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.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree with the female sex offender charade, but i also agree with the Anti-Feminist... I really don't care about what happens to those women. There is no reason for me to.

Eivind Berge said...

You should care AT LEAST as much as you care about men punished for unreasonable sex crimes, and arguably more because the injustice is greater due to the incomparable sexual value of women. Apart from some incels who also take it personally, I seem to be the only one distraught by the logical fallacies and disparate impact involved, but I can't fathom why it should be so. The disparate impact of "equal" sex-criminalization on women amounts to misogyny, which no sensible person should tolerate any more than we should tolerate misandry.

Eivind Berge said...

To clarify how sorry we should feel for them, women as a group are not oppressed by the sex laws. All the laws our movement exists to oppose suit women just fine most of the time, which is how we got into this mess. The only significant group of women who are oppressed by sex laws are sex workers. Maggie McNeill has a work out called “The War on Whores,” which tells us exactly who are oppressed and whom the few women who are engaged in sex-positive activism care about helping.

We men are on our own, and women largely hate us or ignore us when we are sexually oppressed, but that does not mean we shouldn’t care about the few female individuals who run afoul of the same laws and end up as collateral damage of what is really a war on male sexuality. Take for example the atrocious case of Jennifer Fichter, who got 22 years for sex with 17-year-old boys. It should go without saying that we, as a movement of men who believe there is nothing wrong with banging 13-year-old girls, cannot be so hypocritical as to care nothing about female victims like Jennifer Fichter. They should arguably be our highest priority both because their “crime” is so unfathomably lesser, and because I can’t see how society or the justice system will have any sympathy for us until they quit this much worse maltreatment of (individual) women. Yes, the women who want to break sex laws other than prostitution are in a sense “too few to matter,” but if the individual doesn’t matter, then nothing matters as I see it, being a staunch libertarian and all.

On a more humorous note, I finally heard of a biological myth that just might rival the female sex offender charade in its stupidity: the Vegetable Lamb of Tartary. If you think lambs can grow from vegetables, you might almost be ignorant enough to believe women can sexually abuse boys. However, people did not in fact believe the latter back when this zoophyte myth was going strong, and now that biological knowledge has come so much further on both counts, there is absolutely no excuse to believe something so stupid as the female sex offender charade. We now know the evolutionary theoretic, genetic, physiological and psychological reasons why women cannot sexually abuse males, not just the commonsense reasons that sufficed throughout history and prehistory.