the stuff you say just because this forum likes to say it.
You or anyone else, has yet pointed out anything that supports your claim of me being a misogynist other than diverting the subject into fictitious arguments.
The bottom line is, you all make stuff up and argue that as if I made those claims. I never called or implied that women were money hungry or whores. I made a financial counter to my OWN belief of not wanting to pay for something that you could get for "free"..
Instead of taking in the entire picture, you all literally harped on ONE HALF of my own self-proclaimed contradiction as an argument and then added irrelevant stuff to it.
What about the other half? So, you can pretend all you want that that I'm delusional or whatever, but the reality is, you, along with many others, rely on the straw man to win arguments.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The fact still remains that a man is not likely to have sex with a woman by simply saying "hey, let's go have sex". Although, these things happen, they are not the norm.
If that wasn't the norm, then we wouldn't have words for promiscuous girls like "*****" and "****."
There may be women who don't do it, but there are plenty of women who do. Just like, though I'm sure you'll say I'm wrong, there are men who are not into one night stands.
The fact that those words exist, is evident of my claim. Else, woman and ***** would be synonymous, but they aren't. Instead of having words to describe whores and sluts, there would be words to describe sexually conservative women. I'm not saying that they don't exist, but they would be more popular.
I learned a correction from over the years. It's not that women are more/less sexual than men, it's that overall, women aren't as likely to ACT on their sexual urges as a male would. Women tend to value their self image more so than a male. Calling a male a ***** or a **** doesn't hold the same value as calling a woman those same words.
Many guys brag about how many women he's been with. A certain percentage of men measure their "manliness" by the amount of women he's been with.
Men are made fun of for being a virgin or having few partners. The list goes on... It's a double standard and to pretend otherwise is just silly.