"Women want sex, just not with YOU."

[Bottle]

Somehow the response is the one making a leap in logic, being sexist, or being unreasonable.

It's simple, really; the statement's flaws do not negate the flaws of the response TO it.

Which statement? The one in your OP, or the actual statement that was originally said?

Oh, and that other thread was about condemning the expectations on men to have sex, a point which the post being responded to seemed to be disagreeing with.

I suppose it does seem that way, if you ignore my repeated and clear statements to the contrary. Probably a good reason to read what people actually say, and confirm that quotes actually say what you think they say, instead of "paraphrasing" yourself into a humiliating little corner.

[Fluffy Coyotes]

Which statement? The one in your OP, or the actual statement that was originally said?

I'm referring to the same two statements I was referring to in the OP; the statement you were responding to, and your response to it. My point is that "which statement was unreasonable" is a false dichotomy. They both seemed unreasonable if you ask me.

Likewise, the potential value of double-checking on my part doesn't negate the potential value of better communication on yours.

[Northern Dominus]

Somehow the response is the one making a leap in logic, being sexist, or being unreasonable.

It's simple, really; the statement's flaws do not negate the flaws of the response TO it. Both the statement AND its response can be making a leap in logic, it doesn't have to be just one or the other.

Oh, and that other thread was about condemning the expectations on men to have sex, a point which the post being responded to seemed to be disagreeing with.

So people responding to the fact that His Fryness was outrageously misquoted and the fact that your OP was highly misogynist are somehow flawed....over and over... and there's no need for self-examination on your part because you're right and perfect so there?

[Bottle]

It's simple, really; the statement's flaws do not negate the flaws of the response TO it. Both the statement AND its response can be making a leap in logic, it doesn't have to be just one or the other.

Oh, and that other thread was about condemning the expectations on men to have sex, a point which the post being responded to seemed to be disagreeing with.

So people responding to the fact that His Fryness was outrageously misquoted and the fact that your OP was highly misogynist are somehow flawed....over and over... and there's no need for self-examination on your part because you're right and perfect so there?

Apparently the fact that sexist dudes find my statements "flawed" is a sign that I'm doing feminism wrong, or something. I'm honestly not sure at this point, since I can't even be sure what statements are being quoted/paraphrased/made up.

[Seperates]

Which statement? The one in your OP, or the actual statement that was originally said?

I'm referring to the same two statements I was referring to in the OP; the statement you were responding to, and your response to it. My point is that "which statement was unreasonable" is a false dichotomy. They both seemed unreasonable if you ask me.

Likewise, the potential value of double-checking on my part doesn't negate the potential value of better communication on yours.

Actually, as a seeker of knowledge/interviewer, it is entirely your fault for not phrasing the questions correctly, if you are actually seeking an understanding dialouge.

Only a lazy interviewer blames the person they are interviewing.

[Condunum]

So people responding to the fact that His Fryness was outrageously misquoted and the fact that your OP was highly misogynist are somehow flawed....over and over... and there's no need for self-examination on your part because you're right and perfect so there?

Apparently the fact that sexist dudes find my statements "flawed" is a sign that I'm doing feminism wrong, or something. I'm honestly not sure at this point, since I can't even be sure what statements are being quoted/paraphrased/made up.

No no no, it's not that your statements are flawed, its that a woman obviously cannot be saying something correct. Should a man say it, I'm sure it would be okay.

[Individuality-ness]

Apparently the fact that sexist dudes find my statements "flawed" is a sign that I'm doing feminism wrong, or something. I'm honestly not sure at this point, since I can't even be sure what statements are being quoted/paraphrased/made up.

No no no, it's not that your statements are flawed, its that a woman obviously cannot be saying something correct. Should a man say it, I'm sure it would be okay.

So if I said "hey, I'm a man, and women have preferences", it makes a difference? Who knew?!

[Condunum]

No no no, it's not that your statements are flawed, its that a woman obviously cannot be saying something correct. Should a man say it, I'm sure it would be okay.

So if I said "hey, I'm a man, and women have preferences", it makes a difference? Who knew?!

Indeed. But you are female, so you must rely on my expert insight and manly voice to get your point across

[Individuality-ness]

So if I said "hey, I'm a man, and women have preferences", it makes a difference? Who knew?!

Indeed. But you are female, so you must rely on my expert insight and manly voice to get your point across

Oh Condy, what can we do without your obviously manly insights of things? Your manly authority can cut across the board, it's so great and strong! Who cares what the words are, you're a man with authority!

[Choronzon]

I was unaware TJ had such a dedicated cadre of Me Toos.

[Individuality-ness]

I was unaware TJ had such a dedicated cadre of Me Toos.

Well, it's like they say, reality has a liberal, feminist bias, and the MRAs need someone to make them feel important.

[Northern Dominus]

So people responding to the fact that His Fryness was outrageously misquoted and the fact that your OP was highly misogynist are somehow flawed....over and over... and there's no need for self-examination on your part because you're right and perfect so there?

Apparently the fact that sexist dudes find my statements "flawed" is a sign that I'm doing feminism wrong, or something. I'm honestly not sure at this point, since I can't even be sure what statements are being quoted/paraphrased/made up.

Obviously. You're a woman.
If you assert yourself then you're a prudish bitch who hates men for some personal reason rather than for any legitimate affront or complaint.
If you agree in any way then you're obviously supposed to either lay back or open wide, and failing to do so is a breach of male and female interaction etiquette.

See, pretty clear inn't?

[Condunum]

Indeed. But you are female, so you must rely on my expert insight and manly voice to get your point across

Oh Condy, what can we do without your obviously manly insights of things? Your manly authority can cut across the board, it's so great and strong! Who cares what the words are, you're a man with authority!

That's right! As a man, I can use my manliness to dominate the voice of any female, and even if I'm wrong, I'm right! And that's how it is. And that's how it should be. *nod*

[Northern Dominus]

I was unaware TJ had such a dedicated cadre of Me Toos.

I'm pretty sure they meet at some old mansion and done robes with hoods and masks...

You know except for the topless women...and the orgies.

[Seperates]

I was unaware TJ had such a dedicated cadre of Me Toos.

I'm pretty sure they meet at some old mansion and done robes with hoods and masks...

You know except for the topless women...and the orgies.

No... they stll have the orgies...

Very prudish orgies.

[Individuality-ness]

Oh Condy, what can we do without your obviously manly insights of things? Your manly authority can cut across the board, it's so great and strong! Who cares what the words are, you're a man with authority!

That's right! As a man, I can use my manliness to dominate the voice of any female, and even if I'm wrong, I'm right! And that's how it is. And that's how it should be. *nod*

It's not like I have a mind of my own, with opinions, wants, desires, needs. I'm just the kitchen wench.

[Individuality-ness]

I'm pretty sure they meet at some old mansion and done robes with hoods and masks...

You know except for the topless women...and the orgies.

No... they stll have the orgies...

Very prudish orgies.

I thought their orgies consisted of them fucking sex dolls.

[Ashmoria]

If women select mates based on rational assessment of the mates' attributes, this is proof that women are calculating exploitative whores. If women select mates in spite of those mates lacking specific attributes, this is proof that women are stupid and irrational and to blame for any badness that results from their poor judgment.

This is because the problem in both situations is that women are being allowed to make decisions. Curse you, feminism! *shakes fist*

If she selects a man that is nice and she is compatible with it is fine. That is what she should do. Wendi has a checkered history, look her up. She is not innocent.

The men are thinking with their little head and able to be cheated by the gold diggers. It is the men that are stupid and the women are cold and calculating. If a woman pretends to love a man (including during sex) that is cold.

I don't know what you have against mrs Murdoch but Rupert seems quite happy with her. isn't that all that matters?

[Condunum]

That's right! As a man, I can use my manliness to dominate the voice of any female, and even if I'm wrong, I'm right! And that's how it is. And that's how it should be. *nod*

It's not like I have a mind of my own, with opinions, wants, desires, needs. I'm just the kitchen wench.

Speaking of which, why are you here? Make me a sandwich. It's the right thing to do, obviously.

[Seperates]

No... they stll have the orgies...

Very prudish orgies.

I thought their orgies consisted of them fucking sex dolls.

Indeed.

[Condunum]

No... they stll have the orgies...

Very prudish orgies.

I thought their orgies consisted of them fucking sex dolls.

But the lights are off because since its all men they don't want to be called gay.

[I Want to Smash Them All]

Which statement? The one in your OP, or the actual statement that was originally said?

I'm referring to the same two statements I was referring to in the OP; the statement you were responding to, and your response to it. My point is that "which statement was unreasonable" is a false dichotomy. They both seemed unreasonable if you ask me.

Likewise, the potential value of double-checking on my part doesn't negate the potential value of better communication on yours.

Um. WTF?

You are making absolute no sense whatsoever.

You did not quote any statement by Bottle in the OP. Only linked to a post by you responding to a post by Bottle in another thread. You then quoted your post.

Prior to my post, no reference was made to the post in the other thread to which Bottle was responding. And you made no objection to it in the other thread.

So what are "same two statements I was referring to in the OP"? I get that even though you incorrectly "paraphrased it" in your title and did not even do that in the OP itself, one statement is "Bottle's post." You never referred to this post before I brought it up. The only other statement referred to in the OP is yours.

[Seperates]

I thought their orgies consisted of them fucking sex dolls.

But the lights are off because since its all men they don't want to be called gay.

It's ok if it's a three-way.

[Individuality-ness]

It's not like I have a mind of my own, with opinions, wants, desires, needs. I'm just the kitchen wench.

Speaking of which, why are you here? Make me a sandwich. It's the right thing to do, obviously.

They're on the dining table, dear.

I thought their orgies consisted of them fucking sex dolls.

Indeed.

Quite sad, that. We have the most wonderful scenes on our end, and they choose to reject that for their dolls.

[Seperates]

Indeed.

Quite sad, that. We have the most wonderful scenes on our end, and they choose to reject that for their dolls.

Yes... well... to each their own I guess?