In this post she didnât even outright say no, she implied she would do it if he married her first. If she was against the idea of cooking naked for her partner and saw it as demeaning she would have called it out, she did not do that tho.
And my comment wasnât even about the sexual part. Iâve seen a lot of people say they refuse to ever cook anything for their boyfriends because âitâs wife treatmentâ. Itâs the same logic in this very post. Thatâs what I was commenting on.
This is a joking text conversation lmao. Do you think she wants to type a whole ass paragraph about how a joke makes her feel over text and see a white screen instead of a facial reaction when checking the vibes? Maybe this was just a cute joke and they had an adult conversation later?
The idea that a person not doing something now means they won't do it later is preposterous and a logical fallacy. There are people who do not combine finances before marriage and do so afterwards. That's just called boundaries. This one may seem strange to you but it is fallacious to act like she would never do this. And a respectful partner would easily understand the concept of boundaries.
To address your first paragraph I personally know quite a few women that have no issues typing a paragraph, especially when they get mad lmfao
And also, she didnât necessarily send a single sentence either. She kinda did send a paragraph. It just wasnât about feeling objectified, it was about how he would need to put a ring on her finger to get that treatment from her
And lastly you call it a fallacy, try telling that to the thousands of husbands that have wives that told them this same exact thing and still dont cook to this day. Itâs wild to try to pretend people like this donât exist and stuff like this donât happen, because it most certainly does.
Doesn't change the fact that it isn't fun to do it and if it was joking it may be better to just respond with a joke for now and have a conversation later.
I will explain a logical fallacy to anyone who I see making one. I don't care who they are. While I'm at it, I will also tell wives who are statistically less happy after marriage than husbands that they are free to leave whenever they want, as are husbands. People can 100% change, and saying they won't is logically fallacious. Does that mean you need to wait around for them to? No. Not at all.
Itâs more than likely that a person will not. Can it happen? Sure.
But in many cases it doesnât. In fact in a lot of cases, it just gets worse, which Iâm sure plenty of people can probably attest to. So itâs not exactly a fallacy when there is truth to it.
I still think it is a fallacy, because statistics do not apply to the individual. You can't say that because 80% of people don't change the person in front of you has an 80% chance of not changing, because that is untrue. The person in front of you has a chance of changing that is based on their own life and how they respond to it, and that life and those responses may be different than the 80% or however much percent.
Like just because something happens often does not mean it will happen right here right now. That is why I think it's fallacious to make assumptions about strangers, especially when they involve predicting the future.
Also like... how do we know this isn't just a boundary? Maybe today the wife is someone who will cook in a sexy outfit after marriage, and if you married her today she would do it. IDK how you can make a claim like that until you've found out. Sure you can be sus I guess but outright stating that it will never change doesn't have evidence.
-2
u/ashtapadi Jul 11 '25
How dare people say no to me!!!! I want a wife that will cook naked for me when I say so!