Promiscuity is Emotional Psychopathy
This continues entry 101- Promiscuity is a Scourge of Humanity.
I prefer using the expression Psychopathy, even though in the DSM IV, it is now defined as Antisocial Personality Disorder
These are some of the symptoms:
# consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
# lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;
# promiscuity;
# having shallow or seemingly nonexistent feelings
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_Personality_Disorder#DSM
The first of the above symptoms should not only mention financial obligations, but also emotional and ethical obligations.
The expression of 'promiscuous psychopath' is really a tautology, when used on humans, because I consider promiscuity in the species of homo sapiens by my definition as a form of psychopathy. But since I cannot find a noun for a promiscuous person, I am distinguishing between full and promiscuous psychopaths.
Full psychopaths exploit, hurt, damage, abuse other people without a conscience, without empathy, without responsibility, as if they were entitled to this.
Promiscuous psychopaths exploit, hurt, damage, abuse monogamous people without a conscience, without empathy, without responsibility, as if they were entitled to do this.
There is only one difference. The damage by a full psychopath can be anything visible from killing, mutilating, material and not only psychological damage. The damage by the promiscuous psychopath is limited to the mostly invisible emotional and psychological damage, except when spreading a disease.
Therefore everybody acknowledges the existence and unacceptability of the obvious damage done by the full psychopath, while the damage by the promiscuous psychopath is hidden and socially not recognized.
Of course, the definition of mental illness or mental health are relative to the evolution of the human part of the brain. Promiscuity could not be defined as emotional psychopathy for those prehistoric times, where the brain had not yet evolved the promiscuity inhibition. When animals behave as animals, they cannot be called psychopathic.
But in modern civilizations at least a part of the population has evolved to such a progressed state of true humanity, that they are capable to be monogamously bonded and their bond is protected by the promiscuity inhibition. In this situation, promiscuity is a regression to a less evolved state of mind, that is pathological compared with the benefits of monogamy for the individual.
Assuming a woman, whose emotional sensitivity of having a promiscuity inhibition is still intact. That woman gets involved with a man based on her trust, that this is the begin of a relationship for the rest of her life, and automatically she feels committed and bonded with him.
There are some varieties of this scenario.
1. If she is lucky, his promiscuity inhibition is as intact as hers, and they are deeply bonded ever after like Dorine and André Gorz.
2. If she is unlucky, a full psychopath cheats and tricks her out of a lot of money and then dumps her. She gets empathy and sincere outrage for the loss of money, because that damage is obvious, but her agony of the broken bond is mostly overlooked.
3. If she is unlucky, a promiscuous man, who is an emotional psychopath, just allows himself to be driven by his instincts, without even considering a future with this woman. If he has not sunk too low yet, he might even be vaguely willing to get seriously involved with a woman some day, but postpones the decision. After having got involved, he decides against her and dumps her. He having already been so much emotionally crippled, is not affected at all by a broken bond, that he never was capable to feel. But the woman is devastated, because her deep bond is broken.
His behavior is psychopathic. He has no conscience, no responsibility, no consideration, no empathy for the bond, that he had created in her. She gets not much empathy and no outrage for her sufferings, because in a society, where this kind of emotional psychopathy is widespread, even those, who are no afflicted themselves, are often accepting it as fate and as the normal risk of life.
Whenever a psychopath makes a non-psychopath his victim, this causes a tragedy. When two psychopaths deal with each other, they both get, what they deserve, and if they kill or damage each other, they were equal adversaries and do not deserve compassion. But full psychopaths are only a minority of society, and they usually only get at each other in institutions like prisons. Most of the time, their victims are innocent decent people.
Two emotional psychopaths having both been emotionally crippled in the same way, cannot hurt each other and they can believe that there is nothing wrong with promiscuity in general and hurt others as if this was normal and their right. Two people already having both a contagious disease are not dangerous to each other, but they are dangerous to those, who are still free of the disease. As a metaphor, promiscuity is like a disease, that destroys the ability for deep bonding.
Unfortunately, there are so many promiscuous, emotional psychopaths, that they are considered as normal and not as pathological. If they are growing into promiscuity too young, they will never even know, what they are lacking.
This continues entry 101- Promiscuity is a Scourge of Humanity.
I prefer using the expression Psychopathy, even though in the DSM IV, it is now defined as Antisocial Personality Disorder
These are some of the symptoms:
# consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
# lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;
# promiscuity;
# having shallow or seemingly nonexistent feelings
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_Personality_Disorder#DSM
The first of the above symptoms should not only mention financial obligations, but also emotional and ethical obligations.
The expression of 'promiscuous psychopath' is really a tautology, when used on humans, because I consider promiscuity in the species of homo sapiens by my definition as a form of psychopathy. But since I cannot find a noun for a promiscuous person, I am distinguishing between full and promiscuous psychopaths.
Full psychopaths exploit, hurt, damage, abuse other people without a conscience, without empathy, without responsibility, as if they were entitled to this.
Promiscuous psychopaths exploit, hurt, damage, abuse monogamous people without a conscience, without empathy, without responsibility, as if they were entitled to do this.
There is only one difference. The damage by a full psychopath can be anything visible from killing, mutilating, material and not only psychological damage. The damage by the promiscuous psychopath is limited to the mostly invisible emotional and psychological damage, except when spreading a disease.
Therefore everybody acknowledges the existence and unacceptability of the obvious damage done by the full psychopath, while the damage by the promiscuous psychopath is hidden and socially not recognized.
Of course, the definition of mental illness or mental health are relative to the evolution of the human part of the brain. Promiscuity could not be defined as emotional psychopathy for those prehistoric times, where the brain had not yet evolved the promiscuity inhibition. When animals behave as animals, they cannot be called psychopathic.
But in modern civilizations at least a part of the population has evolved to such a progressed state of true humanity, that they are capable to be monogamously bonded and their bond is protected by the promiscuity inhibition. In this situation, promiscuity is a regression to a less evolved state of mind, that is pathological compared with the benefits of monogamy for the individual.
Assuming a woman, whose emotional sensitivity of having a promiscuity inhibition is still intact. That woman gets involved with a man based on her trust, that this is the begin of a relationship for the rest of her life, and automatically she feels committed and bonded with him.
There are some varieties of this scenario.
1. If she is lucky, his promiscuity inhibition is as intact as hers, and they are deeply bonded ever after like Dorine and André Gorz.
2. If she is unlucky, a full psychopath cheats and tricks her out of a lot of money and then dumps her. She gets empathy and sincere outrage for the loss of money, because that damage is obvious, but her agony of the broken bond is mostly overlooked.
3. If she is unlucky, a promiscuous man, who is an emotional psychopath, just allows himself to be driven by his instincts, without even considering a future with this woman. If he has not sunk too low yet, he might even be vaguely willing to get seriously involved with a woman some day, but postpones the decision. After having got involved, he decides against her and dumps her. He having already been so much emotionally crippled, is not affected at all by a broken bond, that he never was capable to feel. But the woman is devastated, because her deep bond is broken.
His behavior is psychopathic. He has no conscience, no responsibility, no consideration, no empathy for the bond, that he had created in her. She gets not much empathy and no outrage for her sufferings, because in a society, where this kind of emotional psychopathy is widespread, even those, who are no afflicted themselves, are often accepting it as fate and as the normal risk of life.
Whenever a psychopath makes a non-psychopath his victim, this causes a tragedy. When two psychopaths deal with each other, they both get, what they deserve, and if they kill or damage each other, they were equal adversaries and do not deserve compassion. But full psychopaths are only a minority of society, and they usually only get at each other in institutions like prisons. Most of the time, their victims are innocent decent people.
Two emotional psychopaths having both been emotionally crippled in the same way, cannot hurt each other and they can believe that there is nothing wrong with promiscuity in general and hurt others as if this was normal and their right. Two people already having both a contagious disease are not dangerous to each other, but they are dangerous to those, who are still free of the disease. As a metaphor, promiscuity is like a disease, that destroys the ability for deep bonding.
Unfortunately, there are so many promiscuous, emotional psychopaths, that they are considered as normal and not as pathological. If they are growing into promiscuity too young, they will never even know, what they are lacking.
It is the same as with the delusion of the existence of a god and a life after death. Too many people share this delusion, that it is considered as normal and not as a mental dysfunction.
There was this famous couple, Simone de Beauvoir and Jean Paul Sartre. So many people admire them. They have written valuable books and they were certainly very intellectual.
But as persons, they are both the prototypes of promiscuous, emotional psychopaths. They agreed on how to treat each other the way they wanted to be treated.
They both have gone through life leaving behind a trail of deeply wounded others, who got involved with each of them for a monogamous bond, but where just used and dumped without conscience, consideration and responsibility. Beauvoir and Sartre not only committed emotional atrocities to those, who loved them more than they deserved, but they were also misunderstood role models, who have indirectly caused lots of emotional atrocities committed by those, who imitated them.
