The next time someone says "99% of the time..." go ahead and expect them spend an hour giving you a power-point presentation on thier sources. It's obviously a personal feeling rooted in thier observations.
As America becomes more stratified, are we seeing more "throuple" relationships? Should we?
- Thread starter Mike302
- Start date
KatieDoes
Crone
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2021
- Posts
- 1,923
Nah. I knew what I needed to know when you claimed that America was a matriarchy because women acquired a bit of agency over their own lives. You’re not a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion.
You can't have men ever share thier feelings, eh? Those uppity men need to know thier place...
I'm really hearing the confirmation from you.
Just be honest and tell me what you think men might be good for.
KatieDoes
Crone
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2021
- Posts
- 1,923
A few posts ago, you claimed to not know Andrew Tate, and now you’re defending him and claiming that he wants men to share their feelings? Jesus Christ, the Google is free.
To be clear, I fully support men seeking therapy and talking about their feelings. I am 100% in favor of eliminating any stigma that pertains to mental health care.
Otis_Ravelli
Just some fella
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2013
- Posts
- 1,594
Two posts earlier than this you accused @KatieDoes of laying her own narrative over what you were saying and here you are doing exactly that. You're argument is straw men and shadows which doesn't hold up to the slightest scrutiny.
JuanVato
Lead with kindness.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Posts
- 2,233
Overhead in pediatric ICU, man to the mom of the child undergoing care:
"Come on. Let's go. We have spent too much time in here. You need to spend time with me."
Yeah. Wow.
Yarglenurp
Not bothered
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2024
- Posts
- 1,156
And they say romance is dead.
KatieDoes
Crone
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2021
- Posts
- 1,923
That guy, a year later, to his friends: ‘The divorce came out of nowhere. I had no idea she wasn’t happy’.
True, I didn't look him up.
I assumed from what you say about him he's a pro men's rights guy.
KatieDoes
Crone
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2021
- Posts
- 1,923
You seem to be an idiot.
You mean me coming to the conclusion Katie (and much of society) doesn't think men are good for much? You could be correct.
Why are you speaking for her, anyway? You think she needs you to make her points? She clearly doesn't.
My argument at this point is that young men aren't doing well and few people care. If they even notice.
I was just trying to examine possible solutions.
I'd rather be an idiot than a condescending, offensive bully like you.
You quickly go to name-calling even before you run out of discussion material.
You are a mean person. I shouldn't have bothered trying to have a civil conversation with such a close-minded NPC.
You don't listen or have empathy. You just want to fight and name-call.
KatieDoes
Crone
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2021
- Posts
- 1,923
Dude. You literally defended a sex trafficking rapist (twice) instead of looking to see who you were defending. That’s idiotic behavior. That doesn’t deserve empathy.
Your entire premise is based on falsehoods and cognitive dissonance. It’s not worth trying to change the mind of a mindless man. I’m not debating you, I’m mocking you.
Just a little mens health awareness:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/27/men-health-crisis-gender-gaps/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/27/men-health-crisis-gender-gaps/
KatieDoes
Crone
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2021
- Posts
- 1,923
Men can take responsibility for themselves. They can go to the doctor. They can seek counseling. They can prepare their own healthy diet, take care of their physical health and engage in less risky behavior. This is a men problem, and it is up to men to solve it. This is not something for women to be responsible for, (aside, of course, from the mothers of boys too young to do this for themselves).
There is an increased focus on women’s health because for hundreds of years, there wasn’t. Medical studies, safety research, health care, was all focused on men, exclusively.
* Also, your article author claims that there are 18 health initiatives for LGBTQ folks and only four for men. LGBTQ folks are also men.
Last edited:
Otis_Ravelli
Just some fella
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2013
- Posts
- 1,594
I clearly wasn't speaking for her I was pointing out your inconsistent arguments. Don't try to accuse me if white knighting because I'm on her side of the fence.
NPC is another term straight out of the incel playbook. For someone who says he's not one of them you sure sure do seem well versed in their ways of arguing their facile position.
Yes there is an issue with men and mental health but the biggest challenge they face is the kind of toxic masculinity espoused by incel culture that suggests that mental illness is a character flaw. The biggest risk to men's mental health is other men.
policywank
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Posts
- 3,220
We do not live in a matriarchy. Women have not seized the levers of power and influence. We have simply gained enough agency to have greater control over our own individual outcomes.
There was a time when men could get away with certain behaviours without forfeiting access to romantic or sexual relationships with women. They can still engage in that behaviour. We have just come to a point where we don't have to put up with it. If I choose not to be with a man because he behaves like a neanderthal and as a result he chooses to modify his behaviour, we are both exercising our agency to make our choices. I as a woman haven't taken control and denied that man's right to make his own choice the way the patriarchy used to do with women. All I have taken control of is myself.
There was a time when men could get away with certain behaviours without forfeiting access to romantic or sexual relationships with women. They can still engage in that behaviour. We have just come to a point where we don't have to put up with it. If I choose not to be with a man because he behaves like a neanderthal and as a result he chooses to modify his behaviour, we are both exercising our agency to make our choices. I as a woman haven't taken control and denied that man's right to make his own choice the way the patriarchy used to do with women. All I have taken control of is myself.
As a related aside, it's predictable that if Kamala Harris wins the election (finger's crossed she does) there will be those who make the ridiculous claim that Sexism is now a thing of the past. An absurd claim to anyone paying attention. The same was said about racism when Barrack Obama was elected. ..Has progress been made since the 50's? Yes, of course.. but we have a long way to go.
Last edited:
policywank
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Posts
- 3,220
Yes, it is unfortunate that we seem to have become stratified into thinking sexism/racism are either all pervasive or non-existent. It makes it difficult to have rationale discourse.
Scareltt
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2017
- Posts
- 2,025
I love, and missed your writing!
I can see where married couples have other sex partners and everyone knows about it. In fact, I've been swapping stories with a young lady, in her mid-30s. She's married and has sex with men outside of her marriage and her husband knows about it and is okay with it. (If you're curious, no, we're not about to be sex partners.)
This is similar to what others have posted here: We're redefining monogamy. You can have one main partner for the money, the house and the children and other partners for casual sex, sort of like drinking buddies or people you attend sporting events with.
Let's face it, no matter how committed you are to your marital partner, there's always someone out there with whom you secretly desire to have sex. It might be a co-worker, someone you met at the gym, the doctor's office, the person you ran into at the grocery store, the hardware store but you don't know, etc., etc. They might be your economic equal, above your pay grade or far below it. They might share your faith, reject your faith; they might share your politics. They might not. They might be your equal in terms of looks; they might be better; they might be uglier. Who knows? But there's something about them that makes you want to boink them. And if they want to boink you, too, it might just facilitate the event.
The question everyone needs to answer is this: Can you be just sex friends with someone? This is where -- pardon the cliche -- the rubber meets the road. Some can keep it casual; others think once they've exchanged bodily fluids or had some sort of sexual encounter with someone it's off to the minister or the judge to get married.
If men fail to get and hold full-time jobs but are married, their wives might very well feel inclined to engage in discreet, sexual encounters. That's similar to what it was back before the women's movement put many a woman into the workplace. There were more than a few husbands, with the full-time job, out there fucking around while their wives were home dealing with the children.
If both married partners are working full time, they still may engage in extramarital affairs.
I'm not sure what will happen but if I had to speculate, I'd say this: Monogamy will be redefined and there will be a greater acceptance of people being married to one person while engaging in sexual activities with another. It may happen 20 years from now. But I think it will happen.
As to what the unintended results will be from this acceptance and activity, it's hard to say. Like all societal change, some will be happy and better off, while others will feel far differently, wondering where we lost our moral compass.
This is similar to what others have posted here: We're redefining monogamy. You can have one main partner for the money, the house and the children and other partners for casual sex, sort of like drinking buddies or people you attend sporting events with.
Let's face it, no matter how committed you are to your marital partner, there's always someone out there with whom you secretly desire to have sex. It might be a co-worker, someone you met at the gym, the doctor's office, the person you ran into at the grocery store, the hardware store but you don't know, etc., etc. They might be your economic equal, above your pay grade or far below it. They might share your faith, reject your faith; they might share your politics. They might not. They might be your equal in terms of looks; they might be better; they might be uglier. Who knows? But there's something about them that makes you want to boink them. And if they want to boink you, too, it might just facilitate the event.
The question everyone needs to answer is this: Can you be just sex friends with someone? This is where -- pardon the cliche -- the rubber meets the road. Some can keep it casual; others think once they've exchanged bodily fluids or had some sort of sexual encounter with someone it's off to the minister or the judge to get married.
If men fail to get and hold full-time jobs but are married, their wives might very well feel inclined to engage in discreet, sexual encounters. That's similar to what it was back before the women's movement put many a woman into the workplace. There were more than a few husbands, with the full-time job, out there fucking around while their wives were home dealing with the children.
If both married partners are working full time, they still may engage in extramarital affairs.
I'm not sure what will happen but if I had to speculate, I'd say this: Monogamy will be redefined and there will be a greater acceptance of people being married to one person while engaging in sexual activities with another. It may happen 20 years from now. But I think it will happen.
As to what the unintended results will be from this acceptance and activity, it's hard to say. Like all societal change, some will be happy and better off, while others will feel far differently, wondering where we lost our moral compass.
policywank
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Posts
- 3,220
The "morality" argument for monogamy has always been sort of a circular or self-fulfilling premise in my mind. Society (driven by religion) forces it upon us from the moment we are born and justifies it by observing negative outcomes for those that don't comply. But it is society that imposes those negative outcomes.
In a world where we are compelled towards monogamy, it is only rational and practical that people choose partners based on multiple criteria of which sexual compatibility is only one and probably one of the less important ones. Traditionally that was even more so the case for women whose opportunities were intentionally limited, therefore compelling her to need a man to survive.
As a result, it is reasonably likely that either partner, but especially wives, would find themselves sexually unfulfilled. It used to be the case that society believed that is just the way it is. That does not seem to be the case any more. Whether throuple relationships will be the result I do not know. But I foresee lots of people (again especially women) being increasingly unwilling to accept unfulfilling sex lives.
In a world where we are compelled towards monogamy, it is only rational and practical that people choose partners based on multiple criteria of which sexual compatibility is only one and probably one of the less important ones. Traditionally that was even more so the case for women whose opportunities were intentionally limited, therefore compelling her to need a man to survive.
As a result, it is reasonably likely that either partner, but especially wives, would find themselves sexually unfulfilled. It used to be the case that society believed that is just the way it is. That does not seem to be the case any more. Whether throuple relationships will be the result I do not know. But I foresee lots of people (again especially women) being increasingly unwilling to accept unfulfilling sex lives.
JCSTREET
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2004
- Posts
- 2,023
You've got the right sense of humor for The OnionI blame the friggin' Mormons.
