On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

Re:On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness by colanderman on Tuesday May 04, 2021 @02:51PM (#27041349)

Not if you're in a sexually exclusive relationship.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness by ethbr0 on Tuesday May 04, 2021 @05:02PM (#27042860)

Sexual exclusive relationships are a subset of healthy relationships.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness by Fargren on Tuesday May 04, 2021 @05:08PM (#27042927)

That would imply all sexual exclusive relationships are healthy, which is very much not the case. Sexual exclusivity and relationship health are orthogonal.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness by ethbr0 on Tuesday May 04, 2021 @05:17PM (#27043017)

I think you're taking the set theory a bit too far...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness by Fargren on Tuesday May 04, 2021 @05:30PM (#27043140)

This might just be different customs of language usage. But to me, if you say "This is a subset of That", you are saying "every case of This is also a case of That". I suppose you are using it to mean "That does not imply This", and honestly I don't think seen it used that way elsewhere.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness by ducharmdev on Tuesday May 04, 2021 @06:38PM (#27043741)

I mean, that is the immediate conclusion one can draw from what you're saying. It sounds like you're saying all sexually exclusive relationships are within the group of healthy relationships, which is different than saying only some of them are within that group.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness by jjgreen on Wednesday May 05, 2021 @12:12PM (#27051801)

∀ X [ ∅ ∉ X ⟹ ∃ f : X → ⋃ X ∀ A ∈ X ( f ( A ) ∈ A ) ]

[ Parent | on HN ]