On Good Friday, Cambridgeshire Police tweeted that officers were pleased to find no shoppers in the ‘non-essential’ aisles at Tesco. On the same day, South Yorkshire Police were forced to apologise after an officer in Rotherham was filmed telling a family they were not allowed in their own front garden. Another video shared online showed officers breaking down a man’s door because they had heard reports of a gathering. The man was watching television alone.These "crimes" would be too absurd for parody a short while ago, but now it is clear that police will enforce anything and then some, and people don't put up much resistance beyond maybe sharing a video. This is both an educational and a teachable moment to us male sexualists. On the one hand it shows how hopelessly docile people are, but it ought to be possible to evoke some thought on the nature and basis of taboos when they change so suddenly. An injunction to only leave the house once per day for essential errands or stand two meters apart in public is just as arbitrary as, say, the age of consent creeping up to 18. People who internalize the latter as a timeless truth are just as stupid as if these new social distancing norms were to become permanent and held in similar "esteem."
Some of the new taboos will have to be temporary because it is economically impossible to carry on like this, but others will likely stay with us long after the virus is gone. We can't have an economy with no "non-essential" activity, but it's feasible to always have plexiglass barriers between customers and cashiers, for example, and all the new surveillance can certainly be kept up. If we get through this crisis, it will be interesting how much of formerly normal social interactions will still be subject to taboos and prosecutions. In some ways this is good because it takes resources away from antisex bigotry and spreads the hate more evenly on the population.
Yes, the virus is real, with significant mortality, and it makes sense to limit its spread. But you don't have to be a male sexualist to see that such measures can get out of hand. When taboos and oppressive policing get entrenched, however, there is a danger that even smart people lose sight of how pointless and unfair they are. This has happened with sexual taboos in the present world. Similar to how in the ancient world even the most astute ethical thinkers like Jesus didn't realize that there is anything wrong with slavery and torture, people today including the intellectual "elite" believe that locking up or socially ostracizing people for victimless sex, or even just looking at pictures or fantasizing about it, is just what one does.
Before COVID-19, I was sure I was going to die in a world where I would be one of the last to remember a time without feminist sex-hostility. It is already difficult to convince people that there can be such a thing as a world without the female sex offender charade, without the asinine denial of minor sexuality, without the hateful feminist rape law reforms that pretend women can be raped without force and resistance, and without the hysterical taboos against sexuality in the workplace and everywhere. But now, I can see the world taking a completely different trajectory, with all those female luxuries of wielding violence against men and other women on the basis of convenient sexual accusations simply disappearing along with the other accoutrements of industrial civilization because we hit limits to growth and collapsed.
For educated guesses about collapse, I recommend Gail Tverberg's blog, which has suddenly become highly relevant again. I won't call it either way, yet. One thing is sure: we are in the middle of a dire crisis where weeks seem like years in terms of how the world is changing, mostly for the worse except the antisex bigots are losing some power. Please do share your perspectives about what is happening where you are and where you think the world is headed in the comments. Am I right that we at least can rejoice that the coronavirus is hurting the feminists, or will they find ways to maintain their antisex police state even after this?
In the USA, average people are starting to get pissed off, no matter Democrat or Republican. They aren't going to take it much longer (big protests in Michigan), and Trump is fanning the flames, which is awesome news for the entire world which decided to be scared of the flu. Angry US citizens will lead the world out of its fear.
No one is really having sex right now. It is a true sex depression. Couples are getting pissed at each other if they live together, and if they're apart, they are discouraged from seeing each other in person. No one is dating as trust is at an all-time low. People are less horny than ever - Maslow's needs are requiring survival focus before reproduction. Idiots are saying there will be a baby boom in 9 months - exactly the opposite, plummeting fertility, is the truth.
The good news is women are more aware of their emotional and physical reliance upon men than they have been for at least 20 years. But the system is still set up with feminist laws and leadership; which means when the hysteria wanes, these well-traveled paths will pick up again. I would say there is a great window to change the feminist laws and leaders, either right now or in a month or two. There would need to be a popular false rape catalyst that really angers everyone who is just trying to get by. Imagine something along the lines of the Kavanaugh false rape hoax, happening in the current environment - people wouldn't just take that shit, it would lead to major changes. We'll see if anything happens.
Here's an interesting rare instance of people massively rebelling against a stay-at-home order:
Well, there is be a (false) rape campaign afoot against Joe Biden. Nice to see the democratic candidate at the receiving end for a change. Fancy Biden losing the presidency by a few votes following such an accusation. That would be karma as far as US domestic politics is concerned. Not that it would change much for men's rights. Still, better than nothing.
We already have a high profile false rape case in this with the acquittal of Cardinal Pell in Australia:
It is making some waves against feminism, but I don't know if enough to change anything. It is plain to all that we have a system designed to believe liars, with no statute of limitations either. The end result of feminism is a system tailored to serve the likes of Carl Beech, and countless female versions whose identities were protected because they got away with it.
Perhaps these worst excesses of "believing the victim" with no other evidence will be reversed if there is a shakeup of the current order. But unfortunately there is no Men's Movement ready to step in with substantially revised DEFINITIONS of sexual abuse, because people have been so brainwashed with conceptually false abuse. We need to go back to a time that almost nobody remembers except the pushovers who let feminism happen, and literally nobody with the age of consent since it hasn't been sane since the 19th century. That is something probably nothing short of a civilizational reset can accomplish. We won't be around to enjoy the fruits of that since there is always a centuries-long dark ages to go along with such a cycle, but now there is a good change we at least will witness the collapse part.
On a humorous note showing what happens when the two sets of taboos collide, I just heard the Norwegian covid-tracking app will have an age limit of 16. So the pandemic is serious enough to shut down the economy at a cost of trillions of dollars and remove all civil rights from adults, but not serious enough to violate even the most overprotective sacred rights of children 😂
It really does put into perspective what the concept of "child" is worth to our feminist society, and how much it would take to defeat the associated taboos. This civilization will sacrifice its last drop of blood, or oil as the case may be, on the altar of child-worship.
Well, I am waiting with bated breath for something essential to break, upon which the priorities will be very different. Quarantine is cushy until the food supply breaks down, or the electric grid can't be maintained anymore. But by then we may be past the point of no return if we don't get back to work soon. The tipping point that David Corowicz warned about is eerily close.
I see people in Michigan protesting a little bit but on the whole, sentiment for lockdowns remains strong and leaders aren't reversing. It's as if SARS-CoV-2 has deactivated our civilization including the will to live. How that could happen so easily is a puzzle.
Gotta quote the prime minister on this age of consent to covid-tracking thing because this is so rich:
– Vi oppfatter 16 år for å være tidspunktet da du tar selvstendig stilling til å laste ned appen, forklarte statsminister Erna Solberg (H) aldersgrensen med på regjeringens pressekonferanse torsdag.
Paraphrased: We feel that 16 is the time when you can decide to download an app. Never mind that we ruined the economy and don’t understand how much worse it will get if we don’t contain this pandemic and get back to work pronto, but we just can’t have minors do something they don’t fully understand, you see.
Now, I am no fan of surveillance and unsure if I want to download the app myself (they say it’s voluntary so far). But I would think that if we are going to have such an app, considerations of the informed consent of minors to be tracked should be very far down on the list. Isn’t it more important to have as many as possible using the app, and if they do it willingly then the more the merrier? Unless those under 16 can’t transmit the virus, but as far as I know they can even if they never have serious symptoms.
All I'm seeing is beautiful women increasingly covering their faces and men not being able to get within 2 meters of them lest the coronovirus police are about.
Meanwhile, millions of old men are under house arrest and told to wait to die.
An honest question Eivind - supposing these lockdowns, or at least the safe distancing, lasts for months. It's near impossible to approach or date women in these circumstances for a single male.
Is it still a sin to fap?
I never said it was a "sin" to fap, not like we claim there is a God watching over you or anything like that or that he would care if he exists. The issue is that male masturbation is a maladaptive behavior, historically relatively innocuous but rising to the level of a paraphilia when done to digital pornography, which is a situation men are evolutionarily ill-equipped to deal with and therefore need some moralizing to. But the moral is that nofap is for your own good, not to anybody else’s benefit. The damage is worst in youth, so to boys and young men I must make it clear DON’T FAP TO PORN even under lockdowns! Your neurons don't care that you have an "excuse" to look at porn! I agree there is no immediate opportunity cost if females are truly unavailable though (except to the drive to talk to them online to plan meetings for later), so it’s not so much having orgasms by yourself that is the problem then as the miswiring that occurs when you come to associate sexual arousal with worthless pixels rather than warm female bodies. You want to be tuned to appreciate women to the fullest, so anything that interferes with that is a bad thing, and it does happen to some degree to all men who use porn; whether the damage is subtle or renders you functionally impotent it is always a bad thing.
If you feel that you must fap even after a due consideration of the downside, do it without porn and as little as possible. Frankly there is no need since nocturnal emissions take care of the strictly natural needs, but I don’t need to moralize too much either in such a situation. Older men who have had lots of sex already can’t be brain-damaged so easily by porn so the warning is less strong to them, but why risk it at all? If you must, I’d say once a week is the upper limit of what is acceptable if you care about your sexual health.
The lockdowns will end before long one way or another (I'd say max two months from now), either because normal life was restored or because the situation deteriorated into social unrest or collapse, and either way you need all your virility for the opportunities that will arise to meet women again, however brief you life may be if things go sideways.
I am not saying this to be difficult. It follows if you value sex (aren't you a sexualist?) then you must devalue things that screw up your sexual function. With what else than porn can you explain the increase in erectile dysfuntion since it became so commonplace? See this:
"According to Daniel Sher, a clinical psychologist and a consultant for the Between Us Clinic, what they do know is 'the proportion of young men battling with PIED has increased exponentially in recent times.' Sher says porn is more easily accessible than ever before, due to the internet. And that advanced brain imaging technology has allowed researchers to hypothesise the process by which porn use can lead to erectile problems.
Watching porn can become a habit that is very difficult to break, and as Dr. Becky Spelman, psychologist and clinical director of Private Therapy Clinic , explains, because having an erection comes to be associated with watching porn, in some cases it becomes impossible to have an erection without it. 'Clearly, this can be a disastrous situation for anyone in a relationship, or anyone who hopes to be in one,' she says."
And besides the clinical issues with impotence that even normies obviously care about, there is the opportunity cost of not having as much sex as you might because your drive is blunted. Why are men having less sex than previous generations? It's not all due to hateful feminist sex laws and antisexual attitudes -- our own porn abuse must take some of the blame and it behooves us to address this as male sexualists.
Eivind, either there is an echo somewhere, or you have posted your last message twice...
I don't know how that happened, but fixed now.
Instead of wasting energy in persuading men not to masturbate, sexualists should fight to decriminalise prostitution. Give men an alternative instead of telling them to refrain. Prostitution is necessary because there simply aren't enough young and sexy women to go round unless some of those available "multiply" through prostitution. Especially so since among the young and sexy many women, let's face it, many aren't that much interested in sex, something Society or men can do nothing about.
Some men may object at this point that a woman does not need to be young & sexy for men to want to have sex with her, but this is easier said than done. In practice 80% of women at any given time are invisible to men. Again, there's nothing Society or men can do about that.
This doesn't apply to Eivind but from what I see no-fap guys out there are mostly tradcons who not only oppose the decriminalisation of prostitution but slut-shame women who sleep around (as though promiscuous women weren't precisely what men need in the circumstances). Self-defeating fools!
"Daniel Sher, a clinical psychologist and a consultant for the Between Us Clinic.."
"as Dr. Becky Spelman, psychologist and clinical director of Private Therapy Clinic , explains"...
God help us.
Your first reply was quite reasonable, I wouldn't have replied again if you hadn't made that second comment.
So your bright idea of validating the feminist war on porn which is the whole battering ram they use to criminalize male sexuality per se, is your own anecdotal experience, as well as Dr Becky Spelman a psychologist at the Private Therapy Clinic, and Daniel Sher, a consultant at Between Us Clinic. Are you sure you don't want to quote the GoodManginaProject as well? One of your heroes - Gary Wilson - is a regular contribute there, after all.
Didn't you once pretend to be a men's rights activist?
Were you masturbating when you were an incel and started this blog, btw? Because if you're telling me that you have more testosterone now than you did then (because of nofap), you're fooling nobody.
Oh look : https://goodmenproject.com/author/daniel-sher/
Don't get too hung up on those guilt by association arguments or the fallacy that someone must be wrong about nofap because he holds other wrong or bigoted beliefs. I only cited that article because I happened to just have read it because incidentally Gary Wilson had tweeted it yesterday. Obviously there is a mountain of evidence for my claims about porn and masturbation, most significantly personal experience. It is as obvious that masturbation degrades sex that it's beneficial to have a parachute when jumping from an airplane; science is merely a bonus while you ludicrously would accept a charlatan showing you a brain scan as proof porn is completely normal. In the end science can tell us perhaps 1% of the truth and we must rely on our own experience for something so personally significant. You are either in denial about the harms or you simply don't care to maximize real sex. Seriously, this is like arguing with someone who insists parachutes are ineffectual -- that's how obvious this is!
And Jack, of course we fight for legalizing prostitution! There is no conflict between that and nofap: we support both. And I never said you shouldn't be selective either, which you certainly can be if you are able to pay for it. Either way, nofap is the way to go.
Gary Wilson holds some silly beliefs and quite possibly an odious ideology. Perhaps he even thinks nofap serves feminism, but that's beside the point because he is right about the link between porn and erectile dysfunction plus the opportunity cost that I keep emphasizing that he doesn't even mention. Where he goes wrong is in thinking that staying away from porn makes men "nicer" people, which is to say more like women in their sexual mentality. That is bullshit except we do of course have to ACT more like women when we are constrained by their choices. We can fantasize about endless teens in porn while it takes months or years to get one in real life, so in that sense nofappers are more like women, but the fantasy is worthless while reality means everything even if it's only a fraction of what we wanted.
He also approvingly tweeted this silly article:
Where a dumb cop claims porn makes men pedophiles -- only men between 18 and 26 who've had so much porn that this isn't something we are supposed to be able to relate to. There is likely a kernel of truth to desensitization and escalation with today's young porn victims who literally get weaned on that crap, but it isn't going to change their orientation, certainly not permanently or in real life. On the other hand real pedophiles can use nofap to get better at their thing... Which is lost on Gary Wilson since he is convinced he is fighting the "good" (and yes probably feminist) fight. But that doesn't matter. Hitler probably believed the sky is blue, but we shouldn't stop believing it just because he was a bad person. Same difference with Gary Wilson.
I actually find it kind of charming how Gary Wilson naively thinks nofap will make men "good." Yes, in that way he fits into the "Good Men Project." Their measure of a good man is a woman as we know. But please, let's look past that. He is like someone who writes a blog about how to make the perfect sword, but naively thinks only good people can use that knowledge or the knowledge makes you good. That doesn't change the fact that he can be an expert on swords. Nofap is nothing more than a tool to hone your male sexuality. It doesn't change the aims of that sexuality except to put them squarely in real life. I want the sharpest, strongest sword I can get, which is why I practice nofap. How to use it is another matter entirely, and I don't listen to no stinking feminist "Good Men Project" for that... To us male sexualists, the measure of a good man is a man, who is in touch with his sexuality, his genuine male sexuality and not some phony feminist ideal.
Female victimhood and antisex bigotry takes second place now but it isn't totally dormant, alas. Here are some snippets:
I think the feminazis are just like stock investors, they're watching from the sidelines, waiting for the opportunity to relaunch.
Deflationary collapse of the oil industry at least in the US is happening now the way Gail Tverberg predicted:
This isn't reopening, it is collapse. Is it too late to turn around too, and will spread around the world and to all industries, taking out technological civilization?
Hey Eivind, that's a far cry from peak oil. Imagine how I feel about this as I bought 60k euro worth of BP and Total shares some 14 months ago. However this crash is a bit special as it is caused by a storage squeeze. Putin and the Saudis had seen it coming, that's why they were surprisingly willing to stop the price war not so long ago. Too late though.
If the stupid EU countries had equipped themselves with storage facilities like the US instead of whining about the climate, we wouldn't be here. Cheap oil is (could be) a wonderful opportunity to restart economies. Airlines could begin to fly again at a fraction of the costs.
It will take one of France's or Belgium's derelict nuclear power stations to experience a serious mishap for EU countries to come to their senses. When that happens, it will be a thousand times more threatening than a superflue virus.
A storage crunch? That doesn't begin to describe what is happening now. And not just American shale oil. Today Brent Spot is crashing too, down 11% to 23 dollars at the moment. I could have told you not to invest in oil stocks, and did if you had paid attention. Is this the endgame that I feared back in 2015?
That danger appeared to pass and we had some good years since then, but look how little it takes for everything to unravel!
And now Brent Spot is at 19 dollars, down 25% today.
New post from Gail:
She doesn't see a recovery. This is curtain call for industrial civilization, folks. Let us savor the little scraps that may be left and not worry so much about activism from here because the feminists will be dead too in a few years and of course their laws will be irrelevant.
The moral is to not expect things to go back to normal, do the limited things we can do and enjoy them. If you have "savings," spend them now. Planning for a long-term future is a fool's errand at this point.
Sadly, Europe isn't even on her list of countries that can work partially for a while! (Those are US, Canada, Russia, China and Iran.) The rest of us can measure our future in months rather than years, unless you can survive as a hunter-gatherer or by manual farming at best (which will be so unpleasant that I am basically discounting that possibility for myself).
I got corona panic and bought new lenses for my Sony a7III, and I'm glad I did, because prices already increased by 30%. But for what use, if Sony goes bankrupt? Anyway, we had a rural apostel next to here I live now, who made the former serfs here enjoy the toil in the soil, a kind of grey-stone-religion. Maybe time for a renewal of his teaching?
If we can adjust our expectations to where having enough to eat is a good life, then maybe. But how do we go from everyone expecting well-paid jobs, luxuries like your camera and vacations around the world, to an agricultural serf's life?
I guess people already gave up on the vacations for now, so it's amazing how fast tings can change.
The last cruise ship just reached port:
They expect to get back to sailing again though and the shock of that maybe not happening has yet to sink in with most people. It will be rough when that happens.
Former agricultural serfs, and they cared for their souls salvation, not about luxury. Our apostel was a little different from Hauge in that way that he wanted to build agricultural community, not industrial community, but still with "kommunitaristiske" ideals!
- NORSK LEKMANNSKRISTENDOM I USA:
Oh well, collapse will happen if it does and we can’t change that. Worrying about the collapse of civilization is a bit like worrying about your own death. No sense in obsessing over it even though it is a sure thing and maybe not far off either. As long as there are men and women in prison for bogus sex crimes or prosecutors hunting more, male sexualism is still relevant and meaningful. We should keep on trying to raise a pro-sexuality movement till the bitter end even if society is collapsing around us. Remember also that my blog has a bitcoin donation address, in case you have more paper wealth than you know what to do with in the time left that such assets are likely to be worth anything. And by the way I think bitcoin will be one of the last assets left standing aside from tangible things like houses and food, so if you haven't diversified into bitcoin yet, it might be a good idea. Not much else to spend on at the moment. If you are really rich I can also offer an investment opportunity in my fertile dating site which still sorely needs an advertising budget. It is uncertain that dating sites will relevant in the future, but so is everything.
On the topic of collapse, I just watched the Michael Moore-backed documentary Planet of the Humans which is now free on YouTube for a little while:
Highly recommend for a realistic look at how few options we have left to keep industrial civilization going. We desperately need the oil industry to survive covid, or it's lights out. The purpose of "green" energy was merely to distract us from the truth that fossil fuels and industrial/technological civilization are one and the same. That and to enrich a few slimy billionaires. Plus hydropower was a legitimate success story in some places like Norway, but it can't be scaled up to power the whole system.
Funny you should recommend Michael Moore. Of course his documentary doesn't have to be bad but the fellow is well-known in the manosphere as a thoroughly obnoxious white-knight.
I like the oil industry not only because I put money on it, but because without the research funded by oil companies sedimentary geology would be a fraction of what it is today. Sequence stratigraphy which explains the sedimentary record in terms of sea level changes was created and developed single-handedly by the oil industry (Exxon papers). Many boreholes and (micro-)fossil studies are financed and carried out by the oil industry. I fume when I hear climate alarmists dismiss outright anything oil industry scientists have to say about past climate. The reconstruction of past climates is a scientific by-product of oil industry research (Universities cannot begin to compete if only because of budgets.) It gets dismissed by alarmists because it brings an elephant into the room, namely the finding that warm climates are synonymous with high biomass and biodiversity.
Meanwhile the old people's home flue (Covid) is receding. It refuses to spread in Africa where there are no old people's homes. Some governments in Europe are now debating whether to allow people to take walks through the wilderness or surf at beaches. What a big exercise in social engineering and state bullying this has been!
Apparently ventilators, often useless for Covid treatment, have been mass-produced or imported in many countries. You read news like "country X is offering 1000 ventilators to country Y". Never mind whether country Y ever needed more ventilators or whether such ventilators are any good. In international politics, ventilators these days are like the propitiating presents exchanged by the chieftains of yore. They have become the new currency of international diplomacy, therefore it matters little if they're any good.
I was never a great fan of Michael Moore, but it’s remarkable that even leftists like him are coming around to seeing renewable energy as a sham. This documentary is not negative to the oil industry. On the contrary it shows how fossil fuels are all we’ve got until life isn’t livable anymore. The only way to “save” industrial civilization would be massive depopulation, which is a wish that might now be granted by the secondary effects of COVID-19. Coincidence that this was released now? If I were inclined to conspiracy theories, I would guess the lockdowns are part of a controlled demolition plan.
But we have to assume our government are sincerely just looking out for the geriatric population. Hmm, there are limits to how long they can use that excuse though.
"Funny you should recommend Michael Moore. Of course his documentary doesn't have to be bad but the fellow is well-known in the manosphere as a thoroughly obnoxious white-knight."
Let's be honest, it's only a matter of time before Eivind starts quoting David Futrelle in defence of his feminist positions on wanking, or his Mother Gaia/Gail fetish on the collapse of industrial civilization.
Eivind is like that Russian paedophile troll (can't remember his name) who used to comment on mansophere blogs and whose 'solution' was to campaign for a global nuclear holocaust. At least that guy didn't really pretend to be leader of a 'movement'.
What is it with Eivind and Tom thinking they are going to somehow sexually succeed in a post-apocalyptic society, or some form of 7th century Islamic 'male sexualist paradise'?
Do you honestly consider yourself an alpha male or something? Are you planning to run 'GAME' in this Mad Max world you look forward to? You seem to be relying Tinder for the odd lucky bang, and I'm not sure that will still be around when we've reverted back to glorious Year Zero. Or will you just be happy to find some 50 year old divorcee and be chained to her for the rest of your life (presumably short life with no modern hospitals and all)?
This is your idea of Male Sexualists 'winning' against feminists?
No, I have no such delusions. Since I didn’t succeed as a leader of men up to now, it’s safe to assume I won’t in a post-apocalyptic world either. Sure I am alpha in some ways, but not enough for that. It will be the warlord types who get the pussy and other resources then, and I don’t claim to have those skills. My hatred of feminist sex laws is so strong that I rejoice in any suffering and death of their supporters and enforcers, but that is as far as my love for collapse goes. As marginalized MRAs and sexualists we can only observe and predict, so there is no reason to take my vision so seriously and get upset because it doesn’t match your idea of the future. Not my ideal future either; I am basically just saying look on the bright side if the worst happens now.
And things are still falling apart. In today’s news Trump ordered meat-processing plants back to work because the food supply is threatened. But the economy is a self-organizing system that can’t simply be ordered to function. It is phenomenally complex and relies on energy supplies that are now shutting down. Above all it relies on growth, but now we have a depression at best. Industrial civilization may not survive this, and that will be the end of all the technological progress that might have resulted in a transhuman future. If civilizations could survive downturns very well, they would spring back and continue developing, but that’s not what we see historically and not what we should expect for us either.
The will to get back to work does not match the destruction of infrastructure we are seeing now. But maybe it’s not a matter of free will. The will to work and be prosperous and risk coronavirus disease if we must isn’t worth a damn if the system doesn’t support its continued existence.
Of course Eivind thinks that if the hateful anti-sex laws were removed, things would be great for men like us. Give us a level-field without intrusive laws or feminist-led manner-hunts and life will be great, right?
It is not that simple. First here's what Michel Houellebecq hat to say about "sexual liberalism" in his excellent novel entitled "Whatever":
"Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization . Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women; others with none. It's what's known as 'the law of the market'...Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society."
Houellebecq was paraphrasing marxist economic theory to make a very important point.
At 60 I'm old enough to have grown up during the permissive years when there was no such thing as paedohysteria or male entrapment or sex negativity. So can I look back on my formative years as a permanent orgy with beautiful girls and hot teachers? Well, no. Maybe 20% of the girls (the best-looking ones) had sex, and surprise surprise, they had it with maybe 20% of the guys. I was not one of them.
Even if presented with a level-field of sex-positivity and permissiveness, most of us would still not be out of the woods. We would be with high probability be part of sexual liberalism's proletariat.
Yes, I never said it would be equal. Would need a sort of sexual communism for that, which we MRAs have flirted with before when I said things like "rape is equality," but never seriously advocated. We have had more than enough with opposing the escalating antisex laws that yes, in practice mostly apply to alpha males and hot women because they are the ones who have the most sex at least of the coveted kind that zealots rush in to ruin.
Would you rather grow up in a world where sexually generous female teachers are persecuted as fake “abusers” or one where you at least have some chance? Would you rather grow old in a world where you are a categoric “predator” for talking to 17-year-old girls or one where intergenerational relationships are tolerated, even if few men can attain them? I thought the answer was obvious.
Furthermore, I think nofap can easily put a man in that top 20% (until nofap is very common, of course, but even then there will be more sex overall). It did for me.
Well, to answer your question, I had no chance whatsoever then with girls my age, let alone with hot teachers (don't remember any). I might as well have grown up in the harshest of islamic republics for what the prevailing permissiveness brought me in terms of real sex.
As to nofap bringing anyone in the top 20, I don't believe it. It didn't then and it wouldn't now. Nofap was the defacto norm in my earlier years as pornography was in its infancy and I grew up in a village, going to school in a small town of less than 5000. In later years of course I could lay my hands on some primitive porn mags. But I don't remember those earlier years of porn/fap deprivation as conducive to anything. What I remember is that the fapping of later years probably prevented me from going off my mind. Those poor quality colour pics crumpled under my matt were something to look forward to, some temporary relief from sex prison and utter frustration.
Yes, when nobody was fapping to addictive porn, it was a much more brutal environment in the sense that most men were already sharp that way. That has changed to where the competition is pushovers. Girls now expect you to be another sucker who will pay for their OnlyFans. When you will have NONE of that shit, it instantly puts you in the top 20%.
Even so, I am sure there was something you could have done better and at least you didn't have the feminist sex laws to worry about. With only a few countries excepted, men these days can't even visit a hooker without being persecuted.
In the most "extreme" inversion of modern gynocentrism, it would be illegal for women to refuse sex, period. Men only resort to paying for sex -- to say nothing of various other means that aren't approved by catladies, ahem ahem -- because it's not free. If sex were free, we would not have to be exploited by greedy bitches; hence the great equalizer of male-female sociality and sexuality, besides the legalization of rape, is the illegalization of sexual refusal. Yes, that's sexual communism - well so be it.
«Jeg er ganske enkelt en parasitt som skal utryddes. I kveld har jeg tatt en skikkelig dum beslutning som gjør at jeg mister min kjærlighet, mine barns respekt, selskapene mine, tv-kontrakt og alt jeg har kjempet for gjennom alle disse åra».
Feel free to translate this, if you wish. This is just ridiculous... this is what a man who has bought sex is supposed to feel about himself. "I am a parasite who should be eradicated"...
I've never bought sex, so I have no real skin in the game, but the sex-hostility that is openly on display in Sweden and Norway is disconcerting to say the least...
Wow, that is fucked up. I am fully aware that my society considers my sexuality and hence me something to be eradicated, but how do some men sink so low as to internalize that hatred against themselves? That I don't understand. He should get a clue from us male sexualists and become egosyntonic. Because if they do manage to eradicate his sexuality, what is left? It won't be him and it won't be a man. I sure don't want to live like the castrato one has to become in order to be accepted by feminist society. Let me have my sexuality or give me death: I am incorrigible, a male sexualist, a real man unlike the pathetic little mangina Paolo Roberto.
Or maybe his contrition isn't heartfelt either, but he wants to go on benefiting from being on the "good" side of society so he says what they want to hear. That's the most likely explanation, and whenever they aren't looking he will go right back to acting like us authentic men again. I wouldn't be able to stomach lying like that though and am happy with being a nobody if that is the alternative.
And don't they have a pandemic to worry about in Sweden? How can they still be raiding men who buy sex at this time? Or rather, the fear of coronavirus unfortunately didn't get to the Swedes and give some relief from antisex persecution like it did in most countries. The virus itself can't be very disruptive if can't even put and end to bullshit like that even where it roams freely. Maybe next time there will be a real pandemic, and meanwhile the lockdowns are still threatening to collapse civilization. New post from Gail:
Seeing how antisex persecution goes along with prosperity, I almost hope she is right. Certainly the Scandinavian way of life is inextricably linked to hateful intolerance of sexuality now, and nothing short of collapse seems likely to end that. So we might as well be put out of our misery already. As a sexually egosyntonic normal man, the feeling that I have no place in society is ever present. I exist, but I am not one of them and eradicating me is only a matter of resources. The inevitable conclusion is that I hope those resources are destroyed, even if I have to die along with the collapse.
This is what she says we can expect in the near future:
"Initially, rich countries can be expected to try to help as many laid-off workers as possible with loans and temporary stipends [this is where we are now]. But, after a few months, even with this approach, many individual citizens and businesses will likely not be able to pay their rent. Default rates on home mortgages and auto loans can be expected to rise for a similar reason.
We can expect to see round after round of business failures and layoffs of employees. Financial systems will become more and more stressed. Pensions are likely to default. Death rates will rise, in part from epidemics of various kinds and in part from growing problems with starvation. In fact, in some poor countries, lower-income citizens are already having difficulty being able to afford adequate food. Eventually we can expect collapsing governments (similar to the collapse of central government of the Soviet Union) and overthrown governments.
Longer-term, after this demolition ends, there may be some surviving pieces of economies. These new economies will be much smaller and less dependent upon each other, however. Currencies are likely to be less interchangeable. The remaining people will need to learn to make do with many fewer goods than are available today. It will be a very different world."
A world without feminist antisex bigotry! (Or at least no realistic way to enforce it.)
Hi Eivind, can you please promote the campaign to ban PornHub? This terrible blight on the sexual lives of young men needs to be stopped. Thankfully, there are good men and women trying to do that right now, and we believe we are very close to achieving our goal.
I was actually just working on another rant against male masturbation to maybe post next, so thanks for that. But I need to make it clear that I support freedom of speech and don’t want to ban any publishing sites. Not that I have much sympathy for Pornhub if it is taken down, but that won’t stop men from getting porn. They can just go to Pirate Bay like we did in the old days or any of a million other places, and censoring all that would get really nasty.
Censorship is evil and must be resisted. What we need to do is warn boys and men about the harms associated with pornography. And we don’t do that by highlighting a problem with "exploited" girls either like the present campaign against Pornhub. If you count the cases where females are actually raped and abused, not just statutorily or by regret, this accounts for something like 0.0000001% of the problem with porn in my estimation. I therefore cringe whenever they are mentioned at all instead of the real victims who are the male viewers.
Pornhub doesn’t need to “change” either -- it needs to be ignored! Even if you fap only to feminist-approved porn, you still damage your erectile function and displace real sex and sexual pursuit in your life. That is the real issue that we as male sexualist men are uniquely positioned to warn boys about. When I was a kid all we had were the hateful feminists and religious zealots who touted those other issues that are irrelevant and seemingly opposed to a man’s sexual aims. And so I sadly didn’t listen to them, though I should have because ironically that is just the advice you need, minus the delusional idea that porn exploits women and children instead of men.
Feminists are our useful idiots insofar as they want to shut down porn sites for supposedly exploiting girls, not realizing that men will be better motivated and able to get the same kinds of girls in real life if we stay away from porn. So in a way I appreciate your efforts, but I don’t support censorship either. We need the middle ground of education and at least informed choices on the part of the men who still want to squander their sex lives on porn.
Yep, feminists are our useful idiots when they resist porn. That is a really marvelous silver lining to all their antisex bigotry and something to ponder when you need some cheering up. But maybe not mock them too hard in case they wise up and make the war on our sexuality even worse by moving the police resources currently burnt on pornography to something that really matters.
Our culture exhibits the astonishing delusion that females can be “abused” via pornography. That delusion is the same as the wanker’s delusion that he derives sexual value from pornography/masturbation. In truth, there is no abuse and no value (except to any commercial profiteers, who are often the women themselves). Only the male sexualists who follow my lead see through it all and promote the truth.
There is neither sexual gain to men nor harm to women in pornography because it’s just pixels or other bits of inert information. To believe otherwise is a delusion on a par with for example the delusion that leads to honor killings like this:
“Two women in Pakistan have been murdered in a so-called "honor killing" after a video showing them kissing a man circulated online. The cousins, aged 22 and 24, were shot and buried on May 14 in a remote village in Pakistan's North Waziristan province, according to police officer Muhammad Nawaz Khan. Khan said the father of one of the victims and the other victim's brother were arrested Sunday and confessed to killing the women.”
Persecution of porn is the feminist equivalent of honor killings, basing it on the same kind of fictional entity. Call it an affront to family honor or abuse and exploitation -- these concepts are the same shit in different wrappings. The difference is feminists want to destroy the male viewer along with the girls, but that’s really the only difference. Feminists fancy themselves as more enlightened than tribal honor-killers because they define the shared footage as something like “revenge porn” or “child porn” -- but in truth they are at the same level. They want a machinery to destroy the same people and then some. The feminists who want to shut down Pornhub for showing underage girls, force the girls into “rescue” programs at any cost to their lives, and jail the male viewers in perpetuity are at exactly the moral and intellectual level as the sort of antisex bigotry that leads to honor killings. Nothing new under the sun -- except us male sexualists who actually promote sanity!
And it so happens that a sane view of porn necessitates the realization that when combined with masturbation it hurts the male libido and erectile function or at the very least displaces real sexual experiences from men’s lives and therefore needs to be discouraged. But not at the cost of draconian censorships or other heavy-handed oppression, obviously.
"men admitting they have a problem with porn—even if they continue to occasionally watch it—is a way to garner sympathy from women. Heather, another participant of a women’s group for dealing with men’s porn addiction, said she once thought pornography was only a “moral issue,” but now she doesn’t see it that way: “When I started to realize what pornography really did to the brain—I mean it really caused changes in the brain—that’s when I started to get it, and why it is so hard to quit,” she said. “Once I learned that, grace was much easier to show.”
That's a disgusting article of feminist pro-masturbation propaganda in order to keep men docile.
And even if it were true that some clueless men quit masturbation in order to get sympathy from women, I don't think the male sexualist reasoning will have that effect :)
It will, however, make you more attractive to women because you become more virile and assertive, and that effect will hold even if the man happens to believe other nonsense as well.
I suppose I should note this as historically significant for the Men's Movement:
"A deadly attack at a Toronto erotic massage parlour three months ago is now being treated as an act of terrorism after police allegedly uncovered evidence it was inspired by misogynist incel ideology.
Charges against the suspect accused of carrying out the Feb. 24 stabbing attack, which killed a woman and injured another, were updated in court on Tuesday to “murder — terrorist activity.”
The suspect, who cannot be named because he is a minor, was also charged with terrorism for the alleged attempted murder of the woman who survived.
He was already facing first-degree and attempted murder charges, but the development means police believe the incident was terrorism-related.
In a joint statement, the RCMP and Toronto Police Service said their investigation had determined the attack “was inspired by the Ideologically Motivated Violent Extremist (IMVE) movement commonly known as INCEL.”
“As a result, federal and provincial Attorney Generals have consented to commence terrorism proceedings, alleging that the murder was terrorist activity … and the attempted murder was terrorist activity.”
Experts said it was the first time a terrorism charge had been laid over violence tied to incels, a term that refers to self-described “involuntary celibates.”
It is also believed to be the first time Canada’s anti-terrorism laws have been used to prosecute an act of violence by a suspect who was not an Islamist extremist."
Though I don't support this guy's actions in any way, it is certainly positive that male sexuality is finally being acknowledged as having a political movement. The state has been reluctant to consent to that at least in Canada and very grotesquely so in the case of the van attack by Alek Minassian, but it finally happened. Incels are now taken seriously and treated as honorable warriors like the Islamists instead of simple vermin to be eradicated. So congratulations for that, but male sexualism it is not, sadly lacking a manifesto against specific sex laws.
It is also really ironic that it took a minor who can't be named because of society's bizarre obsession with "protecting children" to put male sexuality on the political map! A "child" who can't even want sex according to believers in the female sex offender charade -- LOL!
He was 17, which is a bit too early to know you are fated to be an incel, don't ya think? I mean not too early to actually be incel, obviously, but how do you know it will last? How do you know you are different for being incel at an age when it is almost the norm to fail to get laid? I don’t understand what he was thinking, and as I have said before, nofap would probably have cured him anyway. So if you don’t have a message against specific laws, it is foolish to get violent.
Apparently he wanted to kill women before even knowing they would reject him, which is both faulty reasoning and attacking the wrong enemy as far as male sexualism is concerned. Laws and law enforcement are our enemy, not random women -- I need to emphasize that and distance myself from all misogyny and violence against women.
So yeah, my feelings about this are mixed. Thanks for the acknowledgment that male sexuality is able to organize and bite back politically, but no thanks for this specific type of activism which I can only condemn as misogyny. Especially since it was against a massage parlor which has to be the least hostile place to male sexuality. Are incels too cowardly to attack our real enemies or is their ideology screwed up? I guess it is a little bit of both. As surely as I must distance myself from the asexualists who support masturbation, I must make it clear that incels are not male sexualists -- the closest they come is to be understood as part of the Men's Movement in the broadest sense.
We also don't know the circumstances of this case.
Maybe he was turned away from the massage parlour because he was underage? Maybe he hadn't planned this so-called 'terrorist act', but it was simply the result of his burning frustration at not getting laid? Of course the authorities are looking for reasons to ban INCEL discussion forums or stamp down any attempt at male sexuality developing a political consciousness. If they found he visited INCEL forums, they automatically blamed him as a 'terrorist'. Notice how those same Canadians take days or weeks to pronounce a Muslim randomly killing civilians as a 'Islamist terrorist' even when witnesses see him screaming Alluh Akhbar.
Regardless of how "smart" banning porn might seem by feminist logic, porn still hurts male sexuality which means they actually do us a favor (though it would be better if we could abstain by our own reasoned choice like I am advocating). There is a great quote in Time magazine which shows even the mainstream is starting to catch on to the fact that you still deny:
"The reboot movement started for one reason... Young guys wanting to have functioning penises. Nothing to do with morals."
I can't think of a more fundamental male sexualist value than that, and if you don't think having functioning penises is important to men, then you can't be taken seriously. Is it really your position that it doesn't matter if men have functioning penises as long as it works with porn?
You are absolutely right that sex for favors and attraction to 17-year-old are things they banned for their own selfish reasons and which only serve those reasons and hurt men. But porn is not in that category even if most feminists still think so. It is incredibly foolish to keep pushing the "porn is good for us" agenda while knowing what we do now about how it hurts male sexual performance.
"It is incredibly foolish to keep pushing the 'porn is good for us' agenda while knowing what we do now about how it hurts male sexual performance."
IF you believe porn does hurt male sexual performance, and is not just at worst a waste of time.
To me your position is like assuming that if you starve people or stop people from looking at food or talking about food, they will be able better to grow food. The men that get told they shouldn't look at porn should reply "give us young willing women and we'll know what to do with them".
Question: do the anti-porn studies propose to do anything about the drying up of real-life outlets for heterosexual men? I am sure they don't. On a more personal level, what good is it to me if 200 thousand men who have been satisfied wanking to porn now come out onto the streets to pursue the same paltry sexual opportunities I am after (or descend upon the already crowded sex-haven I retired in)?
In a previous post you said no longer looking at porn made you stronger and better able to land real women. How better? Did you go from scoring once a year to scoring twice a year? It made you feel better, at least for a while. Everything does. I don't believe it made such a difference in terms of the number of different women in your bed though.
Suppose I argued that, rather than banning porn from their lives, men should be encouraged to work out and build well-defined muscles. There I would be saying something that is incontrovertible and guaranteed to increase your sexual scores. Women love muscular men. Build muscles or make more money, but forget about porn. Porn is a side-issue. Men's penises do not malfunction once they get young sexy women to play with, never mind the porn they've been watching.
You don't get it either, Jack. You really, really don’t get it if you think nofap is just some kind of fad that can bring a temporary boost to your confidence and success. No, it's a whole different world of sexual pursuit and success; an entire spiritual outlook which puts sex first and reaps the full rewards that billions of years of evolution have exquisitely set up for that purpose versus falling into a brand-new evolutionary trap that tricks you into wasting both the efforts and rewards. The opportunity cost of missing out on as much pussy as you can have is reason enough not to masturbate, but the nofap movement wouldn't have taken off if it were just a matter of wasting time. Both of us are too old to truly appreciate how damaging porn is to the boys growing up today. We need to take their stories seriously and the evidence is already overwhelming that masturbation is a raging pathology to them when combined with the current supernormal stimulus.
Any male "sexualist" movement which endorses porn and masturbation is a self-sabotage movement. It is fine to encourage men to work out (which is truly a side-issue), but doing something like that while ignoring the presence of masturbation is like putting a band-aid over a gaping, festering wound and pretending it will be alright.
We need to get this right or else we are just a joke, like the doctors who used to recommend smoking.
Sure, the anti-porn studies don't answer all the questions about how so many more men can get laid if everyone considers the vagina his only outlet, but this is so fundamental that it is irrelevant at this point. If your arm is broken, you don't forgo getting a cast because the labor market is depressed so you probably couldn't get a job anyway; no, you worry about your basic health first, including sexual, and then figure out how to be successful in life!
French author Michel Houellebecq has some interesting passages about fapping in his novels. He is most certainly not a no-fapper, introducing instead fapping as a necessity, albeit a slightly shameful one. Still, he is unique among "serious" novelists in integrating fapping into his character portrayals rather than ignoring it like one would ignore eg defecation.
Houellebecq has some extraordinary comments about porn. Couples, he writes, no longer have sex when they're together at home. Instead, they look at porn, having de facto delegated sexual activity to a class of pros or professionals endowed with the required youth and bodily features. This view of porn actors and actresses as a specialist class is daring but interesting. It tallies with modern Society in which activities requiring inborn qualities become professionalised. For example, if you say someone is interested in soccer you seldom mean they actually play soccer. Instead, they waste their time watching soccer matches. Same with music, someone who is a music fan will mostly listens to CDs and rarely actually be a player of any instrument. The idea that the same delegation of power has taken over sex is fascinating.
That's a criticism of porn that I hadn't even heard of, and yes, would be hilarious if true. There probably is some truth in that delegation aspect as well, but Houellebecq completely misses the truly serious problems with porn and masturbation then. I would add that the only real requirement to top-notch professional sex/porn is female youth, so unlike soccer or music any girl can be a pro at it if she chooses at the right time. And even if she is old there are plenty of men/couples who will do exactly the kind of vicarious thing you are talking about, sure. It is funny to think about and doesn't have to be that way. I'm not much of a sports fan either myself and would rather get some exercise myself in and out of the bedroom. No interest in playing musical instruments though.
Eivind! They've discovered that Balinese monkeys are using stone tools to masturbate!!
Obviously a maladaptive response to watching Pornhub!
We've got to save them Eivind. A new mission for Male Sexualists and our feminist allies!
@Jack - I certainly don't think that Houellebecq is anti-porn. He more likely just doesn't think that men could ever be satisfied with it.
There's a big difference between such an attitude and Eivind's.
Eivind appears to have swallowed the naturalistic fallacy from a literal understanding of evolutionary theory.
Houellebecq despairs at porn because it simply reminds old men that they can no longer have access to the tight young bodies in the images.
Eivind despairs at porn because the replicators in his DNA are forcing his mind to believe that if ejaculation doesn't lead to pregnancy (and the reproduction of those replicators) then it is a 'maladaptive' act.
The Antifeminist is a nihilist, no better than a Buddhist monk who wants to lose all attachment to the real world, because he doesn’t believe in or care about the reality that matters to the rest of us. The difference is he uses porn and hoped-for sexbots to get there, but it is the same sort of life-denying philosophy at its core. You worship emptiness, which is what porn is, a simulacrum without soul, without any grounding to anything of consequence. You believe either that you are emptiness or that living with zombies is good enough for you.
Male sexualism is a life-affirming philosophy which will have none of that. We value real people and real intimacy, which by definition cannot be had from porn or masturbation because it’s all solipsistic. Furthermore we recognize that porn is now seriously encroaching on men’s real sexual experiences and it is morally disgusting to be seen as condoning that, so I must speak out against it. Hence nofap is an integral part of male sexualist ideology. And no, this isn’t derived from evolutionary theory as if I’m obligated to find some kind of morality there, but an appreciation of the meaning of life. I am not any more obligated to internalize “replication” as the meaning of life than I am to agree with the feminist sex laws, but it so happens that reproduction closely aligns with what my life wisdom tells me is meaningful. The transhumanist goal of perpetuating and evolving the individual turned out to be a silly unworkable fantasy, so what is left is plain family values or else you quickly turn into a dead end.
So what if Balinese long-tailed macaques use stones to masturbate? This may or may not be seriously maladaptive to them depending on how far they take it. Most likely it is only a rare distraction, and if other studies on animal masturbation are any indication they probably don’t even ejaculate. Comparing this to the porn that tricks boys to give up large chunks of their potential sex lives is profoundly obtuse, and in the animal kingdom only paralleled by pollution such as beer bottles tricking male jewel beetles to ignore the real females.
I keep mentioning opportunity cost, and Houellebecq’s argument against porn is essentially that as well. Why delegate to others or fantasy what you could be enjoying yourself? The problem of not having access to the tight young bodies in the images should be addressed by figuring out how to get access, not by escaping further in to a fantasy world, duh! Sure it will fail at some point when you get old, and then if you use porn to reminisce, preferably of females you had yourself, then I won’t say anything. This is what Roissy used to promote as the primary purpose of porn, and I would agree that is compatible with nofap. But using porn and masturbation to replace any part of a potential sex life is not. Those who use porn the most are not old men who can’t get young women, but actually males of the same ages as the hottest girls in porn! That is the absurd truth, and we would be idiots to claim this is healthy.
I looked at the article about monkey masturbation, and gosh, this is pathetically weak evidence. No mention of ejaculation and only a HYPOTHESIS that it might be masturbation because of a correlation with erections, that they have to use abstruse statistical methods to tease out. They found that the "sex toy" hypothesis was only partially supported and the difference wasn't even statistically significant, LOL!
If you think this is comparable to what boys do with Internet porn and gives them the all-clear that it is perfectly healthy then I don't know what to tell you, because you clearly have no ability to engage with these concepts at anything more than a tabloid simplistic level. Denial makes blind, eh?
Our old friend, the Human-Stupidity blogger came along and commented on this thread:
Explaining why "it is simply totally impossible to be strongly sex positive and race realistic and immigration critical," and so he sadly isn't promoting sex-positivity anymore. I have my disagreements, and more of you might want to weigh in and encourage him to return to male sexualism.
I remember the late 70s and early 80s when porn was preceived as "empowering". Porn was subversive, it was at the cutting edge of the sexual revolution. Now the young generation of no-fappers see porn as "oppressive" much like today's feminists see the pill as an instrument of male oppression (and no longer as an instrument of female emancipation).
Of course porn is not synonymous with masturbation. As far as I know the no-fap movement is ambiguous on this. Masturbation gets used as the main argument against porn. Masturbation was probably as widespread throughout past History as it is now. Equating masturbation with porn or linking the two causally is wrong. I remember reading an author writing that at a certain age the seminal glands of male teenagers regularly refilled with semen, and whole male sexuality (including masturbation and the occasional rape) derived from this.
One more thing that makes the no-fap movement suspicious is that it (as far as I know) ignores female masturbation. It is again men who are doing something wrong they shouldn't do. Female masturbation is widely underreported, like every little dirty secret of female behaviour. And when it is reported, then only in a congratulatory fashion, like every aspect of life that suits women. Apparently women are doing nothing wrong by masturbating and thereby depriving men of sexual opportunities.
The problem with porn is male masturbation. Otherwise it would just be art or documentaries about human sexuality or whatever. Just seeing it is harmless if you don't masturbate. I forgot the references to this but it's clear that male masturbation has increased in recent years, to something like twice the level of the 1980s if I recall correctly? Anyway, it's not just an issue with the quantity. The worst problem is the qualitative difference with using digital porn which trains the male nervous system to be sensitized to irrelevant stimuli and -- here is the crux -- not sufficiently aroused or at least not maintaining sufficient erections during actual sex. The problems range from simple opportunity cost because there is more masturbation and less libido applied to getting and having sex, to clinical impotence.
Of course we ignore female masturbation because it's not an issue. Women can't get impotent and they don't need an aggressive drive to get sex since men are constantly trying to have sex with them anyway and their job is to limit access. I know of no evidence that female masturbation makes women less receptive either. It is possible that this happens occasionally, but I think it is too rare to be worth mentioning. Also some women claim to have a problem (to them) with porn, but I have trouble taking that seriously and think it's just a case of wanting to latch onto a cool male movement and/or confusion with religious moralism.
The problem with porn is so obviously male-specific that it is ridiculous to frame our concern as being along the lines of feminists blaming men for everything. This is a case of raising a male problem (pun intended) which is in fact empowering to women because they can exploit men for money without even meeting.
Yeah, the seminal glands of male teenagers and up fill with semen, and what should they do? If your answer isn't that they obviously should chase pussy, then you are so blinded by pro-masturbatory brainwashing that I don't know what to tell you. Furthermore, the philosophy which nurtures this sacred quest is called male sexualism. Now it has a name, and is needed more than ever because male sexuality is besieged by both hateful laws and self-sabotage enabled by an environment littered with porn. Yes, there has always been men going astray in some ways, or adopting outright antisex ideologies, but never has male heterosexuality been so systematically oppressed.
Male sexualism is the philosophy which nurtures male sexuality. It is political, but also personal. Male sexualism helps men not only think with their dicks, but also raises the IQ of your dick to the level of your brain. Without this philosophy, men are prone to think with their dicks that porn is good, and so waste effort and vitality on it. Similarly, without the male sexualist alignment of morality and sexuality, men are prone to accept that the hateful feminist sex laws represent “justice” even as they think with their dicks and break them. Smart dicks will have the brains to resist these antisex laws on both the practical and the moral/political levels, while also avoiding stupid temptations that don’t serve our aligned sexuality.
Discovering this philosophy was a homecoming to me. I have always been a male sexualist, but I lacked the cognitive tools to express it so elegantly until Tom Grauer came along and simplified our conceptualization of what our activism is all about. He didn't get nofap at the time, but it follows obviously from our core values.
"I know of no evidence that female masturbation makes women less receptive either. It is possible that this happens occasionally, but I think it is too rare to be worth mentioning."
Except there's no logical reason for female masturbation not to make women less receptive. That it would not be a widely-discussed issue is another matter. Women keep quiet about their own shit.
Remember the weird discussion of clitoral vs vaginal orgasm? In sexology there has been some debate about the positioning of the clitoris on the female body. The clitoris is not ideally positioned to be stimulated by penetration. It is as though it had been put there to be stimulated by the woman's own hand and not by a man's penis. Hence the search for "vaginal" women (as opposed to clitoral/masturbation women).
Maybe what would do men a lot of good would be a campaign (and even laws) against female masturbation, like in the "dark ages"? There's a theory that female circumcision aims to render women, not sexless, but the opposite: turn them into sex fiends by making them dependent on cock by depriving them of their masturbatory organ. Needless to say, such a theory is a heretic one. I have been around in parts of Africa where women are cut. Those women were ANYTHING BUT frigid. One from Burkina Faso once hit me with both her fists when I wanted to sleep. She was so desperate for cock she went into a rage.
I know you're not much for incels - I'm far from 100% in agreement with them myself. However, I was browsing one of their forums today and found this amazing post:
"many feminists today sound more like Tipper Gore than Simone De Beavoir."
The female sex drive is so weak to begin with that it doesn't matter that much if they masturbate. There is simply so little to work with that even genital mutilation doesn’t make much difference, I think, and my sample size of one supports the view that if there is an effect, it is on the frigid side. I think your experience with horny African women has more to do with black women being hornier and more aggressive in general, which has to do with their higher levels of testosterone. This, by the way, is also a non-racist explanation for why they tend to get rated as less attractive on average, because they are less feminine. A taboo and disputed claim, but I don’t have a better explanation. In my view, black women can be every bit as beautiful as women of any other race, but the really pretty feminine ones are a bit farther between. And yes, my experience has also been that they are more interested in sex, which fits the higher testosterone hypothesis.
It may even be true that female masturbation stimulates sexual behavior and gives them a taste for more in real life as well, sort of like how the antisex bigots imagine men get when they watch porn. Female sexuality isn’t limited by the refractory period, you know, which along with other differences like no porn-induced impotence either can lead to wildly different results of the “same” act. To assume that female masturbation has the same implications as male is almost as stupid as the female sex offender charade, so can at least we male sexualists not jump to that conclusion with no better evidence than a couple of anecdotes?
In any case, it would be wildly illiberal to campaign for laws against masturbation for either sex, and I condone no such thing. What I do is recommend that men don’t watch porn or masturbate. When you don't watch porn, EVERY image of a fertile-age female is porn and when you still don't fap, you are in the right mind to have success with women.
I actually am in favor of female genital modification, that is, the removal of the clitoris. It can be performed using modern surgical practices to make it safe. It should be legalized in the USA and other western countries and even body piercing places could do it.
Okay, well, that is certainly not a male sexualist position. If anything, we would go the other way and ban male genital mutilation as well. That is for children. If you are talking about adults, then I agree in principle they should be allowed to modify their genitals if that is what they really want. Probably not in body piercing places though, and nothing should force doctors to perform unethical surgery, which this really seems like.
"One more thing that makes the no-fap movement suspicious is that it (as far as I know) ignores female masturbation. It is again men who are doing something wrong they shouldn't do. Female masturbation is widely underreported, like every little dirty secret of female behaviour. And when it is reported, then only in a congratulatory fashion, like every aspect of life that suits women. Apparently women are doing nothing wrong by masturbating and thereby depriving men of sexual opportunities."
100% correct, but you're on to a lost cause there Jack if you expect Eivind to ever criticize women. He's the biggest white knight in the MRM, and always has been.
I suppose we should consider it 'lucky' that Eivind ever identified as an MRA/anti-feminist at all. After all, he doesn't seem to have any idea why feminists are anti-sex, and no apparent interest in understanding why either (aside from one brief mention as to 'a finer analysis is needed'). He does somehow recognize that feminists are largely behind the current hysterias and anti-sex laws, and for that he's to be congratulated and certainly above the 'ephebophile' community he chooses to ally himself with.
But yes, of course female masturbation leads to loss of sexual opportunities for men, far more than male masturbation does, as male fapping is due to necessity, whereas for women it is always a choice (as Eivind regularly states even 95 year old women could get laid at any time, at least with Eivind).
Unfortunately, Eivind can never criticize women. Even with feminists he doesn't see them as the principle enemy but the (male) pigs who 'enable' them, or perhaps like Grauer the CIA or 5G masts. This is because Eivind is not a misogynist and rather than hate them he sees women as dumb animals who are simply zombie like sexual resources. It's a mystery why he has such a lack of success with dating women, when it says at the top of this blog that he is not a misogynist. Oh well, perhaps another 5 years of NoFap...
Most of that is too silly to respond to in detail, and I already did with female masturbation. As usual these says it is the gynocentric view that is dominant. The mainstream view is probably correct as far as women are concerned: masturbation enriches their sex lives and does not tend to get in the way of anything important or real. Indeed they need to be “taught” how to enjoy sex fully and be familiar with their bodies, which masturbation helps with, and then they will be no less receptive for it and probable more so to good lovers.
Notice how I don’t respect the gynocentric view of the downsides of porn, that it supposedly exploits women because they didn’t get paid enough (“revenge porn”) or are underage or the themes are insulting to women. Those are trumped-up irrelevant issues, and meanwhile there are real downsides that men should be concerned with.
You wouldn’t guess so by the hyperliberal way it is offered, but the male libido is actually a scarce resource. From a first-person male point of view, our sex drive better be managed well if it is to accomplish the great things it is meant for, i.e. have a good bit of sex with fertile females and hopefully impregnate some of them. Men have refractory periods and those are only the beginning of the wastefulness and other problems resulting from porn and masturbation. Even a very abundant resource runs out when it is poured down the drain, which is what masturbation does, and moreover it poisons what is left with erectile and other dysfunctions.
It is ironic that The Antifeminist makes fun of me for saying I would sleep with a 95-year-old woman (only true when I was incel by the way, but yes there are always more than enough of them to go around if old women wanted sex), while he is content with porn and sexbots who are objectively uglier than 95-year-old women! The objective reality of porn, and its true value for sex, love and reproduction is pure garbage like the beer bottles littering the Australian outback and similarly fooling male jewel beetles into wasting their mating efforts. The Antifeminist has chosen to embrace the delusion by which males are thus fooled, which obviously puts him on the opposite side than the male sexualists on this issue.
What do we make of the riots following the murder of George Floyd? And yes it was murder, looked like an execution by strangling. Even if that knee wasn't the only cause of death, the cop is still responsible for excessive force leading to death, which is manslaughter at a minimum.
Anyone with direct experience of what is happening now in the USA? I admire African American activism, which is able to inflict casualties back on the cops and sabotage society; this isn't one-sided like the sex laws that men take lying down. The Black Liberation Army and Black Panthers historically kicked ass, and now they mainly have strength in numbers of low-level rioters. They will force changes, but not to the sex laws, sadly, which aren't even on the agenda to do anything about. Also this may be just a stage in collapse anyway, since the underlying problems are so great, and everything will just keep getting worse until everything breaks worldwide like Gail Tverberg thinks. I still don't see direct signs of collapse though -- everything essential still functioning -- but the lockdowns are dragging on and on, making it more and more likely that she is right.
Have a look at this guy, a bitchute channel:
Calls himself galileo2333
Looks like a good channel, thanks. Too bad you have to be a dead black guy to be heard these days. There are no really strong living leaders even in the black community as far as I can tell. The forces in play now are so much more decisive than any individual. We can see the physics of overshoot and collapse unfolding and there isn't that much anybody can do about it. Even Trump had to hide in his bunker, lol, and he isn't actually on our side anyway. Like I said, they won't have a coherent way to enforce feminism much longer either as order breaks down all around, but that is all the good news in a lot of bad.
We can't be picky about our allies when the hate against us is so universally supported by everyone except, perhaps, the Islamist fundamentalists. In this video from six months ago he is right on about how the sex war can still escalate from here, which shows how well he understands the situation:
Next would be to outright criminalize age gaps for adults too and then he mentions something I hadn't thought of: to make it a "mental illness" to be attracted to someone of a different race, and viola, they get to lock up all the men who find foreign women, in civil commitment if not criminally. You know this would be welcomed by feminists and conservative men too because they could use it against immigrant men, so it would be sure to pass.
Except covid-19 happily intervened before feminists could pass more antisex laws, and now collapse will hopefully destroy them before they get back to it.
Anyway, while they can't meet to make more sex laws the feminists got this rather impressive consolation prize instead:
"Sex in your house with a person from another household illegal from today
The government is introducing new measures that will mean 'gathering' with one or more people from outside your household, in a private space such as a house or flat, will be against the law in England."
Taboos unlimited indeed. Although you know according to feminist dogma the biggest rapist/abuser is always lurking inside the household, so this won't be enough either.
If I recall correctly, some time ago the Feminists proposed that when a woman regrets having sex with a man, that man would have to be registered as a sex offender, with no need to claim that the sexual intercourse was rape. Thus, confirming what we already know about the motivation behind many false rape accusations, except now the man would be considered a sex offender regardless of the woman's acknowledgement that the sex was consensual while it happened, because what really matters is the regret.
Which is hilarious, by the way.
The purpose of sex offender registration, according to galileo2333
I agree completely: sex offender registries should be turned around to a tool of recruitment and organizing an opposition. They should not only be kept, but are such an excellent idea that I have been calling for voluntary registration:
Also I have been waiting for what he is talking about to happen naturally, but men are so ridiculously feckless about standing up for our sexuality that there isn't much sign of it yet.
Dude is truly one of us, but he should work on his presentation. A lot would be gained from just wearing a shirt and having a more normal camera angle.
" In some ways this is good because it takes resources away from antisex bigotry and spreads the hate more evenly on the population".....That is true, but hasn't stopped the media going after their favouite bugbear from time to time during this epidemic. Like a fish that need to pop up for air,"sexual abuse" never fails. At least Sweden seems to be going down a more liberal route regarding covid, on other matters though, as you're aware, it is quite the reverse.
Actually it seems more like the coronavirus pandemic is part of the same planned global depopulation plan as #MeToo
Post a Comment