• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Sacred Stones


  • I fight for...

Recent Profile Visitors

1563 profile views
  1. How important is abstinence?

    Loaded questions. 1) I frown upon it yes. Whether it's presence has a cultural double standard is irrelevant. It still has a social stigma. Casual sex? Perhaps not. Where you're doing it in what people would dub as excessive yes? For instance, do you honestly think that a person that teaches abstinence only would only target the woman for having sex and not the man? No. They would be angry with both. 2) Still irrelevant. I have not said that people don't do it more against women than me. However, that in and of itself isn't enough clause to refer to me as sexist, nor is it even remotely close to sufficient to deny that this has been cast as an insult towards men as well. I would agree with this. And it's changed enough in my area, men call men sluts all the damn time if they sleep around with no real standards. The area I live it, "slut" has been hurled at both. While it's anecdotal for everyone, I think it's completely unfair to have personal experiences somehow dictate a universal statement. Especially when one is using it to refer to someone else as a label such as "sexist."
  2. How important is abstinence?

    No. It really isn't. They are all people that sleep around too much. It just so happens that all of those characters have other things going for them. Notice how you're putting words in my mouth to even try to have an argument? Yeah. Because I didn't realize that I had to say "man slut" instead of just "slut" when "slut" includes both. This is the worst attempt at calling someone sexist that I've ever seen. There's a reason I didn't include any genders in that. Because it actually includes both. You're the only one that has been including sexes in this. Not me. This is a rather vapid argument. As you cannot say what I meant. You should have asked for a clarification. That's how deeply ingrained it is for you. Not me. As I'm not the one that thinks that men are somehow exempt from this rule. Nor do I think that there somehow aren't people in society that think that it's a frowned upon act for both sexes. I'm not even going to continue talking about this on here, because this has nothing to do with anything. If you want to keep talking, PM me. Otherwise it's over.
  3. Staff of Ages (Version 1.8 Coming Soon!)

    I should really get back to playing this again.
  4. How important is abstinence?

    "Manwhore" is one that definitely comes to mind. I didn't realize that I literally have to name all of them. REALLY. Also, yes: Slut is generally a term for a woman or girl who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous.[1][2] It is usually used as an insult, sexual slur or offensive term of disparagement (slut shaming).[2][3] It originally meant "a dirty, slovenly woman",[2] and is rarely used to refer to men, generally requiring clarification by use of the terms male slut or man whore.[4][5] If anything, your complaint should be yourself since you apparently seem to believe that only women can be called sluts. Men definitely can nowadays. Some people use "male slut" or "manwhore," but quite a few people don't even bother by putting the "male" in front. It's sort of like how people say "male dominatrix" instead of just saying "dom" or "master" or any other word to mean the same thing.
  5. How important is abstinence?

    1) Uh... No. It really isn't. I don't know where people get this foolhardy notion from. You'll still be called the same thing. Ladies honestly don't respect guys for doing it either. So no. None of this makes any sense. 2) No. It doesn't at all. Like there's no logical transitivity there. And you're the one that's throwing sexism around. So no. Try again. 3) Uh no. It applies to both. Try again. It's especially ridiculous because men can sleep with men, and they'd *still* get these labels. And the more I think about it, "rape culture" and "easy" as in short to be "easy to sleep with" is NOT rape culture. It specifically means that the person is easy to bed. That's it. Like damn. I feel like I know more on this subject than some people based on their responses alone.
  6. How important is abstinence?

    I'm really not dancing around the issue. SPOILER RETORT: I know. All of these would be true. And the cost risk benefit, is that you have to consider if the risk of having sex is worth the risk. In many cases, it's not worth it. I quite literally said here: Because I most certainly don't, because apparently that wasn't clear. Which is exactly why I'm saying I never implied that only one should be taught. I think you'd honestly have a lot to consider in a life if a lack of casual sex takes a toll on your life enjoyment. People are acting like telling someone "yeah, here's how you stay safe, but really, it's probably best to not do it with every other Tom, Dick, and Harry or Jill, Jane and Mary," is somehow saying "no sex ever. And if you do, you're going to hell." The stigma of having premarital sex is not a "you're a poor moral character." The stigma ends up being "they're a slut/easy." If the possibility of that happening doesn't bother you, then fine. Whatever, your choice. But don't go acting like people that DO have that opinion are somehow wrong for it. Social stigma isn't just religious.
  7. How important is abstinence?

    Look pal, what does that have to do with what I said. And that has to do with what I said? Which still doesn't address what the hell I just said.
  8. How important is abstinence?

    Sure. I think that both should be taught together honestly. Safe-sex practices with the mindset that only abstinence is a guarantee. It's probably the best balance to satisfy both parties IMO.
  9. How important is abstinence?

    I don't see how that really addresses anything that I said. STDs aren't an absolute guarantee to be blocked by using a condom. Even if you attempt to keep your sex life private, that's still something that can happen as a result. If people find out, that's not their problem: it's yours. And it's entirely avoidable. Fair enough. It should still be taught, but I think one of the biggest things that need to be said is that some people seem to think that safe sex is some magical cure all to avoiding problems with frivolous sex.
  10. How important is abstinence?

    I don't actually consider it an alternative. Nor do I believe that most people do, bu rather, it removes the 99.99% condom statistic. Teaching people how to have safe sex is important, but simply avoiding sex in the first place is without a doubt, the best way to avoid having a child. Because let's be honest, putting a condom on isn't exactly hard. And even when being taught about sex education, I thought the whole "how to put a condom on" part was absurd. It's akin teaching someone how to eat with their hands. Well to be honest, it's just a terrible idea to go around having sex so much anyways. You have to assume your partner is honest with you, and being sexually active requires more frequent trips to the doctor to ensure you didn't catch anything from potentially lying partners. If you're too active, it can also add a social stigma too.
  11. Why do people overuse periods, online?

    I'd rather there be too many period than none!
  12. Mycen's unused quote

    May have been like Marcus where she can actually die in the final battle? That's my guess.
  13. Mark the Mystery Man

    It's pretty obvious that Mark is canon. He's subject to creation on your first playthrough unless you specifically transferred with FE6. The fact that he can not be there is akin to asking if Wallace, Geitz, Canas, Harken, Karla, or Karel are canon because you can possibly not run into them. As a matter of fact, you specifically cannot run into Karla on your first playthrough. Yet, based on FE6 we know she's canon. Sure. Also true. Sure it is. And no, Lyndis' story is still very much canon. The only difference is that Eliwood didn't chance upon the tactician like he did in his route and take him/her along this time. And you're looking at it the wrong way. Mark = You. If you didn't do Lyndis Mode, then the units not recognizing you would be because you didn't do Lyn Mode therefore the characters shouldn't recognize you because you weren't the tactician that met and helped them to achieve victory. That would lend credence to the fact that Mark is canon then. She remembers the tactician, and that Lyndis is constantly believing that this tactician that disappeared may be other people or at the very least, reminds her of him/her. I'd say very much so since they continue to have Lyndis make references to them. At the very least, we know that Lyndis has a deeper connection with a person named Mark, because her death quote always involves someone named Mark. There is no "didn't choose a tactican" Lyn death quote. If anything, I'd think that Lyndis is just fated to run into tacticians. If anything, the question you should be asking is if there are two Marks. Because there's still a Mark that Lyndis knew even if this same Mark didn't run into Eliwood.
  14. Should "Triangle" Weapon Types Be the Same Weight?

    "Literally the only female that can use axes is Echidna who has male con." So yeah, it's exactly the problem in a nutshell. Basically the only one that can use it is an exception rather than the norm. And that's the issue. There's no strategy or thinking involved when "this person is so bad with this weapon that it'll never be used." It's why dark magic was generally considered trash. Too heavy, too inaccurate, and when it could be good, like Nosferatu, it weighs you down so much that it's generally not worth it. Weight and con is a bad system. Weapon weight in and of itself isn't terrible ie, Gaiden saying a steel lance weighs EVERYONE down the same amount. Because with con, it becomes a threshold thing. Low con units are stuck using inferior weapons to make up for their lack of con. It lowers their evade, it lowers their attacking potential, and rarely does it pose anything interesting. Fates/Gaiden had the idea of weapon penalties right. Con and weight did not. And heck, Strength = Con is a system that takes a dump on mages overall. Yeah. Because it is. Females that aren't mounted units have *zero* bonus for having low con. They can't pick people up. Sure, they can be picked up easier, but that doesn't excuse having -2 or 3+ con. Let's use an example. A GBA Pally versus a GBA hero. Pallies generally have better con than heroes. So naturally, the hero can't ever use a weapon better than the paladin. The hero's boon over a paladin is that it isn't weak to horseslaying weapons. That's hardly good balance. And females versus males are pretty much the same thing. Under no circumstance do you want a female unit in the GBA Fire Emblem under normal circumstances. Let's use an example: Heath and Florina. Heath has 9 Con. Not great, but not terrible. His aid is... 16. Let's use Florina, her Con is 4. Which is garbage. Her aid? 16. So even in practice, it's not that great. A Florina that uses a Javelin loses 7 AS. A Heath that uses a Javelin loses 2. Even with Florina's level lead, speed growth lead, and base speed lead, a level 16 Florina throws a Javelin with about the same level of competence as a a level 7 Heath. She's slightly faster, but in order to match the strength, she needs to be around 16. That's nuts. Even worse? That's normal mode Heath. Not hard mode where he has 13 strength and 9 speed. This isn't even a "male vs female" discussion, but why Con wasn't that great of a system.
  15. Should "Triangle" Weapon Types Be the Same Weight?

    Yep, and that's the issue with the weight system numbers in a nutshell. To be honest, it wouldn't have been so bad if they used some sort of weapon rank and skill requirements to determine if a person was also capable of suing them, or if a character could choose to wield them 2-handed versus one handed for less of a penalty to using the weapon, but in the end of the day, you just end up with a system that often times just punished certain units for existing.