- Joined
- Feb 25, 2021
The bureaucratic mechanism exists already, too. In the US, just add them to the same REMS protocol that's already in place for women taking Accutane for acne or thalidomide for cancer/leprosy.
💬 Off-Topic Random Trans Thoughts, Musings, and Questions - For all your armchair psych and general sperging
- Thread starter AMHOLIO
- Start date
-
🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2025
But that'd be part of the TRUE & HONEST genocide happening against all the trannies, as has been scientifically determined by the experts!
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2025
I don't know guys, you'd think birthing a baby would be very dysphoria inducing and not gender affirming since men don't get preggers. Surely pooners would take every measur to avoid this for their precarious mental state. Oh, right, it's all bullshit. Silly me.
- Joined
- May 7, 2025
These are the same people who started the saying "Men can get pregnant too!"
And some of them genuinely think that testosterone works like birth control and that they can't get pregnant on it. I wonder what's going to happen when everyone realizes it's all bullshit and has been the entire time.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
Has anyone else been encountering trannies when calling customer service numbers? I'll hear what is obviously a gay male voice introduce themselves with a womans name. I will say they are usually very pleasant and get what I need done, but I'll take literally anything over a jeet so the bar is low.
Jacques1194
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2023
Their argument from what I've seen is that "Pregnancy has nothing to do with gender" Hell, I remember a magazine cover by this one TIF where she said "Giving birth was the most manliness thing" she ever did. That whole thing woke me up and realized that transgenderism is bullshit because its literally the number one contradiction I've seen with the movement where its like "Trans women need womb transplants to affirm their gender identities, but also, pregnancy has nothing to do with gender" Which is it?
Lain The Tranny Beater
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2021
I heard so many stories of tifs chimping the fuck out because the nurses would call them mom during their OBGYN visits. One in particular got really butthurt because it repeatedly happened leading up to the actual birth. How cruel. It's almost like giving birth is the one thing women can do that men can't. It doesn't matter how much HRT these pooners take. The moment you're pregnant is the moment everyone universally agrees you're a woman. No matter how hard they try to change the language of pregnancy, they will always be a woman. Even their fellow troons consider them women. They get particularly nasty when a pooners tries to say otherwise about pregnancy.
Wait until their kids find out that only women can have babies. They'll never hear the end of 'mom' once again.
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2025
Sometime ago I stumbled upon the work of a Danish artist by the name of Ovartaci (born Louis Marcussen, 1894-1985). He'd spent 56 years as a patient at a psychiatric hospital due to severe schizophrenia, which I believe is the longest institutionalisation ever recorded.
Up until the early 2020s he's relatively unknown outside of particular circles, as he exclusively created art within his institutionalisation and never intended for them to be publicised for consumption. Of relevance to this thread is the fact that Ovartaci was transgender. I say "was" here not because he had passed away, but because he changed his mind shortly before his death.
A short rundown of Ovartaci's transgender identity:
I've also provided some of Ovartaci's work below, for your convenience.
Up until the early 2020s he's relatively unknown outside of particular circles, as he exclusively created art within his institutionalisation and never intended for them to be publicised for consumption. Of relevance to this thread is the fact that Ovartaci was transgender. I say "was" here not because he had passed away, but because he changed his mind shortly before his death.
A short rundown of Ovartaci's transgender identity:
- He requested removal of his penis in 1951, due to severe distress regarding intrusive sexual urges directed at women, despite being chemically castrated. This was denied, and in 1954 he tried to amputate his penis with a razor blade, which he was unable to carry out
- Later that 1954 he removed his penis at a metal workshop in the psychiatric hospital (Danish institutions took the approach of facilitating a productive life for its patients, considered revolutionary at the time, hence why there was a metal workshop he could access)
- In two phases in 1955 and 1957, Ovartaci underwent surgery for a vaginoplasty
- From 1972 he insists to be perceived and addressed as a man, quoted to say "My name is Louis Marcussen - and I am a man's man"
I've also provided some of Ovartaci's work below, for your convenience.
When Ovartaci took matters into his own hands - About sexuality and self-harm
Bo Moehl
Sep 7, 2022
On July 23, 1954, Louis Marcussen, who we know as Ovartaci, cut off and thus removed his penis with a planer in the metalworking workshop at the Psychiatric Hospital, Risskov, where he had been hospitalized for about 25 years at that time. Ovartaci's dramatic act was the culmination of several years of struggle with strong intrusive sexual urges directed at women. As early as 1951, he had requested to be castrated, which he was, but this did not give him the peace he had hoped for. He still experienced a strong and visible attraction to the female body [1]. He subsequently requested to have his penis removed, but this request was not granted. In 1954, Ovartaci himself tried to amputate his penis with a razor blade, but "his courage fails him and the result is only a flesh wound" [1], after which in July of the same year he carried out the final removal of his penis with a planer.
He suffered from schizophrenia and had had severe identity problems since his early youth, including around his gender and sexuality. Ovartaci believed that in several of his previous incarnations he had been a woman, but in this life he suffered from his sexual reactions as a man and not least from the lack of control over his erection, which he struggled with:
"Being a man is so terrible – When you see a pair of women's legs, etc. – it immediately reacts inside you. I hate this not being able to control your body! (…) I don't want it to happen that the penis gets up. It must not do so before engagement – before agreement – before the woman says: 'Come to me'. When the woman herself says that it must happen, then it must stand – not before" [2 p. 285].
Women were a central motif in many of Ovartaci's paintings, and it is clear from these that he had a very ambivalent relationship with the feminine. On the one hand, women are portrayed as something idealized and pure in the form of androgynous asexual figures, where gender is literally absent and replaced by a white unpainted area. Purely psychologically, Ovartaci believed that one should strive to realize the feminine, which in his opinion characterizes "the real human being". Chief physician Johannes Nielsen (1924-2017), who was not only his psychiatrist at the Psychiatric Hospital, Risskov, but also a good friend of Ovartaci, interprets his long series of depictions of women as "a tribute to women" [3].
On the other hand, gender and sexuality are not toned down or absent in all of his depictions of women. In an analysis of one of his pictures, where a number of women wearing stiletto-heeled shoes emerge from a tunnel, Krag points to a possible interpretation, namely that a metamorphosis occurs “from stiletto to animal hoof” [4 p. 18], as the stiletto increasingly takes on the form of an animal hoof, which suggests two basic motifs in Ovartaci’s art: the animal and the woman [4 p. 18]. Kragh further writes that Ovartaci’s picture in no way “depicts a de-eroticized body. Quite the opposite” [4 p. 18], and the dangerous, animal sexuality was absolutely present in Ovartaci’s art. For example, he has made several life-size sculptures of women, with whom he also had a decidedly erotic relationship, which was provocative for some of the staff, who found it repulsive [5 p. 23].
The ambivalent relationship to sexuality in his art is thought-provoking. Perhaps Ovartaci's artistic production has at times been an opportunity to sublimate his sexuality, while at others, when his sexuality has been too persistent and too difficult to control/sublimate, it has been an opportunity for a more direct expression of his sexual drive or urge?
That control and mastery have been a theme in Ovartaci's life is evident in a conversation with Johannes Nielsen, where Ovartaci says that he practiced yoga because "yogis must be able to do it - yogis can do it. (…) An inner mastery of all the forces that exist in man. (…) One must not think wrong - one must not act wrong (…)" [2 p. 285]. Here one gets a clear sense of the great demands that Ovartaci placed on himself with regard to mastering his sexuality.
Regarding his penis cutting, Ovartaci has said, “I have never, ever regretted it – never regretted it – never regretted it. I am better off. I am feminine underneath and I am completely better off” [2 p. 285]. Overtaci has thus achieved relief from his sexual anguish, and perhaps he is relieved both because he has gotten rid of what physically defines a man, and thus come closer to the feminine, but also because he has gotten rid of “animal” sexuality?
After the removal of the penis, Ovartaci's focus shifts from the de-selection of the masculine to the selection of the feminine. His dream was pure spiritual love, where physical sexuality was absent. He thus had difficulty with physical sexuality, and he did not want to be desired as a woman by men. In two phases in 1955 and 1957, Ovartaci had a vagina created, thus undergoing a full sex reassignment operation [1].
Ovartaci was now 63 years old and lived the next 15 years as a woman, wearing women's clothing and wanting to be transferred to the women's ward at the hospital and addressed as "Miss". But the tormenting gender ambivalence did not disappear. On several occasions, Ovartaci is said to have told the staff at Risskov that he actually regretted his sex reassignment surgery, including the words: "You don't become a woman by doing...", and from 1972 he again wanted to be perceived and addressed as a man. "My name is Louis Marcussen - and I am a man's man" [1]. He thus died with his original gender, but without the insistent, disturbing and visible reminder of his sexuality that his penis represented for him.
SELF-INJURY
As with all other forms of direct self-harm, Overtaci was driven by a desire to feel better or to avoid something worse than losing his penis. We do not know for sure what exactly drove him to remove his penis, but conflicts with his biological sex and not least with the masculine, animal sexuality that he felt was overwhelming and wrong, played a role. Although it may be difficult to completely distinguish one from the other, the question is whether Ovartaci's self-harming act should primarily be seen as a choice of the feminine (a desire to be a woman), which for him is associated with something sublime and asexual, or whether it was an attempt to get rid of the intrusive masculine sexuality, i.e. a choice that motivated him to remove his penis? Both motives point towards extreme conflicts with sexuality. Perhaps he had feelings of guilt about his sexual urges? Perhaps he had delusions and heard voices ordering him to get rid of his penis? Perhaps he was afraid of losing control of his sexual urges, which is why he hoped to put a definitive end to them by amputating his penis?
Most of us will go to great lengths to avoid pain and mutilation of our bodies, but for the person who intentionally harms themselves, the self-harm is meaningful and has a function in light of the surrounding society and the person's situation [6]. In our day and age, when we have become much more liberal about sexuality and sexual desire, serious self-inflicted injury to the penis is extremely rare [7], and when it does occur, it is often in the context of psychosis or gender dysphoria, but this has not always been the case.
Ovartaci grew up as a young man in a period when sexuality, and not least masturbation, was perceived as something very destructive and downright dangerous. In his conversations with Johannes Nielsen, Ovartaci only speaks in passing about sexuality, for example when he says that he was in an “establishment with some very young girls. I had noticed them. I went there and danced – that kind of dance – at night and slept with her (…)” [2 p. 52]. Perhaps this is a fantasy or hallucination about him having sex with a prostitute: “Yes, I had to pay for it, but not very much. It was terribly cheap. (…) but resisting it – no, I didn’t” [2 p. 52].
SECRET POEMS
As far as I know, Ovartaci has not spoken about his thoughts or experiences with masturbation, which at that time – even for psychiatric patients – would have been quite transgressive and for most people associated with great guilt. Perhaps in his poems, which were found hidden in the head of one of his sculptures, Pupparpasta, written in Spanish and published under the title »Ovartaci's secrets« [8], one can find allusions to some strong inner forces that are difficult to control? I will just mention a few examples from his poems, e.g. poem no. 2, where a giving »wise woman« came to the first person of the poem, who formulates
(…)
Believe
through perseverance and experience
on the miracles through the strength of the soul,
but also believe in
unprecedented,
that I must be firm and steadfast
(…)
From this excerpt from the poem it is clear that the I-person must be firm and steadfast without precedent . The I-person has previously given in to his urges and has thereby failed to be abstinent. This statement could perhaps apply to Ovartaci and probably most younger men.
In the following poem (no. 3.), which deals with life on earth as suffering, Ovartaci writes about
(…..)
mortal fear of the damp poison.
Anxiety
for illness,
epidemic.
( .… )
Anxiety
for the consequence
of his decision,
and it hurts to be apart,
when there is love,
and it hurts to be connected to something
ugly and disgusting.
(…)
From this excerpt from poem no. 3, one could read about the fear of the moist poison (ejaculate?), a disease that in the Victorian period was seen as a consequence of masturbation, which is practiced separately and gives the experience of being something ugly and disgusting.
The last formulations appear almost like euphemisms in relation to what doctors and sexual counselors have said about masturbation during the period when Ovartaci was born and grew up, but I will return to that below.
It is not inconceivable that Ovartaci was influenced by one of the most enduring myths in the history of medicine, which caused some men, especially in the 19th century, to intentionally harm themselves by castrating themselves and/or removing their penises. They did this to protect themselves from something even worse, namely masturbation, which, according to the authorities of the time, caused both physical and psychological suffering far exceeding what Ovartaci experienced in connection with his self-harming act.
INTENTIONAL DAMAGE TO GENITAL ORGANS
In her fascinating treatise on the history of self-harm, the British historian Sarah Chaney [9] has, among other things, dealt with intentional damage to the genitals of both men and women. Although self-harm probably occurs at all times, it cannot be seen as a transhistorical phenomenon that always has the same meaning. Inspired by Gilman [10], she points out that we are unable to understand self-harm carried out in a time period other than our own from a modern perspective. Every time has its own forms of self-harm, which only make sense when we see them in the light of the time in which they occur.
Chaney [9] points out that for various reasons there has been an increased incidence of intentional damage to the genitals in two periods, namely in the second and third centuries after the birth of Christ and in the Victorian period in the second half of the 19th century. In the first period castration was carried out for religious and perhaps artistic reasons, as many boys were castrated before the voice entered the transition, in order to preserve a bright singing voice, while in the Victorian period it was the fear of uncontrollable sexuality and the consequences of masturbation that was the dominant motive for damaging the genitals. It is the culture of the Victorian era in particular that is relevant to look at in more detail to gain a better understanding of Ovartaci's self-harming act.
THE MASTURBATION HYPOTHESIS
In 1883, James Adam, the senior physician at the Crichton Royal Institution and Southern Counties Asylum, published an article reviewing several cases of genital self-harm due to masturbation. Among other things, he describes an 18-year-old farmer who was admitted on 12 March 1883 after having removed his penis with a sharp penknife. He is described as lucid and collected on admission, although he was somewhat discouraged and repeatedly expressed regret for what he had done. The patient admitted that he had masturbated and believed that it was his duty to remove his penis to prevent further masturbation [11]. From a modern perspective, the patient's action seems like a completely irrational and incomprehensible reaction to a harmless occurrence like masturbation, but in the Victorian period masturbation was certainly not perceived as harmless.
The Case of Isaac Brooks from 1879 is another spectacular case that also quickly became the subject of considerable coverage in the English media of the time [12]. It concerns a 29-year-old farmer, Isaac Brooks, from Leek in Staffordshire, who contacted his local doctor on 5 December 1879 because he had suffered a cut on his scrotum, from which one of his testicles was protruding. When asked about the background to this injury, Brooks said that he had been attacked and injured by three men. He identified them as local farmers, and two of them were sentenced to ten years in prison. Just over a year later, on 13 February 1881, the doctor was called again. The patient had a similar injury with a large open wound on his scrotum. The patient was forced to say that he had been attacked by four men, whose names he would not give. On his deathbed shortly after the second injury, Brooks made a confession that exonerated the local farmers who had been accused of assaulting him, because he admitted to having done it himself [13].
The case was not made public until after Brooks' death and caused a stir not so much because of the false accusations but because the public was interested in understanding the background to his behavior. In a comment on the Brooks case, an anonymous doctor wrote in The Lancet that this was not an isolated case: “[t]here are many well-authenticated cases of youths and men of all ages who have sometimes successfully, at others unsuccessfully, performed this painful operation upon themselves” (quoted from [14 p. 285]). It is not known how many actually occurred, but in the wake of the Brooks case, quite a few medical articles were published about men who had completely or partially castrated themselves. One explanation for this is the view of masturbation at the time.
Many men are undoubtedly aware that frequent sexual activity can cause a feeling of relaxation and fatigue. Since Hippocrates, this has been interpreted as lethargy, contributing to the view that excessive sexual activity and “loss of semen” are harmful to health [14]. This was the dominant understanding at the beginning of the 18th century, when the famous Dutch physician Hermann Boerhaave (1688-173
described that frequent ejaculation could cause fatigue, weakness, inhibition of movements, cramps, emaciation, dryness, heat and pain in the meninges with sensory disturbances, especially affecting vision, spinal cord erosion and stupidity [15] (quoted from [14 p. 2]). Masturbation was not mentioned as particularly dangerous, but this changed.
The major breakthrough for the masturbation hypothesis – that masturbation is harmful to the mind and body – came with an anonymous publication, printed in London in 1712, entitled Onania, or The Heinous Sin of Self-pollution, which went through many editions [16]. The author of Onania was the first to use the word onani synonymously with masturbation and “self-abuse”, which we have called selvbesmitelse in Danish.
It is not clear who wrote Onania. He may not have been a physician, and the book's message was not recognized by professionals until an undisputed medical authority, the Swiss physician Samuel Auguste Tissot (1728-1797), published Onanism, or, A Treatise upon the Disorders Produced by Masturbation [17] in 1758, which largely vindicated the anonymous author of Onania. Tissot wrote that any form of sexual debauchery, but especially "solitary sex," was harmful to health and could result in insanity. Tissot explained this with »loss of semen«, which from a humoral pathological understanding brought about disturbances in the balance between body fluids, and with the fact that sexual activity increased the amount of blood to the brain “the increase of blood explains how these excesses produce insanity. The quantity of blood distending the nerves weakens them; and they are less able to resist impressions, whereby they are enfeebled” (quoted from [14 p. 3]).
The volume of both scientific and popular publications supporting the masturbation hypothesis increased dramatically throughout Europe and the United States in the years following Tissot's publication. For a summary of publications in this country from 1785-1870, see [18, 19].
Another authoritative physician who came to influence the discussion of masturbation was the French psychiatrist Jean-Étienne Dominique Esquirol (1772–1840). In the first edition of his 1816 textbook, Maladies Mentales, he wrote that “masturbation is recognized in all countries as a common cause of insanity” [20]. He did not have a theory about why masturbation led to insanity, but compared it to alcohol abuse: “these two exhaust the faculties and lead to apathy and hopelessness” (quoted from [14 p. 4]). Relatively quickly, it became the dominant view among doctors, health prophets, educators, and clergy in the United States and Europe that masturbation led to insanity, suicide, and early death.
The idea of a causal relationship between mental illness and masturbation gained momentum in the 19th century, when a large number of psychiatric asylums were opened, which made it possible to observe the occurrence of frequent and overt masturbation, which was not known much at the time in the mentally healthy [21].
MASTURBATORY INSANITY
The first physician to propose that masturbation caused a special form of insanity was the Scotsman David Skae (1814–1873), chief physician at the Royal Edinburgh Asylum and author of Classification of the Various Forms of Insanity on a Rational and Practical Basis (1863). He described a series of symptoms that he believed primarily affected younger people. The symptoms in younger victims of the disease were a peculiar simplicity (imbecility) and shyness, while in older victims they were suspiciousness, fear, horror and suicidal impulses, as well as anxious looks and weak bodies, gradually progressing to dementia and lack of energy [22]. Esquirol had previously written that insanity caused by masturbation was characterized by a poor prognosis and early degeneration into dementia [20].
The American psychiatrist Edward Charles Spitzka (1852-1914), who was a professor in New York and known as the author of Treatise on Insanity, Its Classification, Diagnosis and Treatment (1883), described much the same picture of the disease, but with an emotional and condemnatory tone, which was not unusual in descriptions of masturbatory insanity: »the obtrusive selfishness, cunning, deception, maliciousness and cruelty of such patients« is of a nature such that even “the most kind hearted and philosophical alienist may find it impossible to reconcile himself to regarding them as anything else than repulsive eye-sores and a source of contamination to other patients, physically and morally” [23]. Patients with masturbatory insanity are perceived as selfish, cunning, deceitful, malicious and cruel to such a degree that they call for contempt [23].
According to Spitzka, masturbatory insanity usually debuted between the ages of 13 and 21 and was at least five times more common in men than in women, because the latter, he said, masturbated less frequently. It is striking that these two prominent psychiatrists, both of whom have dealt with psychiatric classification, from opposite sides of the Atlantic, have described masturbatory insanity with great authority, which was an unequivocal statement that it was taken seriously.
The renowned British psychiatrist Henry Maudsley (1835-191 also took masturbatory insanity extremely seriously. In an article from 1868 he wrote, among other things, about the chronic masturbator, for whom he did not see much hope: “nothing can be so reasonably desired as the end of it” (….) “the sooner he sinks to his degraded rest, the better for himself and the better for the world, which is well rid of him” [24] (quoted from [14 p. 21]). This statement from England’s and one of Europe’s most respected psychiatrists says a lot about how seriously masturbation was taken, and although Maudsley was not read by the general public, he has had a great influence on the medical understanding of masturbation and thus on the general attitude. In 1830, an anonymous book, “Le Livre Sans Titre” (The Book Without a Title), was published with a series of horrifying illustrations of the masturbator’s progressive condition and eventual death [25].
One factor that may have contributed to masturbation being attributed such a serious influence on the psychic habitus of the masturbator is that the symptoms described for masturbatory insanity largely correspond to what has later become known as »… the hebephrenic type of dementia praecox or of schizophrenia« [14]. In addition to the symptomatic similarity, masturbation is practiced most intensively during adolescence, and it is therefore likely that it will be observed when the actual mental illness of schizophrenia gradually reduces situational awareness and social inhibitions in the young person.
The Scottish physician James Copland (1791-1870) summarizes the contemporary view of masturbatory insanity as an etiological factor in his major work A dictionary of practical medicine (1844-5, that nothing causes insanity "so frequently or so certainly as masturbation" [26 p. 1303].
In psychiatric hospitals in Europe, masturbation was reported as a cause of mental illness and subsequent hospitalization in both sexes. Table 1 , based on publications from 1822 to 1896, shows that between 2% and 22% of patients in a number of psychiatric hospitals in France, Germany and the United States were hospitalized due to masturbation. These figures are by no means comprehensive, as diagnosis and calculations vary [14]. From Denmark, we have figures from Harald Selmer's studies of the Mental Hospital at Aarhus (later Psychiatric Hospital, Risskov, where Ovartaci was hospitalized in 1929), which show that masturbation was the cause of hospitalization in 71 patients from 1852 to 1877 (see Figure 1 and Figure 2 ) [27].
It had never been proven that masturbation could actually lead to mental illness, and the masturbation hypothesis thus rested solely on observations from psychiatric hospitals and on completely unsystematic assumptions that a current mental illness in a young person could be explained as a result of masturbation. Virtually everyone has been guilty of masturbation, and in the spirit of the times this was used as an explanation for almost every illness, but especially those that debut in adolescence.
FAITH IN THE MASTURBATION HYPOTHESIS IS FALLING
Towards the end of the 20th century, the belief in a causal relationship between masturbation and insanity began to waver, and several of the most prominent proponents of the masturbation hypothesis gradually moderated their assessment. For example, David Skae modified his view of the seriousness of the condition by describing that recovery from masturbatory insanity is possible with proper care and treatment in the initial phase [28], and the president of the Medico-Psychological Association Thomas Smith Clouston, who had previously been an advocate of the masturbation hypothesis, formulated himself very clearly in 1888: »no doubt in certain adolescent cases … constant masturbation tends strongly towards brain exhaustion and stupor and these conditions may end in dementia«, but added that dementia can occur without masturbation and that excessive masturbation does not necessarily lead to dementia. He therefore concluded that masturbation and dementia »cannot be put as cause and effect« [29 p. 325].
Henry Maudsley changed his view of masturbation and insanity, and his changed position reflects the development that took place in the British medical profession towards the turn of the century. His development is clearly traced in the different editions of his great work Pathology of the Mind, in which Maudsley revised his view of the importance of masturbation in the development of insanity, and according to Hare [14], he ends by writing that masturbation is »more a symptom than a cause« [30 p. 399].
Especially from the psychoanalytic point of view, towards the turn of the century there was a pronounced skepticism bordering on rejection of masturbation as a cause of insanity (e.g. [31]), but masturbation was not completely exonerated from having a harmful influence, as several authors did not believe that it could lead to neurasthenia (e.g. [32]).
The Victorian view of masturbation was included in psychiatric textbooks right up to the 1930s (e.g. [33 p. 200 and 34 p. 153]), but with the important addition that the harmful effect was not due to the act itself, but to the patient's and those around him/her's lack of knowledge and concerns about the consequences of masturbation. The masturbation hypothesis was never actually rejected as erroneous within the framework of the medical discourse of the time; its importance faded and it simply disappeared. But even if it disappeared, a negative and condemnatory myth about the harmful effects of masturbation had been created, which continued to be propagated well into the twentieth century by sex counselors, educators, school personnel, clergy, and concerned parents [18, 21].
WHY DID THE VICTORIAN VIEW OF MASTURBATION CONTINUE INTO THE TWENTIETH CENTURY?
The question now is whether these ideas about sexuality and masturbation, which culminated in the second half of the 19th century, could have had any influence on Ovartaci, who was born in 1894 and died in 1985? This cannot be ruled out in any way. It is documented that the sexual climate in which one grew up influences one's sexuality well into old age [35], so Ovartaci will almost inevitably have been influenced by the Victorian view of masturbation that characterized the time during his upbringing, even though the masturbation hypothesis had been abandoned by leading doctors.
In addition to the general factor that the sexual climate during an individual's upbringing influences them throughout their lives, there has undoubtedly been a tendency towards conservatism and caution when it comes to avoiding the serious ailments that medical descriptions have warned against. When such great medical authorities as Samuel Auguste Tissot, Jean-Étienne Dominique Esquirol, Henry Maudsley and here in Denmark Johan Clemens Tode (1736-1806), Frederik Ludvig Bang (1747-1820) and Rudolph Bergh (1824-1909) have pointed out the negative consequences of masturbation, which have even been followed up by numerous popular science writings with elaborate descriptions of the dangerous consequences of masturbation, it does not just disappear. Habits are tenacious, and paradoxically the masturbation hypothesis may have been almost self-confirming: It was a widespread belief that masturbation led to various mental and physical ailments, and even though there was no basis for this, it was nevertheless "confirmed" on an experiential level by those who had various ailments, such as depression, which they attributed to previous masturbation.
Another reason why the Victorian view of masturbation continued to play a major role in the twentieth century, when Ovartaci lived, is that it may be better to have a hypothesis than not to have one, or to use a twist on AN Whitehead's famous formulation, it is better to have a hypothesis that is applicable than that it is true. The masturbation hypothesis has been widely used and has resulted in educational guidelines and rules of conduct that have influenced generations. In addition to health and hygiene advice, such as fresh air, exercise, cold baths, sleeping with hands over the covers and clothing that made it impossible for the child to touch his genitals, various types of diet were developed that were supposed to reduce sexual desire. For example, the Presbyterian minister Sylvester Graham (1794-1851) and the American physician John Harvey Kellogg (1852-1943) developed graham crackers and cornflakes, respectively.
From the mid-18th century onwards, many highly mutilating methods were also developed to prevent masturbation. Etching of the clitoris and glans penis, perforation of the foreskin and insertion of material that would make it painful for masturbators, surgical removal of the clitoris and, in boys/men, castration and amputation of the penis are some of them. In addition, various remedies were invented that prevented the young man from touching his genitals or made it painful to get an erection. Figure 3 shows a ring with inward-facing spikes that was to be placed around the penis and awaken the young man when he got an erection at night [36].
It has actually been possible to do something to reduce masturbation in young people and thus, it was believed, avert the feared consequences of masturbation. This has undoubtedly contributed to keeping the maturation hypothesis alive among laypeople as well.
Finally, the restrictive attitude towards masturbation and other forms of non-reproductive sexuality is supported by Protestant ethics. Max Weber has described the demands of Protestant ethics for a disciplined and ascetic lifestyle as well as concentration, efficiency and productivity as the basis for the development of the capitalist world, where the individual sees his work as a calling [37]. The restrictive sexual morality can be seen as an adequate response to the industrialization's need for work and production – one must perform before one can enjoy the mindset – and Protestant ethics has characterized the ideal of masculinity from the end of the 19th and in large parts of the 20th century with the demand for self-control, which was also part of Ovartaci's project, namely to promote "... an inner mastery of all the forces that exist in man. (...) One must not think wrong – one must not act wrong (...)", as he formulated it to his psychiatrist Johannes Nielsen [2 p. 295].
The Protestant ethic continues to play a role in the Western world, although hedonism and sexual liberation since the material prosperity and increased productivity of the 1960s are now a more adequate response to capitalism's need for consumption and turnover.
Bo Moehl
Sep 7, 2022
On July 23, 1954, Louis Marcussen, who we know as Ovartaci, cut off and thus removed his penis with a planer in the metalworking workshop at the Psychiatric Hospital, Risskov, where he had been hospitalized for about 25 years at that time. Ovartaci's dramatic act was the culmination of several years of struggle with strong intrusive sexual urges directed at women. As early as 1951, he had requested to be castrated, which he was, but this did not give him the peace he had hoped for. He still experienced a strong and visible attraction to the female body [1]. He subsequently requested to have his penis removed, but this request was not granted. In 1954, Ovartaci himself tried to amputate his penis with a razor blade, but "his courage fails him and the result is only a flesh wound" [1], after which in July of the same year he carried out the final removal of his penis with a planer.
He suffered from schizophrenia and had had severe identity problems since his early youth, including around his gender and sexuality. Ovartaci believed that in several of his previous incarnations he had been a woman, but in this life he suffered from his sexual reactions as a man and not least from the lack of control over his erection, which he struggled with:
"Being a man is so terrible – When you see a pair of women's legs, etc. – it immediately reacts inside you. I hate this not being able to control your body! (…) I don't want it to happen that the penis gets up. It must not do so before engagement – before agreement – before the woman says: 'Come to me'. When the woman herself says that it must happen, then it must stand – not before" [2 p. 285].
Women were a central motif in many of Ovartaci's paintings, and it is clear from these that he had a very ambivalent relationship with the feminine. On the one hand, women are portrayed as something idealized and pure in the form of androgynous asexual figures, where gender is literally absent and replaced by a white unpainted area. Purely psychologically, Ovartaci believed that one should strive to realize the feminine, which in his opinion characterizes "the real human being". Chief physician Johannes Nielsen (1924-2017), who was not only his psychiatrist at the Psychiatric Hospital, Risskov, but also a good friend of Ovartaci, interprets his long series of depictions of women as "a tribute to women" [3].
On the other hand, gender and sexuality are not toned down or absent in all of his depictions of women. In an analysis of one of his pictures, where a number of women wearing stiletto-heeled shoes emerge from a tunnel, Krag points to a possible interpretation, namely that a metamorphosis occurs “from stiletto to animal hoof” [4 p. 18], as the stiletto increasingly takes on the form of an animal hoof, which suggests two basic motifs in Ovartaci’s art: the animal and the woman [4 p. 18]. Kragh further writes that Ovartaci’s picture in no way “depicts a de-eroticized body. Quite the opposite” [4 p. 18], and the dangerous, animal sexuality was absolutely present in Ovartaci’s art. For example, he has made several life-size sculptures of women, with whom he also had a decidedly erotic relationship, which was provocative for some of the staff, who found it repulsive [5 p. 23].
The ambivalent relationship to sexuality in his art is thought-provoking. Perhaps Ovartaci's artistic production has at times been an opportunity to sublimate his sexuality, while at others, when his sexuality has been too persistent and too difficult to control/sublimate, it has been an opportunity for a more direct expression of his sexual drive or urge?
That control and mastery have been a theme in Ovartaci's life is evident in a conversation with Johannes Nielsen, where Ovartaci says that he practiced yoga because "yogis must be able to do it - yogis can do it. (…) An inner mastery of all the forces that exist in man. (…) One must not think wrong - one must not act wrong (…)" [2 p. 285]. Here one gets a clear sense of the great demands that Ovartaci placed on himself with regard to mastering his sexuality.
Regarding his penis cutting, Ovartaci has said, “I have never, ever regretted it – never regretted it – never regretted it. I am better off. I am feminine underneath and I am completely better off” [2 p. 285]. Overtaci has thus achieved relief from his sexual anguish, and perhaps he is relieved both because he has gotten rid of what physically defines a man, and thus come closer to the feminine, but also because he has gotten rid of “animal” sexuality?
After the removal of the penis, Ovartaci's focus shifts from the de-selection of the masculine to the selection of the feminine. His dream was pure spiritual love, where physical sexuality was absent. He thus had difficulty with physical sexuality, and he did not want to be desired as a woman by men. In two phases in 1955 and 1957, Ovartaci had a vagina created, thus undergoing a full sex reassignment operation [1].
Ovartaci was now 63 years old and lived the next 15 years as a woman, wearing women's clothing and wanting to be transferred to the women's ward at the hospital and addressed as "Miss". But the tormenting gender ambivalence did not disappear. On several occasions, Ovartaci is said to have told the staff at Risskov that he actually regretted his sex reassignment surgery, including the words: "You don't become a woman by doing...", and from 1972 he again wanted to be perceived and addressed as a man. "My name is Louis Marcussen - and I am a man's man" [1]. He thus died with his original gender, but without the insistent, disturbing and visible reminder of his sexuality that his penis represented for him.
SELF-INJURY
As with all other forms of direct self-harm, Overtaci was driven by a desire to feel better or to avoid something worse than losing his penis. We do not know for sure what exactly drove him to remove his penis, but conflicts with his biological sex and not least with the masculine, animal sexuality that he felt was overwhelming and wrong, played a role. Although it may be difficult to completely distinguish one from the other, the question is whether Ovartaci's self-harming act should primarily be seen as a choice of the feminine (a desire to be a woman), which for him is associated with something sublime and asexual, or whether it was an attempt to get rid of the intrusive masculine sexuality, i.e. a choice that motivated him to remove his penis? Both motives point towards extreme conflicts with sexuality. Perhaps he had feelings of guilt about his sexual urges? Perhaps he had delusions and heard voices ordering him to get rid of his penis? Perhaps he was afraid of losing control of his sexual urges, which is why he hoped to put a definitive end to them by amputating his penis?
Most of us will go to great lengths to avoid pain and mutilation of our bodies, but for the person who intentionally harms themselves, the self-harm is meaningful and has a function in light of the surrounding society and the person's situation [6]. In our day and age, when we have become much more liberal about sexuality and sexual desire, serious self-inflicted injury to the penis is extremely rare [7], and when it does occur, it is often in the context of psychosis or gender dysphoria, but this has not always been the case.
Ovartaci grew up as a young man in a period when sexuality, and not least masturbation, was perceived as something very destructive and downright dangerous. In his conversations with Johannes Nielsen, Ovartaci only speaks in passing about sexuality, for example when he says that he was in an “establishment with some very young girls. I had noticed them. I went there and danced – that kind of dance – at night and slept with her (…)” [2 p. 52]. Perhaps this is a fantasy or hallucination about him having sex with a prostitute: “Yes, I had to pay for it, but not very much. It was terribly cheap. (…) but resisting it – no, I didn’t” [2 p. 52].
SECRET POEMS
As far as I know, Ovartaci has not spoken about his thoughts or experiences with masturbation, which at that time – even for psychiatric patients – would have been quite transgressive and for most people associated with great guilt. Perhaps in his poems, which were found hidden in the head of one of his sculptures, Pupparpasta, written in Spanish and published under the title »Ovartaci's secrets« [8], one can find allusions to some strong inner forces that are difficult to control? I will just mention a few examples from his poems, e.g. poem no. 2, where a giving »wise woman« came to the first person of the poem, who formulates
(…)
Believe
through perseverance and experience
on the miracles through the strength of the soul,
but also believe in
unprecedented,
that I must be firm and steadfast
(…)
From this excerpt from the poem it is clear that the I-person must be firm and steadfast without precedent . The I-person has previously given in to his urges and has thereby failed to be abstinent. This statement could perhaps apply to Ovartaci and probably most younger men.
In the following poem (no. 3.), which deals with life on earth as suffering, Ovartaci writes about
(…..)
mortal fear of the damp poison.
Anxiety
for illness,
epidemic.
( .… )
Anxiety
for the consequence
of his decision,
and it hurts to be apart,
when there is love,
and it hurts to be connected to something
ugly and disgusting.
(…)
From this excerpt from poem no. 3, one could read about the fear of the moist poison (ejaculate?), a disease that in the Victorian period was seen as a consequence of masturbation, which is practiced separately and gives the experience of being something ugly and disgusting.
The last formulations appear almost like euphemisms in relation to what doctors and sexual counselors have said about masturbation during the period when Ovartaci was born and grew up, but I will return to that below.
It is not inconceivable that Ovartaci was influenced by one of the most enduring myths in the history of medicine, which caused some men, especially in the 19th century, to intentionally harm themselves by castrating themselves and/or removing their penises. They did this to protect themselves from something even worse, namely masturbation, which, according to the authorities of the time, caused both physical and psychological suffering far exceeding what Ovartaci experienced in connection with his self-harming act.
INTENTIONAL DAMAGE TO GENITAL ORGANS
In her fascinating treatise on the history of self-harm, the British historian Sarah Chaney [9] has, among other things, dealt with intentional damage to the genitals of both men and women. Although self-harm probably occurs at all times, it cannot be seen as a transhistorical phenomenon that always has the same meaning. Inspired by Gilman [10], she points out that we are unable to understand self-harm carried out in a time period other than our own from a modern perspective. Every time has its own forms of self-harm, which only make sense when we see them in the light of the time in which they occur.
Chaney [9] points out that for various reasons there has been an increased incidence of intentional damage to the genitals in two periods, namely in the second and third centuries after the birth of Christ and in the Victorian period in the second half of the 19th century. In the first period castration was carried out for religious and perhaps artistic reasons, as many boys were castrated before the voice entered the transition, in order to preserve a bright singing voice, while in the Victorian period it was the fear of uncontrollable sexuality and the consequences of masturbation that was the dominant motive for damaging the genitals. It is the culture of the Victorian era in particular that is relevant to look at in more detail to gain a better understanding of Ovartaci's self-harming act.
THE MASTURBATION HYPOTHESIS
In 1883, James Adam, the senior physician at the Crichton Royal Institution and Southern Counties Asylum, published an article reviewing several cases of genital self-harm due to masturbation. Among other things, he describes an 18-year-old farmer who was admitted on 12 March 1883 after having removed his penis with a sharp penknife. He is described as lucid and collected on admission, although he was somewhat discouraged and repeatedly expressed regret for what he had done. The patient admitted that he had masturbated and believed that it was his duty to remove his penis to prevent further masturbation [11]. From a modern perspective, the patient's action seems like a completely irrational and incomprehensible reaction to a harmless occurrence like masturbation, but in the Victorian period masturbation was certainly not perceived as harmless.
The Case of Isaac Brooks from 1879 is another spectacular case that also quickly became the subject of considerable coverage in the English media of the time [12]. It concerns a 29-year-old farmer, Isaac Brooks, from Leek in Staffordshire, who contacted his local doctor on 5 December 1879 because he had suffered a cut on his scrotum, from which one of his testicles was protruding. When asked about the background to this injury, Brooks said that he had been attacked and injured by three men. He identified them as local farmers, and two of them were sentenced to ten years in prison. Just over a year later, on 13 February 1881, the doctor was called again. The patient had a similar injury with a large open wound on his scrotum. The patient was forced to say that he had been attacked by four men, whose names he would not give. On his deathbed shortly after the second injury, Brooks made a confession that exonerated the local farmers who had been accused of assaulting him, because he admitted to having done it himself [13].
The case was not made public until after Brooks' death and caused a stir not so much because of the false accusations but because the public was interested in understanding the background to his behavior. In a comment on the Brooks case, an anonymous doctor wrote in The Lancet that this was not an isolated case: “[t]here are many well-authenticated cases of youths and men of all ages who have sometimes successfully, at others unsuccessfully, performed this painful operation upon themselves” (quoted from [14 p. 285]). It is not known how many actually occurred, but in the wake of the Brooks case, quite a few medical articles were published about men who had completely or partially castrated themselves. One explanation for this is the view of masturbation at the time.
Many men are undoubtedly aware that frequent sexual activity can cause a feeling of relaxation and fatigue. Since Hippocrates, this has been interpreted as lethargy, contributing to the view that excessive sexual activity and “loss of semen” are harmful to health [14]. This was the dominant understanding at the beginning of the 18th century, when the famous Dutch physician Hermann Boerhaave (1688-173
described that frequent ejaculation could cause fatigue, weakness, inhibition of movements, cramps, emaciation, dryness, heat and pain in the meninges with sensory disturbances, especially affecting vision, spinal cord erosion and stupidity [15] (quoted from [14 p. 2]). Masturbation was not mentioned as particularly dangerous, but this changed.The major breakthrough for the masturbation hypothesis – that masturbation is harmful to the mind and body – came with an anonymous publication, printed in London in 1712, entitled Onania, or The Heinous Sin of Self-pollution, which went through many editions [16]. The author of Onania was the first to use the word onani synonymously with masturbation and “self-abuse”, which we have called selvbesmitelse in Danish.
It is not clear who wrote Onania. He may not have been a physician, and the book's message was not recognized by professionals until an undisputed medical authority, the Swiss physician Samuel Auguste Tissot (1728-1797), published Onanism, or, A Treatise upon the Disorders Produced by Masturbation [17] in 1758, which largely vindicated the anonymous author of Onania. Tissot wrote that any form of sexual debauchery, but especially "solitary sex," was harmful to health and could result in insanity. Tissot explained this with »loss of semen«, which from a humoral pathological understanding brought about disturbances in the balance between body fluids, and with the fact that sexual activity increased the amount of blood to the brain “the increase of blood explains how these excesses produce insanity. The quantity of blood distending the nerves weakens them; and they are less able to resist impressions, whereby they are enfeebled” (quoted from [14 p. 3]).
The volume of both scientific and popular publications supporting the masturbation hypothesis increased dramatically throughout Europe and the United States in the years following Tissot's publication. For a summary of publications in this country from 1785-1870, see [18, 19].
Another authoritative physician who came to influence the discussion of masturbation was the French psychiatrist Jean-Étienne Dominique Esquirol (1772–1840). In the first edition of his 1816 textbook, Maladies Mentales, he wrote that “masturbation is recognized in all countries as a common cause of insanity” [20]. He did not have a theory about why masturbation led to insanity, but compared it to alcohol abuse: “these two exhaust the faculties and lead to apathy and hopelessness” (quoted from [14 p. 4]). Relatively quickly, it became the dominant view among doctors, health prophets, educators, and clergy in the United States and Europe that masturbation led to insanity, suicide, and early death.
The idea of a causal relationship between mental illness and masturbation gained momentum in the 19th century, when a large number of psychiatric asylums were opened, which made it possible to observe the occurrence of frequent and overt masturbation, which was not known much at the time in the mentally healthy [21].
MASTURBATORY INSANITY
The first physician to propose that masturbation caused a special form of insanity was the Scotsman David Skae (1814–1873), chief physician at the Royal Edinburgh Asylum and author of Classification of the Various Forms of Insanity on a Rational and Practical Basis (1863). He described a series of symptoms that he believed primarily affected younger people. The symptoms in younger victims of the disease were a peculiar simplicity (imbecility) and shyness, while in older victims they were suspiciousness, fear, horror and suicidal impulses, as well as anxious looks and weak bodies, gradually progressing to dementia and lack of energy [22]. Esquirol had previously written that insanity caused by masturbation was characterized by a poor prognosis and early degeneration into dementia [20].
The American psychiatrist Edward Charles Spitzka (1852-1914), who was a professor in New York and known as the author of Treatise on Insanity, Its Classification, Diagnosis and Treatment (1883), described much the same picture of the disease, but with an emotional and condemnatory tone, which was not unusual in descriptions of masturbatory insanity: »the obtrusive selfishness, cunning, deception, maliciousness and cruelty of such patients« is of a nature such that even “the most kind hearted and philosophical alienist may find it impossible to reconcile himself to regarding them as anything else than repulsive eye-sores and a source of contamination to other patients, physically and morally” [23]. Patients with masturbatory insanity are perceived as selfish, cunning, deceitful, malicious and cruel to such a degree that they call for contempt [23].
According to Spitzka, masturbatory insanity usually debuted between the ages of 13 and 21 and was at least five times more common in men than in women, because the latter, he said, masturbated less frequently. It is striking that these two prominent psychiatrists, both of whom have dealt with psychiatric classification, from opposite sides of the Atlantic, have described masturbatory insanity with great authority, which was an unequivocal statement that it was taken seriously.
The renowned British psychiatrist Henry Maudsley (1835-191
also took masturbatory insanity extremely seriously. In an article from 1868 he wrote, among other things, about the chronic masturbator, for whom he did not see much hope: “nothing can be so reasonably desired as the end of it” (….) “the sooner he sinks to his degraded rest, the better for himself and the better for the world, which is well rid of him” [24] (quoted from [14 p. 21]). This statement from England’s and one of Europe’s most respected psychiatrists says a lot about how seriously masturbation was taken, and although Maudsley was not read by the general public, he has had a great influence on the medical understanding of masturbation and thus on the general attitude. In 1830, an anonymous book, “Le Livre Sans Titre” (The Book Without a Title), was published with a series of horrifying illustrations of the masturbator’s progressive condition and eventual death [25].One factor that may have contributed to masturbation being attributed such a serious influence on the psychic habitus of the masturbator is that the symptoms described for masturbatory insanity largely correspond to what has later become known as »… the hebephrenic type of dementia praecox or of schizophrenia« [14]. In addition to the symptomatic similarity, masturbation is practiced most intensively during adolescence, and it is therefore likely that it will be observed when the actual mental illness of schizophrenia gradually reduces situational awareness and social inhibitions in the young person.
The Scottish physician James Copland (1791-1870) summarizes the contemporary view of masturbatory insanity as an etiological factor in his major work A dictionary of practical medicine (1844-5
, that nothing causes insanity "so frequently or so certainly as masturbation" [26 p. 1303].In psychiatric hospitals in Europe, masturbation was reported as a cause of mental illness and subsequent hospitalization in both sexes. Table 1 , based on publications from 1822 to 1896, shows that between 2% and 22% of patients in a number of psychiatric hospitals in France, Germany and the United States were hospitalized due to masturbation. These figures are by no means comprehensive, as diagnosis and calculations vary [14]. From Denmark, we have figures from Harald Selmer's studies of the Mental Hospital at Aarhus (later Psychiatric Hospital, Risskov, where Ovartaci was hospitalized in 1929), which show that masturbation was the cause of hospitalization in 71 patients from 1852 to 1877 (see Figure 1 and Figure 2 ) [27].
It had never been proven that masturbation could actually lead to mental illness, and the masturbation hypothesis thus rested solely on observations from psychiatric hospitals and on completely unsystematic assumptions that a current mental illness in a young person could be explained as a result of masturbation. Virtually everyone has been guilty of masturbation, and in the spirit of the times this was used as an explanation for almost every illness, but especially those that debut in adolescence.
FAITH IN THE MASTURBATION HYPOTHESIS IS FALLING
Towards the end of the 20th century, the belief in a causal relationship between masturbation and insanity began to waver, and several of the most prominent proponents of the masturbation hypothesis gradually moderated their assessment. For example, David Skae modified his view of the seriousness of the condition by describing that recovery from masturbatory insanity is possible with proper care and treatment in the initial phase [28], and the president of the Medico-Psychological Association Thomas Smith Clouston, who had previously been an advocate of the masturbation hypothesis, formulated himself very clearly in 1888: »no doubt in certain adolescent cases … constant masturbation tends strongly towards brain exhaustion and stupor and these conditions may end in dementia«, but added that dementia can occur without masturbation and that excessive masturbation does not necessarily lead to dementia. He therefore concluded that masturbation and dementia »cannot be put as cause and effect« [29 p. 325].
Henry Maudsley changed his view of masturbation and insanity, and his changed position reflects the development that took place in the British medical profession towards the turn of the century. His development is clearly traced in the different editions of his great work Pathology of the Mind, in which Maudsley revised his view of the importance of masturbation in the development of insanity, and according to Hare [14], he ends by writing that masturbation is »more a symptom than a cause« [30 p. 399].
Especially from the psychoanalytic point of view, towards the turn of the century there was a pronounced skepticism bordering on rejection of masturbation as a cause of insanity (e.g. [31]), but masturbation was not completely exonerated from having a harmful influence, as several authors did not believe that it could lead to neurasthenia (e.g. [32]).
The Victorian view of masturbation was included in psychiatric textbooks right up to the 1930s (e.g. [33 p. 200 and 34 p. 153]), but with the important addition that the harmful effect was not due to the act itself, but to the patient's and those around him/her's lack of knowledge and concerns about the consequences of masturbation. The masturbation hypothesis was never actually rejected as erroneous within the framework of the medical discourse of the time; its importance faded and it simply disappeared. But even if it disappeared, a negative and condemnatory myth about the harmful effects of masturbation had been created, which continued to be propagated well into the twentieth century by sex counselors, educators, school personnel, clergy, and concerned parents [18, 21].
WHY DID THE VICTORIAN VIEW OF MASTURBATION CONTINUE INTO THE TWENTIETH CENTURY?
The question now is whether these ideas about sexuality and masturbation, which culminated in the second half of the 19th century, could have had any influence on Ovartaci, who was born in 1894 and died in 1985? This cannot be ruled out in any way. It is documented that the sexual climate in which one grew up influences one's sexuality well into old age [35], so Ovartaci will almost inevitably have been influenced by the Victorian view of masturbation that characterized the time during his upbringing, even though the masturbation hypothesis had been abandoned by leading doctors.
In addition to the general factor that the sexual climate during an individual's upbringing influences them throughout their lives, there has undoubtedly been a tendency towards conservatism and caution when it comes to avoiding the serious ailments that medical descriptions have warned against. When such great medical authorities as Samuel Auguste Tissot, Jean-Étienne Dominique Esquirol, Henry Maudsley and here in Denmark Johan Clemens Tode (1736-1806), Frederik Ludvig Bang (1747-1820) and Rudolph Bergh (1824-1909) have pointed out the negative consequences of masturbation, which have even been followed up by numerous popular science writings with elaborate descriptions of the dangerous consequences of masturbation, it does not just disappear. Habits are tenacious, and paradoxically the masturbation hypothesis may have been almost self-confirming: It was a widespread belief that masturbation led to various mental and physical ailments, and even though there was no basis for this, it was nevertheless "confirmed" on an experiential level by those who had various ailments, such as depression, which they attributed to previous masturbation.
Another reason why the Victorian view of masturbation continued to play a major role in the twentieth century, when Ovartaci lived, is that it may be better to have a hypothesis than not to have one, or to use a twist on AN Whitehead's famous formulation, it is better to have a hypothesis that is applicable than that it is true. The masturbation hypothesis has been widely used and has resulted in educational guidelines and rules of conduct that have influenced generations. In addition to health and hygiene advice, such as fresh air, exercise, cold baths, sleeping with hands over the covers and clothing that made it impossible for the child to touch his genitals, various types of diet were developed that were supposed to reduce sexual desire. For example, the Presbyterian minister Sylvester Graham (1794-1851) and the American physician John Harvey Kellogg (1852-1943) developed graham crackers and cornflakes, respectively.
From the mid-18th century onwards, many highly mutilating methods were also developed to prevent masturbation. Etching of the clitoris and glans penis, perforation of the foreskin and insertion of material that would make it painful for masturbators, surgical removal of the clitoris and, in boys/men, castration and amputation of the penis are some of them. In addition, various remedies were invented that prevented the young man from touching his genitals or made it painful to get an erection. Figure 3 shows a ring with inward-facing spikes that was to be placed around the penis and awaken the young man when he got an erection at night [36].
It has actually been possible to do something to reduce masturbation in young people and thus, it was believed, avert the feared consequences of masturbation. This has undoubtedly contributed to keeping the maturation hypothesis alive among laypeople as well.
Finally, the restrictive attitude towards masturbation and other forms of non-reproductive sexuality is supported by Protestant ethics. Max Weber has described the demands of Protestant ethics for a disciplined and ascetic lifestyle as well as concentration, efficiency and productivity as the basis for the development of the capitalist world, where the individual sees his work as a calling [37]. The restrictive sexual morality can be seen as an adequate response to the industrialization's need for work and production – one must perform before one can enjoy the mindset – and Protestant ethics has characterized the ideal of masculinity from the end of the 19th and in large parts of the 20th century with the demand for self-control, which was also part of Ovartaci's project, namely to promote "... an inner mastery of all the forces that exist in man. (...) One must not think wrong – one must not act wrong (...)", as he formulated it to his psychiatrist Johannes Nielsen [2 p. 295].
The Protestant ethic continues to play a role in the Western world, although hedonism and sexual liberation since the material prosperity and increased productivity of the 1960s are now a more adequate response to capitalism's need for consumption and turnover.
Two Frogs
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2025
It's the fucking Michael Jackson elves that do it for me. This guy was where he belonged, in the loony bin.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2024
Guys like Ovartarci simply hate their maleness. In much a similar way some TIFs hate their femaleness. I think this goes underappreciated among everything else going on with them. I think that's what leads to their seeming appreciation and obsession with the opposite sex counterparts state of being, it's not true appreciation or closeness to such.
As to the other bits. Masturbation isn't defacto bad (lol lmao) but for some people since orgasm is such a strong classical conditioning tool so to speak it can get them into basically obsessive compulsive training loops. Being schizo on top of that is like pouring gasoline on dynamite I guess.
As to the other bits. Masturbation isn't defacto bad (lol lmao) but for some people since orgasm is such a strong classical conditioning tool so to speak it can get them into basically obsessive compulsive training loops. Being schizo on top of that is like pouring gasoline on dynamite I guess.
- Joined
- May 7, 2025
I wish Twitter/X would community note all the troons using genocide in their posts. It would correct a massive misunderstanding of what genocide actually is. Like whenever they say 'genocide' for their gender it would use the correct term of gendercide instead. But I suppose my faith in people learning the difference between each types of homicide is too high.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2025
How committed are trannies to the bit?
As a hypothetical that won't happen, let's say tomorrow Trump announced he really was putting them in death camps. Anyone claiming to be trans or enby go to the camp. They round up a group of them to show it's actually happening.
How many of them magically have their crippling dysphoria cured and stop publicly displaying being trans in any way?
How many stick with it and screech all the way to their doom?
As a hypothetical that won't happen, let's say tomorrow Trump announced he really was putting them in death camps. Anyone claiming to be trans or enby go to the camp. They round up a group of them to show it's actually happening.
How many of them magically have their crippling dysphoria cured and stop publicly displaying being trans in any way?
How many stick with it and screech all the way to their doom?
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2021
Well 41% of them become an hero anyways. So probably most.
I was just thinking. Trannies and DEI are about as unpopular in the US as the shit that got the American Revolution to happen. No wonder we elected Trump even though he’s a corrupt pedo. I’m not saying he’s the second coming of George Washington. Just that corporate America and the Biden administration telling everyone to play along with the trannies caused people to say “oh fuck no” in a similar way to people being taxed unfairly. In the 1770s, people picked up guns and fought the government. In the 2020s, we re-elected Trump without considering alternatives.
I think that on the other side, if Trump said trannies were going to camps, the percent of people on board with it would be pretty high. You see all the people supporting anti-ICE protestors because there are a lot of Hispanics in this country. You see all the people who rioted for George Floyd in 2020 because there are a lot of niggers in this country. Would there be riots for trannies? Probably just in blue cities like Portland and Minneapolis, and it would have to be tied in with LGBT in general. If people were allowed to speak their minds about troons without fear of getting cancelled, they’d quickly learn how few “allies” they actually have.
Lain The Tranny Beater
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2021
It was also fact that multiple trannies showed their bolt ons in the White House garden for the “Pride” party in 2023. The administration cut that kumbaya shit real fast and kept on top of those fuckers the following year.
Between trooning out kids and this shit, it would always come down to the states to cut that shit at the knees. Not even the feds and the Supreme Court want to touch that ticking time bomb. Considering trannies are mass shooting back to back, multiple of them already have their manifesto in progress.
I’m putting on my MATI hat.
Let me set you straight. The only people showing up to “riot” for trannies will be what little gender-specials that didn’t cut the bullshit, the parents that transitioned their kids, and obese handmaids. The superior don’t actually fear going to the camps, most them are just long term larping. People are protesting ICE because they have no fucking consistency. Definitely deport the fucking violent illegals that keep coasting through the system. But don’t go kidnapping actual citizens like they’re the secret police for the special needs. If they’re going to waste my hard earned money on this shit, at least, do the fucking job right the first fucking place.
Also, no one gave a fuck about Floyd. They only showed up because Covid was happening and they had jack shit to do. Once people stopped being keyboard warriors, it died on the spot.
Also, Portland just riots to riot. Have you seen their homeless junkies. Skid row and Kensington look like a functional half way house compared to them. If I had to live in that cesspool, I’d burn the fucking city down too. Rip to everyone else, but only fire can cleanse that fucking land. It might as well be built on an Indian burial ground, a graveyard where the head stone were only moved, and possessed by Chicago in 80s.
If you’re going to go on a political sperg, please cut the routine bullshit and actually think beyond your echo chamber.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2023
What's up with schizos and drawing aliens and horrifying monsters? I know one that draws the same stuff and wants to sell her art but I just can't get myself to tell her that I think it's really ugly and I'd never want to have something so creepy and ugly.
Transgenderism is just another symptom of schizophrenia imo.
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2019
"A month after my husband gave birth to our daughter, he considered the idea of getting her circumcised".
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2025
I ask myseelf this everytime I see Helluva Boss or Hazbin Hotel online.
deermeat
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2020
There's this song called Girls by The Dare and I dunno I heard a first couple seconds of the song and felt like it fit my taste, got that sleezy catchy half ironic electronic vibe.... Until I went to go listen to the whole song, turned that shit off after I got to this part.
Back then, when men talked about being manwhores in their songs they at least had standards. Chasers are gross degenerates.
Back then, when men talked about being manwhores in their songs they at least had standards. Chasers are gross degenerates.
bouquetnine
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 19, 2024
Wait until you find out about Laurel Canyon.
Lain The Tranny Beater
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2021
It just dawned on my that Puberty Blockers are essentially the elusive “vaccines that causes autism.” Think about it. These kids aren’t just Peter Paned, but their brains are literally under developed. You pretty much made these kids high functioning retards.