Your Ideal Relationship Arrangement

[Ahriman]

If you aren't implying harm, then I don't understand you argument.

We agree, I take it, that such an encounter would be pleasurable.

So it seems to me that I am saying that having a partner (with all that rich non-shit sex) + also having pleasurable cheap shit sex is better than only having a partner, yet you seem to disagree but have no case to undermine my hedonic calculus here.  Rich + cheap is still better than just rich, if there's zero harm/downside yes?

So, you must be implying that there's some harm in casual sexual encounters for your disapproval to make sense.  Can you explain what that harm is?

Wrong again. A meaningful encounter is far more satisfying than your cheap meaningless ones.

What is a "meaningful encounter"

[energizer bunny]

Compatibility is important. I don't want to live with anyone. I don't want marriage or kids either. 

Probably someone who has experienced and been thru a lot and learned and grown from that.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Wellll, me and some other sailors rented a house in Puerto Rico that walking distance to the Phosphorescent Bay (hot tourist spot.) We got ladies wandering in and out. We had a five bedroom place with lots of room for fun activities as required. Old guy was 29. I was 25.

And did all that promote your ideal self ?

Too late. I'd already discovered I had nothing to be modest about while I was in high school.

[Bucky Ball]

And did all that promote your ideal self ?

Too late. I'd already discovered I had nothing to be modest about while I was in high school.

As did I, but (very respectfully) you did not answer my question. 
It's quite possible that we really have "no issues", but having been raised in a very liberal, yet very Catholic "moral"
environment, with my "protector" (great granny) who "got" that having all the *good genes* of her handsome family, (she was afriad I would be taken advantage of), 
I was somewhat vulnerable, I am forever "skewed" by that, (which I am fine with). I had a contract with Eileen Ford when I was 16, 
when I ran away from military high school and hitch-hiked across the country back home. I had applied to an Ivy League college before that, 
(as my very adolescent plan), and when I showed up home, they grounded me "for the rest of your life" LOL, but said, "if you really got into (the Ivy League)
we will agree with your plan". Seems to have worked out for me.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

By that time I was uninterested in that. I was alive despite the best efforts of a lot of people, starting with my father. By the time I got to PR I was quietly happy.

[FrustratedFool]

All sex is pretty unsatisfying.

You've never had a basket fuck in Rio.

True, I haven't, lol
But I suspect I would be unsatisfied.  I don't have many nerve endings.

[FrustratedFool]

All sex is pretty unsatisfying.
But partner sex plus casual sex seems to offer the most likelihood of satisfaction.

Maybe you’re doing it wrong.

Boru

Entirely possible.

[FrustratedFool]

If you aren't implying harm, then I don't understand you argument.

We agree, I take it, that such an encounter would be pleasurable.

So it seems to me that I am saying that having a partner (with all that rich non-shit sex) + also having pleasurable cheap shit sex is better than only having a partner, yet you seem to disagree but have no case to undermine my hedonic calculus here.  Rich + cheap is still better than just rich, if there's zero harm/downside yes?

So, you must be implying that there's some harm in casual sexual encounters for your disapproval to make sense.  Can you explain what that harm is?

Wrong again. A meaningful encounter is far more satisfying than your cheap meaningless ones.

I don't have any cheap meaningless ones.  They are all meaningful and rich.  Casual doesn't have to be without feeling or meaning or complexity.
Additionally, rich + cheap is still more than just rich. So when you say I'm wrong, you are actually wrong. Which is interesting.

[FrustratedFool]

This answer will probably be very unpopular, and might even get come condescending responses.

My ideal situation would be some dream like situation where I have lots of good looking women who are loyal to me who are into the same interests as me and do the things I want to do.

Before anyone says I'm immature for this, I don't actually aim for this in life, I realise that would be insane.

Also kind or an unpopular opinion is that I think most men want sex with as many beautiful women as possible to an extent.

Southpark kind of did an episode on this were men were pretending they were confused by male celebrities having as much sex as possible and calling it sex addiction, when in reality if most men had the options these celebrities had they would take it.

But to give a more practical non dream world answer, my life is unfortunately too busy and I have sleep problems so a stable normal relationship is tough for me. I meet up every now and again with 3 women I know. I've been doing that this year. I've been pretty satisfied with that, and I've been talking to one of them nearly daily on the phone. I met her on a swingers site so we both see other people.
One thing I really wish for that would be more ideal is I wish I knew more active people, not even in terms of people I know romantically but most female or male friends I know don't do anything physical, walking, exercising, running, climbing or anything.

I agree, I think most want a harem.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think my family was too female heavy for me to escape childhood thinking that a harem would be swell. I know better.

My ideal arrangement is pretty close to the one I have. One life, one man, one woman, lots of kids. Could use more fuckin money though.