Saturday, December 01, 2018

Is nofap misogynistic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


john said...

ok.I'm going! it isn't.
I guess feminists are shuddering with hortor that there's going to be yet ANOTHER massive tsunami of rapes!! but we ALREADY live in a "rape culture" everyone knows that! (plenty of real world crime stat evidence debunks the hell out of that, but facts are now irrelevant)
so I say, go for it, or rather, don't.

but I could quit forever and it still wouldn't make ME desirable to women in the slightest.

Eivind Berge said...

Anything which doesn't serve women is labeled misogyny today. Nofap is the radical idea that men can do something for themselves, without judging its goodness based on how women are affected. We have perfectly good reasons regardless. When normal male sexuality is called "rape culture" even when it is numbed down by fapping, of course it will be much worse when we express our true nature, but so be it. That is, if enough men did it to matter, which is not the case yet, but it is enough to scare some feminists.

If any men reading this still think fapping is harmless, please pay attention to how desperately feminists want you to fap and consider whose interests they really are thinking about. Don't take a woman's advice on what is good for your sexuality, gentlemen.

Nofap feels like a superpower, but really it is just the way you should be by default. Your sex drive is naturally that awesome if you give it free reign. The fact that I called it a superpower shows my own indoctrination with the lie that masturbation is OK and I apologize for that.

john said...

it sure it would help me, and no doubt millions of other victims, if I had those millions of nerve endings back.but it doesn't stop there.if you wear underwear, and really who doesn't? by the time you're 30? or younger, that area will be nearly desensitized by the rubbing action. enjoy.

Anonymous said...

Paul the Apostle was not a misogynist, feminists disagree, but they are full of soup. He is a testimony that men don't have to kowtow to bonoboing around. Much freedom in Christ. Unregenerate people only push bondage, and they're always nosing in other people's business.

john said...

I don't. And I GUESS there's "freedom" in Christ if you happen to believe in such nonsense. this Jesus, christ, Zeus, Allah, whatever, existence is absurd.

if this Jesus were around today,he'd be homeless and or in jail on some pretty powerful meds.he's clearly insane at best for "building" trillions off galaxies full of billions of stars and planets. at worst he enjoys suffering.either way I want no part of the pos.keep waiting for that rapture's just a few billion years off.

Anonymous said...

John, your just another whiner/scorner. Good day.

Eivind Berge said...

Actually, John raises a couple of important points in need of rebuttal when he speaks of circumcision as if circumcised men can't benefit from nofap. I have not been cut, but I still speak with some authority when I say it doesn't matter (much). And the reason I can say that is because I have the condition known as aposthia, which means I was born without much of a foreskin. I retain the nerve endings and frenulum, but for all other practical intents and purposes I am just like circumcised, which anyone would guess I was by looking.

And I can tell you that my sensitivity is top-notch at 40 thanks to nofap. Any more sensitivity would be premature ejaculation, and I can cum inside a vagina in seconds if I want to. So at least the claim of desensitization by rubbing action from underwear is nonsense in my experience. All you need to do is practice nofap, and you will be fine. I don't support genital mutilation, but those are the facts.

Before I took up nofap though, I did believe in the underwear desensitization myth myself and thought I was afflicted by it. While I was usually able to ejaculate inside the women I slept with, it wasn't as easy as it should be and sometimes it failed. I remember in particular one girl I had this problem with, yet I didn't in my ignorant mind connect it with masturbation. She was a super hot young waitress named Lana from a bar I frequented when I was in college, whom I miraculously managed to get into bed one night, and I couldn't cum in her no matter how hard I tried. There's clear evidence of the morbidity of masturbation for you, which might even have cost me a chance to conceive.

And now, more than 15 years later, I have no sensitivity issues at all! Fapping is much, much worse than you think. Even if you escape the impotence (called PIED for porn-induced erectile dysfunction) that so many porn users face, it still leads to other problems such as delayed ejaculation and way less sexual enjoyment and motivation.

By the way, it is said that the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) was also born without a foreskin. So we are both special in that sense, and if I may be allowed a little humorous indulgence it is no wonder I was also destined to lead a great movement. Being born aposthic is a special sign that I hereby institute as an honorary distinction of male sexualism. I don't know how hereditary it is, but I can say that if any women reading this want a chance to have sons who appear circumcised without putting them through the trauma of mutilation, just contact me and I will get you naturally inseminated, as many times as it takes to conceive. This would be great for Jewish and other women who want their sons to blend into a circumcised society.

john said...

yea,there's a lot of people that think you can't ever have a real, intimate sexual relationship with a woman if you've had half your dick cut off, and I fully agree with them.being cut matters a LOT.

Eivind Berge said...

I agree it is a barbaric practice, but I think you are taking it too far and using it as an excuse for not trying to make the best of what you've got, especially since there is nothing you can do about it once you are cut. And when it's a natural trait as in aposthia it is not an issue at all, though I agree that's not entirely comparable since no nerves have been severed.

john said...

yes,well it seems you're in the "mind over matter" and every decision you make is entirely yours when you didn't choose your parents, didn't choose your genes,didn't choose to be mutilated at birth, and in my case I certainly didn't choose to grind my teeth down to nearly nothing. 'free will' is as real as the gender pay gap.

one just has to look at twins seperated at birth, then are reunited decades later driving the same car, same color,dress exactly alike, same jobs, etc.i see zero free will there and if were all "unique" as these theologians insist why does this
situation exist? and also it helps proves we don't have "souls" either. we're not unique.

once again, this is why we don't fundamentally change, and it's not "stubborness" or "habit". for instance, I'm exactly where I'm "supposed" to be in couldn't have went any other way.

i could never have been a concert pianist, or professional tennis player.those people start VERY young and THEIR parents had/have deep free will again.

many tennis professionals start hating playing,young, I mean 20,24 years old, even while simultaneously raking in millions a year! but theyre stuck. they'll continue to play until burned out mentally and or physically because? no choice.

Eivind Berge said...

Being where you are "supposed" to be... what a concept. While there is some truth to it, actually a lot of truth statistically, one can at least refuse let it become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I am not "supposed" to be dating teen girls either, yet here I am very close to doing that because I have no limiting beliefs or respect for the norms that say I shouldn't aside from the pragmatic need to avoid breaking the law. In a way, those of us who haven't followed the traditional script have an advantage as middle-aged men, over all the "officially" successful men with a same-age wife and kids who are too scared to deviate from the norm. They had their pick of girls when they were young, and now they have limitations, while for us it is the opposite -- or at least we can make a reasonable shot at it.

john said...

well, good luck with that! a man that's say 44 years old, like DiCaprio is,he's dating a very hot 21 year old and of course, getting hell on the internet for it.

i left some comments like: HE doesn't have to date an old hag his age as these women suggest.they also say there's "something wrong with HIM".haha, i had to remind them again,his smv is very high, he can date these 'barely legal' models and he does, and of course it's quite normal.

but I don't dare go anywhere near these females but especially underage?! not in America, no's not respect for norms, I just would rather not get set up and die in prison.Thailand,Philippines where women are considered dirt(ya know,because they ARE)

Theantifeminist said...

You're a heterosexual man but with really feminist opinions and attitudes. An embarrassment for the MRA community.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't know if that comment is real or from an impostor, but it is obviously a delusional claim. How can I be feminist at the same time as feminists are calling nofap misogynistic? Can't you at least come up with a more original word for us sexualists if you want to embrace asexuality?

theantifeminist said...

That comment was not made by me, but it's not exactly a million miles from the truth.

Feminist and Guardian writers will attack any exclusively male online hub as a potential threat. But Nofap is a feminist mentality in terms of its anti-porn position.

What do you think feminists have devoted more time to over the last few years? Anti-porn or anti-nofap? You can point to one article attacking nofap. I can point to a million articles, as well as hundreds of pieces of feminist legislation worldwide, as well as thousands of men incarcerated and likely raped (Norwegian prisons aren't real prisons) because of those feminist laws (but that's o.k, because Eivind doesn't want actual laws against porn, or maybe not too many, or only on a Wednesday).

My sub-title on my blog for ten years including the term -' pro-male sexualilty'. I'm pretty sure I've used the term 'male sexualist' in the past, and I certainly was considering the term for an alternative men's rights movement.. I didn't because I never wanted to (and still don't) abandon the MRM simply because it's been hijacked and perverted by Elam and his 'Honey Badgers'.

You have no right really to take what we've fought for for over a decade, the fight against feminist laws defining male sexuality and repressing male sexual freedoms, and impose such extreme positions, including feminist anti-porn dogmas and embracing 'paedophile advocacy' and 'MAPs' and all that nonsense.

I will come back and publish my own manifesto. The dilemma for me is that I abandon the struggle, then it's in your anti-porn/erotica hands. If I do come back and identify as a 'male sexualist', then I'm trying to wrest back the soul of a movement that you've allowed to be hijacked by real paedophile activsts, feminist 'MAPs', and probable Iranian government agents who are claiming that 'male sexualists' want to legalize child rape and such.

The anti-porn position has no future. The real and digital worlds will become merged over time, and adopting 'nofap' is Luddite resistance to modernity while supporting feminism. You can see this on Instagram or Snapchat where even HB10s are making themselves cuter with filters and effects. That's only a hint of what's around the corner with augmented reality. Where do you stand on that? Do you agree that 'airbrushing should be illegal? (a law that would have a side-effect possibly of making Snapchat type filters illegal?). Maybe just 'commercially regulated'? And why stop there anyway? If you support feminists in thinking it's wrong that in twenty years time men could have virtual sex indistinguishable from the real thing with holograms or sexbots,designed by AI and biometric feedback to perfectly resemble their ultimate dream girl, or even live tactile virtual reality sex with real (but maybe 'enhanced') webcam performers, shouldn't pure nofappers like you also be against makeup and condoms, silicone implants and perfumes? Anything other than raw, physical, caveman/cavewoman impregnation, as it existed in 50,000 BC, odors and all?

Eivind Berge said...

We don't have a thousand articles by feminists against nofap yet because the nofap movement is relatively new. Feminists are just now starting to discover that nofap is detrimental to their cause because men are just now starting to practice nofap in significant numbers. Including men like me who are confirmed antifeminist with the wisdom to know that nofap serves our cause and hurts feminism.

And what are they going to do, make masturbation mandatory? Jail me for inciting men not to masturbate? While I wouldn't put it past them if they understood what we are really trying to do, such criminalization would be so radically different from how the sex laws are currently justified, and the pseudoscience related to that, that I don't see it coming any time soon. Those dimwits are still stuck in the ironic delusion that they are fighting underage sex by being tough on child porn -- LOL!

What they can do, and have started doing, is to spread misinformation like the Psychology Today article you posted, which is a mixture of wrong and irrelevant claims (and based on research soundly rebutted by Your Brain on Porn along with hundreds of other similar articles). It is beside the point whether porn "addiction" is real and how it compares to other addictions. All we really need to know in order to arrive at my nofap position is the lived experience of how much better a typical man's sex life becomes when he quits masturbation and porn, and the evidence for that is overwhelming.

The MRM has failed to gain wide appeal so far, but now for the first time we are closely aligned with something approaching a mass movement. Let's face it: the idea of opposing sex laws is not enough to get men excited. The joy of discovering nofap and feeling the magic it works on your sex life, however, is tantamount to a religious conversion. Of course we should harness this power to promote the rest of our ideology, which is so closely related anyway.

No, I don't want laws against pornography or VR sex or image filters or airbrushing or sex toys or condoms or body modifications or makeup or anything of the sort. I am a hardline libertarian when it comes to all those things. I support yours and anyone's rights to freely make use of such, just like I support your right to eat a crappy diet and smoke and use recreational drugs, but that doesn't prevent me from recommending against lifestyle choices that I know to be harmful.

[to be continued]

Anonymous said...

Porn is garbage, porn is addictive, porn is sexual violence (not against women but violence in general), I don't give a shit how many psychologists and psychiatrists (pseudoscience that created that "hebephilia" that you hate so much) say otherwise, my life was almost destroyed by porn, I have tried to commit suicide several times and has prevented me from having a relationship with a woman. You just have to see yourself, a heterosexual man unable to have a girlfriend and if you die you only left a apartment full of sex toys and porn on your computer. I will say it until death: PORN IS TRASH THAT MUST BE ERRADICATED.

Eivind Berge said...

As to the "Luddite" claim that I in some sense oppose "anything other than raw, physical, caveman/cavewoman impregnation, as it existed in 50,000 BC, odors and all" -- yes, that would be a fair description of my position. Because you know what, all our technology hasn't really improved on that. With the possible exception of modern hygienic practices, mattresses and obviously Viagra (which is rarely needed by nofappers anyway until they get old or sick), no modern technology makes sex better, and it often hurts. Have you seen a woman whose looks was actually improved by plastic surgery? Me neither! Makeup helps a little, but that too is almost nil compared to the natural beauty of youth, and no amount of technology can make a woman intensely attractive once her youth is gone. The Singularity that you dream about is science fiction nowhere in sight, so I don't need to seriously consider the implication of intelligent sexbots yet. But let me say, just to be prepared for something I believe to be centuries off, that in the event that human-level artificial intelligence is ever developed, I would be open to the possibility that one might have meaningful relationships with AIs including sexbots.

As I have grown to identify with the male "sexualist" label, I increasingly see it as my mission to promote sexuality over asexuality, and the more I think about masturbation and related paraphernalia, the clearer it becomes that it all belongs in the asex category. Masturbation is the opposite of sex, not something to be promoted or protected or even mentioned alongside sexual practices. I support your right to view pornography (including CP) because I am an anti-censorship hardliner, but my support stops there. I will give no further encouragement because I know porn is harmful to male sexuality. It is also incredibly exploitative of men that women can make money on "sex work" without having sex with the customer. On Tinder I am constantly annoyed by girls who spam their Snapchat to get men to pay for premium, but no men would fall for that shit if they practiced nofap, and women would have to actually put out if they wanted something from us. Wouldn't that be a better world for men? Of course it would! And of course I am the one promoting men's interests here while you are being a useful idiot for the feminists.

Anonymous said...

Already in 1800 it was denounced (by men) that older men date or marry young girls (especially teenagers):

Basically this play says that marrying and pairing with young girls is irrational, backward and by that time even "misogynistic", morally reprehensible, and that young girls are "really" incapable of consent such age difference relationships.

Marriages between young women and mature men were not to the liking of Enlightenment thinkers (to whom Moratin adheres) for two reasons:

- One of moral type, since in them love was lacking as a bond that strengthens the true cohesion of the couple. (So love is between people of similiar age)

- The other affected the demographic growth, because these marriages used to have little or no offspring because of the older age of the husband. This is seen in the play when Irene, who married older men, says she had 22 children and only one lived. (So date young girls is a evolutionary error).

The young girl in the play is 16 years old, so can be a direct denunciation of relationships with teenagers as well of relationships with "age difference" in general. At the end of the other the young girl marries a boy of her age, and according to this play reason is imposed, and that in life one must be based on reason and not impetus and passion (date young girls).

It is basically considered a proto-feminist work and is usually performed by feminist actresses who seem to love the work, and men? men cheers the play and seem to agree with repudiating relationships with teenagers or young women as something morally reprensive.

What do you think of all of this?

Eivind Berge said...

I feel no kinship with proto-feminists, so I do not care that they already expressed misandrist attitudes in 1801. Nor do I care that some men cheered for feminism then or now, which is hardly original and often done by hypocritical men whose personal lives are full of what feminists consider sexual misconduct anyway.

The assertion that love can only exist between people of similar age is sheer nonsense. Men obviously love younger women more, and women are quite capable of loving older men as well.

It is true that elderly men produce sperm of lesser quality than young men. But looking at what this difference amounts to, the science only justifies that it (today) would mean at most something like 1% birth defects or other serious complications rather than 0.5%. If a man can beget 22 children, then statistically at least 21 of them would be perfectly healthy no matter his age. The play's suggestion that an older father will have 21 out of 22 children die because he is old is ludicrously idiotic. I can believe that a good number of his children would die due to the much higher infant mortality back in the 1800s, but that wouldn't be because the father is old.

Eivind Berge said...

And that's a lesson in the difference between absolute and relative risk for you. The relative risk increase might be impressive, but you have to look at absolute risk to understand what it really means. So pay no attention to the tabloids on this. They can use similar numbers to make scary headlines about anything, for example that you are 100% more likely to die of cancer if you eat red meat, but if it's 99.5% likely to have no effect, is it really worth going vegan? I think not. And if you are an older father, your children are still 99% sure to turn out healthy, so it's nothing to worry about.

I feel bad and slightly guilty that my IVF attempt with the Nigerian woman failed, after she spent so much money and effort and it was likely her last chance to have a baby. Perhaps she would have had a slight edge if she had chosen a man half my age, but the difference is very small there too. Still, for sperm donation it does make sense to cut men off at 40 or 45 as is commonly done. Anyway, I plan to try to conceive naturally from now on, and those attempts do not have so much at stake, so my age is absolutely nothing to worry about for either myself or the woman.

Eivind Berge said...

This is actually a good argument for age difference. Older women at the end of their reproductive lives should pair up with young men who will enthusiastically fuck them (or donate to IVF) with the best quality sperm, and older men should pair up with young women or teenage girls who don't need to stress about fertility because they can always have more children if it's a little more difficult to conceive. And of course, having a young woman will make the older man an equally enthusiastic lover as the young man again too :)

Anonymous said...

Hi Eivind. If red meat wasn't the product of an immoral act like killing an animal, you'd be right, just eat red meat. But there's a problem: It's worth it for the animal that dies horribly to you eat a piece of his corpse.

Veganism is an ethic not a "diet", the fact that eating meat is healthy is not morally irrelevant, what is morally relevant is that the animal you want to you eat wants to live and that its rights are violated for that.

So why don't you support eating human flesh? It's 99'99% healthy. The only reason to eat the meat of a pig (that have a mental equiparation to a 4yo child) is because of the species, and specism like racism is immoral, the only thing that matters to have rights is the interests (living, integrity) not the species. There is no moral difference between specism and racism.

The only reason no one kills and eats you is because moral consideration has been extended to all humans regardless of race, tribe, etc. There is nothing to prevent extending to the rest of animals that have not had the fortune of born homo sapien like us.

So eating meat is not like choosing between beach or mountain. By definition, a personal decision (or a matter of choice) is one that does not compromise or affect third parties. Eating meat, on the contrary, implies the breeding, overcrowding and murder of millions of non-human subjects so that human society can feed on their corpses. Since we do not need to eat meat to live and be healthy, such action is both unjust and unjustifiable. Animal Rights activists (like Men's Rights activist about men issues) try to explain that what is unjust is not that we treat animals badly, but that we create ourselves with legitimacy to use them as resources for our purposes. They, like us, have inalienable interests such as freedom, integrity and life. If you value such interests to yourself, you must also value them to others.

Eivind Berge said...

I disagree with the premise that animals have an inalienable right to not be exploited and killed for our purposes. They should not be treated cruelly, but a swift slaughter is acceptable. I know this is possible because for example I see sheep grazing nearby that are definitely not suffering. A deer being shot in the wild is also not suffering unduly because we eat them, while not keeping the population under control would cause suffering for them. Factory farmed meat is another story and there you animal rights activists have good points. I agree those conditions should be improved even though meat would become more expensive and we would have to eat less of it, but I don't agree that we can't eat meat at all.

john said...

aww,just horrible news.tumblr is banning all adult content starting dec 17th. and the cock teasers are VERY upset about this development.shit happens! since I've been censored everywhere I go,it's nice to see these bitches get the same treatment.everyone else, enjoy this "free, open" internet!

Eivind Berge said...

So feminist censorship of the Trump-approved variety strikes again. First Backpage and Craigslist personals and now this. Well, Tumblr is less of a loss than the others because it is, as you say, just a platform for cock teasers rather than a place to meet women as far as I can see.

john said...

yep. the feminists win AGAIN.their only loss recently was the failure to destroy kavanaugh, the "serial rapist" lol.

john said...

a tad off topic, but who reads this blog anyway? so, I have this neighbor who's dog he either lets, or tells it to shit on my lawn.i went over months ago and asked nice and politely it end.

surprise! it didnt.and for months I've been throwing the shit back in his lawn.anyway, today I'd had enough and piled it up on his front door.

i hate being forced into these situations by rude American trash but what else is to be done? I have a feeling this could go on a LONG, I'd outright poison the mutt but then it's off to prison!

Anonymous said...

Sender skarp bombe til politiet fordi politiet for omtrent 10 år siden blandet seg i at han hadde opprørt seg som en normal mann og hatt sex med en villig tenåringsjente. Dette ser ut til å være ekte vare, forutsatt at politiet har tatt rett person da.

Eivind Berge said...

Utrolig engasjement, tilsynelatende for mannssaken, men ikke på en måte som er særlig smart for en selv da. Bedre å blogge slik som jeg gjør. Hvorfor har vi ikke hørt om denne mannen tidligere? Han burde ha kjempet sammen med oss på lovlige måter, så hadde vi hatt en sterkere politisk bevegelse.