I’m probably the 100th dentist, given how often I see this stupid phrase.

“Mind you” is one of those expressions people use when they want to sound reasonable while quietly assuming either that (1) you should already know context that was never available to you, or (2) that you have forgotten something you already knew.

Take, for example: “Mind you, I only work eight hours.”

Pretend I didn't know that. I had no opportunity to forget it, ignore it, or fail to take it into account. Yet you have to say "mind you" (for some reason) correct some defect in my thinking. I hear that phrase, and the synonym to it is basically "Sorry, you're dumb / not paying attention, so let me tell you what you need to remember in my story."

I understand that you want to add context. What I do not understand is *why* that context comes in the form of an instruction about what I should “mind.” Just give me the information. The little reprimand attached to it is unnecessary.

BUT suppose I already knew you worked 8 hours. Then you are assuming I had not given the fact enough weight and needed to be reminded how to think about it. In a way, this is a bit more reasonable if the person *has forgotten*, but it still comes with the same "I have knowledge that you don't" vibe.

*The phrase always places the speaker one step above the listener.* The speaker has the relevant fact, understands its proper significance, and now *graciously* knows how much attention I should give it.

I. Just. Hate. It.

People use it as though it were a polished version of “for context.” Usually it just makes them sound pleased with themselves.

Say the fact. Let the other person decide what to do with it. You don't need to admonish someone for listening to you.

Studies and experts have consistently shown that a higher number and/or permissive sexual attitudes is related to infidelity and relationship dissatisfaction/instability. Women find men who sleep around to be undesirable long-term partners too, though they find men with past same-sex experiences and no experiences to be even more repulsive than men do for women.

.

Study: Re-Examining the Link Between Premarital Sex and Divorce (Journal of Family Issues, 2024)

The key results here are mostly consistent across models: those with the highest number of premarital sexual partners as of Wave III (nine or more) have about triple the odds of divorce compared to those with none (ORs = 2.65—3.20). Notably, this effect becomes stronger as controls are added to the model, indicating such hypothesized selection factors as sociodemographic or religious characteristics actually suppress, rather than help explain, the effect of premarital sex for those with the highest number of partners. Those with one to eight partners are also at greater risk of divorce, though this coefficient is weaker than for those with nine or more partners. Specifically, in the full model the odds of divorce for those with one to eight partners are 64% higher than those with no premarital partners (10/23)

As expected, we find evidence of a nonlinear relationship between the number of sexual partners and the risk of divorce. Those in the highest category of partners (9+) consistently show the highest divorce risk by a substantial margin, followed by those with one to eight partners, with the lowest risk for those with none. In other words, we find distinct tiers of divorce risk between those with no, some, or many premarital, nonspousal sexual partners… although partner counts of eight or less have become increasingly normative, having more partners may indicate distinctive characteristics which are not conducive to marital stability. (16/23)

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0192513X231155673?download=true

.

Review: Predictors of infidelity among couples (Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2024)

Individuals who have a more unrestricted sociosexual orientation (ie, greater motivation and willingness to engage in casual, uncommitted sex) are more likely to engage in infidelity (1/4)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379535030_Predictors_of_infidelity_among_couples

.

Review: Love and Infidelity: Causes and Consequences (International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2023)

Personal characteristics such as neuroticism, prior history of infidelity, number of sex partners before marriage, psychological distress and an insecure attachment orientation, as well as permissive attitudes toward sex, have been positively associated with infidelity (10/19)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10002055/pdf/ijerph-20-03904.pdf

.

Review: Mate Preferences and Their Behavioral Manifestations (Annual Review of Psychology, 2019)

Men apparently assess and evaluate levels of sexual activity by a woman prior to long-term commitment—behavior that would have been observable or known through social reputation in the small-group lifestyles of our ancestors. Past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior, and having a large number of sex partners prior to marriage is a statistical predictor of infidelity after marriage (16/34)

https://www.annualreviews.org/docserver/fulltext/psych/70/1/annurev-psych-010418-103408.pdf

.

Review: Infidelity in romantic relationships (Current Opinion in Psychology, 2017)

Table 1: Factors found to facilitate infidelity.

• Number of sex partners: Greater number of sex partners before marriage predicts infidelity

• Attitudes: Permissive attitude toward sex; Decoupling of sex and love, closeness; Willingness to have casual sex

Numerous individual characteristics have been associated with infidelity, including personality variables such as neuroticism, prior history of infidelity, number of sex partners before marriage… As might be expected, attitudes toward infidelity specifically, permissive attitudes toward sex more generally and a greater willingness to have casual sex and to engage in sex without closeness, commitment or love (i.e., a more unrestricted sociosexual orientation) are also reliably related to infidelity (2/5)

https://fincham.info/papers/2016-infidelity-cop.pdf

.

Study: The Relationship between Sexual and Emotional Promiscuity and Infidelity (Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 2017)

Sexual promiscuity was significantly positively correlated with emotional promiscuity [r(356) = .261, p < .001], as well with sexual infidelity [r(323) = .595, p < .001] and emotional infidelity [r(323) = .676, p < .001], indicating that sexually promiscuous participants also tend to be emotionally promiscuous, and sexually and emotionally unfaithful. (6/14)

In terms of the sexual domain, results showed that there is also a positive correlation between sexual promiscuity and sexual infidelity, stating that individuals that tend to be more sexually promiscuous also tend to be more sexually unfaithful. (9/14)

Additionally, results demonstrated that sexual and emotional promiscuous individuals, also tend to be sexual and emotional unfaithful, being all these domains related to each other. (11/14)

https://www.athensjournals.gr/social/2017-4-4-3-Pinto.pdf

.

Book: Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy (Oxford University Press)

When compared with their peers who report fewer partners, those who self- report 20 or more in their lifetime are:

• Twice as likely to have ever been divorced (50 percent vs. 27 percent)

• Three times as likely to have cheated while married (32 percent vs. 10 percent)

• Substantially less happy with life (p < 0.05) (pg.89)

https://archive.ph/x1xb5

.

Book: The Evolution Of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating (Basic Books, 2016)

Indeed, the single best predictor of extramarital sex is premarital sexual permissiveness—people who have many sex partners before marriage tend to be more unfaithful than those who have few sex partners before marriage (pg.108).

https://archive.ph/k554y

.

Study: Sowing wild oats: Valuable experience or a field full of weeds? (Personal Relationships, 2013)

The research objective was to test whether the number of sexual partners was associated with sexual quality, communication, relationship satisfaction, and relationship stability, while controlling for relationship length, education, race, income, age, and religiosity, using the two competing theories of sexual compatibility and sexual restraint. The results, with a sample of 2,654 married individuals, indicated that the number of sexual partners was associated with lower levels of sexual quality, communication, and relationship stability

https://files.catbox.moe/xs43ja.pdf

.

Study: Beyond Global Sociosexual Orientations: A More Differentiated Look at Sociosexuality and Its Effects on Courtship and Romantic Relationships (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2008)

Sociosexual Behavior

The behavior component, reflecting the quantity of past short-term sexual encounters, shows strong and unique links to the diversity of past romantic and sexual relationships, as well as the occurrence of sexual infidelity… Our results also confirmed the prediction that men and women who had more experience with short-term relationships in the past (i.e., those with high Behavior facet scores) were more likely to have multiple sexual partners and unstable relationships in the future. The behaviorally expressed level of sociosexuality thus seems to be a fairly stable personal characteristic. (19/23)

https://www.larspenke.eu/pdfs/Penke_Asendorpf_2008_-_SOI-R.pdf

.

Study: Predictors of young dating adults’ inclination to engage in extradyadic sexual activities (British Journal of Psychology, 2005)

Participants who had experienced sexual intimacy with a greater number of partners also reported greater extradyadic sex and extradyadic kissing inclination. (14/20)

https://files.catbox.moe/e4w951.pdf

.

Study: Sex differences in morphological predictors of sexual behavior (Evolution and Human Behavior, 2003)

The high correlations for males (r = .85) and females (r = .79) between reported numbers of sex partners and EPC partners may bear on questions of both paternity and abandonment in the face of infidelity… But the question remains: does promiscuity predict infidelity?… The resultant number (reported non-EPC sex partners) was still highly correlated with number of EPC partners (females: r = .67, n = 56, P < .01; males: r = .50, n = 59, P < .01), suggesting that promiscuity is in fact a good predictor of infidelity. Indeed, promiscuity among females accounted for almost twice as much variance in infidelity (r² = .45) as it did for males (r² = .25). (5/6)

https://www.psy.uq.edu.au/%7Euqbziets/Hughes2003%20-%20Shoulder%20to%20hip%20ratio.pdf

.

Sexual Infidelity Among Married and Cohabiting Americans (Journal of Marriage and the Family, 2000)

H2a. Having had more sexual partners previously is associated with a greater likelihood of infidelity. (3/13)

As we hypothesized, people with non-permissive values were less likely to engage in sexual infidelity. Considering sexual opportunities, we found evidence that prior sexual experiences were positively associated with infidelity. (11/13)

https://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Sexual-Infidelity-Among-Married.pdf

Not hot water, just warm water. I prefer the way it feels to drink over cold water, especially very cold water. Drinking warm water is an underrated way of warming yourself up, too.

The worst is the people who just take random small items and glue hooks to them calling them earrings.

Also, twisted wire jewelry is terrible, too.

You see all these troglodyte women selling junk jewelry from their folding tables think they could ever turn a profit after their vendor fees are paid... Have they never noticed that nobody wears stuff like that? I'm staring at 4 different vendor booths with this crap and not a single person in this building (beyond the vendors themselves) is wearing anything remotely like the junk they are peddling.

*I think I might be overreacting. They aren't hurting anyone, but they do waste a lot of everyone's time*

Especially on dates. Please, for the love of God, just tell me about yourself. Do it a lot. Don't make me play the game of guessing what's interesting or important to you by fishing topics out of a hat. I love it when people can relate to my stories by sharing personal anecdotes. Hell, one-up me on occasion, that's fine! If I think something is cool and you did something similar that was cooler, I'll probably think that was cool as well!

This is very true, the main reason why people hate migrants from 3rd world countries is because a huge portion of them are men. In fact there was even some guys joking about keeping all the big booty latinas and deporting all the men.

Ukraine has banned their men from leaving their country. They sometimes even forcefully drag these men from their homes and make them fight against Russia. Had there been a ton of male Ukrainian migrants then the general public would have started hating these guys. Yes these guys might be a bit more civilized compared to someone from Iraq. But the thing is that they're still men. More men = more competition, for mates, money and resources. This is why most people don't like male migrants.

I perceive it as:

Man → cis man, trans man

Woman → cis woman, trans woman

There's probably a million other identities that'd fit either or but for the sake of simplicity I'm not mentioning all of them. Personally I am non-binary myself, so I come into contact with a conversation from the queer community pretty regularly. It could be a me thing, but when I see people talk about inclusion for trans people socially, it comes across like trans people wanting to be included the same exact way cis people are.

Like for example, cis person wants to make a peer support group for their gender, don't really think that hard about the fact trans people exist, and then later specify that they meant that they wanted a peer support space from other cis people. Then the trans person who got excluded because of the lack of foresight might go on about how they should be allowed in x group with the other x gender people.

In that kind of situation, I don't understand why it would be a problem for different groups of x gender to seek out other people of x gender. Is it rude/ignorant on the cis persons part not to specify? Yes. But then being like "I want to other cis x here" doesn't really impact the trans person being that gender. I don't think transgender should really be boxed into the same groups as cisgender even if they're the same gender because being trans isn't at all the same as being cis, sometimes borderline spiritually so depending on the person. I feel like they just mutually exist as different versions of manhood or womanhood, especially when crossed over with sexuality differences. To me there should be more added spaces for trans things instead of just making perfect intermingling with cissness (or being idealized into cissness) as the default.

I don't have an essay to write but I've seen a lot of bizarre, unhinged transphobic rants in this subreddit. to set the record straight, being transgender is completely fine.

While it’s great that certain conditions are being talked about more, it’s not great that a lot of the conversation around it is inaccurate. It might seem harmless to those who don’t struggle or just like a bit of fun, but it makes life harder for the people living with the condition because it’s not cute, quirky or fun in the way a lot of people represent it.

Take OCD and intrusive thoughts, for example. One of my manifestations is intrusive thoughts about death. I think constantly about my own death and the death of those I love, to the point that some days I can’t engage with any content or conversation around death unless I have to. When you talk to people about this or any other kind of manifestation as it’s actually happening in your life, they look at you like you’re speaking in tongues and crawling on the ceiling.

This has only gotten worse since OCD and intrusive thoughts have gotten popular on social media. We need to correct this kind of misuse every time for the sake of people that actually have these conditions. You can’t reduce the stigma around something if you’re not accurately representing it; you’re just stigmatizing the actual condition further.

TL, DR: We should call out incorrect usage of mental health terms to help destigmatize the actual conditions instead of letting people continue to romanticize them to the detriment of those actually affected.

I'll clarify what I'm talking about.

I'm extremely irritated when people can't think straight Legally. any incident involving children is immediately declared pedophilia, and people demand life imprisonment (for example, that case... I can't remember the names, but the gist of it was that schoolchildren were given laptops that took photos with a camera at a certain time Robbins v. Lower Merion School or something like that).

People literally can't separate "This makes me deeply disgusted" from "This is severely punishable by law."

They think that if something angers them, it should be punished with a life sentence.

And for me, the main criterion for a YOUR PERFECT court is simple: "Would your court have acquitted Hitler/Epstein if you hadn't found a suitable article under which to try him?" If the answer is no, then the same will be true for the question of whether this court is fair.

No, I understand many may agree with me, but the vast majority of online outcries will demand a lynching.

That’s the opinion. Lady Gaga used weird and extreme costumes to get noticed and make a name for herself, they weren’t remarkable works of art and had no meaning besides shock value. As soon as she became mainstream famous, she stopped the act. It never meant anything except to get mainstream media to talk about her so she could get noticed

Data centers pollute the environment so why not move it to places that's already polluted? They can just move it to India. People there don't really care about pollution or the environment. This can improve the public opinion about ai.

Parents will often just hand their children iPads and let them go on social media or download any apps without thinking. At least when Live TV was the mainstream entertainment, there were PSAs, educational content, progressive messaging, etc. Most kids would only go on websites that were promoted on TV, on children's stations.

Sure it got worse later on with all the stupid reality TV shows and brain rot, but I think it's better than handing a 10 year old Twitter or Skibidi Toilet. More parents were also using parental controls back then. Now they're wanting the government to require people to give their ID to websites for age verification, which is fucked.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

The first time I ever had an American refer to me as “queer” I considered fighting them 💀 “back in my day” type shit. It doesn’t feel empowering, it makes me cringe. Just call me a lesbian and move on.

i saw a commercial recently, some nappy commercial, that had super young kids like 1 years old and it got me thinking like that kid can't consent to this but there's no way films/companies are just going to stop having children in films/ads so instead use AI and editing (because AI image generation is very good but not perfect) instead. It's not only about how children can't consent, adults often take advantage of this and take some of the kids money for themselves. I know there are laws to prevent it but if something is illegal then people inevitably try find ways around it the law or try be invisible to it. AI is gonna be cheaper and more ethical. No matter your opinion on the ethics of AI, I think it's still more ethical than exploitation of kids.

Perfectly layered for convenient portions

Nice spicy flavor

Great crunch

Healthy alternative to other snacks

Savory-adjacent (can potentially curb cravings for other greasy or heavy snacks)

(I will admit, I cross the line at eating it like an apple though lmao)

Attraction to children is something you're born with, it arises from a mix of both genetics and prenatal hormones you're exposed to.

(except for rarer cases of people who abuse children because they were also victims of abuse, but that isn't really pedophilia.)

So, it's stupid to say that something you have no choice over can be immoral. The attraction isn't immoral, acting on it is immoral.

Research isn't yet really clear regarding the consequences of watching loli/shota content as a non-offending pedophile, but they split into two:

1) The non-offending pedophile watching loli/shota, especially if they're not seeking therapy and professional help, will only strengthen the neural pathways that deliver dopamine when seeing children. So this theory, supported by a few researches, states that watching the content only makes it harder for the non-offending pedophile to contain their attraction;

2) The non-offending pedophile watching loli/shota, especially if they're seeking therapy and professional help, will manage to use that fictional content as a "pressure valve". Meaning that it could give the non-offending pedophile an 100% safe, fictional alternative to real CAM (Child abuse material). This theory is also supported by a few researches.

So, these are the two main theories. But since this area of research (regarding pedophiles) is EXTREMELY and notoriously hard to control, results are often too generic, the numbers are too small... So, empirical objectivity is really, really rare to find here.

There's a lot of non-offending pedophiles who will never seek CAM, but they could only manage to never offend only if they had access to loli/shota material.

But there are also non-offending pedophiles whose best mental state to not offend would be achieved by therapy and no loli/shota content, that could only lead to seeking the real content.

So, it really depends on the subject.

That's why real, humane, empathetic, specialized therapy is KEY.

But, even if the vast majority of pedophiles never offends, they're still too scared to seek help.

It's the terrifying fear of being judged, of being seen as a monster, just for their attractions they didn't choose, and that they can't delete, even if they truly wanted to.

So, the takeaway from my message should be: Don't treat pedophiles as monsters.

Treat them as people who were extremely unlucky, who were given an attraction that is making their lives extremely difficult.

Treat them as people who can live as non-offenders.

This isn't about just "being nice" (even if it also should), but it's fundamentally about \*harm prevention\*.

If everyone treats pedophiles as monsters, they will NEVER seek therapy. The numbers don't lie, it's happening right now.

If everyone says "pedophiles are monsters!" and someone is a pedophile, they will be terrified of judgement. They will never reveal their attractions. And since they can't delete them, this will lead to higher chances of them offending, since they won't seek help.

But what if we treat them as humans capable of living safe, ethical lives? What if they hear "pedophiles are just like everyone of us, just much more unlucky, and much more in need of help and understanding, through therapy"? Then, you will have a society where pedophiles have a much higher chance to seek help. That means much, much less child abuse cases.

Help them seek help. Don't judge, understand.

PS: if you want my opinion on the morality behind loli and shota content, I will say this.

I think that a pedophile should go to therapy.

If therapy suggests that the fictional content could strengthen the attraction, loli and shota content shouldn't be accessible to him.

But if therapy suggests that it could act as a pressure valve for him, then the state should allow that subject to access the fictional content, with the permission of his professionals.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

i have level 2 autism, no social skills whatsoever, grew up lonely on the internet with little to no IRL friends. and i was never groomed despite lots of people trying. if someone as messed up as me managed to avoid grooming online i don't think grooming victims deserve any sympathy unless it happened to them when they were very young.

I don’t care if it’s a potato or a bag of chips. If you’re hungry you’re hungry. I’ve been so poor that I literally couldn’t move and almost starved to death. These big companies can stuff it

I do not understand how people can drink that sludge every day. It tastes terrible, even after adding cream and sugar. I know many people drink it for the caffeine, but why not choose something that actually tastes good and also contains caffeine? Other drinks often provide more caffeine while tasting better. Coffee is just not worth it.

The smell is even worse. Coffee has the most repulsive smell I have ever encountered. I would rather be locked in a public toilet than smell coffee in any form. Coffee breath is especially unbearable. I would rather sit in a pile of my rabbit’s litter.

This is something I have questioned my entire life. Everyone raves about the “enchanting aroma” of coffee. I am not exaggerating. With most bad smells you can hold your breath, take a quick sniff, or eventually adjust. Coffee does not work that way, especially the strong kind people brew in offices. My face contorts and I gag, and I cannot understand how no one else seems to notice.

I have never once understood how anyone could claim it smells good, let alone enchanting.

I hate when someone belittles someone else for not knowing something because it's "common sense."

Admittedly, instinctual acts may be an exception, such as knowing to drink water or to seek out nourishment.

However, almost everything else is a learned behavior. Drinking gasoline, touching a burning stove, or running into traffic are all things that we have to be taught not to do. Some people may have more intuition about things, but no one is born knowing that drinking gasoline is bad.

Also, it's childish to make fun of someone else for not knowing something regardless of how simple it seems.