this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
763 points (91.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

5903 readers
4331 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:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] meowMix2525@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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:

If had to guess the reason is that young women are more sexually active than 30yo women. Friends with gfs always complain that it's pretty hard to get them in the mood, like they have to beg.

Young women are not more sexually active. There's a ton of research that younger people are less and less sexual [with each other as of late]

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.

[–] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] meowMix2525@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.