No, no, no, I didn't say it was easy for her, I just think you completely lack nuance, balance, credibility and fairness when you excuse a position that pretty women can't be trusted around men unattended. That's not nuanced, it's misogynistic.

There's no nuance to "pretty girlfriend can't be trusted to spend time unattended with other men", that's not nuanced, it's blanket, it's controlling, it's relationship destroying, it's toxic and it's misogynistic.

I'm NOT arguing that it won't sometimes be hard for her to fend off men who aren't good at respecting women's boundaries.

I AM arguing that you utterly LACK nuance when you talk like pretty women can't have platonic friendships with men. It's untrue. Not all men are rapists. Not all women cheat. You're making a gross generalisation and it's nasty and not at all nuanced.

If hypothetically you spent all your relationship talking to your girlfriend like she's going to cheat on you, I think you would push her to live up to your expectations. After all, if she's already done the punishment of hearing you lecture her about how she/women can't be trusted around men, and you're already giving her a hard time about keeping male friends, and you're already forbidding male friendships she holds independently, and you're already breaking up her preexisting friendship groups making it hard for her to plan/maintain a social life, and you're already having the arguments about her unfaithfulness when she hasn't cheated yet, she may as well cheat because she is already living the punishment and the destroyed trust. But in this scenario, it was you that destroyed it all on your own.

You keep pushing this attitude to women as nuance, but it's like arguing that there's nuance in "I permanently grounded my teen children all their lives, to stop them being drawn into taking drugs by their friends". I mean, sure, ground them if they did drugs, but temporarily, because you can't be the police of someone else's entire social life, they're going to escape that toxicity or you're going to ruin their life. You can't ground them as a permanent preventative measure, there's no nuance to that, none at all, even though peer pressure is both real and powerful.

I completely reject your assertion that you're being nuanced by claiming that because some pretty women and some men can't be trusted, there's some reasonableness or counterbalance in the scenario, and I reject your claim of nuance wholeheartedly when you talk like platonic relationships between men and women are the exception instead of the rule. Very very wrong indeed. Like excruciatingly wrong. Statistically way out. Most male/female relationships are platonic. Most pretty women are not sleeping around and most pretty women can be trusted, even around men in your absence. There's no nuance to saying otherwise. There's no nuance to using the existence of male rapists and unfaithful women to justify toxic and controlling behaviour. There's no nuance to talking like petty women are inevitably going to sleep around. Stop using the word nuance to describe toxic misogynistic overgeneralisations.