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!

[chat] Fandango

19192949697100

Posts

  • Dark Raven XDark Raven X Laugh hard, run fast, be kindRegistered User regular
    You'll never get me to convert! Vita means life!

    Actually Synds, I just had a good long think about hypable PS4 exclusives and there's like, one - inFamous Second Son. I mean, a buncha multiplats are looking better on it than the Xbone, but still.

    SHILL BETTER, your public perception still sucks!

    Oh brilliant
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    oh god can't stop laughing send help

    o8fl2Kd.jpg

    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
    Dark Raven Xoverride367ronyaRMS OceanicGonmun
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    Wash wrote: »
    Huh. Just looked up demisexual.

    Now I've got questions.

    Like what?

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    Organichu wrote: »
    i could totally see myself feeling very strongly for multiple people. i don't know if i'd expect any sort of dilution, or anything- i could see that being appealing, to have multiple people in your life.

    it's the opposite that makes me nope the fuck out. there's no way i could go on a weekend retreat with someone and put a necklace on them i got them for christmas and shop together for furniture knowing she's getting railed by another dude.

    it feels strange to me to try and pursue the first if the sort of corollary is so appalling to me.

    Would it make you feel better if you were all married or in a permanent relationship, not just boyfriend-girlfriend-boyfriend-on-the-side-while-she's-having-a-fling?

  • GonmunGonmun He keeps kickin' me in the dickRegistered User regular
    Mim wrote: »
    wandering wrote: »
    Mim wrote: »
    I'm marrying a Canadian. Or someone in England.

    This is happening.
    Okay but you should know all English people are dumb and their accents just make them sound smart and underneath every Canadian's veneer of politeness is an unending vortex of rage

    Look, I just want health insurance where they tell me what I owe and I pay for it rather than them sneaking up on me months later and then sending check after check instead of just telling me what the fucking cost is upfront.

    there's a big fucking difference between $145 and $1,130

    ...

    Normally up here you only pay for your prescriptions anyway. Unless you have some sort of advanced condition and most of those times the government tries to subsidize for you.

    Really all it is up here is you get a provincially issued card so anytime you go to a clinic/hospital you show them that and you don't pay to see a doctor, get treatment, etc.

    desc wrote: »
    ~ * swole patrol flying roundhouse kick top performer recognition: April 2014 * ~
    If you have a sec, check out my podcast: War and Beast Twitter Facebook
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    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

    aRkpc.gif
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    srsly obamacare is the best everyone should be on it abolish the wage system etc

    Echo
  • OrganichuOrganichu jacobkosh Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    i could totally see myself feeling very strongly for multiple people. i don't know if i'd expect any sort of dilution, or anything- i could see that being appealing, to have multiple people in your life.

    it's the opposite that makes me nope the fuck out. there's no way i could go on a weekend retreat with someone and put a necklace on them i got them for christmas and shop together for furniture knowing she's getting railed by another dude.

    it feels strange to me to try and pursue the first if the sort of corollary is so appalling to me.

    Would it make you feel better if you were all married or in a permanent relationship, not just boyfriend-girlfriend-boyfriend-on-the-side-while-she's-having-a-fling?

    i don't think so, no. i try and imagine a situation where it was a really good friend i trusted- and there was sort of a shared understanding where we all were kind of keyed in on the dynamic. but in the end it doesn't work for me. knowing she is having tender moments with him when i am at work is just ugh.

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    People like making up categories in order to shore up their identity through tribalism in order to fight feelings of alienation from greater society. Its better than when society justifies alienating people by categorizing them in that way, but its still probably not the most healthy thing.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    ronya wrote: »
    kedinik wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    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 the "friendzone" is not a function of the system; it's a function of being an individual who cannot convince desired partners 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.

    kedinik on
  • descdesc said baby boy you’re only funky as your last cut Registered User regular
    srsly obamacare is the best everyone should be on it abolish the wage system etc

    tumblr_lmxdwlJLe71qlzvnbo1_500.jpg

    Override stop that put that down

  • WashWash Sweet Christmas Registered User regular
    @Wash also here's some stuff I've drawn lately
    emilia_clarke_by_oathkeepercomic-d76tp58.png
    smoker_by_oathkeepercomic-d78sg3s.png
    reddit_gets_drawn_proposal_2_by_oathkeepercomic-d78shbd.png
    fresh_faced_by_oathkeepercomic-d77307h.png

    I dig your style.

    Reminds me a bit of the rotoscoping they did for A Scanner Darkly.

    gi5h0gjqwti1.jpg
    21stCentury
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    You'll never get me to convert! Vita means life!

    Actually Synds, I just had a good long think about hypable PS4 exclusives and there's like, one - inFamous Second Son. I mean, a buncha multiplats are looking better on it than the Xbone, but still.

    SHILL BETTER, your public perception still sucks!

    I mean, in terms of exclusives?

    Project Spark, Sunset Overdrive, Titanfall (exclusive-ish), Halo 2 anniversary, Halo 5, multiplayer fable where 4 people can play heroes and one person can play a villain, better twitch (as of March 11th), Below (roguelike from the makers of Superbrothers sword and sworcery)...

    then all the games everyone is getting that look slightly better on PS4 when comparing screenshots but are completely identical looking when you are just playing the damn game.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • OrganichuOrganichu jacobkosh Registered User regular
    pc for life modern consoles bore me

    jambi

    jambi, the chocolate sauce please

  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    Excellent puppy, Echo.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    kedinik wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    kedinik wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    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

    aRkpc.gif
  • VariableVariable Mouth Congress Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    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.

    BNet-Vari#1998 | Switch-SW 6960 6688 8388 | Steam | Twitch
    Wash
  • Dark Raven XDark Raven X Laugh hard, run fast, be kindRegistered User regular
    ...holy shit, the spaceships on the cover of Boston's debut album are guitars

    Oh brilliant
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    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

    Shivahn
  • Dread Pirate ArbuthnotDread Pirate Arbuthnot OMG WRIGGLY T O X O P L A S M O S I SRegistered User regular
    E3 was interesting because it felt like Sony and Microsoft were both trying to woo me

    Sony laid out rose pedals and gave me a foot massage in the bath, telling me how beautiful my eyes are

    Microsoft was going through my phone asking me who every male contact was and crying

    VariableAtomikaWashGonmunoverride367a5ehrenbowen
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    Organichu wrote: »
    i could totally see myself feeling very strongly for multiple people. i don't know if i'd expect any sort of dilution, or anything- i could see that being appealing, to have multiple people in your life.

    it's the opposite that makes me nope the fuck out. there's no way i could go on a weekend retreat with someone and put a necklace on them i got them for christmas and shop together for furniture knowing she's getting railed by another dude.

    it feels strange to me to try and pursue the first if the sort of corollary is so appalling to me.
    I think most people (especially males) feel that way. Its good that people have the option of poly stuff, but for most people its not tenable -at least not without really unequal power statuses.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    srsly obamacare is the best everyone should be on it abolish the wage system etc

    Obamacare is half-assed compromise that satisfies no one. Please just give everyone Medicare so we never, ever have to talk about healthcare in America again.

    Atomikabowen
  • STATE OF THE ART ROBOTSTATE OF THE ART ROBOT Registered User regular
    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.

  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    Organichu wrote: »
    i would die of anxiety if i tried to be in a relationship with someone who wasn't exclusively committed to me

    ultimately the goal of polyamory seems to be eliminating that anxiety. once you're not afraid of your partner being with other people - because it won't end your relationship, and because you are no longer inherently hurt or bothered by them being intimate with another person - relationships are actually much less anxiety inducing, I think.

    if you can get past jealousy, basically. which isn't easy.

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
    shalmeloWashAtomika
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    If I were rich and polygamy were legal, I'd have a harem of blond twenty year old hotties like Hugh Heffner.

    Objectification!

  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    kedinik wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    kedinik wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    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?

  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    I'm not entirely convinced that the structure of a predominantly polyamorous society can be trivially modelled

    I mean, it's probably possible to draw some broad conclusions but there are complicating factors all over the place

    In any case this kind of feels like sociology territory. I should get cesca to ask her mum

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Arch wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    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

    aRkpc.gif
  • OrganichuOrganichu jacobkosh Registered User regular
    i started logging with myfitnesspal again

    Variable21stCenturyWashAtomikaskippydumptruck
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    Variable wrote: »
    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.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
    Dark Raven XIrond Will
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    Obamacare would be fine if not for the Medicare donut. Everything else is just a smokescreen. Its not perfect but its not substantially different than the Swiss system.

    Literally no one has a problem with our version in Massachusetts. If you're poor you get healthcare free. If you're lower middle class you get subsidized healthcare. If you have a job you get healthcare. You have to willfully choose not to have coverage in order to not have coverage.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • 21stCentury21stCentury A lovely pixel artist and gamecrafter [They/Them]Registered User regular
    Organichu wrote: »
    i started logging with myfitnesspal again

    But, Chu!

    Think of your avatar and sigpic!

    You'll have to change them!

  • TehSlothTehSloth Hit Or Miss I Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered User regular
    Organichu wrote: »
    i would die of anxiety if i tried to be in a relationship with someone who wasn't exclusively committed to me

    ultimately the goal of polyamory seems to be eliminating that anxiety. once you're not afraid of your partner being with other people - because it won't end your relationship, and because you are no longer inherently hurt or bothered by them being intimate with another person - relationships are actually much less anxiety inducing, I think.

    if you can get past jealousy, basically. which isn't easy.

    l2compersion

    FC: 1993-7778-8872 PSN: TehSloth Xbox: SlothTeh
    twitch.tv/tehsloth
    Shivahn
  • VariableVariable Mouth Congress Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    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.

    I absolutely didn't mean to imply my feelings were rational haha.

    BNet-Vari#1998 | Switch-SW 6960 6688 8388 | Steam | Twitch
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited March 2014
    kedinik wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    kedinik wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    kedinik wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    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

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • OrganichuOrganichu jacobkosh Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    Obamacare would be fine if not for the Medicare donut. Everything else is just a smokescreen. Its not perfect but its not substantially different than the Swiss system.

    Literally no one has a problem with our version in Massachusetts. If you're poor you get healthcare free. If you're lower middle class you get subsidized healthcare. If you have a job you get healthcare. You have to willfully choose not to have coverage in order to not have coverage.

    god fuck my state so hard

    bowen
  • Shazkar ShadowstormShazkar Shadowstorm Registered User regular
    life is too busy and stressful for videogames hth

    poo
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    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?

    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • WashWash Sweet Christmas Registered User regular
    Atomika wrote: »
    Wash wrote: »
    Huh. Just looked up demisexual.

    Now I've got questions.

    Like what?

    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.

    gi5h0gjqwti1.jpg
  • STATE OF THE ART ROBOTSTATE OF THE ART ROBOT Registered User regular
    life is too busy and stressful for videogames hth

    My 17 days of vacation time disagree with you.

This discussion has been closed.