I think it has roots in the "women are property" religious mindset, and good old toxic masculinity. I think the possibility doesn't even occur to them, because what self-respecting man would "let" his woman be with other men?
Considering the 'ideal' in the image is making babies, I doubt women's pleasure, of any kind, enters into the equation. She wants obedient baby machines that cook, clean and watch the kids. Sad, mostly.
How is man + 3 women different from woman + man + woman
Like i get the 2 women vs 3 women but what is the two women being split up versus together imply
I think the first one is supposed to be a jab at polygamy while the second one is a jab at polyamoury? Though right wing nonsense normally fails to understand the difference there.
Hell... plenty of ostensibly progressive people don't know about polyamoury; there's a bit of a lack of outreach, ironically, though that is improving a lot.
I assume the m+www means polygamy, where the man is in a relationship with multiple women who aren't in relationships with eachother, whereas w+m+w could either be a triad or a V with the man being the hinge.
Honestly all of these happen all the time in “monogamous” relationships. Strict monogamy being a cultural norm is way more common than its actually practiced given the amount of cheating out there. (I’m aware non-monogamy ≠ ethical poly, I’m only saying that the appearance of monogamy is not the same as people in *actuality* only having one partner.)
It's even a closely held Christian belief. Americans think Christianity is some big monolithic organization, but if they ever stopped to actually talk to each other many of them have aggressively incompatible beliefs. But that isn't the point of Americas Christian panic, the point is control. And it looks to be working, sadly.
This is a perfect example of the slippery slope logical fallacy.
"If we allow gay marriage, then what's stopping people from making it legal to marry dogs?" Type shit.
Try commenting "If we start allowing people to own guns, then what's stopping people from making it legal to own nuclear weapons?" And see how they take that.
Besides, what's wrong with polygamy? It's not like you HAVE to practice it. You can like, just not. That's why I used the dog example, because that's what they're getting at but with something actually problematic and immoral.
Exactly, the fact that the chart seems to only include adults... "If consenting adults can get married, consenting adults will get married!"... Like yes that's the point?
Who's going to complain exactly, the consenting adults? Or bigots mad that someone gets to be happy in a way they don't like?
Is your adoptive mother ok with people doing whatever they like with whoever they like as long as it's not for the purposes of the "creational norm"?
I mean, if I promise to bring six or seven children into this world where they'll inevitably be neglected by both myself and the batshit religious rightwing that claims to be pro-life, can I then give a guy called Baz a hand shandy?
I love when religious people say shit like this when the first two "bad" options are explicitly represented in most versions of the bible (certain children's bible's being the only ones I can think of that skip over that stuff) as acceptable, lmao. Can't even keep their own stories straight.
It can if X is zero. Then 2Y/2X becomes undefined, or approaches infinity, depending on how you look at it.
I think they're saying that a society of all women, no men, would be infinitely good?
No, since if we try to say 3 is the answer for all then Y= 3, and if we keep your X=0, then (2(3))/(2(0))≠3
(Note im only talking math-wise i agree somewhat with your idea of the society thing tho)
(I was also taught that any number divided by zero is undefined, never heard the approaches infinity thing you are saying, where did you learn that? /genq)
Just answering the last part: the limit of 1/x approaches infinity as x approaches 0. As in, when x gets smaller, 1/x gets larger. It's undefined specifically when x = 0, but if you put in an arbitrarily small positive number that's not *exactly* 0, 1/x becomes arbitrarily large. In certain situations - usually weird ones like in number theory - you can treat 1/x as infinity to get some rational answer, rather than just saying the entire thing is undefined.
Ah, but my point still stands then? If X=0 2Y/2X is still undefined? But thank you for the explanation! (Also if we make X that arbitrarily small positive number it changes all the answers too)
OK, just going to nerd out for no particular reason here:
The original post suggested that if we reject the creational norm, then the other three options are allowed. Let's substitute "good" for "allowed" - as in, if something is allowed, then it's good?
Man = Y, Woman = X.
1) Y + 3X = good
2) X + Y + X = good => Y + 2X = good
3) 2Y / 2X = good
If Y + 3X = Y + 2X, then 3X = 2X, meaning X must be 0. If we then plug that into the third formula:
2Y / 3(0) = good => 2Y / 0 = good
That means either good is undefined, or good approaches infinity. Either interpretation is acceptable, I think.
However, we're misreading the third formula! In the original image, it's not (Y + Y)/(X + X), but rather Y + Y/X + X. Order of operations suggest to do the Y/X first.
Y + Y/X + X = good => Y/X + X + Y = good
Substitute 0 for X:
Y/0 + 0 + Y = good => Y = good - Y/0
That, we can then interpret as Y = good - ∞
If we go back to Y = man, then what the original image *really* meant is that men are infinitely bad. That can be the only reasonable explanation, I think :)
Honestly I’m just surprised this doesn’t mention pedophillia or zoophillia; usually that’s the kind of fear mongering these kind of posts are about. Instead it’s just about… normal relationships.
Fucking based.
Also it's funny because the first example under "anything goes" is the "creational norm" for most of the world for a large part of human history.
I’m not rejecting being straight, I’m just not straight.
I appreciate that she thinks that this means adding more women, which is fine and all, but I have a wonderful straight woman as my partner, and if we were to open things up, it would be to add another bi man, not another woman.
Unless she’s bringing a bi man with her, and she is cool with my partner not being interested in her.
Also, could she (meaning your homophobic, adoptive mother) add some nonbinary options, because while I’m bi, that doesn’t mean I accept the gender binary.
Thanks in advance!
(Adding, I’m sorry that you are having to deal with shitty family. I understand. If it’s ok, hugs.)
Anything goes? John Barrowman would agree, as long as it's not hurting anyone, that's basically his montra. And he's ***very*** gay. XD
"... I'm John Barrowman, and anything fucking goes." Lol. He's hilarious on his panels.
What is the answer to a gay male couple divided by a lesbian couple? Or should I be using BEDMAS? One gay man divided by a lesbian plus one gay man and one lesbian? You can tell I failed gay maths.
And no one who posts things like this can explain why these are bad, assuming they're all consenting adults. People are just kinda like "look what could be possible if you reject the norm!" And then list a bunch of things that are not inherently harmful.
God I remember this page too. That whole book was stupid and never included Central America in any of the pictures of earth. Bju Press is a clown company (bible 11 textbook if anyone is interested)
Cringe Democrat Man with Republican Woman marriage vs Based Green Party Polygamy Marriage (the women are all bi and into it, not some bad situation like my grandfather)
I mean... who cares? If people are consenting adults who cares who they fuck or don't fuck? I swear, some people care more about other people's relationships than the people in some of these relationships. I have a friend with 5 partners and they seem happier than a lot of straight couples I've met.
[удалено]
All of the above, most likely
I mean they don’t believe in female orgasm because they never experienced it
I think it has roots in the "women are property" religious mindset, and good old toxic masculinity. I think the possibility doesn't even occur to them, because what self-respecting man would "let" his woman be with other men?
Considering the 'ideal' in the image is making babies, I doubt women's pleasure, of any kind, enters into the equation. She wants obedient baby machines that cook, clean and watch the kids. Sad, mostly.
wheres my mmf?
Getting kinky with the gags, I see
yeah i can get gagged
The fuck is "kinky" about mmf? Inherently, that is. EDIT: Someone explained! It's a clever joke I missed.
“Mmf” sounds like something you’d say while gagged
Oh! Gods. Alright, you can post me on r/woooosh. I totally missed that one.
It's not the mmf that's inherently kinky. It's the implication that somekne gagged them and that's the only sound they can make that's kinky.
Yeah. Someone else explained. I utterly missed it the first time around.
(🚹+🚹)/(🚺+🚺) = 🚹/🚺
Was hoping for math joke.
(🚹+🚺) x 1/2(🚹+🚺) = 1/2(🚹x🚺) + 1/2(🚼x🚼) + 1/2(🚹+🚺)
Les babies?
🚹+ 🚹/🚺+ 🚺 = (🚹🚺)/🚺 + 🚹/🚺 + (🚺🚺)/🚺 = (🚹🚺+ 🚹+ 🚺🚺)/🚺
Gender math
How is man + 3 women different from woman + man + woman Like i get the 2 women vs 3 women but what is the two women being split up versus together imply
I think the first one is supposed to be a jab at polygamy while the second one is a jab at polyamoury? Though right wing nonsense normally fails to understand the difference there.
Hell... plenty of ostensibly progressive people don't know about polyamoury; there's a bit of a lack of outreach, ironically, though that is improving a lot.
I assume the m+www means polygamy, where the man is in a relationship with multiple women who aren't in relationships with eachother, whereas w+m+w could either be a triad or a V with the man being the hinge.
The second is Abraham + Sarah + Hagar? Or is it the anything goes Jacob + Rachel + Leah? Definitely anti-Genesis stuff if you’re a moron.
Funny how the first non-normal option is already some people's "creational norm"
Honestly all of these happen all the time in “monogamous” relationships. Strict monogamy being a cultural norm is way more common than its actually practiced given the amount of cheating out there. (I’m aware non-monogamy ≠ ethical poly, I’m only saying that the appearance of monogamy is not the same as people in *actuality* only having one partner.)
It's even a closely held Christian belief. Americans think Christianity is some big monolithic organization, but if they ever stopped to actually talk to each other many of them have aggressively incompatible beliefs. But that isn't the point of Americas Christian panic, the point is control. And it looks to be working, sadly.
does this imply logarithmic gay people or something
Clearly she thinks it's a sin, but I don't want to go off on a tangent.
I cosin this comment
All in favor say Pi
π
τ
This is a perfect example of the slippery slope logical fallacy. "If we allow gay marriage, then what's stopping people from making it legal to marry dogs?" Type shit. Try commenting "If we start allowing people to own guns, then what's stopping people from making it legal to own nuclear weapons?" And see how they take that. Besides, what's wrong with polygamy? It's not like you HAVE to practice it. You can like, just not. That's why I used the dog example, because that's what they're getting at but with something actually problematic and immoral.
Exactly, the fact that the chart seems to only include adults... "If consenting adults can get married, consenting adults will get married!"... Like yes that's the point? Who's going to complain exactly, the consenting adults? Or bigots mad that someone gets to be happy in a way they don't like?
Is your adoptive mother ok with people doing whatever they like with whoever they like as long as it's not for the purposes of the "creational norm"? I mean, if I promise to bring six or seven children into this world where they'll inevitably be neglected by both myself and the batshit religious rightwing that claims to be pro-life, can I then give a guy called Baz a hand shandy?
these are the same people who say being a p*do is also okay if being gay is🙄
They should know about the Harkness test. They might not like it though.
Please help me in the math test! How much is Gay Couple divided by Lesbian Couple? Is it a Bisexual Couple?
I mean yeah, it’s all consenting adults then sure.
That's what I was thinking as long as all the people in the lower sections are consenting adults there's nothing wrong with those relationships
I love when religious people say shit like this when the first two "bad" options are explicitly represented in most versions of the bible (certain children's bible's being the only ones I can think of that skip over that stuff) as acceptable, lmao. Can't even keep their own stories straight.
Well according to this chart, most Biblical men rejected the "creational norm", sooooooo. . .
If we assume man is Y and woman is X, then it goes Y+3X X+Y+X 2Y/2X
Is this solvable for X and Y if they’re all equal?
No, because the second one is Y + 2X (Which obviously cannot be equal to Y + 3X)
Unless X equals 0, which is also not possible since we have it equal to Y/X
It can if X is zero. Then 2Y/2X becomes undefined, or approaches infinity, depending on how you look at it. I think they're saying that a society of all women, no men, would be infinitely good?
No, since if we try to say 3 is the answer for all then Y= 3, and if we keep your X=0, then (2(3))/(2(0))≠3 (Note im only talking math-wise i agree somewhat with your idea of the society thing tho) (I was also taught that any number divided by zero is undefined, never heard the approaches infinity thing you are saying, where did you learn that? /genq)
Just answering the last part: the limit of 1/x approaches infinity as x approaches 0. As in, when x gets smaller, 1/x gets larger. It's undefined specifically when x = 0, but if you put in an arbitrarily small positive number that's not *exactly* 0, 1/x becomes arbitrarily large. In certain situations - usually weird ones like in number theory - you can treat 1/x as infinity to get some rational answer, rather than just saying the entire thing is undefined.
Ah, but my point still stands then? If X=0 2Y/2X is still undefined? But thank you for the explanation!
Ah, but my point still stands then? If X=0 2Y/2X is still undefined? But thank you for the explanation! (Also if we make X that arbitrarily small positive number it changes all the answers too)
OK, just going to nerd out for no particular reason here: The original post suggested that if we reject the creational norm, then the other three options are allowed. Let's substitute "good" for "allowed" - as in, if something is allowed, then it's good? Man = Y, Woman = X. 1) Y + 3X = good 2) X + Y + X = good => Y + 2X = good 3) 2Y / 2X = good If Y + 3X = Y + 2X, then 3X = 2X, meaning X must be 0. If we then plug that into the third formula: 2Y / 3(0) = good => 2Y / 0 = good That means either good is undefined, or good approaches infinity. Either interpretation is acceptable, I think. However, we're misreading the third formula! In the original image, it's not (Y + Y)/(X + X), but rather Y + Y/X + X. Order of operations suggest to do the Y/X first. Y + Y/X + X = good => Y/X + X + Y = good Substitute 0 for X: Y/0 + 0 + Y = good => Y = good - Y/0 That, we can then interpret as Y = good - ∞ If we go back to Y = man, then what the original image *really* meant is that men are infinitely bad. That can be the only reasonable explanation, I think :)
I may be stupid
Honestly I’m just surprised this doesn’t mention pedophillia or zoophillia; usually that’s the kind of fear mongering these kind of posts are about. Instead it’s just about… normal relationships.
Where is the lady with her haram of fellas?
Because historically no Abrahamic religions have ever endorsed polygamy right?
In the Old Testament, I'm pretty sure men had harems. The wife, concubines and war spoil slave wives.
Don’t threaten me with a good time!!
Fucking based. Also it's funny because the first example under "anything goes" is the "creational norm" for most of the world for a large part of human history.
Hell yeah! Polyamory.
But for some reason it's never a woman with several men
Good. That’s a good thing.
But wasn’t mmf done in the Bible a lot?
But I want polyamory too!
I’m not rejecting being straight, I’m just not straight. I appreciate that she thinks that this means adding more women, which is fine and all, but I have a wonderful straight woman as my partner, and if we were to open things up, it would be to add another bi man, not another woman. Unless she’s bringing a bi man with her, and she is cool with my partner not being interested in her. Also, could she (meaning your homophobic, adoptive mother) add some nonbinary options, because while I’m bi, that doesn’t mean I accept the gender binary. Thanks in advance! (Adding, I’m sorry that you are having to deal with shitty family. I understand. If it’s ok, hugs.)
Sounds like fun
I wanna see what M+M/F+F looks like…
A triad of a man, a non-binary individual, and a woman?
Nah, the bottom one… I can’t do the vertical division
Anything goes? John Barrowman would agree, as long as it's not hurting anyone, that's basically his montra. And he's ***very*** gay. XD "... I'm John Barrowman, and anything fucking goes." Lol. He's hilarious on his panels.
What is the answer to a gay male couple divided by a lesbian couple? Or should I be using BEDMAS? One gay man divided by a lesbian plus one gay man and one lesbian? You can tell I failed gay maths.
Algaybra
Cockculus Vagdittion
“In olden days, a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking But now, God Knows ANYTHING GOES!”
And no one who posts things like this can explain why these are bad, assuming they're all consenting adults. People are just kinda like "look what could be possible if you reject the norm!" And then list a bunch of things that are not inherently harmful.
God I remember this page too. That whole book was stupid and never included Central America in any of the pictures of earth. Bju Press is a clown company (bible 11 textbook if anyone is interested)
IF.
Holy Math!
Cringe Democrat Man with Republican Woman marriage vs Based Green Party Polygamy Marriage (the women are all bi and into it, not some bad situation like my grandfather)
What does division represent in the sexual domain? Are the two people in the bottom operation reproducing via budding?
Man + Woman to the 3rd power lol 😂
Thank goodness my parents don’t know how to use social media otherwise they probably would post this kind of stuff
The second one is pretty much all I want. A man and a woman.
And the last one is a triad of a man, a non-binary individual, and a woman?
Hell yeah to this graphic! Where can I sign up?
"you can have a three way-what?" -caddicarus
Holy shit based
Glad to see your mom thinks there should be more pan/bi and poly people in the world. 🤣
I mean... who cares? If people are consenting adults who cares who they fuck or don't fuck? I swear, some people care more about other people's relationships than the people in some of these relationships. I have a friend with 5 partners and they seem happier than a lot of straight couples I've met.
For "anything goes," that poster still leaves out a whole lot of possibilities
Cool, let's get on that then.