Both of these orders just do an incredible disservice to the men of this supposed campaign setting. Are almost all of your fictional men really walking rape-machines incapable of seeing women as anything but whores; desirable objects; potential enemies; baby-vessels; pitiable, ignorant savages requiring education; or pitiable, weak wretches requiring liberation by the mighty power of the penis?
You point out what you conceive of as weaknesses in real world women--and you even go so far as to "other" a female poster in this topic by repeatedly referring to her as "Miss," though you don't respond to other (presumably male) posters as "Master," the equivalent polite-diminutive for unattached men--and barely bat an eye at contradictory evidence. You even redefine terms to create your own vocabulary, and appear to be amused that other people are arguing using the actual, common definitions of those terms (virgin, chastity).
What kind of value does this offer us as a community? This hasn't been presented as a mental exercise, at least not in an open fashion. You posted these write-ups ostensibly requesting feedback, which you refute and deflect at nearly every turn.
To at least some extent, almost everyone here has engaged you at your word: that you want constructive criticism. You haven't taken it or incorporated it into your entries--so what is it, exactly, that you want?
