Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Chop1n t1_j3efqm4 wrote

This is so poorly written as to be infuriating.

tl;dr when there's any kind of perceived gap in levels of sexual interest between partners, it doesn't bode well for the relationship. Surprising absolutely nobody. If only the study had anything more interesting to say than that, but it doesn't.

438

TylerJWhit t1_j3g0t96 wrote

The question one must ask, and you'd do well to do so now, is to inquire as to why this study in particular was needlessly verbose and increasingly complicated when it would have sufficed to be as succinct as possible in their analysis and conclusion that disparities in sexual desire between mates lead to unsatisfactory relationships between the aforementioned mates.

Stated otherwise: Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick

204

NightMgr t1_j3gjgmg wrote

Ask George Orwell and “Politics of the English Language.”

18

FjordExplorher t1_j3hbpdv wrote

Stated otherwise response would be a valid play in Poetry for Neanderthals

5

oooANUooo t1_j3ldtby wrote

Kevin, are you saying you want to go to “SEA WORLD” or you want to “see the world?”

2

Mattaruu95 t1_j3lugpr wrote

It’s like the architect in the matrix movie.

1

herbertfilby t1_j3fcqyv wrote

/r/deadbedrooms label these HL and LL, and the differences in libido result in all the misery there.

93

Cash907 t1_j3ir0e0 wrote

What else would you expect from a psypost article? I’m only shocked they haven’t been banned from this sub by now.

2

FwibbFwibb t1_j3kvzhx wrote

> Surprising absolutely nobody

Are you saying scientists should only study topics that will have surprising results?

0

Chop1n t1_j3lp1bk wrote

Of course not. But this is an article written about the study on a for-profit website. Clearly they wanted to make the study seem much more interesting than it actually is by being needlessly verbose and ambiguous about it. Which is all too common in garbage journalism in general.

3