Anonymous #1 15h

and i commented study after study that proved there wasn’t anything inherently damaging about casual sex, my sources weren’t from 26 years ago, and i actually gave the titles so you could look them up yourself. you posted two out of context screenshots that you had to crop down to a single sentence

0

Anonymous #1 15h

no wonder you cropped it, it literally proves you wrong 😭

0

Anonymous OP 15h

I’m not trying to be rude but you should read the entire article not just the study’s Introduction/Literature Review. You are confusing that with its actual Conclusion. After you’d read it come back and let’s talk

0

Anonymous #1 15h

i am trying to be rude but you should take your own advice bc the article literally ends by saying there isn’t enough evidence to definitively say casual sex is inherently harmful

0

Anonymous OP 15h

You trying to be rude doesn’t convey anything if you still haven’t read and comprehended the entire thing. You glossed over the conclusion “We found evidence that casual sex was associated with psychological distress and lower levels of psychological well-being". To bring forth a CAUTION which almost every article ends with since science is continuous. The point still is sex is harmful; they’re only saying they’re still doing research to contend someone else view that was mentioned in prior.

0

Anonymous OP 15h

Ngl your reasoning is not remotely efficient. I’m just trying to converse and you’ve still missed the point to contend or counter. So that’s it for my portion of this discussion

0

Anonymous #1 15h

preceded by the authors admitting there were mixed findings and that another study produced the opposite results. i’m not saying casual sex doesn’t have the capacity to harm or even that it’s inherently good, i’m saying there isn’t enough evidence (and this article admits it, which you seem allergic to acknowledging) that casual sex is INHERENTLY bad

0

Anonymous #1 15h

k byeeeeee 🥳

0