Sunday, September 08, 2019

How do we know?

Let us talk about epistemology for a minute, with regard to the female sex offender charade. Consider the case of Brittany Zamora. How do I know the boy is lucky? I know this by every mode of inquiry that I can think of, save for the blind acceptance of bigotry or obsequious deference to authority a la the emperor’s new clothes. I know it on every level from emotional intuition to theoretical predictions to careful consideration of the empirical evidence.

How do the feminists and other antisex bigots know the boy is a “victim”? They “know” this because of an arbitrary standard derived from abuse hysteria via gender equality that is supposed to override all other aspects of reality. It would require extraordinary evidence to show that this standard, if true, is applicable to women too, but they don’t bother questioning that. Worse, they don’t even tolerate dissent, which is why I am banned from Twitter just for debating it.

Is jealousy a pathway to knowledge? You bet it is! You don’t envy your neighbor if he gets cancer. You do envy him if he gets hot chicks, as in the female sex offender charade. This tells us something about good and bad things that is TRUE. While it is possible to think of counterexamples to such vulgar intuitions, those require hard evidence produced by experts that are actually experts, not just selected for their ability to believe nonsense.

When pressed, the feminists sometimes claim research backs them up. But whenever I have looked, the literature shows no such thing. Since most “research” on female “sexual abusers” is written by antisex bigots, it is riddled with the same assumptions, but there is no data to back them up even in their own studies. The only way you can demonstrate bad outcomes in boys who have been “sexually abused” by females is to confound it with other, real abuse. When there is just voluntary sex, there is no evidence of harm. Yet the antisex bigots will have us believe that boys are worse off simply because they are underage or their lover is a teacher. We are talking about the full retard female sex offender charade here, the part that cannot be justified as any sort of lesser crime either.

I know what is good for me, and because I am a regular guy I know this applies to men in general; that it should form the reasonable man standard on which laws must be based. I know my life would have been better had I been what the antisex bigots call “sexually abused” by women as a boy. I know such “victims” are proud and joyous until the antisex bigots ruin things. But we need not stop there.

Darwinism is another major pathway to knowledge about the true nature of what this sick society calls female sex offenders, also completely ignored by the bigots. We know the theoretical reason for why sex is a female resource in our species, because females necessarily have to invest so much in each pregnancy while males do not. Female teachers cannot rob their male students of a sexual resource by giving them sex; if there is any predator in such relations it would be the boy who is getting a free ride and cucking the husband.

While we all agree on this point, I am still reviled by other male sexualists for belaboring it so much, because the few female victims supposedly don't matter so much compared to the routine victimization of men. But I submit that it is not only morally imperative to stand up for them, but also tactically advantageous for men to spend so much time explicating the female sex offender charade.

Remember when you learned physics in school and were told to ignore distractions like air resistance in order to grasp Newton’s laws? The female sex offender charade allows us to remove all friction and let bigotry speak alone. Since there is no male sexuality to distract us, the naked nonsense of feminist “abuse” theories is plain for all to see.

The antisex bigots are calling their own bluff when they apply the same rules to women. This complete detachment from any reality of sexual abuse should make rational people question their “abuse” theories about male offenders as well. Not that we didn't already know that much of that is bullshit too, but the utterly brainless way they go about it with no concessions to truth despite the glaringly obvious fact that we are dealing with lucky boys makes it clear that we can't take ANYTHING they say seriously without checking for ourselves if it deserves to be called abuse.

We need to expose the female sex offender charade until its supporters feel the shame they deserve for being so stupid and evil. Not until that is accomplished will they get around to considering the ways men are oppressed, which is more complicated because male sexuality has the capacity to abuse. Just like you don't jump straight to the Schrödinger equation when teaching physics, we can't expect anyone to understand our issues before they at least want to liberate an angelic creature like Brittany Zamora. She is really that important because this is so basic.


Milan Horvath said...

. female sexual power(as you call it), was IMO thing before efficient contraceptives were discovered, since then it should be equally about pleasure and fun, for both sexes.
Being myself genuinely pro-equality(unlike today's feminism) I see no reason to make difference between male offenders vs. female offenders, this witch-hunt is bad in both cases.
Fact, that many people see difference between this is rather cultural residuum from before-pill times. It is maybe not natural, but surviving syphilis is neither, innovations are just changing some societal order. Using patriarchal narrative about chaste woman and male victimiser is not very sex-positive, interestingly today's feminists are also using it, making it them very hypocritical.

.even in my ideal world, what Brittany did wouldn't be legal
(AOC 14+R&J law, relationship with authority or prostitution-AOC 18)
but such draconian sentences would not be appropriate even in real rape cases,
in her case get fired+suspended sentence would be fine.
(BTW:public sex offender register should have NO place in civilised humane society, same as death penalty)
I don't think that boy is heavily victimised, to be frank I am pretty envious.
I just think that, we should not mix authorities and sexual life, being it difficult situation to handle even for adults. Such behaviour is very un-pedagogical(or too much pedagogical..haha)
Same thing it is with early adolescents(12,13yo), even in case when no authority is involved.
It is not about some grievous victimisation, but rather about proper upbringing, when full blown sexual drive is new thing to them, they should try first experiences with peers.
I must admit that setting exact number is not best solution, but to set some vague laws and let to decide some "professionals" seems to me even worse.

In case of close-age partners, whether it is early adolescents trying their first romantic experiences, or prepubescents curiously exploring each other bodies, this shouldn't be suppressed, because such puritan upbringing can create serious psychosexual issues later in life. Puritan society is actually creating so-called "monsters", perpetually imposing tougher and tougher measures, worsening situation even more and more.

.financial gain involved in sex cases is pure evil,
compensations should be limited to expenses for treatment and lawyer, not to personal profit.
Such cases, being very frequently word against word + some psychological eintopf, adding to it some form of profit is making it good recipe for parody of justice.
Famous victim status(celebrities), combining financial and social/professional gain is even worse, because these people are not screwing only life of accused person but frequently being appointed as patrons of sexcrime victims, and thus co-creating policies about things they know nothing about.
There are many of these celebrity cases, but my "favourite" is fate of poor old David Hamilton.

In case that somebody here is really boring,
I found some article from anti-censorship and anti-puritan Australian activist, it may seem little bit controversial, but it is very interesting and (unfortunately) very long.
It contains some good points and some passages which are something similar that was mentioned in book recommended by Eivind in his recent post :Book club: Human sexuality around world.

Eivind Berge said...

I can agree it can reasonably be called unpedagogical (to other pupils who would get jealous), and the way schools should deal with unpedagogical teachers is to fire them at worst. Making it a criminal matter is beyond the pale, and 20 years is insane. The monster of a prosecutor asked for 44 years and at this rate we will soon be seeing in effect lifetime punishments against women for being NICE to boys! This is a catastrophe of epic proportions, not in terms of numbers but as a moral travesty it blows all previous witch-hunts out of the water because we now target women not for being a little strange or even at random, but for being a sexual asset to boys, even at an age when it helps them most to overcome the dangers of porn and masturbation.

I profoundly disagree with the rest you say about female sex offenders and obviously have work cut out for me to explain this better. Contraception has only had a tiny effect on female sexual expression and not at all on female sexual mentality, and it is insane to lump boys (except for homosexuality of course) into the protections I can agree girls deserve. 14 is too high of an age of consent though; 13 is the highest I can tolerate and once again it has no role being applied to women AT ALL. Also there is absolutely no reason boys should have their first time with their peers rather than adult women; indeed it is beneficial to learn from women and due to the fundamental sex differences they CANNOT be sexually exploited.

Eivind Berge said...

What you say about the evils of financial compensation in sex cases is very sensible, however, and of course I agree about David Hamilton. Thanks also for the link to Ray Harris's essay on integral sexology (never heard of that before), will check it out when I have time.

Eivind Berge said...

Forgot to say that "relationship with authority or prostitution-AOC 18" is a nasty, vicious law that I vehemently oppose. This needs to be brought down to the other AOC and once again it has no role with regard to female offenders because women cannot in principle sexually exploit.

The only thing we agree on about AOC is that it has no role preventing kids from experimenting with each other. But I am flabbergasted that you think there is some kind of abuse magic to having first experiences with adults instead. If that were the case, then the virgins who don't have sex until they are adults would be abused too, by the absence of peer-experiences while adolescent. There is some truth to that (especially with porn leading boys into sexual dysfunctions), but it's not the adults' fault and the adults can help, with women being an absolute godsend to young boys.

Eivind Berge said...

"Using patriarchal narrative about chaste woman and male victimiser is not very sex-positive."

I am as sex-positive as they come, but I don't see distorting reality and denying human nature as part of that ideology. Nor do I have any allegiance to patriarchal narratives, but it so happens that "chaste woman and male victimizer" tends to describe reality while your denial of differences does not. Except "choosy" is a better word than "chaste," but close enough.

Women have reasons to be choosy that we can't deny without disrespecting their natures. And likewise, men have reasons to want to be promiscuous that we can't deny without disrespecting our natures. Which is exactly what happens in the female sex offender charade -- the boys' promiscuous nature is disrespected, which is what upsets me so profoundly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!