You can't live without ideology. Whether you like it or not, your actions and inactions reflect an ideology, for which you deserve moral judgment. In the current political reality, unless you explicitly opposite it, you are complicit in feminism's hateful war on sexuality. This war is mostly fought against male sexuality, but women are victims too. Male sexualism is the name of the only ideology which systematically opposes the current war on sex. As I consider myself the leader -- or at least a leader -- of male sexualism, I am taking it upon myself to flesh out what our ideology is all about. I will do so in a series of blog posts and ultimately a book to be called The Male Sexualist Manifesto.
Today I will attempt to ground our value system and define the scope of our ideology. First I want to define what male sexualism is not. This is important because we want to avoid being ideologically possessed. Male sexualism is NOT a comprehensive ideology which purports to have the answer to all aspects of how the state should be organized. Examples of such an ideology would be communism or libertarianism or Islamism, and history tells us that they are a very bad idea when taken to extremes. Male sexualists want to avoid that pitfall. We do not have an answer for everything, and we tolerate a wide diversity of political and religious opinion; we merely have some very strong views on sexuality. Even feminism is an example of the kind of ideological possession that we seek to avoid; we are not a comprehensive alternative ideology to feminism, which would potentially be just as bad, but a corrective to some of the most hateful aspects of feminism.
So don't look to male sexualists for the answer to how, say, fisheries should be regulated, global warming should be combated or how much taxes you should pay. These questions are beyond the scope of our ideology. Individually we may well be opinionated on such matters too, but they are not part of our platform as male sexualists.
Our concern is sexual legislation. We regard sex as fundamentally good, and resist unreasonable laws against sexual behavior. This is a HUGE political area, so we have no shortage of issues to deal with, but they are all concerned with increasing sexual freedom. The way we do this is mostly to fight criminalization, but we may also advocate sexual redistribution in some form from women to men, since sex is a female resource. And a little self-help advice is in order, such as how to pick up women and preserve your sexual health by not masturbating or watching porn. All of this is to be detailed in our manifesto, and in future blog posts on the various kinds of sex laws, but for now I want to make it clear what our proper issues are.
Theoretically, since the male sexualist platform is so open to diversity on nonsexual matters, it should be easy to recruit men to our cause. So how come there are so few male sexualists? Why is it so difficult for men to get a movement going centered around our sexuality? This is puzzling and I don't have a good answer, but I WILL define our platform so we have an ideology ready for men to join.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
115 comments:
I can easily answer your last question. zero and I mean NO support online and none of course in real life.in contrast, feminists get too much support online,and by their cop heroes in real life.twitter suspended 70 million accounts in May-june.i thought maybe the femdog who personally won't allow me on twitter(with the usual aid of 100s of her supporters,police and Twitter itself) was among that purge.sadly no.i do see that she's still being "stalked" by another guy she's targeted.until she's actually off twitter I wont/can't go back on.she'll be informed I'm back asap and I'll receive that zero support "mras" are notorious for.
You might want to consider recruiting hispanic men. Why? They are less cucked by feminism. Recently I saw a page complaining about comments from men on a post regarding the Nasar case (The guy who had sex with several athletes). Most of the comments made sense, saying things such as "After puberty those are not little gilrs." or "if there's grass on the field, play ball."
Male sexualism will attract those men because they see things the way they are.
16 is a reasonable aoc and that's how it is in most places where it isn't 18. Get over yourselves, it isn't going to lower any more and it shouldn't.
Any man will agree that a 16 year old is attractive, but no man in his right mind would thrist after 14 year olds. There are big gaps for both males and females physically and mentally from ages 12 to 20.
Keep trying to mask your blatant pedophilia behind "logic".
Not what I mean but like, pedophilia is undefendable in any circumstance. It's fucked.
With all that fake up, a 14 looks like she's in her mid 20s. Mid-20's are DEFINITELY attractive. Most 14 yo's look like 14 year old CHILDREN
Call me a cuck if you want, but that shit just is NOT attractive whatsoever.
Normal 14 year olds.
Whatever you believe is what you believe. I just want LOYALTY, companionship, and sex from a female in her mid 20's like me. Might be a dream but it's what I want.
OMG this pedocels, if you didnt get a Virgin JB gf just don't throw here your shitty arguments, as a human medicine student i know women arent enought mature at 13-18 to get pregnant, their bodies arnt ready yet you fuking Morons, you atleast know what Is preclamcia, you motherfoker Morons... Fuk sake
I think you've got it right when you say Male Sexualism is not a comprehensive political philosophy but is opposed to hateful sex laws. We want to be as welcoming as possible and not exclude people because they think some little thing differently or whatever, whilst at the same time we need to be focused and clear on our aims which is the abolition of feminist sex laws.
I'm not sure about some of the self help advice though. I can't really agree with the idea that men should not masturbate and not watch porn. Honestly, I can see why it might work for some, but I think for others it doesn't work. It's much like I sometimes hear people going on about how they change their diet and took out starchy foods and how much better they feel etc but for other people it's like meh, doesn't help, or makes things worse. So it depends on the person really.
The other area where I think as a movement we sometimes disagree is on whether there are specific sex laws that should exist or not. For instance, some think polygamy is OK, others think it should be banned. Some think adultery is not that bad, or at least only the woman should be held accountable, while others think men who engage in it should be punished by death.
I don't know if some of those points need to be discussed more before we have a manifesto that everyone can support, or if we need to make the definition of Male Sexualism vaguer for now to allow the possibility of debate and evolution on those ideas.
For example, Male Sexualism could be defined as:
"Male Sexualism is a political movement dedicated to promoting the idea that male sexuality is not dangerous, should not be criminal and should be accepted and embraced by society. Male Sexualists believe in achieving a more equal distribution of sex and believe that we should live in a society such that all men have the chance to engage in sexual relationships without fear of retribution or criminalisation by the State or other actors. The Male Sexualist attempts to define what is the best way to lead a 'good life', sexually, for himself, his family and his society, unimpinged by feminist violence or coercion"
yes! it'll make a great book.of course it'll have to be self published,and within 48 hours of putting it up for sale(if Amazon will even allow that) it will be taken down from the millions of feminists(male and female) flooding Amazon with complaints.so,eivind, writing or putting this book together, you may want to whittle it down to a pamphlet and hire some drug addicts/insane people to hand it out(I sure as hell couldn't,I'd be beaten to death before the pigs got there to kick me to death)anyway,the u.s has even bigger problems than just the war on men now.its a full blown police and almost 24 surveillance state now and it's going to get a lot worse soon with this piece of shit crazy man as "commander in chief".obviously Hillary was the better choice at least the bitch was SANE.im banned from Twitter but someone with actual power can threaten to destroy entire countries, and has the power to do it! yet that doesn't violate twitters tos!!?? I'm fucking nobody but Twitter perceives me as a bigger threat than trump.god I fucking despise this cUntry...
To the pseudomedic boy here. Maybe you might want to have a chat wit the production staff at Teen Mom and 16 And Pregnant and tell them their shows were cancelled not due to being degenerate garbage but because they couldn't find pregnant women under 18.
To the pedocrites over here... Once you hit puberty biological variation takes control. I am not into a prepubescent 14 year old, but if she is 12 and her breasts are larger than those of most 20 year olds, I swear I will not be able to say she is not attractive.
Disregard age and focus on anatomy and personality.
Follow simple rules. Never seek wall hitters or prepubescents. Anything else is on the menu. Ripe apples. must take priority over rotten or green ones.
John... Hillary was a feminist... Trump is not crazy, so far he has not bombed NK or Russia. He is great at flexing muscle and his wife is young enough to be his daughter... He is more likely to side with us than Hillary or CNN. I got many things against him, but he is a lesser obstacle than the left. The left is full blown feminist in first world countries.
Interesting article on the effects of porn on the brain.
https://www.medicaldaily.com/watching-adult-films-alters-brain-activity-similar-drug-addicts-alcoholics-347224
@holocaust21
The self-help part is much less important to promote since it's about personal choice rather than involuntary oppression, but I feel our message is incomplete without it. The idea that masturbation is harmless is one of the most pernicious myths of our times, leading boys to squander their sex lives because they don't know any better. While there is a separate nofap movement, they lack the ideological drive to promote legal sexual freedom as well for male sexuality to thrive. Male sexualism brings both aspects together in perfect harmony: sexual health and sexual freedom. You analogy with diet does not work, because the proper comparison would be to eating fake food with no nutritional value whatsoever. Actually, the best analogy would be poison, because that's what masturbation is when it leads to impotence.
On polygamy, I feel that we should uphold monogamy as a civilizational good, but we shouldn't push too hard on this. We don't want a legal structure where one man can easily monopolize 100 wives, but we also don't want to punish promiscuity. I think the right balance is to incentivize monogamy by taxes as such, while tolerating some deviation. Redistribution of sex can largely be accomplished by economic incentives as well. Men who want multiple wives and women who don't want to have sex should be taxed heavily.
man it is a pity what happened to the internet.to appease even more "victims of abuse" aka females/feminists, Twitter has announced even "better" ways to report "abuse". women just ruined Twitter and they did it on purpose,purposefully.meanwhile, a 'Richard tester' 52 years old, was apprehended by police after an amber alert,which was supposed to be for endangered children, NOT 17 year olds that willingly take off with their current sugar daddy,and THIS one? she looks 32 years old but ok, he's going to prison, life over.so,if you pick up a hooker,you have to see her i.d and birth certificate lest you wind up with a national bolo on your ass.in other news, evidence has emerged that the arrest of stormy Daniels was pre planned.the charges against were dropped the day after her arrest after all,but it is a police state/country so what can one expect.right now, I've been commenting on yahoo.com on their news that comes in and they are censoring the hell out of me and many more people.most of comments are not even posted, and any post criticizing the police? will also NOT be posted. the list of blacklisted words grows daily and this is Yahoo comments now, not twitter.a very small "audience" but I'll soon stop as it's irritating as fuck to be censored for comments a child would be safe reading.if it wasn't for YouTube I would leave the internet completely.if they start charging to watch videos? I'm DONE.
Porn harmful? Then what about sexily-clad women in the street? They are a form of porn, at least they have the same effect on men. Only they're even worse: they are a form of porn you can't even wank to (because you're out in the public eye). Shutting yourself off from porn is pointless if you are bombarded with walking porn daily in the street.
true.and now that porn is free, and American women are impossible,hate men AND have the law on their side,forget em.im old enough to remember when you had to buy porn and it wasn't cheap.anyway, I'm basically an introvert, definetely not a pretty boy and how could I meet a decent good looking woman? the only way for me would be the dating sites but those are very unfair to men, great for women as they are the gatekeepers of sex more than ever now.and even dating sites are 'segregated' from the free, therefore mostly "trash" sites like 'plenty of fish's, right up the ladder to 'elite singles'.btw, I'm all for 'sexual redistribution' but I don't see how it's feasible.i don't need or want the govt to send a whore to my door.im also, hold on! also for wealth redistribution.now most people jump right on my case for that and first thing they say is, ok start with you, give up your money.but see, that just makes me homeless.but taking 10 billion off "good" people like bezos,zuckerberg, pieces of crap like Trump, Koch brotbers wouldn't hurt them one bit.or just tax these pricks @ 90%.sooner or later the govt will HAVE to do it anyway.this unprecedented inequality will lead to massive rioting and social upheaval as soon as EVERYONE wakes up in a decade or two. what would be nice is to see more incels attacks.but again, MOST men internalize the hate/rage and just kill themselves.too bad.
I don't believe women in the streets are anything like porn. If you don't use porn and don't masturbate, you will be ready to fuck any woman you see on the street if you get a chance no matter how much you look at them. The problem with porn is that it stunts this ability.
you could very well be right.longest I've 'no fapped'? probably 8 months.with several times I've gone 6 months.i can only speak from my personal experience.but I don't even meet women so I can't be too hard on myself.ive worked my own one man business for 30 years.could it have been different.maybe.
I see that in public schools they are teaching kindergarten kiddies all about "toxic masculinity" "intersectionality".this is outrageous and I'm so damn glad we at least have Peterson doing a brilliant job criticising these abominations.we need need MORE though.more intellectuals debunking "rape culture" especially since violent crime in America is down 50% in the last 25 years!it's safer than ever to walk these streets.imo, this is THE issue of our time, NOT some Mexicans, illegal or not, I do not care picking veggies, but that's all you gear about.maybe if/when they build this damn wall, we can focus on radical feminism? or am I dreaming? this anti male shit being taught in schools, universities, I don't see how that gets reversed.and the police surveillance state? that appears set in stone now.so,it's one part '1984' and one part huxleys 'brave new world'.and I'm supposed to be positive about these developments? the only thing i can say that's pisitive is I have no kids.
I can't figure out why I keep posting on here.too advanced? not a Trump fan? I get zero responses.ya know me what? fuck mras.you want all 5 of you to be left alone? you got it.i wish the worst for all of you.i hope you all go to jail.you deserve it.cya...
I'm going back on Twitter.but this time I'll be Mra hunter, and I'll be reporting every anti feminist on there for "death threats".ill be on the winning side, and don't have to worry about being banned,plus I get to dole out the treatment I got on there.sounds like a win win win!this will be fun.
Litt sent, men RIP Tor Erling Staff:
I et portrett intervju med Dagbladets Magasinet i 2012, ble han spurt ut om tabuer, og om hvorvidt han mente det var få igjen.
- Hva? Helvete, heller! Vi er jævlig fordømmende, er vi! Det seksuelle er faktisk i stor grad fordrevet. Det er så mye regler og så sterilt at vi blir helt nervøse. Snakk om skjevhet! Vold og drap blir liksom sett på som mindre farlig enn om du holder ungen din på fanget og føler noe ved det. Jeg synes vi må slutte å lete etter skadevirkninger av alt. Det er da vi skaper skade. Men slik er samfunnet blitt. Og de som har vært de flinkeste pådriverne i det jeg kaller «offerindustrien», det er kvinnebevegelsen. De har erobret stadig nye områder. Dette er sett fra mannens side. Menn er langt på vei blitt forsvarsløse. Jaget vilt rettslig sett. Kvinner er langt på vei alltid «ofre», sa Staff, blant annet.
https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/tor-erling-staff-er-dod/70037810
Ja, Staff var en ekte mannlig seksualist. Han hadde en evne til å komme unna med disse meningene også og likevel være akseptert, som er helt unikt i Norge. Nå er det ingen igjen i offentligheten som tør å si feminismen imot. RIP.
Tja, naa var det lenge siden sist.
Trist aa hoere om Staff, men samtidig tror jeg det er opp til flere som er villige til aa ihvertfall delvis ta opp staffet-pinnen etter ham, og som kan vaere mer oppdaterte paa hvilke utfordringer vi staar ovenfor i vaar tid om vi skal hindre at Norge blir en totalitaer politistat og et overvaakningssamfunn fullt av skjulte tvangsmidler og en politirekruttering som bestaar av fnisete unggutter med maskingevaer, som jeg fikk paa doera mi naa rett foer jeg ble kastet ut av leiligheten min.
For en del industrialiserte stater er det slik at de bedriver gjensidig oekonomisk krigfoering, og det er klart at det foerer til at de trenger lydige slaver og nikkedukker av staten for aa presse folk for det de kan av arbeidsevne, mens arbeidsloesheten og pensjonsalderen stiger og loenningene synker.
I et slikt scenario er det etter mitt syn ikke annet aa anbefale enn aa lese Dmitry Orlov sin bok, "The Five Stages of Collapse", som han brukte seks aar paa aa skrive og som er et imponerende dypdykk i hvordan kulturer gaar til grunne.
En mulighet som paa langt naer er uten sidestykke i historien, eller urealistisk for land som Norge som har svaert kort demokratisk historie - man kan saagar argumentere for at virkelig folkestyre finner man stort sett kun paa Island og Sveits, resten av landene er styrt av mennesker som verken forstaar seg paa fremtiden eller borgerrettigheter, men kun fokuserer paa hvordan de kan presse mest mulig skatt ut av folk og hvor ett element der er aa putte flest mulig fattige mennesker uten penger i fengsel - som jo har vaert den primaere funksjonen til fengsler siden byene begynte aa vokse og man trengte noen aa begaa overgrep mot for aa skremme resten til aa finne seg arbeid som kunne skattlegges.
Nuvel, i det minste fikk jeg avgaarde klagen til PFU for makkverket som NRK hadde gjort mtp aa total-svikte sin raison d'etre om aa drive folkeopplysning, saa faar vi se hva utfallet blir av det.
Kom de på ransaking enda en gang? Tok datautstyr også? Og hvor bor du nå da hvis du ble kastet ut? Og hvorfor skulle de være så tungt bevæpnet? Jeg som angivelig var terrorist ble ikke arrestert av bevæpnet politi engang, så det virker litt i overkant.
De har vel vaert paa en tre ransakinger siden de f;rste to, og presterte aa begrunne en av dem med straffeprosesslovens 191 - som ble satt ut av kraft i 1985.
Poenget er selvsagt aa forsoeke aa frata meg muligheten til aa stille forberedt til min ankesak ved aa legge beslag i alt av datautstyr med dokumenter, da hele sakskomplekset er drevet av et politisk oenske om aa skaffe presedens for aa oeke straffenivaaet for typen sak som jeg er siktet for.
Foreloepig er jeg innlosjert i midlertidig leilighet paa 16 kvadrat hvor dusjutstyret er hentet ifra kassert sykehjemsutstyr og er en sittedusj hvor man maa sitte paa gulvet for aa faa vasket haaret, og badeservanten er noe som kommer ifra Polen og ser ut til aa vaere 60 aar gammelt ifra en revet leilighet.
Tror jeg skiftet sokker og underbukse sist onsdag, da jeg ikke har hatt tilgang til leilighet.
Fordi jeg har protestert paa utkastelsen, som er hovedsakelig drevet frem av kommunens boligtjeneste sitt oenske om hevn fordi jeg har vaert saa frekk aa reklamere paa aapenbare feil og mangler ved en leilighet som de ikke engang har foretatt overtagelsesforretning paa, samt en annen beboer som ikke er strafferettslig tilregnelig og har bl.a. bipolar diagnose sitt oenske om aa bli nabolagets helt ved aa drive meg ut med falske anmeldelser og manipulering, og til sist selvsagt lokalavisen sin ukritiske fremstilling av loese rykter og grunnloese, aapenbart oppkonstruerte paastander drevet av frykt til hysteriske barnefamilier.
Og alt dette selvsagt timet til aa komme i fellesferien hvor advokater og andre profesjonelle aktoerer er paa ferie og det som gjenstaar er ferskinger som ikke kan lovverket og er overarbeidet i utgangspunktet, bare akseperer det de blir beordret til ukritisk.
Det skal sies at kommuneadvokaten ikke har oensket aa engasjere seg paa kommunen sine vegne da fylkesmannen og andre da kunne fattet interesse for hva de holder paa med.
Og alt fra kommunen er selvsaagt unndratt offentligheten og avisen har ikke engang tatt kontakt med meg for aa hoere min side av saken men kun gjengitt paastander som om de var fakta, fullstendig ukritisk.
@Gally
Legg ut dommen!
Trenger jeg ikke.
Naar den er rettskraftig, blir den ganske sikkert lagt ut av domstol.no .
Men foerst maa den innom Gulating Lagmannsrett i det minste, og det er 4. oktober.
I mellomtiden kan du lese makkverket av Sandnesposten sin gjengivelse, som selektiv utelukker det de trenger for aa tabloidisere det mest mulig, og selektivt feilgjengir deler av samme grunn, her: http://sandnesposten.no/nyheter/dommen-klar-i-barnepornosaken/19.16837
Hvis du da er en av dem som er saa dum at du tror paa avisene (eller politiet).
I alle tilfeller kan du / dere da leite dere frem til dommen selv, da den er offentlig og dere har valget mellom Jaeren og Stavanger tingrett.
Hi Eivind,
May I have your permission to re-post some of your content on my Male Sexualist Archive blog? With due credit, of course.
Yes, feel free to repost any of my content.
Are you guys with the "soyboy" stuff on your male sexualist websites and blogs and that shit again? Not good. It's the fashionable insult of the alt-right and other assholes. There's nothing wrong with being a soy eater, you bunch of ignorant, you use insults worth of schoolkids. Meat and milk is full of hormones, so you are literally a hormone pump, I take soy and I am not a weak effeminate, I have my testosterone as Nature intended for a healthy male.
holocaust21 and theantifeminist are vegetarians and are more masculine and manly than any of those alt-rightist.
Nice try, W. I think the soy is making you hysterical. Eat a steak, bro.
Or alternatively, you can stop taking memes so seriously. I make fun of so-called "soyboys" all the time, and I think edamame is delicious...
eivind, you ask on Twitter: 'why aren't more of you men in the u.s seething with rage? seriously? well, when I came on here pissed off about the situation, I was met with fear,revulsion,ya know, the usual non support(of course) from "mras" and people also upset I dared to swear(I didn't know this site was so popular with the kiddies, my bad! i think you know the answer to that question. "we" meaning I don't "seethe" any more!it's not a good look.
Being anti-masturbation and anti-porn has NOTHING to do with fighting against feminist anti-male sex laws. To actually put these things at the heart of a men's movement that you are clearly promoting as the continuation and representation of all the efforts of myself, Holocaust21, Steve Moxon, Human Stupidity, and a few others, is selfish and shameful. You think wanking is wrong. Great. Why don't you just accept that's your own personal peccadillo, rather than something essential to campaigning against feminist sex laws?
The fact is, you're 100% agreement with feminism here. You're validating their whole enterprise. The whole feminist movement has been a response to the ever greater range of sexual alternatives for men to the average woman on the street (and women are getting more and more average by the day, at least in the West). How the hell can you seriously rage against feminist anti-porn laws when you agree with the feminist junk science basis for them?
You also completely fail to see what's going to be happening in the next few decades. Sex is going to become increasingly virtual (and indistinguishable from the real thing), and basing a 'male sexualist' (i.e. pro male sexuality - the hijacking of a term I've been using for 10 years) movement on being anti-porn, anti anything not sticking your dick in a real, wet hole of a HB5, will have about as much relevance to male sexualilty and the modern world as campainging against the use of condoms.
This is the last thing men need in the face of the tsunami of anti-porn based feminist sex puritan laws. I'd go as far to say as you're as much of an enemy to men as feminists are at this stage. And given all the work you've done for the last couple of decades, includes bravely standing up to the Norwegian State, that's a real tragedy.
You drew an analogy elsewhere with cannabis legalisation campaigners. The cannabis movement is probably about 1,000,000 bigger than ours, yet if you can point to one single pro cannabis legalization activist (let alone 'the leader') who actually promotes the idea that smoking cannabis is harmful and should be avoided, then I'll apologize to you and become a 'Male Sexualist'.
We're struggling to get more than a dozen followers out of the 3 billion men on the planet affected by feminist sex laws, and you want to narrow our appeal down even more to Islamic minded anti-masturbation incels who crave spending their lives with a HB4 just when AI sex robots and virtual reality sex are becoming real??
Crazy and sad in equal measures.
TAF, I think that you should write down on your blog your official position on the issue of masturbation, so that others can respond to it. I know that you've already written such a post, and I would have responded to it at the time if I had time - unfortunately, I was quite busy so haven't got to it. Anyway, I think that Male Sexualism allows for a pluralism of views about the matter.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=dJq-zOwq2SI
I agree that masturbation is a personal health issue and have been saying so. It is not equivalent to the fight against hateful sex laws. But I still think it has a place, and I will continue to promote what I believe to be true about masturbation and porn.
This truth is not based on junk science either. The science is largely irrelevant (which is mostly junk because the real problems have hardly been studied), because the answer to how porn affects you is not to be found in a brain scan or an official definition of "addiction," but how you actually perform with women. And the clinical picture is clear: masturbation is devastating to our efforts with women. Imagine if you never masturbated and never looked at porn, how much greater your efforts at actual sex would be, and surely much success would follow. The enjoyment of sex would be greatly amplified as well. And this is no even counting the truly debilitating problems many porn users report such as ED which can make real sex literally impossible.
I agree that as virtual sex becomes closer to the real thing, the harm from masturbation will be less. If the experience could ever be indistinguishable, all the arguments for harm would go away and we would be left with a value judgment: is virtual sex really meaningful? My answer to that is no, which is another reason why I don't like it. But again, that would be a personal issue. My values are such that sex with women is the supreme good, and I define the male sexualist ideology accordingly.
Your drug war analogy also fails. It is true that pro cannabis legalization activists generally don't promote the view that cannabis is harmful and should be avoided, but that is because cannabis is actually a pretty harmless drug. There are people who want to legalize all drugs, myself included, including clearly harmful ones such as alcohol and heroin and crack, and we do recommend against abusing these drugs even though we recognize that prohibition makes matters worse and needs to end. Pornography, then, is more like a hard drug that is clearly harmful, but I still support your right to possess and use it if you wish.
While much of the research on porn is indeed junk, addressing irrelevant issues such as sexist attitudes, some newer studies also deal with the real problem:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-05-link-porn-sexual-dysfunction.html
I don't care how you explain the mechanisms, whether it should qualify as an addiction or how the brain scans look and compare to other addictions -- none of this really matters. What matters is how masturbation makes you perform with real females, and the tendency is clearly negative. Why would we want to ignore this?
Quote:
Young men who prefer pornography to real-world sexual encounters might find themselves caught in a trap, unable to perform sexually with other people when the opportunity presents itself, a new study reports.
Porn-addicted men are more likely to suffer from erectile dysfunction and are less likely to be satisfied with sexual intercourse, according to survey findings presented Friday at the American Urological Association's annual meeting, in Boston.
For the study, researchers surveyed 312 men, aged 20 to 40, who visited a San Diego urology clinic for treatment. Only 3.4 percent of the men said they preferred masturbating to pornography over sexual intercourse, the survey found.
But the researchers found a statistical relationship between porn addiction and sexual dysfunction, said lead researcher Dr. Matthew Christman. He is a staff urologist with the Naval Medical Center in San Diego.
"The rates of organic causes of erectile dysfunction in this age cohort are extremely low, so the increase in erectile dysfunction that we have seen over time for this group needs to be explained," Christman said. "We believe that pornography use may be one piece to that puzzle. Our data does not suggest that it is the only explanation, however."
Also the science does not assign a value to sexual success above average -- it only identifies pathological conditions at best. As male sexualists, we are free to embrace male sexuality above and beyond the "healthy" level, and indeed I think we should celebrate male sexual prowess and offer advice on how to cultivate it. To maximize your virility, you most definitely need to avoid porn and masturbation! Your only connection with porn should be starring in it, if you must have anything to do with it.
Some men become completely unable to have intercourse as a result of masturbation. This harm is so clear-cut that I can't believe we are having this debate.
If you count the harm from porn and masturbation which is so mild that it doesn't fit the medical definition of ED, I bet nearly all users are affected, although they can easily be in denial.
And if you want to be the best man you can be -- that is to say live out a pro-male-sexuality ideology and be aggressively pursuing girls and ready for sex whenever the opportunity presents itself -- then you need to hold yourself to a zero-tolerance standard for masturbation. It doesn't mean you can never look at naked picture, but you need to avoid masturbating to it or without it and you should try to minimize your exposure to erotic stimuli other than real females who can hopefully be pursued.
Only a very select few pursue this apex strategy, but it is clearly the optimal one. This along with the rest of our ideology is what I call holistic pickup and qualifies you to the true brotherhood of male sexualists.
It occurs to me that we already have virtual sex, and it behaves the way I predicted. "Sex" with condoms is mutual masturbation with the same latex device rather than sex, and it is already available, pretty cheaply too from lots of hot escorts.
Using condoms is against the male sexualist ethos, but I don't campaign so much against it because it doesn't cause harm either. I imagine my attitude to sexbots will be similar. Not for me, but we don't need to get hysterical about it.
By the way, you can say no to condoms even if you are paying for sex. It just takes a little longer to find a girl who is up for bareback.
@Gally
I og med at du plent nekter å legge ut dommen, kan du ikke i det minste opplyse hva du gjorde for å bli tatt? Chattet du med smågutter ukryptert? Tilsto du? Oppgav du dine passord til politiet? Og hva er feil i fremstillingen av saken mot deg, mener du?
Eivind, you keep claiming there's lots of evidence that masturbation causes terrible harm, where is it? I'm sure feminists can produce lots of "evidence" that underage sex causes terrible harm but as with masturbation that evidence is biased by a combination of ideology and confusion between cause and effect. Boys masturbate if they can't fuck, so in that sense masturbation is a coping mechanism. It doesn't mean that masturbation causes the harm though, the harm is caused by feminist rape laws. If a boy is allowed to rape then he won't need to masturbate so much. I feel like you've just got some bee in your bonnet as a result of too many years spent as an incel or something...
Anyway, the other thing I wanted to say is that theantifeminist should undelete his blog. Come on TAF you know you want to!
The most compelling evidence of terrible harm is all the anecdotes from men who are downright impotent with women and then recover when they quit porn and masturbation.
And they are not just anecdotes. Here is an overview of research with commentary from someone who is interested in the science:
https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/research-articles-and-abstracts
The harm is much worse than you would think if you haven't actually studied it. But even if you leave all that aside or take a skeptical attitude to the science for now, I'd say we need go no further than your own comment to demonstrate significant harm. Defending masturbation as a "coping mechanism" is brain-damaged even if that was all it was. Incels don't need coping mechanisms; they need solutions! It's not like inceldom is a terminal illness that you need to cope with; if you are physically capable of having sex, then sex is what you should be pursuing instead of coping mechanisms for your imagined handicap (which might turn into a REAL handicap if you masturbate! Certainly will if you overdo it!).
Even if we assume no additional harm, the opportunity cost of masturbating instead of approaching girls is enough make it reprehensible (to your own good, not in a moral sense). And there is definitely temporarily diminished motivation to pursue and be social as well. The healthy way to cope is to progress towards a solution by approaching females and getting rejected. Approach as many as it takes; even if that is 100 or 1000 you have to do it instead of "coping" in a way that doesn't get you closer to the goal and more likely further removed from it. And all that rejection will actually feel good if you think of it as incremental progress to your goal!
Coping mechanisms are for things you cannot change, like terminal cancer. Being incel is not in that category! If you can masturbate, then you could have functioned sexually instead and there is no excuse for not pursuing that, assuming that you value real sex, which is an assumption built into the word incel.
Masturbation is called self-abuse for a reason. The only kind of abuse panic that male sexualists can get behind (and only male masturbation! -- females can masturbate all they want with no consequences).
By the way, I was just watching this debate between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D7VB_t0uLE
[Now apparently taken down due to a copyright claim, but it's the first part of their series on religion.]
From 1:29:58 and out they talk about masturbation, and Jordan Peterson basically agrees with me, at least about the opportunity cost ("it depends on what else [masturbation] is stopping your from doing"), if not the extra harm which they don't get into. The magic of Christian belief is that you don't need to understand that harm in order to know that masturbation is bad for you, because the Bible knows and you only need to go along with that belief system without thinking too much. It is ancient wisdom that not masturbating is fitness-enhancing, resulting in earlier sex and more reproduction and all that good stuff that you want instead!
Sam Harris does not get this, which is an example of how being an atheist is harmful and a bad influence on boys. Jordan Peterson even makes a good case that we need dogmatic belief because rational education about harms simply does not work. It is almost pointless to try to educate boys in secular terms about the horrible damper that masturbation puts on their sexuality like I am trying to do here. We need to go back to the religious notion that masturbation is sinful if we are going to make a difference, and I am almost embracing that project. At least it's good to see someone like Jordan Peterson convincing millions of people how religion is true, including the biblical denunciation of masturbation. If God cares about you, he does not want you to masturbate, and it makes a lot of sense to believe in such a God or act as if you do.
I fell into the trap of atheism and associated stupidity myself when I was young. When I was a teenager, I thought I was a sex monomaniac -- that's even the word I used -- but boy was I wrong! Sex is fantastically more important than I realized, and in retrospect it is clear that I valued sex miles below what I should have. I had no right to call myself a sex monomaniac when I wasn't taking the most basic precaution in order to have sex, which is to not masturbate. Your actions speak louder than your stated beliefs, and by masturbating you show that you hardly value sex at all. So don't masturbate if you have any sense. That's the one thing I most wish I could tell my younger self, which would have paid richer dividends than knowing to hoard bitcoin even.
No wonder religious fundamentalists have the best birth rates. They've got it figured out for thousands of years what atheists can't comprehend even if you explain it to them by reams of scientific studies.
Gally here.
This is an interesting side-bit of male sexuality, and I although I am really short on time ATM, I would very much see what comes out of if (pun intended).
Personally I have no probs with spanking the monkey to whatever perverse fantasies I may entertain - and I have had rape-fantasies since I was 8 years old (I am now 42 and have never done anything inappropriate.)
So my point is simple: Seperate between fantasies and reality, and you're good to go.
You're not good to go if masturbating to porn leads to impotence and related dysfunction like thousands of men report. It's not about the content of your fantasies, but the faulty neurological wiring that results from giving yourself that fake sexual outlet.
Gally's comment illustrates the widespread belief that if there is something wrong with pornography, then it must be because it harms women (and children) in some way, that it leads to rape or objectification or exploitation of women and children. Those concerns are not just wrong, but the opposite of the truth that pornography prevents men from being as sexual as they can with women (and children for that matter). Pornography hijacks the male sex drive and only leaves an enfeebled version to be expressed with women, and THAT is the problem. It diminishes male sexuality while leaving women largely unaffected. The reduced male performance can certainly be annoying to women as well (and sometimes good for them since it reduces unwanted attention too), but it is primarily a male problem and needs to be understood as such. Men are the victims of pornography, including the underage kind that men are ludicrously prosecuted for possessing.
Gally wrote:
"Personally I have no probs with spanking the monkey to whatever perverse fantasies I may entertain - and I have had rape-fantasies since I was 8 years old (I am now 42 and have never done anything inappropriate.)"
See, there's the problem right there -- if you'd held yourself to a strictly no masturbation policy since you were eight, chances are you would have done something "inappropriate" :)
Men's REAL problem with pornography and masturbation is often diametrically opposite to what society thinks. And that, my friends, is why I consider nofap such an ardent male sexualist issue.
It is likely unrealistic to teach very young boys not to masturbate, but age eight is I think a reasonable age to instill that wisdom (while encouraging sex with women, obviously, though that isn't realistic either for a few more years, so really realistically, sadly they will have to masturbate a while longer).
Jordan Peterson mentioned in one of his lectures that Victorian women would masturbate little boys to calm them down, so that is certainly a reasonable alternative, but our sick feminist society would consider it "abuse," so sadly not realistic either at the moment. Of course the ideal is to never masturbate and to start with as close to real sex as possible, but in this sex-hostile society boys have no other option well into their teenage years under the best of parenting without taking too big risks.
Though I don't remember where, I also recall reading some anthropological evidence of enlightened societies where mothers and other female caregivers would fellate little boys to calm them down -- perhaps the Victorians did that too. What a beautiful way to fend off masturbation and conserve boys' sexuality for real sex! Our society is a topsy-turvy clusterfuck of feminist sex-hostility which would make that inadvisable, of course, but male sexualists can still state the truth about its goodness -- as long as that lasts.
And while I am at it exposing the harm of masturbation to those in our movement who think it harmless, I recall reading the most egregious example on TheAntifeminist's blog recently. He said he now around age 50 wanks once per week and is barely interested in real girls anymore. Can it be any clearer than this? Masturbation has completely consumed his sex life! Even if you buy the idea that a normal 50-year-old man can have such a low sex drive that he would only be horny once a week (which I don't really), it would surely be directed at real females if he didn't masturbate or look at porn! It is absolutely astonishing that he can claim such behavior is harmless!
"Can it be any clearer than this?" Nej, det hedder bare "confirmation bias". En objektiv vurdering af de formodede skader ved masturbation kan kun foretages (på samme måde som på mange andre områder) gennem en ikke-klinisk undersøgelse af fænomenet foretaget over et repræsentativt udvalg af personer. Kan du pege på en sådan?
Her kan du i øvrigt læse om en kvinde der anbefaler masturbation for drenge inden de har nået puberteten:
http://archive.is/7vbXU
Ifølge hende skulle dette hjælpe dem med at holde orgasme adskilt fra sædafgang, hvilket skulle give mulighed for "multiple orgasms" i voksenalderen (altså en forbedring af potensen), på samme måde som de fleste drenge kan inden de har nået puberteten.
Thanks for another comment which evinces brain damage caused by masturbation. The notion that I need to conduct a trial before knowing that TheAntifeminist's masturbatory behavior is harmful is just as ridiculous as claiming you don't know if it's harmful to jump out of an airplane without a parachute before we have done randomized controlled trials. Or since masturbation is less than fatal, let's take a closer analogy: hoarding behavior. There are people whose homes look approximately like a landfill because they collect so much junk. I've seen a documentary about hoarders who couldn't eat in their kitchen because it was filled up, as was the living room and almost everything except the bed and they had to walk an obstacle course to get around. How do we know that this behavior is pathological? Do we need to study a representative selection of the population? Do we need brain scans and other tests? It is true that hoarders will often have neurological abnormalities, but we need to know none of that to declare them sick, because the OPPORTUNITY COST of not being able to use your living space for its intended purpose is the actual problem. This analogy gives us a powerful way to visualize the profound pathology of masturbation: it's like a hoarding disorder where your sex life is so cluttered with masturbation and porn that you can't find room to put your sexual function to its proper use. Certainly, the lifestyle that TheAntifeminist described, where he wanks once a week and never has sex or even hits on girls, is the equivalent to living in a pure landfill.
And note that I wasn't even arguing that he suffers from impotence with women, because he hasn't said anything about that. But the failure to pursue them is evidence enough of profound harm.
As to the woman you cite who recommends masturbation to young boys -- she describes what is called "edging," and it is known to be associated with even worse damage that is harder to recover from. She is highly ignorant and irresponsible to recommend this! I see she is into tantric sex, and edging is all well and good in that context, but you can't take this practice out of it its context and apply it to masturbating to internet porn instead of sex and get anything but disastrous results! This is unbelievably bad advice, knowing how today's boys would apply it! It can make their porn-induced impotence damn near intractable. I don't know much about tantra, but I'm pretty sure it is supposed to be practiced with a partner and completely sure that it's not designed to go along with the porn that your hapless boys would be using.
If anyone else in our movement still believes masturbation is harmless, tell me your thoughts and I will pinpoint your brain damage.
Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of all this is the rampant anosognosia associated with masturbation. I point out the horrible harm from demotivation to various levels of erectile dysfunction up to and including the complete obliteration of a man's sex life, and yet many of you fail to see anything wrong with it at all! That you can't see this just wows me as an astonishing form of brain damage, rather like a hoarder who lacks any insight that there is anything wrong with his condition. And I don't think hoarders tend to be that far gone, but most masturbators clearly are.
I know it's our culture's official belief that masturbation is harmless, but it ought to be possible to see the harm when it is spelled out, no?
'If anyone else in our movement still believes masturbation is harmless, tell me your thoughts and I will pinpoint your brain damage.'
Well, while I do have a tremendous respect for you as a person, and deeply appreciates your ability to remain calm and controlled even when deeply provoked, I think maybe it would be beneficial to your readers to point out that masturbation (in general) has no correlation with brain-damage.
Now, due to certain circumstances I have had myself checked for psychosis and also Aspergers Syndrome, and have had an MRI-scan for my brain, and the results are so far null and void.
Ain't nothing noticable with my nut, and if it should be of interest I would agree that people masturbate more when they are bored and otherwise not under any kind of pressure, so if the world in general would like to know I can inform everybody under the sun that I haven't engaged in the sin of self-pleasure more than three times during the last two weeks, so there's that.
Anything done in excess can be said to be problematic, true - but even fetuses masturbate in the womb, and the first democracy on earth (the greeks) had thirteen different words for describing male masturbation so there's not really (in my view) any grounds for claiming brain damage just for disagreeing on an issue.
That said, I do plan on hooking up with an adult woman rather than masturbating, only in my case I need a partner who is *ahem* a bit short-built and also doesn't have too big tits.
That's just the way I roll, and it ain't the worst tragedy in the world, and I would worship her to the point of doing everything in my power to make her feel appreciated. Even though she would understand that I would like to engage in a bit of age-play from time to time.
So my apologies if this upsets anyone, but it's been a long day for me and I've seen the city's best lawyer, went to a chiropractor and immediately got referred to an X-ray and well.
Bottom line: Claiming that masturbation is harmfull is a claim that needs to be supported by other sources than christian-sponsored ones.
This is not a Christian-sponsored source to my knowledge:
https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/research-articles-and-abstracts
And the research he cites is certainly not all Christian (I don't know if any of it is). Neither are most the men who seek to help themselves out of the problems caused by porn and masturbation motivated by moralistic concerns, but the inability to perform well with women.
Have you looked at it at all? We are not claiming that masturbation automatically causes brain damage, but combined with modern porn it does, and since that is the way males now masturbate, this is the reality we need to address.
It is very strange, if you believe this is just Christian nonsense, that it is not mixed with a condemnation of promiscuity or homosexuality or extramarital sex or anything else religious people get worked up over except porn and masturbation itself. And we don't criticize these things on moral grounds, but based on how they diminish the male libido and sexual function, with no attention whatsoever to whether that sex is otherwise religiously approved. Men who want to be monogamous or promiscuous or whatever are equally welcome in the nofap movement, all united by a desire to enjoy sex fully. Claiming this has anything to do with "sin" is missing the point entirely. Well, except to be better sinners in the good ways :)
There is a little bit of nonsense mixed in there like a section on "Studies linking porn use to 'un-egalitarian attitudes' toward women" -- LOL! -- but we can ignore that and focus on the unambiguous harm like erectile dysfunction which is more than reason enough to shun masturbation like the plague (and this IS brain damage!). And even without that, the opportunity cost is also bad enough as I already explained.
Well, being pretty much a pervert myself, I don't think I am in the best position to argue on this issue.
Also I don't want others to find grounds to defame you, by posting my opinions on sexuality on your blog, I've gots my own blog and I will be activating that in the near future.
That said, I maintain my questioning of the reliability of your sources - one point is the issue that I am raising personally, that I don't function very well with adult women to begin with, and so masturbation is for me easier.
And as you have mentioned, if I were to seek out a partner rather than be content with masturbating, chances are that due to my preferences I would end up commiting a much worse crime than merely downloading imagery that sexualizes minors.
And also, lots of men are merely not attractive to women - either because of poor financial status, health, fashion sense or just that women have so many other options to pick and choose from, that we men kind of draw the short straw.
Each and every day. Well, some straws are longer, but I digress. Also, pun intended.
The sources are pretty standard journal articles. You can question the quality of many of those, but it's the best source we have and when they collectively tell the same story it's worth paying attention. I like this one, for example:
http://addicta.com.tr/en/article/eliminate-chronic-internet-pornography-use-to-reveal-its-effects/
Do you have any particular reason to distrust that journal? We are dealing with a new phenomenon that you can't just dismiss because the Romans also masturbated. "There’s growing evidence that today’s streaming pornography videos are sui generis, with unique properties such as inexhaustible sexual novelty at a swipe, effortless escalation to more extreme material, and accessibility by youthful viewers, and that these unique properties are giving rise to severe symptoms in some consumers."
Also, just because you would be committing crimes if you expressed your sexuality to the max doesn't mean the alternative is healthy. The problem there is the law, which I grant you may be a greater evil than masturbation, but my point stands.
Well, to make it simple: You don't so much get invited to dinners with politicians if you argue that prostitution lower rates of rape.
And 'growing evidence', my hat.
You find evidence where you go look for it - no offense intended towards you - and so, empiricism is a question about attempting to find falsification, and coming up with nothing.
I refer you to the article: 'Porn causes no measurable harm', here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/200904/does-pornography-cause-social-harm
I could also link to studies that showed that access to mild child pornography in five nations, has been found to lead to lower rates of actual hands-on abuse, because as the argument goes, pornography is a substitute.
Which, I am sorry to put in writing on your blog, but at least the non-illegal types such as nudism can actually help release the strain and so on.
Gally, that article is measuring the wrong things. I am not claiming that pornography causes "social harm" -- it harms men's personal sexual satisfaction, which is something society doesn't give a flying fuck about. If porn doesn't increase rape or otherwise harm women, then it is declared harmless, but so what? Few studies care to measure the things I am actually talking about, erectile dysfunction first and foremost, and the ones that do find harm.
Indeed, the study you cite shows exactly what I say, that porn leads to less sex, including rape and teen sex and pregnancies, but that is not good for men. Less sex is exactly the problem I am railing against and why you should never masturbate if you value sex.
And yes, porn is a "substitute," but why would you want a substitute? Ok, in your case to stay out of jail, but most men are not facing that issue so the choice is obvious. It is foolish to let a substitute (with zero intrinsic value in my estimation) displace your sex life, which is the insidious effect of porn unless you consciously say no to it.
It is as if men's sexual interests don't exist. They are not part of the social welfare. This is why we need male sexualism, gentlemen. If we don't stand up for the value of male sexuality, no one will.
I see now that it's incredibly difficult to convince even men in our own movement of the positive value of male sexuality. This is very sad, but understandable given all the hateful propaganda against our sexuality. Yesterday I went to great lengths explaining how porn and masturbation harms the male libido and performance, and Gally counters this by a study showing that women are unharmed, or actually benefit, from men masturbating. Yeah, if all you care about is women's well-being, then by all means, masturbate... That is also the position of at least two other prominent figures in our movement, The Antifeminist and Holocaust21.
As the leader of male sexualism, however, I take responsibility to formulate a coherent ideology worthy of the name. The male sexualist ethos is fundamentally that male sexuality is a good thing. We oppose anything that harms normal male sexuality, and we define normal male sexuality far more broadly than the mainstream, to include underage sex and so-called sexual harassment and prostitution and a lot of what feminists call rape. All of this we defend against any dangers -- primarily laws, obviously, but it is also incumbent on us to warn men against sexually unhealthy personal practices such as masturbation.
gally is an idiot, liar, and crazy.but, he's your man eivind.you can't abandon him now.
I wouldn't use those words, John, and I am not abandoning him, just pointing out disagreements. And most of that is probably down to ignorance. It is not obvious how harmful masturbation is until you quit and have an epiphany which will open your eyes to what you have been missing.
no, I fully understand the points you've made.the thing is, I've gone months without doing it.the longest probably 8 months.im simply not attractive to women, AND I don't meet wo.en! I run my own business and have for decades.I'd be very open to dating.im not scared of females,I just have zero social life.i don't hang out at bars and never will.so,where am I going to meet a non alcoholic, sane, employed woman? I'm not exactly at the top of the dominance hierarchy, to put it mildly. as a result of my "upbringing" and yep,malevolence I've faced/ endured I'm quite the introvert now.im taking no risks anymore.they just locked up a guy here in Florida for giving his girlfriend a 'wet Willy!
a battery charge for THAT.and the cops reminded me it's a federal charge to "threaten" to rape some twat online.good thing I never did that because if I did, believe me I'd be GONE. trust me I KNOW what I've missed but for me, women are a no go.at least western women are.
I wouldn't recommend picking up women in bars anyway, as that is terribly inefficient. Ideally you approach them in the street, shops and other day venues, but that requires so much courage that it's not really feasible, so you should use dating sites. Response rates will be low, but it's only a matter of putting in the effort. You can even date out of your league if you are willing to put in more effort. There was a study on this:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/08/health/online-dating-out-of-league-desirability-study/index.html
"In messaging women higher up the ladder, the best men can hope for, on average, is a reply to one out of every five messages."
That is a ridiculously high response rate that I don't believe though. You should be happy with 1% and keep in mind that the rest of the effort isn't really wasted if it leads to success in the end.
yes indeed.but I can't put MY photo up there?! haha. I'd also HAVE to use a fake name.i mean HAVE to but I don't want to as i DON'T lie.also I better grow some 5 '6' isn't short short but it's not tall either.oh yeah, I almost forgot!I just went to a prosthodontist(I think that how you spell that) anyway, after a very extensive thorough examination,after a month I came into get the treatment plan.i need a mere $35,000 dollars worth of work.these mucho wear on my teeth mainly from being a night grinder(bruxism)a LOT of crowns are required.i don't smile much.ALL my enamel is gone.either from years of drinking sodas, or acid reflux or both so they can NOT be whitened.now,if you're kinda short, and balding, you GOTTA have a nice set of white teeth.the thing is, do I invest 35 grand to try to snag a woman? unlikely really.and of course I KNEW they would try to sell that very idea. "the ladies will go crazy for you". I think that's the exact quote(or close enough) she used.
btw eivind, I agree regarding masturbation.it should only be done up to a certain point/age.it really should not be happening in your twenties.and yes I'll leave approaching women in the street to Mr "roosh" although it seems to work for him in places like
Kiev, warsaw.if I cold approached women here? I could easily land in jail.
I don't believe height is so much of an issue. It is good to fix your teeth, but you don't need to go with the most expensive treatment.
I hear ya! but that 35 grand is on the low end! this isn't even implants.that would put me above 100 grand.the problems are multiple.i need to have ALL my teeth 'built up' first,then crowned.it's actually mostly neccessary.only the front crowns are for aesthetic reasons.if I just do the top 6 teeth, I'd have a smile and it would probably be around "just" 10 grand, but I really need to build up all of my teeth.they are so worn, they have cracks in them. I had to have one pulled last year and I wasn't eating hard candy of course.it was just a nacho type chip and it broke.so it's complicated as you can imagine.anyway, I probably mentioned this before, but none other than Mr Jordan Peterson is coming to Orlando, just 60 miles from me, this month.i have to decide if I'm going soon.if I do,I'll go with the upgrade.you get a meet n greet, picture with him if you want.(I would pass on that, I'm NOT photogenic). I'm also not into autographs.i WOULD like to ask him a few questions though.
@John, you are free to have your opinions of me.
But, I would like to know why you call me a liar. Calling me crazy and an idiot is merely subjective opinions, but if you are going to go throwing slurs around, I think you should at least back up what you can back up. Or, take a step back and reflect on whether you have grounds for such name-calling.
Back on the subject, I and Eivind is just having an amicable discussion here, on the principle that you should at least disagree with someone sometimes - or else it would be pretty boring.
Now, I would posit that Eivind might be right, given that the treatment manual from the Dunkelfeld Project (the one that helps pedophiles successfully) lists that one very important thing is to find a partner that one can bond to emotionally and socially, even though one might prefer *ahem* someone younger.
That said, one size does not fit all, and whilst I agree that sexual interaction should be a part of a normal human development, not all humans are 'normal'.
So what I am trying to say is that I am arguing from being a 'special case' in perhaps more ways than one, and I am making this case on the grounds of having read some pretty weird things.
In the end we may need to agree to disagree, but what with sex-robots coming and women getting more and more 'demanding' and 'needy', I think perhaps the cost outweighs the benefits.
Gally is a mangina. Plain and simple.
I have a other life interests than bickering / trolling over the internet.
That said, I am somewhat at a loss at what you wish to accomplish - other that throwing slurs.
Care to elaborate? Should, for example, every man on this planet procreate when we know that the planet is already overpopulated and so on?
oh I disagree with much.so much so I'm apparently banned for life from Twitter. I disagree with feminists on everything.i don't agree with the ideology Mexicans are this country's big problem.i don't agree we need to waste trillions on "defence", billions on building walls we just don't need. against what anyway?.of course America is despised internationally,but there's no threat.and yes Trump needs to go.hindsight is 20/20 but it's self evident Hillary, as much I hate her would've made a better president by far.shes sane(other than being a war criminal) and that right now looks and sounds good. but if you go around telling the truth, as Peterson strongly advises,you can easily become a social pariah/outcast.i must not be very "agreeable" because everyone either hates or fears me.and I would LOVE to go back on Twitter, but I risk arrest! if I do, it's hard to believe but that's the way it is.ONE very privileged(yet still "oppressed") feminist on there doesnt feel "safe" when im on there.oh well, like you said g ally, why would anyone want to argue with idiots on twitter? so I should disagree more? not going to happen on here.im ANTI feminist.im against the war on men.but, I fully realize, I'll NEVER get any support. online or in real life.its every man for himself in America, and I'm NEVER going to jail over any bitch.ever.
the more thought I put into this masturbation 'debate',I do believe it's psychologically damaging.where I would disagree with eivind is that if I quit I'd suddenly be successful with women.look,they are either attracted to you or they are not.however,I can only speak for myself!it might be just the thing for the next guy.now, apparently, boys are being taught at age 5 they are chock full of "toxic masculinity" and are evil if they're white, well you're going to have an entire generation of boys growing up to be trans/mangina/feminist freaks/serial masturbators.great time to have NO kids.
Fair enough, so you have your strong (and slightly sourly) opinions, but can't back up your claim than I have lied.
All the best to you; as we all have our challenges and so on.
('Gally' is a name coming from a manga BTW, not something to stoop down to misrepresenting as a government ally in disguise or whatever you meant by 'g ally').
@Gally
You lied about you intention to post the verdict.
And why is that? Because the verdict will show how you corporated with the police, and how you stupid you had to have been to get caught, that you probably have some kind of mental illness, and how much of a mangina you really are.
I never 'corporated' with the police. Did you mean to say cooperated?
Anyway, your accusations does not stick and my decision not to post the verdict do not amount to a lie.
I have my priorities and if you can't distinguish between other people's wishes and your own, well then right there is your problem.
yea,I was curious about that myself.you claimed you had something like a year and a half to do in prison.was that all a delusional fantasy/hallucination, or just a big ol lie?
I can confirm that Gally's trial was very real and he has been honest about it. He did not want to post the judgment, but that's an understandable decision given that he has to live with the publicity. The prison time is also real, but he is free pending an appeal that may change it.
@John
Well prison time is currently at two years and three months, which is crazy in my view and completely political.
I have never ever shared anything nor given people information on where to find things, and the stuff that I downloaded (90%+) was basically photo-model things with the full consent of the parents.
'
So call me a pervert if you like, but please do not call me a liar.
And also, I have gotten 'offers' if you get my drift, but I have turned them all down because I wish to be a decent person with a mature understanding of what benefits minors and so on and so forth.
So I am not so crazy or stupid as you may wish to call me. ;)
nah, you're fine man.i just make it a point of mine to a.never support "mras" or victims of the "justice" system because ive never received any support at all from same.and b. I no longer believe anyone,(even if I know for a fact they're telling the truth) as no one believes me.so, nothing personal.
@Gally
That you never acted on you urges does not make you any less of a mangina. That's the thing that you dont get.
And yes, you lied when you said you would post the verdict in anonymized form. You never posted shit.
Fine, call me a ḿangina all you like, but read on the rules and it so simple.
Also, I would very much like to say that not everybody who feels a sexual attracion to minor or children, act upon it.
So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
@Gally
Oh man you had to be mighty stupid to get caught! And with your giant collection of gay illegal porn, we know you have no social life and is only a wanking virgin bc like you cry about every day, "you never acted upon it". Cowardly bitch. Male sexualism dont need people like you who apoligizes like faggot bitches and dont want to fuck real girls/Women.
There is no indication that he had gay porn, so quit making up accusations about that.
Um yeah, while I can absolutely respect gay people - and have slept over at their place with no probs, and have had strangers sleep in my bedroom (after just saying I wasn't gay), I can absolutely attest that I am completely heterosexual
So chose your slurs more carefully, please.
As for your opinion me being stupid, I have preorded several books on information security and am currently enrolled at a university where I study just that.
And to my enjoyment, aftBer four years of waiting, the 'Manga guide to Cryptography' just got released and of course I was on the subscriber-list for that so I got it and read it in a day.
I did not manage to read Bruce Schneier's 'Applied Cryptography' in a day though, but its a bit outdated (though a classic).
So the way I see it, you have failed to accuse me of being 1) a liar, and 2) a gay, and now you are faced with the problem of trying to accuse me of 3) being stupid.
I don't think you have a snowball's chance in hell of making that stick.
Namedropping some books dont make you smart. Getting caught with illegal downloaded material makes you hella' stupid.
@Gally
Preordering books is your way of documenting how incredible smart you supposedly are? That's special ...
BTW: Your appeal will get you nowhere.
Enough of this now. Remember that the feminist sex laws are the enemy here, not people accused of breaking them. Male sexualists have nothing to gain by fighting amongst ourselves.
@Anon: 'Getting caught with illegal downloaded material makes you hella' stupid.'
Yeah well I take offense from you calling me 'stupid'. So congrats on your trolling, if that was your purpose.
Now, I have purchased two machines that are physically secure, and I have set them up so that nothing gets through them. In other words, I have secured my information.
And in light of the Spectre-attacks my next rig will be a Talos II which is based on the Power 9 proc, so calling me stupid is off the mark.
Am I Miss Calculation, or Miss Miss-Calculation?
Wait and see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB-sRzWh28A
@Gally
If you had normal intelligence, you would have taken care of your security before you did all that illegal downloading of material for you masturbation habit. Not after.
Well some of us are slow learners.
On the other hand, some of us are 'slow learnes' in some fields, but quick learnes elsywhere.
And so I offer to you, a number of quotes from Peter Watts:https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/27167.Peter_Watts
Enjoy.
wow.if you didn't see Serena Williams epic meltdown yesterday, it was something to behold!
she was correctly docked a game for being a total bitch,demanding an apology from the umpire, getting coached, a big no no there, AND smashing her raquet, while losing the final.then, after the match, she stated it was "sexism"! that there's a "double standard" that men never get fined like that. then, she said she was playing for "gender equality" and "women's rights"??!! of course Jordan Peterson is correct,these people know EXACTLY what they're doing.and BIG surprise, ALL the female commentators excused her horrendous behaviour while the male commentators kept nice and quiet to keep their jobs,the usual...poor oppressed Serena, she's only worth an estimated $400 million.im really hoping she retires.she's so damn fat it is embarassing.no shame either.
All go here guys:
https://8ch.net/mssm/catalog.html
New male sexualism board, we make it great guys!
wow.35 YEARS later, some female claims she was raped by kavanaugh.and, of course she wants to remain anonymous.funny time to come out with this allegation! is this kind of shit going to end ever in America? total fabrication as far as I can tell.and FUCK this you 'MUST believe any/all women'.now, after I got attacked by that fuckin psycho cop I reported it immediately. will I ever get a dime? fuck no, NOBODY cares one shit when a man gets a beat down.but at least I didn't wait decades to report it.and there's still, I'd say, one in 500 chance I will get some compensation.
Prosecution for "historical" sex offenses is routine in Britain, so we know a feminist system is fully capable of this. Based on the accusers' word alone too, who also get to remain anonymous. Americans have so far been protected by statutes of limitations, but those are on their way out and it wouldn't surprise me if 35-year-old accusations soon will be seen as perfectly normal to base a case on. Or 50+ years for that matter.
probably! police states ONLY get worse.at least kavanaugh totally denies it.that's all you can do!
an 11th hour accusation and I'm called 'part of the problem' when I say her story is crap online. because I don't automatically believe these women? truly incredible just how MANY manginas have been created.these guys just don't get how much women despise men.and now she's saying kavanaugh didn't just grope her but since he allegedly put his hand over her mouth she was scared 'he would accidentally kill her'.shes getting reimbursed I'd say,from the metoo pool of cash by the democrats.and I have zero 'skin in this game'.i don't care if kavanaugh gets in or not! the other news item of this last week is still the Serena Williams meltdown/hysterical reaction to acting like a spoiled, entitled bitch.im happy to report that, imo, 90% of the comments are rightfully against her, and for the umpire she launched her embarrassing tirade on.of course those 'sjws' are up in arms and all the talking heads on the tennis channel.they are super pc on there and don't want to lose their easy jobs.i could NEVER be a commentator, I'd be fired the first day.
It's a repetition of the Clarence Thomas hearings, isn't it? Except the climate against men now is ten times more hateful and nothing short of rape accusations will do where they used to be content with "sexual harassment."
yep, and they ramped this story up. "I was scared he would accidentally kill me".that crap insults my intelligence, but sounds better than 'groped' in their little "minds".and they now have the FBI investigating this rubbish.
serena says: 'i wasnt coached'-her coach later admitted he coached her and, oops, you can SEE him coaching her from the stands!.lying bitches everywhere now.fun times!
ha,did you see that Mrs 'blasey Ford', kavanaughs accuser wants the fbi to investigate this before she testifies? and the fbi wants NOTHING to do with investigating a 'grope' from 36 years ago of course.firstly,it's not a federal crime! and statute of limitations.i hope she doesn't show up and they just vote next week.fuck her bullshit/exaggerated story.maybe she can hang out with that beast Asia argento and rose McGowan.
so, this is a good one.i was watching the Thom Hartmann show today,and mr Thom isn't just a liberal, hes slid over to lefty idiot.BIG time feminist.anyway,the topic is kavanaugh of course, and how he's one nasty "sexual predator" and I couldn't help but call in(that fuckin no free will again,unfortunately) I knew I shouldn't call in, I'll just get cut off, called a troll, but I still did it. so after a good while I'm on.the first thing I said was I'm a classic liberal,and there's zero evidence kavanaugh did anything to this woman.so,Thom says, oh yes there is,she told her THERAPIST a few years ago(those USED to be client privlege, but since Menendez,don't say anything to these fucks) I came back with that's not evidence,just as I was cut off.i gotta admit that really pissed me off,and after the call he was talking to a guest "jeez another troll" .so, another reminder I have no free will(I KNEW it was a stupid move,but felt compelled to call) and the LAST time I call into any show ever again.stupid me trying to use logic on any fuckin American?
Du er omtalt her: https://forskning.no/menneskerettigheter-kjonn-og-samfunn-podcast/barnlose-menn-hat-frihet-og-seksuell-seleksjon/1241714
Eivind, I dont think you are the one to define male sexuality on behalf of all men.
Both me, and you are male adults, but the approach and view on sexuallity is miles away.
Post a Comment