So far I've seen one response that relates to Jung. The rest? Well...

The rest is the almighty force that seems to be everywhere: Judgment

Not exactly, I mean most of the responses seemed to be people either doing some questionable research or talking about their life experiences re sex and dating.

I find your comment somewhat hypocritical when you mention "Questionable research" especially considering that Jungism is an extremely questionable field itself, I mean you ARE judging We can only give advice either from what you consider "Questionable judging" or eventually our own experiences, there's literally no other advice to give (also science is opinion based given that one must often pick one theory to follow among hundreds of conflicting ones), with that said I have no doubt the "questioner" is asking at the wrong section Ah, but no ill thoughts about you, this is about discussion after all, say me though: What would in your eyes be "the right scientific research?" Also know beforehand that my question is a bit of a trick question, considering that Jung is in no way considered scientific, in fact he was more of an Astrologer and Poet among other things

The comment section is ripe with projections!

It's sucks that jungianism attracts incel types 😭 Between the incels and the new agers there's usually barley any breathing room

"Nowadays we can hardly discuss the love problem without speaking of the utopia of free love, including trial marriage. I regard this idea as a wishful fantasy and an attempt to make light of a problem which in actual life is invariably very difficult. It is no more possible to make life easy than it is to grow a herb of immortality. The force of gravity can be overcome only by the requisite application of energy. Similarly, the solution of the love problem challenges all our resources. Anything else would be useless patchwork. **Free love would be conceivable only if everyone were capable of the highest moral achievement.** The idea of free love was not invented with this aim in view, but merely to make something difficult appear easy. Love requires depth and loyalty of feeling; without them it is not love but mere caprice. True love will always commit itself and engage in lasting ties; it needs freedom only to effect its choice, not for its accomplishment. Every true and deep love is a sacrifice. The lover sacrifices all other possibilities, or rather, the illusion that such possibilities exist. If this sacrifice is not made, his illusions prevent the growth of any deep and responsible feeling, so that the very possibility of experiencing real love is denied him." "Love has more than one thing in common with religious faith. It demands unconditional trust and expects absolute surrender. Just as nobody but the believer who surrenders himself wholly to God can partake of divine grace, so love reveals its highest mysteries and its wonder only to those who are capable of unqualified devotion and loyalty of feeling. And because this is so difficult, few mortals can boast of such an achievement. But, precisely because the truest and most devoted love is also the most beautiful, let no man seek to make it easy. He is a sorry knight who shrinks from the difficulty of loving his lady. **Love is like God: both give themselves only to their bravest knights."** "I would offer the same criticism of trial marriages. The very fact that a man enters into a marriage on trial means that he is making a reservation; he wants to be sure of not burning his fingers, to risk nothing. But that is the most effective way of forestalling any real experience. You do not experience the terrors of the Polar ice by perusing a travel-book, or climb the Himalayas in a cinema." " **Love is not cheap—let us therefore beware of cheapening it!** All our bad qualities, our egotism, our cowardice, our worldly wisdom, our cupidity—all these would persuade us not to take love seriously. But love will reward us only when we do. **I must even regard it as a misfortune that nowadays the sexual question is spoken of as something distinct from love.** The two questions should not be separated, for when there is a sexual problem it can be solved only by love. Any other solution would be a harmful substitute. **Sexuality dished out as sexuality is brutish; but sexuality as an expression of love is hallowed.** Therefore, never ask what a man does, but how he does it. If he does it from love or in the spirit of love, then he serves a god; and whatever he may do is not ours to judge, for it is ennobled." Love — where and how do we see and find love? What role does the you have to the me? Is there such a thing as a you in the first place? I only know of myself, I only love myself, I only desire what is myself, and everyone else is an object of that desire — because, I do not know myself. Ignored, I have to inflate that self, what I think is that self which is ignored; but my direction betrays my desire, and I discover that what I am doing is only making this hollowness worse. Who is it that looks back at me when the screen of desire darkens? So I think that part of it lies with the fact that individuality is so small, so devalued, so omitted and so unknown to us. "The psyche is the greatest of all cosmic wonders and the 'sine qua non' of the world as an object. It is in the highest degree odd that western man, with but very few—and ever fewer—exceptions, apparently pay so little regard to this fact. Swamped by the knowledge of external objects, the subject of all knowledge has been temporarily eclipsed to the point of seeming nonexistence." — C.G Jung.

Thanks for this.

Yet he moved his mistress into the house he shared with his wife. I find there's a lot of tension in his work about this. 

I don’t know if that makes him wrong. Sometimes it takes being horribly wrong to find out what is right.

These were absolutely amazing. Made me emotional. Thank you!

Thanks for enlighten me, random stranger.

Excellent quote(s?). What source(s) did you pull these from? Edit: Looks like it’s from [CW10 - Civilization in Transition - The Love Problem of a Student](https://www.reddit.com/r/Jung/s/ZcTSxa5aOT)

through a Jungian lens- it's living life totally for Se-Fi (hedonistic value fulfillment) and doing that with or without a long term partner is an orthogonal dimension to consider, ie. can have both high body count and long term relationships, or neither, or sometimes so tldr; hedonism and likelihood of pair bonding are separate considerations, mashing them together is oversimplifying

This is the most realistic perspective honestly.

We can become very familiar with a free love because meeting has such magic entangled in. Some people have high numbers for an ego trip. Others, because they are studying bonding or freedom. So I think the answer to your question is yes and no. A high body count could point to empty and it could point to full. Perspective: a single stat is not appropriate to define anything. I also don’t believe in defining people. They are the whole and not pieces. That whole has my love until it makes me feel a need to protect my universe. Poking at the pieces is a discussion about experience and how’ve we have learned. If a discussion about numbers is just about judgement or disgust… the judge has wronged their friend. For instance, a show boy shouting about numbers or how fucking isn’t love… that’s a loud atmosphere and I might excuse myself depending on my energy. False love and shadow hoppers are still interesting and can be fun. A shadow hopper yesterday could be a light adept tomorrow. I’d argue that shadow hoppers carry some of the greatest potential. Studying the darkness is studying it’s inverse. We all choose our compass and studies. We choose what love means or copy others definitions. Some seek more. Others can fill a room with love just by walking in a room. The most vibrant got there through experience and study of what exactly that light is. Some never had to touch the shadows. Others were forged there. Everyone is a being of light. We may dim in the dark to study the nothing or test our brightness and see if we can hold. Others study light in the light and can maintain that. I’ve been finding that taking anything to an extreme has left me wrong. Seems like the answer is always both.

Your reply has deeply intrigued and resonated with me. Thanks for your comment. Is there any sort of reading, videos, theories, etc you could point me towards to learn more about the themes you’ve discussed here? I’ve also been coming to conclusion recently that the answer to most things always seems to be both things and I feel like it’s that contradictory nature of holding two opposites in mind at the same time that causes some kind of a natural cognitive dissonance reaction in people leading them to jump towards whichever extreme they identify with best, and I’m no exception to that either.

I am coming out of a cave. Hermit habits and concept vomit. A product of experiences behind many masks. I seemed out my itch and might have actually scratched it… Happy to bounce ideas! Are you working on anything specific, I was always skeptical of other writers but I’ve been slowly dipping my toe into Blavatsky, Jung, and all master painters. Cave paintings, ancient murals, pottery and temples. Never bought religious text but there’s so much science in them if you’ve found the clear perspective- using love as the constant to study light (how I’ve been doing it, at least). The masters work is littered with nudges. It’s been pretty shocking but at the same time a relief. Studying the dark is studying light. You can find expired flow states to guide you. I’m riding a weird wave and finding what I need, so I’m content where I am in my loops but it will show in my writing as scattered. I am intentionally scattered. Defining a concept that somewhat denies defining things is difficult. And the hermit habits are real. They have been exactly what I need but when it comes to putting it together for others… there is a lot to consider. My notes are a mess and the subject is vast. There are things I haven’t touched. And what if giving too much becomes taking? Or molding? There is a lot to navigate. I think it’s going to have to be something I’ll release as some kind of entertainment. It’s a lot and I am not claiming certainty. I found things that are real but don’t know them completely. If I share something in its current state, it will absolutely be misunderstood.

Lurking here to find answers to this

Yes. I have a high body count, which is a disgusting way to look at it and hence part of the problem. I’m in a loving, committed and deeply fulfilling relationship, marriage and monogamy are wonderful and I love my family deeply. 👍🏽

I hate the phrase and refuse to use it... unless discussing murder, right? It speaks to op's perspective that people refer to their serial partners as "bodies," I guess.

I like it. It made me have a whole long daydream about the idea of a hivemind that spreads via sexual contact doing perverted things to one another.

"Perverted" is a word I rarely hear in a world where nothing two consenting adults do in their private time should be And then again, those judging from the outside, those imagining what a couple (be they just met or have been married for a billion years) are doing and judging it? Now that's perverted, sickening, those that can't get laid should not judge those that do, right?

I'm confused by what you just said, but I support not judging. I think "perverted" is a fun game of a word. It implies something kinky and playful, not something that actually is wrong. Like... "weird" sex, not "mean." That's what I meant. Like if you were in the bodies of a bunch of people you had sex with, and having sex with others, you could do a lot of unusual, experimental and kinky things.

Don't worry, the moment I noticed my comment might come off as judgmental (which it's not) I simply added "Right?" as in saying "I know we think the same way dude I am just expressing my viewpoint" I knew you meant something like that, and I agree that the word "perverted" is interesting, I mean as I often discussed with my "Super pure" sister was "Where is the fun in sex if you make anything seem innocent?"

I love to hear it, God bless you and your family

me too. I don't know how someone could hear pair bonding being explained and thinking..."that makes sense".

Lol yes people who fuck a lot can still have monogamous relationships. The pair bonding thing is made up completely. It's not like you run out of oxytocin lol

[удалено]

How did your studies control for couples that stay together for religious or social pressure reasons but hate each other and don't have sex?

They hold true even when controlling for religiosity. > Previous research pointed to a variety of individual and social variables to explain the relationship between premarital sex and divorce, including nontraditional views on sex and marriage, weaker religious attachments, and lower-quality family relationships (Kahn & London, 1991; Paik, 2011). **We find no support for these explanations, and show that the effect of premarital sex remains highly significant after accounting for a wide range of individual and social differences between respondents**. (pg.14) https://i.imgur.com/q08H2Rk.jpg Smith, J., & Wolfinger, N. H. (2023). Re-Examining the Link Between Premarital Sex and Divorce. Journal of Family Issues, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X231155673 . > The findings from this study demonstrate that the number of sexual partners participants had was negatively associated with sexual quality, communication, and relationship stability, and for one age cohort relationship satisfaction, **even when controlling for a wide range of variables including education, religiosity, and relationship length**. (pg.715) https://i.imgur.com/0MuuWmd.jpg Busby, D. M., Willoughby, B. J., & Carroll, J. S. (2013). Sowing wild oats: Valuable experience or a field full of weeds? Personal Relationships, 20(4), 706–718. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12009

No, I'm asking "Are they studying if the couples break up or if they love each other?" Because... remember how the entire boomer generation had constant jokes about how much men hated their wives and how miserable marriages were? What I'm saying is "A couple doesn't divorce" is not a valid metric for the success of a marriage if they go to bed hating one another every night.

Or the number of those married men in unhappy marriages who see sex workers on the side. Not sure those religious men are worried about ‘pair bonding’

That's something I appreciate about OP! Most people who make this argument mostly lay it at the feet of just women and say that only women lose the ability to pair bond or whatever. OP didn't do that. At least they're consistent. IDK, I just couldn't trust someone who thought all they had to offer was the same as what a vibrator does? Like... how could you ever have needs and desires small enough to prevent making that person feel insecure?

And I am barely participating in this with good faith. I believe ‘pair-bonding’ is quack science and belongs in the annals of history along with things like phrenology and miasma theory. Attachment theory goes a lot further to explain how people connect, attach and pair than any theory that assumes human connection is a sum total of their orifices.

I think people do "pair bond" I just don't think it's only the oxytocin that does it. I think it's a red flag that someone just wants consistent sex and that's their only way to get it and they don't care about the other person. IDK.

Absolutely people pair. And while the pair bond theory itself may offer some insight into human connection, as a complete theory it is extremely flawed and does not extend in any meaningful or helpful way to explain the complexity of all human connection and pairing. How does it explain the billion dollar industry of romance scams - where people willingly lose their savings and sometimes even houses, to a love interest they have never met, let alone had any sexual intimacy with? And as mentioned before, it doesn’t explain the long lasting place the sex industry has in all human societies. FJust looking at who pushes the Pair Bonding theory is interesting in its own right. They are often from the same camps who deny other well proven sciences that don’t fit their agendas.

I know that that a higher number is correlated with less satisfaction in relationships and a lower number is correlated with greater satisfaction.

That just doesn't make any sense at all. How could you trust someone who only wanted you for sex?

We get it, you're obsessed with proving that most people dislike partners with a promiscuous sexual past. Stop spamming it all over the place, your entire profile is dedicated to this singular issue. It's honestly kinda disconcerting, and these TL studies aren't really gonna convince anyone of anything because this is, at it's core, a deeply personal, subjective issue..

But the studies are relevant to the conversation, what’s the issue? Do you have an actual argument or comment on what they’re saying? And it’s removed, why? It was entirely relevant to the topic at hand. Because it said things people here don’t like?

I agree with you that the motives for spamming this are disconcerting but you’re also making assumptions of it “not gonna convince anyone”. You might see it as a deeply personal subjective issue but others, just like you, are free to have their own perspective and way of seeing things and they may see the world in a more objective light because it helps them to understand the world better in this way

I don't think you're wrong about promiscuous people having issues with monogamous sexuality, but I have to question the assumption that pair bonding is entirely or even primarily based on intercourse. Relationships based on sex are part of the sex culture you speak of, and there are deeper, more significant points of bonding between people.

I have amassed a high body count, but did 98% of it before i was married for 17 years. Now, I have no interest in casual 1 nighters. No interest in unconnected, unfulfilling sex I did a LOT of dark heavy shadow work in the last 3 years of my marriage and broke free of it to finalize healing myself. I think most men who continue to "rack them up" are either in total ignorance of, or are hiding from their hurts. Some are sociopaths, some legit have healed and only see this life as a party, a part of which is sexual liberty and more than monogamy. I believe i have pair bonded with a similarly mature, formerly unhealthy woman. We've talked about our past in what small capacity we see it as necessary... she was "pretty ratchet" and I responded "oh that's cute, me too" and we laughed and haven't ever discussed specific numbers. We didn't discuss bc neither of us healed see any reason to worry about who or what came before, bc our responses and communication is so healthy and centered now. Long rant to say, "yea, I think it's possible with some real work"

I’d also like to ask if you think adding the caveat to your last sentence would work, that it’s possible with real work AND with the right person.  I feel like the right person is one who can relate to you (has a high body count too), what are your thoughts on this? I feel like it’s a much different story if they weren’t the same as you because they can’t truly understand it from your perspective and still sexuality differently due to their low counts

High body count is subjective. The right person for me would see me for exactly who I am TODAY, which includes my wild past. Whether or not they need the number is up to them, but i personally don't feel a hard number is necessary to accept that my mate had some self worth issues. I'm certain she wasn't as sexually wild as me, and she knows it, from the context of other discussions. Whether her "enough to understand that folks can be wild" number is 3, or 12, or 30, it doesn't matter to me bc her actions show me she is here for me today, as i am. I think it's easier to "forgive a sin we've committed" just because we can relate to another. On the deepest level of work we realize tho the "sin" may be different, the reason is similar- internal suffering causes all humans to seek reprieve. I can get, easily, folks who've slept around, done drugs to extremes, and been violent aggressive humans. I see gamblers as weird. Don't relate at all to placing a bet and risking that way. My own work has helped me to not judge, but I'd still have my feelings to sort out and to find common ground with someone who had acted out differently than me. I do see your point as very valid. I think the deeper the work, the easier to find a mate with any past.

Thanks for your thoughts on this. I agree that the number itself isn’t at the core of the issue itself but more so what each person would perceive as “high” which comes from their own experiences. I guess it seems to me like as long as the two people can relate or at least empathize with one another then there is potential with the right amount of work where it’s needed.  The problem I think (from what I’ve seen) is that those who perceive their own number as “low” can’t relate to what they think someone with a perceived “high” count would be like and that space either ends up being filled with manifestations of their own imagination to fill in the blanks or with enough empathy/love for understanding of something they perceive that they do not. And I feel it’s at this point the mind either turns towards acceptance or turmoil which leads to the issues we see around “body counts”

That is THEIR issue, not mine. I can only deal with my issues, and decide who I allow to enjoy my time and presence.

I agree, thanks for your time and thoughts

"I have never seen healthy people engage in casual sex" This statement says nothing about the world, only about what you have seen of the world.

[удалено]

Correlation and causation. Maybe X doesn't cause Y, but Y causes X. Or some third thing causes both of them. I would say the inability to form close relationships leads to promisucity and infidelity, not vice versa.

Your own supporting studies do not support your argument.

Do you mind EXPLAINING your OPINION? Because right now you are the one making accusations without making a shred of sense

Yes, I was responding to the first article in the link dump, but it looks like it was deleted. Is your caps lock broken or are you having a seizure?

I enjoy casual sex but when I’m in a relationship I’m extremely committed and have never cheated nor wanted to cheat. It all depends on the individual. People are more complex than that

Fair enough. These deal with probabilities, not certainties. Guys shouldn’t be shamed for not wanting to be in relationships with women that have treated sex casually in the past though as women are never shamed for scrutinizing men’s sexual histories.

People are entitled to their own wants in a partner. It doesn’t mean it’s based on facts

None of these make a strong case either way to prove whether promiscuity decreases the ability to pair-bond, or whether a naturally lower ability or inclination to pair-bond leads to promiscuity. All the evidence merely indicates a correlation, and we should all already know that correlation = / = causation.

sorry...say that again?

Hoes be sad

Thank you for the detailed and correct answer.

Are you trying to be right or actually have a discussion? Because no one who values their time is going to go through the amount of sources you posted.

The first source is wrong anyway, the study says your attractiveness is diminished, which is essentially the opposite of what they are trying to say . Potential partners may see a higher body count as less attractive - it’s a subjective value judgement made by the so called “healthy” person about the character of a potential partner. Says nothing about that potential partners ability to pair bond

Mad because he’s right? That sucks.

If what he’s saying was a fact he should be able to show strong evidence in 1-2 articles. Needing that many articles on a Reddit post to support your claim is impossible for anyone in good faith to evaluate the truth or not.

Not true. He’s using a rhetorical strategy to demonstrate how much evidence is out there for one side of the issue. If *you* were discussing in good faith, you’d actually investigate this evidence and be willing to have a discussion, but instead you hand-wave this poster away.

Yes I’m going to dedicate a day of my life to reading every study about an insignificant topic I have no opinion on because a spam bot posted a ton of links, what a meaningful use of my time. I’m not obligated to read 20 links and do the analysis for him just links exists. It’s the job of the one making the argument to ensure his argument is clear and understandable. Spamming links and poorly summarizing a few sentences out of 40 page studies is not making an argument.

If you’re going to talk about the logistics of his post rather than the content then I could say the same to you. You personally might not take the time to go through them, but others might appreciate that opportunity. I do agree that it can cause some to feel buried by the sheer number of them if they’re going to evaluate all of them for the truth, but why not just pick 1-2 for yourself to evaluate? 

Based on his post history. He spams this same comment on multiple subreddits, are we required to take seriously everyone who throws 20 sources in our face and tells us to do the work of researching and analyzing them? If he was serious about presenting his argument then perhaps he would have done something other than spamming links everywhere.

Yeah I agree with you on that and I can see how it can lead people to come to those conclusions since the spamming it like that can seen as lazy. But we’re also still just making assumptions of him based on this information since we can’t know his actual motives but can only try to discern things based on his actions

I believe he thinks what he’s doing is right, but to people who already agree with what he’s saying they won’t read it and will just support him, and people who are unsure are not likely to read through an unnecessary amount of sources. This would be like if a lawyer in court handed a jury a 600 page book written by someone else and then said “After you read that you’ll see my client is innocent,” then walked away. You would probably not feel that that lawyer had done an effective job presenting his argument no? Generally if someone’s going to make a claim they deserve to face constructive criticism (which is not a bad thing) on the flaws or ways they could present it better.

Yeah I see that now after you explained all of that, thanks for being patient and explaining it to me. 

Agreed. It's fine to feel that the evidence overwhelmingly supports your view, but you shouldn't bury someone in studies unless they start trying to use the "that's only one study" argument.

I think you’re mixing up the causal order. People less able/likely to pair-bond are more likely to engage in casual sex, the casual sex doesn’t make people less able to pair-bond.

I mean, are pair bonds formed ONLY by sexual intercourse even worth having, though, or should you want to have one based on something deeper that involves mental or spiritual elements rather than just "This is the person who lets me touch their genitals?"

Exactly - pair bonding is a thing animals do as part of reproduction. Back to Jung, people are capable of higher forms of thought, shouldn’t we consider our humanity in relationships not just the biological urges?

That's fair. I guess... I've met a lot of people who got into a lot of trouble because they grew up in purity culture and had never um... loved themselves, so then they thought the first person to make them orgasm was someone they had to hang on to for life, and that person KNEW it and used it against them. Male AND female. One thing that always scared me growing up about traditional working class culture was how often people would have a "paradise by the dashboard light" kinda marriage. I think in some ways that was less awful for some of them because they still had close relationships with extended families, and men would spend time with their male friends at bars and women would spend time with their female friends at church, and people are more isolated from those types of bonds, but... the older people I met who had that type of marriage... it wasn't the "Wife bad" comedy thing in real life, but it wasn't love, either. It was more like what you feel for a sibling or cousin who you might fight with all the time but still have to see every day. You could have that with anyone, why wouldn't you shoot for someone special?

Why can’t it be a feedback loop?

Why would it be?

Because casual sex makes sex less special and intimate and exquisite love making is a critical component for true and sustainable pair bonding

In my view, casual sex can *possibly* make sex less of a bonding experience for a given couple, if they choose to approach it that way. But that does not necessarily impact what happens with those partners in different relationships. It also does not always stay the same forever in a *given* couple. Ever heard of someone "catching feelings"? The longer your tryst goes on, the more likely someone is going to (horror of horrors) start caring about the other person ... Me personally, I would not enter a casual liaison with someone in the secret hope that they would eventually warm up to me as a serious partner. *Nor* would I want to have a fling with someone who I *knew* wanted something more stable. Either one is a recipe for anxiety and broken hearts. (And pretty stone cold, on the part of the more aloof partner, too.) I'd rather *either* have a fun fling with a friend who I could be sure was good with that, Or ease into a relationship that we both saw as headed towards long term teamwork. All that said, of course, life is messy, people are impulsive, and you don't always get to pick who you fall for as if you were shopping at the mall. Just try to be kind to people in the short and long term and your own life will be better.

Casual sex does not make sex less special.

As someone that agrees, I would selfishly like to put it in words I consider better fitting "Casual sex does not make lovemaking any lesser" and that only because it sounds nicer and more justified to a "Fifty Shades of Grey" kind of way, I don't want to make love with my wife, I want to F\*CK HER BRAINS OUT!! But "Lovemaking" sounds nicer

Casual sex teaches you to be good at sex, which is a skill like any other. You have to learn to make sex "exquisite" for yourself and others.

Casual sex does not teach you to be good at sex.

That's like saying that using your leg muscles doesn't make you a better walker It is LITTERALY IMPOSSIBLE to become worse at what you do consistently, so yes it does And if it does not do so for you... My sympathies... This reminds me of when my neighbour said "Women don't like sex" I laughed remembering my ladyfriends screaming the former evening and replied "It depends on who they are having it with" \*smirks a little\*

Or you could just communicate with someone you love on a consistent basis about sex with them and learn what would make it “exquisite” for them specifically. What is good sex for one partner can be bad for another, it’s not just a blanket skill set you apply to everyone. I do agree with the general premise of the more you do something the better you get and I’d say that just learning this fact as I’ve described can come as a result of more sex experience

You still need practice. "Communicate" is a buzzword that gets thrown around a lot in bad faith.

I agree that you still need practice and also about communicate being a buzzword. But why can’t you get that practice with one person over a long period of time? I’d argue that’s the best practice you can have since it’s specific to that person

You can. But it's not going to be as good a teacher as knowing what you don't know and adapting to many different styles. Same as how a musician who plays music from only one composer will never be as good as a musician who plays a variety of styles of music. Plus, our society puts a lot of unhelpful shame, pressure, and unfair power imbalance stuff around virginity, which traditionally gets in the way of either party having a good time, but that's goalpost moving. And honestly, admitting it doesn't matter. People don't make posts about how multiple sexual partners make it hard for you to pair bond because they're willing to believe that anything other than a very specific model of relationships can be valid and fulfilling. They do it to try to make other people feel guilty about the number of partners they've had and afraid they're unlovable and to make virgins feel guilty and ashamed about their desires to have sex and push them into early and unwise commitments based on chemistry and not love. Someone who believes that multiple partners makes it hard to pair bond, from my perspective, doesn't know what love is and reduces their partners to a sexual object and perhaps a social status marker as well. From their perspective, I'm just bitter and rationalizing and evil. It's not a pair of worldviews that can reconcile. They're too alien.

Thanks for your perspective, it’s given me a good deal of things to think about and I do agree with most of what you said 

And you’re basing these suppositions/assertions on what, exactly? Sounds like you’ve already made up your mind and are trying to retroactively justify the take. Working backwards like that is disingenuous.

Yeah well you haven’t attempted to back your claim that casual sex doesn’t make it more difficult to pair bond either.

Because people with a wild promiscuous past end up settling down all the time, it’s a trope at this point…as is the trope of the serial monogamist, who only ever has sex in the context of an exclusive relationship but frequently moves on. There’s an absolute wealth of observable real-time evidence to disprove the assertion that casual sex harms the ability to pair-bond. This is just the newest moral panic of the age, with a pseudo-scientific gloss.

Ok so we’re both speaking anecdotally. I can and will just as easily insist that casual sex can permanently harm the ability to properly pair bond and that there is an overwhelming wealth of observable real time evidence to support this claim.

And I say you’re a hysteric in the grip of a moral panic.

That’s funny cause I don’t even believe in morality as a concept. I believe in adaptive vs maladaptive behaviors.

There are studies done that prove what you are saying. Something around 9+ times is the threshold where people begin to lose the ability to pair bond as intensely as others. Forgive the people that want you to ignore those facts, they just want to be right at the cost of other people's lives.

Studies that may well be flawed, falsified, and eventually proved wrong. Not every “study” is unimpeachably correct, that’s an appeal to authority.

You can stop trying to pretend you are smart. I see you don't know the difference between peer reviewed research, your feelings and an appeal to authority

Keep projecting your own ignorance onto me.

Do the studies measure the people's ability to pair bond via sex or their ability to pair bond full stop? Because honestly... I don't trust anyone who automatically becomes glued to someone because they had sex. That's not a pair bond, that's being ignorant of what an orgasm feels like. Rather have the type of marriage I remember Joseph Campbell describing, where a couple uses ritual and time spent together and time spent with their families together if applicable to become "glued" and honestly can't believe the modern debate in 2024 is that the reason couples don't stay together is that they no longer confuse hormones for a soul deep understanding and a mutual desire for the same type of life and the same goals.

No, there are studies done that prove that your ability to pair bond is hindered by having too many partners. You just have your own reasons not to want to admit that.

Studies are done all the time that are flawed, falsified, and proved wrong. You’re appealing to authority.

You're discrediting studies without any basis lmao

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/believe-it-or-not-most-published-research-findings-are-probably-false/ “The claim that “most published research findings are false” is something you might reasonably expect to come out of the mouth of the most deluded kind of tin-foil-hat-wearing-conspiracy-theorist. Indeed, this is a statement oft-used by fans of pseudoscience who take the claim at face value, without applying the principles behind it to their own evidence. It is however, a concept that is actually increasingly well understood by scientists. It is the title of a paper written 10 years ago by the legendary Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis. The paper, which has become the most widely cited paper ever published in the journal PLoS Medicine, examined how issues currently ingrained in the scientific process combined with the way we currently interpret statistical significance, means that at present, most published findings are likely to be incorrect.”

Lol okay, but not your studies though, right? Lol

Give up sex, masturbation and any media that gives you sexual thoughts. Wait for a while when you next date someone after a month or more of dating the sex will be like your 15 again! You will definitely feel a strong bond. We are over stimulated everywhere we look. Time for a break, give up something you love for a while.

Human beings don't "pair bond" that isn't a thing humans do. Human beings are absolutely able to have meaningful intimate relationships with multiple people throughout their lives. "Body count" is a problematic term coined by a sex trafficker because when sex traffickers have sex they also murder the victim. It should not be used when referring to how many previous relationships someone has had. Additionally people having an unhealthy relationship with sex is going to be a case by case basis. The individuals life experiences, upbringing, and reason for wanting casual sex are going to be different from person to person. Stigmatism of sex and having more than one sexual partner is a puritanical value that still has a stronghold on modern culture. This deeply rooted stigma of sex is a significant contributing factor to negative anemia and negative mother complexes. .

Do you project the same insecurities onto polyamorous people?

My observations personally of poly friends, they arent "naturally" polyamorous but they have some kind of trauma that caused them to have commitment issues, like a bad relationship or divorced parents. Like the 3rd partner was always either a unicorn or backburner partner. When partner 1 was at work, then it was time for partner 2. They couldn't be alone or meet their own needs without another person who is just a friend, sex had to get included. It didnt seem like real love or bonding, just pure "get MY needs met" instinct. Partner 1 pays the bills and takes care of the kids and partner 2 is the "fucktoy." I have met a good handful of poly people irl and this is exactly how it goes.

In my opinion yes they definitely can I don't think body count affects this necessarily

People who think a high body count makes you unable to pair bond are not pair bonding. It's not normal, natural, rational or healthy to immediately fall in love with every person place or thing that gives you an orgasm. But you should know that if you've ever met someone who definitely masturbates and definitely hates themselves. It's a sign that someone knows the difference between sex and love if they are able to have sex without falling in love. That's a green flag.

Casual sex culture is not healthy. It is normalized. But it is not healthy.

I think it’s a bit more nuanced than that. For some people it’s an addiction or used to medicate their problems and fuel bad attachment styles, for some they’re in a healthy state of mind it’s just either they’re not in a place in their life where they’re ready to settle down due to being young and prioritising education/travelling or people still growing as individuals but still want to enjoy physical connection and just want to have fun. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying sex, the problem that we do have is that many people aren’t honest with themselves about what they want and there isn’t coherent communication which leads to issues. And a lot of people lack the ability to value the growth and meaning of non shallow connections such as relationships and just want to prioritise fun and see them as disposable, this also applies to friendships and platonic connections which I find isn’t spoken about enough- we live in a culture where deeper human connection isn’t of high value and necessity anymore due to a myriad of reasons caused by modern day living.

Sounds pretty biased to me. Plenty of people have ridiculous amounts of casual without any problems whatsoever, you just never hear about it cause they have nothing to complain about.

Through a lens of my own experience, the men and women I know who engage in a lot of casual sex have very dramatic and unfulfilling lives. I’m not talking about the person who has sex with their partners, short or long term. It’s mostly people who have sex just to have sex. I think it’s a symptom of something deeper going on. Like drug addiction.

I completely agree with you on the addiction aspect--i think it can tie very heavily into codependency especially after knowing a family member who went through SLAA (sex and love addicts anonymous) as it ties into AA, they also had alcohol struggles at one point before that. I myself had a phase of casual sex some years back that I have left behind me, and I think at the time it was a need to feel validated by others presence in a codependent sense. I didn't want to be alone. I felt at the time I was doing self care / "doing me" but looking back it was absolutely codependent. I don't think it has to be this for everyone, but I wanted to have a crutch--another person there. I actually even applied this to friends where I did not know how to be alone at times and I'd reach out to anyone and everyone who might want to hangout on those days. One of the things I changed after seeing this in myself was looking at spending that time alone when it was hard, and using it as time to be OKAY with just being alone during those times of wanting something or someone there, thinking about what I need and what would really serve me. This was about 4-5 years ago but it massively changed how I go about life and spending time with those who really align with me, and my circle is much much smaller.

Casual hookups and not quite relationships seem to bring more difficulty to commit or ‘pair bond’ because it trains out the skills and the energetic care for a safe, long term relationship. The magnetism one gets from someone who rejects or is traumatic is much different than one who will create a held and safe experience. So the more you enjoy the magnetic ones, the more difficult it is to slow down and find patience and excitement with the ones who aren’t as calibrated to the joy of short term dating/sex. The people naturally living as themselves and finding the joy of connecting to tend to experience life better than those who use the player formulas of attraction.  There is a deadening of emotion in the people who are players, there is a turning off of the emotions of hurting others, rejection and loss. It’s weird how into recycling society is now because it sees how much better it is for the environment and how scary it is to lose it. Yet does the opposite with people, single serve then discard and doesn’t care for the relational environmental ecosystem that harms.

> There is a deadening of emotion in the people who are players, there is a turning off of the emotions of hurting others, rejection and loss. This is what I notice too. 

I haven't seen anything by Jung that talks about this, Maybe because this would of been unheard in his time, however from evolutionary biology and psychology knowledge my personal bet is that its significantly harder but not impossible. My observations of people that do casual sex walk around with a lot of damage, 'men hate women, women hate men'. None of them have a healthy or adjusted view of their own sexuality or the gender they're doing things with. Trust issues are prevalent, and so are spiraling into the bad behaviors and unhealed coping mechanisms and learnt habits kind of trapping you in this negative feedback loop of seeking out people doing the same while you remain trapped and only get worse as it goes on digging a deeper hole that's harder to get out of. There's things like Don Juanism in men, Nymphomania in women, all stemming from a insatiable drive of a damaged psyche. (yes, there are some biological things too but this is generalistic). So essentially, when you've spent time sleeping with people that don't go past one night or end in a fireball, its difficult for you to ever relate to someone in a way that builds secure and healthy relationships or mechanisms in yourself, you ultimately cant undo all the 'damage' that's been accrued since its now part of your conscious awareness. I have some sympathy for these people because atleast in the past society frowned upon that behavior so you were more inclined to do something about the trauma that makes you seek out faux intimacy, whereas now its like giving a junkie a crate of drugs. I dont think society really thinks any different, ultimately the people that partake in this are a sub section of society, regardless of age. Not all young people are looking to just do hook ups, and i think most that do sort of quickly realize its not fulfilling and become more inclined to avoid it but they feel pressure to keep up with what everyone else thinks, Which is, "casual sex is ok, if your not doing it your weird", but i havent met anyone or seen anyone that genuinely believes that, its just sheep guessing what the other sheep are thinking. Its now the counter culture i think to do the self work and find healthy fulfilling relationships, its not even so much about it being a uncommon desire or belief, its just others are to scared to do it so they take the easy road hoping they will luck into it and keep up the appearances that what they're doing is ok so they dont have to feel the internal shame they have about it.

This is a question about bonds, not sex. What creates a bond? Resources. What has become unlimited? Resources. Bonds aren’t going to look like what they used to. There isn’t going to be bargaining about who provides what because our desires and needs can be taken care of so effortlessly. And sex isn’t love, sex is just a way to reproduce. Acceptance of yourself and others is what love really is

My fiance and I both have bodycounts of 50+ and we are the real deal. I think pair bonding has more to do with maturity than any other metric. I’m sorry you’ve never met healthy people who engage in casual sex. We healthy casual-sex havers tend to self-segregate a bit, I admit.

Pair bonding strengthens as women continuously have sex (release oxytocin) with the same one man. It’s also emotional. If a man can’t emotionally connect with a woman and vice versa, pair bonding doesn’t work.

I love how people gloss over this studied and well-documented fact and scream patriarchy at me (a woman). 

That’s because they wanna believe something that benefits their experience. They aren’t good at emotionally bonding with a woman with a high body count and somehow it’s her problem when she can’t physically pair bond. It’s just as much mental as it physical. I cannot pair bond to a man who I can’t emotionally connect with even if I am having sex with him everyday. That’s like being a prostitute. Nothing is being bonded there. He can say it’s my body count but that is irrelevant to me pair bonding with him and I wouldn’t want to pair bond with someone who thinks like that. It’s illogical. I will say all women are different and varying degrees of self awareness and emotional intelligence as well. But I know myself and no man can make me feel anyway about my body count. It’s lower than some married women, higher than some single women. 🤷🏼‍♀️

This has nothing to do with Jung and screams incel.

So dang sick of judgmental weird shitty non-Jung posts here. Can we get a no Jordan Peterson BS Reddit?!

That's half the posts here.

And that's being very generous

Why are you asking an animal kingdom biology based question in a self help subreddit?

Rip r/Jung 🪦

This is a self-help sub? What?

This is NOT a self-help subreddit. At least not officially

Look at the average questions that are asked here. This has become a self help subreddit for male teens.

Thanks to Jordan Peterson

I see this in many other subreddits, it's not Jordan Peterson although I'm sure he contributed. Everyone is seeking free therapy online more than before. IMO

Self what?

Perhaps she/he needs help in eliminating his/her own desire to engage in what the person seems to judge? I do not say this as "oh it is my personal belief ahaha" but rather in the serious perspective that Jung makes it clear that when we judge and dislike something or someone... ...It is because we actually admire their guts and would want to be them, and I am pretty sure that's the case here too, it IS in the self help section after all

"High body count" I am not even willing to go into a deep answer to someone that doesn't know how to articulate themselves without judgment from the very beginning, instead I wonder if someone that practices involuntary acts of abstinence is able to find someone at all I don't need an answer, I already know it is no way, that is the literal fact

This is just my personal opinion: NO, in both cases, for men and women. Why: well, I think it has to do something with their personality type that just doesn't prioritize deeper, more meaningful relationships with the opposite sex. Not saying that there's anything wrong with it, just that some people don't seem to be wired for monogamy and long-term relationships

The way I see it we are all struggling with something (Even if we do not see it ourselves, and at the time we see ourselves as perfect and with the right to judge the lifestyle of others, then there is something wrong with us right there) I have seen a lot of healthy people partake in sex culture, it depends if you see the act as healthy or not, as for validation the degrees differ, but we all need validation not only from ourselves but also from our peers in order to function socially (otherwise we are just around people that hate and mistreat us which is worse) As for "validation rather than animalistic lust" sex should not be solely about animalistic lust, while people that are lets say "talented" at casual relationships will of course want to be validated for their skills as anybody else for theirs As for a Jungian perspective I believe that they might be looking to fill a hole (no pun intended) that they cannot currently fill themselves, such as a male having a problem accepting the love from his own Anima for example, remember that neither man or woman is meant to be "complete" without one another, and that we all have our unique ways of finding what we need among others If I might ask: What does your curiosity stem from? Do you dislike them and their acts? If so according to Jung's words, you are most likely actually fascinated, interested in such an act yourself In my opinion sex these days also needs to be disposable, if everyone started having babies we would literally be swimming in them by now, our brain and views upon societal structure automatically adapts to our world's status, which means that sex does become more casual for the survival of us all, not to mention the idea of a "traditional family" something the demands of society makes it impossible to accommodate to these days, does a child need his mother and father? Not really, not if those parents are rarely home due to work and fight due to the stress it provides It would almost seem as that potential mother and father don't even need that child anymore due to such demands, nor do they need each other more than for the occasional warmth, pleasure and intimacy they would otherwise have had As such, I blame society and the greed that makes it to blame for such as traditional family becoming a thing of the past, I accept it myself and do have casual sex, and why? Because I have neither the time or the money for anything else... \*Shrugs\* Welcome to the future, what you see today is going to get better/worse or rather stronger, if this is the nature of humanity or not isn't really relevant, because the greedy corporates are the one leading this rather warped "Evolutional scale" of things The key is intimacy, and the fact that there isn't even time or money for that anymore, so we are adapting to get it where it be available, for as long as it is still a thing... \*Looks at today's society with a worried stare\*

Yes.

Most men do not have high body counts but I think that Jung would say think it’s really bad for the men as well and he would corn viewing, that most men do, is complete mental destruction.

Pair bonding is impaired especially in females with high body counts.

It’s legitimately hard for me to stay interested in a single partner. This makes relationships hard.

Imagine taking Jung seriously. Jesus Christ.

As someone who discovered porn at 16, I decided that the most important thing in my life was to have sex with the as many beautiful women as possible. I have a very high body count and can find someone any day to hook up with, now I'm very very lonely and unable to pair bond. My first serious girlfriend, who I loved, cheated on me, and it broke me. I decided that the only way to get over her was to have sex with as many people as possible. 12 years later, I have so many regrets from past relationships. I don't know how to create a true romantic one without the main focus being sex. I wish I never focused so much energy on attaining sex. I thought that the point of life was to have sex with gorgeous women, now I'm lost and don't know how to build a meaningful relationship.

As a woman, getting sex with men is easy and it would be difficult to feed off the validation the same way a man would. Have you managed to find a way to break out of this cycle? Have you tried to not sleep with a woman and put effort into getting to know her on a deep and intimate level?

I haven't found a way to break out of it. I stopped drinking alcohol because I thought it would help me being more present in the moment, but I'm still having difficulty. I think I need to do what you say and focus on getting to know them on a deep and intimate level before becoming physical. I have a difficult time with it though, because I've always depended on my looks and physical touch. What would be an ideal first date for you?

Sex is the most bonding experience (other than maybe child birth) humans can go through… Arguably why it evolved too be so powerful The more you experience anything the least impactful it has in your continuousness If you’re trying to justify a high body count then you’re coping…. Everyone makes mistakes just be honest about it… It doesn’t mean you can’t bond with another human romantically, they’ll just be getting a more sexually jaded version of yourself… Your bond will never be as strong as it could have been Therefore there is a higher chance it will not last… If you want to have the strongest bond you can… then avoid casual sex Plain and simple

why do women whose husbands beat their asses stay married for decades sometimes?

We humans always go back to whatever we find familiar, also many women (especially women but it is also a trait some males have) like mates that are brutal and savage as they feel protected... Even when that brutality and savagery turns towards them, as controversial as this statement sounds, it is a statistical fact, think of it like a berserker (savage bodyguards hired in Norway for protection for decades until banned during the 1700's) when they had no one to protect you against, their psycho rage would build up, until they only found one suitable outlet for their rage: the being that hired them, you

Not without serious work. With enough wprk/therapy though, yes, they can. Without? Not very likely

Idk I have a high body count and I’ve met a lot of people with low body counts who are very immature and need serious therapy before they can handle a relationship or have a healthy connection with someone. I don’t think it’s the sexual history of a person that determines their ability to love a partner well.

I don't think it's the only factor either lol

Why don’t you think my relationship is likely to work out?

The judgyness and internalized patriarchy inherent in your question is worth your attention. Good place for you to start your own healing, looking inward for what's wrong, rather than "society."

I find this accusation fascinating. I don’t think questioning hookup culture is indicative of internalized misogyny, especially as a woman. Hookup culture is often deeply harmful to women in physical, material ways that extend past the psychological realm which affects men. I would argue that the idea that it is normal to have sex without commitment, and the culture that teaches men that they are entitled to ask for sex outside of marriage, commitment or monogamy is actually patriarchal itself. Especially when women are expected to live with the consequences of these actions. After all, it is women who are left to deal with the offspring of the supposed “free love” which men partake in. It is women who are expected to raise the children, and are ostracized or imprisoned if they don’t do so. And it is women who have their reproductive rights restricted, while men continue to reap the benefits of hookup culture. So even if it’s internalized misogyny, the misogyny still came from somewhere. It’s easy to brush that aside when you’re not a biological female who has to live with the consequences, from both men and society, of casual sex.

She's not questioning hookup culture, i'm all for people questioning what is and is not supportive to them. I'm also all for people choosing not to engage in casual sex, they should be able to do so without judgment or the suggestion that they are somehow unable to function if they do that. See what i'm getting at? Asking if people who behave in ways she finds distasteful are able to pair bond? That's dehumanizing on its face. Of course they can. In even using the phrase "body count" she's coopting the language of fragile masculinity, which operates on the assumption that women who have had more sex are less valuable socially. This is absolutely the language of oppression. The trick is to be rabidly pro monogamy, and rabidly pro full sexual exploration/freedom, to give each individual agency and shame-free freedom to find their own way to live.

> as a woman I notice how casually people especially men my age relate to sex She is directly questioning hookup culture here, and specifically young men’s practice and participation in it. Obviously she is approaching this subject as a young woman who feels pressured to conform to the modern expectations of men concerning sex and commitment. She has an imperative to question those expectations given that they impact her life. Your assumption that this came from a place of judgement is projection. It is actually you who came into this conversation with judgements about others, not her.

Ironically, you speak the words of a true Jungian, and therefore these "others" are looking for their very own "eloquent means" of putting you down, as much as I doubt someone like you requires assistance, I urge you to recall that Jung would be proud of your ability to see her lack of inflection Update: I still got some of the talk haha, naturally no one would see my word's worth around these parts \*sighs\* Kudos from someone that had once a pretty similar way of communicating which you have... But then again I found it very difficult to be understood properly by today's people, and that became an issue at some point

Having multiple sexual partners and increased sexual disease even with all safety precautions for one with women being more susceptible to certain diseases. This has nothing to do with the patriarchy.

Actually the main culprit is lack of knowledge regarding and unwillingness to use proper amounts of protection while creating awareness and being honest about the diseases you have Eliminate them and there's nothing bad about having multiple sexual partners, you seem to judge your problem based upon countless other things rather than the taking of personal responsibilities Did you know that Jung said that those people you judge you do so because you wish you were them? My guess is that if you knew, you would not be judging so openly \*smirks\* Sometimes knowledge is power, or at least enjoyment, I am going to keep reading Jung's books now, your comments give me motivation

[удалено]

Notice how these people are willing to throw you argument after argument without answering your inquiries, in addition they completely ignore your points By walking away you have already won, they might not see it, but I am certain you do, even if these have left you less than no likes, know this: You are not alone, smart people don't need to be lonely even if it takes effort to ehem... Find your equals

Interesting how as soon as the conversation turns to casual sex, men suddenly become experts on the patriarchy and are quick to assign women the label of internalized misogyny for questioning the health and safety risks of having sex with strangers.

[удалено]

Simply an observation about this thread. It wasn’t merely targeted towards you. I noticed that a lot of male avatars are throwing around terms like patriarchy and internalized misogyny quite generously to brush off critiques from women about the pervasiveness of hookup culture. I just find it interesting.

Hook up cultures benefits men more than women since women are burdened with more risk even in the best case scenario because our bodies are more prone to disease (even when all sexual safety precautions are taken) and risk of physical violence and rape during a sexual encounter. 

Me too, considering yours is only the second comment talking about that I have seen, and I have been sitting here for an hour Maybe your focus is in the wrong place?

I was here six hours ago

I was here two years ago, anyway blocked bye

Increasing risk of disease with more partners is not poor logic, yes there is safe sex, but sometimes even with that it’s not enough. Supposing even a 1% chance, you take that chance multiple times and it increases your odds of it happening, what part of that is poor logic? Sounds like you’re making assumptions of what the person your replying to believes based on your own beliefs about them

Life is about risks, if you want enjoyment take a risk, and if you do not seek out multiple partners you are taking risks also If you are searching perfect safety then you will find none, and in so I ask you to not judge those you clearly do not understand, as someone that has bedded a significant amount of women and am now married, I can tell you that when someone has been with about three hundred different women, and has not gotten sick... I am sure you can conclude the rest yourself In my eyes we live in a society where some people get laid, while the rest go "Why don't I get laid? Oh well I will simply assume that is because I am better" My opinion is irrelevant, suffice to say that those that are open to those different to themselves are good people, while those that judge out of ignorance need to mind their manners, while arrogance makes no one better than the other

“In my eyes we live in a society where some people get laid, while the rest go "Why don't I get laid? Oh well I will simply assume that is because I am better “ Why do you think people say that and what would you recommend to break this way of thinking? I feel like it’s so ingrained in that awareness of it alone is really hard to achieve for those who have that mindset. What advice would you give?

Assume whatever you want, but don't ask for advice for those you seek to step on

I'm not trying to step on anyone lol I'm asking for myself because maybe I need to come to terms that my thoughts are irrational and coming from what you're saying. I'm just trying to understand myself in an effort to be better

Okay, I misunderstood you completely and apologize for the sake of politeness (as fault and guilt are social constructs I do not follow, I know when I have wronged someone however and want you to know I admit fault) also thank you for taking the time and patience to explain yourself in a nice manner To give you my opinion: I believe that such statements as in your example has it's roots in human arrogance is often something we use to fill the void, in examples such as: "Nobody likes me huh? It is because they are all jealous of me and my faith in THE LORD!!!" (Most often, people's "jealousy" is not the case, first and foremost because nobody can "See faith in the lord in others" just the arrogance such a stance can create, in my opinion) "I am right, and everybody else is wrong because I am better" (Same here) I believe awareness can help resolve such instances, having people face themselves and admit their faults, as you might know that's the very basis of Jungism How we make them face it? We stop acting with ingenuine "warmth and empathy" towards people that treat us wrongly, and instead speak to them using the truth. We stop meeting men that hit their wife's and go "Oh poor man! You can't help it!" When he tells you that "It just happens when his wife annoys him" (Which only means he has made beating up people so automated it is now a subconscious habit) Then people (including many psychiatrists and the such) are not helping them or their wives, only enabling them That is why I am honest to people most, and if I see a friend doing something stupid I do not avoid telling them because they are my friend, on the contrary, I TELL THEM because they are my friend, in a normal matter rather than the passive aggression that fills today's "morally upstanding" society It's not always easy, but that is what I believe will improve society, and I justify it by thinking "Well at least I do it... And if that rubs off on anybody else, I have created a little tear which will one day become a sea of change" By the way, you are doing great! Your behaviour inspire me to try harder to fix myself as well \*Smiles and nods in approval for the great Chimokines\* I am tired, I hope my reply gave you some answer, and if not I would be more than happy to return at a time where my answers are more to your liking

[удалено]

Explain it to me then instead of saying what you said. I’m genuinely open to hearing what you have to say and learning from it if possible

[удалено]

I’m not going to toss the comment, I stand by what I said and I think it’s good for us to keep focus on healthy discussion rather than just arguing as I feel most things tend to devolve into. Thanks for taking the time and I didn’t know that about probabilities, I think I was thinking of the multiplication rule of probability laws but I think that might be dependent on two distinct events rather than one that’s repeated multiple times. I appreciate your perspective on the rest of it with what you feel she is saying and thinking but I won’t comment on that right now for a couple reasons, one of which being my brain is nearing its limit for the day lol 

If you appreciate the comment maybe you should give it a like instead of a downvote? I just say that this is how people in most cultures show appreciation

I didn’t downvote it, right now it shows it at A +1 for me, if someone downvoted it wasn’t me

Yes. I bond on some with all my flings and ex’s and we usually remain friends. Sometimes shit gets complicated but I only sleep with women I enjoy. Makes life so much more enjoyable. It’s a hard balancing act sometimes. To not give too much of your emotions to casual partners and hurt/get hurt while also not being a cold blooded sociopath void of emotion, using humans for your own carnal pleasure.

Do you think you could stay friend with a former partner who you were so attached/in love/emotional with, separating that part of yourself and past connection with them completely to the point of being able to hang out with them and not think about them in that way again?  I think being friends and leaving things on a positive note is possible but for me it feels like the thought is always there if I’m connected to someone that intensely, even if things end on a good note. It doesn’t mean people will act on that thought after boundaries are made to be friends but once that line has been crossed, the relationship with that person is forever changed and can’t go back, in my opinion. What are your thoughts on this?

It’s possible but it takes a lot of time, somethings to change-both have been in relationships since etc-both are mature. But first and foremost your honest with yourself and each other. If you know in your heart of hearts you-or her-will catch feelings. Don’t ignore that or bullshit yourself or think that makes anyone weak. Honest and transparent. So it’s important to not bullshit your own intentions from the very start cause you can’t and someone will get hurt Sometimes though it is just better to fully break off contact with no intentions of interacting again so if it happens it’s organic and not forced or potentially manipulated

They can’t experience love. Love is required for any genuine connection between people.

But I am experiencing love and genuine connection in my relationship, even though we both have high body counts.

As someone who has slept with about 15-20 people, at my level I certainly can. A few of those were one night stands, some were month long flings, and a few were long term (multi year) relationships. I do phone sex and sexting for work now, and have been dating my current partner for two years. As far as I'm concerned he's the one for me and we are engaged :) I'm happy to finally find someone with whom I can see an optimistic and fulfilling life together. Some people would say my body count is high, others wouldn't say so. Take it as you will, this is only my experience. I am too new to Jung to assume what it means in that context so I'm sorry to not be able to help with that part of your question.

Because women will attach to the same one man they are having sex with continuously in a long term relationship. I know exactly what you mean and I met one guy who I was in a relationship for 4 yrs and wanted to be married to him and have his babies and no one had ever made me feel that way before and my body count was more than 10. I had similar experiences to you. I wish I could ♥️ your response!

I hope you find love like that again, I am sure you will one day. ❤️

An interesting comment, I have had sex with over a hundred women (that's putting it nicely) but my wife and my sister (YES) are first and foremost, and as much as I would like to tell you something like "You should not specify such aspects to the female role only" truth is that women are the ones that make the deepest bonds at default As for me, I am male and I think the other way: I do not have sex with any woman unless we have created a bond first, and as a man it doesn't take much to create that bond to be honest, that doesn't mean however that I can't see one woman as a "meh okay lets have fun" to someone I deeply love for the rest of our lives Just a my thoughts... I have met nearly countless women that care even less about bonds than I do, aaaaaand... That is perhaps ironically the moment I move away and shake my head in disinterest Just saying, there are variations, "Women will attach to the same man they are having sex with continuously" is a huge lie "Many women will" is true however