Is Sexual Promiscuity a sign of Psychopathy?

[wilecoyote]

Greetings forumites,
I just finished listening to podcast # 63- Mind control, Haarp and the coming catastrophe, and Laura mentioned how easy it is for psychopaths to just go around impregnating women and just leave, having no sense of remorse or guilt. After i heard that statement, something clicked and i realized how profound that statement is. I'm a young chap with a girlfriend, and i used to wonder how some guys my age were so successful in having multiple partners. When i imagined myself in such a scenario, i realized how terribly guilty i would feel if i were to become intimate with other women while in a committed relationship, heck even semi-committed. I mean, a normal individual's inclination is to think "how would i feel if it were done to me?"

It just used to baffle me that i would hear young women complaining about their relationships with psychopathic individuals thinking that the guy would change. But now it all makes sense.

But another question to forumites: Is it me, or is it that some, if not many young women tend to be attracted to men who exhibit psychopathic tendencies eg the 'stud' the 'player'? Sometimes these women are aware of the psycopath's dirty track record but yet still they jump head first into relationships like this and expect to be the ONE to make a change, that the person would treat them better than the previous partners?
IMHO, i think it is a combination of wishful thinking and naivity.

One more thing, i'm just wildly speculating here, but why is it that some of the prettiest women and the most handsome men are psychopathic? I mean, is it some sort of compensation for their cold natures or lack of feelings that they have very attractive features?
I know guys who are cold hearted and take merciless advantage of unsuspecting women. I also know of women who use men. I always used to wonder, how is it that they can do it and face themselves in the mirror? But now i have an idea. These folks don't have a conscience like normal people do.

I would assume that some of you forumites have experiences in that regard, so feel free to share!

On another note, here's something i picked up from the Cassiopaea glossary, while i was researching orgone energy, sex, food for the moon etc.

Esoteric teachings pretty much all have a specific take on sex. The exoteric corruption of churches is to assign value to abstinence just for its own sake. Another, opposite misconception of would be magicians is its ritual use. Both probably feed the moon without even realizing it. Gurdjieff has a somewhat more nuanced approach, which we find essentially repeated with Castaneda: How literal sexual activity relates to spiritual transformation depends on the person. Some will abstain naturally, some will tend to increase activity, some might willfully abstain. Both G and CC were sexually active and rather promiscuous in their private lives.

Paying particular attention to the last line, i'm perplexed as to how G and CC were promiscuous, but through their material, one can make the inference that they are 'souled' individuals. Can one's level of 'knowledge' enable them to engage in promiscuous sexual activity contrary to popular esoteric teachings?
I would appreciate some feedback or comments.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

When i imagined myself in such a scenario, i realized how terribly guilty i would feel if i were to become intimate with other women while in a committed relationship, heck even semi-committed. I mean, a normal individual's inclination is to think "how would i feel if it were done to me?"

Ditto! In my case I have a long distance relationship with a girl I've only seen once in my life, and I'd not dream about being intimate with anyone else, even though given my situation, it would be extremely easy to "get away with it". But I wouldn't be able to live with myself. Interestingly, I could never see myself being intimate with anyone that I wasn't deeply involved with for a long time. Conceptually visualizing myself in this situation I always feel that I would be taking advantage of the person. Many people would probably relate to this feeling when the idea of having sex with someone who is drunk comes into play because it is just so "easy" and you're clearly taking advantage of them - they know not what they do and have no control. But in my mind it goes further, knowing how mechanical we all are and controlled by our impulses (sex being a major one), it's like we're ALL drunk all the time anyway, most people just don't realise it. So having sex with someone I just met or barely know, for me, is like taking advantage of a drunk individual. In many cases even if it is someone I know very well I still wouldn't be able to. I guess my issue with this is that I don't want it to be as a result of attraction and then sex drive taking over. I mean I know that that's inevitable, but I mean I want to SEE that there is a conscious individual making a conscious decision and remaining in full control the entire time. Just as I wouldn't sell alcohol to an alcoholic or too much candy to a child. In the latter scenarios the person will "buy what you're selling" as long as you're selling it, so the responsibility to STOP is on you. In the case if intimate encounters with "consenting, sober adults" it is usually similar - if you can SELL sex as a product, you can manipulate people to buy it as long as you're selling it with practically no limit. I don't see a difference, it is taking advantage of a person's mechanical nature in all of the above. That's also part of why C's don't "lead by the hand". Not just because we wouldn't learn anything, but also because we don't REALLY want to be led by the hand anyway, we just think we do because it's in our mechanical "free lunch" nature on the surface of things. Underneath that level we are screaming "please don't lead me, please let me learn despite what I say, please see beyond just my words!". And that leads into what is "asking", as the C's say STO is giving to all those who ask. And as I understand it, in most cases people say one thing but what they are REALLY asking or NOT asking can very often be something else entirely.

It just used to baffle me that i would hear young women complaining about their relationships with psychopathic individuals thinking that the guy would change. But now it all makes sense.

I think sexual promiscuity can be separated from psychopathy in the case of it being an addiction/impulsiveness, just someone who succumbs to his sexual urges to no end like an addict. But I think it's the element of taking of manipulation/control of someone and the lack of remorse afterwards that makes it psychopathic. But it's not a very clear line imho, because to me for example, having sex with someone you just met IS taking advantage of them. But I think many non-psychopaths could also easily do it out of ignorance and simply by succumbing to that sexual aspect of themselves. But if it comes to violating someone else's free will in the process (which again, is kinda multi-layered too since you can be doing what they ask on the surface but not realising that they actually do NOT want this on a level below that), that's when it is psychopathic. I mean, vast majority of people manipulate others to get sex. And I guess the difference is really just "how far" one goes, where the line is drawn. If you imagine a typical bar scene where people play all sorts of games to "get in each other's pants" it doesn't mean they're all psychopaths, probably most of them are not, osit.

But another question to forumites: Is it me, or is it that some, if not many young women tend to be attracted to men who exhibit psychopathic tendencies eg the 'stud' the 'player'?

It's funny how when you say "stud" and "player" it is instantly associated in my head with bully, jock, one who abuses/mistreats those he considers "not worthy" of being his equals. I guess it is because mostly it is the psychopaths that are both, players, and also bullies. But sometimes maybe players can be generally good people just simply at the mercy of their sexual center. I may be wrong of course, but I think I've known both kinds. There is always the risk that I've simply been fooled by the more cunning psychopath too, so it's hard to say. But it's like the ones that were players but not psychopaths did not hide it, did not really boast either, and were generally just kind and overall seemed like good people, did not manipulate, etc. I think it was more of an issue of addiction for them and to an extent you could see they were not even very happy with it, it's like they couldn't stop but in all other isntances they were indeed "normal", or seemed that way. They might hide it out of shame, not necessarily in order to manipulate. But I also agree that there are plenty of those who ARE psychopaths and so sexual promiscuity is simply normal to them.

I think it's that false sense of security/toughness/masculinity/love that psychopaths exhibit. They creates this "perfect guy" image to fool their "mate/prey". That image takes a long time to crumble until it becomes the antithesis of the original image, but by that time the woman is probably too addicted or scared to leave, or maybe is just so hung up on that original image that she cannot SEE what it was clearly always a lie.

One more thing, i'm just wildly speculating here, but why is it that some of the prettiest women and the most handsome men are psychopathic?

I think there is a correlation there too. However, I do think that due to the psychopathic focus on image/appearance in our society, they are more pressured to ACT like psychopaths in order to "fit in" with those other "pretty people" who ARE psychopaths. So it's sometimes hard to tell if you're looking at the genuine article or someone who does their best to mimic psychopathic peers because they think they have to in order to act their "role" in society as they're "expected". I can be wrnog but I think in RA channeling it was suggested that those most STS usually pick a very attractive physical vehicle to incarnate into, and usually one with money/power.

This may need further research but I think that the ratio of psychopaths to normal people may be higher in those who are considered attractive than in those who are not.

 

[RflctnOfU]

Somewhat along the lines of this thread, about 6 or so years ago, a friend and I were tossing around ideas about a "balance", so to speak, in Mother Nature, as regards inner beauty vs outer beauty. In about 90ish% of our collective observations, those who would be, in general, considered "hot", "babe", etc., of both genders, seemed to be quite lacking in Inner beauty. As the C's have suggested, this is the OP's world. Just my .02 :)

Kris

 

[Kashmir]

But another question to forumites: Is it me, or is it that some, if not many young women tend to be attracted to men who exhibit psychopathic tendencies eg the 'stud' the 'player'? Sometimes these women are aware of the psycopath's dirty track record but yet still they jump head first into relationships like this and expect to be the ONE to make a change, that the person would treat them better than the previous partners?
IMHO, i think it is a combination of wishful thinking and naivity.

They can't help it. Look up "planetary influeneces" in ISOTM or some of the other early Fourth Way material. There may be a combination of factors, but planetary influences will play their part.

K

 

[wilecoyote]

However, I do think that due to the psychopathic focus on image/appearance in our society, they are more pressured to ACT like psychopaths in order to "fit in" with those other "pretty people" who ARE psychopaths. So it's sometimes hard to tell if you're looking at the genuine article or someone who does their best to mimic psychopathic peers because they think they have to in order to act their "role" in society as they're "expected". I can be wrnog but I think in RA channeling it was suggested that those most STS usually pick a very attractive physical vehicle to incarnate into, and usually one with money/power.

This may need further research but I think that the ratio of psychopaths to normal people may be higher in those who are considered attractive than in those who are not.

You hit the nail on the head SAO, especially the line about most STS usually picking a very attractive physical vehicle to incarnate into. Sheesh! That was my strongest suspicion. Since people on this earth are so obsessed with physical beauty, those STS incarnates possessing 'almost flawless' physical beauty use their 3D 'power' mercilessly. Some get away with 'character murder', of those who don't quite fit the 'standard'.

Anyway forumites, i shall post some more on this topic, but for now, sleep beckons.....

 

[Guest]

I'm afraid I have to disagree on several of the points mentioned here. It's WAY too easy to group people who are physically attractive into the psycopath niche. Being a circus artist, I know PLEANTY of very attractive people who are interesting, introspective, and kind people. What also do you mean by attractive? Physically fit? Good looks? Some people radiate health and know how to take care of themselves. Are they psycopaths?
I myself can be considered attractive, yet I take great care in my intimate relationships to avoid energy vampires and to be as honest and giving as possible. This includes encounters that one would consider 'promiscuious'.
For anyone who has found a partner that they can be harmonious with, I am happy for them. I also need to mention that long term relationships can drain both people in ways they don't realize. You may not go in a direction you need to because your partner doesn't like such things, for example. I have seen many people stuck in the comfort of relationships, unable to make vital lifestyle changes.
I am by no means a gigalo, or player, but I'm no monk either. The encounters I have had with women, yes some of them for just one night, were interesting for both people involved. They were open, full of passion and intimacy. When you move around alot like I do, sometimes you can't keep long term things going. I have never disrespected a lover, or considered her anything else but someone I enjoyed sharing time with. I CAN say that being intimate and honest with women has taught me many things about myself. Intimacy with someone else is a vital part of understanding oneself.
I remember meeting one girl while performing on a cruiseship. We were instantly attracted to eachother. We talked for hours, our conversations getting more deep and honest. She said she had never met someone like me and we still keep in touch through email. Aparently I inspired her to follow her souls inspiration instead of giving into the societys pressure of what she should do with her life. Yes we were together for four days, but the exchange left both of us feeling energized. Her for meeting someone following thier inspiration and me for meeting someone who wasn't dead inside, who asked the same questions about life.
Sex for me, is an energy EXCHANGE. It IS mentioned this way in the Ra material. I'm not sure that everyone has that 'special someone' waiting for them out there. But that doesn't mean they should not learn how to be intimate and share themselves with someone else. Sounds like there may be a bit of puritanical programming in the prior posts...

 

[Guest]

wilecoyote wrote:


You hit the nail on the head SAO, especially the line about most STS usually picking a very attractive physical vehicle to incarnate into.


Yeah, but it's also mentioned in the Transcripts that it is often hard to tell STO and STS apart from physical appearances. 4D STO beings are 'beautiful' as well. I think it's WAY more complicated than 'ugly' on oneside and 'pretty' on the other...

 

[Cyre2067]

I gotta agree with Grey - Sex is an energy Exchange.

I've also had my bit with ltr (long-term relationships) and hooking up. Id elaborate, but i hate writing novels.

Basically what i learned is that ltr's are pointless if it's not a near-perfect soul-match. What do i mean? You should be dating your best friend if your in an ltr. That's my opinion. If you have to "work on it" or "work things out" alot you're expending energy that would be more constructively utilized if you were single.

During sex, i've noticed there seems to be a "back and forth", what do i mean? Basically there's a reciprocal exchange of attention, attention is energy. When you focus on someone you give them energy, and depending on the focus or the activity it's a greater, smaller or different type. Different activities that exchange different energies include, mock-fighting, back rubs, and sex.

As life is merely a collection of experiences (to this point) I've attempted to collect as many as possible. That included a phase where i did the "hook up" thing. It got old, and now I only disrobe and roll around with those who i have a genuine interest in, as opposed to a mere physical attraction.

I have noticed that when i'm having sex about 2ce a month (minimum) i have increased mental and physical stamina. The small stuff doesn't perturb me. I can focus on tasks with much greater clarity, and my relationships with my friends are void of any sexual tension, at least that which eminates from myself.

In Danny's post here...
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=2971

...I mentioned my "stumbling" along the path of late, and i think it may potentially be to my lack of sexual activity. When i'm not getting laid i tend to play more video games, smoke more, and in general be more disorganized. I think im seeking to "fill the gap" with substitutes, but obviously it doesn't work as well as the genuine article.

The psychopath i have known closely was very promiscuous and wasn't attractive by standard conventions. He was big thou, about 6'2'', large apendages, and had thick glasses. That said he had sex with tons of girls, his "size" and rugged masculine demeanour being the cards he played, and he played them well.

Damnit wrote alot. Hope that isn't too long.

 

[wilecoyote]

Yeah, but it's also mentioned in the Transcripts that it is often hard to tell STO and STS apart from physical appearances. 4D STO beings are 'beautiful' as well. I think it's WAY more complicated than 'ugly' on oneside and 'pretty' on the other...

I agree that the issue is vastly more complicated than just seeing it in extremities such as ugly and pretty, black and white etc. I was just making a few observations, and after listening to the podcast and what laura said, decided to discuss it.

I basically was coming from the perspective that my conscience would give me a serious beating if i were to be intimate with someone to the point of having a committed relationship, and having kids, to just 'up and leave' a few months or years later.
I was also making the connection that if 'normal' folk would feel guilty or at least remorseful about doing something like that, the men who could just impregnate multiple women without having a 'conscience attack' may be lacking a concience, and the possibility exists that they might be psychopaths. But as SAO mentioned, there are normal folk who might do such activity to 'fit in'.

I do apologize if i wasn't too specific in my previous posts. But i do have to ask Cat, how am i being 'puritanical' when i simply state that i personally, would find it difficult to have more than one committed relationships or multiple sex partners?

I think it was more of an issue of addiction for them and to an extent you could see they were not even very happy with it, it's like they couldn't stop but in all other isntances they were indeed "normal", or seemed that way. They might hide it out of shame, not necessarily in order to manipulate. But I also agree that there are plenty of those who ARE psychopaths and so sexual promiscuity is simply normal to them.

I agree with what SAO said in that some individuals are 'addicted' to sex and the 'high' it provides. I even daresay that they might be controlled by the 'sexual centre' (anyone plz correct me if i'm wrong). Some people choose multiple partners because of their lifestyle, and they are able to meet like-minded people. But there are psychopathic individuals who find sexual promiscuity normal, without any after thoughts.
It would be unfair to categorize all people who have multiple sexual partners or families as psychopaths just as it would be unfair to categorize people in committed, long term relationships as 'normal' or 'sane' (is un-psychopathic a term?).

 

[Mr. Premise]

It makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary biology standpoint. Young women tend to be attracted to men with high status or good chances at high status. This is probably due to long gestation times for humans (9 months) and even longer infancy for the children. As we know too well, effective psychopaths tend to rise in power hierarchies the way things are set up now.

I say young women, because most women learn from experience to avoid psychopaths as they mature. As the test that was run on the forum to distinguish the serial killers from computer progammers showed, women get pretty good at sensing psychopaths.

But another question to forumites: Is it me, or is it that some, if not many young women tend to be attracted to men who exhibit psychopathic tendencies eg the 'stud' the 'player'? Sometimes these women are aware of the psycopath's dirty track record but yet still they jump head first into relationships like this and expect to be the ONE to make a change, that the person would treat them better than the previous partners?
IMHO, i think it is a combination of wishful thinking and naivity.

They can't help it. Look up "planetary influeneces" in ISOTM or some of the other early Fourth Way material. There may be a combination of factors, but planetary influences will play their part.

K

 

[Guest]

Wile wrote:

I do apologize if i wasn't too specific in my previous posts. But i do have to ask Cat, how am i being 'puritanical' when i simply state that i personally, would find it difficult to have more than one committed relationships or multiple sex partners?


First off I probably wrote this with a tinge of an anger reaction. I've been judged before for my 'looks'. I look and function the way I do because I choose a path that inspired me, intellectually, physically, and spiritually. I've gotten a few high brow book jockies satisfying thier status cravings by correcting my english, over-complicating issues, and relying on dogma instead of real experience. . I call it intellectual bullying. It saddens me (and yes, I get angry.) because a path of Truth should involve intense scrutiny in all aspects of 3D life. We're HERE after all, in the physical, so careful attention to our vehicles should be manditory for understanding.
OK. I don't know you Wile, but your post about 'pretty people' was coming dangerously close to lumping way too many people into a category that is INCREDIBLY hard to pinpoint (Organic Portals.). It kind of suggested that since you were judging attractive people, that you yourself were not one (I will restate, I don't KNOW this for sure.).
I find that many people that are not 'attractive' have what could be called 'body issues' that is, they are uncomfortable being naked in front of other people. When we have a long term, comitted relationship, it is usually with someone who is so much like us that it validates who and what we are ('she loves me for who I am' or 'she accepts me.'). Physically as well as in other areas.
So when you say you would find it difficult, is that because you are not comfortable with yourself enough to feel attractive enough to allow for intimacy. Again, if this is indeed not the case, then so be it. But I have seen it on MANY people. They can only be intimate with someone they feel 'safe' with. Safe as far as stuck in the lifestyle and choices that they make. If you feel 'safe' in this day and age, it's best to examine the heck out of it in case it's a form of attack.
I'll leave it at that....

 

[anart]

So when you say you would find it difficult, is that because you are not comfortable with yourself enough to feel attractive enough to allow for intimacy.

FWIW, what I understood Wile as saying was that it wouldn't feel right or comfortable to do that - in an emotional or psychological way - as in, someone involved would be hurt - or, perhaps, intimacy is more than physical release for him - more is needed than just a physical attraction.

I could be mistaken, but the idea that it had anything to do with his physical appearance never crossed my mind. It also sounds, from your equating a lack of promiscuity to a lack of physical attractiveness that you consider your sexual activity as 'proof' of your physical attractiveness - in a rather defensive way, actually.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

I find that many people that are not 'attractive' have what could be called 'body issues' that is, they are uncomfortable being naked in front of other people.

If someone does not have many intimate encounters it does not necessarily mean that they are insecure with themselves. What if it is those who DO have many intimate encounters that are insecure? Maybe they are always trying to "prove" something to themselves - maybe that they are capable, that they look good, that they are really as attractive as they are constantly told etc? So I see it can go both ways. Maybe being a little too comfortable, too "liberal" while naked in front of other people is as much a sign of "body issues" just as being too uncomfortable and too conservative. However, sometimes being "too conservative" does NOT imply "uncomfortable" - may simply imply different values, different things the person wants. And being a little too liberal does not have to mean uncomfortable, because as state previously, could be just an addiction.

I know that there are people who do not have many intimate encounters - not because of any issues or insecurity or uncomfortableness, but because they want a lot more out of the encounter than just physical/sexual energy exchange. Of course, sometimes the latter is used as an excuse to mask our own insecurities and fears with our own bodies as well. But it doesn't have to be that in every case is all I'm saying.

When we have a long term, comitted relationship, it is usually with someone who is so much like us that it validates who and what we are ('she loves me for who I am' or 'she accepts me.'). Physically as well as in other areas.

What, you mean it's not because of true love!? Say it ain't so!!! :P But I (unfortunately) agree, since in this day and age it wouldn't be so wrong to say that most people have "body issues" to some degree, no thanks to pathocratic culture that focuses on unattainable/illusory levels of physical perfection to which we are encouraged to compare ourselves to. Then there' the case of just being attached to someone and relationship is just habitual/comfortable thing. And I wonder, after all is said and done, how many relationships in the world are NOT based on feeding, NOT based on self-validation, not based on "comfortableness", and are long-term and have a much greater meaning and nature to them? I'd say extremely tiny number, if any. It's interesting how this path of knowledge changes our perspective about relationships, the one thing that has always been "love and fluff" suddenly becomes a lot darker and a lot less "magical" and more mechanical/understandable/selfish than we ever realised. So then the question becomes, how do those on the path of knowledge and STO candidacy lead their lives in terms of relationships? What kind of relationship leads itself to STO candidacy, and is helpful to us as seekers of truth? Which things from the "typical relationships" have to be thrown out entirely, which things are kept, and which things are totally new and do not exist in any "normal" relationship? I guess the fun is in figuring this out for ourselves as we go along.

I must admit, one of the reasons I wish I could go for a workshop to Laura and Ark's house (or maybe without workshop, maybe if I'm allowed to just visit one day if I ever get my butt to France) is to see how she and Ark and the group as a whole interact with one another, what kind of relationship it is. For me it is all hypothesis and theories and conjecture, there are no people in my life with whom I can practically TRY IT and so figure this out through practice/experimentation, so for now I'm just fascinated with the idea itself of a relationship between 2 people on the path of truth and STO candidacy. How does it work, what's it like? I guess it's one of those things to which the C's would tell me, discover! (with a smug smirk on their faces of course). :P

So when you say you would find it difficult, is that because you are not comfortable with yourself enough to feel attractive enough to allow for intimacy.

I think most people have these fears, which are involved with self esteem issues and so on, and this is definitely a good thing to ask ourselves because it is a very real possibility. But what about the other possibility where you simply don't want intimacy without all the other "stuff"? I guess one could ask, well why not have intimacy with people while looking for that "special someone" who may meet those other "higher" requirements? Good question, why not? Well one possible reason is simply because you might not want to become involved with a "normal person" and have to deal with all the typical programming and conditioning and illusions anymore than you already do anyway. I mean you have to with your family and friends and other people, and that's ok, but to become involved intimately with a "normal person" is just not as attractive an idea as it once was before you started waking up. It's kinda hard to put into words - you still LOVE people, you do not separate yourself from them or detest them or look down on them, you just cannot bear to tolerate an intimate relationship based on the "same old same old" crap that you've long examined and thrown out. It would be much more fulfilling (at least for me), and WAY more fun and enjoyable to have someone of similar predisposition and collinear, someone who is actively tossing out the same sacred cows and nonsense that I am so one of us does not have to constantly deal with a million programs in the other simply becasue the other person has no interest in waking up and questioning reality.

Again, if this is indeed not the case, then so be it. But I have seen it on MANY people.

Me too, but one also has to consider the context. In the context of this forum, for example, I think there may be more people who have a "higher" reason for choosing celibacy or choosing a long term relatinship than a typical "normal" person who may be doing it for religious or insecurity reasons. But again, this is at best just a ratio that is higher, does not mean it is true for everyone - not by a long shot. I know that looking from myself, I have all sorts of insecurities and self esteem issues, so I think it's a combination of both for me. But I honestly do not think that I am simply using "higher rationalizations" as a MASK for those insecurities. In other words, I think it really is a combination, not just one pretending to take the place of another.

Maybe I could even say that it probably started because of low self esteem and "body issues", but now the element of "well, I actually don't really want to be involved with someone who's not on the same path as me" is added on. And it's a real element, a real thing because of the real progress in SEEING that I've made in the past few years, so it is also true even if the insecurities ARE also there. So it's not mutually exclusive, osit.

 

[Lucy]

I guess one could ask, well why not have intimacy with people while looking for that "special someone" who may meet those other "higher" requirements? Good question, why not?

I'm thinking there could be a myriad of reasons, most of them personal to the lesson plan of the person asking themselves that question. But of course, each of us have different lesson plans. Sure there are some universal truths that seem to apply to everyone, but sexual issues seem to be complicated and rather personal to each of us, and I would think we each have different 'needs'.

As for "energy exchange" during sex. This can be problematic. Just 'what' are the energies being exchanged? 'Who' are we exchanging them with? 'Why' do we choose our sexual encounters? Just because it 'feels' good doesn't mean it was positive in a spiritual way. It appears that 4dsts has many ways of inserting people into our lives, and of generating romantic and sexual dramas, that are meant to generate "food for the moon" while nudging us off the 'path'.

For some extreme examples of this take a look at The Love Bite by Eve Frances Lorgen.

As Gurdjieff has indicated, for those who are working to activate higher energies, casual sex without the element of emotional involvement with one's partner isn't going to help one reach that goal. At the same time, neither is it a helpful to fight our sexuality, or to misuse our sexual energy, to allow it to be usurped by other centers. What is the proper use of our sexual energy? It seems to me it is probably somewhat different for each of us.

One of the things that many of us think about is the possibility of having and meeting our Divine Beloved, or polar opposite. For some, perhaps most, that will not happen due in part to the karmic baggage we're carrying around, much of which is in some way related to past romantic/sexual relationships. And it would seem that for some there is no Divine Beloved. But if there is, how do we 'find' them? And how much karmic baggage is accrued, and then must be dealt with, by the seeker who becomes involved in 4dsts generated dramas having to do with romance and sex?

From the glossary: http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=27
"The take of the QFS is that such polarity is sometimes indeed found but that the concept does not necessarily apply to people universally. Whichever be the case, work on the self, bringing the self into alignment with soul and growing the real I is the activity which makes recognizing the polar opposite, should there be one, most possible or likely. People converging on the same target will eventually encounter each other, thus the Work should come before hunting high and low for the 'meant to be' romance."

Seems to me that doing the Work doesn't include sublimating our sexuality, or deliberately turning away from sexual intimacy and romantic relationships UNLESS that is the natural path for that particular person. After all, "All is lessons." It would seem there are some 'nuances' in the lessons we each need to learn that make them very personal to us. So we will have different ways of learning the "simple karmic lessons and understandings of this 'grade'" that must be learned in order to "graduate." And that would include understandings having to do with sex and intimacy.

A defining point that must always be always be considered is how 'honest' we are being with ourselves as we make our choices, whatever they are. Or so it seems to me.

To get back to Wile's original question: "Is Sexual Promiscuity a sign of Psychopathy?" Well, yes and no. Not all psychopaths are promiscuous, but to be so is 'easier' for them. So promiscuity 'may' be a sign of psychopathy, but must be taken into consideration along with many other 'signs' or factors. And let's face it. At one time or another we, all of us, exhibit psychopathic traits. The non-psychopath may choose to change such behavior because understanding is increased as lessons are learned. A true psychopath operates very differently.

I basically was coming from the perspective that my conscience would give me a serious beating if i were to be intimate with someone to the point of having a committed relationship, and having kids, to just 'up and leave' a few months or years later.

A true psychopath doesn't have a conscience.

 

[wilecoyote]

So when you say you would find it difficult, is that because you are not comfortable with yourself enough to feel attractive enough to allow for intimacy.

I'll have to disagree with you on this Cat. I've passed up on numerous 'intimate' encounters, the most tempting one, (and i do mean tempting) was in July. I'm telling you dude, the chemistry and everything is right, to the point where you start justifying your intended actions (sexually that is). I start saying to myself, "Whatever my girl doesn't know wouldn't hurt her" or "It's just sex, what's the worse that could happen?". But I've been blessed or cursed with such a level of conscience which makes me think about the future scenario. What would happen after i 'sow my oats?' Would i be able to face myself in the mirror? Can i go on 'pretending' to be honest with my girlfriend? What would happen if and when she ultimately discovered the 'truth'? Had she done the same to me, how would i react, especially knowing that our 'relationship' isn't 'open'?

So, you see Cat, I could be sexually liberal, but to have no guilt or remorse having multiple partners, i'd have to dump my girlfriend so that i could regain my sexual 'freedoms'.
The thing for me is that at the last minute, i tend to hold back myself from going all the way in an intimate encounter. As a guy, you know how strong the pull is when you meet someone who you are instantly attracted to they to you. It seems almost magical. Reminiscing about the article on the cass site based on the book book "Alien Love Byte/Bites" (i'm not to sure of the name), those encounters sometimes seem too 'perfect' almost 'planned'.
But as i was saying, once the ingredients for physical intimacy are right, then, there's almost nothing to hold one back, except one's conscience.

FWIW, what I understood Wile as saying was that it wouldn't feel right or comfortable to do that - in an emotional or psychological way - as in, someone involved would be hurt - or, perhaps, intimacy is more than physical release for him - more is needed than just a physical attraction.

I think i can be a bit too empathetic in terms of putting myself in someone's shoes and kinda 'feeling' what they would feel in such a situation.
Intimacy is more than just physical release to me. It involves being honest with your partner about your feelings etc. The thing is, i know that even if i have multiple casual sex partners, eventually i would have a 'favourite'. I might develop a soft spot for her, and unless she is an extremely liberal type of individual, i would find it hard to be honest with her about my other sexual encounters.
On the flip side, what if one of my multiple casual partners starts having feelings for me, that to her equate to 'love'? And she starts being extra 'special' to me, eg cooking for me, take me out to a spa etc (just random examples). How do i turn her down, and remind her that the relationship is totally 'physical'? I mean, sure it was part of our agreement, but people change.
The dilemma for me would be whether to drop this casual sex partner who has fallen in love with me, and replace her with someone less emotionally attached, or consider her feelings and take her seriously with regards to building a committed relationship.

Such a situation would be heart wrenching for me, because at some point, i would start to see those women as more than sex objects/partners. I know personally, at some point, i would start 'catching feelings' for someone with whom i was frequently sexually intimate.

That's basically the perspective i'm coming from. It's not about me being uncomfortable or insecure with my appearance to prevent intimacy. It's about whether i'll be able to empathise with multiple sex partners if i were 'sexually liberal', and whether or not my conscience would jump in.