3 ms·

I hate the way people say "relationship" as if it's a singular data point. Sex is a relationship. Business is a relationship. Friendship is a relationship. Roma

I hate the way people say "relationship" as if it's a singular data point. Sex is a relationship. Business is a relationship. Friendship is a relationship. Romance is a relationship. Treating several days points as one data point gives us really poor data. Thankfully, a lot of the data in the article is explicitly about "sexual experience". Even so, there is still the loaded question, "Do you want a relationship?" That's just too vague. How can we learn what people's goals are if we aren't willing to ask? All we know boils down to two data points: fewer people are pursuing traditional marriage, and fewer people are having sex. That's not enough to answer the interesting questions. We can't learn what obstacles people have if we don't know their goals.

fluoridation 4y ago
Is there really much ambiguity about what is meant by "relationship" as part of the phrase "relationships and sex"? I think it's pretty obvious it means an exclusive romantic relationship or something approximately along those lines, and not a business partnership.
- thomastjeffery 4y ago
  Yes, but an exclusive romantic relationship is not the only context people have sex. Romance itself is not sex, nor sex romance. Just because that's historically been a very popular and socially accepted method does not mean it is today. The entire purpose of doing studies like this is to learn something new. The more assumptions we make, the fewer opportunities we have to learn.
somenameforme 4y ago
The study is carried out by the National Fertility Survey. Declining fertility rates drive immense problems in societies, and Japan is at the forefront of this because of both their age and fertility rates. Relationships are important on a micro scale. Fertility is absolutely critical on a macro scale.
- thomastjeffery 4y ago
  Marriage is not where babies come from. The data in this article asks people if they have had sex, then in an effort to figure out why not, asks if they want a relationship.
BlargMcLarg 4y ago
>How can we learn what people's goals are if we aren't willing to ask? Place it in context of the culture. One that hammers the importance of family and community. Where every year, without fail, on Christmas Eve and Valentine's, tons of individuals lament being alone or being asked by parents when their child will find someone. The goals are pretty on the nose. Of course, you're more likely to find them in the far less academic women's magazines and whatever manga incorporates romantically.
- thomastjeffery 4y ago
  I can tell you all about living in a culture with strong expectations around marriage and bearing children. It's not as consistent a driver of behavior as you might expect. There are more reasons to have sex than making babies. There are more reasons to get married than sex. The average person's relationship goals may be shifting drastically away from conservative marriage. We would be wise to accommodate that possibility in our data collecting methods.
eska 4y ago
RTFA. The article explicitly defines what is meant by relationship, and their definition includes friendship with the opposite gender.
- thomastjeffery 4y ago
  > and their definition includes friendship with the opposite gender. So the data is definitely ambiguous. That's my entire point. On top of that, my complaint is directed much more broadly than this article. As I mentioned before, this particular article did provide some data explicitly about sexual relationships. That's really great. Most studies don't.
  - eska 4y ago
    „Do you want a relationship (friendship or dating) with someone of the opposite sex?“ is not ambiguous. Stop ranting. Personally I find people who don’t read the (short) article and go on a long strawman rant more problematic than what you complain about.
    - thomastjeffery 4y ago
      1. I did read the article. I simply wasn't interested in arguing with you about its contents to prove I had. 2. The article was taking about some specific data points and some vague data points. The ambiguity I am referring to is in the data provided by a vague question's answers. Asking if people want to be in a relationship does not tell us clearly and unambiguously what kind of relationship they are interested in. 3. The article is treated as a topic for discussion here. I'm allowed to expand discussion to other closely related information. Taking about a general trend that applies to all relationship studies, when the topic is a relationship study, is not a strawman or way off topic. You are just gatekeeping conversation.

fluoridation 4y ago

Is there really much ambiguity about what is meant by "relationship" as part of the phrase "relationships and sex"? I think it's pretty obvious it means an exclusive romantic relationship or something approximately along those lines, and not a business partnership.

thomastjeffery 4y ago
Yes, but an exclusive romantic relationship is not the only context people have sex. Romance itself is not sex, nor sex romance. Just because that's historically been a very popular and socially accepted method does not mean it is today. The entire purpose of doing studies like this is to learn something new. The more assumptions we make, the fewer opportunities we have to learn.

somenameforme 4y ago

The study is carried out by the National Fertility Survey. Declining fertility rates drive immense problems in societies, and Japan is at the forefront of this because of both their age and fertility rates. Relationships are important on a micro scale. Fertility is absolutely critical on a macro scale.

thomastjeffery 4y ago
Marriage is not where babies come from. The data in this article asks people if they have had sex, then in an effort to figure out why not, asks if they want a relationship.

BlargMcLarg 4y ago

>How can we learn what people's goals are if we aren't willing to ask? Place it in context of the culture. One that hammers the importance of family and community. Where every year, without fail, on Christmas Eve and Valentine's, tons of individuals lament being alone or being asked by parents when their child will find someone. The goals are pretty on the nose. Of course, you're more likely to find them in the far less academic women's magazines and whatever manga incorporates romantically.

thomastjeffery 4y ago
I can tell you all about living in a culture with strong expectations around marriage and bearing children. It's not as consistent a driver of behavior as you might expect. There are more reasons to have sex than making babies. There are more reasons to get married than sex. The average person's relationship goals may be shifting drastically away from conservative marriage. We would be wise to accommodate that possibility in our data collecting methods.

eska 4y ago

RTFA. The article explicitly defines what is meant by relationship, and their definition includes friendship with the opposite gender.

thomastjeffery 4y ago
> and their definition includes friendship with the opposite gender. So the data is definitely ambiguous. That's my entire point. On top of that, my complaint is directed much more broadly than this article. As I mentioned before, this particular article did provide some data explicitly about sexual relationships. That's really great. Most studies don't.
- eska 4y ago
  „Do you want a relationship (friendship or dating) with someone of the opposite sex?“ is not ambiguous. Stop ranting. Personally I find people who don’t read the (short) article and go on a long strawman rant more problematic than what you complain about.
  - thomastjeffery 4y ago
    1. I did read the article. I simply wasn't interested in arguing with you about its contents to prove I had. 2. The article was taking about some specific data points and some vague data points. The ambiguity I am referring to is in the data provided by a vague question's answers. Asking if people want to be in a relationship does not tell us clearly and unambiguously what kind of relationship they are interested in. 3. The article is treated as a topic for discussion here. I'm allowed to expand discussion to other closely related information. Taking about a general trend that applies to all relationship studies, when the topic is a relationship study, is not a strawman or way off topic. You are just gatekeeping conversation.