I am, once again, talking about the female sex offender charade. Whenever a woman is prosecuted for her sexual vitality and generosity, I feel what "The Lottery" evokes. It is the banality of evil at work, evil perpetrated by people who don't particularly make up their minds to be evil, but also have no ability to question senseless norms and laws.
It has now reached the point that I am suspended from Twitter for saying women can't rape men in one tweet, and in another that it is a retarded criterion to punish women that they have sex with someone under 18. I have appealed and it remains to be seen if my suspension will be permanent, but one thing is clear: I can't be on Twitter if I have to condone the female sex offender charade, because resisting that is one of the pillars of our political platform as well as a moral and intellectual duty.
Robin Hanson has said that it is so far only "hyperbole" that gets censored (or else he would be banned long ago himself), and I have mostly agreed, but we are testing the limits of that theory now. I suppose I still could call it something like an "intellectually untenable" criterion to punish women for sex with minors rather than a "retarded" one, and perhaps use some circumlocution about women not being able to rape men either, but that so is hard to keep up at all times in the face of constant reporting that we are now dangerously close to our ideology itself being censored, not just some un-PC word with which it is expressed.
Ironically, I -- an MRA -- am censored by feminists for resisting misogyny. And when there is so little opposition to punishing women for victimless sex crimes, what hope is there for men? Men don't have the cuteness going for them that these nice women, usually young teachers, do and still get punished with no significant opposition. As in the fictional story, even the "winners" of the senseless punishment lottery do not question it on principle. The best they can do is to cry that there was something unfair about the way they got selected, which is to say get bogged down into the fight against "false accusations" that takes up so much valuable activist resources that should have gone into fighting the larger issues.
Only the male sexualists question the lottery itself. I belabor the female sex offender charade so much because it is so painfully obvious that an idiot -- sorry, I mean a developmentally challenged or differently abled person -- can see it -- in fact can see better than the oversocialized crowd that the "victims" are only lucky, so this should be the lowest-hanging fruit of sex law reform. Yet as much as I have tried, I cannot get women to see it. If anything, they go more gung-ho for punishing women than men, probably because of the added virtue-signaling involved. There is something charming and innocent about their moral blindness and eagerness to please authority, like the little kids in the story who are given pebbles to throw, even at their own mother, but make no mistake, this is the nature of evil.
I am now going to reopen anonymous comments to let the community weigh in on this latest development. But it might have to be temporary, because this blog is constantly under attack as well. Assume that everything gets reported and please don't post anything questionable -- I will only publish what I am sure is acceptable, of course, but it is all the effort that goes into those decisions that make anonymous comments intolerable in the long run.
Oh, and in case you are wondering what the title means, read it here.
Anyway, here is a link to my complete Twitter archive, all ten years of tweets from 2009 to 2019. The zip file is 2.43 megabytes and includes an easy interface in which to view the tweets. Simply unpack it on your computer after downloading and open the file index.html for easy viewing in your browser by month.
No content has been lost, but of course deplatforming makes it a lot harder to reach people. And so they enforce the official narrative which now includes the lie that women can sexually exploit males. The more preposterous the claim, the more censorship it takes to enforce it. This is now a feminist religious belief that they zealously protect even more than their laws against men.
Steve Moxon wrote a paper claiming that misogyny does not exist:
While I largely agree, he has overlooked the female sex offender charade. You could call it disparate impact rather than deliberate misogyny, but the result is certainly misogynistic. Because what else would you call punishing women for no reason, along with willful blindness to examining that lack of reasons and censorship of those who do?
I would not have guessed that when I finally got deplatformed, it would be for sticking up for women's rights, but in retrospect it's not all that surprising. The only real misogyny is perpetrated by the feminists themselves, and they also have the political and corporate power to enforce it. My supposed violation of the Twitter Rules is called "hateful conduct," but I am in fact the one resisting hate, resisting their misogyny.
My message is love, and now let's see how long I last on the remaining platforms. Will male sexualism be snuffed out without a trace before it even begins, or can we get a movement going? Do people care about hateful sex laws at all? There seems to be a little outcry about Brunei now instituting literal stoning for victimless sex crimes, but not enough to change that either. At the end of the day, governments are free to punish sexuality as they see fit, every bit as brutally and senselessly as in "The Lottery" with people eagerly throwing stones. To change this, we would need a political movement the world has not yet seen, centered on sex-positivity for all, not just some special interest like gay or transsexual rights which is immediately followed by ramped-up persecution on other fronts according to freshly invented or newly weaponized sexual taboos. Only male sexualism fits the bill as a movement of universal sex-positivity for all genders, so in that sense our name is a misnomer, but all things considered I still believe it is the best name, with sexualism as a close second that others can use if they are less focused on male heterosexuality.
Feminism failed to protect women. The only real motivation to control female sexuality is as property of men, and feminists knew to resist that, but to no avail when they accept all persecution based on the “abuse” paradigm, which more than compensates for the old laws. For example, feminists would not want to punish a woman simply for being an adulteress, but if you add the irrelevant technicality that her lover is a student at the same school, or under 18, they go gung ho for punishing to the point of reporting me for disagreeing until their censorship succeeds. They literally can't see that the new laws serve the same function. The astonishing ease with which feminists and all women will accept contrived “abuse” as an excuse to oppress women damns their whole movement and indeed women’s ability to think ethically. To be sure, most men also lack that ability, but at least we have a tiny minority who can think for ourselves and evaluate sex laws on their merits rather than just going with the flow. It may not be enough to make a political difference, but at least we tried.
Well, the problem is that most people just don't seem to care. As far as I can tell some people will intensely hate those who break age of consent laws just because they don't want to deal with the fundamental problem i.e. the law because the fact that the law is inherently evil is too bigger problem for them to deal with. Especially when it's not just the law, but the media, MPs, charities etc. Many of whom act in an evil way for the same reason (they are too afraid to confront the problem, and they just don't really care). The other reason people act evil is when they were given money from the government for a feel good cause (example, helping child abuse victims) then they realise they want to grow their careers, so they invent abuse and ask for way more money and then the bureaucracy spirals out of control... I think Grauer wrote about this.
I'm not sure what the answer is, personally I don't see worrying about the tiny proportion of female sex offenders is going to help much given how rare it is for women to be convicted. And no fap is just a waste of time, plenty of others have ranted on about that to no real avail. Stopping men fapping off to porn is like kicking all the immigrants out of your country. You can try really hard, even elect a president to do it (example: Trump) but it ain't gonna happen. Porn is here and here to stay.
As for Twitter, it's a wonderful way to waste time. The trouble with Twitter is that there is a never ending supply of depressed loonies who will want to berate you and tell you that you are sick etc. In general you will meet more people who will hate you than in real life. Part of that is just because the only people who will hear about you are those with an interest in the topic, most people aren't interested, so you won't hear from them on Twitter. I'm starting to think if you want to have real influence embedding yourself in one of our institutions is the best way, but it's a long tedious road.
On another note, it's a shame Nathan Larson is trying to kill himself. He had a lot of potential if for no other reason than his willingness to say the most politically incorrect stuff. But unfortunately he's given up any hope of being able to achieve anything. Though, I will admit our situation is pretty hopeless, we can't even agree with one another. I wish I was born 200 years ago, life would have been so much better then!
Now Twitter has informed me that my suspension is permanent. So that's all it took, saying women can't rape men and 18 is a retarded age of consent. Censorship is much like a lottery too nowadays, striking in unaccountable ways after saying the same thing a thousand times already. At least I won't have to waste time there anymore or put up with all the haters. I wasn't making much progress anyway, being stuck just under 1500 followers for years no matter how much effort I put into it. Let them have their politically correct echo chamber (plus Trump, who is the only one given a pass I guess) while we move on to other things.
I am not trying to forcibly stop men from fapping, just saying it's a very bad idea. I think incorporating nofap in our philosophy can make men feel grateful to be male sexualists because it's so tremendously empowering. Supercharge your sexuality and get as much pussy as you possibly can, which makes you so positive despite all the hateful sex laws that you will want to spread the gospel of male sexualism. This is how we grow, by giving men something of value that they can use now; otherwise it's just an exercise in depression.
Because without it, as you see, there are only a handful of hardcore idealists interested in sexual freedom, and even someone as driven as Nathan Larson can't hack it. We need to have a sort of system, practice or ritualistic aspect to build a sense of community and purpose beyond just advocating for sex law reform, and nofap fills that role perfectly since it so beautifully fosters our values in real life.
You are right that women are a marginal proportion of the damage of bad sex laws, but they are a good test case because if people don't see anything wrong with punishing females, how the hell are you planning to convince them that men don't deserve it either? There is a whole other biological layer of unfairness to women on top of all the reasons male sexuality is oppressed, and I can't fathom how this can continue with so little opposition even when I try to explain it as best as I can. When it comes to criminal law, people are truly zombies who will punish anyone for any reason just because it is the law, but sometimes it works to turn the tide, and exposing the female sex offender charade is a good way to start, I think. We have biology and psychology and history on our side, which distills the problem down to only the force of arbitrary law, plus the money flowing to the abuse industry as you note, which is to say a pure witch-hunt, and those have been known to end historically, though it can take hundreds of years.
I said people are zombies about criminal law, but there is at least one exception. When ethnic Norwegians get convicted of hate speech against immigrants, plenty of people go bananas (look at the 274 comments):
But this is only because they hate immigrants. As a free speech absolutist, I agree the hate speech law (granting special protection to the dear PC groups only, in practice mostly Muslims and thankfully not yet feminism) is very bad, but this resistance does not bode well for sexualism or evince any rationality about laws in general. They manage to call for worse sex laws right there in the same comments, again because they are racists who believe immigrant men get away with more rape. These people are a little bit allied on free speech, but they are downright enemies of male sexualism.
So we are up against nasty people on the left who want to criminalize our sexuality AND our speech, and nasty people on the right who want to criminalize our sexuality even more but want to allow hate speech because it serves their racism. A pest or cholera situation as far as men's rights are concerned.
If the alt-right truly cared about freedom of speech, they would be just as outraged about the child porn law as they are about hate speech prosecutions! But no, they sadly only care about expressing their racism and Islamophobia.
Well I can certainly see that women are an interesting test case for arguing for the abolition of age of consent laws because if people even hate women who bang underage boys, then it suggests, as you imply, they just think it's wrong because it's the law and some mysterious moral code. There's no reason or logic in it at all.
As for all the racists I dunno what it is with that. Maybe it's just sufficiently politically correct for people to be a racist these days but people still think it's "edgey". It's like the way you get some people who would go around saying "fuck, fuck fuck fuuuuuck..." even though the word fuck wasn't as unPC as celebrating child rape it was however sufficiently unPC to be edgey, but not so unPC that you would be removed from polite society altogether.
Anyway, back to nofap... The thing is, not fapping won't empower anyone, it doesn't get you pussy, at best you might get sexually aggressive and get locked up for rape. And lot's of other people have advocated for it before, so it's nothing new. You'll need a much better, personally empowering message. But I do kinda agree that the personal empowerment thing is quite important. Being part of a movement with no immediate personal gain doesn't encourage people to join or stay, only mentally ill people like you and me will stay in such a movement. Maybe it needs to be like a real life meet up group focusing on traditional families, women becoming young mothers, encouraging teenage pregnancies etc. That way, at least in theory, it would serve a personal purpose for people to join (so they could get married to someone of a similar ideology). You'd have to see if women would join though, because they might not since women are strange these days and seem to all be from Mars (some claim Venus, but I'm not convinced).
You still don’t get nofap. Will some nofappers be incarcerated for rape? Sure, both real and in the feminist-corrupted senses, but only because rape is a part of the baseline level of male sexuality -- like other criminality something no society can completely eradicate, at least not without turning into a dystopia that is much worse than the crimes were. Saying masturbation is fine is like saying you shouldn’t get the polio vaccine because some men will be imprisoned for crimes that polio might have paralyzed them from committing. You can argue against pretty much any kind of vaccine, cure, or other health-promoting initiative that way. See how crazy this type of logic is? The only reason we are led to think this way about masturbation is because sex is not really seen as a value, subconsciously not even by some male sexualists, so they don’t give a damn if the male libido is crippled for the flimsiest of excuse!
Even if you take the most naturalistic view of masturbation you can, and note that other male animals masturbate mostly without ruining their sex lives and reproduction (though there are some horrific exceptions for animals too, like jewel beetles wasting themselves on beer bottles), you forget or are ignorant of the fact that animals hardly ever ejaculate from it, and certainly lack the supernormal stimulus of Internet porn that messes up modern man (only the jewel beetles had something comparable). There is a hypothesis that masturbation exists so that low-status male animals can keep themselves aroused and ready for sexual opportunism. I don’t much buy it, but even if you do, it is irresponsible to conflate this behavior with masturbation to orgasm, which is what we really mean by human male masturbation.
The most charitable view it is possible to take on masturbation is that the male sex drive has so much reserve capacity, and exceeds the sexual supply of women so much, that men might “get by” on whatever is left after allowing masturbation, say 1-5% of their potential. But do you really only want to live 5% up to your potential? To me that is crazy! Male sexualism is the value system that explicitly seeks to maximize male sexual expression, from your perspective as an individual man with YOUR best interests prioritized over those of women or society or anything else, so it obviously follows that we strongly discourage masturbation.
I am beginning to realize that the 19th-century myths about masturbation leading to various horrible diseases and physical deformities represented great wisdom, like a last gasp of the wisdom of the ages against civilizational decay, because the morbidity of masturbation (or value of male sexuality) is so hard to grasp that such metaphors are needed. Either that or a strong moral sense against masturbation rooted in the Bible or whatever, that is even more obsolete now. But since I do not wish to argue in disingenuous ways, I will keep pointing out the rational reasons against masturbation. And I have only scratched the surface here, mentioning the subtlest negative effects, which themselves are enough. Even if the damage were so slight that you failed to approach one woman in your lifetime that you could have had sex with (due to lowered motivation or confidence after masturbating), the advice to never masturbate applies. And the potential gains are much, much greater, up to and including avoidance of completely debilitating sexual dysfunctions like porn-induced impotence, so it's hard to think of anything more clear-cut.
Male sexualism, in the broadest sense, is male sexual self-actualization. Yes, you almost have to be mentally ill to publicly attack the sex laws in the current climate, given the futility and persecution we face for that. I have called our disease hyperpolitical disorder, which is something I can't in good conscience recommend on its own. There has to be something positive one gains from joining our movement even if we don't succeed in changing any laws in our lifetime, and I maintain that nofap is the best such offering, since it really does help men realize their fullest sexual potential (that is possible under the circumstances). If you have a better idea, by all means suggest it. I am not saying nofap is the ONLY kind of self-help we should promote. Pickup artistry is another obvious candidate, but you need nofap to reap the full benefits of that too, which can also be said for law reforms.
To make it more fun and interesting, think of nofap as a martial art that uses your opponent's force against them (I forget which are supposed to do this, maybe judo?). That doesn't usually work in real life, but feminists are so ridiculously stupid that it does in our case. Seeing that they think they fight sex by fighting the very asexual practices that prevent men from having sex, the opportunity for leveraging this force right back at them is too good to miss and should be celebrated by us male sexualists. Whenever they criminalize pornography, sexting or some "sex act" this isn't sex, we should just laugh mockingly and encourage men to obey the law!
Re-posting something that I wrote on one of Nathan's forums:
"The incel community derives its impetus from the trauma of teenage sexlessness; if one did not experience sexual intercourse in the years shortly following puberty, from age 13 to age 16, no amount of adult sex will be able to compensate for that early, pivotal deprivation. Just as some misandric women identify as “political lesbians,” and just as some edgy libertarians identify as “political pedophiles,” some members of this community, who aren’t authentic incels, nevertheless identify as “political incels,” because even if we can get laid, in the back of our minds forever lurks the trauma of teenage sexlessness, giving us no rest as the memories of loneliness and frustration flash back at us throughout our lives, propelling us to political activism on behalf of the sexless, as these provide a poignant reflection of our deep psycho-sexual distress. Perhaps when memory-implantation becomes viable, we’ll implant ourselves with false memories of wild nights with JB girlfriends back when we ourselves were horny teenagers, and then our constant discontentment and agitation will subside."
Good point, Tom. I agree, except with the desirability of implanted memories, which would be the ultimate masturbation, LOL!
Having been incel once, all the way until age 21 and then during some shorter intervals later, has indeed made me a political incel for life, but also, unlike the rest of you, an actual and political nofapper because I feel masturbation was part of the problem but there was no one around to tell me about it back then. We can do better than that and make young men acutely aware of the opportunity cost and other damage of fapping if they want to listen to us. Even if you don't believe in the brain damage that I am convinced fapping to porn causes, the opportunity cost is incontrovertible and reason enough to shun it like the plague. That opportunity cost shows up in no one's calculus but your own and the philosophy of male sexualism, because no one else cares how much sex you have or even if you are incel. When society tells you masturbation is harmless, they ALWAYS ignore the opportunity cost at the very least, and usually the other porn-induced male dysfunctions as well. Since the entire concept of opportunity cost is missing, any mainstream evaluation of masturbation will be gibberish to the actual male sexual interests, and their conclusion that it is harmless, profoundly odious.
Apropos the female sex offender charade:
A sick man has taken advantage of our sick feminist rape law to accuse a woman of "rape" due to being asleep during sex, and our sick system obliges with a prosecution. She was found not guilty because the court didn't believe that the man was asleep when they started having sex, but it shows the absurdity we are up against that this went to trial.
This is the second time I know of in Norwegian history that an adult "man" has accused a woman of "rape," the first being in 2004, and it boggles the mind that the system can still run this charade with a straight face and pretend that female sexual coercion belongs in the same category as rape. Of course, this kind of situation, even if the accuser is telling the truth, wouldn't be rape against a woman either since there is no force and the "victim" got into this situation willingly (and truly unwilling unconscious sex where the man can't reasonably expect it would just be sexual exploitation, not rape unless he also forced the state of unconsciousness on her), but the sick reality is that the feminist system takes the insane feminist definition of rape seriously for putting women on trial as well. Once again it goes to show that the state preying on women is no deterrent to feminism, and it falls on us male sexualists alone to defend both men and women against corrupt sex laws.
To spell out the male sexualist position for new readers, women cannot sexually exploit men, so the sexual-exploitation aspect of rape needs to be removed from all prosecutions against women, which in this case means the charge at most could be simple assault (which she also isn't culpable for since it was perfectly fine to have sex in that situation). The fact that the system calls it rape and would have sentenced the woman to four years if convicted (as opposed a few months at most for simple assault) is unfathomable misogyny; it is absolutely astonishing that more people don't see this and that women put up with it.
Now some commentary in Norwegian:
Hvordan går det an å mene at en kvinne fortjener samme straffen som en mann for ufrivillig sex? Kan noen av dere som mener dette, prøve å artikulere hvordan dere får det til å gå opp? Hvordan klarer dere å leve med deres egen kvinneforakt, eller alternativt tro på vrangforestillingen om at ufrivillig sex med motsatt kjønn betyr det samme for menn og kvinner? Hvordan er det mulig at denne farsen gjennomsyrer et ”rettssystem”? Alle med et fnugg av sunn fornuft eller erfaring i den virkelige verden vet det er idioti og kvinnehat, men likevel skjer det i et ”feministisk” system. Hvordan klarte vi å synke så lavt?
Mannlig og kvinnelig seksualitet er ikke like mye verdt i noen andre sammenhenger på det heteroseksuelle kjønnsmarkedet, så hvorfor late som KUN for å straffe kvinner? Å straffeforfølge en kvinne for "voldtekt" er som om noen skulle blitt frastjålet et spill med monopolpenger og så late som det var ekte penger i rettsvesenet, for akkurat sånn er forskjellen på verdien av mannlig og kvinnelig seksualitet. Det er helt ufattelig at det kan skje nesten uten at andre enn jeg kaller bløff, og altså to mulige forklaringer: Enten er det så viktig å skape en illusjon av likestilling at man gir faen i at kvinner straffes for bagatellmessige kroppsfornærmelser (som ville vært riktig lovanvendelse) som om det skulle vært voldtekt, eller så lider mann av vrangforestillingen om at kjønnene er like. I begge tilfeller er det helt avskyelige, kvinnehatende eller inkompetente mennesker som står bak.
Akkurat som monopolpenger ikke er verd mer enn papiret de er skrevet på, er ikke mannlig seksualitet (overfor kvinner) verdt noe mer enn i verste fall det selve volden måtte tilsi av en fornærmelse. Du må være syk i hodet ditt for å late som det skal tillegges noen verre forbrytelse på grunn av det seksuelle aspektet. Om det skulle spilt noen rolle, så ville det vært i motsatt retning som en formildende omstendighet, for at kvinnen vil ha sex er vitterlig det men er MINST redd for. Det er langt verre om hun har andre motiver, som ran eller mishandling som straffes mildere, men så snur rettssystemet det på hodet på grunn av at feministene har bestemt at vi skal benekte kjønnsforskjeller. Denne situasjonen er ikke holdbar for normale, fornuftige mennesker. Vi må få sannheten frem i lyset! Ingen urett irriterer meg så mye som denne farsen. Selv om det er kvinner som er ofrene her, så ser jeg på dette som mannsbevegelsens fremste sak, for det er enda noen hakk verre enn den urett som rammer oss gjennom sedelighetslovene, og kvinner har åpenbart ikke den moralske intelligens eller handlekraft som skal til for å si fra selv.
The female sex offender charade is the emperor's new clothes, that I am now excluded from Twitter for exposing. But I shall not give up. Evolutionarily speaking, to claim that women should be subject to the same sex laws and can even "rape" men is to pretend that a few hours of sperm production is equivalent to a woman's risk of pregnancy, with all the resulting psychological adaptations also being equal -- curiously only when a sex law has been broken and not at other times when men have to contend with inceldom and pay for sex etc. A man who has the nerve to accuse women under these laws must be a psychopathic opportunist, with whom the Men's Movement shall not associate in any manner. His only supporters are feminists and we condemn them all as the misogynistic clowns that they are. Unfortunately, this is now how the "justice" system literally operates. I suppose I should use my blog more actively now that I can't use Twitter to expose it.
Polyamory goes well with male sexualism, and here's a good discussion:
Sex, Love, and Polyamory | Robert Wright & Geoffrey Miller [The Wright Show]
Surprisingly well because it helps against the incel problem, unlike polygamy and standard hookup culture where alphas get most of the girls and try not to share them. So polyamory seems to be the best way to both satisfy the male lust for promiscuity and not have too many incels.
We all know they would have been nothing but helpless "victims" if they were planning to have sex, but it is amazing how responsible 14-year-old girls become once sex is removed:
Just for a written fantasy about killing people -- not threats, just some private pieces of paper -- "Each girl faces nine counts of conspiracy to commit murder and three counts of conspiracy to commit kidnapping, according to the sheriff's office reports."
Absolutely disgusting hypocrisy and an insane overreaction, goes to show that society is completely schizo about minors. Why all this agency all of a sudden when we are otherwise told they lack the power to consent?
Eivind, I admire your activism. Please keep going to counter the extreme misunderstanding, hysteria, and shameful injustice. I ask that you consider publishing the below:
The Antifeminist uses paedocrite, which is a terrible word, it inspires no contempt because everyone is essentially hypocritical in some way. Instead simply call anti-sex people PedoNazis, because no one wants to be associated with a group that makes evil personal attacks for their own power, which the PedoNazis obviously do.
Here's how you can consistently refute the 2 main points the PedoNazis use to brainwash the culture and legal systems in the west:
1) Physical - "It's creepy to be attracted to teens" "Teens are undeveloped sexually" "Why would a teen prefer an older person sexually" etc
Your writings should ask people to honestly imagine times when they felt attracted to someone who was a teenager, or when they felt attracted to someone older when they were a teenager themselves. Ask if they feel shame about these feelings: if so, reassure them that science has proven these feelings are normal and widespread - everyone has them, given to us by God or evolution, whichever you prefer to believe. Puberty tends to begin around age 11, where sexual feelings become normal. Ask them to imagine remembering these feelings, and how good and normal they felt.
2) Mental - "Teenagers are too young to consent" "Teens cannot comprehend the serious nature of the act" "We need to protect teens from making bad decisions" "Children cannot consent to sex" "Teens lack the mental capacity to consent"
Agree that teens make bad decisions sometimes. However, ask if older people also make bad decisions (they do). Yes, older people may make less bad decisions, but ask if sex is always a bad decision (it's not). Ask people to imagine the times they had sex, aren't they positive by a great majority, regardless of age? So isn't the harm of traumatizing a teen with a criminal investigation, forcing them to turn on their older lover AND feel shame about their own sexual feelings, far, far worse than allowing a teen to experience something that is positive the vast majority of the time, regardless of age?
A teenager is not a child. A teenager is sexually developed, a child is not. The legal definition of a child (under 18) is entirely different from the real life definition of a child, mostly because of administrative purposes such as voting and emancipation rights. Briefly mention science shows the brain is not fully developed until at least 30, and probably beyond; science also shows the majority of teen relationships with older people are overwhelmingly positive, except when the teenager is traumatized by a criminal investigation, and their only way out emotionally is to turn on their lover (from age of consent laws).
Agree that teens may not be able to understand the consequences of sex, which could result in wild emotional swings or unwanted pregnancies. However, if teens can't understand the consequences of sex, why would sex education work so well to reduce teen birth rates? Is it coincidence, or do teens in fact understand the consequences of sex, and when educated, make better decisions related to safe sex? And regarding wild emotional swings, we all agree that older people have more experience and stability in life - wouldn't you want an older lover, someone with more experience and stability, handling the emotions of a teenager, as opposed to another teenager? As we know, teenagers are having sex - who could use experience to care for their feelings better, another 13 year old, or someone older?
Yes, older people can be manipulative, or make false promises. However, who is more manipulative and tells more lies, teens or adults...? Ask parents if teens ever lie to manipulate their parents...
Agree that it might be off-putting to think of your son or daughter having sex. But ask if parents in general are put off by thinking about their offspring having sex at any age (they are). Ask if you're put off thinking about your own parents having sex at any age (of course). Now imagine how you feel thinking of yourself having sex with someone else. Is it different from the feelings your parents might have? Sex feels entirely normal and good when you remove the context of being a parent.
Link to this table of historical "ages of consent" and ask the question if western countries came to a halt as a result of these lower, more rational ages. The fact is, during this time, some of the greatest, most successful modern nations came into existence:
Thanks for that, Anonymous. It's good to see some people are still able to reason unhysterically about teenage sex. The historical table of ages of consent is also interesting, but there is one strange exception to the trend of rising feminist sex-hostility: in Chile the age of consent was 20 in 1880 and 1920? I assume that was either a joke of a law or only applied outside marriage, as a sort of criminalization of fornication (probably also not much enforced) rather than a serious age of consent supposedly referring to something real about the ability of minors. 18 is crazy too, so they still seem to be doing the same thing -- only USAians are stupid enough to take that age seriously as referring to anything in the real world.
I just thought of another absurdity of the Puritan-Feminist system. If a 16-year-old guy possesses an erotic image of his 17-year-old girlfriend, or if a 15-year-old girl possessed an erotic image of her 17-year-old boyfriend, and so on, then the system would punish a younger person for possessing sinister pixels involving someone older!
Just think how extremely absurd such a situation is. I know that we are all somewhat "crazy" here, each in his own unique way, but the system we are resisting can only be conceived as something straight out of a madhouse's acute psychiatric unit. I can hardly believe that normies don't see it. They would have a 16-year-old boy in prison for having "CP" containing a 17-year-old girl posing lustfully for the camera, and wouldn't even feel like something is absolutely bizarre and weird about the whole thing.
And now on an semi-optimistic note: with some 30% of men aged 15-35 being incel nowadays, it's a relatively safe bet that... a storm is coming.
Here's a thought: old-school patriarchy was gynocentric, giving preferential treatment to women at the expense of men, placing the interests of women above those of men, expecting men to defer to women, and considering the blood of women to be redder than the blood of men. However, that doesn't mean that patriarchy needs to be abolished. Rather, it means that patriarchy needs to become pro-male rather than pro-female; it needs to start serving male interests rather than female ones. So the real choice is not between gynocentric (Trad-Con) patriarchy and Feminism or "sexual egalitarianism," but between pro-male patriarchy and anything else. Pro-male patriarchy has not really been tried in the Western world, but that's not an argument against it.
So we should make it clear that we support the restoration of patriarchy, however, not of the old-school (gynocentric) type, but of a radically novel type of patriarchy that works for us and exclusively for us.
Well well NOBODY supported ME while I was being banned from Twitter AND doxxed by THE feminist cunt bitch of all time Kelly Ellis.oh well MAYBE JUST MAYBE now 'mras' will actually contact me and or get together in real actual life but I highly doubt it.keep on tweeting! Keep getting banned. Fun isn't it? And remember since everyone blamed ME for "getting myself banned" somehow? You only have YOURSELF to blame! Did you stalk or threaten some poor damsel in dustress on Twitter eivind?!
No, no stalking. I was banned for stating the opinion that women can't rape men and shouldn't be punished simply for having sex with someone under 18, in response to questions from someone I had never heard of before. You can see the screenshot yourself here:
That's all it took, and no, I won't go back and be banned again like you did. If I can't tweet under my real name, which can't be restored, I have no use for Twitter and agree that we should indeed support each other in making a better platform for MRAs. The problem is, we would be so marginal that these mainstream platforms practically control speech even if they legally don't.
John, remember we can be banned here too, so I had to redact your last comment slightly and presenting the rest here:
"Yes I know.it doesn't take much.well women literally run twitter.im finished with ALL social media after being doxxed.im on Facebook but with no face.and I see Kelly Ellis is STIll picking fights, then calling cops and tweeting how "harassed" she is. She can stay on Twitter with her open man hate forever I guess but we're done.fucking infuriating."
Yes I just read having sex is at an all time low in $merikkka. Gee I wonder why.im full of nothing but hate now.and I have to remind myself, when I'm outside) to hide the hate off my face to the best of my ability to do so(hard to do and ppl are actually scared of me now,Fuck em) (i fucking DESPISE females.tattood loudmouth man hating shit.as for 'no fap"? Not fapping will NOT make me taller or handsome or most important of all: wealthy.so no reason to stop that activity.
No problem.i understand. Yep even though I have no girlfriend or ever married and don't even look or talk to females, I STILL have women screwing my life up.real life,real time.long story but a female just 2 weeks ago.well, blood boiling experience BELIEVE me.will I ever get justice or even revenge? Doesn't look like it. This installing women into positions of power over men is insane and when I inform people it's a feminist police state? Looks of disbelief are quite common.its just a fact. like America is an evil empire hell bent on global hegemony run by this bloated Pentagon and billionaire oligarchs.trump HAS to go,but I see no end ever to America's imperialism and the war on the poor and middle class.this inequality WILL come to a head someday though.we MUST have a wealth tax,asap, AND stop wasting SO much money on tanks?! And upgrading a nuclear arsenal that can already obliterate the globe?! It's pure insanity.and like you mentioned, conservatives can only talk about their racism.feminists are vastly more dangerous to this cUntry than dirt poor "ferriners".I'm not concerned one bit over any "invasion".the cop pigs,feminists and yes the beloved by so many retards,these billionaires are the trifecta of evil now.
It is indeed spectacularly hard to hook up with young fertile women. As I see it, failure is an option; not trying is not an option. The Mission requires our best efort and preparedness at all times as long as there is any hope. Fapping is therefore extremely inadvisabe.
I'll stop as soon as I find a nice pretty gal,lol.
sorry,once an incel, always an incel.
change is actually quite impossible once you accept you don't have control.
I routinely say AND do things I don't WANT to.
no free will is the actual reason no one changes. not "laziness" or "stubbornness".
Sam Harris claims his realization that he has no free will has "liberated" him.
maybe it has.
he's doing quite well and hasn't suffered for it.
I certainly have.
it all stems from the great lie "you can be anything you want".
Which is patently ridiculous.no,you can NOT decide to be a gigolo.
or a great pianist,or a great tennis player etc etc.
and once again,where are your results from this no fap experiment?
Anyway, pretty sad and pathetic you were banned from Twitter.
There was no reason for it and I can definitely relate.
I guess we're all just sexist misogynist potentially dangerous online terrorists.
And it goes further than just that for me.im also somehow a "flea market terrorist" after doing markets since 1990! I was banned because I was "mean" to a female.
Now,I went to a market I've never done before and things were going really well, but I was informed by the female in charge(naturally) that I'm not to come back for the "safety and security" of vendors and customers.
And NOTHING occurred there.not a disagreement, no arguments,no imagined threats or even anyone lying of any "threats". not a damn thing.now, I'm supposed to go online and sell and I don't have the patience or the will to do it+ I really don't feel like it.
I'll have to find someone that's experienced/wants to sell online,or drive a good long way and I'm not feeling that either.so I'm a
dangerous "terrorist" on every front now.and yet I don't even have a simple battery conviction.
i just assumed I could always set up at a lousy flea market.
So,I called several employment lawyers(knowing full well they either wouldn't or couldn't get me "reinstated")
dissafected? Disenfranchised? Oh yes indeed and really, this country wants me dead.pretty damn obvious.
Tom, what do you think about the Roman Polanski case?
He is actually suing the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for unfairly expelling him over his 40 years old conviction. You can see more in this video:
Sorry, I meant Eivind, not Tom.
Roman Polanski's conviction is for statutory "abuse" of a girl who at 13 was over the maximum age of consent which is conscionable for male sexualists. In addition, it should long since have passed any sane statute of limitations, plus the "victim" supports Polanski, and finally just common sense would mean that one drops such a silly old case at this point. So this is a clear-cut case of travesty of justice and feminist sex-hostility at all costs.
Kudos to Polanski for suing and advancing the male sexualist cause. I declare him an exemplary male sexualist.
And speaking of cases against famous men that should have been dropped, Assange's is even more flagrant:
He is now jailed for running away from a case that never even went to trial, and for refusing to be interrogated in Sweden where he at any rate had the right to remain silent. An example of how the system feeds on itself to make bullshit crimes, all rooted in antisex but it doesn't stop there. The real value is to manufacture criminality using whatever excuse they can muster.
Yep.assange never "raped" any female.they're just mentally torturing him.
50 weeks until he hits the american "justice" system, then life in a supermax.
he's in for pure hell.
MAYBE some future president will pardon him, it's really his only hope.
For once, a woman with some brain between her ears:
I always liked huston.prizzis honor and the grifters are two very good movies.and she was very fine back in the day.
I saw jack nicholson lately at a Lakers game.
he's just ballooned up.
But what a life he had though.
fame fortune and mucho recognition + a bevy of hot women.
In the u.s that's as good as you can get and he did it all before this feminist/man hate/exaggerated fear "movement" exploded.
60s, 70s, and the 80s.
Since the 90s, this shits gone ridiculous.i have to be very careful to avoid women now.
last year I was the internet "terrorist" and easily could have gotten into federal! trouble for doing zip nada.
so far this year I've been labeled "flea market terrorist"
it would be much more humorous except the latter is costing me big money.
right now in fact, I should be at some damn market but it appears I've been "banned" locally anyway.
I'm going to have travel 100s of miles away to get away from this b.s maybe even out of the state. wonderful
Post a Comment