Ginger_Warrior

I'm pretty sure the original poster said he wasn't interested in one-night stands, old-styled values and all that, only wanted sex if it was part of a more long-term relationship. I think the predicament was they approach him for sex and he wanted to know if there was any chance he could tempt them into something more long-term. Which obviously lead to the mono vs poly thing which, if truth be told, I'm sick of going around in circles with.

Actually, I had a blog on here for my previous acc before your TIF account was even born. GOML. (God, look at those retarded levels. 57 farming lol)

I think it was a post saying somebody should have sex with someone even if they don't feel anything for them, shagging for the sake of shagging basically. I think muggi said they should, Vezon argued otherwise and the fallout started there.

Is there any intimacy at all in these relationships? Apart from sexual intimacy, obviously.

[hide=][/hide] MERRY CHRISTMAS TANS

Only half true, since those four women are also having sex with other people, presumably. Although so would the hundred women in the first example.

If I couldn't use contraception (assuming you're including the "pull out method" which doesn't require condoms or the pill or anything :P), I would probably remain single until I researched my "options" to choose the best choice for my long-term happiness. You do realise that semenal release occurs prior to orgasm and the "pull out method" is nothing but male fantasy in terms of contraception, don't you? :blink:

Yes it does, because it's law that defines marriage, and laws change. Even you'd have to concede that changes in the law around marriage, such as a recognition of civil partnerships for homosexual couples and marriages of no religious denomination as "traditional marriages", will have an impact on the statistics your point is so heavily reliant on. We've not even begun to talk about the rise of multiculturalism in the Western world, including the influx of communities who hold more conservative beliefs in which sexual relationships out of wedlock are heavily frowned upon. I'm not saying they're right to be so conservative on the issue, I'm just saying that in all likelihood, they'll still be holding marriages in a hundred years' time. That view is reinforced even further when you look at current marriage statistics in eastern European migrant populations in particular; they aren't following the same trend as the rest of us. Will less people be marrying in 2112? Most likely, yes. Will it be gone completely? Absolutely not, there's no evidence at all to support that claim.

I would have thought someone who clearly has an interest in academic studies and statistics would understand the necessity of defining specific terms so other people can look at the stat you're quoting and say, "Right, I know exactly what you're referring to." Otherwise, it's not rigourous, which academic work has to be to have any meaning at all. The interpretation changes entirely depending on how you define the term.

Well, how long's a piece of string? Define "traditional", accounting for the fact that even traditions change over time.

To follow the same logic you showed to Obsfucator earlier on, you don't need to be religious to get married. Furthermore, people not getting married is no indication they wish to participate in anything other than a monogamous lifestyle; it just means they don't want to get married. How many of those not getting married are in perfectly happy, monogamous, long-term relationships? There is an issue about how civil partnerships are represented in marriage statistics as well, given they're marriages in all but name and therefore aren't recognised as such.

They've said there needs to be more emphasis on the final product than the XP gains, which links to the planned 'production' skill. But so long as you have to make/do/gather the thing that provides most XP per hour tens of thousands of times in RuneScape to achieve a 99, I'm not sure how that can possibly work. It'll be interesting to see how they solve that problem. I'm hoping to see a production skill being utilised in the same way crafting is for ganodermic armour. Instead of Ganodermic beasts rarely dropping the armour in the same way GWD/Barrows armour is, they drop flakes on a very consistent basis which are then used by the crafting the skill to make armour, which itself is degradable and requires further flakes to maintain. It creates a need to train the production skill, but also a constant demand for the gathering process which underpins that production, even after the production has been completed. Even now, flakes are worth just over 300gp each on the Grand Exchange. Can you imagine if they'd done this from the start for all armour production, instead of having a level 50 non-degradable platebody at 99 smithing, made with an ore only obtainable at level 85 mining?

No.... No they don't.... '-' I suppose his cited examples would be Donald Trump, Silvio Berlusconi and Sir Bruce Forsyth. :rolleyes: Baring in mind how persistently gay people are fighting for the right to marry in a religious establishment, and how hard religious establishments themselves are fighting for the right to legally hold those marriages, I think you're being very presumptuous there. It is true that less people marry and apparently 50% of us in relationships are not marrying now, but the other way of reading is that is 50% are getting married, and some of the reasons those people are in wedlock are very personal and therefore not so susceptible to changes in the social norm. To say an institution like marriage, which has been part of human civilisation since Ancient Egypt, will be completely gone in a hundred years is an incredible claim. Unless it's a little nap in the afternoon because you're both tired after a day working/studying I've never been able to find much joy sleeping in the same bed with someone else. My arm gets trapped, it gets too hot, she steals all the duvet (etc.) so I'm not much help. Although it's a lovely moment to share with someone else, I'm still very protective about sleep. :P

That's just another legacy rule Jagex don't care about anymore. When asked about, they said it's fine, but at your own risk if the person you shared with stole your items etc. Quite sad really. That was the offence my previous account finally got banned for. I don't remember sharing it, baring in mind I started that account in 2006 so I haven't got a full recollection, but I can't see why I would. If I did, it was very out of character for me because I'm very protective about progress on other games. How Jagex arrived at the conclusion I was account sharing, I'm not sure, but just to confirm people do get banned for it.

I'd rather be single in that situation, too. I look for so many more things in a relationship than sex. I understand you have your own way of doing things, and if it works for you, then great, but please don't proceed to inform those of us who are more conventional that our beliefs are wrong. That's a step too far.

Which goes back to Veron's comment about being 'assfaced'. You're going to do it? Your choice. You're going to blame someone else for it? Puerile.

There are much stricter limits on firearms in most of the developed world, and yet I don't see despots rising to power like it's the 1930s all over again. The fact they are developed countries means that democratically accountable government and a free market are quintessential and the free state no longer needs enforcing by something like the Second Amendment.

Assuming there are at least two nations in the Eastern Lands, we should assume a divide and conquer strategy. We should form an alliance with the weakest nation, provoke them into attacking a bigger nation, and arm them to the teeth using level 90 Smithers. Those with 90 Construction can be sent to work on militarily fortifications. When the greater power eventually achieves a phyric victory over our allied weaker nation, we should be able to crush them with superior economic and military force, and take over the Eastern Lands. ...I've played far too much Civilization for a 22-year-old.

My face when you PMS like a [bleep] over RDT drops, and your biggest money maker was onyx bolts.

Prayer isn't in the combat level equation any more so, basically, any of the skill requirements except slayer (reasonably speaking).

Although I like to be sociable with people around me even if I don't know them, I am a very introverted person, so I can only go so far without starting to feel tired. At family events I usually end up babysitting the children while popping in and out of conversation with the adults, because I love looking after children anyway. It is frustrating when you see a child doing something that is so blatantly unsafe and you try and make eye contact with one of the parents to say "I can't physically drag your child away from danger because that would be assault, aren't you going to do something about it", but they're so busy in their own little conversation they completely ignore you. You can usually guarantee that exact same parent will object to their child eating something from the buffet table too, like a breadstick or something, because their appetite will be out of sync and that means they won't go to sleep or have another meal at a certain time later. Completely self-indulgent.

What's done is done. Pragmatically, if you were her friends, wouldn't you think it's more constructive to offer support instead of castigating them for their choices? You make it sound like women being socially isolated because they were pregnant was somehow a good thing.

It is possible for 16-year-olds to be pregnant and have a very successful pregnancy and bring up their child in a safe environment. It's not as ideal as, say, a 26-year-old doing it, but it's not really our place to judge the circumstances which lead to them becoming pregnant in the first place. Regardless of age, pregnant would-be mothers still require a lot of support, whether they're 16 or 45, and not all of that support can be provided by the state or the hospital. She's been disowned by her mother? That's regrettable. I'm wondering what kind of a mother disowns their pregnant daughter and would-be grandchild because, presumably, she decided not to terminate the pregnancy. I hope she sees sense once she's calmed down and seen things more clearly. There's nothing wrong with encouragement because if she wants to go through with the pregnancy, she'll need that support network during the "bad days" to keep her going, but she also needs practical help and she won't find that on Facebook. She's more likely to get practical help from someone who's been there, done it, got the T-shirt--her mother. Unless any of her friends on Facebook can provide that practical support, they're well-meaning amateurs as far as I'm concerned.

So I herd you were in a DG clan.

So why are they needed for self-defence, then, if there's little threat to human life from them? You're not honestly suggesting that citizens should have a right to bear assault rifles when they have no good reason to possess them, are you?