I think people believe that onani leads to looking at p0rn, which is inherently exploitative to those involved (men and women) and a foul industry. Likewise, it can produce exaggerated sexual fantasies that are unhealthy and can create predatory relationships.
It's hard to imagine jerking without explicit content, and once you have gone from Swimsuit edition to Softcore, it's hard to go back... From softcore to hardcore, it's hard to go back... From niche hardcore to regular, boring hardcore... It's hard to go back...
And it leads to becoming a person who does this frequently... And then, what if you want a family? Do you really want to be taht guy who is looking at crazy stuff and rubbing one out while your infant daughter is sleeping 30 feet away in her room? Do you want to be the guy whose wife is out of action from giving birth and you are like "Oh, OK, I will just look at explicit hardcore content and content myself..."
It's a bad habit.
It also creates crazy expectations of others which may even lead to so desiring some novel experience that you have an affair or "open" your marriage.
Yeah I believe there's this weird story about how like... Onani/onanism entered the vocabulary through the Old Testament character and then the notoriously private Japanese adopted the foreign word "onani" to refer to masturb8tion and so it just sticks in my head a bit more and comes out when I feel the need to slightly self-censor in consideration of being on the work net (it's not an English speaking IT team but, you know how it goes, don't be the shortest hanging fruit).
You can die of cirrhosis from drinking too much for too long, but it's still culturally held as a stress reliever. You can die from diabetes if you eat too much sugar for too long, but it's still sold to children as edible happiness. Hell, you can die slowly and painfully from taking too much Tylenol, but it's still the world's most popular painkiller by far.
Too much of anything kills eventually. That doesn't bare any significance to whether or not it's good for stress in some amount.
One major reason is that feminism, which deeply influences culture, posits that all men are rapists in the waiting. For an example here a quote from a prominent and influential feminist.
"Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."
Andrea Dworkin
This chills any frank discussion of male sexuality because that would be implicit endorsement of sexual assault.
Solanas had a lot of trauma informing her opinions and was really only mainstream for being absurdly inflammatory and shooting Warhol.
Also, most feminists don’t want to castrate people, and most is an understatement…
I don't care what one person said. Feminism will go away when sexism is gone. It's not war on men, it's a fight for equality. Using a random quote from one hurt and angry person to frame feminism as something evil is missing the point and pretty incel. Using feminism as an answer to why masturbation is not socially accepted is insane, really.
Ah yes, feminism, an ideology that consists solely of extremist views. I'm not even well versed in feminism and I know that Andrea Dworkin is quite extreme and is a polarizing figure.
If you have reduced feminism to the views of a single extremist than you really need to get your shit together.
Where did you learn about feminism? Did you study it? Have you been involved in it? Do you actually have any touchstone with it? Or, maybe, does it maybe all come from sources that want to portray it negatively, because accurately representing it may undermine your faith in them?
Some people want you to need them, and the way the do this is by creating a monster that is theoretically attacking you. You need them to defend you from it. You just have to recognize that the monster isn't real and the problems they're telling you about are actually to cover up actual issues they are creating.
You do know that feminism promotes female masturbation, as well as male masturbation, right? As part of sexual liberation from religious patriarchal oppression. You know, the thing for which women were accused of being witches and burned at the stakes. The thing that it was only appropriate if a doctor did it for them.
You raise an excellent point that the quote from Andrea Dworkin portrays a rather extreme and controversial view that is not representative of feminism as a whole. In fact, many prominent feminists have strongly disagreed with Dworkin's perspective.
For example, Laura Tanenbaum, a respected feminist writer, has bluntly called Dworkin's views "shit." (1) Wendy McElroy, in her book XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography, also presents a feminist case against Dworkin's anti-porn stance (2). As the esteemed feminist scholar Dr. Dale Spender has eloquently put it, "Feminism['s battles] have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions, for safety in the streets, for child care, for social welfare, for rape crisis centres, women's refuges, reforms in the law." (3)
This demonstrates that feminism is a broad movement focused on expanding women's rights and opportunities - not demonizing male sexuality. In fact, as Amartya Sen compellingly argues in Development as Freedom, the expansion of women's capabilities is essential for the betterment of all people. When women have more voice, choice and agency, it leads to progress in areas like health, education, and poverty reduction that benefit entire communities.
So while Dworkin's quote may get attention for its shock value, I would encourage looking to the many other feminist thinkers who take a more nuanced, constructive and less male-antagonistic approach (5). Feminism is not about vilifying men and male sexuality, but rather about advancing gender equality in a way that uplifts everyone. There is room for an open, healthy dialogue about sexuality within a framework of mutual understanding and respect between women and men.
(4) Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999.
(5)
In fact, many leading feminist thinkers today emphasize an inclusive, nuanced and compassionate approach aimed at liberating people of all genders from limiting stereotypes and unjust social structures. Prominent feminist authors like bell hooks have advocated for men's inclusion in the feminist movement, arguing that patriarchy harms both men and women. Scholars like Kimberle Crenshaw and Michael Kimmel examine how rigid gender norms and hierarchies contribute to issues like violence and discrimination in a holistic way, without resorting to vilifying men as a group.
So while I understand your frustration with certain feminist ideas that can come across as accusatory toward men, I would encourage you to explore the diversity of thought within modern feminism. There are many brilliant feminist advocates out there who are working to create a more just and equitable world for everyone, men included. By considering these alternative perspectives with an open mind, you might find more points of alignment than you expect.
Ultimately, I believe we all share the same goal of wanting a society where everyone is free to express themselves fully and without fear - but getting there will require good faith dialogue and a willingness to thoughtfully engage with different points of view.
Masturbate right before gym, then go train. Note how your performance was. Especially if its a squat or a deadlift day.
Note down what time you went to sleep, when you woke up, and every meal you ate (all calories, including macros).
Now refrain from masturbation from that day until the next session you have of the same exercise, make sure you go to sleep within the same time the night before, wake the same time the day of training, and eat the same exact meals, go train the same exact exercise, same sets, reps, and weight. Note your performance.
I'm actually curious on this one, I don't have gym equipment or membership, is there something else I can do to compare performance if I were to masturbate vs if I didn't?
It's all old coaches tales. Olympic athletes not only masturbate but actively fuck each other senseless during the Olympics and you don't see any effect on their performance in the slightest. If you are such a wimp that busting a nut makes you lose your breath sooner when jogging, then you have different medical problems. Cardiac atrophy for example. Masturbating barely even burns calories to begin with.
Lots of top athletes have superstitions about abstaining from intercourse prior to events - some are very extreme, with fighters isolating themselves from their spouses and training for months without any release before their MMA fight/boxing match. Some say they do it for, say, just a week ahead of time, etc.
There are a few who have the opposite philosophy and claim to actually do it more in the week leading up to the fight.
It's really a massive point of contention because some people claim it is a mere superstition while others absolutely will not break their routine.
There is also the famous incident where Bobby Fisher says that he performed poorly at a tournament because he had sex after the first night and the experience totally removed him from his focus...
This might be why it impacts fighters and certain people whose lifting styles are really about maximized performance and not a routine... If concentration is interrupted, it can result in very poor output. Like I can see how someone who is very intense about what they are doing and requires total focus would be interrupted by any form of sexual distraction. This is probably very, very relevant to guys who are fighters...
This might also have to do with perspectives on sexuality - people who ascribe a lot of meaning to it versus those who do not...
That's a problem with attitudes about sex and lack of impulse control during competition. The same could be said about doing your taxes before a tournament. It can take your focus, but it is not the taxes fault. It's your lack of impulse control to keep your mind focused on the competition. Bad coaches ignore that there is a strong psychological component to training. But it has nothing to do with the sexual nature of the stimulus, just what you do with it and what is the attitude towards it.
Still, absolutely nothing to do with any physiological element of performance. Jerking one off the night before is not going to knock off anything, much less weight in your lifting personal record, for instance.
Interestingly if I refrain from ejaculation, the longer I go, the more aggressive my performance is. I was in the camp that it was all BS. This was in my late teens and early 20s. I decided to test this claim after a gym owner/coach/professional bodybuilder gave me his thoughts on his personal journey into gym training, explaining that he would not ejaculate 1 week prior to a set of specific exercises he had planned to PR (hit a new personal record).
I've gone so far from refraining to ejaculate (about 6 weeks) that I would literally urinate a mixture of urine and ejaculate - without the orgasm. Reaching this far into refraining, my aggression and focus was noticeable. More interestingly and may have been coincidental, but refraining from ejaculation even eliminated joint pain I had in my elbows from heavy bench and overhead pressing. I'm including this because apparently there's people who have arthritis (of some sort) and after ejaculation, their arthritis flares up immediately after.
I personally don't care if people want to call it a myth, but if you're an athlete, you compete, or simply take weight training seriously, you should maybe test out said myth for yourself.
I joked with my wife that I couldn't break a 685lbs deadlift, I hit a plateau there - 4 times in a row (4 different sessions) until I decided to refrain from sex for 10 days leading up to my next deadlift session where I was able to smoothly pull a 690, so smooth I debated to go after the 700 (my next milestone) but decided to save it for another time.
This is pretty incel-ish. Here’s an article linking several studies which contradict your anecdotal suggestions. But you keep not fucking, I’ll cover for you!
Positive results on a quasi-scientific self-experiment is not a good way to gain knowledge. At best it is how you specifically react to the variables introduced; however, it seems that you only performed this self-experiment on two separate occasions or perhaps only when you planned to go to the gym. Although your attempt to limit confounding variables is commendable, it is not enough to reach a conclusion. To definitely find the truth on the matter, many more participants must be enrolled and the experiment should last for at least three weeks, but hopefully much longer so as to definitely reduce any confounding variables that will influence the results. Some of the better studies regarding physical performance were running for around six months just for this reason.
Specifically regarding your self-experiment, if it was indeed performed as one session vs. one other session, there could be any number of confounding variables that could have effected your performance other then masturbation. Did you keep a sleep journal during the experiment (recording night mood, morning mood, amount of sleep)? Did you consume alcoholic beverages in the seven days leading up to the session? What was your specific workout routine?
In my opinion you should continue this experiment, but record more data for longer amounts of time; say six months of abstention, and six months of regular masturbation. Of course, this produces it's own confounding variables because it could very well be that the result you get has nothing to do with whether or not you masturbated, but rather the gains you made during the first trial period. Which is why to be able to tell people what is truth and what is incorrect, more participants must be recruited to validate the results; otherwise, it will only ever be (again) at best (i.e. confounding variables properly accounted for to the best of your ability), how you specifically react to abstention.
With only a single event, it could be something as boring as what music you listened to during a workout. That can actually have a pretty strong influence, where maturation at best has a small influence, if any. If that weren't the case, the Olympics wouldn't be full of athletes fucking, because releasing their sperm somehow has a negative effect on performance. (If you believe it's only masturbation, not sex, I'm going to need you to consider what mechanism could possibly effect this, because I can't think of any.)
It's more valorized than you think. There are places on the internet that are very social and masturbatory. Check out bateworld. If you're single and are a male looking for a male, be prepared to be disappointed chatting with hetero males that are married that get off on jerking off with other men behind their wives' backs. That's pretty much a major sector of the population on bateworld. I'm kinda gay, but I surmise that the hetero world and marriage makes the sex for the hetero males kind of boring. I can't say why, I'm trying to figure it out. A survey, if you will. Basically, I predict that the end result to my survey will be: men really like their dicks because major dopamine. Men get bored with their wives because whatever reasons I don't know about. Men like their own dicks and somehow society has taught them to like their dicks so much, to the point that they often send dick pics via SMS or Whatsapp. So then they start liking other dicks? Explain to me, the gay man, why hetero men enjoy seeing x-rated pornography where the dick is larger than the hole that it is penetrating. Is it connected to the dopamine? Anyway, bateworld seems to prove that men migrate towards jerking off as a dopamine hit and men in particular are very interested in socializing with other men in need of the dopamine hit, all the while getting off on the taboo against masturbation. Me, being kinda old, I remember the good old days when you went out drinking with high hopes of having your penis touched by another person, if only briefly. 2024 is a new world, in which men are seriously confused about dicks and dopamine.
I think this is a case of "The internet can take the niche 120 people out of the 8 billion on Earth and make them seem like they're normal and everyone is like them". Loud voice, itty bitty percentage of the population. If you go to "car-fuckers.com" you'll leave thinking 4 out of 10 men have sex with their car and that's why shows like Top Gear/Grand Tour are popular lol
I think you want to be right, but you should probably prove yourself right by signing up for a bateworld account and see for yourself. You're probably meaning well, being a happily married, hetero male, and don't want to believe that some of the hetero males you wave to as you drive past them, some of your cousins, or even your favorite co-worker with a wife and five kids, are probably on that web site jerking off to it. *edit: also, the web site has been making money for over 20 years. It's always been chock full of married straight males.
Some people are bi+ and just aren't out yet or don't even know exactly what they are. And that's fine. I also believe it's probably a pretty small percentage of the population. Fwiw, you can be in a differing sex relationship and still be somewhat curious about the other side of the coin. I think the worst thing people can do is be ashamed of it, then hide it at all costs where it manifests as this sort of website. Instead of having conversations among friends and spouses and more healthy methods of exploring one's sexuality, such as going to pride events and making diverse, enriching friendships.
some people aren't, and they like the taboo feel. really, don't try to educate me. I know all about it. Try, instead, to be less blah. We're not talking about "some people" we're talking about men who are really into their penises. Your public service announcement, while making me yawn, also makes me think that you're really not paying attention to what I'm talking about at all! These people I'm talking about are not gay, or questioning, or curious, or obsessed over their sexual orientations. They're heterosexual. Heterosexual men enjoy their own penises. Your "intervention" is kind of stupid and uncalled for here. I'll gladly talk to you about gay rights or whatever, but this is not the place. Biologically, I'm explaining, being a man and having a penis, you basically have an easy target to get some dopamine. We are formed this way. More women might like to chime in on this conversation. Are they getting easy dopamine hits off their clits? Were they raised to do this by their parents? No. Women are still subjected to shaming for sexual pleasure. Men, on the other hand, are encouraged to be aware of their pleasure organs. I really wish I could delete your bullshit comment. It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Christianity and capitalism. If it doesn't make you feel guilty the Christians don't like it and if you can provide it to yourself for free the capitalists don't like it.
You can jerk off without porn. Think of all the advertising and subscriptions on porn sites. Those have nothing to do with masturbation and everything to do with capitalism.
Because you enjoy it. If you're fixing your issues, it must be through pain and suffering. If it doesn't involve pain and suffering, then it isn't fixing your issues. The "Protestant work ethic" doesn't come right out and say that, but it's the implication.
See also: denial of LSD and psilocybin for mental health purposes.
For the seminal analysis of this topics, there's Max Weber's book “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”. But it is really dry reading, so I would suggest finding some YouTube essay video that summarizes it.
The current 3rd/4th wave feminism finds male sexual pleasure very abhorrent. If you can find anything in the mainstream discourse coming from a feminist that says otherwise please share.
Feminists can't even agree to be against circumcision which is clearly genital mutilation.
Thats just not true my dude, there is nothing about feminist thought that says that male pleasure is abhorrent. To think so shows a lack of understanding of feminism...
Okay, post some mainstream feminist discourse that says otherwise. Highly influential feminists like Dworkin go as far as saying that any sexual intercourse with men is sexual assault.
Second, she died almost twenty years ago my dude. Intercourse was published in '87 during the second wave of feminism. Why are you misquoting her as an example of current mainstream discourse? And even if we're going to be talking about feminist views of the 80's, you're conveniently ignoring sex-positive feminism. The sex wars were like, the defining feminist debate of that era.
She did in fact say that and your link doesn't refute that. And sex positive feminism is not sex positive for men. As I've said many times before I'm talking about mainstream feminist discourse. Feminist always use this tactic of digging up some progressive strain of feminism knowing full well it's not influential.
Dworkin may have died awhile ago but her work is still regularly cites and studies by mainstream feminism and her influence can be seen in movies like the Barbie movie.
Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn't saying that and I didn't say that, then or ever. There is a long section in Right-Wing Women on intercourse in marriage. My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a reading of our laws, that marriage mandated intercourse—it was compulsory, part of the marriage contract. Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman. I said that when we look at sexual liberation and the law, we need to look not only at which sexual acts are forbidden, but which are compelled.
The whole issue of intercourse as this culture's penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. In Intercourse I decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the "all sex is rape" slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don't think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.
It's important to say, too, that the pornographers, especially Playboy, have published the "all sex is rape" slander repeatedly over the years, and it's been taken up by others like Time who, when challenged, cannot cite a source in my work.
All she’s saying is that she meant maritial sex is a form of violence because maritial rape was legal, which wasn’t even true.
She's saying women cannot legally consent to sex in marriage when marital rape is legal. She wasn't saying that all sex was violent, she was saying it was all not the "free act of a free woman" because wives were property of their husbands and could be legally raped even if they denied sexual consent.
You seem to have a pretty loose grasp on the issues here. I get that you didn't like the Barbie movie, but that all that means is that you didn't like the Barbie movie.
Lol, I literally have never heard of the lady until this thread, but sure it's me with an agenda.
With better reading comprehension instead of "man get real angry when word men used to describe things men do generally" even those quotes aren't saying what you think they're saying...and that's with no attribution or sources so I don't even know if they're misquotes.
EDIT: Also you sidestepped your completely invalid claim that marital rape was illegal always because you argue in bad faith
She did in fact say that and your link doesn't refute that.
Come now. She very clearly denies saying it in the interview I linked to:
Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven't found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?
Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn't saying that and I didn't say that, then or ever.
If you want to claim she's lying about her own statements, find me a direct quote of her saying it.
She did say it's degrading and a form of contempt inflicted by men on women. In the context of the books it's not at all unreasonable to interpret it as rape.
Regardless it DOES posit male sexuality and violence and degragation of women when it is expressesed.
Regardless that's her influence even if unintentional and it's all over media and culture.
"She is often said to argue that "all heterosexual sex is rape", based on the line from the book that says, "Violation is a synonym for intercourse." However, Dworkin has denied this interpretation, stating, "What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself. That's my point."[1]"
But she posits that patriarchy is all encompassing and subordinates all women. Even the feminist that wrote the forward said that's what she meant.
Numerous feminists have said they interpreted that way. It's hard to take her denial seriously given the context of her book and the rest of her writings.
"She didn't actually say what she said in the book. Or what she said in multiple interviews. She really said whatever dumb strawman I want to make up."
This is exactly my point. This is a harsh misunderstanding at what she was getting at...
She is saying that the reality of sex for the vast majority of history has been about men dominating women, not interested in satisfying the women involved, but someone already covered that point.
Feminism suffers from being very broad. There are a lot of conflict viewpoints living under the umbrella of feminism and people saying that their interpretation is the correct one. And there ate a bunch of waves of feminism too, each one a bit different.
So there are absolutely feminists who are anti male. They may be a loud fringe minority, but they're there.
But I'm talking about mainstream feminism in the public discourse right now. Think the "Barbie" movie. Male sexuality is very clearly depicted a inherently dangerous which is core mainstream feminist belief.
I won't disagree that there are definitely anti-men feminists, but there have also been anti-bi feminists, and currently there are anti-trans feminists. But none of them are worth discussing when talking about feminism as a whole because they really don't apply. Those are ideologies that should be tackled independently, and should not be considered representative of the movement in general.
Downplaying the nonsense that you tried to make more palatable by putting it next to actual issues and hoping you could use it to misdirect when you got called out, while also pointing out your completely untrue claims betray that you got justly called out for some IRL bad behavior and want to blame feminists for creating a social norm where that behavior is no longer tolerated.
Feminists infamously had a moral panic about pornography in the 1970's as adult theaters and the nascent home video porno market started to take off.
They predicted porn would condition men to expect sex on demand and sexual assault rates would skyrocket when in fact the opposite happened.
You see this same moral panic from feminists regarding AI girlfriends and you there's a rising fundamentalist strain of feminism that still says porn is dangerous.
See, that’s really interesting to me! The mainstream feminist spaces I’ve interacted with have been very sex-positive, so I’m curious how you’ve experienced this demonization.
Okay provide some links to these mainstream feminist circles that celebrate male sexuality and or are sex positive about men having sex. I'm genuinely interested.
Here’s exactly what you want: a feminist forum that’s specifically for discussing men’s issues (including sexuality) in a constructive and healthy manner.
Yes it is, masturbation is a part of male sexuality. If you demonize male sexuality any endorsement of male sexual expression is an explicit endorsement of the harmful male sexuality.
Feminists posit that men are inherently predatory. See "toxic masculinity" debates. Influential feminists like Dworkin have even stated that any sexual intercourse with men is sexual assault.
Mainstream media, which is deeply influenced by feminism, depicts male sexuality as dangerous "any man can be a rapist" while lying by omission about female predators.
Being male is an inalienable trait and "toxic masculinity" inherently is borne from males. Things like sexual assault are "women's issues" even though studies show men are assault at near parity to women.
The list goes on, really shouldn't have spent so much time answering because it's so glaringly obvious so you're arguing in bad faith.
You’re making a lot of claims about things I don’t think you really have a grasp on. “Toxic masculinity” is not an implication that all men are inherently toxic. It’s a criticism of societal expectations for men that harm them and their relationships.
You’re saying that feminism has seriously hindered acceptance of male masturbation but all you’ve provided here is vague unsubstantiated implications of media bias and a single author’s name. I’m not going to read the entire collected works of whoever Dworkin is to figure out why you think they’re both representative of the entire feminist movement and also hate men wanking it. Give me something tangible here. A quote, a law they supported, a speech, a video, literally anything at all that isn’t just some insinuation that’s only attributable to yourself
I would consider myself a male feminist and I masturbate daily so if the movement thinks that’s wrong I’d like to know so I can stop describing myself as feminist.
Andrea Dworkin was an influential feminist mainly in the '80 and '90. She was pretty clearly anti pornography, at least as it existed in her time (she died in 2005. Who knows what she might think of some of the stuff out there today). She's also one of the most frequently misquoted feminists of all time, particularly by anti-feminists. she did not say all heterosexual intercourse was rape:
Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven't found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?
Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn't saying that and I didn't say that, then or ever. There is a long section in Right-Wing Women on intercourse in marriage. My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a reading of our laws, that marriage mandated intercourse—it was compulsory, part of the marriage contract. Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman. I said that when we look at sexual liberation and the law, we need to look not only at which sexual acts are forbidden, but which are compelled.
The whole issue of intercourse as this culture's penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. In Intercourse I decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the "all sex is rape" slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don't think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.
It's important to say, too, that the pornographers, especially Playboy, have published the "all sex is rape" slander repeatedly over the years, and it's been taken up by others like Time who, when challenged, cannot cite a source in my work.
I do understand "Toxic Masculinity". It's right in the word and is much like how conservatives would blame " black culture" for the societal ills of African Americans.
You simply denying that that's not what it is doesn't debunk anything.
And we have a term for societal expectations already and it's called gender roles. Which isn't a loaded admonishment like toxic masculinity.
All of feminism revolves around the critique of men which is an inalienable trait.
Specific aspects of gender roles are what toxic masculinity criticizes, you’re trying to substitute a general term for a more specific one. Toxic masculinity specifically refers to the ones that are toxic, not the fact that men have gender roles at all. It’s, like you said, right there in the name.
I already cited several scenes from the Barbie movie in this thread which was celebrated as a feminist watershed.
The Duluth Model of determining domestic violence another example. Child support is another. The banning of paternity testing is yet another. You're just being obtuse. I won't engage with you anymore.
My dude, scenes from a Barbie movie are not representative of an entire political movement and I really don’t think your interpretation of those scenes makes for any kind of proof of your claims.
Do you have anything demonstrating the feminist movement supports this shit:
The Duluth Model of determining domestic violence another example. Child support is another. The banning of paternity testing is yet another
Or are you just labeling these things as feminist because you do that with everything you perceive as misandrist?
Feminism embraces openness in society, including walking your own path.
If that includes deviating from cis male sexuality, then yes, feminism does indeed allow that to happen, if it happens naturally. In other words: feminism does not force you to take part in the toxic masculinity circlejerk.
In that way, yes, feminism probably reduces the amount of "male sexuality" which is basically toxic masculinity in the world. But it does not force that change, instead, it lets it happen.
My ass. Yes, maybe some inviduals do, but feminism itself does not. Feminists only 'demonize' male sexuality when it starts turning into treating us as walking fleshlights.
No thanks. The question was about negative effects, and you gave your response. I'd like you to explain how masturbation turns you into a Christian and/or feminist.
Nice strawman, I didn't say it turns you into a feminist. I said Christianity and feminism demonize male sexuality and that ideology is deeply influential.
Okay whatever, I already explained my position. I'm not going to repeat myself to every bad faith actor that wants to their own personalized explanation.
You interpreted a movie about respecting women and not objectifying people as anti-pleasure for men, and you call me bad faith. You're an incel who can't understand a children's movie.
Naturally people are motivated by their sex drive, so there are some related consequences. You may be less interested in dating, marriage, hygiene, and prosocial behavior.
There are anecdotal reports of antisocial behavior, erectile dysfunction, etc in many small communities. I think yourbrainonporn.com is a good primer and rebootnation is a forum with people trying and failing to stop masterbating even to their own detriment. Make your own decision though.
Citation needed. I know you're trying to be funny, but there's actually a lot of evidence going back to 2012 that internet pornography addiction is an actual issue for many people.
Watching pornographic pictures on the Internet: role of sexual arousal ratings and psychological-psychiatric symptoms for using Internet sex sites excessively - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21117979/
Easy dopamine isn't a good thing. Dopamine is finite but renewable, so if you run through all your dopamine on easy hits your going to end up having motivational issues.
And if your constantly chasing short term Dopamine hits your brain is going to adjust to seek behavours that give instant gratification over somthing that's just as rewarding, more productive for your personal or professional life, but takes longer to get that dopamine.
By all means deal with your libido in anyway that doesn't hurt the people around you, but maybe retiring the wankers cramp for a bit might do you good once in a while.
The most relevant to this discussion would be around "porn-induced erectile dysfunction". If you Google that phrase, you will find lots of studies and results.
While I agree that it's not exactly the same, there is a lot of overlap. It's also more complicated than the OP presented.
Since everyone here is refusing to do even a basic search, here is one on the first page of Google results.
An individual’s response to natural rewards, such as sex, is largely regulated by the mesolimbic dopamine pathway, which receives excitatory and inhibitory input from other limbic structures and the prefrontal cortex [64]. Erections are dependent upon activation of dopaminergic neurons in VTA and dopamine receptors in the NAc [65,66]. Excitatory glutamate inputs from other limbic structures (amygdala, hippocampus) and the prefrontal cortex facilitate dopaminergic activity in the VTA and NAc [62]. Reward responsive dopamine neurons also project into the dorsal striatum, a region activated during sexual arousal and penile tumescence [67]. Dopamine agonists, such as apomorphine, have been shown to induce erection in men with both normal and impaired erectile function [68]. Thus, dopamine signaling in the reward system and hypothalamus plays a central role in sexual arousal, sexual motivation and penile erections [65,66,69].
We propose that chronic Internet pornography use resulted in erectile dysfunction and delayed ejaculation in our servicemen reported above. We hypothesize an etiology arising in part from Internet pornography-induced alterations in the circuits governing sexual desire and penile erections. Both hyper-reactivity to Internet pornography cues via glutamate inputs and downregulation of the reward system’s response to normal rewards may be involved. These two brain changes are consistent with chronic overconsumption of both natural rewards and drugs of abuse, and are mediated by dopamine surges in the reward system [70,71,72].
[...]partnered sex no longer met their conditioned expectations and no longer triggered the release of sufficient dopamine to produce and sustain erections
The word dopamine appears 54 times in this article, and overall seems to agree with the OP.
I was going mostly off how I've delt with addictive behavours in my life and how casualised therapists like Healthy Gamer explain how dopamine works.
It's also worth noting that this user also posted about lacking motivation to even play video games at this point, which if they're using masterbation as an easy dopamine crutch it could explain where there motivation to do anything else is going.
But yeah, I didn't prepare academic level citations for my lemmy post I made during a lull at work.