Does NOFAP cures Femdom Fetish?

if you can just stay clean and get away from porn and clear your mind i believe many of your disturbing thoughts and fetishes will clear up as well, they did for me, porn is all about the brain getting more dopamine hits and the brains craves that intensity, so it makes you go to do more extreme stuff to get those hits, just try to clear your brain from all porn and your soul will really get clear and clean---takes a while and you have to go through withdrawal but a small price to pay to save your soul

 

These are great points and I think it's important to understand them.

It's hard to say what's a fetish and what's a preference. I think there are just preferences that people think are "normal" and preferences people think are "odd". If you happen to have preferences other people think are normal, you're lucky.

I definitely have fetishes that I know aren't caused by porn and I also don't want to get rid of them. I like them, and they don't cause relationship problems. It's my sexuality and it's okay. I guess this is a bit what it must feel like to be gay. Other people might feel different about their fetishes, just as even though being gay is normal, for some guys HOCD is a serious porn induced problem fetish.

We're going to have different aims from NoFap. My aim is to stop porn being a problem for me and enjoy my own sexuality including fetishes. I think that's okay, and I'm sure giving up PMO will achieve that. Others will want to get rid of every type of fetish, and that's obviously okay too. Giving up PMO might achieve that but additional work will I think be needed unless the fetish is basically porn induced.

 

I personally dont think that any fetish is caused by porn itself. Porn act only as magnifying glass. Any fetish seed, wrong mental development or thinking was developed in early infancy, childhood or early teenage years. These are the times when fetish seeds are created and then later porn just magnifies this existing problems, makes them more obvious, grows that seeds. For example if you felt in your early childhood inadequate (looks, height, weight, body, cock, face, personality) this later on was magnified by porn that feeds on your own insecurities and result in femdom fetish.

In my humble opinion, if you stop watching porn, your problem will not longer will be magnified, will no longer cause much problems in your life, but will be still there, hidden, dorment, just waiting for its opportunity when you return to porn again and you will be in the shit again. However if you deal with those primary reasons, those primary seeds, those insecurities, if you eliminate them totally, your fetish will disappear once and for all because it cannot feed on your insecurity if you dont have them anymore. In this second case even if you return to porn, you dont return to femdom but just to normal porn since femdom doesnt arouse you anymore.

 

I think of the word 'normal' in a statistical sort of way. When you tell someone to act normal, you're telling them to behave in a way that conforms with the way that most people tend to behave. If I were to go to work dressed like a rubber duck, people would say that was odd because most people don't dress that way for work. Therefore, I agree that there are some preferences that are 'normal' and some that are 'odd'. I think you can put them on a spectrum: for example, preferring women with large feet is more normal than preferring women without legs. Because you can put things on a spectrum like this, I don't think it's accurate to define a fetish as an "odd preference", because then the question becomes: where, mathematically, do you draw the line between preference and fetish? Suppose there was a sample size of 100 people, and 49 of them have a specific sexual preference that the other 51 do not. Mathematically, that preference is 'not normal'. Let's say two more people join this sample size and they both also have this sexual preference. Now, we could say it's normal. Does that mean it changed from being a fetish to being a preference? I don't think so.

These days, I think that American society generally considers homosexuality to be acceptable. However, there was definitely a time when this wasn't the case. It was once seen as a perversion of sexuality, a sort of fetish. I think our societal shift in our understanding of homosexuality is a perfect example for demonstrating that the distinction between a fetish and a preference is not clearly defined.

 

Although I agree with you, and am concerned where the society is going with this, I think this is not the part of discussion. We discuss what you do in bed, not the society roles. Femdom is about physical humiliation of men in the bedroom.

Here is how I define that:
Preference - you generally are able to be aroused by most of the women, but you feel with your heart that your type is XYZ. You like them romantically, how they look etc. You are still able to be aroused by any woman and have vanilla sex. Preference IS NOT about what they DO TO YOU or YOU DO TO THEM in bed. Preference is just a set of biological or psychological parameters. For example - "I like shy introverted short girls with curly hair" is a preference. You acknowledge your preference and accept it.
Fetish - you can't be aroused enough for vanilla sex. You can't be aroused by girls that mismatch your type.
That's the difference.

 

If you acknowledge your fetish and accept it, does that mean it's a preference?

There just isn't a boundary that's so clear I don't think.

 

i think its okay to have a fetish, and if you have a partner and you two are okay with your fetish,
thats okay, its when the fetish causes problems outside the bedroom, or in your head, that you have a problem,
if i like to wear red shoes with pointy toes because i have a bad witch thing, and wifey is okay with that, no problem, but once i start obsessing about red shoes and witches to point it interferes with my work and life in general time for therapy

 

I really don't know what you're talking about. I don't feel like society is "pushing" any sort of relationship style on me. I've seen all sorts of relationships represented in media and popular culture, and I never get the sense that any of them are being pushed on me. They seem to be reflections of relationships that people have had in real life. If you're trying to say that our media and culture overwhelmingly represents relationships in which women are the center of attention and play a "dominant role", then I think you need to expand your horizons, because I've seen so much more than that represented in movies, music, and art. I've certainly seen those types of relationships represented in media, but it's usually represented in a mocking sort of way, or a critical way.

I think what you're saying here is just the observation that men and women depend on one another for different reasons when it comes to sex. I don't think either one of these imperatives is more important than the other, and I don't think either one is valued by society more than the other. I think that both men and women are criticized for acting out on these imperatives, and both are applauded for making compromises in their personal relationships to meet one another's demands.

Why is it that women who follow their imperatives are said to be "not putting out" or that they shouldn't "be such a prude"? A woman who follows her self-interest can be shamed as well, you see. I think that men and women both face different sorts of criticism about their sexuality and about 'following their imperatives', as you say. I'm not seeing a clear preference for women's sexual needs over those of men in our society.

I think it's also important to note that both men and women are also criticized for not following the imperatives you've described. If a man is in a committed, monogamous relationship he is often called 'whipped' or 'locked down'. Similarly, if a woman does not stay committed to a relationship, people call her 'slut' and 'whore'. I think those are all nasty things to say to a person, and I think both men and women face those sorts of things all the time.

For another point, I think you're over-glorifying the following of these 'imperatives' you're describing. I can see the biological motivation for the imperatives, and I'm not debating those, but I think we are at the stage as a species where we can start to transcend our biology in these sorts of ways. Reproduction and genetic potential are not necessarily the most valuable things in the life of a human being. Personally, I don't feel like spreading my seed all over the place, having lots of children that I haven't even met, even though my biology is capable of doing that. Are you going to say I'm not a real man for feeling that way?

I agree with you that women are often favored in divorce cases over men. However, I should also point out that there is more awareness of this now than ever, and that our generation is starting to criticize and reform the institution of marriage. I think you'll find that there are many women who agree with you about the gender imbalance in divorce law. If you're really concerned about finances when you're getting married, sign a prenup. It will protect you financially if you decide to get a divorce, and if you're partner doesn't want to sign one, then it's pretty clear that there's a financial motivation for that, and you can make your own decision about the relationship. I've been dating a woman for almost two years, and we've had many conversations about the institution of marriage and about divorce law. I think that if she and I got married (though it would probably be several years down the road), we would probably sign a prenup, because we don't want the government making unfair financial decisions for us.

I also think you should consider government institutions that favor men over women. Women didn't have the right to vote or hold public office for a considerable amount of time in this country's lifespan, and there are still consequences of that mentality in today's world. Men have a much easier time being taken seriously in the political sphere than women do, and that means that they have a better chance of impacting the law than women do. It was also only recently that some of the top schools in our country (Harvard, Yale) stopped segregating by sex. This consideration is especially important, as it shows that women of our generation are just now getting to a point where they will be as educated as men have historically been.

I think that both men and women face different advantages and disadvantages in society, and it's important to discuss and validate all of those imbalances and make things right.

First of all, HR departments are there to protect companies, not employees. Second of all, what was the result of that hearing? Did a guy seriously lose his job for looking at a woman's shoes? I doubt it. If a woman really accused an offender for looking at her shoes, I can't imagine that being taken seriously by anyone. What kind of fantasy world are you living in? I've worked in several different office jobs in America, and I've never even seen anything like the experience you're describing, yet you seem to be implying that it's an epidemic. Even if your friend really did lose that job for that reason (which I think is messed up), it's your anecdotal story against mine, and I've never seen anything like that happen, so it certainly doesn't imply that it's an epidemic unless you're going to suggest that I've been living in a bubble.

I don't think online dating is necessarily a fair representation of how relationships go or how the "average woman" sees relationships. Online dating is mostly a visual thing. If you're not attracted to someone based off their photo on a dating site, you're likely not going to meet up with them. So, it would make sense that these biological imperatives are more pronounced in online dating than in other sorts of relationships. However, online dating is not the only way relationships begin, so I don't really think it's fair to draw such conclusions about all women or all men from a data sample restricted to only online dating.

I can't get this link to work, but if you can find a working one I'd be happy to have a look.

Besides, if you're saying that men generally don't care about a woman's status, how does that support the conclusion that we're living in a 'woman-centered' society? That proposition, if true, seems to imply the opposite.

 

How rude.

I think there are many different points on which we seem to be talking past one another, so let me be clear about the points where I disagree with you:

• I don't think that monogamy = monopolization of one's reproductive prospects. Most of the relationships I've seen in my life are more open-ended than meets the eye, even if they are proclaimed to be monogamous. They are monogamous to an extent, where there is no plan in the foreseeable future to break up or divorce, but the idea of separation and finding other partners is mutually understood as a possibility. I don't see this as a monopolization, and people who believe their relationships could not possibly end are generally regarded as naive or inexperienced.
• You're claiming that a man's biological imperative is to have children with as many women as possible, and I simply don't believe that's the case. In fact, I think there is a perfectly good biological explanation for men wanting to only having children with one partner. A man doesn't just want to have children, he wants those children to survive. He wants to make sure that those children make it through the fragile stages of development, make sure that they learn how to adapt to the society they're born into, and make sure they learn how to develop relationships, so that they might one day have offspring of their own. Having children with multiple women means dividing that attention and care between multiple families, which gives all of his offspring a lower chance of survival.
  
• You seem to believe that the only reason a man would enter a monogamous relationship with a woman is for reproductive purposes. However, relationships are about so much more than reproduction, even at a biological level. Relationships are about trust, loyalty, partnership, and compassion. Human beings rely on one another for survival. Without our friends and family to support us, we would likely die. We need to trust one another so we will feel confident that others will support us when we are low on energy or lack the skills needed for a particular situation. We need loyalty so that we will believe that others are putting their trust in us. We need partnership and teamwork so that we can combine our efforts towards survival. We need compassion so that we can understand when someone else is suffering and needs our help. These needs are as basic as the need for reproduction, and they are valid reasons for committing to a relationship.
  
• You also seem to believe that being in a committed relationship implies the sacrifice of resources, desires, and well-being. I simply don't think this is the case. Committing to a relationship does not imply a sacrifice of resources, because your partner might not have any need for resources and might be self-sustaining in that respect. Committing to a relationship does not imply a sacrifice of desires, because your partner might share many of the same desires that you do. Committing to a relationship does not imply a sacrifice of your well-being, either. You can exercise, eat healthy foods, maintain good mental health, and maintain a healthy immune system while in a committed relationship. I don't know where you're getting this idea that you have to give all that up just to have sex.

 

I can totally believe a guy getting into trouble for "ogling" women's shoes. I also think it could be totally reasonable for him to be in trouble too. If you're automatically dismissing the whole idea as ridiculous then I think you're failing to see how porn, by inducing or escalating fetishes, especially voyeuristic interests, and making them obsessive, is negatively affecting both men and women.

So: a guy becomes a porn addict, gets interested in femdom maybe, starts to obsess about shoes. PMOs every day, maybe on his phone while at work. Gets a job in an office with one or more women around him. So fixated on shoes now that he can't stop himself looking at these women's shoes all the time. So much so that it starts creeping the women out, and one or more of them start to want something done about it. Sounds plausible to me, and it'll sound plausible to a lot of people here I think. I'd be surprised if it hasn't happened somewhere recently.

 

If you define it already as a fetish - it's not a preference. I already explained what preference is - "I like XYZ women or men". That means I like my woman to be skinny, short with long hair. That's my preference. If you like to be spanked by woman in the bed, or you like women's shoes that's a fetish and is not natural. Why? Because if we make things primitive again, women's shoes are artificially created and you can't find them in the nature, so that means you can't be born with this type of fetish. If you like to be spanked by women, and you are mostly aroused by that act, that's a fetish too. You won't find animals in the nature doing BDSM or anything of that sort.

Of course, everybody has their own big and small fetishes. As I started NoFap I started analyzing all the fetishes I had throughout my life and I understood that all of them fell in 2 categories (and I had like hundreds of different fetishes throughout my life):
1) Something that happened early in my childhood.
2) Something that was created artificially through masturbation and porn. Sometimes there was escalation.

When I was a kid, I was really attracted to women in stockings. I still have this fetish and find it sexy, but me recognizing it as a fetish and not a preference is a big step up. I developed this fetish most likely because my mother used to wear them. That created connection in my brain woman -> stockings -> beautiful. I had a couch, and the side of the couch looked like leg in stockings. When I was around 3 yo I masturbated touching that couch and imagining that's a human leg in stockings. When I grew up and started looking at porn, I had this preference for a while, and regular porn with girls without stockings didn't do it enough for me. Of course later I escalated to weirder and weirder genres. The point is - the same happens in real life. Yes, everybody has preferences, favorite position in sex etc. But you recognize it as preference, as long as it's not affecting your sexual life. Preference is something like - I like it doggystyle, but I can get equally aroused in other positions. As long as you start questioning whether sex in other positions is doing enough for you, and is there any point in sex if I am not in that particular position it's fetish.
People who like being spanked by women, dominated, humiliated etc is not natural. It's a fetish, and there are millions of reasons why you should do everything to cure it. If you want to live in normal healthy society, not be afraid and embarrassed by your sexual acts, have normal healthy sex life, you should be completely free of any fetishes and enjoy normal vanilla sex and be aroused by naked women's bodies.

 

Michael, your opinion is as good as anyone else's. You can explain how a preference differs from a fetish for you, or in your opinion. But other people may have other opinions based on their experience. You can't explain how it is for us all.

You draw the line basically between "natural" and "artificial", perhaps partly based on your experience of a fetish for a type of clothing. But I don't think that actually is necessary a clear line, or works for everyone. I don't want to go into detail because it might be triggering, but I can think of things most people would call fetishes that you could say are very natural. It depends on what you think our nature is. I can also think of things most people would call normal preferences (like, straightened hair on a woman, thinking lipstick is sexy, and shaved underarms) that aren't natural at all, or preferences that are totally natural but that can become obsessive and so problems.

Also, I think people can legitimately want to keep a fetish. We all have different aims. If a fetish is causing problems for yourself or others, I agree you need to do something about it. But if it's not, there's no problem.

I'm totally in favour of people getting rid of porn-induced fetishes, and any other fetishes if they are experiencing problems because of them or just because they want to. But I do also think we all have different self knowledge (like some are gay, others have HOCD, or like some are trans, others have a porn induced sissy fetish) and that giving up PMO doesn't necessarily mean you have to be committed only to "normal vanilla sex" in your words. I don't think NoFap needs to be that purist for everyone.

 

A weird little factoid is that we have twice as many female ancestors than male ancestors. I didn't read the whole article because it's very long by my standards. There's lots floating around the internet about this. I was satisfied by the purely empirical observation of Y chromosome variance compared to X chromosomes in sample groups.

Further evidence of the reproductive success of women v men.

 

Yes, but straightened hair and shaved armpits IS a preference, because it is the part of a humans body. Fetish is something artificial, like act, type of clothing etc. For anyone who wants to keep their fetish - that's fine. Just don't be surprised when you wake up one day with ED and regular vanilla sex doesn't do it for you anymore. Making vanilla sex and naked women's body your fetish - that's your primary goal.

 

That's your primary goal, Michael. We aren't all the same and your way of thinking about NoFap is as valid as anyone else's but is not the only way.

Straightened hair is artificial for some women.

Shaved underarms is in many people's view not natural.

Vanilla sex never did it for me, and I'm happy that way. Good luck with your goals, and I hope you can wish me good luck with mine.

 

Yes, but it's the part of human's body, it's not the part of the act. You are not attracted to a woman, because she shaves her armpits, it's just one of the many parts of her body.

Many people choose to watch pornography, have ED and not pursue any relationships and it's fine, for example. Just don't say it's natural and you can't change that. If you are truly satisfied with your life, I honestly wish you good luck.

 

I think that's an unnecessary attempt at a put-down, Michael. I'm not going to reply again because I don't think this is now helpful to anyone. But I hope you become more tolerant of other people's opinions here.

 

Either that or you have a huge ego.

Look, man, it's pretty clear from your responses that you view women as nothing more than baby making factories, and I just think that's misguided. If you really believe that the only reason a man should be in a committed relationship with a woman is for reproductive reasons, then obviously you think the only thing a woman has to offer a man is sex. That's just not true.

If a woman left me because I lost a job, it would be pretty clear that the only reason she wanted to be with me was for financial reasons, which means I really wouldn't be losing anything. Not all women are only dating men for financial reasons, and not all men are only dating women for sexual reasons.

If you can't talk to a girlfriend the same way you would talk to a close friend or family member, then that speaks volumes about your communication skills.

Of course I haven't, and I don't think that is something unique to only women. Would you start a conversation about something you need to do to improve your relationship by saying "we need to talk"?

Different strokes for different folks, dude. If you find more value in having an extra car or a super nice house than you do in having a family, then there's nothing wrong with that. However, I don't think it's fair to assume that a man who has kids is unhappier than you are just because he saves less money than you. That's extremely materialistic.

You're implying that "fucking other chicks" is something that I desire, which it just isn't. I place more value in having lasting relationships where I develop a deep bond with my partner than I do in having multiple sex partners within a short period of time. Having sex with lots of women all the time sounds biologically favorable for a man, but it also sounds like a life where sex is devoid of the emotion and bonding you would have with a partner who actually knew you on a deeper level. I don't stay committed to one partner because I don't feel like I "have enough options" to go out and have sex with lots of women. As far as sex goes, I stay committed to one partner because I think it feels so much better to have sex with someone who understands you than it does to have sex with someone you barely know, and there are many other potential benefits of a committed relationship aside from that.

Again, this is just your own anecdote against mine. My parents both exercised frequently while they were married, and never at the expense of raising me and my siblings. They would often involve us in their exercise, taking us on hikes, bringing us along for bike rides, or taking turns (one parent watches the kids while the other goes for a run). I've met dozens of other married couples who find a way to balance raising a family and living a healthy lifestyle, some that I have even exercised with in running groups or when doing martial arts. I've also met my fair share of couples who weren't able to find that balance while raising kids, but my point is that it's possible to strike such a balance between good health and raising a family

I'm not claiming that having kids has any sort of inherent value. It's only valuable to you if that's what you want to do with your life.

No, I don't take offense to that comment. I do have an ideal vision of the world in my mind, but that doesn't mean that I think that's how reality actually is. However, I think there are times when some of those ideals show themselves, and those are the moments that make life worth living. Just to be clear, I don't think that all committed relationships are inherently valuable, and I don't think that raising a family is necessarily a good idea for everyone. I think a lot of people enter marriages because they're afraid that they aren't good enough for anyone else, and I think that sort of story leads to divorce and a life of unhappiness more often than not. I wouldn't marry someone unless I was near-certain that I could trust her and near-certain that she could trust me. I wouldn't consider getting married and having a family to be one of my goals, but if I find someone I trust to go through that with me, then I think it could be really rewarding and make me feel good about my life (even if it means I won't ever have that second car). I definitely understand the risks involved with committed relationships (both from my own relationships and from observing other people), and for every satisfied couple I've seen in my life I've seen just as many who wound up miserable. I don't think that being in a committed relationship increases your odds of living an unhappy life. I think the success or failure of a relationship depends on the particulars of the individuals involved, and not just on biological facts about reproduction.

Yeah, I'm in my mid-twenties. I want to say that I respect your experience, your willingness to state your opinions, and your perspective on this matter. I think it's a really interesting conversation. Please don't mistake my disagreement with you for hostility.

 

No, I think you misread what I said. I said that I do respect your experience. That doesn't mean that I agree with you on everything, but I respect you enough to listen to what you have to say, and I believe you're giving me the same respect.

I really don't think your manliness can make your argument more valid or make your premises true, so I don't really care how manly you are in this discussion.

Yeah, I think that's the main significant difference between a friendship and a romantic relationship, so fair enough. I wouldn't, however, take that extra step and say that the only reason a man should enter a relationship with a woman is for sex.

Maybe you're not presenting something completely black/white, but it still seems like an oversimplification. I don't think think that having good genes can be your only saving grace in a relationship. I think friendship, loyalty, reliability, communication, and other similar virtues you find between human beings who work together for survival, are all pillars of a healthy relationship, and I don't think that women only date men because they're good providers or have good genes (or both).

Only if she thinks it's significant enough to talk to me about it. I only want to date people who like me for who I am, and not for who they think I could be if I just measured up to one of their previous partners in some way. There are always going to be ways that you don't measure up to previous partners in a relationship (unless it's either of your first times being in one), because everyone has different strengths and weaknesses.

You can call this low neuroticism, but I'd just call it a lack of empathy. I'd say validating other people's worries, whether they are worries of your own or not, is an important aspect of connecting with other people.

I think you actually can. You might not be able to change someone else's desires, but if your desires aren't being met in a relationship, you can communicate that with your partner. If you do, you will either find a way to compromise or you won't. If your desire is to have sex with other women, then I can see why it might be difficult for someone to compromise on that.

I don't understand why you would ever be in a situation where you need tell your partner that you're attractive to other women in the first place.

Retirement is only a goal for me if I hate my job, but I don't (and I understand I'm not in the majority there). It makes me feel fulfilled, I learn a lot from it, and I genuinely enjoy doing it. I don't consider working to be a sacrifice. It's a part of my life. I'm very lucky in that respect. If you didn't like your job and you considered it to be a sacrifice in an otherwise fulfilling life, then I'm glad you were able to retire. Again, different strokes for different folks.

Just because something is normal doesn't mean you can't appreciate it. Having access to clean water is normal (at least in the US), and I definitely appreciate that. You could say that, as a US citizen, having access to clean water meets my expectations, but I still appreciate it.

I wouldn't necessarily describe my home life in that way. My point was that my parents managed to find a balance between exercising and raising children. Our home was out of balance in many other ways.

I don't think I said anything that implies I didn't acknowledge that. I am well aware that many people are involved in unhealthy marriages that they would be better off without.

Again, I don't think I said anything that implies I believe the satisfaction distribution is random. I do, however, think that whether or not a person is satisfied with a relationship is a very complex matter. I still think that it's possible to somehow quantify someone's satisfaction with a relationship, but I think it depends on the particular details of the individuals involved. I don't think people should treat relationships like a crapshoot (i.e. "I sure hope this works out"). I only want to stay in a relationship if it is working out. It's important to understand yourself, what makes you happy, and what you value in another person.

I'm not following what you're saying about porn. You'll have to elaborate a bit more there.

 

We're really talking past one another here. I don't know how I can state it any more clearly than this: neither your perceived nor actual manliness makes a difference to me when it comes to evaluating the validity of your arguments or the soundness of your premises.

That graphic doesn't demonstrate that having a large income increases your likelihood of being married any more than it demonstrates that being married increases your likelihood of having a large income. The graphic demonstrates that marriage and income are correlated, but that doesn't mean that one causes the other. There could be other factors at play in terms of a causal relationship (i.e. men who have some particular attribute X are more likely to have a high income and more likely to be married. It's not high income that makes a man more likely to get married, it's X, and X also causes high income as a side effect).

Every time I drink water, and if someone were providing something for me every day, I would appreciate them every time I saw them, whether it was 'normal' for them to provide for me or not.

I agree with you about addiction. I sometimes think of my porn addiction as a symptom of many other imbalances in my life such as low self esteem, lack of compassion towards myself, and coming to terms with abuse from my childhood. However, I think that porn addiction, after a certain point, can become a force of its' own in one's life and can start to look like more of a problem than a symptom. I don't think I'm at that stage, and I understand that the best way for me to get rid of my porn addiction is not just to stop PMO'ing, but to replace PMO'ing with healthier and more productive activities. I also agree with you about the necessary components for a healthy marriage, and I don't have any delusions about how common it is for two people to jointly have their shit together (it's probably pretty rare). The fact that it's rare isn't enough to scare me away from relationships altogether, though, just gives me even more motivation to be a better person.