It’s one of the best-kept secrets of polite society that non-monogamous sex when done with Epicurean mastery can be a deeply profound and mutually satisfying activity. There’s no necessary contradiction between engaging in promiscuous behavior and keeping one’s dignity, humanity, and discipline.
Society actively pressures individuals with promiscuous tendencies either (1) to avoid acting upon those tendencies, or (2) to act upon them in a particularly hedonistic way, for example by going out to nightclubs and drinking a ton of alcohol. The second part might sound a bit strange: Why would society want you to be more hedonistic? The answer is that promiscuity isn’t a fundamentally hedonistic endeavor, but that the structure of civilization depends in part on the Great Lie that it supposedly is. Through the unconscious process of cultural evolution, the sociological landscape has been set up to systematically convince the population that promiscuity is impulsivity, by funneling everyone who might engage in such behavior into a way of doing so that contains a major load of hedonistic baggage. Since virtually everyone who engages in promiscuous behavior without meticulously hiding it from the gossiping voices of others combines it with alcohol abuse and other such things, it’s easy for people to point to the full-package activity, correctly label it hedonistic, and then make a sleight of hand by calling promiscuous behavior in general hedonistic.
In other words: From the perspective of society, it’s generally seen as optimal if people just don’t act upon their promiscuous propensities, but it’s seen as almost as good if they’re tricked into acting upon them only in a context which shall convince them, or at the very least convince those around them, that they’re being hedonistic. When the average person thinks of promiscuous behavior, they think not just about the essence of promiscuity, but instead about a socially constructed package of behaviors: abuse of alcohol, hangovers, late nights, impulsive choices, putting on a facade, saying stupid things, etc. But all of these actions and outcomes are extraneous; there’s no fundamental reason that promiscuity needs to have anything to do with these unrefined behaviors.
In this article, I wish to jettison this hedonistic baggage, and really strike the core of what it means to engage in the Epicurean version of promiscuous behavior, both for men and women. How can the tendency to form pair-bonding emotions be avoided? How can a woman avoid feeling regret after a hookup, as popular culture likes to assume is always the case? These and other questions are key to untangling the mess that society has created, and showing how casual sex can be pursued without the pathological outcomes that tend to accompany it for those who haven’t stumbled onto the proper approach.
Casual vs. Committed Sex
To begin, consider that both men and women have a duality designed into their sexual psychology by the forces of biological evolution:
- For men, on one hand they seek to spread their seed far and wide, impregnating as many women as they can and then simply letting the chips fall where they may; and on the other hand they seek to find a woman to commit to, impregnating her and then protecting her during and after the pregnancy, and providing resources to her and the children.
- Women, then, have a corresponding duality, in that they either pursue sex with a man who isn’t expected to commit for the long haul but seems to have very high-quality sperm to provide, or a man who’s expected to stick around and help raise the children. Of course the ideal for a woman is to find a man with an excellent seed, a lot of resources, and a strong likelihood of sustainable commitment; but most men lean to one side or the other, and with any given sexual interaction a woman will have been convinced to participate because of some ratio of those two factors. A man who seems extremely unlikely to commit will only feel worth consenting to if he seems to offer remarkably good genetic material, and a man who seems like he has an extremely high chance of committing can be forgiven if he doesn’t measure up to that same standard, in terms of sperm quality.
How Should a Man Approach Casual Sex?
From the standpoint of a female’s biologically hardwired sexual psychology, the only point in having sex with a male who isn’t expected to stick around is if he’s likely to provide an excellent seed. And thus every woman has designed into her brain a pathway with this fact in mind. Obviously a woman won’t consciously think about whether a man has good genetics; instead she intuits his level based on hardwired proxies. These proxies should be quite familiar to most people, as they’re essentially what women are expected to look for during casual sex: big muscles, chiseled physique, excellent strength and endurance, unwavering confidence (which signals high status and thus high likelihood that his offspring will be in a position to also effectively climb the dominance hierarchy), and so on. As only within committed sex does attachment have any relevance, the first step involved in having the kind of sex that doesn’t cause this emotion is to hit upon a high level of what the woman will search for in an uncommitted encounter.
As a shorthand, I use the pair of terms “commitment mode” and “genetics mode”. When a woman decides that she wants to have sex with a man for her own sake, it will always originate in her mind from the basis of some combination between these two aspects. Either the man appears likely to commit, provide resources, and so forth, or he seems to possess excellent genetics to pass on… or some combination of these two factors. As pair-bonding is the province of commitment mode, to avoid producing unwanted pair-bonding emotions (which can be painful and may ruin the experience of casual sex), the man wants to make sure not to strike any of the commitment-mode pathways, instead making the affair a purely genetics-mode interaction. The moment a man hits upon the commitment-mode feelings, they run the risk of causing unwarranted attachment, if the objective is casual sex. When a man has sex with a woman, and through his actions causes her to feel regret, the reason is usually that he mixed the signals: He essentially lied, whether consciously or not, by using commitment-mode behavior, and thus the signaling of commitment, to convince a woman to have uncommitted sex. Being completely and entirely straightforward, not in words but with actions, will remove the issue of mixed signals, and communicate with unmistakable clarity to the woman that the goal is genetics mode, thus melting away the normal avenue of regret.
The question then becomes: How can a man accomplish a pure version of genetics mode, signaling no commitment-mode connotations whatsoever, in order to avoid the mixed-signals problems and truly convince the woman, not intellectually but in deep down in the primal depths of her brain, that the sex is worth participating in without any commitment?
First of all, the man will want to become someone who’s extremely desirable from the standpoint of genetics mode, so he doesn’t feel any incentive to pretend that commitment is in the cards in order to convince a woman to consent to sex. In practical terms, this means building a very healthy and athletic body, achieving a high level of performance within the sexual sphere, building one’s mental focus, learning how to achieve unshakeable composure, and so forth.
Secondly, however, the man must choose in the interaction to engage in a genetics-mode-oriented style of approach, seduction, and sex, rather than doing anything that signals commitment mode. To channel a purely genetics-mode orientation, there are a lot of things to take into account. One of the most important factors is that the interaction must be purely within the moment, and make no reference whatsoever to anything that the man and woman plan to do together in the future. All that matters is the here and now (whether or not the interaction turns out to be a one-night stand or leads to a multi-year relationship). Another key is to make the sexual sphere into something that’s completely segregated from the social sphere. By that I mean: There should be no talking during the sex unless it’s just minimalist animalistic phrases (and even then it seems potentially unwarranted). There should be absolutely zero reference to sex outside the sexual sphere, and all negotiation concerning the sex should be non-verbal, primal, and in-the-moment. When talking at a restaurant or while walking together, the man should of course optimize for behaving in a way that’s masculine and attractive, but the explicit content of the interaction shouldn’t itself contain anything explicitly sexual.
One of the keys is a disposition that I call Want Not Need. It’s where the man channels the greatest heights of passionate desire for the woman, without showing even the slightest hint of reliance, dependence, or need for her. This is truly the crux of genetics mode. It’s where the man shows no hesitation in using every last ounce of his mental focus, physical passion, and so forth, to engage with the woman in the moment, both within and without the sexual parts of the interaction, but the demonstrates absolutely no dependence on her existence in his life for his happiness and satisfaction. An important technique here is for the man to give the interaction everything he has, but then upon parting ways each time, limit text-based and phone-based contact to minimalist coordination of further meets, and limit the meets to a low frequency, such as once per 10-14 days. This makes it so the woman has the psychological incentive to also cultivate an internal Want Not Need dynamic; she doesn’t become attached, dependent, or reliant, because she know that the man isn’t willing to be her crutch. When he’s there, he’s all there; but when he’s not, she’s on her own.
And What About for Women?
I believe that perhaps the most important point to make is that engaging in casual sex on a regular basis, and being ‘easy’, are two entirely different things. Many people think that a woman who has a lot of casual sex with a variety of men over the course of a few years should be automatically described as “easy”, but that’s just not how it works. A woman who’s easy is a woman who has low standards and consents to sex with new partners not because she’s irresistibly aroused due to the circumstances, but because of some other factor. Having high standards, and refusing to have sex all the way up to the point where the man’s presence makes it feel impossible to not indulge in the temptation, will do wonders for a woman’s ability to engage in satisfying casual sex. It seems to me that the regret that many woman feel following a hookup isn’t due to the non-committed character of the sex, but rather because they want through with a sexual encounter that wasn’t truly irresistibly enticing.
A related point is that a woman should always view herself as the type of woman who doesn’t sleep around, even if an outside observer may disagree. If a woman puts herself out there, and learns to effectively vet men that approach her, then she’ll find herself in plenty of situations where she’s ‘swept off her feet’. Standards again are key. Being slutty, easy, and impulsive don’t necessarily have anything to do with simply being promiscuous; if a woman only goes along with the sexual encounters that feel extremely smooth and unavoidably intriguing, then she can see herself as a ‘good girl’ without it leading to a dull life of ‘prude’ behavior.
A woman with high standards should never consent to a sexual encounter unless she truly is unable to resist any longer. She should protect her sensitivity to sexual interaction by any means necessary, not only avoiding sexual contact with men who don’t strike her emotions with the full force of irresistible temptation, but also avoiding devices like vibrators (which ruin sensitivity). Any sexual encounter that does occur should bring the woman to an entirely new plane of existence, as it were; if casual sex starts to feel dull and routine, then something extremely destructive has happened, and immediate action should be taken to avoid stumbling down the nightmarish road to degeneracy, sexual pathology, and disgust with oneself.
Part of the seemingly unusual suggestion of viewing oneself as a ‘good girl’ even within the context of having plenty of casual sex is the insight that it’s extremely important to carve out separate ‘compartments’ within one’s mind for thinking about different things. Casual sex should be its own ‘compartment’, where it’s sequestered from the rest of one’s psychology. It’s hard for me to explain how to accomplish this, but basically a woman should try to exist as totally and completely in the moment as possible during an casual-sex encounter, and then use a sort of ‘what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas’ way of thinking to make it separate from the rest of her life. This isn’t to say that she should delude herself, since from an intellectual perspective she can admit whatever she wants to herself; it’s instead a suggestion about how to set up the ‘norms’ of one’s internal world. What I’m describing is no more delusional than choosing not to visualize the gory character of the slaughter of a cow while enjoying a nice steak. You can leave that thought to be addressed at a different time, when it wouldn’t ruin the Epicurean enjoyment of your meal. Deluding yourself out of literal knowledge, and carefully directing the stream of your thoughts; these are two different things.
With that said, I want to emphasize that a proper approach means that procuring casual sex for a woman isn’t any easier than it is for a man. A lot of MGTOW types, and in fact plenty of mainstream men, tend to think that women have a much easier time in the dating scene, as ‘they can get sex any day of the week’. That’s an excellent example of the mind-projection fallacy: the act of thinking that just because your mind works in a certain way (in this case, male psychology), then everyone else’s must as well (female psychology). While it’s surely the case that a woman can lower her standards to such an extremely low level as to put her mental health at the mercy of the abyss, and simply consent to any man who happens to pursue her (just as a man can pay for prostitution any day of the week), it’s not true that a woman has any easier of a time getting satisfying sex than a man. When men tend to run up against the obstacle of not being able to find a woman that will consent to him, women tend to encounter the obstacle of not being able to find a man who they won’t regret consenting to.
The answer for a woman is the same as it is for a man: intense self-development. Though of course the details of such self-development are very different: A woman must first and foremost work the aesthetics and femininity of her appearance, facial expressions, social skills, and so forth. There’s no shortcut. Women have have highly satisfying casual-sex encounters with high-status men on a consistent basis have put in the work. The more attractive and feminine a woman becomes, the more she’ll find herself surrounded by high-quality men; and luckily, the higher quality the man the more likely it is that he’ll understand the extremely nuanced endeavor of navigating the sexual psychology of women, creating deep satisfaction without letting side effects like regret and other such emotions seep in.