Saturday, July 20, 2019

Straight pride

This is such a short point that I would have normally said it on Twitter, but since I can't use Twitter anymore, here goes.

Regarding the idea that straight pride is about hate, as in...

Netflix: The Straight Pride Parade 'is about hate — not pride'

I mean... come on, is the fact that they are not gay, and must hate gays or whatever, the only "positive" thing they can think of about their sexuality?

To me, homosexuality is the LAST thing on my mind when I think about sex. I support gay pride and I mostly ignore it since I am not one of them. To me, seeing that the politically correct man in our culture associates straight pride FIRSTLY and ONLY with homophobia tells me that they are in fact homophobes, and also hate themselves because they can't think of anything good about their sexuality, absolutely nothing to be proud of. All they can do is understand themselves in relation to homosexuality, with that relation evidently being so inferior that they can never dare to speak positive about themselves.

Politically correct straight men can only be ashamed because feminism has so thoroughly indoctrinated them with the idea that sex is bad, with some exceptions granted to homosexuality where it doesn't really matter, like the right to get married, but not where it does matter like age of consent.

Of course we need straight pride, and male sexualism is straight pride. We don't literally need to march (but if we did we'd be using a pink flag), but we need a movement of straight pride because we have every reason to celebrate our sexuality FOR WHAT IT IS, not what it isn't, and to resist feminist criminalization of our healthy sexuality. The fact that neither of these points register to mainstream heterosexual culture is puzzling and disconcerting in the extreme.


Anonymous said...

The main problem with all these gay prides is that they are just a folkloric event without any political content because homosexuality, at least in Western countries, has slowly become a part of political correctness. Does a gay pride make sense in a society where homosexuality is substantially accepted? Why don't they hold a gay pride in Saudi Arabia or in Iran? When they do that, I'll feel respect for them - for the time being, I take gay prides for what they are, that is to say a folkloric nonsense in a world where antisexualism prevails.

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, that's exactly right. Gay pride is all show and no political content, as any ideas that would actually be controversial, like sex with minors, are completely banished. Meanwhile, straight pride doesn't even have a symbolic positive meaning in our culture, so there is no parade anybody in the mainstream would be caught dead in.

And in places where they could really use gay pride for even the sort of highly restricted freedoms gays enjoy in our culture, what do they actually do? People show up to be entertained and take pictures when gays are whipped in public. In either case, the only parade is the politically correct one where no one dares question the established antisexualism.

Tom Grauer said...

What do you think about this one, Eivind?

Eivind Berge said...

That is a work of reactionary thoughtcrime (if it is even serious) that I cannot get behind not only because it would be criminal to espouse such views in Europe, but because I sincerely disagree with it. Sure it contains some truth, such as the objective fact that the gay lifestyle tends to impose more health risks, but I condemn the hateful overall message that gays should be oppressed. It also contains falsehoods such as the claim that homosexuals don't contribute much to society, to which I can think of many counterexamples ranging from Oscar Wilde to Alan Turing to Mike Darwin (less famous, but incredibly valuable to advancing the science of cryonics). That gays are promiscuous is true, but not a bad thing from a male sexualist perspective and something we straight guys would be too if we didn't have to contend with female selectivity, so I would call it a reason to envy rather than hate gays. On the negative side, it is true that gays tend to support feminist sex-hostility, but it is also true that the greatest prosexual activist alive is a gay man named Tom O'Carroll. Unlike me, he has a popular blog and unlike any other male sexualist currently he is actually being influential, even pissing off the antisex bigots via academic publishing. Once again, as a male sexualist, I condemn anti-homosexual bigotry like this manifesto definitely is (almost) as much as I condemn any other antisexual bigotry. The male sexualist movement that I lead is not anti-gay, but inclusive of gay rights that don't infringe on heterosexual rights, and there is absolutely no reason for us to associate ourselves with the kind of hate and homophobia linked to above, which I only let through moderation to make it clear what we don't stand for.

Like I said, my straight pride is not diminished or threatened by gay pride. I believe we can coexist harmoniously as long as we get rid of the feminist antisex bigotry that actually oppresses both straight and gay men, most of whom don't care to fight back, but that is not just a gay failing but a problem with all men aside from the male sexualists.

Dom Krauer said...

Now that's pain weird.

So you have no objection to gay sex and in fact, you almost deleted Tom Grauer's comment for suggesting homosexuality might go against the principles of Male Sexualism.

Yet you strongly oppose masturbation and looking at pictures of females (despite feminists locking up hundreds of men every day for doing those things and Male Sexualism before you perverted it being about a men's rights movement that would oppose feminists doing this)?

So the Great Leader of Male Sexualism is saying that a man who masturbates to pictures (or just the thought) of a young woman is perverse and unnatural, but that a man who only seeks to bang the asses of other men is 100% legit?

With your 'pink flag' etc you're like a parody of everything that derailed our efforts to place our concerns (the feminist assault on male sexuality) into the men's rights movement. You really are now a Male Sexualist version of Paula Elam.

Eivind Berge said...

I am personally disgusted by gay sex (aside from lesbians, of course), so I certainly object to having it myself, but I don't object on moral grounds to other men having it if they want to. Indeed I would encourage them to if it is their orientation, as denying it would make them comparatively miserable as incels.

Masturbation (at least for heterosexual men -- I don't claim to speak with as much authority for homosexuals) is very different and something I object to in the sense that it's not in your best interest if you value sex. So no, I don't think any of this is weird on my part. Tom Grauer being such an anti-homosexual moralist all of a sudden is weird, however.

Eivind Berge said...

This shouldn't be difficult to understand either. Think of it as actualizing your values in accordance with your nature. Being gay is not a choice and can't be changed, so if you are gay, the path to happiness is to express it. The path to happiness for straight men is likewise to have lots of great sex with women, not to masturbate, which is deleterious to your sex drive, pursuit, performance and enjoyment. And the more you use porn, the worse it also gets.

Eivind Berge said...

If you promote porn and masturbation, then I will call you an asexualist because that's what you are. I don't want to criminalize you, but it has nothing to do with male sexualism. Like I said in this post:

Eivind Berge said...

Favoring porn and masturbation is kind of like being a closeted homosexual. You are denying your nature and pursuing something else much of the time, in this case something incredibly damaging too, to your libido etc. A wanker is a sexualist in the asexual closet constructed by our sex-hostile culture which lies to you and says masturbation is fine, just like it is a lie that everyone is straight, resulting in the gay closet for those who aren't and try to fit in.

I do not believe the closet should need to be there for either gays or straight sexualists!

Eivind Berge said...

Indeed I would go so far as equating straight male masturbation with gay conversion therapy. Both vile practices turning you away from your true sexuality with varying degrees of success. Neither of them really work, but they can mess you up! Masturbating is a conversion therapy to asexuality that men maladaptively engage in, never quite making them asexual but doing plenty of damage along the way. The most extreme methods are as good as castration in both cases too.

Eivind Berge said...

The idea that male masturbation is harmless or even good is part of the web of lies which underlies the current sex-hostility. This lie is obviously sex-hostile in and of itself since it promotes asexuality (masturbation is an asexual practice as I define it), but once you think a little deeper like I am doing you see it also reinforces other lies like the idea that underage sex is harmful or minors are asexual (it would be much harder to hide and deny their sexuality if it weren't largely displaced by masturbation), and perhaps most stunningly, poignantly insane of all, it makes the female sex offender charade even more harmful by pushing the young boys who could have had healthy sex with older women into harmful masturbation instead while punishing these angelic women.

I am disappointed by the lack of understanding for these effects and interrelations in our movement. Aren't we supposed to be sex-positive? Show some balls AND brains and see fapping as the detriment that it is to male sexualism.

That said, I don't speak for homosexual men regarding nofap. Since I feel no enthusiasm for homosexual sex, I don't care if they do that or fap. But I wouldn't be surprised if they came to much the same conclusions as me and landed on nofap based on similar logic.

Dom Krauer said...

As far as I know, there is no such thing as gay nofap.

Perhaps you need to consider why that is Eivind.

Just as before feminists blackmailed the gay rights movement, there was no such thing as 'paedophilia' in homosexual love, and in fact homosexuality was pederastry. (BTW, all the 'great gays' you listed there were into teenage boys). Now of course any gay will scream if you suggest any link between 'paedophilia' and homosexuality.

You don't understand what 'asexual' is. It's the lack of sexual interest and drive. This is not the same as enjoying masturbation as part of a healthy sex drive. Nofap is psuedoscience drivel that originated in anti-porn (female influenced) Christian fundamentalism and the feminist junk science of the 'Your Brain On Porn' author.

Sorry to have to say it Eivind, your site is turning into a bit of a joke. The vast majority of the 'sex offenders' currently being locked up in prison for breaking feminist laws are men who have looked at teenage porn online. We're trying to create a movement that combats this with an appeal to men's rights, and your site is nearly 100% concerned with being against any (male) masturbation and the right of women to have sex with young boys.

Do you think dildos and vibrators should be banned? Isn't female sexuality about having sex with men (and indeed trying to be impregnated) not having orgasms with metal or plastic objects? You're concerned with women's rights, so shouldn't you be calling for female sex toys to be criminalized? Why is there no female version of nofap?

Masturbation is part of male sexuality, always has been. Even monkeys masturbate.

Eivind Berge said...

My support for homosexuality here is not to be confused with support for the feminist-perverted “gay rights” movement. Hate the political correctness, not the gays. Don’t confuse that cartoonish nonsense with reality either. I am sure many gays are just as horrified as we are that attraction to young teenagers is now seen as “pedophilia.” And here is an even more extreme example:

You are ignorant about gay nofappers too. It’s been a long time since I frequented such forums, but when I did, I recall there were some gay nofappers in the support groups for men who practice nofap. Gay nofappers exist and seem to benefit from it. Again, I have no enthusiasm for what they are trying to accomplish by nofapping since I have no first-hand sense of what a healthy gay sex life would be like, but if I were gay I am sure I would.

You are right that “asexual” means having no sexual interest or drive, but you fail to realize that it is delusional to consider masturbation an outlet for your sex drive, and are blind to the harm it does to men’s sexual life, ranging in severity from simple opportunity cost of lost time and effort and readiness to impotence. Masturbation is an asexual practice, and I didn’t say its practitioners were completely asexual yet, but asexuality is what they are pursuing with varying degrees of “success.” Your refusal to acknowledge that anything is lost by this maladaptive pursuit tells me that you are literally delusional. Your calling it "pseudoscience" to value a healthy sex drive and sexual outlet means you are so in thrall to feminist sex-hostility that you let them set your values, unsurprisingly resulting in zero esteem for living up to your sexual potential. Crudely speaking, feminists have so successfully told you that fucking girls is bad that you lost interest in doing it and feel fine barking up the wrong tree. What can be more pathetic than that? They didn’t merely imprison or execute you; they control your very soul with their antisex.

And no, nofap is not about Christian fundamentalism either and that’s not how it came about. You Brain On Porn does not preach that and I can’t even tell if Gary Wilson is religious from reading it. That some Christian types have also latched onto it and now promote nofap for the wrong reasons (and diametrically opposite reasons than me) means nothing. There are some religious moralists who oppose porn, just like there are feminists, and they all have in common with you the delusion that porn leads to sexual dissolution while it in fact prevents it. Nofap enhances lecherousness, promiscuity, premarital/underage sex and all the good stuff that those types hate, so go figure how they (and you) deluded themselves.

Eivind Berge said...

Do women need nofap? There are some who claim to benefit, but so far as I can tell, the value of not masturbating and not using porn to women is at best something like 1% of what it is to men. They can have unlimited partners anyway with no effort, don’t get impotent and don’t have a refractory period. If they still want to get into not masturbating, I am bemused, but I don’t promote it for women or see a notable relevance. Since women have difficulty reaching orgasm during intercourse, I would rather think that masturbation is a useful supplement for them. Men are 100% satisfied by coitus and masturbation only detracts from our sex lives, so it’s wildly incomparable for this and all the other reasons I’ve listed. My feeling is that the women who promote their version of nofap/anti-porn actually do so out of sex-negativity or religious moralism, just like you imagine Your Brain On Porn to be doing for men. You would be right about women since it’s so irrelevant to them, but male sexuality is very different and I can’t believe you don’t see this. I haven't seen Your Brain On Porn claiming porn addiction is an issue for women, but if they did, then I too would call that pseudoscience. In fairness, we need a citation before making that accusation, and in any case it doesn't change the fact that masturbation is legitimately harmful to men.

I used to think the fact that “even monkeys masturbate” was a passable argument in favor, though it’s kind of like saying “even lemmings commit suicide” if you wanted to promote that, but I recently came across an article (don’t have the reference handy as it was on Twitter where I'm banned) informing me that animals rarely masturbate to ejaculation. Thus the argument isn’t even true, unless you seriously mean the same thing, which you don’t. It is theorized that low-status male monkeys may stimulate themselves to be constantly aroused and ready for sexual opportunities, so as long as they don’t go to completion and lose interest (and if this hypothesis is true), I can see a potential benefit for them, but that’s not applicable to humans where opportunities don’t come and go in seconds like that. When men masturbate to orgasm, they are abusing themselves, plain and simple, and when they use porn it gets exponentially worse.

Eivind Berge said...

Like you I am also very much against locking up men or anybody for victimless bullshit crimes like looking at teenage porn. But given that sex with the same teenagers is often also criminalized, isn't it better that men get the message that they might as well have sex? Insofar as the misguided feminist laws against porn help men choose what is good for them instead of something maladaptive for which they will still go to prison, I see a perverse kind of value in the anti-porn laws. Obviously not ideal, but given the baseline persecution of sex, it is in a sense good that maladaptive substitutes are also persecuted.

We need to think a little strategically, not just blindly oppose bad laws, because laws don't exist in a vacuum. There are more dimensions to my activism than just screaming that so and so should not be in prison. I value my time and want to use it for the most meaningful effect. There is a hierarchy of how offensive are the feminist sex laws, which dictates how we ought to spend our activist efforts. The anti-porn laws are the least offensive laws because they criminalize the least valuable “sexual” stuff (actually asexuality). The female sex offender charade is the most offensive sex laws because they harm the most valuable, healthiest kind of sexual activity, at least from the point of view of the contrived “victims.” The anti-porn laws also contrive fake victims, but at least it is true that there are victims! The real victims of porn are men -- the male viewer who makes himself impotent or pacified rather than the women and children that the dimwitted antisex bigots imagine they are protecting -- so the deterrence created by these laws has a little bit of good in it, even if the method of hurting the victims for hurting themselves is atrocious. I also derive some satisfaction from realizing that the feminists are hurting their own agenda by legislating in favor of nofap, so this does spice up our activism in pleasant ways against an otherwise bleak outlook, helping to prevent burnout and despondency. We are actually achieving a small measure of revenge in this for a change, letting the feminists self-harm by inadvertently strengthening the male sex drive.

Here’s an analogy. We know that the criminalization of marijuana has led to needless deaths and suffering from pursuit of legal highs that are actually much more dangerous. If instead either there were no drug war, or the drug war didn’t single out the MOST harmful drugs as somehow (if only temporarily) legal, more youngsters would go “fuck this synthetic shit, let’s just smoke pot.” My project is to get men to realize that porn is like those synthetic “legal highs” that hurt them. It’s not that I am saying we need to criminalize the synthetic stuff, but we do need to put them in their proper perspective as more harmful than the real, natural drugs/sex, which is one reason why it would be inappropriate for me to advocate for legal porn as a male sexualist issue. I do, however, advocate it as a free speech issue.

It is much, much more important to liberate sex than porn, because sex is actually a good thing. My activist efforts will be primarily spent extolling what is positively good, not just preventing the mishandling of a bad thing like masturbation. Obviously it is absurd to put you in prison for voluntarily lowering your ability to fuck teen girls, on the pretext that fucking teen girls is bad. But my resistance to that kind of madness is in no way created equal to my hatred against what the feminists are really trying to accomplish with their antisex laws. For now, I am inclined to lean back and watch them screw this one up.

Eivind Berge said...

I just realized, one reason why I can’t hate feminists intensely for their anti-porn laws is that I can’t take them seriously. It is reminiscent of “forgive them for they know not what they do.” Or the absence of free will that I wrote about in my post titled hard determinist therapy. In this case the lack of free will is further compounded by ignorance. When the feminists want to hurt us for having sex, we are dealing if not with free will, then at least with evil. Wanting to imprison us for sex is to want to hurt us for reasons they understand, which makes them culpable on the highest moral level of which humans are capable, and all too easy to hate. But when they want to prevent us from “sexualizing children” by means that accomplish the opposite, you almost have to resort to virtue ethics to hate them, and I’m not really big on virtue ethics. It is downright charming sometimes, the hysterical way they believe they fight sex by going after a simulacrum that prevents it. These bozos be like, “Don’t you dare sexualize my teen daughter by fapping to her nudes that we made made the law define as child porn to catch monsters like you,” while little do they know that not doing those things is precisely how we sexualize her the most intensely and become most likely to fuck her too. Yup, charming is the word for such feminist scum, even though they mean evil and do cause plenty of it; this (ignorance) is is their most admirable quality, or least odious.

If I hated feminists for not wanting me to look at porn, then I would hate them for (in effect, if not intention) looking out for my sexual health, and there is something incongruent about that. So let's reserve hate (to the extent that we need hate, which I've also had to tone down for other reasons as mentioned previously) for the sex laws that actually target sex, and be more dispassionate about this one. Sure we would stop them if we had the power, but let's focus our men's rights activism on more important things.

Eivind Berge said...

For those who don't know who Dom Krauer is, this is likely The Antifeminist as it appears to be his invention first mentioned here:

"Cunningly being groomed by the antifeminist as a young rival to Tom Grauer as leader of Male Sexualism. Carefully chosen to tick all the boxes of our demographic target market, you know that Dom is the right leader to take Male Sexualism forward. You’ll be hearing a lot more of Dom Krauer in the future."

Funny, and sad, yeah, that we are such an ineffectual movement without strong leaders. But I am doing my best to create an ideology of male sexualism with legs to stand on, that can be attacked from many angles and still stand strong. All anybody needs to do to tear down your pro-porn and fapping advocacy is to point out that this doesn't really serve the interests of male sexuality, and actually does the opposite, so it obviously fails to merit inclusion in our ideology.

Tom Grauer said...

Look guys, I'm as flawed an individual as they come, but both of you are greatly annoying me by focusing on the wrong stuff.

I'm asking you to commit the following thought-crime: accept that some 12-year-old chicks are lustful, and that they initiate or enthusiastically consent to orgies with fellow teenagers. I'm not asking you to "support" anything, just to admit -- to yourselves, primarily -- that some young pubescent teenage girls have strong sexual desires and act on those desires, and that when a bunch of teenagers are accused of "raping" a 12-year-old chick, it's usually -- if not always -- false accusation, intended to cover the fact that some 12-year-old chicks are very horny indeed, and to legitimize the Puritan-Feminist idea that only pubescent teenage girls have no sexual desires.

Can this thought-crime be committed? It's not illegal, because you're not sexualizing anyone, just admitting that sexual desire does not set in at 16 or 18 or whatever, but sometimes it sets in with or around puberty.

Can this thought-crime be committed? Can we accept that some women engage in wild orgies with lots of men, and that sometimes even 12-year-olds do so - not because they are "forced," but because they urgently desire to do it, due to being lustful?

The reason this thought-crime is of vital importance is because the criminalization of male sexuality rests on the premise that pubescent and adolescent girls have no intense sexual desires of their own. If you are able to commit the horrible, horrible thought-crime that I'm asking you to commit, to admit that some 12-year-olds possess a raging sex-drive, then everything else may as well follow from it.

Krauer, my young rival, you should really give your beef with self-identified "ephebophiles" a rest: We all agree that they are autistic, we all agree that every man would bang every fertile female if he could (minus immediate family members), that this is normal male sexuality.

Eivind, your fixation with fapping and female sex-offenders has pretty much collapsed Male Sexualism. You're still the leader as far as I'm concerned, but come on, there are more important issues! Such as young men who are thrown in prison for sex with young teenagers.

Instead of incessantly squabbling over what men are into, can we first admit that (young) female sexuality exists? Commit the thought-crime of accepting that some 12-year-old chicks have sex drives of their own, sometimes intense ones. Then we can proceed.

I left Male Sexualism partly to take over Neo-Reaction, and I've had some success. Maybe I should return to Male Sexualism to set things straight.

Eivind Berge said...

"Accept that some 12-year-old chicks are lustful?"

Yes, no argument there, obviously. The objective facts about sexuality are what they are, but often denied by our culture, and it's our job as male sexualists to set the record straight and crucially to align our justice system with that reality as well.

But there is more to the ideology that I am attempting to create. It is to be a coherent view of male sexuality as a good thing that is worth standing up for. My pretending that male masturbation, especially to porn, is good for men would be just as dishonest as pretending underage girls never get lustful. I agree I have been focusing too much on nofap and the female sex offender charade lately, but that is only because I have been slacking on other issues, not because these don't deserve as much attention as I am giving them. We need vibrant activism and attention to all these things, but it's hard to run a movement almost single-handedly. You are welcome back to help us again.

Eivind Berge said...

With regard to the idea that everything else will follow once we admit that girls can be very lustful as young as 12, I wish it were that easy, but it doesn’t work that way. Because we are dealing not so much with denial of fact as the construction of a supernatural layer on top of reality which is supposed to negate those facts when convenient to the antisex bigots. Their response will be that sure kids go through all these sexual motions and feelings, but they don’t count. If what you are suggesting would work for girls, then it should definitely work for boys, but it doesn’t. The female sex offender charade is distilled bullshit. If what they do to male sexuality is like beer, the female sex offender charade is pure grain alcohol. Think Bud Light vs. 190-proof Everclear. If I can’t make people vomit by focusing on the female sex offender charade, after dishing out lethal amounts of this poison on my blog lately, then nothing can jolt them out of their complacency. I am even putting other male sexualists to sleep instead of arousing them to action! It shows that people are rather drinking the synthehol of Star Trek, that they are completely immune to the effects of all this bullshit. The facts just don’t register when it comes to sex crimes because the supernatural “abuse” layer on top is seen as sufficient justification for criminalization. Just like the “sin” layer used to accomplish the same thing.

The antisex bigots never seriously denied that minors can have sexual agency, or else they would have quit prosecuting underage boys (and girls too) for sex crimes. Making them admit something they never denied in the first place will have no effect, because that is not how this works, and I only need to reach for two current events to prove it. Recall this case of outrage because a judge refused to have a 16-year-old boy accused of rape tried as an adult:

Meanwhile it would be heresy to suggest that Jeffrey Epstein’s contrived victim girls of the same age should be considered adults, and treated as responsible prostitutes rather than the helpless victims they are made out as. Because the antisex bigots just don’t respect truth, logic or consistency at all. Not gender equality either, except when it serves to put women in prison. Whenever a man can get even more time in prison, they will opt for that. So they don’t prosecute teen girls for prostitution since they get more antisex bang for their buck from going after men like Epstein, but they DO prosecute both teen boys and girls for rape and sexual abuse and child porn. No one can explain how girls under 18 can never ever decide by themselves to make money from sex, while boys OF COURSE are responsible just like adult men if they decide to force a girl, but this is dogmatic in our culture. We are not going to change this by committing some simple thoughtcrimes.

It requires a grand effort to which I am dedicated, so please understand that I need to build this up carefully and include and exclude elements as needed to have a compelling philosophy of male sexualism. If we started claiming that teenporn should be legal because it is good for male sexuality, we would be committing the same kind of crimes against logic that feminists do when they pretend that underage girls can't be whores! I am above that kind of nonsense, even when it superficially serves men. Male sexualism is concerned with the best interests of male sexuality, not just what gets you out of prison at any given time. The world is full of senseless laws, and it is not my task to oppose all of them under the banner of male sexualism because then that banner would lose its meaning.

Anonymous said...

"Can this thought-crime be committed? It's not illegal, because you're not sexualizing anyone, just admitting that sexual desire does not set in at 16 or 18 or whatever, but sometimes it sets in with or around puberty."

Sexual desire sets ind around puberty? Not before?

Eivind Berge said...

I have had them as long as I can remember.