Matrix is becoming more than the norm (wife cheating thread)...

[Nutz]

You know, whenever we go into these debates about infidelity (albeit usually from the male perspective), and it becomes an immoral / amoral / moralist ménage à trois, I always see the code in the Matrix and wonder, what is the greater moral imperative; to remain faithful to your morally obligated commitment with your spouse in spite of a loveless, passionless, sexless partner, or to break that commitment in order to pursue the obligation and commitment you owe yourself as "superior" Man deserving of a better "quality" partner?

What has moral priority, a commitment to yourself versus a commitment to marriage? You see it's easy to wave the flag of self-righteousness when the issue is a right vs. wrong issue. It's much more difficult when the question is right vs. right. I have no doubt that all the answers to this will be entirely circumstantial, rationalized twistings in the wind, and maybe that's what decides for you, but think about it for a moment in the terms of what one must sacrifice for the other.

I love this thread because of just that. Where else would such a thing occur?

It comes down to immorality, morality, and amoral behavior of women. Which is it? My take on women is that we, like them, are all three. Where we fall depends on the time & place and subject being regarded. Then it's further modified by the outside observer's perception, which is really what matters most. "Perception is reality" is the key thing that's been missing from the debate thus far.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

There's a popular saying amongst some SS members here that goes,..

"Anything you cannot say 'No' to makes you it's slave."

I happen to agree with this, however, by this definition, does not commitment make you a 'slave' by default? If by the circumstances of a commitment you cannot, figuratively, say "no" to the that (or due to that) commitment, are you not then a slave?

You could even take marriage out of the equation; if I'm in a committed LTR with a GF and over the course of that relationship I realize that she's not what I'm looking for (for any number of reasons), even though she's 100% faithfully committed to me and the LTR, should I then break that commitment? If I do, am I then being unethical for having broken that commitment? Should the commitment to my own personal well being and future happiness be compromised by another commitment? What's the moral obligation; neglect myself in favor of a bad commitment or to the principle of commitment itself?

It's my take that commitment 'should' be a function of genuine desire. Ideally, commitment should be to something one is so passionate about that the limiting of one's own future opportunities that come from that commitment is an equitable trade. This is unfortunately rarely the case for most people in any form of commitment because people, circumstance, opportunity and conditions are always in flux. A commitment that had been seen as equitable sacrifice at one time can become debilitating 5 years after depending upon circumstance.

So what I'm getting at is where do you draw the line? People go all kinds of crazy when I suggest a guy NEXT some girl that's obviously showing all of indications that she's using him (or has proven so) and then two threads down suggest that it's Men's moral obligation to vet women by "walking away." If I have one life to live and one precious lifetime to do it in, what is more important; a commitment to oneself in learning and securing the best options for a lifetime or being committed to the principle of self-sacrificing commitment?

We tell freshmen AFCs here all the time to dedicate themselves to self-improvement; to seek out and accomplish what's best for them - in other words, to uncompromisingly commit themselves to their own cause in as positive a manner as possible. I'd argue that genuine desire is a necessary precursor to this, but in advocating this self-concerned improvement, are we not then doing them a disservice if their moral duty ought to be focused on the principle of commitment, even when that commitment is (or becomes) deleterious to their commitment to a positive self? What holds more water, being an ethical martyr to chivalrous commitment, or a steadfast dedication to ourselves?

Should we not hold AFCs in the highest respect when they selflessly sacrifice their futures due to their devoted commitment to a ONEitis girl who'll never reciprocate (much less reward) that commitment? We'd call them chumps, but maybe they've got it right? You can't doubt their (albeit misguided) dedication to their moral convictions.

As I've stated prior, it's very easy to make ethical judgements when your options are right & wrong, but they're very difficult when they're right vs. right or wrong vs. wrong. It'd be pretty ƒucked up of Christopher Reeves' wife to have bailed out on him after he became paralyzed - that's an easy call. But what about the husband who was sold a bill of goods prior to marriage that his wife bait & switched him on? Is he obligated to stick by her in spite of a deception for commitment's sake? Would it be less offensive if she we're only a live in GF who never cheated on him, but made him miserable?

 

[scrouds]

You know, whenever we go into these debates about infidelity (albeit usually from the male perspective), and it becomes an immoral / amoral / moralist ménage à trois, I always see the code in the Matrix and wonder, what is the greater moral imperative; to remain faithful to your morally obligated commitment with your spouse in spite of a loveless, passionless, sexless partner, or to break that commitment in order to pursue the obligation and commitment you owe yourself as "superior" Man deserving of a better "quality" partner?

What has moral priority, a commitment to yourself versus a commitment to marriage? You see it's easy to wave the flag of self-righteousness when the issue is a right vs. wrong issue. It's much more difficult when the question is right vs. right. I have no doubt that all the answers to this will be entirely circumstantial, rationalized twistings in the wind, and maybe that's what decides for you, but think about it for a moment in the terms of what one must sacrifice for the other.

The optimal solution here is to not get married until you are assured that you will gain by following your commitments in marriage.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

As soon as you come up with a sure bet, let me know and we'll fly to Vegas.

 

[scrouds]

Lets give it a while, I'm enjoying the single life and really don't want to meet a chick like that right now.

 

[ketostix]

To me the whole matter of what's right and wrong doesn't seem confusing at all. It comes instinctive. It may not be the perfect thing to do but it's the best thing or a lessor of two evils so to speak. It only becomes complicated because people complicate it for ulterior and self-serving reasons.

A word on morality:

It's important to note the difference between immoral (conflicting with held moral principles), and amoral (neither moral nor immoral). You or I might view a woman's behavior as immoral, but in her mind she may not even have a moral tenet that governs such behavior. She is just acting according to her impulses. This is how and why we qualify, rigorously.

I am not part of the club that believes convictions will always bend under natural imperatives, nor do I think morality is not a sham. It is a set of personal convictions. Guys see the contradictions in people's moral codes and make the incorrect conclusion that all morality is is a social construct with the purpose of serving society. To some extent, it is. But my morality is still going to differ from someone else's, or even society's collective benchmarks. For example, I don't think taking steroids is immoral, or even unethical in many cases. But most of society does. Now I didn't create this belief just so I could take roids guilt-free, but because I examined it critically and deemed that steroid use is someone's personal prerogative and should not be regulated. But that's just my morality, and I'm not going to impose it on folks who think steroids are always wrong.

Similarly with fvcking married women. This is a personal conviction. I don't hold some Disneyland ideal that by acting "righteously" I will somehow insure myself against being cheated on. I'm not saying I am ABOVE it, but I have actively chosen not to fvck married women, EVEN if they are the aggressor, because 1) I dont need to, 2) I dont want to be a part of someone else's wrecked life. You can sing yourself all the lullabies you want but if you knowingly choose to screw a married woman you are an active participant in fvcking someone else's life up. Yes, I know, it was her decision to screw you. But it was also YOUR decision to put your d!ck inside her. You could have screwed someone else.

The thing is everyone impose their personal moral code on others. Take the cheating wife who's code allows for her to cheat. She imposes it on her husband. And the 3rd party guy who thinks fvcking a married woman is consistent with their code, impose this on the husband. They've essentially imposed their moral code on someone else. When enough people include cheating as part of their moral code, then cheaing becomes rampant. Even the cheaters are getting cheated on. You can't seriously have marriage in an (un)ethical enviroment like that.

Anyway, it's not too complicated. In law there's the concept of being an accessory. If it's wrong for a woman to cheat on her husband and gain some reward from it, then it's wrong for the the other guy to fvck the married woman since he is an accomplice.

My point was that without consequence a behavior becomes more common. And when it becomes more common it changes the standard. The fact that we know just about any guy would fvck your GF, wife, etc. and that many women will cheat encourages you to fvck other guys significant other and to cheat on your significant other. Resulting in marriages and relationship being a sham. You have to ask yourself, which world would you rather live in, one where cheating wasn't acceptable and had consequence and was rare, or one where it is has no consequence for the cheater and is very common.

You could substitute any other behavior that has no consequence or little consequence for cheating. At one time defaming a man's character could subject you to a pistol duel (and I imagine if you fvck some guys wife you would be subjected to retaliation too). Point is one party was imposing their behavior on another to the other's detriment and the other party gave resistance. Now thre is no real consequences for defamtion and defamation is rampant.

I just see men of today adopting feminine ethics. They don't know what's right or wrong, and they don't assert themselves when they are wronged. They resort to feminne tactics of cheating and gossiping and slander. The thing is women are masters at cheating and slandering. I don't see how a feminine social system is one where men overall come out on top.

Also, nothing says you should stay with or married in an undesirable relationship for the sake of honoring a commitment. A commitment or contract is dependent on both parties honoring it's requirements. But there's a proper and improper way of ending a contract or commitment. A woman cheating on her husband isn't the proper way.

 

[ketostix]

The refrain from having sex with women until you meet 'the one' quality woman who will never cheat on you is a coping/buffer mechanism for the moralists' anxieties about there own weak, beta masculinity.

who advocates that? I think what some people would say is it doesn't matter how "alpha" you are or masculine, some women are going to cheat more than others.

You get married, you put on 70 pounds of blubber, you wear sweat pants, you sit on the couch and drink beer and fart while your super hottie wife looks at you in disgust and embarrassement -but she is to blame if she moves on to an alpha male who makes her vagina wet and tingly from his raw masculinity?

Oh how about if he's drunk and beats her? Simple she should seperate herself from the guy first.

Or when Colossus' (as an example) wife after 5 years of marriage who now tips the scale at 410 lbs, has teeth that are all rotted out, and proudly belches in public -is Colossus a low quality, immoral loser because he A either cheats on the side to have his needs met while keeping the marriage in tact so his children will have a nuclear family or B he divorces the cow and then has sex with other women?

i'm kind of with Hooligan Harry that a man should be held to a different standard for cheating on his wife. But if he does cheat it shouldn't be with someone else's wife. Best he divorce her (of course divorce laws are messed up but that's a seprerate argument and an argument that is also about what's right and wrong).

Beta's around the world share this common anxiety about their women leaving them for superior males.

Alphas, betas. Women leave men for inferior men. It's all subjective. All men naturally don't like their woman straying and don't like other men moving in on their turf.

I'm banging a 25 year old married mother of a 2 year old. She is hot and well adjusted. She is in a loveless marriage; she hasn't had sex with her husband in over a year as he has zero interest in sex and has turned into a depressed loser. She still loves him and he is a good father. She has no plans of divorcing him. If she wasn't sleeping with me, it'd be somebody else. Is she a horrible, low quality loser? No, her husband is. It's because she is high quality that she doesn't tolerate beta males acting like an effeminate pussssy.

How can you believe anything this woman says. The guy most have had something. He got her when she was younger and without a child. You know, a person could make the case for you being a cap'n save a ho and picking up scraps. But I guess in your mind you are superiror to the husband. Well whatever.

Even the Tac poster who said his wife was the most wonderful, high quality woman in the world decided to cheat on him. The moralists then all joined his side and trashed the woman, only to later hear from the OP that it was HE who let himself go and lost the frame of masculinity.

Because she should've ended it first and maybe a long time ago. But really we don't know Tac or this woman. Women cheat for no good reason too other than they can and get away with it, and that's what I think most people are commenting on.

These hard-wired beta's will never have their minds changed until the underlying anxiety they feel about their inferiority complex in reference to other males is addressed.

What are you really saying here? That a man must constantly meet a vague and subjective standard for a woman or she should cheat? That it's good to be the third guy? You know a lot of women cheat for no good reason. They do it because there's plenty of men available and there's no consequences. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Luthor Rex]

If we’re to go back to the logic of survival of the fittest, fine. I’m trained and experienced. You do not want your world to go there. Its ugly.

Exactly! This is something the anti-morality retards on this site don't understand. The way they insist on turning the U.S. into Sub-Sahara Africa can only come from profoundly delusional thinking.

This is narcissistic tautology. Yes, she chose. So did he, and with foreknowledge. In my world, he is not a man. She is worthy of neither me nor our children. Less than 100 years ago, I could have killed them both and never seen the inside of a prison.
Sexual opportunity is everywhere. So are opportunities to take whatever you want whether earned or not. With no standards, values or expectations, there is no civilization. I do not want to re-enter the world of the barbarian. Been there, done that. We are accountable to each other or we are nothing.

Sometimes I suspect we will have to return to a more primitive state before we can move forward. That we'll have to 'clean house' so to speak.

What did Odysseus do when he returned to Ithaca? He killed the thugs and hung the unfaithful women.

Without strong fathers and strong families the only future is the ghetto.

 

[SXS]

You know, whenever we go into these debates about infidelity (albeit usually from the male perspective), and it becomes an immoral / amoral / moralist ménage à trois, I always see the code in the Matrix and wonder, what is the greater moral imperative; to remain faithful to your morally obligated commitment with your spouse in spite of a loveless, passionless, sexless partner, or to break that commitment in order to pursue the obligation and commitment you owe yourself as "superior" Man deserving of a better "quality" partner?

I think that being commited to yourself is not a excuse to cheat. If your partner has no quality, you can still choose to leave. Of course, if you entered a marriage without a well thought previous contract and will be screwed in case of a divorce, it's your problem. Still, YOU are the one 100% responsible for your life.

And still, that does not talk about banging married woman. Why in blazes would you bother going out with someone else's wife ? Where I live, people cheer when someone gets killed for those reasons.
I have been with woman with boyfriends many times, but I would not **** a woman with kids and married. That's where I draw the line. I don't need that kind of stuff in my life, there are plenty of women for you to waste your time on.

What has moral priority, a commitment to yourself versus a commitment to marriage? You see it's easy to wave the flag of self-righteousness when the issue is a right vs. wrong issue. It's much more difficult when the question is right vs. right. I have no doubt that all the answers to this will be entirely circumstantial, rationalized twistings in the wind, and maybe that's what decides for you, but think about it for a moment in the terms of what one must sacrifice for the other.

One does not exclude the other. There are many "acceptable" ways of going out of a relationship that does not fulfill it's purposes anymore.

 

[Tictac]

You know, whenever we go into these debates about infidelity (albeit usually from the male perspective), and it becomes an immoral / amoral / moralist ménage à trois, I always see the code in the Matrix and wonder, what is the greater moral imperative; to remain faithful to your morally obligated commitment with your spouse in spite of a loveless, passionless, sexless partner, or to break that commitment in order to pursue the obligation and commitment you owe yourself as "superior" Man deserving of a better "quality" partner?

What has moral priority, a commitment to yourself versus a commitment to marriage? You see it's easy to wave the flag of self-righteousness when the issue is a right vs. wrong issue. It's much more difficult when the question is right vs. right. I have no doubt that all the answers to this will be entirely circumstantial, rationalized twistings in the wind, and maybe that's what decides for you, but think about it for a moment in the terms of what one must sacrifice for the other.

Rollo,

I see this as a false choice. It was the infidelity that mattered. Either of us could have initiated separation/divorce and there would be less an issue with this. My commitment was personal as was hers. I made the commitment to marriage, so did she. To unilaterally break it, hide it, lie about it, etc. was the problem. To exploit trust like this cannot be a good thing.

You want out? Okay. You want to exploit me by staying, lying and deceiving me? Not okay. Two different things, linked to be sure but separate.

One honors the commitment, the other exploits it. She wanted it all at the same time but could only manage that through lies. To her and those who helped her, I don't need them in my life and don't want my children around them.

Tictac

 

[STR8UP]

I'll say it again- morals and ethics serve no purpose in the mating game.

You call yourself Batman and call me The Joker. Get off your high horse. You THINK you are somehow better then other people, with your self-righteous attitude.

You are out there searching for that one special girl who is brainwashed better than the rest, who is capable of seeing the "rules", who follows them to the letter.

I'm out there looking at it for what it is; a cut-throat game of "do what's best for you and rationalize poor behavior after". It's a street fight where knees, elbows, eye-gouging, and hair pulling are off limits to you, but your opponents didn't get the memo.

Women don't play by the same rule book that men do. You sit there and read off these rules, telling yourself you are a better man for following them, while she's off doing her thing. Women can rationalize ANYTHING. Women can turn a blind eye to ANYTHING. You have a "quality woman", then she cheats on you (see Tictac's story), then you conveniently say "Shame on me for being fooled by a low quality woman disguised as a high quality woman!" Shame on you alright. Shame on you for diving head first into a fantasy.

I could go on all night about how clueless so many guys are believing that somehow this high moral code is really in their best interest, but as with so many other things it's like trying to convert a 50 year old devout christian to atheism. It ain't gonna happen.

I'm done with this ridiculous thread.

 

[SXS]

I'll say it again- morals and ethics serve no purpose in the mating game.

So suming up, cheat on every partner you have and bang all married women you can find ?

I could go even further. I could say that moral and ethics serve no purpose in life.

 

[Aenigma]

From Pook:

http://dapook.blogspot.com/2007/08/vilars-radicalism-10.html

Vilar's Radicalism # 10

10) Masculinity and Honor is an Artifical System designed to manipulate men.
-
Thanks to women, everythingis labelled "masculine" or "effeminate," "worthy" or "unworthy." By imbuing all they do with sentimental and emotional values to such a degree that no one can remain unaffected by them, women have created for themselves a fool's paradise. Whatever they do is pointless compared with male achievements. And since they say so themselves, why should men quibble?



Of course, if men really wanted to, they could destroy this tissue of lies and replace the terms "masculine" and "effeminate" with "hard" and "easy".


...
It is simple to analyse this vicious circle: women invent rules, manipulate men to obey them and so dominate the male sex. Of course, these rules in no way apply to women themselves. The male sense of honour, for example, is a system invented by women who loudly exempt themselves from it. They renounce the concept of honour and, as a result, manipulate men.



In a recent television series, "The Avengers", there was a scene in which two antagonists were facing each other across a billiard table, a pistol in front of each of them. It was agreed that to give them each an equal chance, they should count aloud up to three and then shoot. The hero, however, grabbed his pistol and fired at the count of two, thus saving his own life. He chose to remain outside the system and was therefore in a position to manipulate the other who, although in mortal danger, preferred to stick to a system approved by society rather than to use his own judgement.


Pg. 59-61

What is a Man? Certainly not masculinity or honor. Vilar will later define exactly what man is.

But it is true that everything that is 'masculine' and 'honorable' is disadvantageous to men and advantageous to women. It is 'masculine' to lift heavy objects. It is 'honorable' to always be nice to women. It is 'masculine' to join the military. It is 'honorable' to help the mother-in-law at all times.

Even though readers of "Manipulated Man" know how this is advantageous to women, I do not think it has yet been internalized that IT IS ALL FAKE. MGTOW are still talking about 'honor' and 'masculinity' as if it means something. It should be noted that Shakespeare opposed honor and blunt masculinity. The movers and shakers of the past, the philosophers, the poets, the musicians, the artists, would today be called 'unhonorable' and 'unmasculine'. But since there was no Matriarchy in that time period, you can see why people were attracted to such fields and tried to study them.

It is time to let it go. Let Honor go. Let 'Masculinity' (though not testosterone) go. The manipulation of Honor is not that Honor is being used to serve females, it is Honor itself is a female construction. Why should we 'honor' politicians? The only 'honor' that should be recognized is that band of brothers between soldiers. But is that really honor? Not really. That does not fit ribbons or medals.

Don't try to be masculine but try to be who you are. Those who embrace who they are, their soul, their passions, strive to be You Inc., will naturally be confident. It is those that strive towards masculinity, towards its images and cliches, that end up becoming the biggest wimps.

Prior to the 20th Century, male friendships and companionships (these are close friendships, NOT homosexuality) were depicted in literature and the world. It is interesting that the only way men are allowed to be 'close friends' is under 'Honor' as in old war buddies. Male friendship is savagely attacked as 'effeminate' (and now 'gay') because it does not help women in the slightest. This conditioning is so deeply rooted that sharing a two bedroom apartment with a guy, it is not uncommon for that guy to say, "Look! I am just trying to save money! I don't sleep with him or anything!" As the Internet and MGTOW is showing, male friendship is our greatest strength against Matriarchy. No wonder it is considered the most 'unhonorable' and most 'effeminate' thing ever!

 

[Tictac]

I'll say it again- morals and ethics serve no purpose in the mating game.

You call yourself Batman and call me The Joker. Get off your high horse. You THINK you are somehow better then other people, with your self-righteous attitude.

You are out there searching for that one special girl who is brainwashed better than the rest, who is capable of seeing the "rules", who follows them to the letter.

I'm out there looking at it for what it is; a cut-throat game of "do what's best for you and rationalize poor behavior after". It's a street fight where knees, elbows, eye-gouging, and hair pulling are off limits to you, but your opponents didn't get the memo.

Women don't play by the same rule book that men do. You sit there and read off these rules, telling yourself you are a better man for following them, while she's off doing her thing. Women can rationalize ANYTHING. Women can turn a blind eye to ANYTHING. You have a "quality woman", then she cheats on you (see Tictac's story), then you conveniently say "Shame on me for being fooled by a low quality woman disguised as a high quality woman!" Shame on you alright. Shame on you for diving head first into a fantasy.

I could go on all night about how clueless so many guys are believing that somehow this high moral code is really in their best interest, but as with so many other things it's like trying to convert a 50 year old devout christian to atheism. It ain't gonna happen.

I'm done with this ridiculous thread.

Jeez,

Don't stroke out on this. Where does it say I think I'm better? I do this for me not for her, you or anybody else. I have no opponents but myself.

As for self-rightousness, I think you're workng very hard here to corner that.

Live your values. Or maybe you are and that's why you sound like the old (alone) guy on his front porch yelling at kids to get off his lawn.

Tictac

 

[ketostix]

From Pook:

http://dapook.blogspot.com/2007/08/vilars-radicalism-10.html

Pook doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. There was masculinity and honor way before there was women with any right or voice to manipulate men to do anything. It was a code honored among men and did not include women much at all, as it should be. He erroneously attributed feminism and female manipulation of concepts of honor and masculinity as if females created the very things they manipulate. Women don't have the balls or ingenuity to create anything. What they are good at though is manipulating and complaining.

 

[Tictac]

From Pook:

http://dapook.blogspot.com/2007/08/vilars-radicalism-10.html

I'd rather study history than invent it. Most of the things you discuss came from the chivalric code which was articulated in the 12th to 14th centuries. These were not salad times for the 'matriarchy'.

Most of what we know or think we know is crap. But you can, if you want and if you work at it, decide for yourself how to live. I know of no other way to get out of the box. I have no idea how many illusions I live with. I do know I'm working to find out.

Tictac

 

[speed dawg]

Man, what started off as a rant has turned into a pretty informative and interesting thread.

 

[STR8UP]

I call this thread quits and Aenigma pops in with some good stuff.

INSOFAR as male/female relations go, morals, ethics, etc. are nothing more than a tool of manipulation used by women on men and by unwary men unto themselves. OUTSIDE of this context, they can serve a purpose. But much of what is being talked about on here is nothing but strings that control you like a puppet, as explained by The Almighty Pook Himself.

So suming up, cheat on every partner you have and bang all married women you can find ?

Male infidelity is not the same as female infidelity. It is not as serious. The consequences are rarely severe for either party involved. It actually helps facilitate semi-monogamy (he has a wife at home who he cares for and supports, but gets his "needs" filled on the side-no harm no foul).

And I didn't say "bang every married woman you can find". I said "if the opportunity presents itself and you are attracted to a married woman, by all means weigh out the risk/reward, and if it comes back positive BANG AWAY".

I could go even further. I could say that moral and ethics serve no purpose in life.

No, they serve great purpose in life in general. See above.

Tictac- that wasn't directed at you.

 

[Nutz]

I wouldn't say masculinity and honor were created to manipulate men, but I will say that Loyalty, Honor, and Integrity are uniquely masculine trains. When women get emotional and the rubber meets the road, they do not hold to those tenets. Emotions override logic and we all know how that goes. On the other hand it's men who are more likely, as in orders of magnitude more likely, than women to have pause due to the reasons I've described. If women have pause it's for different reasons, emotion based reasons. Think about it. Men are raised from early childhood to "do the right thing", "bros before hos", chivalry, and girls "are all things nice...". Just look at how paper thin female relationships are. Male relationships, as was described in this thread, are way more likely to have strong unshakable bonds, eg brotherhood and such. There is no female equivalent and that's because women aren't socially programmed to espouse them when things get heavy, nor are they biologically equipped to do so.

 

[Colossus]

Or when Colossus' (as an example) wife after 5 years of marriage who now tips the scale at 410 lbs, has teeth that are all rotted out, and proudly belches in public -is Colossus a low quality, immoral loser because he A either cheats on the side to have his needs met while keeping the marriage in tact so his children will have a nuclear family or B he divorces the cow and then has sex with other women?

You'd love that wouldnt you? :flowers: