“Women historically depended economically on men” does not logically lead to “therefore 50%+ of women today think about making money from men via their bodies.”

Nice you've made an attempt at thinking, even though it's botched attempt. It's better than resorting to jibes when you reach your end.

This is a very botched attempt because I never said women historical depending on men economically logically leads to therefore 50%+ of women today think about making money from men via their bodies. You had to twist what I said before you could manage a reply. I don't know if it is dishonesty or an inability to grasp the impact of the words I used. This is what I said:

If you look at what I said about how women had to depend on men for provision throughout history until recently due to better civil liberties, and how that is one of the reasons why it is still common for women to think about choosing the option of only letting a man provide rather than stressing over provision themselves you'd agree that is a strong point, if you're capable of any honesty.

I said the historical dependence is "one of the reasons" not the sole reason and the all and all like you've just said. The difference is being just one of the reasons rather than the entire reason means the entire argument is not based on it, but only in part. If you couldn't see this difference or was just dishonest about it then you're not even worth engaging with intellectually.

I also don't want to keep going in circles and engaging someone who was in a hurry to replace valid points with attacks.

Plus you're really trying to say that thousands of years of doing things a particular way left no aftereffect especially an aftereffect as intangible as a thought?

That it doesn't cross the mind of a majority of women to benefit from it sometimes even though the option is still available. And it is baseless for someone to even think that women do.

If you can't see how dumb that stance is it's a waste of time even engaging. Bye.