Eccentric

Cambrian Chronicles. Obscure Welsh history documentaries with occasional whiplashes of dry humour. Not a super old channel but a marked increase in quality over time. Medieval Laws for Your Medieval Cat is a personal favourite.

Fun fact: linguists don't actually know what defines a "word"

There isn't really a scientific measure of how confusing something is linguistically that I am aware of. As you and other people have pointed out, there are plenty of languages that don't differentiate orthographically between numbers and letters. It's like asking whether people will confuse read and read. Yes, they probably will in some cases, but on some level speakers understand that these words are written identically and that you require context to figure it out. So they would know the difference much more often than not

sh.itjust.works cos I was hoping it would just work

Your assumption that all women are looking for a relationship that aligns with traditional gender roles is antithetical to your view of women as equals. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, I'm just nudging you towards the conclusion that people that talk about traditional expectations in a relationship don't really speak for everyone. It also seems like a lot of your evidence comes from male voices, which I don't think is an accurate reflection of what women want in a relationship. It sounds to me like these are the conclusions of the circles that you hang around in (or the culture that you live in/grew up in) rather than a fact of life. Most of the women I know are either in the types of relationships you are describing or vocally advocate for finding that type of relationship. There are both women and men that haven't evaluated the impact of patriarchal male expectations, and so there are both men and women out there that knowingly and unknowingly perpetuate the stereotype of men as unfeeling and uncaring. But to say that all men and all women think this way is probably inaccurate.

It sounds like you know what you want in a relationship and what activities make you happy regardless of whether they traditionally fit with a certain traditional gender expression, so do those things. I know it's demoralising to feel like the odd one out, but even if you live in a particularly conservative country there will always be like-minded people /somewhere/ out there.

To me as a native speaker, 1c is ungrammatical. I do agree that 2a is surprisingly grammatical though.

I will say grammar is really not my strong suit (and I only had time to skim the paper) but I have a decent background in semantics. Maybe I've just been working a lot with euphemisms lately, but PALs almost seem to function like euphemisms?

Big gripe of mine is the distinction of "soft" and "hard" science. I'm a linguist and it surprises people that I had to take advanced statistics, set theory, know the basics of acoustics, and have an understanding of calculus. But just because a field requires nuance and observational data doesn't mean it's automatically less rigorous than a field that deals exclusively with numbers. Can't exclusively rely on statistical models to draw conclusions about economic trends or linguistic phenomena because the economy and language don't exist outside of human society

Everything will be okay and I'm proud of you.

Someone else pointed out I was really uncharitable with reading your post, just wanted to apologise. I'll leave my crappy response up for some good ol public shaming

I think that's part of it but less and less so nowadays and especially the younger generation. I think the aversion to physical or emotional closeness is more cultural memory at this point than homophobia, but it might still play a part. Like someone else pointed out, I think a big part of it is just wanting to feel a bit special but just not having existing avenues for support

Oh yeah you're right. I thought they were being sarcastic at points where I see they weren't. Sorry about that

The question I posited was: if all signs point to men and women having equal amounts of sex, why is there no "female loneliness epidemic" but there is a "male loneliness epidemic"? I posit that the reason we think of sex as a benefit for male loneliness therefore can't be quantity of sex but men must be getting something from sex that women either don't need or are getting elsewhere. Since scientific evidence points toward gender differences being social and not innate, there must be something women are doing different socially that leads us to think of men as a population as in need of sex or intimate relationships but not women. I'm presenting a neutral logical argument here by way of discarding illogical conclusions, not accusing anyone of anything or implying that the comment above me was accusing women of being too promiscuous. I just wanted to ask the question of why are straight men lonely but straight women not lonely even though logically the two populations must be dating and having sex at approximately equal rates