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.

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:

https://www.realyourbrainonporn.com/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.

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.

A 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.

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.

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:

Alan Watts: The New Religion -- God is Dead

Alan Watts: Sexuality and Christianity

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.

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.

How my new moderation policy is working out, and thoughts on incels

As pointed out, I had to disable anonymous commenting due to disruptive and threatening comments from male feminists, perhaps an organized self-imagined "pedo hunter" group (which is also missing the mark, but a low IQ tends to go with that persuasion, so no surprises there). This has been a success as far as getting rid of the creeps, though they keep "reporting" me to deaf ears at Google and Twitter. Crucially, they are evidently not bold enough to comment now that they need a Google Account. But neither are apparently most of my legitimate commenters, which is a shame, because we used to have colorful discussions running up to hundreds of comments under most posts.

But I have to admit that this is the state of the real Men's Rights Movement, the unbroken current of pro-male-sexuality ideology which is now known as male sexualism, so I'll just focus on writing good posts instead of facilitating good discussion at this point. We don't have enough men who care that much, and seeing what hate one gets from being public, I can't blame my few followers from preferring privacy. Who wouldn't rather live their lives relatively unmolested than make personal sacrifices to be part of a futile struggle? A person who is too idealistic for his own good, that is who, which I undeniably am. Mine is a sort of compulsion to tell the truth and oppose injustice, which I have previously labeled hyperpolitical disorder because I am also truthful about the downside to so much opinionated altruism. Some of the hate I am getting now is just one step removed from a lynch mob, and it's certainly useless and stupid to argue with those no matter how right you are. At some point when society turns too hostile around you for unaccountable reasons, you just have to run for your life and realize that people can be monsters sometimes. Hyperpolitical disorder is an affective disorder where you feel too much political hate, but it does not make me stupid.

It is also disheartening that no women voice support for us despite much of my time being spent resisting the female sex offender charade here and on Twitter. Sadly, it is female nature to want to punish promiscuous women, which is what that charade is all about, with all its fake "abuse" as a phony pretext. Women are so happy to punish sexual vitality in women that it forms an integral part of feminism, and of course the hapless victims of their hateful laws don't have much courage or freedom to resist either. While women as a group benefit from sex-hostility since it drives up the cost of sex, the harm done by the female sex offender charade is so poignant and focused on individual sacrificial victims that according to my ethics, male sexualism is a moral benefit to women as well as men, even as this is a truth we are doomed to stand for alone against women and male feminists and every other kind of misogynist.

The only good news is that I am in contact with a couple of journalists who may give us some much needed publicity, but we shall see what comes of that. They are very interested in incels these days, who have become a cultural force even as the serious ideological men's rights activism that I represent has gone by the wayside. Let me therefore gather my thoughts about incels a little bit, so I am ready for such interviews.

Firstly, I am not incel, and back when I was, which was only intermittently and more than eight years ago, I used the term literally rather than to describe the peculiar baggage that it now comes with (and I don't remember if I even used the abbreviation or just said "involuntary celibacy"). In retrospect, my inceldom was not much more than you have to expect as a regular guy, and at other times I scored well above average with women. I also I did not realize the deleterious effects of porn and masturbation on a man's sex life, or I am convinced that I would have been a stud. So the number-one advice I give to incels is to practice nofap. The self-help aspect is more than enough reason, but if you are so inclined, you might also pride yourself that feminists increasingly see nofap as "misogynistic," so you are even socking it to them ideologically by refraining from the self-abuse by which they want you hampered.

There is plenty about the current incel movement to make one feel uneasy. Let's use Braincels to illustrate how they behave, so you can see for yourself if my impression is accurate. While being a male sexualist is cool and honorable and something every man ought to proudly stand for regardless of his lot in life (if he can take the hate from manginas), identifying as "incel" is a way to telegraph that you are a loser and intend to remain a loser, so it's unsurprising that they all remain anonymous. Because incels don't seem to be receptive to constructive advice. They just keep repeating that "it's over" for various reasons, usually related to their imagined bad genes.

The problem with the belief that you have "bad genes" (apart from the fact that you can't know you're a loser before you've tried your best), that supposedly make you unattractive women, is that science has failed to validate the hypothesis that females select for good genes in the first place. I learned this by following Rolf Degen on Twitter, and don't know so much about it, but I've read enough to believe him when he says that "the good genes hypothesis in general is a zombie theory that gets dragged along although it has long since been refuted." There are no detectable preference shifts in women around ovulation either according to the latest research. Somewhat shockingly because we've heard it asserted som many times, "the idea that females select males according to signs of good genes is high in popularity and low in reproducibility."

And that makes sense to me when I think about it, since every gene in an individual has successfully made it to that generation and thus demonstrated viability, and what might be most adaptive in the future is uncertain, so how could there really be a mechanism for sexually selecting "good" genes over "bad"? Apart from blind fashion and not being obviously sick (which may not be genetic either), there appears to be none, though I am still not convinced that there is absolutely nothing to the handicap principle.

So women do not appear to turn men down because you have bad genes, but at worst that you have different genes than they arbitrarily prefer. The sexy-son theory is still in effect, and evolutionary psychology is still true on the all-important point that sex is a female resource which enables females to do most of the choosing, but the sort of quality judgment that your genes are "bad" in an absolute sense is misplaced. In practice, it might not matter that much that women select based on blind fashion rather than good genes, but at least we don't need to attribute a moral or judgmental dimension to their choice that is not there. Any incel lamenting that his jawline is somehow inadequate, or he isn't tall enough, or muscular enough or some other meaningless indicator of attractiveness needs to stop it right now and assert that whatever he is equipped with is just as good. It is a neutral happenstance of evolution that his traits aren't preferred, if they aren't, which can at any time shift to the other direction and deserves no special sanctity.

The incel view of "Chads and Stacys" as the enemy is also problematic to say the least. Male sexualists recognize that our real enemy is the sex laws and their enforcement, or legislators and police if you will, not sexually successful people. We don't have anything against Chads and Stacys and aspire to be them and date them. Frankly, male sexualists fall more into the Chad and Stacy category already, so if anything, we should fear the incels if we can't help them. Particularly those of us who have adopted nofap are floating on a cloud of euphoria that sexual opportunity is real and there for the taking. We have no use for needless negativity, and to the extent that we are activists, that is directed at against unequivocal evil such as the feminist sex laws which construct fake abuse and the people who support them.

A little chest-thumping

It has been a pet peeve of the Men's Movement to resist not just hateful laws, but also words which make our normal sexuality sound deviant. Our party line has been that words like "ephebophile" and "hebephile" and to some extent "MAP" have no place in our lexicon because, while they can't be used to diagnose anyone as pathological, they carry the suggestion that most men are not attracted to adolescents, which couldn't be more wrong. Our counterpropaganda has so far consisted of trying to avoid those words and just saying something along the lines of "normal male sexuality" instead. However, I found this approach unsatisfying, which is why I coined "agywophilia." There are good reasons why "AGYW" already exists as an acronym for "Adolescent Girls and Young Women" in scientific articles, as these females are studied together because they naturally go together in many ways including sexual attraction. So why not tap into this usage?

I believe the average heterosexual* man is an agywophile rather than a teleiophile, which is another unsatisfying word because it fails to reflect reality. "Teleiophilia" implies an artificial boundary that simply does not exist. We don't discriminate between teenage girls and young women except where the age of consent forces us to, or because the man is so socially cowed by the current abuse hysteria that he thinks any attraction to "minors" is wrong. Do you think all the barely-legal porn videos where they check the girl's ID on camera contain that step because male attraction begins at 18, and without it the viewer couldn't be sure that he is attracted? Of course not. It is only there to avoid running afoul of the hateful feminist sex laws that have bizarrely punitive consequences due to the neglection of a practically and morally irrelevant distinction.

Now I need to repeat that I don't recommend watching porn! Go out there and meet real women instead, which has the added advantage that you can usually pursue girls a few years younger than 18 too, depending on where you live. Agywophilia is not only healthy and normal, but often legal as well, albeit obviously not as legal as it should be.

I am not usually one to plug neologisms, but in this case it actually feels useful, and judging by the response, is remarkably effective. Because this is my most engaging tweet ever. Out of 8663 impressions, 29% of viewers made some kind of engagement, and an incredible 12% clicked through on the link! (For comparison, I am used to more like 1% when I share a link, so this is a full order of magnitude above par.)

Haters point out that I was "ratioed," meaning most of the response is negative, and that is true. But my purpose is not to be "liked," but to propagandize for normal male sexuality. Even a hateful reaction achieves this purpose as long as people become aware that there is serious political opposition to their beliefs and values, which of course is the reason for such a strong emotional reaction.

Having 1000 people read a proposed lexicographical entry is not a world-changing event. But it is a step in the right direction, and in the same way that a butterfly's flutter is said to have enormous potential, who knows what can happen down the line. Let me therefore end 2018 on a positive note, that the male sexualist movement has done some measurable good against the hurricane of hate which currently persecutes our sexuality.

---
*If homosexual men want an equivalent word, it would be "abymophilia" -- primary attraction to adolescent boys and young men. Even women could use this, though it is much less descriptive of them. People who use words like "teleiophilia" are promoting a strictly gynocentric agenda (and not even that when you count the female sex offender charade), which of course is the reason for having a Men's Movement such as ours present a more inclusive and reasonable alternative.

Female sex offenders: the devil's advocate post

My pet peeve is fake sexual abuse. I am more upset by false legal definitions than factually false claims, because the system at least in theory contains mechanisms to correct the latter. What upsets me most is when the law is most perverse, and the law is nowhere more perverse than in its insistence that women are equally culpable for sex crimes against victims. What I call the female sex offender charade is therefore my pet peeve within my pet peeve of fake sexual abuse.

But let's make this a little more interesting than the usual arguing with idiots whose intellectual ability is limited to asserting that the sexes are equal. Suppose you wanted to argue that women can be sex offenders -- how would you go about it if you weren't just an idiot or catering to idiots? In reality, it is sufficient to use an idiotic justification such as the lie that the sexes are equal, or no justification at all, because the public will go along with it just like they will with any old witch-hunt (I have explored such reasons here). As an intellectual exercise, however, I thought I might be fun to speculate how a halfway rational person would justify punishing women for sex crimes under the "abuse" paradigm. If you take the view that sex is inherently immoral or sinful, you don't run into such problems, but that's not how our laws work anymore, as I've noted previously. Thanks to feminist victimology, the law now needs to contain a rationale grounded in "abuse" rather than the will of God, crimes "against nature" or similar.

The position I would argue if I wanted to advance this view to a rational audience is that women can sexually abuse, but not sexually exploit boys, and here is why.

First we need to define sexual abuse. Upon years of reflection, it is clear to me that real sexual abuse must do at least one of the following: reduce the victim's reproductive fitness or be an aversive experience (there is also an element of sexual exploitation, but more on that later). Female-perpetrated "sexual abuse" as currently defined most often does spectacularly the opposite on both counts, but since this is my devil's advocate post, I will give serious consideration to the fringe cases. I have previously argued that female sexual coercion can indeed be an aversive experience, but not aversive enough, on average, compared to other violence to merit inclusion in the sex laws (for example, see this debate). The sex laws are all based on the idea that sex is an aggravating factor beyond other violence or exploitation, and thus meriting harsher punishments, which is absurd when applied to women. It has always been my position that for the purposes of severity, female violence can only incidentally be sexualized, not aggravated by any sexual aspect, and should therefore be prosecuted (if at all) as simple assault rather than rape, or whatever other nonsexual crimes the violence merits. But let's say you wanted to argue that I am wrong. How would you go about it?

Firstly, the feminists would need to make a concession to truth. Absent aversive experiences or physical damage, reasonable men know that female sexuality is harmless. We feel zero sympathy -- and often a great deal of envy -- towards supposed victims to female sexuality per se, so constructed by the mere fact of having had sex with a woman. In other words, women cannot sexually exploit boys or men. Sexual exploitation is the ingredient in what is currently claimed to be "abuse" that is so horribly out of place when applied to female offenders.

The rationale I would use for arguing that female sexual coercion nonetheless can raise to the level of sexual abuse is that aversive and/or sexual fitness-reducing experiences can harm males sexually even if they don't constitute sexual exploitation, just like cutting off a man's penis or testicles will demolish his sex life without being sexual exploitation per se. It is plausible that female sexual coercion can degrade a man's sex life because he will be afraid of women or whatever. These acts are still not sexual abuse in my actual opinion, but since I am playing devil's advocate here I am making the leap of equating violence with a negative impact on your sexuality with sexual abuse. This is the only tenable way to argue that women can be sex offenders to intelligent people who do not buy absurdities like the denial of sex differences or the pretense that women can sexually exploit boys.

Let us look at some examples. Father-daughter incest can be argued to be abusive on the fitness-reducing criterion because it would tend to lead to offspring with lesser fitness than the girls would get from other mates. Mother-son incest cannot be argued to do the same since sperm is so cheap, or at the very most spectacularly less so, so it's not in the same ballpark on that criterion. It could, however, be aversive, so let's for now grant that women can sometimes sexually abuse boys.

This view requires a strict distinction between sexual abuse and exploitation which is not currently employed. Unfortunately, any sex crime can be called "abuse" as it is, and this needs to change. In order to qualify as abuse by my proffered definition, the experience needs to be either aversive at the time it is going on or physically damaging. "Iatrogenically" induced harm, as from "therapists" brainwashing a boy to feel that he is a victim, does not count. Crimes constructed solely by age of consent or "abuse of position" therefore do not count. These crimes can at most be exploitation and only apply to male offenders. One consequence of this view is that statutory rape or abuse of females (and boys by men) would be downgraded to crimes of exploitation rather than abuse. Society is currently not going to accept this, but it is the truth. The rationale for having crimes of sexual exploitation is to protect the value of a child's sexuality from being given away too readily, just like children are not trusted with managing a lot of money even if they own it. This rationale makes sense for girls and for male homosexuality (up to a point, say 13 years old, when self-determination becomes more important), but is utter nonsense when it comes to boys versus women because the boys don't lose any value by having sex with women. On the contrary, all reasonable humans understand that they are lucky rather than victims as far as exploitation goes.

Crimes of sexual abuse, as distinct from exploitation, can thus arguably be perpetrated by women because the argument does not impute any harm from the giving up of sex itself, but from an aversive experience or a negative impact on sexual fitness. This is not what I actually believe. I believe the sexual aspect plays such a minor role in women's violence that it should be ignored altogether. Women cannot rape because rape is an aggravated form of assault, and there is no sufficient aggravation from sex with a woman over what the violence would otherwise constitute. But if proponents of the idea that women can be sex offenders and subject to some of the same sex laws as men wanted to argue their case without seeming like drooling retards to sensible people like me, this is how they would do it: remove all the exploitation nonsense and keep the rest. Then we could at least take them seriously, which is impossible today. You need to make this concession to truth before we can speak as equals! And now I've met you halfway, so how about doing the same?

We still cannot argue that women deserve the same punishment, because crimes of sexual abuse subsume exploitation, and that element would be absent. When a woman is raped, she is also sexually exploited, but we don't punish this aspect separately or think of it independently because it is so embedded in the concept of rape (which is the main reason why it's silly to use the word gender-neutrally). The trauma of real rape is also largely due to the exploitation rather than violence, which is the evolutionary reason why rape is such a big deal in the first place even if the victim doesn't consciously know it. If women are going to be charged with "rape," however, we must tease out the difference and subtract the culpability for exploitation because women aren't capable of that. Female sexual coercion can be harmful due to the aversive experience of the violence itself, and even damage men in sexual ways down the line, but it cannot reasonably constitute harm due to the male having been sexually exploited, since there is nothing to exploit in any meaningful sense. Any jurisprudence of female sex offenses which fails to take this into account -- like the present feminist one -- is flagrantly misogynistic and wrong on so many levels.

You cannot exploit something which consensus reality holds as worthless, just like you cannot steal from a pauper who owns nothing. You can abuse him, however, and interfere with his ability to earn a living later. Sex is a female resource, which means that men are sexual paupers who at most can be abused. To claim that males can be sexually exploited is to lie about their sexual value. In my view, women cannot sexually abuse them either by virtue of giving them sex, but abuse can incidentally be sexualized, which in practice is irrelevant to the severity of the crime. I am letting this distinction slide in this post and will instead equate sexualized abuse with sexual abuse. Few people understand this distinction anyway even when I explain it, but everyone ought to be able to understand the difference between exploitation and abuse, which is the truly significant distinction.

The consequence of this view is to dismiss most supposed female sexual abuse as nonsense or trifles anyway, just like I have been arguing all along. All the crimes created by age of consent laws or "abuse of position" are automatically invalidated by this view, as is most female-perpetrated incest. It is absurd to claim that a woman is a sexual abuser just because she is a teacher, for example, because that claim rests on the insane notion that boys can be sexually exploited by women, that they are somehow worse off by the fact of having sex itself independently of whether it is a traumatic experience or lowers their sexual fitness.

What remains are the cases where women cause genuinely aversive experiences or adverse consequences of a sexual nature. These are so few that I can't recall any actual credible cases, but this is an academic exercise anyway. The female sex offender charade is the most profoundly disturbing travesty going on in the world today, in my view. By implementing a clear distinction between sexual abuse and exploitation, and declaring that women can commit abuse but not exploitation, most of the injustice of the female sex offender charade could be removed. This would be a compromise that I could live with. I know none of this will register to the true believers in feminist sex-hostility, but if you are a reasonable person reading this, please take note and try to promote my vision.

Time to cut off anonymous cowards?

Male sexualism is but a feeble flicker of opposition to a sex-hostile feminist society with all the laws on their side. The Norwegian government paid a little attention to me back in 2012, but aside from their hurt prestige from losing that case so soundly -- they fought my compensation claim for false prosecution all the way to the Supreme Court, which turned down their appeal and finally decided the case in my favor in 2017 -- they have not bothered pursuing or investigating me or my followers since, at least not overtly. Because they must know that we don't pose a threat, neither politically nor criminally, so it would only embarrass them further to pretend that we do. All I and a handful of other like-minded men do is to state our opinions and rant a little without any effect on actual politics.

But nonetheless, the hate directed against my blog is at an all-time high. I mentioned a couple months ago that I am under attack, which continues in full force. I see it in the logs of Google moderators dealing with reports of pretty much everything I or my commenters write. And I see it in regular hateful comments that I now block in moderation, such as this one I received a few days ago:

You are a traitor to your people on so many levels. After leading many people to echo your discontent with the Norwegian government, you turned your back on them to promote, of all things, *pedophilia*. It’s almost like you’re making caricature of a treacherous scumbag and superimposing it on your own portrait. It makes no sense at all. You need the kind of help I think only a bullet can give you at this point.

So there you see the creepy mix of hate and delusion that I am dealing with. Although I disagree with various aspects of how pedophilia is handled, I don't "promote" it. What I do promote is normal male sexuality, although it is possible that this person is too dense to tell the difference. Thankfully, Google is not that stupid, and to their credit have trashed every single report from the anonymous cowards. Hi, Google mods, I know you will be reading this too... so thanks for doing the right thing and keep up the good work!

I don't object so strongly to the "traitor" label, since I have used the term "Quisling" myself and even invented Quisling therapy (inspired by Wittgenstein therapy, by the way), but I was certainly never beholden to this person and whoever he is referring to as having echoed my discontent, who don't seem to have a clue that I have been consistent in my sexual ideology from the beginning. Only some words have changed, such as the introduction "male sexualism," "blue knight" (thanks to Tom Grauer) and my own coinage "agywophilia," but the message is the same. Nor was I morally obliged to go along with the corruption of the justice system that has taken place in my lifetime and been accepted by most people without question. From my perspective, it is the Norwegian state and most of the people who have betrayed fundamental principles of justice that we used to hold dear, with all the hateful sex laws and last but most importantly the abolition of the jury -- and against those reforms I am rightly described as a Quisling. It is as if the Nazis should have invaded Norway and been welcomed by everyone except Quisling -- that is the sort of Quisling I am!

Now I want to take the time to say that I don't suspect Gally anymore, and I apologize for implicating him so strongly in the past. We have our disagreements and bad name-calling, but I don't think he is behind the anonymous hate. There is a world of difference between calling someone autistic or learning-impaired and saying they need a bullet. At this point I have no clue who is behind, because they go to great lengths to cover their tracks. But I do know that other male sexualists are also targeted, so at least a somewhat organized effort seems likely, rather than the work of one determined stalker. Tom Grauer was driven to delete his first and best blog and now also deleted his latest effort, which at the end gave the impression that he has gone insane as well (or been driven..?).

Whoever it is, I doubt they would be so tough if they couldn't hide behind anonymous proxies and usernames. It is truly pathetic to be so cowardly that you have to use underhanded methods to advance a position that is just political correctness anyway (and why bother?). Unless, of course, they realize that their position doesn't really represent society, but a monstrous sort of sex-hostility that doesn't even tolerate a dissenting opinion being expressed anywhere without sending criminal threats, while my kind of speech is in fact protected by society.

So now my question is, should I only allow comments from logged-in users? The thing is that I do not want to provide a channel for anonymous death threats against myself. Not with enemies like these, who are determined to harass me in any way they can. If anyone wants to make such threats, they should be more traceable. This is a weighty argument, but there is also a downside, because most of my legitimate commenters also prefer anonymity.

So what do you say, all of you who have contributed constructively to the comment section over the years? Will it kill all interesting discussion if I make you log in and sign your messages by a Google account or similar? I will at least leave it open (with only pre-moderation turned on) for a little while longer to hear your responses. But if I have to tighten it up, I have to, for my health and safety.

Is nofap misogynistic?

Regular readers of my blog already know that that I promote not masturbating -- so-called "nofap" -- as an important rule of life for boys and men and an essential ingredient in the male sexualist ideology. Nofap is much bigger than male sexualism, however; so much so that the mainstream has noticed and started calling it misogynistic: "What may appear to be just another weird and bizarre internet challenge is underpinned by extreme misogyny and threats of violence," says Sarah Manavis writing for the New Statesman.

So, is nofap really misogynistic? Well, the short answer is no, but there is a catch, because nofap is not done in the interests of women, either. Nofap promotes male sexual health, and anything which exclusively promotes male sexual health will not be aligned with women's interests to the extent that male and female sexuality do not have the same goals or optimal strategies. And that extent is huge! All of evolutionary psychology is basically an exposition of this difference, but that is a subject for another day.

Nofap is male empowerment of the hands-on (or rather, hands-off!) self-help variety, which is arguably more powerful than changing laws and makes women nervous for good reasons. For one thing, they will lose their ability to exploit us through pornography and other "sex work" which does not actually involve putting out. It should also make the state nervous because if men follow my advice and never look at porn, the cops will lose one of their most insidious weapons against male sexuality as child porn and other obscenity laws are rendered irrelevant. And that does not even begin to address the increased sexual attention that females will receive in real life (including underage), some of it welcome but much of it not.

This brings me to an important ethical point. The fact that pornography and masturbation lead to less sexual violence is not an ethical argument for these pathologies. Just like no sane physician would recommend that men walk around with broken arms instead of having fractures properly treated on the pretext that men can't so easily use a broken arm for violence, we must never argue that porn or masturbation is "good" because it leads to less rape or sexual harassment. Fapping means walking around with a continuously broken libido and erectile function as well as being socially inhibited and cowardly around women. The fapping man is a cripple compared to the sexually healthy man, so naturally he would be a less effective rapist as well, both statutory and real. But none of this matters because ethics dictate that personal health must be promoted first and foremost. Restore a healthy libido first, and then figure out what to do with it.

The male sexualist ideology does prescribe ethical sexual behavior that does not unduly harm women, even for sexually healthy and very horny young men who practice nofap. For one thing, prostitution would be a legal alternative to rape, and prohibitions on underage sex would be vastly reduced, making it realistic to practice nofap and not commit crimes at least for all agywophiles. (I'll leave it to our splinter groups headed by Nathan Larson et al. to decide what to do with the pedophiles. It is conceivable that they might still want to opt for masturbation, but I can't bring myself to personally recommend it even to them.)

Thus it turns out that in the middle of all our despair of male sexualism going nowhere, a sizable group of men have already adopted one of our core tenets. As a male sexualist, I salute the NoFap subreddit with 381,774 subscribers. And I salute the website Your Brain on Porn for bringing us the science of porn addiction. Its owner Gary Wilson must be one hell of a "misogynist" for his tireless devotion to explicating the mechanisms by which porn use is harmful to male sexuality.

Welcome aboard, gentlemen. Men's rights activism begins with our bodies, and our minds and ideology will surely follow.