604
Age range
(lemmy.zip)
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 07 Jan 2024
604 points (94.4% liked)
memes
10308 readers
1257 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
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.