Tuesday, January 22, 2019

Uskirting law and the banality of censorship

Roosh has a post up about the demise of free speech on the Internet, where the key quote is: "If you haven’t been affected yet, either you have a strong filter, and could have survived during the Soviet Union without being sent to the gulags, or have not yet been heard. When the attack against you does come, you will be struck by how banal your thought crime actually was." I have so far escaped any serious censorship, which this isn't either, but now I can't tweet for a week simply for calling a hateful feminist a "hateful bitch":


 And here is the entire context from which my tweet is now removed:


She can call me a "sicko" but I can't call her a "bitch." Which I am not saying she should be censored for either, of course. Both of these are banal insults and policing this sort of speech is just ridiculous. But platforms like Twitter are now evidently governed by such a kindergarten level of rules, so we have to deal with that.

The silver lining here is that my ideology is not censored. My original tweet opposing the upskirting law is still standing, as are my 7000 other mostly ideological tweets and the entirety of my blog. If I had left out the word "bitch," and stopped at the salient point that it is hateful to criminalize men for filming women's genitalia in public when they can simply cover them up if they don't like it, I doubt I would be censored either.

The moral is, don't get carried away and engage in name-calling, even when badly insulted yourself. Express your ideology and leave it at that. This reaffirms my commitment to excluding the trolls from my blog. They shall not get the chance to provoke me into saying something they can use against me, no matter how ridiculous the rules get. Calling a hateful feminist another synonym adds nothing to the meaning anyway, so we are better off not wasting our time.

The day they start censoring ideology, we are in real trouble. But that is not happening yet from my point of view. Feminist ideology is winning, but we can still express dissent as long as we go about it in a rhetorically cool-headed manner. Which is the best rhetorical strategy anyhow. Remember, my most impactful tweet was just a lexicographical suggestion, and it pissed more feminists off than saying "bitch" or any other officially bad word ever can.

Sunday, December 30, 2018

How my new moderation policy is working out, and thoughts on incels

As pointed out, I had to disable anonymous commenting due to disruptive and threatening comments from male feminists, perhaps an organized self-imagined "pedo hunter" group (which is also missing the mark, but a low IQ tends to go with that persuasion, so no surprises there). This has been a success as far as getting rid of the creeps, though they keep "reporting" me to deaf ears at Google and Twitter. Crucially, they are evidently not bold enough to comment now that they need a Google Account. But neither are apparently most of my legitimate commenters, which is a shame, because we used to have colorful discussions running up to hundreds of comments under most posts.

But I have to admit that this is the state of the real Men's Rights Movement, the unbroken current of pro-male-sexuality ideology which is now known as male sexualism, so I'll just focus on writing good posts instead of facilitating good discussion at this point. We don't have enough men who care that much, and seeing what hate one gets from being public, I can't blame my few followers from preferring privacy. Who wouldn't rather live their lives relatively unmolested than make personal sacrifices to be part of a futile struggle? A person who is too idealistic for his own good, that is who, which I undeniably am. Mine is a sort of compulsion to tell the truth and oppose injustice, which I have previously labeled hyperpolitical disorder because I am also truthful about the downside to so much opinionated altruism. Some of the hate I am getting now is just one step removed from a lynch mob, and it's certainly useless and stupid to argue with those no matter how right you are. At some point when society turns too hostile around you for unaccountable reasons, you just have to run for your life and realize that people can be monsters sometimes. Hyperpolitical disorder is an affective disorder where you feel too much political hate, but it does not make me stupid.

It is also disheartening that no women voice support for us despite much of my time being spent resisting the female sex offender charade here and on Twitter. Sadly, it is female nature to want to punish promiscuous women, which is what that charade is all about, with all its fake "abuse" as a phony pretext. Women are so happy to punish sexual vitality in women that it forms an integral part of feminism, and of course the hapless victims of their hateful laws don't have much courage or freedom to resist either. While women as a group benefit from sex-hostility since it drives up the cost of sex, the harm done by the female sex offender charade is so poignant and focused on individual sacrificial victims that according to my ethics, male sexualism is a moral benefit to women as well as men, even as this is a truth we are doomed to stand for alone against women and male feminists and every other kind of misogynist.

The only good news is that I am in contact with a couple of journalists who may give us some much needed publicity, but we shall see what comes of that. They are very interested in incels these days, who have become a cultural force even as the serious ideological men's rights activism that I represent has gone by the wayside. Let me therefore gather my thoughts about incels a little bit, so I am ready for such interviews.

Firstly, I am not incel, and back when I was, which was only intermittently and more than eight years ago, I used the term literally rather than to describe the peculiar baggage that it now comes with (and I don't remember if I even used the abbreviation or just said "involuntary celibacy"). In retrospect, my inceldom was not much more than you have to expect as a regular guy, and at other times I scored well above average with women. I also I did not realize the deleterious effects of porn and masturbation on a man's sex life, or I am convinced that I would have been a stud. So the number-one advice I give to incels is to practice nofap. The self-help aspect is more than enough reason, but if you are so inclined, you might also pride yourself that feminists increasingly see nofap as "misogynistic," so you are even socking it to them ideologically by refraining from the self-abuse by which they want you hampered.

There is plenty about the current incel movement to make one feel uneasy. Let's use Braincels to illustrate how they behave, so you can see for yourself if my impression is accurate. While being a male sexualist is cool and honorable and something every man ought to proudly stand for regardless of his lot in life (if he can take the hate from manginas), identifying as "incel" is a way to telegraph that you are a loser and intend to remain a loser, so it's unsurprising that they all remain anonymous. Because incels don't seem to be receptive to constructive advice. They just keep repeating that "it's over" for various reasons, usually related to their imagined bad genes.

The problem with the belief that you have "bad genes" (apart from the fact that you can't know you're a loser before you've tried your best), that supposedly make you unattractive women, is that science has failed to validate the hypothesis that females select for good genes in the first place. I learned this by following Rolf Degen on Twitter, and don't know so much about it, but I've read enough to believe him when he says that "the good genes hypothesis in general is a zombie theory that gets dragged along although it has long since been refuted." There are no detectable preference shifts in women around ovulation either according to the latest research. Somewhat shockingly because we've heard it asserted som many times, "the idea that females select males according to signs of good genes is high in popularity and low in reproducibility."

And that makes sense to me when I think about it, since every gene in an individual has successfully made it to that generation and thus demonstrated viability, and what might be most adaptive in the future is uncertain, so how could there really be a mechanism for sexually selecting "good" genes over "bad"? Apart from blind fashion and not being obviously sick (which may not be genetic either), there appears to be none, though I am still not convinced that there is absolutely nothing to the handicap principle.

So women do not appear to turn men down because you have bad genes, but at worst that you have different genes than they arbitrarily prefer. The sexy-son theory is still in effect, and evolutionary psychology is still true on the all-important point that sex is a female resource which enables females to do most of the choosing, but the sort of quality judgment that your genes are "bad" in an absolute sense is misplaced. In practice, it might not matter that much that women select based on blind fashion rather than good genes, but at least we don't need to attribute a moral or judgmental dimension to their choice that is not there. Any incel lamenting that his jawline is somehow inadequate, or he isn't tall enough, or muscular enough or some other meaningless indicator of attractiveness needs to stop it right now and assert that whatever he is equipped with is just as good. It is a neutral happenstance of evolution that his traits aren't preferred, if they aren't, which can at any time shift to the other direction and deserves no special sanctity.

The incel view of "Chads and Stacys" as the enemy is also problematic to say the least. Male sexualists recognize that our real enemy is the sex laws and their enforcement, or legislators and police if you will, not sexually successful people. We don't have anything against Chads and Stacys and aspire to be them and date them. Frankly, male sexualists fall more into the Chad and Stacy category already, so if anything, we should fear the incels if we can't help them. Particularly those of us who have adopted nofap are floating on a cloud of euphoria that sexual opportunity is real and there for the taking. We have no use for needless negativity, and to the extent that we are activists, that is directed at against unequivocal evil such as the feminist sex laws which construct fake abuse and the people who support them.

Tuesday, December 25, 2018

A little chest-thumping

It has been a pet peeve of the Men's Movement to resist not just hateful laws, but also words which make our normal sexuality sound deviant. Our party line has been that words like "ephebophile" and "hebephile" and to some extent "MAP" have no place in our lexicon because, while they can't be used to diagnose anyone as pathological, they carry the suggestion that most men are not attracted to adolescents, which couldn't be more wrong. Our counterpropaganda has so far consisted of trying to avoid those words and just saying something along the lines of "normal male sexuality" instead. However, I found this approach unsatisfying, which is why I coined "agywophilia." There are good reasons why "AGYW" already exists as an acronym for "Adolescent Girls and Young Women" in scientific articles, as these females are studied together because they naturally go together in many ways including sexual attraction. So why not tap into this usage?

I believe the average heterosexual* man is an agywophile rather than a teleiophile, which is another unsatisfying word because it fails to reflect reality. "Teleiophilia" implies an artificial boundary that simply does not exist. We don't discriminate between teenage girls and young women except where the age of consent forces us to, or because the man is so socially cowed by the current abuse hysteria that he thinks any attraction to "minors" is wrong. Do you think all the barely-legal porn videos where they check the girl's ID on camera contain that step because male attraction begins at 18, and without it the viewer couldn't be sure that he is attracted? Of course not. It is only there to avoid running afoul of the hateful feminist sex laws that have bizarrely punitive consequences due to the neglection of a practically and morally irrelevant distinction.

Now I need to repeat that I don't recommend watching porn! Go out there and meet real women instead, which has the added advantage that you can usually pursue girls a few years younger than 18 too, depending on where you live. Agywophilia is not only healthy and normal, but often legal as well, albeit obviously not as legal as it should be.

I am not usually one to plug neologisms, but in this case it actually feels useful, and judging by the response, is remarkably effective. Because this is my most engaging tweet ever. Out of 8663 impressions, 29% of viewers made some kind of engagement, and an incredible 12% clicked through on the link! (For comparison, I am used to more like 1% when I share a link, so this is a full order of magnitude above par.)


Haters point out that I was "ratioed," meaning most of the response is negative, and that is true. But my purpose is not to be "liked," but to propagandize for normal male sexuality. Even a hateful reaction achieves this purpose as long as people become aware that there is serious political opposition to their beliefs and values, which of course is the reason for such a strong emotional reaction.

Having 1000 people read a proposed lexicographical entry is not a world-changing event. But it is a step in the right direction, and in the same way that a butterfly's flutter is said to have enormous potential, who knows what can happen down the line. Let me therefore end 2018 on a positive note, that the male sexualist movement has done some measurable good against the hurricane of hate which currently persecutes our sexuality.

---
*If homosexual men want an equivalent word, it would be "abymophilia" -- primary attraction to adolescent boys and young men. Even women could use this, though it is much less descriptive of them. People who use words like "teleiophilia" are promoting a strictly gynocentric agenda (and not even that when you count the female sex offender charade), which of course is the reason for having a Men's Movement such as ours present a more inclusive and reasonable alternative.

Sunday, December 16, 2018

Female sex offenders: the devil's advocate post

My pet peeve is fake sexual abuse. I am more upset by false legal definitions than factually false claims, because the system at least in theory contains mechanisms to correct the latter. What upsets me most is when the law is most perverse, and the law is nowhere as perverse as in its insistence that women are equally culpable for sex crimes against victims. What I call the female sex offender charade is therefore my pet peeve within my pet peeve of fake sexual abuse.

But let's make this a little more interesting than the usual arguing with idiots whose intellectual ability is limited to asserting that the sexes are equal. Suppose you wanted to argue that women can be sex offenders -- how would you go about it if you weren't just an idiot or catering to idiots? In reality, it is sufficient to use an idiotic justification such as the lie that the sexes are equal, or no justification at all, because the public will go along with it just like they will with any old witch-hunt (I have explored such reasons here). As an intellectual exercise, however, I thought I might be fun to speculate how a halfway rational person would justify punishing women for sex crimes under the "abuse" paradigm. If you take the view that sex is inherently immoral or sinful, you don't run into such problems, but that's not how our laws work anymore, as I've noted previously. Thanks to feminist victimology, the law now needs to contain a rationale grounded in "abuse" rather than the will of God, crimes "against nature" or similar.

The position I would argue if I wanted to advance this view to a rational audience is that women can sexually abuse, but not sexually exploit boys, and here is why.

First we need to define sexual abuse. Upon years of reflection, it is clear to me that real sexual abuse must do at least one of the following: reduce the victim's reproductive fitness or be an aversive experience (there is also an element of sexual exploitation, but more on that later). Female-perpetrated "sexual abuse" as currently defined most often does spectacularly the opposite on both counts, but since this is my devil's advocate post, I will give serious consideration to the fringe cases. I have previously argued that female sexual coercion can indeed be an aversive experience, but not aversive enough, on average, compared to other violence to merit inclusion in the sex laws (for example, see this debate). The sex laws are all based on the idea that sex is an aggravating factor beyond other violence or exploitation, and thus meriting harsher punishments, which is absurd when applied to women. It has always been my position that for the purposes of severity, female violence can only incidentally be sexualized, not aggravated by any sexual aspect, and should therefore be prosecuted (if at all) as simple assault rather than rape, or whatever other nonsexual crimes the violence merits. But let's say you wanted to argue that I am wrong. How would you go about it?

Firstly, the feminists would need to make a concession to truth. Absent aversive experiences or physical damage, reasonable men know that female sexuality is harmless. We feel zero sympathy -- and often a great deal of envy -- towards supposed victims to female sexuality per se, so constructed by the mere fact of having had sex with a woman. In other words, women cannot sexually exploit boys or men. Sexual exploitation is the ingredient in what is currently claimed to be "abuse" that is so horribly out of place when applied to female offenders.

The rationale I would use for arguing that female sexual coercion nonetheless can raise to the level of sexual abuse is that aversive and/or sexual fitness-reducing experiences can harm males sexually even if they don't constitute sexual exploitation, just like cutting off a man's penis or testicles will demolish his sex life without being sexual exploitation per se. It is plausible that female sexual coercion can degrade a man's sex life because he will be afraid of women or whatever. These acts are still not sexual abuse in my actual opinion, but since I am playing devil's advocate here I am making the leap of equating violence with a negative impact on your sexuality with sexual abuse. This is the only tenable way to argue that women can be sex offenders to intelligent people who do not buy absurdities like the denial of sex differences or the pretense that women can sexually exploit boys.

Let us look at some examples. Father-daughter incest can be argued to be abusive on the fitness-reducing criterion because it would tend to lead to offspring with lesser fitness than the girls would get from other mates. Mother-son incest cannot be argued to do the same since sperm is so cheap, or at the very most, spectacularly less so, so it's not in the same ballpark on that criterion. It could, however, be aversive, so let's for now grant that women can sometimes sexually abuse boys.

This view requires a strict distinction between sexual abuse and exploitation, which is not currently employed. Unfortunately, any sex crime can be called "abuse" as it is, and this needs to change. In order to qualify as abuse by my proffered definition, the experience needs to be either aversive at the time it is going on or physically damaging. "Iatrogenically" induced harm, as from "therapists" brainwashing a boy to feel that he is a victim, does not count. Crimes constructed solely by age of consent or "abuse of position" therefore do not count. These crimes can at most be exploitation and only apply to male offenders. One consequence of this view is that statutory rape or abuse of females (and boys by men) would be downgraded to crimes of exploitation rather than abuse. Society is currently not going to accept this, but it is the truth. The rationale for having crimes of sexual exploitation is to protect the value of a child's sexuality from being given away too readily, just like children are not trusted with managing a lot of money even if they own it. This rationale makes sense for girls and for male homosexuality (up to a point, say 13 years old, when self-determination becomes more important), but is utter nonsense when it comes to boys versus women because the boys don't lose any value by having sex with women. On the contrary, all reasonable humans understand that they are lucky rather than victims as far as exploitation goes.

Crimes of sexual abuse, as distinct from exploitation, can thus arguably be perpetrated by women because the argument does not impute any harm from the giving up of sex itself, but from an aversive experience or a negative impact on sexual fitness. This is not what I actually believe. I believe the sexual aspect plays such a minor role in women's violence that it should be ignored altogether. Women cannot rape because rape is an aggravated form of assault, and there is no sufficient aggravation from sex with a woman over what the violence would otherwise constitute. But if proponents of the idea that women can be sex offenders and subject to some of the same sex laws as men wanted to argue their case without seeming like drooling retards to sensible people like me, this is how they would do it: remove all the exploitation nonsense and keep the rest. Then we could at least take them seriously, which is impossible today. You need to make this concession to truth before we can speak as equals! And now I've met you halfway, so how about doing the same?

We still cannot argue that women deserve the same punishment, because crimes of sexual abuse subsume exploitation, and that element would be absent. When a woman is raped, she is also sexually exploited, but we don't punish this aspect separately or think of it independently because it is so embedded in the concept of rape (which is the main reason why it's silly to use the word gender-neutrally). The trauma of real rape is also largely due to the exploitation rather than violence, which is the evolutionary reason why rape is such a big deal in the first place even if the victim doesn't consciously know it. If women are going to be charged with "rape," however, we must tease out the difference and subtract the culpability for exploitation because women aren't capable of that. Female sexual coercion can be harmful due to the aversive experience of the violence itself, and even damage men in sexual ways down the line, but it cannot reasonably constitute harm due to the male having been sexually exploited, since there is nothing to exploit in any meaningful sense. Any jurisprudence of female sex offenses which fails to take this into account -- like the present feminist one -- is flagrantly misogynistic and wrong on so many levels.

You cannot exploit something which consensus reality holds as worthless, just like you cannot steal from a pauper who owns nothing. You can abuse him, however, and interfere with his ability to earn a living later. Sex is a female resource, which means that men are sexual paupers who at most can be abused. To claim that males can be sexually exploited is to lie about their sexual value. In my view, women cannot sexually abuse them either by virtue of giving them sex, but abuse can incidentally be sexualized, which in practice is irrelevant to the severity of the crime. I am letting this distinction slide in this post and will instead equate sexualized abuse with sexual abuse. Few people understand this distinction anyway even when I explain it, but everyone ought to be able to understand the difference between exploitation and abuse, which is the truly significant distinction.

The consequence of this view is to dismiss most supposed female sexual abuse as nonsense or trifles anyway, just like I have been arguing all along. All the crimes created by age of consent laws or "abuse of position" are automatically invalidated by this view, as is most female-perpetrated incest. It is absurd to claim that a woman is a sexual abuser just because she is a teacher, for example, because that claim rests on the insane notion that boys can be sexually exploited by women, that they are somehow worse off by the fact of having sex itself independently of whether it is a traumatic experience or lowers their sexual fitness.

What remains are the cases where women cause genuinely aversive experiences or adverse consequences of a sexual nature. These are so few that I can't recall any actual credible cases, but this is an academic exercise anyway. The female sex offender charade is the most profoundly disturbing travesty going on in the world today, in my view. By implementing a clear distinction between sexual abuse and exploitation, and declaring that women can commit abuse but not exploitation, most of the injustice of the female sex offender charade could be removed. This would be a compromise that I could live with. I know none of this will register to the true believers in feminist sex-hostility, but if you are a reasonable person reading this, please take note and try to promote my vision.

Sunday, December 09, 2018

Time to cut off anonymous cowards?

Male sexualism is but a feeble flicker of opposition to a sex-hostile feminist society with all the laws on their side. The Norwegian government paid a little attention to me back in 2012, but aside from their hurt prestige from losing that case so soundly -- they fought my compensation claim for false prosecution all the way to the Supreme Court, which turned down their appeal and finally decided the case in my favor in 2017 -- they have not bothered pursuing or investigating me or my followers since, at least not overtly. Because they must know that we don't pose a threat, neither politically nor criminally, so it would only embarrass them further to pretend that we do. All I and a handful of other like-minded men do is to state our opinions and rant a little without any effect on actual politics.

But nonetheless, the hate directed against my blog is at an all-time high. I mentioned a couple months ago that I am under attack, which continues in full force. I see it in the logs of Google moderators dealing with reports of pretty much everything I or my commenters write. And I see it in regular hateful comments that I now block in moderation, such as this one I received a few days ago:
You are a traitor to your people on so many levels. After leading many people to echo your discontent with the Norwegian government, you turned your back on them to promote, of all things, *pedophilia*. It’s almost like you’re making caricature of a treacherous scumbag and superimposing it on your own portrait. It makes no sense at all. You need the kind of help I think only a bullet can give you at this point.
So there you see the creepy mix of hate and delusion that I am dealing with. Although I disagree with various aspects of how pedophilia is handled, I don't "promote" it. What I do promote is normal male sexuality, although it is possible that this person is too dense to tell the difference. Thankfully, Google is not that stupid, and to their credit have trashed every single report from the anonymous cowards. Hi, Google mods, I know you will be reading this too... so thanks for doing the right thing and keep up the good work!

I don't object so strongly to the "traitor" label, since I have used the term "Quisling" myself and even invented Quisling therapy (inspired by Wittgenstein therapy, by the way), but I was certainly never beholden to this person and whoever he is referring to as having echoed my discontent, who don't seem to have a clue that I have been consistent in my sexual ideology from the beginning. Only some words have changed, such as the introduction "male sexualism," "blue knight" (thanks to Tom Grauer) and my own coinage "agywophilia," but the message is the same. Nor was I morally obliged to go along with the corruption of the justice system that has taken place in my lifetime and been accepted by most people without question. From my perspective, it is the Norwegian state and most of the people who have betrayed fundamental principles of justice that we used to hold dear, with all the hateful sex laws and last but most importantly the abolition of the jury -- and against those reforms I am rightly described as a Quisling. It is as if the Nazis should have invaded Norway and been welcomed by everyone except Quisling -- that is the sort of Quisling I am!

Now I want to take the time to say that I don't suspect Gally anymore, and I apologize for implicating him so strongly in the past. We have our disagreements and bad name-calling, but I don't think he is behind the anonymous hate. There is a world of difference between calling someone autistic or learning-impaired and saying they need a bullet. At this point I have no clue who is behind, because they go to great lengths to cover their tracks. But I do know that other male sexualists are also targeted, so at least a somewhat organized effort seems likely, rather than the work of one determined stalker. Tom Grauer was driven to delete his first and best blog and now also deleted his latest effort, which at the end gave the impression that he has gone insane as well (or been driven..?).

Whoever it is, I doubt they would be so tough if they couldn't hide behind anonymous proxies and usernames. It is truly pathetic to be so cowardly that you have to use underhanded methods to advance a position that is just political correctness anyway (and why bother?). Unless, of course, they realize that their position doesn't really represent society, but a monstrous sort of sex-hostility that doesn't even tolerate a dissenting opinion being expressed anywhere without sending criminal threats, while my kind of speech is in fact protected by society.

So now my question is, should I only allow comments from logged-in users? The thing is that I do not want to provide a channel for anonymous death threats against myself. Not with enemies like these, who are determined to harass me in any way they can. If anyone wants to make such threats, they should be more traceable. This is a weighty argument, but there is also a downside, because most of my legitimate commenters also prefer anonymity.

So what do you say, all of you who have contributed constructively to the comment section over the years? Will it kill all interesting discussion if I make you log in and sign your messages by a Google account or similar? I will at least leave it open (with only pre-moderation turned on) for a little while longer to hear your responses. But if I have to tighten it up, I have to, for my health and safety.

Saturday, December 01, 2018

Is nofap misogynistic?

Regular readers of my blog already know that that I promote not masturbating -- so-called "nofap" -- as an important rule of life for boys and men and an essential ingredient in the male sexualist ideology. Nofap is much bigger than male sexualism, however; so much so that the mainstream has noticed and started calling it misogynistic: "What may appear to be just another weird and bizarre internet challenge is underpinned by extreme misogyny and threats of violence," says Sarah Manavis writing for the New Statesman.

So, is nofap really misogynistic? Well, the short answer is no, but there is a catch, because nofap is not done in the interests of women, either. Nofap promotes male sexual health, and anything which exclusively promotes male sexual health will not be aligned with women's interests to the extent that male and female sexuality do not have the same goals or optimal strategies. And that extent is huge! All of evolutionary psychology is basically an exposition of this difference, but that is a subject for another day.

Nofap is male empowerment of the hands-on (or rather, hands-off!) self-help variety, which is arguably more powerful than changing laws and makes women nervous for good reasons. For one thing, they will lose their ability to exploit us through pornography and other "sex work" which does not actually involve putting out. It should also make the state nervous because if men follow my advice and never look at porn, the cops will lose one of their most insidious weapons against male sexuality as child porn and other obscenity laws are rendered irrelevant. And that does not even begin to address the increased sexual attention that females will receive in real life (including underage), some of it welcome but much of it not.

This brings me to an important ethical point. The fact that pornography and masturbation lead to less sexual violence is not an ethical argument for these pathologies. Just like no sane physician would recommend that men walk around with broken arms instead of having fractures properly treated on the pretext that men can't so easily use a broken arm for violence, we must never argue that porn or masturbation is "good" because it leads to less rape or sexual harassment. Fapping means walking around with a continuously broken libido and erectile function as well as being socially inhibited and cowardly around women. The fapping man is a cripple compared to the sexually healthy man, so naturally he would be a less effective rapist as well, both statutory and real. But none of this matters because ethics dictate that personal health must be promoted first and foremost. Restore a healthy libido first, and then figure out what to do with it.

The male sexualist ideology does prescribe ethical sexual behavior that does not unduly harm women, even for sexually healthy and very horny young men who practice nofap. For one thing, prostitution would be a legal alternative to rape, and prohibitions on underage sex would be vastly reduced, making it realistic to practice nofap and not commit crimes at least for all agywophiles. (I'll leave it to our splinter groups headed by Nathan Larson et al. to decide what to do with the pedophiles. It is conceivable that they might still want to opt for masturbation, but I can't bring myself to personally recommend it even to them.)

Thus it turns out that in the middle of all our despair of male sexualism going nowhere, a sizable group of men have already adopted one of our core tenets. As a male sexualist, I salute the NoFap subreddit with 381,774 subscribers. And I salute the website Your Brain on Porn for bringing us the science of porn addiction. Its owner Gary Wilson must be one hell of a "misogynist" for his tireless devotion to explicating the mechanisms by which porn use is harmful to male sexuality.

Welcome aboard, gentlemen. Men's rights activism begins with our bodies, and our minds and ideology will surely follow.

Sunday, November 04, 2018

The male sexualist color and flag

As the leader of male sexualism, I declare pink to be our political color, and a pink flag is to be our symbol.

Why pink?

The simple explanation: Pink is the color of pussy, the celebration of which is the male sexualist ethos. Women of all colors have pink pussies, so it is all-inclusive.

Pink is currently seen as a sort of girlie and cutesy color that men don't want to be too wrapped up in. My picking this color is deliberate because society wants to shame us for our sexuality, and we need to deal with that. By embracing pink we proudly admit that we like pussy, including a great deal of (unfairly) criminalized pussy, which is the raison d'être for male sexualism. Men who are too timid to support us outright yet can practice wearing some pink to get over their embarrassment, as a sort of training wheels for male sexualism if you will.

Another reason is simple availability. The white flag is taken (and we certainly don't want that!), the black flag is taken by the anarchists, red and blue and green and brown are established political colors, but pink is claimed by no ideology that I know of.

Pink is also a beautiful color, admit it! That is almost reason enough.

You might object that it is too heterocentric. To that I would reply that if you don't like pussy, you already have a flag with a rainbow on it. We need a straight pride flag too! The pink flag does double service as straight pride and the symbol of male sexualism. If the gays ever man up to resist the feminist sex laws, in future demonstrations we can even fly the pink and rainbow flags side by side.

Now we also have a new male sexualist rallying cry: "Give me pink!"

If you want to call the pink flag a pedophile flag, I would not object to that even though I and most of us are not pedophiles (this is a way to disarm the ridiculous accusation that we are pedophiles just for liking teen girls under the age of consent too). You can also call it a MAP flag (but not NOMAP or VirPed -- well, I can't stop them either), an antifeminist flag or a positive masculinity flag. All told, it is a flag against oppression of sexuality -- the flag of sex-positivity. Obviously women can use it too against the female sex offender charade, if they ever come to their senses and resist that. My vision is that the pinks will be mentioned alongside the reds and blues and other colors of the political landscape as we gain traction.

Monday, October 29, 2018

Reverse sting

[New footnote to the title, which I cannot change, but want to explain: I see now that the term "reverse sting" is in use already in a different sense than I am intending here, referring to one particular sort of sting where cops pose as sellers or providers of illegal goods and services rather than buyers -- all of which I had just known as sting operations. That is NOT what I mean here; by "reverse sting" I mean that a citizen is trying to hurt the cops and the politics they represent by trolling or otherwise subverting their sting operation. Perhaps a better word would have been something like "sting ambush," but I like the term "reverse sting" and think we should claim it for my usage.]

First a little background for this post to make more sense. Me and my girlfriend have recently broken up and I am now dating again. We broke up because we disagree about having children. She is childfree and I am childless, and that wasn't working out for life.

So naturally, I am now on Tinder, and looking for women who do want to have children. Even though I only look for 16+ women and this site has an 18+ age limit, I have already been a victim of attempted entrapment. Am I vulnerable to temptation? Apparently not, since I actually said no, but with methods like these no man is safe. I am putting this interaction in its entirety out there for all to see what monsters are out there. It is in Norwegian, but the gist of it is this:

I match with an 18-year-old girl and ask her for sex. She says she is actually 15, I consider meeting her anyway but end up telling her to wait until she is 16 and legal. Then she tells me that she is actually 16, and I say I want to meet her, but then she changes her age back to 15 and I give her a definitive no, after which she claims to be police. I say I will expose their scam, they get nervous and start backtracking, but here it is on YouTube (go fullscreen to make it legible).


In the short time I have been single, I have already hooked up with a beautiful young girl on Tinder and had a one-night stand. She was 22. I like a variety of ages and am the first to admit that normal men are also fully attracted to teen girls, regardless of what the age of consent says. In fact a good bit of my activist career has been devoted to normalize this already normal fact for normal men, but I stay within the law for practical reasons while campaigning to have it reformed to end the criminalization of our healthy sexuality.

This video is notable for showing some incredibly deceptive efforts at seducing men by first using a picture of a legal-age woman (this one can't be younger than 17 if you look at her Instagram, which shows her 10th-grade prom two years ago; most likely she is 18), and then lying that she is younger than she is in order to brand the man as a "pedophile" and "remove him from society" as she says. Men are considered so worthless that simply believing a woman's lie is supposed to be enough to have us imprisoned, and not even a very credible one at that. Which is nothing but a bizarre thoughtcrime, the crime of being a normal man.

Now tell me who any normal person would see as the bad guys here?

Thursday, September 27, 2018

I am under attack by a criminal harasser

When I was investigated for incitement on my blog in 2012 and later cleared of all charges to the point of being compensated for wrongful imprisonment, the police pretty much stayed within the laws and norms governing their behavior and never even encouraged me to remove any content. If the police are going to arrest you, they will simply do it and not threaten you just because they don't like your blog or disagree with your opinions or whatever. They are capable of bringing ridiculous charges against you, but so far they have respected the courts when told it's not a criminal matter.

And I still don't think the police misbehaves that way. So when I received the following threat today:

"Du har 48 timer til å lukke bloggen din og din Twitter-konto. Hvis du ignorerer dette, vil jeg få en rettsordre for at politiet skal komme inn i huset ditt og ta dine elektroniske gjenstander. Ikke lek med meg."

Translation: "You have 48 hours to close your blog and your Twitter-account. If you ignore this, I will get a court order to have the police come into your house and seize your electronic equipment. Don't toy with me."

I can be sure it is not originating from the police or prosecutors or anyone with the authority to get a court order. What this is is criminal threats or harassment directed at me as a law-abiding citizen. As it happens, I think I know who is behind -- the character known as Gally here on my blog -- but I shall refrain from naming him publicly yet as I don't have proof. I initially thought he was a friend of our movement, but he turned out to be both crazy and evil, having now turned against me and set his mind to shut down my blog and Twitter account and who knows what else he is up to.

Yesterday he posted material which can be construed as child pornography in a comment and reported me for it. I promptly deleted the comment and Google administrators didn't buy into his scheme, thankfully. But this is an extremely serious situation for me as I am targeted by a vicious criminal who also has considerable expertise on computer security and is therefore very dangerous. I am putting this all out in the open so that if something does happen to me, you know the background. While I don't think he is violent, he has demonstrated that he is capable of manufacturing false evidence and make false accusations, which can turn really ugly by itself.

Of course, the appropriate response is to report him to the police myself for criminal harassment, and I am seriously considering this. I will not be harassed into silence, and still don't think the authorities use such methods against free speech in Norway. Of course, I must also look out for my own safety and any advice is welcome from my genuine commenters. I do ask all my commenters to keep it very clean and not give him anything that can be used to escalate this. I just want to forget him and move on with my political blogging, but as he has decided to make a nuisance of himself I am taking the precautionary step of this warning. He has also been impersonating other members of our movement in order to damage us, so any communication purporting to be from us must be treated with extreme suspicion. I even got a request yesterday from a supposed documentary filmmaker who wanted info about our movement, and I suspect he is behind that as well, but can't be sure. As you can see, such behavior is psychologically damaging and is criminal for a reason that I also support. This is threats against an individual, nothing like the political speech that I have been controversial for, and Gally will only be exposed as the common criminal that he is if he tries anything.

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

Reasons why people believe in the female sex offender charade

Whatever their reasons, people do not believe that women can sexually abuse because it is true. As I have resoundingly pointed out, it is logically impossible, given the core beliefs and values that I hold, for women to sexually abuse boys. In this post I will examine possible reason for why people believe, or say they believe that women can be sexual abusers despite the obvious falsehood of this proposition.

- Virtue signaling. Now that it is established as politically correct to believe in female-perpetrated sexual abuse, that in itself will make a lot of people say it just because it increases their status. It is a classic case of the emperor's new clothes -- social status counts more than perceptions and one tends to say what powerful people want to hear.

- It follows from other strongly held beliefs. I am thinking of feminists who posit that the sexes are equal, which is how we got into this mess. Once it is axiomatic to you that there cannot be any sex differences, women must be able to do everything men can no matter how absurd, and so female sexual acts must be equivalent to male abuse despite no one ever feeling it. This is similar to how some physicists feel compelled to believe in the multiverse. Neither phenomenon can ever be observed, but one must believe in it for the sake of consistency.

- Projection. Women project their own sexual feelings (or lack of them) onto males, honestly not realizing how different we are. Notice that women are by far the most vociferous proponents of the female sex offender charade, as well as inventing it, and we often hear that "abuse" was accused only because a boy's mother egged him on. Men used to keep such lunacy in check, and it can thus be seen as a nasty side effect of giving women too much political power.

- Their paycheck depends on it. Is a policeman, prosecutor, judge, school administrator, therapist or journalist going to go with his instincts, which if expressed will get him instantly fired, or what brings home the bacon and furthers his career? The choice is dishonorable, but understandable. These figures will almost always follow the profits. The same goes for accusers and their families who stand to gain from suing the school etc., in which case greed is the proper name of the sin.

- Thoughtlessness and going with the flow. I know I am special because I have thought and read extensively about sexual abuse, and there are doubtless people who give it little thought. I am sure I hold irrational beliefs on some other subjects myself, perhaps some of them equally ridiculous as the assertion that women can sexually abuse boys. But I wouldn't know, because I don't examine these views critically, and there isn't enough time in anybody's life to think critically and research the facts about everything. This is probably the most excusable excuse, but it can't remain excusable for long if you are made to think about the topic.

- Socially acceptable misogyny. To label a woman as "sex offender" is to declare open season for any hate anyone wishes to heap on her, and this being the sole remaining politically correct way to hate women, naturally it will attract misogynists. This hate is so strong in some men that they will pathetically deny their own sexual nature as boys in favor of claiming abuse, and this applies to accusers as well as bystanders. Thus you have grown men spouting the lie that they didn't want to have sex with their female teachers in school, or that they were "abused" if they did. I am willing to accept that their hate is stronger than their sex drive, but they were most assuredly not abused, because that would require a consensus reality in which I could intuitively partake and not just a false and self-serving belief. This doesn't even have to be misogyny, but the same kind of misanthropic malice that causes a person to jump on the bandwagon and participate in any old witch-hunt or lynching. Vigilante pedophile hunters are cut from this cloth.

Insofar as people believe in the myth that women can be sexual abusers, how do they justify it to themselves?

- The aversive experience delusion. We all know that boys want sex, but somehow, for the purposes of expressing an opinion on female "abusers," this knowledge is blocked out and replaced with the message promulgated by the theatrics of feminist abuse hysteria. They may be laboring under the delusion that "children" are asexual, never mind their own memory to the contrary. And the "teacher or similar status = abusive power differential" myth is a powerful destroyer of common sense. All it takes is a mumbo-jumbo explanation like that and a lot of people's minds go blank and ready to be filled with whatever authority tells them. This is similar to how the "rape is about power rather than sex" canard got established. It sounds like a sophisticated thing to say, so having heard it all his life from intelligent-sounding people, the man in the street will parrot it even though it bears zero resemblance to how he feels his own sexuality works.

- The more pseudo-sophisticated explanations. Some true believers will admit that boys go through all the motions and feelings of wanting and enjoying sex, but then all this is somehow made irrelevant by a metaphysical layer that still makes it abuse. Or it is believed that some kind of "trauma" will surface later. Of course this is gibberish unless you go out of your way to brainwash boys into thinking they have been abused -- which is to say actually abusing them -- but it is an explanation for how these dimwitted minds work.

- Misguided equality or an MRA tactic. Some men understand that the female sex offender charade is completely or mostly nonsense, but they want to punish these women anyway just to be "equal" or get even or convince women that the hateful sex laws were a bad idea (which never happens). This belief is common among men who have partially opened their eyes to the abuses of feminism, including a lot of self-styled "MRAs," but of course they are no such thing.

- The irrelevant harm theory. This is also common among "MRAs," who will want to punish women not for sex itself, which they know is harmless, but consequences such as child support. They may have a point, but this should be dealt with by reforming child support laws rather than pretending that women can rape or sexually abuse boys. Apparently they lack the imagination to do anything but go along with the feminists on 99% of issues.

If you look at the comment section below any news article about supposed female sexual abusers, wherever comments are unmoderated, it is always teeming with men who express disbelief that it can be abuse or say they wish they had been so lucky themselves. So this is one issue where male sexualists are decidedly not alone. I would say we represent the true majority, but those who promote the female sex offender charade wield disproportionate power, enough to make it the law of the land for now. This is a horribly wrong situation that we need to change, gentlemen. As male sexualist activists we must never forget to stand up for women accused of sexual abuse as well, because we know this charade is every bit as absurd and odious as any historical witch-hunt and even more troubling than the hateful persecution we face ourselves.