Group characterization, a.k.a. prejudice

"The pharisees were hypocrites."

"Millenials are lazy and entitled."

"Feminists are ugly, fat, man-hating bitches."

"All men are rapists in waiting."


The moment you put people into those neat little categories, you have already lost.

Thinking in groups, and then pitching them against each other, is one of the worst mistakes human beings make - every one of us, including myself.

And we make it an awful lot.

Why is it a mistake? Because it simply ain't true, that's why. It makes us make bad decisions.

Beliefs that don't accurately reflect reality, can cause bad decisions.

My favourite example is from the New Testament: The pharisees are consistently characterized as hypocrites. But, wait a sec - the pharisees were a group of maybe 2000-3000 people or so... can you honestly say that you believe that that many people were being hypocritical, and nothing but hypocritical, for all their life? While everybody else was superduper honest and good?

The answer is, of course, no. It's a piece of ideological hyperbole, of rhetoric.

Some pharisees sure acted like hypocrites in certain situations.

Just like everybody else. Just like I do. Just like you do.

The categorization of a group as hypocrites, or as "entitled", is simply wrong.

The categorization of a specific action as hypocritical is possibly correct, and can be productive.

Yet, we need group categorization for fast decisions, especially in semergency situations: "Can I trust this guy in uniform?" - "Should I run from this guy who looks like a drug addict?"

We do it more when we are emotionally upset. As long as there's no "clear and present danger", the right thing to do would be to let the emotions settle, and only then engage in thinking and decision-making.

We also do it out of sheer mindlessness, intellectual laziness. It takes effort to correct one's prejudice. It's work, actual, real, hard work, to get over it. And you can't ever say that you've finished your work. Never.

I suggest that we learn to be aware of our neat little categories, and whenever we meat someone from one of those groups, allow them the chance to prove us wrong.

I suggest that we learn to attack actions and opinions, with vigour and even mercilessly at times - but never people.

How not to convince me

TL;DR: That which is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

In this blog posting, the author takes on the role of a father, advising his son. His wisdom entails, in so many words, that women are goddesses in hiding, men can be gods too, but men have to work for it. And that work consists of - you guessed it - withholding orgasm. He claims that orgasm "weakens you and opens the door to diseases."

Nothing new there.

The appallingly condescending tone of the thing does not do an awful lot to convince me, but that is the least of the troubles.

In the ensuing reddit discussion, he clarified he was not actually talking about orgasm - but rather ejaculation. That he is well aware of the distinction, and knew of the existence of nonejaculatory orgasms. He said that he used orgasm as a short-hand, "because it was a mere 500 word posting". I'm not buying this, but let's let that one slip.

He said he was not talking about serious illness, but stuff like the flu or herpes. Upon request for evidence, he refused to "give away free data", because he felt offended by my criticism.

That one is highly amusing. The sheer creativity of authors covering up their lack of evidence is truly astounding. I tried it quite a few times, to no avail. There is always some reason why they don't, can't, won't come up with real data.

True, I was very harsh. I'm fed up with all the bullshit that people tout with regard to male sexuality and orgasm, and right now, I'm not in the mood to mince words. It will probably mean that I and this fellow will never be friends, but that's a loss I'll just have to live with.

Here's what I think: He does not have any data. Nor does he have any explanation for how this is supposed to work. Apart from maybe something or other about energy, or maybe zinc.

He has a few personal anecdotes and vague impressions, he's read a few books that propagate old religious superstitions about qi and retention. Books that, themselves, rely on anecdotal evidence and "old wisdom" or "spiritual science", which is just a nice way of saying "crap that someone pulled out of their arse".

The saddest part is that, apart from being uncapable to put his message into clear words, this guy is not a liar or deliberately trying to fool people. I'm sure he absolutely believes what he says. He thinks he is being rational, and giving good advice. He just does not know what constitues evidence, and how to phrase his message so that it conveys a confidence level lower than 1.

Just in case, I know how it feels. You have this big revelation, this truly and utterly deep truth that shook your world and made you well. You want to convey it. Everyone should know this! Everybody will love your message! They just have to understand.

Been there, done that. Got the "stupid" label well on my forehead.

But that just ain't how it works. Son.

If you want to convince me, I suggest you do the following:

• Use a non-condescending, humble style. You are not an authority. Don't try to act like one.
• Have at least an inkling of a coherent theory. There is no reason to believe claims without explanation.
• Caveats are a good thing. Anticipate counter-arguments and possible refutations. That shows that you thought this through before writing.
• Show your evidence, or at least admit that there is none. Your personal experience is quite fine, it just means that it is not my experience, so there is no reason for me to believe it if those experiences don't match.
• Whenever you're engaging in speculation, admit to it. There is nothing wrong with speculation, and the status of your claims is an integral part of the message.
• Whenever you do not know for sure, admit to it. There is nothing wrong with that. It supports the reader's evaluation of your claims.

Please, do not claim healing

Whenever you are tempted to write a blog posting or a reddit comment, or just claim in casual conversation, that your spiritual, mystical, "alternative" method has healing properties, I urge you to stop right there.

You might have a few personal experiences, and if that works for you, fine, great, go on and do whatever you do. As long as you claim general good feelings, improved vitality, you got no debate from me. Thousands of factors go into that, your method might very well be one of them, at least for you, and maybe a few others as well.

All of that changes once we talk about real physical or mental issues, be it the flu or cancer or depression.

The fact is, you do not have a clue whether your method works or not, and chances are it doesn't.

The fact is, you are very likely falling prey to your own biases. You are likely a victim of confirmation and selection bias, probably of loss aversion too. You have not accounted for a possible placebo effect. You are probably not a medical doctor. You do not know all the factors that might play a role, nor do you have any idea how to deal with those in your assessment.

Assuming that what you describe even is a real effect, which is highly doubtful, you do not know the mechanism behind it, and "quantum consciousness" or "qi" probably ain't it.

We all have read about an astounding quantity of bullshit methods: prayer, crystals, reiki, semen retention, invocations of literally thousands of gods and demons. The list is nearly endless.

They cannot all be right.

They can indeed all be wrong.

Your method, in all likelihood, is just as wrong as all the others.

When you claim physical healing, and you do so with the right tone, some assumed authority, and maybe some quote-mining, there is a good chance that you lead people astray. People who are in dire need of real treatment. People who suffer. You give them false hope, and in the worst case, this will lead to their death.

What you are doing is unethical.

Stop it.

------------------------------

On this blog, I have tried my best to avoid any claims of that sort. I avoid words like "healing" in general, because I think it insinuates more than it should. However, we all slip up, so if you still find something like that, please drop me a note (betlamed@gmail.com), and I will review the posting in question.

You don't have to be a label

Okay, I admit that this fundamental wisdom is quite the deepity - but it hit me like a sledgehammer earlier today, so I'd like to share it:

You don't have to be a bdsmer just to do some bdsm stuff.

I self-identified as a sub for the better part of my adult life. First you struggle, then you get used to it, and at some point you take it for granted.

However, the more I actually practice some bdsm rituals with my wonderful lady, the more they  become just another expression of our love. This makes me question why I should self-identify with the label at all.

bdsm is just a set of activities. If you like to create an identity around those, fine, go ahead, it's not a bad thing per se, and it will bring you in community with a lot of interesting folks - but it's really not needed if you just want to tie your partner to the bed.

No need to be a tantrik either, just to breathe and masturbate. And indeed, do you have to "be a christian" just to believe something, or to attend some church?

Of course, arguably, if you believe that Jesus rose from the dead and saved us all, then you're a christian by definition.

But there is a difference between accepting a label just because the definition fits, and self-identifying with that label.

My hunch is that this latter way of dealing with labels is where all the trouble lies. It is fairly obvious that - while your beliefs sure inform your actions and form your character - you are not simply defined by your beliefs.  You are not a christian, and nothing but a christian - you're a christian and a father/mother, son/daughter, student, hacker, etc.

It is also obvious that such identification can lead to ugly stuff like suicide bombings or flying planes into buildings - or, a bit less dramatically, to vote for a party that does not actually support you or your causes.

Another obvious deepity is that identification with a label does not necessarily make you a suicide bomber. In fact, it might inspire you to do a world of good.

So where does that leave us? Personally, I get ever more wary of labels, the older I get. I find that in many cases, they are - not so much evil, but - unneeded, unhelpful. I don't think we can ever get rid of them, but I think that it makes sense to not identify with any one label too much.

Books and resources

This is a list of some resources that I enjoyed and from which I learned a lot. It's a work in progress, so if you're interested, come back at a later time.

Last update: 2020-10-28.

10/10 can recommend

Books

Diana and Michael Richardson have written a host of books one can recommend. I read their book on tantra for men, which introduced me to the concept of "cold versus hot arousal", to prefer lower levels of it. They align themselves with Osho, so one should take that into account.

Barbara Carellas' Urban Tantra is another classic, of course. It's one of the more "shiny" books with lots of images. I can't seem to find it in my library at the moment, so I will have to talk about it at a later time.

Margot Anand's The Art of Sexual Ecstasy sees things from a very "western" perspective. She has a lot of detailed practical instructions, but also covers a lot philosophical ground. I remember I bought it because it was the only book I was able to find at the time, that specifically contained instructions for solo practice.

Online Resources

I hesitate to put a lot of online resources here. A lot of what I found is a rehash of the same old tropes, or just blatant self-promotion. If you want to look for yourself, I suggest you rather search for "kundalini yoga", rather than "tantra". You'll find more insights and less sexy stuff.

Anyway, here is the one resource that I find highly interesting, as it approaches the subject from a more yogic and philosophical persperctive, and goes into enormous detail: Advanced Yoga Practice.

Another one I can recommend as a refreshing perspective, is David Chapman's https://vividness.live/ website. It's not another "introduction to tantra", but it's a critique of mainstream buddhism from a buddhist tantric perspective.

Just out of curiosity...

These are all concerned with semen-retention a.k.a. "sexual continence". I do not endorse these books, because they often contain wacky pseudoscientific claims, but I think they are interesting for historical reasons, and if you at all interact with the relevant online communities, you will eventually come across at least one of them.

Julian Lee's *) "Bliss of the Celibate "from 1998 is probably the most-quoted "classic" of the genre. It exists only online as a PDF, whose copyright status I don't know, so I won't link to it. Lee mostly references ancient hindu and buddhist authorities, and does little to even try and prove his points.

The Coiled Serpent, by C. J. van Vliet, stems from 1939. It, too, is only available as a PDF, but I guess the copyright is expired on that one.

Dr. R. W. Bernard's (really Walter Siegmeister) Science Discovers the Physiological Value of Continence, from 1957, at least attempts to put some science behind it - as the title suggests. When you actually read it, you discover that it is all just anecdotal evidence based on the "authority" of a few MDs and their personal experiences. At least, instead of relying only on vitalist notions, he tries to show that the chemical composition of semen makes it especially rich in energy, and thus its expulsion would be extremely draining. Not very convincing if you ask me, but at least an attempt was made.

Enhanced Sensuality through Abstinence

Last week, I engaged on a higly reduced diet, led by my partner.

On top of no orgasms and enthusiastic obedience to all my Lady's whims, I was not allowed any porn, and I had to ask permission to use any kind of erotic media. To facilitate this, I blocked all reddit images, and I set my search preferences to "moderate safe-search". Despite my long-running habit of neotantric ejaculation-free self love, I abstained from even that, just to be on the safe side.

By the end of the week, I felt exhilarated, liberated and excited. Women on the street appeared more sexy. Beauty appeared more intense. My Lady was an adorable, unfathomably and dangerously beautiful goddess, even moreso than she always is. The need for bare breasts evaporated and made way for an appreciation of faces and gestures and movements and forms.

The world of nofap

As a person involved in western neotantra, bdsm chastity games, and some other stuff, I lurk on some subreddits such as /r/nofap, /r/pornfree, and  /r/semenretention.

I have struggled for quite some time to get clear on the differences between the apparent majority opinion on those subs, and my own way of thinking.

There is the nagging suspicion of a covert religious agenda. There is a slew of irrational pseudoscience, of course. There is an odd kind of team-spirit. There is a focus on long-running streaks, the longer the better. There is a promise of superpowers that I don't believe in.

All of that is not the core issue.

The core difference

People on /r/nofap try to achieve freedom through abstinence from sensuality.

I try to find enhanced sensuality through abstinence.

If both of those sound strange to you, I absolutely understand. If you buy into the western narrative of ongoing "sexual revolution" and indiviudalism expressed via sexuality, then all of this sounds strange, by necessity.

The western idea of individualistic sensuality

I'm building on those western values as a foundation. In fact, I am, as a person, infused with them, built on top of them. They are built into my being. I grew up in the 1970s and 80s, after all. I was formed by a deeply indivudalist, (post-)sexual-revolution society.

There is, obviously, a deep-running neurotic relation to sexuality in western culture. For a long time, the idea was to catch and conquer the beast, to see sexuality as something basal and primitive one had to overcome, or else...

With the sexual revolution of the late 20th century, this idea shifted: Now, sexuality was something to appreciate and to indulge in. Everybody was free to do what they wanted in their bedrooms (except if they did not want to do anything, which made them seem odd and suspicious). Consent required, of course.

Freedom, hence, was to be expressed in the chorus of "You don't get to tell me anything, and I'mma prove it to you by watching the filthiest porn I can find, and wanking to it until my balls fall off."

There is something fundamentally wrong in both approaches.

Don't get me wrong. I do not oppose sensuality, or sexuality. They are not evil, not sinful, not addictive or bad. Wanking can make you feel good. There is no harm in it.

I do oppose, however, mindless, overindulgent "sensuality". I oppose the idea that "more equals better". I resent the perverted, twisted kind of "sensuality" that comes in the form of glossy magazine covers. I think that women twisted into yoga-esque stretches just to show off their genitals are the opposite of sensual. I think that exploitation is unsexy and sad.

In fact, I like to put this kind of "sensuality" in scare quotes, because I think it is not sensual at all. There is only a superficial similarity.

Some personal history

I got into all this, long long ago, via bdsm chastity games.

My initial motivation was not to overcome my sensuality or my sexual desire. It was the opposite: I wanted to amp it up, in order to experience the masochistic pleasure of denial. I wanted to "spice up" my sex life, and for whatever reason, chastity and "denial" was what kicked my kink.

Over the years, my goals changed, as I changed through age and experience. Instead of suffering, I found joy. Instead of "enforced" abstinence, I found moderated sensuality. In sex, I found spirituality. Underneath the kink games, I found a layer of truth.

I found deep potential in deliberate self-constraint.

We should not let this potential be monopolized my morality and religion. We should liberate it from those shackles. We should cherish our sensuality by shaping it, arranging it, enjoying it slowly, in small pieces, rather than swallowing whatever we can find, whenever we can find it. We should see moderation as a joy, not a chore.

A little tidbit from my neotantric experience

You go slow, and you achieve unfathomable bliss. You don't "overheat", and you experience endless orgasmic feelings. You stay at a low level of arousal, and it keeps you from exhausting your resources.

By not overindulging, you become more sensitive, and hence you achieve greater pleasure.

A flaccid penis is more sensitive to touch than an erect one. I don't have to tell you how to fact-check that claim.

This works on the physical level, but it works on any other level, too.

Layers of deepness

Obedience to my Lady is a form of chivalry and pure love. It is very kinky, and it is more than that. It runs deeper. There are layers to it.

This is not to say that the kink is "wrong".  The deeper layer is just another part of a greater thing, which encompasses all those layers.

There is a general principle at work here; just a bit of common sense, really, which has been known for a few thousand years: You reduce quantity to achieve quality.

You practice moderation so your excesses get even better.

You stop wanking twice a day, so whatever kind of sex you choose to have, is even more sexy.

By reducing your exposure to pornography, you become more sensitive to beauty. You may experience more sensual joy. The one partner you have in your life, may well become... not only "enough", but an unexhaustable well of wonderful experiences. By not trying to escape the bonds of monogamy through porn, you find renewed sensuality inside your relationship.

A tiny bit of buddhism

Buddhism teaches that opposition is just as binding as desire. You fight your urge -- it only becomes stronger. If you want to be free, you have to let your urges pass through. You have to somehow learn to live with them. You have to find a way to integrate them, while not being their slave. Total rejection might be one necessary step on that path, but it cannot be the ultimate goal. As long as you fight it, you are not at peace.

So again, those weird places on the net...

It seems to me that people on /r/nofap and companion subreddits come from a place of desperation. Their unability to shake their habit turns into self-loathing, and a wish to be able to eliminate it completely. Understandable, since they identify an addictive habit as the root of their issue, and they can't seem to get rid of it.

They claim supposed superpowers of irresistable attraction, so they can boost their morale and stay on track.

I'm not here to tell them otherwise.

I am here to propose an alternative view on sensuality in general.

I propose that less might actually be more. I propose that, instead of "getting rid of a nasty habit", you might be able to learn to enjoy heightened sensitivity through moderation, and the habit becomes a non-issue.

Are you a (no)fapper?

As mentioned above, I trained and practiced for many years, and I don't expect anyone to instantly "get" what I'm talking about if they're at the point where they hate themselves for their wanking; in spite of wanking off twice a day, like every other normal guy in my society, I never self-identified as a masturbation addict, and I was never into a lot of porn anyway, so I never saw an issue.

I do appreciate the difference.  I really do. The problems that those subreddits try to address, were never exactly my problems to boot.









For example, due to my training, I do not have sexual fantasies, as long as I don't want them. That's one huge advantage!

I have the subjective impression (without any hard evidence of course), that the way nofappers go about it, is only effective for a tiny minority. They don't see any other way, so the only way that presents itself, seems to be the only way forward.

It might absolutely be necessary, if you really feel you are hooked, to completely eliminate any form of porn, and any wanking, for a good while. After all, whatever works for you, works for you. I won't debate that.

If you are a nofapper,  I don't suggest that you should just believe me.

I suggest that you should remain open to both ideas, that you explore gently, slowly and with caution, and that you learn from your own experiences.



It might be a good idea to have a plan for the time after your "streak". That plan should involve a positive attitude towards your sensuality.

I suggest that you keep the ideas I present in the back of your head, that you research them when you feel sure that you can do so without danger.

My biggest contention...

My biggest contention with esoteric and religious teachings (okay, to be precise, it's only one of the more important ones) is that they always give rise to projection, because there always seems to be a holier-than-thou element.

For example, one guy, after I don't know how many weeks of nofap/semen-retention claims that other men are now much more aggressive towards him. The thinking is that nofap makes you "more alpha" and more attractive or something, and others react to that. And he's not the only one. Not by a long stretch.

Yet, somehow, this is not seen as a challenge to the nofapper, but as a flaw of all others. Because the practice is perfect and flawless and holy in and of itself, of course, by way of dogma. Therefore, others have to be to blame.

Remember the old adage: "If erveryone around you seems like an asshole..."!

Wouldn't it be simpler, and more plausible, to conclude that you have become more aggressive because of your practice, and that you should change yourself, instead of trying to change others? Or maybe... you know... change your practice, or even abandon it, if there are unwanted side-effects?

Nuh-huh. Cannot have that. Can. NOT.