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.

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.

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.