"The female, he contended, “is, so to speak, a deformed male” (Generation of Animals 737a). At times...

>The great philosopher Bertrand Russell, who for all his undeniable intellectual brilliance could never have bedded a woman on looks alone, was described as suffering from ''galloping satyriasis". He claimed he could not see a sexual partner as sexually attractive for more than a few years, after which he had to make a new conquest. He had affairs with a long line of women, a few of whom he later married. They included a young secretary, an MP's wife, the daughter of a Chicago surgeon, a researcher, an actress, a suffragette, several teachers, the wife of a Cambridge lecturer and his children's governess.
>His private life was described by one biographer as ''a chaos of serious affairs, secret trysts and emotional tightrope acts that constantly threatened... ruinous scandal''. This was risk-taking of the highest order.
Implying this doesn't exemplify the typical nu-male: an idealistic and hypocritical cunt who celebrates social anomie because it benefits himself

kek. shits on Aristotle for not respecting women while treating them as warm holes

>Women ARE just deformed men and have less teeth.

Schoppy man, you have no idea.

Back to /pol/ with you, frogboy.

>>Women ARE just deformed men and have less teeth.
That's the truth? huh

Do I need to explain how greentext works?

Only if before that I explain you logical leaps

>Russel was a notorious womanizer and man-about-town.
Makes sense. That actually corroborates Russell's point. Usually guys who can get laid easily end up having a positive attitude towards women, and it's guys who struggle with getting laid who end up writing angry little opinions about them.

How do you know that Russel wasn't just trying to make amends for treating them like objects?

It sounds to me like he was trying to defend his own behavior.

–Aristotle gets beat down by Russell
–OP memes "cuck"
–But where is the lie?
–user counters with denial "Where's the truth?"
–Said user evidently believes Aristotle was correct in his error

I haven't read any bios of him, but maybe he was just not the marrying type.
There's nothing odd or even wrong about it. A loner who enjoys sex. We should all be so lucky to enjoy this as normal.

Humans are monogamous creatures butters. Being a womanizer/slut isn't normal, or it shouldn't be anyway.

Russell's dad was a literal cuck, had his wife (who was a feminist twat) plowed by a manlier person named Douglas Spalding, biologist and tutor to their kids.

Russell himself was also a literal cuck, twice, first time he allowed it to go on and on and on... his wife was getting plowed by a virile, high test strapping American lad, and Russell only cut off the marriage after his wife and her bill had TWO CHILDREN together... couldn't make this shit up if I tried.

As the American rammed his cock in his wife's home, Russell sat there stroking his little scone, reading Shelley, being a Zionist, a feminist, a pacificist, a vegetarian, and a fuckin' analytic philosopher, just scribbling in a notebook about how Hegel and Nietzsche were so mean and if only they could be proper Anglo cucks like himself...

Who the fuck would read this shit-piece of a man?

A green texted meme used of out place is not a rebuttal

bull*
hole*

Numales get so much pussy maybe they know something you chads don't?

>treating them as holes
If it is mutual and consensual that's not treating them as holes or any form of disrespect

>having relations with women makes you a womanizer
This sounds like something a beta cuck would say
It is possible for men and women to mutually into short term relationships without it being controlling

All numales get are one-way tickets to a female's beta orbit

Russell probably got laid more often than usual because he was an upper class Brit and lived in the time that he did, really

>Aristotle gets beat down by Russell
Unwarranted presumption; inductive reasoning.
>OP memes "cuck"
>But where is the lie?
>user counters with denial "Where's the truth?"
Can confirm.
>Said user evidently believes Aristotle was correct in his error
Still performing the same logical leap done in the anterior post

Figures how someone so uneducated in formal logical tries to beat down the father of formal logic

The main bio thing to know about him was that he was a litteral cuck. I mean a wife-gets-impregnated-by-other-men tier cuck. It had a huge influence on his thought.

VEGETARIAN??

Open sexual relationships should be among friends, new or long time. Cold sexual gratification can wait till you masturbate. So "warm" in a literal and figurative way.
My advice anyway.

Russel was wrong about everything because his oedipal sexuality influences all his thought processes

That is completely false. Humans do not fall neatly into any particular relationship behavior pattern. That's why we have so many problems staying monogamous.

Learn biology

So you've got nothing. Jokerman.

I don't think they split up on account of her having someone else's kid.

Trolls all around us

You're completely false.

reminder not to reply to tripfags

Yeah I know right, where the fuck are you going to get protein from. Guy was probably the least swole cuck in philosophy's history

>Implying
Russell was wrong about everything because he was a Utilitarian.

Utilitarianism is a result of Oedipal sexuality

That's wrong though. There's a very strong tendency towards monogamy among all civilizations, including among civilizations where religion explicitly allows polygamy.

I didn't read any of thread, but there is not only dna, ideas and behaviors are also selected in our species

Utilitarianism is just one of the many possible outcomes of being a cuck.

>Russell's marriage to Dora grew increasingly tenuous, and it reached a breaking point over her having two children with an American journalist, Griffin Barry
Jesus
H
Christ

literally my wife's son

What you said didn't counter what he said in the least.

LOL. You sound salty. Russell obviously had little trouble getting laid. If you can get laid easily, you can't be a cuck in the derogatory sense of the word. He did his own share of cucking.

He might have been, but if it's true that he had a bunch of intense affairs with women, I doubt the women had any problem with being objectified. In such affairs both sides usually objectify the other. Objectification is part of what makes them hot.

>If you can get laid easily, you can't be a cuck in the derogatory sense of the word
Well, at least we know you didn't come into this thread as a analytical philosopher.

livescience.com/32146-are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous.html
psychologytoday.com/blog/not-born-yesterday/201605/monogamy-is-not-natural-human-beings
scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-biologically-inclined/

Reminder that Russell wrote one of the worst "history of philosophy" books ever written by a academic philosopher.

>buzzfeed tier media is something trustable
ok.

>legitimate sources that undermine my ideological veto of biological facts are "buzzfeed tier"

I wonder what the chance is that women at the time did have fewer teeth than men due to nutritional deficiencies

oy vey monogamy is a dangerous social construct invented by the bourgeoise in order to keep the lower classes down, let us dismantle the oppressive family unit so you can return to your roots and finally live freely without any cultural norms. there is nothing more to life than succumbing to the lowest animal urges goyim.

You fell for (((their))) manipulation.

It's obvious that monogamy is conducive to civilization. It provides a stable environment for children to grow up in, and it reduces competition for mates. Seventy percent of black children are born out of wedlock in the US, and look at how fucked up the black "community" is.

researchgate.net/profile/Benjamin_Oldroyd2/publication/5338664_Ancestral_Monogamy_Shows_Kin_Selection_Is_Key_to_the_Evolution_of_Eusociality/links/0fcfd50adb8ab76e70000000/Ancestral-Monogamy-Shows-Kin-Selection-Is-Key-to-the-Evolution-of-Eusociality.pdf

First, I haven't posted in this thread before this and I myself don't have any particularly great investment in either monogamy or polygamy and hating Bertrand Russell. But, just to play devil's advocate, I feel like there's a fundamental point you're missing --- polygamy and wedlock cause such trouble maybe precisely BECAUSE we stigmatize them and discriminate against it.

B-but monogamy is an oppressive patriarchal construct! There's nothing pathological about having hundreds of sexual partners!

In none of those "legitimate sources" were there are proofs, references, data or whatever. They were mainly articles of opinion. Also; legitimate sources? lol, I would fail you if you presented me a paper citing any of those websites

The single most suspect point of this article is the inclusion of "one of whom worked at Victoria's Secret".
Really shows you what the author thinks you think they think you think of this situation apparent.

>rape and gangbangs cause such trouble maybe precisely BECAUSE we stigmatize them and discriminate against it.
>X or Y is bad because it doesn't respect what to be
>the idea of correct has no natural basis! it's all pure social constructs
Fuck, almost 60 years later and these post-modernists still spoil the minds of the ignorant

It's from the Daily Mail, so it won't be winning a Pulitzer any time soon, but facts are facts. Courtrooms are completely public, you can look up the details of this man's case for yourself.

>interpretation of scientific research is opinion

I'm not even arguing against the practice of monogamy - I support it.

I'm just pointing out that fact that we are not naturally oriented for it exclusively. It's exactly why you see what you call "degeneracy" around you.

russell was wrong about everything because he was an englishman

>livescience
>psychologytoday
>scientificamerican

Wherever will you get your science updates now that Bill O Riley has been sacked?

You sound really fucking dumb.

Rape and gangbang you could call bad because they cause immediate and obvious suffering --- namely, to the person being raped. Change social norms, how rape or gangbangs are viewed, and being raped or gangbanged won't immediately feel any better.

However, let's say that someone has a child before or without being married and their parents are severely religious. Let's say they ignore their daughter who has gotten pregnant, kicks them out of the house, refuses to talk to them or give them support. Suppose this person becomes stigmatized and finds it hard for the people around them to have sympathy for them and they just think she's a slut who deserved what she got.

Let's say people want to live in a polygamous relationship and they all think it right but it's incredibly stigmatized so they can't live as they want to and get fucked up. Etc.

>inb4 muh slippery slope to bestiality and pedophilia

>>interpretation of scientific research is opinion
What scientific research? In the first link all we got was "the author of this post has read a book" [literally an opinion; this doesn't even get to be a critique of the mentioned book], in the second link some college professor literally gives out her opinion basing herself on two other posts from the same website [WITHOUT NO DATA], in the third link the same exact thing happens. I reiterate: what scientific research? Where can I find it?

Or, to make it more clear, there's nothing intrinsically wrong in polygamy, we make most of the problems in how we view it.

For instance, in places in Central Asia, people live completely happy and healthy lives with several wives with very little adultery and adultery is in fact even MORE shameful and terrifying there. Meanwhile, in Europe and America, husbands and wives constantly cuckold and cheat on each other; the adultery and the affair is a constant taboo/trope in its literature; and yet, even though we all realize on some function that we are polygamous, by repressing knowledge of it we create an unimaginable amount of suffering and repression.

>The female, he contended, “is, so to speak, a deformed male”

This was actually an accepted idea in Western medicine for nearly 2000 years: there was only one sex, and women were just less developed men.

So, the difference is in the immediacy of danger and on how obvious it is? Seems like you just passed yourself a certificate on how you're slow for not being able to move past "immediate and obvious" things.

>Rape and gangbang you could call bad because they cause immediate and obvious suffering --- namely, to the person being raped. Change social norms, how rape or gangbangs are viewed, and being raped or gangbanged won't immediately feel any better.
False. If society viewed rape as good, nobody would feel bad about it. The concept of "rape" comes from hegemonic patriarchal constructs that viewed female virginity as precious, and rape as "devaluing" the raped women so to speak. This is irrelevant and, honestly, offensive in modern sex-positive society. Women shouldn't go around perpetrating these male norms, they should embrace rape culture. I mean, look at other cultures. Arabs and Africans have no problem with rape, why should you? Maybe because you have an ingrained patriarchal, Western concept of morality that holds rapists as "barbarians". You disgust me.

>Let's say they ignore their daughter who has gotten pregnant, kicks them out of the house, refuses to talk to them or give them support. Suppose this person becomes stigmatized and finds it hard for the people around them to have sympathy for them and they just think she's a slut who deserved what she got.

That's not what usually happens. In the black "community" there is very little stigma surrounding single motherhood. If the parents won't give them support, no problem! The state will spend taxpayer money to ensure that Jaquarius' five children are well cared for. In fact it makes MORE sense to stay unmarried, because that way you get a bigger cheque!

Look, retard.

If one man gets two wives, another man is left without a wife.

This is bad.

Feeling no value for the sum of my life, I have willingly and gladly signed a contract that gives you all of the rights over my body and being until the day I die. The contract has allowed you to do essentially whatever you wish, including the power to rape me, maim me, torture me, or even kill me. Every night I fall asleep on a stone cold floor, which does nothing to soothe my bruises, aching bones or grumbling stomach, but I always pass into the pain of the night with a smile, knowing that to these conditions I consented.

Lookit those digits I bet this thread is going all the way

Check em

>Digits of post-modernist destruction
CHECKED

>tfw no slave Emma
>tfw no sicc get

Look, my good fella, if you can't get a wife then you're a beta failure.

Wow, I also mentioned "rape" in my post too... Guess I'm a rapist? Seems like you "passed yourself a certificate" on having a lower IQ than a rock.

I'm not a liberal, honey. Funny how pea-brained /pol/-tards think anyone who disagrees with them is from tumblr, although yes, I will admit I also don't like postmodern trickery and "women's studies" in universities.

Yes, I actually do find something wrong with the welfare state, too. I was just giving a hypothetical scenario, that might, for instance, happen with White Christians in the Midwest or South.

>Look, my good fella, if you can't get a wife then you're a beta failure.
If there are literally no women to wife then it's not their fault, is it? Giving all the women to the rich and leaving 50% or more of poor young men with endless sexual frustration is not good for society.

But I know you're just a stupid slut and that childish woman brain of yours doesn't think beyond your own immediate immature wishes.

>on having a lower IQ than a rock
Literally impossible and not argument. Also, nice rebuttal. Maybe it's time to go to bed and read some Foucault, you internet bad boy

Wasn't Bert Rustle a literal cuckold though?

Was Aristotle /our guy/?

It's called polygamy, dumbass. Just share the wives. Remember, we're not talking about monogamy here? Hurrrr??

Damn, I guess you can't understand a metaphor ... hm... you could even call it not seeing past the immediate and obvious?

Protip: just because I mentioned that something is OFTEN (yes, you could nitpick and come up with anything you like) unconditionally bad because it causes a lot of immediate and obvious suffering, doesn't mean I can't see past what's immediate and obvious, the same way that just because I mentioned rape doesn't mean i'm a rapist.

In fact, I take back my attempt at a metaphor, it's offensive to rocks to compare them to you.

Your humor reeks of a juvenile reasoning. I don't even need to counter-argument once you embarrass yourself through your delusional petulance.

I guess that means you don't have an argument.

No, that means I'm stating a fact. You never proposed a counter-argument to my original argument, thus I have no need to put forward an argument, kiddo

>this nigga doesn't know the joys of being a softboi

At least he was right about birds.

I'm quite successful with women, and I can confirm that I have a much higher opinion of them than do most of the anons who shit on women.

Don't take out your sexual frustrations by hating women, it will only make it much harder to get in some hot pussy.

People who claim degeneracy in sexual practice of anything besides monogamy are just insecure.

Monogamy is obviously completely natural and the normal state of affairs if you look at every single human culture around the world, but it's also obviously prone to being subverted and having many, many exceptions in every culture.

All cultures have monogamy. All cultures have infidelity and promiscuity.

You're the first one ITT to mention degeneracy.

> culture is the same as nature
Read J.D. Unwin ffs user.

>It's called polygamy, dumbass. Just share the wives. Remember, we're not talking about monogamy here? Hurrr??
Kill yourself you stupid bitch, both of us know that in a polygamic society 90% of women will be married to rich alphas and the rest will die alone.

>I degrade myself by serving women so that I can get sex
>women are sooo great

>Typical beta mindset.

Degrading yourself stops you from getting sex. Women aren't great. They're just people. Some are great. Some aren't.

>numale
>getting laid
Nope

This. There's nothing degrading about smiling and talking openly to another human being.

Too many anons confuse whores - who exist in both genders - for people.

What is degrading is those user's views: men whose extreme insecurity encourages them to denigrate a sex in order to pad their ego; rather than accept their anxiety makes them undeserving of the love they crave.