The Great Blackdragon Debate: Are Open Marriages and Polyamory Good or Bad For Society? Part Two

Get Free Email Updates!

Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!

Loading

The Great Blackdragon Debate: Are Open Marriages and Polyamory Good or Bad For Society? Part Two

PART TWO!

Here's the second and final and part of the Great Blackdragon debate, me against Soul, on the merits of nonmonogamous relationships being beneficial (or not) for society. The first part of the debate is here, and the debate rules and structure are here. If you would like to debate me on this blog in the future under a similar format, you may email me and give me your topic. Any topic will be considered, as long as you believe it strongly and you know it's something I would disagree with.

We last left at round five with my response. Now it's Soul's turn:

------------------- Round Five: Soul

Blackdragon, you keep avoiding the issue here.  We can't talk about traditional marriage as an option today, or compare it to OLTR.  Traditional marriage is completely dead in the modern world; and that's a big part of the problem we're talking about.  Traditional marriage depended on a social support network, and the support is gone.  Traditional marriage was a contract between a man and a woman, and what's the point of having a contract if it can be broken at a whim?  And, it was a great contract for a man.  Look what was in the vows: the man promised to love and cherish, but the woman promised to love, cherish AND TO OBEY.  To enter into a marriage contract, a woman gave up her freedom to her husband.  The Romans (before Constantine) had a system that was better still:  Caesar's wife was expected to be "above suspicion", but it was OK for any man to go quietly to the temple prostitute for sexual healing if his wife was being difficult.  The ancients understood what we have forgotten: if we are going to have long-lasting stable marriages for a stable, healthy society and a warm, loving environment for our children, then the women are going to have to sacrifice their sexual  freedom.  Simple as that.

You're also missing my point about casual polygyny or "MLTR" as you call it.  I'm glad you acknowledge that not every man is going to have as many 19-year-old women as you do.  My point is, a lot of men are going to try for that, if society will stand for it.  And only a few of them are going to succeed; but those few men will do enormous damage.  How is a woman ever going to live happily, married to a truck driver or a garbage collector, if she's had the chance to have sex with Blackdragon?  You are ruining these women for life.  Men want virgins for their wives, they don't want women who are always remembering and longing for men who are better in bed than they are.   These women you're fucking and toying with have fathers, they have brothers, they have uncles.  If you're free to have sex with whoever you want, then they should be free to come after you with shotguns.   As the very astute Mr. Banks says in the 1964 Disney classic film Mary Poppins,  "Tradition, discipline, and rules must be the tools.  Without them - disorder!  Chaos!  Moral disintegration!  In short, we have a ghastly mess!"

And judging from your post on "moving out of the country",  BD,  you would also agree with Mr. Banks that it's a "ghastly mess" indeed, that our country has fallen into.  You give a conservative litany of reasons for that:  economics, government, taxes.  And you've been looking to Ayn Rand's philosophy for solutions, and you say that we should spend less time worrying about "society" and more time taking care of our own happiness as individuals.  Ayn Rand edited a book about that: "The Virtue of Selfishness", in which she proclaimed that the pursuit of a person's own self-interest is sometimes the highest ethical good.  OK, fair enough.  But in the process, she denied the universally accepted definition of the word "selfish".   Ayn Rand wrote: "the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word 'selfishness' is concern with one's own interests", as opposed to what she admitted was the more typically understood meaning that "the word 'selfishness' is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment."  I don't know what dictionary Rand used, but when I looked the word up, what I found is a lot closer to "a synonym of evil."

At any rate, I submit to you that the biggest problem in our culture is not a surplus of altruism, or a lack of freedom, but the problem is rampant and virulent and unchecked selfishness.  Look at Jon Corzine,  who siphoned hundreds of millions of dollars in customer accounts into his own pocket.  Look at George Soros, look at Mitt Romney, look at Barack Obama.  Don't get me started.  And as a culture, we're burning through the world's heritage of oil and many other mineral resources in just a few generations, while polluting the planet with CO2 and nuclear waste and a myriad of other toxics, all to selfishly support our military dominance and our "non-negotiable way of life".   Compared to all of this, it might seem like there's little harm in the pursuit of polyamorous lovemaking.   But, could it be that the selfish nature of the sexuality we have accepted as a culture, is at the heart of all of our troubles?  We as men are so busy coping with our women run amuck, and so busy trying to get laid, that we don't have time or energy left to confront the disaster facing our civilization.

Round Six: Blackdragon

You said, “How is a woman ever going to live happily, married to a truck driver or a garbage collector, if she's had the chance to have sex with Blackdragon?”  I think you’re overstating my sexual prowess, but I’ll take the compliment. The answer is A) she will fuck another Alpha while still remaining married to her beta garbage collector husband, since the beta provides things the Alpha will not (providership, obedience, etc), and/or in extreme cases she will B) divorce or separate from Mr. Beta to go have sex with Mr. Alpha…for a while. After that she’ll eventually end up with a beta again because when she demands monogamy and providership from the Alpha, he’ll say no. So she goes back to Mr. Beta (either the same one or a different one). No one is “ruined” beyond the amount of people being ruined now by a 63% divorce rate in most cities. (Not to mention the huge amount of married people who eventually cheat and the huge amount of old people in marriages that are monogamous and do last but are unhappy and soul-sucking.) This beta-to-Alpha-back-to-beta system is how women work, and nonmonogamy being accepted in society would not change that behavioral pattern (any more than monogamy has, which is to say, not at all).

You said, “Men want virgins for their wives, they don't want women who are always remembering and longing for men who are better in bed than they are.” But that’s what men have NOW. Look at our new friend Malibu Mom for a perfect and typical example. How will my system somehow make this worse? Yet again, you’re worried about things that are already the case under the current system. You’re really reaching here. Give me examples that would be worse, not the same as now. So far you haven’t.

You’re going off on a tangent with this selfishness stuff. It’s irrelevant. All I’ll say is what I've said many times before: No one has the right to violate person or property. That includes John Corzine stealing your retirement money or a jealous needy husband in an OPEN marriage going after you with a shotgun if you fuck his wife, a wife who wanted to fuck you and fucked you of her own free will under the umbrella of an open marriage where HE can fuck other people if he wants to also. Both of these men are doing evil, obviously. But no more of the selfishness stuff. It’s a side point. Answer my points in the two paragraphs above.

Round Seven: Soul

You say: "Give me examples that would be worse, not the same as now."  Well, let's think about what will happen when your "Alpha Male Lifestyle" book hits the stands, and becomes a runaway best seller.  It's a continuation of the process that's already underway, but it will accelerate based on your message, for sure. More and more good men are going to throw in the towel, and refuse to even go through the motions of becoming married and monogamous.  The jig is up, men understand that modern marriage is nothing but a cruel hoax. That means in the future we'll have more casual polygyny, more short-term serial monogamy, and more broken and outraged single people who won't go anywhere near any member of the opposite sex.  A man can't be held to any promises whatsoever under your system, least of all what any child desperately needs: a stable home life with both parents.

You say: "There will ALWAYS be a strong percentage of religious people, or needy people, or low-sex drive people, or hyper-jealous people who will choose monogamy over poly/open."  Right:  and boring people, and stupid people,  and people who can't read their marriage license and figure out that it doesn't say anything.  How's that going to work out, when those people are the only ones who can have children and stay together long enough to raise them?  The genetics of the species will go downhill fast.  Which brings up another problem I have with you, BD:  you keep telling your Alpha Male heros to use condoms all the time.  If everybody took your advice, the Alpha Males would go extinct!!  Women would only be able to read about them in ancient romance novels!  "50 Shades of Grey" will be revered as a classic!

So your solution for the future of the human race is the Open Long-Term Relationship, or OLTR.  You seem to think this is a new invention, but it's not.  In traditional times it was called "Shacking Up".  And it worked fine until the woman got pregnant and hormonal.  Then if the Big Alpha Male dropped the slightest bit of sub-communicated hint that he was going to spend time with his younger girlfriend to get his sexual needs met, watch out.  Hell Hath No Fury!!  What sort of Alpha Male wants to bring this sort of drama on himself?  "Sedfast.com / Pua-zone.com" readers and posters take note, and learn from poster JWS' sad experience: OLTR and pregnancy and babies don't mix.

Fortunately, this madness is self-limiting.  As the great Greek philosopher Plato explained in ~350 BCE, democracy inevitably fails because of the follies and selfishness of free people, to be replaced by oligarchy, and then tyranny.  The Alpha Males will not go extinct, BD, in spite of your efforts!!  They will eventually come back to power, and restore sanity and patriarchy and tradition.  And tradition wasn't so bad.  Yes, in order to get married, men and women had to stand up in church and pledge to stay together, forsaking all nookie on the side, until death do us part.  Under the Catholic system until Henry VIII, it took a special dispensation from the Pope to pretend it never happened (aka "annulment", or "the devil made me do it");  otherwise, the marriage contract had real teeth --  marriage really was for life.  That tended to moderate the drama: men and women knew that no matter what they said to each other, and no matter what they did, they would still be married and living together in the same house the next day.  So, a married society was a polite society.  And that opened up plenty of opportunities:  if Mrs. Banks was having threesomes with Poppins and the chimney-sweep, who knew?  Just please don't tell the children!

Round Eight: Blackdragon

The people who continue to be monogamous under a culture that accepts open relationships will still suffer breakups, cheating, and divorce like they do now, whether they have children or not, just like now. You're falling into the standard trap of thinking that people who attempt monogamy-with-kids will stay together forever, and approximately 63% of them don't do that.

Monogamy=broken marriages with kids. Poly/Open=broken marriages with kids. The difference is that breakups under a poly system will be A) more amicable, and B) less financially damaging. And I tell Alphas to use condoms with freaks and FBs and MLTRs, not with OLTRs or OLTR wives they want to have kids with. If you want kids, have them! Just don't have them on accident. I think you know this distinction and are just trying to distract from the issue. Alpha males can and will have plenty of children with their OLTR wives (and other women, since "Alpha" does not necessarily equal "smart"). They just won't plan on being with those wives forever. That's not how wives work.

Quoting Plato won't do much for me. Plato was a totalitarian and a sick bastard who thought loud laughter should be outlawed because it was "intemperate". And if you think OLTR wives will explode any time their husbands want to fuck someone else, you should talk to the 40+ men I interviewed for my open marriage ebook who have open marriages and rarely or never have that particular flavor of drama. (Other occasional drama? Sure. Some drama is unavoidable in a long-term live-in relationship.)

You end by cycling back to how men/society/law should crush women's sexual freedoms, and we've already covered that. Anything new? Or are we done?

Final Statement: Soul

Yes, BD, it looks like we're done and I'm ready to rest my case. I want to remind the readers of the topic we've been debating: RESOLVED: A society in which non-monogamy and sexual freedom are accepted social norms for both genders, will fail because too many men & women will form unstable open relationships instead of nuclear families with stable pair-bonded couples, which will lead to social turmoil. Let's look at all the points of my case that BD has conceded. He's admitted that this is not some hypothetical society we're talking about, but rather it's the world we live in. Non-monogamy and sexual freedom are indeed accepted social norms for single people of both genders. He's admitted that stable, loving families are the best possible environment for raising happy, healthy, well-adjusted and productive children. He's admitted that under these presently existing social conditions, "Monogamy=broken marriages with kids. Poly/Open=broken marriages with kids." Finally, BD is so upset about the social turmoil and chaos in our society, that he's personally making his preparations to jump ship and go to Asia.

Another sign that BD has lost this debate is that he keeps repeating the same tired statistics, and now he's resorting to ad hominem arguments. Yes, 63% of modern marriages end in divorce, but BD wants you to forget that in 1960 the divorce rate was less than half of what it is today. And BD is hurling insults at Plato!! Yes, Plato was not the kind of guy you'd invite to a party. What's much worse, Plato's student Aristotle was the mastermind behind Philip II and Alexander the Great, who put an end to ancient Greek democracy. I'm not very fond of Plato either! In fact I chose to quote him for a reason: a reminder that Ideas Have Consequences. None of this changes the fact that Plato's prophetic description of the cyclical nature of human history has played itself out repeatedly, and it's happening again NOW. Harrumph!! Next thing you know, BD will be calling the estimable Mr. Banks a "Beta" as if there's something wrong with that -- even though he had a nice townhouse and two beautiful children. So what if his wife was a suffragette.

Regarding my alleged desire to crush women's sexual freedoms, and eagerness to go after my wife's lovers with shotguns: it seems that BD is unable to detect when I'm being facetious, or using humor and irony to illustrate my arguments. I love my freedom and I'm in a nominally open relationship myself. My wife is a free woman, and I ravish her in bed because she wants me to. When it was time to write our wedding vows, I convinced my wife that it was a bad idea to commit to a lifetime together. She agreed it was impossible for anyone to guarantee their feelings 20 or 30 years in the future. Neither one of us was willing to promise to be trapped in a marriage without love. So, "til death do us part" was out. The discussion about "forsaking all others" was more difficult, but we were honest with each other and we didn't feel we really wanted to foreclose on the possibilities, or get caught in debating when some friendship was going too far, or risk blowing our relationship up because of some adventure. Our vows were so toothless that even my favorite Unitarian minister refused to do the ceremony. So, we embarked on our open marriage experiment. Unlike BD who is writing about OLTR as a keyboard jockey, I know what I'm talking about from experience.

The only point BD and I still disagree on, is that he's expecting OLTR and MLTR to save the day. He wants you to rely on those forty guys who he spoke with on the phone, who are telling him everything is peachy keen with their wives. Wow, (almost) forty out of forty! That's amazing! (Or rather, it’s no surprise: selection bias is a well-known problem with self-selected survey targets.) The people I meet in real life must come from a different planet. I've seen lots of people in my social circle try to do polyamory, and I've gone to plenty of swingers parties in my day, and I'm just not buying this story that there's a pot of gold at the end of this rainbow. As things have turned out, I've kept my freedom but I've used it responsibly. (Or to the extent that I haven’t, I’m certainly not admitting to anything!) So the notches on my bedpost are not sexual conquests, but wedding anniversaries. And isn't that what we all really want??

Final Statement: Blackdragon

As the reader can see at this point, Soul and I actually agree on easily 90% of this stuff, including the core issues. He knows monogamy doesn't work, understands the reasons why, but it still bothers him for various emotional reasons. Which is okay. A society where open nonmonogamous relationships would be accepted just as much as monogamous ones would be something we have never seen before in the modern western world. It’s unknown, and the unknown is always scary. The problem is if we let the scary unknown stop us from evolving, improving, and adjusting to modern realities, African-Americans would still be slaves and we would have never set foot on the moon. Hell, we Americans would still be in Europe under the yolk of a descendant of King George, and Columbus (or the Vikings or the Chinese or whomever) would have never discovered the Americas.

In this debate we've looked at three options for society:

1. The status quo, i.e. failed monogamy.

2. A society where both monogamy and open relationships/marriages are perfectly acceptable norms.

3. A society where monogamy is enforced with some success and where women's sexual freedoms are limited.

Soul and I agree option 1 is not working. Soul favors option 3, I favor option 2. It might be good for society if the government forced us at gunpoint to eat nothing but meat and vegetables, but I still would not be for such a system, just like I would not be for a system where women were virtual slaves so that monogamous marriages had better odds of lasting. As society slowly moves to embrace option 2, will there be problems as society adjusts to new sexual realities as change takes place? Of course. The Civil Rights Movement in the 60’s was very painful for a lot of people, but it was right, and it needed to be done, and we are now better for it. It’s the same as a society that embraces a broken system (monogamy) slowly moving to an imperfect yet better system (nonmonogamy), a system under which old desires such as marriage and children are still not only possible, but safer and better.

I hope this debate has made you think, and I’ll leave the winner up to the reader. I had a lot of fun.

This article was originally published on October 4, 2012

Comments


  • Blimy 2012-10-04 10:00:04

    Damn Soul you have one out-dated argument. Attacking someone who agrees with you for the most part. Arguing B.D.'s beliefs would some how make this country worse if accepted on a large scale. You're really reaching. If anything those out-dated beliefs you're clinging to (and so many others are) are making this country immature and incapable of growth and change (and admitting when we're wrong). What B.D. pushes most is brutal honesty about what we want...wow man just wow. Narrow view. You're so worried about the children; with a divorce rate in the 60%'s and climbing what do you think they're already exposed to? How much lying and negativity is in their faces everyday? Actually don't want a reply: BD I love your blog but this one...seemed like arguing for arguments sake. I know that's not your point but it just got a little ugly, drawn out and honestly was a bit of a turn off. I can't speak for the rest of your readers but I'd rather read about the ideas you'd like to share, your humorous views, guidelines of life you use that might help others and projects you're working on; even'ts etc. More constructive things basically. But hey if you want to keep doing these that's your call-I/we can't dig 100% of your work...that just might be creepy.

  • Blimy 2012-10-04 10:08:56

    Though I've probably been around to many arguments lately (I know there's a difference between arguments and debates) so I'm a little biased right now (coming to a place I go to for sanity). Not harping on anyone who digs the debate.

  • Anonymouse 2012-10-04 10:53:03

    I think BD lost this one, and his list of "three options" in the final statement shows why - most of his arguments throughout the debate read like they were against option 1, when that wasn't what Soul was arguing for. I may need to reread the whole thing for clarity, but my first impression was that BD was debating a straw man.

  • Jack 2012-10-04 10:53:44

    BD, about Plato wanting to outlaw laughter: Um, yeah, and Harry Browne wanted you to give up your children for adoption if they piss you off. And Ayn Rand admired a murderer. What's your point?

  • Soul 2012-10-04 12:02:55

    @Blimy, sorry you don't like my warped sense of humor. @Anonymouse, there's some truth to your perception that I was playing the part of a straw man in this debate. At times, I came across sounding like I'm supporting a return to the sexual repression of the past, and that's not representative of my true beliefs. I'm afraid we may see a renewal of tyranny, but I'm not welcoming it. But on the other hand, if we're going to have all this sexual freedom, we need to have a discussion about how to use it wisely. Freedom doesn't necessarily mean license to do whatever you want. BD summarizes the debate in terms of three options for society; which actually wasn't the way the topic was defined! But for clarity's sake, what I'd argue for is an Option 4: 4. A society in which free individuals who have a preference for monogamy, also recognize the need for caution and restraint around sexual activity outside of committed monogamous relationships. While individuals who prefer non-monogamy, need to pursue their preference openly and courageously, and also with a concern the consequences for the children involved.

  • Anonymouse 2012-10-04 12:35:27

    Like I said, I think BD was propping up a straw man against the status quo instead of debating your culturally conservative position. But I think you left out a very important point, raised by Kay Hymowitz (Manning Up), Hanna Rosin (The End of Men) and Roissy (the entire argument of his blog). It's that as women have advanced their position in society, men have become less ambitious and more content with staying home and playing video games than ever before. Hymowitz and Roissy, in particular, trace the current "manchild crisis" to a lack of sexual options for most (i.e. beta) men. Think of it as the Pareto Principle applied to the alpha/beta dichotomy. "If 20% of the men are fucking 80% of the women, then this is what happens to the remaining 80% of men" - or so the argument goes. If Roissy et. al's assertions are correct, then it's not hard to see how BD's position would only exacerbate the current problem. This concept strikes me as so vital to the position you were taking that I think you lose major points for not bringing it up.

  • Alejandro 2012-10-04 13:00:27

    The comment about women having to sacrifice their sexual freedoom for the good of society struck me as really sexist. Maybe Soul would prefer something like saudi arabia or any other muslim country where women are treated as second class citizens. I liked the debate but I have to say that Souls point was never very clear to me. It seemed to me from the way the debate was formulated the he was supoussed to be arguing for monogamy and against non-monogmy as an acceptable practice in society, but then he started complaining that people were too promiscuous, that women have too much sexual freedom, that people in general are way too fucking shellfish and that alpha males are going to go extinct because Blackdragon told them to always use condoms (seriously, wtf???), etc. While Blackdragon was always pretty focused and right to the point, Soul was all over the place here. Even now that he formulated what he argued for (option 4 above), I fail to see how it is clearly incompatible with blackdragons option. Why cant people go for non-monogamous relationships AND recognize the need for caution around sexual activity AND be concerned about the conseuences for the children??? Its another complain I would make about Souls argument: During the whole debate, he strongly implies "non-monogamy = irresponsible, promiscuous behaviour" Which is just a common misconception about non-monogamy. Just because you are not monogamous doesnt mean you are having sex with 20 other people at the same time.

  • Blackdragon 2012-10-04 13:47:24

    @Blimy – I think your complaint was caused by the fact that both Soul and I were too long-winded. If I do this again on the blog I’ll ensure that doesn't repeat. @Anonymouse – The issue of some men getting more sex than other men isn't in question. We all already know this. The problem is you (and Soul) are advocating the same thing for sex as socialists advocate for money; that because some people get more than others, society should crack down on personal freedoms and FORCE people to be more “equal” (i.e. miserable). I don’t believe in that kind of use of force, but if you think that would make for a better society, we’ll have to agree to disagree. @Jack – Apples to oranges my friend. Plato was chock-full of psychotic ideas like that, pages and pages of them (communism being fantastic, no man should know who his child is, no one can know who is biological parents are, etc, etc). These weren't occasional rare statements like in the case of Rand or Browne or anyone else I agree with. Go read Plato’s Republic sometime. It’s scarier than any Steven King novel. @Soul – Your “item four” sounds fine to me.

  • Jack 2012-10-04 15:21:04

    My counter-argument to Soul: 1. You say that most men want to marry virgins and don't want women pining away for past alphas. First of all, how old are you? Or rather, how old are the people whose company you keep? The virgin fetish is dead and buried, my friend. Such prudery has been on its way out for quite some time. Personally, if she's not experienced, I want nothing to do with her. To quote Dennis Miller regarding Muslim terrorists receiving 72 virgins in heaven: "By the time you get to the 31st virgin, you're just dying for a pro - someone who knows when and when not to use her teeth." Second of all, would you say that women want their husbands to be virgins as well, instead of pining away for some girl they banged in high school? Characteristically male needy jealousy/insecurity/weakness is not something you should build a society around. 2. Your arguments against polyamory are rather communist, as BD pointed out. Just because some men get more than others doesn't mean the government should take away from the "sex creators" and give to the losers. This kills incentive. Punishing people for their success in order to share the wealth is a repugnant philosophy. You're talking about "sexual rationing." Just so every boy can have a girl, everyone is permitted only one. Sex must be rationed so the obese betas don't get sad. Oh please! Don't hate the sex creators. They perform a valuable function - they put women in a good mood, and trust me, you don't want a bunch of sexually frustrated bitches! If there's anything worse than a male AFC, it's a female AFC. Male AFCs will simply play their video games and masturbate while using their tears as lubricant. Female AFCs will march in the streets screaming "all sex is rape!" and "castrate male pigs!" Plus, if you work hard, apply yourself, hit the gym, and learn game, you too can be a sex creator and give back to the community. But the government shouldn't do it for you, or hand out free pussy at the courthouse (marriage certificates) on the condition that you get only one so others avoid sexual stravation. Let's not let socialism and rationing "for the good of equality" cloud our rationality. Communism seriously needs to die. 3. You keep going on about how women used to obey their husbands and give up their sexual freedom on their wedding nights. I don't understand how this promotes stable families. You say that in Roman times the ancients allowed men to go to prostitutes while the women had to remain pure. Why are you emphasizing female "purity?" Why are the consequences for female promiscuity worse than male promiscuity? And please, don't say it's because women get pregnant. That's irrelevent. If a married woman sleeps with another man, she may get pregnant. If a married man sleeps with another woman (like a prostitute), he may get her pregnant. Thus pregnancy is an equal risk for promiscuous men as it is for promiscuous women. So why are you emphasizing female obediance and female purity? Once again, you are implcitly referencing the territorial needs of insecure male pussies, on behalf of whom you seem to be speaking. I've never understood this double standard. A woman having lots of sex is no worse than a man doing it. Your emphasis on restraining the woman is both sexist and troubling, as it caters to needy/territorial alphas (the tyrants). 4. For some reason, you say that OLTRs are broken homes and children need a stable environment. Why are OLTRs broken and define "stable." As BD implied, there are three options - A. Forced monogamy (misery), which isn't very stable since I believe that happiness is a necessary prerequisite for a loving home. B. Monogous and cheating, which leads to real hatred and broken homes. C. Open/poly which leads to some jealousy but a much happier and less territorial familial environment. If anything, I'd say that OLTRs are the most stable environments for raising productive children. Why would it be more stable to raise them in a hateful cheating environment or a totalitarian dictatorship of sexual socialism which gives the kids severe hangups about their own sexuality as they grow up? Also, lest I forget, in an OLTR, the woman must be constantly sweet because their are no safety nets and no financial communism in the relationship. The absence of sexual socialism, which allows both of them to freely sleep around can be defined as sexual competition, which creates incentive for love, peace, and harmony. 5. You say that people can't be trusted because they aren't as intelligent as BD and, as we can see today, are degenerating into sexual ararchy. Yes, every new idea takes time to refine. Passing through a stage of anarchy is inevitable. The reason we have sexual anarchy now is that people aren't being taught coherent values, due to conflicting beliefs thanks to fighting among the elites. Pat Roberston, for example, ridiculously believes that taking prayer out of the schools is causing school shootings and is the reason civilization is going to hell, as we are the leading nation in social pathology. Whereas, in the 50s, we were the leading nation in mental health. And yet, much more atheistic and sexually liberal countries than ours (particularly European) have no school shootings and hardly any of these types of social pathologies. And yet, America is still the most religious nation in the west. The cause of sexual anarchy is not polyamory or monogamy - it is a lack of uniform cultural values and a bitter hatred between competing elites which leads to everyone being taught nothing, thus facilitating sexual anarchy and irresponsibility so that people like you can say "I told you so." 6. What do you mean when you say "we may see a renewal of tyranny?" I think society is precisely heading in the opposite direction, particularly when it comes to sex.

  • Soul 2012-10-04 23:18:00

    @anonymouse, I agree that the "manchild crisis" should've been mentioned, but I see it as an effect of the sexual crisis, rather than a primary cause. @Alejandro, @BD & @Jack (point 2): There are lots of avenues that can be used by free people to accomplish socially desirable objectives. We are an important part of society right here, having this discussion about sexual ethics. The internet & social media have a great & growing influence. Schools, churches, and corporations are also highly influential. If we work through those channels, perhaps there won't need to be some sort of reversion to the repressive government policies of the past. Effective social policies always rely on the consent of the people and on the inherent legitimacy of the policies. We don't need to have cops continually gunning people down in the street, to persuade them to stop at red lights. But on the other hand, even most libertarians agree that the government does have a legitimate obligation to use force when necessary -- for example, to enforce private contracts. I would support a more equitable default marriage contract, as well as more comprehensive government enforcement of pre-nups; I assume you would too. @Jack, I'm at risk of getting too wordy again, but in answer to your questions & objections, by number: 1. I'm 56 and I met my wife 35 years ago, when she was 19. She had come straight to college from a Catholic girls' high school, and she tells me that I was the first guy who ever kissed her, or took her on a date in a car. Even for that time, her level of sexual inexperience was so unusual that I found it unnerving. But in retrospect it was really very sweet, and I think it's one of the reasons why we've been able to stay together since then. 2. Beta males aren't the only losers under the modern sexual regime. Women (for the most part) don't seem to be very satisfied with polygamy, casual polygyny, or rapid-fire serial monogamy either. If we can fix this problem, everybody benefits. 3. If there's any single truth at the core of the seduction literature, it's that gender differences are real and pervasive. Men are generally better suited for leadership roles. Any good leader knows that it's best to obtain the consent of the governed! But if it comes down to a battle over who is at the helm, a ship is more stable if there's only one captain. The traditional marriage vows honored this basic psychological & logical principle. The sexual double standard is also rooted in biology & psychology -- although logically speaking, if women are having a lot less sex outside of committed relationships, it follows that "alpha males" will need to work harder to find multiple sex partners, and endure more social disapproval as well. 4. BD agreed that OLTR's are not stable and seldom last more than ~five to seven years, so we didn't debate much on that point. But in reality, there's very little hard evidence because so few people do OLTR, and there's apparently not much research funding available to do studies. I also agree that when OLTR's fail, the consequences are less traumatic. Considering the realities of the current situation, I would actually recommend that young men & women enter into OLTR agreements rather than conventional modern marriages. So I agree with BD about that as well. All I'm saying is, if I were a young man who created an OLTR, and there were children involved -- I would think twice, and then think again, before I'd provoke my wife by taking the radical step of actually using my freedom to sleep with another woman. I wouldn't just do it casually because I'm horny. 5. I think your argument here is very perceptive. If you look at the competing elite viewpoints, on the one hand you have religious fanatic traditionalists like Robertson, and on the other hand you have the radical feminists & free sex advocates. It's a phony dialectic that leaves everyone confused. 6. For now the trend is exactly as you say, but I see a crisis coming, because of the many growing tensions & unresolved contradictions. The crisis could be monetary, ecological or social. All too often, historically speaking, the result of a breakdown of social order is the rise of a strongman (as Plato first discussed.) The groundwork has already been laid: look at the Patriot Act, look at NDAA, look at the Homeland Security detention camps.

  • lifeofalovergirl 2012-10-05 07:10:01

    Regardless of what you think would be "best for society" (lets be clear, your plan is for it only to best for the men, Soul). How the hell do you propose going back to the days of female oppression and temple prostitutes? Stone women to death when they sleep with someone outside of marriage?

  • Oxyjinn 2012-10-05 08:02:50

    A little warning up front. I might get a little rude along the way... @Soul & BD Hell of a debate and I have to give it up to both of you for nailing down some good points along the way. On the contrary, at the end of the day, none of you deserves to win, because it's all just hypothetical. Soul argues what disasters would happen if (we had non-monogamy officialy established) and BD argues how fantastic it would be if. If if if... Who knows??? In my opinion this whole debate about more benefitial for the society or not is just useless. Why? Well, is the mejority of mankind stupid? Without a doubt. Will there be always someone trying to profit from this and try to gain controll? Of course. OMG, but what can we do than to come out in life as winners and be happy? Pretty easy. Use your brain!!! Anyway, my opinions are very much like Jacks. I hate a totalitarian system with passion (we used to have one here). A system which tells you, that you can only step out with your left foot otside the door or you get penalised? Or when you work hard as fu.k and the lazy bastard next door is having your life because the government says so? I mean com'on here Soul. Till the end of time? Free pussy for everyone? Realy? The only restrictions I agree with are those actualy protecting the life and the individual. Nice, ha? @Jack The shootings in the US happen simply because it's much easier to get a gun over there (I'm from EU).

  • Oxyjinn 2012-10-05 08:11:30

    Edit: The debate was not useless. It made me think even more... 🙂

  • Soul 2012-10-05 10:42:44

    @lovergirl, re alternatives to stoning as an enforcement mechanism, see my reply to Alejandro, BD & Jack above. The Wikipedia article on ancient Roman prostitution makes for interesting reading. In addition to religious ritual prostitutes, a wide variety of other situations existed -- anywhere from enslaved street-walkers who were forced to turn their entire incomes over to their pimps or priests, to high-priced and highly educated free women who sold their exotic services to the imperial court. In many ways this was not so different from what exists today, at least for a man who is willing to travel, or isn't concerned about spottily enforced anti-prostitution laws. Should prostitution be entirely de-criminalized in the USA? Could be another interesting topic for debate. @oxyjinn, Yes, the topic we chose is entirely hypothetical. None of us can predict the future; and even after the fall of great civilizations, historians are left debating over the causes of the collapse. In my view, open-ended topics like this are the most interesting to discuss, precisely because no one can really win. Thanks for taking the time to read about what we're thinking here.

  • lifeofalovergirl 2012-10-05 12:29:32

    So the women that want extra sex, are there going to be male prostitutes for them?

  • lifeofalovergirl 2012-10-05 12:44:06

    I'm being totally real here because women have sexual needs too and most aren't going to be satisfied with lazy husbands who fuck them for 5 minutes then roll over and go to sleep. So if you are going to, in this day and age, legalize and promote prostitution for men whilst trying to hang onto "monogamy' (its not if the guys are fucking around) then you would have to have a fair alternative for women. So the guy prostitutes would probably be extra good in bed from sleeping around so much and maybe the women would like them (or even fantasize about them vs their husbands but who cares they are "monagamous" per your definition that includes prostitution). Perhaps in the days of old women were happy to be clueless about things like orgasms but I highly doubt it. I'm sure there was a lot more sneaking around just women were exceptionally good at it and didn't get caught as frequently. My almost 83 yr old grandma had an affair with the milkman and it was the scandal about town but thats not what caused her to get a divorce. So it was happening back in the days of your "idealized" world too.

  • Soul 2012-10-05 14:57:32

    @lovergirl, the Roman system was not really what I would call "monogamy", it was more of a patriarchal double-standard system. One obvious problem was that the supply of prostitutes was maintained through slavery. That led to pressures for continuous military victories to keep the slaves coming in. It was not what we would consider a just system, nor was it sustainable once the supply lines for military adventures got too long. But apparently it was effective in terms of holding families together long enough to raise children. That's all I'm saying. If you take it as a premise that freedom is a key value (as everyone here does) then what do you say about prostitution? I don't see any defensible reason it shouldn't be legalized, just like any other form of consensual sexual activity. But if a man wants to maintain a good loving relationship with his wife, is it a good idea for him to spend time and fortune on prostitutes? Perhaps if his wife is trying to get the upper hand in the relationship by denying sex, it could be a viable response. But in general, I'd recommend against it. About women wanting male prostitutes, I just don't see much demand for it. Do you know of any women who want to pay for a better sex partner, LG, or is this just a rhetorical device? Whereas female prostitutes seem to be very much desired in the modern world, judging from the high prices demanded. A reasonably attractive woman with a friendly personality can not only choose to live a sexually polyamorous lifestyle any time she wants, but she can also make a very good living doing it.

  • Mnae on 2018-12-13 08:05:15

    Soul wrote about "fathers, brothers, uncles" chasing away "seducers" . Chasing away from what, you ask? From their property, obviously. This kind of thinking justifies even the most awful feminism.



18 Comments

  • Mnae on

    Soul wrote about “fathers, brothers, uncles” chasing away “seducers” .

    Chasing away from what, you ask? From their property, obviously.

    This kind of thinking justifies even the most awful feminism.

  • Soul

    @lovergirl, the Roman system was not really what I would call “monogamy”, it was more of a patriarchal double-standard system. One obvious problem was that the supply of prostitutes was maintained through slavery. That led to pressures for continuous military victories to keep the slaves coming in. It was not what we would consider a just system, nor was it sustainable once the supply lines for military adventures got too long. But apparently it was effective in terms of holding families together long enough to raise children. That’s all I’m saying.

    If you take it as a premise that freedom is a key value (as everyone here does) then what do you say about prostitution? I don’t see any defensible reason it shouldn’t be legalized, just like any other form of consensual sexual activity.

    But if a man wants to maintain a good loving relationship with his wife, is it a good idea for him to spend time and fortune on prostitutes? Perhaps if his wife is trying to get the upper hand in the relationship by denying sex, it could be a viable response. But in general, I’d recommend against it.

    About women wanting male prostitutes, I just don’t see much demand for it. Do you know of any women who want to pay for a better sex partner, LG, or is this just a rhetorical device? Whereas female prostitutes seem to be very much desired in the modern world, judging from the high prices demanded. A reasonably attractive woman with a friendly personality can not only choose to live a sexually polyamorous lifestyle any time she wants, but she can also make a very good living doing it.

  • I’m being totally real here because women have sexual needs too and most aren’t going to be satisfied with lazy husbands who fuck them for 5 minutes then roll over and go to sleep. So if you are going to, in this day and age, legalize and promote prostitution for men whilst trying to hang onto “monogamy’ (its not if the guys are fucking around) then you would have to have a fair alternative for women. So the guy prostitutes would probably be extra good in bed from sleeping around so much and maybe the women would like them (or even fantasize about them vs their husbands but who cares they are “monagamous” per your definition that includes prostitution).

    Perhaps in the days of old women were happy to be clueless about things like orgasms but I highly doubt it. I’m sure there was a lot more sneaking around just women were exceptionally good at it and didn’t get caught as frequently. My almost 83 yr old grandma had an affair with the milkman and it was the scandal about town but thats not what caused her to get a divorce. So it was happening back in the days of your “idealized” world too.

  • So the women that want extra sex, are there going to be male prostitutes for them?

  • Soul

    @lovergirl, re alternatives to stoning as an enforcement mechanism, see my reply to Alejandro, BD & Jack above.

    The Wikipedia article on ancient Roman prostitution makes for interesting reading. In addition to religious ritual prostitutes, a wide variety of other situations existed — anywhere from enslaved street-walkers who were forced to turn their entire incomes over to their pimps or priests, to high-priced and highly educated free women who sold their exotic services to the imperial court. In many ways this was not so different from what exists today, at least for a man who is willing to travel, or isn’t concerned about spottily enforced anti-prostitution laws. Should prostitution be entirely de-criminalized in the USA? Could be another interesting topic for debate.

    @oxyjinn, Yes, the topic we chose is entirely hypothetical. None of us can predict the future; and even after the fall of great civilizations, historians are left debating over the causes of the collapse. In my view, open-ended topics like this are the most interesting to discuss, precisely because no one can really win.

    Thanks for taking the time to read about what we’re thinking here.

  • Oxyjinn

    Edit: The debate was not useless. It made me think even more… 🙂

  • Oxyjinn

    A little warning up front. I might get a little rude along the way…

    @Soul & BD
    Hell of a debate and I have to give it up to both of you for nailing down some good points along the way.
    On the contrary, at the end of the day, none of you deserves to win, because it’s all just hypothetical. Soul argues what disasters would happen if (we had non-monogamy officialy established) and BD argues how fantastic it would be if. If if if… Who knows???

    In my opinion this whole debate about more benefitial for the society or not is just useless. Why? Well, is the mejority of mankind stupid? Without a doubt. Will there be always someone trying to profit from this and try to gain controll? Of course. OMG, but what can we do than to come out in life as winners and be happy? Pretty easy. Use your brain!!!

    Anyway, my opinions are very much like Jacks. I hate a totalitarian system with passion (we used to have one here). A system which tells you, that you can only step out with your left foot otside the door or you get penalised? Or when you work hard as fu.k and the lazy bastard next door is having your life because the government says so? I mean com’on here Soul. Till the end of time? Free pussy for everyone? Realy?

    The only restrictions I agree with are those actualy protecting the life and the individual. Nice, ha?

    @Jack The shootings in the US happen simply because it’s much easier to get a gun over there (I’m from EU).

  • Regardless of what you think would be “best for society” (lets be clear, your plan is for it only to best for the men, Soul). How the hell do you propose going back to the days of female oppression and temple prostitutes? Stone women to death when they sleep with someone outside of marriage?

  • Soul

    @anonymouse, I agree that the “manchild crisis” should’ve been mentioned, but I see it as an effect of the sexual crisis, rather than a primary cause.

    @Alejandro, @BD & @Jack (point 2): There are lots of avenues that can be used by free people to accomplish socially desirable objectives. We are an important part of society right here, having this discussion about sexual ethics. The internet & social media have a great & growing influence. Schools, churches, and corporations are also highly influential. If we work through those channels, perhaps there won’t need to be some sort of reversion to the repressive government policies of the past.

    Effective social policies always rely on the consent of the people and on the inherent legitimacy of the policies. We don’t need to have cops continually gunning people down in the street, to persuade them to stop at red lights. But on the other hand, even most libertarians agree that the government does have a legitimate obligation to use force when necessary — for example, to enforce private contracts. I would support a more equitable default marriage contract, as well as more comprehensive government enforcement of pre-nups; I assume you would too.

    @Jack, I’m at risk of getting too wordy again, but in answer to your questions & objections, by number:

    1. I’m 56 and I met my wife 35 years ago, when she was 19. She had come straight to college from a Catholic girls’ high school, and she tells me that I was the first guy who ever kissed her, or took her on a date in a car. Even for that time, her level of sexual inexperience was so unusual that I found it unnerving. But in retrospect it was really very sweet, and I think it’s one of the reasons why we’ve been able to stay together since then.

    2. Beta males aren’t the only losers under the modern sexual regime. Women (for the most part) don’t seem to be very satisfied with polygamy, casual polygyny, or rapid-fire serial monogamy either. If we can fix this problem, everybody benefits.

    3. If there’s any single truth at the core of the seduction literature, it’s that gender differences are real and pervasive. Men are generally better suited for leadership roles. Any good leader knows that it’s best to obtain the consent of the governed! But if it comes down to a battle over who is at the helm, a ship is more stable if there’s only one captain. The traditional marriage vows honored this basic psychological & logical principle. The sexual double standard is also rooted in biology & psychology — although logically speaking, if women are having a lot less sex outside of committed relationships, it follows that “alpha males” will need to work harder to find multiple sex partners, and endure more social disapproval as well.

    4. BD agreed that OLTR’s are not stable and seldom last more than ~five to seven years, so we didn’t debate much on that point. But in reality, there’s very little hard evidence because so few people do OLTR, and there’s apparently not much research funding available to do studies. I also agree that when OLTR’s fail, the consequences are less traumatic.

    Considering the realities of the current situation, I would actually recommend that young men & women enter into OLTR agreements rather than conventional modern marriages. So I agree with BD about that as well. All I’m saying is, if I were a young man who created an OLTR, and there were children involved — I would think twice, and then think again, before I’d provoke my wife by taking the radical step of actually using my freedom to sleep with another woman. I wouldn’t just do it casually because I’m horny.

    5. I think your argument here is very perceptive. If you look at the competing elite viewpoints, on the one hand you have religious fanatic traditionalists like Robertson, and on the other hand you have the radical feminists & free sex advocates. It’s a phony dialectic that leaves everyone confused.

    6. For now the trend is exactly as you say, but I see a crisis coming, because of the many growing tensions & unresolved contradictions. The crisis could be monetary, ecological or social. All too often, historically speaking, the result of a breakdown of social order is the rise of a strongman (as Plato first discussed.) The groundwork has already been laid: look at the Patriot Act, look at NDAA, look at the Homeland Security detention camps.

  • Jack

    My counter-argument to Soul:

    1. You say that most men want to marry virgins and don’t want women pining away for past alphas. First of all, how old are you? Or rather, how old are the people whose company you keep? The virgin fetish is dead and buried, my friend. Such prudery has been on its way out for quite some time. Personally, if she’s not experienced, I want nothing to do with her. To quote Dennis Miller regarding Muslim terrorists receiving 72 virgins in heaven: “By the time you get to the 31st virgin, you’re just dying for a pro – someone who knows when and when not to use her teeth.” Second of all, would you say that women want their husbands to be virgins as well, instead of pining away for some girl they banged in high school? Characteristically male needy jealousy/insecurity/weakness is not something you should build a society around.

    2. Your arguments against polyamory are rather communist, as BD pointed out. Just because some men get more than others doesn’t mean the government should take away from the “sex creators” and give to the losers. This kills incentive. Punishing people for their success in order to share the wealth is a repugnant philosophy. You’re talking about “sexual rationing.” Just so every boy can have a girl, everyone is permitted only one. Sex must be rationed so the obese betas don’t get sad. Oh please! Don’t hate the sex creators. They perform a valuable function – they put women in a good mood, and trust me, you don’t want a bunch of sexually frustrated bitches! If there’s anything worse than a male AFC, it’s a female AFC. Male AFCs will simply play their video games and masturbate while using their tears as lubricant. Female AFCs will march in the streets screaming “all sex is rape!” and “castrate male pigs!” Plus, if you work hard, apply yourself, hit the gym, and learn game, you too can be a sex creator and give back to the community. But the government shouldn’t do it for you, or hand out free pussy at the courthouse (marriage certificates) on the condition that you get only one so others avoid sexual stravation. Let’s not let socialism and rationing “for the good of equality” cloud our rationality. Communism seriously needs to die.

    3. You keep going on about how women used to obey their husbands and give up their sexual freedom on their wedding nights. I don’t understand how this promotes stable families. You say that in Roman times the ancients allowed men to go to prostitutes while the women had to remain pure. Why are you emphasizing female “purity?” Why are the consequences for female promiscuity worse than male promiscuity? And please, don’t say it’s because women get pregnant. That’s irrelevent. If a married woman sleeps with another man, she may get pregnant. If a married man sleeps with another woman (like a prostitute), he may get her pregnant. Thus pregnancy is an equal risk for promiscuous men as it is for promiscuous women. So why are you emphasizing female obediance and female purity? Once again, you are implcitly referencing the territorial needs of insecure male pussies, on behalf of whom you seem to be speaking. I’ve never understood this double standard. A woman having lots of sex is no worse than a man doing it. Your emphasis on restraining the woman is both sexist and troubling, as it caters to needy/territorial alphas (the tyrants).

    4. For some reason, you say that OLTRs are broken homes and children need a stable environment. Why are OLTRs broken and define “stable.” As BD implied, there are three options – A. Forced monogamy (misery), which isn’t very stable since I believe that happiness is a necessary prerequisite for a loving home. B. Monogous and cheating, which leads to real hatred and broken homes. C. Open/poly which leads to some jealousy but a much happier and less territorial familial environment. If anything, I’d say that OLTRs are the most stable environments for raising productive children. Why would it be more stable to raise them in a hateful cheating environment or a totalitarian dictatorship of sexual socialism which gives the kids severe hangups about their own sexuality as they grow up? Also, lest I forget, in an OLTR, the woman must be constantly sweet because their are no safety nets and no financial communism in the relationship. The absence of sexual socialism, which allows both of them to freely sleep around can be defined as sexual competition, which creates incentive for love, peace, and harmony.

    5. You say that people can’t be trusted because they aren’t as intelligent as BD and, as we can see today, are degenerating into sexual ararchy. Yes, every new idea takes time to refine. Passing through a stage of anarchy is inevitable. The reason we have sexual anarchy now is that people aren’t being taught coherent values, due to conflicting beliefs thanks to fighting among the elites. Pat Roberston, for example, ridiculously believes that taking prayer out of the schools is causing school shootings and is the reason civilization is going to hell, as we are the leading nation in social pathology. Whereas, in the 50s, we were the leading nation in mental health. And yet, much more atheistic and sexually liberal countries than ours (particularly European) have no school shootings and hardly any of these types of social pathologies. And yet, America is still the most religious nation in the west. The cause of sexual anarchy is not polyamory or monogamy – it is a lack of uniform cultural values and a bitter hatred between competing elites which leads to everyone being taught nothing, thus facilitating sexual anarchy and irresponsibility so that people like you can say “I told you so.”

    6. What do you mean when you say “we may see a renewal of tyranny?” I think society is precisely heading in the opposite direction, particularly when it comes to sex.

  • Alejandro

    The comment about women having to sacrifice their sexual freedoom for the good of society struck me as really sexist. Maybe Soul would prefer something like saudi arabia or any other muslim country where women are treated as second class citizens.

    I liked the debate but I have to say that Souls point was never very clear to me. It seemed to me from the way the debate was formulated the he was supoussed to be arguing for monogamy and against non-monogmy as an acceptable practice in society, but then he started complaining that people were too promiscuous, that women have too much sexual freedom, that people in general are way too fucking shellfish and that alpha males are going to go extinct because Blackdragon told them to always use condoms (seriously, wtf???), etc. While Blackdragon was always pretty focused and right to the point, Soul was all over the place here.

    Even now that he formulated what he argued for (option 4 above), I fail to see how it is clearly incompatible with blackdragons option. Why cant people go for non-monogamous relationships AND recognize the need for caution around sexual activity AND be concerned about the conseuences for the children??? Its another complain I would make about Souls argument: During the whole debate, he strongly implies “non-monogamy = irresponsible, promiscuous behaviour” Which is just a common misconception about non-monogamy. Just because you are not monogamous doesnt mean you are having sex with 20 other people at the same time.

    • @Blimy – I think your complaint was caused by the fact that both Soul and I were too long-winded. If I do this again on the blog I’ll ensure that doesn’t repeat.

      @Anonymouse – The issue of some men getting more sex than other men isn’t in question. We all already know this. The problem is you (and Soul) are advocating the same thing for sex as socialists advocate for money; that because some people get more than others, society should crack down on personal freedoms and FORCE people to be more “equal” (i.e. miserable). I don’t believe in that kind of use of force, but if you think that would make for a better society, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

      @Jack – Apples to oranges my friend. Plato was chock-full of psychotic ideas like that, pages and pages of them (communism being fantastic, no man should know who his child is, no one can know who is biological parents are, etc, etc). These weren’t occasional rare statements like in the case of Rand or Browne or anyone else I agree with. Go read Plato’s Republic sometime. It’s scarier than any Steven King novel.

      @Soul – Your “item four” sounds fine to me.

  • Anonymouse

    Like I said, I think BD was propping up a straw man against the status quo instead of debating your culturally conservative position. But I think you left out a very important point, raised by Kay Hymowitz (Manning Up), Hanna Rosin (The End of Men) and Roissy (the entire argument of his blog). It’s that as women have advanced their position in society, men have become less ambitious and more content with staying home and playing video games than ever before. Hymowitz and Roissy, in particular, trace the current “manchild crisis” to a lack of sexual options for most (i.e. beta) men. Think of it as the Pareto Principle applied to the alpha/beta dichotomy. “If 20% of the men are fucking 80% of the women, then this is what happens to the remaining 80% of men” – or so the argument goes.

    If Roissy et. al’s assertions are correct, then it’s not hard to see how BD’s position would only exacerbate the current problem. This concept strikes me as so vital to the position you were taking that I think you lose major points for not bringing it up.

  • Soul

    @Blimy, sorry you don’t like my warped sense of humor.

    @Anonymouse, there’s some truth to your perception that I was playing the part of a straw man in this debate. At times, I came across sounding like I’m supporting a return to the sexual repression of the past, and that’s not representative of my true beliefs. I’m afraid we may see a renewal of tyranny, but I’m not welcoming it.

    But on the other hand, if we’re going to have all this sexual freedom, we need to have a discussion about how to use it wisely. Freedom doesn’t necessarily mean license to do whatever you want.

    BD summarizes the debate in terms of three options for society; which actually wasn’t the way the topic was defined! But for clarity’s sake, what I’d argue for is an Option 4:

    4. A society in which free individuals who have a preference for monogamy, also recognize the need for caution and restraint around sexual activity outside of committed monogamous relationships. While individuals who prefer non-monogamy, need to pursue their preference openly and courageously, and also with a concern the consequences for the children involved.

  • Jack

    BD, about Plato wanting to outlaw laughter: Um, yeah, and Harry Browne wanted you to give up your children for adoption if they piss you off. And Ayn Rand admired a murderer. What’s your point?

  • Anonymouse

    I think BD lost this one, and his list of “three options” in the final statement shows why – most of his arguments throughout the debate read like they were against option 1, when that wasn’t what Soul was arguing for.

    I may need to reread the whole thing for clarity, but my first impression was that BD was debating a straw man.

  • Though I’ve probably been around to many arguments lately (I know there’s a difference between arguments and debates) so I’m a little biased right now (coming to a place I go to for sanity). Not harping on anyone who digs the debate.

  • Damn Soul you have one out-dated argument. Attacking someone who agrees with you for the most part. Arguing B.D.’s beliefs would some how make this country worse if accepted on a large scale. You’re really reaching. If anything those out-dated beliefs you’re clinging to (and so many others are) are making this country immature and incapable of growth and change (and admitting when we’re wrong). What B.D. pushes most is brutal honesty about what we want…wow man just wow. Narrow view.
    You’re so worried about the children; with a divorce rate in the 60%’s and climbing what do you think they’re already exposed to? How much lying and negativity is in their faces everyday? Actually don’t want a reply:
    BD I love your blog but this one…seemed like arguing for arguments sake. I know that’s not your point but it just got a little ugly, drawn out and honestly was a bit of a turn off. I can’t speak for the rest of your readers but I’d rather read about the ideas you’d like to share, your humorous views, guidelines of life you use that might help others and projects you’re working on; even’ts etc. More constructive things basically. But hey if you want to keep doing these that’s your call-I/we can’t dig 100% of your work…that just might be creepy.

Leave a Reply