are there any books with stable, happy polyamorous relationships

The thought of polyamory makes me sad. I want nothing but a single qt for myself, and I expect her to not want another man besides me. Is that so unreasonable?

>>9887628
>Is that so unreasonable?
No, different people want different things. I enjoy the concept of polyamory. I'm asexual, so my ideal relationship is two best friends that love me, and can have sex with each other. But I'm serious about the books.

>>9887633
That's just a classic relationship + you as a friend; not even polyamory.

>>9887666
no, because they'd love me romantically.
that's how romance works.

>>9887671
why not just find another asexual to love romantically?

>>9887689
I don't know, I just want a poly relationship. I kind of have on already, but it's all platonic. I think that, but romantic would be nice. All three of us like each other, and different things. We have issues and we have strengths and we enjoy each other's company. Sometimes we do stuff together, sometimes it's only two of us. Watching my friends make plans makes me all warm inside. I enjoy them being able to say, go to clubs with each other, because I really dislike clubs. I don't get jealous because I'm completely sure that they like me just as much as each other, and I really enjoy that relationship.

It's probably stupid to think I could find a romantic relationship of that caliber, but that's why I read books.

>>9887715
you're going to feel permanently left out if they're fucking you're just watching, because you will literally be left out of that

>>9887609
hemmingway's garden of eden is exactly what you are looking for

>>9887748
I don't think you understand exactly how asexual I am. And no I won't, because people don't have only sex in a relationship.

>>9887750
thank you, I'll check it out.

>>9887756
I don't think you understand sex.

>>9887771
I do, I just don't care. Also, this is my fantasy relationship.

There is no such thing as a stable, happy, polyamorous relationship. It is intrinsically opposed to the natural order for humankind.

>>9887785
sure, okay. That doesn't mean there aren't any books.

>>9887785
>the natural order for humankind.
What's the natural order of humankind then?

>>9887609
>Can the unlimited possibilities and worlds of fiction even produce a stable, happy polyamorous relationship?
Hard to say. Certainly it's never happened in the real world so the old "write what you know" adage falls apart there.

>>9887811
polyamorists want to have their cake and eat it too. ain't gonna happen. all the cases i've seen its always an overweight superwholock reddithag with 2 beta orbiters.

File: 1502479879977.png (20KB, 638x547px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 638x547px

>>9887609
>>9887633
>>9887671
>>9887715

>>9887852
point ...taken?

>>9887811
1 Man + 1women
Is it that hard to understand?

>>9887888
boring and gay

>>9887756
Could you please expand on your relationship with these two people? A friend of mine is asexual, never had a relationship and also can't imagine one, and me neither when we talked about it... Maybe I could ask him if what's working for you could possibly work for him.

>>9887779
You're an idiot.

>>9887785
Agree about the stable part.

kek at these people thinkin asexuality be real
i mean just stick your meat into some shit nigga like just pump a bitch nigga

>>9887949
I don't think a relationship for an asexual is much different as for anyone else- it's about honesty and communication. Asexuality is kinda difficult since as >>9887961 demonstrates people don't really consider asexuals real. So telling someone that you don't like sex is different than them wanting sex and you not being willing to have sex.
For some people, sex is a very important part of a relationship. But there are people who don't mind. Important is that your friend talks with the person they want to be in a relationship with, and encourage the person to communicate with them in turn. They might have to think of workarounds, some of them perhaps unconventional, but that's just part of any relationship.

>>9887609
Brave New World

>>9887892
Fundamental motivator of advancing civilization

>>9888010
Thank you very much

>>9887715
you're a platonicuck

>>9887892
Will you prefer a newborn + dead dog, is it more interesting?

Samuel Delaney's Dhalgren

>>9887633
>I enjoy the concept of polyamory.

Polyamory is one of the worst ideas to come out of the left in a long time. There is plenty of sociological and anthropological literature out there that indicates that poly societies end up having more crime, more violence, and a bunch of other shit things in the long term. But because /lit/ loves all things pseudo high status, it takes to it like flies on shit.

>>9888942
I don't care

>>9888942
Name some polyamorous societies. And I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that polyamory is high status. It's a pretty fringe way to approach relationships and will likely remain that way for a long time, and is mostly practiced by crazy fuckers in my experience. Polyamory isn't just promiscuity or having an open relationship; it's 3+ partners who are all supposed to love and support eachother.

To be fair, I've never encountered a poly relationship that wasn't a total garbage fire. Lots of fighting over who spends time with who doing what and so on. I knew one group that even had a spreadsheet to make sure no one got left out, though that seems to defeat the actual purpose imo

Heinlein

>>9887633
why not just have friends, or are you going to sit there and watch them you perv?

>>9887671
>that's how romance works

No it isn't

>>9891507
>Name some polyamorous societies

The Muslim world

>>9891528
Polyamory and polygamy aren't the same thing

>>9891530
Why not?

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress had some funky ideas like line marriages.

>>9891526
yep

File: 8172044363_00b0ff46a6_b.jpg (567KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 1024x1024px

>>9888942
Citation?

Heian period Japan was not known for having more crime or violence, for example.

As an anthropologist I have not encountered any reasonable evidence suggesting that poly societies end up having more violence or crime as a rule.

Within primates, harems, polyandrous fission-fusion groups, etc. are all very different between different species and even populations. For example: Hamadryas Baboons are incredibly violent harem-based primates, while Geladas are relatively peaceful harem-based primates.

File: Girls.png (490KB, 449x401px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 449x401px

>>9891601
>As an anthropologist
Where did you get your PhD? What was the topic of your dissertation?

How is nobody pointing out the blatant ripping off of the art style of Calvin and Hobbes creator Bill Watterson here? Bill Watterson created an insightful and imaginative contribution to American daily comics and ultimately turned down a fucking huge payday to protect the integrity of his intellectual property and art. Maybe this bothers me more than most. Just sayin'

File: 1496438971338.png (114KB, 680x559px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 680x559px

>>9891601
>As an anthropologist

>>9891683
>How is nobody pointing out the blatant ripping off of the art style of Calvin and Hobbes
I think you're a moron. That's clearly a homage, or just a parody. Nobody is pretending it doesn't look like Calvin and Hobbes, that's the fucking point.

>>9887671
Sex is intrinsic to romance dumbass. Not love. But sex is. You can love someone deeply and intimately with no thoughts of sex what so ever; but its not romance. You god damned turd burgler.

>>9891532
The wives aren't doing it to each other in a polygamous relationship, at least not by design

The Decameron teases you with this notion

>>9892124
>Sex is intrinsic to romance
Uh, no. You're wrong.

>>9892134
I'm pretty sure polyamorous doesn't mean they do each other either. Thought it was just a meme word for open relationships

>>9892453
It really is, sorry

>>9892461
False.

>>9892458
In polygamy, as it's usually presented, there's a huge power imbalance leaning towards the male. Also, the participants do not usually engage with each other, but with the male.
Polyamorous tend to imply a balanced relationship, with all participants engaging with each other.
Open relationships tend to mean that in a two person relationship, both participants are allowed to have affairs.

>>9887633
>No, different people want different things. I enjoy the concept of polyamory. I'm asexual, so my ideal relationship is two best friends that love me, and can have sex with each other. But I'm serious about the books.
Looking at the OP pic, I feel sorry for you. /co/ trash are literally the worst humans on this site. At least ponyfags probably have actual human emotions.

This guy is not trying to institutionalize polyamory. Why the fuck would any of you be bothered by his search for a polyamorous relationship? Or anyone's.

>>9892458
Kinda but not really. The only poly people I've met all live together and try make sure that the means of reproduction are as evenly distributed as possible. Meaning that they all take turns doing eachother.

>>9892545
Because the more people practice polyamory the more likely it is that whatever liberal hambeast a /lit/ beta starts dating will want a poly relationship. Non cucked people don't have to worry about this.

>>9892545
https://youtu.be/H5fydLLcuYY?t=8m26s

>>9892562
so why are you worrying about it, you dumb cuck faggot?

>>9892562
You're not one of the bothered people, then?

>>9892570
>he didn't notice the number of posters go up
El oh el

>>9892578
I'm bored at work and this is the most interesting thread on /lit/ right now. I'm not really worried about poly relationships affecting my life.

>>9892592
What kind of work do you have?

>>9892592
>I'm not really worried about poly relationships affecting my life.
So why the fuck do you care?

>i don't like romance
No wonder, you're incapable of it.
'stable, happy polyamorous relationships' do not exist, you're requesting a romance because you're requesting a fantasy.
>>9887633
No, you're just a whore.

>>9892615
Look man I was reading the thread and some guy asked why anyone would care. I just listed a reason someone might care. I don't know why you're getting so bent out of shape over my answer.

>>9892625
fucking rude

>>9888010
I don't know that that counts as polyamory, strictly. That's just a wild, institutionalized promiscuity. Polyamory generally implies a familial unit, just a different one than the traditional man+woman+2.2 children.

A few of Heinlein's works have something called a 'line marriage' that I find interesting - basically a group of people, I think it was around eight or ten, who were all sexually exclusive to that group, and raised their children together.

>>9891601
You aren't an anthropologist, you're an undergrad who's taken a handful of courses.
You cannot work in a STEM field as an undergraduate student because you are in training. A philosophy undergrad can technically be a philosopher because there is no methodology to be taught.

>>9892545
Because some of us aren't LE NIHILISTS LMAO

Why were turds like you concerned with my 'relationship with a minor' when that was going on? NOT TRYING TO INSTITUTIONALIZE IT BRO

Fucking idiot.

>>9892659
False equivalency desu

>>9892695
Not at all. Stop avoiding the conclusions of your ideology.
LE NIHILIST BRO EXCEPT WHEN IT MAKES ME FEEL GROSS ;C

>>9892706
A 12 year old cannot understand the implications of a sexual relationship and therefore cannot give informed consent. Adults do and can (most of the time (you shouldn't go around fucking retards either)).

>>9887671
>>9892469
So what is the difference between deep, loving, intimate friendship, and a romantic relationship?

>>9892731
>MUH CONSENT
Irrelevant humanist meme. Fuck off.
>implications
What fucking implications? I thought you didn't like romance? LE NIHILISM reduces sex to an action like walking and breathing. Stop rejecting the consequences of your ideology.
She wasn't 12, by the way.

>>9892731
So are you saying retards don't get to experience sex, one of the most enjoyable human acts? You going to deprive them of that too?

>>9892731
consent is so fucking arbitrary

12 year olds are more intelligent and more conscientious than adult downies, yet only the latter can have consensual sex?

>>9892545
Because its disgusting and its encouraging others to follow the crooked path towards a loveless, hallow life

>>9892746
>consent
>Irrelevant humanist meme
I'm gonna rape the shit out of you

And I'm not the "I don't like romance" anon. I can't believe there are people who actually equate open relationships and polyamory with pedophilia.

>She wasn't 12, by the way.
Matt?

>>9892750
Yep.

>>9892767
See above, where I say that you shouldn't fuck retards.

>>9892838
>MUUUUUUH CONSENT
Fuck off back to /r/eddit you dogmatic twat.
'relations with a minor' does not mean pedophilia, by the way, whore.

>>9887671

'romantic' is a euphemism for 'sexual'

>>9892625
What's wrong with being a whore?

>>9892659
Because the minor is being abused. Who's the victim in OPs polyamorous relationship?

>>9892807
So? These others can think for themselves and decide whether they want to or not, don't they? Nothing to do with you.

>Loveless
Citation needed.

>>9892945
his dad

>>9892945
Themselves and anyone who is influenced by their ideological cancer

>>9892952
Its nothing to do with you what's nothing to do with me. If they can think for themselves they can consider my scorn and criticism for themselves

>>9892848
How is this anon dogmatic? It's documented that having sex with an adult as a minor has consequences, immediately and later on in life.
Yes, pedophilia doesn't entail sex. But, are we gonna debate semantics? Anon, clearly meant sex with minors.

>>9887756
No one said that people only have sex in a relationship you fucking freak. But if two of three people in one of your so called poly relationships are romantically linked, the third one(you) is going to be much less important in the relationship. You'd be closer to a roommate than a partner, you stupid fuck. I hate to use this word but you are one sad chuck of a man.

>>9892967
I told him that already.

>>9892954
>Polyamorous relationships harm the people involved.
Citation needed.
>Ideological cancer.
How's ideology to let every adult do as they please, as long as they don't harm others?

>>9892964
>It's documented that having sex with an adult as a minor has consequences

As opposed to what, a relationship that has no consequences?

>>9892962
It's to do with me. I might want to have such a relationship in the future. Therefore, I'm entitled to retort.

>>9892978
In this case, by consequences I mean trauma. Even if it's not 100% of the time, it's enough to make it illegal.

>>9892977
People have their own ideas of what harm is. I have mine and you have yours and I'm in no mind to bother trying to convince you of mine nor going on a goose chase to provide what you would regard as proof of that.
I take polyamory as denying the possibility of love, what is the most meaningful and important experience in our lives in my view. If you don't agree that's your prerogative but you should respect those of a different mind and not act as if you are morally superior merely for holding your own opinion

>are there any books with stable, happy polyamorous relationships in them?
I'm pretty sure there's no real people in happy, stable polyamorous relationships.

>>9892986
You have not been retorting, you've been attempting to deny the possibility of criticism itself which is very different. As expected of someone who may want to engage in delusion and self denial

>>9892745
Uh, not sex? Duh

>>9892995
I do not respect ideas by default. Your "let's agree to disagree" approach has no place in a forum meant for debate. Either debate or don't. You say polyamory denies the possibility of love and that needs a citation. Even if it didn't, people are free to choose such way, just as they are free to drink booze and smoke.

>>9893027
You are a disingenuous chickenshit. Where did I propose you have to respect what I think?
Besides the impetus is certainly not on me to "prove", as if such a ineffable thing as love could be factually proven to exist, in such a fringe and heterodox relationship model of all places.

Anyway I'm not here to debate and I'm here to express polyamory is a pathetic product of individuals of our generation afraid of the strife, commitment, terror and pain that true worthwhile engagement with life and others demands. Choosing instead to be cuckolded to merely dwell in virtual fantasies

>>9893067
>but you should respect those of a different mind and not act as if you are morally superior merely for holding your own opinion
>as if such a ineffable thing as love could be factually proven to exist, in such a fringe and heterodox relationship model of all places.
You don't provide any proof to why it would be more plausible to find it in a regular relationship.

>polyamory is a pathetic product of individuals of our generation afraid of the strife, commitment, terror and pain that true worthwhile engagement with life and others demands.
As if polyamory implies a lack of engagement.
Your disgust for people who are into cuckoldry (which is not always entailed by polyamory) is irrelevant. I feel disgusted by pee fetish, but people can do as they please, it doesn't affect me in any way, nor others.

>>9893107
You are repeating yourself. You are done talking now.
My interest is not in proving the truth, the truth will prove itself. I am merely its vehicle as each man comes to see and accept the truth in his own turn and if you are lucky you will recognize it before you waste your life in wretchedness like so many. God bless you and good luck

>stable
>polyamory

The fact that Tumblrkin have created a sexuality/orientation for being a dissatisfied cheating scumbag is just so expected at this point.

>>9893121
Prove god's existence.

>>9893137
Cheating implied deceit. Polyamory is conceptually transparent.

>>9887828
Nice use of 'orbiters,' anon. For a second the 'beta' qualifier even seemed NASA-like.
Otherwise, sexual jealousy's a real if relatively temporary madness that derails even the most conservative relationships, etc. But no one wants to consider this.
This said perhaps Leguin's The Left-hand of Darkness.

>>9893185
>sexual jealousy's a real if relatively temporary madness

>holding value with your special and primacy to someone is a spook
>but let's still have relationships anyway

Perfect example of this two faced mindset

>>9893237
Someone interpret this..

>>9893664
Its simple enough, if you're going to dismiss and pathologize the very emotion of jealousy why not dismiss the very desire to be in a relationship at all, polyamorous or not. Its selective logic of the worst sort.

File: 1467070834595.gif (2MB, 300x290px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x290px

>>9887633
>>9887671
>polyamory meme
>I'm asexual

>>9887785
>>9887823
>>9887955
>>9888061
>>9888942
Holy shit /lit/

I haven't seen this level of insecure projection in a long time
Do you
What the fuck
Have any of you done ANY reading on this?
Like what in the fuck

Monogamy is a meme predicated on irrational insecurity and jealousy and other untermensch bullshit t b h

>>9887633
holy shit you are such a fucking faggot. you're not asexual. that's not a thing. eat a dick.

>>9892746
You are absolutely braindead my man

>irrelevant humanist meme
Like
What even is the basis of your argument if you're going to dismiss humanism
If you're not upset about this because you fear it will negatively affect human societies
Then what consequence are you objecting to?
Or do you just object on principles with zero foundation?

Stop saying "LE NIHILISM", it makes you look like a child. And stop asserting that value systems alternative to yours must be a lack of value systems.

>>9892848
Just don't even bother responding if your method of "discourse" relies on the words "muh" and "reddit" this constistently.

We really need less posters like you. Bullshit rhetorical posturing dependent on buzzwordy memes and flinging unsubstantiated observations

not everything you disagree with is reddit you dumb fuck.

>>9887609
The Brothers Karamazov

>>9893671
Failed to understand how it related to the former post. But given this interpretation, my criticism is that it expects too much of mind. The mind's most vulnerable when confronted with that over which it has little control- namely desires and emotions (passions). And not just one's own. There's no picking and choosing here. One either knows what one is getting into or one does not. If one does, then one must learn to be respectful of the other, assign her 'primary' value, or the relationship will fail. OP doesn't seem to understand that this is exactly the difference that makes a relationship a relationship. What he really wants is something casual, and that's fine. But to achieve it he'll have to find others as void of passion as he is himself. The notion that one's desire can be so randomly bifurcated is (at best) silly. Say what (you) want but OP's 'fantasy' is primarily a mental and not a physical 'arrangement.'

>>9892939
Being a whore is itself wrong, not a thing external to it.
>>9892945
>abused
According to semantic gymnastics, sure. In actuality, no.
Everybody is self-abusing in a polyamorous relationship. They are inherently unhealthy.

>>9892952
Why can't that apply to a relationship with a minor? I'm talking 14, not 7 like you think you ridiculous sophist.
>>9892952
Your argument isn't about consent, your objection is. Objections are not arguments.

>>9892964
I never meant sex, nor pedophilia, you illiterate retard.
>documented
By dogmatists. Why are consequences even bad, or somehow not the fault of external factors?

Should a polyamorous couple break-up because their community is sending death threats?
Sounds like VICTIM BLAMING rhetoric to me.

>>9892992
>becuz i sed so
Dogmatist.

>>9893850
>looking like a child is bad because I'm a dogmatist who only cares about social status!
Fuck off.
>humanism is the only basis to objections
Fuck off.

You have no values because the godless cannot have 'value'.

>>9893866
>WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH STOP DOING THINGS THAT I DON'T LIKE
Back to /r/eddit, sophist. I see through your rhetoric like glass.

>>9893821
>advocating for your economic producers to not have a meaningful stake in their own society
This will go down well

>>9893821
Monogamy is sexual communism. If society doesn't enforce it, then all of the women will flock to a minority of valuable men. This isn't incel-nonsense, it's a anthropological reality.

You can be okay with that, but then you'd have to find a way of dealing with the sexual underclass of men that would create. Look at the Middle East if you want to see what happens when you have a bunch of sexually-frustrated young men around doing nothing.

>irrational insecurity and jealousy
"Irrational" is what makes this statement bullshit. There's nothing irrational about sexual frustration.

Friendly reminder that feminists are pushing poly because they would rather share a chad than be monogamous with an average man. They want dating inequality.

>>9893978
>i see through your rhetoric like glass
wow my dude.
The number 1 most generic translucent material
what a powerful image you've conjured.
you may as well have said "i see through your rhetoric like a see through thing".

anyway man I'm done responding to you if "fuck off" and shitty buzzword-filled metaphors are all you can muster. Calling me a "dogmatist" isn't an argument and i don't even know what you mean by it frankly.

>>9893988
a person seeking to have novel, varied forms of sexual validation and experiences does not rationally entail that they do not value you or love you, and I'm off the belief that this associstion stems from a romantic view of sex as - without exception - the ultimate and sublime culmination of all love. im skeptical about the universality or innateness of this belief.

i am entirely lacking in a rebuttal to your point about how to deal with a sexual underclass of men. that is a big problem. I'm not too upset by the idea of women sticking with a minority of valuable men, but only when i let myself forget that most people are not the sort of selective mates that would select for genuine virtue or intelligence or strength, if the 2016 election is any indicator. its the sort of thing that would only work in a well educated utopia.

i also am unsure about the idea of women sharing high value men - the women ive known are just as if not more so prone to insecurity as men.

>>9893996
this idea is insane because
A) feminists aren't "pushing poly", every feminist I've known was terrified by the idea and absolutely not open to it in any way being a part of their personal life.
B) women, at least modern women, are far too insecure to ever "share a Chad" as you put it. they object to this for all the same reasons seen itt, if not even more fervently.

>>9894105
You don't seem to understand how I argue. Good job.

>>9891568

Came ITT to suggest this and surprised this post got ignored

TMIAHM is a great read in general

>>9894105
>a person seeking to have novel, varied forms of sexual validation and experiences does not rationally entail that they do not value you or love you
There are two fears you have to parse out if you're a man. The first is an inherent fear of cuckoldry that many primates share. The biological imperative of all life is to replicate itself and to spread its genes. And because paternity is always questionable (even today, something like 10% of men are raising children who aren't theirs unbeknownst to them), men evolved an inherent jealousy as a means of ensuring that their genes are the ones being spread. I'm certain that this is an evolved trait, and if it is you can't reason people out of it.

The second fear is abandonment, which is something sexually-unsuccessful and low value men feel. This is situational, but it's not illegitimate. If you fear abandonment because you can't attract another mate, then that fear has a completely rational basis.

>am entirely lacking in a rebuttal to your point about how to deal with a sexual underclass of men.
It's called culturally-enforced monogamy. The reason the majority of civilizations develop monogamy independently at a certain period of maturation is because monogamous societies are more stable than non-monogamous societies. If I can't fuck anyone or have a child, then why wouldn't I hoist the black flag and start slitting throats as a last ditch effort of climbing the hierarchy? If I just sat down and took it, I wouldn't be a real man. And this is the psychological danger of polygamy.

>>9894105
>A) feminists aren't "pushing poly",
Yet they fucking are. Anti slut-shaming is about giving women the agency to able to choose polygamous and hypergamous lifestyles.

>to ever "share a Chad" as you put it.
Tinder statistics prove you wrong.

File: 1457607381235.jpg (30KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x375px

>>9887609
OP image gives a sad, poignant insight into the desperate chidlike craving for that particular eros. Platonic ideal through comics and anime. Naive beauty impossible - and ugly - in this world, only experienced through a glass, dimly.

>>9894300
>>9887609
anyway OP, read this short play. primary colours by yukio mishima

https://mega.nz/#!I6QxGTaD!2WyDxzYpcG8ez_KWoAhqkLHk7YvrAOwE0m2SQPz3zMQ

>>9893021
Try answering in the positive, what IS the difference (not what isn't it). I bet you can't do it.

>>9893945
Will you prohibit alcohol and cigarettes consumption too?

>>9893959
I agree with you. Read again, you soft headed friend.

>>9894105
>reddit spacing

>>9893021
Its totally sex

>>9895091
In love it's rather intimacy, which comprehends sex, caring, devotion, etc.

>>9893671
Because jealousy is bad and love is good?

File: 83e646aacb65f1290e79ad8dca39f52fb2bb8d18e6f5a0f9487643115113655a_1.jpg (76KB, 619x820px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 619x820px

>>9896552
>jealousy is bad

>>9896572
Could you please present an argument for the advantages of being jealous?

>>9887609
Berlin Stories by Isherwood is about a guy who fucks a woman and her boyfriend.

>>9896686
It encourages you to take responsibility and ownership of what matters

>>9896757
That's a non sequitur. If there's a link between jealusy and responsability please explain. Also, in your argument you seem to presuppose ownership is something you're entitled to, and also desirable. Do you mean ownership of your partner?
Also, please state what is it that matters.

File: hillary-clinton-thumbs-up.jpg (27KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 480x360px

>>9896799
Trying real hard buddy, good to see

>>9896818
Wonderful argument.

>>9896830
Go to hell, you're clearly not interested in argument. If you were you wouldn't be playing deconstruction scattergun by demanding justification of every possible supposition in an argument that makes you feel bad.
If I was to call yours a spineless and sad existence and for you to read that, then that is enough for me

>>9896856
Your argument was extremely disperse. You used eleven words to say nothing. "What matters", like this is a concept with universal consensus. If you don't plan to argue formally, why argue at all?
Of course, you're probably just trying to anoy people. Cool hobby.

>>9887633
>I'm asexual

You're not. That's not a thing. That's a condition.

>>9896881
>If you don't plan to argue formally, why argue at all?

Why not? I'm getting my thoughts across same as anyone, if you don't like them seeing them then feel free to fuck off to some website like reddit where you wont come across them or where your double faced standards of communication are enforced

>>9895036
I drink regularly. Smoking is fucking disgusting despite me loving the smell from years of forced exposure
>>9895045
No you don't, you illiterate retard.
>>9896552
>thing i dont like is bad and thing i like is good
so this is the power of polyamory...

>>9896686
>advantages
'good and bad' are not based upon pragmatic nonsense you fucking idiot.
>>9896799
>OWNERSHIP IS BAD BECAUSE IM A BRAINDEAD BURGER WITH BAGGAGE OVER THE SLAVE-TRADE DESPITE ME BEING A POORFAG TWAT WITH NO WEALTH IN MY FAMILY GOING BACK HUNDREDS OF YEARS AND IN NO WAY COULD HAVE OWNED A SLAVE
Eat shit. Ownership also implies cherishing, responsibility for, and fidelity. Despite protestant memes, I and most are much more caring of what they hold, rather than what is public or free. A public office chair (as in, belonging to the company), I could care less about But my own, I don't even let my mother use.

>>9897247
I do not accept your dogmatic morality, therefore, there's no argument to be had. Good and bad, bollocks.

Ownership DO NOT imply cherishing, responsibility and fidelity. Slavers owned and many treated their slaves like shit, I own my dog and treat it very well.

>>9897804
>literally goes straight to muh slavery

Liberals are barely human

>>9897804
Are you fucking illiterate?
ALSO IMPLY, AS IN, CONDITIONALLY, YOU ILLITERATE FUCKING TOOL
>dogmatic morality
Said the humanist. Fuck off and eat more feces you damned rat.

File: baee8afe5429608adb8bfb30b74c0929.jpg (7KB, 250x230px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x230px

>>9887609
>are there any books with stable, happy polyamorous relationships in them?
This implies that there are stable, happy polyamorous relationships in real life that someone is able to base their writing off of.

>>9898240
you're right. in an unrelated note, my neighbors are elves.