*Sips tea*

We did. More than once. Scroll back through the posts. We even quote responded to you so you know we aren't making things up.

Yes. It's called whipping out the graphs and charts.

You made a lot of claims about women. While I will not deny these claims are true for some women, are you sure they are as widespread as you assume them to be?

Keep in mind you have been explaining to women how women work. Are you really sure you want to hang your hat on that? Really and truly? This is after making statements about how women do not understand how men work.

The word "some" is your best and safest word choice. Words have denotations and connotations. You seem to understand the denotations (dictionary definitions) but struggle to understand the connotations (implied meaning).

Think again about the example I gave you. Think about how different the connotations of those words were and how they changed the sentence's meaning.

The same applies here.

Here we have OP compare his plight to that of gay people and continue to ignore multiple women calling him out of his misogyny. He demands explanations that have already been given or rejects them outright because he doesn't like them and accuses people of ad hominem attacks were there were none.

You hate to see it.

You're like ... so close to getting it.

Let me help you out.

When you want to describe a group of people without painting broad strokes over the entire group, use the word SOME. Some means "a portion of a group that isn't indicative of the whole."

For example

If I said "Some men beat up their wives," I don't think anyone would disagree with me.

However, if I said "Men typically beat up their wives," or "Men mostly beat up their wives," I'll get pushback. Why? Because the first example describes a group of men that are not representative of the average man. Meanwhile, the last two examples paint he average man as a violent abuser (which is not true).

So please be more mindful of your word choices.

I noticed that too. I made a post about it with shots in another thread.

A lot of people turn to padding or leave it in fantasy.

That said, you may want to see someone about your relationship with food.

Continuing my post because I ran out of room.

The reason I said you are treating women like a monolith is precisely because you use words like "mostly" and "typically." Both words mean "This is how things are except for a few exceptions." That's creating a monolith.

The truth is that there's a lot of diversity in how women approach things. This includes sexuality.

I don't treat groups like a monolith. I understand that a group like women is hugely varied in every regard. That's why I'm always careful to use words like "many", "tend to", etc. I personally think it's ok to notice patterns of behavior in groups of people, just as long as you understand that there will always be a lot of exceptions. It also doesn't address the cause, because social conditioning could play a part. Societal gender roles are one example of a pattern of behavior that is different between men and women, but those roles are expressed differently between individuals, and some reject it completely. Those people are the exceptions, they are in the minority, so they get left out of such discussions, mostly for the sake of brevity. Including such disclaimers every time can really bog down a conversation. I just assume that most people are mentally mature enough to understand this basic fact about human nature.



What I was originally saying was that men and women, on average, have different factors that they find sexually attractive in a partner (not valuable, just sexy). For men, a huge part of that is physical. For women, different factors are more attractive. Because of that, a direct 1 v 1 comparison is impossible, because if someone's partner lost the factors that men like, women would still be attracted to something else about them. What I was attempting to do is provide a functional equivalent, where her partner lost most of the factors that women are attracted to. Keep in mind the inverse is also true. In the depression scenario, if the genders were reversed, most men would also be frustrated and might not tolerate it either, but they would still find her sexy as long as her appearance didn't change too much.



You didn't provide a functional equivalent. I don't think you realize that who a woman is attracted to and who she'll form a relationship with is a Venn Diagram. There are also plenty of men out there who will still find their SO's attractive as their bodies change. It's super common in long-term relationships.

The issue people are having with OP has been explicitly stated several times by several people - myself included. But since you missed it, I will repeat it. OP has explicitly said that if a woman isn't a feedee, he can't feel sexual attraction towards them. However, he's met a number of women that he feels are perfectly lovely in every other aspect. So he wants to settle and have a relationship with a woman he cannot feel sexual attraction towards.

Basically, said woman could not be sexually fulfilled while they are together. And OP isn't interested in sharing either, so it extra sucks for said woman. Doesn't help that what he said comes off as fetishizing and objectifying women.

So this happened:

Yeah, there's a lot of that. And while I do understand not everyone does well in therapy, therapy isn't the only way to improve yourself. Self-reflection, introspection, and metacognition all go a long way.