RendHeaven

That's fair. My confidence only comes from observing my friends in-person and online. But their futures are yet to be seen. And especially my own future is vague. More testing is required. I sympathize with this deeply. Not only must she be attractive, but she must also energetically compatible, have values alignment with you, and now she has to be non monogamous?? That's an impossibly high bar In my experience, women tend to be unfathomably flexible, explorative, dynamic, and go with the flow (i.e. feminine). Feminine women will mold to fit the shape of their container, like how water takes on the shape of its cup. Maybe you have observed this. The same girl you were once dating will get a new boyfriend and it's like her entire personality changes. It's not that she was ever real or fake. It's that her bliss is to follow the leadership of whoever she currently trusts with her heart. This gives her a shocking (and incomprehensible) degree of personality flexibility. This is also the mechanism that abusers and narcissists exploit. Since women naturally have looser boundaries than men, this allows disgusting guys to push and push and push until she bends or breaks. Obviously I am not recommending that we do this. I want the women in my life to be on board with my leadership without any coercion. I'm merely bringing up this dynamic to make the point that women are happy to try new things, so long as their heart follows you. Your dream girl basically has a 0% chance of having non-monogamous software preinstalled. This is an offer you must make, with no strings attached, and she has to willingly choose to give it a shot with you, because she's naturally adventurous, and she wants to keep you in her life. It's a frame battle of sorts. If you really really really really want her, and you're afraid of losing her, you will fold and offer monogamy to placate her. There will be 0 conflict, and both sides will appear initially thrilled. But you did very much just castrate yourself. Your sexual freedom is now nonexistent. You are no longer "allowed" to show interest in any other woman, or else you are a liar. This may cause issues down the line. Are you seriously going to be with this one girl, and only this one girl, FOREVER? That's the implication and promise. So you have to "hold the line" so to speak. The frame is, "I really like you and I want to take this to the next level, but I can't hand you my balls. I want to explore emotional exclusivity, but I can't promise eternal sexual subservience to you. This is not a wise thing to do for our future longevity. I am open to compromise." And if she says no, then that's that. But if she likes you, it's more likely that she will pause and furrow her brow as she's faced with an internal conflict. She may push back or try to change your mind. This is where you gently but firmly hold the line. You want her but you're willing to lose her. If she sees your sincerity and she has an open mind, odds are actually in your favor!

I think you might be assuming that non-monogamy = an orgy free-for-all with 3 girlfriends That's way way way too much. The only core difference between monogamy and non-monogamy is genital gatekeeping. From an earlier comment I wrote in this thread, here's a more realistic/stable and low-key varient of non-monogamy (compared to a saudi harem lol) The simplest and most hassle-free non-monogamy is to have a girlfriend/wife in an emotionally exclusive relationship, but both parties are allowed to have unrestricted sex with anybody as "friends with benefits" (but you can implement safeguards like "no fucking each others' siblings or best friends" to minimize bullshit). The emotional exclusivity helps her feel safe, fulfills the criteria of mutual sacrifice, and disincentivizes her from running off with other men (lmao). This means you can still take on the world with your one special person and go as deep as you want. But you can both eat snacks on the side. You're not meant to get attached to your snacks the way you would with the main course. But it's also neurotic to refuse all snacks for the rest of your life, and to eat your one designated meal like a good boy. Yes, this arrangement does mean you will be using other women as "side pieces" but this is not a problem as long as you have integrity and the all girls involved give their informed consent. If you have an open marriage, for example, this should be the first thing you tell new girls. One main girl + one rotating side girl (because nobody wants to be the side girl forever) counts as non-monogamy, and compared to regular monogamy, gives you more freedom and forces you to be more trusting of your main partner, without detracting from the depth of romance you desire to build (it could even add to deepened trust, contemplate why!) Yes. Non-monogamy is manipulative, but so is monogamy. As to which is more manipulative, I'm not sure. The margin feels razor-thin, and I don't have a horse in this race believe it or not. I'm tentatively sold on this non-monogamy model I just shared above, but that doesn't mean I'm strictly anti-monogamy. One main girl + one side girl who you only see every other week for 2 hours (to destroy her guts) is not so different from just having one main girl in terms of the attention you must give The side girl understands that she's not your girlfriend with informed consent. She's happy to use your body just as much as you are using her. This whole arrangement would actually fall apart if you tried giving more time and energy to your side girl. Paying for dates, talking about your feelings, etc. This would cross the emotional exclusivity boundary, send mixed signals to both of your girls, and lead to the collapse of your castle. You don't have to have 3 full-fledged girlfriends, nor should you ever want that. That sounds nightmarish. The one "downside" to the dating model I'm sharing is the fact that you will have have to go "hunting" for a new side girl once or twice a year. Because if you lazily sit on your ass, your side girl will eventually leave you and you will be completely dry of options, which means you are now in de facto monogamy except your girlfriend still has infinite men knocking on her door and you can't force her to close her legs (it's completely her choice). So you have to stay sharp. Attracting new women has to be fun and enjoyable for you. All girls are going to have a preference for monogamy. The only reason a "high quality woman" would be more difficult to convince is if she has more sexual marketplace leverage over you. If you both subconsciously understand that she is the buyer and you are the seller (due to uneven demand - more high quality men want her than high quality women want you), then she is in a position to walk away from you if you don't fit her standard. She will simply go find someone else. Honestly, go girl! However, if you manage to flip the emotional buyer-seller dynamic by showing her that more high quality women want you than high quality men want her (this is only possible by emphasizing quality. Because you will ALWAYS lose to her in quantity), then you are in a position to offer a non-monogamous relationship, and even though this disturbs her at first, she can't just drop you and walk away. And if she does, you still have other high-quality women willing to hear your offer. Yes, pulling this off with integrity, informed consent, and minimal manipulation requires you to be a bit of a stud (in terms of energy and emotions! NOT money or looks) You can't be a crusty value-leeching gremlin and expect any woman to be happy with your greediness. If you want the benefits of monogamy paired with unbound sexual freedom, you have to earn it by making the women in your life happy.

So women are at fault because society is not fair to men?

Correct. Because women value safety and security on a deep level which is difficult for the average man to appreciate. Non-monogamy at face value is very threatening to a woman because if you're not careful, you might as well be danging an exit door in front of her face which can trigger biological alarm bells or even abandonment trauma. Which is why to get a woman to agree to non-monogamy, she has to feel very very safe around you. She must trust you. And of course, she has to be fiercely attracted to you. It's a high bar to clear, but not impossible. You can substitute the safety and security a woman would feel from a monogamous relationship model by being there for her energetically with masculine containment. It all comes down to communication and emotions.

Non-monogamy is not a prescription for the average person. Non-monogamy is a serious option to consider for select people who are unsatisfied with the traditional sexually exclusive girlfriend/boyfriend model So no need to worry about chads impregnating everybody, lol. What specifically is stopping you from embracing/exploring non-monogamy? Oh no, they'll be subject to critical thinking! the horror~

👊 Gotcha. This is impressive! In that case, I'm surprised you consider non-monogamy "just a theory." What are your specific reservations? I know it'll be difficult Yeah I know what you mean. I lived in denver for a year, and there was a widespread polyamorous (sub?)culture there. That's what I had in mind when I said your assertion was "myopic," but to be honest nothing I saw in Denver is anything I would personally be interested in. Too much hippie shit, not grounded at all LOL. Regarding infidelity, it's neither data nor vibes, but rather just an overwhelming amount of brute encounters IRL. Yeah, I'm prone to sampling bias and my POV can warp or distort the reality of the situation, but it's hard to overlook the anecdotes especially when it's a common persistent anecdote. I respect any researchers attempting to study this using statistics and scientific method, but honestly, how reliable is that? The whole point of cheating is that your partner is not supposed to find out. So how the hell is a nerd in a labcoat gonna know haha. Regarding "relationship termination," I was going to cite that divorce rates have only been going up, but apparently that is not true so I must have gotten false information through the social matrix. Divorce rates are stagnant, if not slightly going down, according to chatGPT. Still, a projected 40% divorce likelihood for married couples in 2025 is nothing to dismiss. The bottom line is that monogamy does not guarantee forever stability. It requires a similar amount of trust, communication, and negotiation as non-monogamy IMO. You wrote that monogamy has proof of concept and I said I disagree. I take that back. You're right, it does have proof of concept. My contention is that it doesn't have proof of reliable execution. It furthermore lacks proof of universal optimal outcomes. Important difference...

Spell it out. You write verbatim: "Having children is the most divine and holy things you can do." How is this not a pedestalized mental construct? How do you know you didn't just pull that out of your ass? What grounds your certainty? Whatever you come up with... what grounds that? Have you bothered to play skeptic against your own firm beliefs? Are you able to steelman the contrary position? Are you able to see the relativity underpinning this question of value judgements? Epistemology101. I'm happy to change my mind if your contemplation is convincing.

Funny how I was genuinely curious to hear about your side of things and then you turned this into a personal attack

I am personally still exploring, but I've seen long-term non-monogamy work for others with my own eyes. This was mentioned in my original post. And if you do simple research on the internet, there is more than ample evidence. Again, mentioned in my original post "Have you tried playing devil's advocate against your assumptions (go out of your way to seek examples of healthy non-monogamy)..." Burden of proof is actually not on me. I'm just reporting what I've seen through the telescope. Now it's your turn to look through the telescope before you doubt my vision. If you actually do a sincere study and come up with nothing, then you can bring that up and call me out. Good thing I'm not defending non-monogamy! This is blatantly myopic. Plug your own assertion into ChatGPT right now and ask: "is this true?" I strongly disagree. Skyrocketing rates of infidelity and relationship termination says otherwise.

How's that going for ya

You are placing your own mental constructs on a pedestal.

Give concrete examples. So far everything you're accusing non-monogamy of, monogamy is also guilty of. For example, you write: "non-monogamy is each bringing a specific package not a whole person" What does this even mean? The only difference between monogamy and non-monogamy is whether or not you gatekeep your partner's genitals. So according to you, if I gatekeep my girlfriend's pussy, that means she's suddenly a "whole person," but if I hand sexual freedom back to her, she's now a "specific package?" Make it make sense. I think you are trying to say that by being sexually exclusive, you don't need to (or rather, you can't) turn to other people to meet your sexual needs. Therefore this builds more mutual dependence. Neither side has a choice. If they have needs, there's only one well to drink from. I think you see this as a good thing, because devoting yourself to drinking from one well is a sort of loyalty. But really, none of this is a victory for monogamy. Greater codependence leads to more manipulation and in-fighting. And you say that this greater dependence = "a whole person," but keep in mind that if you are a man, no woman can ever meet every single one of your needs universally. No matter how stellar of a woman she is, you're going to need family and friends and hobbies apart from her in order to live a fulfilling life. So even in monogamy, there is no such thing as a so-called "whole person." You only ever have "specific packages" when it comes to dating. So you cannot fault a non-monogamous relationship model for only meeting partial needs. Non-monogamy skews in favor of men with high sexual optionality, yes Monogamy skews in favor of women and men with low sexual optionality. But again, you can't fault either model for having a bias. As I keep saying, all dating is inherently survival/manipulation/needs-based. And that's not a bad thing. It is what it is. Try to contemplate the available relationship models without bias, and see if you might learn something about yourself or humans. This is a very low-resolution 144p crude summary, but I see where you're coming from. A woman desires safety and emotions. A man desires vagina. True. Not sure what this has anything to do with the monogamy vs non-monogamy debate. I think you are trying to say that non-monogamy will make a woman feel less safe than monogamy. This is actually a fair critique and it is true. Which is why your average bum cannot pull off non-monogamy convincingly, and he's doomed to either sleep around frivolously or, if he's lucky, he will lock down a good girl according to cultural norms. But that doesn't mean non-monogamy is inherently flawed or bad or wrong. As I've been saying several times now, with proper openness, communication, and compromise, you can TALK TO YOUR PARTNER and construct non-monogamy to be a win-win. If you disagree, chances are you are simply not serious about understanding relationships, and you are lost in defending your own bias. If you construct non-monogamy in a healthy manner, your children will never meet your fuck buddies, so this is a non-issue.

@Sugarcoat Would you say you're completely over your anxiety?

This is so obviously made up. I'm not against children by any means, they are certainly beautiful. But be wary of over-glorification (THE MOST DIVINE AND HOLY THING YOU CAN DO is a serious epistemic claim, I hope you're ready to justify it)

Not necessarily. I'm not suggesting you have multiple wives in your saudi harem or anything insane like that lol. The simplest and most hassle-free non-monogamy is to have a girlfriend/wife in an emotionally exclusive relationship, but both parties are allowed to have unrestricted sex with anybody in a "friends with benefits" setting. The emotional exclusivity helps her feel safe, fulfills the criteria of mutual sacrifice, and disincentivizes her from running off with other men (lmao) Therefore, money spent should be roughly identical to standard monogamy. Re-read point #2 in my original post. I am pro-sacrifice, I think it is necessary for a deep connection. However, it is totally arbitrary to sacrifice your genitals. Successful non-monogamy still involves rules, boundaries, and sacrifice. This is discussed in advance through skillful communication and compromise. A total free-for-all would just lead to headache and chaos. Don't forget that monogamy is also "transactional." All dating is transactional. Strawman. Spell out why you think non-monogamy is less "equal"

I'm strangely ok with this lol

Yes. There is a titanic wave of invisible pressure on every human in the developed world to follow monogamous trends. It's usually implicit and unquestioned. The problem here is not that monogamy is wrong or bad. The problem is that we are unconsciously magnetized towards it without even realizing it. I have enormous respect for people who consciously choose monogamy after doing a thorough excavation of all alternative options. But who really does this? Most people just fall into the funnel with 0 self-reflection.

Party girl sounds like a problem. Glad you caught onto her scheme. Personally I'm pretty sold on non-monogamy. For you or anybody else in this thread, can you spell out the hangup? Why cling to monogamy? Here are some objections I can think of off the top of my head: But I don't want my girl fucking other guys! (enormous objection, aptly #1 on the list) But I think sacrificing your options is virtuous and strengthens your mutual bond! Without that upfront cost, there's no incentive to stick it out together when things get tough! But I want true, deep love. This can't be possible if you're sleeping around! But look at what happened to (insert polyamorous celebrity having a disastrous episode)! But I want to get married and have kids. I dream of that kind of stable nuclear family ideal! But girls wouldn't want an open relationship even if I did! And here are some contemplation avenues (each number corresponds to the list above): You sound insecure. The reality is, she's gonna fuck whoever she wants because she has free will. And this is the case even under monogamy - she can still cheat on you or leave you. In fact, her leaving you is the most likely scenario, especially if she's attractive. You really think becoming her legal husband means her genitals exclusively belong to you forever? That's beyond delusional. I agree with the importance of sacrifice. But why is the metric of sacrifice sexual optionality? This stinks of cultural indoctrination and insecurity. There are an infinity of ways to sacrifice for your partner - how self-serving and ego-boosting of you to hoard their genitals and to paint that as virtue... A monogamous deal asymmetrically benefits the partner with less sexual options. This is oftentimes the man, although rarely a woman will triumphantly lock down a total stud and feel the rush of asymmetric value arbitrage. Very convenient for a guy to act like he's making a noble sacrifice by getting monogamous, when he's actually not giving up much, and the deeper underlying motive is to capture the woman's body for himself. Why does gatekeeping each others' genitals influence the quality of your love? There more I think about it, the more suffocating and unloving monogamy is. Is controlling each other your definition of love? Imagine a relationship with as little possible control happening in both directions. The level of trust and vulnerability and development this takes is a true test of love. This means your girl can go fuck another guy, come home to you, tell you about it (to the extent that you're curious), and then you're happy for her as long as she's happy. Her winning = you winning. Why not? You love her! This should be a no-brainer. And then you guys can have awesome sex, and everybody wins. And before you get up in arms about refusing to be a cuck or whatever, remember that the vice versa scenario is also active. You have unbound freedom as well. Best case scenario your girl is down for threesomes or even more. This may sound utopian, but I know real people who have these kinds of relationship arrangements. It requires next-level openness and communication skill and self-esteem, but it's certainly possible. Celebrities and internet influencers are usually egomaniacs that have self-sabotaging personality traits. It's very likely that you simply haven't seen a healthy example of non-monogamy, therefore your mind jumps to the conclusion that it's not possible. How would you know? Have you tried playing devil's advocate against your assumptions (go out of your way to seek examples of healthy non-monogamy)... What stops you from having an open marriage? Why do you assume that to be a good parent, you must be monogamous? If you have multiple partners, simply don't flaunt them in front of your kids (obviously it will fuck with their attachment and development if you're constantly introducing them to a revolving door of adult figures). How do you know? Have you tried asking? How many times? Keep in mind that a girl who really really likes you will bend over backwards for you. Basic frame control is required to "convince" her of your non-monogamous agenda - you can't just get on your knees and start begging her. Is it manipulative to "frame control" her into adopting non-monogamy? Perhaps. But locking her down into a monogamous contract is also manipulative, we just don't see the manipulation because everyone is doing it. By participating in dating you are bound to manipulate, so as long as you are a thoughtful and empathetic person, don't get hung up on it. Food for thought. I'm not saying that non-monogamy must be better than monogamy. There's clearly deep nuance and individual preference here at play. I think my main point here is simply that, the urge to defend to monogamy, or the repulsion toward non-monogamy is usually unexamined cultural bias and personal selfishness/weakness. Feel free to be a champion of monogamy, but make sure you choose it from a place of serious introspection after first steelmanning non-monogamy

@Schizophonia We could pass for brothers based on the eyebrows. your thicker neck mogs me though

Right. Your position is faultless and blameless and valuable.

@aurum Have you found any solutions for yourself?

Meaning, yes. Beauty, maybe not. Beauty is borne of both expansion and contraction as far as I can tell. Infinity is not dull or neutral. The increasingly revealed intricacy and reconciliation is breathtaking. Beauty is indiscriminate. I think I know what you mean. When I see how self-serving, limited, arbitrary, and fictional my human life is, I paradoxically get fired up to play it up. In that sense I don't think we're too different. I still value truth above all else, but in practice my life is severely limited and I'm just doing my best. A flowering relative-reality life is not mutually exclusive with truthseeking. I'm familiar with this. It's destabilizing, threatening, and leaves you begging for your human life to come back. Gasping for breath in tears when the floor once again grounds your body and the sky above hugs you warmly. But if you could surrender to even this, and dare to go even deeper (it will feel like jumping into a pool of lava), the randomness will become intelligible as you access what Leo would call "Omniscience." But this threshold guardian is brutal, it's basically the final boss of fear. I always turn tail after small glimpses because I have too much to lose. I love my life too much. And God loves me for my weakness. So maybe truth isn't my top value, based on how quickly I fold when everything I hold dear is dangled above the endless abyss of oblivion. Survival maybe wins in the end (for now). But the only reason I'm able to make this assessment is because I wanted to know the Truth of my predicament. I value Truth enough to know when I don't value Truth, which is a privilege and reward that only a Truthseeker can enjoy. Hopefully a real hobbit, and not a fake one

@UpperMaster Check page 50-51 for some discussion on this post

I have a very similar disposition to Leo. My personal answer is that the freedom of being unbounded brings me more reconciliation and fulfillment than getting sucked into (boxed into) a particular movie. I have nothing against the movie - I may even love the movie. But I do not want to merely watch the movie in a linear spoonfed manner. I want to play around with it - pause, rewind, dissect, reassemble. And then I want to watch a different movie and do the same thing. And then I want to explore every nook and cranny of the theater before finally walking outside and seeing the sun. All metaphorically speaking, of course. This freedom to tinker and go beyond is the birthright of Consciousness. What a shame to drift through your movie as a passive consumer with no care for the active vision behind building the thing, and what a shame to not even realize there are other movies, or that you're in a beautiful theater, or that the sun is waiting for you outside! You do have a good point that eventually all vessels will physically die. Going beyond the confines of this movie (ultimate Truth) is inevitable anyway. So I can see how you would wonder "why rush to end the movie when it will naturally end by itself anyway? why not construct illusory castles and play princess? what does it matter whether I'm actually a princess or not?" I'm in no rush to die or to burn everything to the ground through deconstruction. I love life. This movie is beautiful, with all of my arbitrary biases (such as being born male or being attracted to women - this shit only flies within my current movie!) I don't see truthseeking as necessarily anti-human. Although the truth will oftentimes directly contradict your human survival agenda and mental constructs, that doesn't stop you from playing the game. For example I can become highly conscious of the demonic supply chain practices behind the manufacturing of my electronics, but then continue to use those electronics to advance my life. Yes, this will initially cause cognitive dissonance because I want to see myself as a good person (survival agenda), but the TRUTH is that I am participating in evil. And I can become conscious that I will overlook my own evil (because I'm allowed to get away with it cuz I'm specially exempt according to my needs). And therefore nothing changes, and life goes on. Except - armed with truth, I no longer have the fantasy that I am a good person. I am a complex entity struggling to survive, as is everyone else, and we are in a mutually exploitative web. That's the truth. It is what it is. And I can continue to enjoy the movie. So truthseeking does not inherently hinder the enjoyment of the movie, unless you go out of your way to get emotionally reactive or defensive to what the truth has to tell you. The ego may consider this bleak, but, to roll with this example - "I'm not a good person" is in many ways a more accurate/truthful position than to insist "I am a good person." I personally do not see this as bleak. I get thrilled when I learn of my own shortsighted interpretations. It's liberating to have once believed reality was a certain way, but then to discover you were wrong. The truth is always more intricate and dynamic than you had ever given it credit for. This discovery is its own joy. To answer the question above in red: I'd rather be a real princess than a fake princess. And if it turns out that I'm actually a peasant in a shack instead of a princess in a castle - then that is what I am. I have no interest in larping royalty. Whatever is ACTUAL wins by virtue of existing as such.

Disagree with what? You think women are at fault and have blame? Who cares what people think? Stop letting people dictate your "job description"