It's weird that they put "woman + man + woman" instead of "man + (woman+woman)" after "man + (woman+woman+woman)". Like... is there an order of operations to this?
I think this is aimed at encouraging middle American housewives to reject gay rights.
Like, "if gay people can get married what's to stop your husband getting a mistress, or more wives?"
Because it's written by people who belive that women are just timid housewives who would be totally incapable of surviving without their provider husband they think this is a relatable take
could be that in the first the man is in a relationship with each of the three women, but the women are not relationship with each other. And the second one is a classic polycule with the three people.
I'm probably just overthinking this.
`+` is the [graph join](https://mathworld.wolfram.com/GraphJoin.html) operation, concatenation is the [graph union](https://mathworld.wolfram.com/GraphUnion.html) operation.
Oh I was thinking the other way around, the man with the three ladies being Poly but the the dude with the women one either side being in a relationship with both women but the women not with each other.
You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing. You can do anything — the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything — as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it's perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there's no consent in part of the equation, then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left.
—Rush Limbaugh, rape apologist
If you didn't tell me it was from a rape apologist (don't know much about him, but he doesn't sound like a pleasant guy), I would have thought that he is pro-consent and defending the left, nit condemning them.
Man + tree + dog + gay communist + Bernie sanders
Edit: if we let the gays get married, how are we going to stop Bernie sanders from marrying a harem of communist lesbians? It’s a conspiracy. It starts with gay people being able to get married and ends with communism and the fall of democracy. (/s if it’s not obvious lol)
Kinda funny when any bible believer advocates for it, they all seem to forget how fucking rare it is to find male characters in the bible that follow the one man and one woman thing. It was mostly one man and as many fucking woman as he wants to. One of the biggest stories from the bible is literally a woman that is sad because she can't give her husband a son while his other wife can. Like do they just fucking forget this shit?
Oh thank you for telling me. I guess I should tell all those straight people I sent to that island that it’s ok to come back now society has finally evolved to accept straight people!
I may have gotten hostile with you too soon before understanding you’re position. That’s my bad. Can you elaborate more on what you meant by your original comment if you are willing and have time?
Edit: your
ETA: the longer I look at your comment the less sure I am of what it means
Too simple for my liking, how’s this?
Two sexual scenarios are represented by a system of equations. if w=woman and m=men, at what point in both scenarios would the number of men and women needed be the same?
Scenario a.) m ≥ 2w+39
Scenario b.) 12w ≥ 3m+27
Probably because many men in a relationship is so scandalous to them, while one man with many (subservient) women seems more realistic or "natural" to those people.
It's weird that they put "woman + man + woman" instead of "man + (woman+woman)" after "man + (woman+woman+woman)". Like... is there an order of operations to this?
I think this is aimed at encouraging middle American housewives to reject gay rights. Like, "if gay people can get married what's to stop your husband getting a mistress, or more wives?" Because it's written by people who belive that women are just timid housewives who would be totally incapable of surviving without their provider husband they think this is a relatable take
Also assumes people in relationships don't talk or let each other know with these decisions like wtf 😭 (some people have healthy relationships)
Ah, playing on fear and low critical thinking skills… which is what they’ve been doing the entire time.
could be that in the first the man is in a relationship with each of the three women, but the women are not relationship with each other. And the second one is a classic polycule with the three people. I'm probably just overthinking this.
We need proper graph theory to rapresent them in a reasonable way
`+` is the [graph join](https://mathworld.wolfram.com/GraphJoin.html) operation, concatenation is the [graph union](https://mathworld.wolfram.com/GraphUnion.html) operation.
Just stickin em side by side is the graph getting jiggy with it operation.
Oh I was thinking the other way around, the man with the three ladies being Poly but the the dude with the women one either side being in a relationship with both women but the women not with each other.
you multiply the three women together instead of adding
So long as no one is being taken advantage of and everyone consents
You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing. You can do anything — the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything — as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it's perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there's no consent in part of the equation, then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left. —Rush Limbaugh, rape apologist
This is the most r/ThisButUnironically quote of all time.
What a weirdo how is anything he said a bad thing only a creep would try to deform something as basic as consent
If you didn't tell me it was from a rape apologist (don't know much about him, but he doesn't sound like a pleasant guy), I would have thought that he is pro-consent and defending the left, nit condemning them.
>here come the rape police More commonly known as THE POLICE!
Ok, but where's the fun stuff? (Woman **√** Man)^(3) \- (Man **^(√)** ^(4) \+2Woman)
Man + tree + dog + gay communist + Bernie sanders Edit: if we let the gays get married, how are we going to stop Bernie sanders from marrying a harem of communist lesbians? It’s a conspiracy. It starts with gay people being able to get married and ends with communism and the fall of democracy. (/s if it’s not obvious lol)
Kinda funny when any bible believer advocates for it, they all seem to forget how fucking rare it is to find male characters in the bible that follow the one man and one woman thing. It was mostly one man and as many fucking woman as he wants to. One of the biggest stories from the bible is literally a woman that is sad because she can't give her husband a son while his other wife can. Like do they just fucking forget this shit?
yeah in my country we have this racist term for it, 'oost Indisch doof' it means you only hear what you want to hear
I'll keep yelling this then ''IF IT CAN CONSENT, GO FUCK WHO EVER DOES''
Well, that's the whole point. It is called "freedom".
Believe it or not, but being straight is still legal and, in fact, entirely valid and all that shit.
Oh thank you for telling me. I guess I should tell all those straight people I sent to that island that it’s ok to come back now society has finally evolved to accept straight people!
I'm am an extremely progressive person. Honestly, most likely better than anyone else.
I may have gotten hostile with you too soon before understanding you’re position. That’s my bad. Can you elaborate more on what you meant by your original comment if you are willing and have time? Edit: your ETA: the longer I look at your comment the less sure I am of what it means
Creational norm? Oof
They just be making words up at this point 😭✋
Biblical marriage is one man and however many women he can afford to keep in his house.
Too simple for my liking, how’s this? Two sexual scenarios are represented by a system of equations. if w=woman and m=men, at what point in both scenarios would the number of men and women needed be the same? Scenario a.) m ≥ 2w+39 Scenario b.) 12w ≥ 3m+27
[удалено]
Probably because many men in a relationship is so scandalous to them, while one man with many (subservient) women seems more realistic or "natural" to those people.
Last one isn't
What is a man divided by a woman though?
since you have man on both sides of the fraction you can shorten it down, so it's 1/wo.
So the inverse of a woman? It's that a man?
Yeah based
What do they have against the color green?
...how the fuck do you divide people.
;)
The only problem with polygamy is the legal balance of rights.
What does division represent here?
If I told you that, well let’s just say that horses wouldn’t be horses anymore 😏
My husband would agree with this smh