His argument falls apart because not everyone from those cultures fails to assimilate. Most western countries are melting pots where everyone adds the better parts of their background and discard the rest.

And only western, read: White European countries, are melting pots for all shades of browns. This pretense that white people deserve no place for their own people is so strong that in 2010 Eric Besson, the minister for immigration and national identity said: «la France n’est ni un peuple, ni une langue, ni un territoire, ni une religion, c’est un conglomérat de peuples qui veulent vivre ensemble. Il n’y a pas de Français de souche, il n’y a qu’une France de métissage.»

"France is neither a people, nor a language, nor a territory, nor a religion, it’s a conglomerate of peoples who want to live together. There are no indigenous French, there is only a France made out of miscegenation."

Because Joan de arc was some arab, oriental, berber or african.

Quote from: Cadenza on December 12, 2015, 11:44:08 PM

You can't blame a culture for promoting having children as that is required to stop the culture from going extinct.

I can when such a thing is no longer necessary.

Unless you're hiding an mortality potion and the means to mass produce it then what you said is completely false, a culture cannot survive without reproducing.

Quote

Why is casual sex good? Isn't it by definition of a lower standard than non-casual sex?

Why is it bad? Why is it of a "lower standard"? Just because it's not for some people doesn't mean that society should look down upon it.

You still haven't answered why it's a good thing. And what I was trying to say was that you don't call this kind of sex "sex" but "casual sex", the prefix changes the meaning and I don't see how it implies the sex is good, but I can see how it implies it's of a lower quality/standard than normal sex.

Quote

Why is group sex good and worth promoting?

Uh, because it's fun and causes no harm? Don't go fuckin' Verby on me, here.

You're the one saying reproduction isn't necessary, that's verb's line. You should already know that something being fun is not a justification for it because anything can be fun. And you haven't explained at all how it isn't harmful, both to the individual and society.

Quote

Speaking as a man I find the idea of having sex with a woman that has fucked other men, especially large amounts of other men to be disgusting, so I have to ask why you approve of this behavior; do you find it attractive? do you think society benefits from it?

Why do you find that idea disgusting? Not that I'm saying you HAVE to find it attractive or you're some kind of bigot, but you should probably look at the reasons why. Would you feel disgusting hanging out with a man who's been with a lot of women? This sort of thing - female sexual activity being equated as a negative while the opposite is true for men - is exactly the type of thing that I'm talking about hating.

I specifically said "having sex with a woman that has fucked other men" I will never fuck a man so there's no inherent disgust, but If the guy's fucked more than a few then I have to wonder what he's doing with his life and/or if he has some reason for not being in a stable relationship. I may hold men and women to different standards but don't mistake that for me not holding either group to any standard.

As for my disgust, first off sticking my dick where another man, or multiple men, have stuck theirs (and might have came in as well) is fucking disgusting and a health risk. Then I have to wonder why the women allowed it to happen: is she easy? is she bad at choosing men? does she have some serious baggage to her? does she just like to fuck whoever, and so i wont even be with her for long? You see I'm a man that's only interested in a woman if I can see myself marrying her and starting a family, and there is not a single answer to "why has she fucked so many men" that could possibly make me attracted to her or value her more.

Quote

Also i'm not sure what you're talking about with sexuality being worse than violence

The TV show Hannibal features a scene commonly referred to as "angels", wherein he has strung up two individuals in a very sadistic position with their backs torn open and hung so that they protrude from their backs like the wings of an angel, as shown below.

Spoiler

Both of the figures in the scene are entirely nude, and when seen from the front, viewers were able to see the female corpse's nipples. The censors wouldn't allow that, saying that it was "too mature", and so the fix was to slit the corpse of the female's throat and have the blood flowing over her breasts, as seen below.

Spoiler

That is what I mean by sexuality being worse than violence.

you should've made it clear you were talking about Hollywood. Fuck Hollywood.

Quote

And as for polyamory, are you a cuckold?

Lmao, how the fuck do those even relate at all?

"Oh, you're gay. You into BDSM, then?"

"Hey I'm in an open relationship, anyone want to fuck my girlfriend for me?"
That's what a cuckold is, that's what your advocating for.

We? I'm not Chinese, Indian, African, South East Asian, or Middle Eastern; and I don't live in any of those countries/regions. They are the ones with an overpopulation problem not me, not my New Zealand, and not my British Isles.

Yeah, but I'm just talking about humanity in general. Again, there's nothing wrong with having kids, but it should be left up to personal choice. The societal and familial pressure to have children is something that I find very silly because it's not a necessity anymore.

It's just it came across as doublethink to be supporting an idea while calling it a name that demeans it. I understand the use of specifics but the fact that they're needed is throwing me off.

I wouldn't say that it demeans it, though - just clarifies further on the specifics. The same way you might just call someone a "person" but then refer to them as a "black man" or "asian woman" when talking about race and gender, specifically.

Could you correct me if i'm wrong, but since your opposed to overpopulation, isn't that an environmental issue caused by having unnecessarily having kids? I'm under the impression that that's how your logic is stringing it all together, which makes it sound like Verb.

I suppose so, but I guess I'd hold a much less "radical" viewpoint than him. Verb and others like him think that the human race should voluntarily eliminate itself through not having children, I simply think that we should avoid overpopulation and the rapidly, exponentially increasing population of the planet so we don't drive ourselves to extinction by consuming all the resources at a rate too fast for the planet to replenish them.

I can't believe I forgot to mention it but this is quite important to my reasoning here: I'm not just thinking about this in terms of my life, but also of my future children; so when you say that we should be more accepting of promiscuity, what I'm imagining is a society in which my future daughters (or the daughters of any of my friends and family) are allowed to be used as fucktoys by any man that can sweet-talk them, and I can only see that leading to emotional/trust issues. I want them to have a family because their my family as well, and your idea is harmful to that

I'd agree. Well, not specifically that you shouldn't raise your daughters how you wish - it'd be your family and so on - but simply that I find the whole "daddy's girl" mentality to be incredibly creepy and an off-product of female sexuality and promiscuity being looked at as a negative across the board. Launching off into a tangent, I just find it really, really creepy how many fathers do the whole "cleaning the shotgun" routine as if their daughter's virginity is some precious thing to be ultimately protected, but might give their son a fist bump if he pulled a girl at the same dance. It's odd and kinda creepy.

Talking in a generalized sense, though, it is your household and so of course you would raise your children with the values that you yourself hold. Openness of sexuality isn't something that I think we need to break down on an individual level, just something that I don't like being faulted on a societal level.

They very well could, but what about a decade down the line, or two decades? or when they're past 60? They're allowed to have their fun but I don't see how it could last, and a lack of forward planning is a problem.

But, again, that boils down to personal preference. I do eventually plan to have a stable family - or at least a husband/wife, maybe not kids - and not continue deviancy into my adulthood, but some other people might prefer to remain independent.

Now I already know that dating has enough issues associated with it as is, so in my view the less baggage a girls' got the better. I see your view as one that adds baggage to everyone that goes along with it, and the more people that follow it the more I'll have to be on my guard about it; It creates too many questions that I'll have to ask without creating any answers that I could be happy with. Yes it is somewhat subjective, but even I can't live my whole life being inhumanly objective about things.

How does a woman's freedom of sexuality add MORE baggage? The way things are currently, a girl who has slept with more men is looked at as lesser, buy and large, than a woman who has slept with a small number or no men. That seems odd to me, especially in the context that you've brought things up. Just because a girl has had a number of relationships or casual encounters beforehand doesn't mean that she's "jaded" and incapable of finding her's with you special.

Again, not saying you're required to latch onto one thing in a romantic or sexual sense, but I'm just generally talking about what's accepted by society overall. It even seeps into the language - words for men that sleep with a lot of women like "womanizer," "playboy," "stud," are all positives, whereas words for women that sleep with a lot of men, "slut," "whore," "skank," and so on are all negatives. Again, I argue none of these points on an individual level, but it'd be great if society as a whole stopped tying a woman's worth to how many people she's slept with.

Off on another tangent, but it kinda has to do with that thread I wrote a while ago and how society tends to see things that are inherently feminine as negatives while viewing more masculine traits as positives - unless, of course, the feminine traits are attractive to a generic, straight male.

"Hey I'm in an open relationship, anyone want to fuck my girlfriend for me?"
That's what a cuckold is, that's what your advocating for.

I mean, if someone wants to be a cuck then I think that's weird as hell but, hey, more power to them.

You know i'm not sure if I fully understand the term since this is the first time i've ever heard it being used, could you give me a run down of it?

Not really sure which part you're talking about, so I'll just run down the whole list.

Open relationships/polyamory generally have to do with, as I said, the separation of romance and sex. One or both members of a relationship can more or less sleep around as they see fit because sex is looked at as something of a pleasurable act that does not necessarily tie in with romance. It's still a trusting relationship, of course, but a different type - rather than trusting your partner not to sleep with others and keep it form you, you trust your partner to separate romance and sex, be responsible, and stay in a loving relationship with you while you both have plenty of fun on the side. Unfortunately, these often get a bad rap from people who will more or less coerce their partner into staying faithful while they themselves go out and bang ever second broad at the bar.

Cuckolding is a fetish based on humiliation. I don't really get humiliation kinks in this form (I'm a fan of more, uh...direct forms of humiliation kinks), but some people apparently just love to hear about how terrible they are in bed, how small their cock is, how much better the "bull" (term for the person doing the cucking) is at fucking them, and so on. I don't understand it, but it's a kink and shouldn't be representative of the whole community.

D/s stands from Dom/sub which in turn stands for dominant/submissive, part of the BDSM portion of kinks. D/s relationships focus on the removal of power from the "sub" and the gratification of power to the "dom" and may take the form of a very wide range of kinks from simple rough sex all the way up to pet play, rape play, extreme bondage, and heavy sadomasochism. Humiliation, and there by cuckolding, are an extension of the 'domination' group of this kinks, but does not necessarily need to include the B, S, or M.

Quote from: Cadenza on December 15, 2015, 03:25:41 AM

We? I'm not Chinese, Indian, African, South East Asian, or Middle Eastern; and I don't live in any of those countries/regions. They are the ones with an overpopulation problem not me, not my New Zealand, and not my British Isles.

Yeah, but I'm just talking about humanity in general. Again, there's nothing wrong with having kids, but it should be left up to personal choice. The societal and familial pressure to have children is something that I find very silly because it's not a necessity anymore.

Fair enough then, I look out for my people first so to me it is necessary, that's my bias.

Quote

It's just it came across as doublethink to be supporting an idea while calling it a name that demeans it. I understand the use of specifics but the fact that they're needed is throwing me off.

I wouldn't say that it demeans it, though - just clarifies further on the specifics. The same way you might just call someone a "person" but then refer to them as a "black man" or "asian woman" when talking about race and gender, specifically.

It's the specifics that I find demeaning. I place value in loving sex between a couple, so a form of sex that's specified as casual comes across as devalued. I mean, if it was just as good as normal sex then it wouldn't be causal sex, it's just be sex.

Quote

Could you correct me if i'm wrong, but since your opposed to overpopulation, isn't that an environmental issue caused by having unnecessarily having kids? I'm under the impression that that's how your logic is stringing it all together, which makes it sound like Verb.

I suppose so, but I guess I'd hold a much less "radical" viewpoint than him. Verb and others like him think that the human race should voluntarily eliminate itself through not having children, I simply think that we should avoid overpopulation and the rapidly, exponentially increasing population of the planet so we don't drive ourselves to extinction by consuming all the resources at a rate too fast for the planet to replenish them.

That does sound more reasonable than Verb. There was a time when I would've agreed with you on this, but seeing as those countries I mentioned aren't slowing their growth down aside from China, I have the choice between supporting a world overpopulated by them, or a world overpopulated by them and my people. And I choose the second option.

Quote

I can't believe I forgot to mention it but this is quite important to my reasoning here: I'm not just thinking about this in terms of my life, but also of my future children; so when you say that we should be more accepting of promiscuity, what I'm imagining is a society in which my future daughters (or the daughters of any of my friends and family) are allowed to be used as fucktoys by any man that can sweet-talk them, and I can only see that leading to emotional/trust issues. I want them to have a family because their my family as well, and your idea is harmful to that

I'd agree. Well, not specifically that you shouldn't raise your daughters how you wish - it'd be your family and so on - but simply that I find the whole "daddy's girl" mentality to be incredibly creepy and an off-product of female sexuality and promiscuity being looked at as a negative across the board. Launching off into a tangent, I just find it really, really creepy how many fathers do the whole "cleaning the shotgun" routine as if their daughter's virginity is some precious thing to be ultimately protected, but might give their son a fist bump if he pulled a girl at the same dance. It's odd and kinda creepy.

Talking in a generalized sense, though, it is your household and so of course you would raise your children with the values that you yourself hold. Openness of sexuality isn't something that I think we need to break down on an individual level, just something that I don't like being faulted on a societal level.

It's sort of a territorial thing: hypothetically speaking, I'd expect myself to be the most important man in the life of my wife and my daughters, so seeing my daughters with a man that I don't approve of would feel like a betrayal, and seeing them with lots of men would be both multiple betrayals and make me wonder how important I was to her/them in the first place. As with sons, they themselves would be the most important man in their own life while I'm the one to guide them along and train them, so them getting with a girl isn't a betrayal of my efforts with them, but a confirmation that they're closer to being a man.

That being said, I'd still expect my son to settle down and I'd still expect him to keep it in his pants.
And as for other men, there is the fact that daughters get pregnant but sons don't; I'd support my grandkids regardless of if they're bastards (though I'd be thoroughly dissapointed if they are), but other men might not be so willing.

Quote

They very well could, but what about a decade down the line, or two decades? or when they're past 60? They're allowed to have their fun but I don't see how it could last, and a lack of forward planning is a problem.

But, again, that boils down to personal preference. I do eventually plan to have a stable family - or at least a husband/wife, maybe not kids - and not continue deviancy into my adulthood, but some other people might prefer to remain independent.

Yep, and it's my personal preference to stay away from that.

Quote

Now I already know that dating has enough issues associated with it as is, so in my view the less baggage a girls' got the better. I see your view as one that adds baggage to everyone that goes along with it, and the more people that follow it the more I'll have to be on my guard about it; It creates too many questions that I'll have to ask without creating any answers that I could be happy with. Yes it is somewhat subjective, but even I can't live my whole life being inhumanly objective about things.

How does a woman's freedom of sexuality add MORE baggage? The way things are currently, a girl who has slept with more men is looked at as lesser, buy and large, than a woman who has slept with a small number or no men. That seems odd to me, especially in the context that you've brought things up. Just because a girl has had a number of relationships or casual encounters beforehand doesn't mean that she's "jaded" and incapable of finding her's with you special.

Because there will always be that uncertainty about how close she was to her exes and exactly what they did together - If I were to get with a girl like that then I would always be comparing myself to a standard that I don't even know the details of. And that's assuming that there wasn't anything else at all to the relationships, the reality could be even worse and I might never know, or I might find out, or she might never tell me and I wouldn't know. There's simply too many unanswered and awkward questions and assumptions that are created by her being with other men, and all those questions dissapear if she hasn't been with anyone else. Likewise if she's only been with one other guy then that's still significantly less uncertainty than if she's been with several. And if she has had say, 20, what's to her from downplaying that number? especially if she knows how I'd react to it. I don't want to get in a relationship just to play mindgames.

Again, not saying you're required to latch onto one thing in a romantic or sexual sense, but I'm just generally talking about what's accepted by society overall. It even seeps into the language - words for men that sleep with a lot of women like "womanizer," "playboy," "stud," are all positives, whereas words for women that sleep with a lot of men, "slut," "whore," "skank," and so on are all negatives. Again, I argue none of these points on an individual level, but it'd be great if society as a whole stopped tying a woman's worth to how many people she's slept with.

I can't say I'm a fan of men being promiscuous, but given my explanation above about my hypothetical kids, attacking those words ultimately means attacking my own ideals.

Off on another tangent, but it kinda has to do with that thread I wrote a while ago and how society tends to see things that are inherently feminine as negatives while viewing more masculine traits as positives - unless, of course, the feminine traits are attractive to a generic, straight male.

Extremely so, girls being feminine is like catnip to men; I love when girls have lots of subtle feminine traits and mannerisms to them, and when they're visibly happy about being feminine and acknowledged as being feminine. For instance some of the girls In my circle of friends sing together every now and then and it's really comforting hearing them, but then when one of the guys starts singing it ruins it and makes me ever so slightly pissed off at him.

Quote

"Hey I'm in an open relationship, anyone want to fuck my girlfriend for me?"
That's what a cuckold is, that's what your advocating for.

I mean, if someone wants to be a cuck then I think that's weird as hell but, hey, more power to them.

Quote

You know i'm not sure if I fully understand the term since this is the first time i've ever heard it being used, could you give me a run down of it?

Not really sure which part you're talking about, so I'll just run down the whole list.

Open relationships/polyamory generally have to do with, as I said, the separation of romance and sex. One or both members of a relationship can more or less sleep around as they see fit because sex is looked at as something of a pleasurable act that does not necessarily tie in with romance. It's still a trusting relationship, of course, but a different type - rather than trusting your partner not to sleep with others and keep it form you, you trust your partner to separate romance and sex, be responsible, and stay in a loving relationship with you while you both have plenty of fun on the side. Unfortunately, these often get a bad rap from people who will more or less coerce their partner into staying faithful while they themselves go out and bang ever second broad at the bar.

Cuckolding is a fetish based on humiliation. I don't really get humiliation kinks in this form (I'm a fan of more, uh...direct forms of humiliation kinks), but some people apparently just love to hear about how terrible they are in bed, how small their cock is, how much better the "bull" (term for the person doing the cucking) is at fucking them, and so on. I don't understand it, but it's a kink and shouldn't be representative of the whole community.

Well now I can see the subtle difference between the two, but from my point of view a relationship is one of the few times when you can justifiably be selfish, as in "this is my girl and nobody gets to fuck her except for me". Like if I jumped through a few hoops I could see how somebody could divorce love from sex in a relationship, but you're still letting someone else fuck your girl, and that's something I could never do or respect.

D/s stands from Dom/sub which in turn stands for dominant/submissive, part of the BDSM portion of kinks. D/s relationships focus on the removal of power from the "sub" and the gratification of power to the "dom" and may take the form of a very wide range of kinks from simple rough sex all the way up to pet play, rape play, extreme bondage, and heavy sadomasochism. Humiliation, and there by cuckolding, are an extension of the 'domination' group of this kinks, but does not necessarily need to include the B, S, or M.

ITT: TL;DR autism

>Negative female societal expectations for sex juxtaposed with a positive male societal expectation for sex
>Social stigmatism against sexuality, often equated as worse than violence
>Little acknowledgement of asexuality, virginity being held as something bad to have to men and bad to lose for women
>The entire concept of physical virginity in women
>Expectations to have kids
>Disapproval of casual sex
>Disapproval of group sex
>Disapproval of polyamory from both a sexual and romantic standpoint

Pls go and stay go

You know traditions are basically social technologies, right? They're ways of adapting a culture to be effective in the world around us; they are inter-generational pools of knowledge. So what gives you the authority to make such sweeping proclamations?