I find it odd how much I completely disconnect say, xbox from windows. I like windows and pcs but I don't like xbox (not that I think it's bad it's just not where my product loyalty falls)
I like playstation but I'd take samsung over sony in any product across the board.
makes me feel less bad about these people getting their hands in so many pots.
Sony and Microsoft have rather tarnished corporate pasts in terms of treating their consumers well...
but Microsoft's Games / Studios division has been mostly good to the end users, wheras Sony's Media/Videogame departments have been bad on a level of cartoonishly evil, from litigating Bleem into bankruptcy despite bleem having a legal product that won every case sony threw at it, to intentionally putting viruses on their music CDs that infected windows PCs and degraded capabilities when it came to ripping.burning CDs, to blu ray trojan horsing, to their continued use of shitty shit memory sticks that nobody wants to use and are overpriced, despite the prevalence of a perfectly acceptable, faster and less expensive SD alternative...
Sony has done a really good job rebranding themselves as consumer champions, but their history paints them as much less than so.
Microsoft's Entertainment division mandated not only to cease support for GFWL Live, but to concurrently mandate its use in Age of Empires Online.
Oh good lord what a poor decision for everyone involved, not least of all the end user.
Ok an annoying thing about MLB.TV. During commercial breaks they play the same three fucking Edwards Jones ads during the commercial breaks, and that just gets annoying as fuck.
Why are you not lying drunk in a ditch somewhere, holiday boy?
C'mon salesman
Im sick
Im obviously sick
Im trying to politely end the conversation and preserve everyone's dignity.
Why you gotta make me shut you down?
Ok an annoying thing about MLB.TV. During commercial breaks they play the same three fucking Edwards Jones ads during the commercial breaks, and that just gets annoying as fuck.
Why are you not lying drunk in a ditch somewhere, holiday boy?
I think a society with many polygamous marriages can be surprisingly non-dysfunctional in each of those families
I just don't think that liberalism has any good idea on what to do with the excess heterosexual males
Polyamory is not necessary polygamy, and marriage need not entail exclusivity for the male or female members. Ergo, the only excess males are those in the friendzone.
I don't think that's sustainable either! I think norms will merely shift in an illiberal direction until the marriage market equilibrium - or, if you prefer, the amorous relationship equilibrium - is achieved again
What are you saying? Your original post seemed to describe that as marriages occupied available women at a faster rate than men, there would be a surplus of available men. My response is that a married woman can still bang other dudes even if the only marriages were one-man-many-women instead of mixed or opposite ratios.
well, as you yourself pointed out, polyamory is not the same as polygamy. Fine. one-man-many-women relationships would still be problematic to balance.
I myself have advocated the idea that STD epidemiology data do not suggest that the conventional :biotruths: idea that aggressive young men cultivate a harem of women at their most fertile and only surrender them to "betas" once they're old and less desirable, but then there are still strong social pressures against maintaining multiple concurrent sexual partners.
You're assuming a need to balance where none exists, and the social pressures have little to do with the workability of such relationships among individuals who don't ascribe to them.
Imagine I am in a relationship with Jane, Cindy, and Sara. You're assuming that somewhere, there are two dudes who have to be single because I am one man 'taking up' three women. But there is nothing stopping any of these women necessarily from being with either of those dudes in addition to the relationship that they are already in with me.
Unless you're talking about tax benefits for actual, legal marriage or something?
then that's not a society with predominant polygyny, since you have now added two polyandrous relationships
I don't know why you keep assuming the default polyamorous society would be polygynous
Like, no one has made that claim
Sure, it has some historical basis, but there are also historical examples of polyandrous societies
and for :biotruths" polyandry is really common in nature, and even among other primates
I think if you took sexual institutions and culture as they exist today, or are likely to exist for in the near future
and made formal polygamy possible by legal fiat
it would be overwhelmingly polygynous marriages
I kind of disagree, at least in the West. I'd predict a rather even split, unless we include people who are polyamorous through coercive means (i.e. religious/cult problems)
From my admittedly limited experience interacting with the western community it tends to skew either pretty evenly OR along homosexual polyamourous relationships, which kind of break down the whole "polyandrous/polygynous" split as classically defined
I think a society with many polygamous marriages can be surprisingly non-dysfunctional in each of those families
I just don't think that liberalism has any good idea on what to do with the excess heterosexual males
Polyamory is not necessary polygamy, and marriage need not entail exclusivity for the male or female members. Ergo, the only excess males are those in the friendzone.
I don't think that's sustainable either! I think norms will merely shift in an illiberal direction until the marriage market equilibrium - or, if you prefer, the amorous relationship equilibrium - is achieved again
What are you saying? Your original post seemed to describe that as marriages occupied available women at a faster rate than men, there would be a surplus of available men. My response is that a married woman can still bang other dudes even if the only marriages were one-man-many-women instead of mixed or opposite ratios.
well, as you yourself pointed out, polyamory is not the same as polygamy. Fine. one-man-many-women relationships would still be problematic to balance.
I myself have advocated the idea that STD epidemiology data do not suggest that the conventional :biotruths: idea that aggressive young men cultivate a harem of women at their most fertile and only surrender them to "betas" once they're old and less desirable, but then there are still strong social pressures against maintaining multiple concurrent sexual partners.
There's no reason society wouldn't balance one-man-many-women relationships with concurrent polyamorous relationships branching out around those same women.
I suspect that TL DR did not get your post because this was assumed by him.
making the reasonable assumption that male:female ratios will remain roughly balanced, that requires that women have the same number of male partners in total as men have female partners in total, so a predominance of polygynous relationships precludes there being sufficiently many spaces for polygynous men. there would have to excess males in the friendzone, as he points out
I think a society with many polygamous marriages can be surprisingly non-dysfunctional in each of those families
I just don't think that liberalism has any good idea on what to do with the excess heterosexual males
Polyamory is not necessary polygamy, and marriage need not entail exclusivity for the male or female members. Ergo, the only excess males are those in the friendzone.
I don't think that's sustainable either! I think norms will merely shift in an illiberal direction until the marriage market equilibrium - or, if you prefer, the amorous relationship equilibrium - is achieved again
What are you saying? Your original post seemed to describe that as marriages occupied available women at a faster rate than men, there would be a surplus of available men. My response is that a married woman can still bang other dudes even if the only marriages were one-man-many-women instead of mixed or opposite ratios.
well, as you yourself pointed out, polyamory is not the same as polygamy. Fine. one-man-many-women relationships would still be problematic to balance.
I myself have advocated the idea that STD epidemiology data do not suggest that the conventional :biotruths: idea that aggressive young men cultivate a harem of women at their most fertile and only surrender them to "betas" once they're old and less desirable, but then there are still strong social pressures against maintaining multiple concurrent sexual partners.
There's no reason society wouldn't balance one-man-many-women relationships with concurrent polyamorous relationships branching out around those same women.
I suspect that TL DR did not get your post because this was assumed by him.
making the reasonable assumption that male:female ratios will remain roughly balanced, that requires that women have the same number of male partners in total as men have female partners in total, so a predominance of polygynous relationships precludes there being sufficiently many spaces for polygynous men. there would have to excess males in the friendzone, as he points out
But that's not a function of the system; that's a function of being an individual who cannot convince anybody that sex would be worthwhile under any particular reasonable system. You seem to be layering some unnecessary (gendered, quite probably socially malleable) assumptions into your conclusions.
from my perspective, I think prices will adjust to clear quantities and not the other way around, if you will. I think sexual norms are dominated by demographics and technology far more than human reason, which only has space to act when the former two are quiescent
This sounds fine but I do not see how it relates to my previous post other than perhaps to shore it up?
aka there are terribly few individuals who cannot convince anybody that sex would be worthwhile under any system, the system instead adjusts so that almost all of these individuals under a given system start finding women to boink again
So you are talking strictly with respect to formal legal institutions and you think formal legal polygamy would drive up the number of males who could not find any suitable wife.
I think the more interesting question is how people would behave outside of formal legal institutions if society became generally more solicitous, as a functional matter rather than a formal one, of long-term committed polyamorous relationships. This would probably have to occur first any ways before formal legal considerations could become an ancillary concern.
I find it odd how much I completely disconnect say, xbox from windows. I like windows and pcs but I don't like xbox (not that I think it's bad it's just not where my product loyalty falls)
I like playstation but I'd take samsung over sony in any product across the board.
makes me feel less bad about these people getting their hands in so many pots.
I might end up getting a PS4 or a Vita one day, because of PSN+ I keep getting all these titles added along to my PS3 collection of games, and I have no way to play them. Maybe when the PS4 is $300/$200 I can pick one up and have a big collection of games ready.
I find it odd how much I completely disconnect say, xbox from windows. I like windows and pcs but I don't like xbox (not that I think it's bad it's just not where my product loyalty falls)
I like playstation but I'd take samsung over sony in any product across the board.
makes me feel less bad about these people getting their hands in so many pots.
I might end up getting a PS4 or a Vita one day, because of PSN+ I keep getting all these titles added along to my PS3 collection of games, and I have no way to play them. Maybe when the PS4 is $300/$200 I can pick one up and have a big collection of games ready.
I had the ultimate entitlement feels this week, when one of the titles on EU PS+ was Tomb Raider. Since they do PS4 titles now too, it should've been the Definitive Edition. I've already played it on PC, so I probably wouldn't have played it. I don't even own a PS4 to play it on. But it should've been the Definitive Edition.
I didn't expect it, but as soon as I started buying games on Steam, that library immediately became my most important game library I have. It's not my biggest, and doesn't even have most of my favorite games, but even as a digital product it feels more permanent than the others.
After 13 long years of searching, Dudley at long last found the one and only other man who was saving himself for gay marriage. His name was Brian and he lived in southwestern Idaho. Dudley just knew that this was the man God intended him to spend the rest of his life with.
Dudley flew out to meet him, and they had dinner together at Mama's Italian Bistro. A smooth jazz rendition of Here Comes the Sun played over the loud speakers as they slurped down spaghetti. Brian explained that if he ever adopted a daughter he would name her "Loreeziana".
"I just made it up," Brian said. "Doesn't have such a great ring to it? Loreeziana. Lorrrreeeeezzziaaannnaa."
Dudley thought this was stupid, but he knew that if he messed up this dinner date he would be alone and miserable forever. So he mumbled something about it being pretty name.
After the meal they hugged awkwardly and parted ways, and Dudley texted Brian asking when they would meet again. Brian never replied.
I didn't expect it, but as soon as I started buying games on Steam, that library immediately became my most important game library I have. It's not my biggest, and doesn't even have most of my favorite games, but even as a digital product it feels more permanent than the others.
I just love that it's there, it will probably always be there, and it's easy to access those games and most of my saves for them.
I find it odd how much I completely disconnect say, xbox from windows. I like windows and pcs but I don't like xbox (not that I think it's bad it's just not where my product loyalty falls)
I like playstation but I'd take samsung over sony in any product across the board.
makes me feel less bad about these people getting their hands in so many pots.
I might end up getting a PS4 or a Vita one day, because of PSN+ I keep getting all these titles added along to my PS3 collection of games, and I have no way to play them. Maybe when the PS4 is $300/$200 I can pick one up and have a big collection of games ready.
I had the ultimate entitlement feels this week, when one of the titles on EU PS+ was Tomb Raider. Since they do PS4 titles now too, it should've been the Definitive Edition. I've already played it on PC, so I probably wouldn't have played it. I don't even own a PS4 to play it on. But it should've been the Definitive Edition.
My feeling is if a title is available on multiple platforms, they should give you the game for all platforms. That would be pretty sweet.
Given the greater tendency towards competition/dominance in men and the greater incidence of both bisexuality and cooperative/communal behavior in women I don't really see how multi-male-single-female poly relationships would approach multiple-female-single-male relationships. Even the primary jealousy drivers (physicalfor men, emotional for women) suggest that men are less prone to sharing a sexual partner, while women might be more inclined to accept a shared emotional bond that includes sex with one's partner. Yes these are tendencies not laws but if we're talking society level trends that's what matters.
Is the absence of attraction prior to an emotional connection a complete absence?
I don't know if this is a constructive way of going about asking this, but the way I've understood my own sexuality, is that I can desire and enjoy thinking about certain people sexually, but the idea of actually pursuing a sexual relationship with them when I don't have feelings for them rarely crosses my mind, and when it does it's dismissed. Instead I pursue people for non-sexual reasons and develop an attraction from there. I'm curious what the key difference is between that and what demisexual is.
And I suppose that was just one question.
That's actually not too far off from demisexuality. Unfortunately, patriarchal forces within the macroculture have led to a default where people (generally women) are often openly sexualized and objectified.
From my own experience, I do not find it enjoyable to sexually pandered to by my chosen media. Despite being gynephillic, I do not watch movies and take enjoyment from wanton titillation, I don't find anything positive in cheesecake comics, and the use of women in sexually-suggestive situations in advertising doesn't not appeal to my visceral instincts.
I also don't watch a lot of porn, largely because it doesn't seem real, and I know how badly women can be treated by the industry, and representation of legitimate lesbian sexuality is distorted heavily and perverted for the male gaze.
So I don't become aroused merely by seeing sexy women. But someone who gets me on a personal level and is attracted to my personality the same way I'm attracted to theirs? Big time swoon.
My favorite baseball team is the Nats; I haven't really invested myself in the Mets or Yanks
Right now the NY teams don't feel very welcoming. Maybe the only person I like on the Mets is Matt Harvey, and the only person I like on the Yanks is Ichiro and that's mostly because he's really handsome and has a great game
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I find it odd how much I completely disconnect say, xbox from windows. I like windows and pcs but I don't like xbox (not that I think it's bad it's just not where my product loyalty falls)
I like playstation but I'd take samsung over sony in any product across the board.
makes me feel less bad about these people getting their hands in so many pots.
I might end up getting a PS4 or a Vita one day, because of PSN+ I keep getting all these titles added along to my PS3 collection of games, and I have no way to play them. Maybe when the PS4 is $300/$200 I can pick one up and have a big collection of games ready.
A new PS3 with a decent HDD for those PS+ games in 2014 is still $300. We won't see PS4s for $200 for years and years.
+1
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
My favorite baseball team is the Nats; I haven't really invested myself in the Mets or Yanks
Right now the NY teams don't feel very welcoming. Maybe the only person I like on the Mets is Matt Harvey, and the only person I like on the Yanks is Ichiro and that's mostly because he's really handsome and has a great game
Mets have some exciting young guys coming up. Zach Wheeler has the potential to be a great #2 starter, and Noah Syndergaard has somke great raw electric stuff. Time will tell if he is the real deal.
0
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
Gooey what is your favorite team. Now if you say the Yankees I might go back and un-agree/un-awesome every post of yours.
rangers!
fuck the yankees fyi hth
i bet Mashiro Tanaka's arm falls off in a couple years. Yankees way overpaid for him because he has thrown so much already.
i predict that this season he is going to throw a pitch and just as he is about to release the ball his arm will literally come off and be caught by the catcher still gripping the ball (the pitch will be called ball low, inside)
I find it odd how much I completely disconnect say, xbox from windows. I like windows and pcs but I don't like xbox (not that I think it's bad it's just not where my product loyalty falls)
I like playstation but I'd take samsung over sony in any product across the board.
makes me feel less bad about these people getting their hands in so many pots.
I might end up getting a PS4 or a Vita one day, because of PSN+ I keep getting all these titles added along to my PS3 collection of games, and I have no way to play them. Maybe when the PS4 is $300/$200 I can pick one up and have a big collection of games ready.
A new PS3 with a decent HDD for those PS+ games in 2014 is still $300. We won't see PS4s for $200 for years and years.
But they'd get my money for software! So much money. Like, $30 for a discounted PSN+ subscription every November. Can they afford not to cut their hardware prices?
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Posts
Microsoft's Entertainment division mandated not only to cease support for GFWL Live, but to concurrently mandate its use in Age of Empires Online.
Oh good lord what a poor decision for everyone involved, not least of all the end user.
Why are you not lying drunk in a ditch somewhere, holiday boy?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Spring training baseball you wageslave.
state of the fart robot
It's more a picture of Obama personally paying a doctor to cup my balls but yes
I kind of disagree, at least in the West. I'd predict a rather even split, unless we include people who are polyamorous through coercive means (i.e. religious/cult problems)
From my admittedly limited experience interacting with the western community it tends to skew either pretty evenly OR along homosexual polyamourous relationships, which kind of break down the whole "polyandrous/polygynous" split as classically defined
The last new game I played was Deus Ex: HR. Or Dragon Age 2.
Which Playstation are we on again?
You just had to drag me into a land war during the Russian winter.
Get dunked bisexuals
So you are talking strictly with respect to formal legal institutions and you think formal legal polygamy would drive up the number of males who could not find any suitable wife.
Maybe, maybe. Again, questionable gendered assumptions.
I think the more interesting question is how people would behave outside of formal legal institutions if society became generally more solicitous, as a functional matter rather than a formal one, of long-term committed polyamorous relationships. This would probably have to occur first any ways before formal legal considerations could become an ancillary concern.
I might end up getting a PS4 or a Vita one day, because of PSN+ I keep getting all these titles added along to my PS3 collection of games, and I have no way to play them. Maybe when the PS4 is $300/$200 I can pick one up and have a big collection of games ready.
noble endeavor
baseball is the best
baseball is the best
you may protest
but baseball is the best
I don't know why I don't do this more. I have two spare 19" monitors just kicking about idle.
King Solomon had 800 wives. Are you saying you know better than wise King Solomon? Get dunked, prudish religious Right.
I had the ultimate entitlement feels this week, when one of the titles on EU PS+ was Tomb Raider. Since they do PS4 titles now too, it should've been the Definitive Edition. I've already played it on PC, so I probably wouldn't have played it. I don't even own a PS4 to play it on. But it should've been the Definitive Edition.
Dudley flew out to meet him, and they had dinner together at Mama's Italian Bistro. A smooth jazz rendition of Here Comes the Sun played over the loud speakers as they slurped down spaghetti. Brian explained that if he ever adopted a daughter he would name her "Loreeziana".
"I just made it up," Brian said. "Doesn't have such a great ring to it? Loreeziana. Lorrrreeeeezzziaaannnaa."
Dudley thought this was stupid, but he knew that if he messed up this dinner date he would be alone and miserable forever. So he mumbled something about it being pretty name.
After the meal they hugged awkwardly and parted ways, and Dudley texted Brian asking when they would meet again. Brian never replied.
I just love that it's there, it will probably always be there, and it's easy to access those games and most of my saves for them.
Most services are not even that good!
My feeling is if a title is available on multiple platforms, they should give you the game for all platforms. That would be pretty sweet.
rangers!
fuck the yankees fyi hth
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
That's actually not too far off from demisexuality. Unfortunately, patriarchal forces within the macroculture have led to a default where people (generally women) are often openly sexualized and objectified.
From my own experience, I do not find it enjoyable to sexually pandered to by my chosen media. Despite being gynephillic, I do not watch movies and take enjoyment from wanton titillation, I don't find anything positive in cheesecake comics, and the use of women in sexually-suggestive situations in advertising doesn't not appeal to my visceral instincts.
I also don't watch a lot of porn, largely because it doesn't seem real, and I know how badly women can be treated by the industry, and representation of legitimate lesbian sexuality is distorted heavily and perverted for the male gaze.
So I don't become aroused merely by seeing sexy women. But someone who gets me on a personal level and is attracted to my personality the same way I'm attracted to theirs? Big time swoon.
i bet Mashiro Tanaka's arm falls off in a couple years. Yankees way overpaid for him because he has thrown so much already.
Right now the NY teams don't feel very welcoming. Maybe the only person I like on the Mets is Matt Harvey, and the only person I like on the Yanks is Ichiro and that's mostly because he's really handsome and has a great game
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
A new PS3 with a decent HDD for those PS+ games in 2014 is still $300. We won't see PS4s for $200 for years and years.
console master race
suck it pee cee
Mets have some exciting young guys coming up. Zach Wheeler has the potential to be a great #2 starter, and Noah Syndergaard has somke great raw electric stuff. Time will tell if he is the real deal.
yo dat Tron Tank
yooooooo
i predict that this season he is going to throw a pitch and just as he is about to release the ball his arm will literally come off and be caught by the catcher still gripping the ball (the pitch will be called ball low, inside)
But they'd get my money for software! So much money. Like, $30 for a discounted PSN+ subscription every November. Can they afford not to cut their hardware prices?
20,114?
"well, we don't need to do it {the right way}
{this other way} that is 20% cheaper will work fine"
the other 5% are caused by the whimsy of the gods
Not a good value.