Advertisement

by Othelos » Wed Nov 12, 2014 5:34 pm

by Liriena » Wed Nov 12, 2014 5:47 pm
Manisdog wrote:just one small question nsg, How would you feel if your wife/girlfriend sleeps with 30 other men ?
| I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |

by Hurdegaryp » Wed Nov 12, 2014 5:51 pm
Manisdog wrote:Threlizdun wrote:Okay. Are you going to provide any arguments for why you believe multiple people involved in a consenting relationship are wrong or should I just ignore you?
You know such a thing would just break the very moral fabric of society, you know society asks to adhere to very basic and very minimum things like the roles each gender has to play and such an arrangement would just ruin society
CVT Temp wrote:I mean, we can actually create a mathematical definition for evolution in terms of the evolutionary algorithm and then write code to deal with abstract instances of evolution, which basically equates to mathematical proof that evolution works. All that remains is to show that biological systems replicate in such a way as to satisfy the minimal criteria required for evolution to apply to them, something which has already been adequately shown time and again. At this point, we've pretty much proven that not only can evolution happen, it pretty much must happen since it's basically impossible to prevent it from happening.

by United Marxist Nations » Wed Nov 12, 2014 5:58 pm
Manisdog wrote:just one small question nsg, How would you feel if your wife/girlfriend sleeps with 30 other men ?
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.

by The Empire of Pretantia » Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:02 pm

by Infected Mushroom » Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:03 pm
The Empire of Pretantia wrote:Polyamory seems like a lot of work. And if it was universally practiced by both sexes, I think we'd need a chart to explain relationships.

by Othelos » Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:05 pm

by The Empire of Pretantia » Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:05 pm

by Liriena » Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:05 pm
| I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |

by Furry Alairia and Algeria » Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:05 pm
The Empire of Pretantia wrote:Polyamory seems like a lot of work. And if it was universally practiced by both sexes, I think we'd need a chart to explain relationships.

by Othelos » Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:06 pm

by Furry Alairia and Algeria » Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:08 pm

by Olivaero » Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:10 pm

by Infected Mushroom » Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:21 pm
Olivaero wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
its essentially a roadmap for disloyalty, heartbreaks, and suffering down the road...
Actually I find it's much more honest. I can remark to my partners about if I'm attracted to someone and they seem much less prone to jealousy than my monogamous partners ever were.I have no idea why you'd think it made suffering or heartbreaks more likely though... You know your partners are going to be sleeping with each other sometimes, they tell you about it, and you accept that they love you just as much as if they only slept with you. Just like you know yourself that you love both of them as much as if you were only sleeping with one of them.

by Benuty » Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:40 pm
.
by Olivaero » Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:54 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:Olivaero wrote:Actually I find it's much more honest. I can remark to my partners about if I'm attracted to someone and they seem much less prone to jealousy than my monogamous partners ever were.I have no idea why you'd think it made suffering or heartbreaks more likely though... You know your partners are going to be sleeping with each other sometimes, they tell you about it, and you accept that they love you just as much as if they only slept with you. Just like you know yourself that you love both of them as much as if you were only sleeping with one of them.
they have to find one person the most attractive at a given time though...
it can't be so perfectly balanced...

by Manisdog » Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:03 pm
Galloism wrote:Manisdog wrote:moral fabric of society
You know, much like "protect the children" any argument based on maintaining/restoring the "moral fabric of society" instantly implies to me that the person has no good logical argument for their position.
As a default, I tend to line up on the other side of any argument that starts with that justification.

by Furry Alairia and Algeria » Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:04 pm
Manisdog wrote:Galloism wrote:You know, much like "protect the children" any argument based on maintaining/restoring the "moral fabric of society" instantly implies to me that the person has no good logical argument for their position.
As a default, I tend to line up on the other side of any argument that starts with that justification.
This kind of behavior is frowned upon by almost all people except maybe a few islands the Brazilian guy told us about, there must be a reason for it....

by Manisdog » Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:05 pm

by Furry Alairia and Algeria » Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:07 pm
Manisdog wrote:Furry Alairia and Algeria wrote:That's not a credible source.
That's not even a source.
Trying living like that, such things don't need to sources its like asking for a source of why the earth is round
nearly everywhere there is monogamy, or in some extreme cases polygamy in which a man of status keeps 2 or more wives

by Threlizdun » Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:08 pm
Every relationship is different, though I don't see why that would mean that much. Many monogamous people would concede that they find some people more attractive then their partners, but that doesn't mean they have any desire to leave their partner. People tend to form and maintain relationships because they mean something to them, not just because they are physically attracted to them.Infected Mushroom wrote:Olivaero wrote:Actually I find it's much more honest. I can remark to my partners about if I'm attracted to someone and they seem much less prone to jealousy than my monogamous partners ever were.I have no idea why you'd think it made suffering or heartbreaks more likely though... You know your partners are going to be sleeping with each other sometimes, they tell you about it, and you accept that they love you just as much as if they only slept with you. Just like you know yourself that you love both of them as much as if you were only sleeping with one of them.
they have to find one person the most attractive at a given time though...
it can't be so perfectly balanced...

by Manisdog » Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:10 pm
Furry Alairia and Algeria wrote:Manisdog wrote:Trying living like that, such things don't need to sources its like asking for a source of why the earth is round
nearly everywhere there is monogamy, or in some extreme cases polygamy in which a man of status keeps 2 or more wives
Actually, stereotyping people as in, "I don't like it" is not creditable to a random Brazilian man.

by Furry Alairia and Algeria » Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:11 pm
Manisdog wrote:Furry Alairia and Algeria wrote:Actually, stereotyping people as in, "I don't like it" is not creditable to a random Brazilian man.
some Brazilian guy on nsg, don't remember his name but yeah he shared a link about an island with some really weird kind of culture now you would have to wait for him to come as I don't remember his name
my point is everyone follows monogamous and in some cases polygamous practices but only those who can afford to keep 2 or more wives ( i e arabs)

by Threlizdun » Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:12 pm
Manisdog wrote:Furry Alairia and Algeria wrote:That's not a credible source.
That's not even a source.
Trying living like that, such things don't need to sources its like asking for a source of why the earth is round
nearly everywhere there is monogamy, or in some extreme cases polygamy in which a man of status keeps 2 or more wives

by Furry Alairia and Algeria » Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:13 pm
Manisdog wrote:my point is everyone follows monogamous and in some cases polygamous practices but only those who can afford to keep 2 or more wives ( i e arabs)
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, American Legionaries, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, El Lazaro, Fractalnavel, Gnark, L van Beethoven, Necroghastia, Ostroeuropa, Rio Cana, Stellar Colonies, Tarsonis, Techocracy101010, The Jamesian Republic, TheKeyToJoy
Advertisement