TL:DR - Sexual instincts and sexual relationships are not just amoral, they in fact psychopathic and only stopped from going all the way by other needs and checks and balances, which are getting less and less important now.

There have been numerous articles about the reason why women fall for people with Dark Triad / psychopathic traits, with many pointing that they were once important survival traits. One thing is clear that qualities that seem psychopathic are needed in measured doses for Nice / Beta Guys and for things to happen consistently to high standards without compromises. It's another matter that some people might find simply saying "No" to be psychopathic and might not have the calibration to differentiate between that and being a Genghis Khan - in the outrage culture of social media, I see this utter calibration failure happening every day on any topic you can imagine.

I have had time to think about the whole amoral nature of sexuality - I've observed my own thoughts since puberty, have seen a lot of relationships in my circles, and been in a hell of a marriage, and have read the books at least once by now. And I've concluded that amoral isn't a strong enough adjective to cover our base instincts and emotions of survival, anger, hunger and sex - they're actually inherently psychopathic. There's a reason why they were called "base".

If one were to distill our sexual instinct and see it in it's purest form - separated from all the other things in a relationship - it's clear they're entirely need based and entirely based on objectification, work best when ultimately self centered on pleasure and intrinsically psychopathic for the sole purpose of passing on the best genes. (The criteria varies between genders, but otherwise it's objectification both ways). They're entirely transactional in nature.

It's only the oxytocin rush afterward that creates any bonding. That and a good dose of consciously cultivated awareness and virtue is actually what makes relationships something more - as humans, we've come a long way from the jungle life, and all of that is only because we've consciously cultivated ourselves to learn stuff like awareness, morality, inclusiveness, gratitude, helping others, devotion, push our limits, improvement and the like. All these 'virtues' are cultivated qualities - they are not intrinsic to our fundamental instincts.

We also have other needs from the people around us which serve other emotions and survival, so until recently, till contraception came along, we never had a prolonged period where we only needed the opposite sex for sex alone.

Now take away all that and see the sexual instinct bare for what it is -- what we're looking at is actually a very cold blooded biological transaction entirely based on mutual needs in "good" relationships (and entirely one sided needs in "bad" or abusive ones). When we read about sexual abuse on the one side, or divorce rape and the false rape accusations on the other side, we're just seeing the psychopathic nature of sexual relationships emerge, sans bonding or virtue or even basic awareness or inclusiveness.

Probably the most significant factor we've overlooked is the importance of survival. There's a saying that no one can eat like a man who's starving, and no one can sleep like a man who's exhausted. When we know that our survival depends on being with another person, we'd value it and put up with it - and fear for our own survival would create a natural level of dread and hunger in the relationship. Why people really cared wasn't because many of them were saints, but because it was driven by need.

Speaking of survival needs, we all have a need to trust. Trust is vital for survival of anything (even the economy runs on it), therefore we as humans have a genuine need for trust, which in my opinion can exceed the need for sex. Social sexual strategy of the monogamous marriage was therefore a best fit solution to all this and herd mentality gave a collective backing to it which impacted our conditioning, and even emotions. However, the sexual instinct is psychopathic enough that it doesn't care about trust. Sexual instincts are inherently untrustworthy.

Now survival is easy. Every woman would were "I don't need a man" like a badge of honor now. Unfortunately, because independence is not abundance, the drop in survival pressure has allowed the actual psychopathic nature of intersexual relationships to emerge widespread, whereas in the past they were confined only to abusive ones (of which there were plenty too. It has also exposed the fact that sexual qualities were never trustworthy at any time.

This combined which changing social standards, and a herd mentality that encourages psychopathic behaviour is why we see more and more women going that route and acting pretty ruthless in matters of sexual selection, because now the limiters are off,.

I also suggest that the near perfect time delayed correlation between the use of contraceptives and divorce rates is not due to social re-engineering, but actually because they disrupt the hormones necessary to keep up the cycle of bonding and attraction. This has removed the element of bonding from sexual relationships in women (but not in men) - which would actually explain many behaviors I observe in relationships where women seem to move on far more easily than men.

Further, the concept of morals, laws, standards, virtues - these are fundamentally logical and awareness based constructs. Mostly men made them in the past and this need for organization and regulation is a masculine trait. The feminine on the other hand, usually resorted to emotional measures in checks and balances by means of shaming and praising, concealing the nature of sexuality, making life difficult for those not part of the herd, social inclusion / exclusion, etc. So what happens in an environment where codes are down, and the herd is riding the feminist bandwagon? Emotions couldn't care less about logic, and more about what they want and feel.

Other relationships like siblings or parent-child or friendship, seem "less psychopathic" (in general) because they originate from infancy or simply because there are far fewer needs involved - there is a genuine amount of abundance in them which comes out simply because we don't have sexual needs from them. Out of all relationships, nothing is so particularly need based as sexual relationships. Therefore they would tend to be the most psychopathic of them all, were it not for other things. And they are.

This sounds obvious now - but actually to most of the people in the world, it isn't. If I had 10 dollars for every person who wondered why they aren't "loved", or why their partner doesn't "love them", or why their relationships have become bitter - I'd probably be the richest guy in the world by now.

The biggest mistake we've done to confuse ourselves (which I covered in another post) is to use one word "love" to describe an entire gamut of entirely different phenomena. If we had instead used words like "need", "companionship", "attraction", "devotion" or "abundance" or "sacrificial", the distinction would have been quite clear. In other languages there are different words for each emotional flavor and every relationship - older cultures always put sexual relationships and emotions in another category. By using one word for everything, we've sense lost the precise differences that characterize different relationships.

We've therefore, in the height of confusion, social conditioning and the rush of hormones, forgotten that sexual instincts are psychopathic, kept in check only by a combination of other needs and cultivated "virtues", and are rather shocked when those checks fall apart and we're faced with their bare reality.