Innocent victims of unenlightened times

Women prosecuted for witchcraft centuries ago are today rightly considered innocent victims of unenlightened times:

Lilias Adie died in prison in 1704, before she could be convicted, strangled and burned at the stake for a crime to which she had reportedly confessed -- of being a witch, and having sex with the devil.

She was buried on a beach in Torryburn, Fife by locals -- who were so concerned that she might "reanimate" and rise from her grave that they buried her under a large stone.

But why is it so hard to see that we aren't done with that sort of persecution, complete with the bizarre and draconian efforts to contain the "witches"? Nowadays the unenlightenment has shifted to "sexual abuse" instead of "witchcraft" (well, not quite, as we shall see -- but who cares -- the concepts are mostly interchangeable anyway), and it is every bit as absurd. To make it worse, the selection process has grown more malignant because we now single out the sweetest, most innocent, nicest women for prosecution, those who are kind to young boys rather than an imaginary devil. (We even manage to target some of the most beautiful women, which makes me suspect that there is a touch of women-as-property oppression also going on here.)

You need to read no further than the title of this typical presentation of the current madness to understand that this is a literal witch-hunt:

Sex Abuse Victim Has Changed Thanks To Teacher Brittany Zamora’s ‘Black Magic,’ Lawsuit Contends

Prosecutors and the media accuse women of black magic with a straight face, courts sentence them to decades in prison for patent absurdities and I am the only one horrified. The only one horrified! This in a supposedly civilized country too, I am the only one who loses sleep over it. Others don't object to the gobbledygook of the witch doctors which imputes harm to boys via mechanisms so preposterous that they literally can't be described as anything but black magic, which makes me feel so alone and frightened and indignant and righteous and of course smarter than those dimwits, in addition to sorry for the innocent victims of our unenlightened times.

Just listen to the witch doctors' wishful conjurance of harm from their imagined black magic... Hell, the Malleus Maleficarum is more convincing than this shit!

Clinical psychologist Dr. Richard Gartner, who co-founded "Male Survivor," formerly the National Organization on Male Sexual Victimization, evaluated the victim in 2018, according to the lawsuit. 

Gartner noted that while the boy is not yet exhibiting obvious signs of post-traumatic stress disorder or depression, he said it is very possible it will develop later in life. He said it is difficult to predict what specific symptoms the boy will likely develop "in the years and decades ahead."

He said the boy "has shown signs that he can become explosive if angry feelings break through his capacity to manage them." He went on to say that it's common for sexually abused men to get into compulsive behaviors like alcoholism, drug addiction, workaholism and compulsive spending. 

Gartner said the victim should be watched and supported now and into the future.

Yeah, there is no discernible harm, but ye must have faith in abuse hysteria because... any bad thing that could possibly happen in this boy's life can now be blamed on the contrived abuse; never mind that there is no scientific or commonsense reason to expect that he will fare worse than anyone else, except possibly by the nocebo effect if the witch doctors get lucky with their hateful agenda.

Thus we have a woman serving 20 years based on nothing but the wishful thinking of a charlatan who makes his living drumming up contrived abuse while fraudulently attributing harm to it. And she is just one in an ongoing witch-hunt! We need to care about this!

The delusion that exposure to friendly female sexuality can harm boys is the most bizarre superstition of our times, and I am on a mission to undermine it.

Right answers for wrong reasons

I marvel at how two diametrically opposed sexual value systems have reached the conclusion that porn consumption is bad for men. How is it possible to be either a prude or a hedonist and both agree that porn is a bad thing?

My answer is that men who see themselves as sex-positive and believe porn is good are suffering from anosognosia. Feminists and religious fanatics who see themselves as sex-negative are similarly deluded because they don't realize that abstinence from porn and masturbation is the pathway to the greatest male sexual vitality and (if one is so inclined) promiscuity. Either that, or they hold a bizarre and to me alien value system which holds that fantasies are equivalent to real experiences.

Or alternatively, pornography is just an easy target loosely connected with male sexuality on which to bring down the violence of the state. Since prosecutions are easily based on possession of information alone and requiring neither victims nor witnesses, the feminists can afford to miss their antisex mark much of the time.

I cringe when I see otherwise ideologically sound men buy into the official narrative like The Antifeminist is doing here: David Ley On How ‘Your Belief In Porn Addiction Makes Things Worse.’

The pro-porn advocacy quoted there is so stupid that it's not even wrong, just irrelevant. I don't care if "porn addiction" is a meaningful concept or even if it's harmful to believe in it. What I care about is whether porn interferes with the sex life you could have had without it, and that is never considered in that piece. As I keep saying, the opportunity cost should be our paramount concern with regard to pornography and masturbation. The cited research does not ask how much more sex with how many more females you could have had if you never looked at porn and never masturbated, because the researchers don't care if men have sex.

Such indifference to sexuality is ultimately even more sinister than criminalization, I think. It represents a withdrawal from the world and acceptance of the idea that men might as well be asexual as long as they feel happy about it. I agree that nobody should be criminalized for retreating into a fantasy world, but male sexualism is a nobler ideology, the radical idea that sex is a good thing for us, and thus we do not align ourselves with that kind of junk science.

Pornography is neither worth criminalizing (if one is anti-sex) or supporting (if one is sex-positive). The apparent gains are self-defeating either way. There are many laws I disagree with for reasons other than my male sexualist ideology, and the anti-porn laws happen to be in that category, rather to be opposed on libertarian and free-speech grounds, because yes, they are certainly wrong when viewed from those angles. But they are not an impediment to our healthiest sexual expression, and if anything, obeying them actually helps that.

The Antifeminist makes some better arguments in his latest post here:

In his utter foolishness, Eivind doesn’t seem able to grasp that it’s just a fact, that the lines between ‘porn’ and real relationships are going to increasingly blur. For example, consider selfies. The age of consent is 16 or even lower in most countries in Europe, but the minimum age for ‘sexualized’ selfies is 18. This makes it difficult in today’s world to even pursue or maintain a relationship with a 16 or 17 year old, without breaking the law (‘child pornography’ laws). And this will just get ever more problematic. And not just because of the difference between age of consent and child pornography laws. Most men take sexy pics of their girlfriends. Now they could be prosecuted under ‘revenge porn’ laws if they ever show them to another person, or in Germany already, if they even fail to delete such pics at the end of the relationship.
(...)
To be honest, I don’t see the age of consent laws (at 16) as being even close to the worse feminist injustice. What is so wrong about the present age of consent is the insane and draconian punishments that are meted out now to transgressors. As well as that, the idea that being attracted to teens is a perversion – namely paedophilia. But that itself has likely been caused by the feminist definitions of child porn, rather than the age of consent. Even in Britain, for example, jokes about ‘jail bait’ were commonplace until the child porn laws were ‘strengthened’ and raised to 18 in 2003. Child porn laws essentially carry with them the idea that it is perverted, wrong, and ‘paedophilia’, to even look at or be attracted to a person under 18.

While these are good points, the solution is not to weaken our libidos by being complacent to porn. It should be possible to advocate the right to healthy sexuality without aligning us with something detrimental to it. I certainly agree that when the criminalized "child porn" or "revenge porn" is nothing more than a selfie received from a girl one is talking to or pictures taken in a relationship, rather than a substitute for the girl, this is among our utmost concerns. Reality is that lots of men use such and other pornographic material as a substitute for sex, however, so we must be careful not to conflate these.

The nocebo industry

If we can have entire industries selling placebo, such as homeopathy for example, it is not so surprising that there are also industries selling nocebo. As a side note, I feel a bit sorry for the homeopaths because the only homeopathic medicine that works beyond placebo – vaccines – isn’t considered homeopathy. But back to selling placebos and nocebos. The premier nocebo industry is, of course, the sex abuse industry, and most flagrantly the female sex offender charade. Let me again use Brittany Zamora as illustration (and read this for a textual version replete with words like "black magic" to underscore the intellectual level we are dealing with):

Every day I rack my brain trying to think of more ways to mock the bigots who want to punish victimless sex, and this is what I got for you today. Angry Harry was fond of the word "abuse industry," but I think the "nocebo industry" packs more punch. There is also some real abuse, so the abuse industry isn't entirely useless, but the nocebo part is a vast monstrosity, and when it comes to female "sexual abusers," nocebo is all they have.

The worst part is, there is zero interest in sorting out the nocebos from actually harmful sexual offenses. There are no studies daring to pose such falsifiable questions and no feedback that the legal definitions of sexual abuse are wrong. Brittany Zamora will rot in prison for 20 years while no one (except me) gives a flying fuck that she is in there for nocebo, a vicarious nocebo at that constructed by antisex bigots who then had to brainwash (and pay) the "victim" to (pretend to) feel like one.

I am that one responsible person speaking up on this issue. Kind of like Greta Thunberg on global warming, except it would be an economic disaster to deploy her remedies while mine can be implemented with no social harm at all. Well, except all the prison guards and other members of the nocebo industry out of work, but I am even willing to let them keep their jobs if they quit hurting real people. How about we make some wax dolls for them to put on trial and guard? That way we can have placebo punishments too instead of the real punishments for fake crimes, and there would be some semblance of justice again!

How to categorize criminals without retributive justice

As I was getting at in my hard determinist therapy post, there are strong enough philosophical arguments against free will to do away with retributive justice. If we ever do so, however, that would leave some serious gaps in the categorization of criminals in my view. I therefore propose the following new categories to fill in the gaps and retain the right to take responsibility if one wants to be an enemy of the state or society. To compensate for the loss of presumed free will we need a couple new categories out of respect for the criminals, or potential criminals which means all of us so we can be better citizens and feel we are taken seriously! Instead of the two or three categories we have today (common criminals, the criminally insane and in some countries those condemned to preventive detention), we need four categories in a future without retributive justice.

1. Common criminals. The garden variety criminals of today minus the retributive aspects, sentenced with an aim towards rehabilitation and deterrence only. Burglars, muggers, egodystonic sex offenders, affective and negligent murderers, white-collar criminals etc.

2. Enemies of the state. Quislings, whistleblowers, spies, activists -- obviously terrorists, but also conscientious objectors, civil disobedients, most egosyntonic sex offenders -- basically everyone who is at least somewhat normal or claims to be and would get insulted or risk having their identity destroyed by attempts at rehabilitation. I am naturally-born into this category.

3. Enemies of society. Those resistant or averse to rehabilitation but not for political reasons. Psychopaths, misanthropes, senseless mass murderers, serial killers, sadistic egosyntonic sex offenders, the criminally insane and dangerous who refuse treatment.

4. The criminally insane. Same as those considered insane today plus perhaps some more based on a deeper understanding of pathologically determined behavior. Subject to court approval, but must be voluntary! The certified insane are to be offered treatment instead of punishment, always with an option to decline since psychiatric coercion is wrong for convicts and non-convicts alike. If an apparently insane person considers himself sane, the most the justice system can do is to consider him an enemy of society if very dangerous, or else he will be treated like common criminal or enemy of the state if he so desires.

If, for example ten years is enough to rehabilitate a murderer and reasonably deter such crime, then ten years is all he should get without retributive justice. No more harsh punishments that serve no other purpose than revenge. The current trend is in the other direction (except perhaps in the US where retributivism is already maxed out), but there are good reasons to turn this around, which is in fact what I advocate provided that we make the compromises indicated herein.

My motivation for writing this is that I as a male sexualist activist -- a conscientious objector to the war against normal sexuality -- don’t want to lose the right to be taken seriously in the event that we ditch retributive justice. I am not planning to be any category of criminal, unless conscripted to go against my male sexualist values, but it is important to state this just in case, as you never know what you can be accused of and this also applies to false accusations.

Not that retributive justice is in danger of going out of style any time soon either, but just in case it does we must pave the way for some exceptions in order to preserve the sanctity of human free will, which is central to human dignity whether it actually exists or not. It should be an inalienable human right to be treated as though you have free will if you insist!

Under my system, most criminals can choose to be convicted into the common-criminals category, which is also the default when they don't indicate other wishes. There may be some exceptions forced into the enemy-of-society category as a pragmatic admission that rehabilitation is impossible for them, and that is the only other category anyone can be forced into, but even then they have the option to be an enemy of the state instead.

ANYONE convicted of a crime can be an enemy of the state if they want, which means you CHOOSE not to be rehabilitated for political or moral reasons. These can always choose category 3 and usually category 1 if they like instead -- but unless you wanted to be an enemy of the state, better not bother going through with something like terrorism in the first place.

It is reasonable that enemies of the state and society get longer sentences, but remember, we don’t have retributive justice so it must not get out of hand either. Current punishments should be an upper limit.

How do we categorize those who keep claiming innocence after conviction? They can be common criminals too or another category if they choose and qualify. It will also then as now be that case that some convicts are in fact innocent, and it is inhumane to force them to pretend that they are guilty or apolitical or give them significantly longer imprisonment.

Since "enemy of the state" is a label selected by the convict (an unconditional right to guard against political abuse by the state against the individual), it does not guarantee that one is a better person than a common criminal or even an enemy of society. There may therefore be no difference in how enemies of the state and society are handled except that dictated by the dangerousness of the crime. There is obviously a great deal of practical difference between a terrorist and a conscientious objector, but they are morally in the same category since they offend for political reasons, and conversely it should be possible to declare yourself an incorrigible parking violator if you want to, but that doesn't mean you need to be locked up as long the truly dangerous enemies of the society.

When I was accused of criminal incitement in 2012 I was de facto put in category 2: enemy of the state, so that is good. An attempt launched by my traitorous family to put me in category 4 luckily failed. Like I said, my system will become more relevant if and when we give up on the idea of retributive justice, since my categories are sort of how it works anyway at the present time plus more retribution for everybody minus the unconditional right to criminal sanity which is sadly lacking today.

We might say that a more aggressive version of category 3: enemy of society exists today, in Norway for example with preventive detention and sometimes with civil commitment elsewhere. Preventive detention and this odious new use of civil commitment basically means "enemy of society," so the concept already exists, but it is far too draconian. I am fine with forcing some seriously dangerous criminals into the new category 3 if they don't want to be political and don't want rehabilitation or treatment, but they will get longer sentences or perhaps even the death penalty instead of indefinitely extensible detention, which is fundamentally unjust because it's easily out of proportion to the crime.

We might even say that sex offender registries, where these exist today, are a sort of enemy-of-society category. Under my system -- well, firstly such registries shouldn't exist, but if they must -- we would break them down into my categories so that the political offenders are duly recognized.

People who break the law in an extremely deliberate, habitual and/or politically motivated manner are not the same as common criminals, and we need to recognize this. While I have little sympathy for enemies of society, it is a badge of honor to be an enemy of the state for ethical reasons, and we need to make sure this right is never taken away.

As an additional consideration, I acknowledge that there are two different types of political crimes: those done to protest and those done for intrinsic reasons that one politically thinks should be legal. Examples: violent activism vs. sex offenses. My system allows for them both to be in the same honorable category where they belong.

We are conscientious objectors

Male sexualists are not violent insurgents. Not because society doesn't deserve it, but because then we would be pathetically easy to take out. We don't even incite violence, which is why the government were thoroughly humiliated when they tried to prosecute me. Instead, we are conscientious objectors to the war on sex. We simply do not participate in the persecution of normal male sexuality, nor do we participate in the female sex offender charade, and we promote such conscientious objection for all.

If you are judge or juror in a sex case based on the laws we oppose, you must refuse to convict regardless of the facts. If you are a prison guard tasked with incarcerating such an offender, you must quit your job. If you are a police officer you must likewise resign if ordered to enforce unjust sex laws. And so on throughout the abuse industry, down to therapists and teachers and health care workers and everyone else ordered to promote sex-hostility in every way.

This is how to be a male sexualist. Let it be known that we are conscientious objectors. Conscientious objection is the mindset we must assume, and an easy way to explain why we always go for jury nullification and otherwise refuse to contribute to the sex war.

We take the moral high ground and do what is honorable, what our conscience tells us. We are the conscientious objectors to the war on normal sexuality. We are the male sexualists.

How do we know?

Let us talk about epistemology for a minute, with regard to the female sex offender charade. Consider the case of Brittany Zamora. How do I know the boy is lucky? I know this by every mode of inquiry that I can think of, save for the blind acceptance of bigotry or obsequious deference to authority a la the emperor’s new clothes. I know it on every level from emotional intuition to theoretical predictions to careful consideration of the empirical evidence.

How do the feminists and other antisex bigots know the boy is a “victim”? They “know” this because of an arbitrary standard derived from abuse hysteria via gender equality that is supposed to override all other aspects of reality. It would require extraordinary evidence to show that this standard, if true, is applicable to women too, but they don’t bother questioning that. Worse, they don’t even tolerate dissent, which is why I am banned from Twitter just for debating it.

Is jealousy a pathway to knowledge? You bet it is! You don’t envy your neighbor if he gets cancer. You do envy him if he gets hot chicks, as in the female sex offender charade. This tells us something about good and bad things that is TRUE. While it is possible to think of counterexamples to such vulgar intuitions, those require hard evidence produced by experts that are actually experts, not just selected for their ability to believe nonsense.

When pressed, the feminists sometimes claim research backs them up. But whenever I have looked, the literature shows no such thing. Since most “research” on female “sexual abusers” is written by antisex bigots, it is riddled with the same assumptions, but there is no data to back them up even in their own studies. The only way you can demonstrate bad outcomes in boys who have been “sexually abused” by females is to confound it with other, real abuse. When there is just voluntary sex, there is no evidence of harm. Yet the antisex bigots will have us believe that boys are worse off simply because they are underage or their lover is a teacher. We are talking about the full retard female sex offender charade here, the part that cannot be justified as any sort of lesser crime either.

I know what is good for me, and because I am a regular guy I know this applies to men in general; that it should form the reasonable man standard on which laws must be based. I know my life would have been better had I been what the antisex bigots call “sexually abused” by women as a boy. I know such “victims” are proud and joyous until the antisex bigots ruin things. But we need not stop there.

Darwinism is another major pathway to knowledge about the true nature of what this sick society calls female sex offenders, also completely ignored by the bigots. We know the theoretical reason for why sex is a female resource in our species, because females necessarily have to invest so much in each pregnancy while males do not. Female teachers cannot rob their male students of a sexual resource by giving them sex; if there is any predator in such relations it would be the boy who is getting a free ride and cucking the husband.

While we all agree on this point, I am still reviled by other male sexualists for belaboring it so much, because the few female victims supposedly don't matter so much compared to the routine victimization of men. But I submit that it is not only morally imperative to stand up for them, but also tactically advantageous for men to spend so much time explicating the female sex offender charade.

Remember when you learned physics in school and were told to ignore distractions like air resistance in order to grasp Newton’s laws? The female sex offender charade allows us to remove all friction and let bigotry speak alone. Since there is no male sexuality to distract us, the naked nonsense of feminist “abuse” theories is plain for all to see.

The antisex bigots are calling their own bluff when they apply the same rules to women. This complete detachment from any reality of sexual abuse should make rational people question their “abuse” theories about male offenders as well. Not that we didn't already know that much of that is bullshit too, but the utterly brainless way they go about it with no concessions to truth despite the glaringly obvious fact that we are dealing with lucky boys makes it clear that we can't take ANYTHING they say seriously without checking for ourselves if it deserves to be called abuse.

We need to expose the female sex offender charade until its supporters feel the shame they deserve for being so stupid and evil. Not until that is accomplished will they get around to considering the ways men are oppressed, which is more complicated because male sexuality has the capacity to abuse. Just like you don't jump straight to the Schrödinger equation when teaching physics, we can't expect anyone to understand our issues before they at least want to liberate an angelic creature like Brittany Zamora. She is really that important because this is so basic.

The great male sexualist nofap thread

Male sexualism is the ideology derived from egosyntonic healthy male sexuality. But what do we do with males who are egosyntonic about masturbation and regard it as a “sexualist” concern when their practices are criminalized? My solution is to exclude them from our movement because masturbation is unhealthy. We need to be that harsh, even if it results in further division of our tiny movement. The porn, sexbot and masturbation advocates can have their own asexualist movement, or a more flattering name of their choice (I've also suggested “the transhuman sexualist movement”), but they are not male sexualists in my view.

It is not enough to be egosyntonic about something; to qualify as male sexualism, it must meet both criteria: true sexuality and good health/ethics. While it is possible to be an egosyntonic child rapist, this doesn’t qualify as male sexualism because it isn’t healthy or ethical. With masturbation there is no other victim than the self-abuser, but he is deluded to think he is doing his sexuality any good, so these are both good examples of things to exclude.

Imagine a sexually egosyntonic, considerate, normal man who encounters the feminist sex laws for the first time. It would be quite a shock, if he weren’t already brainwashed:

“What, I’m a criminal if I give women money for sex? I’m a criminal if I have sex with teen girls at the height of their natural attractiveness to men? I’m a criminal if I have sex with a drunk girl who regrets it later? I’m a criminal if I have sex with a student of mine” and so on and on, “and they even apply the same insane laws to women for no intelligible reason, WTF is up with that!?”

Those are the proper concerns of male sexualism, to turn back all the hateful laws against our sexuality. We do not exist to foster egosyntonic unhealthy sexuality like masturbation or actual rape or child abuse. It is the exclusion of bad causes that lends credibility and nobility to our efforts, so this is important. We need a movement we can be proud of, so that we can eventually march with straight pride under our pink flag.

And yes, homosexuals are also welcome in our movement. I am agnostic about masturbation for them because I don’t have a conception of the ideal gay sex life, and no interest in pondering it. Let them look to homosexual role models for that. But I do know that they deserve to be egosyntonic about their sexuality to much the same extent as us straight guys, and that we share enmity with the same sex laws, or at least would if the gay community weren't so hopelessly politically correct (but then the straight community is even more guilty of that aside from us male sexualists, not even capable of mustering a symbolic pride march).

And I know that at least for us heterosexual men, there is no reason to be internally conflicted about porn and masturbation. Unlike the nonsense “conversion therapies” that mess you up if you try to change sexual orientation, nofap really works and leaves you 100% satisfied by real sex. This I know from personal experience. Male sexualism is truly an egosyntonic ideology, once you disabuse yourself of the delusion that there is any value in porn and get the hang of nofap. It is is the height of hedonism, really, in addition to being the most tolerant and fair sexual value system.

I will dedicate the comment section of this post to discussions about nofap, a place to come together and share experiences. Sure, there is /NoFap, but they are apolitical, disregarding the odious feminist sex laws. My blog is the only place where the promotion of healthy male sexuality and egosyntonic ideology come together in one harmonious whole.

We can also discuss advanced pickup here. And by “advanced” I mean the sort of concerns that may remain after 90+ continuous days of nofap. No questions allowed about how to ascend from inceldom or best pick up women from anybody who hasn't been a nofapper that long, because chances are your problems would be effortlessly resolved by this simple expedient.