Thesis: Sex and sexual release or lack there of have the same physio and psychological impact as basic survival needs like food; water, shelter.

Intro:

When you starve yourself all you think and see is food.

When you are thirsty, water becomes as valuable as gold.

The physiological needs we all have, do in fact play a huge role in not just our survival but in our psyche.

Studies and research have shown that the further we lack in a need the more unbalanced we become and the more we desire to seek out that need, even if it means causing harm to ourselves in some other aspect. (Psychology 13 Ed)

We even hallucinate our needs if deeply depleted perhaps in an attempt to utilize the most powerful medicine in all existence (the placebo) in order to satisfy and stabilize us until we can get it. (Psychology 13,Ed)

Yet when we talk about sex, we say “We don’t need sex to live. It’s not a basic need. It should also be done meaningfully and not non chalantly.

But is that really true?

I mean if we all stopped having sex we would stop the human species. Thus we do need sex to survive as a collective at least.

Furthermore, I think modern times and the incel movement have proven that it is in fact not true. That healthy sex and sexual release and the romantic communion it brings is imperative to the mental health of another.

Thus perhaps our ancestors fucked way more than we thought?

And perhaps that answer to sex starvation in anyone is a healthy sexual release as close to the real thing (if you cannot get the real thing).

Yet for men, every avenue we went down to try and solve mens sex starvation is meant with criticism of one’s manhood from both men and women.

You use your hand? Simp.

Use a vagina mouth or Amal sleeve toy? Simp

Use a doll? Simp.

Use a sex worker? Simp

But trick a stranger into bed, you are a man.

Capitalize on a women’s victims mentality and insecurity to get them to sleep with you, and be addicted to you a la emotional stick Holme syndrome, you are a man.

Prey on other vulnerable women or turn yourself into a town bicycle seat, you are a man?

Meanwhile for women…

Well…

The first vibrator was meant and used to cure what they deemed at the time to be female hysteria.

Today it’s no longer vibrators.

It’s power tools attached to vibrators.

Machines.

Sex dungeons.

And dolls too.

Shit even dragon alien and other mystical creatures.

Pussy and nipple pumps are fun to play with as well.

So it seems women can come anyway they please while men have only one way. A manly way.

And yes, though some of these sexual release methods are vilified for women, they are not vilified to the level a man uses them unless it is with partners.

And even then god forbid a man sticks a piece of plastic up his ass, or has a women use it on him, then he’s a cucked secret homo Simp aka super Simp.

But why is this?

And is it really so bad if men use toys that get closest to the real thing if it means it would stop their own hysteria and lessen or prevent predatory actions towards women?

Yes you can argue that a man using a doll may eventually view women as a mastabatory item or something they can objectify and use.

But porn does that already and most of mens short term mating strategies (especially the unhealthy ones mentioned abode) already do this.

Thus it’s not soo much about preventing what’s already happening but rather asking…

If sex dolls became as real life as possible, would the correlation between sex hysterical men using them and abuse towards women decline or increase and do we want to even take the risk to find out?

Or do we do what some people are fighting for now and ban another form of male sexual release because it’s too taboo or has a high potential to be problematic.

Personally I think it comes down to intent but intent is contextual.

These are just my thoughts on the matter.

What do you think?