What toxic masculinity really is

[Outcast9428]

Sociopaths are almost exclusively r-selected though. There are studies showing that they father 2.4x more children now then normal men do.

That's a massive difference. Can you link me this study? This interests me enormously. If a regular dude has about 2 kids, a sociopath would, on average, have 4 or 5? That's wild, brother.

Sociopaths cannot pair bond, they are literally incapable of romantic connections. They spread their genes through short term sex with multiple partners.

Not necessarily true; a lot of people that are highly successful have sociopathic tendencies. Think powerful CEOs and politicians. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, definitely sociopaths. What to think of politicians like Donald Trump who brag about how fame allows them to do whatever they like to girls? Sociopath, obviously. Bill Clinton? Sociopath. The list is endless.

And these highly successful men, they do not have children left and right. Usually they have a normal to slightly above average sized family. Sociopaths likely have plenty of loose sexual contacts but they reproduce within a stable relationship to a woman they "own" and that is more or less just a vessel for their genes.

You'd have a hard time finding any captains of industry, billionaire investors, military commanders or powerful politicians leading states or countries who show zero sociopathic tendencies and are able to bond to people in a genuine way. They're usually extremely good at "faking" genuine care, they often have tremendous charisma and can be adored by millions of people... but they're still scum at the end of the day.

Its this one...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12625439/

You can only access the abstract at the moment. I don't know why these websites go in an out of having the full text available sometimes but sometimes it doesn't. The purpose of the study was basically to figure out if its actually useful to have sociopaths married and active in raising their children but along the way found that the sociopaths in their study had fathered a lot more children then the other men had. Some saved quotes from the article though...

- Despite the fact that fathers who engage in high levels of antisocial behavior make up a small proportion of fathers overall, they are responsible for a disproportionate number of births. For example, Moffitt and colleagues (2002) found that although men who engaged in high levels of antisocial behavior constituted only 10% of a birth cohort, they accounted for 27% of the babies fathered by the time the men were age 26. (Jaffee et al. 2003)
- From an evolutionary viewpoint, criminal behavior may persist despite adverse consequences by providing offenders with fitness benefits as part of a successful alternative mating strategy. Specifically, criminal behavior may have evolved as a reproductive strategy based on low parental investment reflected in low commitment in reproductive relationships.
- Convicted criminal offenders had more children than individuals never convicted of a criminal offense. Criminal offenders also had more reproductive partners, were less often married, more likely to get remarried if ever married, and had more often contracted a sexually transmitted disease than non-offenders.

There's another study which investigates the general link between non-monogamy and criminal behavior. The study concludes that promiscuity is basically the strategy that criminals use to spread their genes faster then k-selected people do...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3814000774

- Importantly, the increased reproductive success of criminals was explained by a fertility increase from having children with several different partners. We conclude that criminality appears to be adaptive in a contemporary industrialized country, and that this association can be explained by antisocial behavior being part of an adaptive alternative reproductive strategy. (Yao et al. 2014)

[Lucas88]

It’s okay to work out and stay in shape but that doesn’t mean one has to act primal. My dad went to the gym like 2-3 times a week most of his adult life but he doesn’t have any primal masculinity at all. I don’t ever see him acting dominant or aggressive.

You know what, Outcast? I think that you just have an emotional aversion towards primal masculinity and don't like the fact that many men are able to attract women with qualities that you yourself don't have. No offense, but you don't exactly come across as a masculine guy. That would explain why you never recognize my points that not all manifestations of primal masculinity are negative and that many men do indeed cultivate primally masculine qualities that are attractive to women in a totally constructive capacity and why you seem to be dead set against the cultivation of primal masculinity and even sometimes allege that women who are attracted to primal masculinity must be "degenerates".

I think that I now understand what your problem is. Some people say that you're a "beta", but I disagree. My observation is that you much more closely fit the description of the gamma male who is envious of the alphas and other men with higher status and greater success with women than himself and who secretly covets the higher position of those men and believes himself to be more deserving of top status. Interestingly, the gamma male is often a staunch ideologue with a hidden king complex and likes to imagine that he is some kind of purer and more enlightened soul with all of the answers to lead the unwashed masses towards enlightenment.

https://theadultman.com/love-and-lust/gamma-male/

This is why you must always denounce the primal masculinity that you yourself don't have and disingenuously conflate it with hood nigga masculinity and "degeneracy" without any attention to nuance while promoting your own brand of beta masculinity as the only "moral" option. You simply wish to demonize and discredit the qualities of men who are more successful than you in dating and society since you are unable to accept your relatively low position in the sociosexual hierarchy and inwardly believe that you deserve a higher position.

You make a big show of empathy and compassion - and you are indeed an empathic guy -, but I'm not buying the idea that empathy and compassion are your only motivation. I'm sure that you have selfish motivations too, just like everyone else, and that the expansion of your own social power and that of other males who share your own characteristics (i.e., your own "ingroup") strongly figures into the equation. Everybody is motivated by power to some degree even if they don't want to admit to it.

Back to the topic of primal masculinity, I stand by my recommendation that guys who want to attract women should consciously cultivate such traits. It will make them a more complete man (I actually believe that the unmasculine nerdy beta type is a deficient type of man since he lacks primal masculine instincts). I am trying to offer guys practical solutions for attracting women, not fantasy solutions along the lines of whitewashed medieval theocracies.

[CaptainSkelebob]

I'd reckon he could do the whole "primal masculinity" thing within the context of a committed relationship, too, if he were so inclined. It's perfectly possible to do the whole "dominant bedroom behavior" spiel and yet not sleep around and cheat on the girl. If he's also a very fit dude who's into martial arts, his lifestyle may have boosted his testosterone levels which could make a man into a more dominant lover; I once read Arnold Schwarzenegger would often have sex with two or three different girls a day in his absolute prime. Bruce Lee was a very energetic lover too and had quite a few bed partners; he died at the apartment of a mistress in Hong Kong. Being highly physically active and prone to working out goes hand in hand with having a higher than usual sex drive.

Marcos gets it!

Primal masculinity isn't an inherently negative thing. It may manifest itself positively and often does in many men. And yes, it is not mutually exclusive with monogamy either.

@Outcast9428 doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between positive and negative manifestations of primal masculinity. He assumes that all men with primally masculine qualities are going to be dangerous and toxic and behave like hood niggas just because of his own phobias and negative experiences with the obnoxious frat boy types. But Outcast only focuses on the negative examples of sociopathic and thuglike "alphas" (much like how the RedPill and MGTOW crowds only focus on bad women). He has become totally blind to the countless examples of men who channel their primal masculinity into positive endeavors and who don't behave like thugs or criminals. Outcast therefore erroneously concludes that primal masculinity is inherently bad and leads to thuggery and then zealously promotes pussified beta masculinity as the only "moral" option while arbitrarily asserting that any woman who is attracted to primally masculine qualities and who isn't attracted to his own idealized version of beta masculinity is necessarily a "degenerate".

But the truth is that plenty of normal women are attracted to primally masculine qualities when those are manifested in positive ways. Most women love a guy who works out, has a chiseled masculine physique, displays dominant masculine behavior, and has primally masculine hobbies. That stuff turns them on at a deep primal level. It is engrained into their survival instinct. This is why I urge men to reawaken and cultivate their own primally masculine qualities if they want to attract women (in addition to learning social skills and how to talk to women). It will make them more attractive than the average beta. Let's be honest: many betas are just straight up pussies and lack masculinity. I can totally understand why women are not attracted to them or find them sexually boring. I see such betas as incomplete men. They haven't cultivated their latent primally masculine qualities which are a normal part of masculinity but then become resentful that women don't like them and want to blame women for their own deficiencies.

You're right about how lifestyle changes have an effect on testosterone. Working out always made me more sexually aggressive. MMA training also reconnected me with my own primal masculinity and allowed me to develop a much more dominant side as though it rewired me brain. Outcast doesn't believe that somebody could ever go from being an autistic incel to being primally masculine and sexually dominant with women because that doesn't conform to how he assumes that an autistic male should behave and so he assumes that I must be lying or exaggerating or putting on a persona, but I've experienced for myself how immersing myself in the hypermasculine world of MMA/combat sports radically changed my personality in the course of a few years and brought out qualities in me that I never knew I had. I did cultivate my primal masculinity and began to do better with Latinas as a result but that didn't turn me into a thug or a criminal or an obnoxious frat boy. A real man harmonizes primal masculinity with discipline and constructive pursuits. Low IQ morons think that beating people up in the street or abusing women make them masculine. Yes, many normal women love primally masculine men with discipline and empathic traits but wouldn't want to be with a thug or abuser. Women who are attracted to primal masculinity in its constructive forms are not the same as hybristophilic women who love gangstas.

Being a complete degenerate seems tiresome to me. There are plenty of white men, too, who live that sort of r-selected lifestyle, men like Marlon Brando who slept with hundreds if not thousands and left dozens of children. When he died, however, his personal life was an absolute mess and he died alone, obese and miserable. Degeneracy tends to catch up to a man sooner or later. But some people are wired differently, that is also true. I have, within my biological heritage, some ancestors with strong r-selected tendencies; I have, in fact, many half-siblings I never met. And my maternal grandfather had 32 uncles and aunties. I realize for a white European male this is somewhat unusual, but all it takes is a few total Chads in your family tree and some of your genes will be somewhat out of wack.

I think that pure k-selection is rare. Most people are mixed to some degree and even many predominantly k-selected men have some r-selected tendencies. I mentioned in a previous post that the secondary r-selected tendencies might have persisted because they are conducive to the insurance of genetic survival in the event that one's few k-selected children don't survive.

Due to the prevalence of mixed selection, plenty of relatively normal guys sleep with multiple women and even engage in infidelity. The majority of those men are not violent gangbangers or criminals and mostly live as productive members of society. You yourself are testimony of that. Outcast always looks at the extreme cases and then draws conclusions from those. He doesn't seem to understand that there are levels to this.

Many mixed guys are promiscuous and cheat on their wives/girlfriends but most of them aren't out killing people or committing senseless crimes. @CaptainSkelebob for example strikes me as largely amoral and brags about bending the rules to get ahead in life, but I think that even most people like him would draw the line at things like murder.

Those who are willing to murder others for personal gain and are suited to the gangbanger lifestyle have problems that go way beyond simple r-selection and a decreased level of conscientiousness. They are naturally seriously sociopathic/psychopathic or their own sociopathic tendencies have been greatly magnified by the extreme environment of the ghettos.

Hey fella!!
Im promiscuous but amoral???
I resemble that remark!
I think you are right tho
A man answering those primal calls is not immoral
Men trying to force other men to ignore those primal calls
Or stopping them by force is what is immoral!!!
Thats why I said these jealous beta vagina fledglings like Mercer for example are the ones who show toxic masculinity
Well....
Cmon fella
Their shitty attitudes towards strong masculine men speak for themselfs dont they

[CaptainSkelebob]

It’s okay to work out and stay in shape but that doesn’t mean one has to act primal. My dad went to the gym like 2-3 times a week most of his adult life but he doesn’t have any primal masculinity at all. I don’t ever see him acting dominant or aggressive.

You know what, Outcast? I think that you just have an emotional aversion towards primal masculinity and don't like the fact that many men are able to attract women with qualities that you yourself don't have. No offense, but you don't exactly come across as a masculine guy. That would explain why you never recognize my points that not all manifestations of primal masculinity are negative and that many men do indeed cultivate primally masculine qualities that are attractive to women in a totally constructive capacity and why you seem to be dead set against the cultivation of primal masculinity and even sometimes allege that women who are attracted to primal masculinity must be "degenerates".

I think that I now understand what your problem is. Some people say that you're a "beta", but I disagree. My observation is that you much more closely fit the description of the gamma male who is envious of the alphas and other men with higher status and greater success with women than himself and who secretly covets the higher position of those men and believes himself to be more deserving of top status. Interestingly, the gamma male is often a staunch ideologue with a hidden king complex and likes to imagine that he is some kind of purer and more enlightened soul with all of the answers to lead the unwashed masses towards enlightenment.

https://theadultman.com/love-and-lust/gamma-male/

This is why you must always denounce the primal masculinity that you yourself don't have and disingenuously conflate it with hood nigga masculinity and "degeneracy" without any attention to nuance while promoting your own brand of beta masculinity as the only "moral" option. You simply wish to demonize and discredit the qualities of men who are more successful than you in dating and society since you are unable to accept your relatively low position in the sociosexual hierarchy and inwardly believe that you deserve a higher position.

You make a big show of empathy and compassion - and you are indeed an empathic guy -, but I'm not buying the idea that empathy and compassion are your only motivation. I'm sure that you have selfish motivations too, just like everyone else, and that the expansion of your own social power and that of other males who share your own characteristics (i.e., your own "ingroup") strongly figures into the equation. Everybody is motivated by power to some degree even if they don't want to admit to it.

Back to the topic of primal masculinity, I stand by my recommendation that guys who want to attract women should consciously cultivate such traits. It will make them a more complete man (I actually believe that the unmasculine nerdy beta type is a deficient type of man since he lacks primal masculine instincts). I am trying to offer guys practical solutions for attracting women, not fantasy solutions along the lines of whitewashed medieval theocracies.

BWAHAHAHA!!
You are right!!!
Thats the million dollar answer right there!!
The beta male is defiantly a deficient type of man
Deficient because they lack a pair of testosterone laden balls!!!

Outcast is even lower than a beta on the sexual pecking order???
Priceless

[MrMan]

I am not in a relationship though, I can’t commit adultery if there’s no one to commit adultery on.

It needs to keep being pointed out that adultery consists of a married woman having sex with someone other than her husband. It is not possible to commit adultery "on" a woman.

Probably what MrMan was referring to was a misconstruction of what Jesus said to Pharisees about marriage.

Matthew 19
9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
(NKJV)

Look how Jesus used 'adultery.'

[Cornfed]

I am not in a relationship though, I can’t commit adultery if there’s no one to commit adultery on.

It needs to keep being pointed out that adultery consists of a married woman having sex with someone other than her husband. It is not possible to commit adultery "on" a woman.

Probably what MrMan was referring to was a misconstruction of what Jesus said to Pharisees about marriage.

Matthew 19
9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
(NKJV)

Look how Jesus used 'adultery.'

He is clearly being more metaphorical there in addressing remarriage rather than sex. If the wife were to have sex, as would presumably happen at some time, then because she would in a sense be still married to the original man then that would be adultery, which Jesus is holding the man, as the instigator of the divorce, responsible for.

[MrMan]

I am not in a relationship though, I can’t commit adultery if there’s no one to commit adultery on.

It needs to keep being pointed out that adultery consists of a married woman having sex with someone other than her husband. It is not possible to commit adultery "on" a woman.

Probably what MrMan was referring to was a misconstruction of what Jesus said to Pharisees about marriage.

Matthew 19
9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
(NKJV)

Look how Jesus used 'adultery.'

He is clearly being more metaphorical there in addressing remarriage rather than sex. If the wife were to have sex, as would presumably happen at some time, then because she would in a sense be still married to the original man then that would be adultery, which Jesus is holding the man, as the instigator of the divorce, responsible for.

That explains the second part. Calling the first part just 'metaphorical' if your intent is to diminish it is a cop-out.

Be that as it may, just for plain ol' fornication, I Thessalonians 4, addressing the church, teaches that God gets vengence on those who defraud in such a way. Also, fornicators are listed among those who do not inherit the kingdom of God in I Corinthians 6. And there is a special warning to those who would fornicate with a prostitute.

[Cornfed]

Be that as it may, just for plain ol' fornication, I Thessalonians 4, addressing the church, teaches that God gets vengence on those who defraud in such a way. Also, fornicators are listed among those who do not inherit the kingdom of God in I Corinthians 6. And there is a special warning to those who would fornicate with a prostitute.

You have to take context into account here and not over-generalise. Paul was talking to Christian evangelists and advising them not to get a reputation as drunken perverts. That is good advice for them, not a particular prescription for everyone. If we take Paul at his word then he thought ideally men should be celibate. Clearly he was talking about the men whose calling it was to spread the Gospel, not everyone. What are you going to believe - your misconstruction of Paul's letters uesd to rationalise evil feminist bullshit or the observed nature of how functional human society, including societies under Mosaic and Christian law, actually work?

[MrMan]

Be that as it may, just for plain ol' fornication, I Thessalonians 4, addressing the church, teaches that God gets vengence on those who defraud in such a way. Also, fornicators are listed among those who do not inherit the kingdom of God in I Corinthians 6. And there is a special warning to those who would fornicate with a prostitute.

You have to take context into account here and not over-generalise. Paul was talking to Christian evangelists and advising them not to get a reputation as drunken perverts. That is good advice for them, not a particular prescription for everyone.

What are you talking about? The audience is the church, not specifically Christian evangelists. This isn't I Timothy or Titus. You obviously did not read the chapter before you commented, and you obviously are not familiar with the book. Chapter 5 has his instructions to shun someone who was sleeping with his stepmother and the need for the congregation to judge such a man. Chapter 6 goes on to talk about the need to have judges among themselves to judge cases rather than taking cases before non-Christian authorities, and goes into sins of those who shall not inherit the kingdom of God, followed by a more specific case against sex with prostitutes. Chapter 7 talks about marriage versus celibacy.

If we take Paul at his word then he thought ideally men should be celibate.

He said every man should have his own wife and every woman her own husband to prevent fornication, though he wished that all men were as himself. He gives serving the Lord more fully as a reason for celibacy, but does not require that of everyone. Those who cannot contain should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn. He doesn't limit celibacy for evangelists.

Clearly he was talking about the men whose calling it was to spread the Gospel, not everyone. What are you going to believe - your misconstruction of Paul's letters uesd to rationalise evil feminist bullshit or the observed nature of how functional human society, including societies under Mosaic and Christian law, actually work?

You would benefit from actually reading the Bible before commenting on it.

[Cornfed]

He said every man should have his own wife and every woman her own husband to prevent fornication, though he wished that all men were as himself. He gives serving the Lord more fully as a reason for celibacy, but does not require that of everyone. Those who cannot contain should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn. He doesn't limit celibacy for evangelists.

If you interpret it that way then clearly his ideal is for the world to be a sterile death cult and therefore he is a false prophet. The only rational meaning to take is that his recommendations are for some men spreading the good word while normal men live differently. This is evidently how the early and later church understood things given that they didn't seek to ban prostitution and such.

[MrMan]

He said every man should have his own wife and every woman her own husband to prevent fornication, though he wished that all men were as himself. He gives serving the Lord more fully as a reason for celibacy, but does not require that of everyone. Those who cannot contain should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn. He doesn't limit celibacy for evangelists.

If you interpret it that way then clearly his ideal is for the world to be a sterile death cult and therefore he is a false prophet. The only rational meaning to take is that his recommendations are for some men spreading the good word while normal men live differently. This is evidently how the early and later church understood things given that they didn't seek to ban prostitution and such.

There is no requirement that evangelists had to be celibate. Philip the evangelist had four daughters who prophesied. Apparently, he had had sex. Peter, the apostle, had a mother-in-law. So apparently he was married, and I would imagine he'd had sex with his wife.

And it doesn't say that only evangelists who wanted to devote more of their time to the Lord and not be distracted with family would choose celibacy. There are many ways to serve the Lord.

Paul said that it is better to marry than to burn. I am pretty sure in every generation there are plenty of people who 'burn' if they did not have sex, or marry, or have family. I think I fell in that category. These are strong urges. A small percentage may be drawn to celibacy. Roman Catholicism organized a lot of the celibacy into the monastic system. I think it was the 1200s I was looking at some writing about the population of England around 1% of the population were monks. In the west, that pope had required priestly celibacy instead of marriage. (Paul had written about being the 'husband of one wife' in regard to the church overseership role.) I don't know what percent were priests. I would imagine the marrying part of the population must have been significant... at least it was enough for us to exist.

Marriage is a much better solution for keeping the human race going that sex with prostitutes.

[Cornfed]

He said every man should have his own wife and every woman her own husband to prevent fornication, though he wished that all men were as himself. He gives serving the Lord more fully as a reason for celibacy, but does not require that of everyone. Those who cannot contain should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn. He doesn't limit celibacy for evangelists.

If you interpret it that way then clearly his ideal is for the world to be a sterile death cult and therefore he is a false prophet. The only rational meaning to take is that his recommendations are for some men spreading the good word while normal men live differently. This is evidently how the early and later church understood things given that they didn't seek to ban prostitution and such.

There is no requirement that evangelists had to be celibate. Philip the evangelist had four daughters who prophesied. Apparently, he had had sex. Peter, the apostle, had a mother-in-law. So apparently he was married, and I would imagine he'd had sex with his wife.

And it doesn't say that only evangelists who wanted to devote more of their time to the Lord and not be distracted with family would choose celibacy. There are many ways to serve the Lord.

Paul said that it is better to marry than to burn. I am pretty sure in every generation there are plenty of people who 'burn' if they did not have sex, or marry, or have family. I think I fell in that category. These are strong urges. A small percentage may be drawn to celibacy. Roman Catholicism organized a lot of the celibacy into the monastic system. I think it was the 1200s I was looking at some writing about the population of England around 1% of the population were monks. In the west, that pope had required priestly celibacy instead of marriage. (Paul had written about being the 'husband of one wife' in regard to the church overseership role.) I don't know what percent were priests. I would imagine the marrying part of the population must have been significant... at least it was enough for us to exist.

Marriage is a much better solution for keeping the human race going that sex with prostitutes.

To restate the issue, all throughout the Bible and all throughout Christian society, prostitution (and alcohol) has been fine. The only thing apparently against it you can point to is Paul. But the question is, was Paul addressing people generally or just the small foundling Christian communities? Since celibacy was his recommendation, albeit not his prescription, for men, we could conclude that either he was a nutcase or he was speaking to a small group of people at the time rather than everyone, which the Church seems to have understood.

This is of course commonplace. For example, when the Quakers were given control over Pennsylvania, they didn't attempt to be pacifists as the government and nor did they impose Quakerism on everyone. It was understood that Quakerism was for people in a certain situation, just like Paul's sexual mores, and it is important not to over-generalise.

[Cornfed]

The apostle Paul was obviously some sort of mangina if he meant for celibacy to be some sort of ideal state of being. If he truly meant that, it sort of invalidates everything he said.

Right, but you could sort of defend it for Christian men on a mission to spread the good word at that time. Paul's claim to fame is as the world's greatest ever salesman, and that is how he should be understood.

[publicduende]

This is a good take on the subject, courtesy of the Usual Suspect, PJW.

[Outcast9428]

@MarcosZeitola and @Cornfed I think celibacy is just as toxic as degeneracy is, maybe even worse. Love is the greatest feeling in the entire world, nothing comes close to it. The biggest reason why I hate degeneracy is because it seeks to replace love. Sadomasochism seeks to replace loving, affectionate sex with painful, violent sex, and hookups seek to replace loving relationships with short term, casual, and selfish affairs. But lifelong celibacy would be even worse Not by very much in my opinion. I don't consider hookups to be a whole lot better then just being celibate. If I had to create a list of dystopias, I'd probably rank it this way...

Sadomasochistic sex only as being the most dystopian nightmare imaginable. Even lifelong celibacy is better then that.
Lifelong celibacy.
Hookups only.

Apparently the naturalist philosophy of the 15th century felt the same way, that lifelong celibacy was basically an abomination. It is a thoroughly soulless and wasted life.

I do agree with Cornfed that you need legal prostitution, and the vast majority of Christian societies have had legal prostitution so the idea that there is a special warning against prostitutes doesn't make much sense to me... Especially given that St. Augustine said you need legal prostitution in society or you will create a much worse situation.

That being said, I think there's a proper way to use prostitutes and a degenerate way. I think its okay if a man is lonely, single, and is starved of female company. I think its degenerate when somebody uses prostitutes because they don't want to fall in love with a girl or if they are using prostitutes to cheat on their wife. On that issue, I agree with @MrMan. Adultery is a horrible thing to do to either a man or a woman. No man who loves his wife would ever sleep with a prostitute to "get some side action" or whatever. The fact that the man even wants "side action" to begin with shows that he does not love his wife. I believe that is what Jesus meant when he said "looking upon another woman with lust is committing adultery in your heart."

I have heard other Christians use that verse to act like men who watch porn when they are single are committing a sin... I think that's a huge stretch. Violent, fetishy or extreme pornography on the other hand, should not be looked at under any circumstances.

@MrMan, you will be happy to know that as of today, I am watching no more porn. At all. Because I have started dating a girl who is pretty much already treating this like a committed relationship. Like I did last time I was in a relationship, I will not take any actions which may lead my heart astray. Being so committed to my last girlfriend gave me a feeling of spiritual bliss that I believe I can find with this girl too.