Jack would have been fine if he didn't react the way he did. When that article was written, it was a different time. At the time that article was written the manosphere was less "male improvement and empowerment" and more "strong men degrade and use women, which is what they want and deserve". Talking about pimping your girlfriend or making her having sex with multiple men is at the top of the kind of misogyny and outrage baiting that was common in the manosphere then. There's a reason why he talks about "raping her anytime he wants". It's deliberately misogynistic and provacative. Seeing her as just a hole he can share is the same way. The only step beyond that are the guys who wrote about providing "physical discipline" to their girls.
The phrase "the sexual marketplace is amoral" and variations of it were popular. The sexual marketplace was seen largely as a set of unemotional financial and sexual transactions. The goal was to sound as sociopathic and non-traditional as possible to reject a society that has trained men to lose.
Although I never bought into this shit specifically, as someone who was "around back then" I totally get why Jack wrote this article and what he was aiming for.
The smaller issue is he didn't reach the level of sociopathy required, still referring to her as a girlfriend and woman he loves rather than "a woman", "a plate" or "consistent conquest" like other guys did. The bigger issue is the way he reacts today reveals he was never that hard edge frame holding amoral dominant strong man; he's a completely whiny bitch who can't defend his previous actions. The type of man who he was pretending to be in that article would never respond that way. This fundamentally alters the interpretation of what he wrote.
How embarrassing. If he keeps this up he definitely needs a thread.
