Obviously this post is in response to my a couple of my latest posts and the latest controversy here with the Bro knight circlejerk. So I'll respond.
This post is total strawman vote-grabbing. And I'm a huge fan of you, IM. But all you're trying to do is play to the crowd here.
"don't judge my immorality, really it's amoral because existential nihilism and science!"
"fucking up peoples families is fine"
Really, dude? No one has said that ever. And obviously if someone did, they'd be full of shit obviously. All you're trying to do is label one side of the argument with false-flags, because obviously no one likes hypocrites and everyone will be galvanized against it.
So do I agree with your premise? 100% yes. But it's too bad your premise is faulty, because no one is saying "go around and ruin other people's lives on purpose because there is no such thing as morality!".
What sexual strategy is amoral means is that peoples' MOTIVATIONS in the sexual marketplace are not dependent on morality. It doesn't mean that morality doesn't exist. It means morality lies outside the realm of sexual decisions.
That is why people cheat and lie in relationships. They know it's wrong, but there's other motivations that override their morality, which would otherwise be strong. Those factors are hypergamy, AFBB, etc, etc.
Anything is amorally justifiable, even theft and murder. You're not going to go around doing that now are you? No. Why? Because it will put you prison. But you won't get locked up for fucking people's wives, so you think you can justify the same kind of immorality due to a lack of legal sanction.
And this is a terrible analogy. Murder and theft are non-consentable crimes. The very definition of theft and murder means the victim didn't consent to having their life/stuff stolen away. When you sleep with a married/engaged woman, that woman DECIDED to do it to. You're relating a victimless (cheating) action with a victim (murder) action.
But there are no victims in cheating; the only "victim" in that situation is the cuckolded guy. And even then, he's not a real victim...because no where does anyone have a "right" to a fidelity/honest marriage. It's expected, but it's not a right you are taking away from someone.
I've fucked women with boyfriends (knowingly and unknowingly) - but not any married women.
Lastly this. This is perfectly fine and I've never said any different (if someone has actually labeled not wanting to cuckold as beta/bad/weak, then that's wrong obviously). That's what your comfortable with and that's great.
So where do you get off rationalizing MY own position as "needless destruction partaken in only to satisfy sadistic-narcissistic urges"?
You see what I'm getting at here? This is what I'm talking about with the bro-coders and the high morality circlejerk in TRP. They can't let bygones be bygones and say "hey you want to sleep with a woman...and she happens to be engaged...ok fine. I don't want to do that, but you can.".
Why does it always have to be some rationalized bullshit like "nihilistic tendencies to engage in destruction"? I don't go around saying refusing to cuckold is beta...so where do you get off saying engaging in cuckolding is immoral destruction?