I did not equate the two. Just because I said neither action should be done does not mean the two are equal. We worked it out to this: unless a man is physically attacking and you must defend yourself, he does not deserve to be kicked in the balls. Since rape is not a form of self-defense, there is never a reason a…

If that’s all you respond with, it just tells me you don’t know how to read. Or critically think.

You are being maliciously deceitful in your words. I never gave any indication rape was equal to ballkicking, nor did I say rape was ever justified. I explicitly said the opposite.

By your logic all of those scenarios can be reversed and the woman may be deserving of rape. He is being assaulted by a woman (which by the way would include being kicked in the balls)? Then according to your logic he may rape her in response. He was assaulted and is confronting the woman? Rape. The woman is being a…

I said there is one reason a man may be kicked in the balls. You said there are “tons” of reasons. By your same logic, there are tons of reasons a woman may deserve to be raped.

No that is not correct, I just pointed out it was actually retaliation. A boy smacks her on the ass and she responds by kicking him in the balls? Not self-defense.

If you can rationalize a man deserving to be kicked in the balls for many reasons, anyone can just as easily rationalize a woman can deserve to be raped for any reason.

Got it. You just showed you are either unable or unwilling to distinguish between how one should act versus how one might choose to act.

I think most reasonable folks would disagree with that statement. Self-defense is always an appropriate response to assault.

Can we just agree that no woman deserves to be raped and no man deserves to be kicked in the balls.

Because it’s easier to get along with the issues unspoken. Get it out in the open, and she may very well want to lose a couple friends. And it’s way more than just a “plus one” for the holidays, obviously. One does not state they have a dull, aching existence that requires distractions because they don’t have a…

Because that’s an oxymoron. You’re either happy being single or not happy being single. Your superficial emotions may fluctuate because that’s just life, but ultimately you have a set outlook on the matter. It’s clear from Aimee’s words she’s miserable as hell about being single, but she still tries to enjoy life best…

Got it! Next stop: the other side of the country!

Holy shit do you live in the US?! I want to buy this exact food but can’t find it anywhere

Except making it inexpensive is economically costly for businesses, especially when we all know there is a very easy and free way for women to not get pregnant.

But you don’t know that, it’s just assumed without talking to them. She hasn’t given them the chance to accept her as a permanently single person, nor has she indicated it’s what she really wants. It’s totally natural for friends to encourage you to find love.

Which I recognize is hard to come to terms with when your friends are all in relationships like Aimee and keep pressuring her to continue seeking someone. Like, it’s easy for them to say after the fact, when they already have the thing she wants. I do think they mean well, she’s just super jaded about her situation.

I don’t really think she’s necessarily “wrong” so much as I think it’s ultimately a worse outlook on life than holding onto hope. I’ve never been one to stay resigned to fate if the time and potential is still there. But then again I’m not Aimee Lutkin.

I somewhat agree. I don’t think she’s content at all with being single. She doesn’t sound happy about it one bit. She says things like “well I guess I just have to keep on hoping”and talks about tears coming into her eyes instead of having the confidence in her own feelings to say “Nah, I’m good actually.”

Truth can be a hard pill to swallow.