No, because I can tell which movies aren't worth watching just by seeing the trailer. Sometimes just the poster.

Watch Californication and rage about this being the general theme. Guys wife cheats on him, leaves him and yet is somehow portrayed as morally superior to Hank Moody because he's out there 'sticking his dick into anything that moves'. Why that's considered to be such a horrible thing when he's not lying to the women or mistreating them in any way is beyond me.

It only pisses you off because you're a 17 year old douche bag who thinks anti-establishmentarianism is cool.

>>2982542

>>2982542

>>2982568
superior religion trumping a moralfag thread.

it pisses me off too and i haven't been 17 for a decade or so

i like the idea of having multiple partners without being tied to one forever

it's hard to find ways to live like that since almost everyone has been brainwashed into believing you are suppose to marry one person and that's it for all time

most of them fail anyways

Hollywood uses a general formula for its movies, and a schmalzy romantic subplot has been part of it almost forever. Get used to it.

>>2982568

fukken saved!

media is far too obsessed with lust and love

95% of songs are about one of those two

movies and tv shows tend to follow the same shit

when i hear a new song that isn't related to either lust or love i nearly cum myself with joy

Most morality is grounded in anthropological imperatives.

We are a naturally monogamous species for a reason, and that reason is not the arbitrary dictates of religion and public opinion.

>>2982624
Are you stupid? We are NOT a naturally monogamous species. The reason we are now is government and religion have pushed this concept because it creates a more stable society.

>>2982624

We are not naturally a monogamous species at all. Our instinct is to move from one fuck to the next. We, being an intelligent species capable of suppressing instinct, chose to become monogamous when we began constructing societies. This was to help ensure that a tribe's "alpha males" did not monopolize the rights to procreation by essentially assigning 1 man 1 woman, so that everyone got a piece. If humans were naturally monogamous, there would be no cheating, and everyone would be totally content with the one mate they got.

>>2982645

You need to do some reading. I'm not going to bother arguing with someone who clearly has no idea what they're talking about. Come back when you actually have an educated opinion.

>>2982656
>We are not naturally a monogamous species at all. Our instinct is to move from one fuck to the next.

That is the natural instinct of any male mammal, regardless of whether or not the species is monogamous.

>chose to become monogamous when we began constructing societies.

Humans have always had societies. We are a social species. There was no "beginning" to this. As a result, we are, and have always been, monogamous.

You people need to stop going against anthropological fact just to support your own view on relationships and sexuality. Humans, for our entire existence, have been monogamous. It's a fact. Deal with it.

>>2982664

Dude, if you are this guy: >>2982624

please explain why people in monogamous relationships have much higher rates of depression and substance abuse than those with multiple partners, and also why people have the tendency to cheat on their partners. Let's hear your "educated opinion"

>>2982579

it pisses me off and im 31.

i want to be with someone young and pretty. when she's not young and pretty anymore i want to move on to someone who is.

i want to have threesomes and foursomes. i want one night stands and friends with benefits.

problem being if you're honest about that no chicks will sleep with you cause they're all brainwashed into believing in monogamy.

>>2982695

AMEN!

>>2982681

You seem to believe that all human societies have chosen monogamy. Christian societies certainly did, and that may be why you feel this way, but many societies chose a system of polygamy (mormons and other christian sects, as well as many pre-colonial african and asian cultures). To these people it may have seemed natural to have several partners in the same way you feel monogamy is natural.

>>2982722
>many societies chose a system of polygamy

No. "Many" did not. A small handful have. An overwhelmingly small percentage, compared to the number that chose monogamy.

>>2982687
>please explain why people in monogamous relationships have much higher rates of depression and substance abuse than those with multiple partners

An "educated" person knows that correlation does not imply causation. Also, "much higher rates" is not a particularly scientific descriptor. Perhaps you could be more specific, and cite your sources for this "fact."

>>2982681

Bullshit.

Historically, humans have been a patriarchal harem building species. Most societies throughout history have been based on the idea of one man, many wives, with more powerful men having the right to more wives.

Even the Bible itself contains examples of this, if you read the Old Testament without filtering it through the lens of modern Christian and Western morality, you note that a polygamous patriarchal society is presupposed - adultery meant to sleep with ANOTHER MAN'S wife, not to "cheat on" yours.

Just because WESTERN society has always practiced monogamy does not mean that HUMANS have always practiced it.

>>2982777
>Historically, humans have been a patriarchal harem building species. Most societies throughout history have been based on the idea of one man, many wives, with more powerful men having the right to more wives.

Actually, that's lions you're thinking of. Not humans at all.

I can understand how you would make that mistake, because it's obvious none of you have ever formally studied the subject.

>TV: a strong intelligent woman struggling to put up with a moronic and lazy husband.

The exact same plot of lipstick jungle. What are the odds.

>Polygamy existed all over Africa as an aspect of culture or/and religion. Plural marriages have been more common than not in the history of Africa. Many African societies saw children as a form of wealth thus the more children a family had the more powerful it was. Thus polygamy was part of empire building. It was only during the colonial era that plural marriage was perceived as taboo. Esther Stanford, an African-focused lawyer, states that this decline was encouraged because the issues of property ownership conflicted with European colonial interest. It is very common in West Africa

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

>>2982746

Watch the Penn and Teller Bullshit episode on the family. Debunks that.

>>2982811
>source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy
>source: wikipedia
>wikipedia

OP: what pisses me off is when they show a couple getting up in the morning and the guy is naked or almost naked and the woman is wearing an elaborate night gown to cover up her body when in reality they would probably both be naked at that point, or at least the woman would be topless.

That is so not always the case.

Watch two and a half men.
Marriage=Prison that sucks the life out of you and leaves you broke and castrated.

Sex=Fun time, specially with multiple partners at once.

ITT: A bunch of fa/tv/irgins forget that sex leads to children, and that child-rearing requires two parents.

Also, I demand pics of the 31 year old faggot who gets "young and pretty" girls.

>>2982823

If you don't know that that is true then you are dumb enough to even learn something out of wikipedia.

>>2982836
Truth.

>>2982746
Apparently, you seem to be under the impression that a man, once in a relationship with a woman, suddenly stops lusting after other women? Suddenly, his intense sexual drive to procreate is halted and he becomes this noble paternal figure that would never again have eyes for anyone but his chosen mate.

What a laughable naive simplification of human reproduction imperatives.

YEAH, WE NEED MORE FAT VEGAN WICCAN POLYAMOROUS COSYPLAYING DYKES DRAWING INUYASHA FANART AND PISSING INTO BOTTLES IN BASEMENTS.

>>2982846
>learn something out of wikipedia.

Any wikipedia on any controversial subject is at best case misleading, at worst case completely false.

You should read the article on coitus interruptus. That one is good for a laugh.

lol this thread

by the way the "doofy lazy husband" thing actually reinforces gender roles - of course women have to do everything around the house, the guy is just born to work his blue-collar job and watch sports, oh that lovable lout!

getting butthurt over the king of queens as feminist oppression is one of the goofiest fucking failures of logic on a forum that's full of them. look at the writers, producers, and studio executives that are making most of the money off of a show like that and nearly all of them will be men. the last time a woman was getting rich off her own show about being a lovable schlub was roseanne 20 years ago.

>>2982864
Trufax. I want to punch 90% of the posters in this thread in the face.

Polyamory is for fugly ass Wiccans.

>>2982841
>forget that sex leads to children.

Never heard of Birth control?.

>>2982900
Ever heard of continuing the species, dumbfuck?
If everyone was all free love and birth control happy, the human race would come to a screaching halt. I'm pretty sure that that is not our biological imperative.

Also, I still want pics of 31 year old faggot. Vegas money is on him looking like he got hit in the face with a 40 lb bag of hell-fuck-naw.

>>2982892

No scam artist believes his own schtick.

Portraying males as lazy and helpless without a woman isn't exactly flattery. These shows are marketed to females by people who know that females are a more desirable demographic for advertisers.

>>2982915
Ever heard of Overpopulation moron?.
Like running out of people is ever a concern on this exponentially baby making world.

There will be always people that want to have babies.
That is the key word here...WANT

ITT: 1 christfag trolling the shit out of everybody else

>>2982864

/thread

>>2982985
If you'd actually read shit, you'd know that this thread is about INSTINCT, and INSTINCT is not polyamory because "moving from one fuck to another" defies child-rearing imperative.

You know what? Nevermind. Someday you'll have sex and figure it out for yourself. Until then, enjoy your interwebz fap material.

>>2982985

seconded

If we use all of Earth's resources by making insane amounts of babies, we still kill off the species. Humanity needs to scale back or it will destroy itself by draining the planet.

I wish atheist were as loud as christfags

>>2983011
Don't worry, fags in this thread don't need to worry about makin' babies unless babies can somehow be created by jizzing in a sock.

>>2983007
>child-rearing imperative.
>INSTINCT.

Chrisctianfag is the biggest virgin around.

>>2983007

only females have "child-rearing imperative"

male's job is just to plant seeds

>>2983007
>>2983017
>ololol ur teh imatur childrens playing wit ur wee wees xD

>>2983018
Christian fag's got mad dudes in different area codez, bitch.

But Hollywood is full of faggots.

>>2983023

Not true at all. Males can have paternal instincts which can be just as strong as maternal ones. You know the kinds of fathers that literally point shotguns in the faces of would be suitors?

Yeah Hollywood does suck ass with it's social engineering agendas.

>>2983038
THANK YOU. Women are only attracted to men who show/have potential for providing and caring for their partner and their offspring, so this whole multiple partner point is pretty much moot.

I doubt any of the atheistfags in here have had the chance to really figure such things out yet.

There's no agenda. Hollywood's just trying to appeal to dumbfucks who think a movie's not a movie if it doesn't have at least one heterosexual romance going on. I know people who flat out refuse to watch anything that isn't a or a romantic comedy.

>>2983062
*isn't a romance

ITT: butthurt Christianfag who wishes he hadn't gotten married and had kids tries to convince others to follow him into misery

You were making some form of sense up until the last two sentences where you revealed you have those views on marriage and sex because you are a bitter virgin.

>>2983079
ITT: Christfag is a girl

>>2983090
But even if that's true, how does that make the other stuff make less sense to you?

what annyos me is the racism that hollywood sprots, interracial couples in teenie movies? hell no

What annoys me is niggers and fags in movies.

Or you know you could do whatever you want with your sex life and not give a shit whether monogamy or sex after marriage is preached to you. You know like every one who is secure with themselves does?

>>2982990
TRUTH

>>2983109

No the rest of it still makes some sense to me.

>>2983125

OP here

Not saying I'm not, but it just seems a bit ridiculous that hollywood uses every movie to preach. it would be like the end of every movie having some sort of song and dance number about how awesome god is.

>>2983125

seconded

>>2983143
Even though it annoys me too, I think it's more of a writer's convenience than an agenda. It's just easier to say "See, this character does all that stupid shit because he's in love!" than to come up with more complex motivations, which the audience might not even be able to understand, or empathize with. "Love" is simple and universal, and even people who never experienced it understand the concept. I think that's why it's such a popular theme and plot device.

>>2983143

They don't really preach monogamy though, I think that's just you taking offense to it. Most, if not all, monogamist relationships in movies are wrought with drama and infidelity. I don't really see how they sugar coat it all.

What I would say they sugar coat so much it makes me want to gag is unrequited love and how two people must fall in love in the most dramatic way possible. But notice how they don't really show those people 20 years in the future as bitter divorcees.

>>2983143

Sex sells, maybe not to you, but to almost everyone else in the entire world it does.

For me, the fucked up thing had to be "DOOM" killing any reference to HELL due to a Jew director.

They did the "Mutant Virus" thing... Again.

OP, if TV feminism pisses you off so much, just do what I did and sell the vaginavision and buy a surfboard :P

Hollywood is in the US, the single most puritanical and conservative country in the West. Even their idea of "left" is right-of-centre to the rest of the world.

>>2983227

Gnarly story, brah

Most comedies are puritanical? In the same sentence you say that ancient religious dictate the confines of most movies, you also say that feminism (clearly not reconciable with ancient religions) is the reason. I can sort of see your 2nd point, but not your first, and I really don't see how you'd reconcile that.

>>2983439

I think he's confused.

Also I don't know what feminism has to do with any of this really.

>>2983439
The big laughs aren't that puritanical, but if you strip those away I bet you find almost all of them come down to highly idealized notions of romantic love, "true love" or "soul mate" bullshit, and honesty/integrity/respect/etc beating out trickery/sexism/etc so the guy gets the girl.

>>2983439

I belive he is referring to the fact that while feminists of the 60s preferred to be treated just like men, the feminists of today like to be strong and independent when shit's ok, but revert to traditional helplessness when it will benefit them to do so.

>>2983457
romantic love, true love, etc etc aren't really products of old puritanicalism. You're ranting and raving about relationships and marriage being portrayed as things you need to have, and I can understand that. But I honestly can't see how religion figures into this at all. Except that it's traditionalism, but non puritanical societies also had tales of soul mates and romantic love.

>>2983492
I'm not ranting about anything, I'm not OP.

>>2983492

many religions stress the importance of monogamy.

>>2983492
There's puritanical and there's Puritanical.

Sex is incredibly powerful and not just an easygoing hobby. Even those with no religious impulses and half a brain come to understand this.

Enjoy having no real life experience or maturity.

The only romantic comedy I can think of that goes against everything in here is Harold and Maude

>>2983467

Those aren't feminists, those are just opportunistic bitches.

OP wants to be Tenchi without the guilt.

Biologically, evolutionarily, as a species in the basic sense of the word, we ARE NOT meant to be monogamous. We are naturally polygynous. This means that a single male mates with and maintains long-standing relationships with several females, whom the male provides with protection for themselves and their offspring. PolyGAMY takes place when you throw the manmade religious/spiritual construct known as marriage into the mix. In a natural state, there would be no marriage. It's something a human society has evolved in order to function. Our modern societies are a result of the combination of our evolving brains and the need to organize such a viral, resource-consuming species into a workable model that keeps us from destroying eachother. Thus, marrying a single person and remaining faithful to them is ABSOLUTELY NOT an evolutionary imperative, since it usually results in just a few sustainable offspring in a couple's lifetime. For those of you with real-life experience with sex and relationships (read: none), you probably have come to realize that the most natural state for a man is to fuck one of several women you feel spiritually close to, switching at various intervals and often returning to a past mate. There's really no denying that a man can feel "true love" for several girls, maybe even at the same time.

continuing...

Ignoring the idiotic but necessary idea of marriage, the reason that men (who aren't huge pussies) can pull this off is that even while "loving" multiple women, they are able to treat each one very well and provide for them, so that the women stay with them even if they sense that they aren't the sole mate. The concept is simple for women because as a biological imperative, all they require is a strong dependable male to protect them and their children. Psychologically, to mate with somebody all they need is to feel desired by a worthy man. The reason girls in general are sooooo fucked up in our modern society is that their biological imperatives, the construct of marriage, the hypersexual nature of pop-culture, and the advanced human cognitive capacity, contradict eachother and clash, resulting in severe identity crises and self-destructive complexes. Promiscuous girls always turn into messed up sluts because if you're constantly sleeping with guys that don't seem to give two craps about you and just want to get their rocks off, your whole worth as an individual of the species is questioned. As for guys, if you're worth the shits you flush, all you need is the confidence to make something of yourself and EVENTUALLY secure an attractive single woman that you choose to settle down with, because our society demands marriage in order to effectively raise children, and I don't think there's any debating that.

Thus, I have no problem with movies that push the value of monogamy on us, especially since it really has nothing to do with religion, except for the fact that religious fanatics exalt it above all else. As for gays, evolutionarily speaking they're wastes of skin, but those of us with the capacity to reason know that the concepts of reproduction and adaptation as they apply to other animals have ceased to have meaning long ago for humans.

That'll be one semester's tuition, please.

tldr;

fap.

teal deer

>>2982841
>>and that child-rearing requires two parents.

lol ok.

>>2983049
>>Women are only attracted to men who show/have potential for providing and caring for their partner and their offspring

It's like I'm really in 1955!

>>2982579
I love things like this. The Bible is so full of insane and retarded shit that no sane person would actually believe or follow. But most Christians haven't actually read most of the Bible.

>>2984007
Are you saying it can be done with fewer parents, or that 2 is not enough?

>>2984058
Two isn't enough.

>>2984076
Ok, I agree.

>>2984058
You don't NEED two parents, that's just how it's been traditionally done. What matters isn't the number of people raising the kid, it's how well they do it. A good single parent is far better than two parents who fight all the time and don't pay much attention to the kid.

>>2983927

>For those of you with real-life experience with sex and relationships (read: none)

I love how so many posters assume that every anon, except for themselves of course, must have never had a date in their lives. You really think you're so superior to your peers? You really think you're the only person here capable of sustaining a social/romantic life? Get over yourself.

>>2984120

Actually at the moment I'm happily single, after a badly failed relationship. It's called live and learn. I'm merely trying to inspire some real intellectual debate instead of the mindless dribble that usually comes out of this place. How bout raising a valid point or contradiction about the issue at hand, I gave you plenty of material. Dipshit.

>>2984118
If you think ~75 years is long enough to say it's "tradition" and that the western contemporary family structure is the average. You'd be wrong in both cases though: the traditional *and* global model is for multiple generations to live together (your grand parents, your married brothers, etc), and for aunts and uncles and neighbours to have a very prominent role in raising kids.

>>2984136

Your response was no more relevant to the original statement than mine was.

We all "live and learn." You're not necessarily wiser than any of us.

>>2984136

Unfortunately we're so fucked up today the plus sides of monogamy have lost their luster.

>>2984145

This is true and it helps. Having more than just your parents generation in a house hold provides more perspective on life. Especially if you have a grandparent that lived through the depression.