I wrote an article earlier on this year about the possible evolutionary aspects to psychopathy; the main point being that psychopathy may well have its roots in the hunter-gather instinct in humanity, and that, as a fractional percentile of the overall population, psychopaths, for all their flaws, serve an important function.
Psychopaths may be sexual predators and cynical manipulators, but the author of a recent book ("The Wisdom Of Psychopaths"), Kevin Dutton, makes some excellent points towards a more nuanced understanding of the "disorder".
Dutton's analysis of psychopathy comes from the angle that many of the attributes seen in psychopaths are actually positive for society overall: leadership skills, fearlessness, quick thinking, and heightened perception, for example.
These attributes in isolation allow "socially-adaptive psychopaths" to become the heroes of society: positions of authority and respect like soldiers, policemen, doctors, firemen, and so on. These are people who are drawn to danger like mosquitoes to a flame, and are able to thrive on it, whereas other people would be unable to function, paralysed by fear. They are naturally endowed with the kind of personality attributes that makes them uniquely suitable to roles that require a cool, hard-headed and fast response to a situation. These are the people who are able to make the tough calls necessary that can saves lives.
A "mixing deck" approach
The main thing to consider is that "psychopathy", as Dutton explains, can be seen as a "mixing deck" of a variety of personality attributes. Like when looking at the "Hare Psychopath Checklist", a psychopath doesn't need to have all the attributes fully to qualify; he simply needs to have some combination of these attributes. So a "socially-adaptive psychopath" has the fearlessness and leadership aspects of psychopathy, but not the more anti-social (and obviously destructive) aspects of the disorder. As Dutton points out, it is the more anti-social and less intelligent psychopaths that are the ones you find in prison. So psychopaths can be either heroes or villains (or both!).
And again, "psychopathy" is more a matter of degree. While Hare's psychopathy test says that 30 out of 40 on the list is the "magic number", but it's easier to see the whole thing as a sliding scale of degree. While the average person scores very low on the checklist, the higher up the score, the lower the percentile of the population. So there may still be, say, five or ten percent of the population that could be considered "semi-psychopaths", who might "achieve" a score of more than twenty. Not high enough to alarming, but still considerably higher that average and possibly indicative of anti-social (and criminal) behaviour.
The "love" of the predator
Gong back to the evolutionary explanation, psychopaths therefore have the attributes that make them ideal as hunters.
In many ways, their psychology is that of a hunter. As Dutton mentions, psychopaths have a heightened sense of perception (as successfully shown in psychological experiments). This allows them to spot weakness in "prey": if a person has a low self-esteem, or if a person feels nervous, psychopaths have a heightened perception for the visual signals (body language) that suggest this. A "socially-adapted" psychopath may find a use for this skill as a policeman to spot guilt in suspects, for example; an anti-social psychopath will use this skill to prey on and exploit the vulnerable in society as a con man, for example.
In the modern age, Capitalism has allowed psychopaths an ideal "playground" to flex their muscles and make use of their "skills". Modern globalisation has given psychopaths more freedom than ever before, with the added advantage that their psychology closely matches that of the "pure Capitalist". This explains why psychopaths are disproportionately represented in the board room, and why top companies see them more as an asset than a liability. In this way, modern-day Capitalism is simply an updated version of "the hunt".
The lack of emotions prevalent in psychopaths also brings me on to another aspect of evolution. If psychopaths are incapable of "love", why is "love" so important to humanity?
"Love" is generally equated with empathy and caring for others (which pure psychopaths are biologically incapable of feeling). From a biological point of view, personal relationships may also be nature's way of ensuring the continuation of the species.
"Love" is one thing that separates humans from animals. Animals have sex for procreation, but typically in animals, mothers force their offspring to fend for themselves after a short period. For animals, sex is a purely physical, impulsive act, resulting in short-term empathy between the male and female, and passed on to their offspring for a short time. This can be seen from watching any wildlife documentary about lions, for example.
Humans' brains are designed differently, and are more complex. Consequently, social relationships and sex is more nuanced. We've all experienced "infatuation", and this is generally a typical part of the relationship process. It has been said that emotional "love" fades away in a relationship over time, to be replaced by something more like overall empathy for the partner. There may also be an evolutionary explanation for this, too.
While psychopaths are society's hunters and predators, a more scientific explanation for "infatuation" is that the hormones released at this early stage of the relationship are designed to encourage sex (i.e. procreation). A more scientific use for this in nature is that it ensures that a child is born before emotional "love" (mutual infatuation) fades; the child then acts as a further emotional bond between partners when the partners' mutual infatuation is replaced by a more general respect and empathy for each other and their child (or children).
This also ensures that the child grows up in a healthy parental environment, which is necessary given the long period of human upbringing.
In this way, nature ensures that the species continues.
Psychopaths may also have a sexual role in nature (evolution), too, given that nature needs hunters, leaders, predators and survival skills.
Psychopaths are also nature's survivors, for all their flaws.
Friday, November 22, 2013
Monday, November 18, 2013
Is David Cameron a psychopath? No, just a product of the times.
An article by Andrew Rawnsley looks at David Cameron's well-established lack of political convictions, which mirrors some of the points I've mentioned in my earlier articles about Cameron's personality.
In some ways, Cameron's lack of serious conviction is typical of the "professional politician", and is nothing new, let alone limited to Cameron himself, or the Conservatives as a party. It is well-known that Cameron got his inspiration from Blair.
Looking further back, "one nation" Conservatives agreed with Labour on the "post-war consensus", most recently Edward Heath. It was Thatcher who brought her own sense of ideological revolution to break apart the unwritten "consensus" that had existed since the end of the Second World War.
Across the pond, Richard Nixon best embodied the principle of ideological nihilism that can send a man into power, and kept him in re-elected power with an overwhelming majority. "Nixon" Republicanism was a product of Nixon's own personality: to do what was necessary (regardless of the law) to stay in power, and shamelessly steal ideas from across the political spectrum. In other words, he was a ruthless populist and Machiavellian schemer.
Cameron's was once asked why he wanted to be Prime Minister, and his telling reply was "because I think I'd be good at it". As Rawnsley points out in his article, Cameron has always wriggled out of defining "Cameronism"; because there is no such thing. The evidence suggests that all Cameron has a serious conviction about is his own self-confidence, and his own self-advancement.
Pimp my ride
Pimp my ride
The trip to Sri Lanka for the Commonwealth summit is typical of Cameron's often spontaneous judgments, deciding on actions impulsively or for superficial reasons. With his government's popularity flagging, and Milliband's personal ratings recently improving, it's entirely plausible that Cameron saw Sri Lanka and the plight of the Tamils as a useful distraction from political trouble at home. Foreign trips abroad therefore act as PR stunts for the former "PR man" PM; using the misfortune of some poor foreigners to create a foreign policy "stance" on some issue abroad. While Cameron is hardly the first statesman to do this, Cameron seems to take this tactic to new levels of regularity, hopping around the world like a headless chicken.
The loss of the vote on Syria was the nadir of Cameron's attempt at statesman-like politicking. In brief, his behaviour over that week of the vote brought out all his negatives: his cynical approach to politics, attempting to give the superficial look of "democracy"; his arrogance, in assuming that the vote was in the bag without bothering to do the legwork first; his reckless spontaneity, in promising Britain's support to Obama in advance of any consultation with parliament; and his generally appalling lack of judgement.
The same lack of judgement and recklessness was shown in his previous foray with Europe two years ago, where he earned short-term popular support at home, while wrecking Britain's standing and long-term future in the EU. Again, cynical politicking for cheap populism at home, recklessly putting the country's future in uncertainty. And his plan to "kill the Ukip fox" was so badly-judged, it only served to backfire spectacularly.
This pattern is repeated again and again at home. Cameron uses foreign PR stunts to give a crutch to his otherwise appalling track record as a national statesman.
Ironically, the only real foreign "success" he has had is in acting as a pimp to Britain's assets: offering foreign companies a free ride in Britain in energy markets at the expense of the taxpayer, and so on. The only ideas he has for Britain's role in the world is as a "whore" for everyone else. The only thing Cameron seems to think Britain's future can offer is its own indignity.
How not to run a government
Cameron's manner of running government is a further lesson in his many personality flaws. After failing to win a majority, his prompt decision to form a Coalition with the LibDems might have appeared like a master-stroke to some, but was more a product of his own opportunistic and cynical personality.
With Cameron clearly having no firm views (or real ideas) of his own, and more than any other recent British premier, pursuing the role simply for its own end, being master of a Coalition was the perfect solution. It meant he could stand between the more ideologically right-wing Tories and the more left-wing LibDems as a moderate, stately figurehead.
There are the continual allegations of Cameron's "lies" by those who feel betrayed by his broken promises. His government has presided over U-turn after U-turn, with some newspapers even keeping count. Cameron's position as the moderate leader of a coalition gives him the ready excuse for this, but the fact that his government have backtracked on an almost unprecedented number of policy commitments show less that Cameron is populist, but rather he doesn't take commitments seriously.
This is what has so angered those the the traditional right of the party, and accounts to an extent for the rise of UKIP: no-one believes he is a "true" Tory, and that even the talk of "austerity" (more on that later) can be thought of as simply one of convenience.
Austerity is a conveniently-substantial piece of right-wing Conservative policy (and ideology) that gives Cameron's government a purpose, and makes him look "conservative" to his own supporters.
It is plausible therefore that Cameron allows austerity to happen simply because it will put his name in the history books for changing the face of Britain: it doesn't matter what he's changed, only that he's changed something, and that his name will be forever attached to it. "Austerity" may well simply be Cameron's effort at achieving political immortality, and an utterly amoral act of narcissism.
In other words, Cameron the "hug a hoodie" moderate, who at one time promised to hold to Labour's spending plans and urged people to "Vote Blue, Go Green", by the summer of 2010 had become a right-wing ideological revolutionary. What had changed? In reality, the only thing had changed was that Cameron's superficial interest in social justice (or most of his ideas) had been revealed as nothing more than that - superficial. This is what happens when your leader is a former PR man.
In the end, though, this meant that as a Prime Minister, he presides rather than rules. This has had the contradictory effect of having government policies that, at times, appear logical absurdities.
While Cameron allows the LibDems the occasional symbolic announcement of government "policy", more commonly Cameron has allowed the more "revolutionary" Tory ministers in the Departments of Education, Health, and Social Policy, to use Britain as a virtual living laboratory for ideological experimentation.
Most recently, he declared that Britain should strive for "permanent austerity" - or, if you like "perma-sterity", another buzz-word that could catch on. Cameron's interest in "ideas" seems as superficial as everything else about him. He delegated running ministries to the ministers. Why? Either because he didn't care about what actually happened in them, or that he thought it would make him look "stand-offish" and not wanting to get in the way of the intricacies of government. But this is the crux: a Prime Minister has to know, and ultimately be responsible for, what goes on in his government. If he doesn't know, or doesn't care, then is abrogating his duties as the premier of the country. Either that, or he is allowing clearly incompetent people like Iain Duncan Smith to run essential parts of government policy simply as a distraction from his own failings as a leader.
If he truly cared about the appalling effects his government's social and economic policies are having on the British people, he would do something about it. But fundamentally he either lacks the intelligence, attention span or the empathy to truly understand the effect of his ministers' actions, coming up with mealy-mouthed soundbites to excuse for the social destruction of the lower two-thirds of society.
But this again fits in with Cameron's personality: he takes few things very seriously.
A gang of misfits
This includes such lapses in judgement as the longstanding connection Cameron had with Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks, possibly one of the most obviously (and casually) corrupt relationships seen in Downing Street for years. While Labour is also historically implicated in the imbroglio with the Murdoch Press, Cameron's relationship is even seedier and shows ever worse judgement.
His judgement also extends into rewarding loyalty at the expense of competence (or even intelligence), supporting a ministerial circle of flawed and dangerous personalities.
Jeremy Hunt, whose calamitous appearance at the Leveson Inquiry, focusing on his relations with Murdoch Press, led to a later promotion to Health Secretary. Nationally, doctors groaned at the appointment.
Iain Duncan Smith, widely considered to be lacking in competence and sufficient intelligence for the role, is tasked with completely reworking Social Policy, outsourcing to companies like Serco, and effectively destroying the humane fabric of the postwar "welfare state".
George Osborne, the Chancellor, is the most hated politician in the country, and few economists take his ideas seriously. An even more cynical political manipulator than Cameron, his newest idea "Help To Buy", is considered a ticking time-bomb of artificial credit that was created simply to give the superficial impression of wealth to gullible voters in time for the next election. After rubbishing Labour for creating one bust, Osborne is happy to create another one, during far worse economic times. Osborne's policies are designed to only improve the lot of London and the South-east of England, with the rest of the country becoming an economically-depressed "neo-colony".
Michael Gove, perhaps the most dangerous personality to have ever held sway in the Education Ministry, is intent on a reworking of how Education is ran in England (the other parts of the UK already having devolved power in this area); Gove's plan is almost Bolshevik in its ruthless application.
Chris Grayling and Theresa May, Justice Minister and Home Secretary respectively, are in the process of privatising large parts of the Justice System, to the benefit of the likes of Serco and others.
And when not taking things seriously, Cameron is, on the contrary, taking some things far too seriously: losing his temper in parliament in a manner unlike any PM in living memory (even Gordon Brown), impetuously making snide remarks to make cheap political points, demeaning the role of Prime Minister at the dispatch box in a way that compares very poorly to his apparent idol, Margaret Thatcher. His sudden flashes of emotion are symptomatic, like his other attributes, of a more worrying personality disorder, though not surprising in the selfish pursuit of power.
All in all, the "positives" to Cameron's personality are as superficial as everything else. Yes, he is charming, easy to get along with, and knows how to exude reassuring self-confidence and the appearance of competence. But this image is as much as facade as everything else.
Like Boris Johnson, another person in the Conservative Party who is of questionable empathy and depth, Cameron is the product of the social environment that made him. It is an elite that is incapable of understanding the majority of the population, and only try to relate to them when it is convenient to do so. Once every five years.
The rich are in a "class war" with the poor for the sake of "austerity". They declare that the state must be smaller. To the rich the "state" should be smaller because the rich don't need or use it.
Only the poor do; and they don't matter.
The loss of the vote on Syria was the nadir of Cameron's attempt at statesman-like politicking. In brief, his behaviour over that week of the vote brought out all his negatives: his cynical approach to politics, attempting to give the superficial look of "democracy"; his arrogance, in assuming that the vote was in the bag without bothering to do the legwork first; his reckless spontaneity, in promising Britain's support to Obama in advance of any consultation with parliament; and his generally appalling lack of judgement.
The same lack of judgement and recklessness was shown in his previous foray with Europe two years ago, where he earned short-term popular support at home, while wrecking Britain's standing and long-term future in the EU. Again, cynical politicking for cheap populism at home, recklessly putting the country's future in uncertainty. And his plan to "kill the Ukip fox" was so badly-judged, it only served to backfire spectacularly.
This pattern is repeated again and again at home. Cameron uses foreign PR stunts to give a crutch to his otherwise appalling track record as a national statesman.
Ironically, the only real foreign "success" he has had is in acting as a pimp to Britain's assets: offering foreign companies a free ride in Britain in energy markets at the expense of the taxpayer, and so on. The only ideas he has for Britain's role in the world is as a "whore" for everyone else. The only thing Cameron seems to think Britain's future can offer is its own indignity.
How not to run a government
Cameron's manner of running government is a further lesson in his many personality flaws. After failing to win a majority, his prompt decision to form a Coalition with the LibDems might have appeared like a master-stroke to some, but was more a product of his own opportunistic and cynical personality.
With Cameron clearly having no firm views (or real ideas) of his own, and more than any other recent British premier, pursuing the role simply for its own end, being master of a Coalition was the perfect solution. It meant he could stand between the more ideologically right-wing Tories and the more left-wing LibDems as a moderate, stately figurehead.
There are the continual allegations of Cameron's "lies" by those who feel betrayed by his broken promises. His government has presided over U-turn after U-turn, with some newspapers even keeping count. Cameron's position as the moderate leader of a coalition gives him the ready excuse for this, but the fact that his government have backtracked on an almost unprecedented number of policy commitments show less that Cameron is populist, but rather he doesn't take commitments seriously.
This is what has so angered those the the traditional right of the party, and accounts to an extent for the rise of UKIP: no-one believes he is a "true" Tory, and that even the talk of "austerity" (more on that later) can be thought of as simply one of convenience.
Austerity is a conveniently-substantial piece of right-wing Conservative policy (and ideology) that gives Cameron's government a purpose, and makes him look "conservative" to his own supporters.
It is plausible therefore that Cameron allows austerity to happen simply because it will put his name in the history books for changing the face of Britain: it doesn't matter what he's changed, only that he's changed something, and that his name will be forever attached to it. "Austerity" may well simply be Cameron's effort at achieving political immortality, and an utterly amoral act of narcissism.
In other words, Cameron the "hug a hoodie" moderate, who at one time promised to hold to Labour's spending plans and urged people to "Vote Blue, Go Green", by the summer of 2010 had become a right-wing ideological revolutionary. What had changed? In reality, the only thing had changed was that Cameron's superficial interest in social justice (or most of his ideas) had been revealed as nothing more than that - superficial. This is what happens when your leader is a former PR man.
In the end, though, this meant that as a Prime Minister, he presides rather than rules. This has had the contradictory effect of having government policies that, at times, appear logical absurdities.
While Cameron allows the LibDems the occasional symbolic announcement of government "policy", more commonly Cameron has allowed the more "revolutionary" Tory ministers in the Departments of Education, Health, and Social Policy, to use Britain as a virtual living laboratory for ideological experimentation.
Most recently, he declared that Britain should strive for "permanent austerity" - or, if you like "perma-sterity", another buzz-word that could catch on. Cameron's interest in "ideas" seems as superficial as everything else about him. He delegated running ministries to the ministers. Why? Either because he didn't care about what actually happened in them, or that he thought it would make him look "stand-offish" and not wanting to get in the way of the intricacies of government. But this is the crux: a Prime Minister has to know, and ultimately be responsible for, what goes on in his government. If he doesn't know, or doesn't care, then is abrogating his duties as the premier of the country. Either that, or he is allowing clearly incompetent people like Iain Duncan Smith to run essential parts of government policy simply as a distraction from his own failings as a leader.
If he truly cared about the appalling effects his government's social and economic policies are having on the British people, he would do something about it. But fundamentally he either lacks the intelligence, attention span or the empathy to truly understand the effect of his ministers' actions, coming up with mealy-mouthed soundbites to excuse for the social destruction of the lower two-thirds of society.
But this again fits in with Cameron's personality: he takes few things very seriously.
A gang of misfits
This includes such lapses in judgement as the longstanding connection Cameron had with Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks, possibly one of the most obviously (and casually) corrupt relationships seen in Downing Street for years. While Labour is also historically implicated in the imbroglio with the Murdoch Press, Cameron's relationship is even seedier and shows ever worse judgement.
His judgement also extends into rewarding loyalty at the expense of competence (or even intelligence), supporting a ministerial circle of flawed and dangerous personalities.
Jeremy Hunt, whose calamitous appearance at the Leveson Inquiry, focusing on his relations with Murdoch Press, led to a later promotion to Health Secretary. Nationally, doctors groaned at the appointment.
Iain Duncan Smith, widely considered to be lacking in competence and sufficient intelligence for the role, is tasked with completely reworking Social Policy, outsourcing to companies like Serco, and effectively destroying the humane fabric of the postwar "welfare state".
George Osborne, the Chancellor, is the most hated politician in the country, and few economists take his ideas seriously. An even more cynical political manipulator than Cameron, his newest idea "Help To Buy", is considered a ticking time-bomb of artificial credit that was created simply to give the superficial impression of wealth to gullible voters in time for the next election. After rubbishing Labour for creating one bust, Osborne is happy to create another one, during far worse economic times. Osborne's policies are designed to only improve the lot of London and the South-east of England, with the rest of the country becoming an economically-depressed "neo-colony".
Michael Gove, perhaps the most dangerous personality to have ever held sway in the Education Ministry, is intent on a reworking of how Education is ran in England (the other parts of the UK already having devolved power in this area); Gove's plan is almost Bolshevik in its ruthless application.
Chris Grayling and Theresa May, Justice Minister and Home Secretary respectively, are in the process of privatising large parts of the Justice System, to the benefit of the likes of Serco and others.
And when not taking things seriously, Cameron is, on the contrary, taking some things far too seriously: losing his temper in parliament in a manner unlike any PM in living memory (even Gordon Brown), impetuously making snide remarks to make cheap political points, demeaning the role of Prime Minister at the dispatch box in a way that compares very poorly to his apparent idol, Margaret Thatcher. His sudden flashes of emotion are symptomatic, like his other attributes, of a more worrying personality disorder, though not surprising in the selfish pursuit of power.
All in all, the "positives" to Cameron's personality are as superficial as everything else. Yes, he is charming, easy to get along with, and knows how to exude reassuring self-confidence and the appearance of competence. But this image is as much as facade as everything else.
Like Boris Johnson, another person in the Conservative Party who is of questionable empathy and depth, Cameron is the product of the social environment that made him. It is an elite that is incapable of understanding the majority of the population, and only try to relate to them when it is convenient to do so. Once every five years.
The rich are in a "class war" with the poor for the sake of "austerity". They declare that the state must be smaller. To the rich the "state" should be smaller because the rich don't need or use it.
Only the poor do; and they don't matter.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Sexual psychopathy: "Don Jon", pornography and the death of "love"
An article about the new film, "Don Jon", looks at the effect that pornography can have on men's attitudes towards sex and women.
I've written before about the main attributes of psychopathy. It is also known as "sociopathy" (which is more commonly used when emphasizing environmental factors, whereas "psychopathy is more about biological factors). Lack of empathy, superficiality in relationships and sex, using their partner as a tool to sexually control, and a fascination with more perverted forms of pornography, are some of the main characteristics of the "sexual psychopath".
The "sexualisation" of modern culture has been written about time and time again, from the increasing sexually-graphic music videos (from Rihanna to Britney Spears) in the public domain, and the growth of the availability and increasing perversity of pornography over the last two decades (due to the internet) have been consistently held to blame.
As the article in "The Telegraph" points out, your brain reacts to stimuli, so over time, if your brain gets used to being stimulated by "extreme" stimuli, these "extremes" will become less stimulating, leaving the brain requiring greater "extremes" to reproduce the same effect. Men who look at porn too much to get their kicks, will therefore become inevitably in need of more bizarre and "extreme" forms of porn.
Sex as masturbation
Pornography also creates a "disconnect" between the ultra-stimulating "porn world" and the more "mundane" real world. Put into practice (and supported by anecdotal evidence), this means that men who watch excessive amounts of porn begin to have unrealistic ideas about what their future dates and partners should do in bed.
Looking at it from another perspective, it means that this type of men may also begin to look at potential partners as sex objects, treating real women in the same way as the women they see treated in porn flicks. As in one scene in "Don Jon", the protagonist makes his sex partner feels as though he was using her body to masturbate instead of his hand: this is the narcissistic psychopath's definition of "sex". It is typical with anyone who has had sex with a "sexual psychopath": it's less "making love", as the psychopath "jerking off into someone's body". The other person is made to feel like a tool to bring about the psychopath's enjoyment.
It goes without saying that a "sexual psychopath", lacking empathy, is therefore lacking in "love". They will say the words, but not understand the meaning. The "sexualisation" of modern life is also blamed indirectly for this, too. Because of the widespread availability of porn, and its easy accessibility to teenagers, it means that teenage boys also are influenced by this impersonal and superficial representation of sex at a formative age.
Apart from the usual hormones that rush around a teenagers body, "sexualisation" creates an environment cynical towards sex as something to be discovered through a longer-term relationship. It encourages teenage boys to make explicit and highly inappropriate comments to girls, which will only increase the cynicism on both sides. It helps to feed a vicious circle of misogyny on the male side, and a more virulent strain of feminism from the women.
This last point is instructive, as the same "vicious circle" of male misogyny and female ambivalence is evident in many conservative societies around the world. But how can strongly conservative and strongly permissive societies both have "problems" with pornography?
The answer may be that, from an environmental point of view, "sexual psychopathy" (or "sexual sociopathy"), is more prevalent in socially-extreme environments. The only difference is the cause: the effect is the same. Misogyny can been seen as a scourge in both the "godless" West as the "God-fearing" East.
In the West (e.g. The USA), sexual psychopathy manifests itself as guiltless promiscuity and the phenomenon of countless fatherless children, and is usually put down to an unstable childhood and a gradual emotional disconnect between the man and the woman.
In the East (e.g. Pakistan), sexual psychopathy manifests itself as rape and domestic violence within the home, and can be explained through a social environment where men and women are socially prohibited from normal sexual relations, and are compelled to marry someone they have no emotional connection with.
So far, no-one has come up with a solution to the problem.
You can read more about the relationship between psychopathy and human relationships here.
I've written before about the main attributes of psychopathy. It is also known as "sociopathy" (which is more commonly used when emphasizing environmental factors, whereas "psychopathy is more about biological factors). Lack of empathy, superficiality in relationships and sex, using their partner as a tool to sexually control, and a fascination with more perverted forms of pornography, are some of the main characteristics of the "sexual psychopath".
The "sexualisation" of modern culture has been written about time and time again, from the increasing sexually-graphic music videos (from Rihanna to Britney Spears) in the public domain, and the growth of the availability and increasing perversity of pornography over the last two decades (due to the internet) have been consistently held to blame.
As the article in "The Telegraph" points out, your brain reacts to stimuli, so over time, if your brain gets used to being stimulated by "extreme" stimuli, these "extremes" will become less stimulating, leaving the brain requiring greater "extremes" to reproduce the same effect. Men who look at porn too much to get their kicks, will therefore become inevitably in need of more bizarre and "extreme" forms of porn.
Sex as masturbation
Pornography also creates a "disconnect" between the ultra-stimulating "porn world" and the more "mundane" real world. Put into practice (and supported by anecdotal evidence), this means that men who watch excessive amounts of porn begin to have unrealistic ideas about what their future dates and partners should do in bed.
Looking at it from another perspective, it means that this type of men may also begin to look at potential partners as sex objects, treating real women in the same way as the women they see treated in porn flicks. As in one scene in "Don Jon", the protagonist makes his sex partner feels as though he was using her body to masturbate instead of his hand: this is the narcissistic psychopath's definition of "sex". It is typical with anyone who has had sex with a "sexual psychopath": it's less "making love", as the psychopath "jerking off into someone's body". The other person is made to feel like a tool to bring about the psychopath's enjoyment.
It goes without saying that a "sexual psychopath", lacking empathy, is therefore lacking in "love". They will say the words, but not understand the meaning. The "sexualisation" of modern life is also blamed indirectly for this, too. Because of the widespread availability of porn, and its easy accessibility to teenagers, it means that teenage boys also are influenced by this impersonal and superficial representation of sex at a formative age.
Apart from the usual hormones that rush around a teenagers body, "sexualisation" creates an environment cynical towards sex as something to be discovered through a longer-term relationship. It encourages teenage boys to make explicit and highly inappropriate comments to girls, which will only increase the cynicism on both sides. It helps to feed a vicious circle of misogyny on the male side, and a more virulent strain of feminism from the women.
This last point is instructive, as the same "vicious circle" of male misogyny and female ambivalence is evident in many conservative societies around the world. But how can strongly conservative and strongly permissive societies both have "problems" with pornography?
The answer may be that, from an environmental point of view, "sexual psychopathy" (or "sexual sociopathy"), is more prevalent in socially-extreme environments. The only difference is the cause: the effect is the same. Misogyny can been seen as a scourge in both the "godless" West as the "God-fearing" East.
In the West (e.g. The USA), sexual psychopathy manifests itself as guiltless promiscuity and the phenomenon of countless fatherless children, and is usually put down to an unstable childhood and a gradual emotional disconnect between the man and the woman.
In the East (e.g. Pakistan), sexual psychopathy manifests itself as rape and domestic violence within the home, and can be explained through a social environment where men and women are socially prohibited from normal sexual relations, and are compelled to marry someone they have no emotional connection with.
So far, no-one has come up with a solution to the problem.
You can read more about the relationship between psychopathy and human relationships here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)