Considering the person I replied to assumed a cis relationship, I rolled with their assumption, but if you looknat my other comments theybare gender biased.
I’m basing it off the trope that the guy starts to play a game and the “I’m in danger” quote.
It speaks to the fact that the gamer is probably doing the right thing and letting emotions cool, where the non gamer is upset at those actions and is in the first stage of an emotional or physical interaction that crosses the line.
Getting upset that your romantic partner doesn’t chase you to apologise is childish. Retaliation for not behaving in a way you want them to crosses the line. Both of which are demonstrated in this meme.
Should the person starting the PlayStation have done what they have done? Fucked if I know, as it’s situational. But the emotional manipulation thats incoming (or physical violence towards the gamer or their equipment) is heavily implied.
And that’s only if the argument was for something minor.
Please explain how this isn’t a bigoted point of view
Ms. Kearney, for example, acknowledges that improving men’s economic position, especially men without college degrees, is an important step toward making them more attractive partners.
Well, considering dating takes at least 2 people (depending on how you live your life, and yes non-monagamy and polyamory are vaild), asking only one group is incredibly biased.
An article that wonders why people aren’t getting married says they went out and only asked one side what the problem was. 🤔
Doesn’t even seem balanced…
Edit: as a romance favourable aroace, the dating world was a nightmare, even if you do everything “right”. Which is why I no longer look to find companionship.
Do better or not, there are garbage people in all genders and the prevailing “men bad” when it comes to dating is just as toxic as what the men are doing.
The article also doesn’t suggest any possible solutions.