Views on Netorare

[Deleted member 609064]

That's fine. The comment was meant not for you, but to advise other people to take it with a grain of salt and if they're interested about the topic, look at what anthropologists say and not a couple of psychologists working outside their field.

I find it interesting (and a little sad) how upset people can become when their perception of sexual norms are challenged, and this applies to anthropologists too.

This point is very relevant to how NTR is regarded by some folks. Not furries, not incest, not rape. NTR gets the worst reception among a certain audience, a response that seems wholly disproportionate to that which any other fetishes attract.

Of course mainstream anthropologists don't like this work. It questions many of their unproven hypotheses which have become accepted fact through the use of counter-evidence about the traditions and nature of human sexuality.

The church does not suffer heretics gladly.

I make it a point to read anything that people try to warn me away from, as though opinions and knowledge may be dangerous and that my mind can't handle particular ideas., which is a condescending and patronizing approach for anyone to take. It will inevitably lead to the "

You must be registered to see the links

".

 

[karlsberg]

I make it a point to read anything that people try to warn me away from, as though opinions and knowledge may be dangerous and that my mind can't handle particular ideas., which is a condescending and patronizing approach for anyone to take. It will inevitably lead to the "

You must be registered to see the links

".

What I warned people from is taking the book for granted without examining what the mainstream science says. That you're willing to accept their claims despite their lack of rigor in the face of scientific consensus, and your aggressive response to my nondescript criticism of the book betrays your own confirmation bias.

I don't know who's right, I'm not a researcher, but for me it seems hard to argue that we're more like bonobos if virtually every culture has adopted monogamy in one fashion or another regardless of whether they are agricultural or nomadic societies, tribal or industrial. In fact the few examples of polygamy or somesuch we have themselves seem more a result of environmental conditions or a cultural quirk than the monogamous ones and I haven't heard of any that would be very bonobo-like in their supposed lack of conflict.

How this relates to NTR is of course that people will cling to research they don't actually care about to justify their fetishes, opinions on relationships and own social behavior.

As to most hated fetishes, furries and lolicon get hated on a lot, probably more than NTR fans. I think rape doesn't get that much hate because everyone including rape fetishists understand that it's kind of fucked up, so there's a lot less justification going on. The paradox of NTR is that quite a lot of vocal NTR critics are themselves consumers of it. It seemingly has this weird addictive property on top of standard porn addiction. People talk about not being able to "go back" after discovering NTR and loving it despite understanding how fucked up it is. That's the more interesting part not the hate, which is very easy to explain.

 

[Deleted member 609064]

What I warned people from is taking the book for granted without examining what the mainstream science says.

Scientific consensus used to be that the earth was the center of the universe. That pregnant women smoking was acceptable (just 70 years ago). Scientific consensus is a nonsensical term because science is never an absolute. We're always learning new things and revising old ideas.

That you're willing to accept their claims despite their lack of rigor in the face of scientific consensus, and your aggressive response to my nondescript criticism of the book betrays your own confirmation bias.

We all have a bias. We're human. If I am misunderstanding sexuality due to modern norms tied to incorrect ideas about property and agriculture (mostly generated for social control in a civilization that we were never designed for), that don't actually reflect the reality and dynamism of human sexual relationships, then I will make mistakes and end up unhappy with how my sexual life plays out. And I don't want to be unhappy and unsuccessful.

I have read the book, and thus feel qualified to talk about it. Give it a read and get back to me by private message if you like.

 

[karlsberg]

We're always learning new things and revising old ideas.

Very true, scientific consensus changes based on new theories and findings that get reviewed by the academic community. And the one presented in Sex at Dawn has so far failed to make an impression, there are several articles that explain why. I warn you not to read them.

 

[Deleted member 609064]

I warn you not to read them.

My friend, I don't fear knowledge or disagreement.

 

[desmosome]

Scientific consensus used to be that the earth was the center of the universe. That pregnant women smoking was acceptable (just 70 years ago). Scientific consensus is a nonsensical term because science is never an absolute. We're always learning new things and revising old ideas.


We all have a bias. We're human. If I am misunderstanding sexuality due to modern norms tied to incorrect ideas about property and agriculture (mostly generated for social control in a civilization that we were never designed for), that don't actually reflect the reality and dynamism of human sexual relationships, then I will make mistakes and end up unhappy with how my sexual life plays out. And I don't want to be unhappy and unsuccessful.

I have read the book, and thus feel qualified to talk about it. Give it a read and get back to me by private message if you like.

It's dangerous to assume you are somehow onto something which the entire scientific community got wrong, or even more absurdly, that there is some giant conspiracy covering up this novel idea that would change the world.

For every Galileo, there are a thousand assholes claiming something bogus like perpetual motion machines. Furthermore, the scientific community and of the scientific method is obviously much more refined that what it was long ago. The scientific method evolved through time, since Aristotle and even before, to the more empirical and experimental methods we see nowadays. Galileo was actually somewhere in the turning point and could be seen as a pioneer. Anyways, he was mainly persecuted by the church and religious community, rather than the scientific one.

The other point about smoking ignores the historical nuance as well. Humans are not clairvoyant. The scientific and medical community can't know about problems that didn't arise yet. Cigarettes that we know today really took off around the mid 90s. There wouldn't have been wide spread health issues associated with it until then. The first cigarettes were even designed to not be inhaled (like cigars). Anyways, when everyone was smoking and getting cancer and other health issues, there was a fight with the cig companies. Again, it's not really the scientific community trying to bar knowledge, but other spheres of influence.

Basically, this argument that the scientific consensus is sometimes wrong is disingenuous and is pretty much used by pseudo intellectuals to push their viewpoint.

You must be registered to see the links

from IASIP comes to mind lol. Of course, the scientific consensus can change as new ideas and observations are brought forth and scrutinized by the community. That is exactly how it's intended to work. If the research has sound methodology and reproducibility, it will be able to get people on it's side. If the overwhelming majority refutes it, well, the likelihood that you are talking out of your ass is exponentially higher than everyone else being wrong.

I did not read this book, nor am I interested in any way. I read the summary and a few reviews from the goodreads link and have a decent understanding of the type of content. The other guy mentioning pop science was probably right on the money. One review even names a book called Sex at Dusk, which refutes the original book using the same sources, showing that the authors of Sex at Dawn cherry picked what they wanted from these research papers. Which one is true? I don't know. I don't care, lol.

None of this even has anything to do with NTR in the first place. I honestly fail to see even the smallest connection here. So if prehistoric humans were communal fuckers, we should take that as some kind of signal to fight against the expectations of monogamy? The fuck kinda logic is that? Besides, polygamy, cheating, swinging, willing cuck, and everything that happens in real life is not "NTR" as in the fetish.

If your girl cheats on you, then she cheated on you. If you get cheated on and the thought that comes to your mind is "FUUUCK, I just got NTRed," you have some issues. If she "trades up" because a better man came along, then well, you probably fucked up long ago or she a fickle hoe. That's just how relationships go sometimes. You didn't get NTRed lol. The keyword in NTR is "stolen." In the context of the fetish, it is also essentially tied at the waste with corruption and moral degeneration. We are talking about a good girl who is corrupted by some fucker, eventually leaving you (bonus points for leaving you a DVD of her training). She didn't sign up for this. She just can't help it because the female instincts overrides moral and common sense when faced with a alpha dick. The MC is of such weak mentality that he feels jealous and sometimes aroused at this turn of events. If this kind of hentai shit happens to you in real life, you got some real issues.

People cheat all the time, yes. But normal cheating leads to break up. If you got cheated on, you would kick her to the curb immediately. You would be pissed off. You won't be jealous that she got dicked by some alpha dude. You won't stay in this abusive relationship. You won't be aroused. You won't feel bad for leaving this hoe. The girl also has agency in all of this. She's not being "stolen" by some alpha dude swooping in and molesting her pussy til she cums. NTR is a rather specific type of story that is constructed with maximum porn tropes and fantasy logic to make it hot for people who like this type of immorality. It's not a catch all term for any instance of a second dick appearing in your vicinity.

 

[Ero - Sennin]

I just like Netorase like in Atelier Sakura's cuckolding report series or any mystery NTR a where the woman is the one cheating and seducing another guy. Don't like it if the NTR guy is a rapist, asshole or a dominating bastard

 

[sprsthrn]

its not the NTR thats bad yeah people cheat its a fact of life, but its that whole "Been Raped and fall in Love with the Rapist thing"

every single NTR always seems to have an Alpha and a Beta and the MC is always the beta...

Netori MC is normally painted as a Beta, saving the girl form a overspent Alpha
Netorare MC is a Beta or lower a Simp, most h-animes about are like this Oblivious MC
Netorase, Shame play ultimate humilation kinda thing

whats the one where the dude know shes cheating but doesn't care about it or is that part of Netorare

 

[Trapitalism101]

its not the NTR thats bad yeah people cheat its a fact of life, but its that whole "Been Raped and fall in Love with the Rapist thing"

every single NTR always seems to have an Alpha and a Beta and the MC is always the beta...

Netori MC is normally painted as a Beta, saving the girl form a overspent Alpha
Netorare MC is a Beta or lower a Simp, most h-animes about are like this Oblivious MC
Netorase, Shame play ultimate humilation kinda thing

whats the one where the dude know shes cheating but doesn't care about it or is that part of Netorare

Netorase I think is what that falls under. In the west it would fall under hotwifing I think.

 

[thunderveins69]

A sex game without NTR is like playing Big Rigs over the Road Racing. You cannot lose because there is no opponent. The only thing waiting for you is You're Winner.

 

[ChaosOpen]

A sex game without NTR is like playing Big Rigs over the Road Racing. You cannot lose because there is no opponent. The only thing waiting for you is You're Winner.

Most rational people break up with a person when the realtionship isn't working out, not pretend to like them while fucking someone else behind their back...

 

[thunderveins69]

Most rational people break up with a person when the realtionship isn't working out, not pretend to like them while fucking someone else behind their back...

When you are driving backwards with warp drive velocity engines against a still opponent, sometimes you lose your sense of reality. Especially if all you see is You're Winner.

 

[Virulenz]

Only losers want to be winners. Games are for entertainment. If you only have fun in competition do sports, get to work, win the heart of a whore or play ego shooters. Adult games are for fun, not to stress or disgust the players.

 

[greenlittleman]

Most rational people break up with a person when the realtionship isn't working out, not pretend to like them while fucking someone else behind their back...

You assume that most people cheat when a "relationship isn't working out" which can't be farther from the truth. Nope. In most cases, men cheat for sexual variety, and women cheat because they find someone better but this someone isn't willing to date them seriously. As a man, you can have the girl of your dreams and still feel attracted to other women. In fact, the longer you are dating your perfect girl, the less you'll find her desirable because for men sex is about variety and novelty—otherwise, we all would just find "the best porn game" or "the best porn video" and watch only them. Instead, we play new games and watch new porn EVEN if it isn't as good as other games and videos we've seen in the past. Do you stop playing an amazing porn game because it becomes shit? No, you stop playing it because you got bored with playing just one game. The same happens in dating. You don't need to pretend to like someone while cheating. You can totally love someone and cheat on them, it's more about your moral compass than your feelings for someone.

As for women, biologically, their sexual strategy is to find a man with good genes and to find a good provider. Guess what, those men are pretty much always different people. So yeah. People don't usually cheat because their relationships don't work out (though it happens sometimes). They cheat because a monogamous relationship is unlikely to satisfy your every need just by its design. Humans aren't monogamous by nature. What we have is serial monogamy with elements of polygamy and hypergamy. Serial means that we're supposed to change partners every 5 years or so.

 

[Nullx54]

Don't care about NTR.

 

[Virulenz]

greenlittleman
That depends strongly on definitions. For me cheating and relationships are not about sex. Big sis and i are together since my 6. birthday, there was never an other girl in our hearts, but we both have sex with whoever we want, be it some random one time pussy, monthly girls only orgies or female friends with benefits over decades, it dont matters at all. I also wouldnt care if we stumble over a girl who is more than that for one or both of us, it just never happend and we are happy together. All i care about are our feelings for each other. Thats also why i dont understand/like real ntr...in this forum ntr is whenever someone fucks and the protagonist is not involved. True ntr is strong jealousy, real cheating, forced watching rape of your beloved ones, works often hand in hand with blackmail...ntr is a deep, dark emotional tag, not that lukewarm watersoup that gets served here...well, i dont know jealousy or emotional cheating because i never experienced it, but reading it is annoying and boring as hell...and i hate rape and blackmail in general, thats just the lowest level humans can fall without starting a war. So i dont play games with these tags and cant say much about them, but we run a woman shelter irl and i heard enough horrors for 22 lives to develop some hard to control bloodlust...and i really cant understand why (allegedly) sane people can make or play games with that topic at all. Anyway, people who give up their freedom to stay physically loyal to one partner may be less open in games too. For me it dont matters if girls have fun with other girls, not in games and not in reality, but i could never accept a dick, again neither in games or reality. Some people play "from outside" and watch the story unfold, but most people play the protagonist and cant handle the stuff they cant handle irl...and i guess lots of people dont enjoy losing their partners or see them suffering/breaking.

 

[Jaike]

A sex game without NTR is like playing Big Rigs over the Road Racing. You cannot lose because there is no opponent. The only thing waiting for you is You're Winner.

Talking about winning or losing is quite meaningless for KNs and many VNs. Besides people play adult games for different reasons, if some want to have pure escapism or indulge in some fantasy then that is totally fine. Personally I don't mind some gameplay and consequences for losing as long as the grind and difficulty aren't too high. But NTR is a particularly heavyhanded consequence for losing. There are alternatives that will make more sense most of the time, because NTR usually means any semblance of plausibility is thrown out of the window.

 

[karlsberg]

You can totally love someone and cheat on them, it's more about your moral compass than your feelings for someone

If we have feelings for someone our moral compass tells us not to cheat. Cheating generally is seen as a major breach of trust and intimacy so we don't do that to our loved ones. I thought it was common knowledge even to people who've never been in a loving relationship.

 

[greenlittleman]

If we have feelings for someone our moral compass tells us not to cheat. Cheating generally is seen as a major breach of trust and intimacy so we don't do that to our loved ones. I thought it was common knowledge even to people who've never been in a loving relationship.

Have you ever heard about swinging? It all depends on what you define as "cheating". If it's having sex with someone else then it's one thing. If it's about the actual betrayal of trust it's another. It also depends on what you define as love. There're different types of love. You can love someone as family and still cheat because you aren't satisfied sexually. Well duh.

 

[karlsberg]

It really doesn't matter what type of love we have for the person. All of them predicate that we don't want them to be hurt. So if we know or suspect that cheating, here defined as sex without the partner knowing or consenting (I don't see why other definitions should be brought in, we're talking about ntr), would hurt your partner, the moral compass would tell you not to do it. We of course don't always follow our moral compass, but that is a question of our personal integrity and ability to empathize.