Tag: sex

Arousal as intoxication, and the infinite regress of reciprocal meta-desire; diabolical theorems

It’s time to write this shit down. I have not totally clarified these thoughts in my mind, and I doubt that I can communicate them in an optimal manner here and now, but I’ll begin my attempt anyway.

Before I begin: a warning. If you read and understand this theorem, you may never want to be involved in a sexual/romantic relationship ever (again). If the reasoning holds up, then the conclusion is that sex or romantic relationships are inherently anti-rational, unavoidably non-consensual (and therefore unethical).

Continue reading “Arousal as intoxication, and the infinite regress of reciprocal meta-desire; diabolical theorems”

Recursive trans bathroom controversies

The transsexual or transgender bathroom issue is really about the women’s bathrooms, as touched on in this video. Not the men’s ones.

As a male, I’m content with my own exclusion from women’s facilities. I’ve no interest in deciding who they should allow in. Not my bathroom, not my problem.

So why does this topic concern me? Because the discussion around the controversy is a power struggle that happens to involve all sorts of interesting, fundamental issues.

Continue reading “Recursive trans bathroom controversies”

Talking about sex

You can’t do it in public. Sex, that goes without saying. I mean, having a discussion about sex publicly is indecent. That’s something to talk about in private. (Some want to end that taboo, but whatever.)

That raises difficulties. Possible mismatch of expectations – does the other person really just want to talk about it, or actually do it? Possible unfortunate outcomes:

disappointment – I wanted it, turns out she didn’t.

insult – I went for it, was rebuffed. She was offended at my presumption…

If only that could be cleared up beforehand. How about, a discussion about discussing sex? Can that happen in public, that meta-level conversation?

Sex could happen with or without much talking.

The notion of expecting affirmative consent, continuously throughout sex, ‘every step of the way’ has been promoted, and ridiculed. Why resist it, if you’re not a rapist?

  • Well, why let busybodies tell us how to fuck?
  • Wordiness considered unsexy. See Kissing post.

Sex could be mindless. Or more mindful. I dunno which way is better. But if you add more talking, then you add more thinking. Increasing the possibility of unsexy thoughts coming up. Reluctance. Changing minds. Talking too much can put someone off.

But talking can precisely set up expectations, so the action could proceed in a wordless manner, if that’s preferred. Discuss ruleset X, consent to ruleset X, then you’re good to go. cf BDSM.

Ruleset X might be ‘we are married, we own each other now’.

Is this not more rational than just… go at it, hope it’s good, improvise silently?

Well, folks rationally fear that the attempt to establish exact preferable sexual behaviour in conversation will fail. And the whole thing will get called off.

But it’s not an either-or thing. On the far end of the scale is striving to linguistically program your perfect loveslave. On the other far end is engaging wordlessly. In the middle are attempts to negotiate mid-stream, or establishing ‘a few rules’ beforehand.

Ok, I’m done. Too many theory posts here. Next needs to be autobiographical again.


Gifting: psychosexual dynamics of a new monetisation angle for dating services

For all those in the dating app industry, have this one for free.

I present an idea whose time has come.

OKCupid, Tinder, Bumble, etc. have a freemium model. They are free to use. You can pay for extra premium features.

Here’s my genius idea: gift functionality. Paying for the premium functionality, not for oneself, but to pass on to someone else in the userbase, for anyone who wants to extend a kind gesture and help a bro/sis out.

Now, what would the consequences be?

Beta schmucks trying to use gifting as a method of getting girls’ attention. It’s a terrible idea for a tactic. And it’ll totally get used. So an increased number of girls on the app will be running in premium mode.

The specific consequences of that depend on the particular features the individual apps/sites offer.

Back to the wretched betas.

And I hope it’s understood that I’m not bashing these poor fellows in the spirit of cruelty. I want to help them. Really, when I speak of them, I mean us. I’m no paragon of masculinity, nor a seduction expert. I’m still on the road to wizardry. I want us to help each other. What I’m doing is trying to raise awareness…

Anyway. The wimpy, naive betas.

Blackhearted, manipulative witches will exploit their soft, weak hearts and tempt them into gift-giving, with false promises of reciprocal affection.

In this age of megacuckoldry, they could effectively spin their enticements as an invitation to join them in a polyamorous situation. This way, there’s no need to hide the fact that the point of them receiving the gift is to make it easier to meet other dudes.

The strategic choice will be to offer a long distance  fake polyamorous relationship. Maximise safety by keeping a maximal distance between the witch and the exploited.

So. That’ll happen. Some of the victims will wise up, after a while. Some will need an intervention, some convincing, some confrontation. Some will keep pissing away their cash. Oh well.

Can I really begrudge these (still hypothetical) witches? They’re enterprising! And their interactions with their victims might wake some of them up, help them learn a useful lesson about how the world works, and dislodge some stupid ideas they have about the supposedly morally superior sex.

Premium date app plans will be another gift that pornstars and webcam performers receive from their fans. At least that’s a more honest sort of transaction. A gift from a fan in exchange for a little attention, no false promises of a ‘real’ relationship. You could be the one who helps your favourite camslut to get some really good dick, and she might tell you about it!

But this isn’t the sort of stuff that these dating app companies really want to be associated with…

Do these downsides outweigh the potential increased revenue? Does anyone actually do this already? Like, sites aimed at the promiscuous, fetishists, and so on? Haven’t looked into it yet.

Go on, app-makers, you know it makes sense. Give us an option to send the gift anonymously, too.

I’ll probably fucking use it myself. Fuck.



Ask before you kiss?

From Everyday Feminism:

Ask before you kiss someone. (Or touch them, or dance with them, or hug them.)

Hm. We’ve heard this suggestion. We’ve also heard the opposite. Both expressed with apparent sincerity. Which side has the better reasons?

First, does there need to be a universal answer? Different folks are going to have different preferences. If someone has expressed their individual preference then it seems sensible to go with that.

We don’t usually have this personalised information in advance. Putting this on one’s dating site profile isn’t a custom (yet). So for now, we’ll have to go by generalised advice.

Continue reading “Ask before you kiss?”

A man’s needs

Let us dig a hole, and bury a crappy concept.

Men need sex? O RLY? No, man, being horny won’t kill you.

But we can speak meaningfully of needs that aren’t life-essential, like food or drink. We can argue that sex is a necessary part of a properly fulfilling life. Not needed to merely survive, but needed to thrive.

I still object.

My issue is particularly in the term ‘need’. The everyday usage of it doesn’t specify what the need is for, but there’s always a for.

The term is ethically loaded. It expresses some desire but also comes with an insinuation of obligation.

Take a relationship therapist who raises the topic of the boyfriend’s sexual needs. There’s an implication that the girlfriend is failing in her obligations regarding relief of his sexual frustrations. This is an awful way to think about sex.

To misquote revelation: there is no obligation in sex.

If good sex is conceived of as free action, entered into out of love and genuine mutual desire, then it can’t be thought of as a need. It’s a desire.

But what if the world was convinced of the proposition ‘men need sex’, and genuinely believed in the moral dimension that I’ve claimed it contains? Wouldn’t this be of great benefit to men? Easy pussy for everyone! Shouldn’t I be all for that, as a self-proclaimed masculinist?

At this point, the profound absurdity and profanity of the whole notion should be clear.

But if it isn’t…

Masculinism isn’t about making everything easy for men.

I think there’s an argument to be made from the reality that valuable achievements are genuinely difficult, requiring effort and discipline, towards a metaphysical justification for the basis of masculinity as such… but I don’t have enough information to articulate such a thesis. So I’ll just throw this part-formed jumble of concepts out there.

Begging for sex is, clearly, unmasculine. Who aspires to receive a pity fuck?

This is a great song

Tinder and male sexual entitlement

Men on Tinder think they have a “licence to use women as they see fit” if their date’s appearance is less attractive than her profile photograph, research says.

Dr Jenny van Hooff, senior lecturer in sociology at Manchester Metropolitan University, carried out a study of the use of Tinder among men in Manchester and Cheshire.

From PsyPost, Some Men on Tinder think they have a ‘license to use unattractive women as they see fit’

This article discusses sociological research involving interviews with men who use Tinder. These interviews reveal, according to the received interpretation, attitudes of sexual entitlement when meetings with women who have, in their judgement, tricked them with a deceptively attractive profile.

I found this article via my YouTube subscriptions: Deceived Males Shamed (video) by Bernard Chapin.

A 29-year-old man told her: “I’ve been very misled by very selective pictures, angles when the person isn’t as attractive or as slim or sporty as they make out on pictures. I try to swerve if possible, or get something out of it.”

The writeup doesn’t explicitly advocate a particular ethical or political position. Maybe the researcher does, in her own writing or presentation. I don’t know. But from the article, I get the sense that the respondents’ quoted statements are viewed as problematic. There is no outright suggestion, in the article, that these men are dangerous, abusers, or criminals. But there’s this insinuation…

The field of sociology has a lot of feminist influence. And feminism has a big problem with the notion of male sexual ‘entitlement’. It’s seen as strongly connected with selfish disregard for the interests of women, particularly around the need for sexual consent. So this is understood as a precursor for rape, and condemned as dangerous.

Here’s a different perspective, admittedly an amateur one. My view as a masculinist and sex realist.

We’re looking at confidence, self-esteem, even cockiness. And these attributes are perfectly compatible with a healthy concern for consent (i.e. that it’s an absolute necessity for sex). And they are conventionally understood as making a guy more attractive.

So no wonder some of these Tinder dudes, meeting up with women who aren’t as attractive as advertised, are getting laid. The guys are less intimidated by them. They’re emboldened to act with more courage and forthrightness, and the women like that, evidently, cause they’re having sex.

Sexual ‘entitlement’ is an ideologically loaded notion which too easily equivocates harmful attitudes and potentially positive male characteristics.

None of the above should be taken as an endorsement of casual sex. On that topic, I’ll just reference Doc Love now.