Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Resisting Your Biology – Good or Bad?
-By Caleb Jones
Outdated biology is still a part of biology. As you have wrote many a times that people can’t deny biology long term without dysfunction (drama) arising. Care to square this circle?This is a great question and an important aspect that ties into so much of what I talk about here.
Edlm is correct in that I have pointed out, numerous times and with numerous examples, that resisting your own biology is harmful and creates dysfunction. A few examples of this I’ve discussed over the past several years are:
1. People who commit to long-term monogamy damage themselves by resisting their biology that has wired human beings to have sex with multiple people. In one of my podcasts, I compared the need to have sex with someone other than your long-term partner with the compulsion of going to the bathroom. You can’t promise someone you’ll never have sex with anyone for the rest of your life, just like you can’t promise someone you’ll never take a piss for the rest of your life. In the end, biology always wins.
2. Similarly, people like hardcore PUAs, players, and men who exclusively have sex with escorts or sugar babies all damage themselves by resisting their biology that has wired all of us to pair-bond (at least temporarily) with one special person .
3. People who practice to celibacy, such as Catholic priests, long-term virgins, some jaded women over 33, and anti-sex MGTOWs all damage themselves by resisting their biology that has wired us to desire sexual contact with other human beings. Priests end up molesting little boys. MGTOWs, older virgins, and sexless jaded women end up getting depressed at best, turn to drugs, alcohol, or violence at worst.
I could fill the next several pages with examples of what happens when people deny their biology, and not just with sexual matters but with other biological aspects (diet, solitude, alcohol, etc), and you probably could too. Resisting your core biology is never a good idea (unless you are a very bizarre exception to the rule; as always those do exist). This is regardless of what you have been raised to believe is right, moral, correct, mature, or best for society. You will eventually, not immediately, but eventually end up in a dysfunctional scenario that causes you all kinds of problems.
The snag comes with what I’ve always called OBW, or Obsolete Biological Wiring. I’ve discussed exactly what that is in great detail in my book and at this blog. The bottom line is that you are compelled by your outdated biology to do things that make no sense in the 21st century, a world where:
1. You don’t have to fear for your physical safety
2. You don’t have to worry about starving for lack of food
3. There are literally thousands of breeding-age women available for you to have sex with within a 10-20 minute drive from your house, the vast majority of whom won’t demand marriage or even monogamy in order to have sex with you.
4. You can have all the sex you want without worrying about pregnancy (as long as you take the proper precautions, which are not difficult).
5. DNA tests that cost as little as $20 can quickly tell if a baby is yours or not.
You already know this, but your biology doesn’t have any idea the above things are true. Your mind lives in the peaceful and advanced 21st century. But your biology lives in a very dark world where your safety is constantly threatened, both food and sexable women are extremely scarce commodities that must be horded and guarded at all times, where sex is extremely dangerous because a damn baby might pop out, and sexually monogamy is ultra-critical because you might end up unknowingly raising a kid that isn’t yours or have your kid stolen by his/her real biological father.
In other words, your biology is stupid as shit. It’s way, WAY outdated, and it’s worried about this crap for literally no reason.
In the book, I give the example of you seeing a text from another man on your girlfriend’s phone, and suddenly, for literally no reason, you’re upset, even though you rationally know she’s very loyal and trustworthy. Your mind is cool and calm, but your stupid OBW is screaming that this woman is one of only two or three young ones in your caveman tribe, so you must lock her away from other men, and punish her if she even talks to other men. GRRR!
So you get pissed off and disrupt your relationship for no damn reason, other than your sadly outdated biology.
This brings us back to Edlm’s question. Outdated biology is still biology, and you can’t resist your biology without eventual dysfunction, yet following your outdated biology is going to eventually cause problems for you as well. Shit! What is a guy to do?
You do this:
Ensure you understand the difference between Obsolete ("bad") Biological Wiring, “neutral” biological wiring, and “good” biological wiring. Then, embrace the good, avoid the bad, manage the neutral. By embracing the good, you offset the negatives of avoiding the bad.
This is a little complicated so I'll take you through it step-by-step.
As a man, you have Obsolete Biological Wiring that makes you get angry if a woman you’re having sex with is flirting with, or certainly being touched by, another guy. What makes it obsolete is that there’s no reason for it any more in modern society. In a world of birth control, DNA tests, condoms, and literally thousands of other women in your town you can go get if this one doesn’t work out, it makes no sense to actually become angry or feel threatened if some douche is hitting on your girlfriend while the two of you are out at the club.
Your obsolete wiring A) serves no real purpose any more and B) only causes trouble for you. This means it’s bad. It means you need to work on ridding yourself of it as much as you can.
You also have biological wiring that forces you to take a piss a few times a day. Is this bad? Does it screw up your life? Not really. It might be a minor nuisance sometimes, but that’s about it. Is it good? Does it feel really good to take a piss? Again, not really. It’s just something you have to do.
This would be an example of “neutral” biological writing. It’s something you must do, but it doesn’t harm you or detract from your life like OBW does. So there’s no real need to worry about it.
Then there’s “good” biological wiring. I’ll give you the easiest example. As a man, you’re a honry horndog. You have a biological need to have sex with hot babes. Let’s evaluate this need.
Does it feel good to have sex? Hell yes! In my opinion, sex is the highest form of purely physical pleasure a human being can feel. The only thing that even comes close would be getting high on drugs or a really good massage (I’d still rather have sex). Even eating chocolate doesn’t come close to sex with someone you find really attractive (at least in my opinion; I realize this stuff can be subjective).
Does the biological need to have sex cause dysfunction? Only if it’s mismanaged. If you do something against your core biology, like get monogamous or become celibate, then yeah, your need for sex is going to eventually harm you. If you don’t have the balls to attract the kind of women you like, it also harms you. However, your ability to attract hot women is well within your control. Things like your appearance, level of game, confidence, income, what city you live in, how much time you focus on dating or seduction or sex, and what kinds of relationships you do and do not get into, are all things you can change or improve unless you're mentally retarded. I’ve written many articles on specifically that topic, including recently. Hit up the archive for more information on that.
In addition, the wonders of this modern world we live in will ensure that you don’t have any of the sexual problems that people in the distant past had to wrestle with, again, unless you’re very stupid (and that’s your fault).
Many years ago, I worked hard to improve my appearance, attitude, and game. I put serious time into getting good with women, getting laid, and nonmonogamous relationships. I took all the sexual precautions my modern world offered me. Today, I’ve had sex with more women than many times the average, yet I have near-zero drama, all the long-term companionship I want, all the sexual variety I want, I’m STD free, and I’ve never gotten a woman pregnant by accident.
I didn’t do this by avoiding my biology; instead I embraced my good biology while simultaneously avoiding my outdated biology.
As I’ve talked about at this blog many times, many of the women I’ve been in relationships with didn’t do this. They embraced their outdated biology and/or have dated or hooked up with men who did the same. FBs and MLTRs I’ve had have gotten pregnant by other men (men they barely knew or men they hated), or have gotten married and then divorced, or have gotten into “monogamous” relationships and proceeded to have massive jealousy and drama, and all kinds of other crap. They embraced the good biology and the bad biology instead of embracing just the good and staying the hell away from the bad.
Conversely, I have talked about women I know (and a few men) who have avoided all of their sexual biology, the good and the bad, and have sworn off sex and/or dating altogether, and have become depressed or jaded because of it. Not having sex is a bad idea.
Identify the good and the bad, embrace the good, avoid the bad. Don’t avoid all biology, and don’t embrace the good and the bad. Those aren’t workable models if you want to be long-term happy.
If you embrace the good while avoiding the bad, avoiding the bad biology becomes much easer, and no dysfunction occurs, because you’re already “feeding” your good biology so well.
Can you completely, 100% avoid all OBW? No, and I’ve said as much before. 100% perfect is impossible. But, you can reduce your OBW by 90% or more if you work at it hard enough and keep feeding your good biological wiring. If you want specific techniques on how to do this, get the book.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Vitriol 2016-04-21 06:05:19
It can be frustrating to see so many people around us not understand these concepts and still hang on to the obsolete concepts of monogamy and marriage despite an environment right in front of our faces that is obviously not conducive to these institutions. Humans today have a level of interconnection that is unparalleled in human history, and a lot of the technologies that allow for this have only come about within a generation or two, so most people are living in the past. It was only about a hundred years ago that cars started to become mass produced and a lot of people were still living on farms and in small towns where their relationship/marriage options might only be the younger members of a few other families. That obviously isn't the world we live in today, but when it comes to the expectations most people have regarding sex and relationships they're firmly rooted in the past.
2. Similarly, people like hardcore PUAs, players, and men who exclusively have sex with escorts or sugar babies all damage themselves by resisting their biology that has wired all of us to pair-bond (at least temporarily) with one special person .I'm not sure I agree with this part. A lot of PUAs (by their own admission) are actually looking for monogamy, no matter how deluded they may be. Also plenty of guys who were players, rock stars, pro athletes, etc. seem to have managed to "pair bond" with one special person at some point if that's what they really want. I also don't understand how this type of pair-bonding can be categorized as something different from general friendship or companionship if it's non-sexual in nature. I don't really think it's dysfunctional to compartmentalize sex to one aspect of your life, then live as a normal functional adult in your friendships, family life, career, and so forth. In fact I think this is actually going to become a more common route in the future.
Gil Galad 2016-04-21 08:47:22
Good article BD, and happy birthday. @Vitriol: friendly pair bonding and romantic pair bonding are not the same, even though they're not flat-out exclusive. Friendship arose in humans because having a tendency to make friends and enjoy it creates effective coalitions, tribes, etc; but romantic bonding is a whole other animal: your biology needs you to pair bond with at least one of your sex partners because that usually improves the survival chances of your children. (And as the article points out, your biology is oblivious to the fact that most of this is history and that people are using contraceptives, etc) The degrees to which you "need" romantic pair bonding varies a lot between individuals, but it's always there. Some people have it at such low levels that they can actually compartmentalize sex completely as you suggested.
Anon 2016-04-21 10:12:11
Is there really much of a line to be drawn between "bad" and "good" biological wiring though? For example, I would be very, very uncomfortable if my girlfriend started seeing other men. I'm not sure if I could ever really "get over it"; if I ever did any "boyfriendish" stuff for her, I definitely couldn't keep it up (I'd feel like a cuck, because I'd be a cuck). If my girl was sleeping with other men, I would only have casual sex with her - I would never be able to accept that kind of behavior from an OLTR or any other relationship. I guess my ideal relationship would be half-open: I can get some on the side and/or see multiple girls, she would stay faithful. And we'd both be totally honest about it. Hypocritical? Maybe, but I don't go into relationships with the goal of pleasing everyone around me. That said, I can see that this would create a lot of "drama", and it would be a lot easier if I could magically delete this mate-guarding instinct from my biological wiring. But I'm not sure I can. Do you really not get jealous at all when your girls start to wander?
Blackdragon 2016-04-21 11:07:38
A lot of PUAs (by their own admission) are actually looking for monogamy, no matter how deluded they may be.You're absolutely right. Most PUAs have monogamy in the back of their minds as their eventual goal. It's very sad. Amazingly, my anti-monogamy stuff is still very unpopular with a huge portion of the PUA community. I'm saying that during their player phase, they are resisting pair-bonding biology, and almost always cause problems in their emotional lives because of it. I see this on PUA blogs and forums constantly.
I also don’t understand how this type of pair-bonding can be categorized as something different from general friendship or companionship if it’s non-sexual in nature.Again I agree. It isn't much different if you're not having sex with your GF or wife.
I don’t really think it’s dysfunctional to compartmentalize sex to one aspect of your life, then live as a normal functional adult in your friendships, family life, career, and so forth.Again I agree. I'm not sure where we disagree.
Good article BD, and happy birthdayThanks dude. It was yesterday. I had fun.
Is there really much of a line to be drawn between “bad” and “good” biological wiring though?Yes.
For example, I would be very, very uncomfortable if my girlfriend started seeing other men.I know. It's called OBW. It's a useless, obsolete reaction.
I’m not sure if I could ever really “get over it”Then that's your choice.
if I ever did any “boyfriendish” stuff for her, I definitely couldn’t keep it up (I’d feel like a cuck, because I’d be a cuck).1. You're wrong. If she was hot, you'd still be able to get it up. 2. You're not a cuck. A cuck is when your woman is out banging dudes while you're home alone not banging women and jerking off to porn like a loser. That is not my model. My model is that you're constantly out banging hot chicks and occasionally, when she needs it which will be infrequent (because women are not like men when it comes to constant sex and horniness), your girlfriend can get a little on the side if she needs to. That's not cuck.
I guess my ideal relationship would be half-open: I can get some on the side and/or see multiple girls, she would stay faithful.I know. It's called polygamy. It's all men's ideal relationship and it will never work long-term in the Western world. It's guy Disney, thus false (unless all you want in life are short-term relationships).
it would be a lot easier if I could magically delete this mate-guarding instinct from my biological wiring. But I’m not sure I can.That's a very weak, defeatist attitude. Of course you can, if you work on it. (Not "delete" it completely, but reduce it by 80-90%). If you'd rather not take the time to improve yourself, then you're welcome to stay at a lower level of happiness. The choice is yours.
Do you really not get jealous at all when your girls start to wander?Nope. I'm not threatened by other men. I actually think it's hilarious when these guys go all beta on my girls and look like dumbshits. But I've had a lot of practice. Practice makes perfect.
Al 2016-04-21 16:43:49
It's possible to have a burning desire yet not have attachments. You can have an inner vision of what you intend to manifest and still detach yourself from the outcome. When you detach from the outcome you are at peace and you will ultimately see the fruits of your convictions. Simply have a mind that is open to everything but attached to nothing. Let it all come and go as it will. Enjoy it all but never make your happiness or success dependent on an attachment to any thing, any place - and particularly - any person.
James Mast 2016-04-21 18:40:12
If negative biology can be overridden, then so can "good" biology. That is the logical conclusion. Also, "trouble" can be good. Women LIKE men who fight over them and mate guard. It's a sign of biological fitness. I see this article as justifying your preferences, but there's more than one way to skin a cat. You want to justify your multiple fuckbuddy model and your life experiences. That is fine. But we are not slaves to sex. We don't need it.
Diggy 2016-04-21 22:13:30
I don't think I even have much OBW. I just don't have these same issues. The INTJ in me told my mother with I was 12 that I was never having kids nor getting married. I remember this moment vividly. We were in the car. My whole entire family set such a bad example for me that I knew exactly what I didn't want to do with my life. I might have offender her. Oh well. 36, so far so good. I think you need to be honest with yourself. If you are truly loving your self it should be natural and not have side effects down the road. What little OBW I do have comes in the form of LT cohabitation. I truly enjoy cohabitation with a great woman. I do so every now and again. Currently at just over 3 years. It's become drama. When it becomes not worth it anymore we move on. Nothing is really mixed. Not much drama. My current SO is hot, 13 years my junior, a good person, and a bisexual freak. It satisfies my OBW and my natural disposition. My overall frame stays the same and I'm completely honest. If BDs theory were not solid then one of these times I would stay for life or whatever but that never happens. At some point her biology takes over. Lather, Rinse, Repeat. @anon I think a cuck is when you cower in the corner and jerk off. I think it's a power thing. I'm not cuck because I don't care if my GF sleeps with another man. I'm loving her. I buy so much into a BD like school of thought that I know how much happier I am living this way that I would never deny that happiness to someone I loved. That's actually not loving. Neither of us spend a lot of time away from our home but if she quietly had a safe moment with another man and it was truly sexy, not getting "back" at me, to her and made her happy... why would I deny her the same thing that makes me happy. Not love brother.... might be narcissism tho.
searching... 2016-04-21 23:05:20
holy hell, these posts are like a revelation... i'm typical beta, marriage of nine years, sexless for past year, had to leave my last job cause too much drama from a short fling i had with a coworker, had crazy mama-drama at home because of that, led to professional counseling and talks with pastor and parents, all the ups n downs of life, as my uncle put it... is the conversion to open marriage realistic, and the kids don't end up in jail or on drugs right?
hey hey 2016-04-22 00:21:10
@James Mast: what are you slave of then? Jerking off? Because there is no way you can go more than 2 weeks without playing with your buddy down there. Please elaborate how can you avoid sex and be happy. Also as men we love sex. Why should we avoid it if we can get it? That is fucked up logic. You prefer trouble over sex without any real issues?
Steven 2016-04-22 09:09:32
I still don't understand how you can say we have 1000's of available girls nearby if, for example the man has an incurable std like herpes... After having given this to an mltr recently and her anguish related to this, I feel it's highly contagious, even wearing a condom. I have for three years refused monogamy.. but a year ago I contracted hsv1 genetally and more recently a type of non carcinogenic but, again, infectious and sexually comunicated condition. I've taken meds for the hsv and I'm glad it hasn't resurfaced in a long time, but I'm sure you're aware of the stigma surrounding this, especially in the States. The other condition, infectious condyloma is more worrying, after laser treatment, I think it's popped up again.. Ever had injections in your johnson followed by lasers on it? Anyway... I'd like to ask you what your take is for someone with these conditions regarding your schema.. Thanks I know you won't just write back "ah..just don't get std's, wash your pickle" sort of advice...What I'm saying is well I'm dealing with this and still want to be non monogamous. The thing is full disclosure before sex is advised by many sites, but that turns people off...and not telling is putting them at risk. I really don't know the answer. Perhaps, back when stds were lethal, they were another reason for monogamy... care to answer?
Duke 2016-04-22 11:05:58
Women LIKE men who fight over them and mate guard. It’s a sign of biological fitness.I agree that this is true for some women, but how do you know which ones. I sometimes tell women in a way that can be taken as a joke (plausible deniability) "I'll kill you (or the other guy) if I ever see you with someone." Of course you have to do it without sounding insecure to ensure she will feel flattery that you care about her in that way. It reminds me of this one time when I told a woman I was seeing that I saw a girl that looked like her with another dude, and she said something that implied I would had an angry, jealous reaction if it was indeed her. She looked a little disappointed when I told her I wouldn't have cared. Ultimately who cares what women like as long as you get to enjoy them for awhile.
Blackdragon 2016-04-22 11:23:45
It’s possible to have a burning desire yet not have attachments. You can have an inner vision of what you intend to manifest and still detach yourself from the outcome. When you detach from the outcome you are at peace and you will ultimately see the fruits of your convictions. Simply have a mind that is open to everything but attached to nothing. Let it all come and go as it will. Enjoy it all but never make your happiness or success dependent on an attachment to any thing, any place – and particularly – any person.This is the "Buddhist monk excuse." Every once and a while I'll have a guy use it in an attempt to refute my points. The excuse is that if you spend years of your life meditating in isolation, removing all desire, saying om om om in a forest or something (like a monk), you can overcome these issues. The problem is less than 0.00001% of Western men will ever do anything like this, so your point is moot.
If negative biology can be overridden, then so can “good” biology.Correct, and my point is that you create dysfunction if you do so.
Women LIKE men who fight over them and mate guard.Great. But those men aren't happy. You're also forgetting that lots of women like happy men too.
But we are not slaves to sex. We don’t need it.Wrong. We need it for maximum physical health and happiness. Read all the medical facts I cite here.
is the conversion to open marriage realistic, and the kids don’t end up in jail or on drugs right?Yes, but it's very difficult. You may end up divorced. (Which would probably be a good thing, including for your kids.)
@James Mast: what are you slave of then? Jerking off? Because there is no way you can go more than 2 weeks without playing with your buddy down there. Please elaborate how can you avoid sex and be happy.I have a strong feeling that was a drive-by comment (most wildly insane comments are) and he won't be posting here again (or if he does he won't be able to provide a rational answer).
I still don’t understand how you can say we have 1000’s of available girls nearby if, for example the man has an incurable std like herpesHerpes is no big deal. Societal Programming makes it into a bigger deal than it actually is. Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU4VcOQzQm0
I’d like to ask you what your take is for someone with these conditions regarding your schema.I've spoken with many men who are HSV positive and operate under this model just fine. It's exactly the same except the difficulty level is increased by one notch. Keep taking your suppression therapy meds, keep wearing condoms, and be honest with people. You will be shocked at the number of women who won't care, particularly the younger ones, especially if you haven't had a breakout in years, which will be the case for you soon. You can also screen for women who are HSV positive themselves. There's millions of super-hotties who have herpes. (There are even dating sites for this.) My advice is to get an OLTR who doesn't care, or understands, or is even HSV positive herself. Then have 1-2 FBs on the side when needed. Much easier model (regardless of HSV).
Al 2016-04-22 16:37:45
This is the “Buddhist monk excuse.” Every once and a while I’ll have a guy use it in an attempt to refute my points. The excuse is that if you years of your life meditating in isolation, removing all desire, saying om om om in a forest or something (like a monk), you can overcome these issues. The problem is less than %0.00001 of Western men will ever do anything like this, so your point is moot.Hi BD. I certainly did not mean to refute your points. Quite the reverse. I posted those paragraphs because so may comments here come from "my case is different" or "I can't do that because..." I was supporting outcome independence, not being locked down to any one thing (work for example) location or person, as in your Alpha 2 model. I have lots of desire and I act on it. I just don't get attached to it. (Have managed my OBW just about, though I still slip from time to time. That's why I keep reading your blog. It helps get me back on course.) Perhaps if you re-read what I posted, you might see how it supports you rather than refuting your points. Belated Happy Birthday and keep up the good work.
Blackdragon 2016-04-22 21:52:06
I certainly did not mean to refute your points. Quite the reverse.No worries. Understood.
Steven 2016-04-22 22:44:03
Thank you for your reply...It's good to hear.. I've been following your model and through dating, particularly online dating, each 'rule's' efficacy seems to be proven one by one through experience. Keep up the good work.
BlindIo 2016-04-23 11:16:11
This extends to more than just sex. The entire western culture goes more or less directly against our biological natures, that is, the way we lived in tribes. I have never really been happy, or even satisfied with life since I was a kid. I believe this is because what we call a "normal" life today is directly opposed to how I would have lived in older times. In ancient times I would have been a warrior, or possibly a hunter of large beasts. I only feel good when the only thing keeping me alive is my own ability, and I am a heavy introvert which fits with being away from the tribe most of the time. There is no modern equivalent to this in a society where any form of physical violence is illegal. A society as safe and peaceful as the one we currently live in is as hellish for me as a battlefield would be for the typical woman. The closest thing without going to jail would be to live on the sea on a boat, only coming to shore to resupply and whenever I happen to want some human interaction. Only done it for a short time now, but so far it seems to be working.
Gil Galad 2016-04-23 13:29:23
In ancient times I would have been a warrior, or possibly a hunter of large beasts. I only feel good when the only thing keeping me alive is my own ability [...] There is no modern equivalent to this in a society where any form of physical violence is illegal.@BlindIo I often have similar thoughts, but I consider the modern tradeoffs as acceptable. Consider just one small fact: I need glasses to read or see from afar, and I wouldn't have gotten them 5000 or 50000 years ago. I would have been the most dependent loser of the tribe (unable to throw and spot prey properly etc), or I would have been killed by a predator I didn't see on time. Maybe part of my loss of sight is due to reading, but it's irrelevant to the point: life in prehisory would have only periodically given you the epicness you fancy, and the rest of the time would have been pretty horrible, unless you're one of the lucky cavemen - which can't be relied upon. There are ways to recreate what was possibly great about the way ancient people lived without flat-out copying their way of life: a hard run or a really challenging set in the gym are examples; rejecting guy Disney and SP is another. I have a friend who plays a video game where he's a prehistoric character lol; this is gonna get really popular with the development of VR. As for physical violence, I do sometimes feel that "casual" brawls shouldn't automatically lead the protagonists to jail, but again, consider how much stress you'd live in if you were some hunter venturing on his own in the wilderness: your probability of being killed one way or another (and therefore your levels of stress and general discomfort) would be way higher than those of a modern city dweller, even one with high crime rates. As soon as I can afford it though, I'll probably try some into-the-wild experiences. In fact the only thing I'd probably quit chasing pussy several months for would be a free trip to McMurdo, Antarctica, during the polar night. It must be not only freaking epic out there, but probably reminiscent of what our distinguished ancestors might have "enjoyed".
Blackdragon 2016-04-23 14:04:20
I have never really been happy, or even satisfied with life since I was a kid.Regardless of your other points, you realize that's your fault, right?
RedJoker 2016-04-23 23:15:45
Evolutionary psychology is the study of the unconscious, the part of your brain that can't be changed. An example would be straight men liking boobs, you're not going to change that and if you try it can have really negative results like you mentioned. I've heard evolutionary psychologists try to justify social anxiety as evolutionary. "There were only a few women in the tribe so if you fucked up that was it, game over". However, guys overcome social anxiety all the time, it can't be evolutionary. Most psychologists are guys riddled with social anxiety and they're coming up with clever rationalisations to justify their anxiety. Likewise lots of guys overcome jealousy and mate guarding issues, saying it's evolutionary is just a rationalisation to justify their anger. They're looking at what's true for most people most of the time and assuming it must be the natural state instead of studying the guys who make good decisions and figuring out why. Most people are poor as well, that doesn't make it the natural state though.
BlindIo 2016-04-23 23:27:23
Regardless of your other points, you realize that’s your fault, right?Disagree. Any creature is at its best when living according to its nature, humans included. Happiness is a result of external factors, and those can be changed. Which I have recently done. But not until the problems and solutions have been identified, and that took a lot of time and work. None of us chose to be born into this society.
BlindIo 2016-04-23 23:35:01
@Gil Galad, the risk of death is exactly the point. That doesn't give me stress. Too much peace and safety does.
Gil Galad 2016-04-24 06:30:25
@RedJoker: the mistake that critics of evopsych keep doing is, they think that if something is genetic, then its effect can't be resisted. First off genes' influence, though omnipresent, is unequally distributed in the population (that's why tastes, personalities and so forth vary. even your ability to have your tastes influenced by society depends on genes). Second, their influence is probabilistic, not graven in stone. And finally, what can't be avoided - in your example about social anxiety - is the social anxiety, not the inability to overcome it. To think that something "is not evolutionary because it can be overcome" is as ridiculous as thinking that the fear of heights is not evolutionary because free solo climbers exist. The worst about evopsych criticism isn't the criticism itself, which is necessary to battletest a theory, it's the frustrating fact that most of the criticism comes from a poor understanding of it. I'm slowly beginning to accept that it's stupid to expect this to change soon. I'll shut up when a girl tells me that "men prefer younger women because society taught them, not biology", and just mentally shake my head.
RedJoker 2016-04-24 07:31:43
I'm criticising a small section of evopsych, not the subject itself. In fact it's partly a criticism of modern psychology which is heavily feminised and tries to validate neuroses rather than fix them. Men preferring young fertile women for evolutionary reasons is pretty clearly correct. Likewise men having polygamous drives, women having hypergamous drives and the resulting behaviour that manifests because of that are all well understood. There's fascinating research in the change in behaviour during estrus as well. I have no issues with any of the evopsych in these areas. However, it's been shown plenty of times that anxiety can be systematically removed with repeated desensitisation. Likewise, dealing with anger issues constructively can remove jealousy and mate guarding behaviour. These are neuroses which can be fixed or at least 90%+ removed for most people. If you try to "fix" the behaviour in the previous paragraph you end up damaged as BD points out. I agree with BD's conclusions but for different reasons, I don't think you need a dichotomy between good biology and OBW; what BD calls OBW are neuroses.
Sigma Wolf 2016-04-24 08:59:09
The reason that I embrace the Sigma/alpha 2.0 lifestyle is the it is CONGRUENT with my "biological wiring". As an internally-referenced, introverted (but social) and independent man, I find that societal concepts such as conformity, monogamy, monotheism, monoculture are repellant, as I thrive in variety of challenge and stimulation. My biology drives me to explore the physical landscape (via mountaineering, rock climbing, skiing and mountain/trail running), to embrace the many embodiments of feminine beauty, the wonderful variety of food and travel options that are available to us in the modern age, etc. etc. For a conventional alpha (1.0), I think that perhaps biological wiring can be more of a problem, as interpersonal conflict and power aggrandizement can be extremely problematic in tightly-packed, urban societies in which most of us (especially as players 😉 live in. Hence the tendency for socialism and PC-culture to intervene and conflict with alpha 1.0 drives (1.0s thrive in conservative, right-wing type of environments such as the Western past or the current Russia, non-Western societies). For sigmas/2.0s, our priority is not in dominating others but FREEDOM from being bound and tied to others, in order to pursue ideas and experiencess not available or often een comprehensible to others. We can cooperate, but are outcome-independent, as we honestly don't give a shit whether everyone else supports our ideas and drives. With cheap travel and the internet, the sigma/2.0 can listen to his biology, bang his beautiful women, and THRIVE. This is our time, right now. My whole, long life so far has been in this pursuit, and when I align with it my biology thrives and is joyful and happy. My challenge with women has been to connect and coincide with women who admire and embrace (literally) my freedom, wildness and independence. SP often shames them for it, but they deeply appreciate it, I feel they desire it on a biological level. The "most interesting man in the world" is not a beta or alpha 1.0 conformist for many intelligent, sexy women. It is us. I thank BD for promoting the concepts that he does, for hoisting the flag, so-to-speak. But for us, following our biology should bring joy, not pain.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-04-24 15:49:51
I would be very, very uncomfortable if my girlfriend started seeing other men. I’m not sure if I could ever really “get over it”;Then you are pedestaling her. That's not a good thing.
if I ever did any “boyfriendish” stuff for her, I definitely couldn’t keep it up (I’d feel like a cuck, because I’d be a cuck).This is horseshit spread by Heartiste and his ilk. Here is the picture that he paints: "Imagine you're a beta virgin. You're 26 years old and filthy rich. So a gold digger, who is super hot, becomes your girlfriend. You can't believe your luck. You are the happiest man in the world and she actually has sex with you once a month. You're not complaining because that's more than you have ever had. Besides, she tells you that no man has sex more often than you, outside of male playboy fantasies and porn, which you are mature enough to have grown out of. Nevertheless, she insists on an open relationship where you can sleep with as many other women as you want and she can sleep with other men on the side. You're overjoyed and think she's the best girlfriend ever. Then she continues fucking you once a month (twice if it's your birthday) for the money, while she has wild sex with alphas on a daily basis and you, of course, can't get other women. Basically, she thinks you're a loser, has no respect for you, and is getting her real needs met on the side without even respecting you enough to go through the headache of lying and hiding, since that's too much trouble." The above is what you picture an open relationship being like. And, for betas, I'm sure that is what it's like. But the above description, in no way represents how an OLTR is for alpha males! And the only reason you think otherwise is because you've been brainwashed by the likes of Heartiste and other alpha 1.0 tradcons who think, "if she fucks others, she doesn't respect you because, for you, she's supposed to be your property and your angel of purity...." This is 1950s prudery dude! I have a girlfriend right now whom I'm in an open relationship with. She has more partners than I do (especially when she goes to swingers parties by herself - I'm not into them), but I have regular partners on the side as well. Plus, we also have group sex with her friends, she hooks me up with women, and she fucks some of my women too (she's bi). I'm certainly not a beta or a cuckhold. I'm just a very happy man!
If my girl was sleeping with other men, I would only have casual sex with her – I would never be able to accept that kind of behavior from an OLTR or any other relationship.This is neediness and insecurity. You're guarding her from a position of scarcity, as if she's a rare or precious diamond that you must hoard. You need an abundance mentality! Better yet, have a threesome with your girl and another dude. Watch him pound her in front of you while she makes her orgasm face, turns to you, and says, "I love you." Your heart will melt and you'll realize there's nothing to worry about. Ask me how I know!
I guess my ideal relationship would be half-open: I can get some on the side and/or see multiple girls, she would stay faithful.That's disgusting! So you expect her to trust you that you won't fall in love with those other women, but you don't trust her? Dude, not only are you pedestaling her and seem to have a purity fetish, but you are making yourself her only source of sex. Do you really want the responsibility of being a woman's only source of sex? That would make me very uncomfortable as she would start following me around like a needy puppy dog! That's just chilling man! Eventually, I'd just snap and tell her to go fuck someone else. I'm not her dildo. Besides, if she has her own men on the side, she won't be so needy and insecure about me potentially falling in love with my side women. Only women who have one man as their only source of sex are insecure about that. And that makes them annoying!
And we’d both be totally honest about it. Hypocritical? Maybe, but I don’t go into relationships with the goal of pleasing everyone around me.How about just being fair to women instead of being drenched with Madonna/whore, slut shaming, and a sexual purity complex! Disney is dead man!
That said, I can see that this would create a lot of “drama”, and it would be a lot easier if I could magically delete this mate-guarding instinct from my biological wiring. But I’m not sure I can.It's called having an abundance mentality and realizing that she's not that special or rare! Just stop pedestaling women! It's as simple as that!
Do you really not get jealous at all when your girls start to wander?I would definitely get jealous if she'd start to "wander." But she's not "wandering." She's having sex with other men. And many of those men have girlfriends or wives whom she hooks me up with! It's win/win. No one is "wandering." Stop being so insecure about losing "the one. (tm)"
BlindIo 2016-04-24 18:42:11
Jack, how do you figure that lifestyle will work when you get kids involved?
Blackdragon 2016-04-24 21:36:36
you realize that’s your fault, right? Disagree.You said you've never been happy since you were a child. Yeah dude, that's your fault. I'm pretty sure no one has been putting gun to your head for the last 20 years forcing you to be unhappy. You control enough of your conditions to be happy, at least in general.
Any creature is at its best when living according to its nature, humans included.I agree. But that has nothing to do with you literally not being happy since you were a child. That's insane (and your fault). (Or would you like to rephrase your initial statement?)
This is horseshit spread by Heartiste and his ilk. Here is the picture that he paints:Yes, sadly I've seen Heartiste do this several times now. He takes the most extreme beta examples of nonmonogamy and uses those to imply that nonmonogamy is for pussies and monogamy is great. Just like there's alpha monogamy and beta monogamy, there's Alpha nonmonogamy and beta nonmonogamy. They both look quite different.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-04-25 03:15:06
Jack, how do you figure that lifestyle will work when you get kids involved?I have never understood this question. There are only two arguments that I have heard against polyamory when the boyfriend and girlfriend have children: The logistical argument and the moral argument. The logistical argument states that you can't take care of a child when you're out busy fucking everyone within the city limits. My response: First of all, I'm in the suburbs and the women I sleep with come from multiple suburbs and from the inner city, so I defy the city limits. But seriously, commonsense dictates that when you have a baby, he or she will be the top priority and much of your own time will be taken from you. So while this may mean that your lifestyle will have to be scaled back, it doesn't mean the relationship will, all of a sudden, become monogamous. It won't. Instead of, for example, having group sex every month, we may have to have it only once a year. Instead of 4 fuck buddies on the side, both me and my girlfriend will have to scale it back to just one. But so what? The poly nature of our relationship will remain the same. And even if we become temporarily monogamous in the practical sense, we are still open in terms of our relationship rules because permission does not imply its exercise! And as the baby grows up, we will get more and more of our time back as our number of side lovers grows from one or two back to three or four! This isn't rocket science! The logistical argument is bullshit! Side note: My girlfriend is a firm member of the poly community. We've talked about having children and she already knows 3 women who are also red pill and poly who have offered to be a babysitter to our future child, thus allowing us to also bang the babysitter when the kid falls asleep! I see no problem here, which is why I don't understand your question. The moral argument makes even less sense. It states that you can't be poly when you have a baby because children need good role models. My response: Um.......first of all, for the first 12 years of the child's life, he or she will be a complete asexual, and therefore, wholly ignorant of the fact that sexuality even exists! As such, "mommy and daddy having lots of friends" will, if anything, motivate and inspire the child to make friends among his or her own age group. So when the child is 0-12, my personal sexual lifestyle doesn't even enter into whether or not I'm a good role model. Now, when the child reaches puberty, I believe it is monogamous parents who make terrible role models, with the lying and the cheating and the hiding and the fighting and the divorcing and the joint bank accounts leading mommy to bankrupt the family, and so forth. In the poly world, there is none of this. The child is loved and the three major things parents fight about (money, sexual cheating, how to raise the child) don't exist (there is no cheating, mommy and daddy have separate bank accounts and property, and they both signed a parenting contract agreeing how the child will be raised and who will be the primary vs. secondary parent on each specific subject before the child was even born). When the child becomes a teenager, we will probably want to tell him or her about our lifestyle and poly community and encourage the kid to follow in our footsteps. At the very least, sexual activity on the part of the teenager will be supported and encouraged by our family, while teaching the 13 or 14 year old kid about society's backwardness and how to navigate the blue pill world with discretion while still having an entire poly community of sex positive support in the face of society's slut shaming or stud shaming. If I had it my way, my future teenage daughter would literally fuck the entire high school football team, but I'll settle for her simply having a sexually open minded and positive attitude and rest on the assurance that sex is not the enemy. In short, our children will be way more loved, protected, and empowered in the poly community than the blue pill mono community has ever shown itself to be capable of. I hope I've answered your question, even though I still don't understand it!
BlindIo 2016-04-25 03:47:18
Jack, what you are saying is that you want your kids to be r-selected. That means very weak family bonds, if any. It also means low empathy and much higher risk of single mommery, among other dysfunctional traits. See The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics for further details (available for free on the guys site, which is how I got my original copy). I am pro-poly, but only so far as it can work within the confines of the culture we live in without screwing up future generations. Having fuck buddies in an open relationship is one thing (and probably just fine, if done through a K-selected lens), but actively encouraging your daughter to take a ride on a turbo charged carousel will lead to disaster down the line.
BlindIo 2016-04-25 03:56:00
BD, in fact, guns have been put to my head for my entire adult life forcing me to act against my nature. My nature is to be violent. I am good at fighting and I enjoy it. But physical violence is illegal in this culture, so I had to find a lifestyle that mimicked the core elements closely enough. And that took years of reading up on biology, philosophy, psychology, history and archaeology and a number of other topics, and most importantly a massive amount of SP reconditioning. I believe you have said that you prefer living in this culture over the 50s? If you had lived in the 50s, you would not have been as happy as you are now. Would that have been Your Fault? The time and place we live in influence our available choices and their consequences and therefore psychological makeup, happiness included. So far as Fault goes, it was not My Fault that I live in one of the very few times in all of world history where something as simple as tavern brawls could land you in jail.
Blackdragon 2016-04-25 09:02:26
I believe you have said that you prefer living in this culture over the 50s? If you had lived in the 50s, you would not have been as happy as you are now. Would that have been Your Fault?Absolutely. I certainly wouldn't sit around whining that I had never been happy since I was a child and that there was nothing I could do about it. That's pathetic as fuck. I would still be happy. It might be harder for me to be happy, but I'd still be happy. Even if you're right, then I might not be as happy, but I'd still be happy. Get off your ass and get a little creative. Be an MMA fighter. Go paintballing in the forest on weekends. Moonlight as a bouncer. Etc. Even if you hate those ideas there are plenty of other legal things you can do to tap into your violent side. Make all the pathetic excuses you want; if you literally haven't been happy since you were a kid, it's your fault.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-04-25 16:02:44
Jack, what you are saying is that you want your kids to be r-selected. That means very weak family bonds, if any.UHHH, I just painted you a picture above describing family bonds that are way stronger than your typical K selected monogamous cheaters, liars, and fighters!
It also means low empathy and much higher risk of single mommery,Huh? Where in the above description do you see that? Have you ever even met couples within the poly community? My girlfriend's parents are still together (in an open marriage). Ever since I got into this community I've seen boyfriends and girlfriends raise children in the context of a poly arrangement and they're doing just fine. There are plenty of poly dads out there. Yes, there are some single moms, which is unfortunate, but that is by no means a necessary symptom of being poly. Read my above description again of the poly family. The mother and the father are together in an OLTR. The only difference is that they are sleeping with secondaries (friends with benefits) and tertiaries (fuck buddies and one night stands), plus, their finances are separate and they raise kids based on a pre-planned parental contract! As for "low empathy..." us libertarians are constantly accused of this because we don't want to put guns to people's heads and force them to give money to the poor, so I'm skeptical of anyone accusing me of "low empathy." Either way, that's not what I've seen in the poly world. The strong friendships and community bonds that some of these people build through sexual activity is amazing. Many of these people who have sex with all of their friends, partner switch, and enjoy group sex with each other have more empathy, stronger community bonds, and superior business connections than you! Their community is just an ideological one, not one dependent on physical location! You've obviously never seen the poly community up close!
among other dysfunctional traits.Oh please! What you would call "dysfunctional," I would probably call good and healthy. The low empathy and single mom accusations are mostly bullshit in my first hand experience with poly people. I've seen more single moms among K Selected people because of a break up/divorce due to cheating, lying, hiding, and joint bank accounts.
I am pro-poly,No, you're not! You're really, really, really, not! I'm pro-poly. I've met pro-poly people. My girlfriend is pro-poly. I know how pro-poly looks. And you sir, are most definitely, not pro-poly!
but only so far as it can work within the confines of the culture we live in without screwing up future generations.This is tradcon drivel. No one (that I've seen) in the poly community is "screwed up." Quite the opposite. I see kids being raised by monogamous cheaters and single moms (who became single moms because they cheated) getting screwed up. Some parents even physically fight in front of their children and smash furniture due to "cheating." Broken homes and miserable children are the result of K Selected monogamy! And you're trashing R Selected polyamory because..............you're worried it will screw up the children with........too much love???
Having fuck buddies in an open relationship is one thing (and probably just fine, if done through a K-selected lens),How can you possibly do it through a K Selected lens? It's impossible. Unless you opt for the typical slut shaming hypocrisy in which you do it and then shame each other for it, or live one way but raise your kids to believe that your way is terrible. Is that the kind of hypocrisy you advocate?
but actively encouraging your daughter to take a ride on a turbo charged carousel will lead to disaster down the line.How? So.................you'd prefer what? That I teach her NOT to do what I'm doing? That I teach her NOT to do what her mother is doing? That I teach her to be a virgin and say no to sex while her mother and I are leading the opposite lifestyle? That I teach her to............think of herself as a disgusting slut while her mommy and I go to an orgy??? Really dude? Are you serious?
BlindIo 2016-04-25 19:30:36
There seems to be some miscommunication. r and K-selection is not about poly or monog, those are separate issues. Anyway, I got other stuff to sort out so read up on it if you want. Or don't. I'm retiring from these discussions for a while.
Blackdragon 2016-04-25 20:07:20
I’m retiring from these discussions for a while.Irrespective of your conversation with Jack, I think that's a good idea. Your attitude about this stuff ("it's not possible for a man to be happy in this era") is way off. I wish you the best.
BlindIo 2016-04-25 20:30:12
Never said that.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-04-26 02:50:19
r and K-selection is not about poly or monog, those are separate issues.Then why the fuck did you bring it up? I advocated a poly lifestyle. Then you asked me how a poly lifestyle would work when children are in the picture. I answered your question and painted you a picture of how children are raised in poly families. Then you said this:
Jack, what you are saying is that you want your kids to be r-selected.Um, okay, so you are the one who tried to connect a sex positive lifestyle and teaching children sex-positive poly values with R/K selection theory. Then when I responded to you assuming the truth of the very connection that you made, you turn around and protest that those are separate issues and that there is no connection! For fuck sake man, if you're going to tell me that my future children being sex positive and poly means I want them to be R selected and then connect that with "low empathy" "single motherhood" "psychological dysfunction," and all other kinds of bigoted right wing bullshit, please don't then contradict yourself by disavowing the very connection between R/K selection and poly/mono that you made when I accept your connection and respond to you on that basis.
Anyway, I got other stuff to sort out so read up on it if you want. Or don’t.I have indeed read up on it and, despite your protests to the contrary (which contradict your earlier implications), poly and mono are actually linked with being a K type or an R Type. K Selection: Poor people, limited resources, scarcity mentality, third world shitholes, sexual repression, the cult of virginity, sexual hoarding (monogamy), tribalism, collectivism R Selection: Rich people, an abundance of resources, abundance mentality, the West, sexual promiscuity, sexual abundance, sexual sharing (polyamory), individualism, free thinking, anti-tribalism K Selected people are tradcons who see sex as scarce, and therefore, something that needs to be hoarded (monogamy). In a world of limited resources, sexual decisions are made for non-sexual and gender neutral reasons, such as acquiring financial resources. Women therefore only sleep with the richest men they can find, not because they're horny for those men, but rather because they need to avoid starvation. In such a scarce world, the K selected alpha male (1.0) has the most resources and practices polygamy (not to be confused with polyamory). His women are his property which he hoards and guards like an insecure pussy and they stay with him and have sex with him because they like the lifestyle, regardless of whether or not these women even have a sex drive. If they cheat on him, it is with a man of superior resources. Once again, sexual decisions are made for non-sexual monetary reasons. Sexual pleasure and heterosexuality are downplayed as being unimportant, as sex serves only a non-sexual practical function in this scarce world of limited resources. K Selected thinking = pure hell (for me). R Selected people have an abundance of resources, or at least have a psychological mentality of abundance. As such, they give themselves permission to enjoy life and completely disentangle their fun and pleasure from hardship and necessity. Therefore, R Types have sex only for sexual reasons (because they are horny) and will not allow their sexuality or sexual urges as individuals to be downplayed for the sake of group survival. This isn't a third world toilet! When we have sex, it's because we wish to enjoy sex, which implies that we don't need the person we're having sex with for money, resources, or non-sexual survival (otherwise, there would be no way to tell whether the girl is horny or just screwing you for money). When we get into a serious relationship (open, of course), it's because we're in love. We're not prostitutes who sell our personalities for economic convenience or survival in a harsh world. WE OWN OURSELVES! We see no reason to hoard anyone or to suppress our sexual urges, or the sexual urges of teenagers, "for the good of the tribe." There is no "tribe." This isn't the fucking African jungle. We give ourselves, and our children, permission to live life to the fullest and not deny ourselves any good thing. In an abundant R Type world, the alpha male has a polyamorous girlfriend and sleeps with other sexually lesser women, while she also sleeps with other sexually lesser men on the side. No sexual possession. No sexual hoarding. No sexual suppression. No cult of virginity. Just abundance and peace! If one partner falls in love with a lesser partner, the primary relationship dissolves and the two simply find another primary. No big deal! You bet your ass that I want my children to be R selected. The K selected world of scarcity, monogamy, and hoarding is a world of suffering, insecurity, and cruelty. I live in an R selected world and lead an R selected lifestyle. Hopefully, so will my kids.
I’m retiring from these discussions for a while.Good decision. See ya!
donnie demarco 2016-04-26 18:08:56
Do you really not get jealous at all when your girls start to wander?Not at all. And with the younger ones, I encourage them to date other men (part of the responsibility of being an older man). Jealousy is 100% internal, rooted in insecurities. Free thyself from that cancer.
Sigma Wolf 2016-04-27 21:46:02
Nomenclature amendment for Jack: R-selection refers to a strategies optimized in unstable environments ("third-world shitholes") Think weeds. K-selection is best in stable environments. Think Redwoods. You have them reversed.
KryptoKate 2016-04-27 22:26:35
@ Blindio Why didn't you join the military? There are jobs where you can legally be violent and even kill people and it is not only socially accepted but applauded. The other option, as BD mentioned, is MMA. @ BD I really like this discussion and I wish it were easier for people to get over their OBW, but I just have never personally met a man who truly doesn't have sexual jealousy. Not saying they don't exist, bc on this site clearly some do, but it is very rare because I haven't met them. I have met guys who *claim* to not be sexually possessive/jealous and who have rationally convinced themselves of it but when they have a girl they think is really special their emotions go off the rails at the thought of her with another man. It would be hard for me to trust a guy who says he's ok with this bc my past experience was with a guy who claimed to be fine with an open relationship for a year all the while that he was going (secretly) literally insane and then ended up fucking up his whole life and trying really hard to fuck mine up too. It just seems like jealousy is one of the most primal emotions there is. You don't have to teach anyone to be jealous...children are naturally very, very jealous of their parent's time and attention and love and then that seems to extend to all relationships as an adult. Managing people's jealousy is literally one of the most time consuming emotional issues I have to deal with....my best female friend is jealous of my boyfriend, my boyfriend is jealous of my cat, my girlfriends are all constantly jealous of everything, my mother is jealous of my relationship with my friends, my dad is jealous of my relationship with my mother, coworkers are jealous of other coworkers who get more attention or time....the list goes on and on and that doesn't even reach into the arena of sexual jealousy!! Everyone wants attention and love and is jealous when others get it because time and attention are limited resources. As for myself I really have almost never been sexually jealous of another actual real person, at least as an adult, but I admit I *have* had jealous freak outs over celebrities/models, lol. Which is REALLY DUMB obw because it's not even a real person who is a threat to me but my brain perceives it as superior competition and doesn't distinguish between fake people in media and real people. The biggest OBW in my opinion is the desire for more than one biological child. Back from the days when there were only a few thousand people in the whole world and the chances of a child surviving for any given pregnancy and living to the age of being able to successfully reproduce themselves was very, very low.
Blackdragon 2016-04-28 10:19:00
I just have never personally met a man who truly doesn’t have sexual jealousy. Not saying they don’t exist, bc on this site clearly some do, but it is very rare because I haven’t met them.I don't. At least I don't have any sexual jealousy any more. I cant still get jealous but sex isn't a part of it. For example (and this is very rare) if a woman I really like (high end MLTR or OLTR) is intimate with another guy she really likes, I can get a little jealous, but again, the sex has nothing to do with it, since sex is a biological function like going to the bathroom.
It just seems like jealousy is one of the most primal emotions there is. You don’t have to teach anyone to be jealousAgree. Jealousy is pure OBW. It's a reflection of our evolution from a state of extreme scarcity.