Microblog Memes

5923 readers

4378 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
Be nice.
No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

ReadyUser31

aeronmelon

764

It's not jealousy (lemmy.ml)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/microblogmemes

175 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] blanketswithsmallpox 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Some confidently incorrect shit here lol.

Older faces are rated as less attractive than younger faces and treated like a category when making aesthetic judgments.

Older perceivers are less influenced by the age of the viewed face than younger and middle-aged perceivers.

Men, more than women, distinguish more clearly between faces when judging attractiveness, especially in female faces.

Aging has less of an effect on judgments of elegance than beauty and gorgeousness.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691821001359

Previous research examining stereotypes of the elderly also found that older adults were judged to be less attractive (Ebner, 2008; Löckenhoff et al., 2009), and other research has shown that age stereotypes are linked not simply to chronological age, but also to physical appearance. Specifically, unattractive physical qualities, such as wrinkling, gray hair, and baldness, are associated with more negative impressions of elderly faces (Hummert, 1994; Muscarella and Cunningham, 1996; Hummert et al., 1997). In addition, Zebrowitz et al. (2003) found that, compared with younger faces, older faces showed greater resemblance to faces with genetic anomalies and this contributed not only to impressions of older faces as less attractive, but also to impressions of them as less healthy, sociable, and intelligent than younger faces. More generally, the well documented attractiveness halo effect (Eagly et al., 1991) provides reason to believe that the lower attractiveness of older faces would augment negative stereotoypes, like incompetence, and weaken positive stereotypes, like warmth. Older and younger faces differ in many ways besides attractiveness. One that will be examined in the present research is a possible difference in their resemblance to emotion expressions. Research has documented an influence of emotion resemblance on impressions of warmth and competence (Zebrowitz et al., 2007, 2010) and, as discussed more fully below, there is reason to expect differences between younger and older faces.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5627340/

Like YA, OA showed both the attractiveness halo effect and the babyface stereotype. However, OA showed weaker effects of attractiveness on impressions of untrustworthiness, and only OA associated higher babyfaceness with greater competence. There also was own-age accentuation, with both OA and YA showing stronger face stereotypes for faces closer to their own age. Age differences in the strength of the stereotypes reflected an OA positivity effect shown in more influence of positive facial qualities on impressions or less influence of negative ones, rather than vice versa.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4020290/

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

lol. Try reading the comment you replied to. They didn't say anything about attraction.

[–] blanketswithsmallpox -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Young women are not more sexually active. There's a ton of research that younger people are less and less sexual. So maybe stop making things up and posting them online.

Less sexually active and less sexual are very different statements to me. I was addressing the second portion.

Not only that but a large portion of this entire threads argument is based on how people find each other attractive. Being promiscuous isn't really relevant when the topic is about people in relationships with large age differences.

I suppose you could argue sexual promiscuity heightens your chance of getting into relationships with larger age differences, but I don't have data to back that up. I doubt it'd be true if that's what they're contending but I wouldn't care either way lol.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Less sexual still doesn't mean less attractive though... ? I have no idea what you're on about. Just rewind to the comment that person was replying to and the context is very clear:

If had to guess the reason is that young women are more sexually active than 30yo women. Friends with gfs always complain that it's pretty hard to get them in the mood, like they have to beg.

Young women are not more sexually active. There's a ton of research that younger people are less and less sexual [with each other as of late]

added that last bit because it was clearly referring to the studies coming out in the last few years or so that show that young people are having less sex today than previous generations did at similar ages.

[–] blanketswithsmallpox 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Again, less sex has nothing to do with age differences. It sounds like everyone is just arguing about different things tangentially related to the meme lol.

Apparently y'all think people having less/more sex matters with age differences. I'm arguing 18 year olds are absolutely sexual regardless of how much more or less they're having sex. And 18-25 are the peak years of attractiveness for nearly everyone.

They're also the best time to have children even if our society makes it nearly impossible to have them between 18-25. That's a sliding scale which basically gets worse every year after 25, not even 35.

Good luck telling people at 26 they're already putting themselves and their children at risk though lol. After 35 has always been a stretch but our government refuses to help while the working class is so under the boot they can barely unionize.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2021/maternal-mortality-rates-2021.htm

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

you're just shadowboxing at this point and honestly it's really weird that you're so hyper focused on trying to make people debate you on points they didn't even bring up, so you can make the case that all women need to give birth before the age of 25.

Idk if you're not a native speaker or something but nobody uses the term 'sexual' in the way that you are using it right now and this reply thread is a total non-sequitur from the thread it stemmed from. I'm not debating you, I'm just letting you know.

[–] blanketswithsmallpox 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Homie we're on what essentially amounts to a communist socialist forum, not a Debate Team. It's how conversation works lol. That shit doesn't change whether it be Lemmy, Reddit, Facebook, or anywhere else. The thread literally went from meme, arguing that's not what they meant, arguing that's not what they meant, arguing that's not they meant, to then saying no this is what I'm talking about, why are you talking about this?

It's all being talked about lol. It's all mildly relevant. The points and truth behind them didn't change. It's all corrections here and there with misunderstandings everywhere. Turns out people aren't all seeing all knowing. Lemmy leans heavily ND to boot so it just exacerbates all of that.