Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Thank you so much for pointing out reality. You are the hero women all people need!
:P
The issue wasn't personal sexual preferences though, everyone is aware that those differ person to person. The issue was broadstroke qualitative statements, like "women who are X need to readjust their expectations" or "women who are X are less viable." Nothing wrong with saying "I have the following preferences," but to turn it into some definitive statement on women as a whole is probably not great. Look at the post above, "I date 25-35 max"... no issue at all, because he didn't try to lay out some "truth" about 35+ year old women.
Do whatever though. I didn't see Peanut's post and think "Hey, this is begging for someone come in here and point out reality" but w/e. I just thought it was condescending.
|
Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound condescending. I just meant that finding a match meeting the fraud victim's standards would be very difficult (if not impossible). And I am not saying that she doesn't have the right to have those standards, but any male client they set her up with is going to have his own standards as well, and it is unlikely she would meet them. It's not just what she wants, but they need to consider what the other side wants. Multiply those together and the database probably came up empty. Obviously the company lied to her and should have refunded her money than make a lame attempt to lock her in to a contract.
Then Peanut's post sounded like a condemnation for men having the standards that they do, so some of us justified why those standards exist. If you make a condemnation on an opinion, it's reasonable to give a response.