Best Relationship Configuration Poll

[TragicMonkey]

Arguing about the topic is one thing, but arguing about the argument is another. If I were in a relationship with anyone who argued about arguments I'd divorce them and take half their stuff, and then burn it to make a point about their taste.

 

[Magrat]

Well, since that's what she said, then, yes, I do, too.

Why don't we ask her?

RogueKitten?

I meant to all the options to be the accepted norm, not for every single individual to be in anything at all. That's silly. Mathematically improbably also.

 

[Magrat]

So to you, the idea that she seriously proposed all people in monogamous homosexual relationships is more believable than the idea that she just had a minor brain fart and failed to express her thoughts accurately?

Sorry, but that is, as I said, utterly ridiculous.

I have a lot of brain farts. Also, try as I might, I haven't yet managed to predict every complaint or dispute that could brought up from whatever I write. I do try. I may think I've been clear, but then suddenly there's a thread like this one.

 

[Upchurch]

I have a lot of brain farts. Also, try as I might, I haven't yet managed to predict every complaint or dispute that could brought up from whatever I write. I do try. I may think I've been clear, but then suddenly there's a thread like this one.

That's why I find it helpful to ask questions about what people mean, as I did with Zig, rather than to simply assume they said something stupid. (Of course, then I'm apparently blaming people for ...something.)

 

[Ziggurat]

That's why I find it helpful to ask questions about what people mean, as I did with Zig, rather than to simply assume they said something stupid.

Why do you imagine I asked for definitions of the terms used in the poll?

(Of course, then I'm apparently blaming people for ...something.)

You are blaming me for a misunderstanding caused by your inability to read the actual meaning of text.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Too bad nits cannot be collected and sold after picking. One or two would have windfall income from this thread alone.

 

[Magrat]

Too bad nits cannot be collected and sold after picking. One or two would have windfall income from this thread alone.

No joke!

 

[Magrat]

Even if you were going to approach the question analytically, I reject the premise that the "most beneficial" type is necessarily singular and not some mix of relationships across the population based on multiple factors, like population size, available resources, climate, change in climate, etc.

I'm asking what type of social sexual format we evolved to use. I'm not sure that would vary by individual.

 

[SteveL]

Actually, Ziggarut took RogueKitten's words at face value. I don't see how he could have paid closer attention:
RK wrote (in italics):
1) Heterosexual monogamy would be most adults being in opposite sex marriage like relationships with very few to no divorces or infidelity.
2) Homosexual monogamy is the same thing with the same sex.


#2 could be rewritten as (my emphasis): Homosexual monogamy is most adults being in same-sex marriage like relationships with very few to no divorces or infidelity.

You read something in RK's words that was not there which caused you to you misinterpret Ziggarut's post. Mistakes happen. No sense compounding them by blaming it on others.

I meant to all the options to be the accepted norm, not for every single individual to be in anything at all. That's silly. Mathematically improbably also.

None of us (Zig, HTTR, and myself) ever thought that you meant "every single individual " when you wrote "most adults". We simply thought that you meant 'most adults', i.e. the accepted norm, kinda like heterosexual monogamy in the USA in the recent past. Are we wrong?

 

[Upchurch]

You are blaming me for a misunderstanding caused by your inability to read the actual meaning of text.

 

[Magrat]

None of us (Zig, HTTR, and myself) ever thought that you meant "every single individual " when you wrote "most adults". We simply thought that you meant 'most adults', i.e. the accepted norm, kinda like heterosexual monogamy in the USA in the recent past. Are we wrong?

No that's what I meant.

 

[SteveL]

No that's what I meant.

Thank you.

 

[Magrat]

Thank you.

Also I was thinking...somewhere on the thread someone said homosexual monogamy wouldn't work as the norm because the species would die out. Can't recall exactly how it was worded, that was the gist.

But I thought, that's not true anymore, is it? We have artificial insemination. Even before that, man and woman could volunteer to have sex and make babies that would then be raised by one of the homosexual couples.

Not how we homo sapiens roll, but it is possible.

 

[bruto]

Also I was thinking...somewhere on the thread someone said homosexual monogamy wouldn't work as the norm because the species would die out. Can't recall exactly how it was worded, that was the gist.

But I thought, that's not true anymore, is it? We have artificial insemination. Even before that, man and woman could volunteer to have sex and make babies that would then be raised by one of the homosexual couples.

Not how we homo sapiens roll, but it is possible.

Not to mention that in a tradition of serial monogamy, it's not all that uncommon for a person to switch teams the second time around.

Of course if one presumes that homosexual monogamy simply means that homosexual couples will be monogamous, there is rather little chance that the species will dwindle any time soon anyway. People tend drastically to overestimate the percentage of the population that's gay.

 

[Puppycow]

No, RogueKitten, they have "repressed" and legislated the sexuality of the entire population. Do not delude yourself into thinking that there were no restrictions on the sexual behavior of men.

For women and low status men. For high status men, the rules were typically more flexible.

 

[HTTR]

To see anything other than the obvious intent, and to therefore come to anything but the obvious conclusion about its meaning, requires a level of grammatical nitpickishness that borders on the obsessive.

It was very clear and very obvious what RogueKitten meant. Who on earth would intend the alternative meaning? It would be utterly unbelievable for her to have suggested such a thing. Do you honestly believe that she intended to imply that all people would be in monogamous homosexual relationships? Why on earth would you come to that ridiculous conclusion unless you were being needlessly argumentative?

You can either read it with the obvious interpretation, under the perfectly reasonable assumption that anyone who would ask such a question intended for it to be interpreted in that way, or you can obsess over the literal but self-evidently unintended interpretation for the sake of making an argument, and thus appear narrow-mindedly disagreeable.

I think the highlighted indicates that your argument is more about trying to make me look stupid or something than actually addressing the issue. It's a pattern I've seen in your responses.

RK wrote "most people." Any interpretation other than "most people" is the alternative. "Most" is a vague term, but most commonly (see what I did there?) it means either greater than 50% or the highest percentage when none are above 50%.

I (nor Steve or Ziggarut) never claimed that by "most people" RK meant "all people." That is entirely your invention. Most people in the USA are heterosexual. Does that mean all or even nearly all? Of course not.

It's entirely possible (though not likely) to have a population that is mostly homosexual (more than 50% but not all) and sustain itself. After all, most women (58%) in the USA don't have babies. It all depends on how prolific your breeders are, how much your hypothetical society will rely on the medical profession for fertility, and if want to exclude/include in your definition of "homosexual" lesbians who engage in sporadic intercourse for the purpose of reproduction.

Thus your tirade was wrong on many levels.

 

[arthwollipot]

I think the highlighted indicates that your argument is more about trying to make me look stupid or something than actually addressing the issue. It's a pattern I've seen in your responses.

ETA: Never mind.

 

[Magrat]

For women and low status men. For high status men, the rules were typically more flexible.

I gave up arguing this point, lest I spend hours debating the definition of "sex" or some such.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I gave up arguing this point, lest I spend hours debating the definition of "sex" or some such.

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

 

[Magrat]

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

I could have an entire conversation in either gifs, or spongebob quotes.