Marriage is failing because monogamy isn't natural: humans aren't meant to be with one person for their entire lives. However while monogamy is a social construct, it is necessary to keeping society stable. This is why I believe open marriages are the remedy: they allows spouses to satisfy their desires while maintaining the relationship. No good husband should deny his wife a young stud and no wife should deny her husband a hot chick. It makes others happy and improves the marriage, leading to more trust and happiness.
I've been married for twelve years and have been in an open relationship for seven years, and it has been the best decision we ever made. Before we would bickering and disagree constantly but now we're far more understanding. Admitting my wife has more time to have sex with other guys but we equally benefit from the positive effects. I don't mind it, sometimes I'll make a meal for the two after they've had it. I get to have her try out the things she's learned from experience while we make love.
Why don't more people try this? This is the cure to the relationship problem.
>open relationships
>its just women sleeping around
>if the men do it they get bitched at
plus how would having kids work? are we JUST gonna be a society that kucks itself where there is no fathers, just partners to the mother?
how will love work, how can you truly love your spouse if they show affection towards another person?
This sounds good until you realize hot chicks never have sex with ugly dudes but ugly chicks have sex with hot dudes because dudes simply fuck any woman that says yes, hot or not.
This puts women in power, which they already have now, so it solves nothing.
>>55380284
>>55380465
Hook, line, and sinker.
>>55379373
>monogamy isn't natural
Except it is. Anthropologists tell us that humans have mated for life since as far back as humans existed.
>>55379373
>>55379373
>I don't mind it, sometimes I'll make a meal for the two after they've had it.
No way is this real.
>>55380680
>neogaf
>massive liberal circlejerk where they still think Saint Dindus (trayvon martin and michael brown) DINDU NUFFIN
>>55380680
>Keks appropriating Goku
Ragepepe.jpg
>>55379373
This is just blatant.
>>55380465
/thread
Pic related
>>55380465
This. Open relationships and casual sex in general is a sexual strategy that favors women and genetically elite men.
Monogamy exists for two reasons. One is to provide support for women who are raising children. The other is to provide a successful sexual strategy to less desirable men.
>>55379373
Kekold
>>55380680
Why the fuck hasn't there been a war started with these morons?
Rope day
>>55379373
>>55380284
It's the same with the depiction of interracial couples in media, white women with black male, or in this case, women with multiple lovers. It's because that's strong and tolerant and open minded, while if it were a male with another race's female or multiple women, it's horrible oppression and patriarchy. You can only prove you're REALLY progressive when you "enable" women or negroes etc.
>>55380920
b8 thread but
>not having a polygamist society where the beta males use sexbots/VR
>>55380680
The few times I've ventured into neogaf have left me in a low rage.
Truly the worst of all people
>>55379373
Marriage is failing because women want open relationship. They want their cake and they want to eat it too.
Speaking of relarionships
This is my girlfriend after getting out of the shower in morning
The Jews are out in force tonight I see
>>55379373
OP is a woman, no man can be like this and still call himself a man, no man...
>>55379373
JUST KEK MY SHIT UP
>>55380829
>So.Much.Cringe.
You know there are monogamous animals, right?
Just because the majority fucks around isn't a indication of monogamy being unnatural, it just means that most animals have a less complex dominance/submissive system.
Wolves have complex packs, and the female and male wolves are monogamous.
>>55379373
>they allows spouses to satisfy their desires while maintaining the relationship.
Whore
>No good husband should deny his wife a young stud
Cu ck
>>55380465
>This sounds good until you realize hot chicks never have sex with ugly dudes but ugly chicks have sex with hot dudes because dudes simply fuck any woman that says yes, hot or not.
>This puts women in power, which they already have now, so it solves nothing.
>/pol/ actually believes this
When did /r9k/ leak onto this board?
In reality it's quite the contrary, men are the ones wanting to fuck with high standards, hot women are constantly with ugly men.
It's because for women it's needs and money, for men it's mental and physical traits.
Marriage is failing because people don't read the bible or go to church anymore. Funny how society takes a shit when people stop going to church huh? People have no morals, women sleep around, disease spreads, families are broken and hell on earth happens because we didn't follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
If you support open relationships you are literally a cuc.khold by definition
>>55381078
I'll fuck her. Is she mixed?
>>55381078
She got right back to bed? What a lazy bitch.
>>55381213
I don't know about wolves but "monogamous" songbirds kek each other all the time.
>>55379373
>Marriage is failing because monogamy isn't natural: humans aren't meant to be with one person for their entire lives.
What possible grounds do you have for this? Monogamous couples are happier with their lives than polygamous people.
Don’t you know, cu.ck it up,
You’ve got to cu.ck me up,
Don’t you know cu.ck it up,
You’ve got to cuc.k me up.
(Repeat x 4)
It’s not so long ago, that the cu.ck hit the nation.
Every saturday night, on your favourite radio.
The party’s cu.ckin' yeah, and the vibe feels so strong.
Throw your hands in the air, lift your head up high,
You know you’ve got to c.uck along.
Don’t you know, c.uck it up,
You’ve got to cu.ck me up,
Don’t you know c.uck it up,
You’ve got to c.uck me up.
(Repeat x 2)
It’s not so long ago, that the cu.ck hit the nation.
Every saturday night, on your favourite radio.
The party’s cu.ckin' yeah, and the vibe feels so strong.
Throw your hands in the air, lift your head up high,
You know you’ve got to cu.ck along.
Don’t you know, c.uck it up,
You’ve got to cu.ck me up,
Don’t you know cu.ck it up,
You’ve got to cuc.k me up.
(Repeat x 4)
Got to feel it, what’s the name of the cu.ck.
Say : “ I can c.uck on, and I’m ready to go.
Check out my ride girl, but don’t touch my radio!
Don’t you know, cu.ck it up,
You’ve got to cuc.k me up,
Don’t you know c.uck it up,
You’ve got to cu.ck me up.
(Repeat x 4)
And make me feel good, feel so good
And make me feel good, feel so good
>>55379373
Open marriage is only for niggers and rain forrest people
Its not for europeans who take pride in raising their kids and maintaining their homes
>>55381344
Half Asian bruh. 20 years old, admitted she wants to be influenced by all my world views and everything.
Total opposite of the last white girl I was talking to, that got triggered hardcore from me being redpilled on the blacks
I'll bite. Been married for some time now and neither of us consider an open relationship as a good idea because we actually love each other. You don't truly love your spouse and you're not a real man if you want to see others on the side, period.
>>55379373
Monogamy is natural you moron. I'm so sick of this generation of wannabe biologists. use your fucking heads you faggots
>>55381471
Damn bro half asian chicks are god-tier. I'm pretty excited to bang her honestly.
>>55380284
I'd rather just knock up some bitch and flee to Russia.
>>55379373
Um, there are plenty of monogamous animals out there, swans, wolves, penguins so on. it's not exclusive to humans. saying monogamy isn't natural is stupid, just like saying polygamy isn't natural, there's observable evidence of both in nature. personally i perfer monogamy and am very happy in my relationship, but hey, if you wanna screw around and that makes you happy go ahead, who cares?
>>55381002
smoke dave is a true bro. degenerate to the core.
i have no idea why he still posts there
>>55381666
>i have no idea why he still posts there
HAHHAHA
he got perma ban.
>>55379373
The point of marriage is one man, one woman, who are faithful to each other and have children. The only reason it's promoted is because it leads to reproduction and more attention to future generations
Marriage now is not what it once was. Now every Tumblrina wants to say that she's married, even though she's not, because she doesn't meet her parent's/society's expectations
Marriage is now even more of a title than it was. It's basically a "I'm a conformist, look at how productive I am!" badge that you wave around other normies because you're too scared of being different
And don't even get me started on the whole cuc'k shit with polygamy. It's never 2 women, it's always 2 men.
>>55381716
he did? damn. i left that shithole a long time ago so i dont keep up with it anymore.
neogaf used to be so awesome.
>>55381770
>neogaf used to be so awesome.
just for you.
>>55379373
>leading to more trust
>>55381653
Yeah you won't bang my chick, but definitely find one on your own
Only limp wristed beta keks go after white girls these days lol
Honestly think about it bro. What kind of a red pilled straight white male will actually date a modern white girl? Who? There's always some drawback.
Find a latina at least if you can
>>55379373
If that's the case, how come a woman or man who proposes it gets pissed off if the other side has more open relationships?
>>55379373
You should kill yourself.
You, and other cunt worshippers like you, are why women enjoy the sort of leverage they have, and consequently, lack respect for men.
>>55381321
this
God won't forgive us
>we don't deserve it
>>55381859
Pic related just doesn't do it for me. Its like, I can see the white genes, but its watered down with so much 3rd world.
Monogamy favours the average man much more than polygamy.
A large single male population is a recipe for disaster.
>1 man
>3 wives
Although I don't agree with it and prefer normal marriage, I suppose it okey to some extent. You see families like that in many cultures.
BUT
>1 woman
>3 husbands
Could you imagine how destructive that would be?
Imagine this, right!
You're a young boy (age 7 or 10, whatever). And you live in a house with your Mum, Father and two other random men. Could you imagine what sort of fucked up person you'd become? What a shit upbringing!
You literally have no real father figure as your father, as well as the other two men, are obviously going to be complete weakling beta keks for allowing THAT woman (their wife, your mum) sleep with 2 other men.
Both kids in this family will have a fucked up childhood, especially the boys.
>future-high-shooters.org
POLYANDRY
FUCKING NEVER!
>>55382191
>1 woman
>3 husbands
The man who's getting blue balled will kill the woman and the other two husbands.
>>55381859
fucking nice
>>55382259
Haha true!
Anyway, it'd be fucked up for society
webm related
>>55382444
>not Bernie Sanders.webm
There is only one sane response to your partner/spouse proposing an open relationship or even talking about it in the first place: cut that piece of shit out of your life and be thankful you haven't wasted any more time on them.
>>55380829
Fucking hell. I think I can see why his wife couldn't wait to get away.
I think my testicles have actually retracted into my body I'm cringing so much!
>>55379373
>blatant b8
>60 replies
>>55382519
Oh and I almost forgot
>the OP hasn't replied once
>>55379373
Anyone who puts sex as first and foremost in a relationship has either never been in a serious relationship before or is incapable of bonding with people.(not going to say its cause too much cock but..)
Has it occured to you that human existence is naturally barbaric, short-lived and unhappy? Has it ever occurred to you that Christianity has brought about a way to raise children through marriage that has resulted in unusual levels of stability and happiness?
Marriage is failing because Chrisiranity is failing.
>>55382786
Christianity was the one true beta uprising.
Monogamy is the only way for a stable society
>>55379373
Fucking degenerate.
>>55382648
Not just in a relationship, but in life. Your life shouldn't revolve around getting your dick wet. Great things have been accomplished by men who either pushed pussy down on the priority list or ignored it altogether. There's a trend of people who want to do nothing with their lives but fuck.
>>55382855
Yup. As a non-beliver it was hard for me to swallow, but it's true.
>>55380829
>go to reddit relationships
>search polyamory
>laugh at all of the beta kekhold faggots crying about their relationships falling apart
>>55381078
Lies..
"She" was just on worldstar comments, or was that u
>>55380284
>that image
triggered
>>55379373
I'm currently in an open relationship with my 4 year gf that used to be captain of the cheer squad in my high school.
I've slept with 3 other qts so far, and I'm actually thinking of dropping my gf for one of them since she is much better looking and actually likes the shit I like. My gf? I think shes slept with like one other dude.
You guys are just pussy beta faggots. I mean, its no contest by any means, but its so easy to get laid its not even funny.
>>55379373
Nice bait
>>55380465
Maybe if you're incapable of fucking hot chicks this becomes a problem.
>>55383395
>pretty sure my cheerleader girlfriend has only slept with like one other dude
uh huh....
because girls in open relationships are completely confidential with their "boyfriends"
You realize that the minute that a guy suggests or accepts an "open relationship" that IMMEDIATELY drops him to gamma status in a girl's eyes?
>>55383506
It's funny that people use that picture to show them having second thoughts about bait when in that scene Patrick is making that face at Spongebob when he tells him to not touch the hooks.
>>55383507
We are the 99%!
>>55383595
That is unless she knows the guy is fucking other chicks. Chicks get wicked insecure about that.
>>55379373
>monogamy isn't natural
there is studies showing that mammals which aren't monogamous actually have lower levels of dopamine when with the opposite sex.
If you aren't monogamous then you actually have a deficient brain.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK97287/
>>55383605
/pol/ loves the idea of personal accountability, individualism and cruel harsh reality unless it involves how many hot chicks they don't fuck while other guys are.
>>55379373
>marriage is failing
not in islamic countries you fucking idiot
>>55383706
Putting the chicken before the egg.
>>55383595
No, it was me that actually suggested it. My gf has a really really low sex drive and we only did it like once a week if I was lucky. That's why I think shes only slept with one other dude since we opened the relationship up. And desu I honestly don't give a fuck. I've tapped that pussy so much in the last 4 years I was having trouble getting it up with her if you know what I mean.
I am currently working on my 4th sexual encounter but desu one of the girls I already did it with looks very promising. I think I might just drop my current gf and go with this new girl. Shes absolutely perfect and doesn't like to party, and likes Pokemon like I do. The bad thing is that too many guys hit on her because of her looks. I already had some 24hr fitness dudebro try to kick my ass.
>Marriage is failing because monogamy isn't natural
>WHY IS SOCIETY FALLING APART
pick one and only one
lmfao kuked
>>55383827
You honestly believe that monogamy failing is causing the problems of today's society? I hope you know that no one thinks like this.
>>55383653
You know so very little. If she was feeling insecure about it, she wouldn't let him touch her the next day. She "deals with it" through the smug satisfaction that she got fingercuffed the night before by two dudes she doesn't even know.
There's no "balance" in an open relationship. The girl is fucking way more dudes or the relationship is over.
>>55380932
>You can only prove you're REALLY progressive when you "enable" women or negroes etc.
That's some deep shit right there.
>>55383901
Your lack of understanding of the complexity and variation in human personality, relationship dynamics and different lifestyles is mind blowing. Your assertion that things are "always x way" is ridiculous and it's so typical of /pol/.
>>55380829
She's just staying around for the kid. He disgusts her.
If this were true I'd rather die alone than submit to such degeneracy.
>>55383875
The collapse of the married family is causing huge social damage. Millions of children are being raised without fathers and the consequences are devastating.
>>55383875
It's a contributing factor.
Spending early years fucking anything that moves leads to a short shifty marriage in your 30s
Short shitty marriage leads you to have shitty kids
Shitty kids damage society
>>55382484
>I'm not going to bore you guys with huge blocks of text
>proceeds to bore readers with a huge block of text
I'm not gonna read it anyway.
>>55384193
Single parents can raise children just fine.
Marriage is pretty useless, I hope you don't seriously belief that short marriages contribute to shitty kids.
>>55384179
You can have open relationships and then end up in a committed marriage.
>>55384193
>Spending early years fucking anything that moves leads to a short shifty marriage in your 30s
Your misinterpreting that data. It says that women in a population who have the most partners are least likely to have a stable marriage by 30, it doesn't say that if everyone has more partners all there marriages will be unsuccessful.
>>55384281
TL;DR
Chick asks her boyfriend for open relationship, he says "sleep with whoever you want" packs his shit and gets the fuck out of there. Rest of it is her complaining about how she can't stop crying and how he won't talk to her and she has to stalk him
>>55384286
>Single parents can raise children just fine
You won't be able to produce any evidence to support that claim. Children raised by single parents are more.likely to take drugs, commit crime, perform worse in school and earn less money, among other things.
And how do you expect these people to raise men when all they've had as male role models are rappers, sportsmen and worse?
>>55384498
[citation required]
I was raised just fine by my dad
>>55384348
>You can have open relationships and then end up in a committed marriage
The more sexual partners a person has had, the greater the chance of divorce. I'm sure its possible, but its less likely.
>>55384498
You understand that you have more options than monogamy or single guardian households right?
>>55379373
>monogamy isn't natural
>literally the most commonly practiced marital status for all of human history
Get the fuck out kek
Hey guys, this is my half asian gf who loves me and does whatever I say.
>>55384559
Not only is this a wrong interpretation of the data you guys constantly parrot as I explained here,>>55384348 that exact fucking study that you're citing which you fail to understand also surveyed men and found no difference in men with many partners or men with one.
>>55384497
Rightfully so. Every self respecting man would break up.
>>55381306
Eddie Murphy may have made a lot of shitty movies as of late, but this still stands true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz_ehpbS7jc
Women just have to ask and most men will say yes.
>>55384498
Nah mate, thats only for single mothers. The kids raised by single fathers are about as prone to commit crimes as kids raised by two parents.
>>55384723
So much cocaine.
>>55379373
Murder rate gonna skyrocket after implementing shit like that I think.
All I have to do is look 50, 60 years in the past, then call you a faggot.
Remember to sage.
>>55384904
Really an amazing argument that is hard to debunk. Lmao are you serious?
>>55381859
Kike shill you are just a neckbeard posting from your basement kill yourself.
>>55379373
How many times have you caught a dose.
>>55379373
I think there is high correlation with self-awareness and post-coital tristesse. I think most promiscuous human beings are actually not that self-awarene but stuck in a state of hypnotic "waking sleep". They tend to be dim-witted and simple-minded. This applies to both monogamous and polyamorous people, but of course, the latter would be moreso on average.
>>55385112
Yeah man, only stupid guys would fuck multiple hot chicks regularly.
I think there is high correlation with high self-awareness in people who experience post-coital tristesse. I think most promiscuous human beings are actually not that self-aware but stuck in a state of hypnotic "waking sleep". They tend to be dim-witted and simple-minded, and sometimes I question whether or not they have any "depth" to their experience. This applies to both monogamous and polyamorous people, but of course, the latter would be more opaque on average.
>>55383777
>>55383395
Man, this is the kind of person posting on /pol/?
You guys aren't doing a good job convincing me of that "white superiority" honestly.
>>55385112
>>55385232
>>55385201
Yes, I agree. I think they tend to be lost in some kind of haze. They do not realize the illusoriness of their face. They do not peel away that mask enough, and dwell on worldly matters. In other words, they do not understand the Deleuzian concept of faciality.
They are like Patrick Bateman, but instead, they lie about being "good people".
>>55385318
Yeah man, there have never been great or intelligent men who fuck multiple chicks. That just doesn't happen.
>>55385289
Those who gratify from animalistic energies have never experienced true anguish and hatred towards the world because they would see the puppet's strings tying all of evolution's history.
>>55379373
>I've been married for twelve years and have been in an open relationship for seven years, and it has been the best decision we ever made. Before we would bickering and disagree constantly but now we're far more understanding. Admitting my wife has more time to have sex with other guys but we equally benefit from the positive effects. I don't mind it,
Kill yourself degenerate. Swinger/wife swap might be ok because then you're among friends and you're getting laid out of the deal too - but just letting your wife go fuck everyone so she doesn't nag? Unacceptable. It's her fault she's a nag - not your's.
>>55385423
>tying all of evolution's history
when they fuck*
>>55384348
>Your misinterpreting that data. It says that women in a population who have the most partners are least likely to have a stable marriage by 30
First of all, it's not just one study, it's multiple studies.
Secondly, did you even read ANY of them?
>>55380284
>how would having kids work? are we JUST gonna be a society that kucks itself where there is no fathers, just partners to the mother?
The women plan on having the state stealing money from single men and giving it to single mothers and child-care programs obviously.
>>55385374
>Yeah man, there have never been great or intelligent men who fuck multiple chicks. That just doesn't happen.
I would say there has been a truly self-aware person that has fucked multiple chicks. Post-coital tristesse occurs with those have deep awareness of the artificiality of their faces.
>>55380612
Poly is very prominent in the animal kingdom. And yes, we are animals.
>>55385461
Yes I did, they all reach the same conclusion which is not the one that you guys interpret correctly.
>>55385576
Please, post all of the conclusions to the various studies.
I'd love to see them.
>>55385528
If anything's artificial, it's people telling themselves that fucking multiple hot chicks isn't appealing.
>>55385647
Nah, that's more about having some self-control.
Honestly, the only good thing about the rise of poly relationships is that 99% of the people who take part in them won't breed.
>>55385647
See, you sound worse than a nigger. Keep up the good job in being a dim-witted idiot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMMX8dkbXEU
>>55385626
It's the same study done three different times. The conclusion is that the women in a population who have the most sex are least likely to have successful marriages.
>>55379373
>humans aren't meant to be with one person for their entire lives.
this is just bullshit. The human brain obviously has adopted to the social order humans create in every society. The "polygamous" part exists as well but its rooted in the older "reptile" part of our consciousness and its just a carnal impulse, not something to be followed on and has no place wherever more than maybe 5 people gather and decide to work together.
"Progressives" want to make people animals again.
>>55385696
>The conclusion is that the women in a population who have the most sex are least likely to have successful marriages.
Okay, so you're saying that it comes to the same conclusion that /pol/ comes to?
>>55380680
>I can handle it because I have no emotional attachment to people.
This is the opposite of what OP said. I think these people are just trying to rationalize their kek fetish. Being called a kek is a such a horrible thing to them than why don't they appropriate it and make it into a positive like what feminists tried to do with 'slut'?
>>55385686
Why would I need to exert self control in that situation? A lack of self control implies that acting on impulses in that context is negative.
>>55385691
Yeah man, only niggers like fucking hot chicks.
>>55384525
You are the exception.
Drug use:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3075408/
Alcohol
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7990469
Earlier sexual behaviour:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01858012
Do you need more?
>>55384560
The collapse of marriage has led to a rise in single motherhood. I’m not interested in the possible alternatives. Destroy marriage and this is what you’re left with. Single parenthood is demonstrably worse for children.
>>55384631
The correlation between sexual partners and divorce rates could be causal. And if it is, it follows that having an open relationship would make it less likely to last.
But I'm not really interested in individual cases. Middle class, educated “progressives” may well be capable of successful non-traditional marriages. But if we, as we have done, destroy Christianity and therefore marriage, we open the working classes up to the prospect of mass single motherhood.
>>55384787
This may well be true. My suspicion is that because the divorce courts are so biased in favour of women, only the best possible Dads end up raising kids by themselves.
>>55385739
the real conclusion
>women in a population who have the most sex are least likely to have successful marriages.
/pol/'s conclusion
>raising the average number of partners for women will lower the success rate in marriages across the board
If you can't see how these two conclusions are different, you need to shut your mouth about science.
>>55385759
>Yeah man, only niggers like fucking hot chicks.
But only intelligent people who have reflected deeply on life have felt post-coital tristesse. No other animal experiences that because they haven't experienced existential anguish.
>>55385759
>Why would I need to exert self control in that situation? A lack of self control implies that acting on impulses in that context is negative.
Because it is negative, just going around fucking hot women just because has never ever been beneficial to society.
Just look at the black community in America, it's full of people like you.
Really, hedonism does nothing for society as a whole, and often actively harms it.
Just because you like something doesn't mean you should always be looking to partake in it.
I like eating chocolate, but I wouldn't constantly eat it, because then I'd be fat.
Again, self control, something you clearly lack.
>>55385561
We aren't generic animals. We are a specific one. Our particular species does not normally engage in polygamy. Just because some animals engage do doesn't mean all do. Take your shit tier logic out of here.
>>55385868
Why do you discount the possibility of a causal realtionship?
>>55385561
This is fatuous. What's prominent in the animal kingdom isn't relevant. What's prominent among humans is what is relevant. What a stupid thing to say.
>>55385868
No, /pol/'s conclusion is literally exactly the same, do you actually think people site that study when talking about poly relationships exclusively?
Are you retarded?
But, the general idea is that more male partners = more sex = less likely to have a successful marriage.
And we all know that stable, proper marriages produce the most well-adjusted children, so they're extremely important for a society that doesn't want to fall into disarray (citing the black community again).
>>55385201
I actually believe that.
sure you would WANT to but that doesnt mean its worth doing.
I want to eat a whole tub of icecream, I truly do, but I dont do that. Why do you think that is?
>>55385887
PCT is not widespread and to claim that those who experience it are somehow intellectually superior is ridiculous.
>>55385892
Fucking hot chicks a lot isn't going to make me fat. I told you that there's no negative consequences and then you made an analogy to a situation where following impulses has negative condequences. You have no evidence that me fucking hot bitches is destroying the fabric of society.
>>55384498
That's only if you don't believe in the power of genetics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nurture_Assumption
>Harris challenges the idea that the personality of adults is determined chiefly by the way they were raised by their parents. She looks at studies which claim to show the influence of the parental environment and claims that most fail to control for genetic influences. For example, if aggressive parents are more likely to have aggressive children, this is not necessarily evidence of parental example. It may also be that aggressiveness has been passed down through the genes. Indeed, many adopted children show little correlation with the personality of their adoptive parents, and significant correlation with the natural parents who had no part in their upbringing.
If the behavior genetics view is true than it is more to do with women being dysgenic in their choice of men.
>>55384174
Underrated post.
>>55379373
>the separation of love and marriage
>a good thing
read any story about European royal courts.
>>55386075
Because you'll get fat.
>>55385962
I'm just tellng you that you're argument isn't supported by that study.
>>55385993
Thank you for proving you have no dog in this fight. You're extrapolating to a whole new conclusion.
>>55379373
>Marriage is failing because monogamy isn't natural
stopped reading there
this belongs to trash
>>55385576
>>55385696
>>55385868
tldr sluts are not marriage material, that's the bottom line, there's literally nothing wrong with slut shaming either
>>55385561
alcoholism is also prominent in a lot of countries.
And most animals can't even pass a simple self-awareness test, we aren't most animals.
>>55385374
youre being sarcastic but its mostly true
>>55379373
>Admitting my wife has more time to have sex with other guys
>sometimes I'll make a meal for the two after they've had it
Even if this is bait this will probably be the mentality in future.
>>55386101
>Fucking hot chicks a lot isn't going to make me fat.
Jesus christ you're dense.
Fucking lots of hot chicks makes you less likely to want to form a long-term relationship with a single woman, much like how eating lots of chocolate makes you less likely to want to eat vegetables like you're supposed to.
The point of the analogy is that neither is healthy for you.
Nevermind the potential for STDs that you or your partners may carry, which is now spread even more.
>>55386195
>You're extrapolating to a whole new conclusion.
I'm literally reaching the same conclusion as the study itself, the conclusion that you yourself admit is there.
Are you implying that a woman in an open relationship will be having less sex than a woman in a monogamous relationship?
>>55384498
>>55385784
It's definitely true, and it's true across demographics.
>>55386311
>Fucking lots of hot chicks makes you less likely to want to form a long-term relationship with a single woman
No it fucking doesn't. The exact same fucking studies that you drooling retards cite tested men as well and found there was no difference for men at all. Condoms exist and I got eh HPV vaccine, all my buddies have fucked over 10 chicks including me and none of us have gotten STD's. It's not my fault that you guys have 0 real world experience to back up your understanding of what having a lot of partners is like.
>>55384286
>>55384348
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/21/single-mothers-bad-for-so_n_825446.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-539283.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/07/single_motherhood_worse_for_children_.html
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/foundation/foundatione.cfm
http://www.mercatornet.com/family_edge/view/9355
http://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress.com/statistics/
http://www.fatherhood.org/media/consequences-of-father-absence-statistics
>>55386371
No man, you are failing at essentially one of the exact questions I had on an assignment the first week of college. Learn some scientific literacy please.
>>55386125
Could you explain in plain terms how genetics explains the correlation between being raised by a single mother and the taking of drugs, drinking alcohol, having sex early and committing crimes?
>>55386457
I wasn't saying shit about single mothers.
>>55386425
>No it fucking doesn't. The exact same fucking studies that you drooling retards cite tested men as well and found there was no difference for men at all.
Because those men don't get married to begin with you moron, are you retarded?
Why would they get married when they don't benefit from it.
Are YOU going to get married?
Chances are, probably not.
>>55386101
>PCT is not widespread and to claim that those who experience it are somehow intellectually superior is ridiculous.
Have you ever looked at your dick or a vagina and asked, "Why did it have to be like this? I'm just thrown into 'this' and impelled by certain urges, out of my control, to do 'this'. Since I never asked for 'it', why I should I give into 'this' that was imposed on me? Why make it central to my existence? Such a fleeting pleasurable sensation, what is its significance?" No other animal has the capacity to ask such a 'why' in such a capacity. I feel as if when a penis penetrates a vagina, it is an affirmation of life, of accepting what has come before you and molded you, but I have never really 'liked' this life of pain and suffering much. Moreover, it leads to more attachments to just a fleeting act. Those who glorify sex, glorify the totality of pain, misery, and suffering, but they evade such sentiments with hippie-like slogans of how fucking is fun or whatever. Truth is, those who enjoy fucking, enjoy being puppets to strings they can never understand due to ineptitude. Post-coital tristesse is reflective of one's depth of character and understanding.
I am saying those who experience post-coital tristesse are spiritually superior due to heightened awareness. They are the anti-Sades.
>>55386542
"Take a look sometime at the face of a dog who’s just had sex. He just stares into space with strangely empty eyes. It’s exactly the same with people – in the beginning they work themselves up into a frenzy, and in the end there’s nothing at all." - Kodo Sawaki
>>55386390
>fatherless
>fatherless
>fatherless
I found a pattern, maybe it's just single-mothers that are the problem.
Only thing I find peculiar is that daughters from single father parenthoods are much more likely to be drug users while sons with a single father show no increased drug use.
>>55386457
>single mother
>single mother
>single mother
I said single parent, not single mother.
Single father homes are mostly fine when you look at crime statistics, only exception is the drug use by daughters of single father parenthoods.
>he's going all out
>>55386533
It was testing married men in their 30's. How you can use a study to support your ideas when you didn't even fucking read it is amazing.
>>55386542
Anon you don't understand. Intelligence has nothing to do with PCT, it's a trait that some people inherit. Your NT levels get all fucked up after sex because of a biological predisposition separate from your cognitive ability. It doesn't make you special or holy, it's just something that some people have regardless of the intimacy of the relationship that they're in.
>>55386425
Not to mention, the same studies show that the exact same is true for men as it is for women.
>>55386503
>taking of drugs, drinking alcohol, having sex early and committing crimes?
I don't know how easier to explain it. It's just basic selection if you believe in behavioral genetics. The problem with women or single mothers is that their choice in men bends towards violent, aggressive,anti-social men who are most likely to leave them when they get pregnant.
Leaving behind a single mother and a child who behaves like them.
>>55386625
Either way, the collapse of marriage leads to single-motherhood because the courts are biased and men are less willing to raise children by themselves.
1. That isn't going to change any time soon.
2. If it did change, and men were forced to raise children they didn’t want, the statistics would probably reverse.
>>55386625
Yes, it is single mothers. A) there's no man around to keep their bullshit in check, B) women nurture infants into boys, but fathers raise boys into men. Women's ability to selflessly love their children is actually heavily reliant on their early neoteny. As the infant begins to age, they enter the woman's radar as a contender on the power-ladder. Mothers are the primary child abusers, and fittingly their abuse patterns sharply increase as children leave infancy, which is not a correlation we find in men's child abuse.
And that's an interesting point about daughters, though a tempering factoid is that daughters raised by fathers are at lower risk for teen pregnancy.
What all this points to is simply that discipline and strength of character are masculine virtues, and they must come from strong, male figures. All the facets of adulthood are simply more prominent in men because only men are capable of totally shirking their childishness.
>>55386840
New data. The other study we were talking about was success of marriage, not cheating. For success of marriage, there is no difference.
More importantly, that doesn't mean that I am going to be less likely to stay committed as I accumulate more partners, it means that dudes who fuck a lot of chicks are likely to continue fucking a lot of chicks because they're good at seducing them and like it. There's no causation here. It's a correlation between men who fuck a bunch and those who continue fucking a bunch.
Well it's been fun arguing with you retards but I have shit to do. Enjoy your circlejerk to tell each other that not having a lot of sex is okay.
>>55379373
>>55379373
There is only one answer to this if put to you by someone.
Demand they publicly tell everyone in the room they're in an open relationship.
Demand they ring and tell their mother.
Demand they ring and tell their employer.
Demand the ring and tell their GP.
Demand they do it right now in front of you.
If it's so normal and natural then there should be zero issue and inhibition sharing such information with anyone, including family, work superiors/business contacts and medical authorities.
The fact is open relationships are a sign of mental illness, crippling insecurity and greed, and are rightfully judged accordingly by society for what they are.
Lastly the only CURE for a bad relationship is leaving it.
OP is a faggot
>>55386625
you said
>>55384286
>Single parents can raise children just fine.
>Marriage is pretty useless, I hope you don't seriously belief that short marriages contribute to shitty kids.
the majority of single parents are single mothers
then you pretend you weren't trying to defend single mothers by taking about single fathers
you know you're full of shit
>>55387085
>The other study we were talking about was success of marriage, not cheating.
A marriage that involves cheating is, by definition, a failed marriage.
>it means that dudes who fuck a lot of chicks are likely to continue fucking a lot of chicks because they're good at seducing them and like it.
Right, and fucking a lot of chicks while being in a supposedly monogamous relationship means that said relationship is not monogamous, therefore it's failed.
See ya anon, I hope you don't get married, because you might fuck up and get stuck in a lengthy divorce that robs you of your manhood.
>>55386852
If courts were less biased towards women their would be more single fathers who do want to raise children by themselves you mean.
A lot of men are willing to raise a child on their own but can't because the court has that bullshit bias, a reduction in bias would result that men willing to raise a child on their are more likely to win full custody
>If it did change, and men were forced to raise children
Why would it "force" men to raise children? They can just say no and be done with it.
They can do it now too.
>>55387134
I was talking about single parents, not single mothers.
I don't give a shit about the fact that there are more single mothers.
>>55386841
It's an interesting argument.
But the correlations between single-motherhood and poor offspring choices exists across demographics. The children of successful, well-adjusted men fare worse when raised by the mother only. This is more easily explained by environment than by genetics I feel, though I don't discount it completely.
>>55379373
I think it's because our lives are too long. Naturally,we die in our 30s.
>>55384525
Great anecdote, you faggot. Statistical data suggests otherwise.
>>55387386
Life expectancy of hunter-gatherers was 60 years after you survived puberty.
Child mortality was a lot higher though which drags down the average, but most who survived puberty lived past their 30s.
>>55387570
Statistical data suggests that single dads can raise children just fine.
It's single mothers who are trash
>>55386713
Let me see the sources, I disagree. I'm hypothesizing that it's due to being existential and meta about the whole situation. It's like the David Lynch film Lost Highway.
>>55387274
Single fathers in our current biased system are the creme of the crop.
If we had the opposite situation, in which men got custardy of the children 70% of the time, you would have many men who would not be seen fit to take custardy in our current system raising children. You would also have many women who could raise children better than the partner losing out.
My point is that the success of single dads is explained by the fact that only few, obviously well-equipped dads are given custardy.
It also seems likely to me that women would be biologically better at raising children because that is their primary evolutionary function. But I have no evidence for that.
>>55379373
>i try everything and anything to keep my failed marriage from failing even more.
>>55387708
>It also seems likely to me that women would be biologically better at raising children because that is their primary evolutionary function
The primary evolutionary function is bearing children. The raising is something that's been historically done by both parties.
And females raised without a strong father figure tend to be all sorts of fucked up, men raised by single mothers also tend to be much weaker emotionally.
>>55387274
it matters, we're talking about a real society, with real people, that are so numerous that they do affect society, and i'm talking about single mother
we don't have a single father problem, we have a single mother problem
>>55388049
I do agree that single mothers are a problem.
>>55379373
>isn't natural
HOLY FUCK STOPPED READING
APPEAL
TO
NATURE
F A L L A C Y
A
L
L
A
C
Y
>>55388500
It's not a formal fallacy therefore it's not by definition a fallacy.
Besides, monogamy is completely natural for humans.
