Posts by Brian Lopez6

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Oh boy, I simply cannot agree with 😲

Regarding this whole issue of patriarchal indoctrination, I don't believe it has anything to do with hormones or biological drivers at all. Rather, I would argue that these supposed hormonal issues—this specific type of behavior seen in men—are merely the byproduct of patriarchal conditioning. It’s a system that has historically stigmatized women as nothing more than wombs and men solely as providers of seed 🙄
which reduces sex to a mere tool for reproduction, rather than what it should be: a profound spiritual and emotional experience.

That being said, based on my own life experiences thus far, I have to say I haven't actually encountered many such emotionless men. In fact, I find that most men are quite exhausted by the roles forced upon them... in about 90% of the men I know (not to mention those I have personally dated), I observe sincere, deep emotions and a genuine need for connection.
I have only ever noticed true lack of feeling in people—both men and women—who have actively suppressed their own sexual and emotional needs, or even embraced celibacy as a shield.

The example Brian Lopez6 brought up, where a woman becomes "uninteresting" to her male partner immediately after sex, perhaps speaks more to how much he was attracted to her in the first place. I suspect that if he were truly interested in her as a person, beyond just the physical aspect, the situation wouldn't feel nearly as frustrating for either party. However, that is precisely the point. In a culture like this, women aren't given the opportunity, nor are they encouraged, to develop their own unique personalities and character; meanwhile, men are indoctrinated to view women as nothing more than reproductive vessels. Women are dehumanized, while men are deliberately prevented from achieving any real, deep connection with their partners.

If Brian Lopez6's argument were actually correct, men would be entirely incapable of any kind of emotional relationship whatsoever. Yet, we see that men—especially those types—understand each other quite well and are perfectly capable of fulfilling those emotional, spiritual, and intellectual needs among themselves.

But if you ask me, our physical biology and those pesky hormones actually influence how we think and act way more than we’d ever want to admit or even realize.

Elizabeth Bishop4 said:I suppose what it boils down to is that biological drive where a man feels this urge to spread his genes, you know, that primal instinct to fertilize as many females as possible. Once he’s been intimate with one woman a few times, that biological clock in his head tells him his job is done and it's time to move on.

Since there's this fundamental gap between the sexes—which, like you pointed out, is rooted in our very biology—it makes me wonder: should a woman just accept that compromise and settle for a guy who's going to roll over and fall asleep the second he's finished, or should she hold out for something more substantial? Honestly, I don't know; I just feel like men and women are wired so differently that these gaps might just be impossible to smooth over. I mean, at the end of the day, you can't really fight against nature.

Well, I wouldn't say it's an impossible battle, though I definitely see where they're coming from! Personally, I really believe we have this amazing capacity to refine ourselves and actually rise above our basic biological programming. It’s not like we're making things up out of thin air, either; there’s plenty of precedent for this kind of behavior in the wild. If you look at certain animals—like bonobos or even dolphins—they often engage in sexual behavior for purely social bonding or to smooth over tensions within the group rather than just for reproduction. So, if they can find ways to transcend simple instinct for the sake of their community, why couldn't we?

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Brian Lopez6, I wouldn't necessarily say women experience sexuality as something "spiritual" by default, though they might be more receptive to its subtler nuances—that part is probably true.

Honestly, I kind of feel like it *is* the default setting (or maybe I just have way too much respect for women, haha!), and if that doesn't happen, it’s usually because of patriarchal conditioning or just being with the wrong partner rather than anything inherent to how women are actually wired.
But it makes you wonder, right? How did we even get to this point where men feel this constant need to dominate or even bash sexuality itself? Let's face it, sex can be a super frustrating area of life. It’s one of those things where you go in hoping and expecting one thing, but then reality hits differently. Personally, I really think the answer lies deep in those hormone shifts that kick in during the act. You start out with all these incredible sensations—that rush of falling in love, pure ecstasy, and a massive sense of connection with your partner—all driven by these huge spikes in oxytocin, dopamine, and endorphins. But then, right after ejaculation, everything shifts. Those "feel-good" levels plummet, and prolactin starts climbing, which basically kills the desire and that warm feeling of being bonded. And that high prolactin level can hang around for a few days! On top of that, testosterone starts rising within about 24 hours. So, when you combine that prolactin spike with the testosterone surge and the lack of oxytocin, you end up with a guy who feels irritable, reckless, aggressive, or just incredibly competitive. Since the average person is having sex about twice a week, most men are essentially stuck in this prolonged "prolactin phase" where they struggle to feel deep affection or empathy, and they definitely aren't feeling particularly tolerant. I truly believe this physiological roller coaster is at the very root of why there's such negativity toward sexuality, why we see a patriarchal culture obsessed with competition, and even why there's this whole idea that people need to practice abstinence to stay productive and focused.

If you ask me, celibacy is just a strategic move in male politics and honestly has absolutely nothing to do with actual spirituality. It feels like men just couldn't quite wrap their heads around how women experience the spiritual side of love, so they went ahead and invented abstinence as a workaround. I mean, any woman will tell you that intimacy is a profound spiritual journey in itself, but men decided that staying away from it was the only way to reach enlightenment. It’s such an absurdity when you think about it! Forgive us, really—we're just working with one less chromosome...