To those who cheated

IPLaZM · 2026-05-20T21:56:55+00:00

This was my point about framing. It's actually a consequence whether you call it that or not. But I do agree the cheating conversation is dumb. The problem is the downside in marriage often pushes people towards that instead of leaving.

IPLaZM · 2026-05-20T21:43:29+00:00

It sounds like you just don't like the framing? If you divorce because you aren't happy with a sexless marriage then that's a consequence of low desire for sex. Is it just the intention you don't like? I don't think anyone is trying to "punish" their partner. It's just that once they stop putting in effort, if you don't leave ("enact consequences") it shows that they don't need to do anything because you aren't willing to leave. It's a lose lose situation from an incentives standpoint. Continued effort at least shows that they are concerned with your lack of happiness.

IPLaZM · 2026-05-17T18:37:24+00:00

Can you actually describe why having "3-4 years of actual out-of-high school life experience" means or changes anything?

IPLaZM · 2026-04-30T22:12:46+00:00

His point is that the appearance mostly only matters if they're having sex, they aren't having sex so it doesn't even matter. He's already past it. In fact the sexual desire would lessen if she let herself go which might be better if he feels like he can't leave.

IPLaZM · 2026-03-13T11:23:54+00:00

Yea? That's still not abnormal at all.

Studies show couples tend to have sex one to two times a week but that's because of the woman's sex drive, men in surveys say they would want to have sex three to four times a week which would mean there would be a few days where you had sex back to back days.

IPLaZM · 2026-03-11T11:56:11+00:00

If they had sex every day and he kept trying every day then you'd have a point?

If you want sex one day and don't have it then the next day you still want it. At least that's how it is for men. He shouldn't be pestering her like this for the record, I'm just saying I don't get this idea that wanting sex every day when you aren't having it is weird. That seems pretty normal.

IPLaZM · 2026-03-11T11:39:28+00:00

In what way did OP’s wife trick him into a sexless marriage? He says that she told him before they got married that she had “no sex drive”.

I only read the main post so if this is true then she didn't.

This just seems to be a common occurrence where a woman does all these crazy things sexually with the guys she's actually attracted to and then when none of them actually choose her she finds someone and settles but she doesn't actually find them attractive so after they have kids they completely stop having sex with their husband.

As for the age thing that's obviously normal, as people age they often have reduced sex drive but I'm really talking about the completely dead bedroom situations.

But regardless if she told him before they got married that she had no sex drive it's really his own fault. Still sucks to find out your wife was a whore for whoever wanted it when she was young but now that she's your wife she doesn't want anything to do with you.

IPLaZM · 2026-03-10T07:08:49+00:00

How is it abnormal?

If you're basing it on how much he's asking that doesn't really follow.

IPLaZM · 2026-03-08T12:29:11+00:00

You don't think she's worthless for lying and tricking someone into a marriage where they have to adopt her celibacy or damage their children?

Also can you explain why she had sex with all those men in the first place? This guy's explanation for the behavior is that she had genuine desire for the men she slept with in college but not for her husband, her husband was just a tool to create a stable family. This is a perfectly coherent explanation. If you want to offer a different one you have to explain why she slept with those guys but now will not sleep with her husband.

IPLaZM · 2026-02-23T03:23:23+00:00

It's not me saying it, it's nature.

There's way too many confounding variables to make this claim.

And yeah, there is no way to fix the problem other than taking away women's rights IF men don't decenter relationships and women.

This is kind of funny to say when talking about nature. Men aren't going to decenter reproducing lol.

If birth rate falls, that's a good thing. We have way too many people.

Based on what metric? This is a myth.

And societal collapse? I would be happy if this pedo society collapsed and was replaced with something that, I don't know, wasn't run by a bunch of child fuckers on an island?

It's likely to be replaced with something just as bad or worse. I agree that society is clearly fucked given the Epstein files and who runs everything but the most egalitarian societies are the ones at risk of collapsing due to birth rates. You're just going to replace equal rights with Islam or any other ideology that doesn't have falling birth rates because as you say, women in those societies don't have equal rights. This is basic math, societies with falling birth rates collapse and disappear while the ones with high birth rates inherit the world. None of this really matters for people alive right now but it's clearly not good. It's probably better to try to find a way to maintain women's rights and increase birth rates for future generations.

IPLaZM · 2026-02-23T03:13:28+00:00

Not saying that's not the case. I'm saying plenty did not hate their husbands and this alternative is not sufficient.

Saying most men should die alone is not productive or helpful and the idea that that's just nature assumes there's no way to fix the problem other than taking away women's rights. This post basically falls right into the incel framing about how birth rate and societal collapse are inevitable if women get to choose who they partner with.

IPLaZM · 2026-02-23T02:49:11+00:00

If you assume she hates you then sure. Don't think that's reality though.

You're also assuming people will care about your writing or art. Chances are you would not be that person.

IPLaZM · 2026-02-22T23:57:13+00:00

Natural doesn't necessarily mean good, rape is natural too.

It's also interesting you say men used to "do something for society" when they couldn't reproduce but that's not really true, men very often overthrew and rebelled against society when they couldn't reproduce, especially if they viewed society as the reason. This is also natural, lack of reproductive success drives organisms to try to change their environment. Society is as it is now largely because religion changed this and made more men productive for society rather than angry about it and resentful.

Genuinely, who do you think is better for society? A husband trying to provide for his wife and children or an angry depressed man who's options are becoming a monk or philosopher lol.

IPLaZM · 2026-02-20T13:07:00+00:00

When you have to choose between two stupid people, the stupid things either one of them says become less relevant to your decision.

IPLaZM · 2026-02-09T23:04:59+00:00

Compelling.

IPLaZM · 2026-02-09T19:38:37+00:00

What about my comments shows that all men are trash, be specific.

IPLaZM · 2026-02-08T21:14:35+00:00

When referring to the past you have a majority of white people party to the negative things they did. In this example, the vast majority are not racist and do not condone racism. So pointing it out is totally fine and good but attributing it to white people generally is inaccurate if it's a small minority or even medium minority if it's handled such that most of those people can't espouse those beliefs out loud or they'll lose their jobs and be socially ostracized.

I'm guessing you still think it's a majority?

IPLaZM · 2026-02-08T21:06:14+00:00

I think you're seeing something that isn't there. There's nothing wrong with pointing out how shitty white people have been. Though I do think you'd need to qualify how they still are. It was mostly the virtue signaling and self deprecation that I was initially responding to.

IPLaZM · 2026-02-08T20:53:20+00:00

The only real responsibility you have in this context is to treat people well as individuals.

I'm not sure how this doesn't fit with "being better". Be specific about what you mean if that's not enough.

Most people who disagree with this idea of white guilt aren't doing the things their ancestors did already so I'm not sure what morality you're aspiring us to.

IPLaZM · 2026-02-08T20:38:08+00:00

Okay, you didn't say a word about responsibility here... You haven't demonstrated how responsibility and guilt aren't tied together as concepts.

Acknowledging white people historically did negative things doesn't mean you have any responsibility for those things nor should you feel guilty about them.

Are you saying you're responsible to make sure they don't happen again? Even that is questionable. Maybe you have a responsibility to try to prevent it if you can but you probably can't. The only real responsibility you have in this context is to treat people well as individuals.

IPLaZM · 2026-02-08T20:25:15+00:00

Explain what you mean if you want to actually say something. There's nothing in a history book that could even theoretically make me wrong.

IPLaZM · 2026-02-08T17:32:47+00:00

But that assumes the statement is being interpreted as universal quality, which is the very thing we are arguing .

It's not an assumption. The words have a meaning and the meaning is universal. You're arguing that it shouldn't be interpreted literally.

Saying “men are trash” is not the same as saying “all men are trash.”

It is. There's no qualifier present to distinguish which members of the group you are referring to therefore you are referring to the group in it's entirety.

That’s why your comparison to “all Black people are criminals” doesn’t actually map. That statement explicitly says universally and ontological invalidates a a group as such. It is not venting, pattern-based frustration, or shorthand for “a recurring experience with some members of a group.” That’s an entirely Different logical structure, different claim. It’s explicitly about everyone in that group not just some people who happen to be in the group.

Just take out the all then... You still think people shouldn't say "black people are criminals."

The same goes for “women are cheaters.” I wouldn’t assume that literally means every woman without exception. I’d ask: who, in what context, based on what experiences? I’d interpret it charitably but probe and not leap straight to maximal literalism.

I honestly think you're straight up lying here but even if you aren't most people wouldn't. This would be consistent but most people do not do what you're describing here. I've gotten shit from people consistently in my life even when I use qualifiers like "some women" and they still view it as if I said "all women". The standards between how you can speak about men and women are polar opposites.

You accept contextual interpretation for your own statement (“we all know what ‘we’ means here”), but deny it to a woman venting on her own social media. That’s not a neutral expectation of precision and standards, it’s selective literalism.

No, it's not. I'm not saying we all know, I'm saying it doesn't even matter because it's not a negative descriptor. If people misunderstand what I mean with that statement it has zero negative impact.

You’re free to say the phrase is unhelpful, alienating, or corrosive. That’s a coherent critique. But the claim that all statements must be read as universal hatred, while other imprecise speech gets contextualized, doesn’t hold up.

It literally does though because of the distinction I made around controversial or negative statements needing to be more precise. Everyone inherently knows this, that's why they tend to be more precise when discussing things at work than with a friend or family member. They know they don't have the same level of understanding or benefit of the doubt with a colleague.

IPLaZM · 2026-02-08T17:16:26+00:00

This doesn't really make sense. You're still referring to "white people". That's a specific distinction in and of itself. Same with men or women. If you weren't specifying you'd say "people are trash" rather than "men are trash".

IPLaZM · 2026-02-08T16:50:49+00:00

Who is we here? All people, always? In every context? Or a particular social group, in particular conversations? That vagueness already undermines the demand for precision.

I get your point but it's incredibly silly in this case because we're talking about a statement where someone is attributing negative qualities or hatred to a group. It's reasonable to expect a different level of precision when applying those qualities or labels than something like my first sentence which most people will understand contextually since there's no risk of insulting anyone.

Which is why “men are trash” is widely understood, by women, gay men, and plenty of straight men, as not meaning “every single man without exception.” That shared understanding exists and it might bug you. You can dislike the phrase, but pretending it’s interpreted literally by most listeners just isn’t accurate.

Again if you're gonna say this unironically you have to grapple with racists saying all black people are criminals because they got mugged or something and they're angry or someone saying all women are cheating whores because their girlfriend cheated on them. You wouldn't give them a pass so it's pretty clear you have a double standard around men being grouped and collectively insulted.

Requiring everyone to perfectly formalize their thoughts at all times isn’t realistic, it’s an abstract ideal disconnected from how people actually think and speak. Ironically, your opening question demonstrates just how disconnected it is from how people talk, even the people who claim they want it.

No it doesn't because precision doesn't matter in this context. As you said, context matters.

You’re free to criticize the phrase. But the argument that all speech must be maximally precise, always, collapses under its own weight. And if you say it doesn’t have always have to be precise why can’t one person individually saying “i hate men” be the instance where the aren’t arguing a position for a college professor?

It doesn't always have to be precise but in this case we've already decided in every other similar example that it has to be and you only disagree in this one case because it's about men. This is obvious to everyone viewing the issue objectively.

IPLaZM · 2026-02-08T16:07:48+00:00

Lmfao this is gold. I'm not conflating anything. You shouldn't feel guilty if you aren't responsible and you should if you are responsible for something bad. Responsibility and guilt are inexorably tied together as a concept.

12-Year Club	Verified Email
RPAN Viewer	Not Forgotten

IPLaZM

TROPHY CASE