Monday, August 12, 2019

We need better role models

What kind of world are we living in when Brenton Tarrant can be a role model? An unintended consequence of suppressing "objectionable" views like New Zealand is doing with his is to give the impression that they constitute esoteric knowledge that might be profound or convincing if you get to read them. But I have read these manifestos, and they are bullshit. That they nonetheless can inspire the youth, such as the would-be Norwegian mosque shooter Phillip Manshaus says more about the current climate than the persuasiveness of such writings.

There is something else going on here, a failure to be impressed by really good ideas and a willingness to go along with bullshit because one's standards are messed up. Maybe the kids these days don't get the good classical education that I had. Or maybe internet porn really is this emasculating. I don't know.

But I know I am a good role model, or at least try to be. Jeffrey Epstein was a terrific role model, with the exception of committing suicide instead of standing up as a proud male sexualist in court (but solitary confinement can do that to the best of us, so he deserves nothing but sympathy). Gary Wilson is another great role model because he promotes male sexual health and empowerment via nofap.

The Antifeminist is a role model, partly, if you look away from his defense of porn and masturbation. Holocaust21, likewise. Tom Grauer is a role model (read his manifesto), if you look past his worst trolling and tendency to delete his blogs once they gain traction. And even Roissy, censored from WordPress but now back online, is a decent role model. Somewhat less strident, but still a good role model for men is our old friend Men Factor. And that basically sums up the extant sex-positive manosphere, unless you count our allies the MAPs who have some good ones but constitute a special interest rather than male sexuality in general.

We the good role models don't currently inspire young men. What can we do differently? Well, if I knew, I would be doing it, so I can only keep at what I know. This is just another lamentation of the obvious. Comments are open to better ideas.

Saturday, August 03, 2019

Which is worse: the female sex offender charade or female genital mutilation?

It is difficult to think of anything as deranged as the lie that women can commit sexual abuse -- and believe me, I have tried! The closest contender I can think of so far is female genital mutilation (FGM). Both are done to mutilate women sexually, the former by means of incarceration and/or "sex offender" registration and the latter more directly. Feminists support the female sex offender charade as vigorously as they oppose FGM, which goes to show that sadly, enlightenment in one area is cancelled out by new-found antisex bigotry in another, making our culture at least as bad as any other.

My point of making this comparison is to help readers snap out of the lie that there is any need to punish women as "sexual abusers." Because if you could see that both practices are equally baseless and indefensible (or based on ulterior motives), surely you wouldn't be so cruel as to want any of this? But it is difficult to see so from within your own culture when it is committed to such things, I know.

I am friends with a girl from Somalia whom I met on Tinder. She is a victim of FGM. Even more startlingly, it was her idea. Her parents weren't going to make her have it, but she got the idea that she needed it. Not because it is a good idea, obviously, but because her culture somehow told her so. We know female genitalia don't need to be mutilated as surely as we know that boys can't be "abused" by exposure to female sexuality. But cultures can be horribly misguided sometimes, and that is not okay. It is imperative that we do what we can to resist such practices when we understand how pointless and harmful they are.

Let us first consider the causes. "For every complex phenomenon there is an explanation that is," as the saying goes, "clear, simple and wrong," which is not what I am getting at. But one thing that jumps out is that these atrocities are primarily perpetrated by women. They are female-on-female violence or self-harm. Feminists begged for our current sex laws and it is mothers who egg their sons on to accuse women of contrived abuse on the basis of these laws, while men like me stand back in shock and disbelief, except sometimes when fathers are blinded by greed into supporting the accusations. Women have their daughters circumcised, or girls even chose it themselves. The female sexual trade unionist theory seems to have some merit in explaining both sorts of cultural misogyny. As explained by Baumeister & Twenge in this paper, "the evidence favors the view that women have worked to stifle each other’s sexuality because sex is a limited resource that women use to negotiate with men, and scarcity gives women an advantage." I think there is some overlap between this and the notion of women as property, and both go some way towards explaining the antisex bigotry which harms women. And finally I think such customs are partly down to random chance and noise. Superstitions get established on the whim of some supposed authority and then they stick. Luckily, we don't need to know the exact causes to know that they are bad. All we need to know is that women thrive with intact genitalia and both women and boys thrive where intimacy between them isn't persecuted.

Which is worse of these two travesties is a close call. On the one hand it is dreary to live in a society with a high prevalence of FGM, and most women still escape harm from the sex laws in ours. But then you have some lives completely ruined by the female sex offender charade, with prison terms up to the 22 years against Jennifer Fichter which I think is the record, making this probably worse for these women than to have been genitally mutilated, and remember, feminist sex-hostility is still very much ascendant so this might be only the beginning!

We also need to consider the secondary harm to males. Boys who could have enjoyed sex with women if not for the deterrence of our malicious sex laws are also victims of the female sex offender charade. FGM likewise leads to less sexually enthusiastic women because they enjoy it less, which is bad for boys and men too. At least partly as a result of this, my genitally mutilated Tinder date did not want to have sex with me unless we got monogamous and preferably married! This is a pest or cholera situation where if I had to make a choice, I would still declare the female sex offender charade worse because of its intellectual offensiveness on top of the moral travesty. It's a sad, cringeworthy sight to see so many people make retards of themselves and spout support for the female sex offender charade. At least FGM doesn't come with a lie you have to be an idiot to accept intellectually -- that boys don't "really" enjoy sex when they appear to when making love to a "sex offender"; that sex isn't a female resource and male sexuality is equally exploitable by women -- instead it puts a damper on female sexuality indiscriminately for reasons that don't purport to fit into the scientific worldview. I find it less offensive to just cause harm to everybody because that is what one's culture does for whatever bullshit reasons than to single out some victims for harm for even more bizarre reasons.

The female sex offender charade, in contrast, has been adopted by the social "sciences," which heightens the charade because at least FGM doesn't have a "science" backing it up. The way they go about it is that no question is ever allowed to be posed in a falsifiable manner if such a negative finding would go against our dogmatic definitions of abuse. Just look what happened to the Rind report. You can't observe a possibility that is taboo to consider with anything but righteous, brainless, knee-jerk condemnation, so our social sciences now dutifully report all the "abuse" the antisex bigots arbitrarily defined into existence. Once again Baumeister deserves and honorable mention, however, for going against the grain with this paper on sex as a female resource, where his formulation of the female sex offender charade appears on page 351-2. Although a bit weaker than mine, it captures the gist:
Moreover, an asymmetry in victims’ reactions supports the view that sex is a female resource. Male victims of sexual coercion by women typically report far less distress or trauma, and they are more likely to look back on the incident as minor and unimportant (even if distasteful), as compared with female victims of male coercion. In an important sense, the male victims seem less prone than female victims to feel that they have lost something of value—consistent with the view that sex is not a male resource. [...] An extreme version of the social exchange analysis would insist that women would never rape or sexually coerce men. Clearly this would be false. A milder version thus holds simply that female coercion of male victims lacks an important dimension, namely theft of the resource, and so the trauma and victimization are less severe.
The difference between what Baumeister is saying here and all my rants against the female sex offender charade is quite small, almost cosmetic. I don't deny that female sexual coercion happens and may sometimes deserve prosecution as lesser crimes than sex crimes; all I am saying is precisely like him that they lack the dimension of theft of sexual resource. The difference is that he foolishly abuses the word "rape" and isn't explicitly calling for legal reforms to bring the sex laws back into line with reality, but it would certainly follow from his position as well that women deserve far less punishment than the justice system is determined to give them now that they are to be treated like men, complete with the charade that men have a sexual resource worth protecting from women to an equal extent as vice versa.

Biology is not yet so corrupted as the social sciences, but it isn't doing anything politically to stop this madness either, with evolutionary psychologists confined to a little corner where they are shamed and marginalized, though they have the right ideas. And the pedophile activist movement does not do enough for women, only incidentally standing up for them when they also stand up for men. They may be right about men, but they fail to realize that we need to go much further for women because the entire concept of "women sexually abusing boys" is gibberish even when the boys are unwilling (or if you want to get into the finer nuances, sexual exploitation is the component which needs to be removed from the laws with regard to female lawbreakers, for which I am literally the only activist).

And what about the humanities, you might be wondering? Well, ignoring crap like women's studies, the female sex offender charade is mostly not an issue to them because it isn't found in their subject matter. There is not a single example of a female "sexual abuser" in the entire literary canon, for example (of any culture, not just Western!), because great writers were not so silly as to dream up such nonsense. Nor is it found in anthropology, mythology, history, philosophy, ethics or jurisprudence until recent feminist crap. Literature is full of female sex offenders, but they are like Hester Prynne, victims of an at least ostensibly very different kind of antisex bigotry than the feminist kind, though their actions are often indistinguishable from what feminists now want to punish under the pretext that I call the female sex offender charade. The fact that feminist-defined female "abusers" are often the same who would be punished for abusing themselves and thus squandering a sexual resource belonging to someone else (as in adultery or fornication which brings shame on the family) under the old system should give feminists pause, but feminists are too dense to realize that they are playing into the same notion of women as property of men or religion that gave rise to the scarlet letter treatment.

I distinguish between two levels of female sex offender charade: half and full retard. Half-retard female sex offender charade is the belief that women's violence can be aggravated by a sexual component and so deserves to be prosecuted as for example "rape" or "sexual assault" with the inflated punishments that come with this categorization. These cases I only designate as half retard because they may reasonably be prosecuted as lesser crimes such as simple assault. They are also extremely rare (not necessarily because they don't happen, but because men don't accuse even though doing so is now the most politically correct thing in the world, which is further evidence that we don't want your stinking feminist sex laws), to the point that the female sex offender charade almost would be reduced to an academic gripe of mine if we managed to get rid of the full-retard part. Most actual court cases are full retard, where it is imagined that women can commit statutory (but reified) sex crimes hinging on supposed sexual exploitation of a victim, such as violations related to age of consent or positions of authority. Get rid of this, and we liberate all the teachers who seem to make up most female "sex offenders." Jennifer Fichter and Mary Kay Letourneau are poignant examples of full-retard cases, where you have to be a total inhumane dimwit to accept that any crime has reasonably occurred at all.

For completeness' sake, I should mention (again) that not all prosecutions of women for sex crimes fall within the female sex offender charade. When women are punished, say, for adultery because it is "a sin" or "immoral," this is plenty bigoted and tyrannical but does not qualify as a charade. Sharia law is a pure example of this. The United States still also retains a "vice" component to sexual prosecution that is not based on the idea of victimhood and is mostly used against hookers. In the most feministic countries, however, it is as if we have forgotten that sexuality can be prosecuted on anything other than a "victim" pretext. With what started as the Swedish model of criminalizing the purchase but not selling of sex, governments still conduct a war on whores, but we pretend that they are victims of men, who are then formally prosecuted while the whores are mistreated and downtrodden as a side effect. It seems to me that people here use the "victim" charade (with extreme inflation of both female and male victimhood) partly to hide the fact that they are control freaks about everything to do with sexuality, even more antisex-bigoted than people in countries that still have sex laws overtly based on religious intolerance. I suppose if you are dense enough to truly believe all the "victim" nonsense, this really works and you get to feel good and "liberal" and "feminist" about yourself while having your antisex bigotry too.

Thankfully, my position on full-retard female "sex offenses" coincides or at least greatly overlaps with pro-contact MAP activism such as the kind espoused by Tom O'Carroll, so I am not alone on this. But imagine if you lived in a society where no one but you spoke out against female genital mutilation. That is the situation in which I find myself with regard to the (half-retard) female sex offender charade, and why I can't stop writing about it because if I don't then no one will and I can't bear living in a moral vacuum. The female victims of non-charade sex laws also have activists (mainly sex workers like this verbose individual), but I am the only one comprehensively standing up for women on all three levels of sex crime, from pure intolerance to pure fantasy that they be abusers.

This has been the first of a planned series of posts where I compare the female sex offender charade to other weird, bizarre or absurd cultural phenomena, which I find to be a fruitful way to shed light on just how outlandish it is. Examples: UFO encounters, magic, belief in the supernatural or the afterlife, the Singularity, Roko's basilisk, metaphysical idealism, open individualism, empty individualism, shamanism, insanity, mereological nihilism, Bolzmann brains, quack healing, belief in self-driving cars and other supposedly near-term AI, mystical experiences, the perspectival theory of entropy, cannibalism, human sacrifice (already did a post on this one, but should do another because it is an excellent parallel both in terms of cruelty, pointlessness, irrational beliefs and presumably the lack of any organized efforts from victims to fight back) -- probably none of which are as weird as the female sex offender charade, and I shall explain why in due course. If anyone has suggestions for more weird things to compare it to, be sure to let me know in the comments. All words for the crazy, stupid or evil fail us when it comes to describing what it means to put women on trial for being sexually nice to boys while contriving "abuse," so we need to approach this phenomenon in extraordinary ways through a multitude of lenses to get closer to understanding what is going on and perhaps persuade those capable of rational thought on the subject, if there are any left.

Saturday, July 20, 2019

Straight pride

This is such a short point that I would have normally said it on Twitter, but since I can't use Twitter anymore, here goes.

Regarding the idea that straight pride is about hate, as in...

Netflix: The Straight Pride Parade 'is about hate — not pride'

I mean... come on, is the fact that they are not gay, and must hate gays or whatever, the only "positive" thing they can think of about their sexuality?

To me, homosexuality is the LAST thing on my mind when I think about sex. I support gay pride and I mostly ignore it since I am not one of them. To me, seeing that the politically correct man in our culture associates straight pride FIRSTLY and ONLY with homophobia tells me that they are in fact homophobes, and also hate themselves because they can't think of anything good about their sexuality, absolutely nothing to be proud of. All they can do is understand themselves in relation to homosexuality, with that relation evidently being so inferior that they can never dare to speak positive about themselves.

Politically correct straight men can only be ashamed because feminism has so thoroughly indoctrinated them with the idea that sex is bad, with some exceptions granted to homosexuality where it doesn't really matter, like the right to get married, but not where it does matter like age of consent.

Of course we need straight pride, and male sexualism is straight pride. We don't literally need to march (but if we did we'd be using a pink flag), but we need a movement of straight pride because we have every reason to celebrate our sexuality FOR WHAT IT IS, not what it isn't, and to resist feminist criminalization of our healthy sexuality. The fact that neither of these points register to mainstream heterosexual culture is puzzling and disconcerting in the extreme.

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Book club: Human sexuality around the world

Let's have a little book club where we read and discuss: Werner, D. (1986). Human sexuality around the world. Freely accessible at:

http://humanbehaviors.free.fr/telechargement/human_sexuality_around_the_world.pdf

Because there is nothing like ethnography to highlight the astonishing sexual intolerance of our own culture. This work is a treasure trove of other perspectives. Open our minds a little and take in the freshness of different practices than our culture's hateful intolerance which leads to atrocities like locking up women for 20 years for victimless sex while men get even worse. In light of the anthropological evidence, our culture is without question the most sex-hostile that ever existed. It is fascinating to read about how tolerant humans can be in comparison.

Contrast our reality to, for example:

"In some groups prepubescent sex is considered so normal, that people actually believe puberty comes about because of the earlier sexual activities, especially sexual activities with adults."

I don't know which is funnier, that our our trauma myth. Taboos can be taken to either extreme, complete with supporting superstitions. In some cultures it is considered abnormal to not be what we would consider molested, even in ways I'm inclined to agree with:

"In New Guinea, several societies, like the Etoro, require pre-pubescent boys to engage in homosexual relationships with older men in order for them to grow up. People believe that without ingesting semen, boys will simply not mature physically."

I would not want that, but neither can I tolerate our extreme intolerance. Some middle ground is clearly desirable.

One thing is sure: our way is not the only way nor the "right" way. Our essentialist definitions of abuse are a stinking pile of lies. We know our sexual norms and laws are not only arbitrary, but immoral because they lead to needless suffering on the basis of construed "abuse" that other cultures do fine with just ignoring if not outright celebrating.

As I keep saying, one thing we should definitely ignore is women "sexually abusing" boys. It has always been my claim that this is a 20th-century feminist invention, and now is a chance to put that to the test. Is there something resembling the female sex offender charade in this extensive sample of other cultures? Not really, but in the most sex-hostile ones we find this:

"On Polynesian Tikopia, young boys were warned not to accept the invitations of adult women to have sex, often performed while hidden under a blanket. If a boy succumbed, he was considered dirty. But it is not clear if the adult woman received any punishment. On the Melanesian Trobriand Islands, a boy felt ashamed if he had accepted one of the sexual invitations from a repulsive high-ranking woman, but little was done about it."

This is nothing more than a realization that older women can sometimes be unattractive to some boys, which I never denied. Aside from a little gratuitous "dirtiness," there is no suggestion that the boys are harmed beyond a light shaming, and no one bothers to punish the women. Our culture alone, as far as I can still tell, constructs the charade that women can downright sexually abuse males, do so to the extent of being criminally culpable, and even pretty women at that! This is so beyond the pale that I can't stop emphasizing it until we have a real movement going against it.

While a great variety of sexual norms must be considered normal, our insane delusion that women can "sexually abuse" most assuredly is not. Whenever women's sexuality is violently controlled, as opposed to frowned upon at worst, it is always because female sexuality is understood as valuable rather than damaging. Our female sex offender charade is but a comical veneer for that same excuse dressed up in feminist rhetoric. So let us either be honest and admit that we want to treat women as property, or as I prefer, ditch the violent control of female sexuality altogether, along with instituting more reasonable abuse definitions applied to males as well. As this book shows, all those sensible norms already exist in some culture or another. All we need to do is pick and chose the best ones, then stand behind them as male sexualists.

There is even supposedly a culture with no concept of rape, lending credence to Tom Grauer's suggestion that we should do away with the sex laws altogether. Incest is the toughest taboo to ditch, but considerable cultural wiggle room exists for that as well. And I find support for nofap in the frightening account of "Cagaba men from Colombia [who] admit that they cannot achieve orgasm through heterosexual sex, but only through masturbation"! All told, anthropology is on our side and makes an even bigger mockery of feminist antisex bigotry than we can by just observing our own culture.

Sunday, July 14, 2019

Five analogies to show the absurdity of holding women culpable for sex crimes

There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals. In the same way that you wouldn't draft a 100-year-old man to go to war, a fair and rational society would not hold women culpable for sex crimes because it makes no biological or social sense. Doing so anyway is what I call the female sex offender charade. This bizarre charade last week brutally claimed another victim when 28-year-old Brittany Zamora was sentenced to 20 years in prison for being nice to a teenage boy. It is a surreal, hopeless situation -- what it must have felt like to more rational people when witch trials were going on, except worse because now we single out not just victims at random, but the nicest women for our time's worst travesties of justice!

The female sex offender charade is a litmus test for whether humans can be even a little bit rational about sexuality, given careful explanation, which is why I focus more on this than sexual rights for men, which we can forget about as long as people gladly oppress women so senselessly. As male sexualists we know from experience that we are up against dimwits so dense that there is probably no hope, but these analogies will at least arm you with the best chances of finding out if there is a little bit of human decency inside the person you are debating.

I find the gambling analogy most useful for rebutting the sort of delusion which compels simpleminded fools to accept that women can sexually exploit boys because they "can't consent." This analogy is so powerful that we can even grant them that children can't consent!

I agree that children shouldn't be allowed to gamble. A casino which allowed children to play would indeed be exploiting them. Casinos also exploit adults, to be sure, but let's grant adults the freedom to gamble their money away if they want to accept the terrible odds at casinos.

But now imagine there was a casino which was rigged in such a way that you could only win. At this imaginary casino, everyone ends up with more money than they had when they came in. If such a place existed, could you say with a straight face that it exploits children? Would you be afraid to let your sons go there? Of course not! Just explain to them that most casinos aren't like that, and they would be fine or better than fine.

In our eagerness to prevent child exploitation, society forgot to ask if the thing was worth preventing or could be exploited, which male sexuality vis-à-vis women cannot be even in principle. If you are male and have sex with a woman, then you have already won and become the envy of your peers regardless of your age. Sexual relations between women and young boys is no more (actually a lot less) fraught with exploitation than the two of them playing a game of checkers, so calling it exploitation is just as insane. Just like we cannot call it financial exploitation when the boy receives a monetary gift, we cannot call it sexual exploitation when the boy gets to have sex with a woman.

Cases like Brittany Zamora's where the males are willing participants are 100% clear-cut. There is no sexual exploitation or abuse whatsoever, and the boys are only lucky. But let us now address what happens when the male is unwilling, literally forced, and perhaps even a victim of some real violence. In those cases the violence itself might reasonably constitute a crime, for example simple assault, but it can't be aggravated by the sexual aspect because female sexuality is to male sexuality like real money is to Monopoly money. A male who accuses a woman under the current sex laws is as if someone had their Monopoly game stolen and then went to the police and insurance company to report the loss of real money, demanding the face value of all the notes to be redressed. The only "sexual abuse" or rape here is of the intellect, and feminists have been very successful at raping the justice system to this effect, but the minds of us male sexualists shall be unassailable!

For many years I resorted to the reverse robbery analogy when explaining why women can't rape men, and I still think it works pretty well. Women "raping" men is like someone forcibly stuffing your pockets with valuables. But now I have an even better analogy to explain why women can't rape men: the theft-of-air analogy. If someone breaks into your house and fills a container with air, you can reasonably accuse them of breaking and entering, but the air theft is nonsense, because no one recognizes that you have lost anything meaningful by having air stolen from your property. Male sexuality is like that on the heterosexual market. It is worth something in an absolute sense -- actually, it is essential -- but there is so much of it to go around that any man who claims injury by having it stolen is subject to ridicule rather than sympathy. So just like a burglary isn't aggravated by the theft of air, female violence is never aggravated by sexual violation. That doesn't mean women are free to assault men, of course, any more than people are free to break into your house to steal air, or to hold you up at gunpoint to stuff money into your pockets, but we need to leave the "rape" nonsense out of the prosecution of the crime.

Miscategorizing these crimes as sex crimes does a disservice to the victims as well as the wrongly accused women who have done nothing worthy of the inflated punishment for sex crimes. And it turns the entire justice system into a freak show, which of course is the reason why these stories make the international news. Feminists will claim that they depict justice, but deep down we all know it is a charade. You the reader know my analogies make sense, even if you cling to the lie that the emperor is clothed in the wonderful new garb of gender equality because that's the nonsense society currently expects you to parrot and you are too weak to stand up for the truth.

So to sum up my top five analogies against the female sex offender charade (in no particular order, but I feel #2 packs the most punch):

1. Holding women culpable for sex crimes is like drafting frail old men into the military, too sarcopenic to hold a rifle and unable to see where they are aiming. This is the sort of situation I see when a woman is put on trial for a sex crime, and I consider everyone involved a bad person except the harmless woman herself.

2. Women "sexually exploiting" boys is like a lottery with only winners, exposing you as idiots for wanting to "protect" your boys from such a windfall.

3. Female sexuality is to male sexuality like real money is to Monopoly money. This is an inescapable result of the fact that sex is a female resource, which evolutionarily follows from the different minimal parental investments of the sexes. The reality of the sexual market is such that we simply cannot pretend there is equal value stolen even when the sex is forced. Male heterosexuality isn't worth more than the paper it is written on, so to speak (i.e., the physical substrate is worth protecting from violence, but there can be no added symbolic violation because sex was taken).

4. Women "raping" men is a reverse robbery, where you are forced to accept assets. I respect your right to refuse, but you don't get to pervert the meaning of those assets. The fact that they are assets remains true just like money retains its value even if it is unwanted.

5. Or at worst, female sexual coercion is like the theft of something practically free like air or garbage. The legal reaction needs to be brought into line with reality, which indeed it was for most of history until these insane feminist times. Male sexualism is here to correct that again.

Sunday, June 09, 2019

Can God create moral facts?

As has been the theme of my entire blog, our culture is astonishingly intolerant to sex. Depending on which flavor of antisex you subscribe to, you believe that most sex is either immoral or victimizing, usually the latter in this day and age. There is a third, health component, and a fourth, practical component, but those play such vanishingly small parts of the justification for antisex laws that they can be disregarded for the purposes of men’s rights activism. So long as the law claims to criminalize sex because it is psychologically harmful, that is the justification we need to address, and if it fails, then the laws must be disrespected and resisted.

If God created the world, then in a sense he created the morality that follows from it, even including whatever morality you may or may not believe in if you’re not a moral realist. But other than that, my impression is that God cannot create moral facts any more than the sex laws can create sexual abuse. Things are what they are, regardless of how they came about.

Traditions can be wiser than any one of us, so-called Chesterton’s fences:
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
And I am willing to accept that superstitions have their place in order to enforce such beneficial constructs, but when superstitions themselves become “science,” as in the current “abuse” justification for the sex laws, then that “science” must be critically examined and discarded when appropriate. For example, we know that sexual ages of consent in the high teens, and the entire female sex offender charade, are not Chesterton’s fences because we know how they were constructed, and how their justification was gobbledygook. Ironically, the sex laws would be more convincing if they did not claim that consensual sex can be abuse that will psychologically damage you for life, or that women can rape men, and instead prescribed the same punishments for unspecified, mysterious reasons. Then I would need to scratch my head and ponder whether they might be Chesterton’s fences with an explanation beyond my comprehension. But the feminists have made it incredibly easy for us to dismiss their pseudoscience, thankfully. By explaining their reasoning they expose themselves as so idiotic that we couldn’t have asked for a more intellectually bankrupt enemy.

As to morality derived from an arbitrary decree of God -- well, in principle it is possible that a creator just wants to test or torment us by holding us to senseless standards for whatever reason, including perhaps sheer malice or amusement, but such a notion is unworthy of serious consideration in my view. I also don’t buy that there is some metaphysical reason why sex may be bad that only God truly understands, like it will damage women’s souls or something, though that is exactly what the old and still wildly popular trope of a woman who’s slept with too many men implies.

That said, our religious tradition probably did erect some solid Chesterton’s fences. The antipathy towards male masturbation was one example. The original biblical explanation that you shouldn’t spill your seed (or more to the point, libido, which also tells us why pornography is bad) was the voice of reason, and then the moral baggage which followed including bogus medical consequences were a little over the top, but still served a useful purpose. When I go back to basics and use the language of rationality, sex-positivity and evolutionary psychology to explain why male masturbation is harmful or maladaptive, fewer people listen than did to the moralistic commands, which tells me that yes, they have their use, but not when they aren’t based on reason in the first place like so much other sexual morality or abuse fantasies.

While I do not believe that masturbation/pornography is harmful on any other than a personal (and strictly male) level these days (it's not like we need more people), it is possible that some degree of enforced monogamy is a Chesterton’s fence valuable to the maintenance of civilization. It is also possible that the feminists may inadvertently have inherited some sexual taboos that actually serve a purpose, only to imbue them with a gibberish justification. For example, the female sex offender charade may be a new way to treat women as property and regulate their sexuality in the interests of powerful men, or it may be part of monogamy enforcement, and ditto for the “sex trafficking” nonsense.

But there comes a point when the gibberish is so flagrantly offensive that it must be attacked even if the taboo makes sense under an ulterior motive. The pretense that women “sexually abuse” lucky boys is a clear case of this, a lie so intellectually and morally repulsive that it must be fought regardless of any other merit to prosecuting such women. The female sex offender charade is so absurd that it must be completely demolished and, if society has any use for violently controlling female sexuality, reinstitute it under an honest pretext such as a women-as-property paradigm or laws against fornication.

If you believe that fornication is immoral (as opposed to impractical to civilization at worst) or victimless sex is abuse, however, then you are flatly wrong. This statement is more powerful than God or the law, because as I said, neither of them can create moral facts. Male sexualists do not believe or accept that fornication is immoral or should be illegal apart from actual abuse reasonably defined (that I won't go into now, but a manifesto detailing this is coming).

We know most people are unable to think for themselves on these matters. I am used to the average person parroting the antisex line, whether justified by sin or abuse. But I wasn’t expecting this from someone like Roosh, who went from pickup guru to so intolerant that he doesn’t allow discussion of sex outside of marriage on his forum anymore because he doesn’t want to promote “sin.” Perhaps this is a marketing ploy for a new image as a spiritual teacher, some sort of bizarre midlife crisis or even a pathological drop in libido, or he could be under duress, but he appears sincere. Which is a real shame, because between censorship and self-censorship the sex-positive manosphere is now almost wiped out.

This post did not live up to its lofty title, but I will leave that to the philosophers, or perhaps the comment section if anyone wants to discuss the ontological status of morality in more depth. I think this is a variation of the nominalism vs. realism debate, but I also feel I don’t have much to contribute to such philosophical questions. I am just a humble MRA railing against what I know for sure are not Chesterton’s fences, and also not metaphysical questions of no practical consequence, but extremely evil laws and norms that we need to do away with for our dear lives.

Thursday, May 23, 2019

The downside of political honesty

Today I had two women from a coparents site turn me down because and only because they googled me. Previously I have lost connection with a very broody 16-year-old girl for the same reason.

My approach to dating has been to treat my political views and reputation as perfectly normal and not even mention them, since there is no issue unless they make one, but that isn’t working very well. It worked fine for the Nigerian lady to whom I donated sperm for (failed) IVF. She either didn’t know or didn’t care that I am a dissident. It also works fine for Tinder dates, who are (so far) invariably contracepted. But when it comes to reproduction, women usually dig deeper.

I am hyperpolitical, which means I prioritize politics over my personal well-being, or did long enough that it can’t be undone perhaps short of changing my name. Hyperpolitical disorder is a kind of overdeveloped altruism, idealism and honesty, afflicting the sort willing to fight for minority principles or at least not hide them. We are no more violent than others since most men can be made to fight by the majority, but hyperpoliticals are what freedom-fighters and terrorists are made of. I didn’t go down that path, which makes me too boring to attract hybristophiles, yet my break with society makes me too freaky for the rest. Or does it?

I have taken steps to reduce my hyperpoliticalism, which works on my composure but doesn’t affect search-engine hits that are out of my control. Of course, if I hadn’t expressed my MRA/male sexualist views, they would still be what they are, and who knows what unexpressed tendencies others have? With me, what you see is what you get. I am neither a hypocrite nor a coward and obviously not a psychopath since they would never express disadvantageous opinions. I don’t hide my politics or unpopular views under anonymous accounts like many do. I am a public figure and completely open about my opinions.

That is just the way it is, for better or for worse.

Saturday, May 18, 2019

Distancing myself from the asexualists

I promote an ideology that I can be proud of because it is right and good as I see it, not because it gets the most done, which would be nothing anyway. Not having to compromise is perhaps the only benefit of having no power. Compromise is only relevant when you are part of the political process, which male sexualism is not, so we might as well say what we really mean. And that includes speaking my mind about dissent within our movement, since we don't even have a political party to keep together. What follows is a response to this post by The Antifeminist which was also endorsed over at Men Factor.

I am not going to sully the male sexualism that I represent with support for something worthless and harmful like male masturbation and (more importantly, since this is how it goes really wrong) the exacerbating information technologies. Those who want to retreat into a fantasy world with no meaningful sexual interactions or procreation can do so today, like millions of men already do, and it's not political except the pornography laws you might encounter, which I do oppose, but not at the cost of not telling the truth. I want pornography to be legal on freedom-of-speech grounds (or treated like any other information), not male sexualist grounds. Pornography is actually detrimental to male sexuality, so if sexualism were the only consideration and I were extremely paternalistic and didn’t care if the cure was worse than the disease, I would want it banned, yes.

Pornography is a tool to keep men away from females, and men are tools to be suckered into using it. It thus benefits feminist ideology, regardless of what they realize or say. The only male sexualist “benefit” of porn is that it reduces the competition for real interactions with women, but that is just a selfish benefit for those men who do value sex, not a legitimate male sexualist value. I can’t stop those who want to waste their reproductive efforts on virtual garbage, but I don’t need to uphold it as a positive thing, which would be downright perverse when my ideology is called male sexualism!

In my view, pornography, masturbation and all kinds of virtual sex simply cannot be advocated for alongside sex, because they are varieties of asexuality. They are evolutionary traps, like the beer bottles that male jewel beetles mistake for females in the Australian outback, equally worthless to our true sexual values. Today this is unquestionably true, and even looking into the future and given unlimited technological progress, it is doubtful whether machines can ever be valid sexual or romantic partners, because that would require that humans too are machines, which is unknown. If physicalism is true, and our minds emerge from a physical substrate due to the way it is configured with nothing else in the mix, then I will grant you that other machines as worthy of sex and love as us can eventually be constructed, but I am not going to jump to that conclusion. I recommend this video for an alternative view (and a discussion of the jewel beetles too):


If consciousness rather than physical machinery is the ground of our beings, and like Donald Hoffman claims we are conscious agents made of a deeper reality than physical stuff, sex robots can never be worthy of being called anything other than masturbation and must forever be considered maladaptive to male sexualist goals. I don’t know the ultimate answer to whether minds can be constructed out of physical material, and I don’t need to know because no matter what the limits may be, current technology is certainly as dead as the beer bottles that jewel beetles attempt to mate with, which is to say worse than worthless.

The Antifeminist also attacks my obsession with the female sex offender charade, and I won’t back down on that either because though it has little practical impact, the philosophical mistakes are so profound. It is one thing to control and punish female sexuality via the brute force of treating women as property or some unfalsifiable religious belief, but when the authorities claim that women can “sexually abuse” boys, they have dug themselves into a blatantly false position that anyone with intellectual integrity needs to call out. “Child sexual abuse” as defined by politically correct dogma is an incoherent concept that you have to be intellectually dishonest to take seriously even without considering the difference between men and women; so imagine how insane it gets when you also deny sex differences! Well, I can’t help but imagining, observing and expounding this charade in an ongoing series of posts (and tweets before I got banned).

About youth -- yes, wouldn’t it be great if men could just keep banging teenage girls and young women their whole lives? That is a utopia to be approximated via various realistic practices rather than faked through porn and sexbots! The realistic, meaningful way for men to have some degree of access to women of peak of sexual attractiveness well into our more mature years is via polyamory, the occasional hookups, prostitution, sugar babies, the work-related benefits that feminists call “quid pro quo sexual harassment” and so on, which can be combined with generally encouraging monogamy because we also care about the incels. That is the sound male sexualist position that benefits most men, which neither involves intolerant monogamy nor sexual monopolization by alphas nor fakery through porn.

Tuesday, May 07, 2019

Further reflections on the female sex offender charade: women-as-property edition

Before the female sex offender charade which holds that women can commit sexual abuse, women were also punished for sex, but it wasn’t a charade. Some of those laws were religiously justified, but let’s cut to the chase: women were punished because sex is a female resource and women were essentially property who were not allowed to dispose of that resource as they saw fit. In the same way you (or society) would punish a slave for running away -- and this was a sensible thing to do if you accepted the premise of slavery -- women would get punished for fornication or adultery because others wanted to control that resource. Mostly men, but it extends to family and society. Women can sexually abuse all right, but they can only abuse themselves and become damaged goods in the eyes of their masters, be it husbands or fathers or the law, and therefore need to be kept in line.

One might naively assume that the feminist movement, being ostensibly concerned with women’s rights, would loathe the idea of women as property. But no, it turns out that feminists are the biggest promoters of this state of affairs. There is a way to turn women into sexual property which is so stunningly effective that it not only persists to this day, but became a core feminist tenet, making feminists the useful idiots of the patriarchy. That is to pretend that women can commit rape and sexual abuse, and voila, you get to punish women for almost exactly the same things that a women-as-property justification would lead to, and then some. What I call the female sex offender charade is now seen as a self-evident truth by feminists, so ferociously guarded that they will try to silence any dissenters, and in the case of Twitter succeeded in having me removed for disagreeing. Here is a feminist bragging that she reported me leading to my suspension:

https://twitter.com/Ingi70/status/1115002271002238978

And when someone asks what it was I said that made her report me, another feminist from that discussion replies “That masturbating is more traumatic and psychically damaging than being sexually abused or raped as a child.” That is a distortion of what I said (screenshot of actual tweets that got me banned are here), but close enough minus the sex differences. Women cannot rape or sexually abuse boys, and as I keep saying, masturbation is unhealthy to males, so in the way feminists define it, it is certainly better to be “raped” by women than to masturbate. But although it is crucial to my points that women can't sexually abuse males, and male masturbation is unhealthy, notice how she leaves out sex differences altogether from the supposed reason I got banned, in keeping with the programmatic ignorance of feminism which ensures that they will never realize the truth.

When men get punished for sex, it is likewise because sex is a female resource that men take in unentitled ways. And there is overlap with today’s prevailing justification for sex laws, which holds that sex crimes are crimes of “abuse” against a “victim,” which is actually true when abuse is reasonably defined, precisely because sex is a female resource that females are naturally very invested in managing for their own purposes. It is also possible for males to sexually abuse other males and this is rightly punished as well, but what is not possible is for females to sexually abuse males (or more accurately, sexually exploit, but I shall pass over the finer nuances here; see this post for a more detailed discussion of what women definitely can’t do).

It is now established in the justice system that women can sexually abuse and exploit in exactly the same ways as men, but this does no more describe the truth than the similar institutionalization of punishment against witchcraft centuries ago. Humans are capable of bizarre superstitions, and feminism in particular is notable for its pseudoscientific denial of human nature. The myth that boys who have sex with women are “abused” in any meaningful sense is just as wrong as other contemporary myths like the idea that sugar leads to hyperactive children or vaccines cause autism; but nonetheless, all of these myths find believers. When such myths cause real harm, as in the cases of antivaxxing and sex abuse hysteria (but not the harmless sugar myth), sensible people are morally obliged to speak up, which is what a good bit of my blog is devoted to and my Twitter was before I got banned for this very reason. I can no longer tweet, but if anyone is interested my complete archive can be downloaded here.

The female sex offender charade is so mind-boggling because it violates both the laws of physics and common sense, which is worse than those other myths. It occupies the same status as both the treatment of women as property and the persecution of witchcraft, except worse because it singles out the nicest women. Female-perpetrated sexual abuse is just as contrary to the laws of physics as witches flying around on broomsticks, once you understand that the laws of physics (given the first cell of life, whose formation cannot yet be explained) lead to natural selection, which when you have two sexes like ours entails unequal minimum parental investment which ensures that sex is a female resource, which means women cannot sexually abuse males, at least not anywhere near equally.

Yet here we are, living under a justice system that pretends the sexes are equally able to sexually abuse, and the most surreal part is that opposition is virtually nonexistent except my own voice, which is also at risk of censorship every time I say something. Furthermore, it is ironically feminists who got us into this mess, while male sexualists are the only ones talking sense. The rest of the men's movement are also content with letting feminists persecute other women for victimless sex since it plays into controlling female sexuality against the fear that their wives will cheat on them with students and other less powerful but nonetheless somewhat threatening males, which is to say the women-as-property paradigm that is the ultimate explanation for punishing female sexuality.

It is not intuitive that vaccines can’t cause autism or sugar can’t make kids hyperactive, but it is elementary to any idiot that women can’t rape or sexually abuse. As with witchcraft, people need high priests to interpret reality for them in such a distorted way, using supposed esoteric knowledge that the obsequious oversocialized dimwits simply accept. The high priestesses today go by titles like psychologist and therapist (or as one of the women who got me banned from twitter comically styled herself, an “expert in child sexual assault”), and they perform exactly the same function as whoever decided that women could be witches that needed to be burned. While there is only so much of their drivel I can stomach, I have seen their “research” and know enough to know that the high priests are full of shit, and it is my moral duty to do what I can to make people stop trusting them regardless of the risk to my freedom of speech.

In the previous comment thread, Tom Grauer said I shouldn't be surprised by the feminists' desperate insistence that women can sexually abuse because
The issue of female sex offenders is a distilled case of a "power imbalance" -- and *nothing but that* -- being considered to be victimizing in and of itself, regardless of other factors and circumstances. Indeed, you can notice that the more out-of-touch various Feminist positions are, the more enthusiastically they support them, because their craziest ideas are simply regular Feminist doctrine taken to its most logical conclusion and most abstract manifestation. To Feminists, actual people don't matter; ideas matter, and the idea they have of "power imbalances" must be preserved lest the entire ideology loses its foothold.
And he has a point, but I am not giving up yet. I am hoping that perhaps the realization that they are treating women as property, or have merely replaced the scarlet letter treatment of the Puritans with an upgraded feminist version, or are indulging the ramblings of a mad witch doctor, will make them come to their senses. And if not, I think there might be a few more angles of attack worth exploring, because the absurdity of feminists or anyone supporting the female sex offender charade is inexhaustible to me.

Wednesday, May 01, 2019

Rebutting the more sophisticated arguments against nofap

There is a new website called realyourbrainonporn.com which claims to tell the truth about porn and masturbation. It is really pretentious, made by self-styled experts who according to their press release include
the principle investigator for the first research-based porn literacy curriculum for youth, the first person to coin the expression "sex positive", the first neuroscience lab to test the addiction model of pornography, and the lab that demonstrated porn did not impact partner satisfaction in the largest pre-registered, failure-to-replicate in the field of human sexuality. Experts' background includes terminal degrees in addictions, communications and media, sociology, psychology, neuroscience, and physiology, among others.
I am not impressed, however. I maintain that male masturbation and pornography-watching are evils that we should oppose on an ideological basis as male sexualists. And I mean weakly oppose, at the level of recommendations rather than legislation, but oppose nonetheless. It is male masturbation that is bad and maladaptive to our values, and porn is bad insofar as it exacerbates male masturbation.

When we look at what these best “experts” on the other side have to offer, weak minds might easily be persuaded that I am wrong. Here is their research:
Which includes conclusions like these:

“Viewing sexual stimuli [is] associated with greater sexual responsiveness, not erectile dysfunction.”

“No empirical studies exist that demonstrated a link between pornography consumption and sexual problems.”

“There is no evidence of [porn] consumption being either adaptive or maladaptive when it comes to relationship satisfaction, closeness, and loneliness.”

I am not going to answer these studies on the methodological or data level right now, because that is not necessary for my position. I am sure the studies are not as convincing as they sound in these summaries (yourbrainonporn has good info to the contrary), but even if they reflected the truth, they miss a sufficient reason to shun porn and masturbation, namely the opportunity cost. You should compare yourself to nothing but your own sexual performance potential. If the men with the strongest libidos watch the most porn, they would also have even more and earlier sex without. And if relationship satisfaction is reported to be the same in porn users, they would surely have more relationships and other sexual encounters to be even more satisfied with if they never masturbated or looked at porn.

So all of these men who are ostensibly unscathed by porn still suffer an opportunity cost! They could have had better sex lives without, even if there are no demonstrable clinical issues, because life is so much more than avoiding clinical diagnoses.

There is no meaningful control group, except us nofappers that these “experts” dismiss as anecdotes. We can look to the past when men had more sex, but they dismiss that as well. Also, effective pharmaceutical remedies for impotence appeared at the same time as Internet porn, so those pills may mask some of the problem, which is also ignored. And finally I think these studies are flat-out wrong, fraudulent and biased in important ways, but again, that is not essential to the argument I am making here.

The reason why male masturbation is seen by the establishment as harmless and even desirable, and why hateful laws against real sex are also seen as nothing to be resisted by men, is one and the same: a devaluing of male sexuality. It can take the form of feminism, but also it manifests as a general apathy in men about both sexual politics and the personal opportunity cost of wasting your sexuality on asexual practices like masturbation.

Keep in mind that the same researchers who proclaim that masturbation is harmless also think the current sex laws are harmless to men, or at least justified in the interests of women (and probably an asinine belief in female sex offenders as well). Why would a self-respecting male sexualist listen to them? The issue is not whether porn use fits some official “addiction” model or leads to other diagnosable conditions. I happen to think it can lead to clinical impotence and always leads to less sexual enjoyment, but that is beside the point. We can all agree that if we never masturbated or watched porn, we would certainly be more sexually driven and probably able to boast more experiences. It is not far-fetched at all, even if all the porn-promoting research is factually correct, that a nofapping man can double the number of women he sleeps with in his lifetime, say from 10 to 20 on average, and that makes nofap profoundly valuable.

Male sexualism is the bridge between our instinctive sex drives and ideology, because the male sex drive is damn near ideologically blind. History shows almost zero correlation between the two, unless you count brute force. Our sex drive is great for the immediate decision-making to fuck the women in our proximity, but it sucks for politics (and it sucks even for the former with porn in the mix). Evolutionarily speaking, what matters strategically is to rise in hierarchies, so that’s what men will focus on when not engaged in immediate sexual pursuit (or maladaptive misdirection fostered by porn, as the case may be). Even if those hierarchies are wedded to antisex such as feminism or the Catholic clergy or researchers who study porn in order to extol its politically correct virtues, the men who rise to prominence will have the most sexual opportunities and therefore do the right thing in some sense. But we can do better! Since men have no evolved tendency to champion the philosophy of sex-positivity, we need to take it upon ourselves to devise such an ideology if we want one. Male sexualism, humble though it may be, is the greatest attempt in history to do just this. Men need to learn to think with their dicks, and I am proud to lead a movement that teaches them how to do this.

Other value systems have also incidentally opposed masturbation, but we do it for the right reasons, because we explicitly think with our dicks and thus recognize and fear the opportunity cost of everything that gets in the way. The other nofappers, who only quit porn because it made them impotent, are also by and large accidental sexualists who care nothing about the sex laws. Only male sexualism brings it all together into one wholesome ideology and way of life.

Comments are open (but moderated), so if anyone wants to discuss nofap in more detail or other male sexualist issues, feel free.

Saturday, April 06, 2019

It was clear and sunny, with the fresh warmth of a full-summer day

One of the most memorable things I learned or read in college was Shirley Jackson's short story "The Lottery." It is a fine example of what fiction does at its best, which is to tell truth more powerful than any individual true story. This story is about a perfectly normal town with perfectly nice people, going about their picturesque lives. Except they have a brutal custom, which is shocking enough in the story, but the true horror begins when you realize that real people are like that too.

I am, once again, talking about the female sex offender charade. Whenever a woman is prosecuted for her sexual vitality and generosity, I feel what "The Lottery" evokes. It is the banality of evil at work, evil perpetrated by people who don't particularly make up their minds to be evil, but also have no ability to question senseless norms and laws.

It has now reached the point that I am suspended from Twitter for saying women can't rape men in one tweet, and in another that it is a retarded criterion to punish women that they have sex with someone under 18. I have appealed and it remains to be seen if my suspension will be permanent, but one thing is clear: I can't be on Twitter if I have to condone the female sex offender charade, because resisting that is one of the pillars of our political platform as well as a moral and intellectual duty.

Robin Hanson has said that it is so far only "hyperbole" that gets censored (or else he would be banned long ago himself), and I have mostly agreed, but we are testing the limits of that theory now. I suppose I still could call it something like an "intellectually untenable" criterion to punish women for sex with minors rather than a "retarded" one, and perhaps use some circumlocution about women not being able to rape men either, but that so is hard to keep up at all times in the face of constant reporting that we are now dangerously close to our ideology itself being censored, not just some un-PC word with which it is expressed.

Ironically, I -- an MRA -- am censored by feminists for resisting misogyny. And when there is so little opposition to punishing women for victimless sex crimes, what hope is there for men? Men don't have the cuteness going for them that these nice women, usually young teachers, do and still get punished with no significant opposition. As in the fictional story, even the "winners" of the senseless punishment lottery do not question it on principle. The best they can do is to cry that there was something unfair about the way they got selected, which is to say get bogged down into the fight against "false accusations" that takes up so much valuable activist resources that should have gone into fighting the larger issues.

Only the male sexualists question the lottery itself. I belabor the female sex offender charade so much because it is so painfully obvious that an idiot -- sorry, I mean a developmentally challenged or differently abled person -- can see it -- in fact can see better than the oversocialized crowd that the "victims" are only lucky, so this should be the lowest-hanging fruit of sex law reform. Yet as much as I have tried, I cannot get women to see it. If anything, they go more gung-ho for punishing women than men, probably because of the added virtue-signaling involved. There is something charming and innocent about their moral blindness and eagerness to please authority, like the little kids in the story who are given pebbles to throw, even at their own mother, but make no mistake, this is the nature of evil.

I am now going to reopen anonymous comments to let the community weigh in on this latest development. But it might have to be temporary, because this blog is constantly under attack as well. Assume that everything gets reported and please don't post anything questionable -- I will only publish what I am sure is acceptable, of course, but it is all the effort that goes into those decisions that make anonymous comments intolerable in the long run.

Oh, and in case you are wondering what the title means, read it here.

Sunday, February 24, 2019

Tom Grauer's Male Sexualist Manifesto

Just the other day I was lamenting that Tom Grauer had dropped out of activism -- but guess what: he is back! Stronger than ever, with a complete male sexualist manifesto. The work I had been too lazy to write myself has just been handed to us as if descended from heaven:

A Radical Male Sexualist Manifesto

If you've known Grauer since his first blog you might expect some trolling. But no, this is entirely serious. It contains strong statements, but only because feminist society really is as outrageous as he says. There is no advocacy of pedophilia, slavery or abolishing the sex laws altogether like he flirted with before; just the bare-bones men's rights activism for normal male sexuality that I have been promoting for over 20 years now, finally put down in an attractive pamphlet.

I still intend to write a manifesto myself too, going more into depth about the specific things we want to change about the sex laws, but as a primer on male sexualism I don't think I can surpass this. Congratulations! and many thanks for writing it, Tom Grauer. This will appeal to men in general, unless they are hopelessly brainwashed by puritan-feminism, and should be disseminated far and wide.

Friday, February 15, 2019

Hard determinist therapy

Today I am writing a sequel to my post about Quisling therapy, which I came up with as a way to manage your (hyper)political hate and live with odious laws. What I am proposing now is along the same lines, but less mean-spirited than my original stab at Quisling therapy, because it is time to honestly admit that hate is a real problem that can't be solved merely by tweaking the same feeling.

It is time for a radically new account of our enemies, one without free will. Free will is a perennial philosophical question with no clear right answer, and I don't claim to have made any theoretical advances either, but I have found what works to improve the lives of hyperpolitical sufferers like me. Much of my suffering stems from attributing moral agency to the perpetrators of feminist sex laws, and moral agency being such a philosophically problematic concept anyway, why am I letting this belief blight my life so profoundly?

I am talking about literally convulsing with hatred against feminist sex laws and the people who support them for hours every day here -- no joke! Today I managed to avoid that for the first time in two decades, by reminding myself that our enemies don't have free will. They are no more responsible for their persecution of sexuality than a rabid dog is for its aggression. Society is infested with antisex rabies, and we need to address this horrible fact as best we can, but the one thing we don't need to do is obsess over how hateful people are for perpetrating or condoning sex-hostility, because they didn't have a choice in the sense that matters for that.

To temper your hatred, I suggest becoming an incompatibilist determinist like Gregg Caruso, who explains his philosophy in this conversation with Robert Wright. While he talks mostly about criminals, taking this position seriously means that our political enemies also don't have free will, and we ourselves don't. Our political enemies ought therefore to be regarded with the same compassion as he wants for criminals. Criminals are to be quarantined and treated, as humanly as one would while defending society against infectious disease that necessitates the use of force against morally innocent victims. Retributivism has to go, and I really don't have a problem with this for criminals as long as they accept it, but the problem is, how do you decide who is a criminal? I get the feeling that Caruso and others like him take the intersection of criminality and politics too lightly. "Treating" criminals who don't want to be treated because they don't think there is anything wrong with them and they have political disagreements with the law, such as terrorists and egosyntonic sex offenders, runs afoul of serious ethical contraindications. But for the purposes of self-help, which this post is about, I am down with discounting personal responsibility of the kind that goes along with libertarian free will.

Hard determinism (or however you go about believing that there is no free will; some random chance can be permitted also) doesn't solve political strife, but at least we don't need to hate our enemies. On the downside we are not entitled to revel in righteousness either, but I need to relax before the stress hormones do me in or ruin my health. It is one of those rare times when philosophy can save lives. Incompatibilist determinism is the attitude that life does you, and you just go with the flow. There are horrible people around, but they're being done in the same way, so it doesn't make sense to hate them or think them evil. Thus I bring my stress levels down from hyperpolitical disorder to something approaching normal, while keeping my same wholesome ideology and activist bent.

There is a higher level still, which consists of seeing our enemies as cogs in a machine that is not even conscious. Government is intelligent, a sort of AI, but probably not conscious, so hate is even more misguided against the system. Not coincidentally, I've come to this realization at a time when I have reaped the full benefits of nofap. I see now that hatred is a lot like masturbation, a kind of political equivalent that is similarly maladaptive and counterproductive. It doesn't get you any closer to the real goal, and in fact hurts, since you waste time and energy shaking with hatred when you could have been a more effective activist, writing more and better blog posts, books and a proper manifesto, participated in debates and so on. Extreme hate is always toxic to the hater and only rarely to the people you hate. When it doesn't incapacitate you, a lot of times it empowers them, like the feminist trolls who are more likely to succeed in their campaign to have me censored if I lose my temper.

I can only say that I am ashamed of all the time and opportunities I've wasted. I could have been a so much better MRA if I had realized this earlier. As with my ignorant failure to embrace nofap in my youth, my political hatred has been been a waste of life and vitality -- but it ain't over yet.

Let us now look at what happens when the rubber meets the road and society sics one of its rabid dogs on you. Firstly, don't hate the dog, because he can't help it. Keep your cool and be rational. If the rabid dog is a vigilante trying to kill you, you can safely follow the traditional advice for rabid dogs and put him down, since self-defense against criminals is still permitted. If you are attacked by an official rabid dog, however, this approach does not work since he has unlimited backup of more rabid dogs, so then you need to play by the rules of the justice system while defending yourself, like I did so successfully myself once.

But preferably, we should avoid attracting the aggression of rabid dogs. That means obeying the law while working to change it in legal ways. There is no cure for rabies (outside of intensive care, by which a handful people have survived), but there is a vaccine, and male sexualist activism is about developing and disseminating that vaccine -- our ideology -- in which hatred is not a helpful ingredient.

Sunday, January 27, 2019

Enlightenment, egosyntonicity and "sexual misconduct"

Robert Wright is a curious mix of a fair amount of intellectual honesty and a lot of odious feminist views on sex. His show is worth watching for the former, if you can bear cringing over the latter. For example in this conversation with Christina Hoff Sommers they both come across as hateful feminists, so much so that I don't recommend watching that episode unless you feel like you need another sanctimonious plug for the #MeToo movement.

Embracing feminist sex-hostility wholesale including the most bizarre taboos (well, maybe not the linguistic ones, but where it matters), he even believes it is wrong for spiritual teachers to have sex with their students, but his interviews with those kinds of figures are more interesting because they let out honesty about what it means to be enlightened. The contrast is stark between Robert Wright's sycophantic feminism and the behavior of the real, alpha Buddhists he half-heartedly admires, and his show's most commendable feature is to not sweep this under the rug. He even admits the possibility that great spiritual teachers are more lecherous because they are enlightened!

Despite copious meditation including many retreats, Wright has only made modest spiritual progress himself. He will never be enlightened, because his mind is full of noxious values that couldn't possibly allow that. His feminist beliefs prevent him from thinking "unclean" thoughts, and a man who is afraid of thoughts is the very definition of unenlightened. If you believe that masculinity is toxic like Robert Wright does -- curiously while being conversant in evolutionary psychology at the same time, so he knows "men are naturally these creeps," as he puts it, a truth which he correctly notes should be used to bolster the feminist movement rather than be denied if one actually holds their values -- you are forever doomed to self-loathing, forever in conflict with prominent parts of yourself and banished from nirvana. You can't have a sanitized version of nirvana with feminist chaperones there to cockblock reality, because reaching that state involves killing all chaperones, famously even including the Buddha himself.

It struck me that what enlightenment actually is is egosyntonicity, including sexual. You can't function without a self. All the baloney about giving up your ego is just code for putting yourself (closer) into alignment. And a man in that state is not going to be swayed by feminist nonsense like the taboo against sex with students if he happens to teach. He is going to feel what he feels with an open mind, not consider any feeling inappropriate and often act on it if he can get away with it. In short, he is going to embody untrammeled male sexuality, if he has a healthy libido. Of course, feminist-defined "sexual misconduct" is rampant in men of any religious or atheist persuasion and even among "feminist" men, and I have no hard data to prove that Buddhist sages are more lecherous than other men, but at least it will not hurt your sexuality to aspire to that ideal.

Buddhist enlightenment is thus one way to become a male sexualist -- in practice and fundamental values if not explicit ideology -- but it is not the only way nor the way I preach. Buddhism is far too nihilistic and amoral for my taste -- dehumanizing, even (just look at this freak show of someone who takes those aspects way too far and says he isn't even able to love his own family! -- though he made sure to put his daughters through grad school before he stopped loving them -- yeah, this is comedy gold too) -- and comes with other baggage that we don't need. Hinduism is slightly better, by the way, since they favor open individualism over empty -- but as a Westerner I am still stuck on closed individualism for the most part. My ideology of male sexualism is not predicated on amorality, but rather moral superiority over hateful feminists. Our moral superiority can be asserted through any honest path of ethical inquiry you care to name, from deontology to virtue ethics, though I am more a consequentialist myself.

That said, there is an element of spiritual enlightenment in my sexualism as well. My attitude to enlightenment is: been there, done that (on entheogens when I was in college), and though I have no desire to repeat that experience (and much trepidation since I also know what bad trips are like), it stays with me in a sense. Perhaps I am so fearless in my sexual egosyntonicity in part because I am in the brotherhood of alpha Buddhists who fuck their students and engage in other "sexual misconduct" to the dismay of feminist beta scum like Robert Wright. The difference is mainly that they -- if they choose to take on the Bodhisattva role -- teach it indirectly while I teach sexualism explicitly without much else.

Yes, having been there, done that, my attitude to mystical experiences is as the saying goes that when you get the message, hang up the phone. And honestly the most plausible interpretation is they are just in your head with no cosmic significance anyway -- a bonding with a model of the cosmos or "God" in your head (except sometimes I entertain that nondualism might be true, and then it makes more sense) -- but that's beside the point if they can make you feel better about yourself, which the egosyntonicity I am talking about undeniably does, as well as probably making you a better person. This is not to say that I recommend seeking out mystical experiences! Do so at your own risk! And there is nothing a psychedelic trip can teach you that you can't read in a philosophy book or blog like mine, which is the safer option if you want to know. I am here to tell you that the real message of enlightenment is male sexualism, or at least includes it. Temporarily "losing" my ego helped me realize how precious life is, defined by temporal natural selection and reproduction and all that entails, and why you shouldn't debase it with noxious ideologies like feminism. Yes, the message is love, and male sexualism is love.

I have also been listening to a lot of Alan Watts lately, and unlike Wright, this man is the real deal. He had seven children and three wives and engaged in an awful lot of "sexual misconduct" from a feminist perspective, not giving a flying fuck about the feminist hate against sleeping with students (not that it had been invented yet, but I doubt he would have internalized it today either), reputedly picking up a new college girl after most talks ("I don't like to sleep alone").

Here are a couple of my favorite sermons by him:


I don't mean to imply that I agree with everything he says. He talks as if masturbation is harmless there, for example, though to his credit he did not anticipate Internet porn -- and the idea that sex becomes more interesting via religious repression also does not ring true to me, as a 100% sex-obsessed person who has never been the slightest bit repressed. But he is good, very good, the sort of speaker male sexualism needs. I have started up a YouTube channel and will see what I can do, but I obviously have ways to go before I can preach a sermon of that caliber.

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.