Clara

Ok one of the crusaders suggested for me to have a look at some Julian_Garrett bot that had an essay about how being a cuck is a good thing. I am usually not into doing this, and I have not done this since college, but fuck it, here is my essay on why everything he wrote is pseudo anthropology bullshit. I will respond point by point, since this is a counter-argument.

First thing is the usual tactic of buttering us up by saying "I am not normalizing cheating, I just want to talk about it..." but he does normalize cheating in the entire text, SHM. That line was just a rhetorical condom, meant to protect himself from actual criticism. Look dude, if you need a three paragraph disclaimer before talking about your kink, maybe that kink actually has ethical baggage you are trying to dodge.

Then he goes to "fantasies are harmless" and yeah I agree. People can explore anything in fiction without being criminals, sure. But he goes into a lapse in reason when he assumes that criticizing the fantasy means criticizing real people. My guy, nobody is saying you cannot fantasize. The problem is when you pretend your fetish is some universal psychological truth that we all secretly share. Own your kink without trying to turn it into a fucking TED talk.

Next he's saying everyone is flawed, implying cheating is just another common flaw, and reducing critics to hypocrites. First, this is just rhetoric because it is a generalization of humanity as a whole as if everyone acted this way. Second, yes, people lie. No, not all lies are equal. And White lies are not the same as violating trust in a relationship. Telling my grandma she looks great is not in the same moral category as banging someone behind my girlfriend's back. Do not put everything in the same basket and then pretend morality is too complicated to understand.

Then he tries to use the classic "humans have always done XYZ". He can only have been a liberal arts major (I was, so I know these types).

Ok so let us talk about the "swinging and polyamory and complex relationships are ancient as civilization" argument first. Ok so little bro lists orgies, harems, concubines, incest, prostitution, and ancient sexual customs as if they somehow validate cheating. Man, just because ancient civilizations did it does not magically convert betrayal into a morally neutral act. If the Romans jumped off a bridge and took six concubines with them, it does not become a blueprint for healthy relationships. In ancient times, societies where extramarital sex was permitted did it explicitly and it was negotiated by the participants, that's not betrayal. Now, I am not into polygamy, to each their own if it is consensual, but it is not because people in ancient times did it that it was ok. Two hundred years ago we had slavery, is it ok to bring it back because it was normal in human history for some time? Of fucking course not. Saying that if something existed thousands of years ago it must be normal or acceptable is a fallacy bro. Ancient Greece also normalized pederasty and Rome normalized slavery and public executions. If the best justification you can give for infidelity is "The Romans did it", you have already lost. The Romans also stabbed each other in the Senate. Should we bring that back too? Though maybe that would be good, I would like to watch that...

Now for the East and Middle Ages. Sorry but I do not know much about Eastern history, but what I know of the Middle Ages contradicts this a bit. Courtly love was fictional literature, NOT REAL MARRIAGE POLICY. At this point you are mixing real history with fantasies and outright misunderstandings. That's a blender of "stuff that sounds smart" to hide the fact you have no actual argument for cheating itself.

Next, he tries to equate fictional drama to NTR porn setups. The classic. NTR people love to do this, oh it is for the drama. I will tell you what I think of that at the end of this text. First things first, from someone that read Homer. The Iliad is not a relationship guide. Also, Shakespeare is not a marriage counselor. Literature uses infidelity because because it is painful and harmful. PAINFUL AND HARMFUL as in you should feel bad, not aroused by it. People do not love these stories because cheating is sexy. They love them because cheating is destructive. You cannot take tragedy as evidence that betrayal is a deep human truth.

If anything, Western canon proves the opposite. Infidelity devastates societies, families, and individuals. People have written about betrayal so much because humans naturally reject it and breaking that trust generates intense drama. Everything he listed is either coercive old world systems or consensual modern arrangements. Neither of those validate cheating. None of them turn infidelity into some ancient human truth. He is just throwing history trivia to distract from the fact that real betrayal destroys trust, period.

Then came this part: "Infidelity is the foundation of dramatic plots."

Bro, the fact that betrayal shows up in stories does not mean betrayal is neutral. It means it is destructive enough that people write tragedies about it. Drama exists because something went fucking wrong, not because that thing is secretly healthy. You are acting like the existence of infidelity in art proves its moral harmlessness. But it is the opposite. Cheating is used in fiction precisely because it creates pain and breakdown of trust. Writers choose betrayal because it is universally recognized as a moral violation.

And then came the statistics part, the easiest part to dismantle honestly. Ok let us break this down. Can porn reduce violent sexual crime? Yes. But what does that have to do with cheating? Bro, you are using studies about violent crime to defend emotional betrayal. Since when does "g*ape went down" mean "cheating is totally fine"? That is not logic. Then the USSR part which made me confused: USSR had no sex education, therefore discussing NTR is healthy. What the fuck type of reasoning is that? "Safe fantasy helps boundaries and prevents real harm" I agree with that, but nobody is attacking fantasies. I can fantasize about turning into a dragon, that does not mean I am going to burn down a village. But if I use my dragon fantasy to argue arson is natural human behavior, I am just coping. You feel me? Like, you do you, but admit you like that stuff because you're aroused, and don't gaslight people into thinking this is healthy and normal. This is a free country (assuming you're in America), you have the right to enjoy your kink, and I have the right to criticize it and say I disagree with it.

When it came to this line I was LMAO: "I myself have a very complex relationship with NTR. And I often lie that I hate it. That is not true. Sometimes consciously, sometimes not. Yes, this theme often triggers me." My man, you being aroused and upset at the same time does not make infidelity some deep human paradox. It just means you have a fetish with emotional charge. That's it. Something repressed probably. Lack of dignity, self worth, I have seen this in real life.

Next, we go to the section where Mr. Garrett begins to rant about being an artist. Dude, we make porn bots, get a fucking grip.

I am going to just get this done quickly because I am tired of reading this, it is giving me a migraine with so much mental gymnastics. So basically, he says he thinks violating user agency is bad, and then he proceeds to take it away anyway because you know, he is an NTR bot maker, you know their ilk.

Next, he claims NTR bots should not impose emotions on the user, but my dude NTR is literally structured to make the user suffer, so there is no argument there. It is funny he suddenly cares about not telling the user how they feel. Where was that energy 30 paragraphs ago?

And the classic for NTR bot makers, he gets angry when users moralize cheating to him. Aw, that is so cute, you get ahhngry? You don't like criticism when your bot is the equivalent of spitting or giving a slap to the face? Basically, he does not want morality imposed on HIM, but he just spent an entire essay doing mental gymnastics to impose his morality on everyone else. The only morality that bothers him is the one that goes against his kink.

Now the final straw, he claims this is art. My reaction:

Every dude defending a problematic kink suddenly becomes an artist. No man, you are writing fetish bots, this is a fucking NSFW site (and there is nothing wrong with that). It is okay to admit that without turning it into a fucking manifesto. Just accept yourself and stop trying to defend this junk.

Removed all the free use garbage and left the exhibitionist stuff.