Atheistic Moral Concerning Promiscuity
In entry 108 I explained my assumption, that those people become promiscuous, whose saks (misspelled to avoid appearing in filthy men's searches) drive is stronger than their disgust sensitivity.
This is much more the case with men than with women. The real percentage is of no importance, but there are many more promiscuous men than women.
In an oversimplified example, 100 men and 100 women get newly involved intimately. Of those 30 couples were both monogamous and would get bonded, 40 men and women would both have a promiscuous fling and forget about it unaffected, that leaves a mismatch of 30 promiscuous men and 30 non-promiscuous women, who are not suitable for each other. The women get emotionally bonded automatically and will be very hurt, when they are dumped, abused or cheated upon by the men, who lack the ability to bond.
Promiscuity hurts the non-promiscuous victim. It causes serious emotional damage. Therefore, this is a very serious moral issue. Hurting others is morally wrong. Moral requires consideration and responsibility.
But this is not just a moral issue limited to not following specific rules of some societies or religions. It is worse, it is a breach of basic humanity.
Basic humanity means to me as an atheist to follow some kind of the golden rule. This includes as a very important part, maybe as the core of it, to avoid hurting, damaging, exploiting others. Avoiding to hurt others is more than empathy or projection. It is requires active efforts to find out, what would hurt them and then refrain from doing it.
Therefore any promiscuous person has the moral obligation to make sure, that a partner is also promiscuous, before starting a fling. Making a non-suspecting monogamous woman the victim of promiscuity is an atrocity and deeply immoral.
There are three main varieties of promiscuous men:
1. Those, who are aware of the consequences of their behavior, they restrict their demeanor to promiscuous women. They have their emotional disability of being unable to bond, but as long as they stay with their own kind in the gutter, they do no harm to decent women.
2. They are the emotional variety of psychopaths as explained in entry 104. These psychopaths do know, that they hurt and damage others, in this case the monogamous women, whom they lure and manipulate into allowing the psychopath to abuse them.
3. But there seem also to be some promiscuous men, who are either so incredibly stupid or driven by a delusion, that they just have no clue, what they do to their victims. From looking at some men's site, I start to suspect, what goes on in those abominable creatures' mind:
- They project, that women are as much driven by instinct to want flings as they are themselves. They belief that by 'offering' a fling, they are doing the woman a favor and the woman should be pleased and flattered.
- They are too stupid to even imagine, that a woman could get emotional bonded, while they forget them the next day.
- They are completely ignorant and oblivious of the fact, that women are not mere bodies, but persons with dignity and self-esteem.
- They believe, that all women are promiscuous and all run after the alpha-males to be allowed into their bed. If their own approach is rejected by a woman, they are too stupid to even imagine, that the woman is just decent and monogamous, they attribute it to the alpha males getting them all. These idiots then pay a lot of money to be trained as pick-up-artists. Psychopaths teach other men to become more successful as abusers. It would be pathetic, were there no victims at risk. Nobody seems to bother. I wonder, what would happen, if a full psychopath would start training others in how to forge and steal. There is no real difference, those pick-up-artists can do as much damage to a woman's emotions as does a thief to a person's possession.
For the case, that one of those abominable creatures reads this, here is a chance to reconsider his delusion:
= When I was approached by a man, and it was clear, that he wished to use my body, I considered this as an insult and I spat in front of his feet. This was the strongest expression of disdain and scorn, that I could think of.
= If I were forced to choose between two man, one is a non-promiscuous, hyponanimalistic man able to bond, but he is impotent, the other is a stud, but promiscuous and not able to bond, I would choose the impotent one without a moment's hesitation.
To sum this up. Promiscuity 1 is pathetic, they may deserve compassion for their lost bonding ability. Promiscuity 2 and 3 are immoral, because the used victims suffer.
Unfortunately, the emotional suffering of women is usually not recognized by their society, not only when it is directly caused by emotional psychopaths, but in general. Men dominate society, not only by political power, but mainly by the power over the media, so they manipulate men in their delusion of what they are entitled to do to women, and women in their willingness to suffer, what should cause their outrage. Religion adds to this by promising the reward in the afterlife, if they willingly suffer on earth, whatever is done to them.
In entry 108 I explained my assumption, that those people become promiscuous, whose saks (misspelled to avoid appearing in filthy men's searches) drive is stronger than their disgust sensitivity.
This is much more the case with men than with women. The real percentage is of no importance, but there are many more promiscuous men than women.
In an oversimplified example, 100 men and 100 women get newly involved intimately. Of those 30 couples were both monogamous and would get bonded, 40 men and women would both have a promiscuous fling and forget about it unaffected, that leaves a mismatch of 30 promiscuous men and 30 non-promiscuous women, who are not suitable for each other. The women get emotionally bonded automatically and will be very hurt, when they are dumped, abused or cheated upon by the men, who lack the ability to bond.
Promiscuity hurts the non-promiscuous victim. It causes serious emotional damage. Therefore, this is a very serious moral issue. Hurting others is morally wrong. Moral requires consideration and responsibility.
But this is not just a moral issue limited to not following specific rules of some societies or religions. It is worse, it is a breach of basic humanity.
Basic humanity means to me as an atheist to follow some kind of the golden rule. This includes as a very important part, maybe as the core of it, to avoid hurting, damaging, exploiting others. Avoiding to hurt others is more than empathy or projection. It is requires active efforts to find out, what would hurt them and then refrain from doing it.
Therefore any promiscuous person has the moral obligation to make sure, that a partner is also promiscuous, before starting a fling. Making a non-suspecting monogamous woman the victim of promiscuity is an atrocity and deeply immoral.
There are three main varieties of promiscuous men:
1. Those, who are aware of the consequences of their behavior, they restrict their demeanor to promiscuous women. They have their emotional disability of being unable to bond, but as long as they stay with their own kind in the gutter, they do no harm to decent women.
2. They are the emotional variety of psychopaths as explained in entry 104. These psychopaths do know, that they hurt and damage others, in this case the monogamous women, whom they lure and manipulate into allowing the psychopath to abuse them.
3. But there seem also to be some promiscuous men, who are either so incredibly stupid or driven by a delusion, that they just have no clue, what they do to their victims. From looking at some men's site, I start to suspect, what goes on in those abominable creatures' mind:
- They project, that women are as much driven by instinct to want flings as they are themselves. They belief that by 'offering' a fling, they are doing the woman a favor and the woman should be pleased and flattered.
- They are too stupid to even imagine, that a woman could get emotional bonded, while they forget them the next day.
- They are completely ignorant and oblivious of the fact, that women are not mere bodies, but persons with dignity and self-esteem.
- They believe, that all women are promiscuous and all run after the alpha-males to be allowed into their bed. If their own approach is rejected by a woman, they are too stupid to even imagine, that the woman is just decent and monogamous, they attribute it to the alpha males getting them all. These idiots then pay a lot of money to be trained as pick-up-artists. Psychopaths teach other men to become more successful as abusers. It would be pathetic, were there no victims at risk. Nobody seems to bother. I wonder, what would happen, if a full psychopath would start training others in how to forge and steal. There is no real difference, those pick-up-artists can do as much damage to a woman's emotions as does a thief to a person's possession.
For the case, that one of those abominable creatures reads this, here is a chance to reconsider his delusion:
= When I was approached by a man, and it was clear, that he wished to use my body, I considered this as an insult and I spat in front of his feet. This was the strongest expression of disdain and scorn, that I could think of.
= If I were forced to choose between two man, one is a non-promiscuous, hyponanimalistic man able to bond, but he is impotent, the other is a stud, but promiscuous and not able to bond, I would choose the impotent one without a moment's hesitation.
To sum this up. Promiscuity 1 is pathetic, they may deserve compassion for their lost bonding ability. Promiscuity 2 and 3 are immoral, because the used victims suffer.
Unfortunately, the emotional suffering of women is usually not recognized by their society, not only when it is directly caused by emotional psychopaths, but in general. Men dominate society, not only by political power, but mainly by the power over the media, so they manipulate men in their delusion of what they are entitled to do to women, and women in their willingness to suffer, what should cause their outrage. Religion adds to this by promising the reward in the afterlife, if they willingly suffer on earth, whatever is done to them.
