The feminist society we live in imposes a sweeping restriction on men, prohibiting them from relating to women sexually. This includes prohibiting men of looking at women and their bodies, including in pictures, a prohibition on having private sexual thoughts about women, and extensive bans on implicit interaction with women including flirting and even exchanging glances, due to a feminist assertion that all of these are violent and offensive (while women engage in all of the above freely under social endorsement and acknowledgment). Here, a problem may arise, that feminist thinking and society as a whole have never considered, although it is tangible and dramatic.
Feminists imagine a kind of male sexuality in which the woman is permanently in complete desexualization for the man – her body is only functional for him as it would be for another woman. So, as far as feminism is concerned, the behind of a woman in tight jeans waiting in front of a man in line, should be just as sexually meaningless to him as it is for the tired, impatient elderly lady standing behind him, and similiarly to her he won’t even notice it, let alone have internal thoughts about it. In this feminist ideal of men’s sexuality, within that man, male sexuality appears precisely when it is the right moment for it according to feminism – in a situation defined by feminism as appropriate for men’s sexuality to appear. The problem is, that no such male sexuality exists.
The hormonal system in men is different than in women. In women, an internal mechanism increases and decreases hormonal levels cyclically, by the ovulation process in the ovaries. That is, women’s hormonal levels are determined primarily by internal signals. But in men, there is no similar internal hormonal clock to increase hormone levels periodically, and the levels of sex hormones depend on external stimuli. A thorough review can be found in the excellent paper Sexual Modulation of Testosterone: Insights for Humans from Across Species, by Katherine Goldey & Sari van Andres (2015). Briefly, multiple studies with human subjects, show that social interaction with unfamiliar women, thoughts about women sexually, seeing women’s nudity including in movies, women’s odor and more, all elevate testosterone in men. As explained in the book Lovism, from a neurobiological point of view our human sexuality can be regarded as one system comprised of two parts, which reside in two bodies and communicate with one another much like two adjacent brain areas do – these two parts being the sexuality brain areas of the man, and the sexuality brain areas of the woman. Instead of physical neural branches, the sexual language of gestures and tokens is what connects the two parts of the system, and enables their mutual activation. The dependency of testosterone levels on femininity-driven cues, is an example of this para-neural communication between the two parts of the unified biological system called human sexuality. The women that a man sees and the sexual thoughts that he has about them, the appearance of a woman’s body, voice, hair, odor and smile, are what elevates the levels of the sex hormone, testosterone.
Conversely, isolation from feminine cues is expected to lower testosterone levels. One finding that can corroborate this is that during the isolation created by imprisonment, sexual violence between male prisoners is more than three times lower than among female prisoners. There may be of course various reasons for these lower levels of sexual violence in imprisoned men compared to imprisoned women, but one such probable reason is the decrease in testosterone levels due to the isolation from femininity, while hormonal levels in women are less dependent on external signals and hence isolation from such stimuli does not impact their sexual violence as much.
Since the levels of the sex hormone in men, unlike in women, depend primarily on exposure to the external signals pointed to above, if the feminist bans are sweeping enough and apply at all times including on thoughts (as they do in feminist societies), it can be predicted that over time in many men testosterone will never be allowed to rise to a minimal functional level that it would have reached without the prohibitions, simulating the effect of physical and psychological confinement. In turn, it can be predicted that this would create epidemics of problems in functions that depend on necessary minimal levels of the hormone, specifically impotence and low-quality sperm, both determined by testosterone levels.
Alarmingly, this prediction is materializing right before our eyes. As early as 2007 it was found that by 2004, there was a cumulative decrease of 17% in testosterone levels in men in the US as compared to 1987, that was not explained by aging, health, obesity or lifestyle (the comparison was made between matching age groups in different years). From 2016 to 2020 this decline has continued, especially in young men, of whom, 20% had already reached the level of clinical diagnosis of testosterone deficiency. In those very same years, two epidemics developed in the West: declining sperm quality, and impotence (during those years, drugs like Viagra, which three decades ago were prescribed primarily to the elderly, became so common that they are now perceived as recreational drugs while intended for individuals suffering from a clinical condition).
Attempts have been made to attribute the low-testosterone epidemic to environmental pollution, but no biological evidence to support these theories has ever been found. Here we must draw a clear distinction between the processes of human fertility, which have dozens of separate biological stages, and the very specific component within that cascade of mechanisms, of testosterone levels in men. There is a consistent and troubling decline in human fertility, that manifests as a rise in anomalies in various stages of the mechanisms of fertility – from the state of the genetic material in the egg and the sperm that influences the probability of fertilization, to the fetus environment in the womb that affects the probability of miscarriage after fertilization. While the continuing drop in human fertility was convincingly linked to chemical environmental pollution, no link between any polluting factor and the decline in testosterone levels in teens and men was ever found. Studies that searched for a link between specific polluting chemicals and testosterone levels found opposite effects for the same chemicals, that is, sometimes a study would sample men and observe in those with higher levels of a specific polluting chemical, lower testosterone compared to the other men, and sometimes, a study would look at the very same chemical and find the opposite – men with more of that chemical are the ones with higher testosterone levels, the effects being in the first place too small to explain the observed decline. Only two meta-analyses of such studies could be found, one on lead and the other on phthalates, neither of which finding any consistent association between pollutants and testosterone levels, only between pollutants and other variables (to quote one, “the testosterone, follicle stimulating hormone and luteinising hormone levels of the occupationally Pb (lead) exposed participants are comparable to that of unexposed comparators“; emphasis is not in the source). In short, it is the overall fertility through other stages in it that was linked to pollution, while the consistent fall in testosterone levels in men, has remained to this day unexplained.
All this while, it was clear that the levels of the sex hormone in men depend on exposure to external sexual stimuli. It should be just as obvious that an almost absolute prohibition on any type of exposure to these stimuli including through thoughts, chronically, mimicking psychological isolation, is expected to create a massive reduction in testosterone. These signals – the sights, the thoughts, and the interaction through the language of sexuality – determine its levels. Can feminist decrees about what should boys and men consider as appropriate for them to think, see and feel, affect how their testosterone level is modulated when they interact with women, and inhibit it by forbidding them from ever thinking of women sexually except when rarely permitted by feminism? One study described in the review provided by Goldey and van Andres suggests that the answer is certainly yes: men in a rural Dominican community had lower testosterone when interacting with the female partner of a close friend, as compared to the levels when interacting with an unpartnered woman (Flinn et al. 2012), demonstrating that social norms are definitely capable of regulating whether interactions with women will elevate testosterone levels or not.
It must be considered that an active reduction of testosterone levels to the point of injuring potency and spermatogenesis (the process of sperm production), has a name. It is called castration. Regardless of how it is performed, whether by surgery or by injection, castration ultimately acts to induce a simple chemical effect in the body – reduction in the levels of the molecule testosterone. All available data indicate that the process described above – of feminist comprehensive social prohibitions simulating mental isolation – is not figuratively, but chemically, a castration process. If the process is induced neither by surgery nor by injection, but by cultural restrictions on any mental exposure to femininity sexually including in private thoughts, the resulting condition may be called culturally-induced chemical castration, or more succinctly, cultural castration.
[Update, February 2022: If so, we would expect that in men who undergo higher exposure to feminism and to feminist prohibitions, there will be lower testosterone levels and increased prevalence of impotence. Indeed, in February, 2022, a new study titled, Men’s Feminist Identification and Reported Use of Prescription Erectile Dysfunction Medication has reported that, “Feminist-identified men were substantially more likely to report erectile dysfunction medication (EDM) use than non-feminist men, even after controlling for alcohol use before sex, erection difficulties, sexual arousal, sexual health, mental health, and physical health”. While one may want to speculate that men with lower testosterone who suffer from impotency might be in the first place more prone to finding their way into an environment where the feminist influences are harsher, this would be a rather improbable explanation for the results, compared to the obvious conclusion that it is the level of exposure to feminist prohibitions that caused the men in the study to become testosterone-deficient and impotent, since no association was found between these outcomes, and predictors that might point to a pre-existing vulnerability].
One could say today, that without comprehending it feminism has been engaging in mass culturally-induced chemical castration of men and not in any metaphorical sense. If male sexuality is not permitted to exist in a man’s mind while he stands in line and peeks at a woman, nor in any other time except for the regulated policed instances that feminism defines as “appropriate”, the level of testosterone will never accumulate to the required minimum, and the man will lose sexuality (he will not be sexual when women expect him to be either, at a bar or later in bed). He is under sexual oppression, and in 20% of the cases – those 20% of young men in whom the decrease in testosterone has already reached a clinical deficiency – he may reach a state that medically could or should be regarded as castration.
Male sexuality is not a cultural invention, neither by men nor by feminism. It is a complex mechanism created in nature with a specific biological structure. Unlike women, in whom an internal clock activates the sex hormones, external stimuli are what maintains male sexuality. Male sexuality can operate only when it occurs both mentally in the line behind the woman in tight yoga pants, and physically in obvious sexual scenarios. There is no male sexuality as the one envisioned and dictated by feminism, that never exists and then suddenly appears in one of the policed situations deemed appropriate. For half a century, feminists have been regarding women’s sexuality as merely a cultural fabrication invented by men for their own convenience, while it may very well be that all this time, the one who was actually inventing a sexuality and enforcing it on the opposite sex in policing and oppression, was feminism.
Feminists rule out for women as well, the freedom to say that their woman’s sexuality causes them to need men’s masculine sexuality and to want it. Women are being educated in the feminist society that the acceptable and normative thing for them to say about male sexuality is that it frightens them, provokes hatred in them, is repulsive in their eyes, and causes them to detest men. Feminism was extremely successful in making women echo these attitudes on its behalf, by spreading a covert sense of threat: that beneath the feminist sexual oppression await millions of dangerous men who lurk for an opportunity to abuse women, and that the only thing standing between this alleged danger and women is oppressive feminism. And so, women were taught to keep to themselves any dissent against the feminist expectation of them to express repulsion of ordinary authentic male sexuality. This throws women into an inner conflict. Living under the intimidation of the story about “millions of lurking men with only feminism to hold them” (an incitement fable told for example in the 1980s book The Handmaid’s Tale by the feminist Margaret Atwood), women fear that opposing the “I hate masculinity” slogans would breach feminism’s “defense lines” against the alleged “hundreds of millions of attackers”, and refrain from saying they love male sexuality and masculinity and need it, feeling obliged to conceal any drive toward it. That is, women as well were required by feminism to hide their sexuality, and thus indirectly, the feminist oppression of male sexuality, is also the oppression of female sexuality. Here is the place to stress that contrary to feminist depiction of men, beneath the feminist oppression there are no millions of conniving men waiting for women to let go of feminist oppression so they could attack. Men do not hate women, they love women, and strive to make women happy, and not to hurt them. Men respect women’s human rights, while the primary thing men do oppose is being persecuted and oppressed themselves. The awaiting are millions of lovers and beloved ones (if you find that hard to believe, you might want to compare yourself to audiences exposed to severe incitement as used between Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda or between Christians and Muslims in Bosnia, the feminist anti-male political incitement reaching a comparable level of severity, as reflected in slogans such as kill-all-men and in books entitled “I hate men” that became viral, with hate crimes occurring as a result. If you truly believe that men don’t love women, you should examine whether you are exposed to severe hate propaganda).
Glancing, looking, day-dreaming, fantasizing and flirting, are all a legitimate part of the language of sexuality, which is not harmful, nor is it harassing or oppressing, and is certainly not an expression of “hate.” On the contrary, it is extremely normal – women perform all of the above all the time. The sweeping ban on men of expressing and experiencing their male sexuality like women are allowed to, creates a host of phenomena resulting from sexual oppression – from culturally-induced chemical castration, to radical female self-exposure, caused at least in part by an attempt to regain men’s sexual regard in a society that forbids men and boys of expressing such regard as women and girls can. Human beings have highly developed codes that prevent exaggerations to the point of harm, and these must be allowed to operate, and create the required balances. Society must withdraw from the escalations it was driven into by feminism, which oppresses both sexes – it drives men and boys into a life under violent sexual oppression and dysfunction, and women and girls into an exhibitionism contest in an attempt to regain the male attention that was forbidden, while at the same time being required by feminism to hide their need for the authentic male sexuality and join instead a chorus condemning it to annihilate it.
You can help this website continue operating by downloading from Amazon the book Lovism. All revenues are devoted to the maintenance of the website and for disseminating the articles published in it. Your support is greatly appreciated.
You can also support this website via Patreon: www.patreon.com/henryblair
3 thoughts on “Culturally-induced chemical castration – the unspoken cause of the low-testosterone epidemic?”
I agree that this is speculative, but I feel this has to be discussed and hopefully tested directly. If refuted, all the better. If corroborated, I would want teens and young men to have the same psychological freedoms women have regarding sexuality.
There were circumstantial evidence I did not mention in the article:
If the theory is correct, we would expect that men surrounded chronically by radical feminism will show reduced T levels. While we don’t have controlled settings to test this (the best would be looking at post-puberty immigrants from the same country, that assimilate either in a radically progressive/feminist campus and city, or, in a blue color lifestyle and area, and comparing both to background population), it is an observed fact that progressive men have lower T levels. Naturally causality is put to question – are low-T men drawn to the feminist environment or is the environment causing their T level to drop. But the circumstantial evidence is there, the way to test this is there. Today, 60% of male students in campuses never had sex, compared to 30% of the female students. This number has been continuously rising in males. Assuming that teens and men do want to have sex, this finding can be interpreted as evidence that prohibitions on being sexual that the article points to are indeed affecting sexuality of only and specifically men – the target of feminist decrees and prohibitions (any other explanation should explain why the girls are not affected, nor gays and lesbians by the way). One explanation would be that a progressive (that is, radical feminist) environment in campuses, and in general in the social strata that sends students to campuses (the high school etc.) engages in sexual oppression of men only, through the prohibitions described in the article. Whether these prohibitions result in low T and explain it, is testable (one can simply compare T before/after going to university and over time spent there, and while separating background environments – progressive cities vs. blue color areas). If only one would be motivated to test it. Which is the only goal of the article – to raise enough awareness of the possibility, that would cause it to be tested. As someone with a MSc in neuroscience who is familiar with large research projects as part of his work, I think it’s almost trivial, considering the mechanism of action in the article and the circumstantial evidence, to expect testing to corroborate the hypothesis.
If the pollution theory, which thus far could not be corroborated in two meta-analyses, has some basis after all, we would expect that the more polluted a country is the lower is the T level there. There is no global comparison available of T levels per country. But the pharmaceutical associations publish a correlate of T levels per country – the increase by year by country in prescriptions of T therapy. This shows a steady increase in many countries, that follows the reported steady decrease in T levels. There are several global ratings of countries by pollution. I thus looked at the correlation between pollution rating and T (T inferred from prescriptions, by regarding as a rough estimate the rise from 2000 to 2011 in prescriptions, per country, as a fall in T, according to [2011/2000=fall in T]). If pollution is responsible, when countries are ordered from least to most polluted we would expect a falling curve – more pollution, less T. The very opposite is observed. This seems to reduce enthusiasm regarding the pollution theory, but, more importantly, it might be indicative of something else that is correlated with the reduced T: there is a trend in the data. If we look at what do countries have in common along the three domains of the curve – low, medium and high drop in estimated-T – it seems that the feminist nature of society in the country is a correlated variable (countries in the figure with a large fall in T, e.g., to 20.00, that is to 20% of its level in 2000, tend to be more feminist and vise versa – countries with only a small drop, e.g. 90.00, that is 90% of the T level in 2000, seems to be ones less influenced by feminism). There are global ratings of feminism per country, but I couldn’t find one that rated the same countries of the prescriptions analysis. It is also very difficult to choose the correct scale – most ratings measure equality, while the assertion pertains to social feminist norms for male sexuality, and not to equality (there is no assertion in what was written above that equality is the cause – only that radical feminism’s social influence regarding male sexuality specifically should be examined). Nonetheless, it is rather straightforward to test this as well – measuring T per country and devising a scale for influence of radical feminism, and correlating them (one could also definitely make comparisons within countries between environments and over time).
I agree that this is only a theory. But one with several supporting circumstantial evidence that justify examining it. There is a mechanism of action (described in the article), an association between exposure to radical feminism and low T in men (the established observation that progressive men have lower T), and what seems as a possible correlation between the degree of social influence of radical feminism in a country and its T levels. All can be tested.
VERY interesting article. As an “equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome) “feminist” type of woman, the changes I have seen in society are pretty radical even since my girlhood (I was born in 1967). I am very much opposed to man bashing and agree that many of these changes are due to a hyperbolic left wing feminist view of the sexes.
LikeLiked by 1 person