Thoughts on polyamory? for those who don't know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

File: 58 KB, 813x885, 2013-03-03_21-02-01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Mar 24 16:14:27 2013 No.3591867 [DELETED]

Thoughts on polyamory?
for those who don't know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 24 16:17:26 2013 No.3591871 >>3591867 >>>/lgbt/

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 24 16:17:27 2013 No.3591872 I know several people who were polyamorous a few years back (inclucing one group of ~10 people), but they've mostly all settled down with just one partner now.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 24 16:17:27 2013 No.3591873 i have two girlfriends. who are each others on again-off again girlfriends, and i always date lesbians and bi girls. wait, what has this got to do with literature..?

Anonymous Sun Mar 24 16:18:27 2013 No.3591875

I think it's disgusting how people in polyamorous relationships are discriminated against. What, two men can marry, but one guy with two Thai brides is offensive to your sensibilities?

If people must continue with the antiquated institution of marriage, then polyamorous marriages should be accepted too.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 24 16:22:26 2013 No.3591886 Not /lit/.

>>	Motoko !!Nvhr3UlfD8o Sun Mar 24 16:23:26 2013 No.3591888 File: 19 KB, 500x250, adjaniadjani.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 24 16:24:26 2013 No.3591891 Good thread, lads, but where's the books?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 24 16:26:26 2013 No.3591895 >>3591891 polyamorous people read more books than couples do, by a factor of how many ever extra people there are.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 24 16:27:26 2013 No.3591899 Would probably make an interesting story for a book...

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 24 16:29:26 2013 No.3591908 >>3591875 I'll be interested to see whether this becomes broadly acceptable before, after, or contemporaneous with ephebophilia. not /lit/ though

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 24 21:51:26 2013 No.3592844 My god, one romantic relationship is worse enough.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 24 21:55:26 2013 No.3592857 I think if that's what you want then fine. But really sick of people trying to tell me humans are meant to have multiple partners and monogamy is evil. Let me live my life and you live yours.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 24 22:06:27 2013 No.3592890 >>3592844 Sartre fucked hundreds of women while sharing a single 'romantic' relationship with Simone de Beauvoir. Their polyamory is one quite successful historical example.

Anonymous Sun Mar 24 22:10:26 2013 No.3592901

Whatever makes you happy. Montaigne puts it in some perspective, and Foucault wrote on the pressure to become monogamous in modern society. The whole play of ownership in current monogamy gets on my nerves, but then so did the emotional detachment that seems to come with polyamory.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 24 22:10:26 2013 No.3592903 >>3591908 Polyamory is already acceptable.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 24 22:13:26 2013 No.3592909 >>3592890 Beauvoir was just really into Sartre, and didn't he do all the fucking around before they met anyway?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 24 22:22:26 2013 No.3592935 >>3592890 >succesful He lied constantly and she hated it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 24 22:24:26 2013 No.3592946 Polyamory means alphas get all the women. It ensures the best genes get passed on and the inferior male lines die off. It's the best most logical system to improve humanity.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 08:01:27 2013 No.3593929 >>3591867 >Thoughts on polyamory? i secretly smirk when the other person in the relationship spends more time with a new partner and the poly chick gets all jealous. also where are the old polys

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 08:23:26 2013 No.3593950 It's been shown that a polyamorist society would be beneficial for women and a few men who are very attractive. Not being either, no thanks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 08:24:26 2013 No.3593954 >>3593950 So selfish, Anon!

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 08:46:26 2013 No.3593980 >>3593950 >It's been shown If people would cite their senseless babble the Internet would be empty.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 08:51:26 2013 No.3593984 >>3593980 http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200802/the-paradox-polygamy-ii-why-most-women-benefit-polygamy-an There you go

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 08:54:26 2013 No.3593987 it is logically impossible to dedicate yourself completely to more than one person. you divide yourself each time another is added to the relation. love is a mockery in these things.

Anonymous Mon Mar 25 09:05:26 2013 No.3594012

>>3591875
>If people must continue with the antiquated institution of marriage, then polyamorous marriages should be accepted too.

Why? Why can't we just leave the "antiquated institution of marriage" as it is? Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, a decision and a promise to stay together as a family. It's not a "license to love" like the dumb asses fighting for gay marriage seem to think.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 09:09:27 2013 No.3594014 File: 107 KB, 305x438, you kids today.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3594012 >Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 09:13:26 2013 No.3594019 >>3594014 It's been that way for over a thousand years, why should we change the definition now?

Anonymous Mon Mar 25 09:17:27 2013 No.3594022

>>3594019

no need to change the definition, just add another one, like we always do when we need to. "text" didn't use to be a verb, "post" used to mean mail a letter, or put up a sign.

a new definition in addition to all the old ones doesn't seem to hurt anybody, or for that matter fifty new definitions. "Nine and sixty ways of composing tribal lays" remember.

Anonymous Mon Mar 25 09:22:26 2013 No.3594032

Personally government should not recognize "marriage" everything should be called a civil union and these would have the same benefits that a marriage currently has. If your religious you can call it whatever you want but officially it is a civil union and just let everyone be able to have a civil union

Anonymous Mon Mar 25 09:30:26 2013 No.3594037

>>3594032
I agree with you completely. The government shouldn't have any kind of say in peoples relationships, let alone be giving a different taxation status to a couple who feel like changing from partners to getting a piece of paper to say they are partners.

Yeah, if someone thinks their God is blessing them and they want a union before a priest, a rabbi, or an Elvis impersonator, then sure, let them do it. Just keep the government out of it.

Anonymous Mon Mar 25 09:36:26 2013 No.3594040

>>3594037
>let alone be giving a different taxation status to a couple who feel like changing from partners to getting a piece of paper to say they are partners.
That taxation status is meant to be a prize for giving birth to kids. Not a reward for getting a certificate.

That said, there are much better and less stupid ways to reward childbirth.

Anonymous Mon Mar 25 10:25:26 2013 No.3594125

to make this related to literature somehow, I'll mention that Peter F. Hamilton, one of my favorite sci-fi writers frequently includes polyamory in his novels. despite using it so frequently, he writes about it as if it isn't possible to be polyamorous and stable. one passage about three-way marriages from Fallen Dragon: "Trendy liberalism and those first youthful hot randy nights tended to deteriorate and sour when middle age approached, inevitably accompanied by mortgage payments and domestic demands with their three-way arguments."

Anonymous Mon Mar 25 11:18:26 2013 No.3594253

>>3594032
>Personally government should not recognize "marriage" everything should be called a civil union and these would have the same benefits that a marriage currently has.
>Government shouldn't do this thing it does already, they should instead do that thing exactly but call it something else
>Libertarians

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 11:31:26 2013 No.3594274 Polyamory? The word is half Greek, half Latin. No good can come of it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 12:04:27 2013 No.3594326 File: 10 KB, 220x295, tesla.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3592946 >It ensures the best genes get passed on and the inferior male lines die off. Go fuck yourself meathead.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 12:07:27 2013 No.3594333 >>>/lgbt/ >>3591871

Anonymous Mon Mar 25 12:12:26 2013 No.3594355

>>3594253
It's a different thing. A civil union should have nothing to do with the government. If people want to be in some kind of consensual relationship together they should be allowed to. If they want a civil union certificate and a party with all their friends and family, they should be allowed to. We don't need the government there to dictate who is allowed to have the certificate, and then move people up and down in tax brackets based upon it. Just print off your civil union certificate, dress up, invite all your friends to give you presents and get drunk, then go on your cheap all-inclusive weekend to Corfu. No government bureaucracy is needed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 12:30:26 2013 No.3594400 >>3594125 wow, that passage sure served to undercut the possibility for stable polyamory didn't it

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 12:32:26 2013 No.3594408 Whatever works, I guess. I'm curious whether it would be for me or not.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 12:35:27 2013 No.3594421 >>3594400 that just sort of expresses his personal views on the whole thing. i get the sense he doesn't really take the idea seriously

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 12:36:26 2013 No.3594428 >>3592946 >implying 'alphas' have ever contributed anything to humanity but war and destruction

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 12:39:27 2013 No.3594436 >>3591867 >Thoughts on polyamory? Marriage is between and a man and a woman, or a man and women. So yes, I think polygyny should be allowed. Apart from that, no.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 12:43:26 2013 No.3594443 >>3594436 You do know that gays can marry, right?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 12:45:26 2013 No.3594447 >>3594436 >Marriage is between and a man and a woman marriage is different than matrimony

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 12:48:26 2013 No.3594452 >>3594428 In primate sociology alphas are actually just good natured protective dumb brutes. They are never cunning or inventive. They're good cops and soldiers perhaps in service of supreme beta ladder climbing philosopher kings

Anonymous Mon Mar 25 12:48:26 2013 No.3594453
File: 66 KB, 640x480, hypergamy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The breakdown of monogamy will lead to social ruin. "Betas" and average or below-average looking men are the most productive section of society, so it's important to keep them happy. We're already seeing dramatic spikes in depression and NEET rates among this demographic, as the incentives of sex and love become increasingly remote for them.

The fact is that monogamy provides the greatest spread of contentedness for the greatest spread of people.

Anonymous Mon Mar 25 12:52:27 2013 No.3594462

>>3594443

Some places permit same-sex couples to enjoy the same legal benefits as married couples, but it isn't 'marriage' regardless of what people choose to call it. In any case, they can't do that where I'm from, because marriage is constitutionally limited to unions between one male and one female.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 12:54:26 2013 No.3594468 File: 62 KB, 233x313, zizek_wedding_2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3594453 >Basing your false alpha/beta binary on 'attractiveness'.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 12:55:27 2013 No.3594471 >>3594468 Zizek is not 'alpha' according to any possible sane understanding of that term.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 13:04:26 2013 No.3594491 >>3594471 What's your point?

Anonymous Mon Mar 25 13:04:26 2013 No.3594492

>>3594468
It doesn't matter what you base it on, the point still remains: humans are inherently polygynous, women are inherently hypergamous---this is incompatible with modern civilisation as it alienates a significant portion of men. Individually, the members of this post-sexual-enlightenment preterite may not mean that much, but when they are essentially forced to opt out of society en masse, it produces large scale discord and a significant drop in productivity.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 13:08:26 2013 No.3594498 >>3594462 And some places have full blown faggot marriage. Feels good to live in a civilised country. I'm happy for gays that they can do the whole productive wholesome nuclear family thing if they want to. May they raise adopted children fabulously.

Anonymous Mon Mar 25 13:13:26 2013 No.3594514

>>3594492
And? What's it got to do with you?

>humans are inherently polygynous, women are inherently hypergamous
Women aren't human?

>This is incompatible with modern civilisation
This is incompatible with your view of society.

>as it alienates a significant portion of men.
There is no evidence for that. You /pol/tards were arguing that women are all gold diggers, and ugly men have a higher chance of financial success last time.

>produces large scale discord and a significant drop in productivity.
Sure, we could sterilise all men at birth, and artificially inseminate people using DNA form a global database of tissue samples after a genetic screening in your tyrannical ubermensch dreamland, but why not just let people do what they want?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 13:15:26 2013 No.3594520 >>3594514 >There is no evidence for that. >he thinks there's no evidence for that Read a fucking history book moron.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 13:19:27 2013 No.3594526 >>3594520 Fantastic argument, sir. I shall try to track down this 'history book moron', but in the meantime, I suggest reading an anthropology book.

Anonymous Mon Mar 25 13:19:27 2013 No.3594527

>>3594514
>Women aren't human?

A subgroup of humanity, obviously. I wasn't saying "Men are polygynous, women are hypergamous", I was saying "People are polygynous, and more specifically female people tend towards hypergamy."

>This is incompatible with your view of society.

No, it's incompatible with the reality of the modern world, or the Occident at least.

>There is no evidence for that.

It's self-evident. If the majority of women are chasing a minority of men, what happens to the majority of men?

>but why not just let people do what they want?

Most people aren't capable of making good decisions.

>What's it got to do with you?

I want people to be happy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 13:20:27 2013 No.3594529 >>3591867 I am only jealous of such people. I know not what unconditional love is nor what it means to truly love someone.

Anonymous Mon Mar 25 13:27:26 2013 No.3594540

>>3594527
I agree. What's best for humanity is confining people to a cell for life – If it's done from birth they will become conditioned to it – keeping them dosed on downers, and taking DNA samples to create the ultimate human race.

Your idea of having government enforced relationships in our current society sounds like hell, but the giant prison would obviously be the best solution. You're kept in this one room for life, given no education so you don't think to question your environment, and kept on permanent medication. Only the elite 2% are spared from this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 13:33:27 2013 No.3594550 >>3594540 Mate, monogamy is not the same thing as Nineteen Eighty-Four. Get a grip.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 13:37:27 2013 No.3594556 >>3594550 I think >>3594540 is making a poor analogy to Brave New World more so than 1984 but their insecurity is every so apparent either way.

Anonymous Mon Mar 25 13:40:27 2013 No.3594562

>>3594550
>Mate, monogamy is not the same thing as Nineteen Eighty-Four.

What? I didn't say enforced monogamy for life was like 1984. I'm saying what's best for our species. You began with enforced monogamy for life, but didn't have the courage to take it as far as it needed to be taken.

We have an elite 2%; the very best of humanity. The other 98% are kept heavily sedated and only exist so we can breed them and use their genetic material to continually improve our species. It's what's best. Your method of keeping society the same but imposing a tyrannical government mandate on sexual partners is awful. If you really want to control human reproduction in the name of 'improving our race', the 2% method is the best way to do it. Grow some balls, and stand behind your convictions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 13:41:26 2013 No.3594568 my problem has always been the same. storylines and french scenes

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 13:46:26 2013 No.3594579 >>3594562 Abysmal attempt at reductio ad absurdum.

Anonymous Mon Mar 25 14:02:27 2013 No.3594642

>>3594579
Abysmal attempt at refuting your own logic against you.

If your argument is honestly the best way to control reproduction of our species and ensure the ultimate passing on of genes, then the 2% way is the best possible way. If you're just an ugly neckbeard who is whining because they can't get laid, and you want the government enforce monogamy, then the best way is to legalise and relax prostitution. Either way, your idea sucks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 19:47:26 2013 No.3595615 >>3592890 >successful There's was probably the most famously and hilariously unsuccessful marriage to ever occur.

Anonymous Mon Mar 25 19:50:27 2013 No.3595628
File: 253 KB, 653x540, 1337688521363.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3593984
>>3593950
>Under polygyny, some third-rate men may not find a wife at all, or, even if they are lucky enough to find one, their wife will not be as desirable as the one they can secure for themselves under monogamy, because under polygyny more desirable women would have become the second, third, or tenth wife of more desirable men.

Shut it down.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 19:52:27 2013 No.3595635 >>3594355 >two people get a civil union >have kids >get divorced Who gets the children? Don't tell me that two people who now hate each other will work it out amicably.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 19:52:27 2013 No.3595637 >>3595628 Why can't the women have multiple partners?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 19:53:27 2013 No.3595639 File: 18 KB, 500x431, 1321129949308.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3594274 I really enjoyed that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 19:57:26 2013 No.3595653 >>3594019 >It's been that way for over a thousand years Nero married a few men, and that was thousands of years ago.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 19:58:26 2013 No.3595664 >>3595635 If they can't work it out amicably, they have to reenact Kramer vs Kramer

Anonymous Mon Mar 25 20:04:26 2013 No.3595689

>>3594471
>Zizek is not 'alpha' according to any possible sane understanding of that term.
He could beat you up and fuck your girlfriend, all the while breaking down the cultural forces at work using a Lacanian-Marxist framework, with some movie references to boot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 20:11:26 2013 No.3595712 >>3595635 Millions of people have had kids without being married. If there is some kind of problem where both parties want the child, they can choose to consult a civil court for a custody hearing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 20:15:26 2013 No.3595722 >>3595712 I'm pretty sure the stork won't drop the baby in a cabbage patch until you've sent proof of marriage.

Essex de Vere !!lmSgGrvazOe Mon Mar 25 21:59:27 2013 No.3596075

You can convince multiple Singers to join your Opera, but the Composer writes for only one Soprano.

It's becuase he's selfish and irrational; as she is selfish and irrational: though they both can accept other people to join their circus; they would only slow down what could of been.

One, to contradict the other; the other to contradict the one: where would all the playful faux dicotomies go . . .

If there be another, the equalibrium would cease to be.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 23:26:27 2013 No.3596311 >>3592890 >Sarte >Simone These two are not good examples for anything besides how to feel like shit constantly.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 23:44:28 2013 No.3596355 >>3595637 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 23:47:27 2013 No.3596362 File: 1.93 MB, 235x240, mfw I realized God exists.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3594274

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 00:04:27 2013 No.3596398 >>3591867 In the fantasy novel I'm writing, in the culture the majority of the book is set in, courting is polyamoric, It is considered totally unusual to have one partner until you're married, which doesn't happen until you're in your 30's.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 00:08:27 2013 No.3596412 Somewhat related. I think I would be okay with living with these people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo Read the section on "Walking Marriages." I think they might be on to something.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 00:14:27 2013 No.3596422 I'm fine with it, just I don't think it works, and why would you like to add even more "romantic" stress on your life anyhow. Where is the book?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 00:42:27 2013 No.3596458 >>3596362 We meet again, anon.

>>	sage Tue Mar 26 04:15:27 2013 No.3596697 >>3594453 the funny thing is that there was an okcupid blog thing about this. something like, women ranked EIGHTY PERCENT of guys as being SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW AVERAGE. but then they still messaged guys who were fell that short. weird

Anonymous Tue Mar 26 04:32:28 2013 No.3596710

>>3596697
There was also an okcupid blog thing about how no women want to date black males, yet in all of the films I view black males are having explicit sex with members of other races.

Not sure I would really trust okcupid with statistics about reality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 04:37:28 2013 No.3596716 File: 807 KB, 750x1031, 1363491356848.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I personally know that polyamory kind of sucks. If you are in to it, good luck. But in three years time you won't be. Consider it a part of growing up I guess?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 04:39:28 2013 No.3596717 >>3591867 How is this /lit/?`Why is this thread still up? Report this shit.

Anonymous Tue Mar 26 04:48:27 2013 No.3596725

>>3594642
>If your argument is honestly the best way to control reproduction of our species and ensure the ultimate passing on of genes, then the 2% way is the best possible way

Obviously, that wasn't his argument. If you read his first post carefully you'd understand that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 04:52:27 2013 No.3596729 >>3596710 I think you're mistaken. No men wanted to date black women. Black men were still fairly popular.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 05:09:28 2013 No.3596752 >>3596729 I have a response, but I want to see your timestamped pic before I issue it.

Anonymous Tue Mar 26 05:17:28 2013 No.3596766

i feel like polyamory is a taboo. its not strictly illegal but it feels weird sharing a girl or a guy in a relationship.
jealousy arises, awkward thoughts constanly occur,
the girls or guy could be branded a slut or whore, social scrutiny.
but with it feels so right to share something like love, why should it be wrong to love, be in love with more than one person, or even share your loved one with someone else

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 05:19:27 2013 No.3596771 Humans are too insecure. Can't work. /sage

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 05:27:27 2013 No.3596787 >>3596752 there's no responding, merely statistics: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-race-affects-whether-people-write-you-back/

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 05:31:27 2013 No.3596791 >>3596766 >but with it feels so right to share something like love, why should it be wrong to love, be in love with more than one person, or even share your loved one with someone else Love is trust. Sharing trust is wrong.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 05:40:27 2013 No.3596800 >>3596791 love is the law, love is justice, and if love is trust why cant we share that too

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 05:57:27 2013 No.3596813 We're built to work in pairs.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 06:00:27 2013 No.3596819 >>3596800 Because trust is, by definition, exclusive.

Anonymous Tue Mar 26 06:16:27 2013 No.3596834

>>3594012
>>3594014
>>3594019

>i need the state to formally document my relationships

you marriage fags are worse than facebook morons who think relationship status being accurate is important

in fact, your fb status is probably more important than govt documents in the modern world

but it's all bullshit

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 06:20:27 2013 No.3596837 >>3596834 But... but... tax benefits.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 06:23:27 2013 No.3596840 >>3596837 But... but... alimony, divorce fees, the hassle of going through all the bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 06:24:27 2013 No.3596841 >>3596840 But... but... killing them and leaving the body in the woods so no divorce fees

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 06:30:27 2013 No.3596844 >>3591867 That's so 90s.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 06:54:27 2013 No.3596865 >>3591867 >>>/lgbt/

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 07:12:27 2013 No.3596873 >>3591875 Agreed!

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 07:17:27 2013 No.3596879 my thoughts? it's shit you're shit get off my board you niggerloving faggot

Anonymous Tue Mar 26 10:45:27 2013 No.3597178

I'm ok with a small subset of society practicing it, but i agree with anon that there would be serious social repercussions if it was practiced by all. A large number of sexually frustrated and alienated males is just not a recipe for a good society, even if you can sublimate their desires towards other goals, you would still end up with a highly unequal society

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 10:51:27 2013 No.3597189 >>3597178 >A large number of sexually frustrated and alienated males What are hookers?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 10:51:27 2013 No.3597190 Ever since I was a teen, I didn't get these binary relationships. I dream of a society where everyone can just go around nude, and its perfectly polite to ask a stranger to have sex on a bus or train or something.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 10:54:27 2013 No.3597193 >>3597189 Meat puppets? Victims of society? Poor wretches?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 10:54:27 2013 No.3597195 >>3597190 God invented AIDS for a reason, bro.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 10:56:27 2013 No.3597197 >>3597190 Sounds like you're ready for the commune.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 10:57:27 2013 No.3597198 >>3597193 Nope. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 10:57:27 2013 No.3597201 >>3597195 You act like I didn't think AIDS through too? You would have to get a sex license, which would show any STDs if you ever acquire them. People would flash their cards before sex.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 11:04:27 2013 No.3597211 >>3595637 Because they can only spawn one child from one male at a time and then they need to invest however many years into investing into that child so it doesn't die.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 11:06:27 2013 No.3597213 >>3597211 Or all children could just be sent to a child-raising facility where professional Mommies and Daddies will give tender loving care to these children without ceasing. No alcoholics or abusive parents would work at a facility like that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 11:07:27 2013 No.3597214 >>3596766 Humans are evolutionary single mate species - all the evidence points to it. Free and open polyamory would be disastrous to the long term society.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 11:07:27 2013 No.3597218 >>3597189 Degrading to both parties involved.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 11:08:27 2013 No.3597222 Why is there a thread on polyamory and one on criticism or denunciation of monogamy? Someone's pushing a stupid agenda.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 11:09:27 2013 No.3597224 >>3597222 >and one on criticism or denunciation of monogamy Where's that?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 11:20:27 2013 No.3597246 >>3597213 yeah, thats called a kibbutz, it worked really well in isreal.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 11:21:27 2013 No.3597249 its dildos

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 11:26:27 2013 No.3597257 >>3597218 Muh Christian ethics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 11:29:28 2013 No.3597264 Why is this thread here, but I get banned for disagreeing with recorded history? Fucking opinion police.

Anonymous Tue Mar 26 11:34:28 2013 No.3597273

Okay, I cave come into a rather large inheritance from my grandfather – enough to mean I don't ever have to work. I have found a decent website for Russian brides, and the prices are fairly reasonable. If I take them to India where polygamy is legal – obviously with a prenup so they can't take my money – can I marry them there then bring them back to America? Are foreign marriages recognised in America? I'm not greedy, I only want two or three Russian wives... Maybe a cheap Asian one too for cooking.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 11:36:27 2013 No.3597277 >>3597264 >>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 11:37:27 2013 No.3597279 >>3597264 Reported.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 11:38:27 2013 No.3597280 >>3597273 I can arrange a couple of Hungarians for massage and giggles' purposes. How much are you willing to pay?

Anonymous Tue Mar 26 11:44:27 2013 No.3597288

>>3597280
>How much are you willing to pa
Well i was really looking for brides, not escorts. The Russians I was looking at range from 10 - 25k, but that's with guaranteed marriage, and they are all under 25 and really attractive. The Asians start at 2k, so if the marriages are legally recognised it's probably best to stock up on Asians. The good thing is they can't apply for divorce without losing their visa's, so they stay wifed and part of my harem.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 11:49:27 2013 No.3597294 >>3597224 On the front page >>3596811

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 11:49:27 2013 No.3597295 >>3597273 No, spend it on an independent bookstore like you said you would in that other thread!

Anonymous Tue Mar 26 11:58:27 2013 No.3597311

>>3597288

I am speaking about brides as well. Problem with the Hungarians is that they're not so keen on kitchen work and their sandwiches are quite, well, lacking. Also, they're educated so they may want to work at some point. On the up side, they're great in bed and the visa issues shouldn't be too much of a hassle.

Price per bride is around 10k but shit's so cash.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 12:06:27 2013 No.3597326 File: 2.46 MB, 350x315, you will never have this chance.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >relationships

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 12:08:27 2013 No.3597336 >>3597326 all of my cringe

Anonymous Tue Mar 26 12:11:27 2013 No.3597341

Wouldn't a bought bride just ditch you at the first opportunity? Wouldn't you feel guilty about forcing her to have sex with you and simulate love with you? Wouldn't purchasing one entail associating yourself with human traffickers? Wouldn't it be a robbery set-up, nine times out of ten? Wouldn't there always remain a possibility that she'd smother or stab you as you slept?

It seems like the cons outweigh the pros, to me.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 12:33:42 2013 No.3597379 why is the person in OP's pic so familiar? does anyone know how that is?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 12:34:27 2013 No.3597382 >>3597379 the movie 'Ghost'

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 12:38:28 2013 No.3597393 File: 497 KB, 480x360, ghostdad.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3597382 'Ghost Dad'*

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 12:48:27 2013 No.3597411 >>3597382 Wow. Really? Well ok......thanks....I'm grateful but now I'm going to have to watch that stupid movie. Still, it was better than >>3597393 Ghost Dad

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 12:56:27 2013 No.3597428 File: 97 KB, 1024x630, ghost.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3597411 >Still, it was better than >>>3597393 >Ghost Dad

Anonymous Tue Mar 26 13:01:41 2013 No.3597438
File: 606 KB, 1600x1200, GeorgeandBride.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3597341
>Wouldn't a bought bride just ditch you at the first opportunity?
No. If she applies for divorce she forfeits her visa. Plus, a prenuptial agreement would ensure that she has no financial motive to do so.

>Wouldn't you feel guilty about forcing her to have sex with you and simulate love with you?
Simulate love? Nobody is forcing her to have sex. If she didn't want to marry a young, rich, and reasonably attractive American to escape her poverty, she wouldn't have gone to the agency. She thinks she's being bought by a fat old man, having me buy her will be a huge bonus for her.

>Wouldn't purchasing one entail associating yourself with human traffickers?
Maybe. But the concept of online brides is pretty mainstream now, especially old men buying 'Thai Brides'.

>Wouldn't it be a robbery set-up, nine times out of ten?
No. The girls go to the agency and choose to do this, then the agency charges the fee. It's not a guy driving around and snatching people off the streets, it's just commercialised online dating taken one step further.

>Wouldn't there always remain a possibility that she'd smother or stab you as you slept?
Why would she do that after choosing to enter into the agreement? She would lose her home, get no money, and be deported back to the situation she started in. I wouldn't chain her up. If she wanted to leave at any time she's free to do so.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 13:08:27 2013 No.3597456 File: 95 KB, 500x309, adjani.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3597379 >>3597382 >>3597393 >>3597411 >>3597428 wat? it's Isabelle Adjani in Possession...

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 13:10:33 2013 No.3597462 >>3597456 thank you! i knew she was familiar. ok, i feel better now. and yet, i feel unable to stop myself from watching "ghost" and it's sequel "ghost dad".

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 13:25:27 2013 No.3597488 >>3597438 >If she wanted to leave at any time she's free to do so. And that's £10k down the drain... I just get the impression that it wouldn't be a very pleasant relationship.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature