TetsuoTW posted:

I'm sorry but if you don't think making "hugging strangers for three hours for totally non-sexual reasons guys this is totally just hugging and stuff totally platonic its for chemical reasons there's absolutely nothing sexual about it" a significant part of who you are is at least kinda creepy you might be broken too.

RareAcumen posted:

that looks like how I imagine frat parties ending

all it needs are plastic red cups all over the place and it'd be a perfect comparison

BKPR posted:

I liked the constant oxytocin talk. It reads like someone who needs an excuse to reconcile enjoying stranger cuddling, or like someone who doesn't enjoy it but is convinced it's good for them anyway.

RareAcumen posted:

that looks like how I imagine frat parties ending

all it needs are plastic red cups all over the place and it'd be a perfect comparison

Haruharuharuko posted:

Close but if it was a frat party everything would be covered with cum and or feces

RareAcumen posted:

that looks like how I imagine frat parties ending

Djeser posted:

I feel like part of the thing with a cuddle party is that the demographic makeup is going to be super skewed compared to the normal population. A random selection of people in the same general age range cuddling is like, okay.

Added Space posted:

A lot of it stems from Lemon, who thinks that a lot of people are hiding nefarious and violent motives behind their odd quirks. You might say it's a joke most of the time, but sometimes he sounds dead serious. Such as the end of the Plush Lovers episodes, where he said with apparent seriousness that people were dangerously violent because they cut a hole in a plush animal one time and had completely non-violent fantasies about inanimate objects.

Bean posted:

I agree about Lemon a little bit, but come on, man: these people were taking something that wasn't meant to be a sexual object, declaring it the love of their life, stabbing it open with a knife and then loving it. That's pretty drat violent.

Added Space posted:

Not really. Violence requires an intent to harm. The people never harmed or intended to harm any person as far as I could tell. They never intended to destroy the objects of their affection, simply arrange things so they were more convenient. There was another F-Plus which did feature people getting sexual gratification from destroying toys, the language was quite different. Even then there was no evidence of intent to harm towards any person, only inanimate objects.

What these people experience is a fantasy they are engaged with to an unhealthy degree, similar to godspouses. It's a common claim that people too involved in fantasy become violent, but there is little consistent evidence of this. Even when the fantasy itself is violent (the old canard about violent video games producing super-violent teens) there seems to be little crossover into actual violence. People who like to fantasize remain in their fantasies, and people who like to be violent commit violence, and there's relatively little overlap. A person with a taste for one finds little sustenance in the other.

They even explained in the episode the excuses the person would make: turn off the fantasy for a few minutes, imagine it as harmless cosmetic surgery, etc. They are probably not framing the act mentally as violent. "Oh, but couldn't they easily do that to people as well as plush?" you exclaim. Not really - their plush companion is almost entirely a voluntary mental construct in their own mind, which they imagine is eager to go along with all this. The object itself provides very little sensory feedback and no resistance. A human would be pumping out lots of sensory feedback which would be sending powerful "STOP THAT" signals to the offender's brain, and presumably quite a bit of resistance.

Now it's possible that a person could get off on the resistance and sensory feedback of violence - there are certainly people who do. However, if that's what got them off, that's what they would fantasize about. If they were interested in violence, they wouldn't be bothering with this plush nonsense.

Now there are kinds of mental illness, most famously schizophrenia, which do involve imagined other personalities and which do often lead to violence. However, that's not what's happening here. Plush lovers have all the hallmarks of fantasy, where their imagined lovers agree with them, are comforting and supportive, and can be turned off at will. Schizophenics are highly disturbed by voices they can't control, which are often perceived as threatening and abusive, and cannot be ignored or turned off.

The only way I can see to get from "They cut a piece of cloth, therefore they would stab a human" is either to make the unsupported claim that fantasy leads to violence, or to commit to the fallacy of composition by saying "Some mentally ill people are violent, therefore all mentally ill people are violent."

edit: vvvv I'm not saying that they would be pleasant to be around, that anyone should enter a relationship with them, or that it's not right to make fun of them. Just that they're not secretly serial killers.

Added Space posted:

Added Space posted:

edit: vvvv I'm not saying that they would be pleasant to be around, that anyone should enter a relationship with them, or that it's not right to make fun of them. Just that they're not secretly serial killers.

Midnight Voyager posted:

Or maybe the serial killer accusation wasn't entirely serious but a hyperbolic expression of how unsettling their weird poo poo is.

I think you're thinking about this waaaaaaaaaaaay too much, man.

Added Space posted:

Not really. Violence requires an intent to harm. The people never harmed or intended to harm any person as far as I could tell. They never intended to destroy the objects of their affection, simply arrange things so they were more convenient. There was another F-Plus which did feature people getting sexual gratification from destroying toys, the language was quite different. Even then there was no evidence of intent to harm towards any person, only inanimate objects.

What these people experience is a fantasy they are engaged with to an unhealthy degree, similar to godspouses. It's a common claim that people too involved in fantasy become violent, but there is little consistent evidence of this. Even when the fantasy itself is violent (the old canard about violent video games producing super-violent teens) there seems to be little crossover into actual violence. People who like to fantasize remain in their fantasies, and people who like to be violent commit violence, and there's relatively little overlap. A person with a taste for one finds little sustenance in the other.

They even explained in the episode the excuses the person would make: turn off the fantasy for a few minutes, imagine it as harmless cosmetic surgery, etc. They are probably not framing the act mentally as violent. "Oh, but couldn't they easily do that to people as well as plush?" you exclaim. Not really - their plush companion is almost entirely a voluntary mental construct in their own mind, which they imagine is eager to go along with all this. The object itself provides very little sensory feedback and no resistance. A human would be pumping out lots of sensory feedback which would be sending powerful "STOP THAT" signals to the offender's brain, and presumably quite a bit of resistance.

Now it's possible that a person could get off on the resistance and sensory feedback of violence - there are certainly people who do. However, if that's what got them off, that's what they would fantasize about. If they were interested in violence, they wouldn't be bothering with this plush nonsense.

Now there are kinds of mental illness, most famously schizophrenia, which do involve imagined other personalities and which do often lead to violence. However, that's not what's happening here. Plush lovers have all the hallmarks of fantasy, where their imagined lovers agree with them, are comforting and supportive, and can be turned off at will. Schizophenics are highly disturbed by voices they can't control, which are often perceived as threatening and abusive, and cannot be ignored or turned off.

The only way I can see to get from "They cut a piece of cloth, therefore they would stab a human" is either to make the unsupported claim that fantasy leads to violence, or to commit to the fallacy of composition by saying "Some mentally ill people are violent, therefore all mentally ill people are violent."

edit: vvvv I'm not saying that they would be pleasant to be around, that anyone should enter a relationship with them, or that it's not right to make fun of them. Just that they're not secretly serial killers.

Sitting Here posted:

and what's the deal with airline food. I mean, we make these rude jokes about it, but someone had to design the in-flight menu and select the ingredients. Someone had to work at the factory where the food was prepackaged. Someone had to lovingly load it onto the airplane.

I mean yeah, the common conception of airline food is that it's terrible and overpriced, but if you think about it, there's no inherent link between airline food and terribleness. Won't someone think of the airline food. PLEASE, I urge you, stop making fun of airline food, you could hurt someone's feelings and the planet would spin uncontrollably into the sun forever.

well anyway scuse me gonna go cut fuckgashes in my plushwives

Djeser posted:

what's the deal with airplane food, is it made of airplanes?

Added Space posted:

Not really. Violence requires an intent to harm. The people never harmed or intended to harm any person as far as I could tell. They never intended to destroy the objects of their affection, simply arrange things so they were more convenient. There was another F-Plus which did feature people getting sexual gratification from destroying toys, the language was quite different. Even then there was no evidence of intent to harm towards any person, only inanimate objects.

What these people experience is a fantasy they are engaged with to an unhealthy degree, similar to godspouses. It's a common claim that people too involved in fantasy become violent, but there is little consistent evidence of this. Even when the fantasy itself is violent (the old canard about violent video games producing super-violent teens) there seems to be little crossover into actual violence. People who like to fantasize remain in their fantasies, and people who like to be violent commit violence, and there's relatively little overlap. A person with a taste for one finds little sustenance in the other.

They even explained in the episode the excuses the person would make: turn off the fantasy for a few minutes, imagine it as harmless cosmetic surgery, etc. They are probably not framing the act mentally as violent. "Oh, but couldn't they easily do that to people as well as plush?" you exclaim. Not really - their plush companion is almost entirely a voluntary mental construct in their own mind, which they imagine is eager to go along with all this. The object itself provides very little sensory feedback and no resistance. A human would be pumping out lots of sensory feedback which would be sending powerful "STOP THAT" signals to the offender's brain, and presumably quite a bit of resistance.

Now it's possible that a person could get off on the resistance and sensory feedback of violence - there are certainly people who do. However, if that's what got them off, that's what they would fantasize about. If they were interested in violence, they wouldn't be bothering with this plush nonsense.

Now there are kinds of mental illness, most famously schizophrenia, which do involve imagined other personalities and which do often lead to violence. However, that's not what's happening here. Plush lovers have all the hallmarks of fantasy, where their imagined lovers agree with them, are comforting and supportive, and can be turned off at will. Schizophenics are highly disturbed by voices they can't control, which are often perceived as threatening and abusive, and cannot be ignored or turned off.

The only way I can see to get from "They cut a piece of cloth, therefore they would stab a human" is either to make the unsupported claim that fantasy leads to violence, or to commit to the fallacy of composition by saying "Some mentally ill people are violent, therefore all mentally ill people are violent."

edit: vvvv I'm not saying that they would be pleasant to be around, that anyone should enter a relationship with them, or that it's not right to make fun of them. Just that they're not secretly serial killers.

ZenMasterBullshit posted:

Don't you have to source your poo poo for f-plus documents?

Added Space posted:

Not really. Violence requires an intent to harm. The people never harmed or intended to harm any person as far as I could tell. They never intended to destroy the objects of their affection, simply arrange things so they were more convenient. There was another F-Plus which did feature people getting sexual gratification from destroying toys, the language was quite different. Even then there was no evidence of intent to harm towards any person, only inanimate objects.

What these people experience is a fantasy they are engaged with to an unhealthy degree, similar to godspouses. It's a common claim that people too involved in fantasy become violent, but there is little consistent evidence of this. Even when the fantasy itself is violent (the old canard about violent video games producing super-violent teens) there seems to be little crossover into actual violence. People who like to fantasize remain in their fantasies, and people who like to be violent commit violence, and there's relatively little overlap. A person with a taste for one finds little sustenance in the other.

They even explained in the episode the excuses the person would make: turn off the fantasy for a few minutes, imagine it as harmless cosmetic surgery, etc. They are probably not framing the act mentally as violent. "Oh, but couldn't they easily do that to people as well as plush?" you exclaim. Not really - their plush companion is almost entirely a voluntary mental construct in their own mind, which they imagine is eager to go along with all this. The object itself provides very little sensory feedback and no resistance. A human would be pumping out lots of sensory feedback which would be sending powerful "STOP THAT" signals to the offender's brain, and presumably quite a bit of resistance.

Now it's possible that a person could get off on the resistance and sensory feedback of violence - there are certainly people who do. However, if that's what got them off, that's what they would fantasize about. If they were interested in violence, they wouldn't be bothering with this plush nonsense.

Now there are kinds of mental illness, most famously schizophrenia, which do involve imagined other personalities and which do often lead to violence. However, that's not what's happening here. Plush lovers have all the hallmarks of fantasy, where their imagined lovers agree with them, are comforting and supportive, and can be turned off at will. Schizophenics are highly disturbed by voices they can't control, which are often perceived as threatening and abusive, and cannot be ignored or turned off.

The only way I can see to get from "They cut a piece of cloth, therefore they would stab a human" is either to make the unsupported claim that fantasy leads to violence, or to commit to the fallacy of composition by saying "Some mentally ill people are violent, therefore all mentally ill people are violent."

edit: vvvv I'm not saying that they would be pleasant to be around, that anyone should enter a relationship with them, or that it's not right to make fun of them. Just that they're not secretly serial killers.

BKPR posted:

Your posts read as very angry, and you are making an effort at jokes but they don't work. Please take a week off of posting to regroup.

alcharagia posted:

I'll admit I didn't really laugh much during this episode, but you know what, that's okay. Sometimes there are dud episodes, y'all. Let's just go listen to F Plus Sings and the John Kitchin episode again.

The Chairman posted:

Weirdly I thought the John Kitchin episode was a dud, and the cuddle stuff was extremely my poo poo

The Chairman posted:

Weirdly I thought the John Kitchin episode was a dud, and the cuddle stuff was extremely my poo poo

Cleretic posted:

I'm actually feeling the same, but the John Kitchin episode might fare better on a re-listen. It's the type of crazy that's really hard to get a hold on; I was just too baffled to laugh at it for the longest time, it's just an impenetrable wall of Crazy Old Man. I know there's funny in there, but I couldn't grab onto it enough to laugh at it.

Cuddle parties are pretty accessible for someone who's got a good grasp on the particular kind of weirdness that spawns both it and a lot of Tumblr's ideas about sex.

Sham bam bamina! posted:

I loved both of them equally, and I seriously considered including both of them in my top ten favorite episodes. On the other hand, it might just have been the contrast in quality after the weird pointlessness of the Luscious one.