Polycule Rudeness
-
-
Why can't relationships just be a DAG?
Because people aren't programs, or at least not ones that people are capable of debugging.
-
With a DAG model for relationships, polyamorous relationships are right out the window, but so is any other relationship that has a cycle. A man can only have a wife if he is not her husband. A child can only have a parent that isn't the one they are the child of. A dog can only have an owner that does not own that dog.
On the plus side, garbage collection could use reference counting. But you couldn't have a garbage truck because the garbage truck would contain the garbage inside it.
-
Whereas this isn't a DAG, it's cyclic and non-directed :)
-
it's cyclic and non-directed
I'm pretty sure it's directed. It's not a "person A ↔loves↔ person B" thing. Love has a direction. You can have multiple edges between two vertices.
Plus, it allows cats to exist. Without a directed graph, they would be forced to give love, which is apparently a faux pas in their society.
-
Actually, in this case, it's:
A - B \ / CThe feelings expressed are mutual on all sides.
-
Yes, but that can be represented as two directed edges pointing in opposite directions between each pair of vertices while still allowing cats to physically exist.
-
-
Just tell him you're not interested with this topic and then tell him to leave you alone, if he won't listen, just ignore him and hope he will get bored and speak with someone else.
No need to get upset. We know there are jerks everywhere and we can do not much about it when you meet one.
-
You'd hope it would have both directions, but I certainly have lived a -> b before, where I still was with someone who mostly found me convenient for meal preparation.
Poly relationships come in all sorts of configurations and with often complicated rules. There is quite a bit of overlap between poly and open relationship and casual sex. You easily enough even see things where no love is lost in either direction or where it indeed is a one-directional deal between two people - let alone populating all the vertices.
From the completely unacademic evidence I have of knowing some people who also qualify under that umbrella the way it works for Arantor, me and our girlfriend is pretty uncommon. Meeting the right people for that to happen is pretty tricky.
-
You're not wrong. Relationships tend to exponentially complicate with the addition of more people to it. Some of the poly crowd think that entitles them to class their relationships as superior as they are a lot of hard work - but of course that's complete bs.
But from all I know you have the problems that any relationship has at least x3 and need to find ways of coping with it.
Any connection between two vertices tends to be, from my experience, no more or less stable than your usual monogamous link, but the overall shape of the graph frequently changes for some people. And that does generate drama when it comes to separation of assets and working out which other connections each node is retaining.
Sometimes, people put on that happiness for purposes of convincing themselves.
If you manage to cope with the effort of making it work times three or more, you'll get an amazing experience out of it - perhaps mostly because you must define your own rules and cannot comfortably slip into roles society assigns to you. You don't have to be the "man", "woman" or the "breadwinner" or whatever other stereotype. True, it's just as achievable in a monogamous arrangement, but people usually have no reason to think about it or question it so it often doesn't happen. So people do these things they don't wanna do because it's expected - not even by their partner, but by society.
-
Some of the poly crowd think that entitles them to class their relationships as superior as they are a lot of hard work - but of course that's complete bs.
(a long paragraph on how polyamorous relationships are so much more awesome because you can define your own rules)
Relationships are what you define relationships to be. Duh. There's been no pressure on having a man who comes back from work in the evening and a woman who breeds kids and does the dinner since what, 1950s?
You want a relationship with two men, that's fine. Two women, even better. Seven people - as long as you have a room. Seventy two virgins and a dog... well, you can't have a dog, but other than that, it's fine. Whatever works for you. We're not going to debate that it actually doesn't, as long as you stop claiming that we're just lazy and unhappy because we have relationships that just so happen to conform to what the society expect, m'kay?
-
boring geek inside
My "two actually" joke was ruined when I saw the third vertex was another woman.
My experience of poly consists of having been the other guy with a girl whose boyfriend liked her to have other guys but never slept with anyone else himself. It all kind of went to shit when I fell in love with her, she broke up with him but didn't want to get serious with me and started a monogamous relationship with someone else. I discovered that I like having a 1:1 relationship where you can both be devoted to each other, but if other people can cope with the extra complexity then good luck to them.
-
-
See, here you are making my point.
As I said myself: it's just as achievable in a monogamous arrangement - just that people don't go for it because of reasons: never occurred to them, happy as is, feel they can’t… whatever.
I was trying to show the one thing that seems to happen differently from what monogamous people do with any frequency. Doesn’t make it superior – just trying to explain the appeal it might hold to some people as the poly subset of folks has a pretty large overlap with people who don’t feel they fit in with society and pre-defined societal roles.
The bottom line of anything is that you need to work at a relationship for it to work and generally poly relationships tend to me more work for a very similar thing.
It’s not like you feel magically “more loved” or “safer” with more partners – to get the same level of “safe” you have a lot of work at your hands and slew of societal stigma for a somewhat easier time of structuring the relationship in terms you might like – if that is a thing that matters to you.
I always find it hilarious though how offended and frightened people get when anyone else is having something they might not have (or not even want) as if that didn’t happen anyway just from any monogamous arrangement compared to the next. Some people might have better dinners because they put the effort into cooking. Doesn’t invalidate the take-away eaters of this world.
-
I always find it hilarious though how offended and frightened people get when anyone else is having something they might not have (or not even want)
I was in Subway the other day and got really offended because the guy in front of me ordered a sandwich I don't like
-
@royal_poet said:
I always find it hilarious though how offended and frightened people get when anyone else is having something they might not have (or not even want)
I was in Subway the other day and got really offended because the guy in front of me ordered a sandwich I don't like
No SJWs around to get offended on your behalf?
-
See, here you are making my point.
No I'm not. At least not the one in the paragraph I rolled my eyes at.
As I said myself: it's just as achievable in a monogamous arrangement - just that people don't go for it because of reasons: never occurred to them, happy as is, feel they can’t… whatever.
Look, I'm kind of assuming that we're talking about an arrangement between two or more adult and reasonable people. If there's something they don't both (or all X) like about the arrangement, then duh, just change the arrangement.
the poly subset of folks has a pretty large overlap with people who don’t feel they fit in with society and pre-defined societal roles.
So-called "pre-defined societal roles" don't include polyamorous relationships, so yes, the overlap is pretty much 100%.
for a somewhat easier time of structuring the relationship in terms you might like
How does that make sense? You have two people to negotiate with. I have one. I have it twice as easy to structure the relationship in terms I might like.
You're acting as if it was somehow harder for monogamous people to achieve the goals in their relationships, because it naturally devolves into a hubby-and-wife one. No it doesn't, unless that's what both parties want. If they both want something different, then there's nothing preventing them from doing something different.
I always find it hilarious though how offended and frightened people get when anyone else is having something they might not have (or not even want) as if that didn’t happen anyway just from any monogamous arrangement compared to the next.
Who's offended or frightened? I just don't like your assertion that polyamorous relationships are somehow of better quality or more daring or more fullfilling or whatever, where there's zero correlation.
Some people might have better dinners because they put the effort into cooking. Doesn’t invalidate the take-away eaters of this world.
Smug superiority duly noted.
-
Why is this something you'd have to "come out" with?
Some time after I've read that now they have definitions for not only heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual, but also pansexual, asexual, heteroromantic, homoromantic, biromantic, panromantic, aromantic, androphil, gynephil, ambiphil, then there's polyamory, polygamy, polyandry, polygyny, polyfidelity, polyexclusivity, polytrothism, polygynandry (the latter only practiced by animals so far, at least according to Wikipedia)...
so some time after I learnt that now it is expected from me to learn all that terminology, so that when a person tells me that they are polywhateverous and discosexual, they won't be microaggressed by me asking
that means...so some time after that, I realized that I'm a member of a historically ignored sexual minority too, and we don't even have a trendy makeshift word for us yet! I'm a Catholic person who, unlike the majority of people identifying as Catholic, does take seriously the commandment of no sex until marriage! How minority is that? When will the time come that this will be something I have to 'come out as'?
(Please direct all discussion on my untilmarriagenosexuality to the religious discussion thread, which is
)...
Regarding makeshift words, the worst offender is homophobia.
-
An un[1]pleasant[2] guy indeed.
[1] Proto-Germanic "not"
[2] Old French plaisantI am [url=https://what.thedailywtf.com/t/single-user-mode/52504/190]SHOCKED that English would do that[/url].
-
Polyamory is unusual so it's likely most people won't understand the finer details of it.
BUT IT'S NOT! That's what's driving me nuts.
LITERALLY EVERY COLLEGE AGED GUY IN THE DATING SCENE IS POLYAMOROUS FOR A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME!
I think what's really happening is that people are trying to take this really simple concept and hijack it into something else entirely.
-
Nah, I get where you are coming from. This dude just seemed so weird to even tell anyone that.
Yes, he was.
I could just about stop him from showing me his ladies on his cellphone. NSFW anyone. I sit next to the boss ffs.
A complete asshole.
XD
XD to you too, good sir. XD for everybody! XD!
-
Isn't that only because other people assume "real", stable relationships have to be of only 2 people, which is precisely the assumption that polyamorous relationships remove?
If you have a steady, exclusive, polyamorous relationship, then just use a different term to describe it. I'm not proposing rocket brain surgery here. You can just make new words and phrases! There's no limit to them!
-
Love has a direction.
As shown by J. Geils Band:
-
LITERALLY EVERY COLLEGE AGED GUY
TIL my early adult days were much more boring than blakeyrat's
-
You were never interested in more than one girl romantically at the same time? Never?
What college did you go to, Castration U?
-
I'm a computer scientist. I'm lucky if there's a woman in the same building as me.
-
Yeah Ben L and why should you have to tell the computer what files are on the computer!?!??!?!?!
Aha! Gotcha there with that great debating tactic of posting a complete non-sequitur! Wham!
-
Aha! Gotcha there with that great debating tactic of posting a complete non-sequitur! Wham!
It didn't work, because alligators don't feed on birdseed
-
This conversation is a
DAGsingly linked list.
-
so some time after that, I realized that I'm a member of a historically ignored sexual minority too, and we don't even have a trendy makeshift word for us yet!
An old virgin, maybe?
-
-
@ben_lubar said:
@fbmac said:
(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)
Maybe don't post it, then?
Sure
Fuck, now this topic isn't a DAG anymore.
-
Not trendy and makeshift enough. Throw in some scientifically sounding Greek and Latin fragments which sound like they mean what you mean.
-
That seems pretty extreme, but the PC policy at times results in strange paranoia. It's really hard to figure out how to genuinely be curious,
For example, I am from a part of Germany where you can go 20 years of your life without ever seeing a black person. When I first met one after moving to the uk I found the gentleman really interesting as I had never met someone from such a background.
I don't think anyone really wants to deny that the life experiences of a black and a white person in a western country are not the same, but you're kinda expected to pretend they are. I'd have been interested to ask what struggles he faced because of it and what good experiences he had because of it - but I felt to awkward to ask.
So personally I don't mind explaining whatever someone might find interesting and the whole micro aggression thing is psychologically insane. How can you live if you always avoid your battles? It's never words that are the problem or cause of hurt but the thoughts behind them. Censorship doesn't fix that. Open dialogue might.
There is some "safety in numbers" though if whatever odd thing you do has a nice and convenient label. I guess prodding at that is like taking away the security blanket to some people.
Don't let it stop you wanting to learn things and understand things.
-
-
-
Especially so!
-
I've tried to explain, but clearly the distinction that certain things appeal to some people while not to others is lost on you. Just because something is different doesn't make it superior. Just because someone prefers something doesn't mean they consider the choices of others inferior.
But if it floats your boat to consider me a superior being you are very welcome. Can't say I had that happen before :-)
-
I am from a part of Germany where you can go 20 years of your life without ever seeing a black person.
Mecklenburg?
-
I am from a part of Germany where you can go 20 years of your life without ever seeing a black person
Have you met @Arantor?
Additionally, during the first chapter of @Arantor's story, he allied with one of three black asura to murder another black asura.
From this, I can determine that the part of Germany you are from is not The Hinterlabs.
-
Westerwald
-
I'm from Echowald forest of course!
-
OK, jumping to the end, and based on your account.
The "dude" is a little shit. He is confusing your relationship choice with promiscuity and would seem to consider you to be "easy". In fact I would go so far as to say that, in his view, little more than as a prostitute that he would not have to pay for.
I don't know if you know he is married or it is just his claim. It really does not matter if he is making it up or not. The above applies. The problem you have is that you are female and thus "inferior". Whatever you do could result in a response that will do you no favours, because even the mildest rebuff will severely "dent" his machismo. If you are lucky he will back off and leave you alone. That he had the "confidence" to offload all this without invitation suggests, to me, that the mere fact he has done so will cause you "want" him. I would suspect that even the classic "sorry I'm a lesbian and not into men" would probably be seen as an "invitation".I don't know what to suggest because the ultimate would be a sexual harassment claim by you and while that may work at an official level, it will not stop him "discussing" you with his cronies. Hopefully you can avoid him without it being too obvious.
-
It's an interesting angle that I'd not considered. I am not usually the target of people finding me attractive - as I am over six foot tall and quite down to business.
New guy is part of a group that was sitting around my desk for a few days to learn the basics of oncology information systems. He has a different ethnic background than most in the office and it feels like having female superiors is a tough adjustment for him as its not something he had to deal with before.
It might be a way of reasserting his masculinity or something.
An odd thing that happens to most girls in a predominantly male industry is that you are either a "pretty retard" there to make coffee or you are professionally respected and become "one of the guys". It's nice to get acceptance - but it's also really weird. You end up being expected to partake in their occasionally even open sexism. It's like "all women are stupid objects, don't you agree? And aren't you lucky we find you alright." I've gotten a few hilarious overshares out of that dynamic.
-
-
And then you have the person who originally combined a Greek prefix with a Latin root to make an English word
I'm not a linguist but I play one on television
-
you can't expect the majority of people to know the subtleties of how it's different from something they do understand, and you can't really blame them for that even if they are a massive douchecanoe
Since when has being a massive douchecanoe not been blameworthy? Since when has being a massive douchecanoe in the defence of continued ignorance not been doubly blameworthy?
-
Relationships tend to exponentially complicate with the addition of more people to it
Quadratically, surely?
/pendant
-
I always find it hilarious though how offended and frightened people get when anyone else is having something they might not have (or not even want)
See also: every objection to marriage equality ever. One of our local right-wing loons is on record as opposed to marriage equality on the grounds that altering the Marriage Act would be the first step on a slippery slope with you three, as well as zoosexers, at the bottom.
