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?

[Savage]

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

[Natsu]

I think sex is so intimate that it's subjective. I, for example, wouldn't be able to go to bed with a man I didn't know. When my monogamous relationship started getting serious, I wouldn't even consider going to bed with someone else (the fact that my husband is amazing may have something to do with it, though).

Anyway... I think sex is different depending on the people. My upbringing has nothing to do with my approach to sex. I know the basics of catholicism because I was born in a Catholic family, but left it very soon, at eleven or ten, I can't remember. Anyway, I always considered the control over sex as a sanitary method of protecting people and lives. I mean, births in which we are almost sure that the mother won't die are very recent. Extremely recent: sex may be fun, but until condoms and the pill were available, it was no damn game. People died extremely painful deaths from syphillys, and Catholic upbringing or not, that was a fact of life. Women got pregnant and kids came to life... if the woman and the child survived the birthbed, which wasn't the general rule (look at any third world statistics on maternity deaths and you'll see why sex was controlled). It is very logical that we have a serious concept of sex, because as I said it's fun, but it's no game! At least we should control our fertility and the possibility of getting STDs, things can go awfully wrong if you don't take care while having sex.

That's why I consider the "moral" and "societal" theories about sex control ridiculous. All of them: the "it was the men to control women's bodies", "it was the women to control men's work", "it was the church to control people" (that last one is pretty accurate, but still misses the big point). All of them are addendums to the original reasons why sex was controlled: sex produces pregnancies which may kill the woman, or bring into the world a child who won't be supported if the sex was too casual. Sex can cause you to get infectious diseases who vary from the merely uncomfortable to the deadly, with many other possible effects such as becoming sterile in the middle ranges. We don't remember that, but penicillin, condoms, the pill, safe births and safe abortions are all from the last centuries, which in historical terms means they were invented yesterday. Before that, mankind took care with their sexual habits because their lives and societies depended on it. I always saw sex as mountain climbing: it is OK and fun if you take the neccessary precautions. Non-controlled sex can lead you to as much fun as mountain climbing without ropes and hooks.

So, even when I was a child and didn't have much interest in sex, I always knew that sex was not shameful or wrong (as long as it counted with the magic word, "consent"). I knew some day the hormones would rage and I would want to have sex. I knew some people wanted little sex and some wanted more. I knew some people were faithful and other promiscuous. I didn't feel any frustration or shame about it: whatever came, I just knew I needed to use condoms to prevent AIDS and unwanted pregnancies. If I was going to become promiscous or strictly monogam, I really didn't mind, time would tell.

I happened to be a very intimistic person. My body is mine and sex is too private for me to share with a stranger. I know some people are comfortable having sex with strangers. That's OK with me. I just have another way of feeling about it.

I guess as long as you make your own decisions and choose willingly and freely, all will be fine. I have friends who have been at orgies and couple-swaps and threesomes and SM and all that. I don't like any of that, so I don't do it. But whoever likes it shouldn't deprive himself or herself. I don't see the point in SM, but hey, if you do see it, off you go. As I said, the magic word is "consent".

No one is going to tell you how to live a perfect sex life, because it's going to be different for each and everyone. Finding what you like to do and to be done to your own body is something you'll have to find on your own.

[hopena]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

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.

{aspiring_to_clarity}, you listed the same parts of the article that I had a problem with - I didn't catch everything in bold, after all - the part that really got to me was what was said about women at the time of ovulation, along with the thought that no woman can be trusted.

[Nicketas]

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.

Steve,

EMDR Therapy can be enormously helpful for eliminating negative beliefs in large quantities at a time. Usually after 10 sessions of it, all of your limiting beliefs (yes, all of them) are gone.

As for empowering beliefs, those tend to come up rather easily on their own once the blocks are removed.

Perhaps one should try integrating sex with love for one's own sake, rather than seeing them as separate?

[Johnny Soporno]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

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.... 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.

Indeed, women reason precisely the same way men do, under the same circumstances, and will overwhelmingly make their decisions founded on inescapable conclusions, reached through inarguable logic. There is absolutely no argument about that from me.

I'm going to ask that you put aside any negative prejudice or bias which you might have taken from reading only the 'ultra-condensed' and 'out-of-context' summary which Plato posted in this thread, and consider what I have to say here with a critical-yet-objective mind.

Hormones are fundamentally both the most powerful mind-and-consciousness altering, as well as physically/physiologically affective drugs.

On the whole, men's hormones occasionally drive them to irrationality, but not in any readily predictable, cyclical fashion - whereas women's hormonal cycles tend to produce predictable days of ALTERED PERCEPTIONS OF REALITY, far removed from those they normally experience, as they go through each month.

From the perspective of most women (unless alerted to this by external, objective third-party reports) each day they experience the world precisely the same way: Viewing things through the same pair of eyes, and listening with the same ears, and processing with the same mind; and they react to their situations appropriately, in consistent, predictable, and appropriate ways, every day - again, from their perspective.

However, ONCE ONE RECOGNIZES that their hormones may affect them as a powerful hallucinogen, effectively putting "crap-coloured lenses" over their eyes, distorting the things they hear, and amplifying the 'voice' of their emotional-centres... they themselves can identify that they've dealt with situations radically differently than they would have just a few days earlier.

This is NOT caused by their being 'governed by their emotions', - it's caused by their BEING DRUGGED by their own endocrine systems! This certainly effects both genders - just not with the same objectively discernible regularity with men -- which is truly a shame!

From menarche to menopause, all healthy women will be affected, to a greater or lesser degree, by their reproductive-cycle hormones.

Unless women are aware of these facts, and therefore conscientiously track their own cycles, or rely upon trusted observers to alert them as to when they might be LITERALLY PERCEIVING THINGS DIFFERENTLY, most will continue to operate regularly, presuming that they are experiencing and interpreting their situations normally, sublimely unaware of their chemically "altered state".

Following from this unwitting mis-appraisal, they will make entirely rational, seemingly consistent decisions, employing reason and intelligence - YET doing things which may seem CRAZY AND UNPREDICTABLE to everyone else! (And will seem crazy to THEM TOO, if they look back at them afterwards)

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

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).

Again, I completely accept what you are saying, and do not question it at all.

I'm sure you would feel positively savaged if any woman were ever to call you a slut; and I'm equally sure that overwhelmingly you have not FELT that you were a slut, throughout your adult life.

When a man calls a woman a slut, he's trying to hurt her by accusing her of having MORE SEX THAN HE WOULD LIKE HER TO HAVE. Therefore, unless the woman truly feels that she's misbehaving, the effect of the insult is trivial.

When a WOMAN calls a woman a slut, she's accusing her of being a traitor to all 'respectable' women, and branding her as 'personae non grata' amongst 'polite society'.

Presumably, A_T_C, your lifestyle, social-circle, and station-in-life preclude your being in the company of women who'd bandy such a term about lightly, or being in any situation where such a dire accusation would be hurled with sincerity.

When the 'Codes of Honor' for men were established, women were not even CONSIDERED - they were never expected to be free and independent PEOPLE; they were simply chattels, possessions of men.

Since those times have past, and women have been recognized as HUMAN BEINGS, women have assumed that those "mens' codes" ALSO applied to themselves, and have been trying to live by them - frequently unsuccessfully.

This is a truism ONLY BECAUSE WE REQUIRE WOMEN TO BEHAVE AS MEN, and we expect both men and women to operate based on OBSOLETE, OUTMODED CODES!

Women need to be helped to emancipate themselves from the unreasonable and irrational set of operating parameters under which they have unwittingly been subjected, and accepted.

Men equally need to become 'enlightened', by realizing that thousands and thousands of years of NEGATIVE, ANTI-HUMAN SOCIAL PROGRAMMING have convinced us all that men and women are different, that there exists a "Battle of the Sexes" (there ISN'T!), and that in order for a woman to be a "Good Girl", and therefore desirable for a long-term committed relationship, she must have been raised to ONLY BE WILLING TO HAVE SEX WITH MEN IN EXCHANGE FOR ECONOMIC SUPPORT - ideally, a lifetime promise of it (ie, marriage) - and not for any other reason.

Virtually all women have been raised this way, having somehow accepted the meme that "giving themselves away for nothing" (ie, having sex for pleasure, without any economic justification) means they have "no self-respect!" - thereby tying self-respect to abstinence, celibacy, and chastity, rather than to autonomy, free will, and personal choice.

In this way, women have created a 'Sexual Cartel:' - ALL WOMEN MUST [at least appear to] MAKE MEN PAY FOR SEX! - because, the reasoning suggests, if sex were available for free, what man would hang around to provide support for women and children?

Like all other cartels, there is no tolerance for 'undercutting the market', and any woman who does so is met with despite, humiliation, and condemnation... But IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, EVEN THE CLIENTS have fallen for the propaganda: that sex which they don't have to pay for CAN'T BE WORTH ANYTHING.

We need to CORRECT THIS! - and we're all in it together.


Please visit these links: (the same as are in the text above)
Women's Emancipation - Stage One: Women ARE NOT PROPERTY!
Womens' Emacipation - Stage Two: Eliminating the psychotic and unreasonable con

Johnny Soporno
Johnny Soporno: Worthy Playboy - Lifestyle Guru - Marital-Arts Master - PR & Booking for 'The Crippler'

[lasti]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

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.

I COMPLETELY agree with you. (I'm female)

By the way: I don't have a partner - so this would mean there'd be even less obstacles to have sex for me with anyone. Well, I don't even have sex, though, cause I don't want "just sex". There's no force that takes me over.

Besides that: We talk about heterosexuals - so there's no woman having sex without a man having sex. This means that women and men have the same amount of sexual activity: So - can't men control their sexual behavior either because of their ovulation circle? You see, what I mean: It's some kind of absurd.

[CroMagna]

No, YOU'RE kind of absurd. Johnny is the man! This dude ****ing OWNS! The guy is using evolutionary psychology to liberate both men and women. He's spreading new memes that counteract the sexual double standard that inhumane misogynists and Judas-faced women perpetuate, even women who call themselves feminists! Johnny Soporno will never be called a slut by anyone, because he's a man. If he chooses to be promiscuous people will applaud him, except for the most Puritanical of people, and if he chooses to be monogamous people will applaud him, except for the most bitter of people. You know what that means? It means he doesn't HAVE to say the things he says, or spread the ideas he spreads, he CHOOSES to do this. He chose to make his life about emancipating people. He is even facing the risk of being abused by misogynistic men who want to uphold some "pimps up, ho's down" "it's a man's world" scenario where they feel sexually priveleged.

Regular psychology and new-age religions (especially my own, LaVeyan Satanism), have done a marvelous job of teaching women to love themselves regardless of their sexuality and to even celebrate their sexual selves. But they haven't spread those ideas to the larger society, to defeat it in society, so that sexual women don't have to be so isolated from other women and divorced from society. Within psychology and religion, you have self-acceptance, but there is still a conflict between your self-acceptance and social acceptance. That's why therapists and Satanists tend to be very aloof, contemplative, inward people. So evolutionary psychologist like Johnny are trying to stop the spread of this social cancer, so that one day sexual women can live out loud without fear of social torment and can therefore reunite with the human fold.

And another thing: it's OBVIOUS that women distrust and hate each other. They are more misogynistic than men! They use words like ♥♥♥♥♥ and ho more venomously and frequently. Why do you think sexual women have a tendency to have male friends? Or why there is a rift between lesbians and bisexuals? Or why there are OVER 20 BRANCHES OF FEMINISM, ALL OF WHICH BITTERLY DESPISE EACH OTHER? (For example pro-porn versus anti-porn, gender versus individual feminism, sex-positive feminist Camille Paglia versus all the other sex-positive feminists like Susie Bright, Western versus Third-World or Womanism (black feminism)...)

[Calimero]

Originally Posted by JVR

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

Yes and No.
In certain areas fertility is rising. The natural way of making love or having sex to get pregnant, so start new life seems to become more difficult in certain areas in the world.
So in this part of the world it is "the hocus pocus in the lab" where life comes from not the sexual life of the couple.
In certain areas of the world many people die having sex or making love with different partners without protecting themselves against diseases. Condoms are not used every where. At the other hand if you use a condom to have safe sex, so to make sure that you are not going to die from it, if you use the condom right, the chance that new life starts is not present neither.

So today I think sex can be as much the cause of death as it can lead to new life. It is a little to romantic to just say that only life comes from it.