woof

not true, some of us are cats

You son of a removed, I'm in.

If you can't get a big tiddy goth gf, become the big tiddy goth gf.

Well played

I would tend to agree, I'm just not really interested in discussion definitions and I think argueing I'm not aromantic is hard (except for my family of course).

My wife identifies as this. It really suits them. They do experience sexual arousal, but it's rare, though it's not repulsive either.

Then I would tell you you’re not original

Is this a bad time to point out that "are the lesbians okay" yields a paltry 172 results on Google (and on top of that, the first page of results is mostly not people using it the way the hypothetical in my analogy does)?

Seems much more original than most things you can find online, objectively speaking.

"data"

Poisoning the well. State what makes it illegitimate, with specificity, if you can.

it doesn’t say what you think it says so you can’t read.

Even if I did misinterpret any given source of information, calling me illiterate for doing so is comically over-the-top cruel. For shame.

I’d also remind you reactions like that are why you’re single.

The person I just celebrated an anniversary with would be very amused to read this. And like me, she'd recognize

Anyway, if you'd like to at least pretend to be someone who's interested in more than creating an illiterate unlovable strawman to insult for your own ego's sake, here is my response to a far less caustic retort.

But that alone doesnt say who is doing the abuse. Remember lesbians often date men before coming out.

Short version: They almost certainly haven't dated more men than the female demographic that dates exclusively men, while simultaneously reporting a much lower domestic violence incidence than them. The above absolutely does not hold water on its own as refutation.

Long (you've been warned, lol) version:

Even if we assumed the following for the sake of argument:

1. X% of men are abusers
2. zero women are abusers
3. 100% of lesbians have dated men at some point
4. The lesbians somehow have the exact same number of male partners on average as women who have had exclusively male partners
    

Then in aggregate, the abuse incidence between hetero women and lesbians should be effectively equal.

But we know that in the real world, #2 is obviously more than zero, and #3 is obviously less than 100%. So how can it possibly be true that the DV percentage among lesbians is so much higher?

There are only two ways, at least one of the following must be true:

• Lesbians have a significantly larger total number of romantic partners on average (the more partners you have, the more likely to 'find' one who's been abusive, and one is all it takes to put a person into the 'has been a victim of DV' category)
• the percentage of women who are abusers is greater than the X in #1

I found data about "sex partners" for lesbians, but that's not the same as romantic partners, and surprisingly, I haven't been able to actually find any hard data that simply says "self-identified lesbians have X romantic partners over their lifetimes on average". I found a figure of 4-4.3 for "women" in general, but that's no help here, both because there's no 'lesbian figure' for comparison, and because that figure isn't a 'hetero women figure' anyway. Kind of a dead end, here.

As for the second bullet point, see the link below about the woman being found to have been the perpetrator of DV in over 70% of m/f relationships in which only one of the two partners commits DV. That by itself can explain the disparity in DV incidence between lesbians and hetero women, I think.

When asking whether the perpetrator was male or female and separating the data, the stats shifted. Lesbians experienced less DV from their female partners than straight women do from their male ones.

Got a link for that?

Women are also capable of abuse of course

That's arguably a significant understatement, according to this study:

In nonreciprocally violent [male/female] relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.

Regardless, ultimately my point was that, regardless of statistics like these, I don't say things like "are the lesbians okay", because idiotic generalizations like that serve no positive purpose (making the speaker feel superior to the target doesn't count as a positive purpose in my eyes), and I was trying to get the person I replied to to gain some empathy, with an analogy.

Well, OP wasn't donating money, was he?

The scenario you brought up would be creepy too, but people tend to value money over the slight discomfort of creepiness.