So I have a pretty eclectic range of people I follow on social media, and I was realising just the other day how much I’m enjoying my feeds now. I have all these different comedians and artists, tattooists, martial artists, stuntmen, SF soldiers, blacksmiths, cosplayers and of course a few hot chicks.
Now the hot chicks tend to be on there to promote their ‘onlyfans’ platforms. So on social media they basically do that; they promote sex, sex is the point; they own it, they project it, and I imagine profit from it quite well. I’ve noticed something recently however that I wanted to comment on. It was a post that one of these women made, which though being very simple enough in its own case, to me provides a hint to something deeper I’m seeing developing within Western society as a whole.
The clip she shared was of her and her guy doing whatever at whatever, that’s not important. On the caption though she said “Daddy took me to…” and she said the place they went.
Point being, she addressed her guy as ‘Daddy’. Now I don’t actually know the situation with these two, don’t particularly care, but I’m pretty sure this is a legitimate ‘couple’ and not one of these sponsorship arrangements you see happening more and more these days.
To use a now seemingly dated term; I get the feeling they’re actually 'boyfriend and girlfriend’, yet she referred to him as ‘Daddy’ in this clip. And thinking back, I’ve actually heard a few young women refer to their dude as that in the past, purely just as some cool phrase to use, like ‘Bae’ was a few years ago.
There’s not a lot you can draw from it on surface level, however there’s just something so very transactional and intentionally impersonal about that term to me. Yes it is just a word, and it’ll likely be replaced by something else in a couple of years, but again, it’s what it uncovers beneath the surface which has me thinking.
Take the old-school term ‘baby’, which dates back to perhaps the 1940s. Ignoring the creepy incestuous connotations of that phrase, it is ultimately based within intimate foundations. There is an affection there, a sweetness, a cuddliness which denotes intimacy between the pair.
‘Daddy' meanwhile of course is derived from the term ‘Sugar Daddy’, as in traditionally some old rich dude who pays the way for a younger attractive woman in exchange for essentially what prostitutes would offer as ‘the girlfriend experience’. So it’s like sex 2.0. There’s more to it than just sex, but sex remains the fundamental core of that transaction. And it is a transaction, because most of the time money is the only value the man is bringing to the table. It’s inherently commercial at its core. There is no intimacy there; both parties are essentially interchangeable with another without any real loss.
If you call a man ‘Daddy’, can that then be interpreted as ‘Wallet’?
Does this mean that he is to you purely a financial source and nothing more?
If so, then what therefore does that then make you to him?
And most importantly... do you even care?
Now I get the ‘play’ aspect of this, and the characterisation involved, but just to illustrate again, I think there is something more to this under the surface that society needs to be more wary of.
I am too old now myself to know what is going on with people under 30, but I wonder if whether there is an active attempt by youth today -even if just subconsciously- to keep intimacy at arm’s length.
I do see efforts on the part of both sexes to dehumanise the other. Both genders seem to have extreme movements and counter movements pressing for the independence, if isolation, of their gender from the other. You know the ones I’m talking about. Both seem to promote the assignment of the opposite gender as a simple means to a sexual end, if not disconnecting from them completely, as the ultimate goal.
I saw just recently another girl I don’t follow refer to some dude as her "main dick appointment". No mention of his name, nor of any other aspect or value defined; she was just taking her main dick appointment to get vaccinated at the same time so they could minimise the time she had to wait to get on him again.
Now I don’t care about him, or that he’s ‘being devalued’ or whatever; that’s up to him to allow/disallow and I imagine a lot of guys even enjoy that kind of thing. Whatever. Personally I think if you’re hanging with a chick who refers to you publicly as one of her ‘dick appointments’ then it might be time to reevaluate things a bit, if purely just on a scheduling optimisation front. Because let’s be honest here; you could probably 'clear your head' a lot quicker in other ways, then spend that time instead working on something that will actually benefit you long term. But anyway, no, I don’t care about him; I’m talking about her.
That statement reads to me like someone so hung up on portraying an image of (apparent) strength and independence, that she is purposefully forcing the public image of a literal sociopath in order to achieve it. As if being a sociopath is somehow a worthwhile goal.
I mean seriously, if you saw a guy write that way about a woman, would that dude seem to you like a good investment opportunity? Seem like a good potential relationship or business partner? Would you want to associate with that guy ‘at all’?
Now there is the chance of course that she is actually a legitimate sociopath. It is entirely possible. In that case, what’s she gonna do? That’s how her brain is wired. The problem is though is that a hell of a lot of people were liking that post.
So it's becoming cool apparently to be a sociopath, just like all the pieces of shit in the upper tiers of Wall Street causing the 2008 final crisis. Patrick Bateman is the seemingly go to muse for young women these days. Great. I’m sure that’s going to work out well for us.
Part 2. The Source.
So my question is, what is the source of this active rejection of intimacy?
I am old enough to have spent my childhood and most of my adolescence without the internet, where getting out and walking several blocks over to a friends place to go and sit in their garage was the thing to do. We’d have parties, or at least group gathering every weekend, where groups of guys and girls would go to someone’s room and we’d just hang about, music on, drink/smoke on sometimes, and just chill. Because that’s what we did. There’d always be one or two couples interchanging amongst the group (sometimes even me), but all members of both genders were personally engaging with and experiencing the opposite, and learning the intricacies of what ‘that thing’ was.
I’m wondering now whether the rise of this physically isolating digital age is actually causing even more harm to us than we might already think?
What kids seem to have now are YouTube/TikTok videos, meticulously edited and optimised to match formula and sensationalised for the purposes of clickbait, telling them what ‘that thing’ is. And these videos and blogs are competing with each other, so are streamlining and sensationalising that simplicity more and more in order to win.
So what kids now learn about ‘that thing’ are terms like “female hypergamy” or “rape culture”, all these fear phrases, with nothing to counter it. They learn it’s cool simply ‘hook up’ and that’s it, and to actively hide showing any level of interest other than a need to get off and project that “you just happened to look good enough to swipe on at the time”. So they’re getting nothing of the positive traits which have actually counter-balanced us with each other, and seen us through these last however many millions of years of evolution.
Let’s just lay this out here. If female or male isolationist groups were actually correct in their rhetoric, the Homo-Sapien species would be straight up extinct. We just simply would not have made it this far had the reality been anywhere near as bad as either so adamantly make it out to be.
But kids today are spending more and more time at home with these opportunists yelling in their ears, informing them on which light they should consider their counterparts. So then when their instincts kick in and tell them “you need to get with one of these”, and they actually do, then all the martial rhetoric they have intellectually habitualised kicks in as well. They wind up so intimidated by the threat of these ‘monsters’ they’ve been warned about that they can only consider them as sexual tools at most.
No one wants to open their soul to a beast.
I’m wondering if perhaps the recent increase in bi-sexuality has some root in this as well?
Now I don't have the problems with bisexuality that others might, but it has increased over the last decade or so. I do wonder if perhaps that ‘other’ gender has been made just so strange and terrifying a risk to try to understand, that people are instead keeping them exclusively to a utilitarian light, leaning back more upon their own gender for an apparently safer emotional connection.
I don’t need to illustrate the level of access kids now have to porn. Most people’s first sexual experience I imagine now derives from that source. Now in reality, it was actually the same for us as well, but nowhere near the level of content or accessibility. It was usually a couple of VHS tapes shared between friends, and we also had I think enough of the physical experience with the opposite gender to balance it out.
I am aware that many twenty-somethings now still gather and platonically intermingle, but I wonder just how often it happens in comparison to back then. I’m willing to bet it’s not as much, and I mean by a wide margin. And talking on forums or even text doesn’t cut it I don't think. You need voice. You need physical presence, and conversation, and body language and micro expression. How much are youth getting of that these days?
We have had more than enough time pass for an entire generation to live digitally from birth to adulthood. I imagine it being common now for fully grown adults to only have digital sexual experiences, even just platonic experiences, in their memory banks.
The Lenience Towards Tools
It also seems more and more commonplace for teen women and girls to have and perhaps rely upon sex toys. I see it showing up more and more in the general conversation. Un-sentient objects to bring a purely physiological reaction.
When we repeat a physical action, our bodies adapt and optimise to suit that motion. We all know this; it’s how we physically strengthen, it’s how we learn.
If you repeat the phrase in your mind “I am a loser, I suck at everything”, then over time you program your mind to choose that arterial path as the default context in which to view the world. You look at a potential skill you want to learn; “That course would be interesting but I am a loser, I suck at everything, so there’s no point”. You need to stop consuming so much sugar, “but I am a loser, and I suck at everything. There’s no point in trying, so I’ll have some sugar.”
It just becomes the way you see the world. To reverse it, it’s a matter of re-training yourself to an alternate narrative and forcing your neural connections to strengthen another path as default.
I am wondering if this is what young people today are doing with sex and their interactions with the opposite gender? Are the youth of today approaching social connections more from a utilitarian perspective by default? Because they’re so trained and reliant upon digital sources, and toys, when they consider sex at all now, are they habitually, inherently, considering it as a solo act?
‘Back in my day’ sex simply didn’t exist without another physical human being. Even Bill Clinton considered a blowjob to not be sex. Nowadays it seems completely acceptable to not have another human being involved at all.
We in Western society of course have come from the extremes of Victorian British society, which to me can be directly compared to the rigidity of modern day Salafi Islam. So are we swinging from a level of extreme where many women didn’t even know what an orgasm was, to potentially an age of the opposite extreme?
Is everyone now simply becoming an orgasm junkie? Passing through the middle ground of balanced physical touch and emotional intimacy, and swinging all the way to an era of mere physiological mechanics.
‘Drink this’ = ‘endorphin rush’
‘Smoke/Snort this’ = ‘endorphin rush’
‘Risk this’ = ‘endorphin rush’
‘Exercise this’ = ‘endorphin rush’
‘Rub this’ = ‘endorphin rush’
And then do it again, and then again, and then again because it is all that we know to do, training and strengthening ourselves evermore towards that direction.
But what happens is then instincts kick in...
They go out to get with one of ‘those things’ they’ve been so adamantly warned about, and they’ve suddenly got this ‘creature’ there, physically, which they’ve been habitualised to assess and address purely in the sexual context. They see no means for intimacy there. ‘Connection’ is not a consideration, and there is no awareness of how a risk of intimacy with one of these 'things' might make up for their own gender’s lacking, because they’re completely unaware there even is one.
When they look at the other, they merely see a ‘tool’… a ‘Daddy’… a ‘hook-up’… a ‘side-chick’… a ‘dick appointment’.
Is the modern digital landscape training the very capability for intimacy out of the younger generations? And are they now even aware of what is missing?
‘If’ this is the case, then instinct must be also bringing them some serious feeling of ‘lack’, in turn depression, which then carries over to all other aspects of life.
So what can we do?
I am genuinely interested to hear different people’s perspectives on this, because obviously I can only come at this from my own limited point of view.
I don’t want to be one of these bloggers/essayists though who freely make comment on something without taking any risk in making an effort towards finding a solution myself. I think too many of us these days choose to pass the buck. We like to complain, and then that’s it. We like to ask ‘why?’ And then not actually try to find an answer.
I think it’s the responsibility for every one of us to at least try to find an answer to as many of life’s questions as we can. We should never just simply take what we are told as gospel.
So how can we counter this growing dearth of intimacy in ourselves and our culture?
Well firstly I do think this is a temporary extreme, one that will ultimately level itself over time as our species comes to terms with this new technology. However, such movements through in history tend to take several generations to pass. This does not help the individuals now, and will not be helpful perhaps to you.
The benefit with this issue I think is that although it has heavily emotional connotations, the actionable steps we might take can be fundamentally considered in physiological terms. You have two muscles looking to pull you in opposite directions. If you choose to use and exercise one over the other, then over time that will become the default movement you employ.
I think that just the conscious acknowledgment of this alone would actually be enough to set the ball into motion. If you are looking for it, then you will pick it more readily. Right now, a lot of people are exclusively weighing upon the physiological aspects of interaction, and allowing the emotional to atrophy.
I wonder if temporary abstinence may be a tool to employ here on a selective basis?
I am not a proponent of general long term abstinence or refusing sex before marriage. I can understand the basis behind them, and how they might benefit some, though I just don’t agree in going to absolutes in any one direction.
Having gone myself from at one time experiencing very intimate relationships, to multiple years now without experiencing any physical touch at all, I have analysed and contemplated the positive and negative effects of both. I can strongly recommend that a sexually active life is superior to one of abstinence, whether internally or externally imposed.
However… I do believe there are benefits in truly exploring and learning both states in isolation. What I am talking about is the temporary abstinence in the interactions with the other gender in order to learn both who we are, and who they are, with sex removed from the table.
I think it might pay to rediscover what ‘intimacy’ really means.
It seems to me that both genders are no longer allowing themselves, or being allowed, to explore the beauty and the awe that exists in the opposite gender. The reality is, we evolved together as a single unit. We are not multiple species. We are one species, developed upon billions of years of constant refinement.
You cannot simply turn your back on that, and think that it’s going to go well for you.
Being a heterosexual male, I can only speak from that perspective. But there is a level of delicacy, of elegance and beauty that can be found within women across the board that is not only exquisite, but I think fundamental towards developing us as men. Without that muse in our peripheral view, I think we become rudderless and self-obsessed. I think it is terrifying for men to witness such beauty and not possess it. Because we fear the power it has over us, and such power left untethered is a threat.
It is painful to us to witness such beauty, and to know that in return it takes no notice of us. However, I think the more we have it around us, even if just on the platonic level, the more it serves to anchor us and our perspectives to where they need to be.
For a man to cut women out of his life I think is a massive mistake. If they are a source of pain, well then is pain not how you build strength?
Women, for better and worse, are the biggest source of strength we have.
I cannot speak for women about their connection to men. I have heard many women speak about it, and have a good idea of the awe they find in that muse, but it is up to women to say that, not me, so I wont.
I can assume with confidence though that both genders greatly benefit from risking to explore the other, even at a level of remove. In my recent years of solitary I can rightly say that women can drive and inspire men from afar just as powerfully as they can within your grasp.
Women are men's greatest muse, and men are women's greatest resource, if both are willing to accept that, and fuel that in each other. Yes we can survive, and maybe even prosper (superficially) without the other. But do we actually want to?
I wonder if a lot of these gender isolationists might in fact actually prefer the alternative to their rhetoric, but are simply reluctant to admit it.
Maybe we can redefine the word ‘intimacy’ to ourselves? We can start considering it, if not exclusively, as an emotional term. The reality is, sex is absolutely better when you blend the emotional with the physical. Life is better when the experiences are shared, and we as individuals have weaknesses we need our counter to fulfil, weaknesses the other gender have evolved over billions of years to counterbalance.
If you can work on building the foundations of emotional intimacy ‘alone’ with a member of the opposite gender, and ‘then’ bring in the physical in compliment… you may just find yourself tapping into some real shit no ‘Daddy’ can ever bring to the table.
We’re humans; that’s just how we roll.
Women are men's greatest muse, and men are women's greatest resource, if both are willing to accept ughit. Yes we can survive, and maybe even prosper (superficially) without the other. But do we actually want to?o??n. It’s all directly related and cross-influencing after all. You cannot separate creative arts from the human bugh/