I want multiple girlfriends

[Buck Edwards]

There's no emotional value in a harem. 

[eos_nyxia]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That's very simple. The benefit is that a high status powerful man offers so much survival advantage to a woman that even if you divide his power by 5, it will still be more power than 95% of men. Because power is so unevenly distributed in society.

Being 1 out of 5 of Bin Laden's wives gives a woman more survival advantage than being 1 wife of 1 homeless Arab man.

20% of a rich man is worth more than 100% of a poor man. For course in western democracies this isn't so important, which is why women in the West don't tend to like such arraignments.

When your survival is taken care of by the state, you don't need a man for survival. But this is a very recent invention and still around the world many women aren't so well positioned.

A child can throw a baseball without knowing anything about math. But still that ball flies in a mathematical way. When we say that thrown balls are mathematical we don't mean that if you throw a ball you're doing math in your head.

I moreso meant in first-world countries, especially in reference to some of the guys' power fantasies above. I just assumed that they weren't talking about going to a developing country and getting some women to technically consent to be exclusive with them because those women feel the need and obligation to send money to support their impoverished relatives.

I feel like I am stating the extra-obvious, but being compelled to survive isn't the same thing as genuine sexual attraction and personality attraction... but it seems to do in a pinch for those who have the fantasy. And somehow the female attraction and fulfillment is implicit in these fantasies because they are fantasies?). That women are with you because you are SO awesome/ charismatic/ sexy/ successful/ bla bla bla is often the self-delusion. If they're in a first-world country and not fulfilling a personal fetish (which may or may not be rooted in trauma).... like, why would I ever look at that, and be jealous of what they have? Just because some low self-esteem and/ or opportunistic women decided to get together and slobber over his dick? (Literally or metaphorically). Nope. I'd feel sorry for them and think they'd need to do >insert therapy and self-work< and sort themselves out. And again, those men typically don't respect those women either because they don't respect themselves; they don't think they are actually worthy of any amount of undivided love, attention, devotion, genuine camaraderie, sexual satisfaction, etc. If that's what's driving them, that's low self-esteem. It's influenced by fear of what they don't want, rather than genuine desire. So emotionally and even sexually, there are limits to what they have to offer.

Now if it's what they truly want, whether cuckolds or cuckquean, well... you do you. At least they truly want it, so I don't judge so much.

In reality, what dudes are probably offering is subpar physical and emotional intimacy (because a certain degree of interest and ability to listen and general non-self-absorption is one of a number of things required to be actually "good" at sex), but divvied up into smaller portions, and this is supposed to be appealing for some reason? Like why?  Like have your fantasies I guess, but what does this have to do with reality?

Edited September 28 by eos_nyxia

[Leo Gura]

Of course guys do it because they can and girls put up with it because they are naive.

A sucker is born every minute.

The reality is that many girls put up with it. Takes time for them to wise up. And guys exploit that because they are unconscious, horny, and immature.

Edited September 28 by Leo Gura

[Buck Edwards]

52 minutes ago, eos_nyxia said:

because some low self-esteem

Lol that would be like putting down those women. 

[eos_nyxia]

3 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

Lol that would be like putting down those women. 

If they are young, naive, driven by trauma, and stuck in a trauma loop, then "low self-esteem" is most likely just a statement of fact. Not everyone has the same stuff to work with, but people also make different decisions with similar circumstances. Some people are also brutally emotionally masochistic in a way I don't really get, but that would also qualify as "getting what they truly want", albeit in a more twisted, indirect way.

I feel bad for them more than I feel judgemental, though admittedly there is some judgment and "ick factor" there, like a sort of visceral second-hand embarrassment on their behalf.

 

[Buck Edwards]

1 minute ago, eos_nyxia said:

If they are young, naive, driven by trauma, and stuck in a trauma loop, then "low self-esteem" is most likely just a statement of fact.

Couldn't it be possible that they do it out of love and or being strongly attracted to the person that they just can't help? Why would that be in any way or form be connected with trauma? It could be as simple as pure affection and the man just exploiting it. 

[eos_nyxia]

18 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

Couldn't it be possible that they do it out of love and or being strongly attracted to the person that they just can't help? Why would that be in any way or form be connected with trauma? It could be as simple as pure affection and the man just exploiting it. 

But yes, why can they "not just help it"?  Where did these patterns originally come from? Where did they learn that is an acceptable and legible way to channel their impulses? Who raised these people?

The drive for love, attraction, and affection does not manifest inside a vacuum, and neither does its actual expression. This is even true even if some people are compelled to live at the utter and complete mercy of their emotions and urges.

Like, is it pure social conditioning (from within that lifetime on a personal level), some harder-to-measure factor like intergenerational baggage, or is it more "biological", whether due to one's sex hormones or inborn personality traits and tendencies? A lot of people default to the simple determinism and invoke the God of Biology simply because it suits their own narrative/ agenda, and it's neater in the sense that it's simpler and more conclusive. Simple narratives have that appeal; it's a strong, decisive way to interpret data.

Personally, I think that "intrinsic traits" are spread a bit thin when it comes to explaining why people are the way they are, and why they do what they do. We are a profoundly social species, after all. And with that, comes an equally profound malleability when it comes to social conditioning.

.....within reason.

Edited September 28 by eos_nyxia

[Elisabeth]

12 hours ago, LordFall said:

@Elisabeth It's definitely about relationships for me; not just sex. I'm a fan of BDSM so personally I would incorporate some elements of that into it. People have 4-5 children and love them so I don't know why you couldn't do that with romantic partners about it. 

I agree. If you've got great bdsm skills, yeah, you can have a lot of fun. Rope teachers will have tied up a hundred people on their learning journey. It's possible to do that respectfully and ethically.

The ethics of having multiple dom-sub relationships gets soooo intricate and situation specific. I'd say if the women are exclusive with you, you're into shady territory even if all parties try their best to keep good consent practices. Especially if they're new to the scene. Heck, if you're into power exchange out of the bedroom, you're navigating difficult waters every single time. But if you're in the scene, you're aware, and this thread is not specifically for that.

Edited September 28 by Elisabeth

[nerdspeak]

When I was younger and dumber coming from Western hookup culture, I lived in a middle-income (not even poor) country and unintentionally had what a previous poster called a “harem.” By that I mean, multiple women who must have known I was seeing others since we met max once every two weeks, but for whom I was their only partner (as I found out later). 
 

I actually felt really bad when I later figured this out, since I wasn’t even helping them financially, beyond paying for our dates. 
 

I didn’t really know I had an obligation to communicate clearly what the rules were, etc., and it eventually caused some drama.
 

For the women I guess it made a kind of sense, in that they thought by being faithful to me without discussing commitment, they created a kind of resource/emergency assistance debt back from me, since the state and their families couldn’t reliably protect them. 

These women were otherwise very middle-class in their presentation, with masters degrees, jobs, etc. 
 

In poorer countries, where being “independent” in the Western sense is not really possible (to the extent we actually are is a separate convo), people spend a lot of time organizing mutually dependent relationships and ideally becoming dependent on a powerful patron. I dont think we can generalize from poor countries to the West, or from West to poor (or even middle income) countries too much. 

[Ampresus]

16 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

All masculine men, given infinite power and freedom, would seek an arrangement where he is having sex with multiple attractive women, and they are all loyal to him. The harem. This is your "default ideal" and the only reason that it is never acknowledged (or actualized) is because of a titanic social matrix effort to frame control you NONSTOP FROM BIRTH which constricts you into the limited box of pre-made (unideal) relationship systems (namely; "fucking around" or "serious monogamy").

Of course, you also lack "infinite" power and freedom. If you lived with reckless abandon of true desire, you would die very quickly (socially and literally), because your desires would be in diametric opposition to other men and women, causing conflict and even war.

Given your tiny realm of influence and sovereignty, the most you can seem to pull off is to sleep around with no commitment, or to choose commitment and to castrate yourself and hand your balls over to one woman and pretend you don't feel anything for other girls (all these husbands pretending that they suddenly don't want to have sex with the plethora of hotties around the world... what a herculean effort to lie to yourself just to stay in line and not rock the boat!)

Building a modern harem is perfectly doable (the most attractive men around the world all have this arrangement) but it will require a lot of research, trial and error, failure, emotional damage, compromise, and personal growth before it starts to work.

In 2024 you will NEVER achieve a lasting arrangement where you have multiple partners and they are all loyal to you. This is too selfish and hurtful, and they will all cheat or leave. If you want multiple girls, then each girl MUST have the option of multiple men. This doesn't mean you encourage or pressure her to go fuck someone else; nor does it even mean that she will (a lot of the times she won't!). You simply must honor her free will.

You can also never get overly attached to one woman in a modern harem. You must reach a point where you both organically share energy and time together, perhaps even with strong feelings of genuine love - but if she walks away and suddenly gets monogamously married to another man, you barely even notice or care (yes she can leave you at any time, that's the whole point. this is also true of monogamy, but with typical monogamy you socially pressure her into artificially extending her stay with you)

Do you have that level of outcome independence and sexual abundance? Probably not. Your default instinct is to "hoard" her and mate guard her and to place restrictive boundaries around her (scarcity; fear; selfishness) and therefore you settle for monogamy because you realize it's not fair to chain her up without you yourself being similarly bound and restrained.

 

Tl;dr a harem is not only doable; but highly authentic. Many men are already doing it. But it takes a lot of effort, you have to kick all of your social programming and biological instincts, and completely identity-shift into next-level sexual abundance.

Also, as everyone else is saying, you can't have a monogamous girlfriend and then suddenly assault her reality with "hey babe let me have sex with other women who are NOT you"

If you want a harem, dump your current GF and start from scratch. If you're too weak for that, then give up on your true desires and don't think about any of this (like 99.99% of men)

@RendHeaven By far the most useful post that came from this whole thread. Thank you so much. for now I know what I must do. 

 

[eos_nyxia]

 

21 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

All masculine men, given infinite power and freedom, would seek an arrangement where he is having sex with multiple attractive women, and they are all loyal to him. The harem. This is your "default ideal" and the only reason that it is never acknowledged (or actualized) is because of a titanic social matrix effort to frame control you NONSTOP FROM BIRTH which constricts you into the limited box of pre-made (unideal) relationship systems (namely; "fucking around" or "serious monogamy").

Of course, you also lack "infinite" power and freedom. If you lived with reckless abandon of true desire, you would die very quickly (socially and literally), because your desires would be in diametric opposition to other men and women, causing conflict and even war.

more thoughts about this:

1) I mean it is rare, but there are at least a good handful of "legendary love stories" where there was a king/ emperor who had an actual harem or mistresses, or it was expected for him to do so, and still he chose one woman above all the others while having no sexual or emotional interest in the others. A famous example of this is the ruler who built the Taj Mahal. Consider also any number of mythic East Asian and Persian love stories which are based on actual historical figures. In reality, the poly drive is just a tendency; it's not actually set in stone.

I guess this is where someone would say, "that's not a masculine man".  What does this actually mean other than wanting to fuck anyone sufficiently attractive? Sheer testosterone? (Or, you're just horny, insecure, and unfulfilled, and possibly just wired differently.)

2) There is nothing "natural" at all about an institutionalized One Penis Policy. The drive to do so, yes, maybe. The institutions related to it, absolutely not. With traditional harems, a lot of the women came there because they were either the most attractive girls and women captured during war and sold into sex slavery and to become concubines, or their parents sold them as young girls. In modern terms, this is basically your parents sex trafficking you for a lifelong meal ticket, and basically brainwashing and/or forcing you to marry some older dude.

That some women develop some actual attachment and feeling as a result of Stockholm syndrome ... when guys talk about "authentic female desire", this isn't exactly what you have in mind, is it? Actual chattel slavery? (fun fact: one of the actual underlying themes and purposes for classic stories such as "Bluebeard" and "Beauty and the Beast" was to reaffirm to young girls that marrying a crusty, old, ugly, and possibly abusive man (but powerful and well-monied!) was a worthwhile endeavour.)

Like if the dick was soooo amazing and women were naturally compelled toward monogamy toward the most powerful of men exclusively, why were so many harems guarded by eunuchs, who literally had their balls (and often their dicks) chopped off so women wouldn't have sex with younger, better looking, more virile men? (If anything, eunuchs were guards to make sure other men never got in.) Why were harems and concubines deliberately isolated within the palace and often completely forbidden from interacting with the outside world? If this was "a natural" expression of female desire, there would be absolutely nothing to guard these women from, lol.

Generally speaking, the punishment for royal women who had sex outside of their marriage (non-harems) was very severe, and often death. The king would have multiple wives, concubines, slave or serving girls, for his own pleasure and to make lots of mini-mes. The practical reason, aside from sheer jealousy and entitlement, is the belief in the intrinsic importance of patriliny, aka. making sure than your children as a man are biologically yours.

If you look at earlier-stage societies, you will often see that this sort of aggressive institutional patriliny doesn't exist, because it had not been developed yet. Men getting violently possessive about their female partners having other male partners is a separate issue.

Quote

In 2024 you will NEVER achieve a lasting arrangement where you have multiple partners and they are all loyal to you. This is too selfish and hurtful, and they will all cheat or leave. If you want multiple girls, then each girl MUST have the option of multiple men. This doesn't mean you encourage or pressure her to go fuck someone else; nor does it even mean that she will (a lot of the times she won't!). You simply must honor her free will.

Even female rock groupies in the 60s and 70s were mostly playing "collect a dick", like you'd collect stickers or count notches. They didn't just want to fuck one rockstar, they wanted to experience the whole itinerary, as much as possible. Just like the guys who have the rockstar fantasy of having sex with all the girls (who are into him and him only). A girl who is into the OPP, who isn't forced to stay, either has a fetish or is a doormat. Maybe they're Mormon. Take your pick.

Edited September 28 by eos_nyxia

[eos_nyxia]

Quote

Given your tiny realm of influence and sovereignty, the most you can seem to pull off is to sleep around with no commitment, or to choose commitment and to castrate yourself and hand your balls over to one woman and pretend you don't feel anything for other girls (all these husbands pretending that they suddenly don't want to have sex with the plethora of hotties around the world... what a herculean effort to lie to yourself just to stay in line and not rock the boat!)

This is more just talking about yourself and the people you know, isn't it?

Source: I married someone I've known for almost 20 years. It's where I learned that finding someone attractive isn't the same as wanting to fuck them, and literally "not all men". I honestly didn't believe him for a good number of years either, because I've always been pretty jaded. I ended up becoming less cynical as a result, and started wondering if monogamy as an intrinsic (but still possibly still competing) drive isn't as uncommon as people think. As in, it's not just as result of society trying to stop men (or women) from having sex either by shaming and judgement or creating a sheer lack of abundance and opportunities. Where does this "oneitis" drive come from, anyway?

In other words, I won the monogamy lottery without even identifying as intrinsically monogamous myself.

 

There isn't even porn, visual or written, or any anecdotal stories that I've heard, that even come close to describing how good the sex and intimacy are now, TBH. It is insane. And it was always intense and there was always chemistry to start with.

Edited September 28 by eos_nyxia

[RendHeaven]

3 hours ago, eos_nyxia said:

1) and still he chose one woman above all the others while having no sexual or emotional interest in the others

still chose one woman above all others EMOTIONALLY, yes. Sexually, no. I PROMISE he was banging the maid on occasion, and of course that is left out of history books and folklore lol.

And discreetly banging the maid on the side does NOT diminish the true love he has for his chosen one. This is unequivocally true but a lot of women (and feminized men) have trouble accepting it because of thousands of years of social programming.

It makes zero sense for an abundant, attractive, desirable man who wants to have sex with hot girls to suddenly NOT have sex with hot girls just because one woman is a cut above. That's like you really learn you love pasta one day and you stop eating all other dishes forever. Makes no sense. No matter how much you love pasta, at some point you're gonna crave something else, and that's not a problem. You can eat the whole buffet and still cherish your favorite (if anything, that variety provides quality contrast and further elevates the allure of your chosen dish).

Men with testosterone can uncouple sexual desire and emotional desire in clean halves. It's perfectly logical to love a woman, have mindblowing tantric sex with her, turn off your emotion and have caveman sex with her hot sister who you barely know. That's how men think and feel, and we would all do this if it were socially acceptable and celebrated (and the sister was consenting ofc).

The reason you don't see this kind of free-for-all debauchery is because - who you can or cannot have sex with is highly controlled in society, and implicitly so. Nowadays you wouldn't dare touch the sister of your lover, much less a stranger (even if SHE was making moves on you!) because that will upset your lover, and you don't want to risk social backlash.

But if you were the king of the universe and nobody had any say over your lifestyle choices, of COURSE your lady's tantrums wouldn't stop you.

Is that sexist? Yeah probably. There is an inconsiderate element to hyper-masculine sexuality (which is precisely what makes it dangerously attractive lol). But sexual relations has always been an all-out war. "The good men who wouldn't do that" are all domesticated, for better or for worse.

3 hours ago, eos_nyxia said:

2) There is nothing "natural" at all about an institutionalized One Penis Policy.

Yeah that's dumb.

"Institutionalized" "policies" are oppressive and psychologically damaging to girls (OBVIOUSLY. I don't think anybody is advocating for that??)

You are raging against monarchs past who had poor spiral development (purple/red/blue). Nowadays in developed western nations (orange+) women will retaliate loudly and a man's selfishness will NOT fly (and this is a good thing!) so you are preaching to the choir.

Therefore in 2024, the harem has to be compatible with free will. The girls have to organically and authentically choose you (month after month; year after year), without coercion. No way around it.

This puts enormous responsibility on the guy to actually be desirable - but that's the fun of being a man! Beggars can't be choosers, and tyrants are cowards.

Let the ladies have as many dicks as they want. Free market capitalism baby.

And yes, you can still build authentic love and commitment even with this dynamic. Plenty of people have done this already, I'm just reporting the facts.

3 hours ago, eos_nyxia said:

A girl who is into the OPP, who isn't forced to stay, either has a fetish or is a doormat.

If you are talking about outdated "institutionalized" "policies," then yeah.

But regarding a modern harem where multiple women willingly choose to stay with one man long term (without coercion), any woman has the potential within her to enjoy that arrangement with the understanding that she also has the free will to date multiple guys (if she so desires)

3 hours ago, eos_nyxia said:

In other words, I won the monogamy lottery without even identifying as intrinsically monogamous myself.

How long have you been sexually exclusive with this man?

Edited September 29 by RendHeaven
Corrected a misunderstanding

[nerdspeak]

@RendHeaven In tribes or villages sex is also regulated, in ways that would prohibit the sort of harem you describe. 
 

You could only get what you describe in contexts with major power imbalances, eg, warlords who start to control the surplus production in coercive ways. 
 

Even now, I can only imagine it with a major power imbalance in place, even if it was fully consensual. I can’t imagine Leonardo DiCaprio keeping a harem of big-name female stars, but I’m sure he could keep a harem of entry-level aspiring models.

Edited September 29 by nerdspeak

[Schizophonia]

@RendHeaven

The only time i've had fantasies about having an harem is when i tried very highs dosages of testosterone without AI at the point i looked like a muscular pig, and later (some months after having stopped my experience) when i've tried clomid and that the zucclomiphene (the more estrogenic isomere) started to hit from approximately one week.

I also had fantasies on fat women lol.

Now my testosterone is normally high (900ng/dl) but my estradiol a bit low, and i am much more attracted to a tender monogamous relationship. I can do dirty things to my girlfriend lol but i much prefer to be more stoic and stable, the prospect of polygamy is just annoying.

It become even truer when i am on nicotine or psilocybin for some reasons, and even more when i've tried 25mg of exemestane one day. 

[shree]

I have a girl-friend who has been into me for a long time, and she’s bisexual. She told me that if we were together, she would even be open to bringing other girls into the relationship and wouldn't mind at all.

 

Maybe you should set a goal for finding someone like that?

Just make sure it aligns with your values.

[Jannes]

1 hour ago, shree said:

I have a girl-friend who has been into me for a long time, and she’s bisexual. She told me that if we were together, she would even be open to bringing other girls into the relationship and wouldn't mind at all.

[Keryo Koffa]

2 hours ago, shree said:

I have a girl-friend who has been into me for a long time, and she’s bisexual. She told me that if we were together, she would even be open to bringing other girls into the relationship and wouldn't mind at all.

Edited September 29 by Keryo Koffa

[RendHeaven]

4 hours ago, nerdspeak said:

Even now, I can only imagine it with a major power imbalance in place, even if it was fully consensual. I can’t imagine Leonardo DiCaprio keeping a harem of big-name female stars, but I’m sure he could keep a harem of entry-level aspiring models.

A modern "harem" doesn't necessarily mean that you have an elaborate ring of girlfriends.

It can be a simple as 1 girlfriend + 1 fuck buddy (and they are both aware of the other, but do not necessarily have to be introduced to each other)

Any man in 2024 can arrange 1 girlfriend + 1 fuck buddy if they have attractive outcome independence, strong communication, and honesty

And if you are greedy, you can have more, of course. There are resources on how to set this up and you can talk to many guys who actively live this lifestyle.

[RendHeaven]

4 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

The only time i've had fantasies about having an harem is when i tried very highs dosages of testosterone without AI at the point i looked like a muscular pig, and later (some months after having stopped my experience) when i've tried clomid and that the zucclomiphene (the more estrogenic isomere) started to hit from approximately one week.

I also had fantasies on fat women lol.

Now my testosterone is normally high (900ng/dl) but my estradiol a bit low, and i am much more attracted to a tender monogamous relationship. I can do dirty things to my girlfriend lol but i much prefer to be more stoic and stable, the prospect of polygamy is just annoying.

It become even truer when i am on nicotine or psilocybin for some reasons, and even more when i've tried 25mg of exemestane one day. 

If you've ever watched porn and you had multiple tabs open, that's a glaring sign that you would enjoy having sex with multiple women.

It's always these same monogamous "I love my wife" mfs who have a history of extended gooning

You're right that introducing and keeping multiple women in your life long-term is a recipe for drama and annoyances. You must have extremely strong frame and high expectations for the people you give your time to.

If they give you shit, don't be anything more than FWB and don't give them your time. If they really give you shit, stop seeing them completely.

But girls in general love men so if you can anchor them into that innate state of affection that they already have, it's it's an upward spiral.