Wednesday, April 15, 2020

Taboos unlimited

As someone who has spent his life resisting pointless sexual taboos, it is fascinating to watch the explosion in taboos resulting from COVID-19. Whereas cops used to be busy enforcing feminist sexual taboos, now they have their hands full targeting literally any kind of social interaction and even solitary walks outside the home. In a matter of weeks we went to a new normal that Spiked sums up like this, with unsurprisingly British cops found to be among the most zealous:
On Good Friday, Cambridgeshire Police tweeted that officers were pleased to find no shoppers in the ‘non-essential’ aisles at Tesco. On the same day, South Yorkshire Police were forced to apologise after an officer in Rotherham was filmed telling a family they were not allowed in their own front garden. Another video shared online showed officers breaking down a man’s door because they had heard reports of a gathering. The man was watching television alone.
These "crimes" would be too absurd for parody a short while ago, but now it is clear that police will enforce anything and then some, and people don't put up much resistance beyond maybe sharing a video. This is both an educational and a teachable moment to us male sexualists. On the one hand it shows how hopelessly docile people are, but it ought to be possible to evoke some thought on the nature and basis of taboos when they change so suddenly. An injunction to only leave the house once per day for essential errands or stand two meters apart in public is just as arbitrary as, say, the age of consent creeping up to 18. People who internalize the latter as a timeless truth are just as stupid as if these new social distancing norms were to become permanent and held in similar "esteem."

Some of the new taboos will have to be temporary because it is economically impossible to carry on like this, but others will likely stay with us long after the virus is gone. We can't have an economy with no "non-essential" activity, but it's feasible to always have plexiglass barriers between customers and cashiers, for example, and all the new surveillance can certainly be kept up. If we get through this crisis, it will be interesting how much of formerly normal social interactions will still be subject to taboos and prosecutions. In some ways this is good because it takes resources away from antisex bigotry and spreads the hate more evenly on the population.

Yes, the virus is real, with significant mortality, and it makes sense to limit its spread. But you don't have to be a male sexualist to see that such measures can get out of hand. When taboos and oppressive policing get entrenched, however, there is a danger that even smart people lose sight of how pointless and unfair they are. This has happened with sexual taboos in the present world. Similar to how in the ancient world even the most astute ethical thinkers like Jesus didn't realize that there is anything wrong with slavery and torture, people today including the intellectual "elite" believe that locking up or socially ostracizing people for victimless sex, or even just looking at pictures or fantasizing about it, is just what one does.

Before COVID-19, I was sure I was going to die in a world where would be one of the last to remember a time without feminist sex-hostility. It is already difficult to convince people that there can be such a thing as a world without the female sex offender charade, without the asinine denial of minor sexuality, without the hateful feminist rape law reforms that pretend women can be raped without force and resistance, and without the hysterical taboos against sexuality in the workplace and everywhere. But now, I can see the world taking a completely different trajectory, with all those female luxuries of wielding violence against men and other women on the basis of convenient sexual accusations simply disappearing along with the other accoutrements of industrial civilization because we hit limits to growth and collapsed.

For educated guesses about collapse, I recommend Gail Tverberg's blog, which has suddenly become highly relevant again. I won't call it either way, yet. One thing is sure: we are in the middle of a dire crisis where weeks seem like years in terms of how the world is changing, mostly for the worse except the antisex bigots are losing some power. Please do share your perspectives about what is happening where you are and where you think the world is headed in the comments. Am I right that we at least can rejoice that the coronavirus is hurting the feminists, or will they find ways to maintain their antisex police state even after this?

Friday, March 27, 2020

Male sexualism in a time of plague

2020 is shaping up to be a year like no other in my four decades. A year of disaster, to the normies that is. To us male sexualists the past few decades have been an unmitigated disaster until now. For the first time in my life, the world is worried about a greater perceived threat than sexuality. That is progress and relief! But only because our situation was entirely hopeless. As sexualists we have been living in a SHTF situation our entire lives. We have been living under the threat of persecution for our normal sexuality at any time, escalated by increasingly hateful laws every year.

They came for Epstein, Cosby, Weinstein. They came for me and tried (but failed), not just because I am a sexually egosyntonic man but also an activist about it. Of course, I am egosyntonic about my activism as well, which was premeditated my entire life up until its moment in the limelight in 2012 and has been postmeditated since. That’s what it means to be an egosyntonic man, that your actions are not only premeditated but also postmeditated whether you get convicted not, and stay meditated at any cost.

Cosby shows no contrition. Epstein didn’t feign contrition either, and neither does Weinstein, electing instead to speak out on the nature of the persecution of normal male sexuality. That’s why I am upholding these men as role models though there are countless more persecuted for similarly victimless crimes.

Because persecuting sexuality is like shooting fish in a barrel. You can’t make a dent in our sexual practices any more than you can tell fish not to swim, but you can persecute us at will. If you can’t recruit an accuser, you can certainly set up a sting to entrap any given man who isn’t completely asexual, because we are all sex offenders under current laws.

Men who will break the sex laws are a dime a dozen, and many also feel good about it, to their credit, but sadly they don’t follow that up with politics. There are many apolitical sexualists, but only a handful of us activists. The war that men never started fighting back despite our best efforts to incite will only end when the feminists run out of resources.

And now that has finally started happening. They are literally having to release prisoners and quit making so many arrests, not because the antisex pests have turned into any less despicable people, but because they don’t have the means. So rock on, coronavirus! Let’s hope for the worst possible outcome for the antisex bigots and the finances they’d rather use to persecute sexuality but must now devote to rescuing the economy if that's even possible.

Thursday, February 06, 2020

Metaphysical interlude

Today I would like to take a break from male sexualism and explore some metaphysics. Or not really a break because the philosopher I am about to recommend is the closest I have seen to a male sexualist philosopher since Diogenes of Sinope (who was one of us for defying the social order but gets minus points for wanking). Geoffrey Klempner is a metaphysician with balls:

“The only thing I have that is truly mine is my libido, the flame of my desire. Wanting something, or wanting to do something, or do something to someone, is the only reason for existing. So I say thank you, God, for making me a man.”

I watched all his videos and would recommend that. In the recent ones he reads out his entire latest work the Philosophizer's Bible with commentary, and his assertion that it is the most important philosophy book of the 21st century may well be merited. Don’t let the politically incorrect tone fool you. Klempner is a professional philosopher, or was before he retired. He dropped out of the academic world after his doctorate and a little lecturing back in the 1980s and 90s because he realized that game was so full of bullshit, and rather started his own school on the Internet. Which is to say he was a sophist, but there is nothing wrong with that. A while back I called for more role models, and I think we have found one. Deceptively soft-spoken, he is actually an infidel who takes no nonsense from feminists, or religious moralists for that matter. A Transcendental Satanist! Half-joking, as he isn’t really religious apart from his respect for the transcendent, but that’s as close as he comes to anything I have words for. He is emphatically not a solipsist, but his concept of the self is so strong that even God could not create it.

I am not sure about that but can’t refute it either. Klempner definitely helped me understand that personal identity is a further fact beyond the world -- or at least there is a strong possibility that it may be. The world can be just like it is without you in it, even with a person just like you in every observable respect. Consider a complete scientific description of the world, including all the people in it and their consciousnesses. Nothing in that description can tell you who you are; you need something outside the universe pointing to you in order to know that! This is the most central philosophical question, or should be, so deep that even a soul could not explain it because a soul could in principle be duplicated too. People who don’t recognize this deep mystery are what he calls zombies. Probably not really, but they are brainwashed with theories according to which they might as well be, and academic philosophy isn't helping.

In our own movement, such zombification is exemplified by the faction led by The Antifeminist who welcomes sexbots and is positive to masturbation. Only a zombie would be satisfied with another zombie as a sex partner, Klempner would say, because his strongest point is that in order for anything to mean something, we must believe that it is real.

Klempner has a little war going with the academic philosophers and he hates political correctness mainly for screwing up his hobby of street photography, which feminism has made impossible. But of course, his conflicts are peanuts to male sexualism, since we are actual enemies of the state and society also considers us enemies of society (see this post for the distinction). Nonetheless, he provides strong guidance on everything from the metaphysical to the tactical:

“All power, all force, ultimately depends on belief. The power of the laws depends on the belief that they are just and will be enforced.”

As I have been getting at when I for example called for voluntary sex-offender registration, our refusal to believe that the sex laws are just is our strongest virtue. While we can’t do anything about the enforcement yet, half the battle is won if we can get people to morally disrespect the laws and genuinely believe they are unjust.

Klempner is no stranger to criminals either, as he wrote a paper about his ethical discussion with a murderer who took his distance learning course from death row. What he thinks about us male sexualists remains to be seen though. On the negative side, he is kind of a nihilist about ethics so I can’t imagine him as an activist. He says he writes “because I get off on it,” and though that expression unabashedly shows his antifeminism, it is not for a cause. He just wants to philosophize. But he is still around, I think 68 years old now, so maybe we could engage him in dialogue and bring him on board with the movement.

If you don't want to watch them all, these are the two videos I recommend the most, and they do deal with the pure metaphysics of personal identity. After thinking about it for 40 years, this is where he got: - Descartes and the soul - Why am I here? (Revisited)

I aim to work out this question for myself too, but am not sure I can come up with anything further. Perhaps the only thing we can do is wonder at it. Luckily I am not obsessed with such questions and think sexual politics is much more important, so probably back to that next time.

Monday, January 20, 2020

Interview with Maxwell's demon about CP law

Seeing how child pornography is the ultimate something for nothing in criminal law, a perpetual punishment machine that can just keep going and going with no fresh input, I thought who better than Maxwell's demon to consult about this strange phenomenon of information crime? So I conjured up the demon in my imagination and conducted an interview.

Eivind Berge: Greetings, Maxwell's demon! Perhaps our readers would first like to know, if they aren't so well versed in physics already, who you are and why you don't work. How come you never stepped out of the realm of thought experiments and into our technology? Although it would surely get us into another mess with different pollutants or shortages before long, it would be good to have a way to produce unlimited energy without carbon emissions at this point.

Maxwell's demon: Yes, be careful what you wish for. It is probably for the best that I can't exist in the material world, so your eventual doom at least gets somewhat contained and survivable by a few. The idea, conceived by James Clerk Maxwell in 1867, is that I would control a small door between two chambers of gas. As individual gas molecules approach the door, I would quickly open and shut the door so that only fast molecules pass into one of the chambers, while only slow molecules go into the other. Because faster molecules amount to more heat, my behavior would cause one chamber to warm up and the other to cool down, thereby decreasing entropy and violating the second law of thermodynamics, in effect creating a perpetual motion machine that can be used to perform whatever work you want.

I can't exist though because my brain would need to keep track of the moving gas molecules, which might work for a while, but since I don't have infinite working memory (because the universe or at least our light cone is finite), sooner or later I would need to erase information in my brain, and that would require more energy than I produce by my behavior! Either that or I would need to be replaced by a fresh demon, which also takes energy to create. It is always the case that in order to reliably decrease entropy locally, you must produce more entropy elsewhere, so the second law is never violated and I can't help that.

EB: I see. It took me years to grok this part about erasure rather than recording of information being the limitation, but it's clear that you can't work.

And just like you would be a way to get energy for nothing, child porn laws are ways to get incrimination for nothing.

Md: Yes, that is eerily similar. And they do exist!

EB: But is information really nothing though? Doesn't it always have to be embedded in a medium?

Md: Perhaps it becomes clearer if you consider the formerly used medium of punch cards, where the information consists of nothing but holes.

EB: What about the air in the holes?

Md: The air would be there anyway without the punched cards. We are familiar with the concept of sinister pixels, but you can also have sinister thin air or even a vacuum if you like. Yes, you do eventually run out of people to incriminate because of other problems having to do with a finite world, but you can easily conduct entire holocausts based on this nothing.

EB: I see. Information really is the reaction of an observer to something perceived, a measure of how surprised you are at seeing something. It has no independent existence, except perhaps in some platonic realm if you believe in that. Due to the real consequences of some of those perceptions though, I can understand criminalizing certain communications such as threats and frauds, but simply possessing information?

Md: Sadly, laws aren't subject to the laws of physics the way technology is. Nothing prevents legislators from passing laws designed to put people in prison for gobbledygook reasons. Why should the way I arrange information on my private storage media be criminally relevant as long as it just stays there?

EB: No, it doesn't make sense. So why do you think it happens?

Md: Child porn law is truly weird, I agree. It involves multiple absurdities and superstitions and draconian exceptions to how information is otherwise handled by law. The most "charitable" way to look at it is a labeling exercise to identify pedophiles. But this breaks down when you consider that the law puts the boundary for "child" at 18, which means the cases can involve 17-year-olds for all the justice system cares and have nothing whatsoever to do with sexual deviancy. It also isn't very charitable or true to assume that all pedophiles are likely abusers even if you could identify them with some accuracy, which the laws obviously aren't designed to do in any event.

EB: Yes, identification of (statistically likely) sexual abusers can't be the whole explanation, and if it were I wish the justice system would be honest about it rather than claim intrinsic harm.

Md: Another angle, which is more in line with how these laws are actually written, is a metaphysical belief that such material constitutes a real harmful crime in itself, a sort of voodoo theory that "victims" are "revictimized" by the transfer of information that they know nothing about. This is sheer superstition.

EB: Indeed.

Md: A third argument is that child porn somehow creates a demand for abuse and therefore must be eradicated, but in practice such eradication creates more demand for actual abuse because the porn more often needs to be produced anew instead of copied.

EB: The antisex bigots don't look good no matter how you slice it, do they?

Md: Well, let's at least give them a sound hearing. A fourth way to look at it, which is most accurate in my view, is that the child porn laws are actually blasphemy laws which enforce the quasi-religious belief that "children" are asexual, the myth of the innocence of the child which now has status of state religion in feminist countries. This is undeniable when the laws also apply to fictional representations in text and drawings and cartoons and sculpture and spoken words as they do in for example Norway and Canada and Australia.

EB: Yes, I am right in the most deranged jurisdictions. I shiver just writing this because who knows when they will step up the persecutions to the next meta-level such as philosophical musing that we are engaged in here.

Md: A fifth way to justify child porn law is to claim that pornography somehow causes more sexual behavior in the viewers (other than masturbation, which would rather fit the metaphysical point). This claim is the diatmetric opposite of the truth, since pornography actually suppresses real sexual behavior in men as Gary Wilson so helpfully teaches. I abstain from all porn and masturbation in order to increase my testosterone and drive to pursue women and teen girls as well as my performance with them, and I am quite certain that I would do the same in order to better abuse children if I were a pedophile!

EB: Yeah, just look at the Amish. If there is a group of men who abstain from porn and masturbation, or at least view a lot less Internet porn it must be them, and their sexual behavior mocks the idea that cracking down on child pornography does what our feminist society naively imagines.

But oh well, there is nothing we can do besides pointing out the absurdities and extolling positive virtues until they crack down on this too. That's my demon for supporting nofap and still be chasing pussy at 153 years of age! You can be an honorary male sexualist demon too. It was good talking to you and perhaps we'll meet again.

Md: So long!

Monday, January 06, 2020

The female sex offender charade: flat-earth edition

I regard the female sex offender charade as a study in how stupid humans can be. In a series of posts I compare it to the other stupidest ideas I can think of and see how it measures up. So far the lie that women can sexually abuse wins hands down. So let's keep trying to see if anything can be more deranged!

I promised lobotomy as the next idea. While I agree that lobotomy is more damaging than locking women up for "sex crimes," it at least had some semblance of justification. Mentally disturbed people can be problematic to both themselves and others, and when nothing else helps I can see where they were coming from when lobotomy was introduced, even more so when used as palliative care as happened to Eva Peron for example. Is there that much ethical difference between terminal lobotomy and terminal sedation as might be practiced today? I certainly do not condone lobotomy, BUT... provided that it is performed in the last stages of a terminal illness, and not for merely mental or social problems of course, it is not so exceptionally stupid as to rival the female sex offender charade.

Let us now move on to another crazy idea: belief in a flat earth. What flat-earth theory has going for it, that the female sex offender charade does not, is that it is phenomenologically true, at least in many everyday situations. If you get up in an airplane or even stare off into the horizon, the earth does look curved to me, but much of the time our immediate experience tells us that it might as well be flat. The female sex offender charade would merely be more ridiculous than flat earth if it weren't backed by violence, which also makes it morally repugnant.

The required-by-law metaphor for any kind of persecution of the innocent is a witch-hunt. And of course the female sex offender charade is a witch-hunt, even an actual one, but it is so much worse. Both because female sex offenders are nicer than other women and because witchcraft and other supernatural phenomena can be phenomenologically true. People really do have such subjective experiences as clairvoyance and ghosts and spirits and alien abductions and so on up to and including the complete mystical experience of being God.

But boys do not feel sexually abused by women, not in the theft-of-a-resource/exploitation sense that is required to fit that designation, because there is no male resource that is sexually exploitable by women in our social and biological reality. Of course they can be physically abused in a sexualized manner and feel very bad about that, but there is no transfer of sexual value to women because the kind of economy in which that could be true simply does not exist. "Sexual abuse by female" is counterfeit in much the same way as if you were to try to pass off Monopoly money as real. This is not open to debate, because it is an objective fact about the nature of the sexual market. It is (for lack of a better word) insane to pretend male sexuality is suddenly equal to female for the sole purpose of punishing women when all other experience tells us that male heterosexuality is dirt cheap like Monopoly money.

Again like flat earth, supernatural phenomena feel real to some people some of the time, though they don't stand up to scientific scrutiny. Sexual abuse by female never feels real -- at least not without a great deal of brainwashing imposed not by a healthy society but feminist law enforcement and "therapist" charlatans -- and is obviously scientifically false. It bears some relation to a supernatural phenomenon imposed from the top, by feminist legislators, kind of like transubstantiation is imposed by Catholic doctrine. Even though most partakers in the Eucharist probably don't feel very mystical about it, the sacrament at least latches onto a realm of experience that people can have and on occasion do.

Not so with the female sex offender charade, which is a sheer lie from beginning to end. It is insanity piled on top of the already insane persecution of male sexuality. While the persecution of men for abuse of females can be considered merely comparable to superstitions like transubstantiation (because it has some element of "truth" in the sense acknowledged above -- there really is a female sexual resource that males can exploit, though not nearly as often as laws now claim), the persecution of female "sex offenders" is in a realm so bizarre that it requires this series of writings to explicate. Well, unless you take the view of women as property and consider the feminist sex laws as based on an ulterior motive like that, but I think we should also debunk them according to their claimed merits so their proponents can be made to feel as stupid as they deserve. Lies, superstition, charlatanism, greed, insanity, nocebo, bigotry, ignorance, misogyny and subjugation of women -- all these concepts play a role, but the female sex offender charade transcends all of them and requires further explication; I am just getting started here.

Monday, December 23, 2019

Sweden has lost the plot

Feminist sexual taboos grow all around us like kudzu, covering ever more of our healthy sexuality in darkness or criminality. Antisex bigotry is not new under the sun, as it also existed in the Middle Ages for example, but the fraudulent "abuse" or "exploitation" justification is new. Better, then, to merely be a bigot who posits a God to justify her intolerance, than to poison human relations with contrived "abuse" like the feminists do. Even though it tends to prohibit most of the same acts, the concept of "sin" was far less toxic and intrusive to our lives than pseudoscientific pretend-abuse which is supposed to define our very souls and obliterate all lust, love and affection. And nowhere is this feminist bigotry more fraudulent than when applied to female "offenders," who even in principle cannot do the things claimed because human sexuality fundamentally doesn't work like that.

Now Sweden has done it too, gone and embraced the female sex offender charade: Woman convicted for sex with 15-year-old boy. The punishment has thankfully not yet reached American levels -- just probation and community service -- but the conceptual fraud is the same, the pretense that a sexually lucky (and even aggressive) boy is an exploited "victim."

How did society lose the plot so completely on sexuality? How could feminism even be turned against women like that? And worse, how do people go about their lives as if there is nothing wrong? As opposed to convulsing with hatred against the sex laws several times per day like I do? (Despite making an effort not to for health reasons.) The one thing worse than living in a country that has gone off the rails with odious and nonsensical laws is that no one else seems to care about it, and that is where we are now.

As exemplified by the publication to which I linked, there are segments of the population in Norway and no doubt Sweden who believe immigration is a serious problem. But how can they be concerned with such a comparable trifle when the stark hate of feminist antisex bigotry stares them in the face? And worse, Scandinavians opposed to immigration and Islam believe feminist sex law is a useful weapon against their imagined enemies. They thus become pure scum, as if the racism weren't enough, with a complete inability to be critical of any sex law, no matter how insane and misandristic and misogynistic too.

It is conceivable that excessive Islamization can be a problem, and cherishing one's culture does not have to be a bad thing. It is even conceivable that immigrant men from certain cultures commit more real rape and abuse than the locals, but we have no way of knowing when the sex laws are so messed up. These laws are so corrupt that Islam is most assuredly a lesser evil than feminism, and even if we got rid of all the immigrants we would still have the hateful laws. Male sexualism has therefore decided to consider Islam an ally against the antisex bigots. My own culture is now alien to me and I do not consider it worth protecting. I am a Quisling in reverse, the only reasonable, sex-positive man left standing after my culture has been consumed by antisex bigotry of the most pernicious kind conceivable.

Thursday, December 05, 2019

A gift horse to the antisex bigots

Since everything has failed us so far in our battle to stem the tide of criminalization of our sexuality, it is time to think of novel ways to conduct men's rights activism. For best results it needs to be nonviolent, legal, democratic, and for good measure give the impression that we share society's hysterical concern about "sexual abuse" and "predators." What could be a better fit to all these criteria than to advocate for voluntary sex offender registration?

Society can't get enough "sex offenders," so I don't see how they could possibly turn this offer down. What's not to love about letting men, and why not women too, register as sex offenders without having to convict them first? Let's advocate for legislation to make that happen! A little Christmas gift from the male sexualists to feminists and society, yay!

The plan, of course, after it has become compulsory for governments to accept sex offender registration from anyone who wants it, is to register en masse in order to sabotage not only their registries, but the entire concept of a sex offender.

Who isn't already a sex offender, anyway? Only the label is missing for most of us, so this is the logical conclusion. I am certain that we could pull this off even while explaining what we are doing, like a Trojan horse clearly labeled as such, so cuntsure are the antisex bigots of themselves in their sanctimonious hatred of sexuality.

We know from the Epstein case that anyone who fancies a 17-year-old is a "pedophile," and anyone who associates with said pedophile is also ruined for life.

We know from the Addy A-Game case that -- I dunno if approaching 20-year-old women in the street makes you a "pedophile" -- but it certainly makes you a sex offender who should be on the registry for ten years.

And if that isn't enough, or you are still young enough not to be incriminated by an age gap, perhaps you touched a girl's arm once in a clumsy effort to befriend her? Or you just looked at a picture of someone you never met? For the women, being topless in your own home is enough to be a sex offender, so they should register too.

The bigots' hubris is infinite. Having defined all of sexuality as abuse, which is to say normalize it, it is time for society to face the consequences. Letting the feminists have their bigotry and use it as a tool of oppression is not necessary, because with such numbers we can easily turn the tables. All that is missing is for most men (and optionally women) to admit that we are the pedophiles and sex abusers that society now considers us.

Tuesday, December 03, 2019

The female sex offender charade is worse than the Tuskegee syphilis experiment

We know female sexuality is unworthy of punishment for what feminist justice systems call "sexual abuse" because sex is a female resource (that's the executive summary of my position; for a slightly more nuanced view see my "Devil's advocate" post where I distinguish between sexual exploitation and abuse and conclude that women categorically cannot commit the former and almost never the latter). We know syphilis is treatable and should be treated. Allowing these evils to run their course is unethical. Allowing men's bodies to be ravaged by syphilis and women's lives to be destroyed by antisex bigots despite better knowledge and ability are both unconscionable acts.

The most shocking aspect of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment is not that people could be so cruel as the doctors conducting the study, but that it happened openly and was condoned by society for decades, even published in medical journals while ongoing. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment and the female sex offender charade are both openly published travesties, but only one of them has been rectified.

The prosecutors, judges and jurors in female-perpetrated "sex abuse" cases are like the doctors directly involved in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, except the latter at least had the extenuating circumstance that they were conducting an experiment while the courts who sentence harmless women to prison are committing an unmitigated evil from which nothing more can be learned (it did indeed shock me in a morbidly curious way, but we know by now that society can be so cruel as to go along with it seemingly indefinitely).

I cannot stop the courts directly, but like the millions of people who heard about men with syphilis who were purposely denied treatment, I am in a position where it would be unethical for me to remain silent about the ongoing travesty against women accused of absurd sex crimes. I therefore do my part as a whistleblower and activist against the senseless practice of punishing women for being sexually nice to boys.

I promised a series of posts comparing the female sex offender charade to other weird things, and this is the second installment. Read my first here where I compared it to female genital mutilation. Next up I will probably do lobotomy.

Sunday, December 01, 2019

The difference between "indecent" and "sexualized"

Here I want to explore the depths of depravity in the current antisex hysteria via the different words used for sex crimes before and after feminist reforms. The shift from religiously connotated words like "indecent" or "lewd" to ostensibly neutral descriptions like "sex act" (or descriptions thereof) is not yet complete in all jurisdictions, but you get the idea. In Norway the transformation has been most complete, from words like "utuktig omgang/skrift" to "seksuell omgang" or "fremstillinger som seksualiserer barn." This transition is more significant than it might seem at first glance, and far less convincing than the reformers had hoped, for the same reasons.

There is a tendency to assume that the new laws carry forth the same abuse concepts, but they don't really. Even I didn't notice for many years that the new laws don't just expand, but radically transform the concept of sexual abuse. The reformers themselves probably think they have merely modernized the language, but in reality they have exposed a gaping hole in the new sexual morality.

Even when the laws mostly apply to the same things, the philosophical grounding is entirely different, to the point of non-existence. For example, the concept of "indecent/utuktig" did not make the claim that minors are asexual. What might be "indecent" in some contexts under the old morality could be perfectly okay within marriage, so it's not sex acts themselves that are problematic, but something more consequential in the scheme of things, at least if one believes in the larger value system in which these prescriptions are situated.

If something is "indecent," then okey dokey, it must be indecent because higher morality and probably God says so given that you believe in that worldview. I ain't smart enough to understand how that works and won't opine before going to divinity school first. But if something is simply a "sex act," or "sexualized," how do you jump to the conclusion that it is wrong and should be criminal? The new laws leave a gaping hole now filled mostly by pseudoscience like the nocebo nonsense of the abuse industry, if at all.

We are to believe that something is wrong because "sex," period. Which is a non sequitur. If you want to make that leap without a concept of the "decent" and "indecent," or some other higher-power framework, you would need to justify it from the ground up in humanistic, rational terms (I wrote a post once showing how it could be done, but it didn't go over well because it puts a damper on abuse hysteria).

What we have is a new supernatural framework masquerading as rationality. Sometimes it is also comedy gold. I mean, how did the Norwegian lawmakers come up with a concept as retarded as the crime of narratives that "sexualize children [under 18]" without considering if the "children" where asexual in the first place? Which if you think about it for two seconds is sheer nonsense, an assumption that the old concept of "indecency" wisely avoided.

It is most instructive to consider how the victimless laws are justified. There is always a maximally exaggerated violation when there is a "victim," but what is being violated when there is no victim, and also no indecency/utuktighet to ground it in? What is being blasphemed against, exactly, in a fictional narrative which "sexualizes children"? Can it literally be something as retarded as the lie that everyone under 18 is asexual and not sexually attractive to normal people?

I suppose the reformers could appeal to the "public morals" and claim that as an ultimate basis for their laws. But this is a vague concept in the extreme. Where do I find justification for the secular public morals? Is it the view promoted by national public broadcasting? Is it whoever screams loudest on Twitter or perhaps alternative media like Before or after moderation, and if after, why do the moderators get to decide what the pubic thinks? Is it evidence-based in any way, and if not, isn't that a problem when use to make criminal laws? And don't even get me started on the female sex offender charade...

The feminists have undermined their own agenda by switching to a clear language of sexual abuse, because this also brought clarity to the lack of justification for their sex laws. They need to come up with actual, credible justification if they want to be taken seriously as other than a display of brute force against sexuality. Or conversely, if they want to be accepted on faith alone, they need to revert to a mystical language which obscures a source of morality that can't be falsified so easily or at all.

The new sex laws rest on a belief in the metaphysical badness of sex, divorced from any larger value system and grounded in nothing but this metaphysical belief itself. To gloss over how philosophically flimsy it is they always postulate a "victim," and to my horror this strategy has been 100% successful to date, even when the "victim" does not exist or identifies as anything but. We can only hope that one day people will wise up to the vacuity of the current antisex bigotry and do our best to expose it.

Monday, November 25, 2019


My commenter Jack who always pops in to say something antinatalistic is going to hate this, but I made a dating site specifically for reproduction. I had to delegate the coding since I don't have that skill, but the project is under my creative control and we know what we are doing, so this is going to be great. The brand is magic, it's already a stylistic and technological marvel (especially the unique geographical match) and the current version is completely free too. I have an idea how to monetize without interfering too much with the user experience and especially not for women, but of course we can't do that before we have a decent amount of users.

So come check it out, and please help spread the word if possible:

I know, a dating site with no users is boring, but we have to get started somewhere and unlike so much crap out there I am not going to waste anybody's time with fake profiles. Even supposedly serious ones like Tinder does that, not to mention actively work against you if you aren't among the most attractive. My site is honest and real all the way, and even works in accordance with male sexualist principles (except we had to make it 18+ in order to stay in business in today's world). Perhaps the only way to grow a real men's movement is to have a big family, and now you got the perfect platform to find a woman for that.

It also goes to show what can be done with the kind of focus that comes with nofap and a generally positive attitude such as I promote. Can incels really be incel if they didn't try starting their own dating site? Well, that won't work if everyone does it, but it's one obvious example that they probably didn't think of because they were too busy fapping and complaining about things they CAN change.

Monday, November 04, 2019

Why do we let the feminist sexual taboos control us?

Feminism is synonymous with antisex bigotry, and they have subjugated our culture completely. Why do we let this happen, and then just sit there and tolerate it indefinitely?

Every day I wake up to more contrived sex "scandals." Today it is McDonald's CEO Steve Easterbrook who is out "for consensual relationship with an employe." With no justification other than: a taboo exists. Ostensibly it is there to accommodate women’s hysterically frail nature which supposedly makes them infinitely traumatized by the most infinitesimal reference to sexuality, but much of the time even women have no use for the taboo, and a good bit of the time it is now women who are the victims of the senseless antisex norms.

So why do we let this taboo control us? How did feminist sex-hostility gain complete mastery of our culture? Why do men go out with a whimper of acquiescence to the odious taboos every single time, while the rest stand by and do nothing also?

Why is antisex so compelling? Because it must be compelling in order to have so much power, probably not due to the current justification for the taboos most of the time, but some sort of control freakery over sexuality wins out every time and drags in everyone from the alt-right to the feminists themselves.

The only dissidents are us, the male sexualists who don't even register on the radar. What little opposition to the mainstream that exists and actually gets noticed is concerned with inane drivel like race theories. That is what the alt-right thinks important, while they tolerate feminist sexual taboos as much as the traditional right and left. Even a reputedly less bigoted conservative man like Jordan Peterson is no help either -- just listen to this antisex rant where he claims it is bad for your soul to have more than one woman! His kind of bigotry is no doubt very differently rooted than the feminist kind, but the result is the same, antisex all the way, supporting the same laws -- with a small exception for pronouns in his case, to underscore that he takes no issue with anything of any real significance.

I know I am very different for rejecting the sexual taboos of my culture. In practice I am not alone by far -- just look at everyone who gets caught for violating these taboos in some way, and look at uncensored comment sections to articles that attempt to promulgate the female sex offender charade -- but in terms of systematic ideology I am that special quisling, a criminal soul, an enemy of the state. As absurd as it feels to use so strong words for advocacy of healthy sexuality, that is where we are.

Friday, November 01, 2019

Yes, masturbation makes you blind

Whoever said that (male) masturbation makes you blind was right. Not the kind of blindness that doctors will currently diagnose, but that is because they care very little about men's sexual best interests. The kind of blindness we are talking about consists of not seeing women's beauty properly and therefore not behaving as you should with regard to them. The other faction of the Men's Movement can make fun all he wants, but it remains true. When I started writing this post I meant to make a distinction between literal blindness and a metaphorical kind, but the more I think about it I see that this blindness isn't metaphorical. It is real, rising to the level of anosognosia even, which is a downright hyperreal sort of blindness.

How can we expect society to be anything but blind to male interests when so many men are themselves blind to male interests, including a faction of supposed male sexualists? No wonder they only see the harm of male sexuality -- and blow that absurdly out of proportion -- when sex-positive male sexualism (which should be redundant, but when we have a faction which doesn't think it is important to chase pussy...) is so rare I'm practically the only proponent (aside from other nofappers, but they lack the ideological awareness). If you don't realize that male masturbation is detrimental to sex, then you are part of the problem and already halfway in agreement with feminism.

Vision is so much more than your eyes doing their job. What you do with that information is what really matters, and when your brain is impaired in that respect, it is also real blindness. Masturbation, certainly when you also use porn, leads to neurologic -- not psychological -- harm in the male viewer. Crudely speaking, masturbation literally impairs men from seeing women as sex objects, and that is a kind of blindness so sinister that it would be hard to replicate with optic blindness. Indeed, since medically defined blindness would probably cure the masturbatory kind, I am almost tempted to second the biblical wisdom:
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out,
and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for
thee that one of thy members should perish, and
not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
--Matthew 5:29
But luckily, all you need is nofap.