Reread both posts.
You're getting very defensive for arguing that I proved your point.
You're demonstrating that what I said hits something deep inside the core of who you are.
Reread the conversation with my uncle and stop taking it out of context.
If you do you'll see how you have to look at the big picture.
This girl you're seeing could easily love to keep paying for stuff or split bills with you if she can snag you into a deep long term relationship or marriage, where she can define gender roles and create obligations where you're bound to pay for everything.
Not all gold diggers come at you waving flags dude. If you understand what it means for a female to be a gold digger you would love the ones raising red flags.
They're the easiest to flip the gender roles on and get indefinite perks because their needs are explicitly outlined, and they give you least headaches because if she refuses to let you flip the gender roles you know exactly how to proceed, moving upward and onward.
I.E. From personal experience, their needs are superficial, minimal, and their frequency and urgency decrease as long as you check her on every issue one, one issue at time, when they pop up.
Do your homework before you jump to conclusions about my conclusions.
P.S.
I know women are not perfect but there are some that aren't completely shit.
P.S. This says a lot about the way you categorize women. You added in a value statement. Value statements are what makes up thoughts about morality. "Good" girls much?
P.P.S. Explain your thinking behind the whole 6 degrees of separation and your idea of only letting them see you in with a proxy. You conveniently forgot that part when you were trying to start an argument, which was one the main points of my critique.
P.P.P.S. If you're going to get defensive about someone critiquing what you write then you might as well not write it all. We're not little kids here. You should definitely not write something if you don't want someone to give you constructive criticism like I took the time to.