"Works on women too. (Didn’t even have to read the article to know this , since the title holds a lot of truth… but there’s always more of that too)"
And then "Fred" posted a reply to that saying...
"Uhhh women aren’t killing and raping men and children because of their repressed sexuality the way men are. It’s not comparable at all!"
Which I get an email from, but can't find here at all... but ok.
Let me elaborate on things that seem obvious to me, but apparently need further explanation regarding meaning.
Yes... they ARE comparable. every human can be turned in evil through sexual repression... that the evil expresses itself differently due to different enablements is but natural , and that difference is important.
We can agree both men and women can be horribly sexually repressed? And to think that women can't become evil is just naive and dangerous , and horribly sexist. Poisoning, crfeating accidents, sabotage, gossip and orchestrations of all of the above are quite common you know...
You can just stop being sexist about it (because that's actually being part of this mechanism) ... replace all references to "men" and "women" with "humans" , and it's all equally true.
You can debate statistics about it all yo want... but denying women can be evil , is just so deranged that it's an obvious sign of having become a usefull idiot of that very seuxal operssion you can't seem to escape.
Stockholm syndrome victims turning into abusers.
If you can't see how many abusive mothers are out there punishing their sons and daughters for the sexual opression they suffered themselves... You're obiovusly defunct and a danger to society , since you enable all of this each and every day , exemplified by your opinion about it that you can only defend with passive agressive ignorance... exactly an important part of sexual opression tactics.
I totally agree that repression is very unhealthy. However, even in a world of minimal repression and no religion, there would still be a lot of very frustrated dudes who sometimes turn to violence or other forms of intrusion against women, because they aren’t getting any - because of physical appearance, or deficiency in charm, or history of not getting any.
I know, from personal experience as a young man, that a history of not getting any is a dark path that feeds on itself. I wasn’t religious in the slightest, rejected all of that as a young teenager. But patterns feed into self-image, and as you illustrate, desire doesn’t just go away for most younger people.
I’ve been thinking lately that the force of human sexuality is another unfortunate facet of our existence. I truly believe that the world would be a better place if sexual desire, “normal” or “abnormal”, were somehow dialed down about 50% in our physiology. Think of all the child sexual abuse, failed relationships due to infidelity, and on and on.
I don't know. I think there's a correlative entitlement that men have for women's bodies. There's the repression, but there's also the traditions that lock women into servitude in the home. Among men I know, there's a strong belief that you are owed a woman for being a man, and that you are somehow wronged for not having one. Sometimes it's the lesbian removing women from the "dating market," and other times it's the trans woman who violated the rules altogether.
And I believe that comes from the very same sexual repression. The men who "don't get any" are usually emotionally stunted and dangerous. They don't know how to navigate their desires in a collaborative and joyful way. They're the sort of guys who get upset when you don't "put out" or when you "lead them on." They just lack the ability to have relationships with women, who are sexual creatures themselves, that truly sees them as equal parts. If they did have that ability, "getting some" would be rather easy.
The only animus I had towards women I knew as a young man was a lot of eye-rolling when I saw some of the guys they did date or hook up with. I knew those guys, some real turds. Part of my growth was realizing that women are just as susceptible to shallow attraction - based on men’s appearance, suaveness, direction their careers seem to be heading, etc. - as men are. We’re all rookies and battered by nature’s chemicals and social training, especially in early life. Despite all this, I mostly blamed myself as inadequate, which turned out to be very wrong as well as caustic. And being on the consensual giving and receiving end of a little bit of shallow attraction would have taken a lot of the edge off - psychologically as well as physically - which I view as a grim reality of the human condition.
Not all “incels” are malevolent. Many just didn’t have a good set of experiences in childhood and adolescent years, leading to poor self-image and despair. Like I said, all this unfortunately self-perpetuates.
That’s a just so story. In my experience, men who don’t get any are often just shy, or have enough autism or autism-adjacent traits that they have trouble getting on with people in general. In one case, a guy I know has a crippling speech impediment that pretty much makes dating impossible for him.
And I know guys I consider significantly worse than the above examples that had no problems getting sex and girlfriends.
Men not getting any being emotionally stunted and dangerous is post hoc rationalisation. Ironically exactly the same logic that fuels anti trans bigotry (they're all mentally ill, they're serials killers etc). Its all fine to be honest I don't care but just reminds me why I'm so checked out of society writ large
There is also a correlative entitlement that women have for men's bodies via protection/strength. Women are not owed a strong man they look up to just by having a vagina.
And yet a man will rarely ever take estrogen or some other libido killer. Always an excuse. In fact, we’ve got all these drugs and treatments meant to make male sexuality even worse.
'I truly believe that the world would be a better place if sexual desire, “normal” or “abnormal”, were somehow dialed down about 50% in our physiology.'
Birth rates are already low enough! But I get where you're coming from.
Nice essay overall. I always thought the whole desire-is-sinful thing was kind of dumb; better to just relieve the extra energy through masturbation, nobody gets hurt and apparently it decreases your risk of prostate cancer.
JG Miller and Julia Norman have articulated one set of objections, the feminist ones.
I think you also ought to consider, say, Scott Aaronson about the feminist version of this. Here's the famous (in certain circles) Comment 171 for reference: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=2091#comment-326664 Also feminist concepts like the 'male gaze', etc. The people being against sexy stuff are mostly on the left now, which given my age I find kind of ironic.
I had spent a handful of years off and on Literotica, and the top conversationalists in my inbox were older, married men who were effectively sexless. They were there trying so hard to cope with a need that society would NOT let them meet without their wives' participation and/or permission. They were HURTING and ashamed. My heart broke for them every time. I couldn't give what they wanted from me; the best I could be was someone to talk to. But when I explained I'd seen this pattern over and over and over again, that I could see the behaviors and the signs, they would always open up. Conversations stopped being about trying to have some kind of remote sex and became conversations around gratitude, for not making them feel like they were the biggest assholes in the world. And to a man, none of them WANTED to leave their wives. And none of these men was TAKING it from their wives without consent, either (and in today's discourse, I think that's critical to say). But they felt completely trapped, and there was a quiet hopeless and resignation that... talking dirty in an erotic literature forum, maybe finding a jerkmate, was all they had left.
Flip it over; it's not their wives' responsibility to meet this need. BUT, and here's where society fucks us all, if a need cannot ... CANNOT ... be met inside the marriage, should we not offer a consenting and transparent way to get it from OUTSIDE the marriage? It's never healthy to expect a partner to meet all your needs. That's a recipe for disaster. But why is sex excluded from this?
It doesn't have to be this way. But this is the way it is.
This was so humanizing, thank you for writing this Clara.
You’re 100% right—if sexual needs cannot be met inside the marriage, then society’s answer seems to be… celibacy. Or more likely, get the needs met secretly which brings all kinds of guilt and shame into the equation.
I’ve been reading a book, Sex at Dawn, that talks about this. They’ve made the connection between patriarchy and this rigid, almost puritanical perspective on sex that leaves everyone deeply disappointed.
it just feels like.. we’re setting everyone up for failure.
No, sexuality is not like hunger. If you refuse to eat, you will just get hungrier and sicker until you die. If you refuse to fap, your balls aren’t going to explode. Sexual desire is a response to stimuli, and if you rid yourself of the stimuli or focus on other things you’ll notice that it does not build up until it explodes. Before recently, there simply wasn’t much temptation. Sure, women existed, but they were hard to access, and probably a bit uglier and certainly less hygienic than today. Porn was hard to come by, and lower quality. Today, half of the internet is dedicated to pornography, and it’s available in a thousand different varieties at the snap of your fingers.
Appealing to Jung and Paglia is about as productive to the discourse as appealing to the orientation of the stars or the creases on one’s palm, but even Jung recognized that asceticism was only bad when mismanaged. Augustine followed from a long line of Greco-Roman philosophers and sages who simply recognized that hedonic pleasures were fleeting and unproductive as an end in-themselves. This means avoiding them when they don’t serve their purpose. That’s not just limited to sex, but also food and drink and any luxury. If anything, he was pretty lax on it compared to a Buddhist or a Cathar.
So, just offering these ridiculous babies another excuse to whine. Give me a huge personal break. I don’t think this needs a lot of psychological dissecting. Men like sex and they think it’s their “right.” They’ll whine if they don’t get it or they’ll go out and rape and pillage. It’s historical because they’re “allowed.” Control yourselves boys. Judges, start handing out definitive sentences instead of thinking”boys will be boys.” Women, learn karate.
Kept waiting for Foucault to come up! If you haven't read History of Sexuality, I think you'd love it and it would enrich your already compelling argument/help close the gaps on how we got here and how it works on a systems level.
For generations men only had sex with women they owned and who served them in subjegation and humiliation, and whom they disrespected because of that. It is not remotely shocking that things aren't going well. Long term relationships between men and women are not a good idea.
When they're taught to hate everything about the other half of our species their whole lives.. When the worst thing they could be was like a girl.
When every insult used for a man is actually an insult to his mother: son of a bitch, bastard, motherfucker.
With all that hatred of women and mothers: How can they be expected to actually like us?
Also they're supposed to be having recreational sex with each other. Design says that because evolution thought to stick their g-spot in their assholes... A place we are not naturally equipped to reach....
I like the essay, but I think it contains a misunderstanding on the shadow. Shadow urges are actually a distortion of the underlying core urge, and integrating the shadow is not about finding a way to express shadow urges directly. In the case of the conservative with an out of control sissy dom fetish, integrating the shadow is probably about dropping the macho tough guy persona, becoming emotionally vulnerable, and developing his artistic side. Integrating the anima, in short. Once successful, the sissy dom fetish will not be there anymore.
One of Best examples and cases on how a Man becomes an Incel is the George Sodini case. Google it. Look up Documentaries and Podcasts about him. You can literally get a full glimpse into his mind and psyche. Because he blogged frequently and showed viral videos of his life,his house and his career. Sodini had a Brilliant mind, but complete unchecked Narcissism.
You're completely right about sexual shame, I will give you that.
However, you missed an entire dynamic in this discourse: Redirection.
Sexual energy, male dominance, is how empires are built and burned in the first place. When men are able to direct their libido towards conquest, be it sexual, financial, or survival, that is when you give libido its full proper place.
Young man > Young woman > craving > dominance > procreation.
Men have been stripped of PURPOSE. That's the other side of the coin.
I believe the medium in this case is to put the beauty of the masculine and feminine figures back in their respective places. Namely through lost arts: Sculpture. Painting. Making and building things.
So I posted a reply to this saying..
"Works on women too. (Didn’t even have to read the article to know this , since the title holds a lot of truth… but there’s always more of that too)"
And then "Fred" posted a reply to that saying...
"Uhhh women aren’t killing and raping men and children because of their repressed sexuality the way men are. It’s not comparable at all!"
Which I get an email from, but can't find here at all... but ok.
Let me elaborate on things that seem obvious to me, but apparently need further explanation regarding meaning.
Yes... they ARE comparable. every human can be turned in evil through sexual repression... that the evil expresses itself differently due to different enablements is but natural , and that difference is important.
We can agree both men and women can be horribly sexually repressed? And to think that women can't become evil is just naive and dangerous , and horribly sexist. Poisoning, crfeating accidents, sabotage, gossip and orchestrations of all of the above are quite common you know...
You can just stop being sexist about it (because that's actually being part of this mechanism) ... replace all references to "men" and "women" with "humans" , and it's all equally true.
You can debate statistics about it all yo want... but denying women can be evil , is just so deranged that it's an obvious sign of having become a usefull idiot of that very seuxal operssion you can't seem to escape.
Stockholm syndrome victims turning into abusers.
If you can't see how many abusive mothers are out there punishing their sons and daughters for the sexual opression they suffered themselves... You're obiovusly defunct and a danger to society , since you enable all of this each and every day , exemplified by your opinion about it that you can only defend with passive agressive ignorance... exactly an important part of sexual opression tactics.
Yes... it compares... very well even.
I totally agree that repression is very unhealthy. However, even in a world of minimal repression and no religion, there would still be a lot of very frustrated dudes who sometimes turn to violence or other forms of intrusion against women, because they aren’t getting any - because of physical appearance, or deficiency in charm, or history of not getting any.
I know, from personal experience as a young man, that a history of not getting any is a dark path that feeds on itself. I wasn’t religious in the slightest, rejected all of that as a young teenager. But patterns feed into self-image, and as you illustrate, desire doesn’t just go away for most younger people.
I’ve been thinking lately that the force of human sexuality is another unfortunate facet of our existence. I truly believe that the world would be a better place if sexual desire, “normal” or “abnormal”, were somehow dialed down about 50% in our physiology. Think of all the child sexual abuse, failed relationships due to infidelity, and on and on.
I don't know. I think there's a correlative entitlement that men have for women's bodies. There's the repression, but there's also the traditions that lock women into servitude in the home. Among men I know, there's a strong belief that you are owed a woman for being a man, and that you are somehow wronged for not having one. Sometimes it's the lesbian removing women from the "dating market," and other times it's the trans woman who violated the rules altogether.
And I believe that comes from the very same sexual repression. The men who "don't get any" are usually emotionally stunted and dangerous. They don't know how to navigate their desires in a collaborative and joyful way. They're the sort of guys who get upset when you don't "put out" or when you "lead them on." They just lack the ability to have relationships with women, who are sexual creatures themselves, that truly sees them as equal parts. If they did have that ability, "getting some" would be rather easy.
Source: I'm a trans woman.
The only animus I had towards women I knew as a young man was a lot of eye-rolling when I saw some of the guys they did date or hook up with. I knew those guys, some real turds. Part of my growth was realizing that women are just as susceptible to shallow attraction - based on men’s appearance, suaveness, direction their careers seem to be heading, etc. - as men are. We’re all rookies and battered by nature’s chemicals and social training, especially in early life. Despite all this, I mostly blamed myself as inadequate, which turned out to be very wrong as well as caustic. And being on the consensual giving and receiving end of a little bit of shallow attraction would have taken a lot of the edge off - psychologically as well as physically - which I view as a grim reality of the human condition.
Not all “incels” are malevolent. Many just didn’t have a good set of experiences in childhood and adolescent years, leading to poor self-image and despair. Like I said, all this unfortunately self-perpetuates.
That’s a just so story. In my experience, men who don’t get any are often just shy, or have enough autism or autism-adjacent traits that they have trouble getting on with people in general. In one case, a guy I know has a crippling speech impediment that pretty much makes dating impossible for him.
And I know guys I consider significantly worse than the above examples that had no problems getting sex and girlfriends.
Men not getting any being emotionally stunted and dangerous is post hoc rationalisation. Ironically exactly the same logic that fuels anti trans bigotry (they're all mentally ill, they're serials killers etc). Its all fine to be honest I don't care but just reminds me why I'm so checked out of society writ large
There is also a correlative entitlement that women have for men's bodies via protection/strength. Women are not owed a strong man they look up to just by having a vagina.
Yeah, and many don't want that. That's a man's fantasy of a woman. Have you talked to many?
Are you one of those woman?
No.
And yet a man will rarely ever take estrogen or some other libido killer. Always an excuse. In fact, we’ve got all these drugs and treatments meant to make male sexuality even worse.
'I truly believe that the world would be a better place if sexual desire, “normal” or “abnormal”, were somehow dialed down about 50% in our physiology.'
Birth rates are already low enough! But I get where you're coming from.
Nice essay overall. I always thought the whole desire-is-sinful thing was kind of dumb; better to just relieve the extra energy through masturbation, nobody gets hurt and apparently it decreases your risk of prostate cancer.
JG Miller and Julia Norman have articulated one set of objections, the feminist ones.
I think you also ought to consider, say, Scott Aaronson about the feminist version of this. Here's the famous (in certain circles) Comment 171 for reference: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=2091#comment-326664 Also feminist concepts like the 'male gaze', etc. The people being against sexy stuff are mostly on the left now, which given my age I find kind of ironic.
I had spent a handful of years off and on Literotica, and the top conversationalists in my inbox were older, married men who were effectively sexless. They were there trying so hard to cope with a need that society would NOT let them meet without their wives' participation and/or permission. They were HURTING and ashamed. My heart broke for them every time. I couldn't give what they wanted from me; the best I could be was someone to talk to. But when I explained I'd seen this pattern over and over and over again, that I could see the behaviors and the signs, they would always open up. Conversations stopped being about trying to have some kind of remote sex and became conversations around gratitude, for not making them feel like they were the biggest assholes in the world. And to a man, none of them WANTED to leave their wives. And none of these men was TAKING it from their wives without consent, either (and in today's discourse, I think that's critical to say). But they felt completely trapped, and there was a quiet hopeless and resignation that... talking dirty in an erotic literature forum, maybe finding a jerkmate, was all they had left.
Flip it over; it's not their wives' responsibility to meet this need. BUT, and here's where society fucks us all, if a need cannot ... CANNOT ... be met inside the marriage, should we not offer a consenting and transparent way to get it from OUTSIDE the marriage? It's never healthy to expect a partner to meet all your needs. That's a recipe for disaster. But why is sex excluded from this?
It doesn't have to be this way. But this is the way it is.
This was so humanizing, thank you for writing this Clara.
You’re 100% right—if sexual needs cannot be met inside the marriage, then society’s answer seems to be… celibacy. Or more likely, get the needs met secretly which brings all kinds of guilt and shame into the equation.
I’ve been reading a book, Sex at Dawn, that talks about this. They’ve made the connection between patriarchy and this rigid, almost puritanical perspective on sex that leaves everyone deeply disappointed.
it just feels like.. we’re setting everyone up for failure.
No, sexuality is not like hunger. If you refuse to eat, you will just get hungrier and sicker until you die. If you refuse to fap, your balls aren’t going to explode. Sexual desire is a response to stimuli, and if you rid yourself of the stimuli or focus on other things you’ll notice that it does not build up until it explodes. Before recently, there simply wasn’t much temptation. Sure, women existed, but they were hard to access, and probably a bit uglier and certainly less hygienic than today. Porn was hard to come by, and lower quality. Today, half of the internet is dedicated to pornography, and it’s available in a thousand different varieties at the snap of your fingers.
Appealing to Jung and Paglia is about as productive to the discourse as appealing to the orientation of the stars or the creases on one’s palm, but even Jung recognized that asceticism was only bad when mismanaged. Augustine followed from a long line of Greco-Roman philosophers and sages who simply recognized that hedonic pleasures were fleeting and unproductive as an end in-themselves. This means avoiding them when they don’t serve their purpose. That’s not just limited to sex, but also food and drink and any luxury. If anything, he was pretty lax on it compared to a Buddhist or a Cathar.
Absolutely excellent article I will be thinking about for days. And you are also very funny which I love.
So, just offering these ridiculous babies another excuse to whine. Give me a huge personal break. I don’t think this needs a lot of psychological dissecting. Men like sex and they think it’s their “right.” They’ll whine if they don’t get it or they’ll go out and rape and pillage. It’s historical because they’re “allowed.” Control yourselves boys. Judges, start handing out definitive sentences instead of thinking”boys will be boys.” Women, learn karate.
Karate is highly ineffective. Learn martial arts from MMA. They've been selected for effectiveness. Muay Thai, Jiu Jitsu and wrestling.
Fundamentalist Christianity strikes again.
When are we going to start treating it like the pox it is?
I’m sure Islam is much more open, right? Men so repressed they hide their women from view in literal bodybags.
But what was the post about
Interesting. It is indeed a ghastly prayer
We want what we want...and repressing it just leads to a lot of misery and unhappiness.
It will come out side ways...sometimes it's harmless, most of the time it's not.
Getting really honest with yourself is essential because then you can work with that desire consciously.
Kept waiting for Foucault to come up! If you haven't read History of Sexuality, I think you'd love it and it would enrich your already compelling argument/help close the gaps on how we got here and how it works on a systems level.
For generations men only had sex with women they owned and who served them in subjegation and humiliation, and whom they disrespected because of that. It is not remotely shocking that things aren't going well. Long term relationships between men and women are not a good idea.
Right?!
When they're taught to hate everything about the other half of our species their whole lives.. When the worst thing they could be was like a girl.
When every insult used for a man is actually an insult to his mother: son of a bitch, bastard, motherfucker.
With all that hatred of women and mothers: How can they be expected to actually like us?
Also they're supposed to be having recreational sex with each other. Design says that because evolution thought to stick their g-spot in their assholes... A place we are not naturally equipped to reach....
But other men are.. 😏😂
That is an excellent appeal to nature ma'am love it!!
I feel that this article of a woman complaining about something, then proffering the exact opposite of a good solution.
I like the essay, but I think it contains a misunderstanding on the shadow. Shadow urges are actually a distortion of the underlying core urge, and integrating the shadow is not about finding a way to express shadow urges directly. In the case of the conservative with an out of control sissy dom fetish, integrating the shadow is probably about dropping the macho tough guy persona, becoming emotionally vulnerable, and developing his artistic side. Integrating the anima, in short. Once successful, the sissy dom fetish will not be there anymore.
One of Best examples and cases on how a Man becomes an Incel is the George Sodini case. Google it. Look up Documentaries and Podcasts about him. You can literally get a full glimpse into his mind and psyche. Because he blogged frequently and showed viral videos of his life,his house and his career. Sodini had a Brilliant mind, but complete unchecked Narcissism.
https://abcnews.com/Health/MindMoodNews/story?id=8267603&page=1
You're completely right about sexual shame, I will give you that.
However, you missed an entire dynamic in this discourse: Redirection.
Sexual energy, male dominance, is how empires are built and burned in the first place. When men are able to direct their libido towards conquest, be it sexual, financial, or survival, that is when you give libido its full proper place.
Young man > Young woman > craving > dominance > procreation.
Men have been stripped of PURPOSE. That's the other side of the coin.
I believe the medium in this case is to put the beauty of the masculine and feminine figures back in their respective places. Namely through lost arts: Sculpture. Painting. Making and building things.