>That she did what she wished, and that Stirner let her do what she wished-that of course may have let her appear in the eyes of the marriage-slaves as detestable as it later did to her, but it can only make the two of them more likable to us. Every act of making up the mind for the other, for that matter, would not have fit at all into the nature of those involved, for whom "marriage" meant only a loose band that was thrown around them purely externally. And not on the "unfaithfulness" of the wife-how ridiculous!-did "this marriage perish," but simply and only under the pressure of the circumstances in which he and she unfortunately all too soon found themselves.
From "Max Stirner - His Life and His Works" By Mackay
Gentlemen, I think this proves that we should remove the stigma attached to keks and begin to embrace kekoldry.
So what you're saying man who openly says that morality is an absurd fiction that you should desire to be rid of didn't give a shit about an old moral standard? Holy shit, stop the fucking presses.
>Gentlemen, I think this proves that we should remove the stigma attached to keks and begin to embrace kekoldry.
It proves nothing of the sort. Embrace what you will as you see fit and live your life how you see fit.
>>386277
Behold, a post made by the haunted.
>>386293
Haunted? You're the one trying to make a wheel in the head out of Stirner's lack of concern for the fact his wife liked to screw around. There are egoistic reasons to not want your partner screwing around, there are egoistic reasons to be apathetic to your partner screwing around, and there are egoistic reasons to encourage it. How you choose to approach it from an egoistic standpoint is entirely up to you, but this particular tidbit about the man's personal life does not mean one of these approaches is in any way inherently preferable.
>>386300
>says the man spooked by the notion of monogamy
>>386251
I keep seeing this drawing on /his/. This guy's a meme, right?
>>386308
>says the man haunted by implied implications
But seriously, if you think there is an "ought" to be had from this, you've misunderstood the man's work.
>>386314
Yes. He was a /lit/ meme for a while.
He's not just a /lit/ meme, he's an actual philosopher and I'd say his main work The Ego and Its Own is worth a read, but he's definitely a meme.
>>386317
The only ought I think there should be is the removal of the stigma attached to kekoldry
>>386300
>There are egoistic reasons to not want your partner screwing around
Such as?
>>386356
Off the top of my head, concern of disease transmission.
>>386396
And that's it?
>>386400
That's just the first thing I can come to. It's enough in my opinion, whether your view it as an acceptable level of risk or not is a matter of personal preference.
>>386409
I'm just thinking that if you had a certified guarantee that whoever your mate is gonna shag is 100% clean you still wouldn't want it.
>>386414
add to this that the men she'd fuck are sterile.
what 'egoistic' reason would you have?
>>386425
Pride, basic emotional satisfaction which is itself a good you can own. She doesn't have to concern with it, but you don't have to tolerate her companionship.
>>386460
ignoring the fact that you literally evoked a spook, you could argue that she's already your property.
>>386467
>evoked a spook
So? Why do people not get this about Stirner's writing. He doesn't say that spooks are invalid things to believe in, he says that putting them ahead of yourself is silly. You can still value your own sense of pride and emotional satisfaction.
>she's already your property
He says that everything is his property to bring to the table the fact that you can only possess what you have strength to hold on to, not to suggest that you should act like a dickhead to the people around you, as that's not actually in your self interest.
