That is what the "experts" say. Apparently, DMing someone of the opposite sex is a clear indication of wrongdoing - hiding something if not speaking openly. Why do people have such tiny, base minds?
-
-
Show this thread
-
Obviously, in my circle, DMs usually abt politics & people message privately either because they have views that could get them in trouble (like gender differences existing) or coz they are not yet sure enough how they feel about a thing to put it out there & want another opinion
Show this thread -
But this must surely be the case in nearly all circles? The article even talks about shared interests but insists they should only be discussed in the open between men & women. This isn't some neurotic religious sect. It's someone writing for the BBC citing psychologists.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
When I see things like these, I think primarily about the way that patriarchy has normalized deeply harmful behaviors and how fruitlessly we continue in our attempts to counter these harms without making too many waves.
-
I don't live in a patriarchy so I don't think it's that.
-
Lol, okay.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The ‘micro’ prefix is such a reliable way to repackage nonsense as an new idea. Maybe because we are dazzled by fancy compound words, and ‘micro’ grants a patina of scienceyness? Also, usually refers to small, hard-to-perceive things, and harder to conclusively disprove?
-
‘Microevolution’ is the reigning mvp, but the plucky newcomer ‘microaggressions’ is making a run at the throne. ‘Micro-cheating’ won’t have a long run, but will definitely catalyze a few hundred door-slamming arguments around the world.
-
We’ll give a pass to some terms though. I’m not “getting high at work” I’m ‘microdosing’!
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
The increasing granularity of prohibited actions (from micro-cheating to micro-aggressions) is a very strange trend that ends in a very illiberal place.
-
It'll work out though. We'll soon divide outselves down to hating each other as individuals.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The expansion of infidelity serves to line the pockets of those who profit from fear and relationship insecurity. It’s disgusting. The Anxiety Industry I call them.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The people who wrote that article come off as maddeningly insecure.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Then by this standard everybody cheats. At least in their minds. Of course, like always, philosophy matters. I could never be in a relationship where I felt like I was “owned“ or owned the other person anymore than one where my feelings and attitudes dont matter at all. Balance
-
If there's no attractions to other people, the loyalty to your partner means absolutely nothing imo
-
Very good point. If I am unable to find any other woman besides “Sally“ interesting, enticing, and even sexy, such a state begs many questions. Likewise, at the other extreme, if I cannot be faithful to my commitments, then I’m not very trustworthy.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What a joke of an article. Enabling the worst of people just for some fucking clicks.
-
Corollary: are bisexuals allowed to like "any" posts, or even speak after dark?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I am convinced one reason for introducing such a concept is to blur the line between micro- and macro-cheating in order to normalise the latter. Also, it would make sense for a cheater to see cheating behind every innocuous interaction. Basically: "He who smelt it dealt it"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.