- May 19, 2017
- 275
- 596
So, before I answer this, I have to acknowledge this:
Absolutely correct, thanks for not losing sight of that. Now, back to the thing...
It's interesting that you bring up evolutionary psychology, yet also call my framing misogynistic. Evolution doesn't care about morality, "fairness," or cruelty. Evolution asks one and only one basic question before all other factors come into play: "Will this organism survive long enough to reproduce?"
So when you call my framing misogynistic what I think you really mean is, "You're not allowed to talk about women unless I agree with you." Which is gross. Knock that off. But to engage with the story you're telling, there's an easy way out for this woman: cheat. The genetic record shows that there are half as many male ancestors as female ancestors. Is it also misogynistic of me to know that and point it out?
I went ahead and wrote a lot more out on that subject (evolutionary history/psychology), but remembered that this post has pretty decent odds of getting deleted for being off-topic as it is. So, to keep it concise, here's a few bullet points:
>I do, in fact, happen to think poorly of women as a cohort in many 1st-world nations.
>I happen to think poorly of several cohorts where crime, health, spending, and politics are concerned (and I doubt you're any different).
>Thinking poorly of these groups does not mean I wish them harm or intend to deny them basic courtesy and human dignity.
>I attempt to judge every person that I meet on an individual basis based on the content of their character.
These points, despite claims to the contrary, are not mutually exclusive. The first, despite claims to the contrary, does not make me "one who displays prejudice or looks down upon women," as a quick web search defines misogynist. Just as the last, also despite claims to the contrary, does not make me racist, prejudiced, or bigoted.
Now, to follow your example and make a token effort to discuss the game:
I'm turned off by the loli content. More than personal preference, I think that's a hell of a lot harder to justify in-game than having multiple lovers; if they're in the harem, everyone else in the harem who knows about it is now an accomplice to an act that ranges from criminal to distasteful depending on the legal setting and a few other variables. Sure, it's fictional and everyone is somehow of age (even when indicated otherwise), but it thoroughly disappointed me that "opting out" was really just "we'll skip over this, but it's still happening and people will reference dialogue you never read there later on."
I'd also gripe about romancing family members being as overused as the isekai genre, but incest is kind of a staple in these games. I think it's because devs don't want to make the MC's family members ugly or annoying, and if a character is hot then players are going to want the MC to bang them, but there's a lot of complications in this nascent harem: some characters are related, some are married (unhappily), in relationships (unhappily), and they all want different things out of a partner based on where they are in their lives. For them to be happy with the MC, even in a harem, I think they're going to need some way to tie their daily lives together outside of the odd booty call and the occasional heart-to-heart. As the potion business expands, it might be worthwhile to try and swing some of the girls a job there somehow. It's been a while since I've played, but I may need to run through it again to see what the LIs are interested in--someone might be interested in research, or learning from the old man, while some might be interested in sales, the business, logistics, or management side of things. PR, maybe.
Or maybe I should just shut my brain off and enjoy the renders, animations, pretty backgrounds, and dialogue.
Think they meant Sicae, the other game by the same Dev making My Bully Is My Lover
Ah, thank you. I searched for Siscae and only found the comment I quoted, lol.
I called it mysogynistic framing, because you framed exclusivity in a misogynistic way. Your argument was that women's only care in a relationship is extracting as much ressources from men as possible. You directly said that and that is misogynistic.
The other part of your argument was that men need exclusivity from women to ensure that the children are theirs. That's where my argument of evolutionary psychology came from because that's clearly where yours came from.
And of course evolution doesn't care about morality, but my argument wasn't about morality, so I don't know why you brought it up.
In what way do you think cheating solves the situation for women in any way? In order to reproduce, they need longterm support. During pregnancy they cannot take care of themselves, after pregnancy they need to make sure that the child survives and grows up healthy. That's why women have just as much need of exclusivity, because they needed a partner who was fully commited to keeping their family going. Cheating doesn't help or solve any of these problems in any way.
And don't worry, you didn't need to tell me that you don't like women. I could tell.
- May 19, 2017
- 275
- 596
I said men and woman desire exclusivity for different reasons. You didn't like those reasons...but that's a "you" problem.
Where did I say those words in that order? Even in your first response you said that exclusivity is more important to women than men, not that women wanted more out of a relationship than stability and provisioning.
Desire. Men desire exclusivity for that reason. At least if they're taking the relationship seriously. Dating apps and STD statistics show that men are happy to forgo exclusivity in certain (short-term, low-to-no investment) circumstances.
Implicit vs Explicit. You had a problem with my statement because you think it disparages women. You, in turn, tried to disparage me with a label that used to mean something before it was massively overused for political clout and general browbeating. And you knew that, even if you were clearly hoping I wouldn't call you on it.
Where'd you learn to gaslight? You're out of practice.
She's hedging her bets. Look up the term "monkey branch." Also, as you yourself pointed out, men can leave a woman for another woman--if she can steal some other woman's man then she secures the long-term provisioning you're talking about. You think male competition gets nasty? Yikes.
All of those risks mean they want to bet on a winner, steal the winner if he's with someone else, and/or hedge their bets by having a series of backup plans. Evolutionary psychology gets fairly dark--don't try to cherrypick to make yourself feel better.
I hate everyone equally and politely until they give me a reason to adjust my expectations above the center line.
Also, these posts are going to be deleted at some point for being off-topic, so feel free to sperg some more.
Someone bring a trophie to this fine gentleman. Not everyone has mercy and patience to debate a boring woke
Respect the way you handled that guy. The tone differences between you two were very different. He's very sarcastic. A woke gooner white knighting on a porn game pirateing website. jeez.
Can we get away from the real life politics this is shifting into and back into discussion of the game.
And yes, this is all very political and relevant, don't go making any excuses, let's move on.
How abouts we dream about the ideal corruption path for Viktoria? Mhmm~ Oh the things one can warp a childhood friend into, oh the potential!!!
And yes, this is all very political and relevant, don't go making any excuses, let's move on.
How abouts we dream about the ideal corruption path for Viktoria? Mhmm~ Oh the things one can warp a childhood friend into, oh the potential!!!
Ye, out of the girls that go to school with the MC I like Viktoria the most. I'm just biased because I love Tsundere's. I have a feeling that her corruption and seduction route will heavily tie into Stephanie or Catherine's story line because Viktoria is jealous. I want Viktoria's corruption to be slow and sweet definitely embarassing and get her angry.