168
There are some downsides to marriage
(lemmy.world)
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 26 Dec 2024
168 points (63.2% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
27230 readers
5829 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's funny because any man stating "this is true" etc is just telling on themselves. If the physical attraction was there before marriage the only reason it would disappear after marriage is that one person is suddenly not "putting in the effort" any more.
That effort doesn't start with a bj.
I've had GFs in the past lose their attraction to me because I cried in front of them one time. All kinds of shit can affect that. Not just laziness. It may not even be anyone's fault at all.
It seems really unhealthy for men to not ever cry.
Maybe but overall I think I'd have been better off keeping it to myself and continuing to have sex regularly. I don't need to cry that often and having someone else around when I do it has never really helped with whatever was going on.
Not fully convinced you're discussing marriage like the rest of us here tbh
I'm discussing reasons people can lose attraction to each other. You don't have to be married for that to happen.
The thread talks about what happens after marriage. I suggest not marrying people you haven't been vulnerable in front of.
That was just an example I had personally experienced. As I said there could be any number of reasons. Mental health, work stress, illness, hormone changes, etc. Marriage status has nothing to do with it.
It's entirely possible that it's not the man who stopped putting in effort.
Look at the demographics of those who create, share and upvote memes from the man's (this thread) and the woman's point of view.
Entirely possible - yes. Statistically likely - no.
Purely out of curiosity, where are you pulling these demographics from?
Their ass
Are you interested or did I just hit too close to home for your liking?
https://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/id/eprint/4406/
Do you expect everyone to accept everything you say at face value without question? Are you this bizarrely aggressive every time someone questions you? I questioned it because it seemed like an odd statement with very broad reach being applied in a largely anonymous space.
You've linked a paper locked behind a paywall, thanks for that. I'm not seeing much of anything to do with demographics in that paper at all. The paper appears to be an analysis of the types of humour present in some popular memes and how they apply to feminism.
None of the categories outlined in the paper even seem like a particularly good fit for this particular meme, other than maybe at a stretch a single line discussing general vs specific sexism, although I'll openly admit I'm not conversant in the literature.
If you ask for scientific backing it's a bit rich to then complain on you not being able to read said papers. However, let me tell you about sci-hub:
https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353517727560
The "Analysis and discussion" heading is interesting reading.
This paper is also relevant:
https://sci-hub.se/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07448481.2021.1927049
I didn't ask for scientific backing, I asked where you were pulling the demographics from because you said "look at the demographics" indicating this is readily available information. How exactly is it rich if I complain I can't read the papers? (Which you'll note I didn't actually say, you might also note sci-hub is blocked in multiple countries including mine.) I don't understand the reasoning there, you provide something that's not easily readable and blame me for not being able to read it?
Regardless, I did actually read it as you'll note again from my previous post I pointed out there don't appear to be any demographics in the paper and that the paper appears to be more about categorising memes and how they pertain to feminism.
The second paper you've provided doesn't mention memes, it's an exploratory study of how social media use impacts perceptions of relationships and consent in a small collegiate sample (the sample size is emphasized by the authors, not me). No real conclusions are drawn although the authors do speculate it is the perception of how others behave on social media in relationships that causes the impact - how is this supporting your point? It has absolutely nothing to do with people posting anything, memes or otherwise.
Yeah sorry, if you don't get why those parts of those papers are relevant there's probably not much I can help you with there :) I'm quite convinced you have no interest in the actual topic - you're performing a well known debating technique that stems from the need to avoid cognitive dissonance. As long as you can fault find sources - in any way - you can conclude that the premise in question is false and thus continue believing what it now is you need to believe for your own sanity's sake.
Enjoy.
I'm not the one acting in bad faith, in fact I've gone to the effort of independently sourcing and reading around 30 pages of scientific literature to try and understand your point. I'm not nit picking your sources, in fact I'm not even critical of the sources, they're fine in and of themselves, they just don't back up what you're saying.
There's no cognitive dissonance on my part, I don't think I've even disagreed with your point but you're questioning my sanity? You seem to have decided I'm acting in bad faith because I questioned your statement, you've resorted to personal attacks and you're completely misrepresenting what I've said.