Sunday, July 31, 2011

What Hugo Schwyzer Needs is a Good Dominatrix

In a stunning display of outright hypocrisy, Hugo Schwyzer, a noted castrati,* argues within the span of nine days (that’s right, nine days) that men have an obligation to inform the women in their lives that they use pornography and then to dutifully suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous neo-Victorian fury appropriate to such delicate feminine sensibilities; yet, on the other hand, women have no obligation to tell their partners that they’ve been fucking other men, resulting in said men having been cuckolded (“I may have a son, but I’ll never know for sure”)

“…Of course, not every single man uses porn or buys sex in other forms. But a great many do, as Newsweek reminds us, and they do include husbands and boyfriends, brothers and fathers, bosses and teachers, coaches and co-workers. That so many women are unsettled by that reality is as much a reflection of what they don't know about the men in their lives as what they do… (<<--I love this sentence.  Please keep it in mind when reading his take about things that men don't know about the women in their lives that make them "unsettled.")

…I've heard from many guys who tell me that they lie about porn (and the other kinds of sex they may buy) because, as one put it to me, "women go ballistic when you tell them the truth." But it's not women's job to ratchet down their anger in order to make it safe for men to get real. We owe it to the women we love — and to ourselves — to have the courage to name what it is we're doing and how often we're doing it.”  (Link Cite)

As Dan Savage succinctly put it in his discussion about our castrati:

“So... husbands and boyfriends, brothers (!) and fathers (!!), bosses (!!!) and teachers (!!!!), coaches (!!!!!) and coworkers (!!!!!!) have a responsibility to be honest with the women in their lives about their porn use. But women can't be asked to 'ratchet down their anger' when they're told the truth—indeed, they have a right to be furious, and you should stand there and take it, you sex maniac. You tell the truth, she goes ballistic—got it, guys?

Sometimes I'm so glad that my wife is a man.”  (Link Cite)

At a time when rape victims are having to pay child support to their rapists (Link Cite), Schwzyer crows that he has happily, though not assuredly, allowed another man to raise his child and thereby relieved himself of any responsibility because, “I wasn’t in love with Jill and wasn’t ready to be a parent.”  Not only that, he boasts, “I may or may not have other children ‘out there.’”  Let’s put this into context.  Schywzyer is taking responsibility for NOT ONE child that he may have fathered outside of his marriage.  He is content to wax revoltingly, “The solution is to remember that it is love, not sperm, that makes a great dad.”  His excuse is that, if another man is raising some progeny of his, that’s really okie dokie with him.  For him to have argued otherwise would necessarily implicate himself as a piece-of-shit, which is exactly what he would be if any of his stories contained a grain of truth.  His argument also misses the point that if any of these potential children of his don’t have other men taking care of them, then his own failure to support them is not being mitigated by the unwary, and so suffer the little children.  What about them, Schwyzer?  “Fuck them” is obviously his answer.  This means that he is a piece-of-shit anyway.  Of course, the truth is that there is almost assuredly no Jill, or Ted or Alastair, or any other kids, as I argue below.

In his ridiculous follow-up to “I may have a son,” Schwyzer acknowledges that being cuckolded is a “profound” fear for some men.  He then goes on to dismiss such fear by saying that he has “nothing but contempt” for such men. (Link Cite)

This of course contradicts his analysis of women getting angry about pornography, “…it's not women's job to ratchet down their anger…”

All that having been said, the true purpose of this piece is not to discuss the too easily demonstrated hypocrisy, and straight out mendacity, of Hugo Schwyzer.  He is obviously a fraud of an intellectual and a pseudo professor at a community college.  Instead, my purpose is to pose (then answer) the question, “How can Schwyzer possibly reconcile his two obviously contradictory arguments, in the name of equality?”

The answer is that he cannot.  I hypothesize that it is not even really his purpose to do so. My argument is that Schwyzer and his purported world view, and in fact his entire self described philosophy is based NOT upon equality, nor even feminism, though he uses that euphemism to cloak his own little fetish.  Hugo Schwyzer is a submissive, whose fantasy includes female domination.

I have had a great deal of experience in the BDSM scenes in both San Francisco and New York.  I have experienced both men and women.  I have met a lot of people into a lot of kinky stuff.  Although personally not a masochist, it certainly has given me a new perspective on life having been whipped into semi-consciousness, or having sustained real injuries from the lifestyle.  I hypothesize that Hugo Schwyzer is a submissive, whose shame prevents him from exercising his fetish, and therefore it manifests itself into his work as he describes a world he wished existed; a female dominated society.  Although Schwyzer argues that masculinity has to be changed, what he is really attempting to do is convince women to behave is such a fashion to satisfy his kink.  Such behavior in the BDSM community is called "topping from the bottom."  Because he is anti-porn, he cannot indulge his fantasy (and temporarily cure his self-described erectile dysfunction) with the aid of the much maligned and ubiquitous fantasy material so easily available to we sane people.

My opinion is also based upon my perception that he has profoundly low self esteem.  Looking at his “I may have a son” scenario, and in fact his whole “I am a recovered addict” shtick, you’ll notice that his stories of self actualization describe his prior life with examples of traditional success as a man, including bedding scores of broads.  He wants us to believe he was “the man,” that men should envy.  It also serves as a message to women who buy his bologna, “Yes, I am an exciting bad boy under this new found sheen of enlightenment.”  He attempts to imbue himself with a type of masculinity that gives romance novels their punch-lines; a bad boy reformed by the mysterious ways of women.  The problem is that his self-description is a façade.  In reality, it is much more likely that he is a conformist whose internal conflicts would better be handled by a good dominatrix.

* Castrato, as Schwyzer points out, is actually the singular form.  And he should know.


  1. Great post Ma99ie

  2. The man once compared me to a member of the clan, so me defending him is hard. You need a better argument if you think all he wants is a really good whipping.I want to agree with you, as it follows similar patterns to the anti-gay crusaders who have the rent boys, but I need something stronger (hint hint-write another piece with lots more detail about psychology and BDSM regarding schwyzer, kimell, etc)

    That being said if i was in a relationship and someone asked if i was watching porn, I would say yes regardless of what they thought. I probably wouldn't stop either. Its the 21st fucking century and people need to get with the times. If she wants to be in denial about what I do, thats her problem. And yes, maybe if women were a little more relaxed about it then it would be easier to come clean about (maybe not with mothers), but I am not going to change my views to make others more comfortable.

  3. How is a person who has a doctorate and teaches at a college a "pseudo" professor?

  4. A fantasy of female domination? Right. Ok there, Sigmund Fraud...

    It's posts like this that remind me why psychoanalysis, a pseudo science, has lost so much credibility and respect.

  5. Obviously, the most professional way to disagree with someone is to write a blog jeremiad about him having BDSM fantasies rather than confronting the actual arguments he puts forward. This is pathetic. I even disagree with Schwyzer on this subject, but that doesn't mean I'm going to make a bizarre and baseless claim about his sexual desires. Reactionary and lacking context, this is as immature as the children who use secret homosexual fantasies as the highest form of insult to one another.

  6. @Anon:

    No, I agree with Magdylen that Hugo needs a dominatrix. In fact, the whole wide world needs to be his "dominatrix", and I will "dom" him a little bit myself, when I get a chance. (i.e. give him shit.)

    By writing this post, Magdylen was putting into practice the thesis which the post proffers.

  7. Psychoanalysis gives its philosophers licenses to arrive at predetermined conclusions through various methods without any thought of interference. Some of the most narcissistic people I've known were psychoanalysts whose dogmatic and biased personalities were the most sophisticated defense mechanism I ever saw. This article is rubbish.

  8. Fidelbogen, you're kinda my hero right now

    Id offer to Domme him but he's not ready for that steps Hugo, baby steps...

  9. ...actually, I already did blogDomme him, Evilpundit quoted me here (look for where he refers to the "epic putdown of Hugo Schwyzer)

  10. Hiya Natasha. I like your "epic put down." If you wanna, I could use it in a post, and credit you. You wanna?

  11. As a switch male (not bisexual - I top and bottom with females only) who does love dommes I find this psychoanalysis unconvincing yet plausible. It's true that some of the biggest self-loathing men in the world tend to be feminists and that there is an intersection between female supremacist males (most of whom have the fetish) and feminist males. That being said, it's not 100 percent.


  12. Nice article! I'm sure he'll love it!