What's the point of going out of your way to get a girl to be your gf when you don't even have the security of her being loyal to you?
You'd literally spend all your time trying to keep her from fucking other men.
>>24797807
Kek, true, also that pic can't be real, I would have raped that bitch
>>24797942
>implying hes not her boyfriend
>implying shes not just joking around
>>24797807
outstanding
What's the point of anything anon?
>>24797965
Please, get out of this fucking thread.
>>24797965
>implying hes not her boyfriend
>implying shes not just joking around
I thought about that, but I was just making my point based on the premise of the image, men today are really feminized and beta, this is like a case of Poe's Law, I would not be surprised of some guy today was this deep in the friendzone, pre-grooming before chad gets to fuck (chad taps him on shoulder - "Thanks lil bud, make that pussy all clean and shiny for me" kek)
> Friendzone
> Being that near an exposed pussy
Nah, most friendzoning girls wouldn't want their beta drones anywhere near their vagina.
>>24797807
The trick is to stop caring about that and let her fuck anyone else if she pleases
Honestly, at that point i think he really does just want to be friends.
The question is, would you do this for your oneitis? Like if it was your only chance to see her like this?
>>24798114
being a kek is worse than being a robot
>>24798114
Soo...basically welcome that fact that I'm going to be a c-u-ck?
>>24798117
he's probably gay.
no man can stay this causual so close to the bare pussy of his oneits
>>24798114
You c.ucks need to kill yourself, seriously, I would do it for you but I don't have the time, resources or your location.
>>24798150
My oneitis is pic related, so yes.
>>24797807
You need to give very few fucks, preferably zero. I don't just mean acting like you don't give a fuck, like actually don't care that much. The person that puts the most work into the relationship is the least likely to leave.
>>24798235
>>24798169
>>24798194
Yeah, but stop caring about whether being a 'kek' is bad or not, that stigma is literally only coming from society.
Monogamy is possessive.
Women aren't objects, they are people who are and should be capable of making their sexual decisions on their own terms; if you think they are objects, then I have nothing else to say since we differ fundamentally from one another.
>>24798245
she's cute but looks underage.
>>24798851
She's like 30. Those are amazing genes.
>>24798837
>being this big of a kuck
>>24798837
>Women aren't objects
Men aren't objects either, and a c.uck is being BEING USED
>Ironically a woman is also being used like an object for a c.uck since she is being OFFERED UP to be fucked by another man, so if they aren't objects why are they in a relationships that in essence objectifies them?
The stigma has nothing to do with society, it comes from simple common sense and observation, male to female relationships usually involve the male trading his material resources for access to a females sexual and reproductive resources, a c.uck relationship (open relationship) is one where the man still offers up his material resources BUT another man gets access to the females sexual resources, there's no point in paying for something without exclusivity towards it, and yes you can deny it if you want but male to female human relationships (dating, marriage, etc) all function on a model of prostitution (its no coincidence men are seldom expected to pay). I can't stand seeing a man so pathetic that he not only goes against his biological imperatives but just becomes a submissive used piece of shit. Oh and pic related (a post citing studies showing that submissive sexuality is feminine in nature and therefore homosexual when practiced by males, any male with submissive fetishes are probably and most likely closeted homosexuals/bisexuals, some aren't even aware of it)
>>24798222
Maybe he is already done and trying to figure out where the condom went.
>>24799020
>men aren't objects either
>literally goes on a rant to explain how men and women objectify each other through monogamy where the women sells her body and the man buys her with his material wealth
>brings up some shit about submissiveness which has nothing to do with what we're talking about
ok.
any other takers?
literally being a wittol/acquescient to your lover's lovers is the chillest way to live.
>>24799020
Hmmmmmm
How does that work with both partners being submissive? They'd never get anything accomplished. Or is one gay and the other not?
Please explain
>>24799170
>How does that work with both partners being submissive?
>>24799170
How does what work, I'm not sure which part you're talking about
>>24799129
Jaime, is that you bud?
>>24799129
>literally goes on a rant to explain how men and women objectify each other through monogamy where the women sells her body and the man buys her with his material wealth
>Moron who doesn't understand that "objectify" is just some term humans came up with to describe WHAT ALREADY HAPPENS IN NATURE, what you're calling "objectification" is literally just how heterosexual pair bonding naturally and usually takes place, you can apply any BS pc/liberal terms you want it doesn't change what nature is, especially not the nature of humans and how we function
>brings up some shit about submissiveness which has nothing to do with what we're talking about simply explaining my rationalization of why I hate c.ucks (or any male with a submissive fetish for that matter) and how the hate most people have for them has NOTHING to do with societal stigma. Can you even read moron?
>>24799331
1st things 1st, human beings are naturally polygynandrists, which makes the man naturally a "kek" form your pespective
second is, natural means nothing
third is that given 1st and 2nd, then it means that monogamy isn't natural and is actually damaging
i don't understand your last paragraph, I think you're just butthurt that some people can see through the bullshit that is sexual monogamy.
>>24799432
>1st things 1st, human beings are naturally polygynandrists, which makes the man naturally a "kek" form your pespective
Proof?
>>24799432
>1st things 1st, human beings are naturally polygynandrists, which makes the man naturally a "kek" form your pespective
Wrong stupid fucker (wanting to be a c.uck this bad baka), males in nature usually pump and dump, they barely stick around to raise their kids, there is no alpha male who sits there watching his female get fucked and then sticks around to raise said child (or stick around regardless)
Oh and like >>24799480 said: Citation Required
>then it means that monogamy isn't natural and is actually damaging
You do understand that the model for a stable society (the society you exist in) only exists due to the monogamous family unit, without a way to assure paternity men would not fucking stick around to raise another man's children, the building blocks of a society is the "family unit", in fact why do you think marriage rates have decreased so much in recent times, its because men no longer see any benefit in getting married, paternity fraud has high and on the rise, divorce rates are at 50+% with women initiating 70% of them (majority of which are no fault divorces), men have been paying 95% of alimony since 1995, you have to be a complete moron to basically pay a woman to screw other guys, worse yet the idiots who do this with their wives who could simply divorce them and take half their shit and still fuck the other guy kek (you c.ucks are ridiculously sad)
>I think you're just butthurt that some people can see through the bullshit that is sexual monogamy.
Yes, you ruined my master plan to keep all of humanity trapped in the evil that is a stable relationship where men don't get screwed over, bravo for picking up on that, you must be a genius (obvious sarcasm)
>>24799677
Tribal societies were matriarchal and allowed pre-marital and extra-marital sex. http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html
If you like, you could also google for sexual dimorphism. Among the great apes, dimorphism between the sexes isn't as pronounced as it is in human beings except Bonobos, who use a polygynandrous mating system.
>You do understand that the model for a stable society (the society you exist in) only exists due to the monogamous family unit, without a way to assure paternity men would not fucking stick around to raise another man's children, the building blocks of a society is the "family unit", in fact why do you think marriage rates have decreased so much in recent times, its because men no longer see any benefit in getting married, paternity fraud has high and on the rise, divorce rates are at 50+% with women initiating 70% of them (majority of which are no fault divorces), men have been paying 95% of alimony since 1995, you have to be a complete moron to basically pay a woman to screw other guys, worse yet the idiots who do this with their wives who could simply divorce them and take half their shit and still fuck the other guy kek (you c.ucks are ridiculously sad)
I will agree with you here, but I would like to point out that what you call "stable society" is actually a madhouse full of repressed individuals who end up creating chaos and violence because of it (read Wilhelm Reich). Sexual monogamy leads to prostitutes, pornography, rape, and kekoldry (in the bad sense, for these men feel betrayed whereas if monogamy weren't practiced it would mean nothing)
>>24799920
>If monogamy is a problem then here's my point: why have a "commited" relationship in the first place, again why the fuck should a man be married to a woman (financially responsible for her) who is allowed to fuck other men, why even have any relationship at all (e.g. living together, etc), why not just date, if monogamy is bad then lets follow that premise, shouldn't we cut out all the bullshit pseudo-monogamy constructs like "open marriages" (its a fucking oxymoron), just be fuck buddies and be over with it, because only men are losing in these relationships.
>>24800173
Sure, I have no problems with something like that.
>>24800257
Good because that's my only problem with it, men should not be part of any relationships where they finance another man's sexual conquests, and an open marriage is exactly that.
Exhibit A (Most pathetic man on earth - Lord Of C.ucks): http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-open-marriage-taught-one-man-about-feminism.html
is there anything wrong with the feminzation of men?
women have been doing degrading things to please men for years.
>>24800509
Men should do as they please. If someone wants to have a female partner to be intimate with, and this woman is also intimate with other men besides that person, then they should go ahead with it and feel no shame about it. It should actually be encouraged.
>>24800571
Men like feminine women and will reproduce with them. Females do not like feminine men and openly scorn their affection. One is mutually beneficial while the other is completely exploitative and unsustainable.
>>24800617
>It should actually be encouraged.
>C.ucking should be encouraged
I seriously can't tell if you're a woman, or a man trolling
>Men should do as they please.
Are you telling me if you knew someone was doing something that was a detriment to themselves (and they were in denial or didn't even realize it) I should just stfu and let them crash and burn?. What if we applied this logic to family members addicted to drugs...... intervention........ fuck that, he enjoys doing drugs, men should do as they please baka.
>>24797988
Where's his skillcape
>>24800571
>women have been doing degrading things to please men for years.
>Key word here is women, because that's their role in nature, females submit and males dominate, when you upset that balance everything foes to shit, hence modern society falling apart and we have incel shooters, robots (as in r9k), etc, all this shit exists because of the female "sexual revolution".
>>24800571
>is there anything wrong with the feminzation of men?
>feminization of men
hurrrrrr
>>24800695
Well, you are a free individual and as such you can express yourself as you like. If you hate it so much, you can murder them or become the tyrant yourself enforcing your own views upon them. I, for one, only want men to be free from any ghost in the mind that prevents them from living the way they please.
>I seriously can't tell if you're a woman, or a man trolling
I am a man. I am not trolling; I believe that a polyamorist/polyandryst society will lead to world peace more or less, but this change would have to overcome mankind since the menace of the horde/barbarians is real which as such necessitates hardened men who are willing to pick up weapons and protect what they care for, indirectly saving me in the process.
Either way, it doesn't mean that you can't practice it in the micro-scale, you can argue rights or wrong as much as you like, but unless you're willing to apply it on social engineering levels then it's not really useful to live that way.
The idea of my SO getting creampied by other men, and later on coming into bed to sleep besides me also makes me rock hard, but that's just an added bonus. None-exclusive sexual relationships are inherently more ethical, if liberty and peace are your goals mind you.
>>24800992
>I am a man. I am not trolling; I believe that a polyamorist/polyandryst society will lead to world peace more or less
Please slow down and think for a while, try and understand this, the basis for male-female relationships usually involves males financing the females existence, please tell me how the fuck a relationship where men are still paying for most of everything and women are fucking around will lead to world peace. Even the men who accept these relationships (like the c.uck in the article) are usually depressed and many end up divorcing anyways or worse commit suicide.
>The idea of my SO getting creampied by other men, and later on coming into bed to sleep besides me also makes me rock hard, but that's just an added bonus. None-exclusive sexual relationships are inherently more ethical, if liberty and peace are your goals mind you.
Dude you are so fucking sad, you're such a pathetic c.uck that you've rationalized you being a pathetic beta provider your woman can walk all over is a positive thing baka.
To put things in perspective imagine if you knew this guy who went to work each day, works hard, but brags that he shares his paycheck with random men because it makes him feel good and if everyone did this it would lead to world peace, do you see how sad and retarded you look now.
>>24797965
Its gotta be boyfriend or gay gal pal
>>24801117
You keep objectifying women here. I'm sorry, I just can't agree with this premise in your last paragraphs.
>Please slow down and think for a while, try and understand this, the basis for male-female relationships usually involves males financing the females existence, please tell me how the fuck a relationship where men are still paying for most of everything and women are fucking around will lead to world peace.
I'm not sure myself either, but in practice it seems to lead to this. Wars are caused by nation, and violence runs amok in monogamist/polygynist societies.
Refer to the article I posted earlier on in the discussion
Here's something else for you if you'd like.
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/robert-anton-wilson-sexual-freedom-why-it-is-feared
>>24798169
>>24798194
>>24798235
That anon has the right idea, just don't give a fuck if your gf is fucking other dudes on the side or considering it.
Also as far as I'm concerned, you're only a kek if you go to the trouble of finding another man to fuck her while you watch and masturbate.
>>24798837
Yeah... you should kill yourself. If you don't even respect yourself, why should you be allowed to live?
>>24800509
I literally shed a tear while reading that.
>>24801191
>That anon has the right idea, just don't give a fuck if your gf is fucking other dudes on the side or considering it.
>Gets STD
Quick question, why even make her your gf, you idiots are doing some of the most illogical shit, it doesn't even fit your rhetoric, the whole point of your arguments is that relationships should not be restrictive to one partner, alright lets follow that premise, now why are you getting married in the first place, why are you giving said female the title of GF, why are you guys contradicting your own words by forming pseudo-monogamous social constructs, if its not a committed relationship then there is no need for any terms or "lingo" associated with committed relationships, there's no need for a legally binding contract just to function outside of the premise of the contract (not being monogamous), you guys keep tiptoeing around that fact, you're being used moron, the primary beneficiary of any "open relationship" is the female, she can more easily acquire sex and if its a marriage she can divorce and take your resources and go find more dick, you have ZERO leverage in your relationship, you are literally just there to boost her ego or something she can laugh about with her friends
Serious question to both of you >>24801182 >>24801191
1. What do you think your women think of you as men?
2. Do you think they have any respect for you?
3. Have you even considered that they think you care little for them since you don't even want them for yourself, so they're just in the relationship to get as much benefit from you as possible?
>You keep objectifying women here.
baka, what was objectifying
>Also as far as I'm concerned, you're only a kek if you go to the trouble of finding another man to fuck her while you watch and masturbate.
The criteria you set is so restrictive, untrue and intellectually dishonest that virtually no one is a c.uck.
>>24801418
>1. What do you think your women think of you as men?
That I am foremost another human being in need of affection and company (should she be a decent person herelsf)
>2. Do you think they have any respect for you?
Yes
>3. Have you even considered that they think you care little for them since you don't even want them for yourself, so they're just in the relationship to get as much benefit from you as possible?
That's a possibility. I don't believe it's possible to be selfless. A little oddity here though, if you have read the introduction to "The Polygamous Sex" by Esther Vilar, is that love is absolutely selfless, thus only a man such as myself is capable of loving my SO selfessly since I am willing to support her in all her decisions as long as it makes genuinely happy.
>baka, what was objectifying
>To put things in perspective imagine if you knew this guy who went to work each day, works hard, but brags that he shares his paycheck with random men because it makes him feel good and if everyone did this it would lead to world peace, do you see how sad and retarded you look now.
>>24801229
I seriously hate c.ucks, its like watching a guy with money in his hands, but he's so retarded he burns it or eats it or some bs like that kek. What makes it sadder is how in denial they are, they literally rationalize their pathetic lifestyle, I once saw post by a c.uck that said being a c.uck is a sign of higher intelligence (not shit), I had to make an image because that BS was so unbelievable (pic related).
>>24801522
>if you have read the introduction to "The Polygamous Sex" by Esther Vilar, is that love is absolutely selfless
But that is completevely wrong, love is actually something very selfish, even if by definition it's the opposite. Love comes from having to fill a need for affection with the company of someone else. To love someone you first have to objectify them.
>>24801643
I actually pity them.
The good thing for people like >>24801522 and >>24801191 is that their pain will end when they finally look at what they are doing and kill themselves, like so many c'ucks do.
>>24801691
Heh, Esther also writes how people would disagree with the meaning of love anyways, what I said was just one example and it's the way I believe it to be.
I don't care about arguing what love is desu, I only care about what it means to me and I disagree with yours.
>>24801643
There is actually a whole article about it.
>Pic related.
>>24801691
>To love someone you first have to objectify them.
Exactly, these stupid c.uck don't even realized how much they've contradicted themselves, they're so in denial that they can't even see the obvious contradictions.
For example this stupid c.uck (>>24801182) tells me: "You keep objectifying women here. I'm sorry, I just can't agree with this premise in your last paragraphs."
But earlier he says this (>>24800992): "The idea of my SO getting creampied by other men, and later on coming into bed to sleep besides me also makes me rock hard"
The stupid fuck doesn't even realize that he is also objectifying his woman, he's just objectified her as an object to be passed around and shared rather than one to be kept and cherished, same game, different rules. Its the difference between someone who values something because everyone else wants it (C.UCK) and someone who values something because only he has it (MAN). C.ucks don't even realize that their brand of "love" is more objectifying than any other form, you literally only value that woman because other men want her, their love for their woman isn't even based on her inherent qualities, its based on other men valuing those qualities.
>>24801809
>woman writes it
yeah there's no ulterior motive there or anything
anyway, the most intellectual fetish is still retarded
there's no value in sexual pleasure in the long-term
indulging degenerate fetishes like this is a sign of anti-intellectualism
>>24801842
I would be perfectly fine with my SO if she wanted to exclusively belong to me; but she doesn't, and I'm happy for her all the same. My fetish doesn't come into consideration here.
>>24801809
Kek, a woman writing an article to convince men to let other men fuck their women as a sign of intelligence, if you fall for reverse psychology like this you deserve to be killed.
>>24801890
>I would be perfectly fine with my SO if she wanted to exclusively belong to me
Moron (incoming common sense question, prepare for mind fuck)
1. Why would you WANT to be with someone who DOESN'T REALLY WANT TO BE WITH YOU?
2. Are you even having sex with other women, or are you just leaving all the fucking to her? (seriously you guys are like retards, would not be surprised if years later this is diagnosed as c.uck syndrome and deformities in parts of the brain can be linked to it, and there is treatment)
>>24801974
>1. Why would you WANT to be with someone who DOESN'T REALLY WANT TO BE WITH YOU?
But she does, or else she wouldn't keep crawling to bed at nights, or even having sex with me for that matter.
>2. Are you even having sex with other women, or are you just leaving all the fucking to her? (seriously you guys are like retards, would not be surprised if years later this is diagnosed as c.uck syndrome and deformities in parts of the brain can be linked to it, and there is treatment)
I'm exclusive to her.
>>24801991
>But she does, or else she wouldn't keep crawling to bed at nights, or even having sex with me for that matter.
No she doesn't idiot, you're the beta provider, she has sex with you because you're just another dick and you are her provider, why wouldn't she fuck you, she's getting money from you anyways and gets to have the dick she actually enjoys on the side, its idiotic logic to say - "oh she has sex with me too, so she actually wants me"
>I'm exclusive to her.
Please tell me how this is a equal relationship kek, you have to be a complete fucking moron, you're not only in an "open relationship", you're in a one sided open relationship XD (only open on one side), yet you can't see how you're being used baka, I have to assuming you''re trolling for the lolz, nobody is this stupid
Security? In what way?
>>24801809
>>24801182
>>24801191
I've been doing a little researching and c.ucking is pure fucking evil kek, some sick shit seriously, men involved in this need to be put out of their misery.
>>24802133
>No she doesn't idiot, you're the beta provider, she has sex with you because you're just another dick and you are her provider, why wouldn't she fuck you, she's getting money from you anyways and gets to have the dick she actually enjoys on the side, its idiotic logic to say - "oh she has sex with me too, so she actually wants me"
You know fuck-all why she chooses me. Perhaps she genuinely enjoys having sex? that's part of the reason why I like her, because she is smart enough to exercise her sexuality on her own terms
>Please tell me how this is a equal relationship kek, you have to be a complete fucking moron, you're not only in an "open relationship", you're in a one sided open relationship XD (only open on one side), yet you can't see how you're being used baka, I have to assuming you''re trolling for the lolz, nobody is this stupid
I simply don't want to pursue other women.
>>24802201
>because she is smart enough to exercise her sexuality on her own terms
If she's being "smart" then aren't you being "stupid" by remaining the only one exclusive in the relationship? (please try and follow your own logic, it will lead you out of that fog of delusion you are trapped in), why aren't you "exercising your sexuality", it must be that you're "stupid" by your logic.
>I simply don't want to pursue other women.
Were getting somewhere now, Why?
>>24801890
>supporting a woman being promiscuous
kek
>>24797807
social media has ruin women. she can leave you at anytime with her chad friends from facebook or cheat on you with them. fuck that shit
>>24802320
It's fun how he always uses words like "perhaps" and "maybe" when he talks about his strong independent wymyn.
>>24802336
She isn't that promiscuous, as far as I know she doesn't fuck random strangers but rather people fwb.
>If she's being "smart" then aren't you being "stupid" by remaining the only one exclusive in the relationship? (please try and follow your own logic, it will lead you out of that fog of delusion you are trapped in), why aren't you "exercising your sexuality", it must be that you're "stupid" by your logic.
>Were getting somewhere now, Why?
I am not a thirsty kek like you that wants to fuck as much women as is possible. Besides, I like fapping to doujins and manga more.
>>24802386
Your definition of c'uck is a little twisted, lad. By the meme definition, you are a c'uck.
>>24802408
The term kek was used as a degoratory term the way 4chan has abused it.
Have a waifu? kek
Like a video game? kek
Your rooting for a team? kek
Like this book? kek
This religion? kek
etc
Being an actual kek, or rather, a wittol, is okay.
This is a three part story
>>24802455
Here is part 2
>>24802472
And here is part three
>>24802446
C'uck is used solely in that meaning by /v/
The memetic meaning of c'uck, the fetish, started less than a decade ago. The original meaning is about a man that raises the son of a different man, without him knowing that fact.
>>24802386
>I am not a thirsty kek like you that wants to fuck as much women as is possible
So by your logic your woman is a thirsty whore that wants to fuck as much men as possible, notice how you implied negative connotations to this act when saying its what I want, now observe your metnal gymnastics as to how it becomes "ok" or simply "exercising sexuality" when she does it, I can' literally use your own words and logic to show you how illogical and in denial you are.
You've yet to answer the questions though, in fact you did not even reply to me and you avoided the questions completely (and on purpose I suspect)
Q1. If she's being "smart" then aren't you being "stupid" by remaining the only one exclusive in the relationship?
Q2. Why aren't you pursuing other women?
>>24797988
that honestly wouldn't be that bad, I'm a /fit/izen so it wouldn't burden me in the slightest, and I'd feel the warmth radiating from her cooch on my upper backand would use that as fap material for several weeks afterwards
>>24797807
I really really wish that picture was true.
>>24802524
I've seen the term kek abused that way in /pol/, /int/, /sp/, /mu/, /vr/, /a/, /lit/ and /his/, not sure about the other boards though.
I also think that dishonesty is absolutely wrong and any woman that gets by cheating on their man knowing that the reality would anger him is no better than the politician that betrays his people.
But that's only possible in a monogamist society; if relationships were none-exclusive from the beginning kekoldry wouldn't exist, and being a wittol would be the norm.
>>24802446
Being an actual kek, or rather, a wittol, is okay.
No it's not, even then, I don't care, in less than a decade you are going to snap and kill yourself like so many keks have been doing.
>Pic related, a real champ.
>>24797807
but she wouldn't fuck other men
>>24798837
except that bitch can get pregnant and try to commit paternity fraud. what if i live in France where paternity testing is illegal. I would not be raising my own child and I would never know.
>>24802534
She does have a high sex drive, I won't deny anything from there, now as to what concerns us men about wanting to shag most women as is possible, it's true for some and false for
others. I'm of the latter group.
>Q1. If she's being "smart" then aren't you being "stupid" by remaining the only one exclusive in the relationship?
No
>Q2. Why aren't you pursuing other women?
No interest
>>24802579
>and being a wittol would be the norm
No, literally very few people would do it unless you indoctrinate people since childhood.
Most mean would try and bang as many woman he can lie his dick on. Since living is only about passing on your genes. It would be about survival of the fittest and the keks would be dead, since no woman would want to bear children with such a flaw.
>>24802642
EVERYBODY STOP REPLYING TO THE BAIT
>>24802707
Refer to the previous study.
Societies which permit extra-marital sex raise the children as if the children were from the tribe. This probably has no real utility in modern society, but I am fundamentally an anarchist and as such I disagree with society in the first place, though I do find it necessary to keep the barbarians at the gate (although a case could also be made for current governments actually encouraging invasions in the form of immigrants, but that's a discussion for another story).
>It would be about survival of the fittest and the keks would be dead, since no woman would want to bear children with such a flaw.
That could be possible, but the only evidence we have for that happening is in chimp species where the alpha male kills off the offspring from other males and keeps harems of females. That is, a polygynist species. I am arguing for polyamory/polyandry.
>>24802642
>No
Then how can you say she's being smart then, be honest, she's just being a filthy whore, all the BS euphemism's only serve to make your denial that more obvious
>No interest
If you have no interest, why do you even have interest to have sex with ONE WOMAN then, you are seriously in denial here, you aren't making sense logically, everything you've said is based on emotional BS, you can't claim you aren't interested in having sexi with other women yet you're interested in having sex with your current SO, you're being intellectually dishonest here, if you can get an erection for your SO then you can get an erection for another woman who is also hot. So again I ask.
2. Why aren't you pursuing other women like she is pursuing other men.
oh and
>She does have a high sex drive
Don't try and tiptoe away from this, you fucking told me - "I am not a thirsty kek like you that wants to fuck as much women as is possible". You applied negative connotations to seeking out multiple sexual partners when it was me you were speaking about, but when it pertains to your SO you say this BS - "She does have a high sex drive". Your bias and denial is showing hardcore.
3.Why are you with a thirsty whore? (thirsty based on your own criteria of what thirsty is - chasing after multiple sex partners) and why are you treating it as something positive pertaining to your SO but when set against me (a male) you term it as something negative?
>>24797807
>What's the point of going out of your way to get a girl to be your gf when you don't even have the security of her being loyal to you?
For an ugly male, I honestly don't know.
How the fuck could someone be happy wageslaving themselves to death, and then using that money to buy someone's 'love'?
>>24800571
well without manly men around who is going to build houses,build roads, do sewer maintenance and do dangerous jobs? women? hahahahhahhahaha oh please
>>24802846
I am fine with one woman. Any more and I'd probably have less time for myself.
>Don't try and tiptoe away from this, you fucking told me - "I am not a thirsty kek like you that wants to fuck as much women as is possible". You applied negative connotations to seeking out multiple sexual partners when it was me you were speaking about, but when it pertains to your SO you say this BS - "She does have a high sex drive". Your bias and denial is showing hardcore.
I told you this because you seem to be of the mindset that the more people you fuck the more inherent value you have or something stupid like that. As a matter of fact, you're trying to make this case right now, asking me why I won't have sex with more women as if somehow I should care about this. I simply don't share this view.
>Why are you with a thirsty whore? (thirsty based on your own criteria of what thirsty is - chasing after multiple sex partners) and why are you treating it as something positive pertaining to your SO but when set against me (a male) you term it as something negative?
Again, this has to do with the fact that you're coming off as someone that thinks that fucking as much women as possible should be our life-goal. If sexual pleasure really matters that much for you then okay, but again I don't have this point of view.
I am with her because I love her.
>>24802386
>I am not a thirsty kek like you that wants to fuck as much women as is possible
But your girlfriend is.
>>24802925
>this has to do with the fact that you're coming off as someone that thinks that fucking as much women as possible should be our life-goal.
In a polygamous society, as you want, that's exactly how it would go, cumming in as many wymyn as you can to spread your genes onto a wider legacy.
>>24802925
>I told you this because you seem to be of the mindset that the more people you fuck the more inherent value you have or something stupid like that
>Strawman, please go over and read all my posts, in none of them did I state I was trying to have sex with many women, my entire argument was about a relationship only makes sense of both parties are exclusive, you put words in my mouth starting at this post: >>24802386 where you said this: "I am not a thirsty kek like you that wants to fuck as much women as is possible. Besides, I like fapping to doujins and manga more.".
"As a matter of fact, you're trying to make this case right now, asking me why I won't have sex with more women as if somehow I should care about this" - Its supposed to be an open relationship retard that's the point, if you aren't utilizing the benefits then you're basically the only person in a one man closed relationship, you're simply being used.
>Again, this has to do with the fact that you're coming off as someone that thinks that fucking as much women as possible should be our life-goal.
How the fuck does not wanting your woman to be a used up whore equate to wanting to fuck as much women as possible.
>I am with her because I love her.
I'm done now kek, you're one sad fuck
1. Love isn't a real thing (not in the sense that you mean it), its just a chemical reaction
2. If you being exclusive to her means you love her, what the fuck does her sexual activities say about her loving you?
>>24803049
Probably, but the none-exclusivity would lead to men to stop giving a fuck whether a child was theirs and society would crumble, which fits in with my desire.
>>24800648
all my female friends love the feminine looking dudes, no idea what you're on about
>>24803079
If you being exclusive to her means you love her, what the fuck does her sexual activities say about her loving you?
I never said me being exclusive to her was the way I showed my love to her; the only thing I said about it was that it gave me more free time.
>Love isn't a real thing
Edgy
>what the fuck does her sexual activities say about her loving you?
No need to place love and sex in such close juxtaposition.
> Its supposed to be an open relationship retard that's the point, if you aren't utilizing the benefits then you're basically the only person in a one man closed relationship, you're simply being used.
That's your, and not my idea.
>How the fuck does not wanting your woman to be a used up whore equate to wanting to fuck as much women as possible.
I never said that it does or doesn't. Please re-read your posts, you're making it seem that I should try to fuck as much women I possibly can, and you're confirming that you hold this view. Also you're making it seem like you don't consider women to be people. A slut is a woman with the morality of a man.
>>24799302
Fuck off Gold
>>24803098
Now that I read this and the other post I realize that you don't know what the fuck anarchism is about. Anarchism is about a society of people who govern themselves through voluntary institutions.
So I don't get your take on anarchism.
>>24803268
ctrl+f anarchistlibrary and read RAW's article on sexual freedom and why is it feared.
>>24803207
>That's your, and not my idea.
This argument has nothing to do with ideas, it has everything to do with FACTS, and fact is you're getting the short stick in this relationship, she gets to spend your money, enjoy your company, keep you fully committed to her sexually (because since you don't get your sex elsewhere she has complete sexual leverage over you) and she gets to fuck other guys.
This is as one sided as a relationship can get, why don't you just move into the doghouse so she can properly enjoy gangbangs in peace and quiet without your prying eyes baka
>I never said that it does or doesn't. Please re-read your posts, you're making it seem that I should try to fuck as much women I possibly can
No moron, I'm making it seem that you should ALSO be fucking other people, that's literally it
Ask yourself this: What am I getting out of this relationship that I couldn't get in another relationship with less "baggage"?, the answer is NOTHING.
>>24803207
He isn't the one talking about how a polygamous society wouldn't work because every male would want to fuck as many women to spread his genetic information through the world, that's me, a different anon.
>>24803299
So you based your entire view of anarchism in that one article because you identify with it because it talks about allowing you to be a c'uck, wow, that's very sad and ignorant.
>>24803330
>This argument has nothing to do with ideas, it has everything to do with FACTS, and fact is you're getting the short stick in this relationship, she gets to spend your money, enjoy your company, keep you fully committed to her sexually (because since you don't get your sex elsewhere she has complete sexual leverage over you) and she gets to fuck other guys.
She also earns her money, you know.
>This is as one sided as a relationship can get, why don't you just move into the doghouse so she can properly enjoy gangbangs in peace and quiet without your prying eyes baka
She is free to break-up with me should she want to, though I wouldn't like it.
>No moron, I'm making it seem that you should ALSO be fucking other people, that's literally it
Okay
>Ask yourself this: What am I getting out of this relationship that I couldn't get in another relationship with less "baggage"?, the answer is NOTHING.
I wouldn't be getting her, or well, her company.
>>24803367
>So you based your entire view of anarchism in that one article because you identify with it because it talks about allowing you to be a c'uck, wow, that's very sad and ignorant.
>C.ucks rationalize and believe anything that allows them to remain pathetic submissive servants to their women, these are the kind of guys that end up letting their women fuck them with strapons, they don't want to be male, they never have, they probably just want to be reborn as a woman so they can take their woman's place on the cock carousel.
>>24803367
It's not only one article; research seems to agee with it. There's even one pro-society research that backs up this view, something called "Sex and Culture"
>"In Sex and Culture (1934), Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilizations through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe.[1] "Sex and Culture is a work of the highest importance," Aldous Huxley wrote;"
Wilhelm Reich, and RAW also somehow managed to conclude this. Through monogamy and sexual repression, the government manages to control men. Once you do away with repression aka bring about sexual freedom, then you can do away with the dominion government s have over individuals.
>>24803377
>She also earns her money, you know.
Yes, of course she does, and I bet she's still spending yours too, since when was there such a thing as "too much free money", women are outearning men today statistically and are getting the majority of degrees, and men are still the ones paying for dates in majority, women will never refuse chivalry because it goes against their hypergamous nature, to bring up her making money is a moot point because I never said she was a homeless bum in the first place (I assumed she was working too)
>She is free to break-up with me should she want to, though I wouldn't like it.
I can't even................ (I hope she does, because a sad fuck like you is so pathetic you'd remain her little toy to be used until the day you die). do you really think she isn't laughing at you with her friends behind your back, you can't be that naive.
>I wouldn't be getting her, or well, her company.
Again its funny how you rationalize have her exclusive company as a positive, but you don't put two and two together that she not wanting the same says exactly what she thinks about you, she thinks less of you than you do her, she means more to you than you do to her, you are secondary in the relationship, you're being used, you're a tool of convenience.
>>24803508
Well yeah, I spend some of my money on her. It's not as bad as you're making it out to be though, but I have a suspicion that even $1 would make you think I'm getting the short end of the stick here.
She also buys me stuff.
>I can't even................ (I hope she does, because a sad fuck like you is so pathetic you'd remain her little toy to be used until the day you die). do you really think she isn't laughing at you with her friends behind your back, you can't be that naive.
She's not that type of girl; if she was I wouldn't be with her.
>Again its funny how you rationalize have her exclusive company as a positive, but you don't put two and two together that she not wanting the same says exactly what she thinks about you, she thinks less of you than you do her, she means more to you than you do to her, you are secondary in the relationship, you're being used, you're a tool of convenience.
You don't know her at all.
>>24803575
>but I have a suspicion that even $1 would make you think I'm getting the short end of the stick here.
That's because she's getting more out of the relationship than you're, you're basically funding her fucking other dudes, listen carefully, if she was some mega rich bitch and you were living with her and she was basically your sugar momma I would not be telling you anything, because then at least you're getting something out of it and you're being payed to be her secondary dick, but as of right now you're just a sad pathetic fuck because you're the one who I'm sure is shelling out most of the money in the relationship
>She also buys me stuff.
You do realize she's getting money from the other guys she's fucking right, so it doesn't even really count, she's just spending money on your that she wouldn't have in the first place if you didn't allow yourself to be c.ucked. She suffers no loss, see you idiots don't realize that your relationship model functions on the premise that men and women are equal and have equal power in dating........ and we don't, women have more oppurtunity and power, women GET PAID to date while men usually have to PAY, even if you were trying to have sex with other women you'd never be able to do it as much as her with the an even remotely close success rate.
The money she spends on you doesn't count, because she's getting it from the guys she's fucking, the money you spend on her comes from your wallet, again moron you're the only person at a loss in this relationship, you're the ONLY PERSON SACRIFICING, she DOES NOT LOVE YOU.
>She's not that type of girl; if she was I wouldn't be with her.
Dude, do you know how many men onthis fucking plant have been cheated on and said the same shit you said, everyone thinks they know someone but you don't because:
1. People only show sides of themselves that they want you to see
2. People change over time, so the person you knew today is not the same person you THINK you know next few years
>>24797965
metric you're just triggered by a dude saying he would rape that girl
it's like when someone, as a minority sees someone post some joke post with a minority supposedly doing something heinous, and someone saying like "I would have killed that stupid fucking -racist expletive- for doing that", then they respond like respond like
">imblying that isn't a joke/something that would retract their crazy statement"
i know how your mind works
>>24803778
So you're worried about the money? I guess I can kind of understand that, but I don't really care about it because again, it's not as bad as you're making it out to be.
>Dude, do you know how many men onthis fucking plant have been cheated on
I know that a lot of people have been cheated on, yes. This world isn't really ideal. But I do something which many couples do in order to work it out: I trust her.
You could be right, I could just be a little slave to her, she could actually mock me and see me as little more than an ATM made of flesh, but I am the one who interacts with her, not you, and it is up to me to see whether she is or isn't this way.
She's a genuine loving person and fun to be around with, she's also beautiful and also knows herself to be free. That's what I know about her; if it was all a facade well, then, tough shit I guess.
>>24797807
t-that picture is a setup right?
>>24803882
>But I do something which many couples do in order to work it out: I trust her.
Kek but there's nothing to work out moron, you've sanctioned her cheating, she may never leave you because you are the perfect pathetic idiot to use and control baka, it would be like throwing away a slave.
>but I am the one who interacts with her, not you, and it is up to me to see whether she is or isn't this way.
Lets be honest here, you aren't going to investigate or shit, you're just saying this, it isn't up to you because you're a submissive sad fuck, it isn't in you to even attempt to see if she is genuine because you're afraid of losing her (which ironically would only benefit you).
>She's a genuine loving person and fun to be around with, she's also beautiful and also knows herself to be free. That's what I know about her; if it was all a facade well, then, tough shit I guess.
Do yourself a favor and look into the guys she's fucking, try to figure out how she talks about you when you aren't there, get yourself tested regularly for stds, if she gets pregnant get a paternity test no matter want (unless you want to be the literal original definition of a c.uck - man who unknowingly raises another man's child)
To tell you the truth, If I ever met you in real life, I'd rape her and then kill both of you.......... hope you take my advice though, would be really fucked up if you were so faithful just to get aids or something and have your life ruined forever (all for the sake of being a slave). You do understand that you are a radical feminists wet dream, a man with no back bone, who gives you his money, dedicates himself exclusively to you and allows you to fuck whoever you want.
>>24804141
I'm pretty sure a feminist actually wants a man to take her by force. At least they give me that feeling that they desperately want a powerful man to put their foot down and tell them to shut the fuck up.
>Kek but there's nothing to work out moron, you've sanctioned her cheating, she may never leave you because you are the perfect pathetic idiot to use and control baka, it would be like throwing away a slave.
Well, I respect her and her choices, to you this is a bad thing and follows all those terms. But yeah, she's with me because it's convenient. Again, I don't think it's possible to be entirely selfless.
>Lets be honest here, you aren't going to investigate or shit, you're just saying this, it isn't up to you because you're a submissive sad fuck, it isn't in you to even attempt to see if she is genuine because you're afraid of losing her (which ironically would only benefit you).
You're right, I won't bother doing this because I trust her.
>Do yourself a favor and look into the guys she's fucking, try to figure out how she talks about you when you aren't there, get yourself tested regularly for stds, if she gets pregnant get a paternity test no matter want (unless you want to be the literal original definition of a c.uck - man who unknowingly raises another man's child)
She uses contraceptives, and I do test myself for STDs from time to time. Even then, she tells me she's making sure the people she fucks are always clean.
>To tell you the truth, If I ever met you in real life, I'd rape her and then kill both of you..........
edgy
>.........
Go back to reddit.
>>24804218
>entirely selfless.
She isn't even remotely selfless, its not even funny, she is the sole beneficiary in this relationship kek. You're the ONLY selfless person here and you are BEING ENTIRELY SELFLESS (ironically), In fact I'd wager you hate yourself and this is just some weird kind of self punishment.
>You're right, I won't bother doing this because I trust her
Since when did trusting someone automatically mean they were trustworthy............. exactly, please think with your brain and not your heart.
>edgy
Nah I'm serious, not being edgy, I would derive so much joy from raping such a whore and ridding the earth of someone so pathetic, there really needs to be a c.uck serial killer.
>Go back to reddit.
Never been part of the site, browsed a few times, haven't browsed that site since PhilosohpyOfRape page got removed (google it), so much lolz.
>>24804471
I actually got tired of this discussion.
I've been jesting all along.
You do sound kind of edgy though, and stop using to ellipses.......... like this, it's retarded.
By the way, if you're curious to know where I got my information from, I got them from hippy-faggot new-agers that are as sex obsessed as the catholic church, a clear indication that they have fucked up.
Anyways anon, your arguments are weak, but I do agree keks are pathetic as fuck.
