In this episode of Cubs Out Loud, the cubs roll the dice on the topic of tabletop gaming. Listen in as the guys throw their cards on the table about what games they enjoy, what they like and don’t like about tabletop and card gaming. From the groans when someone mentions Monopoly to the joy and excitement of Exploding Kittens, have some fun gathering around for a great gaming adventure.
What’s Going On?
- Jeff: AGDQ
- Damon: Fuck You, Mother Nature!
- Chester: Travel!
- Gary: Ick
Did I Do That?
- Brady Adams
- Mathew Scheuring (Shoo-ring)
- Jake Dzadon (Zay-duhn)
- Joshua Vijiyakumar
- Chester Beltowski: I’m listening to episode COL398: Bud Sex and I am laughing my ass off at the “old fluids” bit, man I wish I was on the show for this! BTW Damon, the “wall” you were describing can be considered anthropologically significant.
- Chels m
- Maxx Dennis
- Adam Medina
From right after Christmas…
Hi, guys. I’m about 2 months behind in listening to your podcast, and I’m having a problem with Chester’s “I’ll Tumbl For You” links. Whenever I try to open one (current example), I get “The URL you requested could not be found.” I tried following Chester’s “The Cub Up There” blog back to the date of the show (slow-scrolling thru 2 months of backlog), but I couldn’t find anything there that looked like what he described on the show.
Is it possible that Chester deletes his Tumblr posts after the “Cubs Out Loud” podcast?
Keep ’em coming, & merry holidays,
From after COL398 ‘Bud Sex’
Hi there cubs!
First of all, Happy New Year and thanks for having Hadrian read those stories a few episodes ago! It definitely made the cold weather somewhat warmer 😀 Second, I just finished listening to the Bud Sex episode you just released. I also briefly read the scientific journal article afterward. Being that you have indirectly summoned the COL scientist (thanks for the title, Jeff), I considered writing about a few things relevant to the discussion.
- Defining/measuring sexual orientation: A few of you mentioned the Kinsey scale to define sexual orientation. As revolutionary as this scale was back in the 50s, it does not represent sexual orientation accurately. Consider it more of a legacy instrument than a good one to define and measure sexual orientation. More recent models have proposed at least 3 dimensions to sexual orientation that can explain most of what we observe: identity, behavior, attraction.
Identity refers to how you define yourself, in this case, sexually. If you identify as gay, bi, straight, queer, etc. that is your identity.
Behavior refers to what people do sexually. In other words, who are people having sex with?
Attraction refers to the gender you are attracted to.
Further, imagine that these 3 dimensions can be measured on a scale (for example, 1 to 10) instead of a “yes” or “no.” For example, I identify as gay (10) and do not identify as bi (0), straight (0), or queer (0); I have only had sex with men (10) and I have not had sex with women (0); and I feel very attracted to men (9) and a little attracted to women (3). Now, based on our understanding of sexual orientation with these 3 dimensions we can conceive the existence of men who identify as straight, have sex with men and women at different levels, and feel attracted to both males and females at different levels. That is what sociologists, anthropologists, and the community at large may consider MSM, brojob, or bud-sex dude. Consider also those guys who identify as gay (8-10), who have only had sex with women because of social expectations or other reasons, and may be attracted to men way more than to women. I have met bears who were married, had kids, ended up getting a divorce, and are in a current relationship with another guy. They do not consider themselves as bisexual. The combinations are endless and could also encompass asexual (identity) people who are not interested in sex (behavior), but like people of their own, opposite, or both genders(attraction). I have found in my own research that this model captures way more information than a simple yes/no or Kinsley scale. Also, with this more comprehensive model, there is no need to challenge anyone’s identity because of who they are having sex with. Science is not barely catching up. In psychology we have had this and similar models for a long time (probably 30 years) but since it is more complicated to understand and does not raise much controversy, popular publications outside the field pay little attention.
- Sample size: Yes, 19 participants are not much and all of them are self-selected. Both things affect generalizability. Unless you have millions of dollars to conduct a study or you are gathering data for a census, this limitation is common, especially on research using interviews as the method to collect data. This limitation does not prevent the information to be valuable, especially when it elicits new ideas and a few hypotheses just like the ones Hadrian presented.
As usual, if you have any extra questions please let me know.
- Several private photos from GBearTrekker65, there’s also a photo of him with another person, is this your partner?
Bears and Tabletop Gaming
Why do so many bears like TTG/CG?
- Common interest
- Forced social interaction
- Cards Against Humanity leads the charge
- Exploding Kittens, Joking Hazard
- Bears vs Babies!
Chester’s Quick Poll Results:
- Favorite Games
- Betrayal at House on the Hill (because the game changes every time you play it)
- Magic: The Gathering (for deck customization)
- Super Dungeon (because it’s co-op)
- Joking Hazard
- Preference for group size
- People enjoy going to parties with lots of people, but prefer to play in smaller groups
- Gaming at bear runs?
- Absolutely! They feel that official time slots should be part of the event schedule
- Where do people find other gamers?
- Word of mouth
- Facebook groups (Bears Be Gaming, Nerdybears, Geekybears)
- Personal ads (growlr shouts)
- Bear Runs
- Gaming stores!
- Gaming bars!
I’ll Tumbl For You: