Folamh3
User ID: 1175
Folamh3
4mo ago
Who the hell uses condoms for anything but one night stands? You might as well not have sex at that point.
So when you're in a monogamous relationship, your assumption is that your partner will be on the pill? (I'm assuming you're a straight man.)
Folamh3
5mo ago
and also quickly devolves into lurid hallucinations
I started reading it, and stopped when I got to that point. The basic idea seems to be sneering (in an extremely florid and ornate fashion) at people who have even the slightest amount of sympathy for the Israelis, which, okay, fine I guess, but it's not terribly interesting to read.
Folamh3
5mo ago
I am 20th percentile for physical appearance or so.
I really, really doubt this.
Folamh3
5mo ago
Then there's all the people arguing for why no-fault divorce, and sometimes even the decline of marriage, have been vast positives for women, and therefore society, because they're no longer forced to "settle" as their grandmothers were.
I think it says a lot about you that you hear "settle" and immediately think "woman forced to stay in a marriage with an unattractive husband" as opposed to "women forced to stay in abusive marriage/marriage with a drunk/marriage with a deadbeat" etc.
The fact that women are more likely to come when having sex with an attractive man does not remotely imply that women in relationships with less attractive men are therefore miserable. Sexual satisfaction is but one component of many in what makes a relationship work. (Also, most unattractive men still have fingers and tongues.)
ScienceDirect: "Correlates of satisfaction in British marriages":
Nowhere in the excerpted passage is it mentioned that women married to less attractive men are miserable. The study found that husbands are more satisfied if their wives are more attractive than they are, which is a separate question.
Lucas et al. (2006) looked at heterosexual couple marriages in four different cultures, and found that in every culture, physically attractive people who married a person with approximately the same attractiveness level were more satisfied about their marriage than physically unattractive people, or couples that differed in attractiveness."
This does not imply that attractive women in marriages with less attractive men are miserable, only that they are less satisfied than attractive women in marriages with attractive men.
Lucas, Wendorf, Imamoglu, Shen, Parkhill, Weisfeld, & Weisfeld "Marital satisfaction in four cultures as a function of homogamy, male dominance and female attractiveness"
Nowhere in the excerpted passage is it mentioned that women married to less attractive men are miserable.
Psychology Today: "(4 Reasons Not to Settle in a Relationship)[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-love-and-war/201404/4-reasons-not-settle-in-relationship]":
Again, you're conflating "an attractive woman marrying a less attractive man" with "settling". That's not what "settling" means. I imagine quite a lot of women would rather marry a plain-looking man who is caring, supportive and a good provider over an attractive man who cheats on her and can't hold down a steady job. Plenty of attractive women in relationships with attractive men are still settling.
Or in "How Couples Deal With the Loss of Physical Attraction"
This is just an opinion piece, I don't care.
From the Stanford Graduate School of Business via newswise.com "No-fault Divorce Laws May Have Improved Women's Well-being":
Again, you haven't come close to demonstrating that attractive women in marriages to unattractive men are more prone to suicide. There are hundreds of better reasons a woman might divorce her husband (abusive, drunk, deadbeat, philandering etc.).
Which numbered step is unclear? Where do you "lose the thread," as it were?
You've demonstrated that some rather weak and equivocal evidence exists for step 1, but are treating step 1 as if it was axiomatic and basing the subsequent steps on that.
Folamh3
7mo ago
A lot of what you describe might reduce the danger to the police from guilty suspects, while increasing the danger to innocent suspects.
I described in my comment one facet of American police training which is specifically designed to reduce the danger to innocent bystanders at the cost of increasing the danger to the person the police officer is targeting.
Folamh3
8mo ago
I recommend using the double pipes (||) at the start and end of each paragraph, as requested by the OP.
Folamh3
8mo ago
This just seems flatly untrue. Surely any quantity of e.g. fizzy drinks is net-negative for nutritional content.
Ireland is an Anglophone nation as English is the primary language (and most people don't have a second language). Unlike India and South Africa, Ireland isn't part of the Commonwealth.
Folamh3
8mo ago
Even referring to the former group as "Protestant Irishman" is a controversial statement. Most northern Irish Protestants consider themselves British (which they are, politically and legally).
For religious purposes, would a penectomy be considered functionally equivalent to a circumcision (albeit a horrifically botched one)?
/s
Folamh3
9mo ago
As a tangent - is this something that happens?
Folamh3
9mo ago
True, although in fairness a man's intelligence is a much more durable resource than a woman's beauty.
Women being generally treated better than men does not automatically translate into women having generally higher life satisfaction than men. What's more, many women who hold particularly radical opinions about how to restructure society can honestly claim to have legitimately suffered under the current system e.g. many radical feminists claim to have been the victims of rape or domestic abuse, which was a major factor in their becoming radical feminists.
I think Western women being disproportionately progressive liberal types supports my theory rather than contradicts it, as it's mostly "radicalism" of a shallow superficial type. Western women who claim to want to "smash the patriarchy" or who support an ill-defined Ibram X Kendi-style "racial reckoning" are a dime a dozen, but their ostensible support for these "policies" rarely seems to conflict with their being a #girlboss pulling down five or six figures working for JP Morgan or Meta. That is to say, they're generally progressives of the "we need more black female drone pilots" school, and their alleged radicalism is almost entirely performative and social in nature. (I absolutely include the aforementioned AOC in this category.) It's far rarer to encounter a woman who sincerely supports a radical restructuring of society along e.g. Marxist lines, and who has actively worked towards bringing that goal about.
Folamh3
1yr ago
For Scott Alexander, I think it was the point where he completely let the curtain slip on how utterly fucked his sexual (asexual? pseudo-sexual?) relationships were
How so? Isn't he happily married?
Folamh3
1yr ago
You may have already encountered it, but if not I think you will enjoy this article by Richard Hanania: https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/womens-tears-win-in-the-marketplace
Folamh3
1yr ago
I don't know if this has any bearing on your sentiment, but the author of the short story is a cisgender woman.
Folamh3
28d ago
Speaking as a guy who's had sex with my fair share of women who were pleasantly tipsy at the time, I can assure you and Tyre_Inflator that I'm not advocating for a situation in which any man who's had sex with a woman who's had so much as a mouthful of sherry can be hauled off to jail at the drop of a hat. But I think it's intuitively obvious to essentially any sensible person when a woman is too drunk to give meaningful consent. If a woman is so drunk you have to practically carry her home from the bar, you know damn well you shouldn't be having sex with her - don't play dumb.
Folamh3
1mo ago
I was only talking about doctors, not mechanics or lawyers. I appreciate that there are good reasons not to be perfectly candid to a mechanic or lawyer, even though I think actively lying to them is generally not in one's best interests.
In general, I think the advantages of being candid with a doctor (candid in the sense of providing the whole truth to all questions asked, not in the sense of volunteering information of one's own accord) outweigh the risks. How many patients' medical records are subpoenaed, leaked etc. in a typical calendar year? How does that compare to the number of people who die every year because they knowingly gave their doctor an inaccurate impression of their health and/or lifestyle, and as a result their cancer went untreated for months longer than it could have been had they been forthcoming?
Funny, when I first read this I misread it as "they're patently carrying out a genocide" and I was very surprised to see someone expressing an opinion like that here. I only noticed my mistake now.
More options
Context Copy link