Cock Talk

Hostile begets hostile.
You reap what you sow.
This is rich coming from someone who started a thread so she could spew hate.

You managed to alienate the nicest, kindest person in the history of this site. Your opinion has no value.
And to think S&S is filled with nice people like you. Gee what a great place. Nothing in my comments today were about me. If they felt that way it must be because you were choosing to treat me that way. Funny thing is I didn't notice.
No thread of mine was created to spew hate. If you are going to try to accuse me of something be right about what you say.
You do not and have never meant anything to me. Clearly I made the right choice about you months ago. I've never fallen for your crap and I won’t stoop to your level.
 
Last edited:
I would say that being pretty has a lot less to do with how well you do on an Internet forum than in daily life.

Or do you think men only care about how pretty a woman is, even online?


I don't think there's less quality men here than women.

I think overall the women on here are more intelligent and/ or interesting than most of the men here. I'm guessing it is because it takes a certain type of woman to want to be on the lit playground. But there are some really great men too. Even though their average drags them down, there's enough men in sheer numbers to make it so that the quality men aren't really a luxury item. It may take a while to weed out the riff raft but it's not really hard for us to talk to the men we want to talk to.

I think there are some really quality people of both sexes on here. Absolutely.

I think proportionally, the women here have a much better interest rating than the men. I think, in general, women are more cultured and well-written than men. That is a generalization, but we are talking about large pools of people here.

I think men care about looks first. I know... so many men talk about wanting smart/funny/talented/etc. women and all that. It's not untrue. But a few years of biology definitely supports my theory that men and women look for different things when it comes to partners. I think what you're saying about being online versus offline has merit. I think it skews the data some. But it's my perception that the theory upholds in Lit land.

There are some objectively attractive people here. I think a simple observation of their interactions versus a similar interaction with someone less attractive would show a variance.

Certain things can also skew that such as willingness to interact, post pics, flirt, etc. There are definitely outliers as well. But it's tough to fight biology and billions of years of wiring when it comes to human sexuality. It doesn't seem to matter the medium.
 
And I'm not saying there shouldn't be a place for people who know each other to banter. But I think using SnS as the poster child for inclusivity shows that you probably don't understand what Woody was saying. My advice to Woody would be to seek out threads that move slower and are a bit more inclusive.
Chasing a couple of women around and making heavy innuendo with women who might as well be strangers and then calling other strangers huge assholes is a way to find yourself outside even the most inclusive circle. Have you read his work or are you just bloviating?
 
I think overall the women on here are more intelligent and/ or interesting than most of the men here. I'm guessing it is because it takes a certain type of woman to want to be on the lit playground
This could also be availability bias.
We all tend to hang out in the same places, and like men, this place is definitely not a monolith
 
Back
Top