Relationships: #76245 PAST OF MY GIRLFRIEND

Ĥl·lĥæ wrote:View source

I

Just to clarify, I'm anti-marriage.
Whether you're conservative or libertine.
Conservative marriage is a mistake
Libertarian marriage is garbage all the same

For me, the ideal is to be completely single
And I support women being single, when they say so.

But I also support it when a woman wants to get married

I support everything

Because I have no control over anything, and nor should I.
The important thing is individual life.
I think it's about living well, peacefully, with resources to spare.

Freedom

Ĥl·lĥæ wrote:View source

I've been analyzing your text and now I'm well equipped to write about it.
Well, let's get started.

Well, first there's a statement or two

Here you make a classic claim that women are not objects, even though I don't claim that.

In the second part it's not just an empty statement, it's an explanation of why you wouldn't stay with men who have relationships with several people, and that according to you you're a woman of respect.

I find it hard to find a woman who doesn't say that to herself and to others, but anyway.
Maybe they're all respectful.

Here you are telling me that I'm wrong to say that men don't benefit as much from relationships.
And that a man's authority over his wife and children is a mistake.

1 If you think that claiming a man's natural authority is wrong, it means that you don't really think that the man currently has it, it means that in fact, the woman is quite free and not trapped in the relationship.

2 you talk about a duty to take care of the children and the house, as if it were something bad, because given the context we are talking about benefits and harms in the relationship.
So based on the woman's "duty" you say that assuming the woman's advantage is a lie because she has certain duties, which then for you are like a non-benefit.

But I want you to tell me
Is the woman obliged to do this?
Simply no, she doesn't have these obligations, and nowadays housework and childcare are shared when both are careerists.

If the woman isn't a careerist, she still does the housework
Which is infinitely better than working 7 hours straight at something risky, or work.
Since in this environment the woman can choose her rest time, she can eat better and she can still be in the company of her children.
Something that I think should be seen as a benefit.
But you seem to see it as a kind of harm to the relationship.

These statistics aren't everything.
It's important to look at the overall gender statistics.

It's quite clear that due to the care given to women, and their strong support from the state and close family members
women have a relatively better quality of life than the average man.

The quality of life and longevity of the wife is much higher than that of the husband, when the marriage is really conservative (woman at home, man at work).

The statistics show this clearly

The man doesn't live a longer life in the relationship exactly because of the woman.
He lives a longer and "better" life because, having the responsibility of looking after his wife and children, he tends to work more.
Creating more resources and security for himself.

Marriage creates a sense of duty in men, making them work harder at things.
This is a mental thing, and the woman shouldn't be "taking care of him".

I didn't say that was christian, please read it properly.
I said that Zevism thinks that the desire for a virgin woman is christian.

You say I'm not helping anyone.
But my goal really wasn't to give happy relationship tips, that was never my message.

I just cited a polytheistic model of relationships that has been around for a long time.
That was the rich man with good genetics adopting several women.

While 80% of poor men would be virgins.

Research shows that women are willing to share the same man when he's very attractive.

Women are more attracted to experienced men,
And who knows how to teach them how to have sex, not the other way around.

Men prefer women with little experience

A man's insult to a woman is to call her a whore

A woman's insult to a man is to call him a virgin or sexually defective.

Note that things are reversed

Your comment is simply pure sentimentality.
And I don't judge, women tend to write out of sentimentality, not logic.

In a way, there are many contradictions in your text.

Regarding the polytheistic relationship model, note that it is anti-male, men suffer and women benefit more.

Whereas Christianity founded monogamy and marriage to benefit poor men without genetics.

Anyway...

Based.

AskSatanOperator wrote:View source

I thank everyone for the responses, I am much better currently I can think much more about the present than the past.
I agree with some of the users, the fact that I may feel so annoyed may be due to my nonexistent sexual experience in the past, although she states that with me she has received the best sex she has experienced so far, and indeed it seems that way to me as well.

I also wanted to communicate an argument, in these days, meditating, I realized that the issue that bothers me most is not the fact that she had an ex-boyfriend, it is instead the fact that she had sex before her ex with how many ? other 1/2/3 idk guys and that with these guys she let herself be tempted, writing with these guys that she wanted to have sex that she felt like doing it and things like that. .. i really think it was the way she acted that made me so sad, maybe also because at the time i met her, she was a different person i never had such an un ''pure'' image of her past and her. To think that she, she went miles out of her way to get fucked by a guy, or to call that guy at her house makes me fall into the abyss ... to think that she let herself go to these futile people makes my hatred against them rise very very high.
And this is happening to me at this very moment as I write. I will preface this, however, by saying that these days although I have been thinking about it, I haven't given it any thought, trying to follow your advice I have really felt much better and have experienced a healthy relationship.

i completely understand how your feeling , but as i said , dwelling on her past will do you no good. Even tho her past might not be that great , but you see in this era , if not all , but most of the woman would almost be having the same pasts.

Look bro every girl will be attracted to the best man , even if there in a loyal relationship or not. This is the Truth , because , woman think emotionally , sexual emotion is stronger in them. What you as a man should do , is keep improving yourself , and become a better version of yourself. I know as men we find woman with less sexual experience more attractive , and nothings wrong with that honestly. So it depends on you brother , how your current relationship is going , if she has forgotten her past life , and wants to live at bests with the current relation. If she is completely in love with you.

Cause again you should see the present scenario , if you both are in a loving genuine relationship , then its alright , accept the past , and move on , think about the future.

As long she is not a hoe ( in present tense ) you will be fine.

Being a hoe as in it isnt something bad , its just less attractive to guys , so im talking in that pretext. Id say every woman is a hoe , but some of them control their desires , and remain loyal , and some of them let is flow.

Ĥl·lĥæ wrote:View source

I've been analyzing your text and now I'm well equipped to write about it.
Well, let's get started.

Well, first there's a statement or two

Here you make a classic claim that women are not objects, even though I don't claim that.

In the second part it's not just an empty statement, it's an explanation of why you wouldn't stay with men who have relationships with several people, and that according to you you're a woman of respect.

I find it hard to find a woman who doesn't say that to herself and to others, but anyway.
Maybe they're all respectful.

Here you are telling me that I'm wrong to say that men don't benefit as much from relationships.
And that a man's authority over his wife and children is a mistake.

1 If you think that claiming a man's natural authority is wrong, it means that you don't really think that the man currently has it, it means that in fact, the woman is quite free and not trapped in the relationship.

2 you talk about a duty to take care of the children and the house, as if it were something bad, because given the context we are talking about benefits and harms in the relationship.
So based on the woman's "duty" you say that assuming the woman's advantage is a lie because she has certain duties, which then for you are like a non-benefit.

But I want you to tell me
Is the woman obliged to do this?
Simply no, she doesn't have these obligations, and nowadays housework and childcare are shared when both are careerists.

If the woman isn't a careerist, she still does the housework
Which is infinitely better than working 7 hours straight at something risky, or work.
Since in this environment the woman can choose her rest time, she can eat better and she can still be in the company of her children.
Something that I think should be seen as a benefit.
But you seem to see it as a kind of harm to the relationship.

These statistics aren't everything.
It's important to look at the overall gender statistics.

It's quite clear that due to the care given to women, and their strong support from the state and close family members
women have a relatively better quality of life than the average man.

The quality of life and longevity of the wife is much higher than that of the husband, when the marriage is really conservative (woman at home, man at work).

The statistics show this clearly

The man doesn't live a longer life in the relationship exactly because of the woman.
He lives a longer and "better" life because, having the responsibility of looking after his wife and children, he tends to work more.
Creating more resources and security for himself.

Marriage creates a sense of duty in men, making them work harder at things.
This is a mental thing, and the woman shouldn't be "taking care of him".

I didn't say that was christian, please read it properly.
I said that Zevism thinks that the desire for a virgin woman is christian.

You say I'm not helping anyone.
But my goal really wasn't to give happy relationship tips, that was never my message.

I just cited a polytheistic model of relationships that has been around for a long time.
That was the rich man with good genetics adopting several women.

While 80% of poor men would be virgins.

Research shows that women are willing to share the same man when he's very attractive.

Women are more attracted to experienced men,
And who knows how to teach them how to have sex, not the other way around.

Men prefer women with little experience

A man's insult to a woman is to call her a whore

A woman's insult to a man is to call him a virgin or sexually defective.

Note that things are reversed

Your comment is simply pure sentimentality.
And I don't judge, women tend to write out of sentimentality, not logic.

In a way, there are many contradictions in your text.

Regarding the polytheistic relationship model, note that it is anti-male, men suffer and women benefit more.

Whereas Christianity founded monogamy and marriage to benefit poor men without genetics.

Anyway...

You're reinforcing the polytheistic relationship model without any regard to the fact that a lot of people are NOT, in fact, into polygamy. I don't care how attractive a man is, I'm not sharing my partner with another woman. That applies to many other women and quite a lot of other Zevist members.

You're saying I'm speaking out of sentimentality, while you're speaking out of a place of ego and too much logic.

There are too many factors to consider besides just the idea of putting a bunch of women into a harem for men. There is the idea of love, jealousy, resource-guarding even for women.

You're trying to make monogamy the villain. You said monogamy is a christian thing when it's clearly not. We're made in the image of the Gods and our sexuality and romance potential is based on Their own complexity.

By your logic, all Gods should be polygamous. When that's clearly NOT the case.

Eugenics can happen even without polygamy by ensuring that the least desirable members of society do not reproduce, and it certainly would have enough success in a normal, Zevism world where two members of the society can come together and raise their children.

Unlike you, shitting on monogamy just because it doesn't fit your worldview and morals, I don't have any issues with polygamy. If all parties are consenting to it and being fine with the partnership, I couldn't care less.

The issue is that you're coming here and saying that monogamy is something wrong and something that should not exist, even if it defines the sexuality of many people.

Father Zeus and the Gods allow us to follow our own sexuality and nature — and yet we have people like you trying to undermine a relatively large amount of other Zevists who might be monogamous.

And I wouldn't care about it nearly as much if I didn't know that there are many lurkers and potential members dabbling into Zevism to see whether it fits them who might be monogamous and see your post, get scared because you are, in fact, attacking the sexual part of them (which is highly important, as discussed several times on the forums) and turn around because they don't want to deal with this sort of bullshit.

ᥫ᭡. Echos ৻ꪆ wrote:View source

You're reinforcing the polytheistic relationship model without any regard to the fact that a lot of people are NOT, in fact, into polygamy. I don't care how attractive a man is, I'm not sharing my partner with another woman. That applies to many other women and quite a lot of other Zevism members.

You make a great point here.
I'm glad the conversation is moving beyond moral statements.

Indeed, people don't like polygamy because they've gotten used to monogamy.
And there's no way I can force that model, but the poly-sexual model occurs naturally in society.
It's not exactly the idealized model, but it's that natural thing of free sex.

1 point I agree with you on

ᥫ᭡. Echos ৻ꪆ wrote:View source

You're saying I'm speaking out of sentimentality, while you're speaking out of a place of ego and too much logic.

Based Max Scheler 🔥

ᥫ᭡. Echos ৻ꪆ wrote:View source

There are too many factors to consider besides just the idea of putting a bunch of women into a harem for men. There is the idea of love, jealousy, resource-guarding even for women.

You have a point here too.
You see, women do feel jealous of each other.
But they can't claim that kind of man for themselves.
They'll have to make do or leave.

You're also right, there are the factors of sentimentality and passion.
These are fleeting, but practicality is substantial.

ᥫ᭡. Echos ৻ꪆ wrote:View source

You're trying to make monogamy the villain. You said monogamy is a christian thing when it's clearly not. We're made in the image of the Gods and our sexuality and romance potential is based on Their own complexity.

By your logic, all Gods should be polygamous. When that's clearly NOT the case.

The question of the Gods is more complex.
The relationship level of the Gods is much more complex and divine than that of humans.
The Gods are completely free physically and spiritually, so they don't need to play practical birth games.

Not to mention that their level of ethics is far more advanced than that of the average human.

That's why monogamy works well, because there's no betrayal, and there's certainly no state benefit for one or the other.

Everyone looks after themselves and their own family

ᥫ᭡. Echos ৻ꪆ wrote:View source

Eugenics can happen even without polygamy by ensuring that the least desirable members of society do not reproduce, and it certainly would have enough success in a normal, Zevism world where two members of the society can come together and raise their children.

More or less, it's much easier in the model I mentioned.
But I also don't mind when people want to complicate the situation by putting up barriers and still trying.
My analysis is very objective and focuses on the easiest, quickest and most accurate path.

ᥫ᭡. Echos ৻ꪆ wrote:View source

Unlike you, shitting on monogamy just because it doesn't fit your worldview and morals, I don't have any issues with polygamy. If all parties are consenting to it and being fine with the partnership, I couldn't care less.

I'll explain what happened in ancient times.
Monogamous couples did exist.
But this was not an obligation or an imposed social norm.
People could have children with whomever they wanted, in the polygamous libertine model, and things flowed naturally.

Christianity forced people to adopt a kind of thing that made female submission forced, rather than genuine.
Not to mention that less desirable men also had this opportunity.

That's why genetics have degraded so much, and the number of people has only grown.

Christianity was the first step towards feminism, I'd say.
Responsible for the complete degeneration of the old values.

I don't shit on monogamy, you're wrong.

I think that's just it.

I'm glad you've actually spoken truths here.
Instead of just claiming that I don't know things and blah-blah-blah.

Of course, in the end there's that sentimental bit
That I'm attacking people's sexuality and stuff.
But those who can look at the text in the right way understand that I was talking more about massive Christianity than pure, genuine monogamy

Of course, that was also, in the end, a more moralistic word (in the last texts)

Ĥl·lĥæ wrote:View source

You make a great point he)

Hypergamy still happens.
Female hypergamy for precision.
There's no stopping something that's already happening and will continue to happen.

It's just fate.
And I don't have to raise flags or force people to be polygamous.
Because the vast majority already are.
Even in serious relationships.

It's inevitable and I don't have to do anything about it.

And as Zevism becomes more widely known
hypergamy will explode dramatically.
Unless they start making programs that support monogamy.

Ĥl·lĥæ wrote:View source

Based Max Scheler 🔥

That's wrong.
Scheler wasn't exactly who I wanted to quote.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_SchillerExternal ↗
Just like Michael d Aquino and Thomas d Aquino
I often get the names mixed up

Ĥl·lĥæ wrote:View source

You make a great point here.
I'm glad the conversation is moving beyond moral statements.

Indeed, people don't like polygamy because they've gotten used to monogamy.
And there's no way I can force that model, but the poly-sexual model occurs naturally in society.
It's not exactly the idealized model, but it's that natural thing of free sex.

1 point I agree with you on

Based Max Scheler 🔥

You have a point here too.
You see, women do feel jealous of each other.
But they can't claim that kind of man for themselves.
They'll have to make do or leave.

You're also right, there are the factors of sentimentality and passion.
These are fleeting, but practicality is substantial.

The question of the Gods is more complex.
The relationship level of the Gods is much more complex and divine than that of humans.
The Gods are completely free physically and spiritually, so they don't need to play practical birth games.

Not to mention that their level of ethics is far more advanced than that of the average human.

That's why monogamy works well, because there's no betrayal, and there's certainly no state benefit for one or the other.

Everyone looks after themselves and their own family

More or less, it's much easier in the model I mentioned.
But I also don't mind when people want to complicate the situation by putting up barriers and still trying.
My analysis is very objective and focuses on the easiest, quickest and most accurate path.

I'll explain what happened in ancient times.
Monogamous couples did exist.
But this was not an obligation or an imposed social norm.
People could have children with whomever they wanted, in the polygamous libertine model, and things flowed naturally.

Christianity forced people to adopt a kind of thing that made female submission forced, rather than genuine.
Not to mention that less desirable men also had this opportunity.

That's why genetics have degraded so much, and the number of people has only grown.

Christianity was the first step towards feminism, I'd say.
Responsible for the complete degeneration of the old values.

I don't shit on monogamy, you're wrong.

I think that's just it.

I'm glad you've actually spoken truths here.
Instead of just claiming that I don't know things and blah-blah-blah.

Of course, in the end there's that sentimental bit
That I'm attacking people's sexuality and stuff.
But those who can look at the text in the right way understand that I was talking more about massive Christianity than pure, genuine monogamy

Of course, that was also, in the end, a more moralistic word (in the last texts)

"I find it very sad that Christianity created monogamous marriage.
Things have only deteriorated."

You're the one who stated this. This can be seen as a direct attack by implying that monogamy is, fundamentally, wrong.

As I have mentioned in my previous post, I literally don't care whether a person or a group of people follow polygamy or monogamy. In a better world, everyone would be free to accept their own sexuality, regardless of whether they want one or more partners. I'm well aware that a lot of people aren't monogamous. I don't judge anyone for that.

If people are happy and fulfilled in their relationship without doing immoral things, then I don't see where I'd find any issue. Our Zevism Ethics also state this quite well.

I hope you understand that I'm not trying to attack you, just to emphasize that humans — especially Zevism — have the freedom to follow their sexuality. Because through the way you did word some of your statements, it can very easily appear as you thinking that monogamy is unnatural and everyone should practice polygamy. I don't expect a lot as a Zevist, especially in the world we currently live in, but I do at least expect people and fellow Zevists to respect my sexual nature and to not get involved by dictating what is wrong or right on something so simple.

Ĥl·lĥæ wrote:View source

Hypergamy still happens.
Female hypergamy for precision.
There's no stopping something that's already happening and will continue to happen.

It's just fate.
And I don't have to raise flags or force people to be polygamous.
Because the vast majority already are.
Even in serious relationships.

It's inevitable and I don't have to do anything about it.

And as Zevism becomes more widely known
hypergamy will explode dramatically.
Unless they start making programs that support monogamy.

I think you're once again speaking here out of a spot of ego. Human sexuality is complex. Why do we need to argue on how many people will be monogamous or polygamous when nothing will change anytime soon in terms of societal norms and knowing that, when we do build a Zevist society, people will have full freedom to decide what type of relationship they want?

It is not your job or mine to dictate what people will desire from sexual or romantic relationships. In fact, when it comes to unique and sensitive situations such as sexuality, everyone should mind their own damn business — unless something is done in an immoral or unnatural way, such as pedophilia, or issues with asexuality, or bestiality. In fact, I do wish that healthy polygamy would be more encouraged and practiced among those interested in it. It is not for me, but it's just as important as monogamy.

I just hope to see the day when these aspects of human life will be healed and balanced for everyone.

AskSatanOperator wrote:View source

I am in a relationship with a girl we really love each other, we have shared unique and rare moments together, our love is really powerful and we plan to move in together and get married.
However, there are things that bother me about her past, such as the fact that she had an ex-boyfriend, to think that she shared good times with him in the past bothers me a lot. In addition to that it bothers me to think that the way we have sex and her facial nuances, her bedside manner, etc. she may have done it with other people bothers me a lot.
I recently found out that before her ex she had other sexual experiences about 7 years ago, some of those unfortunately I have to tell the truth curiosity was stronger than me and I spied on her cell phone going to see her old chats and saw pictures and messages that really very very bothered me. I had gotten an idea of her as very puritanical and wholesome, instead finding out that she had had experiences in the past made me jealous and it bothered me to think that she let herself go to these people. I will preface this by saying that I was a virgin before this relationship with her, despite my age.
These thoughts of mine on some days are stronger than others, and they make my relationship more placid and I close myself off a little too much, on others I don't think about it at all and go through the day without any thoughts, and on still others I convince myself that the present is what I really need and is the only important and relevant thing in our relationship.
He told me several times that he wished he had known me earlier and avoided fictitious acquaintances, that thanks to me she discovered what true love is. In short she has mentioned to me several times that she regrets her previous relationship and the past (although about the sexual experiences 7 years ago she never told me about it, I found out by spying on her phone ), in fact I think this part also bothers me, the fact that she never told me about it, I tried to broach the subject once but she was offended telling me that she felt dirty talking about it with a pure person like me and that she doesn't want to broach the subject being all a memory for her that she would like to erase.
Despite this I still have a mental discomfort about it, what can I do to move on so that I only think about the present and the future with this girl ? Are there meditations or anything else about it that I can deal with ?
I want a relationship with her that transcends human time limits, we love each other so much that the very concept of love loses meaning, our love is much stronger than the very concept of love.
In fact I really believe that if my love had not been so strong, in any other kind of relationship with another girl I would have given in to my thoughts and would have broken off the relationship immediately thinking about her past.
Instead with her this does not happen precisely because we love each other so much.
Help me please, what can I do ? What meditations and magical work could I go through to improve ?

You said you've never had sex before, so have sex with other characters as much or more than she has. That's because you said you love her and that's a tie and if you're a man you'll have sex more than her.

ᥫ᭡. Echos ৻ꪆ wrote:View source

I think you're once again speaking here out of a spot of ego. Huma.

As I said, I don't need to raise flags.
It's all natural
Hypergamy is human nature.

ᥫ᭡. Echos ৻ꪆ wrote:View source

"I find it very sad that Christianity created monogamous marriage.
Things have only deteriorated."
.

I didn't say that people shouldn't have monogamous relationships.
I just explained why such a model is good, but there's no way to force it.
This is a question of pragmatism, of pure bias.
It's a cold analysis of things

But hypergamy naturally happens when monogamous marriage is not forced.
That's a fact

Hypergamy will keep growing and growing until things become the way they once were.

And Christianity actually created monogamous marriage en masse.
That was responsible for people getting used to that kind of interaction.
Before it was diverse, there were rarely serious relationships.
And hypergamy was real

Yes, I don't say what people should do, and I haven't done it.
But I know what causes problems and what would solve them.

Just a few facts.

You LOVE her

AskSatanOperator wrote:View source

I thank everyone for the responses, I am much better currently I can think much more about the present than the past.
I agree with some of the users, the fact that I may feel so annoyed may be due to my nonexistent sexual experience in the past, although she states that with me she has received the best sex she has experienced so far, and indeed it seems that way to me as well.

I also wanted to communicate an argument, in these days, meditating, I realized that the issue that bothers me most is not the fact that she had an ex-boyfriend, it is instead the fact that she had sex before her ex with how many ? other 1/2/3 idk guys and that with these guys she let herself be tempted, writing with these guys that she wanted to have sex that she felt like doing it and things like that. .. i really think it was the way she acted that made me so sad, maybe also because at the time i met her, she was a different person i never had such an un ''pure'' image of her past and her. To think that she, she went miles out of her way to get fucked by a guy, or to call that guy at her house makes me fall into the abyss ... to think that she let herself go to these futile people makes my hatred against them rise very very high.
And this is happening to me at this very moment as I write. I will preface this, however, by saying that these days although I have been thinking about it, I haven't given it any thought, trying to follow your advice I have really felt much better and have experienced a healthy relationship.

You dont have the cards right now. In the 1950s you could expect a virgin wife and be able to pay for all of the family and needs on one single income. But we are living in a very different time. Statistically it is said that only 2% of women are virgins on their marriage night and these women are 21-22 when they get married. So the probability of you finding a virgin wife in the West is highly unlikely. I know this isnt what you want to hear but you need to understand reality and learn to cope with it. You need to do a Freeing a Soul working to free yourself from these thoughts ,doubts. And do a GEBO + WUNJO working to reinforce strong bonds between your partner and yourself. ,and getting past her past and appreciating her now.