Uploaded by tomatocoup
986x1000 JPG 187 kBInterested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
No description provided.
Tags
+-SH suggestive197193 +-SH artist:tomatocoup349 +-SH bow hothoof1507 +-SH windy whistles3118 +-SH pegasus532890 +-SH pony1691344 +-SH g42120153 +-SH and that's how rainbow dash was made51 +-SH awww250 +-SH bed62708 +-SH blushing293683 +-SH chest fluff71877 +-SH cowgirl position10606 +-SH cute278893 +-SH dilf525 +-SH duo201783 +-SH eyes closed147073 +-SH female1900173 +-SH flag5962 +-SH freckles48200 +-SH good clean married sex2205 +-SH heart82635 +-SH husband and wife2608 +-SH male582480 +-SH mare800044 +-SH married803 +-SH married couple1860 +-SH married couples doing married things587 +-SH married life115 +-SH milf14155 +-SH rainbow dash's parents387 +-SH sex181542 +-SH ship:windyhoof407 +-SH shipping265439 +-SH simple background635737 +-SH softcore4023 +-SH spread wings104770 +-SH stallion209478 +-SH straight188455 +-SH unshorn fetlocks52565 +-SH white background176302 +-SH windybetes409 +-SH wing hands3183 +-SH wing hold819 +-SH wingboner9927
Loading...
Loading...
As a North American, I often hear that phrase exactly as you described.
Very.
cool story blog it
not the best, but very close
Some people would say that’s this now: >>1566826
… Clarification required, because it sounds like you just admitted to purposefully using bad sources here.
The comments I replied to were comments directed at me personally. I’m just slow at responding sometimes.
@Darth Sonic
There aren’t any current studies because the “research” you’re quoting is bunk, and there isn’t any evidence to impel more research in that direction.
All I’m trying to point out is that the veracity of your sources is important. It has to be scientific to be scientific.
Kinda desperate replying to a half year old comment. Please just go about your businesses and have a pleasant day opinions aside.
>1975
… Seriously? Don’t get me wrong, I feel that the people you’re arguing against have even less ground to stand on, but you can’t get at someone for using biased sources, and then drop a completely outdated study on us. Kinda a double standard. :/
Edited
@Mooniedrop
It’s not ‘which institutions’, it’s whether or not a study passes peer review. The peer review system is designed to filter out unscientific garbage.
Here’s an actual scientific study from 1975: http://www.jstor.org/stable/583035
Things have improved substantially since then because the topic is no longer nearly as taboo now as it was 42 years ago. There aren’t a lot of research studies on the topic, however, because it’s not a common situation and there isn’t substantial evidence that it produces any specific difficulty in child-rearing or other family dynamics. So no, the assertion that “people in open marriages have problems” is inaccurate—and even if it weren’t, saying it in that way is prejudicial toward those of us (like me) who live in an open marriage and have no problems in our relationship at all.
Thanks for sharing! That was amusing.
It’s bad form is what it is, really.
Fine we do what we all came here for then pony butts and stuff.
Individualism don’t real.
what instituitions collate statistics that are acceptable to you? im pretty sure everyone can no-platform an opponents source of statistics. its pretty easy, after all, you just did it without expending even 20 calories and providing zero proof.
Please provide a link to a credible publication then. Everything I happen to find comes from seemingly biased (one way or the other) sources.
That’s a completely made-up “study” created by Christian conservatives. It isn’t academic research and it hasn’t been published anywhere that has legitimate peer review.