She invited the guy Bill back to her place he met at the Flowershop and as soon as he wanted to kiss she starts getting all defensive like he was a rapist. The man just wanted to make out a little not rip her clothes off

Plus did Janet forget that Jack and Chrissy was in Jack's room so how could any sex happen if they was in the living room?

She invited the guy Bill back to her place he met at the Flowershop and as soon as he wanted to kiss she starts getting all defensive like he was a rapist. The man just wanted to make out a little not rip her clothes off

Plus did Janet forget that Jack and Chrissy was in Jack's room so how could any sex happen if they was in the living room?
So is that the one where she meets the guy at the flower shop? Yeah, it is weird that Janet went from hot to cold immediately with him. They were trying to sell us on this sexual connection between the two in the flower shop, then when the guy makes a move? Janet changes her mind immediately. Any guy on the planet would have made a move on her based on what was going on in the flower shop.

I chalk it up to just bad writing. The writers were just hell bent on making sure Janet stayed a "good girl". We can't show on TV a woman might have casual sex outside of a committed relationship now can we? Never mind that it was the 70s.

That's why I usually think when the show focuses on the dating lives of the girls, that's when it's at its lamest. It's as if we're supposed to root for the girls to NOT get laid. No thanks.

I get it, a man is not supposed to force himself on a woman. It's never acceptable. But I don't think Janet and Chrissy/Cindy/Terri are always immune from criticism each time they refuse to have sex. Sometimes they are too prudish. I don't always understand them when they refuse to have sex. Sometimes for me it really is hard to root for the girls. Jack is often easier for me to root for.

It's bad writing when you can't side with the protagonists because their case isn't made clearly enough, and Three's Company's writing did that often.

So is that the one where she meets the guy at the flower shop? Yeah, it is weird that Janet went from hot to cold immediately with him. They were trying to sell us on this sexual connection between the two in the flower shop, then when the guy makes a move? Janet changes her mind immediately. Any guy on the planet would have made a move on her based on what was going on in the flower shop.

I chalk it up to just bad writing. The writers were just hell bent on making sure Janet stayed a "good girl". We can't show on TV a woman might have casual sex outside of a committed relationship now can we? Never mind that it was the 70s.

That's why I usually think when the show focuses on the dating lives of the girls, that's when it's at its lamest. It's as if we're supposed to root for the girls to NOT get laid. No thanks.

I get it, a man is not supposed to force himself on a woman. It's never acceptable. But I don't think Janet and Chrissy/Cindy/Terri are always immune from criticism each time they refuse to have sex. Sometimes they are too prudish. I don't always understand them when they refuse to have sex. Sometimes for me it really is hard to root for the girls. Jack is often easier for me to root for.

It's bad writing when you can't side with the protagonists because their case isn't made clearly enough, and Three's Company's writing did that often.

They had Janet acting like she was 13. Damm she was afraid if fully clothed kissing?

Yeah, it is weird that Janet went from hot to cold immediately with him. They were trying to sell us on this sexual connection between the two in the flower shop, then when the guy makes a move? Janet changes her mind immediately. Any guy on the planet would have made a move on her based on what was going on in the flower shop.


Okay. Okay.

Janet "went from hot to cold immediately" because the guy ASSUMED that she wanted to boink him just because she asked him over to look at the ferns. And his assumptions/expectations increased 3x when he learned that she lived with a guy and a girl.

Yes, Janet liked him a lot, but I think she honestly invited him over to only look at ferns (which he was supposedly interested in) and to get to know each other.

When men EXPECT sex like they are OWED sex, that's a problem. And when they throw a little bitch fit revealing their true intentions (he said he hated ferns at the end, so he obviously was only there for one thing) when they are denied, that's a problem. When a man then blames the woman for ruining expectations HE created in his mind, that's a problem. This was the usual gripe of the girls about their boyfriends---men often treated them as if they owed them sex.

I feel like I needed to explain this to both of you, because apparently you guys are no strangers to male entitlement.

Sometimes they are too prudish. I don't always understand them when they refuse to have sex. Sometimes for me it really is hard to root for the girls.

You are partly right in that the no-sex rule of the girls was imposed by the writers/censors. But within the construct of the show, if the girls don't want to have sex with every dude they dated, THAT IS THEIR CHOICE.

The fact that you feel like the degree of their "prudishness" makes it difficult for you to "root for the girls" speaks volumes.

We can't show on TV a woman might have casual sex outside of a committed relationship now can we? Never mind that it was the 70s.

Again, yeah, the censors were a factors. But what did you want? The girls throwing themselves at every guy and jumping into bed with all of them? Then you'd probably call them sluts, and they'd be equally "hard to root for." Such bull****.

In fact, I've seen elsewhere on these boards where ppl have called some of Larry's or Jack's girlfriends "sluts" and "hos" and even "whores" because they wanted exactly what you say Janet/Chrissy/Terri should want---casual sex!

With ppl like you, women can't win.

I would also say that the running jokes on the sex-crazed nature of the girls' boyfriends is exaggerated to be FUNNY....but I guess if you're a loser dude who strikes out with every girl he dates in real life, then those jokes just make you bitter. Hmmm

Okay. Okay.

Janet "went from hot to cold immediately" because the guy ASSUMED that she wanted to boink him just because she asked him over to look at the ferns. And his assumptions/expectations increased 3x when he learned that she lived with a guy and a girl.

Yes, Janet liked him a lot, but I think she honestly invited him over to only look at ferns (which he was supposedly interested in) and to get to know each other.

When men EXPECT sex like they are OWED sex, that's a problem. And when they throw a little bitch fit revealing their true intentions (he said he hated ferns at the end, so he obviously was only there for one thing) when they are denied, that's a problem. When a man then blames the woman for ruining expectations HE created in his mind, that's a problem. This was the usual gripe of the girls about their boyfriends---men often treated them as if they owed them sex.

I feel like I needed to explain this to both of you, because apparently you guys are no strangers to male entitlement.



You are partly right in that the no-sex rule of the girls was imposed by the writers/censors. But within the construct of the show, if the girls don't want to have sex with every dude they dated, THAT IS THEIR CHOICE.

The fact that you feel like the degree of their "prudishness" makes it difficult for you to "root for the girls" speaks volumes.



Again, yeah, the censors were a factors. But what did you want? The girls throwing themselves at every guy and jumping into bed with all of them? Then you'd probably call them sluts, and they'd be equally "hard to root for." Such bull****.
I've never called a girl a "slut" before in my life. I think women should be as free to explore sex as a man does.

I'm not taking responsibility for the fact that people call women sluts sometimes. I don't.

Okay. Okay.

Janet "went from hot to cold immediately" because the guy ASSUMED that she wanted to boink him just because she asked him over to look at the ferns. And his assumptions/expectations increased 3x when he learned that she lived with a guy and a girl.

Yes, Janet liked him a lot, but I think she honestly invited him over to only look at ferns (which he was supposedly interested in) and to get to know each other.

When men EXPECT sex like they are OWED sex, that's a problem. And when they throw a little bitch fit revealing their true intentions (he said he hated ferns at the end, so he obviously was only there for one thing) when they are denied, that's a problem. When a man then blames the woman for ruining expectations HE created in his mind, that's a problem. This was the usual gripe of the girls about their boyfriends---men often treated them as if they owed them sex.

I feel like I needed to explain this to both of you, because apparently you guys are no strangers to male entitlement.



You are partly right in that the no-sex rule of the girls was imposed by the writers/censors. But within the construct of the show, if the girls don't want to have sex with every dude they dated, THAT IS THEIR CHOICE.

The fact that you feel like the degree of their "prudishness" makes it difficult for you to "root for the girls" speaks volumes.




If a woman doesn't like a guy who just wants sex, she is free to reject said guy, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong for a guy to just want sex. I have an issue with you calling that a problem.

It's sexist to assume that a woman's desired goals in a relationship are more important than a man's.

You are partly right in that the no-sex rule of the girls was imposed by the writers/censors. But within the construct of the show, if the girls don't want to have sex with every dude they dated, THAT IS THEIR CHOICE.

The fact that you feel like the degree of their "prudishness" makes it difficult for you to "root for the girls" speaks volumes.


It most definitely is their choice and always should be, but it doesn't mean I have to support them in said choice.

A person doesn't have to name-call to get an attitude across.

I didn't say it was wrong for a man to want sex. A person can want anything they want. It's their actions that matter.

It's important to note that Janet did not reject the guy for wanting sex. She rejected him because he had made unfair assumptions based on general stereotypes. For example---he thought that if a woman invited him to her place, she was "easy." And if she lives with someone of the opposite gender, she's really "easy."

I think Janet was fairly innocent in her invitation and vibes. The man interpreted incorrectly, then blamed her for his incorrect interpretation.

I also did not say one person's goals are more important than another person's. These are all ridiculous straw man arguments you are using.

"I don't have to support them in said choice"

Your attitude implies that a woman is more "complete" and likeable if she is open to having casual sex, and if a woman character doesn't fit with your opinion of what a so-called real woman says or does, then she is automatically less of a likeable character.

As altruistic as you may want to seem toward women, the fact that you find a female character more or only likeable if they do XYZ (even if XYZ is a positive, progressive thing) is really telling. And it's kind of a crappy attitude.

A great example is Larry. I think the way he treats women is bad, but I still root for him (as you say). Because male characters who don't fit my vision of how a man should act or be can still be likeable.

A person doesn't have to name-call to get an attitude across.

I didn't say it was wrong for a man to want sex. A person can want anything they want. It's their actions that matter.

It's important to note that Janet did not reject the guy for wanting sex. She rejected him because he had made unfair assumptions based on general stereotypes. For example---he thought that if a woman invited him to her place, she was "easy." And if she lives with someone of the opposite gender, she's really "easy."

I think Janet was fairly innocent in her invitation and vibes. The man interpreted incorrectly, then blamed her for his incorrect interpretation.

I also did not say one person's goals are more important than another person's. These are all ridiculous straw man arguments you are using.

"I don't have to support them in said choice"

Your attitude implies that a woman is more "complete" and likeable if she is open to having casual sex, and if a woman character doesn't fit with your opinion of what a so-called real woman says or does, then she is automatically less of a likeable character.

As altruistic as you may want to seem toward women, the fact that you find a female character more or only likeable if they do XYZ (even if XYZ is a positive, progressive thing) is really telling. And it's kind of a crappy attitude.

A great example is Larry. I think the way he treats women is bad, but I still root for him (as you say). Because male characters who don't fit my vision of how a man should act or be can still be likeable.

One of the messages throughout the series of Three's was that Janet and Chrissy (or the other blondes) were special girls and were somehow noble in their endeavors to look for meaningful relationships, while Larry was a scumbag for looking for one night stands. That was always so judgmental about the series and I didn't like that tone. And if Janet and Chrissy, etc. were somehow noble for never having sex outside of a committed relationship, it implied that the women Jack and Larry dated were somehow "less" because they had casual sex. I don't agree with that.

It was just a whole bunch of mixed messages. Why are Janet and Chrissy better than the women Jack and Larry go out with? I don't see it.

I mean clearly there were times Jack went out with a rude woman, and that's not acceptable. Janet and Chrissy are better than those women. But there's plenty of women Jack and Larry dated that were MORE interesting than Janet and Chrissy. The biggest problem with the show is, it's just automatically assumed we're supposed to have sympathy for Janet and Chrissy without always giving good reasons.

To me, as an example, I'd rather be with Lana than Janet and Chrissy. She's rich, good looking, and wanted to have a good time! Sounds like a big win. It was dumb for Jack to reject her advances. Made no sense at all. Just like it made no sense to me for Janet to turn down the guy at the flower shop. I think it would have been more empowering for the women if they got to have the fun Jack and Larry did. The fact is, Janet and Chrissy had no sex because the writers were afraid of going too far. It was a concession to more Conservative attitudes of the audience. Unfortunately the times Janet and Chrissy, etc. refused to have sex, it added an unnecessary amount of seriousness to a show that was a light-hearted laugh riot the rest of the time.

Yes, rape is horrible. A man forcing himself on a woman is a detestable thing. Any guy that does it needs to, at the least, be in prison. But did we have to be reminded of that seemingly every time Janet or Chrissy was on a date? Why did it seem like a lot of the guys the girls went out with had to be a creep, a monster, or a schlub? Couldn't we have seen a time where Chrissy or Janet just had a good time dating? Would it have been so bad for Janet to see a guy and say "I'm just going to have a night of meaningless sex." Were audiences that unwilling to see such a thing in the 1970s/80s?

To me, as an example, I'd rather be with Lana than Janet and Chrissy. She's rich, good looking, and wanted to have a good time! Sounds like a big win. It was dumb for Jack to reject her advances. Made no sense at all.

Yeah, that crazy Jack for not being shallow.

Yeah, that crazy Jack for not being shallow.
Oh come on, now, if Lana were 30 instead of 45 I'm sure he'd of had no problem dating her. He probably rejected her for being too old. Rejecting her made him shallow. Then again, that may not have been the reason. That was another case of bad writing. It was never really explained why Jack should not be interested in Lana.

So I guess being educated, funny, responsible, the manager of a business, and an otherwise well-rounded person did not make Janet "empowered" enough for you. Mmkay. I think I've stated my case.

But to answer your question as to why Janet/Chrissy's boyfriends were often painted as caricatures, and Larry seemed to be a caricature, etc, it's because the show was a farce, which relies on broad, stereotypical characters. This isn't a feelings sitcom that delves deeply into the motives and authenticity of characters.

I don't see how any of the ancillary guest stars were more interesting than Janet and Chrissy. Often the girlfriends/boyfriends were just there to advance the plot. None of the boys' girlfriends were on screen long enough to be particularly "interesting" (maybe with the exception of Linda, and that's only because we saw her more than once, and even then it's a stretch to call her "interesting").

I also think you're missing the boat on how Jack's girlfriends somehow seemed "less" than the roommates. Have you seen the show? Often Jack gets rejected because HE acts a fool and ruins things.

"It made no sense for Janet to reject the guy from the flower shop"

Hmm, I guess the fact that he was a total d-bag for assuming she was like every other girl he knew and drawing false conclusions wasn't enough to get rejected? You are a piece of work.

Yes, rape is horrible. A man forcing himself on a woman is a detestable thing. Any guy that does it needs to, at the least, be in prison. But did we have to be reminded of that seemingly every time Janet or Chrissy was on a date? Why did it seem like a lot of the guys the girls went out with had to be a creep, a monster, or a schlub? Couldn't we have seen a time where Chrissy or Janet just had a good time dating? Would it have been so bad for Janet to see a guy and say "I'm just going to have a night of meaningless sex." Were audiences that unwilling to see such a thing in the 1970s/80s?

lol you talk about how rape is bad and then you basically blame Chrissy and Janet for having a ****ty time when they went out with a guy who tried to touch them without permission or otherwise were forceful and presumptuous. It isn't the girls' fault the guys they dated wound up being pushy a-holes. Maybe you should put the blame where it belongs. Maybe if the guys they dated had a better understanding of being a decent human being they would've gotten laid left and right.

But again, I think the nasty boyfriends were an easy joke. And a good one, because that crap is still relateable today, unfortunately. Even with your version of an "empowered" women who has casual sex, believe it or not.

Maybe you should put the blame where it belongs. Maybe if the guys they dated had a better understanding of being a decent human being they would've gotten laid left and right.


It would have been nice if we saw an episode like that. Instead all we saw were a bunch of a**holes.

You wouldn't have liked to have seen an episode where Chrissy or Janet had a nice fling?

I don't know why the show made it look as though the only way Chrissy and Janet could have been happy was if they found guys that were the marrying type.

Larry and Jack sure didn't worry about making sure every girl they went out with was the marrying kind.

lol you talk about how rape is bad and then you basically blame Chrissy and Janet for having a ****ty time when they went out with a guy who tried to touch them without permission or otherwise were forceful and presumptuous. It isn't the girls' fault the guys they dated wound up being pushy a-holes. Maybe you should put the blame where it belongs. Maybe if the guys they dated had a better understanding of being a decent human being they would've gotten laid left and right.


Yeah, I guess you make a good point there. Unwanted contact is bad.

I just don't know why Janet and Chrissy had to not want it all the time.

We're supposed to always say "you go girl" every time Chrissy and Janet reject a guy's advances. I don't always think the guy is wrong though. But if the girl sends the message "leave me alone", you need to leave her alone.

The guys Chrissy and Janet rejected needed to walk away and not push it one bit, but it's still okay if they ask "what's her problem"? as they're walking out the door. That doesn't make a guy a bad person if he doesn't understand why a woman doesn't want him. Seems kind of unfair that's always the guy's responsibility to understand the woman. I never see women make any effort to understand men.

And that's all TVFactFan is asking, and I agree with him.

The guys Chrissy and Janet rejected needed to walk away and not push it one bit, but it's still okay if they ask "what's her problem"? as they're walking out the door. That doesn't make a guy a bad person if he doesn't understand why a woman doesn't want him.


If a person is treating you like crap, you don't owe them crap, including an explanation.

And I would say yeah, it is pretty crappy for you to expect a woman to explain to you how you are acting like an a-hole. If you can't figure it out on your own...good luck, buddy

One of the messages throughout the series of Three's was that Janet and Chrissy (or the other blondes) were special girls and were somehow noble in their endeavors to look for meaningful relationships, while Larry was a scumbag for looking for one night stands. That was always so judgmental about the series and I didn't like that tone. And if Janet and Chrissy, etc. were somehow noble for never having sex outside of a committed relationship, it implied that the women Jack and Larry dated were somehow "less" because they had casual sex. I don't agree with that.

It was just a whole bunch of mixed messages. Why are Janet and Chrissy better than the women Jack and Larry go out with? I don't see it.

I mean clearly there were times Jack went out with a rude woman, and that's not acceptable. Janet and Chrissy are better than those women. But there's plenty of women Jack and Larry dated that were MORE interesting than Janet and Chrissy. The biggest problem with the show is, it's just automatically assumed we're supposed to have sympathy for Janet and Chrissy without always giving good reasons.


Just seemed weird that they were beyond college age and scared of a "light make out"

BTW if we had seen more decent, normal-acting guys in the girls' life, the show would not have been as funny. I really think the show exaggerated the good and bad of everyone to get laughs. Again, it's not a think-show that hooks the audience with epic love stories of functional people doing reasonable things.

If a person is treating you like crap, you don't owe them crap, including an explanation.

How are men going to understand women if they're never explained to them?

Some men out there just know and don't need it explained to them, I get it. And the ones that don't get it aren't worth your time, I get it. That's how women have always acted towards men throughout history. Women in relationships have always acted like they don't owe men a thing. And who knows, maybe it's for the best. Maybe that's nature's version of population control.

But I'm still going to feel sorry for all those clueless guys out there. No one ever tells them how to correct their behavior. No one ever feels sorry for them, but I will. There's two sides to every story.

If a person is treating you like crap, you don't owe them crap, including an explanation.


How was the guy from the Flowershop treating Janet like Crap?

And I would say yeah, it is pretty crappy for you to expect a woman to explain to you how you are acting like an a-hole. If you can't figure it out on your own...good luck, buddy

Yep, guess I'm screwed. That magical unspoken language of love is probably one I'll never understand.

I guess that's the point. If you have to be told, you'll never understand.

Nature deemed me to be one of the clueless ones. Oh well. Must be nice for those that get it.

How are men going to understand women if they're never explained to them?



Hmm, let me google that for you.

Also, if you don't know how to be a decent human being, you're on your own. There's a difference between a woman rejecting a guy because there isn't chemistry, they aren't compatible, etc and a woman rejecting a guy because he is a presumptuous sh*thead who assumes he's owed not only whatever he wants but also an explanation when denied. I really hope you realize the difference before you drown yourself in a pool of self-pity.

Also, I've explained fairly clearly why that guy acted poorly and why a woman would be turned off by his behavior. I have given you a clear explanation and you still don't seem to get it. So maybe you don't want to understand.

And TVFactFan, you should read through the replies that explain in detail all the reasons Janet rejected that guy because I'm not gonna repeat myself, thanks.

Hmm, let me google that for you.

Also, if you don't know how to be a decent human being, you're on your own. There's a difference between a woman rejecting a guy because there isn't chemistry, they aren't compatible, etc and a woman rejecting a guy because he is a presumptuous sh*thead who assumes he's owed not only whatever he wants but also an explanation when denied. I really hope you realize the difference before you drown yourself in a pool of self-pity.

Also, I've explained fairly clearly why that guy acted poorly and why a woman would be turned off by his behavior. I have given you a clear explanation and you still don't seem to get it. So maybe you don't want to understand.

And TVFactFan, you should read through the replies that explain in detail all the reasons Janet rejected that guy because I'm not gonna repeat myself, thanks.


still doesn't make sense because they were in the living room............NOT HER BEDROOM

still doesn't make sense because they were in the living room............NOT HER BEDROOM


Oops, I guess I forgot that geographical location matters when you're being an a**hole. WTF

Oops, I guess I forgot that geographical location matters when you're being an a**hole. WTF

It was no need for her to be worried about him trying to have SEX because they were not home alone and was not in her bedroom

so what the hell was wrong with two adults kissing on the couch

It was no need for her to be worried about him trying to have SEX because they were not home alone and was not in her bedroom

so what the hell was wrong with two adults kissing on the couch

:lol: The guy actually said to her, "Let's go to your bedroom." After he learned that Janet lived with a guy and a girl, he assumed Janet wouldn't mind having sex in earshot of other people. He figured she was that kind of girl. He assumed wrong and then got all pissy when she called him on it.

:lol: The guy actually said to her, "Let's go to your bedroom." After he learned that Janet lived with a guy and a girl, he assumed Janet wouldn't mind having sex in earshot of other people. He figured she was that kind of girl. He assumed wrong and then got all pissy when she called him on it.


Ok I missed that part, I thought he just wanted to be affectionate on the couch


But I can see how any guy would not take Janet or Chrissy seriously when they found out they had a male roomate


In real life I would think that the guy is having sex with both. If I had met a girl at 26 who had a male and female roommate I would be trying to have sex too:lol:

Also, if you don't know how to be a decent human being, you're on your own.

That's a cold and scary thought. But it seems to be one society enforces on these guys.

I've noticed things are different in life between men and women.

You say "we're on our own", but women never seem to be on their own. Women seem to have all kinds of support groups for them throughout life, encouraging them, inspiring them, keeping their confidence up.

Men don't have this. We're just supposed to be so mentally tough we don't need a support group. A support group is supposedly a sign of weakness for men.

It's time society realized men need support groups too. We're expected to have to handle all our problems on our own, plus be able to provide for and take care of women, children, and animals too. It's a lot. It's not easy to get your own house in order and then make the world a better place on top of that.

That's a cold and scary thought. But it seems to be one society enforces on these guys.

I've noticed things are different in life between men and women.

You say "we're on our own", but women never seem to be on their own. Women seem to have all kinds of support groups for them throughout life, encouraging them, inspiring them, keeping their confidence up.

Men don't have this. We're just supposed to be so mentally tough we don't need a support group. A support group is supposedly a sign of weakness for men.

It's time society realized men need support groups too. We're expected to have to handle all our problems on our own, plus be able to provide for and take care of women, children, and animals too. It's a lot. It's not easy to get your own house in order and then make the world a better place on top of that.


We are expected to always be happy and and have money. Lol

That's a cold and scary thought. But it seems to be one society enforces on these guys.

I've noticed things are different in life between men and women.

You say "we're on our own", but women never seem to be on their own. Women seem to have all kinds of support groups for them throughout life, encouraging them, inspiring them, keeping their confidence up.

Men don't have this. We're just supposed to be so mentally tough we don't need a support group. A support group is supposedly a sign of weakness for men.

It's time society realized men need support groups too. We're expected to have to handle all our problems on our own, plus be able to provide for and take care of women, children, and animals too. It's a lot. It's not easy to get your own house in order and then make the world a better place on top of that.

Have you ever Googled "support groups for men"? You might be surprised how much help there is out there for men if you look.

I agree that certain expectations of what a man should and shouldn't be are unfair (i.e., he should be financially successful, the family provider, unemotional, etc). But that comes from the same place that assigns femininity (weakness) to emotion and masculinity (strength) to financial success. Those concepts are very exclusive and hurt both men and women. It's actually a misconception that feminism is only about women---it's about gender equality and destroying gender stereotypes that hurt both genders.

If it seems to you that women have a disproportionate amount of support, it is a result of women being held back for so long. In any society, the minority group usually comes together to support each other in making changes. Although you see complete support for females, the world at large does not. Women still make 78 cents for every dollar a guy makes, women make up less than 20% of U.S. Congress (lawmaking=power), women are often judged to be weaker or less intelligent, etc.

So I do see your side of the argument, but it seems like throughout this conversation you have been trying to excuse and defend indefensible behavior. In this day and age, anyone can get on the Internet and look up definitions of rape, consent, sexism, microaggression, etc. There is really no excuse to be uninformed. And it's your responsibility to inform yourself and do research on your own, not expect others to constantly explain things to you. Not saying that asking questions is bad, but I don't get paid to repeatedly explain sh*t that you could easily Google. If you can look up driving directions before you leave the house, you can look up other stuff, too.

So I do see your side of the argument, but it seems like throughout this conversation you have been trying to excuse and defend indefensible behavior. In this day and age, anyone can get on the Internet and look up definitions of rape, consent, sexism, microaggression, etc. There is really no excuse to be uninformed. And it's your responsibility to inform yourself and do research on your own, not expect others to constantly explain things to you. Not saying that asking questions is bad, but I don't get paid to repeatedly explain sh*t that you could easily Google. If you can look up driving directions before you leave the house, you can look up other stuff, too.
Microagression....that's a new word for me. I'll definitely Google that.