Men's grievance, platform intimacy, and the deformation of human relations
There are two bad ways to talk about modern intimacy online.
One is the official language of empowerment. Everyone is choosing. Everyone is expressing themselves. Everyone is navigating the market with confidence, agency, and self-respect. If the whole thing looks bleak, transactional, lonely, or a little chemically damaged, that is apparently just because you are too judgmental to appreciate the new freedom.
The other bad way is grievance. Women are the problem. Feminism broke the sexes. Men have been humiliated, replaced, lied to, and finally awakened by dating apps, OnlyFans, and the general collapse of honesty.
Both of these are too easy. Both are slogans pretending to be insight. And both miss what matters most.
I understand the pull of the second one more than a lot of people who criticize it do. I am not looking at men’s-rights or red-pill discourse from some lofty perch. I can see why it has force. If you are a lonely man, if you feel invisible, if you think public culture is dishonest about male humiliation, if you are tired of being told that every obvious deformation in modern intimacy is actually liberation or progress, then of course that language has appeal. I have felt that appeal myself.
But that is exactly why I no longer think it is enough.
It registers the wound. It does not explain the system producing it.
That is the part I care about now. Not scoring points in the war between men and women. Not pretending the whole thing is just a misunderstanding. And not joining the soft-focus public-relations campaign that treats every new market adaptation as a brave act of self-definition. I am interested in the kind of society that keeps generating these exhausted, suspicious, monetized, emotionally warped relations, then hands people a flattering vocabulary for their adjustment to them.
That is what I mean by fake autonomy.
OnlyFans is an obvious example because it is so blunt. It takes loneliness, desire, fantasy, asymmetry, visibility, and economic need and turns them into a subscription model. That does not mean every person on it is a villain, or every subscriber is an idiot, or every exchange is identical. It means the structure itself is revealing. Intimacy is no longer merely personal, or even merely commodified in the old sense. It is increasingly formatted, tiered, priced, and routed through platforms designed to convert attention into recurring revenue.
And then, because this is modern life, we are expected to describe this as empowerment.
That is where the language becomes false.
Not every monetized adaptation is freedom. Not every revenue stream is a victory. Sometimes a damaged social field produces a behavior and then immediately supplies a flattering interpretation of that behavior. That is what a lot of modern ideology looks like now. It does not tell you what to believe in the old heavy-handed way. It teaches you how to narrate adaptation as flourishing.
Dating apps are the less explicit version of the same thing. Their defenders talk as though they merely make connection more efficient. More options. More visibility. More data. Better matching. The fantasy is always the same: the system is only here to optimize what you already wanted. But these systems do not simply help people find one another. They reorganize the field in which people encounter one another in the first place. They train users into habits of self-display, rapid sorting, intermittent hope, managed scarcity, low-grade suspicion, and endless comparison. They pull attraction toward ranking and surfaces. They make people feel both exposed and disposable.
That is not a side effect. It is part of the form.
The problem here is not just exploitation in the narrow sense. It is deformation. Relations are thinned out, gamified, priced, and re-scripted. Desire gets rerouted through interfaces. Loneliness becomes legible as a market opportunity. Rejection becomes data. Selfhood becomes profile management. People are left trying to piece together some dignity inside systems that profit from uncertainty, asymmetry, and emotional churn.
If you want to see where this logic becomes especially grotesque, look at findom—financial domination, a kink built around tribute, humiliation, and monetary submission. Most people do not know much about it, which is part of what makes it useful as an example. Here the structure becomes almost absurdly clear. The exchange is stripped down to tribute, humiliation, asymmetry, and ritualized dependence. A person pays to be diminished. Another person learns to narrate extraction as confidence, agency, kink, or entrepreneurial self-possession. I am not saying every participant is reducible to one motive. I am saying that when this kind of relation appears as an ordinary monetizable niche within digital life, something serious has already happened to the social field.
And still the culture reaches for liberal language.
That is why I am not satisfied with the usual options in this debate. Men’s-rights discourse often notices the humiliation without understanding the form. It turns structural deformation into a tribal struggle between men and women. Liberal empowerment discourse notices the formal choice while refusing to look at the damaged field in which that choice is being made. One side moralizes the wound. The other side markets it. Neither is especially interested in the system that keeps producing it.
I would put incel ideology in the same category, only in a darker and more pathological register. It is not a serious theory of social life so much as one of the reactive languages generated inside a damaged field of relations. It takes real experiences—loneliness, humiliation, invisibility, exclusion, marketized comparison—and hardens them into a worldview of resentment, entitlement, and sexual fatalism. That does not make it harmless, and it certainly does not make it right. But mocking it from a distance is intellectually lazy. You cannot understand why these forms appear unless you are willing to look at the systems that produce both the wound and the bad explanation of the wound.
Part of the problem is that our culture increasingly lacks a serious language for calling deformation by its name. So we swing between euphemism and grievance, empowerment slogans and reactionary panic.
To see the system properly, you have to move back a level.
The issue is not simply this or that claim about male nature, female hypergamy, feminist ideology, or sexual liberation. Those arguments may capture fragments of experience, but they are too small. What matters more is that capital increasingly reaches beyond the workplace and into the conditions under which people form attachments, present themselves, interpret rejection, manage desire, and adapt to loneliness. It no longer simply organizes production in the older visible sense. It increasingly organizes modulation: affect, anticipation, self-valuation, response.
The phone is not just a communication device in this story. It is part of the infrastructure through which people are sorted, prompted, nudged, exposed, ranked, and monetized. It sits close to the body and close to the nervous system. It does not just carry messages. It helps format the conditions under which a person feels desirable, ignored, hopeful, jealous, replaceable, visible, or alone. That is a deeper kind of colonization than older critiques of media usually captured. What is being touched now is not just belief, but the field of reaction itself.
That is why I am not impressed by men’s-rights as theory, even when I understand its emotional pull. It is often a distorted symptom-report produced from inside the very conditions it cannot see. It describes the pain of colonized relations without yet grasping the colonization. It gives the injury a face and a target, but not a form.
And that matters. Because if you do not see the form, you end up trapped between two equally dishonest vocabularies. On one side, endless grievance and amateur anthropology. On the other, endless euphemism. Empowerment. Confidence. Choice. Worth. Abundance. Options. Agency. All the little moral cosmetics we use to avoid saying that a society can deform human contact and still call the result progress.
My objection here is not that the old moral order was pure, or that modern people are uniquely wicked, or that every new sexual arrangement is a sign of collapse. Human beings have always improvised strange and unequal relations. My objection is simpler, and more humanist, than that. A person should be more than an interface for extraction. Intimacy should be more than a subscription tier. Desire should be more than a funnel. Loneliness should not become just another market segment. When a society keeps converting vulnerability into revenue and then praises people for adapting to it, something is wrong at the level of the social form itself.
That is what I mean when I say this is grotesque.
Not because it is sexually improper. Not because I am nostalgic for innocence. But because more and more people now move through intimate life in forms that are attenuated, transactional, humiliating, and emotionally warped, and the culture responds by congratulating them on how freely they adjusted. This is not maturity. It is not realism. It is not liberation. It is a damaged field teaching people to speak the language of autonomy while living deeper inside dependence, exposure, and managed need.
So yes, talk about lonely men. Talk about women navigating a vicious attention economy. Talk about dating apps, OnlyFans, and the humiliations and bargaining rituals of digital life. But do it without the slogans. The issue is not which sex won the argument. The issue is what happens when capital increasingly colonizes the conditions of relation themselves.
At that point, the real question is no longer whether people are making choices.
The real question is what kind of world keeps deforming human contact, then congratulating us on how freely we adapted.
No comments:
Post a Comment