MyTwoCents

There, fixed it for ya.

Can you point out where I claimed such a correlation exists? I did, however, say a correlation exists between the new-school attitude and our fading sense of black death comedy. I'll admit that it appears to be less about age, but more a general perception about the sport.

I'll try my best, my friend!

Wait a second! Nobody put Jimmy up as 113. The author put the HIDGAF acronym up as a fatality. That's a very different thing.

Oh, I don't mean to wash my hands clean. That's why I pointed out that I thought it was pretty darn funny. That would be pretty ironic, I agree. And if that were to happen, I hope you'll all have a good laugh over it.

Actually, I didn't add anything at all. I was just the messenger that posted the link. Doesn't mean it wasn't funny as hell though. This thread got me thinking though. Is it time we put some black death comedy back into our FJCs? When did all the newschoolers become a bunch of politically correct sissies with their panties in a wad? The drinking game that Jimmy Halliday suggested sounds like a pretty good time to me. In fact, I think I'm going to try that tonight with extended rules. The winner has to pack the rig, and the loser has to jump it from the gnarliest local object. Preferably in broad daylight. Losing a friend is a terrible thing. BASE can kill you. Christmas is on December 25th. Wooptiefuckingdo...

It's all in this book.

In response to some requests, I have temporarily restored the wiki. You can access it here. It will only stay up for the next two weeks, so if you wish to copy any material from it please do so now. Most material is in the public domain, unless otherwise specified. Please respect its value. Several people have asked me why I closed it down. You'll be disappointed to hear there is nothing magic or gossip about it. It just hasn't grown into the collaborative platform that I envisioned two years ago. Combined with a declining interest in jumping, maintaining the wiki is no longer worth it to me. If anybody is interested in taking over the domain, the content, the CMS, or a combination thereof, please contact me. I like to thank the contributors: Jason Cooper, Michael Cooper, Brittany Sanchez, Tim Mattson, Tom Aiello, Chad Peabody, Nick Rugai, Tom Begic, Rick Harrison, Seth Gray, Nick Di Giovanni, Michael McHale, Shawn Wilson, Bryan Rapoza, Jaap Suter, Hajo Schirber and all those that wrote great stories. I simultaneously apologize to these same people for taking away the platform that they've invested energy into.

Splatula Rigging was kind enough to host the new list. Base Fatality List It also looks like we're up to 113 now...

The rhetoric that people fling around on these forums is downright scary. If you have some time, I'd love to see a more cohesive argument for what you just wrote. It's not an argument, it's just what he says. An argument can be a discussion, but the word has a second meaning - it can be a set of statements, one of which is the conclusion, and the others are premises. The premises provide support for the conclusion. In other words, the conclusion asserted to be true on the basis of the premises. In this case, the premises were: Some people can dislike a person just because he is a friend of Tater. Tater is my friend. Then two conclusions were made: Some people dislike me. Those people lack moral fiber. The first one is valid based on the premises. The second one does not follow from the premises alone and is therefore rhetorical. Unless Andy's concept of "moral fiber" has a different meaning than the one I know. I didn't say that Andy was right or wrong. I merely asked him to extend his argument with additional steps so I could understand where his second conclusion came from.

Great writing Matt, I really appreciate it. Interestingly, I don't think our struggles are very different. Although I'm a proclaimed polyamorist and have had great experiences with it, I have relationships that would kill me if I lost them. Allowing my significant others to venture outside of our domain is taking a risk. To me the risk has been worth it so far, but it undeniably bears many practical issues. When the day comes that unforeseen consequences hurt me through the heart, the only thing left to console me will be the knowledge that I've given the people I love the freedom to live their life as they think is right. Reciprocating love is not a duty, it's at best a privilege.

Huh? It was you whose first response in this thread said: "It's very simple, really." Furthermore, I wasn't the one who brought up the scarcity argument and introduced analogies with skydiving and other things. Then, when I see the analogy breaking down, I can only conclude that that things aren't maybe that simple at all. I have no right to argue how you feel about skydiving, philosophy, dinner, or your love to a particular special person. Those feelings are yours, and yours alone. However, to this day I continue to look for a rational explanation for why some people take issue when their significant other chooses to love a third party. In this thread, I have not seen any good motivation, unless "that's the way I feel, and it has nothing to do with jealousy or ownership" is considered rational.

I said it was rare for me. Minutes a week was I think the reference I used. It matters little how many millions of people choose to do it. The moments I share in that environment remain rare - for me. But then the analogy isn't applicable. Your version implies that your partner could have sex with a million other people but that it is special for you because she only lets you do it minutes a week. I doubt that's what you meant to imply. I'm aware I'm nitpicking here. But the scarcity argument is used too easily to justify behavior that poses obvious questions when approached rationally. Through history mankind has fought over women, land, gold, food, water, and so forth; all because we can't share, nor respect the current owners of any resource (be it their own body, their land, their food, or whatever). Comperse, rather than be jealous.

Is there not a difference between things that are rare because the universe makes it so and things that are rare because some humans believe it should be rare? If skydiving is more beautiful because it is rare, should we discourage people from entering the sport, lest it become too popular and stops being rare?

I do not have children. I agree that it is an important factor that can change things. I have friends with children who have no issue with this. It's interesting you chose your husband to be away while you stay home. Remember it works in both directions. You could be having sex with someone while your husband is home with the kids. If, hypothetically, that was something you are interested in of course. I presume you'd take issue with that as well. No judgment, just an observation. "To be true to each other." - you mean you made a vow to remain sexually exclusive with each other and to always tell each other the truth, right? It is entirely possible to not make the first vow, but still live the second one. I couldn't agree more. That's why I continued to include monogamy in my first post in this thread. It will always be a choice for some people to remain monogamous to each other along one or more axes (sexually, emotionally, spiritually, etcetera). Who am I to judge that? However, at the same time I do wonder how much our choices are influenced by literature, music, television, religion, upbringing, our environment, societal expectations, history and doctrine. These factors combined do not account for the entire human motivation. Free will and evolutionary biology will continue to steer some people towards lifelong monogamy. But I can't help but feel that many people let other factors steer their decisions. Factors outside the reasons found in their own mind, factors from outside the sacrifices one makes within any relationship, and factors from outside the love for the world they are in. More often than not, this leads to missed opportunities for love. Love that is available in abundance, only restricted by jealousy, insecurity, a false sense of ownership, and the fact that a day only has 24 hours. At an increasing rate, society's continued insistence on monogamy also leads to lying, cheating, painful break-ups, divorce, often with negative consequences for any children involved. How many of us have been cheated on, how many of us have cheated, how many of us have divorced. How many of us know people that have cheated, been cheated on, or are divorced? How many of that could have been avoided or at least turned into mature discussion and mutual friendly separation if we had insisted on a continued dialog about our relationships in all their forms. For what it's worth, I have never cheated, and to my knowledge I have never been cheated on. To this day I continue to be on great terms with any person I have ever been in a relationship with or have shared the bedroom with.

Not cheesy at all. Treasure what you have. It's very valuable. Thanks for elaborating.

Forgive me for dragging this out. Feel free to say stop, and then that'll be the end of it. But I'm genuinely curious. As somebody for whom polyamory makes sense, the discussions with convinced monogamists is often a struggle. I think I can learn something from you here, since at least you allow different people to have different viewpoints. If I may summarize, you've brought up two reasons for sexual monogamy. The first one being STDs, which I completely agree is an issue that needs serious consideration. The second one being that somehow your partner engaging in sexual activity elsewhere would diminish the intimacy and meaning of your own sexual activity with him or her. It's this second one I'd love to see you elaborate on. When your partner engages in philosophical banter with a third party, does it reduce the meaning and intimacy of your own conversations with him? I won't argue that sex and philosophy are entirely the same, but they do share a level of intimacy and exposure. I just can't help but understand why (concern for STDs aside) I could be anything but happy for my partner if he or she had a great time doing any possible thing, as long as my partner continues to respect the commitments that I have earned through past investments (per common sense, and vice versa). I should also mention in response to what I quote above; multiple partners aren't "my thing". It's not that I pick a random number N larger than one and insist that I must have at least that many partners. In fact, quite the opposite happens; Most of my life I have been in a relationship with one person or single. It's a mere acknowledgment of the fact that when two people engage in a loving committed relationship, it may very well be that either or both run into another person that also adds value to either or both our universes. Rather than avoiding that, we embrace it across all axes. From friendship, to sex, to love, or any combination thereof.

I thought this thread had died, I guess I should have kept an eye on it. Alas, I'll try to catch up. I don't consider myself a swinger. There is a broad spectrum between committed monogamy and being promiscuous. What if three people decide to form a triad and engage in threesomes, but are exclusive to the three of them? What if they live together and raise children. Is that swinging? Polyamory is not about mad monkey sex with every stranger you see. It's about acknowledging that perhaps there can be more than one person you love. Ironically, most of us already do. We have friends we love. We have one or more partners we love. We have children, parents, family we love. Etcetera. Yet somehow, sex receives a unique and special place on the plane of love. What is so special about sex? Have you never had deeply intimate philosophical discussions with people other than your significant other? Can't those be more meaningful than sex? Are you okay with your partner forbidding you to have philosophical conversation with other people? I find your use of quotes around the word relationship a tad condescending. I don't think it is fair to judge somebody's relationships based only on the sexual component therein. Once again I'll repeat a question; isn't there more to a relationship than sex? Lastly, nowhere did I say that people who'd rather not have their partner's genitals touch third party genitals are by definition insecure or jealous. However, I will argue that insecurity and jealousy is a main motivator for monogamy. Further down this thread you have brought up fear of STDs as an additional reason and I completely agree. STDs form a serious risk that needs to be managed. Another reason you brought up was intimacy. Would that imply that somehow the exclusive access to your partner's genitals strengthens the connection with him or her? That sounds rather like ownership to me. As somebody else in this thread has pointed out, love is not a zero sum game, and it doesn't come in limited amounts. If you have two children and add a third; do you now love the first two a little less?

Is that based on an actual experiment you've done with a tensile tester? My own experiments have been in line with 980's. The cord broke between 150 and 160 lbs.

Definitely agree. Thanks for the clarification.

You're choosing some very interesting terminology that I find rather telling. Dumping a person simply because you enjoyed somebody else more than your current partner seems like a poor reason to end a relationship. Aren't relationships about more than the quality of sex?

Is he still around? I miss him.

Thanks for the links. I'm definitely picking up that book!

I seem to have been born without the jealousy gene. Which isn't to say that I can't look towards other people and be envious, but it doesn't have negative connotations for me. If anything I am happy for them, and often I transform it into a goal to aspire for. That is a fascinating question, something I'm curious about myself. There is a certain biological and evolutionary aspect to the commonly accepted arrangement, which is to say that it takes two people to make a baby. That said, there is plenty of historical evidence of cultures throughout the ages that have covered a broad spectrum of sexuality. It wasn't until more recent years (meaning: two to three thousand years at most) that Eve took a bite of the proverbial apple, and suddenly some higher authority (be it God or the church) decided to step in and meddle with other people's thoughts on what feels good and what doesn't. This has ultimately led to a culture that is almost entirely based on the concept of "one true love". From Shakespeare to music to Hollywood movies. Ironically, I'm a huge sucker for this type of literature and movies. Give me a movie about serendipity at the train-station leading to love at first sight and a happy ever after and I'll need a box of handkerchiefs. However, reality tells me that it's not a workable form. I see it all around me. Divorce rates are through the roof. Now that people live longer and choose to own their life more and more, I don't think lifelong monogamy will be considered the default form of relationship in say, two centuries from now. That isn't to say that it can't work for some people. It sure can. I'm just saying that choosing it as the default may not work for everybody. And in fact, being honest about desire and primordial urges may very well build much stronger relationships. I don't love people because they choose to have sex with me exclusively. I don't love people because they tell me that they love me the most. I don't love people because I think I own them. I love people for what they add to the universe I live in.

The rhetoric that people fling around on these forums is downright scary. If you have some time, I'd love to see a more cohesive argument for what you just wrote.