Polyamory

[Iskandar]

Every single girl I have ever been with, I have deeply respected as a person. That is the honest truth. I respect femininity a lot since I believe in the complimentary nature of both the feminine and masculine. Also, every girl I've been with I have trusted to different degrees. Some more, some less, some a lot, but I've always trusted them and I wasn't let down once in terms of loyalty or honesty.

However, when you say "I don't trust them with their own sexuality" that means I should let them go screw other dudes if they "get bored" or something"? That sounds like a childish way out of a problem in a relationship. What sort of relationship is that when you basically have to rent your GF from other dudes for the weekend? A house built on a foundation of sand, my friend.

I totally understand that women would love to **** other men. I saw plenty of women I'd love to bend over while I was taken. But you know what? They (and I) should learn how to control their sexual desires. Every man and woman who has not cheated on their partner has done this, and I think it is an honorable thing to do for someone you supposedly love. In my eyes, if a person cheats on someone when they hit a little rough patch, they're not worth having since their will is brittle. I can, however, see why a guy or girl would want to cheat on their other half if they are in a terrible relationship or an abusive one.

In the end, if your girl has an insatiable apetite for sex with other men that isn't you and you plan on having something serious with her...do you really think that will last?Remind me again what the harm is in consenting to let your partner do what they want to do but aren't able to because of silly cultural constraints on monogamy.

It has nothing to do with the quality of your relationship. If you are a good boyfriend and skilled lover, won't she come back to you at the end of the day? If you're not, too bad for you.

Think of it as a safety valve for otherwise dangerous tensions, Ron, not a panacea for relationship problems.

PS. it's funny that you're still framing this in terms of what your girl would do when it's reciprocal, ie. you can **** all the chicks you want too.
lol I remember when I used to be a democratic socialist and we were like, blood bros.You were for like a month and we're still bros now.

The problem is that you've adopted all these outmoded ideas about sexuality and gender and stuff.

[Mr. Ron]

Remind me again what the harm is in consenting to let your partner do what they want to do but aren't able to because of silly cultural constraints on monogamy.

It has nothing to do with the quality of your relationship. If you are a good boyfriend and skilled lover, won't she come back to you at the end of the day? If you're not, too bad for you.

Think of it as a safety valve for otherwise dangerous tensions, Ron, not a panacea for relationship problems.

PS. it's funny that you're still framing this in terms of what your girl would do when it's reciprocal, ie. you can **** all the chicks you want too.
You were for like a month and we're still bros now.

The problem is that you've adopted all these outmoded ideas about sexuality and gender and stuff.
Hey, if you consent to letting your partner (guy or girl) screw whatever they want, thats fine by me. You're free to do that if you choose to and there is an understanding. For me though, and I'm guessing for most people, I think that it cheapens what you "have" with the person. If two people are in love, they have made a commitment to each other, not to others.


Even IF I wasn't a skilled lover, someone who is actually in love with you will overlook that if they actually value you as a person. Sex isn't everything, believe it or not. But I'm talking about a committed relationship, not some casual thing. The mark of a truly disciplined person is one who does not submit to their disires so easily.


I just think it is absolutely silly to see it as a safety valve. What should I tell my GF if we went through a bit of a rough patch? "I'm going to go screw that cute waitress we saw last week because there is some tension in our relationship right now." Bah! Work through problems, not divert attention away from them.


I can **** all the chicks I want to? If I'm in a comitted relationship where I am supposedly in love, the only girl I'll be ****ing is the girl I am with.


All I am saying is that if you want a truly meaningful relationship, just work at it if there is tension. That is the only thing you can really do. Going off and screwing people as a release will not really get you anywhere, imo.

[Angmar]

I agree with everything Ron said tbh.

[Iskandar]

I thought this might spark an interesting discussion on an issue that's becoming more mainstream lately, ie. polyamory and open relationships (or even multiple relationships with different people). Can it be done in a mature and healthy manner? I expect more insightful comments than "well I may not agree with it but it's their choice to live that way" and their ilk.

[Iskandar]

Ron, I think your understanding is seriously flawed. Not all relationships involve love; even if they do, polyamory is an expression of mutual trust and respect with the stated desire of pleasing your partner as much as possible. And what's the point in repressing natural desires to experiment with other partners? It's not even solely about sex.

[fafafafa]

I just think it is absolutely silly to see it as a safety valve. What should I tell my GF if we went through a bit of a rough patch? "I'm going to go screw that cute waitress we saw last week because there is some tension in our relationship right now."
no you dont need to tell her you can just do it

telling her is the immature thing to do because its an attempt to make her jealous in order to get back at her for the argument (or whatever) - which is more damaging than you sleeping with the waitress

[Iskandar]

Sleeping with a waitress and having her find out is infinitely more damaging than if you had a mutual agreement beforehand that it was okay. Don't troll Chad.

[Mr. Ron]

Ron, I think your understanding is seriously flawed. Not all relationships involve love; even if they do, polyamory is an expression of mutual trust and respect with the stated desire of pleasing your partner as much as possible. And what's the point in repressing natural desires to experiment with other partners? It's not even solely about sex.
I understand there are a variety of different kinds of relationships. I am mainly talking about a committed relationship where the two people are in love. Not a casual or open relationship. I think that is where we are getting our lines crossed.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with "repressing" desires in some cases. I wouldn't call it "repressing", either. I would call it controlling your c0ck like an adult.

[fafafafa]

Sleeping with a waitress and having her find out is infinitely more damaging than if you had a mutual agreement beforehand that it was okay.

but shes not going to find out because you're not going to tell her

[Iskandar]

I understand there are a variety of different kinds of relationships. I am mainly talking about a committed relationship where the two people are in love. Not a casual or open relationship. I think that is where we are getting our lines crossed.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with "repressing" desires in some cases. I wouldn't call it "repressing", either. I would call it controlling your c0ck like an adult.Okay but you're attacking open relationships as if closed relationships were normative.

I dispute that open relationships cannot be as committed as traditional monogamous ones.

I also take issue with your socialized view of sex as a desire to be managed instead of fulfilled. Sex is relatively harmless; it's not like overeating, or more accurately it's not like limiting yourself to certain foods.

[Against Miik!]

If two people are married its a poor idea because when they go get divorced the woman most likely will be like "that piece of **** cheated on me" and the dude will be like yeah but she gave me permission and the judge will be like "really you think I'm stupid or what?" and the woman will get the house and everything because it will be determined that its the guys fault.

Just saying, you have to put a lot of work into a relationship, and if you don't put all of yourself into it, I think its less than what it could be. Theres those people who say "there's enough of me to go around" but the kind of people who say that obviously are morons, for other reasons as well.

I just don't see how polyamory could work long term for the average person.

[asdf]

Can it be done in a mature and healthy manner?
Yes. Does everyone have to consider it for their lifestyle? No. I see no real harm in monogamy or polyamory, but I don't see why mr. ron is being attacked for being in favor of monogamy on a personal level.

[fafafafa]

anyway i wasnt trolling i was responding to rons idea of how arguments would be resolved in an open relationship

ie that you'd threaten to sleep with people vindictively

but being vindictive in your relationship is a separate thing that you shouldnt be doing

[asdf]

as if closed relationships were normative.

Well, they kind of are. As in, they are the norm. We live in a monogamous heteronormative society. This is changing, and of course has many exceptions, but it's frequently the case.

[Anglachel]

l&r

[Mr. Ron]

Okay but you're attacking open relationships as if closed relationships were normative.

I dispute that open relationships cannot be as committed as traditional monogamous ones.

I also take issue with your socialized view of sex as a desire to be managed instead of fulfilled. Sex is relatively harmless; it's not like overeating, or more accurately it's not like limiting yourself to certain foods.
I'm sure there are examples of polyamorous relationships that involve love between multiple people. Humans are capable of such things in the right situations. Just not for me. I mean, you get enough headaches with one woman, imagine 2 or three! (calm down its a joke) :p



I take issue with your very loose attitude towards sexual fulfillment, tbh. Trust me, I'm no prude, but I think perusing every sexual desire you have can prove to be ruinous for you and your partner(s). If you were single, that would be a different story, but if you were taken? Not so much.

[Iskandar]

Well, they kind of are. As in, they are the norm. We live in a monogamous heteronormative society. This is changing, and of course has many exceptions, but it's frequently the case.But we shouldn't treat it as the standard by which all relationships are measured.

We should not assume people are straight, for example, because some are not.
Yes. Does everyone have to consider it for their lifestyle? No. I see no real harm in monogamy or polyamory, but I don't see why mr. ron is being attacked for being in favor of monogamy on a personal level.It's because he's attacking polyamory on personal grounds.

[Against Miik!]

Well, they kind of are. As in, they are the norm. We live in a monogamous heteronormative society. This is changing, and of course has many exceptions, but it's frequently the case.

norm and normative don't mean the same thing

[Iskandar]

I'm sure there are examples of polyamorous relationships that involve love between multiple people. Humans are capable of such things in the right situations. Just not for me. I mean, you get enough headaches with one woman, imagine 2 or three! (calm down its a joke) :pWell, love is one thing. I think the open relationship is more common: committed monogamous relationship with one person, option for casual, noncommittal relations with others.
I take issue with your very loose attitude towards sexual fulfillment, tbh. Trust me, I'm no prude, but I think perusing every sexual desire you have can prove to be ruinous for you and your partner(s). If you were single, that would be a different story, but if you were taken? Not so much.If all parties consent and it's safe sex, no harm is done.

[asdf]

But we shouldn't treat it as the standard by which all relationships are measured.
I agree.

I don't think Ron is attacking polyamory as much as you are monogamy, as you've implied in the discussion that his favor of monogamy must have something to do with low self esteem/inferiority complex/need to be in control/whatever. I think this is an unfair judgement of one's preference. Granted, I would say that people who prefer to be polyamorous likely receive more ridicule for their choice on average, based on the existing normative standard of monogamy, but why attack monogamy in such a way?

[Mr. Ron]

If all parties consent and it's safe sex, no harm is done.
I just think denying yourself some select things at certain times can make you a more disciplined person. I know you do not think so, but I do think having sex with strangers on a frequent scale does wear at you. I mean, are you a simple piece of meat?

[Iskandar]

No I was attacking his specific arguments for monogamy. I feel his opposition to polyamory is based in his own insecurities and doubts, not rational thought.

But I could be wrong.
I just think denying yourself some select things at certain times can make you a more disciplined person. I know you do not think so, but I do think having sex with strangers on a frequent scale does wear at you. I mean, are you a simple piece of meat?Some people may think so but to others it's empowering to have control over their own sexuality. They can have sex with whoever they please; they can not have sex if they don't want to. It's a very liberal position to take.

[fafafafa]

I mean, are you a simple piece of meat?
mr ron why are you appealing to pride like this its not very good

yes humans are pieces of meat governed by chemical desires that there is no issue in satisfying

[Mr. Ron]

No I was attacking his specific arguments for monogamy. I feel his opposition to polyamory is based in his own insecurities and doubts, not rational thought.

But I could be wrong.
This is where we are confused. I do not really oppose it in the grand scheme of things. I just reject it as something I would want in my own life. Its a free country, if you want an open relationship I won't stop you. I'm more than willing to say I am a confident guy when it comes to women, so I personally don't think anything like insecurities is motivating my opinions of the subject.


mr ron why are you appealing to pride like this its not very good

yes humans are pieces of meat governed by chemical desires that there is no issue in satisfying
True, but having pride is not bad in my book. Nor is self respect. We all have it.

[Iskandar]

Sex is less inherently harmful than binge drinking or whatever too.

This is where we are confused. I do not really oppose it in the grand scheme of things. I just reject it as something I would want in my own life. Its a free country, if you want an open relationship I won't stop you. I'm more than willing to say I am a confident guy when it comes to women, so I personally don't think anything like insecurities is motivating my opinions of the subject.I don't know it seemed to me that you were attacking polyamorists on principle. For example, implying they would be ridiculed for their apparent personal weakness.

[Mr. Ron]

Some people may think so but to others it's empowering to have control over their own sexuality. They can have sex with whoever they please; they can not have sex if they don't want to. It's a very liberal position to take.
its empowering either way, I think. Governing your desires or opening the flood gates...whatever. Its up to the person.

[Iskandar]

its empowering either way, I think. Governing your desires or opening the flood gates...whatever. Its up to the person.Whatever turns your crank.

But I dispute that being sexually active means not having pride or self-respect. And as I have said, it takes an awful lot of self-control and respect to pull off an open relationship successfully, especially with the prejudices surrounding the practice.

[Mr. Ron]

Sex is less inherently harmful than binge drinking or whatever too.

I don't know it seemed to me that you were attacking polyamorists on principle. For example, implying they would be ridiculed for their apparent personal weakness.
Sex + beer, though? Both tasty prospects.



I've seen nothing but ridicule directed towards people who have been in open relationships.

[fafafafa]

True, but having pride is not bad in my book. Nor is self respect. We all have it.
what do you gain from them apart from the imaginary

i dont see the worth in resisting

[Mr. Ron]

Whatever turns your crank.

But I dispute that being sexually active means not having pride or self-respect. And as I have said, it takes an awful lot of self-control and respect to pull off an open relationship successfully, especially with the prejudices surrounding the practice.
I just don't think a person has much self respect if they're loose, in general. It shows me that they cannot govern their wants.


what do you gain from them apart from the imaginary

i dont see the worth in resisting
It helps you through things, I have found. If you respect yourself, you are less likely to do things that will harm/degrade you.

[fafafafa]

It helps you through things, I have found. If you respect yourself, you are less likely to do things that will harm you.
sex doesnt harm you though

what is harm anyway, isnt the ultimate self respect going for what will give you the most pleasure in life

[Smokey D]

I just don't think a person has much self respect if they're loose, in general. It shows me that they cannot govern their wants.


Seriously how backwards are you.

It's not that they don't have self-respect it's that you don't respect them because of whatever deep seated trauma your upbrining inflicted on you as a child.

[Mr. Ron]

sex doesnt harm you though

what is harm anyway, isnt the ultimate self respect going for what will give you the most pleasure in life
The things that sex can bring to the table can harm you. Diseases, emotional damage and so on.


I'm all for going for what gives you the most pleasure, but I think you need to have the foresight to say to yourself "Ok, this is dumb/too dangerous/degrading to do." in some situations. I do not think that is unreasonable to just look out for yourself.



Seriously how backwards are you.

It's not that they don't have self-respect it's that you don't respect them because of whatever deep seated trauma your upbrining inflicted on you as a child.
Well seeing as how I was raised in a normal household I don't see how I was traumatized.


You can call me backwards all you want, I don't really care.

[Smokey D]

Right but presumably unless you're really drunk you will have consciously made the decision to have sex in full awareness of the implications. That is just as self-affirming as abstaining

[fafafafa]

The things that sex can bring to the table can harm you. Diseases, emotional damage and so on.
if you practice safe sex its extremely unlikely that you'll get a disease

its extremely unlikely that you'll get an incurable/debilitating disease even if you dont

and i dont know how sex can be emotionally harmful

I'm all for going for what gives you the most pleasure, but I think you need to have the foresight to say to yourself "Ok, this is dumb/too dangerous/degrading to do." in some situations. I do not think that is unreasonable to just look out for yourself.
yeah but that only applies to things that may not give net pleasure like substance abuse because they are inherently harmful

something is only degrading if you decide it is, arbitrarily

[Mr. Ron]

Right but presumably unless you're really drunk you will have consciously made the decision to have sex in full awareness of the implications. That is just as self-affirming as abstaining
True, but sleeping with a high number of people is increasing your chances of the negative effects.

[Smokey D]

Well seeing as how I was raised in a normal household I don't see how I was traumatized.

Um, you can be traumatised by 'normal' experiences.

Not that you're in any position to call your experiences normal because you have obviously internalised them, see Stockholm syndrome.

More importantly, why is the decision to have sex less self-affirming than the decision to abstain?

True, but sleeping with a high number of people is increasing your chances of the negative effects.

And?

[Mr. Ron]

Um, you can be traumatised by 'normal' experiences.

Not that you're in any position to call your experiences normal because you have obviously internalised them, see Stockholm syndrome.

More importantly, why is the decision to have sex less self-affirming than the decision to abstain?



And?


Unless you know me personally or have any sort of real experience diagnosing people, I'd lay off trying to analyze my life and psychological well being, doc.


I'm not talking about abstaining from sex. I'm talking about not screwing everything with a pulse.




Annnnnd I don't see why you'd want venereal diseases/unwanted babies

[Smokey D]

Unless you know me personally or have any sort of real experience diagnosing people, I'd lay off trying to analyze my life and psychological well being, doc.

No this is true for all people.



I'm not talking about abstaining from sex. I'm talking about not screwing everything with a pulse.

Your arbitrary moral system is far more degrading to me than having sex with anything I want.


Annnnnd I don't see why you'd want venerial diseases/unwanted babies

That's pretty irrelevant.

[Mr. Ron]

No this is true for all people.



Your arbitrary moral system is far more degrading to me than having sex with anything I want.



That's pretty irrelevant.
I'd say its pretty relevant to everyone who wants to have a lot of sex with a lot of people, wouldn't you say?

[Smokey D]

No, because I'm disagreeing with your argument that the decision to sleep around is degrading. Babies and venereal disease don't really apply.

[Mr. Ron]

No, because I'm disagreeing with your argument that the decision to sleep around is degrading. Babies and venereal disease don't really apply.
Yes they do. I don't see how a herpes infested person with a couple of mistake babies can't not be degraded.

[Iskandar]

I just don't think a person has much self respect if they're loose, in general. It shows me that they cannot govern their wants.Why is it virtuous to repress our desires when we can fulfill them.
I've seen nothing but ridicule directed towards people who have been in open relationships. This only says that people are immature and intolerant about people in open relationships, not anything about the nature of such a relationship.
Well seeing as how I was raised in a normal household I don't see how I was traumatized.

You can call me backwards all you want, I don't really care.One, what is a normal household and two, the fact that you're claiming not to care suggests to me that you have something to hide. What's there to be defensive about.

[Mr. Ron]

Why is it virtuous to repress our desires when we can fulfill them.
This only says that people are immature and intolerant about people in open relationships, not anything about the nature of such a relationship.
One, what is a normal household and two, the fact that you're claiming not to care suggests to me that you have something to hide. What's there to be defensive about.



There is nothing to be defensive about. You guys are the ones trying to play the whole "he disagrees so there has to be something dark in his past!" card.

[Iskandar]

Yes they do. I don't see how a herpes infested person with a couple of mistake babies can't not be degraded.And they are emblematic of everyone who engages in casual sex?

Is an abusive husband emblematic of married people?
There is nothing to be defensive about. You guys are the ones trying to play the whole "he disagrees so there has to be something dark in his past!" card.I'm curious why you're so reluctant to admit to your own conditioning. Cognitive dissonance at work.

[fafafafa]

all marriage is an abuse really

[Mr. Ron]

And they are emblematic of everyone who engages in casual sex?

Is an abusive husband emblematic of married people?
I'm curious why you're so reluctant to admit to your own conditioning. Cognitive dissonance at work.
Yup, I'm ****ed up Alex. You got me.

[Smokey D]

Yes they do. I don't see how a herpes infested person with a couple of mistake babies can't not be degraded.

That's some cute sophistry but that's not how the word is being used.

Plus also value judgments etc etc

[fafafafa]

I don't see how a herpes infested person with a couple of mistake babies can't not be degraded.
but you just made up an idea of what constitutes degradation and that degradation is somehow bad it doesnt actually mean anything

who's to say i didnt get more pleasure than degradation from my adventures

[Iskandar]

Yup, I'm ****ed up Alex. You got me.You're treating your own conditioned expectations of monogamy as axiomatic. That's silly.

Now go **** a bunch of chicks. At the same time.

[Mr. Ron]

but you just made up an idea of what constitutes degradation and that degradation is somehow bad it doesnt actually mean anything

who's to say i didnt get more pleasure than degradation from my adventures
go for it then idk

[fafafafa]

go for it then idk

but you'll think badly of me mr ron

[Mr. Ron]

but you'll think badly of me mr ron
no ur a qt




good night I have to work early

[Meatplow]

If there is an agreement between partners I don't think it is anybody else's business really.

Personally I could see how a couple could find an open-relationship necessary to prevent any "discreet" secrets being kept which usually leads to a boiling pot of tension, plus it can also exist as a sexually exciting understanding between one another which some couples actually find stimulating. Depending on the people involved of course this can benefit the union.

I don't believe humans were wired to be monogamous creatures if the amount of people cheating on each other and having mixed feelings about who they love is anything to go by, at the very least people should have a full understanding of what their partner is about in this manner before they commit to each other.

Good luck with monogamy, but I feel too many people are filled with self-doubt about who they choose as a lover and harbour far too many closeted emotions and desires to make a genuine til' death do us part commitment.

[1338 h4x0r]

really I don't have an issue with anything anyone does as long as it isn't grossly irrational

and I can't see how polyamory is really irrational at all

although I admit it would probably be hard to give both Panarat and Sunaree black eyes at the same time











































brb guys

[siva_chair]

and i dont know how sex can be emotionally harmful

You have clearly never been with a German chick.

[Already_Taken]

yeah i mean if the love of my life got knocked up by some other dude...

WHATEVER man i'll just raise the kid as my own! :rolleyes:

[siva_chair]

or pay about tree fiddy to have that shi cleaned out....

Yeah I went there.

[Already_Taken]

and that would make it all better no doubt

[siva_chair]

Nothing a good Vegas hooker can't cure.

[1338 h4x0r]

you know there are ways you can prevent babies and disease contrary to what the Catholic Church tells you

what an age we live in

[Already_Taken]

my point, for those less apt to deductive reasoning, is that often times men don't want their bitchez sexin up other men so they can be certain of their child's paternity if and when it comes. i read that blue eyed men seek blue eyed women for this reason. i dunno, but if i'm going to raise a kid, it better be mine that's all.

condoms and birth control aren't 100% failsafe btw, but i wouldn't expect you to know that.

[1338 h4x0r]

my point, for those less apt to deductive reasoning

you don't know what deductive reasoning is, take a hike

is that often times men don't want their bitchez sexin up other men so they can be certain of their child's paternity if and when it comes

there's tests for that too

what an age we live in

condoms and birth control aren't 100% failsafe btw

of course they're not

nothing is

[Already_Taken]

my point is that it is psychologically ingrained because in the entire time humans evolved until now, there were no tests for it. and even then.. asking ur bitch for a test is a trip to the doghouse.

sorry you couldn't deduce my point, i figured it'd be glaringly obvious to any fellow male with an ounce of self-respect

[1338 h4x0r]

my point is that it is psychologically ingrained because in the entire time humans evolved until now, there were no tests for it. and even then.. asking ur bitch for a test is a trip to the doghouse

the only thing you can do then is choose less sleazy women

sorry you couldn't deduce my point

define deduction

no really go ahead

[fafafafa]

of course they're not

nothing isabortions are

[DBoons Ghost]

Wow you guys have killed love with logic. Rational! Emotional? Down with emotions! Can't quantify emotion which means no empirical data! No empirical data means we no longer have any use for emotions.

:thumb:

[1338 h4x0r]

I don't think anyone is arguing for banishing emotions

you strike me as being very incontinent though

[1338 h4x0r]

you gotta aim for the golden mean brah

[fafafafa]

emotions are dumb not gonna lie

[DBoons Ghost]

I'm constantly stuck on this. It's too late for me since I missed my academic cleansing and should immediately report for reprogramming ASAP.

Part of me likes the idea of an open marriage. Part of me knows I would feel like less of a person for doing so, just as I and my wife have in the past.

It's nothing worth discussing and having Spock and the rest of the Vulcans who plague this forum tear apart.

Love shouldn't equate to jealousy. Emotional attachment to one's sexual desires should.

See, the thing is, sex becomes boring. If you guys are going to tear down the barriers associated with conventional committment from a religious perspective, it's fair to assume that sex is no longer an expression of emotion. If it is, do you think it's fair to a partner to say it's ok to love someone as well as me? Is this someone you want to start a family with? Someone who loves like a fire burns? How would you trust your partner? If you can se easily give your heart to any stranger for quick pleasure?

If you're going to discuss polyamory, we would have to assume emotion is no longer part of the equation. You have discounted it completely for the sake of the argument. If you don't love each other, the sex will eventually suck. Without emotion there is no passion, no fury, and without that, you may as well beat off into a vagina, because thats all you're doing.

[DBoons Ghost]

emotions are dumb not gonna lie

Dumb because the medication you took as a child destroyed them?

Or are you that scared of not being loved so it's easier to say "emotions are dumb" so you can avoid ever having to have any? I'm sure a female would see some quality in you worth loving.

[siva_chair]

Someone who loves like a fire burns?

Like an arsonist?

[DBoons Ghost]

Like an arsonist?

Uh.. I suppose yea. Like an arsonist?

Interesting metaphor you pulled out there. Of all things?

I meant they can fall in and out of love in hours. The next day the love is gone and you are supposed to believe she still loves you.

[fafafafa]

Dumb because the medication you took as a child destroyed them?

Or are you that scared of not being loved so it's easier to say "emotions are dumb" so you can avoid ever having to have any? I'm sure a female would see some quality in you worth loving.
i have been loved and am loved by lots of people dboon why do you always have to insult people when trying to argue with them

see this is the problem with emotions, they make you abandon all reason when you get upset

[DBoons Ghost]

i have been loved and am loved by lots of people dboon why do you always have to insult people when trying to argue with them

see this is the problem with emotions, they make you abandon all reason when you get upset

Dude I am far from upset though. I don't think your Vulcan powers are working over the internet. Why do you assume based on strings of text that someone is upset?

Is it that hard to fathom I would make these statements devoid of anger or anything?

You made an asinine statement, so you got back what you expected. Kind of like, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

[siva_chair]

Uh.. I suppose yea. Like an arsonist?

Interesting metaphor you pulled out there. Of all things?

Well you mentioned love and fires and that is what I thought.

I meant they can fall in and out of love in hours. The next day the love is gone and you are supposed to believe she still loves you.

Yeah it is just like the charred skeleton of a burnt structure whose passion was burning ever so brightly the night before....and now, nothing...

[fafafafa]

Dude I am far from upset though. I don't think your Vulcan powers are working over the internet. Why do you assume based on strings of text that someone is upset?

you're being irrational

thats what people do when they are upset

thats what stupid people do all the time though so maybe not

pick one

[1338 h4x0r]

It's nothing worth discussing and having Spock and the rest of the Vulcans who plague this forum tear apart.

Love shouldn't equate to jealousy. Emotional attachment to one's sexual desires should

you should quote Shakespeare like that really uptight white boy who grew up on the native reservation in Brave New World

when that book becomes a reality I want to be a World Controller

[1338 h4x0r]

World Controller for Greater New York Area 1338 h4x0r

Community - Identity - Deal With It

[1338 h4x0r]

actually I don't like how World Controller becomes "WC"

[DBoons Ghost]

you're being irrational

thats what people do when they are upset

thats what stupid people do all the time though so maybe not

pick one

Ohh I struck a nerve! :thumb:

[DBoons Ghost]

you should quote Shakespeare like that really uptight white boy who grew up on the native reservation in Brave New World

when that book becomes a reality I want to be a World Controller

What happened to the discussion?

All of a sudden I'm uptight! What did I expect.

I wonder how many people in this thread can speak from any real experience. Oh thats right. We cant use personal experience in discussion in this forum.

Sorry I'll go be uptight and stupid.

[1338 h4x0r]

I'm not saying you're uptight I'm just saying it would be cool if you quoted Shakespeare when you get all huffy about polyamory

[fafafafa]

i think dboon is stupid and upset

now he's denouncing logical thought

WHO NEEDS IT

[DBoons Ghost]

Ha!

Huffy even! I am jealous of your ability to detract these things from strings of text. Though I notice that helps you from having to answer any real questions about this discussion. Better to assume I'm uptight, huffy and stupid so it suits your inability to discuss this properly.

[DBoons Ghost]

i think dboon is stupid and upset

now he's denouncing logical thought

WHO NEEDS IT


If you knew anything about love, you'd know logic generally has little place.

It's too early to be upset. I'm just trying to kill time until the market opens.

[1338 h4x0r]

Ha!

Huffy even! I am jealous of your ability to detract these things from strings of text. Though I notice that helps you from having to answer any real questions about this discussion. Better to assume I'm uptight, huffy and stupid so it suits your inability to discuss this properly.

"Impudent strumpet!"

If you knew anything about love, you'd know logic generally has little place.

in Germany and Sweden it is strictly forbidden to fail to apply logic to relationships under penalty of a two to four year prison sentence and/or fine

idk man you're Italian I guess but I'm part of the Master Race, we operate differently

[fafafafa]

'love' is chemicals, not magic

[1338 h4x0r]

love is what you feel before you give someone a big ________________

fill in blank and message me on AIM or MSN

[fafafafa]

love is a gift from jesus

dont try and science it

[1338 h4x0r]

is that why people cry out the name of Our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus in his fatherly manifestation in the act

[1338 h4x0r]

viz. "God"

[Mr. Ron]

i have been loved and am loved by lots of people dboon why do you always have to insult people when trying to argue with them

see this is the problem with emotions, they make you abandon all reason when you get upset
Then why would you say they are dumb? Emotions are fine as long as you're not dominated by them.

[siva_chair]

'love' is chemicals, not magic

Chemicals are magic though.

[siva_chair]

Only manly emotion there is, is rage.

True story.

[fafafafa]

Then why would you say they are dumb?
are you saying that i should think emotionally about it

[siva_chair]

C'mon Chad get in touch with your feelings.

[Mr. Ron]

are you saying that i should think emotionally about it
You can do whatever you want maaaannnn

Humans are constantly feeling though. Even when you're trying to be strictly rational and cold you're in emotions. It just varies in the level at which you are affected by them. Some are better than others at toning them down.

[gregulus]

You have clearly never been with a German chick.

Sounds like heaven.

It's nothing worth discussing and having Spock and the rest of the Vulcans who plague this forum tear apart.

Spock was only half-Vulcan, so he was more susceptible to emotion than other Vulcans, but he controlled them quite well.

[siva_chair]

Sounds like heaven.

Well.....

Maybe if you are into S&M.

[Mr. Ron]

Who isn't into S&M? I suggest you try it.

[siva_chair]

I'm just saying having a steaming German turd plopped on your chest by a vicious Aryan maiden can be pretty emotionally traumatizing. Especially when you are strapped into a torture rack and there is a dude in a leather banana hammock in the corner of the room shouting angry things in German, threatening to stick some sort of sharp drill like object up your ***.

It isn't for everyone imo.

Js

[gregulus]

I'm just saying having a steaming German turd plopped on your chest by a vicious Aryan maiden can be pretty emotionally traumatizing. Especially when you are strapped into a torture rack and there is a dude in a leather banana hammock in the corner of the room shouting angry things in German, threatening to stick some sort of sharp drill like object up your ***.

It isn't for everyone imo.

Js

I dunno, I wasn't aware that sadomasochism necessarily involved shitting even in stereotypes.

[siva_chair]

You can keep the leather (it is kind of cheesy), but sadomasochism in general can be a lot of fun.

Well notice I put the caveat that it wasn't for everyone. If you do like having your balls in a vice or a car battery attached to your gigglestick then that is your prerogative and I won't judge you for it.

But no, you can't use my jumper cables.

I dunno, I wasn't aware that sadomasochism necessarily involved poopting even in stereotypes.

Oh but it does.

True masochists wallow in fecal matter. It is a scientific fact. :thumb:

[gregulus]

Well notice I put the caveat that it wasn't for everyone. If you do like having your balls in a vice or a car battery attached to your gigglestick then that is your prerogative and I won't judge you for it.

But no, you can't use my jumper cables.



Oh but it does.

True masochists wallow in fecal matter. It is a scientific fact. :thumb:

I prefer the sadistic part of it myself.

[siva_chair]

I prefer the sadistic part of it myself.

Did you by chance kill little bunnies when you were a child user gregulus?

[Mr. Ron]

I'm just saying having a steaming German turd plopped on your chest by a vicious Aryan maiden can be pretty emotionally traumatizing. Especially when you are strapped into a torture rack and there is a dude in a leather banana hammock in the corner of the room shouting angry things in German, threatening to stick some sort of sharp drill like object up your ***.

It isn't for everyone imo.

Js
Please, don't ridicule the way my parents threw birthday parties for me.

[gregulus]

I didn't say I was a psychopath, poster siva_chair.

[gregulus]

Please, don't ridicule the way my parents threw birthday parties for me.

So, Smokey D and Iskandar were right?

[siva_chair]

Please, don't ridicule the way my parents threw birthday parties for me.

I said I wasn't judging!

I didn't say I was a psychopath, poster siva_chair.

Right but wishing to watch pain and suffering on others is a common occurrence between the two.

Answer me this: would you ever eat a person (I mean like with fava beans and a nice chianti, not as in oral sex)?

[gregulus]

Right but wishing to watch pain and suffering on others is a common occurrence between the two.
I hate to do this but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

Answer me this: would you ever eat a person (I mean like with fava beans and a nice chianti, not as in oral sex)?
No. I can't say that I would. Would you?

[siva_chair]

I hate to do this but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

Ok let me rephrase the question:

Did you get sexual gratification by watching small animals suffer when you were a child poster gregulus?

No. I can't say that I would. Would you?

Well...only in a survival situation where I had some farva beans and a bottle of chianti sitting around.

[Mr. Ron]

So, Smokey D and Iskandar were right?
everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine @_@



:p

[siva_chair]

Velcome to mine torture dungeon?

Vundersexxxx avaits you.

[Berner]

Please, don't ridicule the way my parents threw birthday parties for me.


el oh el

[gregulus]

Ok let me rephrase the question:

Did you get sexual gratification by watching small animals suffer when you were a child poster gregulus?
I did not, user siva_chair. Thank you for your concern though. It really means a lot.

[siva_chair]

I did not, user siva_chair. Thank you for your concern though. It really means a lot.

Just making sure, user gregulus. I did not wish you to have to deal with the prison system had you decided that your neighbor qualified as a tasty delicacy. Regardless of your personal preferences for sadomasochism, I feel confident enough to say that prison would not be an enjoyable experience and wouldn't wish that upon you.

[gregulus]

Just making sure, user gregulus. I did not wish you to have to deal with the prison system had you decided that your neighbor qualified as a tasty delicacy. Regardless of your personal preferences for sadomasochism, I feel confident enough to say that prison would not be an enjoyable experience and wouldn't wish that upon you.

You're too kind.

[siva_chair]

You're too kind.

Just doing my civic duty user gregulus.

Civic. Duty. imo

[Already_Taken]

i have been loved and am loved by lots of people dboon why do you always have to insult people when trying to argue with them

see this is the problem with emotions, they make you abandon all reason when you get upset

i love the emotion in this post. i read it like chad typed it out while he was crying, then he took a deep breath and wrote the second part.

[fafafafa]

but i wasnt crying

when i made that post

[Mr. Ron]

I weep all the time I come here. ;_;

[Iskandar]

Okay I think this thread stopped being worthwhile around page three so unless someone objects I'm going to close it.

Just kidding, I don't value your worthless opinions, my willing submissives.

[fafafafa]

thread was destined to fail

made by iskandar

[siva_chair]

Hey brutal mechanized anal sex is a serious topic dammit don't you dare close it.

[Iskandar]

It has nothing to do with polyamory however so.

[1338 h4x0r]

Spock was only half-Vulcan, so he was more susceptible to emotion than other Vulcans, but he controlled them quite well.

actually from what I understand Vulcans are supposed to have super strong emotions which is why they rein them in consciously

[siva_chair]

actually from what I understand Vulcans are supposed to have super strong emotions which is why they rein them in consciously

This is true.

They suppress their **** because they are afraid of the consequences.

Although I must say the Star Trek comparison supports Dboon to a degree. Afterall, Captain Kirk saved the **** out of the crew many times by following his emotions as opposed to Spock's calculated logic....

....fukkin Gene Roddenberry and his hippy-esque emotive horseshit.

[1338 h4x0r]

well if Kirk really did save the crew so many times in that manner, odds are he either took into account information Spock was unaware of or applied superior rational choice making to the same information

since the former seems more likely, it would make sense to pore over those old Star Trek episodes and films for instances where Kirk knew more than Spock on at least one thing

on the other hand Spock says things that aren't always logical though he claims them to be, such as saying that utilitarianism follows directly from logic in Wrath of Khan (utilitarianism is a value judgment, it doesn't follow from logic which is amoral)

idk man

[Iskandar]

Spock says it's logical that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. He makes no claim as to its ethical implications.

But can we get back on topic. I mean, doesn't polyamory at least figure into Star Trek at some point. I don't know I never really watched it.

[1338 h4x0r]

Spock says it's logical that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

that's a value judgment

and what about, e.g., utility monsters

But can we get back on topic. I mean, doesn't polyamory at least figure into Star Trek at some point. I don't know I never really watched it.

Kirk is v v polyamorous

[Iskandar]

that's a value judgment

and what about, e.g., utility monstersWhat.
Kirk is v v polyamorousNo he's just a libertine. He doesn't love any of the green-skinned alien chicks he screws around with.

[1338 h4x0r]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster

this thread is now about utilitarianism

[Iskandar]

Okay that's dumb for a variety of reasons but it doesn't belong in the polyamory thread.

[gregulus]

actually from what I understand Vulcans are supposed to have super strong emotions which is why they rein them in consciously

I know. By being susceptible to them, I meant being overcome by them.

[gregulus]

Star Trek is a better topic than polyamory, tbh. Star Trek is a better topic than most things.

[gregulus]

TNG, DS:9 and TOS are all ****ing great. Voyager is sketchy, to say the least. Enterprise was an abomination.

[Iskandar]

Okay if you're just going to talk about Star Trek go to the media forum.

[spitfirejunky]

Just wanted to come in here and say that I militantly agree with everything Iskandar and Smokey D said on the first two pages.

[1338 h4x0r]

can't you have like four wives

if you want more can you get like an attachment that allows you to add up to 16 others

[spitfirejunky]

Belkin wife hub.

[Iskandar]

Not only can he have four wives, but also temporary marriages of convenience if I'm not mistaken.
Just wanted to come in here and say that I militantly agree with everything Iskandar and Smokey D said on the first two pages.
K sweet. People generally do.

[siva_chair]

well if Kirk really did save the crew so many times in that manner, odds are he either took into account information Spock was unaware of or applied superior rational choice making to the same information

since the former seems more likely, it would make sense to pore over those old Star Trek episodes and films for instances where Kirk knew more than Spock on at least one thing

on the other hand Spock says things that aren't always logical though he claims them to be, such as saying that utilitarianism follows directly from logic in Wrath of Khan (utilitarianism is a value judgment, it doesn't follow from logic which is amoral)

idk man

AKA Kirk had nuts the size of watermelons and knew that sometimes you gotta man up and take a risk if you want to get **** done


(and yes by that I mean screw green alien chicks).

TNG, DS:9 and TOS are all ****ing great. Voyager is sketchy, to say the least.

Agreed.

And Voyager blows imo.

Enterprise was an abomination.

But dude...Scott Bakula

[1338 h4x0r]

AKA Kirk had nuts the size of watermelons and knew that sometimes you gotta man up and take a risk if you want to get **** done

well it could be that kirk was using overly optimistic decision criteria and only pulled through by blind luck

I have a feeling spock would tend towards maximum expected utility or maximin depending on how severe the situation were and how often it would be repeated

in any case spock's decisions should have a higher expected utility overall

[siva_chair]

well it could be that kirk was using overly optimistic decision criteria and only pulled through by blind luck

I have a feeling spock would tend towards maximum expected utility or maximin depending on how severe the situation were and how often it would be repeated

in any case spock's decisions should have a higher expected utility overall

Probably, but I'd take Kirk's blind luck any day of the week tbh.

[Shadius]

Back to topic; I don't think Polyamory works for the vast majority of people or situations. It is possible that this is due to cultural brainwashing and social norms, but given how there seems to be a cultural shift to having more than one sexual partner and casual sex being much more accepted in this generation I'm not sure this has swayed my opinion too much.

It seems to me that while you're single, casual sex can work, and should you practice safe sex there's nothing wrong with that so long as you're not implying or stating that you want to pursue a romantic (monogamous) relationship with the other person (or people).

I think that when sex is detached from romantic feelings it's easier to have sex with more people. Fulfilling sexual desires as a means to itself. The problem is that for most people (mostly everybody) sexual desires are tied into romantic feelings and intimacy once it becomes more than just fanticising about someone, and you actually have some form of relationship and interaction with them.

I don't think that it really works to have strong romantic feelings for more than one person. To be honest, I've tried, and it didn't work. It made me realise that I loved one person more than the other, and I felt it would be unfair to allow to other relationship to continue for that reason. You can definately love different people in different ways, but that doesn't mean that you have to be involved with them, it's just too complicated.

If you have great sex with someone, and you have a great time with them, and get on with them as a person, and fit into each others lives then what else do you really need to be looking for? Damaging or jepordising what you have with that person over having a hard-on is selfish, immature and emotionally retarded.

[Mr. Ron]

^^^ Agreed. You said what I think better than I could haha

[fafafafa]

itt anecdotal stories

[Shadius]

Sure; anecdotes, opinions, theories. Arn't they in most threads?

Has anyone here actually had any success with polyamory? I almost think it could work if people lived in seperate towns and were completely okay with seeing someone at the weekends or every other weekend due to work or something, and they had other people for other weekends or week days. That space element would be really important, and you could really grow to have romantic feelings for seperate people but only be commited to them for limited durations. It would almost make sense if you both have really busy jobs/scedules.

I still think it would unravel itself eventually though, you can't remove attachment and jealousy from the equation no matter how hard you might try.

[fafafafa]

people have had long lasting polygamous relationships

ergo long lasting polygamous relationships are possible

ergo i dont care if you think they arent because this one time i went out with two chicks right man it totally didnt work out

[Shadius]

okay, who? examples plz

It's not that I don't think it's possible at all. I just don't think most people are capable of it, and a hell of a lot of people wouldn't even want to. i also debate the arguement that having sex with whoever you want is healthier than considering peoples feelings.

edit; this article was really interesting. here's part of it that basically reinforces how i think it's totally not worth it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2006/jul/09/familyandrelationships2

The biggest misconception about polyamory is that it equals promiscuity. People assume that we have no boundaries. We do - they're just the ones that we've put in place. For me, the golden rule is that we all look after each other. A set-up like ours is a delicate thing, so we need to be gentle with it.'

'There are times when I find it challenging,' says Nan. John, her husband, had been having a relationship with Amy, for eighteen months before Nan met Julio. 'Amy would come to our house and I'd sleep alone in our room while Amy and John took the guest room. One night I went to the bathroom and caught a glimpse of them making love, which made me feel sad and jealous.'

Things changed when Julio came on the scene. 'Sex with John,' says Nan, 'is consistent and sweet; he's an amazing lover. Julio is very different. Our relationship is newer, so it feels more exciting and less certain. He's charming, charismatic and full of energy. We often have sex a few times a day, experimenting with different positions. If I really like one, I share it with John the next time we're alone together.' So does John get jealous too? 'Seeing Nan with her first polyamorous boyfriend was hard at first: I was intensely jealous,' he says. 'But that faded. Not that I don't still have moments of jealousy - it never completely goes away, but it does subside.

'For me, the hardest part of our arrangement is when I feel I'm letting either Nan or Amy down. However organised I try to be, I find life is a juggling act - with work, the children, Nan and Amy - and there are moments when something has to give. It was also very difficult when our children were younger and some of their friends found out about our lifestyle. The idea that our choices were in any way a source of pain to them really stung.'

In many ways, then, polyamory has a lot in common with monogamy - it's a way of imposing some order on the untidiness of human emotions that sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't. But in a polyamorous world, the stakes are higher - there is more scope for things to go wrong.

[fafafafa]

we've moved from personal anecdotes to third party anecdotes

great

[gregulus]

Jean-Luc Picard was a better captain than James Tiberius Kirk.

[DBoons Ghost]

Jean-Luc Picard was a better captain than James Tiberius Kirk.

That's blasphemy.

Pike was the greatest captain in the history of starfleet.

He gots an awesome chair run by brainwaves and they even had medals named after him.

[Pop music sucks]

How about Kathryn Janeway?

[gregulus]

That's blasphemy.

Pike was the greatest captain in the history of starfleet.

He gots an awesome chair run by brainwaves and they even had medals named after him.

DBoon, I hate to tell you this, but you're wrong :(. I'm very sorry.

[DBoons Ghost]

Of course I'm wrong, and you love telling me I'm wrong! Especially when I am. Kirk kept me company many a stoned teenage night, and his hunger for green bitches even got my laid once. How many guys do you know who could say Kirk got them laid? Pike got the boot and he had one show in a wheelchair, but I just wanted to name drop an obscure Trekkie nerdfact.

Picard was probably the best to watch for sure.

[DBoons Ghost]

How about Kathryn Janeway?

I didn't like Voyager at all.

[Pop music sucks]

It had so much potential:(

[gregulus]

Of course I'm wrong, and you love telling me I'm wrong! Especially when I am. Kirk kept me company many a stoned teenage night, and his hunger for green bitches even got my laid once. How many guys do you know who could say Kirk got them laid? Pike got the boot and he had one show in a wheelchair, but I just wanted to name drop an obscure Trekkie nerdfact.

Picard was probably the best to watch for sure.

Pike was in two episodes, I think. He was in the pilot for TOS and the one with the chair.

Star Trek has never gotten me laid :(. Considering how much I watch it, if Star Trek got me laid, I would get laid all of the time. God damn.

[DBoons Ghost]

Yeah the whole "Kirk is a pimp for banging a green bitch" conversation.

"So you would have sex with an alien?"

Oh what a night.

[gregulus]

So DBoon how was ****ing an alien?

[Pop music sucks]

I think she was legit she had her green card.

[DBoons Ghost]

So DBoon how was ****ing an alien?

It was awesome! I am pretty sure she was an alien. Anyone who's ever banged a Columbian broad knows what I'm talkin' bout.

[Shadius]

we've moved from personal anecdotes to third party anecdotes

great

what does this have to do with anything?

also, whats with star trek in a polyamory thread?

[DBoons Ghost]

what does this have to do with anything?

also, whats with star trek in a polyamory thread?

My fault for comparing certain posters here to Vulcans.

[gregulus]

Vulcans > Humans of the 23rd and 24th centuries >> Humans of the 21st century.

[cobert]

I have thought this over many times, and every time my rational side tells me that if me and a girl were to consent to this then no harm would be done and we would all feel a lot less tense, but then all I could think about would be my insecure side telling me that 1) he's doing a better job than I ever could and 2) I wouldn't want her to feel as jealous as I would be. So yeah, rational thought says consent to polyamory makes it all okay, but if either side has the slightest insecurity it would make somebody more hurt than it would if we just made the other partner masturbate more.

edit: oh look I pretty much agree with DBoon on something right from the get-go.

[1338 h4x0r]

guilty of being avaricious

[cobert]

i hoard my wimins

[1338 h4x0r]

I whore my wiminz

big pimpin WNY

[Iskandar]

all I could think about would be my insecure side telling me that 1) he's doing a better job than I ever couldThen get better at it and you won't have anything to worry about.

[cobert]

I don't think that's how insecurity works.

The entire idea that my girlfriend would be ****ing somebody else would make me feel inferior, no matter how good I think I was doing.

[Iskandar]

Then maybe you need to get over your hangups.

What do you have to fear, realistically? Will she leave you for another guy? If that's the case, she must not have liked you much in the first place. Why be possessive about someone like that.

[Smokey D]

Quit oppressing people with your post-bourgeois notions of polyamory.

Cobert's enculturated view is just as valid as your enculturated view.

[Iskandar]

Quit oppressing me with your bourgeois notions of what is post-bourgeois.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

I don't think that's how insecurity works.

The entire idea that my girlfriend would be ****ing somebody else would make me feel inferior, no matter how good I think I was doing.

Maybe you should just get over it like an adult and respect her decision to have intercourse with other guys.

[Neur0heiler]

do you think she should have to give notice

[fafafafa]

The entire idea that my girlfriend would be ****ing somebody else would make me feel inferior, no matter how good I think I was doing.
no i think the word you are looking for is inadequate

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

do you think she should have to give notice

she should call a couple days in advance i guess but no biggie if she doesnt.

[Mr. Ron]

Maybe you should just get over it like an adult and respect her decision to have intercourse with other guys.
lol respect her choice to cheat on you


gtfo you beta male

[Angmar]

it's all about respect man

[Mr. Ron]

An adult cares about the emotional investment they make with their partner.

[Angmar]

Yeah I know, I was joking.

[Mr. Ron]

That wasn't directed towards you, it was more of a general statement. :]

[Angmar]

Word, idk I don't really understand how someone can be 'ok' with someone they love just going out and ****ing other people.

[Mr. Ron]

Eh, if the two people are OK with it, whatever. Just not my bag.

[fafafafa]

you guys are pussies thats why

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

lol respect her choice to cheat on you


gtfo you beta male

oh look another privileged middle class white male sexist on this forum. what a surprise.

if your gf cheats on you, its because you're a bitch.

[Iskandar]

lol respect her choice to cheat on you


gtfo you beta maleUm it's not cheating if you agree it's okay beforehand.

PS. does a beta male get to have sex with as many women as he wants I don't think so.

[fafafafa]

iskandar is an omega male forget that beta stuff

[Iskandar]

I am the alpha and the omega; the beginning and the end.

[cobert]

no i think the word you are looking for is inadequate

alright yeah

Maybe you should just get over it like an adult and respect her decision to have intercourse with other guys.

nope

I'm not saying polyamory is stupid. I'm just saying I wouldn't be into it.

[Iskandar]

Because of your own insecurities.

[cobert]

Yes. And?

[Iskandar]

Maybe you should get over them.

The opposition to polyamory from the (male) members of this forum is based on their own insecurities about their purported sexual inadequacy. To which I respond that polyamory is not about competition but compersion. It's about respecting that your partner is free to seek her own pleasure however she wants to.

And might I remind you for the thousandth time that it works both ways; you are free to boink as many chicks as you want without jealousy.

It's sexual freedom. Why artificially limit yourselves to one other person when you can have the emotional commitment associated with a long-term relationship along with the freedom to branch out with other people.

[cobert]

I'm not opposed to it. It's not like I think it's wrong or that nobody can make it work. I can't make it work because I'm insecure. Holy ****.

Try as you might, you won't get me to **** somebody that isn't my girlfriend.

I don't even understand why you keep arguing as if I don't know why I don't like it or as if you're going to say something that will make me comfortable with having sex with somebody else. I won't be. That doesn't make the idea stupid, it just means I'm not secure enough to try it.

[Iskandar]

You're just unwilling to re-examine your attitudes although they are illogical.

If you are a crappy lover, why restrict your partner to you. If you're a good lover, why does it matter if she bangs other dudes.

Competition breeds efficacy.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

I am the alpha and the omega; the beginning and the end.

you better have a voice similar to liam neeson's.

[fafafafa]

i imagine its whiny and candian

[Iskandar]

No but I can look sort of like him when I have a beard which I don't.
i imagine its whiny and candianNo it's pretty deep apparently.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

be honest do you sound like terrance & phillip

[Iskandar]

What's all this aboot.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

I knew it.

[cobert]

You're just unwilling to re-examine your attitudes although they are illogical.

If you are a crappy lover, why restrict your partner to you. If you're a good lover, why does it matter if she bangs other dudes.

Competition breeds efficacy.


No I am willing to re-examine my attitudes, and I know polyamory makes more sense, but I'm being selfish and I can't help it sooooooo nope sorry she can't bang other dudes.

[fafafafa]

she is going to bang them anyway you might as well accept it now

[cobert]

my ween is supreme tho

[Iskandar]

No I am willing to re-examine my attitudes, and I know polyamory makes more sense, but I'm being selfish and I can't help it sooooooo nope sorry she can't bang other dudes.You're willing to change but you can't help it. What.

Sounds to me like you just can't accept it.

[cobert]

You are absolutely correct.

[Iskandar]

Okay as long as you're aware of it.

But if your ween really is supreme, what exactly do you have to worry about.

Or is the hot dog in your avatar a symbol of your lost manhood.

[Aklerc]

You're just unwilling to re-examine your attitudes although they are illogical.

If you are a crappy lover, why restrict your partner to you. If you're a good lover, why does it matter if she bangs other dudes.

Competition breeds efficacy.
yeah tbh i find the best way to tackle people's irrational insecurities is to just tell them to stop

:rolleyes:

jesus

[Iskandar]

First he has to be aware they exist.

I can't get rid of them for him only he can.

[cobert]

Okay as long as you're aware of it.

Right, accepting that your ween isn't supreme is easier said than done.

But if your ween really is supreme, what exactly do you have to worry about.

Or is the hot dog in your avatar a symbol of your lost manhood.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[Aklerc]

Yeah. Not being wanting to be in a polyamorous relationship is a massive character flaw that he should totally be worried about.

[Mr. Ron]

oh look another privileged middle class white male sexist on this forum. what a surprise.

if your gf cheats on you, its because you're a bitch.
I'm upper middle class, thank you.

and no, open relationships are for betas who cannot hold onto a woman. Usually women who are into "open relationships" are ultra liberal so no big loss there in not wanting one.


Um it's not cheating if you agree it's okay beforehand.

PS. does a beta male get to have sex with as many women as he wants I don't think so.
Betas can get sex, the quality of the woman in question is the question.


Because of your own insecurities.
lol I love how you hex everyone who isn't into your Woodstock love fest.


You're just unwilling to re-examine your attitudes although they are illogical.

If you are a crappy lover, why restrict your partner to you. If you're a good lover, why does it matter if she bangs other dudes.

Competition breeds efficacy.
There is plenty of competition in the kind of relationships me and others are into, actually. Going around and screwing whatever sexual whim you have isn't "competition" at all.

[Iskandar]

Right, accepting that your ween isn't supreme is easier said than done.If you think you're a poor lover then work on it. It's not a death sentence.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.Touché.
Yeah. Not being wanting to be in a polyamorous relationship is a massive character flaw that he should totally be worried about.No his irrational insecurities are the flaw. Don't strawman.
and no, open relationships are for betas who cannot hold onto a woman. Usually women who are into "open relationships" are ultra liberal so no big loss there in not wanting one.
Have you considered that men who are ultra liberal might want them.

The idea of a beta male is stupid Ron.

[Iskandar]

There is plenty of competition in the kind of relationships me and others are into, actually. Going around and screwing whatever sexual whim you have isn't "competition" at all.Yeah competition to keep your mate except with my way you get to have more sex.

[Mr. Ron]

If you think you're a poor lover then work on it. It's not a death sentence.
Touché.
No his irrational insecurities are the flaw. Don't strawman.
Have you considered that men who are ultra liberal might want them.

The idea of a beta male is stupid Ron.
No betas and alphas exist, I think its fairly easy to point them out in public.


Yeah competition to keep your mate except with my way you get to have more sex.
How much sex you have depends on how you can leverage your personal qualities as social capital and take advantage of situations. Sexual prowess is a skill.

[Iskandar]

No betas and alphas exist, I think its fairly easy to point them out in public.What defines a beta vs. alpha male.

Isn't this based on who you think women would find more attractive.
How much sex you have depends on how you can leverage your personal qualities as social capital and take advantage of situations. Sexual prowess is a skill.Well duh.

Your erotic capital is going to waste though if you only sleep with one partner and not as much as you want to.

[Mr. Ron]

What defines a beta vs. alpha male.

Isn't this based on who you think women would find more attractive.
Well duh.

Your erotic capital is going to waste though if you only sleep with one partner and not as much as you want to.
Betas are socially awkward, not assertive, don't have "game", led by their emotions, controlled by their desires, let women walk on them and watch sex in the city.


Alphas are everything opposite of that.


There is in-between, but those are the extremes.


My capital is not going to waste if i choose to be with one person. If we are both good lovers my capital is simply invested differently then yours and I'm happy.

[Iskandar]

So betas are what you see as feminine and alphas are masculine.

Except they're both men.
My capital is not going to waste if i choose to be with one person. If we are both good lovers my capital is simply invested differently then yours and I'm happy.If you think one person is enough for you, go for it. Personally one partner can meet all my needs but that's no prohibition against branching out a bit.

The first rule of investment is diversification, is it not?

[Mr. Ron]

So betas are what you see as feminine and alphas are masculine.

Except they're both men.
If you think one person is enough for you, go for it. Personally one partner can meet all my needs but that's no prohibition against branching out a bit.

The first rule of investment is diversification, is it not?
I don't really think rigid economic vocabulary can really fit into our discussion :p


I hate economics.



Like I have said before, what somoene else is into relationship-wise is none of my business. If an open relationship is your game, whatever. I just prefer to invest myself in a single person because it just works for me. That is in a relationship role, though. I don't mind sleeping with more than one woman outside of a relationship.

[Iskandar]

Okay I didn't say you had to do it.

But I think it's worth trying, right?

[Smokey D]

Ron I think you have some deep seated mummy issues. You're terribly concerned about women being in control.

[Iskandar]

Lol Luke.

No I think Ron's issue is his own insecurities about his sexual adequacy.

Or maybe he just likes controlling what his woman does.

[gregulus]

At least outside of the bedroom.


lol ron how kinky.

[Iskandar]

Okay I like the opposite then.

[gregulus]

Okay I like the opposite then.

You and Mr. Ron would compliment one another nicely :naughty:.

[Iskandar]

I'm not into dudes.

[sweboy]

I'm not into dudes.

You need to change that illogical attitude because your erotic capital is going to waste!



hey guys what's going on

[gregulus]

You need to change that illogical attitude because your erotic capital is going to waste!
qft.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

I'm upper middle class, thank you.

and no, open relationships are for betas who cannot hold onto a woman. Usually women who are into "open relationships" are ultra liberal so no big loss there in not wanting one.

your misogynist attitude towards women is really dragging down this country. personally, i'm frightened by your straight up ignorance and 1950s bible thumping attitude concerning how society should be. and it's more likely than not that you have some insecurity issues. perhaps you have always secretly wanted to be a woman, yet you have been keeping this secret to yourself since you were five years old? yes? do you sometimes touch your taint and wish it looked like a sarlaac pit? yes?

[Iskandar]

You need to change that illogical attitude because your erotic capital is going to waste!Not by much since the number of bisexual/gay men is relatively small.
your misogynist attitude towards women is really dragging down this country. personally, i'm frightened by your straight up ignorance and 1950s bible thumping attitude concerning how society should be. and it's more likely than not that you have some insecurity issues.The part about the Bible thumping is wrong but the rest is pretty accurate.

Ron when did you become such a conservative anyway.
perhaps you have always secretly wanted to be a woman, yet you have been keeping this secret to yourself since you were five years old? yes? do you sometimes touch your taint and wish it looked like a sarlaac pit? yes?What.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

yes i agree bible thumping is wrong

[cobert]

You need to change that illogical attitude because your erotic capital is going to waste

:lol:

[Iskandar]

Currently, it is, because I'm just so attractive.

[Smokey D]

Ron was always a conservative deep down he just had a 3 year experiment as liberal. Like how girls hook up with girls in college but then become Stepford wives.

[Iskandar]

Or Ron's wife.

[Mr. Ron]

Ron I think you have some deep seated mummy issues. You're terribly concerned about women being in control.
I can't think of any negative issues I've had with my mother.


I'm actually not concerned with women being in control of any thing


Lol Luke.

No I think Ron's issue is his own insecurities about his sexual adequacy.

Or maybe he just likes controlling what his woman does.
Everyone has insecurities, however I'm a very confident person when it comes to "sexual adequacy". So no I don't think it is that either.I think you're just trying to find weak excuses.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

Uh oh, now he's trying to be the alpha male.

[Mr. Ron]

your misogynist attitude towards women is really dragging down this country. personally, i'm frightened by your straight up ignorance and 1950s bible thumping attitude concerning how society should be. and it's more likely than not that you have some insecurity issues. perhaps you have always secretly wanted to be a woman, yet you have been keeping this secret to yourself since you were five years old? yes? do you sometimes touch your taint and wish it looked like a sarlaac pit? yes?
lol I love this deep psychological analysis you guys are trying to conduct. Too bad every single one of you has been totally off the mark and don't even know me personally.

Wait what if I did want to be a woman? You making fun of me for that is probably worse than anything I have said thus far, bigot. Now go prepare my evening dress so I can skull **** you.

[Iskandar]

I'm actually not concerned with women being in control of any thingExcept who they sleep with.
Everyone has insecurities, however I'm a very confident person when it comes to "sexual adequacy". So no I don't think it is that either.I think you're just trying to find weak excuses.Then why do you keep bringing up the issue of beta males.

Seems to me you're overly preoccupied with it.

Perhaps afraid of being one yourself.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't sexually harass me like that, Ron. See, you assume that just because I'm male, you can talk to me in such a rude manner in order to declare your dominance over me. This means that you are biased towards both men and women, and ultimately, this makes you a double bigot.

[Mr. Ron]

Except who they sleep with.
Then why do you keep bringing up the issue of beta males.

Seems to me you're overly preoccupied with it.

Perhaps afraid of being one yourself.
Why would I want a person I'm committed to sleeping around with other men?



I'm not preoccupied with it, the subject just makes me talk about it. Its not like I wake up every day and think about this stuff.


My history with females has removed me from being a beta.



I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't sexually harass me like that, Ron. See, you assume that just because I'm male, you can talk to me in such a rude manner. This means that you are biased towards both men and women, and ultimately, a double bigot.
It puts the lotion on it's skin

[Iskandar]

Why would I want a person I'm committed to sleeping around with other men?A better question is, why don't you?

Don't you want your partner to enjoy herself as much as possible?

Or are you afraid she'll like them better than you?
My history with females has removed me from being a beta.You can still fear becoming one. 95% of men have perfectly adequate penises yet are insecure about the size all the same.

I'm not preoccupied with it, the subject just makes me talk about it. Its not like I wake up every day and think about this stuff.
Subconsciously Ron.

[RetiredAt21]

A better question is, why don't you?

Don't you want your partner to enjoy herself as much as possible?

Or are you afraid she'll like them better than you?
You can still fear becoming one. 95% of men have perfectly adequate penises yet are insecure about the size all the same.

Subconsciously Ron.

How could anyone seriously not worry about that on some level? Even the most seemingly confident man would still have to be self conscious about it a little bit.

[Mr. Ron]

A better question is, why don't you?

Don't you want your partner to enjoy herself as much as possible?

Or are you afraid she'll like them better than you?
You can still fear becoming one. 95% of men have perfectly adequate penises yet are insecure about the size all the same.

Subconsciously Ron.
One thing is for certain; you can never really stop a person from cheating on you. If they want to, they will. All you can do is be the best partner you can be. If I have a girl that I really love, and I think I am sharing something special with her, I don't see why I should be happy if 5 dudes run a train on her. You dig?


I'm happy with my size so size has never been a concern for me.

[RetiredAt21]

It doesn't even have to be about penis size.

[Iskandar]

How could anyone seriously not worry about that on some level? Even the most seemingly confident man would still have to be self conscious about it a little bit.Yeah but being preoccupied with it is dumb.
One thing is for certain; you can never really stop a person from cheating on you. If they want to, they will. All you can do is be the best partner you can be. If I have a girl that I really love, and I think I am sharing something special with her, I don't see why I should be happy if 5 dudes run a train on her. You dig?It's not cheating.

If you like her so much though, why not let someone else get a taste. No need to be possessive here.