RageFuel Redditors defend engaged woman drinking from a male stripper's dick
I would behead the whore if it was my fiancee (in real life)
Somebody should tell the Ukranians to stop feeling so threatened by the Russian tanks in their country = I don't feel threatened by the woman whose bills I pay deciding to let the choclate off a stripper's dick drip into her mouth
Why are you feeling threatened? A woman can be gangbanged by the entire football team and still love you despite not fucking you. I think you need to go to therapy to confront your toxic masculinity, just because you're in a monogamous relationship with a woman doesn't mean you own her body, now continue buying her shit or you're a loser who deserves to be divorceraped in court and pay alimony for the rest of your life
Same
teehee
"extramarital stimulation" i'm autistic is this nigga for real
All this fucking female privilege shit pisses me off, when a woman does it, shes considered to be expressing herself and being empowered. When a man does it he's doxxed and treated like stepped on dog shit.
As I once said, the West wants a decorrelation between marriage and sex.
To be honest, I think it's not entirely absurd. It would make sense for arranged marriages, with fair agreements regarding what to do in case of divorce. Also the possibility of paternity tests nowadays supports the concept even more.
In fact, when arranged marriages were the norm, I think extramarrital sex was much more tolerated. I mean these people got together for pragmatic reasons, not for passion, so it would make sense for them to satisfy their libido elsewhere. That's why for instance in English and French the words "lover", "amant" do not refer to "husband" or "mari". The French word "maîtresse" is also interesting in that regard.
There are other hints of this but it's late and I'm too lazy to collect them.
In any case, marriage for love is stupid, IMHO. It should be the exception, not the norm. And in this regard people should be allowed to fuck whoever they want, provided they fulfill the obligations defined in the marriage contract, and that it doesn't impede the development of the children, who shouldn't witness their mother drinking piss from a dick, for instance.
To be honest, I think it's not entirely absurd. It would make sense for arranged marriages, with fair agreements regarding what to do in case of divorce. Also the possibility of paternity tests nowadays supports the concept even more.
In fact, when arranged marriages were the norm, I think extramarrital sex was much more tolerated. I mean these people got together for pragmatic reasons, not for passion, so it would make sense for them to satisfy their libido elsewhere. That's why for instance in English and French the words "lover", "amant" do not refer to "husband" or "mari". The French word "maîtresse" is also interesting in that regard.
There are other hints of this but it's late and I'm too lazy to collect them.
In any case, marriage for love is stupid, IMHO. It should be the exception, not the norm. And in this regard people should be allowed to fuck whoever they want, provided they fulfill the obligations defined in the marriage contract, and that it doesn't impede the development of the children, who shouldn't witness their mother drinking piss from a dick, for instance.
Last edited:
lmao comments getting deleted on cucckitNotice their avatars
Every hour she spends swiping on tinder is another hour she doesn't spend educating her children.Both genders should be forced to be monogamous even if it makes 99-100% of couples frustrated or bored. That's what is best for raising the next generation
In the kind of marriage I was thinking of, the mother would have little to no role to play in the child's education. And she would have agreed to it, because that would be one of the terms of the marriage contract.
Really it should just be a contract, and obviously the possibility to be depraved would have consequences.
I'm not sure this is anthropologically so obvious. Monogamy has not always been nearly as ubiquitous as it is currently.
Also for long, many mothers used to die during childbirth (the importance of this is a pet theory of mine), thus many kids were nursed by nannies or relatives of the mother, that is women who were not married to the father. And even if childbirth death was not significant, the overall high mortality in prehistoric times must have been.
Also in patriarchal societies, it was common for the mother to be on much lower social and cultural status than the father, so that her role in the upbringing of the child was very limited, as she had no authority.
Last edited:
foidsSimilar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
