Sexual Liberalism

In a recent article of mine I discussed “sexual freedom”, and there we covered not only what sexual freedom was but also discussed different argument for and against it. However, it is very obvious that my post was very pro sexual liberalism.

To recap quickly, in that post we described sexual liberalism as a position that allows individuals to engage in, without any judgement from others, their desired sexual practices. Most Western countries for instance do not legally restrict all that many sexual practices between two consenting adults.
Yet we agreed that sexual freedom should have some limits. For example, we would all agree here that we should not be allowed to rape anyone (I really hope you all agree!) nor cause any severe long-lasting harm to our sexual partners – like most of us would find it noxious that someone went around spreading HIV on purpose.
In other words, we want consensual sex and to minimize the possible harms of certain sexual practices. But pretty much these limitations of sexual freedom serve one and only one purpose: maximize and protect the sexual freedom of each individual. Think about it: how much sexual freedom does a rape victim have when she is being raped?
But what about other restrictions? What about sleeping with other people’s partners? What about women “slutting around” or men “perving around”? And finally, what about monogamy and the conservative family?

Distribution of Sex

A commentator on my previous article named “uForia” made some really interesting remarks that pretty much inspired me to write this whole post. He pointed out a very good counterargument to the whole notion of “sexual freedom”. Inspired by theories of economics, he saw coherence between sexual liberalism and neo-liberalist theories of economics.
To make it simple: in a neo-liberalist society, some get a lot more wealth than the rest of the population. Some say that the US for example has become such a society. Whether or not that is true, or whether or not it is a good and beneficial distribution or wealth, will not be the topic of this post.
In a totally sexually free society, the distribution of sex partners will be similar to the distribution of wealth in a neo-liberalist society. It is very easy to see how a sexually liberated society will benefit the men at the top of the pyramid (lovers) – a very small minority of the men out there. These men will end up getting all the women, but what about the rest of the males lower down on the desirability chain?
Well, in the most extreme version of this kind of society, they will pursue the role of the provider, but won’t really be able to reproduce, or even have any casual sex (or, if they are able to, only rarely). Prostitution will become their only option – that might help, but many won’t find such an option very satisfying.
Not only will there be what many would claim to be an “unjust” distribution of wealth (we can really see the parallel between economics and dating) but it actually might lead to chaos. I am European and as a rather politically neutral person, I would like to point out that communism was a result of very unfair distribution of wealth during the industrial revolutions where workers owned nothing other than their own hands, and they were practically owned by the capitalists (not to be mixed up with capitalist ideology). The industrial workers had barely enough to eat and worked up to 20 hours a day.
The former explains why many theorists and thinkers were very concerned about the commons, with the purpose of increasing the overall wealth in a society – like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill inventing utilitarian theories (where the premise for judging an action is based on how much wealth it promotes).
But another school of thought started developing: namely Marxism (socialism, if you prefer). According to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, a just society would be one where private property and the means of production were all communalized – communism, as we all know. In this system, the authorities could redistribute all the wealth equally to each citizen.
Now you might ask yourself, what does that have to do with the topic of “sexual liberalism”? Well I will now point out how this is relevant.
Let us now think of a “state of nature” that is in philosophy used to describe the lives of humans prior to entering any societies – where there are no governments to organize the communities, and no authorities to enforce laws (social contracts between individuals), and barely any moral codes (if any at all) – call it total anarchy if you prefer.

In such a society a lot of violence and anything we would refer to as “crimes” would take place, because each individual would be free to do as he wishes without any limits. This means that they will also be totally sexually free and have sex with whomever they want without major limits. Besides resulting in a lot of rapes and abuses, another effect that would most likely take place is that the majority of the women would end up only with a minority of the male population – the most desirable males (or what I also have referred to as ”lovers”).
Fact is, this might totally sound like a twisted thought experiment to you, but it is not – it’s pretty close to what we believe was the case during the era of the “cavemen”. Research in evolutionary biology often refer to cavemen when referring to how sexual selection and mating took place in the past in order to get a grasp on how we humans biologically truly are without the interference of any sort of socialization.
So, as only the minority of attractive males managed to get all the women, the remaining majority would demand justice. We can easily postulate that that was how monogamy was introduced. The reason why monogamy was introduced was to make the distribution of sex partners “just”, by securing each man a sex partner. Simple as that; once a male has secured his share, his “property” (which is what humans truly become in monogamous relationships) will remain (ideally eternally) his, and no other men (especially not desirables) would be allowed to “steal her” from him.
Well the next step would maybe have been a communalization of wives? This was actually not a joke, Plato actually vouched for it in his book called “The Republic” (really good read!).
Either way, we can see how distributive justice takes place with monogamy. But can this last?

Feminism vs. Monogamy

Though Marxism and socialism have had a huge impact on modern feminism, it should be pointed out that Marx never really wrote about topics concerning women. However, his colleague, Friedrich Engels, did, in a book about the family called The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State (which I also recommend you check out, as it covers topics like the birth of monogamy and so on).
According to Engels, being free to choose one’s partners for marriage is more or less a right. In reality, this right barely applies in the real world. As long as the economic aspects persist, people will be its submissive slaves, as they will be led and controlled by it. For, as long as the capitalist system lives, the mating system will remain unequal between the sexes, making women the submissive victims of abuse. Women will remain subordinate to men, since men within the capitalist system will remain women’s feeding hand. Thus making the female sex dependent on males and giving the male the authority that opens up the possibility of abuse.
Women will be submissive to men because turning their back to their feeding hand can lead to lots of serious consequences. In other words, a choice a female might take (for example leaving her husband through a divorce) would lead to dramatic consequences, therefore limiting her possibilities to really be free to dispose over her own body. As pointed out earlier, such a situation limits the value of the freedom, not the right in and of itself. Women could still object to the males’ commands, but that would probably lead to consequences, making such actions not worth it.
You’ve probably already guessed what Engel’s solution is… if not, here is the spoiler: full communalization of property (communism!). The idea behind that is that it will remove the means of control men had at their disposition, thus liberating women. According to Engels, relationships based on true love and passion would thus occur (and he is totally right on this instance – no more gold-diggers!).
Now, I personally am not a socialist, so I do not vouch for the communalization of property, and I doubt Chase would appreciate giving away his site to the public sector. Nor is full communalization of property necessary in order to liberate women from the low desirability males’ monogamous prison.
Fact is, nowadays, women have pretty much similar incomes as males (at least in the Western world). Many women are working full-time, making them no longer economically dependent on men. As a result, men have lost their status as the “feeding hand”. A consequence of this is that monogamous low desirability providers have lost the little power they had, as they no longer have the means to keep a woman, who now instead can run around freely practicing her sexuality as she wishes without facing any economic (and far fewer social, as well) consequences.
I used Engels as an example because, though I’m not a Marxist, I find his theories interesting and I agree with him on a lot of things. But a feminist philosopher like Harriet Taylor Mill (you guessed right, she was the lady of John Stuart Mill), one of the founders of liberal feminism, was also concerned about giving more power to women (especially through giving women the right to vote) in order to reduce the power men had over them.

Times Have Changed

The fact is, the times have changed. Monogamy, the old school way, cannot work anymore because it first of all doesn’t benefit women (serial monogamy benefits them) and it surely doesn’t benefit high desirability males (who have more or less polyamorous tendencies). As a result of feminists, women are politically, economically, and legally freer than they used to be, and they can now allow themselves to live their life according to their own desires – and monogamous relationships are not what they typically want.

Yes, women talk about big marriages and honeymoons – but these marriages don’t last long. In fact, the divorce rates are really high. Women are serially monogamous by nature – period. Without any social and economic incentives to make them behave differently, that is how they will behave. And honestly, I find nothing wrong with it.
Fact is, I like that women are socially, legally, and economically free. Why is that? Well, it makes me freer too. I don’t have to take economic care of her. Women are now also more willing to have more casual sex rather than being all about marrying the right guy. As a seducer it really makes my life easier.
But again, as has been pointed out by our commentator, sexual freedom only benefits those who are successful on the meat market.
However, I still believe that controlling someone, making them into your belonging (which is what monogamous relationships truly are), is really noxious. Why do you need women to marry you? If she loves you, she truly does…but she probably won’t forever, which in such a case I must ask – what is the point of still being with her after she’s ceased to?
Sexual freedom benefits women and “high desirability males”, which leads us to the unanswered problem: what about all the other males? I will be honest, I have no real solution. I did share one suggestion in my post on the “secret society” though, so check it out.
However, I believe that old school monogamy is an even worse solution, because we indirectly enslave half the human population (the females). I believe that no matter what the circumstances are, it is simply not okay to violate the freedom of anyone. Hence, I find the concept of monogamy (as marrying and belonging to someone) contradictory to my values.

Honestly, I think it is important to admit that most of us are led by our own self-interest, and so am I. I benefit from a sexually free society and so do you if you keep up the good work. The better you are with women, the more sexual freedom will benefit you. You might not be born really handsome and you might be introverted, and yes it might become difficult for you to become good with women, but it is not impossible! I know people that look terrible and still get laid! It is all about hard work! You will only become better in the end anyway!
If we see reality as it is, monogamy as it used to be has disappeared. Society has become more sexually free. There is not much you can do about it. However, you can look forward and make the best out of it, and honestly, I believe that becoming a sexually free man will only benefit you, especially when it comes to getting laid (and maybe even relationships). More on this next week.
Until next,
This is a misunderstanding of Mehrabian’s study, which showed that somebody’s body language and tone of voice account for 93% of our LIKING for that person… it does not, however, mean that the spoken word only convey 7% of the meaning of any communication.
“Liking” is also largely irrelevant when it comes to seduction – girls will often sleep with and even get into relationship with guys that they don’t particularly like… attraction beats liking, hand over fist, every time.

And if it was true that words only conveyed 7% of what’s being communicated, it should be perfectly possible to watch a movie in a foreign language and still understand 93% of what is being said…
Try that some time. :)

If it was true, it should also be possible to tell a girl to bugger off… and get a 93% similar response as when telling her that she’s pretty.

There is, however, a more subtle reason why words matter… and that reason is frames, and the implications of what is being said.
So what are frames and frame control now?
Well, let’s look at some examples.

Frame Game

A frame might be defined as the contextual meaning a communication takes on based on how it is presented.
For example, one person might look at outsourcing as a bad thing because he lost his job to someone in India. His boss, on the other hand, probably sees outsourcing in quite a different light, as it saves him a lot of money on wages every week… it may even save his company from bankruptcy.
Now let’s twist the frame around a bit more – what if we look at the situation from the perspective of the Indian worker? He is now working remotely for a company in the West and makes three times as much as he would in a local job…
Or, we could reframe the Western worker’s situation as a great opportunity. Sure, he lost his job – but isn’t he now finally free to pursue his true passion, start a business, and even get rich himself?
He might even end up hiring people himself, both in the West and in Asia…
…or, he might decide that his life is over, apply for social security and spend the rest of his days under a bridge.

It’s completely up to him… and the same set of circumstances takes on a completely different meaning, depending on the angle we look at it from.
That angle is the frame… and the frame we set, the meaning we give things, creates our reality.
This is why frame control is not only a powerful tool of persuasion, but one of THE most important life skills.

The Sexual Frame: Framing for Seduction

Just like outsourcing can be seen as a good or a bad thing, depending on one’s frame, so can things that are more useful to our pursuits… such as having sex the first night of meeting someone, or even after 15 minutes.
Think about it… 50 years ago, sex on the first date was almost universally seen as “wrong”… 100 years ago, even premarital sex was considered “bad” – and to this day, there are still cultures and societies who would agree with that.
The difference?

Nothing but the frame.

This difference in frames is also the reason why some girls will be open to going home with you at the first opportunity… they see their own sexuality in a positive light and have no hang-ups about it.
(By the way, labeling negative views about sex a “hang-up” is a frame in itself… and a useful one… use it!)
Other girls, however, aren’t as open-minded about casual sex at the first encounter… they may be worried about their reputation, they may fear being judged by you or by their peers, or they may simply buy into some of society’s old-fashioned ideas (frames) about how a “decent lady” is supposed to act.
Therefore, 80% of getting a girl to sleep with you, especially on the first night, comes down to her agreement to a sexual frame.
You’re starting to see how useful this skill can be!

Sex? Well, Why Not!

We’ve discussed sexual framing on the blog in the past (see the posts on being a sexual man and chase framing), but in summation, it involves framing short timeframe sex as something normal, healthy and desirable, and objections against it as “hang-ups” that you and her don’t have.
If she agrees to those premises, there is really no reason NOT to go home with you…
Which is why the mastery over this one skill gets you about 80% of the way there, so long as your fundamentals are in place.
And if she agrees to these frames, all you have to do is gradually escalate towards sex, while coming across as trustworthy enough of a guy to go home with… In other words, as someone who won’t leave her hacked to pieces in a dumpster somewhere.

Does This Work on Every Girl?

If there is a magic bullet in seduction, the sexual frame IS IT. If you talk about sex with her in a way that leads you both to agree that sex is good and not having sex is bad, then there is really only one thing left to do…

…hit the bed.

And the better you get at framing, the more eloquent you become in your verbal skills and the more subtly you can come to this kind of agreement, the more girls will end up sleeping with you the first night you meet them.
I’m at a point now where almost all first dates or first encounters end in sex the same night… however, I’ve also noticed a pattern when it does NOT happen.
And that pattern comes down to a crucial distinction that most people I’ve talked to aren’t aware of.

I’ve coined a term for that distinction… it is the difference between internal and external frames.

Internal vs. External Frames

The reason why you have to frame sexuality in a positive light is simple – most people ALREADY have default frames about sex in their minds, and these frames usually come from society or religion, and are therefore often negative.
However, there are two TYPES of negative frames a girl might have about sex - internal and external ones.

1. External frames are those imposed by society that she doesn't like. Sexual framing gets around those.
   
   I've had TWO virgins come over to my place, explicitly for nothing but casual sex (!), because I out-framed the negative ideas their teachers and priests had put into their minds… these girls WANTED to be naughty.
   
   I once picked up a girl who was on her way to church, bible in-hand, and slept with her on the first date. She talked about Jesus before we got down to the action, but I was easily able to out-frame these ideas because she didn't LIKE the limitations her priest had set her.
   
   The basic idea of sexual framing is FREEING HER from the limitations society has imposed on her and her sexual expression.
   
   
2. Internal frames, on the other hand, are those (in this case negative) beliefs about sex that a girl actually LIKES.
   
   This one is a tall hurdle. It would take more than a few hours (probably months) to exert big enough an influence to undo someone’s core beliefs.
   
   I’ve once had a former “friend with benefits” that I hadn't slept with in a year get back in touch with me, and she plain refused to sleep with me the first time we met again… "Because it's the 1st date again, and I don't do that... next time."
   
   She knew it would have been okay… after all, we’d had sex before.
   
   But, she didn't WANT to hook up the first night... it was an INTERNAL frame.
   
   There are also girls who consider religion more important than anything else in life… and if she is truly convinced that she will go to hell if she sleeps with you before you guys get married, chances are… it won’t happen.
   

Men Who Don’t Like Sex

Let’s look at a male counter example of an internal sexual frame.
Just like some girls are simply not open to the idea of hooking up the first night, no matter what kinds of frames you set, there are also guys who are simply not open to the idea of a monogamous relationship (I am one of those guys).
I’m not against exclusivity because of something someone once told me… it is not an external frame for me. Rather, it is a life style choice I have made because I value my freedom and independence more than I value the certainty that a girl I’m dating isn’t seeing any other men.
This is an internal frame I have… and no girl could ever frame me into exclusivity with verbal jiu-jitsu, and much less in 3-4 hours.
Another counter example are men who have spiritual beliefs that lead them to have bad frames about sex.
That’s right… guys who don’t want to have sex… absurd as that may sound.
In fact, I used to be one of them… a couple of years ago, I was on a really spiritual “trip” for a while and stayed sexually abstinent. During that time, I ended up having two girls naked in front of me, begging to be f***ed, and I didn’t do the honor…
I had negative INTERNAL frames about sex at the time, and I know the girls couldn't have out-framed them… these frames WERE no external limitation I needed to be freed from, but an INTERNAL belief… what’s more, they were an internal belief that was probably at identity level at the time, and you can’t change identity level beliefs without tackling changing someone’s identity at the same time - and THAT’S a tall order, no matter how you cut it.

Marriage and Framing

Now, the biggest proponents of framing always cite the example of marriage as proof of its power, and to show how irrelevant a woman’s objections to a sexual encounter really are.
After all, what objection to short time frame sex would be more real and solid than that of her being married?
She’s risking a divorce, plus a host of social and financial repercussions, should she get caught.
The distinction between internal and external frames solves this mystery… her objections to cheating on her husband are EXTERNAL frames. If she’s been married for a while, she’s probably not as attracted to her partner anymore as she used to be (see the post on the 2 Year Drop).
The limitation of her freedom to experience an adventure and hook up with a new man are EXTERNAL barriers, imposed on her by society… barriers that she WANTS to be freed from, because she is no longer in love with her husband.
And if she’s tipsy and just had a fight with him, then all bets are off…
On the other hand, if she just got married last week and is still madly in love with her husband, then her marriage is an INTERNAL obstacle to hooking up with you… it’s nothing she wants to be freed from, and your framing is not going to have much of an effect.

Conclusion

The sexual frame is VERY powerful… and it is THE most important instrument in my tool box.
And, you should always ASSUME that any objections she might have to sexuality are EXTERNAL frames. Ignore negative frames she might set (don’t even debate them), and instead free her from society’s limitations with the frames YOU set.
However, if you run into a girl that you can’t get agreement on a sexual frame with, don’t berate yourself too much either… some people have a very conservative world view and hold on to it very tightly… you don’t need to beat your head against the wall.
There is another girl around the corner who looks just like her, but who’s a lot more open minded.

How to Lay “Internal Frame Girls”

Internal Frame girls can be laid as well… the only difference is, their seductions are harder to ACCELERATE.
With an internal frame girl, you simply have to go at her speed…
If you keep pushing frames on her, you're just amplifying her resistance. And if you escalate too fast physically and beyond what she’s comfortable with, you risk hitting a brick wall and ending up with a girl who won’t pick up the phone when you call.
You should probably make this experience a couple of times, simply to find out how far you can go… if you’ve never hit the limits of what’s possible, you have no way of knowing what these limits actually are.
After experimenting with this sort of “over-escalation” for a while, though, tone it back a bit… and especially if she’s an internal frame girl who doesn’t buy into your liberal ideas about sexuality, lean back and take it at her speed if you really want her.
That should really never mean more than three dates… if she still isn’t willing to hook up with you after that, she’s either not that into you, or psychologically damaged, or more conservative than you probably want to deal with…

…but don’t be too upset if things don’t always happen the first night.

They usually do, once you have your fundamentals handled and your process down… but not always.
And in some cases, a hands-off second date will make her comfortable enough to let the clothes come flying off the third time you meet up.
You see, the great distinction is that with external-frame chicks, you can constantly imply subtly (or not so subtly, depending on the vibe you have with her) that "I'm going to fuck you before this night is through"… and as long as you set the right frames, that’s going to fly.
You still do need to set the sexual frames with internal-frame girls too though, but you don't want to debate them on these frames at all.
Eventually, you’ll get them both.
The world is yours, chico.
Onward and upward,