I find that sex is like button-mashing.
Like trying to break the bricks in Mortal Kombat I....

I think it's more about cooperation and rhythm, somewhere between dodging lightning bolts in the Thunder Plains and making sure that you have enough stock in Contra in case your partner runs low and needs a hand.

I think that, somewhere, Zane's biological makeup must've been infused with pure win.

I think sex is like Harvest Moon, a wonderful experience shared by a married couple.

QFT.  My wife absolutely adores Harvest Moon, or really any good 2 player game (PixelJunk Monsters, Super Mario Galaxy, and the tank battles of Dragon Quest - Rocket Slime come to mind).  There's something really gratifying about accomplishing something together.

Video games require more time investment and stamina than sex.

The financial cost of playing video games and having sex is roughly the same, although acquiring sex is more difficult than acquiring a video game.

It would be difficult to mesh the two, unless someone makes a prostitution game. This is many years off and would require the ability to manipulate organic material and form a human on demand. For instance, you would play the game and try to find the real prostitutes, because some would be cops in disguise. You would earn money by robbing banks or selling drugs, and use that money to have sex. It would be a great game, because there would be no chance of ever going to jail, but a very real chance of getting some action. I guess this would be Grand Theft Auto 42, on the Playstation 8.

More time?
Yes

More Stamina? Hell no!
Unless you play Wii sports for hours on end I guess.
Or you just have a boring sex-life

Also, I dunno what kind of relationship you are in, but my girlfriend doesn't charge me for sex, so video games are a LOT more expensive.

I expect it's much like classic gaming - single player, waggling a joystick.

I think he's talking about the total cost of the relationship, not the sex exclusively.  Unless you just have a sex buddy, girlfriends sure as hell aren't cheap to maintain.  In my experience, girlfriends are far more expensive than video games.  Even if you buy one $60 video game a week, you're almost certainly going to spend more than $240 a month dating.  All that'll buy you is one nice dinner out a week.

A $30-per-plate dinner every week? Isn't that a bit much? I don't think I've ever spent even as much as $100 per month on a girlfriend.

That cost is not necessarily just food.  It could include transportation (commuting to and from dating location), flowers, gifts, etc.

The amount spent on a girlfriend varies by geographic location (is stuff expensive in the area?), and the girlfriend's personality (does she have expensive tastes?)

Look at it another way.  Say you want to do a cheap dinner and a movie once a week.  That's $20 (minimum) just for movie tickets.  If you go to a casual dining place (read: chain restaurant), you're probably looking at $12/head without dessert and drinks, so that's $24.  Factor in an 18% tip, and now you're at near $30.  So, that's $30 for dinner plus $20 for the tickets and you're at $50.  Add in transportation costs and popcorn and you're getting pretty close to that $60/week from the original scenario.  And keep in mind that this is just for one "going out" date per week.

All this talk of expensive girlfriends makes me feel lucky that I've got a broad that's just as happy at a fine restaurant as she is with a bowl of zoodles.

Furthur proof that someone needs to blow up the world -_-

-Joshua

Hardly. The proposition, which I dispute, is that one can have either money or a girlfriend, but not both. But clearly one can have neither if the world is blown up. Ergo the current state of affairs is unambiguously superior to one in which the world is blown up.

If you feel the need to constantly blow money on a girl, especially one that you've been seeing for a while, something's just not right...

Well, I never said that.  You most certainly can have both.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a pretty good correlation between having money and having a girlfriend (while money in and of itself may not help you get a girlfriend, money tends to give you confidence which most certainly will help you get a girlfriend).  My argument is simply that girlfriends are more expensive than video games.

And they're a lot less fun, to boot.

Seriously.  I could really do without the randomly changing difficulty level.  You're sure they're set on Normal Mode, and five minutes later you're playing on Legendary with no idea how you got there or how to get back.

If the physicists can keep making particle accelerators that extend beyond the teravolt range, then there's no telling what they'll find. There has actually been some concern that a particle accelerator could destroy the planet. Of course, some people in the military had the same concerns about atomic weapons, before they were tested.

   The easiest way to destroy the Earth is to find a large amount of antimatter and let it collide with the surface or atmosphere, at any velocity.

   If you just want to cause a little mayhem, you could brake the rotation of the Earth, by putting a very large mass in orbit that goes widdershins.

Oh my...

I prefer chics myself, bro.

That should be "Cor Blimey!" based on your avatar.  heh

..and trojans.

Urgh. A missed opportunity. I've been away too long.

Is that internet nerd-speak for an STD?

LoL, nah i was just referring to the high price of rubbers..