/lit/ - Literature

Marriage is the spook.

>>5964572
Shelley just wanted to bang more underage girls, the Romantic parasite

>>5964572
>I ask you to avoid appealing to simple traditionalism
So you are appeling us, to avoid something that empirically happened and that everyone and everything came from?

>>5964726
I'm asking you to avoid saying that we should continue to do a thing just because it is what we have done and are doing.

>>5964748
What happens if eventually we need marriage because of economic reasons again. When things aren't going so smoothly for example? It's overly rich fags like Russell that removed the whole marriage for money thing with the marriage for love concept as a universal thing. Basically when the middle-class took power. If(as it is happening) the middle-class shrinks, then there's nothing stopping things to doing back to marriage being based on economics.

>>5964572
I have a great deal of respect for Russell and I agree with much of his work.
However at the end of the day he was a Cuckold, A cuck of the highest order.

I do not wish cuckdom on my worst enemies.

>>5964793
Kek

>>5964793
>cuck
Are you memespouting or is there actual evidence that he engaged in cuckolding?

>>5964801
He is a well known cuck.
He encouraged his wives to bang other men.

>>5964807
Well I guess it's time to burn my copy of Western Philosophy. It was a cuck book regardless.

>>5964807
>any man in an open marriage is a cuck

>>5964825
Any man in an open marriage is a cuck.
This is true apriori.

>>5964793
i always had a feeling about russell. something was just not quite right.

Marriage/monogamy is a spook if you only do it for the sake of growing up, or because its "what you should do"

>>5964572
>Is monogamy a spook?

Yes, but it depends on what you mean by spook. Because some people are simply monogamous by nature, and some aren't.

Me personally, I am not capable of being romantically in love with multiple people. It is always just one person, but I know of people that can be romantically in love with several people at the same time, which is completely weird for me.

No doubt, promiscuity is ripe among humans, and natural, but polyamory? Doubt it.

>>5964825

if "your" girl is banging anyone else and you are condoning it or staying int he relationship you are a cuck

>>5964825
>Open marriage

This shit is just bullshit. What is the point marrying if you're just going to fuck around anyway? Why not just stay single?

Another question that deserves consideration, and should probably be answered in tandem:
>In a situation without children, does jealousy bring anything positive to a romantic relationship?

>>5964843
So lesbians who are in open relationships are also cucks?

>>5964851
no because they are women you moron.

>>5964845
I hear a lot of monogamists asking why people should get married at all.

>>5964851
>Open relationship

In what sense is it a "relationship" if you are continuously doing the most intimate activity with several people who are not your partner?

>>5964860
>I hear a lot of monogamists asking why people should get married at all.

Indeed, and I consider myself a monogamist. But if marriage has any meaning as a word, i.e commitment and pledge to another person, then it loses that meaning if you continuously fuck other people, and this is actually regardless if you believe marriage to be a fundamentally religious activity.

>>5964825
Open marriage is a synonym for cuck

>>5964864
>2015
>sex intimate

>>5964864
In what sense is it not a relationship? Relationship is a very broad term. If you're intending to talk about a specific kind of relationship, then I ask you to please be precise.

>>5964864
>the most intimate activity
Whoa there, gramps. Shouldn't you be off to catch the early bird special at IHOP?

>>5964881
>relationship is a very broad term

You can thank "Progressives" for that one.

>>5964880
Well, if you don't get any feelings from having sex with a person you love, then it's not my fault you're a sociopath.

>>5964881
Because usually relationships involve 2 people that are in love.

>>5964876
Why must the pledge include monogamy?

>>5964880
>he buys into consumerist PR bullshit as years having significance other than documentaion

>>5964893
>Gramps

I'm 25 dude, and yes, maybe I'm a bit old-fashioned, but there's no doubt in my mind that passing your "girlfriend" around as a mattress at a swinger's party, isn't my idea of a healthy relationship.

>>5964894
Yeah man it's just bodies haha good times lol evolution

But rape must be severely punished for the woman's inner sacred sex chakras ate violated by it

>>5964901
>Because usually relationships involve 2 people that are in love.
I ask again for you to be specific. Relationship is a very broad term, so you need to explain what you mean. I have a relationship with my cat, my landlord, my in-laws, my friends, my family, and lots of other people.

>implying polygynism isn't the natural order

Where is your harem, /lit/?

>>5964903
>Why must the pledge include monogamy?

I never said it must, but I think it marriage as a word loses it's meaning if it includes a clause that says you can fuck anyone you like.

Why even get married then if there is no reason to?

>>5964915
With another man.

>>5964915
>tfw no harem
>tfw not living the literary lifestyle

>>5964913
Yes, but you are not in love with your cat, your landlord, your in-laws and your friends and family the same way you are with your girlfriend or wife.

Because that would mean you're simultaneously gay, a zoophiliac and you practice incest.

>>5964916
>Why even get married then if there is no reason to?
Exclusivity can exist outside of marriage as well. This is kind of a silly question. The same question applies to couples that practice exclusivity.

>>5964930
You're completely missing the point. Explain the kind of relationship that you are referring to so as to make this conversation more clear.

>>5964934
>Exclusivity can exist outside of marriage as well. This is kind of a silly question.

The topic is monogamy, which manifests as marriage most of the time.

>The same question applies to couples that practice exclusivity.

Yes it does. Why would you be in an official romantic relationship with someone, when you are doing the same kind of activity as you did when you were single? I.e, fucking around.

The terms "open-relationship" and "marriage" makes no sense, because both relationships and marriages implies commitment between 2 individuals.

>>5964944
I am referring to a romantic relationship. I.e a relationship were two people are in love, and have sexual relations.

>>5964949
>Yes it does. Why would you be in an official romantic relationship with someone, when you are doing the same kind of activity as you did when you were single? I.e, fucking around.
Are you not capable of comprehending other possible reasons for this? Do several not spring to mind? The reasons are mostly germane.
>The terms "open-relationship" and "marriage" makes no sense, because both relationships and marriages implies commitment between 2 individuals.
Marriage involves more kinds of commitment than just sexual exclusivity.

>>5964966
>Are you not capable of comprehending other possible reasons for this? Do several not spring to mind?

I can COMPREHEND reasons surely. People want the cake and eat it too, i.e they want a feeling of exclusivity, but still keep their wanton sex life intact prior to their exclusivity.

So it's simple hedonism.

>>5964975
Who says it's about exclusivity for them?

>>5965006
>Who says it's about exclusivity for them?

I didn't say it was ONLY about exclusivity. Clearly people are so enamored by their sex drives they cannot possibly be content fucking one person for the rest of their lives.

So, as I said, it's hedonism.

>>5965018
You said that people in open marriages want a feeling of exclusivity out of their marriage. Who's to say that that's the case? Additionally, why does it have to be about sex? Plenty of people are capable of loving more than a single person. Be careful not to project your own stated inability with the abilities of people at large.

>>5965030
>You said that people in open marriages want a feeling of exclusivity out of their marriage

I think they do. At least somewhat. They want the status of being "married", but at the same time, they want the freedom to fucking around without feeling guilty.

>Plenty of people are capable of loving more than a single person.

Indeed. I am perfectly aware of that. But if you are one of the people of that disposition, why get married? Why not just have multiple partners, or "fuckbuddies" or "lovers" ?

Marriage has been a monogamous institution for millennia, it seems ridiculous to suddenly want to define it as something else, because of muh polyamory.

>>5965042
>I think they do. At least somewhat. They want the status of being "married", but at the same time, they want the freedom to fucking around without feeling guilty.
I think that you place an undue amount of emphasis on the exclusivity element of marriage, to the deficit of many other facets of it. A marriage can be a public profession of enduring feelings, a pledge to stay with the person, and also fulfill many other personal as well as economic needs (such as tax breaks) and even legal ones.
>Indeed. I am perfectly aware of that. But if you are one of the people of that disposition, why get married? Why not just have multiple partners, or "fuckbuddies" or "lovers" ?
I am capable of loving more than a single person at a time. I am not however polyamorous or anything like it. As for reasons, see above.
>Marriage has been a monogamous institution for millennia, it seems ridiculous to suddenly want to define it as something else, because of muh polyamory.
That's an entirely different can of worms. I wish we hadn't gone down this tangent. I had intended more to discuss monogamy as an inclination and institution as opposed to marriage. I do understand the importance of the topic though. It all comes down to people wanting things as they are and people wanting things to change. It's not all that different from the "literally" arguments.

>>5965070
>It all comes down to people wanting things as they are and people wanting things to change.

Interestingly enough I agree with you. I don't really care about any of this, and who ever wants to can get married for all I care, irrespective of their actual commitment to said marriage.

But these were simply my thoughts, for the sake of argument.

>>5964572
it seems to me that the practice is basically born out of an idea of 'true love'. really 'exclusive love' should be the term for it since it is this idea that in order to totally love one person you have to not love anyone else.

although that itself strikes me as just a way to prop up the traditional marriage system, in which men were eternally terrified of their wives cheating and women were basically fucked if their husband left them, by convincing those involved that their partner would never cheat.

overall i guess i would say its an outdated practice that survives pretty pointlessly through tradition. its weird how i hear girls at my uni talking about what they want their wedding to be like already, how can they even know they're ever going to meet someone they'll want to marry?

>>5965087
>although that itself strikes me as just a way to prop up the traditional marriage system, in which men were eternally terrified of their wives cheating and women were basically fucked if their husband left them, by convincing those involved that their partner would never cheat.
Let's not forget the influence of paternity on the subject of sex. Fidelity was a way to guarantee that you weren't wasting your life taking care of another guy's kid. Russell talked about the influence of paternity on sexual ethics and culture quite a bit. Now that paternity can be tested and contraception is widespread, things are going to continue radically changing.

>thinking that you'll actually be able to stand 60 years together with a women without resenting each other by the end of it

>>5965087
>overall i guess i would say its an outdated practice that survives pretty pointlessly through tradition.

Ironically, it doesn't survive at all. Less and less people are getting married every year, at least in my country. There's just no point in my country, because cohabitation grants all the same rights.

>>5965114
sup dude gj proving the ABC conjecture

>>5965104
>Now that paternity can be tested and contraception is widespread, things are going to continue radically changing
It's hardly common practice or socially acceptable yet.

Also I think a lot of the people here are ignoring how powerful human jealousy is. Maybe it's 'immoral' or whatever word progressive types are using, but ownership and the desire to own another person, as well as the desire for exclusivity, especially with someone you love, is a pretty strong emotion and can be found across lots of different cultures regardless of sexual practices.

I've dated several girls at the same time and had fuck buddies, but I know myself well enough to know I wouldn't be alright with the girls I date doing the same thing. Sure I'd like to have my cake and eat it to, but if I had to choose I'd pick monogamy over having my gf fuck other dudes. Sure this is hypocritical but you'd have to be some sort of soulless robot to be able to hold your feelings to rational standards.

>>5965182
Jealousy wouldn't be the first strong natural human emotion to be widely suppressed.

>>5965114
alpha

>>5965204
Of course not, but I'm the kind of person who wishes we'd go back to tribal warfare and swinging around in trees so it seems like a step in the wrong direction to me.

>>5965324
What about male focused polygamy then? It's hypocritical, no doubt, but it's also fairly natural.

Monogamy benefits men.
In polygynous societies, you get large numbers of poor young men being driven made by blue balls.
Polyandrous societies don't exist because one man already has millions of sperm - it suits a woman to just pick the one guy who slaughters/enslaves/intimidates/employs all the others.

Consider young men's reaction to Frank Sinatra and his Bobby-Soxers. They hated his guts. He was the Bieber of his time, till he got old and leathery-skinned and underwent the deboybanding process. Then women were focussed on Elvis, and Sinatra became a non-threat, almost cool.

The same thing happened to Elvis when his popularity dropped off and young haters realised they could buy themselves guitars too, He became relatable and imitable: he was no longer a dire threat of monopoly on the pussy supply.

>>5965451
Women have probably benefited more from monogamy than men have.

>>5965182
>I'd pick monogamy over having my gf fuck other dudes.

Why would you have to pick? I have a strict policy of cheating rampantly and recklessly on girlfriends so that when they get all outraged, I can tell them they're stupid insecure cunts who don't want me to be happy because fucking other bitches makes me happy

fuck all you moralfag normies

>2015
>marriage still exists

Probly time to call it quits

>>5964793
What's wrong with being a cuck? It's not like pussy exists in a limited quantity. Once another man has sex with your woman, nothing is preventing you from doing so as well

>inb4 cuck
I'm actually a virgin, lol.

>>5965559
Uglies get fucked. Millions of sperm at any given time, may as well have some spare heirs.
One egg, millions of sperm. That's the dynamic.

>>5965592
>Once another man has sex with your woman, nothing is preventing you from doing so as well
Yes, there is. The human reproductive system.
One egg per female, millions of sperm per male. May the best man win.

Newsflash: women experience desires for pregnancy. We cannot comprehend this: don't even try, just know that it is there.

>>5964893
name one that is more intimate

>>5965610
Go learn some evolutionary biology son. Females needed a male to protect her and her child. More than one male would likely reduce her offspring's well-being quite significantly.

Even the most powerful man only has finite supplies. Sharing with another female is irrational as she loses out.

>>5965617
a discussion

>>5965625
Wow, you, me and all the other anon's here sure are intimate.

....Fucking retard.

>>5965625
Okay, I can pick up what you're putting down: A conversation can be intimate and sex can be casual. I'm still not convinced that you provided a legit answer though.

>>5965621
Have you ever seen a group of women of various generations, some mothers, interacting in a normal setting, i.e. not on Christmas day? They're pretty much a commune. Babysitting, grooming, fussing over the pregnant and the sick.
They like having a servile provider, especially in industrial society where everyone is an isolated square within a grid, but in our ancestral environment a "breadwinner" was not necessary.

The "breadwinner" model is actually a degeneration of the ancient harem/gyneceum system, basically an attempt to isolate your wives from other men. Historically, the distinction between lacky, serf and servus was very blurry. It was taken for granted that the master of the house would take sexual advantage of his female subjects. Having a working wife was like being married to a working girl.
Slaves were most often acquired through war, and in the Iliad, captured female sex slaves were a major point of contention; in ancient Ireland, cumals were actually a unit of currency.

It's no coincidence that marriage has broken down apace with the "de-hareming" of Western women.

>>5965592
They're just insecure. Ignore them.

>>5964572
a family unit is the best was to raise a kid

>>5965421
This is how I try to opperate now but I get the feeling it can only last so long. Besides it's only really possible in large metropolitan areas, which is sad because I wouldn't mind eventually settling down in a small town.

Personally I support the idea. From a biological (inb4 angry cultural theorists) standpoint it makes more sense, and I feel as though I'd be in the top 20% of men monopolizing all the women so fuck the people on the bottom. Sadly hypocrisy/sexism has become one of the biggest sins you can commit these days so I doubt it will happen in my life time

>>5964572
the crowd is untruth & three's a crowd

>>5966192
No it isn't, communal child raising is almost certainly more healthy and natural.
>plebs trying to be conservatives

>>5964879
>Open marriage is a synonym for cuck
no, it is the wills of the parties to accept what they believe is inevitable, by our nature. In this case, you might as well make you believe that you take the high roads by allowing open relationships and get all the credits for it (to love is to share) like the hippies.

The majority of the people is not capable of monogamy since it involves quite a work on your self.

>>5965104
>Now that paternity can be tested and contraception is widespread, things are going to continue radically changing.

reminder that France outlawed paternity tests to prevent the collapse of their society

Open marriage is the wills of the parties to accept what they believe is inevitable, by our nature. In this case, you might as well make yourself believe that you take the high roads by allowing open relationships and get all the credits for it like the hippies (to love is to share) . It allows you to pretend to a bit of freedom, galvanized when it goes against the rules, for it becomes your choice. The fallacy becomes flagrant when you understand that this choice concords with the hedonism that has always been the rule of the humanity.


The majority of the people is not capable of monogamy since it involves quite a work on your self.

>>5964903
>Why must the pledge include monogamy?
Because of filiation. The marriage has always been about filiation, about the legitimate descendants. The purpose was to marry two families. Today, with the marriage for love, it is only two individuals who get married. A marriage for love fits well into the individualistic era such as ours, but it remain an aberration.

Nowadays since the homos have the right to marry, we say that the filiation happens only via the education. This is pure ideology naturally.
What makes you a parent ? It can be :
-the genes
-the education
-the genes and the education

With the human rights for all, you see that the couples infertile by the nature of their relationship, or by their natural infertility, can enter into a filiation only through the education.
The first step became apparent when the bastard children (out of wedlock) were recognized the same rights as the legitimate ones in a marriages for the heteros, especially when it comes to the inheritance.

Of course, women never had any remorse to give birth to bastards nor to pass them as legitimate, so the theory of the marriage is a bit phony but as we conceived them by the dozen, as they died a lot, we might as well go with the flow. Now, that we conceive only a few children, we tend to be picky on the filiation. Also, the genetics remain an important issue when it comes to the selection of the zygots. You see here a tension between the 'everything is social like the left dreams about' and the stance that 'everything is genetics, from the right' since it is common knowledge today that beauty and IQ are genetically determined for a lot. Epigenetics has only a minor role in this.


Nowadays, the marriage is dead and buried. There is clearly no relevance in going into it. Even more so when the divorce without fault becomes the rule (I am tired of you, so let's divorce and you do not even have a word to say in my decision).

The Swiss are rethinking the whole filition for new questions arise : what place for the grandparents ? What place for the in-laws ? what place for the previous in-laws in the case of recomposed families ?

>>5966405
I forgot to quote OP >>5964572

>>5966402
>reminder that France outlawed paternity tests to prevent the collapse of their society
Bravo Feminism, Bravo.

>>5964572
>I ask you to avoid appealing to simple traditionalism.
>asks this from 4chan

I hate to be the guy but

>>5966402
That just levels the playing field, since a wife can't test her husband for adultery and we know both are cucking each other with little boys in France. Sartre and Beauvoir were one of the few honest relationships that country ever produced.

>>5965042
>>I think they do. At least somewhat. They want the status of being "married", but at the same time, they want the freedom to fucking around without feeling guilty.
Yes, the place the sex at the center of the relationship.

>>5965042#
>>I think they do. At least somewhat. They want the status of being "married", but at the same time, they want the freedom to fucking around without feeling guilty.
Yes, they place the sex at the center of the relationship.

>>5966402
France is fucking weird.

>>5967235
>>That just levels the playing field, since a wife can't test her husband for adultery and we know both are cucking each other with little boys in France. Sartre and Beauvoir were one of the few honest relationships that country ever produced.

a pregnancy and adultery are nothing comparable. And two wrongs do not make one right.

Bear in mind that Russell is a guy that advocated enforced child sex in order to promote promiscuity and undermine monogamous marriage. The reason for this he stated himself: the destruction of the family means that children are put into the hands of the State.

Don't read psychopaths.

Morality doesn't exist.

Monogamy works, don't replace what isn't broken with something that is empirically uneffective.

>>5967604
>a pregnancy and adultery are nothing comparable.
But she can't test to see if he's been knocking other women up, you see.

Bertrand Russell is just a meme

>>5967608
Morality works, don't replace what isn't broken with something that is empirically ineffective.

>>5967606
>Russell is a guy that advocated enforced child sex in order to promote promiscuity and undermine monogamous marriage.

>somebody linked this thread on /r9k/
everybody say hi to the robots.

The other two options are being a cuckold or dying alone

>>5965042
>Marriage has been a monogamous institution for millennia
That is so fucking insanely untrue.

>>5964832
>>5964843
>i am insecure in my manliness so i am going to judge everyone who is not because i cannot ser past my own possessive, insecure point of view
Back to r9k with you two

>>5964779
Who says marriages have to be monogamous?

The nagging insecurity that someone is taking your place in the heart of the person you love most can drive you insane.

OP, next you should ready Milton's tract on marriage for the true red pill.

>>5967674
Does jealousy bring anything healthy to a relationship? If not, then surely we should suppress it.

OP, next you should read Milton's tract on marriage for the true red pill.

>>5967686
Would you summarize it for the purposes of the thread?

Oh, looks like there's a lot of people in denial in this thread. Look, you like it when your girl fucks other people. Explain why you are consistently more turned on the closer she was to banging someone else:

Such as when you just met, or make up sex.

And less the longer you've know her and the more cemented the relationship is.

This is like when closet faggots keep bringing up how much they dislike men's butts when no one was talking about them.

The closet cuck can't stop thinking about how much they enjoy the thought of other men's pee pees going in their girl's pussy, but their conscious judgements against it leave them a confused, pathetic mess.

If this wasn't the case, then explain how enjoyment of porn is so ubiquitous. It's essentially cucking without risk of social embarrassment.

>>5965614
So sex is only reproduction? Another guy impregnated your female so you can no longe fuck her? Are you autistic?

>>5966405
>since it involves quite a work on your self.

No it doesn't, not cheating is extremely simple. And if they believe its 'inevitable' they will cheat then they are simply weak or immoral.

>>5967700
Well, part of what turns cuckolds on is how demeaning they think it is for another man to fuck their woman. Without that aspect, it's just simple non-monogamy.

>>5967703
Haha cool, so I can knock up your wife and you'll put in the time, money, and effort to raise my kids for me? Well thanks pal! Now I get to go bareback in your whore of a partner worry free, and complete the point of life that is reproduction time and time again!

>>5967700
it all makes sense

>>5967711
Lol >implying immorality is bad

>>5967609
That has nothing to do with it. A man should never be expected to raise another man's child. The French government is basically telling women its okay to be unfaithful and then force their husband to pay for their lack of morals.

>>5967662
Trying to justify your own lack of self respect by calling others insecure is not how you convince people of anything.

Engels said that patriarchal marriage was instituted as a spook to maintain social hierarchy but he also said that given as true a freedom as is possible when it comes to pairings, most would still choose to be monogamous.

I really do thing some intense rationalization comes into play when you're alright with your wife or gf banging and dating other dudes. Are there a few amount who really don't give a shit? Probably, but most seem to engage in it out of some misguided sense of politics.

>>5967700
>If this wasn't the case, then explain how enjoyment of porn is so ubiquitous. It's essentially cucking without risk of social embarrassment.

You have absolutely no idea why most men watch porn do you? Men are usually picturing themselves AS the guy, that is why so many POV videos get made. And that assumes they are even watching hardcore girl on guy.

>>5967738
Perhaps the inclination towards monogamy has more to do with jealousy. Maybe the people who embrace polyandry are those who are able to suppress their jealousy.

>>5967700

> Look, you like it when your girl fucks other people.

But why

I mean, I would never willingly engage in that sort of behaviour just because it's fucking shameful, but the idea of cucking does give me unwanted hardons

>>5967747
What is it about it specifically that arouses you? Let's explore it. Is it the promiscuity of the woman that manifests in degradation of her? Is it the shaming of the man?

>>5967747
Really?

You're psychologically fucked

>>5967747
Shame is an extremely common thing to be aroused by.

It gives you hardons specifically BECAUSE you think it's shameful. If you didn't give a fuck it wouldn't get a literal rise out of you.

>>5967753

Fuck I don't know. I want to say its the former, but maybe it's just because I'm ashamed that it might be the latter?

>>5967768

does this point to some sort of psychological trauma?

I also enjoy watching porn with giant dicks if that helps

>>5967724
And if you simply fuck her and don't impregnate her and I don't have to raise your kids, how is it still demeaning to me?

>This will never be your marriage
http://youtu.be/x9Nfd6LjoI4?t=50s

>>5967775
>Fuck I don't know. I want to say its the former, but maybe it's just because I'm ashamed that it might be the latter?
Examine yourself and your porn habits. Do you want to see some slut getting stuffed by multiple men and passed around? Should she be lent out to friends and guests as a matter of hospitality? Or do you want to be shamed? Also, keep in mind that sharing=/=cuckolding. Cuckolding focuses on the degradation of the male.

>>5967692

He argues that divorce should be allowed on the grounds of spousal incompatibility by redefining marriage not around reproduction but as "the apt and cheerful conversation of man with woman, to comfort and refresh him against the evils of solitary life," which you can see in the partnership of Adam and Eve in Paradise Lost.

>>5967827

hmm....

well I don't watch actual cuck porn.. that seems bizarre and not something I'd enjoy. I wouldn't want to watch some guy feeling shame.

but when I watch big-dick porn I suppose I might personally feel some shame when comparing myself to the guy? Although it's more like "wow I wish I had that monster cock that makes her eyes widen and is too thick to even fit into her mouth"

>>5967837
That sounds entirely in accord with my personal beliefs. Is this John Milton? If so, that was very progressive of him.

>>5967841
Just explore your fetish and yourself. You don't need to be ashamed.

>>5967820
Because women are men's property (as an absolute fact of nature) so you're giving away your property

>>5967847
MUH SOGGY KNEE

>>5967747


Let me ask you a question; In your earlier life, were you unsuccessful with women? Did you have trouble getting girls and they tended to go for what people refer to as 'alphas'?


I've read that cucking is the eroticization of that occurring, the arousal of feeling inadequate. But whereas a lot of guys will simply get angry and confused at it because they're in denial of their feelings, and get angry. Cucks simply give in to it and let it turn them on.


I don't really care any more. I used to feel super bad about it, I don't anymore. It's certain that me and my girlfriend would never engage in it, so we just talk it through in fantasies.

You don't have to feel bad man. Whatever turns you on.

Wait, hold on, there are people that picture themselves as the guy getting NTR'd, not the one doing the NTRing?

>>5967745
People suppress enough as is in relationships. Why add the gnawing jealousy and resentment that comes along with your gf fucking and dating other dudes while you're shitposting on /lit/?

Women seem to argue for it in their need to maintain power. Chances are, if it wasn't so easy for the girl in question to find someone to fuck, they'd have just as much jealousy.

I any case, this is why I'd rather just not get entangled with a relationship. Better to have a friend, than to have a gf.

>>5967820
You said "another guy impregnated your female so you can no longer fuck her?"

If I impregnate her, you're cool with that?

>>5967854
>Let me ask you a question; In your earlier life, were you unsuccessful with women? Did you have trouble getting girls and they tended to go for what people refer to as 'alphas'?

Oh yea, absolutely.

>the arousal of feeling inadequate.

yea I guess that makes sense, and probably why I watch big-dick porn almost exclusively.

I am pretty good at hiding it, thankfully.

>>5967867
It would be extremely painful.

>>5964894
You mean thank the English language for that one.

>>5967868
So your a cuck because you're pathetic.

Jesus 4Chan is filled with fags like this.

>>5964954
What about a romanic relationship where people are in love but don't have sexual relations ?

>>5967889
Oh fuck off.

There's far worse shit than cucking

>>5967905
like what?

>>5965617
Cleaning someone's else ass or having your ass cleaned (for instance a baby/parent relationship, or a nurse/patient relationship).

Confession (when done exhaustively and with genuine desire to be judged/forgiven). This applies to confession to priests you personally know as well as confession to close friends.

>>5967908

I guess it comes to opinion, but IMO

Scat, furries, necrophilia, vore, feeders, disgustingly fat people, loli shit


Cucking is just two people fucking while another watches and gets off. It's IRL porn with your significant other

>>5967847
Not really. Marriage is the property act. If you're married she's your property, even if someone fucks her. Remember there have been influent people in history who let their wifes be fucked by other influent men so as to gain political clout. If your wife is banging another man for your own interest, is she suddenly not your property ?

>>5967921
You are right, it clearly is a matter of opinion after reading your post.

Guys the natural order is to have 90% of the males to be cuckold, willy nilly. It is not like any female has ever been capable to say no ...

>>5967972
The natural order is to have a big alpha male with all the grills and all the other wimpy males begging (and being denied) to have one as well.
I don't see how this changes anything

I was once in a relationship with a woman who was in an "open marriage." I even once briefly met her husband. It actually felt kinda good knowing a total cuck he is.

Needless to say their marriage didn't last that long.

>>5967993
You imagine easily that not all the females settle with a dominant male. And betas can cuckold other betas since there is always a girl ready to spread her legs before anything and always a man for every woman, modulo her age ofc.

>>5967908
Bug chasers

>>5967919
You sound like a boring person to have sex with.

Also your idea that the mental and the physical are separate with the physical being less important/sinful is outdated and unfounded. Both are intimate activities, and physically sex is an extremely intimate thing.

Personally I'd have no problem with a relationship between 3 parties who all have sex together. If it's some guy you don't know however, I think jealousy would be the only healthy emotion.

The fact that many of the cucks in this thread are trying to argue politically rather than emotionally is pretty screwed up. Ideology at it's finest

>>5967993
>'The Natural Order'
>applying this phrase to a species as convoluted, warped and misshapen as humanity
Nigga we've had so many millennia of cultural impetuous overriding natural instinct that no one even knows what's 'Natural' for humans. It's serial monogamy anyway

A sexual unfaithfulness is nothing but natural, a sexual monogamy is far more difficult to achieve and therefore far more cultural for the humanity. And even when we tried to impose it, it failed miserably.

>>5968187
>You sound like a boring person to have sex with.

You should try, you'd love it. But that is completely irrelevant, anyway, since we were talking about intimacy, not fun.

>Also your idea that the mental and the physical are separate with the physical being less important/sinful is outdated and unfounded.

There was no suchidea in my post, read again.

> Both are intimate activities, and physically sex is an extremely intimate thing.

I didn't deny that, I pointer out examples of activities that could be said more intimate that some or most sexual relationships (which was also a way to point that not all sexual relationship are equally intimate).

Anyone who claims they understand how human sexuality works is either lying, or pitifully naive. Probably both.

i came to this thread expecting to dissect a single spook

the whole thread is now a mass haunting

>>5967908
I will just leave this here >>>/b/591362563

>>5968187
>I think jealousy would be the only healthy emotion.
In what way is jealousy healthy? What positive things does it offer? The fact that it's common and accepted is unimportant.

>>5968265
Of course complete understanding is out the window, but we can certainly gain a limited one.

>>5967633
Morality doesn't work, it sets arbitrary barriers and deludes the majority.

In a moral society, a man can get a longer sentence for possessing child pornography than he can for raping a murdering a child.

Go ahead and tear that kid apart, just don't take a photograph!

Morality is an entirely senseless, pointless set of guidelines set up by men, the word of man means little to me.

>>5968309
Traditionalists can't allow that. Red herrings and tangents need to abound or else they might discover that they're wrong.

>>5964846
Most important question itt getting completely ignored.

>>5971742
welcome to 4chan

>>5969892
another victim of the times

think outside of your culture dumbshit