[Tex]

(04-10-2016 06:41 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 06:33 PM)HankMoody Wrote:  

Meh, It doesn't matter because they usually label me a "douchebag" or a "bro" within 5 minutes of meeting me.

You meet these people regularly enough to have spotted common themes?

I wonder what kind of circles one would have to move in to not only encounter so many people like this, but who also happily divulge such information within the five minutes before labelling you a "bro/douchebag"?

I would guess universities in big cities or very, very rural areas (where all the SJW freaks from 100 miles converge, jaded from their small little conservative towns).

I get the exact same treatment by a lot of younger dudes, especially theater kids. That thread about theater students is one of the truest posts I've ever read.

So yes these circle exist, and they're who you'd expect them to be. Anyone in the inner-most circles of cuckdom tend to be smug and write off guys who don't look like shit or act like meek bitches.

[HankMoody]

(04-10-2016 06:41 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 06:33 PM)HankMoody Wrote:  

Every time I meet a guy who is "polyamorous" it's usually the same shit - college educated, liberal, doesn't lift weights, and has a wife that is bangable but nothing to write home about. The type of guy who just loves craft beers, and watching all the latest TV shows.

All I can think is "Wait... let me get this straight. Your wife bangs other dudes and you're cool with it? Do you sit in the corner, cry, and jerk off while it happens? You do know that monkeys jerk off watching alphas fuck the female monkeys, right? Would you be pissed if I fucked your wife so hard that the Earth began to shake? Then blew a big fat one right on her face as she demanded more?"

Meh, It doesn't matter because they usually label me a "douchebag" or a "bro" within 5 minutes of meeting me.

You meet these people regularly enough to have spotted common themes?

I wonder what kind of circles one would have to move in to not only encounter so many people like this, but who also happily divulge such information within the five minutes before labelling you a "bro/douchebag"?

Sadly, yes.

Circles I generally try and avoid at all costs, but sometimes get sucked into for a brief minute or two. "Yes, I'm voting for Trump, yes, I own a bunch of guns, yes I came here with that 21 year old, no I haven't watched that TV show and I don't get the reference."

[brob]

(04-10-2016 01:50 PM)HankMoody Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 01:36 PM)churros Wrote:  

This guy seems to have dedicated his life to normalising polyamory.

I don't have a problem with homosexuals, but I do think legalizing gay marriage has opened the door for accepting every sort of sexual deviant behavior on the planet.

It went from accepting gay marriage, to accepting men using women's bathrooms, polyamory, and pediophila.

The progressive train never stops. Legalize/normalize one thing, and a couple years later it will be some other fucked up behavior or concept that is being pushed towards acceptance.

[EDantes]

Male polyamory has been fairly normal historically (I've heard it was the Catholic Church in the early days of Christianity which made the push for monogamy; prior to that in the Bible wealthy men frequently had multiple wives or concubines).

The push for female polyamory is just a feminist thing, it's been pretty much non existent save a few obscure cultures like Tibet.

I don't believe females are hardwired to want polyamory naturally just for biological reasons; from a biological POV a man having multiple women has advantages since he can produce more offspring that way, but there are no such advantages for a woman with multiple husbands/boyfriends.

[Saweeep]

(04-10-2016 06:49 PM)HankMoody Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 06:41 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 06:33 PM)HankMoody Wrote:  

Every time I meet a guy who is "polyamorous" it's usually the same shit - college educated, liberal, doesn't lift weights, and has a wife that is bangable but nothing to write home about. The type of guy who just loves craft beers, and watching all the latest TV shows.

All I can think is "Wait... let me get this straight. Your wife bangs other dudes and you're cool with it? Do you sit in the corner, cry, and jerk off while it happens? You do know that monkeys jerk off watching alphas fuck the female monkeys, right? Would you be pissed if I fucked your wife so hard that the Earth began to shake? Then blew a big fat one right on her face as she demanded more?"

Meh, It doesn't matter because they usually label me a "douchebag" or a "bro" within 5 minutes of meeting me.

You meet these people regularly enough to have spotted common themes?

I wonder what kind of circles one would have to move in to not only encounter so many people like this, but who also happily divulge such information within the five minutes before labelling you a "bro/douchebag"?

Sadly, yes.

Circles I generally try and avoid at all costs, but sometimes get sucked into for a brief minute or two. "Yes, I'm voting for Trump, yes, I own a bunch of guns, yes I came here with that 21 year old, no I haven't watched that TV show and I don't get the reference."

If this is true and not an exaggeration...well damn.

I need to spend more time in the US to experience this insanity.

[Saweeep]

(04-10-2016 06:56 PM)EDantes Wrote:  

Male polyamory has been fairly normal historically (I've heard it was the Catholic Church in the early days of Christianity which made the push for monogamy; prior to that in the Bible wealthy men frequently had multiple wives or concubines).

The push for female polyamory is just a feminist thing, it's been pretty much non existent save a few obscure cultures like Tibet.

I don't believe females are hardwired to want polyamory naturally just for biological reasons; from a biological POV a man having multiple women has advantages since he can produce more offspring that way, but there are no such advantages for a woman with multiple husbands/boyfriends.

I think an evolutionary biologist would disagree. More partners of the highest quality she can attract is good for her.

Women are just regressing to their base, animal instincts.

The problem for them is that as a result, so are men (pump and dump).

[CaptainChardonnay]

This thread reminds me of the Nintendo Prostitute Thread

[samsamsam]

(04-10-2016 03:24 PM)Deepdiver Wrote:  

6. Make sure the trusts (half offshore outside of SJW corrupted US courts) have incentives for your kids to do what you want them to achieve and incentivizes your wife to be a good wife and grandmother. Make sure the trusts provide for any eventual grandchildren or great-grandchildren as well.

Good post DD, any more details on #6? I am curious how that gets structured, even the actual text you would see in a trust, if you happen to have it. I have thought about what you have written but never knew how that would be laid out in a legal structure.

One of my concerns is whatever it is I have earned in my life - gets pissed away by the next generation.

[Panther]

I have a female acquaintance who is into the burningman culture which is rife with this crap. Most of the women are on medication to either be able to sleep or to keep them from slitting their wrists. The men are not much better. Some of the most messed up people and relationships I've ever seem in my life.

[samsamsam]

(04-10-2016 09:46 PM)Panther Wrote:  

I have a female acquaintance who is into the burningman culture which is rife with this crap. Most of the women are on medication to either be able to sleep or to keep them from slitting their wrists. The men are not much better. Some of the most messed up people and relationships I've ever seem in my life.

***Searches for burningman tickets***

I hear it is pretty hedonistic.

[General Stalin]

(04-10-2016 09:58 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 09:46 PM)Panther Wrote:  

I have a female acquaintance who is into the burningman culture which is rife with this crap. Most of the women are on medication to either be able to sleep or to keep them from slitting their wrists. The men are not much better. Some of the most messed up people and relationships I've ever seem in my life.

***Searches for burningman tickets***

I hear it is pretty hedonistic.

Basically modern day Woodstock. Buncha hippies camping, doing drugs, and fucking round the clock. At least, thats my understanding.

[EDantes]

(04-10-2016 07:04 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 06:56 PM)EDantes Wrote:  

Male polyamory has been fairly normal historically (I've heard it was the Catholic Church in the early days of Christianity which made the push for monogamy; prior to that in the Bible wealthy men frequently had multiple wives or concubines).

The push for female polyamory is just a feminist thing, it's been pretty much non existent save a few obscure cultures like Tibet.

I don't believe females are hardwired to want polyamory naturally just for biological reasons; from a biological POV a man having multiple women has advantages since he can produce more offspring that way, but there are no such advantages for a woman with multiple husbands/boyfriends.

I think an evolutionary biologist would disagree. More partners of the highest quality she can attract is good for her.

Women are just regressing to their base, animal instincts.

The problem for them is that as a result, so are men (pump and dump).

Have a hard time believing that for a variety of reasons.

For one under normal circumstances (not counting complete beta males) men would be much more likely to get jealous of one another, or fight over who the father of the child is.

These problems wouldn't exist if the man has multiple wives/girlfriends, plus what I've read is that fidelity to women is more about "emotional fidelity" than purely physical fidelity like it is to men.

And as far as I'm aware of, a woman "sleeping with lots of men" has never been a mark of social status in any culture, and been frowned upon.

Some hypersexual women may have a desire to sleep with many men just due to sexual addiction, but sleeping with lots of guys just to "boast about it" like men do doesn't seem natural; rather it seems like something related to the feminist movement simply as a 'reversal' of traditional gender roles.

When women cheat or sleep around, I believe it's almost always due to the guy being a complete beta choad, or terrible in the sack, as opposed to cheating simply to put another 'notch' on one's belt like some men do.

[WeekendCasanova]

(04-10-2016 07:04 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 06:56 PM)EDantes Wrote:  

Male polyamory has been fairly normal historically (I've heard it was the Catholic Church in the early days of Christianity which made the push for monogamy; prior to that in the Bible wealthy men frequently had multiple wives or concubines).

The push for female polyamory is just a feminist thing, it's been pretty much non existent save a few obscure cultures like Tibet.

I don't believe females are hardwired to want polyamory naturally just for biological reasons; from a biological POV a man having multiple women has advantages since he can produce more offspring that way, but there are no such advantages for a woman with multiple husbands/boyfriends.

I think an evolutionary biologist would disagree. More partners of the highest quality she can attract is good for her.

Women are just regressing to their base, animal instincts.

The problem for them is that as a result, so are men (pump and dump).

I believe this is actually incorrect. I'm no scientist, but based on what I've read about evolution, a women with many sexual partners is considered low-value, and less likely to attract a quality mate. Looking at it from an evolutionary standpoint, the men sought the best quality women to have his children. The women women would try to qualify themselves, and from this, the men decided.

So a girl, was a slut, would presumably have children, but no man would stick around to provide for her, and thus she'd die and eventually her lineage would cease to exist.

But who knows....

Polyamory is ass backwards and I think is a direct result of feminism. There's no evolutionary benefit for a female to be with many partners. I do agree that looking at it from an evolutionary standpoint is silly, however, with the invention of condoms and birth control. It's just a combination of men becoming effeminate, and girls wanting the best of both worlds; a provider male, and an endless stream of cocks.

[Ensam]

Historically, women who had a large number of sexual partners either died in child birth or became infertile due to STDs. Pre birth control and antibiotics sex was a dangerous proposition for a woman.

[Vice]

(04-10-2016 07:04 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 06:56 PM)EDantes Wrote:  

Male polyamory has been fairly normal historically (I've heard it was the Catholic Church in the early days of Christianity which made the push for monogamy; prior to that in the Bible wealthy men frequently had multiple wives or concubines).

The push for female polyamory is just a feminist thing, it's been pretty much non existent save a few obscure cultures like Tibet.

I don't believe females are hardwired to want polyamory naturally just for biological reasons; from a biological POV a man having multiple women has advantages since he can produce more offspring that way, but there are no such advantages for a woman with multiple husbands/boyfriends.

I think an evolutionary biologist would disagree.

Only an armchair evolutionary biologist would disagree. More sexual partners = vastly increased chances of acquiring an STD, especially before latex condoms were invented.

People forget that even benign STDs (or, what we see as 'benign' today) would wreck the body and the brain and would practically guarantee infertility at the very least.

Go google "What would happen if [INSERT NAME OF STD] is left untreated". That's what would have happened to women who contracted STDs before antibiotics came along.



And that's just one disease

PS: STDs aren't anything new, gonorrhea's symptoms were first described in the 1200s. Had to say that in case any conspiratard claims STDs are a recent 'invention'.

[Saweeep]

Gents, let's be clear.

I am not talking about a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago but much much longer.

I.e. during the millions of years when we actually evolved.

What STDs have got to do with this, god only knows.

[XPQ22]

This thread has kind of gone off the rails into evolutionary psychology MGTOW navel-gazing. The real question regarding the surge in "polyamory" should be - how does this increase my notch count?

There are a lot of girls who are in "open relationships" in ultra-liberal New England, particularly on online dating sites. And the truth is, while they're usually a 6 or 7 at best, if you can grab their attention long enough to pull them out, in my experience (banged two of them) they often don't care if you're really into "the lifestyle" or not, not all of them are completely wackadoodle, and they're some of the easiest first date lays going.

[Apollo21]

It's nothing new. Back in biblical times men could have multiple wives
and scores of concubines...if they could afford them.

Polyamory is exciting to some people...the thrill of meeting someone new
without having to lie and cheat and hope you don't get caught.

It's a great fanstasy...however the cost is that you sacrifice intimacy
and your relationships suffer. I agree that dating and marriage should be separate
however some people will not find married life enough to satisfy them...
or they've made poor choices and want an escape without getting divorced.

[Il Bersagliere]

I've been seeing a few women on OKCupid lately that write a whole fucking paragraph on polyamory/open-relationships, then go on to say "dont msg me if ur looking for hookups hurr durr"

[Rhyme or Reason]

I've seen far more of this bullshit about polyamory in online profiles than I've ever heard about in real life. It's just the losers at the far left side of the bell curve sharing their meager pickings. Pathetic.

[WeekendCasanova]

(04-11-2016 10:51 AM)Il Bersagliere Wrote:  

I've been seeing a few women on OKCupid lately that write a whole fucking paragraph on polyamory/open-relationships, then go on to say "dont msg me if ur looking for hookups hurr durr"

The girls who say they aren't looking for a hookup are almost always looking for a hookup. It's hilarious.

[XPQ22]

(04-11-2016 01:33 PM)WeekendCasanova Wrote:  

The girls who say they aren't looking for a hookup are almost always looking for a hookup. It's hilarious.

You have to remember what "Not looking for a hookup!" means in girl-speak.

"Not looking for a hookup" means "I don't want to have some player who doesn't care about me bang me after two hours of conversation and then never contact me again. That makes me feel bad."

You'll notice that nowhere do they say "I don't want to have a casual fuckbuddy relationship with a high-value guy who doesn't commit to me and who I know is seeing other women, but always texts me to tell me how much he enjoyed my company and sees me about once a week and occasionally takes me out to do girlfriend sorta stuff."

It's not what they say, but what they don't say. Because when you have a man and a woman who are both "poly" and the guy can actually get laid as well, what does the "relationship" finally boil down to than just what I typed in my third paragraph?

[General Stalin]

No woman is in a "polyamorous" relationship with a man she actually respects and is committed to.

On one side of the spectrum, it's just a misused term that means you casually date different people at the same time never being serious or committed to any of them. On the other end of the spectrum it means you openly (or privately) cheat on your lover because they aren't good enough for you to be sexually exclusive with but they check off other boxes and are spineless enough to go along with it (or maybe they don't know).

[HankMoody]

(04-11-2016 04:21 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  

No woman is in a "polyamorous" relationship with a man she actually respects and is committed to.

On one side of the spectrum, it's just a misused term that means you casually date different people at the same time never being serious or committed to any of them. On the other end of the spectrum it means you openly (or privately) cheat on your lover because they aren't good enough for you to be sexually exclusive with but they check off other boxes and are spineless enough to go along with it (or maybe they don't know).

Ding dong.

Men who are too feminine to keep their women in check.

That is polyamory.

[LeeEnfield303]

I hear polyamory, all I can think of is: