Sex is off the menu.
In evolutionary psychology terms, what's in it for her?
Soft chastity makes sense, hard chastity is hard to explain
"Soft" male chastity and denial, in which you earn sex, makes perfect evolutionary sense; she's asserting status by testing, you're proving himself worthy.
However, "Hard" male chastity and denial, in which you do not get sex (or even get to come), seems odd because it doesn't lead to the theoretical possibility of reproduction.
How could natural selection give us traits that steer us away from sex?
It actually makes better sense from her point of view than from his...
Hard chastity and denial from her perspective
Obviously, if her ability to test implies her status, then an impossible test implies infinite status. Hard chastity puts her on a pedestal.
However, I think something darker is also going on.
"Bait and Switch" - benefiting through the false promise of sex - seems to be a hardwired in human females (and in other species). Ancestral women evolved the strategy of accepting the benefits of courtship but avoiding the sex, since it could lead to being pregnant by the wrong male. The instinct is still with us, so perhaps some women get a satisfaction in knowing they've already won the exchange.
This leads to the awkward question; why is the husband or boyfriend the wrong male?
Why the husband or boyfriend is the wrong male
I think three things are going on here:Any male would be the wrong one
In ancestral times, there would be many periods in which it would be bad to be pregnant. No wonder then, that modern women's sex drive fluctuates wildly depending on stress, number and age of children, health, living circumstances, colour of the wallpaper...Intimacy works against the perception of high status
Oh sure, you impressed the hell out of her during courtship, but intimacy works against the illusion of you being an Alpha Caveman. She knows all the problems you have at work, all your fears and worries, she's nursed you when you're ill. You've probably cried on her at least once.This is what a good marriage is about. However, you're just not her He-Man anymore.
Humans aren't adapted for sexual monogamy
The further you get into a marriage, the more flaky the passion - the animal-level desire becomes. It doesn't mean you don't fancy each other or have fun in bed, but the spark comes and goes and requires nurturing.How hard chastity gets around the wrong male problem
So, sex is off the menu, but you're still her devoted lover. We've already seen that you've put her on a flattering pedestal and that she may gain satisfaction from knowing she's winning this exchange.If you are the "wrong male" at the moment, if her instincts don't drive her to have sex with you, then the same instincts may nudge her away from intimate activities that risk sex.
However, putting your penis out of the way changes everything.
For example, she can enjoy a long massage without the prospect of you wanting to mount her oiled but relaxed body and fill her up with semen!
Better still, your giving her an orgasm no longer has anything to do with sex; it's just another form of pampering.
Thus, if she's not in the mood for penetrative sex, your chastity belt can work evolutionary psychological magic to make you a desirable erotic partner.
As for you? Instead of struggling to fan the spark of monogamous desire, you are opting to use the chastity belt to infiltrate her masturbation space. I'm not sure why, but I find that an immense turn on - and I bet you do too.
For how to get some of this in your relationship, see my No Fuss Femdom How-To Guides.
You have certainly given me something to think about! I have lately been looking for a justification for male chastity in a relationship, and I think you have helped me focus in on a very valid explanation of why it is desirable. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteThanks! Have started to follow you.
DeleteI am knowledgeable about evolutionary psychology and definitely agree with the statement that male chastity "actually makes better sense from her point of view than from his..."
ReplyDeleteThe male is programmed to want to copulate with any female he can, so as to spread his seed to maintain his line (genes). That contradicts with the female desire for stability, wherein she wants to have "the right" male to bond and be vested in the family. Sex is a very powerful bonding mechanism. I don't think the relative ease of orgasm between male and female is an accident (from an evol. psych point of view). Men want to come quickly, deposit their seed and move to the next female. This contrasts with females, that want a male that takes his time to satisfy her. There is clear evidence that conception success increases when accompanied with a female orgasm. I believe that is a "test" that forces the male to "prove his worth" to his female and help her to decide if he is "the one". Does he pay attention to my sexual needs? If yes, then he likely will pay attention to her needs when she bears his children. If no, he could be off to the next female, so she is programmed to reject him as "the wrong one".
So there is an inherent tension between male and female sexual motivation. The female doesn't want him to stray to other females (which would dilute valuable resources), so she has an incentive to develop a strategy that keeps him interested in HER. A chastity belt with his paired female holding the key definitely satisfies the woman's needs. He has to stick around (because she holds the key) and he can't stray to other females because he is locked. His resources will be diverted to her exclusively. That certainly goes against the male evol. psych goals of spreading his seed.
I know from personal experience that my desire for my Queen increases with time apart or, in an FLR context, orgasm denial. When she gives me a taste of sex but doesn't let me climax, I am interested in her and I focus on her needs more. She likes that. I *can* be a jerk after I do come (although I am working on that). I have read claims that brain hormones are associated with this as well.
So, with that reasoning, I fully agree with Giles' statement that male chastity is aligned with female evolutionary psychology goals.
But what's in it for him? I have a theory that it's all about the increased arousal you get when chasing a high status female.
DeleteHi Giles,
ReplyDeleteI was actually thinking about that after I entered the comment. I do not think, from an evolutionary psychology perspective, that male chastity benefits the male at all. He *fails* if he does not spread his seed.
I suppose your theory may have merit. He is willing to subdue his primal needs in order to get a long term partner than is perhaps at the top of the pecking order of available females. Sort of like when rams battle for a mate. I will have to think about that some. But from what I know of evolutionary psychology, that's sort of going against the prime directive, so it would be "unnatural".
I am a submissive male, and I don't think I fit this theory at all. In fact, being sterile, there is not apparent biological reason for me to copulate with my wife, other than "fun". Which is precisely why I got the snip, we are done procreating.
I fantasize about cuckolding a lot: and that really goes against the grain. There are some who theorize that if a paired male sees (or at least is aware that) another male mate with his partner, that there is some sort of unconscious sperm competition. This like a reasonable explanation to me. If one child is playing with a toy, very frequently another child will want that same toy... but in the absence of the first child having it, he probably would not desire it. Hope I worded that to where it makes sense. Basically, if a male sees his partner copulating with a competitor male, he will become aroused and want sex with his partner more. I know that would be true of me, any way, even though our chance of cuckolding is almost zero. but I still find it very arousing.
Cheers
Re cuckolding - yes when I read about Sperm Competition I thought the same.
ReplyDeleteRe explanations for - call it - "forlorn pursuit". Two possibilities come to mind.
First, forlorn pursuit is natural, but chastity subverts it. The primitive part of the brain is simply not clever enough to process the fact of the chastity device and tries even harder to win the high status female.
Second, perhaps there's a forlorn pursuit trait. Like the homosexuality trait it confers reproductive benefits right up to that tipping point (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/natural-history-the-modern-mind/200906/the-johnny-depp-effect-evolutionary-explanation-homosexu). Enough of the trait and you enjoy chasing hard-to-get mates even when they shred your ego. Sooner or later you get lucky and breed. Too much of the trait and the experience of failure becomes an end in itself.
All that said, I suspect the chastity/denial fetish comes from conditioning; the teenage experience of drooling after unattainable disdainful girls. Chastity lets you have our cake and eat her.
Uhm...humans aren't machines. Evolution produced a learning, flexible being not a robot. Men aren't programmed to do these things. Chastity devices are evolutionary new - they haven't had time to impact evolution at all.
ReplyDeleteChastity is a sex game. Men get to have something on their penis reminding them about sex constantly. Women's awareness of sex is likewise increased because of how they become their partner's sexual managers.
Sex is not just about reproduction - it's about pleasure. Evolution produced the pleasure associated with sex b/c that increases reproduction. But once you have sexual pleasure, it can be exapted for other evolutionary purposes. Sex increases bonding between partners, decreases stress - it allows couples to get along better.
So the focus on chastity is a multi-faceted behavior. It cannot be reduced merely to "instinct" (which doesn't exist) or gene maximizing behaviors (which don't exist). Chastity is about delving into one's sexual fantasies, about play, about raising sexual awareness, about prolonging teasing, about subverting social norms to make male sexuality submissive - and probably more I haven't thought about.
But it's not about evolution.
Of course they're - relatively - new. But I think they extend adaptive behaviors. Diamonds are also new.
Delete