I think they actually use a setup of basically … something like minature subwoofers, but I’m not 100% sure of that.

… Wow, you’re serious.

Uh, because it engenders a whole bunch of deep emotions / massive and unique neurochemical responses in people, particularly it plays a massive role in regulating oxytocin, and plays a considerable role in creating stable pair bonding between two people.

https://mindlabneuroscience.com/brain-chemicals-during-sex/

I’m genuienly baffled that you need this explained to you.

Apologies for using shorthand to refer to a whole bunch of complex neurochemistry, I’ll be sure to spell out the details next time.

Ah, you’re correct!

It quite literally fooled me, but you are right.

I guess worth noting for Steam newbies:

The trackpads can be configured to act as basically any possible kind of input.

You can break them down into 4 way buttons, 8 way buttons, 2 buttons, one button… make them work as a joystick, or as a mouse… they click in a bit at multiple points…

So, if you prefer a different kind of thumbstick orientation, you can basically emulate it.

Literally all of the buttons on one of these things can be reconfigured to do a whole bunch of crazy shit, you can make macros, you can make it so that a little hud popup with scrollable selectable options pop up, you can make combos of key presses do different specific inputs, you can make a turbo function… etc.

Hell, you can make the gyros act as a mouse/joystick input, in several different modes, maybe only when you hold the aim button down, if you want that.

Anything you run through Steam can be made to work this way with the Steam Input system they invented for with the Steam Deck, the Steam Controller 2.0 is basically a shrunk down Steam Deck without the PC and screen.

I mean, arguably… it isn’t a D Pad if its actually seperate buttons.

But anyway, with the Steam Deck, which the Steam Controller 2.0 is basically a scaled down version of, that doesn’t have the whole computer and screen… you can at least get after market uh… contact boards?

I’m not sure of the term, but like the internal platter board thing, that the dpad/abxy buttons actually physically connect to, with the trigger/switch mechanisms.

For my deck, I got a kit that replaces the original ones with ones that are much ‘clickier’, like a mechanical keyboard as compared to a membrane keyboard.

It has more tactile and also audio feedback, beyond just being more responsive… that was like $30 bucks or something?

For a while, it was the case that to do this kind of mod, you’d have to do your own solder, but I waited and eventually somebody in China somewhere started making ones that are pre-soldered, and just require an appropriate screw driver and some dexterity to install.

So… if the Steam Controller takes off, I’d say give it 6 months, and by then something similar will probably exist for it.

Such are the consequences of unsheathing one’s sword!

Now, have at ye!

… such a manuever may be frot with peril.

‘Sacred’ has a more colloquial meaning, and is more broad than purely as part of a religious doctrine.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sacred

5

a: unassailable, inviolable

b: highly valued and important

I also provided a secondary phrase after that word, with or preceding it, to specify what I meant.

… The DM would be God.

And the serpent would either be the DM by way of acting as an NPC, or be a vet player.

I mean genuinely yes, this looks amazing.

I might have to come out of hibernation for a meal like this lol.

Its like a terrible translation.

Suit up, get your shit together!

->

Shit up!

Assert dominance: Piss on the guard.

… Is Margot supposed to be a spiteful bitch?

She’s also just wrong. As a man, I can tell you that men are entirely capable of oogling your ass or even legs as you go up a flight of stairs, in shorts.

Or your feet, as Margot specifically mentions.

Also… who… is running up and down stairs near your house… barefoot?

This is how you end up needing a tetanus shot, or worse.

In conclusion, Margot is a stupid, mean person.

The actual figure drawings are pretty good though!

I’m not myself a fan of the ‘Disney Princess circa 201X+’ style, but it is well executed.

Also you have functioning public mass transit where you can have someone else convey your drunk ass to the other side of town, for little to no expense.

Uh, no, I don’t.

The entire origination of my critique was against the claim that monogamy is unethical.

Thats… what started the entire thing.

You are confusing a subtype of monogamy with all possible variants of monogamy.

You’re describing patriarchichal, state/religiously sanctioned and ordained marriage.

I’m describing two people who are just having a relationship with each other, who discuss and agree to how that relationship works.

Doesn’t have to involve religion or even the state.

Just a commitment between two people, none over the other, both as close to equal as possible.

I’ve gone to significant lengths to explain how yes, monogamy is often formalized in a fucked up way… but it doesn’t have to be.

I keep saying that actual literacy is a required prerequisite to media literacy… pretty scary how many people functionally can’t read these days.

All that complicated logic should in theory apply to all those relationships as well, but it does not.

It does though.

Your friends could say they don’t like your partner.

Your partner could say they don’t like your friends.

Your partner could love or hate the idea of you fucking one of your friends, etc.

When you involve sex and/or deep commitment as a partner, like, a life partner… emotions and condiserations get more complex and of greater magnitude.

So… the more people you are partnered with, the more people there are with strong and complex emotional considerations going all ways.

But anyway, none of this addresses my original critique:

You have not demonstrated that broadly, monogamous relationships are unethical, de facto, 100% of the time.

I don’t think nonmonogamy nor monogamy are inherently, de facto, all the time unethical.

I just think that nonmonogamy is more difficult to do ethically.

You said monogamy is unethical.

Do you still hold this view?

If so, why, for what reasons?

I think that its more difficult for a stable, persistent, nonmonogamous, romantic/sexual situation to persist mainly because there are more people involved.

Everything that would be a one to one discussion, is now A to B and A to C and B to C, and potentially A to BC and AB to C and AC to B… this gets more complex, geometrically, with more members.

With more people and no mandatory/imposed hierarchy, It complexifies, with more chances for miscommunication, with all the intensity of emotions that comes along with a serious relationship… which can often lead to drama.

I don’t think that this is conceptually difficult to do ethically, if everyone involved communicates very well.

But that almost never occurs in practice, in mono or nonmono setups.

I think it is difficult to do ethically in practice, moreso when there are more members, because people have emotions that cause them to do irrational things, they have limited amounts of time and energy, imperfect information, because people can change their minds about things, because sometimes people don’t really know why they do some things.

The more people you have in a persistent arrangement like this, the more complex and thus unstable the entire situation is.

Granted, that reasoning only applies to certain kinds of non monogamy, others are or can be less complex…

But basically my whole thrust here is that more people = more complicated = more chances for drama / intentionallly or unintentionally hurting other people.

There are just more potentially shifting sets of boundaries and rules, that may or may not apply equally to all others in the group, and those boundaries themselves may or may not be problems for other members of the group.

And I appreciate your reply, though I do disagree.

(and for what its worth, i didnt downvote you)

I follow your food allergy metaphor, but this makes sense analogously only if you essentially do not view sex as any more sacred, or complex and meaningful, than food… you view it only as basic human need that is not entwined with the very emotional structure of a relationship.

Say that you’re both ostensibly members of a religion that forbids eating pork, or you’re both fairly hardcore vegans, and you in particular are also allergic to pork.

If your partner goes out and eats pork, away from you, yes this is not literally directly harmful to you, but it betrays the values that you both ostensibly claim to believe in.

Furthering the analogy, the partner could just say they’re not a member of that religion, or they’re not a vegan, or they have different interpretations of the concepts of those… and then you could say:

‘well, the beliefs that I have are important to me, and I thought that you had those same beliefs, and that they were important to you to… so if you do not have those beliefs, we should probably not be a couple.’

So, you have clarified your line of thinking, your preference or worldview or what you want to call it, but you have not explained how the preference or worldview that I explained is unethical.

I don’t inherently think that ENM or poly or relationship anarchy are inherently impossible to do ethically… I think they are difficult to do ethically, without causing a ton of drama, a lot of emotional distress and complexity… but i do not think they are just de facto unethical in concept.

I do agree with you that monogamous relationships very often are problematic in that they come with baggage by way of people having unstated assumptions of what the roles and rules are.

But this can be solved with forthright communication and actually discussing with the partner what those roles and rules are or should be.

That goes the same for nonmonogamous relationships, they’re just inherently more complex as they involve more people.

Tons of people are, imo, not emotionally mature enough, not honest enough with themselves, do not have the communication skills required to be in any kind of a serious relationship, monogamous or otherwise.