I have observed that sluts tend to behave like psychopaths. I have an explanation for this which goes as follows: Female promiscuity lowers oxytocin levels. Oxytocin promotes activity in the amygdala in the brain. Since sluts have low levels of oxytocin, their amygdala functions at a low level. This is exactly the problem that causes psychopathy, since the amygdala is responsible for sympathy and morality. And this is why sluts behave like psychopaths. What I have stated is an unproven theory, in other words nothing more than a hypothesis or conjecture. This is how all theories start. The next step is to gather data to either verify or disprove the theory. I have attempted to do this as I usually do by searching for relevant data on the web. But I found nothing on the relationship between female promiscuity and oxytocin. By nothing, I mean no data. I found plenty of opinions on both sides of the question but no one bothered to actually get the facts. I find this horrifying, particularly because the question has obviously been raised and the facts are easy to obtain by any research scientist interested in the question. My view is obviously highly politically incorrect (as virtually all my views are). So now I try to think, why isn't the data that I want available? I can think of only two explanations. One is that the research was done and that the results were too politically incorrect to be published. The other is that the research was never done because the question itself is politically incorrect to be asked. Either way, the only broad explanation is that politically correctness prevents the truth of this matter from being found. Unlike members of modern culture (the Left), I am not going to claim that my theory is correct just because it makes sense to me. I believe in the scientific method. I believe a statement should not be accepted as truth until it has objective data to back it up. Most members of modern culture would write off my theory as being absurd simply because it conflicts with their world view and because modern culture is extremely closed-minded. So in my defense, I will briefly explain why it is perfectly reasonable to guess that promiscuity lowers oxytocin levels in women. It is well known that oxytocin is the pair-bonding hormone for female mammals (but not male mammals). It is also know that premarital promiscuity in women directly correlates with divorce risk. Since divorce is failed bonding, and since bonding is governed in women by oxytocin, I think it is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis that female promiscuity lowers oxytocin levels. But it appears that I will never know for sure whether this is true. In researching this question and failing to find an answer, I reached a conclusion very different from my original topic. This conclusion is that the Enlightenment is over. The fundamental idea of the Enlightenment was to use reason to arrive at objective truth. In my opinion, the Enlightenment both depended on religion, particularly the Reformation, and undermined religion. In other words, the Enlightenment undermined the very thing that it depended on, and so it was doomed from the start. The demise of the Enlightenment took time and finally ended around the year 2000, so the Enlightenment lasted about 300 years. In order to objectively search for truth, one must place external facts above one's own opinion. Such an approach requires humility. Without humility, one will always rationalize away facts to protect one's cherished opinions. The scientific method is itself an extreme expression of humility, requiring that all scientific theories provide an experimental procedure to falsify the theory, and that the theory be experimentally tested independently by several people before even being considered possibly valid. (See The Logic of Scientific Discovery.) The problem with this is that humility is not natural for people, particularly for people in power. And without humility, there can be no advancement in objective knowledge. So we should ask what is the source of humility? There is only one answer that I know of, and that is religion. Religion teaches us to respect something greater than ourselves. In modern Western religions, that something is God. But whatever it is, the important thing is to recognize something sacred and above humanity. As long as God (or the gods) is recognized as above humanity, people learn humility. But when people place themselves on the level of God, humility is lost. So religion only works when religion restricts what is sacred to non-human things like God or nature. When human institutions become sacred, and people thereby compete with God, humility is lost, and so scientific advancement becomes impossible. Now we can understand the Enlightenment. Before the Reformation, the Catholic Church (and also the Eastern Orthodox Church) was sacred and competed with God. This caused the Pope and those at the top of the Church to lose humility. And so they rejected objective truth in favor of their preferred views, and called all those who disagreed with their views heretics. Galileo is a well known example of someone who suffered the consequences of this. The Reformation changed all this by rejecting the Catholic Church and rejecting the idea that a human institution can be sacred. By insisting that humanity should be humble before God, the Reformation made possible the Enlightenment which insisted that humanity should be humble before objective truth. But unfortunately Christianity's dependence on faith came into conflict with the Enlightenment's demand for reason. And so the Enlightenment undermined Christian faith. As religion faded, humility faded. Culture became arrogant. And this arrogance has produced our modern culture which places personal opinion over objective facts. Our current modern culture, which is basically a Leftist culture, teaches people to be selfish and to ridicule all those who don't hold popular views. Such a culture is easily manipulated by those in power to suppress views that threaten those power. The result is a situation remarkably similar to the Catholic Church before the Reformation. Today, anyone who holds politically incorrect views is treated by the establishment the way the Catholic Church treated heretics in the Middle Ages. Today there is no tolerance for differing views because tolerance requires humility, and humility requires religion, and we have no serious religion anymore. And this is why the Enlightenment is over and why I can't find the answer to the question I posed at the beginning of this article.
What is your theory on promiscuous males? Does the same theory hold true? If the premises of your theory is correct then it should be the same outcome for both genders given the same perimeters. Edit: Oxytocin levels increase with sexual activity, not decrease. Your initial statements are not correct.
No, the sexes are quite different. While oxytocin is related to sympathy in both sexes, it is actually vasopressin that is the pair-bonding hormone in males. And the study that found a correlation between premarital promiscuity and divorce risk in women found no such correlation in men.
Sorry as I added an edit while you were responding. Levels of oxytocin increase with sexual activity as well as child birth in women.
Fascinating theory on the neurobiological basis for slutdom. There is scientific literature on the subject, however, that your research did not identify, namely Vandervols et al in The European Journal of Slutdom, in which the authors conclude, "some girls just like dick" and the reputed oxytocin-slut connection is refuted. In all seriousness, I'm skeptical that behavior can be reduced to a neurobiological cause, since different people do similar things for different reasons. Some girls just have a high sex drive. Some girls sleep around for some unhealthy reasons too. I think if you really want to explore that theory, you'll either have to get a degree in neuroscience or have enough money to fund a study. The notion that the enlightenment depended on religion is fascinating. I don't know if it's true, but very insightful.
so oxytocin is related to a sense of emotional connection (at least in women). Sex increases levels of oxytocin. If women who sleep around a lot have lower levels of oxytocin, then maybe they are looking for a feeling of connection that they don't have. Not really a mystery. Maybe also women who sleep around a lot don't have and don't want close emotional connections, and therefor have lower levels of oxytocin
As I said, my statement is only a theory. This theory is based on the fact that oxytocin supports pair-bonding in women and promiscuous women pair-bond less effectively. I have no idea what the mechanism of lowering oxytocin might be. As for sexual activity increasing oxytocin, I assume this is a short-term effect. If it is long-term, please link to the reference. And anyway, women in a healthy monogamous relationship probably have more sex than promiscuous women do.
