When a relationship ends with so-called "cheating" being the supposed cause, think about it. If the other partner was not averse to the prospect of their partner having sex with another person, it would not have resulted in the breakup. So the real cause of the breakup was not adultery in itself but rather the other partner's aversion to adultery, and perceived entitlement to exclusive access to their partner's sexuality.
WELCOME TO THIS CRAZY TIME
KONO IKARETA JIDAI HE YOUKOSO
KIMI WA CUCKBOY, CUCKBOY, CUCKBOY, CUCKBOY
Committing crime doesn't make you a criminal. Lawful society makes you a criminal.
Adultery doesn't destroy marriages, the ability a woman has to divorce and make a fortune off of it destroys marriage.
Then it's not a relationship in the first place.
>>8
Overeating does not make you a fat fuck. Abundance of food makes you a fat fuck.
Staying indoors does not make you a shut-in. The fact there is an outdoors from which you are able to isolate yourself makes you a shut-in.
Experiencing a sexual attraction towards children does not make you a pædophile. The existence of children makes you a pædophile.
>>10
Strawman and missing the point. Adultery and illegal actions are not inherently bad, but that they are regarded as bad gives them conditional bad qualities, which people erroneously point to as evidence that they are objectively bad.
>>12
Yes, and I am arguing within a subjective framework for the subjective merits of subjective standards which differ from commonly held ones.
penis
>>14
Sure, but this is somewhat tautological, and you're not actually refuting anything. You're saying that X (an expectation of monogamy) and Y (adultery) together imply Z (a breakup), and that if X is not true then Z is not necessarily imminent. Well, like, duh? Y implies X in the first place. It wouldn't be adultery if the relationship was not monogamous.
Sounds like you tried cheating and got caught, and now you're mad you're down 2 sets of buttock. Sucks to be you.
>Sure, but this is somewhat tautological...
You're right. The point real point is to portray open relationships in a positive light.
>Sounds like you tried cheating...
Why do people always say stuff like this when I broach this subject on the internet? Actually, I am a virgin. A virgin with high standards.
>Actually, I am a virgin. A virgin with high standards.
lulz, sure you are.
Polyamory is like communism. The idea sounds appealing in theory, but society has yet to come up with a successful example.
When I lived in the bay area, open relationships were quite popular. Unfortunately, this inevitably led to way more problems than it was worth. People would often pretend to be okay with polyamory, but deep down they would grow more and more jealous and resentful. I rarely saw an open relationship that lasted and the ones that did were always fraught with tears and drama.
Animals are evolutionary hardwired with a desire to pass on their genes. Humans are better at hiding this than other animals, but it's still true. This leads to the paradox that humans want to fuck as many partners as possible, but they also want those partners to be exclusive to maximise the success of their offspring. And even if we could overcome this evolutionary desire, the fact remains that sex is a scarce resource, and that inevitably leads to conflict and jealousy. Any time your partner spends having sex with other people is time not spent with you. People are selfish, jealous creatures, and that's not going to change any time soon.
lick my Balzac
>OK, so you're a wizard. Are you one of those m'lady types? That might be why.
I'm not old enough to be a wizard.
>You're supposed to consider the entirety of a response like >>19, not choose the easy way out with a glib comment like that.
Sorry.
>Animals are evolutionary hardwired with a desire to pass on their genes. Humans are better at hiding this than other animals, but it's still true. This leads to the paradox that humans want to fuck as many partners as possible, but they also want those partners to be exclusive to maximise the success of their offspring. And even if we could overcome this evolutionary desire, the fact remains that sex is a scarce resource, and that inevitably leads to conflict and jealousy. Any time your partner spends having sex with other people is time not spent with you. People are selfish, jealous creatures, and that's not going to change any time soon.
Then, successful open polyamory would require the triumph of rational speculation over humanimal instinct. How (most) people are hardwired is a thing, but not the limit. I can argue against the natural way.
penis
> (most) people are hardwired
What the fuck is this child talking about? This thread is very shit.
>>28
Can you actually prove me wrong though? Or do you need clarification?
>>29
In the study of the mind, things have gotten to the point where if someone still espouses "blank slate" arguments, that's usually a red flag; one should regard them as not credible.
Can rational desires (and I am trying to be charitable by using the term your way, as I do not believe all cerebral-cortex-only ideas to qualify as such) overcome base hierarchical needs? Yes, a little--relative to "everything" that makes up life--temporarily. But as a permanent system, that gets called things like asceticism, sainthood, lunacy, cultism, etc. And it's kind of the latter two that people think of as getting any "romance"... and in practice, it's clearly not love, it's just sex. In any case, it is clearly exceptional and too counter-evolutionary to become the norm. Any system that requires the majority of its participants to first be bodhisattvas is doomed.
I can buy the concept of polygamy as a lasting thing, but polyamory and "friends with benefits" are wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is incredibly powerful and is the first step towards making something reality, but only if it leads somewhere worth going. Which brings us full circle to your claim that you can argue against the natural way--you want to, maybe you "can", but you didn't.