Friday, November 01, 2019

Yes, masturbation makes you blind

Whoever said that (male) masturbation makes you blind was right. Not the kind of blindness that doctors will currently diagnose, but that is because they care very little about men's sexual best interests. The kind of blindness we are talking about consists of not seeing women's beauty properly and therefore not behaving as you should with regard to them. The other faction of the Men's Movement can make fun all he wants, but it remains true. When I started writing this post I meant to make a distinction between literal blindness and a metaphorical kind, but the more I think about it I see that this blindness isn't metaphorical. It is real, rising to the level of anosognosia even, which is a downright hyperreal sort of blindness.

How can we expect society to be anything but blind to male interests when so many men are themselves blind to male interests, including a faction of supposed male sexualists? No wonder they only see the harm of male sexuality -- and blow that absurdly out of proportion -- when sex-positive male sexualism (which should be redundant, but when we have a faction which doesn't think it is important to chase pussy...) is so rare I'm practically the only proponent (aside from other nofappers, but they lack the ideological awareness). If you don't realize that male masturbation is detrimental to sex, then you are part of the problem and already halfway in agreement with feminism.

Vision is so much more than your eyes doing their job. What you do with that information is what really matters, and when your brain is impaired in that respect, it is also real blindness. Masturbation, certainly when you also use porn, leads to neurologic -- not psychological -- harm in the male viewer. Crudely speaking, masturbation literally impairs men from seeing women as sex objects, and that is a kind of blindness so sinister that it would be hard to replicate with optic blindness. Indeed, since medically defined blindness would probably cure the masturbatory kind, I am almost tempted to second the biblical wisdom:
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out,
and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for
thee that one of thy members should perish, and
not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
--Matthew 5:29
But luckily, all you need is nofap.


Anonymous said...

Hi Eivind. I'm not a true no-fapper because I seem to lack the willpower to last more than 3-4 weeks max, then I will start fapping again. But oh man the effect it has when I'm in a good period of not fapping. It really is great. My libido increases, my erection is harder and my confindence is way up. And I notice it's much easy - or rather possible actually - to get girls to fuck me in these periods of no-fapping. So I really think it's a healthy lifestyle. My goal is to stop fapping completely. But I dont care about converting other guys to no-fap as it means more pussy for me if they dont as I see it.

Anonymous said...

Eivind, kan ikke du dele litt informasjon om saken til Gally? Ikke utlevere han personlig, men uten all identifiserbar informasjon for eksempel. Saken virker jo veldig interessant, så synd om du ikke kan dele noe om den.

Eivind Berge said...

Gally is the ultimate series of male sexualist ironies. He is what the feminists should consider harmless (to the point of being a 40-year-old virgin!) because he believes in their antisex bigotry and is even an activist for no-contact. But the feminist system also believes in punishing his harmless, self-defeating fantasies, so they lock him up while ironically rewarding me for my diametrically opposite activism. And on top of that, Gally even agrees with the verdict against him! Last I heard he was going to appeal, but only on insignificant side issues while pleading guilty to the substantial charges. That trial may well have happened by now but I haven't kept up.

Ironically, one of Norway's worst "sex offenders" is too sympathetic to the sex laws to be friends with the Men's Movement. He is one of the feminists, not us. And should serve as a stark warning about the dangers of masturbation, with his legal problems being only a small part of the harm. I DO support his right to ruin himself that way without going to prison for it, but when you consider the resulting blindness and sexlessness, it is hard to come up with a better poster boy for what I am trying to convey in this post and all my writings on porn, masturbation and nofap.

Anonymous said...

Boys, whatever you do dont grow up to be "a Gally". The poor loser Gally was convicted and went to prison for so called "sex crimes" without him ever actually been close to having sex! The poor idiot never had sex because he ruined himself With porn and masturbation.
But he never did anything that should be considered illegal, allthough extremely unhealthy and a powerful weapon the feminists uses against men. So Eivind, we really need to see the verdict and anything else you might have about the case.

Eivind Berge said...

I see that The Antifeminist (or "Dom Krauer") has written another pro-masturbatory post:

While the rest is funny, this part is deeply, seriously wrong: "masturbation is natural, normal, and an intrinsic part of male sexuality."

Not just wrong, but obscene to be fighting for as a sexual right because masturbation is actually detrimental to our sexuality. As someone who almost gave his life for the cause, I have a deeply emotional relationship with the kind of issues worthy of inclusion in our movement.

Is it worth fighting a civil war* over the legal definition of rape? Yes, it is (that's how I got radicalized to begin with).
Is it worth fighting a civil war over the age of consent? Yes, definitely.
Is it worth fighting a civil war against the grooming laws? You bet!
Is it worth fighting a civil war for the right to jury trials (now lost in Norway)? Of course, it most assuredly is, and that should go for anyone who cares about democratic principles, not just MRAs.
Is it worth fighting a civil war over the right to masturbate and watch porn? LOL! No, that would be ridiculous as well as deeply ironic under the banner of male sexualism because these are in fact asexualist pursuits.

*I now advocate conscientious objection rather than civil war for tactical reasons, but the analysis is the same. We are a noble movement of pro-male-sexuality advocates who shall not be sullied by asexualist tendencies.

Tom Grauer said...

Regardless of the content of that specific post, though, I'm proud of TAF; he's getting progressively better at imitating my style. I think that writing as "Dom Krauer" helps him lighten up and channel his inner troll. Perhaps if he had been doing that from the beginning, he would have made some impressive achievements in the Sex War by now.

Anonymous said...

What did men do 100 years ago, when women maintained firm boundaries - no sex until there's a ring on it, and the ceremony concluded. The local whore-house was the other option - besides whacking off. Problem with going to the brothel, besides the cost, was the risk of veneral disease. Today we have medicine to treat/cure most of that stuff - not so back then.

What did red-blooded young men do? Men studied, men built stuff. Ever notice the wonderful detail in old structures, as compared to ikeaish stuff these days?

Eivind Berge said...

Men were not persecuted (in Norway) for going to brothels 100 years ago, or even 20 years ago; that's another sufficient moral reason for civil war. But what do they do? They don't form an identity around the need for sexualist rights, in part because they think masturbation is OK. They literally don't know that they will go blind or have much of any problems if they masturbate. The resulting loss in potential activism (which is hard to measure, but surely exists) is one reason why it is a male sexualist issue to educate men about the true harm of masturbation and porn, in addition to the more humanitarian altruistic reasons.

And yes, sex is safer now yet more persecuted. Why do we put up with this paradox? Why do we let the antisex bigots have their way even though there is less reason than ever for their intolerant norms to be applied?

By the way, I just realized that Jordan Peterson is an antisex bigot. Here he attempts to claim that promiscuity is not incredibly rewarding to men:

I have never seen him say something so false and hollow, but he tries to pull it off with a straight face. Perhaps a case of sour grapes because he missed out? I can understand the argument about social stability, but he claims casual sex is not good for your soul. LOL! Anyway, he's in rehab now for drug addiction. To "prescribed" benzodiazepines, as if that makes any difference.

Another case of antisex bigotry that startled me in the past couple of days concerns Tiger Woods in this article:

And I am not talking about the cheating. It is much more subtle:

"According to the National Enquirer, Woods confessed to having cheated with up to 120 women, including a 21-year-old neighbor, a woman he had known since she was 14."

Why bring up these facts about this woman? What is the taboo he is supposed to have violated here? Is 21 now too young, or does having known a girl since before she was 18 now make her off-limits for life, a sort of additionally expanded concept of "pedophilia"? Are we supposed to infer that he "groomed" her? WTF is going on in this bigot's head? And will this soon form the basis of more antisex laws? No doubt they would have locked up Tiger Woods too if they could; they just haven't come up with applicable laws yet and are free do to so any time because men still don't fight back. All we have to speak up for us to any appreciable audience are wimps like Jordan Peterson who parrot the sex-hostility themselves. How did we get into this mess of complete and total antisex bigotry which reigns supreme across the entire political spectrum?

theantifeminist said...

@Tom Krauer

How about you stick around for more than 2 weeks before you tell people who have been doing it for over a decade how it should be done? And what exactly have you achieved? Maybe killed all-together even the idea of a 'real men's rights' movement with your 'trolling'? Oh, and encouraged Eivind to go completely religious nuts with your Muslim crap.

I must admit, you've played Eivind well (although that's perhaps not overly impressive given that 40 year old virgin virtuous paedophile Gally managed it too).

Eivind Berge said...

This is not directly relevant to male sexualism because Greg Johnson is not one of us, but it goes to show that if you come to Norway while holding politically incorrect opinions, they might arrest you for no reason:

It would probably happen to us too if we actually had a movement with conferences and speakers etc. Foreigners don't have freedom of speech anywhere, so there is nothing to prevent you from getting deported before you get to speak. This is why we pretty much have to stay in our home countries if we are going to be activists.

Eivind Berge said...

Antisex bigotry has now gotten to the CEO of McDonald's:

McDonald's CEO Steve Easterbrook is out for 'consensual relationship with an employee'

So the male sexualist conscientious objection needs to include not working for them even as CEO. Preferably we also shouldn't eat at McDonald's or any other feminist establishments. I know it's impossible to have a normal life if we are to implement this program conscientiously, but at least make an effort to boycott the most odious companies and certainly don't work in a position that requires submitting to sex-hostility.