A contemporary, cis-heterosexual analysis centering on perversion; societal reception to self stimulation and pleasure in men vs women.
Editor’s Note: This article contains frank discussion on sexual behaviours and gender, which some readers may find sensitive or triggering. It is intended for mature audiences and aims to provide factual analysis. Reader discretion is advised.
Introduction
The fleshlight and dildo are cylindrical tools or toys which usually, but not exclusively, function as masturbatory aids for men and women, respectively. When placed side by side on a table, reactions elicited deeply vary, beginning with a fleshlight being unidentifiable and grotesque to some, and for the dildo, a cheeky yet unassuming reception to its phallic appearance.
Historically, women have ‘enjoyed’ a suppression of their sexuality—besides their everyday rights—both in mutual sexual activity with men and individually, as though that is such a perverse transgression. Sex is ideally for procreation, and the means to achieve fertilisation begins first and foremost througheniably through an explosive male orgasm. Hence, female sexual pleasure is relegated to secondary, forever shrouded in modesty and the elusive search for the clitoris.
Female sexual underempowerment has endured through modern history, dramatically easing up in the 1960s at the humble beginnings of the sexual revolution. We can say a big thank you to feminism for some of this progress. But, is female self-stimulation more acceptable and celebrated in popular culture due to liberation or is it because of good ol’ misogyny?
Masturbation and Hysteria in Modern History—Anno Domini
The condition, praefocatio matricis, or womb disease, was a frightening affliction which terrorized its sufferers and physicians alike for centuries (both before and even after Christ). Hysteria-like attacks thought to be caused by the uterus moving within the body and obstructing breathing, this symptomatology is today ascribed to panic attacks, dissociative episodes or other psychosomatic illnesses. However, the focus here is on the prescriptory remedies designed to address this malady, and not the nature of the affliction itself, which was said to encompass symptoms such as fainting, seizures, edema, anxiety, spasms, anorexia, low libido and insomnia, depending on the century and the source referenced.
From the first to the nineteenth century, numerous medical journals, including the Hippocratic Corpus, detailed various treatments for this disorder, praefocatio matricis. Pieter Van Foreest’s medical compendium, Observationem et Curationem Medicinalium ac Chirurgicarum Opera Omnia (1653), recorded that hysteria was most often treated by stimulating sexual release, either through intercourse or physician-administered genital massage for unmarried women. The rationale was that hysteria arose from insufficient sexual satisfaction. Though female liberation might have offered a more direct resolution, contemporary medicine privileged remedies constructed by male authorities.
Modern man’s venture into technology and industrialization saw the advent of the vibratory device in the late nineteenth century. Finally! No more would the physician be tasked with the inefficient labour of manual stimulation for bevies of hysterical women. Once again, the men of science had saved the day. Yet it is important to note that, although masturbation was prescribed as a treatment, it remained a taboo practice for women. Moreover, the inability to achieve orgasm through hurried penetrative sex posed a significant problem.
The commercial production of female stimulatory equipment in the 1960s did not constitute a woman-led revolution. The fledgling industry’s commercial success was tied to women reclaiming sexual agency, framed under the guise of medical and therapeutic utility, as the marketing playfully suggested. Now, in the twenty-first century, these devices have evolved into symbols of bold, outspoken female erotic empowerment, while still driven by male-led commercial enterprise.
Sex, Pleasure and Women
Within traditional heterosexual frameworks, sex by definition is an activity that involves the penetration of a passive party by an active participant, with a penis, thereby enacting a transfer of power. For the purpose of this analysis, and from a patriarchal perspective, activity and passivity are, by default, ascribed to men and women, respectively. It is this very demarcation that allows for the attitudes towards sexual activity and broader social life. Sexual perversion among women is thus seen through two lenses, which will be examined further.
In ‘respectable’ social settings, female sexuality remains taboo. Our society, ever uptight and patriarchal, still refuses to view women as sexual beings with agency, with the prevailing belief denying that they engage in sex at all. Even married women, and those visibly pregnant are whispered about in gossip: ‘Look how big her stomach is, so she’s been having sex?’ ‘We can see the belly… and you are a modest woman, it is unbelievable.’
The Madonna-Whore complex, ever reliable in social psychology, comes to the fore— a woman who abides by the chaste asexual norm is irreconcilable with sexual activity. Femina intacta! Sex remains an activity done to her, bringing visible shame and stigma, even under the socially and legally acceptable umbrella of marriage. The bottom line remains: sexually active women remain a myth, and on their activity in bed, we may only speculate. The only woman who has sex is the whore, and since she feels no shame herself, society must remind her of this shame at every given opportunity.
In the bedrooms where sex does occur, the façade can be set aside. Men revel in their pleasure, and that of women, while women attempt to embrace male pleasure and simultaneously seek their own. Men deriving enjoyment from something ensures it escapes social stigma, shielded by male approval, often in subtle ways not immediately discernible.
Pursuit of Pleasure
In the pursuit of pleasure, we engage in the use of the aforementioned dildos and fleshlights, vibrators, anal beads, cock rings, butt plugs and so forth. These sex toys constitute the tools of pleasure, even though the most common and reliable instrument for masturbation remains our own hands.
Female masturbatory aids are often subjected to playful, and at times lewd, teasing—yet because they provide gratification, they are tacitly permitted. This reflects the broader framing of sex as something done to women, an act that diminishes their status. Within this logic, sexual ‘perversion’ carries no additional stigma, for there is nothing further left to tarnish.
On the male end, sex and sexual activity are tied to power and conquest— all staples of masculinity. It is emasculating to not engage in regular sexual activity, and even the social construct of virginity for men is problematic, unlike with women, for whom it is desirable. In patriarchal society, respectability and social capital are secured through sexual encounters. Any avenue that affords a man excessive pleasure without the presence of a ‘real’ woman—whether one he has earned or purchased, with purchase considered a lesser but still acceptable option—is regarded as devalued. This stigma extends to pornography and masturbation, whether aided by devices or performed unaided. These views on sexuality are not a recent fad popularized in the modern manosphere, but enduring ideas found in notable schools of thought such as the oriental philosophies of Taoism and Hinduism, early Christian teachings from St. Paul the Apostle, and the writings of Victorian England. These doctrines convey a shared belief that male essence—energy, power, and masculinity—diminishes or becomes corrupted through sexual activity and release. Celibacy, thus, remains an ideal, but for the need to procreate, sex with strict discipline is opted for.
Despite being well aware of, and from all examinations, responsible for creating and upholding these stringent philosophies, men have proven time without number to enjoy sex with a frightening lack of discipline and morality—a phenomenon blamed on testosterone in male spaces. These sentiments further contribute to the covert disdain (sometimes quite malignant) towards the female body—which has been hidden the more and increasingly sexualized as society evolved—and the lust it inspires. It is a humorous paradox of being both the prison and the angry prisoner.
‘Gooning’ and Means to Male Pleasure
In popular culture, male masturbation is referred to in a multitude of terms, gooning being only the latest addition to a lengthy list of sexually-charged expletives. Masturbation by hand, while the butt of crude jokes in film and music, and the subject of cultural phenomena such as No Nut November, is a staple of male sexuality.
Men possess penises and libidos; they have hands and experience erections. Masturbation, or ‘gooning,’ is framed both as a natural ‘boys will be boys’ activity and as a source of shame—particularly when it becomes the sole avenue for sexual gratification, thereby sliding into incel territory. The ‘proper’ man is imagined as having no need for artificial aids such as fleshlights or sex dolls. These are dismissed as cringe, unnecessary, and incompatible with masculinity, since pleasure must be tied to male sexual dominance. By this logic, a man secures a woman the masculine way, and when none are available, his hands suffice.
Pleasure unaccompanied by the ‘medal of conquest’ is unadmirable, as previously intoned, for conquest itself embodies masculine self-esteem and pride in action. Boasts are routine, signaling masculine achievement. ‘I had sex with Janet, Anna, Beth…’ ‘I have a girlfriend I regularly sleep with.’ In contrast, pleasure for it’s own sake, in the absence of conquest, is relegated to women and deemed the best they can manage. The femininity of the whore and the wife alike is not ascribed any honour. Sexuality, with its attendant prestige, remains masculine territory.
Now, on the topic of male pleasure and sex toys, this is where it gets interesting. The number of men who openly own sex toys is relatively small, and such ownership is often considered socially taboo. Yet, statistical reports do show that the true figures of men and their sex toys are rapidly skyrocketing, and purchases are neck-and-neck with their female counterparts. What differs is that heterosexual men mainly use their toys—most commonly fleshlights, vibrators and penis rings—in a partnered setting compared to women who use toys both solo and partnered.
However, these men would hang if their friends—or the imaginary male tribunal—found out about their reliance on solitary pleasure, particularly if it involved the anal region, that is for heterosexual men or the wannabes. Internal and external hypervigilance is set in place with the queer-paranoia warden to ensure they do not slip and break their fragile masculinity.
Nevertheless, the sexual curiosity of a man cannot be made light of, especially when it comes to perversion. Testosterone is not merely ornamental, and the impulses it fuels may further generate self-hate, paranoia, and antagonism. As a coping mechanism to ward against the unspokenness of the unexplored possibility in the air, men specialize in ‘sus’ or ‘gay’ or ‘no homo’ jokes, repeated excessively the point of existentialism.
This is sexual guilt—institutionalized male purity culture. And through these stylized jokes, men tactfully choose to express intimacy among themselves without the pitfalls of emasculation.
Masculine Outliers
Famous historical outliers such as the Ancient Romans offered a distinctive interpretation of masculinity and sexual practice. Their emphasis lay less on masculine energy or morality than on social status and power. Sexual activity, as previously defined, retained its social meaning for free men, who occupied the role of active participants. Pleasure could be pursued with adolescent boys or enslaved men—figures deemed socially subordinate—while women were reserved for procreation. The rationale was that, although women were regarded as socially inferior, they nonetheless served as status symbols integral to the identity of free men and as essential vessels for producing the next generation of citizens. Consequently, indiscriminate sexual activity with them was considered highly contentious.
Institutions that mandate masculine cohabitation, forced or voluntary confinement, and imposition of strict rules also have their unique spins on masculinity. In these settings, it is still a matter of power—this does not in any way mean that men cannot be homosexual, but in relation to masculinity and its status, an animalistic approach is taken. The absence of a secondary gender class—women— in the bounty sport of status allows for the forceful creation of a new passive faction. This power tussle remains the fundamental skeleton of social order for masculinity, and will be further explored in subsequent sections.
Status, Power and Violence—Incels, Queermen, Chads and Whores
The sexual double standard, which has been weaved and weaponized for centuries, culminates in the modern phenomenon of archetypes such as the incel, the Chad and the whore. These archetypes are built on social value with sexual activity as a metric determining internal–external shame and self-esteem.
At the round table of masculinity, the incel—involutary celibate—emerges as a figure dangerous bothto himself and the broader tenets of masculinity. He is cast as a socially ostracized transgression, relegated to level zero, a pitiable, sinful, gluttonous sloth, undeserving of even lust.
The female counterpart is not the femcel, but the whore. Unlike the femcel, who poses no threat to femininity beyond herself, the whore becomes the female definition of level zero, her status rendering her vulnerable to violence, shame, and scorn, punished for the perceived crime of sexual activity and immodesty—acts that are seen to erode her social standing.”
Further still, who is worse off in male social hierarchy between the queer and the incel? The incel represents the worse fate, despite homophobic rhetoric, for he is cast as a failed man and a parody of masculinity, with redemption imagined only through the eradication of his perceived sins. By contrast, the queer man can still embody masculinity—illustrated by straight men’s capacity to fantasize about dominant roles in homoerotic contexts and by the authoritarian social structures that emerge in male-only environments such as prisons, boarding schools, the military, and religious institutions.
Power is what matters most, and who wields or takes it by force, such as in rape, or becomes the recipient of penetration. Even the femme-presenting Queer man, traitor to masculinity, can still be gazed upon as a pseudo-woman, and be begrudgingly accepted for his qualities. Homophobic violence that does occur in this context becomes more a projection of internal fear, subterfuge and moral policing. It must be emphasized that this observation does not dismiss or trivialize the very real and frightening experiences of queer men; rather, it addresses the dynamics of social status and the hierarchies within the male social order.
As a gendered being, man demonstrates a unique form of solidarity unmatched within the animal kingdom. Within this framework, the ‘Chad’ archetype serves as the emblem of peak masculinity. Defined by high self-esteem rooted in his established social status, the Chad is expected to embody stability and adhere to the conventions of patriarchal masculinity. In this regard, he is often equated with the Alpha male.
He is neither the Incel’s rival nor receptacle of hate; the Chad is the masculine image of God. Many may curse God in suffering, but as long as one is religious, the infallibility of God is never rejected. Herein, the true problem remains the devil and his temptress, the woman. They are held responsible for every shortcoming, and the resentment is redirected towards Eve and her serpent.
Violence against women isn’t exactly a bad thing under the patriarchy. In criticisms of the incel within the manosphere, much of the focus revolves specifically around euphemistic and mocking reactions to their irrationality and madness. ‘Loser.’ ‘You’ve never known the touch of a real woman for you to say all this.’ Any reproach is still reduced to one-upmanship with the woman dangled as a medallion they can never win. Physical and psychological loss incurred by women, alongside damage to their body, social image, and general self, do not ring alarm bells, whereas, shaming and ridiculing the incel’s status is more important than protecting the women they harm. A lifeless corpse on the street faces inspection, and when found to be female, justice and empathy—the very fabric of humanity—are deliberated upon, depending on the manner in which the corpse’s legs are spread.
The incel understands this because he is still a man, albeit a failed one. If he cannot possess women by natural abilities—as he lacks self-esteem—he must possess them by asserting violence as many have done in the pasy. Yet this logic collapses, since within his social class such acts merely constitute another sin. One cannot be a sinner without first possessing the dignity of manhood.
However, self-assured Chad can do everything the incel does, and his social status faces no tarnish. A man can Chad so hard he can even break out to engage in male-male sexual activity, and it is fine—falling under the prison and Roman logic described earlier. Prominent figures in the manosphere, such as Andrew Tate, are aware of this dynamic, with their audience consisting largely of vulnerable and disillusioned incels who, under their guidance, attempt to artificially manipulate social structures to elevate their status. Though they remain pitiable, male society paradoxically tolerates the façade of this artificial man. Within patriarchal norms, such performances are still considered logical and permissible.
Men and Women Stand Before a Table of Sex Tools— The Body is Selected
The body as the site of sex and sexual pleasure.
The male body is the most puritan since it is rarely gazed upon with lust devoid of masculine control. Male bodies are sexual, but society is so desensitized to them, they do not prove exciting unless ordained so. A shirtless man can only be sexualized if he so desires it, and the shame remains on you if he does not desire it.
On the flip side, the entire female body is sexualized in its entirely—even down to the least sexy of body parts, her feet—regardless of her consent or participation. The power lies outside of her control, leaving shame alone to weigh on her shoulders. Each fragment of the femme becomes a subject of discourse, scrutinized until it returns to the Earth.
A casual example of sexualization via the female gaze is male veins— this is a classic and signals virility. Men raise their eyes in amusement when confronted with the sexualization of their veins and hands. They can choose merely to take note of this fact or to use it to their advantage, the option to flex their muscles and show off these veins rests with them alone. And it is not something they or society are perpetually conscious of, nor do women talk about—even in gossip—unless in specific settings.
The male body is perceived to have restricted zones—essentially everything beyond the anterior and anterior-pelvic regions. The posterior and inner posterior are firmly off-limits, as they are culturally coded with associations of queerness. Even in heterosexual encounters, these areas evoke anxiety, rooted in fears of emasculation. This dynamic reveals deep contradictions, as men often struggle to express sexual honesty without becoming entangled in a complex cycle of misogyny and homophobic paranoia.
The Penis and the Buttocks
While not equivalent as ‘sexual’ organs, this is as good as we can get for the sake of this discussion; although some might argue that the breasts are a worthier opponent.
The Penis is ubiquitous. Staples of juvenile and adult comedy, they serve as sexual currency, symbols of virility and pride, measures of power, as well as crude tools to insult others with. Men have bestowed their penises that the phallus has become a mascot both for male sexuality and masculine arrogance. For many, the penis a fully sentient being with a personal name—some men do name their Johnson— personality, moods, dances and thoughts of its own. Reports are rife on the life and times of former United States of America President, Lyndon B. Johnson, and his ‘Jumbo‘, a member he used to terrorise members of staff at the white house through obscene public gestures and language. It brings into focus just the exact raminifications of ‘Big dick energy’.
Conversely, callipygy has long been linked to female sexuality across cultures and, according to some theories, has shaped fashion trends that emphasize the feminine silhouette. In pre-twentieth-century Europe, this influence appeared in designs such as expansive hooped skirts, bustles, false rumps, and saque backs. Today, it persists in contemporary styles like the skintight Fashion Nova outfits with their distinctive butt scrunches. African societies, too, reflect this continuity, as hips and buttocks—historically tied to female sexuality and fertility through their pelvic-genital association—remain potent symbols of the same.
Despite its celebrated feats and the vast plastic surgery industry built around it, however, the female backside cannot claim even a fraction of the symbolic power attributed to the penis. For one, it is not always visible—concealed except in fleeting moments or deliberate display. Moreover, the female backside is subject to external sexualization, leaving its power beyond the woman’s full control. It is trivialized further in remarks by women themselves such as, ‘Have you seen my backside? You can’t date me with that pocket.’ And in this furthering of patriarchal interactions between man and woman, it remains a passive monarch. By contrast, the penis carries a kind of dignity: indifferent to identity, it pursues its own purpose, detached from social standards and vanities. Most significantly, the female backside is not a sexual organ, nor is it exclusive to women.
Within heterosexual discourse, the male posterior is rendered invisible—treated as a censored myth, devoid of acknowledged function, and dismissed as obsolete, much like the appendix. The penis, positioned as the locus of masculine power, compensates for this absence, compelling men to measure themselves against its symbolic strength. When the penis is deemed insufficient, supplementation becomes necessary. The dynamic resembles that of a knight and his horse: the stature of the horse must be magnified to elevate the diminutive knight, with the man himself cast in the role of the horse.
The Penis remains a distinguished overlord in an androcentric universe of its own making.
Identity, Projection on the Inanimate, and Double Standards
Female sexual identity faces the consequence of its lack of power in the ways the female self is seen in inanimate objects and leaves the viewer scandalized, embarrassed or upset. Rising incidents
wherein insecurities and dissatisfaction with the social status quo, sexual esteem and education are projected onto silicone take a spin on rationality.
Artificial vaginas, caricatures of a woman’s body, perverse, disgusting…
Collector dolls, which have always existed, are also forced to undergo scrutiny: Why do you need a doll to look that realistic? Why is a man collecting dolls? That is weird.
Sex dolls are frequently the topic of these discourses, with the resounding question of ‘why?’ and a shudder of disgust. It is in human nature to shame what we find weak, and so, knee-jerk responses and preconceived notions of violence and moral transgression are called to play. These silicone effigies, whilst being a hallmark of the depths of sexual perversion and sin, are commonly associated with what I shall refer to as unthreatening incels. Market reports show that these owners and their dolls share an occasionally intimate relationship beyond gratification— a silicone alternative to loneliness as a punishment for social failure. This is much unlike the public idea of an uncontrollable fiend and more about a victim of identity erosion and esteem deficits.
It is disingenuous to discuss male perversion in relation to inanimate objects when women enjoy the ‘privilege’ of the same sex toy and even dolls (to a lesser extent) in their sexual perversion. This is not about stigmatizing masturbation or sexual exploration as they are normal and healthy aspects of sexual maturity—what is of focus is the disequilibrium. Popular discourse revolving around female masturbation and its adult toy industry is rarely critiqued, with an unspoken sentiment that it is necessary to balance the orgasm gap. This is all quite hilarious, knowing that industries in place have never given a hoot about that.
There is no counterbalancing stigmatization on phallic tools such as dildos and oral suction devices, because women are unable to hyper-sexualize the male body, and female pleasure remains a show for all. And the adult industry is still unable to properly commercialize male pleasure openly because of the booby traps set in place by masculinity. The male adult section remains a publicly secretive and ridiculed industry—albeit commercially successful. Who’s buying?
Whenever the critical question arises—‘are you comfortable with your partner watching porn while dating you?’—the responses reveal a striking imbalance. The porn industry is undeniably exploitative, with harmful lessons embedded in its content, though its consumer culture is a separate issue altogether. Prevailing notions suggest that a man pleasuring himself in private signals distrust or even infidelity, often cloaked in secrecy under the logic of, ‘why seek porn when you have a woman?’ Yet, a man could look upon a tan-pink silicone dildo, complete with venous detailing, thermal regulation, and a central cavity for lubricant to mimic seminal fluid, and feel nothing. There is no envy, no outrage—for it is not his penis, but merely a tool. At worst, public reaction might be reduced to perverse guffaws. By contrast, a partnered woman’s self-pleasure is widely accepted, framed either as a sign of sexual dissatisfaction or simply her personal time. Sex toys are normalized for women, woven into foreplay, self-care, and everyday life. Rarely does public discourse erupt with anxious questions such as, ‘Help! My wife wants to buy an artificial penis—is that normal?’
Inanimate objects merely reflect pre-existing attitudes toward bodies and sexuality. For women, bodily appreciation occurs in two ways: through their own gaze and through the gaze of men. True empowerment lies in reclaiming the body as her own and valuing it accordingly. Human bodies, whether male or female, are sexualized; yet the issue lies in the imbalance, with women subject to disproportionate hyper-sexualisation on one end, and ultimately, this is a matter of power.
It is important for women to escape identity projection onto inanimate objects. Discourses about how humanoid dolls are most definitely going to be sexually abused come to mind. These projections are a unique form of auto-dehumanization and objectification. An unfortunate oversight to remember that women are human beings—breathing live flesh with consciousness, not pieces of parts and mute flesh as popularized in online discourse around beauty standards and sex appeal
Sexual Knowledge
Sexual perversion is, after all, a distinctly human trait. There are scandalous reports of women getting off on statues in public spaces. And because we live in a society blinded by double standards, we often turn a blind eye to sexual behaviors that are, paradoxically, regarded as empowering.
Female pleasure and sexuality cannot be given room to be fed and nurtured healthily if the same does not apply to male sexuality. If indulgence in male self-pleasure is obscene or embarrassing, is this a biological indictment on men and their libido or on self-pleasure? If permissible only for women, does this not mean that once again, women are the entertainment, the fairer sex whose whims are insignificant and amusing at best?
Pornographic overexposure and addiction, performance anxiety (for women, it is mainly plain old performance), hypersexuality, sexual prowess and praise, guilt, shame… young boys are not the only ones who undergo puberty and discover sexual content or have an unhealthy sexual appetite. But since in pornography, the emphasis is on female bodies, they get desensitized, dehumanize it, overindulge in it—we know the drill. Where are young girls in all of this? They are also watching, learning, arching, and internalizing.
That is also their introduction to sex.
A lot of female sexual knowledge comes from unscrupulous sources, as with men, given that both genders are afterall people socialised and educated on the internet with little to no knowledge about how anything works for the other. Peer review becomes an exchange of misinformation, a whisper of old wives’ tales spread from one confused mouth to the well-meaning guidance of more confused organs and limbs. This clumsy cycle rings out moreso for women who walk through sexuality in veils, without the social push to conquest. The only difference now lies in men, running blind with an air of entitlement, macho anxiety, social climbing and lack of concern while women do not get that luxury.
Without proper guidance and honest discourses, these are the same men whom women are to trust their bodies with each other to attain sexual nirvana?
Conclusion
Modern sentiment on female sexual liberation waters into competition—a matter of prioritising the female orgasm—and unhealthy projection of disenfranchisement onto sexual tools. The point of sexual activity remains mutual satisfaction; otherwise, self-pleasure exists. Women cannot seek sexual liberation by emulating negative aspects of masculinity to win at the game, while ignoring an honest exploration of sexuality in every regard. Afterall, the prioritization of a singular party’s orgasm is how we ended in this very standstill.
The stigmatization of male self-pleasure in relation to sex toys only serves to echo the misogynistic sentiment of pleasure by conquest, and the female one being amusing or much-needed erotic entertainment for men. There is still so much to be undone, andit is impossible to do without an honest, accommodative and ungendered approach to sex—the imbalance of power, sexual perversion, self-pleasure, education and careful deconstruction, even when sentiment rages.
Female sexuality in the modern day, as analyzed, has undergone a long hysterical journey to get to where we stand today. A lot as seen, is male-driven; from fragile masculinity and its failures to the iron hold on female agency. Even when celebrating and enjoying the benefits, it is important to conduct a proper analysis on where this freedom—or the illusion of it—arises from and what it gives way to.
Otherwise, we are all rather silly when it comes to fleshlights, dildos and sex.
Tobechukwu Kpakpando (Contributor)
