If I deciphered your message correctly, then no, it makes you a massive hypocrite. Don't impose standards on others that you don't hold yourself to.

>>17163954
but im not here, you're saying standards are objectively universal? im suppose to be my own girlfriend? sounds like a mental illness.. if i was my girlfriend id expect this, so how is it hypocritical?

>>17163957
It is hypocritical because you have expectations of her that you don't meet yourself. No, it is not universal, but asking something of a partner that you don't want to do yourself is not fair. You CAN ask it. Maybe she has no issue with not having male friends and it works for the two of you. But expecting it or not taking no for an answer is not fair.

Double standards are not okay ever. If you want to be unfaithful you cannot expect your partners to be faithful.

to say there is no such thing as double standards is to semantically say there is no such thing as different genders and that all differences are actually arbitrary in that they are not and we are all one and all equal and all adequietly capable of all tasks and activities. what you advocate sounds more along the lines of egocentrism and other DSM mental illnesses. Why would selection criteria for divergent tasks (why divergently differing tasks) should exist at all if that is the case? If we are all the same, that double standards are hypocritical. Just sounds flat line ignorant.

I'm suppose to believe she's the one that should carry the washing machine up the stairs or that I'm the one thats suppose to produce breast milk?

I didn't mean to present it as a priori deductive supposition to the general but rather a inductive to the specific that for this particular unique individual and likewise myself that this is the correct recourse and after this short interaction its confirmed but again not to be gender bias in this day and age of neutrality but rather she should be locked in a cage under my bed and let out to feed on my DICK.

you guys are commies aren't you? you sound like commies. Traitors.

>>17163977
Stop trying to sound smarter than you are. You used both semantically and a priori wrong. And managed to misspell adequately.

Trying to compare an expectation for behavior in a relationship to a physical task is a false equivalent. Although men are, by the way, capable of producing breast milk if they insist on stimulating themselves enough.

The bottom line is that your starting point is that women need to hold a different position in the relationship, with less freedom. There are women who feel this way too. If you insist on having a relationship like this, be vocal about your expectations and find someone who wants to meet them. But stop trying to argue that it is fair, by modern day standards in the western world it is not.

this women does. if she particular wants to be with me then yeah. ur saying western society is communist

i think ur a retard

>>17164001
If she's fine with it, there's no issue and I don't see why you're asking this to begin with.

Oh wow, I'm being called a retard by someone who can't contain his struggle with the English language. Better cry myself to sleep tonight.

Good luck with the relationship from this commie.