1) the male comparison of women to automobiles - "something to take a ride in",
Not misandry, huh? Lemon, if your loathing of men, all men, and your generalizing of them was any greater, you could be part of a dark comedy special on Netflix...or immediately made head of the Woman's Studies dept. at your closest Woke university.
2) the concept of purchasing a "lemon" car - a car which a man is supposed to be able to ride in it, and drive it where he wants to go, but IT doesn't cooperate.
Translation: women don't like men, they do not share a mutual sexual desire, they "know" that men just want to use them, and men can't handle that so they insult them. Gotcha. Your nic is an admitted paean to misandry, yet you claim you are not that, and also claim you've been called a "misogynist" too. If the latter is truly the case, it's likely because you also call for autocratic limits on women's agency under the guise of "protecting" them from "awful" men. This is why moral crusaders have always been enemies of democracy, freedom, and actual progressive values.
A lemon child is one which is a dud, from a utilitarian perspective - a child which doesn't obey, that is considered worthless and disposable because it doesn't give the adults what they want.
As a youth liberationist, as most pro-choicers in the community are, we have always supported kids having the right not to have to comply with adult power and demands when it comes to all things, including sexuality. You simply ignore that at your convenience. Of course, in the case of moral crusaders like yourself, saying "no" to adults when it comes to sexual contact is not a right but an imperative. Hence, you're not about giving agency to kids, but denying them agency if they make any choice or seek any type of information you disapprove of, even when you give lip service to giving them rights such as suffrage. If they got the vote, adult control over every aspect of their lives would greatly diminish. Pro-choice MAPs are typically fine with that. Moral crusaders, however, are not.
uppose that's not much different than an adult man (or boy) thinking I leave a bitter taste in his mouth. Or rather, no taste at all because he doesn't get to drink my lemonade.
Translation: withholding sexual contact from men is not simply the right of women (or girls) who may not be attracted to a particular man (or boy), but it's inherently cool and empowering to always deny it from all men as some sort of sacred duty to their gender, to stifle the "selfish" ways of all men.
You need not worry, Lemon. Women with your attitude are not attractive, and men will avoid you in droves. To be frank, I think that secretly angers you rather than gratifying you, which is why you come up with insulting terms for men who would avoid you before you got the chance to avoid them. Of course, in a democratic world, you have to deal with many women not feeling that way, which is why you want to force them into displaying your hateful behavior towards men by passing oppressive laws under the guise of "protecting" them. Got it. This is why antis and the Woke crowd have always been comfy bedfellows, and civil libertarians and antis are not despite repeated attempts to reconcile one with the other.