Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Marriage. It's Possible.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Thanks. We're still working out the bugs in our parenting contract. I have made three lists. The first two involve all the potential subjects we will run into as parents (one for a son and one for a daughter). Next to each of those subjects, her and I have put either an M (mother) or an F (father), denoting who will be the primary parent and the secondary parent on that specific subject. What the primary parent says on that subject is final, thus avoiding any arguments about how to raise the kids, both in front of the kids and behind closed doors. That will be settled before they are even conceived.

    The third list is a detailed strategy for how to deal with sexual issues when our children reach puberty. She wants to straightforwardly raise them in a sex-positive home, whereas I say that we need to learn the individual psychologies of each of our children and tailor our sex-positive strategies to each child, as some teenagers think something is only cool if it involves rebellion against their parents' values, necessitating reverse psychology on that child if we want him/her to become sexually liberated.

    But in any case, as soon as we resolve these hiccups and commit them to paper, it's pregnancy time!

    It would be beneficial to have a thread on this, outlining your criteria and how you found the girl, the progression to OLTR, and then all this detail on parental agreements.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by NWP View Post
      But because I'm not "sex-neutral" (unlike you), I don't see the equivalence. I think, considering the specific content of this specific forum, I'm on firmer ground trashing the prudes and exulting the "sluts." By contrast, a man who insults the "sluts" and idolizes the prudes is out of place here and would be happier on a more conservative site.

      Our constant miscommunication on this issue precisely stems from your sex-neutral desire to see bashing the prudes as the equivalent of bashing the "sluts," as if both are equally out of place considering the social context of this forum. But I say, the social context of this forum puts my Whore/Madonna on firmer ground than a man's Madonna/Whore, hence our disagreement. Our current Internet location matters!
      The essence of M/W is dividing women into "madonnas" and "whores" and you are very vocal about that. Whether this is appropriate or not is subjective, my personal take is that attaching too much negative thoughts to people who are not using any kind of aggression towards you is non-productive, especially for pickup. That's why I don't attach too much emotions to such a distinction even if it is mathematically somewhat valid.

      Originally posted by NWP View Post
      Very interesting article. Although, if you read it carefully, "settling down" doesn't have to mean monogamy or marriage. It just means finding a life partner to move in with and have kids (what I'm doing now). I'm not trashing "settling down." I'm trashing only marriage and monogamy. Cohabitation and having kids is cool with me, as I'm about to find out personally.
      No of course it doesn't imply neither marriage nor monogamy, however it does imply that many people will place less value on fucking around at some point, which will affect such decisions as whether to go mono.

      Originally posted by NWP View Post
      No. Sexuality is the beginning, but not the end. First I establish if the woman and I are compatible sexually. If we're not, I drop her like a hot potato. If we are, then, assuming she pleases me during the fuck buddy stage, we may move beyond just sexuality and into higher states of rapport and a multi-dimensional spiritual connection (like I have with my girlfriend). But it has to start with sexual compatibility. Without it, everything else is worthless. With it, everything else becomes worthwhile (at least potentially).

      And no, I do not believe in platonic friendship with women.
      Well I have absolutely no need to fuck every woman in my social circles and many of them are OK to just have around. Only weak guys get exploited by friendzoning/platonic friendships etc so even when I also don't "believe" in them, I don't worry about that either.

      Originally posted by NWP View Post
      Perhaps, but it does equal a girl who isn't my type.
      Thats fine, however you seem to make the assumption that other PU guys will necessarily dislike such girls, which I think is blatantly false. Maybe you associate them with Christian nutjobs who are much less common here.

      Originally posted by NWP View Post
      This is where I take the more Blackdragon hard line about hoarding one woman's body from others in a world with billions of women as automatically being a sign of neediness, scarcity, and oneitis.
      That is a buch of reasons that may be true in many cases, however there is another one that is more valid even for cool guys and that is investment. Which you don't have with billions of people.

      Originally posted by NWP View Post
      It used to work, but with the laws being what they are (especially in America), I'd say it's not very smart to have children within monogamy. A woman who is poly, red pill, and super sexually open minded is waaaayyy less likely to ass rape you in family court or demand an unreasonable amount of child support.
      You are the expert on US law and you are most likely correct that the legal issues are much worse in the US than many other Western countries. Here in Scandinavia you can't just sue people for ridiculous amounts of money over neither these nor other issues (damages are rewarded only for to your actual expenses, child support is a formula based on parent's incomes etc), and the major danger here is not seeing your kids or having them grow up with some nutjob as stepfather (or no father) so this probably explains why I have a different view on this.

      Originally posted by NWP View Post
      In my experience, women in the poly community love men too much to get into these types of wars with them. Mainstream women are way more problematic, especially if you want kids. I have yet to hear a horror story from the poly community concerning the husband/boyfriend/father getting legally screwed.
      I suspect this may boil down to a base rate fallacy simply that you will have much more spectacularly bad behaviour outliers in the much larger mono-community due to its sheer size, but if you have some numbers on long-term poly outcomes I would love to hear about it.

      Originally posted by NWP View Post
      I have every reason to worry about a Muslim invasion because I'm sex-positive, unlike those morons on Roosh's forum who want the same lifestyle as the Muslims enforce. So they have no reason to hate the Muslims, as they are ideological brothers (and yet they seem to hate them the most, which is strange).
      I'll leave the religious debate here as it is simply off-topic, however this is nothing new at all, that people with similar or close to identical views but different allegiances/interests may end up in fierce conflicts like religious wars.

      Originally posted by NWP View Post
      Thanks. We're still working out the bugs in our parenting contract. I have made three lists. The first two involve all the potential subjects we will run into as parents (one for a son and one for a daughter). Next to each of those subjects, her and I have put either an M (mother) or an F (father), denoting who will be the primary parent and the secondary parent on that specific subject. What the primary parent says on that subject is final, thus avoiding any arguments about how to raise the kids, both in front of the kids and behind closed doors. That will be settled before they are even conceived.

      The third list is a detailed strategy for how to deal with sexual issues when our children reach puberty. She wants to straightforwardly raise them in a sex-positive home, whereas I say that we need to learn the individual psychologies of each of our children and tailor our sex-positive strategies to each child, as some teenagers think something is only cool if it involves rebellion against their parents' values, necessitating reverse psychology on that child if we want him/her to become sexually liberated.

      But in any case, as soon as we resolve these hiccups and commit them to paper, it's pregnancy time!
      Interestingly, such contracts do not exist in my country, another reason why we probably differ somewhat in opinion on this issue (meaning that you are less likely to get financially screwed here but more likely to lose contact with your kids).

      Thanks for a lot of interesting points!

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Impulse View Post
        Yes, socially constructed fictions are designed to keep betas in line, and therefore they should be kept.

        The betas need to be kept in line. Society needs to be kept in line. Social constructs are useful constructs for mind control of the masses.

        Marriage today creates the illusion of a solid contract, whereas it isn't really as you can get out of it etc

        However, as a social control device its very useful, and therefore it should be kept.
        But then why are you promoting it here? We're all alphas or aspiring alphas here. Why would you want to get married if you know that it's just a tool to control the beta population. Are you a beta?

        If someone refuses to have sex with you, they have refused and there's nothing you can do about that. No means no. If you suddenly start threatening with homelessness etc, obviously you cross the line.
        But wait a minute. You said that concubines are your live-in employees. You are their boss. So if they say no to sex, you're saying you wouldn't fire them? And even if you wouldn't, do you think they'd feel comfortable risking it by saying no, since you are, after all, their boss? This creates a power imbalance by which many women would feel uncomfortable saying no even if they want to because this isn't just their place of employment - it's also the place they live and they don't want to lose that! There is no way a woman can say no under those conditions, which is why I accused you of promoting rape.

        The concubines arent kept just for sex..they are basically house maids that go about their business, doing the cooking and cleaning etc. You are adding in false western conceptions once again and failing to realise the reality.
        But why does a woman have to live with you in order for you to have sex with her? Can't you just go on tinder? Do you have to be imprisoned in the same house as her in order for you to have a successful sex life? Yes, I'm putting a "western conception" on this, because I am a westerner. Aren't you? If you hate the West so much, there are plenty of third world countries that accommodate your primitive beliefs.

        Nobody is threatening anyone, that seems to be some assumption you've made out of the blue.
        Yes, because saying no to the boss whom you live with will not make for a friendly work environment. That's why you can't be sure if her "yes" was genuine, or simply the result of pressure from her circumstances. You not caring about that makes you an indirect rapist at best.

        Refusal is refusal, end of story. Your adding additional things to complicate a picture which isn't complicated at all.
        I'm pointing out the logical implications of your hypothetical lifestyle setup, which you are ignoring. Most bosses wouldn't continue employing and housing their maids if the maids said no to sex, and even if they would, the maids may reasonably feel like they can't take that risk, so they'll say yes even though they don't want to. And your lack of caring about that makes you a rapist under the "depraved indifference" standard of justice.

        Lol, aren't you the one who said "Jesus Christ dude!" in your reply to me above? LOL LOL
        It's called being ironic and using his name in vain. Are you autistic?

        Again, see above..where the hell did this nonsense of starvation and death etc come from? Something you've just made up out of the blue if im honest
        I explained my logic above. You are just ignoring the implications behind your own desired setup.

        Your not understanding how traditional society works, or how men and women work on those societies. Women in traditional societies are feminised and submissive. MASSIVELY submissive. What that means is if your living with some concubines she's gonna spread her legs pretty easily...
        First of all, we don't live in a "traditional society" (thank goodness). You aching to return to that shit makes your personality fundamentally incompatible with this forum, which makes me wonder what the fuck you're doing here!

        Second, there are still "traditional societies" in the third world. Why don't you then leave the West and go there?

        Third, even in those societies where women were "massively submissive," you think they were that way from a position of strength? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, they had to be that way because external circumstances wouldn't permit them to survive any other way? The answer is probably both, depending on the individual woman, but that still leaves a certain percentage of women who were only pretending to be submissive because they had to put food on their table. And don't forget the lesbians who had to fuck men for food. These women - even if they were a minority - could be described as rape victims, because they had no choice (consensual sex is about choice).

        And you not caring about that and wanting to replicate those exact circumstances in which women's choices are limited makes you an indirect rapist at best via depraved indifference.

        Sex between men and women is something natural - it happens when a man and a woman are in a room together. If you leave a man and a woman in a room together who are playing their natural roles, sex is eventually going to happen.
        I agree. But you must be more discriminating and individualistic in your judgment of specific cases and circumstances because not all women are like this necessarily, even in traditionally ordered societies where the lesbians had to grit their teeth and let a man fuck them in order to avoid starvation.

        What your doing is bringing in this feminazi nonsense that women shouldnt be women and desire sex.
        I never said women shouldn't desire sex. I said that their desire is non-existent or doesn't count, unless it's genuine. And you can't tell if it's genuine unless the woman is able to say no to you without any negative financial, professional, or physical consequences. Yes, women should, and do, desire sex, but only from a sincere position of psychological strength, not because they are being pressured by their life circumstances.

        Your saying that women shouldnt desire sex or get in touch with their horny sexual desires,
        I'm saying the opposite. They absolutely should! But they have no way of knowing if their horniness is real, or if it's just their bodies tricking them because their bodies don't want to be deprived of food. That's why women should be financially independent and the economy should be gender neutral - not to squash female sexuality, but precisely to get to know it sincerely and genuinely!

        and be natural, feminine, SUBMISSIVE women, which is the type of women you find in concubine societies.
        Seriously, you really need to consider moving to Saudi Arabia. And stop polluting a modern, western, sex-positive forum.

        Sex happens when a man and a woman are in a room together. END OF. Its biology, its instinctual.
        In general yes. But you need to tailor this general principle to the specific woman you're in the room with. Some women are different from other women. Don't impose collective tyranny (an abstract concept) on a human individual (the only thing that's real)

        All this other bullshit your coming out with is feminazi nonsense and YOU are the one who is slut shaming. You are saying its wrong for a woman to somehow desire sex

        No I'm not!
        I'm saying that a human being - man or woman - can't know what he or she really wants unless the decision is made from a position of psychological strength, as distinguished from a decision made due to pressure from their external circumstances. I want to get to the know the real woman, not the person her poverty is forcing her to be, even against her own will.

        I want a society - largely the one we have now - where we all sincerely know each other and ourselves. Whereas you want a society where people's choices are dictated to them due to a lack of alternative desirable options. You don't really know that concubine - and she doesn't really know herself - until you free her from her burdens and then see what she freely chooses.

        A primitive life where human personalities are shaped and molded by animalistic necessities - thus reducing human consciousness - is a despicable life! I can't believe you want that!

        (which is whats natural for her) just because she is living in a concubine society.
        Just because she is dependent on you financially, and for her very living arrangements! She can't make an objective choice because she's too dependent on you to think clearly. If she really is horny for you, it's just a coincidence. Is that really the type of sex you want to have? Wouldn't you prefer a woman who says yes to you even though she isn't dependent on you in any way, thus proving that she must really like you sincerely? Isn't that more satisfying?

        You are also saying a woman shouldnt be a natural submissive feminine woman and desire sex from a masculine man. That is the most natural of all things, and you are shaming that with all this feminazi crap, talking about rape and death!!
        She can be a natural submissive woman all she wants, as long as she knows she won't suffer if she chooses not to be, thus proving that her choice to be feminine is based on her true and natural personality. That proof is needed to avoid rape!

        Sex is about instinct and biology. It is what you do because its how our species works.
        Yes, but this consideration dissolves when you boil it down to a specific woman potentially wanting to have sex with a specific man or not.

        Put a man and a woman in a cage together, planet of the apes style. A masculine dominant man and a feminine submissive woman (which are there natural roles) = sex.
        In general, that's true, but not with every woman. And even if it were true, I still wouldn't do it. I resent the idea that a woman is fucking me due to a lack of options because we're both stranded on a deserted island together. I'd first need reassurance that she'd choose me even if we weren't alone together. Otherwise, I feel pathetic, like an unattractive chump who got lucky. I don't want to have sex for that reason. I want a woman to genuinely want me!

        Dude, human rights is a social construct, like that marriage stuff you were saying above.
        You and others saying this is very chilling. This tells me that you REALLY need to move to Saudi Arabia since your entire personality is wholly incompatible with western values.

        Human rights is used as a device to control the betas...so that society stays in line and can be easily controlled.
        Human rights is used to prevent us from degenerating into savages!

        Ideas like human rights, freedom and liberty is talked about so that people have AN ILLUSION that they are in control of their lives, that they decide and choose. But the reality is, they are being controlled.
        Then the solution is give them real control, whereas your solution is to dispense with the idea of human rights altogether. Again, I think a third world shithole is best for you.

        Human rights are violated by those who harp on about human rights all the time. Human rights changes as and when, to suit the needs of the elite. They spout this nonsense to control the betas so you don't see what's really happening behind the scenes.
        Of course I see what's happening. I'm perfectly aware that powerful men hypocritically use the concept of human rights to pacify morons while they violate everyone's human rights. But this doesn't invalidate the human rights concept. Rather, it invalidates those powerful men!

        Again, your getting confused...

        Being an employee and this idea of you having choice and it being voluntary is a social construct and illusion to control people, just like what you said about marriage.
        In the West, being a specific person's employee is voluntary. In countries that have concubines, the concubine doesn't have many options.

        You can choose to not be productive to society here in the West, but then don't complain about being homeless just because you refused to make yourself useful to other people! Why are you entitled to food, water, a roof, etc... for literally nothing?

        You dont need to hone any skills. You dont need to become self employed. You dont have to do anything. So why do people become employees or do all these things? That's right, because they are socially conditioned!!...they are following social constructs and getting betaised to the wishes of the elite.
        They are doing it because they aren't entitled to food, water, shelter, and all the things they want otherwise. Socialism is for spoiled little brats!

        People actually don't have choice. They have the ILLUSION of choice. They think they are making choices and doing things because they want to, but what's actually happening is that they are following social constructs, and their mind is being controlled.
        So what's the alternative? Do nothing? And live a comfortable life for free? You think you're rightfully entitled to that? Get the fuck out of here dude! Talk about being a Marxist!

        Why did you have to work for someone in the first place? Why does work even exist? Why did you have to go self-employed? Those are all social constructs to control the betas, and you are buying into it big time.
        In a perfect world, what should I do instead? Nothing? And be entitled to free necessities, comforts, and luxuries? For nothing? Dude, you talk like a spoiled 5 year old!
        Last edited by NWP; 04-25-2017, 09:11 AM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by DJ_Z View Post
          Yeah, way to be so open-minded that you want to script how to best indoctrinate your child.
          Indoctrinate? Are you suggesting that sex-positivism is wrong or incorrect brainwashing? I am not, nor have I ever been, sex-neutral.

          It'd be a real shame of they grew up and made their own decisions that you may not possibly like.
          Most people make their own decisions based on societal programming. And most people end up miserable. You may not care about the happiness of your future children (if any), but I believe in this crazy thing called "loving and raising your children with good values." When they turn 18, they can make whatever decisions they want, and it will be beyond my legal power to stop them. Until then, I will do everything in my power to ensure my children's present and future happiness, even if it includes reverse psychology or deception when their brains are not yet fully formed to comprehend honest and rational arguments.

          If your attitude is to leave your own kids to their own devices and never give them any guidance on how they should live or what it would be good for them to want (resulting in a high probability of them ending up as blue pill drones), I sincerely hope you sterilize yourself.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Supernova View Post

            From my observation, don't have the stats or reference on this, but they were designed to make sure everyone had a piece of the pie. If only the top 20% of men could fuck all the women this would suck for the 80% (this is pareto's law and how I believe nature would procreate if done naturally). So, they would inevitably band together and create this social/legal contract where every man could have just one woman.


            I agree that monogamy is superior to polygamy (for the reasons that you just explained). My point is that monogamy is inferior to polyamory. If there's going to be any sexual exclusivity than it should be limited to just one woman per man, since, like you said, everyone deserves "a piece of the pie" instead of a few men at the top hoarding all the women. But the superior option would be to not have any sexual exclusivity at all (polyamory). In this way, you sleeping with five girls doesn't prevent me from sleeping with them also. No one's hoarding anyone. The women on your rotation aren't "taken" by you, at least not in the sexual sense. Everyone is sexually available to everyone else, no matter who they may also be sleeping with.

            So from worst to best system:

            1. Polygamy (whether Polyginy or Polyandry)
            2. Bigamy
            3. Monogamy (exclusive unconditional)
            4. Monogamy (cheating)
            5. Monogamy(exclusive conditional)
            6. Don't ask, don't tell
            7. Polyamory (one way)
            8. Polyamory (inclusive conditional)
            9. Polyamory (both ways - inclusive unconditional)

            I do agree that marriage should be kept. Society would be in upheaval if there was no such thing.
            Marriage would be replaced with private contracts and "limited liability family corporations(tm)." I think this would be better since everyone would be able to design their own definition of "family" by simply getting enough people to agree to being called "family." This would bring freedom and creativity to the family concept and the chokehold of traditionalism and strict IRS regulations would be nullified.

            People would be fucking, getting jealous of each other, killing, and other terrible shit.
            Marriage is on life support already as it is. It's being replaced with monogamous cohabitation and the rejection of governmental participation. No one is eating each other's brains man! Or degenerating into barbarism just because people no longer want government pieces of paper. It won't be that bad, lol.

            Eventually it would be barbaric where the strongest men 20% would only get the women.
            Polygamy is regressive even by monogamy's standards. I didn't say people are rejecting monogamy (although many are and I certainly am). I said they're rejecting a government love permit called "marriage." No, this won't lead to lord of the flies. That's just societal programming.

            While this might evolutionarily be good it also fuck up current day society as we know it. People would be less productive, they wouldn't work as much, as the betas wouldn't be socially programmed to work
            You're making a great case against polygamy (which no one here even mentioned). All the problems you cite could be fixed with polyamory. If the betas aren't cut out for it, then monogamy is the solution for them. But monogamy doesn't imply government paperwork.

            and us such this marriage thing is actually a good thing.
            No. You just proved that monogamy is a good thing for betas, not marriage or government certificates. Although I believe many betas can also embrace open/polyamorous arrangements with enough cultural backing.

            A good thing that we can also take advantage of if we don't do it. Let the betas believe in it. This is just like wealth where people sell you shit with the belief that it is something.
            I can see myself being persuaded that the betas aren't cut out for polyamory or open relationships. So they need monogamy in order to prevent society from degenerating into chaos. But these are cultural considerations which become irrelevant when they enter the legal sphere with my tax dollars. I don't want my tax money going to someone else's superstitious ceremonies, or receiving a tax break from the IRS for having a type of sex life I reject. Marriage is the government discriminating against me (in terms of taxes and benefits) for how I run my sex life, which seems to violate the 9th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

            Marriage, therefore, needs to be at least privatized COMPLETELY! Then we can talk about cultural considerations and how to pacify the beta sheep.

            Sex for sex is really the best way to go, but this commonly doesn't happen. Sometimes it is sex for dinner, sometimes it is sex for taking care of the kids, sometimes it is sex for validation, sometimes it is sex for getting back at the ex boyfriend. It would be exhausting to list all of them and it really is unfair to judge someone on why they have sex. Like anything that happens in every relationship, it is a value exchange.
            Disagree. If you're an alpha, sex for sex is really the only legitimate sex. Sex for everything else that you just described above is beta. If a man chooses to be beta, that's one thing, but if the predominant reason a woman is sleeping with him is NOT because she's horny for him, he really shouldn't call himself an alpha (at least not with her).

            Originally posted by Supernova View Post
            It would be beneficial to have a thread on this, outlining your criteria and how you found the girl,
            You know exactly how I found her.

            the progression to OLTR, and then all this detail on parental agreements.
            Much of that is splattered all over this forum going back years. But if you want a very specific and concise chronology of events (from first meeting to first sex, to fuck buddy, to friend with benefits, to MLTR, to OLTR, to live in OLTR, to mother), I guess I can do that (barring a fuzzy memory on some of the specifics that occurred years ago), but I would probably post that in Journals for you.

            Let me know if you'd be interested in a thread like that and maybe give me more specific guidelines on how concrete and detailed you want it to be, what you want me to emphasize, etc...

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by NWP View Post
              But then why are you promoting it here? We're all alphas or aspiring alphas here. Why would you want to get married if you know that it's just a tool to control the beta population. Are you a beta?
              This is a forum about FUCKING GIRLS! There are multiple posters who fuck girls without being "alpha or aspiring alpha," in fact the most effective guy at getting his dick wet celebrates the fact that he is not alpha: Teeves.

              So many lose the damn script and insert an agenda. "Are you beta?" That's the wrong question. The relevant question is "Do you fuck girls? What game gets your dick the most wet with the hottest girls?" Your use of "alpha" here is just bullshit posturing and ISN'T EVEN TRUE ALPHA.

              Why? Because as a TRUE alpha male, IE a leader of men, you would recognize that ALL males need their sex, or at least a fair shot at it, or all of society declines because 80ish% of males will be suffering from hopelessness and rejection and unreleased sexual angst at all times, and thus life for everyone, including the alpha, gets worse. (Assuming a free society, you can of course go China-style and enslave all the sexless men and throw them into Apple and Samsung factories. That's the ethic-less alpha move.)

              The 80/20 mark is close to inevitable, so even if you train the full 80% on how to get more pussy and open up full polygamy for all with no judgement as the societal standard, the top 20% of men will STILL fuck all the girls, there will ALWAYS be a top 20%. No matter what, a society will be dealing with 80% of men being on the short end of sex. This is Darwinism at work, which is inescapable.

              So, as a TRUE alpha, a leader of men, I'm all about a system that gets average joe his one slice of pussy to hit here and there for some of his life. That's the best he's capable of doing and all of society needs it. Has nothing to do with me, I fuck as a please, but I'm glad its there for those who need it, which is most.

              Comment


              • #67
                teevester is alpha (but he is just not the typical muscular, masculine, macho type)

                Lover VS Provider” Theory And The M/W Complex By Teevester aka Tva_oslo:
                Women are seeking two types of mates – call it different providers. Consider sex being a trade, what you are trading for the sex defines what kind of provider you are. The men women are seeking who are confident, independent, attractive having a lot of women chasing them are called “sex providers” – this is the man women finds sexually attractive – the man who women would like to have sex just for the sake of having sex. These men are often behaving sexually toward women, making themselves being perceived as sexual beings – sex providers. This type of men is usually called “alpha males” or “lovers” in community lingo. Important to point out, these men are trading sex for sex.

                Comment


                • #68
                  a little bit of a derrail nwp, if you could break down all these models please, when you get chance:

                  So from worst to best system:

                  1. Polygamy (whether Polyginy or Polyandry)
                  2. Bigamy
                  3. Monogamy (exclusive unconditional)
                  4. Monogamy (cheating)
                  5. Monogamy(exclusive conditional)
                  6. Don't ask, don't tell
                  7. Polyamory (one way)
                  8. Polyamory (inclusive conditional)
                  9. Polyamory (both ways - inclusive unconditional)

                  Thank you...

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Skills360 View Post
                    if you could break down all these models please, when you get chance:
                    Anything for you Skills (no homo):

                    1. Polygamy (whether Polyginy or Polyandry)
                    Polygamy is being sexually exclusive with three or more people. This means there's a minimum total of four people in the relationship (known as a quad). A man being sexually exclusive with three or more women is known as polyginy. A woman being sexually exclusive with three or more men is known as polyandry. It is, by far, the worst system, since this means that a small group of men get to hoard all the women (polyginy) or a small group of women get to hoard all the men (polyandry).

                    2. Bigamy
                    Bigamy is being sexually exclusive with two people (a woman with two men or a man with two women). This is also known as a triad.

                    3. Monogamy (exclusive unconditional)
                    This is when a man and a woman are sexually exclusive with each other, no exceptions.

                    4. Monogamy (cheating)
                    This is when one man and one woman are officially sexually exclusive, but one or both of them is/are sleeping with another, or others, on the side, in violation of the monogamous rules of the relationship without the other partner's knowledge.

                    5. Monogamy(exclusive conditional)
                    This is a monogamous relationship in which the man and the woman are largely monogamous, but they make either regular or occasional exceptions for hierarchy threesomes.

                    Note: A hierarchy threesome is two primaries and one secondary, as distinguished from equal or egalitarian threesomes when it's just three equal fuck buddies or friends with benefits.

                    6. Don't ask, don't tell
                    This is when the relationship is officially monogamous, but both partners suspect that one or both of them are cheating on each other and are ok with it as long as it is not acknowledged or verbalized in any way and the two can mutually live in denial about their monogamy and make sure they don't get caught.

                    7. Polyamory (one way)
                    This when the open relationship is one sided. For example, the man may sleep with other women, but the woman must remain monogamous to him. That's the alpha 1.0 way. Or when the woman may sleep with other men, while her boyfriend must remain monogamous to her. That makes the man a cuckold.

                    8. Polyamory (inclusive conditional)
                    This is when the two may sleep with other people as long as they do it together and in front of each other, but not separately. So, they may have threesomes, foursomes, foursomes with one spare (five people), orgies (6 or more people all fucking each other), group sex (having sex with only one other person, but in a group where others are having sex with their own partners), swingers parties involving partner switching, and the like. But they may not sleep with someone else if their primary partner isn't in the room watching (and preferably participating).

                    9. Polyamory (both ways - inclusive unconditional)
                    This is what is typically known as an open relationship (OLTR) around here. The two are emotionally exclusive (primaries), but may have sex with other people (both together and separately), but those other people must either be secondaries (friends with benefits) or tertiaries (fuck buddies or one night stands). MLTRs are not allowed.

                    Note: Technically, an MLTR, where you can be both sexually and emotionally inclusive is a form of polyamory also, as well as a very rare form of polyamory with multiple OLTRs if you are capable of being in love with more than one person (though most people aren't).

                    Cheers!






















                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Impulse View Post
                      Im not promoting anything. Im just saying you aren't seeing the fuller picture of why things are the way they are, and whats actually happening in the big scheme.
                      You referred to yourself in the first person when you said it's "scandalous" that you can't marry more than one woman. You clearly want marriage, even though you admitted that it's just a tool to control betas.

                      If a woman is isolated in a corner of the bar with my tongue down her throat, she can't say no under those conditions either
                      I'm trying to decide whether you're being deliberately obtuse, or just genuinely retarded. Dude, she chose to kiss you. You had no financial or logistical hold over her. She knew she could refuse to kiss you with zero consequences because you're not her boss or landlord. So it was consensual.

                      So by your logic, tonguing down at the bar can also put you in the rape category
                      LOL! See above.

                      You are just changing the goal posts whenever you see fit, without realising the deeper rabbit hole
                      No, not whenever I see fit. If you have zero physical, professional, financial, or logistical hold over her, it's consensual.

                      This is bullshit and you making stuff up again. You dont know whats going on her head anyway. If you take a woman out of a nightclub or a bar, how do you know that yes was genuine there either? Are you able to read her mind?
                      I know the "yes" was genuine because I have no power over her. I'm not in charge of her money or living arrangements. I have no power to fire her or make her homeless. I have no power to do anything to her if she says no. But she's still saying yes by choosing to go home with me from the club. That's how I know it's consensual.

                      "Genuine" cant be measured
                      Yes it can. Don't control her money or where she lives. Make sure she's not dependent on you for anything. If she still fucks you, it's obviously genuine. Is this so hard to grasp?

                      Women in western societies arent coming from a position of strength.

                      Women are told what to wear, who to date, how to act, what to pay attention to.
                      As long as they're not told BY YOU there's no problem. If they choose to be influenced by commercials, movies, TV shows, and pop culture, that's their problem too. Those cultural institutions have no leverage over them either, unlike their boss in charge of their money and house!

                      Women do things based on their feelings..and if you change her feelings you change her decisions

                      If someone were to isolate a woman in the corner of the bar and put their arm around her, that is changing her emotions to create the response I want. Is this "coming from a position of strength" or not, if im affecting her emotions?
                      Yes, it's coming from a position of strength because you have no leverage over her. She can pull away if she chooses. But she can't pull away from her boss because she might lose her job and her home.

                      Where do you draw the line between affecting her emotions to create an outcome versus allowing her a clear judgement without her having biased emotions to affect it?
                      Every adult is responsible for their emotions. No one can influence her emotions unless she allowed it on some level. Her emotions are fair game. What's NOT fair game is her money and her physical/economic/logistical dependence on you. That's where you draw the line.

                      How do you measure between those lines when emotions arent easy to measure anyway? How do you measure whether her judgement is genuine, strong, weak or not?
                      Every therapist will tell you that you have a responsibility to take ownership of your own feelings. If you change her feelings, that's on her, not on you. But you have no right to manipulate her by, even implicitly, blackmailing her by using her house, her job, or her money as leverage! That's unconscionable and rapey!

                      Again, seems you are talking about things which you have no way of knowing yourself, because accurate measurement of these arbitrary concepts doesnt exist
                      Not when it comes to emotions. But again, that's fair game because she has an adult responsibility to have those under control. If she doesn't and you can change her emotional state, that's her problem, not yours. Emotional manipulation is always consensual, on some level. Financial, physical, or logistical manipulation is not.

                      See what I just wrote above..women in western society are being influenced all the time. They are not making objective choices at all
                      If they're being emotionally influenced, it's because they're allowing it. But you have no business, as her boss, asking for sex when, from her point of view, saying no might cost her her job! She's not expected to control something like her job that you are the legal owner of. Get it?

                      Under your definition, the only way to avoid rape is to hook up women to some EEG machine and determine from here precisely whether they're saying yes or no.
                      You're being retarded again. Under my definition, the only way to avoid rape is to make sure you're not in a power or authority position over her with respect to something way more concrete than her stupid feelings - her home, her car, her job, her money, her career, etc... In short, you may not have any concrete leverage over her. So called "emotional leverage" doesn't count because she's in full control of that (or as an adult, she's supposed to be - that's the psychological difference between an adult and a child!).

                      Rape is when you attack a woman to get sex. Simple as that.
                      Or if you leave her no choice due to professional or financial leverage. The law recognizes that as "quid pro quo sexual harassment," not rape, but I believe the law is wrong. If you threaten her with something more concrete than emotional or social stigma (like loss of employment), you're a rapist! But I agree that emotional persuasion is fine since we should be expected to control our emotions, unless we don't want to (in which case, it's consensual by default).

                      Under your definition earlier, walking out of a bar with a woman and going home with her would be classified as rape, which makes you totally unsuitable for this forum.
                      Yes, that would make me unsuitable for this forum....if I believed that. But I don't because that wouldn't be classified as rape. She chose to leave the bar with you and fuck you, despite you having zero concrete leverage over her. So it's all good.

                      You are throwing around the rape card far too cheaply and dont realise your talking nonsense.
                      I'm reflecting both rape and sexual harassment law in America.

                      Women are influenced and coerced through the forces of society to act and think a certain way.
                      I'm not talking about influence or psychological coercion. All of us are influenced and emotionally coerced all the time. Whether we give in or resist dictates our values and separates the weak (those whose values shouldn't be respected because they have no emotional strength behind their convictions) from the strong (those whose values should be respected because they reinforced their will with emotional strength).

                      All of that is fair game because it represents the essence of justice. Rather I'm talking about financial coercion, physical coercion, professional coercion, and logistical coercion (being the owner of her home) which is NOT fair game!

                      Taking her to the corner of the bar and getting her comfortable is changing her psychological state to affect the outcome you want. You have just said that is rape.
                      No I have not said that that's rape. I've said the opposite. Her psychological state is her responsibility to let you control or not. But having concrete leverage over her is a no-no. I'm against physical, concrete leverage (like money), not emotions, which are her responsibility in any case.

                      I dont know why your throwing the Saudi Arabia card...its a totally different system and way of viewing things than the way you are. I think Saudi Arabia would do you good, because then you'd realise that what you're saying (in terms of any negative conceptions) applies equally to Western society as well..you are just shifting the colors of the goal posts and calling them different when they aren't
                      I'm mentioning Saudi Arabia because you'd be happier there. You seem to hate the West and share the values of third world toilets.

                      Again, people don't have the control you're talking about...that's not how society works.
                      They do on an individualistic, case by case, level, and that's all that matters when it comes to making the decision to have sex with a specific person. Just be reassured that there is nothing they can do to you if you say no (because they are not in a position of legal authority over you, like your boss) and everything is fine.

                      There will always be people who are controlled and being controlled.
                      You're confusing the macro level with the micro one.

                      The underlying meaning in what I was saying is that people are controlled everywhere. It doesnt matter if you call them a concubine, slave or employee. People are being influenced and they are being controlled. To somehow magically think you have a utopia because your living in the west with all these fake ideals is hilarious
                      You're confusing the macro level with the micro one. Radical feminists think all sex is rape because they believe that "power differences between men and women make women not politically strong enough to consent in a patriarchal society." They are making the exact opposite mistake that you are making. They are trying to apply rules of collectivity to the individual by being blind to individual cases - seeing women as collective abstractions. By contrast, you are the opposite side of the same coin, saying that we're all controlled, so it's all good regardless. That's bad too! Both opposite extremes - yours and the radical feminists' - are wrong. You must apply and examine individual cases.

                      If an individual man has concrete leverage over an individual woman, she can't consent (radfems are right about that). But when they say that all women can't consent because all men have abstract leverage over all women due to "patriarchy," they are wrong, because they are imposing abstract collectivism on a macro scale at the expense of individual cases on the micro scale. You are making the opposite mistake by saying that since we may all be controlled on the societal scale, the individual scale doesn't matter in any case and it's all good no matter what (we're controlled in any case, so who cares?). That's wrong as well because it also imposes the macro on the micro just like radical Marxism (except from the opposite side).

                      The point im making is that the utopia your thinking exists because you have "human rights" and all this other social bullshit is an illusion.
                      We're far from utopia. But the western concept of human rights has made us far freer than any country outside the West.

                      In the perfect world, of course you would have everything you want...and more. But you cant have that in your magical Western society because these things are illusory in nature...fake conceptions of rights, freedom and liberty. People are still controlled
                      In a perfect world, I don't deserve everything I want unless I earn them. Having everything I want without merit isn't a perfect world. It's a decidedly imperfect and unjust one.

                      Saudi Arabian society on the other hand- the one your knocking right now...actually does believe in real utopia.. Its a different system where deeds done now lead to real utopia in the next life...one which isnt bound by the earthly limitations we see now.
                      In other words, sacrificing the real now for the fictional later. A brainwashing tactic used by prudish cults, like Islam. That is decidedly inferior and way more evil than any western illusions.

                      So, then it becomes a matter of perspective as to which view you want to follow, because they are different perspectives on essentially the same thing.
                      There is no moral equivalence between real happiness on Earth and a fictional happiness in an otherworldly Disney land.

                      To so easily knock different perspectives and not realise that the rabbit hole is deep and long winding tells me you're just arguing a biased view.
                      So are you. You're arguing the third world view.

                      I am not supporting one view or the other...
                      Yes you are, if your support for concubinage and polygamous marriage is any indication.

                      I am saying your view is flawed and biased and the things you're saying (in the negative) have to be applied equally across different conceptions of the world.
                      I do apply my view equally. While the West isn't perfect, I still consider it infinitely superior to the non-West by every possible measurement of freedom and happiness (medical, scientific, technological, political, philosophical, democratic, sexual etc...).

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by pureevil View Post
                        This is a forum about FUCKING GIRLS! There are multiple posters who fuck girls without being "alpha or aspiring alpha," in fact the most effective guy at getting his dick wet celebrates the fact that he is not alpha: Teeves.
                        Skills gave a good response to that. If girls are fucking him because they're horny for him, that makes him alpha (in that sense).

                        Why? Because as a TRUE alpha male, IE a leader of men, you would recognize that ALL males need their sex, or at least a fair shot at it, or all of society declines because 80ish% of males will be suffering from hopelessness and rejection and unreleased sexual angst at all times, and thus life for everyone, including the alpha, gets worse. (Assuming a free society, you can of course go China-style and enslave all the sexless men and throw them into Apple and Samsung factories. That's the ethic-less alpha move.)
                        I can be persuaded that betas need monogamy to keep them in line. But this forum should inspire to be better. There are mainstream forums that push the monogamy train (even if I do concede that monogamy is an absolute necessity for society to function). I'm saying here let's rise above.

                        The 80/20 mark is close to inevitable, so even if you train the full 80% on how to get more pussy and open up full polygamy


                        You mean polyamory, not polygamy.
                        for all with no judgement as the societal standard, the top 20% of men will STILL fuck all the girls, there will ALWAYS be a top 20%. No matter what, a society will be dealing with 80% of men being on the short end of sex. This is Darwinism at work, which is inescapable.

                        So, as a TRUE alpha, a leader of men, I'm all about a system that gets average joe his one slice of pussy to hit here and there for some of his life. That's the best he's capable of doing and all of society needs it. Has nothing to do with me, I fuck as a please, but I'm glad its there for those who need it, which is most.
                        For the purposes of this discussion I'll acknowledge and agree with all that. That still doesn't invalidate my two points:

                        1. This forum should be above the necessities of the mainstream betas.
                        2. My tax dollars shouldn't be going to tax breaks for beta lifestyles or superstitious ceremonies - hence the need to completely privatize marriage.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by NWP View Post
                          I can be persuaded that betas need monogamy to keep them in line. But this forum should inspire to be better. There are mainstream forums that push the monogamy train (even if I do concede that monogamy is an absolute necessity for society to function). I'm saying here let's rise above.
                          Ok I thought you were an activist for a full blown polygamous society.

                          If you're admitting the inevitable necessity of alphas needing to find a way for betas to be laid just enough to keep them in line, then yeah, I'm with you. The betas get their occasional piece, while the alphas can then set up whatever lives for themselves they like, including all of your various setups. This is pretty much what currently exists.

                          I don't personally overthink the relationship setups as much as you though, I don't seem to need such rigid boundaries on sexual relationships, as an obvious alpha male girls will know you're fucking other girls and not care so long as you do it in a way that doesn't lower their social value. You don't actually have to think so hard in practice if you're true alpha. .

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by pureevil View Post
                            Ok I thought you were an activist for a full blown polygamous society.

                            If you're admitting the inevitable necessity of alphas needing to find a way for betas to be laid just enough to keep them in line, then yeah, I'm with you. The betas get their occasional piece, while the alphas can then set up whatever lives for themselves they like, including all of your various setups. This is pretty much what currently exists.

                            I don't personally overthink the relationship setups as much as you though, I don't seem to need such rigid boundaries on sexual relationships, as an obvious alpha male girls will know you're fucking other girls and not care so long as you do it in a way that doesn't lower their social value. You don't actually have to think so hard in practice if you're true alpha. .
                            I think this is essentially what we have now. The alphas or maybe even the 1% designed ways for everyone to have sex with girls and to be financially okay. What is lost in all this is the betas and the knowledge that there is even a hierarchy of people making way different decisions than most people (in money and girls) and societal conditioning and messages that our decisions should be like everyone else's and that we should do x, y, and z to get married. Where x is getting married, y is working for someone, and z is retiring some day.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Supernova View Post
                              What is lost in all this is the betas and the knowledge that there is even a hierarchy of people making way different decisions than most people (in money and girls) and societal conditioning and messages that our decisions should be like everyone else's and that we should do x, y, and z to get married. Where x is getting married, y is working for someone, and z is retiring some day.
                              Yeah betas largely need to be told what to do. Its a decent system that gets them laid enough to placate them, which is what the alphas running shit and fucking all the hot girls need out of the rest of the men to maintain their own alpha lifestyles in the most comfort possible. Give 'em marriage for a taste of pussy and religion to placate any short-stick revenge angst with "the last shall be first" type ideology, and the alphas can then run things and roam free so long as they're discrete. Its a very easy system to understand and navigate as an alpha.

                              What this scene attracts are burned betas who have internet connections, rather than actual alpha males. So what you read is a lot of recently-open-eye beta males railing against marriage and society from a personal burned-beta loser perspective, rather than the achieving alpha winner perspective. Pre-internet the only alphas were the TRUE alphas, all of this information simply wasn't available, so you either naturally lived the life of a positively-reinforced alpha playing the system at hand, or you ended up beta.

                              Now though, information is readily available, and thus there's this scene of recovering betas trying to learn to be alpha, like NWP and BD. They tend to overcompensate pretty intensely, but overcompensation is a natural part of the learning process, so is to be expected.

                              For a younger and/or lesser-burned guy trying to accomplish true alpha though, I'm not sure I'd look to recovering betas for the answer, you'd want to cut to the source and model true alphas, rather than modeling recovering betas who are on their own particular (heavily colored, often negative-emotionally fueled) journey to a more alpha life.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by pureevil View Post
                                Ok I thought you were an activist for a full blown polygamous society.
                                You mean polyamorous society, not polygamous. You keep making this word mistake and it's not a trivial error. There is a world of difference between polygamy and polyamory.

                                I was never a polygamy activist. Polygamy is worse than monogamy. As for polyamory, my views have evolved on that subject. Now that I've retired from the legal profession I had a chance to interact with betas on a level more personal than helping them get custody of their kids or fend off false accusations of child molestation just so my clients' ex-wives can get a better financial settlement. And after interacting with scores of betas and omegas, I've come to the sad realization that there is no way most of them can handle our lifestyles even if they gave it their best effort. There's just too much M/W and low sex drive (on the part of these men) that the majority of them are not temperamentally suited for polyamory or even casual sex with more than one woman.

                                The reason I'm trashing monogamy here is that this place is supposed to be our refuge from all that programming. When men come here, they should be taught how to be better. If not, there are plenty of mainstream sites that can help them "deal with a cheating girlfriend."

                                That being said, there are some betas who are definitely cut out for alpha lifestyles and it's those that should be reached and helped.

                                I don't personally overthink the relationship setups as much as you though, I don't seem to need such rigid boundaries on sexual relationships, as an obvious alpha male girls will know you're fucking other girls and not care so long as you do it in a way that doesn't lower their social value. You don't actually have to think so hard in practice if you're true alpha.
                                True alphas do what they enjoy. I enjoy these rigid characterizations. I'm an INTJ!

                                Originally posted by pureevil View Post
                                Yeah betas largely need to be told what to do. Its a decent system that gets them laid enough to placate them, which is what the alphas running shit and fucking all the hot girls need out of the rest of the men to maintain their own alpha lifestyles in the most comfort possible. Give 'em marriage for a taste of pussy and religion to placate any short-stick revenge angst with "the last shall be first" type ideology, and the alphas can then run things and roam free so long as they're discrete. Its a very easy system to understand and navigate as an alpha.
                                Agreed. As long as my tax dollars are kept out of it.

                                What this scene attracts are burned betas who have internet connections, rather than actual alpha males. So what you read is a lot of recently-open-eye beta males railing against marriage and society from a personal burned-beta loser perspective, rather than the achieving alpha winner perspective.
                                Wow. And here I thought we'd be friends. Silly me.

                                First of all, there is nothing "recent open eye beta" about me. You're describing me 10 years ago when I was a recovering beta and first started railing against marriage and society. I haven't lived a beta lifestyle in a while and I'm still railing against marriage and society because I think it's necessary for people here (especially the newbies) to hear it and understand that they're not alone.

                                Pre-internet the only alphas were the TRUE alphas, all of this information simply wasn't available, so you either naturally lived the life of a positively-reinforced alpha playing the system at hand, or you ended up beta.
                                Which kept some betas from achieving their full potential, despite being capable of it, simply due to a lack of information. This wasn't fair and I'm glad the Internet has corrected this.

                                Now though, information is readily available, and thus there's this scene of recovering betas trying to learn to be alpha, like NWP and BD. They tend to overcompensate pretty intensely, but overcompensation is a natural part of the learning process, so is to be expected.
                                BD has been an alpha way longer than me. Have you checked out his blog lately? He's doing fine and is not even remotely beta. There is no need to insult him (or me) in this manner.

                                I seriously think you are confusing overcompensation with having a natural INTJ personality (which BD has as well).

                                For a younger and/or lesser-burned guy trying to accomplish true alpha though, I'm not sure I'd look to recovering betas for the answer, you'd want to cut to the source and model true alphas, rather than modeling recovering betas who are on their own particular (heavily colored, often negative-emotionally fueled) journey to a more alpha life.
                                It depends on the subject and what speaks to them. Let everyone put all their information out there, let the betas hear everyone's argument, and make their own conclusions who to listen to.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X