Hello Friend,

If this is your first visit to SoSuave, I would advise you to START HERE.

It will be the most efficient use of your time.

And you will learn everything you need to know to become a huge success with women.

Thank you for visiting and have a great day!

Female promiscuity is good and bad

Pandora

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
1,923
Reaction score
1,741
Age
36
Women should be legally required to bang at least 10 different men each week so that everyone gets their fair share.
Lol within friend circles it often goes down like that. For example the military. Those girls get passed around like bongs.
 

AttackFormation

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
4,066
Reaction score
3,590
Age
28
Location
Sweden
Lol i hear you brotha. But the issue is that most girls are sluts or at least have the capacity to be sluts. So I am just exploring the idea that maybe sluts are the normal state of the female. Maybe it is us men who over idealize female sexuality. Maybe their baseline is being promiscuous and chastity is an abnormal deviation from the norm.

Western culture comes from puritanical roots. This may color the way we view female sexuality. Lets take a step back and analyze whether we are forcing women to be chaste. Maybe tribal promiscuity is adaptive, but it becomes maladaptive in the modern world where she can sleep with a whole city.

If you hang with attractive male friends your girlfriends do have sexual thoughts about them. Maybe this is part of the game. Just like we have sexual thoughts about her female friends. In our tribal past we all probably would have mated. This is just a thought.

For example my friends gf sent me a text yesterday wanting a 3 some with me and him. I think he is cool with it as long as there is a fresh girl involved for him. This is not uncommon. Girls homie hop a lot within the tribe.
The buddhist teaching of attachment as self destructive would be a healthier idea of human sexual relations than the attachment to attachment we currently have. The problem with our attachment is that it's based on events you cant realistically control or change, which then cause suffering. The abrahamic religions are a source of anti-happiness because they inculcate you with that attachment. They are incompatible with the kind of sexual liberation for humans we talk about in this thread, whereas buddhist attachment theory is in a great harmony with it.

To keep this post shorter ill only elaborate on one example, of attachment to the past. Out of the past, present and future, attachment to the past is the worst because it's the only one that can never be controlled or changed. When you are attached to a woman's past level of "sexual temperance", you are crucifying yourself and her. Once you condemn her as a "slut", you condemn your present and future to suffering negative feelings from something you couldnt choose and cant change, and even regardless of whether you actually like her in the present or not you will be dominated by negative thought.

As i implied, i believe that our civilisation being structured on the abrahamic religions is a big cause of this. They are effectively anti-happiness. With human sexual relations we need something more like buddhism. But this is hard to truly admit, because just like with the dark and light sides of the force, abrahamic attachment is much easier for us to keep practising. All it requires is emotions that are already comfortable, like pride and begrudgement, while developing buddhist freedom requires emotions like charity, forgiveness, patience and perhaps especially, humility.
 
Last edited:

AttackFormation

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
4,066
Reaction score
3,590
Age
28
Location
Sweden
Ok... the next example of negative attachment, is to the idea that a monogamous relationship should last forever. Imagine if humans lived forever, do you think it would be necessary for a monogamous relationship to last forever? Monogamy itself is not "wrong", it's a choice people can make if they want to, but burdening a monogamous relationship as needing to last forever is a negative attachment.

I think this realisation will also aid you in freeing yourself from attachment to their sexual pasts, because it helps promote the thinking that, like you said previously and i think is an excellent thought, we do not "possess" each other - and we dont need to. You bringing up that specific word is so phenomenal; it's exactly the root of negative attachment. Possession is so harmful to us because it's contrary to individualism. It is a dehumansation. When we deny someone's individuality, we deny their humanity, and this makes us suffer too because of the master-slave dialectic. Instead of possession we can enjoy the present, and appreciate the good qualities in whoever we are with.

But i dont know how feasible this is in a western culture, and the reason why is that our living arrangements are structured on an abrahamic pattern. Instead of living in compounds like a polygamous tribe would, taking care of the kids communally and sleeping in whatever bed we want to that night among our community, we live in these isolated living units that are based on the abrahamic notions of attachment. I think if we changed the way we lived, it would be much easier to deprogram our minds.
 
Last edited:

Pandora

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
1,923
Reaction score
1,741
Age
36
The buddhist teaching of attachment as self destructive would be a healthier idea of human sexual relations than the attachment to attachment we currently have. The problem with our attachment is that it's based on events you cant realistically control or change, which then cause suffering. The abrahamic religions are a source of anti-happiness because they inculcate you with that attachment. They are incompatible with the kind of sexual liberation for humans we talk about in this thread, whereas buddhist attachment theory is in a great harmony with it.

To keep this post shorter ill only elaborate on one example, of attachment to the past. Out of the past, present and future, attachment to the past is the worst because it's the only one that can never be controlled or changed. When you are attached to a woman's past level of "sexual temperance", you are crucifying yourself and her. Once you condemn her as a "slut", you condemn your present and future to suffering negative feelings from something you couldnt choose and cant change, and even regardless of whether you actually like her in the present or not you will be dominated by negative thought.

As i implied, i believe that our civilisation being structured on the abrahamic religions is a big cause of this. They are effectively anti-happiness. With human sexual relations we need something more like buddhism. But this is hard to truly admit, because just like with the dark and light sides of the force, abrahamic attachment is much easier for us to keep practising. All it requires is emotions that are already comfortable, like pride and begrudgement, while developing buddhist freedom requires emotions like charity, forgiveness, patience and perhaps especially, humility.
Bro this is such an awesome post. You worded it well. You are changing my mind on my previous stance. Non attachment might be the way to go. Just understand that the nuclear family will be extinct if we practice non attachment. This may be a good thing I dont know.
 

AttackFormation

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
4,066
Reaction score
3,590
Age
28
Location
Sweden
Bro this is such an awesome post. You worded it well. You are changing my mind on my previous stance. Non attachment might be the way to go. Just understand that the nuclear family will be extinct if we practice non attachment. This may be a good thing I dont know.
Thanks mate, weve talked about this before and i appreciate doing so. But what really switched the light on in my head was the word you used in the quotes below, "possession". That's the key word. It's freeing yourself from the idea of possession. She CANT be "your girl", because you cant possess another human, and trying to is self defeating. This is a message of liberation - you no longer have to cling on to those fears and anxieties, you and we are free.

The idea of the nuclear family as necessary will go, but the option to practice it will last. However those who practice it will see it as just an episode of their life that they experience, like a season or episode of a film series, and i think this is a good analogy for non attachment. If the nuclear family does go extinct, it will be because people felt such a greater harmony in the new arrangement that they felt no compelling reason to keep practising it.

Personally i will make a commitment to treating myself with these ideas, i truly believe they are for the best of us but that you must have some patience in the process of deprogramming and applying them, actually just like a buddhist monk would.

... imagine if we lived in a group and there was no concept of possession. In these tribes there are no personal possessions. Everyone shares. So there will be no jealousy because she was always for the tribe. It was community puzzy to begin with. To be honest we are getting back to those times ... This may have been the natural way all along.
No one fought over her or got jealous. This is a model that does "work". Maybe it is us that has elevated the status of female to this chaste princess. Maybe they are designed to be good time girls that occasionally get pregnant. Now its the clans child.

This idea of marriage is not natural. It came out of land ownership and being able to pass on possessions. So this means that ownership of another human is not natural.
 
Last edited:

image

"If you love women, you must read the SoSuave Guide to Women. It's fantastic!"

Pandora

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
1,923
Reaction score
1,741
Age
36
The idea of the nuclear family as necessary will go, but the option to practice it will last. However those who practice it will see it as just an episode of their life that they experience, like a season or episode of a film series, and i think this is a good analogy for non attachment. If the nuclear family does go extinct, it will be because people felt such a greater harmony in the new arrangement that they felt no compelling reason to keep practising it.
This is a new reality men must accept. Your family will inevitably be split apart. Everything will be seasonal. You are not the head of the house. It is just your turn. Like you said this may be more harmonious. Co parenting from different hoseholds is the future.
 

deadmasterx

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Mar 23, 2020
Messages
255
Reaction score
325
Location
Brazil
Right I agree. But imagine if we lived in a group and there was no concept of possession. In these tribes there are no personal possessions. Everyone shares. So there will be no jealousy because she was always for the tribe. It was community puzzy to begin with. To be honest we are getting back to those times. Men are realizing that the modern women is community puzzy. She is not your girl...it is just your turn. This may have been the natural way all along.
This is an aspect of a underdeveloped society. I'm not talking about third word countries, but tribes, people who still lives in stone or bronze age.

The brazilian indigenous people had a similar "relationship" system as the one you described, and they were classified as "stone age" people technologically speaking.

What I mean is that a system like that isn't necessary (since we don't need crazily to reproduce anymore), so turning back to it would mean a step back, nor forward.
 

Smok1nAce

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
308
Reaction score
195
Female promiscuity is good for sex and the hook up culture.

Although it's bad for raising children.
 

timmyroni

Banned
Joined
Sep 5, 2021
Messages
56
Reaction score
56
So i am reading this book from one of the authors of sex at dawn. The book is called Civilized to Death. The author proposes that IN TRIBE promiscuity is a good thing.

Note when I say in group I dont mean racial group. I mean a clan of men that you actually love and trust. Regardless of race.
99% of all books published are pro-communist politically correct propaganda. The books you mention are no different: just pro-feminist drivel, nothing more.
 

mrgoodstuff

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 27, 2015
Messages
17,652
Reaction score
11,868
Location
DFW, TX
99% of all books published are pro-communist politically correct propaganda. The books you mention are no different: just pro-feminist drivel, nothing more.
Do you think books who teach about removing subconscious programming, and group think directives so you can be your full self are communist? Wouldn't communist want you following the group think directives and all the subconscious programming that gets instilled interacting in daily life and watching TV and listening to the radio?
 

timmyroni

Banned
Joined
Sep 5, 2021
Messages
56
Reaction score
56
Do you think books who teach about removing subconscious programming, and group think directives so you can be your full self are communist? Wouldn't communist want you following the group think directives and all the subconscious programming that gets instilled interacting in daily life and watching TV and listening to the radio?
That's a good point and I would be interested in some of the titles you are referring to. It's true that not every single book ever published is either explicitly communist or has implicit communist biases, clearly.

However, as of 2021, you will find it basically impossible to publish a book that is explicitly opposed to the current agenda of feminism, climate change, the pandemic, or anything else that is left wing.

Book retailing in the western world is now controlled by at most a handful of giant monopolies like amazon, B&N, and a couple of the larger UK distributors. Almost all of the independent bookstores have been pushed out of market, and the more controversial titles which challenge the current agenda are either out of print or more difficult to find.

It may be more accurate to say that 99% of the books which are heavily promoted, or readily available follow the communist agenda. It might as well be 100%.
 

mrgoodstuff

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 27, 2015
Messages
17,652
Reaction score
11,868
Location
DFW, TX
That's a good point and I would be interested in some of the titles you are referring to. It's true that not every single book ever published is either explicitly communist or has implicit communist biases, clearly.

However, as of 2021, you will find it basically impossible to publish a book that is explicitly opposed to the current agenda of feminism, climate change, the pandemic, or anything else that is left wing.

Book retailing in the western world is now controlled by at most a handful of giant monopolies like amazon, B&N, and a couple of the larger UK distributors. Almost all of the independent bookstores have been pushed out of market, and the more controversial titles which challenge the current agenda are either out of print or more difficult to find.
It is REALLY close for it to be ILLEGAL if a man is in a position of power or high self control around women, and especially if he lives with her.
 

timmyroni

Banned
Joined
Sep 5, 2021
Messages
56
Reaction score
56
It is REALLY close for it to be ILLEGAL if a man is in a position of power or high self control around women, and especially if he lives with her.
Everything in western societies is geared towards toppling the christian patriarchal order.

This means promoting female empowerment, destroying traditional gender roles, and obliterating biological distinctions between men and women in every way possible. It means diminishing and belittling men and putting men in legally compromising situations both at work (sexual harassment) and at home (divorce law).

This is why media promotes female promiscuity with such intensity: sex in the city, these books pandora is referencing, "spring break" on mtv, female contraception, abortion, etc. It destroys the family, it undermines christianity and it promotes women mimicking men's behavior, the behavior of gay men in particular.

There is nothing even remotely liberating or innocent about promoting female promiscuity. It is all about destroying western civilization and all civilizations dumb enough to fall for this drivel.

Any country that can withstand these incursions will be well protected in the decades to come. The US, not so much.
 

taiyuu_otoko

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,768
Reaction score
3,125
Location
象外
I doubt any dude would prefer to share his lady rather than keep her all to himself.

this would seem to work only with girls nobody had any desire to wife up.

very much like today's ladies.
 

image

Put away your credit card.

You can now read our detailed guide to women and dating for free - Right Here!

Pandora

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
1,923
Reaction score
1,741
Age
36
99% of all books published are pro-communist politically correct propaganda. The books you mention are no different: just pro-feminist drivel, nothing more.
I hear you man. This book was not pro feminist though. You have to read it before you can accurately say that. But i agree that most books are very politically correct. I am anything but pro feminist btw.

All I am saying is that we can gain a lot from exploring a new way to look at female sexuality. What do tribal communities do ( this is where we came from).
 

Zimbabwe

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 29, 2021
Messages
522
Reaction score
646
Age
25
Even women don't like sharing guys, it's something a few tolerate but none would prefer.

I feel like even if we had a harem of 100 girls, we wouldn't want another guy even having one of them.

Most other primates like Gorillas and Bonobos practice polygamy, while homo sapians practice monogamy. I'm not an anthropologist but they are all on the verge of extinction while we are dominating the planet.
 
Top