[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.36 MB, 1970x2725, Percy_Bysshe_Shelley_by_Alfred_Clint_crop.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4242080 No.4242080[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Why don't you practice free love /lit/?

Reinforcing social boundaries and your ego only works to maximize pain.

>> No.4242103

nobody pays for my love

>> No.4242164

>>4242080
what do you mean free love

>> No.4242181

because hygienic sex toys are expensive

>> No.4242184

Nobodies buying anyway.

>> No.4242189

>>4242080
A: Sexually transmitted infections.

>> No.4242217

It's easy for me, as a guy, to advocate free love, because I'm genetically programmed to reproduce with as many women as possible.
On top of this, there are simply some people who I don't want to bang because I don't find them attractive.
I agree with the concept, though, definitely, but I've yet to find a woman who shares my sensibilities.

>> No.4242230
File: 56 KB, 500x500, frolic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4242230

>>4242080
Loving is like burning ants with your magnifying glass. The greater you make the burning point, the less hot is is.

I prefer to burn one bitch to the ground instead of a sort of lukewarm turd holding contest of multitude.

>> No.4242238

>>4242217
>because I'm genetically programmed to reproduce with as many women as possible.
You're also genetically programmed to kill motherfuckers that try to get with your women.

>> No.4242257

>>4242238
Yes, well, I'm also programmed to get angry if someone rips a game controller from my hand. Easily solvable with a second controller and not befriending douchebags.

>> No.4242270

i dont even like being friends with people

>> No.4242279

>>4242257
Doesn't work that way with women. At least I know plenty of guys who like to fuck around, but none who like their woman doing so. Not even if they have multiple women.

>> No.4242302

>>4242279
I know several men and women who don't mind casual sex. It's largely ideological rather than genetic at this point. The anger isn't really a result of another person sleeping with their partner, but rather the deception involved. If it is mutually agreed upon, then all the participants aren't angry because they feel as if they weren't shorted out on a deal.

>> No.4242320

>>4242279
That's ego getting in the way, They assume they're not good enough and beating the shit out of the other guy is a good idea.

>> No.4242332

>>4242320
If I get mad at someone for drinking by beer, would that be insecurity as well? If I was comfortable with myself I wouldn't mind people wearing my clothes and shitting all over my house, right? May as well bend over myself lest I seem to have an inferiority complex.

>> No.4242334

I kind of do actually.

>> No.4242358

>>4242332
Your confusion arises from assuming women are possessions, not autonomous beings. It's a common mistake.

>> No.4242375

>>4242358
possession and autonomous being aren't mutually exclusive. it's a common mistake

>> No.4242394

>>4242375

Heteronomy means actions influenced by external inputs

Autonomy means actions only caused internally

Please tell me how you would even qualify possession of a person that doesn't restrict their autonomy and instead causes heteronomy.

>> No.4242403

>>4242080
Because the community must decide my fate. If I do, if ever, if do get out and claim a country of my own, or by some primordial instinct go somewhere where no one has, why not? Fuck anything that moves just don't give yourself syphilis or VD.

I'm kidding, I'd only fuck men.

>> No.4242406

>>4242080
Because I'm not a bourgeoisie

>> No.4242407

the funny thing is that Mary Shelley never took another lover besides Percy, even after he died.

>> No.4242427

Because I don't want to raise someone else's children?

>> No.4242435

>>4242394
dogs are autonomous beings as well but we can still possess them, we can't legally possess people in any grand way outside of parenthood but we can ofc consider them our possessions and if they enter into the cultural sexual institution they will be our possession, the whole point of agreeing to enter into a non-open relationship is mutual oppression in the form of exclusive possession of their sexual activities for mutual perceived gain, and upon entering into the institution the other becomes MINE and MINE ALONE i.e. i dont want cocks in MY woman she doesn't want my cocks in others and we aren't allowed to have cocks anywhere besides mine in her or the institution will crumble and the other is no longer possessed

>> No.4242444

>>4242302
This pretty much sums up what I would have posted in this thread.

>> No.4242477

>>4242407
Engels was pretty down for free love too but for him, his idea of love was exclusive. I don't really care for exclusivity at this point in my life and I'd actually love to have a few women I am close with emotionally and physically as opposed to just one I would completely lose myself in.

>> No.4242484

>>4242394
It almost seems like you're assuming that restricting their autonomy is a bad thing for the person doing so.

>> No.4242485

>>4242435

Dogs are not autonomous beings, they lack self-consciousness, which means they are a slave to their passions, which means they lack the free will we typically attribute to ourselves.

If you're relationships are based on mutual oppression I feel sorry for you, or more specifically, the people you're in a relationship with.

Try again.

>> No.4242489

>>4242485

*your

derp

>> No.4242556

>>4242485
you have no reason to believe that dogs aren't autonomous and you also have no reason to believe that we are autonomous. you also have no grounds to claim that dogs dont attribute autonomy to themselves. try again plz

>> No.4242565

>>4242556
Shut the fuck up, troll, adults are talking. Conversations about the evolution of human sexuality are no place for babbies.

>> No.4242585

>>4242565

>>4242556
dammmn, nigga. you just got told.

>> No.4242592

>>4242556

Dogs never perform actions that run contrary to their natural desires. We do. Try again.

>> No.4242603

Because I'm not a woman and I don't immediately see "HAVE SEX WOOOOOOO DO DRUGS I CAN DO WHATEVA I WANT I CAN GO TOPLESS IN PUBLIC GIVE ME MONEY WOOOOOOOO" when I think of individualism and self-determination.

>> No.4242601

Oh, you're both assholes.

Free love isn't bad, monogamy isn't bad. Practice whatever you feel like and grow up.

>> No.4242602
File: 145 KB, 500x280, gil laugh.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4242602

>>4242080
>not having an ego strong enough to remain uncorrupted by all the world's evils

sasuga /lit/-kun

>> No.4242645

>>4242603
>2013
>seeing the right to have sex without being judged as equivalent to rampant hedonism and drug-fueled idiocy

I thought I told the fucking babbies to get out of the thread while adults are talking.

>> No.4242653

>>4242603
bitter, socially awkward virgin detected

>> No.4242655

>>4242603
Do you think of living in your mother's basement and being a parasite as individualism and self-determination?

>> No.4242659

>>4242602
>Not being strong enough to not have an ego.
Slave.

>> No.4242664

Almost nobody I know who was into "open relationships" and "free love" is still into it. Not saying that means anything, but it doesn't seem like a sustainable lifestyle.

>> No.4242666

>>4242655
>>4242659

OHHHH SHIT GONNA NEED TWO BAG OF FROZEN PEAS FOR ALL THAT BURN

>> No.4242684

>>4242664
That's due to societal expectations, though, not any inherent positive or negative moral connotation of open relationships.

>> No.4242689

>>4242655
he already said he's not a woman

>> No.4242701

>>4242080
nigger i don't practice love in the first place

>> No.4242707

I just entered into a friends with benefits kind of thing, she has at least three guys like me. She likes to prance around town with me in her arms, playing boy and girlfriend. I don't really mind much but I'm concerned of the time that we'll meet one of "her other guys".

>> No.4242885

>loving at all

purest form of id, baby

>> No.4243331

>>4242485
>the free will

more like free keks amirite?

>> No.4243343

>>4242080

I do.

>>4242885

What's wrong with the id? Embrace it. Adam and Eve were bound to eat the apple and were right to do so.

>> No.4243377

>>4242707
>not making her fall in love with you, plead monogamy and then slowly making her distant herself from her friends and parents until she has no one but you

Beta as fuck.

>> No.4243379

>implying hedonism is the utility function.

>> No.4243387

>>4243377
>she leaves you because you're a clingy loser
>you're all alone
beta indeed

>> No.4243402

>>4243387
>isn't a master of manipulation
>is a chili pimp with one ho nostable

looky who rappin

>> No.4243467

A. If two people are dating but not in a relationship, then Free Love Applies
B. If two people are in a relationship, and mutually agree to not become exclusive, then Free Love Applies
C. If two people are in a relationship, and one desires to not be exclusive and the other does not, then Free Love only partially applies (because they can still fuck outside of marriage) and they need to either work out this issue or stop dating.
D. If two people are in a relationship, and the only way one will let the other sleep with other people is if they are there as well (a la menage et trois), then Free Love only partially applies (fucking outside of marriage/committed relationship).

Personally, I am not interested in any woman who I am not in an exclusive relationship with, and I have developed psychological blocks against women who I am not also romantically engaged with.This is actually a little worrying: I can't feel blowjobs from someone who I'm not in a serious relationship with.

I think that the Free Love movement is actually part of the reason that divorce rates are 50%. As far as I can tell, advancing in a sexual relationship further than your romantic attachment actually hinders the romantic progress, so people cap when they shouldn't cap, and think they Love someone who they just like sex with. Basically, don't have sex early if you're serious about a person. If you're not, dicks everywhere.

In conclusion, I do not practice Free Love because I'm not interested in sexual encounters with someone I don't want to be romantically involved with, and indeed I can't.

>> No.4243474

>>4242080
Because there is no free love as women will always discriminate in their choice of partners. The most humans can muster are harems.

>> No.4243596

Because I'm jealous as shit. It's all fine and dandy to want to go fuck the 18 year old who stares at me in class, but I'd never be able to deal with my girlfriend getting eiffel towered. Because I don't find both palatable, I support neither.

>> No.4243611

>>4243467
>I think the free love movement is part of the reason divorce rates are 50%

But there is no free love movement.

>> No.4243624

>>4243467
>I think that the Free Love movement is actually part of the reason that divorce rates are 50%.
Nah, you can thank selfishness and the consumer lifestyle for that.

>> No.4243688

>>4243596
I feel you. Jealousy is a terrible thing, and the worst thing is that even if I try and ignore it, it just makes me emotionally cold and rejecting.

Any literature on the topic?

>> No.4243745

>>4243624
You can thank the corruption of the institute of marriage by notions of romantic love, actually.

>> No.4243764

>>4243688
Of Human Bondage by Maugham has some really great insights on the slavishness of love.

>> No.4243822
File: 41 KB, 375x375, shiggy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4243822

>>4242217
>2013
>actually thinking this

>> No.4243908

>>4242080
The only person that ever actually said the words "free love" to me was a homeless junkie girl who I am pretty sure was coming on to me

>> No.4243926

>>4243745
yeah romantic feelings are just social constructs that the proles made up

I like your tinhat sister, where do I sign up to your blog?

>> No.4243942

>>4243926
no capitalists did and they brainwashed you pretty good

>> No.4243945

Men
>discover liberal philosophy
>use it to experiment with political systems that value meritocracy, Bildung, and uncoerced human agency

Women
>have liberal philosophy served up to them by the men who discover it
>so.. so I can use my sexual capital to get money??

>> No.4243986

>>4243942
I, too, watch Mad Men

>> No.4243994

>>4243926
I didn't say that, silly. I'm saying that it's pairing to the institute of marriage is problematic, not romantic love itself.

>> No.4243999

>>4243945
Patrice made a joke about that
>what can you girls do for me without having me use your pussy
>teehee uhhh my mouth, ass-
>See! First chance I give you to speak your mind and try other options, you immediately offer up OTHER holes!