Male sexual conduct and the testosterone curse

[Paragon Fury]

Human intelligence have nothing to do with it. True, we may have higher brain functions than a chimp but our existence is still governed by the same primal instincts that safeguards humans from becoming extinct. Which can give you an indication of how strong such a desire can be. As a cooperative species we are both social animals that require validation and acceptance and sexual affirmation which is part of that. The difference between animals and humans is that we possess a high degree of self-awareness that enables us reflection on our behavior and as such accountability. But this friction between mind and instinct can actually make these urges worse than an animal that relies solely on instict.

As a final, if somewhat unrelated, point: I find it very amusing that when (imaginary) feminists say that men are sex crazed beasts who can't control themselves that's terrible and they are man haters. When some psychologist frames it as a physiologically determined behavior that men must suffer, that's legit and we should respect that men can't control their sexual urges. See how the important part here isn't the message (which is nigh identical) but the messenger and framing?

Taking a stab in the dark here, but I'm pretty sure it has to do with tone and perceived intent.

Articles and discussions like this frame the debate as "Men have a biological need/desire that if poorly managed/neglected can led to many undesirable and harmful behaviors. This need is driven by natural biological functions and we shouldn't teach men that it's evil or they're wrong for having them or wanting to act on them. We should instead focus on helping them express it appropriately, control it when needed and making cultural changes that make it's expression easier, safer and more acceptable for everyone involved."

The "feminist" framing of the debate/problem more often than either comes off as or outright IS "Men are evil beings who attack innocent women because they can't control themselves and society doesn't make them. Everything about society is about catering to men's desire and this is unacceptable! Men should" [insert long diatribe about controlling themselves that absolves women of any responsibility in any kind of social/sexual interactions and ultimately blames men for being evil (and stupid) again] and things that we don't like or men enjoy should be taken away or censored!"

 

[Trunkage]

Also, are you asking people to not pass moral judgement on things? I can get behind not attacking people, but you are literally saying people shouldn't have beliefs (or at least express them.) Hard pass. People get to say how they feel. I personally would like to curb attacks but I recongnise that's an uphill battle

I have nothing against beliefs but most of the time they are insincere, surrogate behaviors projected on the ego. It is the reason why people change beliefs so easily when their personality changes or when time passes. People create for themselves an identity within a larger social structure based on individual experiences and subjective interpretation through external validation(that runs the entire gamut from constructive social organization to hate groups).

Say people are frustrated by legitimate reasons(maybe repeated rejection or thwarted sexual needs aggravated by hormonal grief) rather than accept vulnerability through self-compassion and empathy the ego goes into self-defense mode and start to externally project the grief as ideology or rather false belief. And like I said every belief requires external validation and this is the source of the misoginy we see on the internet. Doesn't excuse it, doesn't make it right, but the source behind the belief as ego projection is still the internal struggle, which itself deserves compassion. And while I definitely don't think this psychosocial struggle is culturally determined, the flight into defensive ego and surrogate belief definitely is.

On the opposite side feminism misses this internal conflict completely, which is why no matter how many 'waves' of feminism we get the issue of how genders should relate to one another will never be resolved. It might formally and organizationally(egual rights, sexual misconduct being a felony act etc) but not biologically or psychosexually that, and I'll stress it again, in no way gives men a free pass for sexual excess but that feminism also denies having a biological basis, leading to internal conflict and blaming men themselves for their hormonal urges by not being 'entitled' to anything(which is true, but again misses the point as the urge itself is involuntary) and putting women front and center as the mere victim of malicious, completely voluntary, sexual intent. This, ofcourse, is aggravated by men themselves as their vulnerability is relegated to the defensive ego mechanism that at worse becomes 'toxic masculinity' or at best acts of heroism during times of crisis. The times in which we live decides which.

Again, I have nothing against ideologies but most of the time they are insincere; either referential ego projections or one-sided individual beliefs that lack empathy and serve as surrogate behaviors.

So... Poor Trump, he let his hormones get the best of him. No wait, it's the hormones him do it. He's the real victim here.

I read the article. It really lost me at 'men can get overpowered by a woman's sensuality so that they acted dishonourably.' If your talking about Testsoterone controlling men, this literally wouldn't be a thing. You'd act like you'd want to screw anything with a heartbeat. In fact, it wouldn't matter if it was female, becuase all you need to do is screw. Pick a lane Selzer. It can't be Testosterone doesn't do anything until you see a beautiful woman,

As to your particular comment about empathy, yeah sure. Should be the same for everyone, too. Left, Right, Feminists, Muslim, Christian, MRA. Murders, ISIS and Hitler included. But I'd doubt most of that's going to happen. (And if you didn't realise, I picked things like ISIS for a reason. A very small percentage of Muslims has caused all Muslims to be alienated in Western cultures. You know, just like a small percentage of men stereotype all men.)

His argument is that all men are one beatiful woman away from becoming a rapist. I don't find that a valid argument when some feminists argued it. I don't find it compelling here.

If this causes you to treat anyone better, awesome man. More power to you. I find this pretty distasteful.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Uh, I don't think blue balls is a good excuse for rape dude. Being hungry doesn't excuse grabbing a sandwhich out of someone's hand and eating it in front of them.

No, it doesn't. But as pointed out in the article, one in the throws of starvation and extreme hunger tends to care very little about the laws, ethics and morals involved and will simply pursue hunger-reducing activities without question until sufficiently sated to the point where they devote mental time and energy to something other than the pursuit of sustenance.

Blue balls is not really comparable to starvation in any way, my dude. It is a bizarre comparison.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Uh, I don't think blue balls is a good excuse for rape dude. Being hungry doesn't excuse grabbing a sandwhich out of someone's hand and eating it in front of them.

No, it doesn't. But as pointed out in the article, one in the throws of starvation and extreme hunger tends to care very little about the laws, ethics and morals involved and will simply pursue hunger-reducing activities without question until sufficiently sated to the point where they devote mental time and energy to something other than the pursuit of sustenance.

Blue balls is not really comparable to starvation in any way, my dude. It is a bizarre comparison.

It's also a much easier problem to solve than hunger, let alone starvation.

 

[stroopwafel]

His argument is that all men are one beatiful woman away from becoming a rapist. I don't find that a valid argument when some feminists argued it. I don't find it compelling here.

No, that is absolutely not the case, I suggest you to read it again. The argument is that hormones can lead to struggle, and with men having like 8 times more testosterone than women it's a bigger struggle for them without ever condoning any kind of sexual misconduct. Quite the opposite actually. Empathy doesn't preclude condemning bad behaviors.

 

[Baffle]

The argument is that hormones can lead to struggle, and with men having like 8 times more testosterone than women it's a bigger struggle for them without ever condoning any kind of sexual misconduct. Quite the opposite actually.

I tell ya, all those times I manage to get to the end of the street without molesting someone, I'm sweating bullets from the constant, vicious, internal struggle.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

If this causes you to treat anyone better, awesome man. More power to you. I find this pretty distasteful.

Popping back in the thread, since it persisted to a second page, to point out the linked article -- as well as others by the same author -- cites no scientific studies demonstrating a causative link between testosterone levels and violent or aggressive behavior, let alone violent criminality or sexual assault. Neither did the OP, when challenged on the premise. The position is pseudoscientific, and can and should be discarded as bunk. In fact...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208132241.htm

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-testosterone-alone-doesnt-cause-violence/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/

In fact, the closest thing to scientific evidence I could find to back the claims, was this:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019188699400177T

Which found a correlation between testosterone serum levels and violent behavior in inmate populations. But, as correlation isn't causation, and testosterone levels fluctuate with lifestyle and activity level congruent with the understanding testosterone has stress hormone-like properties, the correlation is better understood as the result of environmental factors. And,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/940905

this, which found a weak correlation between testosterone levels and violent rapists in inmate populations, but no correlation elsewhere including the normal male population.

So, again, pseudoscience.

 

[stroopwafel]

Popping back in the thread, since it persisted to a second page, to point out the linked article -- as well as others by the same author -- cites no scientific studies demonstrating a causative link between testosterone levels and violent or aggressive behavior, let alone violent criminality or sexual assault. Neither did the OP, when challenged on the premise. The position is pseudoscientific, and can and should be discarded as bunk. In fact...

The fact that in every country of the world the people incarcerated for violent crime or sexual assault is pretty much exclusively male speaks for itself. You can rule out any social or cultural consideration as it's the same everywhere. Men are simply susceptible for these kind of behaviors in a way women are not, or to a much lesser degree. The reason is hormonal, or rather the 8 times higher volume of blood testosterone, not coincidentially also the only common denominator among all men across all nations and all cultures. Every other variable will not hold up, no matter how many 'scientific studies' you put your faith in.

And like I said again, bad behavior should never be excused but denying there is no biological component to these kind of behaviors is also foolish. There is ofcourse never one single reason for, in this case, criminal offenses(someone well nurtured with a developed conscience is obviously less susceptible) but add lack of empathy and psychological disturbances and the tide changes with testosterone severely aggravating the problem as it fuels anger and lustful tendencies, again, in a way women are simply less vulnerable to. The facts speak for themselves: how many women compared to men get convicted for violent assault or rape?

Ofcourse, we are talking about the extreme end of the spectrum here that 99,9% of men don't fall into. But it's easy to see how much more men could make minor mistakes when dealing with their hormonal predispositions, a struggle that deserves empathy in the absence of malicious intent. Not this edifice of ill will, that 'culture' or 'male entitlement' is to blame for 'objectifying' women. Like Selzer said in the article, without the male sex-drive the human race would go extinct which gives you an indication of it's motivational prowess. At the same time, the constraints of civilization and the human psyche compels men to control their urges, but the internal conflict of amoral desire and ethical considerations is not a conscious one that men should be blamed for. It's simply the price for humanity's biggest survival mechanism.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Alright. Unless management (which we have again) say otherwise, it has been requested to nip this one in the bud.

Thread Locked.