×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules Donate
3
15 comments block


[ - ] rhy 5 points 10 monthsJul 3, 2024 11:32:58 ago (+5/-0)

Yeah this graph is really terrible. I mean I would like a graph that did show this data, but what the hell does the legend even mean? Dumb graph is dumb

[ - ] x0x7 0 points 10 monthsJul 5, 2024 17:31:02 ago (+0/-0)

I'm not even sure it correlates with the title well. What it's really saying is the more partners you have the less you will have sex when you are old. Now you can argue a connection, but it's really not a direct measure.

[ - ] localsal 3 points 10 monthsJul 3, 2024 10:57:15 ago (+3/-0)

There has to be a better non-confusion graph than this.

No definition of sexually active? Last week, last decade? How many men age 30+ would consider their sex life "active" if married and having sex once every 3 months? I would bet some or a lot of women would call that very active.


[ - ] Tallest_Skil 1 point 10 monthsJul 3, 2024 11:00:11 ago (+1/-0)

“Having had sex at all” is active with regard to neurology.

[ - ] localsal 2 points 10 monthsJul 3, 2024 11:15:44 ago (+2/-0)

Which can add to the confusion. A divorced woman who married as a virgin but not actively seeking a relationship would count in the 80% then, and make it seem like a "stable marriage" or whatever the graph is trying to imply.

On the other hand, what if the 20% of 21+ partners were all now happily married and have been for years with all of the other partners being previous? (I know the real stats don't show that at all, but it just shows how bad this graph at trying to convey a message.)

[ - ] lord_nougat 1 point 10 monthsJul 3, 2024 13:17:55 ago (+1/-0)

[ - ] Fascinus 1 point 10 monthsJul 3, 2024 13:46:04 ago (+1/-0)

I'm gonna need those sales figures by the end of the day.

[ - ] TheOriginal1Icemonkey 2 points 10 monthsJul 3, 2024 10:21:35 ago (+2/-0)

Of course. Used cars don’t last as long.

[ - ] Conspirologist [op] 0 points 10 monthsJul 3, 2024 10:24:13 ago (+1/-1)

Yep. You don't know what previous owners did to them.

[ - ] yesiknow 1 point 10 monthsJul 3, 2024 12:36:25 ago (+1/-0)

You don't need a graph. Ask old people. When they and all their friends were in the marrying age how that worked out over time. None, one or two boyfriends and girlfriends before marrying one led to the life time marriages. It worked for both parties not to be sluts.

There's lots of qualifiers. People who respect themselves and each other get along best and have no reason not to get married.

Girls who adopted the feminist vocabulary aren't marriage material. They poison their own selves with the words of perpetual struggle. They get dumped when someone nicer comes along.

Psychologists and marriage experts do the same thing and marriages are hard to keep when she has a head full of "this is the way it should be, and you're not complying with them".

Everyone marrying age today grew up on sit coms where the husband was really a jewish characteriazation of a man; weak spineless and stupid and the wife mistreated him and he just took it.

THe shrew has to be tamed and that probably can only happen by their early 20's.

[ - ] Lordbananafist 1 point 10 monthsJul 3, 2024 12:18:08 ago (+1/-0)

send me your tramps, brothers.

i will build them a safety camp for their safety and punishment.

[ - ] Trope 0 points 10 monthsJul 3, 2024 23:30:32 ago (+0/-0)

I should like to be a warden of this camp.

[ - ] RabbiKinderschtupper 1 point 10 monthsJul 3, 2024 10:28:42 ago (+1/-0)

21+!? Bitch close your goddamn legs!

[ - ] Wahaha 0 points 10 monthsJul 3, 2024 16:43:55 ago (+0/-0)

This graph makes no sense. On which axis even are the marriages?

[ - ] Prairie 0 points 10 monthsJul 3, 2024 14:36:15 ago (+0/-0)

This doesn't necessarily mean that a woman who goes against her strong urge to have partners before marriage will be as good as the ones who just naturally do that.