Adultery doesn't destroy marriages, Monogamy destroys marriages (30)

1 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8642 00:28

When a relationship ends with so-called "cheating" being the supposed cause, think about it. If the other partner was not averse to the prospect of their partner having sex with another person, it would not have resulted in the breakup. So the real cause of the breakup was not adultery in itself but rather the other partner's aversion to adultery, and perceived entitlement to exclusive access to their partner's sexuality.

2 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8642 00:37

cuck

3 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8642 01:45

>>2
should not be an insult.

4 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8642 01:58

>>3
says the cuck

5 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8642 04:01

WELCOME TO THIS CRAZY TIME
KONO IKARETA JIDAI HE YOUKOSO

KIMI WA CUCKBOY, CUCKBOY, CUCKBOY, CUCKBOY

6 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8642 14:16

Committing crime doesn't make you a criminal. Lawful society makes you a criminal.

7 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8642 14:33

Adultery doesn't destroy marriages, the ability a woman has to divorce and make a fortune off of it destroys marriage.

8 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8642 23:48

>>6
That is also true.

9 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8643 00:00

Then it's not a relationship in the first place.

10 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8643 09:03

>>8
Overeating does not make you a fat fuck. Abundance of food makes you a fat fuck.
Staying indoors does not make you a shut-in. The fact there is an outdoors from which you are able to isolate yourself makes you a shut-in.
Experiencing a sexual attraction towards children does not make you a pædophile. The existence of children makes you a pædophile.

11 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8643 10:18

>>10
Strawman and missing the point. Adultery and illegal actions are not inherently bad, but that they are regarded as bad gives them conditional bad qualities, which people erroneously point to as evidence that they are objectively bad.

12 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8643 10:32

>>11
You're begging the question. Nothing is objectively or inherently bad because "bad" is subjective and entirely defined by a moralistic society.

13 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8643 10:40

>>11,12
This is entry-level philosophy, by the way.

14 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8643 11:05

>>12
Yes, and I am arguing within a subjective framework for the subjective merits of subjective standards which differ from commonly held ones.

15 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8643 12:19

penis

16 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8643 20:47

>>14
Sure, but this is somewhat tautological, and you're not actually refuting anything. You're saying that X (an expectation of monogamy) and Y (adultery) together imply Z (a breakup), and that if X is not true then Z is not necessarily imminent. Well, like, duh? Y implies X in the first place. It wouldn't be adultery if the relationship was not monogamous.

Sounds like you tried cheating and got caught, and now you're mad you're down 2 sets of buttock. Sucks to be you.

17 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8643 23:24

>>16

>Sure, but this is somewhat tautological...

You're right. The point real point is to portray open relationships in a positive light.

>Sounds like you tried cheating...

Why do people always say stuff like this when I broach this subject on the internet? Actually, I am a virgin. A virgin with high standards.

18 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8644 03:28

>Actually, I am a virgin. A virgin with high standards.

lulz, sure you are.

19 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8644 04:29

Polyamory is like communism. The idea sounds appealing in theory, but society has yet to come up with a successful example.

When I lived in the bay area, open relationships were quite popular. Unfortunately, this inevitably led to way more problems than it was worth. People would often pretend to be okay with polyamory, but deep down they would grow more and more jealous and resentful. I rarely saw an open relationship that lasted and the ones that did were always fraught with tears and drama.

Animals are evolutionary hardwired with a desire to pass on their genes. Humans are better at hiding this than other animals, but it's still true. This leads to the paradox that humans want to fuck as many partners as possible, but they also want those partners to be exclusive to maximise the success of their offspring. And even if we could overcome this evolutionary desire, the fact remains that sex is a scarce resource, and that inevitably leads to conflict and jealousy. Any time your partner spends having sex with other people is time not spent with you. People are selfish, jealous creatures, and that's not going to change any time soon.

20 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8644 13:52

>>18
Admittedly, that last sentence was superfluous. However, even "NO MONOGAMISTS" by itself is high standards because it excludes many people.

>>19

> People would often pretend to be okay with polyamory, but deep down they would grow more and more jealous and resentful.

Fuck pretenders.

21 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8644 19:18

> subjective standards
> high standards

wew lad

22 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8644 19:42

>>17
OK, so you're a wizard. Are you one of those m'lady types? That might be why.

>>20
You're supposed to consider the entirety of a response like >>19, not choose the easy way out with a glib comment like that.

23 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8644 22:10

What an awful thread.

24 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8645 12:20


        Shitty thread Wasshoi!!
     \\ Shitty thread Wasshoi! //
 +   + \\Shitty thread Wasshoi!/+
        ∬ ∬    ∬ ∬    ∬ ∬  +
   +     人      人      人     +
         (__)    (__)    (__)
  +    (__)   (__)   (__)     +
.   +   ( __ )  ( __ )  ( __ )  +
      ( ´∀`∩ (´∀`∩) ( ´∀`)
 +  (( (つ   ノ (つ  丿 (つ  つ ))  +
       ヽ  ( ノ  ( ヽノ   ) ) )
       (_)し'  し(_)  (_)_)

25 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8646 03:32

lick my Balzac

26 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8646 17:38

>>22

>OK, so you're a wizard. Are you one of those m'lady types? That might be why.

I'm not old enough to be a wizard.

>You're supposed to consider the entirety of a response like >>19, not choose the easy way out with a glib comment like that.

Sorry.

>>19

>Animals are evolutionary hardwired with a desire to pass on their genes. Humans are better at hiding this than other animals, but it's still true. This leads to the paradox that humans want to fuck as many partners as possible, but they also want those partners to be exclusive to maximise the success of their offspring. And even if we could overcome this evolutionary desire, the fact remains that sex is a scarce resource, and that inevitably leads to conflict and jealousy. Any time your partner spends having sex with other people is time not spent with you. People are selfish, jealous creatures, and that's not going to change any time soon.

Then, successful open polyamory would require the triumph of rational speculation over humanimal instinct. How (most) people are hardwired is a thing, but not the limit. I can argue against the natural way.

27 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8646 17:43

penis

28 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8647 19:04

> (most) people are hardwired

What the fuck is this child talking about? This thread is very shit.

29 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8651 13:44

>>28
Can you actually prove me wrong though? Or do you need clarification?

30 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8655 18:07

>>29
In the study of the mind, things have gotten to the point where if someone still espouses "blank slate" arguments, that's usually a red flag; one should regard them as not credible.

Can rational desires (and I am trying to be charitable by using the term your way, as I do not believe all cerebral-cortex-only ideas to qualify as such) overcome base hierarchical needs? Yes, a little--relative to "everything" that makes up life--temporarily. But as a permanent system, that gets called things like asceticism, sainthood, lunacy, cultism, etc. And it's kind of the latter two that people think of as getting any "romance"... and in practice, it's clearly not love, it's just sex. In any case, it is clearly exceptional and too counter-evolutionary to become the norm. Any system that requires the majority of its participants to first be bodhisattvas is doomed.

I can buy the concept of polygamy as a lasting thing, but polyamory and "friends with benefits" are wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is incredibly powerful and is the first step towards making something reality, but only if it leads somewhere worth going. Which brings us full circle to your claim that you can argue against the natural way--you want to, maybe you "can", but you didn't.

Name: Link:
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
More options...
Verification: