734
It's not jealousy
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
734 points (90.9% liked)
Microblog Memes
5699 readers
3671 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
lol. Try reading the comment you replied to. They didn't say anything about attraction.
Less sexually active and less sexual are very different statements to me. I was addressing the second portion.
Not only that but a large portion of this entire threads argument is based on how people find each other attractive. Being promiscuous isn't really relevant when the topic is about people in relationships with large age differences.
I suppose you could argue sexual promiscuity heightens your chance of getting into relationships with larger age differences, but I don't have data to back that up. I doubt it'd be true if that's what they're contending but I wouldn't care either way lol.
Less sexual still doesn't mean less attractive though... ? I have no idea what you're on about. Just rewind to the comment that person was replying to and the context is very clear:
added that last bit because it was clearly referring to the studies coming out in the last few years or so that show that young people are having less sex today than previous generations did at similar ages.
Again, less sex has nothing to do with age differences. It sounds like everyone is just arguing about different things tangentially related to the meme lol.
Apparently y'all think people having less/more sex matters with age differences. I'm arguing 18 year olds are absolutely sexual regardless of how much more or less they're having sex. And 18-25 are the peak years of attractiveness for nearly everyone.
They're also the best time to have children even if our society makes it nearly impossible to have them between 18-25. That's a sliding scale which basically gets worse every year after 25, not even 35.
Good luck telling people at 26 they're already putting themselves and their children at risk though lol. After 35 has always been a stretch but our government refuses to help while the working class is so under the boot they can barely unionize.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2021/maternal-mortality-rates-2021.htm
you're just shadowboxing at this point and honestly it's really weird that you're so hyper focused on trying to make people debate you on points they didn't even bring up, so you can make the case that all women need to give birth before the age of 25.
Idk if you're not a native speaker or something but nobody uses the term 'sexual' in the way that you are using it right now and this reply thread is a total non-sequitur from the thread it stemmed from. I'm not debating you, I'm just letting you know.
Homie we're on what essentially amounts to a communist socialist forum, not a Debate Team. It's how conversation works lol. That shit doesn't change whether it be Lemmy, Reddit, Facebook, or anywhere else. The thread literally went from meme, arguing that's not what they meant, arguing that's not what they meant, arguing that's not they meant, to then saying no this is what I'm talking about, why are you talking about this?
It's all being talked about lol. It's all mildly relevant. The points and truth behind them didn't change. It's all corrections here and there with misunderstandings everywhere. Turns out people aren't all seeing all knowing. Lemmy leans heavily ND to boot so it just exacerbates all of that.