It’s unfortunate these things have to be stated, imo. Once upon a time you could enjoy getting laid, and the pursuit of it, without being a “victim” of female sexual liberation. And obviously someone has to be the recipient.
This is the tricky part, imo. Women are soft and often require you to read between the lines. Especially when nervous. Walking a thin line here, but resistance can be legitimate and it can also be initial nervousness to overcome. Discerning the two is important, and it’s probably best to err on the side of caution.
In any case, pressure isn’t rape or assault in my opinion. If the woman can say no and/or leave but doesn’t, and essentially allows things to progress, she’s a 50/50 party.
I realize this can be taken a very wrong way and I’m not suggesting that women should be pressured beyond a point of no return, it’s a shitty thing to do, but I like to look at both sides of a coin. If a man is initiating, gets the response of a woman coming over - presumably for sex in the John Romaniello case, and then pursues said sex and the woman doesn’t put the brakes on I can see a grey area for sure. Keep in mind we are reading an after the fact, one sided accusation with hindsight glasses.
For the same reasons we reject communism; it goes against human nature. If we look at human civilization from the beginning of human civilization, there were opportunities to adopt polyamory yet, where have we seen it implemented successfully if at all?
Applying data relative to the internet universe to reality is not valid in my opinion. If I’m looking for a woman on the internet, of course I’m going to limit my choices to the ones with the best asses. In reality, it will take a little bit more than that to attract me.
I think it’s all coming from one anonymous account though. It could be 50 legitimate complaints, or one person pumping out a story, which wouldn’t be unprecedented.
Their asset value is dropping at approximately negative third root function, if we assume x is time and y is bangability. In all serioussnes, t’s not easy going through life on the power of your vagina alone, as OnlyFans income distributions have shown (skewed towards high earners in top few percentiles). You’ve got worldwide competition and precious few years of prime bangability to claw a signed commitment from the mythical high-net worth individual ™ All those private jet trips, yacht cruises and designer clothes won’t cover an 80+ year lifespan without a steady source of income - alimony. And maybe the guy you’ve successfully married/divorced was lying about his finances or ends up in prison for fraud, so you’re back to square one.
If I was a female gold digger I’d move to the Bay Area and attend a Bitcoin conference. Bunch of socially lazy autistic nerds with Aspergers that are easy prey. I’m always amazed how RFK Jr’s VP pick in a span of a few years starting as a lowly paralegal banged/married/divorced a slew of autistic billionaires (nobody told them there are other women besides her?) in quick succession and is now worth over 1 billion.
Well you learn something everyday. I thought polyamory was an open sexual concept thing and polygamy was the Mormon, multiple wives concept. I’m a little behind on things like “simp”, “rizz”, “cap”, “incel” et cetera.
Not my bag either way. As much as I love my wife I only have the patience for one woman’s bullshit. But, multiple wives, concubines et cetera are common throughout history. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, that’s for you to decide for yourself, but I don’t think it’s synonymous with the broader picture you’re illustrating around it as a root cause.
I do think option 1 in my post above, he is guilty of accusations, is a viable outcome.
I did not read all the posts so I could easily be missing something, but what I did read was that women had internal dialogue around “no”, yet didn’t verbalize it. Confounded by what seem to be invitations to a BDSM themed sex party/meeting with a “dominant”, it stands to reason boundaries were going to be pushed. I’m not at all saying it’s right, but I can see where there could be a grey zone given context.
I think, if we go with the there wasn’t something we could legally call sexual assault angle, not saying there wasn’t but just for discussion’s sake, that you have women who were sold on this idea of polyamory who realized that it was more about his sexual needs than a legitimate romantic relationship, it was a grift, they were tricked, manipulated; these women are now driven to making accusations, and maybe really believe their current interpretation of events is the correct one, they had a revelation of sorts, because of feeling used.
You and I and whoever else may believe that feeling used is not necessarily a sign of a sex crime but a learning experience, but this may be how they see it. I’m not saying it’s right, but if you screw people (literally and figuratively) it will come back to bite you, maybe appropriately, in the ass.
A muddying scenario for sure, but you don’t have to go far back in our own history to find norms that would be absolutely appalling today. Not defending it, but inconsequential to the original point.
While a child may not have the wherewithal or resources to do anything, and this is separately an egregious issue of abuse, adult women chose to stick around too. Willing polygamists.
A confusing issue on this subject is the question of what it means to “not have a choice.” Of course, there are clear examples on both ends of the spectrum. Threatening bodily harm or physically forcing someone are clear examples of not having a choice. And on the other hand, someone with resources and connections and not under physical threat very clearly has a choice.
But in the middle, things get very murky. On the one hand, sexual access should not be obtained through the use of coercion. On the other hand, it’s reasonable that one might provide something of value to a romantic or sexual partner that would not be provided to a random stranger or even to a platonic friend. While matters of both propriety and legality dictate that this should not be an explicit quid pro quo situation, the general framework is accepted as a normal part of courtship and long-term romantic relationships.
So what then happens when the benefit offered is so large that its removal practically constitutes a harm to the excluded individual? Of note, the answer may greatly depend on the opportunities and resources that the excluded party otherwise has access to. However, if resources are offered as part of a relationship that includes sexual access, it seems unjust that the benefactor of these resources should be given them in perpetuity even if the sexual access has been withdrawn.
In other words, I don’t think it’s sexual assault if a man threatens to withdraw benefits if a woman withdraws sex. Can’t have your cake and eat it, too. And I love eating cake.
For the rich and/or powerful. The village blacksmith didn’t have concubines.
If anything, this polyamory things is super-conservative. Pre-revolutionary ancien regime aristrocracy in 18th century France lived the exact same lifestyle only with more fancy titles involved - Comte de this banging duchess of that and another Comte.
This polygamous lifestyle or whatever is called now was one of the reasons masses were gleeful what these very rich and bored people who were all fucking each other regardless of gender were beheaded en masse.
So the poor majority in middle aged Europe had the correct view on life & sex and everyone should conform to their ideals? And if they don’t they are rapists?
No, before the advent of the railroad you had to pick a wife in a 3-7 mile radius, so you couldn’t be picky. For sexual (up to one third of brides were pregnant at weddings per English parish records comparing wedding and christening dates) as well as economic (someone to take care of the household) reasons. People still fucked around but it was relatively limited as the common law legal system was stacked against women for adultery.
Only the idle rich and powerful got to fuck around openly.
Despite the hippie myths about “noble savages” a nuclear/extended family is relatively stable across religions and/or cultures.
