Sexual Liberalism

sexual liberalismIn 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.

sexual liberalism

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.

sexual liberalism

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,


Alek RolstadAbout the Author: Alek Rolstad

Alek Rolstad launched his pickup career at age 14, an early starter and seduction savant. His unique style of game focuses on “sex talk”: a way to make sex the primary topic of conversation. Sex talk lets the user excite girls rapidly, and filter for girls open to fast, raunchy, kinky one-night stands and sex. Alek plans to offer phone coaching to students of Girls Chase soon… Just as soon as he can find somewhere to hold phone calls on sex talk and threesomes where he won’t be shocking his roommates.

Get Your FREE eBook on Texting Girls

how to text girls pdf

Sign up for our email insights series and get a copy of our popular ebook "How to Text Girls" FREE. Learn more ...

Related Articles from


wow's picture

When did twisted views and nihlistic tones of viewing a monogamous relation become a norm on girls chase? If some one makes you happy you keep them, Seeing yourself a solely provider in these times in a relationship is a sad logic. Are you saying women can't carry their own in a relationship? Not only can they do that but they can add twofold to your networth if your married. Well if you plan fuckin up and don't want to extend effort to fixing things there's always a prenup. By the way, Whatever happened to role of the mistress?why be 'casual' thats petty.

Alek Rolstad's picture

I'm not saying it can't be done; just that it's becoming increasingly harder to do giving our current prevailing cultural climate. Therefore it is also important to me to deliver an optimistic solutions to the cultural changes. Yes monogamy can still find its place however they rarely last that long (it should be noted that divorce rates are really high). I also find it somewhat morally irresponsible, given the lens I've come to view the world from [pro sexual freedom and sexual expression], but morals are a very subjective thing (and remember that philosophy is the battle against the doxas!) and that's different for every one, especially on topic like this (no I am not being a total relativist here, I still believe most us agree that killing innocents is bad?). I know Chase has somewhat different views on this, as do each of the writers here - it's nuanced and wrinkled and looks a million different ways depending on what angle you're looking at it from, and this is one of them.

Thanks for your comment

chin's picture

i remember watching this video on youtube about marriage customs in china... one particular village has this partner swapping tradition... were husbands and wives trade....if im not mistaken, the quote was "husband and wife eat together, lovers sleep together" its good watch and this article reminds the documentary

Alek Rolstad's picture

Well, that sounds fun. The greeks were even worse when it came down to these types of sexual practices. The roman were not that much better either.

Our editor was kind enough to link to a pdf with the whole book from Engels . In that book he discusses the mating game back in the days (in an early historical phase) and you see that back in the days such a thing was pretty common.


It Takes Two's picture

Cool article, I enjoy these types of pieces. Question for you.

As far as values go, I'm definitely of the more liberal type (despite my inexperience, something I'm just now having the interest to correct). But one thing I'm not entirely sure on is where parenthood fits into the equation for sexually liberal men and women.

I've read other articles discussing the ideas of gene shopping, having a provider male take care of a lover's kids (lol, poor guy), women securing a provider's resources whether married/divorced/whatever arrangement, but how does one factor in children if you are a high value man who wants to raise his own kids, or a sexually liberal woman who doesn't want to be tied down to a provider type male?

I love the idea of being a top-of-the-pyramid male (and I'm making progress towards that), but where such a high value male leans toward polyamory, what's the best way to have children for such a male? I have nieces who I absolutely adore and make me consider wanting my own children, but I hate the idea of being tied down to one person, not having access to my kids, or having my financial resources tied up to a woman to whom I may or may not want to stay committed (and who may or may not want to stay committed to me)?

It Takes Two

PS, This is my first post here, hello GC community!

Alek Rolstad's picture

Hi, and welcome to GC. Here you will find posters with different views, so I will share mine. But keep in mind that other posters on the blog might have a different opinion. If you want even more opinions, make a thread on the forum!

Onto your question.

First of all, I am a very young man with no children, making it hard for me to answer you. But biologically speaking, women are serial monogamous, meaning that they will be your partner for a certain amount of time (and that could be up to 10 years). My advice to your is to be a mix of a lover and provider while constantly flirting and being attractive. Rule number one in relationship is... never stop being sexy. This way you might keep your girl for longer (you will make her want to keep you for longer).

Now, i believe that biologically speaking, women are serial monogamous with the purpose of securing a male for a certain period of time in order to secure a good child rearing. Once the children have grown old enought she would like to move on. You rarely see a mother having a divorce with her husband right after getting a baby. It usually tends to happen 7 years later. But again, I am more of young man having fun, so starting a thread onto our forum might be better.

Cheers and welcome

Time Traveller's picture

I realize this is an old post and perhaps this comment would be better elsewhere, but I want to interject that a society where some men are lovers and others are providers doesn't necessarily restrict men (nor women) to these roles for life. It is not unusual for a young man to get a girl pregnant and not be much of a father, if at all, while some other guy ends up being a surrogate father to his kid. But the story doesn't necessarily end here. This same guy later in life when his sexual drive slows down and he desires to be a father, could end up being a provider and father to someone else's kid. I've actually seen this life-cycle happen.

So we could have a society where the young people produce the kids and the older people raise them. Actually I think this might be a better option overall because in our present society we tend to discard our elderly as useless.

A Scientific View's picture


I've made some interesting obeservation in this topic which I think I should share and hopefully it may open some ineresting discussions.

The first thing I noticed in this article was the statement:

"I still believe that controlling someone, making them into your belonging (which is what monogamous relationships truly are), is really noxious. "

in which you didn't elaborate much, so I'm going to try to dwell deeper in to the topic of what a relationship is. I'm going to ignore what monogamy is and was and what the cultural reasons for it to be that way were and simply begin with this statemant:

"A committed relationship is a relationship in which both partners sacrifice a part of their freedom for mutual benefits."

To elaborate a bit, by "mutual benefits" I'm talking about thing which can only occur if two people know each other a longer time and can enjoy if they are in a committed relationship. Such things are a level of intimacy and understading of each other which can only happen if they are together for a longer time, children which can only grow up in a stable relationship and a certain sense of security and satisfaction ( satisfaction in the sense of having something worthwhile ), this are just some of the things which I can think of.

To elaborate what I thought by "sacrifice a part of their freedom". A part of someones freedom ( which they are sacrificing ) is the option of having and being with other partners. And now I'm going to introduce the part that is the most intreresting, I'm going to make a distinction between the kind of partners which someone can have in to two categories:

Short term partner - the kind of partner with whom you can enjoy some simple pleasures of life, but not be able to have a long happy relationship

Long term partner - the kind of partner with whom you'll be able to have children and other committed relationship benefits

(not very scientific but I'm sure you have a good picture about what I mean by saying Short/Long term partner)

And now let's analyze how much of each does every gender have.
When we look at women, the thing which you notice is that theay have a lot more short term partners who'd be happy to sleep with them and then just leave them, and when we look at men only attractive man have lots of short term partners with whom they would be able to sleep with.

But when we look at how much long trem partners we notice that they have about the same amount, to elaborate a bit, let's assume that there is a variable named "attractiveness" which has the tipical gauss distribution that is that the majority of people are moderately attractive (both women and men) and that there are a smaller amount of people little and very attractive. The other assumption is that for a potential "long term partner" to be valid, that is that a relationsip between them would work, requires that they both have the same amount of "attractiveness" because otherwise they would be unhappy with their partner. And if we accept this two reasonable assumptions then we have that both gender have the same amount of potential long term partners.

Now let's look back at what I said earlier: "They sacrifice the option of having other partners". Now when we look at the asymmetry between how many short term partners can a average women and an average men, it seems that women are very much "being property of men", because they are sacrificing more then the average men, but when we observe how man long term partners they can potential have, we actually get that they are just a couple who decided to sacrifice a part of their freedom for mutual benefits.

To conclude this short article let's just end this with some observation. The first one is that "someone who is an attractive men and successful with women" (yes, Chase talking about you, but no offense intended, just an observation) and who is just looking for short term partners does indeed see what you have stated:

"I still believe that controlling someone, making them into your belonging (which is what monogamous relationships truly are), is really noxious. "

And as you sayed you're for sexual liberalism, and you're for all the women to be free and available short term although they might actually be happier in a commited long term realtionship. And when you observe the people who started the sexual revolution you notice that they are mostly famous attractive men with the same perspective, and many people followed because of their animal instincts that this is good (although I'm not sure about this last statement and exactly what has allowed the sexual revolution to be so successful).

And now to ask you, Chase, a few questions and requests:
Could you please elaborate what do you mean by:
"Women are serially monogamous by nature – period."

Indeed it seems evolutionary valid, but how does this connect with sexual liberalism providing attractive men lots of short term option, how does this benefit women?
Evolutionary women seek to have a long term relatioship and a family and they also seek to have it with the most attractive men, but what I am seeing in this liberal system is a conflict between the two:

Women not being able to find an attractive men who is willing to have a family with them because of all the competition and the unwillingness of men to commit so they marry someone not so attractive, but when there appears a chance for someone attractive to commit with them they cheat. And not to mention the sad story of all the not so attractive men who get cheated on.

A Scientific View's picture

whoops, I've failed to read who's the author, my bad
Chase => Alek *

Sam2's picture


You wrote something great; that women are mostly serial monogamists, which I can confirm through my personal experience as well. However, this is my question to you:

As a polyamorous man under construction, I face difficulties in getting women who are exactly what you described as serial monogamists. Several times I felt that I was disqualified by women because of my "libertarian polyamory". How can I bridge the divergent interests/desires of a polyamorous man and a serial monogamist woman? I found some polyamorous women, but those are rather masculine in their approach to sex and life. These are the women who once in my place take off their pants on their own, if you know what I mean, and to their mind the entire mating dance is just about "let's get down to business". What do I do with the great majority of women, though, who are not like that?

Alek Rolstad's picture

Very difficult question indeed. I will give you a very simple answer. It all comes down to skills.

You can't change her and sadly i can be said that seduction is all about creating an internal conflict in women's head (but not always a bad thing, women love being on the emotional roller coaster).

You need to attract her and be sexy without making commitments. This way you not only remove some of her expectations, but you are also not morally bound to her and only her.

Now, this alone can work out, but most of the time, if you are an attractive male women would still like to keep you. Therefore they will start betaficate (or betaize) you in order to make you surrender to her charm and become only hers. The paradox here is that, this way you risk killing the attraction she has for you. In a good (serial) monogamous relationship you need to balance both, show her that you love her while also being a challenge to her.

In polyamourous relationship you just need to be attractive without ever showing any deep signs of exclusive love (unlike monogamous relationships). Avoid seeing a girl too often, avoid showing deep emotional attraction, avoid heavy dinner dates or vacations together.

She will cause drama (betafication) in order to make you qualify to her desires (you becoming her prince). The way you handle it is to stand for what you want, and if that's being a free man with multiple partners, do not ever feel tempted to aboy her and tell her you love her or do anything that communicates the following. She will try, especially if she likes you, but be strong. You will probably fail a few times at first, but that's ok, you will learn from it. Thanks for giving me an idea for a future post.


Maxmilion's picture

I agree for the most part, that it should be sexually free and woman should be allowed to do what they want. However I disagree that things are that easy. Yes, our biology states us back to animals and the reptilian and mamalian brains take us back to our overall animal state. Yet we have a neocortex that seperates us from the animals. In a way yes, feelings which are generated by the lower halves of the brains over rule logic for the most part when it comes to feelings of hunger, and relationships..... however, whej it comes to a state of monogamy, how can you leave out the fact of children. If everything you say is true, why do mej not want other men to be apart of their kids lives? In the sense of the selfish gene educated men, who choose to only invest in the perfect woman opposed to the man who wants to spread his genes around ghangas khan. I think that a lot of factors are missing. Yes when we look back to our cavemen days, a lot of this is true. But again from the selfish gene when copies are made and mistakes take place things change. Not that I disagree with how people act yes a majority does, but what if things are changing and this priming to go back to the days where we grew as cavemen is just another conditioning from social perspective.

For example food. The population cannot handle carbs as skinny people get diabetes some survive the genetics are different when it comes to eating foods. So the answer is ketosis, and from my research here and the studies against ketosis and pro carbs states that back in cavemen days we also.ate bugs and maggots which we dont today.

So, relating to that yes with relationship, we do things differently today than we did in the cavemen days, emotions.change just like the taste of each general man to each general woman and vice versa. You say its a general perspective that the governments put into.our minds that monogamy for different lifestyles and social status, however if people are starving they would probably kill and some would self sacrifice. What if some men would share woman if they had an abundance, or some would be more selfish about it. Not that I disagree with this article. I think it.just is not as simple as it it is.portrayed here. Cavemen we probably did not know any better back then as we all try to change and better ourselves and some dont and keep the same habbits. Mine are not the same as they were I was back in my ignorant ways I followed my biological thinking more. As.I started to change yes biological ways have changed but as I have improved myself my neocortex over rules more.... if we just go.with the biology debate argument what, what about each having a mission, yes original feelings disappear but what if we arent with the right person, what if things and feelings change as we get older. What if feelings change rich you are. What if just your perspective ctive is.different view than mine. Some.people take life for granted because mom and dad pay for our education living food, verse someone who doesnt have any of that? Quantim physics in debates even describe that everyones point of view changes the world around us like falling.on a persons head brought up the theory of gravity. Even Einstein's theories are being disproved and his ideas were justthe basis of beginning physics. Im not sure what to think but to think we are always right even the beginning of pua was proven wrong by chase, who is the next to.prove us wrong. Who knows but to say its this easy is foolish

Alek Rolstad's picture

Didnt have time to respond to your great comments. I will come back and finish things off, so that you all get some feedback.


Anonymous's picture

I have lived with a woman love of my life for 39 years and there really interesting and I learned things from getting divorced and remarried and dumped and back together that guys aren't that neat or perfect and need to be the ones who change not them

Anonymous's picture

this stuff is true; I laugh my head off when I see amazingly hot women holding hands with some (deluded) guy. while her eyes are glued on me walking by LOL.
Your articles match up with reality for sure;

David Riley's picture

Hey Anon,

It's interesting you mention the girls behavior because that reminds of the birthday dinner for my father I just came from. We were at a Japanese steakhouse, our table was sitting across from a young couple. It was the girl's birthday from I heard during the conversation. The girl would take occasional glances at me. Her boyfriend was sitting with his arms crossed while she played on her Iphone. Ironically but really surprising he picked up the tab. In my head I was thinking, "Damn, that sucks."

Just Dave

Add new comment

The Latest from