this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
613 points (94.5% liked)
memes
10428 readers
3082 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because while it may result in a stable, positive, loving relationship (or just mutually great, harmless sex that's what they're after), it's a strong predictor when people are actively seeking a relationship with that kind of gap. Think about the likely reasons someone would seek that kind of thing, and the likely outcomes. I think it's reasonable to look at this sort of thing with suspicion, but not to immediately dust off the pitchforks and light the torches.
Not all middle-aged single men distributing candy from the back of their windows van are paedophiles, but it's both reasonable and responsible to look at what they're doing with suspicion.
It's interesting you'd bring politics into this when conservatives seem so wrapped up in protecting child brides, child beauty pageants, fetishise youth, and appear to be massively over-represented represented in paedophilia stats.
If you thought I was defending conservatives, you're wrong. There's nuance to this; the topic is sexual dynamics but the purpose is dominance. This is a conservative kind of principle because it's about limiting autonomy of consenting adults, enforcing social morals, and boogyman logic. We should be embracing and striving for a better, freer, more autonomous world, where everyone, women included, are empowered rather than limited, not just settling for a slightly preferable version of the patriarchy.
Which means embracing a nuanced world. Which is why I said acknowledge and even warn against the potential dangers of severe age-gap relationships; we don't have to be blind to real world dangers, but that we shouldn't let fear of those dangers drive us into blind ignorance again or else we're just repeating the same cycle. Hence the trojan horse. We get better when we accept difficult concepts rather than accept simplified extractions for the masses.
edit: just in case my position is somehow still unclear, yes I'm using conservative as effectively synonymous with "bad" here. I'll consider caring when they consider better conduct and positions.
I dunno. Speaking as a male, the reason I see older men seeking far younger women is that it's easy to seem like the smartest guy in the room when you're also the oldest guy in the room. You can project an air of worldliness that makes you seem smarter and wiser than you really are. You can get younger women, legal women, fawning over you because they're young and haven't really experienced enough of life and people to be wise to the bullshit. They avoid women around their own age because they've been around, they know all the tricks.
Yeah, which falls under the risks I mentioned not to be ignorant to.
But also, sometimes you're a 23 year old who gets put on assignment at work with a 31 year old coworker and are surprised how well you hit it off.
My point wasn't "yay age gap relationships!," it was to evaluate the world around you with the necessary nuanced rather than reductively.
No but it's weird. I bet you didn't think of that
/s
Yeah. Not impossible for the to be healthy relationships but those appear to be the minority. With age generalay comes other factors, like financial resources, that strike a relationship power imbalance.
I don't understand what you are arguing about it than. The post doesn't say we should vote for age gaps in relationships to be banned. Supposedly you think it's good to talk about the downsides of these relationships, but here you are, calling it a "conservative Trojan horse". It seems like you actually do not want people to criticise it.
I want them to criticize the right aspects. In general I want us to approach the world looking for more nuance, not looking for reductivism.
I tend to agree with most of what you said but the main reason this is even a thing is that women typically date older men who are already established. Dating in your early 20s is basically impossible because your female counterparts aren't looking for guys that are just starting out or figuring out who they are. Women seek security and sustainability and the 28 year old guy who knows himself and has his own house, good job and car looks far more appealing than the 21 year old who's living with his parents or going to school. I'm not even criticizing women here, it makes sense.
This is a huge overgeneralization and sounding like it might have come from incel thinking, do you have a source to say how many young women are primarily looking for that?
Call it whatever you want, I guess but it seems like you're projecting. There's nothing controversial about the idea that women seek security or that men are biologically attracted to young women.
You're asking for a source which is funny because you're the one making the counterargument. I'd expect you to have provided something. I imagine that with your bait insult(incel, lol, I'm married but okay) you're not really looking for an intelligent discussion here. But on the off-chance you are, here you go.
Article https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201907/do-women-really-prefer-men-money-over-looks
One of many studies referenced in the article
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1474704919852921
That wasn't an insult, it was my best guess as to where that idea came from. It's also not calling you an incel, just that I suspect incels came up with that idea and it somehow got to you (one potential way is that you are in incel, but again, that's one way), so I'm annoyed you misinterpreted my careful wording.
I read that study you referenced, and it found that ~50% of both men and women rate "Good earning capacity" between 1 (desirable) and 2 (important), the averages being ~1.1 and ~1.6 respectively. This study shows that women care about it more than men, but, reading the results, they care somewhere between "desirable" and "important", discrediting your idea that "Dating in your early 20s is basically impossible because your female counterparts aren’t looking for guys that are just starting out or figuring out who they are". Looking at their box and whisker plots, it seems you'll find significantly more women than men for whom bad earning capacity is a deal breaker, but that does not mean that most do.
Is it a factor when dating? Yes. Is it an overwhelming factor on average? This study says no.
So your argument is based on opinion yeah?
What argument do you mean? I was suspicious of your claim, based on my biases of course, but I used your study to back up that suspicion. I'm not making an affirmative claim.
So you're just babbling on then? You asked me to source my argument and argued it was incorrect while insinuating I'm an incel, yet you provide no source of your own other than your opinion. This is why I don't reply half of the time. You effectively wasted my time. Please don't argue someone else's claims unless you're prepared to offer more than your opinion.
You must be trolling, I've said I didn't call you an incel yet you repeat it, and I cited your own source to disprove you yet you call that opinion. What source am I supposed to cite if not the very one you used? I'm merely arguing the null hypothesis, I don't have to provide a positive claim/source, only dig holes in yours (which I did).
"yeah your study supports your idea but not as much as you think"
Great analysis there, you really opened up my mind
It doesn't though, please reread.
Not saying you're defending conservatives - just embracing and diving into some of the nuance.
Broadly, I agree with you on this. The main possible point of difference between us relates to the perceived level of risk associated with such relationships. For what it's worth, I've linked a NIH study on the topic to the angry lunatic that also responded to my parent reply.
I think it's reasonable to mind your own fucking business. The judging and flimsy excuses to meddle are guaranteed to cause relationship issues for others.
You act when there's evidence of abuse, not 'predictors'. This is fucking twitter/reddit moon-logic where every day 5000 supposed serial killers are identified based entirely upon whether they kicked a dog or left the toilet seat up.
This is a stupid assumption in itself. Most people don't have a wealth of relationship options to choose from. If you're desperate enough to denigrate yourself using tinder, you're desperate enough to cast as wide a net as possible and settle for anyone not actively smoking meth.
Take a deep breath, my guy.
Yeah - the National Institute of Health's National Library of Medicine is a junk source, but here's the actual data. Spoiler: it's a predictor. I think it's time you calmed down and started acting based on evidence rather than rage and moon logic.
You also seem to be confusing looking upon something with suspicion and actively intervening - why?
I thought we were dismissing moon logic and deferring to evidence. One in eight people in my country use online dating without controlling for anything - age, relationship status, nothing. Forbes Health state that 52% of American adults that have never been married use online dating, and Statistica report 57.44 million users of online dating in the US in 2022. On the other hand, the NIH report 2.5m Americans have used meth in the past year. Reeeally scraping the bottom of the barrel with over half the available dating pool, eh?
Are these feels based on your personal experience? You might be able to do better than meth addicts if you calmed down a little. There are plenty of free meditation resources online - it can't hurt to give 'em a try!
I read this over a couple of times looking for your thesis statement... nope, there wasn't a point hidden in there anywhere, just poorly-contextualised quoting of statistics, like how you gloss over the very poor success rates on dating apps/sites, and an opening strawman.
Just a very overwrought u mad troll. Okay, cool, can't believe I interrupted my movie for a ploy straight out of 2010.
Because there isn't a difference. The moment someone falls on the wrong side of a taboo, they're considered fair game. You're just doing the work of rationalising it.
Did you get as far as the first two sentences from the study? I'll give them here.
I've brought credible, relevant studies and stats, you continue to defer to feels. "nuh-uh - I am rubber you are glue" isn't going to cut it. That's the feels covered, now tell me why you'd type the way you did it you weren't blinded by rage.
There's no difference between looking upon something with suspicion and actively intervening? This is just stupid on the face of it - tantamount to "There's no difference between investigating someone and executing them."
Is your treatment of reasonable suspicion (informed by credible studies) as active intervention, and insistence that you can only date the handful of crackheads in your age group the result of a persecution complex linked with relevant experience?