Thank you so much for your quick response. I am afraid that I am having difficulty in understanding your understanding of the first paragraph you have copied above, so I will do my best, but I must have lost the art of articulation, which I thought I used to have.
But before I do that, can we please remember that the OP did ask for opinions, and I gave mine.
The only time that I am aware of being rude and unkind to the OP, which I shouldn't have been, was when I wrote in my first response:
"Sorry OP, but I haven't the energy to read the whole thread, especially as it soon became clear that you only want answers from people that agree with you, or you will get defensive and sarcastic."
I apologetically admit that even though I did believe it at that time, I shouldn't have said it. This isn't supposed to be a defence for me, but I actually didn't have the energy to read every post, I was both emotionally and physically exhausted from something else, but that was no excuse to take it out on the OP.
Can I try and tell you something about my character as I think it might have a bearing on the differences between what I think I am saying and how others are interpreting it. Of course you can't give me that permission without me posting this now, and if I do that I might not be able to carry on later. So as you have already been kind enough once to respond positively to my previous request, I will somewhat cheekily assume you are saying yes again.
I am scrupulously honest, quite often to my own detriment. I also think, in what I consider to be a very logical and factual manner. So like on here, when someone asks for other peoples opinions, I think that they do actually want them. Now, I think that my last sentence might sound sarcastic, but it is not meant like that, I really do think that people who ask for opinions, do actually want them.
Having just thought about that a bit more, I suppose that any OP might also believe that they want other people's honest answers, and it is only after they get them that they realise they didn't want that version of something?
So I admit that when I wrote the above paragraph to the OP, I had thought at first that she wanted honest opinions, so I was frustrated by some of her replies to previous posters, as I didn't think they were saying anything for the sake of being nasty. I thought, and do still think, that at least most of them, were replying like that for the right reasons. One of my biggest fears that aren'tabout the health of my loved ones, is that people will not be honest to me, even when however painful something is, I would rather know the truth, or what might be the truth.
Sorry, but I still don't understand how me thinking that an awful lot of men are hopeless with emotions and expressing themselves is misogynistic or dickpandering (I thought I was dickpandering when I used to give bj's, not when I was trying to be what I consider a feminist to be, in wanting equality for both sexes). I don't know what term I would use to describe a woman who only considered other woman's feelings, as far as I know I have never met a woman like that in real life, the ones I know are like me, and believe in equality for all.
But the only reason I gave the OP my opinion, was because she said in her OP that the guy she had been on several dates with, and even sensibly to a sexual health clinic with (sorry, I can't remember their official name), was nice - so at that time she still thought he was nice, and she went on to say that the sex was great and that he was generous.
If the OP had not said that, I wouldn't have bothered commenting (I hope I am not in trouble again, I am not victim blaming here, the OP was just as entitled as anyone else to open a thread and say whatever she wanted to say). I did bother commenting because by the time I read it (maybe about page 6?) although she already knew that he wasn't for her she had thought until very recently that he was nice, great and generous. Therefore I was worried that because quite a few of the responders seemed to immediately reply about how nasty he was etc, that the OP still being emotionally hurt by him, might have forgotten his good points. So I suppose I decided to play devil's advocate by pointing out what some men are like, and by reminding her that even though they could be stupid idiots on occasions, their good points can sometimes override their bad ones - I know that for certain! Once I realised what his last message said, I agreed that he was not one of those.
To your last paragraph I can only say that in my mind I wasn't calling her a lier. I would phrase it that way about anyone I didn't know personally, as the logical fact to me is that if someone sends someone else a communication and they show it as proof of something, but it hasn't got any details on it (for very good reasons in this case), then I can't say for a fact that it is true. Once again I should probably left that bit out. I did tell her that she was right to have blocked him.
So I don't see what I was doing as being misogynistic or dickpandering. Of course I believe that some men can and do become abusive when rejected. Some men murder because of it. However, if you and others, but particularly the OP, sees any of that as being misogynistic and dickpandering then I do apologise profusely for havin