Post: #26

(05-31-2017 10:09 AM)911 Wrote:  

(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.

Here we go again with this "meaningless" life and "meaningless" sex nonsense, but now turning the shaming of men up to 11:

If you don't get married you are basically "living the lifestyle of a gay male"

Instead of rehashing this in my own words that won't be nearly as eloquent, I'll post this:

(05-29-2017 10:51 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  days: that there is nothing worse and more terminally "meaningless" than the ability of a man of means to enjoy fucking some juicy young or not so young slut of his choosing with IMPUNITY. It's quite interesting that both the radical feminists and the self-styled tradcon scolds regard that simple and innocent pursuit as the epitome of all evil -- as the one thing that must be shamed out of existence and under duress if necessary. It should give you pause -- although it doesn't -- that the essence of this post can appear with only very slight alterations on the pages of Jezebel. Some of the emphases would change but its central shaming thrust directed at these men would remain exactly the same. And for what?

For nothing more -- in reality -- than daring to use such means as are at their disposal to enjoy their lives a little in a society that is dead set upon destroying them and denying them that enjoyment at every turn. You know full well that this is a society that is hungry to throw any of these men in prison on a false rape accusation, to take away all of their hard earned money (and these men work hard) in a despicable divorce court, to rob them of their children and their assets and their freedom of speech at every opportunity. But now they must also be shamed by their supposed brothers for having a little summer fun where they can find it? That is too much; this forum should not stand for this kind of shaming. It is wrong, and it is indeed, in my opinion, immoral -- if anything is.

...

And for those who are not interested in having children, what of it? I wrote in another thread that most men should eventually marry and have kids, and this is true -- true because it is a basic natural need for MOST men; but MOST is not ALL. Some men -- a minority -- are born to be confirmed bachelors, and there is nothing wrong with that; let them enjoy it for what it's worth. The idea that that is some sort of moral failing is pure nonsense; and in the context of a society that makes the life of a normal man as difficult as possible at every turn, it is a particularly unfortunate and distorting kind of nonsense. It should not be allowed to go unchallenged.

Lastly, what is this tic about always calling sex "meaningless"? As the G Manifesto might say these days, when you hear someone speak about "meaningless sex" you are no longer talking to a man, you're talking to soy. Fucking bitches is what men do if and when they feel like doing so, it is not "empty" or "meaningless", it's just a part of life like the air we breathe and the bread we eat. This whole harping on supposed "meaninglessness" is a form of metaphysical Tourette's, it is an ingrate's obsession with maligning a part of life because he wants things to conform to some thinly construed rigors and ideals rather than let them be as they are. It has neither truth nor profundity, it is just glum chatter and is itself empty of all real content. But it has the power to dazzle the impressionable young that are looking for direction and guidance and they deserve better than this glib ideological blather.

Post: #27

(05-31-2017 12:41 AM)Kabal Wrote:  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..."
"..."
"..."

You win at the internet today.





...but I still agree with OP. I don't think I've ever used the term "LTR" here, and I don't think I can ever be said to have had or pursued an "LTR". I've always kind of seen it as "I'm wasting this girls valuable life". I feel like a girl can recover from a fling, but can she recover from years of contraceptive sex with a guy, after which they just break up, and it's like it had no meaning? I feel like I'm more comfortable with being alone, just scoring a bang here and there, than having that on my conscience. I feel good when I later see on social media, or hear from someone, the girls are married now. It would hurt to know I'd materially contributed to a girl becoming a cat lady. This is why I'll never lie about long-term intentions in pursuit of a bang.

Post: #28

(05-31-2017 04:41 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  Instead of rehashing this in my own words that won't be nearly as eloquent, I'll post this:

TLOZ's wisdom is orthogonal to his eloquence.

(05-29-2017 10:51 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Lastly, what is this tic about always calling sex "meaningless"? As the G Manifesto might say these days, when you hear someone speak about "meaningless sex" you are no longer talking to a man, you're talking to soy. Fucking bitches is what men do if and when they feel like doing so, it is not "empty" or "meaningless", it's just a part of life like the air we breathe and the bread we eat. This whole harping on supposed "meaninglessness" is a form of metaphysical Tourette's, it is an ingrate's obsession with maligning a part of life because he wants things to conform to some thinly construed rigors and ideals rather than let them be as they are. It has neither truth nor profundity, it is just glum chatter and is itself empty of all real content. But it has the power to dazzle the impressionable young that are looking for direction and guidance and they deserve better than this glib ideological blather.

Texts like this really are a case of "form over function". The errors are so obvious if you look past the high quality prose of somebody who's clearly well trained in writing. Be wary of speeches that unnecessarily reach for as much abstraction and embellishment as they can. It's an attempt at intellectual domination, closer to the behaviour of priests, than collaborative intellectual discourse.

The examples given, of breathing air and eating bread, confirm the accusation of meaninglessness. They don't refute it. Breathing air has a meaning -- we are breathing it in pursuit of life. Eating bread -- pursuit of life. I'm not sure what literary invention "metaphysical Tourette's" is, but pointing out the obvious that contraceptive sex has questionable meaning and is indeed self-contradictory in a way, is just an observation of reality, not "talking like soy" as the literary fabrication known as "GManifesto" may or may not have once said.

You could argue that there is some indirect meaning, that perhaps sex-for-fun is an effective path to sex-for-real (is it?), but to ridicule people who raise the issue is frankly unintellectual and contemptible.

Post: #29

Unless you're dragging a virgin out of a church and setting her on a path to pre-marital cum-dependency then whatever sloot you're fucking would only be fucking some other guy if she wasn't fucking you.

What are you going to tell her? "You should get off the carousel. Not with me of course. But with some other dependable-if-boring kind of guy. Y'know. Before you're completely used up."

It's called a sexual marketplace for a reason. You can decrease demand by refusing to participate but that only decreases the price, and infinitesimally at that.

Post: #30

(05-31-2017 06:32 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  ...
You could argue that there is some indirect meaning, that perhaps sex-for-fun is an effective path to sex-for-real (is it?), but to ridicule people who raise the issue is frankly unintellectual and contemptible.

It's turn-about, and fair play IMO.

When someone describes something you do and enjoy as meaningless and proscribes it generally as being contemptible they might not be attacking you directly but they're still attacking you.

Counter-describing people like the attacker as "soy" is no more offensive than the original literary aggressor proscribing certain people to be detractors of society pursuing meaningless lives. Particularly when the people so described are merely using this forum for it's founding purpose.

Or put simply, if you're going to get on a high horse and spit on the unwashed masses then be prepared to cop a gob full back.

Post: #31

(05-31-2017 06:50 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  What are you going to tell her? "You should get off the carousel. Not with me of course. But with some other dependable-if-boring kind of guy. Y'know. Before you're completely used up."

I've said this before to one-nighters, yes

(05-31-2017 06:56 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Counter-describing people like the attacker as "soy" is no more offensive than the original literary aggressor proscribing certain people to be detractors of society pursuing meaningless lives. Particularly when the people so described are merely using this forum for it's founding purpose.

I don't consider a claim of meaninglessness an insult or an attack. If someone says "Phoenix this thing you're doing is meaningless" I take it as an invitation to explain or discuss the meaning. That's different to "Phoenix this thing you're doing is shit".

If that post had been leveled against a "gay lifestyle" claim, fair enough, but it was leveled at the question of meaninglessness.

Post: #32

I try to divorce assumed emotion from text and just read the words, but Scorpion's barrage on the other thread where TLOZ's reply was fished from was far from benign.

It was scathing bordering on butthurt and the discourse represents that, though when such things are copy-pasted to another thread they tend to lose their frame of reference.

Post: #33

Fair enough

Post: #34

"if you're going to get on a high horse and spit on the unwashed masses then be prepared to cop a gob full back"

It's infuriating that I read all of Leonard Neubache's posts in Robert Peck's accent from Jurassic Park.

Post: #35

(05-31-2017 07:51 AM)Jetset Wrote:  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.

Absolutely correct - in many cultures like Russia or China even up to this day it is natural for any man of means to have concubines. Russia has job ads displayed which have the Extra-asteriks in it - it means that the secretary position comes with the additional obligatory blow-jobs and fuck-sessions.

All sane cultures understood that while stable relationships for families and especially for women are good, outside sex for man is clear. In the old times there were prostitutes for most men and concubines/mistresses for the men who could afford it.

The term LTR is a purely academic ones - essentially a woman you live with, but are not married to. Does not get me pissed off.

Post: #36

I just see LTR as a label that we all know what it means.

More than a plate or FB, less than a fiancee

Post: #37

I respect OP for the moxy and he has some points, but this almost has no basis in reality. If people are acting weird when you say "wife" and "girlfriend" you must live in a really bizarre area. If someone corrected me in NJ for saying "wife" or "Girlfriend" i'd probably laugh at them to their face.

Hell, outside of this forum, no one even says "LTR."

I can't think of anyone saying "I am in a long-term relationship" at any point in my life.

As opposed to what? A short term disaster? That would sound so fucking goofy and autistic.

That's like when women say shit like, "I don't like labels." No sane person says any of this shit.

Let's not get too deep in the echo chamber and start constructing enemies and conspiracies out of thin air.

I've noticed a new trend with guys on the forum and it's funny but silly: who really cares what these other people say? Why are we even talking to these people? Some people like to be called "zurr!" I avoid those guys like the plague and move on. I feel momentary disgust and then go do something productive with my time.

Post: #38

(06-01-2017 04:25 AM)Fortis Wrote:  I respect OP for the moxy and he has some points, but this almost has no basis in reality. If people are acting weird when you say "wife" and "girlfriend" you must live in a really bizarre area. If someone corrected me in NJ for saying "wife" or "Girlfriend" i'd probably laugh at them to their face....Let's not get too deep in the echo chamber and start constructing enemies and conspiracies out of thin air.

I set out to write something more meaningful that incorporated some philosophy, but it became too long. I'll try again:

First and foremost, people love to be right.

So when I see someone make an accusation like that, I can usually infer that they are reasoning in reverse: they have perceived a problem, they have had an emotional response to it, and based on this, they made some assumptions that absolve themselves of responsibility for their problem and the way they are feeling. These assumptions sound like fantasies, but make perfect sense to him because it bundles up his frustrations into a neat little package. These things must be true, or else his larger cosmic worldview is wrong.

We can all get stuck thinking like this, it's attractive because it makes us feel like we are right, but instead it creates a kind of anxious, soft paranoia where we take on all the troubles of the world become our own and we are all victims.

The OP describes the use of the term "LTR" as evidence that men have failed to defend civilization. That's an incredible leap, but still, think carefully about it. Ultimately, he has concluded that his unhappiness is our fault and we are supposed to modify our behavior to accommodate him.

We can all stop getting laid, but OP will just find other windmills to tilt at. OP's resolution will only come from himself, when he recognizes his own errors in understanding the behavior of others. That's roughly my understanding of what people mean by "taking the red pill". There is a camp who seems to instead use it to conflate it with what I better understand as the "black pill", the bottomless pit of frustration, anger, and helplessness. Once you get past that, you can relax and have a drink.

Post: #39

(05-31-2017 06:32 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  TLOZ's wisdom is orthogonal to his eloquence.

I like Lizard. His posts are almost always thought-provoking and I'd say I agree with 80% or more of them. That being said, there are several LOZ fart-sniffers on this forum who can't wait to click "like" as soon as he makes a post. Then they go around posting his quotes in response as if its some sort of biblical Jesus Sermon on the Mount shit.

Post: #40

(06-01-2017 04:25 AM)Fortis Wrote:  As opposed to what? A short term disaster?

Or...STD for short.

Girl: "Are you looking for a LTR?"

Me: "No. I am more interested in a STD."

Perfect.

Post: #41

I do suffer from guilt issues when I realize I'm in a situation with older women who are really at the tail end of being able to attract a man where I pretty much know I'll never fall in love with her but the sex is still enjoyable. I think "gee, if I milk this for the next 2-3 years how will she fare afterwards?"

The weird thing about it is even when I'm not returning those three little worlds that these women tend to want to keep the arrangement going as long as possible. I think there is a disconnect between women thinking long-term in a rational sense vs. making actual decisions about who they're sleeping with. More often than not they opt to stick with Mr. Right Now than to end it and go back to searching (assuming they aren't continuing to search privately anyway). I know they will ultimately disavow responsibility and call the guy a jerk for wasting her time but it's ultimately her own laziness and lack of foresight.

Post: #42

(05-31-2017 07:05 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I try to divorce assumed emotion from text and just read the words, but Scorpion's barrage on the other thread where TLOZ's reply was fished from was far from benign.

It was scathing bordering on butthurt and the discourse represents that, though when such things are copy-pasted to another thread they tend to lose their frame of reference.

What was the thread? Can you post the link?

Post: #43

What kind of community is the OP in?

I live in one of the most SJW-infested cities in the world, and I always call my wife "my wife", "my woman" and sometimes "my helper".

I think I"ve only ever used the acronym LTR here in RVF, but only because of the context of this site.

Sometimes I wonder if certain guys on manosphere websites are imagining all these fears.

Post: #44

(06-01-2017 07:13 PM)killjoy Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 07:05 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I try to divorce assumed emotion from text and just read the words, but Scorpion's barrage on the other thread where TLOZ's reply was fished from was far from benign.

It was scathing bordering on butthurt and the discourse represents that, though when such things are copy-pasted to another thread they tend to lose their frame of reference.

What was the thread? Can you post the link?

/thread-62988.html

Page 2.