"Women want sex, just not with YOU."

[Condunum]

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.

Indeed.

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

Oh. Well... Good job. I'll let you buy one thing from the candy shop tomorrow for thinking ahea- NO. STOP THINKING THIS IS DANGEROUS.

[Individuality-ness]

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?

I guess. So sad.

They're on the dining table, dear.

Oh. Well... Good job. I'll let you buy one thing from the candy shop tomorrow for thinking ahea- NO. STOP THINKING THIS IS DANGEROUS.

I'm sorry! I'll stop!

[Seperates]

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

I guess. So sad.

'tis...

[Esternial]

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.

I'll go out and say it: Maybe he doesn't know how to please a lady?

[Bottle]

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

In fairness, he needs them in order to keep up with my legion of feminazi puppets (that's all of the rest of you!).

[Seperates]

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

In fairness, he needs them in order to keep up with my legion of feminazi puppets (that's all of the rest of you!).

Grr... I am a feminist, hear me roar.

[Individuality-ness]

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

In fairness, he needs them in order to keep up with my legion of feminazi puppets (that's all of the rest of you!).

Feminazi God!! All hail Bottle!

[Esternial]

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

In fairness, he needs them in order to keep up with my legion of feminazi puppets (that's all of the rest of you!).

Egad! Surely not me, right?

[Bottle]

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.

I'll go out and say it: Maybe he doesn't know how to please a lady?

See, you guys?! Another person saying that all men should be judged by whether or not they please a lady, and saying that all men are bad at pleasing ladies, and saying that all women are entitled to be pleased by ladies, and ad hominem and tu quoque and vas deferens and so forth!

MISANDRY!

[Northern Dominus]

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.

Prudish orgies...

Wow, the Eyes Wide Shut rabbit hole goes further, they're Nicole Kidman fans too...

[Esternial]

I'll go out and say it: Maybe he doesn't know how to please a lady?

See, you guys?! Another person saying that all men should be judged by whether or not they please a lady, and saying that all men are bad at pleasing ladies, and saying that all women are entitled to be pleased by ladies, and ad hominem and tu quoque and vas deferens and so forth!

MISANDRY!

Please don't hurt me D':

[Seperates]

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

Very prudish orgies.

Prudish orgies...

Wow, the Eyes Wide Shut rabbit hole goes further, they're Nicole Kidman fans too...

Odd...

[Bottle]

In fairness, he needs them in order to keep up with my legion of feminazi puppets (that's all of the rest of you!).

Egad! Surely not me, right?

Well that depends. Do you disagree with the masculinist posters on this forum? If you do, then you are obviously just my puppet, and have clearly not come up with any of your posts independently or arrived at any conclusions without direct supervision by the Feminist Hive Brain.

[Ifreann]

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

In fairness, he needs them in order to keep up with my legion of feminazi puppets (that's all of the rest of you!).

Must snark masculinists, grrr, rrrgh!

[Seperates]

Egad! Surely not me, right?

Well that depends. Do you disagree with the masculinist posters on this forum? If you do, then you are obviously just my puppet, and have clearly not come up with any of your posts independently or arrived at any conclusions without direct supervision by the Feminist Hive Brain.

Holy Christ, everything suddenly makes sense!

[Esternial]

Egad! Surely not me, right?

Well that depends. Do you disagree with the masculinist posters on this forum? If you do, then you are obviously just my puppet, and have clearly not come up with any of your posts independently or arrived at any conclusions without direct supervision by the Feminist Hive Brain.

Depends, what are the these men saying? My hivemind connection isn't working very well and I haven't been paying attention.

[Bottle]

In fairness, he needs them in order to keep up with my legion of feminazi puppets (that's all of the rest of you!).

Must snark masculinists, grrr, rrrgh!

I like to picture you all as Daleks, rolling slowly forward as you threateningly bleep out "CASTRATE! CASTRATE!"

[I Want to Smash Them All]

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.

Your statements are even more convoluted and absurd than the one's vilifying Bottle in the other thread. Add to that your vague and inconsistent use of "statement" and "response" and your post becomes gibberish.

The post ("Post A") to which Bottle (and TSM) were responding was deeply flawed (and sexist).

Bottle's post was pointing out one of the flaws in Post A. Post A (in addition to endorsing the view that men must have sex to be "real men") argued that women do not want sex as much as men because some women had rejected him. Bottle pointed out that women could want to have sex, but not with the author of Post A. There is no flaw in that logic or its factual basis.

Oh, and that other thread was about condemning the expectations on men to have sex,

Which is included in what I said:

Bizarrely, this happens to be in a thread (What's so bad about men not being sex crazed?) complaining about how men are expected to have sex, pressured to have sex, looked down on for not having sex, and oppressed as sex objects.

My point was Post A expressed an expectation that women should want to have sex (and specifically with the author), described pressuring women to have sex, looked down on women for not having sex, and described women as sex objects. But neither you nor TJ objected to this.

a point which the post being responded to seemed to be disagreeing with.

Which post? Which response?

Post A directly responded to the concerns of the OP of that thread by saying "I don't know nor do I care" and insulted celibacy as "boring."

Bottle's post in question was a response to Post A that said nothing directly or indirectly about men being expected to have sex. Multiple times in that thread, however, Bottle expressed the opinion that men should not be expected to have sex or judged for not having sex.

Bottom line: You attacked a strawman. And you misrepresented Stephen Fry's views in doing so. And, in calling Bottle sexist, you attacked the post that was not sexist and ignored the actually sexist post.

[Ifreann]

Must snark masculinists, grrr, rrrgh!

I like to picture you all as Daleks, rolling slowly forward as you threateningly bleep out "CASTRATE! CASTRATE!"

Instead of a plunger, we have a pair of shears.

[Mirkana]

I'm not sure how much of the tendency of men to be more aggressive in seeking out sexual partners than women is cultural, and how much is biological.

I can think of a biological basis for why, though. Basically, while both genders have a desire to have sex and produce offspring, women have to actually bear the offspring in question. Given that such behavior would have evolved in a time without reliable contraception, for a fertile woman to have sex means that she is risking pregnancy, and can't necessarily afford to jump into bed with just any man. I'm not saying that this is what women are consciously thinking, but it may be why women seem to be less aggressive than men in seeking out sexual partners.

Of course, I could be totally wrong.

[Condunum]

Must snark masculinists, grrr, rrrgh!

I like to picture you all as Daleks, rolling slowly forward as you threateningly bleep out "CASTRATE! CASTRATE!"

This is quite possibly the most brilliant thing I have pictures. Thank you, bottle, for the laugh.

[Northern Dominus]

Prudish orgies...

Wow, the Eyes Wide Shut rabbit hole goes further, they're Nicole Kidman fans too...

Odd...

Odd nothing, most of Cruise's significant others are prudes in some shape or form, the exception being Penelope but she was a rebound.

I like to picture you all as Daleks, rolling slowly forward as you threateningly bleep out "CASTRATE! CASTRATE!"

Instead of a plunger, we have a pair of shears.

Think about baseball, think about baseball, think about baseball and Billie Piper, think about baseball Billie Piper and OH MY GOD NOT THOSE! NOOOOOOO!!!!!

[Ljvonia]

Oooh,. another "fem-/trans-/fagtroll"-faction thread! Shall we have another go? I think not... Newbies: get out of this and threads like this as long as you're able.

-The nation formerly known as Lietuvós.

postscriptum:

the female orgasm is a myth anyways.

[Avenio]

Are you going to respond to my post, OP? Not to sound impatient or anything, but I did put a fair amount of work into it. It would be a shame if you ignored it like so many other peoples' posts in this thread.

[Individuality-ness]

I'm not sure how much of the tendency of men to be more aggressive in seeking out sexual partners than women is cultural, and how much is biological.

I can think of a biological basis for why, though. Basically, while both genders have a desire to have sex and produce offspring, women have to actually bear the offspring in question. Given that such behavior would have evolved in a time without reliable contraception, for a fertile woman to have sex means that she is risking pregnancy, and can't necessarily afford to jump into bed with just any man. I'm not saying that this is what women are consciously thinking, but it may be why women seem to be less aggressive than men in seeking out sexual partners.

Of course, I could be totally wrong.

Because obviously women could just not want sex with that person, right?