If you can do that to someone you say you love, I don’t think you love them.
What? You have serious problems if you believe that. I don’t get what you’re saying. I’m saying using a tool for mutual masturbation (or one at a time) is the same as classical normal masturbation of each other. Both are acceptable and normal in a relationship.
Not relevant. When discussing techniques for the application of hair products, those with alopecia are not relevant.
It does when it’s frequent. Also, you’re the one making a generalization, so if you don’t specify, that’s on you
As for your last paragraph, well I don’t see any link with what I said. Unrelated
Yes, if you treat someone who you say you love no differently from how you treat a one-night-stand, that suggests you don’t love them. That hardly seems like a bold claim.
And, no, that’s what generalization is. When speaking in general terms, it means ignoring the obvious exceptions. You don’t specify every little minority and specifically exclude them. I would not specifically call out those with alopecia in a discussion of hair products, and neither would you. That would be silly.
And the last part is what’s known as an analogy, a somewhat comparable circumstance in which elements resemble the primary concept. It serves as an example of the point, hopefully allowing the listener to see the pattern represented in the comparable and contrastable elements. In my analogy, there are two people in a relationship. This is one to one with the vibe circumstance, so should be pretty readily understandable. The part that is different, hopefully creating an analogy through which to see the pattern, is that instead of sexual intercourse, the circumstances are social intercourse. The parallel is that just as it would be regarded as a bad sign for the health of a relationship if someone only fully enjoyed social intercourse with their partner when there are pleasurable substances involved, it is a worrying sign if they reported only being able to enjoy sex with the aid of a vibe, the sexual analog to drugs.
![[Jenny Gorelick] Co-Stars](https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/82526c18-e403-4b8c-86fd-80996e8e7229.webp){kind=link}
What? You have serious problems if you believe that. I don’t get what you’re saying. I’m saying using a tool for mutual masturbation (or one at a time) is the same as classical normal masturbation of each other. Both are acceptable and normal in a relationship.
It does when it’s frequent. Also, you’re the one making a generalization, so if you don’t specify, that’s on you
As for your last paragraph, well I don’t see any link with what I said. Unrelated
Yes, if you treat someone who you say you love no differently from how you treat a one-night-stand, that suggests you don’t love them. That hardly seems like a bold claim.
And, no, that’s what generalization is. When speaking in general terms, it means ignoring the obvious exceptions. You don’t specify every little minority and specifically exclude them. I would not specifically call out those with alopecia in a discussion of hair products, and neither would you. That would be silly.
And the last part is what’s known as an analogy, a somewhat comparable circumstance in which elements resemble the primary concept. It serves as an example of the point, hopefully allowing the listener to see the pattern represented in the comparable and contrastable elements. In my analogy, there are two people in a relationship. This is one to one with the vibe circumstance, so should be pretty readily understandable. The part that is different, hopefully creating an analogy through which to see the pattern, is that instead of sexual intercourse, the circumstances are social intercourse. The parallel is that just as it would be regarded as a bad sign for the health of a relationship if someone only fully enjoyed social intercourse with their partner when there are pleasurable substances involved, it is a worrying sign if they reported only being able to enjoy sex with the aid of a vibe, the sexual analog to drugs.