[ryanf]

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/take_ecs...ationship/

Basically, they are advocating taking ecstasy to improve "pair bonding" in "a commitment adverse culture". Instead of shaming the gamers and lower betas of the world, they are now advocating drug use to get them to commit to those recently off the the carousel.

I have a better idea: divorce law reform.

[Samseau]

Drug people up so they stay together? Basically farm animals now

[Bronze Age Pervert]

There's nothing to worry about, it never works. Octavian tried to do all kinds of things to get the Roman birthrate up and to get patrician men to marry and have families. Even a totalitarian state can't force these things. This is good I guess, no one can force you to enter a life of stress and servitude to a modern whore. On the other hand, it is also the end of civilization, as it means the demographic collapse of the intelligent and productive classes.

[Roosh]

(02-02-2013 05:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Drug people up so they stay together? Basically farm animals now

Sounds like Brave New World.

[Samseau]

SOMA and X do have a lot in common...

[ryanf]

These writers are so predictable, too. "Do it for the childrens!"

[scorpion]

Women naturally product oxytocin bursts during sex which promote long-term emotional attachment to the man she's banging. This is nature's way of promoting an ideal two-parent family structure that is likely to endure at least until the children are able to start taking care of themselves.

But what we see now is that women spend so many years riding the cock carousel and fucking dozens of men that their brains become less sensitive to the oxytocin bursts they receive from sex. So over time, women gradually lose the ability to emotionally pair bond with the man they're having sex with. So the poor bastard who settles down with the early-30s veteran carousel rider has no chance. As soon as she pumps out a couple of kids, her brain has no more use for the guy. Her emotional bond with him was so shallow from the get-go because she spent an entire decade getting pumped and dumped by a string of alphas. Her oxytocin receptors are shot from the constant highs and lows she received with every new pump and subsequent dump.

This is another reason why virginity was so highly valued in the past (and still is today by some). Beyond the guarantee of paternity, marrying a virgin greatly enhanced family stability. In the old days, the idea of marrying today's average carousel rider would have been as absurd and disgusting to most men as marrying a prostitute. But that's basically what men are doing now.

It's terrifying to realize that the average Western girl today has the emotional brain chemistry of a prostitute, and is so emotionally damaged from years of carousel riding that she needs ecstasy therapy to even have a chance of remaining emotionally bonded to the father of her children.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

Boys need Ritalin just to get through the school day so it stands to reason men would need a drug to get through relationships.

It could possibly be time to take a step back and look at what went wrong so with the culture that the male half of the populace needs to be in a drug-induced fog to deal with it. That might have made a better article.

[speakeasy]

(02-02-2013 05:54 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

But what we see now is that women spend so many years riding the cock carousel and fucking dozens of men that their brains become less sensitive to the oxytocin bursts they receive from sex.

Let's not get carried away here, the average person has less than 10 sexual partners in their life. That includes men. Women that have sex with literally dozens and dozens of men are statistically outliers and they were damaged goods from the get go. The women I've slept with who admitted to having a past of promiscuity were screwed up to begin with. Their promiscuous behavior was the result of their emotional problems, not the cause of it.

[NYJ]

Can't sit down for 2 seconds? Pop some pills.

Afraid to fly long distances in worry that you'll crash and burn? Pop some pills.

Want to be able to love someone forever till you both kick the bucket? Pop some pills.


Scary part is that article is far from satire. Parts of it read more like something you'll find on The Onion.

[Wool Suit]

Does anyone ever step back and wonder before these things get posted? This article is quite literally advocating illicit drug use to make life with a Western girl tolerable. And it's not satire, and it's not tongue-in-cheek. As far as I can tell, the author is deadly serious.

All I know is my grandparent's generation didn't have to roll to make it 70 years with a single person. Maybe it's women and society that changed, not the mortality rate. Food for thought.

[Basil Ransom]

(02-02-2013 06:47 PM)Wool Suit Wrote:  

Does anyone ever step back and wonder before these things get posted? This article is quite literally advocating illicit drug use to make life with a Western girl tolerable. And it's not satire, and it's not tongue-in-cheek. As far as I can tell, the author is deadly serious.

The author has your standard egalitarian liberal perspective - all dysfunction is caused disproportionately or equally by men; women are never more than 50% responsible when things are going badly. So it's not a fault of women, but 'people.'

To be honest, I don't think drugging in the abstract is a bad idea. If we as humans are susceptible to doing things that harm our long term interest, then using drugs to prevent us from doing those things will benefit us. Imagine if there was a 'heroine vaccine,' which after you took it, you would not get high from heroine, nor ever get addicted to it. You could give out the vaccine to people most at risk, instead of waging a whole war on drugs and so on. Conversely, that's why we limit drugs that make us behave worse - alcohol, bath salts, meth, etc.

Of course, if such wonder drugs had negative side effects, that would make us consider traditional methods as an alternative.

I bet that if such a marriage drug ever came about, feminists would rail against it, saying it would harm the woman's freedom to make independent choices, and would amount to pharmaceutical kidnapping. Research would reveal that it would be mostly women who needed to take the drug to keep marriages together , as suggested by current divorce statistics.

[scorpion]

(02-02-2013 06:41 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(02-02-2013 05:54 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

But what we see now is that women spend so many years riding the cock carousel and fucking dozens of men that their brains become less sensitive to the oxytocin bursts they receive from sex.

Let's not get carried away here, the average person has less than 10 sexual partners in their life. That includes men. Women that have sex with literally dozens and dozens of men are statistically outliers and they were damaged goods from the get go. The women I've slept with who admitted to having a past of promiscuity were screwed up to begin with. Their promiscuous behavior was the result of their emotional problems, not the cause of it.

You have to take into consideration that those promiscuity statistics include every woman. Fat women. Ugly women. Married women. Religious women. Older women with traditional morals. These women dominate the lower half of the distribution, and do so largely because they either can't get sex or aren't looking for it in the first place. Women who are young, attractive, educated, middle/upper class and live in big cities have much higher notch counts than the "average" woman. There's also the documented tendency for women to underreport their number of sexual partners in surveys of this type. So yes, while "dozens" of partners is probably an exaggeration for the average woman, it is certainly not improbable for millions of young women today. And even then, I would be willing to bet that the emotional damage women receive from sleeping around starts becoming apparent even with a relatively small notch count by modern standards, something in the range of 6 to 10 partners.

As for the relationship between promiscuity and neurosis, it's indisputable that girls who are somehow fucked up in the head are more likely to sleep around. However, that fact in no way removes the possibility that a causal relationship between the two also exists in reverse. Neurosis can cause promiscuity, and promiscuity can manifest some neurotic symptoms. The two are intertwined and feed off each other.

It's sort of like the relationship between depression and alcoholism. A depressed guy is more likely to become an alcoholic. But an alcoholic is also more likely to be depressed. Sorting out which came first is a chicken and egg sort of question, and is ultimately almost impossible to discern. All you can say for sure is that a correlation between the two exists. So it is with promiscuity and neurosis, which is why your best bet is to avoid promiscuous women if you're looking for a stable LTR/marriage. The fact that this is common sense and has essentially gone without saying for all of history is a testament to the truth of the proposition that promiscuity damages women over the long term, and reduces their ability to be nurturing wives and mothers.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(02-02-2013 07:44 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(02-02-2013 06:41 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(02-02-2013 05:54 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

But what we see now is that women spend so many years riding the cock carousel and fucking dozens of men that their brains become less sensitive to the oxytocin bursts they receive from sex.

Let's not get carried away here, the average person has less than 10 sexual partners in their life. That includes men. Women that have sex with literally dozens and dozens of men are statistically outliers and they were damaged goods from the get go. The women I've slept with who admitted to having a past of promiscuity were screwed up to begin with. Their promiscuous behavior was the result of their emotional problems, not the cause of it.

You have to take into consideration that those promiscuity statistics include every woman. Fat women. Ugly women. Married women. Religious women. Older women with traditional morals. These women dominate the lower half of the distribution, and do so largely because they either can't get sex or aren't looking for it in the first place. Women who are young, attractive, educated, middle/upper class and live in big cities have much higher notch counts than the "average" woman. There's also the documented tendency for women to underreport their number of sexual partners in surveys of this type. So yes, while "dozens" of partners is probably an exaggeration for the average woman, it is certainly not improbable for millions of young women today. And even then, I would be willing to bet that the emotional damage women receive from sleeping around starts becoming apparent even with a relatively small notch count by modern standards, something in the range of 6 to 10 partners.

As for the relationship between promiscuity and neurosis, it's indisputable that girls who are somehow fucked up in the head are more likely to sleep around. However, that fact in no way removes the possibility that a causal relationship between the two also exists in reverse. Neurosis can cause promiscuity, and promiscuity can manifest some neurotic symptoms. The two are intertwined and feed off each other.

It's sort of like the relationship between depression and alcoholism. A depressed guy is more likely to become an alcoholic. But an alcoholic is also more likely to be depressed. Sorting out which came first is a chicken and egg sort of question, and is ultimately almost impossible to discern. All you can say for sure is that a correlation between the two exists. So it is with promiscuity and neurosis, which is why your best bet is to avoid promiscuous women if you're looking for a stable LTR/marriage. The fact that this is common sense and has essentially gone without saying for all of history is a testament to the truth of the proposition that promiscuity damages women over the long term, and reduces their ability to be nurturing wives and mothers.

Let me restate my 2cc from another thread, where I claim that it is true that the average woman doesn't have that many sex partners, but that it nonetheless has severe consequences.

HCE Wrote:

Even the sluttiest women rarely average more than 13 partners per year (cca 1 per month). Even with the standard +40% modifier for women lying about their numbers, that's still not even close to such an assumption. That would be some 100 standard deviations above the mean partner count per year, which is almost impossible.

That said, even a steady stream of 1 dick a year is more than enough to permanently fuck a woman up (as far as LTRs / marriage are concerned). Assuming a girl starts at 16 and fucks 1 guy a year, her count is already 9 by age 25. Assuming at least half of those were alphas (which is quite likely), that already represents serious (and probably) permanent impairment as far as unrealistic criteria, diminished pair bonding and other sexual characteristics go.

In other words, it's not the problem that the average (or even slutty) woman gets more dick than we think - she does not - the problem is that our threshold for what is considered a slut is way too high.

Thus my conclusion is that damage starts occurring after just one or two alpha-induced oxytocin bursts. Most women in today's western world (over two thirds, I'd guess) are completely unsuitable for LTRs / marriage now, but no one would ever call them sluts. After all, they just made a few "mistakes", like fucking a different bad boy every year of their prime.

[Asaxon]

How about the median instead of the average? Much more meaningful here. Does anyone have data?

[Hotwheels]

Median? Average?

Ok, you're probably not old enough to remember the 90's.....

It's way different now. And the 90's were not bad.

The funny thing is it's easier for me to tag a 20 y/o now than it was 10 years ago....

Hotwheels is now 43...

Think about it.

[Asaxon]

I actually do remember the 90s quite vividly. The reason I want a median is to exclude skewing effects from extreme carousel riders and nuns etc... I have no clue what the truly middle of the road girl has on her cock clock... 5, 20, 30...?

[Hotwheels]

Why does it really matter what the stats are?

Median, average, whatever.

The stats are not universal anyway and no one has ever torn off a hunk because of stats.

Go get some.