My region, either better at attracting sexual serial killers or better at acknowledging them, is deeply and justifiably concerned about what may be the first recognized serial murderer of children in our area in modern times.
Details are unfolding, and many details are being withheld, but the suspect in custody has been convicted and registered for sexual offenses in line with circumstances surrounding a recent victim.
Rather than dwell on the details of the crime or crimes (which you can read for yourself here if you wish) I’d like to point to a 1990 psychological assessment of the suspect.
In a 1990 psychological report, [social worker Michael] Compte called [suspect Terapon] Adhahn an “emotionally and verbally abusive man who has an inordinate need to control others.“ He said the man was “sexually obsessed” and felt inadequate around adult women.
Ok, so this is terribly terribly important. I was up till 12:30 with my children at our neighborhood bookstore last night waiting for our copy of the last J.K. Rowling book so forgive the possible melodramatics, but Michael Compte’s assessment limns perfectly one of the darkest of the dark sides of men’s mainstream belief that women are the “no-sex” class: whereas it might be the dominant paradigm and a creation of men, this daft ideology also places all sexual responsibility on men — all initiative, all the seventeen going on eighteen responsibility to “take care” of their partners and to show or tell them what to do, all the pressure to do “it” right when it’s often no more clear to them than their partners what “it” really means anyway, and all that responsibility amid interior and exterior pressures never to let another soul know how helpless and vulnerable and stupid we might feel and…
...not all men are up to it!
And when they’re not up to it — not up to admitting inexperience or doubt, not willing to ask for a partner’s opinion… bound by the paradigm from even considering their partners might have experience, or confidence, or opinions let alone a willingness, even eagerness to explore sexuality together — then I think you see men retreating to the criminal refuges of pedophilia, of alcohol or Rohypnol, of serial murder, as well as the non-criminal but still desperately unmanly practices of mail-order brides, of seeking virgins (who by definition have no context for comparison), of seeking to keep prospective partners as ignorant and sexually vulnerable and economically dependent as possible. And in the most horrific instances to overwhelm the possibility of judgment or questioning by clobbering, crippling, terrorizing, and ultimately leaving dead along riversides and logging trails.
And all for fucking what? To protect a mutual, millenniums-long lie we tell ourselves and each other that, while never ever having much in the way of foundation to support it, is beyond words as polite even as “counterproductive” in a world with decent (though not perfect) birth control and decent (though by no means complete) economic and social gender parity.
—-
Note #1: Not that the majority of we men who don’t “feel inadequate around adult women” have much of a straighter row to hoe inside the “no-sex” class paradigm. True, we’re not much tempted to prey on children, or the sick, the weak, the socially isolated, the intoxicated or drugged, or those kept deliberately ignorant. But we’re still left imagining that women aren’t naturally interested in sex for its own sake. And thus, if we wish to have sex at all, we believe we must find avenues to coax, pry, purchase, seduce, intimidate, or otherwise leverage. I’m telling you, guys, the more you think about this particular mindset the easier it is to start looking for the exits.
Note #2: I didn’t want to lump the “seduction community” or “pick-up artists” into the more serious mental and criminal dysfunctions although it’s worth mentioning that the “self-confidence” bolstering and other covering-up-self-perceived-inadequacy techniques offered to men like that by, say, seduction coaches point towards that same dark spot: what to do if you don’t know yet believe you must.”
Note #3: Does the “no-sex” class paradigm explain all forms of (heterosexual) criminal sexual assault? There are too many counterexamples for it to explain them all. And even in those counterexample cases I would argue that the pervasiveness of the paradigm makes it more difficult for members of society to respond adequately, proportionately, or (most importantly) effectively
Submitted by 1499 (not verified) on Fri, 2007-10-19 09:51.
I mean, I was going to dismiss everything you wrote as the over-theorized work of a "natural" (based on HNT, etc, you come across as a self-assured, conventionally-attractive mildly exhibitionist man), someone who's never had difficulty finding a partner, someone the average woman might be attracted to on the basis of looks alone, etc. etc. But like a good gender theorist you seem to have grasped that masculinity is performative, and that the male sex role (in normative heterosexuality) is performed, is performance-based, is performance-DEPENDENT.
The SC vaguely senses that it often attempts to cram women into a role in a performance (Google "Are You A Social Robot?" for example) but suffers from a programmatic blindness. I think far from being over-invested in the production of desire, the denizens of the SC have often been shut down, avoiding the expression of their sexuality and of their desire, such that a programmatic attempt to reawaken female desire seems logical, when in fact their past behavior (neediness, begging, slut-shaming, etc.) was what cast their interactions out of the realm of desire/seduction. It is also ridiculously hard to attract "signals" from the average woman, as the average man will attest, and the culmination of the "Bitch Shield" as a protective device is a form of reactive street harassment, which preserves the man's sense of agency--anything to get through the shield, anything besides having one's low-level low-yield search for "signals" ignored, anything to avoid becoming a member of the "no romantic agency" as well as the "no flirtation" and "no sex" classes.
I'm going to have to mull over the implications of women's similar sense of a lack of agency that you raise above. Gosh darn it.
[First of all hoo-hoo-ha-ha as to whether I'm naturally attractive. Seriously, no one but my grandmother and aunts had ever complemented my looks (no partner ever had) until I posted my first photo here. I now recognize that I *really am* fairly attractive, but I was literally a nervous wreck when I started out here. Anyway, thanks so much for your kind words and, especially, for listening and replying. I really appreciate it. Anyway I just want to say that it's not so much about whether we do or don't perform isn't the point. Performing (up to a point anyway) is fine. The *point* is that if or when we perform, we *all* perform -- there's no "he acts, she watches" in real life -- and to the extent we try to impose those conditions we tend to get shown the door. Thanks, Eurosabra. --fl]
Submitted by 1499 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-10-23 11:48.
Infra came up with a wonderful post this summer entitled "Nailing The Hot Chick" which addressed the issues of sexual desirability, agency, and the sexualization and non-sexualization of certain identities. Or as he put it, "Carpentry. Thermal Energy. Poultry." or some such line.
The "worthiness" thing seems like an attempt to secure an identity which can be sexualized, in a perception of men as a "no sex" class. It may be that I'm attacking the problem from a different angle, but the SC (cf. Pilinski's "Without Embarassment", anything by Mystery or Real Social Dynamcs) talks about losing one's sense of shame about male sexuality while acquiring an identity which can be sexualized. "I'm an accountant" is not a sexualized identity, while Mystery's patter(n) about how he got to be a magician IS. I think the evo-psych stuff obscures both Erik "Mystery" von Markovik's and Pilinski's point, and for someone considering "worthiness" in relation to the SC, those books would be a good point of departure.
[Actually I'm still going to challenge that Mystery/Seduction-Community mentality because "I'm an accountant" is a problem only inside the worthiness trap. I agree we shouldn't be ashamed of our sexuality but, get this, it's only something to be ashamed of *if you think women aren't sexual!* Which they are. Therefore it's not the *sexuality* that maybe we need to stop being ashamed of. Assuming there was even anything to be ashamed of at all, which is a *huge* assumption of ours that... tends to... make us look like sneaks. Women, or men for that matter, just ain't gonna go for sneaks. Not from box store "sales assistants," not from car dealers, not from nobody. Getting better at pretending you're not sneaking isn't progress. It's like showing up to play tennis in football cleats and thinking "if I just find soccer shoes with small enough cleats they won't notice." Instead of just learning tennis. Thanks, Eurosabra. --fl]
Submitted by 1499 (not verified) on Sat, 2007-10-27 12:34.
Are we on the same page re: worthiness? The problem with "accountant" as an identity is that it's not SEXUAL, or not sexual ENOUGH, although "worthy." You could play it up into a dom-sub thing (nothing in the company moves without your say-so, because you do the numbers.) Librarian, if you're a male? Better to consider sexuality a separate domain, of course, else "Nice Guys" never get laid. Saying "worthiness is a trap" to a woman who is convinced she can only come in a Ferrari doesn't confer upon you the get-laid benefits of a Ferrari. But you're preaching to the converted with the reverse Lysistrata thing, really. I'm a disabled male in his 30s, I figure out really quickly which women are willing to "put up with" reality.
The SC is, at least with Mystery, not about proving conventional, job-based "worthiness", but projecting a rock-star image--that you're a fun, cool, sensual, with-it, hip dude willing to take the lead in matters of life and romance, respected by his peers and beloved of women. It's not what you do so much as the backstory that got you there and how it makes you interesting...it's "sneaky" only in the sense that it teaches you to feign dominance (if you are not naturally dominant) of women who respond to that type of thing, and the evo-psych baggage it carries claims that ALL women respond to a "leader of men." You can match her individual values with rapport, of course, or just plow through on the basis of extraordinary attractiveness. What most Nice Guys do is question-and-answer conversation-based rapport-seeking, which requires that you be a match.com style match to get the girl, and then complain that women don't like Nice Guys(tm), when that sort of thing is about as sensual as a root canal. (S&M aficionados excepted.)
[I agree that if one was interested in women who had a thing for Ferarris then one might need to either actually own one of the things or else be a *very* good actor. One might, however, have better luck with one of the other 99.9% of the population of women with less peculiar fetishes. (And yes, I know you meant the car thing more metaphorically than I took it but my point stands.) Thank you, Eurosabra. --fl]
Submitted by 1499 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-10-17 22:08.
Okay, as a member of the SC and someone interested in the "no sex" class paradigm, I have to say that the SC is more of a way of side-stepping the issue that masculinity is performed, stereotypical heterosexuality's masculine role is performative, and in this culture, MEN are indoctinated to initiate romantic overtures, seduction, and sex--or it just (in the perception of many men) doesn't happen.
I think you have to separate "worthiness" from the "no sex class" paradigm, because the complaint that spurs the SC is not that women don't/shouldn't/can't want sex, it's that "Women want sex, they may just not want it WITH YOU", or "They make it too damn hard!". Because when a guru like Mystery suggests that beginners should expect only ONE positive response (of any kind, from a phone number to actively continuing the conversation) from every FIFTY approaches, something more is going on there than the blithe enactment of some paradigm in which women don't want sex.
[While they're vaguely related I actually do separate the worthiness issue from the sex/no-sex class paradigm. The *traditional* principle of seduction has been to "unlock" or "unleash" (generously) or (less generously) instill or even coerce sexual arousal, which would probably be received a bit more graciously if women didn't already have perfectly functioning libidos. As for the 50/1 ratio thing one obvious consequence of the no-sex class paradigm is the assumption that men have to do all the asking. And it may not sound credible to you but I know a fair number of perfectly attractive women (attractive in the sense that in other contexts men approach them) who say they don't have much better luck when they ask men out. And I feel *very* strongly that if we shifted the convention such that regardless of gender the *interested party* initiated contact then -- once the novelty wore off -- you'd see perfectly equal rates of success regardless of gender. Anyway, meanwhile it *is* pretty much all men asking and consequently the average woman has to decline, what, 50 advances for every one she desires. And all the above means it's a *structural* imbalance not particularly a gender one. Therefore "solutions" based on gender speculations alone are going to be, um, less efficient. Possibly less effective than average random luck! Final note: believing that learning to get that ratio below 50/1 makes you worthy, which I think a lot of guys do, *really* isn't going to help! Thanks Eurosabra. --fl]
Submitted by 1499 (not verified) on Sun, 2007-07-22 08:24.
Good Sunday morning Figleaf,
I just don't think there are ever any excuses for behaving badly, although you have certainly outlined the reasons that these type of creeps act like they do.
Everyone has different levels of sexual desire and interest and ability -- if you don't have it, that doesn't mean you have to act out and harm someone else. It doesn't make you less inadequate - it just makes you more of a dirtball.
[Thank you, Annie. --fl]
Submitted by 1499 (not verified) on Sat, 2007-07-21 22:33.
I agree with the above comment that "cultures of masculinity" is something to consider. I think that the ways man are taught to be "real men" conflict--they're told to be chivalrous, to find out what women want--, which might, possibly, in a kind world, be used to help move some of their psychological concentration off themselves and put them in communication with others; and that to be a "real man" they're supposed to be dominant, in the way that they get what they want, attract a certain kind of woman, and if they don't they're a failure... all of which is caught up in ideas of class, which is itself, functionally, an incoherent identity and so potentially frustrating.
More than denying that women might like or want sex, I think the criminal activity you're talking about denies female people *any* subjectivity at all. And I think men who are that worried about that responsibility, for whom being a man is to much, imagine something similar, that women don't know what they're doing, and don't take part in the cultural play inherent in putting on any identity, as if there were some place outside of that field. Who doesn't find responsibility a worry?
["...the criminal activity you're talking about denies female people *any* subjectivity at all..." I really should have made this more clear in the post itself but no one theory explains the motivation behind all assaults. As for denial of subjectivity all together I don't think I'm mistaken that it all boils down to what I'm calling the "no-sex" class mentality. The initial, ancient idea of reducing other human beings to breeding livestock or (only relatively more generously) as living contracts in a political/economic systems wherein which paternal succession must be insured is about as de-subjectifying as it gets. And I think everything follows from that original sin. Thanks, Hmmm. --fl]
Submitted by 1499 (not verified) on Sat, 2007-07-21 21:50.
I've heard this no-sex class theory before, and it seemed then as it does now that it is a possible explanation of why SOME people (even women) do SOME things. People are tremendously complicated creatures, and no one can ever explain exactly why we do what we do. The guy in the news story to which you refer was either born a sociopath or treated so badly as a child that he turned into the monster he is. Or maybe one day he just snapped and decided to commit heinous crimes. Who knows? I seriously doubt he's been raping and murdering girls because he believes women are the no-sex class. He's got much more serious issues. If my facts are correct, I believe that the majority of children who are sexually abused are male, and they are primarily abused by males, so I don't think this theory explains pedophilia. Take a look at the Catholic church.
Feeling inadequate around adult women is not uncommon, but it does not necessarily mean these men believe women are the no-sex class. Everyone feels inadequate at some time or another around their peers.
I must ask, why do you believe that the majority of men who DON'T feel inadequate around adult women are "still left imagining that women aren't naturally interested in sex for its own sake?" I just don't see it.
[Why we continue to indoctrinate ourselves to imagine it is the $64,000 question. And it's fine that it doesn't make sense to you since, well, it sort of has to go against your own experience. But without resorting to "it's a guy thing," which is always a cop-out anyway, I'd like to assure you that while no, you're right, not every man believes it the paradigm dominates almost all our conversation. Thanks, Totem. --fl]
Submitted by 1499 (not verified) on Sat, 2007-07-21 19:15.
I need to chew on this a bit, but I think I agree with more than I disagree. It kind of reminds me after the Virginia tech..... the media is quick to point to "scorned by women" that's what makes men act out... when it seems to be a combination that has much more to do with culture of masculinity than women who are not interested. It's a culture of entitlement... if they send the signals... and he does the right thing... a+b=c right? and that lined gets blurred by a lot of folks.
[We're definitely close, Sassywho. I actually happen to think the male-entitlement intersects the "no-sex" class paradigm at certain points (which makes sense, of course) but whereas I think the paradigm would remain surprisingly unchanged were to entitlement disappear, men's sense of entitlement would be radically mitigated if the paradigm were overthrown. The big thing is that a lot of men's entitlement derives from (pointless, unnecessary, irrational) resentment, which is of course daft in a world that for most of history anyway, men have held the upper hand in. Which is why I say the paradigm is entirely a man's creation and responsible for so much grief rained down on men and women both. Again, the consequences of the status quo are exactly the same as classical rad-fem theory has it, it's just that I think my addition creates a way out that men are going to *want to exit by.* Thanks! --fl]