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.

The sad infighting in our movement

Sadly we seem to fight more amongst ourselves than with feminists these days. The male sexualist movement has split into two factions: one led by me which considers male masturbation pathological or at least maladaptive, and another which does not, led by The Antifeminist.

I wanted to create something positive. Even though we have no hope of affecting policy any time soon, we can at least stand for something true and good, something we can be proud of and celebrate when the rest of the world is hating and criminalizing.

I realize that criminalization is running amok against both male sexuality and masturbation plus paraphernalia, and both deserve to be defended from this onslaught, but only the former meets my "something positive" criterion.

Ideas and practices get adopted because of the social rewards and practical benefits they provide to their adherents. Most people who join a movement don't do so primarily because of their desire to further an agenda. Rather, they do so because they find it socially and practically rewarding, and then the agenda follows as a result of the strength of the group. We must not lose sight of this.

Sex law reform as advocated by us is about as realistic in our lifetime as the 72 virgins promised to jihadists in the afterlife. If that were all Islam had to offer, it would go nowhere. The latter has adherents because they also offer social and practical benefits here and now, like mosques and mentors and friends and so on. We don't have a local support network, but at least I can think of a practice that will make men feel better and be more sexually successful almost as soon as they pick it up. That practice is nofap. I didn't invent it or start the nofap movement, but it so happens to dovetail exactly with our positive aims, so I've embraced it.

The Antifeminist makes much of my supposedly being like a marijuana legalization activist who says pot is evil. What he does not get is that masturbation is not virtually harmless like smoking pot, but much, much worse, like heroin or crack. I used the word anosognosia for a reason. What we can reasonably have for such indisputably harmful things is a "harm reduction" movement, and I do get behind that. This consists of remedies like decriminalization of use and possession, free needles and perhaps prescription drugs for addicts. Such things are worth advocating, but they don't compose a movement celebrating something positive like male sexuality deserves.

It is more harmful to masturbate and be imprisoned than just masturbate, so by all means, I support harm reduction there too. I just want to make it clear that it is harm reduction of dysfunctions secondary to our sexuality rather than male sexualism, which to me represents actual sex and usually sex we can be proud of.

The Antifeminist is also confused about my definition of asexuality and attributes to me the claim that sex which doesn't result in pregnancy is asexual. That is plain false; I've never said that. While I uphold uncontracepted sex as the highest good, I don't claim birth control equals asexuality, though we must admit that the barrier kinds come close, condoms being described even in scientific journals as "mutual masturbation with the same latex device" sometimes. Contrary to what The Antifeminist says, there are contactless crimes that fit my advocacy as well. Grooming and solicitation are certainly sexualist activities when the aim is real sex, and victims of these laws are our people. But those who do silly things like just masturbating to porn or send dick pics are not. They are merely worthy of harm reduction efforts rather than moral praise and inclusion in our brotherhood of egosyntonic male sexuality.

It is important to me to have a pathway of the moral high ground where we lead the way in righteousness. Yes, we are the last handful of humans against a zombie apocalypse. Not really, because there are many more real humans lurking in the shadows -- Epstein's network is proof of that -- but in public discourse, yes, it's just the few of us left. And that makes it all the more important that we uphold healthy sexuality. A wanker is partly like a zombie because he has allowed some of his sexuality to be zombified, and I shall not sink so low nor promote it.

One more thing: can we please ease off on the "Asperger's" accusations? Disagreements about how to run a movement does not equal autism, man. Yes, it takes extreme nonconformism to be a male sexualist, but it doesn't seem to be associated with true disability or diagnosable mental disorders, because we can't even recruit such people in appreciable numbers. The only confirmed case of Asperger's in our movement is Nathan Larson, and he is obviously a lot stranger than I am. I got a clean bill of health even from the hostile psychiatrist who worked for the police when they tried (and failed) to build a case against me (for INCITEMENT, not threats which is another error you make ad nauseam), so it's really retarded to claim you know better.

Legislating nofap

Our culture is obsessed with criminalizing sexuality. And not just criminalizing, but enacting tougher and tougher penalties on top of what they have at any given time. Thus after each round of reforms when there is a "loophole" in the level of criminality of anything related to sexuality that isn't criminalized quite as hard as the rest because it was overlooked in the last round of reforms, legislatures scramble to close it with ever harsher criminalization. Such is the perpetual state of feminism -- no matter what the current laws, the drive to increase punishments for sex is always equally hysteric but increasingly hateful because the punishments are increasingly undeserved.

Except this time, the "loophole" is masturbation, and the feminist dimwits who think they promote antisex actually serve male sexualism:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/alaska-sexual-assault-loophole-masturbate-ejaculate-semen

Punishing both equally is a fool's errand for women, but exactly what men need to set our values straight. What feminists fail to realize is that male masturbation is bad for men (for many reasons) and good for women because women remain untouched. It is mind-boggling that feminists don't realize that women getting less of the sex they claim to hate so much is a good thing for them if they really mean this, so I would be careful with making masturbation equally criminal as rape and sexual assault if I were them.

I will therefore, at least as a rhetorical device, applaud this sort of reform which targets masturbation rather than sex. Sure it will put more men in prison for longer at least initially, but that is only because they didn't follow my advice, my creed and my mantra that the vagina is the only sexual outlet, possibly because they were even afflicted with anosognosia. This time it has zero effect on nofappers, so male sexualists can lean back and rejoice that the feminist antisex hate is missing its mark. As they exhaust most avenues of criminalizing sex, I expect more of the feminist antisex drive will be inadvertently channeled into legislating nofap, which is a good thing for sexualism in light of the alternative. (I am assuming that reducing antisex hysteria overall is not an option, or else I'd rather have less of both the real antisex and the fake kind where they bark up the wrong, masturbatory tree.)

Perhaps the feminists imagine that men are too stupid to adapt to laws. Yes, such men do exist. History shows that some men will be as stupid as Gally and go to prison as virgins. To refresh memories, Gally is a former commenter and one-time guest poster of this blog who to our horror turned out to be the ideal victim of feminism, literally going to prison as a virgin while internalizing the feminist "abuse" nonsense. He didn't even have the balls to plead not guilty to his bullshit victimless sex crimes because he is convinced the laws are right. And here is another sad example of a man who thought he was going to be a "good boy" and not have sex, for which he was rewarded by the feminist police state with prison anyway, because this is how much they hate your guts. We are very close to the point where just having a penis will be just as criminal as any other sex crime, and some men will no doubt attempt to please the feminists even then.

But on balance I don't believe that criminalizing sexual fantasies and masturbation will serve feminism. Given equal criminality of fapping and nofap, will so many men still opt for fapping? I submit that a significant number of men will not let women have their antisex cake and eat it like our ideal victim Gally who will never come near females while still being criminalized. Let's get real: not all men are that feckless, at least after they get a chance to hear about male sexualism! Increase the criminality of not having sex, and more men will realize that they might as well have sex, even if they didn't realize before that fapping is so harmful that it should be shunned even when society celebrates it, which it still does most of the time. There is vast potential here for both advancing nofap and the misguided feminist laws to support it.

In this case it is masturbation itself they are criminalizing, but the same argument applies to pornography. Because it so often facilitates fapping I cannot in good conscience support pornography on sexualist grounds, since it's so harmful to male sexuality (but I still advocate its legality on freedom-of-speech grounds).

So don't tell the feminists about the value of nofap to men. But no worries, no one pays attention to this blog anymore, or the entire male sexualist movement anyway. We can just sit back and watch the feminists self-sabotage their antisex power because they didn't know where to stop criminalizing.

The faces of evil

Extreme trigger warning to male sexualists for the video I am about to link to. I got so upset that I had to take a 10-mile walk to calm myself down after watching before I could write this post. And then I had to tinker with it for another week to bring it into line with my commitment to not waste energy and health on hating the moral equivalent of rabid dogs. But there is still a problem here because as we shall see, it is difficult to dismiss Robert Wright and Paul Bloom as rabid dogs. I don't really recommend watching, just including it for reference for the points I am about to make about the more scientifically literate kinds of misandry.

These guys don't conflate Epstein with a pedophile like the lowbrow misandrists who invariably refer to him as “convicted pedophile.” Robert Wright knows that Epstein exemplifies textbook-normal male sexuality and says he feels the same, as does Bloom. They know the girls Epstein is accused of loving were at the peak of the normal male attraction curve:

And then Bloom says the most hateful thing I have ever heard in my life, at least about male sexuality: that what Epstein did is worse than pedophilia, since he chose to violate norms of society without being driven by any deviant desires. If he had been sexually deviant he would be worthy of sympathy rather than the hate reserved for normal male sexuality, so according to Bloom he had it all coming to him. This is a denouncement of male sexuality at the most informed level, folks. Our enemies don't get any smarter or more morally reflected than this.

Let us now look at the implications of this view. What do we make of the supposed mismatch between normal male sexuality and female sexuality? Because this isn’t just saying that men are prone to be bad sometimes because of our testosterone and aggressive tendencies, or even that rape is an adaptation that might kick in under certain circumstances, but that male sexuality is systematically evil as if by design, that our strongest, most pervasive impulse is to “abuse” girls. If you understand the nature of male sexuality and you still believe females can't handle sex or decide to exploit it for money at the ages we are most attracted to them, then you must believe male sexuality is inherently evil. This mismatch isn't supported by any scientific evidence, so this is where scientific literacy ends and antisex bigotry begins, to be sure, but these guys are more literate than the lowbrow buffoons who dismiss Epstein as a pedophile, and I think that is something we need to discuss because it might mean male sexualism is even more hopeless than we thought.

As hateful as this is, it is also true in a sense. We know we are so normal that even the establishment can’t diagnose us with anything, which is saying a lot in these sex-hostile times. We are only “suffering” from political and moral dissidence, which is to say we are dealing with the purest expression of good versus evil and it all comes down to picking sides. Our convictions of which side we are on is no doubt equally strong and can’t be influenced by factual or scientific illumination, because we (dimwits excepted) already agree on the facts!

Let me therefore reply by the same token. Wright and Bloom also have no excuse for their malevolence from our point of view. Forgive them not, for they know what they are doing. If there is such a thing as true evil, not just going with the flow of what authority says or getting carried away by your impulses, this is it.

And in the current environment it allows these creeps to virtue-signal their imagined superiority by denying the expression of their nature, as a sort of “virtuous teleiophiles”? This gets at the profound conflict between male sexualism and society, a conflict that may well run deeper than society’s war on pedophiles. A war on us regular men can’t be fought by “treating” us since we are already normal; we are moral enemies who can only be accepted if we suppress our nature. For those of us who have chosen to be egosyntonic about our normal male sexuality and not buy into the feminist lies that females are abused when they also have normal sex, this is unadulterated, distilled, mutual hatred. 

Nonetheless, it is my position that we don’t get anywhere by hating back, because it consumes energy that should be spent figuring out how to be effective activists. And if hard determinism is really true, even the sort of premeditated, sadistic violence against men perpetrated by a system guided by ideologues like Paul Bloom isn’t a choice, so it helps to take that possibility seriously. Let me therefore end by exposing the most weighty real reason for this misandry coming from other men. It isn’t the female sexual trade union in this case, but that these men, who are fathers and apparently monogamous, let their sexual control freakery directed at their daughters consume them, trying to pull off our culture’s version of arranged marriages. Nubile females are the ultimate resource, so you can't fault them for caring, but the way they go about it is morally reprehensible. Like I said in the comments at YouTube:

It's about control of resources, so why can't we be honest about that and not pretend young teen girls are helpless, clueless victims who can't possibly decide to get paid for sex? It's the intellectual dishonesty that bothers me more than the fact that they want to guide their daughters into the kind of relationships they consider best for them. And them thinking it's OK to drive men to death for these victimless crimes, because that's what they are. I think most fathers don't want this resource squandered, and I wouldn't either, but some of us respect women's rights to choose for themselves at an earlier age, as early as is reasonable based on an honest assessment of the biology and psychology, plus we can easily see ourselves at the other end as clients and lovers of young girls, so we take a more permissive view.

If male sexualists ever gain power, I wouldn't put it past us to put feminists including men like Robert Wright and Paul Bloom on trial for crimes against humanity. And while we also want to reform prisons to be more humane, perhaps we should turn a blind eye while the misandrists get to feel what Epstein did at the end. And unlike him, they would truly deserve it.

Anosognosia

Male sexualism is a movement to address two kinds of oppression of male sexuality: that imposed by antisex laws and that which is self-inflicted via porn and masturbation. I have explained why masturbation is bad for men before, and explained some more, but let me now mention another and perhaps even more worrying aspect of the masturbatory pathology: lack of insight that it is bad. Colloquially known as being in denial, the technical term for such a disorder is anosognosia, "a deficit of self-awareness, a condition in which a person with a disability is unaware of its existence."

The following quote from The Antifeminist will serve as illustration. I don't think he can be helped, but maybe there is still hope for those suffering from ignorance rather than anosognosia?

Masturbation and the ability to be aroused and satisfied by visual stimulation are core features of male sexuality. It is one of the things that differentiate us from women. Ironically, feminists used to proclaim that vibrators liberated women from men, but in fact, women can only physically stimulate their sex organ, they can’t actually find true sexual release through visual stimulation (and fapping) as men can.

It is true that the ability to "find sexual release" by means of visual stimuli and masturbation is a "feature" of male sexuality, but this is a great tragedy rather than anything to be celebrated. If you think this is a good thing, then you are suffering not only from anosognosia, but also a fetishization of disability, because a disability or maladaptation is precisely what it is in the current world.

Our sex-hostile mainstream culture is all too happy to tell you that masturbation is fine. And then it institutes a (to the feminists) bonus level of oppression on top of that -- criminalizing a good bit of masturbation as well, usually by making at least some kinds of pornography illegal -- which is reliant on men being deluded into thinking these asexual pursuits provide some sexual value.

When something is a major feature of their environment for long enough, species will tend to adapt to it. That has obviously not happened with Internet porn yet because it has only been around for one generation. Two generations if you include DVDs and VHS tapes, and before that there was no seriously compelling pornography. It could have been different. For example, suppose aliens landed and installed solar-powered porn booths all over the African savanna when humans evolved, and kept maintaining them. Do you think porn would be very appealing to us now, then? No, males who masturbated to it would have reproduced less over a very long time, and the descendants of those who reproduced the most would have picked up additional ways to identify real women before they would get very aroused and allowed themselves to be "satisfied." Those males would have possessed the adaptations that we now sadly lack and need male sexualism to supplement.

For example, we might in that alternate universe be more reliant on smell than vision. And then maybe instead of a video porn industry, we would now have an industry supplying synthetic female odors and hijacking male sexuality that way, because that would be the supernormal stimulus that could serve as an evolutionary trap. While there is a market for women selling underwear in this timeline as well, it isn't very compelling to the majority of men, and such paraphilias can also be helped by nofap anyway.

I believe we can already see the faint beginnings of such evolution. How many kids does The Antifeminist have, for example? I also have zero in part because I fell into this evolutionary trap when I was young, but I am trying my best to rectify that now. If industrial civilization doesn't collapse, nofap will get stronger and stronger by some mechanism or another, probably first by cultural evolution because societies who suppress porn will have more kids. As individual men, we can't wait for evolution to make it easy, however; we have to use our intellect to decide on nofap. Male sexualism is here to help you with that.

We need better role models

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The female sex offender charade, in contrast, has been adopted by the social "sciences," which heightens the charade because at least FGM doesn't have a "science" backing it up. The way they go about it is that no question is ever allowed to be posed in a falsifiable manner if such a negative finding would go against our dogmatic definitions of abuse. Just look what happened to the Rind report. You can't observe a possibility that is taboo to consider with anything but righteous, brainless, knee-jerk condemnation, so our social sciences now dutifully report all the "abuse" the antisex bigots arbitrarily defined into existence. Once again Baumeister deserves and honorable mention, however, for going against the grain with this paper on sex as a female resource, where his formulation of the female sex offender charade appears on page 351-2. Although a bit weaker than mine, it captures the gist:

Moreover, an asymmetry in victims’ reactions supports the view that sex is a female resource. Male victims of sexual coercion by women typically report far less distress or trauma, and they are more likely to look back on the incident as minor and unimportant (even if distasteful), as compared with female victims of male coercion. In an important sense, the male victims seem less prone than female victims to feel that they have lost something of value—consistent with the view that sex is not a male resource. [...] An extreme version of the social exchange analysis would insist that women would never rape or sexually coerce men. Clearly this would be false. A milder version thus holds simply that female coercion of male victims lacks an important dimension, namely theft of the resource, and so the trauma and victimization are less severe.

The difference between what Baumeister is saying here and all my rants against the female sex offender charade is quite small, almost cosmetic. I don't deny that female sexual coercion happens and may sometimes deserve prosecution as lesser crimes than sex crimes; all I am saying is precisely like him that they lack the dimension of theft of sexual resource. The difference is that he foolishly abuses the word "rape" and isn't explicitly calling for legal reforms to bring the sex laws back into line with reality, but it would certainly follow from his position as well that women deserve far less punishment than the justice system is determined to give them now that they are to be treated like men, complete with the charade that men have a sexual resource worth protecting from women to an equal extent as vice versa.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Straight pride

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book club: Human sexuality around the world

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

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

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

Contrast our reality to, for example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can God create moral facts?

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

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

Traditions can be wiser than any one of us, so-called Chesterton’s fences:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

And I am willing to accept that superstitions have their place in order to enforce such beneficial constructs, but when superstitions themselves become “science,” as in the current “abuse” justification for the sex laws, then that “science” must be critically examined and discarded when appropriate. For example, we know that sexual ages of consent in the high teens, and the entire female sex offender charade, are not Chesterton’s fences because we know how they were constructed, and how their justification was gobbledygook. Ironically, the sex laws would be more convincing if they did not claim that consensual sex can be abuse that will psychologically damage you for life, or that women can rape men, and instead prescribed the same punishments for unspecified, mysterious reasons. Then I would need to scratch my head and ponder whether they might be Chesterton’s fences with an explanation beyond my comprehension. But the feminists have made it incredibly easy for us to dismiss their pseudoscience, thankfully. By explaining their reasoning they expose themselves as so idiotic that we couldn’t have asked for a more intellectually bankrupt enemy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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