Thursday, May 23, 2019

The downside of political honesty

Today I had two women from a coparents site turn me down because and only because they googled me. Previously I have lost connection with a very broody 16-year-old girl for the same reason.

My approach to dating has been to treat my political views and reputation as perfectly normal and not even mention them, since there is no issue unless they make one, but that isn’t working very well. It worked fine for the Nigerian lady to whom I donated sperm for (failed) IVF. She either didn’t know or didn’t care that I am a dissident. It also works fine for Tinder dates, who are (so far) invariably contracepted. But when it comes to reproduction, women usually dig deeper.

I am hyperpolitical, which means I prioritize politics over my personal well-being, or did long enough that it can’t be undone perhaps short of changing my name. Hyperpolitical disorder is a kind of overdeveloped altruism, idealism and honesty, afflicting the sort willing to fight for minority principles or at least not hide them. We are no more violent than others since most men can be made to fight by the majority, but hyperpoliticals are what freedom-fighters and terrorists are made of. I didn’t go down that path, which makes me too boring to attract hybristophiles (unless you consider my ex-girlfriend one), yet my break with society makes me too freaky for the rest. Or does it?

I have taken steps to reduce my hyperpoliticalism, which works on my composure but doesn’t affect search-engine hits that are out of my control. Of course, if I hadn’t expressed my MRA/male sexualist views, they would still be what they are, and who knows what unexpressed tendencies others have? With me, what you see is what you get. I am neither a hypocrite nor a coward and obviously not a psychopath since they would never express disadvantageous opinions. I don’t hide my politics or unpopular views under anonymous accounts like many do. I am a public figure and completely open about my opinions.

That is just the way it is, for better or for worse.

Saturday, May 18, 2019

Distancing myself from the asexualists

I promote an ideology that I can be proud of because it is right and good as I see it, not because it gets the most done, which would be nothing anyway. Not having to compromise is perhaps the only benefit of having no power. Compromise is only relevant when you are part of the political process, which male sexualism is not, so we might as well say what we really mean. And that includes speaking my mind about dissent within our movement, since we don't even have a political party to keep together. What follows is a response to this post by The Antifeminist which was also endorsed over at Men Factor.

I am not going to sully the male sexualism that I represent with support for something worthless and harmful like male masturbation and (more importantly, since this is how it goes really wrong) the exacerbating information technologies. Those who want to retreat into a fantasy world with no meaningful sexual interactions or procreation can do so today, like millions of men already do, and it's not political except the pornography laws you might encounter, which I do oppose, but not at the cost of not telling the truth. I want pornography to be legal on freedom-of-speech grounds (or treated like any other information), not male sexualist grounds. Pornography is actually detrimental to male sexuality, so if sexualism were the only consideration and I were extremely paternalistic and didn’t care if the cure was worse than the disease, I would want it banned, yes.

Pornography is a tool to keep men away from females, and men are tools to be suckered into using it. It thus benefits feminist ideology, regardless of what they realize or say. The only male sexualist “benefit” of porn is that it reduces the competition for real interactions with women, but that is just a selfish benefit for those men who do value sex, not a legitimate male sexualist value. I can’t stop those who want to waste their reproductive efforts on virtual garbage, but I don’t need to uphold it as a positive thing, which would be downright perverse when my ideology is called male sexualism!

In my view, pornography, masturbation and all kinds of virtual sex simply cannot be advocated for alongside sex, because they are varieties of asexuality. They are evolutionary traps, like the beer bottles that male jewel beetles mistake for females in the Australian outback, equally worthless to our true sexual values. Today this is unquestionably true, and even looking into the future and given unlimited technological progress, it is doubtful whether machines can ever be valid sexual or romantic partners, because that would require that humans too are machines, which is unknown. If physicalism is true, and our minds emerge from a physical substrate due to the way it is configured with nothing else in the mix, then I will grant you that other machines as worthy of sex and love as us can eventually be constructed, but I am not going to jump to that conclusion. I recommend this video for an alternative view (and a discussion of the jewel beetles too):

If consciousness rather than physical machinery is the ground of our beings, and like Donald Hoffman claims we are conscious agents made of a deeper reality than physical stuff, sex robots can never be worthy of being called anything other than masturbation and must forever be considered maladaptive to male sexualist goals. I don’t know the ultimate answer to whether minds can be constructed out of physical material, and I don’t need to know because no matter what the limits may be, current technology is certainly as dead as the beer bottles that jewel beetles attempt to mate with, which is to say worse than worthless.

The Antifeminist also attacks my obsession with the female sex offender charade, and I won’t back down on that either because though it has little practical impact, the philosophical mistakes are so profound. It is one thing to control and punish female sexuality via the brute force of treating women as property or some unfalsifiable religious belief, but when the authorities claim that women can “sexually abuse” boys, they have dug themselves into a blatantly false position that anyone with intellectual integrity needs to call out. “Child sexual abuse” as defined by politically correct dogma is an incoherent concept that you have to be intellectually dishonest to take seriously even without considering the difference between men and women; so imagine how insane it gets when you also deny sex differences! Well, I can’t help but imagining, observing and expounding this charade in an ongoing series of posts (and tweets before I got banned).

About youth -- yes, wouldn’t it be great if men could just keep banging teenage girls and young women their whole lives? That is a utopia to be approximated via various realistic practices rather than faked through porn and sexbots! The realistic, meaningful way for men to have some degree of access to women of peak of sexual attractiveness well into our more mature years is via polyamory, the occasional hookups, prostitution, sugar babies, the work-related benefits that feminists call “quid pro quo sexual harassment” and so on, which can be combined with generally encouraging monogamy because we also care about the incels. That is the sound male sexualist position that benefits most men, which neither involves intolerant monogamy nor sexual monopolization by alphas nor fakery through porn.

Tuesday, May 07, 2019

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:

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.

Wednesday, May 01, 2019

Rebutting the more sophisticated arguments against nofap

There is a new website called 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:
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.

Saturday, April 06, 2019

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.

Sunday, February 24, 2019

Tom Grauer's 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.

Friday, February 15, 2019

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.

Sunday, January 27, 2019

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:

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.

Tuesday, January 22, 2019

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.

Sunday, December 30, 2018

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.