UK users: Due to a formal investigation into this site by Ofcom under the UK Online Safety Act 2023, we strongly recommend using a trusted, no-logs VPN. This will help protect your privacy, bypass censorship, and maintain secure access to the site. Read the full VPN guide here.
Today, OFCOM launched an official investigation into Sanctioned Suicide under the UK’s Online Safety Act. This has already made headlines across the UK.
This is a clear and unprecedented overreach by a foreign regulator against a U.S.-based platform. We reject this interference and will be defending the site’s existence and mission.
In addition to our public response, we are currently seeking legal representation to ensure the best possible defense in this matter. If you are a lawyer or know of one who may be able to assist, please contact us at [email protected].
Read our statement here:
Donate via cryptocurrency:
I believe your response, though articulate, is actually one of the clearest signs that the previous message struck a chord with you. And I say this without irony, but as an observation of a dynamic we all share: when something doesn't concern us, we usually don't feel the need to disprove it.
I don't get your logic here. Criticism of possible or apparent fallacies can be entertaining on its own like a chess game, and this entertainment may be worth the time spent on it.
Some people (including myself) simply don't find any relief in venting about own problems, receiving condolences, and pep talks in the first place, contrary to how such things may work for others. Of course, if there is a concern that opening may lead to even worse situation (like detaining in a psych ward), this doesn't add attractiveness of frank conversations on top of their inability to improve the current circumstances.
Masculinity is not natural. It is a construct. A performance. A rulebook written by power. There is no credible scientific evidence to support the claim that men are biologically less emotional, more rational, or more self-controlled than women. Evolution does not dictate stoicism, nor does it assign emotional silence to male bodies. The belief that men are emotionally limited by nature has been dismantled by decades of research in psychology, neuroscience, and anthropology. A comprehensive meta-analysis by Chaplin and Aldao (2013), covering 166 studies and over 21,000 children, found no consistent biological foundation for emotional differences between boys and girls. Emotional expression was context-dependent, shaped by social and relational environments rather than sex. In early life, boys and girls display comparable emotional responses; divergence begins only under the pressure of cultural expectations. The American Psychological Association (2018) states unequivocally that "traditional masculinity ideology"—characterized by emotional restriction, dominance, and toughness—is not an innate or natural condition. Rather, it is a cultural construct that harms mental health, correlating with increased depression, substance use, and relational difficulties. These are not adaptive traits from evolution; they are consequences of emotional deprivation enforced by gender norms. Anthropological literature offers further evidence. Margaret Mead and later cultural anthropologists have documented widely varying forms of masculinity across time and societies. Some cultures honor male emotional expression—crying, vulnerability, affection—as signs of spiritual maturity. The idea of one fixed masculine essence is not only unscientific; it is historically and culturally false. Neuroscientist Lise Eliot (2009) argues in Pink Brain, Blue Brain that most brain differences between sexes are minor and exaggerated by social conditioning. The plasticity of the brain means that what appears innate is often learned. Emotional literacy in men is not biologically limited—it is structurally underdeveloped due to lack of support and modeling during childhood and adolescence. The condition known as alexithymia, more prevalent in men, is often cited as evidence of emotional deficiency. In fact, it is strongly associated with social learning deficits, trauma, and cultural disincentives for introspection—not with genetic sex differences (Levant et al., 2009). Boys raised in emotionally restrictive environments learn to survive by disconnecting from language that names their pain. Masculinity, as enforced in many modern societies, is not a neutral identity—it is a disciplinary system. It teaches boys, from the earliest years, to amputate parts of themselves to earn belonging. To replace empathy with control. To trade emotional complexity for social approval. That is not nature. That is training. To say that "men are naturally less emotional" is not only untrue—it is a politically functional myth, designed to sustain power structures that benefit from emotional suppression, detachment, and control. Masculinity is not a fact of biology. It is a wound that learned to walk upright.
References (APA format)The dominance of men over women—what we call patriarchy—is not a primordial fact of humanity but a precise historical construction. Paleolithic societies, as shown by archaeological and anthropological studies (Marija Gimbutas, Riane Eisler, Gerda Lerner), were largely egalitarian, lacking rigid gender hierarchies, organized around sharing rather than ownership. The figure of the Mother Goddess reflects a time when the feminine held a central, not subordinate, value. The real turning point came with the agricultural revolution, between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago, when the accumulation of resources, private property, and inheritance made the control of the female body essential. Thus, patriarchal structures were born. As demonstrated by Gerda Lerner in The Creation of Patriarchy and Silvia Federici in Caliban and the Witch, women were reduced to reproductive vessels and inserted into systems of lineage and ownership. The first complex civilizations—Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, India—reinforced this hierarchy with laws, religions, and moral codes. But we must be clear: although men held social dominance, the ancient male was not yet the cold, emotionally amputated figure we know today. Homeric heroes wept openly; Odysseus embraced enemies, Hector kissed his child before dying, Achilles screamed in grief for Patroclus. In Rome, virtus included pietas, compassion, and duty toward family. In precolonial African cultures, as explored by anthropologists like Ifi Amadiume and Cheikh Anta Diop, masculinity was often part of a spiritual and communal equilibrium, not isolated and self-enclosed. The emotionally repressive, hyper-rational, productivist masculinity is a much more recent creation, born during the modern era, between the Industrial Revolution and the Victorian age. As shown by historian John Tosh and sociologist Raewyn Connell in Masculinities, the 19th century reshaped manhood to serve the needs of the state, factory, and empire. Men were expected to be disciplined, hardworking, competitive, never weak, never dependent. In Victorian England especially, any emotional softness was deemed a moral fault: tenderness became feminine, crying shameful, gentleness a sign of decay. This model was then exported through colonialism and globalized in the 20th century through mass media. Cinema, advertising, schools, and politics constructed the ideal man as silent, invulnerable, dominant. As neuroscientist Lise Eliot notes in Pink Brain, Blue Brain, there is no neurological basis for these differences: male and female brains are nearly identical at birth, and the differences that arise are the result of social conditioning. The American Psychological Association (APA Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men, 2018) explicitly states that traditional masculinity ideology is a social construct, not a natural expression. This ideology—based on strength, control, emotional suppression, and dominance—is linked to higher rates of depression, addiction, suicide, and relational dysfunction. The condition known as alexithymia, often cited as biological, is in fact the result of environments where boys are never taught to recognize or name their emotions (Levant et al., 2009, Journal of Men's Health). The modern man is a product of training: severed from his inner world in order to be useful, obedient, and efficient. But this figure is not eternal: it was born in history, and in history it can end. Male dominance may be ancient, but repressive masculinity is modern. It did not begin with man—it began with machines. It did not begin in the blood—it began with discipline.
