It all boils down to a single truth:

The more genuine feelings you have for a woman, the harder it becomes to maintain a relationship with her.

And the reverse is true, too: The more intense her feelings for you are, the more likely that the relationship can last.

The women that make you feel head over heels are always the ones that break your heart.

The other ones, you care less about, and in your indifference they will only desire you more and more, and do the craziest shit to "win you over."

These are the relationships that last, in the end. The other ones burn up like stars, intensely and bright, but leave pain behind.

Agreed 100%

Ok, in an attempt to prevent sliding into a semantic argument again, I acknowledge that it is pervasive however I don't believe the reasons for this to be moral.

'Refusing to share with others' is so primitive that it grates against anything I stand for. Monogamy has worked in the past. I disagree that it works now. The cultural change is so rapid these days and I believe in keeping up. I believe in moving with the times. It is the same thing I have to do for marketing, sometimes a certain method or strategy just stops working so you have to just get over it and move on. That's life.

Once again, monogamy should be the option. Not the moral directive it is propagated as.

_________________
Be the best you can be!

Check out my Routines app at the link below:

https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-pla ... 22532?mt=8

define what you mean by semantic argument...every argument is semantic one...or it erodes into semantics the moment a person start losing ground and hiding behind the words.....if there is no definitions then anybody could say anything and it would be an irrefutable evidence of itself...for example you may think that monogamy worked in the past but that is purely subjective crap as long as you have no clearcut definition what it means for a relationship to work...and why there must be a relationship at all...another thing, why something must 'work' for someone to be ethically comphortable to indulge in it? or in order for one to exercise it? this are not sensless petty questions and useless debate on contrary...of course as long as one's definition of being useful is more inclusive then learning how to get laid...even if thats your only goal, getting clear on your definition of ethics is more useful then learning the last tehnique or opener...cause having a superstitious ethic suck up the joy from ones life and interfere with having a great life and particularly a sexual life...

_________________

You make some good points here. My definition of monogamy 'working' is simple. It is sustainable long term and brings MORE happiness to the individuals involved then if it wasn't present. Happiness is the variable that matters.

Thank you for contributing.

_________________
Be the best you can be!

Check out my Routines app at the link below:

https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-pla ... 22532?mt=8

heheh prety nice simple definition...resonably clearcut...

_________________

You know it

_________________
Be the best you can be!

Check out my Routines app at the link below:

https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-pla ... 22532?mt=8

hehhe yeah, but not as clear cut as it should be to define anything with precision... actually i am not sure anymore language could define matters such as these...the language is way too aristotelian, black-and white and 2-d while the life is non-aristotelian , in color with millions of nuances and shades and multiple dimensions...

_________________

Language is all we have to communicate. It's not black and white unless descriptions are inadequate or misused. Nuances and shades have to be explained and qualified. Conventions have to be agreed upon (such as what is "stability", or "works" at the beginning of the debate. These are all critically important, and can't be glossed over. Language can be as rigorous and accurate as necessary, up to the level of programing.
Either way the argument here is irreconcilable because we have different assumptions about human nature and value systems. I'm not saying that either of you is making a logically false claim. However your basic assumptions are different from mine, and unless someone's assumptions or values are changed (which they won't be), there can't be agreement. I'm going to leave it at that, since there's nowhere else the debate can go.

what are your basic asumptions?

btw do you think english language developed progressively - so we are now able to make finer distinctions than a couple of hundreds of years ago or whenever it was when it has begun?

_________________

damn this post has drifted far from the original question and when reading all this wannabe bullshit about monogamy it makes me think that some people are indeed "ruined" by the game.

I guess cocktail still says it best:

there are workers and hustlers. Me, I am a worker,I take pride in my work! I really enjoy working over an HB and when a nice job occurs i can really enjoy that for the rest of my life Pua gives us the opportunity to find the best job available and enjoy it to the fullest.

Other people just enjoy hustling. It's not pua that ruined them, they were ruined from the start, or just have different ideals and pua gives them the opportunity to hustle more often ...

All languages develop progressively. English has changed a lot in the last few hundred years because now we know a lot more than we used to.
My basic assumption here is that monogamy is promoted as a moral directive because it helped maintain stability and growth in societies throughout history.
I can't prove this with a series of experimental runs, but neither can saying that seeing multiple people promotes happy and healthy families.

So basically what you are saying there are some things that we know now and we werent able to put them in words cause we didnt knew about them a few hundred years ago...

So basically there were some things that existed for a fact and we even didnt had words for them?

_________________

does it contribute to stability and growth of society if military men reproduce?....perhaps we would be better off if these militant sons of bitches died off leaving noone after them...

_________________