If I linked to the data showing that f/f couples have higher domestic violence than either m/f or m/m couples and then said ‘I keep asking “are lesbians okay”’, would you not think that a callous and insensitive thing to say, implying that it’s majority or typical behavior for lesbians?
Then I would tell you you’re not original, we’ve all seen that “data” and it doesn’t say what you think it says so you can’t read. I’d also remind you reactions like that are why you’re single.
Is this a bad time to point out that “are the lesbians okay” yields a paltry 172 results on Google (and on top of that, the first page of results is mostly not people using it the way the hypothetical in my analogy does)?
Seems much more original than most things you can find online, objectively speaking.
“data”
Poisoning the well. State what makes it illegitimate, with specificity, if you can.
it doesn’t say what you think it says so you can’t read.
Even if I did misinterpret any given source of information, calling me illiterate for doing so is comically over-the-top cruel. For shame.
I’d also remind you reactions like that are why you’re single.
The person I just celebrated an anniversary with would be very amused to read this. And like me, she’d recognize
Anyway, if you’d like to at least pretend to be someone who’s interested in more than creating an illiterate unlovable strawman to insult for your own ego’s sake, here is my response to a far less caustic retort.
And this just cements the fact that you can’t read. You’re not original, because your dumb misinterpreted study has been posted and debunked to hell and back.
The person I just celebrated an anniversary with would be very amused to read this. And like me, she’d recognize
your dumb misinterpreted study has been posted and debunked to hell and back.
Show me the alleged debunking. Claiming it exists while seething at me is not convincing. If it’s the same argument made by that other person, I already broke it down and showed how it doesn’t hold water, so make sure not to repeat it.
Actually, now that I think about it, it’s ironically you that can’t read by your definition of literacy, because you failed to understand that it was a hypothetical analogy to begin with, that works just fine even if said study didn’t even exist in the first place. The actual point all along is that it’s wrong, morally and practically, to generalize that way about the entirety of any demographic.
But it seems all you’ve demonstrated proficiency in is slinging clumsy, unoriginal (more irony!) barbs.
And you’re also delusional. I’m not surprised.
You know what’s extra ironic about your reply? It was literally my partner getting my attention for a moment that broke my train of thought and resulted in me not completing that sentence. Of course, now it’s best not to fix it until after I share this exchange with her, it’ll make her reading this part extra amusing. :)
I know the study you mean and you’re misrepresenting it. It asks people who identify as lesbian whether they have experienced domestic abuse at all, and concludes they’re more likely to answer ‘yes’ than straight women.
But that alone doesnt say who is doing the abuse. Remember lesbians often date men before coming out. When asking whether the perpetrator was male or female and separating the data, the stats shifted. Lesbians experienced less DV from their female partners than straight women do from their male ones.
Women are also capable of abuse of course, but a large amount of the DV lesbians received was still from men.
But that alone doesnt say who is doing the abuse. Remember lesbians often date men before coming out.
Short version: They almost certainly haven’t dated more men than the female demographic that dates exclusively men, while simultaneously reporting a much lower domestic violence incidence than them. The above absolutely does not hold water on its own as refutation.
Long (you’ve been warned, lol) version:
Even if we assumed the following for the sake of argument:
X% of men are abusers
zero women are abusers
100% of lesbians have dated men at some point
The lesbians somehow have the exact same number of male partners on average as women who have had exclusively male partners
Then in aggregate, the abuse incidence between hetero women and lesbians should be effectively equal.
But we know that in the real world, #2 is obviously more than zero, and #3 is obviously less than 100%. So how can it possibly be true that the DV percentage among lesbians is so much higher?
There are only two ways, at least one of the following must be true:
Lesbians have a significantly larger total number of romantic partners on average (the more partners you have, the more likely to ‘find’ one who’s been abusive, and one is all it takes to put a person into the ‘has been a victim of DV’ category)
the percentage of women who are abusers is greater than the X in #1
I found data about “sex partners” for lesbians, but that’s not the same as romantic partners, and surprisingly, I haven’t been able to actually find any hard data that simply says “self-identified lesbians have X romantic partners over their lifetimes on average”. I found a figure of 4-4.3 for “women” in general, but that’s no help here, both because there’s no ‘lesbian figure’ for comparison, and because that figure isn’t a ‘hetero women figure’ anyway. Kind of a dead end, here.
As for the second bullet point, see the link below about the woman being found to have been the perpetrator of DV in over 70% of m/f relationships in which only one of the two partners commits DV. That by itself can explain the disparity in DV incidence between lesbians and hetero women, I think.
When asking whether the perpetrator was male or female and separating the data, the stats shifted. Lesbians experienced less DV from their female partners than straight women do from their male ones.
Got a link for that?
Women are also capable of abuse of course
That’s arguably a significant understatement, according to this study:
Regardless, ultimately my point was that, regardless of statistics like these, I don’t say things like “are the lesbians okay”, because idiotic generalizations like that serve no positive purpose (making the speaker feel superior to the target doesn’t count as a positive purpose in my eyes), and I was trying to get the person I replied to to gain some empathy, with an analogy.
I enjoy working and making things. I find being intellectually stimulated almost as satisfying as being happy or anything else. You have absolutely no idea how much of a super power being an aromatic asexual would be for me. I’d be unstoppable, lol.
I think I know what you’re getting at, I wouldn’t necessarily call myself asexual though, as I do watch… naughty things (I’m too lazy to look up rules, I’m not shy in that respect)
I just waste a lot of time getting informed on politics instead, so no guarantees for more free time😉
I would tend to agree, I’m just not really interested in discussion definitions and I think argueing I’m not aromantic is hard (except for my family of course).
The comments on here make me glad I’m aromantic.
Yeah. It turns out a bunch of tech obsessed nerds aren’t the most socially well adjusted.
Reddit is even better than this.
I misread that as aromatic and was quite confused.
“Glad I smell good reading this”
Look, I might be a bit aromatic sometimes, but no, that’s not what I meant.
They reproduce by spreading spores like Rob Lowe’s character on The Orville
As a lesbian leaning pansexual, I keep asking the question “are straights okay”
No, they are not. (As a straight person by most definitions probably)
If I linked to the data showing that f/f couples have higher domestic violence than either m/f or m/m couples and then said ‘I keep asking “are lesbians okay”’, would you not think that a callous and insensitive thing to say, implying that it’s majority or typical behavior for lesbians?
Then I would tell you you’re not original, we’ve all seen that “data” and it doesn’t say what you think it says so you can’t read. I’d also remind you reactions like that are why you’re single.
Is this a bad time to point out that “are the lesbians okay” yields a paltry 172 results on Google (and on top of that, the first page of results is mostly not people using it the way the hypothetical in my analogy does)?
Seems much more original than most things you can find online, objectively speaking.
Poisoning the well. State what makes it illegitimate, with specificity, if you can.
Even if I did misinterpret any given source of information, calling me illiterate for doing so is comically over-the-top cruel. For shame.
The person I just celebrated an anniversary with would be very amused to read this. And like me, she’d recognize
Anyway, if you’d like to at least pretend to be someone who’s interested in more than creating an illiterate unlovable strawman to insult for your own ego’s sake, here is my response to a far less caustic retort.
And this just cements the fact that you can’t read. You’re not original, because your dumb misinterpreted study has been posted and debunked to hell and back.
And you’re also delusional. I’m not surprised.
But it seems all you’ve demonstrated proficiency in is slinging clumsy, unoriginal (more irony!) barbs.
You know what’s extra ironic about your reply? It was literally my partner getting my attention for a moment that broke my train of thought and resulted in me not completing that sentence. Of course, now it’s best not to fix it until after I share this exchange with her, it’ll make her reading this part extra amusing. :)
Why, oh why, do you think you deserve my time and effort for anything else than making fun of your lack of intelligence and social skills?
Concession accepted.
I know the study you mean and you’re misrepresenting it. It asks people who identify as lesbian whether they have experienced domestic abuse at all, and concludes they’re more likely to answer ‘yes’ than straight women.
But that alone doesnt say who is doing the abuse. Remember lesbians often date men before coming out. When asking whether the perpetrator was male or female and separating the data, the stats shifted. Lesbians experienced less DV from their female partners than straight women do from their male ones.
Women are also capable of abuse of course, but a large amount of the DV lesbians received was still from men.
Short version: They almost certainly haven’t dated more men than the female demographic that dates exclusively men, while simultaneously reporting a much lower domestic violence incidence than them. The above absolutely does not hold water on its own as refutation.
Long (you’ve been warned, lol) version:
Even if we assumed the following for the sake of argument:
Then in aggregate, the abuse incidence between hetero women and lesbians should be effectively equal.
But we know that in the real world, #2 is obviously more than zero, and #3 is obviously less than 100%. So how can it possibly be true that the DV percentage among lesbians is so much higher?
There are only two ways, at least one of the following must be true:
I found data about “sex partners” for lesbians, but that’s not the same as romantic partners, and surprisingly, I haven’t been able to actually find any hard data that simply says “self-identified lesbians have X romantic partners over their lifetimes on average”. I found a figure of 4-4.3 for “women” in general, but that’s no help here, both because there’s no ‘lesbian figure’ for comparison, and because that figure isn’t a ‘hetero women figure’ anyway. Kind of a dead end, here.
As for the second bullet point, see the link below about the woman being found to have been the perpetrator of DV in over 70% of m/f relationships in which only one of the two partners commits DV. That by itself can explain the disparity in DV incidence between lesbians and hetero women, I think.
Got a link for that?
That’s arguably a significant understatement, according to this study:
Regardless, ultimately my point was that, regardless of statistics like these, I don’t say things like “are the lesbians okay”, because idiotic generalizations like that serve no positive purpose (making the speaker feel superior to the target doesn’t count as a positive purpose in my eyes), and I was trying to get the person I replied to to gain some empathy, with an analogy.
Marginalized groups have no problem acting in the exact way they expect others not to about them.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I enjoy working and making things. I find being intellectually stimulated almost as satisfying as being happy or anything else. You have absolutely no idea how much of a super power being an aromatic asexual would be for me. I’d be unstoppable, lol.
I think I know what you’re getting at, I wouldn’t necessarily call myself asexual though, as I do watch… naughty things (I’m too lazy to look up rules, I’m not shy in that respect) I just waste a lot of time getting informed on politics instead, so no guarantees for more free time😉
Welcome to being Greysexual, my friend!
My wife identifies as this. It really suits them. They do experience sexual arousal, but it’s rare, though it’s not repulsive either.
That does make you on the asexual spectrum. You ARE asexual.
I would tend to agree, I’m just not really interested in discussion definitions and I think argueing I’m not aromantic is hard (except for my family of course).
Does that mean you get turned on by smelly stuff?
No that’s automatic. They mean antioxidant.