monogamy brosour response??

monogamy bros…our response??

Die For Epstein's Client List Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Die For Epstein's Client List Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I haven't read it and neither will anyone responding to this thread

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Well? There's Fourier, I guess. But the thought of abandoning my little apartment for a 'phalanstery' is not a pleasant one. Closeting my general lack of confidence, competence, and at times overwhelming sense of sin is productive of an occasional ecstatic moment, so I'm sticking. This guy's correct (with respect to me):

      The subject seems gossipy, and therefore a little vulgar; it just doesn't interest me.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Genesis 2:23-24; Matthew 19:3-6

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Scientific claims have been demonstrated to be fundamentally unjustified, chud.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In the time before effective treatments for sexually transmitted diseases it was a free-for-all orgy? Not likely. What's more likely is promiscuous people's genitals would stink and rot off their bodies and everyone else would say it's a sign God wants us to be monogamous.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Humans fricked humans all the time, eliminating any desire to for man to frick other animals (the source of STDs). Men begin fricking goats due to lack of sex.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Probably not. Also, stds do not all literally come from animals. Stds, like any disease is an organism, virus, bacterium, etc. Like you and they evolve. You don't need to frick a cow to get the bacteria in that cow to transmit to you where it slowly (or quickly) mutates. Same goes for simian viruses.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You don't need to frick a cow to get the bacteria
          Correct. You just need to frick someone who fricked someone who fricked someone who fricked someone who fricked a cow 38 centuries ago.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Qrd?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the book says our hunter-gatherer ancestors had casual sex that strengthened their communities. Monogamy came much later. It uses science to argue that monogamy might not be natural for humans, which could explain challenges in modern relationships. It doesn't promote open relationships, but encourages a rethink on societal views of sex.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >We need to loosen the rules that have bound society together since it formed

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Not the new weird rules where the same people make all the money for free and only give it away after collecting 80% of your lifetime

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        fun fact.
        we only really started building civilization when we convinced the wildmen theres more to life than sex.
        western civ was built off of incels and eunuchs and god fearing men.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >theres more to life than sex
          like what?
          did civilization make us happier?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            it increased chances to be happier.
            when you are in a survival loop your only saving grace is an orgasm against all the things that will kill you.
            and civilization brought more chances to have sex.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I disagree with your final point. I agree with the rest, somewhat
            But many close knit tribal cultures are sexually egalitarian and collectivist. They'll literally have giant sex orgies, fertility rituals, where the whole tribe just fricks near the fire mixing everybody's stuff up. Some tribes have a ritual where after the woman's main partner "plants the seed," the rest of the men "water the seed" out of belief that this just strengthens the chances that the first man's seed will lead to conception. Obviously this is because they're enhancing the chances of conception by cumming inside her a bunch of times, and it could be any of those men's kid, but they just don't care or think about it much. And they raise the kids as a unit, too, so they don't really care.
            This seems like it would eventually lead to massive inbreeding, and it doesn't allow for much leisure time beyond the drudgeries of primitivist survival, but in many tribes sex is far easier to get, more frequent and more accessible to lower tier men and women than in just about any developed civilization.
            If anything, the benefits of civilization all come at the price of ease of sex

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you were still at the behest of when said orgies would happen.
            with civilization came brothels and i can go and have an orgy anytime i damn well please.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They happened pretty frequently and cost not a cent
            Brothels cost money

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          you know nothing about history

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >natural
        We're still doing this shit, huh?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        moronic argument. Humans have been getting jealous of each other since the beginning. We have both monogamous and polyamorous instincts with certain people more in one direction than the other. Monogamy is over all far healthier for society and people. Polyamory just leads to utter chaos socially and negative mental states as people will always get jealous no matter how accepted free love is. Monogamy's downside is... you don't get variety and you might get a little board sometimes. The superior option is clear.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          check'd
          you see, the issue is you are applying the idea of polyamory for everyone
          in reality there are type 1 and type 2 people
          type 1 should be monogamous (these are the plebes, the masses, the people who have been and will always be the engine of humanity but never its navigator)
          type 2 are free to choose, and the societal rules for them (are) should be different
          we should let the two layers reveal themselves and separate so that things can get going

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >had casual sex
        What a relief to know that 'rape' had little to do with such couplings; nice to know (aar) that our savage ancestors were far more 'civilized' than it had been my wont to credit them with being, ...um, etc.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They also drank human blood out of capped skulls and shit like that
        What's the argument here

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/mvJ0XUY.jpeg

        monogamy bros…our response??

        Don't most researchers argue out earliest ancestors were polygynous?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It has been some time, but I think this book was criticized for not having any evidence for their theories and was formed on headcanon.

          If I had to guess, given what we know about hunter gatherers who live today, it was not some hippie poly community.
          They were closer to the Greeks who destroyed Troy or the Romans under Romulus and Remus.

          And DNA studies seem to more or less agree with this. For example: There is a community A and a community B who are neighbors. Suddenly the Y chromosomes (but only the Y chromosomes) of one of those communities disappear.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        this is pretty obvious, only the moronic believe that monogamy is natural
        but mono it is definitely better for society and the quality of the offspring

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Everyone fricked everyone all the time constantly all day every day night till morning till afternoon and again until dawn yep we frick that's what we do
    But look around and ask yourself who won. People always forget we came from the mud, and many people want to go back,just like many people never wanted to leave

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is coffee good for you?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I lately advocated our searching for the purely-Human in its agreement with the ever-Natural, mature consideration will shew us the only reasonable and luminous departure-point in the relation between man and woman, or rather, the male and female. [...]
    >However strongly the lust of the male in the highest types of beasts may be already directed to the individuality of the female, yet it only protects its mate until she is in the position to teach the young to help themselves, which she does till they can finally be left to go their way and forget the mother also: here Nature's sole concern is with the species, and she keeps it all the purer by permitting no sexual intercourse save under influence of mutual 'heat.' Man's severance from the animal kingdom, on the other hand, might be said to have been completed by the conversion of his 'heat' into passionate affection for the Individual, where the instinct of Species, so paramount among the beasts, almost fades away before the ideal satisfaction of the being-loved by this one individual: in the woman alone, the mother, does that instinct seem to retain its sovereignty; and thus, although transfigured by his ideal love towards her individuality, she preserves a greater kinship to that nature-force than the man, whose passion now mates the fettered mother-love by turning to fidelity. Love's loyalty: marriage; here dwells Man's power over Nature, and divine we call it. 'Tis the fashioner of all noble races. [...]
    >This question of Polygamy versus Monogamy thus brings us to the contact of the purely-human with the ever-natural. Superior minds have called Polygamy the more natural state, and the monogamic union a perpetual defiance of Nature. Undoubtedly, polygamous tribes stand nearer to the state of Nature, and, provided no disturbing mixtures intervene, thereby preserve their purity of type with the same success as Nature keeps her breeds of beasts unchanged. Only, a remarkable individuality the polygamous can not beget save under influence of the ideal canon of Monogamy; a force which sometimes exerts its power, through passionate affection and love's loyalty, in the very harems of the Orientals. It is here that the Woman herself is raised above the natural law of sex (das natürliche Gattungsgesetz), to which, in the belief of even the wisest lawgivers, she remained so bound that the Buddha himself thought needful to exclude her from the possibility of saint-hood. It is a beautiful feature in the legend, that shews the Perfect Overcomer prompted to admit the Woman.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thank you Wagner-anon, for turning me onto Wagner for his essays and thought. You singlehandedly provided me the philosophical base on which my project hinges on.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Now I'm intrigued. What exactly is this project?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I hate men

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You just hate us cuz ya ain't us

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Pity. I'm sure you're both very attractive and just dripping with charm.
        >[Our] loss, hetero-bros..

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why is the sociology of sex so bad? The kinsey reports, this book, etc. it's like everyone is just projecting their politics or fetishes back into the stone age rather than genuinely inquiring about the topic at hand.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because they want to own the chuds and their mean conservative daddy!

      It should be intuitively obvious that in an era before genetics were understood, STDs were understood and the process of reproduction was understood, people would err more on the side of caution. In the middle ages people still thought that if you fricked a woman once, all her future children might inherit those traits.

      The whole superstructure of sexual libertine degeneracy with homosexual men peeing inside each others anuses in 20+ blowbang orgies is predicated on the availability of anti-biotics and medical treatment. And even in the modern era, medical technology struggles to keep up with homosexual degeneracy and they drop like flies when it fails. Yet we're supposed to believe the past was like The Mineshaft bathhouse in New York?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Sex crazed times have existed plenty throughout history, that's what the stories like Sodom & Gomorrah are based on. There was an intuitive understanding among people in the past that too much sexual openness degenerated social bonds and caused townships and city states to fall, precisely because they'd seen it happen before.
        Look at late stage pre Christian Rome.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There's apparently a beach in spain nicknamed "the beach of death" because all the homosexuals there died once HIV rolled through in the 80s, as it once served as a gay cruising spot. If it was 1,500 years before you'd have a legend about how god brought down pestilence and disease on the immoral people of the village.

          >There was an intuitive understanding among people in the past that too much sexual openness degenerated social bonds and caused townships and city states to fall,

          I think they just died, and that's more in common with Sodom and Gomorrah than it just being weakened social bonds. I think they couldn't help themselves and they escalated to dangerous sex practices, got infected and died off. I really don't think weakened social bonds had anything to do with it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well, either way. But are you trying to argue that sexual libertinism doesn't weaken social ties and cause cultural collapse?
            Have you looked around?

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Controlling Ones Self is Impossible: A Book for the Undisciplined and the moronic
    Why does this book re-release under so many different titles?

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's an observable fact that human reproductive behaviour is accommodating to woman's cheating. It's not that men don't cheat, I'm just saying women are built to get away with it, for example ovulation is not externally observable the way it is in other mammals.
    If a man is weak or otherwise has his hands tied, so that his wife so desires, she can secretly bed down with a physically superior partner (or at least one who is more sexually interesting to her) and if she has half a brain cell not get caught doing it.

    However that doesn't equate to this arrangement being optimal. Humans are not normal animals, we use technology and engineering to evolve rather than pure sexual selection. Hence the human being (or, the well bred at least) is capable of analyzing and selecting sexual partners based upon criteria beyond pure physicality and nearly intangible sexual charisma.

    And it has been doing so in order to arrive at this point, but evolution has allowed for a back door to remain such that women who are intelligent enough can have it both ways, especially if men due to whatever circumstances are unable or unwilling to cull the offspring of opposing males who they reluctantly come to share a mate with.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Men are "built to get away with it" using this same argument. Put penis in vegana, shoot ropes, go home. Kid comes out looks like you, before paternity tests you say "wow that's weird." And frick off to the tavern.
      Point being just because a capacity exists doesn't mean the body was "built for" that. Women aren't "built for" cheating.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      homie a man can regularly have sex with multiple women with all of the chicks being none the wiser. What the frick are you on about

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Just more "women are evil" bullshit from someone who I wont label bc it'd be mean

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    animals have sex once per year and they only do it for procreation, contrary to women who are sex addicts and always in heat.
    Don't forget that according to atheists, sex is the only ting in common between humans and animals, and animals frick all the time. This is completely false.
    The truth is that animals don't value sex and it is female humans who are inherently hypergamous bawds...
    Atheists deny the truth because they want to pin their degeneracy on ''uncontrollable irrepressible biological urges'' so that they avoid being guilty of degeneracy.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This varies a lot by species and if we go by evolution, we descend from chimps, who are sexual but extremely jealous and engage in womb-guarding, and bonobos, who are constantly sexual and have little to no jealousy. They use sex to socialize

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >contrary to women who are sex addicts and always in heat.
      And yet virtually all rapists are men

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >New York Times Bestseller
    Nuff said.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    this book could not be further from the fight
    this person will go to INCREDIBLE DISTANCES to avoid acknowledging reality

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Dude who wrote this book thinks Hey Ya by Outkast is a profound song. He's an idiot. Nuff said.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's true Women cannot be asexual. Women love sex and love to desire sex. It's why most books targeting women are about sex.

    Men love sex but they do not love much, nor dislike much the desire for sex. In fact the desire for sex is more like an hindrance and a thing to eject, precisely by wanking and ejaculation that is the pinnacle of fricking a slag.
    Men still despise not loving sex, since it removes the most effective mechanism of valuation that they have (a man feels valued by a woman once she picks him up out of the male competition, telling him he won and rewarding him with the right to frick her), which leads them to the usual mockery of being shagless dildos remaining on the shelf of the sex market controlled by women, being baby dicks and being asexual.
    Men despise asexuality in men, since it shows them that sex-havers are far less dominant than the story they plays in their heads about being stronger and better than veganas.

    Women despise asexuality in men, since the few asexual men (few are handsome) no longer acknowledge women for sex nor for companionship. Some asexual men claim to still want a gf just to cuddle, but that's already a baby-level sex and we are still in the situation of validation (and the gf still wants sex anyway sooner or later) and once they have sex with a girl that they love they see sex is not so bad.

    Women despise asexuality in women, precisely because women live on sex while their hate of their body for menstruating leads them to take pills which kills their desire for sex (but indeed kills their menstruation). They hate their life since through their own body, they acknowledge in their intimacy that they cannot win on both accounts: either have a comfy life or have an erotic life. Women want the erotic life.

    In fact sex is so crucial to a woman, that if a woman is NOT fricked senseless EVERY WEEK, her natural hysteria starts to poor out of her pores and the neurosis kicks in. Sex is literally a medicinal drug to a woman.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the right to
      So.. love makes 'legal' an action otherwise 'illegal' despite its obvious 'nature' as a species of whim. My guess is that this is what 'freedom' looks like, if one happens to be female..

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >monogamy bros…our response??
    Same response the Lord Jesus Christ gave to Satan after fasting (eating nothing, see Luke 4:2 KJV) for 40 days, saying "it is written" and citing Scripture.

    >I. Corinthians 6:9-11
    >9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
    >10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
    >11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The value of sensuality is that it provides you with pleasure from the pain of itself.

    Sensuality touches you with pain, but at the same time, it offers you a solution for that same pain. It’s just like racketeering: “Okay, if you pay me, I’ll make your problems go away, problems that I put on you so that you will pay me”. So you get extorted by your own sensuality, your own desires. Sensual desires hurt, and giving in to them will remove that hurt and reward you with more pleasure. It’s a win-win. Or so it seems, until you realize that the true win is to not be pressured by the desires in the first place. The win is not having to pay the racketeering thugs for your safety; the win is to not have the thugs pressure you at all.

    The more you give in to the pressure of sensuality, the more you will have to give in since its nature can never be changed.

    The Nature of sensuality is that it hurts, burns, and pressures you.

    “Suppose there was a bronze cup of beverage that had a nice colour, aroma, and flavour. But it was mixed with poison. Then along comes a man struggling in the oppressive heat, weary, thirsty, and parched. They’d say to him: ‘Here, mister, this bronze cup of beverage has a nice colour, aroma, and flavour. Drink it if you like. If you drink it, its nice colour, aroma, and flavour will refresh you. But drinking it will result in death or deadly pain.’
    Then that man might think: ‘I could quench my thirst with water, whey, or broth. But I shouldn’t drink that beverage, for it would be for my lasting harm and suffering.’ He’d reject that beverage. After appraisal, he wouldn’t drink it, and it wouldn’t result in death or deadly pain.”

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When Mick Jagger first sang “I can’t get no satisfaction!” in 1965, we could not have known that he was predicting the future. As Jagger told his biographer in 2013, he has been with about four thousand women—a different partner every ten days of his adult life.

    Note that Mick didn’t follow up with, “. . . and at four thousand, I finally found satisfaction. I’m done!” Presumably he’ll keep going as long as he can. So how many lovers would be enough to get “satisfaction”? If you’ve had four thousand, we can safely say that dopamine is steering things in your life, at least when it comes to sex. And dopamine’s prime directive is more. If Sir Mick chases satisfaction another half century, he still won’t catch it. His idea of satisfaction is not satisfaction at all. It’s pursuit, which is driven by dopamine, the molecule that cultivates perpetual dissatisfaction. After he beds a lover, his immediate goal will be to find another.

    In this way, Mick isn’t alone. He isn’t even unusual. Mick Jagger is just a confident version of TV’s George Costanza. In nearly every episode of Seinfeld, George fell in love. He went to ridiculous lengths to get a date, and he was capable of almost anything if it might lead to sex. He imagined each new woman as a potential life mate, the perfect female who would go with him into happily ever after. But every Seinfeld fan knows how those stories ended. George would be crazy about the woman up until the moment she returned his affection. When he didn’t have to try anymore, all he wanted was out. George Louis Costanza was so addicted to the dopamine thrill of chasing romance that he spent an entire season trying to extract himself from his engagement to the only woman who continued to love him despite every awful thing he did. And when his fiancée died from licking toxic glue on the envelopes of their wedding invitations, George wasn’t devastated. He was relieved, even joyful. He was ecstatic to rejoin the chase. Mick is like George, and George is like all of us. We revel in the passion, the focus, the excitement, the thrill of finding new love. The difference is that most of us figure out at some point that dopamine lies to us. Unlike the former latex salesman for Vandelay Industries and the lead singer of the Rolling Stones, we come to understand that the next beautiful woman or a handsome man we see is probably not the key to “satisfaction.”

    https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/Desires/Section0003.html

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Mick is like George, and George is like all of us
      What an absolute Black person-tier view. I won't even dignify this putrid filth with a response.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Dan Savage's praise is enough to know that this book needn't be taken seriously.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Vico explains it in the New Science

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And it's a very interesting explanation too, if a little doubtful. His idea was that it began as a thoroughly aristocratic institution that plebs desired be extended-- as a right-- to themselves, which it eventually was.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sex is fake you people just like pretending

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    To a woman sex is life and life is sex.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How can you possibly know what women think and feel if ywnbaw

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Only men possess the emotional capacity for empathy. That's why rare women like Mother Teresa are popular, because it's so rare it might as well not exist.

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The book is written by a literal cuck. Listen to his interviews - he lets his girlfriend(s) frick huge numbers of men who go in and out of their lives.

    If you want a good counterresponse to this pre-civilizational sexual free-for-all, read Hans Hermann Hoppe's A Short History of Man, where he describes socially enforced monogamy as a massive advancement in social technology and allowed the proper articulation of private property rights, which then boosts everyone's economic output, net worth, and sense of community, safety, provision, etc., all of which are impossible under non-monogamous conditions.

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is there any polygamous cultist that doesn't fall into the naturalistic fallacy? Throughout history, there has never been a single polygamous society worth mentioning for a reason.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *