Feminist sexual taboos grow all around us like kudzu, covering ever more of our healthy sexuality in darkness or criminality. Antisex bigotry is not new under the sun, as it also existed in the Middle Ages for example, but the fraudulent "abuse" or "exploitation" justification is new. Better, then, to merely be a bigot who posits a God to justify her intolerance, than to poison human relations with contrived "abuse" like the feminists do. Even though it tends to prohibit most of the same acts, the concept of "sin" was far less toxic and intrusive to our lives than pseudoscientific pretend-abuse which is supposed to define our very souls and obliterate all lust, love and affection. And nowhere is this feminist bigotry more fraudulent than when applied to female "offenders," who even in principle cannot do the things claimed because human sexuality fundamentally doesn't work like that.
Now Sweden has done it too, gone and embraced the female sex offender charade: Woman convicted for sex with 15-year-old boy. The punishment has thankfully not yet reached American levels -- just probation and community service -- but the conceptual fraud is the same, the pretense that a sexually lucky (and even aggressive) boy is an exploited "victim."
How did society lose the plot so completely on sexuality? How could feminism even be turned against women like that? And worse, how do people go about their lives as if there is nothing wrong? As opposed to convulsing with hatred against the sex laws several times per day like I do? (Despite making an effort not to for health reasons.) The one thing worse than living in a country that has gone off the rails with odious and nonsensical laws is that no one else seems to care about it, and that is where we are now.
As exemplified by the publication to which I linked, there are segments of the population in Norway and no doubt Sweden who believe immigration is a serious problem. But how can they be concerned with such a comparable trifle when the stark hate of feminist antisex bigotry stares them in the face? And worse, Scandinavians opposed to immigration and Islam believe feminist sex law is a useful weapon against their imagined enemies. They thus become pure scum, as if the racism weren't enough, with a complete inability to be critical of any sex law, no matter how insane and misandristic and misogynistic too.
It is conceivable that excessive Islamization can be a problem, and cherishing one's culture does not have to be a bad thing. It is even conceivable that immigrant men from certain cultures commit more real rape and abuse than the locals, but we have no way of knowing when the sex laws are so messed up. These laws are so corrupt that Islam is most assuredly a lesser evil than feminism, and even if we got rid of all the immigrants we would still have the hateful laws. Male sexualism has therefore decided to consider Islam an ally against the antisex bigots. My own culture is now alien to me and I do not consider it worth protecting. I am a Quisling in reverse, the only reasonable, sex-positive man left standing after my culture has been consumed by antisex bigotry of the most pernicious kind conceivable.
Monday, December 23, 2019
Thursday, December 05, 2019
A gift horse to the antisex bigots
Since everything has failed us so far in our battle to stem the tide of criminalization of our sexuality, it is time to think of novel ways to conduct men's rights activism. For best results it needs to be nonviolent, legal, democratic, and for good measure give the impression that we share society's hysterical concern about "sexual abuse" and "predators." What could be a better fit to all these criteria than to advocate for voluntary sex offender registration?
Society can't get enough "sex offenders," so I don't see how they could possibly turn this offer down. What's not to love about letting men, and why not women too, register as sex offenders without having to convict them first? Let's advocate for legislation to make that happen! Let sexually dangerous people identify themselves. A little Christmas gift from the male sexualists to feminists and society, yay!
The plan, of course, after it has become compulsory for governments to accept sex offender registration from anyone who wants it, is to register en masse in order to sabotage not only their registries, but the entire concept of a sex offender.
Who isn't already a sex offender, anyway? Only the label is missing for most of us, so this is the logical conclusion. I am certain that we could pull this off even while explaining what we are doing, like a Trojan horse clearly labeled as such, so cuntsure are the antisex bigots of themselves in their sanctimonious hatred of sexuality.
We know from the Epstein case that anyone who fancies a 17-year-old is a "pedophile," and anyone who associates with said pedophile is also ruined for life.
We know from the Addy A-Game case that -- I dunno if approaching 20-year-old women in the street makes you a "pedophile" -- but it certainly makes you a sex offender who should be on the registry for ten years.
And if that isn't enough, or you are still young enough not to be incriminated by an age gap, perhaps you touched a girl's arm once in a clumsy effort to befriend her? Or you just looked at a picture of someone you never met? For the women, being topless in your own home is enough to be a sex offender, so they should register too.
The bigots' hubris is infinite. Having defined all of sexuality as abuse, which is to say normalize it, it is time for society to face the consequences. Letting the feminists have their bigotry and use it as a tool of oppression is not necessary, because with such numbers we can easily turn the tables. All that is missing is for most men (and optionally women) to admit that we are the pedophiles and sex abusers that society now considers us.
Society can't get enough "sex offenders," so I don't see how they could possibly turn this offer down. What's not to love about letting men, and why not women too, register as sex offenders without having to convict them first? Let's advocate for legislation to make that happen! Let sexually dangerous people identify themselves. A little Christmas gift from the male sexualists to feminists and society, yay!
The plan, of course, after it has become compulsory for governments to accept sex offender registration from anyone who wants it, is to register en masse in order to sabotage not only their registries, but the entire concept of a sex offender.
Who isn't already a sex offender, anyway? Only the label is missing for most of us, so this is the logical conclusion. I am certain that we could pull this off even while explaining what we are doing, like a Trojan horse clearly labeled as such, so cuntsure are the antisex bigots of themselves in their sanctimonious hatred of sexuality.
We know from the Epstein case that anyone who fancies a 17-year-old is a "pedophile," and anyone who associates with said pedophile is also ruined for life.
We know from the Addy A-Game case that -- I dunno if approaching 20-year-old women in the street makes you a "pedophile" -- but it certainly makes you a sex offender who should be on the registry for ten years.
And if that isn't enough, or you are still young enough not to be incriminated by an age gap, perhaps you touched a girl's arm once in a clumsy effort to befriend her? Or you just looked at a picture of someone you never met? For the women, being topless in your own home is enough to be a sex offender, so they should register too.
The bigots' hubris is infinite. Having defined all of sexuality as abuse, which is to say normalize it, it is time for society to face the consequences. Letting the feminists have their bigotry and use it as a tool of oppression is not necessary, because with such numbers we can easily turn the tables. All that is missing is for most men (and optionally women) to admit that we are the pedophiles and sex abusers that society now considers us.
Tuesday, December 03, 2019
The female sex offender charade is worse than the Tuskegee syphilis experiment
We know female sexuality is unworthy of punishment for what feminist justice systems call "sexual abuse" because sex is a female resource (that's the executive summary of my position; for a slightly more nuanced view see my "Devil's advocate" post where I distinguish between sexual exploitation and abuse and conclude that women categorically cannot commit the former and almost never the latter). We know syphilis is treatable and should be treated. Allowing these evils to run their course is unethical. Allowing men's bodies to be ravaged by syphilis and women's lives to be destroyed by antisex bigots despite better knowledge and ability are both unconscionable acts.
The most shocking aspect of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment is not that people could be so cruel as the doctors conducting the study, but that it happened openly and was condoned by society for decades, even published in medical journals while ongoing. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment and the female sex offender charade are both openly published travesties, but only one of them has been rectified.
The prosecutors, judges and jurors in female-perpetrated "sex abuse" cases are like the doctors directly involved in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, except the latter at least had the extenuating circumstance that they were conducting an experiment while the courts who sentence harmless women to prison are committing an unmitigated evil from which nothing more can be learned (it did indeed shock me in a morbidly curious way, but we know by now that society can be so cruel as to go along with it seemingly indefinitely).
I cannot stop the courts directly, but like the millions of people who heard about men with syphilis who were purposely denied treatment, I am in a position where it would be unethical for me to remain silent about the ongoing travesty against women accused of absurd sex crimes. I therefore do my part as a whistleblower and activist against the senseless practice of punishing women for being sexually nice to boys.
I promised a series of posts comparing the female sex offender charade to other weird things, and this is the second installment. Read my first here where I compared it to female genital mutilation. Next up I will probably do lobotomy.
The most shocking aspect of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment is not that people could be so cruel as the doctors conducting the study, but that it happened openly and was condoned by society for decades, even published in medical journals while ongoing. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment and the female sex offender charade are both openly published travesties, but only one of them has been rectified.
The prosecutors, judges and jurors in female-perpetrated "sex abuse" cases are like the doctors directly involved in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, except the latter at least had the extenuating circumstance that they were conducting an experiment while the courts who sentence harmless women to prison are committing an unmitigated evil from which nothing more can be learned (it did indeed shock me in a morbidly curious way, but we know by now that society can be so cruel as to go along with it seemingly indefinitely).
I cannot stop the courts directly, but like the millions of people who heard about men with syphilis who were purposely denied treatment, I am in a position where it would be unethical for me to remain silent about the ongoing travesty against women accused of absurd sex crimes. I therefore do my part as a whistleblower and activist against the senseless practice of punishing women for being sexually nice to boys.
I promised a series of posts comparing the female sex offender charade to other weird things, and this is the second installment. Read my first here where I compared it to female genital mutilation. Next up I will probably do lobotomy.
Sunday, December 01, 2019
The difference between "indecent" and "sexualized"
Here I want to explore the depths of depravity in the current antisex hysteria via the different words used for sex crimes before and after feminist reforms. The shift from religiously connotated words like "indecent" or "lewd" to ostensibly neutral descriptions like "sex act" (or descriptions thereof) is not yet complete in all jurisdictions, but you get the idea. In Norway the transformation has been most complete, from words like "utuktig omgang/skrift" to "seksuell omgang" or "fremstillinger som seksualiserer barn." This transition is more significant than it might seem at first glance, and far less convincing than the reformers had hoped, for the same reasons.
There is a tendency to assume that the new laws carry forth the same abuse concepts, but they don't really. Even I didn't notice for many years that the new laws don't just expand, but radically transform the concept of sexual abuse. The reformers themselves probably think they have merely modernized the language, but in reality they have exposed a gaping hole in the new sexual morality.
There is a tendency to assume that the new laws carry forth the same abuse concepts, but they don't really. Even I didn't notice for many years that the new laws don't just expand, but radically transform the concept of sexual abuse. The reformers themselves probably think they have merely modernized the language, but in reality they have exposed a gaping hole in the new sexual morality.
Even when the laws mostly apply to the same things, the philosophical grounding is entirely different, to the point of non-existence. For example, the concept of "indecent/utuktig" did not make the claim that minors are asexual. What might be "indecent" in some contexts under the old morality could be perfectly okay within marriage, so it's not sex acts themselves that are problematic, but something more consequential in the scheme of things, at least if one believes in the larger value system in which these prescriptions are situated.
If something is "indecent," then okey dokey, it must be indecent because higher morality and probably God says so given that you believe in that worldview. I ain't smart enough to understand how that works and won't opine before going to divinity school first. But if something is simply a "sex act," or "sexualized," how do you jump to the conclusion that it is wrong and should be criminal? The new laws leave a gaping hole now filled mostly by pseudoscience like the nocebo nonsense of the abuse industry, if at all.
We are to believe that something is wrong because "sex," period. Which is a non sequitur. If you want to make that leap without a concept of the "decent" and "indecent," or some other higher-power framework, you would need to justify it from the ground up in humanistic, rational terms (I wrote a post once showing how it could be done, but it didn't go over well because it puts a damper on abuse hysteria).
What we have is a new supernatural framework masquerading as rationality. Sometimes it is also comedy gold. I mean, how did the Norwegian lawmakers come up with a concept as retarded as the crime of narratives that "sexualize children [under 18]" without considering if the "children" where asexual in the first place? Which if you think about it for two seconds is sheer nonsense, an assumption that the old concept of "indecency" wisely avoided.
It is most instructive to consider how the victimless laws are justified. There is always a maximally exaggerated violation when there is a "victim," but what is being violated when there is no victim, and also no indecency/utuktighet to ground it in? What is being blasphemed against, exactly, in a fictional narrative which "sexualizes children"? Can it literally be something as retarded as the lie that everyone under 18 is asexual and not sexually attractive to normal people?
I suppose the reformers could appeal to the "public morals" and claim that as an ultimate basis for their laws. But this is a vague concept in the extreme. Where do I find justification for the secular public morals? Is it the view promoted by national public broadcasting? Is it whoever screams loudest on Twitter or perhaps alternative media like Resett.no? Before or after moderation, and if after, why do the moderators get to decide what the pubic thinks? Is it evidence-based in any way, and if not, isn't that a problem when use to make criminal laws? And don't even get me started on the female sex offender charade...
The feminists have undermined their own agenda by switching to a clear language of sexual abuse, because this also brought clarity to the lack of justification for their sex laws. They need to come up with actual, credible justification if they want to be taken seriously as other than a display of brute force against sexuality. Or conversely, if they want to be accepted on faith alone, they need to revert to a mystical language which obscures a source of morality that can't be falsified so easily or at all.
The new sex laws rest on a belief in the metaphysical badness of sex, divorced from any larger value system and grounded in nothing but this metaphysical belief itself. To gloss over how philosophically flimsy it is they always postulate a "victim," and to my horror this strategy has been 100% successful to date, even when the "victim" does not exist or identifies as anything but. We can only hope that one day people will wise up to the vacuity of the current antisex bigotry and do our best to expose it.
We are to believe that something is wrong because "sex," period. Which is a non sequitur. If you want to make that leap without a concept of the "decent" and "indecent," or some other higher-power framework, you would need to justify it from the ground up in humanistic, rational terms (I wrote a post once showing how it could be done, but it didn't go over well because it puts a damper on abuse hysteria).
What we have is a new supernatural framework masquerading as rationality. Sometimes it is also comedy gold. I mean, how did the Norwegian lawmakers come up with a concept as retarded as the crime of narratives that "sexualize children [under 18]" without considering if the "children" where asexual in the first place? Which if you think about it for two seconds is sheer nonsense, an assumption that the old concept of "indecency" wisely avoided.
It is most instructive to consider how the victimless laws are justified. There is always a maximally exaggerated violation when there is a "victim," but what is being violated when there is no victim, and also no indecency/utuktighet to ground it in? What is being blasphemed against, exactly, in a fictional narrative which "sexualizes children"? Can it literally be something as retarded as the lie that everyone under 18 is asexual and not sexually attractive to normal people?
I suppose the reformers could appeal to the "public morals" and claim that as an ultimate basis for their laws. But this is a vague concept in the extreme. Where do I find justification for the secular public morals? Is it the view promoted by national public broadcasting? Is it whoever screams loudest on Twitter or perhaps alternative media like Resett.no? Before or after moderation, and if after, why do the moderators get to decide what the pubic thinks? Is it evidence-based in any way, and if not, isn't that a problem when use to make criminal laws? And don't even get me started on the female sex offender charade...
The feminists have undermined their own agenda by switching to a clear language of sexual abuse, because this also brought clarity to the lack of justification for their sex laws. They need to come up with actual, credible justification if they want to be taken seriously as other than a display of brute force against sexuality. Or conversely, if they want to be accepted on faith alone, they need to revert to a mystical language which obscures a source of morality that can't be falsified so easily or at all.
The new sex laws rest on a belief in the metaphysical badness of sex, divorced from any larger value system and grounded in nothing but this metaphysical belief itself. To gloss over how philosophically flimsy it is they always postulate a "victim," and to my horror this strategy has been 100% successful to date, even when the "victim" does not exist or identifies as anything but. We can only hope that one day people will wise up to the vacuity of the current antisex bigotry and do our best to expose it.
Monday, November 25, 2019
Announcing FertileDating.com
My commenter Jack who always pops in to say something antinatalistic is going to hate this, but I made a dating site specifically for reproduction. I had to delegate the coding since I don't have that skill, but the project is under my creative control and we know what we are doing, so this is going to be great. The brand is magic, it's already a stylistic and technological marvel (especially the unique geographical match) and the current version is completely free too. I have an idea how to monetize without interfering too much with the user experience and especially not for women, but of course we can't do that before we have a decent amount of users.
So come check it out, and please help spread the word if possible:
https://fertiledating.com/
I know, a dating site with no users is boring, but we have to get started somewhere and unlike so much crap out there I am not going to waste anybody's time with fake profiles. Even supposedly serious ones like Tinder does that, not to mention actively work against you if you aren't among the most attractive. My site is honest and real all the way, and even works in accordance with male sexualist principles (except we had to make it 18+ in order to stay in business in today's world). Perhaps the only way to grow a real men's movement is to have a big family, and now you got the perfect platform to find a woman for that.
It also goes to show what can be done with the kind of focus that comes with nofap and a generally positive attitude such as I promote. Can incels really be incel if they didn't try starting their own dating site? Well, that won't work if everyone does it, but it's one obvious example that they probably didn't think of because they were too busy fapping and complaining about things they CAN change.
So come check it out, and please help spread the word if possible:
https://fertiledating.com/
I know, a dating site with no users is boring, but we have to get started somewhere and unlike so much crap out there I am not going to waste anybody's time with fake profiles. Even supposedly serious ones like Tinder does that, not to mention actively work against you if you aren't among the most attractive. My site is honest and real all the way, and even works in accordance with male sexualist principles (except we had to make it 18+ in order to stay in business in today's world). Perhaps the only way to grow a real men's movement is to have a big family, and now you got the perfect platform to find a woman for that.
It also goes to show what can be done with the kind of focus that comes with nofap and a generally positive attitude such as I promote. Can incels really be incel if they didn't try starting their own dating site? Well, that won't work if everyone does it, but it's one obvious example that they probably didn't think of because they were too busy fapping and complaining about things they CAN change.
Monday, November 04, 2019
Why do we let the feminist sexual taboos control us?
Feminism is synonymous with antisex bigotry, and they have subjugated our culture completely. Why do we let this happen, and then just sit there and tolerate it indefinitely?
Every day I wake up to more contrived sex "scandals." Today it is McDonald's CEO Steve Easterbrook who is out "for consensual relationship with an employe." With no justification other than: a taboo exists. Ostensibly it is there to accommodate women’s hysterically frail nature which supposedly makes them infinitely traumatized by the most infinitesimal reference to sexuality, but much of the time even women have no use for the taboo, and a good bit of the time it is now women who are the victims of the senseless antisex norms.
So why do we let this taboo control us? How did feminist sex-hostility gain complete mastery of our culture? Why do men go out with a whimper of acquiescence to the odious taboos every single time, while the rest stand by and do nothing also?
Every day I wake up to more contrived sex "scandals." Today it is McDonald's CEO Steve Easterbrook who is out "for consensual relationship with an employe." With no justification other than: a taboo exists. Ostensibly it is there to accommodate women’s hysterically frail nature which supposedly makes them infinitely traumatized by the most infinitesimal reference to sexuality, but much of the time even women have no use for the taboo, and a good bit of the time it is now women who are the victims of the senseless antisex norms.
So why do we let this taboo control us? How did feminist sex-hostility gain complete mastery of our culture? Why do men go out with a whimper of acquiescence to the odious taboos every single time, while the rest stand by and do nothing also?
Why is antisex so compelling? Because it must be compelling in order to have so much power, probably not due to the current justification for the taboos most of the time, but some sort of control freakery over sexuality wins out every time and drags in everyone from the alt-right to the feminists themselves.
The only dissidents are us, the male sexualists who don't even register on the radar. What little opposition to the mainstream that exists and actually gets noticed is concerned with inane drivel like race theories. That is what the alt-right thinks important, while they tolerate feminist sexual taboos as much as the traditional right and left. Even a reputedly less bigoted conservative man like Jordan Peterson is no help either -- just listen to this antisex rant where he claims it is bad for your soul to have more than one woman! His kind of bigotry is no doubt very differently rooted than the feminist kind, but the result is the same, antisex all the way, supporting the same laws -- with a small exception for pronouns in his case, to underscore that he takes no issue with anything of any real significance.
I know I am very different for rejecting the sexual taboos of my culture. In practice I am not alone by far -- just look at everyone who gets caught for violating these taboos in some way, and look at uncensored comment sections to articles that attempt to promulgate the female sex offender charade -- but in terms of systematic ideology I am that special quisling, a criminal soul, an enemy of the state. As absurd as it feels to use so strong words for advocacy of healthy sexuality, that is where we are.
Friday, November 01, 2019
Yes, masturbation makes you blind
Whoever said that (male) masturbation makes you blind was right. Not the kind of blindness that doctors will currently diagnose, but that is because they care very little about men's sexual best interests. The kind of blindness we are talking about consists of not seeing women's beauty properly and therefore not behaving as you should with regard to them. The other faction of the Men's Movement can make fun all he wants, but it remains true. When I started writing this post I meant to make a distinction between literal blindness and a metaphorical kind, but the more I think about it I see that this blindness isn't metaphorical. It is real, rising to the level of anosognosia even, which is a downright hyperreal sort of blindness.
How can we expect society to be anything but blind to male interests when so many men are themselves blind to male interests, including a faction of supposed male sexualists? No wonder they only see the harm of male sexuality -- and blow that absurdly out of proportion -- when sex-positive male sexualism (which should be redundant, but when we have a faction which doesn't think it is important to chase pussy...) is so rare I'm practically the only proponent (aside from other nofappers, but they lack the ideological awareness). If you don't realize that male masturbation is detrimental to sex, then you are part of the problem and already halfway in agreement with feminism.
Vision is so much more than your eyes doing their job. What you do with that information is what really matters, and when your brain is impaired in that respect, it is also real blindness. Masturbation, certainly when you also use porn, leads to neurologic -- not psychological -- harm in the male viewer. Crudely speaking, masturbation literally impairs men from seeing women as sex objects, and that is a kind of blindness so sinister that it would be hard to replicate with optic blindness. Indeed, since medically defined blindness would probably cure the masturbatory kind, I am almost tempted to second the biblical wisdom:
How can we expect society to be anything but blind to male interests when so many men are themselves blind to male interests, including a faction of supposed male sexualists? No wonder they only see the harm of male sexuality -- and blow that absurdly out of proportion -- when sex-positive male sexualism (which should be redundant, but when we have a faction which doesn't think it is important to chase pussy...) is so rare I'm practically the only proponent (aside from other nofappers, but they lack the ideological awareness). If you don't realize that male masturbation is detrimental to sex, then you are part of the problem and already halfway in agreement with feminism.
Vision is so much more than your eyes doing their job. What you do with that information is what really matters, and when your brain is impaired in that respect, it is also real blindness. Masturbation, certainly when you also use porn, leads to neurologic -- not psychological -- harm in the male viewer. Crudely speaking, masturbation literally impairs men from seeing women as sex objects, and that is a kind of blindness so sinister that it would be hard to replicate with optic blindness. Indeed, since medically defined blindness would probably cure the masturbatory kind, I am almost tempted to second the biblical wisdom:
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out,
and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for
thee that one of thy members should perish, and
not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
--Matthew 5:29
But luckily, all you need is nofap.
Monday, September 30, 2019
Innocent victims of unenlightened times
Women prosecuted for witchcraft centuries ago are today rightly considered innocent victims of unenlightened times:
You need to read no further than the title of this typical presentation of the current madness to understand that this is a literal witch-hunt:
Sex Abuse Victim Has Changed Thanks To Teacher Brittany Zamora’s ‘Black Magic,’ Lawsuit Contends
Prosecutors and the media accuse women of black magic with a straight face, courts sentence them to decades in prison for patent absurdities and I am the only one horrified. The only one horrified! This in a supposedly civilized country too, I am the only one who loses sleep over it. Others don't object to the gobbledygook of the witch doctors which imputes harm to boys via mechanisms so preposterous that they literally can't be described as anything but black magic, which makes me feel so alone and frightened and indignant and righteous and of course smarter than those dimwits, in addition to sorry for the innocent victims of our unenlightened times.
Just listen to the witch doctors' wishful conjurance of harm from their imagined black magic... Hell, the Malleus Maleficarum is more convincing than this shit!
Thus we have a woman serving 20 years based on nothing but the wishful thinking of a charlatan who makes his living drumming up contrived abuse while fraudulently attributing harm to it. And she is just one in an ongoing witch-hunt! We need to care about this!
The delusion that exposure to friendly female sexuality can harm boys is the most bizarre superstition of our times, and I am on a mission to undermine it.
Lilias Adie died in prison in 1704, before she could be convicted, strangled and burned at the stake for a crime to which she had reportedly confessed -- of being a witch, and having sex with the devil.
She was buried on a beach in Torryburn, Fife by locals -- who were so concerned that she might "reanimate" and rise from her grave that they buried her under a large stone.
But why is it so hard to see that we aren't done with that sort of persecution, complete with the bizarre and draconian efforts to contain the "witches"? Nowadays the unenlightenment has shifted to "sexual abuse" instead of "witchcraft" (well, not quite, as we shall see -- but who cares -- the concepts are mostly interchangeable anyway), and it is every bit as absurd. To make it worse, the selection process has grown more malignant because we now single out the sweetest, most innocent, nicest women for prosecution, those who are kind to young boys rather than an imaginary devil. (We even manage to target some of the most beautiful women, which makes me suspect that there is a touch of women-as-property oppression also going on here.)
You need to read no further than the title of this typical presentation of the current madness to understand that this is a literal witch-hunt:
Sex Abuse Victim Has Changed Thanks To Teacher Brittany Zamora’s ‘Black Magic,’ Lawsuit Contends
Prosecutors and the media accuse women of black magic with a straight face, courts sentence them to decades in prison for patent absurdities and I am the only one horrified. The only one horrified! This in a supposedly civilized country too, I am the only one who loses sleep over it. Others don't object to the gobbledygook of the witch doctors which imputes harm to boys via mechanisms so preposterous that they literally can't be described as anything but black magic, which makes me feel so alone and frightened and indignant and righteous and of course smarter than those dimwits, in addition to sorry for the innocent victims of our unenlightened times.
Just listen to the witch doctors' wishful conjurance of harm from their imagined black magic... Hell, the Malleus Maleficarum is more convincing than this shit!
Clinical psychologist Dr. Richard Gartner, who co-founded "Male Survivor," formerly the National Organization on Male Sexual Victimization, evaluated the victim in 2018, according to the lawsuit.
Gartner noted that while the boy is not yet exhibiting obvious signs of post-traumatic stress disorder or depression, he said it is very possible it will develop later in life. He said it is difficult to predict what specific symptoms the boy will likely develop "in the years and decades ahead."
He said the boy "has shown signs that he can become explosive if angry feelings break through his capacity to manage them." He went on to say that it's common for sexually abused men to get into compulsive behaviors like alcoholism, drug addiction, workaholism and compulsive spending.
Gartner said the victim should be watched and supported now and into the future.Yeah, there is no discernible harm, but ye must have faith in abuse hysteria because... any bad thing that could possibly happen in this boy's life can now be blamed on the contrived abuse; never mind that there is no scientific or commonsense reason to expect that he will fare worse than anyone else, except possibly by the nocebo effect if the witch doctors get lucky with their hateful agenda.
Thus we have a woman serving 20 years based on nothing but the wishful thinking of a charlatan who makes his living drumming up contrived abuse while fraudulently attributing harm to it. And she is just one in an ongoing witch-hunt! We need to care about this!
The delusion that exposure to friendly female sexuality can harm boys is the most bizarre superstition of our times, and I am on a mission to undermine it.
Saturday, September 28, 2019
Right answers for wrong reasons
I marvel at how two diametrically opposed sexual value systems have reached the conclusion that porn consumption is bad for men. How is it possible to be either a prude or a hedonist and both agree that porn is a bad thing?
My answer is that men who see themselves as sex-positive and believe porn is good are suffering from anosognosia. Feminists and religious fanatics who see themselves as sex-negative are similarly deluded because they don't realize that abstinence from porn and masturbation is the pathway to the greatest male sexual vitality and (if one is so inclined) promiscuity. Either that, or they hold a bizarre and to me alien value system which holds that fantasies are equivalent to real experiences.
Or alternatively, pornography is just an easy target loosely connected with male sexuality on which to bring down the violence of the state. Since prosecutions are easily based on possession of information alone and requiring neither victims nor witnesses, the feminists can afford to miss their antisex mark much of the time.
I cringe when I see otherwise ideologically sound men buy into the official narrative like The Antifeminist is doing here: David Ley On How ‘Your Belief In Porn Addiction Makes Things Worse.’
The pro-porn advocacy quoted there is so stupid that it's not even wrong, just irrelevant. I don't care if "porn addiction" is a meaningful concept or even if it's harmful to believe in it. What I care about is whether porn interferes with the sex life you could have had without it, and that is never considered in that piece. As I keep saying, the opportunity cost should be our paramount concern with regard to pornography and masturbation. The cited research does not ask how much more sex with how many more females you could have had if you never looked at porn and never masturbated, because the researchers don't care if men have sex.
Such indifference to sexuality is ultimately even more sinister than criminalization, I think. It represents a withdrawal from the world and acceptance of the idea that men might as well be asexual as long as they feel happy about it. I agree that nobody should be criminalized for retreating into a fantasy world, but male sexualism is a nobler ideology, the radical idea that sex is a good thing for us, and thus we do not align ourselves with that kind of junk science.
Pornography is neither worth criminalizing (if one is anti-sex) or supporting (if one is sex-positive). The apparent gains are self-defeating either way. There are many laws I disagree with for reasons other than my male sexualist ideology, and the anti-porn laws happen to be in that category, rather to be opposed on libertarian and free-speech grounds, because yes, they are certainly wrong when viewed from those angles. But they are not an impediment to our healthiest sexual expression, and if anything, obeying them actually helps that.
The Antifeminist makes some better arguments in his latest post here:
Or alternatively, pornography is just an easy target loosely connected with male sexuality on which to bring down the violence of the state. Since prosecutions are easily based on possession of information alone and requiring neither victims nor witnesses, the feminists can afford to miss their antisex mark much of the time.
I cringe when I see otherwise ideologically sound men buy into the official narrative like The Antifeminist is doing here: David Ley On How ‘Your Belief In Porn Addiction Makes Things Worse.’
The pro-porn advocacy quoted there is so stupid that it's not even wrong, just irrelevant. I don't care if "porn addiction" is a meaningful concept or even if it's harmful to believe in it. What I care about is whether porn interferes with the sex life you could have had without it, and that is never considered in that piece. As I keep saying, the opportunity cost should be our paramount concern with regard to pornography and masturbation. The cited research does not ask how much more sex with how many more females you could have had if you never looked at porn and never masturbated, because the researchers don't care if men have sex.
Such indifference to sexuality is ultimately even more sinister than criminalization, I think. It represents a withdrawal from the world and acceptance of the idea that men might as well be asexual as long as they feel happy about it. I agree that nobody should be criminalized for retreating into a fantasy world, but male sexualism is a nobler ideology, the radical idea that sex is a good thing for us, and thus we do not align ourselves with that kind of junk science.
Pornography is neither worth criminalizing (if one is anti-sex) or supporting (if one is sex-positive). The apparent gains are self-defeating either way. There are many laws I disagree with for reasons other than my male sexualist ideology, and the anti-porn laws happen to be in that category, rather to be opposed on libertarian and free-speech grounds, because yes, they are certainly wrong when viewed from those angles. But they are not an impediment to our healthiest sexual expression, and if anything, obeying them actually helps that.
The Antifeminist makes some better arguments in his latest post here:
In his utter foolishness, Eivind doesn’t seem able to grasp that it’s just a fact, that the lines between ‘porn’ and real relationships are going to increasingly blur. For example, consider selfies. The age of consent is 16 or even lower in most countries in Europe, but the minimum age for ‘sexualized’ selfies is 18. This makes it difficult in today’s world to even pursue or maintain a relationship with a 16 or 17 year old, without breaking the law (‘child pornography’ laws). And this will just get ever more problematic. And not just because of the difference between age of consent and child pornography laws. Most men take sexy pics of their girlfriends. Now they could be prosecuted under ‘revenge porn’ laws if they ever show them to another person, or in Germany already, if they even fail to delete such pics at the end of the relationship.While these are good points, the solution is not to weaken our libidos by being complacent to porn. It should be possible to advocate the right to healthy sexuality without aligning us with something detrimental to it. I certainly agree that when the criminalized "child porn" or "revenge porn" is nothing more than a selfie received from a girl one is talking to or pictures taken in a relationship, rather than a substitute for the girl, this is among our utmost concerns. Reality is that lots of men use such and other pornographic material as a substitute for sex, however, so we must be careful not to conflate these.
(...)
To be honest, I don’t see the age of consent laws (at 16) as being even close to the worse feminist injustice. What is so wrong about the present age of consent is the insane and draconian punishments that are meted out now to transgressors. As well as that, the idea that being attracted to teens is a perversion – namely paedophilia. But that itself has likely been caused by the feminist definitions of child porn, rather than the age of consent. Even in Britain, for example, jokes about ‘jail bait’ were commonplace until the child porn laws were ‘strengthened’ and raised to 18 in 2003. Child porn laws essentially carry with them the idea that it is perverted, wrong, and ‘paedophilia’, to even look at or be attracted to a person under 18.
Saturday, September 21, 2019
The nocebo industry
If we can have entire industries selling placebo, such as homeopathy for example, it is not so surprising that there are also industries selling nocebo. As a side note, I feel a bit sorry for the homeopaths because the only homeopathic medicine that works beyond placebo – vaccines – isn’t considered homeopathy. But back to selling placebos and nocebos. The premier nocebo industry is, of course, the sex abuse industry, and most flagrantly the female sex offender charade. Let me again use Brittany Zamora as illustration (and read this for a textual version replete with words like "black magic" to underscore the intellectual level we are dealing with):
Every day I rack my brain trying to think of more ways to mock the bigots who want to punish victimless sex, and this is what I got for you today. Angry Harry was fond of the word "abuse industry," but I think the "nocebo industry" packs more punch. There is also some real abuse, so the abuse industry isn't entirely useless, but the nocebo part is a vast monstrosity, and when it comes to female "sexual abusers," nocebo is all they have.
The worst part is, there is zero interest in sorting out the nocebos from actually harmful sexual offenses. There are no studies daring to pose such falsifiable questions and no feedback that the legal definitions of sexual abuse are wrong. Brittany Zamora will rot in prison for 20 years while no one (except me) gives a flying fuck that she is in there for nocebo, a vicarious nocebo at that constructed by antisex bigots who then had to brainwash (and pay) the "victim" to (pretend to) feel like one.
I am that one responsible person speaking up on this issue. Kind of like Greta Thunberg on global warming, except it would be an economic disaster to deploy her remedies while mine can be implemented with no social harm at all. Well, except all the prison guards and other members of the nocebo industry out of work, but I am even willing to let them keep their jobs if they quit hurting real people. How about we make some wax dolls for them to put on trial and guard? That way we can have placebo punishments too instead of the real punishments for fake crimes, and there would be some semblance of justice again!
The worst part is, there is zero interest in sorting out the nocebos from actually harmful sexual offenses. There are no studies daring to pose such falsifiable questions and no feedback that the legal definitions of sexual abuse are wrong. Brittany Zamora will rot in prison for 20 years while no one (except me) gives a flying fuck that she is in there for nocebo, a vicarious nocebo at that constructed by antisex bigots who then had to brainwash (and pay) the "victim" to (pretend to) feel like one.
I am that one responsible person speaking up on this issue. Kind of like Greta Thunberg on global warming, except it would be an economic disaster to deploy her remedies while mine can be implemented with no social harm at all. Well, except all the prison guards and other members of the nocebo industry out of work, but I am even willing to let them keep their jobs if they quit hurting real people. How about we make some wax dolls for them to put on trial and guard? That way we can have placebo punishments too instead of the real punishments for fake crimes, and there would be some semblance of justice again!
Saturday, September 14, 2019
How to categorize criminals without retributive justice
As I was getting at in my hard determinist therapy post, there are strong enough philosophical arguments against free will to do away with retributive justice. If we ever do so, however, that would leave some serious gaps in the categorization of criminals in my view. I therefore propose the following new categories to fill in the gaps and retain the right to take responsibility if one wants to be an enemy of the state or society. To compensate for the loss of presumed free will we need a couple new categories out of respect for the criminals, or potential criminals which means all of us so we can be better citizens and feel we are taken seriously! Instead of the two or three categories we have today (common criminals, the criminally insane and in some countries those condemned to preventive detention), we need four categories in a future without retributive justice.
1. Common criminals. The garden variety criminals of today minus the retributive aspects, sentenced with an aim towards rehabilitation and deterrence only. Burglars, muggers, egodystonic sex offenders, affective and negligent murderers, white-collar criminals etc.
2. Enemies of the state. Quislings, whistleblowers, spies, activists -- obviously terrorists, but also conscientious objectors, civil disobedients, most egosyntonic sex offenders -- basically everyone who is at least somewhat normal or claims to be and would get insulted or risk having their identity destroyed by attempts at rehabilitation. I am naturally-born into this category.
3. Enemies of society. Those resistant or averse to rehabilitation but not for political reasons. Psychopaths, misanthropes, senseless mass murderers, serial killers, sadistic egosyntonic sex offenders, the criminally insane and dangerous who refuse treatment.
4. The criminally insane. Same as those considered insane today plus perhaps some more based on a deeper understanding of pathologically determined behavior. Subject to court approval, but must be voluntary! The certified insane are to be offered treatment instead of punishment, always with an option to decline since psychiatric coercion is wrong for convicts and non-convicts alike. If an apparently insane person considers himself sane, the most the justice system can do is to consider him an enemy of society if very dangerous, or else he will be treated like common criminal or enemy of the state if he so desires.
If, for example ten years is enough to rehabilitate a murderer and reasonably deter such crime, then ten years is all he should get without retributive justice. No more harsh punishments that serve no other purpose than revenge. The current trend is in the other direction (except perhaps in the US where retributivism is already maxed out), but there are good reasons to turn this around, which is in fact what I advocate provided that we make the compromises indicated herein.
My motivation for writing this is that I as a male sexualist activist -- a conscientious objector to the war against normal sexuality -- don’t want to lose the right to be taken seriously in the event that we ditch retributive justice. I am not planning to be any category of criminal, unless conscripted to go against my male sexualist values, but it is important to state this just in case, as you never know what you can be accused of and this also applies to false accusations.
Not that retributive justice is in danger of going out of style any time soon either, but just in case it does we must pave the way for some exceptions in order to preserve the sanctity of human free will, which is central to human dignity whether it actually exists or not. It should be an inalienable human right to be treated as though you have free will if you insist!
Under my system, most criminals can choose to be convicted into the common-criminals category, which is also the default when they don't indicate other wishes. There may be some exceptions forced into the enemy-of-society category as a pragmatic admission that rehabilitation is impossible for them, and that is the only other category anyone can be forced into, but even then they have the option to be an enemy of the state instead.
ANYONE convicted of a crime can be an enemy of the state if they want, which means you CHOOSE not to be rehabilitated for political or moral reasons. These can always choose category 3 and usually category 1 if they like instead -- but unless you wanted to be an enemy of the state, better not bother going through with something like terrorism in the first place.
It is reasonable that enemies of the state and society get longer sentences, but remember, we don’t have retributive justice so it must not get out of hand either. Current punishments should be an upper limit.
How do we categorize those who keep claiming innocence after conviction? They can be common criminals too or another category if they choose and qualify. It will also then as now be that case that some convicts are in fact innocent, and it is inhumane to force them to pretend that they are guilty or apolitical or give them significantly longer imprisonment.
Since "enemy of the state" is a label selected by the convict (an unconditional right to guard against political abuse by the state against the individual), it does not guarantee that one is a better person than a common criminal or even an enemy of society. There may therefore be no difference in how enemies of the state and society are handled except that dictated by the dangerousness of the crime. There is obviously a great deal of practical difference between a terrorist and a conscientious objector, but they are morally in the same category since they offend for political reasons, and conversely it should be possible to declare yourself an incorrigible parking violator if you want to, but that doesn't mean you need to be locked up as long the truly dangerous enemies of the society.
When I was accused of criminal incitement in 2012 I was de facto put in category 2: enemy of the state, so that is good. An attempt launched by my traitorous family to put me in category 4 luckily failed. Like I said, my system will become more relevant if and when we give up on the idea of retributive justice, since my categories are sort of how it works anyway at the present time plus more retribution for everybody minus the unconditional right to criminal sanity which is sadly lacking today.
We might say that a more aggressive version of category 3: enemy of society exists today, in Norway for example with preventive detention and sometimes with civil commitment elsewhere. Preventive detention and this odious new use of civil commitment basically means "enemy of society," so the concept already exists, but it is far too draconian. I am fine with forcing some seriously dangerous criminals into the new category 3 if they don't want to be political and don't want rehabilitation or treatment, but they will get longer sentences or perhaps even the death penalty instead of indefinitely extensible detention, which is fundamentally unjust because it's easily out of proportion to the crime.
We might even say that sex offender registries, where these exist today, are a sort of enemy-of-society category. Under my system -- well, firstly such registries shouldn't exist, but if they must -- we would break them down into my categories so that the political offenders are duly recognized.
People who break the law in an extremely deliberate, habitual and/or politically motivated manner are not the same as common criminals, and we need to recognize this. While I have little sympathy for enemies of society, it is a badge of honor to be an enemy of the state for ethical reasons, and we need to make sure this right is never taken away.
As an additional consideration, I acknowledge that there are two different types of political crimes: those done to protest and those done for intrinsic reasons that one politically thinks should be legal. Examples: violent activism vs. sex offenses. My system allows for them both to be in the same honorable category where they belong.
1. Common criminals. The garden variety criminals of today minus the retributive aspects, sentenced with an aim towards rehabilitation and deterrence only. Burglars, muggers, egodystonic sex offenders, affective and negligent murderers, white-collar criminals etc.
2. Enemies of the state. Quislings, whistleblowers, spies, activists -- obviously terrorists, but also conscientious objectors, civil disobedients, most egosyntonic sex offenders -- basically everyone who is at least somewhat normal or claims to be and would get insulted or risk having their identity destroyed by attempts at rehabilitation. I am naturally-born into this category.
3. Enemies of society. Those resistant or averse to rehabilitation but not for political reasons. Psychopaths, misanthropes, senseless mass murderers, serial killers, sadistic egosyntonic sex offenders, the criminally insane and dangerous who refuse treatment.
4. The criminally insane. Same as those considered insane today plus perhaps some more based on a deeper understanding of pathologically determined behavior. Subject to court approval, but must be voluntary! The certified insane are to be offered treatment instead of punishment, always with an option to decline since psychiatric coercion is wrong for convicts and non-convicts alike. If an apparently insane person considers himself sane, the most the justice system can do is to consider him an enemy of society if very dangerous, or else he will be treated like common criminal or enemy of the state if he so desires.
If, for example ten years is enough to rehabilitate a murderer and reasonably deter such crime, then ten years is all he should get without retributive justice. No more harsh punishments that serve no other purpose than revenge. The current trend is in the other direction (except perhaps in the US where retributivism is already maxed out), but there are good reasons to turn this around, which is in fact what I advocate provided that we make the compromises indicated herein.
My motivation for writing this is that I as a male sexualist activist -- a conscientious objector to the war against normal sexuality -- don’t want to lose the right to be taken seriously in the event that we ditch retributive justice. I am not planning to be any category of criminal, unless conscripted to go against my male sexualist values, but it is important to state this just in case, as you never know what you can be accused of and this also applies to false accusations.
Not that retributive justice is in danger of going out of style any time soon either, but just in case it does we must pave the way for some exceptions in order to preserve the sanctity of human free will, which is central to human dignity whether it actually exists or not. It should be an inalienable human right to be treated as though you have free will if you insist!
Under my system, most criminals can choose to be convicted into the common-criminals category, which is also the default when they don't indicate other wishes. There may be some exceptions forced into the enemy-of-society category as a pragmatic admission that rehabilitation is impossible for them, and that is the only other category anyone can be forced into, but even then they have the option to be an enemy of the state instead.
ANYONE convicted of a crime can be an enemy of the state if they want, which means you CHOOSE not to be rehabilitated for political or moral reasons. These can always choose category 3 and usually category 1 if they like instead -- but unless you wanted to be an enemy of the state, better not bother going through with something like terrorism in the first place.
It is reasonable that enemies of the state and society get longer sentences, but remember, we don’t have retributive justice so it must not get out of hand either. Current punishments should be an upper limit.
How do we categorize those who keep claiming innocence after conviction? They can be common criminals too or another category if they choose and qualify. It will also then as now be that case that some convicts are in fact innocent, and it is inhumane to force them to pretend that they are guilty or apolitical or give them significantly longer imprisonment.
Since "enemy of the state" is a label selected by the convict (an unconditional right to guard against political abuse by the state against the individual), it does not guarantee that one is a better person than a common criminal or even an enemy of society. There may therefore be no difference in how enemies of the state and society are handled except that dictated by the dangerousness of the crime. There is obviously a great deal of practical difference between a terrorist and a conscientious objector, but they are morally in the same category since they offend for political reasons, and conversely it should be possible to declare yourself an incorrigible parking violator if you want to, but that doesn't mean you need to be locked up as long the truly dangerous enemies of the society.
When I was accused of criminal incitement in 2012 I was de facto put in category 2: enemy of the state, so that is good. An attempt launched by my traitorous family to put me in category 4 luckily failed. Like I said, my system will become more relevant if and when we give up on the idea of retributive justice, since my categories are sort of how it works anyway at the present time plus more retribution for everybody minus the unconditional right to criminal sanity which is sadly lacking today.
We might say that a more aggressive version of category 3: enemy of society exists today, in Norway for example with preventive detention and sometimes with civil commitment elsewhere. Preventive detention and this odious new use of civil commitment basically means "enemy of society," so the concept already exists, but it is far too draconian. I am fine with forcing some seriously dangerous criminals into the new category 3 if they don't want to be political and don't want rehabilitation or treatment, but they will get longer sentences or perhaps even the death penalty instead of indefinitely extensible detention, which is fundamentally unjust because it's easily out of proportion to the crime.
We might even say that sex offender registries, where these exist today, are a sort of enemy-of-society category. Under my system -- well, firstly such registries shouldn't exist, but if they must -- we would break them down into my categories so that the political offenders are duly recognized.
People who break the law in an extremely deliberate, habitual and/or politically motivated manner are not the same as common criminals, and we need to recognize this. While I have little sympathy for enemies of society, it is a badge of honor to be an enemy of the state for ethical reasons, and we need to make sure this right is never taken away.
As an additional consideration, I acknowledge that there are two different types of political crimes: those done to protest and those done for intrinsic reasons that one politically thinks should be legal. Examples: violent activism vs. sex offenses. My system allows for them both to be in the same honorable category where they belong.
Thursday, September 12, 2019
We are conscientious objectors
Male sexualists are not violent insurgents. Not because society doesn't deserve it, but because then we would be pathetically easy to take out. We don't even incite violence, which is why the government were thoroughly humiliated when they tried to prosecute me. Instead, we are conscientious objectors to the war on sex. We simply do not participate in the persecution of normal male sexuality, nor do we participate in the female sex offender charade, and we promote such conscientious objection for all.
If you are judge or juror in a sex case based on the laws we oppose, you must refuse to convict regardless of the facts. If you are a prison guard tasked with incarcerating such an offender, you must quit your job. If you are a police officer you must likewise resign if ordered to enforce unjust sex laws. And so on throughout the abuse industry, down to therapists and teachers and health care workers and everyone else ordered to promote sex-hostility in every way.
This is how to be a male sexualist. Let it be known that we are conscientious objectors. Conscientious objection is the mindset we must assume, and an easy way to explain why we always go for jury nullification and otherwise refuse to contribute to the sex war.
We take the moral high ground and do what is honorable, what our conscience tells us. We are the conscientious objectors to the war on normal sexuality. We are the male sexualists.
If you are judge or juror in a sex case based on the laws we oppose, you must refuse to convict regardless of the facts. If you are a prison guard tasked with incarcerating such an offender, you must quit your job. If you are a police officer you must likewise resign if ordered to enforce unjust sex laws. And so on throughout the abuse industry, down to therapists and teachers and health care workers and everyone else ordered to promote sex-hostility in every way.
This is how to be a male sexualist. Let it be known that we are conscientious objectors. Conscientious objection is the mindset we must assume, and an easy way to explain why we always go for jury nullification and otherwise refuse to contribute to the sex war.
We take the moral high ground and do what is honorable, what our conscience tells us. We are the conscientious objectors to the war on normal sexuality. We are the male sexualists.
Sunday, September 08, 2019
How do we know?
Let us talk about epistemology for a minute, with regard to the female sex offender charade. Consider the case of Brittany Zamora. How do I know the boy is lucky? I know this by every mode of inquiry that I can think of, save for the blind acceptance of bigotry or obsequious deference to authority a la the emperor’s new clothes. I know it on every level from emotional intuition to theoretical predictions to careful consideration of the empirical evidence.
How do the feminists and other antisex bigots know the boy is a “victim”? They “know” this because of an arbitrary standard derived from abuse hysteria via gender equality that is supposed to override all other aspects of reality. It would require extraordinary evidence to show that this standard, if true, is applicable to women too, but they don’t bother questioning that. Worse, they don’t even tolerate dissent, which is why I am banned from Twitter just for debating it.
Is jealousy a pathway to knowledge? You bet it is! You don’t envy your neighbor if he gets cancer. You do envy him if he gets hot chicks, as in the female sex offender charade. This tells us something about good and bad things that is TRUE. While it is possible to think of counterexamples to such vulgar intuitions, those require hard evidence produced by experts that are actually experts, not just selected for their ability to believe nonsense.
When pressed, the feminists sometimes claim research backs them up. But whenever I have looked, the literature shows no such thing. Since most “research” on female “sexual abusers” is written by antisex bigots, it is riddled with the same assumptions, but there is no data to back them up even in their own studies. The only way you can demonstrate bad outcomes in boys who have been “sexually abused” by females is to confound it with other, real abuse. When there is just voluntary sex, there is no evidence of harm. Yet the antisex bigots will have us believe that boys are worse off simply because they are underage or their lover is a teacher. We are talking about the full retard female sex offender charade here, the part that cannot be justified as any sort of lesser crime either.
I know what is good for me, and because I am a regular guy I know this applies to men in general; that it should form the reasonable man standard on which laws must be based. I know my life would have been better had I been what the antisex bigots call “sexually abused” by women as a boy. I know such “victims” are proud and joyous until the antisex bigots ruin things. But we need not stop there.
Darwinism is another major pathway to knowledge about the true nature of what this sick society calls female sex offenders, also completely ignored by the bigots. We know the theoretical reason for why sex is a female resource in our species, because females necessarily have to invest so much in each pregnancy while males do not. Female teachers cannot rob their male students of a sexual resource by giving them sex; if there is any predator in such relations it would be the boy who is getting a free ride and cucking the husband.
While we all agree on this point, I am still reviled by other male sexualists for belaboring it so much, because the few female victims supposedly don't matter so much compared to the routine victimization of men. But I submit that it is not only morally imperative to stand up for them, but also tactically advantageous for men to spend so much time explicating the female sex offender charade.
Remember when you learned physics in school and were told to ignore distractions like air resistance in order to grasp Newton’s laws? The female sex offender charade allows us to remove all friction and let bigotry speak alone. Since there is no male sexuality to distract us, the naked nonsense of feminist “abuse” theories is plain for all to see.
The antisex bigots are calling their own bluff when they apply the same rules to women. This complete detachment from any reality of sexual abuse should make rational people question their “abuse” theories about male offenders as well. Not that we didn't already know that much of that is bullshit too, but the utterly brainless way they go about it with no concessions to truth despite the glaringly obvious fact that we are dealing with lucky boys makes it clear that we can't take ANYTHING they say seriously without checking for ourselves if it deserves to be called abuse.
We need to expose the female sex offender charade until its supporters feel the shame they deserve for being so stupid and evil. Not until that is accomplished will they get around to considering the ways men are oppressed, which is more complicated because male sexuality has the capacity to abuse. Just like you don't jump straight to the Schrödinger equation when teaching physics, we can't expect anyone to understand our issues before they at least want to liberate an angelic creature like Brittany Zamora. She is really that important because this is so basic.
How do the feminists and other antisex bigots know the boy is a “victim”? They “know” this because of an arbitrary standard derived from abuse hysteria via gender equality that is supposed to override all other aspects of reality. It would require extraordinary evidence to show that this standard, if true, is applicable to women too, but they don’t bother questioning that. Worse, they don’t even tolerate dissent, which is why I am banned from Twitter just for debating it.
Is jealousy a pathway to knowledge? You bet it is! You don’t envy your neighbor if he gets cancer. You do envy him if he gets hot chicks, as in the female sex offender charade. This tells us something about good and bad things that is TRUE. While it is possible to think of counterexamples to such vulgar intuitions, those require hard evidence produced by experts that are actually experts, not just selected for their ability to believe nonsense.
When pressed, the feminists sometimes claim research backs them up. But whenever I have looked, the literature shows no such thing. Since most “research” on female “sexual abusers” is written by antisex bigots, it is riddled with the same assumptions, but there is no data to back them up even in their own studies. The only way you can demonstrate bad outcomes in boys who have been “sexually abused” by females is to confound it with other, real abuse. When there is just voluntary sex, there is no evidence of harm. Yet the antisex bigots will have us believe that boys are worse off simply because they are underage or their lover is a teacher. We are talking about the full retard female sex offender charade here, the part that cannot be justified as any sort of lesser crime either.
I know what is good for me, and because I am a regular guy I know this applies to men in general; that it should form the reasonable man standard on which laws must be based. I know my life would have been better had I been what the antisex bigots call “sexually abused” by women as a boy. I know such “victims” are proud and joyous until the antisex bigots ruin things. But we need not stop there.
Darwinism is another major pathway to knowledge about the true nature of what this sick society calls female sex offenders, also completely ignored by the bigots. We know the theoretical reason for why sex is a female resource in our species, because females necessarily have to invest so much in each pregnancy while males do not. Female teachers cannot rob their male students of a sexual resource by giving them sex; if there is any predator in such relations it would be the boy who is getting a free ride and cucking the husband.
While we all agree on this point, I am still reviled by other male sexualists for belaboring it so much, because the few female victims supposedly don't matter so much compared to the routine victimization of men. But I submit that it is not only morally imperative to stand up for them, but also tactically advantageous for men to spend so much time explicating the female sex offender charade.
Remember when you learned physics in school and were told to ignore distractions like air resistance in order to grasp Newton’s laws? The female sex offender charade allows us to remove all friction and let bigotry speak alone. Since there is no male sexuality to distract us, the naked nonsense of feminist “abuse” theories is plain for all to see.
The antisex bigots are calling their own bluff when they apply the same rules to women. This complete detachment from any reality of sexual abuse should make rational people question their “abuse” theories about male offenders as well. Not that we didn't already know that much of that is bullshit too, but the utterly brainless way they go about it with no concessions to truth despite the glaringly obvious fact that we are dealing with lucky boys makes it clear that we can't take ANYTHING they say seriously without checking for ourselves if it deserves to be called abuse.
We need to expose the female sex offender charade until its supporters feel the shame they deserve for being so stupid and evil. Not until that is accomplished will they get around to considering the ways men are oppressed, which is more complicated because male sexuality has the capacity to abuse. Just like you don't jump straight to the Schrödinger equation when teaching physics, we can't expect anyone to understand our issues before they at least want to liberate an angelic creature like Brittany Zamora. She is really that important because this is so basic.
Sunday, September 01, 2019
The great male sexualist nofap thread
Male sexualism is the ideology derived from egosyntonic healthy male sexuality. But what do we do with males who are egosyntonic about masturbation and regard it as a “sexualist” concern when their practices are criminalized? My solution is to exclude them from our movement because masturbation is unhealthy. We need to be that harsh, even if it results in further division of our tiny movement. The porn, sexbot and masturbation advocates can have their own asexualist movement, or a more flattering name of their choice (I've also suggested “the transhuman sexualist movement”), but they are not male sexualists in my view.
It is not enough to be egosyntonic about something; to qualify as male sexualism, it must meet both criteria: true sexuality and good health/ethics. While it is possible to be an egosyntonic child rapist, this doesn’t qualify as male sexualism because it isn’t healthy or ethical. With masturbation there is no other victim than the self-abuser, but he is deluded to think he is doing his sexuality any good, so these are both good examples of things to exclude.
Imagine a sexually egosyntonic, considerate, normal man who encounters the feminist sex laws for the first time. It would be quite a shock, if he weren’t already brainwashed:
“What, I’m a criminal if I give women money for sex? I’m a criminal if I have sex with teen girls at the height of their natural attractiveness to men? I’m a criminal if I have sex with a drunk girl who regrets it later? I’m a criminal if I have sex with a student of mine” and so on and on, “and they even apply the same insane laws to women for no intelligible reason, WTF is up with that!?”
Those are the proper concerns of male sexualism, to turn back all the hateful laws against our sexuality. We do not exist to foster egosyntonic unhealthy sexuality like masturbation or actual rape or child abuse. It is the exclusion of bad causes that lends credibility and nobility to our efforts, so this is important. We need a movement we can be proud of, so that we can eventually march with straight pride under our pink flag.
And yes, homosexuals are also welcome in our movement. I am agnostic about masturbation for them because I don’t have a conception of the ideal gay sex life, and no interest in pondering it. Let them look to homosexual role models for that. But I do know that they deserve to be egosyntonic about their sexuality to much the same extent as us straight guys, and that we share enmity with the same sex laws, or at least would if the gay community weren't so hopelessly politically correct (but then the straight community is even more guilty of that aside from us male sexualists, not even capable of mustering a symbolic pride march).
And I know that at least for us heterosexual men, there is no reason to be internally conflicted about porn and masturbation. Unlike the nonsense “conversion therapies” that mess you up if you try to change sexual orientation, nofap really works and leaves you 100% satisfied by real sex. This I know from personal experience. Male sexualism is truly an egosyntonic ideology, once you disabuse yourself of the delusion that there is any value in porn and get the hang of nofap. It is is the height of hedonism, really, in addition to being the most tolerant and fair sexual value system.
I will dedicate the comment section of this post to discussions about nofap, a place to come together and share experiences. Sure, there is /NoFap, but they are apolitical, disregarding the odious feminist sex laws. My blog is the only place where the promotion of healthy male sexuality and egosyntonic ideology come together in one harmonious whole.
We can also discuss advanced pickup here. And by “advanced” I mean the sort of concerns that may remain after 90+ continuous days of nofap. No questions allowed about how to ascend from inceldom or best pick up women from anybody who hasn't been a nofapper that long, because chances are your problems would be effortlessly resolved by this simple expedient.
It is not enough to be egosyntonic about something; to qualify as male sexualism, it must meet both criteria: true sexuality and good health/ethics. While it is possible to be an egosyntonic child rapist, this doesn’t qualify as male sexualism because it isn’t healthy or ethical. With masturbation there is no other victim than the self-abuser, but he is deluded to think he is doing his sexuality any good, so these are both good examples of things to exclude.
Imagine a sexually egosyntonic, considerate, normal man who encounters the feminist sex laws for the first time. It would be quite a shock, if he weren’t already brainwashed:
“What, I’m a criminal if I give women money for sex? I’m a criminal if I have sex with teen girls at the height of their natural attractiveness to men? I’m a criminal if I have sex with a drunk girl who regrets it later? I’m a criminal if I have sex with a student of mine” and so on and on, “and they even apply the same insane laws to women for no intelligible reason, WTF is up with that!?”
Those are the proper concerns of male sexualism, to turn back all the hateful laws against our sexuality. We do not exist to foster egosyntonic unhealthy sexuality like masturbation or actual rape or child abuse. It is the exclusion of bad causes that lends credibility and nobility to our efforts, so this is important. We need a movement we can be proud of, so that we can eventually march with straight pride under our pink flag.
And yes, homosexuals are also welcome in our movement. I am agnostic about masturbation for them because I don’t have a conception of the ideal gay sex life, and no interest in pondering it. Let them look to homosexual role models for that. But I do know that they deserve to be egosyntonic about their sexuality to much the same extent as us straight guys, and that we share enmity with the same sex laws, or at least would if the gay community weren't so hopelessly politically correct (but then the straight community is even more guilty of that aside from us male sexualists, not even capable of mustering a symbolic pride march).
And I know that at least for us heterosexual men, there is no reason to be internally conflicted about porn and masturbation. Unlike the nonsense “conversion therapies” that mess you up if you try to change sexual orientation, nofap really works and leaves you 100% satisfied by real sex. This I know from personal experience. Male sexualism is truly an egosyntonic ideology, once you disabuse yourself of the delusion that there is any value in porn and get the hang of nofap. It is is the height of hedonism, really, in addition to being the most tolerant and fair sexual value system.
I will dedicate the comment section of this post to discussions about nofap, a place to come together and share experiences. Sure, there is /NoFap, but they are apolitical, disregarding the odious feminist sex laws. My blog is the only place where the promotion of healthy male sexuality and egosyntonic ideology come together in one harmonious whole.
We can also discuss advanced pickup here. And by “advanced” I mean the sort of concerns that may remain after 90+ continuous days of nofap. No questions allowed about how to ascend from inceldom or best pick up women from anybody who hasn't been a nofapper that long, because chances are your problems would be effortlessly resolved by this simple expedient.
Wednesday, August 28, 2019
The sad infighting in our movement
Sadly we seem to fight more amongst ourselves than with feminists these days. The male sexualist movement has split into two factions: one led by me which considers male masturbation pathological or at least maladaptive, and another which does not, led by The Antifeminist.
I wanted to create something positive. Even though we have no hope of affecting policy any time soon, we can at least stand for something true and good, something we can be proud of and celebrate when the rest of the world is hating and criminalizing.
I realize that criminalization is running amok against both male sexuality and masturbation plus paraphernalia, and both deserve to be defended from this onslaught, but only the former meets my "something positive" criterion.
Ideas and practices get adopted because of the social rewards and practical benefits they provide to their adherents. Most people who join a movement don't do so primarily because of their desire to further an agenda. Rather, they do so because they find it socially and practically rewarding, and then the agenda follows as a result of the strength of the group. We must not lose sight of this.
Sex law reform as advocated by us is about as realistic in our lifetime as the 72 virgins promised to jihadists in the afterlife. If that were all Islam had to offer, it would go nowhere. The latter has adherents because they also offer social and practical benefits here and now, like mosques and mentors and friends and so on. We don't have a local support network, but at least I can think of a practice that will make men feel better and be more sexually successful almost as soon as they pick it up. That practice is nofap. I didn't invent it or start the nofap movement, but it so happens to dovetail exactly with our positive aims, so I've embraced it.
The Antifeminist makes much of my supposedly being like a marijuana legalization activist who says pot is evil. What he does not get is that masturbation is not virtually harmless like smoking pot, but much, much worse, like heroin or crack. I used the word anosognosia for a reason. What we can reasonably have for such indisputably harmful things is a "harm reduction" movement, and I do get behind that. This consists of remedies like decriminalization of use and possession, free needles and perhaps prescription drugs for addicts. Such things are worth advocating, but they don't compose a movement celebrating something positive like male sexuality deserves.
It is more harmful to masturbate and be imprisoned than just masturbate, so by all means, I support harm reduction there too. I just want to make it clear that it is harm reduction of dysfunctions secondary to our sexuality rather than male sexualism, which to me represents actual sex and usually sex we can be proud of.
The Antifeminist is also confused about my definition of asexuality and attributes to me the claim that sex which doesn't result in pregnancy is asexual. That is plain false; I've never said that. While I uphold uncontracepted sex as the highest good, I don't claim birth control equals asexuality, though we must admit that the barrier kinds come close, condoms being described even in scientific journals as "mutual masturbation with the same latex device" sometimes. Contrary to what The Antifeminist says, there are contactless crimes that fit my advocacy as well. Grooming and solicitation are certainly sexualist activities when the aim is real sex, and victims of these laws are our people. But those who do silly things like just masturbating to porn or send dick pics are not. They are merely worthy of harm reduction efforts rather than moral praise and inclusion in our brotherhood of egosyntonic male sexuality.
It is important to me to have a pathway of the moral high ground where we lead the way in righteousness. Yes, we are the last handful of humans against a zombie apocalypse. Not really, because there are many more real humans lurking in the shadows -- Epstein's network is proof of that -- but in public discourse, yes, it's just the few of us left. And that makes it all the more important that we uphold healthy sexuality. A wanker is partly like a zombie because he has allowed some of his sexuality to be zombified, and I shall not sink so low nor promote it.
One more thing: can we please ease off on the "Asperger's" accusations? Disagreements about how to run a movement does not equal autism, man. Yes, it takes extreme nonconformism to be a male sexualist, but it doesn't seem to be associated with true disability or diagnosable mental disorders, because we can't even recruit such people in appreciable numbers. The only confirmed case of Asperger's in our movement is Nathan Larson, and he is obviously a lot stranger than I am. I got a clean bill of health even from the hostile psychiatrist who worked for the police when they tried (and failed) to build a case against me (for INCITEMENT, not threats which is another error you make ad nauseam), so it's really retarded to claim you know better.
I wanted to create something positive. Even though we have no hope of affecting policy any time soon, we can at least stand for something true and good, something we can be proud of and celebrate when the rest of the world is hating and criminalizing.
I realize that criminalization is running amok against both male sexuality and masturbation plus paraphernalia, and both deserve to be defended from this onslaught, but only the former meets my "something positive" criterion.
Ideas and practices get adopted because of the social rewards and practical benefits they provide to their adherents. Most people who join a movement don't do so primarily because of their desire to further an agenda. Rather, they do so because they find it socially and practically rewarding, and then the agenda follows as a result of the strength of the group. We must not lose sight of this.
Sex law reform as advocated by us is about as realistic in our lifetime as the 72 virgins promised to jihadists in the afterlife. If that were all Islam had to offer, it would go nowhere. The latter has adherents because they also offer social and practical benefits here and now, like mosques and mentors and friends and so on. We don't have a local support network, but at least I can think of a practice that will make men feel better and be more sexually successful almost as soon as they pick it up. That practice is nofap. I didn't invent it or start the nofap movement, but it so happens to dovetail exactly with our positive aims, so I've embraced it.
The Antifeminist makes much of my supposedly being like a marijuana legalization activist who says pot is evil. What he does not get is that masturbation is not virtually harmless like smoking pot, but much, much worse, like heroin or crack. I used the word anosognosia for a reason. What we can reasonably have for such indisputably harmful things is a "harm reduction" movement, and I do get behind that. This consists of remedies like decriminalization of use and possession, free needles and perhaps prescription drugs for addicts. Such things are worth advocating, but they don't compose a movement celebrating something positive like male sexuality deserves.
It is more harmful to masturbate and be imprisoned than just masturbate, so by all means, I support harm reduction there too. I just want to make it clear that it is harm reduction of dysfunctions secondary to our sexuality rather than male sexualism, which to me represents actual sex and usually sex we can be proud of.
The Antifeminist is also confused about my definition of asexuality and attributes to me the claim that sex which doesn't result in pregnancy is asexual. That is plain false; I've never said that. While I uphold uncontracepted sex as the highest good, I don't claim birth control equals asexuality, though we must admit that the barrier kinds come close, condoms being described even in scientific journals as "mutual masturbation with the same latex device" sometimes. Contrary to what The Antifeminist says, there are contactless crimes that fit my advocacy as well. Grooming and solicitation are certainly sexualist activities when the aim is real sex, and victims of these laws are our people. But those who do silly things like just masturbating to porn or send dick pics are not. They are merely worthy of harm reduction efforts rather than moral praise and inclusion in our brotherhood of egosyntonic male sexuality.
It is important to me to have a pathway of the moral high ground where we lead the way in righteousness. Yes, we are the last handful of humans against a zombie apocalypse. Not really, because there are many more real humans lurking in the shadows -- Epstein's network is proof of that -- but in public discourse, yes, it's just the few of us left. And that makes it all the more important that we uphold healthy sexuality. A wanker is partly like a zombie because he has allowed some of his sexuality to be zombified, and I shall not sink so low nor promote it.
One more thing: can we please ease off on the "Asperger's" accusations? Disagreements about how to run a movement does not equal autism, man. Yes, it takes extreme nonconformism to be a male sexualist, but it doesn't seem to be associated with true disability or diagnosable mental disorders, because we can't even recruit such people in appreciable numbers. The only confirmed case of Asperger's in our movement is Nathan Larson, and he is obviously a lot stranger than I am. I got a clean bill of health even from the hostile psychiatrist who worked for the police when they tried (and failed) to build a case against me (for INCITEMENT, not threats which is another error you make ad nauseam), so it's really retarded to claim you know better.
Sunday, August 25, 2019
Legislating nofap
Our culture is obsessed with criminalizing sexuality. And not just criminalizing, but enacting tougher and tougher penalties on top of what they have at any given time. Thus after each round of reforms when there is a "loophole" in the level of criminality of anything related to sexuality that isn't criminalized quite as hard as the rest because it was overlooked in the last round of reforms, legislatures scramble to close it with ever harsher criminalization. Such is the perpetual state of feminism -- no matter what the current laws, the drive to increase punishments for sex is always equally hysteric but increasingly hateful because the punishments are increasingly undeserved.
Except this time, the "loophole" is masturbation, and the feminist dimwits who think they promote antisex actually serve male sexualism:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/alaska-sexual-assault-loophole-masturbate-ejaculate-semen
Punishing both equally is a fool's errand for women, but exactly what men need to set our values straight. What feminists fail to realize is that male masturbation is bad for men (for many reasons) and good for women because women remain untouched. It is mind-boggling that feminists don't realize that women getting less of the sex they claim to hate so much is a good thing for them if they really mean this, so I would be careful with making masturbation equally criminal as rape and sexual assault if I were them.
I will therefore, at least as a rhetorical device, applaud this sort of reform which targets masturbation rather than sex. Sure it will put more men in prison for longer at least initially, but that is only because they didn't follow my advice, my creed and my mantra that the vagina is the only sexual outlet, possibly because they were even afflicted with anosognosia. This time it has zero effect on nofappers, so male sexualists can lean back and rejoice that the feminist antisex hate is missing its mark. As they exhaust most avenues of criminalizing sex, I expect more of the feminist antisex drive will be inadvertently channeled into legislating nofap, which is a good thing for sexualism in light of the alternative. (I am assuming that reducing antisex hysteria overall is not an option, or else I'd rather have less of both the real antisex and the fake kind where they bark up the wrong, masturbatory tree.)
Perhaps the feminists imagine that men are too stupid to adapt to laws. Yes, such men do exist. History shows that some men will be as stupid as Gally and go to prison as virgins. To refresh memories, Gally is a former commenter and one-time guest poster of this blog who to our horror turned out to be the ideal victim of feminism, literally going to prison as a virgin while internalizing the feminist "abuse" nonsense. He didn't even have the balls to plead not guilty to his bullshit victimless sex crimes because he is convinced the laws are right. And here is another sad example of a man who thought he was going to be a "good boy" and not have sex, for which he was rewarded by the feminist police state with prison anyway, because this is how much they hate your guts. We are very close to the point where just having a penis will be just as criminal as any other sex crime, and some men will no doubt attempt to please the feminists even then.
But on balance I don't believe that criminalizing sexual fantasies and masturbation will serve feminism. Given equal criminality of fapping and nofap, will so many men still opt for fapping? I submit that a significant number of men will not let women have their antisex cake and eat it like our ideal victim Gally who will never come near females while still being criminalized. Let's get real: not all men are that feckless, at least after they get a chance to hear about male sexualism! Increase the criminality of not having sex, and more men will realize that they might as well have sex, even if they didn't realize before that fapping is so harmful that it should be shunned even when society celebrates it, which it still does most of the time. There is vast potential here for both advancing nofap and the misguided feminist laws to support it.
In this case it is masturbation itself they are criminalizing, but the same argument applies to pornography. Because it so often facilitates fapping I cannot in good conscience support pornography on sexualist grounds, since it's so harmful to male sexuality (but I still advocate its legality on freedom-of-speech grounds).
So don't tell the feminists about the value of nofap to men. But no worries, no one pays attention to this blog anymore, or the entire male sexualist movement anyway. We can just sit back and watch the feminists self-sabotage their antisex power because they didn't know where to stop criminalizing.
Except this time, the "loophole" is masturbation, and the feminist dimwits who think they promote antisex actually serve male sexualism:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/alaska-sexual-assault-loophole-masturbate-ejaculate-semen
Punishing both equally is a fool's errand for women, but exactly what men need to set our values straight. What feminists fail to realize is that male masturbation is bad for men (for many reasons) and good for women because women remain untouched. It is mind-boggling that feminists don't realize that women getting less of the sex they claim to hate so much is a good thing for them if they really mean this, so I would be careful with making masturbation equally criminal as rape and sexual assault if I were them.
I will therefore, at least as a rhetorical device, applaud this sort of reform which targets masturbation rather than sex. Sure it will put more men in prison for longer at least initially, but that is only because they didn't follow my advice, my creed and my mantra that the vagina is the only sexual outlet, possibly because they were even afflicted with anosognosia. This time it has zero effect on nofappers, so male sexualists can lean back and rejoice that the feminist antisex hate is missing its mark. As they exhaust most avenues of criminalizing sex, I expect more of the feminist antisex drive will be inadvertently channeled into legislating nofap, which is a good thing for sexualism in light of the alternative. (I am assuming that reducing antisex hysteria overall is not an option, or else I'd rather have less of both the real antisex and the fake kind where they bark up the wrong, masturbatory tree.)
Perhaps the feminists imagine that men are too stupid to adapt to laws. Yes, such men do exist. History shows that some men will be as stupid as Gally and go to prison as virgins. To refresh memories, Gally is a former commenter and one-time guest poster of this blog who to our horror turned out to be the ideal victim of feminism, literally going to prison as a virgin while internalizing the feminist "abuse" nonsense. He didn't even have the balls to plead not guilty to his bullshit victimless sex crimes because he is convinced the laws are right. And here is another sad example of a man who thought he was going to be a "good boy" and not have sex, for which he was rewarded by the feminist police state with prison anyway, because this is how much they hate your guts. We are very close to the point where just having a penis will be just as criminal as any other sex crime, and some men will no doubt attempt to please the feminists even then.
But on balance I don't believe that criminalizing sexual fantasies and masturbation will serve feminism. Given equal criminality of fapping and nofap, will so many men still opt for fapping? I submit that a significant number of men will not let women have their antisex cake and eat it like our ideal victim Gally who will never come near females while still being criminalized. Let's get real: not all men are that feckless, at least after they get a chance to hear about male sexualism! Increase the criminality of not having sex, and more men will realize that they might as well have sex, even if they didn't realize before that fapping is so harmful that it should be shunned even when society celebrates it, which it still does most of the time. There is vast potential here for both advancing nofap and the misguided feminist laws to support it.
In this case it is masturbation itself they are criminalizing, but the same argument applies to pornography. Because it so often facilitates fapping I cannot in good conscience support pornography on sexualist grounds, since it's so harmful to male sexuality (but I still advocate its legality on freedom-of-speech grounds).
So don't tell the feminists about the value of nofap to men. But no worries, no one pays attention to this blog anymore, or the entire male sexualist movement anyway. We can just sit back and watch the feminists self-sabotage their antisex power because they didn't know where to stop criminalizing.
Friday, August 23, 2019
The faces of evil
Extreme trigger warning to male sexualists for the video I am about to link to. I got so upset that I had to take a 10-mile walk to calm myself down after watching before I could write this post. And then I had to tinker with it for another week to bring it into line with my commitment to not waste energy and health on hating the moral equivalent of rabid dogs. But there is still a problem here because as we shall see, it is difficult to dismiss Robert Wright and Paul Bloom as rabid dogs. I don't really recommend watching, just including it for reference for the points I am about to make about the more scientifically literate kinds of misandry.
These guys don't conflate Epstein with a pedophile like the lowbrow misandrists who invariably refer to him as “convicted pedophile.” Robert Wright knows that Epstein exemplifies textbook-normal male sexuality and says he feels the same, as does Bloom. They know the girls Epstein is accused of loving were at the peak of the normal male attraction curve:
And then Bloom says the most hateful thing I have ever heard in my life, at least about male sexuality: that what Epstein did is worse than pedophilia, since he chose to violate norms of society without being driven by any deviant desires. If he had been sexually deviant he would be worthy of sympathy rather than the hate reserved for normal male sexuality, so according to Bloom he had it all coming to him. This is a denouncement of male sexuality at the most informed level, folks. Our enemies don't get any smarter or more morally reflected than this.
Let us now look at the implications of this view. What do we make of the supposed mismatch between normal male sexuality and female sexuality? Because this isn’t just saying that men are prone to be bad sometimes because of our testosterone and aggressive tendencies, or even that rape is an adaptation that might kick in under certain circumstances, but that male sexuality is systematically evil as if by design, that our strongest, most pervasive impulse is to “abuse” girls. If you understand the nature of male sexuality and you still believe females can't handle sex or decide to exploit it for money at the ages we are most attracted to them, then you must believe male sexuality is inherently evil. This mismatch isn't supported by any scientific evidence, so this is where scientific literacy ends and antisex bigotry begins, to be sure, but these guys are more literate than the lowbrow buffoons who dismiss Epstein as a pedophile, and I think that is something we need to discuss because it might mean male sexualism is even more hopeless than we thought.
As hateful as this is, it is also true in a sense. We know we are so normal that even the establishment can’t diagnose us with anything, which is saying a lot in these sex-hostile times. We are only “suffering” from political and moral dissidence, which is to say we are dealing with the purest expression of good versus evil and it all comes down to picking sides. Our convictions of which side we are on is no doubt equally strong and can’t be influenced by factual or scientific illumination, because we (dimwits excepted) already agree on the facts!
Let me therefore reply by the same token. Wright and Bloom also have no excuse for their malevolence from our point of view. Forgive them not, for they know what they are doing. If there is such a thing as true evil, not just going with the flow of what authority says or getting carried away by your impulses, this is it.
And in the current environment it allows these creeps to virtue-signal their imagined superiority by denying the expression of their nature, as a sort of “virtuous teleiophiles”? This gets at the profound conflict between male sexualism and society, a conflict that may well run deeper than society’s war on pedophiles. A war on us regular men can’t be fought by “treating” us since we are already normal; we are moral enemies who can only be accepted if we suppress our nature. For those of us who have chosen to be egosyntonic about our normal male sexuality and not buy into the feminist lies that females are abused when they also have normal sex, this is unadulterated, distilled, mutual hatred.
Nonetheless, it is my position that we don’t get anywhere by hating back, because it consumes energy that should be spent figuring out how to be effective activists. And if hard determinism is really true, even the sort of premeditated, sadistic violence against men perpetrated by a system guided by ideologues like Paul Bloom isn’t a choice, so it helps to take that possibility seriously. Let me therefore end by exposing the most weighty real reason for this misandry coming from other men. It isn’t the female sexual trade union in this case, but that these men, who are fathers and apparently monogamous, let their sexual control freakery directed at their daughters consume them, trying to pull off our culture’s version of arranged marriages. Nubile females are the ultimate resource, so you can't fault them for caring, but the way they go about it is morally reprehensible. Like I said in the comments at YouTube:
It's about control of resources, so why can't we be honest about that and not pretend young teen girls are helpless, clueless victims who can't possibly decide to get paid for sex? It's the intellectual dishonesty that bothers me more than the fact that they want to guide their daughters into the kind of relationships they consider best for them. And them thinking it's OK to drive men to death for these victimless crimes, because that's what they are. I think most fathers don't want this resource squandered, and I wouldn't either, but some of us respect women's rights to choose for themselves at an earlier age, as early as is reasonable based on an honest assessment of the biology and psychology, plus we can easily see ourselves at the other end as clients and lovers of young girls, so we take a more permissive view.
These guys don't conflate Epstein with a pedophile like the lowbrow misandrists who invariably refer to him as “convicted pedophile.” Robert Wright knows that Epstein exemplifies textbook-normal male sexuality and says he feels the same, as does Bloom. They know the girls Epstein is accused of loving were at the peak of the normal male attraction curve:
And then Bloom says the most hateful thing I have ever heard in my life, at least about male sexuality: that what Epstein did is worse than pedophilia, since he chose to violate norms of society without being driven by any deviant desires. If he had been sexually deviant he would be worthy of sympathy rather than the hate reserved for normal male sexuality, so according to Bloom he had it all coming to him. This is a denouncement of male sexuality at the most informed level, folks. Our enemies don't get any smarter or more morally reflected than this.
Let us now look at the implications of this view. What do we make of the supposed mismatch between normal male sexuality and female sexuality? Because this isn’t just saying that men are prone to be bad sometimes because of our testosterone and aggressive tendencies, or even that rape is an adaptation that might kick in under certain circumstances, but that male sexuality is systematically evil as if by design, that our strongest, most pervasive impulse is to “abuse” girls. If you understand the nature of male sexuality and you still believe females can't handle sex or decide to exploit it for money at the ages we are most attracted to them, then you must believe male sexuality is inherently evil. This mismatch isn't supported by any scientific evidence, so this is where scientific literacy ends and antisex bigotry begins, to be sure, but these guys are more literate than the lowbrow buffoons who dismiss Epstein as a pedophile, and I think that is something we need to discuss because it might mean male sexualism is even more hopeless than we thought.
As hateful as this is, it is also true in a sense. We know we are so normal that even the establishment can’t diagnose us with anything, which is saying a lot in these sex-hostile times. We are only “suffering” from political and moral dissidence, which is to say we are dealing with the purest expression of good versus evil and it all comes down to picking sides. Our convictions of which side we are on is no doubt equally strong and can’t be influenced by factual or scientific illumination, because we (dimwits excepted) already agree on the facts!
Let me therefore reply by the same token. Wright and Bloom also have no excuse for their malevolence from our point of view. Forgive them not, for they know what they are doing. If there is such a thing as true evil, not just going with the flow of what authority says or getting carried away by your impulses, this is it.
And in the current environment it allows these creeps to virtue-signal their imagined superiority by denying the expression of their nature, as a sort of “virtuous teleiophiles”? This gets at the profound conflict between male sexualism and society, a conflict that may well run deeper than society’s war on pedophiles. A war on us regular men can’t be fought by “treating” us since we are already normal; we are moral enemies who can only be accepted if we suppress our nature. For those of us who have chosen to be egosyntonic about our normal male sexuality and not buy into the feminist lies that females are abused when they also have normal sex, this is unadulterated, distilled, mutual hatred.
Nonetheless, it is my position that we don’t get anywhere by hating back, because it consumes energy that should be spent figuring out how to be effective activists. And if hard determinism is really true, even the sort of premeditated, sadistic violence against men perpetrated by a system guided by ideologues like Paul Bloom isn’t a choice, so it helps to take that possibility seriously. Let me therefore end by exposing the most weighty real reason for this misandry coming from other men. It isn’t the female sexual trade union in this case, but that these men, who are fathers and apparently monogamous, let their sexual control freakery directed at their daughters consume them, trying to pull off our culture’s version of arranged marriages. Nubile females are the ultimate resource, so you can't fault them for caring, but the way they go about it is morally reprehensible. Like I said in the comments at YouTube:
It's about control of resources, so why can't we be honest about that and not pretend young teen girls are helpless, clueless victims who can't possibly decide to get paid for sex? It's the intellectual dishonesty that bothers me more than the fact that they want to guide their daughters into the kind of relationships they consider best for them. And them thinking it's OK to drive men to death for these victimless crimes, because that's what they are. I think most fathers don't want this resource squandered, and I wouldn't either, but some of us respect women's rights to choose for themselves at an earlier age, as early as is reasonable based on an honest assessment of the biology and psychology, plus we can easily see ourselves at the other end as clients and lovers of young girls, so we take a more permissive view.
If male sexualists ever gain power, I wouldn't put it past us to put feminists including men like Robert Wright and Paul Bloom on trial for crimes against humanity. And while we also want to reform prisons to be more humane, perhaps we should turn a blind eye while the misandrists get to feel what Epstein did at the end. And unlike him, they would truly deserve it.
Sunday, August 18, 2019
Anosognosia
Male sexualism is a movement to address two kinds of oppression of male sexuality: that imposed by antisex laws and that which is self-inflicted via porn and masturbation. I have explained why masturbation is bad for men before, and explained some more, but let me now mention another and perhaps even more worrying aspect of the masturbatory pathology: lack of insight that it is bad. Colloquially known as being in denial, the technical term for such a disorder is anosognosia, "a deficit of self-awareness, a condition in which a person with a disability is unaware of its existence."
The following quote from The Antifeminist will serve as illustration. I don't think he can be helped, but maybe there is still hope for those suffering from ignorance rather than anosognosia?
Our sex-hostile mainstream culture is all too happy to tell you that masturbation is fine. And then it institutes a (to the feminists) bonus level of oppression on top of that -- criminalizing a good bit of masturbation as well, usually by making at least some kinds of pornography illegal -- which is reliant on men being deluded into thinking these asexual pursuits provide some sexual value.
When something is a major feature of their environment for long enough, species will tend to adapt to it. That has obviously not happened with Internet porn yet because it has only been around for one generation. Two generations if you include DVDs and VHS tapes, and before that there was no seriously compelling pornography. It could have been different. For example, suppose aliens landed and installed solar-powered porn booths all over the African savanna when humans evolved, and kept maintaining them. Do you think porn would be very appealing to us now, then? No, males who masturbated to it would have reproduced less over a very long time, and the descendants of those who reproduced the most would have picked up additional ways to identify real women before they would get very aroused and allowed themselves to be "satisfied." Those males would have possessed the adaptations that we now sadly lack and need male sexualism to supplement.
For example, we might in that alternate universe be more reliant on smell than vision. And then maybe instead of a video porn industry, we would now have an industry supplying synthetic female odors and hijacking male sexuality that way, because that would be the supernormal stimulus that could serve as an evolutionary trap. While there is a market for women selling underwear in this timeline as well, it isn't very compelling to the majority of men, and such paraphilias can also be helped by nofap anyway.
I believe we can already see the faint beginnings of such evolution. How many kids does The Antifeminist have, for example? I also have zero in part because I fell into this evolutionary trap when I was young, but I am trying my best to rectify that now. If industrial civilization doesn't collapse, nofap will get stronger and stronger by some mechanism or another, probably first by cultural evolution because societies who suppress porn will have more kids. As individual men, we can't wait for evolution to make it easy, however; we have to use our intellect to decide on nofap. Male sexualism is here to help you with that.
The following quote from The Antifeminist will serve as illustration. I don't think he can be helped, but maybe there is still hope for those suffering from ignorance rather than anosognosia?
Masturbation and the ability to be aroused and satisfied by visual stimulation are core features of male sexuality. It is one of the things that differentiate us from women. Ironically, feminists used to proclaim that vibrators liberated women from men, but in fact, women can only physically stimulate their sex organ, they can’t actually find true sexual release through visual stimulation (and fapping) as men can.It is true that the ability to "find sexual release" by means of visual stimuli and masturbation is a "feature" of male sexuality, but this is a great tragedy rather than anything to be celebrated. If you think this is a good thing, then you are suffering not only from anosognosia, but also a fetishization of disability, because a disability or maladaptation is precisely what it is in the current world.
Our sex-hostile mainstream culture is all too happy to tell you that masturbation is fine. And then it institutes a (to the feminists) bonus level of oppression on top of that -- criminalizing a good bit of masturbation as well, usually by making at least some kinds of pornography illegal -- which is reliant on men being deluded into thinking these asexual pursuits provide some sexual value.
When something is a major feature of their environment for long enough, species will tend to adapt to it. That has obviously not happened with Internet porn yet because it has only been around for one generation. Two generations if you include DVDs and VHS tapes, and before that there was no seriously compelling pornography. It could have been different. For example, suppose aliens landed and installed solar-powered porn booths all over the African savanna when humans evolved, and kept maintaining them. Do you think porn would be very appealing to us now, then? No, males who masturbated to it would have reproduced less over a very long time, and the descendants of those who reproduced the most would have picked up additional ways to identify real women before they would get very aroused and allowed themselves to be "satisfied." Those males would have possessed the adaptations that we now sadly lack and need male sexualism to supplement.
For example, we might in that alternate universe be more reliant on smell than vision. And then maybe instead of a video porn industry, we would now have an industry supplying synthetic female odors and hijacking male sexuality that way, because that would be the supernormal stimulus that could serve as an evolutionary trap. While there is a market for women selling underwear in this timeline as well, it isn't very compelling to the majority of men, and such paraphilias can also be helped by nofap anyway.
I believe we can already see the faint beginnings of such evolution. How many kids does The Antifeminist have, for example? I also have zero in part because I fell into this evolutionary trap when I was young, but I am trying my best to rectify that now. If industrial civilization doesn't collapse, nofap will get stronger and stronger by some mechanism or another, probably first by cultural evolution because societies who suppress porn will have more kids. As individual men, we can't wait for evolution to make it easy, however; we have to use our intellect to decide on nofap. Male sexualism is here to help you with that.
Monday, August 12, 2019
We need better role models
What kind of world are we living in when Brenton Tarrant can be a role model? An unintended consequence of suppressing "objectionable" views like New Zealand is doing with his is to give the impression that they constitute esoteric knowledge that might be profound or convincing if you get to read them. But I have read these manifestos, and they are bullshit. That they nonetheless can inspire the youth, such as the would-be Norwegian mosque shooter Phillip Manshaus says more about the current climate than the persuasiveness of such writings.
There is something else going on here, a failure to be impressed by really good ideas and a willingness to go along with bullshit because one's standards are messed up. Maybe the kids these days don't get the good classical education that I had. Or maybe internet porn really is this emasculating. I don't know.
But I know I am a good role model, or at least try to be. Jeffrey Epstein was a terrific role model, with the exception of committing suicide instead of standing up as a proud male sexualist in court (but solitary confinement can do that to the best of us, so he deserves nothing but sympathy). Gary Wilson is another great role model because he promotes male sexual health and empowerment via nofap.
The Antifeminist is a role model, partly, if you look away from his defense of porn and masturbation. Holocaust21, likewise. Tom Grauer is a role model (read his manifesto), if you look past his worst trolling and tendency to delete his blogs once they gain traction. And even Roissy, censored from WordPress but now back online, is a decent role model. Somewhat less strident, but still a good role model for men is our old friend Men Factor. And that basically sums up the extant sex-positive manosphere, unless you count our allies the MAPs who have some good ones but constitute a special interest rather than male sexuality in general.
We the good role models don't currently inspire young men. What can we do differently? Well, if I knew, I would be doing it, so I can only keep at what I know. This is just another lamentation of the obvious. Comments are open to better ideas.
There is something else going on here, a failure to be impressed by really good ideas and a willingness to go along with bullshit because one's standards are messed up. Maybe the kids these days don't get the good classical education that I had. Or maybe internet porn really is this emasculating. I don't know.
But I know I am a good role model, or at least try to be. Jeffrey Epstein was a terrific role model, with the exception of committing suicide instead of standing up as a proud male sexualist in court (but solitary confinement can do that to the best of us, so he deserves nothing but sympathy). Gary Wilson is another great role model because he promotes male sexual health and empowerment via nofap.
The Antifeminist is a role model, partly, if you look away from his defense of porn and masturbation. Holocaust21, likewise. Tom Grauer is a role model (read his manifesto), if you look past his worst trolling and tendency to delete his blogs once they gain traction. And even Roissy, censored from WordPress but now back online, is a decent role model. Somewhat less strident, but still a good role model for men is our old friend Men Factor. And that basically sums up the extant sex-positive manosphere, unless you count our allies the MAPs who have some good ones but constitute a special interest rather than male sexuality in general.
We the good role models don't currently inspire young men. What can we do differently? Well, if I knew, I would be doing it, so I can only keep at what I know. This is just another lamentation of the obvious. Comments are open to better ideas.
Saturday, August 03, 2019
Which is worse: the female sex offender charade or female genital mutilation?
It is difficult to think of anything as deranged as the lie that women can commit sexual abuse -- and believe me, I have tried! The closest contender I can think of so far is female genital mutilation (FGM). Both are done to mutilate women sexually, the former by means of incarceration and/or "sex offender" registration and the latter more directly. Feminists support the female sex offender charade as vigorously as they oppose FGM, which goes to show that sadly, enlightenment in one area is cancelled out by new-found antisex bigotry in another, making our culture at least as bad as any other.
My point of making this comparison is to help readers snap out of the lie that there is any need to punish women as "sexual abusers." Because if you could see that both practices are equally baseless and indefensible (or based on ulterior motives), surely you wouldn't be so cruel as to want any of this? But it is difficult to see so from within your own culture when it is committed to such things, I know.
I am friends with a girl from Somalia whom I met on Tinder. She is a victim of FGM. Even more startlingly, it was her idea. Her parents weren't going to make her have it, but she got the idea that she needed it. Not because it is a good idea, obviously, but because her culture somehow told her so. We know female genitalia don't need to be mutilated as surely as we know that boys can't be "abused" by exposure to female sexuality. But cultures can be horribly misguided sometimes, and that is not okay. It is imperative that we do what we can to resist such practices when we understand how pointless and harmful they are.
Let us first consider the causes. "For every complex phenomenon there is an explanation that is," as the saying goes, "clear, simple and wrong," which is not what I am getting at. But one thing that jumps out is that these atrocities are primarily perpetrated by women. They are female-on-female violence or self-harm. Feminists begged for our current sex laws and it is mothers who egg their sons on to accuse women of contrived abuse on the basis of these laws, while men like me stand back in shock and disbelief, except sometimes when fathers are blinded by greed into supporting the accusations. Women have their daughters circumcised, or girls even chose it themselves. The female sexual trade unionist theory seems to have some merit in explaining both sorts of cultural misogyny. As explained by Baumeister & Twenge in this paper, "the evidence favors the view that women have worked to stifle each other’s sexuality because sex is a limited resource that women use to negotiate with men, and scarcity gives women an advantage." I think there is some overlap between this and the notion of women as property, and both go some way towards explaining the antisex bigotry which harms women. And finally I think such customs are partly down to random chance and noise. Superstitions get established on the whim of some supposed authority and then they stick. Luckily, we don't need to know the exact causes to know that they are bad. All we need to know is that women thrive with intact genitalia and both women and boys thrive where intimacy between them isn't persecuted.
Which is worse of these two travesties is a close call. On the one hand it is dreary to live in a society with a high prevalence of FGM, and most women still escape harm from the sex laws in ours. But then you have some lives completely ruined by the female sex offender charade, with prison terms up to the 22 years against Jennifer Fichter which I think is the record, making this probably worse for these women than to have been genitally mutilated, and remember, feminist sex-hostility is still very much ascendant so this might be only the beginning!
We also need to consider the secondary harm to males. Boys who could have enjoyed sex with women if not for the deterrence of our malicious sex laws are also victims of the female sex offender charade. FGM likewise leads to less sexually enthusiastic women because they enjoy it less, which is bad for boys and men too. At least partly as a result of this, my genitally mutilated Tinder date did not want to have sex with me unless we got monogamous and preferably married! This is a pest or cholera situation where if I had to make a choice, I would still declare the female sex offender charade worse because of its intellectual offensiveness on top of the moral travesty. It's a sad, cringeworthy sight to see so many people make retards of themselves and spout support for the female sex offender charade. At least FGM doesn't come with a lie you have to be an idiot to accept intellectually -- that boys don't "really" enjoy sex when they appear to when making love to a "sex offender"; that sex isn't a female resource and male sexuality is equally exploitable by women -- instead it puts a damper on female sexuality indiscriminately for reasons that don't purport to fit into the scientific worldview. I find it less offensive to just cause harm to everybody because that is what one's culture does for whatever bullshit reasons than to single out some victims for harm for even more bizarre reasons.
The female sex offender charade, in contrast, has been adopted by the social "sciences," which heightens the charade because at least FGM doesn't have a "science" backing it up. The way they go about it is that no question is ever allowed to be posed in a falsifiable manner if such a negative finding would go against our dogmatic definitions of abuse. Just look what happened to the Rind report. You can't observe a possibility that is taboo to consider with anything but righteous, brainless, knee-jerk condemnation, so our social sciences now dutifully report all the "abuse" the antisex bigots arbitrarily defined into existence. Once again Baumeister deserves and honorable mention, however, for going against the grain with this paper on sex as a female resource, where his formulation of the female sex offender charade appears on page 351-2. Although a bit weaker than mine, it captures the gist:
Biology is not yet so corrupted as the social sciences, but it isn't doing anything politically to stop this madness either, with evolutionary psychologists confined to a little corner where they are shamed and marginalized, though they have the right ideas. And the pedophile activist movement does not do enough for women, only incidentally standing up for them when they also stand up for men. They may be right about men, but they fail to realize that we need to go much further for women because the entire concept of "women sexually abusing boys" is gibberish even when the boys are unwilling (or if you want to get into the finer nuances, sexual exploitation is the component which needs to be removed from the laws with regard to female lawbreakers, for which I am literally the only activist).
And what about the humanities, you might be wondering? Well, ignoring crap like women's studies, the female sex offender charade is mostly not an issue to them because it isn't found in their subject matter. There is not a single example of a female "sexual abuser" in the entire literary canon, for example (of any culture, not just Western!), because great writers were not so silly as to dream up such nonsense. Nor is it found in anthropology, mythology, history, philosophy, ethics or jurisprudence until recent feminist crap. Literature is full of female sex offenders, but they are like Hester Prynne, victims of an at least ostensibly very different kind of antisex bigotry than the feminist kind, though their actions are often indistinguishable from what feminists now want to punish under the pretext that I call the female sex offender charade. The fact that feminist-defined female "abusers" are often the same who would be punished for abusing themselves and thus squandering a sexual resource belonging to someone else (as in adultery or fornication which brings shame on the family) under the old system should give feminists pause, but feminists are too dense to realize that they are playing into the same notion of women as property of men or religion that gave rise to the scarlet letter treatment.
I distinguish between two levels of female sex offender charade: half and full retard. Half-retard female sex offender charade is the belief that women's violence can be aggravated by a sexual component and so deserves to be prosecuted as for example "rape" or "sexual assault" with the inflated punishments that come with this categorization. These cases I only designate as half retard because they may reasonably be prosecuted as lesser crimes such as simple assault. They are also extremely rare (not necessarily because they don't happen, but because men don't accuse even though doing so is now the most politically correct thing in the world, which is further evidence that we don't want your stinking feminist sex laws), to the point that the female sex offender charade almost would be reduced to an academic gripe of mine if we managed to get rid of the full-retard part. Most actual court cases are full retard, where it is imagined that women can commit statutory (but reified) sex crimes hinging on supposed sexual exploitation of a victim, such as violations related to age of consent or positions of authority. Get rid of this, and we liberate all the teachers who seem to make up most female "sex offenders." Jennifer Fichter and Mary Kay Letourneau are poignant examples of full-retard cases, where you have to be a total inhumane dimwit to accept that any crime has reasonably occurred at all.
For completeness' sake, I should mention (again) that not all prosecutions of women for sex crimes fall within the female sex offender charade. When women are punished, say, for adultery because it is "a sin" or "immoral," this is plenty bigoted and tyrannical but does not qualify as a charade. Sharia law is a pure example of this. The United States still also retains a "vice" component to sexual prosecution that is not based on the idea of victimhood and is mostly used against hookers. In the most feministic countries, however, it is as if we have forgotten that sexuality can be prosecuted on anything other than a "victim" pretext. With what started as the Swedish model of criminalizing the purchase but not selling of sex, governments still conduct a war on whores, but we pretend that they are victims of men, who are then formally prosecuted while the whores are mistreated and downtrodden as a side effect. It seems to me that people here use the "victim" charade (with extreme inflation of both female and male victimhood) partly to hide the fact that they are control freaks about everything to do with sexuality, even more antisex-bigoted than people in countries that still have sex laws overtly based on religious intolerance. I suppose if you are dense enough to truly believe all the "victim" nonsense, this really works and you get to feel good and "liberal" and "feminist" about yourself while having your antisex bigotry too.
Thankfully, my position on full-retard female "sex offenses" coincides or at least greatly overlaps with pro-contact MAP activism such as the kind espoused by Tom O'Carroll, so I am not alone on this. But imagine if you lived in a society where no one but you spoke out against female genital mutilation. That is the situation in which I find myself with regard to the (half-retard) female sex offender charade, and why I can't stop writing about it because if I don't then no one will and I can't bear living in a moral vacuum. The female victims of non-charade sex laws also have activists (mainly sex workers like this verbose individual), but I am the only one comprehensively standing up for women on all three levels of sex crime, from pure intolerance to pure fantasy that they be abusers.
This has been the first of a planned series of posts where I compare the female sex offender charade to other weird, bizarre or absurd cultural phenomena, which I find to be a fruitful way to shed light on just how outlandish it is. Examples: UFO encounters, magic, belief in the supernatural or the afterlife, the Singularity, Roko's basilisk, metaphysical idealism, open individualism, empty individualism, shamanism, insanity, mereological nihilism, Bolzmann brains, quack healing, belief in self-driving cars and other supposedly near-term AI, mystical experiences, the perspectival theory of entropy, cannibalism, human sacrifice (already did a post on this one, but should do another because it is an excellent parallel both in terms of cruelty, pointlessness, irrational beliefs and presumably the lack of any organized efforts from victims to fight back) -- probably none of which are as weird as the female sex offender charade, and I shall explain why in due course. If anyone has suggestions for more weird things to compare it to, be sure to let me know in the comments. All words for the crazy, stupid or evil fail us when it comes to describing what it means to put women on trial for being sexually nice to boys while contriving "abuse," so we need to approach this phenomenon in extraordinary ways through a multitude of lenses to get closer to understanding what is going on and perhaps persuade those capable of rational thought on the subject, if there are any left.
My point of making this comparison is to help readers snap out of the lie that there is any need to punish women as "sexual abusers." Because if you could see that both practices are equally baseless and indefensible (or based on ulterior motives), surely you wouldn't be so cruel as to want any of this? But it is difficult to see so from within your own culture when it is committed to such things, I know.
I am friends with a girl from Somalia whom I met on Tinder. She is a victim of FGM. Even more startlingly, it was her idea. Her parents weren't going to make her have it, but she got the idea that she needed it. Not because it is a good idea, obviously, but because her culture somehow told her so. We know female genitalia don't need to be mutilated as surely as we know that boys can't be "abused" by exposure to female sexuality. But cultures can be horribly misguided sometimes, and that is not okay. It is imperative that we do what we can to resist such practices when we understand how pointless and harmful they are.
Let us first consider the causes. "For every complex phenomenon there is an explanation that is," as the saying goes, "clear, simple and wrong," which is not what I am getting at. But one thing that jumps out is that these atrocities are primarily perpetrated by women. They are female-on-female violence or self-harm. Feminists begged for our current sex laws and it is mothers who egg their sons on to accuse women of contrived abuse on the basis of these laws, while men like me stand back in shock and disbelief, except sometimes when fathers are blinded by greed into supporting the accusations. Women have their daughters circumcised, or girls even chose it themselves. The female sexual trade unionist theory seems to have some merit in explaining both sorts of cultural misogyny. As explained by Baumeister & Twenge in this paper, "the evidence favors the view that women have worked to stifle each other’s sexuality because sex is a limited resource that women use to negotiate with men, and scarcity gives women an advantage." I think there is some overlap between this and the notion of women as property, and both go some way towards explaining the antisex bigotry which harms women. And finally I think such customs are partly down to random chance and noise. Superstitions get established on the whim of some supposed authority and then they stick. Luckily, we don't need to know the exact causes to know that they are bad. All we need to know is that women thrive with intact genitalia and both women and boys thrive where intimacy between them isn't persecuted.
Which is worse of these two travesties is a close call. On the one hand it is dreary to live in a society with a high prevalence of FGM, and most women still escape harm from the sex laws in ours. But then you have some lives completely ruined by the female sex offender charade, with prison terms up to the 22 years against Jennifer Fichter which I think is the record, making this probably worse for these women than to have been genitally mutilated, and remember, feminist sex-hostility is still very much ascendant so this might be only the beginning!
We also need to consider the secondary harm to males. Boys who could have enjoyed sex with women if not for the deterrence of our malicious sex laws are also victims of the female sex offender charade. FGM likewise leads to less sexually enthusiastic women because they enjoy it less, which is bad for boys and men too. At least partly as a result of this, my genitally mutilated Tinder date did not want to have sex with me unless we got monogamous and preferably married! This is a pest or cholera situation where if I had to make a choice, I would still declare the female sex offender charade worse because of its intellectual offensiveness on top of the moral travesty. It's a sad, cringeworthy sight to see so many people make retards of themselves and spout support for the female sex offender charade. At least FGM doesn't come with a lie you have to be an idiot to accept intellectually -- that boys don't "really" enjoy sex when they appear to when making love to a "sex offender"; that sex isn't a female resource and male sexuality is equally exploitable by women -- instead it puts a damper on female sexuality indiscriminately for reasons that don't purport to fit into the scientific worldview. I find it less offensive to just cause harm to everybody because that is what one's culture does for whatever bullshit reasons than to single out some victims for harm for even more bizarre reasons.
The female sex offender charade, in contrast, has been adopted by the social "sciences," which heightens the charade because at least FGM doesn't have a "science" backing it up. The way they go about it is that no question is ever allowed to be posed in a falsifiable manner if such a negative finding would go against our dogmatic definitions of abuse. Just look what happened to the Rind report. You can't observe a possibility that is taboo to consider with anything but righteous, brainless, knee-jerk condemnation, so our social sciences now dutifully report all the "abuse" the antisex bigots arbitrarily defined into existence. Once again Baumeister deserves and honorable mention, however, for going against the grain with this paper on sex as a female resource, where his formulation of the female sex offender charade appears on page 351-2. Although a bit weaker than mine, it captures the gist:
Moreover, an asymmetry in victims’ reactions supports the view that sex is a female resource. Male victims of sexual coercion by women typically report far less distress or trauma, and they are more likely to look back on the incident as minor and unimportant (even if distasteful), as compared with female victims of male coercion. In an important sense, the male victims seem less prone than female victims to feel that they have lost something of value—consistent with the view that sex is not a male resource. [...] An extreme version of the social exchange analysis would insist that women would never rape or sexually coerce men. Clearly this would be false. A milder version thus holds simply that female coercion of male victims lacks an important dimension, namely theft of the resource, and so the trauma and victimization are less severe.The difference between what Baumeister is saying here and all my rants against the female sex offender charade is quite small, almost cosmetic. I don't deny that female sexual coercion happens and may sometimes deserve prosecution as lesser crimes than sex crimes; all I am saying is precisely like him that they lack the dimension of theft of sexual resource. The difference is that he foolishly abuses the word "rape" and isn't explicitly calling for legal reforms to bring the sex laws back into line with reality, but it would certainly follow from his position as well that women deserve far less punishment than the justice system is determined to give them now that they are to be treated like men, complete with the charade that men have a sexual resource worth protecting from women to an equal extent as vice versa.
Biology is not yet so corrupted as the social sciences, but it isn't doing anything politically to stop this madness either, with evolutionary psychologists confined to a little corner where they are shamed and marginalized, though they have the right ideas. And the pedophile activist movement does not do enough for women, only incidentally standing up for them when they also stand up for men. They may be right about men, but they fail to realize that we need to go much further for women because the entire concept of "women sexually abusing boys" is gibberish even when the boys are unwilling (or if you want to get into the finer nuances, sexual exploitation is the component which needs to be removed from the laws with regard to female lawbreakers, for which I am literally the only activist).
And what about the humanities, you might be wondering? Well, ignoring crap like women's studies, the female sex offender charade is mostly not an issue to them because it isn't found in their subject matter. There is not a single example of a female "sexual abuser" in the entire literary canon, for example (of any culture, not just Western!), because great writers were not so silly as to dream up such nonsense. Nor is it found in anthropology, mythology, history, philosophy, ethics or jurisprudence until recent feminist crap. Literature is full of female sex offenders, but they are like Hester Prynne, victims of an at least ostensibly very different kind of antisex bigotry than the feminist kind, though their actions are often indistinguishable from what feminists now want to punish under the pretext that I call the female sex offender charade. The fact that feminist-defined female "abusers" are often the same who would be punished for abusing themselves and thus squandering a sexual resource belonging to someone else (as in adultery or fornication which brings shame on the family) under the old system should give feminists pause, but feminists are too dense to realize that they are playing into the same notion of women as property of men or religion that gave rise to the scarlet letter treatment.
I distinguish between two levels of female sex offender charade: half and full retard. Half-retard female sex offender charade is the belief that women's violence can be aggravated by a sexual component and so deserves to be prosecuted as for example "rape" or "sexual assault" with the inflated punishments that come with this categorization. These cases I only designate as half retard because they may reasonably be prosecuted as lesser crimes such as simple assault. They are also extremely rare (not necessarily because they don't happen, but because men don't accuse even though doing so is now the most politically correct thing in the world, which is further evidence that we don't want your stinking feminist sex laws), to the point that the female sex offender charade almost would be reduced to an academic gripe of mine if we managed to get rid of the full-retard part. Most actual court cases are full retard, where it is imagined that women can commit statutory (but reified) sex crimes hinging on supposed sexual exploitation of a victim, such as violations related to age of consent or positions of authority. Get rid of this, and we liberate all the teachers who seem to make up most female "sex offenders." Jennifer Fichter and Mary Kay Letourneau are poignant examples of full-retard cases, where you have to be a total inhumane dimwit to accept that any crime has reasonably occurred at all.
For completeness' sake, I should mention (again) that not all prosecutions of women for sex crimes fall within the female sex offender charade. When women are punished, say, for adultery because it is "a sin" or "immoral," this is plenty bigoted and tyrannical but does not qualify as a charade. Sharia law is a pure example of this. The United States still also retains a "vice" component to sexual prosecution that is not based on the idea of victimhood and is mostly used against hookers. In the most feministic countries, however, it is as if we have forgotten that sexuality can be prosecuted on anything other than a "victim" pretext. With what started as the Swedish model of criminalizing the purchase but not selling of sex, governments still conduct a war on whores, but we pretend that they are victims of men, who are then formally prosecuted while the whores are mistreated and downtrodden as a side effect. It seems to me that people here use the "victim" charade (with extreme inflation of both female and male victimhood) partly to hide the fact that they are control freaks about everything to do with sexuality, even more antisex-bigoted than people in countries that still have sex laws overtly based on religious intolerance. I suppose if you are dense enough to truly believe all the "victim" nonsense, this really works and you get to feel good and "liberal" and "feminist" about yourself while having your antisex bigotry too.
Thankfully, my position on full-retard female "sex offenses" coincides or at least greatly overlaps with pro-contact MAP activism such as the kind espoused by Tom O'Carroll, so I am not alone on this. But imagine if you lived in a society where no one but you spoke out against female genital mutilation. That is the situation in which I find myself with regard to the (half-retard) female sex offender charade, and why I can't stop writing about it because if I don't then no one will and I can't bear living in a moral vacuum. The female victims of non-charade sex laws also have activists (mainly sex workers like this verbose individual), but I am the only one comprehensively standing up for women on all three levels of sex crime, from pure intolerance to pure fantasy that they be abusers.
This has been the first of a planned series of posts where I compare the female sex offender charade to other weird, bizarre or absurd cultural phenomena, which I find to be a fruitful way to shed light on just how outlandish it is. Examples: UFO encounters, magic, belief in the supernatural or the afterlife, the Singularity, Roko's basilisk, metaphysical idealism, open individualism, empty individualism, shamanism, insanity, mereological nihilism, Bolzmann brains, quack healing, belief in self-driving cars and other supposedly near-term AI, mystical experiences, the perspectival theory of entropy, cannibalism, human sacrifice (already did a post on this one, but should do another because it is an excellent parallel both in terms of cruelty, pointlessness, irrational beliefs and presumably the lack of any organized efforts from victims to fight back) -- probably none of which are as weird as the female sex offender charade, and I shall explain why in due course. If anyone has suggestions for more weird things to compare it to, be sure to let me know in the comments. All words for the crazy, stupid or evil fail us when it comes to describing what it means to put women on trial for being sexually nice to boys while contriving "abuse," so we need to approach this phenomenon in extraordinary ways through a multitude of lenses to get closer to understanding what is going on and perhaps persuade those capable of rational thought on the subject, if there are any left.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
