Wednesday, August 28, 2019

The sad infighting in our movement

Sadly we seem to fight more amongst ourselves than with feminists these days. The male sexualist movement has split into two factions: one led by me which considers male masturbation pathological or at least maladaptive, and another which does not, led by The Antifeminist.

I wanted to create something positive. Even though we have no hope of affecting policy any time soon, we can at least stand for something true and good, something we can be proud of and celebrate when the rest of the world is hating and criminalizing.

I realize that criminalization is running amok against both male sexuality and masturbation plus paraphernalia, and both deserve to be defended from this onslaught, but only the former meets my "something positive" criterion.

Ideas and practices get adopted because of the social rewards and practical benefits they provide to their adherents. Most people who join a movement don't do so primarily because of their desire to further an agenda. Rather, they do so because they find it socially and practically rewarding, and then the agenda follows as a result of the strength of the group. We must not lose sight of this.

Sex law reform as advocated by us is about as realistic in our lifetime as the 72 virgins promised to jihadists in the afterlife. If that were all Islam had to offer, it would go nowhere. The latter has adherents because they also offer social and practical benefits here and now, like mosques and mentors and friends and so on. We don't have a local support network, but at least I can think of a practice that will make men feel better and be more sexually successful almost as soon as they pick it up. That practice is nofap. I didn't invent it or start the nofap movement, but it so happens to dovetail exactly with our positive aims, so I've embraced it.

The Antifeminist makes much of my supposedly being like a marijuana legalization activist who says pot is evil. What he does not get is that masturbation is not virtually harmless like smoking pot, but much, much worse, like heroin or crack. I used the word anosognosia for a reason. What we can reasonably have for such indisputably harmful things is a "harm reduction" movement, and I do get behind that. This consists of remedies like decriminalization of use and possession, free needles and perhaps prescription drugs for addicts. Such things are worth advocating, but they don't compose a movement celebrating something positive like male sexuality deserves.

It is more harmful to masturbate and be imprisoned than just masturbate, so by all means, I support harm reduction there too. I just want to make it clear that it is harm reduction of dysfunctions secondary to our sexuality rather than male sexualism, which to me represents actual sex and usually sex we can be proud of.

The Antifeminist is also confused about my definition of asexuality and attributes to me the claim that sex which doesn't result in pregnancy is asexual. That is plain false; I've never said that. While I uphold uncontracepted sex as the highest good, I don't claim birth control equals asexuality, though we must admit that the barrier kinds come close, condoms being described even in scientific journals as "mutual masturbation with the same latex device" sometimes. Contrary to what The Antifeminist says, there are contactless crimes that fit my advocacy as well. Grooming and solicitation are certainly sexualist activities when the aim is real sex, and victims of these laws are our people. But those who do silly things like just masturbating to porn or send dick pics are not. They are merely worthy of harm reduction efforts rather than moral praise and inclusion in our brotherhood of egosyntonic male sexuality.

It is important to me to have a pathway of the moral high ground where we lead the way in righteousness. Yes, we are the last handful of humans against a zombie apocalypse. Not really, because there are many more real humans lurking in the shadows -- Epstein's network is proof of that -- but in public discourse, yes, it's just the few of us left. And that makes it all the more important that we uphold healthy sexuality. A wanker is partly like a zombie because he has allowed some of his sexuality to be zombified, and I shall not sink so low nor promote it.

One more thing: can we please ease off on the "Asperger's" accusations? Disagreements about how to run a movement does not equal autism, man. Yes, it takes extreme nonconformism to be a male sexualist, but it doesn't seem to be associated with true disability or diagnosable mental disorders, because we can't even recruit such people in appreciable numbers. The only confirmed case of Asperger's in our movement is Nathan Larson, and he is obviously a lot stranger than I am. I got a clean bill of health even from the hostile psychiatrist who worked for the police when they tried (and failed) to build a case against me (for INCITEMENT, not threats which is another error you make ad nauseam), so it's really retarded to claim you know better.

Sunday, August 25, 2019

Legislating nofap

Our culture is obsessed with criminalizing sexuality. And not just criminalizing, but enacting tougher and tougher penalties on top of what they have at any given time. Thus after each round of reforms when there is a "loophole" in the level of criminality of anything related to sexuality that isn't criminalized quite as hard as the rest because it was overlooked in the last round of reforms, legislatures scramble to close it with ever harsher criminalization. Such is the perpetual state of feminism -- no matter what the current laws, the drive to increase punishments for sex is always equally hysteric but increasingly hateful because the punishments are increasingly undeserved.

Except this time, the "loophole" is masturbation, and the feminist dimwits who think they promote antisex actually serve male sexualism:

Punishing both equally is a fool's errand for women, but exactly what men need to set our values straight. What feminists fail to realize is that male masturbation is bad for men (for many reasons) and good for women because women remain untouched. It is mind-boggling that feminists don't realize that women getting less of the sex they claim to hate so much is a good thing for them if they really mean this, so I would be careful with making masturbation equally criminal as rape and sexual assault if I were them.

I will therefore, at least as a rhetorical device, applaud this sort of reform which targets masturbation rather than sex. Sure it will put more men in prison for longer at least initially, but that is only because they didn't follow my advice, my creed and my mantra that the vagina is the only sexual outlet, possibly because they were even afflicted with anosognosia. This time it has zero effect on nofappers, so male sexualists can lean back and rejoice that the feminist antisex hate is missing its mark. As they exhaust most avenues of criminalizing sex, I expect more of the feminist antisex drive will be inadvertently channeled into legislating nofap, which is a good thing for sexualism in light of the alternative. (I am assuming that reducing antisex hysteria overall is not an option, or else I'd rather have less of both the real antisex and the fake kind where they bark up the wrong, masturbatory tree.)

Perhaps the feminists imagine that men are too stupid to adapt to laws. Yes, such men do exist. History shows that some men will be as stupid as Gally and go to prison as virgins. To refresh memories, Gally is a former commenter and one-time guest poster of this blog who to our horror turned out to be the ideal victim of feminism, literally going to prison as a virgin while internalizing the feminist "abuse" nonsense. He didn't even have the balls to plead not guilty to his bullshit victimless sex crimes because he is convinced the laws are right. And here is another sad example of a man who thought he was going to be a "good boy" and not have sex, for which he was rewarded by the feminist police state with prison anyway, because this is how much they hate your guts. We are very close to the point where just having a penis will be just as criminal as any other sex crime, and some men will no doubt attempt to please the feminists even then.

But on balance I don't believe that criminalizing sexual fantasies and masturbation will serve feminism. Given equal criminality of fapping and nofap, will so many men still opt for fapping? I submit that a significant number of men will not let women have their antisex cake and eat it like our ideal victim Gally who will never come near females while still being criminalized. Let's get real: not all men are that feckless, at least after they get a chance to hear about male sexualism! Increase the criminality of not having sex, and more men will realize that they might as well have sex, even if they didn't realize before that fapping is so harmful that it should be shunned even when society celebrates it, which it still does most of the time. There is vast potential here for both advancing nofap and the misguided feminist laws to support it.

In this case it is masturbation itself they are criminalizing, but the same argument applies to pornography. Because it so often facilitates fapping I cannot in good conscience support pornography on sexualist grounds, since it's so harmful to male sexuality (but I still advocate its legality on freedom-of-speech grounds).

So don't tell the feminists about the value of nofap to men. But no worries, no one pays attention to this blog anymore, or the entire male sexualist movement anyway. We can just sit back and watch the feminists self-sabotage their antisex power because they didn't know where to stop criminalizing.

Friday, August 23, 2019

The faces of evil

Extreme trigger warning to male sexualists for the video I am about to link to. I got so upset that I had to take a 10-mile walk to calm myself down after watching before I could write this post. And then I had to tinker with it for another week to bring it into line with my commitment to not waste energy and health on hating the moral equivalent of rabid dogs. But there is still a problem here because as we shall see, it is difficult to dismiss Robert Wright and Paul Bloom as rabid dogs. I don't really recommend watching, just including it for reference for the points I am about to make about the more scientifically literate kinds of misandry.

These guys don't conflate Epstein with a pedophile like the lowbrow misandrists who invariably refer to him as “convicted pedophile.” Robert Wright knows that Epstein exemplifies textbook-normal male sexuality and says he feels the same, as does Bloom. They know the girls Epstein is accused of loving were at the peak of the normal male attraction curve:

And then Bloom says the most hateful thing I have ever heard in my life, at least about male sexuality: that what Epstein did is worse than pedophilia, since he chose to violate norms of society without being driven by any deviant desires. If he had been sexually deviant he would be worthy of sympathy rather than the hate reserved for normal male sexuality, so according to Bloom he had it all coming to him. This is a denouncement of male sexuality at the most informed level, folks. Our enemies don't get any smarter or more morally reflected than this.

Let us now look at the implications of this view. What do we make of the supposed mismatch between normal male sexuality and female sexuality? Because this isn’t just saying that men are prone to be bad sometimes because of our testosterone and aggressive tendencies, or even that rape is an adaptation that might kick in under certain circumstances, but that male sexuality is systematically evil as if by design, that our strongest, most pervasive impulse is to “abuse” girls. If you understand the nature of male sexuality and you still believe females can't handle sex or decide to exploit it for money at the ages we are most attracted to them, then you must believe male sexuality is inherently evil. This mismatch isn't supported by any scientific evidence, so this is where scientific literacy ends and antisex bigotry begins, to be sure, but these guys are more literate than the lowbrow buffoons who dismiss Epstein as a pedophile, and I think that is something we need to discuss because it might mean male sexualism is even more hopeless than we thought.

As hateful as this is, it is also true in a sense. We know we are so normal that even the establishment can’t diagnose us with anything, which is saying a lot in these sex-hostile times. We are only “suffering” from political and moral dissidence, which is to say we are dealing with the purest expression of good versus evil and it all comes down to picking sides. Our convictions of which side we are on is no doubt equally strong and can’t be influenced by factual or scientific illumination, because we (dimwits excepted) already agree on the facts!

Let me therefore reply by the same token. Wright and Bloom also have no excuse for their malevolence from our point of view. Forgive them not, for they know what they are doing. If there is such a thing as true evil, not just going with the flow of what authority says or getting carried away by your impulses, this is it.

And in the current environment it allows these creeps to virtue-signal their imagined superiority by denying the expression of their nature, as a sort of “virtuous teleiophiles”? This gets at the profound conflict between male sexualism and society, a conflict that may well run deeper than society’s war on pedophiles. A war on us regular men can’t be fought by “treating” us since we are already normal; we are moral enemies who can only be accepted if we suppress our nature. For those of us who have chosen to be egosyntonic about our normal male sexuality and not buy into the feminist lies that females are abused when they also have normal sex, this is unadulterated, distilled, mutual hatred. 

Nonetheless, it is my position that we don’t get anywhere by hating back, because it consumes energy that should be spent figuring out how to be effective activists. And if hard determinism is really true, even the sort of premeditated, sadistic violence against men perpetrated by a system guided by ideologues like Paul Bloom isn’t a choice, so it helps to take that possibility seriously. Let me therefore end by exposing the most weighty real reason for this misandry coming from other men. It isn’t the female sexual trade union in this case, but that these men, who are fathers and apparently monogamous, let their sexual control freakery directed at their daughters consume them, trying to pull off our culture’s version of arranged marriages. Nubile females are the ultimate resource, so you can't fault them for caring, but the way they go about it is morally reprehensible. Like I said in the comments at YouTube:

It's about control of resources, so why can't we be honest about that and not pretend young teen girls are helpless, clueless victims who can't possibly decide to get paid for sex? It's the intellectual dishonesty that bothers me more than the fact that they want to guide their daughters into the kind of relationships they consider best for them. And them thinking it's OK to drive men to death for these victimless crimes, because that's what they are. I think most fathers don't want this resource squandered, and I wouldn't either, but some of us respect women's rights to choose for themselves at an earlier age, as early as is reasonable based on an honest assessment of the biology and psychology, plus we can easily see ourselves at the other end as clients and lovers of young girls, so we take a more permissive view.

If male sexualists ever gain power, I wouldn't put it past us to put feminists including men like Robert Wright and Paul Bloom on trial for crimes against humanity. And while we also want to reform prisons to be more humane, perhaps we should turn a blind eye while the misandrists get to feel what Epstein did at the end. And unlike him, they would truly deserve it.

Sunday, August 18, 2019


This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Monday, August 12, 2019

We need better role models

What kind of world are we living in when Brenton Tarrant can be a role model? An unintended consequence of suppressing "objectionable" views like New Zealand is doing with his is to give the impression that they constitute esoteric knowledge that might be profound or convincing if you get to read them. But I have read these manifestos, and they are bullshit. That they nonetheless can inspire the youth, such as the would-be Norwegian mosque shooter Phillip Manshaus says more about the current climate than the persuasiveness of such writings.

There is something else going on here, a failure to be impressed by really good ideas and a willingness to go along with bullshit because one's standards are messed up. Maybe the kids these days don't get the good classical education that I had. Or maybe internet porn really is this emasculating. I don't know.

But I know I am a good role model, or at least try to be. Jeffrey Epstein was a terrific role model, with the exception of committing suicide instead of standing up as a proud male sexualist in court (but solitary confinement can do that to the best of us, so he deserves nothing but sympathy). Gary Wilson is another great role model because he promotes male sexual health and empowerment via nofap.

The Antifeminist is a role model, partly, if you look away from his defense of porn and masturbation. Holocaust21, likewise. Tom Grauer is a role model (read his manifesto), if you look past his worst trolling and tendency to delete his blogs once they gain traction. And even Roissy, censored from WordPress but now back online, is a decent role model. Somewhat less strident, but still a good role model for men is our old friend Men Factor. And that basically sums up the extant sex-positive manosphere, unless you count our allies the MAPs who have some good ones but constitute a special interest rather than male sexuality in general.

We the good role models don't currently inspire young men. What can we do differently? Well, if I knew, I would be doing it, so I can only keep at what I know. This is just another lamentation of the obvious. Comments are open to better ideas.

Saturday, August 03, 2019

Which is worse: the female sex offender charade or female genital mutilation?

It is difficult to think of anything as deranged as the lie that women can commit sexual abuse -- and believe me, I have tried! The closest contender I can think of so far is female genital mutilation (FGM). Both are done to mutilate women sexually, the former by means of incarceration and/or "sex offender" registration and the latter more directly. Feminists support the female sex offender charade as vigorously as they oppose FGM, which goes to show that sadly, enlightenment in one area is cancelled out by new-found antisex bigotry in another, making our culture at least as bad as any other.

My point of making this comparison is to help readers snap out of the lie that there is any need to punish women as "sexual abusers." Because if you could see that both practices are equally baseless and indefensible (or based on ulterior motives), surely you wouldn't be so cruel as to want any of this? But it is difficult to see so from within your own culture when it is committed to such things, I know.

I am friends with a girl from Somalia whom I met on Tinder. She is a victim of FGM. Even more startlingly, it was her idea. Her parents weren't going to make her have it, but she got the idea that she needed it. Not because it is a good idea, obviously, but because her culture somehow told her so. We know female genitalia don't need to be mutilated as surely as we know that boys can't be "abused" by exposure to female sexuality. But cultures can be horribly misguided sometimes, and that is not okay. It is imperative that we do what we can to resist such practices when we understand how pointless and harmful they are.

Let us first consider the causes. "For every complex phenomenon there is an explanation that is," as the saying goes, "clear, simple and wrong," which is not what I am getting at. But one thing that jumps out is that these atrocities are primarily perpetrated by women. They are female-on-female violence or self-harm. Feminists begged for our current sex laws and it is mothers who egg their sons on to accuse women of contrived abuse on the basis of these laws, while men like me stand back in shock and disbelief, except sometimes when fathers are blinded by greed into supporting the accusations. Women have their daughters circumcised, or girls even chose it themselves. The female sexual trade unionist theory seems to have some merit in explaining both sorts of cultural misogyny. As explained by Baumeister & Twenge in this paper, "the evidence favors the view that women have worked to stifle each other’s sexuality because sex is a limited resource that women use to negotiate with men, and scarcity gives women an advantage." I think there is some overlap between this and the notion of women as property, and both go some way towards explaining the antisex bigotry which harms women. And finally I think such customs are partly down to random chance and noise. Superstitions get established on the whim of some supposed authority and then they stick. Luckily, we don't need to know the exact causes to know that they are bad. All we need to know is that women thrive with intact genitalia and both women and boys thrive where intimacy between them isn't persecuted.

Which is worse of these two travesties is a close call. On the one hand it is dreary to live in a society with a high prevalence of FGM, and most women still escape harm from the sex laws in ours. But then you have some lives completely ruined by the female sex offender charade, with prison terms up to the 22 years against Jennifer Fichter which I think is the record, making this probably worse for these women than to have been genitally mutilated, and remember, feminist sex-hostility is still very much ascendant so this might be only the beginning!

We also need to consider the secondary harm to males. Boys who could have enjoyed sex with women if not for the deterrence of our malicious sex laws are also victims of the female sex offender charade. FGM likewise leads to less sexually enthusiastic women because they enjoy it less, which is bad for boys and men too. At least partly as a result of this, my genitally mutilated Tinder date did not want to have sex with me unless we got monogamous and preferably married! This is a pest or cholera situation where if I had to make a choice, I would still declare the female sex offender charade worse because of its intellectual offensiveness on top of the moral travesty. It's a sad, cringeworthy sight to see so many people make retards of themselves and spout support for the female sex offender charade. At least FGM doesn't come with a lie you have to be an idiot to accept intellectually -- that boys don't "really" enjoy sex when they appear to when making love to a "sex offender"; that sex isn't a female resource and male sexuality is equally exploitable by women -- instead it puts a damper on female sexuality indiscriminately for reasons that don't purport to fit into the scientific worldview. I find it less offensive to just cause harm to everybody because that is what one's culture does for whatever bullshit reasons than to single out some victims for harm for even more bizarre reasons.

The female sex offender charade, in contrast, has been adopted by the social "sciences," which heightens the charade because at least FGM doesn't have a "science" backing it up. The way they go about it is that no question is ever allowed to be posed in a falsifiable manner if such a negative finding would go against our dogmatic definitions of abuse. Just look what happened to the Rind report. You can't observe a possibility that is taboo to consider with anything but righteous, brainless, knee-jerk condemnation, so our social sciences now dutifully report all the "abuse" the antisex bigots arbitrarily defined into existence. Once again Baumeister deserves and honorable mention, however, for going against the grain with this paper on sex as a female resource, where his formulation of the female sex offender charade appears on page 351-2. Although a bit weaker than mine, it captures the gist:
Moreover, an asymmetry in victims’ reactions supports the view that sex is a female resource. Male victims of sexual coercion by women typically report far less distress or trauma, and they are more likely to look back on the incident as minor and unimportant (even if distasteful), as compared with female victims of male coercion. In an important sense, the male victims seem less prone than female victims to feel that they have lost something of value—consistent with the view that sex is not a male resource. [...] An extreme version of the social exchange analysis would insist that women would never rape or sexually coerce men. Clearly this would be false. A milder version thus holds simply that female coercion of male victims lacks an important dimension, namely theft of the resource, and so the trauma and victimization are less severe.
The difference between what Baumeister is saying here and all my rants against the female sex offender charade is quite small, almost cosmetic. I don't deny that female sexual coercion happens and may sometimes deserve prosecution as lesser crimes than sex crimes; all I am saying is precisely like him that they lack the dimension of theft of sexual resource. The difference is that he foolishly abuses the word "rape" and isn't explicitly calling for legal reforms to bring the sex laws back into line with reality, but it would certainly follow from his position as well that women deserve far less punishment than the justice system is determined to give them now that they are to be treated like men, complete with the charade that men have a sexual resource worth protecting from women to an equal extent as vice versa.

Biology is not yet so corrupted as the social sciences, but it isn't doing anything politically to stop this madness either, with evolutionary psychologists confined to a little corner where they are shamed and marginalized, though they have the right ideas. And the pedophile activist movement does not do enough for women, only incidentally standing up for them when they also stand up for men. They may be right about men, but they fail to realize that we need to go much further for women because the entire concept of "women sexually abusing boys" is gibberish even when the boys are unwilling (or if you want to get into the finer nuances, sexual exploitation is the component which needs to be removed from the laws with regard to female lawbreakers, for which I am literally the only activist).

And what about the humanities, you might be wondering? Well, ignoring crap like women's studies, the female sex offender charade is mostly not an issue to them because it isn't found in their subject matter. There is not a single example of a female "sexual abuser" in the entire literary canon, for example (of any culture, not just Western!), because great writers were not so silly as to dream up such nonsense. Nor is it found in anthropology, mythology, history, philosophy, ethics or jurisprudence until recent feminist crap. Literature is full of female sex offenders, but they are like Hester Prynne, victims of an at least ostensibly very different kind of antisex bigotry than the feminist kind, though their actions are often indistinguishable from what feminists now want to punish under the pretext that I call the female sex offender charade. The fact that feminist-defined female "abusers" are often the same who would be punished for abusing themselves and thus squandering a sexual resource belonging to someone else (as in adultery or fornication which brings shame on the family) under the old system should give feminists pause, but feminists are too dense to realize that they are playing into the same notion of women as property of men or religion that gave rise to the scarlet letter treatment.

I distinguish between two levels of female sex offender charade: half and full retard. Half-retard female sex offender charade is the belief that women's violence can be aggravated by a sexual component and so deserves to be prosecuted as for example "rape" or "sexual assault" with the inflated punishments that come with this categorization. These cases I only designate as half retard because they may reasonably be prosecuted as lesser crimes such as simple assault. They are also extremely rare (not necessarily because they don't happen, but because men don't accuse even though doing so is now the most politically correct thing in the world, which is further evidence that we don't want your stinking feminist sex laws), to the point that the female sex offender charade almost would be reduced to an academic gripe of mine if we managed to get rid of the full-retard part. Most actual court cases are full retard, where it is imagined that women can commit statutory (but reified) sex crimes hinging on supposed sexual exploitation of a victim, such as violations related to age of consent or positions of authority. Get rid of this, and we liberate all the teachers who seem to make up most female "sex offenders." Jennifer Fichter and Mary Kay Letourneau are poignant examples of full-retard cases, where you have to be a total inhumane dimwit to accept that any crime has reasonably occurred at all.

For completeness' sake, I should mention (again) that not all prosecutions of women for sex crimes fall within the female sex offender charade. When women are punished, say, for adultery because it is "a sin" or "immoral," this is plenty bigoted and tyrannical but does not qualify as a charade. Sharia law is a pure example of this. The United States still also retains a "vice" component to sexual prosecution that is not based on the idea of victimhood and is mostly used against hookers. In the most feministic countries, however, it is as if we have forgotten that sexuality can be prosecuted on anything other than a "victim" pretext. With what started as the Swedish model of criminalizing the purchase but not selling of sex, governments still conduct a war on whores, but we pretend that they are victims of men, who are then formally prosecuted while the whores are mistreated and downtrodden as a side effect. It seems to me that people here use the "victim" charade (with extreme inflation of both female and male victimhood) partly to hide the fact that they are control freaks about everything to do with sexuality, even more antisex-bigoted than people in countries that still have sex laws overtly based on religious intolerance. I suppose if you are dense enough to truly believe all the "victim" nonsense, this really works and you get to feel good and "liberal" and "feminist" about yourself while having your antisex bigotry too.

Thankfully, my position on full-retard female "sex offenses" coincides or at least greatly overlaps with pro-contact MAP activism such as the kind espoused by Tom O'Carroll, so I am not alone on this. But imagine if you lived in a society where no one but you spoke out against female genital mutilation. That is the situation in which I find myself with regard to the (half-retard) female sex offender charade, and why I can't stop writing about it because if I don't then no one will and I can't bear living in a moral vacuum. The female victims of non-charade sex laws also have activists (mainly sex workers like this verbose individual), but I am the only one comprehensively standing up for women on all three levels of sex crime, from pure intolerance to pure fantasy that they be abusers.

This has been the first of a planned series of posts where I compare the female sex offender charade to other weird, bizarre or absurd cultural phenomena, which I find to be a fruitful way to shed light on just how outlandish it is. Examples: UFO encounters, magic, belief in the supernatural or the afterlife, the Singularity, Roko's basilisk, metaphysical idealism, open individualism, empty individualism, shamanism, insanity, mereological nihilism, Bolzmann brains, quack healing, belief in self-driving cars and other supposedly near-term AI, mystical experiences, the perspectival theory of entropy, cannibalism, human sacrifice (already did a post on this one, but should do another because it is an excellent parallel both in terms of cruelty, pointlessness, irrational beliefs and presumably the lack of any organized efforts from victims to fight back) -- probably none of which are as weird as the female sex offender charade, and I shall explain why in due course. If anyone has suggestions for more weird things to compare it to, be sure to let me know in the comments. All words for the crazy, stupid or evil fail us when it comes to describing what it means to put women on trial for being sexually nice to boys while contriving "abuse," so we need to approach this phenomenon in extraordinary ways through a multitude of lenses to get closer to understanding what is going on and perhaps persuade those capable of rational thought on the subject, if there are any left.