(from Why Men Are Such Boys® by Wolfgang Nebmaier © 2014)
Some may accuse me of being assailable here and of presenting unscientific considerations. But how scientific can an investigation of this subject be? Be it the desire to sell seven to nine digits worth of pharmaceuticals or the notion that monkeys can read stockbrokers’ thoughts, are not all studies based in an intention or assumption that originates in someone’s mind? The objective pursued in the considerations presented here is to take the subject of pornography out of the realm of emotional and cultural distortion. In an area where the subject is made up of something non-existent or ‘virtual’ combined with projections and a huge amount of suppressed and confused psychological underpinnings, how can a ‘placebo’ be introduced to the observation? Pornography is the placebo!
The subject is alienation. The encounter with the real person is replaced with the placebo, the thing that looks like but isn‘t. The real experience is then attached to that placebo at an age when the psyche is extremely malleable and generally while fantasizing or masturbating, that is, in a situation which, once started, is largely beyond the control of the critical mind.
The physiological ‘juices’ of sexual arousal and the dark tunnel of guilt and furtiveness conspire to create a pressured environment. Rarely does a pubescent male not fear discovery, no matter how much or how little in terms of ‘blindness’ propaganda he was inoculated with. Rarely will he pleasure himself at leisure, and without concern for covering his tracks after ‘it’ happens. All this makes it unlikely that such a young male will reflect on the facts of his situation and moderate his experience and its imprint. Will he be able to acknowledge that he is looking at the picture of a strange woman, a woman he does not know and who does not know him, a woman he did not ask and a woman who did not give him permission to rub his penis against or into any part of herself? Some will certainly argue that the female in the picture (or video) implicitly provided that consent by posing for them, but that reasoning is utterly beside the point. What matters is not the legalese between the producer/publisher and the woman but the imprint the experience will leave with the young male human: I can satisfy my sexual urges on the body of a woman without really interacting with the person. This is what we call objectification: The woman becomes a get-off-on thing.
If woman and the body and touch and sensuality, let alone pleasure, were not demonized and devalued in the dominant religions or ‘moral’ tenets, woman, her body and her beauty could be subject of admiration or reverence without the male disposition factor. Sexual pleasure itself could be freed from the mandatory use of another – or fantasy thereof. What woman does not recall being reminded of her role as accommodator even – or especially – at a young age when a boy she was “going out with”, after a while of petting and kissing, made her responsible for his aching testicles? Parents or elders or friends rarely impart the skills to a boy how to avoid or deal with the so-called “blueballs”. The result is more pressure on a woman to not “let him suffer”, making her responsible for his lack of skills about his own body. On a societal level, there is no innocent version of purposing a woman or anyone.
My mother in-law used to recount a story about a young man she was going out with, and who, some crisp fall day, implored her if he could not put his hands inside her blouse “because my hands are so cold”. Upon which she replied, “Well, why don’t you buy yourself a pair of mittens?” and walked off.
Here, there may also exist a distinct gender difference: Do masturbating women fantasize on sex with a male to the extent that males imagine either a specific woman or its generically perfected fantasy version? Do women attach their sensations and feelings to a made-up person or mainly focus on the pleasure as such? Do boys/men attach feelings of conquest to the experience of masturbating, a successful conquest without the risk of rejection or failure? And does that distort their expectation of reality or render them unable to sexually relate to a real woman?
This is not about judging masturbation or sexually arousing images. It is about investigating the process by which the real experiences between women and men may be undermined or become entirely supplanted through the readily available flood of virtual (mostly) women who won’t and can’t resist. The abstraction is taken to extremes when men cannot physically relate to a woman unless they are fucking a cartoon.
An additional blind spot is the extent to which the rape factor has entered the picture. There is no denying that a cartoon or photograph projected upon will not say “No!” unless it is drawn or staged that way and has a speech bubble to express it. The fantasy object is always willing and always available. This is also where the convenient equalizing of masturbation between men and women ends. Sure, there may be the occasional woman who finds it arousing to fantasize about controlling or dominating a man, but the bulk of that ‘scene’ is based in men’s fantasies.
(Tellingly, in the real world of sexual services, it is mostly well-off and powerful men who will gravitate to the services of a dominatrix. The reason is simple. The more money and power a man has, the more he becomes aware on some level, mostly unconsciously, that he is chasing the impossible dream of making his existential fears go away, and most of all that of being unable to really control a woman. When he exercises his financial and/or social power to make a woman act out on him that loss of control – which he never had – he kills two birds with a single stone. He can, for once, let go of his board room façade of control. And he can, in the back of his mind, maintain the notion that he isn’t really really not in control because it is his money that pays for the experience.)
When a young male, whose emotional framework is woven largely from virtual encounters on chats or games, sets out to construct his relationship to women, he finds himself without tools, without emotional skills to deal with the needs of a real person and the way that affects boundaries, mutual or otherwise. Knowing the extent to which virtual encounters can become real in people’s psyche , the situation of interacting with a tangible, feeling, flesh-and-blood person may be a real shock. As a sort of diversion from their inability to relate person-to-person, such early relationships may shift into the environment of xboxes or nontendos or soft drugs or other placebos such as pseudo-political activism. But the underlying lack of relationship skills remains.
Are Men by Nature Rapists?
Does the availability of unopposed sex fantasies by way of images and videos merely represent the opportunity that is making men show their true nature? This assumption is wrong for a number of reasons.
First, we should not mistake average for normal, let alone natural. No matter what percentage of male humans perceive penetration as the standard manner of sexual activity, such statistics say nothing about how natural that manner of sexual activity is. If all trees were cut, for example, bonsai might be considered average or standard or normal, but not natural. Similarly, bonsai souls and bonsai relationships will never be natural.
Some might argue that procreation as such requires them to be rapists since they have to penetrate into the woman to do so. This is fiction as well.
Secondly, the choice of language is biased. To choose the term penetrate colors procreation into an act of force and violation. While this may serve as a convenient blanket excuse it is factually in error. The act of depositing sperm in a woman’s vagina is a giving action by the male. It generally requires the penis to enter the woman but that does not automatically imply an act of force. It is also not a matter of interpretation but a biological reality, that the sperm does not penetrate the egg, rather the cap of the follicle containing the egg opens up by way of cyclically produced proteolytic enzymes and then the egg opens to encompass the sperm. Furthermore, the sperm does not make the choice, but the egg chooses which sperm it will take in. Feminists therefore have physiologically sound reason to contrast the penetration language of violence with the term encompassment.
The third falsehood is generated by way of omission. To describe procreation as a unilateral act of “penetrat[ing] into the woman” absolutely relegates the woman into something of an object, acted upon by the man without any participation, let alone decision authority on her part. In this way, the description implicitly considers it plausible for the act to happen against the woman’s will.
Without the context of how the language and the factual omissions come about it may be disorienting to pull the rug of the habitual language and perceptions out from under the tacitly approved understanding of sex. (Even if, on the surface, these considerations appear to be applicable to heterosexual sexual activity only, the misperceptions deeply affect both, gay and lesbian couples as well.) The source of these objectifying concepts and the associated language cannot lie anywhere but in the desire (or need) to support the illusion of procreative control. If the womb person, a.k.a. woman, were acknowledged for her dominant role in procreation, the male would find himself back at square one in his quest for . . . not feeling inferior. And this brings us back again to the larger themes of patriarchal myths.
(from Why Men Are Such Boys® by Wolfgang Nebmaier © 2014)