[–] KILLtheRATS 1 points 48 points (+49|-1) ago 

It's the first step to cucking.

[–] hels 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago 

Open relationships and cucking make no sense to me. It baffles me how another man enjoys watching "his girl" get fucked by another man. Do guys feel that inadequate they are unable to pleasure? FFS you have fingers and a tongue at the very least. You have a small cock but make do with what you have. How do you enjoy watching another cock in the girl that supposedly loves you?

And guess what, you let her have another cock and she's never going to be satisfied as long as someone else wants to fuck her.

[–] Chimaira92 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago 

I am bleeding, making me the victor

"we trained him wrong. As a joke"

[–] InterDigitated 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

Open relationships make more sense than cucking.... provided that you are both getting action on the side. Otherwise.... it's just cucking

My ex-gf wanted an open relationship, and I was cool with that.... but because she is an insecure cunt I was only allowed to sleep with "non-threatening women" which equates to Stupid AND Ugly.. cause you know they can't be physically or emotionality or intellectually attractive... ... wow, what a great deal.

So obviously I said, no you can't fuck other people then. Except maybe some hot chicks.... and I had to know about it.
We had a few 3-somes with some hot women, but ..... i had to get rid of her... she became a full blown SJW later.

Unrelated..... but with her EVERYTHING was about feminism and how I (men) were oppressing her at every turn. Such a hard life for a university educated girl who had a happy childhood, ran her own business, and could do whatever she felt like at pretty much any time right?

[–] moscowjade 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Cucking stems from the porn generation. When you jerk off to porn, you are jerking off to the sight of another man fucking 'your' woman. The woman in the porn is what is being fucked by 'you' when you jerk off...but its another guy doing it. It creates a fucking psychological mess in your brain, until watching another dude do the fucking becomes the only way you can get off.

Porn has destroyed an entire generation.

[–] GhostCow 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

My most recent ex tried to get me to be a cuck. She said she wanted me to think she looked pretty with someone else's dick in her. I had her in a homeless shelter not long after

[–] chirogonemd 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

To me, for practicality's sake, it might as well be considered one and the same. I don't care if you're watching it or not. You're giving over your permission as a man, despite the fact you do not want to (and no, they never want to), for your wife/girlfriend to get fucked by another man.

I see a lot of people pointing out, correctly, that its about dissolving the family and dual parents, and I'd agree. But I think its important to point out how its being done.

You see it being pushed as a response to the epidemic of divorces, and to the epidemic of adultery/cheating. Well, we might as well do this to avoid getting cheated on. We're going to do it anyway, so instead of making it a brick wall we're going to run into, let's try to look at it as a necessary thing we can work through if we get ourselves "emotionally centered".

This is all riding on the back of the common mantra: "Humans aren't monogamous. We were never supposed to be." And there is a SHITLOAD of just terrible "science" coming out of the clusterfuck of a field called evolutionary biology. A lot of conflicting theories. A lot of very tenuous postulations. A lot of very poorly cited work, and papers that don't get cited a whole lot.

Its actually very likely that monogamy did evolve in a very natural way. Very simple societies can get by without paternal certainty. When you're the hunter-gatherer nomadic type of tribal people, where essentially the whole unit performs all of the functions of group survival as a unit. The analogy is the single-celled organism. But when societies started to favor more complexity, well you get the analogy of a multi-celled organism. Where tissue designations start to happen, and cells begin to specialize. The family unit is that unit of specialization. Where the knowledge/skills of the father/mother are passed to the progeny. Societies could specialize. Perform more intricate tasks and form systems of commerce and politics. That can't happen if men are just freely able to run around and rape the women in the tribe. A man needs paternal certainty. You don't get group cohesion and cooperation much greater than that of a primal tribe if men couldn't reasonably trust that their woman was safe from rape, and that their children are their own. Any society exposed to ubiquitous promiscuity would break down pretty quickly. But this is a complex topic.

But suffice it to say, the lie of "Humans aren't monogamous and its dumb to try" is ridiculous. The concept of monogam-ish is probably accurate. Hypergamy is displayed by both sexes. When we can do better genetically, people have a tendency to try. But that tendency also was evolving separately and independently of the evolution of pair bonding physiology.

Cheating isn't going anywhere. It's going to happen. But not all people do, and not all people who do cheat are monsters either.

The point is that humans are monogamous. Any experiment performed by anybody in polygamous relationships always break down. They never work long term. Evolution favored monogamy. We should, if we have values, strive for monogamy. We aren't perfect. People make mistakes. But this psychology of, "Oh, our nomadic ancestors weren't monogamous, we might as well be fucking cavemen" is just degeneracy being pushed by jews and the dumbass college liberal new agey hipster hobos.

[–] ShinyVoater 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Almost every primitive culture is polygynous, which suggests to me that early human behavior was harem-forming as accused. However, almost every great empire was mostly or entirely monogamous, which is far more telling.

[–] this_beanewusername 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Ex med student here.

I like how you've used the concept of differentiation and static roles as a function of increasing complexity to describe the family unit.

Are you MD now? From the tone of your post, I wanna say you're still in med school. First 2 years? Just a wild guess.

Feel free to let me know if I'm correct (or if I'm wrong).

[–] Samchay6 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Sounds like jew tricks to me.

[–] SamGamgee 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

It's the same thing as cucking. The wife will pull in an order of magnitude more than you.

[–] Idontexiste 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

not me...

[–] lissencarak 4 points 29 points (+33|-4) ago 

To destroy the family, goy.

[–] TheodoreKent [S] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

But Why? What agenda does that serve?

[–] NextBestThing2Hitler 1 points 44 points (+45|-1) ago 

A broken family depends on the government. A traditional family depends on one another.

It allows for government control of kids. There is already a push for breakfast to dinner for kids at public schools with pre and post school activities and daycare. They are just moving towards a future where the government has more of a right to raise citizens how they see fit and indoctrinate them as needed, without the interference of moral parents. Just another incremental step towards total control of a slave class.

[–] dreamcomfortmemory 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Great question. Like coach always said, "Fundamentals, fundamentals, fundamentals".

But seriously, I've had it explained to me thusly, which I think makes sense. The Family Unit is the most basic semblance of a tribe. Your tribe are the people who care about you. Your family cares more about you than the community tribe you both exist in. If someone comes to attack you in any way, no one will fight harder for you than your family. Blood is thicker than water, at least that's the way it always has been. See also inheritance tax.

This phenomenon is a thorn in the side of the powers that be. If there are people that care about you as an individual, they can't just snatch you up in the middle of the night without anyone complaining. In the "village" model, as in "it takes a village", the village is your family. Problem with this is if the community turns on you there is no one to turn to. As the saying goes "a face only a mother could love". A man could be convicted of slaughtering a row full of nuns and his mother would say, "he's a good boy, he didn't mean it". Your family are the only people on earth who will fight for you for no logical reason other than that you have each other and that's all you've got. Take that way and it's you against them with no one to remember your name.

[–] lissencarak 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

White genocide

[–] PhillyNekim 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

There exist a lot of high power families that pressure everyone in it to be very successful etc. They want to destroy these. I'm not talking about elites, just families where most of the members have masters, are lawyers, few random people of influential success etc. These families can easily have a lot of autonomy and power no matter what government they are under.

[–] Moabman 2 points 20 points (+22|-2) ago 

It's part of communism. Not joking. Look into it.

[–] no-hurry-no-pause 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It's part of communism. Not joking. Look into it.

He is not joking. Read about Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs and later gramscian strategies. In marxist logic, parents will always care about their own children than about other children, so since not all parents are equal, different amount of care will lead to inequalities, and these inequalities then lead to capitalism. So in order to destroy capitalism, the nuclear family has to be destroyed first, because it is the foundation of inequality and thus capitalism.

Read about what early soviets did in russia and eastern europe. Everywhere they got in power, they first introduced no-fault divorce, sexual "education" in schools, and other measures specifically tailored to persuade people to "fuck around" and not form stable families, so they become dependent on the state.

Then they concluded that as long people are religious, they wont give up marriage and families, because marriage and families are a core belief in christianity, so they then concluded that they have to eradicate religion first.

[–] Obeastiality 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

sexual "education" in schools

This is a good thing. Or it was when i was younger, which was an abstinence program scaring kids with STDs and telling them to use protection. Has that changed beyond that creepy bitch who used a dildo in class?

[–] ReginaldPluntfarb 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I've seen some old Soviet animated propaganda series and a few of them touch on encouraging young adults to fuck around. Canon fodder, factory workers. Human resources.

[–] theoldones 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago  (edited ago)

it wont be pushed as hard as it is now in a few years at this point. the ones that espouse to be open, are very often skanky negligent single moms trying to juggle three baby daddies

its not a sustainable thing

[–] TestForScience 1 points 13 points (+14|-1) ago 

Met a girl, thought she was grand
Fell in love, found out first hand
Went well for a week or two
Then it all came unglued
In a trap trip I can't grip
Never thought I'd be the one who'd slip
Then I started to realize
I was living one big lie
She fucking hates me
Trust she fucking hates me
... sorry... not helping.

[–] Muh-Shugana 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

why are 'open' relationships being pushed

people act like it is normal, even responsible

Broken families have been made the new normal.

A healthy parentage is a rare luxury these days.

As for why it's considered responsible, that's because communists love to hide degeneracy behind Freedom, and thus use the argument for freedom as an argument for degeneracy, thus it becomes a moral responsibility to be as 'Free' (see: Depraved) as possible.

After all, you don't truly love freedom if you aren't injecting meth into your balls before knocking up several different girls of several different races all of whom you know nothing past their names! :^)

[–] Le_Squish 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Pedos use the same argument I've noticed.

[–] PANTSONMIXTAPE 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Hey man, we gotta bleach the other races somehow

[–] uvulectomy 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

I'm gonna quote @Empress on this one.

"Open relationships" are "playing house" for whores.

[–] SurfinMindWaves 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

I think it is a reaction to soooo many people being cheated on. An attempt to satisfy your or your partner's need to be promiscuous so they don't have to lie about it and go behind your back.

[–] A_Real_Cause 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Yet still collect on the one way love of the cheated on partner. It's pure evil and selfishness.

[–] SurfinMindWaves 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I don't disagree with your conclusion, just answering the question. It seems at this point in our history all of the non-traditional lifestyles are being pushed on us through the media. Someone likes the idea of hedonism.

[–] NSFW_LeeLee 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

and once you have been together 25 yrs, had your kids, raised them..and realize that you both matured, grew as people and aren't in love, but love each other as family and kept together for the kids.. then you have the talk about things, choose to divorce, or open the marriage. it is cheaper to just open it, than hire the lawyers, split assets, etc. sometimes things just go differently than planned. My neighbor has stayed married to her hubby who is medically disabled. hip and spine destroyed by degenerative disease,.on morphine drips..and their sex life is null. she discreetly has a friend.. and that is her right. she didnt abandon the man.. you cannot apply a truism to a group in whole because we are people and not experiments. .

[–] SurfinMindWaves 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I don't think those are the kinds of relationships the OP was referring to. Although I would still stand against someone having an affair while married, regardless of the situation. The vows said through sickness and in health, til death do you part. Most people's vows anyway.

load more comments ▼ (36 remaining)