Male sexual conduct and the testosterone curse

[Silvanus]

''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.

This is so over the top, it's borderline laughable. If the urge to get laid is so overwhelming that "ethical considerations" become irrelevant, then the individual in question has a serious issue. That is not normal behaviour at all.

 

[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.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

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.

I think stroopwafel is seeking to explain, rather than excuse, rape.

That said, I thought the motivations behind sexual assault had largely been established to be about power and not sex. That would seem to be an equally good if not better reason why males with their larger egos are the chief perpetrators.

 

[Trunkage]

What

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

This isn't hard

Ah.. I think hard is the point

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Here's the problem. I am a man and I still have this little thing called "self-control." So no I don't buy any of that shit.
It's amazing what a little private time with the internet and your right hand can do to relieve "frustrations."

 

[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?

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.

God damn. Has no one seen Revenge of the Nerds? They drill a hole into the female locker room so they can spy on naked women. That's what I meant by peep shower show.

Third wave feminists are very supportive of sex workers and people using them. And, just to check in, you know women have these same urges right? Look I'm the only male in a workplace of 30. They are really keen on sex

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

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yeah...no. Self-control and being held accountable for one's actions is, or should be, a thing.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Keep fighting the misandry there..

1) We don't actually know what testosterone does. Anyone who claims they do know is either lying, or extrapolating from limited and partial data. We simply do not have the level of understanding required to determine in sufficient detail how the influence of hormones translates into cognitive experience and ultimately into behaviour, at least not in relatively normal human physiology. Sadly, this kind of deception is common among self appointed "Mars and Venus" gurus who have decided to make a good living telling straight people what they think they already know about themselves, because that's always good for a buck, apparently.

2) Culturally men are prone to using the excuse of having "lost control" to excuse behaviour, even when it's patently untrue. Men who beat their wives and children, for example, will often speak of having "lost control" despite their violence being clearly calculated (such as only targeting areas of the body which will be covered by clothing). The reality is that men seem to be perfectly capable of controlling their actions, the vast majority of men do all the time. However, men are often taught from a young age to protect themselves from consequences (both in terms of external disapproval and internal shame) by pretending that they have no control over their actions. Boys will be boys, after all.

3) Physiologically, all evidence suggests that women experience far more sexual arousal than men. In fact, women are aroused pretty much all the time. However, there is a cognitive component to human arousal which means that physiological arousal does not always correlate with the feeling of being sexually aroused. That's because at the end of the day, humans are not animals, and human sexuality is far, far more complicated than anything found in the animal kingdom. Animals don't develop foot fetishes.

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.

I don't know. Have you ever read the SCUM manifesto? It sounds right up your alley.

It will be electronically possible for him [any male] to tune into any specific female he wants to and follow in detail her every movement. The females will kindly, obligingly consent to this, as it won't hurt them in the slightest and it is a marvelously kind and humane way to treat their unfortunate, handicapped fellow beings.

See, how nice! This gal gets it, right? What a nice thing to do for the poor men with their little testosterone addled brains.

Of course, this still leads us with the problem that right now we're living in a society run by congenitally insane and unreasonable people who, in clear defiance of the natural order, seem to want to cling to some kind of pretence that they actually deserve to be treated as equals. We'll have to fix that, of course. It's only reasonable.

 

[Catnip1024]

Ah, one of those "scientific" works. Designed purely to get publicity rather than to actually improve the understanding of anything.

Anyway, the author is an idiot if they didn't realise that the only way to deal with it is through mandatory ritual combat.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

I disagree. I think toxic masculinity is a cultural problem, much more than it is a biological one, if one that's rather universal throughout most cultures in human history. I mean, I'm a man. And while I was always quite at odds with a lot of things usually associated with masculinity I never had any doubts about my identity as a man. But being able to critically engage with what it means to be a man in a society that seems to be slowly evolving away from patriarchy I am more than aware that a lot of things men have taken for granted throughout most of our history are becoming a privilege, rather than a right. And frankly, that's something to be embraced rather than lamented.

I'm not a sexually active person at the moment and I have never been, neither by my own choice (by my own lazyness, maybe) but I'm not suffering from "hormonal grief" and I'm aware that whatever frustration I might have because of this situation is the result of a feeling of entitlement caused by a culture that's putting a fairly unhealthy idea of what exactly a man deserves in our head. Now, to be fair, realistically speaking, I could easily deal with that sexual frustration. I live in a country where prostitution is perfectly legal. I could take some of my hard earned money and pay a woman who I find much more sexually attractive than any woman I would ever realistically have a chance of sleeping with on voluntary terms to have sex with me and... I would have had sex. And I'm sure it would be nice. It'd be business transaction, paying a worker for a service that'd bring me a small amount of pleasure, just another capitalist reality.

But whatever happiness I would get from it would be temporary, it wouldn't change me as a person or make me have a brighter outlook on life. It'd be a commodity that lasts me for exactly as long as I pay the woman for her work and leave me exactly the same person in exactly the same situation as I was beforehand. The real source of my frustration, and the frustration of most man who lead a sexually inactive life, I imagine, is, for the most part, not a lack of sex for its own sake but a lack of emotional support. And maybe, by extension, a lack of self worth because of it. Now, that's actually something that deserves to be talked about because a lot of what is suggested, not only to men but to people in general, is that much of our value as a person depends of how attractive other people find us. And that's a problem all on its own because it means we never really have a chance not to develop a feeling of inadequacy growing up. But I stand by what I said: It's not sex that lonely man are missing, it's emotional support, even if many are not aware of it. And as long as we don't require prostitutes to have a degree in psychotherapy and talk to their clients about their anxieties for about an hour after fucking them, then this problem is indicative of a much larger problem in our society. That of alienation.

And... well, that's not exactly an easy or particularly comfortable topic to adress because it suggests that things in our society are wrong in ways that are not exactly pleasant to think about but neither is it helpful to keep talking about the symptoms but never about the cause. Because that alienation is a consequence of a lot of tendencies we have never really acknowledged as harmful, though they've been around for quite a while now. Let's not beat around the bush here, the state of solidarity, of empathy, of plain old social harmony is pretty bad right now and doesn't seem to be getting better. Rather we've come to view selfishness as a virtue, other people as our enemies and society as a competition of accumulating material wealth, social standing and various privileges at the expense of our fellow people. But I feel like that's pushing the coundaries of this thread a bit so let's not digress too far.

 

[stroopwafel]

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.

 

[Paragon Fury]

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.

And the article isn't trying to excuse rape, but rather point out that the conversation around males less "desirable" activities and behaviors (IE: objectifying women, porn, a host of other more aggressive actions etc.) rarely ever even tries to consider the fact that A: This behaviors are driven by a base biological need ingrained in all humans almost as powerful as the need for food and water and B: The need for sex is driven by testosterone, a hormone found in extraordinarily high concentrations in men - a hormone that defines men and being male. And one that notably potent compared to other hormones.

It points out that women under the effects of hormonal surges (IE: Menstruation, pregnancy, PMS etc.) aren't considered "wrong" or "bad" but rather mostly accepted, or at the very least understood they're under the influence of something that might make them a little...volatile. Yet men, who are under a similar (though less intense for the most part) hormonal influence, particularly in their teens and 20s, receive little in similar respect or understanding.

One of the comments from another site put it so;

Men, particularly young men, spend most of their teens, twenties and early thirties walking around the world with what you could say is a basic sexual hunger as their baseline existence. It grows and grows and can be managed, but it'd always there and always demanding to be fed. And then the world sends them out into the market so they can find something to eat, but tells them NO TOUCHING! EVEN LOOKING IS BAD! and makes them think the the people in the market aren't even interested in selling to them in the first place.

So men are stuck in a place where their body is DEMANDING to be fed - to sate itself with the very things it's surrounded by that by design are able to sate that hunger - but where the social rules and customs tell them they're wrong, or not allowed to partake, or that the food simply doesn't want THEM to eat them so keep looking elsewhere buddy.

 

[Baffle]

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

Yes, because otherwise they will die. Men who don't have sex don't explode due to some sort of sperm overload.

The idea that the need to have sex is 'almost as powerful as the need for food and water' is ridiculous. Without one of these things you will die, without the other nothing will happen.

 

[Paragon Fury]

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

Yes, because otherwise they will die. Men who don't have sex don't explode due to some sort of sperm overload.

The idea that the need to have sex is 'almost as powerful as the need for food and water' is ridiculous. Without one of these things you will die, without the other nothing will happen.

Without the other, humanity ceases to be.

Humans are just like any other animal; we are programmed to keep the species going. Full stop. Our four primary concerns are;

- Water
- Food
- Sleep
- Fucking

Beyond that, our basic mind doesn't give a damn about anything else. It puts the most emphasis on the first three because you'll die if you don't meet them, but the 4th one is hugely important to it because if it doesn't fulfill it as far as it knows there will be no more humans.

Humans being really good at fulfilling the first 3 things didn't make the fourth need go away - it just gave us a lot more time and effort work with.

 

[Baffle]

Humans are just like any other animal

No, we aren't. To suggest that we're the same as other animals indicates a lack of understanding of just how much smarter we are than every other creature on the planet. The next smartest animal is something like a chimp, and chimps are really really stupid (but still much smarter than most other animals).

The human race isn't going to die out because not enough people are having sex. That's almost, but not quite, as ridiculous as suggesting sex is a close second to food and water in importance.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Without the other, humanity ceases to be.

Humans are just like any other animal; we are programmed to keep the species going. Full stop.

So err.. I don't want make a big deal of it, but you're kind of wrong.

Most animals are driven by a very clear biochemical imperative to have intercourse. If you put dogs on heat together, they will fuck. It doesn't matter if they like each other or find each other attractive, they don't need that. They smell the right smell and they know it's time to do the sex.

Because of this dogs, and indeed all animals, experience very little if any sexual pleasure relative to humans. Sexual pleasure is unnecessary for them, because they don't need to be motivated to have sex. Animals will literally fuck anything. Male dogs will go for your legs. Birds' sexual response can be triggered with brightly coloured inanimate objects.

Humans, when it comes to sex, are completely different from almost every animal on earth. The simple mechanisms which trigger sexual response in other animals don't work on because our thought process is too complicated. We develop cognitive preferences, we have a subconscious and can suppress unwanted sexual thoughts, being aroused for us requires both physical stimulation and cognitive feedback. Because of this, our genitals are literally covered in pleasure receptors because unlike other animals, we have to be persuaded to have sex. We have to learn that genital contact is good and we specifically couldn't be programmed to do it, so instead the evolutionary response was to make our genitals incredibly sensitive and hope we figure it out for ourselves.

Human sexual response is a learned response caused by the desire to seek pleasure. That's why humans are so diverse in terms of what actually turns them on, because we associate pleasure with different things. When a person develops a fetish for rubber clothing, it's not because they've been evolutionary programmed to believe that rubber will help them breed, it's because they associate the clothing with sexual pleasure.

We are not programmed to keep the species going at all. We are given the tools by which we will naturally come to enjoy things which feel good, and it just so happens that one of those things keeps the species going.

 

[stroopwafel]

Humans are just like any other animal

No, we aren't. To suggest that we're the same as other animals indicates a lack of understanding of just how much smarter we are than every other creature on the planet. The next smartest animal is something like a chimp, and chimps are really really stupid (but still much smarter than most other animals).

The human race isn't going to die out because not enough people are having sex. That's almost, but not quite, as ridiculous as suggesting sex is a close second to food and water in importance.

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.

The world is severely overpopulated as it is but saying the ''the human race isn't going to die out because not enough people are having sex'' is besides the point. The laws of nature that govern human existence don't get suddenly turned off when too many people are procreating. You don't argue why people wouldn't be exempt from the law of gravity and why they can't fly like Superman as it wouldn't push earth from it's axial tilt. No, the law of gravity applies and everyone is bound to it. Similarly, that the world is overpopulated doesn't render human's motivational instincts obsolete. They exist regardless of circumstance.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

I dislike the comparison of eating with sex. I actively need food to live, if I do not have food at sufficient amounts then I will die. Not having sex will not kill me because I'm not a ferret so I don't have that excuse. I can want sex, sure, and you an make arguments about "biological imperatives" all you want, but at that basic level sex is to continue the species' existence not my own

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

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.

I notice how you forget to talk about that other 'self'-thing that humans have: Self-control. There are plenty of literal examples of people starving themselves to death (a common nominator among most eating disorders is excessive self-control), working themselves to death (hello Japan!) and even voluntarily meeting death if it fulfilled a purpose that person considered important. As such, discussing the primal instincts needed to survive or avoid extinction is pretty close to evo-psych bullshit, because individual humans repress urges and 'instincts' all the time. As a simple example, I've got a bunch of chocolate bars in my kitchen right now, they've been there for weeks. If all eating was about was to subdue hunger and sate the instinct to feed or get nourished, I would have eaten this chocolate as soon as I got hungry, because nothing beats sugar and nice taste for instant gratification of hunger. But I haven't. I keep saving them for special occasions, because I can cognitively understand that just eating chocolate is a terrible diet that will cause all kinds of problems down the line.

Sex is different, because it is not a survival urge like eating, sleeping or relieving oneself. If you go without sex or intimacy you will not suffer any extreme physiological problems (as evidenced by all the people that are asexual or celibate ever). That being said, all of us control our sexual urges all the time. We don't go out touching ourselves in public (and if we do, chances are good that a friendly police officer will escort you to the nearest psych ward), we don't get into mad sex frenzies just because a woman is ovulating or because we get to see some genitals of the kind that we find stimulating. We don't watch porn with our grandmothers or around our children, because we understand that there's a time and place for these things. Sure, sometimes we are horny, very much so sometimes. But in the vast majority of cases we manage to wait until we meet our partner or can find a secluded bathroom (or bush if outdoors) to rub one out. When someone fails to do it, we should be worried for their mental health, because it is a sign that they are losing it. Alternatively, we should be worried about the culture that condones someone imposing their sexual desires on someone who doesn't want it. What we shouldn't do is make excuses for the person who can't keep it between consenting adults.

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?

 

[Baffle]

we don't get into mad sex frenzies just because a woman is ovulating

The way you said that was the least sexy thing ever. You have literally removed sex from my personal hierarchy of needs. I might as well just chop it off and be done with it.