Males and Females

[Dak]

I don't think anyone is ever always a single emotion. Are you passing this off as an argument? I don't think it needs to be stated that "happiness" is a generalization.

Well obviously people aren't in a continuous single emotional state. But being "happy" is upheld as some sort of imperative, much more so than traditional marriage or monogamy or something.

Edit: I don't understand your response to the family situation. My mother did cheat on and divorce my father. Didn't make me suddenly question the idea of marriage or monogamy.

 

[Matt]

I'd like to try an open relationship. Eliminates the jealously, but its not like you're actually dating multiple people and have to split time between them. Also would definitely be down for an agreement like the Underwoods have in House of Cards.

 

[Onder]

Well I have a birthday in two days and my girlfriend's been saying something about having a gift for me since like, two months back. I really don't know what it could be and I'm starting to be childish about it.

But anyway, I'm going to buy myself new in-ear headphones for my long travels to the uni, and also some new pants.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Polygamy is marrying multiple people. Polyamory is loving multiple people. It doesn't mean keeping your options open, it means that the love you have for one person does not diminish the love you have for another. It's common for polyamorists to have a primary partner - if they're not out as polyamorous, this may appear to be their only partner - and then engage in one or more relationships outside of that. There are also triads, obviously more common among gay men, where three people are all in the same relationship. These aren't particularly stable, but then neither are heterosexual marriages.

What you're describing is fear of commitment (or getting hurt) resulting in a string of shallow, meaningless "relationships" of convenience. That's not what polyamory is about.

I feel like we are saying the same thing but I guess the way I worded it sounded kind of shallow. Like any other type of relationship, there are going to be people that you don't find compatible, and polyamory (we'll go by your description) allows for you to have other options. I did not mean that on a strictly sexual basis by any means. I do think multiple partners would be helpful in easing jealousy, as well as providing a healthy amount of space.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Well obviously people aren't in a continuous single emotional state. But being "happy" is upheld as some sort of imperative, much more so than traditional marriage or monogamy or something.

Edit: I don't understand your response to the family situation. My mother did cheat on and divorce my father. Didn't make me suddenly question the idea of marriage or monogamy.

Well doesn't everyone generally want to be happy? Who prefers to have negative emotions? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Well it was that on top of my own rocky experience with my ex and just the way I've seen most couples that I'm close with and the shit they go through. It's disheartening to me how much bullshit people are willing to put up with, and all to chase this "oh so wonderful" idea of spending the rest of their lives with someone. If you can still see the beauty in it then more power to you. It's not for me.

Also, I am the most happy when I'm single. I'm not even all that interested in seeing anyone casually at the moment since that comes with its own bullshit. I like to be alone. Why Is that so hard for people to understand?

 

[Dak]

Well doesn't everyone generally want to be happy? Who prefers to have negative emotions? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

I see too many people refuse to do x/y/z because it isn't all "candy and roses", or whatever other fluffy metaphor you might use. It is quite annoying. Just about anything worth having takes some effort that is not going to be pleasant on some level or at some point (or many points).

Well it was that on top of my own rocky experience with my ex and just the way I've seen most couples that I'm close with and the shit they go through. It's disheartening to me how much bullshit people are willing to put up with, and all to chase this "oh so wonderful" idea of spending the rest of their lives with someone. If you can still see the beauty in it then more power to you. It's not for me.

Well if the point is merely to "be" with someone, then that is a pretty shallow reason, and when you are with the wrong person and/or not putting in the effort, staying together doesn't make much sense. That people pick/stay with the wrong people doesn't mean that there can't be a right person.

Also, I am the most happy when I'm single. I'm not even all that interested in seeing anyone casually at the moment since that comes with its own bullshit. I like to be alone.

If that's the case, then be alone. Dealing with anyone requires dealing with at least some bullshit though. Even when you are just dealing with yourself.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Well right, but I still have a social life and I'm regularly around and flirting with girls. I'm just not making much of an effort to become close with anyone.

Ok, I was talking to an older woman for a couple weeks up until recently. I gave her an honest chance but I ultimately could not stand her personality. She would constantly talk over me, never allowing me to speak, and her conversations mostly revolved around her incarcerated ex and how she "still loves him" (whilst seeing me, of course). After the last time I saw her (last Thursday), I'd had enough. Luckily, neither of us have been texting the other so maybe she herself isn't interested.

 

[Mort Divine]

No more overly romanticized than the supposed need to be "happy" at all times as being a priority for living a fulfilling life.

Seriously. I really find the way that people are made to believe that there should be no other acceptable emotions than happiness (and to a lesser extent anger) to be kind of disgusting.

Sure, being happy is great, but sometimes you just aren't, and experiencing the emotions that come when not experiencing happiness is mostly only healthy to do.

 

[arg]

Well I have a birthday in two days and my girlfriend's been saying something about having a gift for me since like, two months back. I really don't know what it could be and I'm starting to be childish about it.

But anyway, I'm going to buy myself new in-ear headphones for my long travels to the uni, and also some new pants.

have you posted pics of her yet? i'm not on here as often and i'd love to see

also, huge noise-canceling headphones that cover your whole ear are best

 

[Onder]

have you posted pics of her yet? i'm not on here as often and i'd love to see

also, huge noise-canceling headphones that cover your whole ear are best

Yeah I have posted some. I probably won't share more unless I have some new.

Well I have large AKG headphones for home-use, but I want something small for my way to school. I chose Etymotic in-ear monitors. Apparently they isolate perfectly and they have a very strict and precise sound.

 

[Carpe Mortem]

I just gotta say that there's few more awesome feelings than meeting someone who's weird in the same obscure, disgusting, and disturbing ways you are, who's also hot, wants to have sex with you, and thinks the things you don't have in common are fascinating. And you think the same of them.

Sure, there's other hot people who maybe hit a few of those nails on the head, and that weirdo broke your favorite fuckin model, but banging one of those others at the risk of losing someone who makes you feel normal isn't worth it. Besides, they'll never really get you, they're just interesting and nice to look at. Once you're too old for sex, you'll want those good memories and the peace that comes with self assurance. A good love removes self doubt, it doesn't foster it.

I think a lot of relationships are bullshit and interchangeable, I.e. anyone hot, sane, and vaguely similar will do. Some people change when they find someone hot and cool to become more compatible, then stay changed forever until they're married and have kids, and begin to resent it. I feel bad for the people too afraid to be themselves, in all the interesting and boring glory, because they'll never have accuracy in feeling amongst others.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's for the children. Literally. As in, you can't all just be free-fucking bonobos and also take good care of children. Of course, if you don't want kids, then by all means go bonofuckingbo. Just be sure to use protection so as to erase yourself from the gene pool and not fuck over some poor kid unfortunate enough to be your accidental offspring.

Alternatively, a person who goes all "free-fucking bonobos" has a better chance of producing a large variety of offspring, thus increasing the odds that they will be better equipped to survive and ensuring the continuation of the parents' lineage.

Now, it is true that children fare better if they have a parent that sticks around to raise them; but the other evolutionary behavior is to plant as many seeds in as many different kinds of mate as you can. The chances are that at least some of them will survive.

Raise vs raise well.

It's a mistake, of course, to believe that "raising well" leads to the institution of marriage, or that marriage and proper grooming are the direct result of some kind of superior evolutionary behavior. Marriage is a product of patriarchy, nothing more; and the value of monogamy follows from this. It has nothing to do with evolutionary behavior witnessed in other species.

In contrast to the false equation given above, it is actually the institution of marriage itself - a socioeconomic model instituted by those in positions of power in order to procure the most viable and fertile mates - that constructs our notions of what it means to "raise well." And this is merely for the purpose of perpetuating the patriarchy. It is entirely possible, in another set of environmental, cultural, or evolutionary conditions, that raising well means instilling in one's children the propensity for impregnating as many mates as possible.

 

[waif]

I have a date tomorrow with a girl that I've been chatting with constantly and think is really cool. She gets almost all my obscure references, started reading the Malazan Book of the Fallen with minimal prompting, and hasn't been creeped out by awkward sexual innuendo or my repeatedly drunkenly texting her death metal lyrics in all caps. Pretty excited, getting drinks with her tomorrow.

This happened. I think she's a keeper. We drank cool beers, swapped stories, talked about dork stuff, I brought her home, we did the horizontal polka, and today we hung out, watched Trailer Park Boys and cuddled.

 

[KafkaX]

 

[Draehl]

Alternatively, a person who goes all "free-fucking bonobos" has a better chance of producing a large variety of offspring, thus increasing the odds that they will be better equipped to survive and ensuring the continuation of the parents' lineage.

Now, it is true that children fare better if they have a parent that sticks around to raise them; but the other evolutionary behavior is to plant as many seeds in as many different kinds of mate as you can. The chances are that at least some of them will survive.



It's a mistake, of course, to believe that "raising well" leads to the institution of marriage, or that marriage and proper grooming are the direct result of some kind of superior evolutionary behavior. Marriage is a product of patriarchy, nothing more; and the value of monogamy follows from this. It has nothing to do with evolutionary behavior witnessed in other species.

In contrast to the false equation given above, it is actually the institution of marriage itself - a socioeconomic model instituted by those in positions of power in order to procure the most viable and fertile mates - that constructs our notions of what it means to "raise well." And this is merely for the purpose of perpetuating the patriarchy. It is entirely possible, in another set of environmental, cultural, or evolutionary conditions, that raising well means instilling in one's children the propensity for impregnating as many mates as possible.

Sadly, we're beyond natural selection and true evolutionary behavior. Modern society prohibits natural selection from taking place. Those truly most fit within the context of modern society are having no or fewer children. Those least fit are seemingly those who reproduce the most. We're almost anti-evolutionary at this point. That being said *society* will continue to advance off shared accomplishments and breakthroughs, but individuals humans will at worst degrade and at best not advance. Of course barring some massive event that changes the criteria of success (society being mostly wiped out or a group diverging from humanity at large- IE colonization of another planet)

Anywho.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

OK Joe Rogan, that's good pot talk but nothing you said is even close to making sense.

 

[Einherjar86]

Sadly, we're beyond natural selection and true evolutionary behavior.

This assumes that technology, industry, biogenetics, etc. aren't evolutionary adaptations in their own right. Natural selection doesn't disappear when humans start augmenting their bodies, programming their genes, or accepting welfare checks.

 

[Master_Yoda77]

Anyone else want to do despicable things to Rose Leslie?

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Yes.

 

[Funerary_Doom]

I use to be acquaintances with this particular national socialist who swore up and down people were devolving and the only way to kickstart evolution again is to pair each type of race with their respective types (like within white race there were different types of white like Dinarics, Nordic,etc so the Dinarics should only breed with Dinarics etc) and become more isolated to "fully evolve" the traits that were once more prominent. Sounded like a chalk full of do-do to me. And he despised globalization and technology and essentially blamed them for miscegenation, which led (or is leading to) devolution. Who knows, who cares. You live then you die-- it really shouldn't be that deep. It just reminded me of that simply because he stated the same thing. That people who are more intelligent or most fit aren't breeding. It all depends because a guy like Stephen Hawking who is incredibly intelligent and significant, but he is has ALS and is almost entirely paralyzed and ultimately depends on the support of others. It's just not right to judge/determine people's value objectively, as every case is totally different and it's just not a good way to look at people...

I actually have a dilemma. I actually got pretty close to someone i've been friends with for not too long, and this friend knowing the situation of me just having gotten out of a relationship but still on the fence with going back into it is being pretty forward with wanting a relationship with me. He doesn't like that I drink and hangout and always complains that I have too many people to talk to and that I drink too much (which really isn't true). I mean if I can't bring him around my friends and having him act normal and not judgmental, i suppose that's a red flag right? Moreoever, I still really like my ex… and maybe i should just wait until shit gets better. Who the fuck knows.