The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Support for Open Relationships
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

After the mop up operations were complete and the last incalcitrant resisters snuffed out in the Culture War battle over transgenderism, this blog suspected the next front in the siege on sexual mores would be against the presumption of at least serial monogamy. The celebration of open relationships is on the way!

That doesn’t look like a very astute prediction now. Incestuous and possibly even underage relationships may get there first. When so much of the public discourse is about reducing economic inequality, proposing a change that would increase sexual inequality is out of step with the times.

Still, without a religious or philosophical base to repair the walls, weathering wears down the walls. Many zoomers and millennials like the idea:

On the other hand, maybe they like the idea of any kind of relationship because they’ve spent so much time unable to become involved in one.

Parenthetically, YouGov doesn’t provide racial breakdowns in many of its one-off survey questions like this one. They’d likely be interesting and thus included if they were available.

 
Hide 81 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Well, cucks grooming a nation of cucks. Surprised?

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Daniel H

    "Cuckholding: The Sex Fetish For Intellectuals."

    "Why Being A Cuck Is Not Bad."

    And they wonder why young men don't trust mainstream dating advice.

    Replies: @Jay Fink

  2. Most men would be absolute suckers to get into one.

  3. @Daniel H
    Well, cucks grooming a nation of cucks. Surprised?

    Replies: @nebulafox

    “Cuckholding: The Sex Fetish For Intellectuals.”

    “Why Being A Cuck Is Not Bad.”

    And they wonder why young men don’t trust mainstream dating advice.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    @nebulafox

    Cucks are highly evolved men. They don't have any of that primitive mate guarding, insecurity or possessiveness. I favor monogamy above all else but prefer cucks over jealous mate guarding males.

    Replies: @Kent Nationalist

  4. When so much of the public discourse is about reducing economic inequality

    Is there any actual public discourse about reducing economic inequality? I must have missed the debates about expropriating the wealth of the billionaires. And I must have missed the debates about reducing executive salaries to less obscene levels. And the debates about imposing massive taxes on capital gains.

    I was rather under the impression that all public discourse these days was about making sure that nobody mentions or notices actual economic inequality.

    • Agree: iffen, V. K. Ovelund
  5. I am guessing that a lot of those that want an open relationship see it as screwing around with others while their proper partner does not, this is especially true for males. As for females since they cannot be cuckholds and the state is their caretaker, I can understand why this will be an increasing trend for them.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @neutral

    Yes, I thought it was a known quantity that when men hear the word "polygamy", we almost always picture ourselves as the one with multiple wives and not as the guy who doesn't get a wife. I imagine the same holds at least somewhat true for the phrase "open relationship".

    For example, men are more inclined to be bothered by a dead bedroom. I imagine a relatively common scenario is the man figures his wife has mostly lost interest in sex while he has not, so his idea of an "open relationship" is taking out his sexual frustration on a side piece while his wife keeps on doing as she's been doing.

    Or here's one. I knew a couple once that had an "open relationship", but the man put in a devilishly clever stipulation: it could only be opened up to women, as the wife identified as "bisexual" and this was her way to get that need satisfied. Well, it turned out that she couldn't really find a lesbian who wanted in on their whole mess, but he found himself a girlfriend, and for a time he was having sex with both of them, until both women gave him an ultimatum. He went with the girlfriend, so the whole exercise amounted to trading his wife in for a newer model, with extra sex and no need for sneaking. Incredibly sleazy, to be sure, but awfully clever. On the plus side, he had a vasectomy at an early age so no children were caught in the mix.

    Replies: @SFG

  6. I agree that most of the people in favor are not currently in a relationship with anyone. At no point in my dating life was I at all interested in a non-exclusive relationship – what sane person would put time and effort into a partner who is free to go out and bang someone else?

  7. … interested in having an open relationship …

    The fundamental structure of the family, starting with marriage, is the axle about which a civilization turns. Some other, mostly observably lesser civilizations have come up with their own answers to the question, but west of the Hajnal line, we had a profound answer that was compatible with our own civilization, an answer that harmonized with our people’s instinctive, inherited way of being.

    Marriage between one husband and one wife, accompanied by moderate restraints against extended-kin nepotism to make room for broad social trust to flourish, is and always has been the only way for us.

    Adultery is wrong. Divorce unless followed by abstinence is adultery. Both adultery and divorce occur, of course, along with just plain fornication—and it is not for me or any of us to probe the errors of a sorrowful individual’s past, nor to try to piece together old marriages long shattered, nor to pry apart on theoretical grounds the stable second marriages of persons divorced during their youths long ago—but adultery, divorce and fornication are still just wrong, and no quantity of sophistry can change that.

    The notion that open relationships might be all right is farcical.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    west of the Hajnal line... is and always has been the only way for us.
     
    While I agree with the general thrust of your comment, this part is not correct. “Always has been”? That’s not historically accurate with any group of humans.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  8. With so much economic inequality any wealthy man can philander all he wants. Might not be able to stay married but he won’t lack for female companionship.

  9. @V. K. Ovelund

    ... interested in having an open relationship ...
     
    The fundamental structure of the family, starting with marriage, is the axle about which a civilization turns. Some other, mostly observably lesser civilizations have come up with their own answers to the question, but west of the Hajnal line, we had a profound answer that was compatible with our own civilization, an answer that harmonized with our people's instinctive, inherited way of being.

    Marriage between one husband and one wife, accompanied by moderate restraints against extended-kin nepotism to make room for broad social trust to flourish, is and always has been the only way for us.

    Adultery is wrong. Divorce unless followed by abstinence is adultery. Both adultery and divorce occur, of course, along with just plain fornication—and it is not for me or any of us to probe the errors of a sorrowful individual's past, nor to try to piece together old marriages long shattered, nor to pry apart on theoretical grounds the stable second marriages of persons divorced during their youths long ago—but adultery, divorce and fornication are still just wrong, and no quantity of sophistry can change that.

    The notion that open relationships might be all right is farcical.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    west of the Hajnal line… is and always has been the only way for us.

    While I agree with the general thrust of your comment, this part is not correct. “Always has been”? That’s not historically accurate with any group of humans.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    While I agree with the general thrust of your comment, this part is not correct. “Always has been”? That’s not historically accurate with any group of humans.
     
    Not a sociologist, lacking ready, trustworthy references to feed back to you, I cannot adequately support my observation, but am inclined to stand by the observation nevertheless. Plural marriage proper never had much purchase among the ancient Greeks, Italians, Celts or Germans as far as I know. Even the Hebrews eliminated it at an early stage. This is why early Mormonism was such a grotesque abomination. (If this sounds like criticism of the Mormons, incidentally, it really isn't. Postmodern Western culture is a grotesquer abomination than early Mormonism ever was.)

    I am vaguely aware of research that affects to contradict my observation regarding Greeks, Italians, Celts or Germans. My impression is that that research is tendentious, presumably produced by men who wished to justify their own licentiousness.

    But I could be wrong.

  10. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    west of the Hajnal line... is and always has been the only way for us.
     
    While I agree with the general thrust of your comment, this part is not correct. “Always has been”? That’s not historically accurate with any group of humans.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    While I agree with the general thrust of your comment, this part is not correct. “Always has been”? That’s not historically accurate with any group of humans.

    Not a sociologist, lacking ready, trustworthy references to feed back to you, I cannot adequately support my observation, but am inclined to stand by the observation nevertheless. Plural marriage proper never had much purchase among the ancient Greeks, Italians, Celts or Germans as far as I know. Even the Hebrews eliminated it at an early stage. This is why early Mormonism was such a grotesque abomination. (If this sounds like criticism of the Mormons, incidentally, it really isn’t. Postmodern Western culture is a grotesquer abomination than early Mormonism ever was.)

    I am vaguely aware of research that affects to contradict my observation regarding Greeks, Italians, Celts or Germans. My impression is that that research is tendentious, presumably produced by men who wished to justify their own licentiousness.

    But I could be wrong.

  11. Mr Epigone says:

    After the mop up operations were complete and the last incalcitrant resistors snuffed out in the Culture War battle over transgenderism, this blog suspected the next front in the siege on sexual mores would be against the presumption of at least serial monogamy. The celebration of open relationships is on the way!

    I say:

    ELECTRONICS

    It’s always about the electronics.

    “…recalcitrant resistors…” are designed to be recalcitrant so as to maintain steady transmission of electricity or stop the transmission of electricity and other things.

    For construction types think of a chunk of concrete with two pieces of rebar sticking out from opposite ends.

    Open relationships are not in the interests of divorce lawyers.

    Many divorce lawyers supported gay marriage to increase their potential clientele.

    Most of the MORON OFFICERS in the US military are so stupid they can’t even run their own electronics weapons platforms.

    General Casey, the Leprechaun asshole who started crying about so-called “diversity” before the smoke had cleared from the weapon used by one of his s0-called “diversity” pets to kill a dozen or more and wound many others at Fort Hood in Texas, and before the bodies were even cold, is a prime example of the kind of disgusting human filth in charge of the US military.

    To be fair, the JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire is in charge of the US military and they are smarter and much much much more dangerous than any bonehead dope officer in the US military.

    I wrote this in August of 2017 about the American Empire being an empire of electronics:

    That smart White guy brings to mind a good point that us regular IQ Whites need to remember. When the struggle for political power really lets loose, it will be important to gain control of the electronics of the American Empire. Internet, satellites, computers, electrical power systems, cable, the monetary system and more are all run by electronics.

    The American Empire is an electronic empire. White Core Americans will require the services of high IQ Whites to run the electronics when the time comes. You say the American Empire is about oil? I say bullshit, it is about electronics. You can use the electronics to render the oil pointless.

    The global reserve currency is the dollar. The dollar is nothing more than an electronic currency conjured up out of thin air.

    Electronic propaganda controls the media message and agenda in the American Empire. The key to controlling the propaganda apparatus in the American Empire is to control the electronics.

    White Core Americans would do well to remember that he who controls the electronics will control the American Empire.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/male-wins-google-code-jam-for-fourth-straight-time/#comment-1965717

    • Replies: @advancedatheist
    @Charles Pewitt


    The dollar is nothing more than an electronic currency conjured up out of thin air.
     
    Money is not a fact of nature or some spooky metaphysical reality. It has always come from "thin air," or what a Yuval Harari calls a shared fiction in his book Sapiens.

    To me it's hilarious that hard-money obsessives think that the U.S. Dollar is phony or fraudulent, but that their titles to property, patents, trademarks, copyrights, court decisions, rights, the U.S. Constitution, etc., are somehow "real." No, all of these things are just ideas in man's mind which we agree to use according to arbitrary rules.

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Almost Missouri

  12. As a veteran of Social Justice Warrior blogs, the percentage of SJW bloggers who support open relationships would be close to 100%.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  13. Decadence. These are ideological descendants of the 70’s swingers.

    The point of erotic & romantic relationship between a man and a woman is that it is exclusive (I am not talking of polygamy, which was some kind of historical necessity, perhaps, in some areas- and not practice of the vast majority of population).

    You got a whole bunch of stories on OR in YouTube, and the summary is- it doesn’t work. If your significant other tries to suggest it-show her the door. It’s over.

    • Replies: @Kent Nationalist
    @Bardon Kaldian


    Rely not on women; ❋ Trust not to their hearts,
    Whose joys and whose sorrows ❋ Are hung to their parts!
     
    - (Based) Anonymous author of the Arabian Nights (trans. Richard Burton)

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Not only wrathful

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Bardon Kaldian


    polygamy, which was some kind of historical necessity, perhaps, in some areas- and not practice of the vast majority of population
     
    By definition, it can never be a majority, since as soon as 50% get a second spouse, the other 50% get no spouse (except in situation of unnatural gender imbalance).

    Or maybe you mean it wasn't the practice of the vast majority of populations, i.e., peoples/tribes/nations? In which case I agree—in the West, but I think the West is a little unusual in this way. Most of the world practiced (i.e., permitted) polygamy until fairly recently, basically until Western cultural hegemony encompassed the globe with its presumption of monogamy. Obviously, both in the West and elsewhere, the presumption of monogamy is often only honored in the breach rather than the observance.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

  14. Men hear “open relationship” and they think threesomes with a couple of hot young women. Porno come to real life.

    Women hear “open relationship” and they think “well, it’s ‘open’ so I’m not really cheating, even if I have my cell phone’s location finder turned off and I didn’t say where I was going or what time I’d be back.”

    Reality: your spouse will not accept “open relationship” as an excuse for the STD you brought home.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Sgt. Joe Friday

    So called open relationships are not polyamory. These are complete different things.

    Still- they have something in common.

    They don't work.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  15. @Sgt. Joe Friday
    Men hear "open relationship" and they think threesomes with a couple of hot young women. Porno come to real life.

    Women hear "open relationship" and they think "well, it's 'open' so I'm not really cheating, even if I have my cell phone's location finder turned off and I didn't say where I was going or what time I'd be back."

    Reality: your spouse will not accept "open relationship" as an excuse for the STD you brought home.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    So called open relationships are not polyamory. These are complete different things.

    Still- they have something in common.

    They don’t work.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Bardon Kaldian


    So called open relationships are not polyamory. These are complete different things.

    Still- they have something in common.

    They don’t work.
     
    It may well be a problem that is not worth worrying about. If people want to try open relationships they're welcome to try. 99% of people will quickly discover that they don't work and that they don't really like the arrangement anyway.

    Not only is it not worth worrying about, there's nothing we can do about it anyway.

    Unless you really want the state to start interfering even more in people's personal lives. And that kind of state interference would be a very very foolish thing for social conservatives or Christians to support.

    So the best solution to this problem is to ignore it.
  16. @nebulafox
    @Daniel H

    "Cuckholding: The Sex Fetish For Intellectuals."

    "Why Being A Cuck Is Not Bad."

    And they wonder why young men don't trust mainstream dating advice.

    Replies: @Jay Fink

    Cucks are highly evolved men. They don’t have any of that primitive mate guarding, insecurity or possessiveness. I favor monogamy above all else but prefer cucks over jealous mate guarding males.

    • Replies: @Kent Nationalist
    @Jay Fink

    Probably because you're a faggot

    Replies: @Jay Fink

  17. @neutral
    I am guessing that a lot of those that want an open relationship see it as screwing around with others while their proper partner does not, this is especially true for males. As for females since they cannot be cuckholds and the state is their caretaker, I can understand why this will be an increasing trend for them.

    Replies: @Wency

    Yes, I thought it was a known quantity that when men hear the word “polygamy”, we almost always picture ourselves as the one with multiple wives and not as the guy who doesn’t get a wife. I imagine the same holds at least somewhat true for the phrase “open relationship”.

    For example, men are more inclined to be bothered by a dead bedroom. I imagine a relatively common scenario is the man figures his wife has mostly lost interest in sex while he has not, so his idea of an “open relationship” is taking out his sexual frustration on a side piece while his wife keeps on doing as she’s been doing.

    Or here’s one. I knew a couple once that had an “open relationship”, but the man put in a devilishly clever stipulation: it could only be opened up to women, as the wife identified as “bisexual” and this was her way to get that need satisfied. Well, it turned out that she couldn’t really find a lesbian who wanted in on their whole mess, but he found himself a girlfriend, and for a time he was having sex with both of them, until both women gave him an ultimatum. He went with the girlfriend, so the whole exercise amounted to trading his wife in for a newer model, with extra sex and no need for sneaking. Incredibly sleazy, to be sure, but awfully clever. On the plus side, he had a vasectomy at an early age so no children were caught in the mix.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Wency

    That's actually a 'thing', as the kids say (a pattern occurring commonly enough to be recognized); it's known as the 'one penis policy', which feminists of course despise. A straight couple looking for a third woman is 'unicorn hunting', with the third woman being the unicorn. The name suggests the success rate.

    It's not nuts from the evolutionary point of view--another woman can't get your wife pregnant. But, of course, the women get jealous.

    I kind of wonder if that was the plan from day one or if he just snorted too much 'ethical slut' material because it was fashionable among the left-leaning. You would be surprised what people will believe because it's fashionable. Swinging had a heyday in the 1970s. I think it was herpes and of course AIDS that brought it to an end in the 1980s. My best hope is that an improving economy will cause at least some young people to settle down and start families, and at least some of them will want to avoid the chaos associated with these relationship structures.

    Honestly, there's always a fraction of society that does this sort of boho thing--before swingers there was the Bloomsbury Group. But most people used to be sensible enough it's a terrible thing when kids get involved.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Wency

  18. @Charles Pewitt
    Mr Epigone says:

    After the mop up operations were complete and the last incalcitrant resistors snuffed out in the Culture War battle over transgenderism, this blog suspected the next front in the siege on sexual mores would be against the presumption of at least serial monogamy. The celebration of open relationships is on the way!

    I say:

    ELECTRONICS

    It's always about the electronics.

    "...recalcitrant resistors..." are designed to be recalcitrant so as to maintain steady transmission of electricity or stop the transmission of electricity and other things.

    For construction types think of a chunk of concrete with two pieces of rebar sticking out from opposite ends.

    Open relationships are not in the interests of divorce lawyers.

    Many divorce lawyers supported gay marriage to increase their potential clientele.

    Most of the MORON OFFICERS in the US military are so stupid they can't even run their own electronics weapons platforms.

    General Casey, the Leprechaun asshole who started crying about so-called "diversity" before the smoke had cleared from the weapon used by one of his s0-called "diversity" pets to kill a dozen or more and wound many others at Fort Hood in Texas, and before the bodies were even cold, is a prime example of the kind of disgusting human filth in charge of the US military.

    To be fair, the JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire is in charge of the US military and they are smarter and much much much more dangerous than any bonehead dope officer in the US military.

    I wrote this in August of 2017 about the American Empire being an empire of electronics:

    That smart White guy brings to mind a good point that us regular IQ Whites need to remember. When the struggle for political power really lets loose, it will be important to gain control of the electronics of the American Empire. Internet, satellites, computers, electrical power systems, cable, the monetary system and more are all run by electronics.

    The American Empire is an electronic empire. White Core Americans will require the services of high IQ Whites to run the electronics when the time comes. You say the American Empire is about oil? I say bullshit, it is about electronics. You can use the electronics to render the oil pointless.

    The global reserve currency is the dollar. The dollar is nothing more than an electronic currency conjured up out of thin air.

    Electronic propaganda controls the media message and agenda in the American Empire. The key to controlling the propaganda apparatus in the American Empire is to control the electronics.

    White Core Americans would do well to remember that he who controls the electronics will control the American Empire.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/male-wins-google-code-jam-for-fourth-straight-time/#comment-1965717

    Replies: @advancedatheist

    The dollar is nothing more than an electronic currency conjured up out of thin air.

    Money is not a fact of nature or some spooky metaphysical reality. It has always come from “thin air,” or what a Yuval Harari calls a shared fiction in his book Sapiens.

    To me it’s hilarious that hard-money obsessives think that the U.S. Dollar is phony or fraudulent, but that their titles to property, patents, trademarks, copyrights, court decisions, rights, the U.S. Constitution, etc., are somehow “real.” No, all of these things are just ideas in man’s mind which we agree to use according to arbitrary rules.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    @advancedatheist

    To me it’s hilarious that hard-money obsessives think that the U.S. Dollar is phony or fraudulent, but that their titles to property, patents, trademarks, copyrights, court decisions, rights, the U.S. Constitution, etc., are somehow “real.” No, all of these things are just ideas in man’s mind which we agree to use according to arbitrary rules.

    I say:

    Okay, I'll go Strobo Light Talbot Halibut III and say the nation-state is a concoction of man's imaginary mind. But that imaginary concept has power of a most primordial sort and I ain't going to resort to John Milius's script from Apocalypse Now to make the point of its power.

    The US Navy has a destroyer named USS Milius and it has an electronic weapons system too complicated for the moron deckswabbers out of Annapolis to run. Privatized control of sophisticated weaponry if you will.

    I don't give a shit about any so-called "hard money," I want to dole out electronically conjured up cash to every eligible American as a demonstration of raw political power.

    The Virginia Company people certainly recognize Lockean contract law and I want White Core America to take over most large-scale businesses in the USA and where warranted globally.

    Federal courts in the US are designed to protect the loot of plutocrats and the Upper Middle Class and transnational corporations.

    Black-robed politician whores in the US federal court system should be immediately impeached when they overstep proscribed bounds of jurisdiction, but the nasty three dollar whores in the rancid Republican Party won't do it.

    I wrote about electronically conjured up cash in August of 2020:

    UBI or the Pewitt Conjured Loot Portion(PCLP) is about raw power and who has it. A UBI or PCLP will allow the historic American nation or the European Christian ancestral core the ability to dislodge from power the evil and treasonous JEW/WASP ruling class from power.

    The Pewitt Conjured Loot Portion(PCLP) will pay each American who has all blood ancestry born in colonial America or the USA before 1924 a cool ten thousand dollars a month. The US Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank shall work together to conjure up the cash out of thin air, just like the ruling class is doing now.

    Sam Francis said it’s all about the ruling classes and Sam was right. A UBI or PCLP will create the conditions whereby tens of trillions of dollars and land and property and licenses and other assets can be severed from the ownership and control of the current corrupt and illegitimate JEW/WASP ruling class members of the American Empire and doled out to the patriotic and honorable old stocker members of the European Christian ancestral core.

    UBI or PCLP is about raw political power; it’s not about economics.

    The ability to control the central bank is the true power and it must be contested by the old stocker members of the historic American nation.

    The Federal Reserve Bank must be nationalized and the JEW/WASP ruling class and its minions must be financially liquidated and its members must be forcibly exiled to a hot and humid and nasty part of sub-Saharan Africa. All this must be done legally, of course.

    William the Conqueror thought he got screwed out of his rightful inheritance, and the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire is screwing over the decent and patriotic members of the old stocker historic American nation. Of course, horrible treasonous sleazebag old stockers like those in the Bush Organized Crime Syndicate are examples of old stocker evil globalizer treasonite ruling class nation-wreckers.

    Repudiate All Debt and Financially Liquidate The Plutocrats And Their Stooges.

    GOD BLESS AMERICA!

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/shaking-the-money-tree/#comment-4134922

    , @Almost Missouri
    @advancedatheist


    To me it’s hilarious that hard-money obsessives think that the U.S. Dollar is phony or fraudulent, but that their titles to property, patents, trademarks, copyrights, court decisions, rights, the U.S. Constitution, etc., are somehow “real.” No, all of these things are just ideas in man’s mind which we agree to use according to arbitrary rules.
     
    Well, there are some differences. For example, the patent office, title deed office, etc. don't go and mint extra patents to your idea, extra titles to your property, etc. behind your back. The Federal Reserve, however, does just that, in spades. Then it gives the new wealth it just subdivided away from your diminished wealth to the worst people in the world.
  19. I can see why a young male Christian would think that religious beliefs are holding back his sexual fulfillment. When you don’t know any better, you could mistakenly reason that becoming an atheist would give you access to sexual freedom, which sounds like the best party ever. But then you become an atheist, you get a little older and then you realize that you aren’t receiving invitations to that party.

    Ironically both Christians and atheists linked nonbelief with sexual freedom for generations. Now that we have run the experiment, we can see that male sexuality doesn’t work that way for a lot of men.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    @advancedatheist


    becoming an atheist would give you access to sexual freedom
     
    "Sexual freedom" (in the mind) is not enough.... You still need to be invited to the right parties.

    But, perhaps the association was more with paganism and their supposed "fertility cults" and orgies.

    But, did the average pagan had more sex than people today?

    Or was it the same as always, women gravitating towards the rich, the powerful and a few "bad boys", and lots of incels?

    From Greece, it would seem that the only greater "sexual freedom" they had, was more homosexuality. Perhaps that was the outlet that "incels" found then. Perhaps Islam is similar, not sure.

    Monogamy is difficult, but in the end it is the best arrangement.

    The rest is prostitution, in one way or another.
  20. On the other hand, maybe they like the idea of any kind of relationship because they’ve spent so much time unable to become involved in one.

    They must be really dumb, or perhaps are just incels with zero real-life experience.

    They think “open relationships” means “more sex”, but really, it means the same as always, a few chads monopolizing many women — with the average males becoming cuckolds, that is, if they get any woman at all.

    I can’t think of any “open relationship” or “polyamorous” setting that worked in any way. Usually someone always loses in those arrangements.

    There should be no “relationships”, only marriages, leading to families. The rest is a waste of time.

    • Agree: Servant of Gla'aki
  21. @advancedatheist
    I can see why a young male Christian would think that religious beliefs are holding back his sexual fulfillment. When you don't know any better, you could mistakenly reason that becoming an atheist would give you access to sexual freedom, which sounds like the best party ever. But then you become an atheist, you get a little older and then you realize that you aren't receiving invitations to that party.

    Ironically both Christians and atheists linked nonbelief with sexual freedom for generations. Now that we have run the experiment, we can see that male sexuality doesn't work that way for a lot of men.

    Replies: @Dumbo

    becoming an atheist would give you access to sexual freedom

    “Sexual freedom” (in the mind) is not enough…. You still need to be invited to the right parties.

    But, perhaps the association was more with paganism and their supposed “fertility cults” and orgies.

    But, did the average pagan had more sex than people today?

    Or was it the same as always, women gravitating towards the rich, the powerful and a few “bad boys”, and lots of incels?

    From Greece, it would seem that the only greater “sexual freedom” they had, was more homosexuality. Perhaps that was the outlet that “incels” found then. Perhaps Islam is similar, not sure.

    Monogamy is difficult, but in the end it is the best arrangement.

    The rest is prostitution, in one way or another.

  22. @advancedatheist
    @Charles Pewitt


    The dollar is nothing more than an electronic currency conjured up out of thin air.
     
    Money is not a fact of nature or some spooky metaphysical reality. It has always come from "thin air," or what a Yuval Harari calls a shared fiction in his book Sapiens.

    To me it's hilarious that hard-money obsessives think that the U.S. Dollar is phony or fraudulent, but that their titles to property, patents, trademarks, copyrights, court decisions, rights, the U.S. Constitution, etc., are somehow "real." No, all of these things are just ideas in man's mind which we agree to use according to arbitrary rules.

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Almost Missouri

    To me it’s hilarious that hard-money obsessives think that the U.S. Dollar is phony or fraudulent, but that their titles to property, patents, trademarks, copyrights, court decisions, rights, the U.S. Constitution, etc., are somehow “real.” No, all of these things are just ideas in man’s mind which we agree to use according to arbitrary rules.

    I say:

    Okay, I’ll go Strobo Light Talbot Halibut III and say the nation-state is a concoction of man’s imaginary mind. But that imaginary concept has power of a most primordial sort and I ain’t going to resort to John Milius’s script from Apocalypse Now to make the point of its power.

    The US Navy has a destroyer named USS Milius and it has an electronic weapons system too complicated for the moron deckswabbers out of Annapolis to run. Privatized control of sophisticated weaponry if you will.

    I don’t give a shit about any so-called “hard money,” I want to dole out electronically conjured up cash to every eligible American as a demonstration of raw political power.

    The Virginia Company people certainly recognize Lockean contract law and I want White Core America to take over most large-scale businesses in the USA and where warranted globally.

    Federal courts in the US are designed to protect the loot of plutocrats and the Upper Middle Class and transnational corporations.

    Black-robed politician whores in the US federal court system should be immediately impeached when they overstep proscribed bounds of jurisdiction, but the nasty three dollar whores in the rancid Republican Party won’t do it.

    I wrote about electronically conjured up cash in August of 2020:

    UBI or the Pewitt Conjured Loot Portion(PCLP) is about raw power and who has it. A UBI or PCLP will allow the historic American nation or the European Christian ancestral core the ability to dislodge from power the evil and treasonous JEW/WASP ruling class from power.

    The Pewitt Conjured Loot Portion(PCLP) will pay each American who has all blood ancestry born in colonial America or the USA before 1924 a cool ten thousand dollars a month. The US Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank shall work together to conjure up the cash out of thin air, just like the ruling class is doing now.

    Sam Francis said it’s all about the ruling classes and Sam was right. A UBI or PCLP will create the conditions whereby tens of trillions of dollars and land and property and licenses and other assets can be severed from the ownership and control of the current corrupt and illegitimate JEW/WASP ruling class members of the American Empire and doled out to the patriotic and honorable old stocker members of the European Christian ancestral core.

    UBI or PCLP is about raw political power; it’s not about economics.

    The ability to control the central bank is the true power and it must be contested by the old stocker members of the historic American nation.

    The Federal Reserve Bank must be nationalized and the JEW/WASP ruling class and its minions must be financially liquidated and its members must be forcibly exiled to a hot and humid and nasty part of sub-Saharan Africa. All this must be done legally, of course.

    William the Conqueror thought he got screwed out of his rightful inheritance, and the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire is screwing over the decent and patriotic members of the old stocker historic American nation. Of course, horrible treasonous sleazebag old stockers like those in the Bush Organized Crime Syndicate are examples of old stocker evil globalizer treasonite ruling class nation-wreckers.

    Repudiate All Debt and Financially Liquidate The Plutocrats And Their Stooges.

    GOD BLESS AMERICA!

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/shaking-the-money-tree/#comment-4134922

  23. @Bardon Kaldian
    Decadence. These are ideological descendants of the 70's swingers.

    The point of erotic & romantic relationship between a man and a woman is that it is exclusive (I am not talking of polygamy, which was some kind of historical necessity, perhaps, in some areas- and not practice of the vast majority of population).

    You got a whole bunch of stories on OR in YouTube, and the summary is- it doesn't work. If your significant other tries to suggest it-show her the door. It's over.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QqtF5DeLwg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcYZtfr7BFE

    Replies: @Kent Nationalist, @Almost Missouri

    Rely not on women; ❋ Trust not to their hearts,
    Whose joys and whose sorrows ❋ Are hung to their parts!

    – (Based) Anonymous author of the Arabian Nights (trans. Richard Burton)

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Kent Nationalist

    Actually- personally not being a misogynist- I sometimes wonder whether Kohlberg & other folks had been right ....

    https://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/02/books/women-and-men-and-morality.html

    ................

    SHOULD Heinz steal a drug, which he cannot afford, that his wife needs to save her life? Eleven-year-old Jake says yes, of course, because ''a human life is worth more than money.'' Jake regards this moral dilemma as ''sort of like a math problem with humans,'' and then works out the equation. Eleven-year-old Amy comes up with a different solution, considering neither property nor law but the effect that the theft would have on the relationship between Heinz and his wife: ''If he stole the drug, he might save his wife then, but if he did, he might have to go to jail, and then his wife might get sicker again, and he couldn't get more of the drug, and it might not be good. So, they should really just talk it out and find some other way to make the money.'' To Amy, the dilemma is not a math problem with people, but a problem of relationships that extend over time.

    To many researchers in the field of moral development, Amy's answer would be considered a clear sign of insufficient or illogical moral reasoning. For example, Lawrence Kohlberg, the Harvard psychologist who devised a six-stage sequence of moral development based originally on a 20-year study of 84 boys, argued that women tend to get stuck at ''stage three,'' where standards of morality and goodness depend on pleasing and helping others. (Women rarely rise to the sublime ''stage six,'' where morality stems from ultimate principles that transcend self-interest and nationality.) Kohlberg's work is the latest in a long line of efforts to explain why women seem to lack courage and conscience, and why their judgments seem so different from those of men. In this century, most notably, Freud told us that women have deficient superegos and therefore deficient consciences (a matter of anatomy), and Piaget suggested that women have deficient cognitive capacities (a matter of socialization). But for all, the problem was that women were not making moral decisions the same way that men were. And for all, that difference implied deficiency.

    , @Not only wrathful
    @Kent Nationalist

    Does your belief that all women are deceitful whores serve you?

  24. @Jay Fink
    @nebulafox

    Cucks are highly evolved men. They don't have any of that primitive mate guarding, insecurity or possessiveness. I favor monogamy above all else but prefer cucks over jealous mate guarding males.

    Replies: @Kent Nationalist

    Probably because you’re a faggot

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    @Kent Nationalist

    No just the opposite. As a hetrosexual I always thought it would be a lot more pleasant to have less mate guarding males in the sexual market. Especially the most extreme ones such as the controlling violent alcoholic types.

    I have been against mate guarders since a negative experience in high school. At a party there was a couple where everytime the girl tried to make friendly conversation with a boy the boyfriend would tell her she can't talk to him and she would obey and stop talking mid sentence. It seemed very obnoxious and uncivilized to me. None of the guys were flirting with her. It was just harmless small talk and because of his insecurity he overreacted. I never stopped thinking about this. So when I heard about cuckolds they sounded refreshing to me because they are the polar opposite of the men I disdain and resent.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @iffen

  25. @advancedatheist
    @Charles Pewitt


    The dollar is nothing more than an electronic currency conjured up out of thin air.
     
    Money is not a fact of nature or some spooky metaphysical reality. It has always come from "thin air," or what a Yuval Harari calls a shared fiction in his book Sapiens.

    To me it's hilarious that hard-money obsessives think that the U.S. Dollar is phony or fraudulent, but that their titles to property, patents, trademarks, copyrights, court decisions, rights, the U.S. Constitution, etc., are somehow "real." No, all of these things are just ideas in man's mind which we agree to use according to arbitrary rules.

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Almost Missouri

    To me it’s hilarious that hard-money obsessives think that the U.S. Dollar is phony or fraudulent, but that their titles to property, patents, trademarks, copyrights, court decisions, rights, the U.S. Constitution, etc., are somehow “real.” No, all of these things are just ideas in man’s mind which we agree to use according to arbitrary rules.

    Well, there are some differences. For example, the patent office, title deed office, etc. don’t go and mint extra patents to your idea, extra titles to your property, etc. behind your back. The Federal Reserve, however, does just that, in spades. Then it gives the new wealth it just subdivided away from your diminished wealth to the worst people in the world.

    • Thanks: Mark G.
  26. @Kent Nationalist
    @Bardon Kaldian


    Rely not on women; ❋ Trust not to their hearts,
    Whose joys and whose sorrows ❋ Are hung to their parts!
     
    - (Based) Anonymous author of the Arabian Nights (trans. Richard Burton)

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Not only wrathful

    Actually- personally not being a misogynist- I sometimes wonder whether Kohlberg & other folks had been right ….

    https://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/02/books/women-and-men-and-morality.html

    …………….

    SHOULD Heinz steal a drug, which he cannot afford, that his wife needs to save her life? Eleven-year-old Jake says yes, of course, because ”a human life is worth more than money.” Jake regards this moral dilemma as ”sort of like a math problem with humans,” and then works out the equation. Eleven-year-old Amy comes up with a different solution, considering neither property nor law but the effect that the theft would have on the relationship between Heinz and his wife: ”If he stole the drug, he might save his wife then, but if he did, he might have to go to jail, and then his wife might get sicker again, and he couldn’t get more of the drug, and it might not be good. So, they should really just talk it out and find some other way to make the money.” To Amy, the dilemma is not a math problem with people, but a problem of relationships that extend over time.

    To many researchers in the field of moral development, Amy’s answer would be considered a clear sign of insufficient or illogical moral reasoning. For example, Lawrence Kohlberg, the Harvard psychologist who devised a six-stage sequence of moral development based originally on a 20-year study of 84 boys, argued that women tend to get stuck at ”stage three,” where standards of morality and goodness depend on pleasing and helping others. (Women rarely rise to the sublime ”stage six,” where morality stems from ultimate principles that transcend self-interest and nationality.) Kohlberg’s work is the latest in a long line of efforts to explain why women seem to lack courage and conscience, and why their judgments seem so different from those of men. In this century, most notably, Freud told us that women have deficient superegos and therefore deficient consciences (a matter of anatomy), and Piaget suggested that women have deficient cognitive capacities (a matter of socialization). But for all, the problem was that women were not making moral decisions the same way that men were. And for all, that difference implied deficiency.

  27. Support for Open Relationships

    What Do Women Think About The War On Christmas?

    Lady In Santa Suit Has The Answer:

    • Replies: @Not only wrathful
    @Charles Pewitt

    The vast majority of people see their partner as property, and therefore need to be seen as property by their partner to feel safe.

    Some of this 99% convince themselves otherwise, and this leads to disaster.

    But some people really do neither wish to control nor be controlled. They love the totality of the other person, as they love the totality of themselves.

    For such people, open relationships are obvious.

    As with many things that are "progressive", the impetus for promoting such in society comes from a lot of ordinary individuals LARPing as rather special.

    Yet accepting who and what you are is the precursor for growth. The ironic knot of narcissism is how the ordinary often lie to themselves that they are special, while the special desperately try to be ordinary. And almost no one latches onto the current stream of advice, until they do.

    Still, everyone can ask themselves, if you love someone, why would you want to bind their actions? Unless they were proving themselves psychologically deficient and it was for their own safety, like you would with a young child?

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

  28. People are weak.

    When society encourages them to make weak and foolish choices, they will take us up on it.

    We need a different elite.
    One that encourages people to become better, instead of worse.

  29. @Bardon Kaldian
    Decadence. These are ideological descendants of the 70's swingers.

    The point of erotic & romantic relationship between a man and a woman is that it is exclusive (I am not talking of polygamy, which was some kind of historical necessity, perhaps, in some areas- and not practice of the vast majority of population).

    You got a whole bunch of stories on OR in YouTube, and the summary is- it doesn't work. If your significant other tries to suggest it-show her the door. It's over.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QqtF5DeLwg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcYZtfr7BFE

    Replies: @Kent Nationalist, @Almost Missouri

    polygamy, which was some kind of historical necessity, perhaps, in some areas- and not practice of the vast majority of population

    By definition, it can never be a majority, since as soon as 50% get a second spouse, the other 50% get no spouse (except in situation of unnatural gender imbalance).

    Or maybe you mean it wasn’t the practice of the vast majority of populations, i.e., peoples/tribes/nations? In which case I agree—in the West, but I think the West is a little unusual in this way. Most of the world practiced (i.e., permitted) polygamy until fairly recently, basically until Western cultural hegemony encompassed the globe with its presumption of monogamy. Obviously, both in the West and elsewhere, the presumption of monogamy is often only honored in the breach rather than the observance.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Almost Missouri

    Historically, most of the world was monogamous in practice. In the Antiquity- Egypt, Greece, Rome explicitly.
    Of course that India, China & Islam were, in theory, polygamous, but in practice it did not encompass more than 5%, and never 10% of their male population. It was reserved for their rulers & similar classes.

    In China, it was, for Emperor, basically a chore. People generally think their high classes indulged in wild sex fantasies - frequently they did, although "lower classes" were more orgiastic- but historical accounts show that it was mostly about fertility and succession line: bureaucrats carefully kept calendars of harem's women fertile, so poor Emperors should bang particular females although they might not be in the mood.

    True, there had been highly sexed rulers in the past etc., but polygamy was mostly economic & social, and not too erotic matter. When Bolsheviks imposed their rule, in the 1920s, in some central Asian Muslim republic (Bukhara? Samarkand?), it turned out that most harem women they "liberated" were still virgins.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @songbird

  30. Guessing “open relationship” means different things to different folks. For some, maybe, it just means going out on a few dates, with different people, without “going steady.” Nothing sexual implied.

    • Replies: @Not only wrathful
    @songbird

    You know, if you are trying to prohibit your partner from having non-sexual friends that is extremely mean-spirited...

    , @Wency
    @songbird

    Does anyone think that's the real meaning of "open relationship"? I have my doubts.

    But I will acknowledge that a lot of fellas do seem to think they're under a social expectation to only pursue one woman at a time. And I'm talking about guys who are looking for a serious relationship, not having sex, yet still only pursuing one woman at a time despite not being locked down. It's a terrible outlook unless you belong to a subculture that clearly does forbid this behavior. It really harms your game for several different reasons and does nothing to help it, but I'll admit that I didn't see through it until my late 20s or so.

    Replies: @songbird, @Not only wrathful

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    @songbird

    Well ..... no.

    Jungian synchronicity - recently, I've been recuperating from my second Covid (I'm still exhausted, stay mostly at home etc). Simply, I did not (alright- I still don't) have energy nor interest for any "higher" topic, so I lazily listened to 30-50 videos at YouTube, each 15-20 minutes, about "relationships" (I was too tired, so I haven't watched anything, just listened while lying in the bed).

    Videos were mostly about transgenders, open relationships, female cheating, polyamory blah blah. I generally don't find this stuff too interesting, but, this time, it was refreshing-something different. And it leads to deeper questions about human nature, free will, autonomy of the individual etc.

    I must admit that stuff is partly tendentious because much of it comes from the "manosphere".

    But, my general impression is that open relationship is sex on the side, while living in a marriage or relationship with one person & that person agrees that the other will have sexual relations with other people. So- technically, not cheating because the partner knows.

    This type means sex & just sex because the prerequisite is that the "screwing around" partner must not get emotionally/romantically involved with others. Otherwise, there is no sense in being together, because emotional-romantic exclusivity is what keeps them together as a couple.

    That's the theory.

    The practice is, it seems, that one partner forces another to accept this, blackmailing him/her they will otherwise leave. So it begins, but eventually all crumbles because of... human nature. On the other hand, if they are both into it from the beginning, their marriage/whatever doesn't make much sense, because why pretend to have a some kind of exclusive relation & living together as a couple, while simultaneously screwing around? If they want to be a family- what's the prospect of such a family, especially if kids are involved?

    What about mental health of children? Or possible STDs? Or simply- why waste your energy & resources to an entangled web of physical/emotional... relations with other people, while you can find more productive & creative interests?

    I've seen mostly two categories of OR (both were doomed): a man is trapped in a sexless marriage, so he insists; a husband is a doormat or simply a nice guy wife becomes bored with & wants OR. In both cases, divorce is the most likely outcome.

    Replies: @songbird, @Dumbo

  31. Honestly, I think the more alarming poll is the HavardIoP where Biden’s favorability is very high among young people.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @songbird

    Young people have been more liberal since I-don't-know-how-long, so out of a lot of bad news that's hardly surprising.

    Replies: @songbird

  32. @Charles Pewitt
    Support for Open Relationships

    What Do Women Think About The War On Christmas?

    Lady In Santa Suit Has The Answer:

    https://twitter.com/NorthmanTrader/status/1385650064375287813?s=20

    https://twitter.com/NorthmanTrader/status/1385599223861764097?s=20

    https://twitter.com/NorthmanTrader/status/1385591944269680641?s=20

    https://twitter.com/NorthmanTrader/status/1385580464400965634?s=20

    Replies: @Not only wrathful

    The vast majority of people see their partner as property, and therefore need to be seen as property by their partner to feel safe.

    Some of this 99% convince themselves otherwise, and this leads to disaster.

    But some people really do neither wish to control nor be controlled. They love the totality of the other person, as they love the totality of themselves.

    For such people, open relationships are obvious.

    As with many things that are “progressive”, the impetus for promoting such in society comes from a lot of ordinary individuals LARPing as rather special.

    Yet accepting who and what you are is the precursor for growth. The ironic knot of narcissism is how the ordinary often lie to themselves that they are special, while the special desperately try to be ordinary. And almost no one latches onto the current stream of advice, until they do.

    Still, everyone can ask themselves, if you love someone, why would you want to bind their actions? Unless they were proving themselves psychologically deficient and it was for their own safety, like you would with a young child?

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Not only wrathful

    Look....this is all wrong. Knowers of human nature, from Athenian tragedians through Shakespeare, Montaigne to Balzac, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Flaubert, Lawrence, Freud (he was not a scientist) ... knew that erotic love is necessarily exclusive & the healthy dose of jealousy is needed.

    Here deep friendship differs from sexual love.

    Replies: @Not only wrathful

  33. @songbird
    Guessing "open relationship" means different things to different folks. For some, maybe, it just means going out on a few dates, with different people, without "going steady." Nothing sexual implied.

    Replies: @Not only wrathful, @Wency, @Bardon Kaldian

    You know, if you are trying to prohibit your partner from having non-sexual friends that is extremely mean-spirited…

  34. @Kent Nationalist
    @Bardon Kaldian


    Rely not on women; ❋ Trust not to their hearts,
    Whose joys and whose sorrows ❋ Are hung to their parts!
     
    - (Based) Anonymous author of the Arabian Nights (trans. Richard Burton)

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Not only wrathful

    Does your belief that all women are deceitful whores serve you?

  35. @songbird
    Guessing "open relationship" means different things to different folks. For some, maybe, it just means going out on a few dates, with different people, without "going steady." Nothing sexual implied.

    Replies: @Not only wrathful, @Wency, @Bardon Kaldian

    Does anyone think that’s the real meaning of “open relationship”? I have my doubts.

    But I will acknowledge that a lot of fellas do seem to think they’re under a social expectation to only pursue one woman at a time. And I’m talking about guys who are looking for a serious relationship, not having sex, yet still only pursuing one woman at a time despite not being locked down. It’s a terrible outlook unless you belong to a subculture that clearly does forbid this behavior. It really harms your game for several different reasons and does nothing to help it, but I’ll admit that I didn’t see through it until my late 20s or so.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Wency

    Here's the language they used in the poll: "How interested, if at all, would you be in having an open relationship (one where you could date more than one person simultaneously)?"

    If you are not currently in a long-term relationship, I think the wording seems even less sexual.

    Personally, I wouldn't consider simultaneous dating to be very counter-cultural. If it is not in a gutter context of one-night stands, then one can possibly see benefits to it. Like, encouraging socialization. Maybe, encouraging people to develop conversational skills and confidence.

    If every first date has to begin with a confession of your love, then I think that setting the emotional threshold that high could have really negative social consequences. It discourages the woman from saying yes, and the man from making the attempt. Historically, most marriages were arranged, and I don't think we are set to operate on a "I love you, will you go out with me?" basis.

    In fact, I wonder if a place like Japan could benefit from hiring doñas (is that the word?) to act as escorts for young women, so that the stakes are lowered.

    Replies: @Wency

    , @Not only wrathful
    @Wency


    But I will acknowledge that a lot of fellas do seem to think they’re under a social expectation to only pursue one woman at a time
     
    A creepy thought. As if they have convinced themselves that the particular woman, who has not really expressed interest in them, nonetheless wants to be seen as "the one"; obviously without even being known.

    Not that many women don't desire to be objectified in this way, but really...
  36. @Almost Missouri
    @Bardon Kaldian


    polygamy, which was some kind of historical necessity, perhaps, in some areas- and not practice of the vast majority of population
     
    By definition, it can never be a majority, since as soon as 50% get a second spouse, the other 50% get no spouse (except in situation of unnatural gender imbalance).

    Or maybe you mean it wasn't the practice of the vast majority of populations, i.e., peoples/tribes/nations? In which case I agree—in the West, but I think the West is a little unusual in this way. Most of the world practiced (i.e., permitted) polygamy until fairly recently, basically until Western cultural hegemony encompassed the globe with its presumption of monogamy. Obviously, both in the West and elsewhere, the presumption of monogamy is often only honored in the breach rather than the observance.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    Historically, most of the world was monogamous in practice. In the Antiquity- Egypt, Greece, Rome explicitly.
    Of course that India, China & Islam were, in theory, polygamous, but in practice it did not encompass more than 5%, and never 10% of their male population. It was reserved for their rulers & similar classes.

    In China, it was, for Emperor, basically a chore. People generally think their high classes indulged in wild sex fantasies – frequently they did, although “lower classes” were more orgiastic- but historical accounts show that it was mostly about fertility and succession line: bureaucrats carefully kept calendars of harem’s women fertile, so poor Emperors should bang particular females although they might not be in the mood.

    True, there had been highly sexed rulers in the past etc., but polygamy was mostly economic & social, and not too erotic matter. When Bolsheviks imposed their rule, in the 1920s, in some central Asian Muslim republic (Bukhara? Samarkand?), it turned out that most harem women they “liberated” were still virgins.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Bardon Kaldian


    Historically, most of the world was monogamous in practice. In the Antiquity- Egypt, Greece, Rome explicitly.
     
    Egyptian Pharaohs could have more than one wife. Heroic Age Greeks and Romans too. And Y-DNA of archeogenomes show that the Bronze Age and earlier was brutally polygynous pretty much everywhere.

    Of course that India, China & Islam were, in theory, polygamous, but in practice it did not encompass more than 5%, and never 10% of their male population. It was reserved for their rulers & similar classes.
     
    As mentioned, mathematically it can never be more than a minority pursuit, so naturally the minority will be the more powerful minority, aka, rulers, nobles, aristocracy, etc. Also mathematically, the more intensively the minority practice it, the less everyone else can.

    In China, it was, for Emperor, basically a chore. People generally think their high classes indulged in wild sex fantasies – frequently they did, although “lower classes” were more orgiastic- but historical accounts show that it was mostly about fertility and succession line: bureaucrats carefully kept calendars of harem’s women fertile, so poor Emperors should bang particular females although they might not be in the mood.
     
    That's funny: Mandarins turning even sex into a grinding chore.

    As for whether polygamy was a grinding chore or "a stately pleasure dome decreed", that may matter less to those deprived of a wife than the simple fact that they're not getting any wife and children of their own, rather than that they're missing out on a putative orgy. I think the modern fixation on sex as a personal experience of transcendent delirium is rather novel. The ancients and the peasant multitudes were more practical in their concerns.

    When Bolsheviks imposed their rule, in the 1920s, in some central Asian Muslim republic (Bukhara? Samarkand?), it turned out that most harem women they “liberated” were still virgins.
     
    Interesting. But in a way that's even worse from the point of view of the deprived. Not only have the local elites monopolized their current wives (the consummated harem), but they've taken a bunch of additional inventory off the market (the unconsummated harem), really restricting the supply to the have-nots.

    Of course, polygamy tends to hand-in-hand with violence, so many of these societies create a female surplus through androcide, but of course a lack of prospective mates also creates more willing participants in androcidal conflicts. So you could say it's a virtuous/vicious circle.

    BTW, where did you get the information about the Mandarin mating calendar and the liberated Soviet harems?

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    , @songbird
    @Bardon Kaldian


    Of course that India, China & Islam were, in theory, polygamous, but in practice it did not encompass more than 5%, and never 10% of their male population.
     
    Levels like that can have significant effects. They can cause wars. They can have substantial genetic effects, over the course of generations. The percentage of African genes in Arabs doubled over the course of Islam. Meanwhile, it may have been eugenic to the Chinese.

    People generally think their high classes indulged in wild sex fantasies
     
    the Ottoman sultan supposedly had his harem form a circle around him, get on all fours, and neigh like horses. But who knows if it really happened?

    but historical accounts show that it was mostly about fertility and succession line: bureaucrats carefully kept calendars of harem’s women fertile,
     
    Upon the death of the Sultan all sons but one were killed.

    Women who are housed together have their menstrual cycles converge to the same days, so some bureaucratic rigor was required, and different housing arrangements. But it is a fantasy for many men to have many descendants.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  37. @Wency
    @songbird

    Does anyone think that's the real meaning of "open relationship"? I have my doubts.

    But I will acknowledge that a lot of fellas do seem to think they're under a social expectation to only pursue one woman at a time. And I'm talking about guys who are looking for a serious relationship, not having sex, yet still only pursuing one woman at a time despite not being locked down. It's a terrible outlook unless you belong to a subculture that clearly does forbid this behavior. It really harms your game for several different reasons and does nothing to help it, but I'll admit that I didn't see through it until my late 20s or so.

    Replies: @songbird, @Not only wrathful

    Here’s the language they used in the poll: “How interested, if at all, would you be in having an open relationship (one where you could date more than one person simultaneously)?”

    If you are not currently in a long-term relationship, I think the wording seems even less sexual.

    Personally, I wouldn’t consider simultaneous dating to be very counter-cultural. If it is not in a gutter context of one-night stands, then one can possibly see benefits to it. Like, encouraging socialization. Maybe, encouraging people to develop conversational skills and confidence.

    If every first date has to begin with a confession of your love, then I think that setting the emotional threshold that high could have really negative social consequences. It discourages the woman from saying yes, and the man from making the attempt. Historically, most marriages were arranged, and I don’t think we are set to operate on a “I love you, will you go out with me?” basis.

    In fact, I wonder if a place like Japan could benefit from hiring doñas (is that the word?) to act as escorts for young women, so that the stakes are lowered.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Wency
    @songbird


    Here’s the language they used in the poll: “How interested, if at all, would you be in having an open relationship (one where you could date more than one person simultaneously)?”
     
    I see your point. There's the potential for some confusion in that the word "date", as a verb, covers quite a lot of ground in contemporary language. "We dated" could mean we went on a single date, or that we were effectively common-law married. Also this is a poll that covers several generations, and some age groups might interpret it differently from others.

    Personally, I wouldn’t consider simultaneous dating to be very counter-cultural.
     
    I found that it raised a fair number of eyebrows among friends and family, if they learned I had a good date with a girl, was looking forward to the next, but was going ahead and still asking other girls out. But they couldn't really find grounds to condemn it. It's probably normal in some circles but counter-cultural within circles that are pretty square. It's contrary to a lot of what you see on TV/movies, where boy meets girl and then pursues her single-mindedly until things work out. Among my friends who were never players, I think I'm the only one who ever pursued the strategy of simultaneous dating in earnest.

    As for the benefits of it, I'd agree with everything you said and more.

  38. @songbird
    Guessing "open relationship" means different things to different folks. For some, maybe, it just means going out on a few dates, with different people, without "going steady." Nothing sexual implied.

    Replies: @Not only wrathful, @Wency, @Bardon Kaldian

    Well ….. no.

    Jungian synchronicity – recently, I’ve been recuperating from my second Covid (I’m still exhausted, stay mostly at home etc). Simply, I did not (alright- I still don’t) have energy nor interest for any “higher” topic, so I lazily listened to 30-50 videos at YouTube, each 15-20 minutes, about “relationships” (I was too tired, so I haven’t watched anything, just listened while lying in the bed).

    Videos were mostly about transgenders, open relationships, female cheating, polyamory blah blah. I generally don’t find this stuff too interesting, but, this time, it was refreshing-something different. And it leads to deeper questions about human nature, free will, autonomy of the individual etc.

    I must admit that stuff is partly tendentious because much of it comes from the “manosphere”.

    But, my general impression is that open relationship is sex on the side, while living in a marriage or relationship with one person & that person agrees that the other will have sexual relations with other people. So- technically, not cheating because the partner knows.

    This type means sex & just sex because the prerequisite is that the “screwing around” partner must not get emotionally/romantically involved with others. Otherwise, there is no sense in being together, because emotional-romantic exclusivity is what keeps them together as a couple.

    That’s the theory.

    The practice is, it seems, that one partner forces another to accept this, blackmailing him/her they will otherwise leave. So it begins, but eventually all crumbles because of… human nature. On the other hand, if they are both into it from the beginning, their marriage/whatever doesn’t make much sense, because why pretend to have a some kind of exclusive relation & living together as a couple, while simultaneously screwing around? If they want to be a family- what’s the prospect of such a family, especially if kids are involved?

    What about mental health of children? Or possible STDs? Or simply- why waste your energy & resources to an entangled web of physical/emotional… relations with other people, while you can find more productive & creative interests?

    I’ve seen mostly two categories of OR (both were doomed): a man is trapped in a sexless marriage, so he insists; a husband is a doormat or simply a nice guy wife becomes bored with & wants OR. In both cases, divorce is the most likely outcome.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Bardon Kaldian

    There's probably layers of biases in what gets promoted in youtube.

    To start with, people making videos are probably more narcissistic. Then there is a second layer of narcissism in the people sharing videos. Some of it gets funded by woke capital - definitely, a lot more money for leftward messages. Then there is corporate politics in the algorithm itself - they probably try to steer people away from Christian commentators.

    Though I am generally inclined to agree that normie stuff on youtube is very blackpilling. I think it is also true of Bitchute where the average viewer seems to love crazy conspiracy theories.

    , @Dumbo
    @Bardon Kaldian


    my second Covid
     
    Aren't you supposed to get antibodies from the first one?

    Or are you just unlucky?

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

  39. @Not only wrathful
    @Charles Pewitt

    The vast majority of people see their partner as property, and therefore need to be seen as property by their partner to feel safe.

    Some of this 99% convince themselves otherwise, and this leads to disaster.

    But some people really do neither wish to control nor be controlled. They love the totality of the other person, as they love the totality of themselves.

    For such people, open relationships are obvious.

    As with many things that are "progressive", the impetus for promoting such in society comes from a lot of ordinary individuals LARPing as rather special.

    Yet accepting who and what you are is the precursor for growth. The ironic knot of narcissism is how the ordinary often lie to themselves that they are special, while the special desperately try to be ordinary. And almost no one latches onto the current stream of advice, until they do.

    Still, everyone can ask themselves, if you love someone, why would you want to bind their actions? Unless they were proving themselves psychologically deficient and it was for their own safety, like you would with a young child?

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    Look….this is all wrong. Knowers of human nature, from Athenian tragedians through Shakespeare, Montaigne to Balzac, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Flaubert, Lawrence, Freud (he was not a scientist) … knew that erotic love is necessarily exclusive & the healthy dose of jealousy is needed.

    Here deep friendship differs from sexual love.

    • Replies: @Not only wrathful
    @Bardon Kaldian


    Look….this is all wrong. Knowers of human nature, from Athenian tragedians through Shakespeare, Montaigne to Balzac, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Flaubert, Lawrence, Freud (he was not a scientist) … knew that erotic love is necessarily exclusive & the healthy dose of jealousy is needed
     
    Lol

    As I said, most people (and hence most fictional characters) need to view their lover as their property because they can't separate their sense of love from their fear, pride and vanity...

    But some people do

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

  40. @Wency
    @songbird

    Does anyone think that's the real meaning of "open relationship"? I have my doubts.

    But I will acknowledge that a lot of fellas do seem to think they're under a social expectation to only pursue one woman at a time. And I'm talking about guys who are looking for a serious relationship, not having sex, yet still only pursuing one woman at a time despite not being locked down. It's a terrible outlook unless you belong to a subculture that clearly does forbid this behavior. It really harms your game for several different reasons and does nothing to help it, but I'll admit that I didn't see through it until my late 20s or so.

    Replies: @songbird, @Not only wrathful

    But I will acknowledge that a lot of fellas do seem to think they’re under a social expectation to only pursue one woman at a time

    A creepy thought. As if they have convinced themselves that the particular woman, who has not really expressed interest in them, nonetheless wants to be seen as “the one”; obviously without even being known.

    Not that many women don’t desire to be objectified in this way, but really…

  41. @songbird
    @Wency

    Here's the language they used in the poll: "How interested, if at all, would you be in having an open relationship (one where you could date more than one person simultaneously)?"

    If you are not currently in a long-term relationship, I think the wording seems even less sexual.

    Personally, I wouldn't consider simultaneous dating to be very counter-cultural. If it is not in a gutter context of one-night stands, then one can possibly see benefits to it. Like, encouraging socialization. Maybe, encouraging people to develop conversational skills and confidence.

    If every first date has to begin with a confession of your love, then I think that setting the emotional threshold that high could have really negative social consequences. It discourages the woman from saying yes, and the man from making the attempt. Historically, most marriages were arranged, and I don't think we are set to operate on a "I love you, will you go out with me?" basis.

    In fact, I wonder if a place like Japan could benefit from hiring doñas (is that the word?) to act as escorts for young women, so that the stakes are lowered.

    Replies: @Wency

    Here’s the language they used in the poll: “How interested, if at all, would you be in having an open relationship (one where you could date more than one person simultaneously)?”

    I see your point. There’s the potential for some confusion in that the word “date”, as a verb, covers quite a lot of ground in contemporary language. “We dated” could mean we went on a single date, or that we were effectively common-law married. Also this is a poll that covers several generations, and some age groups might interpret it differently from others.

    Personally, I wouldn’t consider simultaneous dating to be very counter-cultural.

    I found that it raised a fair number of eyebrows among friends and family, if they learned I had a good date with a girl, was looking forward to the next, but was going ahead and still asking other girls out. But they couldn’t really find grounds to condemn it. It’s probably normal in some circles but counter-cultural within circles that are pretty square. It’s contrary to a lot of what you see on TV/movies, where boy meets girl and then pursues her single-mindedly until things work out. Among my friends who were never players, I think I’m the only one who ever pursued the strategy of simultaneous dating in earnest.

    As for the benefits of it, I’d agree with everything you said and more.

  42. @Bardon Kaldian
    @Not only wrathful

    Look....this is all wrong. Knowers of human nature, from Athenian tragedians through Shakespeare, Montaigne to Balzac, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Flaubert, Lawrence, Freud (he was not a scientist) ... knew that erotic love is necessarily exclusive & the healthy dose of jealousy is needed.

    Here deep friendship differs from sexual love.

    Replies: @Not only wrathful

    Look….this is all wrong. Knowers of human nature, from Athenian tragedians through Shakespeare, Montaigne to Balzac, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Flaubert, Lawrence, Freud (he was not a scientist) … knew that erotic love is necessarily exclusive & the healthy dose of jealousy is needed

    Lol

    As I said, most people (and hence most fictional characters) need to view their lover as their property because they can’t separate their sense of love from their fear, pride and vanity…

    But some people do

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Not only wrathful

    Sexual love is regarding your partner as your property. Not just property, much more- but property, still.

    Jealousy is a healthy ineradicable part of normalcy. As is preferring you friends to others, you children to others', ... and other unpleasant facts of human nature.

    Because of anatomy, in a normal sex act a female is “possessed”, Biblically “known” & the man who screwed her (he screwed her, not the other way around) has some intimate knowledge & power over her.

    So, from the perspective of normally possessive male in a marriage, he, if she is not a virgin anymore, has got partially “damaged goods”; or she is not completely his, his property (the natural way of male instinctive thinking) because someone has already “possessed” her; then, she might compare him & others, which is a potential cause of anxiety.

    This may sound old-fashioned, but I think Tolstoy got it right in his last (and worst) novel “Resurrection”, when the central character Nekhlyudov (a substitute for Tolstoy) ponders on his future marriage to a 28 years old woman (not a widow & it was, anyway, never realized) & feels an unease, anxiety & disgust over the fact that she had already slept with a few men. Nothing extreme, and he was actually not in love, but it comes down to: her body & soul should be mine, mine & exclusively mine. Period. Nothing to discuss.

    And then, apart from these issues, there remain those of imagination: would you indifferently drink a glass of water from a glass you know was full of shit some time ago, although it is now perfectly clean? Sure, it is sterilized- but you know there was a shit in it & you cannot erase it from your memory.

    If a male CEO has sex with a female subordinate, he has some power over her, he “knew” her & can snigger about it; if a female CEO has sex with a male subordinate- he has gained some power over her, he “knew” her & he can snigger.

    Of course, since virginity in the traditional sense is almost absent in modern society, the average normal modern male (not a man-whore or any other extreme) is forced to accept “a relatively small number of prior partners” as the standard. As far as I know, this is how the modern normal male mind functions in a modern society (except if intoxicated or anything highly atypical, including fetishes)

    You can't alter human nature, at least most of it.

    Replies: @Not only wrathful, @Not only wrathful

  43. @Not only wrathful
    @Bardon Kaldian


    Look….this is all wrong. Knowers of human nature, from Athenian tragedians through Shakespeare, Montaigne to Balzac, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Flaubert, Lawrence, Freud (he was not a scientist) … knew that erotic love is necessarily exclusive & the healthy dose of jealousy is needed
     
    Lol

    As I said, most people (and hence most fictional characters) need to view their lover as their property because they can't separate their sense of love from their fear, pride and vanity...

    But some people do

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    Sexual love is regarding your partner as your property. Not just property, much more- but property, still.

    Jealousy is a healthy ineradicable part of normalcy. As is preferring you friends to others, you children to others’, … and other unpleasant facts of human nature.

    Because of anatomy, in a normal sex act a female is “possessed”, Biblically “known” & the man who screwed her (he screwed her, not the other way around) has some intimate knowledge & power over her.

    So, from the perspective of normally possessive male in a marriage, he, if she is not a virgin anymore, has got partially “damaged goods”; or she is not completely his, his property (the natural way of male instinctive thinking) because someone has already “possessed” her; then, she might compare him & others, which is a potential cause of anxiety.

    This may sound old-fashioned, but I think Tolstoy got it right in his last (and worst) novel “Resurrection”, when the central character Nekhlyudov (a substitute for Tolstoy) ponders on his future marriage to a 28 years old woman (not a widow & it was, anyway, never realized) & feels an unease, anxiety & disgust over the fact that she had already slept with a few men. Nothing extreme, and he was actually not in love, but it comes down to: her body & soul should be mine, mine & exclusively mine. Period. Nothing to discuss.

    And then, apart from these issues, there remain those of imagination: would you indifferently drink a glass of water from a glass you know was full of shit some time ago, although it is now perfectly clean? Sure, it is sterilized- but you know there was a shit in it & you cannot erase it from your memory.

    If a male CEO has sex with a female subordinate, he has some power over her, he “knew” her & can snigger about it; if a female CEO has sex with a male subordinate- he has gained some power over her, he “knew” her & he can snigger.

    Of course, since virginity in the traditional sense is almost absent in modern society, the average normal modern male (not a man-whore or any other extreme) is forced to accept “a relatively small number of prior partners” as the standard. As far as I know, this is how the modern normal male mind functions in a modern society (except if intoxicated or anything highly atypical, including fetishes)

    You can’t alter human nature, at least most of it.

    • Replies: @Not only wrathful
    @Bardon Kaldian


    Sexual love is regarding your partner as your property. Not just property, much more- but property, still.
     
    As much as you see a person as your property is as much as you don't see them as them.

    It is therefore some other emotion which people lack the courage to be honest with themselves about, so they pretend it is "love"; when likely it is fear.


    Jealousy is a healthy ineradicable part of normalcy. As is preferring you friends to others, you children to others’, … and other unpleasant facts of human nature.
     
    Yes, just like pride, vanity, fear etc.

    Yet some people need not be led around by those things.


    Because of anatomy, in a normal sex act a female is “possessed”, Biblically “known” & the man who screwed her (he screwed her, not the other way around) has some intimate knowledge & power over her.
     
    If you, as a man, don't also feel known by your female lover, as well as not experiencing sex as a spiritually interpenetrative act, then you are missing out.

    ed) & feels an unease, anxiety & disgust over the fact that she had already slept with a few men. Nothing extreme, and he was actually not in love,
     
    I would argue that if he feels those things like that, then he doesn't even know what love is. Most humans don't seem to. That's ok.

    ...

    Regardless, you don't have an argument. You merely point out that what most people call " love" is a jealous mix of trying to control, dominate and own the other person and ultimately to make them serve your vanity, pride and insecurities.

    Which is of course true...most

    I spent far too long pretending that your argument, because it is normal, is therefore true, so I could be normal. But it isn't, and I know that.

    And here's the rational thesis, because my own experience will not be experienced by you: to love someone requires that you know them, otherwise you are loving a fiction. This is what most people do and then need the other person to maintain that fiction, for fear of them realising that they were always deluded. This is tragedy - most often necessary, but sad.

    But it you know someone and you love them (and if you truly know them, it is impossible not to love them, purely) then the very idea of restricting them is anathema.

    I get this doesn't fit your experience, but I am sure you can treat it as a reasonable hypothesis and leave it at that.

    I don't intend to threaten your worldview as I fully agree that humans, in general, need conservative institutions, if only mostly because they lack the courage and competence to see what is in their heart right now...

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Jay Fink

    , @Not only wrathful
    @Bardon Kaldian


    If a male CEO has sex with a female subordinate, he has some power over her, he “knew” her & can snigger about it; if a female CEO has sex with a male subordinate- he has gained some power over her, he “knew” her & he can snigger.
     
    You know little about women. I can assure you, apart from the occasional lying or deluded waif, that women who use their sexuality to seduce CEOs and the like slugger, about it plenty. If anything, due to the politically correct mores of contemporary society, they "snigger" a lot more than men do. I have had many conversations with respectable educated women guffawing about their ex-lover's penis size, shape or other perceived inadequacies. I usually take the Larry David line and accuse the complaining woman of having a big vagina, leading to more laughs. Meanwhile, I have been in extremely masculine environments and never really had such a free and open chat in that way.

    You are alienated from your own receptive and vulnerable side and therefore project it onto women. Women may generally be less alienated from that side than men, but they are hardly dominated by it.

    Courage and vulnerability are almost synonymous. Funny when people can't instinctively see that...

  44. @Kent Nationalist
    @Jay Fink

    Probably because you're a faggot

    Replies: @Jay Fink

    No just the opposite. As a hetrosexual I always thought it would be a lot more pleasant to have less mate guarding males in the sexual market. Especially the most extreme ones such as the controlling violent alcoholic types.

    I have been against mate guarders since a negative experience in high school. At a party there was a couple where everytime the girl tried to make friendly conversation with a boy the boyfriend would tell her she can’t talk to him and she would obey and stop talking mid sentence. It seemed very obnoxious and uncivilized to me. None of the guys were flirting with her. It was just harmless small talk and because of his insecurity he overreacted. I never stopped thinking about this. So when I heard about cuckolds they sounded refreshing to me because they are the polar opposite of the men I disdain and resent.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Jay Fink

    Hello, Jay,
    I've seen behavior such as you describe even among adult males, some of whom are extremely controlling. I knew of one couple where the man would never let his wife go anywhere alone, not even to visit her family. I view such males -- they are not men! -- as contemptible creeps.
    So I agree with you that cuckolds (at least the kind who are not into humiliation, which is, to me, weird and icky) are a pleasing contrast, although I think wife-sharer might be a more neutral term than cuckold.

    There is a study about mate guarding that discovered that, for reproductive purposes, mate guarders have reason to be worried about their women: They have very poor sperm:

    “We found that men who performed fewer mate guarding behaviors produced higher quality ejaculates, having a greater concentration of sperm, a higher percentage of motile sperm and sperm that swam faster and less erratically.”

    Sperm Competition in Humans: Mate Guarding Behavior Negatively Correlates with Ejaculate Quality
    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0108099

    So the man with high fertility compared to other men doesn't really care if the woman he mates with also mates with other men because he knows (somehow...how?) that any baby she bears as a result will be his.

    Regarding "open relationships," I wonder how such things as couples playing strip poker or other games where losing a point requires discarding an item of clothing to the cheers and laughter of all, which often end up in sex play, would fit it. The friendly couples have sex with each others' spouses or significant others in their presence, but only under those "game" circumstances, and would not do so otherwise. In some circles, that sort of thing is quite common, while, I guess in the circles Unz regular commenters frequent, assuming they have circles of actually in-person friends -- of both sexes -- (this is not a snarky aside; I do really wonder) it would be considered most wicked.

    , @iffen
    @Jay Fink

    Cuckold fetish and "mate guarding" are not synonymous.

  45. @Bardon Kaldian
    @Not only wrathful

    Sexual love is regarding your partner as your property. Not just property, much more- but property, still.

    Jealousy is a healthy ineradicable part of normalcy. As is preferring you friends to others, you children to others', ... and other unpleasant facts of human nature.

    Because of anatomy, in a normal sex act a female is “possessed”, Biblically “known” & the man who screwed her (he screwed her, not the other way around) has some intimate knowledge & power over her.

    So, from the perspective of normally possessive male in a marriage, he, if she is not a virgin anymore, has got partially “damaged goods”; or she is not completely his, his property (the natural way of male instinctive thinking) because someone has already “possessed” her; then, she might compare him & others, which is a potential cause of anxiety.

    This may sound old-fashioned, but I think Tolstoy got it right in his last (and worst) novel “Resurrection”, when the central character Nekhlyudov (a substitute for Tolstoy) ponders on his future marriage to a 28 years old woman (not a widow & it was, anyway, never realized) & feels an unease, anxiety & disgust over the fact that she had already slept with a few men. Nothing extreme, and he was actually not in love, but it comes down to: her body & soul should be mine, mine & exclusively mine. Period. Nothing to discuss.

    And then, apart from these issues, there remain those of imagination: would you indifferently drink a glass of water from a glass you know was full of shit some time ago, although it is now perfectly clean? Sure, it is sterilized- but you know there was a shit in it & you cannot erase it from your memory.

    If a male CEO has sex with a female subordinate, he has some power over her, he “knew” her & can snigger about it; if a female CEO has sex with a male subordinate- he has gained some power over her, he “knew” her & he can snigger.

    Of course, since virginity in the traditional sense is almost absent in modern society, the average normal modern male (not a man-whore or any other extreme) is forced to accept “a relatively small number of prior partners” as the standard. As far as I know, this is how the modern normal male mind functions in a modern society (except if intoxicated or anything highly atypical, including fetishes)

    You can't alter human nature, at least most of it.

    Replies: @Not only wrathful, @Not only wrathful

    Sexual love is regarding your partner as your property. Not just property, much more- but property, still.

    As much as you see a person as your property is as much as you don’t see them as them.

    It is therefore some other emotion which people lack the courage to be honest with themselves about, so they pretend it is “love”; when likely it is fear.

    Jealousy is a healthy ineradicable part of normalcy. As is preferring you friends to others, you children to others’, … and other unpleasant facts of human nature.

    Yes, just like pride, vanity, fear etc.

    Yet some people need not be led around by those things.

    Because of anatomy, in a normal sex act a female is “possessed”, Biblically “known” & the man who screwed her (he screwed her, not the other way around) has some intimate knowledge & power over her.

    If you, as a man, don’t also feel known by your female lover, as well as not experiencing sex as a spiritually interpenetrative act, then you are missing out.

    ed) & feels an unease, anxiety & disgust over the fact that she had already slept with a few men. Nothing extreme, and he was actually not in love,

    I would argue that if he feels those things like that, then he doesn’t even know what love is. Most humans don’t seem to. That’s ok.

    Regardless, you don’t have an argument. You merely point out that what most people call ” love” is a jealous mix of trying to control, dominate and own the other person and ultimately to make them serve your vanity, pride and insecurities.

    Which is of course true…most

    I spent far too long pretending that your argument, because it is normal, is therefore true, so I could be normal. But it isn’t, and I know that.

    And here’s the rational thesis, because my own experience will not be experienced by you: to love someone requires that you know them, otherwise you are loving a fiction. This is what most people do and then need the other person to maintain that fiction, for fear of them realising that they were always deluded. This is tragedy – most often necessary, but sad.

    But it you know someone and you love them (and if you truly know them, it is impossible not to love them, purely) then the very idea of restricting them is anathema.

    I get this doesn’t fit your experience, but I am sure you can treat it as a reasonable hypothesis and leave it at that.

    I don’t intend to threaten your worldview as I fully agree that humans, in general, need conservative institutions, if only mostly because they lack the courage and competence to see what is in their heart right now…

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Not only wrathful

    Listen.....inside any healthy man is a Neanderthal. All guys from Sophocles to Lawrence knew that. Freud knew that. Jung knew that. Modern biopsychology, brain scanning, various cleverly devised psychological experiments know that.

    Dante wouldn't have written Commoedia had he married Beatrice.

    Various non-ideological investigations show- women want men who dominate them, but subtly (only psychos crave abuse). For instance, many marriages had fallen apart because men tried to please their better halves & had been doing the chores. Virtually all lost their spouses respect & divorce ensued.

    You comment on love has something to it, but it must be grounded:

    1. women want domination (sexual, physical, economic, intellectual,..)- it depends on a type of a female

    2. they want love. Love, romantic love, lasts ca. 4 years. Then, it wears off. If children are there, parents- if they are morally-emotionally developed- can deepen their mutual love & when sex, naturally, decreases- they cherish each other's being & enjoy enlargement of mutual life. Instead of intense, animalistic sex- tenderness remains.

    Travails can only strengthen it. If a woman gets a cancer, and a husband struggles with her to overcome it-and they succeed- then this is true love. Otherwise maligned rightist author Devlin had been right about it :

    https://thornwalker.com/ditch/devlin_shalit.htm
    ......................

    Second, precisely what is meant by the assertion that the young woman was "madly in love"? Love may be the ultimate weasel term, so for purposes of clarification, let me oppose to the author's anecdote a short one of my own.

    I had occasion recently to make some visits to a nursing home. Most of the residents never receive visitors; they just sit, bound to wheelchairs, waiting for death. Such care as they get is provided by low-wage workers speaking Swahili, Amharic, and a Babel of other tongues. Heaven knows where their children or grandchildren are. But a few cases, I noticed, are different. A man who once navigated bombers past Hitler's Luftwaffe was there, unable to feed himself. Every day his wife appeared and sat by him, patiently spooning the food into his mouth. Was he an "alpha male"? Did he make her swoon with passion? Did he support her any longer? Did he, for that matter, provide her with any benefit at all? No: yet she continued to appear every day for months on end, never complaining, until the day he died. This behavior cannot be explained in terms of rational self-interest, and I submit that it might reasonably be called "love."

    But love in this sense cannot be demonstrated to exist in a young woman — not even a newly married one; it requires a lifetime to reveal itself. So no one is in a position to say for sure whether Shalit's "madly in love" friend was really prepared to stand by the professor "for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health," etc. — not even the young woman herself. Even if he had married her en forme, there is a good statistical chance she would have ended up divorcing him after a few years (blaming him, as unfaithful wives invariably do, for the "breakdown" of the marriage). We simply cannot know.

    When the author describes this woman as "madly in love," however, she is not referring to any active service or sacrifice, but to an emotion. This type of love, especially characteristic of the young, might better be termed infatuation. It is a natural occurrence which always wears off over time. It does not merit the respect we pay to a lifetime of proven marital loyalty.

    Shalit's friend probably experienced the podium effect. When a man is addressing an audience, it conveys subrationally to the female mind that he has status: he speaks, while others merely listen. The phenomenon has long been known to Hollywood scriptwriters. Many old Cary Grant romantic comedies contain a scene where the heroine watches him addressing an audience. Shalit could probably tell us plenty about the podium effect herself, if she cared to; she mentions "my admiration for my [future] husband after hearing him speak at a Passover seder." (GGM, p. 103) (Not after his holding a door for her!) In any case, the podium effect is a principal reason for the erroneously termed "lecherous professor" situation.

    Replies: @Not only wrathful

    , @Jay Fink
    @Not only wrathful

    "You merely point out that what most people call ” love” is a jealous mix of trying to control, dominate and own the other person and ultimately to make them serve your vanity, pride and insecurities."

    Great analysis. One of the best I have seen written on the subject.

  46. @Bardon Kaldian
    @Not only wrathful

    Sexual love is regarding your partner as your property. Not just property, much more- but property, still.

    Jealousy is a healthy ineradicable part of normalcy. As is preferring you friends to others, you children to others', ... and other unpleasant facts of human nature.

    Because of anatomy, in a normal sex act a female is “possessed”, Biblically “known” & the man who screwed her (he screwed her, not the other way around) has some intimate knowledge & power over her.

    So, from the perspective of normally possessive male in a marriage, he, if she is not a virgin anymore, has got partially “damaged goods”; or she is not completely his, his property (the natural way of male instinctive thinking) because someone has already “possessed” her; then, she might compare him & others, which is a potential cause of anxiety.

    This may sound old-fashioned, but I think Tolstoy got it right in his last (and worst) novel “Resurrection”, when the central character Nekhlyudov (a substitute for Tolstoy) ponders on his future marriage to a 28 years old woman (not a widow & it was, anyway, never realized) & feels an unease, anxiety & disgust over the fact that she had already slept with a few men. Nothing extreme, and he was actually not in love, but it comes down to: her body & soul should be mine, mine & exclusively mine. Period. Nothing to discuss.

    And then, apart from these issues, there remain those of imagination: would you indifferently drink a glass of water from a glass you know was full of shit some time ago, although it is now perfectly clean? Sure, it is sterilized- but you know there was a shit in it & you cannot erase it from your memory.

    If a male CEO has sex with a female subordinate, he has some power over her, he “knew” her & can snigger about it; if a female CEO has sex with a male subordinate- he has gained some power over her, he “knew” her & he can snigger.

    Of course, since virginity in the traditional sense is almost absent in modern society, the average normal modern male (not a man-whore or any other extreme) is forced to accept “a relatively small number of prior partners” as the standard. As far as I know, this is how the modern normal male mind functions in a modern society (except if intoxicated or anything highly atypical, including fetishes)

    You can't alter human nature, at least most of it.

    Replies: @Not only wrathful, @Not only wrathful

    If a male CEO has sex with a female subordinate, he has some power over her, he “knew” her & can snigger about it; if a female CEO has sex with a male subordinate- he has gained some power over her, he “knew” her & he can snigger.

    You know little about women. I can assure you, apart from the occasional lying or deluded waif, that women who use their sexuality to seduce CEOs and the like slugger, about it plenty. If anything, due to the politically correct mores of contemporary society, they “snigger” a lot more than men do. I have had many conversations with respectable educated women guffawing about their ex-lover’s penis size, shape or other perceived inadequacies. I usually take the Larry David line and accuse the complaining woman of having a big vagina, leading to more laughs. Meanwhile, I have been in extremely masculine environments and never really had such a free and open chat in that way.

    You are alienated from your own receptive and vulnerable side and therefore project it onto women. Women may generally be less alienated from that side than men, but they are hardly dominated by it.

    Courage and vulnerability are almost synonymous. Funny when people can’t instinctively see that…

  47. @Bardon Kaldian
    @songbird

    Well ..... no.

    Jungian synchronicity - recently, I've been recuperating from my second Covid (I'm still exhausted, stay mostly at home etc). Simply, I did not (alright- I still don't) have energy nor interest for any "higher" topic, so I lazily listened to 30-50 videos at YouTube, each 15-20 minutes, about "relationships" (I was too tired, so I haven't watched anything, just listened while lying in the bed).

    Videos were mostly about transgenders, open relationships, female cheating, polyamory blah blah. I generally don't find this stuff too interesting, but, this time, it was refreshing-something different. And it leads to deeper questions about human nature, free will, autonomy of the individual etc.

    I must admit that stuff is partly tendentious because much of it comes from the "manosphere".

    But, my general impression is that open relationship is sex on the side, while living in a marriage or relationship with one person & that person agrees that the other will have sexual relations with other people. So- technically, not cheating because the partner knows.

    This type means sex & just sex because the prerequisite is that the "screwing around" partner must not get emotionally/romantically involved with others. Otherwise, there is no sense in being together, because emotional-romantic exclusivity is what keeps them together as a couple.

    That's the theory.

    The practice is, it seems, that one partner forces another to accept this, blackmailing him/her they will otherwise leave. So it begins, but eventually all crumbles because of... human nature. On the other hand, if they are both into it from the beginning, their marriage/whatever doesn't make much sense, because why pretend to have a some kind of exclusive relation & living together as a couple, while simultaneously screwing around? If they want to be a family- what's the prospect of such a family, especially if kids are involved?

    What about mental health of children? Or possible STDs? Or simply- why waste your energy & resources to an entangled web of physical/emotional... relations with other people, while you can find more productive & creative interests?

    I've seen mostly two categories of OR (both were doomed): a man is trapped in a sexless marriage, so he insists; a husband is a doormat or simply a nice guy wife becomes bored with & wants OR. In both cases, divorce is the most likely outcome.

    Replies: @songbird, @Dumbo

    There’s probably layers of biases in what gets promoted in youtube.

    To start with, people making videos are probably more narcissistic. Then there is a second layer of narcissism in the people sharing videos. Some of it gets funded by woke capital – definitely, a lot more money for leftward messages. Then there is corporate politics in the algorithm itself – they probably try to steer people away from Christian commentators.

    Though I am generally inclined to agree that normie stuff on youtube is very blackpilling. I think it is also true of Bitchute where the average viewer seems to love crazy conspiracy theories.

  48. @Not only wrathful
    @Bardon Kaldian


    Sexual love is regarding your partner as your property. Not just property, much more- but property, still.
     
    As much as you see a person as your property is as much as you don't see them as them.

    It is therefore some other emotion which people lack the courage to be honest with themselves about, so they pretend it is "love"; when likely it is fear.


    Jealousy is a healthy ineradicable part of normalcy. As is preferring you friends to others, you children to others’, … and other unpleasant facts of human nature.
     
    Yes, just like pride, vanity, fear etc.

    Yet some people need not be led around by those things.


    Because of anatomy, in a normal sex act a female is “possessed”, Biblically “known” & the man who screwed her (he screwed her, not the other way around) has some intimate knowledge & power over her.
     
    If you, as a man, don't also feel known by your female lover, as well as not experiencing sex as a spiritually interpenetrative act, then you are missing out.

    ed) & feels an unease, anxiety & disgust over the fact that she had already slept with a few men. Nothing extreme, and he was actually not in love,
     
    I would argue that if he feels those things like that, then he doesn't even know what love is. Most humans don't seem to. That's ok.

    ...

    Regardless, you don't have an argument. You merely point out that what most people call " love" is a jealous mix of trying to control, dominate and own the other person and ultimately to make them serve your vanity, pride and insecurities.

    Which is of course true...most

    I spent far too long pretending that your argument, because it is normal, is therefore true, so I could be normal. But it isn't, and I know that.

    And here's the rational thesis, because my own experience will not be experienced by you: to love someone requires that you know them, otherwise you are loving a fiction. This is what most people do and then need the other person to maintain that fiction, for fear of them realising that they were always deluded. This is tragedy - most often necessary, but sad.

    But it you know someone and you love them (and if you truly know them, it is impossible not to love them, purely) then the very idea of restricting them is anathema.

    I get this doesn't fit your experience, but I am sure you can treat it as a reasonable hypothesis and leave it at that.

    I don't intend to threaten your worldview as I fully agree that humans, in general, need conservative institutions, if only mostly because they lack the courage and competence to see what is in their heart right now...

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Jay Fink

    Listen…..inside any healthy man is a Neanderthal. All guys from Sophocles to Lawrence knew that. Freud knew that. Jung knew that. Modern biopsychology, brain scanning, various cleverly devised psychological experiments know that.

    Dante wouldn’t have written Commoedia had he married Beatrice.

    Various non-ideological investigations show- women want men who dominate them, but subtly (only psychos crave abuse). For instance, many marriages had fallen apart because men tried to please their better halves & had been doing the chores. Virtually all lost their spouses respect & divorce ensued.

    You comment on love has something to it, but it must be grounded:

    1. women want domination (sexual, physical, economic, intellectual,..)- it depends on a type of a female

    2. they want love. Love, romantic love, lasts ca. 4 years. Then, it wears off. If children are there, parents- if they are morally-emotionally developed- can deepen their mutual love & when sex, naturally, decreases- they cherish each other’s being & enjoy enlargement of mutual life. Instead of intense, animalistic sex- tenderness remains.

    Travails can only strengthen it. If a woman gets a cancer, and a husband struggles with her to overcome it-and they succeed- then this is true love. Otherwise maligned rightist author Devlin had been right about it :

    https://thornwalker.com/ditch/devlin_shalit.htm
    ………………….

    Second, precisely what is meant by the assertion that the young woman was “madly in love”? Love may be the ultimate weasel term, so for purposes of clarification, let me oppose to the author’s anecdote a short one of my own.

    I had occasion recently to make some visits to a nursing home. Most of the residents never receive visitors; they just sit, bound to wheelchairs, waiting for death. Such care as they get is provided by low-wage workers speaking Swahili, Amharic, and a Babel of other tongues. Heaven knows where their children or grandchildren are. But a few cases, I noticed, are different. A man who once navigated bombers past Hitler’s Luftwaffe was there, unable to feed himself. Every day his wife appeared and sat by him, patiently spooning the food into his mouth. Was he an “alpha male”? Did he make her swoon with passion? Did he support her any longer? Did he, for that matter, provide her with any benefit at all? No: yet she continued to appear every day for months on end, never complaining, until the day he died. This behavior cannot be explained in terms of rational self-interest, and I submit that it might reasonably be called “love.”

    But love in this sense cannot be demonstrated to exist in a young woman — not even a newly married one; it requires a lifetime to reveal itself. So no one is in a position to say for sure whether Shalit’s “madly in love” friend was really prepared to stand by the professor “for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health,” etc. — not even the young woman herself. Even if he had married her en forme, there is a good statistical chance she would have ended up divorcing him after a few years (blaming him, as unfaithful wives invariably do, for the “breakdown” of the marriage). We simply cannot know.

    When the author describes this woman as “madly in love,” however, she is not referring to any active service or sacrifice, but to an emotion. This type of love, especially characteristic of the young, might better be termed infatuation. It is a natural occurrence which always wears off over time. It does not merit the respect we pay to a lifetime of proven marital loyalty.

    Shalit’s friend probably experienced the podium effect. When a man is addressing an audience, it conveys subrationally to the female mind that he has status: he speaks, while others merely listen. The phenomenon has long been known to Hollywood scriptwriters. Many old Cary Grant romantic comedies contain a scene where the heroine watches him addressing an audience. Shalit could probably tell us plenty about the podium effect herself, if she cared to; she mentions “my admiration for my [future] husband after hearing him speak at a Passover seder.” (GGM, p. 103) (Not after his holding a door for her!) In any case, the podium effect is a principal reason for the erroneously termed “lecherous professor” situation.

    • Replies: @Not only wrathful
    @Bardon Kaldian


    But love in this sense cannot be demonstrated to exist in a young woman — not even a newly married one; it requires a lifetime to reveal itself.
     
    Most. There are exceptions. My original post was all about that. That those exceptions are few pushes me to not like this world.

    1. women want domination (sexual, physical, economic, intellectual,..)- it depends on a type of a female
     
    Most people want to dominate and be dominated. That is true, for they can only know themselves in how others perceive them; which of course means they likely don't know themselves at all, since only someone who knows themselves will clearly perceive others...

    But this isn't love.

    It is using others to support a fantasy image of yourself because when you look inside you are either scared of what you see, or you see nothing at all!

    Worse, show me a man who thinks he is with a woman who wants to be dominated and I will show you henpecks so bountiful there will barely be a man left underneath.

    they want love. Love, romantic love, lasts ca. 4 years. Then, it wears off. If children are there, parents- if they are morally-emotionally developed- can deepen their mutual love & when sex, naturally, decreases- they cherish each other’s being & enjoy enlargement of mutual life. Instead of intense, animalistic sex- tenderness remains
     
    Spiritual sex is far better. Again, most people will never know what I am talking about.
  49. @Bardon Kaldian
    @Not only wrathful

    Listen.....inside any healthy man is a Neanderthal. All guys from Sophocles to Lawrence knew that. Freud knew that. Jung knew that. Modern biopsychology, brain scanning, various cleverly devised psychological experiments know that.

    Dante wouldn't have written Commoedia had he married Beatrice.

    Various non-ideological investigations show- women want men who dominate them, but subtly (only psychos crave abuse). For instance, many marriages had fallen apart because men tried to please their better halves & had been doing the chores. Virtually all lost their spouses respect & divorce ensued.

    You comment on love has something to it, but it must be grounded:

    1. women want domination (sexual, physical, economic, intellectual,..)- it depends on a type of a female

    2. they want love. Love, romantic love, lasts ca. 4 years. Then, it wears off. If children are there, parents- if they are morally-emotionally developed- can deepen their mutual love & when sex, naturally, decreases- they cherish each other's being & enjoy enlargement of mutual life. Instead of intense, animalistic sex- tenderness remains.

    Travails can only strengthen it. If a woman gets a cancer, and a husband struggles with her to overcome it-and they succeed- then this is true love. Otherwise maligned rightist author Devlin had been right about it :

    https://thornwalker.com/ditch/devlin_shalit.htm
    ......................

    Second, precisely what is meant by the assertion that the young woman was "madly in love"? Love may be the ultimate weasel term, so for purposes of clarification, let me oppose to the author's anecdote a short one of my own.

    I had occasion recently to make some visits to a nursing home. Most of the residents never receive visitors; they just sit, bound to wheelchairs, waiting for death. Such care as they get is provided by low-wage workers speaking Swahili, Amharic, and a Babel of other tongues. Heaven knows where their children or grandchildren are. But a few cases, I noticed, are different. A man who once navigated bombers past Hitler's Luftwaffe was there, unable to feed himself. Every day his wife appeared and sat by him, patiently spooning the food into his mouth. Was he an "alpha male"? Did he make her swoon with passion? Did he support her any longer? Did he, for that matter, provide her with any benefit at all? No: yet she continued to appear every day for months on end, never complaining, until the day he died. This behavior cannot be explained in terms of rational self-interest, and I submit that it might reasonably be called "love."

    But love in this sense cannot be demonstrated to exist in a young woman — not even a newly married one; it requires a lifetime to reveal itself. So no one is in a position to say for sure whether Shalit's "madly in love" friend was really prepared to stand by the professor "for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health," etc. — not even the young woman herself. Even if he had married her en forme, there is a good statistical chance she would have ended up divorcing him after a few years (blaming him, as unfaithful wives invariably do, for the "breakdown" of the marriage). We simply cannot know.

    When the author describes this woman as "madly in love," however, she is not referring to any active service or sacrifice, but to an emotion. This type of love, especially characteristic of the young, might better be termed infatuation. It is a natural occurrence which always wears off over time. It does not merit the respect we pay to a lifetime of proven marital loyalty.

    Shalit's friend probably experienced the podium effect. When a man is addressing an audience, it conveys subrationally to the female mind that he has status: he speaks, while others merely listen. The phenomenon has long been known to Hollywood scriptwriters. Many old Cary Grant romantic comedies contain a scene where the heroine watches him addressing an audience. Shalit could probably tell us plenty about the podium effect herself, if she cared to; she mentions "my admiration for my [future] husband after hearing him speak at a Passover seder." (GGM, p. 103) (Not after his holding a door for her!) In any case, the podium effect is a principal reason for the erroneously termed "lecherous professor" situation.

    Replies: @Not only wrathful

    But love in this sense cannot be demonstrated to exist in a young woman — not even a newly married one; it requires a lifetime to reveal itself.

    Most. There are exceptions. My original post was all about that. That those exceptions are few pushes me to not like this world.

    1. women want domination (sexual, physical, economic, intellectual,..)- it depends on a type of a female

    Most people want to dominate and be dominated. That is true, for they can only know themselves in how others perceive them; which of course means they likely don’t know themselves at all, since only someone who knows themselves will clearly perceive others…

    But this isn’t love.

    It is using others to support a fantasy image of yourself because when you look inside you are either scared of what you see, or you see nothing at all!

    Worse, show me a man who thinks he is with a woman who wants to be dominated and I will show you henpecks so bountiful there will barely be a man left underneath.

    they want love. Love, romantic love, lasts ca. 4 years. Then, it wears off. If children are there, parents- if they are morally-emotionally developed- can deepen their mutual love & when sex, naturally, decreases- they cherish each other’s being & enjoy enlargement of mutual life. Instead of intense, animalistic sex- tenderness remains

    Spiritual sex is far better. Again, most people will never know what I am talking about.

  50. @Bardon Kaldian
    @Sgt. Joe Friday

    So called open relationships are not polyamory. These are complete different things.

    Still- they have something in common.

    They don't work.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    So called open relationships are not polyamory. These are complete different things.

    Still- they have something in common.

    They don’t work.

    It may well be a problem that is not worth worrying about. If people want to try open relationships they’re welcome to try. 99% of people will quickly discover that they don’t work and that they don’t really like the arrangement anyway.

    Not only is it not worth worrying about, there’s nothing we can do about it anyway.

    Unless you really want the state to start interfering even more in people’s personal lives. And that kind of state interference would be a very very foolish thing for social conservatives or Christians to support.

    So the best solution to this problem is to ignore it.

  51. @Not only wrathful
    @Bardon Kaldian


    Sexual love is regarding your partner as your property. Not just property, much more- but property, still.
     
    As much as you see a person as your property is as much as you don't see them as them.

    It is therefore some other emotion which people lack the courage to be honest with themselves about, so they pretend it is "love"; when likely it is fear.


    Jealousy is a healthy ineradicable part of normalcy. As is preferring you friends to others, you children to others’, … and other unpleasant facts of human nature.
     
    Yes, just like pride, vanity, fear etc.

    Yet some people need not be led around by those things.


    Because of anatomy, in a normal sex act a female is “possessed”, Biblically “known” & the man who screwed her (he screwed her, not the other way around) has some intimate knowledge & power over her.
     
    If you, as a man, don't also feel known by your female lover, as well as not experiencing sex as a spiritually interpenetrative act, then you are missing out.

    ed) & feels an unease, anxiety & disgust over the fact that she had already slept with a few men. Nothing extreme, and he was actually not in love,
     
    I would argue that if he feels those things like that, then he doesn't even know what love is. Most humans don't seem to. That's ok.

    ...

    Regardless, you don't have an argument. You merely point out that what most people call " love" is a jealous mix of trying to control, dominate and own the other person and ultimately to make them serve your vanity, pride and insecurities.

    Which is of course true...most

    I spent far too long pretending that your argument, because it is normal, is therefore true, so I could be normal. But it isn't, and I know that.

    And here's the rational thesis, because my own experience will not be experienced by you: to love someone requires that you know them, otherwise you are loving a fiction. This is what most people do and then need the other person to maintain that fiction, for fear of them realising that they were always deluded. This is tragedy - most often necessary, but sad.

    But it you know someone and you love them (and if you truly know them, it is impossible not to love them, purely) then the very idea of restricting them is anathema.

    I get this doesn't fit your experience, but I am sure you can treat it as a reasonable hypothesis and leave it at that.

    I don't intend to threaten your worldview as I fully agree that humans, in general, need conservative institutions, if only mostly because they lack the courage and competence to see what is in their heart right now...

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Jay Fink

    “You merely point out that what most people call ” love” is a jealous mix of trying to control, dominate and own the other person and ultimately to make them serve your vanity, pride and insecurities.”

    Great analysis. One of the best I have seen written on the subject.

    • Thanks: Not only wrathful
  52. Anonymous[521] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jay Fink
    @Kent Nationalist

    No just the opposite. As a hetrosexual I always thought it would be a lot more pleasant to have less mate guarding males in the sexual market. Especially the most extreme ones such as the controlling violent alcoholic types.

    I have been against mate guarders since a negative experience in high school. At a party there was a couple where everytime the girl tried to make friendly conversation with a boy the boyfriend would tell her she can't talk to him and she would obey and stop talking mid sentence. It seemed very obnoxious and uncivilized to me. None of the guys were flirting with her. It was just harmless small talk and because of his insecurity he overreacted. I never stopped thinking about this. So when I heard about cuckolds they sounded refreshing to me because they are the polar opposite of the men I disdain and resent.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @iffen

    Hello, Jay,
    I’ve seen behavior such as you describe even among adult males, some of whom are extremely controlling. I knew of one couple where the man would never let his wife go anywhere alone, not even to visit her family. I view such males — they are not men! — as contemptible creeps.
    So I agree with you that cuckolds (at least the kind who are not into humiliation, which is, to me, weird and icky) are a pleasing contrast, although I think wife-sharer might be a more neutral term than cuckold.

    There is a study about mate guarding that discovered that, for reproductive purposes, mate guarders have reason to be worried about their women: They have very poor sperm:

    “We found that men who performed fewer mate guarding behaviors produced higher quality ejaculates, having a greater concentration of sperm, a higher percentage of motile sperm and sperm that swam faster and less erratically.”

    Sperm Competition in Humans: Mate Guarding Behavior Negatively Correlates with Ejaculate Quality
    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0108099

    So the man with high fertility compared to other men doesn’t really care if the woman he mates with also mates with other men because he knows (somehow…how?) that any baby she bears as a result will be his.

    Regarding “open relationships,” I wonder how such things as couples playing strip poker or other games where losing a point requires discarding an item of clothing to the cheers and laughter of all, which often end up in sex play, would fit it. The friendly couples have sex with each others’ spouses or significant others in their presence, but only under those “game” circumstances, and would not do so otherwise. In some circles, that sort of thing is quite common, while, I guess in the circles Unz regular commenters frequent, assuming they have circles of actually in-person friends — of both sexes — (this is not a snarky aside; I do really wonder) it would be considered most wicked.

    • Thanks: Jay Fink
  53. this blog suspected the next front in the siege on sexual mores would be against the presumption of at least serial monogamy

    .

    If open relationships aren’t the next hill to die on, the reason may be that most adults already have some insight into ‘open relationships,’ which look a lot like the age-old phenomena of more-or-less-openly-practiced adultery and polygamy. Because this is not truly a new phenomenon, it doesn’t attract the interest or, crucially I think, the conservative outrage the left wants. Plenty of people on both the left and right understand from their experience of life that the average couple in an ‘open relationship’ is headed for a nasty breakup. Conversely, plenty of people on both sides like the idea of having their cake and eating it, too, so the idea is not going away.

    [MORE]

    Compare it with gay marriage. That was a novel idea piggybacked on a very old idea-marriage-that followed hard on the heels of a vast expansion of social and legal tolerance of homosexuality, which itself followed a vast change in the teleology of sex and marriage. Lots of normies instinctively recoiled, but having already been conditioned to think of marriage in terms of romance and personal fulfillment, and reproduction as a choice rather than the natural fruit of marriage, they were unsure if they should oppose it, or why. I don’t think many gave credence to the idea that the left’s ultimate purpose was to reduce marriage to a mere legal contract.

    Then there’s transgenderism, a phenomenon most people were barely aware of a decade ago. It’s deeply transgressive, and thus a good weapon with which to bludgeon conservatives. Due to an absence of conservative death squads running around killing transgender people, the left gins up urgency for new regulations and laws by focusing on suicide rates among youth, pronouns, and putting biological males in female spaces. It all seems to boil down to maneuvering conservatives into pitched battles on ground the left has carefully chosen.

    I’m guessing normalizing incest will be the next big push. If you accept the idea that sexual activity and marriage should be limited only by individual desire and ‘consent,’ and that reproduction is an affirmative choice, much like the choice to adopt a puppy, it’s hard to know just what grounds are left to oppose incest between adults. It may also become more relevant as more and more children of popular sperm donors grow up. It’s not inconceivable that half-siblings, or even a father and child, would meet, start a relationship, and then find out via genetic testing that they’re related.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Wency
    @Charlotte

    Good observations. And incest might actually be a decent guess when it comes to pushing matters. In particular, incest among siblings -- pedophilia won't win out among leftists, despite a thousand conservative suggestions to the contrary, because the age gap creates a victimhood narrative in a way that sibling incest does not. Perhaps public schools will soon be advocating sexual experimentation among siblings as a perfectly natural exercise, a safe and comfortable place to learn the ropes.

    But I also don't know that the left needs another deviancy-normalization campaign like this after World War T. They seem to have all the ammunition they need now. I think instead they focus on consolidating their gains and grinding down the opposition by using the tools already at their disposal.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  54. @Bardon Kaldian
    @songbird

    Well ..... no.

    Jungian synchronicity - recently, I've been recuperating from my second Covid (I'm still exhausted, stay mostly at home etc). Simply, I did not (alright- I still don't) have energy nor interest for any "higher" topic, so I lazily listened to 30-50 videos at YouTube, each 15-20 minutes, about "relationships" (I was too tired, so I haven't watched anything, just listened while lying in the bed).

    Videos were mostly about transgenders, open relationships, female cheating, polyamory blah blah. I generally don't find this stuff too interesting, but, this time, it was refreshing-something different. And it leads to deeper questions about human nature, free will, autonomy of the individual etc.

    I must admit that stuff is partly tendentious because much of it comes from the "manosphere".

    But, my general impression is that open relationship is sex on the side, while living in a marriage or relationship with one person & that person agrees that the other will have sexual relations with other people. So- technically, not cheating because the partner knows.

    This type means sex & just sex because the prerequisite is that the "screwing around" partner must not get emotionally/romantically involved with others. Otherwise, there is no sense in being together, because emotional-romantic exclusivity is what keeps them together as a couple.

    That's the theory.

    The practice is, it seems, that one partner forces another to accept this, blackmailing him/her they will otherwise leave. So it begins, but eventually all crumbles because of... human nature. On the other hand, if they are both into it from the beginning, their marriage/whatever doesn't make much sense, because why pretend to have a some kind of exclusive relation & living together as a couple, while simultaneously screwing around? If they want to be a family- what's the prospect of such a family, especially if kids are involved?

    What about mental health of children? Or possible STDs? Or simply- why waste your energy & resources to an entangled web of physical/emotional... relations with other people, while you can find more productive & creative interests?

    I've seen mostly two categories of OR (both were doomed): a man is trapped in a sexless marriage, so he insists; a husband is a doormat or simply a nice guy wife becomes bored with & wants OR. In both cases, divorce is the most likely outcome.

    Replies: @songbird, @Dumbo

    my second Covid

    Aren’t you supposed to get antibodies from the first one?

    Or are you just unlucky?

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Dumbo

    Antibodies protect you for 6-9 months. My first Covid was 13 months ago.

  55. If people want to try open relationships they’re welcome to try. 99% of people will quickly discover that they don’t work and that they don’t really like the arrangement anyway.

    It depends on a type of people. If they are, generally, more casual or relaxed about their lives, it may work (even if it doesn’t work in practice. They move away.) If, on the other hand, they are people with strong passions & imagination- it generally doesn’t. Everything collapses.

    • Replies: @Not only wrathful
    @Bardon Kaldian


    It depends on a type of people. If they are, generally, more casual or relaxed about their lives, it may work (even if it doesn’t work in practice. They move away.) If, on the other hand, they are people with strong passions & imagination
     
    I find that people with the strongest imaginations are also the calmest.

    I don't find that this relationship holds except at the extreme though.
  56. @Bardon Kaldian

    If people want to try open relationships they’re welcome to try. 99% of people will quickly discover that they don’t work and that they don’t really like the arrangement anyway.
     
    It depends on a type of people. If they are, generally, more casual or relaxed about their lives, it may work (even if it doesn't work in practice. They move away.) If, on the other hand, they are people with strong passions & imagination- it generally doesn't. Everything collapses.

    Replies: @Not only wrathful

    It depends on a type of people. If they are, generally, more casual or relaxed about their lives, it may work (even if it doesn’t work in practice. They move away.) If, on the other hand, they are people with strong passions & imagination

    I find that people with the strongest imaginations are also the calmest.

    I don’t find that this relationship holds except at the extreme though.

  57. @Jay Fink
    @Kent Nationalist

    No just the opposite. As a hetrosexual I always thought it would be a lot more pleasant to have less mate guarding males in the sexual market. Especially the most extreme ones such as the controlling violent alcoholic types.

    I have been against mate guarders since a negative experience in high school. At a party there was a couple where everytime the girl tried to make friendly conversation with a boy the boyfriend would tell her she can't talk to him and she would obey and stop talking mid sentence. It seemed very obnoxious and uncivilized to me. None of the guys were flirting with her. It was just harmless small talk and because of his insecurity he overreacted. I never stopped thinking about this. So when I heard about cuckolds they sounded refreshing to me because they are the polar opposite of the men I disdain and resent.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @iffen

    Cuckold fetish and “mate guarding” are not synonymous.

  58. @Bardon Kaldian
    @Almost Missouri

    Historically, most of the world was monogamous in practice. In the Antiquity- Egypt, Greece, Rome explicitly.
    Of course that India, China & Islam were, in theory, polygamous, but in practice it did not encompass more than 5%, and never 10% of their male population. It was reserved for their rulers & similar classes.

    In China, it was, for Emperor, basically a chore. People generally think their high classes indulged in wild sex fantasies - frequently they did, although "lower classes" were more orgiastic- but historical accounts show that it was mostly about fertility and succession line: bureaucrats carefully kept calendars of harem's women fertile, so poor Emperors should bang particular females although they might not be in the mood.

    True, there had been highly sexed rulers in the past etc., but polygamy was mostly economic & social, and not too erotic matter. When Bolsheviks imposed their rule, in the 1920s, in some central Asian Muslim republic (Bukhara? Samarkand?), it turned out that most harem women they "liberated" were still virgins.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @songbird

    Historically, most of the world was monogamous in practice. In the Antiquity- Egypt, Greece, Rome explicitly.

    Egyptian Pharaohs could have more than one wife. Heroic Age Greeks and Romans too. And Y-DNA of archeogenomes show that the Bronze Age and earlier was brutally polygynous pretty much everywhere.

    Of course that India, China & Islam were, in theory, polygamous, but in practice it did not encompass more than 5%, and never 10% of their male population. It was reserved for their rulers & similar classes.

    As mentioned, mathematically it can never be more than a minority pursuit, so naturally the minority will be the more powerful minority, aka, rulers, nobles, aristocracy, etc. Also mathematically, the more intensively the minority practice it, the less everyone else can.

    In China, it was, for Emperor, basically a chore. People generally think their high classes indulged in wild sex fantasies – frequently they did, although “lower classes” were more orgiastic- but historical accounts show that it was mostly about fertility and succession line: bureaucrats carefully kept calendars of harem’s women fertile, so poor Emperors should bang particular females although they might not be in the mood.

    That’s funny: Mandarins turning even sex into a grinding chore.

    As for whether polygamy was a grinding chore or “a stately pleasure dome decreed”, that may matter less to those deprived of a wife than the simple fact that they’re not getting any wife and children of their own, rather than that they’re missing out on a putative orgy. I think the modern fixation on sex as a personal experience of transcendent delirium is rather novel. The ancients and the peasant multitudes were more practical in their concerns.

    When Bolsheviks imposed their rule, in the 1920s, in some central Asian Muslim republic (Bukhara? Samarkand?), it turned out that most harem women they “liberated” were still virgins.

    Interesting. But in a way that’s even worse from the point of view of the deprived. Not only have the local elites monopolized their current wives (the consummated harem), but they’ve taken a bunch of additional inventory off the market (the unconsummated harem), really restricting the supply to the have-nots.

    Of course, polygamy tends to hand-in-hand with violence, so many of these societies create a female surplus through androcide, but of course a lack of prospective mates also creates more willing participants in androcidal conflicts. So you could say it’s a virtuous/vicious circle.

    BTW, where did you get the information about the Mandarin mating calendar and the liberated Soviet harems?

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Almost Missouri

    First from a book about polygamy I've read ca. 4 years ago; I forgot its title, but it was a historical survey, better a polemic on polygamy vs monogamy (it advocates monogamy). Belongs to the evolutionary psychology genre.

    The second is from one of the innumerable histories of Bolshevik revolution & I've read it at least 20 years ago, so I forgot virtually everything except this piquant element.

  59. @Dumbo
    @Bardon Kaldian


    my second Covid
     
    Aren't you supposed to get antibodies from the first one?

    Or are you just unlucky?

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    Antibodies protect you for 6-9 months. My first Covid was 13 months ago.

  60. @Almost Missouri
    @Bardon Kaldian


    Historically, most of the world was monogamous in practice. In the Antiquity- Egypt, Greece, Rome explicitly.
     
    Egyptian Pharaohs could have more than one wife. Heroic Age Greeks and Romans too. And Y-DNA of archeogenomes show that the Bronze Age and earlier was brutally polygynous pretty much everywhere.

    Of course that India, China & Islam were, in theory, polygamous, but in practice it did not encompass more than 5%, and never 10% of their male population. It was reserved for their rulers & similar classes.
     
    As mentioned, mathematically it can never be more than a minority pursuit, so naturally the minority will be the more powerful minority, aka, rulers, nobles, aristocracy, etc. Also mathematically, the more intensively the minority practice it, the less everyone else can.

    In China, it was, for Emperor, basically a chore. People generally think their high classes indulged in wild sex fantasies – frequently they did, although “lower classes” were more orgiastic- but historical accounts show that it was mostly about fertility and succession line: bureaucrats carefully kept calendars of harem’s women fertile, so poor Emperors should bang particular females although they might not be in the mood.
     
    That's funny: Mandarins turning even sex into a grinding chore.

    As for whether polygamy was a grinding chore or "a stately pleasure dome decreed", that may matter less to those deprived of a wife than the simple fact that they're not getting any wife and children of their own, rather than that they're missing out on a putative orgy. I think the modern fixation on sex as a personal experience of transcendent delirium is rather novel. The ancients and the peasant multitudes were more practical in their concerns.

    When Bolsheviks imposed their rule, in the 1920s, in some central Asian Muslim republic (Bukhara? Samarkand?), it turned out that most harem women they “liberated” were still virgins.
     
    Interesting. But in a way that's even worse from the point of view of the deprived. Not only have the local elites monopolized their current wives (the consummated harem), but they've taken a bunch of additional inventory off the market (the unconsummated harem), really restricting the supply to the have-nots.

    Of course, polygamy tends to hand-in-hand with violence, so many of these societies create a female surplus through androcide, but of course a lack of prospective mates also creates more willing participants in androcidal conflicts. So you could say it's a virtuous/vicious circle.

    BTW, where did you get the information about the Mandarin mating calendar and the liberated Soviet harems?

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    First from a book about polygamy I’ve read ca. 4 years ago; I forgot its title, but it was a historical survey, better a polemic on polygamy vs monogamy (it advocates monogamy). Belongs to the evolutionary psychology genre.

    The second is from one of the innumerable histories of Bolshevik revolution & I’ve read it at least 20 years ago, so I forgot virtually everything except this piquant element.

  61. @Bardon Kaldian
    @Almost Missouri

    Historically, most of the world was monogamous in practice. In the Antiquity- Egypt, Greece, Rome explicitly.
    Of course that India, China & Islam were, in theory, polygamous, but in practice it did not encompass more than 5%, and never 10% of their male population. It was reserved for their rulers & similar classes.

    In China, it was, for Emperor, basically a chore. People generally think their high classes indulged in wild sex fantasies - frequently they did, although "lower classes" were more orgiastic- but historical accounts show that it was mostly about fertility and succession line: bureaucrats carefully kept calendars of harem's women fertile, so poor Emperors should bang particular females although they might not be in the mood.

    True, there had been highly sexed rulers in the past etc., but polygamy was mostly economic & social, and not too erotic matter. When Bolsheviks imposed their rule, in the 1920s, in some central Asian Muslim republic (Bukhara? Samarkand?), it turned out that most harem women they "liberated" were still virgins.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @songbird

    Of course that India, China & Islam were, in theory, polygamous, but in practice it did not encompass more than 5%, and never 10% of their male population.

    Levels like that can have significant effects. They can cause wars. They can have substantial genetic effects, over the course of generations. The percentage of African genes in Arabs doubled over the course of Islam. Meanwhile, it may have been eugenic to the Chinese.

    People generally think their high classes indulged in wild sex fantasies

    the Ottoman sultan supposedly had his harem form a circle around him, get on all fours, and neigh like horses. But who knows if it really happened?

    but historical accounts show that it was mostly about fertility and succession line: bureaucrats carefully kept calendars of harem’s women fertile,

    Upon the death of the Sultan all sons but one were killed.

    Women who are housed together have their menstrual cycles converge to the same days, so some bureaucratic rigor was required, and different housing arrangements. But it is a fantasy for many men to have many descendants.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @songbird

    >Upon the death of the Sultan all sons but one were killed.

    That's part of why the Ottomans succeeded where the Seljuks didn't.

    Replies: @songbird

  62. @songbird
    @Bardon Kaldian


    Of course that India, China & Islam were, in theory, polygamous, but in practice it did not encompass more than 5%, and never 10% of their male population.
     
    Levels like that can have significant effects. They can cause wars. They can have substantial genetic effects, over the course of generations. The percentage of African genes in Arabs doubled over the course of Islam. Meanwhile, it may have been eugenic to the Chinese.

    People generally think their high classes indulged in wild sex fantasies
     
    the Ottoman sultan supposedly had his harem form a circle around him, get on all fours, and neigh like horses. But who knows if it really happened?

    but historical accounts show that it was mostly about fertility and succession line: bureaucrats carefully kept calendars of harem’s women fertile,
     
    Upon the death of the Sultan all sons but one were killed.

    Women who are housed together have their menstrual cycles converge to the same days, so some bureaucratic rigor was required, and different housing arrangements. But it is a fantasy for many men to have many descendants.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    >Upon the death of the Sultan all sons but one were killed.

    That’s part of why the Ottomans succeeded where the Seljuks didn’t.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @nebulafox

    One has to admire the relative stability of the Ottomans.

    Though, it seems like a big gamble to place all one's eggs in one basket, or to roll the dice one time. And, of course, there is something unavoidably disturbing about it, even if we recognize that it probably did save lives.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  63. @nebulafox
    @songbird

    >Upon the death of the Sultan all sons but one were killed.

    That's part of why the Ottomans succeeded where the Seljuks didn't.

    Replies: @songbird

    One has to admire the relative stability of the Ottomans.

    Though, it seems like a big gamble to place all one’s eggs in one basket, or to roll the dice one time. And, of course, there is something unavoidably disturbing about it, even if we recognize that it probably did save lives.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @songbird

    True. The ones who died might have been lucky: some of those princes turned to mental pudding due to the isolation. (Having lived the latter myself, I declare that I would sooner be beheaded than do that for life, with no hope of escape.) In the end, though, Ottoman family politics were no more amoral-and no less-than contemporary states around the world, from Henry VIII's treatment of his daughters to Ieyasu ordering his son to commit suicide in order to stay in his lord's good graces.

    Tangentially related, but know what the funny thing about comparing the late Hapsburg experience to the late Ottoman one? The exact situation that damned one empire-the Ausgleich with the Magyars-might have saved the other. Whereas the Hapsburgs had to deal with Slavic peoples who had to be used as a counterweight against the Hungarians, as Franz Ferdinand saw, the Ottomans really could have worked out a "dualist" situation with the Arabs if they were more flexible after losing their European provinces. The other minorities, like the Armenians and the Jews, were too geographically dispersed to pose a threat to this, unlike the Slavs.

    That goes to show you how much of a crock universalism is. What works for one state might be poison for another, and vice versa. There's no one answer. You got to do what works for *your* country.

    Replies: @songbird

  64. @songbird
    @nebulafox

    One has to admire the relative stability of the Ottomans.

    Though, it seems like a big gamble to place all one's eggs in one basket, or to roll the dice one time. And, of course, there is something unavoidably disturbing about it, even if we recognize that it probably did save lives.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    True. The ones who died might have been lucky: some of those princes turned to mental pudding due to the isolation. (Having lived the latter myself, I declare that I would sooner be beheaded than do that for life, with no hope of escape.) In the end, though, Ottoman family politics were no more amoral-and no less-than contemporary states around the world, from Henry VIII’s treatment of his daughters to Ieyasu ordering his son to commit suicide in order to stay in his lord’s good graces.

    Tangentially related, but know what the funny thing about comparing the late Hapsburg experience to the late Ottoman one? The exact situation that damned one empire-the Ausgleich with the Magyars-might have saved the other. Whereas the Hapsburgs had to deal with Slavic peoples who had to be used as a counterweight against the Hungarians, as Franz Ferdinand saw, the Ottomans really could have worked out a “dualist” situation with the Arabs if they were more flexible after losing their European provinces. The other minorities, like the Armenians and the Jews, were too geographically dispersed to pose a threat to this, unlike the Slavs.

    That goes to show you how much of a crock universalism is. What works for one state might be poison for another, and vice versa. There’s no one answer. You got to do what works for *your* country.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @nebulafox

    It is interesting to read about familial conflicts relating to succession. I always wonder how much of it is purely about power, and how much to do with contenders being raised separately, or perhaps having different mothers.

    Some have speculated that Turkey will come to dominate the Arabs again in the coming decades. I think Arabs resent Turks too much though. Similarly, I think an equal union is not possible as Turks understand that that would mean more Arabs moving to Turkey.

  65. I think this is driven by women, who are after all the sellers in the sexual marketplace and have the winning hand.

    First, obesity reduces the amount of attractive young women. Second, your post AE on how people meet shows a big sea change. Around 15 years ago the workplace dropped off to church, school, social activities for couples meeting. It was bars and online dating. Now post Covid 19 its just online dating. Which favors only the handsome and high status.

    Imagine a lock down society for the next ten years. A few Alpha Chads monopolize all the women, via online dating apps, the rest have maybe an Only Fans account or something. Young guys grow up, isolated, women completely unattainable. I know the media retort is that they will all turn gay. My guess is that they will seek the short cut of violence which always works one way or another to get women / girls. Which in turn will not be very nice for women either. They’d certainly form a ready made army, which the media understands hence “incel” stuff and the like.

    But, it seems women want the African Solution. A few men compete to be the best extrovert. Best fighter, dancer, singer, etc. Who in turn impregnate but contribute nothing to care of kids who might or might not be theirs.

    The question is, does this scale up to Western levels of male cooperation, high skills, and dutifulness? After all even something like the water supply requires high levels of male skill and cooperation from chemists and lab analysts to engineers and highly skilled workers replacing pipes and so on. African levels of family formation lead to African levels of technology, i.e. Obama’s Mau-Mau grandfather noting that the African cannot make his own bicycle.

    I don’t think the Alpha chad / beta male Only Fans account model is stable, likely rather a transition mode to either “Blond Beast” old style pagan barbarism or some strong man imposing strict monogamy and just assigning women to his followers (those not in his army get nothing). Yes cheap labor makes big profits for BigCorp, immigrant or outsourced, and there is a thrill for the elites to burn down the existing culture and replace it with that of the Third World, but there is a point of diminishing returns when a diet turns to starvation, or exercise to a heart attack. Third World societies can function (sort of, see India) under stress as they have non nuclear family networks of clans and kin. Highly atomized Westerners need a functioning society and systems such as clean water and a working power grid as they don’t have 30 cousins in the mountains with farms to go live with when the city shuts down.

    The idea of women having various hot dudes servicing them sounds good to them (they are likely the respondents) but in reality it just does not scale and real dictator would put a stop to it quicker than you can say Xi Xinping. [Who apparently deep sixed some actress who noted she’d rather cry in the back of a limo with a big shot than be happy with some good guy on the back of a moped]. We are likely to get a real dictator sooner or later, given the various crises including possible war with Russia, Iran, China, new Covid variants running wild in India, the attempts by the media / Dems to gin up a race war, mass immigration into the US, and possibly a mass casualty terrorist attack dwarfing 9/11 run up by ISIS. Or Iran.

    Polygamy does not scale. Not for an industrial society of massive complexity, at least.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Whiskey

    Well, to say it short- in a reference I've mentioned earlier, about polygamy vs monogamy, it was clearly said that monogamy results in a possible flourishing of a society, while polygamy .... not so.

    Two things are immediately visible: if all men, more or less, get their females, you got a stable society. If a significant number of men are left without women, that leads to criminality, gangs, wars, violence, prostitution, STDs, ...and not homosexuality. So called chads fall into different categories, but the lowest is, in sociological sense, something of a parasite.

    Then, most men who create better world, cause civilizational changes, .... are either celibates (rarely) or simply not attractive to women because they're, well, "too serious" & dedicated to some, for most women, inexplicable pursuits.. It has been so from Aristotle to Avicenna to Newton to Thomas Young to J.C.Maxwell to .... They did have some chance in the era of arranged marriages, but now when it's all about hookup, celebrities, "fun", porn selfies, sexting... not quite.

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Whiskey


    Polygamy does not scale. Not for an industrial society of massive complexity, at least.
     
    The whole comment is recommended to all readers, not only the quoted line.

    I do not whether every point the comment makes is 100 percent accurate. Maybe not, maybe so. To intuit the actual feminine state of mind is hard. One can only observe behavior.

    The point however is that the comment asks the right questions and is intellectually serious about answering them. Within living memory in the Anglosphere until the early 2010s, such questions and answers had rarely been heard.

    It's about time.

    @Whiskey: if the question is not too doxxworthy, may I ask, about what year were you born? (I was born in the mid-1960s, if you wish to know.)

    Anyway, readers, go back to read @Whiskey's comment if you haven't already. It's long but worth your time.

    , @Jay Fink
    @Whiskey

    Good to see a comment from you! Speaking of Only Fans. I checked out an online dating site for the first time in several years and I was shocked at how much the scene has changed. At least half the female profiles were directing men to their Only Fans, Snapchat premium, Instagram and Cash App accounts. Some profiles were actually straight up soliciting prostitution.

  66. @Whiskey
    I think this is driven by women, who are after all the sellers in the sexual marketplace and have the winning hand.

    First, obesity reduces the amount of attractive young women. Second, your post AE on how people meet shows a big sea change. Around 15 years ago the workplace dropped off to church, school, social activities for couples meeting. It was bars and online dating. Now post Covid 19 its just online dating. Which favors only the handsome and high status.

    Imagine a lock down society for the next ten years. A few Alpha Chads monopolize all the women, via online dating apps, the rest have maybe an Only Fans account or something. Young guys grow up, isolated, women completely unattainable. I know the media retort is that they will all turn gay. My guess is that they will seek the short cut of violence which always works one way or another to get women / girls. Which in turn will not be very nice for women either. They'd certainly form a ready made army, which the media understands hence "incel" stuff and the like.

    But, it seems women want the African Solution. A few men compete to be the best extrovert. Best fighter, dancer, singer, etc. Who in turn impregnate but contribute nothing to care of kids who might or might not be theirs.

    The question is, does this scale up to Western levels of male cooperation, high skills, and dutifulness? After all even something like the water supply requires high levels of male skill and cooperation from chemists and lab analysts to engineers and highly skilled workers replacing pipes and so on. African levels of family formation lead to African levels of technology, i.e. Obama's Mau-Mau grandfather noting that the African cannot make his own bicycle.

    I don't think the Alpha chad / beta male Only Fans account model is stable, likely rather a transition mode to either "Blond Beast" old style pagan barbarism or some strong man imposing strict monogamy and just assigning women to his followers (those not in his army get nothing). Yes cheap labor makes big profits for BigCorp, immigrant or outsourced, and there is a thrill for the elites to burn down the existing culture and replace it with that of the Third World, but there is a point of diminishing returns when a diet turns to starvation, or exercise to a heart attack. Third World societies can function (sort of, see India) under stress as they have non nuclear family networks of clans and kin. Highly atomized Westerners need a functioning society and systems such as clean water and a working power grid as they don't have 30 cousins in the mountains with farms to go live with when the city shuts down.

    The idea of women having various hot dudes servicing them sounds good to them (they are likely the respondents) but in reality it just does not scale and real dictator would put a stop to it quicker than you can say Xi Xinping. [Who apparently deep sixed some actress who noted she'd rather cry in the back of a limo with a big shot than be happy with some good guy on the back of a moped]. We are likely to get a real dictator sooner or later, given the various crises including possible war with Russia, Iran, China, new Covid variants running wild in India, the attempts by the media / Dems to gin up a race war, mass immigration into the US, and possibly a mass casualty terrorist attack dwarfing 9/11 run up by ISIS. Or Iran.

    Polygamy does not scale. Not for an industrial society of massive complexity, at least.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @V. K. Ovelund, @Jay Fink

    Well, to say it short- in a reference I’ve mentioned earlier, about polygamy vs monogamy, it was clearly said that monogamy results in a possible flourishing of a society, while polygamy …. not so.

    Two things are immediately visible: if all men, more or less, get their females, you got a stable society. If a significant number of men are left without women, that leads to criminality, gangs, wars, violence, prostitution, STDs, …and not homosexuality. So called chads fall into different categories, but the lowest is, in sociological sense, something of a parasite.

    Then, most men who create better world, cause civilizational changes, …. are either celibates (rarely) or simply not attractive to women because they’re, well, “too serious” & dedicated to some, for most women, inexplicable pursuits.. It has been so from Aristotle to Avicenna to Newton to Thomas Young to J.C.Maxwell to …. They did have some chance in the era of arranged marriages, but now when it’s all about hookup, celebrities, “fun”, porn selfies, sexting… not quite.

  67. @songbird
    Honestly, I think the more alarming poll is the HavardIoP where Biden's favorability is very high among young people.

    Replies: @SFG

    Young people have been more liberal since I-don’t-know-how-long, so out of a lot of bad news that’s hardly surprising.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @SFG

    True, but it is higher than anything in the past 20 years, since they began the survey.

  68. @Whiskey
    I think this is driven by women, who are after all the sellers in the sexual marketplace and have the winning hand.

    First, obesity reduces the amount of attractive young women. Second, your post AE on how people meet shows a big sea change. Around 15 years ago the workplace dropped off to church, school, social activities for couples meeting. It was bars and online dating. Now post Covid 19 its just online dating. Which favors only the handsome and high status.

    Imagine a lock down society for the next ten years. A few Alpha Chads monopolize all the women, via online dating apps, the rest have maybe an Only Fans account or something. Young guys grow up, isolated, women completely unattainable. I know the media retort is that they will all turn gay. My guess is that they will seek the short cut of violence which always works one way or another to get women / girls. Which in turn will not be very nice for women either. They'd certainly form a ready made army, which the media understands hence "incel" stuff and the like.

    But, it seems women want the African Solution. A few men compete to be the best extrovert. Best fighter, dancer, singer, etc. Who in turn impregnate but contribute nothing to care of kids who might or might not be theirs.

    The question is, does this scale up to Western levels of male cooperation, high skills, and dutifulness? After all even something like the water supply requires high levels of male skill and cooperation from chemists and lab analysts to engineers and highly skilled workers replacing pipes and so on. African levels of family formation lead to African levels of technology, i.e. Obama's Mau-Mau grandfather noting that the African cannot make his own bicycle.

    I don't think the Alpha chad / beta male Only Fans account model is stable, likely rather a transition mode to either "Blond Beast" old style pagan barbarism or some strong man imposing strict monogamy and just assigning women to his followers (those not in his army get nothing). Yes cheap labor makes big profits for BigCorp, immigrant or outsourced, and there is a thrill for the elites to burn down the existing culture and replace it with that of the Third World, but there is a point of diminishing returns when a diet turns to starvation, or exercise to a heart attack. Third World societies can function (sort of, see India) under stress as they have non nuclear family networks of clans and kin. Highly atomized Westerners need a functioning society and systems such as clean water and a working power grid as they don't have 30 cousins in the mountains with farms to go live with when the city shuts down.

    The idea of women having various hot dudes servicing them sounds good to them (they are likely the respondents) but in reality it just does not scale and real dictator would put a stop to it quicker than you can say Xi Xinping. [Who apparently deep sixed some actress who noted she'd rather cry in the back of a limo with a big shot than be happy with some good guy on the back of a moped]. We are likely to get a real dictator sooner or later, given the various crises including possible war with Russia, Iran, China, new Covid variants running wild in India, the attempts by the media / Dems to gin up a race war, mass immigration into the US, and possibly a mass casualty terrorist attack dwarfing 9/11 run up by ISIS. Or Iran.

    Polygamy does not scale. Not for an industrial society of massive complexity, at least.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @V. K. Ovelund, @Jay Fink

    Polygamy does not scale. Not for an industrial society of massive complexity, at least.

    The whole comment is recommended to all readers, not only the quoted line.

    I do not whether every point the comment makes is 100 percent accurate. Maybe not, maybe so. To intuit the actual feminine state of mind is hard. One can only observe behavior.

    The point however is that the comment asks the right questions and is intellectually serious about answering them. Within living memory in the Anglosphere until the early 2010s, such questions and answers had rarely been heard.

    It’s about time.

    : if the question is not too doxxworthy, may I ask, about what year were you born? (I was born in the mid-1960s, if you wish to know.)

    Anyway, readers, go back to read ’s comment if you haven’t already. It’s long but worth your time.

  69. @SFG
    @songbird

    Young people have been more liberal since I-don't-know-how-long, so out of a lot of bad news that's hardly surprising.

    Replies: @songbird

    True, but it is higher than anything in the past 20 years, since they began the survey.

  70. @nebulafox
    @songbird

    True. The ones who died might have been lucky: some of those princes turned to mental pudding due to the isolation. (Having lived the latter myself, I declare that I would sooner be beheaded than do that for life, with no hope of escape.) In the end, though, Ottoman family politics were no more amoral-and no less-than contemporary states around the world, from Henry VIII's treatment of his daughters to Ieyasu ordering his son to commit suicide in order to stay in his lord's good graces.

    Tangentially related, but know what the funny thing about comparing the late Hapsburg experience to the late Ottoman one? The exact situation that damned one empire-the Ausgleich with the Magyars-might have saved the other. Whereas the Hapsburgs had to deal with Slavic peoples who had to be used as a counterweight against the Hungarians, as Franz Ferdinand saw, the Ottomans really could have worked out a "dualist" situation with the Arabs if they were more flexible after losing their European provinces. The other minorities, like the Armenians and the Jews, were too geographically dispersed to pose a threat to this, unlike the Slavs.

    That goes to show you how much of a crock universalism is. What works for one state might be poison for another, and vice versa. There's no one answer. You got to do what works for *your* country.

    Replies: @songbird

    It is interesting to read about familial conflicts relating to succession. I always wonder how much of it is purely about power, and how much to do with contenders being raised separately, or perhaps having different mothers.

    Some have speculated that Turkey will come to dominate the Arabs again in the coming decades. I think Arabs resent Turks too much though. Similarly, I think an equal union is not possible as Turks understand that that would mean more Arabs moving to Turkey.

  71. @Whiskey
    I think this is driven by women, who are after all the sellers in the sexual marketplace and have the winning hand.

    First, obesity reduces the amount of attractive young women. Second, your post AE on how people meet shows a big sea change. Around 15 years ago the workplace dropped off to church, school, social activities for couples meeting. It was bars and online dating. Now post Covid 19 its just online dating. Which favors only the handsome and high status.

    Imagine a lock down society for the next ten years. A few Alpha Chads monopolize all the women, via online dating apps, the rest have maybe an Only Fans account or something. Young guys grow up, isolated, women completely unattainable. I know the media retort is that they will all turn gay. My guess is that they will seek the short cut of violence which always works one way or another to get women / girls. Which in turn will not be very nice for women either. They'd certainly form a ready made army, which the media understands hence "incel" stuff and the like.

    But, it seems women want the African Solution. A few men compete to be the best extrovert. Best fighter, dancer, singer, etc. Who in turn impregnate but contribute nothing to care of kids who might or might not be theirs.

    The question is, does this scale up to Western levels of male cooperation, high skills, and dutifulness? After all even something like the water supply requires high levels of male skill and cooperation from chemists and lab analysts to engineers and highly skilled workers replacing pipes and so on. African levels of family formation lead to African levels of technology, i.e. Obama's Mau-Mau grandfather noting that the African cannot make his own bicycle.

    I don't think the Alpha chad / beta male Only Fans account model is stable, likely rather a transition mode to either "Blond Beast" old style pagan barbarism or some strong man imposing strict monogamy and just assigning women to his followers (those not in his army get nothing). Yes cheap labor makes big profits for BigCorp, immigrant or outsourced, and there is a thrill for the elites to burn down the existing culture and replace it with that of the Third World, but there is a point of diminishing returns when a diet turns to starvation, or exercise to a heart attack. Third World societies can function (sort of, see India) under stress as they have non nuclear family networks of clans and kin. Highly atomized Westerners need a functioning society and systems such as clean water and a working power grid as they don't have 30 cousins in the mountains with farms to go live with when the city shuts down.

    The idea of women having various hot dudes servicing them sounds good to them (they are likely the respondents) but in reality it just does not scale and real dictator would put a stop to it quicker than you can say Xi Xinping. [Who apparently deep sixed some actress who noted she'd rather cry in the back of a limo with a big shot than be happy with some good guy on the back of a moped]. We are likely to get a real dictator sooner or later, given the various crises including possible war with Russia, Iran, China, new Covid variants running wild in India, the attempts by the media / Dems to gin up a race war, mass immigration into the US, and possibly a mass casualty terrorist attack dwarfing 9/11 run up by ISIS. Or Iran.

    Polygamy does not scale. Not for an industrial society of massive complexity, at least.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @V. K. Ovelund, @Jay Fink

    Good to see a comment from you! Speaking of Only Fans. I checked out an online dating site for the first time in several years and I was shocked at how much the scene has changed. At least half the female profiles were directing men to their Only Fans, Snapchat premium, Instagram and Cash App accounts. Some profiles were actually straight up soliciting prostitution.

  72. @Wency
    @neutral

    Yes, I thought it was a known quantity that when men hear the word "polygamy", we almost always picture ourselves as the one with multiple wives and not as the guy who doesn't get a wife. I imagine the same holds at least somewhat true for the phrase "open relationship".

    For example, men are more inclined to be bothered by a dead bedroom. I imagine a relatively common scenario is the man figures his wife has mostly lost interest in sex while he has not, so his idea of an "open relationship" is taking out his sexual frustration on a side piece while his wife keeps on doing as she's been doing.

    Or here's one. I knew a couple once that had an "open relationship", but the man put in a devilishly clever stipulation: it could only be opened up to women, as the wife identified as "bisexual" and this was her way to get that need satisfied. Well, it turned out that she couldn't really find a lesbian who wanted in on their whole mess, but he found himself a girlfriend, and for a time he was having sex with both of them, until both women gave him an ultimatum. He went with the girlfriend, so the whole exercise amounted to trading his wife in for a newer model, with extra sex and no need for sneaking. Incredibly sleazy, to be sure, but awfully clever. On the plus side, he had a vasectomy at an early age so no children were caught in the mix.

    Replies: @SFG

    That’s actually a ‘thing’, as the kids say (a pattern occurring commonly enough to be recognized); it’s known as the ‘one penis policy’, which feminists of course despise. A straight couple looking for a third woman is ‘unicorn hunting’, with the third woman being the unicorn. The name suggests the success rate.

    It’s not nuts from the evolutionary point of view–another woman can’t get your wife pregnant. But, of course, the women get jealous.

    I kind of wonder if that was the plan from day one or if he just snorted too much ‘ethical slut’ material because it was fashionable among the left-leaning. You would be surprised what people will believe because it’s fashionable. Swinging had a heyday in the 1970s. I think it was herpes and of course AIDS that brought it to an end in the 1980s. My best hope is that an improving economy will cause at least some young people to settle down and start families, and at least some of them will want to avoid the chaos associated with these relationship structures.

    Honestly, there’s always a fraction of society that does this sort of boho thing–before swingers there was the Bloomsbury Group. But most people used to be sensible enough it’s a terrible thing when kids get involved.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @SFG


    Swinging had a heyday in the 1970s. I think it was herpes and of course AIDS that brought it to an end in the 1980s.
     
    Pretty much.

    My best hope is that an improving economy will cause at least some young people to settle down and start families, and at least some of them will want to avoid the chaos associated with these relationship structures.
     
    Getting people to settle down in monogamous relationships is easy. It's already happening. My impression is that it's what most young people want, if they can get it. My impression from heterosexual Millennials/Zoomers I know is that they're very very conservative on sexual matters.

    The real problem is persuading them to have more than one child. We could be heading for a situation where young people see monogamy as the norm but we end up with a total fertility rate stabilising at around 1.0, in other words at about half the replacement rate. TFR could go even lower. Some East Asian countries are already well below 1.0 so fertility could stabilise at around 0.8.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Wency

    , @Wency
    @SFG

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the idea with a "unicorn" was a woman who would be involved with both the husband and wife (or maybe that relates more to my second paragraph). In the case I described, a husband and a wife were both seeking two separate "girlfriends" in parallel. And the husband had more luck.

    Now, it is interesting why the man had more luck. Not like the wife was noticeably uglier than he. One obvious thought is that the "open relationship" was more his idea and he was more motivated by the search than she was. But also, my sense is that women seeking girlfriends tend to be into it much more for the commitment than the sex. They can secure sex with a man but struggle to secure commitment. They are consequently somewhat repelled by a woman who is in a relationship with a man and who frames herself as unable to give a commitment. Conversely, women are actively drawn to a man who is in a committed relationship with a woman (though their consciences often intervene, except when they don't.)

  73. @SFG
    @Wency

    That's actually a 'thing', as the kids say (a pattern occurring commonly enough to be recognized); it's known as the 'one penis policy', which feminists of course despise. A straight couple looking for a third woman is 'unicorn hunting', with the third woman being the unicorn. The name suggests the success rate.

    It's not nuts from the evolutionary point of view--another woman can't get your wife pregnant. But, of course, the women get jealous.

    I kind of wonder if that was the plan from day one or if he just snorted too much 'ethical slut' material because it was fashionable among the left-leaning. You would be surprised what people will believe because it's fashionable. Swinging had a heyday in the 1970s. I think it was herpes and of course AIDS that brought it to an end in the 1980s. My best hope is that an improving economy will cause at least some young people to settle down and start families, and at least some of them will want to avoid the chaos associated with these relationship structures.

    Honestly, there's always a fraction of society that does this sort of boho thing--before swingers there was the Bloomsbury Group. But most people used to be sensible enough it's a terrible thing when kids get involved.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Wency

    Swinging had a heyday in the 1970s. I think it was herpes and of course AIDS that brought it to an end in the 1980s.

    Pretty much.

    My best hope is that an improving economy will cause at least some young people to settle down and start families, and at least some of them will want to avoid the chaos associated with these relationship structures.

    Getting people to settle down in monogamous relationships is easy. It’s already happening. My impression is that it’s what most young people want, if they can get it. My impression from heterosexual Millennials/Zoomers I know is that they’re very very conservative on sexual matters.

    The real problem is persuading them to have more than one child. We could be heading for a situation where young people see monogamy as the norm but we end up with a total fertility rate stabilising at around 1.0, in other words at about half the replacement rate. TFR could go even lower. Some East Asian countries are already well below 1.0 so fertility could stabilise at around 0.8.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    My impression from heterosexual Millennials/Zoomers I know is that they’re very very conservative on sexual matters.

    The real problem is persuading them to have more than one child.
     

    In Australia, is there a demographic you know that is having more children? (Like, say, the Amish in the U.S.)

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Wency
    @dfordoom

    I was recently looking over Facebook, something I do very seldom these days, and despite being keenly aware of the fertility crisis I was struck by how small families are among my friends and acquaintances from high school and college, now that most of them seem to be about finished having kids. I have two old friends that ended up with 3, none with more. Otherwise, I don't know that 2 is even the modal completed fertility -- so many seem to be completed at 1. And many of these people came from big families, Catholic families.

    I hold out some hope that some of these kids might eventually be inclined to revert to larger families based on the sadness of the dwindling families they're being raised in. This is certainly a motivator for me -- my wife and I are both only children. Our children effectively won't have an extended family besides each other, and I was always envious of large families growing up. Yet as a single man I met a number of women who were only children (we seem to be drawn to each other), and most of them seemed fine with very small families. This, and helicopter-parenting, had been normalized in their minds.

  74. @dfordoom
    @SFG


    Swinging had a heyday in the 1970s. I think it was herpes and of course AIDS that brought it to an end in the 1980s.
     
    Pretty much.

    My best hope is that an improving economy will cause at least some young people to settle down and start families, and at least some of them will want to avoid the chaos associated with these relationship structures.
     
    Getting people to settle down in monogamous relationships is easy. It's already happening. My impression is that it's what most young people want, if they can get it. My impression from heterosexual Millennials/Zoomers I know is that they're very very conservative on sexual matters.

    The real problem is persuading them to have more than one child. We could be heading for a situation where young people see monogamy as the norm but we end up with a total fertility rate stabilising at around 1.0, in other words at about half the replacement rate. TFR could go even lower. Some East Asian countries are already well below 1.0 so fertility could stabilise at around 0.8.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Wency

    My impression from heterosexual Millennials/Zoomers I know is that they’re very very conservative on sexual matters.

    The real problem is persuading them to have more than one child.

    In Australia, is there a demographic you know that is having more children? (Like, say, the Amish in the U.S.)

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    In Australia, is there a demographic you know that is having more children? (Like, say, the Amish in the U.S.)
     
    No. Not really. Australia is a very very secular society. We have a few Holy Rollers but we don't have all the weird and wonderful Protestant sects that the US has. We have very few Jews and almost no Orthodox Jews. We don't have the kinds of self-isolating religious groups (such as the Amish and Orthodox Jewish neighbourhoods) that you have in the US.

    Pretty much every demographic has low birth rates.
  75. @SFG
    @Wency

    That's actually a 'thing', as the kids say (a pattern occurring commonly enough to be recognized); it's known as the 'one penis policy', which feminists of course despise. A straight couple looking for a third woman is 'unicorn hunting', with the third woman being the unicorn. The name suggests the success rate.

    It's not nuts from the evolutionary point of view--another woman can't get your wife pregnant. But, of course, the women get jealous.

    I kind of wonder if that was the plan from day one or if he just snorted too much 'ethical slut' material because it was fashionable among the left-leaning. You would be surprised what people will believe because it's fashionable. Swinging had a heyday in the 1970s. I think it was herpes and of course AIDS that brought it to an end in the 1980s. My best hope is that an improving economy will cause at least some young people to settle down and start families, and at least some of them will want to avoid the chaos associated with these relationship structures.

    Honestly, there's always a fraction of society that does this sort of boho thing--before swingers there was the Bloomsbury Group. But most people used to be sensible enough it's a terrible thing when kids get involved.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Wency

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the idea with a “unicorn” was a woman who would be involved with both the husband and wife (or maybe that relates more to my second paragraph). In the case I described, a husband and a wife were both seeking two separate “girlfriends” in parallel. And the husband had more luck.

    Now, it is interesting why the man had more luck. Not like the wife was noticeably uglier than he. One obvious thought is that the “open relationship” was more his idea and he was more motivated by the search than she was. But also, my sense is that women seeking girlfriends tend to be into it much more for the commitment than the sex. They can secure sex with a man but struggle to secure commitment. They are consequently somewhat repelled by a woman who is in a relationship with a man and who frames herself as unable to give a commitment. Conversely, women are actively drawn to a man who is in a committed relationship with a woman (though their consciences often intervene, except when they don’t.)

  76. @Charlotte

    this blog suspected the next front in the siege on sexual mores would be against the presumption of at least serial monogamy
     
    .

    If open relationships aren’t the next hill to die on, the reason may be that most adults already have some insight into ‘open relationships,’ which look a lot like the age-old phenomena of more-or-less-openly-practiced adultery and polygamy. Because this is not truly a new phenomenon, it doesn’t attract the interest or, crucially I think, the conservative outrage the left wants. Plenty of people on both the left and right understand from their experience of life that the average couple in an ‘open relationship’ is headed for a nasty breakup. Conversely, plenty of people on both sides like the idea of having their cake and eating it, too, so the idea is not going away.

    Compare it with gay marriage. That was a novel idea piggybacked on a very old idea-marriage-that followed hard on the heels of a vast expansion of social and legal tolerance of homosexuality, which itself followed a vast change in the teleology of sex and marriage. Lots of normies instinctively recoiled, but having already been conditioned to think of marriage in terms of romance and personal fulfillment, and reproduction as a choice rather than the natural fruit of marriage, they were unsure if they should oppose it, or why. I don’t think many gave credence to the idea that the left’s ultimate purpose was to reduce marriage to a mere legal contract.

    Then there’s transgenderism, a phenomenon most people were barely aware of a decade ago. It’s deeply transgressive, and thus a good weapon with which to bludgeon conservatives. Due to an absence of conservative death squads running around killing transgender people, the left gins up urgency for new regulations and laws by focusing on suicide rates among youth, pronouns, and putting biological males in female spaces. It all seems to boil down to maneuvering conservatives into pitched battles on ground the left has carefully chosen.

    I’m guessing normalizing incest will be the next big push. If you accept the idea that sexual activity and marriage should be limited only by individual desire and ‘consent,’ and that reproduction is an affirmative choice, much like the choice to adopt a puppy, it’s hard to know just what grounds are left to oppose incest between adults. It may also become more relevant as more and more children of popular sperm donors grow up. It’s not inconceivable that half-siblings, or even a father and child, would meet, start a relationship, and then find out via genetic testing that they’re related.

    Replies: @Wency

    Good observations. And incest might actually be a decent guess when it comes to pushing matters. In particular, incest among siblings — pedophilia won’t win out among leftists, despite a thousand conservative suggestions to the contrary, because the age gap creates a victimhood narrative in a way that sibling incest does not. Perhaps public schools will soon be advocating sexual experimentation among siblings as a perfectly natural exercise, a safe and comfortable place to learn the ropes.

    But I also don’t know that the left needs another deviancy-normalization campaign like this after World War T. They seem to have all the ammunition they need now. I think instead they focus on consolidating their gains and grinding down the opposition by using the tools already at their disposal.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Wency


    pedophilia won’t win out among leftists, despite a thousand conservative suggestions to the contrary, because the age gap creates a victimhood narrative in a way that sibling incest does not.
     
    I'm inclined to agree.

    But I also don’t know that the left needs another deviancy-normalization campaign like this after World War T. They seem to have all the ammunition they need now. I think instead they focus on consolidating their gains and grinding down the opposition by using the tools already at their disposal.
     
    Yes, I agree with that as well. World War T isn't finished yet. It still has enormous potential for the Cultural Left.

    I'm not convinced there'll be a major push for normalising incest either. There's too much danger of encouraging heterosexual incest. The objective is to totally de-normalise heterosexuality in all forms. It might seem strange to say this but incest is too normal to appeal to the Cultural Left.

    Also incest is about sexual desire. World War T isn't about sex, it's about identity and power. In a way World War T is anti-sex.

    Replies: @Not only wrathful

  77. @dfordoom
    @SFG


    Swinging had a heyday in the 1970s. I think it was herpes and of course AIDS that brought it to an end in the 1980s.
     
    Pretty much.

    My best hope is that an improving economy will cause at least some young people to settle down and start families, and at least some of them will want to avoid the chaos associated with these relationship structures.
     
    Getting people to settle down in monogamous relationships is easy. It's already happening. My impression is that it's what most young people want, if they can get it. My impression from heterosexual Millennials/Zoomers I know is that they're very very conservative on sexual matters.

    The real problem is persuading them to have more than one child. We could be heading for a situation where young people see monogamy as the norm but we end up with a total fertility rate stabilising at around 1.0, in other words at about half the replacement rate. TFR could go even lower. Some East Asian countries are already well below 1.0 so fertility could stabilise at around 0.8.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Wency

    I was recently looking over Facebook, something I do very seldom these days, and despite being keenly aware of the fertility crisis I was struck by how small families are among my friends and acquaintances from high school and college, now that most of them seem to be about finished having kids. I have two old friends that ended up with 3, none with more. Otherwise, I don’t know that 2 is even the modal completed fertility — so many seem to be completed at 1. And many of these people came from big families, Catholic families.

    I hold out some hope that some of these kids might eventually be inclined to revert to larger families based on the sadness of the dwindling families they’re being raised in. This is certainly a motivator for me — my wife and I are both only children. Our children effectively won’t have an extended family besides each other, and I was always envious of large families growing up. Yet as a single man I met a number of women who were only children (we seem to be drawn to each other), and most of them seemed fine with very small families. This, and helicopter-parenting, had been normalized in their minds.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  78. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    My impression from heterosexual Millennials/Zoomers I know is that they’re very very conservative on sexual matters.

    The real problem is persuading them to have more than one child.
     

    In Australia, is there a demographic you know that is having more children? (Like, say, the Amish in the U.S.)

    Replies: @dfordoom

    In Australia, is there a demographic you know that is having more children? (Like, say, the Amish in the U.S.)

    No. Not really. Australia is a very very secular society. We have a few Holy Rollers but we don’t have all the weird and wonderful Protestant sects that the US has. We have very few Jews and almost no Orthodox Jews. We don’t have the kinds of self-isolating religious groups (such as the Amish and Orthodox Jewish neighbourhoods) that you have in the US.

    Pretty much every demographic has low birth rates.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  79. @Wency
    @Charlotte

    Good observations. And incest might actually be a decent guess when it comes to pushing matters. In particular, incest among siblings -- pedophilia won't win out among leftists, despite a thousand conservative suggestions to the contrary, because the age gap creates a victimhood narrative in a way that sibling incest does not. Perhaps public schools will soon be advocating sexual experimentation among siblings as a perfectly natural exercise, a safe and comfortable place to learn the ropes.

    But I also don't know that the left needs another deviancy-normalization campaign like this after World War T. They seem to have all the ammunition they need now. I think instead they focus on consolidating their gains and grinding down the opposition by using the tools already at their disposal.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    pedophilia won’t win out among leftists, despite a thousand conservative suggestions to the contrary, because the age gap creates a victimhood narrative in a way that sibling incest does not.

    I’m inclined to agree.

    But I also don’t know that the left needs another deviancy-normalization campaign like this after World War T. They seem to have all the ammunition they need now. I think instead they focus on consolidating their gains and grinding down the opposition by using the tools already at their disposal.

    Yes, I agree with that as well. World War T isn’t finished yet. It still has enormous potential for the Cultural Left.

    I’m not convinced there’ll be a major push for normalising incest either. There’s too much danger of encouraging heterosexual incest. The objective is to totally de-normalise heterosexuality in all forms. It might seem strange to say this but incest is too normal to appeal to the Cultural Left.

    Also incest is about sexual desire. World War T isn’t about sex, it’s about identity and power. In a way World War T is anti-sex.

    • Replies: @Not only wrathful
    @dfordoom

    As you imply, World War T was only superficially about tolerance and freedom; therefore whatever succeeds it need not be about tolerance and freedom at all.

    SJWs are created when they realise that they can gain temporary respite from their own difficult feelings by pretending to themselves that those feelings are actually the fault of some other particular group. They can then extend that respite by seeking to crush and humiliate that some "other".

    Resentment and projection are powerfully addictive drugs

    They will therefore find some other way to get their hit, until the general culture rejects them and the media ignores them and they go cold turkey. The self-pretense of it being all about tolerance is already so hollowed out that most have forgotten it anyway

    They can settle on forcing everyone to say fat people are actually very sexy, or some other form of genuine gaslighting. "Your perception and what you find sexy is wrong, because you are made bad by white supremacy - really this 300lb 5 footer is the height of health and beauty." And we'll all have to agree or lose our jobs, be shunned and thereby betray the very core of our trust in ourselves.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  80. @dfordoom
    @Wency


    pedophilia won’t win out among leftists, despite a thousand conservative suggestions to the contrary, because the age gap creates a victimhood narrative in a way that sibling incest does not.
     
    I'm inclined to agree.

    But I also don’t know that the left needs another deviancy-normalization campaign like this after World War T. They seem to have all the ammunition they need now. I think instead they focus on consolidating their gains and grinding down the opposition by using the tools already at their disposal.
     
    Yes, I agree with that as well. World War T isn't finished yet. It still has enormous potential for the Cultural Left.

    I'm not convinced there'll be a major push for normalising incest either. There's too much danger of encouraging heterosexual incest. The objective is to totally de-normalise heterosexuality in all forms. It might seem strange to say this but incest is too normal to appeal to the Cultural Left.

    Also incest is about sexual desire. World War T isn't about sex, it's about identity and power. In a way World War T is anti-sex.

    Replies: @Not only wrathful

    As you imply, World War T was only superficially about tolerance and freedom; therefore whatever succeeds it need not be about tolerance and freedom at all.

    SJWs are created when they realise that they can gain temporary respite from their own difficult feelings by pretending to themselves that those feelings are actually the fault of some other particular group. They can then extend that respite by seeking to crush and humiliate that some “other”.

    Resentment and projection are powerfully addictive drugs

    They will therefore find some other way to get their hit, until the general culture rejects them and the media ignores them and they go cold turkey. The self-pretense of it being all about tolerance is already so hollowed out that most have forgotten it anyway

    They can settle on forcing everyone to say fat people are actually very sexy, or some other form of genuine gaslighting. “Your perception and what you find sexy is wrong, because you are made bad by white supremacy – really this 300lb 5 footer is the height of health and beauty.” And we’ll all have to agree or lose our jobs, be shunned and thereby betray the very core of our trust in ourselves.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Not only wrathful


    They can settle on forcing everyone to say fat people are actually very sexy, or some other form of genuine gaslighting.
     
    Which is already happening.

    So the successor to World War T could be World War F.

    Which would actually be quite similar to World War T - forcing us to pretend that fat people are sexy is not much different from forcing us to pretend that a man in a frock is a woman.

    And again it's not really libertinism - it's simply an attack on normal heterosexual desire. It's part of the denormalisation of normal heterosexuality.
  81. @Not only wrathful
    @dfordoom

    As you imply, World War T was only superficially about tolerance and freedom; therefore whatever succeeds it need not be about tolerance and freedom at all.

    SJWs are created when they realise that they can gain temporary respite from their own difficult feelings by pretending to themselves that those feelings are actually the fault of some other particular group. They can then extend that respite by seeking to crush and humiliate that some "other".

    Resentment and projection are powerfully addictive drugs

    They will therefore find some other way to get their hit, until the general culture rejects them and the media ignores them and they go cold turkey. The self-pretense of it being all about tolerance is already so hollowed out that most have forgotten it anyway

    They can settle on forcing everyone to say fat people are actually very sexy, or some other form of genuine gaslighting. "Your perception and what you find sexy is wrong, because you are made bad by white supremacy - really this 300lb 5 footer is the height of health and beauty." And we'll all have to agree or lose our jobs, be shunned and thereby betray the very core of our trust in ourselves.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    They can settle on forcing everyone to say fat people are actually very sexy, or some other form of genuine gaslighting.

    Which is already happening.

    So the successor to World War T could be World War F.

    Which would actually be quite similar to World War T – forcing us to pretend that fat people are sexy is not much different from forcing us to pretend that a man in a frock is a woman.

    And again it’s not really libertinism – it’s simply an attack on normal heterosexual desire. It’s part of the denormalisation of normal heterosexuality.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS