by Harold11
jerrysclix wrote:
welcome to my thread, the thesis for the evening;
Would you consider partnered sex (for pleasure) really a solo game “that others can participate in”?
There are no rules regarding sharing of information, and reaching a successful ending is simple enough to do multi handed. The fact that it is marketed as ‘partnered’ doesn’t have any bearing on the fact that it is inherently a partnered activity. Sure there is a solo mode, but the vanilla mode is easy for anyone to achieve by themselves. Playing with others adds nothing to the experience, the other person/people don’t need to be there.
All these people trying to convince me that the activity is meant to be a shared experience amongst willing participants are wrong.
When engaged in a session, to claim that each person involved has individual agency to give consent and make their own choices in how they participate in the activity, which is a key component at the heart of the term ‘partnered’- well that’s all hooey. If I can achieve the result solo then the shared aspect isn’t key, and isn’t the intention of the activity.
Conclusion: You don’t need other people to win at partnered sex, therefore partnered sex is a solo game other people can watch me do.
Besides, I much prefer competitive sex when playing with others.
P.S. I know I’ve raised a thread about the terms partnered and solo- but don’t try to define partnered outside my specific definition that I’ll zero in on as we go through pages of posts, but that rest assured it is not whatever everyone else as a majority consensus would define it as - cause words have meaning given to us from the gods, not from communal acceptance of meaning. To wit - partnered sex isn’t a ‘partnered’ activity just cause it is labeled as such and accepted to be by most people who participate in it. I’ll reiterate- the social aspects are not inherent in the term - regardless of other people raising the spurious claim that anyone would be missing a key aspect of the activity without shared participation.
Would you consider partnered sex (for pleasure) really a solo game “that others can participate in”?
There are no rules regarding sharing of information, and reaching a successful ending is simple enough to do multi handed. The fact that it is marketed as ‘partnered’ doesn’t have any bearing on the fact that it is inherently a partnered activity. Sure there is a solo mode, but the vanilla mode is easy for anyone to achieve by themselves. Playing with others adds nothing to the experience, the other person/people don’t need to be there.
All these people trying to convince me that the activity is meant to be a shared experience amongst willing participants are wrong.
When engaged in a session, to claim that each person involved has individual agency to give consent and make their own choices in how they participate in the activity, which is a key component at the heart of the term ‘partnered’- well that’s all hooey. If I can achieve the result solo then the shared aspect isn’t key, and isn’t the intention of the activity.
Conclusion: You don’t need other people to win at partnered sex, therefore partnered sex is a solo game other people can watch me do.
Besides, I much prefer competitive sex when playing with others.
P.S. I know I’ve raised a thread about the terms partnered and solo- but don’t try to define partnered outside my specific definition that I’ll zero in on as we go through pages of posts, but that rest assured it is not whatever everyone else as a majority consensus would define it as - cause words have meaning given to us from the gods, not from communal acceptance of meaning. To wit - partnered sex isn’t a ‘partnered’ activity just cause it is labeled as such and accepted to be by most people who participate in it. I’ll reiterate- the social aspects are not inherent in the term - regardless of other people raising the spurious claim that anyone would be missing a key aspect of the activity without shared participation.
welcome to my thread, the thesis for the evening;
Would you consider partnered sex (for pleasure) really a solo game “that others can participate in”?
Would you consider partnered sex (for pleasure) really a solo game “that others can participate in”?
Not a good start to your evening. Similar to the soccer argument before, solo and partnered sex are different activities. Solo and partnered MU are the same (beyond the social). That is the point.
There are no rules regarding sharing of information, and reaching a successful ending is simple enough to do multi handed. The fact that it is marketed as ‘partnered’ doesn’t have any bearing on the fact that it is inherently a partnered activity. Sure there is a solo mode, but the vanilla mode is easy for anyone to achieve by themselves. Playing with others adds nothing to the experience, the other person/people don’t need to be there.
As above.
All these people trying to convince me that the activity is meant to be a shared experience amongst willing participants are wrong.
When engaged in a session, to claim that each person involved has individual agency to give consent and make their own choices in how they participate in the activity, which is a key component at the heart of the term ‘partnered’- well that’s all hooey. If I can achieve the result solo then the shared aspect isn’t key, and isn’t the intention of the activity.
Conclusion: You don’t need other people to win at partnered sex, therefore partnered sex is a solo game other people can watch me do.
Besides, I much prefer competitive sex when playing with others.
When engaged in a session, to claim that each person involved has individual agency to give consent and make their own choices in how they participate in the activity, which is a key component at the heart of the term ‘partnered’- well that’s all hooey. If I can achieve the result solo then the shared aspect isn’t key, and isn’t the intention of the activity.
Conclusion: You don’t need other people to win at partnered sex, therefore partnered sex is a solo game other people can watch me do.
Besides, I much prefer competitive sex when playing with others.
Why did you think it was worthwhile to write this, given solo and partnered are two completely different activities? We can’t even talk about maximum agency or gameplay, because there are so few options solo.
P.S. I know I’ve raised a thread about the terms partnered and solo- but don’t try to define partnered outside my specific definition that I’ll zero in on as we go through pages of posts, but that rest assured it is not whatever everyone else as a majority consensus would define it as - cause words have meaning given to us from the gods, not from communal acceptance of meaning. To wit - partnered sex isn’t a ‘partnered’ activity just cause it is labeled as such and accepted to be by most people who participate in it. I’ll reiterate- the social aspects are not inherent in the term - regardless of other people raising the spurious claim that anyone would be missing a key aspect of the activity without shared participation.
The analogy simply doesn’t work. I’ll repeat my earlier point:
As for the statement:
“ This is a solo game that other can participate in”
…and the statement
“It's a game that can be played solo or cooperatively/socially, working best solo for those who value maximum agency and decision-making”
…the second pretty much explains the first. It explains why one would consider it “solo” before “cooperative”. But since – between multi-handed and multiplayer – there is no difference in gameplay or difficulty of information management (in order to arrive at a conclusion), there is no difference between “cooperative” mode and “solo” mode. The cooperative mode exists only through the allowance of the social element. If, besides the social element, the actual gameplay and ease of management is the same in groups as solo, then why is it not a solo game that can be played with others? There is always at least one player to play, but not always more than one. It’s the same as saying it’s a game that one person can always play, but you can add others with no difference (besides the social). The "cooperative" classification is vaporous and redundant.
“ This is a solo game that other can participate in”
…and the statement
“It's a game that can be played solo or cooperatively/socially, working best solo for those who value maximum agency and decision-making”
…the second pretty much explains the first. It explains why one would consider it “solo” before “cooperative”. But since – between multi-handed and multiplayer – there is no difference in gameplay or difficulty of information management (in order to arrive at a conclusion), there is no difference between “cooperative” mode and “solo” mode. The cooperative mode exists only through the allowance of the social element. If, besides the social element, the actual gameplay and ease of management is the same in groups as solo, then why is it not a solo game that can be played with others? There is always at least one player to play, but not always more than one. It’s the same as saying it’s a game that one person can always play, but you can add others with no difference (besides the social). The "cooperative" classification is vaporous and redundant.
The bolded part already contained the phrase “no difference”, because the options are the same, and the ease of reviewing those options are the same.