It is interesting how rich people often live differently than not rich people. Same question though. Does this make them inherently wrong? I know it requires a paradigm excursion to consider, but could the rich & free be right? Or is it possible that lifestyles are situationally practical or impractical?
Hippies predate me by quite a bit, and I’m not familiar with “noble savages”.
How does this make John Romaniello a rapist for not reading minds of women who didn’t communicate “no”?
I don’t think they had much choice. They didn’t have the same rights as men nor the same opportunities. And that’s the real point. In the West at least, women have choices and they are not choosing polygamy or polyamory in small numbers, let alone large ones.
This is some weird shit. A husband can withdraw the benefits of food and shelter if his wife won’t have sex with him? Good luck with that. This whole reduction of romantic relationships to being essentially transactional in nature is some kind of autistic influenced way of looking at humanity. Dante wrote the Divine Comedy when the world was a lot harder to survive in. They had real plagues, not some Covid BS. Yet, he found beaut, love, redemption and passion whereas we can only see each other and the world in terms of quid pro quos.
If we are talking about them in the world today, they do have issues with child brides. Also, if a woman is brought up in that world, she may not feel she has much choice; it’s her normal. I wouldn’t be surprised if among Mormons there has been a decline in polygamy as well as in adherents, like religion in general in the US.
He was referring to a specific class of rich people in France: the idle rich members of the nobility. They were able to live the way they did because others paid for it. The laws were not equally applied as well. They helped pave the way for someone like Napoleon, who was anything but idle and got as far as he did because he was more talented and worked harder than everyone else.
First, I said that withdrawing benefits is not sexual assault, not that it was always the right thing to do. Perhaps I should have said sexual harassment instead of sexual assault to be more clear. Second, yes, if your wife continuously refuses intimacy, that might reasonably be grounds for divorce. Whether that consists of kicking her out of the house or just leaving, that is absolutely normal. The fact that you think it would be normal to accept a marriage without intimacy is weird. Third, I have found beauty, love, redemption, and passion in the world. That’s not mutually exclusive to believing that commitment is a two-way street.
Definitely a good example. It’s kind of a question of perspective. Was Weinstein taking the women that deserved the part and requiring sex to give them what they already rightly deserved? Or did he have a sea of good candidates and just figure that one of them would go above and beyond to get the part? I suspect a lot of women knew what they were buying. If the exchange was truly wrong, they are as guilty as he.
There are reasons why a wife may do this that are perfectly valid and reasonable. If a husband says, “give it up or else,” that isn’t problematic? A marriage without intimacy would be weird but a marriage based upon sex in exchange for some benefits is. That’s why prostitutes exist.
I don’t know if they are 100% true or 100% false or somewhere in between. I’m saying that I believe he is a conman apart from the sex allegation stuff. He calls himself a mentor and advisor or whatever life coach type BS. He also identifies as queer and pushes polyamory (which is more BS). I find him to be a creepy douche. Does that make him a felon? No. But the thing is, there’s a saying, show me who you are friends with and I’ll tell you who you are. He attracts the weak, the gullible, the broken and the stupid. How else was it going to end?
Would you marry or stay married to a woman who refuses to have sex with you?
Would a woman marry a man who refuses to protect or provide for her?
I mean, sure, maybe, but I cannot fathom a situation in which either partner enjoys this, nor do i see how this is anything more than friends with extra steps.
It may not be ‘fun’ to think of marriages and romantic relationships as transactional, but they literally are all transactional. I thought you were more red pilled than that, zecarlo.
Its hard to imagine him penetrating an unwilling woman, when he was unable to achieve an erection without the use of Trimix… a boner medication that has to be administered via injection to the penis.
The vast majority of those cases were business transactions that the women regretted later on (well after they’d received a few million in payments for their roles).
There are absolutely reasons that a healthy marriage might not include frequent sexual intercourse at various periods of the marriage, but even then I would suspect that spouses in such marriages still find ways to show intimate affection, broadly speaking. However, the point I was making was specifically regarding sexual assault and harassment and wasn’t intended to focus primarily on married couples.
“Problematic” is a overused and loaded term that needs be defined in a specific context in order to be useful.
That isn’t the point. The point is, is a marriage simply about transactions? When you married your wife, did you have a contract that gave a sexual price for things she received from you? “Look honey, I bought you a pair of shoes, let’s look this up… OK, that’s one blowjob.” If you bought her a car, “OK, that will be three anal sessions.”
That’s how weak Americans think. Feminism has made all of you intellectually disabled. You meet someone. You fall in love. You get married. You do the right things for one another because that’s what you do. You don’t keep some tally sheet or whine if things aren’t equitable. Do you see your relationship with your children as transactional?
This is how most Americans I know view marriage. And most just get divorced if the obligations aren’t measuring up and reconciliation can’t be made now. Irreconcilable differences. It’s rare to see people stay in a romantically and physically dead relationship leveraging transactions. It happens, but is increasingly rare. What cultural phenomenon do we attribute this to, and was there a golden era of perfectly harmonious marriages to cross-reference for comparison?
Assuming you haven’t lied, you aren’t exactly hurting for money. You do well and you don’t come off as an imbecile. You didn’t get there by giving that clown, or people like him, your money. I don’t think you would be convinced that polyamory is a good lifestyle choice and I doubt your wife would be OK with it. Maybe this isn’t scientific, but I would say to look at yourself and where you are and what you have, and then think what kind of person would join John’s polyamory cult. It’s not someone like you. Another way to look at it is, when you see successful people do they have more in common with you, or do you think they have more in common with someone who follows Romaniello?