207 réponses à ce sujet

[ahellbornlady]

Of course most relationships that fail are monogamous. This is because most relationships throughout modern(and sometimes even ancient) history are monogamous(or at least supposed to be). We humans(both male and female) tend to be pretty territorial over who we sleep with. Monogamy is an effective way to combat this territorial behavior, marriage even moreso. So when cheating occurs, the breakdown of the relationship can quickly follow. But this is not the only reason for a relationship failing, and many times there is a litany of symptoms of a poor relationship that can actually lead up to cheating. There's anger, there is neglect, there is stress, there is sickness/health issues, there is money. These are only some causes.

 

When two people get together, any one of these things can cause the breakdown relationship to fail, and when combined with one another they can cause a great deal of social and emotional destruction. This is the risk you take when getting involved with another person. It's part of the reason marriage exists. It's is to make it harder for your partner to just up and quit. It is a social and cultural incentive to work through the problems in your relationship rather than just run away because they are too hard to deal with. The social stigma of divorce, though less harsh than it was in years past, is still substantial enough to give a person pause before dumping their partner because they just don't want to deal with them anymore.

 

Monogamy is not easy. In fact, it's incredibly difficult. A committed relationship, in my opinion, is the most rewarding challenges anyone can ever attempt. But invariably the hardest. I admire a moderately happy 30-year marriage more than I do a Super Bowl ring, or the climbing of Mount Everest. The dedication and hard work that goes into a relationship like that can take everything you have mentally, emotionally, physically and spiritually.

 

So why, in the name of all that is holy, would you want to double up on that kind of challenge? When you do this, you are increasing the chances for a great deal of hurt and anger. No matter how open a relationship is, you're still going to get hurt if your 'partner' wants to spend Christmas Eve with his/heryour other 'partner'. Or he/she takes him/her out to dinner one night, even if it's the only night you're off of work the whole week. Or if on a night you're feeling really horny, he/she decides to visit his/her other, other half.

 

When you have feelings for someone you're not in a relationship with, it is a test of your relationship. It is a test to see if you really love the person enough not to act on them. It is a test to see if you are truly committed to making what you already have work. Failing that test speaks a great deal about the strength of your relationship. So having a relationship with multiple people, where all parties are aware of what is going on, in my opinion is a weak relationship from the start. At least one party has already admitted that they do not wish to confine their affections to one person, no matter how deserving that one person is of their love and devotion. No matter how much he/she deserves to have that kind of loyalty.

 

THAT is why every polygamous relationship I have personally observed has failed. There's been a propensity of one party feel like they are a third wheel, left out or simply ignored over the favoring of another part of the relationship. So they stray out to someone else more willing to give them the attention they feel they deserve. Or they strike out at another member over what amounts to children fighting over a toy.

 

Now let me be clear: I'm not here to judge you, or your relationship with your significant other(s). I don't know you, I don't know who you are with or what they are like. It isn't my place to say anything about what your relationship is like.

 

But in my opinion, polygamist relationships are weak by the very nature, and do not work in the long run. Again, this is based on what I've seen. I have seen monogamist relationships break down, just as you have. But I've yet to see the love, dedication and devotion of the many long-lasting monogamous relationships I've seen be equaled by those with more than two people. And I highly doubt I never will.

 

This is why I disagree with this kind of relationship being accepted as normal, it is why I highly doubt any culture will accept the normalcy of a long-lasting, committed polygamous relationship. It is also why I don't think Bioware will be able, or willing, to portray one in their games. The story and characterization loops they would have to jump through to make it believable, along with the practical problems with implementing it within the gaming system itself, makes it a high-cost, little-reward feature they are unlikely to put in.

 

That kind of life has no appeal to me personally. I can understand why it appeals to others, but to me it is a very lonely way to go through life. I want my wife to know who I was ten/twenty/thirty/fifty years ago, and I want to know what she was like. I want to see the changes in her, and I want her to see the changes in me. Every wrinkle, every slowed step, every changed political opinion, everything. My (very wise)mother once asked my sister when she and her husband were having relationship issues, "Hon, do you want to be married to the version of *Jim* you married twelve years ago?" My sister's response, after a moment of thought, "No! I want MY *Jim*!". It made my sister realize that all the changes her husband had gone through, the very things that she was complaining about, were changes she had gone through with him. And she was not the woman he had married twelve years ago, either. So they fell in love all over again, with all of their shared faults and flaws.

 

That's the kind of relationship that I want.

 

Also this. Very much this.

 

Polygamy =/= Polyamory. Just so you know.

[RedIntifada]

Polygamy =/= Polyamory. Just so you know.

 

Not exactly. Polyamory means many lovers. Polygamy means marriage with multiple people. Polygamy tends to not be refered to by most Polyamorous people for the reason that it is generally conflated as being only Polygyny one man with multiple wives often a result of patriarchal religious beliefs (i.e. Muslims and Mormons) where as Polyamory allows for all sorts of combinations MFF, FMM, FFF, MMM etc. (plus trans) and branching out from there into all sorts of group and webbed formations. The only requirement for polyamory is that it is multiple people in consensual romantic relationships (which may or may not include marriage).  

 

[RedIntifada]

Love = Time + Money.

 

Time and Money are limited. Limited resources can not provide infinite results.

 

 

Of course, I am presuming that a woman is involved in this love. And it has long since been mathematically proven that girls are evil.

 

 

 

Not sure where to start with this sort of sexist BS. It explains a lot of problems with misogyny often (not always or mostly) found in mono relationships. The premise of this is that women/relationships are essentially commodities that can be bought through money (and time). This was the problem with the gift system in DA:O and why men have been able to create this sexist idea called the "friendzone" where they think if they spend enough time with or buy enough for a woman they are entitled to a relationship. But adult relationships are not commodities they are consensual emotional connections between two (or more) people, and those sorts of bonds can not simply be reduced to this sort of crap.

 

[Ophir147]

Not sure where to start with this sort of sexist BS. It explains a lot of problems with misogyny often (not always or mostly) found in mono relationships. The premise of this is that women/relationships are essentially commodities that can be bought through money (and time). This was the problem with the gift system in DA:O and why men have been able to create this sexist idea called the "friendzone" where they think if they spend enough time with or buy enough for a woman they are entitled to a relationship. But adult relationships are not commodities they are consensual emotional connections between two (or more) people, and those sorts of bonds can not simply be reduced to this sort of crap.

 

 

It... you do know that it is a joke, right?

 

The picture he uses as an example is a joke at least, and what he said beforehand may have sounded cynical about love but I don't see how it is misogynistic.

[Samahl]

It... you do know that it is a joke, right?

 

You do know sexist jokes exist, right?

 

I'm not saying this particular instance is - I honestly don't care enough to analyze it properly - but the "it's just a joke!" defense is seriously wrongheaded.

[RedIntifada]

It... you do know that it is a joke, right?

 

The picture he uses as an example is a joke at least, and what he said beforehand may have sounded cynical about love but I don't see how it is misogynistic.

 

Actually it is the logical conclusion of a lot of the posts by that person, because it tries to reduce successful relationships to a prize where affection can be bought and hence supposedly mono people have the advantage because they "invest" more time/money into the one person... it creates a sense of entitlement and ownership over a person (often the woman).

 

One thing that I was very pleased to hear about in the panel, is the idea for future games that relationships could be gated based on PC choices i.e they may reject you if you side with the templars or if you do something that they loath. This is a much more realistic way of looking at relationships and it adds a level of depth.

[Ophir147]

Apologies then. If your response was directed at his other posts as well, I completely understand. He's got some.... strange views.

 

I have seen the picture around and I personally enjoy math humor 

 

@Samahl I'm of the opinion that funny things are worth preserving, no matter who they offend. I don't find the misogynistic nature of the joke funny, but I don't believe that classifies it as anything other than a joke. My two cents is worth just as much as yours.

[Samahl]

@Samahl I'm of the opinion that funny things are worth preserving, no matter who they offend. I don't find the misogynistic nature of the joke funny, but I don't believe that classifies it as anything other than a joke. My two cents is worth just as much as yours.

 

I don't really want to get into this in detail right now, and I don't want the thread to get locked. However, I didn't say it wasn't a joke, I just said that jokes can be sexist. That's it.

[Il Divo]

Actually it is the logical conclusion of a lot of the posts by that person, because it tries to reduce successful relationships to a prize where affection can be bought and hence supposedly mono people have the advantage because they "invest" more time/money into the one person... it creates a sense of entitlement and ownership over a person (often the woman).

 

 

No, it's simply a joke that you have taken far too personally. 

 

But as much as you might not want to admit it, the underlying point is correct, assuming I understand Dean on this one. Relationships require resources, much like anything else. Resources are limited, ergo investment in a relationship may be problematic the more individuals involved at a time, depending on the context. It applies to men as much as women. 

 

It's like saying that a person with ten children isn't going to have more problems managing them all compared to a person with a single child. 

[Abraham_uk]

Actually it is the logical conclusion of a lot of the posts by that person, because it tries to reduce successful relationships to a prize where affection can be bought and hence supposedly mono people have the advantage because they "invest" more time/money into the one person... it creates a sense of entitlement and ownership over a person (often the woman).

 

One thing that I was very pleased to hear about in the panel, is the idea for future games that relationships could be gated based on PC choices i.e they may reject you if you side with the templars or if you do something that they loath. This is a much more realistic way of looking at relationships and it adds a level of depth.

 

Sadly, "Heavy Risk But The Priize" is the mentality of a lot of people.

[Dean_the_Young]

I don't know, that sounds like saying "I believe that polyamorous relationships don't work, because the ones I witnessed didn't" to me.  0o

 

If I'm missing a step, please tell me.

 

Certainly: you ignored what 'Again, this is based on what I've seen.' is referring to. Not that the polyamory failed, but why it failed. Which was a rather drawn out exposition of his thoughts on the importance of commitment, jealousy, attention, and other values he considered important to the stability of a relationship that only get harder, beliefs he saw as vindicated in his observation of the polyamory failure.

 

 

Edit #2: his statement also reads as a rather absolute one, to me; just thought I'd throw that out there, since you keep harping on me in regards to "absolutes". 

 

Actually it's a non-falsifiable- similar in effect, but different in logic failure. The key wording is the conditionality he used: 'in the long run.' Undefined, that could be stretched to perpetually deny success because 'the long run' has no metric. What is considered a long-term relationship: five years? Ten? Twenty? Is it something that can only be confirmed if it lasts until a natural death in elder age?

 

Instead of framing opposition in terms of him claiming an absolute logic, anyone who disagreed would have been far better in challenging the structural logic he used (such as asking for a metric) and finding an example that defied the metric.

 

That would have defeated the non-falsifiable, though it wouldn't have addressed how relationship instability does or does not change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure, he states in there his justification that adding someone else into the mix complicates things, as you suggested was his point.  Still doesn't change that he says that he feels that they "never seem to end well for anybody" and that this is based on the relationships he's witnessed.

 

Fail to see how I'm arguing against something he didn't say.  0o

 

It's the argument syntax. He came to his conclusion based on beliefs he saw validated. You are framing his argument as solely on the observation.

 

 

 

 

 

Skipping some stuff because I feel the above addresses my main points.

 

 

Fine.  I still posit that the results of a small sample size is not necessarily indicative of what the total result will be.  I won't give examples because it's likely no matter what I give to support that, you'll claim I'm using absolutes.  *shrug*

 

No, I actually completely agree with you. He doesn't have a scientific data set to use as proof. I just don't believe he was framing his argument in terms of trying to use his observation as conclusive proof- ergo, counter-arguments based on that are misaimed.

 

Examples and anecdotes, even when not scientifically rigorous, are useful devices in supporting logic and understanding. There just needs to be care not to present them as a core argument (which I do not believe he was), or to focus on them to the ignoral of the core arguments (which I believe you have done).

[Dean_the_Young]

You do know sexist jokes exist, right?

 

I'm not saying this particular instance is - I honestly don't care enough to analyze it properly - but the "it's just a joke!" defense is seriously wrongheaded.

 

On the other hand, 'it's just a joke, not a sexist joke' is the completely right-headed defense if it is true. An assertion of truth should warrant a supporting argument as well, but describing the nature of something is a perfectly valid defense.

[Dean_the_Young]

No, it's simply a joke that you have taken far too personally. 

 

But as much as you might not want to admit it, the underlying point is correct, assuming I understand Dean on this one. Relationships require resources, much like anything else. Resources are limited, ergo investment in a relationship may be problematic the more individuals involved at a time, depending on the context. It applies to men as much as women. 

 

That was... dkain's argument, if I remember right? I don't actually agree with his particular line of thought- particularly that love that can not be expressed in action is meaningless, but I would certainly agree that managing relationships certainly requires limited resources. A relationship can go quite some time without direct interaction, but not indefinitely.

 

But that wasn't really an argument of mine- it just made a nice lead-in to a funny test paper a teacher once graded and uploaded.

 

 

It's like saying that a person with ten children isn't going to have more problems managing them all compared to a person with a single child.

 

Especially if he stands to lose his job because of the resulting financial instability.

[Dean_the_Young]

Actually it is the logical conclusion of a lot of the posts by that person, because it tries to reduce successful relationships to a prize where affection can be bought and hence supposedly mono people have the advantage because they "invest" more time/money into the one person... it creates a sense of entitlement and ownership over a person (often the woman).

 

When have I ever claimed successful relationships as a prize that can be bought and thus entitled to own anyone?

 

I believe that maintaining a committed relationship requires resources (more time and attention than money), but that's on the grounds that emotional bonds will atrophy over time if both parties aren't committed to the success. It has nothing to do with any concept of ownership and everything to do with that if you don't support someone emotionally, they will be increasingly likely to find someone who will.
 

 

One thing that I was very pleased to hear about in the panel, is the idea for future games that relationships could be gated based on PC choices i.e they may reject you if you side with the templars or if you do something that they loath. This is a much more realistic way of looking at relationships and it adds a level of depth.

 

Even if it might surprise you, I completely agree. I think ideology, factional alignments, and other factors are valid grounds for someone else to end a relationship.

 

 

 

And, with that, I'm off to work. I'll have fun seeing if this threat is still running by the time I get back.

[movieguyabw]

 

No, I actually completely agree with you. He doesn't have a scientific data set to use as proof. I just don't believe he was framing his argument in terms of trying to use his observation as conclusive proof- ergo, counter-arguments based on that are misaimed.

 

Examples and anecdotes, even when not scientifically rigorous, are useful devices in supporting logic and understanding. There just needs to be care not to present them as a core argument (which I do not believe he was), or to focus on them to the ignoral of the core arguments (which I believe you have done).

 

Fair enough.  I tried explaining this in an earlier post, but it may not have come across so well; my intention with the initial post was not to argue his coming to the conclusion he came to but how he expressed it.  I may not agree with his conclusion, which I revealed in later posts, but the post you keep referring to was never meant to argue that he shouldn't assume that all poly relationships will fail because the ones he witnessed didn't work out.

 

The post was made as a one-off response to him using the 'homosexual relationshp' anecdote.  My purpose was to show that I didn't believe the anecdote he gave was equivalent to the point he had made earlier.  One was an x+y=z statement, the other was an x+y=z or -z statement.  As I said, it was meant as a one-off response; nothing I cared too much about.  But the whole "if I saw poly relationships fail, then that means they all must fail vs If I saw a homosexual relationship succeed, then they all must succeed" was my wording, for the sake of showing a balanced equation, to point out why I felt his wasn't balanced.  I never said those were his words.  IIRC I even quoted his original post to show those weren't his words.  And if not, I figure his post was near enough to mine to show that I really didn't need to point out that those weren't his words.

 

Either way, it was never meant to be an actual argument.  Just a sort of "hey, you forgot a period  ;)" or "hey, I think you made a small mistake in your calculations ;)" sort of post.

 

It's very likely it didn't come across so well - and that's my fault.  In a rush to get a snappy, jokey comment in, I failed to give needed context in the original post.  And because of that I feel like I've had to spend the past few pages with people demanding me to explain a bad joke.  *shrug*

[Han Shot First]

I think the biggest argument against something like this is that it would require a lot more work to implement. Each of those potential LIs would need to have seperate dialogue to reflect their unromanced, romanced with one partner, or romanced with two partners states. If it was going to be implemented in any fashion that is remotely satisfactory the LIs would need to interact with each other as well, or with the PC together, and not just alone and separately. 

[Tevinter Rose]

I was just thinking about this, I'd love to have the option to convince a two LI's to get together with me in a poly-relationship, especially if they're sexy twins. I mean don't make me choose. 

 

That would be awesome, I would love that. I hope there's maybe something similar to that situation in the game, even though I know its highly unlikely. I just wish there were more poly options in the game in general. 

[movieguyabw]

That would be awesome, I would love that. I hope there's maybe something similar to that situation in the game, even though I know its highly unlikely. I just wish there were more poly options in the game in general. 

 

Not in this one: but hopefully in future ones, which is what the OP is referring to.    There might be unintentional glitches you can exploit which may allow you to have multiple romances (like there was in Origins, and I hear there was in DA2) but nothing that is intended to be poly yet.

[Lucidae]

Personally, I don't really care about this. I'm more from the traditional "If I love someone I love them and only them" kind of perspective. But sure, I guess if other people want it and Bioware can do it well go for it.

I have this mindset as well. Because of it I have a hard time seeing supposedly parallel polyamorous relationships being anything other than the player being greedy and selfish.
I also have the same feeling when people want every single companion to be romanceable....
As long as something like this being implemented into a game doesn't take away resources from other priorities it doesn't really bother me in the end. I just won't choose to partake in that content.

[KainD]

I have a hard time seeing supposedly parallel polyamorous relationships being anything other than the player being greedy and selfish.

 

Lol. ''Proper'' monogamy is almost the the pinnacle of selfishness, second place right after the ''I only care about myself.'' Which for me personally they merge. 

The more people you care for the more altruistic you are, and if we are talking about proper poly relationships then you do care. 

[KainD]

That's like saying a creationist is using logic when they claim the Earth is 2000 years old because their family raised them to believe the Bible is fact.

 

Aaand that's true, they are using logic. Logic is subjective. 

[movieguyabw]

 I have a hard time seeing supposedly parallel polyamorous relationships being anything other than the player being greedy and selfish.
 

 

Well, the way I understand it, what most of us are talking about in terms of what we'd like to see are along the lines of a relationship where all 3 parties are equally romantically involved.  So for instance, you romance both Leliana and Morrigan, and if the two have an attraction to one another, and are willing to enter a romance of that nature, then they wouldn't force you to choose between them.  And they would enter into a relationship with each other just the same as they had with you.

 

As opposed to being about one character who wants the two of them to be devoted to only him or her.  So in that sense I don't see it as being greedy or selfish at all (typically, though, this isn't my personal tastes either in real life)   Now there are certainly other incarnations of poly romances that work differently from what I described above, however from everything I've read on the matter, I don't see anything innately wrong with any of them; provided all parties understand and are comfortable with the position they're getting in to.

 

So personally, I don't see any reason not to, sometime down the road once they figure out how to make it work.  After all, when it comes to RPGs, I always am a fan of providing choice for players.