Sex, Multiple Partners, Relationships and Agreements:
Commitment to another being throughout this life-time, is it a choice or a pre-programmed?
We have within the document explained:
Choice does not exist – it’s either pre-ordained, through your programming of yourself within your life-experiences – falling into and following your own design of emotions/feelings/thoughts and memories wherein such an experience is a ‘relationship’ - or, it’s by your self-directive principle as the Principle equal and one as Life – wherein you direct yourself, in consideration of all as one as equal – to be in an agreement with another wherein two beings walk the process alone – yet together – in assisting and supporting themselves and each other to walk as the Principle as self-honesty here.
However – if two beings currently, who’ve been in a ‘relationship-experience’ with each other, assist and support themselves to transform their individual standing as that of an agreement – walking in agreement together as each one stand as the Principle, assisting and supporting themselves in self honesty and each other as themselves:
This is self taking self-responsibility and self-directing self, in deliberately stopping self from existing within the definition of ‘self-programmed-designed experience of mind as relationship towards another in separation’ – but taking the self-directive principle to stand and walk as the Principle equal and one as Life alone, yet with another equal and one.
Could one-night-stands night after night simply be Self-directive principle in action?
Within your question = you’re not understanding ‘self-directive principle’. Because you’re ‘defining’ it in separation towards another/an action to/towards another – instead of realising that self-directive principle is the expression of self in being directive as the Principle as the starting-point consideration of you as all as one as equal.
So, having one-night-stands night after night, here and there with various different woman – is you directing your own self-gratification, self-satisfaction within self-interest because it does not assist and support you equal and one as all and does not assist and support the other equal and one as all = it’s simply only about sex and will have consequence – no matter how directly or indirectly you approach the woman. For example with **** approach to woman:
i just make it known to them.
i have no commitment to you.
i have no relationship to you.
i let you do whatever you want to do, i will do the same.
there is no rules or conditions on it.
Fine, you may state this – though realise that there is and will be consequence for the ‘experiences’ you directly manifest within you and your world – for both yourself and the other(s) as you. For example, within yourself – if you’re having one-night-stands night after night, here and there with various different woman – you, yourself will not develop ‘intimacy’ – not self-intimacy and not intimacy with another equal and one here.
Self-intimacy and intimacy with another as you is what develops and manifest and is assisted and supported as self in expression, and with another as self, within Agreement as beings walk together, with themselves equal and one that assist and support with absolute self-honesty equal and one here.
It is this Intimacy that develops and manifests that assist and support self-honesty and self-specificity within assisting and supporting oneself and another as self in this process.
So – one of the consequences, as example, for having multiple partners here and there – is self-suppression of self-expression self-honestly that is assisted and supported within and as self-intimacy – because you to a degree have to self-compromise when having multiple-partners here and there – because you have to ‘change yourself dependent on the woman you’re with for the evening’ = and you can observe this within yourself self-honestly: You have to change you to ‘suit the woman you want to be with for the evening’ to get them into bed with you.
This self-compromise, wherein you change you for the woman – manifest self-suppression, wherein no self-intimacy is possible – because you’re not stable and constant within who you are here equal and one as all – and because there’s no stability and consistency within your self-expression here = no self-trust can develop as you, and because no self-trust can develop as you – no self-intimacy can develop and thus your self-honesty iscompromised. Self-intimacy support self-honesty equal and one.
Therefore, having multiple partners here and there – will only prolong your own process and that of the other – due to this point of self-suppression, and no matter which way you approach the situation within having multiple-partners = there will be consequence – so realise, within having multiple-partners = you will have to bare the consequences for both yourself and the other as you = because you may approach the situation within a particular starting-point = but you’re still supporting separation, because you’re supporting the nature/beingness of the other being you’re with for the evening. And whatever their nature/beingness exist as = you’ll then face within you and your world – because the statement you’re making is that it is you, and it’ll manifest in you and your world accordingly.
So – if you want multiple partners: Within oneness and equality as all here as you in walking as the Principle – the following will then be necessary:
All must live under the same roof.
Everything must be revealed, in full revelation between all at all times – so that self-trust, self-intimacy and self-honesty can develop and manifest within self and each one involved equal and one.
An equal and one agreement must be placed between and as all that is involved – to walk together in self-honesty equal and one here as the Principle, considering all as one as equal as Life in assisting and supporting each other in and as self-honesty here.
And understand – if you do not do this, if you cannot do this, if you do not want to do this as above = know that you’re justifying your ‘one-night-stand-experiences’ to suit your desires for/of sex and woman/men in separation of self-interest.
Otherwise – ‘one-night-stands’ with various woman here and there – will only further separation, self-interest within yourself and the other – as it does not ‘serve’ all life equal and one here – but is only about sex in self-satisfaction.
Can promiscuous living be justified as Self-Directive living?
Lol – yes, it can by justified – though you know what you do and why you do it at all times – and actions taken within deliberate self-dishonesty, for example lying to yourself within justifying that promiscuous living is self-directive living – will bear it’s consequences that you must be willing to walk through and face.
And many may justify: I’ll enjoy one-night-stand here and there and promiscuous-living for the moment and face and experience the consequences later.
Within using this excuse within your mind = know, that your starting-point for one-night-stands and promiscuous-living justified under ‘directive-living’ or in any other way = simply indicate that you don’t want to give up your self-interest of self-gratification and self-satisfaction with regards to sex and woman/men. And that you’re seeing yourself and your own self-interest as ‘more than Life’ within wanting multiple partners here and there as promiscuous living – and for this, you will face consequences for each refraction of experience you’ve had = which is a much, much, much longer walk through facing consequence, than the momentary gratification and satisfaction-experience of sex you experienced.
You know not what you do/say when you state that you’ll ‘have fun now and pay later’ = lol, you have no idea what may be in store for you with regards to consequence and I’d suggest: Not tempt ‘fate’, meaning not attempt to play ‘god’ over and of consequence.
Can saying NO to promiscuous invitations, be labelled as "pre-programmed" or "fixed to one person out of fear of losing that one person"?
C’mon, please – SELF-HONESTY, with regards to your question:
Can saying NO to promiscuous invitations, be labelled as "pre-programmed"
No, it’s about self-honesty or self-dishonesty:
It’s a moment of self-honesty or self-dishonesty with regards to ‘promiscuous-invitations’ – who you are in that moment?
Are you going to accept/allow yourself to ‘follow and fall-into’ your own pre-designed patterns of desire, want and need – seeing your own self-interest as ‘more than’ or ‘better than’ Life itself in consideration of all as one as equal – or are you going to stand as the Principle in consideration of all as one as equal here? Simple = and you have no excuse.
"fixed to one person out of fear of losing that one person"?
Again Here – self-honesty A.J – naturally, if you’re walking with another being and ‘fear of losing’ the being exist – it’s self-dishonesty as that one singular accepted and allowed point reveal ‘emotional and feeling attachments’ to/towards the other and thus indicate that you’re still walking in and as ‘relationship’ to/towards the other = which is separation and not walking in and as Agreement equal and one Here – because, if ‘fear of loss’ exist, separation exist and therefore not an equal and one expression with another as you.
Understand, that – ‘Agreement’ is not ‘fixed to one person-definition’ – ‘Agreement’ is where two beings walk together in assisting and supporting each other unconditionally to develop self-intimacy, self-honesty and self-expression in living the Principle here to walk as Life equal and one Here – from within the Agreement – you ‘approach’ your world and others as you in self honesty equal and one as you – the Agreement is the stable-foundation within and as which you stand with and as another to walk this Life.
When you realise/see that you’re experiencing ‘fear of loss’ – you simply self-direct you in self-responsibility and sort you out, with regards to identifying what ‘program-design’ of past-experiences/memory is perpetuating this idea of ‘fear of loss’ and stop you from existing within such an accepted and allowed fear and stand equal and one with and as the being you’re walking with in agreement.
If you’re in a relationship with the being and fear of loss governs you – naturally, you’ll have to ‘lose the being’ – you’re manifesting it – to realise, that you cannot ‘lose’ anyone = they’re you.
after all, spontaneous moment by moment living can give 2 cents about agreements, can have a different sex partner for each moment, is possible, and why not, no pre-programs, no preconditions, no past, and just this being for this moment, and the next being for next moment voila.
No – this statement would be another form of justification to validate your want, need and desire for self-satisfaction and self-gratification within self-interest –exactly as justifying having various different partners and promiscuous living as being ‘self-directive living’ = you can find various ways of justifying your actions to validate your own self-interest.
Again, here – you’re defining spontaneity, living moment by moment according to and towards an action/experience to/towards something or someone = which is separation and not as a self-directive self-expression here as all as one as equal as who you are.
So, with regards to your question = see entire discussion above.