Anonymous #1 1w

I don't really care if you care lol

5

Anonymous OP 1w

Nothing screams ‘I don’t care’ like posting instructions ☺️

1

Anonymous #1 1w

First of all, I didn't post instructions lol. Secondly, I said I don't care if you care. I do care about what the person I'm dating looks like. I don't care what you look like because I'm not dating you lmao

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Interesting cuz u didn’t say ‘my preference’, u said ‘dating men’ & then gave belittling body advice tht framed men’s attraction as the standard women should meet. U made it universal, ppl responded, and now ur walking it back…

1

Anonymous #1 1w

I'm literally confused on what you're even saying lol firstly I feel like it's implied that I'm stating my superficial preferences and I can't help the fact that you for some reason took me stating my standards (when a lot of girls wouldn't even date a guy under 5'10 at all and a lot of girls like skinny guys) as me speaking for everyone. Secondly how does saying the way I think men should look set a standard that women have to meet lol that doesn't even make sense?

1

Anonymous #1 1w

And "people" didn't respond lol you're the only person responding

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Actually I think you're just misunderstanding the post now that I reread it lol. I'm a woman. The post is saying [my] superficial standards when [I am] dating men is you [you being a man I date] can only have one of the 2 negative traits, either short or skinny, for me to still be interested and if you have both, I will not be interested and in any case you should work to not be skinny because that's in your control. The post isn't about men's attraction lol it's about my attraction to men

1

Anonymous #2 1w

The post literally just says either be tall or don't be skinny lmao what the hell are you talking about

1

Anonymous OP 1w

“Superficial dating requirements” that are not sustainable.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Also still confusion lol there are more options than whatever you just said and trust fund baby that doesn't work. Going to the gym 4 hours away isn't even for fitness at that point, it's like an autistic special interest lol. An hour a day and a long run a couple times a week is normal and people do indeed have time for that. Additionally, I never even said anything about money but vacation is not beyond my income or any of my peers income so that's a nonissue

1

Anonymous #2 1w

And I would never want a trust fund baby that doesn't work, lazy losers have never been attractive to me idc how much money you were lucky to be born into

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I am citing some of things people want that are not sustainable which is the main idea of your post. The choices the internet offers is really an illusion when people seek their unicorn.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Again, the post literally just says either don't be skinny or don't be short. That's 2 things and you don't even have to have both and going to the gym is 100% sustainable when you're normal

1

Anonymous #2 1w

It's also not internet choices lol I date people in real life

1

Anonymous #2 1w

The literal superficial dating requirements in question are "either don't be skinny or don't be short." What about that is not sustainable?

1

Anonymous OP 1w

What i am saying isn’t rebuttal to you. It’s about the “superficial dating requirements” and the context of it. Is it wrong to share context?

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Nothing you're saying makes sense

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Sharing context doesn’t make sense?

1

Anonymous #2 1w

What do you even mean sharing context lol what context are you sharing

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I mentioned in my previous reply.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

To which I responded none of what you're saying makes sense. Just saying words is not the same as providing context lol a slippery slope argument that doesn't even make sense IN CONTEXT of this post is not sharing context, it's just saying things that aren't true or relevant

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Context of “superficial dating requirements”. That doesn’t make sense?

1

Anonymous #2 1w

I think it's also just crazy to say that the most tame things are unsustainable like basically everyone I know goes to the gym. A lot of them work 60-80+ hours a week depending on industry. The same people make good money. They also find time for dating. Even people more senior to me who are married and have kids still go to the gym and work a lot. It's about priorities. If you claim you don't have time then you don't have time but if you can sit on your ass for an hour you can go to the gym lol

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Do you know what context means?

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Context refers to the circumstances, environment, or setting (temporal, physical, cultural) surrounding an event, statement, or text that defines its meaning. It acts as a framework essential for proper interpretation. Key synonyms include background, framework, setting, environment, and circumstances.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Right so how is saying that you personally go to the gym 4 hours a day like a psycho and jumping leaps and bounds to suggest what people want is a lazy trust fund baby providing a "framework essential for proper interpretation"? That's not providing background on superficial dating that's just you saying words lol

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Some people want that are superficial..

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Again, it’s context about such things.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

"Some people want that are superficial". Please add more words to make this make sense, this is not a sentence and I have no idea what you're trying to say

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Also why the personal attack regarding me as a psycho? I haven’t said anything about you personally.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

"It's context about such things". What are "it" and "such things" referring to here

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Also I am not rebutting you.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Not really a personal attack, just dramatically calling out that it's not the norm or expectation for people to go to the gym 4 hours a day

1

Anonymous #2 1w

You're not doing anything except saying words that do not make up a fully fledged thought

1

Anonymous OP 1w

It is a personal attack. You don’t know me yet you say that.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

So where does that come from?

1

Anonymous #2 1w

I don't have to know you to say something you told me you do is crazy lol

1

Anonymous #2 1w

I didn't say you are a psycho I said you go to the gym for 4 hours like a psycho. That's where it comes from, it's stated plainly

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Yes but to say that “like a psycho” is saying that the time of the gym is wrong and not healthy or not normal.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

So again, why say such things? I don’t know you and don’t say things like that.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Well yes that is what I'm saying. It's not normal. As I literally said above, I said it's not the norm or expectation and as such it doesn't make sense to hinge your whole argument on the assertion that people don't have time because most people have at least 2-3 more hours than you just by going to the gym for a normal amount of time

1

Anonymous #2 1w

And again, I don't have to know you personally to state my opinion on things you've said

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Yes opinions is fine but not personal attacks. Go read my replies. Context about superficial dating requirements. I am not saying that is all the context but few examples.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

And again, I am not rebutting you.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Again, it is not a personal attack because I did not call you a psycho. And this conversation is a waste of time, if I'm repeatedly telling you nothing you've said has been a complete thought and your response is "read what I said" instead of making an effort to complete your thought, this chat is useless. No need to proceed

1

Anonymous OP 1w

“Context about superficial dating requirements. I am not saying that is all the context but few examples.”

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Again I think we're stuck in a place of you not using words correctly. Examples and context are not the same thing. Let me explain. Examples of empires are British Empire Roman Empire Ottoman Empire etc. Context for empires is that military strength and economic success allowed for successful conquest which was motivated by a desire to broaden access to natural resources, to advance trade, to make history as a leader, to expand influence etc. context is background, examples are products

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I like history. Thanks for sharing. Ottomans had their institutions war with each other as to why they imploded as their bureaucracy expanded in each institution. British over expanded and has a lot of parallels how the Spanish empire fell. Spain focused in agriculture while Britain expanded their shopkeepers. Spain as an empire helped to keep the ottomans out along with Hapsburgs.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

But you see what I said isn’t the whole history but a piece of it and it’s still context like my previous replies.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

You're still not understanding. The point was never that context has to be the whole entirety of the thing, the point was that examples of the thing itself are not context for the thing. None of what you've said is context.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Superficial : of a person) never thinking about things that are serious or important: Example: “He's fun to be with, but he's very superficial.”

1

Anonymous OP 1w

“I am a guy and I wake up early to work out 3 hours a day and need an extra hour for cardio. So that's 4. A job, dating, and even kids in the future will monkey hammer the workout routine.” Monkey hammer doesn’t mean not possible but for some will be seen impossible. Superficial dating is that they all these things and not enough time in the day because they are not serious. One can be functional to accomplish a lot in a day but superficial dating is not realistic about what they want.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Same for vacations because overtime one isn’t enough when it’s superficial that goes beyond their income. A trust fund baby is an avenue a superficial person can take because they do not have to be serious to fill the needs that they do not have to be serious to manage the time and resources to accomplish it.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I am just adding more context to my previous replies.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

You're just saying words. Also there are more options than poor or trust fund baby, some of us actually have jobs that pay good salaries and have PTO lol it's not crazy to take multiple vacations. I took 4 international trips last year and plan to take 4 more this year at least (I already took one this month)

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Not all those on trusts are trust fund babies. Trust fund babies are toxic people on trusts who just consume like zombies. It has parallels to superficial people and can be a lot alike but do not have to be the same. Yes some people are functional realistic in how they accomplish their goals and not superficial.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

At this point I don't even think you know what point you're trying to make. I clearly don't. Let's just leave it here

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I shared context and I didnt rebutted you. So what is the issue?

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Shared context on what lmao why do you keep saying you shared context when I keep telling you giving examples is not context

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I went over specifics for you with quotes what I wrote. I cited what was context already. You disagree yet you don’t provide detail. So explain in detail by line item.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Going in depth on examples doesn't magically turn an example into context firstly and secondly you went on so many tangents in all your replies that I don't even know what point you're trying to make as it relates to the post and your original comment, which I already said. I don't even know what you're saying I disagree with

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I didn’t go into tangents I explained what I said before in terms and summarized them. Cite what I said that you disagree and explain. I already did that.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

I think everything you're saying is irrelevant and your original comments still don't make sense and for like the 10th time examples aren't context.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I already asked you to cite specifics by line item and I did that and cited terms with vocab even on superficial. Cite specifics by line item. Why don’t you do that? I already asked.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

I literally did. I don't care anymore

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Thanks for the chat then :) Again, I didn’t rebuttal you and shared context. Live long and prosper - Spock

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Again, you didn't share context

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Again my friend, cite specifics by line item.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

I've done it 20 times

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Sure my friend :) 🫡

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Oh 🧍‍♀️ lmfao sorry queen, I thought I read a man trying to belittle women and obviously was like oh HELL no….buuuuut also, maybe don’t call skinny body types negative no matter the gender 😭

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Why is it fine to call short negative but not skinny when you can't even do anything about being short lol performative outrage

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Girl who tf am I performing for? I’m posting anonymously😂 I agree that being short shouldn’t be called negative either but u directly called being skinny “negative” that’s why I called it out. And ur literally admitting that what u said wasn’t great 💀

1

Anonymous #1 1w

I'm not "admitting" anything lol I think it's pretty explicitly stated that I don't like skinny men. Stayed twice even lol it's not some covert meaning that I need to admit I was implying

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Ok ALL im saying is just be a lil nicer when ur talking about peoples body types, ur entitled to be attracted to whoever u want but u don’t need to demean the ppl who don’t fit ur description

1

Anonymous #1 1w

I don't need to do anything lol I did it because I felt like it

1