Control, the male dilemma, and the eerie parallelism between sex and love

For a man, control is key. Control is power, is to be desired and loved by women. Status merely comes with it, and indicates that you have it.

Control starts with ourselves and extends outward: control of our body and its functions, especially of ejaculation; control of our physiology, of our orgasm, and of our emotions, especially of falling in love.

Extending outward, control is exerted over other people’s thoughts (when they follow our words), over their feelings, emotions, and behavior. Outward control is power. The ultimate masculine power is control of a woman’s emotions, of her body, in particular her pregnancy, and of her orgasm.

Control is precisely the thing in a man that women cannot resist. It is perhaps the only thing that women cannot resist. Control is to a man what beauty is to a woman.

Women are not inherently more emotional, sensitive, or unstable than men. They are allowed to be. They can afford to be, because they don’t need control to be loved. Men do.

Don’t you hate all this? What for?

Well, to be desired and loved by women, and to procreate – or to pretend to God to do so while using contraceptives. This is to say, to fuck, essentially, to ejaculate, to orgasm, and to fall in love.

Ejaculation, orgasm, and falling in love do not require a woman’s cooperation. We can masturbate, shoot our seed into the sink, come over porn, and fall in love without inciting love in her. But that would mean half a life to a man, or no life at all. We do need women.

The irony is this: the ends of masculine control, ejaculation – inside her, orgasm – with her, and falling in love – as she falls in love with us, these are the great pleasures and they are all, in essence, loss of control. This is the male dilemma.

The hard prick, when it ejaculates, goes limp and ceases to be physically stimulating to her. Male ejaculation and orgasm are always sexually disappointing to both parties in that they are a loss of control, of masculinity – his pleasure, and her triumph, notwithstanding.

The disappointment on her side is greatest, of course, if she hasn’t yet orgasmed.

There is an eerie parallelism between sex and love, between the physical and the emotional: The man that falls in love gets weak and ceases to be emotionally stimulating to her. The male’s falling in love is always emotionally disappointing to both parties in that it is a loss of control, of masculinity – his pleasure, and her triumph, notwithstanding.

The disappointment on her side is greatest, of course, if she hasn’t yet completely fallen in love.

You are man enough for her to fall in love with you if and only if you have the control not to fall in love with her. In other words, a man can have any woman, except the one he loves. And a woman can fall in love with many men, but not with the one who loves her.

This is perhaps the greatest irony of the human condition.

When I first understood this, I could not believe that nobody had ever explained it to me. In a highly advanced culture, where you can easily find instructions for building an airplane, how could a piece of information so essential to the personal happiness of every man and every woman not be readily available, not be taught at elementary school to every boy and girl?

The reason, I suspect, is that it is such an awful piece of information, such an ugly truth. It’s a truth that is beautiful for its perverse elegance, for its symmetry and irony, but ugly in its consequences to human happiness.

A man in love has lost a substantial amount of control. In particular, he has lost control to her. His falling in love takes the power from him and puts it in her hands, shifting the balance. And because women are programmed by nature to love men for their power – in exactly the same way that men are programmed by nature to love women for their beauty – the man in love is unlovable, albeit only to the woman he loves.

This sounds very bleak. So then is there not a happy couple in love in the world? Is there no hope?

Yes, there is. It works like this: The man controls his emotion and underexpresses what emotion he cannot control. He then controls her, creatively through the art of seduction, her thoughts, her emotions, her body. He maintains control until she begins to lose control. He leads her into her loss of control, into trance and passive feminine pleasure. It takes discipline for him to forgo or at least delay the pleasure of losing control himself.

As he leads her, she leads the loss of control: When she is thoroughly in love he may let himself fall a little (without losing her). When she has orgasmed, then so may he, and obtain his measure of pleasure. But if he were to let go and experience total pleasure, total abandon, he would lose all control, and thus all masculinity, and thus he would certainly lose her. This happens to the young man, again and again, until he learns.

Even the experienced man’s controlled little losses of control, will make him less than perfectly masculine. But then masculinity is just a means to the end of these little losses. He is perfectly masculine to the women who have loved and lost him. And another man is perfectly masculine to his love in the same way.

And the less loving, emotional, and sensitive we are, the easier it is for us to maintain control and appeal to women. The born asshole is a born fucker, emotionally – and often physically as well. He first fucks with her emotionally and then proceeds to fuck her physically – and for exactly this, he is much desired, and much loved, by women.

But we can match the born asshole’s masculinity by mastery of the game of seduction, by sheer genius proceeding from a deep acceptance of the nature of female sexuality.

It is the sexism of nature itself that grants pleasure and loss of control to the female in larger measure. Nature has no qualms about sexism. It’s hard to accept these things when you believe – as I and my lovers, by and large, do – in equality, political and intellectual equality. And it’s interesting that our culture, and especially feminism, idealizes masculine control and power and associates it with freedom and pleasure, although in fact pleasure is loss of control and freedom is gained when someone you trust does the driving.

Control itself, of course, is a masculine pleasure – a sadistic pleasure to the degree that it involves eliciting a wide range sensations or emotions in her, a masochistic pleasure when it takes much discipline to maintain, and a playful pleasure when it comes easy. Just never a pure one.


18 Responses to “Control, the male dilemma, and the eerie parallelism between sex and love”

  1. Poetry of Flesh Says:

    Amazing post, brought up some things about my near requirement for complete self-control in my LTRs that I hadn’t thought of.

    I do believe I’m going to have to quote this post on my next post, as it near perfectly hits some points on how my last relationship functioned, and why, in the end, we couldn’t have each other.

    • stagetwo Says:

      good to hear. i’ve been meaning write about this for a while. i look forward to your related ideas. will check your blog…

  2. Jesus Says:

    It made me think that if we really don’t care, we can afford to indulge in all pleasures we like, enjoy them, and then let the girl figure it out for herself if she wants more or not.

    I mean, who cares about my genes? I am programmed to use them to the full extent, but my consciousness can only be part of that extension. I cannot really care about them! It can only be a figure of speech to make us understand something else.

    This means really not caring, not by exercise or effort — by understanding that arises from observation. After you see, you recognize, you don’t need to make an effort to it.

    We are not caring because we read that aloof is attractive characteristic, we are not caring because, as you so well put in your post — even if I am reading it from an odd angle — it is not something we should care about! . We hate it.

    I remember Tyler Durden in Fight Club saying: “let’s evolve, let the chips fall where they may”(or something like that). And obviously we can’t do that consciously, evolve. Only we can let go and do our best where we can. Trying to over-control the fucking thing that brought you to this world is strange.

    Let’s relax. Women are there, there are easy woman and hard woman, and our desire will surge or not, and we will do all we can about it; but we don’t need to be conscious little fucks when we can be enjoying our life with all the fucking senses, and the mind, we have, using them to guide us.

    Using them to glide. (or “slide”, I believe, it is said in Fight Club)

    Let’s be happy and enjoy being in love and having orgasms. It will end, it will change, but that could be just another reason to enjoy it when you have them. Not control it, because we can’t! Try with something more obvious, like trying to live forever or not to age, and it becomes very clear.

    • stagetwo Says:

      genuine indifference makes you invulnerable. “we don’t need or even want anything from the other side” is a negotiator’s favorite starting position. it does give you power over women.

      but then it also deprives you of feeling and meaning.

      there is no easy solution, jesus.

      on another level, i’m with you about the zen.

      your words also echo the christian wisdom of the serenity prayer — perhaps fittingly, given your name…

      The Serenity Prayer

      God grant me the serenity
      to accept the things I cannot change;
      courage to change the things I can;
      and wisdom to know the difference

      Living one day at a time;
      Enjoying one moment at a time
      Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
      Taking, as He did, this sinful world
      as it is, not as I would have it
      Trusting that He will make all things right
      if I surrender to His Will;
      That I may be reasonably happy in this life
      and supremely happy with Him
      Forever in the next.
      –Reinhold Niebuhr

      • Jesus Says:

        genuine indifference makes you invulnerable. “we don’t need or even want anything from the other side” is a negotiator’s favorite starting position. it does give you power over women.

        but then it also deprives you of feeling and meaning.

        Ah, but I am not saying indifference. I say “not caring”, but if you read closely the “not caring” that I am describing is not indifference, it is accepting the possible outcome and dealing with it directly if it happens (i.e.: with feeling and meaning, and knowledge — that in this case is utterly personal). It is inclusive, not exclusive.

        It is not a position, you see, it is knowledge that leads to a direct relationship with ourselves, that can be translated as not caring about mental things more than they deserve. We are quicker this way and we use our resources better. And we can enjoy.

        as with the zen, I am with you too.

      • Peter Phua Says:

        I intend to create a film whose central theme is this article. How can I go about obtaining the permission to do this? I haven’t found any other way to contact you outside of leaving a reply to your comment. Thank you.

      • stagetwo Says:

        peter, that’s great! you don’t need permission. if you cited this blog, that might get more people interested. –s2

  3. stagetwo Says:

    to the degree that we have control, we can be emotionally connected and detached at the same time — like watching a movie. but i do think there is an element of indifference even to your variant of ‘not caring’: the feeling, in the moment, that the outcome doesn’t matter (makes no difference) to you and your well-being (at least at some level) is key to letting go.

    consider the possibility of having a terrible disease (here’s 11min’s relevant current post: complete indifference to your own potential death is not desirable, ‘not caring’ (while taking necessary precautions) is the perhaps ideal response (albeit hard to pull off). we distinguish the outcomes, we have a preference, and we attempt to guide things in the direction of our preference — without becoming unhealthily (and unhelpfully) preoccupied with our preference.

    not giving mental things (thoughts and feelings) more attention and power than they deserve is an idea i like. it reminds me of tolle.

  4. Linkage is Good for You: Had to Get Away Edition Says:

    […] Stagetwo – “Sexual Attractiveness as a Function of Age“, “Control, the Male Dilemma, and the Eerie Parallelism Between Sex and Love” […]

  5. 11minutes Says:

    And a woman can fall in love with many men, but not with the one who loves her.

    Thus is the nature of hypergamy.

    There is an eerie parallel to the Peter Princinple:
    Women end up trying to win the heart of the man they barely cannot get instead of going for the man who is just below that threshold.

    Aiming at being the guy who is just a tad above her dating market value is the best relationship advice for men there is.

  6. Peter Says:

    I just want to say: this is one of the most poetic and tragic things I have ever read. Beautiful, in its own way.

  7. Artful Dodger Says:

    These are some damned good posts. This quote described many of my romantic interests, particularly when I was younger:

    “…a masochistic pleasure when it takes much discipline to maintain…”

    This is the absolute worst when you really like a girl. If you show your hand too soon, you know it’s a wrap. But it’s so hard not tipping your hand ever so slightly. There’s always the last-second invitation to see a movie that you know you should reject but feel so compelled to accept. There’s always the phone call that lasts 30 seconds too long. There’s always a powerful urge to perform random acts of kindness, even when you know that they will in all likelihood thwart your ultimate objective.

    It’s hard to stop the nice guy from oozing out of you when you’re really into someone. Once you’ve reached that point, all of the negs, takeaways and qualifications in the world won’t be able to mask your true character (talk about irony, eh?).

    The way I’ve dealt with this: date women I had lukewarm feelings for while waiting for the very exceptional woman who actually wants to be treated nicely. The problem is that you never know which type of girl you’re getting. Is this the seemingly “good girl” whose heart yearns for a sociopath or a good girl who places a greater premium on traits beyond jerkiness? You just don’t know, and sometimes when you find out, it may be too late.

    • stagetwo Says:

      again, i agree with all of this. i wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the woman who wants to be treated “nicely” — as what you mean by nice here, i suspect, is something that no attractive woman is really turned on by. but this doesn’t mean we have to be mean jerks through and through. it’s better and sexier (but also more challenging) to be loving assholes.

  8. markus Says:

    I’ll be damned if this isn’t the most poetic, beautiful, true and tragic thing I’ve ever read on the interwebs. God bless you, anonymous truth teller. I wish I could shake your shake your hand.

  9. khaled nashaat zaki Says:

    so , you mean that the paralleled success life between the man and his life-partner ( wife in general or his beloved Particularly ) is characterized by a parallel way of long term man control by your mean ..
    in such cultures like christian one , and muslims faithful to only one good wife is the better marital life !! regardless the four allowance wifes in muslims’s culture .. but only one is enough and the most common acting , Qur’an support only one wife in the same time says ther is no problem if their were four ..
    so for religion adherents , by that you guarantee a long term women emotional satisfying for that control . then , what about the man’s emotional life ?? ..
    so marital infidility is the main emotional satisfication regarding men which is not accepten in any of The three monotheistic religions !!

    So, the Quistion is how can you correlate between these three things .. faithful & control & emotionally satisfied men ??
    by a simple way they have the right to fall in love

  10. Robert Says:

    I guess I have no choice but to marry a woman I have no feelings for, or be lonely for the rest of my life.

  11. Girl Says:

    I’m not sure i get this, but as a woman myself i’ve truly loved a man who had no real “control” he was the man of my life and according to him i were the love of his life. However, when he, after four years began to lie to me and continuing doing things for his desire instead of being home with his family (me and our two daughters) i broke up since he needed to take care of his issues, not because i stopped loving him.

    The only things that sounds a tad bit familiar is when you explain how women can’t love the ones who truly love them since i’ve had men chasing me, and i know they would give me everything i needed, but there’s still something missing. But the reasoning you have still can’t be true since i truly loved the father of my children (same as he did with me). The problem, as i began explaining earlier were that he had issues with himself, which i thought he would learn how to tackle if i left him, though i could not be more wrong. Three months after i broke up with him he commited suicide.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: