LockeColeMA wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The simple fact that you have yet addressed the other half of my self-proclaimed contradiction is evident that you're not trying to "help" at all. You're merely using the straw man to insult. That's fine with me, just own up to it. You don't have to do it publicly, just realize it.
?
I'm telling you how you come across. There's no "other half" to it. You come across as a misogynist. That includes everything you've said.
Edit: Again, it might not be misogyny. It's just as likely that you cannot understand how other people think or feel. As said, it's likely a mental disorder, and as such can be treated (hopefully). Until you do, it will likely affect all your relationships. You can blame it on other things, like girls liking bad boys, or women being creatures that only put out when enough money is invested... but really, there's a pattern here that you should see. WOULD see if it were anyone but yourself.
Edited, Aug 2nd 2011 11:58am by LockeColeMA The fact that you insist that there isn't any other half, when I clearly opened the topic with two distinct view points is evident that you're full of BS.
There's no disorder or anything wrong with me. You're simply using straw man arguments in support of "cyber bullying" me into believing that there is something wrong with me.
Let me break it down for you. I presented two thoughts (thought 1 and thought 2) that contradicted each other. You presented a thought (thought 3) that also contradicted thought 2.What is it the most likely relationship between thought 1 and thought 3?
That's how I know you're full of BS... unless... that is..... you're the one with the mental disorder and don't realize it? If so, I can help you out. I can google some help for you...
Belkira wrote:
You keep saying that if a man wants to have sex with a woman, he has to pay in some way (either a prostitute or via a relationship). I'm saying that there are women who will have sex with a man without that. You accept that, then say that the fact that those women exist proves your point...
That's just backwards.
2 Reasons.
1. I was referring to whores and sluts. Just because a woman will have sex with a man without him needing to shell out money, doesn't make her a *****. How sexist of you to think otherwise.
2. I've clarified numerous times that my comment was a financial counter to the belief that prostitution is wrong because a man shouldn't ever have to open his wallet to have sex. I know what I said and I understand how you INITIALLY perceived it, but I clarified that numerous of times now. So, if you insist on believing your claim, then you're simply in denial.
Nad wrote:
Alma apparently takes women out, pays for everything and STILL gets none.
Learn to read?
Spoon wrote:
Also, that time you spent growing up developing social skills? You're totally paying for sex if you use them to attract a woman.
Learn to read? and not be an idiot?
Guenny wrote:
And Locke, it's misogyny spurred by constant rejection of the opposite sex. If no girl will ever sleep with you under any circumstances, you have to justify it to yourself somehow. The "All girls need to be courted and bought things and committed to before they even have sex with you, and I'm just above that"
Learn to read? not be an idiot? and pretend to be knowledgeable?