Depression, Sex & Freemales

[brokenhead]

The 'great joy' of living in Latin America and being with latinas is that, still, many of them really enjoy men. It is as simple as that. They have not been 'trained' (or retrained) to respond negatively to men, with a whole subterranean inner-ocean of bitterness, dissatisfaction. But the truth is, the more sophisticated the women (in all cultures), the more education she has, the better economic circumstances she has, the more she fits the emerging model.

Modern women, I find, don't tend to respond as negatively to men who also take the trouble to "emerge." I just steer clear of bitter, dissatisfied people in general - and there are plenty of men who fit that description as well. A lot of women are looking for someone to dump on, someone whom they can blame for their own failures and the inherent imperfections in the world in general, in short, a husband. This doesn't make them either "modern" or "emerging," just common. I'm hoping the days are numbered in which one gender is entitled to "grow accustomed" to the lifestyle of the other.

[Alex Jacob]

Did you ever have the chance to read The Morning After: Sex. Fear and Feminism by Katie Roiphe? She wrote about one aspect of the feminism movement as it manifested in the 80s: a deep suspicion and contempt of men, of sexuality, and a desire to control them/it through activism, legislation. A theorist who embodied this deeply suspicious attitude, and took it to almost metaphysical levels, was Andrea Dworkin who wrote Intercourse which examines the basic physiological act of intercourse, and 'demonizes' it. Pretty heavy stuff. She uses Tolstoy as her starting point and his The Kreutzer Sonata, which is the Tolstoyan examination of sexuality and the human couple.

Roiphe writes with notable irony of her impression of Take Back the Night rallies, and her critique of one aspect of feminism stems from those perceptions. But when I speak of 'negativity' I am speaking of a whole attitude, a perception, that was cultivated by (mostly university) women in the 80s. Many of these ideas about men have been internalized, and these attitudes function sub-consciously or unconsciously. I find them prevalent in North American culture. And the basic assumption is clear: men are 'evil', dangerous creatures, not to be trusted. I am referring only to my own experiences, and my own perceptions, and I cannot generalize really. Where women have not been 'infected' by these attitudes, I have found, they have a more natural, more spontaneous relationship with men. That is what I was referring to.

[DHodges]

[

Also this could be not seen as trendy at all but something what was already there and getting more outspoken?

Yeah, I think this is a trend that has been going on for a while, at least in the US, and I assume things are similar in the UK.

Marriage used to be important not just socially but also economically. The economic importance of marriage diminished for women as they became more accepted in the workplace.

But then, marriage still made sense if you were going to have children - to have a stable foundation for the kids to grow in. But it hardly fulfills that role any more (although there is still the economic function of providing child support when the marriage ends). More people are realizing that marriage is just not that good a deal in the modern world. The ones that really benefit are the divorce lawyers. The ‘standard’ marriage contract is archaic. Only fools get married without some sort of prenuptial agreement.

So, what is the value of a 'serious' relationship, if marriage is obsolete? Well, sex was always a big attraction for men, but obviously that gets old after a while, and having sex doesn't have much tie to being married these days. But what do women have to offer men other than sex? And what happens when the woman gets past the age where her milkshake brings the boys to the yard? She can no longer rely that the things that were traditionally provided for her by a husband will be there for her.

Women are in the position that they now need to be interesting as a person. Not as a vagina, and not as an economic unit of child rearing and housekeeping. To keep a man around, the man has to actually like them as a person.

There are some interesting women around who are in their forties. They don’t get by on looks. They are just actually good people worth knowing on their own merits.

But there still is the biological problem that women past a certain age aren’t that attractive sexually, and men as they age naturally lose some of the biological urge toward sex.

Perhaps the middle age depression has to do with having to make a transition from having sex with sexy young things to having sex with people you actually like. Maybe that just takes a while to get used to, but you eventually find that it has its own rewards.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Jason,

It surprises me that culture, society, religion, morals, mores etc have so successfully managed to keep a lid on men's sexual desires. Just walk through the average shopping centre(mall) and witness the endless stream of young attractive women in tight and revealing clothing - and then the men continually and reflexively averting their eyes from what they really want to be looking at. Am I wrong when I assume that there is a high level of self-control(or perhaps better "suppression" or "denial") going on here? Elephant in the room anyone?

The women’s liberation movement has both its pros and cons. On the one hand, it allows intellectual women a certain level of autonomy, which has its value. However, on the other hand, the beautiful crude more animal women use their sexual power to constantly stimulate the animal brain of men as a means to get what they want – which is attention, financial security, sexual worship and all the rest of it.

Elizabeth,

Of course is seems to be most often men who get into a murderous rage when they find out that their wife has been cheating. I suspect that women are naturally polygamous, and men are naturally greedy.

Men have a deep fear that another man is able to pleasure their attachment better than they are – it is a pride issue for men, not to mention that there is a build in evolutionary mechanism to protect ones genes. For instance: From a evolutionary perspective, men who are able to fight off competing males who try to hump their women wouldn’t get stuck raising another man’s genes.

but more fundamentally, men become violent when there is an attack on attachments that give an egotistical boost of self-esteem through identity, meaning, security, and pride/pleasure – it is the same dynamic operating in an Islamic fundamentalist when you tell him that his prophet Mohammed is a fucktard, and then he tries to blow you up with a F-150 pick up truck filled with fertilizer...

Europe can’t even make a comical cartoon mocking the stupidity of Mohammed without a group of Islamic lunatics threatening Jihad…

Elizabeth, to my mind, there is very little difference between an enraged husband who murders his wife and dude, or an Islamic fundamentalist who runs into a star bucks with a stick of dynamite. Both are reacting emotionally to threats on their emotional attachments.

it has nothing to do with greed, greed is another psychological phenomenon altogether.

[Alex Jacob]

"However, on the other hand, the beautiful crude more animal women use their sexual power to constantly stimulate the animal brain of men as a means to get what they want – which is attention, financial security, sexual worship and all the rest of it."

Here's an example...

Additional clarification.

[Cory Duchesne]

Elizabeth, to my mind, there is very little difference between an enraged husband who murders his wife and dude, or an Islamic fundamentalist who runs into a star bucks with a stick of dynamite. Both are reacting emotionally to threats on their emotional attachments.

it has nothing to do with greed, greed is another psychological phenomenon altogether.

I'd say 'emotionally reacting to the threat of loss' has everything to do with greed.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory,

I'd say 'emotionally reacting to the threat of loss' has everything to do with greed.

It depends on how you define greed. Greed is sometimes defined as only pertaining to material possessions, but one could modify the definition to include people, ideas, anything I suppose. I have always thought of greed as endless material accumulation with no purposeful direction, it is emotional discontent directed in a mismanaged way. However, it is fuzzy territory because technological businessmen build fortunes, but they also use their profits to reinvest into their products thus helping themselves and humanity, but they also react emotionally to competition by putting money into R&D to catch up to competitors. It is a fear of loss that drives the push of technology, but it seems necessary. For instance: if you dedicate your entire life to providing a superior service to humanity, and a competitor threatens the existence of your company, then obviously, you will try your best to stay competitive, and match his product…

[Carl G]

"However, on the other hand, the beautiful crude more animal women use their sexual power to constantly stimulate the animal brain of men as a means to get what they want – which is attention, financial security, sexual worship and all the rest of it."

Here's an example...

Additional clarification.

Boy, I'm glad I have a fast enough computer that it cost me only 2.5 seconds of my life per link; one second to travel to the You Tube video, one to identify it as bullshit, and a half second to return. God bless technology!

[Alex Jacob]

Okay, okay, sorry. I just have a think for macaws.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

I'd say 'emotionally reacting to the threat of loss' has everything to do with greed.

It depends on how you define greed. Greed is sometimes defined as only pertaining to material possessions

But this definition doesn't shed light on anything psychological, so it's significantly lacking. That's why I emphasized 'emotionally reacting to the threat of loss'

I'm certainly not suggesting that the act of murder and the act of accumulating material things are identical indistinguishable things, but they do have the same roots. They are very related to each other.

but one could modify the definition to include people, ideas, anything I suppose.

It's certainly no stretch of the imagination to see that people can be very greedy about their ideas - not wanting others to know what they know. Also, people can be very greedy about their ideas by excessively imposing them upon others. They have a greed to bring people under their control, to change them, to make them better company, more useful, predictable and manageable.

And that of course touches on how we can be greedy with people - stealing their time, subtly threatening them, keeping them cut off from other people, getting angry when they don't conform to our wishes, etc.

I have always thought of greed as endless material accumulation with no purposeful direction, it is emotional discontent directed in a mismanaged way.

I can't say I find the above very reasonable. Can you give an example of emotional discontent directed in a 'managed' way?

However, it is fuzzy territory because technological businessmen build fortunes, but they also use their profits to reinvest into their products

Isn't that how they build their fortunes? ;)

but they also react emotionally to competition by putting money into R&D to catch up to competitors. It is a fear of loss that drives the push of technology, but it seems necessary. For instance: if you dedicate your entire life to providing a superior service to humanity, and a competitor threatens the existence of your company, then obviously, you will try your best to stay competitive, and match his product…

Competition and Greed are actually virtues as long as the passion is to be rational rather than deliver some superfluous product that humanity doesn't need. Really, an enlightened mind is greed purified. Such a man acts solely out of preserving truth, which he identifies with. Generosity is an illusion.

[Jason]

Pye, I'm gonna spend this post suggesting some alternative scenarios, I don't necessarily believe these scenarios to be true or even theory really, just exploring possibilities....

I once wrote here extensively about my own theory of how patriarchy came about (been way out of this loop the last half-year or so), but I don't remember in what thread. Briefly stated, I consider patriarchy to be a conscious social corrective for males to deal with their redundancy in nature. It was the first great handshake of civilization amongst males to cease killing each other for breeding access and instead, order that access to accommodate redundancy.

Why do you think that males would kill each other for "breeding access"? We are a cooperative species. Why not have an agreement that they could all just take turns fucking any and all women? Isn't it quite possible that men more naturally seek out very casual sex with multiple partners, not forming the sort of bonds that help jealousy arise in the first place? Jealousy seems more tied to having only limited partners. Maybe it was limited partners that led to jealousy, not jealousy that led to limited partners.

Since females do not face, in nature, the problem of knowing whose children she bears (she bears her own in every case!);

Is that necessarily a problem for males though? Who's to say that men would naturally care which children are theirs? Couldn't the desire to spread their seed widely, lead to men not caring so much? It'd be like a shotgun approach to genetic survival. How many men still abandon their children today, even when knowing it is their child? How many men of the past had children in every port? How many guys go weak at the knees when they see babies, compared to women?

nor does she face in nature a dearth of willing partners,

Why then the desire in females for bodily adornments which are used to make them appear more sexually attractive? That behaviour would suggest competition for a limited number of males.

there is/was no need for her to secure heavy-handed social order -unless someone withholds actual, living resources from her.

Women have to be much more careful about when and who they fuck. They may get far fewer chances to get it right. Being physically weaker than males, there is reason to believe that women were also beneficiaries of such social order. Without it they may have been much more liable to being knocked up by any random undesirable.

This was/is the only playing card for males, in order to secure her complicity in answering to his natural redundancy.

Males may seem redundant in terms of sperm donation, but in defense of the woman and tribe, and hunting for food, male numbers could mean the difference between life and death.

I think you've left out some massive issues: pregnancy and the children that result from it. Pregnancy makes the already weak woman weaker, it wouldn't be unusual for pregnancy to even kill a woman. The children are a drain on resources for years. If men just went around fucking random women with no controls, with no responsibility for the outcome, the freewheeling guys wouldn't be the ones suffering for it. The women and anyone who helped support her and the children would be the ones suffering.

The tribe eventually get pissed off at women continually getting pregnant and having resource draining children. So they come to a truce, the women say "You get to fuck me for the rest of my life, but when I get pregnant and have kids you have to help support me and the kids." The men say "Ok, but you can't have me waste my time and resources on children who I am not responsible for, so you can't fuck anyone else but me." - monogamous marriage is born.

But as you noted, only women know who their children are for certain, the man doesn't. He has to rely on the honesty and faithfulness of the woman, and it is so easy for the woman to lie about who the father of her child is or could be. He doesn't want to be conned into expending years of his time and resources on a woman and children because of a lying woman, so safeguards are put in place to deal with this issue - controls on women are born.

Women who don't to go along with the new structures become shunned by the tribe because they are a drain on resources. Men who don't to go along with the structures are more likely to get away with it because there is no hard evidence, like a swollen belly and a litter of kids, together with the fact they will not personally or directly be a resource drain anyway - gender-based differences in the treatment of those breaking sexual mores is born.

[xerox]

...

[Alex Jacob]

Pye is a bit of a comet: she appeared 4 months ago with a similar pithy post (a response to one of mine, similarly 'chauvinistic'), but then continued along her orbit through the solar system. Like many mathematical minds, her ideas are a series of reduced units that, abstracted from reality, make 'great sense', but that are actually inadequate for comprehension.

The only problem, xerox, with your proposal is that it is 'maladaptive'. A culture without a strong base in the family---one that sponsors, encourages, supports families---is that they tend to go into decline, into decadence. If these 'freemales' (what a wretched term, it sounds too similar to 'she-male') do not bond and do not produce off-spring, and if there is not a strong family environment to support those off-spring, it is eo ipso maladaptive and cannot maintain itself. The contrivances of culture bring people to a position of being able to 'enjoy freedom' (and use it or abuse it), but it itself is the beginning of its own end. I've seen a lot of figures that indicate that many European countries are facing problems because they are not producing offspring. It is all fine now, but it is only later that the problem shows up. Others rush into the vacuum.

I think that we can never move too far away from what that terrible tyrant Mother Nature has burdened us with. In a sense we are stuck with it. We have to work within these confines. For an individual it might be argued that it is a good idea not to come under the (unconscious) will of a woman and to father her children, which is a sort of spiritually paranoid idea and an idea directly opposed to 'Darwinian truths' (and is the option I have chosen BTW). But it could never be recommended for mass-culture, it could not nor should not become a universal ethic.

"l don't really buy Pye's notion that men are afraid of Woman's autonomy."

One feels Pye's anger, her dissatisfaction, it seems to me, and this is fairly typical within feminist discourse generally. Women's situation up to the last 50 years has not at all been admirable, not at all. The so-called 'liberation of women', which has certainly formed and is forming our present, is a whole group of different interests and trends that have converged. Not the least of which is pure marketing interests, consumer culture. There is simply a vast market among women who have options within the social structure. Economics drive trends just as 'values' do.

"At which point, l think its gonna become real obvious where the fear truly lies."

But your whole analysis is based in your plan to avoid 'seeding', and thus side-step this reproductive chain that binds you to 'the female'. If you succeed, you will not reproduce, and so your strategy is 'successful' when it does not succeed. Where do our values stand, therefor? What value are we really concerend for? If we come under the spell of a false-value to defend ourselves against a value of paranoia (unconscious 'femininity' casting nets for unwary males...) we have, perhaps? only tricked ourselves.

I don't think that we (humankind) can escape the biological constraints, the biological perimeters. That is one reason why the QRS 'philosophy' seems so transparently flawed, so 'mal-adaptive'. Success in it is no success at all!

[xerox]

...

[Alex Jacob]

xerox wrote:

"Even so, if the human organism self immolates, before the sun eats this planet... so what. The idea of detachment is not motivated by the notion of success. Success and failure sort of mean nothing. l see these as egotistical perspectives."

Isn't this a basic expression of nihilism? Isn't this a clear example? In that I recognize it because I have similar thoughts.

And isn't this nihilism also...a little suicidal? Like, it has lost the ground under its feet and just doen't care?

[xerox]

...

[baulz owt]

Nihilism is truth, bitch.

[Blair]

ass.

[1otherS]

I see a lot of judgmentalism in this thread of people preaching the opposite of it...

[mansman]

Less energy to go around

What do you mean by this?

I think the reason why people suffer more around middle age is because they realize their chance to achieve something great has been wasted on their career, marriage and kids. These generic attainments produce, for every degree of gratification; worry and torment. Realizing this also contributes to the suffering. Finally, it's around middle age that we've accumulated so many memories of mistakes and blunders, that we can no longer suppress them back. The dam breaks, and sorrow floods the mind.

Yes exactly what i was thinking, and not only something great but also more egotistical endeavors here in this case of middle aged married cunt-teasing males.
The poor bastard has been running in auto-pilot and barely had a chance to consider the value in "doing as he should" for more than half his life. The sudden reality of the shortness and the quickness of his years informs him of the terrifying fact that he'll be an old worthless man and it'll all be over in no time at all!
Alas, only the awakened are spared this horrible fate.

M

[mansman]

Did you ever have the chance to read The Morning After: Sex. Fear and Feminism by Katie Roiphe? She wrote about one aspect of the feminism movement as it manifested in the 80s: a deep suspicion and contempt of men, of sexuality, and a desire to control them/it through activism, legislation. A theorist who embodied this deeply suspicious attitude, and took it to almost metaphysical levels, was Andrea Dworkin who wrote Intercourse which examines the basic physiological act of intercourse, and 'demonizes' it. Pretty heavy stuff. She uses Tolstoy as her starting point and his The Kreutzer Sonata, which is the Tolstoyan examination of sexuality and the human couple.

Roiphe writes with notable irony of her impression of Take Back the Night rallies, and her critique of one aspect of feminism stems from those perceptions. But when I speak of 'negativity' I am speaking of a whole attitude, a perception, that was cultivated by (mostly university) women in the 80s. Many of these ideas about men have been internalized, and these attitudes function sub-consciously or unconsciously. I find them prevalent in North American culture. And the basic assumption is clear: men are 'evil', dangerous creatures, not to be trusted. I am referring only to my own experiences, and my own perceptions, and I cannot generalize really. Where women have not been 'infected' by these attitudes, I have found, they have a more natural, more spontaneous relationship with men. That is what I was referring to.

How terribly true indeed.
How many years has it been since you lived in the 'United' States, Alex?
The-- what do i call it-- syndrome seems to increase exponentially with time, and its impact on the nation has been and will be far worse than anything some terrorist may someday conjure up. There is little doubt that the syndrome is more pervasive here than anywhere else in the world. And you are correct to suggest it is largely unconscious further adding to the futility.
Id risk a guess, that most folks underestimate its significance and magnitude and impact on the nation by a factor of oh, 10 times. Even while we joke about the "battle of the sexes" to lessen the sting. "A house divided can not stand"
But no joke it is, for those with eyes to see it is clear that the country continues to march towards a kind of mass suicide with only the slightest chance of finding an antidote remaining.

So then, you say you enjoy a more natural, more spontaneous relationship with women thereabouts, now do you. But arent you being kind Alex, arent you being sensitive to we sad saps and have-nots-- Isnt it far far finer than just that!

M

[mansman]

Here's some stuff I found in the Guardian newspaper.

Marriage counsellors report a 40 per cent rise in husbands uninterested in physical relationships

'They tend to be men in their thirties, forties and fifties and married,' he said. 'It is a serious issue. It counts as a psychosexual dysfunction, rather than just a relationship problem, because these men haven't simply gone off their partner, but off sex altogether.'

The article is quite odd is serving up some explanations. The 'depression' angle is interesting when coupled with this other article: People are most likely to become depressed in middle age which points in my opinion not just to clinical depression but a slump more and more people hit because the way society and our life cycle is set up in general. Less energy to go around and more stress and anxiety experienced: the body/mind goes into hibernation.

Having no problem with energy are the single and happy freemales, who don't have time anymore for relationships because of their busy jobs and cramped hobby schedule, combined with a freewheeling social life.

If this research indicates anything but a temporary trend in thinking (not likely as all we have is quickly shifting trends nowadays) where does this all go: men losing interest in sex, women 'engaged' everywhere but in a private relationship? Also this could be not seen as trendy at all but something what was already there and getting more outspoken?

OK, now to examine the original topic here.

Tired men?
nah.

Depressed men?
not really.

First of all, when woman decided to "have it all" to be like men, equality etc etc, ONE MORE THING (of the many things) she failed to consider was how men might react to being viewed and regarded as objects of desire, mere dicks with which to copulate. .........

{Incidentally, this occurred because women were/are generally clueless about how a mans mind works, also quite often mistakenly believe they indeed DO KNOW how a mans mind works, and because they tend to project their own way of seeing things onto other people often with atrocious results.}

..... Now this alone would not necessarily be a show-stopper but combine it with a (mostly unconscious) SENSE OF NOT BEING RESPECTED and here then is a recipe for disaster.
And there's more. But before I go there I need to make it clear that in America 2009 most wives really could not be said to truly respect, admire and appreciate her husband though to her credit she does work fairly hard to give this impression.
In short, a man cant stand being used much less by someone who barely respects him, let alone love him.
But though Love and affection for his wife was sufficient payment for sex with a smile in times past, it is RESPECT more than Love that a man seeks for payment and passage. Again, women did not foresee this and became confused when acting loving and affectionate failed to do the trick.
Thats enough for that one.

We could call the next factor "home cooking". Does any wage-earning middle class or blue collar man, married to a wife who cant cook ever feel that he receives as much as he gives to the partnership?
The answer is a big fat NO.
And indeed he does not!

Let him speak!
"So why, pray tell, ought I feel obliged to briskly work my favorite appendage in and out of your hungry, insatiable wet slot, woman?" "What am I to you but a battery-less version of your vibrator!"

Faster, faster honey.....

Next, ask me if I believe most of these hard husbands are sincerely NOT seeing a more interesting woman on the side. And if not, then finding greater satisfaction in wanking to an image of their favorite porn star.

There, three clues with which to solve this mystery.
If time allows I may add more.

M

[Ignius]

My ass becomes awakened, when it farts.

Smartest thing I've said all day!

[XealotX]

I see two immediate main causes for much of the dysfunction with sex relations today and both stem from our prevailing gender delusions --the causes of which is another discussion unto itself. First and foremost, sexuality is coextensive with character --ergo Weininger's "Sex and Character"-- and in order to have achieved our fragile contrivance of "gender equality" it was necessary to deny the truth of female sexuality. The second is that fact that women have never truly wanted freedom, at least not in the same terms we as males think of it, what they want is to maximize the cost of sex and that's really all that these so called "freemales" are up to.

The real cause of the so called man shortage is that these masses of "fabulous" women have effectively priced themselves out of the market and the so called "Peter Pan" syndrome is simply the male reaction or adaptation to this, not the cause. In fact one could say that any society where men and women are contrived to be as equals will almost automatically have a shortage of men since female sexuality determines that a man who is merely her equal is an inferior man, and neither the man, the woman herself nor society as a whole can bullshit their way past this fact.

Rarely does a woman achieve any power or advantage over some men where she does not, by reflex of instinct, either coyly issue some challenge for some of these men to one-up her and thus reclaim their manhood in her eyes (i.e. meet the increased cost of sex), or simply dismisses them as a not merely an unsuitable mating prospects but as not being a men.

A friend of mine once told me that the most beautiful collection of women he had ever seen was when he had occasion to visit a prison and was in one of the general waiting areas. To many of us who understand the nature of female sexuality such observations come as no great surprise and yet we can even hear the arguments of disagreement and "alternative" explanations waiting to suppress any frank expression of the truth. (In fact I'm almost almost sure I'll read some of those many fine platitudes in response to this post.)

Women today are becoming increasingly hysterical from essentially being forced to be men and a direct consequence of this is an escalation in the type of "challenge" behavior women use to test or goad men's own instinctive behavior --i.e. aggression and dominance. Furthermore, where many "civilized" and "enlightened" men fail to produce the desired animal displays of masculinity it only further intensifies he frustration of these women and drive then in increasing numbers towards more anti-social type men.

Women demand that we respect their will but in truth desire anything but. The reality is that women can no more live by their own will than an could an organism by perpetually feeding on its own waste. Femininity could only have developed but under the aegis of masculinity, as it is patently unfit to contend with the Natural world on its own. As such woman by her very nature anticipates and depends upon masculinity as essential to her fulfillment and denies this to their her own torment.


Sorry if the thoughts or prose here doesn't seem to flow all that well but I chopped this post down from a considerable bulk of ideas. I hope to do better in my any further responses.

[Shahrazad]

Hello xealotx.

The real cause of the so called man shortage is that these masses of "fabulous" women have effectively priced themselves out of the market and the so called "Peter Pan" syndrome is simply the male reaction or adaptation to this, not the cause. In fact one could say that any society where men and women are contrived to be as equals will almost automatically have a shortage of men since female sexuality determines that a man who is merely her equal is an inferior man, and neither the man, the woman herself nor society as a whole can bullshit their way past this fact.

I came up with a very similar explanation as to why there is such a huge man shortage in my country (Panama), and this is perhaps true in many other Latin American countries. Do you also live in Latin America, or are you saying that this shortage is a global / universal thing?

Oh, and please explain what you mean by the Peter Pan syndrome.