56460 réponses à ce sujet

[Korkki]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

I doubt the Asari do have a concept of marriage to begin with.

What they exhibit up to date is more of a life-partnership than hardset marriage.

I always thought that this bondmate thing is sort of like marriage for asari, so when you're bondmate dies, you become a widow, in human terms. But I meant that do the asari even undertand this consept of widow. Or is it just like it's been said in the games couple times, that they simply accept the fact that they'll outlive their partners, execpt krogan ofc, and they just move on. So that they're not even thinking that "my partner died, I'm a widow now" like humans would. So can they understand the nature of being widow and what it means for humans.

I guess I still kinda failed to explain what I meant in the first place with this widow stuff

TOP:

Modifié par Korkki, 22 novembre 2011 - 10:18 .

[PMC65]

Korkki wrote...

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

I doubt the Asari do have a concept of marriage to begin with.

What they exhibit up to date is more of a life-partnership than hardset marriage.

I always thought that this bondmate thing is sort of like marriage for asari, so when you're bondmate dies, you become a widow, in human terms. But I meant that do the asari even undertand this consept of widow. Or is it just like it's been said in the games couple times, that they simply accept the fact that they'll outlive their partners, execpt krogan ofc, and they just move on. So that they're not even thinking that "my partner died, I'm a widow now" like humans would. So can they understand the nature of being widow and what it means for humans.

I guess I still kinda failed to explain what I meant in the first place with this widow stuff

I would think that widows would fit. Especially if you look at the asari on Illium who lost the locket. She obviously loved her mate.

Christianity or religion does not monogamy make if you look at civilizations BC and at animals. I can safely say that animals do not belong to any religion and yet we see monogamy in nature as well. Even in history where the Jewish faith was not around to influence there was monogamy.

Marriage was also a heathen rite that the church finally embraced ... odd isn't it. There were alot of heathen rituals that the Church took over and placed a religious sticker on it.

I think some people are monogamous and others aren't. It is when we try and say one is right and one is wrong that we get off-track. Let's just hope that you choose to be with people that share your viewpoint on relationships.

The asari would probably have a mix of monogamous and non-monogamous relationships. I always felt that maidens were non-monogamous while matrons were geared more towards the possibility of a single mate during that mate's lifespan. But who knows.

EDIT: for spelling

Modifié par PMC65, 22 novembre 2011 - 10:29 .

[karmensandiego]

SkyeHawk89 wrote...

Anything new going on here, things I missed?

PMC65 said something dirty to Ali Hillis and Ali Hillis tweeted something back but PMC65 ain't sharing... <_<

[CrutchCricket]

Disagreeing with PMC65 on distinction between "cheating" and "being faithful". The latter does not imply monogamy any more than the former. You drew the line at at exclusivity. But I see no reason to discount faithfulness to multiple partners exclusively if that is the arrangement reached between them. Even exclusivity is rather arbitrary.

I'm also getting the PC vibe from Korkki's reply, you know the "it's ok for them but get it the hell away from me" stance. Which is fine, but the verbiage and repetition seems to suggest the forced "smile-and-nod because you don't want to get lynched by activits" routine as opposed to the genuine smile of well-wishing acceptance. Either way I do wish we'd get away from the whole "romance implies monogamy" thing which seems to be stated as a general fact that everyone should accept, like a kid getting toys for Christmas; you can get the kid clothers and it's still a present but he just died a little inside and that's not cool damnit!

Relationships are about relations between two or more people, with whatever agreed-on terms they care to make, and romantic relationships are no different. You infer from them what you infer from anything else namely whatever the hell you want (with a logical progression if you're feeling picky). Incidentally, I had a very nice childhood, why do you ask?

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 23 novembre 2011 - 02:05 .

[Pariah Culexus]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Incidentally, I had a very nice childhood, why do you ask?

I don't know why but that line cracked me up, thanks for that, I seriously needed it. 

[PMC65]

karmensandiego wrote...

SkyeHawk89 wrote...

Anything new going on here, things I missed?

PMC65 said something dirty to Ali Hillis and Ali Hillis tweeted something back but PMC65 ain't sharing... <_<

Now, now! I PM'ed you what she tweeted and what type of conversation we had.

[CrutchCricket]

PMC65 wrote...
Now, now! I PM'ed you what she tweeted and what type of conversation we had.

Hey don't hold out! If you're doing the PM thing, send it to me as well.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 23 novembre 2011 - 02:25 .

[PMC65]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Disagreeing with PMC65 on distinction between "cheating" and "being faithful". The latter does not imply monogamy any more than the former. You drew the line at at exclusivity. But I see no reason to discount faithfulness to multiple partners exclusively if that is the arrangement reached between them. Even exclusivity is rather arbitrary.

*snip*

As I said, "Being faithful, however, typically implies an exclusivity to someone." I am faithful to you ... and you ... and you ... eh, just doesn't sound right. And if I were in an open relationship and someone told me that they were faithfully mine? It would make me laugh.

But, I see where multiple partners could think "faithful" applies ... a polygamist might say that he is faithful to his six wives. Oh, well. Whatever makes people happy!

To each his own. 


 

[Gespenst]

Xilizhra wrote...

If consent from all parties is given, is that truly cheating?

Well... no? I think that's sort of the point. It does take a special kind of mindset to make a polyamorous relationship work, I doubt I could (I doubt I'd ever want to either but whatever.) From the outside looking in I'd imagine that everyone would have to love everyone else equally. Which would be... hard. But what do I know?

PMC65 wrote...
So I'll let the grownups debate this one out while I oogle at "Girls Aloud". ../../../images/forum/emoticons/blushing.png 

...Why would you do that? Aren't they a terrible band?

I say that but I can't actually remember any of their songs off the top of my head.

Wikipedia wrote...

"Don't Want You Back" was co-written by Anders Bagge, who also wrote Samantha  Mumba's "Gotta Tell You", which bears similarities. It was labelled as "love song" in which Girls Aloud are "swooning over bois [sic]"

Huh. I guess that word means different things to different people but ...  still. Unintentionally hilarious? Or maybe they were trying to tell us something?

Wikipedia wrote...

Also included was Girls Aloud's cover of "Girls on Film"

The '80s are sad now.

Korkki wrote...
I have civics test tomorrow, it's about the law of Finland darn...

I was under the impression that there was only one law in Finland. Don't **** with Finland.

iOnlySignIn wrote...

I in general do not support polyamorous relationships simply because it's not possible to like two people exactly equally (according to Werner Heisenberg).

I think what he said is that it's impossible to know where one of your lovers is and know what the other one is doing.

I'm no good a physics jokes.
...
...
Or non-physics jokes.

iOnlySignIn wrote...


Legion (who is a robot with very little emotions).

Legion has a total fanboy crush on Shepard. They just don't know what it is yet.

karmensandiego wrote...
PMC65 said something dirty to Ali Hillis and Ali Hillis tweeted something back but PMC65 ain't sharing... [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]

The big meanie.

Modifié par Gespenst, 23 novembre 2011 - 02:58 .

[Yuqi]

 I'm finishing up  a Renegade playthrough, so might as well cheat on the LI too. The whole marrige/bondmate aspect has puzzled me, from the begining.

What exactly classifies as permanent-bondmate matirial? Has any Asari stayed faithful to a Short Lived bondmate, is it even right to expect them too?


I noticed something, in the ending romance convo in LOTSB. When Shepard mentions Horizon, being a set-up. the way Liara ssays 'those bastards' makes me think, she may have had something to do with it.

[PMC65]

[quote]Gespenst wrote...

[quote]PMC65 wrote...
So I'll let the grownups debate this one out while I oogle at "Girls Aloud". ../../../images/forum/emoticons/blushing.png [/quote]

...Why would you do that? Aren't they a terrible band?

I say that but I can't actually remember any of their songs off the top of my head.

[quote]Wikipedia wrote...

"Don't Want You Back" was co-written by Anders Bagge, who also wrote Samantha  Mumba's "Gotta Tell You", which bears similarities. It was labelled as "love song" in which Girls Aloud are "swooning over bois [sic]"[/quote]



Huh. I guess that word means different things to different people but ...  still. Unintentionally hilarious? Or maybe they were trying to tell us something?

[quote]Wikipedia wrote...

Also included was Girls Aloud's cover of "Girls on Film"[/quote]

The '80s are sad now.

[quote]

Why you wanna hate on Girls Aloud? 

Go pick on Britney Spears!!!!!!!! 

[Gespenst]

Yuqi wrote...

What exactly classifies as permanent-bondmate matirial? Has any Asari stayed faithful to a Short Lived bondmate, is it even right to expect them too?

...Why wouldn't it be? If I was in a relationship with someone who was ... say 20 years older than me would it be ok for me to sleep around just because they'll probably die before I do?

PMC65 wrote...
Why you wanna hate on Girls Aloud? ../../../images/forum/emoticons/crying.png

I'm not ... well I guess I was a little bit.

I'll lay off. But I won't forgive them for Girls on Film.

PMC65 wrote...

Go pick on Britney Spears!!!!!!!! 

... she's suffered enough.

Modifié par Gespenst, 23 novembre 2011 - 03:11 .

[PMC65]

Yuqi wrote...

 I'm finishing up  a Renegade playthrough, so might as well cheat on the LI too. The whole marrige/bondmate aspect has puzzled me, from the begining.

What exactly classifies as permanent-bondmate matirial? Has any Asari stayed faithful to a Short Lived bondmate, is it even right to expect them too?


I noticed something, in the ending romance convo in LOTSB. When Shepard mentions Horizon, being a set-up. the way Liara ssays 'those bastards' makes me think, she may have had something to do with it.

I could see an asari being faithful while her mate is alive but after they die? We don't even expect that of humans do we? Some might not ever take another mate but it wouldn't be considered "unfaithful" if they did. Its that whole "till death do us part" thing. Once one partner dies ... the other is free to love again in my book. 

[karmensandiego]

PMC65 wrote...

karmensandiego wrote...

SkyeHawk89 wrote...

Anything new going on here, things I missed?

PMC65 said something dirty to Ali Hillis and Ali Hillis tweeted something back but PMC65 ain't sharing... <_<

Now, now! I PM'ed you what she tweeted and what type of conversation we had.

Ummmmm... I don't have any new messages...

YOU ARE SUCH A TEASE.

[Gespenst]

PMC65 wrote...

I could see an asari being faithful while her mate is alive but after they die? We don't even expect that of humans do we? Some might not ever take another mate but it wouldn't be considered "unfaithful" if they did.

Oh is that what you meant Yuqi? I wouldn't even have thought of that as being unfaithful. ...I think if I was "married" to an alien who'd live about 10 times longer than me I'd want them to find someone else after I died.

PMC65 wrote...

Its that whole "till death do us part" thing. Once one partner dies ... the other is free to love again in my book.

...but in that situation death has parted them. Edit: I think I misread your post there. Not sure what I read but still...

Modifié par Gespenst, 23 novembre 2011 - 03:17 .

[Yuqi]

Gespenst wrote...

PMC65 wrote...

I could see an asari being faithful while her mate is alive but after they die? We don't even expect that of humans do we? Some might not ever take another mate but it wouldn't be considered "unfaithful" if they did.

Oh is that what you meant Yuqi? I wouldn't even have thought of that as being unfaithful. ...I think if I was "married" to an alien who'd live about 10 times longer than me I'd want them to find someone else after I died.

PMC65 wrote...

Its that whole "till death do us part" thing. Once one partner dies ... the other is free to love again in my book.

...but in that situation death has parted them. Edit: I think I misread your post there. Not sure what I read but still...

Yes that is what I meant. I apoligise, English is not  my best language. 

[Gespenst]

Really? I never would have guessed.

I wouldn't worry about it. I'd be willing to bet that your English is better than just about any of our ... whatever your best language is.

Hell, your English is probably better than mine and I am English!

Modifié par Gespenst, 23 novembre 2011 - 03:43 .

[CrutchCricket]

PMC65 wrote...

As I said, "Being faithful, however, typically implies an exclusivity to someone." I am faithful to you ... and you ... and you ... eh, just doesn't sound right. And if I were in an open relationship and someone told me that they were faithfully mine? It would make me laugh.

But, I see where multiple partners could think "faithful" applies ... a polygamist might say that he is faithful to his six wives. Oh, well. Whatever makes people happy!

To each his own. 

No it doesn't. People typically infer that exclusivity and typically do so to one person. I don't bring up this infer-imply difference just to be a dick. The term faithful implies remaining true to vows, being loyal to that which you're faithful to, being steadfast and trustworthy in your faith and so on. But nowhere in the intrinsic definition of "faithful" (in the context of romance) is monogamous exclusivity suggested. That is an inference most people make because they're starting from an assumption of monogamy. It is typical in that this is the prevalant relationship type usually discussed. But in relationships where it is clearly stated that monogamy is not the case, that assumption simply does not hold and the monogamous exclusivity inference cannot be logically made.

If your personal preference precludes polyamory of any kind, then yes faithful would mean commitment to one person; but it would mean that only for you (or those who share similar beliefs). It is in no way a universal definition.

[PMC65]

CrutchCricket wrote...

PMC65 wrote...

As I said, "Being faithful, however, typically implies an exclusivity to someone." I am faithful to you ... and you ... and you ... eh, just doesn't sound right. And if I were in an open relationship and someone told me that they were faithfully mine? It would make me laugh.

But, I see where multiple partners could think "faithful" applies ... a polygamist might say that he is faithful to his six wives. Oh, well. Whatever makes people happy!

To each his own. 

No it doesn't. People typically infer that exclusivity and typically do so to one person. I don't bring up this infer-imply difference just to be a dick. The term faithful implies remaining true to vows, being loyal to that which you're faithful to, being steadfast and trustworthy in your faith and so on. But nowhere in the intrinsic definition of "faithful" (in the context of romance) is monogamous exclusivity suggested. That is an inference most people make because they're starting from an assumption of monogamy. It is typical in that this is the prevalant relationship type usually discussed. But in relationships where it is clearly stated that monogamy is not the case, that assumption simply does not hold and the monogamous exclusivity inference cannot be logically made.

If your personal preference precludes polyamory of any kind, then yes faithful would mean commitment to one person; but it would mean that only for you (or those who share similar beliefs). It is in no way a universal definition.

And that is why a polygamist might say that they are faithful to their spouses ... did you miss that part?

EDIT: As for me I'm not into committed relationships ... mono or poly. So I don't have a dog in this hunt really.

Modifié par PMC65, 23 novembre 2011 - 04:39 .

[Xilizhra]

Oh, I'm like that all the time and I don't even have two girlfriends, I'm just naturally indecisive. It's nagging and annoying, but livable and certainly not a dealbreaker if you can all make it work together.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

BSN ate my message.

PMC65 wrote...

Korkki wrote...

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

I doubt the Asari do have a concept of marriage to begin with.

What they exhibit up to date is more of a life-partnership than hardset marriage.

I
always thought that this bondmate thing is sort of like marriage for
asari, so when you're bondmate dies, you become a widow, in human terms.
But I meant that do the asari even undertand this consept of widow. Or
is it just like it's been said in the games couple times, that they
simply accept the fact that they'll outlive their partners, execpt
krogan ofc, and they just move on. So that they're not even thinking
that "my partner died, I'm a widow now" like humans would. So can they
understand the nature of being widow and what it means for humans.

I guess I still kinda failed to explain what I meant in the first place with this widow stuff ../../../images/forum/emoticons/wondering.png

I
would think that widows would fit. Especially if you look at the asari
on Illium who lost the locket. She obviously loved her mate.

Christianity
or religion does not monogamy make if you look at civilizations BC and
at animals. I can safely say that animals do not belong to any
religion and yet we see monogamy in nature as well. Even in history
where the Jewish faith was not around to influence there was monogamy.

Marriage
was also a heathen rite that the church finally embraced ... odd isn't
it. There were alot of heathen rituals that the Church took over and
placed a religious sticker on it.

I think some people are
monogamous and others aren't. It is when we try and say one is right and
one is wrong that we get off-track. Let's just hope that you choose to
be with people that share your viewpoint on relationships.

The
asari would probably have a mix of monogamous and non-monogamous
relationships. I always felt that maidens were non-monogamous while
matrons were geared more towards the possibility of a single mate during
that mate's lifespan. But who knows.

EDIT: for spelling [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie]

There's biological monogamy and a cultural one. I'm guessing monogamous animals lose the instict to find another mate. Humans aren't naturally monogamous however. Given the prepostrous similarity between Asari and human females their propensity to cheat is probably similar, which should be less than males.

Modifié par fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb, 23 novembre 2011 - 07:59 .

[Yuqi]

Gespenst wrote...

Really? I never would have guessed.

I wouldn't worry about it. I'd be willing to bet that your English is better than just about any of our ... whatever your best language is.

Hell, your English is probably better than mine and I am English!

这是我的语言

[Korkki]

CrutchCricket wrote...

I'm
also getting the PC vibe from Korkki's reply, you know the "it's ok for
them but get it the hell away from me" stance. Which is fine, but the
verbiage and repetition seems to suggest the forced "smile-and-nod
because you don't want to get lynched by activits" routine as opposed to
the genuine smile of well-wishing acceptance. Either way I do wish we'd
get away from the whole "romance implies
monogamy" thing which seems to be stated as a general fact that
everyone should accept, like a kid getting toys for Christmas; you can
get the kid clothers and it's still a present but he just died a little
inside and that's not cool damnit!

I always try to be diplomatic and subtle with how I express my oppinions and have a habbit of repeating what I've just been thinking, because when I post or in some other way start to express my oppinions I'm basicly thinking out loud, and then I try to put these thoughts into some understandable form, or I'm just trying to make sure no one got me wrong. So because of that my oppinions are nothing but verbiage?

Maybe I try this once more then. In my oppinion, people can be polygamous if that's what they want, or they can be monogamous. But I, myself however, am strictly monogamous being.  So in my books having multiple partners is cheating, if you are in a relationship with me. That would mean that we had different rules and one of us basicly have to walk out then (me most likely in this case), because I couldn't be in a relationship with polygamous person while I am monogamous. And yes that is simply my problem, not that other person's, because she hasn't done anything wrong, our rules are just different, we're not even playing the same game.

And I agree with you that it isn't any kind of rule that relationships are automaticly monogamous but that is the way most people think of it I believe, not all, but most, and no that doesn't make monogamous relationships any better than polygamous, even if they're more common. I just can't understand polygamous relationships, because I'm monogamous, but I accept them, just like I can't understand what it's like to be a woman, because, at least the last time I looked, I am a man.

Gespenst wrote...

I was under the impression that there was only one law in Finland. Don't **** with Finland.

Well that's only for you outsiders! We have to get along with each other too you know. Luckily there is so few people living here that we don't actually have to get along with each other, because we never see each other. We just sit here in small cabins drinking vodka and eating salmiac while it's cold and dark and sun never rises. We go jogging with polar bears and all of us have a nokia cellphone. Then we go to sauna which is 120 degrees celsius hot and we have this eternal source of stubbornnes, the famous Finnish sisu. ...okay j/k

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

Given the prepostrous similarity between Asari and human females their
propensity to cheat is probably similar, which should be less than
males.

Is this the "men are mindless dick-creatures who f*ck everything that move, while women are pure and innocent, trying to raise a family, always faithful" - argument?

Modifié par Korkki, 23 novembre 2011 - 12:53 .