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]

13567100

Posts

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    Echo wrote: »
    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.

    are you avfacing?

    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.
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    Feral wrote: »
    Echo wrote: »
    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.

    are you avfacing?

    Always.

    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
    FeralGooeykedinik
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    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.

    True, but obviously that can go too far.

    Not to go full Godwin in hyperbole, but the case of Andrea Yates seems to be a prime example of structured (religiously-tinged) patriarchy forcing people into roles they're not suited for . . . with disastrous results.

    While I agree that bettering yourself and smoothing your flaws is an imperative for any successful relationship dynamic, we need to be fair and reasonable when sussing out what is a "flaw" and what is a "innate trait of one's constitution." And we also need to be mindful of who is deciding what those definitions are.

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    *check clock*

    Nope... still not time for Titanfall.

    *check clock again*

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    Echo wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Echo wrote: »
    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.

    are you avfacing?

    Always.

    me, too, bro

    me too

    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.
    ronyashalmelo
  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Irond Will wrote: »
    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.

    It has been my often-repeated experience with friends and family that these Mormon social pressures drive people into counterproductive depression and frustration over their own inadequacy, because they are square pegs that do not fit into round holes.

    This happens much more often than those same pressures lead to people thoughtfully bettering themselves for the sake of each other, which had probably ought to just be the high-level goal from the get-go.

    kedinik on
    QuidAtomikajakobagger
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Feral wrote: »
    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.

    nah i mean i agree with this in principle - like everyone else, i have had many many great friendships that i haven't maintained but still feel were really valuable to me and would never consider "taking back".

    but weirdly enough the whole time i dated i never had the desire to date more than one person and, while i didn't generally see romantic relationships as a point on an inevitable track - i am only getting married for the first time at 40 - i also never really went into them expecting their demise.

    my folks have been married 50 years this summer. i guess maybe my view of their marriage has influenced my sense of romantic relationships. also this kind of stubborn irish tradition i guess. my brothers are oriented the same way i am.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • TaminTamin Registered User regular
    Brock's voice coming out of someone else is deeply unsettling

  • WashWash Sweet Christmas Registered User regular
    So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/73258510/sad-pictures-for-children/posts/759318

    gi5h0gjqwti1.jpg
    FeralronyaRear Admiral Choco
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    Tamin wrote: »
    Brock's voice coming out of someone else is deeply unsettling

    I love Patrick Warburton and I'll watch anything he (or his voice) are in.

    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.
    Tamin
  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    Echo wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Echo wrote: »
    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.

    are you avfacing?

    Always.

    Oh jesus.

  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Atomika wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    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.

    True, but obviously that can go too far.

    Not to go full Godwin in hyperbole, but the case of Andrea Yates seems to be a prime example of structured (religiously-tinged) patriarchy forcing people into roles they're not suited for . . . with disastrous results.

    While I agree that bettering yourself and smoothing your flaws is an imperative for any successful relationship dynamic, we need to be fair and reasonable when sussing out what is a "flaw" and what is a "innate trait of one's constitution." And we also need to be mindful of who is deciding what those definitions are.

    yeah sure i can agree with this. i guess there are some places where we need to plant a flag and "this is who i am" regardless of the consequences, whereas in most other places we need to be the person we want to be.

    really, i guess they are the same thing. we just need to be circumspect and thoughtful and generous as well as introspective and individualistic about who we want to be. and, i guess realistic about who we can be.

    i'm sort of becoming disenchanted with american individualism. i feel like the baby boomers poisoned the well and we need to try to figure out how to see ourselves from the perspectives of our different societies - families, peers, jobs, neighborhoods, countries, world - again.

    Wqdwp8l.png
    Atomika
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Wash wrote: »
    So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/73258510/sad-pictures-for-children/posts/759318

    http://boohooboo.tumblr.com/post/77377862645 is more informative

    aRkpc.gif
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    kedinik wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    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.

    It has been my often-repeated experience with friends and family that these Mormon social pressures drive people into counterproductive depression and frustration over their own inadequacy, because they are square pegs that do not fit into round holes.

    This happens much more often than those same pressures lead to people thoughtfully bettering themselves for the sake of each other, which had probably ought to just be the high-level goal from the get-go.

    yeah one of my childhood friends - a mormon dude - decided he wasn't religious and couldn't be in a mormon marriage and broke up his family of i think 3 or 4 kids at the age of like 35. clearly it was a tough decision for him but he seems much happier who he is now.

    by the same token, though, this guy is a really kind, generous, gentle, conscientious fellow. he works hard. he's responsible. he provides for his kids. he doesn't believe in the religion at all anymore, but concedes that he's grateful for a lot of the moral instruction and guidance that growing up mormon imposed on him.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • WashWash Sweet Christmas Registered User regular
    And he's removed all content from his website. Not surprising, given the message he left on kickstarter.

    He thinks he's Spider Jerusalem.

    gi5h0gjqwti1.jpg
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    nah i mean i agree with this in principle - like everyone else, i have had many many great friendships that i haven't maintained but still feel were really valuable to me and would never consider "taking back".

    but weirdly enough the whole time i dated i never had the desire to date more than one person and, while i didn't generally see romantic relationships as a point on an inevitable track - i am only getting married for the first time at 40 - i also never really went into them expecting their demise.

    my folks have been married 50 years this summer. i guess maybe my view of their marriage has influenced my sense of romantic relationships. also this kind of stubborn irish tradition i guess. my brothers are oriented the same way i am.

    I wonder if there's any kind of genetic predisposition towards mono or poly sexuality, or if it is primarily or entirely a construct of culture.

    I suspect that many of the traditionally sex-positive writers and researchers have avoided this topic previously because it seemed like it would end up, inevitably, as a way to attack the GLBT community in a roundabout fashion.

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    Hmm, that just felt like a mild quake. Probably a train, but it didn't feel like that.

    Time to abandon London to the endless wars of the Titans.

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
    AtomikaDark Raven X
  • y2jake215y2jake215 certified Flat Birther theorist the Last Good Boy onlineRegistered User regular
    dwHX7T3.jpg

    papa bear is SO MAD

    C8Ft8GE.jpg
    maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
    FeralIrond WillskippydumptruckDark Raven XApothe0sis
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Migrate critical app to new server, new database, new version, check everything, go live, make announcement 5 minutes before end of business?

    Done.

    Rush out the door leaving new server to do critical things while I cook cajun food for 40 people and probably drink a bunch of beers?

    YESSS LETS GO


    This feels perilous but fuck it. I have confidence it's working!


    aaaaaaaaaaaa *panics*

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    Wash wrote: »
    So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/73258510/sad-pictures-for-children/posts/759318

    http://boohooboo.tumblr.com/post/77377862645 is more informative

    I love that rant, by the way.

    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.
  • Dread Pirate ArbuthnotDread Pirate Arbuthnot OMG WRIGGLY T O X O P L A S M O S I SRegistered User regular
    Wash wrote: »
    So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/73258510/sad-pictures-for-children/posts/759318

    Well that's a mental breakdown

    RMS OceanicIrond WillSolomaxwell6DeebaserApothe0sis
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    holy fuck i want this A LOT

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
    PotatoNinjaApothe0sis
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    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.

    True, but obviously that can go too far.

    Not to go full Godwin in hyperbole, but the case of Andrea Yates seems to be a prime example of structured (religiously-tinged) patriarchy forcing people into roles they're not suited for . . . with disastrous results.

    While I agree that bettering yourself and smoothing your flaws is an imperative for any successful relationship dynamic, we need to be fair and reasonable when sussing out what is a "flaw" and what is a "innate trait of one's constitution." And we also need to be mindful of who is deciding what those definitions are.

    yeah sure i can agree with this. i guess there are some places where we need to plant a flag and "this is who i am" regardless of the consequences, whereas in most other places we need to be the person we want to be.

    really, i guess they are the same thing. we just need to be circumspect and thoughtful and generous as well as introspective and individualistic about who we want to be. and, i guess realistic about who we can be.

    i'm sort of becoming disenchanted with american individualism. i feel like the baby boomers poisoned the well and we need to try to figure out how to see ourselves from the perspectives of our different societies - families, peers, jobs, neighborhoods, countries, world - again.

    hmm. reflecting upon that remark.

    individual choices are both conditioned on, and have effects upon, aggregate cultural conditions

    trying to coordinate visions of that culture through individual choices probably causes unnecessary amounts of grief and drama

    aRkpc.gif
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Wash wrote: »
    So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/73258510/sad-pictures-for-children/posts/759318

    holy shit that guy really went off his fucking meds

    set up a fight club in his basement

    maybe more of a fight tumblr i guess

    Wqdwp8l.png
    Deebaserspool32Apothe0sis
  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Irond Will wrote: »
    kedinik wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    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.

    It has been my often-repeated experience with friends and family that these Mormon social pressures drive people into counterproductive depression and frustration over their own inadequacy, because they are square pegs that do not fit into round holes.

    This happens much more often than those same pressures lead to people thoughtfully bettering themselves for the sake of each other, which had probably ought to just be the high-level goal from the get-go.

    yeah one of my childhood friends - a mormon dude - decided he wasn't religious and couldn't be in a mormon marriage and broke up his family of i think 3 or 4 kids at the age of like 35. clearly it was a tough decision for him but he seems much happier who he is now.

    by the same token, though, this guy is a really kind, generous, gentle, conscientious fellow. he works hard. he's responsible. he provides for his kids. he doesn't believe in the religion at all anymore, but concedes that he's grateful for a lot of the moral instruction and guidance that growing up mormon imposed on him.

    Yeah, fair enough.

    kedinik on
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    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.

    True, but obviously that can go too far.

    Not to go full Godwin in hyperbole, but the case of Andrea Yates seems to be a prime example of structured (religiously-tinged) patriarchy forcing people into roles they're not suited for . . . with disastrous results.

    While I agree that bettering yourself and smoothing your flaws is an imperative for any successful relationship dynamic, we need to be fair and reasonable when sussing out what is a "flaw" and what is a "innate trait of one's constitution." And we also need to be mindful of who is deciding what those definitions are.

    yeah sure i can agree with this. i guess there are some places where we need to plant a flag and "this is who i am" regardless of the consequences, whereas in most other places we need to be the person we want to be.

    really, i guess they are the same thing. we just need to be circumspect and thoughtful and generous as well as introspective and individualistic about who we want to be. and, i guess realistic about who we can be.

    i'm sort of becoming disenchanted with american individualism. i feel like the baby boomers poisoned the well and we need to try to figure out how to see ourselves from the perspectives of our different societies - families, peers, jobs, neighborhoods, countries, world - again.

    Agreed. Weirdly, it's something I've been thinking about a lot lately.

    Texas Primary season started today, so I've been inundated with many conservative political ads attesting to many candidates' "fiercely independent" attitudes.

    It made me think about how many people that would enjoy being described as "fiercely independent" aren't insane assholes that need to be dropped into volcanoes. Outside of my LGBT friends, the answer is a remarkably small number.

    Too many people conflate "individualism" with "mindless, oppressive anarchy" for the word to have any power left in it for me.

    Atomika on
    Irond WillApothe0sis
  • 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: »
    nah i mean i agree with this in principle - like everyone else, i have had many many great friendships that i haven't maintained but still feel were really valuable to me and would never consider "taking back".

    but weirdly enough the whole time i dated i never had the desire to date more than one person and, while i didn't generally see romantic relationships as a point on an inevitable track - i am only getting married for the first time at 40 - i also never really went into them expecting their demise.

    my folks have been married 50 years this summer. i guess maybe my view of their marriage has influenced my sense of romantic relationships. also this kind of stubborn irish tradition i guess. my brothers are oriented the same way i am.

    I wonder if there's any kind of genetic predisposition towards mono or poly sexuality, or if it is primarily or entirely a construct of culture.

    I suspect that many of the traditionally sex-positive writers and researchers have avoided this topic previously because it seemed like it would end up, inevitably, as a way to attack the GLBT community in a roundabout fashion.

    There are certainly genetic (and epigenetic lol) predispositions to certain personality traits, which themselves might be predispositions to one relationship style or another.

    Traits like extroversion, or variety-seeking.

    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.
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    holy fuck i want this A LOT


    I want this so bad

    but my friends will be so salty when I kill them

    DO NOT CARE, OFFLINE MULTIPLAYER IS THE BEST!

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
    Apothe0sis
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Wash wrote: »
    So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/73258510/sad-pictures-for-children/posts/759318

    http://boohooboo.tumblr.com/post/77377862645 is more informative

    I love that rant, by the way.

    I'm interested if you could elaborate, if that's okay. It reads to me like a car crash.

    Joel Watson & all the webcomic artists who failed to take Campbell's side of the spat - who are, themselves, fairly influential when talking about feminism and feminist issues, like David Willis - are just moving on with their lives, whilst Campbell is destroying achievements and burning bridges. I think the persuasive effect of doing so is improbable. So.

    aRkpc.gif
  • TaminTamin Registered User regular
    from John Campbell's rant, this may be pertinent information when using pronouns:
    You are a damn idiot, what are you going to change Mr. Internet Man

    First of all I’m not a "man” I think—

    Oh my goddddd oh my goddd shutuuuuupppppp

  • CindersCinders Whose sails were black when it was windy Registered User regular
    Queer relationships are the best.

    Until drama. Oh god drama sucks.

    kedinikAtomikaNeco
  • Dread Pirate ArbuthnotDread Pirate Arbuthnot OMG WRIGGLY T O X O P L A S M O S I SRegistered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Wash wrote: »
    So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/73258510/sad-pictures-for-children/posts/759318

    holy shit that guy really went off his fucking meds

    set up a fight club in his basement

    maybe more of a fight tumblr i guess

    the first rule about fight tumblr: you do not talk about fight tumblr without a trigger warning

    Irond WillAtomikaWashApothe0sisGooeyjakobagger
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Irond Will wrote: »
    nah i mean i agree with this in principle - like everyone else, i have had many many great friendships that i haven't maintained but still feel were really valuable to me and would never consider "taking back".

    but weirdly enough the whole time i dated i never had the desire to date more than one person and, while i didn't generally see romantic relationships as a point on an inevitable track - i am only getting married for the first time at 40 - i also never really went into them expecting their demise.

    my folks have been married 50 years this summer. i guess maybe my view of their marriage has influenced my sense of romantic relationships. also this kind of stubborn irish tradition i guess. my brothers are oriented the same way i am.

    I wonder if there's any kind of genetic predisposition towards mono or poly sexuality, or if it is primarily or entirely a construct of culture.

    I suspect that many of the traditionally sex-positive writers and researchers have avoided this topic previously because it seemed like it would end up, inevitably, as a way to attack the GLBT community in a roundabout fashion.

    i think a lot of the heterosexual support for gay marriage comes from the moral primacy of monogamy

    Wqdwp8l.png
    FeralronyaPotatoNinjajakobagger
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    nah i mean i agree with this in principle - like everyone else, i have had many many great friendships that i haven't maintained but still feel were really valuable to me and would never consider "taking back".

    but weirdly enough the whole time i dated i never had the desire to date more than one person and, while i didn't generally see romantic relationships as a point on an inevitable track - i am only getting married for the first time at 40 - i also never really went into them expecting their demise.

    my folks have been married 50 years this summer. i guess maybe my view of their marriage has influenced my sense of romantic relationships. also this kind of stubborn irish tradition i guess. my brothers are oriented the same way i am.

    I wonder if there's any kind of genetic predisposition towards mono or poly sexuality, or if it is primarily or entirely a construct of culture.

    I suspect that many of the traditionally sex-positive writers and researchers have avoided this topic previously because it seemed like it would end up, inevitably, as a way to attack the GLBT community in a roundabout fashion.

    There are certainly genetic (and epigenetic lol) predispositions to certain personality traits, which themselves might be predispositions to one relationship style or another.

    Traits like extroversion, or variety-seeking.

    Yeah, absolutely

    I was more wondering if its more explicitly comparable to sexuality

    in that someone can really be born poly- or mono-sexual, and there's a theoretical spectrum, etc.

    and, like I said, I think that people have avoided that question because its a gigantic fucking minefield and even mentioning it I feel the need to create a long list of disclaimers that I'm not saying X, Y, or Z.

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Wash wrote: »
    So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/73258510/sad-pictures-for-children/posts/759318

    holy shit that guy really went off his fucking meds

    set up a fight club in his basement

    maybe more of a fight tumblr i guess

    the first rule about fight tumblr: you do not talk about fight tumblr without a trigger warning

    masterful

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    Wash wrote: »
    So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/73258510/sad-pictures-for-children/posts/759318

    It's kind of sad watching a mental breakdown in real time.

    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
    Apothe0sis
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    its not that i have anything against pandas

    i just wouldn't want my sister to marry one or anything

    Wqdwp8l.png
    kedinikApothe0sis
  • Dread Pirate ArbuthnotDread Pirate Arbuthnot OMG WRIGGLY T O X O P L A S M O S I SRegistered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Wash wrote: »
    So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/73258510/sad-pictures-for-children/posts/759318

    http://boohooboo.tumblr.com/post/77377862645 is more informative

    I love that rant, by the way.

    that rant is really fucked up because he found a picture of the only black woman he knows who does webcomics and plastered it on his blog and acted like he was acting on her behalf

    when she is friends with joel watson and did not give him her permission

    he just put it up to give his rant some more legitimacy or something? thats fucked

  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    Cinders wrote: »
    Queer relationships are the best.

    Until drama. Oh god drama sucks.

    Many queer relationships come pre-loaded with drama and family baggage, making so many things normally taken for granted extremely anxiety-ridden and full of deeper portent than it should.

    NecoCindersPhoenix-DQuid
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    I had a longer post but Geth ate it by locking.

    But basically I find it offensive how anthropologists project onto primitive (those that are far less advanced technologically and largely isolated) societies how they wish the world should be. Its almost always involves the phrase "The X don't have a word for <bad thing>." The culture in China @Atomika‌ mentioned is an example.

    The Mosuo are a patriarchal society. Males hold the the actual political power but women are heads of "households" which are more like clans or septs with multiple generations and far more distant relationships living in one house/compound for most of the people. Commoners trace their descent through these clans and property passes through these house lines. Men must ask a sexual partner for access to the "house" in order to stay the night. Neither men and women are prohibited from having more than one partner but in practice most sexual relationships are monogamous.

    How did this happen? The Musuo were dominated by an aristocratic classes practice patrilinear monogamy in the same way as exists in most societies. Because power came through these marriages/descents they encourages or imposed a marriage-less matrilinear structure on the peasant and slave classes that make up most of the culture. Additionally, the masculine ideal and role for the male was to be a trader or to work on a caravan. Men were expected to be gone weeks or months at a time, if they returned at all. Rather than a female sexual partner living with her male partner's kin while he was away, she stayed with her mother, siblings, grandparents, etc.

    These magic negrospeople supposedly have no word for murder, rape, war, father or jealousy. It helps that they are preliterate so these claims can't be disproven easily.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    Apothe0sis
This discussion has been closed.