Is Sexual Promiscuity a sign of Psychopathy?

[Ryan]

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 think you might be grossly oversimplifying things here. Manipulation, even for purposes of sex, does not necessarily imply psychopathy. Indeed, some psychopaths may not even need to manipulate to gain a willing partner. As has been mentioned on the forum in various quoted texts, the very personality of a psychopath can be a magnetic thing in itself, and no doubt there are plenty of members of the opposite gender willing to use sex as their "bait" for luring such a charming, magnetic individual into a relationship (usually to prop up their own self-image or palliate feelings of deep inadequacy). They may or may not soon realise the large set of jaws that lie smiling behind the "shining light", much like the Anglerfish.

I have personally observed that many attractive people are arrogant, vain and manipulative, but I have also met some very beautiful girls who seemed quite sweet and genuine. While there is no doubt an intense conditioning program going on throughout the world today regarding "physical beauty" and the possessiveness of same, that should not justify categorisation of any sort. As Gurdjieff said, "Faith of body is stupidity". Those who worship beauty and physicality will ultimately receive all that comes with it, so there is no point in being offended by people who place others and themselves into any kind of "looks hierarchy". Still, this is easier said than done, I know.

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?"

Your question implies that you think these "popular esoteric teachings" are in fact correct. What teachings are you referring to? And what would you classify as "promiscuous"? That's a term that means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

According to quite a few sources (not least Gurdjieff), sex seems to be the big "treat" of this world/reality. It's what everybody wants to some degree (except for maybe a few rare exceptions). If you are less identified with "treats" and interested in a "higher" form of love and intimacy, you should remember that there are many people out there who are not. To be honest, I got the impression that you might even be a bit "jealous" of this. If this is the case, maybe you should try to work out whether that aspect of yourself is really YOU?

Just a few thoughts.

 

[name]

I think you might be grossly oversimplifying things here. Manipulation, even for purposes of sex, does not necessarily imply psychopathy.

... and ...

I have personally observed that many attractive people are arrogant, vain and manipulative, but I have also met some very beautiful girls who seemed quite sweet and genuine. While there is no doubt an intense conditioning program going on throughout the world today regarding "physical beauty" and the possessiveness of same, that should not justify categorisation of any sort.

the thing with manipulation for sex is that most of us men, at least from my experience, grow up w/o the aproppriate social skills to deal with women on eye-to-eye-level, so manipulating them to get something (sex, love) one thinks would be denied otherwise is the most obvious thing to do (not that teen girls help things either, the over-the-top arrogant and hurting annoyances they can be).

only later and after having had more opportunity to interact with them it becomes clear - and that not to everybody either - that the best way to get something from a girl is to approach them straightforward, avoiding the imagined conflict in first place. my experience with women - after they've skinned of their teen weirdness - is that every time you pick a fight with them you lose, that they smell manipulators a kilometer against the wind (still they fall for it often enough, probably conditioning), and that talking in a polite and respectful way and listening to them can take you a long way, often further than you would imagine.

and i think that Ryan is right.

 

[dhess31]

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.

Hi Lucy,
As I read through "Gnosis", this is a concept that I admit is troubling to me. The concept of "polar opposites".

I'm married, and realtively happy (with the marriage at least :) ) But what if she ISN'T my polar-self? Does that mean I can't go through the "second threshold"? I read the article on the cass site in which Laura talks about this. But SHE found Ark...What about the rest of us? I had also come across the above-quoted definition in the glossary. It says not to focus on it, but Mourvieff seems to think it is VERY important at least down the road of the "work".

One of the problems here is that the information about "sex" that comes from "above" is in itself conflicted.

Gudjieff says some people NEED a lot of sex. Mouravieff says it is bad to do this lest the "absolute III" keeps you in it's grasp. The C's say "sex is bad". Ra says it isn't.

So I admit to being a bit confused.

BTW. If anyone reading this doesn't understand the terms used you can go to the Cass esoteric glossary to help make sense of it.

http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php

Don

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

C's say that if one still has sex it means one still has attachment to physicality. But then again, same can be said about eating and many other things. I think sex could be good for the health of the body and mind to some degree, but it is also STS. I am not sure about any spiritual aspect of its "energies" and so forth, but according to the C's, every time we have an orgasm that energy goes straight to 4D STS. But naturally, being human, sex is going to be a major "drive" in our lives, it will be on our minds (maybe more so in men?) and it will influence our decisions (or rather, by default it would, but part of the Work is so that it doesn't, osit). And I guess maybe as with many other things, sometimes it's simply ok to give the predator a piece of meat so to speak, but within reason. But maybe the point is that it's not so much that "sex is bad" just like it's not that "money is bad" or "eating food is bad". I think it's more the fact that sex is one of the main things that make us mechanical and slaves. Food is a similar thing, and money is not too far from those. As Laura wrote once, it's not "money" that is "the root of all evil", it's more "the love of money".

So I think that having sex is ok just like eating is ok and having money is ok in and of itself. But it's all the other stuff that really matters - how much we do it, why we do it, with whom, are we controlled by this "drive", what we use it for, etc. Devil is in the details, osit. Eating is necessary for us to survive to do the work we came here to do - even if it IS killing another being and consuming its energy to continue our existance. Sex is procreation, but also can be done for reasons of just because it's pleasurable. Is it conducive to STO and esoteric growth to have sex for "non-procreational reasons"? I think it can be if celibacy is driving you insane and you cannot focus or do the work because you're so distracted with the desire to have sex.

I guess it's like anything too - is it conducive to STO/esoteric progress to just stop and enjoy the sunset or smell the roses? Or to buy an ice cream? Or to play a game just for fun? Or to do any activity that has no other reason but pleasure on some level? I think any and all of such things ARE beneficial to us and our progress, since we ARE STS beings and so some amount of "appeasing the predator" is necessary while we're still in this world and not yet 4th density. Otherwise we probably run a good chance of litereally going crazy and as a result REALLY halting esoteric progress. So in the end I think it's a balance - use common sense and moderation. Yes, these things are STS, and if we focus on them too much, sure we will hurt our STO progress. But if we focus on JUST STO too much and ignore our STS side entirely, we're bound to hit a brick wall as well - we're not yet capable of this while in THIS body and in THIS world. We're not designed for pure STO focus and only STO actions, our bodies and minds CANNOT handle this form of existance yet. We can do our best to approach it and can definitely be much further along than the "default" condition, but as the C's said, we simply cannot be STO here and now, and I agree, and therefore I think a reasonable amount of STS is not only "ok" but necessary for our overall physical and mental health, and by extention, our STO progress. But the devil here is also in the details.

One might be tempted to ask, "well, how much STS is ok?". And I do not think there are any hard and fast rules. But for a general guideline it might help to think of the ying-yang symbol. The white half has a tiny black dot, the black half has a tiny white dot. And I guess the higher through the densities you go, the smaller the dot of the opposite polarity within you will become. Some of us will be able to manage our STS desires better than others, and that's ok, that's why there's no hard and fast rules about what's ok and what's not ok. Just be reasonable and try to be STO where you can without driving yourself insane in the process, as there are a lot worse things you can do than eat an ice cream, play a game, or have sex with someone. And maybe if we just strive to reach the point where our STS parts are the dot, instead of vice versa, we should be ok. But even then, "not all STS is created equal". So you cannot really quantify it without considering each action with the law of 3, within proper context. You cannot say "well today I did 3 STS things, yesterday I did 5, so I'm more STO today". So again, the devil is in the details, again, osit.

Either the C's or RA (or both, not sure) suggested that to graduate to STO you have to be only over 50% STO. To graduate to STS you need to be over 95% STS. Of course these numbers can be inaccurate, but it may give a rough idea and would correspond with the ying-yang. A priest may practice celibacy but I highly doubt that religious preachers and priests are going anywhere for a while. If you CAN avoid having sex without it being too much of an issue in terms of self-esteem and your overall mental/physical health, then great! If not, that's ok too, osit. On the other hand, if you have an urge to kill people, THAT might be less "excusable" and carry far more consequences karmically and so on. So obviously not all parts of our being must be appeased, and if the urge to kill is a part of our being it might help a lot more to question it and see if we can get rid of it instead of giving THAT predator a piece of meat and succumbing. On the other hand, it is probably silly and a waste of time/energy to spend too much energy trying to do away with our desire to eat a chocolate every now and then, even if it is technically STS. Our predators, our ego - such things are probably much more important to work on being rid of, osit.

 

[Guest]

wilecoyote wrote:

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.

Greycat:
I was just checking so thanks for not taking offense. I've seen too many people righteously justify thier actions when it's really an inability to look further into thier life's situation. Theres a part of themselves that never had the confidence to 'go there' and when they see others there, they defend it from a position of ignorance. If you mention it (I seldom do.) they immedietly get extremly offended. All their defence programs go on high alert.
I do the same thing you mentioned with encounters. I call it 'doing a fast foward'. I read the energy of the person, what thier true intentions are, and I can actually SEE where they want to take this encounter. If it isn't coming from a place of mutual respect and honesty, I don't do it, no matter how 'tempting' it may be. Alot of people think I'm nuts, because I've truned down some pretty 'beautiful' people. But you can smell it on them. No touchie!

wilecoyote:

Intimacy is more than just physical release to me. It involves being honest with your partner about your feelings etc.

GC:
I might have not been clear in my posts. Intimacy is not just a physical release with me either. It is a complex mix of physical/emotional energies. It's kind of like a switch in a way. If the other person can 'open up' then you can share deeper parts of yourself with them. In my experience, I consider intimacy a very subtle form of communication.


ScioAgapeOmnis wrote:

C's say that if one still has sex it means one still has attachment to physicality. But then again, same can be said about eating and many other things. I think sex could be good for the health of the body and mind to some degree, but it is also STS. I am not sure about any spiritual aspect of its "energies" and so forth, but according to the C's, every time we have an orgasm that energy goes straight to 4D STS.


GC:
It's certainly been one of the main topics of meditation for me for a long time. I always try to think of 4D STO, because it's the natural step for me to consider. These beings ARE physical. They HAVE to physically interact somehow. I mean, they don't just all avoid eachother, staying at opposit sides of the room telepathicly waving "hello!".
I don't have a search engine on my sessions (mac user, arg.) but I do remember Laura asking the C's if they reproduce and I believe the answer was something along the lines of 'not as you do in 3D'. But they do. I think thier physical interactions are more like energy/experience exchanges.
Funny, because in some of my most intimate encounters with women, I get the same sense, that we are communicating on a different level. It is usually with someone who can understand the experiences I have had, and me theirs. There is physical pleasure yes, but it is the ability to identify and be identified with and understood that brings joy from lovemaking. Is making love an energy/experience exchange?
Two 4D STO's meet in a bar. They've never met before. Time, being what it is and they who they are, they pull out thier Telepathic 'bussiness cards'. On it is thier entire existence, experiences, and soul matrix. Each 4D STO views the others 'life' or 'name' and indentifies with similar experiences, shares mirth at lessons hard learned, and generally identifies with the other. Is this just a highly refined way of 'making love'?
It's just an idea, and yes, we can't properly view 4D as we are 3, but a man can meditate on it no?

The C's mention joy alot, as well as mirth. These seem to be 'emotions' they take 'pleasure' in. Being STS, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around existence WITHOUT some sort of...stimulus I guess you can say. And by stimulus I mean an experience that is a combination of physical and mental learning, weather it's conceptual or to do with other living beings.
I feel like sex for me is learning, about people, about myself. For me, anything where I am learning I cannot judge as 'bad' or something that is hindering my progress. I say to myself many times when these programs come up: "when I'm done with an experience, I will no longer seek it out, until then I still have something to learn from it.".
4D STO have to have some sort of attachment to physicality because they need to give it up to become 6D STO. What is this?

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Two 4D STO's meet in a bar. They've never met before. Time, being what it is and they who they are, they pull out thier Telepathic 'bussiness cards'. On it is thier entire existence, experiences, and soul matrix. Each 4D STO views the others 'life' or 'name' and indentifies with similar experiences, shares mirth at lessons hard learned, and generally identifies with the other. Is this just a highly refined way of 'making love'?

Yeah but for them this revolves around learning and helping others (or in that case one another) learn. It's not just "stimulate my pleasure center because it feels good". At least that's the difference I see.

The C's mention joy alot, as well as mirth. These seem to be 'emotions' they take 'pleasure' in. Being STS, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around existence WITHOUT some sort of...stimulus I guess you can say.

Well you could say that empathy, being the ability to "put yourself in the shoes of another", is a form of STS. What I mean is, you only help someone because your empathy for their suffering urges you to do so - so in a sense, you're doing it to make yourself feel better, and the way YOU will feel better is if you are able to help them somehow. If we had no empathy, could we still be STO? If the suffering of others did not make US feel bad, would we bother? Well, no - psychopaths don't bother. But this is service to self through others, not just service to self, osit. But I think the key here is "through others".

I feel like sex for me is learning, about people, about myself.

But ALL there is is lessons. Killing someone can teach you things too. You learn by doing STS things just as you do by doing STO things.

For me, anything where I am learning I cannot judge as 'bad' or something that is hindering my progress.

Manipulating people can teach you things too, and STS learn and grow just as STO do. But they do so with a different approach. I feel like you may be trying to ascribe all learning as "good" just because it is learning - but then wouldn't that combine STS and STO into one pot? Maybe I misunderstand? And since all there is is lessons, not having sex would teach you things about yourself too -maybe even more things. So it still appears to me that you just want to do this simply because it feels good (which I am not judging you for) and try to justify it with some "higher" reason to make it appear like something other than what it is. But again, I may be wrong.

 

[Guest]

ScioAgapeOmnis:

Yeah but for them this revolves around learning and helping others (or in that case one another) learn. It's not just "stimulate my pleasure center because it feels good". At least that's the difference I see.


GC:
Indeed. I agree with that, I think the point I was trying to make was that is there a point during intimacy where the physical pleasure isn't the only phenomena occuring?. You are opening yourself up emotionally to somoene and teaching them to do so, or they are teaching you to do the same, depending on the openess of the people involved. I guess I'm trying to consider intimacy as an important step to becoming and STO candiate.


ScioAgapeOmnis:
Well you could say that empathy, being the ability to "put yourself in the shoes of another", is a form of STS. What I mean is, you only help someone because your empathy for their suffering urges you to do so - so in a sense, you're doing it to make yourself feel better, and the way YOU will feel better is if you are able to help them somehow. If we had no empathy, could we still be STO? If the suffering of others did not make US feel bad, would we bother? Well, no - psychopaths don't bother. But this is service to self through others, not just service to self, osit.


A good point as well. The only thing I might add is that STO cannot come to the aid of others unless ASKED. I sometimes forget that the true term is 'serve self by serving others'. You are still serving yourself though...hmmm...


ScioAgapeOmnis:
Manipulating people can teach you things too, and STS learn and grow just as STO do. But they do so with a different approach. I feel like you may be trying to ascribe all learning as "good" just because it is learning - but then wouldn't that combine STS and STO into one pot? Maybe I misunderstand?


GC:
In a sense we ARE all in one 'pot'. I think I may BE trying to ascribe all learning as 'good' or at least if 'good' is defined as Union with the One. All learning, no matter the polarity will eventually lead towards union with the one. When STO and STS interact (I don't say fight, because I dont think they do in the same sense we think of as fighting.), are the STO folks saying: "listen, lizzies, your just not getting it. You want it all, but you can't. You direction is all muddled, we see everything as it IS so no matter how hard you fight it, you will have to come over to our side eventually."
This would suggest, fast or slow, STS till the last drop or join the folks over in STO, your going to head to Union with the One. You may be the last lizard in the pack, clinging to the remnants of some burnt out husk of a planet, surrounded by STO light forces, all of them patiently waiting for you to just admit YOUR WRONG, but eventually you will figure it out.
Have figured it out.
Did figure it out.
Uh oh, I just made time unlinear. That complicates everything.