Question to the monks

[RayBandakuParticipant 888]

Not having sex, gets me a lot back, perminant Happiness, freedom, peace, more money, more time, no drama, can do what I want at any moment.

Five years in my monk zone is like living in heaven instead of marriage hell.

No sex is a lot better deal then losing most of what you have just for some sex.

Losing 80% of all my wealth in my painful divorce was a big lession which I will never repeat.

Enjoy going your way.

[MoreSkyParticipant 4865]

Been a monk for about 3 years and do not miss sex at all.

In my 20s it was occasionally fun when the woman put some effort into it, but 12 years of marriage to a cheating whore (and subsequent divorce) and the knowledge that any vaguely attractive woman is going to have had hundreds of miles c~~~ run through her, doesn’t make me want to stick my beef bayonet into any of their diseased, bearded clams.

Even without that, no sex has resulted in a clearer mind, considerably lower stress and a healthier wallet.

Don’t see what there is to miss.

"...reinvent your life because you must; it is your life and its history and the present belong only to you.” It is Your Life, Charles Bukowski.

[WraithParticipant 242]

I hated when I was in the middle of sex and remembered that to her it was probably transactional to her. I was thinking that we were bonding and expressing affection, and she was thinking I’d be obligated to make more money or whatever she wanted.

I’ve wondered if that’s why so many women see their sexual history as a tale of being sexually exploited by men. She expected that the sex implied other benefits for her. When that didn’t fall into place in the way she thought she deserved, she felt like the sex was taken without due compensation.

To my mind, that’s why the sex isn’t worth it.

[CPT ObviousParticipant 2729]

Wraith wrote:

I’ve wondered if that’s why so many women see their sexual history as a tale of being sexually exploited by men.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.

Most of the METOO movement is women who offered sex to men in power to procure special treatment or advancement, etc. but didn’t get what they hoped for. Now with the Social Justice climate being like it is, they are exacting their payment and/or revenge.

"You don't know a woman till you have met her in divorce court."

[EGParticipant 1852]

Wraith wrote:

I hated when I was in the middle of sex and remembered that to her it was probably transactional to her. I was thinking that we were bonding and expressing affection, and she was thinking I’d be obligated to make more money or whatever she wanted.
I’ve wondered if that’s why so many women see their sexual history as a tale of being sexually exploited by men. She expected that the sex implied other benefits for her. When that didn’t fall into place in the way she thought she deserved, she felt like the sex was taken without due compensation.
To my mind, that’s why the sex isn’t worth it.

I see what you did there. 🙂

[Gravel PitParticipant]

EG wrote:

I had the sex with one woman, one time. That was enough.

Was she a porker EG? Maybe she was a fluke, you should try another one bro. LOLOL

[Gravel PitParticipant]

I have to echo Wraith in his experience with sex.

1. In the air, there was a definite transactional overtone. She was doing this to get something from me.
2. Her feining of enthusiasm was not believable. Often she was flat out faking, or acting overly excited.
3. When she wasnt faking, things were great, but there is still that doubt.
4. The emotional intimacy seemed to be counterfeit or out of tune, you really dont know whats behind those eyes. Sure aint love!

And this is the bitterest pill to swallow for a lot of men. Sex is something totally different for us, than it is to them.
And trying to find that FIRST CONTACT PERFECT HIGH like you had before or that you think exists because you romantically pine for it in your imagination…. it doesnt exist beyond your lucid waking dreaming of it. She is not what you think she is.

So once you internalize that. The act loses its appeal because now its basically a flat out carnal collision with no passion or caring unless its acted out. And for some of us, the suspension of disbelief is just not available. Its so obviously dis-authentic that its a buzz kill.

So that is the AMBIVALENCE of sex from one Monks view. This isnt me saying I will never have it again. But when I do, I will be IN MY OWN WORLD THE WHOLE TIME. And I will be imagining things for my benefit, not hers. Because now I know, she really isnt PRESENT in a cognitive sense. She is something like a non-autonomous biological jack in the box that doesnt really know what it is… it just gets wound up and pops, and it thinks things that arent true…

[EGParticipant 1852]

Gravel Pit wrote:

EG wrote:

I had the sex with one woman, one time. That was enough.

Was she a porker EG? Maybe she was a fluke, you should try another one bro. LOLOL

LOL yes and no: she was a big girl with great big rock-and-roll hair and leather. So not a fluke, but a trial run of sorts. I stuck with the rock-and-roll and leathery stuff going forward, just the genders changed. I’m much much happier this way. 🙂

[EGParticipant 1852]

Gravel Pit wrote:

The emotional intimacy seemed to be counterfeit or out of tune, you really dont know whats behind those eyes. Sure aint love!

Cats love mice. You can see it all over their faces whenever they spot one. That look of love is not to be confused with emotional intimacy, though.

[WraithParticipant 242]

With a prostitute, the intentions and price are known. Once the service is rendered and the money is exchanged, the transaction is complete. You’re dignity isn’t on the line, because you knew what you were getting into.

When a woman who has sex with ulterior transactional motives sleeps with you, the intentions and price are rarely known. And the transaction isn’t necessarily complete. She could always mentally renegotiate what she thinks she deserves for that particular sexual encounter. Your dignity is assailed, because you were misled about what you were getting into.

[Gravel PitParticipant]

Wraith wrote:

Once the service is rendered and the money is exchanged, the transaction is complete. You’re dignity isn’t on the line

Here is the issue I take, The Perspective youre viewing it as. There are two ways to look at sex.

1. transactional

2. blue pill lovey dovey intimacy.

I PREFER to view sex as perspective two because Im an imaginative, romantic sort of guy. Do I know the truth? YES. Does it change how I FEEL about what sex should be? NO! Sex is like creating an oil painting. Its an act of passion, not some robotic process to repropigate the species. Yes, Im ‘all too aware’ of the truth of our biology and evolutionary psychology, Im a MGHOW MONK after all.

I would argue that your dignity IS ON THE LINE after sex with an “escort” (a fancier way of saying Prostitute to make men feel better about the dirty clam they just paid to use).
And thats just it, isnt it?
Am I paying for a hole to jizz in? Or am freely being intimate with a woman that also wants me?

Where is the dignity in using an escort? Yeah, I get it … you pay her to leave. I just cant look at sex like that. Im incapable of it. If it was legal, I honestly think, I still would not do it.

Here is the real question I have been thinking of lately.
Is monogamy an instinct specific to certain genetic populations? There are certainly behavioral differences across genetic populations; aggression, altruism… but what if it also includes monogamous pair bonding! What if caucasians and east asians are the only “races” that value monogamy, as in, the male is not only content with one female, but will actually fight to have only one, and is unattracted if a female is exposed to be loose with other partners ie used goods or unfaithful. What if other genetic populations are WIRED a different way, which is to inseminate women and toss them aside and inseminate more women… Doesnt there seem to be something to this?

It deserves impartial study. I have a African American friend whose wife just had a baby. I have spoken with him several times for over a year that I have known him. There is no doubt in my mind, from the many things he has said, that he would likely cheat on that woman and even have a child with another woman perhaps. He has no issue with sex with other women. This seems to be not just a failure of moral concern for him, but I see this behavior may not be chalked up to culture alone, this could be a genetic survival attribute, tournament style breeding as it were. But I would argue that European descended humans are not a tournament style breeding species. I would argue the opposite, that a male does NOT seek to mate with multiple women but is content with ONE provided she is faithful. I believe this is the psychological basis for why we invented marriage, to assure of fidelity and paternal assurance in the face of women’s hypergamous nature!

[WraithParticipant 242]

Gravel Pit wrote:

I would argue that your dignity IS ON THE LINE after sex with an “escort”

I feel the same way you do about what makes sex desirable, and I personally would consider it an indignity to have sex with a prostitute. Not everybody sees it the same way. I was focusing on the indignity that pretty much any man can relate to: realizing that the passion you and she shared was an act.

[Gravel PitParticipant]

Wraith wrote:

Not everybody sees it the same way.

I here you bro. Im not beyond using an escort. Hey, a fvck is a fvck at the end of the day. Theres still gonna be some ouus and ahhhs. But theres also a psych twist of pleasure when you know she is wanting to bang you, and not just because of a few Benjamins at the end.

For the last few days, I cant shake the wonder though, of the other thing I was talking about. How evo psych may be different across genetic populations. That would be some spectacular science if we could fund that kind of research

[Author]

Posts