Saturday, August 06, 2016

None dare call it sociopathy

Evan Marc Katz's latest blog post has got me thinking about something I've been musing over for quite some time now - the high level of sociopathy among men.

Of course it's not called sociopathy, but Katz references the issue in his recent blog post:
Sounds a lot like what I’ve been preaching here for a decade. You can see it in the comments section. Men who think American women are selfish and would rather fly to Thailand for a bride. Women who are disgusted by men’s willingness to separate sex and love and have convinced themselves that no men are kind and commitment-oriented. This type of scarcity is not only untrue, but unhealthy as well.
First I'll point out that this paragraph reveals how much Katz's dating site, allegedly devoted to serving women, has a comments section populated by hideously misogynist men.

Now to the main issue - it's true that there are some men who are interested in love and commitment. But the fact is that a very high percentage of men do separate sex and love. Nobody knows how high a percentage because our male-dominated culture has never considered it an issue worth exploring.

And in truth, the issue is even more extreme than Katz presented. A high percentage of men don't just separate sex and love. Based on my experience in online dating, a really high percentage of men want to separate sex from any and all type of human connection

They usually don't state it so explicitly, using euphemisms like "no strings attached" and "no drama" and "not looking for anything serious." But what they actually mean - and I've sloooowly come to understand this from years of meeting men through online dating sites - is that they want to be in a room with you (or outdoors, they really aren't particular), they want to stick their penis into one or more of your orifices, evacuate and then go away. 

When they use the term "friends with benefits" it's complete bullshit - they don't want the friend part, they only want the benefits. They don't want to know anything about you - the only thing that matters to them is that you present enough visual sexual signifiers to arouse them. Period. Unique, individual you means less than nothing to them - your humanity is actually an inconvenient, annoying roadblock to their achieving something of value.

In other words for many men, the best kind of sex is completely dehumanized sex.

What do we call people who prefer to have minimal emotional connections with other people? Sociopaths.

But the reason that we don't call it sociopathy in this case is because sex without emotional connection is identified as a masculine thing. Men have so utterly dominated the world since the beginning of human culture anything male is the standard for humanity.

This dehumanized way that many men look at women is the basis for "flying to Thailand for a bride" and the phenomenon Katz pointed out without criticism, men working to get rich so they can have access to women they wouldn't normally have access to. 

Many men don't want a woman they have something in common with: life experiences, similar level of attractiveness, compatible aspirations, shared hobbies. Those are women they have access to. They want someone younger and beautiful and nothing else matters.

This phenomenon of men treating women like soulless things goes a long way to explaining why men abandon sick wives at such a high rate:
  • A married woman diagnosed with a serious disease is six times more likely to be divorced or separated than a man with a similar diagnosis.
  • Among study participants, the divorce rate was 21 percent for seriously ill women and 3 percent for seriously ill men.
  • A control group divorced at a rate of 12 percent, suggesting that if disease makes husbands more likely to split, it makes wives more likely to stay.
These men married their wives to have access to pussy. And illness makes the pussy less available and/or less desirable. So why would they stick around? To deal with possible sad feelings and diminished sexual access? That's not what they signed up for, no matter what vows about sickness and health they spouted in front of an audience.

What women need to do is stop allowing their own lived experiences to be gas-lighted away by self-interested champions of the patriarchy like Evan Marc Katz and instead ask: why are so many men sociopaths?


  1. Excellent post. Men are extremely screwed-up today, especially the younger ones. I think easy porn access is a major culprit. I regard it as total poison. It is helping to make men who are vulnerable to mental problems totally sociopathic. Same with prostitution. Men have no right to women's bodies, to dehumanize them. They have no right to sex from women. I feel bad for young women today because men who respect women are increasingly harder to find.

    1. I haven't noticed any difference in men by age when it comes to separating sex from human connections. I do wonder if there's just a greater tendency for the male brain to dehumanize people. We know that some men ARE interested in women as people and not just as walking collections of orifices, but there needs to be research on the phenomenon, which will happen once the attitude that it's normal and "natural" for men to be sociopaths is discarded. And I have my doubts about porn - treating women like objects or like livestock has been happening in human culture forever. I don't think porn helps, but since the dehumanization happens with or without porn, it does not appear to be the ultimate cause.

    2. I think the boom in online porn has made relationships between the sexes much, much worse. Sure, porn has been around, but it has never been as easily available and infiltrating younger and younger men. It is also much more horrific in content. I believe the average age of first exposure to porn is just 11 years of age for boys. They are literally being taught about "sex" through porn. Many men, especially the younger ones, are putting extreme pressure on young women to do things they would not ordinarily do. But yes, male sociopathy needs to be studied because it does go way beyond sex. Hell, look no further than one of the two major party candidates for president to know it is a serious matter.

    3. Well I guess it depends on what you consider "horrific" - I had a debate with Amanda Marcotte on Facebook some years ago - she claimed that porn was mostly misogynist, but on a brief survey I conducted I did not find that to be the case. I blogged about it here:

      Porn is certainly depersonalizing, for the most part - as the man in this video discusses.

      But I'm not convinced that porn is making men have depersonalized sex. I think that men already desired depersonalized sex and porn was made that reflected their desires. Not the other way around. The man in the video talking about porn already had desire for humanized sex. He stopped watching porn because he did not enjoy it after awhile, it became disturbing. He is in the percentage of men who do not prefer depersonalized sex.

      And again, women were treated like shit long before porn was easily available. In fact, if you're going to mistake correlation for causation you could make the case that the more porn has become available, the better women's lives have become. Porn is more available now than at any time in the history of the world, and yet women are making more money for themselves than ever before, and have more access to education and yes, to reference the current election, for the first time we have a woman candidate for president of a major party. But correlation is not causation. And so I am not convinced that porn is the cause of male depersonalization of sex - I think the depersonalization was there first.