Feminist: Not Allowing Your Wife to Have Sex With Other Men is Sexist.

Oh sorry I replied to the wrong thread.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Konduit

how do you phonetically spell out whipped? Whappptishhhh

I agree, and I believe it's two syllables. How does one spell the sound of a cracking whip?

Given the fact that we live in an age where there is a potentially fatal STD in the population, this is total lunacy. But what I think they are really trying to do is invalidate the concept of marriage altogether. Most people get married for the purpose of a monagamous relationship, this asserts that that is invalid.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Plotus
At this point some would argue the beginnings of Feminism and moral decay. Now all accountability vanished....

Of course SOME would argue that was the start of moral decay. That's because SOME like to blame women for all the problems in the world. That's been the case since SOME blamed it all on EVE in the Garden. However, by now we should all know what a load of BS that is. It was BS then and it's BS now.

Feminism certainly has it's flaws in it's current state. Chauvinism hasn't done so well either unfortunately. I think it's time one side stops blaming the other and we work together to forge a better future. It's either that or we just continue to run in circles forever blaming each other.

The moral decay I spoke of was for both male and female. Sex could now be had without consequence, a recreational side had emerged rather than a procreation foundation. It seems you speak for a lot of people and throw your BS's around quite cavalierly. It was ultimately the woman's choice to use birth control, though the men were usually quite in favor of the idea also, again sex without consequence.

But back to the OP's topic..... multiple partners family structure, morality, and STD health issues all point to a foolish and harmful lifestyle.

a reply to: Konduit

I believe in feminism, I also know the difference between feminism and feminazism. It's a difference in the attitude. One strives for equality by raising women up to the level of men, the other wants to reverse the roles. Some of the things that the guy in the article does to gain a better understanding of the role women have played are understandable. Gaining insight through personal experience can be a great teacher. I do not, however, understand how polygamy has anything to do with feminism. I read this article twice and can't see the correlation between them. It seems more like the guy is attempting to ascribe the tenets of an open marriage to the ideals of feminism, and the connection just isn't there. It seems more like, after the "oceans of wine" the guy drank, he finally achieved a level of alcoholism that allows one to believe anything they hear.

The fact that it took that long for his wife to convince him to do this shows that he has his reservations about it, probably still does somewhere in him. Couldn't say for sure though. Their open marriage is clearly working out but she does take more advantage of it than he does, his words not mine, and that speaks, to me at least, of a remaining degree of reluctance. Something like, he is trying to do it enough to make her comfortable with what she is doing and seem like he is into it. Ultimately, I see a picture of a couple who does not truly understand feminism, a husband who finally gave up arguing about it and a wife who married too young and too soon to be ready to actually commit to a relationship. If monogamy were really a "patriarchal" construct meant to keep women "in their place", why then are there monogamous homosexual relationships? If two men are together and don't have a woman to oppress, why bother being solely committed to each other? Why also would two women want to oppress each other with the chains of monogamy? Ask where this couple is at in a few years and you'll get two addresses.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: Achilles92x

If he's unhappy with his situation, he can just get a divorce.

And how would that be for the children? It's never that simple.

originally posted by: babybunnies
If she thinks being restricted to one partner is sexist, then she needs to be comfortable with her man doing the same thing as well.

Did you read the article? She is, he goes out too, just doesn't find someone as often as she does is all. It is a relationship that is open on both ends and judging by the "sea of wine" it took to get to that point, probably doomed to fail.

originally posted by: sootblack
What a brave man for allowing his wife to do that but it isnt equal untill he sleeps around and tell her all about it....
Im sure he will find some exceptional woman and expect to be able to date her... its only fair right?

I think the truth is that he is using feminism to hide the real reason. Maybe he is no good in bed or can't last more than a minute. If that's the case, then it may actually be fair to let her sleep around as long as she is safe about it. Personally, I feel there are better solutions than that, but I can see how it could be justified. Feminism is just a red herring here, IMO.

originally posted by: Plotus
The moral decay I spoke of was for both male and female. Sex could now be had without consequence, a recreational side had emerged rather than a procreation foundation. It seems you speak for a lot of people and throw your BS's around quite cavalierly. It was ultimately the woman's choice to use birth control, though the men were usually quite in favor of the idea also, again sex without consequence.

But back to the OP's topic..... multiple partners family structure, morality, and STD health issues all point to a foolish and harmful lifestyle.

Well, I think I'd have to argue that "sex without consequence" has been around long before the creation of birth control however the consequence was one that the woman had to deal with by herself. For thousands of years before birth control there have been concubines and prostitutes who would face the consequence of birthing a child alone. Being that they were either property or an unattached, momentary play thing the man had no real obligation to have to deal with any of it. All birth control offered was for the woman to remove or control that consequence on their own terms. But the sex activity itself, which does not have the purpose of procreation, was still very much around. In other words "sex without consequence" was a position that men had enjoyed for quite a long time where as with the advent of BC women could now enjoy it as well.

Multiple partners may cause issues depending upon the situation as do STD's of course. However that isn't exactly an automatic result across the board. It is really just an activity that changes the level or risk for problems but does not guarantees them. Similar to the risk you have of getting hit by a car and it increasing the more cars there are around and you walking in the middle of the street.

Just a click bait story and pretty sure the mags didnt transition too well to the internet. That said, things were probably more rampant 20-30 years ago with more open coc aine use and then crack but to me a rational person should be smarter given all the diseases.

Ewww...yuch, even the names are horrific:

HIV (AIDS)
Herpes simplex, 1 & 2
Hepatitis B
HPV (human papilloma virus - some types may cause cerivcal cancer)
MCV (molluscum contagiosum virus)

Bacterial and fungal infections can sometimes be very difficult to get rid of, but they have "cures"

SOURCE

Just reading that makes me itchy.

a reply to: Entreri06

Wonderfully said.

a reply to: Harvin

This is true, but I don't think they are going out and having unprotected sex. Maybe I'm wrong, but the odds of getting a disease while following proper precautions and protection (basically using condoms properly) is very low. Many folks are insinuating that catching diseases is a given. It's not, especially in this day and age where the knowledge is out there. No, it's not foolproof, but nothing is, and yeah the overall rate of infected individuals has gone down greatly since just 20 years ago.

a reply to: Barcs

Well, generally speaking, staying in a failed marriage purely for the sake of the children is rarely a good idea either.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Harvin

This is true, but I don't think they are going out and having unprotected sex. Maybe I'm wrong, but the odds of getting a disease while following proper precautions and protection (basically using condoms properly) is very low.

I would not be with anyone who is sexually promiscuous for the simple fact that it puts me at risk for all kinds of diseases and illnesses. 10 years from now after you leave that person you are still infected...long after that person is gone. No thank you.

And NO, i do not agree with you that they are always using a rubber barrier. I CAN tell you that men always try to eventually do away with what you are referring to as protection...a few glasses of wine etc. and i cannot guarantee that a partner is engaging in behaviour that will CERTAINLY put me at risk...SO NO i would not take that as a given in any way shape or form.

And rememebr, you do not know what or who the other person is with, they could be fine two weeks prior and then be with someone infected and your partner has sex with them then it is all over.

You know, i have to say we really do not know long term effects of these diseases even if they can be suppressed or "cured" you dont know if there is something left behind that will target a specific organ or stay in you blood to cause cancer etc.

But common STD's aside, there are colds and flu to catch, gum diseases, no way...it is just not worth it.

Betas are beta because they are beta. Glorifying betaness is equal to glorifying uselessness. This is not feminism and it's certainly not a marriage. He probably isn't even the father of those children.

originally posted by: AnonymousRider
Betas are beta because they are beta. Glorifying betaness is equal to glorifying uselessness. This is not feminism and it's certainly not a marriage. He probably isn't even the father of those children.

If they're lucky...

If I wanted an open relationship, I'd have NOT gotten married and entered into only a long-term partnership.

It's engrained in my soul, I could not *ever* be with someone other than my wife. I've had the opportunities, just can't violate her trust, nor my own self-respect. A promise isn't something that should be made, with the intent of keeping it until something/someone more exciting comes a long. It's a lifetime commitment. (to me).

Marriage is 'one and only' not, 'one until horny'.

For those who choose 'open' relationships, at least those I've known (admittedly only 5 couples in the course of my time on this planet), all but one has gone horribly, horribly wrong. One, the other or both are hurt immeasurably and it tears them up as a couple, partnership, friends and ultimately themselves as well.

If it works for them, great. It wouldn't work for me, ever.

When I was divorced from my first wife, it took a long time to even feel guilt free about dating, much less anything further.

I won't say I agree with it, I don't. But, if it works for this dude and gal, so be it, but why push the story public? Attention whores? Agenda pusher?

originally posted by: AnonymousRider
Betas are beta because they are beta. Glorifying betaness is equal to glorifying uselessness. This is not feminism and it's certainly not a marriage. He probably isn't even the father of those children.

Nah man, this guy goes beyond Beta. He's more like.... an Omega, or something. Even the most smarmy, timid Beta would not be down for something like this.

This is why record numbers of men are getting cucked these days. The true Alpha male is a dying breed, I.e. a male who is not only assertive and confident, but also intelligent and resourceful. That's a true alpha male- dudes like Sean Connery, James Dean, and Charleton Heston were "classic" alpha males, having a killer combination of wit, intelligence, leadership, and assertiveness.

These days, the alpha male template is being debased by cucks and feminists. It's considered "alpha" to be an aggressive, dim-witted quasi-hominid with no tact or wit. Assorted gym rats, gang bangers, and brain-damaged jocks are venerated by the low-testosterone masses simply because they lack inhibition and "slay b*tches". The idiocy is palpable.

Meanwhile, on the opposite end of the spectrum, any male with an iota of practical intelligence is expected to fall into the meek nerd/hipster/beta male template. They tell us we can't be both Alpha and cunning, because it goes against their pre-manufactured social template. If you are a smart guy with a high-paying IT job, you are invariably an awkward, timid, stuttering doormat with zero assertiveness. Either that, or you're an effete, noodle-armed hipster with a slight lisp and a penchant for designer clothing.

And all the while, young women are told to be profligate, wanton, and faithless by MTV and other media, or else they aren't "trendy and progressive". So basically, we are left with a society of meek nerds, hipsters, borderline retarded pseudo-alpha males, and uninhibited sluts.

The meek nerd (beta male) template is the "provider" class. They marry and provide for the profligate female "sperm receptacle" template, so that they have a steady income and secure environment in which to raise their offspring. Since cucking is rife and no woman is turned on by a meek beta, these children are sometimes the progeny of a "brain-dead Alpha" who the wife was screwing on the side , unbeknownst to her "beta provider" husband.

This is the kind of society we are quickly headed for. Each person has to fall into one of these pre-fabricated social templates, or else risk being ostracized and slandered.

The true Alpha male has none of those weaknesses, and that's what makes him so dangerous. He doesn't fall into any template.

I speak 100% truth, but the truth is hard to deal with sometimes.

To all you feminists out there who follow this religiously. Good luck being a cat lady. Because I have no respect for you whatsoever. Your movement is a joke, an inspired movement created by the powers that be to further the division wars. So we have blacks vs whites, man vs female. Im not even going to mention all the hundreds of ways that people are divided and conquered.

But I will say this now, FEMINISM IS A JOKE! And what it actually does is downgrade good women into lower standards. rephrased: Feminists make women look stupid and immoral. And that's the reality.


It breaks my heart to see this world continue its immoral decay. though I am aware that this is actually psychological manipulation mostly done by those in power. People should know better than to fall this low. Both Narcissism and Feminism are two of the major flaws humanity possess that may ultimately end up in total annihilation of the human species.

*sigh* im upset, i was cheated on aswell, and let me tell you right now. I'd rather be alone for the rest of my life than to be with a feminist or narcissist partner. Both are psychologically inadequate to handle responsibility of another human life. And my psychological Diagnoses for both is the following.: Insane

LOL this guy has to be the biggest beta turd I've ever heard of, seriously. I bet those kids aren't even his, and I hope they aren't. The thought of him spreading those inferior genes makes me ill.

I decided to be fair and attack him as well instead of just jumping all over feminism (and I do think modern feminism is a pile of garbage) because beta males like him are just as much to blame for absurd crap like this as feminists are. They enable it. As for militant feminists, most of you are just fat and/or ugly and bitter because guys would rather spend $80 on a Fleshlight® instead of resorting to you. Be sure to stop off at Walgreens, Tumblrina. You'll need some ointment for that burn.