Is there a difference in the way men and women are affected by sexual repression? And what’s the biggest personality difference between sexually liberated and sexually repressed people?
I think the main difference is that in general, women are better at totally repressing their sexuality than men are. Most women can sublimate their libidos into other things, which they may become incredibly fanatical about; examples include their children or pets, art, social activities and religious or political crusades. Men may also sublimate in this way, but the sex drive won’t stay buried; they’ll still seek out porn, sex workers or even unwilling partners (as the numerous cases of boy-molesting priests amply demonstrate). Sexual repression in either men or women may lead to an obsession with suppressing sexual expression in others, and (especially in men) the psychological defense mechanism called “reaction formation” will often reveal the person’s particular kink. For example, there are many cases of pedophiles who campaign against “child porn”, closeted homosexuals who lead anti-gay crusades, compulsive clients who loudly support criminalization of sex work, etc. Full-blown sexual reaction formation is less common among women; this isn’t to say that women’s anti-sex campaigning isn’t due to sexual repression (I suspect it usually is), merely that it’s a lot harder to tell exactly what urges are being repressed by looking at the subject of their obsession. In other words, it’s unlikely that a woman involved in an anti-porn jihad is reacting to a repressed fascination with it; in fact, the trauma which produced the hate may have nothing at all to do with porn, which is merely an external symbol of male sexuality or “privilege”, essentially an effigy she can burn.
In general, sexually repressed people can be detected by their strange, uptight attitudes toward sex. Even if they don’t picket strip clubs, pass out anti-gay hate leaflets or try to get people criminally charged for displaying vaguely-sexual art, their reactions to sexual topics or imagery will generally be extreme, inappropriate and wildly disproportionate to the stimulus; examples might include feeling the need to comment on the clothing or “sexy” behavior of a young woman one does not personally know, or getting someone fired for a silly off-color joke. People with healthy sexualities do not generally feel the need to police the sexual or quasi-sexual behavior of others, and I suspect are generally more tolerant and accepting of individual differences even in areas which don’t appear to have anything to do with sex.
(Have a question of your own? Please consult this page to see if I’ve answered it in a previous column, and if not just click here to ask me via email.)
Related to the phenomenon of Reaction Formation.
Various have noticed the “Homosexuality is a choice” claim, in support of opposing homosexual activity, only makes sense if the claimant was Bi-Sexual. Thus those making this claim are unintentionally revealing their orientation & repression.
Yes, I’ve read that somewhere, and when the anti-gay person makes it abundantly clear that, if we don’t suppress the hell out of homosexuality, why just everybody will be doing it! I’m pretty sure that this is exactly what is going on.
And how was that for a weird, long sentence?
So you’re saying that sexually repressed types who want to censor and control others are zombiesexuals who only want to control our BRAAAAAAINSSSSSSS!
Very Halloween!
Say what? The whole idea of “repression” is very problematic, and at least some psychologists are moving away from it. I prefer the phrase “mental block” to refer to the tendency of some individuals to do what is clearly against their own hedonistic interest.
The book “Sex at Dawn” suggests that what we see as typical sexual behavior today is highly influenced by culture rather than male/female physiology. I agree that many women seem to be less rigid about sexuality than men, and even among non-human primates the females are – shall we say – a bit wild.
But as a teacher I see early education as playing a large part in how people behave later, especially sexually, and there is strong evidence (click on my username) that early experience has a great effect on the capacity for sexual pleasure.
Just because a book suggests something – doesn’t mean it’s correct. And I’m sorry but if you’re saying that sexual behavior between the sexes isn’t influenced by physiology then I just don’t know how to respond to that. It obviously is .. and always has been.
Of course, no book is an unquestionable authority. I was merely citing my source. You also misunderstood my comment: Physiology certainly does influence our sexual behavior.
How would one tell if he is “sexually repressed”? I don’t want to be “repressed” and I don’t think i am.
But …
Okay speaking for me … I get GREAT sex from my wife and we do go out on the edge sometimes.
But there are things I KNOW she doesn’t like … so I won’t even bring them up.
However, with other girls I’m paying … I will sometimes bring those things up. My shit isn’t anything deep and dark … it’s mostly just goofy shit like a girl being my slave or behaving like a member of my harem. Like one time a girl was giving me oral and she got me with her teeth pretty good and I flinched. She’s like … “Oh I’m sorry, Krulac, I promise to do better from now on and if it happens again you should spank me to teach me a lesson.”
I got dizzy when she said that – holy crap that was a turn on – just the way she said it.
To a certain extent, I think we’re all repressed somewhat insofar as we “tone down” our fantasies and desires a bit based on what we perceive our partner likes and will accept. Everyone has “boundaries” and I’m all about respecting boundaries – I also don’t like looking weird to a girl. Like, dog collars can be a turn-on to me, but I have dated women who would have shit their pants if I broke one out and tried to put one on her.
I dated one girl briefly – and she got upset because I always wanted to be on top – or behind her. She was like … “I’d like some equal time on top”. I’m like – “Hey being on top is work – just relax and let Krulac do the driving!” And she says … “No, this is an equal relationship.” She was very intelligent … and one of the good looking girls I dated (there was a sea of not-so-good looking ones) but man, I just couldn’t get into her.
And that’s when I felt a bit guilty like … “Well you shithead, you only enjoy submissive women and what kind of intellectual woman is going to be submissive to your dumb ass?” Because the fact is – I love women and I often have an inferiority complex when it comes to women because I believe they are the superior sex – not in everything but in most. But, at the same time – I like them to be submissive to me. So I tried to stay with her and “retrain” my sexual preferences and repress the animal in me. She actually DID try to help me in this but in the end … I felt too fucking civilized and it just felt like I had chains on me 24 / 7. So I reverted back to my “gorilla mode” – which is natural for me and she got pissed and left me. Which was fine – I hate leaving women because a trail of vindictive women is problematic. But if the girl leaves you she’s less vindictive – you just have to figure a way to sabotage the relationship and make her want to leave. Then when she leaves – just say some nice words that it was all “my” fault and problem solved – usually the girl wouldn’t even badmouth me to her friends and I might even get lucky with one or two.
By the way … a little off topic but there’s this story …
http://www.today.com/moms/giving-your-seat-pregnant-woman-really-sexist-8C11430341
I always give women – they don’t have to be pregnant – my seat if they don’t have one. Now – I don’t do this for teenaged GIRLS – because, well I don’t know why – I figure they are pretty athletic and I don’t want them to get any ideas that I’m interested in them. Or maybe I figure they’ll get enough of a lifetime manipulating men with their feminine charms so I don’t need to start them down the road too soon toward that. I don’t know. But any woman in her 20’s on up gets my seat.
I’m a lefty at heart and generally don’t like it when people make claims about “human nature,” but, at this point in my life, I sincerely think that humans are naturally hierarchical…
….and therefore, it is completely understandable to fetishize and eroticize sexual dichotomy and power dichotomy.
As long as it doesn’t develop into any sort of political oppression, I don’t think it’s wrong.
But naturally, as a practicing professional and recreational sadomasochist, any answer I give to this will be self-serving.
I nearly always give my seat on buses to pregnant or mature ladies. Fuck sexism. It’s just good manners.
There’s a great bit of dialogue in one of my favorite movies, 12 Angry Men. The bigoted old codger says to the deferential European man:
“What the hell are you being so polite for?”
And the European man replies in one of the greatest-ever comebacks:
“For the same reason you’re not. It’s the way I was brought up.”
It’s one of my favorites as well.
I’m reminded of this story:
http://www.inquisitr.com/699045/rihanna-stapling-dresses-mysterious-prude-covers-up-scantily-clad-posters-photos/
I have to wonder how much the mystery prude (or prudes, may have be an orchestrated political thing given location) were paying for the dresses.
Rihanna got into “trouble” in N Ireland as well; it was too much for some:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/topless-rihanna-rattles-northern-ireland-farmer-with-risque-video-shoot-28662998.html
Wonderfully succinct and I seemingly accurate article. This is a subject that I have not given much thought to, but I think you have nailed it!
I’d like to point out that there is also a big difference between someone who is sexually repressed and someone with a naturally low sex drive. This is obviously far more common in women, but they key difference is that while someone who is repressed will seem obsessed with the topic of sex (specifically, its evils), someone who lacks a sex drive usually just won’t want to talk about it, and may or may not be offended by references too it depending on their upbringing.
Exactly my thoughts as well. The very, very few people I know with a naturally low sex drive have a reaction of “meh” to sexual intercourse, though they may still have the ability to appreciate a sexual performance (or erotic art) on its aesthetic or artistic merits but not for its sexual content. And they may still be able to investigate the history or science of sex with clinical detachment.
This is an important distinction, I think. In my unmarried days, when I was involved with someone, I became sexually ravenous. The more sex I got, the more I wanted. However, when I wasn’t seeing anyone, I “trained” my sex drive downwards. I became accustomed to going without for months at a time and it wasn’t a problem. A man in the same situation would have likely gone off his head.
Someone who is naturally asexual or low-sexual through a quirk of biology is vastly different than someone who forcefully suppresses their libido for ideological reasons (or has it suppressed for them).
I wish I had a dollar for every girl that told me that. I used to think that it was some “cliche” that you girls read in Cosmo or something – because girls always worded it the same way to me … “The more I get, the more I want”.
However, over the years I now think there may be something to that. For instance … at my Frankfurt FKK hideout – all of the little Romanian women I love so much have told me something similar – but they word it a bit differently. They’ve told me that their “body gets used to having sex” … and so when they go on vacation – and don’t get any – they really look forward to coming back to the FKK. Now, mind you – these girls on a busy night may service 10 men (or maybe more) – they have A LOT of sex.
A funny thing – I was spending some time by the pool with a Romanian girl – when another girl walked by (they’re all completely naked). I said to the girl I was with … “Well, she’s interesting”. And the girl I was with said … “You couldn’t satisfy her, Krulac – she just came back from vacation.”
I mean – I would say every girl has said something like that to me – or maybe they’re just trained to titillate men in that manner.
Second … one of my old girlfriends lamented the fact (right after I met her) … that our sex drives weren’t compatible. She said I wanted it all the time and she – not so much. I told her don’t worry about it. Within a few months – we were having sex all the time and she never complained about it and even sometimes would stop me in whatever I was doing and say … “Hey, isn’t there something you want to do right now?”
You and I are on the same wavelength regarding our libidos! The more sex I have, the more I want, even if it is masturbation. I’ve also dialed down my drive when I’m going through a “sex desert”, if you will. 😛
I think one of the problems with repression is that our society comes to be dominated by the least common denominator — i.e., because you’re not supposed to offend or traumatize anyone, society has to be rendered as bland and sexless as possible to match the needs of the most repressed. This is particularly aggravated by fear of lawsuits or protests, as in your link to the Dr. Greenfield “scandal”.
I’m not so sure that’s a problem with repression. I think that’s a far more general issue.
With everyone trying to cater to the least common denominatior you don’t leave any space for anyone who is better than the worst.
It’s worse than catering for the average person.
I don’t think it’s a matter of lowest common denominator, I think it’s more a matter of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. Most people don’t ca re with any sort of emotional intensity about what naked imagery or practices other people engage in, but the sexually repressed do. They care a LOT. So they make a lot of noise about it, while those who like all that sexy stuff just want to like it and not be bothered And so the squeaky wheel types win.
There’s also an issue with sexual repression being institutionalized in our society, most especially in our churches and our government. The church leaders and the government leaders all make hay from the sexually repressed, in one way or another. They are unlikely to stop doing so even if the bulk of us regard it as the right thing to do.
OK, one point I have to bring up. According to Andrew Greeley (Father Andrew Greeley, so he has a point of view), the rate of molesting by celibate Priests is very close to the rate of molesting by married Ministers. Now, I can’t point to stats to back him up, but on the other hand he was a widely read writer, not just a hyper-Catholic blogger preaching to the choir. He was bitterly critical of how the Catholic Church handled the molesting scandals, and never denied for an instant that they happened. So I’m inclined to think he may have a point about the percentage of molesters in the Priesthood.
Except comparing “repressed” Priests to “repressed” Ministers … the similarities wouldn’t really be that surprising would they?
I mean, married Ministers have a sexual outlet – but I’m not sure they do the “nasty” with as much abandon as the rest of us out here.
What’s the comparison between Priests and single men in the general population – that would be a more valid comparison wouldn’t it?
There is a theory, though I don’t know how correct it might be, that homosexuals choose to enter the catholic priesthood because of the opportunities available for sexual liaisons there. Also, it’s said that around 40% of catholic priests are homosexual—a far higher percentage than in the general population; again, I don’t know if this is fact or malicious propaganda.
Afghanistan’s strict gender segregation and suppression of sex has historically co-existed with the most widespread culture of pederasty in the world.
I think it’s also quite plausible that men with sexual desires which frighten them (whether it’s paedophilia or anything else) might become priests because they actually believe this might cure them (through the grace of God, or perhaps just the priestly training). Of course, it doesn’t work, and so many of them eventually give in to the urges.
Shamans, in shamanic society, tend to people who are deviant from the norm one way or another – homosexuality being one of them, as well as stuff like being a bit aspie.
Perhaps the priesthood or its equivalent is a general way a society can deal with people who can’t live a regular life. Ok, this guy is weird. That’s spooky, so it’s something to do with the gods. Problem solved, and no longer a threat to anyone’s worldview.
Sacred prostitutes possibly fall into that category too. People who upset the norm of at least pretending to be somewhat chaste, so fix it by making a religion of it.
That suggests that the arrow of causation points the other way (that priests don’t molest because they’re repressed, but instead, those who want to molest try to become priests because the job gives them access to potential victims, and arguably some protection if caught). I’m not at all surprised.
This can be generalized at least somewhat, possibly into a new natural law. Certainly both the jobs of police officer and bureaucrat are very attractive to people who want to abuse the power the job will give them.
Had a young woman preaching at church once, about Jesus – Jesus the man, his sandaled feet splashing through the waters edge of Lake Gallilee, and OMG her headlamps were totally on. If you know what I mean.
Women in prayer meetings are a particular thing in certain circles. I mentioned it to the pastor once: “it’s always single women in the intercessory prayer meetings”, and he replied “and women with weak husbands”. Tomas Jefferson mentioned the phenomenon.
Physiologically, a woman can be sexually turned on and *not even realize that that is what’s going on*. She can be that unaware, that disconnected from her body if she’s brought up ignorant enough (viz: treatment for “hysteria” in the 19th century). A man – well, penises are pretty unambiguous. A simple, reliable, and unmistakeable check to that particular strain of lunacy.
Men may also sublimate in this way, but the sex drive won’t stay buried; they’ll still seek out porn, sex workers or even unwilling partners
Correction ( Some men)
The word “some” implies a minority, which would be totally incorrect. The word “men” without the modifier “all” implies “most men”, which is correct. The sentence stands.
[…] The Honest Courtesan on sexual repression. […]
I’m married to naturally sexually desirable black woman, with curves to die for unfortunately she has been spoil t with the inconvenience of a repressive religion, i have never lost my desire for her, i suspect she hasn’t either , but she deliberately represses her desire, such a waste .
At the Lizard Brain level (endocrine driven instinct) both typical genders have two kinds of sexual response (Proactive seeking, informed by self biology and unmated status, the Libido; and Reactive, informed by our mates advances/proximity) which are informed by endocrine mechanisms that are gender-differentiated.
At this point, certain feminist sections are hissing at me already, since they don’t subscribe to that gender-differentiated idea. Tough. Biology doesn’t do wishful thinking.
Lets start with female Libido; promoted by oestrogen(agonist, E) and demoted by progesterone(antagonist, P). In the fertility cycle, E peaks about 2 days after ovulation(day 10-12), P is lowest then, so Libido is maxed out at about day 14. Further along, E begins to decline, P begins to rise (fertile egg would embed as P rises) so Libido falls rapidly as E continues to fall, P peaks. In absence of an embedded fertilised egg the cycle begins again after day 28. This is a relative pattern.
The *intensity* the libido gets felt, depends on the hormonal concentrations, which vary from lady to lady, but the cyclic nature and timing is a pattern that applies pretty uniformly.
So, worth noting, female libido comes with its own antagonist that dominates for about half of the 28 day cycle. If no sex is to be had, Libido wanes *without action* on a lady’s part. No seeking impulse half the time, anyway, thanks to P.
Remember, libido is what informs both genders to *go seek*, not react to partners we’ve already found.
Male libido next. This is promoted by two steroidal hormones: Testosterone (agonist, T) and Dihydriltestosterone (agonist, DHT).
Wait, say the ladies, there’s no male libido antagonist??
Nope. And that’s a significant factor in the difference between libido in the genders. Male libido doesnt have a built in antagonist. Let me continue.
In males, the T level is constant in its concentration, pretty much, day to day. The concentration is different from male to male, but doesnt change much for a given male.
So, hang on, why does my guy get hornier if he doesn’t have sex?
Here’s why. DHT, which is 5x better at being a libido agonist that T, weight for weight, is being constantly synthesised from T at a fractional rate by the male endocrine system. While the T concentration is steady, the concentration of DHT rises as time passes.
The male endocrine system uses DHT in one action only (unlike T) which is the orgasmic endocrine cascade. It gets burned up by that process, and it’s the only way to remove it. More intense orgasms burn more DHT.
Without an orgasmic event, DHT concentration goes one way. Up. And DHT is 5x more effective on the androgen receptors in the area of the brain that controls Libido in males.
So male libido, *lacking natural antagonists* has an escalatory nature, has a basline (set by T) which, without an orgasmic event of some sort (masturbatory, sexual, or nocturnal emission) is exceeded by rising DHT levels.
So the male libido is an “always on” mechanic, that is more strongly experienced over time *unless* the male seeks out and undertakes activity that is orgasmic.
Now the Reactive version of sexual impulse in both genders is less “libidinous” and more about stimulating sexual arousal (genital erection/suffusal, natural lubricational secretion, psychological excitement, etc) i.e. a reaction to the idea of having sex with our partner, rather than being frustrated into seeking a partner. This set of reactions is modulated by oxytocin (the cuddle/bonding/desire hormone) which has a key role in sexual *satisfaction* as well as sexual readyness. The libido hormones aren’t much involved in this process, and their intensity (or lack thereof) can either be promoted by this, or overridden by it.
Of course, our health plays into the workings of these complex hormonal systems; our psychology can act as either a booster or damper on both processes; our intellectual choices can undermine, avert, or amplify things too, so our ultimate sexuality is a mix of our instinctive (and complex) endocrine biology, and our mental aspects as well.
Hope you guys find this interesting, informative and maybe insightful w.r.t your own experiences too.