# Uhhh, but you ARE a psycho bitch. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 24, 2002, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uhhh-but-you-are-a-psycho-bitch/129416 "2002-09-24T05:19:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2002, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uhhh-but-you-are-a-psycho-bitch/129416/21 "2002-09-26T17:52:02Z")
Well this is the pit, you know, so I think the term “psycho” is perfectly okay to describe **Fillet**. I agree with **Zen** about the sanctity of the email, even though the guy didn’t like her, he still trusted her and didn’t make sure that his email account was secure from her prying eyes. This could mean a number of things, perhaps he liked her as a person, but was turned off by the way she wore her hair or maybe the pussy just wasn’t good enough or she gave bad head. I don’t think we should gloss over the email snooping, moreover, if **Zen** been exposed to this kind of behavior and his instincts lead him to this opinion, it’s all good. Everyone wants to know the exact reason of why they were dumped especially when they didn’t want to get dumped. The question becomes how far do you go to find that out or better yet, why the fuck don’t you just accept the fact that the other person doesn’t want you? If this was guy that had done what **Fillet** had done, I don’t think a lot of folks would be comming to his defense. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2002, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uhhh-but-you-are-a-psycho-bitch/129416/22 "2002-09-26T17:59:06Z")
Well this is the pit, you know, so I think the term “psycho” is perfectly okay to describe **Fillet**. I agree with **Zen** about the sanctity of the email, even though the guy didn’t like her, he still trusted her and didn’t make sure that his email account was secure from her prying eyes. This could mean a number of things, perhaps he liked her as a person, but was turned off by the way she wore her hair or maybe the pussy just wasn’t good enough or she gave bad head. I don’t think we should gloss over the email snooping, moreover, if **Zen** been exposed to this kind of behavior and his instincts lead him to this opinion, it’s all good. Everyone wants to know the exact reason of why they were dumped especially when they didn’t want to get dumped. The question becomes how far do you go to find that out or better yet, why the fuck don’t you just accept the fact that the other person doesn’t want you? If this was guy that had done what **Fillet** had done, I don’t think a lot of folks would be comming to his defense. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2002, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uhhh-but-you-are-a-psycho-bitch/129416/23 "2002-09-26T18:07:29Z")
Well this is the pit, you know, so I think the term “psycho” is perfectly okay to describe **Fillet**. I agree with **Zen** about the sanctity of the email, even though the guy didn’t like her, he still trusted her and didn’t make sure that his email account was secure from her prying eyes. This could mean a number of things, perhaps he liked her as a person, but was turned off by the way she wore her hair or maybe the pussy just wasn’t good enough or she gave bad head. I don’t think we should gloss over the email snooping, moreover, if **Zen** been exposed to this kind of behavior and his instincts lead him to this opinion, it’s all good. Everyone wants to know the exact reason of why they were dumped especially when they didn’t want to get dumped. The question becomes how far do you go to find that out or better yet, why the fuck don’t you just accept the fact that the other person doesn’t want you? If this was guy that had done what **Fillet** had done, I don’t think a lot of folks would be comming to his defense. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2002, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uhhh-but-you-are-a-psycho-bitch/129416/24 "2002-09-26T19:24:40Z")
What are you trying to say, EasyPhil? ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2002, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uhhh-but-you-are-a-psycho-bitch/129416/25 "2002-09-26T20:18:15Z")
Trusted her? He left his email logged in, most likely because he’s an idiot. I don’t agree with what she did, but all is fair in love & war. ---
**Author:** ![cuauhtemoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecb155/32.png) [@cuauhtemoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cuauhtemoc)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2002, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uhhh-but-you-are-a-psycho-bitch/129416/26 "2002-09-26T20:25:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by EasyPhil \* > \*\*If this was guy that had done what **Fillet** had done, I don’t think a lot of folks would be comming to his defense. \*\* Any basis for this opinion? ---
**Author:** ![Gazelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Gazelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gazelle)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2002, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uhhh-but-you-are-a-psycho-bitch/129416/27 "2002-09-26T20:50:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Esprix \* > :eek: _GET OUT OF MY MIND!!!_ :eek: > > Esprix **Esprix** , you crack me up! ---
**Author:** ![White\_Lightning](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@White\_Lightning](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/White_Lightning)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2002, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uhhh-but-you-are-a-psycho-bitch/129416/28 "2002-09-26T21:49:00Z")
First of all, It wasn’t in the Pit that **zen101** first called her a psycho. Second of all, **Easy Phil** , you’re a fucking jackass and you probably beat your wife. Is it ‘perfectly ok’ for me to say that, just because this is the Pit? No. Because I don’t know you from Adam, and until I just read your last three posts, I had never even heard of you. And I can’t make accurate judgements of your personality based on such a small sample. Third of all, I fail to see all the people coming to **Fillet** ’s defense that the both of you are referring to. I see several people in this thread, myself included, taking **zen101** to task for judging her too harshly. Nobody’s arguing that what she did was ok or ‘defending her wrong action.’ There is no debate any more about her action, the debate now is about your reaction. We’re only saying that it’s not worth you getting all worked up about and starting a Pit thread over it. And I’m just going to ignore the fake self-pity card and ‘above-it-all’ ploy at the end of your post, **zen101**. We’re still reading because this is a message board and that’s what it’s for. If you’re so enlightened that that’s beneath you, you don’t have to participate. ---
**Author:** ![zen101](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c68b51/32.png) [@zen101](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zen101)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2002, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uhhh-but-you-are-a-psycho-bitch/129416/29 "2002-09-26T23:09:14Z")
**White Lightening** : Your a twit. I don’t pity myself at all. I know most of my faults and I know just how fucked up I am, but I’m supposed to be this way. It’s my job to fix what i can and endure what I cannot fix. I suppose the job you have been assigned is to be a pedant and a assinine twit. Comment cards available? Because your doing an excellent job. I stated for all the literate folks that I must have naught better to do myself, obviously your attention span allows you to only read that which justifies your own opinions. Self deluding pedantic twit. You fail to see a lot of things don’t you? The people coming to her defense are doing so in terms of lessening the value of her act. It’s the same or similar to a defense team attempting to get a lesser charge for a defendant. That’s not defending someone? Ignorant self deluding pedantic twit. You were not saying it wasn’t worth getting worked up over and never bothered to note that her inition action was not what I was actually “worked up” iver to begin with. REstated I dislike folks who invite criticism because they expect folks to either soft soap them or to just be nice. Then the minute someone gives them an actual harsh criticism they call that person mean or some similar term and beg out of the discourse. I have said as much three times now that her request of the thread’s closure is what prompted this. You continue to ignore this because arguing it must not be the argument you want to make. Obtuse ignorant self deluding pedantic twit. I don’t normally name call so much but I dislike the implication of self pity. It’s not one of my vices and it is a trait I find most dispicable. If it makes you happy to know that this is a “button” of mine then so be it. I don’t offer the explanation for your sake but for that of those who may or may not agree with my opinion but are nevertheless shocked at my use of language. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2002, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uhhh-but-you-are-a-psycho-bitch/129416/30 "2002-09-26T23:33:31Z")
pedant assinine twit. Self deluding pedantic twit. Ignorant self deluding pedantic twit. Obtuse ignorant self deluding pedantic twit. Lol ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2002, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uhhh-but-you-are-a-psycho-bitch/129416/31 "2002-09-27T00:46:33Z")
White Lightning: you sleep _every_ day? Lazy bastard. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2002, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uhhh-but-you-are-a-psycho-bitch/129416/32 "2002-09-27T02:03:44Z")
**White Lightning** , **Zen** didn’t call **Fillet** a psycho in the other thread, go back and read it. Fillet assumed she was being called a psycho bitch, but she wasn’t. **World Eater** , all is fair in love and war? How far does that go? What she did was fucked up, no matter if the guy was an idiot or not. I think she felt justified because she didn’t like his story. I friend of mine had a girlfriend like that. She didn’t like the fact that he broke up with her, so she gave him a nasty bite on the neck and then slashed all four of his tires. To her it was all good, because she was hurt. :rolleyes: Moderator, can you deep six my multiple posts? ---
**Author:** ![White\_Lightning](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@White\_Lightning](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/White_Lightning)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2002, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uhhh-but-you-are-a-psycho-bitch/129416/33 "2002-09-27T03:22:21Z")
You want to see pedantic? For openers, if you’re going to call me an ignorant twit, and imply that I’m not literate, you might want to start by: Spelling my name right; Understanding the difference between “your” and “you’re”; Learning how to spell “asinine” and “despicable” correctly. I don’t personally give a shit if you can spell or not, but if you’re going to talk about ‘for all the literate folks,’ you should start by picking up a dictionary. As for the rest of it… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by **zen101** \* > **White Lightening** : Your a twit. I don’t pity myself at all. I know most of my faults and I know just how fucked up I am, but I’m supposed to be this way. Note that I didn’t say you pitied yourself – I said you were playing a ‘fake self pity card.’ And I’m still planning to ignore it. > [@](#): > > The people coming to her defense are doing so in terms of lessening the value of her act. It’s the same or similar to a defense team attempting to get a lesser charge for a defendant. That’s not defending someone? Lessening the value of her act? I don’t see it. As I said before, the debate about her act is _over_. Only one person, in this thread or the original, ever said (wrongly, of course) that she wasn’t wrong for reading his email. A skim of the original thread yielded a count of at least half a dozen or so posters who specifically said she was wrong for doing it, about half of which went so far as to say that any wrongdoing he had done to her was totally eclipsed by her violation of his privacy. Not only that, she admitted in the OP in her thread that she wasn’t proud of doing it – and reiterated that sentiment in her post asking that the thread be closed. You started _this_ thread for the express purpose of continuing to call her names (you don’t normally name-call so much? Yeah, the title of this thread here that you started really bears that out), and every single comment on her action that’s arisen in _this_ thread says that she was wrong to snoop (except **astro** ’s… sort of). Again: the only debate in this thread is about _your reaction_ to what she did. Everyone in this thread is saying that you are _overreacting_. No one’s talking about what she did any more. And no one’s defending it. > [@](#): > > You were not saying it wasn’t worth getting worked up over and never bothered to note that her inition action was not what I was actually “worked up” iver to begin with. REstated I dislike folks who invite criticism because they expect folks to either soft soap them or to just be nice. Then the minute someone gives them an actual harsh criticism they call that person mean or some similar term and beg out of the discourse. I have said as much three times now that her request of the thread’s closure is what prompted this. First: Yes I _was_ saying that it wasn’t getting worked up over, that and that you were too quick to judge her. Selections from my first post to this thread: _‘You cannot accurately characterize a person you do not know as a ‘psycho bitch’ based on a single piece of evidence,’_ and _‘I’m just saying she’s not obviously psycho… get over it.’_ I don’t see how hard it is to discern the point of my post when I go to the trouble of specifically _telling_ you what it is in the post itself. Other remarkably cogent statements from other posters include _‘It’s nothing to be proud of, but being quick to label someone as a “psycho bitch” is nothing to be proud of either,’_ ( **Gary Kumquat** ) and _‘one small mistake does not a psycho-bitch make’_ ( **Kayeby** ). Second: _You_ certainly couldn’t be bothered in your OP to explain what your point was. Never do you explicitly state that you started this thread because you were upset that the other thread was closed – in fact, you don’t even _mention_ it in your OP. You didn’t specifically say that was what got your goat till your second post in this thread, and it’s a flat-out lie that you’ve made this point three times. Anyway, I’m not speaking to her behavior, with regard to the guy in her OP or on this board. I agree with you in disliking people that ask for criticism when what they’re looking for is justification. What I’m saying is that she’s not obviously psycho, and that you cannot accurately judge her as a person based on the posts of hers that you read in the thread she started – and that from those posts, she is not obviously a psycho. Is that clear enough, or are you going to continue to accuse me in your next post of defending her actions? **EasyPhil** , I have read it, thanks. Here’s the relevant statement: _‘Maybe you aren’t one of my psycho-stalker ex girlfriend’s, but your OP could have been made by one of them.’_ Care to argue that that’s not equivalent to calling her a psycho? I assume we’re clear that he is calling her a ‘psycho bitch’ _now_, right? And even so, I’d contest the statement that one has the right to make unfounded personal insults just because this is the Pit. See my last post if you’re wondering why. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2002, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uhhh-but-you-are-a-psycho-bitch/129416/34 "2002-09-27T03:38:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by White Lightning \* > **EasyPhil** , I have read it, thanks. Here’s the relevant statement: _‘Maybe you aren’t one of my psycho-stalker ex girlfriend’s, but your OP could have been made by one of them.’_ Care to argue that that’s not equivalent to calling her a psycho? I assume we’re clear that he is calling her a ‘psycho bitch’ _now_, right? \*\* If you want to say that the statement is tantamount to calling her a psycho, fine, I’m not going to argue with you about that. It’s obvious he’s calling her one now. > [@](#): > > \*\* > And even so, I’d contest the statement that one has the right to make unfounded personal insults just because this is the Pit. See my last post if you’re wondering why. \*\* Actually one does have the right to make unfounded personal insults in the Pit, which is why people do it. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2002, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uhhh-but-you-are-a-psycho-bitch/129416/35 "2002-09-27T03:48:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by White Lightning \* > **EasyPhil** , I have read it, thanks. Here’s the relevant statement: _‘Maybe you aren’t one of my psycho-stalker ex girlfriend’s, but your OP could have been made by one of them.’_ Care to argue that that’s not equivalent to calling her a psycho? I assume we’re clear that he is calling her a ‘psycho bitch’ _now_, right? \*\* If you want to say that the statement is tantamount to calling her a psycho, fine, I’m not going to argue with you about that. It’s obvious he’s calling her one now. > [@](#): > > \*\* > And even so, I’d contest the statement that one has the right to make unfounded personal insults just because this is the Pit. See my last post if you’re wondering why. \*\* Actually one does have the right to make unfounded personal insults in the Pit, which is why people do it. ---
**Author:** ![White\_Lightning](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@White\_Lightning](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/White_Lightning)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2002, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uhhh-but-you-are-a-psycho-bitch/129416/36 "2002-09-27T03:55:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by **EasyPhil** \* > If you want to say that the statement is tantamount to calling her a psycho, fine, I’m not going to argue with you about that. It’s obvious he’s calling her one now. Works for me. My point is that I do believe in the right to make personal insults in the Pit. But not ones that are totally baseless. That’s the distinction I’m trying to make. ---
**Author:** ![Essured](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/278dde/32.png) [@Essured](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Essured)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2002, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uhhh-but-you-are-a-psycho-bitch/129416/37 "2002-09-27T05:39:42Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by astro_\*\* > Women will snoop every chance they get if they really care about a guy and think (or imagine) he might be straying. > \ > IMO any woman who claims she would not snoop into a lovers personal business to ferret out possible infidelity or straying tendencies is lying to herself and others.\*\* **Astro,** thanks for calling me a liar. Silly me, thinking I was an individual, not a gender. I do not snoop, and can’t think of any circumstances that would make me do so. But of course, I must be lying to myself AND all of you. :rolleyes: If you had’ve said that ‘some’ women do this and ‘some’ women do that, I would agree wholeheartedly. I did notice you used the qualifiers ‘most’ and ‘90%’ earlier in your post, but you then go on to say ‘any’ woman who … is lying. Newsflash, **Astro,** I’m not lying, and not all women fit the stereotype you are portraying. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2002, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uhhh-but-you-are-a-psycho-bitch/129416/38 "2002-09-27T06:15:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Goo \* > \*\* > > **Astro,** thanks for calling me a liar. > > Silly me, thinking I was an individual, not a gender. > > I do not snoop, and can’t think of any circumstances that would make me do so. But of course, I must be lying to myself AND all of you. :rolleyes: > > If you had’ve said that ‘some’ women do this and ‘some’ women do that, I would agree wholeheartedly. I did notice you used the qualifiers ‘most’ and ‘90%’ earlier in your post, but you then go on to say ‘any’ woman who … is lying. > > Newsflash, **Astro,** I’m not lying, and not all women fit the stereotype you are portraying. \*\* You’re right, I should have qualiifed it more precisely and not used the term “any” and should have used “most” instead. I admire the personal ethics reflected in your stated postion about not snooping, but quite frankly snooping ( IMO) has more real world upside for “most” women in determing the status of a questionable relationship than not snooping. Most men are lazy and stupid cheaters and are easily found out with a little detective work. In this context, ferreting out information about the real status of your relationship, and terminating your time and emotional investment in someone who is not reciprocating that affection and fidelity in good faith is simply good sense on a woman’s part. I have known three noble, non-snooping women over the years and each one was blind sided by an SO’s infidelity. Women typically have more at risk in realtionships and I really can’t blame them for being careful and suspiciously alert about the fidelity of their mates. Men (and people in general) make behavioral decisions based on anticipated risks involved. For better or worse men often cheat if they are given the opportunity and a trusting, non-snooping SO is the ideal breeding ground for this behavior if a man is so inclined. In many cases female snooping is an eminently logical course of action even if ethically questionable. ---
**Author:** ![Essured](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/278dde/32.png) [@Essured](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Essured)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2002, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uhhh-but-you-are-a-psycho-bitch/129416/39 "2002-09-27T08:15:25Z")
**Astro** thanks for withdrawing the ‘all’ assertion and qualifying it with ‘most’. I do understand where you’re coming from and while I wouldn’t dare put a percentage estimate on the numbers of snooping women, I wouldn’t exactly call it ‘rare’ based on conversations with other female friends 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2002, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uhhh-but-you-are-a-psycho-bitch/129416/40 "2002-09-27T13:00:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*Said by astro:[/b > _You’re right, I should have qualiifed it more precisely and not used the term “any” and should have used “most” instead._ Because most men cheat, right? You base this assertion on what evidence? > [@](#): > > _Most men are lazy and stupid cheaters and are easily found out with a little detective work._ Most men who cheat are lazy and stupid about it. But it seems unrealistic to think most men are cheaters, so you must be basing this on some sort of statistical analysis of a large enough sample of men on the planet to determine that most of them are cheaters who are lazy and stupid. > [@](#): > > _I have known three noble, non-snooping women over the years and each one was blind sided by an SO’s infidelity._ Ah, yes. That statistical sample of three women who didn’t snoop and got cheated on. Yes, this naturally means that most women are snooping and all women should be, because such a huge portion of men cheat that none of them can be trusted. > [@](#): > > \*For better or worse men often cheat if they are given the opportunity and a trusting, non-snooping SO is the ideal breeding ground for this behavior if a man is so inclined. \* Wha-wha-wha-what? Yes, there are untrustworthy cheating bastards out there who would love nothing more than a completely trusting and naive woman to keep at home while they go off doing whomever at their whim. But really, is it necessary to imply that damn near any man on the planet would cheat if his SO trusted him and didn’t snoop into his life? Are you saying I’m a fool because I don’t spy on my man when he goes to lunch with a woman from work or hangs out with a female friend he’s known since he was in third grade? > [@](#): > > _In many cases female snooping is an eminently logical course of action even if ethically questionable._ Only female snooping? Because of course, unethical as it is to snoop, those damned men just cannot be trusted not to cheat, so logic prevails (although I’ve yet to see by what stretch of logic it’s assumed that **most** men are cheaters). How about when a man snoops on his SO? Is that logical if ethically questionable? After all, it could easily be posited that for better or worse, women cheat if given the opportunity and that most women are lazy and stupid cheaters. Or then again it could be argued that yes, a man is logically justified in deliberately hiding things in a guarded manner even if it is ethically questionable because most women can’t be trusted to respect a man’s privacy. Although since those would be insulting generalizations about women, I don’t think you’d be as inclined to agree with them as you are to say that most men are cheaters and shouldn’t be trusted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uhhh-but-you-are-a-psycho-bitch/129416.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uhhh-but-you-are-a-psycho-bitch/129416.md?page=3)