|
I think this is the right thread for this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZaWnQ9HXZA
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2024 13:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
I had Hoot pegged as Disney Adult though, so it's nice to have confirmation.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2024 15:50
|
|
|
One More Fat Nerd posted:Eh, when you're talking about single dudes in the mid-thirties and older, you probably do have a much better chance of running into either commitment-phobes (the serially single) or commitment-failures (the divorced). There was a study on this, after 30 the dating pool gets very bad, very quick.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2024 21:09
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:this isnt the first time ive seen this study cited and every time ive tried to look into it i can never figure out how labor is actually being defined I've read that it's because of how people think about housework. When you live by yourself and you do the dishes, you don't have to think of it as "work" or "for" anyone. It's just a thing you do. But there are things you do for your partner/family, that you would still be doing anyway. It's like a motivation thing. I would be happy if the dishes sat in the sink and I could kick that can down the road, but I can also motivate myself (positively) to do them for my family. This can be a really good thing, it's one of the positive things that comes from caring about other people. Well, I suppose now instead of thinking "the floor needs to be mopped (and there is no one else to do it)" it's "the floor needs to be mopped (and so I have to do it for my spouse)"? I know a few couples where one of them was always fastidiously clean but now they talk about "doing all the cleaning", when, yeah, they always did? And their spouse does the amount of cleaning they had always done too. Idk keeping score is generally not good to begin with, if you think about roommates that have a chore wheel or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2024 21:38
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:one reason i dont like the phrase "commitmentphobic" is that if you actually talk to guys like this it becomes pretty clear pretty quickly that its not that theyre afraid of commitment they just dont think married lifestyle is for them and theyre probably right The same is true with sexually liberated/fuckboy
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2024 21:55
|
|
|
I would argue against that. I did a lot of research for a post on that understanding of marriage for the Pop Culture thread, but haven't gotten around to posting it yet. The gist is, in marriages that were explicitly transactional, Victorians called them "Familiar Marriages", people were generally happier than in romantic marriages. It's completely counterintuitive, but I'll try to explain (briefly). As you know, CS Lewis argued there were four forms of love: Storge (empathy bond), Philia (friend bond), Eros (romantic love), and Agape (unconditional "God" love). We prioritize Eros as the foundation for a marriage, and assume the lack of a "spark" leads marriages to fail. The Victorians (and other people before c ~1900) believed, and research bears this out, that actually the presence of everything else matters much more to the success of a marriage. Which makes sense - you spend a lot more time going over the bills with someone than having steamy erotic encounters, so you need a relationship grounded in empathy and friendship. Previous forms of marriage supposed that if you had to choose, it was better to have those than pure physical attraction. Someone who can provide for you is a good basis for marriage, if you can accept that as a form of love and reciprocate. It just requires a sort of steadiness. The expectation is that the flames of passion flare up and burn down to embers periodically, but you need a form of consistency in your marriage. An agreement to materially provide for someone is constant, and so can be a good foundation to build things around, because it's unchanging. Day to day, you have an arrangement your marriage is built upon, and two forms of love, Storge and Philia, built into it, because the "base" - material support - provides for a "superstructure" - a close emotional bond. Romance's Rival: Familiar Marriage in Victorian Fiction Romance's Rival argues that the central plot of the most important genre of the nineteenth century, the marriage plot novel, means something quite different from what we thought. In Victorian novels, women may marry for erotic desire--but they might, instead, insist on "familiar marriage," marrying trustworthy companions who can offer them socially rich lives and futures of meaningful work. Romance's Rival shows how familiar marriage expresses ideas of female subjectivity dating back through the seventeenth century, while romantic marriage felt like a new, risky idea. Undertaking a major rereading of the rise-of-the-novel tradition, from Richardson through the twentieth century, Talia Schaffer rethinks what the novel meant if one tracks familiar-marriage virtues. This alternative perspective offers new readings of major texts (Austen, the Brontės, Eliot, Trollope) but it also foregrounds women's popular fiction (Yonge, Oliphant, Craik, Broughton). Offering a feminist perspective that reads the marriage plot from the woman's point of view, Schaffer inquires why a female character might legitimately wish to marry for something other than passion. For the past half-century, scholars have valorized desire, individuality, and autonomy in the way we read novels; Romance's Rival asks us to look at the other side, to validate the yearning for work, family, company, or social power as legitimate reasons for women's marital choices in Victorian fiction. Comprehensive in its knowledge of several generations of scholarship on the novel, Romance's Rival convinces us to re-examine assumptions about the nature and function of marriage and the role of the novel in helping us not simply imagine marriage but also process changing ideas about what it might look like and how it might serve people. DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 22:33 on Feb 26, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2024 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
Is it Hinge that works by having a similar commute/working in the same building as people? That doesn't seem half bad for making a coffee date.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2024 15:15
|
|