The Term "Cheating" Is Erroneous and Foolish, and No One Should Use It (Page 2)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
45Opinion
@Anon-ymous1
Since you do not think a person who is with someone that wants a monogamous relationship but has sex behind their back with someone else who is not their boyfriend/girlfriend, fiance/fiancee, husband/wife is called cheating then what would you call it? Do not say that the word cheating is erroneous and stupid when talking about this.
You want to claim that there are no rules in a relationship as if anything goes. Seems like you are trying to justify having sex with others without your significant other knowing. What would you do if you got someone else pregnant that you are not with?
The point I'm making is that people shouldn't be assuming that monogamy is the go-to, and that assumption causes people to not be able to talk to each other about their actual desires. The result is that people go behind each others' backs. And I wouldn't get someone else pregnant. That's a moot point.
@Anon-ymous1
What Makes you think you wouldn't get a woman pregnant?
I'm not an idiot and know how to have sex right so that that won't happen.
Not really sure why that matters at all in the general conversation of the point of this post.
While I do understand and agree with some of what you're saying, I can't in good conscious agree that the term "cheating" should not be used. Unless you have stated and clarified early in the relationship what exactly all constitutes as cheating (whether physical, emotional or otherwise), there's no way for any person to know that they are cheating if they don't know what is/has been defined as cheating in the relationship. That's why it's important to clarify everything early on in the relationship, which a lot of people don't do (probably because they don't want to). Otherwise, what's the point of being together if you don't know the boundaries/lines that you may or may not be crossing?
There's a lot of truth to that, but people gradually change over time, as do their sexual tastes; what happens when they want something else? They're still bound to what the originally said even though they don't want it anymore, or just want a slightly altered version of it?
Do people really change over time? Perhaps. But not necessarily for the better. What happens when they want something else? The key word there is "want". When it comes to marriage, there's no selfishness anymore - at least between the two people in the marriage. People tend to forget or ignore their wedding vows, and is a large reason why marriages continue to fail to this day. You two are together "to have and to hold, from this day forward, in good times (richer) and in bad (poor), in sickness and in health, until death do us part". You may ask about dating. Dating is when you first get to know someone. You shouldn't really be having sex at that point yet in the relationship.
You shouldn't really be having sex at that point in your relationship? Uh... I think millions upon millions of people would disagree with that. People can have sex whenever they want, as long as both parties want it and are ready for it. And yes vows are nice and all that, but so are basic human desires. Passion. Excitement. New sexual desires. It's all poor and bad to say that those things should be magically overruled by two words-- "I do"-- said one day in your life, but that's not exactly realistic. People change sometimes. And that's okay.
"I think millions upon millions of people would disagree with that." Just because all those people would disagree, doesn't make it right. Was it right for us to go to war in Iraq? Many people have admitted we shouldn't have.
"People can have sex whenever they want, as long as both parties want it and are ready for it." True, but if you don't be One, then you will likely struggle. "And yes vows are nice and all that, but so are basic human desires. Passion. Excitement. New sexual desires." Sounds like ignoring the vows again. Sexual desires stems from the devil.
Ohhh man... you're one of those? Sexual desire stems from the Devil? I thought you actually had something relevant to say man. Now I'm not so sure, unless you were kidding.
I'm one of "those"? I DO have something relevant. You seem to be adamant of ignoring, though.
I'm not ignoring anything, I mean I just read what you clearly wrote, that sexual desire stems from the Devil. Which means you're either a completely ridiculous person because you're crazy, or you're a completely ridiculous person because you're trolling. Or hopefully you were just kidding. Right?
How am I being ridiculous? Okay, maybe I worded that wrong. I admit I was wrong. LUST stems from the devil. There is indeed a difference between lust and sexual desire. My bad. And no, I'm not crazy. And no, I'm not trolling. So, no. I'm not kidding. You're not ignoring anything? You said "vows are nice and all that". Clearly, you must not understand the deep understanding of the vows and marriage.
Alright man.
No they tell their partner that they want to go with someone else and then do it in broad daylight not in the back alleys
I agree. There may be no unwritten or unspoken rules, but that's why when I get serious with someone, i make sure we are both on the same page of rules. Are we monogymous? Yes? Okay, rules set, only one person for me. Now, if I get to a point where I am unhappy and can no longer be with that person for whatever reason, I break it off. We agreed to a set of rules, therefore, I would be, in this case cheating or breaking the guidlines.
Really, you have a contract you go over with your partner or something? I doubt it.
I didn't read.. Mainly because as a single 16 I feel it doesn't concern me. But also there is like debate: how do you call that cheating? It was just a kiss! Yet good old google defines it as 1. act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, and stuff so basically it still counts.. Yeah and it's also a metaphor because no one is actually a really fast feline...
So... I have no idea what you're talking about, but perhaps you should read it.
Cheeters are fast animals. Definition. Possible dialogue.
Load of millennial relativistic bullshit. If you have an open relationship, then fine, everyone is aware of the situation and details upfront. Your nonsense about respecting your partner's desires is incredibly selfish and one-sided. So your desire to be polyamorous is more important than someone elses desire to be monogamous?
People like you particularly grate my fucking nerves because you all, nearly 100% of you, claim polyamory is the "natural" way and what humans are inclined to do. I've NEVER had the desire to have sex outside of a relationship. Ever. Literally never. Why do you feel you can speak for everyone else?
Again, ITS CALLED CHEATING, because you're violating trust and going against an understood limitation. If you want to be poly, find some who is accepting of that lifestyle. Dont sit there and play the fucking victim because society judges you as a cheater.
So, your justification for "people don't feel this way despite all the evidence to the contrary" is "I know that because *I* don't feel that way." How... dumb.
So your desire to be monogamous is more important than someone else's desire to be polyamorous?
... See how easy that was?
"So your desire to be monogamous is more important than someone else's desire to be polyamorous?" - No, it seemed easy because you suffer from Dunning-Kruger). You flipped my argument around even though it was crystal clear from my response that polyamory is fine so long as both partners in the core relationship are in agreement. Your banter stinks and reeks of shaming the monogamous into accepting cheating, or rather, DROPPING the word 'cheat' because its simply a matter of a persons "desires".
Lets try to reduce this again. Polyamory is fine as long as everyone is in agreement. If not, its cheating. End of fucking story. You dont have the right to bully or shame anyone into accepting it. If they dont like it then break up with them and go have sex with everyone you know. See how easy that was?
" "I know that because *I* don't feel that way."" - Moron, I don't constitute 100% of the human race. You say its how nature operates even though the animal kingdom has a huge variety and mix of monogamy, polygamy, alpha-beta mating structures and homosexuality. There is no single bond that can be called "nature's way". You're just an edgelord SJW whos trying go against the grain push YOUR WAY of doing things.
Shhhh it's okay ace, it'll be okay... Why are your feathers in a ruffle?-- you going to be alright?
I don't think you actually read the post, but if you didn't, it's likely because you can't read anything that you don't already agree with. You're also one of those idiots who actually uses generational labels unironically, as though you actually have something to say via their use... how sad. Clearly this is something very important to you, for some reason. I'm arguing for greater sexual freedom, and you're arguing against it (without even realizing it, apparently). Go ahead and do that all you want until your fingers turn blue from typing too hard; it means nothing to me or anyone with anything above a double-digit IQ.
aaaaand you deflect. Good, means I pinned you.. Have sex with whomever you want, sparky. Just make it clear to everyone involved what your intentions are. Its not that hard, even for you.
Aaaand I have no choice but to deflect when dealing with a moron. This is like thinking you can have an actual substantive discussion with a Trumper-- you can't. So instead you say "yeah maybe, have a nice day" and leave them alone. Hint: you're the Trumper.
oh shit, damn, you fried his ass. Pure genius man!!!
Please, that ain't gonna fly pretty boy. Most peopel want to be monogamous. The ones who don't usually pursue careers in porn.
Hon, i think you suffer from an over-inflated ego and the unfortunate deception of thinking that you actually have something intelligent to say, you don't, and i am sure that you are not so much smarter than more than half the human race who chooses monogamy as the right way to live their life. He clearly won the argument, so put your big boy pants on and accept defeat. Funny how your comebacks are all the same. "Read again, you did not read, cheating is an erroenous term." Yeah yeah, we know. Why do you even bother responding? You might as well say refer to my previous 20 pathethic comments.
@DianaWest You must be highly educated.
Yes I am actually. I am in a top university in North America, have a 4.0 GPA, and have won many scholarships. You seem to think you are all that going around calling everyone who disagrees with you an "idiot," get off your high horse pretty boy. You're starting to sound like a whiny brat.
@DianaWest Those are some impressive qualifications.
Thank you.
@DianaWest Did you graduate magna cum laude?
yes, I did. :) How did you know? You are so intelligent.
@DianaWest Very impressive. You have a lot to be proud of.
Thank you very much. I do.
@DianaWest You must have worked studiously that whole time.
oh, yes I did. During that time, I was not wasting any time on G@G. That is why I have such a high GPA. you know, if you want to change the world, you should contact CNN or The New York Times with your piece.
@DianaWest That's a really good idea, thanks
my pleasure. Let me know when you become famous.
Why having sex with a lot of people so important to some... That I'll never know. Free love is just unbridled lust only suitable for people who can't control themselves.
Control? If "control" was actually important to you, you wouldn't seek out sex with anyone. Sex is not a logical thing, in and of itself; it has the ability to ruin your life. Why seek that out? If we're only being logical about it? But if you *do* want to seek it out, as most people do, then it's fine to logically acknowledge that people want more than one person.
You don't just yet? That's fine. You will.
Cheating is breaking the rules, and there are rules in exclusive relationships. It is the single thing that destroys a relationship the most.
There are no rules.
And the term "cheating" is erroneous and stupid, and no one should use it. That's the whole point of the post, and why that is.
Erm.. maybe girls don't say it on the first date that they're looking for a serious relationship, but as time progresses, we will express that desire and it's on you to either agree (and live by the well-known standards of the "normal relationship rules") or express your desire to fuck others.
If you agree to a serious relationship while omitting your desires and go on to fuck others, you are indeed a dishonest cheater.
Mmm... no. Don't you think it's, you know, possible that your partner could still really like you and care about you, while also wanting to have sex with other girls? Which is an incredibly normal thing to desire? Like I covered in the post? Basically, ^ this comment you've made is exactly what I mean: Your partner *can't* be honest with you because he knows you will judge him and resent him for wanting what he wants. But he likes you and doesn't want to lose you, so he stays quiet, and then is just unhappy.
Desiring and actually doing it are two different things. It seems like you're proposing the latter without informing your partner. Are you saying you're merely proposing open communication where you can express desires?
I'm saying people resort to having sex with other people without informing their partner because *they feel like they have no other way.* They know their partner can't handle honesty, because in most cases, people can't, which is genuinely sad. Heck, look at the vein of many peoples' comments here on this very post, and these are people *who don't even know me or each other,* and these are their reactions to something that ruffles their feathers. How would they react if their partner said this stuff to them? Well... badly. So people are forced to stay quiet, because they *don't* want to hurt their partners' sensitivities. If people could actually *handle the truth* about their partner both loving them but wanting sex with other people, then yeah, absolutely open communication is the whole ideal.
I think you're selfish if your excuse is "I want to fuck others, but I fear you'd break up with me if I did, so I'd just do it behind your back so I can keep fucking you too in top of fucking you over".
You're essentially saying "I don't care what you want and I don't want to find out by telling you and letting you choose."
No, ideally people would care, but *people don't actually care* what their partner wants... people care what their partner wants *as long as it coincides with what they want too.* So where does that leave you and me and everyone else?
Supposedly, people are happiest when they find a partner who wants the same things as they want and cares about the same things as they do.. so you should strive for someone who values the same things as you do.
Yes of course, and that's ideal, but as I've already said, since people don't exactly share their deeper more serious desires (sexual or otherwise) with their partner until well into the relationship, it's a paradox-- you need to share the things to get the things, but you only share them with someone you trust, and it takes time to build that trust, not simply say stuff at the outset like people on GaG allege is the appropriate thing to do, because if you did they wouldn't trust you and you wouldn't get a relationship with them in the first place. Paradox.
True, but as I said, once trust is established and one party lays out their heart bare by sharing they want to be in an exclusive relationship with you, you shouldn't accept their proposal if you know in your heart that you aren't willing or capable to be exclusive.
I guess, and that sounds all very well and good, but trust isn't something that can be measured like rain fall. How much trust must there be?
And what about people who, you know, change their minds? What if they thought they wanted monogamy and then realized they were wrong all along, since it's pretty restrictive? People should be allowed to change their minds.
Yes, you can change your minds and you should grow the balls to tell your partner.
I don't think most people have that capacity. It's normal to be afraid of honesty.
yes, and it does not really seem like you would care about what your partner would want.
No, this is terrible misinformed. When two people enter into a monogamous relationship, the rule is loyalty. Sorry, that's just the truth. Unless you're upfront at the beginning saying that you want everything to be open, and non-exclusive. Couples make their own rules, in all facets of being partners. It's not your place to say otherwise.
Yes, most people have surely considered polygamy for a brief moment, and decided against it. There is no conspiracy to make everybody choose the monogamous life. You decide what you want and what you need before you go looking for someone. You don't get involved with a person and then decide they, or all of society has unfairly tied you down to this one person who you're too coward and too immature to be honest with. If you're gonna go behind their back and get what you want, then you deserve the stigma of being a pathetic sleezeball, man-child.
Abuse also doesn't exist as a word by your logic. LOL. We have desires in us to be violent especially men with high testosterone. You want me to go on with the same type of your logic? lol
Puh-lease, looks like someone is a cheater and looks for excuses to ease his guilt.
The term "cheating" is erroneous and stupid and no one should use it. You're not even talking about what the point of the post is. Try again.
You're also bringing up violence as an example of... something? even though this isn't a post about violence. Try again with that too.
I'm using the same logic you use to justify abuse. Or what? cheating can only be justified and abuse not your same logic?
... Are violence and non-violence equal? They're the same thing?
And again, you aren't even talking about what the point of the piece is. Try again, again.
I'm talking about the logic you use. The logic in itself is wrong. That's why I used the example of abuse.
and violence and non-violence equal? wth? cheating and loyal equal?
... No, it's not, and you are caught up on "abuse" for no reason since this post isn't about abuse. I actually included a part in the middle about that, if you read it. I don't know why you keep bringing it up.
This post is about the semantics about the use of the word "cheat" and why that matters in our greater cultural conversation. If you can't talk about that for whatever reason, then fine, I guess. But you may as well save your finger strength if you can't stay on topic.
LOL. Once again, you totally deflect my argument against your 'LOGIC'. How many times do you need me to explain it. It's the LOGIc that is wrong, why should I talk about the topic when even the logic is Unresonable. If you can't answer my problem with your logic that means you know where you are wrong, and you are trying to run away from it.
Lol indeed, you aren't explaining anything, just repeating yourself in saying the logic is wrong, over and over again, without saying how or why. You sound ridiculous.
that's why I used the example of abuse, as a way to explain why your logic is unreasonable, but you are stuck on the example. I can't explain in more simple words.
Unfortunately 'abuse' is simply not an appropriate analogy. LIke anon said, there is a big difference between violent and non-violent as cheating is vastly different from abuse. I do not approve of cheating either although he raises some good points about cheating being an incorrect term to describe the act.
You on the other hand can't seem to see the obvious flaw in your own analogy even when pointed out to you. It's like equating justifying stealing to justifying stabbing someone to death.
Contrary to popular theory, repeating an incorrect statement does not automagically make it correct.
@Aki6000 So there are analogies that are appropriate and others that are not. I'm discussing as I said the logic he uses. If his logic is right then it can be applied to abuse as well. You are denying my argument because you are already against abuse, not because the argument in itself is wrong.
So you were trying to say that abuse is just as wrong as cheating and not attempting to equate cheating to abuse, correct? If so the I apologise for the misunderstanding. Even though I do not agree with his views on cheating, I still think 'cheating' is not an appropriate term as you are not cheating at anything. It's more like 'being inconsiderate' than 'cheating' because as wrong as it feels morally, there simply is no set down rule/law that prohibits this act so it isn't cheating per se. That's my opinion.
@Aki6000 The term cheating is used for many meaning, if that's what you are trying to get at. That's how English language works, one word has different meaning, and you don't deny one meaning just because it doesn't fit with its other meaning.
This guy is an idiot. Look at his response to me.
@Aki6000 Oh, look at all the promiscuous big boys on this site. it's okay, we understand. Go and have fun with your whores, we don't give a shit.
i agree human relationshios are a complicated thing and nothing, nothing is black and white but cheating is cheating, you might have your reasons but you still have cheated, this doesn't mean you have to be judged but if we dont call it cheating then what, its just a word
"i agree human relationships are a complicated thing and nothing, nothing is black and white " Correct.
"but cheating is cheating" Incorrect. You were doing much better at first.
So, people who are obviously cheating cannot be considered as cheating because it's not like everyone have to comply to the rules? A "You do you" kind of thing?
Cheating is wrong period. Self pleasure is a terrible pursuit my friend. When people make sex or in other words, "getting more experience and being who they are." a priority, it is no longer about love but about lust.
... You didn't read it, apparently. Try again.
Well I see if the two people in a relationship decided that they are mutually exclusive to each other and one party breaks that promise then that is cheating! If you guys talked about open relationship then have as many partner as you can get
... Did you read it all?
Most will say ahead of time if they want a hookup or a relationship.
Keep hookups with hookups and relationships with relationships.
That's why the visious cycle never ends. People either refuse to differentiate that or don't want too.
One thing to remeber is that, what goes around... comes around. Cheers. 😋
Do you believe everything you think? You seem pretty pompous to me. This is the second nonsense rant that I have read (didn't finish) of yours.
You can justify anything you do. Have fun with that.
Call it however you want. It's still hurting another person and it's a shitty thing to do.
If your partner's desires hurt you, it's your partner's fault. Got it.
What a crummy way of looking at romance and relationships.
Yes.
One more thing I wanted to add - there's no stigma because of the name, the name is there because there is stigma - and it's there for a reason.
You're looking at it in a chicken vs. the egg sort of way then... Interesting. That does make some sense, though it's still misguided.
I don't mean *you* are misguided, just that the mindset is misguided.
I know what you meant.
Even though, if I adopt that mindsed, that actually does make me the one who is misguided. Well, misguided in your opinion, because I would disagree.
Monogamy is something that I would want for myself. Not because it's general opinion, but because *I* want it. And i don't think I need to explain myself to anyone. So saying ''men have dicks and testosterone and they're made to have sex with multiple women'' doesn't cut it for me. Or for many men- I know you'll disagree with me, so I'll just take one step ahead and say let's agree to disagree on that topic.
You apparently want more than one woman. Which is okay. There's no need to justify what you personally want out of relationship.
But I just think everyone should simply find someone who share's the same views, that's all.
{I'm not done yet}
Because when you don't... well, cheating is what you get. Because every relationship does actually have rules, even if the rule is 'there are no rules'. And a rule in most relationship is exclusivity.
Yeah, and that needs to change.
In your opinion.
Yes... obviously.
Yes, that's my point exactly.
there are many hookers out there. How nice.
Sorry dude, you could write a book about it, cheating is still cheating. No matter how much you try to find excuses to make it ok, it will never be.
You apparently didn't follow anything I said. Try again.
Or didn't actually read it at all.
If you fuck other people without telling your partner when you know it will hurt them then you are a terrible person.
You can find people who are into open relationships if you're not lazy.
I don't think you've ever met an actually "terrible" person in your life, or you wouldn't use that term so fluidly.
I have actually. I have looked into the eyes of people who have killed.. and into the eyes of a parent who let their own daughter get tortured and raped and even participated in the torture. I have looked into the eyes of a cousin who raped several of his own cousins.
You are not comparable to those people but you display a lack of empathy to the point where I would consider you a possible sociopath.
Hahaha lol okay man. Very serious.
I'm just being straight forward with you, without much mind for social norms.
I feel very strongly about honesty and loyalty. I have been in an open relationship myself and there's nothing wrong with it because my partner and I were honest. However, you discard the concept of honesty because it's inconvenient for you to find a woman who shares your views, so instead you sneak behind your woman's back and think: "what she doesn't know won't hurt her, I deserve this anyway because it's in my nature."
That's insidious and displays a lack of empathy and respect for your partner. It appears when you enter relationships, it is mostly self serving. I think it's possible you could be a non-violent sociopath, since you appear to lack the ability to put yourself in your partner's shoes.
In the end, it's all about you. I don't even dislike you, I'm just having an earnest conversation, trying to get you to see where I'm coming from in the hopes that you'll be honest with your lovers.
Sure and that's grand, but as I said on @bubble_tea's comment:
Yes of course, and that's ideal, but as I've already said, since people don't exactly share their deeper more serious desires (sexual or otherwise) with their partner until well into the relationship, it's a paradox-- you need to share the things to get the things, but you only share them with someone you trust, and it takes time to build that trust, not simply say stuff at the outset like people on GaG allege is the appropriate thing to do, because if you did they wouldn't trust you and you wouldn't get a relationship with them in the first place. Paradox.
I myself don't bother with people I can't be upfront with from the very start. Sure, it will lead to you not finding many people but is being with people you can't be 100% honest with worth it?
You choose the company you keep, you have self determination. The rare few that are willing to share uncomfortable truths and not fear reprisal are worth it.
Yes but that's just it-- the rare few. And you can't know who is rare and who isn't until you've already invested a lot of time. It's a paradox, and it's bound to leave either one or both parties unhappy.
Why not determine it from the very start?
Because people can't handle it.
It is important to know the level and depth of "cheating" and act accordingly but to lump it as
One thing is a mistake
" Because over time, without the unnecessary stigma associated with the word "cheating," hopefully we will end up closer to a world in which people are more freely able to flirt and be fun and open with and have sex with more than one person, and have more open sexual discussions with their partners"
I hope not, It's a very Marxist view.
If we ignore the health risks of stds then biology provides incentive to monogamy and polygamy depending on the environment. However if you have kids that environment must be monogamous, otherwise it takes away dependability on either partner.
However sexual discussions with your partner is okay, it's a private discussion to better sexual experiences.
Uh... I have no idea why you're bring up Marxism in a post that has nothing at all to do with politics.
It's part of a general idea to kill tradition and the family unit.
Open sexuality has a limit before it negatively impacts society.
Uh... nah man.
In your view society can function normally having full polygamy and open sex?
Well, if your point is that people aren't smart enough to handle it, then no, I guess it can't, because most people aren't very bright. If people were above that, and above basic jealousy, then sure it would be just fine.
So then marriage would have to be removed as a concept and also pretty much just the concept of a relationship.
@Anon-ymous1 Many Americans or European rightists label 'Marxist' anything they don't like.
@jacquesvol Indeed.
@jacquesvol Read "Brave New World"
Use of free sex and free drugs.
By doing this every time someone has a problem they do drugs thus never actually solve the problem, the problem being societal.
Free sex from a young age kills the family unit as well as the couple thus making it an "every man for themselves" type of life.
I'm going to assume you two have no family or friends who have lived in authoritarian countries, if you did you'd likely see it the same way I do, that's it's all bullshit.
Same way no open sex society has ever progressed too far the same is with the opposite, we see this in the Islamic world where too closed sex has always hurt progress.
@Naydyonov I read Huxley's Brave New World long ago. A well written dystopian novel
@jacquesvol
So when people talk about legalizing all drugs, killing traditional relationships (in which I mean 1 man - 1 woman), then I'm obviously going to be cautious.
Small things are never stay small.
Like how in the same Russia despite the fall of the USSR now you have the blocking of Telegram, and discussions to block Viber, Facebook, and even the internet.
My family has lived through these experiments and my country continuous to be fucked afterwards.
Because in 1917 some people thought communism/socialism work and it ended up that it doesn't, and now some geniuses in America a hundred years later think it works.
@Naydyonov The USSR stopped to exist in 1991.
Now it's a 'normal' dictatorship by oligarchs.
@jacquesvol That's the point, the Socialist experiment didn't work and fucked society when the Capitalist - Democracy ceased working in the 1990s because people were unable to grasp the concept.
If in 30 years monogamy ceased existence but it was decided that polygamy is ruining society and thus we must revert back to it.. also, it stops working and society further entrenches itself in a 'gone wrong' experiment.
I personally would rather have another country do the experiment and see it works or not, but testing this shit where I live is something I'm against.
1/100 people being polygamous - sure, but actively trying to get 80+/100 people to be polygamous is too much.
Not much to do with polygamy
@jacquesvol Polygamy is an experiment.
The last time polygamy was common place was when we still lived in caves.
Most people at this time don't have an innate desire to share their partner with others and to be shared themselves.
Polygamy had it's utility when many men died in fights. All those widows needed protection.
@jacquesvol So why would we need polygamy now?
Did I say we NEED it? I am monogamous but I won't impose it on others.
@jacquesvol The other dude wanted polygamy,
"hopefully we will end up closer to a world in which people are more freely able to flirt and be fun and open with and have sex with more than one person, and have more open sexual discussions with their partners"
polygamy isn't the same as open relationships
@jacquesvol po·lyg·a·my
pəˈliɡəmē/Submit
noun
1.
the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time.
Minus the «wife or husband» and adding « girlfriend or boyfriend»
Like Trump and Stormy and Melania?
@jacquesvol Potentially yeah
@Naydyonov don't bring up marxism without proving why and how it would be 'marxist'
@jacquesvol You haven't proved how we would benefit from not having normal relationship structures.
I call it Marxist because most often the people who say such things also believe in taking down the capitalist economy, implementing massive social revolution, etc.
Just your illusion
@jacquesvol Not really no,
it's like when at an LGBT protest I see communist flags.
Just because some of these show up too there. They know there will be cameras and they want their flag on the telly.