Random Postings

ZealousZeal

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
orthonorm said:
ZealousZeal said:
Cognomen said:
ZealousZeal said:
I may start buying melatonin in bulk.
Does it really work? Or maybe for some and not others?  Seems a bit too good to be true.
It's a naturally occurring hormone in the human body that helps regulate sleep cycles. I've never tried to take it supplementally before, but the people I know who do/have sing its praises. I'm truly to the point where I'm considering trying it. I've always had trouble falling asleep as long as I can remember. It's getting pretty old.
The old sleep hygiene methods will eradicate the worst insomnia. I suffered under it greatly and still do at times (I've gone up to about a week without much more than thirty minutes of sleep and months on end averaging about two hours a night and that was before the cocaine). But now I know that I am the primary cause of my insomnia when I experience it.
Thanks for the tip. I've never heard of sleep hygeine methods. Off to Google...
 

Apples

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
4,360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
William said:
So none of my friends want to go with me to an 8 hour Nolan Batman marathon on the 19th. Would it be super lame to go by myself?
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ZealousZeal said:
orthonorm said:
ZealousZeal said:
Cognomen said:
ZealousZeal said:
I may start buying melatonin in bulk.
Does it really work? Or maybe for some and not others?  Seems a bit too good to be true.
It's a naturally occurring hormone in the human body that helps regulate sleep cycles. I've never tried to take it supplementally before, but the people I know who do/have sing its praises. I'm truly to the point where I'm considering trying it. I've always had trouble falling asleep as long as I can remember. It's getting pretty old.
The old sleep hygiene methods will eradicate the worst insomnia. I suffered under it greatly and still do at times (I've gone up to about a week without much more than thirty minutes of sleep and months on end averaging about two hours a night and that was before the cocaine). But now I know that I am the primary cause of my insomnia when I experience it.
Thanks for the tip. I've never heard of sleep hygeine methods. Off to Google...
I'll be glad to list the ones which work the best IME once you look around. Not doing them right now, but I am "jet lagged".
 

ZealousZeal

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
orthonorm said:
ZealousZeal said:
orthonorm said:
ZealousZeal said:
Cognomen said:
ZealousZeal said:
I may start buying melatonin in bulk.
Does it really work? Or maybe for some and not others?  Seems a bit too good to be true.
It's a naturally occurring hormone in the human body that helps regulate sleep cycles. I've never tried to take it supplementally before, but the people I know who do/have sing its praises. I'm truly to the point where I'm considering trying it. I've always had trouble falling asleep as long as I can remember. It's getting pretty old.
The old sleep hygiene methods will eradicate the worst insomnia. I suffered under it greatly and still do at times (I've gone up to about a week without much more than thirty minutes of sleep and months on end averaging about two hours a night and that was before the cocaine). But now I know that I am the primary cause of my insomnia when I experience it.
Thanks for the tip. I've never heard of sleep hygeine methods. Off to Google...
I'll be glad to list the ones which work the best IME once you look around. Not doing them right now, but I am "jet lagged".
That would be excellent. I'll PM you. Or you can PM me. Whenever. I'm reading about it.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
JamesR said:
ZealousZeal said:
JamesR said:
Achronos said:
JamesR said:
Achronos said:
I want to know why men think its a biological impulse to commit adultery.
Because it is. By our very nature we are not monogomous. Men were biologically designed to have several female partners. Hence why we can orgasm like every ten minutes whereas it takes nine months for one woman to have a child.
This is BS.
Explain why. If men were meant to be monogomous then how come we can orgasm so fast whereas it takes a woman nine months to have a child? The reason is because we were designed to impregnate several women. If men were meant to be monogomous then wouldn't you think that we would only be able to orgasm every nine months to be on the same pace as our wife?
Let me put it this way, and see if it helps you understand why everyone is all "Whaaa?":

You're equating apples and oranges... in this case: orgasms and gestation. They are two separate things entirely. And really, your argument works against you. Women can potentially orgasm in more rapid succession than men, in that females have a shorter refractory period. To put it bluntly: once a man orgasms, his body needs time to recover before arousal is possible again (adolescence notwithstanding  ;) ). On the other hand, once a woman orgasms, her body is still in a state of arousal.

It would be better for your argument against monogamy being biological if you took orgasms out of the equation entirely, and instead focused on what you hinted at earlier: the woman gestates a baby, and for 9 months at that, while the man remains physically unencumbered despite fathering a child or copious amounts of children. Even if a woman had multiple partners her potential yield of children remains relatively set. A man, however, could certainly increase his yield of children if he increased his partners.

I hope I'm clear as mud, because I can't bring myself to type orgasm one more time. Fin.
So does this mean I could have multiple partners?   :laugh:
I've never seen a plural marriage that actually works. Seems like they all breed jealousy and pain when some attachments inevitably become stronger than others. As Georg Simmel pointed out, a group of two has inherently different dynamics than a group of three or more (yay, I'm actually using something from Sociology class!)

Unless of course, you don't plan on sticking around and actually raising these evolutionary families with all of these women, in which case who cares? You're just arguing for scattering your seed like a mindless drone. Being a walking gonad might make sense mathematically but it's hardly a human life. Just buy yourself a new pair of socks and quit adding to the welfare state  :p
 

vamrat

Merarches
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
9,471
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Omaha
Volnutt said:
JamesR said:
ZealousZeal said:
JamesR said:
Achronos said:
JamesR said:
Achronos said:
I want to know why men think its a biological impulse to commit adultery.
Because it is. By our very nature we are not monogomous. Men were biologically designed to have several female partners. Hence why we can orgasm like every ten minutes whereas it takes nine months for one woman to have a child.
This is BS.
Explain why. If men were meant to be monogomous then how come we can orgasm so fast whereas it takes a woman nine months to have a child? The reason is because we were designed to impregnate several women. If men were meant to be monogomous then wouldn't you think that we would only be able to orgasm every nine months to be on the same pace as our wife?
Let me put it this way, and see if it helps you understand why everyone is all "Whaaa?":

You're equating apples and oranges... in this case: orgasms and gestation. They are two separate things entirely. And really, your argument works against you. Women can potentially orgasm in more rapid succession than men, in that females have a shorter refractory period. To put it bluntly: once a man orgasms, his body needs time to recover before arousal is possible again (adolescence notwithstanding  ;) ). On the other hand, once a woman orgasms, her body is still in a state of arousal.

It would be better for your argument against monogamy being biological if you took orgasms out of the equation entirely, and instead focused on what you hinted at earlier: the woman gestates a baby, and for 9 months at that, while the man remains physically unencumbered despite fathering a child or copious amounts of children. Even if a woman had multiple partners her potential yield of children remains relatively set. A man, however, could certainly increase his yield of children if he increased his partners.

I hope I'm clear as mud, because I can't bring myself to type orgasm one more time. Fin.
So does this mean I could have multiple partners?   :laugh:
I've never seen a plural marriage that actually works. Seems like they all breed jealousy and pain when some attachments inevitably become stronger than others. As Georg Simmel pointed out, a group of two has inherently different dynamics than a group of three or more (yay, I'm actually using something from Sociology class!)

Unless of course, you don't plan on sticking around and actually raising these evolutionary families with all of these women, in which case who cares? You're just arguing for scattering your seed like a mindless drone. Being a walking gonad might make sense mathematically but it's hardly a human life. Just buy yourself a new pair of socks and quit adding to the welfare state  :p
But polygamous relationships have been used throughout human history by various peoples.  The husband would need to give attention to all the wives, there would have to be some division of labour between them, a hierarchy with a superior wife on the top right below the husband.  It seems like these relations work well enough, you just have to have a society that can accommodate for them.  I agree with you that these would never work, in modern Western society.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
vamrat said:
Volnutt said:
JamesR said:
ZealousZeal said:
JamesR said:
Achronos said:
JamesR said:
Achronos said:
I want to know why men think its a biological impulse to commit adultery.
Because it is. By our very nature we are not monogomous. Men were biologically designed to have several female partners. Hence why we can orgasm like every ten minutes whereas it takes nine months for one woman to have a child.
This is BS.
Explain why. If men were meant to be monogomous then how come we can orgasm so fast whereas it takes a woman nine months to have a child? The reason is because we were designed to impregnate several women. If men were meant to be monogomous then wouldn't you think that we would only be able to orgasm every nine months to be on the same pace as our wife?
Let me put it this way, and see if it helps you understand why everyone is all "Whaaa?":

You're equating apples and oranges... in this case: orgasms and gestation. They are two separate things entirely. And really, your argument works against you. Women can potentially orgasm in more rapid succession than men, in that females have a shorter refractory period. To put it bluntly: once a man orgasms, his body needs time to recover before arousal is possible again (adolescence notwithstanding  ;) ). On the other hand, once a woman orgasms, her body is still in a state of arousal.

It would be better for your argument against monogamy being biological if you took orgasms out of the equation entirely, and instead focused on what you hinted at earlier: the woman gestates a baby, and for 9 months at that, while the man remains physically unencumbered despite fathering a child or copious amounts of children. Even if a woman had multiple partners her potential yield of children remains relatively set. A man, however, could certainly increase his yield of children if he increased his partners.

I hope I'm clear as mud, because I can't bring myself to type orgasm one more time. Fin.
So does this mean I could have multiple partners?   :laugh:
I've never seen a plural marriage that actually works. Seems like they all breed jealousy and pain when some attachments inevitably become stronger than others. As Georg Simmel pointed out, a group of two has inherently different dynamics than a group of three or more (yay, I'm actually using something from Sociology class!)

Unless of course, you don't plan on sticking around and actually raising these evolutionary families with all of these women, in which case who cares? You're just arguing for scattering your seed like a mindless drone. Being a walking gonad might make sense mathematically but it's hardly a human life. Just buy yourself a new pair of socks and quit adding to the welfare state  :p
But polygamous relationships have been used throughout human history by various peoples.  The husband would need to give attention to all the wives, there would have to be some division of labour between them, a hierarchy with a superior wife on the top right below the husband.  It seems like these relations work well enough, you just have to have a society that can accommodate for them.  I agree with you that these would never work, in modern Western society.
Yes, but then the subordinate wives will be jealous of the superior wives and the position of their children, look at the lives of the Patriarchs. Just because it's been used, doesn't mean it wasn't miserable for those involved. The life of Halide Edib Adivar is a good example of how painful living in such situations can be.
 

vamrat

Merarches
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
9,471
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Omaha
Volnutt said:
vamrat said:
Volnutt said:
JamesR said:
ZealousZeal said:
JamesR said:
Achronos said:
JamesR said:
Achronos said:
I want to know why men think its a biological impulse to commit adultery.
Because it is. By our very nature we are not monogomous. Men were biologically designed to have several female partners. Hence why we can orgasm like every ten minutes whereas it takes nine months for one woman to have a child.
This is BS.
Explain why. If men were meant to be monogomous then how come we can orgasm so fast whereas it takes a woman nine months to have a child? The reason is because we were designed to impregnate several women. If men were meant to be monogomous then wouldn't you think that we would only be able to orgasm every nine months to be on the same pace as our wife?
Let me put it this way, and see if it helps you understand why everyone is all "Whaaa?":

You're equating apples and oranges... in this case: orgasms and gestation. They are two separate things entirely. And really, your argument works against you. Women can potentially orgasm in more rapid succession than men, in that females have a shorter refractory period. To put it bluntly: once a man orgasms, his body needs time to recover before arousal is possible again (adolescence notwithstanding  ;) ). On the other hand, once a woman orgasms, her body is still in a state of arousal.

It would be better for your argument against monogamy being biological if you took orgasms out of the equation entirely, and instead focused on what you hinted at earlier: the woman gestates a baby, and for 9 months at that, while the man remains physically unencumbered despite fathering a child or copious amounts of children. Even if a woman had multiple partners her potential yield of children remains relatively set. A man, however, could certainly increase his yield of children if he increased his partners.

I hope I'm clear as mud, because I can't bring myself to type orgasm one more time. Fin.
So does this mean I could have multiple partners?   :laugh:
I've never seen a plural marriage that actually works. Seems like they all breed jealousy and pain when some attachments inevitably become stronger than others. As Georg Simmel pointed out, a group of two has inherently different dynamics than a group of three or more (yay, I'm actually using something from Sociology class!)

Unless of course, you don't plan on sticking around and actually raising these evolutionary families with all of these women, in which case who cares? You're just arguing for scattering your seed like a mindless drone. Being a walking gonad might make sense mathematically but it's hardly a human life. Just buy yourself a new pair of socks and quit adding to the welfare state  :p
But polygamous relationships have been used throughout human history by various peoples.  The husband would need to give attention to all the wives, there would have to be some division of labour between them, a hierarchy with a superior wife on the top right below the husband.  It seems like these relations work well enough, you just have to have a society that can accommodate for them.  I agree with you that these would never work, in modern Western society.
Yes, but then the subordinate wives will be jealous of the superior wives and the position of their children, look at the lives of the Patriarchs. Just because it's been used, doesn't mean it wasn't miserable for those involved. The life of Halide Edib Adivar is a good example of how painful living in such situations can be.
In this case I think jealousy would be the negative emotion.  FWIW, I have never seen a plural marriage in action...that sort of thing is illegal in these parts...though I have seen documentaries on it.  People are capable of making things work, they just have to accept hierarchical nature.  Some cultures have been more adept at this than others.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Discovered a great beer last night for those who are serious about their hops: Lagunitas Hop Stoopid Ale. 105 IBU on the bitterness scale
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
This is a pretty cool speculation piece on how the video game industry would be different today if Shigeru Miyamoto had become a Mangaka like he originally wanted to instead of going to work at Nintendo. http://www.1up.com/features/what-if-shigeru-miyamoto-manga-artist
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
I don't think all of it is believable, though. For example without Mario to compete with, Sonic would probably not exist. Sega might instead still be making Alex Kidd games.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
And without Miyamoto pushing for Nintendo to publish Pokemon, it might never have been picked up either.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
Pokemon might have wound up at Sega or something!
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
Of course, Nintendo still would have had Gunpei Yokoi and thus Metroid and Kid Icarus would have been made in some form.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
I kind of wish my name was Gunpei. It sounds so awesome.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
Any name with "gun" in it is awesome. It's bound by law, ya know.
 

vamrat

Merarches
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
9,471
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Omaha
PeterTheAleut said:
Discovered a great beer last night for those who are serious about their hops: Lagunitas Hop Stoopid Ale. 105 IBU on the bitterness scale
I always appreciate a beer suggestion...but I am not serious about hops.  At all.
 
Top