pantsupantsu reblogged your photo: wrathomatic: secretbraintwin: wrathomatic: …
Did you guys even see that link titled “Source” right beneath the post? Seriously? It’s right there. You just need to…Yes, I saw that, actually.
It links to a website with ads for “Overstock iPads 2: $43.20” and “the secret of how to learn a foreign language in 10 days!”
So excuse me if I didn’t take it seriously.
Oh, and when you click the “more information” link, it does seem to go to a legitimate Psychological Science journal, but doesn’t actually link the study itself.
So the only reason you don’t trust a page is because it has ads. The legitimate source mentioned - a study published in May 2012 issue of Psychological Science - isn’t enough.
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/people-see-sexy-pictures-of-women-as-objects-not-people.html
It took me about 15 seconds of googling to find that link. It’s even listed in the website of Psychological Science right behind the “News” -link in the right upper corner.
Tumblr - full of professional gettingpissedoffers.
- Person: Knock, knock!
- Tumblr User: Not everyone has doors, god, check your privilege - prick.
Any links to this study, OP?
How, exactly, could this even be tested? “Rate this person as an object or a person from 1 to 10”?
I mean…I wouldn’t exactly doubt it. We’re programmed from fucking birth to look at sexy women as objects. I just want to know if there’s actual science here, of if you’re talking out of your ass.It’s out the ass, no doubt
As soon as I see something that starts with “A new study finds” without actually linking to the new study, that sends up red flags, you know?
Did you guys even see that link titled “Source” right beneath the post? Seriously? It’s right there. You just need to click it.
Reblog with a screencap of your desktop. NO CLEANING.
- canadians: american people are so annoying
- british: american people are so annoying
- chinese: american people are so annoying
- mexicans: american people are so annoying
- french: american people are so annoying
- americans: we are so annoying
- finns: 3-2
Why Polygamy Is Wrong
nugoyxi submitted:
My comments in bold.
I agree with some of these. Some are just assertions.
-FAIt’s glorified infidelity.
It would be difficult for the government to tax.
Relationships should be between two people.
Couples have to make decisions and compromises together, and it’s harder to agree when there’s multiple people.
Polygamous relationships can end up with too many children. The world is already overpopulated.
Polygamy is almost never polyandry. It’s not about women’s freedom to choose who they marry or how many spouses they have- it’s about women being owned by men.
Marriage is a partnership and a relationship. Polygamy turns marriage into a cattle drive.
Polygamy skews the natural ratio of marriageable men and women.
Most people agree that countries that practice polygamy live in an oppressive, abusive society with fanatical, religious men- especially when they marry young girls to older men.
Spouses can have animosity, jealousy, etc towards other the other spouses and it creates tension.
The established needs are impossible to meet in a polygamist marriage. These needs include- ongoing affection/attention, conversation, honesty and openness, financial support, and help around the house.
In all polygamous cultures, women have extremely low status.
True love is a bond that is only possible to be shared between two people.
Most North American “families” in polygamous situations are on welfare or food stamps.
Polygamy is a choice, while sexual orientations are not choices.
Legalizing polygamy would give more power to religions, and would infringe on women’s rights.
Legal polygamy would turn immigration into a nightmare. An immigrant can claim to be wed to half a nation of women and demand that all these women be brought to, say, the US. Polygamists can arrive at the border and demand refugee status because of persecution. Sorting out these claims would be impossible, since most nations refuse to give legal status to such marriages.
(I’m sure I could find several other reasons, sorry if I repeated any, as I found some from multiple websites)
Many of these are good arguments. Others (like marriage should be between people) are not. A lesson, boys and girls, is to always watch out for shoulds.
~ Steve
Awww HEELLLL NO. What the fucking shithole is this goddamn BULLSHIT?
It’s glorified infidelity.
No, it hasn’t. In polygamous relationships people can be as faithful and as unfaithful as they are in normal relationships. The point is in trust and honesty, not fucking around. If anything, cheating on your partners is even harder when there’s many of them.
It would be difficult for the government to tax.
That can be arranged.
Relationships should be between two people.
You should be more tolerant towards other people, since they are not telling you to be like them, just asking you to let them be like they want. You are not capable of deciding what should be and what shouldn’t.
Couples have to make decisions and compromises together, and it’s harder to agree when there’s multiple people.
That’s not for you to worry about. Worry about people having their rights instead.
Polygamous relationships can end up with too many children. The world is already overpopulated.
Every one of those involved in a polygamous relationship could have a child on their own. The amount of children doesn’t magically grow when the adults are together compared to them being separated. Actually, it could even be that one child is enough for multiple adults, whereas they would all need to get a child of their own if they were separated.
Polygamy is almost never polyandry. It’s not about women’s freedom to choose who they marry or how many spouses they have- it’s about women being owned by men.
Now that’s just plain sexist. Please show me some statistics about that, will you? You are trying to disguise your own fear towards polygamy as a feminist argument favoring women. This has nothing to do with ones’ sex. Gay men and lesbian women can form polygamous relationships. Men can just as easily be owned by women. And, it’s not about women’s freedom to choose, it’s about everyone’s freedom to choose.
Marriage is a partnership and a relationship. Polygamy turns marriage into a cattle drive.
So multiple people can’t have partnership and relationship with each other? It still isn’t your job to decide what marriage is supposed to be and what not. If someone’s marriage is a cattle drive and they like it that way, so be it.
Polygamy skews the natural ratio of marriageable men and women.
This argument is valid only if it were so that only men marry multiple women or vice versa. Luckily, in polygamy the sex still doesn’t matter. And puh-lees, don’t show me those historical statistics that “prove” how monogamy saved the world by not creating angry single men. In my knowledge polygamy has never been legal in a country where women were allowed to marry as many as they wished, only men. That kinda “skews” the statistics.
Most people agree that countries that practice polygamy live in an oppressive, abusive society with fanatical, religious men- especially when they marry young girls to older men.
This, once again, has nothing to do with polygamy, it’s because they are misogynistic societies. You could as well blame the heat or their goats for that. Two things happening in a same culture don’t always happen because of each other, you know.
Spouses can have animosity, jealousy, etc towards other the other spouses and it creates tension.
The jealousy can be solved with a) talking, b) not agreeing to be in polygamous relationship. Do you think that if polygamist marriage is legalized, your hubby is just going to walk in and say “HEY I’M TAKING ANOTHER WIFE”? It doesn’t work that way. Jealousy happens in monogamous relationships too. Should it be banned?
The established needs are impossible to meet in a polygamist marriage. These needs include- ongoing affection/attention, conversation, honesty and openness, financial support, and help around the house.
Bullshit. Conversation, honesty and openness are all about TALKING, not about BEING in monogamous relationship. Help around the house and financial support are covered even better, when there’s more hands to help. And if someone is feeling that s/he doesn’t get enough attention, s/he can SAY it.
In all polygamous cultures, women have extremely low status.
Because only polygamous cultures nowadays are the ones who already are misogynistic. Low status of women isn’t because polygamy, polygamy is because of low status of women. If polygamous marriage is legalized, do you honestly think that women will be treated like dogs or they’ll give up all the rights they have? Polygamy is not going to derail western civilization back into Middle Ages.
True love is a bond that is only possible to be shared between two people.
You are not the one to determine what is true love. Leave that to the ones loving. Love is not measurable; it does not run out if it is directed towards many. Does a mother of three children love her children less than a mother of one?
Most North American “families” in polygamous situations are on welfare or food stamps.
So families is on quotation marks? Because you don’t consider them families, if they don’t mach the requirements you place on being a family? I don’t see why welfare or food stamps are a bad thing. I guess that’s because I’m such a communist.
Polygamy is a choice, while sexual orientations are not choices.
I can not choose who nor how many persons I love. And even if it were a choice, why is it wrong to make that choice, if it makes you and the people around you happy?
Legalizing polygamy would give more power to religions, and would infringe on women’s rights.
Clinging on monogamous marriage is empowering christianity. Marriage has nothing to do with religions. And once again, do you actually think that women would give up their rights and start to mindlessly praise men once they are as well given the right to marry as many as they can? THIS STILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMENS’ RIGHTS!
Legal polygamy would turn immigration into a nightmare. An immigrant can claim to be wed to half a nation of women and demand that all these women be brought to, say, the US. Polygamists can arrive at the border and demand refugee status because of persecution. Sorting out these claims would be impossible, since most nations refuse to give legal status to such marriages.
a) don’t give immigrates the right to marry before s/he’s a citizen b) if the country where s/he left from doesn’t have legal polygamous marriage, then his/her claim does not have legal status. If s/he has legal papers that prove s/he has multiple husbands and wives, s/he should be allowed to bring his/her family with him/her to the country.
(I’m sure I could find several other reasons, sorry if I repeated any, as I found some from multiple websites)
You know what’s hilarious about all the atheist activists (and especially the american ones)?
They all seem to have that one specific moment when they stopped believing. And they have these fine stories about how they stopped being christian or muslim or shit and turned into agnostics or atheists. Because I don’t actually recall ever believing in anything. Not God, Jesus, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, anything. Okay, I was a weird kid, but still.
I’m not trying to say that I’m a better atheist than they are, though. Hell, I don’t even label myself as an atheist. I find it degrading that they are theists, the norm, and we, non-theists, are the departure from the ordinary type, the lesser group.
But my point was that it sounds hilariously weird when people are telling how they found out they are atheists or when they stopped believing, because the whole process sounds unnatural. To me, it just sounds like they should’ve done a little self-searching way earlier.
Reblog if you think gay marriage should be legal.
HOLY FUCK THE NOTES.
If you’re my follower and you don’t reblog this we have a problem~
HOLY SHIT LOOK AT THE NOTES
you better reblog this.
Well okay then. I usually don’t reblog these kind of things because blargh but okay then.
(Source: aimee-likes-cats, via ohsh1tdani)
