- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
If we accept that our species is and always has been optimized for a highly sexual life and that adolescent boys and young men are especially primed for action, why should we be surprised by the destructive frustration that results when this primal drive is thwarted? Read More
Response to Dr. Ryan's Response
I thought we might be hearing from you on this case I posted about. And I appreciate your comments. I agree it would be as much of a mistake to disregard the role of primal sexual frustration in this tragic case as to see it as the sole motivation for Sodini's evil deed. My point is that frustration of any basic biological need--such as sex, hunger, sleep, as well as the psychospiritual need for meaning, intimacy, freedom, dignity, acceptance and love--leads to anger, which, depending on how that anger is dealt with, can eventually turn into resentment, bitterness, hatred, and sometimes, destructive aggression and violence.
On the winding path to violence
Am I so predictable then?
Thanks for your consistently thought-provoking essays. I couldn't agree more with the point you make here regarding how the frustration of any basic need can result in destructive behavior. I think there's something especially explosive about the combination of sexual frustration and the omnipresent eroticism of American culture though. A fertile area for future study.
Already been started
> I think there's something especially explosive about the
> combination of sexual frustration and the omnipresent eroticism
> of American culture though. A fertile area for future study.
Rich Zubaty wrote about this very thing some fifteen years ago in his book "Surviving the Feminization of America":
"...In America and Europe, men's libidos are constantly being aggravated and stimulated. Soda ads, short skirts, magazine covers, beer commercials, ruthlessly stimulate his sex. His relentless exposure to things feminine keeps him in a constant state of sexual arousal -- a testosterone nightmare of cruel pervasiveness which is not known in 'primitive' societies."
As would be expected, he was name-called a misogynist -- by the usually rather reasonable Cathy Young in her book "Ceasefire!".
Disclaimer: Haven't read
Disclaimer: Haven't read either of these books - hence, my reply is only to your comments.
Is it "Feminizing" or is it Marketing? Would half-naked women and sexual suggestion be used so extensively to sell products if men didn't care to see them?
Also - I'm not convinced that it is the exposure to "things feminine" that causes this "testosterone nightmare." Context is missing. Firstly - there is an assumption that exposure to "things feminine" must lead to arousal (does feminine = sexy?). Secondly - what is considered "feminine" and/or “sexy” could vary (a little or alot, I admit don't know) from culture to culture. I think it is perhaps more the combination of a) an uptight cultural attitude toward sex and b) constant exposure to things our culture considers "sexy" - that would lead to excessive sexual frustration (which is kind of what Christopher Ryan said in one of the previous comments).
“Men’s libidos are constantly being aggravated and stimulated… a testosterone nightmare of cruel pervasiveness…” – Statements like this are confusing. Women are taught that to be desirable to men, they should appear a certain way – and yes, that it is desirable for them to be desirable to men. And what is desirable is what appears in the various forms of media. Then they are told that they should not appear that way because it’s too “aggravating” and “cruel” for men. WTF? In any case, I guess “aggravation” sells really well. A fascinating process: That which aggravates is consumed, leading to more aggravation and subsequent consumption. Excellent for the economy.
WTF
You wrote: "Women are taught that to be desirable to men, they should appear a certain way – and yes, that it is desirable for them to be desirable to men. And what is desirable is what appears in the various forms of media. Then they are told that they should not appear that way because it’s too “aggravating” and “cruel” for men. WTF?"
I agree, and share your frustration, but in Western culture, most men aren't telling women to "cover up" to spare them the pain of titillation. I see it as being like erotic obesity in that we evolved a strong hunger for sexual variation as a way to avoid genetic problems in prehistory (think sweet foods). Of course, in the evolutionary environment, there wasn't much chance for sexual escapades with anyone unusual (not much sweet food around).
But now we've got this evolved hunger in a context full of potential opportunity, resulting in a lot of distorted thinking and behavior.
Thanks for your comments.
Aggressive Negotiations
We can't necessarily draw the conclusion that deprivation of sex results in aggression/violence, since, for example, celibate monks are generally rather nonviolent. I think the conclusion might be something more along the lines of sexual deprivation results in excess ambition or overabundant potential energy. Sexually frustrated, I tend to write more poetry, satiated I become lax and irrevocably useless. Yes, a potential for humans to expend that built-up energy on violence exists, but the potential to expend it productively, to achieve, to build, to create also exists and is the option chosen by many frustrated people the world over. Frustration of any basic need can result in creative behavior. Deprivation of food results in the seeking of food, deprivation of shelter results in the building of houses, deprivation of love can result in the finding of other objects/interests to love.
"All civilization is just an effort to impress the opposite sex," - Dr. Herbert Farnsworth, Futurama.
To add
A heavy proportion of the world's music, poetry, theatre, and films are the product of sexual frustration. "Girls Girls Girls," tell me, what is the object of desire there and how many records did that song about fulfilling an unfulfilled sexual satisfaction sell? Seems to me, someone should have taught that LAFitness-shooter how to play guitar or piano, or teach him how to pen a screenplay; instead of condemning his actions, we'd be buying (or illegally downloading) his next big hit.
the fruits of frustration
Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure celibate monks really show much about the effects of sexual frustration, in that they tend to be a pretty self-selected bunch (and who knows how much homosexuality goes on in the cloisters?). I'm sure you're aware that Freud would have agreed with your sense that sexual frustration fueled the rise of civilization, but I'd argue that it colored the sorts of civilizations it helped create, too. And that's not good, as such societies tend to be highly aggressive and not very comfortable places to live.
It's a big topic, but my sense is that sexual frustration is toxic to humans in a way other sorts of deprivation are not. We discuss this in much more depth in our book (coming in May).
The Big Bang
Lust seems to me like a great generator, a nuclear device, capable of either powering a city (making it function) or destroying one. If we are unable to expend this great store of energy in coitus to either amuse ourselves for a moment or create a new life (and thus pour great powerful potential into it), we can instead expend it in other efforts, writing an album, composing a new theory of physics, fashining new religions, scribing books, honing our OCD, writing TPS reports, pouring concrete mouldings, or in the same way, creating new vast wastelands, jackhammering pavement to make room for a wondrous new skyskraper, bringing about huge new piles of dead bodies, all destruction can be viewed as the creation of something, obviously sometimes not something we want, not something good, but something new to the world nonetheless, a serial killer (Zodiac for instance) may create mysteries and dilemas and create new forensic sciences by being such a pain for investigators; a war, destructive though it be, is highly creative in finding new ways to kill, exhibits genious in tactics and designs; even a school/gym shooter exerts vast creative energy in constructing plans, devising schemes, visualizing bullet trajectories the way Mozart would conceptualize a melody.
Each time the world exhibits chaos, it is a chance for order to appear. Each time a villain causes mayhem, it is a chance for a hero to stop him. We cannot have heroes without villains, we do not have peace without havoc. I guess I'm saying, from my perspective there are no destructive forces in nature, each time a deer dies in the woods it creates an ecosystem for bacteria and vermin and maggots, gross, but creative noless. How does this relate to sex...well, as I said, the human appears to exhibit great potential energy, a vast storehouse of power, when poured into lovemaking our big bang can expend all its energy quickly and either create the new life (new universe) or waste it like the last great flash of a dying star (before we go to sleep, exhausted and spent...), or if we choose to withhold sex from ourselves and instead pour our energies into other endeavours, the big bang of human energy can move mountains (either into Mt. Rushmore or into rubble.)
Sexual Fustration and violence....
An interesting study on the effects of "imposed" sexual fustration is found in the Castrati of the 1600-1800's.
Many young boys were Castrated in hopes that they would mature to become famous and wealthy singers, only a small percentage actually made it. It's in the study of the lives of those who didn't make it (and even some who did) that we can see the true results of Sexual Fustration. It's not a pretty picture.
There have been some scholar works done on this history.
Insightful Comments Posted Here
Yes, Dr. Ryan, "a fertile area for future study" indeed--and for fascinating discussion as seen in the rich comments generated here. Thanks for your compliment above on my postings. That is especially nice to hear from a fellow PT blogger such as yourself. As you say, this is "a big area," and an important one, which strikes a nerve in both men and women. I am sure readers are looking forward to the forthcoming publication of your new book on this subject.
When I wrote Anger,Madness, and the Daimonic (1996), Chapter Two was titled Sex Wars: The Animosity Between Women and Men. It was considered so controversial as to almost be excluded from the book by the editorial board at SUNY Press. In that chapter, I discuss the problem of sexual demonization on the part of both men and women. This demonization derives from what I call the "fear of the feminine" in men, and the "fear of the masculine" in women, and is the source of much animosity, hostility and even violence between the sexes.
Sexuality is certainly an instinctual drive in human beings, as in animals. And when that drive for procreation and/or pleasure is chronically frustrated, aggression (and sometimes depression) is likely to ensue. Of course, as Mr. Bromine so eloquently comments above, we have some choice about how to deal with that frustration and anger, an existential choice between destructiveness and creativity. But we humans also use sex and see sex symbolically. In the sad case of George Sodini, it seems he may have so completely excluded the "feminine" from his own personality (a denial or repression of what Jung called the "anima") that he unconsciously managed to exclude it, in the form of women, from his outer life. And then, of course, he blamed women for that inner problem. Why and how did he do this to himself? Perhaps more on this later.
Unbelievable
Some crazy-nut-whack-job blames women for his problems, walks into a health club, murders and injures multiple women and the debate is about how much responsibility women in general should take for this?
It couldn't be possible that the reason no one would date this guy is BECAUSE he was a crazy-nut-whack-job? That his lack of a romantic life wasn't because of repeated rejection, but because of the fact that he wasn't a suitable mate due to severe mental illness?
Of course not, let's blame the victims. It must be their fault for not wanting to date a certifiable lunatic.
Tessa
Not blaming the victims
Tessa, I'm afraid you've misunderstood my point. In no way would I suggest the victims are to blame for this. My argument was simply that cultural constraints on sexuality can generate violence. If you read our book when it finally comes out, you'll see that we actually argue that societies in which men have more power tend to be more sexually restrictive, and that societies with female leadership tend to be far more relaxed and sexually tolerant. So in fact, my view is quite the opposite of what you understood. I hope this makes sense, as I'd hate to leave the impression you took from this.
Thanks for reading.
I agree with Tessa
I felt compelled to comment on the article because I thought "Wow, great. Another way for men to blame women for their problems."
I haven't read any of the author's books, so I'm basing my comment on the linked article.
The logic of the article was this:
1. Man wants to have sex with women;
2. Women reject him;
3. Man kills women;
4. But for the rejection of women, ALL males would not be violent
5. It's all womens' fault
Not only is this just a broad generalization belying a lack of logical consistency, it also is clearly written from the perspective of a male, and simply perpetuates the "let's blame women because it's all their fault" mindset that drives this culture.
Tessa, 50 years ago, Sodini,
Tessa,
50 years ago, Sodini, given that he had a good job, was educated, and had money in the bank, would have had no problem finding a wife. I am just like Sodini, being 34 and have never gotten sex without paying for it. I know how Sodini feels. Girls just dont like me and I am no lunatic. It is just that women these days only go after tatoo covered abusive assholes. Not only that, women love to condescend to guys like us to rub it in our face that they are somehow superior. I experience this all the time. If you are an intellectual, a nerd, you have no chance with women what-so-ever today. Society today has let men down. From birth society tells us to go to school, get good grades, find a good job and make alot of money. In yesteryear, the unwritten rule was that if you follow societies rules, you would find a women who wants to settle down and start a family. Today, the only men women are interested in are the men who do not follow societies rules. Don't believe me, just look and see how many marriage letters serial killers and mass murders get. From my experience, I'll bet what pushed Sodini over the edge was a condescending comment some woman made to him in the days prior to the shooting, simply because he was shy and would be an easy opportunity to stoke her ego by rubbing in a weak man's face how superior she is. So yes, SURPRISE, the behavior of women today does make men violent, and we are only just seeing the tip of the iceburg.
On Sex and Violence
I did enjoy this article and do agree that the repeated inability to fulfill a primary need, especially a need that in our culture is marketed as being extremely accessible, can spur one to act destructively.
And i agree that there is a large probability that this particular man might not have done what he did had he been able to find a sexual partner to settle down with. Or even to have a fling with.
BUT. As a woman (and gender studies student who works with victims of sex assault and domestic violence, so I have some solid background in understanding relationships), i see a very large hole in your argument.
Have you considered that the violent tendencies he exhibited show an underlying problem in his psyche? That sexual frustration provided him only a target for this anger? If he had been unable to get a job, would he have shot the hiring manager at the local bank who had recently rejected him?
If he had found a mate, would he have shot her for not keeping the house clean enough or coming home late one day from work?
And did all those women who rejected him unconsciously sense this simmering detructiveness that was just waiting for an outlet? Even if they couldn't identify it, even if it was just a feeling or an instinct, I think we have evolved to protect ourselves from predators, even before they exhibit any behaviors that would cause conscious concern.
This doesn't explain why men who never end up acting so detructively are rejected by women (maybe they are prone to violence but never experience that final push to murder, or they are very good people but we are in other issues) or why women readily accept men into their lives who threaten their well-being at fundamental levels (again, many other factors), but i think that it might be a point to consider in the examination of this tragic story.
Post new comment