I would offer the Clintons as exhibit A. Hillary made a deal with Bill in order to advance her personal agenda. And she is admired by feminists. It’s her turn now and all of that. I blame feminism because they have made men out to be the devil. Forget the fact that historically, men have accepted a lower quality of life doing work that kills them relatively young or sacrificed their lives protecting others all while asking for less than they have given. Feminists came up with this transactional idea as they can’t admit that men have souls too. Men see women as objects yet a man wrote Romeo and Juliet.
I get it, and polyamory isn’t for me. Mostly because I couldn’t imagine 2+ plus periods per month and the amount of idle conversation I would have to participate in to keep everybody happy. Or some dude drinking my beer.
I can’t think of any polyamorous couples that I personally know, but I do know some swingers (also not a participant, though lines were blurry in a younger, single stage. The only thing missing was stated commitment). The swingers I know are outwardly as happy as traditional people. And their marriages are just as old if not older.
I don’t think you can make broadly sweeping accusations. I know extremely traditional and even religious people in incredibly toxic marriages beyond repair and they won’t leave because a book tells them not to. Is this ideal? And if not, what in their background went wrong? Where is the character flaw?
I had an Arabic professor who had two wives. He would joke, I think it was a joke, that he was twice as miserable.
I don’t see swinging as polyamory. I think it’s weird but that’s just me. I think loving two people equally is not possible. It’s not like kids where you can say you love them all the same, but two women? I don’t think so. And that will always bring up doubts and issues in that kind of relationship.
No. Although some people can only function in toxic relationships. I think that a traditional marriage is more likely to succeed than a poly-amorous relationship. There is less commitment and a flawed foundation.
1 Like
You never answered my questions. I would like an answer instead of an obfuscation.
If they are not the point, then what is the point? It would be interesting to see you, of all people, try to stay on subject.
See above comment. I would like an answer.
I understand that your wife may see that it is “right” to sleep with you when you want her to, but what happens if she doesn’t? What happens if she decides that she doesn’t want to do this anymore, yaknow, because your marriage isn’t transactional?
Do you stay married to her?
Do you stop protecting or providing for her?
If you actually want to have a conversation, you will answer these questions. I have my suspicions, but I’d like you to prove me wrong.
I can’t speak for what a woman would do, but I wouldn’t remain in a sexless marriage. I don’t however, think of sex as a transactional action. If I give my wife a gift, I don’t expect or demand sex. I don’t do things for my wife with the expectation of compensation.
She doesn’t. There is no consequence, punishment or withholding of goods or services. I’m not a psycho.
It wasn’t transactional before we married so why would she suddenly think this way? I didn’t marry a gold digger. I married a woman who is from a foreign country that has yet to be infected by American feminist thinking.
Marriages are about shared obligations and commitments. You both agree that you will do certain things (and not do certain things). I understand that calling that “transactional” feels dirty. But the definition still fits.
Would you say this is the basis of, or a function of? In the context of leveraging “services”, to paraphrase the comment kicking this vein off.
Well, right. I’m not saying it’s a “I paid for dinner so you have to blow me” kind of thing (AKA “covert contract”), it’s something where both parties feel mutually benefitted from a transaction that BOTH parties choose to reciprocate because they want to. This transaction should not be overt, but it quickly becomes overt when one party feels they are not being adequately “compensated” for what they are giving.
In a healthy relationship, the transaction is invisible - which sounds like it applies to you and your marriage. Well done.
Right, again, but you also said you would not stay married to a woman who does not provide an amount of sex you deem sufficient. I support your position here, but do you see behind the veneer here, right…? If certain needs aren’t being provided by your wife, you will no longer do your part as a husband. I really don’t see how this is not transactional, though it certainly is not an overt contract (nor should it be).
I’ll withhold my retort to this. Good on you for finding a woman who isn’t broken, truly.
A. I would no longer be her husband. I’m not going to play games and withhold things.
B. The ability to provide needs is situation dependent. If your wife was physically unable to have sex because of an injury or illness, would you abandon her? I know men who cared for their dying wives and gave much more than they got, but they didn’t cry about it; they were happy to do so.
1 Like
The thing you see in some foreign women, and to be fair you can find it in some American women, is that they view marriage with a wider lens. They see it as part of the family structure. So the things you do for one another serve a higher purpose as they are done to benefit the family. The family is the priority, not your individual needs or wants.
1 Like
I’ve read in some Arabic countries women have their own house on the family property. They might be on to something. Seems transactional though….
I agree the insecurity would be the issue in the end. I’m not convinced you can’t love two. If you weren’t married to your wife do you think you would be a lifetime bachelor, or would you likely have met and married another? It would be hard to nurture two, but I would circle back to insecurity from the other here.
“There is less commitment” is an ironically true dichotomy.
So, in other words, there is a non-explicit, transactional nature behind your marriage..?
Thats what I’ve been saying.
No. It would depend upon why they aren’t being provided but assuming it’s not a case of a terminal illness or some other tragedy, then it would be a sign of a lack of love. So it wouldn’t be about not getting this or that but the fact that there would no longer be love which is the foundation of marriage. And love is shared, it isn’t a commodity in some transaction.
She’s my second wife so there’s your answer. I suppose, since we can’t account for every person in the world, that a man could love two or more women equally (though I don’t know how you could measure that) but it gets tricky when you look at it from all sides. You might love your kids equally, as far as you can tell, but it’s not uncommon for a child to think you are playing favorites. Jealousy is a human constant and I don’t think you can make people incapable of feeling it.
for fucks sake dude. You are incapable of agreeing with someone who is literally saying the fucking thing you’re saying.
So you aren’t getting “love” anymore, so you leave.
how in the fucking shit is that not transactional?
You cannot be this dense.
I’m not going to get personal, I think it’s tacky, but I would offer the same suggestion you did about self-assessment and broader awareness. You seem like a traditionally conservative family values guy, and if not practicing religious at least well versed. And in to theological concepts beyond pulpit sermons. Decisions, consequences, wins and failures happen across all stripes.
As you alluded to when discussing Mormonism, a system often keeps us in unhappy places when we are actually more free than we realize. It wasn’t long ago divorce was very difficult and definitely a societal scarlet letter.
Wjats good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander.
Now whether or not Romaniello is a rapey predator is still anyone’s speculation, but I’m reading women openly state they didn’t tell him no and I’m not sure what this has to do with polyamory. From his perspective there is a decent chance the sex seemed consensual. Nothing was declared otherwise. At least not to him.
Like I stated before, societies tended to converge to nuclear/extended families across cultures and religions so it appears that formal polyamory is not the “better” option, as some society would have codified that by now as the option that minimizes negative social effects and unhappiness. Sure people banged and will bang other people than their spouses but the underlying structure remains fairly constant.
How many successful, well-adjusted polyamorous relationships* are there in the long run? Looking at the historical track record even among the very rich who’d all be fucking each other involved parties would aftetr some time regularly snap both physically and mentally.
According to Napoleon’s letters, he’d have a breakdown every time his brother sent him a detailed report of men Josephine banged while he was away with his mistress. The writer Pushkin got killed in a duel with a gay dude who was banging his wife on a dare from his boyfriend, yet tolerated others before him.
*Catherine the Great and Count Potemkin were probably the most famous polyamorous couple in history but it was a Jeff the New York financier/Ghislaine dynamic, which speaks volumes.
I haven’t said anything about that, merely commented on the “polyamory is potentially better”.
Right. Civilization depends on high-investment parenting and high trust and cooperation amongst its people, which aren’t possible where polygamy is large scale. Where polygamy is practiced seriously there is abuse and disenfranchisement of men and women, distrust, rape, and violence. It creates a sexual underclass of men who drop out or lash out in antisocial ways.
Moving on, I read above there are 50 accusers, if I recall correctly. They might all be false. Likely all all of these women are spiteful feminists considering how they live their lives and who they associate with.
And my questions still stand! While no women deserve sexual crimes committed against them, why do they surround such supposedly “predatory” men? If such men are so bad (and I’m certain Romaniello isn’t a saint), how do they not know they are? And considering they’re low lives, shouldn’t such men be incels rather than having enormous access to women?
God knows how many times I’ve heard, “I didn’t know how bad/what a manipulator/narcissist he was.” Gee, how come I can tell what sort of man is within a day or less? Sometimes it takes just a little listening and observation. In some cases a man doesn’t have to say anything. A little bell goes off in my brain which tells me, “I don’t want this man near me or those I care about.”
What we see in these sorts of debacles is women, even feminists, speaking about women as if women have no agency or discernment. Then after suggestions that perhaps young women should have serious decisions considered by experienced male family members or that (gasp) such men in the past were right for doing whatever necessary to keep scumbags away from them, that’s considered oppressive.
3 Likes
I’m not saying Romaniello is guilty of any crimes. I’ve said I think he’s a weirdo and creepy douchebag. You ask why do women, or more specifically, why these particular women would surround themselves with supposedly predatory men. It’s a valid question. We could also look at it from the other side and ask why did Romaniello surround himself with this type of woman. Again, I’m not saying he’s guilty of any crimes, but he put himself in this position by actively pursuing women who could be persuaded to try what I consider a degenerate lifestyle.
1 Like
He comes off as someone who is douchey and narcissistic enough to not be able to consider a woman might say no.