Nice. It seems that we no longer have a wholly unfalsifiable and meaningless argument. You are now resorting to the old trope that "we" are fully rational and conscious individuals who use reason to actualize ourselves and achieve our moral values, whereas "they" are mindless sheeple whose individual potential is neutralized by force, coercion or pervasive social pressure. I suppose that this counts as progress, in a way.

The word control is being use idiosyncratically. In a certain sense, everyone exerts control over everyone in ways that are not examined self-reflexively.

The problem was not with the word "control", but with the word "exert". eridu claimed that, for example, I exert power and control over my wife, without any information other than that I am "non-feminist" (by eridu's definition of "feminist"). This is strange, as I would not normally say that X exerts Y in the absence of any information about in what ways X might be exerting oneself.

It seems as though eridu is routinely overgeneralizing and denying differences between individuals. It's effectively the same problem as gender discrimination, in a different context.

Correlation is significant evidence for causation.

It simply doesn't prove causation.

That was also neither a helpful answer to the original question, nor a meaningful response to my comment.

Note: If you use a lmgtfy link, then you're being a jerk. It might be acceptable in the context where someone asks a question that is directly answerable by Google, like "What is a dictionary?" (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define:dictionary) because you're legitimately teaching the person a useful skill, albeit in a snarky fashion. But either way, it is rude, and jerkitude is not the appropriate sort of discourse for this site.

in general all heterosexual relationships are patriarchal...coercive or anti-feminst.

Comments - The Worst Argument in the World

Can you taboo some of those terms? I can't tell what you are saying. Are you saying that hetero relationships usually have the man taking the "captain" role? (I agree with that). Are you saying that's bad when you call it "coercive and antifeminist"? Can you explain that, because it's not obvious.

Using an idiosyncratic (and better) definition of coercive:

• All sex is coercive.
• All employment is coercive.

There's nothing better about feminist men having sex with women, women having sex with women, or men having sex with men. There's an element of coercion in all of it. It is a respectable position to say that sex and rape are differences in degree, not differences in kind.

None of that justifies saying that "sex is bad" any more than it justifies saying the "employment is bad." Applying a guilt trip on men without concrete steps on what they can do to improve is counter-productive from an advocacy perspective.

In other words, if you can't distinguish between coercive and abusive, you aren't paying attention.