I read an abridged version of this piece live on air for avfm’s June 28th Radio Show: Meet the Zeta Female.
Here it is again, uncut. 😀 (And, yeah Jim, I know we argued over the whole ‘flashing whites’ being detrimental to predators, but I put it in anyway.) Plus, commentators please remember that this is conjecture on my part, as far as I know it’s not scientific truth. Yet.
On with the show.
Have you ever wondered why society expects men to maintain an ever-ready erection, a simple on/off sexual expression, while shaming them for ‘only thinking about one thing?’ This doublethink makes no sense. If men were sexually simple, they wouldn’t have to be shamed into it, further why shame them for being sexually simple if that’s what society wants from them in the first place?
But in actual fact this double-blind for men makes perfect sense when you look at it the right way.
Recent research has found that rejection is experienced as physical pain. It’s a way of applying pain without damaging the person you’re applying it to, the perfect system of torture, when harnessed correctly.
Society (and when I say society, I’m talking in terms of a social organism that uses men and women like cells to perpetuate itself) Society controls men through rejection. Social and sexual. In particular, men are constantly told their sexuality is depraved, damaging, disturbing, and demonic. Men experience this social drumbeat of sexual rejection as continuous pain. It could be likened to a shock collar wrapped around the neck of every man that delivers a constant electrical shock, varied just enough so the man in question never gets used to it.
The only time the shock collar stops delivering is when the man in question acquires approval from a woman. This approval can be social or sexual, but it is a woman who provides it.
This system really only works when there is a constant flow of electricity to men’s shock collars. This flow is generated by holding men to an ideal of ever-ready sexual desire for women.
Men have to desire in order for it to be rejected, in order for their shock collars to function. This explains why society simultaneously enforces a performing monkey standard of male sexuality, while mocking men for being the very performing monkeys society wants.
In this system of controlling men through rejection, men rejecting women becomes a taboo. Now it’s not that men are incapable of rejecting women, it’s that society takes incredible pains to prevent this rejection. First it elicits the performing monkey ideal of male sexuality via use of the shock collar treatment—only sex with a woman will make the pain stop.
(Quick question. If you had a shock collar around your neck and the only time it turned off was when you were having sex… how often would you think about sex and how desperate would you be to have it? Yeah.)
At that point, society stigmatizes male rejection outright. How many articles have we read that follow the formula: men are rejecting women and that’s because they’re fucked up sexist losers? And how many times have we heard that men always consent to sex with a woman thus can’t be raped?
In fact, society so hates male rejection of women that it has ghettoized men who sexually reject women into a completely separate identity and stigmatizes them by taking away their manhood. No other society has ever thought to separate men who reject women sexually from those who do not. It’s certainly the case that homosexuals have existed in other societies–our society didn’t just discover them one hundred and fifty years ago–it’s just that those societies never felt a compulsion to separate them out. Just like we don’t separate out men who like oranges from men who like apples.
However, if we were a society ruled by apple growers, you damn well better bet we’d be singling out orange loving men and calling them pussies.
Despite society’s deep taboo regarding male rejection there is one lone hero standing up against the tyranny, standing up in defiance of the performing monkey sexual standard, standing up by… well… not standing.
Yes. The limp dick.
Now you’re probably asking yourself, “But typhon, how does a limp dick save the world?”.
To understand that let’s look at why men experience impotence in the first place. Our nearest relatives, having muscular erections rather then ones based on vasocongestion, never experience impotence since, for them, a boner is about as simple as contracting your bicep.
Since impotence, for obvious reasons, can impede intercourse, that makes it reproductively costly. Which makes it evolutionarily costly. So why did human men evolve a system that can even experience impotence. One possible reason is that a highly reactive male sexual system can protect a pair bonder from encroachment by an unsuitable female partner. And this is important since damage to a male pair bonder’s bonding system can be fatal. Four fold increase in men’s suicide following divorce anyone?
But there is another way that a temperamental male sexuality can be adaptive.
Most people don’t realize that our emotions are short cuts to decision making. We can lay new trail through rational arguments, but it’s emotions that allow us to navigate the paralysis of indecision and make choices quickly. Particularly in a social context.
Sex is, by its nature, an emotional experience. Because it’s an emotional experience, it has the potential to carve out new short cuts in our decision-making abilities.
To explain why, let’s talk about theory of mind for a bit. Some researchers are starting to look to the canid species to model how a human theory of mind might develop. When dogs are playing they watch each other for attentional cues to decide if their playmate is engaged and happy. They seem to get more of a thrill out of play if that’s the case and, of course, they want to make sure that the other party desires the play.
But if play is the mechanism by which theory of mind takes root in dogs; what’s the mechanism by which it takes root in humans?
Well, play is a likely culprit as well. But compared to canids, we’re talking about several orders of magnitude more complexity in the human theory of mind. So there’s probably another answer as well.
Now an even more powerful an incentive then an engaged, appreciative playmate is an engaged, appreciative sexual partner.
Sex not only establishes a sense of self and other via our desire for a sexual partner, our sex also establishes a desire to be desired. We want a desirable sexual partner who is also desirous of us. That last bit is tremendously important.
Ever wonder why humans are one of the only species whose eyes signal exactly what they’re looking at with a flash of white? Sort of a handicap for a predatory species, isn’t it? It’s because it assists in developing our theory of mind via sexual desire.
A man once said on a forum: “I’m going to start doing what women do, I’m only going to have an orgasm when my partner gives me one.” He’s not saying that a woman is obligated to give him an orgasm, no. What he was saying is that, up to that point, he had taken responsibility for giving himself an orgasm during sex.
It’s not that it’s easy for men to orgasm during the average act of penis in vagina sex, it’s that they have no choice. In fact, the requirement that men perform is so onerous, multi-billion dollar industries have sprung up to help them out. One of them is the classic ‘blue pill’. The other is the sex industry. Not only does the sex industry offer an outlet for the complexity of male sexual expression that is shamed in community sex, it assists men by offering them a way to emulate performing monkey sexuality. It gives them a fantasy to over lay onto substandard sex; a fantasy of an eager, active sexual partner, so that men can make themselves orgasm.
The comedian Jim Jeffries once said, “…it isn’t you that’s making us cum. It’s the dirty, filthy thoughts in our heads.”
A woman who ever ends up in a sexual relationship with a man who doesn’t have his shock collar on will get a rude awakening to this fact. She’ll also either leave or learn to deal with statements like “That’s not doing anything for me.” or, “Get off you’re hurting me!” or “No, I didn’t actually cum and if you just lie there thinking that lying still is all I require, I probably won’t.” She’ll learn to deal with rejection, that, unlike a female chimp, that passively presenting her genital swellings for servicing just isn’t enough.
And there’s the rub, really. What did our ancestors do without Viagra, porn or elaborate systems of social rejection to maintain the illusion of performing monkey sexuality? The answer? Hominid females learned to work harder for sex.
When we’re talking about our early female hominid ancestors, learning to be able to deal with complex male sexuality represents a potentially huge leap in their cognitive development. Before they just had to show up or maybe beg, after there was a whole bunch more complex social stuff involved. Human male sexuality is insanely difficult and complex because it’s a part of human females developing their understanding of self and other and their perception of their actions having consequences in the greater world.
It’s amazing how much human male sexuality resembles a game. You have immediate feedback when you’re failing or have failed, you have levels of difficulty and you have a reward at the end (the best in the animal kingdom). And games teach valuable experiences. In this case human male sexuality allows women the opportunity to lay down a emotional map of how to deal with rejection: with challenge, with unpredictability.
This is the basis of all achievement. It enables women to liberate themselves from a passive identity defined by being desired, either sexually or socially, and see themselves primarily in terms of how they choose to act.
This makes women immune to social systems that tell them what to do to be desirable or what not to do. This makes women immune to outside forces that very explicitly want to control their behavior. Foot binding, corsetry, victim ideologies that teach women to view themselves as helpless in every situation. Uncontrollable, unpredictable, challenging male sexuality elevates women from passive recipients of whatever life thrusts into them into active participants in creating life.
So if we’re going to talk about human male potency it should be spoken of in terms of the type of sexuality male humans actually have, not the artificial sexuality they are expected to have. In that sense male potency is about its effect on human female psychology, it’s elevation of the human female from livestock to co-creator. That’s human male potency.
And that potency is best represented not by the predictable ever-ready erection, but ironically by the implacable, temperamental, flaccid penis with its challenge to “try harder!”.
So why does a man really need to maintain the façade of being performing monkey? In order to maintain the illusion that all a woman needs to be is passive, so that she’s controllable by society.
Because when women obtain the emotional map that allows them to control their own identities, well those sounds you’re hearing, dear listener, are the stirrings of a prison break. And when women stage a prison break, not only are men along for the ride, but the whole damn prison complex comes crashing to the ground.
And that is how a limp dick can save the world.
- What will Dior’s decision regarding Johnny Depp mean for male survivors? - August 10, 2022
- Chauvin Released, Teen bullied for supporting trump, False accuser forced to apologize| HBR News 277.5 - October 13, 2020
- What Jordan Peterson checking into Rehab can teach us all - October 26, 2019