Polygamy- does it work

[LordFall]

@Inliytened1 You went back to the ex didn't you 

Fuck bro winging it is dangerous. I almost impregnated my bpd ex girlfriend a few years ago, seemed like a decent idea at the time. That would've been a horror. Glad it didn't happen.

My mating instincts are kicking in though now that I'm getting older. Once I have a bit more financial stability and I find a woman I think would make a great mother it's gonna be time to make a lot of pies and not the blueberry kind. 

Edited 23 hours ago by LordFall

[Inliytened1]

25 minutes ago, LordFall said:

@Inliytened1 You went back to the ex didn't you 

Fuck bro winging it is dangerous.

 

 

Haha.  There is a movie with Sean Penn and Nick Cage. Not an academy winner but one of my favorites. Racing witn the Moon. The two buddies would hop freight trains and then race along the moving trains.   When told it was dangerous, Penn only responded.  "That's why we did it".

I was trying to find a clip but couldn't.  Cool flick though.  Was set in the WW2 era.

Edited 22 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Mellowmarsh]

You are the dreamer, the dreaming, and the dream points to a profound spiritual truth about the idea that the observer, the process of observing, and the object observed are all one single reality. 

The Dreamer: This represents your deepest essence, your true self, or pure consciousness. It is the silent awareness behind all thoughts and experiences.

The Dreaming: This represents the active energy of life, creation, or the mind in motion. It is the bridge of experience and perception connecting consciousness to form.

The Dream: This represents the physical world, your ego, and your daily life experiences. It feels solid and real, but it is actually a temporary projection of consciousness.

 

Die before you die then do whatever you like. There’s nothing wrong with you or that or this.

Thats what I admire about Dave, he’s not asking anyone else for permission to live his life the way he’s chosen to live it. He’s just living life on the razors edge of creation, it’s what he chooses to create, and he gives himself full permission to do so. Good for him, fortune favours the brave, and Dave is fearless because he’s awake. Those people are rare on this earth, more power to them, for not being afraid to be vulnerable.

 

 

[Mellowmarsh]

12 hours ago, LordFall said:

I dislike the anti sex sentiment that the spiritual community tends to have.

Now you’re simply projecting here. I hardly doubt spiritual people are anti sex as you put it. It’s just that  they sometimes choose to be celibate. But that doesn’t mean this choice is rendered a fixed choice, where they padlock their nether regions and throw away the key forever, no, they can always change their mind, again that’s another choice always open to them.
 

Life long virgins are probably very rare, so most of us have enjoyed the joy of sex, and undoubtedly do not have an anti attitude towards it, that’s just a weird thing to say imho. 

[LordFall]

48 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Now you’re simply projecting here. I hardly doubt spiritual people are anti sex as you put it. It’s just that  they sometimes choose to be celibate. But that doesn’t mean this choice is rendered a fixed choice, where they padlock their nether regions and throw away the key forever, no, they can always change their mind, again that’s another choice always open to them.
 

Life long virgins are probably very rare, so most of us have enjoyed the joy of sex, and undoubtedly do not have an anti attitude towards it, that’s just a weird thing to say imho. 

You don't understand the meaning of the word projecting as it doesn't make sense to use it in this context. Unless you think I'm anti-sex?

Otherwise it's fair to say that my statement is hard to prove but perhaps it's just the men on this forum that are sexually repressed and not the spiritual community as a whole. 

[Mellowmarsh]

48 minutes ago, LordFall said:

You don't understand the meaning of the word projecting as it doesn't make sense to use it in this context. Unless you think I'm anti-sex?

Otherwise it's fair to say that my statement is hard to prove but perhaps it's just the men on this forum that are sexually repressed and not the spiritual community as a whole. 

This is just more projection.

 

You claimed you disliked the anti sex sentiment in the spiritual community. You cannot prove or back up the claim you claimed, because it was just an assumption that not you, but others are anti sex, and now you’re trying to weasel yourself out of this assumption, which is a fuck up. 

[something_else]

16 hours ago, LordFall said:

raised in a polyamorous household.

Again, what you’re trying to create isn’t really polyamory, It’s a harem. So the studies on polyamory don’t really transfer to that.

[Asayake]

3 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

This is just more projection.

 

You claimed you disliked the anti sex sentiment in the spiritual community. You cannot prove or back up the claim you claimed, because it was just an assumption that not you, but others are anti sex, and now you’re trying to weasel yourself out of this assumption, which is a fuck up. 

be careful using the word projection, LordFall tends to get bogged down debating the definitions if you are not precise with one word in your argument, he uses it as a convenient way to avoid engaging with the actual argument and will avoid answering questions, but let's see if he steps up this time.

[BlessedLion]

On 8/29/2026 at 11:26 PM, LordFall said:

Why does this prove that she cheats specifically with the subconscious goal of getting better genes? 

Wouldn't that point more simply to novelty leading to more dopamine, excitement and thus orgasms in novel sexual encounters similar to the Coolidge effect observed for males? 

I also suspect that multiple women dating the same male would be more likely to orgasm than women in a monogamous relationships due to the enhanced arousal that comes from the intrasexual female competition. 

These are really good points. 

 

The author of Red Queen goes into this in detail, but basically they find that women who do this want the support and security of a provider male while getting the genetics of a lover male. I'm sure there is some factor of excitement or thrill that leads to the orgasm, but what's interesting is that it is the type of orgasm that increases the chance of pregnancy. 

 

The also saw a very similar trend in birds and that 40% of the male sparrows were raising chicks that weren't actually theirs. The female sparrows were "having affairs" with the most dominant male sparrows, while using the "lower value" sparrows to be the providers and protectors of those children. 

 

Pretty fucked. 

[BlessedLion]

On 8/30/2026 at 0:08 AM, Natasha Tori Maru said:

If this "biological need to spread the seed" were a real proven thing, wouldn't men be more frequently and enthusiastically skeeting into cups and donating to sperm banks? 🙃 

It's all subconcious, on like a lizard brain level. The lizard brain knows nothing about sperm banks, condoms, or the pill.

[BlessedLion]

On 8/29/2026 at 11:37 PM, Xonas Pitfall said:

I’ll try my best to explain this. But this is more about “bargaining power,” and depending on the society we live in, men and women will have different types of bargaining power. Or you can just say “power.”

Basically, if you let ego run loose, both genders, humans in general, would love the scenario of: “I want one partner who will work for me and give me money; I want one partner who is the most hot and attractive and really gets my orgasms going; I want someone who has the same hobbies as me and whom I can talk to. I want one for this hobby. I want one for this activity. I want one to make me laugh. I want one to do my housework, etc. Gosh, if I could just flip and switch around and never get bored, that’d be ideal! Infinite love for me, infinite entertainment, and infinite resources for me!”

Ego itself with no self-reflection or "empathy" will be very much like an idealistic child: “Me, me, me. I want this and this and this.” You want as many goodies for yourself as possible while avoiding as much responsibility toward others as possible, whether that means commitment, doing hard work, or having others do the work for you, etc. Human condition and Ego 101.

So when you add gender, it is really just what society conditions you toward + your actual bargaining power, expectations, survival needs, and perhaps some biological factors. But I’d be careful not to over-map it onto biology, because a lot of people use biology as an excuse to avoid seeing the generic ego mechanisms that are present in all humans and somehow turn them into a much larger gender issue.

Since, societally, women were more largely removed from resource-gathering and resource-controlling power, on both sides you would have:

• Men using women for labor, status, or resources: This can take many forms, such as relying on women for domestic labor, household management, social positioning, caregiving, or other forms of unpaid work. Men might benefit from women’s beauty and labour (through pimping, modelling, sex work, service businesses under this wing, etc), social connections, or labor while receiving most of the recognition or resources themselves. In some cases, women’s work was credited to men, or women had to operate through a man’s name or authority to gain access to opportunities. In more personal relationships, a man might rely on a woman to maintain his home and family while he focuses on his career, or ends up having a second family, mistresses, etc.
• Women using men for labor, status, or resources: Relying on men for financial support, education, housing, protection, social connections, or other resources. Women were restricted from working, owning property, or accessing education independently, making dependence on men necessary for survival. In other cases, women may intentionally seek out men primarily for their wealth, status, security, or connections, while contributing less to the relationship themselves. This can range from ordinary dependence within a relationship to more exploitative behaviors, such as gold-digging or using relationships primarily for financial gain.

So you can see that both genders can follow the same pattern, because again, this isn’t fundamentally a gendered issue. It is ego. Ego will try to use whatever it can to get access to power, resources, sex, survival, and safety. That is the common rule. Gender is really just another overlay through which ego operates. The gender position you are born into is simply one of the cards you are dealt.

The same goes for fun, lust and sex.

• A woman can also have preferences and have some “fuckboys” or boy toys who make her hornier than her “provider.” She might enjoy the sexual side more with one person, while choosing to stay with another person because that person is more reputable, stable, noble, useful, or beneficial to her in some other way. In the same way, a man might cheat with a mistress because he enjoys the sexual side more, while not wanting to actually be with the mistress because his wife is more reputable, stable, “pure,” noble, or useful to him in other ways.
• Again, the same pattern can exist on both sides. Both men and women love to have sex and have fun. Then, depending on the society, women might be more or less sexually shamed or repressed compared with men. That is why you might see higher divorce rates or more promiscuity as societies become more sexually free, because you are removing some of the blocks and restrictions placed on ego.

And the same, of course, applies to this topic.

If you let women’s egos roam completely free, you can end up with millions of simps who want to pay for her on the off chance that she might get with them. She can then find a non-attached friends-with-benefits partner whenever she finds someone attractive, or she can have one guy take care of her survival, money, and resources while she chooses to play around and fuck whoever she wants on the side.

If you let men’s egos roam completely free, he can keep a wife who functions as his secure, safe-space home while having second families and mistresses on the side. Or he can have a harem. Or you might have women desperately trying to do favors for him, work for him, provide domestic labor, or perform other kinds of labor in exchange for access to him, all the while he doesn't commit to a single one of them because he simply can.

Again, this is all ego.

If you let ego roam completely free, then yes, ego will want people to do labor for it, get money for it, provide resources for it, and give it as much sex, fun, good times as possible with the people it finds the hottest or most desirable.

"I want everything with the least commitment and responsibility on my end, but ideally, all of you are so obsessed with me and committed to me that you keep giving me goodies permanently!" And some egos will use restrictive laws, force, financial isolation, social isolation, or anything else they can to make this happen.

The whole point of love is to experience actual depth and see the other person as an equal, as someone you do not simply want to control, use, abuse, swing around, or extract value from.

But people often mistake ego-driven forms of attachment, desire, dependency, or “love” for actual forms of deeper, more genuine love.

People need to first have an awakening to ego and survival, and how much they control 99% of people’s behavior. Gender is much more secondary to all relationship issues.

If you’re still attached to some sort of fantasy where you want to be a harem king, being served by everyone, then you’ve dropped all notions of genuine love. Your best bet at making that fantasy a reality is to simply own what you’re doing and find vulnerable, desperate, needy people to fulfill your fantasy.

good food for thought, thanks for sharing

[Mellowmarsh]

17 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

Here's what I think now, looking back at my age.  I think a healthy balance of leveraging strategy, planning and thought outweighs being wild and winging it. But I think a degree of that is healthy too.  That's what a lot of the guys trying to do pickup and failing are missing. That natural element. They are trying to make it too much into a science when it doesn't have to be.

Gonna keep which one it was to my chest. Suffice it to say it felt brand new and it felt great.

Strategy and planning, that’s the golden key. 🔐 You got this, well done. 👏 

[LordFall]

6 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

This is just more projection.

 

You claimed you disliked the anti sex sentiment in the spiritual community. You cannot prove or back up the claim you claimed, because it was just an assumption that not you, but others are anti sex, and now you’re trying to weasel yourself out of this assumption, which is a fuck up. 

I'm not trying to weasel my way out of it at all. A lot of spiritual people fall into stage green which demonizes materialism. Some of them are like hippie free love types who are more sexually open but a lot are more sexually repressed folks. I encounter this attitude a lot on this forum, haven't you?

2 hours ago, Asayake said:

be careful using the word projection, LordFall tends to get bogged down debating the definitions if you are not precise with one word in your argument, he uses it as a convenient way to avoid engaging with the actual argument and will avoid answering questions, but let's see if he steps up this time.

Come on now, I don't think I avoid arguments at all. Often times, people make bad points and their points are simply not valid. All opinions are not created equal. 

If we use wrong definitions then we can never have actually high quality intellectual debates. Both camps just throw their biases at each other without actually getting somewhere. Each proper debate should start with defining the terms of what we're actually talking about otherwise it devolves into nonsense quite quickly.

She is still using the word projection incorrectly. 

2 hours ago, BlessedLion said:

These are really good points. 

 

The author of Red Queen goes into this in detail, but basically they find that women who do this want the support and security of a provider male while getting the genetics of a lover male. I'm sure there is some factor of excitement or thrill that leads to the orgasm, but what's interesting is that it is the type of orgasm that increases the chance of pregnancy. 

 

The also saw a very similar trend in birds and that 40% of the male sparrows were raising chicks that weren't actually theirs. The female sparrows were "having affairs" with the most dominant male sparrows, while using the "lower value" sparrows to be the providers and protectors of those children. 

 

Pretty fucked. 

Haha yeah it happens in mankind too, the good old origin meaning of being a cuck.

Yes an alpha male with provider qualities is basically the dream for women. I call it a purple pill man, the beta qualities of a blue pill man and the alpha qualities of a red pill man.

I discussed it many years ago with Rollo Tomassi on his show but he didn't really believe in the concept, his view is very jaded and he thinks this type of man is so rare that women inevitably either cheat with fuckboys or are stuck with beta males. I thought his view was a bit limited then and I still think so today.

 

@something_else Silly man, don't push your limiting beliefs onto me. Dating multiple women at the same time is polyamory by definition. 

Edited 3 hours ago by LordFall

[Mellowmarsh]

26 minutes ago, LordFall said:

but a lot are more sexually repressed folks. I encounter this attitude a lot on this forum, haven't you?

NO, I haven’t.
I have absolutely no knowledge of anyone on this forum who is anti sex. And let’s remind, that’s how you initially worded it, but then deflected it to ‘sexually repressed’

So if you have encountered someone on this forum who is anti sex, then how do you know that for certain? did they actually communicate to you person to person, face to face, that they were anti sex, which would of course be a prime example of backing up your claim with actual evidence?
 

 

[something_else]

57 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Silly man, don't push your limiting beliefs onto me. Dating multiple women at the same time is polyamory by definition. 

It’s definitely a form of non-monogamy, and arguably polyamory by the strict definition. But it runs pretty strongly against the ethos of most poly communities, which tends to emphasise autonomy and rejecting possessive or unequal relationship rules.

If you’re saying you’re allowed multiple partners but every woman must be exclusive to you, you’re consciously baking a very asymmetric power structure into the relationship.

That’s why “harem-building” is generally viewed extremely negatively in poly communities, even if you can technically fit it under the broad definition of polyamory.

[Mellowmarsh]

1 hour ago, LordFall said:

She is still using the word projection incorrectly. 

Until you provide the evidence to back up your claim that people on this forum have an attitude of being anti sex, as being the truth. Then you are simply projecting a claim as being true in your mind only, without any direct evidence to the contrary. 

[LordFall]

42 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

NO, I haven’t.
I have absolutely no knowledge of anyone on this forum who is anti sex. And let’s remind, that’s how you initially worded it, but then deflected it to ‘sexually repressed’

So if you have encountered someone on this forum who is anti sex, then how do you know that for certain? did they actually communicate to you person to person, face to face, that they were anti sex, which would of course be a prime example of backing up your claim with actual evidence?
 

 

An unproven generalization is called an assumption or a claim, not psychological projection. Projection specifically means attributing one's own repressed psychological traits onto someone else.

As for evidence: we literally have active threads on this forum full of users debating whether semen retention gives them superpowers, arguing that lust is lower-stage consciousness, and framing sexuality as something that must be "transcended." If you don't see the ambient sexual repression in spiritual subcultures, you haven't been paying attention.

29 minutes ago, something_else said:

It’s definitely a form of non-monogamy, and arguably polyamory by the strict definition. But it runs pretty strongly against the ethos of most poly communities, which tends to emphasise autonomy and rejecting possessive or unequal relationship rules.

If you’re saying you’re allowed multiple partners but every woman must be exclusive to you, you’re consciously baking a very asymmetric power structure into the relationship.

That’s why “harem-building” is generally viewed extremely negatively in poly communities, even if you can technically fit it under the broad definition of polyamory.

Polyamory is not a monolith with a single rigid ideology. The movement spans everything from relationship anarchy and completely open dating to closed polyfidelity. Includes setups like closed triads, quads, and polycules that establish their own internal boundaries and agreements.

The entire foundational principle of ethical non-monogamy is relationship autonomy: consenting adults having the sovereignty to negotiate whatever structure works best for their shared lives.

You’re referencing the modern progressive stigma around the one man many women type which some people like to call one penis policy. Gatekeeping relationship architecture and shaming people for choosing asymmetry or specific boundaries is just another group trying to enforce their own dogmatic relationship norms onto consenting adults.

Besides, I’m bisexual; having other men involved in my dynamics down the line is something I’m completely open to. But if a polycule happens to be one man and multiple women for a period, whose business is that from the outside as long as it's built on transparency and enthusiastic consent from everyone involved?

Edited 2 hours ago by LordFall

[Mellowmarsh]

4 minutes ago, LordFall said:

An unproven generalization is called an assumption or a claim, not psychological projection. Projection specifically means attributing one's own repressed psychological traits onto someone else.

It is projection when you accuse others of being anti sex when you have no proof that they actually are anti sex. You are projecting your own personal feelings thoughts and knowledge of what it is to have an anti sex attitude onto other people as if it was true for them, when you cannot prove it.

 

 

 

[Mellowmarsh]

22 minutes ago, LordFall said:

As for evidence: we literally have active threads on this forum full of users debating whether semen retention gives them superpowers, arguing that lust is lower-stage consciousness, and framing sexuality as something that must be "transcended." If you don't see the ambient sexual repression in spiritual subcultures, you haven't been paying attention.

That statement still does not prove they are anti sex. These could simply be just some spiritual experimentation practices that they are choosing to explore. That doesn’t mean they are flat out dead against sex permanently as being anti sex oriented. You need to be more careful with your context here when it comes to other people’s attitude to sex. You cannot just pigeon hole someone who is into certain spiritual practices through experimentation as being anti sex, you simply cannot know that for sure, especially if the practices are temporary, which they could be, or not,  and that’s not something you could know for certain, is it? Your personal assessment on this issue is weak and flawed.

[Mellowmarsh]

16 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

is lower-stage consciousness

This statement alone is a false flag. It’s a belief within the artificial conceptual dream of separation where there’s the belief there’s a ‘someone’ who is of a low or high state of consciousness, that feels real. In reality, there’s an awareness of these states, but these states are fleeting and temporary within the stateless state of timeless awareness.