All Episodes
Previous Next
July 18, 2007 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
41:26
826 Casual Sex
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, it's Steph. I hope that you're doing well.
It's time for us, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, to deprude the conversation.
I wanted to go a little bit on the record because I guess because I'm over 20, I am considered to be by some, I guess, verging on a Victorian form of dried fig prude who doesn't want anyone to have sex until after marriage.
Well, That would be true if you were my daughter, but we must liberalize things a little bit for our dear listeners.
So, I was queried today, and a perfectly civil and polite set of questions, and a person was more than satisfied with my answers, but I thought I might expound or expand on them just a little bit, so that people get a sense of where I stand in terms of sex.
Well, sex is good.
Sex is delish. Sex is wonderful.
Sex is exciting. Sex is a thrill.
Sex is with the right person.
is loving and warm and fun and intimate and so on.
But casual sex can be bad for you.
I mean... I don't think that an occasional indulgence is...
I've never had a one-night stand myself, but I've had relationships that were sexual that I was pretty sure, although I never probably examined it too closely at the time, that I was pretty sure were not going to end up in love and marriage and a baby in a carriage.
So, when I was working up north, I was a gold panner.
I had a fling with a woman who worked as, you'd like to say, air traffic controller, but it wasn't a very, very busy airport, up in the middle of the boonies, and we exchanged a couple of letters afterwards, but, I mean, it was never really going to go anywhere, and we were both perfectly, I guess, aware of that at the time.
On vacation, I had a fling, you know, that kind of stuff.
I don't mean... It's not like my standards of behavior are any sort of objective, good or bad, but I don't feel that that crippled my ability to be a good or decent person.
There was no, like, you know, if we have this fling, boy, we're going to be together forever.
There was none of that, and I think that there's a certain amount of honesty that can go along with this sort of stuff.
And, of course, this is when you're sort of out of town kind of thing and you're not in a relationship.
There's a certain kind of two ships that pass in the night thing that, you know, I don't think that's a particularly...
Bad thing, myself.
It's sort of like junk food, if that makes any sense.
Not that the people were junkie or anything, but every now and then I'll eat a McDonald's fillet of fish, right?
If I'm on my way to the gym and I'm kind of hungry and I want something quick, then I'll have something like that.
It's not going to kill me any more than a couple of cigarettes in my life were going to kill me any more than a couple of tokes of a joint are going to blow your mind or anything like that, right?
So, it's...
You know, I don't like sort of puritanical rigidity.
You know, if it's not sort of...
If it's around voluntary things, for sure, right?
I think that...
When you...
I think that like junk food, you don't want to have it too much and you don't want to make it a steady diet, right?
I mean, because then it starts to do some bad things to your body.
And if you make junk food your steady diet, like if every time you want a meal, you want fast food and you eat like junk food, then it's not going to be that good for you.
And of course, every... I mean, it's sort of a cycle, right?
This is the whole problem with addiction, right?
So when you have fast food, it stimulates you sort of in a shallow kind of way, and nothing wrong with fast food, it's just sort of the way that it can be metaphorized.
It stimulates you in a kind of shallow way, you know, the sugar and the salt and the fat, I mean, it all stimulates your taste buds, and it kind of...
Messes up your capacity, I think, to taste more subtle and positive flavors and more healthy flavors in the long run.
We kind of train ourselves to...
Like what we indulge in, right?
I mean, so if you eat nothing but junk food, then non-junk food is going to taste really bland to you, right?
I mean, although it's better for you and so on.
But if you stay away from the junk food, then regular old food is going to be vibrant and tasty and so on.
And then when you have some junk food, it's like, whoa, yeah, you know, that's really good stuff.
Now, of course, the metaphor here only works to a certain degree, because I'm not saying that you should have affairs in a monogamous relationship, because that's like going away from the healthy food to the junk food.
But I think you understand sort of the basic metaphor.
That junk food's okay as a tide-me-over kind of thing.
And in this realm, I would put both...
Well, first and foremost, there's the physical need, right?
So, I mean, it's actually healthy for a man to have an orgasm.
I certainly used that phrase.
And I don't mean the blue balls thing when I was younger.
But it's good for the prostate.
It's good for the...
It's good for the body all around to have an orgasm.
You know, there's nothing wrong.
That line from Seinfeld, even the worst orgasm I had was still pretty damn good.
So there's nothing wrong with the old orgasm.
It's a good thing. But of course, that's why happy nature gave us opposable thumbs, right?
So you can masturbate.
And masturbation is a great way to stay healthy, to keep everything in good working order.
To relax, to, you know, you want to take a nap and you're feeling a little stressed, you know, a little self-love can be quite relaxing, right?
So from the sort of mere physical need aspect, masturbation is much more practical, in a sense, than...
Going to a bar and, you know, looking around and trying to find someone and chatting them up and going through all of that, figuring out if it's worth it and buying some drinks and this.
So the sort of physical need thing, I think that the argument is a little weaker in terms of like, well, I have needs, man.
I've got to go get laid. I think that argument is a little weaker because the needs can be relieved in, you know, much more efficient ways.
And so...
I don't consider that to be a particularly strong argument as to why casual sex is a good thing.
Now, casual sex, of course, there's two kinds, right?
There's the manipulative, sleazy, I'll call you in the morning kind, and then there's the open, frank, me sexy, you sexy, let us make the beast with two backs.
I know that the latter is not impossible.
I mean, I've been there.
But I think that it's not as common as people like to think.
I think it's not as common as people like to think.
And so it's kind of like a mirage.
It's like what Erica Young used to talk about, like the zipless fuck.
The sex without...
A zipper that gets stuck, you know, this sort of perfect, anonymous, fabulous encounter.
I think it's a bit of a mirage.
I think it's like the certainty that Christians are supposed to get, or, you know, the perfect peace of mind that Buddhists are supposed to achieve.
I think it's kind of a mirage, and I'm not sure that it's really as perfect as people...
Or perfect or achievable, as people say.
I don't have a lot of direct evidence, conversationally, of this sort of stuff occurring.
I do hear tales of, like, well, you know, the way that you pick a woman up in a bar is you maintain eye contact and you, I don't know...
Have your little finger have sex with your ear while simultaneously licking from the top and the bottom of your martini glass or, you know, whatever, these sort of pheronomes and body language and nonsense like that.
And, of course, that's all kind of manipulative and so on, and there's not a lot of truth, often, that goes along with this kind of stuff.
And with persistent and casual sex, and I'm just going to talk about it from the woman's standpoint, which is a little bit different than it is for the man's standpoint, people who engage in risky and self-destructive behaviors...
Generally, generally, don't have the highest self-esteem in the world.
And I'm not talking about race car drivers as they get paid for it or anything like that, but for a woman hooking up with a stranger, you meet in a bar or someplace, taking that person home, getting undressed, and usually you're smaller than the guy, and weaker, certainly weaker, pound for pound, that is not...
Such a good idea.
I mean, it's risky, right?
You're rolling the dice. You never know when you're going to get some lunatic.
You never know when you're going to get someone who won't take no for an answer, or who's going to be too rough, and you're pinned underneath them, and you could get hurt.
You never know whether somebody is going to have an STD they're not telling you about, or I guess you make them wear a condom and so on.
That certainly will help, but not with crabs, I don't think.
So there's a risk element that's involved, In just having some dude come over, basically pin you under him, or however it is that you're going to do it, and have sex with you.
And, again, it's not black and white in this sense, because it's voluntary, so there are risks and rewards.
If it's something like, you know, you do it a couple of times in your life, and it's, you know, no great masturbation fodder for your imagination for the future...
Obviously, it doesn't make you an immoral person.
It doesn't say anything evil about you.
I mean, none of this stuff does, because we assume we're not putting anything like rape in this context.
But that's not hugely risky.
You can smoke a couple of cigarettes.
But there's a difference between smoking a couple of cigarettes and being a pack-a-day smoker, right?
Right? If you're a pack-a-day smoker, you really are courting to take 7 to 15 years off your lifespan.
And so I think that chronic casual sex for a woman is really courting risks, right?
So there's a condom, right?
Maybe you're not on the pill. Maybe you are.
You might still get pregnant, right?
Condom might break. You might have forgotten to take your pill.
There's not to mention the physical danger of the guy who goes nuts.
And also, let's not forget that when you have sex with someone you don't know, really, and you can't get to know someone very much in one night, when you have sex with someone that you don't know, there's a...
There's also the risk of obsessive attachment disorders, right?
The person might end up stalking you or might become obsessed with you.
You just don't know, right?
You don't know their history.
You don't know their family. You don't know where they've come from.
And I know I know it. Like I say, well, you know everything about someone in the first few minutes of meeting them, but most people aren't attuned to that kind of stuff, right?
Or if they are, it's unconscious, right?
So, I'm not saying, like, until you meet the woman of your dreams, do not even think about undressing.
You know, it's just, it's a chronic, you know, if you're a chain smoker, if you eat nothing but junk food, then you are not doing very good things to your body and your soul.
And it's a little bit different for women than it is for men.
And it's hard for men to get this because...
Men are not as physically vulnerable during the sexual act.
They're just not as physically vulnerable, right?
Nobody's on top of them, pounding away.
Not splayed out like a turkey being torn apart at a greedy family dinner.
They're not as physically vulnerable during the sexual act as women are.
So it's a little bit tougher.
Also, just sort of psychologically, again, the birth control pill is a couple of decades old and hasn't really had much effect on our evolutionary psychology.
And almost all other forms of birth control, except for the rhythm method, which is not very effective, were unavailable to people in the past.
So, for a woman, sex meant a very genuine risk of pregnancy.
This is one of the main reasons why sex is so over-controlled in a pre-birth control society, is that, of course, you wouldn't know exactly who the father was, and a pregnant woman would not be married by somebody who wanted to invest his resources into raising another man's gene pool.
So, in the past, how women were psychologically conditioned was that the women who did not put out for a guy until the guy had made some lifelong commitment, those women would tend to have the additional resources of a man to help raise their children, which meant that their children would be much more likely to survive.
So, evolutionarily, of course, women...
I mean, there's nothing Victorian about this, right?
I mean, I have no doubt whatsoever that women are as lusty and enjoy sex absolutely as much as men, and there's times when they've got to have it and all that kind of stuff.
But I'm talking about sort of the caution and inhibition that would be more in a woman's psychology when it came to sex than a man's.
A man can sort of have sex and roll the dice and, you know, if he has 10 kids, you know, five of them die, that's still good, right?
I mean, as far as just sort of reproducing the genes goes, because he can just have sex and stroll on to the next village.
But the woman is stuck with a kid she has to raise for 15 years, right?
So it's not quite the same for women, just sort of evolutionarily or biologically, than it is for men.
Reproductive strategies for women are somewhat limited, to say the least.
They don't get the spray-and-pray approach to reproductive success, so they have to be more cautious, and they have to be more discriminatory about who they have sex with.
That's really changed quite a lot in terms of the actions, in terms of young kids hooking up and that sort of stuff, but it hasn't changed in terms of the psychology.
of it, right? So even the women who hook up, the girls who hook up now when they're younger, don't report feeling very good after this kind of encounter.
They generally report, according to things that I've read, feeling kind of cheap and a little depressed and all that kind of stuff.
You know, the same way that even if you have a great night out drinking, if you drink too much, right, you're feeling kind of Not good the next day.
And if you eat all your Halloween candy in one sitting or have three days of straight McDonald's, you're just not going to feel that good, right?
You're going to feel kind of not positive, not light and refreshed afterwards.
Well, the same thing often will occur for women.
Now, if this is true, and I'm not saying I have any direct proof, this is just stuff that I've read and stuff that I've got from talking about with women and with Christina with regards to her practice and so on, so I'm not putting this out as a proof, this is just a possibility that I think explains a bunch of things.
If, for a woman in particular, casual sex, promiscuity, sleeping around, if, for a woman...
That is a mark of low self-esteem.
Not a cause, but a symptom of low self-esteem.
If that is the case, again, forget the universals.
Let's just talk trends. We don't have to nail every piece of this picture to the wall in order for it to hang, right?
But if we assume, or if we can accept the thesis that, for a woman in particular, promiscuity is an indication of low self-esteem...
Then, clearly, the guys who go to bed with them or who have sex with them are having sex with women who have low self-esteem.
And to some degree, they will be limited, if they want to be promiscuous, these guys will be limited to women who have low self-esteem, right?
I mean, that would be sort of logical, right?
And so if you require, as your sexual partners, women who have low self-esteem, I don't think it could be easily said that you yourself have very high self-esteem.
Because if you require, as your sexual partner, somebody who does not respect or like themselves, then it could be hard to make the case that you respect and like yourself.
Maybe you don't really notice your narcissistic needs get fulfilled with the use of the woman's vagina.
Because there's really only two possibilities.
When you have casual sex, sort of from the male perspective, when you have casual sex with a woman, there's sort of two possibilities, right?
Either you like the woman, or you don't.
Like, either you like her as a person, or you don't.
There's no in-between, right?
Even somebody we've been talking to for five minutes, we have some opinion about.
We can't do much about that.
That's just kind of automatic. Now, if you like the woman...
If you like the woman that you're chatting with at the bar, then why not keep talking to her?
Because I'll tell you this, this much I know, when you genuinely like someone, it doesn't...
I mean, this is going to be shocking, I know, I know.
When you genuinely like a woman, it really doesn't matter whether you're having sex or not.
When you genuinely...
Like a person. It doesn't matter whether you're having sex or not.
And, of course, you know that from your male friends, which you don't have sex with if you're a guy.
Because it's so hard to stay just friends with a male guy, friend, after you have sex.
So, you know that.
In fact, Christina sometimes says to her patients, take 30 days off from having sex and see what your relationship is like.
Because sex can cover up a lot of problems.
So, if you genuinely like the person, if you're having a really great conversation, it doesn't matter whether you go to have sex or not.
In fact, there are times when you don't want to interrupt a great conversation, even to have sex.
So, if you're talking with a woman at a bar and she's vivacious and intelligent and funny and confident and this and that, well, you may not want to drag her straight off to bed.
I mean, you may have that impulse, but...
You probably will be enjoying chatting with her so much that it wouldn't necessarily be something that you'll start angling towards, right?
I mean, if you're having a great conversation with someone, you don't sort of, at least I don't think it would make much sense to immediately say, great, now how can I start wrangling this so that I can get this woman into bed without her being whatever, right?
Or maybe you openly say, gee, I'd really like to take you to bed or whatever, right?
Oh, also this self-esteem and sleeping around thing, one of the things that has, I think, been fairly well documented...
Is the fact that girls who get into sports are much less likely to be promiscuous than girls who don't, right?
Because sports often has a lot to do with building self-esteem and feeling confident about your...
getting a good body image, feeling confident about your control of situations from a physical standpoint.
So that's sort of an indication then.
And of course there's some pretty significant markers for female promiscuity that...
You know, to sort of fit this thesis, you know, girls without fathers, girls who don't participate in sports, girls who aren't doing well academically, girls who, you know, grow up with dysfunctional families of one form or another, all tend to, in general, be more promiscuous than girls who don't have those markers, right?
So, if you really are enjoying your conversation with a woman at a bar, then you're going to want to make sure...
That this conversation is going to continue.
So you want to date this person, right?
Because if you really like them for who they are, then you're going to want to date them.
And maybe that, I don't know, this seems to be a very common device in movies and shows these days.
It's like, first date, everybody goes to bed, and it's all wonderful after that, but...
There's no rush. You've got the rest of your lives to have sex.
If this is somebody that you want to spend a good deal of time with, there's no rush.
And where there is a rush, there's usually a problem.
Anyway, we can get into that perhaps another time.
But either you like the person that you want to go to bed with, or you don't like the person that you want to go to bed with.
If you like the person genuinely enjoying their company, then there should be no urgency or rush to go to bed with them.
If you don't like the woman that you're talking to, right?
If she's kind of snotty or mean or coarse or whatever, right?
But you still want to have sex with her, then you're definitely completely disconnecting your values from your sex drive.
Then your sex drive is in opposition to your values, right?
And... So, if you then end up having sex with somebody that you dislike, I don't mean friends with benefits or any of these other mirages, I mean, you meet a woman in a bar, you don't really like her, but you think she's sexy or whatever, and you don't like her, but you go to have sex with her.
I don't know, I mean, is it really possible to perform as a man if you genuinely don't like the person that you're having sex with?
I don't know. I've never been in that situation.
It's hard for me to imagine.
Do you have to fool yourself that you like her or whatever, right?
So if you really like the woman, why not?
Then it would make sense to try and have a relationship with that person if you really like them.
If you don't, like if your intelligence or whatever is vastly different, then you're really then just having sex with the body, right?
With no human being in it.
Basically, the personality becomes an inconvenience, right?
Like, some inflatable doll has no personality.
That's not a negative you have to overcome.
But a woman with an unpleasant personality, it's a negative you have to overcome, right?
So, you get the plus of the flesh, but the negative of the personality.
What does that do to your values in the long run?
I don't know. I mean, again...
One stogie is not going to kill you, but do you want to make a habit of it?
Do you want to say that there's no difference between having sex with someone that you love and having sex with someone you dislike?
There is, of course, a huge difference, and we know that, right?
You give anyone the choice, and you say, would you like to be in a committed, loving relationship with someone you respect and admire?
I have all the great sex that that entails.
Or... Would you like to just have a meaningless one-night stand with somebody you dislike?
Well, of course people are going to say, well, I'd rather have a relationship, right?
And again, this is a trend thing, right?
We'd all rather have good health and have healthy hearts and lungs and so on, and the occasional Big Mac is not going to make that an impossibility, but a steady diet of Big Macs is going to have an effect on your cardiovascular system.
In the same way, a steady diet...
Of meaningless sex, where you're using a woman's body, although you dislike her as an individual, you know, one time, two times, three times, not the end of the world.
Three Big Macs ain't gonna kill you, but I think if you make it a steady diet, then I think it has an effect on you.
This is something I've mentioned before.
Rupert Everett is an ex-Calvin Klein model and actor.
He was in An ideal husband.
I think it was an Oscar Wilde movie.
Quite a good actor, actually. He was also in Midsummer Night's Dream.
And you may know him from My Best Friend's Wedding.
He played the highly gay friend.
He said, you know, when you have a lot of sex with a lot of people when you're young, it kind of smashes you up on the inside.
And there is an elevation, to use quasi-religious terms, which I apologize, but they work here.
There is an elevation of mere physical appetite above any kind of spiritual or moral considerations.
Again, I know that sounds all Victorian and prudy, but when you say that all of my idealistic values are higher impulses or impulses towards virtue and respect and admiration for someone, when those get repeatedly subsumed to base physical lusts, Then you're kind of saying there's an opposition between these two things, right?
So my self-esteem and my desire for love and really ideal behavior should be to look for somebody that I really admire and maybe hold off from banging unpleasant broads until you find that person.
Whereas, if you sort of say, well, my physical needs and my physical lusts are going to win out over this kind of stuff, then you really are kind of putting these two things in opposition.
What does that do to you in the long run?
I don't know. I mean, I don't know.
I had a lot of relationships, but I was never really promiscuous in that sense, right?
A serial monogamist. So, I can't really tell from that standpoint.
I think it does bad things to women, for sure.
It does bad things to women.
And then the men who kind of pray...
And this is a really, really difficult and dangerous territory, right?
So I don't want to be too volatile here, and this is certainly nothing like the prostitution debate.
But if a woman, let's say...
Is not respected, not taught to value herself, is perhaps sexualized too early in one form or another, and then when she wants to feel admired or wants to feel wanted, she loves to be loved or whatever, wants to feel wanted by someone, and she's never been given the opportunity to develop her own personality, to develop her own wit and charm and humor and whatever, right?
If she was never taught that those were at all valuable aspects of her personality, then when she wants to feel wanted by somebody, particularly if nature has graced her with certain ratios of attractiveness, then, you know, she's going to do up her hair, put on her makeup, put on a short skirt, and, you know, on a halter top or whatever to take a cliche, and she's going to go to trolling the bar, and then she's going to be desired, right?
But she didn't earn that, right?
The great danger, of course, in all of these things, as we've always talked, is to think that you are worth something because of accident.
So, if a woman is attractive or even just available and that turns guys on, she didn't create the sexual desire.
That's just something that nature has instilled in us for the sake of allowing our little toes to make more little toes.
So, she didn't earn her figure.
She didn't earn... The boy's chemical and calculated lust for that figure and so on.
So if she wants to be wanted, and she sort of talks herself up and puts herself out there on display, then...
She's not being wanted for who she is, clearly.
I mean, we're all pretty much aware of that, right?
I mean, you just see some hot woman that you want to go to bed with, you don't want her for who she is.
And again, I'm not saying that the lust is bad or anything like that.
I'm just, let's look at the real breakdown, right?
I mean, a woman who puts herself out there in a sexualized way and sleeps with men that she knows nothing about, obviously does not feel that she has a lot to bring to the table.
What can I bring to the table?
T&A. Boobs, ass, and vagina.
That's what I can bring to the table.
That's the value that I bring to men.
Not my virtue, not my self-esteem, not my intelligence, not my accomplishments, not my abilities, not my talents, not my skills, not my conversation, not my learning, not my knowledge, not my wisdom.
What do I bring? Flesh.
Like a butcher brings flesh.
So, if this is the kind of woman that a man needs in order to be promiscuous himself, right?
If he needs a promiscuous woman, and if the woman is promiscuous because she doesn't feel like she has anything else to bring to the table, and, of course, then her promiscuity is both an affirmation in a shallow sense of her value and a real denial of her value in a deeper sense, right? Then she is repeating... The abuse that she experienced as a child, which leads her to only value herself as a sexualized creature.
Now, I know, I know.
It's exploitive. I don't even want to get into that.
But just be aware of that, right?
Like as you're sort of cruising the bars and the sexualized women are putting themselves out there and the women who are promiscuous are available, that there is a continuum in that behavior from a pretty rejected and abused childhood.
Now, you didn't cause that, and maybe you're exploiting it, maybe you're not, but that's the reality of how these women end up in this situation.
And you're not responsible, and it's not rape, and it's not prostitution, and I understand all of that.
I understand all of that. But if you can see these women, right?
This is the challenge of seeing the full person, the whole person.
Right? If you could see that these frightened and hurt little girls are now,
you know, maybe coming on strong from a sexualized standpoint and so on, but if you can see that continuum, right?
So you want to see the path that leads someone to that kind of situation.
If you want to develop your full empathy for someone and your full capacity to love someone, which is to love who they were as well as who they are, even who they were before, right?
You met them. Christine and I will sometimes talk about if we'd met each other when we were 10, we'd have been like best friends, right?
Because I love her when I see her in a picture or in a video when she's five years old, right?
Because whoever she was when she was that old allowed her or enabled that path to have her become who she was when I met her, which was just a wonderful and charming human being.
So... To what degree...
Do we, and again, this is a loaded term and a feminist term, so I use it with some delicacy, but to what degree do we have to dehumanize someone in order to view them as mere flesh?
To what degree do we not have to see them as a full human being with a history and so on?
And... Again, this is not, you know, lock yourself in your chastity belt and never feel lust.
I mean, there's nothing to do with any of that.
I mean, the lust is a beautiful and wonderful part of life, and it's essential in more than just sexual areas.
Lust for life, lust for success, lust for beauty.
These are all wonderful things to have, but lust for sex, and even just like raw, grabbing fistful back fat kind of sex, too.
Nothing wrong with this. Great, you know?
But... I think that we have to be careful how we train our instincts.
We just have to have a thought for it, right?
If you go for the easy gratification of physical sex without intimacy, without caution, without knowing the other person, without full empathy, if you go for that, you know, whatever, right?
We can survive indiscretions, right?
We can survive mistakes.
We don't have to be perfect. But it's not an ideal, right?
At best, it's a do-for.
And you have to make sure, this is what I would really suggest, right?
And I don't know what the answer to this is, so if you try it, let me know.
If you have tried it, let me know. I would suggest that if you are into promiscuity, let's just say if you're a guy, then try this...
Try this experiment, right?
And just, you know, when you're sitting across from the woman, you want to have sex with her, maybe she's available and she'll do it and so on.
And I don't know about for you, but for guys, at least for me, it was a bit of a miracle, right?
So I was like, really? Okay.
And you spend so much of your life thinking about it and wanting it, then when it comes along, like, wow.
Starving guy at a buffet. Anyway, so...
Maybe just sort of do this experiment and see...
Are there any parts of you that you have to not have present in you when you're going through this particular performance or going through this particular interaction?
Do you have to just look at the woman as hot flesh with no history?
Do you have to dehumanize the woman?
Are you training your sexual impulses to respond to mere flesh?
Which every woman has and is not particularly a great thing that she bestows it upon you if it's just because she's acting out some, this is the only way I have value.
Or, of course, and again, this is not to put women in the same Victorian cross-legged prudes, if the woman has just, you know, this lusty woman wants to just use you, doesn't like you particularly, because if she likes you, you'd try and have a relationship.
I wouldn't just jump into bed together. But if she's just using you for your cock, then it doesn't like you as an individual.
Do you have to pretend otherwise?
Like, if the woman said to you, some attractive woman said to you, I don't like you, like I'd never have a relationship with you, I don't like you at all.
I think that you're pompous and arrogant and manipulative or whatever, but I'm willing to have sex with you.
I mean, would that be something that you would feel great about?
That's my real concern.
What parts of you do you have to dissociate from in order to achieve this kind of interaction on a repetitive basis?
Do you have to dehumanize?
Do you have to pretend that things are something other than what they are?
Do you have to blank out the history of the person that you're with?
Do you have to blank out the fact that you don't like that person?
Do you have to blank out the fact that they don't like you, perhaps?
Do you have to blank out the enormous amount of contortions that you have to go through?
I mean, if all you want is an orgasm, you know, five minutes and some...
Pam cooking spray and you're good to go, right?
In fact, you don't want to make sure you don't start a fire.
But, you know, so the sort of getting yourself all dressed up and going out and finding the bar and finding the woman and making the small talk and having the drinks, like all of this going to our place and like all that for, what, five or ten minutes of X, Y, and Z, or X and X, I guess. Is it really the sex and the orgasm that you're after?
Again, these are all questions I don't have the answers to because I've not been in that situation, but...
Is it the orgasm that you want?
If you want the orgasm, just masturbate, right?
But is there anything else that's going on that might be informing this experience that you may not be as consciously aware of?
Is it costing you in some manner, right?
I mean, this is all just stuff and nonsense as far as proof goes, but...
As we've talked about in last Sunday's show and also in a conversation on the board, I've yet to meet a promiscuous guy who liked his mom.
Right? I mean, that's not something that I can...
I'm not going to go into sort of why that is the case or the theory behind it, but it's just something to mull over, right?
I mean, if there is this commonality...
Then it's something that the promiscuity is covering up, right?
And the other thing, too, is that it's, you know, this is just sort of a by-the-by.
This is something that I just find kind of annoying in general.
So, you know, even less objective than the other parts of this conversation, but...
Guys who are really good looking will always say, oh, the way that you get women to go to bed with you is you do this tactic and that tactic and you put a finger in your mouth and you do the hokey-dokey while covered in bathtub gin and dairy whip or something.
And it's all like, well, that's great.
If you're six foot tall, a beautiful head, a glossy hair and great cheekbones and piercing blue eyes, it's like, I know that you think that you've got all these tricks, but...
But that's like a woman with, I don't know, big tits and a narrow waist and a low-cut top saying, yeah, there's a way that you walk.
It's like Raquel Welch saying, well, it's the way that I walk that's attractive.
It's like, no, you walk that way because you're attractive.
You don't become attractive because you walk that way, right?
Women who are flirty, who look up through lowered eyebrows, and who have that tossing over the shoulder hair laugh and all that kind of stuff, they're not considered attractive because they do that stuff.
They can do that stuff and not be laughed at because they're attractive.
I mean, if some, I don't know, fat...
Girl does it, then it doesn't look so attractive.
It just looks kind of ridiculous, right?
And people just laugh at her, right?
So, I mean, this is another podcast for another time.
We basically do what we can get away with and call it personal attributes.
But anyway, you know, the real question is, you know, if you feel that it's the...
And again, how much illusion is required here?
Are you a player because you're really good-looking and cocky with great verbal skills and this and that, right?
Or are you a player because you've got all these personal attributes like tricks and, you know, all this and that?
Well, it's easy to find out, right?
Just... Dress up ugly and shave only one side of your beard and one of your eyebrows and then try using all of your tricks, right?
Well, they're not going to work, right?
Like Sophia Loren saying, you know, true beauty comes from the inside, you know?
She says that after like five hours of makeup and dieting her whole life or whatever, right?
So, and Sophia Loren, for the average age of my listeners, Sophia Loren was funnier.
It was pretty hot when she was younger, even before my time.
You know, whatever, right? I mean, it's like Anna Nicole Smith saying, you know, he married me for my personality, right?
Both of them. And so just that's my concern, right?
I mean, if you look at promiscuity full in the face, at the history of feeling unvalued, at the history of how you substitute accidental personal attributes for something that you consider makes you a cooler or better or sexier or whatever human being...
And all of the other evasions and dissociations and pretending that things aren't what they are and dehumanizations.
When you put all of that together, is it costing you more than masturbating?
Is it costing you more than it's giving you?
You'll have to answer that because I don't know, but I would certainly say that it's suspect, right?
And I think that promiscuity is a way of avoiding a lot of questions and creating value through the pursuit of sexual achievement or whatever.
And I think it's costly, and I think you have to look at what you're training yourself to respond to and what you're training yourself to value.
And whether that is something that is going to serve you in a longer term and more loving relationship.
And of course, let me know what you think.
Thank you so much for listening.
▲
Export Selection