This is not a politics thread, the posts aren't 4 pages long, and they do sometimes make somewhat sense.

i did ignore that, loz. only because your argument was pretty much too dumb for words. basicly what you're saying is that if someone says he hates dogs, we should assume he hates all animals, because it falls under the same umbrella even though it is not mentioned.

i don't get it, why are you so eager to defend muppet the sexist with so rotten arguments?

Good point!

lol maybe you should work on your own sweet talking and then maybe you wont have to complain about it.

obviously she doesn't.

"How does that translate to "I like women"?" Ask those who said it.

I do like women though. Generally.

"and you're not accused of being "sexist against men", you are accused of being sexist against women." I'm past caring either way. I'm not sexist. Those who are sexist against women sack them because they're pregnant and things.

Only the weak hit women.

Any gentleman will put a woman's needs before his own.

So those comments make me sexist against women? By these, I am not saying that women are incapable of doing things, merely that men should treat them well and be gentlemen. If anyone thinks those are sexist comments they are overreacting in the extreme. Grow up and find some proper sexist stories. If not these, how am I sexist against women?

justinian you are a complete meat sack.....

a man is not a slave to a woman... simply is being curtious,
perhaps your inability to see this is why you are experiencing problems. if i re call correctly you started the post "long distance relationships".

maybe you need to look at yourself and change who you are if you want to have success. not try to change other people.

I believe the way that a man treats a woman is dependent on the relationship that they had with their own mother.

"Any gentleman will put a woman's needs before his own."

if you weren't a sexist, you would have said "any decent man will put everyone else's needs before his own." but seeing how you obviously think the things located between legs play such an important role on who to help and who not, you can be labelled a sexist without risk of being mistaken.

""How does that translate to "I like women"?" Ask those who said it."

Actually, you said it.

Look here:
"I'm not a chauvinist, I'm not sexist. [font=BOLD]Just because I said I like women[/BOLD] it doesn't make me sexist against men."

"Fact is, I wouldn't do that for any woman, especially not if I'm not getting laid." That sounds to me as though *you're* the one who's after the "thing between women's legs" as you so ineloquently put it. And Justinian, I'm talking about a different type of strength, not just the physical type. I mean that only weak men, those who can't look after a woman and are too scared to treat her completely right that they hit someone who is physically weaker than themselves. Therefore they are a coward. This is a strength that is very hard to put into words, so I'll use your example. Schwarzenegger hits his wife. It's obvious that he is physically very strong, so why hit someone who is obviously weaker than oneself?

Justinian, I'm not talking about money. A woman who is very caring probably won't let a man spend inordinate amounts of money on her. Even if you have no money, the idea to treat a woman as she should be: with courtesy and grace and compliments and thoughtfulness, and little things like that are far more important than money.
Furthermore, relationships aren't 'you scratch my back I'll scratch yours' and isn't how you were describing something there essentially prostitution? "Fact is, I wouldn't do that for any woman, especially not if I'm not getting laid." Anyway... I wasn't saying exactly what you think I was, but part was right. Give all you can, because, people, you will get something back if everything's right. If you give everything you can, and your girl is giving you everything, then something's working. You see? The main points of disagreement here are down to _experience_ of relationships, I believe.

More tiresome arguments from Decimus. At least Justinian develops his arguments. "if you weren't a sexist, you would have said "any decent man will put everyone else's needs before his own." but seeing how you obviously think the things located between legs play such an important role on who to help and who not, you can be labelled a sexist without risk of being mistaken." Look, the simple fact of the matter is that the subject is women and their needs, so I put my view on that, not the whole of humanity. Men are more often able to look after themselves anyway, so follows the whole thread.

Okey, Simon, I like women. That's the point of the whole thread in my opinion. You found the evidence that I wrote.

Decimus, if you want even a shread of respect, or even slight recognition that you are capable of putting your point across, try arguing and don't try and skip round things that stump you. You look even sillier if you don't admit defeat or try and come back. That isn't a personal attack, just advice.