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

194959799100

Posts

  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    Feral, what trends do we see? I am curious!

  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    I like how a statement about polyamory somehow turned into legalization of polygamous fidelity

    there are a lot of conclusions to jump there

    plus the even farther implication that this would inevitably lead to an increase in polygynous relationships, to the detriment of the available mate pool for men

    Which is the exact opposite of trends actually observed in the real world when we're talking about first-world non-religious polyamory.

    Which is exactly what I said

    brofist

    Feral
  • TaminTamin Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Archer continues to amaze
    Krieger is a genetic clone of Hitler?!

    Tamin on
    Dark Raven X
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Arch wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    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

    I kind of disagree, at least in the West. I'd predict a rather even split, unless we include people who are polyamorous through coercive means (i.e. religious/cult problems)

    From my admittedly limited experience interacting with the western community it tends to skew either pretty evenly OR along homosexual polyamourous relationships, which kind of break down the whole "polyandrous/polygynous" split as classically defined

    we are talking about "the real world, only polygamy is legal" as opposed to "the real world, only polygamy is legal and also everyone's brains have been rewritten wrt concepts of gender and sexuality" right?

    because i think your conjecture refers to the second thing.

    No, not at all

    See PantsB's post on the bottom of last page. I don't 100% agree with it, but I agree with most of it. I think the prevalence of female harems was more of a function of older power architecture than anything else, and I don't think a modern society has dealt with polyamory healthily until now. And the best current model we have is from the gay/lesbian community, which kind of throws a lot of wrenches into what we typically think of.

    I would definitely think it would be more likely that there would be more bi-sexual (?) women being a centerpoint of some kind of relationship than there would be one dude with multiple wives, outside of places with an existing power structure for that

    you don't think that heterosexual women in the US are more invested in monogamous institutions than heterosexual men?

    are lesbians more open to polyamory than gay men? because conventional wisdom is that lesbians are strongly given to monogamous coupling while gay men, as a culture, struggle with it.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Dark Raven XDark Raven X Laugh hard, run fast, be kindRegistered User regular
    Gooey wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I bought Gears of War 2 for $1 at gamestop yesterday. The big fat collector's edition with the metal case and artbook. For a dollar. Someone paid $80 new for it, then they got tired of it, and now it's mine for a buck.

    gears of war 2 has a surprisingly touching and soul-crushing moment in it for a bro-ey roided-up chainsawgun shooter

    i dont think i played gow3

    Tai's shotgun smooch?

    Gears 3 has some jarringly better characterization, since Karen Travis took over as the writer. Thar's some great stuff in there, the lame plot aside.
    Immediately after Dom kills himself in a fairly pointless gesture to save everyone, they go to a city called Char, where the ash statues of people incinerated in the orbital cannon strikes of years ago are still standing. They crumble if you bump into em. The witty bro banter among the squad is somewhat fucking muted.

    Oh brilliant
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    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

    I kind of disagree, at least in the West. I'd predict a rather even split, unless we include people who are polyamorous through coercive means (i.e. religious/cult problems)

    From my admittedly limited experience interacting with the western community it tends to skew either pretty evenly OR along homosexual polyamourous relationships, which kind of break down the whole "polyandrous/polygynous" split as classically defined

    we are talking about "the real world, only polygamy is legal" as opposed to "the real world, only polygamy is legal and also everyone's brains have been rewritten wrt concepts of gender and sexuality" right?

    because i think your conjecture refers to the second thing.

    No, not at all

    See PantsB's post on the bottom of last page. I don't 100% agree with it, but I agree with most of it. I think the prevalence of female harems was more of a function of older power architecture than anything else, and I don't think a modern society has dealt with polyamory healthily until now. And the best current model we have is from the gay/lesbian community, which kind of throws a lot of wrenches into what we typically think of.

    I would definitely think it would be more likely that there would be more bi-sexual (?) women being a centerpoint of some kind of relationship than there would be one dude with multiple wives, outside of places with an existing power structure for that

    you don't think that heterosexual women in the US are more invested in monogamous institutions than heterosexual men?

    are lesbians more open to polyamory than gay men? because conventional wisdom is that lesbians are strongly given to monogamous coupling while gay men, as a culture, struggle with it.

    "more open"? maybe not

    "just as open"? probably yes

  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    Damnit I'm trying to find the old data I had on this

    Maybe feral has it closer at hand

  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Wash wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    trying to lose weight for my wedding

    ate a sweet potato for lunch

    also a shitload of coffee

    Congratulations!

    I wasn't around for the announcement.

    thanks! i'm real excited.

    sure am regretting the amount of tail i won't be able to pull once i'm married tho. that is gonna sting a ton.

    Wqdwp8l.png
    Wash
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    trying to lose weight for my wedding

    ate a sweet potato for lunch

    also a shitload of coffee

    Pedantically, everything eventually is a shitload.

  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    what i meant to say will is

    i am disgusted with my body but apparently my self loathing is not sufficient motivation right now

    it used to be but that was when i was exercising regularly and tracking my diet and it fueled the fire

    now it makes things worse

    the sword

    hath 2 edges

    i should start going to the gym again

    but you know on the other hand it's a whole two blocks away so you can see why i haven't been going.

    Wqdwp8l.png
    Deebaser
  • Dark Raven XDark Raven X Laugh hard, run fast, be kindRegistered User regular
    Tamin wrote: »
    Archer continues to amaze
    Krieger is a genetic clone of Hitler?!

    DUH

    ohmygod sorry I don't know why I do that.

    Oh brilliant
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    Gooey wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I bought Gears of War 2 for $1 at gamestop yesterday. The big fat collector's edition with the metal case and artbook. For a dollar. Someone paid $80 new for it, then they got tired of it, and now it's mine for a buck.

    gears of war 2 has a surprisingly touching and soul-crushing moment in it for a bro-ey roided-up chainsawgun shooter

    i dont think i played gow3

    Tai's shotgun smooch?

    Gears 3 has some jarringly better characterization, since Karen Travis took over as the writer. Thar's some great stuff in there, the lame plot aside.
    Immediately after Dom kills himself in a fairly pointless gesture to save everyone, they go to a city called Char, where the ash statues of people incinerated in the orbital cannon strikes of years ago are still standing. They crumble if you bump into em. The witty bro banter among the squad is somewhat fucking muted.

    Mad World began playing very very softly in the background when you got there. I think it also played in that multiplayer level with the clock tower and all the dead civilians in the streets?

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    I like how a statement about polyamory somehow turned into legalization of polygamous fidelity

    there are a lot of conclusions to jump there

    plus the even farther implication that this would inevitably lead to an increase in polygynous relationships, to the detriment of the available mate pool for men

    Which is the exact opposite of trends actually observed in the real world when we're talking about first-world non-religious polyamory.

    agreed, but this seems to include a rather large sample bias

    aRkpc.gif
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    I like how a statement about polyamory somehow turned into legalization of polygamous fidelity

    there are a lot of conclusions to jump there

    plus the even farther implication that this would inevitably lead to an increase in polygynous relationships, to the detriment of the available mate pool for men

    Which is the exact opposite of trends actually observed in the real world when we're talking about first-world non-religious polyamory.

    agreed, but this seems to include a rather large sample bias

    the other data has a much larger bias, I would argue

  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    Origin isn't that bad

    It's just not as good as steam (and the one platform per publisher idea is stupid stupid stupid)

    Can't really blame them for trying, though, given how much money Steam rakes in.
    emnmnme wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I bought Gears of War 2 for $1 at gamestop yesterday. The big fat collector's edition with the metal case and artbook. For a dollar. Someone paid $80 new for it, then they got tired of it, and now it's mine for a buck.

    Hmm, flipping through the artbook, I noticed Epic Games is a tad lacking in diversity.
    EpicGames_zps6fbb0e33.png

    Yeah, the industry is heavily predominated by 20 to 30-something white males.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Arch wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    I like how a statement about polyamory somehow turned into legalization of polygamous fidelity

    there are a lot of conclusions to jump there

    plus the even farther implication that this would inevitably lead to an increase in polygynous relationships, to the detriment of the available mate pool for men

    Which is the exact opposite of trends actually observed in the real world when we're talking about first-world non-religious polyamory.

    agreed, but this seems to include a rather large sample bias

    the other data has a much larger bias, I would argue

    what, are religious people going to be rapture'd away soon?

    aRkpc.gif
  • 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
    Arch wrote: »
    Damnit I'm trying to find the old data I had on this

    Maybe feral has it closer at hand

    nah because i'm literally only posting to take a break from the fires I've been scrambling to put out

    Nero posts on the forums while rome burns.

    Shivahn: because more men (both gay and straight) tend to be interested in nonmonogamous relationships than women, there tends to be a population imbalance in nonreligious nonmonogamous communities (poly, swing, kink). Consequently, it is typical for women have more partners on average than men - one woman might be dating two guys, or there might be a leather family with four guys and three girls. And yeah I had stats to support that at one time but not off-hand right this second.

    That can be a bum deal for men in certain ways (think about Holden and Allison in Chasing Amy for a moment) but not in the way ronya is lamenting.

    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.
  • WashWash Sweet Christmas Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Wash wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    trying to lose weight for my wedding

    ate a sweet potato for lunch

    also a shitload of coffee

    Congratulations!

    I wasn't around for the announcement.

    thanks! i'm real excited.

    sure am regretting the amount of tail i won't be able to pull once i'm married tho. that is gonna sting a ton.

    Better pick a soundproof venue, so your ceremony isn't drowned out by the wails of hopeless, stricken women lined up outside the doors. :P

    Wash on
    gi5h0gjqwti1.jpg
    Dark Raven XIrond Will
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    i played through the first gears and tried the second but always resented, then just couldn't abide the bro tone.

    as a secondary frustration your big meatbag was incredibly fucking lumbering

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    However, my info may be biased.

    Between dysphoria and my current feelings on the sexualization of women, I haven't had the body-positivity requisite for a satisfying sexual experience in, like, a month or more.

  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    I like how a statement about polyamory somehow turned into legalization of polygamous fidelity

    there are a lot of conclusions to jump there

    plus the even farther implication that this would inevitably lead to an increase in polygynous relationships, to the detriment of the available mate pool for men

    Which is the exact opposite of trends actually observed in the real world when we're talking about first-world non-religious polyamory.

    agreed, but this seems to include a rather large sample bias

    the other data has a much larger bias, I would argue

    what, are religious people going to be rapture'd away soon?

    Well, in the west we aren't a strict theocracy any more so I would argue the influence there is smaller than one would expect

    I would say that currently religious thought is anti-polygamy in the west, so you would only see it religiously in fringe sects, and those that would typically engage in legal polygamy would be those more inclined to it today, i.e. those typically in "alt" communities, where the balance is different vis-a-vis polygyny/polyandry than historical trends

  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    we need to coin a word for that feeling you get when you can't remember the exact search terms you used on google scholar to return the perfect article

    ....that you forgot to bookmark

    ronyaWashDeebaserFeralDark Raven Xa5ehren
  • 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
    ronya wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    I like how a statement about polyamory somehow turned into legalization of polygamous fidelity

    there are a lot of conclusions to jump there

    plus the even farther implication that this would inevitably lead to an increase in polygynous relationships, to the detriment of the available mate pool for men

    Which is the exact opposite of trends actually observed in the real world when we're talking about first-world non-religious polyamory.

    agreed, but this seems to include a rather large sample bias

    well, if the question is "what kinds of marriages would emerge if we legally recognized plural marriages tomorrow?" and limited the scope of that question to the English-speaking first world

    I honestly don't know.

    I think the situation you describe where middle-eastern/north-african/islamic/mormon one-man-many-women (with at least a veneer of fidelity) polygamy ends up statistically more common than free-love-hippie-poly-swingy-kinky anybody-fuck-who-they-want might happen.

    Or the opposite might happen. I honestly don't know. I'm not proposing any legal changes, personally.

    (Though to be honest I think it would be the former - if only because our metaphorical bonobos wouldn't value marriage quite as much as the traditionalists.)

    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.
    ArchIrond Will
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    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

    I kind of disagree, at least in the West. I'd predict a rather even split, unless we include people who are polyamorous through coercive means (i.e. religious/cult problems)

    From my admittedly limited experience interacting with the western community it tends to skew either pretty evenly OR along homosexual polyamourous relationships, which kind of break down the whole "polyandrous/polygynous" split as classically defined

    we are talking about "the real world, only polygamy is legal" as opposed to "the real world, only polygamy is legal and also everyone's brains have been rewritten wrt concepts of gender and sexuality" right?

    because i think your conjecture refers to the second thing.

    No, not at all

    See PantsB's post on the bottom of last page. I don't 100% agree with it, but I agree with most of it. I think the prevalence of female harems was more of a function of older power architecture than anything else, and I don't think a modern society has dealt with polyamory healthily until now. And the best current model we have is from the gay/lesbian community, which kind of throws a lot of wrenches into what we typically think of.

    I would definitely think it would be more likely that there would be more bi-sexual (?) women being a centerpoint of some kind of relationship than there would be one dude with multiple wives, outside of places with an existing power structure for that

    you don't think that heterosexual women in the US are more invested in monogamous institutions than heterosexual men?

    are lesbians more open to polyamory than gay men? because conventional wisdom is that lesbians are strongly given to monogamous coupling while gay men, as a culture, struggle with it.

    Old Joke but

    What does a lesbian bring on the third date?
    A moving truck

    What does a gay dude bring on the third date?
    third date?

    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
    Irond WillFeral
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Arch wrote: »
    we need to coin a word for that feeling you get when you can't remember the exact search terms you used on google scholar to return the perfect article

    ....that you forgot to bookmark

    try a memorable phrase from the article?

    aRkpc.gif
  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    Arch wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    I like how a statement about polyamory somehow turned into legalization of polygamous fidelity

    there are a lot of conclusions to jump there

    plus the even farther implication that this would inevitably lead to an increase in polygynous relationships, to the detriment of the available mate pool for men

    Which is the exact opposite of trends actually observed in the real world when we're talking about first-world non-religious polyamory.

    agreed, but this seems to include a rather large sample bias

    the other data has a much larger bias, I would argue

    what, are religious people going to be rapture'd away soon?

    Well, in the west we aren't a strict theocracy any more so I would argue the influence there is smaller than one would expect

    Hmm, I don't know.

    The people who are religiously against it are very against it, and that's still a pretty big fraction of the country.

    The tide is turning though, yeah.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    i played through the first gears and tried the second but always resented, then just couldn't abide the bro tone.

    as a secondary frustration your big meatbag was incredibly fucking lumbering

    Like the tank controls in the original Resident Evil, being a big slow target in Gears adds to the tension during shootouts. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    I like how a statement about polyamory somehow turned into legalization of polygamous fidelity

    there are a lot of conclusions to jump there

    plus the even farther implication that this would inevitably lead to an increase in polygynous relationships, to the detriment of the available mate pool for men

    Which is the exact opposite of trends actually observed in the real world when we're talking about first-world non-religious polyamory.

    agreed, but this seems to include a rather large sample bias

    well, if the question is "what kinds of marriages would emerge if we legally recognized plural marriages tomorrow?" and limited the scope of that question to the English-speaking first world

    I honestly don't know.

    I think the situation you describe where middle-eastern/north-african/islamic/mormon one-man-many-women (with at least a veneer of fidelity) polygamy ends up statistically more common than free-love-hippie-poly-swingy-kinky anybody-fuck-who-they-want might happen.

    Or the opposite might happen. I honestly don't know. I'm not proposing any legal changes, personally.

    I'll go one step further than this and make the prediction that we would see almost even spreads of polyandrous/gynous in the West if we were to legalize it, but only in the sense that I think we would see a higher rate of poly relationships that don't fit the established norms (i.e. multiple male or females in same-sex relationships)

  • Dark Raven XDark Raven X Laugh hard, run fast, be kindRegistered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    i played through the first gears and tried the second but always resented, then just couldn't abide the bro tone.

    as a secondary frustration your big meatbag was incredibly fucking lumbering

    My feelings on this are mixed, cause I liked the storyline (thin as it was) for the first 2 a lot more, but can appreciate the characters are much better written in the third. I just didn't like how it became an endgame save-the-world plot, wheras the first 2 had a tone of postponing the inevitable end of the world, there was no actual hope for victory.
    The first game ends with you detonating a hard light bomb underground, YEAH! This vaporizes the luminous goo under the surface which then infects humanity with a terrible plague. Also said goo is sentient, and is a horrific mutagen which threatens to wipe out humans and locust alike. So. OOPS!

    Then the second game ends with humanity's last city being destroyed, and them taking to the sea to live on aircraft carriers.

    Then the third game has you adventuring to find the magical mcguffin that will wipe out the luminous goo monsters and all the locust and everything's fine now, hooray. I dunno. Maybe I was just not prepared for a happy ending.

    Also you never stopped being a walking truck ;D

    Oh brilliant
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited March 2014
    Feral wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Damnit I'm trying to find the old data I had on this

    Maybe feral has it closer at hand

    nah because i'm literally only posting to take a break from the fires I've been scrambling to put out

    Nero posts on the forums while rome burns.

    Shivahn: because more men (both gay and straight) tend to be interested in nonmonogamous relationships than women, there tends to be a population imbalance in nonreligious nonmonogamous communities (poly, swing, kink). Consequently, it is typical for women have more partners on average than men - one woman might be dating two guys, or there might be a leather family with four guys and three girls. And yeah I had stats to support that at one time but not off-hand right this second.

    That can be a bum deal for men in certain ways (think about Holden and Allison in Chasing Amy for a moment) but not in the way ronya is lamenting.

    i mean in western society and largely elsewhere women are more likely to view sex more as a means to an end (emotional support, financial support, stability, etc), whereas men are more likely to view it more as an end in and of itself.

    thus it's no real mystery why men are more heavily drawn into informal polyamorous relationships than women. it's also no mystery why formalized polygamy (in the modern world) is almost always one man/ many women - because it meets the sexual goals of men and the extra-sexual goals of women.

    the question is why you think that these distinctly gendered views of sex would change just because polygamy were legal and/or polyamory was more widespread? or are you assuming that because the hypothetical world is now okay with polyamory then it also must no longer have the same concepts and values surrounding gender and sexuality?

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    kedinik wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    I like how a statement about polyamory somehow turned into legalization of polygamous fidelity

    there are a lot of conclusions to jump there

    plus the even farther implication that this would inevitably lead to an increase in polygynous relationships, to the detriment of the available mate pool for men

    Which is the exact opposite of trends actually observed in the real world when we're talking about first-world non-religious polyamory.

    agreed, but this seems to include a rather large sample bias

    the other data has a much larger bias, I would argue

    what, are religious people going to be rapture'd away soon?

    Well, in the west we aren't a strict theocracy any more so I would argue the influence there is smaller than one would expect

    Hmm, I don't know.

    The people who are religiously against it are very against it, and that's still a pretty big fraction of the country.

    The tide is turning though, yeah.

    Nono, that's precisely my point

    Previously polygyny was done for forms of power and control- think mormons, or cult leaders but writ large and enshrined as culture. I think in the west religion is much more against the idea, now, than it used to be and thus we wouldn't have as much of a huge bias towards polygyny coming from the religious side of things, or from a "political" side (kings, etc having harems)

  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    So ronya I will respond to your PM tomorrow.

    A response per day or two seems like a good rate.

    ronya
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Arch wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    I like how a statement about polyamory somehow turned into legalization of polygamous fidelity

    there are a lot of conclusions to jump there

    plus the even farther implication that this would inevitably lead to an increase in polygynous relationships, to the detriment of the available mate pool for men

    Which is the exact opposite of trends actually observed in the real world when we're talking about first-world non-religious polyamory.

    agreed, but this seems to include a rather large sample bias

    the other data has a much larger bias, I would argue

    what, are religious people going to be rapture'd away soon?

    Well, in the west we aren't a strict theocracy any more so I would argue the influence there is smaller than one would expect

    I would say that currently religious thought is anti-polygamy in the west, so you would only see it religiously in fringe sects, and those that would typically engage in legal polygamy would be those more inclined to it today, i.e. those typically in "alt" communities, where the balance is different vis-a-vis polygyny/polyandry than historical trends

    I think fringe sects can expand remarkably fast if permitted to do so, and polygamy is one of the ways in which rapid spread is fuelled (via providing women for loyal disciples).

    Sexually progressive 'alt' communities exist exclusively in a bubble of cultural liberalism, protected by the force of the state. If that force fades, a mob comes and beats the deviants up - if the mob feels forgiving. I don't think there are any reasons to suspect that the West has become so modern as to be immune to this kind of regression

    aRkpc.gif
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited March 2014
    kedinik wrote: »
    So ronya I will respond to your PM tomorrow.

    A response per day or two seems like a good rate.

    yeah your replies take a while to think about. heh.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • OrganichuOrganichu jacobkosh Registered User regular
    i'm going grocery shopping tonight. trying to stay away from starches.

    yogurt
    shrimp
    eggs
    hot sauce
    canned tuna
    head of lettuce (for wraps)
    spinach
    asparagus
    bone-in chicken legs/quarters

    what else

    uh

    Atomika
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    I really don't think (from what I remember) that formalized polygamy in the west is one man/many women

    I keep saying this, and I remember reading something that had the numbers, but can't find it

    But like, from my anecdotal evidence it is more like one woman/separate male partners who don't interact or one male and a woman who has multiple partners

    I really haven't run across people who I would classify as a "healthy" polyamourous relationship where it is one male and a bunch of different women, unless the women are sleeping with one another

    Which kind of isn't traditional polygyny

  • ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    The MtGox Bitcoin exchange, which last week sought bankruptcy protection in Japan, opened a helpline for anxious customers on Monday after unveiling a massive loss in a possible theft.

    The troubled exchange filed for protection with the Tokyo District Court Friday, admitting that it had lost nearly half a billion dollars worth of the digital currency.

    The call centre will respond to “all inquiries to MtGox”, the Tokyo-based firm said on its website. “An overview of the situation should be published here shortly.”

    Couldn't pay me enough to take that job.

  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    The MtGox Bitcoin exchange, which last week sought bankruptcy protection in Japan, opened a helpline for anxious customers on Monday after unveiling a massive loss in a possible theft.

    The troubled exchange filed for protection with the Tokyo District Court Friday, admitting that it had lost nearly half a billion dollars worth of the digital currency.

    The call centre will respond to “all inquiries to MtGox”, the Tokyo-based firm said on its website. “An overview of the situation should be published here shortly.”

    Couldn't pay me enough to take that job.

    2 BTC a day and whatever's left in the fridge.

  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    Arch wrote: »
    kedinik wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    I like how a statement about polyamory somehow turned into legalization of polygamous fidelity

    there are a lot of conclusions to jump there

    plus the even farther implication that this would inevitably lead to an increase in polygynous relationships, to the detriment of the available mate pool for men

    Which is the exact opposite of trends actually observed in the real world when we're talking about first-world non-religious polyamory.

    agreed, but this seems to include a rather large sample bias

    the other data has a much larger bias, I would argue

    what, are religious people going to be rapture'd away soon?

    Well, in the west we aren't a strict theocracy any more so I would argue the influence there is smaller than one would expect

    Hmm, I don't know.

    The people who are religiously against it are very against it, and that's still a pretty big fraction of the country.

    The tide is turning though, yeah.

    Nono, that's precisely my point

    Previously polygyny was done for forms of power and control- think mormons, or cult leaders but writ large and enshrined as culture. I think in the west religion is much more against the idea, now, than it used to be and thus we wouldn't have as much of a huge bias towards polygyny coming from the religious side of things, or from a "political" side (kings, etc having harems)

    Ah ok, I understand now.

    Although I'm pretty sure, historically, non-Mormons have pretty much always viewed polygyny as un-American and Mormons as, therefore, these weird alien disloyalists.

    Like as soon as there was Mormon polygamy, there were Mormons getting killed and run out of big cities over the anxieties it created.

This discussion has been closed.