this post was submitted on 31 May 2025
364 points (94.6% liked)

Greentext

6640 readers
1329 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] arin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And yes this could include any young women and girls but instead of saying both nouns he says one noun that includes both discriptors which is female instead of girl or young women

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So anon is asking why young girls didn't accept his friend request?

[–] arin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That is a possibility but not an exclusivity

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So "young women" instead of "young females" would have been more clear and appropriate?

[–] arin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Idk what exactly was op's intended target, but from his language it's mostly young females did not accept his friend request, which does not signify a lpwer bound age limit.

Edit to be more specific, coz this is dragging out. Young women should not include children. But op's language does not exclude minors.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's my point. If OP wanted to use clearer language "Young Women" would have been better, unless they are in fact creeping on children.

[–] arin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Wouldn't be surprised if op was also underaged. My exgf was deep into 4chan before i met her in college. W/e