>
 |
| He was cured, all right. |
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) are endlessly fascinating. For men who want to have nothing to do with women, they sure spend an awful lot of time thinking about women, talking about women, obsessing about women.
And oftentimes, it seems, the women they obsess about the most are naked women. Which brings us to one of the central conundrums of the MGTOW “movement,” or “community,” or whatever it is: How does one square one’s desire to have nothing to do with women with one’s desire to put one’s penis in them?
Not surprisingly, this is a topic that sometimes pops up, as it were, on MGTOW forums. Recently I ran across one such discussion archived on Don’t Marry. A late-twenties guy calling himself grasser asked the assembled MGTOWers how he might go about reducing his sexual desire for those sneaky, sexy, evil women:
Here’s the problem: I despise American women, but some of them look hot anyway. I pretty much stay the hell away from them as much as possible. Still, I’m a guy with normal drives and impulses, and sometimes I just gotta have it. It’s very annoying, and distracts me from other important work. I don’t like to watch porn either. Fuckin waste of time. I’ve been going to the gym everyday to lift weights, do cardio, I eat 3 square meals a day. How do you reduce desire for the female sex – besides going gay, of course.
No one suggested he look into that last option — MRAs and MGTOWs tend to be pretty thoroughly heterosexual. But they did have a number of specific ideas. One jokingly suggested that marriage would kill his sex drive pronto; another suggested that just talking to a woman for any length of time would do it: “After half an hour of her heroic autobiography, poor wally will be as limp as overcooked pasta.” Another suggested he let time take its toll, as the sex drive declines with age. And of course there was the age-old standby, furious masturbation. And if you couldn’t stand celibacy any longer: hookers.
Many of the suggestions were a little more, well, original:
I was told that eating Tofu will help cut down your sex drive. Buddhist monks in Japan are known to eat Tofu to “cool” their desire.
Train in kung fu, chi kung, yoga to control emotions and libido.
And for those with less interest in Eastern ways:
If you are white make latent racism your ally. (Not a moral solution but a practical one.) When you see a hottie imagine how many black dudes she sucked off. Try to picture them frosting her face.
But the most popular suggestion had a touch of Clockwork Orange about it: Using a sort of MGTOW version of the Ludovico Technique, train yourself to think of women and their sexy sex organs as repulsive. As one put it:
Remember that they stink. The “natural feminine scent” that they have nowadays is every bit as sexy as a skunk.
Another chimed in:
These words have gotten me through it:
“It’s just a stinky hole.”
Another quoted from a strange “Pep Talk For Brilliant Sex Restrainers” on the website celibacy.info:
Realize her body is full of the various cruds that makes up the human body (this is a favorite of the Asian sages). Excrement is sitting in her, all sorts of fatty deposits, weird impurities and drugs, gristle and bone, etc. She has bacteria in her mouth, and when she wakes up it stinks. Even if she seems pretty, there is even more putrid bacteria in her lower orifices. She farts and defecates just like any animal. Try to visualize her skeleton beneath the skin, muscle, fat and fascia. See, she’s not really a turn-on after all.
Well, I don’t know about you, but I’m off to wash my brain with mind-bleach.
>@Eoghan,There is something seriously wrong with you.
>"You are correct is saying that you didnt use the words "psychopath" and "doormat" but you did use the characteristics of a psychopath and a doormat to stereotype the two groups."No she didn't. Once again you are blatantly misrepresenting what she has said. If you continue to blatantly and repeatedly misrepresent what others are saying I may have to start deleting some of your posts. That sort of thing is against my comment policy, and I think I need to start enforcing that more stringently so as to avoid having discussions constantly being derailed by untrue nonsense. That applies to everybody, regardless of ideology.
>David, you are showing your bias or having a reading malfunction.Chriatine said"As far as why American men seek foreign brides, there aren't that many who do that. I think that most men who are seeking foreign brides are seeking a woman they can control" (an irrational need to control and dominate is a marked characteristic of psychopathy) "who will be more likely to be submissive, obedient and compliant and not likely to leave them" (describing foreign brides with characteristics that we attribute to what we call a "doormat")Sorry David, Im right here.
>A desire to control does NOT equal psychopathy, by any stretch of the imagination. It is one out of a large number of possible characteristics of a psychopath. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PsychopathAnd again, Christine saying that some men seeking foreign brides are looking for submissive women does not mean that Christine is herself saying that these women are submissive or "doormats." Indeed, she has stated (emphasis added by me):"I believe that some MRA's want to marry foreign wives because they believe they have a better chance of finding a woman who won't stand up for themselves – whether this is true or not."This particular discussion is OVER. Any further comments by anyone on this will be deleted.
>To clarify: Discussion is OVER on the topic of what Christine said. Discussion of this blog post and related issues can and I hope will continue.
>Then MRA's who want to control and dominate women have psychopathic characteristics. Interesting.
>Sorry David. I saw your comment too late.
>David, you just edited what Christine actually said to change its meaning.She said""As far as why American men seek foreign brides, there aren't that many who do that. I think that most men who are seeking foreign brides are seeking a woman they can control" and you changed it to" believe that some MRA's want to marry foreign wives because they believe they have a better chance of finding a woman who won't stand up for themselves"Christine, anyone with an irrational desire to control and dominate others likely has some form of personality disorder and or psychopathy regardless of what sex they are or what gender they belong to.
>edit – regardless of what sex or political leaning they are.
>I said both in different posts. And I meant both.
>Eoghan, this is a perfect example of why it is pointless to discuss things with you. I quoted Christine word for word, from a post of hers you obviously didn't bother to read.You didn't even bother to look for the quote before accusing me, in several different comments, one of which I have deleted, of editing her comment to say something different.That is what's called a "reckless disregard for the truth." This discussion really is over now.
>I would be interested in a discussion of the merits and demerits of controlling. May I ask the feminists here, is there any scenario in which you feel that control (i.e. authority) within a relationship — by one partner over another — is ever merited? And a second related question is how can one enforce boundaries without doing so in abusive or excessive ways?Two questions, neither of which are in themselves an expression of my opinion. I think that they are necessary questions to ask, because it seems to me that every feminist commenter that I have ever read in a forum or on a blog equates control with abuse.
>Christine, I think you have hit the nail right smack on the head. I won't mention specifically what I am referring to, since David said that particular conversation was over.Willy said: sounds a lot like radical feminism from the masculine end. interesting stuff.Agreed. Very interesting.
>John, your questions are perfectly legitimate. But you HAVE expressed an opinion on this subject, just not here. Reading the Standyourground forums the other day, I ran across a post of yours that says in part: "Although our law-based system can and does arrive at just outcomes (sometimes), in my view it is inferior to a patriarchal system, especially in achieving just outcomes in matters that are related to family. A patriarchal system vests authority in the one who is most responsible for the wellbeing of the family, namely the father."
>@John Dias…there is a big difference between controlling someone and enforcing boundaries. Controlling another is basically about attempting to make another conform to your idea of what they should do, be, think, say, etc.. Boundaries are about controlling and protecting yourself and not at all about making another bend to your will. If "enforcing boundaries" has anything to do with getting someone else to bend to your will, then it is control and using the word boundaries is a misuse of that word. Telling a partner to do or not do something, then backing it up with a threat or pushing them around until they comply (which some may call enforcing boundaries) is violating that person's personal boundaries. Setting healthy boundaries with another will not be construed as excessive or abusive. My favorite books on boundaries are "Boundaries" and "Boundaries in Marriage" by Drs. Townsend and McCloud. I have given many copies of those books to domestic violence victims. They're awesome. I recommend them to anyone who is having issues with another person attempting to control them.
>@Christine "there is a big difference between controlling someone and enforcing boundaries" Bravo, this is so true.@Dias "May I ask the feminists here, is there any scenario in which you feel that control (i.e. authority) within a relationship — by one partner over another — is ever merited?" In a romantic relationship? No. To quote Christine, because she said it so well "Controlling another is basically about attempting to make another conform to your idea of what they should do, be, think, say, etc" Your partner is not your property, nor are they your inferior. In fact, the very notion of someone being a "partner" and of them being controlled by the other is contradictory. Partners work together or as a team, they do not work as one in authority over the other.
>@DarkSideCat…exactly. And why should any woman choose a man whose priority is to be her "boss" when there are so many awesome men out there who have a sense of fairness and equity in relationships? My parents have been married for 46 years and they are partners and are happy. My Dad has never controlled my Mom. He has never made unilateral decisions for the family. They make decisions together. My Mom is, in fact, more responsible than my Dad is. The difference between a man like my Dad and a man who is bent on control in a relationship is that my Dad cares about what my Mom wants in addition to his own wants. Controlling people are self-centered and MEAN and have you walking on eggshells to try to prevent them from throwing temper tantrums over little to nothing. Women lose respect for controlling men – it's hard to respect a man who throws temper tantrums, or worse.
>@ Christine'Women lose respect for controlling men – it's hard to respect a man who throws temper tantrums, or worse'Interesting sentence, but why so single-sided? MEN lose respect for controlling WOMEN – it's hard to respect a WOMAN who throws temper tantrums, or worse. What about that?But there are differences, women are protected by various laws for their behavior, like VAWA, but men are not.In any case, the victim is the woman, never the man.Christine: why should any woman choose a man whose priority is to be her "boss" Same should apply also to the other gender, and why should any MAN choose a WOMAN whose priority is to be HIS "boss"? Or not?And how to get away from a controlling woman as a man? As I said, the victim is always the woman, under any circumstances.
>@John Dias,Since you asked…The many, many rules that men have made up for women and try to force them to live by…those are man-made rules, you know. God has no such list of gender roles. That "place" women are "supposed" to be in, some selfish, power hungry men made that up. The long laundry list of duties women are supposed to perform for men, selfish men made all that up too. If women were "naturally" submissive then men wouldn't have to threaten them and beat them to force them into it. They would just "naturally" be that way. But, of course, they are not and never have been. Male supremacy is nothing but a tool for the extremely selfish who set up a relationship to be all about me, me, me.
>@yohan,I answered it that way because John Dias, a supporter of a patriarchal system in which one partner is in authority over another, asked. In a patriarchal system, it is the MAN, who is the authority. Are you the self-appointed Manboobz blog police, following behind everyone telling them how they SHOULD have commented/answered or what? Dude, I'm not always going to answer things how you think I should, and I'm not going to follow up your policing posts to me reiterating that I know women can be abusive and men can be victims over and over. EVERYBODY knows that. I've said it several times in past comments. In these comments, I'm addressing the man as authority as in a patriarchal system. Deal with it.
>I believe that responsibility justifies authority. If you take on more responsibility than someone else in a particular area, then it would be controlling of that person to make demands of you because they haven't invested the same effort as you have in fulfilling your obligations. Compared to someone else, if you invest a disproportionate amount of effort on fulfilling a certain responsibility, then it is your prerogative to "shrug" at any time, even if the fulfillment of your responsibilities benefits others. You are not anyone's slave. That is why it is justified for a parent to have authority over a child; it is the parent who is providing for the child's survival needs, comfort, and moral direction. Or what about a live-in guest, an adult who says they need to live under your roof while they get on their feet? Aren't you entitled to revoke your provision at any time, and while they live under your roof aren't you also justified in placing reasonable expectations on them so that they're pulling their weight? If they sit there lazy and never make an honest effort to contribute, then it is they who are controlling you if you are somehow obligated to support them without the corresponding authority to back off from supporting them at any time. Control over oneself is freedom, and this implies control over one's obligations. If it benefits others that you fulfill your responsibilities, then you have some leverage; as long as they depend on you, then it is legitimate for you to have some expectations on them. So long as reciprocity occurs like this, in a symbiotic relationship, there can be harmony. But there is disharmony and injustice when one adult pulls the other one's weight and has to ask the dependent one for permission to be relieved.
>In the context of an intimate relationship, who is the "authority" or is more responsible party in certain areas of the relationship would need to mutually agreed upon rather than unilaterally decided and forced on the other person as is the in abusive relationships. "Authority" over another person is a dictatorship, not a relationship.
>In the context of an intimate relationship, who is the "authority" or is the more responsible party in certain areas of the relationship would need to be mutually agreed upon rather than unilaterally decided and forced on the other person as is the case in abusive relationships. "Authority" over another person is a dictatorship, not a relationship. Corrected version of the above comment…was on the fly when I initially posted it so messed it up.
>In divorce, one spouse appeals to an authority that supersedes that which was established within the relationship by both spouses. The spouse who files uses government power to dictate to the other spouse a host of obligations that were not necessarily agreed upon prior to the marriage. That government power is unleashed via the family court. Failure to comply with the court's rulings can result in wage garnishments and/or jail time via a contempt-of-court decree. And so if both spouses previously agreed that one of them would provide financially while the other nurtured at home, that prior agreement is violated precisely when the State's authority is invoked. Government authority is based on coercion, which in turn is based on violence. Coercing someone by proxy is still coercion.In the aftermath of a divorce, one former spouse remains obligated to continue to provide financial resources to the other. But the reverse is not true; a stay-at-home nurturer is no longer obligated to meet any nurturing obligations that were once in place (and by mutual agreement). The court-ordered obligations are all one-sided. And again, deviating from the court's decrees subjects the violator to State-imposed violence. Isn't that coercion? Isn't that dictatorship?If you want to be released from your marital obligations (i.e. if you want to file for divorce), then it's only fair to release your spouse from theirs too. But that's not the case in our law-based society, which perpetuates injustices and sows disorder.
>John Dias: In the aftermath of a divorce, one former spouse remains obligated to continue to provide financial resources to the other. But the reverse is not true…In Central Europe we found the focus of complaints by men was not about some obligations directly after divorce, but about a missing time limit.Therefore alimony or other claims (see below lottery winnings!) are now limited in Germany to 3 years, formerly 15 years. After that time, it's finished and both ex-spouses are expected to continue their life financially without depending to each other.However US/UK law differs from Continental Europe, and in some cases women are getting back to their ex-husbands up to 40 years after divorce demanding support. 'you have now more than me, give me money'. – It's no joke, the ex-wife can show up anytime until you die demanding financial support even from your lottery winnings. Btw, she can even claim support after your death, if there is some certain inheritage left over, like income from rented rooms, interests from savings, life insurances etc.Such laws MUST be changed, but feminists are against it of course. Why to work if you can get money anyway?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331925/Lottery-winner-Nigel-Page-pay-ex-wife-2m-left-10-years-ago.htmlLottery winner ordered to pay £2m to ex-wife even though she left him for another man… TEN YEARS ago