Sunday, November 8, 2015

The "Honest Deception" video and the reality of open relationships (for betas)

Some time ago someone posted a video with the title "Honest Deception" on this blog. The scene shows a spineless beta who gets told, by his future wife, that she would like to fuck other men, too. The occasional humor falls flat, but there is an interesting aspect of it, namely the power dynamics. But first, watch the video if you haven't already:


The interesting aspect is that the guy is supposed to be used for the resources he provides, while she would like to fuck other guys as well. Given that a lot of women simply cheat on their beta providers without telling them, this could be viewed as an improvement. Yet, it is clear that she is in a position of power --- because he allows her to walk all over him.

Now you might say that this is just acting, but I have been told similar stories of other guys, "beta chumps" you may call them. It was more or less always the same story: guy in his late 20s, at the earliest, woman either close to 30 or between 30 and 40. She realizes that she really needs to settle down and secure resources. Yet, after fucking around since your teenage years, restricting yourself to just one cock is apparently not good enough, so she want to get "alpha cock" for as long as possible. The "manuresphere" now thinks that they are all riding the cock carousel until they hit menopause. In reality, though, women like that have been coming on to men for quite a few years, but sadly it's often men who do have options, so they rather fuck younger women instead, so all her fucking other men may very well only happen in her fantasies.

In my view, "open relationships" are a bit of a charade. It seems indeed much more often the case that a woman is manipulating a guy into letting her fuck others, which she would do anyway. However, if she gets the chump to agree, then she does not have to have a bad conscience. Also note that it is very convenient to tell a guy who barely gets laid, and was arguably manipulated into enduring a sexless relationship, that he could fuck others. She only has to go about her day, and some dudes will come up to her, while he would have to make an active effort. Her role is mostly reactive, while his would have to be proactive. Thus, she could easily claim the moral high ground, since existing dynamics between the sexes in Western society allow her to be inactive.

It's also amusing that those beta chump/aging whore dynamics would cause great drama if the power dynamics were reversed. Have you ever had a woman you've known for a few days ask you whether you're seeing other girls, or would want to see other girls --- maybe as she finds some other girl's panties under your bed? Chances are that she would not quite be so tolerant. (Protip: don't cave in, and chances are that she's back in one or two days anyway and if not, well, you're fucking other chicks anyway, right?)


What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!
(Also, if you’ve got a comment that is off-topic or only tangentially related to this article, then please post in the most recent Open Thread. Thank you.)











22 comments:

  1. This post reminded me of this article. It is really funny but also sad at the same time.
    https://archive.is/tJ5lM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This article is unintentionally humorous. Man, what a spineless chump.

      Delete
    2. I think I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

      So do you agree that, after all, monogamy is the natural way to go ? Of course, I'm not talking about "beta" monogamy, but "alpha" monogamy (if you know what I mean). I personally think if you have to "open" your relationship, it means 200% that one of the two is with the other person just to abuse him.

      I think I would even prefer cheating over open relationship. Because at least when she cheats, you didn't agree like a fucking doormat.

      Delete
    3. I'm not sure monogamy is natural. However, it is the basis of the stability of our society, which feminism has been successfully undermining for quite some time. I think monogamy only works when your woman is submissive, instead of viewing you as a member of the "patriarchy" which is to blame that she gets wrinkles, isn't the CEO of Apple, and whatnot.

      In this day and age, considering in what rotten times we live in, you should only seek a long-term relationship if you want to have kids, and if you want to have kids, you better consider what this entails. Of course, I assume that the reader does not belong to the (native or migrant) underclass that spreads their semen for the purpose of increasing their monthly welfare payments.

      Delete
    4. Yes, I agree with you. Monogamy is only possible with a submissive woman, which is what I am looking for (and is fucking difficult to find). And I have no hope to find a girl like this in our western societies.

      Delete
    5. The article in question generated a lot of heated discussion with a fair number of readers calling it fake, and a lot of others(mostly male) thinking the guy was a great example of delusions and rationalizations. Regarding the video, I would bet lots of people would be calling the woman character enlightened about relationships. I would also bet that if the man character was the one starting this discussion, a lot of these same people would probably want the guy tarred and feathered......

      Monogamy in long term relationships is not easy and probably unnatural, so on one hand having discussions like this are probably not all that bad, but the idea put forward seems to be the worst of both worlds in that it is "open", and one or both people are banging other people and everyone lies about it. In general, open relationships are a lot like communism in that from a theoretical standpoint, you end up in a utopia, but in reality it seldom works out that well. Based on anecdotal evidence, most open relationship experiments tend to blow up rather spectacularly.

      Delete
    6. no such things like beta and alpha males

      Delete
    7. Somehow I get the impression that only one demographic doubts that there are alpha males: a subset of beta males.

      Delete
    8. you should do an article about submissive women.
      i am sure guys will love it , since a lot of guys want a woman who wont cheat.

      Delete
  2. Monogamy natural? Maybe/maybe not. Fucking random people outside of a relationship natural? Probably. Being intimate and loving someone and crawling next to them in bed and being sweet - and fucking someone else? Ya, sorry, nothing natural about that. If that exists in nature please someone comment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you.

      Fucking multiple people when you are not committed => ok.
      But when you are committed => monogamous.

      I still think ONS are unnatural tho. Usually the girl is very selfish during the whole interaction and the sex is therefore very bad. Moreover I always feel very bad the days after.

      The only 2 natural options IMO are :
      - having a harem of friends with benefits (these girls really care about you, unlike ONS)
      - having a submissive feminine monogamous girlfriend (she cares about you)

      Delete
    2. I think you're fantasizing. The quality of ONS differs widely, depending on both your and her ability as a lover, as well as chemistry.

      The 'harem' idea is nonsense. Friends with benefits care about you because they want you to be their boyfriend, and if they don't care about you, they only use you for sex, which may not necessarily be pleasant in the long run. In my experience, there is a relatively short half life of FB 'relationships', due to the fact that more or less every girl rather ties a guy down instead of banging you, knowing that you also fuck other women.

      Delete
    3. Who said FWB relationships were long-term ? I said they were "natural" because they make me feel good even it's for short-term unlike ONS who always make me feel very bad afterwards and are not even enjoyable. Girls suck at ONS.

      Delete
    4. We seem to have had different experiences. A ONS, with the knowledge that you most likely will never see each other again, can be a very liberating if not cathartic experience.

      Delete
  3. Geert,
    I saw your comment. I hope you understand that even though I am quite open about some parts of my private life, I am not necessarily willing to discuss other aspects in public.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll add that submission is not necessarily a negative attribute. There are conflicts in the relationship if there is no clear leadership, or if both fight for it. I'm not big on the "strong, independent woman" shtick, that normally is only a facade anyway

      Delete
    2. No problem sleazy, I respect you're judgement. It's your life after all.

      I agree that submission isn't necessarily a negative attribute. If you look closely at couples, you'll usually see one person who's more in charge then the other. I also don't think that women respect men who are submissive.

      I've also never experienced strong chemistry with the "strong independent women" thing. Off course, if you say this you are a misogynist, but I wonder how we call women who say they enjoy it when a guy takes the lead.

      Personally I think that it's only a small subset of women who prefer this way of living, off course, if you give them the most media attention, you can give another impression.

      Delete
  4. "Strong independent women"...Gosh!

    But they can suck your dicks really well, as long as they are submissive in bed, just make her do all the things you like.

    You will throw her away like a piece of trash later anyway, when you get bored of her sorry ass.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey Aaron,

    Thanks for keeping up the blog, I haven't followed it for 4-5 years now. I rediscovered your blog through a personal finance website, so now I'll slowly read through some of your older posts. Keep up the good work, we all need to be reminded of the consequences of swallowing the blue pill.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You rediscovered my blog through a personal finance website? I haven't heard that one yet. Which website was it?

      I'm still active, but real life is keeping me very busy. If you have the time, also check out the forum. There have been some interesting discussions on there as well.

      Delete
    2. Sorry I wasn't clear in my post. I meant I rediscovered your blog through a comment on a PF website, at www.greaterfool.ca. It was a post about a divorced woman being illogical about her finance and wants instant gratification. One person commented that she's probably still receiving both child and spousal supports to fuel her desires, and another person posted your blog link. Basically, both posters agree that marriage in a western society is detrimental to men's well-being.

      Delete
    3. I'm familiar with that kind of story. However, note that marriage/divorce is a lot worse in some countries than others. In the US you can easily end up financing your ex-wife until kingdom come, while here in Europe it is much more common to extract money not so much via alimony but "child support". For instance, Sweden has an amusing formula that takes both your and her disposable income into account, as a ration, meaning that if your ex decides to work part-time, you'll get fucked in the ass really hard.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.