Writer's Block: There Can Be Only One

[grassangel]

[Error: unknown template qotd]

No.

Although this is a very poorly worded question. I do believe it exists. You may have heard of the planet it exists on, Earth. You may even know a funny creature named a human who particpates in it. You may not know that it is supremely unnatural for a mammal like the human to practise it.

Joking aside, I don't believe it is the one size fits all of relationships. It seems to work for many people though and many people seem to believe is is one size fits all.
But I'm the person who doesn't fit the 'one size fits all' hat. So yeah, people can have just one partner. They can also have two or three or four... however many they want, like or need. My tendancies towards shipping threesomes quite clearly indicates my support. (I think I have more OT3s/OT4s than I do true OTPs.) *uses OT3 icon*


I actually think having more than one person to rely on emotionally is a great idea. Communal emotional support is great in a more general, less deep way too, which is why friends are all sorts of awesome. *gives hugs to everyone*

-------

In other news, Fenrir Inc., the company who produced Sleinipr, my favourite web browser, has produced an image editor.
Nothing terribly sophisticated, better than paint, but since it isn't in English, I can't figure out how much so.

It does have layers and layer modes. But it doesn't have image adjustments, just filters. And I haven't quite figured out how to make brushes.

I think the general progression of image editing programs on my computer thus goes: Photoshop > the GIMP > PictBear > Paint

Comments

[outou.livejournal.com]

I agree with you about the benefits of communal emotional support, but how would it work out legally?--that is, if polygamy was made legal? (Although, the question is badly worded. Of course I believe in monogamy--it exists! But so far as whether or not I believe in monogamy as the only acceptable pairing between human beings...I don't honestly don't know enough about human relationships to make a proper judgment about that.)

ETA: So far as the legal problems of polygamy are concerned, perhaps we're just too set in this current time to properly think ahead. It may seem like a complicated problem now, but fifty years from now we may come across an easy solution to it.

Is PictBear compatible with tablets? I wonder how well one can paint with it as opposed to Photoshop.

[grass-angel.livejournal.com]

Firstly, if the emotional bond in question was deep but there was no sexual, legal or spiritual bond, I don't think you would need a marriage. Marriage is one giant ball of legal, sexual/physical, emotional and (if getting married with or between religions) spiritual bonds. If there were two or more bonds in a relationship, then yeah, a 'marriage' would be needed.
I've been reading too much stuff about how polygamy and polyamorous marriages could work, because my immediate answer is link/chain marriages. It's pretty much the textbook definition of multiple marriages but the two people married to one person could also decide to marry each other. It's easier than group marriage when someone wants to leave just one or both of their partners. Group marriage means the entire group is broken up, rather than just a link or two.
As to whether someone is the first or second spouse, I don't think such distinctions should be made, except as rights to property or guardianship of children. Which should be sorted between the married parties personally rather than becoming a state matter.

But yeah, monogamy has been around too long for people to think outside the box for a solution to complex relations which isn't based on the monogamous blueprint. I think too that people are too rooted in the idea that marriage is a combination of legal AND sexual AND emotional (AND spiritual) bonds. Marriage is such a loaded word with all those connotations.
There needs to be an acknowledgement that those bonds are all different and separate from each other. And perhaps we need separate marriages for each type.



PictBear is not compatible with tablets sadly. I played around with it and GIMP with my tablet today. No pressure sensitivty at all and the brush system still confuses me. It seems as if PictBear would be great for the person who wants something free and doesn't want the advanced functions of a Photoshop clone like GIMP but still wants something that isn't as basic as Paint and perhaps a bit more advanced than oekaki programs. Actually, it'd be a good offline program to use for oekaki.
So I'm sticking with Photoshop and, now, GIMP.

[grass-angel.livejournal.com]

For some people the hat fits. I don't mind that, especially if it is a very awesome hat and they like it.

From a biology perspective, polygamy and cheating and sleeping around is a way to genetically diversify your offspring.
But emotions stuff things up, so yeah, jealously happens.
I'd personally be a bit hurt rather than jealous if a previously devoted guy ditched me, but then I'd console myself that I wasn't the genetic material he was looking for. If I was able to keep rational about it...
(Strangely though, all the polyamorous articles I've read place a very high importance on telling the truth, being honest and sharing. It appears to work and looks as if expecting imbalance between three people is better than expecting balance between two.)

(frozen)

[alexthai.livejournal.com]

Interesting!