Post: #76

This thread has really gotten interesting. I mentioned previously that the forum has gotten smarter, but it also appears to have gotten dumber in some quarters, too.

The question of human beings being monogamous should not even be up for debate. We're not. The evidence from primatology, antropology and evolutionary biology is so overwhelming that denying this is nothing but hamsterism dressed up in grandiliquent language and philosophical b.s.

The nuclear family may be debatable. But monogamy is blue pill.

And as for belief in heaven and hell? No comment.

(Zolo jumps on his unicorn and heads for lephrancan Island to search for rainbow gold).

Post: #77

(03-18-2015 06:49 PM)naughtynomad Wrote:  The question of human beings being monogamous should not even be up for debate. We're not. The evidence from primatology, antropology and evolutionary biology is so overwhelming that denying this is nothing but hamsterism dressed up in grandiliquent language and philosophical b.s.

You accuse others of hamsterism and then...

Quote:But monogamy is blue pill.

You hamsterize yourself

Statements:

1. Monogamy by free will and freedom of choice is possible

2. Enforced monogamy is possible

Are not same.

Just because monogamy does not suit your lifestyle at this certain point in this certain era, doesn't mean monogamy isn't a solution to women's empowerment. Wherever women have choice, we're doomed. Monogamy (real monogamy), means women have no right for sexual liberty and exploration.

What we have today is not monogamy. "Before marriage it doesn't count" doesn't work for me as long as term "mono" is concerned

Post: #78

(03-17-2015 05:05 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 04:52 PM)ballybally Wrote:  When talking about marriage on "PUA" forums the most vocal guys are usually the ones with the least experience with women,guys that never got their dicks anywhere near true 8+,funny,intelligent girl - let alone were able to keep her for 6+ months.

Marriage might not be all that much fun when you get there but PLEASE, I bet that 90% of you that are so vocal against it would sign the papers the second you got your hands on a high quality woman.

We sure are lucky we have you here to set everyone straight.

On a serious note, it sounds more like you don't have much experience with 8+ women since you talk as if they are some magical unicorns that need to be wifed up.

That is what we call thirsty with a side of projection.

I wifed up because I am sex addicted and the whole dating/gaming means less sex than having it on call WHENEVER I want lol

Post: #79

(03-18-2015 06:49 PM)naughtynomad Wrote:  This thread has really gotten interesting. I mentioned previously that the forum has gotten smarter, but it also appears to have gotten dumber in some quarters, too.

The question of human beings being monogamous should not even be up for debate. We're not. The evidence from primatology, antropology and evolutionary biology is so overwhelming that denying this is nothing but hamsterism dressed up in grandiliquent language and philosophical b.s.

The nuclear family may be debatable. But monogamy is blue pill.

That's still naturalistic fallacy, just expressed in a different form. Human beings are not apes. Most creatures on Earth flee fire; we create it and use it, for example. Monogamy remains a matter of choice: you always have your palm available, as opposed to breaking a promise made consciously and explicitly to another human being. Sexual desire is biological, certainly, but by saying "human beings are not monogamous" you are confusing the phenomenon of pair bonding observed in non-sapient creatures in the world around us with the conscious and economically rational decision to stick to one person throughout a marriage.

Post: #80

(03-18-2015 08:52 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 05:05 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 04:52 PM)ballybally Wrote:  When talking about marriage on "PUA" forums the most vocal guys are usually the ones with the least experience with women,guys that never got their dicks anywhere near true 8+,funny,intelligent girl - let alone were able to keep her for 6+ months.

Marriage might not be all that much fun when you get there but PLEASE, I bet that 90% of you that are so vocal against it would sign the papers the second you got your hands on a high quality woman.

We sure are lucky we have you here to set everyone straight.

On a serious note, it sounds more like you don't have much experience with 8+ women since you talk as if they are some magical unicorns that need to be wifed up.

That is what we call thirsty with a side of projection.

I wifed up because I am sex addicted and the whole dating/gaming means less sex than having it on call WHENEVER I want lol

Yeah, well, you don't count because your wife is like a +12.34 so it had to be done otherwise everyone would think you're gay. haha

Post: #81

(03-18-2015 11:14 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 08:52 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 05:05 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 04:52 PM)ballybally Wrote:  When talking about marriage on "PUA" forums the most vocal guys are usually the ones with the least experience with women,guys that never got their dicks anywhere near true 8+,funny,intelligent girl - let alone were able to keep her for 6+ months.

Marriage might not be all that much fun when you get there but PLEASE, I bet that 90% of you that are so vocal against it would sign the papers the second you got your hands on a high quality woman.

We sure are lucky we have you here to set everyone straight.

On a serious note, it sounds more like you don't have much experience with 8+ women since you talk as if they are some magical unicorns that need to be wifed up.

That is what we call thirsty with a side of projection.

I wifed up because I am sex addicted and the whole dating/gaming means less sex than having it on call WHENEVER I want lol

Yeah, well, you don't count because your wife is like a +12.34 so it had to be done otherwise everyone would think you're gay. haha

Or maybe I realized that EVERY year after 2002 the available women would be going down a point every year! In 2020 foreigners will be stick with -1 lol

Post: #82

(03-18-2015 10:02 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Human beings are not apes.

Actually...

Post: #83

(03-18-2015 11:20 PM)The Father Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 10:02 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Human beings are not apes.

Actually...

Primates, yes. But not the same species as apes, and rather better with the whole consciousness/language thing

Post: #84

(03-18-2015 06:49 PM)naughtynomad Wrote:  I mentioned previously that the forum has gotten smarter, but it also appears to have gotten dumber in some quarters, too.

What's with the left-handed compliments?

Quote:The question of human beings being monogamous should not even be up for debate. We're not. The evidence from primatology, antropology and evolutionary biology is so overwhelming that denying this is nothing but hamsterism dressed up in grandiliquent language and philosophical b.s.

You're on a forum that's sprung from the desire to debate what mainstream considers undebatable and then you expect us to just take it when you say 'monogamy' should not even be up for debate?

Quote:And as for belief in heaven and hell? No comment.

Why are you here and what do you want?

Quote:(Zolo jumps on his unicorn and heads for lephrancan Island to search for rainbow gold).

Zolo's been spotted recently.



G

Post: #85

Forgive the snark, but I suppose we should debate intelligent design and the earth being flat as well then (in a series of banal memes, it seems).
Ideology and ignorance shouldn't trump empiricism.

When it comes to human sexuality, the red pill is a hard one to swallow. I suggest readers become more informed and read widely on the topic. The evidence speaks for itself.

Post: #86

Some people like monogamy and do very well with it.

I don't see that as being red or blue pill, I see it as a personal choice.

It becomes red/blue pill when you apply your beliefs/ideologies to it. As has been said here, you can have red pill monogamy, or blue pill. We all know the differences.

I think NN's question could be worded differently, as has also been said here, the concept of the nuclear family is probably blue pill, or mainstream.

Being a father and husband is one of the ultimate tests of masculinity.

Post: #87

(03-19-2015 03:31 AM)naughtynomad Wrote:  I suppose we should debate intelligent design and the earth being flat as well then (in a series of witty memes, it seems).
Ideology shouldn't trump empiricism.

Look - monogamy is indeed rather contentious for the human species. You are right, that the nuclear family is another thing.

But then going ahead and then accusing anyone for being a dumb bloke just for mentioning the big monogamy issue? Of course we humans are not monogamous in nature, but monogamy on the side of females has been thoroughly enforced for great periods in human history.

Post: #88

The "dumb" comment was more aimed at the religiosity in this thread.

Aside from that, there has been a lot of intelligent and well thought-out responses.

Post: #89

(03-18-2015 11:21 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 11:20 PM)The Father Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 10:02 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Human beings are not apes.

Actually...

Primates, yes. But not the same species as apes, and rather better with the whole consciousness/language thing

Post: #90

(03-19-2015 03:31 AM)naughtynomad Wrote:  Forgive the snark, but I suppose we should debate intelligent design and the earth being flat as well then (in a series of banal memes, it seems).
Ideology and ignorance shouldn't trump empiricism.

When it comes to human sexuality, the red pill is a hard one to swallow. I suggest readers become more informed and read widely on the topic. The evidence speaks for itself.

It puzzles me how certain "red-pillers" complain about degeneration and collapse of western world, western culture and civilization (genuine one), and yet, are ready to jump to conclusion that Darwinist, animal model of sexual behavior is right for society and should be embraced as "red-pill".

We know how unrestrained sexuality works. We exploit it.
But it doesn't mean it's solution.

The reason itself why we have civilization is because we introduced regulation. The moment we abandoned regulation and cut women loose, is the moment it started to collapse.

When you know true nature of women, you are supposed to do something about it, correct ? What did our forefathers do ? Did they swallow the "red pill" and went to a bar to get drunk ? No, they stood united and formed patriarchy. And then, they regulated sexuality of their offspring.

Post: #91

Orion, I agree with your facts, but just because one particular form of social contract/regulation was effective for a while (marriage/patriarchal system) it doesn't logically follow that this system is the best solution going forward.

I don't know what it *is* the best system that both moves society forward and gives people a semblance of happiness in this fucked world.

We should learn from the past but it doesn't mean we have to throw back to it.

Post: #92

(03-19-2015 08:56 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  Orion, I agree with your facts, but just because one particular form of social contract/regulation was effective for a while (marriage/patriarchal system) it doesn't logically follow that this system is the best solution going forward.

It was effective for millennia...

And it isn't a solution. It is the only organic model of what is otherwise an institution. Expanded family virtually caters for every need of a member of family. You won't be homeless. You don't have to split and work a corporate 905 office job just to be able to rent a shitty apartment. You do not need retirement when there are plenty of people to take care for you. You don't need nursing home when there are plenty of people to take care for you. You don't need endless social service intervention when there is a huge family to restrain "loose" or violent members. You don't need divorce rape when every woman has family to return to. You don't have sluts when there is a congregation of men to control sexuality of it's members.

It sounds mind-boggling when you just take a close look at the list of needs that expanded family (modestly) caters, but it actually existed, and it actually worked that way. This is no imagination. It existed.

So what happened ? Couple of liberals came by and said screw families and their needs, let's spawn factories everywhere so we can rapidly produce commodities using enormous resources of our conquered colonies.

Quote:I don't know what it *is* the best system that both moves society forward and gives people a semblance of happiness in this fucked world.

Whatever it is, it doesn't say "here is freedom for you to do whatever you want ! Hooray!"

Quote:We should learn from the past but it doesn't mean we have to throw back to it.

My question is what does manosphere has to win with nuclear family as a "model" ? And it says "oh, it's anti-male law that made nuclear family crappy". O really ?

Who regulates it ? State does
Who regulates divorce ? State does
Who educates your children ? State does
Who provides you social security ? State does
If your wife divorces you and takes your kids away, who will protect her ? State will

Nuclear family is conceived as a state dependent unit. It IS possible to form a nuclear family and provide for everything your family has. I'm not saying it isn't. However, there is no security. Everything depends on individual will. You know "freedom of choice". Once a father is gone, so is control. State takes care for everything from then and on.