1st of all, I have already posted the evidence in many threads in the past. It isnt an opinion. That's why I can say what I say and not get the gender war tag. Been there, done that. Look it up
You still don't understand how this works. I'll try again.
How about you re-post the URL (if you know what an URL is) of your threads or posts to support your points?
I'm not going to wade through 10 pages of your thread posts.
If you can't do those things, then you are merely spouting opinion.
Kemetstry said:
1st off, everything in pants cant be called a man. That is your biggest mistake. You contiunue to try to make babyboi a man. The laziness also comes in when females date and mate with babyboi, who doesnt require the female to step up and be a woman. Everything in a skirt is not a woman. Until this delusion ends, we cant have any discussions
Could you quote from any post in this thread where I state "everything in pants is a man".
If not, then this is a figment of your imagination that clearly is not germane to this discussion.
I think a woman needs to be a woman for herself and not for any man.
If everything in a skirt is not a woman, what is she? Just curious....
Kemetstry said:
Make better life choices in dating and mating. We dont get pregnant. We dont form pregnancy pacts. Learn how to say no like women of old
Right here. You wish to remove responsibility from the men and place the onus on women.
How about a man learn to control his sexual energy and not attempt to mount anything in a skirt?
Am I able to infer that you believe men incapable of controlling themselves?
Kemetstry said:
But what you say is gold?
What I say is typically more well researched than most, my opinion of course.
Kemetstry said:
The only thing you distinguish is a need to see an optomotrist lol
This supports your position how or is this an ad hominem attack?
Kemetstry said:
So you feel that you are a slave to your family? Poor analogy dear. You seem to be grasping at straws today. Nice try though
This goes to show how deeply you research an issue ... which is not at all or merely cursory.
This also goes to show your ability to manufacture connections that don't exist. An analogy of your own misguided creation.
It is you who, thorough your faulty inferences, make connections that don't exist.
How about you leave inferring to the people who understand what it is and you stick to inquiry?