Open Relationships are satanic
I don't really post about these things here. And I am not trying to be preachy here. But it is somewhat, which is a bit of an understatement here, about the reflection of deteriorating societal values in the West. And the topic is: open marriages/relationships.
I am not going to bring in religion here as no religion will be OK with this type of arrangement. But this is more from a sociology perspective. Yes, everyone should have the freedom to practice their religious beliefs freely, but people cannot be let go wild, because that destroys the fabric on which the society and its morals are based. I didn’t even know there was a thing called “open relationships” until I joined Facebook back in 07, and there was an option to pick what kind of relationship were you in. I had genuinely thought that was a joke/troll option and these were the kind of things/relationships you only saw in porn movies.
Either way, promoting open relationships is in one way or the other trying to promote the acceptance of infidelity in society. Especially if the mainstream media also latches on to this and starts talking about its benefits. Media is run by a bunch of buffoons, whom I feel will do anything to prop up their ratings, so I won’t be surprised if this is something they find next to talk about on the air. Really the only benefit I see for these relationships is for sex-crazy folks (both male and female) who have commitment issues. But if you think critically, the only “winners” of such arrangements are men, whose supposed attractiveness increases with age, as wealth comes usually with age.
Men have the wherewithal and societal approval to date and marry women 20-30 years younger than them, whereas as a woman, you just don’t or will find it very hard (some might, but again, we’re talking generally here). So, all this is to ask is how women benefit from promoting open relationships is beyond me. As a woman, if you’ve reached a certain point in your 30s, and still haven’t settled, chances are you are going to be perceived as a bit of a damaged good by society.
Some super-duper ultra-feminists like to rail against the concept of marriage. More power to them, but to me, I always get the impression that their lives are more void of male companionship (or something went wrong for them in a prior life) that they took up the mantles against marriage. It’s not really that different from a black man (since we’re talking stereotypes here) robbing you and you claiming that all black folks are robbers.
Many of my sister’s friends would tell her that they don’t plan on ever getting married or want to have kids, I honestly find that sad for them for a couple of reasons: 1) they are in a minority camp with their view, and as they age, their loneliness will only increase. Unless you make the wrong decision in terms of your life partner, your post-marriage life should be better than your pre-marriage; and 2) your motivation to do well in your life will only be YOU (some might thrive under this), but I think your grit level and your incentives are significantly stronger when you feel you are striving for your family, and not just yourself. Yes, some smart-ass may come here, and say I am going to be striving for my dog and cat, but your pets even though might be family will not be able to connect on a human level, which is intangible in itself.
Pets can never replace the feeling of having children even if they might give you unconditional love. They have shorter lives than humans, so unless you are mentally prepared for a heartbreak every 10/12 years (as that’s the average life of a dog or a cat), you are better off having some children too. Jokes aside, picture yourself in your 50s, alone, never married, working a regular 9 to 5 job (so you’re financially stable in theory), and relaxing by watching a movie with your pets in your lounge. Some emotional scene comes up which makes you want to cry. You want a hug. You try calling your best friends from high school, or college, but they are all busy with their children/grandchildren and don’t have the bandwidth to help you address your issues at the level you would like. They’re fed up now with your constant B/S. You hug your pet instead, but they want to be fed and then go running away in the distance doing their own thing. Now, this is on repeat for the rest of your life. Doesn’t sound like a nice deal to me.
TLDR: Open relationships suck. Women lose out more than men. The media should not be promoting this crap. Question: how many of your parents are in open relationships and what impact did it have on you growing up? How did you feel about your mom getting banged by a random dude every few days?
I think you have it backwards brother. Men lose big time in open relationships, unless they are in the top 1% income levels. Have any of your moderately attractive girl friends showed you their tinder account? Literally thousands of matches and DMs, with hundreds willing to spend their money on them without even getting laid
Can't comment on who loses in the short-term, but long-term, it is women.
No, I don't request Tinder notes. But two things: 1) personally, haven't done that, but I don't think it's hard to stitch up your profile pictures (photo-shopped big time), in fact I have heard of one person doing it, he was dating some Russian girl; and 2) Lot of random matches over the years (read Gold diggers) on apps like: League; Hinge; Bumble; Tinder; Coffee Meets Bagel. I have only "positively" interacted with those, whom I knew someone in common.
A lot of my "moderately-attractive" women friends have gone on Tinder dates, but those didn't work out.
Yep lol in the past the average shmuck could be the bread winner and get a wife. These days women make their own money, so they basically have no chance
Not to mention they both have half the earning power since the size of the labor force doubled.
Let me add a data point from my analyst years. This was one of the most fucked up things I have heard.
A fellow analyst was 4/5 years older than me and once when we were grabbing drinks told me that he enjoyed seeing his girlfriend get laid by other people. It made for a "healthy" relationship in his opinion. He was not joking. The guy was good-looking, so it was not as if he wouldn't have had options. I dunno. That's super messed up. Maybe he starts his adult movie business in a year or two with his wife as the lead actress there
Genuine Q, so to clarify the assumption here is that women who don't want to marry and/or have kids are the ones who want open relationships? I think the two camps are separate. The bulk of the argument here appears to be against women not wanting husbands or not wanting kids, rather than against women being in relationships (marriages or otherwise) in which they accept that they and their partners will have additional sexual partners.
I also IMO think that a number of women only accept open relationships at the urging of their partners because they feel it'd be the only way to keep their partner/husband with them. Obviously some women instigate them but I think so, significantly, do men.
To each his own but no woman should or would ever want to marry someone who believes in an open relationship. Such a man cannot be trusted
lol if you think men win if open relationships become common. Sure, a few guys can date much younger as they age. That involves them being fit, attractive, interesting, and wealthy into their 40s and beyond. Only 1-5% of guys fit this criteria.
Women can sleep around far easier than men. An open relationship would almost always put the male at disadvantage
Either way, nobody responded to how did they feel seeing their mommy get banged by some random dudes every few days
I mean if the relationship is open then their father is banging random women every few days too.
Watching my parents bang was not a big part of my childhood, sounds like it was for you? All good, maybe we were raised with different values
This forum's obsession with what others do with their personal lives is something I will never understand. Why tf would open relationships, something that only a fraction of the population practice, be a problem for anyone not directly involved, let alone society as a whole? Ffs
Yes, society has evolved like it always has. Just learn to adapt and live in it. It's not that difficult, really.
It's a problem because it corrupts societal values, and it should be a crime.
Which values? And who decides they are the core values? You?
You are essentially arguing for a universal ethic, and then a legal system based on said ethics. That's absolutely absurd haha and is like a 5th grade level of understanding of ethics. To Bruvver's point, you just mention "societal values" but what you are actual referring to is a specific value system from a subset of the American (I'm assuming?) population at this point in time, hardly a universal ethic. Believe it or not, there isn't even a set ethical system universal to America, or even across time in America, it is something that is constantly evolving and is the subject of one of the major branches of philosophy.
To the legal part, that something should be criminalized because it violates your ethics, that's an extremely naive understanding not only of ethics, but also of legal theory. As a very basic example, a simple violation of a universal ethic (a Kantian ethic, to be specific) is that you should not lie to people (at it violates the categorical imperative), and under your thought process, if you adopted that ethic, lying should be illegal. Lying is currently illegal in some instances in America, for example slander or fraud, but the First Amendment broadly protects most lies, and for good reason because something strictly being a lie isn't necessarily a bad thing. People accidentally misstate things, little white lies reduce friction in our relationships, bold predictions and promises can move innovation and business forward. Taking any ethic to a legally logical extreme is a terrible idea and one that ignores some of the underlying logic of legal theory to begin with (aka the idea that Natural Law provides limits to legislative laws).
These are the same sort of people that even 30 years ago had major issues with homosexuality.
Slight correction, they are the people who still have problem with gay people purely existing today.
True
Here’s what I don’t understand.
What’s the big fucking deal?
I’m a pretty well-travelled guy. Met countless people from countless cultures, including all western ones. Never in my life have I met a single person who has been in an open relationship. I’m not even that old so it’s not like all my friends are boomers with a wife and kids.
Seriously, why do people care so much? Everyone I have met is either single, or in a committed (read: monogamous) relationship.
OP, you’re acting like a statistically significant % of the population do this shit.
Sure, I support your argument to some extent and agree that open relationships are inherently flawed. But, just because I agree with a viewpoint doesn’t mean I actually care.
At the end of the day, if someone/a couple wants to be in an open relationship, and it works for them, more power to them. It’s their life and frankly none of my business what they get up to.
lol mental illnesses and being on medication is basically normal now for women in their 20s and 30s
it's a fucking joke
Men as well man. I know 3 people who have gone on them in the last month alone.
People are too quick to jump on medication nowadays to cure mental health. Anti-depressants don't even cure shit. Without therapy and the necessary help, you're right back to square one. What're you going to do then, when the problems relapse... take medication forever and deal with their dreadful side effects? Fuck that.
I understand most people cannot afford a $100/hr therapist, especially without parental support; and that resources for public services are tight at the moment. But, fuck me, people have become soft and don't want to face their problems.
Caveat: I know this comes across as bigheaded and possibly naive, but believe me I know what I'm on about. Have suffered from a swathe of anxiety issues and clinical depression over the past two years. I know what it's like. But I know from my own experience that medication is the easy way out, and ultimately you cannot escape yourself if you don't face yourself.
Not sure why you got hit with monkey shit. Most women in their 20s are on antidepressants these days. Finding one who isn’t is a challenge
She’s fucking stupid, sorry on behalf of a Cornell girl.
The risk-reward of getting intimate with someone on Tinder, whom you have nobody in common with, is negative. I have only gotten intimate with one person, but I knew someone in common with her. The rest are better to be avoided, but I went on those dates to ensure I could still maintain my ability to talk to girls even if I had no sexual interest in them, but they probably felt otherwise.
Most of these apps cater to the woke feminists. If you’re conservative it’s better to meet girls the old fashioned way.
You did the right thing there, what a garbage person
Damn, here I was thinking we were gonna talk about actual satanism and Isaiah_53_5 💎🙌💎🙌💎 and I were gonna disseminate some dank ancient Catholic knowledge.
Open relationships allow men at the top to have many more partners and men underneath to have none which really harms society, because you have a bunch of sexless men, and that has negative consequences (i.e., violence). You see on dating apps that women are much more selective than men, so you'll the top 80% is swiping on the top 20% or even 10% of men.
[edit: pulled the youtube clip]
This is the exact opposite of a "decent reference".
Also... is the argument you're making that women should be forced to have sex with men, or at least make themselves as available as possible for intercourse, so they don't go gunning people down in the streets or committing other acts of violence/terrorism? I feel pretty strongly that that is about as immoral a position as you're likely to find.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that if everyone is seeking the best sexual partners irrespective of exclusivity and women are picking more towards the top than men, you'll have a less stable society because 10-20% of men will be in relationships with most women and then a large number of men have no partners whereas they otherwise would have in a society where monogamy was nearly universal.
It appears you need to read about history, because every single successful, civilized society through all of time has had a system of enforced monogamy in order to reduce violence and increase stability. The Romans and Greeks called the Celtic and Germanic peoples barbarians for a reason. Barbarianism is returning, resulting in the fall of Rome.
Agree with everything you're saying here. Haven't slept in weeks and my work product is suffering because I've been obsessed with open relationships deteriorating the western world. 32k words into my pre-crime manifesto and hoping to publish end of Q'2.
Edit: Please stay away from the sororities
I didn't have a sorority at my college and I didn't miss out. These seem more like circle jerk clubs to me.
I swear off topic posts get weirder by the day.
This guys always posts some weird shit😂
I read the mainstream media regularly, and have not once seen it argue in favor of open relationships? I don't think I've seen it take any stance on any type of relationship for that matter.
Taylor Lorenz should thank you for finding her next article.
WSO has gone full blown 4chan dark thread now. I will not be surprised in the slightest when in a few years the overzealous incel who made this post gets arrested for some terrorist level activity. Who devotes this much energy to make a post about the moral corruption surrounding open relationships? Turn off your computer and go for a fucking jog or something, you basement dwelling psychopath.
any social site that doesnt have censorship will become right wing
Because the right wing is composed of trolls and conspiracy theorists who won't debate in good faith, or who deny basic fact and truth, and thus drown out all other voices looking for constructive discussion?
Yep, I agree.
It's pretty obvious that the next Elliott Rogers will be some dweeb from WSO.
You got that right, kiddo. Ive been dwelling in your basement spying on your family but I am only smelling shit that your existence and your family reeks off . :)
can you go back to not posting about things here? Who gives a shit what other people do in their personal lives as long as they are happy.
The destruction of social values destroyed the Western Roman Empire and put Europe into the Dark Ages for centuries. The lack of strong social values have dire consequences for any civilization. You can also read about the Weimar Republic. You are simply ignorant of history.
Holy shit, you may have the most accurate username on this site.
Sounds good. I'll post nude pictures of your mom and sister then. :(. That should get the forum going.
I mean I agree 100 percent and think its very damaging mentally but its there relationship so I do not care nor should I stop it from happening. Maybe criticize it but its there life not my place to stop it
But don't those women belong to those men? How dare they sleep around?! I'm surprised at this reversal, I thought you were in the camp that defines women mostly as accessories to their man...
Never once said that always happy to clarify for people who like to misinterpret things.
Warren Buffett made one work for whatever that is worth.
His relationship was polygamous but not open. Open relationships do not have a fixed number of significant others, and there is also no requirement to inform the other significant other about separate spouses (hence the term open). In the case of Buffet his wife knew who the side girl specifically was and it was capped at this woman.
Warren buffet might be an investor to look up to in your professional life, but I don't know his Personal life, and if that's the case as you mention, I wouldn't model my own life after his
People wonder why we keep electing 80 year old dudes who barely can walk. Who have no idea how to manage inflation, budgets and foreign policy. Cause the people who really care about "societal norms" will do everything in their power to protect them.
If I were to argue against open relationships I would probably discuss correlations between family structure and the success of children in two parent homes. You could have also spoken about the birth rate and made the argument that a society more attune to open relationships may become more self absorbing and less forgoing to the sacrifices involved in having children. Lastly, I'd probably tie it all up in a philosophical argument that families bound in marriage with home ownership are what build and create successful communities. Your argument was weak and very opinionated.
I usually prefer exclusive relationships; however, I was dating a girl last year and we agreed on an open relationship just because of different long term goals.
One night she was hell bent on seeing my Tinder and after I let her see it, she demanded we be in an exclusive relationship immediately. So that was the end of the open relationship. Then I broke up with her in December. We still go to the same Muay Thai gym.
Y’all need to get laid fr
Polygamy has always led to greater population growth (more manpower, economic growth, soft power), but it must be accompanied by encouraging spousal rape and taking away women's rights.
Polygamy by itself it quite degenerate even for me and I'm atheist.
1) the title is absolutely correct. satanism = hedonism. satanism preaches living to experience pleasure rather than worship some made-up deity. open relationships are done for the sake of hedonism. neither satanism not open relationships are bad, I'd argue they are both good.
2) open relationships are good with somebody who you date casually and don't plan to marry. open relationships with a wife, especially if you have kids, are kinda disrespectful towards yourself in my opinion, but I understand that I am a lesser human being for having my emotions dominate my rational thinking on that topic. rationally, you should understand that you don't really own anything in life. life is just an experience, you come here by mere chance, people come and leave your life, and then you disappear - it doesn't matter if you owned your house or rented it, it doesn't matter if you married or just dated your partner, at the end of the day any ownership will disappear with your life. you might as well just use different properties, sleep with different people, try everything, travel, see and experience as much as you can.
3) as a guy, open relationships are only good if you are good-looking, know how to approach women and feel comfortable doing it, have a lot of time, have a lot of money - i.e. they are only good for a small fraction of men at a particular time in their life (probably 30s and later, when you made enough money and have enough time and feel confident and not anxious).
1. Yes, the title satanic was metaphorical in nature. It, as you surmised, suggests a hedonistic way of life, so I agree with you there. But I disagree both are good. I am not here to change your outlook on how you want to live your life.
2. How does one define rational thinking? Your concept of rational thinking seems to imply that life and this journey is transient, which it is, so better max out on everything, including sex and experiences. I find yours to be a narrow, self-centered way of looking at things. My definition of rational thinking is governed by what the society, and more importantly, religion perceives as normal. When I think of rational thinking, I consider whether most folks' morals (regardless of their religious affiliation) would permit that, and if that is something that society would deem acceptable.
Also, you're also lumping unrelated things together. Traveling, having a ton of culinary experiences with your wife/partner is very different from having polygamous relationships...You should think more about why that is the case. The first two have no negative societal impact, and would be perceived as rational, while the last, irrational. If I was also to extrapolate your logic further, I feel you'd argue that one should never donate any money to charity / needy/homeless, because it is important to look after your own interests. You might consider that rational, it's irrational to me.
Amsterdam used to have that red light area, which I never visited, but I heard they are closing down. That to me is an example of "negative externality" and irrational decision-making by the relevant authorities. But I am not trying to police everyone.
3. You sound very young when you say that looks matter for guys. There are literally match-making agencies in major hubs (NY/London), who hook up models barely in their 20s with ugly AF "sugar-daddies". And the sugar daddy is a broad term, you can be a shit-ass, ugly AF, bald, fat VP in investment banking, and they'll take you on as a client. Money plays a role, but you're BETTER OFF avoiding such women, who are into you for money. It's actually very easy to spot them, you just need to spend 10/15 minutes talking to them. If you marry or date one, you're setting yourself up for disaster.
Did you just say your "definition of rational thinking is governed by what religion perceives as normal"? Basically you tied religion with critical/rational thinking? Which religion btw, out of curiosity?
2. rational = governed by logic. the way you define rational, which is governed by religion, is actually more like the opposite of rational. religion is based on beliefs, not logic, and majority of these beliefs are actually irrational (e.g. all animals from all over the world marched to Noah's ark in pairs to continue their bloodlines after Armageddon lol). religion is just a tool to rule you when physical strength and policing is not enough. police is not always there when a crime could happen (say, rape or robbery), which is why an imaginary deity is created that sees you all the time and with punish you with eternal suffering after life. religion is most wide spread in poor countries where people barely have anything to be content with their lives. in such case you need additional governance tool to keep peasants from killing rich people and taking their possessions by force. I don't think you should be listening to Pope on topics of open relationships, just think with your head. and yeah, charity is only rational when you deduce pleasure from feeling like a good person for donating money. if $100 donation is not worth the pat on the back you get from it, it's irrational. it doesn't mean it's bad btw. things can be irrational and good.
3. you can compensate for bad looks with a certain amount of money to get certain girls, but it has to be mad money (which probably neither you nor I will ever see in life) and it will get you only a small fraction of girls (rational girls) who will btw treat you like an ATM and it will be difficult to enjoy such arrangement.
Interesting take Kevin25 While I do agree life is nothing but experiences, I'm going to oppose your argument and take the stance that it does matter what you do in this experience called life. Preservation of an organized functioning society is the result of individual behavior. If every individual were to become completely hedonistic and make decisions based on their own pleasures, how could society function? Is the opposite of hedonism (self discipline, self control, living for something above yourself) better for an organizing society or not? And since there's a lot of talk of what is best for women, a hedonistic society is most definitely not good for the "weak" - women or children. One of the primary reasons for an organized society that operates in the opposition of hedonism is to protect the vulnerable. Let me know what you think and I'll get back to this later on*Edit: to bring this back to business in general, one of the philosophical arguments that has come up in the past in the discussion of death / inheritance taxes on estates of those who have passed, is that the more of a tax you impose, the more economically destructive the behavior of those with large estates become before their death. Let's say the state is to take 100% of all assets upon death of owner. What is the motivation for keeping that business operating when it's all going to go to the government? Let's say they don't take "real assets" or ownership of business but all liquid cash. Why not just spend all your money "hedonistically" on whatever your last desires are on Earth? Now that's an extreme example of the death tax but it has come up in economic policy decisions, most recently in the days of Milton Friedman advising policy. And as of today, there is some form of death tax federally and in certain states but it is no where near the side of the majority in terms of the state gaining. . . thankfully.
I'd say society could function under hedonism. not sure if it would be a better society or worse, but I think it could sustain. for example, I'm purely governed by hedonism. I don't feel like I have a duty to better society, or continue bloodline, or contribute anything to society or anybody. however, I've been working hard all my life and contributing a lot to society and not breaking any laws because I want to make money to enjoy my life. so, as long as society has strong economy and law enforcement, I think it can function alright if the sole purpose of everybody is pleasure. also, a lot of people derive pleasure from raising kids, so there still will be people having kids and even large families, so the society won't go extinct or anything. also what do you expect to happen to the weak, i.e. women and children in hedonistic society?
so what's bad about a person spending all their money before they die? I'd argue it's better to stimulate businesses directly than give the money to government who'll just put it into pockets of people who got them elected.
If a key can open many locks, that’s a great key. If a lock can be opened by many keys, well that’s a bad lock.
Omnis incidunt et ad est unde. Et harum voluptatem a quae ut vitae quia sint. Consequatur ad neque voluptas maiores omnis occaecati.
Eum ipsum quia aut eligendi consequuntur repudiandae. Excepturi eaque tenetur fugiat. Rerum et molestias velit beatae nulla distinctio in quis. Quisquam necessitatibus voluptas non cumque distinctio ea.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Assumenda vel quos quo sed expedita ex ratione. Asperiores ipsa perspiciatis accusantium rerum quos. Nemo velit dignissimos sapiente et ipsum numquam eum. Aut sapiente iusto perspiciatis. Atque et qui quo non animi expedita.
Rem nesciunt voluptates qui similique et. At numquam qui similique et placeat. Repudiandae dolores ut blanditiis ipsa molestiae. Mollitia quas non corporis ipsam eum vel. Sit dolore soluta reprehenderit ullam debitis accusantium nisi. Officiis et qui soluta magnam sit ea.
Omnis molestiae perspiciatis pariatur et quia ipsum commodi. Et quibusdam eum et dicta. Earum perferendis nesciunt laudantium sapiente.
Et ex enim necessitatibus soluta. Ut ut quae voluptatem rerum ullam. Quia porro omnis officiis amet nisi. In voluptas dolorum autem nostrum. Quod sit qui asperiores dolore doloremque et et.
Earum ipsa molestias cum labore et molestias. Ut eveniet deleniti iusto enim quam impedit autem. Atque quisquam veritatis omnis ut eos. Rerum eveniet officiis assumenda impedit.
Modi vel qui accusantium velit tenetur. Ipsum quas est veniam nulla. Nulla voluptas ad maxime enim rem at quia. Architecto facilis quisquam ipsam consequuntur dolores porro. Eum harum porro sit quos.
In quas corporis perspiciatis consectetur voluptatem. Doloribus itaque tenetur perspiciatis voluptates non magni dolorem. Consectetur velit corporis aut natus.
Vel autem repellendus tempora perferendis excepturi aliquid porro. Exercitationem officia nemo velit debitis aut. Beatae alias ut quis tempore.