link | Submitted by Whipped Honey on Wed, 10/31/2007 - 05:33.
You still haven't proved your claims about what kind of women rich men want
"When I talked about the women that rich men are disproportionately seen with in upscale settings, I wasn’t talking about wives. The women could be wives, girlfriends or escorts."
You're backpedalling. What you said was "Do I need to cite proof that feminine beauties are disproportionately taken up by richer men? Visit some upscale clubs/restaurants and observe for yourself. Granted that not all rich men have hot wives"
You made it clear that when you claimed "feminine" women are disproportionately taken up by rich men, you were talking about wives. After I pointed out that many rich men marry "masculinized" women and that you can't even come up with anecdotal, let alone statistical, evidence that rich men disproportionately marry "feminine" women, you changed your tune and rewrote your statement to include girlfriends and escorts, since you know there is no way to prove who rich men date or hire as prostitutes.
"I do not have a problem making up my mind. There is no reason why an interest in masculinized women and Bayes’ theorem cannot work in concert."
That is not what I meant; what I mean is that your idea of rich men's "interest in masculinized women and Bayes’ theorem" CAN "work in concert" with each other, but CANNOT work in concert with the claim that "feminine" women are disproportionately taken up by rich men.
»
Reply
Note: If your comment does not appear immediately after posting, then reload/refresh the page.
You still haven't proved your claims about what kind of women rich men want
You're backpedalling. What you said was "Do I need to cite proof that feminine beauties are disproportionately taken up by richer men? Visit some upscale clubs/restaurants and observe for yourself. Granted that not all rich men have hot wives"
You made it clear that when you claimed "feminine" women are disproportionately taken up by rich men, you were talking about wives. After I pointed out that many rich men marry "masculinized" women and that you can't even come up with anecdotal, let alone statistical, evidence that rich men disproportionately marry "feminine" women, you changed your tune and rewrote your statement to include girlfriends and escorts, since you know there is no way to prove who rich men date or hire as prostitutes.
That is not what I meant; what I mean is that your idea of rich men's "interest in masculinized women and Bayes’ theorem" CAN "work in concert" with each other, but CANNOT work in concert with the claim that "feminine" women are disproportionately taken up by rich men.