Pathfinder Forums Memes that Grind Your Gears


Gamer Life General Discussion

701 to 750 of 1,247 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>

Heh. I apologize for my failed Linguistics check, EML. The idea, as I suspect you know, is that the meme of "no sex before marriage" should be actively excised to as large a degree as possible from society. Probably by replacing it with something far more healthy. THank you for your support, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*shrug* I said my peace. Any further commentating on the subject would be denying my own previous suggestion of taking off-topic derails beyond 1-2 posts to a separate thread, which while I know has no chance of actually happening (because that would take like seven seconds to set up, forty or so if you're using a phone, and that's way too much effort for some folks), I am going to try to limit my own hypocrisy by dropping out of the sovietal sex talk at this point in this thread...Because I'm trying to make my actions fall in line with my beliefs.

if you linkify a new thread, however:
I'd probably hop in at least once or twice in a new thread, though. Someone has got to represent we religious individuals without actually sounding like psychotic over the top rabid douchebags that make the rest of us believers facepalm and mutter to ourselves "Just shut up man, you're really making the rest of us look bad"

I usually stop after a page or two, though. I don't understand the point of entrenched extended debate on a subject nobody is going to change their mind over. At some point it just becomes cyclical repetition.

See how I tied the derail in with the original subject (sorta)? Smooth, man, smooth.

It is possible, I suppose, that we have actually exhausted all the Paizo Forum Memes that this community has, but given the complaint riddled nature of humanity, the internet in particular, I severely doubt that.

For example - Incorrectly labeled thread titles! It should be Paizo Forum Memes, not Pathfinder Forum Memes, because a lot of this stuff takes place outside of the Pathfinder subforum...like this thread!


@tgtg

Sorry for the continued derail... I just want to make clear that there is no problem acting on your belief or even trying to convice others to follow them. It's forcing others to do it that I consider selfish and problematic.

Generally speaking, people should only be forced/forbidden to do something if they (not) doing it has verifiable consequences for others (e.g.: You can't punch people in the face because it affects them, but you can punch your own face as much as you want). Someone not agreeing with your faith has no impact on you or anyone else other than said someone.

And keep in mind that most religion-neutral policies (e.g.: You can't teach any religion's mythology as fact in public schools) exist specifically to preserve religious freedom. It makes sure you (and everyone else) doesn't have to follow a faith you don't believe in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Which brings us to another forum meme:

Pop-up reasoned debates in threads where they don't belong!

The problem here is that, without a flame-bait title, the participants tend to be quite reasonable, and the debate of high quality... which makes it that much worse that it must be quashed for being off topic, or moved to its own thread which will inevitably have a flame-bait title. And that will be a magnet for trolls, which ruins the quality of the discussion!

For example, the last few posts could be wrangled into a spinoff thread entitled "NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE BLORCH" and well, would it be as comparatively polite as it was here?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Which brings us to another forum meme:

Pop-up reasoned debates in threads where they don't belong!

The problem here is that, without a flame-bait title, the participants tend to be quite reasonable, and the debate of high quality... which makes it that much worse that it must be quashed for being off topic, or moved to its own thread which will inevitably have a flame-bait title. And that will be a magnet for trolls, which ruins the quality of the discussion!

For example, the last few posts could be wrangled into a spinoff thread entitled "NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE BLORCH" and well, would it be as comparatively polite as it was here?

There are ways to phrase such a discussion without being flame bait. Especially since sex before marriage is only a piece of the "sex - too in your face, or not in your face enough" discussion sidetrack that occurred here.

I exist only to contradict you! Also, why haven't you returned my calls? Mythic LE Ulysses S. Grant says you're not going to be joining us for the Mythic Contradictory Alignment Famous People of the 1800s Potluck next week. Mythic Good Robert E. Lee is bringing his famous potato salad! How can you miss that? Important date at the theater? ZING!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Threads with non-flamebait titles REALLY grind my gears.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mythic CN John Wilkes Booth wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Which brings us to another forum meme:

Pop-up reasoned debates in threads where they don't belong!

The problem here is that, without a flame-bait title, the participants tend to be quite reasonable, and the debate of high quality... which makes it that much worse that it must be quashed for being off topic, or moved to its own thread which will inevitably have a flame-bait title. And that will be a magnet for trolls, which ruins the quality of the discussion!

For example, the last few posts could be wrangled into a spinoff thread entitled "NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE BLORCH" and well, would it be as comparatively polite as it was here?

There are ways to phrase such a discussion without being flame bait. Especially since sex before marriage is only a piece of the "sex - too in your face, or not in your face enough" discussion sidetrack that occurred here.

I exist only to contradict you! Also, why haven't you returned my calls? Mythic LE Ulysses S. Grant says you're not going to be joining us for the Mythic Contradictory Alignment Famous People of the 1800s Potluck next week. Mythic Good Robert E. Lee is bringing his famous potato salad! How can you miss that? Important date at the theater? ZING!

How come I never get invited to these things?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MYTHIC CN Sam Houston wrote:
Mythic CN John Wilkes Booth wrote:


I exist only to contradict you! Also, why haven't you returned my calls? Mythic LE Ulysses S. Grant says you're not going to be joining us for the Mythic Contradictory Alignment Famous People of the 1800s Potluck next week. Mythic Good Robert E. Lee is bringing his famous potato salad! How can you miss that? Important date at the theater? ZING!
How come I never get invited to these things?

Did Mythic LG Lovecraft not pass on the message? I told him to tell you about it. That jerk was probably just mad because I told him he wasn't technically famous in the 1800s, even if he was alive then.

Honestly, it's not even about the timing of his celebrity. I was just tired of him bringing calamari to every damn event. Really getting sick of his tentacle fetish. Even Mythic Unaligned Meiji the Great said it was offensive and in poor taste.


Epic derails in aliases by people who in their original name claimed to be against such derails grinds my gears. Honestly, it's probably their own way of protesting the means and direction of the current derail via subtle humor and self-referential in-jokes, which is just hypocritical and stupid of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Delayed Blast Threadlock wrote:
Epic derails in aliases by people who in their original name claimed to be against such derails grinds my gears. Honestly, it's probably their own way of protesting the means and direction of the current derail via subtle humor and self-referential in-jokes, which is just hypocritical and stupid of them.

Huh? I don't get it.

Also, how did he know? My aliases are so well crafted, none could possibly know my true identity.

I'm done, I swear. Unless you keep feeding my MCNJWB avatar. I love that joke so much I can't resist going with it. But otherwise I'm done.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow, this thread exploded. Maybe I'll just reply to one or two points.

Re: "No sex until marrige"—I think folks are misidentifying the issue here. Yes, destructively-repressive sexual cultures exist, and yes, they tend to include the "no sex until marriage" line. However, there are some important things to realize:
1) The cultural "packages" that damage people via sexual repression include waaaaaay more than just "no sex until marriage", to the point that
2) The removal of "no sex until marriage", if you leave the rest of the package unchanged, wouldn't actually make anything any better, and furthermore
3) If you took away the rest of the cultural package but kept "no sex until marriage" (in the context of an entirely different cultural framework) then the "no sex until marriage" thing wouldn't actually be harmful.

To put it another way: "No sex until marriage" isn't actually bad, it's just an easily-recognizable emblem that's often attached to the thing(s) that actually cause the damage.

Seeing the issue of a sexually repressive culture and choosing to respond by fighting "no sex until marriage" is like seeing an enemy army and responding by trying to shoot all trucks: sure, you'll knock out all the enemy trucks, but you'll also blow up civilian and friendly trucks while leaving tanks and planes unchecked.

Things like withholding information and attaching shame to the topic of sexuality are unhealthy, but those qualities are not inherent to "no sex until marriage". That is, there are other reasons (and healthy ones at that) to consider reserving sex for a committed, marriage-type relationship. There are a nontrivial number of couples who reserved sex for marriage and still have sexcessful (see what I did there?) lives/relationships.

^That's what it looks like when I "just reply to one or two points". ;)


Well Jiggy, I think there's something to be said for taking consent between two people and replacing that with a social/religious/state approval.

I think it is intrinsically harmful. But you're right, it's not the ONLY thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

... BLORCH???

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Well Jiggy, I think there's something to be said for taking consent between two people and replacing that with a social/religious/state approval.

I think it is intrinsically harmful. But you're right, it's not the ONLY thing.

Now, to be clear, there's a difference between "no sex until marriage" as an ideal, and that ideal being delivered in certain ways.

So, for example, requiring "state approval" (I guess you mean making non-marital sex illegal...?) would be a part of that "bigger picture" that I was talking about, but is not inherently part of "no sex before marriage".

Or to put it another way, the problem with "the state says no sex before marriage" is the "state says" part, not the "no sex before marriage" part.

If my wife and I were to decide to have kids, I would teach them to reserve sex for a committed relationship, but it would not be "because I said so" or because sex is dirty or anything like that. I'd make sure they were very well informed about sex, which (unlike much of the discussion here) would include not only physical ramifications but also emotional and psychological considerations. Sex is powerful and messy and wonderful and complicated. It affects people. It can be deeply rewarding or deeply traumatizing (and anywhere in between) depending on how it's handled. Since I would want the best for my hypothetical children, I would want to teach them to handle it in the most rewarding way possible, which I think would be within a committed relationship of mutual trust and open communication.

Yes, I recognize and respect that others disagree with that opinion, but that's really not the point; the point is that "no sex until marriage" can be the message of a well-informed parent to a beloved child in an effort to give said child the best life possible. It is not inherently tied to the iron-fisted religioustates that it's so often lumped together with.

Fight the withholding of information/resources and the shaming, not the "no sex until marriage" that often accompanies it. The former is unhealthy, while the latter is not.


Jiggy wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Well Jiggy, I think there's something to be said for taking consent between two people and replacing that with a social/religious/state approval.

I think it is intrinsically harmful. But you're right, it's not the ONLY thing.

Now, to be clear, there's a difference between "no sex until marriage" as an ideal, and that ideal being delivered in certain ways.

So, for example, requiring "state approval" (I guess you mean making non-marital sex illegal...?) would be a part of that "bigger picture" that I was talking about, but is not inherently part of "no sex before marriage".

Or to put it another way, the problem with "the state says no sex before marriage" is the "state says" part, not the "no sex before marriage" part.

If my wife and I were to decide to have kids, I would teach them to reserve sex for a committed relationship, but it would not be "because I said so" or because sex is dirty or anything like that. I'd make sure they were very well informed about sex, which (unlike much of the discussion here) would include not only physical ramifications but also emotional and psychological considerations. Sex is powerful and messy and wonderful and complicated. It affects people. It can be deeply rewarding or deeply traumatizing (and anywhere in between) depending on how it's handled. Since I would want the best for my hypothetical children, I would want to teach them to handle it in the most rewarding way possible, which I think would be within a committed relationship of mutual trust and open communication.

Yes, I recognize and respect that others disagree with that opinion, but that's really not the point; the point is that "no sex until marriage" can be the message of a well-informed parent to a beloved child in an effort to give said child the best life possible. It is not inherently tied to the iron-fisted religioustates that it's so often lumped together with.

Fight the withholding of information/resources and the shaming, not...

One inherent problem with the whole "no sex before marriage" thing is that it's very easy to flip into "get married to have sex", which is a lousy reason to get married.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, but even its status as a "recommendation" has the power to completely derail the lives of people who have done nothing "wrong" other than defy that recommendation.

And I'm talking about millions of people throughout history, who have been completely ruined, not by the law or enforcement of it, but social pressures alone.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
One inherent problem with the whole "no sex before marriage" thing is that it's very easy to flip into "get married to have sex", which is a lousy reason to get married.

Only if "no sex before marriage" is all you ever say about it. If you instead do what I described and say "Hey, here's what sex is like, and because of that I think you'll be happiest if you save it to be a part of a committed, deeply-trusting relationship," then your concern kind of falls apart.

What you describe only happens if their idea of "marriage" is "find somebody who'll marry you" and their idea of "sex" is "this thing that I have the urge to do but I'm not supposed to unless I'm married". If instead they're taught that "marriage" is a deeply committed relationship with someone you trust more than anyone because they're your best friend and partner in doing this whole "life" thing, and you also teach them that sex is a powerfully-intimate relational experience that affects you in XYZ ways; then "get married to have sex" isn't really a thing.

So again: "no sex until marriage" isn't the problem, the lack of information/trust/transparency/unconditional love and support is the problem.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Yes, but even its status as a "recommendation" has the power to completely derail the lives of people who have done nothing "wrong" other than defy that recommendation.

Only if the "recommendation" is made shallowly in all the terrible ways that I've already described (shaming, lack of information, etc). If you teach your kids "Here's this wonderful thing, here's exactly how it works (to the best of my knowledge), and I think it'll make you the happiest if you do it this way, and in the meantime I'm here for you if you have questions or if anything goes wrong," then nobody's getting their lives derailed.

Quote:
And I'm talking about millions of people throughout history, who have been completely ruined, not by the law or enforcement of it, but social pressures alone.

Yes, by the social pressures alone. "I think you'll be happiest if you do X" is not that kind of social pressure. "If you don't do X, then we'll all look down on you as a dirty whore" is that kind of social pressure. The definition of X exists independently of which of those models you use.


Jiggy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
One inherent problem with the whole "no sex before marriage" thing is that it's very easy to flip into "get married to have sex", which is a lousy reason to get married.

Only if "no sex before marriage" is all you ever say about it. If you instead do what I described and say "Hey, here's what sex is like, and because of that I think you'll be happiest if you save it to be a part of a committed, deeply-trusting relationship," then your concern kind of falls apart.

What you describe only happens if their idea of "marriage" is "find somebody who'll marry you" and their idea of "sex" is "this thing that I have the urge to do but I'm not supposed to unless I'm married". If instead they're taught that "marriage" is a deeply committed relationship with someone you trust more than anyone because they're your best friend and partner in doing this whole "life" thing, and you also teach them that sex is a powerfully-intimate relational experience that affects you in XYZ ways; then "get married to have sex" isn't really a thing.

So again: "no sex until marriage" isn't the problem, the lack of information/trust/transparency/unconditional love and support is the problem.

It's very easy to mistake the initial lust and infatuation of a new relationship for something more - to believe you're in a more deeply committed relationship than you actually are. With strong pressure to not have sex outside of marriage, that's easy to translate into "we should get married".

Whereas if you just date and have sex and let the sexual tensions work out, you can get past that stage and find out if you're really compatible before making legal commitments.

You also seem to be switching back and forth between "committed relationship" and marriage, when they're not the same thing. I'm not really talking about completely casual sex here.

"No sex before marriage" made a lot more sense before birth control was widely available and effective. If the chances of pregnancy are high, legal commitments to handle that are critical.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the idea is also innately harmful because even a couple who sincerely believes in it and follows it completely informed might end up finding out they aren't sexually compatible, which might lead to an unhappy life for the couple. Obviously, sex isn't all that matters, but it's a big part of a couple's relationship...

The decision of whether they can or cannot live with their incompatibility should be an informed one. Hoping for the best and only finding out after you made an emotional and legal commitment is a dangerously foolish idea to say the least.

I'm not saying it's wrong to wait... It isn't. Everyone has the right of waiting for as long as they want... I'm just pointing out that making auch a huge commitment without knowing such an important part of the relationshio is rarely a good idea...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm just more or less inclined to demystify the whole subject entirely seeing as their is no intrinsic value in virginity or sex anymore than there is in a person who has never flown or two people who get a real kick out of eating new food.


In the old farmer society in Sweden, you were considered an adult after your confirmation, at fourteen. You were allowed to hold your own property, and so on. Still, the important part to intimate relationships was not the wedding/marriage, but the promise thereof (trolovning). The two started living together then. If pregnancy happened, it was time to marry. And, of course, the man and woman entered the church together. No nonsense about "giving away the bride".

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
It's very easy to mistake the initial lust and infatuation of a new relationship for something more - to believe you're in a more deeply committed relationship than you actually are.

Remember that whole "well-informed" thing? The fact that a new and exciting relationship can feel more solid than it is would be one of the things to teach. Or if you failed to teach that, then the resulting consequences have more to do with that failure than with telling them that their sex life will be the most fulfilling if they wait for the right relationship.

Just because there are ways to mess someone up while suggesting the "wait for marriage" plan doesn't mean that those pitfalls are in any way connected to that particular plan. Failing to teach your child about how relationships work will get them into trouble regardless of what context you think is appropriate for sex.

Quote:
With strong pressure to not have sex outside of marriage, that's easy to translate into "we should get married".

I think it's slightly dishonest to summarize what I've been advocating as "strong pressure". It's a parent's job to teach their kids to make healthy, satisfying choices. That includes responsible use of alchohol, healthy eating/exercise, good sleeping habits, and how sex works. The fact that the parental guidance topic we're discussing happens to be the last of that list doesn't suddenly turn it into "pressuring".

Quote:
Whereas if you just date and have sex and let the sexual tensions work out, you can get past that stage and find out if you're really compatible before making legal commitments.

And you know what? If you talk to your own kids about that rationale, and keep them informed so they can make that choice, and let them know they always have your love and support as they work through all that relationship stuff, then I'm not going to say that you're applying "strong pressure" for them to become sexually active before they're ready.

So if a different parent, who is not you, approaches their kids' sexuality in the same way you do, just with different ideas about the "therefore I recommend X" at the end of the logic chain, then how is that parent any different from you?

Some parents might think it's best to work through early sexual tension to keep from making an early mistake, and others might think it's most rewarding in the long run to reserve sex for after carefully establishing and time-testing a relationship; but if both sets of parents are keeping their kids informed, loved, unshamed, and supported, then can either really point at the other and cry "pressured"?

Quote:
You also seem to be switching back and forth between "committed relationship" and marriage, when they're not the same thing. I'm not really talking about completely casual sex here.

"Marriage" is a lot shorter of a term than how I personally define the appropriate type of relationship for sex, and I'm already being pretty verbose. ;)

Quote:
"No sex before marriage" made a lot more sense before birth control was widely available and effective. If the chances of pregnancy are high, legal commitments to handle that are critical.

Sorry for the confusion; I'm not talking about legal issues. I'm mostly concerning myself with the emotional and psychological issues. (Having a psych degree, that tends to be the first place I go.)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

I think the idea is also innately harmful because even a couple who sincerely believes in it and follows it completely informed might end up finding out they aren't sexually compatible, which might lead to an unhappy life for the couple. Obviously, sex isn't all that matters, but it's a big part of a couple's relationship...

The decision of whether they can or cannot live with their incompatibility should be an informed one. Hoping for the best and only finding out after you made an emotional and legal commitment is a dangerously foolish idea to say the least.

I'm not saying it's wrong to wait... It isn't. Everyone has the right of waiting for as long as they want... I'm just pointing out that making auch a huge commitment without knowing such an important part of the relationshio is rarely a good idea...

You know, there is a reality in between "had sex beforehand" and just sort of flying blind ("hope for the best", "without knowing", etc).

Sex and money are the two most common topics of conflict for couples. It's a good idea for a couple to discuss finances in detail before getting married (seriously, every premarital counseling curriculum will hit that topic). But they don't have to share a checking account before they can know if their financial habits are compatible.

In the same way, I agree with you that a couple should be making informed decisions about the role sex will play in their relationship. That does not automatically require that they need to actually have sex in order to become informed. They need to talk about it. Heck, even once they HAVE had sex, they need to talk about it. [ETA: For sexual activity to actually inform you in any meaningful way, it would need to be happening regularly (with lots of talking as well). But by that point, you're already committed to the relationship, so it's no longer a "preparing to make an informed choice" kind of thing.]

"Haven't had sex" does not automatically equate to "completely uninformed". In fact, if a couple can't communicate well enough to reach a point of deciding whether to commit, then frankly they can't communicate well enough to sustain a long-term relationship at all, regardless of how sexually-compatible they are. Also, if your relationship is such that discovering a sexual issue would be a deal-breaker (rather than something to work through together), then it's not a good life-partner relationship in the first place.


I think using the short hand "marriage" carries along a awful lot of baggage, including all the legal issues. I suspect about 99% of people saying "wait until marriage" aren't thinking of it the way you are.

Most of them are probably thinking in religious/sin terms.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I think using the short hand "marriage" carries along a awful lot of baggage, including all the legal issues.

Well, the type of relationship I mean is the sort which either is an actual legal marriage, or (typically) eventually becomes one but is already basically the same relationship just without the papers having been signed yet. So I think the term is close enough.

Quote:

I suspect about 99% of people saying "wait until marriage" aren't thinking of it the way you are.

Most of them are probably thinking in religious/sin terms.

If people can't separate the idea of waiting until marriage from the idea of religious dogma even while I spell out in front of their faces that I'm not talking about religious dogma at all, then that's on them. (Also, that mistake has pretty little to do with what I mean by "marriage". Even if I meant ONLY legal marriage, it would still be a pretty foolish assumption to automatically connect my posts to religion/sin when I'm very plainly and explicitly describing something entirely different. If I say "talk to your kids about how things work and encourage them to make healthy choices," but someone manages to hear "religion and sin" just because of one phrase I included, then that's a level of closedmindedness for which nobody but them is responsible.)


Jiggy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I think using the short hand "marriage" carries along a awful lot of baggage, including all the legal issues.

Well, the type of relationship I mean is the sort which either is an actual legal marriage, or (typically) eventually becomes one but is already basically the same relationship just without the papers having been signed yet. So I think the term is close enough.

Quote:

I suspect about 99% of people saying "wait until marriage" aren't thinking of it the way you are.

Most of them are probably thinking in religious/sin terms.

If people can't separate the idea of waiting until marriage from the idea of religious dogma even while I spell out in front of their faces that I'm not talking about religious dogma at all, then that's on them. (Also, that mistake has pretty little to do with what I mean by "marriage". Even if I meant ONLY legal marriage, it would still be a pretty foolish assumption to automatically connect my posts to religion/sin when I'm very plainly and explicitly describing something entirely different. If I say "talk to your kids about how things work and encourage them to make healthy choices," but someone manages to hear "religion and sin" just because of one phrase I included, then that's a level of closedmindedness for which nobody but them is responsible.)

Possibly I'm confused because I think "talk to your kids about how things work and encourage them to make healthy choices" is great advice and far too often unheeded, but "no sex until marriage" is not a good approach and possibly not even a good idea.

I didn't think you were coming from a "religion/sin" direction, just that is where that phrase is usually from - so much so that it's hard to divorce the concept from that context. Any discussion of "waiting until marriage" as advice or policy can't ignore the culture that surrounds it. At least until you surround it with a ton of disclaimers as you have done.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
thegreenteagamer wrote:
I don't understand the point of entrenched extended debate on a subject nobody is going to change their mind over. At some point it just becomes cyclical repetition.

Some of us take longer to change our minds. I used to post on a religious forum regularly over six or seven years and made around twelve thousand posts before I changed my mind. Throughout my time there I had regular pop in comments: "are you guys still talking about this?", "...dead horse", "again? Really?" and so forth.

I don't understand why people feel the need to try and stop others talking about things we like. Just because you (generic you) have had enough of one topic and aren't going to change your mind, why should those of us who want to talk about it avoid the issue? I enjoy rehashing things with new people, sometimes there's a new insight - I very rarely change my mind on the first time through a debate.

Derails are one thing*, but if you start a thread about one of the infamous topics, you'll have several people on the first page telling you you shouldn't have bothered. Why not just not post in a thread you're not interested in?

*:
although I don't think there's anything wrong with a derail anyhow - that's what happens in conversation.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Any discussion of "waiting until marriage" as advice or policy can't ignore the culture that surrounds it. At least until you surround it with a ton of disclaimers as you have done.

You call it "surrounding it with a ton of disclaimers", I call it "actually discussing the issues instead of settling for easily-targeted labels that I can feel enlightened for pointing at". ;)

Anyway, back to seriousness: The fact that there's a certain culture surrounding it has been part of my point from the beginning; I'm trying to improve people's "targeting" by showing which things are central, load-bearing walls of the problematic cultures and which things are extraneous structures whose only crime is to be wielded by the badness and which won't actually help anything to remove.

Anyone who wants anything to actually get better has to learn to see which parts of the tangled mess truly need to be removed, and which parts of the tangled mess are just tangled up in the mess.

Too many people see a tangled mess and just light it on fire, then if anyone says "Hey wait, there was something good in there!" they think they're defending all the terrible messy tangles.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

BTW, I don't think thread derails are necessarilly bad... They can be problematic if they are too hostile or toxic (but that goes for every conversation) or if they are interrupting or poisoning a different conversation... But I have no problem with derails such as this, where it's a natural evolution from a different subject and remains civil and polite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it is really the best case scenario for a potentially badwrongfun thread like this one. Although I have no idea what this thread will be in a page or two, probably a goof fest again.


Jiggy wrote:
Too many people see a tangled mess and just light it on fire, then if anyone says "Hey wait, there was something good in there!" they think they're defending all the terrible messy tangles.

"Sometimes it's just easier to cut a knot in half than it is to unite it. Looks cooler too."

-Alex


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can't delay setting fire to the tangled mess because there were some good things in there, if setting fire to it is the only way it is going away. Of course, those happy with the tangled mess will point out the good things and try to delay the fire.

That said, Jiggy, I think you are wrong. No sex until marriage is a simple meme with a HUGE influence, easily stated, can be protected by sensible-sounding arguments (I am married and I think our sex life is better than any alternative), and so on. It is beautiful as a PR meme. It is VERY MUCH a load-bearing wall. Tearing it down in flames would work wonders to change the debates around sex.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

'Social Soapbox Crusade' thread derails where someone asks a genuine question which incidentally lightly touches on some social or political topic and then someone goes off on a social polemic on the topic. Or worse, inserts it everywhere even when it isn't brought up. They can come in all flavors left or right. I would rather read politics or social issue threads in the forums and threads made for such topics.

(Note that i'm not really talking about this thread, as the tangent actually more or less related to the thread in explaining why that thing 'grinds someone's gears')


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

You know, there is a reality in between "had sex beforehand" and just sort of flying blind ("hope for the best", "without knowing", etc).

Sex and money are the two most common topics of conflict for couples. It's a good idea for a couple to discuss finances in detail before getting married (seriously, every premarital counseling curriculum will hit that topic). But they don't have to share a checking account before they can know if their financial habits are compatible.

In the same way, I agree with you that a couple should be making informed decisions about the role sex will play in their relationship. That does not automatically require that they need to actually have sex in order to become informed. They need to talk about it. Heck, even once they HAVE had sex, they need to talk about it. [ETA: For sexual activity to actually inform you in any meaningful way, it would need to be happening regularly (with lots of talking as well). But by that point, you're already committed to the relationship, so it's no longer a "preparing to make an informed choice" kind of thing.]

"Haven't had sex" does not automatically equate to "completely uninformed". In fact, if a couple can't communicate well enough to reach a point of deciding whether to commit, then frankly they can't communicate well enough to sustain a long-term relationship at all, regardless of how sexually-compatible they are. Also, if your relationship is such that discovering a sexual issue would be a deal-breaker (rather than something to work through together), then it's not a good life-partner relationship in the first place.

However, the very taboo that keeps sex as "marriage-only" thing also turns it into a thorny topic, which prevents meaningful conversation about the topic.

Finances aren't such a touchy subject. It requires math and equations to understand how it affects you and your partner. Sex is not so easily calculated.

In the real world, all attempts to stop people from having sex inevitably failled one way or another. Social pressure simply can't change a core aspect of human bodies.

If sex can only be had after marriage, then people will marry just to have sex. Or they will do it in secret and never talk about it for fear of being punished/ostracized for their deed... Which perpetuates the culture of ignorance and misinformation about sex, making it more dangerous and harmful, rather than safer and more enjoyable.

I don't see anything wrong with consenting adults having sex as often as they like however they like. Meaningful relationship or not... If they are happy being nothing more than "f@## buddies", then so be it. If they want to have sex only after married, then so be it. If they want to never have sex or have lots of casual sex with complete strangers... So be it.

As long as it's between consenting adults, no one else shoudl care. It's not like they are harming anyone. Some of those lifestyles might be healthier or riskier... And bring more ore less happiness to each individual... But that's their choice. It should be an informed choice, rather than a mandate.

I simply don't see any real reason to impose restrictions on things that don't affect anyone else. Don't want to have causal sex? Don't. Don't want to wait? Don't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't like homosexual marriage? Don't marry someone of your own sex. Easy!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'll never understand why people get worked up when two human beings get married


Jiggy wrote:
In the same way, I agree with you that a couple should be making informed decisions about the role sex will play in their relationship. That does not automatically require that they need to actually have sex in order to become informed. They need to talk about it. Heck, even once they HAVE had sex, they need to talk about it. [ETA: For sexual activity to actually inform you in any meaningful way, it would need to be happening regularly (with lots of talking as well). But by that point, you're already committed to the relationship, so it's no longer a "preparing to make an informed choice" kind of thing.]

Again, there's a long way between "committed to the relationship" enough to be having regular sex (with talking) and marriage.

I've been in the first, more than once. Never married.

When you defend "no sex until marriage", you're not talking about the same thing anyone else is. This understandably leads to confusion.

I still don't know what level of commitment you're talking about. I thought I did from your "either is an actual legal marriage, or (typically) eventually becomes one but is already basically the same relationship just without the papers having been signed yet", but this seems to imply just enough commitment to be having sex regularly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just so I'm clear: our two choices are no sex until marriage or everybody becomes smurf buddies once they hit twelve?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Just so I'm clear: our two choices are no sex until marriage or everybody becomes smurf buddies once they hit twelve?

Did smurfs even have sex?

Getting the smurf avatar grinds my gears.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
I'll never understand why people get worked up when two human beings get married

Ownership of concepts and the view that another is making a mockery of that ownership and their belief system.

For many christians a marriage is a pact between you, your wife, and your god. That, up until the past couple of centuries, was unbreakable .

This is a relatively new concept but a very compelling one, since before marriages were less about love and more about economics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I'll never understand why people get worked up when two human beings get married

Ownership of concepts and the view that another is making a mockery of that ownership and their belief system.

For many christians a marriage is a pact between you, your wife, and your god. That, up until the past couple of centuries, was unbreakable .

This is a relatively new concept but a very compelling one, since before marriages were less about love and more about economics.

Logically then, they should be just as upset about non-Christians (and especially atheists) getting married, since that makes just as much mockery that pact between "you, your wife, and your god".

Or about divorce.

But there shouldn't have been any religious resistance to civil unions for homosexuals. There was. And still is - many of the legal bans on same sex marriage that passed over the last decade or so included bans on civil unions or anything giving the same rights.
It's not about marriage. It's about icky gay people. Marriage is just the current fallback position, because it's easier to justify with "religious rights" than some of the other prejudice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I'll never understand why people get worked up when two human beings get married

Ownership of concepts and the view that another is making a mockery of that ownership and their belief system.

For many christians a marriage is a pact between you, your wife, and your god. That, up until the past couple of centuries, was unbreakable .

This is a relatively new concept but a very compelling one, since before marriages were less about love and more about economics.

Logically then, they should be just as upset about non-Christians (and especially atheists) getting married, since that makes just as much mockery that pact between "you, your wife, and your god".

Or about divorce.

But there shouldn't have been any religious resistance to civil unions for homosexuals. There was. And still is - many of the legal bans on same sex marriage that passed over the last decade or so included bans on civil unions or anything giving the same rights.
It's not about marriage. It's about icky gay people. Marriage is just the current fallback position, because it's easier to justify with "religious rights" than some of the other prejudice.

Who said they don't? You never hear about the scandalous whispers about how a perfectly good baptist got involved with those mormons and what not but I do. I have a friend who will probably never be married to his Indian girlfriend both because his father is a massive bigot and because her parents are hyper traditional.

And as I said, up until relatively recently, divorce wasn't even considered. And it's still unacceptable in the catholic church, and frowned upon in many others.

It also comes from the view that when you invoke the word marriage, you're talking about a christian wedding, not necessarily a hindu (those are fun), jewish (also fun), or muslim wedding.

And civil unions become the slippery slope. If the state acknowledges it than it won't be long before the state forces churches to comply (or so the paranoia goes). It's the same logic used in gun control, if you start with a perfectly sensible laws like wait periods and background checks, you end with the ATF confiscating your kids and guns. It's irrational but we're not dealing with rationality.

But yes, it is about icky gay people. And also sweaty brown people, awful godless people, and those satan worshiping catholic people.

Gay people just happen to be an easy target as you don't have to be christian ta hate da gays.


I have a cousin who lost her job in the church after she married a divorced man. (She is still against gay people getting married.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Just so I'm clear: our two choices are no sex until marriage or everybody becomes smurf buddies once they hit twelve?

Did smurfs even have sex?

Getting the smurf avatar grinds my gears.

People that don't like smurf avatars really grind my gears.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

who doesn't like smurfs?

of course smurfs have sex, they might reproduce asexually but that doesn't keep them from f%&$ing:-p


2 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

who doesn't like smurfs?

of course smurfs have sex, they might reproduce asexually but that doesn't keep them from Smurfing :-p


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
...As long as it's between consenting adults, no one else should care. It's not like they are harming anyone. Some of those lifestyles might be healthier or riskier... And bring more ore less happiness to each individual... But that's their choice. It should be an informed choice, rather than a mandate....

Unhealthy risks have unhealthy consequences. Always.

But the risks aren't just with the people making the lifestyle choices.

Too often those outside the pact are affected/get to help pick up the pieces.

There are any number of IRL consequences that play out everyday from this idea of "consenting adults". One that's definitely coming down the pipeline in the legal system will be a definition of marriage that is just that. And the number who consent will vary considerably.

Lots of things are legal but not very healthy.

To be clear, and to avoid unhealthy comments following this, my primary concern is with what constitutes an adult making an informed consent.

/derail


Quark Blast wrote:


Unhealthy risks have unhealthy consequences. Always.

I think you are failing to understand the word "risks". A risk by definition has multiple outcomes. For example, skydiving is a risk, but very very rarely has unhealthy consequences. Playing Russian Roulette is also a risk, with 1d6 chance of a REALLY bad outcome, but otherwise no impact on your health.


Ah, Pedantry. So awesome and so irritatingly dense at the same time, depending on whether you're using it or on the receiving end. :D

701 to 750 of 1,247 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Pathfinder Forums Memes that Grind Your Gears All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.