Sunday, August 18, 2019


Male sexualism is a movement to address two kinds of oppression of male sexuality: that imposed by antisex laws and that which is self-inflicted via porn and masturbation. I have explained why masturbation is bad for men before, and explained some more, but let me now mention another and perhaps even more worrying aspect of the masturbatory pathology: lack of insight that it is bad. Colloquially known as being in denial, the technical term for such a disorder is anosognosia, "a deficit of self-awareness, a condition in which a person with a disability is unaware of its existence."

The following quote from The Antifeminist will serve as illustration. I don't think he can be helped, but maybe there is still hope for those suffering from ignorance rather than anosognosia?
Masturbation and the ability to be aroused and satisfied by visual stimulation are core features of male sexuality. It is one of the things that differentiate us from women. Ironically, feminists used to proclaim that vibrators liberated women from men, but in fact, women can only physically stimulate their sex organ, they can’t actually find true sexual release through visual stimulation (and fapping) as men can.
It is true that the ability to "find sexual release" by means of visual stimuli and masturbation is a "feature" of male sexuality, but this is a great tragedy rather than anything to be celebrated. If you think this is a good thing, then you are suffering not only from anosognosia, but also a fetishization of disability, because a disability or maladaptation is precisely what it is in the current world.

Our sex-hostile mainstream culture is all too happy to tell you that masturbation is fine. And then it institutes a (to the feminists) bonus level of oppression on top of that -- criminalizing a good bit of masturbation as well, usually by making at least some kinds of pornography illegal -- which is reliant on men being deluded into thinking these asexual pursuits provide some sexual value.

When something is a major feature of their environment for long enough, species will tend to adapt to it. That has obviously not happened with Internet porn yet because it has only been around for one generation. Two generations if you include DVDs and VHS tapes, and before that there was no seriously compelling pornography. It could have been different. For example, suppose aliens landed and installed solar-powered porn booths all over the African savanna when humans evolved, and kept maintaining them. Do you think porn would be very appealing to us now, then? No, males who masturbated to it would have reproduced less over a very long time, and the descendants of those who reproduced the most would have picked up additional ways to identify real women before they would get very aroused and allowed themselves to be "satisfied." Those males would have possessed the adaptations that we now sadly lack and need male sexualism to supplement.

For example, we might in that alternate universe be more reliant on smell than vision. And then maybe instead of a video porn industry, we would now have an industry supplying synthetic female odors and hijacking male sexuality that way, because that would be the supernormal stimulus that could serve as an evolutionary trap. While there is a market for women selling underwear in this timeline as well, it isn't very compelling to the majority of men, and such paraphilias can also be helped by nofap anyway.

I believe we can already see the faint beginnings of such evolution. How many kids does The Antifeminist have, for example? I also have zero in part because I fell into this evolutionary trap when I was young, but I am trying my best to rectify that now. If industrial civilization doesn't collapse, nofap will get stronger and stronger by some mechanism or another, probably first by cultural evolution because societies who suppress porn will have more kids. As individual men, we can't wait for evolution to make it easy, however; we have to use our intellect to decide on nofap. Male sexualism is here to help you with that.


the antifeminist said...

"It is true that the ability to "find sexual release" by means of visual stimuli and masturbation is a "feature" of male sexuality, but this is a great tragedy rather than anything to be celebrated. If you think this is a good thing, then you are suffering not only from anosognosia, but also a fetishization of disability, because a disability or maladaptation is precisely what it is in the current world."

It's funny that you use that word (maladaption). I remember you once calling me an idiot on my blog for claiming that the unfortunate ability of women to so easily 'regret' sex is a 'maladaption' in a world in which sex is of such little consequence (or should be) in a world with safe abortions, contraception, little slut shaming and universally accepted sex before marriage etc. Or maybe Emma told you to say that.

BTW, I've never come across anyone suffering from the naturalistic fallacy as much as you. I don't think 'maladaption' is bad because it goes against the interests of the blind selfish genes using us as their means to reproduce. I mean by maladaption an evolutionary trait that only causes unhappiness in the world today (ie. irrational 'regretted sex' leads to men being anally raped in prison cells for no good reason).

Well anyway, I couldn't give a shit what anosognosia is Eivind. All I want is to build a movement that resists the criminalization of looking at pictures in your own home and the normal attraction to fertile teenage girls. If you want that as well, and you think the best way of doing it is to make a crusade against the evils of porn the central part of your manifesto, and proclaiming as leader a pervert who is surprised to get booted off of Twitter for calling for the legalization of preteen rape, I think I can fairly diagnose what you're suffering from as well. It's called asperger's syndrome.

Eivind Berge said...

You are entitled to pick your own values, but I shall not promote your kind of value system. Mine happens to align with propagation of my genes, but that's not the sole justification, which would be the naturalistic fallacy, sure. My valuing real sex and reproduction über alles is mostly a result of everything I know about what actually makes most men the happiest. There is enduring satisfaction and meaning in that, compared to the shallow release of porn and fapping.

We can lead our own separate male sexualist movements with and without nofap, fine. Your diagnosing me as autistic is complete bullshit, however. None of us knew exactly what to make of Tom Grauer, but he sure lifted our movement for a while and I acknowledged that because our leadership was in the doldrums. Have you forgotten your own glowing support for him when he first arrived? Oh, you deleted that? How about owning up to your own misjudgments before diagnosing others?

Eivind Berge said...

To me, male sexualism is also a quest for truth. What is a good life? Of course you shouldn't be jailed for looking at pictures, but what does it do to you? How can people be so cruel and irrational as to perpetrate the female sex offender charade? The drive to punish male sexuality is much easier to explain, but why is there no pro-normal-male-sexuality movement except us? How can we foster a sense of community and morale with that aim? These are some thing I want to know more about, while also resisting obvious injustice.

I am assuming human nature stays fixed for the foreseeable future. Transhumanism isn't happening, and neither is human-level AI. So I'm not interested in what would be optimal ways to change it if we could. Women are not going to get much less regretful about sex even if there are very few negative consequences for them, so yes, it is stupid to think that they should. Nofap doesn't change men's nature either. It works WITH our nature to reap the greatest sexual rewards.

theantifeminist said...

We're both entitled to pick our own values, my problem with you is your putting the nofap agenda at the core of 'your' manifesto. So now we're back at square one. We need a men's rights movement that can resist the feminist sex offender criminlization of men. Unfortunately the most obvious name (really appropriated by Grauer from me) has been taken. The leader of the 'legalize weed' movement would get promptly laughed out of the movement if he made 'weed is evil' the plank of the movement's manifesto.

If you can't see that, you really do have a form of aspergers.

I make clear the MLTO (Men Love Teens Only) movement is not the male sexualist movement or the core 'anti-feminist anti-sex offender law creep' movement. It's a personal, practical philosophy. And shame on you for allowing the paedophile troll Tom Grauer to deliberately misrepresent it as another 'ephebophile' movement, when it's quite the reverse.

You've swallowed the naturalistic fallacy and ran with it Eivind. You have the same 'values' of the first replicators to emerge in the swamps 4 billion years ago. Now that's maladaptive Eivind, for those of us who are human and who are living in the modern world. It's a sensible claim that it's cruel to criminalize natural male sexual attraction to teenagers, especially when legislation is built on the obvious lie that it is unnatural and perverted. Your 'extreme Darwinism' writings are now harming the impact of that obvious truth, just as your female sex offender obsession hurts our efforts to put aoc discussion into men's rights, just as your nofap obsessive puritanism hurts our efforts to put 'child porn' laws into men's rights.

And I didn't proclaim Tom Grauer as leader after reading a couple of his (admittedly brilliant) articles. I was 50/50 and when I saw you jumping on his dick I let my heart rule my head - but still with caution. I then called him out clearly when he started his 'legalizing child rape' trolling.

Eivind Berge said...

We must base our values on what we are, not some fantasy of imminent Singularity or whatever. If you want to call this naturalistic fallacy then I don’t care, but that’s not what it is. I am all for human enhancement of the GOOD THINGS, such as living longer and healthier and getting smarter. I don’t respect limits or obstacles or evils just because they are “natural” if I can overcome them. Fapping is bad not because it is unnatural, but because it leads to problems ranging from impotence to missing out on what you could have had (opportunity cost). Pornography is the story of men missing out on real action and not taking sex as seriously as they could. I wish I had taken sex seriously from boyhood, never masturbated and focused all my effort on getting it. Then there is no way it would have had to wait to the pathetic age of 21 which actually happened.

Male sexualism takes sex seriously. We don’t promote fapping; we aim for the real thing. I want to decriminalize all pornography on freedom-of-speech grounds, but it’s not something positive to be promoted alongside sexuality.

Regarding to Tom Grauer, he could be Mossad trying to smear MRAs as child rapists for all I care, and he still deserved his brief recognition. If not for Tom, we would still be struggling to distinguish ourselves from idiots who promote nonsense like the female sex offender charade and also want to call themselves MRAs. The label male sexualist brings clarity to our mission and I am grateful to Tom for that.

Eivind Berge said...

Before Tom, the closest we came was “a pro-male-sexuality movement," but that's just a generic description, not a snappy identity like male sexualist.

As I am convinced of the negative effects of porn and fapping, I am not going to gloss over this, sorry. I am going to promote positive things and be a role model for men. This may be a more ambitious goal than your simplistic focus on unfair criminalization, but there is nothing Aspergery about it. If anything, it is your tunnel vision that would tend in that direction.

Perhaps you will never come to the realization that you missed out because you didn’t pursue enough pussy in your youth, but if men are anything like me it will hit them hard. The value of sex is horribly underestimated by our culture and I don’t want to be part of that and tell boys it’s fine to fritter away their sexuality on masturbation. The saddest you can be is to end up like the old man in this Cavafy poem, in which I have just changed one word:

An Old Man

At the noisy end of the café, head bent
over the table, an old man sits alone,
a newspaper in front of him.

And in the miserable banality of old age
he thinks how little he enjoyed the years
when he had strength, eloquence, and looks.

He knows he’s aged a lot: he sees it, feels it.
Yet it seems he was young just yesterday.
So brief an interval, so very brief.

And he thinks of pornography, how it fooled him,
how he always believed—what madness—
that cheat who said: “Tomorrow. You have plenty of time.”

He remembers impulses bridled, the joy
he sacrificed. Every chance he lost
now mocks his senseless caution.

But so much thinking, so much remembering
makes the old man dizzy. He falls asleep,
his head resting on the café table.

Eivind Berge said...

Our culture basically assigns the value to sex that women would assign to it. Which is mostly negative value, hence all the punishments including absurdities like pretending women can be sexual abusers because female values are projected onto boys. And of course masturbation is upheld as something good because it doesn't harm women and indeed reduces sexual pressure on them.

Don't fall for it, gentlemen. Male sexualism is what happens when men have a say, and we need to make that happen.

jack said...

Are you serious about "getting kids"? Because if you're only in a rut sexually and fantasize about going bareback there are other ways to get bareback sex than impregnate women. What risks happening (and in this case you'll have deserved it) is for you to become an alimony slave for life.

If you are serious about procreating please give some hearing or reading time to David Benatar's ideas. Benatar is no stranger to the men's rights movement as he wrote "The second Sexism". But he is the main proponent of modern antinatalism. This life or yours and mine is 98% physical and mental suffering. The same would apply to our children if we had any, not to mention the slaughter animals that would have to be raised and slaughtered to keep them in food. Sentient life is a tragedy!

Tom Grauer said...

The latest post by Dom Krauer is amusing; alas, he missed the opportunity to call you the "founder of the North European Woman Boy Love Association," aka NEWBLA. Trolling should be creative!

Honestly though, both of you should go Trad and advocate teenage marriage rather than promiscuous sex. The lifestyle of sterile pussy-chasing is a miserable one. Teen marriage is the way it should be, and it's conducive to fertility. The philosopher Solomon Maimon was betrothed prior to puberty, married at 11, and was a father at 14. By all means, he had a great marital life. That's ideal, I say.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, I am serious about procreating and don't agree with antinatalism or those claims (and this answers Tom's claim of "sterile pussy-chasing" as well -- it's supposed to be fertile!). Our lives are 98% suffering? No, that can't be right for most people. It would require a horrible chronic illness or other hardship. Chances are I've lived half my life already, and I wouldn't call it suffering, so at worst it can be 50% if it takes a horrible turn for the worse soon. Everyone suffers physically in old age, but old people don't report much more unhappiness so it can't be that bad. Even the animals I eat don't suffer excessively, I think. I see happy sheep and cows at pasture where they spend most of their lives, and if anything they probably suffer less than humans because they don't live long as sick or old.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, Dom Krauer is funny but the sad part is most people won't know it's satire! Because they have been conditioned by fools like Hannah Wallen who actually say such things. So it goes to show I need to keep exposing the female sex offender charade.


Link to what we are talking about:

Anonymous said...

Strengere straffe? Og du kaldte ham en rollemodel? For fanden da...