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.
If a father doesn't want his teenage daughter to become a prostitute, or a promiscuous slut who fucks for free (which used to be considered more shameful than prostitution), he should have the means -- and, just as importantly, the stern willingness -- to control *her* behavior and limit *her* options, rather than expecting all the men of the world to subject themselves to misandric measures.
Ah, but it is very hard indeed to keep women chaste for too long, and it's a form of sexual abuse in my opinion, because the sexual needs of women are legitimate also. Therefore, a father should strive to marry off his daughter while she is still a young teenage virgin. And if he fails to do so, as so often happens, then that's his problem, and should not serve as a pretext to penalize the men whom she fucked, whether she fucked them for free or for money.
We need to stop scrutinizing male sexual behavior under a magnifying glass, and instead examine the behavior -- sexual or otherwise -- of women and Blue Pillers under a magnifying glass.
Thanks, those are all better options than the current misandristic regime!
The "current misandristic regime," oh cry me an ever-lovin' river. Playahs ARE the problem - of increased health-care premiums, crime and welfare costs. Costs which those of us - who keep a leash on our natural animal (fleshly, and plain unregenerate) instincts, end up footing the reprobates' bills. And yeah, maintaining self-control is no fun - welcome to adulthood.
Until recently, western culture had a name for "male sexualists" - cads.
Because men are the leaders - like it or not - that means men are stuck with the greater portion of the responsibility. You know how it is, you key in an erroneous formula, and it's your boss who gets called on the carpet, bigtime.
Good post, but we don't really know why these two men are condemning Epstein. What would be the outcome for them if instead of condemning him, they not only claimed that his sexuality was natural, but harmless too, and that it is an injustice that he was persecuted for being a normal, healthy male? Pretty sure that would be their careers over, probably accused of being 'paedophiles' themselves. Do we even know if they are fathers with teenage daughters (I haven't watched the video yet, maybe they mention it)? The STU is certainly the chief driving force behind paedohysteria, a climate in which it is almost suicidal to speak out, at least for public figures especially men.
But yes, it seems astonishing and unbelievable that Dunbar could fail to realize that if sex with teens is natural, then there can be nothing intrinsically harmful about it. Comical that the supposed 'naturalness' of homosexuality (well, penguins have famously been caught doing it), proves how evil homophobia is, yet the natural attraction to teen girls proves that people like Epstein are monsters.
At least he's above Grauer and his ephebophilia, in recognizing that Epstein did not have a 'fetish' for teenage girls, even if Epstein's preference for them may not have been primarily political (unlike mine and other MLTOs).
Robert Wright has two daughters, not sure about their ages but I think a little older like college age. Along with his leftist nature this goes a long way to explain it, I think, and as a freelancer he wouldn't really risk his career by growing some spine if he had it in him.
Paul Bloom is an academic (professor at Yale), so he has more to lose by not being politically correct, but I think this is secondary to his heartfelt control freakery over girls, though I don't know any details about his kids.
As to "playahs being the problem" according to the other commenter above -- sorry, this does not justify the criminalization and if you want to go that route, why not do so consistently? Until you call for recriminalizing homosexuality and equally risky sex by older women as well, I can't even take you seriously if you want to punish men for sex with teens.
Confused. So Eivind,you are now saying that the peak beauty of females for men could be fourteen? You used to say it was late teens to early twenties.
Girls in their early to mid teens are as joyous, blushing flowers set against the hardened, set faces of eighteen year olds. I genuinely mean that.
This study happened to find the peak at fourteen, yes. Late teens to early twenties was just my subjective impression of the peak, while also saying that there isn't much difference between those and the younger teens. All these ages are fantastically attractive, so depending on how you measure I think the peak can be debated and exactly where it is isn't terribly important. I wouldn't go so far as to talk about the "hardened, set faces of eighteen-year-olds," lol, but your opinion that early to mid teens is most attractive is certainly within normal male sexuality.
The idea that females reach their peak attractiveness later than early or mid-teens comes from one or two 'studies' that claim women are most fertile at 21 or something like that.
This study has been quoted ad nauseam by Manosphere writers over the last 15 years, of course simply because few would be brave enough to admit or claim that teens are most attractive.
You will even get attacked by so-called Male Sexualists such as Tom Grauer if you claim teens are most attractive (although I'm not sure if he is attacking me for the suggestion that teens are more attractive than 25 year olds, or for the suggestion that teens are more attractive than 5 year olds - perhaps the latter).
I even got Rollo once to admit on Twitter that most of history would have found 16 year old girls more attractive than 21 year olds.
Whenever men have been free of societal restrictions, they have virtually always chosen girls in their mid-teens. And for most of human history, girls only began puberty in their early to mid-teens.
It doesn't follow that - even if true - because women reach their peak fertility at 21, that that is the age men will be hardwired to find them most attractive at. Peak fertility might also not be fixed. Perhaps peak fertility (i.e. the maximum production of eggs) is dependent on sexual activity or even female masturbation or something else. Maybe 200 years ago peak fertility was at 14, and peak attractiveness was at 14, and today, peak fertility is at 21, but peak attractiveness remains at 14. Women become more fertile at certain times of the month, but they don't change shape or look any different (although it has been controversially claimed that they give off some hormones or scent that makes men find them more attractive).
It repulses me how men are willing to accept stale women when they are denied fresh lovely girls. How can anyone respect such a weak-blooded species? Even were a male-sexualist society to come to be tomorrow, it wouldn't please me at all, as I am disgusted forevermore by the cowardice and evil of men. I care not a bit for society and only for myself and my own happiness. Luckily I have never been attracted to females over the age of seventeen. It's actually quite strange how a girl loses her fresh loveliness to me at 18. Don't agree that a 14 yo nymph (a nymphette would be a ten year old) and an 18 yo woman are the same, however, because a darling 14yo is still growing... But that's another topic and I don't want to distract from the video under discussion that I have never watched.
Yes, that is probably a prankster, but I let it through for the entertainment value.
As Tom Grauer correctly mentioned a couple of posts back, male sexualism is not a preference-political movement. Individual men can have their preferences, of course, but we do not promote the idea that young teenagers are necessarily superior; only that there is nothing wrong with having relationships with them, for which men (and women) should of course not be criminalized.
We promote ethics, not preferences. It is unethical to criminalize sex with teenagers, because culpability cannot be justified. Whether you prefer them or older women should be nobody's political business. It is only because of the present insane laws that we need to focus so much on such relations. A preference for young teens should be no more political than a preference for blondes or Asians or whatever. To attack the laws we need to demonstrate that these relations are normal and healthy, which is definitely the case. Calling men "cowards" for accepting other women is just silly, however; nothing to do with male sexualism and probably trolling to make us look bad.
What I promote is the canonical male sexualism, because I am the leader for good reason. Others such as Tom Grauer and The Antifeminist have made some decent attempts, but they veered off in untoward directions so I had to take charge again.
Some rich dude was banging teenage girls for money. Crime?Probably. But 45 years?
And media's behaviour is even more pathetic. They are treating him like he was Peter Scully.
And other funny thing is how they are referring to him as paedophile- are they psychiatrists?
He was banging teenage girls, not prepubescents. I would bet that if most of that presstitutes were present at his island, they would do exactly the same, what a hypocritical piece of shite they are.
BTW I think that prostitution should be allowed since 18, but normal relationship since 14(Hungary,Italy, Portugal..etc), except case of close-age partners where should be set no age of consent.
Regarding your graph, I wonder what statistical output(sexual criminality) we would get, if we would discount cases of nonviolent sexual interaction with/between teenagers, pseudo-crimes like harassment(should be misdemeanor),regretted sex and formerly normal(non-sexual) interactions with children
(before extension of what can be considered as sex. abuse to absurd dimensions-especially in EN speaking countries).
Problem is, that for many actors of this charade it is their "Raison_d’être".
Many of them are using developed marketing methodics and taxpayer's money.
They need "teenage abuse":"unreported rapes" and similar, because without it, incidence of this type of criminality would be so insignificant, that it can endanger their jobs and interests.
Referring professional literature and research results will be surely part of good strategy against them,although many of them already managed to infest field of serious science and skew outcomes to suit their preferences. Every struggle to fight this nonsense is welcomed, however significant move forward only will happen, when they will slice their "slice of salami" too thick. Unfortunately they are still careful enough to not to do it.
For some fun (probably payed from our tax money):
After social changes in 1960's W Europe, and abandoning old religious-conservative views,after then next two decades of relaxed society, new form of social control emerged. But this new is even worse, masquerading as liberalism but rather inspired by American aggressive puritanism tradition by virtue in asceticism,suffering,suppressing natural behaviour and revenge justice.
It is substitute for religion, but more sophisticated and intrusive.
My country was for 40 years occupied by Soviets, who forced us their communist shit. At least one aspect was good of their propaganda-it was so crude and stupid, that people did not internalized it.
When military occupation ends, society can be free, but when minds of people are infested,
it is almost impossible.
People in 70's Europe would laugh at such "scandals", young people today are taking it seriously.
Since some time I started to realize that some of behaviour in my surroundings, will be surely not acceptable in US:
. lascivious comments between coworkers
. girl cca. 15yo passionately kissing with her boyfriend cca. 20yo in public
. bunch of children at birthday party 4-9yo enjoying their pool time in Adam/Eve suit
. woman breastfeeding in doctor's waiting room full of people
. and etc.
These people would be ruined in US including so-called "liberal" California. They will be either in prison or sued to bankruptcy, their children taken away to foster care(maybe real perverts)
These natural things are ?still? kinda tolerated in my country, will they be after 20 years?
I am sometimes joking, that if Saudi Arabia would have their Burquabook and Meccawood making tear-jerking movies about "How Shafiq is victimised by his wife's disobedience" it would look very funny now.
People must start think for themselves, but that is extremely difficult, especially in times of super-developed mass manipulation.
You have discovered what Angry Harry used to call the abuse industry. All the people making their living on trumping up "abuse," from therapists to propagandists who made the amusing Antifeminist guide in you link to police and prison guards and so on, it's a vast industry and no, they are not about to give up power voluntarily. You live in a country that hasn't gone completely off the rails yet by those examples, but you know where it is headed if allowed to continue.
I only disagree that paying teen girls for sex should be a crime (at least done privately or in informal networks like Epstein was doing). Look what a powerful tool of oppression this phony "child trafficking" criminalization has become, which neither involves children nor slavery in reality. We must not grant them this! If parents don't want their teen girls to be whores, then they should rein them in themselves, as Tom wisely pointed out above, and only actually coerced prostitution should be a crime.
We have a male sexualist quote from Epstein himself, yay!
"He said that criminalizing sex with teenage girls was a cultural aberration and that at times in history it was perfectly acceptable. He pointed out that homosexuality had long been considered a crime and was still punishable by death in some parts of the world."
Exactly right, couldn't have said it better myself.
The more I learn about this guy, the greater a role model for normal, sexually egosyntonic men he becomes!
The following comment is under the article http://anotherpoliticallyincorrectblog.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-joys-of-hypocrisy.html at The Politically Incorrect Australian. The comment begins with a quotation from the article itself.
Eivind ad readers will no doubt find the relevance of the quotation and the comment to be self-explanatory.
"People who think everybody should be free to love whomever they like but they’ll go berserk if their boyfriend decides to put that into practice by loving a younger hotter woman."
This one's oft-neglected and I'm glad you brought it up.
Australia is full of morons who compete to see who's the most accommodating towards gay marriage, yet hate the idea of men having any interest in women more than a few years younger than themselves.
It's the last acceptable prejudice. Everything else goes but if you fancy a seventeen-year-old girl, you're a creep with issues. It's OK for a woman to like a much younger man, but men better be looking only at women around their own age.
Even media sources that are otherwise willing to entertain many "incorrect" ideas, baulk at this one. Andrew Bolt for example, criticised Jeffrey Epstein for involving a 17-y-o girl in his prostitution ring. Oh no! She was only a little girl! I happen to think there's a lot more to the Epstein saga than is being reported in the mainstream press, and that they're throwing out chaff in order to cover the real much uglier stuff, but having said that, most of what they HAVE reported on hardly qualifies as either rape or paedophilia.
Same deal with the allegations about Prince Andrew-oh no, she was only a 17-y-old baby with no decision-making powers of her own, and wouldn't be having sex with a young man her own age if she wasn't otherwise engaged.
The ABC's bad for this. I saw on ABC news last year a story about a murder trial-in Ballarat, I believe. Names and ages of victims and alleged perpetrators are given in these kinds of stories as a matter of course, but the ABC had to go one better and say that a man was on trial for murdering his much younger girlfriend. Got that, audience? The subtext is that man who go out with younger women will tend to be dangerous and men probably shouldn't legally be allowed to go out with women more than a few years younger than themselves. In case you're wondering, the unfortunate murdered young woman was over eighteen. Even eighteen's not good enough any more.
I could give more examples, but all the angloshere media and entertainment does it. In a movie on SBS last night, Michael Caine's character expressed disapproval at the idea of a man marrying an 18-y-old girl. Sixty Minutes and A Current Affair also never fail to register their indignation whenever a man with a much younger woman is a part of a story.
As to the reasons, this is already a very long post so I'll briefly mention perhaps the main one: older female jealousy.
In the mainstream, no-one will touch this fat old sacred cow with a barge pole.
The incel movement has Saint Elliot; we have our own heavenly patron, now.
According to our culture, 17-year-old girls have no decision-making powers about sex and certainly not when money is involved, but meanwhile there is outrage if underage boys such as this 16-year-old aren't charged as adults when accused of rape:
The hypocrisy is sickening. They are playing us for fools with the idiotic pretense that teen girls are children but only selectively so for the purposes of guarding their sexuality, and many men are so impressionable that they accept it too. I hate their guts.
Exactly, this common law "charging as adult" is pure stupidity.
Sex? Nooo, they are too immature and innocent and blablaabla
Putting them in the hardcore prison for decades- yeees reveeenge!!!
This is exactly good example of Puritan mentality that I mentioned in my previous comment.
When it comes to US juvenile justice it always reminds me name of Raoul Wüthrich https://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-14977455.html (in german)
This story is not about sex or teenagers, but only about what is/was? considered in Europe as normal childhood behaviour.
He was only lucky, that he possessed also Swiss citizenship, without international pressure he would be screwed like many other children in US,UK are.
Yeah, Eivind, I also hate and just don't understand the way men are so easily persuaded to reject their own natural impulses.
Three cheers for the old bag presenting this video- "Greta Thunberg and the Lobster" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hofAsL8q4A.
It's about climate change campaigner Greta Thunberg or more specifically her parents.
There are interesting observations about all sorts of things to do with the Greta Thunberg phenomenon. I won't spoil the fun by going into any detail, but paedohysteria or overprotectiveness of teens is one thing that is touched upon. Very interesting stuff.
I've noticed with some older women that they're not particularly carried away with paedohysteria or being in a tizz about men going out with teenage girls, and this lady is not at all impressed with the sort of bullshit about how Greta is just a child. She actually says that in Saudi Arabia she'd be married to a 50 year old man and be pregnant with her second child, and in Egypt it would be with her first child.
Makes a change from other vids critical of the Greta Thunberg phenomenon, such as by the overprotective white knight Paul Joseph Watson.
Thanks, that's a good video! I was wondering why Greta Thunberg looks like a child even though she isn't. She is being manipulated, yes. Dressed up like Pippi Longstocking and scared into climate activism by parents with a selfish agenda. But they sure did make her famous, so I guess it was worth it. She can use that fame to promote her own ideas later if she starts thinking for herself.
These "males" are simply fear-filled, wet mop sellouts. These pedo nazis know the truth, but pander to the puritans because that's who pays their bills. They are also part of the victim industry, which is why they would excuse behavior requiring "sympathy." We are moving towards a society where man-boy pedophilia is legal because that behavior gets "sympathy", and normal man-teengirl sex remains illegal because puritans say men are bad.
Keep it simple, fear and money motivate these shills.
The label of Source on the ages of attraction chart is wrong. It does not come from that 1995 study. (Which I have just completely read.)
Descriptions I have read about the chart say:
As part of making the documentary "Are All Men Pedophiles?", several thousand men on the Internet were shown pictures of girls and women of all ages without being informed of their age and asked if they found them sexually desirable or not.
While I haven't checked the source myself and you could be right, I don't see how your correction makes it any less true.
Highly relevant here:
There is a replication crisis in psychology, but not for this which seems very robust. It is most fascinating that the stronger the attraction to "underage" girls as defined by the antisex bigotry of a man's society, the stronger is also his inhibition to admitting it.
Heterosexual men's ratings of sexual attractiveness of pubescent girls: Effects of labeling the target as under or over the age of sexual consent.
What do we make of this stronger inhibition with greater attraction? Seems somewhat surprising because shouldn't it be easier to put up with norms that one is only mildly interested in breaking? Why be more reluctant to stand out against the norm if you feel a very strong desire?
Well, I have a theory. It could be that the more strongly attracted males are more afraid of the label that society might slap on them for admitting it because they are more inclined to think of themselves as special. Even though they are just normal.
1:44 PM · Sep 15, 2021·Twitter Web App
Post a Comment