When did I say that?
More like "it takes two to tango".
..I did say that, yes. It's a comment that has nothing to do with anything or anyone that exists here.
Coerce the argument into mutual level-headedness as you give your contribution, don't participate in/withdraw from the conversation, or expect the breakdown that will almost inevitably follow in lobbing meaningless insults. I can't control anybody else, and nobody can control the tonal impressions anyone gets from anyone else.
Tone policing is bullshit, especially in totally opt-in and opt-out conversations.
At a more productive point in this thread, the conversations I had on this front roughly resembled:
"I reckon women overall have strong interest in fiction such as X (as supported by its sales and enduring cultural presence) because it appeals to some set A, B, and C of seemingly common female traits and desires."
"Not all women are like that. I'm not like that. I've never heard any woman claim that."
"I didn't claim all women were like that, I was making a generalization based on what I made it on. Is there a reason why I should take you and your personal experiences as even vaguely generally representative?"
We're an abnormal population sample and I know close to nothing about most of you-- that italicized question is especially pertinent. Yet I think I was expected to just accept the argument because the person saying it said she was a woman, and not because she was in a special position that lent gravity to her observation (no, being an individual woman, by itself, doesn't lend that).
You claim:
but why would that be a better solution?
You're asking that I attempt to grok the motivations of a small, completely opt-in, naturally abnormal sample size, in pursuit of an effective generalization for a global subculture. This is despite the fact that nearly all the people in said group only ever talked about their power fantasy, without trying to contrast it with any other proposed group or contradict any generalized theory given.
Why should I do that, when their perspectives are framed as "speaking-for-myself"? And are you claiming I should do so in place of considering other groups that are much larger and broader? If not, why are the statements of ~13 people (I'm spitballing, here) making inherently individual statements a sufficient contradiction or elucidation of millions of people making directed time and money investments? Why would they provide any strong insight to their comparatively extremely large subculture, by themselves?
Even saying there's no such thing as a "proper generalization" would be a more relevant argument, because the validity of such an argument preempts the entire conversation by attacking the assumption that a generalization can be made.
But did Tyrone consent?