February 26, 2023
Case Study: “EATING FECES”
The Sex Life of Married People, or Monogamy as a Masochist’s Meal Plan
Construct 1:
The first sexual act between a man and a woman should result in pregnancy. If it is not planned, then what is the point of having sex with the same person more than two or three times?
Marriage and sex are opposite, though related, processes — much like eating and defecating. The purpose of marriage is to conceive, give birth, and raise a new human within a framework of pooled resources. The purpose of sex (intercourse without conception), however, is to enjoy the diversity of human nature through the exploration and the conquest of “new territories.” Just as a person grows accustomed to a new shirt or a gadget, sex with the same person eventually becomes predictable and monotonous. Given the inquisitive nature of Homo sapiens, this repetition can have a destructive effect on the individual.
Instead of jerking off using your marriage partner as a substitute for your own fist, it would be more efficient to buy a sex toy and look at a picture of your favorite model. Not only would this provide you with fresh sensations, but it would also save you the time and energy typically wasted on coaxing a partner or “bribing” them with gifts. And if you possess enough energy to conquer new territories, then move forward and seek genuine novelty.
You don't have to eat where you shit, and vice versa. Having sex with a parenting partner is like eating your own feces. Only a masochist, or someone who finds themselves sexually unattractive to the world at large, would settle for it. If some other circumstance compels you to eat one and the same product over a long period of your life, then make lemonade out of lemons: learn from the masochists how to find pleasure in the suppression of human nature.
Analysis:
Case Study: “EATING FECES”
The Sex Life of Married People, or Monogamy as a Masochist’s Meal Plan
Construct 1:
The first sexual act between a man and a woman should result in pregnancy. If it is not planned, then what is the point of having sex with the same person more than two or three times?
Marriage and sex are opposite, though related, processes — much like eating and defecating. The purpose of marriage is to conceive, give birth, and raise a new human within a framework of pooled resources. The purpose of sex (intercourse without conception), however, is to enjoy the diversity of human nature through the exploration and the conquest of “new territories.” Just as a person grows accustomed to a new shirt or a gadget, sex with the same person eventually becomes predictable and monotonous. Given the inquisitive nature of Homo sapiens, this repetition can have a destructive effect on the individual.
Instead of jerking off using your marriage partner as a substitute for your own fist, it would be more efficient to buy a sex toy and look at a picture of your favorite model. Not only would this provide you with fresh sensations, but it would also save you the time and energy typically wasted on coaxing a partner or “bribing” them with gifts. And if you possess enough energy to conquer new territories, then move forward and seek genuine novelty.
You don't have to eat where you shit, and vice versa. Having sex with a parenting partner is like eating your own feces. Only a masochist, or someone who finds themselves sexually unattractive to the world at large, would settle for it. If some other circumstance compels you to eat one and the same product over a long period of your life, then make lemonade out of lemons: learn from the masochists how to find pleasure in the suppression of human nature.
Analysis:
- Functional Partitioning: The complete separation of marriage as a “logistics center” from sex as a “tool of expansion.” Marriage is reduced to a “reproduction and resources” project, stripped of the sexual arousal for which novelty is essential.
- Degradation through Monotony: Sexual fidelity is equated to the mundane habituation to objects (gadgets). The repetition of the act with a single partner is interpreted as entropy and the destruction of the inquisitive nature of Homo sapiens.
- Visceral-Discharge Model: Sex is viewed not as an act of intimacy, but as a necessary visceral discharge, comparable to any other form of defecation.
- Pathologization of Fidelity: Intimacy with a "parenting partner" is metaphorically equated to autocoprophagia (the consumption of one's own waste). Monogamy is declared to be either a form of masochism or the fate of "sexually uncompetitive" individuals.
Construct 2:
Married man is a low-ranking male who has been screwed over by the system, and with whom a woman agrees to have seх only in exchange for long-term financial and social support, which is called "marriage".
The marriage format is a prison for male nature: instead of living his life, spending time with different women, and focusing on building businesses and reaching new heights with his friends, he drains all his resources into the black hole of domestic life — on a completely arbitrary person who, by pretending to play a submissive role instead of doing hard work, and by using emotional abuse and the system, chains him to monogamy and turns him into a personal slave, sacrificing his health and lifespan, working multiple jobs.
And so, after years wasted servicing the maternal instincts of some random person and crushed by the weight of obligations, in order to illusorily free himself from the cage of monotonous life — which atrophies male nature — he leans heavily on alcohol, convincing himself that everything is fine, and jumps into the noose.
Analysis:
Construct 3:
To become a professional artist, one must possess a broad palette, engage with complex subjects, overcome previous limitations, and force the eye and brain to work over and over again. The same applies to the art of love.
If you spend years sketching the same study in the same tones — even if you do it masterfully (whether you are a serial monogamist or simply a lazy layman) — you possess no skill for love at all. That is not art; it is a reproduction.
However, if your visual experience is diverse, if you are constantly mastering new techniques and forms, and if you are capable of bold improvisation and experimentation beyond your usual canvas and genre (flirting outside your current relationships or "repertoire"), only then can you call yourself a professional in the art of love.
Married man is a low-ranking male who has been screwed over by the system, and with whom a woman agrees to have seх only in exchange for long-term financial and social support, which is called "marriage".
The marriage format is a prison for male nature: instead of living his life, spending time with different women, and focusing on building businesses and reaching new heights with his friends, he drains all his resources into the black hole of domestic life — on a completely arbitrary person who, by pretending to play a submissive role instead of doing hard work, and by using emotional abuse and the system, chains him to monogamy and turns him into a personal slave, sacrificing his health and lifespan, working multiple jobs.
And so, after years wasted servicing the maternal instincts of some random person and crushed by the weight of obligations, in order to illusorily free himself from the cage of monotonous life — which atrophies male nature — he leans heavily on alcohol, convincing himself that everything is fine, and jumps into the noose.
Analysis:
- The Fraudulent Trade: Marriage is portrayed as a scam where a low-status male trades his lifetime earnings and freedom for basic sexual access and a "submissive" facade.
- Resource Parasitism: The male is a human battery; his ambition and wealth are sucked into the "black hole" of domestic life, fueling a woman’s comfort while his own goals die.
- Nature in Chains: Monogamy acts as a psychological cage that atrophies masculine instincts, replacing the "conqueror" with a domesticated slave controlled by emotional abuse.
- The Dead End: The "trap" concludes with total burnout, leading the man to seek escape through substance abuse and, eventually, self-destruction as the only way “out.”
Construct 3:
To become a professional artist, one must possess a broad palette, engage with complex subjects, overcome previous limitations, and force the eye and brain to work over and over again. The same applies to the art of love.
If you spend years sketching the same study in the same tones — even if you do it masterfully (whether you are a serial monogamist or simply a lazy layman) — you possess no skill for love at all. That is not art; it is a reproduction.
However, if your visual experience is diverse, if you are constantly mastering new techniques and forms, and if you are capable of bold improvisation and experimentation beyond your usual canvas and genre (flirting outside your current relationships or "repertoire"), only then can you call yourself a professional in the art of love.
Analysis:
- Aestheticization of Expansion: Love is shifted from the category of emotion to the category of art, where value is determined not by fidelity, but by the breadth of experience. Professionalism in this context is directly proportional to the quantity and complexity of the "subjects" and "techniques" mastered.
- Devaluation of Monogamy as Stagnation: Prolonged attachment to a single object is equated to a "reproduction"—the soulless copying of the same sketch. Monogamy is declared a sign of creative lethargy and a fundamental lack of talent.
- Hierarchy of Mastery over Morality: Ethical constraints (fidelity) are replaced by criteria of professional growth. Flirting and the pursuit of new partners are interpreted as necessary "improvisation" and a "departure from the canvas," essential for maintaining cognitive tone.
- Love as Cognitive Training: Intimacy is viewed as a workout for the brain and the eye. The rejection of new stimuli is considered a degradation of skill, transforming the individual from a creator into a "lazy layman" incapable of true art.
Construct 4:
Love is not a search for new forms, but the highest act of submission to the form already chosen. It may seem boring, but there is a certain comfort and safety in this monotony. Why chase vibrant colors and new techniques when the old sketch is already familiar and requires no effort?
True “professionalism” in love is the ability to suppress one's impulses for the sake of stability. Let your canvas be repetitive — at least you are spared the stress of change and the risk of failure in the process of conquering new territories.
Love is not a search for new forms, but the highest act of submission to the form already chosen. It may seem boring, but there is a certain comfort and safety in this monotony. Why chase vibrant colors and new techniques when the old sketch is already familiar and requires no effort?
True “professionalism” in love is the ability to suppress one's impulses for the sake of stability. Let your canvas be repetitive — at least you are spared the stress of change and the risk of failure in the process of conquering new territories.
Analysis:
- Apotheosis of Submission: Love is redefined as a "highest act of submission" (смирение). By framing the relationship as a surrender to a pre-existing form, the individual’s agency and creative will are completely negated in favor of biological and social compliance.
- Safety Through Stagnation: Monotony is rebranded as "comfort and safety." The rejection of "vibrant colors and new techniques" (new partners/experiences) is presented as a strategy for minimizing cognitive load and avoiding the "stress of change."
- The Professionalism of Suppression: "Professionalism" is inverted from a term of growth to a term of restraint. It is defined here as the successful "suppression of impulses," rebranding the fear of the unknown as a disciplined commitment to "stability."
- Risk-Averse Mediocrity: The monogamous life is explicitly linked to the "avoidance of failure" rather than the "pursuit of mastery." By accepting a "repetitive canvas" (a reproduction), the individual avoids the challenges of "conquering new territories," settling for a life governed by anxiety rather than expansion.