Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

nudi[chat]

24567100

Posts

  • Shazkar ShadowstormShazkar Shadowstorm Registered User regular
    800px-Chromodoris_willani_for_nudipixel.jpg


    it breathes thru those things that are like flowers from its butt

    poo
  • GooeyGooey (\/)┌¶─¶┐(\/) pinch pinchRegistered User regular
    that slug is dangerously anime

    919UOwT.png
    kedinikApothe0sisSTATE OF THE ART ROBOTjakobagger
  • Shazkar ShadowstormShazkar Shadowstorm Registered User regular
    yes i have made OP by proxy

    gj team skippy

    poo
    skippydumptruckFeralspool32RMS Oceanic
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    Some XXL shirts have strangled me

    an XXL shirt strangled my father

    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.
    spool32
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    kedinik wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    kedinik wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Managed infidelity is not a modern anomaly.

    No, but I'd argue the concept of plural commitment is.

    you can find those in hunter-gatherer societies though, afaik. loosely speaking. Obviously whether they conceive of it as plural commitment in the way we do is a bit iffy, but you can find societies where the particular identity of the biological father is not particularly stressed

    This is true, as I recall the small culture (in southern China? Maybe?) where monogamy isn't a thing and children have no fathers, and are instead raised by their mother and maternal uncles.

    These people are well aware of the modern conventions of marriage, and think they're hilariously dumb.

    Hey, as long as babies get fed and spend time with role models, hard to criticize.

    I completely agree.

    As I said, I've come to view monogamy and western coupling traditions with a more critical eye of late.

    aren't you married?

    Yeah, but that doesn't have all that much to do with the macrocultural examination of monogamy.

    i guess

    though carving out exceptions of principle to ones' own personal circumstances sort of smacks of cognitive dissonance

    I get what you're saying, but I think what I'm trying to say here is that my greater examination and criticism of Western conventions of monogamy and coupling isn't necessarily a commentary upon my own situation, and wouldn't be if the things I'm critical of aren't applicable to my situation. Which they largely aren't, btw, I feel.

    I know that probably sounds like me making a special exemption for myself, and you're free to argue that, and maybe I am, but I don't think I am.

    ...but fundamentally, you entered into the same historically patriarchal institution that all other married couples have...

    It's historically patriarchal in general, but that has very little to do with the contours of any given marriage.

    i agree exactly. i don't think it's particularly fair when modern marriage is indicted for what it was 2000 or even 200 years ago.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • skippydumptruckskippydumptruck (♡°◡°) Registered User regular
    yes i have made OP by proxy

    gj team skippy

    that derpy slug too kawaii

    had to bump beyonce and the water furry surfboardt guy out

    spool32
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    800px-Chromodoris_willani_for_nudipixel.jpg


    it breathes thru those things that are like flowers from its butt

    well, then that's something we have in common

    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.
  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    kedinik wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    kedinik wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Managed infidelity is not a modern anomaly.

    No, but I'd argue the concept of plural commitment is.

    you can find those in hunter-gatherer societies though, afaik. loosely speaking. Obviously whether they conceive of it as plural commitment in the way we do is a bit iffy, but you can find societies where the particular identity of the biological father is not particularly stressed

    This is true, as I recall the small culture (in southern China? Maybe?) where monogamy isn't a thing and children have no fathers, and are instead raised by their mother and maternal uncles.

    These people are well aware of the modern conventions of marriage, and think they're hilariously dumb.

    Hey, as long as babies get fed and spend time with role models, hard to criticize.

    I completely agree.

    As I said, I've come to view monogamy and western coupling traditions with a more critical eye of late.

    aren't you married?

    Yeah, but that doesn't have all that much to do with the macrocultural examination of monogamy.

    i guess

    though carving out exceptions of principle to ones' own personal circumstances sort of smacks of cognitive dissonance

    I get what you're saying, but I think what I'm trying to say here is that my greater examination and criticism of Western conventions of monogamy and coupling isn't necessarily a commentary upon my own situation, and wouldn't be if the things I'm critical of aren't applicable to my situation. Which they largely aren't, btw, I feel.

    I know that probably sounds like me making a special exemption for myself, and you're free to argue that, and maybe I am, but I don't think I am.

    ...but fundamentally, you entered into the same historically patriarchal institution that all other married couples have...

    It's historically patriarchal in general, but that has very little to do with the contours of any given marriage.

    i agree exactly. i don't think it's particularly fair when modern marriage is indicted for what it was 2000 or even 200 years ago.

    Ah, I see. Yeah.

  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
    FeralQuidApothe0sisdescNecojakobagger
  • Shazkar ShadowstormShazkar Shadowstorm Registered User regular
    triple combo of

    nZ6T7EZKEBO00.jpg
    n2UC9634RP105.png
    nQ0SW9EP7Y4CC.png

    poo
    FeralQuidDark Raven XkedinikTaminspool32ronyaRMS Oceanic
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    dream team right there

    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.
    QuidDark Raven Xkedinik
  • OrganichuOrganichu jacobkosh Registered User regular
    triple combo of

    nZ6T7EZKEBO00.jpg
    n2UC9634RP105.png
    nQ0SW9EP7Y4CC.png
    nLZ2X0K1WY6WV.gif

    QuidShazkar ShadowstormDark Raven Xkedinikspool32skippydumptruckdesc
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    kedinik wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Managed infidelity is not a modern anomaly.

    No, but I'd argue the concept of plural commitment is.

    you can find those in hunter-gatherer societies though, afaik. loosely speaking. Obviously whether they conceive of it as plural commitment in the way we do is a bit iffy, but you can find societies where the particular identity of the biological father is not particularly stressed

    This is true, as I recall the small culture (in southern China? Maybe?) where monogamy isn't a thing and children have no fathers, and are instead raised by their mother and maternal uncles.

    These people are well aware of the modern conventions of marriage, and think they're hilariously dumb.

    Hey, as long as babies get fed and spend time with role models, hard to criticize.

    I completely agree.

    As I said, I've come to view monogamy and western coupling traditions with a more critical eye of late.

    aren't you married?

    Yeah, but that doesn't have all that much to do with the macrocultural examination of monogamy.

    i guess

    though carving out exceptions of principle to ones' own personal circumstances sort of smacks of cognitive dissonance

    I get what you're saying, but I think what I'm trying to say here is that my greater examination and criticism of Western conventions of monogamy and coupling isn't necessarily a commentary upon my own situation, and wouldn't be if the things I'm critical of aren't applicable to my situation. Which they largely aren't, btw, I feel.

    I know that probably sounds like me making a special exemption for myself, and you're free to argue that, and maybe I am, but I don't think I am.

    well i mean clearly your gender situation puts a spin on things, and i certainly wouldn't claim to know anything about your marriage outside of the little you've shared. but fundamentally, you entered into the same historically patriarchal institution that all other married couples have and probably still love your wife in about the same way you did when you married. afaik you're faithful to her and her to you.

    and there's nothing wrong with that, i think! the emotional bonds - the sense of reliance and trust and devotion and camaraderie and consideration are really the most valuable part to marriage, any successfully married couples will aver.

    my opinion is that the kind of long-term partnership and trust implicit in a good marriage would be difficult to replicate in a poly arrangement. or alternatively maybe i just haven't been exposed to any good poly arrangements and just have a hard time imagining the same senses of devotion and trust implicit in a non-exclusive arrangement.

    those feelings certainly don't require monogamous marriage, but the modern institution has been built around encouraging them.

    now all this said, i don't really have any stake in what other people do with their romantic lives, and the little i know about more communal (or at least less individualistic) child-rearing arrangements sound like they could be good for people.

    there are good things about monogamy, and these are presumably things you enjoy (as you remain married), and other people enjoy. i think that's worth acknowledging.

    I will agree with all of this with the caveat that just because poly relationships appear to be more complicated to manage w/r/t the issues of trust and camaraderie (as you mentioned), I wouldn't necessarily say these things make those relationships inherently impossible.

    Also, separate from that, some people do not prioritize those things to the same levels you might assume most people would, I imagine.

    Atomika on
  • ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    Sales person volunteers me to configure a mesh network. So many levels of no in my response.

    FeralSilas Brownkedinik
  • Shazkar ShadowstormShazkar Shadowstorm Registered User regular
    chu lol

    poo
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Sales person volunteers me to configure a mesh network. So many levels of no in my response.

    So I was just reading about those 50,000 volt stun belts some US courts use...

    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    my opinion is that the kind of long-term partnership and trust implicit in a good marriage would be difficult to replicate in a poly arrangement. or alternatively maybe i just haven't been exposed to any good poly arrangements and just have a hard time imagining the same senses of devotion and trust implicit in a non-exclusive arrangement.

    it's also hard to replicate the sort of long-term existential ennui that you get in a monotamous marriage

    oh, did i typo? *giggle* silly me

    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.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2014
    double poast

    Feral on
    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.
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Sales person volunteers me to configure a mesh network. So many levels of no in my response.

    You should have gone all the way to Charlton Heston at the end of the planet of the apes level.

    shryke wrote: »
    The Democrats aren't crazy but they are still, you know, running the US and it's foreign policy. Which is in the "you don't have a global hegemony without bombing a few eggs" wheelhouse.
    Apothe0sis
  • GooeyGooey (\/)┌¶─¶┐(\/) pinch pinchRegistered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    my opinion is that the kind of long-term partnership and trust implicit in a good marriage would be difficult to replicate in a poly arrangement. or alternatively maybe i just haven't been exposed to any good poly arrangements and just have a hard time imagining the same senses of devotion and trust implicit in a non-exclusive arrangement.

    it's also hard to replicate the sort of long-term existential ennui that you get in a monotamous marriage

    oh, did i typo? *giggle* silly me

    i didnt know that you were mormon feral

    919UOwT.png
    Feralspool32PotatoNinja
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    kedinik wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    kedinik wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Managed infidelity is not a modern anomaly.

    No, but I'd argue the concept of plural commitment is.

    you can find those in hunter-gatherer societies though, afaik. loosely speaking. Obviously whether they conceive of it as plural commitment in the way we do is a bit iffy, but you can find societies where the particular identity of the biological father is not particularly stressed

    This is true, as I recall the small culture (in southern China? Maybe?) where monogamy isn't a thing and children have no fathers, and are instead raised by their mother and maternal uncles.

    These people are well aware of the modern conventions of marriage, and think they're hilariously dumb.

    Hey, as long as babies get fed and spend time with role models, hard to criticize.

    I completely agree.

    As I said, I've come to view monogamy and western coupling traditions with a more critical eye of late.

    aren't you married?

    Yeah, but that doesn't have all that much to do with the macrocultural examination of monogamy.

    i guess

    though carving out exceptions of principle to ones' own personal circumstances sort of smacks of cognitive dissonance

    I get what you're saying, but I think what I'm trying to say here is that my greater examination and criticism of Western conventions of monogamy and coupling isn't necessarily a commentary upon my own situation, and wouldn't be if the things I'm critical of aren't applicable to my situation. Which they largely aren't, btw, I feel.

    I know that probably sounds like me making a special exemption for myself, and you're free to argue that, and maybe I am, but I don't think I am.

    ...but fundamentally, you entered into the same historically patriarchal institution that all other married couples have...

    It's historically patriarchal in general, but that has very little to do with the contours of any given marriage.

    i agree exactly. i don't think it's particularly fair when modern marriage is indicted for what it was 2000 or even 200 years ago.

    My marriage certainly isn't very patriarchal, if that's any consolation.

    Even discounting my trans status, our gender roles are pretty blurred, and we expect very similar things from each other -- none of it due to either one of our gender assignments or identities.

  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    tumblr_mi8pyhRfOj1qzwohzo1_400.gif

    Wqdwp8l.png
    GooeyDark Raven XFeralkedinikShazkar ShadowstormskippydumptruckRMS OceanicDread Pirate Arbuthnot
  • ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    Rchanen wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Sales person volunteers me to configure a mesh network. So many levels of no in my response.

    You should have gone all the way to Charlton Heston at the end of the planet of the apes level.

    That no had a degree of acceptance to it. It was the last rejection before his mind reached acceptance. There was no trace of acceptance in my no.

    Rchanen
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    Gooey wrote: »
    i didnt know that you were mormon feral

    Well, I do wear magical undies.

    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.
  • Silas BrownSilas Brown Registered User regular
    oh now I get why it's pikachu

  • y2jake215y2jake215 certified Flat Birther theorist the Last Good Boy onlineRegistered User regular
    edited March 2014
    triple combo of

    nFAC6UMW8QBKF.jpg _______ nZ6T7EZKEBO00.jpg
    ___________________n2UC9634RP105.png
    ___________________nQ0SW9EP7Y4CC.png


    y2jake215 on
    C8Ft8GE.jpg
    maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
    TehSlothSilas BrownQuidkedinikPotatoNinjaNecojakobagger
  • TehSlothTehSloth Hit Or Miss I Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered User regular
    gonna go home and make some flank steak with some chimichurri

    yussss

    FC: 1993-7778-8872 PSN: TehSloth Xbox: SlothTeh
    twitch.tv/tehsloth
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    They opened a Brooklyn Bowl in vegas?
    That dont make no sense

    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Oh my God that pikachu is blind in one eye.

    I get it.

    Feral
  • GooeyGooey (\/)┌¶─¶┐(\/) pinch pinchRegistered User regular
    will is that an anime

    919UOwT.png
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    TehSloth wrote: »
    gonna go home and make some flank steak with some chimichurri

    yussss

    Is this code for self harm?

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • shalmeloshalmelo sees no evil Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    y2jake215 wrote: »
    triple combo of

    nFAC6UMW8QBKF.jpg _______ nZ6T7EZKEBO00.jpg
    ___________________n2UC9634RP105.png
    ___________________nQ0SW9EP7Y4CC.png


    pNC5A31DFC4P8.JPG

    shalmelo on
    Steam ID: Shalmelo || LoL: melo2boogaloo || tweets
    ronyaQuidFeraly2jake215Shazkar Shadowstorm
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Atomika wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    kedinik wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    kedinik wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Managed infidelity is not a modern anomaly.

    No, but I'd argue the concept of plural commitment is.

    you can find those in hunter-gatherer societies though, afaik. loosely speaking. Obviously whether they conceive of it as plural commitment in the way we do is a bit iffy, but you can find societies where the particular identity of the biological father is not particularly stressed

    This is true, as I recall the small culture (in southern China? Maybe?) where monogamy isn't a thing and children have no fathers, and are instead raised by their mother and maternal uncles.

    These people are well aware of the modern conventions of marriage, and think they're hilariously dumb.

    Hey, as long as babies get fed and spend time with role models, hard to criticize.

    I completely agree.

    As I said, I've come to view monogamy and western coupling traditions with a more critical eye of late.

    aren't you married?

    Yeah, but that doesn't have all that much to do with the macrocultural examination of monogamy.

    i guess

    though carving out exceptions of principle to ones' own personal circumstances sort of smacks of cognitive dissonance

    I get what you're saying, but I think what I'm trying to say here is that my greater examination and criticism of Western conventions of monogamy and coupling isn't necessarily a commentary upon my own situation, and wouldn't be if the things I'm critical of aren't applicable to my situation. Which they largely aren't, btw, I feel.

    I know that probably sounds like me making a special exemption for myself, and you're free to argue that, and maybe I am, but I don't think I am.

    ...but fundamentally, you entered into the same historically patriarchal institution that all other married couples have...

    It's historically patriarchal in general, but that has very little to do with the contours of any given marriage.

    i agree exactly. i don't think it's particularly fair when modern marriage is indicted for what it was 2000 or even 200 years ago.

    My marriage certainly isn't very patriarchal, if that's any consolation.

    Even discounting my trans status, our gender roles are pretty blurred, and we expect very similar things from each other -- none of it due to either one of our gender assignments or identities.

    right. yeah. i mean i think that is fine. my arrangement with frankie has been maybe more traditionally-gender-roled than some people's but in general we have settled into roles that aligned with our abilities and characters and preferences. she likes to drive and i like to cook. she tends to be negative and i tend to be positive. otoh she is a lot more emotional and i am more responsible, which is i guess more traditional maybe?

    i guess i mean to say that pretty much everyone seems to find their own balance.

    i have talked a little to some mormons, who really try to fit their marriages into traditional structures. it was kind of interesting because they acknowledge that it doesn't necessarily fit all that well, but that it's their conscious responsibility to try to fit the roles. the husbands need to learn to be responsible and decisive, even though it might not come naturally. the wives need to strive to be sensitive and supporting, though it might cut across their impulses.

    which, you know, maybe traditional gender roles are sneered at by the broad left, but the general sense that we have a responsibility to our loved ones and our society to be better than our natures and impulses is i think a noble and lovely sentiment.

    Wqdwp8l.png
    Apothe0sis
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Gooey wrote: »
    will is that an anime

    no

    but interestingly enough i found him while doing a gis for "fat pikachu"

    which is one of my hobbies

    Wqdwp8l.png
    GooeyFeral
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    I am tired and need some sleep....

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    my opinion is that the kind of long-term partnership and trust implicit in a good marriage would be difficult to replicate in a poly arrangement. or alternatively maybe i just haven't been exposed to any good poly arrangements and just have a hard time imagining the same senses of devotion and trust implicit in a non-exclusive arrangement.

    it's also hard to replicate the sort of long-term existential ennui that you get in a monotamous marriage

    oh, did i typo? *giggle* silly me

    Serious response: i'm kind of going through a Thing(tm) right now so it's hard for me to say "I have an excellent long-term partnership!" But the things that are introducing stress in my life are the sorts of things that introduce stress into a lot of thirtysomethings' relationships - jobs, rent, ticking biological clocks. And I don't think that things would be significantly better if we were monogamous - just the flavor of suckage would be a little different.

    It's not really an issue of trust, though. I mean, when you get to know somebody, and you get to know how they operate, that includes how they operate in other relationships, and from that familiarity and from shared experiences and mutual love and respect you (ideally) glean trust.

    Meanwhile, part of the appeal of being nonmonogamous is that not every relationship has to be forever. Sometimes you want to have a relationship with somebody that only lasts a few months, and there's no pressure to progress on this timetable from dating to cohabitation to marriage to kids to retirement. That doesn't mean that those relationships weren't meaningful; it just means that you accept that they were finite. Just because a relationship doesn't have a long term doesn't make it a failure.

    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.
    QuidAtomikaShivahnTL DR
  • Solomaxwell6Solomaxwell6 Registered User regular
    Madagascar soccer game went 149-0 lol.

    Kind of reminds me of this

    omMqkKX.png

    Or any basketball game between Team USA against a fivesome from one of the lesser nations.
    Apparently there was some (alleged) biased refereeing. So the players on one team got pissed off and decided to protest by spending the match getting own goals, scoring for the other team.

  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Feral wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    my opinion is that the kind of long-term partnership and trust implicit in a good marriage would be difficult to replicate in a poly arrangement. or alternatively maybe i just haven't been exposed to any good poly arrangements and just have a hard time imagining the same senses of devotion and trust implicit in a non-exclusive arrangement.

    it's also hard to replicate the sort of long-term existential ennui that you get in a monotamous marriage

    oh, did i typo? *giggle* silly me

    i guess that is where the infidelity and betrayal come in.

    i mean since it's inevitable anyways we might as well institutionalize it amirite?

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • GooeyGooey (\/)┌¶─¶┐(\/) pinch pinchRegistered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Gooey wrote: »
    will is that an anime

    no

    but interestingly enough i found him while doing a gis for "fat pikachu"

    which is one of my hobbies

    will true story i was gising fat pikachu also and i saw that

    is this where we sing "endless love"

    919UOwT.png
    Irond Will
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    Tomorrow I start on my anti-psychotic meds!
    That was the original purpose for this med, at high doses. At lower doses it's a dopamine regulator.

    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
    Quid
This discussion has been closed.