this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
388 points (96.2% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7228 readers
167 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In an editorial published last week titled, “If Attitudes Don’t Shift, A Political Dating Mismatch Will Threaten Marriage,” The Washington Post’s editorial board points out that political polarization in this country has reached the point where it is now a prominent, often decisive factor in determining who Americans settle on as their potential mates. They emphasize this trend is now so acute it may actually threaten the institution of marriage as a whole. In particular, it seems that Democratic women are rejecting potential Republican suitors not only for marriage but as relationship material, all across the board. The message the editorial conveys—perhaps hyperbolically, perhaps not—is that as a consequence of this shift in attitudes, marriage itself in this country is in jeopardy.

(page 2) 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Something_Complex@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If walked around naked down 5th avenue, trowing literal shit at everyone that I don't agree with, I feel like the coverage wouldn't be the same to me as it is for MAGA heads.

I mean, they don't care for many people around except themselves, most of the ones I've known are creepy as hell, especially arround girls.

They treat everyone like if they were the most intelligent person who even lived ...if that person was a dumb asshole...

So if I'm arround acting like shit, don't say ohhhh he can't find a gf. Instead try to say: put on clothes, shit goes in the toilet and comes out of your ass not in your mouth.

Edit: disclaimer; to all those incapable of using comedy and satire, methaphores and exageration(wich makes a good satire).

I will count you downvoats as a sign that you are in fact illiterate

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How does only marrying dems put marriage in jeopardy?

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

56% of women in the US vote Democrat, while 42% of men do.

Even worse, 62% of white educated women are voting Democrat. What this means is that white Republican men are going to have a very limited dating pool. If women completely snub them, then it will absolutely cause a demographic crash. We could be looking at something similar to China.

Would you marry someone who hates your gender?

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

But presumably marriages will still happen

[–] nutsack@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

56% vs 42% yea VERY LIMITED were going to see population collapse because of all the politics

[–] FrostKing@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

There's a rather simple explanation for this. Politics has become engrained into many parts of our culture, to the point where at times it's indistinguishable from personality, or outlook. Something as simple as a disagreement about tax laws wouldn't normally endanger a relationship. But something more life changing, and effects the every day, would—and that's increasingly what politics are effecting and related too. When someone says 'Trump Voter' you don't think "Person who voted for Trump and I know nothing else about them."

You automatically assume many non political things including stuff all the way from whether they only practice missionary sex, to whether they only drive pickup trucks.

When someone says "I wouldn't marry a trump voter" they aren't necessarily saying they'd never marry someone of a different political affiliation, they're saying that wouldn't marry the stereotypical persona of a "Trump Voter."

Much like when I say "Karen" I'm not just talking about anyone with the name Karen.

[–] jecht360@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I hear a tiny violin playing.

[–] toiletobserver@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

If I'm ever in the market again, I'll be ankle deep in the puu-say! No ice.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›