Jezer

This user has not updated recently.

3408 0 19 59
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

Jezer's forum posts

Avatar image for jezer
Jezer

3408

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@jezer: ....psh.. No

Honestly, I've never understood people who post other people instead of their picture.

Even when I was skinny and insecure, I was posting pictures in the photo thread on TPA 10 years ago. That's why people invented Myspace angles and filters.

Avatar image for jezer
Jezer

3408

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for jezer
Jezer

3408

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cpt_nice said:

@jezer:

Okay, I'm willing to accept the connotations of the term, though I feel it could still be clarified by saying polygamy(in terms of relationships, not marriage), but non-monogamy seems just as efficient a word. Learn something new every day.

Indeed.

I'm still confused about why history coined the term "ethical" non-monogamy. Seems like "non-monogamy" in and of itself clarifies the meaning in the same way. ethics usually has the connotations of rules of society or underlying rules. So, its strange to use it to modify some sort of personal type of relationship to mean its more open. Not saying non-monogamy is unethical, just saying throwing "ethical" in front of it to somehow make it more open than "non-monogamy" doesn't make conceptual sense for whoever created the term, far as I can presently tell.

I understand your point. I don't always use the term ethical non-monogamy in full, because that is a mouthful and I also agree the term clarifies the meaning. I did so in the OP because people not familiar with the concept tend to say things like "Oh so like cheating?" or "Oh so like cheating but with permission?". The idea is that the fact that there is clear consent and knowledge makes it ethical, as to make a clear distinction between non-consensual non-monogamy (cheating and forced polygamy as happens in some nations) and other forms.

Lol @ "cheating with permission". I'm sure people have different definitions of cheating, but If I ever heard someone say "cheating with permission" to my face, I would laugh at them openly.

Seems like the creator of the term should have just said - consensual non-monogamy.

Avatar image for jezer
Jezer

3408

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@leo-343 said:

@jezer: Caribbean/ English art*

English as in the UK? You grew up in both areas?

Avatar image for jezer
Jezer

3408

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By Jezer

@claymore1998: How would you describe your relationships with your dog? What do pets provide for you?

While I do agree a lot of your opinions are understandable as from a different perspective---I have to disagree with you when it comes to your break up/death analogy. I think a common theme explored in movies, books, tv shows is that people with a lot of relationships may have past baggage that effects the quality of their future relationships. Sometimes this baggage effects their ability to trust or their ability to show weakness, but I think mostly it effects their willingness, the ease, at which they are willing to end relationships and move on to new ones. Do you really think a man or woman is as emotionally attached to the 20th person they've been in a relationship with, as say the first or second person, when the experience is new and they feel like it may last forever? If people are consciously or unconsciously going to adapt to feelings of heartbreak, it seems counter intuitive that they would go through it many times, and not put up mechanisms to prevent it from harming them at the same level once they see it as inevitable. Of course, as regular people, we hope to find a significant other that, even though they may die before us, we hope to grow old with and journey through life with. The immortal doesn't have that same luxury. Which is why someone who constantly breaks up with lovers while they're on their search for the right one(who they presumably don't plan on breaking up with) is not seeing the world through the same perspective as someone who will always watch their lover die before them a.k.a. will always and inevitably break up with their lover, following your analogy.

I'm moderately sure that the more you experience something, the less dopamine you get from it. I've never personally done drugs, but I'm aware that long term use of certain drugs makes it necessary to ingest/take higher amounts, because your body may not produce the same amount of the feeling that it did the first time. Another example is your tastebuds getting used to chocolate/certain flavors if you ingest enough without long enough breaks, and it not tasting as great as the first time. I doubt an immortal is going to be experiencing the same level of feelings--intimacy, attachment, etc.---his 999th time as his 1st or 2nd or 3rd. I know there are chemicals related to long-term commitment, I doubt he will ever see a lover as a long-term commitment.

Avatar image for jezer
Jezer

3408

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By Jezer

@cpt_nice said:
@jezer said:

I'm still thrown by the fact you decided to call this "ethical non-monogamy." Why not call it.... consensual polygamy?

That's like asking.... what's your opinion on moral killings, defined as killing for morally right reasons....are they morally justified?

Because polygamy implies marriage, because gamy comes from the ancient greek word gamos, which means marriage. That is why a lot of people choose the term polyamory or ethical non-monogamy to differentiate between someone who is non-monogamous and someone who is married to multiple people. The former is a relationship preference, the latter is a marriage set up.

Okay, I'm willing to accept the connotations of the term, though I feel it could still be clarified by saying polygamy(in terms of relationships, not marriage), but non-monogamy seems just as efficient a word. Learn something new every day.

I'm still confused about why history coined the term "ethical" non-monogamy. Seems like "non-monogamy" in and of itself clarifies the meaning in the same way---though neither version overtly clarifies that its not referring to marriage. Throwing ethical in front of it does not modify the behavior into being ethical----ethics usually has the connotations of rules of society or underlying rules. So, its strange to use it to modify some sort of personal type of relationship to mean its more open.

Not saying non-monogamy is unethical, just saying throwing "ethical" in front of it to somehow make it more open than "non-monogamy" doesn't make sense, conceptually, for whoever created the term, far as I can presently tell.

Avatar image for jezer
Jezer

3408

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By Jezer

I'll put that on the list of things people generally shouldn't come to comicvine for assistance with, though there's probably one or two users who can actually help you.

1) Love

2) Help understanding social issues

3) Computer problems

Avatar image for jezer
Jezer

3408

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@leo-343 said:
No Caption Provided

So, I noticed the white canvas in the background of you. Are you a piece of art?....African art?

Avatar image for jezer
Jezer

3408

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for jezer
Jezer

3408

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

59

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I'm still thrown by the fact you decided to call this "ethical non-monogamy." Why not call it.... consensual polygamy?

That's like asking.... what's your opinion on moral killings, defined as killing for morally right reasons....are they morally justified?