Sunday, February 24, 2019

A Male Sexualist Manifesto

Just the other day I was lamenting that Tom Grauer had dropped out of activism -- but guess what: he is back! Stronger than ever, with a complete male sexualist manifesto. The work I had been too lazy to write myself has just been handed to us as if descended from heaven:

A Radical Male Sexualist Manifesto

If you've known Grauer since his first blog you might expect some trolling. But no, this is entirely serious. It contains strong statements, but only because feminist society really is as outrageous as he says. There is no advocacy of pedophilia, slavery or abolishing the sex laws altogether like he flirted with before; just the bare-bones men's rights activism for normal male sexuality that I have been promoting for over 20 years now, finally put down in an attractive pamphlet.

I still intend to write a manifesto myself too, going more into depth about the specific things we want to change about the sex laws, but as a primer on male sexualism I don't think I can surpass this. Congratulations! and many thanks for writing it, Tom Grauer. This will appeal to men in general, unless they are hopelessly brainwashed by puritan-feminism, and should be disseminated far and wide.


CulDeSac said...

Not a single comment! Dette er latterlig. Free up the comments section again, Eivind!

Eivind Berge said...

I will think about it. I see my moderation policy has ruined a good thing, a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is not right to let a few vicious trolls ruin it for everybody, I agree.

CulDeSac said...

What do you think about this Eivind? Some anti trafficing organisation is dreaming up suicide pacts just as they are dreaming up trafficing victims, and are reporting such to police. People in anti-trafficing er just as much the scum of the earth as the enforcer of all these anti sex laws.

Eivind Berge said...

That's a new one, which once again shows that the antisex hysterics have a wild imagination and no inhibitions against using it to get men into trouble. That is also why I need to keep tight moderation, but I am still thinking about opening up for anonymous comments again. Right now though, dealing with the absurd requirements for becoming a licensed bitcoin trader is my top priority, and then I will devote more effort to the blog in due course.

tg said...

A follow-up text:

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks for that, Tom. I will read it and see what I think.

CulDeSac said...

Statsadvokat krever lovendring idet sex-siktet mann ble frikjent fordi han var siktet for et forhold som vitterlig ikke er straffbart. Merk den sinnsyke argumentasjonen til den fæle kvinnelige statsadvokaten med fett hår og ellers skremmende ytre; "Når kvinnene i ettertid får vite hva som har skjedd blir de redde, de får psykiske problemer". LOL! Latterlig! Det er foreløpig ikke ulovlig å titte på lettkledde kvinner, men det krever feministene at det skal bli. Sykt!

Eivind Berge said...

Heh, der klarer de å pønske ut enda en utvidelse av sedelighetslovene, rett etter at de har trumfet igjennom en ny stalkingparagraf. Som jeg har påpekt tidligere, feministene blir ALDRI fornøyd. Går dette igjennom, så blir neste steg at menn kan dømmes kun for å ha en seksuell tanke i hodet om en dame de tilfeldigvis ser, og dette er allerede praktisk talt der.

Og FORVARING for å kikke inn gjennom noen vinduer?! Potensielt livstid i fengsel for å kikke på noen damer som ikke merket det engang? Nå ble denne dommen heldigvis opphevd, men det er bokstavelig talt det nivået som er neste steg. Og menn reagerer fremdeles ikke!?

Eivind Berge said...

I just discovered that I posted my reaction to Tom Grauer's The Incel Manifesto in the wrong thread, so here it is belatedly:

I read it, and can highly recommended this incel manifesto. My favorite quote sums up the rationale:

“So far, it is only women who have engaged in sexual politics. Men have pursued various ideologies that deal with a very wide range of issues; yet, strangely enough, explicitly sexual politics of the kind advanced by Feminism (except, of course, taking a different or opposite stance) have been suspiciously absent from mainstream male discourse; this, despite the fact that it’s male sexuality, and not female sexuality, that is the more overpowering of the two.”

Indeed this is true for the feminist sex laws and also inceldom. Whenever incel men get attention in the mainstream it is always like Tom says:

“Needless to say, these reports are not aimed at seeking solutions to involuntary celibacy, but solely focus on the “misogyny” emanating from the incel community - which only goes to prove the point regarding the extreme gynocentric bias of society.”

Tom's manifesto presents some remedies such as a tax on spinsters, social norms against singlehood, the promotion of monogamy and a national matchmaking agency. These details can be debated, and there are probably more and maybe some different things we should do (I am missing the legalization of prostitution, for example), but this a great way to get the debate started. And men should definitely be raising this debate, not just us male sexualists. Given how few men still want to do so, Tom is also realistic about the timeline when he says incel politics probably won’t influence the mainstream until the 2030s or 4os, sadly.

Another incisive quote: “you must have noticed that women can and do promote themselves by utilizing both their actual merits and their sexual appeal, whereas men can advance solely by virtue of the former kind of asset.” Why men are content with this situation without doing anything to advance equality is beyond me, and all I can do is to promote writings like these and try to come up with more ideas myself. Well done, Tom.

Here's another link to share it from my Google Drive in case Tom's link goes down:

Unknown said...

Hey, I read this Manifesto and have a few comments, but let me just say first that 1) I'm a feminist and a woman and 2) I'm not here to spread hate or give off any sort of hostility. The safe and free expression of opinions is one of the most important things in society, no matter what that opinion is.

Obviously I respectfully disagree with your beliefs, but I also want to add that true feminism isn't the exaltation of women at the expense of men- it's the idea that women can/should have the same rights as men without either sex suffering; that women should be able to express their sexuality but men also have just as much of a right to express theirs. A lot of "feminist" movements have warped this definition into their desire for power- not to defeat the patriarchy but to replace it.

The feminism you talk about in the manifesto- in my personal opinion- isn't feminism, it's misandry. I know a lot of feminists, men and women, who're very positive toward both genders and have no animosity toward men at all. I think that's the only way to build an equal society. :)

Eivind Berge said...

Our movement is against misandrist and antisex laws that exist regardless of how you define feminism. Whether those odious laws (that also gratuitously hurt women, by the way) are the result of what you consider to be the "correct" feminism is beside the point. Any questions about our actual ideology?

Anonymous said...

The Age-of-Consent and CP criminalization are both implicitly misandrist.

Although the law is phrased in egalitarian terms, as applying to both men and women, in actual fact, most -- i.e., some 95% -- of the behavior criminalized by these laws is committed by men, not by women (exceptions exist, obviously, but exceptions prove the rule). So what needs to be understood about misandry is that it is very often instituted as simply "egalitarianism"; technically these laws are sex-neutral, but in practice, these are overwhelmingly men who are imprisoned because of it, not women, *and that is the raison d'etre of the law*. Even if the law is not explicitly misandrist, it is implicitly misandrist.

I describe this state of affairs as a "misandrist re-definition of normalcy," that is, "normal behavior" is conceived in a manner that harms the interests of men. This phenomenon is actually broader than sex-crime legislation; in culture, for instance, typically male behavior is often denounced as immoral, but it is not necessarily attributed specifically to men.

Ethics are now defined in a way that condones much of female behavior while lambastes much of male behavior, however, without necessarily explicitly saying "men are evil and women are angelic." For instance, society views pornography (visual gratification) as dirty and degrading, while giving a pass to romance novels ("female porn"). It is just assumed that visual gratification is evil and blah-blah-blah, while written gratification is absolutely okey-dokey. This is implicit misandry, for the obvious reasons.

In general, things that men enjoy often elicit disapproval by society, while things that women enjoy are promoted and encouraged. "Normalcy" is being constantly re-defined in ever more misandric ways, all while being cloaked in the guise of "objective morality." That is why I define myself as anti-Feminist: Feminism disingenuously promotes misandry (or, to be even more precise, gynocentrism) under the banner of "equality," and has been doing so for a very long time.

Part of my worldview is that the prevalent norms in society should not be such that privilege women and harm men, whether explicitly *or implicitly*.

Eivind Berge said...

Absolutely; feminists always find a way to hide misandry behind a charade of gender equality. That's one of the reasons I have been railing so much about the invention of female sex offenders too -- it obfuscates the fact that the sex laws exist to control male sexuality and invites support from useful idiot males and opportunistic accusers against women, which unfortunately has been quite successful at getting these laws established.

tg said...


By the way, I think that I finally grasp the pertinence of your point about the female sex offender charade: the idea that teenage boys, exploding with sex hormones, can be "sexually assaulted" or "raped" by hot female teachers -- never mind that these same teenage boys literally line up excitedly to have sex with the teachers -- is pretty much inconceivable in light of the tremendous difference in sex drive between men and women. While it is certainly true that female students (jailbaits) routinely seduce their male teachers, still, if we are perfectly honest, we should concede that teenage boys are significantly hornier than teenage girls, and have dramatically lower standards for mate choice, so I can see why you emphasize the absurdity of this charade.

Put another way, not all female students would jump the bones of their male teachers, but virtually 90% of male students would have wild sex, including orgies, with their female teachers. That's what the sharp inter-sexual sex drive disparity entails.

So I think that instead of emphasizing that females are prone to experience victimization in a way that males don't (which is something that we should not view as particularly significant, since women constantly feel victimized by things that aren't actually harmful to them, so their feelings of victimization are essentially frivolous), it is preferable to remind the reader that men are substantially hornier than women; that is a more compelling argument from a male sexualist perspective, and it should appeal to incels and MGTOWs who may not give a rat's ass about female feelings of victimization, but who are perfectly willing to admit that the male sex drive is much more intense than the female one.

This gives the proper mental framework to grasping why you always bring up the case of female sex offenders. Then you can proceed to ask, "If a female teacher had offered you a blowjob when you were 16-year-old, would you have refused it?" Every healthy heterosexual man with normal testosterone levels knows the answer to this one.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, and it runs much, much deeper than that because male sexuality does not have a commodity aspect that women can exploit, so even in the rare cases where the male is unwilling and literally resisting, the fact that there is a sex act going on does not make the crime worse (though it may of course deservedly be prosecuted as nonsexual violence).

I wrote about this here, where I pushed the limits of how much female sexual offending can be acknowledged to the breaking point and then some:

Sexual exploitation is the element of rape and other sex crimes that women conceptually can't commit, and those student-teacher affairs are virtually always 100% based on this dimension alone since the students are usually eager participants, making these the most cringeworthy cases of the female sex offender charade.

The day men can reliably sell sex to women, we can talk about exploitation being possible, but that is not going to happen unless human nature changes (and it won't change by natural selection as long as women must bear the unequal parental investment of pregnancy). In the real world, I frequently see teenage boys begging women to take their virginity (for example in Craigslist ads) and offering to pay (like I myself had to do, sadly after waiting until I was 21 because ignorance of nofap made me so feckless), while of course girls can sell theirs for huge amounts and keep selling sex as their sole profession in life if they want. It is a rape of reason and justice to pretend that sexual exploitation of boys by women is possible.

As I kept saying on Twitter before I got banned, female sexuality is to male sexuality like real money is to Monopoly money. A male who accuses a woman under the current sex laws is as if someone had their Monopoly game stolen and then went to the police and insurance company to report the loss of real money, demanding the face value of all the notes to be redressed. Again, the only rape here is of the intellect, and feminists have been very successful at raping the justice system to this effect, but the minds of us male sexualists shall be unassailable!

Eivind Berge said...

Another analogy I am fond of is gambling and its relation to children and consent. It is reasonable to declare that children can't consent to gambling (because of the risk, nay certainty of financial exploitation), but in a lottery with only winners, would it matter? Sex with women is like a lottery with only winners. In our eagerness to prevent child exploitation, society forgot to ask if the thing was worth preventing or could be exploited, which male sexuality vis-à-vis women cannot be even in principle. Sexual relations between a young boy and a woman is no more fraught with exploitation than the two of them playing a game of tic-tac-toe, so calling it exploitation is just as insane. The only remotely exploitative aspect would be the risk of child support, but that must be addressed via the laws governing child support, not sex laws that institute a pretense that the boy is sexually exploited.

And also by way of the gambling analogy, we see that protecting girls from men and boys from homosexual men has some merit, since sex is an exploitable asset in those markets. So the male sexualist position is not to deny age-of-consent and abuse-of-position laws altogether, but to apply them judiciously. That means NEVER apply them to women vs. boys, tolerate setting the age of consent at max 13 and permitting much more relations between students and male teachers as well, when they aren't clearly exploitative.

Eivind Berge said...

And when I say society forgot to ask if women can sexually exploit males, I do not mean it was an honest mistake. It's the result of a vicious feminist campaign to deny the truth and blindly assert that the sexes are equal. This is where misandry and female supremacy turned into misogyny of the most bizarre kind, demonizing and punishing women for acts of kindness as if they were monsters. Of course we should have had an honest debate about whether and to what extent women can sexually abuse before including them in the sex laws, but such honesty is now to be censored. With my Twitter gone, my blog is the last notable sanctuary of honesty about sexuality, almost the last refuge for the truth, and it remains to be seen if we can foster more openness before we are wiped out and only politically correct dogma be permitted anywhere.

tg said...

I'd like to add that even with a relatively sane AOC, we should advocate for making the punishment for AOC-violation a monetary fine rather than a long prison sentence, at least in borderline cases, i.e. when girls aged 10 and older are concerned. That is, the official AOC can be 13, but say if a man has sexual relations with a 12-year-old female, he should not be thrown in jail, but face a much milder punishment. (Jail can be reserved for sex with girls aged 9 and younger) By the way, the first to bring up this idea was commenter Chinzork.

Also, in general the courts should take into account the actual circumstances of each case: was the sexual contact initiated by the girl? Is the girl naive or mature for her age? Does she feel violated, or is she infatuated with her lover? Is the relationship incestuous (thus prone to exploitation) or not? And so forth. Sensible policy cannot be blind.

As for homosexual sex, as you previously pointed out, there is no reason why it should be treated the same way as heterosexual sex. Although I'd lower the AOC in such cases also; 13 is fine. Point is, the laws of supply and demand tell us that there are many more older homosexuals interested in sex with young boys, than vice versa. As for lesbians, their case is similar to that of gays, though there may be some nuances here.

On a different note, I'm looking forward to your manifesto. My own manifestos are imperfect, to say the least; you'd probably produce a better text. Just make sure to maintain operational security, and to save your materials regularly. (I did my part by archiving your whole blog on and the Wayback Machine) It is also possible to download a blog and then re-upload it elsewhere. You can have a back-up blog on WordPress, and if this one gets wiped, you can upload it there (WordPress can integrate Blogger blogs).

The bigger problem is that male sexualism is just not a very popular ideology; even individuals devoted to political incorrectness would rather talk incessantly about racial issues than about the criminalization of sexuality. The audience is small. That's one reason why most male sexualist blogs have not been censored so far; they go unnoticed and under the radar. It's a sad irony.

The only ones that were banned were Robert Lindsay (he called for violence against Feminists) and Agapeta (sexualization of children). To me, it is not clear how the latter type of TOS violation can be avoided, since everything we say can be construed in this manner. And censorship looks arbitrary when people like Nathan Larson and Tom O'Carroll are permitted, while others aren't. I'm surprised that Heartiste is still up. Anyway, that's one reason to be branch out into many platforms rather than depending on the goodwill of any one of them.

Eivind Berge said...

Those are all good points, and thanks also for archiving my blog. We have to be careful, but of course we can't mangle our ideology to stay on a platform, so if the others start applying the same rules as Twitter, we are toast in the mainstream.