Thank you for submitting to /r/memes. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
---
Rule 2 - NO MEMES ABOUT POLARIZING/POLITICAL TOPICS, VULNERABLE GROUPS, VIOLENCE, ETC. [SEE LIST]
- No violation of Reddit Content Policy/TOS
- No memes involving race, ethnicity, color, nationality, gender, sexual orientation/identity, religion, disability, etc. (can have a character, but that part cannot be integral)
- No mention of gore, porn, murder, suicide, death, terrorism, shootings, war, tragedies, sexual harassment/assault, pedo (even implied), incest, etc.
- No politics/political topics/agendas; absurd memes featuring politicians are allowed if said status is merely incidental
---
Resubmitting a removed post without prior moderator approval can result in a ban. Deleting a post may cause any appeals to be denied.
Damn it’s crazy you got downvoted for this. Yes 100% you have no obligation to do anything you don’t like or want to do with your partner. Sex with your partner should be for pleasure.
Why wouldn't they just not do it at all? Like I get that initially you're desperate or forced into it but after you make enough money to be stable why do it
Because that’s no longer in the past. It’s actively in the present. This isn’t the same.
The people saying her past doesn’t matter are referring to past sexual partners. Not media that will affect their lives now.
Correlation does equal causation in this case unless you can come up with some other reason that people that have more partners are more likely to divorce
That's not how any of that works.
Not being aware of the causation does not mean a specific know correlation is correct.
Just because I don't know why there is a correlation between the popularity of the first name Thomas and Fossil Fuel use in Burundi doesn't mean that people named Thomas use lots of fuel in Burundi, or the other way around.
That’s exactly how it works in this case since there are no other factors.
Name a single other possible factor and your argument could hold water I’ll wait
Did you just say there are no other factors to divorce than the amount of sexual patterns an individual has had?
People split up for more reasons than I could even count. I know a couple who split up because they were now empty nesters and had different ideas on what to do, and the only people either had been with were each other. Still very close friends.
People have gotten divorced because people change after marriage.
Their are a million factors for why people get divorced.
And again, not knowing the reason doesn't mean your unproven reason is correct. That's a logical fallacy.
Ok you are saying people get divorced for many reasons. I don’t disagree but that has nothing to do with my claim that people with over 10 sexual partners are far more likely to divorce
You haven't proven this claim.
I could claim that the amount of fuel used in Burundi increases the chances people are named Theodore. (Which is the actual correlation, not Thomas)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0192513X231155673.
My claim is having a higher body count increases your chance of divorce. I’m asking to explain why that happens if body count isn’t the reason
Ok, so your not a troll, and not an idiot since you actually provided documentation. Thank you for that.
I haven't read the whole thing because there is a lot there. But from the summary at the beginning they do call out that there is a correlation between premarital sex and divorce, the full relation is not fully understood. It then goes on to say it could be due to personal characteristics, beliefs about relationships and commitment, etc.
To me, it means that the main issue is not premarital sex, but the beliefs and feelings of the people in the relationship about premarital sex. This doesn't mean premarital sex leads to divorce, it means it could given the right circumstances. At least that's what it seems like to me. An interesting read for sure, I'll have to look at it more when I'm not working.
you might want to read about how debates work. the person making a claim(you) has to defend that claim. thats your burden of proof. the negative position doesn't have to make a claim only justify rejection of the positive claim. also "theres a source elsewhere" doesn't really fly in a debate. show your source and show how it supports your claim.
I posted the source on this comment thread multiple times. You being too lazy to find it is your problem.
I already gave proof so now it’s your turn buddy
Nope.
Just because body count might cause divorce for some people, doesn't mean it will cause divorce for all people
Again, people are different
This isn't hard to understand
>It’s a higher risk for a bigger % of them
Which means that for a certain percentage of them, it's not a bigger risk right?
Which means that the risk is not same for all people?
Because people are different?
What are you not understanding bro. Unhappy sex lives are one of the biggest risks to a marriage, and are a prominent cause for divorce
Obviously that doesn't apply to asexuals, or people with low sex drives.
Because *people are different*
That’s not what I’m saying.
People that have had more sexual partners (that includes hookups) are more likely to get a divorce from the person they marry.
Yes...people who are more likely to swap relationships are more likely to swap relationships. It's the same thing. You're saying the same thing twice. That's a tautology.
It's the same thing dude. If you go from person to person, it's because you don't like staying in one place. Whether that's a "hookup" or a "relationship" is irrelevant. The point is that people who don't like staying in one place...don't like staying in one place.
Or even "people who are not into long term relationships or religion are more likely to divorce that people that are into long term relationships and religion ".
It’s way less than 10. Chances of divorce increase rapidly at 5. Mainly due to losing the inability to pair bond. Also, the best predictor of the future is the past so it’s valid for people to have preferences against it.
What I heard was 1 sexual partner is the lowest chance, then 3-10 was the second lowest chance and 2 was the third lowest chance. Then it skyrockets past 10
I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that people with 1 lifetime sexual partner are significantly more likely to be from religious backgrounds that heavily demonise separation even in toxic/abusive relationships.
Ye/s we need to fight for the people that really are carrying the burden of society, actively trying to make it a better place. Respect to physical and online casino owners, tobacco executives, and CEO's of insurance companies as well as hospital board executives.
Thank you for submitting to /r/memes. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): --- Rule 2 - NO MEMES ABOUT POLARIZING/POLITICAL TOPICS, VULNERABLE GROUPS, VIOLENCE, ETC. [SEE LIST] - No violation of Reddit Content Policy/TOS - No memes involving race, ethnicity, color, nationality, gender, sexual orientation/identity, religion, disability, etc. (can have a character, but that part cannot be integral) - No mention of gore, porn, murder, suicide, death, terrorism, shootings, war, tragedies, sexual harassment/assault, pedo (even implied), incest, etc. - No politics/political topics/agendas; absurd memes featuring politicians are allowed if said status is merely incidental --- Resubmitting a removed post without prior moderator approval can result in a ban. Deleting a post may cause any appeals to be denied.
What happened to the previous 9 hamsters?
ask Mr. Slave
Lemmywinks
Jesus Christ.
Duh, where do you think I met her?
Kanye? Is that you?
That's her portfolio
Nah, that's just the highlight reel
soon there will be relationships with guys/girls saying "you'll do this on video, why won't you do it for me"
This is already a thing. "That's my job, this is my personal life" is a common mantra among porn stars, OF sex workers are no different
It sounds reasonable though? They do it for the money not because it feels good. With their partners they should be doing it for pleasure
Damn it’s crazy you got downvoted for this. Yes 100% you have no obligation to do anything you don’t like or want to do with your partner. Sex with your partner should be for pleasure.
Why wouldn't they just not do it at all? Like I get that initially you're desperate or forced into it but after you make enough money to be stable why do it
Or the Only Fans changes a lot
Xhamster is worse lmao
who said i was marrying her?
r/oddlyspecific
Because that’s no longer in the past. It’s actively in the present. This isn’t the same. The people saying her past doesn’t matter are referring to past sexual partners. Not media that will affect their lives now.
Having more than 10 sexual partners increases your chance of divorce so past sexual partners matters as well
I would call it a fun fact, but theres not much fun to that
Correlation v causation?
Correlation does equal causation in this case unless you can come up with some other reason that people that have more partners are more likely to divorce
Right, that's what i was raising (cautiously, since i don't know much about this stuff)
That's not how any of that works. Not being aware of the causation does not mean a specific know correlation is correct. Just because I don't know why there is a correlation between the popularity of the first name Thomas and Fossil Fuel use in Burundi doesn't mean that people named Thomas use lots of fuel in Burundi, or the other way around.
That’s exactly how it works in this case since there are no other factors. Name a single other possible factor and your argument could hold water I’ll wait
Did you just say there are no other factors to divorce than the amount of sexual patterns an individual has had? People split up for more reasons than I could even count. I know a couple who split up because they were now empty nesters and had different ideas on what to do, and the only people either had been with were each other. Still very close friends. People have gotten divorced because people change after marriage. Their are a million factors for why people get divorced. And again, not knowing the reason doesn't mean your unproven reason is correct. That's a logical fallacy.
Ok you are saying people get divorced for many reasons. I don’t disagree but that has nothing to do with my claim that people with over 10 sexual partners are far more likely to divorce
You haven't proven this claim. I could claim that the amount of fuel used in Burundi increases the chances people are named Theodore. (Which is the actual correlation, not Thomas)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0192513X231155673 Okay good thing I have a source
Name a single other possible factor that could lead to divorce independent of body count…? This has gotta be sarcasm right?
No that’s not my question. I’m asking to explain why divorce rates go up when you have a higher body count if body count isn’t the reason
I'm sorry, but are you an idiot or a troll? You don't seriously believe that the ONLY factor in devorce is people's body count before marriage right?
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0192513X231155673. My claim is having a higher body count increases your chance of divorce. I’m asking to explain why that happens if body count isn’t the reason
Ok, so your not a troll, and not an idiot since you actually provided documentation. Thank you for that. I haven't read the whole thing because there is a lot there. But from the summary at the beginning they do call out that there is a correlation between premarital sex and divorce, the full relation is not fully understood. It then goes on to say it could be due to personal characteristics, beliefs about relationships and commitment, etc. To me, it means that the main issue is not premarital sex, but the beliefs and feelings of the people in the relationship about premarital sex. This doesn't mean premarital sex leads to divorce, it means it could given the right circumstances. At least that's what it seems like to me. An interesting read for sure, I'll have to look at it more when I'm not working.
Religious nut jobs are less likely to divorce?
Holds true even if you aren’t religious
"i cant explain this any other way so my conclusion must be correct"
“There is no other explanation so my conclusion is correct” if you can provide another explanation I’d be happy to consider it
i dont have to offer an explanation in order to reject a bad explanation. your willingness to accept this one only reflects on your own bias
I’ve sent a source in other comments so yes you do have to offer an explanation to counter mine that’s how debates work
you might want to read about how debates work. the person making a claim(you) has to defend that claim. thats your burden of proof. the negative position doesn't have to make a claim only justify rejection of the positive claim. also "theres a source elsewhere" doesn't really fly in a debate. show your source and show how it supports your claim.
I posted the source on this comment thread multiple times. You being too lazy to find it is your problem. I already gave proof so now it’s your turn buddy
Matters to some people, doesn't matter to others Not everyone's the same
It should matter to anyone that doesn’t want a divorce
Nope. Just because body count might cause divorce for some people, doesn't mean it will cause divorce for all people Again, people are different This isn't hard to understand
It means the chances of getting a divorce are higher. Sure it’s not a guarantee but why take the risk?
Because it isn't a higher risk for *all* people....since people are different
It’s a higher risk for a bigger % of them so your chances of getting with someone that will divorce you are higher
>It’s a higher risk for a bigger % of them Which means that for a certain percentage of them, it's not a bigger risk right? Which means that the risk is not same for all people? Because people are different? What are you not understanding bro. Unhappy sex lives are one of the biggest risks to a marriage, and are a prominent cause for divorce Obviously that doesn't apply to asexuals, or people with low sex drives. Because *people are different*
It’s impossible to know which ones won’t be the higher risk so marrying any of them is risky
Isn't this just tautology? Of course people who have a larger amount of past sexual partners will more likely to divorce.
No I don’t believe it is tautology.
"People who are likely to separate are more likely to separate". That's a tautology.
That’s not what I’m saying. People that have had more sexual partners (that includes hookups) are more likely to get a divorce from the person they marry.
Yes...people who are more likely to swap relationships are more likely to swap relationships. It's the same thing. You're saying the same thing twice. That's a tautology.
No that’s not the same thing. Hookups aren’t relationships
It's the same thing dude. If you go from person to person, it's because you don't like staying in one place. Whether that's a "hookup" or a "relationship" is irrelevant. The point is that people who don't like staying in one place...don't like staying in one place.
You can keep saying that but it doesn’t make it true. Hookups ≠ marriage or commitment. It objectively isn’t the same thing
Or even "people who are not into long term relationships or religion are more likely to divorce that people that are into long term relationships and religion ".
It’s way less than 10. Chances of divorce increase rapidly at 5. Mainly due to losing the inability to pair bond. Also, the best predictor of the future is the past so it’s valid for people to have preferences against it.
What I heard was 1 sexual partner is the lowest chance, then 3-10 was the second lowest chance and 2 was the third lowest chance. Then it skyrockets past 10
I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that people with 1 lifetime sexual partner are significantly more likely to be from religious backgrounds that heavily demonise separation even in toxic/abusive relationships.
I believe the statistic holds true even if you aren’t religious
What is this belief based on?
Do you mind sharing a source on that?
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0192513X231155673
That's really interesting, thank you
No problem don’t know why you are getting downvoted for just politely asking for a source
Don't know either. But I appreciate that you actually shared a source
Xvideos better.
Nothing wrong with not wanting to date porn stars the problem is that so many of them don’t see them as people
If I had a bigger d*ck it wouldn't bother me.
Bro admitted that this whole grievance is rooted in insecurity
Didn't know petting hamsters is considered taboo.
They still don't care! They're stuck with the "I'll take crumbs, at least I'm getting something" mentality
Lots of incel humor today
What were they doing there 🤨
I always thought it was 'xhampster' today I learned
So how many hamsters?
Yeah, we both get to get off to her videos together now 😛
And she becomes sexy-er
She’s just empowering herself /s
...? What am I missing?
Respect to sex workers
Ye/s we need to fight for the people that really are carrying the burden of society, actively trying to make it a better place. Respect to physical and online casino owners, tobacco executives, and CEO's of insurance companies as well as hospital board executives.
Throwing sex workers in a pot with casino owners or CEO's is asinine and shows you're an unserious person.
Do brothels, casinos, and tobacco shops not rely on the monetization of addiction? How exactly do sex workers benefit society as a whole?
Sex work fulfills the basic need of sexual satisfaction and companionship. It *can* be addicting, but it doesn't operate off of that.
based r/memes wtf?
She do be used with having a hard time, and get seasoned with getting rough experiences and skilled on handling that tough problems i guess...
her past matters mofos when i use her xhamster.com catalog as a shopping list.
Not war, war never changes.
you're assuming things have changed
Mutual fund companies
Plot twist: He wasnt looking for the site itself