First, meet the latest victim of this charade, who was turned in by an evil colleague and faces up to 60 years in prison for being nice to boys: "Ashlyn Faye Bell was allegedly quite the walking typhoon of sexual abuse over the last year or so. The teacher lured two 17-year-old boys into her clutches and also had sex with a 16-year-old. Although the age of consent in Texas is 17, it’s illegal for an educator to have sex with a student of any age unless they’re married to each other."
People in our society who pretend to be smart (like the above-mentioned snitch and everyone involved with prosecuting these absurd cases and most of the media) parrot the idea that boys who have sex with female teachers are abused, even if the women are as hot as can be, the boys enjoy every minute of it, brag about it and like that case shows, even are above the age of consent. The age of consent is another absurd legal fiction itself, of course, and often mixed with the teacher abuse charade, but the boys being otherwise legal age helps distill the point I am about to make. If what the legal system claims in these cases were true, then everything positive gained from an education must be similarly poisoned by the fact that the contributor is a teacher or employed at a school. Since presumably there would be no schools if that were believed, what is the basis of this magical exception for sexuality? Does it have a basis that rational humans should accept whatsoever?
Suppose a female teacher gives a male pupil a 100-dollar bill, for example for his birthday. Does it get transubstantiated into something along the lines of theft and robbery because of her position? Suppose said teacher gives boys the pussy that most boys crave. Does it get transmogrified into rape and abuse rather than the joy and luck, pride and joy that they feel? The answer to both these questions should be “obviously not” to the rational person, but since society (or at least the justice system) is suffering from the delusion that female sexuality does indeed work that way, the nature of this supposed transubstantiation needs to be elucidated and society forced to drop the idea if it can’t defend it.
Since sex or gifts aren’t so common, let me generalize to what is. The same should apply to everything experienced or learned at school that appears to be beneficial to you. If you go to the store and do some mental arithmetic to help you decide what you can afford, then you are reliving abuse. You can’t even read this sentence without experiencing the sequelae of abuse! Oh, the horror of daily life when you think about how much is really a function of abuse by your teachers! If we are honest about it, there is no difference between this absurdity and the absurdity of thinking a boy who learned how to please a woman from his teacher is an abuse victim.
Aside from the prima facie absurdity of female sex offenders because we all know sex is a female resource, the most striking omission in the feminist criminalization of such sexuality is the failure to explain this transubstantiation. Somehow we allowed feminists to establish the "teacher = sex abuse" canard without stopping to consider if the sex was bad in the first place, which it obviously isn't with women, certainly not when it is consensual. Perhaps position can make a genuinely bad thing worse (which is why it might be relevant with male abusers, but shouldn’t be an absolute standard there either), but it cannot debase what everyone enjoys and lives their whole life consistent with having enjoyed as in these charming female teacher cases that radiate positivity in every way except the hateful persecution by the state.
I don’t mean to knock religion by using the metaphor of transubstantiation. The ritual magic of the Eucharist has a lot more going for it than the female sex offender charade because although I am sure it fails to effect chemical changes, at least it taps into a feeling of communion with the divine that people can have. But boys do not, on their own, decide that pleasant sexual experiences with women are abuse.
Perhaps the ritual magic of police interrogations and court proceedings, “therapy” and other brainwashing can have that effect in some cases, but if so, it is an industry that only exists to create problems. This is why I call it the nocebo industry, an unambiguous evil that must be abolished.
No, there must be something more according to the feminists, which they have gotten a pass on explaining so far. Enough gullibility, people! The burden is on the feminists to explain why sex doesn’t work like other good things gained from education, with something other than an empty and illogical metaphysical decree. The comments are open if anybody wants to give it a shot, but I am not holding my breath since no one has been able to put forth a good argument in the 20 years I have been at this.
Aside from some defense attorneys, the legal profession selects for psychopaths who are able to replace humanity with the bizarre logic of the law. Imagine the emotional cripple you have to be to think lucky boys like this are "victims" because the law says so. But the justice system should not be allowed to operate in a moral vacuum. We who know better must stop the persecution of sweet innocent female teachers!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
222 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 222 of 222Just read your two comments about masturbation Eivind.
You're turning into some kind of sick parody of Paul Elam. That male masturbation is not seen as bad is a symptom of gynocentrism??? And your fake concern for young boys, just like the 'justice for men and boys' fake mras?
And you discount female masturbation as being harmful, even though it patently denies sexual opportunities for males? You state yourself that women can have sex any time, so every time they masturbate, they deny a male a sexual experience. Yet it's the incel you want to castigate for seeking any solace in a wank?
You're exactly the same as Paul Elam and the other imbeciles. Forcing victim labels on young boys on the basis of feminist junk science. At least those idiots don't blame EVERYTHING on men.
"Every time [women] masturbate, they deny a male a sexual experience."
How do you know this? According to the gynocentric view I was referring to, masturbation is a way to get in touch with your sexuality. It doesn't limit your sexual realization, but works as an appetizer and way to explore what you like. This may be true for women, and only for women. For all I know, they may want more partners after masturbating instead of being "satisfied" like men. Which is a fake kind of satisfaction that I am right to be concerned about boys being told is good for them. Your arguments are as bad as usual and I guess you will never come around on this, sadly.
Yours is ultimately a moral failing. You fail to value sex over fantasy. Male masturbation leads to loss of libido, loss of mojo, loss of virility and diminished sexual enjoyment, but you don’t care. Well, we the real male sexualists care. We care about sex and we care about sexual freedom. Society criminalized all of sexuality. If any woman can imagine accusing it, then there is a law that will cover it in one way or another. (And if there isn’t, legislators will bend over backwards to make more laws.) Bizarrely, they went even further and criminalized much sexual fantasy, including half of all nubile sexuality (if say, girls are nubile from 13-23). But they do want you to masturbate to the remaining legal fantasies because the resulting loss of your mojo suits the feminists just fine. I am not going to stand for that. I will promote healthy, real sexuality even if I am the last activist standing.
Popular YouTuber "CallMeCarson" has been of accused of "grooming" a 17 year-old... when he was 19.
A comment on a video talking about this reads:
"You guys saying “she was 17” or “just 2 years” need to realize that if it was someone you didn’t like, you’d be rioting right now. 17 is a minor. There’s no argument, 17 is a minor."
I could not stop laughing at the sheer absurdity of this scenario. I can swear that just 5 years ago the "17 and 19" example was commonly used as an example where the age of consent laws should not apply, but now it seems the masses consider the law "working as intended" if the older partner (if male, of course) gets booked for it.
I have started to wonder if what we're seeing here is a sort of modern-day, feminist version of McCarthyism?
I think "minor" has taken on a magical significance just as irrational as the definition of a witch or the criteria behind any number of genocides. What started as protecting prepubescent children from real abuse has mushroomed into this psychosis where only the concept of a "minor" counts and people are blind to the underlying reality. It is no longer possible to apply any common sense at all, and even the (still remaining?) legal exceptions where the age gap is small count for nothing in the mind of the mob. They don't operate in the realm of human experience at all, just this metaphysical concept of imagined abuse of a being that doesn't exist either.
I don't think McCarthyism comes close to this madness. However insane that was, at least it was based on something conceivably bad if it had happened. Communist revolutions have happened in other countries and could, in principle, happen in the USA as well. And they do have conspirators when they happen. But under no circumstances anywhere in human experience is a 17-year-old girl "groomed" and "abused" by positive consensual attention from an older man. It is 100% madness not just because there was nothing bad in this particular case as in false accusations of being a communist, but because it can't be bad in principle and the people who think so have lost their minds on a whole different level.
It is the difference between false and empty accusations. McCarthyism was false and "grooming" and so much sexual abuse is empty. We are dealing with not just paranoia, but an alternative worldview which treats human beings as abstract concepts that are only allowed to play one-dimensional roles like "minor/victim" and "adult/abuser." No amount of observation of reality or consideration of complexity and nuance can change these cartoonish categories because they are the highest level of truth according to the true believers.
The front page of the NY Times today is devoted to Theo Sandfort:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/nyregion/nyc-foster-care-professor-pedophilia.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage
Oh, he said something favorable to lowering the age of consent back in the 80s? And that's used to cancel anything to do with him now since the climate has hardened so much that there is zero tolerance to any sex-positive opinion ever. Typical.
This paper addresses (and criticizes) the hypothesis that child abuse should cause homosexual orientation. Unfortunately, I could only find the abstract:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-013-0080-6
Whenever I hear that claim promoted it sounds to me like the person thinks homosexual activity is sooo good, if you get a taste if it you will be gay for life. It's hard to believe that anybody can think so without already being gay. I mean, what else did you ever experience that you didn't like but got addicted to? The closest I can think of is drugs, which might not be all that pleasant in the beginning but nonetheless addictive, but if there is NEVER any positive experience then people don't start promoting them as a wonderful thing. The fact of the matter is that homosexuals enjoy gay sex. They don't describe it as an unpleasant compulsion -- which would be all the abuse model AT BEST could predict. But it turns out it probably doesn't even do that, much less produce a full-fledged orientation complete with gay pride.
From the references to that article I found this one amusing:
"Onanism and Child Sexual Abuse: A Comparative Study of Two Hypotheses"
Agustín Malón
Archives of Sexual Behavior volume 39, pages 637–652(2010)
Abstract
For some decades now in the West, there has been a growing social anxiety with regard to a phenomenon which has become known as child sexual abuse (CSA). This anxiety is fed by scientific theories whose cornerstone is the assessment of these experiences as necessarily harmful, due to their presumed serious consequences for the present and future lives of the minors involved in them. This principle, widely held by experts and laypersons alike, was also part and parcel of the danger presumably posed by Onanism, a phenomenon which occupied a similar position in society and medical science in the West during the eighteenth through twentieth centuries. The present work is a comparative review of these two hypotheses and the central objective was to compare the evolution and fundamental elements of the two hypotheses in light of what history tells us about Onanism theory. This comparative analysis will allow a critical look at the assumptions of the CSA hypothesis in order to make evident the similarities to the conceptual model that enabled the Onanism hypothesis in the past.
A nice way to mock the antisex bigots a bit subtly. The author probably doesn't think there is anything wrong with Onanism either, but I think we should go back to those days. Quit the CSA hysteria and apply a good dose of shame to masturbation, which is actually harmful to boys particularly with Internet porn.
As long as we are speaking about boys that are too young to ejaculate, masturbation (whatever one may think about it) is not dysfunctional, because there is no refractory period and no loss of sexual drive. Actually, they can have several orgasms in a row: what adult man, even a young one, is able to do that? The problems, if any, come later, as you can read here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/sex/comments/t0d7g/guys_were_you_multiorgasmic_before_your_first/
Sorry, you are ignoring that boys are prone to miswiring their erectile response to porn instead of women, even before they can ejaculate, and become dysfunctional when they later try to have sex. So the only really healthy options are sex or abstinence. If they must masturbate, then it's really important that they don't use porn, in which case only the concerns of previous generations would apply, not the extremely maladaptive crap that afflicts boys growing up today. Don't assume there is no danger just because they can't ejaculate, because the damage is neurological! Masturbating to porn causes brain damage, and possibly things go wrong even without it, leading to a higher incidence of paraphilias as a result of old-style Onanism too (though I am not sure how strong that connection is).
You have to understand that masturbation, especially when combined with digital porn, is an evolutionary trap, a zero-day vulnerability in male physiology and mentality that we need to patch with conscious or cultural decisions unless we want to wait for thousands of generations while our genes catch up. I agree that when society in the recent past treated Onanism much like we do CSA today, that was overblown hysteria. But it was also prescient because digital porn makes male masturbation so harmful that that the warnings that you will go blind or whatever are almost appropriate. Not literally, but impotence is arguably just as bad as any of the things they actually warned against. So we just need to make the warning accurate and since that’s probably not enough we need to instill shame as well, some kind of moral disapproval, or else boys won’t listen any more than they do to the drug war propaganda.
What we have instead is this absurd obsession that sex is “harmful to minors,” based on a general superstition that it can cause any and all problems in life, but ultimately rooted in a religious belief in the metaphysical badness of sex, as if it is bad for one’s soul (if you are a liberal), or perhaps there is a vengeful God lurking somewhere down there too (if you are conservative). While this framework will inadvertently state that porn is also bad for minors, it completely misses the real reason why porn is bad and perversely now consigns boys to masturbation which makes it worse. To top it off, it is now an established dogma that masturbation (without age-inappropriate porn) CANNOT cause sexual problems -- a perverse overcorrection of the old hysteria to go along with the new one.
For us in the small sex-positive community it is easy to assume that since society is wrong about sex being harmful to minors, they must also be wrong about the porn and (formerly) masturbation part. But once again you must realize that masturbation is not sex, but a maladaptative behavior that gets in the way of sex: masturbation is anti-sex. To truly be sex-positive you must therefore be against masturbation and anything that sucks boys into it (porn). I don’t support anything draconian or punitive, but boys must be told that they will grow up to be bad lovers if they masturbate and more so if they watch porn with it. By indulging in all that fantasy pussy, they will fail to please either themselves or their lovers when it gets real, which will also take longer because they will be feckless at pursuing girls.
My view is incompatible with the mainstream because the obvious conclusion is to encourage sex as soon as possible, and there goes all the “sex is harmful to minors” nonsense out the window. So they will only hate me of course, but can I at least convince some sex-positive folks that nofap is how to actually promote sexualism? What you are doing when recommending masturbation is worse than recommending junk food for good health, because masturbation provides no sexual nutrition whatsoever. It isn't just a little inferior to sex, but worse than worthless because it makes you worse at the real thing. Obesity, gambling, drugs, porn -- these are all evolutionary zero-day vulnerabilities in the present, but porn is by far the worst because it robs you of the most important thing in life.
What about boys that masturbate to a real girl and talk to her in real time through a webcam?
That would be a slight improvement. Still essentially masturbation, but much more self-limiting. A boy who grew up thinking that masturbation was beneath him unless livecamming with a girl would likely avoid 99% of the downsides, but still... maybe that was the last piece of motivation you needed to do what it takes to be together rather than apart, during covid lockdowns for example. And maybe you would have conceived a child during that time. See how a little slack can have big consequences down the line, and zero tolerance to masturbation is the best policy. Life is so much better when fapping is just not something one does, and then you plan everything else around that assumption. It may mean that it is simply unacceptable to have a long distance relationship for example, and then things turn out better because you would have found someone closer and had someone to be with when travel is unexpectedly cancelled like now. Now they are even considering a curfew here in Norway, even though we have less deaths than a normal flu season -- and the normal flu is either absent or mislabeled depending on how conspiratorially inclined you are... It just gets crazier and crazier and more out of proportion to the real threat. If our futures are ruined now, all the more reason to regret past masturbation!
"You have to understand that masturbation, especially when combined with digital porn, is an evolutionary trap, a zero-day vulnerability in male physiology and mentality that we need to patch with conscious or cultural decisions unless we want to wait for thousands of generations while our genes catch up. I agree that when society in the recent past treated Onanism much like we do CSA today, that was overblown hysteria."
From the guy who called me an imbecile on my own blog for saying exactly the same thing as regards the female hardwired propensity to turn regretted sex into rape accusations - because sex with a badly chosen sex partner in their ape like minds has so many more bad consequences (pregnancy, social shame etc) than it does today (with abortion on demand, condoms, welfare state, slut pride etc.).
So watching porn is maladaptive for men because porn wasn't around when we evolved, but women today crying rape or abuse because their subconscious is wrongly telling them that they are going to be left holding the baby carrying sub par genes, is just who women are?? And I'm an imbecile for suggesting that we need to make social or cultural decisions to fix female maladaptive sexual behaviour, but fixing supposedly male maladaptive sexual behaviour is at the heart of your 'movement'?
Eivind - you claim that masturbation is harmful because the energy taken for a quick fap might lead you to missing a one in a million chance of sex in the minutes you were occupied fapping.
You've spent countless hours on this blog, commentating elsewhere, reading other manosphere blogs etc. You've even admitted (though somehow it came as a surprise to you) that you've missed out on sex because of this blog and the fact that prospective Tinder lays have Googled your name and saw what they saw.
So don't you accept that your activism has been harmful to you? (leaving aside the lucky chance that you met your previous one and only long time GF through your blogging).
Many or most PUAs (Tom Torero is one example) explicitly advise their followers not to even read Manosphere (non PUA) blogs because it 'lowers their State' (ie lowers their chances of seducing women). Many or most (including Tom Torero) claim to be feminists.
If you want to "fix" male sexual nature, then at least seek to do so in a way that is in our best interests. Masturbation, porn and sexbots do the opposite, because I can't entertain a value system where they would be as good as sex with women. Again, yours is a moral failing. The idea of going against what is "natural" is not the issue. I am all for transhumanism in a positive sense -- living longer, getting smarter and healthier would be good things, but we do not want to escape into a meaningless fantasy.
Would it be in women's interest to be better adapted to enjoy casual sex, given today's environment? Perhaps, but that's not for us to decide. I think mostly it would be in men's interest and we are too biased to consider it reasonably. Whatever you do, you can't change people against their will, and I don't see women trying to achieve this end, so there is no point in considering this as a real possibility. They are what they are, and we are too, so now let's lay out the best strategy for making the best of it. That is nofap for men.
As to your other comment. Firstly the chance of missing out on sex from even just the minutes spent fapping and the refractory period is much higher than one in a million. And then there is the penalty to motivation, enjoyment and performance that is very large indeed. Yes, political activism for men's rights can also make us lose out on sexual opportunities, but it doesn't hurt the really important motivational aspects. So if one avenue closes because the local women are feminists for example, you will find other avenues such as travel or meeting women who don't care about politics. Such obstacles are not comparable at all to the intrinsic damage of self-abuse. Masturbating means digging yourself into a dark hole where you lose sight of the opportunities. Just don't. Keep your motivation and virility and you will find a way. For example I hooked up with an 18-year-old girl in London last summer when it was briefly possible to travel in the pandemic. She was super enthusiastic, downright insatiable, and proves I am still in the game even for the hottest girls. Condoning masturbation is absolute madness as long as you have any chance at all, and you are being a very bad influence in men by taking that attitude. If I can do it, most of the men who think they are incels can as well with the right attitude and nofap. When masturbation is simply not something one does, the rest falls into place very easily. Your brain, body and mind self-organize to handle the problem soundly, like magic except it is just your natural sex drive manifesting itself. When you realize THIS is what a healthy male sex drive is, it is a spiritual epiphany and your eyes are finally opened to the true beauty of women and how to get them. Nofap feels like a superpower but is really just there for the taking and the way you naturally are and should be. In the land of the blind wankers, the nofapping former incel is king. That is how nefarious Onanism is (maybe we should start using that word again to make it sound at least a little bit scary?) -- it creates grotesque problems that you are literally blind to solving as long as you have internalized the idea that fapping is okay. If men knew what is best for them, masturbation would be scary like snakes and spiders and heights and castration. Due to the zero-day exploit of porn being so new, men just need a little help realizing this.
covid is not any more dangerous than the flu you moron, the point is to use panic to bring in the great reset.
imagined abuse, imagined racism, imagined pandemic, imagined legitimate election...
Post a Comment