Has anyone been able to rebut Bertrand Russell's famous argument In Marriage and Morals...

Has anyone been able to rebut Bertrand Russell's famous argument In Marriage and Morals? Einstein even gave great praise to the work

>Love as a relation between men and women was ruined by the desire to make sure of the legitimacy of children.

>The psychology of adultery has been falsified by conventional morals, which assume, in monogamous countries, that attraction to one person cannot coexist with a serious affection for another. Everybody knows that this is untrue.

>Even in civilised mankind faint traces of a monogamic instinct can sometimes be perceived.

>I should not hold it desirable that either a man or a woman should enter upon the serious business of a marriage intended to lead to children without having had previous sexual experience.

>Science enables us to realise our purposes, and if our purposes are evil, the result is disaster.

>Joy of life... depends upon a certain spontaneity in regard to sex. Where sex is repressed, only work remains, and a gospel of work for work's sake never produced any work worth doing.

>Gluttony is regarded by the Catholic Church as one of the seven deadly sins, and those who practise it are placed by Dante in one of the deeper circles of hell; but it is a somewhat vague sin, since it is hard to say where a legitimate interest in food ceases and guilt begins to be incurred. Is it wicked to eat anything that is not nourishing? If so, with every salted almond we risk damnation.

Russell's father allowed Russell's mother to sleep with Russell's tutor, and Betrand Russell grew up to be a genius and win the Nobel Peace Prize.

The idea of my hypothetical wife fucking other dudes makes me upset ergo monogamy is good.

Totally serious by the way.

I'm seriously getting tired of cuckolds and cuck pushers being allowed to live.

>The psychology of adultery has been falsified by conventional morals, which assume, in monogamous countries, that attraction to one person cannot coexist with a serious affection for another. Everybody knows that this is untrue.

This is incorrect. Although Russel had only access to the biological science of his time so i wouldn't blame him.

Remember Russel was a literal cuckold. He had not just one but two wife's sons.

Yes, but consider all of the dude's she has fucked before she hypothetically marries you.

Now consider all the dude's she will fuck after you two are hypothetically divorced.

I think Russel was not advocating
cuckoldry, but to look at if a little dick on the side was really a sound reason to stop loving someone.

In a marriage it's a way of artifically raising the stakes, in which neither person is supposed to have any extra sex, and the first person who does is automatically in the wrong.

Also, Rusell was into dudes, so his perspective on the subject was a little warped.

>This is incorrect.
Please explain. I've successfully juggled 3+ sexual relationships, and it did not interfere with my love for any of them. I am a man, btw.

>I think Russel was not advocating cuckoldry, but[...]a little dick on the side

Like homosexuality, cuckoldry has a spectrum.

"don't ask, don't tell" is the lowest level, watching a bull impregnate your wife and then raising said brat is the highest level.

>cuckoldry has a spectrum.
"No"

"Don't ask don't tell" doesn't make sense for a cuck?
They get off on the knowing.

You might need to stop watching porn if the first thing you associate "cuckold" with is "fetish".

Being a cuckold is a lifestyle.

Isn't swinging a little bit like cockoldry? But It doesn't need to be a lifestyle.

Swinging is a lifestyle.

You did not love them. Actual love (i.e oxytocin-induced bonding) results in almost no extra-pair copulations for an individual. Of course you might have felt some degree of affection or friendship for them.

>Lol "love is a chemical"
I do like science and all, but I cannot stand for this level of reductivism.

>Everybody knows that this is untrue.
Top kek. "Everybody" is not a suitable source. Proofs or gtfo.

What if you only do it a few times, and then stop?

Russel was a full-blown cuckold. He had a bull impregnate his wife several times. He is biased to say the least.

Then your stint with the lifestyle was brief.

This is no reductivism. There is nothing more to our conscience than the chemical reactions that happen in our brain in this material world.

Unless of course you believe like Descartes that the brain is linked through the pineal gland to a spirit world where the actual thinking and emotions occur.

>Russell's father allowed Russell's mother to sleep with Russell's tutor, and Betrand Russell grew up needing to rationalize his father's absurd behaviour
Cuckholdry is another childhood trauma sexual deviation apparently. Good to know.

>>Love as a relation between men and women was ruined by the desire to make sure of the legitimacy of children.
How was it ruined? How can a man love a women knowing the children he is raising is not his? This sounds like feminist drivel.

I fully embrace that all sensory experience is reducable to chemical reactions, but the part I have a problem with is the claim that love, specifically, is linked to one specific chemical which causes pair bonding.

What about the love I feel for my family? What about the love for an ex? What about the love I feel for my ex-roomate who I never even fucked?

The chemicals involved are too complex to be explained by one single molecule which dictates what you are capable of "feeling."

>Do something once
>Lol you were in "lifestyle" for an afternoon.
Legit.

Russel had to raise children that weren't his so he had no choice but to force himself to believe he loved his wife. Of course it failed and he eventually divorced.

Can you explain what exactly is wrong with feminism, without using /pol/ memes?

there is no need for feminism in 2016

>dude, doing heroin isn't a lifestyle, because I did it just once

>I just sucked one dick, it's not a lifestyle
My point stands.

>pipesmoking-woman-Russellposter

Autism's a hell of a drug.

Which Russell are you talking about. I wikid and Bertrand's father is clearly a cuck but i can't see where he himself is.

Russell grew up to be a retarded englishman and is only worth paying attention to if you do it to make fun of him

>Has anyone been able to rebut Bertrand Russell's famous argument In Marriage and Morals?

What's there to rebut? He's an atheist. Every argument used in that book can be used on any institution that exists, including the state, the university, and school in general.

But keep being a nihilist, and see where it gets you.

>Yes, but consider all of the dude's she has fucked before she hypothetically marries you.
>Now consider all the dude's she will fuck after you two are hypothetically divorced.
The thing is in either of those cases neither of us have a commitment to each other nor would I expect or give any continued devotion.

Love is a lot like faith in this way. And likewise it's fundamentally irrational. I wouldn't like it one bit if my wife was fucking other dudes and no there is no way to logically explain this compulsion.

He has a point.
Animals too have pair bonding and some animals only have one partner.

I like monogamy, the same way I like feminity in a woman, have a fetish for BDSM and like eating biscuits. I personally don't claim it's some sort of universal standard, but giving up something that I find attractive, enjoyable and loving over an apparently logical conclusion doesn't seem very self-serving to me.

>but giving up something that I find attractive, enjoyable and loving over an apparently logical conclusion doesn't seem very self-serving to me

At this point for some reason I can imagine you debating holocaust figures.

I don't understand.
I was just saying that if I enjoy something, something that doesn't even harm others, there's no reason to give it up.

It's harmful of womyn you rapist

>something that doesn't even harm others

To be fair, you never said this.

I agree with you - though i suppose that dosnt matter - because your wife may not and then quite reasonably adopt the same principle and make a recipient of quite a dicking (while of course, deceiving you).

>To be fair, you never said this.
I thought it was kind of obvious that to be honest, but yeah I wasn't trying to go full stirner on you or anything.

As for being deceived, ultimately that's just a risk someone entering a relationship takes I guess. All I or anyone else could do is place trust in the other person.