Radical Reframes which have lead to my success

[Johnny Soporno]

Some time ago, a thread was begun here which spoke about my free seminar videos - and it was very gratifying and positive, until the thread was hijacked.

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=137771 is the original thread.

Since I am still sharing this 6 hour video seminar for free (about 300,000 people have downloaded it directly from the hosts I know about, and several times that number have "stolen it" (evidently not realizing they could download it for free!) via bittorrent and *****, etc) I wanted to draw attention to this fact.

I am about the happiest guy I know, and I am astonishingly well-loved and appreciated by women, everywhere I go. This is NOT because of anything I do for them, or that they imagine I could do for them, but rather because of my love and appreciation for them, and the acceptance I offer them.

I'm on a mission to bring this enlightenment to every man, and with his help, to bring sexual emancipation to every women.

Here are a couple of Google Video links (snippets from my seminar) which highlight the most-critical reframes which I'm working to help people 'get'

Women's Emancipation - Stage One: WOMEN ARE NOT PROPERTY!


In this first except, I'm speaking about the history of gender roles, and the biological and evolutionary experiences between pre-"Agricultural Revolution" societies, and all generations since.

In particular, I'm concentrating on the overriding compulsion of men to believe the children they are supporting/raising are "their own", and women's social acceptance of the necessity to encourage men towards this obsession (especially where it is actually a delusion!)

Womens' Emancipation - Stage Two: Eliminating the "Sexual Cartel"

This second video explains why men all expect to have to 'pay for sex' - always (ie, whether in dating, with prostitutes, or in marriage)

Women worldwide are raised to believe that if they do the things they'd like to do, with the people they choose, for their own entertainment, enjoyment, satisfaction, etc, without concern for maintaining a "high market value" (by demonstrating that their 'sexual access' is exclusively available to a very small number of men), they will end up alone and unloved in their old age.

They are constantly reminded that their happiness and security, and ultimately their MOST SUBSTANTIAL SOCIAL VALUE rely upon their contracting themselves to an appropriate man. (Without such a man to support her in her role as mother and wife, she risks being criticized and derided by her parents and friends, and pitied or resented by the majority of onlookers at large.)

These two brief videos (11+15 mins, respectively) are segments of my "Introduction to Seductive Reasoning 101" seminar, available for free download in its entirety (approximately 1.2GB, 6 hours) from HERE.

As I mentioned, my videos are free, and may be downloaded and redistributed by everyone. In fact, that is my goal.

Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy & Lifestyle Guru

 

[Solomon]

Johnny do consider yourself a pua or seducer?

I respect you a lot for this, there tons of PUA dudes trying to rob us guys, so big ups, for doing this for free

I will mos def check it out when I get a chance, if you ever are in minneapolis let us know (the community hasn't tapped into the minneapolis base, but there is a strong following of naturals/seducers/pua guys here)

Solo

 

[bukowski_merit]

good stuff... watched both with an open mind...
i think i already do some of this... i am never one to downgrade a girl because she's a slut... i prefer experience... and am not at all interested in having a wife or kids (at this point - when i'm 40 that might change)... i guess the biggest problem to me would be overcoming the ownership factor... i mean sure - i sleep with 2-3 different girls on a normal dating cycle... but i like for their worlds to revolve around me; and for them to be consumed in me (for the 2-3 months that that last)... yes selfish... but i drop girls for even talking to another guy... i really need to reevaluate my need to lock them in...

 

[Johnny Soporno]

Johnny do consider yourself a pua or seducer?

I consider myself to be a man who's very self-comfortable, and therefore good with women - never a 'Pick Up Artist' certainly, and 'seducer' has very negative connotations as well...

I respect you a lot for this, there tons of PUA dudes trying to rob us guys, so big ups, for doing this for free

It's my pleasure! I want to live in a better, happier world - and while I can't change the world myself, if I can contribute to making EVERYONE I CAN into 'agents of change', then together we can repair things around the globe.

I will mos def check it out when I get a chance, if you ever are in Minneapolis let us know (the community hasn't tapped into the Minneapolis base, but there is a strong following of naturals/seducers/pua guys here)

Sounds like a plan! Please do post a follow-up once you've had a chance to watch the seminar (ideally a couple of times through, it's REALLY rich and chock full of gold nuggets, so lots will be missed on the first pass!) and let me know if there's a community group or local forum where I should make announcements of my impending visits!

Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy
Solo

 

[Johnny Soporno]

Hey Johnny, I really liked your videos and I find you voice very easy to listen to. Your style is awesome! Keep it up!

Thanks very much Wolf! But like I tell the girlies when they tell me I'm the best, "Don't tell me - Tell your friends!"

Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy

 

[Johnny Soporno]

good stuff... watched both with an open mind...
i think i already do some of this... i am never one to downgrade a girl because she's a slut... i prefer experience... and am not at all interested in having a wife or kids (at this point - when i'm 40 that might change)...

Good stuff Remember, the term 'SLUT' has different meaning when it's used by men than women....

When a man calls a woman a slut, he means "She's having more sex that I want her to!" - and this usually hails back to the notion that he won't get significant social approval if he hooks up with her - or he might even be mocked for it. (!!?!)

When a WOMAN calls a woman a slut, she means "That woman is a TRAITOR to her gender - she's DEFYING THE SEXUAL CARTEL, making sex available to men for free, thereby destroying MY MARKET VALUE!" - and we men STUPIDLY have bought into the idea that we may only value things which we must pay for dearly - forgetting that WOMEN ARE ALIVE, REASONING CREATURES and may decide that WHAT WE ARE, rather than what we PAY, justifies their choosing to hook up with us.

i guess the biggest problem to me would be overcoming the ownership factor... i mean sure - i sleep with 2-3 different girls on a normal dating cycle... but i like for their worlds to revolve around me; and for them to be consumed in me (for the 2-3 months that that last)... yes selfish... but i drop girls for even talking to another guy... i really need to reevaluate my need to lock them in...

Sounds to me like you've named your problem In segments 5 & 6 of "Intro to Seductive Reasoning" I go through the nature of jealousy, overcoming possessiveness, and understanding what 'belonging' REALLY means... Go check those two out (ideally, check out the whole seminar!) and you'll probably find some inner-peace which you'll appreciate forever.

Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy

 

[MascaraSnake]

You're a class act from what I can see so far...looking forward to listening to your videos.

 

[Johnny Soporno]

You're a class act from what I can see so far...looking forward to listening to your videos.

Watching them is also effective

Please feel free to comment upon them after you've watched them through!

Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy

 

[DJDamage]

When a man calls a woman a slut, he means "She's having more sex that I want her to!" - and this usually hails back to the notion that he won't get significant social approval if he hooks up with her - or he might even be mocked for it. (!!?!)

When a WOMAN calls a woman a slut, she means "That woman is a TRAITOR to her gender - she's DEFYING THE SEXUAL CARTEL, making sex available to men for free, thereby destroying MY MARKET VALUE!" - and we men STUPIDLY have bought into the idea that we may only value things which we must pay for dearly - forgetting that WOMEN ARE ALIVE, REASONING CREATURES and may decide that WHAT WE ARE, rather than what we PAY, justifies their choosing to hook up with us.

I believe that there is more to that then just name calling.

A woman once told me that "Its not fair for a woman to be called a slut, yet if a guy sleeps around he is being called a player - that is double standards."

I did not wish to tell her that even though there are social aspects to why this term was developed, there are also biological aspects that are worth to look it as to why men are being praised for sleeping around while women are being vilified. For example I am a male and I can't grow a baby inside me (nor do I wish too) but is this fair?! no, its simply biology doing its thing.

As a male however I can create millions of sperms per day, therefore it is my best interests (biologically) to spread my seeds around to as many women as possible (keeping in mind that in order for my DNA to be carried to the next generation someone else or myself have to put in the work to ensure the survival of the offsprings in its critical first years of life).

Women on the other hand, have 1 egg in which they break and a new one appears every 28 days unless it is fertilized and then she will need to carry that fetus for 9 months and probably be required to take care of 1 child. All that work for 1 egg has therefore made women much more selective in their choosing a mate because they must invest in recieving the best genes as they possibly can get. Now even though today we have different contraceptive's to allow women to cheat fertalizations, the behaviour of women still biologically intuned to this very reason. It is why its often more difficult still to hook up with women and its never a sure thing that you are going to get a lay out of one from the very first time you lay your eyes on one.

Therefore a woman who are really selective in their mating cannot be truly be called sluts, as opposed to women who act like men and love to hook up constantly on one night stands as if they are truly are benefiting from this arrangements in the long terms.

 

[Johnny Soporno]

...there are also biological aspects that are worth to look it as to why men are being praised for sleeping around while women are being vilified.

Damage, I don't believe that men are celebrated for 'spreading the seed' at all - as a matter of fact, men get killed for impregnating women en masse, unless they have already arranged to purchase (marry) those women, and support their offspring.

As a male however I can create millions of sperms per day, therefore it is my best interests (biologically) to spread my seeds around to as many women as possible (keeping in mind that in order for my DNA to be carried to the next generation someone else or myself have to put in the work to ensure the survival of the offsprings in its critical first years of life).

YOUR DNA is not truly at issue here; what is at issue is the combination of your mother's and your father's DNA. In order for your parent's DNA to be propagated successfully down another generation,
either you, your sister, or your brother must generate a gamete (an egg, in your sisters' case, a sperm in yours or your brothers' cases) which will then conjoin with another gamete from an unrelated source.

The majority of males are neither Alphas (ambitious, unwilling to accept subjugation, pushy and insistent on leading) nor Betas (contenders for the position of Alpha, second-in-command while awaiting the opportunity to take control), but rather are somewhere down the alphabet towards Omegas; and are not actually born to breed at all.

Instead, they serve their genetic mission by ensuring the survival of their siblings, and their siblings' offspring.

In humans, Alphas either take over their 'pack' from the preceding Alpha, or are forced to go 'lone wolf'; leaving their families to seek out unrelated females to fertilize, and usually leaving once they've done their work (spread their seed).

The other, less ambitious males in the family most-likely pair-bonded with their female siblings (after they became pregnant by the itinerant 'lone-wolf' Alpha males exiled from other packs) and were convinced their partner/sister's child was "theirs" because they were having sex with her consistently once she was already pregnant (human females hide their ovulation)

Women on the other hand, have 1 egg in which they break and a new one appears every 28 days unless it is fertilized and then she will need to carry that fetus for 9 months and probably be required to take care of 1 child. All that work for 1 egg has therefore made women much more selective in their choosing a mate because they must invest in receiving the best genes as they possibly can get.

That is a common misapprehension, Damage - please read on:

Randy Thornhill, Professor of Cultural Anthropology & Evolutionary Psychology, University of New Mexico
The Functional Design and Phylogeny of Women's Dual Sexuality: Estrus and Extended Sexuality

Recent research questions the conventional wisdom about the evolution of women's sexuality. Women have two functionally distinct sexualities. At the fertile phase of the cycle, women prefer male traits that may mark superior genetic quality. At infertile cycle phases, women prefer men willing to invest resources in a mate. Women's peri–ovulatory sexuality is homologous with estrus in other vertebrates and estrus likely arose first in the species ancestral to vertebrates. Thus, contrary to conventional wisdom, women have not lost estrus, and human estrus likely functions to get a sire of superior genetic quality, which is the evolved function of estrus throughout the vertebrates. Women's sexuality outside estrus is extended sexuality. It appears to function, as in other taxa with this type of sexuality, to get material benefits from males. Also contrary to conventional wisdom, men perceive and respond to women's estrus, including by increased mate guarding. Men's response is limited compared to other vertebrate males, implying co-evolutionary history of selection on females to conceal estrus from men and selection on men to detect it. Research indicates that women's concealed estrus is an adaptation to conditionally copulate with men other than the pair–bond partner. Women's sexual ornaments–the estrogen–facilitated features of face and body–appear to be honest signals of individual quality pertaining to future reproductive value.​

It is unreasonable to expect women to be monogamous, full-stop.

It's contrary to their evolutionary biology, and it's their hormones (NOT THEIR EMOTIONS!) which alter their perception of reality, and thereby incite them to 'stray' from their 'nesting partner' (pair-bonded mate), and seek out unfamiliar males to impregnate her, thereby reducing the risk of incestuous copulation WHILE FERTILE - in fact, its reasonable to presume that her 'pair-bonded' mate (who presumes he's the father of her offspring, and as such, BECOMES so) might be as closely related to her as her brother, or half-brother, in prehistoric times.

The female's biological drive is to collect as many sperm from as many promising donors as are around, when she's ovulating - so long as she done what suggests she'll become pregnant, she's satisfied - and she becomes turned-off by her own 'familiar' males' scents (Familiar = of or like one's family).

CONSIDER:

Women have an approximately 28 day reproductive cycle, 23-25 days of which their hormones operate very similarly to males. Somewhere around the 10th-14th day after menstruation (bleeding begins) their ovulation begins, and their hormones alter radically; they begin to crave a VERY different pheromonal imprint to that which attracts them the rest of the month, and they become overwhelmed with sexual enthusiasm for alternative, masculine scents and appearances. After this ovulation period (technically 'estrus') ends, they return to their previous hormonal state, OR, IF IMPREGNATED, they become tremendously enamoured of a familiar (ie, like their family) male, whom they will select as a 'nesting partner' and who will undoubtedly presume himself the father of the impending offspring.

A penis has evolved as a natural "plunger", designed to pull-out the previous sperm-donor's deposit, and thereby increase the likelihood of his own being successful;

Every man's sperm cells fight off (kill!) rival sperm cells from alternative donors (a la 'Sperm Wars' - google it for details) which implies that they have evolved to do so;

Women require approximately five times longer sexual stimulation than the average male provides (15 mins vs. 3 mins) AND when the male climaxes, he passes-out, thereby providing the female (still aroused and energetic) to seek out an alternate male to continue the mating process - this might require MANY males in order for the female to reach satisfaction, thereby ensuring sperm competition, and enhancing the vitality of the species in the process.

Now even though today we have different contraceptive's to allow women to cheat fertalizations, the behaviour of women still biologically intuned to this very reason.

Again, I find no evidence at all to support this

It is why its often more difficult still to hook up with women and its never a sure thing that you are going to get a lay out of one from the very first time you lay your eyes on one.

Speak for yourself, Damage Seriously, that's ABSOLUTELY an artifact of human social conditioning, and not evolutionary behavior.

Therefore a woman who are really selective in their mating cannot be truly be called sluts, as opposed to women who act like men and love to hook up constantly on one night stands as if they are truly are benefiting from this arrangements in the long terms.

Pshaw - no one should ever be called a slut, it's an obsolete and useless term which ONLY serves to cause pain.

The problem is that men REALLY want to OWN WOMEN, and they feel that without that relationship, they cannot believe their offspring are truly "theirs".

It is critical to understand that there are three discreet aspects to every child's paternity:

Biological Father (ie, successful sperm donor)

Nominal Father (ie, the 'father of record', the one who's surname the offspring is assigned)

Actual [or 'de facto'] Father (ie, the one who accepts the ROLE of 'father' and provides for/nurtures/protects the child, and whom the child envisions as 'daddy'.

Now, in an ideal world, all three aspects are presumed to be the same man; at least, according to 'polite society'.
But human evolution suggests different and that PRIOR to easy-access to birth control pills/condoms, the odds weren't good that more than two of the three aspects were the same man.

BUT TWO OUT OF THREE AIN'T BAD! And if you raise a child as your child, and love it as your child, are proud of it as your child, and IT BELIEVES YOU ARE IT'S DADDY -- then you are its father, in every significant respect.

Virtually all of the fundamentals of male/female interactions are founded in the notion that men OWN women, and that therefore their children will be THEIR OWN - instead of understanding and accepting that the Father-Child relationship has nothing to do with genetics.

This has lead to incredible misogyny and resentment throughout the ages as women have struggled to keep the true heredity of their children from the men who mistakenly presumed biological paternity.

Make no mistake, women DO follow their natures - they just hide it VERY well.... Woman's "chastity" is JUST good public relations.


Johnny Soporno
Evolutionary Psychologist & Worthy Playboy

 

[DJDamage]

Damage, I don't believe that men are celebrated for 'spreading the seed' at all - as a matter of fact, men get killed for impregnating women en masse, unless they have already arranged to purchase (marry) those women, and support their offspring.

Well that was in the past, today men who impregnante women have to pay through the nose in child support payments. Certainly not death but it may feel like it to some for the next 18 years.

Maybe celebrated is the wrong word to use here. I would say its more towards admiration. There is a certain element where women who see other women attracted to a particular man would find him more attractive as a result. Men who see a man who is getting alot of women may wish to become that man, hance the reason your side business Mr. Soporno (I presume) is doing quite well.

It is unreasonable to expect women to be monogamous, full-stop.

Certainly you are not talking about all women because a large percentage of women who do get married do not cheat. There are other elements at play here when it comes to women who want to be monogamous because it is for their own best self-interest's to want to hang on to a man for the long terms.

When a woman is in the age's between her late teen's and late 20's (18-27) that is the age where her sexual marketability is at its highest its ever going to be. It is in this age bracket group that these women tend to be the most "promiscuous" because they enjoy bouncing around and trying out different male sexual partners. However once they get passed that age group and get near the age of 30 and beyond, their sexual marketability declines. The older they get the less they can compete against younger more fertile women for the attention of men. It is therefore for their best interest's to secure a long term relationship and not jeopradise it by sleeping around. The fear of being alone therefore pushes men and women to stay together in the long terms especially those who's options are declining as they age.

Women require approximately five times longer sexual stimulation than the average male provides (15 mins vs. 3 mins) AND when the male climaxes, he passes-out, thereby providing the female (still aroused and energetic) to seek out an alternate male to continue the mating process - this might require MANY males in order for the female to reach satisfaction, thereby ensuring sperm competition, and enhancing the vitality of the species in the process..

I am well aware that women are still aroused and energetic after sex, it is the reason why they still want to cuddle after sex while most men want to do is fall a sleep. However a woman often will fall asleep with the man anyway after sex, which is a good indication for that man that she isn't (at least tonight) not going off finding another mate but when he wakes up she will still be there. In which case the sex part may occur again with the same man.

Pshaw - no one should ever be called a slut, it's an obsolete and useless term which ONLY serves to cause pain.

I agree that you shouldn't call a woman a slut to her face as a way of an insult but that doesn't change the number of men she slept with. Consider this: if you had to choose between two identical twins would you pick the one girl who has been with only 4 men her entire life, or the other one who had more then 50 sexual partners thus far and counting?

The problem is that men REALLY want to OWN WOMEN, and they feel that without that relationship, they cannot believe their offspring are truly "theirs"

Its not neccessary OWNING which is the issue here, the issue here is INVESTMENT. A man would like to know that the offsprings is his offsprings not someone elses. Granted men cannot really know if the offsprings are REALLY their's without proper DNA testing.

And if you raise a child as your child, and love it as your child, are proud of it as your child, and IT BELIEVES YOU ARE IT'S DADDY -- then you are its father, in every significant respect.

Well if someday you "accidently" get one of your women pregnant and she claims its yours and want to keep that baby then maybe you can be "above all that" and accept the child as your own. Call me unreasonable or selfish but if I am with a woman and I find out she sleeps with other men then I am dropping her. It is more of a tell-telling sign that she doesn't have a very high interest in me and therefore doesn't really care or fear if I would leave her. It is often not just attraction but the fear of losing that man that makes a woman stick to that man.

This has lead to incredible misogyny and resentment throughout the ages as women have struggled to keep the true heredity of their children from the men who mistakenly presumed biological paternity.

You are talking as if women cannot choose whom they mate with and cannot make a decision not to cheat. The fact of the matter is that if they can sign a contract on the dotted line that they are getting married or go to courts to suck money out of "mistakenly presumed biological father" then the resemtment is more then warranted. Men have to look out for their own best interests and be praised in that matter if women are doing the same.

 

[Johnny Soporno]

It is unreasonable to expect women to be monogamous, full-stop.

Certainly you are not talking about all women because a large percentage of women who do get married do not cheat.

Ahem... I believe you must must mean "A large percentage of married women do not admit to cheating, or equivocate-away their acts as "Not Sex" because they didn't sleep over, or it was just oral/anal, or because the guy they hooked up with also married, or because she hooked up with a couple ('cuz threesomes "don't count") or whatever other rationalization she selected."
Otherwise, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this, because MOST of the married women I've slept with (while they who were married) ABSOLUTELY INSISTED they never cheated, and that sleeping with me wasn't cheating, usually through one of the reasons above.

There are other elements at play here when it comes to women who want to be monogamous because it is for their own best self-interest's to want to hang on to a man for the long terms.

Women may want to be in committed monogamous relationships, and many do, no question: A man is free UNTIL he marries, a woman BECOMES FREE once she marries. As soon as she take on the social validation of being possessed by a man, she is able to do anything/anyone she wishes, as long as she's discreet.

When a woman is in the age's between her late teen's and late 20's (18-27) that is the age where her sexual marketability is at its highest its ever going to be. It is in this age bracket group that these women tend to be the most "promiscuous"...

That contradicts my information. I have found that between 16-23 women are very promiscuous, then between 24-29 they tend to want to 'settle' down and 'catch a man', and around 30-45 they are usually either married & sleeping around, or divorced & sleeping around - often with men who are substantially younger and therefore can't be seen as 'appropriate' so "don't count" once again. Often such women are called "Cougars".

Women require approximately five times longer sexual stimulation than the average male provides (15 mins vs. 3 mins) AND when the male climaxes, he passes-out, thereby providing the female (still aroused and energetic) to seek out an alternate male to continue the mating process - this might require MANY males in order for the female to reach satisfaction, thereby ensuring sperm competition, and enhancing the vitality of the species in the process..

I am well aware that women are still aroused and energetic after sex, it is the reason why they still want to cuddle after sex while most men want to do is fall a sleep. However a woman often will fall asleep with the man anyway after sex, which is a good indication for that man that she isn't (at least tonight) not going off finding another mate but when he wakes up she will still be there. In which case the sex part may occur again with the same man.

You are correct, sir!
Although what I was describing above was human nature, evolutionarily sound, rather than subject to modern-socialization.
Please re-read my previous posts with that in mind, and I suspect you'll get a very different impression of what I'm trying to communicate.

Pshaw - no one should ever be called a slut, it's an obsolete and useless term which ONLY serves to cause pain.

I agree that you shouldn't call a woman a slut to her face as a way of an insult but that doesn't change the number of men she slept with.

Um, I think you've missed my point?

No one should ever be CONSIDERED as a slut, regardless of the number of sexual partners they have had, because it's NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS but hers, and if she chooses to have LOTS of sex because she enjoys variety, MORE POWER TO HER!

Consider this: if you had to choose between two identical twins would you pick the one girl who has been with only 4 men her entire life, or the other one who had more then 50 sexual partners thus far and counting?

Actually, I'd take them both to bed, probably together. But to answer your question, I'd ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS choose the one who ENJOYED sex the most, and engaged in it exclusively for her own enjoyment.

That might be the one who'd only been with four men, presuming she had been very lucky and found herself in some number of long-term satisfying relationships, where she never found herself feeling any need for anything extra-relational.

If the one who'd had fifty or more had been doing so because she loved sex, and was enthusiastic about it, and unconstrained by antiquated societal mores which suggested she would be 'tainted' by having had an adventurous sexual history, I'd be ALL OVER HER TOO.

But if EITHER of them had been suffering from either poor self-esteem issues or nasty guilt issues and that had contributed to their number, I'd shy away from them. Too much work to get them past it.

The problem is that men REALLY want to OWN WOMEN, and they feel that without that relationship, they cannot believe their offspring are truly "theirs"

Its not necessarily OWNING which is the issue here, the issue here is INVESTMENT. A man would like to know that the offsprings is his offsprings not someone elses. Granted men cannot really know if the offsprings are REALLY theirs without proper DNA testing.

And if you raise a child as your child, and love it as your child, are proud of it as your child, and IT BELIEVES YOU ARE IT'S DADDY -- then you are its father, in every significant respect.

Well if someday you "accidently" get one of your women pregnant and she claims its yours and want to keep that baby then maybe you can be "above all that" and accept the child as your own.

Ironically, I had myself 'fixed' many years back, when I first realized I didn't want to raise young children.

I have five sons and a daughter whom I love very dearly and am entirely proud of - I would sacrifice virtually anything for any of them; yet not one of them is related to me by blood. I ONLY PREACH WHAT I PRACTICE and I assure you that my kids are MY KIDS in every significant respect, EXCEPT that I can't give any of them a kidney were they to need one - BUT I'D SURELY BE WILLING TO DO SO.

Call me unreasonable or selfish but if I am with a woman and I find out she sleeps with other men then I am dropping her. It is more of a tell-telling sign that she doesn't have a very high interest in me and therefore doesn't really care or fear if I would leave her. It is often not just attraction but the fear of losing that man that makes a woman stick to that man.

That's completely fair and reasonable, and if the terms of your relationship require sexual exclusivity, and she agrees to that, it's HER RESPONSIBILITY to ensure any transgressions are undetected. If she fails in that capacity, it is definitely proof that she truly didn't care enough to maintain your relationship, as you said.

This has lead to incredible misogyny and resentment throughout the ages as women have struggled to keep the true heredity of their children from the men who mistakenly presumed biological paternity.

You are talking as if women cannot choose whom they mate with and cannot make a decision not to cheat.

Quite the reverse! Women can and generally do choose with whom they mate. I assert than very often, they don't consider their extra-relational sex 'cheating' at all.

The fact of the matter is that if they can sign a contract on the dotted line that they are getting married or go to courts to suck money out of "mistakenly presumed biological father" then the resentment is more then warranted. Men have to look out for their own best interests and be praised in that matter if women are doing the same.

Oh, absolutely! Please don't think I am in favor of paternity fraud!

If a woman makes a contract with a man, vending her sexual-access to him exclusively (ie, she marries him), and then violates that contract, she should be taken-to-task for it, without question.

If she becomes pregnant by another man while under such a contract, her contractor (ie, husband) must be permitted to forswear responsibility for the child, presuming DNA testing proves him not to be the genetic father.

Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy

 

[search1ng]

i'm going to download and watch your video with an open mind, I'm sure there are parts that that will help me grow into my own being. Just want to get something clear, are you saying it's alright for women to go around sleeping with as many guys as they want? Cause without going into a whole historical and biological debate i'm just going to state right here and now that that is retarded. oh and damn straight my child will be my child. What it's my parents because I'm a mixture of their genetics? Hmmm, no.

Sorry if i sound really biased or angry or whatever, I'm not. Just really disagree with some things that have been said - if that is what you're saying.

 

[Johnny Soporno]

i'm going to download and watch your video with an open mind, I'm sure there are parts that that will help me grow into my own being.

Thanks for the vote of confidence I hope to hear back from you (either in-thread or in a PM!) once you've had a chance to go through it!

Just want to get something clear, are you saying it's alright for women to go around sleeping with as many guys as they want? Cause without going into a whole historical and biological debate i'm just going to state right here and now that that is retarded.

I don't believe there's room for debate and hope that you'll change your position once you've heard what I have to say.

oh and damn straight my child will be my child. What it's my parents because I'm a mixture of their genetics? Hmmm, no.

You missed the point of that bit:

What I was pointing out was that IF you were to marry your sister, having children with her WOULD BE BAD, for genetic reasons.

However, if you were to marry your sister and she became pregnant by another random stranger - unrelated to either of you - and you raised it as your own, you would be satisfying your 'genetic mission' precisely to the same degree as if you'd impregnated a random stranger yourself; presuming the resulting child would breed at some point, you'd be ensuring your parents' genetic mix was continued through to another generation. Q.E.D.

Sorry if i sound really biased or angry or whatever, I'm not. Just really disagree with some things that have been said - if that is what you're saying.

You don't sound angry or negatively biased

Please let us know what you think after you've seen the videos!

Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy

 

[mrRuckus]

Quite the reverse! Women can and generally do choose with whom they mate. I assert than very often, they don't consider their extra-relational sex 'cheating' at all.

If this is true, then they should be owned because they cannot be trusted with rational thought and be free to run amok in society.

Fvckin' sluts.

 

[SuavePlaya]

I'am not all for that having children that aren't mine. I want my kids with my blood line that have some of my features. I'am not bashing your position on it because it's not really none of my business, but I do not see why you are trying to influence people with this type of thinking. "All children will eventually search for their real parents it's human nature to seek which is lost" mickey royal. You might have six kids that you love so much, but you don't think in the back of their mind they wonder where their real daddy is?

 

[izza]

Thanks for sharing and making the world a better place!

 

[Johnny Soporno]

I am not all for that having children that aren't mine.
I want my kids with my blood line that have some of my features.

You've missed the point - what I am saying is that 'paternity' has ALWAYS been a hit-and-miss proposition at best, so far as genetic bloodlines go...

The reason that throughout history the ELDEST CHILD was the sole heir to the family legacy was because ONLY THE FIRST CHILD, conceived during the 'honeymoon' (the first month after marriage, in which the previously virginal bride was sequestered away with her new husband) could be presumed to be blood-related to the 'father of record'.

Therefore, it's subjective in the mind of the father and the children as to whom their allegiances are set. If you think of your kids as YOURS and they think of themselves as YOURS, then they ARE YOURS.

I'm not bashing your position on it because it's not really none of my business, but I do not see why you are trying to influence people with this type of thinking.

I'm not trying to influence anyone Merely giving a 'wake up call' to people who might otherwise believe that purchasing/contracting/marrying a woman is a reliable way to ensure your offspring are genetically related to you.

It isn't.

"All children will eventually search for their real parents it's human nature to seek which is lost" mickey royal. You might have six kids that you love so much, but you don't think in the back of their mind they wonder where their real daddy is?

They each know who their genetic fathers were or are - some are still in contact with them, but not many. They simply acknowledged me in that role after-the-fact, and ever since.

Whether adopted or assumed it amounts to the same thing. A child I love and cherish and raise and attend is as much mine as it feels it is.

Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy

 

[JackHearts]

I am not going to participate in the whole childrens-debate since I feel that everyone is entitled to their own opinions on the matter. The only thing I will say is that Johnny is absolutely right when he says that it is ludicrous to expect that most women are faithful. There are faithful women out there, just like there are faithful men, but they are faithful because they've made a conscious choice - not because it is in their nature.

I do, however, wish to adress this one thing:

Sexual experience IS NOT a bad thing.

Consider this: if you had to choose between two identical twins would you pick the one girl who has been with only 4 men her entire life, or the other one who had more then 50 sexual partners thus far and counting?

This question is one of the comments made in this thread that had me scratching my head. Why is it that so many men out there think that a womans value gets lowered if she has lots of sex?

You guys don't want a girl who's bad in bed I assume. So why is it that less experience is good? I know, I know.. a girl with few sexual partners might have lots of sexual experience - but that's not my point. The point I am trying to make is simply this:

Girls who have lots of sex - usually gets good at having sex. Sex is a skill, it takes techniques, muscles and communication to make it really good - all things that are best developed through experience.

Girls who have lots of sex are usually more aware of getting tested for STDs and are more concerned about protection from pregnancy than girls who rarely have sex - simply because those who have sex rarely think "what are the odds that it'll go wrong if I just do this this one time."

Girls who have lots of sex will usually not get as attached and obsessed with you as girls who almost never have sex and then goes to bed with you - something which I would think most of the people on a forum like this would appreciate.

The list goes on...

Here's the thing: Most men are "scared" of so-called "sluts" (I really do hate that word - except for when it's being used as a compliment) because they fear getting disapproval from their friends. Because they fear that their egos won't be satisfied by yet another girl clinging to them and making their whole world revolve around them.

This is Bull****.

Free yourself from your need of approval from others. Check your ego and realize that all it does is make life harder. I can guarantee you that your life, your game and your relationships will improve drastically as soon as you do this!

As a player, pua, seducer, whatever-you-want-to-call-yourself, it is nothing less than egotistical and straight out mean of you to expect the women in your life to be "loyal" to you if you are not going to be loyal to them. They should be able to expect the same from you as you expect from them - nothing more, nothing less.

---

I'm honestly didn't mean to get caught up in this debate. All I wanted to say was that I recommend for EVERYONE to watch the Seductive Reasoning seminar that Johnny gives away for free, and take notes while doing it.

I watched it myself about a year ago, and it completely changed my life. The last six months alone I've worked with Johnny himself on several seminars and workshops, coached at one of AFC Adams bootcamps, shared hotelrooms and meals with Zan Perrion, met Steve Piccus and several other highly respected people from the community - all because I now get it.


Truly yours,

Jack Hearts aka T.J.
A Worthy Playboy

 

[izza]

I took careful notes, taking track of associations I felt. I started crying just from joy, feeling liberated, somewhere in that 3rd video. Thanks again.

Izza