Male sexual conduct and the testosterone curse

[stroopwafel]

I'm a big fan of Leon Seltzer, a psychotherapist with a razor sharp mind. Considering all the controversy with sexual misconduct by Hollywood bigshots and enduring miscommunication between men and women this blog post in Psychology Today is still very actual, and I think strikes at the heart of the male condition and both reframes their hormonal grief and responsibilty to empathize with female concerns. Acknowledging the only way forward is compassion through understanding. I think that is a better alternative than what radical feminists or raging misogynists try to advocate, as both misses the psychosocial and evolutionary heart of the matter.

''Testosterone, by inducing a biological urge that sooner or later demands expression, literally guarantees the survival of the species. In that sense, at least, it must be regarded positively. Yet, given the constraints of civilization and the nature of the human psyche, it also guarantees enormous frustration and grief?and probably as much for men as for women. So it's to be lamented as well.''

''It may be something akin to a person in the throes of starvation, whose thoughts and feelings center wholly on food. Painfully deprived of an essential need, the desperate quest for sustenance overrules all other considerations. And in extreme cases, it can even lead to cannibalism. The expression "hunger has no conscience" poignantly characterizes such urgency. Here ?higher? ethical considerations simply drop out as irrelevant; immaterial. They?re simply extraneous to the excruciating ache of starvation.

''Returning to males? unruly organ of desire, though we might be thankful that their "biological imperative" is so unrestrainable as to offer the most powerful guarantee against extinction, their lustful predilections also warrant appreciation as something like an ?unearned? moral curse on their gender. For their sexual propensities seriously undermine their ethical evolution?and in a way that women are simply less vulnerable to.''


https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/evolution-the-self/201711/male-sexual-misconduct-and-the-testosterone-curse

 

[Trunkage]

So... men think with their dicks?

Edit: Also male biological clock

 

[Saelune]

What is your purpose with this topic exactly?

 

[stroopwafel]

So... men think with their dicks?

Ehmmm..bit more complicated than that but yeah, basically.

What is your purpose with this topic exactly?

Counterpoint to the cliches that get repeated all the time.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Present the body of clinical evidence demonstrating a causative link between testosterone, violent crime, and sexual assault, please.

[Psst, it doesn't exist. Believe me, I've looked, and the closest I've ever found are a handful of studies that show already-institutionalized violent criminals have, on average, higher T-levels than the normal range for men. But, this could be the consequence of surrounding social factors and lifestyle habits while imprisoned, and by no means is correlation causation.

The correlation between T-levels and sexual assault are interesting though. There's a weak correlation between T-levels and violent sexual assault, but no correlation between T-levels and non-violent sexual assault.

Now, there are the studies showing causation between anabolic steroid use and violent acts, but anabolic steroids aren't testosterone.]

 

[stroopwafel]

Present the body of clinical evidence demonstrating a causative link between testosterone, violent crime, and sexual assault, please.

Ehmmm..take one look at the male to female incarceration rates?

 

[Trunkage]

So... men think with their dicks?

Ehmmm..bit more complicated than that but yeah, basically.

What is your purpose with this topic exactly?

Counterpoint to the cliches that get repeated all the time.

Yeah, I don't know about counterpoint. Feminists have been saying this sort of stuff for years, making sure that 'men take responsibility for the actions' or that the rapist is at fault for a rape, not the victim.

Or am I just reading this wrong

 

[Trunkage]

Present the body of clinical evidence demonstrating a causative link between testosterone, violent crime, and sexual assault, please.

Ehmmm..take one look at the male to female incarceration rates?

Could possibly be societal. Or more likely both.

 

[stroopwafel]

So... men think with their dicks?

Ehmmm..bit more complicated than that but yeah, basically.

What is your purpose with this topic exactly?

Counterpoint to the cliches that get repeated all the time.

Yeah, I don't know about counterpoint. Feminists have been saying this sort of stuff for years, making sure that 'men take responsibility for the actions' or that the rapist is at fault for a rape, not the victim.

Or am I just reading this wrong

Did you read the entire article? It goes at great lengths explaining how sexual conduct originates in the first place(including excess under certain circumstances), rather than repeating the same ideological mantras that merely condemn males. That is a big difference.

 

[stroopwafel]

Present the body of clinical evidence demonstrating a causative link between testosterone, violent crime, and sexual assault, please.

Ehmmm..take one look at the male to female incarceration rates?

Could possibly be societal. Or more likely both.

Societal? In every country of the world? Ehmmm..no.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Ehmmm..take one look at the male to female incarceration rates?

How about arrest, prosecution, and conviction rates, and gender disparities in sentencing severity? You're conflating societal factors with the actual point on which I'm challenging you, which is again to present the body of evidence demonstrating a causative link between testosterone serum levels, and violent crime and sexual assault. Defend the premise of your argument.

And if you want to take a good, hard look at incarceration rates as somehow indicative of differences which make a population biologically predisposed to crime, wanna look at racial disparities in incarceration rates? You really wanna go there?

 

[stroopwafel]

Ehmmm..take one look at the male to female incarceration rates?

How about arrest, prosecution, and conviction rates, and gender disparities in sentencing severity? You're conflating societal factors with the actual point on which I'm challenging you, which is again to present the body of evidence demonstrating a causative link between testosterone serum levels, and violent crime and sexual assault. Defend the premise of your argument.

And if you want to take a good, hard look at incarceration rates as somehow indicative of differences which make a population biologically predisposed to crime, wanna look at racial disparities in incarceration rates? You really wanna go there?

I don't know what you are trying to provoke here. Do you really want me to paraphrase scientific studies to 'prove' that in every country of the world pretty much only men get convicted for violent crime and that the only common denominator is testosterone?

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I don't know what you are trying to provoke here. Do you really want me to paraphrase scientific studies to 'prove' that in every country of the world pretty much only men get convicted for violent crime and that the only common denominator is testosterone?

Yes, that would be how satisfying the burden of proof works. You make a statement, someone asks you to support that statement with evidence, and you either provide it and your point stands, or you don't and your point can be discarded. In this case you're making an argument that testosterone biologically predisposes men to violence and sexual assault, thus satisfying the burden of proof would be demonstrating a causative link between testosterone levels, violent crime, and sexual assault. Otherwise, your argument can and rightfully should be discarded as pseudoscience.

Now show the evidence.

 

[Trunkage]

So... men think with their dicks?

Ehmmm..bit more complicated than that but yeah, basically.

What is your purpose with this topic exactly?

Counterpoint to the cliches that get repeated all the time.

Yeah, I don't know about counterpoint. Feminists have been saying this sort of stuff for years, making sure that 'men take responsibility for the actions' or that the rapist is at fault for a rape, not the victim.

Or am I just reading this wrong

Did you read the entire article? It goes at great lengths explaining how sexual conduct originates in the first place(including excess under certain circumstances), rather than repeating the same ideological mantras that merely condemn males. That is a big difference.

No, i read what you quoted. I gathered that was the important bit. I'll put some time aside later.

Let's take an example. The peep shower show scene from Revenge of the Nerds (or your choosen peep scene.) There is the idea from the time that this is just a typical male thing to do. Feminists say that, despite your sexual desires, you shouldn't do this. So this feminist perspective can be seen as attacking males. We should just eliminate it? And all ideas that could possibly be seen as attacking males?

 

[stroopwafel]

I don't know what you are trying to provoke here. Do you really want me to paraphrase scientific studies to 'prove' that in every country of the world pretty much only men get convicted for violent crime and that the only common denominator is testosterone?

Yes, that would be how satisfying the burden of proof works. You make a statement, someone asks you to support that statement with evidence, and you either provide it and your point stands, or you don't and your point can be discarded. In this case you're making an argument that testosterone biologically predisposes men to violence and sexual assault, thus satisfying the burden of proof would be demonstrating a causative link between testosterone levels, violent crime, and sexual assault. Otherwise, your argument can and rightfully should be discarded as pseudoscience.

The proof is in the pudding. Or rather, the testosterone in this case. Next time you demand proof that you shit from your asshole.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

The proof is in the pudding. Or rather, the testosterone in this case. Next time you demand proof that you shit from your asshole.

So, like Seltzer, who in his article(s) did not cite a single scientific study to support his claims, you have absolutely nothing to support this theory and are arguing pseudoscience. So, I guess we're done here.

 

[stroopwafel]

So... men think with their dicks?

Ehmmm..bit more complicated than that but yeah, basically.

What is your purpose with this topic exactly?

Counterpoint to the cliches that get repeated all the time.

Yeah, I don't know about counterpoint. Feminists have been saying this sort of stuff for years, making sure that 'men take responsibility for the actions' or that the rapist is at fault for a rape, not the victim.

Or am I just reading this wrong

Did you read the entire article? It goes at great lengths explaining how sexual conduct originates in the first place(including excess under certain circumstances), rather than repeating the same ideological mantras that merely condemn males. That is a big difference.

No, i read what you quoted. I gathered that was the important bit. I'll put some time aside later.

Let's take an example. The peep shower show scene from Revenge of the Nerds (or your choosen peep scene.) There is the idea from the time that this is just a typical male thing to do. Feminists say that, despite your sexual desires, you shouldn't do this. So this feminist perspective can be seen as attacking males. We should just eliminate it? And all ideas that could possibly be seen as attacking males?

Not attacking, but passing moral judgement. The peepshow maybe being an outlet for their urges, so yeah, a 'male thing to do'. From this feminist perspective they take no effort understanding why these males watch peepshows in the first place, rather they employ their ideology to pass moral judgement without consideration for male hormonal struggles, which is the opposite of empathy.

This doesn't exempt men ofcourse from not respecting the boundaries of women but this isn't the case with peepshows. The women here deliver a service(by their own volition) the men make use of. The feminists that condemn males for making use of the service are merely making an ideological statement with disregard for the reasons of these males, namely being hormonal urges they perhaps regrettably have no other outlet for and for which women are largely spared by having both less testosterone and the luxury of choice most males don't have. So it's also easy to 'judge' from such a position, like the rich blaming the poor. Every consensual act between men and women(whether preceded by a financial transaction or not) should not be condemned.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

So... men think with their dicks?

Ehmmm..bit more complicated than that but yeah, basically.

What is your purpose with this topic exactly?

Counterpoint to the cliches that get repeated all the time.

Yeah, I don't know about counterpoint. Feminists have been saying this sort of stuff for years, making sure that 'men take responsibility for the actions' or that the rapist is at fault for a rape, not the victim.

Or am I just reading this wrong

Did you read the entire article? It goes at great lengths explaining how sexual conduct originates in the first place(including excess under certain circumstances), rather than repeating the same ideological mantras that merely condemn males. That is a big difference.

No, i read what you quoted. I gathered that was the important bit. I'll put some time aside later.

Let's take an example. The peep shower show scene from Revenge of the Nerds (or your choosen peep scene.) There is the idea from the time that this is just a typical male thing to do. Feminists say that, despite your sexual desires, you shouldn't do this. So this feminist perspective can be seen as attacking males. We should just eliminate it? And all ideas that could possibly be seen as attacking males?

Not attacking, but passing moral judgement. The peepshow maybe being an outlet for their urges, so yeah, a 'male thing to do'. From this feminist perspective they take no effort understanding why these males watch peepshows in the first place, rather they employ their ideology to pass moral judgement without consideration for male hormonal struggles, which is the opposite of empathy.

This doesn't exempt men ofcourse from not respecting the boundaries of women but this isn't the case with peepshows. The women here deliver a service(by their own volition) the men make use of. The feminists that condemn males for making use of the service are merely making an ideological statement with disregard for the reasons of these males, namely being hormonal urges they perhaps regrettably have no other outlet for and for which women are largely spared by having both less testosterone and the luxury of choice most males don't have. So it's also easy to 'judge' from such a position, like the rich blaming the poor. Every consensual act between men and women(whether preceded by a financial transaction or not) should not be condemned.

Gotta get past the second wave feminism. Unless you're talking to SWERFs, actual consensual sexual activity isn't looked down on anymore by feminism.

As long as it's actually consensual and non-coercive, of course.

 

[SupahEwok]

What

Jesus, just jerk it in private to let your "frustrations" out

This isn't hard

 

[Wintermute_v1legacy]

I really don't know anything about the subject and I only skimmed the article, and while I can agree with the biological point of view of disseminating that glorious virile sperm, most regular people just "express" themselves by simply watching some porn, going to the bathroom and rubbing one out. They don't feel the need to grope, film, rape, or jizz all over some poor lady's arm on the bus. "Oh shit, sorry my testosterone levels are so high I can't control it, my cock is ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL".