/lit/ - Literature

>>19850157
>I've been thinking about sex all day non-stop
I think you need a gf, man

>>19850157
Just look at how widespread stuff like syphilis was in the past. Also, if you hold any semblance of mystical views, you'll see that either long stretches of abstinence or outright celibacy are seen as leading to awakening or truth.
Secularism and empirical science are limited by design. You're not going to find any good secular arguments against infidelity or promiscuity because they undermine all normative values and lead to a disenchanting view of life.

>>19850157
it reduces diversity of the y chromosome thanks to hypergamous nature of women and polygamous nature of men.It also makes a lot of men just striaght up hopeless, becoming le blackpilled incel to be precise , thereby accelerating the end of civilization and perhaps the species itself, as women start adopting more of r strategy by embracing their primordial instict to mate with physically attractive man.

>>19850167
>Just look at how widespread stuff like syphilis was in the past
But with the advance of medicine, and the accessibility of protection, this argument gets weaker by the day.
>you'll see that either long stretches of abstinence or outright celibacy are seen as leading to awakening or truth.
They are seen as such, but is it really the case?

The sexual act should be reserved for marriage ideally. Promiscuity is unnatural because it requires contraception and abortion to even exist. Humans were made to be monogamous, faithful creatures. There are also many negative social effects which result from promiscuity. Divorce, low fertility, hookup culture, child abuse/neglect, and so on.

>>19850157
>What books make the best arguments for and against promiscuity? And I mean, both for males and females.
>I've always been against promiscuity on principle, but during the last days I've been constantly thinking about the subject without rest, in bed, at university, on the bus.
>I feel like I'm missing something, may it be something that reinforces my view or something that shatters it.

>>19850187
>Humans were made to be monogamous, faithful creatures
But that's not true, the "alpha male" in nature is supposed to be polygamous, and all the other men wouldn't get any sex at all.
>There are also many negative social effects which result from promiscuity. Divorce, low fertility, hookup culture, child abuse/neglect, and so on.
On this I agree, promiscuity is certainly linked to a lack of morals, I'm just trying to find that link.

>>19850180
>advance of medicine
Modern medicine is all fake bullshit funded by the Rockefellers. They are based on petrochemicals. Rockefellers have done their best to destroy the legitimacy of naturopathy.
>this argument gets weaker by the day.
Not really. If it's something that "modern" medicine can only fix, then you should be keyed in that there's something wrong with it.
>They are seen as such, but is it really the case?
Yes, but maybe not to brainlet physicalists or materialists, which all logically entail nihilism.

>>19850198
In this case we are using authority as an argument: the authority of people who practice celibacy.
You are basically saying:
"Celibates tend to be smarter, so they must be right"
Which is already making the assumption that celibates really are smarter.

>>19850196
Polygyny is better than polyamory for traditional societies fyi. I don't think polygamous societies, where a man has more than one wife, are technically promiscuous. Polyamorous and polyandry ones are promiscuous because the sex drive of women is fundamentally chaotic and should not be encouraged to grow.
Most women are stupid and need a real man to lead them. Some men have higher sex drives, so they require more than one woman. A woman who cheats on his man should be executed though.

>>19850209
You are using authority of empirical scientists and modern paradigms of science. The scientific method is limited by design. Stop talking like a Jew.
A religious priest has as more valid things to say in this regard.

>>19850196
>But that's not true, the "alpha male" in nature is supposed to be polygamous, and all the other men wouldn't get any sex at all.
From my religious perspective it is true. Christ:
>“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

>On this I agree, promiscuity is certainly linked to a lack of morals, I'm just trying to find that link.
The link is treating sex and relationships flippantly leads to a degredation in morals and bad relations between the sexes.

>>19850157

>>19850215
>You are using authority of empirical scientists and modern paradigms of science
I am not, I haven't mentioned any of them, I'm just trying to understand your argument instead of taking it as absolute truth.
There's nothing Jewish about it.

>>19850219
Unless you are a footfag I don't see how that image provokes lust in anyone, and we are having a decent debate so far, so you are the only one wasting time.

>>19850210
>Polyamorous and polyandry ones are promiscuous because the sex drive of women is fundamentally chaotic and should not be encouraged to grow.
>Most women are stupid and need a real man to lead them. Some men have higher sex drives, so they require more than one woman. A woman who cheats on his man should be executed though.
You have just stated your view without any argument behind it, why is woman sex drive more chaotic? Male sex drive seems as chaotic to me.
And most people are stupid in general, this goes for both sexes, so even your last part falls apart.

>>19850228
>>19850250
I can't give an argument outside of theological systems. I do not accept physicalism, materialism, or secularism. As a consequence, you can just dismiss my argument as "unfounded".
Let's begin by arguing for an epistemology? How does one even big to underline the epistemic foundations of knowledge? What does it mean to know something? Let's start there. You answer those two questions.

>>19850196
>the "alpha male" in nature is supposed to be polygamous, and all the other men wouldn't get any sex at all.
Humans are not gorillas, anon. Our social structures are not analogous. Anthropologists have access to hunter gatherers, and have been able to observe that there isn't, in fact, a significant amount of men going unwed due to all the women being already taken. Most hunter-gather societies are serial monogamous, with polygamy occuring but infrequently. There are no "alpha males", what there is, is high status men who may take an extra wife.

>>19850369
>I can't give an argument outside of theological systems
This wasn't your argument in this post.
But anyway, if you want to discuss epistemology, and define what is to know, we can try, but it would be an extremely broad and difficult topic, just to end up fundamentally disagreeing on one's ability to claim something is certain.
While I understand theologically, you can only give me what you perceive as certain truth, my OP specifically was about good supporting arguments, leaving clear I can't take a statement from God as state value.
I am not a christian, but I'm not an atheist either, the existence of god is another question I often wonder, but it was not as prevalent and as disturbing as my last 3 days of complete doubt on the specific topic of promiscuity.
Essentially, I'm refusing to debate with you on epistemology because I feel our views clash so fundamentally we would have just derailed the thread.
Suggest me a good book instead.

>>19850404
That's more interesting, I didn't know that, but I still have to wonder, how is that not still polygamy for the alpha male. And doesn't taking this as a model imply we recognize physical strength, or alpha, or whatever, as a quality that makes you inherently superior to the rest of the population? Maybe for self interest, since I'm not that Alpha male, or maybe because I feel like humanity rose above that method, I can't accept this, nor could I cope with it.

>>19850235
>Unless you are a footfag I don't see how that image provokes lust in anyone, and we are having a decent debate so far, so you are the only one wasting time.

>>19850157
It extends adolescence as people are trying to hop from relationship to relationship(or in even more promiscuous cases from partner to partner) and leads to buildup of incorrect expectations once you actually settle down in some relationship, which then leads to difficulties in that particular relationship, especially because it often creates an illusion that relationships are all done in infatuation. So people start directing their attention towards more constructive ends much later, leading towards a certain level of societal cretinism, lost opportunities and yes, even the utilitarian lesser amount of happiness is likely to be the case long term - the sterility of this arrangement means more childlessness, which is known to cause unhappiness later in people's lives(short term it increases it).

>>19850564
That's a very good argument as far as utilitarianism is concerned.

>>19850564
Removing promiscuity wouldn't fix this problem. The root of this problem is that our ideal of romance is a passive experience.

>>19850795
what do you mean by passive experience?

>>19850157
Promiscuity is wrong because it creates whores and no man wants to marry a whore. All modern men marry whores and they resent their wives for being whores. These cucks have a whole laundry list of copes:
>Who cares about her past, bro? She's with me now!
>Well I've slept with a lot of girls in the past so who cares if she's slept with other guys?
>That was just how she was in college. She was experimenting!
>Wow you're so insecure to care about a girl's body count. You must be an incel.
But the fact always remains: no man in his heart of hearts desires to be with a whore. Cope all day long if you want, but a billion years of evolution has engraved in our psyche a deep repulsion for women who fuck lots of men. They don't make good partners. They don't make good mothers. They are selfish and spiritually ugly.

>>19850854
What about male promiscuity?

>>19850825
By passive experience, I mean that people feel dirty or dishonest by actively choosing someone to love or build a life with and not relying on intensity of infatuation as a guide. Sometimes it's better to just be with someone because they work for your life, not because they put you in the throes of passion. Promiscuity is just the result of sex being the dominant language of intimacy. I don't even think everyone can really love as we often conceive it, I heard a quote once that went something like
>many people would not fall in love if they hadn't read about it

>>19850413
I just have orthodox Buddhist views in regards to how sensual desire is a major detriment towards enlightenment. The Sutta Pitaka and Sutta Nipata focus on it.
You can find Buddhists like Ikkyu who didn't follow the precepts, but in general, they don't see as wise as the celibate ones.

>>19850854
But what about, a harem of virgins uh?

[Spoiler] You're a waste of space [/spoiler]

>>19850975
>You're a waste of space
>fails to spoiler his post
Anon, you almost had him.

>>19850899
you're right, people mistake love for infatuation. anyway there are different kind of promiscuity, there's promiscuity based on sex and on romance

>>19851078
This kind of reductionist thinking is retarded.
Sex and love are intimately tied. Fucking around means you don't love the spouse you chose to be with or whatever. It's like saying you're willing to dispose of your loved one for some ice cream.
Honestly, all promiscuous people should be executed. We have too many people now, and reducing the world population to 200-300 million would be for the best. Most people are worthless. Their love, aspirations, and thoughts mean absolutely nothing, so there needs to be a way to exterminate a ton of people.

>>19850157
I’m with you OP. I've wanted to find a nice girl to take my virginity, even turning down casual sex. I’m 28 and have remained celibate by choice basically out of some moral obligation to myself. We definitely are missing something I feel. Going out drinking and fucking random chicks may be “degenerate” but sitting in my room all the time is a complete waste of my potential, meager as it may be.

>>19850157
Science has settled this question. Promiscuity is antithetical to long-term breeding consequent of the functioning of fornication at the neurochemical level, and such applies hitherto any given persons.

Do not waste your time with the answers of the (((metaphysically inclined))). Philosophy is a magpie's art.

If you have no desire to breed, then engage with promiscuity and its subcultures, though ideally only after you eliminated your reproductive fecundity, and only with those persons who have done so too. Nigger.

>>19851115
>If you have no desire to breed, then engage with promiscuity and its subcultures
I disagree. If you are a male and you HAVE a desire to breed, ENGAGE in promiscuity. Come on the other side.
Get some life experience.
Most women are whores not worth your time, most men are pretty shit too.
Learn how to filter.
Unfortunatelly, you're not getting more desirable as a man by being faithful to just one girl. They ultimately DESPISE this kind of shit and probably will cuck you with someone who gets around a lot,
no matter what you do to her or how helpful you was. That's just NOT how love works.
They will feel completelly justified on their position too.
Most of them just respect MIGHT
and STATUS.
Work towards it, if you wish.
Otherwise give up the game completelly.

>>19850157
>For
Stranger in a Strange Land
>Against
Othello

>>19851111
My virginity wasn't taken by what is probably your definition of a nice girl, she had already had 10 partners before me, and had severe mental issues.
And I don't regret it, because she revealed to be a wonderful person, regardless of her bad habits, of which I still disapprove.
She stayed with me during my hardest times, even when better men than me, with jobs and better looking were trying to seduce her.
She helped me every way she could, but also hurt me every way she could, as we both had severe issues and our relationship was rather toxic.
People who had a promiscuous past are still to be avoided as a general principle, since they are the most likely to cause problems or be bad persons, but I'm not as judgmental as I used to be.
I draw the line between a whore and a naive girl victim of her circumstances. That line is, was she trying to form a meaningful relationship? Or is her goal something else?
Most people on this planet are evil motherfuckers, but my suggestion is you go out and drink, know girls, but don't fuck them immediately.
Try to know them, get in love with those of them who are good and reject those who are bad.
You may not find a virgin, but can you really expect a 16 years old girl to be wise enough to get it right the first time?
Look for girls who only had few, like 2-3 meaningful relationships, and weed out the ones who don't seem to be worthy by knowing them. I'm sure you can find someone good, who you can spend a good life with.

>>19851215
>Most of them
Most of them are not worth your time, but some are, and I think that's something worth fighting tooth and nail for.
As I explained here >>19851273 I used to think too all women would just leave you the moment a better opportunity arises, but I discovered that's not the case. That is mostly the case, but I can cope with that, I just need 1 good woman, not 1000

>>19851273
People like you are like half-stupid/half-smart. She was a dumb bitch and whore, and you were a cuck for settling for anything less than virgin. You should have locked her inside a cage, whipped her a bit, and forced her to read classic literature teaching her to be a proper lady of etiquette.
You dumb bitch, you stupid cucked faggot. Sluts deserve getting lashed, and men who fuck around with them should also be thrown into the lava pit.
Anyone who settles for anything less than a virgin, especially when being virgins themselves, is asking for trouble.
Women should be having nice tea parties, thinking about animals, reading some religious or mystical literature here and there, and at the rule of their men. Anything less than that makes you a fucking cuck. Shut the fuck up. I'd kick your ass and teach you to be a real man with self-worth in the process. You uncivilized piece of shit. You Jew.

>>19851332
People like you are like half-stupid/half-retarded

>>19851433
Take that back, I was being too nice with you. You are 100% cucked and stupid material.
Women are whores because of morons like you. You are afraid to put your foot down and shame sluts in other words. Fuck off to Plebbit. Whores need a good beating.

Marriage and Civilization: How Monogamy Made Us Human

>>19851453
>Women are whores because of morons like you
No, they are whores because of idiots like you who instead of trying to understand a phenomenon to stop it, live in a delusional world where every idea that pops in their mind is absolute truth.

>>19851215
Why can't you follow a conversation?

>>19851483
There is nothing wrong with lashing whores.

>>19852193
Even if true it's irrelevant to what I said. Learn to read.

>>19852255
Lashing whores is the best solution.
We must lock them up inside cages.
Play classy films encouraging how to be a good lady.
Force them to read nice literature that promotes good values.
And lash those stupid bitchy whores. Lash them so hard while singing hymns to the Lord.
We will purify this land of all the whores. We will make a world full of classy ladies. Just lock them inside a cage and purify them. You call it brainwashing it, I call it a cleansing.

>>19852325
It seems to me you have a fetish.

>>19852347
No, I am against whipping them in an erotic way. The lashing should be done in a forceful way that breaks the barrier between self and other as they're forced to reprogram themselves by reading good literature.

>>19850157
The bible

>>19852392
Are you sure lashing someone is a good way to get them into /lit/?
I'm not a psychologist, but it seems like the kind of thing that would be counterproductive.

>>19850196
>But that's not true, the "alpha male" in nature is supposed to be polygamous, and all the other men wouldn't get any sex at all.
This concept is so divorced from reality that it makes you seem like a retard. Are your dad, grandpa, uncles all "alpha males" with demi-god physiques? You're thinking of wild animals like lions. Maybe the only example of this ever occurring among humans were the harems of the Chinese and Ottoman emperors guarded by eunuchs. By the way, historical polygamy was usually among societies where men would constantly die in conflict and leave more widows and unwed women than could've been provided for otherwise.

>>19852442
>Are your dad, grandpa, uncles all "alpha males" with demi-god physiques?
I wasn't talking about modern man, I was clearly talking about man in nature, when we barely had primitive tools.

>pros
makes peepee feel good
>cons
it’ll literally destroy society
I’ll call a spade a spade and be honest: promiscuity should only be a privilege the aristocratic class can afford. Everyone else should play by the fucking rules.

>>19850167
>You're not going to find any good secular arguments against infidelity or promiscuity
Is VD not enough?

>>19850868
that's an urban legend at best

Shut the fuck up and post BOOKS about the subject, retards. No one wants to read the ramblings of a bunch of social recluses who barely ever touched a girl bum on relationships.

>>19850157
Some of Miriam Grossman‘s works

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOVHOpjw4JY

I think girls adrift by Leonard Sax goes into it a bit

Tolstoy wrote a lot about this. Anna Karenina is basically one long argument for valuing traditional marriage over lusty impulses. His short stories The Devil and Family Happiness are also about this and even War & Peace features it as a strong theme.

>>19851237
>>19851463
>>19853272
>>19853297
OP here, I had gobe to sleep,I will look up and consider this books.
Since I have already knos somewhat Tolstoy, and had already eyed Anna Karenina, It will probably the first one O check.

>>19853742
Gone*
These*
Pardon me, I'm phoneposting from the bus

>>19851095
I'm not talking about married people. What's there to blame to someone single who only fucks prostitutes for example?

>>19853757
>What's there to blame to someone single who only fucks prostitutes for example?
That's exactly what we've beeb discussing this whole thread.
We have already established there are clear utilitarian values in not doing it, we are just stuck in the morals of it, since I refused to accept a theologist argument.

>>19853297
Yeah, emotionally for both Anna and her lover, things only grew more and more unstable and unsure as the book went on. That feeling of not having solid roots and trust has only increasingly rippled out across everyone

>>19851295
I used to think too all women would just leave you the moment a better opportunity arises, but I discovered that's not the case.
How exactly did you discover this? Have you took a peek in the mind of the other person? Give me an example

>>19850157
against
sex and culture by jd unwin
libidio dominandi by e. michael jones

for
i don't read stuff like that

>>19853867
There were better opportunities around, and no downsides in leaving me, but she didn't. Simple as.

>>19853742
It’s not girls adrift, it’s girls on the edge, got the name wrong

>>19850175
Yes civilizatory it is quite destructive.
You end up with large amounts of blackpilled fighting age men which believe that live can't offer them much.

For - idk
Against - medical journals

>>19853889
>Simple as
no it isn't and you're naive.

>>19854529
Good thing you definetly know better than me. Especially since the one who holds a very simplistic and definitive view on the matter is you.

>>19850157
Consumption without refrain is always a bad thing.
Always want more, getting less and less satisfied.
Getting less satisfied == less motivation to do shit, less effectiveness, less happiness in general.
Wanting more and more exacerbates this problem and is very problematic considering the fact that there is a limited supply of things.
Promiscuity means that people are less satisfied with sex and therefore relationships, and people want more and more sex despite limited supply, which eventually results in a mass amount of incels, which is bad.

>>19854546
you're right, I was too judgemental. I can't know your situation. Sorry, I am just a sceptic

>>19850157
trust your gut.
Personally I find the idea of putting my penis in a woman I don't know, potentially incurring diseases despite condoms, nauseating.
So I don't do it.
Having a male sex drive is tough, women won't get it

>>19852942
This. I've skimmed this thread hoping to find some recommendations but it just seems like an "alpha/beta" circle jerk.

>read thread
>just some sadist freak trying to impose his fetish onto OP, who seems like a well meaning bloke
>no books
oof.

Religion and sexuality are inextricably tied. The trad cath larpers and hard line islamists that frequent this board won't have much to offer you in favor of the carnal path.

Direct knowledge of... shall we say, the more provocative practices of non-Abrahamic sects are often deemed too lurid for the traditionally puritanical western tastes. I'd hardly consider myself a disciple of pleasure but I have pondered the subject myself.
To me the optimal human form is when the male and female mind are almost in perfect sync, two beings acting as one. Very rare, very difficult to achieve.
I haven't read it myself, but I've sold a few copies of this volume here over the years. I've heard good things.

Rarely are the promiscuous willing to catalog their escapades in great detail. My estimation of modern society is that we stigmatize promiscuity, but that we use adapted social constructs to do so.

The reality is that, even at the height of the power of the Church and Abrahamic Religion across the Western world (think High Renaissance in the West and the period of Ottoman Dominance in the East) was accompanied by an extremely sexually active population that tolerated and even encouraged prostitution and sexual slavery. To say nothing of the Sultan's Harem of hundreds of boys and girls. There is no purer time to return to, humanity is more horny and fetishized the further down our timeline you travel.

>>19850854
This is the real problem, male jealousy,
If it wasn’t for that men could accept women’s promiscuity.

>>19858186
Men’s love is stingy, it is to be guarded at all times.
Women’s live is generous, it is given freely.
This is what men cannot accept.

>>19858196
>>19850854
>>19858186
They've just been conditioned by modern society to become whores because of you know who. Get rid of them and most of these problems will fix themselves over time.

This sounds like more of you losers need to read more Alexander Pope.
>Every woman is at heart a rake

>>19850157
Sadly I forgot the author, but there is a Hungarian writer of Jewish descent (for accuracy's sake, maybe another anon will find him) who argues that it guarantees loyalty to the state since the importance of a stable family structure becomes weaker.

>>19858347
A jew would never reveal their secrets like that, unless it was framed as a good thing

>>19850157
Goethe. Specifically Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship.

>>19850157
The Unbearable Lightness of Being explores some ideas of lust, love, and fidelity.

>>19850193
Good Lord, those feet! I'm too distracted to read any of that.

>>19853804
The contrast with Lenin's internal crisis and eventual decision to make a good marriage really helps to underscore it too, it makes the book far more effective than the other 19th century affair novels.

>>19850219
Very meta. Congratulations.

>>19850854
I had to scroll all the way there to just get a sane post fucking /lit/ gone to shit