Sunday, June 28, 2020

The conviction of Gaute Drevdal for feminist-contrived "rape"

Male sexualism is all about how most sexual charges nowadays are not accusations, but rather redefinitions of our normal sexuality to rape and abuse. A big trial just concluded in Norway which makes this very clear. Gaute Drevdal, a former magazine editor and generally cool guy who had lots of success with women, is sentenced to 13.5 years for what is by all reasonable interpretations normal and consensual sex with nine women:

When the prosecutor feels the need to protest that she isn't conducting the very definition of why we need male sexualism in her closing statements, you know that is exactly what it is:

"– Denne saken handler ikke om sex man angrer på, ikke om sex man ikke husker og ikke om gjensidig seksuell kontakt i en slags gråsone mellom frivillighet og utnyttelse. De fornærmede i vår sak har fortalt at de våkner opp til at tiltalte har seksuell omgang med dem, sa statsadvokaten i prosedyren melder NTB."

And of course, it's also about getting an older man for success with young women and the phony idea that women attracted to men in any kind of higher positions makes it abuse:

"– Han var en betydelig eldre person enn de fornærmede, og han hadde den gangen en sosial maktposisjon i miljøet. De fornærmedes unge alder og manglende livserfaring gjør dem generelt sårbare overfor tiltalte, sa politiadvokat Hilde Strand."

Notice how the greater life experience of an older man is used to twist his sexuality into abuse, quite apart from his "position" as well. The feminist police state is not content with age of consent for that, nor the age of majority, but keeps pushing this excuse for women into their twenties to regret consensual sex and have the man thrown in prison. If you are attracted to women at the age the vast majority of us find them most attractive -- around 20 -- then your sexuality is by definition abuse. Could it be any clearer that we are dealing with pure, unadulterated hatred of our very souls, of everything that makes us men? How can men still not wake up and fight back?

A commenter asked me:
I agree with your analysis and perspective about the age difference thing, Eivind (with regards to the recent sentencing of Gaute Drevdal, as well as in general). However, there is something I want to add. The real reason the age difference is "skjerpende" (the English word slipped my mind here), is that it's an indicator that it's less likely that the sex was consensual, since most young women would be put off by the age-gap. Now, why am I bringing this up? Well, imagine a defense attorney using the fact that an alleged rape victim was old and/or fat as "evidence" that his client was not likely to want to commit a sexual offense against her. Can you imagine the screeching on social media? Yet, that is very similar to what is being done here with the age-gap thing, no matter how much they claim it's about the "imbalance of power".
Hmmm... good point, but am not so sure the age difference is just a probabilistic thing, like arguing that men would be unlikely to want to rape an old woman (which as you note, however true would cause an uproar if used as an argument in court today -- certainly a double standard). When the prosecutor says young women are "generelt sårbare overfor tiltalte" -- "generally vulnerable in relation to the accused" -- she means something much more sinister and fundamentally damning of us than what that probabilistic analogy would indicate. This line of argument reeks of the idea that older men are inherently disgusting in an absolute sense, so that women who are sincerely attracted to us and want sex are still victims. It is also flatly untrue that women are unlikely to want sex with men who are seen as leaders in a community, even if older, and this man wasn't even that old: he is 50 now and these "rapes" date back up to 15 years. There may be an attempt at a probabilistic argument in addition to this, but clearly no amount of adoration from a woman will absolve us, and feminist prosecutors are just itching to throw us in prison for that alone just like they do with girls under 16 or 18 without construing a "rape" -- which here consists of the women allegedly being asleep during some parts of the consensual encounters -- that universal weapon to turn every single night you spend with a woman into rape.

To claim that adult women can't make their own sexual decisions, but are "generally vulnerable" to men who possess the "wrong" attractive characteristics would be just as insane as to claim men are "generally vulnerable" to fall for women with augmented boobs or heavy makeup or a flirty disposition or whatever and therefore should be entitled to a refund for child support or whatever negative things followed -- but no one cares, absurd hatred against men to the benefit of women is infinitely tolerated in this society.

Also, the word "skjerpende" -- aggravating -- can't really be used of a probabilistic thing after conviction. You are either guilty or not, and if found guilty then the court can't claim something that merely heightens their confidence in that fact as an aggravating factor in sentencing unless it actually aggravates the crime. The man being older is clearly taken to be an aggravating factor in the crime itself, if that word is used to support sentencing. Which is exactly like saying rapists should get a lighter sentence if the woman is old or fat, LOL! Not an argument that the rape probably didn't happen like a defense attorney might claim, but something much worse, that old and fat women are less worth, and older men are too.

Also I wonder if they are willing to turn it around and give handsome rapists of exactly the same age as the victim a sentencing discount 😂

If not, they should just drop the whole age gap thing.

I can't find the whole verdict at this time, but some excerpts here:

He was literally just accused of being most attracted to women from 18-25 in his 40s, and getting lucky with them and then anything which makes him attractive (such as his ability to get them into cool clubs and such) is used against him as supposed "abuse of trust" -- as if women should "trust" that older men don't want sex and are too immature to understand any of it into their 20s! "Rapes" where they "pretended to be asleep" because they didn't want to reject him and that sort of thing. Them letting him have it instead of fighting back or even saying no is considered his fault! Can you imagine eight women being "raped" and not one giving a hint of resistance? But that's irrelevant today because rape is redefined to regret only, formally because one were too drunk or asleep, or alternatively "abuse of position," which is technically another statute if they wanted to use it, but here it seems they blended that too into rape, which is quite an innovation. Plus there was one count of statutory "abuse" of a 15-year-old. No real victim there either.

His own reaction:

The women coordinated their accusations and still they didn't come up with anything that a normal person would consider rape. Of course the feminists are hailing it as an enormous victory and step forward, which indeed it is to them:

At this point they might as well drop the charade that there is a trial, and just throw men directly in prison upon all sexual accusations. The court will give them anything they ask for anyway, even if they have to reason based on no other premise than the man is older. Plus he's the one who needs to prove his innocence, as if that would even be possible when all sex is rape and abuse anyway because our very souls are criminal abusers.

"– For å være helt ærlig føler jeg meg lurt av tingretten. De sa innledningsvis at det er påtalemyndighetens oppgave å bevise skyld, ikke den tiltales oppgave å bevise uskyld. Det motsatte har skjedd, mener Drevdal."

And we won't even get a jury for his appeal trial -- so completely have the feminists clinched their victory.

And a funny thing. The 15-year-old girl was not raped -- just an age of consent violation -- while the eight other women up to 25 years old at the time were what the law considers literally raped at least predominantly because they were too young and clueless to understand what was going on. So there's a glaring inconsistency right there in the verdict. But don't tell the feminists because then the solution will just be to turn statutory abuse into rape convictions, with the much longer sentences that will entail.

So however bad this sounds, there is still plenty of room for innovation which I am sure they will get busy with once this level of misandry is normalized. I mean, when adult women are infantilized to this degree, it should be piece of cake to establish that teenagers between 14 and 16 literally can't consent (like they already have recently done for those under 14). And then the next step after that would be to raise this new absolute rape age to 18, which the public is also already ready for.

All the women who conspired against Gaute Drevdal used the minimum accusation needed to have him convicted, which is very clever. They didn't allege any violence since that would hurt their credibility, but everyone believes they actually had sex. The 15-year-old didn't need to embellish at all since the law already has her regret covered. The others make up just the bare minimum of lack of consent in their heads or supposedly being asleep or too intoxicated, and then they fill in the rest by the general idea that older men are abusers, and voila, the Norwegian feminist "justice" system hands them all the convictions they ask for. ALL of them. That's the recipe for most successful false accusations -- first make the justice system institutionalize false rape and abuse, and then play into that while not lying about things like actual violence that can expose them. I notice that false rape accusers in other countries often make up violence and hence get exposed as liars, but that's certainly not needed here.

Monday, June 15, 2020

The implications of false pretenses behind persecutions

Just because somebody is in a position to persecute doesn’t give them any special entitlement to the truth. There is no reason why persecutions can't be based on nonsensical theories. I mean not just exaggerated entitlement or factually false accusations, but complete gobbledygook. I think most readers will agree that the witch-hunts we know from history were in this category, including the Satanic Panic of the 1980s which is still somewhat ongoing. The other types of persecution occur because one group decides to grab unreasonable benefits for itself, including reckless disregard for your rights or well-being (think American cops killing black men) or draconian punishments for trivial offenses operating under the principle that might is right -- or there can be a mixture of selfish interests and gibberish justifications. These give rise to logically comprehensible movements in opposition such as Male Sexualism or Black Lives Matter. But if you find yourself a victim of persecution based on complete gibberish, what do you do? I know this isn’t an exercise of the intellect if you are actually accused, in which case your best bet is to find a good lawyer who will work within the limitations of his profession to exploit any loopholes in the system that he and you can get away with. But a blog post isn’t subject to any such limitations and I am free to give idealistic answers.

I don’t have a pat answer to how to end persecution based on gibberish pretenses (except maybe “defund the police” would go a long way there too -- thanks to BLM for that push), but I know one thing you shouldn’t do, at least not ideally. And that is to identify with the thing persecuted as if it were real or legitimately classified. Persecuted “witches” who formed witches’ organizations and fought to have witchcraft accepted would not be putting on a sound defense, in my view. Even though that approach might have worked for some, it came at a cost of forming an identity that reasonable, educated people probably don’t want. I don't mean to knock those who want to identify as witches, but at least it should be obvious that it is not for everyone.

I have arrived at this analogy because I feel this is what The Antifeminist will have us do regarding pornography offenses, like the absurd crime of possessing pictures of 17-year-old girls. I agree those constitute persecution which we should oppose, but we must also consider the implications of the lack of any sexual benefit to the man -- lack of benefit which I have exposed at length in my series of posts on nofap. A sexualist movement cannot treat persecution for empty or downright self-harming offenses the same as persecution for our healthy and valuable sexuality. There has to be implications for our activism when something isn't sexually beneficial, hence my views on pornography and male masturbation. If men are going to get persecuted for our sexuality, we better damned well derive some sexual value before we concede that we are, in fact, being persecuted for our sexuality, and fapping doesn’t fit that bill. Any persecution which falsely claims to crack down on sexual exploitation when there is none to our benefit better be called out on that falsehood! As I hope the historical witch-hunts illustrate, there is such a thing as persecution under egregiously false pretenses, which should be dealt with differently than persecution of our healthy and self-identified nature. Persecutory accusations can be false, unreasonable or gibberish, and it is the latter I am concerned with here.

Perhaps an analogy to so-called hate crimes can make it clearer. Whether you agree with hate crime legislation or not (which I probably don’t), at least you can see the point why people think the systematic hate against a group makes such crimes worse. And just like there are hate crimes, there are also hate laws when hateful people get to make the laws, like feminists do now. For example the age of consent is a hate law against men. When crept up way past puberty it targets our normal, healthy sexuality in a way that actually and systematically hurts us. Contrast this to the pornography laws. They may claim the purpose is to criminalize the sexual exploitation of girls and women, but in actual fact they do no such thing because the true victims of pornography are men: the male viewers who often incur impotence and other dysfunctions as well as the inevitable opportunity cost that it displaces sex or at least some sexual drive and pursuit. We are no slaves to politically correct dogma, but able to think for ourselves and realize that the pornography laws are random acts of evil rather than hate laws against our sexuality, paralleling witch-hunts rather than, say, anti-Semitism or racism. And to the extent that the pornography laws have any systemic effect at all, they help promote male sexuality rather than hurt it since they help men not masturbate and have sex instead (talking about deterrence rather than incarceration here, since being in jail obviously doesn’t help). Once again, being in a position to persecute does not confer any entitlement to truth, and while we can’t do anything about their violence for now, at least we don’t have to buy into their bullshit concepts!

From an activist standpoint, hate laws are a very different beast than random acts of evil, and do not deserve to be treated the same way in our manifesto-writing. It does a disservice to the fight against true oppression of our sexuality to conflate it with evils that are not in that category -- and please note this does not mean I dispute that they are evils! The persecution can be of the worst order, but just because an oppressor claims a sort of persecution is for a specified purpose does not make that true. Oppressors can write elegant treatises, even put them into Latin like the Malleus Maleficarum, and it is still nonsense. The feminists can rave all day long about how men need to be locked up because images in their possession “exploit women and children,” but that doesn’t make it true, and men of integrity do not go along with that charade any more than we go along with the female sex offender charade -- which also constitutes persecution under false pretenses. Likewise the right-wingers can blather along with feminist theories of “abuse” as a new-found outlet for what they used to call “sin,” and that makes neither the victimology nor their original position true or compelling (though I will give them that that the old conservative moralism was slightly less bad than feminism).

If we were to assume The Antifeminist’s position of outrage that that the “child/revenge/upskirting” etc. porn laws go against our sexuality, we would in an important sense be no better than our oppressors. You would have two sides of superstition pitted up against each other, both of whom are delusional because it is impossible for girls to be exploited via remote consumption of pornography and impossible for men to sexually benefit from the same. Both these superstitions necessarily go together, or at least the former necessitates the latter, because you can’t have “exploitation” without somebody doing the exploitation and benefiting from it in some way. Since I as a nofapper understand that porn actually hurts the male viewer’s sexuality, in a way diametrically opposite, no less, to what the feminists claim, so that he becomes less effective at exploiting females if he thinks porn and masturbation are good things, we must reject the entire conceptual framework behind the law. The only exceptions are if the law is applied against what might otherwise be called grooming, conspiracy or solicitation, in which case it is a bona fide male sexualist casus belli, of course. It is the core tenet of male sexualism that the feminist theories of abuse are not so much accusations as a redefinition of our sexuality to abuse, but of course we can’t acknowledge the inclusion of something that isn’t sex or aimed to get sex as even an attempt at that: it then becomes pure gibberish.

The Antifeminist has long been a beacon of reason against words like “ephebophile” and “hebephile.” We reject these labels because they merely refer to normal male sexuality: you would be hard pressed to find a “teleiophile” man who isn't also an ephebophile and (at least to some extent) a hebephile. The Antifeminist correctly understands that hunting ephebophiles is (almost; see below) as nonsensical as hunting witches, because the “ephebophiles” are just normal men just like the “witches” were normal women. We are male sexualists aka normal men, not “MAPs” or whatever: we don't buy into the categories of our oppressors, or their useful idiots on the other side for that matter.

After that stroke of insight, how come he fails to see that “child pornography” is not a valid category? It matters not one whit to our sexuality if the actresses are underage: pornography is harmful all the same when combined with masturbation, harmful to men only. We therefore don’t care about child pornography, except to recommend that men stay away from it along with other porn.

But we do care when people are persecuted, for whatever bad reasons including pure gibberish and superstitions like the delusion that porn exploits females and benefits men. How to oppose such harmful human stupidity is an important question that I can’t solve here and now, but I do hope I have pointed out one pitfall to avoid. In theory, enlightenment should help since the core problem is misguidedness rather than evil, but sadly it seems we make up new superstitions at about the same rate as the old ones are cleared up. We went from sacrificing virgins for a better harvest to sacrificing virgins like Gally for equally absurd reasons, and that’s just the way it goes. Our attitude to such laws should be one of bemused horror like I tried to convey in my interview with Maxwell’s demon, horror that humanity can be so delusional, and at least not partake in the delusions ourselves. Laws against child sexualization in representation are as alien to me as the similarly outlandish (but much more limited in scope) taboo against drawing the prophet of a certain religion. That is what they are -- alien and horrifying that humans can be so intolerant of inconsequential blasphemies -- not a bona fide conflict of interest with my sexuality.

Let us now see how this definition of complete gibberish stacks up to the rest of feminism. The female sex offender charade comes closest. Here you have persecution of sexuality based on entirely false premises, but at least it is persecution of sexuality. Women are punished for being sexually nice to boys -- to the detriment of both sexes and especially males when you consider the bigger picture where only we are really sorry that such relations are outlawed -- so at least there is real persecution of sexuality. “Sexual harassment” and “stalking” laws likewise represent a true sexual conflict of interest, even though they impose unfair restrictions on men. Laws against paying for sex that feminists impose wherever they gain power also represent a real sexual conflict of interest, though not one between the parties actually involved since they are both harmed by the laws, but women as a group benefit while men suffer. Statutory rape and abuse where men are “perpetrators” also get half the story right. Not the rape and abuse part, which is just a legal fiction, of course, but the part where the so-called abuser is sexually benefiting is correct. The biggest, most harmful part of feminism is to expand what used to be the real definition of rape to any instance where a woman regrets sex, and this also gets at least half the story right (except when it refers to getting a woman to masturbate like the Norwegian rape law now enables, or to copulate with objects, in which case it fits squarely in the topic of this post). Because we are an interest group for male sexuality, not merely fighting against persecution of any kind, it is crucially important that at least one part of the conflict of interest be present in order for something to be a male sexualist issue. As such, we are a contact-only movement.

It has just come to light that Facebook paid a ridiculous amount and lost every last bit of pretense that they care about privacy for anybody including the genuinely persecuted people who need Tails OS, in order to catch a no-contact “child predator.” It was the ultimate case of normies oppressing normies, wankers oppressing wankers -- the dimwits employed at Facebook even considered him “the worst criminal to ever use the platform.” 😂 The fools who believe girls can be abused via pictures are just as much wankers as the men who are content with that sort of thing. They even call it “content” as if there is anything there, LOL! Male sexualists believe neither; we see pornography for the inert, worthless garbage that it is, equivalent to the beer bottles littering the Australian outback fooling male jewel beetles to waste their mating efforts. I am sure Buster Hernandez was not a nice person, and yes, he deserves prosecution for criminal threats if he said he would carry out shootings and bombings at the girls' schools if they didn't send him nudes, but the idea that he thereby sexually abused these girls is a complete mirage that is sustained by nothing other than the idiots’ belief in it including their evil imposition of this voodoo belief on the girls as well. Criminal pornography cases are typically such displays of witch doctors hunting witches who believe their witchcraft is meaningful, usually even without the threats to do anything in real life, which admittedly this case was exceptional at. We can only stand by and laugh at the normies wasting their resources cracking down on or consuming asex when we are about sex. The idea that the worst sex predator who ever used Facebook never touched a girl is so hilariously absurd and ironic that it frankly makes the feminists look like pathetic pushovers in thrall to the wanker's delusion, and it makes nofappers seems like superheroes even though we are just normal, LOL!

I am disturbed both by society’s reification of pornographic voodoo magic -- by the persecution as well as the irrationality that it reveals -- and some men’s belief in the same on the opposite side. Honestly I don't know which is worse, the feminist police state or men believing porn is sexually valuable, and we have to admit these men are many and even include some otherwise close to my own movement. But on the plus side, I shudder at how much more damage the antisex bigots could do to sex if they spent all their resources where it matters, so perhaps it is for the best that the police state is so deluded.

I marvel at the poverty of real-life experience that must underlie a conviction that pictures or words are so important that girls can be “sexually exploited” simply by sending a nude. I studied art and learned that it is something you play around with, something you fearlessly control. Ditto for literature and any kind of symbolic representation. It isn't real, and it is absurd to think that you possess them just because you have captured someone’s likeness. That sentence sounds violent, but it is just a metaphor. Sometimes I wonder if the normies don't know this? Do they think they inhabit a reality of sympathetic magic where an image can steal your soul like in the joke about primitive people? Slightly more charitably, what the antisex bigots who hunt wankers in the belief that it carries sexual significance are engaged in is to avenge the “honor” of girls. Unlike sexual abuse, this is something external to the girl, her sexual market value if you will. It is indeed a symbolic construct, her social reputation, so it can be messed up by pictures and words (which again doesn't benefit men sexually, so it's not in that realm of conflict). But do the feminists really want to go there? Weren't we supposed to be past a world where a woman’s value is wrapped up in her sexual purity? Well, apparently not. Again, they may claim they are fighting sexual exploitation and abuse, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Having the power to persecute confers no entitlement to truth, and we see right through them.

As a bonus, I invite you to look at this Twitter thread as an example of the sad amorality of women pertaining to the female sex offender charade. I thought this request would be an occasion for some enlightenment, but no, it was only “an assignment” to her and she had zero interest in the moral implications, so she blocked our most excellent @fertiledating twitterer.

Saturday, June 06, 2020

Hulk Hogan's incredible racist award

In 2016, a court in Florida awarded Hulk Hogan $115 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages (later settled to $31 million) because a "sex tape" with him had been illegally shared. If it were really just a sex tape, there would have been no trial and the video would have been met with either high fives or yawns all around including from Hulk Hogan himself, probably most yawns given that the woman was middle-aged and the Hulk is a faded celebrity as well. No, the real issue was that Hulk exposed himself as a racist in the video, which ended his wrestling career. As such, the compensatory damages may reflect actual losses, but why would a society which ostensibly cares very much about racism compensate a man who lost his showbiz income because he is a racist? This astonished me at the time, and I could only conclude that it was because the taboo on sex was stronger than the taboo on racism, and because it enabled promotion of the former, everyone went along with a charade that Hogan had been a sort of "sexually violated" to the point that his racism could be ignored and its negative consequences compensated. It speaks volumes about how the manufacture of sexual violation (or absurd exaggerations thereof) is a racket that of course women benefit from all the time, but also men can get in on.

I bring this up now because recent events may have brought the mainstream closer to my male sexualist view, and I want to test that hypothesis. Giving Hulk Hogan the right to be a racist in private, on pain of wild compensation if his racism is admitted in the court of public opinion, is sort of like saying it's OK for cops to beat and kill unarmed blacks as long as it isn't filmed, and I don't think society accepts that anymore. So if this post resonates with more than my regular readers, we have actually made some progress against senseless sexual taboos.

Following the murder of George Floyd it has become fashionable to call for defunding the police, which warms my male sexualist heart. But it brings up the reverse situation of Hulk Hogan's "sex tape" trial, because now we need to downplay rather than exaggerate sexual violations. Presumably there can't be a policeman in every bedroom, a prostitution sting on every corner, or a cop pretending to be an underage girl in every chat room if the police are to be defunded? It is amazing that the feminists would allow this, but times do change.

Perhaps it will even become unacceptable for right-wing bigots to use feminist antisex hate as an excuse for their racism? Of the kind Stefan Molyneux is still laying on thick here:

If current events are an indication, it can't be okay for much longer to basically define all black or immigrant sexuality as abuse. It is the feminist position as well as the conservative one, but enough already. Sometimes formerly highly virtuous attitudes become the the mark of a bigot, and for good reason. The male sexualists are finally on the right side of history at something.

Wednesday, April 15, 2020

Taboos unlimited

As someone who has spent his life resisting pointless sexual taboos, it is fascinating to watch the explosion in taboos resulting from COVID-19. Whereas cops used to be busy enforcing feminist sexual taboos, now they have their hands full targeting literally any kind of social interaction and even solitary walks outside the home. In a matter of weeks we went to a new normal that Spiked sums up like this, with unsurprisingly British cops found to be among the most zealous:
On Good Friday, Cambridgeshire Police tweeted that officers were pleased to find no shoppers in the ‘non-essential’ aisles at Tesco. On the same day, South Yorkshire Police were forced to apologise after an officer in Rotherham was filmed telling a family they were not allowed in their own front garden. Another video shared online showed officers breaking down a man’s door because they had heard reports of a gathering. The man was watching television alone.
These "crimes" would be too absurd for parody a short while ago, but now it is clear that police will enforce anything and then some, and people don't put up much resistance beyond maybe sharing a video. This is both an educational and a teachable moment to us male sexualists. On the one hand it shows how hopelessly docile people are, but it ought to be possible to evoke some thought on the nature and basis of taboos when they change so suddenly. An injunction to only leave the house once per day for essential errands or stand two meters apart in public is just as arbitrary as, say, the age of consent creeping up to 18. People who internalize the latter as a timeless truth are just as stupid as if these new social distancing norms were to become permanent and held in similar "esteem."

Some of the new taboos will have to be temporary because it is economically impossible to carry on like this, but others will likely stay with us long after the virus is gone. We can't have an economy with no "non-essential" activity, but it's feasible to always have plexiglass barriers between customers and cashiers, for example, and all the new surveillance can certainly be kept up. If we get through this crisis, it will be interesting how much of formerly normal social interactions will still be subject to taboos and prosecutions. In some ways this is good because it takes resources away from antisex bigotry and spreads the hate more evenly on the population.

Yes, the virus is real, with significant mortality, and it makes sense to limit its spread. But you don't have to be a male sexualist to see that such measures can get out of hand. When taboos and oppressive policing get entrenched, however, there is a danger that even smart people lose sight of how pointless and unfair they are. This has happened with sexual taboos in the present world. Similar to how in the ancient world even the most astute ethical thinkers like Jesus didn't realize that there is anything wrong with slavery and torture, people today including the intellectual "elite" believe that locking up or socially ostracizing people for victimless sex, or even just looking at pictures or fantasizing about it, is just what one does.

Before COVID-19, I was sure I was going to die in a world where would be one of the last to remember a time without feminist sex-hostility. It is already difficult to convince people that there can be such a thing as a world without the female sex offender charade, without the asinine denial of minor sexuality, without the hateful feminist rape law reforms that pretend women can be raped without force and resistance, and without the hysterical taboos against sexuality in the workplace and everywhere. But now, I can see the world taking a completely different trajectory, with all those female luxuries of wielding violence against men and other women on the basis of convenient sexual accusations simply disappearing along with the other accoutrements of industrial civilization because we hit limits to growth and collapsed.

For educated guesses about collapse, I recommend Gail Tverberg's blog, which has suddenly become highly relevant again. I won't call it either way, yet. One thing is sure: we are in the middle of a dire crisis where weeks seem like years in terms of how the world is changing, mostly for the worse except the antisex bigots are losing some power. Please do share your perspectives about what is happening where you are and where you think the world is headed in the comments. Am I right that we at least can rejoice that the coronavirus is hurting the feminists, or will they find ways to maintain their antisex police state even after this?

Friday, March 27, 2020

Male sexualism in a time of plague

2020 is shaping up to be a year like no other in my four decades. A year of disaster, to the normies that is. To us male sexualists the past few decades have been an unmitigated disaster until now. For the first time in my life, the world is worried about a greater perceived threat than sexuality. That is progress and relief! But only because our situation was entirely hopeless. As sexualists we have been living in a SHTF situation our entire lives. We have been living under the threat of persecution for our normal sexuality at any time, escalated by increasingly hateful laws every year.

They came for Epstein, Cosby, Weinstein. They came for me and tried (but failed), not just because I am a sexually egosyntonic man but also an activist about it. Of course, I am egosyntonic about my activism as well, which was premeditated my entire life up until its moment in the limelight in 2012 and has been postmeditated since. That’s what it means to be an egosyntonic man, that your actions are not only premeditated but also postmeditated whether you get convicted not, and stay meditated at any cost.

Cosby shows no contrition. Epstein didn’t feign contrition either, and neither does Weinstein, electing instead to speak out on the nature of the persecution of normal male sexuality. That’s why I am upholding these men as role models though there are countless more persecuted for similarly victimless crimes.

Because persecuting sexuality is like shooting fish in a barrel. You can’t make a dent in our sexual practices any more than you can tell fish not to swim, but you can persecute us at will. If you can’t recruit an accuser, you can certainly set up a sting to entrap any given man who isn’t completely asexual, because we are all sex offenders under current laws.

Men who will break the sex laws are a dime a dozen, and many also feel good about it, to their credit, but sadly they don’t follow that up with politics. There are many apolitical sexualists, but only a handful of us activists. The war that men never started fighting back despite our best efforts to incite will only end when the feminists run out of resources.

And now that has finally started happening. They are literally having to release prisoners and quit making so many arrests, not because the antisex pests have turned into any less despicable people, but because they don’t have the means. So rock on, coronavirus! Let’s hope for the worst possible outcome for the antisex bigots and the finances they’d rather use to persecute sexuality but must now devote to rescuing the economy if that's even possible.

Thursday, February 06, 2020

Metaphysical interlude

Today I would like to take a break from male sexualism and explore some metaphysics. Or not really a break because the philosopher I am about to recommend is the closest I have seen to a male sexualist philosopher since Diogenes of Sinope (who was one of us for defying the social order but gets minus points for wanking). Geoffrey Klempner is a metaphysician with balls:

“The only thing I have that is truly mine is my libido, the flame of my desire. Wanting something, or wanting to do something, or do something to someone, is the only reason for existing. So I say thank you, God, for making me a man.”

I watched all his videos and would recommend that. In the recent ones he reads out his entire latest work the Philosophizer's Bible with commentary, and his assertion that it is the most important philosophy book of the 21st century may well be merited. Don’t let the politically incorrect tone fool you. Klempner is a professional philosopher, or was before he retired. He dropped out of the academic world after his doctorate and a little lecturing back in the 1980s and 90s because he realized that game was so full of bullshit, and rather started his own school on the Internet. Which is to say he was a sophist, but there is nothing wrong with that. A while back I called for more role models, and I think we have found one. Deceptively soft-spoken, he is actually an infidel who takes no nonsense from feminists, or religious moralists for that matter. A Transcendental Satanist! Half-joking, as he isn’t really religious apart from his respect for the transcendent, but that’s as close as he comes to anything I have words for. He is emphatically not a solipsist, but his concept of the self is so strong that even God could not create it.

I am not sure about that but can’t refute it either. Klempner definitely helped me understand that personal identity is a further fact beyond the world -- or at least there is a strong possibility that it may be. The world can be just like it is without you in it, even with a person just like you in every observable respect. Consider a complete scientific description of the world, including all the people in it and their consciousnesses. Nothing in that description can tell you who you are; you need something outside the universe pointing to you in order to know that! This is the most central philosophical question, or should be, so deep that even a soul could not explain it because a soul could in principle be duplicated too. People who don’t recognize this deep mystery are what he calls zombies. Probably not really, but they are brainwashed with theories according to which they might as well be, and academic philosophy isn't helping.

In our own movement, such zombification is exemplified by the faction led by The Antifeminist who welcomes sexbots and is positive to masturbation. Only a zombie would be satisfied with another zombie as a sex partner, Klempner would say, because his strongest point is that in order for anything to mean something, we must believe that it is real.

Klempner has a little war going with the academic philosophers and he hates political correctness mainly for screwing up his hobby of street photography, which feminism has made impossible. But of course, his conflicts are peanuts to male sexualism, since we are actual enemies of the state and society also considers us enemies of society (see this post for the distinction). Nonetheless, he provides strong guidance on everything from the metaphysical to the tactical:

“All power, all force, ultimately depends on belief. The power of the laws depends on the belief that they are just and will be enforced.”

As I have been getting at when I for example called for voluntary sex-offender registration, our refusal to believe that the sex laws are just is our strongest virtue. While we can’t do anything about the enforcement yet, half the battle is won if we can get people to morally disrespect the laws and genuinely believe they are unjust.

Klempner is no stranger to criminals either, as he wrote a paper about his ethical discussion with a murderer who took his distance learning course from death row. What he thinks about us male sexualists remains to be seen though. On the negative side, he is kind of a nihilist about ethics so I can’t imagine him as an activist. He says he writes “because I get off on it,” and though that expression unabashedly shows his antifeminism, it is not for a cause. He just wants to philosophize. But he is still around, I think 68 years old now, so maybe we could engage him in dialogue and bring him on board with the movement.

If you don't want to watch them all, these are the two videos I recommend the most, and they do deal with the pure metaphysics of personal identity. After thinking about it for 40 years, this is where he got: - Descartes and the soul - Why am I here? (Revisited)

I aim to work out this question for myself too, but am not sure I can come up with anything further. Perhaps the only thing we can do is wonder at it. Luckily I am not obsessed with such questions and think sexual politics is much more important, so probably back to that next time.

Monday, January 20, 2020

Interview with Maxwell's demon about CP law

Seeing how child pornography is the ultimate something for nothing in criminal law, a perpetual punishment machine that can just keep going and going with no fresh input, I thought who better than Maxwell's demon to consult about this strange phenomenon of information crime? So I conjured up the demon in my imagination and conducted an interview.

Eivind Berge: Greetings, Maxwell's demon! Perhaps our readers would first like to know, if they aren't so well versed in physics already, who you are and why you don't work. How come you never stepped out of the realm of thought experiments and into our technology? Although it would surely get us into another mess with different pollutants or shortages before long, it would be good to have a way to produce unlimited energy without carbon emissions at this point.

Maxwell's demon: Yes, be careful what you wish for. It is probably for the best that I can't exist in the material world, so your eventual doom at least gets somewhat contained and survivable by a few. The idea, conceived by James Clerk Maxwell in 1867, is that I would control a small door between two chambers of gas. As individual gas molecules approach the door, I would quickly open and shut the door so that only fast molecules pass into one of the chambers, while only slow molecules go into the other. Because faster molecules amount to more heat, my behavior would cause one chamber to warm up and the other to cool down, thereby decreasing entropy and violating the second law of thermodynamics, in effect creating a perpetual motion machine that can be used to perform whatever work you want.

I can't exist though because my brain would need to keep track of the moving gas molecules, which might work for a while, but since I don't have infinite working memory (because the universe or at least our light cone is finite), sooner or later I would need to erase information in my brain, and that would require more energy than I produce by my behavior! Either that or I would need to be replaced by a fresh demon, which also takes energy to create. It is always the case that in order to reliably decrease entropy locally, you must produce more entropy elsewhere, so the second law is never violated and I can't help that.

EB: I see. It took me years to grok this part about erasure rather than recording of information being the limitation, but it's clear that you can't work.

And just like you would be a way to get energy for nothing, child porn laws are ways to get incrimination for nothing.

Md: Yes, that is eerily similar. And they do exist!

EB: But is information really nothing though? Doesn't it always have to be embedded in a medium?

Md: Perhaps it becomes clearer if you consider the formerly used medium of punch cards, where the information consists of nothing but holes.

EB: What about the air in the holes?

Md: The air would be there anyway without the punched cards. We are familiar with the concept of sinister pixels, but you can also have sinister thin air or even a vacuum if you like. Yes, you do eventually run out of people to incriminate because of other problems having to do with a finite world, but you can easily conduct entire holocausts based on this nothing.

EB: I see. Information really is the reaction of an observer to something perceived, a measure of how surprised you are at seeing something. It has no independent existence, except perhaps in some platonic realm if you believe in that. Due to the real consequences of some of those perceptions though, I can understand criminalizing certain communications such as threats and frauds, but simply possessing information?

Md: Sadly, laws aren't subject to the laws of physics the way technology is. Nothing prevents legislators from passing laws designed to put people in prison for gobbledygook reasons. Why should the way I arrange information on my private storage media be criminally relevant as long as it just stays there?

EB: No, it doesn't make sense. So why do you think it happens?

Md: Child porn law is truly weird, I agree. It involves multiple absurdities and superstitions and draconian exceptions to how information is otherwise handled by law. The most "charitable" way to look at it is a labeling exercise to identify pedophiles. But this breaks down when you consider that the law puts the boundary for "child" at 18, which means the cases can involve 17-year-olds for all the justice system cares and have nothing whatsoever to do with sexual deviancy. It also isn't very charitable or true to assume that all pedophiles are likely abusers even if you could identify them with some accuracy, which the laws obviously aren't designed to do in any event.

EB: Yes, identification of (statistically likely) sexual abusers can't be the whole explanation, and if it were I wish the justice system would be honest about it rather than claim intrinsic harm.

Md: Another angle, which is more in line with how these laws are actually written, is a metaphysical belief that such material constitutes a real harmful crime in itself, a sort of voodoo theory that "victims" are "revictimized" by the transfer of information that they know nothing about. This is sheer superstition.

EB: Indeed.

Md: A third argument is that child porn somehow creates a demand for abuse and therefore must be eradicated, but in practice such eradication creates more demand for actual abuse because the porn more often needs to be produced anew instead of copied.

EB: The antisex bigots don't look good no matter how you slice it, do they?

Md: Well, let's at least give them a sound hearing. A fourth way to look at it, which is most accurate in my view, is that the child porn laws are actually blasphemy laws which enforce the quasi-religious belief that "children" are asexual, the myth of the innocence of the child which now has status of state religion in feminist countries. This is undeniable when the laws also apply to fictional representations in text and drawings and cartoons and sculpture and spoken words as they do in for example Norway and Canada and Australia.

EB: Yes, I am right in the most deranged jurisdictions. I shiver just writing this because who knows when they will step up the persecutions to the next meta-level such as philosophical musing that we are engaged in here.

Md: A fifth way to justify child porn law is to claim that pornography somehow causes more sexual behavior in the viewers (other than masturbation, which would rather fit the metaphysical point). This claim is the diatmetric opposite of the truth, since pornography actually suppresses real sexual behavior in men as Gary Wilson so helpfully teaches. I abstain from all porn and masturbation in order to increase my testosterone and drive to pursue women and teen girls as well as my performance with them, and I am quite certain that I would do the same in order to better abuse children if I were a pedophile!

EB: Yeah, just look at the Amish. If there is a group of men who abstain from porn and masturbation, or at least view a lot less Internet porn it must be them, and their sexual behavior mocks the idea that cracking down on child pornography does what our feminist society naively imagines.

But oh well, there is nothing we can do besides pointing out the absurdities and extolling positive virtues until they crack down on this too. That's my demon for supporting nofap and still be chasing pussy at 153 years of age! You can be an honorary male sexualist demon too. It was good talking to you and perhaps we'll meet again.

Md: So long!

Monday, January 06, 2020

The female sex offender charade: flat-earth edition

I regard the female sex offender charade as a study in how stupid humans can be. In a series of posts I compare it to the other stupidest ideas I can think of and see how it measures up. So far the lie that women can sexually abuse wins hands down. So let's keep trying to see if anything can be more deranged!

I promised lobotomy as the next idea. While I agree that lobotomy is more damaging than locking women up for "sex crimes," it at least had some semblance of justification. Mentally disturbed people can be problematic to both themselves and others, and when nothing else helps I can see where they were coming from when lobotomy was introduced, even more so when used as palliative care as happened to Eva Peron for example. Is there that much ethical difference between terminal lobotomy and terminal sedation as might be practiced today? I certainly do not condone lobotomy, BUT... provided that it is performed in the last stages of a terminal illness, and not for merely mental or social problems of course, it is not so exceptionally stupid as to rival the female sex offender charade.

Let us now move on to another crazy idea: belief in a flat earth. What flat-earth theory has going for it, that the female sex offender charade does not, is that it is phenomenologically true, at least in many everyday situations. If you get up in an airplane or even stare off into the horizon, the earth does look curved to me, but much of the time our immediate experience tells us that it might as well be flat. The female sex offender charade would merely be more ridiculous than flat earth if it weren't backed by violence, which also makes it morally repugnant.

The required-by-law metaphor for any kind of persecution of the innocent is a witch-hunt. And of course the female sex offender charade is a witch-hunt, even an actual one, but it is so much worse. Both because female sex offenders are nicer than other women and because witchcraft and other supernatural phenomena can be phenomenologically true. People really do have such subjective experiences as clairvoyance and ghosts and spirits and alien abductions and so on up to and including the complete mystical experience of being God.

But boys do not feel sexually abused by women, not in the theft-of-a-resource/exploitation sense that is required to fit that designation, because there is no male resource that is sexually exploitable by women in our social and biological reality. Of course they can be physically abused in a sexualized manner and feel very bad about that, but there is no transfer of sexual value to women because the kind of economy in which that could be true simply does not exist. "Sexual abuse by female" is counterfeit in much the same way as if you were to try to pass off Monopoly money as real. This is not open to debate, because it is an objective fact about the nature of the sexual market. It is (for lack of a better word) insane to pretend male sexuality is suddenly equal to female for the sole purpose of punishing women when all other experience tells us that male heterosexuality is dirt cheap like Monopoly money.

Again like flat earth, supernatural phenomena feel real to some people some of the time, though they don't stand up to scientific scrutiny. Sexual abuse by female never feels real -- at least not without a great deal of brainwashing imposed not by a healthy society but feminist law enforcement and "therapist" charlatans -- and is obviously scientifically false. It bears some relation to a supernatural phenomenon imposed from the top, by feminist legislators, kind of like transubstantiation is imposed by Catholic doctrine. Even though most partakers in the Eucharist probably don't feel very mystical about it, the sacrament at least latches onto a realm of experience that people can have and on occasion do.

Not so with the female sex offender charade, which is a sheer lie from beginning to end. It is insanity piled on top of the already insane persecution of male sexuality. While the persecution of men for abuse of females can be considered merely comparable to superstitions like transubstantiation (because it has some element of "truth" in the sense acknowledged above -- there really is a female sexual resource that males can exploit, though not nearly as often as laws now claim), the persecution of female "sex offenders" is in a realm so bizarre that it requires this series of writings to explicate. Well, unless you take the view of women as property and consider the feminist sex laws as based on an ulterior motive like that, but I think we should also debunk them according to their claimed merits so their proponents can be made to feel as stupid as they deserve. Lies, superstition, charlatanism, greed, insanity, nocebo, bigotry, ignorance, misogyny and subjugation of women -- all these concepts play a role, but the female sex offender charade transcends all of them and requires further explication; I am just getting started here.

Monday, December 23, 2019

Sweden has lost the plot

Feminist sexual taboos grow all around us like kudzu, covering ever more of our healthy sexuality in darkness or criminality. Antisex bigotry is not new under the sun, as it also existed in the Middle Ages for example, but the fraudulent "abuse" or "exploitation" justification is new. Better, then, to merely be a bigot who posits a God to justify her intolerance, than to poison human relations with contrived "abuse" like the feminists do. Even though it tends to prohibit most of the same acts, the concept of "sin" was far less toxic and intrusive to our lives than pseudoscientific pretend-abuse which is supposed to define our very souls and obliterate all lust, love and affection. And nowhere is this feminist bigotry more fraudulent than when applied to female "offenders," who even in principle cannot do the things claimed because human sexuality fundamentally doesn't work like that.

Now Sweden has done it too, gone and embraced the female sex offender charade: Woman convicted for sex with 15-year-old boy. The punishment has thankfully not yet reached American levels -- just probation and community service -- but the conceptual fraud is the same, the pretense that a sexually lucky (and even aggressive) boy is an exploited "victim."

How did society lose the plot so completely on sexuality? How could feminism even be turned against women like that? And worse, how do people go about their lives as if there is nothing wrong? As opposed to convulsing with hatred against the sex laws several times per day like I do? (Despite making an effort not to for health reasons.) The one thing worse than living in a country that has gone off the rails with odious and nonsensical laws is that no one else seems to care about it, and that is where we are now.

As exemplified by the publication to which I linked, there are segments of the population in Norway and no doubt Sweden who believe immigration is a serious problem. But how can they be concerned with such a comparable trifle when the stark hate of feminist antisex bigotry stares them in the face? And worse, Scandinavians opposed to immigration and Islam believe feminist sex law is a useful weapon against their imagined enemies. They thus become pure scum, as if the racism weren't enough, with a complete inability to be critical of any sex law, no matter how insane and misandristic and misogynistic too.

It is conceivable that excessive Islamization can be a problem, and cherishing one's culture does not have to be a bad thing. It is even conceivable that immigrant men from certain cultures commit more real rape and abuse than the locals, but we have no way of knowing when the sex laws are so messed up. These laws are so corrupt that Islam is most assuredly a lesser evil than feminism, and even if we got rid of all the immigrants we would still have the hateful laws. Male sexualism has therefore decided to consider Islam an ally against the antisex bigots. My own culture is now alien to me and I do not consider it worth protecting. I am a Quisling in reverse, the only reasonable, sex-positive man left standing after my culture has been consumed by antisex bigotry of the most pernicious kind conceivable.

Thursday, December 05, 2019

A gift horse to the antisex bigots

Since everything has failed us so far in our battle to stem the tide of criminalization of our sexuality, it is time to think of novel ways to conduct men's rights activism. For best results it needs to be nonviolent, legal, democratic, and for good measure give the impression that we share society's hysterical concern about "sexual abuse" and "predators." What could be a better fit to all these criteria than to advocate for voluntary sex offender registration?

Society can't get enough "sex offenders," so I don't see how they could possibly turn this offer down. What's not to love about letting men, and why not women too, register as sex offenders without having to convict them first? Let's advocate for legislation to make that happen! A little Christmas gift from the male sexualists to feminists and society, yay!

The plan, of course, after it has become compulsory for governments to accept sex offender registration from anyone who wants it, is to register en masse in order to sabotage not only their registries, but the entire concept of a sex offender.

Who isn't already a sex offender, anyway? Only the label is missing for most of us, so this is the logical conclusion. I am certain that we could pull this off even while explaining what we are doing, like a Trojan horse clearly labeled as such, so cuntsure are the antisex bigots of themselves in their sanctimonious hatred of sexuality.

We know from the Epstein case that anyone who fancies a 17-year-old is a "pedophile," and anyone who associates with said pedophile is also ruined for life.

We know from the Addy A-Game case that -- I dunno if approaching 20-year-old women in the street makes you a "pedophile" -- but it certainly makes you a sex offender who should be on the registry for ten years.

And if that isn't enough, or you are still young enough not to be incriminated by an age gap, perhaps you touched a girl's arm once in a clumsy effort to befriend her? Or you just looked at a picture of someone you never met? For the women, being topless in your own home is enough to be a sex offender, so they should register too.

The bigots' hubris is infinite. Having defined all of sexuality as abuse, which is to say normalize it, it is time for society to face the consequences. Letting the feminists have their bigotry and use it as a tool of oppression is not necessary, because with such numbers we can easily turn the tables. All that is missing is for most men (and optionally women) to admit that we are the pedophiles and sex abusers that society now considers us.

Tuesday, December 03, 2019

The female sex offender charade is worse than the Tuskegee syphilis experiment

We know female sexuality is unworthy of punishment for what feminist justice systems call "sexual abuse" because sex is a female resource (that's the executive summary of my position; for a slightly more nuanced view see my "Devil's advocate" post where I distinguish between sexual exploitation and abuse and conclude that women categorically cannot commit the former and almost never the latter). We know syphilis is treatable and should be treated. Allowing these evils to run their course is unethical. Allowing men's bodies to be ravaged by syphilis and women's lives to be destroyed by antisex bigots despite better knowledge and ability are both unconscionable acts.

The most shocking aspect of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment is not that people could be so cruel as the doctors conducting the study, but that it happened openly and was condoned by society for decades, even published in medical journals while ongoing. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment and the female sex offender charade are both openly published travesties, but only one of them has been rectified.

The prosecutors, judges and jurors in female-perpetrated "sex abuse" cases are like the doctors directly involved in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, except the latter at least had the extenuating circumstance that they were conducting an experiment while the courts who sentence harmless women to prison are committing an unmitigated evil from which nothing more can be learned (it did indeed shock me in a morbidly curious way, but we know by now that society can be so cruel as to go along with it seemingly indefinitely).

I cannot stop the courts directly, but like the millions of people who heard about men with syphilis who were purposely denied treatment, I am in a position where it would be unethical for me to remain silent about the ongoing travesty against women accused of absurd sex crimes. I therefore do my part as a whistleblower and activist against the senseless practice of punishing women for being sexually nice to boys.

I promised a series of posts comparing the female sex offender charade to other weird things, and this is the second installment. Read my first here where I compared it to female genital mutilation. Next up I will probably do lobotomy.

Sunday, December 01, 2019

The difference between "indecent" and "sexualized"

Here I want to explore the depths of depravity in the current antisex hysteria via the different words used for sex crimes before and after feminist reforms. The shift from religiously connotated words like "indecent" or "lewd" to ostensibly neutral descriptions like "sex act" (or descriptions thereof) is not yet complete in all jurisdictions, but you get the idea. In Norway the transformation has been most complete, from words like "utuktig omgang/skrift" to "seksuell omgang" or "fremstillinger som seksualiserer barn." This transition is more significant than it might seem at first glance, and far less convincing than the reformers had hoped, for the same reasons.

There is a tendency to assume that the new laws carry forth the same abuse concepts, but they don't really. Even I didn't notice for many years that the new laws don't just expand, but radically transform the concept of sexual abuse. The reformers themselves probably think they have merely modernized the language, but in reality they have exposed a gaping hole in the new sexual morality.

Even when the laws mostly apply to the same things, the philosophical grounding is entirely different, to the point of non-existence. For example, the concept of "indecent/utuktig" did not make the claim that minors are asexual. What might be "indecent" in some contexts under the old morality could be perfectly okay within marriage, so it's not sex acts themselves that are problematic, but something more consequential in the scheme of things, at least if one believes in the larger value system in which these prescriptions are situated.

If something is "indecent," then okey dokey, it must be indecent because higher morality and probably God says so given that you believe in that worldview. I ain't smart enough to understand how that works and won't opine before going to divinity school first. But if something is simply a "sex act," or "sexualized," how do you jump to the conclusion that it is wrong and should be criminal? The new laws leave a gaping hole now filled mostly by pseudoscience like the nocebo nonsense of the abuse industry, if at all.

We are to believe that something is wrong because "sex," period. Which is a non sequitur. If you want to make that leap without a concept of the "decent" and "indecent," or some other higher-power framework, you would need to justify it from the ground up in humanistic, rational terms (I wrote a post once showing how it could be done, but it didn't go over well because it puts a damper on abuse hysteria).

What we have is a new supernatural framework masquerading as rationality. Sometimes it is also comedy gold. I mean, how did the Norwegian lawmakers come up with a concept as retarded as the crime of narratives that "sexualize children [under 18]" without considering if the "children" where asexual in the first place? Which if you think about it for two seconds is sheer nonsense, an assumption that the old concept of "indecency" wisely avoided.

It is most instructive to consider how the victimless laws are justified. There is always a maximally exaggerated violation when there is a "victim," but what is being violated when there is no victim, and also no indecency/utuktighet to ground it in? What is being blasphemed against, exactly, in a fictional narrative which "sexualizes children"? Can it literally be something as retarded as the lie that everyone under 18 is asexual and not sexually attractive to normal people?

I suppose the reformers could appeal to the "public morals" and claim that as an ultimate basis for their laws. But this is a vague concept in the extreme. Where do I find justification for the secular public morals? Is it the view promoted by national public broadcasting? Is it whoever screams loudest on Twitter or perhaps alternative media like Before or after moderation, and if after, why do the moderators get to decide what the pubic thinks? Is it evidence-based in any way, and if not, isn't that a problem when use to make criminal laws? And don't even get me started on the female sex offender charade...

The feminists have undermined their own agenda by switching to a clear language of sexual abuse, because this also brought clarity to the lack of justification for their sex laws. They need to come up with actual, credible justification if they want to be taken seriously as other than a display of brute force against sexuality. Or conversely, if they want to be accepted on faith alone, they need to revert to a mystical language which obscures a source of morality that can't be falsified so easily or at all.

The new sex laws rest on a belief in the metaphysical badness of sex, divorced from any larger value system and grounded in nothing but this metaphysical belief itself. To gloss over how philosophically flimsy it is they always postulate a "victim," and to my horror this strategy has been 100% successful to date, even when the "victim" does not exist or identifies as anything but. We can only hope that one day people will wise up to the vacuity of the current antisex bigotry and do our best to expose it.