There is no contradiction. I am not her and she is not me.
You use too much passive aggressive language for me to seriously consider your points.
Clearly!
My points are straightforward, so perhaps you're reading more deeply than you need.
I understand why you would say their language is passive aggressive though.
It's been an interesting discussion at any rate. Best of luck!
I find it very hard to believe that you take yourself seriously with that sort of outlook on genders.
2) Also nope! Sorry if I seem a bit amused now. Controlling implies "You have to do such-and-such and be dominated by me, and I don't have to do such-and-such and be dominated by you." My philosophy is that what I expect from my partner, I follow all the way through myself. There is no power issue, because both contribute equally to the relationship.
I will again point out the seeming contradiction between "I don't need to be faithful; my partner[s] do," or if you don't like that, "Men don't need to be faithful; women do." Perhaps that's not what you intend, but it sure sounds that way.
In terms of "controlling," if you expect fidelity from your partners but not yourself, and if you say that expecting fidelity sounds controlling, that would logically imply you are controlling.
Incidentally, I hope you recognize nothing I've said should be taken as ad hominem attacks. Again, I'm just pointing out how many people might take your points.