Post: #1

As we know, one of the aims of Cultural Marxism and its proponents is to destroy the traditional family. They do this through a number of ways, including the normalization of female infidelity and homosexuality. Before this, however, one of the first things that happened was making it okay to have sex outside of marriage or concubinage. It became normal to have a girlfriend for a while before marrying her. Then multiple girlfriends and then one-night-stands/FWBs. Now it's rare if your partner didn't do both hetero and homosexual experimentation before you get together for a relationship.

Now, in a nihilistic and hedonist twist, even the more permanent terms of "girlfriend" and, god forbid "wife" are nigh taboo in this community (with the latter inviting scorn in the vein of "lol AWALT") and replaced by the unceremonious "long term relationship" or LTR. What is this nonsense? It's like me restyling my wife a "legally ordained opposite-gender companion." As I see it, widespread use of the term swallows up perhaps the fundamental of social structures into a sterilized generalization similar to the leftist "civil union"; it reflects a lack of willingness on the part of otherwise sensible men to act in defense of civilization and the concurrent view of women as disposable or communal resources (as in in the Marxist tradition). Is it not clear that this plays into the hands of those who conspire to destroy men and society?

Rant over.

Post: #2

If you said "partner" instead of LTR, I would totally have agreed.

Curious what lead up to this.

Post: #3

I've mentioned my wife many times as "my wife" and never gotten grief for it.

Quote:Now it's rare if your partner didn't do both hetero and homosexual experimentation before you get together for a relationship.

As the king of exaggeration, generalisation, pessimism and over-reacting I'm ordering you to get off my throne.

Post: #4

I'm looking forward to adding some more leftist degeneracy to my sex life.

Post: #5

(05-30-2017 09:40 PM)Suits Wrote:  I'm looking forward to adding some more leftist degeneracy to my sex life.

This was a good one.

Post: #6

So, what's your solution?

Post: #7

(05-30-2017 08:51 PM)Lunostrelki Wrote:  the concurrent view of women as disposable or communal resources (as in in the Marxist tradition).

Very interesting insight.

Tangent -- did you guys know that in Quebec it is considered vulgar for your wife to take your last name?

Some upper class members of polite society were horrified when my ex-wife announced herself using my family name. It's like we took a shit on the dinner table.

Post: #8

Here, check this article out.
http://www.rooshv.com/you-did-this-to-me

We need to balance things out again before we dive into marriage and kids again. Game and promiscuity is sort of an Asymmetric warfare tactic will lead to our success.

Post: #9

Ok... I'll play along.

My suggestion for a substitute is RSP:

Recurrent Slam-Piece

Example:

"I'm still banging other sloots, but my RSP is moving-in and I'm getting a new dishwasher!"
"Ah sick dude, happy you guys are taking the next step. Are you going to be hitting up Sears or Bed Bath & Beyond, or just buying online?"
"Sears or Bed Bath & Beyond... What for?"
"The dishwasher?!"
"I already said she was moving-in..."
"..."
"..."

Post: #10

Some people talk about a "committed relationship". But since commitment from a woman is worthless without social pressure for her to keep the commitment, I don't see the point in using the term.

"Marriage" has the same problem; we have to distinguish between true, traditional marriage and modern "marriage" (with quotation marks around it; i.e. marriage 2.0).

Post: #11

(05-30-2017 08:51 PM)Lunostrelki Wrote:  Before this, however, one of the first things that happened was making it okay to have sex outside of marriage or concubinage. It became normal to have a girlfriend for a while before marrying her. Then multiple girlfriends and then one-night-stands/FWBs.

And god forbid men enjoy any of that, Right?

Post: #12

(05-31-2017 01:59 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

(05-30-2017 08:51 PM)Lunostrelki Wrote:  Before this, however, one of the first things that happened was making it okay to have sex outside of marriage or concubinage. It became normal to have a girlfriend for a while before marrying her. Then multiple girlfriends and then one-night-stands/FWBs.

And god forbid men enjoy any of that, Right?

Absolutely not.
Apparently we should all marry virgins in our teens and abstain from premarital sex. No BJs allowed from our wives either.

The OP sounds like a 75 year old bible thumper. I'm sure he is a great patriarch and has 12 kids himself and 67 grandchildren.

Post: #13

The "traditional family" is the Roman family, which early Christianity codified because it was the norm of their time. Although polygyny had "officially" been ended by the Roman Empire, it was effectively preserved for a man of any means through concubinage, prostitution, and slavery. The church only finally cracked down firmly on concubinage in the 11th century - then spent 200 years continuing to complain about it, because all across large parts of Europe, Christians were having a good laugh at the idea that they were seriously expected to give up their concubines.

In America, look forward to Puritan times, when it was routine and accepted for brides to be pregnant on their wedding day. The network of brothels in this country which served married men in every town ran largely unrestricted until the 20th century. By the late '50s and early '60s, the expectation that a man wore a hat was more likely to be observed than the expectation that he didn't get in wherever he fit in.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with keeping sex inside marriage, but I am saying that the idea that this is a some kind of fundamental social norm is not supported by reality. That a man would enter into a covenant relationship and raise his "official" family with one woman was not controversial in the time of Jesus, but the idea that a man was actually not going to have sex outside of marriage would have started mass riots in the streets.

Post: #14

Agreed, we need to take the language back:

"date" = a girl you are taking out, but no commitment
"girlfriend" = A girl you are dating regularly and exclusively or "going steady" - soft commitment
"fiance" = a marriage prospect, includes definite plans - hard commitment
"Wife" = spouse
"Concubine" = live in girlfriend - soft commitment
"Mistress" = fuckbuddy on the side

"LTR" is this generic phrase that has little meaning

Post: #15

(05-31-2017 05:15 AM)azulsombra Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 01:59 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

(05-30-2017 08:51 PM)Lunostrelki Wrote:  Before this, however, one of the first things that happened was making it okay to have sex outside of marriage or concubinage. It became normal to have a girlfriend for a while before marrying her. Then multiple girlfriends and then one-night-stands/FWBs.

And god forbid men enjoy any of that, Right?

Absolutely not.
Apparently we should all marry virgins in our teens and abstain from premarital sex. No BJs allowed from our wives either.

The OP sounds like a 75 year old bible thumper. I'm sure he is a great patriarch and has 12 kids himself and 67 grandchildren.

There is a middle ground for men that are together enough to work towards building a meaningful life centered around a family. The alternative being living the lifestyle of a gay male, the pursuit of a sex-centered collection of notches in meaningless short relationships, and eventually growing old on your own.

You're trading off short-term hollow pleasures and setting yourself up for a pretty miserable last quarter of your life.

Post: #16

(05-30-2017 11:15 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

(05-30-2017 08:51 PM)Lunostrelki Wrote:  the concurrent view of women as disposable or communal resources (as in in the Marxist tradition).

Very interesting insight.

Tangent -- did you guys know that in Quebec it is considered vulgar for your wife to take your last name?

Some upper class members of polite society were horrified when my ex-wife announced herself using my family name. It's like we took a shit on the dinner table.

Kids with composed family names tend to be liberal cucks.

Have you noticed that some men in Canada are also taking on composed names with their wives' family names? This is the ultimate in 21st century marital cuckery...

Post: #17

(05-31-2017 10:09 AM)911 Wrote:  There is a middle ground for men that are together enough to work towards building a meaningful life centered around a family. The alternative being living the lifestyle of a gay male, the pursuit of a sex-centered collection of notches in meaningless short relationships, and eventually growing old on your own.

You're trading off short-term hollow pleasures and setting yourself up for a pretty miserable last quarter of your life.

That's not what the OP said, though.

He alleges that one-night-stands, extramarital sex, sexual experimentation, and even simply dating for a while before marrying are nihilistic, hedonistic, degenerate liberal conspiracies designed to undermine the fundamental traditional structure of society.

Say what you want about homosexuality and any pushback against marriage, but the idea that keeping heterosexual activity within the confines of a monogamous marriage is some kind of historical norm that has been reliably observed is just delusional.

Lying about keeping heterosexual activity within the confines of a monogamous marriage in order to keep up polite appearances, sure.

Post: #18

(05-31-2017 10:17 AM)Jetset Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 10:09 AM)911 Wrote:  There is a middle ground for men that are together enough to work towards building a meaningful life centered around a family. The alternative being living the lifestyle of a gay male, the pursuit of a sex-centered collection of notches in meaningless short relationships, and eventually growing old on your own.

You're trading off short-term hollow pleasures and setting yourself up for a pretty miserable last quarter of your life.

That's not what the OP said, though.

He alleges that one-night-stands, extramarital sex, sexual experimentation, and even simply dating for a while before marrying are nihilistic, hedonistic, degenerate liberal conspiracies designed to undermine the fundamental traditional structure of society.

Say what you want about homosexuality and any pushback against marriage, but the idea that keeping heterosexual activity within the confines of a monogamous marriage is some kind of historical norm that has been reliably observed is just delusional.

Lying about keeping heterosexual activity within the confines of a monogamous marriage in order to keep up polite appearances, sure.

He's absolutely right about the paragraph in bold above. It's been proven that women's ability to maintain a LTR/marriage depends on how many partners they've had in their youth. The more partners, the earlier those partners are in her life, and the lower her chances of getting and staying married.

Quote:the idea that keeping heterosexual activity within the confines of a monogamous marriage is some kind of historical norm that has been reliably observed is just delusional.

It's delusional only in your world view, which reflects the kind of modern social programming that you, and your parents before that, have been subjected to since the 1960s. The hallmark of good social engineering is that its subjects internalize it to the point where they aren't aware of it and view any alternative interpretation as extreme.

The historical norm is that from the last millennium plus in Christian societies. The first refutations came from morally corrupt scientists like Margaret Mead and Kinsey who were funded by the Rockefellers and came up with shoddy science to discredit the notion that normal monogamous family life was a cultural construct, your line of thought basically.

Post: #19

(05-31-2017 10:47 AM)911 Wrote:  It's delusional only in your world view, which reflects the kind of modern social programming that you, and your parents before that, have been subjected to since the 1960s. The hallmark of good social engineering is that its subjects internalize it to the point where they aren't aware of it and view any alternative interpretation as extreme.

The historical norm is that from the last millennium plus in Christian societies. The first refutations came from morally corrupt scientists like Margaret Mead and Kinsey who were funded by the Rockefellers and came up with shoddy science to discredit the notion that normal monogamous family life was a cultural construct, your line of thought basically.

It is fair to say that for the last millenium, the church made efforts to stamp out concubinage with rigor that was unknown to early Christians, as well as efforts to deter the kidnapping of wives. It is also fair to say that even when concubinage was effectively stamped out, prostitution and, in some Christian societies (including the United States) slavery persisted as tolerated outlets for men to have extramarital sex.

It's Andrew Gardner whose research found that nearly half of Puritan and British weddings in the 18th century included brides who were already pregnant. If you doubt it, you can take it up with him, but I grew up in a small town in the religious midwest. I know exactly where the town whorehouse was, because there was a famous gunfight there between bootleggers and federal agents, both of whom were known to frequent the prostitutes, just like everybody else.

To say that people did not have sex outside of marriage until the 1960s is like saying that people did not drink during Prohibition or that nobody smokes marijuana because it's illegal. It would be equally accurate to describe the efforts of the classical governments to enforce monogamy to discourage wealthy men from hoarding brides as social engineering, because that's exactly what it was, and the rules were at times relaxed according to the needs of the day, as when many men had been lost to war.

Like I said, I'm not disagreeing with the notion that monogamous marriage is desirable or virtuous. I'm definitely disagreeing with the notion that people have historically saved sex for marriage. Marrying a partner of your own choice for love and attraction is, itself, a relatively recent thing, and even putting all the evidence aside, it would be pretty naive to believe that people in unlucky arranged marriages did not routinely step out with a partner they actually liked where circumstances permitted.

Post: #20

I think you're overestimating the rate of men who see prostitutes or use marijuana. Those do occur, but they're are marginal behaviors. About 90% of Canadian haven't smoked pot the previous year, the rates are similar across the US and Europe. Drug use was very marginal prior to the 1960s, it was successfully pushed on the boomer teenage generation, but even then it leveled off.

The behavior and habits of people are highly susceptible to conditioning. You can make women smoke, as Edward Bernays did in the 1920s, or make them stop smoking, as they've done in California or northern Europe were rates have plummeted again.

I'd guess most of the early times marriages involving pregnant women are shotgun weddings with the biological fathers, that's not a refutation of the basic marital model, to the contrary.

Is your ideal then early medieval Christian societies, as opposed to those from the 1200s on?

Post: #21

Or maybe noone wants to write "long term relationship" every goddamn time online.

LTR is forum speak, just like ASD, LMR, etc - it's game bullshit jargon.


I've never heard once LTR in real life, only: my girl, my wife, my lady, my girlfriend, my fiance.


Survey Says:

Post: #22

(05-30-2017 08:51 PM)Lunostrelki Wrote:  ...the concurrent view of women as disposable or communal resources

True, sort of.

It's the view of femininity and feminine traits in women being regarded as disposable. This is a distinction that should not be overlooked. It's the caring, loving, emotional, intuitive, motherly, sweet, manipulative, life creating, life giving, soft traits in women being regarded as disposable.

It's what make women so amazing, worth so much more than being a successful CEO or engineer or doctor or lawyer.

The ability of women to create, harbor, and give life, and then to nurture it to full development dwarfs any ambitions or career oriented achievements or successes.

That's doesn't take away from the incredibly successful achievements of the 10% of women made more for career than motherhood. If anything it adds to it. It's not like any men are made for growing new human beings.

All that said, it's not a conspiracy, it's just the way society goes. Sure, there are people who've been more influential in these changes, but the same feminist-anti-family-anti-motherhood shit all went down back in the Roman Empire.

Or put simply, what Kaotic said.

Post: #23

(05-31-2017 12:02 PM)heavy Wrote:  All that said, it's not a conspiracy, it's just the way society goes. Sure, there are people who've been more influential in these changes, but the same feminist-anti-family-anti-motherhood shit all went down back in the Roman Empire.

That only went down in the later phases of the Roman Empire, and this social decay was part of the reason it collapsed.

Post: #24

(05-31-2017 11:44 AM)911 Wrote:  I think you're overestimating the rate of men who see prostitutes or use marijuana. Those do occur, but they're are marginal behaviors. About 90% of Canadian haven't smoked pot the previous year, the rates are similar across the US and Europe. Drug use was very marginal prior to the 1960s, it was successfully pushed on the boomer teenage generation, but even then it leveled off.

I think the rate of men who see prostitutes today is fairly low, and that the reasons for that are obvious: sex is readily available. The old days when respectable women were loath to give head and the husband had to go buy it when he went into town are long gone. With that said, there's also a reason Vegas is such a successful destination for business conferences, and that reason has little to do with blackjack.

As for marijuana, that 10% in the last year is complimented by 40-50% lifetime. That's pretty widespread. The point, however, is merely that there's a substantial gap between "what social norms dictate we are supposed to do" and "what people know is really going on but politely ignore".

Quote:I'd guess most of the early times marriages involving pregnant women are shotgun weddings with the biological fathers, that's not a refutation of the basic marital model, to the contrary.

What it is is a strong indicator that unmarried men were doing their business as they have throughout history, and that when nature caught them with their dick hanging out, society intervened to make sure that the child had a provider.

That, not sex outside of marriage, is the social construct. When classical literature describes women passed out to victorious armies as prizes, there are no social institutions in place to force the invaders to provide a home for the resulting offspring.

With that said, I never refuted the "basic marital model". I'll say again that marriage and family life is perfectly fine and desirable. What I take issue with is the implication that it therefore follows that all sex naturally occurs in that context. That strikes me as a very naive way of looking at people that results in a lot of needless pearl-clutching.

Quote:Is your ideal then early medieval Christian societies, as opposed to those from the 1200s on?

I'm not offering an ideal at all. I'm simply observing that sex is a biological function and a popular form of recreation throughout history, whether it's soldiers, sailors, or the milk man. The whole thing smacks of an angry dork who found out too late that everyone had been getting laid but him.

One thing I'm going to point out: I think I misread the OP. When he says "making it okay to have sex outside of marriage or concubinage", I read this as meaning that he was equating casual sex and concubinage. Now I'm realizing that he may have intended to equate marriage and concubinage, in opposition to casual sex.

Post: #25

A useless acronym that evokes such useful emotions in some ____________ men.

Feel free to fill in the blanks.

Question, OP: why do you care so much to spend such time thinking through this? Don't you think you're gripping the bat a little too tight?