If someone is being overtly hateful and targeting other members, then yeah, that kind of response is totally warranted. Guys like that deserve it. I do recall seeing a case like that in the past where a guy was proudly calling himself a white supremacist, and had to be removed, but in the meantime people were shutting down any conversation that started going in that direction.

The only problem I see is in the grey areas where what someone says isn't anywhere near close to that, but some people feel inclined to start dogpiling anyway because they have a personal zero tolerance policy toward anything that smells of bigotry or what they interpret as dog whistles, even if that wasn't actually the person's intent. I've personally seen quite a few cases like that happen too. I think in general it's just a good policy for people to err on the side of civility and take people at their word unless proven otherwise. Even if I strongly suspect someone is arguing in bad faith, I will usually try to give a genuine response anyway.

Ok, but you're explicitly violating TOS. What you're saying might be true for disorganized communities, but not here. This isn't society at large, and this isn't a place for internet activism. In this case, tolerance actually DOES mean tolerating the intolerant until you can get a moderator to act on your behalf. It's literally their job to do so. When you confront people, you're actually being counter-productive to what you want, because all you succeeded in doing is getting the thread closed, while they still remain a member and will continue to post. That doesn't actually scare the trolls at all. If I'm wrong in my interpretation of the rules, I'll gladly accept that correction from a moderator.

I'll edit to add an analogy. If you're part of the gaming community, and someone is acting disruptive, then yes, people should do some gatekeeping on their own. But if you're part of an after school club, and someone says something out of pocket, then by rising up and yelling at them, it only makes you look like you're just as disruptive and part of the problem. But if you turn to the club president and tell them that person is turning this into a toxic environment, then thy have an excuse to act and bar that person from future meetings.

It's everyone's responsibility to keep discussions civil on the internet, not just the moderators. If someone is being an asshole or bigot, it's not your job to police the discussion, confront them, or put them in their place. First, not everyone is a skilled communicator, misunderstandings can happen, so asking for clarification is a good idea. Beyond that, you should calmly state your disagreement in a non-accusatory manner, and if they're over the line, report them to the mods. It's this attitude exactly that I've seen time and time again will cause a discussion to escalate to the point where the thread needs to be locked in the first place. All of this is spelled out explicitly in the website rules.



This rule still applies to you, even if you're well-intentioned, and even if somebody else breaks it first.

@BustingButtons

I think you're giving him a rather uncharitable interpretation. I don't see it the same way.



You're right that you shouldn't assume sex will happen after a date, but that's not what he's saying here. When he says "semi-platonic" and "with no assumption it will lead to sex", what he's trying to describe is having a long-term asexual relationship, despite not actually being asexual. Everyone has been advising him against this, because finding an asexual partner is probably going to be nearly as rare as finding a feedee in Sweden. Sexuality is a big component in most people's lives, including women, and everyone wants to feel desired. If his partner wasn't asexual, then she would probably be very unhappy and unfulfilled, as would he.



I think he was probably just being hyperbolic, but it's a known fact that there's a huge correlation between loneliness and depression, so mental health is a factor for everyone. I mean, if he really does think that if you don't have a partner you'll go insane, that's ridiculous. I just don't see a reason to take him that literal.

Given that he's not asking about a sexual relationship, I think the "friend zone" question was about whether an asexual relationship between non-asexual partners would inevitably just become a platonic friendship over time, as both of them slowly lost interest.

He might be an incel in the technical sense since he can't find a partner, but I don't hear their hateful rhetoric here. He's not asking "why won't women have sex with me?" but "can I find happiness if I give up on sex?"

Yes, I do use the word "some" to mean a minority or undetermined number of examples that is not indicative of the group. The problem is, that's not the idea I want to express. That's a different idea. Perhaps it would soften the blow to add more waffle words like "I've noticed that it's common for" or "It seems like there's a frequent trend of"...
I promise you I'm not trying to be hurtful. I'm more than willing to change the phrasing I use, so long as it can still mean what I want it to mean.

Ok, here are two articles that each cite multiple studies on what women find attractive in men.
businessinsider.com/science-backed-qualities-in-men-women-like-2016-6
confidencetoachieve.com.au/what-women-want-in-a-man-according-to-science/

I haven't been explaining to women how women work. I've been giving my thoughts on gendered differences in socialization/psychology, for both men and women who are reading the thread. It's not a private conversation. I know that women fully understand how they work. However, I don't think either gender fully understands how the other works, because each person is limited to their own perspective. Having conversations like this could be a way to reach some kind of understanding about each other.

I didn't expect everyone to agree with me, but I hoped to discuss the ideas on their own merits instead of simply getting told my language is wrong. I asked in good faith how to express the SAME ideas about patterns better, instead I'm basically told not to express them in the first place. Those are the connotations of what you're telling me. Again, I'm not attached to being right about this, but I do care about being able to speak on the topic. It's true that it may not be as widespread as I think, but that's an opportunity to give me some examples that you think are more widespread, and we can discuss.

The example you gave me of 'most men beat their wives' would only bother me because it's untrue. However, if you were to phrase it the other way around, and say that 'most partner abuse is committed by men', then that wouldn't bother me because it is true. My ego isn't wrapped up in such things. (Unless it were used as justification to reach some wild conclusion like 'that's why you should never trust your boyfriend' ). Also, how is saying 'most women are attracted to multiple things in a partner beyond the physical' as bad as saying 'most men beat their wives'? If we look at the connotations, then what I said would paint women in a more flattering light than men, because it would imply they're less "shallow".

Making love while hand feeding them can be gentle.
If you include stuff outside the home, there are some fun feedee date ideas.
Fast food crawls, where you order something at every drive-through along a route.
Buffet dates are a classic.
Order the entire dessert menu at a restaurant.
Order something at every restaurant in a mall food court.
I'd suggest ordering something from every food truck in an area, but I think that's more of a Portland thing. You get the idea.

I'm not sure that "some" communicates what I want it to, because it's just an indeterminate number. For example, some people shower daily. Some people have walked on the moon. There's no indication of frequency or proportion. Is there no room to discuss major trends in human behavior?

Yeah, I agree that there are degrees of shallowness like you said, but I was asking to find out what is the bare minimum for someone to be considered shallow at all in your view?

Wait, so what's your definition of shallow then? Is it being attracted to any physical characteristic or having any fetish?



That all depends on how rare your preferred partner is. It's preventing him from finding anyone in Sweden, but it might not in California. If his fetish were BDSM instead, he wouldn't have a problem anywhere. That's why he has to make a change if he doesn't want to end up forever alone. He has to sacrifice one of the two, either his fetish or his home. Either one will feel like a big loss, so it's up to him which he values more. If he has to suppress his fetish, it's never going away. He'll have to learn coping strategies and make peace with feeling unfulfilled in life. Also I wouldn't frame it like feedees are eager to gain weight for their partner's sexual gratification, they do it for their own sexual gratification, and they have shared goals with their feeder. Maybe that's just nitpicking semantics though, idk.