SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the is-SoylentNews-ruining-your-marriage? dept.
Anthony D'Ambrosio writes at USA Today that marriage seems like a pretty simple concept — fall in love and share your life together. Our great-grandparents did it, our grandparents followed suit, and for many of us, our parents did it as well. So why is marriage so difficult for the millennial generation?
"You want to know why your grandmother and grandfather just celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary? Because they weren't scrolling through Instagram worrying about what John ate for dinner. They weren't on Facebook criticizing others. They weren't on vacation sending Snapchats to their friends." According to D'Ambrosio, we've developed relationships with things, not each other. "Ninety-five percent of the personal conversations you have on a daily basis occur through some type of technology. We've removed human emotion from our relationships, and we've replaced it colorful bubbles," writes D'Ambrosio. "We've forgotten how to communicate yet expect healthy marriages. How is it possible to grow and mature together if we barely speak?"
D'Ambrosio writes that another factor is that our desire for attention outweighs our desire to be loved and that social media has given everyone an opportunity to be famous. "Attention you couldn't dream of getting unless you were celebrity is now a selfie away. Post a picture, and thousands of strangers will like it. Wear less clothing, and guess what? More likes," writes D'Ambrosio.
"If you want to love someone, stop seeking attention from everyone because you'll never be satisfied with the attention from one person." Finally D'Ambrosio says the loss of privacy has contributed to the demise of marriage. "We've invited strangers into our homes and brought them on dates with us. We've shown them our wardrobe, drove with them in our cars, and we even showed them our bathing suits," writes D'Ambrosio. "The world we live in today has put roadblocks in the way of getting there and living a happy life with someone. Some things are in our control, and unfortunately, others are not."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:49PM
No it's not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:51PM
It is perfectly heterosexual. One partner is a man, one partner is a woman. That's the very definition of a heterosexual relationship.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by t-3 on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:56PM
Except that a surgery does not a man or woman make. You cannot change sex with a surgery. There's nothing wrong with being transgender, but don't try to act like the physical reality has changed just because you want it to. When a man can have surgery, be impregnated naturally, and give birth with no issues, and a woman can have surgery, impregnate someone naturally, and produce a child with no issues, THEN you can say a transgender person is whatever sex they wish. Now, people could certainly be more accepting of the condition, but you can't really blame anyone for the stigma attached to something which is, while being a naturally occurring condition, very unnatural.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:59PM
As a Ruby programmer, I apply the Duck Typing test to every object around, including physical objects. If it looks like a penis, and it feels like a penis, and it tastes like a penis, then it is a penis. Maybe it's a natural penis, or maybe it's a hand-crafted artisanal penis. The exact subtype of penis doesn't matter. It's still a penis.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @06:27AM
You.must be fun to shop with. Especially in porn shops.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @12:06AM
Nothing is unnatural. Humans are part of nature, so how could what they do be unnatural? Furthermore, unnatural != bad, even if unnatural things did exist. And natural doesn't necessarily mean good, either.
but don't try to act like the physical reality has changed just because you want it to.
?
I assure you, plenty of physical things change when you go through those procedures. Some women can't give birth, so does that mean they're not True Women? And some men can't impregnate others, so are they not True Men? Your judgements seem completely arbitrary.
(Score: 1) by t-3 on Sunday April 12 2015, @02:12AM
Dictionary definition of unnatural: contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal. Note that I never said anything about unnatural being bad, never said natural was better. I just said you can't expect people to readily drop their stigmas and uneasiness about the issue. I see that you've also tried to make call me out on a no-true-scotsman, but you're just being pedantic. The NORMALLY ACCEPTED STATE OF THINGS is that male + female copulation = non-0 chance of pregnancy and birth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @03:09AM
Dictionary definition of unnatural
Arbitrary.
I see that you've also tried to make call me out on a no-true-scotsman, but you're just being pedantic.
No, I'm saying the "normally accepted state of things" is arbitrary. As I said, plenty of women can't have kids. Plenty of men can't impregnate women. Are they not True Men and True Women, then? That's not just pedantry; that's pointing out inconsistencies. They have the right genitals, so why not?
(Score: 1) by t-3 on Sunday April 12 2015, @03:46AM
No, the dictionary definition is based on the common present and historical usage of the word. Plenty of people are defective from a genetic standpoint: THEY ARE NOT NORMAL BY ANY COMMON USAGE OF THE WORD. NOT BEING NORMAL DOES NOT MAKE YOU A BAD PERSON. Another poster commented on shrimp, sure they are naturally hermaphroditic/change sex and all that, but they're also shrimp, not humans.
If your mental gender doesn't match your sex, that is unnatural per the above definition.
If you then have surgery to change your appearance, you cannot say that surgery changes your sex from male to female or vice versa unless the normally accepted reproductive capabilities of that sex can be anticipated as a consequence of that surgery.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @04:00AM
No, the dictionary definition is based on the common present and historical usage of the word.
Which is arbitrary.
THEY ARE NOT NORMAL BY ANY COMMON USAGE OF THE WORD.
Maybe not, but they also don't apply the logic of "Can't have children? You must not be a True Man/Woman!" when it comes to people with genetic defects.
If your mental gender doesn't match your sex, that is unnatural per the above definition.
We've already established that that definition is flawed and arbitrary, so whatever. Society is illogical when it comes to all sorts of things.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by hemocyanin on Sunday April 12 2015, @03:22AM
You know what is interesting -- sex change is actually a naturally occurring incident in nature. You may even have eaten some of those M-F sex-changing critters, at least if you like the larger sized shrimp.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/shellfish/shrimp/identification.html [wa.gov]
It's no wonder god hates shrimp -- they're all M-F transexual cougars! http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/ [godhatesshrimp.com]
So glad I have no god cause I sure do love spot prawns (and coonstripes and pinks, especially pinks -- small but so sweet).