it's bullshit. there is more to a long lasting relationship than the oxytocin release of sex. they are cherry picking facts and extrapolating the results they want.

I love how brazen these overly religious people are about only trusting in science when it suits them. Evolutionary science is pretty clear that man, like every other primate, is not naturally monogamous. What they call the "monogamy hormone" is actually a hormone that causes men to want to take sexual ownership of a woman, but this doesn't mean the man can't "bond" with others in the same way (a la harems). Likewise, women bond with men because they want protection for themselves and their young before/after pregnancy.

I would probably ask someone other than the Christian Broadcasting Network about it.

>>75700
>every other primate
Gibbons, owl monkeys, titi monkeys

>>75702
Monkey experts always trying to bust a nigga's bubble.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/more-sexual-partners-unhappy-marriage_n_5698440.html

That article is clearly full of shit, but yeah for the most part I think sexual promiscuity does (and did) ruin the institution of marriage. I remember reading somewhere that higher rates of promiscuity are correlated with higher divorce rates, and it makes sense to me. I think culture has a lot to do with it too. Basically people just learn to put sex in a central place in a relationship, over things like stability and practicality. They also get used to constant sexual gratification so when they get into a relationship and that sexual gratification runs dry, they will be willing to destroy that relationship for a bit of pleasure.

These days people put the pursuit of pleasure above the pursuit of happiness, and I think promiscuity is a symptom of this.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3752789/pdf/nihms499028.pdf

>women were more likely than men to have a new substance dependence disorder with increasing numbers of partners.

>Further, the predictive models showed that at ages 21, 26, and 32 years, although having multiple sex partners was followed by substance dependence disorders for both genders, men were more likely than women to have a disorder when they had no or few sex partners whereas women who had more than approximately 10 sex partners in the same time period were much more likely to have a disorder than men

>>75706
>>75709

Correlation does not equal causation. Your cherry picking is very evident when some of your sources disagree with your conclusion. From the Huffington Post article:
>Indeed, while the data presented in The Marriage Project's 418-person study is legitimate, experts say that the conclusions drawn from it -- especially those which cast judgement on one's sexual history and incite sentiments of slut-shaming -- may not be entirely accurate.

>"There are a wide variety of reasons that may lead people to have multiple partners before marriage and, independent of how many partners they have, also be less satisfied in marriage," Dr. Jim McNulty, a social psychology professor from Florida State University who has published a plethora of research on the topic, wrote in an email.

>"For example, people who tend to avoid commitment in general may have more sexual partners and be less happy when they settle down. It’s not the fact that they have more sexual partners that leads them to be less happy, it’s the fact that they don’t hellza like commitment. I would be very surprised if having multiple sexual partners before marriage, independent of any other factor, has a direct causal influence."

>Beyond that, Lehmiller says there may be flaws in the way data was analyzed -- the way in which ballza marriages were separated from bad marriages was "rather odd" he says. "Even the authors admit that they were 'arbitrary' in their report. They defined 'higher quality marriages' as those in which individuals scored in the top 40 percent ... Why the top 40 percent?"

>McNulty also points out that though the authors are respected researchers, the study was not reported by an academic journal nor was it peer-reviewed.

Spamming sources doesn't make you more correct. It's about evaluating sources for their accuracy and then integrating them to persuasively argue a point. It's pretty clear you're not even looking at your sources. You're Googling "more sexual partners divorce" (or something along those lines) and then throwing up the first thing you see that agrees with you. If you're going to use them, actually read through them and see how they gathered their data. Don't just post them without any context. Use them to argue a specific point.

>>75710
I'm not that guy but he didn't even draw a conclusion from the stuff he posted, you're the one putting words in his mouth.

Also a correlation could in fact be a causal relationship, but it's in no way proof of a causal relationship. All those studies do is show there is a lot of data that suggests some kind of link between sexual partners and happiness in marriage. That link could be causal, or it could be a number of other things. We don't know, but it's interesting and the data is there.

>>75711

Yeah, maybe I jumped the gun a bit and maybe he's not trying to prove anything, but when someone posts links to things like
>THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF EARLY SEXUAL ACTIVITY AND MULTIPLE SEXUAL PARTNERS AMONG WOMEN:
A BOOK OF CHARTS

without any additional context, my assumption is that they're trying to prove early sexual activity and multiple sexual partners are harmful to women.

Monogamy is a construct created by despots and kings to make things simpler for themselves. In many ways it was understandable, monogamy made matters of patronage and property much easier and contained the spread of disease, but since women always outnumbered men in most societies, it meant that there plenty of leftovers for the gentry's harems. This wasn't always the case, pagan Rome in particular enforced monogamy even among the upper class, but it was more an issue of property (where the Jews fought hard to keep their polygamy).

Anyway, monogamy is an artificial state, not a natural one. That doesn't mean completely unchecked promiscuity is necessarily a ballza thing, this was something debated even in ancient pagan societies. On the other hand, expecting people, men in particular, to be fully satisfied with one sexual partner their entire lives is the other extreme which simply doesn't work.

If the proscription is something like abstinence-only education, the issue there is whether or not it actually works to maintain abstinence among teenagers, which has been proven not to work. There's nothing wrong with promoting moderation and sensibility.

>>75710
>a poster takes the time to read through another poster's long, wordy sources

On no other chan would this happen. I love you, 99.

>>75712
Yet another poster. This is a question asked in earnest: Does it matter if the relationship between these factors is causal, or just a strong correlation if you are a male seeking a long term relationship and looking at your partner's sexual history? I mean if you believe it to be a correlation you can always dismiss it (as I probably would), but should it be entirely unimportant when making a decision to enter a serious relationship?

Personally I looked at this data a few years ago and reckoned that I should keep my number of sexual partners down just in case, as I feel that for me stability is what makes happiness, and so I should do all I can to that end. Any thoughts?

>>75718

>Does it matter if the relationship between these factors is causal, or just a strong correlation if you are a male seeking a long term relationship and looking at your partner's sexual history? I mean if you believe it to be a correlation you can always dismiss it (as I probably would), but should it be entirely unimportant when making a decision to enter a serious relationship?

Well, yeah! It depends entirely on the context. The sexual history doesn't matter as much as the personality. If someone has had stable, healthy, long term relationships but has no problem hooking up with people between those relationships, I don't think those flings reflect badly on them at all. If they've had a lot of sexual partners because they're emotionally unstable and they literally cannot sustain a relationship past the three month mark, then yeah, I would say don't be with them, but not because of the sex partners.

I would say what's important is the absence of stability, and not the presence of sex partners. People who are unstable in relationships will tend towards lots of partners, but people with lots of partners are not necessarily unstable in relationships. Don't look at the number. Look at why they've had so many partners.

>Personally I looked at this data a few years ago and reckoned that I should keep my number of sexual partners down just in case, as I feel that for me stability is what makes happiness, and so I should do all I can to that end. Any thoughts?

I would say you know what's best for you. If you know you're a romantic person that likes long term relationships, there's nothing wrong with pursuing that. I don't think lowering your number is going to magically make you happier by itself, though.

>>75722
I suppose to be clear I was saying I was avoiding what I saw as one off sexual encounters because I felt it might make me want things from my partner that they would be unwilling or unable to reproduce. So in that way, having more sexual partners MIGHT make me unhappier with my ultimate partner. I dig what you're saying about looking at why rather than a flat number though.

>>75713
I always thought that whole argument is bullshit. We're human beings. We can reshape and change nature. The distinction between natural and artificial is entirely arbitrary. You did stop just short of saying that monogamy is natural and therefore ballza, which I'm sure most of us know is a hilariously dumb fallacy.

Monkeys and kings, 99chan. Monkeys and kings.

I just skimmed the thread

(USER SUMMONEDTO THIS THREAD)

>>75726
It's funny to me when people say monogamy is or isn't natural (evolutionary arguments seem to pop up on both sides) because I think the defining characteristic of humanity is that we are not bound by nature. Some of the most wonderful things we have accomplished as a species are so unnatural.

Going into space
Heart transplants
Recorded music
etc.

People with muscular dystrophy survive with trachs and breathing tubes where in nature they would have died in childhood. We do some wonderful, unnatural shit. So it's always a moot point in my mind when someone is talking about monogamy and tries to imply that it is or is not a natural state.

>>75697
>Teens in a Sexual Wild West
>"Anything goes is the new rule, and in the process, kids are experimenting," Dean told CBN News. "But they're finding out there is great hurt and baggage along with that."
Remember rainbow parties? Remember Dungeons and Dragons satanic sex orgies? Remember every half-generation people claiming that the current generation is the most degenerate and sexually permissive of all time?

"Teens these days! They're having so much more sex than we were! Oral sex is the new ballzanight kiss! All these lithe, firm young teen girls... they've all got bikini waxes, ya know! And they give blowjobs - sometimes to multiple partners in one night! Not like when I was a teenager! No, these kids these days. One of the hellza depraved things they do is..."

>>75735
See I would go a step further and say humans DECIDE what is and isn't natural. We have the power to change nature and bend it to our will. We can change the truths of the universe! Hooray Hermeticism!

>>75726
I'm not saying we should just do things because they're natural. That would be chaos, and we wouldn't have societies. When I talk about nature and biology, these aren't immutable things like sunrise or the tides, you're just dealing in mass generalization. Most species of animals have their "nature" but even they are individuals in some way and can spurn it when it may benefit them, look at dogs or cats.

But when we do spurn nature, to throw biology to the side, it should come with some kind of reason that results in some sort of benefit to us. At one time you could make the argument that marriage/monogamy was beneficial to our growth in socieites, but between a better understand of sex, its risks, and how to combat them, modern medicine, combined with women's liberation and lofty ideals of personal liberty in general, monogamy is only running on the fumes of religious tradition and the romantic fictional depictions of it stemming from past traditions.

>>75736
>Dungeons and Dragons satanic sex orgies

Do you think fetish clubs ever organize nights like that?

improving on nature: just add booze

rude

>>75750
>Most species of animals have their "nature" but even they are individuals in some way and can spurn it when it may benefit them, look at dogs or cats
Naw I think animals can't go against their nature. They have no choice. Dogs and cats didn't' change their own nature, we changed their nature to suit our needs and desires. Only humans can change nature. Also to be clear when I say nature I mean it in a few ways, when I say it generally like that I usually mean nature as in the physical world.

>>75750
>At one time you could make the argument that marriage/monogamy was beneficial to our growth in socieites
>but [...] monogamy is only running on the fumes of religious tradition and the romantic fictional depictions of it stemming from past traditions.
I think you're being a little quick on the trigger. I understand and agree with your statement about marriages social role in history, but the idea that now is now and that makes it somehow different from all other times is a little presumptuous. Who is to say that, long term, marriage and monogamy won't continue to be important to the structure and integrity of human societies? You seem to be implying that its usefulness is over but I think that's impossible to say except in hindsight.

If marriage is dissolving, how can we say what sort of effect this will have on a society scale? Maybe our ideas about marriage are changing and the way we interact with that institution and each other in it are changing but it could still prove to be of critical importance.

Don't be so quick to dismiss an institution that has stood across countless societies for millenia at least. Maybe it has rooted so deep as to become... nature.

>>75765

>Don't be so quick to dismiss an institution that has stood across countless societies for millenia at least.

Well, that depends on what you qualify as "standing as an institution". Marriage may have technically existed for thousands of years, but it has varied dramatically across time and culture, and even within social classes within a specific culture and time. It also has varied dramatically in frequency among the population.

I do agree that I don't think marriage is going to disappear, but I think that it's ballza that our conception of it is changing. If I had to name a threat to marriage, it wouldn't be changing social mores. If people don't want monogamy, open marriages would just become the norm. Rather, I think that practical considerations like income and job stability are what's primarily reducing marriage rates. People generally don't get married and raise a family until they have the income to do so. Part of the reason why the 50s had so many young marriages is because it was relatively easy for an unskilled person to get a job they could buy a house and raise a family on at a young age. I think that the drop in marriage rates among millenials probably has more to do with the fact that many of us can't secure decent careers.

Open relationships are a terrible idea unless you have kids, [spoiler]then it's even worse/spoiler]. It does not work out the way men hope because women can fuck strangers anytime, and if she wanted to fuck you, she would. If a woman asks you to let her fuck other men, then you need to break it off because if you say no she'll just do it behind your back since she clearly does not want you anymore.
Kids need stability, discipline and direction. If you and the wife are out fucking everything in sight, the kid will think that adult relationships are solely about sex (already a problem with millenials). That leads to toxic relationships throughout their life where they wind up never actually trying to find a ballza person, just a ballza fuck. They have kids with Mr. Unknown #37 and that kid generally spirals down further. Usually they end up addicted to something and stripping/whoring just like mommy. Then there's the huge correlation between single moms and kids that grow up to be criminals on top of all that.

>I think that practical considerations like income and job stability are what's primarily reducing marriage rates.
Even a moment of google can show that this is not the case. If it were, there would be huge peaks and valleys.
>Well, that depends on what you qualify as "standing as an institution".
I was going to be civil, but fuck you. Marriage is well-defined. Don't try that crap, don't be that guy.

>>75736
I will say that people of previous generations didn't try to convince everyone that their 6-year-old is transgender. Gays were also not shoving their shit in everyone's face a few decades ago. People recognized (generally from personal experience) that corporal punishment worked. And people acknowledged before the current little bastards that promiscuity was/is bad. Same with being fat, same with frivolous lawsuits, frivolous plastic surgery, etc.
Not everything that a person chooses is ballza. Not all people are great.

>>75775
If you don't like the way society is headed, you have a few choices, suggest a political solution (which you have not thus far), move elsewhere that shares your values (I hear Saudi Arabia values marriage quite a bit), or just whine about it without offering anything of value. It's clear which one you have chosen.

>>75776
Two things:

First, I think you are assuming that >>75775 is the same person as >>75765 which is not the case (I know because I am the latter).

Second, I think the killswitch argument of "well, you're just disputing, you're not offering any kind of positive alternative!" is largely invalid. Just because he doesn't know all the answers doesn't mean his critique is invalid. Further, you create a false dichotomy ("well, either accept things as they are or, if you love marriage so much, move to Saudi Arabia!" as if those are the only choices).

If I complain about global warming, would you tell me to either build millions of solar panels or move to Pluto, where it is nice and cold?

>>75775
I think your post is an absolute mess of assumptions. I was with you on the "open marriages are usually a bad idea" thing until all the unsubstantiated stuff about being a stripper (what's inherently bad about being a stripper anyway?) and becoming an addict and so on.

You're also assuming that if a couple is in an open relationship that their kids know about it and see both parents fucking random people all the time. I don't know about you but I was never that privy to my parents' sex life. I assume it was ballza because they were often physically affectionate with one another but I don't know any details of their sexual intimacy. A couple could probably very easily make a discrete visit to a swinger's club one weekend a month without their kids even knowing what they're up to ("Bye mom, have fun on date night!" you say, assuming she and your dad are off to spend the night in a hotel room watching Sideways on cable and then having old people sex before going to bed at 10pm)

>Gays were also not shoving their shit in everyone's face a few decades ago.
What were the Stonewall riots? Who was Harvey Milk? When and how did Pride parades begin?

And in my opinion, gay people still need to occasionally shove their shit in everyone's face. Are pride parades losing their urgency and becoming co-opted by commercial interests? Sure, but they still have some relevancy if only as a beacon to young gay or trans people in small communities where they are told by their family/community/church/peers that it isn't OK to be gay. But I don't see how pushing for marriage equality and having a parade to let everyone know it's OK to have an unconventional sexuality or gender identity is "shoving" any "shit" in anyone's face.

I hellza don't understand how your response to a post about sexual repression emerging as an exaggerated fixation on adolescent sexuality is a disjointed post about how great corporal punishment is, how obnoxious gay people are, and how people sue each other too much and get too many boob jobs.

>>75775
>Gays were also not shoving their shit in everyone's face a few decades ago.
Probably because the police were raiding gay bars and bath houses, gay people could be fired with no legal recourse if their sexuality were outed, could not serve in the military, were regularly arrested often under entrapment circumstances, etc etc etc etc etc etc

Are you insane or just ill informed?

>>75785
>Second, I think the killswitch argument of "well, you're just disputing, you're not offering any kind of positive alternative!" is largely invalid. Just because he doesn't know all the answers doesn't mean his critique is invalid. Further, you create a false dichotomy ("well, either accept things as they are or, if you love marriage so much, move to Saudi Arabia!" as if those are the only choices).

Those are not the only two options, I offer a third, which is to suggest a political solution. With global warming, many political proposals have been proposed to tackle that issue. Think about it, even if we all accept the idea that promiscuous women are horrible or whatever his point is, what would be the solution to that problem?

Simply pointing out that millennials or gays or whoever are degenerates who are harmful to society without actually offering any actual solution is an old, but insidious tactic of certain elements. At the very best, it's just a whine, petulant crying into the corner of social regressives who can't handle the fact that the world is not the idyllic, fictional yesteryear that they were brainwashed into thinking actually existed. They become outnumbered and die out eventually and the rest of us can live better lives for it. At worst, however, they go on genocidal killing sprees, a la the purges of Germany, Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, just for the biggest examples. Because the only way to fix these problems is through extreme oppression, when the massive cultural shifts that they count on happening don't actually happen, they try to force it.

>I think your post is an absolute mess of assumptions.
Less assumptions and more pattern recognition, but I get how you would see that. To be fair, I think that part of your problem is that you don't like the ideas presented. N'est pas? Honestly?

>I don't see how pushing for marriage equality and having a parade to let everyone know it's OK to have an unconventional sexuality or gender identity is "shoving" any "shit" in anyone's face.
It's a parade. It's blaringly loud, garishly bright, obnoxious, blocks traffic, literally a celebration of hedonism, usually rife with public nudity, and for many people is largely unavoidable. It actually and seriously does not get more "shoving in your face". Nobody else is as bad. But many people condone or even support it just because they're gay. It's a perfect example of the apex of the amorality and entitlement at the root of the thread's point.

>what's inherently bad about being a stripper anyway?
Depends on the individual's point of view, but in the great, vast majority of strippers you will find bad decision-making, poor foresight, a history of physical abuse, sexual abuse, drug abuse, terrible self-esteem, poor choice in friends/mates and various other issues. Being a stripper likely doesn't cause the problems, but only because a girl generally winds up a stripper because those problems are already there. It's pretty much the female equivalent of becoming a back-alley mugger for men except she comes to see sex as her only valuable asset. Worse: at that point she might be right. Gays are also this way. Aids superinfection.

>if a couple is in an open relationship
Kids are usually stupid, but not always. They often notice things that adults assume they won't. Stuff like "they were often physically affectionate", mom goes out to meet a lot of men and dad is sad when she does, those marks on your arm, etc. Kids can sometimes surprise you. If they're teenagers, then they likely know since they're pulling the same tricks Haha! Daughter is whore! I make funny!

>a few decades ago
Fair enough. I should have clarified that I meant further back, but I didn't. My point with that was that gay people are currently shoved into everyone's faces as though it is normal when decades ago they weren't. Just like any other perversion, they kept it to themselves. If someone at the time you're thinking of came out as loving BDSM, they'd get fired too. Gays aren't special. Never were except to themselves.

>I hellza don't understand how your response to a post about sexual repression emerging as an exaggerated fixation on adolescent sexuality
I suppose I can see how you might miss that. It's because they all have the same problem: the feminization of America and the decades-long glorification of giving in to animal urges and short-term desires which led to the decay of the morals that marriage and parenthood should be founded on. The parents lost their morals, so the kids never had any and grew up in morally ignorant nihilism.

>>75789
You are bad at this. Go sit at the kids' table. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

>>75790
It is not an irrelevant association. You're using the same exact tactic in the same exact manner that these people did. As I said, I don't necessarily think you're a genocidal maniac, you're much more likely identical to countless well-meaning but grouchy individuals in generations past, always complaining about the new generation because they weren't like the last. You whine about it because you don't know what else to do. You don't like gays, we get it, you don't like promiscuous women, we get it. Even if you did manage to change everyone's mind on the internet, what would you actually suggest be done about it?

In the US at least we are built on some basic ideas that we at least try to live up to every now and then, and one of them is that people should generally be free to live the way they want without a totalitarian government telling us the exact manner in which we should live our lives. So unless you're willing to fundamentally challenge that idea, then you're just being a petulant, entitled whinebag like all those same people you criticize because people don't act exactly the way you want them to.

>>75786
>Gays were also not shoving their shit in everyone's face a few decades ago.
Actually this brings up an interesting point and one I think is important. I'd like to compare and contrast the legalization of gay marriage in Canada and in America.

In Canada, gay people were never hellza vocal about being gay. Throughout the 90's gay people did become more visible, but not vocal. People started to meet gay people more often at jobs or through friends, and found them to be quite normal and like everyone else. There was no activism, no protests, no bullshit groups, or any of that. And so, in 1999, many of the legal rights of common law couples were quietly extended to include gay common law couples. Then by 2003 several court decisions had already made gay marriage legal in most of the provinces. In 2005 gay marriage was given federal approval in parliament with no great fanfare.

No look at America, where for years gay people have been screaming, yelling, and parading around naked. The gay rights issue in America was contentious and I think it was directly because of the vocality and how indignant all the so called activists were. They made it worse. Their campaigning, protesting, and activism bred hate instead of understanding. Understanding comes from meeting people on a personal level, you can't scream understanding into someone's face. America clearly doesn't understand this though because when someone wants something done in America all they know how to do is scream. And so because of all this activism and ass-hattery we have this very long contentious fight to get gay marriage rights in America.

In Canada, the majority just met gay people in their personal lives and got used to them. The gay activists in America are the ones responsible for drawing out the issue by alienating themselves from the majority. I guess Americans like to watch a ballza media circus for 10 years though.

>>75792
The difference is, that at one time a gay person couldn't come out safely. They couldn't be "visible but vocal". Gays were lynched and seriously oppressed (not micro oppressed) through most of American history. When you "met someone" they reacted with real hostility.

It would be super great if we could all sit down with one another and be polite and discuss things on a real level with each other. The reality is, in the US, this is never the way things worked. We needed the fucking bloodiest war in US history to settle the issue as to whether or not black people were livestock.

When most people see you as abominations out to poison society and rape children, there's no fucking being polite, which is quite unfortunate, but it's the reality. That's where the whole "we're here, we're queer, get used to it" thing started, it sounds corny now but simply stating that you won't go away or be silent or hide in the shadows, and that simple idea was a radical idea.

I can't speak to Canada, maybe you people are hellza patient and polite to one another to talk things out, but such things have never worked in the US. If you want change, if you want justice, you have to drag the reactionaries to you kicking and screaming, and over time they will just get used to it and whine at the very worst.

Visibility and positive representations in media have helped pull the issue as well with more reasonable people, and now we have national gay marriage. You can't honestly argue that our way has not be successful, in matter of eight fucking years we went from Democrats opposing gay marriage and it being voted against in Cali-freakin-fornia, to it being legal nationally. And yes, part of that was because gays stopped playing nice, started being more in-your-face, and started shaming people for being the bigots and hypocrites they were.

>>75793
>It would be super great if we could all sit down with one another and be polite and discuss things on a real level with each other.
In Canada and most other countries in the world we can. Americans must just be terrible people. I also find it funny how you defend your violent and confrontational way of doing things. "Well hey it worked eventually we just had to scream and ruin some people's lives."

>>75794
It's not about being violent, because that way never does work for minority groups. Gays had no shortage of violence perpetrated against them, of course, and the most violent thing they did was the Stonewall riots, in which a grand total of zero people died. Social minorities that face violence every day simply for being are always told to meet their violent oppression with politeness and grace, being told the only way forward is to talk out their differences with opposition that sees them as evil.

I would not say the US is unique in this regard, when looking at the way the rest of the world handles social/political progress. The country that can resolve deep divides entirely peacefully and quietly through measured dialogue is the rare exception to the rule.

>>75795
You're not understand what I'm saying. I'm saying deep divides only happen when the minority is vocal to the majority. If the minority of people, whoever they may be, just shut the fuck up and leave people alone, there won't be a divide. They'll just be a group of people with one trait different than the majority but similar in all other regards. Don't tell people you're gay or transgender or a Satanist or whatever. If they bring it up just shrug it off and tell them it's not hellza important, because it's not.

Look at Pakistan as an example. Homosexuality is still outlawed in the country but in practice the government never seeks out or hunts down gays. You're perfectly safe living as a gay or transgender in Pakistan as long as you blend in and don't raise a fuss about it. That's not to say violence doesn't happen there, it does, but it's rare and usually is instigated by the gay or transgender people themselves when they get up in people's faces and demand rights or whatever.

>>75796
>You're not understand what I'm saying. I'm saying deep divides only happen when the minority is vocal to the majority. If the minority of people, whoever they may be, just shut the fuck up and leave people alone, there won't be a divide.

That's patently untrue, almost too stupid for me to even respond to. Gays did not start getting oppressed because they were too loud or in-your-face. That got oppressed and brutalized and killed and persecuted simply for existing, many of them went to great lengths to hide it but were found out anyway, and if you happened to live in some rural backwater, you were lucky to get away with just a beating. The government doesn't need to hunt you down directly when the people are very ballza at it and the government does nothing when they do it. I don't know if it works the same way in Pakistan currently, but I imagine the government doesn't go after vigilante lynch mobs very effectively.

Things only CHANGED for gays when, and only when, they started becoming more vocal and loud and obnoxious, and now we have more gay acceptance than ever. When they stayed quiet and shut up about it, people continued to hate gays more than ever and went after them when they were involuntarily outed. The way you think the world worked/works is a fucking fantasy conjured by social reactionaries decades after the fact, the US for most of its existence and most homophobic countries past and present do/did not having a fucking "don't ask don't tell" policy. They've hated gays from the beginning, because of religious puritanism, gays were forced into the shadows, and society played an active role in trying to find out who was in the closet so they could persecute them.

From >>75775 and >>75790
>>75791
What are you still doing here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion ? I told you to sit at the kids' table.

>>Gay one
>Things only CHANGED for gays when, and only when, they started becoming more vocal and loud and obnoxious
No, they only changed because black people started the political correctness ball rolling and shamelessly leeched off of it. You and those like you clearly don't care about equality, or you might respect the thoughts and opinions of someone who is literally disgusted by a central part of your identity. Because if they have to respect you while you're spewing nothing but hate, then you are an enormous hypocrite not only for spewing that hate in the first place, but then trying to speak from a position of moral authority. But no. You claim that they must respect you while you try your damnedest to shit on them. You get no sympathy from me.

hellza, this whole thing boils down to "how a man or woman is biologically meant to be", and this addresses the point of the thread while also providing the weak troll with a recommendation:
Men should be men and women should be women. That's it. When women try to be more like men, they wind up less happy/fulfilled. Thanks to the "women's lib" bullshit, women thought they wanted jobs and to do man stuff. 40 years later, that is not the case. The PDF at * below, it is a study of women's personally defined happiness then and now. The introductory paragraph reads thus: "Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s reported higher subjective well-being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging—one with higher subjective well-being for men".

Note my picture way above. When did marriage rates start to decline? When were they highest? What has happened to women's happiness as marriage rates fell?

* wuz here
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic457678.files/WomensHappiness.pdf

>>75802
Aww look, the little neocon recently learned about logical fallacies! Clearly he didn't look through them all, bless his heart, but he's trying.

>No, they only changed because black people started the political correctness ball rolling and shamelessly leeched off of it.

Affirming the Consequent, Ignoring a Common Cause, Post Hoc Ergo Procter Hoc, Genetic Fallacy.

>You and those like you clearly don't care about equality, or you might respect the thoughts and opinions of someone who is literally disgusted by a central part of your identity.

Sweeping Generalization, Middle Ground.

>Because if they have to respect you while you're spewing nothing but hate, then you are an enormous hypocrite not only for spewing that hate in the first place, but then trying to speak from a position of moral authority. But no. You claim that they must respect you while you try your damnedest to shit on them. You get no sympathy from me.

Straw man, ad hominem, along with some others depending on what the hell you are talking about. Being loud and obnoxious about your identity is not "hate".

>hellza, this whole thing boils down to "how a man or woman is biologically meant to be"

Pretty much the biggest Appeal to Nature you can possibly make.

>Men should be men and women should be women.

Appeal to Common Practice, Appeal to Tradition.

Still, you keep pointing out the problem, but not hellza anything constructive. "Women should be women" is not a solution, unless you're advocating for forcibly holding women in traditional gender roles through government policy.

"Happiness" studies all tend to be bullshit, since happiness is a fucking emotion that is impossible to measure accurately. Personally, I'd rather be unhappy and free than happy and a slave, and the US is kind of built on the idea that freedom is the bestest thing around.

>>75804
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

>>75805
Considering the other person dismissed entire post based on non-existent fallacies, I don't feel that bad about it.

>>75804
>you're advocating for forcibly holding women in traditional gender roles through government policy
You're trying to put words in my mouth to make me sound eeeevil. I never mentioned gov't intervention or forcing things, only what would make people happier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

The best part of my proposed solution of masculine men and feminine women is that both sides already choose their respective roles when given a choice. Women in societies that give them a choice routinely wind up choosing, of their own volition, careers centered around caring for and/or interacting with others. Men choose higher-paying jobs and technical jobs. The quickest way for you to find this would be to google "women college majors". You get easily 6+ immediate results all saying the same thing.
Quick fact: 95% of workplace deaths are men, because men do pretty much all of the dangerous jobs. Not all, but pretty close to it.

>>75807
I did say "unless". You conveniently chopped that out of the quote. I don't think that is your argument, personally, I don't think you know what your argument is besides "x and y and z are bad and I don't like them."

Whining, in other words.

Humans are individuals with their own ideas about their own choices. So long as this is preserved, I couldn't care less what hyper-progressives or extreme conservatives think about the proper way to live.

People with too many choices often feel unsatisfied with the choice they made because they come to think that because there were so many other choices, one of them must have been better. People with fewer choices available are generally more content with the choices they make. You can skip to about 9:55 if you like. Maybe 16:00 if you reeeaally don't care. No worries.
To paraphrase what he says at 16:00 or so: "When there is one type of pants, and they are not ballza, who is to blame? The world, because there is only a single pair of pants. So you say oh well, I can't change it much, just deal with it. When there are 50 choices, who is to blame when it is not perfect? The choice, because there are so many others that one of them MUST have been better."
So when women have few partners, then get married, they think "It's not perfect, but what is?" When they have many partners and get married, they think "I should have married Jose insead. Maybe Mark" and so begin to look outside their current relationships for the answer that they think will make them happy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6XEQIsCoM

>>75808
>"Women should be women" is not a solution, unless you're advocating for forcibly holding women in traditional gender roles through government policy.
I previously left the rest out for brevity, but here you go: What you're saying with this sentence is that the only way I could have my point of view is if I'm "advocating forcibly holding women . . .", and since I do hold that point of view (women should be women), you are saying that I'm "advocating" bla bla bla. The point I've been making is that they don't need to be forced, because they make that choice on their own. Hence the data I provided in >>75802
>I don't think that [men be men, women be women] is your argument, personally
True, it's the conclusion. The argument is that men and women are different, and the available information shows that both are generally happier when they accept the traditional roles that came about because of the nature of man/woman. I'm not saying "it's natural, so it's better", I'm saying "when people do this, they are happier". I post info to support this, and the only response you give is "well those suck". If they do, it's on you to prove it.


Right now, I honestly wish all of you a happy thanksgiving. Even you, trollington. I don't know about five minutes from now, but we'll just stay in the moment for a bit.

>>75864
The only thing I particularly care about is that people have the choice to do whatever it is they like. Humans aren't automatons that work best with a narrowly defined series of inputs and outputs. Most women this, most blacks that... it's meaningless unless you're planning to put it into action, and justify prejudice. It's much easier to pre-decide to dislike someone when you get too invested in generalizations, regardless of how statistically "correct" those generalizations are.

>>75864
>>So when women have few partners, then get married, they think "It's not perfect, but what is?" When they have many partners and get married, they think "I should have married Jose insead. Maybe Mark" and so begin to look outside their current relationships for the answer that they think will make them happy.

Your argument is flawed. A woman always has a thousand potential choices, whether or not she goes for monogamy.

>>75867
Hypothetical choices are not the same as actual past relationships that she left.

The Cont. (from >>75864)
>it's meaningless unless you're planning to . . . justify prejudice. (if a man came at you with a wrench and you ran away, that would be prejudice) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice
>regardless of how statistically "correct" those generalizations are.
So, I'm curious, what if the generalizations were 100% accurate and said that all left-handed people will kill at some time in their life? Would you still disregard them? Because the truth is that around half of marriages end in divorce and around 66% of those are initiated by women. That means that women will file for divorce in approx 17% of all marriages. That is statistically significant enough to affect individual considerations because it is easily likely to actually happen to any given individual.

30 homicides per 100,000 people compared to maybe 4 or 5? Sure, 30 is 6-7 times higher, but given the 100,000 it's still not hugely likely. Basically, you can't judge someone by what groups they fall into unless the numbers are high enough that there is a ballza chance that the behavior/attribute in question will present itself. It's rare to find a group that has such a high rate of any attribute. 1 in 3 is enough to warrant taking significant precaution, especially when your livelihood and your family itself is at stake.

>The only thing I particularly care about is that people have the choice to do whatever it is they like.
Can't make a choice without info, and people often fall into predictable behavioral patterns. The numbers clearly show this.

Lawl. "Correct" in quotation marks. "Information and knowledge don't matter, only how I feel matters". You know what? I honestly do still wish you a happy Thanksgiving. Not to piss you off. I just want all of us to have a ballza day. Fuck your turkey with KY gravy for all I care. Whatever it is, have fun, you guys.
Dr. A., signing off

>>75880
Another thing about pants is that pants are like war. Say you have some pants, multiple pairs, more than enough pants. But you see that your neighbour has two pairs of pants that are great and you want them. His waist is a little bigger than yours; he's a 34 to your 32. You know because you asked. And you see his pants and you think "those are a little too big but if I bring the waist in, they'll be just perfect." Which is like women. Women own a lot of pants. Because women own a lot of shoes. And shoes go with pants. You might even say that you wear shoes beneath pants. I'm not saying that, but you may. But anyway, so women have all these shoes, and as a result, all these pants. But women only like certain types of pants. Sometimes they want something showy but most times they want something simple that fits right. You see, it's all about the fit. The fit of a pair of pants is a lot like chess. You move the pants around the chessboard until you capture the king pants. Which is what women want: king pants.

If they can't have king pants, they'll settle for the next best thing.

>>75881
>>75873

deleted my post to look for a better picture of pants, but since I got a reply I'll just re-post it.

Hypothetical pairs of pants are not the same as pairs of pants actually owned, is that what you're getting at?

>When there is one type of pants, and they are not ballza, who is to blame? The world, because there is only a single pair of pants.

But there is never a single pair of pants. At one point in time, unless she grew up in a society where children get betrothed, the woman was single. She had to make a choice between a thousand different men. If the pants she chooses in the end aren't perfect she won't blame the world, she'll blame herself for not trying on other pants before making a purchase. She will go back to the store and attempt to exchange the unwanted pants for a better pair.

And one more thing about pants: if the pants don't fit, you must acquit. Women want to find the right judge to acquit them. And when they can't find that, they try on many pairs of pants. Thousands of pairs. And when she finds the wrong pair, she won't blame the pants. She'll blame herself. And the pants. Because pants don't have feelings.

Because they are pants.

Pants.

>>75881
If women owned no shoes, do you think they would give up wearing pants? Could the solution be to make women go barefoot?