Sex compared to Masterbation

I know what you mean, and I wish I could explain this myself. I'm a virgin but I almost don't want to have sex if it makes me feel as bad as masturbation does sometimes. It's comparable to a hangover, except I've gotten shitfaced drunk before and my hangovers weren't as bad as they are the day after I binge. I vaguely understand the chemical process, but I don't understand why something that's supposed to feel good makes us feel so bad.

 

You dont need sex to live.
Masturbating is just an act of deception.

Sexual intercourse is a sacred act between you and your partner who you deem worthy to receive sex from you. It's best when your partner is your significant other.

Banging random chicks will eventually leave you just as empty as wanking off to porn. You get nothing but a short burst of exitement and after that you think, why am i slave to my urges and regret the meaningless waste of your sexual energy. This is what i thought and think everytime, i had the opportunity to sleep with random chick whom i knew would not be my longterm partner.

That sexual tension and energy you have, you have to use it for something productive: agressively pursuing your goals, working out, and achieving respectable status financially and socially.

You are most likely in a flatmode and in the hardest part of reboot. (your brain gives you a lot of triggers and flashbacks of the stuff that you were into.

Stop chasing after sexual pleasure, in order run away from negativity and stress in life. Start chasing for your higher purpose and for the things that you want to do in life. I promise you it's 1000 times better feeling when you are in a active journey on pursuing your goals. While you are on it, your brain will normalise to default standard in your sexual taste.

Get your baseline life together, find another habit to replace porn and hookup lifestyle and start doing things that makes you proud of yourself. And eventually women will find you.

 

Good choice bro, everytime you are in pain with a trigger, change your environment right away and do something else. Walking, cooking, calling to a friend. Learn to satisfy your urges with some other kind of reward: fresh air and movement, tasty meal and socialising. Also i recommend charles duhigg’s power of the habit to understand your inner desires and respond to them in a healthy way.

 

If you feel energetic after sex and depleted after masturbation that's a good sign. I mean it's a good thing for all of us, this is what we want after all right? To get out of this trap and have a healthy relationship that fills us - in a controllable way.

Now put in mind that after sex there is something called chaser effect, in which your body starts chasing porn. This as explained on YBOP can be controlled and fades by time.

Another thing is you should read about having sex with real partner is it increases the oxytocin levels in a good way. Based on what I read and remember, after sometime from the relationship with your partner the brain adjusts itself to the love and intimacy, your urges will lower down. Read this wonderful article:

https://www.fatherly.com/love-money/biology-of-marriage-dawn-maslar


In short, we should stay away from any non-natural/cultural arousal, and pursue a real relationship as we get ready. Sex with different strangers could eventually put you in another trap as sex addiction.

So the solution is fasting, development and patience


^ I just answered myself after a long arousing helpless day.

 

Man I typed out this really long response and then realized it could just be the last few sentences pretty much. Anyway, what you are observing is true. I'm going to say something kind of blunt right now but I also believe this to be true...

As men who fell to porn addiction, we are as broken as women who rent out their bodies. The truth is, both you and the prostitute have that same core desire for human connection.

If you get even the slightest bit of that, it is infinitely better than pornography. That's why you're still feeling built up from it instead of broken down. Pornography is colored lights on a screen that overstimulate you in an unnatural way. The next prostitute you see is a human being, with the same core desires you have and the same degree of pain and brokenness you're trying to heal.

Some will be better than others and they're all better than porn, but you already know without me saying that ultimately the best answer is to figure yourself out, love yourself and find a girl that wants you, not money, and not a combination of the two.

Keep at it. I say this not as someone who has reached the finish line, but a fellow journeyman.

 

Even after fairly unenjoyable sex, I have NEVER had the same feeling of guilt or shame that we all experience after PMO/MO. I may think, "meh, that was a waste of time and effort", but the all-consuming guilt and darkness just doesn't happen with sex (for me, at least). Maybe it's different for other people, I don't know.

 

This is interesting. I really wish there was a concrete reason as to why this is.

 

Two things that I know make S different from M.

S uses a different set of neurons. You aren’t fooling your brain: on a primitive level it knows the difference between mating and self gratification. This is why M’ing to develop stamina is a myth.

S stimulation, whether self induced or not, produces dopamine. Human contact, whether by touch, eye contact, even from hearing their voice, also produces oxytocin. Oxytocin is a bonding hormone. It helps your brain categorize that person as familiar, even someone you can trust. Dopamine combined with oxytocin is incredibly comforting. Raw dopamine is just a quick thrill.

Porn and pornographically informed culture tells us S is just an advanced iteration of M. They say you should pursue S with a variety of partners. They say S with the same partner always gets boring. S, however, is a completely different behavior from M, neurologically and hormonally. M is self gratification, pure and simple. S is designed/evolved as a trust building, relationally bonding activity between two individuals. It is possible to use S as a form of advanced M, ignoring that bonding behavior. You can hook up, or rent a body, but it will be less satisfying than S with a committed partner you are emotionally invested in, and who is emotionally invested in you. It confuses your brain as it bonds with partners with powerful infusions of oxytocin, then you don’t meet them again. It’s why a person develops feelings for a person they repeatedly bed, even through they are otherwise uninterested in a relationship, and/or feel that person is not a good long term partner.

The old morality said S was for monogamous couples only, and since S is ultimately a reproductive behavior, couples at least somewhat prepared to be together long enough to raise children. S had a high value, it was only attainable in specific circumstances. Then the pill was introduced, the sexual revolution hit, and people thought they could have consequence-free S. They encouraged all of us to run out and get laid as often, with as many different partners, as possible. We celebrated the womanizer, we called him a success. Then the mainstream feminists pointed out it wasn’t fair that men are congratulated for promiscuity while women are insulted for it, so they encourage women to normalize hookup culture as well. And P, we all know which direction that influences us. The sexual revolution lied, or maybe we just didn’t know any better. Eliminate the chance for pregnancy, there’s still consequences. Eliminate the chance for STDs, there’s still consequences. S with new partners is awkward, not fun and novel. It’s not as satisfying as S with your life partner. That’s because S is not designed as a thrill, or as a power game, or as a mere reproductive process with a fun side effect you can replicate with your hand and a streaming feed. S is designed also as a bonding activity. Ignore that, and you’ll never experience real S. You’ll just know a shadow version.

 

I see this claimed a lot but have not seen convincing evidence so far, post-sex depression from what iv read is quite normal, possibly a combination of sudden drop of the high* and the surge of prolactin which serve as a dopamine inhibitor and sexual inhibitor as well(https://sites.tufts.edu/emotiononth...oital-neurochemistry-the-blues-and-the-highs/). It take around 2 weeks for the brain to self-regulate after orgasm, normally this would only make you sex-satiated but a combination of different factors including social stigma can make one depressed. From my own experience social stigma seems to be the main factor of post-M depression, since i'v stopped giving a shit whenever i relapse i am just like @ajstath, i acknowledge the waste of time then move on, but occasionally can still feel depressed as social conditioning is very effective. also this study here seems to contradict your claim as oxytocin is also not only produced during sexual activities but at ejaculation too, this is true for both sex and masturbation(https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-abstract/64/1/27/2653453?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false).

and lastly i think your image of sexual life prior to the "sexual revolution" might be somewhat idealized, the image of sexuality as it is know today in the west is largely a product of the industrial revolution and the weakening of the church grip on the sexual practice of the people, despite the victorian era being notable for their moral standard/prudishness there was a sexual revolution of sort as sex came to be seen as a useful "bonding tool" for couple and not something to be ashamed of, possibly this was due to the then nascent feminist movement.

Before that the church encouraged people to be as chaste as possible greatly limiting the numbers of days you could have sex and sex outside of marriage was officially an universal sin which carried terrible retributions, in order to avoid a life of temptation you had two choices : lifelong abstinence or marriage. Among the upper class marriage was a loveless unhappy affair arranged by parents between two people who never met either with some minor or some older widow(er) so one can reasonably expect that there was a lot of adultery as people took their pleasure elsewhere, in fact the church tolerated and regulated brothels as it was believed to tame their sexual appetite and male extramarital affair was not necessarily seen as an act of adultery. For the lower classes marriage were not common, in those cases where they did marry frequently the female was already pregnant and many more must have had sex and not gotten pregnant.

As far as the church was concerned pleasure was frowned on during sex, the ideal sex was one that was meant purely for reproduction and nothing else although some priest tried to include some “sex positivity” by saying that it could serve for “bonding”; nowadays sodomy mean anal intercourse but then it meant anything that was not for the sole purpose of reproduction including having sex during pregnancy or menstruation. It was even preferred to have sex with a prostitute than masturbate as that at least could lead to pregnancy and methods of contraception were all sinful, abortion itself unthinkable under any circumstance.

 

i was curious and read that post... how long does the flatline/flatmode last? after 5 or 6 months of nofap i imagine it should be MOSTLY over but you seem to have thought that through. correct?

 

Have you looked into finding a real relationship?

 

Personally the hardest ones were the first 4-8 months after that it gets easier by the month. Dont think you are free from the symptoms even after 15 months, it's just being human. But i can tell that you will have more good days than the bad days, and the bad days are easier to cope with too since you have build your fortitude.

 

yes this is something to do!

 

You quoted the whole post. I made a lot of truth claims. What is "this," that you haven't seen convincing evidence for thus far?

Ok. I see the citation as well, I appreciate that... But I didn't say anything about post-sex depression. Nothing even tangentially related to it, as far as I can tell.

I full agree, social context and what we believe is normal, how we believe we should be, is understated. Change your intellectual understanding about sex, change your deep beliefs about sex, and you can change the way your body physically responds to it. I have no doubt about that.

That... is a massive run-on sentence that is going to be difficult to unpack. No shade, and I'm up to the task. I'm just saying, if I misunderstand you it's not entirely my personal failing.

The phrase "old morality" that I used was general, and I could have more closely defined it, but opted not to for the sake of brevity. Most people don't want a wall 'o text. What I meant by "old morality" is a hyper-specific, Puritanical attitude toward sex and sexuality that dominated (but by no means monopolized or was perfectly executed under its own prescription) North American culture from about 1620 to roughly 1960. There is no end to the weird and, what I consider to be unhealthy, cultural attitudes toward sex and women in general, in all manner of cultures and times. Some consider polygamy to be okay, some gave the nod to prostitution, sometimes under the church, like you indicate, it was all about procreation and even bonding was thrown out with the bathwater. But the attitude toward sex, according to the Puritans, was pretty simple and perhaps surprising to those who are limited to a pop culture understanding of Puritans.

Married sex: an enthusiastic yes, and not just for procreation. Yes for bonding, yes for recreation, just keep it between you two okay?
Unmarried sex: an emphatic no. No paid sex. No premarital sex. No extramarital sex. No sex with your brother's wife because your brother is infertile. Above all, no sex with witches.

Puritans really didn't like witches.

But their surprisingly positive attitude toward sex within marriage was based on 1st century Paul's dictates to Christians in Corinth, Christians who had evidently decided they were going to be celibate even inside marriage because they thought for some reason that this was more holy and better than those who still had sex. Paul said a man has a right to his wife's body, a woman has a right to her husband's body, and they can come to a mutual agreement to abstain from sex "for a time," however long that meant, and then they should come together again because that's appropriate for marriage. Deeper readings into the Tanakh (Old Testament) along with an understanding of Jewish marriage customs, under a Christian interpretation, shows marriage (and sex in the context of marriage) as an Earthly manifestation of the relationship God has with His people, as the Jewish nation and as individual Christians. Under that interpretation, sex is supposed to be both pleasurable and intimate, binding two people together to the exclusion of others.
Whether you buy into the supernatural interpretation of Christianity, both on Jewish custom and on sex in general, modern understanding of hormones has provided a more concrete reason for why this attitude toward sex and marriage makes sense; oxytocin as a bonding hormone. Ancient Jews and Christians didn't know the first thing about hormones, but they could observe that married couples who stayed sexually faithful to one another to the exclusion of others had stronger, happier relationships with one another and their greater communities, and those that permitted prostitution and extramarital affairs had more problems with intimacy.

The Victorians, the Catholic Church, all these other places, yes. They had ideas about sex, they had moral positions. Some I agree with, many I don't, many don't make sense from... almost any perspective, really. Sex with a prostitute because it could result in a pregnancy? That sounds like a somewhat understandable stance from a culture that had an abysmal infant mortality rate, and they felt they needed warm bodies to serve the nobility and ecumenical classes, but really it sounds more like a thin excuse for banging hookers. The Victorian thing where they wouldn't even look at themselves naked? I'd love to know what the difference was between how they claimed to behave in public, and how they actually behaved behind closed doors. Sounds like moral one-upmanship to me, and why? I'm sure there's enough information on Victorian sexuality to earn a doctorate, and I'm sure I'm not that interested.

What I mean about the sexual revolution is simple. The Baby Boomers were coming of age, rebellious and hormonal, and yes, Nietzsche was 100% correct. God was dead and we had killed Him. Boomers looked at the bloodshed of WWII and consequent skirmishes between the so-called Free World and the Communistic nations, and concluded all the old ways were bad. Nevermind the philosophies that brought about the second World War were specifically anti-religious, the academic circles were anti-religious even before the War and the new generation decided religion and old morality were irrelevant. Add to that the invention of The Pill, and they thought they could have consequence-free sex. I contend you can't. We are far from a consensus on that subject because so many people want consequence-free sex. They want to be able to do it, and they insist any detrimental effects from promiscuity are from social hangups they, predictably, blame on religion. They ignore the fact that maybe, just maybe, religion didn't necessarily dictate morality. Maybe basic observation dictated morality, which then got encoded into religion. Maybe the old, Puritanical morality existed for a reason. I believe science backs the religious claim; sex is better restricted to marriage. Or if "marriage" is a little too stuffy and restrictive, sex is better restricted to committed pair-bonded couples. It's how people, women especially, prefer it anyway. Most women don't like hookup culture, and wind up resenting the pressure to engage in it. And men... I'm relatively confident in claiming young, single men feel an immense pressure to hook up as a symbol, an objective marker, for their success as individuals and as men. Were their sexual impulses restricted to their bodies, without pressure from peers and films and all other manner of influences, I think they'd find they could tolerate celibacy until finding a suitable long-term mate.

So yeah, I went on a rant as I am so prone to doing, but if you skip all the rest or shut it out because you want to argue (no shade, I love to argue too), understand this.

The Catholic Church frowned on pleasure with sex, and allowed sex with prostitutes, and enabled dynastic breeding among the nobility, and limited when you could have sex, and all those other things. I would even argue, the Catholic Church was a. founded on Roman Paganism and has a lot of baggage from that and b. existed for a VERY LONG TIME and is by no means a monolith, I mean there's been some serious shifts in attitudes and disagreements over the centuries, so... weird stuff in their history is to be expected.
But The Christian Bible does not frown on sexual pleasure, or allow sex with prostitutes. The Christian Bible promotes sex as procreation, recreation, and intimate bonding. Porn promotes sex as strictly recreational, pretends procreation isn't even related, and most of it openly mocks intimate bonding.

You tell me which interpretation mainstream Western culture buys into.