Steve, what is your mindset towards sex?

[Neutral]

In the Ask Steve series two years ago, you were struggling to define your mindset towards sex.

Specifically, you enjoyed the emotional bonding aspect of sex and were looking for ways to extend that experience (deep, wider or in a new medium).

What are your views today?

[Steve Pavlina]

To be honest I still feel conflicted in this area. My original questions remain largely unanswered.

I've made great progress in other areas I explored in that series, especially with respect to money/abundance, but I can't say I've made much real progress on the sex side.

I suspect a lot of this has to do with my Catholic upbringing, which can install some major limiting beliefs when it comes to sex.

I'm actually very curious to know what beliefs others have found most empowering when it comes to sex.

[Plato]

There's some interesting ideas put forward by a guy in the seduction business who calls himself Johnny Soporno... It's easy to dismiss his stuff on that basis but he's actually a very clever and enlightened guy with well developed reasons for why he prefers polyamory (with an important focus on the amory part) to monogamy, polygamy, celebacy or random flings...

He gives his stuff away for free and you can download some of his videos for from his website here.
Worthy Playboy Institute

And if you don't have so much time he's posted articles all over the place. Probably on his site. Obviously bear in mind the target audience with this stuff! But there are gems in there and it's a view you don't hear discussed much.

edit: here's an article of his I found... it pretty much goes along with what you said about the Catholic sexual values being limiting...

Here's a condensed run-down of the fundamental 'Evolutionary psychology' paradigm which is a prerequisite for really 'getting' what I'm sharing...


Alpha males in hominids (human-like primates) generally slaughter any other male's offspring born through females they designate as their own. This usually takes the form of infanticide.

In order to reduce this likelihood, and increase the probability of having a male-partner to help provide for the mother and children, human females HIDE THEIR OVULATION (as opposed to broadcasting it by having brightly-glowing buttcheeks, or other obvious signs )

In this way, they prevent potential/current "long-term partners" (beta males) from determining whether or not they were ALREADY PREGNANT when they initially hooked-up, or even if they became pregnant by another SINCE they hooked-up.

Hidden-ovulation also facilitated another method human females may have used to prevented infanticide, (as demonstrated by Bonobo chimps) by mating with every Alpha male within the community, so that none could be confident that children born are not their own (and therefore will not slaughter the newborns). [Sources for above: Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, Frans de waal]

Prior to the last great Ice Age (approx. 10000 years ago) Humans lived in small 'packs' most-likely, similar to wolves' or lions' prides, dominated by a single Alpha male and complemented by subordinated alpha- and beta-males, and many child-bearing and child-rearing females. The Ice Age drove them into warmer climates, and into caves, etc.

After the ice melted, and people again resurfaced, there was likely nothing but barren landscape. However, once the ground had thawed and began sprouting new growth (able to survive the elements in seed-form) primitive man discovered that these perennial plants would grow predictably, and generate seeds, which could be replanted in new and appropriate locations. From this, primitive man was able to establish that if he spent sufficient time tending to, and ensuring the safety of. his plants, he could generate a bountiful livelihood.

Not just that, but if he enlisted others, the progress scaled remarkably, with a half-dozen farmers generating enough food for many dozens of people! This was a radical departure from gatherers & hunters, whose efforts could never be demonstrated to scale positively, at least prior to refrigeration - anything not immediately used would be wasted.

As society progressed through the 'hunters/gatherers' phase of human evolution, and the 'agricultural revolution' began, humans started farming and ranching (raising livestock) - both of which taught them that seeds planted in fertile soil (or sperm implanted in fertile female animals) brought produce - either plenty of food, or livestock which could become food or be used to generate food; or be used as labor. [source: Jared Diamond]

This instilled the notion of 'Property' - things which one has carefully tended (such as farmlands, livestock, and women) are THEIRS, and the product (including CHILDREN) are ALSO theirs.

In order to prevent women from having extra-marital encounters which could result in their bearing a third-party's child, men needed to sequester 'their women' into harems, etc - guarded by men they could trust - generally eunuchs (ie, emasculated men who could not possibly impregnate the females)

But it is hard to get men to 'sign up' to be castrated, to become harem-guardians for another man... Not a popular job! [source: Michael Jackson - no, just kidding ]

Besides, like house-cats, ovulating human females feel biological compulsion to get out, and become impregnated - not by a single male, but by any and all appropriate potential fathers nearby. Harem guards are not always effective enough to prevent ones' slipping out for a quickie![source: Matt Ridley]

Finding a male 'sperm donor' is never a challenge for a female, but only when she's in this highly-affected state will she casually drop all pretense of desire to be 'committed' to the donor, or caring about his history, personality, or his concern for her welfare... or even her OWN concern for her welfare.[Source: Desmond Morris]

Sperm from rival 'doners' fight it out inside a woman's womb, during their 72 hour lifespan, trying to evade other men's sperm and beat them to the egg. [Source: Robin Baker]

Ovulation begins taking place somewhere between 10 and 17 days after the start of a woman's period, normally. During the 5 days or so surrounding it, a woman goes into 'estrus' (aka heat) from two days before she releases an egg to two days after. During this time, her reasoning and decisions regarding mating are [at least partially] overwhelmed by her hormones... and as a consequence, a woman who is truly 'good to go' when in this mode will completely ignore all traditional 'dealbreakers' such as a filthy venue, poor general hygiene, or a total lack of contraception!

Terrifying myths which served to reduce men's fears that their children were NOT their own - including the broad-ranging introduction of the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing being (think Santa Claus ) with the power to 'reward virtue' and 'punish wickedness' - were propagated and socially reinforced, so that active human policing of women could be replaced with religion.

Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbors Wife applied to the males;
Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery applied to the females.

Since the violation of these rules implied a terrible penalty in the Afterlife, it was presumed that no reasonable person, raised to believe these things to be unquestionable from childhood, would ever violate them.

It therefore stood to reason that all children born to pair-bonded couples MUST therefore be the offspring of the husband. (riiiight? )

It was ESSENTIAL for men to believe their children were their own, otherwise why should they dedicate so much effort to supporting them and their mothers?

Women KNOW that, as much as it was true that they would not normally violate those rules, occasionally reason and accountability get chucked out the window when their hormones overtake their psyches. Therefore it was ESSENTIAL for women to maintain the facade that they NEVER violated those rules, to ensure that men would never question the value in supporting them and their children.[Source: Geoff Miller]

The best way to ensure this popular notion remained in force was to DECRY PUBLICLY any woman who appeared to have sex without first insisting that the male guarantee that he would support her and the kids. Assign her extremely derogatory and insulting, shameful and painful terms like 'harlot' 'slut' 'whore' 'tramp' etc etc etc.

By vilifying any woman who would undercut the going-rate for sex (a lifetime of economic support for the woman and her offspring) women could ensure she would succeed in her biological imperative.... So long as she could maintain the APPEARANCE of not committing adultery.

WOMEN DO NOT TRUST ONE ANOTHER - because they know that they themselves cannot be trusted when it comes to their sexuality - that they WILL betray all the things which they have been taught they must abide if they happen to meet the right type of guy at the right time in their cycle, and they think they can get away with it... even if the guy is their best friend's partner, their own partner's best friend, or whatever.

In order for a woman to exist comfortably - and without having to self-describe internally as a tramp/slut/whore/harlot etc - she will equivocate: Women will lie to themselves, and to others, about their sexual history by finding ways logically to excuse themselves...
"He was married, so it didn't count..." "We just had oral sex, so it didn't count..." "I didn't get his last name, so it didn't count..." etc

The very fact that each woman is assigned-from-childhood the responsibility to maintain the myth of 'female chastity' or suffer extreme abuse from the hypocritical masses of other women who will despise them for destroying the economic underpinnings of the Family Unit, breeds chronic-distrust amongst women.

So important to the growth of our society has been this need for men to be kept in the dark about women's true natures that women themselves have always been the counter-force to their own emancipation and liberation.

REMEMBER: Women don't care if MEN call them sluts - but if other WOMEN do, it's traumatic and terrifying.... Just as men don't care if they are rejected by women, it's being SEEN to be rejected that is the real killer.

I hope this all makes sense to you!

Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy

FREE LOVE Y'ALL!

[munish]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

To be honest I still feel conflicted in this area. My original questions remain largely unanswered.

I've made great progress in other areas I explored in that series, especially with respect to money/abundance, but I can't say I've made much real progress on the sex side.

I suspect a lot of this has to do with my Catholic upbringing, which can install some major limiting beliefs when it comes to sex.

I'm actually very curious to know what beliefs others have found most empowering when it comes to sex.

I really liked "K" point of view about sex.This is an excerpt from one of his book.

Sex plays an extraordinarily important part in our lives because it is perhaps the only deep, firsthand experience we have. Intellectually and emotionally we conform, imitate, follow, obey. There is pain and strife in all our relationships, except in the act of sex. This act, being so different and beautiful, we become addicted to, so it in turn becomes a bondage. The bondage is the demand for its continuation - again the action of the centre which is divisive. One is so hedged about - intellectually, in the family, in the community, through social morality, through religious sanctions - so hedged about that there is only this one relationship left in which there is freedom and intensity. Therefore we give tremendous importance to it. But if there were freedom all around then this would not be such a craving and such a problem. We make it a problem because we can't get enough of it, or because we feel guilty at having got it, or because in getting it we break the rules which society has laid down. It is the old society which calls the new society permissive because for the new society sex is a part of life. In freeing the mind from the bondage of imitation, authority, conformity and religious prescriptions, sex has its own place, but it won't be all-consuming.

[JVR]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

I'm actually very curious to know what beliefs others have found most empowering when it comes to sex.

In my opinion sexual energy is the most fundamental energy in life. Life itself comes forth from it!

Because it’s in essence energy, you can use it for many purposes: to pleasure your body, to pleasure the body of one or more partners, to create a new life, to manifest other goals in the world (see Think and Grow Rich), or to return to the source of this energy (Higher Self) by saving it and channelling it to your higher centers.

On the practical level the opinions differ on how one exactly can handle the sexual energy:

Mantak Chia (author of The Multi Orgasmic Man) and tantra expert Margot Anand advise the man not to ejaculate. But in their opinion a man (and woman) can have extended and multiple orgasms.

Marnia Robinson (Peace Between the Sheets) advises orgasm-less sex. Her argument is that if you get orgasms from a partner, you start to expect it from him/her and that will put pressure on the relationship. When you only have orgasmless sex, you can concentrate on the connection you feel with your partner without the urge / need to give and receive physical pleasure.

Elisabeth Haich (Sexual energy and Yoga) says that the core of desire for sex and relationships is a longing for unity. But real unity can only be established with your Higher Self, so true and lasting unity can only be established in yourself. As soon as you start looking for another to fulfil the desire for unity, you will fail to accomplish it. So one will never fulfil this desire completely if they don't find it in themself. She advises to use your sexual energy to expand your consciousness by restraining it (preferably but not necessarily by living celibate) and channelling it in your higher centres. This way you can connect with your Higher Self. Personally I think that if you want to be free of desire this is the only use of sexual energy that can accomplish this. But you can also see desire as a positive stimulus to make the most of life.

Sexual energy is a great gift and it’s up to you to decide how you want to use it. It just depends on what you want to accomplish.

[Neutral]

I've read people love photography as an outlet for intimacy. They say it creates an emotional bond with a subject and a photograph helps preserve the memory of that connection, forever.

It's an abstract way of feeling intimately connected. Does anyone feel this way about other "abstract" mediums?

As to concretely widen your expression of intimacy; Polyamory

Many people believe that a person who has multiple loves can't give their "whole heart" to any person. The belief goes that if you love one person, you can express your love wholeheartedly, but if you love multiple people, your love is divided up and is therefore not as deep. This is based on the "starvation model" of love--that is, you only have a limited amount of love, and if you give your love to one person, there is none left to give to anyone else--so if you fall in love with another person, you have to "pay" for it by withdrawing your love from the first person.

Funny how he uses Steve Pavlina-like term, "Starvation Model".

[hopena]

Here's a condensed run-down of the fundamental 'Evolutionary psychology' paradigm which is a prerequisite for really 'getting' what I'm sharing...


Alpha males in hominids (human-like primates) generally slaughter any other male's offspring born through females they designate as their own. This usually takes the form of infanticide.

In order to reduce this likelihood, and increase the probability of having a male-partner to help provide for the mother and children, human females HIDE THEIR OVULATION (as opposed to broadcasting it by having brightly-glowing buttcheeks, or other obvious signs )

In this way, they prevent potential/current "long-term partners" (beta males) from determining whether or not they were ALREADY PREGNANT when they initially hooked-up, or even if they became pregnant by another SINCE they hooked-up.

Hidden-ovulation also facilitated another method human females may have used to prevented infanticide, (as demonstrated by Bonobo chimps) by mating with every Alpha male within the community, so that none could be confident that children born are not their own (and therefore will not slaughter the newborns). [Sources for above: Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, Frans de waal]

Prior to the last great Ice Age (approx. 10000 years ago) Humans lived in small 'packs' most-likely, similar to wolves' or lions' prides, dominated by a single Alpha male and complemented by subordinated alpha- and beta-males, and many child-bearing and child-rearing females. The Ice Age drove them into warmer climates, and into caves, etc.

After the ice melted, and people again resurfaced, there was likely nothing but barren landscape. However, once the ground had thawed and began sprouting new growth (able to survive the elements in seed-form) primitive man discovered that these perennial plants would grow predictably, and generate seeds, which could be replanted in new and appropriate locations. From this, primitive man was able to establish that if he spent sufficient time tending to, and ensuring the safety of. his plants, he could generate a bountiful livelihood.

Not just that, but if he enlisted others, the progress scaled remarkably, with a half-dozen farmers generating enough food for many dozens of people! This was a radical departure from gatherers & hunters, whose efforts could never be demonstrated to scale positively, at least prior to refrigeration - anything not immediately used would be wasted.

As society progressed through the 'hunters/gatherers' phase of human evolution, and the 'agricultural revolution' began, humans started farming and ranching (raising livestock) - both of which taught them that seeds planted in fertile soil (or sperm implanted in fertile female animals) brought produce - either plenty of food, or livestock which could become food or be used to generate food; or be used as labor. [source: Jared Diamond]

This instilled the notion of 'Property' - things which one has carefully tended (such as farmlands, livestock, and women) are THEIRS, and the product (including CHILDREN) are ALSO theirs.

In order to prevent women from having extra-marital encounters which could result in their bearing a third-party's child, men needed to sequester 'their women' into harems, etc - guarded by men they could trust - generally eunuchs (ie, emasculated men who could not possibly impregnate the females)

But it is hard to get men to 'sign up' to be castrated, to become harem-guardians for another man... Not a popular job! [source: Michael Jackson - no, just kidding ]

Besides, like house-cats, ovulating human females feel biological compulsion to get out, and become impregnated - not by a single male, but by any and all appropriate potential fathers nearby. Harem guards are not always effective enough to prevent ones' slipping out for a quickie![source: Matt Ridley]

Finding a male 'sperm donor' is never a challenge for a female, but only when she's in this highly-affected state will she casually drop all pretense of desire to be 'committed' to the donor, or caring about his history, personality, or his concern for her welfare... or even her OWN concern for her welfare.[Source: Desmond Morris]

Sperm from rival 'doners' fight it out inside a woman's womb, during their 72 hour lifespan, trying to evade other men's sperm and beat them to the egg. [Source: Robin Baker]

Ovulation begins taking place somewhere between 10 and 17 days after the start of a woman's period, normally. During the 5 days or so surrounding it, a woman goes into 'estrus' (aka heat) from two days before she releases an egg to two days after. During this time, her reasoning and decisions regarding mating are [at least partially] overwhelmed by her hormones... and as a consequence, a woman who is truly 'good to go' when in this mode will completely ignore all traditional 'dealbreakers' such as a filthy venue, poor general hygiene, or a total lack of contraception!

Terrifying myths which served to reduce men's fears that their children were NOT their own - including the broad-ranging introduction of the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing being (think Santa Claus ) with the power to 'reward virtue' and 'punish wickedness' - were propagated and socially reinforced, so that active human policing of women could be replaced with religion.

Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbors Wife applied to the males;
Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery applied to the females.

Since the violation of these rules implied a terrible penalty in the Afterlife, it was presumed that no reasonable person, raised to believe these things to be unquestionable from childhood, would ever violate them.

It therefore stood to reason that all children born to pair-bonded couples MUST therefore be the offspring of the husband. (riiiight? )

It was ESSENTIAL for men to believe their children were their own, otherwise why should they dedicate so much effort to supporting them and their mothers?

Women KNOW that, as much as it was true that they would not normally violate those rules, occasionally reason and accountability get chucked out the window when their hormones overtake their psyches. Therefore it was ESSENTIAL for women to maintain the facade that they NEVER violated those rules, to ensure that men would never question the value in supporting them and their children.[Source: Geoff Miller]

The best way to ensure this popular notion remained in force was to DECRY PUBLICLY any woman who appeared to have sex without first insisting that the male guarantee that he would support her and the kids. Assign her extremely derogatory and insulting, shameful and painful terms like 'harlot' 'slut' 'whore' 'tramp' etc etc etc.

By vilifying any woman who would undercut the going-rate for sex (a lifetime of economic support for the woman and her offspring) women could ensure she would succeed in her biological imperative.... So long as she could maintain the APPEARANCE of not committing adultery.

WOMEN DO NOT TRUST ONE ANOTHER - because they know that they themselves cannot be trusted when it comes to their sexuality - that they WILL betray all the things which they have been taught they must abide if they happen to meet the right type of guy at the right time in their cycle, and they think they can get away with it... even if the guy is their best friend's partner, their own partner's best friend, or whatever.

In order for a woman to exist comfortably - and without having to self-describe internally as a tramp/slut/whore/harlot etc - she will equivocate: Women will lie to themselves, and to others, about their sexual history by finding ways logically to excuse themselves...
"He was married, so it didn't count..." "We just had oral sex, so it didn't count..." "I didn't get his last name, so it didn't count..." etc

The very fact that each woman is assigned-from-childhood the responsibility to maintain the myth of 'female chastity' or suffer extreme abuse from the hypocritical masses of other women who will despise them for destroying the economic underpinnings of the Family Unit, breeds chronic-distrust amongst women.

So important to the growth of our society has been this need for men to be kept in the dark about women's true natures that women themselves have always been the counter-force to their own emancipation and liberation.

REMEMBER: Women don't care if MEN call them sluts - but if other WOMEN do, it's traumatic and terrifying.... Just as men don't care if they are rejected by women, it's being SEEN to be rejected that is the real killer.

I hope this all makes sense to you!

Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy

Is this guy for real? (I'm mainly talking about the stuff that I put in bold).

*Never mind. This is the wrong thread for it - it's just ridiculous (for some of us. I can't speak for every woman).

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Plato

he's actually a very clever and enlightened guy

While I have no problem with polyamoury whatsoever, I have to disagree with the statement that this guy is clever and enlightened.

Without debating the article point by point and doing too much of a major derailment, I can at least make two points:

1. Neither I nor any woman I have ever known have ever been unable to control ourselves during ovulation or any other time of the month. I can see very well how this pertains to primates, but humans do have the capability of reason (yes, even females) and use it. Not once have I so desperately, hormonally needed sex that I would throw all caution and my personal values to the wind to do things like: cheat on my mate, get down in a dirty public restroom, not give a flying fig who I did it with.
2. I don't like being called a slut by anyone! Also, that's a put-down (or is supposed to be) that I have ever only heard used by men (who themselves usually fit the definition of the term moreso than the woman they seek to defame by using it).

Knowing that people actually subscribe to ideas such as this actually frightens me. What a bunch of tripe!

I understand that there is an evolutionary urging to do certian things, but humans have the added capacity of rational thought. The idea that we are ruled by our bodies and our instincts in the same way as other animals doesn't hold true in my experience.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

Not once have I so desperately, hormonally needed sex that I would throw all caution and my personal values to the wind to do things like: cheat on my mate, get down in a dirty public restroom, not give a flying fig who I did it with.

Are you saying nobody ever cheats on their partners and then lies about it?

Besides, Johnny isn't saying it's a good thing to cheat on your partner. Only a person with a very strange disposition would want to do that. The real argument is that monogamy is a social construct and therefore may not be of value for some people, but we use it as if was some kind of moral law, and make non-monogamous women feel bad about themselves. This can cause people to have less sex than they really want to, and feel guilty when they do which is a shame because in the age of the rubber johhny there may be no rational reason not to have have polyamorous relationships. Again though, nobody condones betraying another person's trust if you ARE in a monogamous relationship.

[Susie]

Hm, during ovulation sometimes I find certain men attractive whom I normally don't, however I still can control myself!!!

It seems like the whole point of that article was to say that women actually *gasp* like sex? Well in that case, he's right. But the convoluted analogies he makes are quite a stretch.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Susie

however I still can control myself!!!

You're a beacon of self control Susie. Others lack that and wind up feeling guilty about it when they submit to temptation (because let's face it, sometimes we are put in temptations way).

[JVR]

Originally Posted by hopena

Is this guy for real? (I'm mainly talking about the stuff that I put in bold).

When you believe these things, you will meet women who fit this profile. But when your opinion about women is better, you will also meet better women (and probably have a better relationship too )

[Plato]

Originally Posted by JVR

better, you will also meet better women (and probably have a better relationship too )

To me "better" means a woman who sees sex as a spiritual act but at the same time not one that needs to be exclusively between two people. Remember, "better" is an opinion, and the fact yours agrees with social norms does not make it objectively The Truth.

[RT Wolf]

There's a lot of problems tied up with sex and our attitudes towards sex, including social norms, technology (i hypothesize a pre-birth control society has restrictive attitudes toward sex and possibly the strong gender roles are caused by that, too), gender roles as well as biological sex, the philosophy of sex, the religion of sex and the fact that sex is pretty pre-rational and it seems that trying to understand it with the part of the brain that has little to do with it may well be a fruitless excersize.

While I can't claim to be an expert on evo psych, I'm not entirely sure about at least some of the claims made by the person in the post by the Soprana fellow. He also seems to take off pretty rapidly and far away from the stuff that he was referencing to unreferenced territory and making broad claims about a lot of different issues including societal norms, social contracts, etc.

You also end up with some other issues here: most of the more "animalistic" urges that we have are pretty well accepted in our society (eating, pooping, etc) but sex is only slowly gaining acceptance. And I do think of it as a basic sort of function. The cost of having sex is going way down, ie, don't have to have children nor is there fear of social backlash as much for sex outside marriage. The only thing similar to this that I can think of is the sort of man-man love that was much more readily accepted in ancient Greek societies, which, again, has low costs. We are in very, very new territory, as a society and as a species, too, because sex has changed. If you follow evo psych and assume that the sheer ecstacy of sex was supposed to be an incentive to procreate, and if you can have all the sex you want without having to worry about any consequences...it just messes with the norms and everything goes out the window.

I guess my point is...I don't think it's very simple.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Plato

Are you saying nobody ever cheats on their partners and then lies about it?

Of course not, you see it all the time. I just don't agree that it's mostly women and that they are incapable of controlling it due to hormonal takeover. Again, we are quite like other animals, but also very, very different.

Originally Posted by Plato

Besides, Johnny isn't saying it's a good thing to cheat on your partner. Only a person with a very strange disposition would want to do that. The real argument is that monogamy is a social construct and therefore may not be of value for some people, but we use it as if was some kind of moral law, and make non-monogamous women feel bad about themselves. This can cause people to have less sex than they really want to, and feel guilty when they do which is a shame because in the age of the rubber johhny there may be no rational reason not to have have polyamorous relationships. Again though, nobody condones betraying another person's trust if you ARE in a monogamous relationship.

I can agree with your paragraph here wholeheartedly. However the article in question was of a very different tone and content. If his goal was to state a position similar to what you've just put forth, I would say he failed miserably. It's really hard to see that message past all of the hatred for women permeating that article.

It's strange, I found it so odd that you would post it saying you agreed with it because it seemed to be very contrary to your spirit. Your paragraph above sounds well thought out and enlightened, his article drips with disdain and bitterness.

[AirBreather]

Here is one for y'all:

ideaGasms - Dating without drama, Squirting female ejaculation Squirting orgasms, Opening your heart meditation, Ways to improve a relationship, How to pick up a girl | ideaGasms

Unless the first impressions get you frothing at the mouth, that is.

Lotsa heart there, if you look for it.

[Johnny Soporno]

First of all, I'd like to express my great pleasure that my work has become a subject of conversation on this forum - I have long admire Steve's work, and the quality of the posters he has assembled here.

Secondly, I'd like to that Plato for his kind words and recommendations! However, as is common in such circumstances, the sections of my writing which you've quoted were out of context, and as such painted me in a vastly misrepresentative light!

In an effort to reverse this, and to wash away the stigma of misogyny and bitterness of which I've been accused, I've taken the time to make brief segments of my Intro to Seductive Reasoning 101 and posted them on Google Videos:

Women's Emancipation - Stage 1
Women's Emancipation - Stage One: Women ARE NOT PROPERTY!

Women's Emancipation - Stage 2
Womens' Emacipation - Stage Two: Eliminating the psychotic and unreasonable con

and this one, on reframing rejecton, and eliminating misogyny:

YouTube - Reassessing Rejection & Eradicating Misogyny (for guys)


{aspiring_to_clarity}: Please take a few moments to review these videos - I believe you'll be sincerely delighted with what you find, and I hope that you'll have your initial appraisals of me reversed - and you'll see why Plato recommended (and defended!) my work in the first place.

Everyone else, the invitation extends to all of you as well, as does your liberty to download and review (and redistribute) my seminar freely.

My mission in life is to help people attain unfettered self-satisfaction, conjoined with self-sustaining happiness - and I believe my seminar helps the viewers to build a solid and sincere framework for that degree of successfulness.

Johnny Soporno
Evolutionary Psychologist