A further absurdity to the persecution of Kandice Barber but a silver lining too

Being sexually abused by sexiness. Nothing can be more conceptually retarded. It is the ultimate absurdity humanity ever came up with, the most bizarre and evil witch-hunt, the height of misogyny, and STILL I am the only protester besides Bruce Rind. Men are asleep, women are asleep, and feminism is a joke when it can't address the most absurd travesty against women (feminism is what got us into this mess).

What is so unspeakably painful about this, besides the persecution of an innocent woman, is the absence of common sense, the absence of protest, the absence of a sane public voice besides Bruce Rind's and my own and Newgon's. But we do have something akin to satire in the mainstream. It is sort of hidden between the lines, but this piece in The Sun is definitely lampooning the verdict against Kandice Barber for being too sexy for a 15-year-old boy and now too sexy for her new job too:

A TEACHER jailed for having sex with a 15-year-old pupil has allegedly been moved away from her post-prison job as a security guard - because she's "too distracting".

Kandice Barber, 37, from Princess Risborough in Buckinghamshire, was jailed for six years and two months in 2021 after she was convicted of grooming the teen.

The mum-of-three later worked as a gate guard at a building site in Hounslow, west London while on temporary release.

But the Mail now reports that she has been moved from the job after distracting other workers.

A builder told the newspaper: "She's attractive looking, so she's already proving a hit with the lads, who have no idea about her background.

"It's no secret she's a massive flirt and lots of the staff there have already noticed her."

Thanks to The Sun for doing their little part in mocking feminist antisex bigotry. I wrote about Kandice Barber myself back in 2021 too and her case still profoundly upsets me, but this is at least some kind of balm. In times of insane witch-hunts we can find solace in satire if nothing else.

I realize that what compels me to rail against the female sex offender charade in particular is not so much the evil (which is pretty standard incarceration which regularly happens for bad reasons anyway) as the insane conceptualization behind perpetrating the evil. Had the authorities instead used for example a "laycase" justification for persecuting sexuality like Norway did centuries ago, it would just be run-of-the-mill senseless persecution that I could address along with the Sex War against men too. A world which conceptualizes the very same persecutions as laycase, which is an offense against God and the King rather than "sexual abuse" against a putative "victim," is a less insane world than the one we now inhabit. I lose faith in humanity because no one else reacts to the insane conceptualization, even if they don't care to stop the injustice, which is hardly ever to be expected anyway.

This was the chief value of traditional religion as I see it: to reduce secular superstitions, to avoid poisoning our personal relationships with insane justifications for the authorities' control of sexuality. Since the justification for antisexual oppression was outsourced to a supernatural realm, people could have their feelings in peace. Love and lust are above "sin" and not corrupted by that concept in this world, unlike the feminist concept of sexual abuse. Instead of believing in God and perhaps at worst an unpleasant afterlife for sinners (who can be forgiven anyway unlike current sex offenders), we now believe in zombies, people who act sexually but aren't really because this world doesn't count -- the flesh is now held to be the only life we got, but it is demoted to a less real realm than the Christians deemed it. Back when Christianity was the state religion rather than feminism, we didn't pretend women can "sexually abuse" boys at all, and certainly not by pleasantly seducing them. They also pretended much less fake sexual abuse for girls. The age of consent was something like 10 and didn't apply to female "offenders."

History will judge our time as dominated by the religion of "sexual abuse," with its irrational belief in the metaphysical badness of sex for many bizarre reasons, chiefly among them that it inevitably corrupts minors and does so equally for boys and girls and by men and women including the most sexy ones -- a kind of transsexualist belief where we pretend there are no differences, which also had some additional nonsexual absurdities manifesting in our times which waned sooner than the "sex abuse" superstitions. Future historians may or may not call it feminism like I am doing, but this will be the gist. I realize I am writing for that future rather than our own time when none of this can sink in because the religion of our times is literally that.

The metaphysics of online sexual abuse

To believers, a supernatural reality isn't metaphysics but simply real. In an animist world the extra beings are just there. Hence with this post I probably lost most people at the title already. Including men who share much of my politics or I otherwise sympathize with, because wankers suffer from the same delusion as the feminists, except in reverse because they see sexual gratification where feminists and normies see sexual exploitation. Huw Edwards is the most famously scandalous wanker at the moment. I certainly agree he did something scandalous or at least cringeworthy because think of all the sugarbaby fun you can have for £35,000, and he (allegedly) chose to buy nudes...

But that's where my agreement stops. Just like to me the sun is just a star rather than a god, a nude photo of a teen girl is just a piece of information rather than any piece of a real goddess herself or sex with her. There is nothing magical about that information even though it depicts something extremely desirable. Girls cannot sexually satisfy men via images and they cannot be exploited that way either, because the medium cannot in principle convey sexual value. Just like staring at pictures of gold bars cannot in a million years make me any richer, a homeless person cannot improve his situation by looking at pictures of mansions, pictures of food cannot ever provide nutrition, and video of a rainstorm can't make me wet, porn cannot sexually satisfy, only waste efforts one should have spent on getting and having sex.

Note that I am not denying that digital communication can convey intimacy. It is meaningful to talk to girls, but there is nothing about these "sexually explicit" pictures that the media and police obsess over that add anything to the relation. If anything they detract, since suspense and virility is lost when you see something you should have saved for meeting the girl. Hence it is laughable to preferentially crack down on "explicit" communication if you are going to crack down on such love affairs at all. By doing so you selectively hunt the men who are least likely to have sex, while leaving alone nofappers such as myself who talk to young girls with laser focus on meeting for sex. I marvel every time I ask a 16-year-old girl for a date this is legal and she can agree and sleep with me legally but if I asked for a nude, I would be in the same boat with Huw Edwards... Only sexually unambitious men ask for nudes, and ironically these are the men our society likes to hunt the most, for reasons that to a non-brainwashee are clearly metaphysical, because how else can the sight of a nude 16 or 17-year-old girl become criminal by the very fact of being a simulacrum rather than real life?

As a society we truly believe in the metaphysics of online sexual exploitation and even "abuse." We believe it as surely as another culture might have worshiped a sun god. To me it is surreal and exasperating that the normies have lost lost the plot and are so sick in the head from my point of view. But I know there is nothing I can do to convince them, because this is not only a widespread superstition but a holy cow too. And if the past history of this blog is any indication, the comment section will be replete with antifeminists too repeating the same hogwash and saying wanking is good for us. Which I am SO close to banning now.

We live in an animist world animated not by spirits and gods but sexual abuse. Sex abuse voodoo animates our computer networks to the point that the concept of private communications itself must be abolished by banning encryption, for the sake of fighting this witchcraft. "Sexual abuse" is our de facto religion, which has also colonized the digital realm with astonishing success. You can get 60 years in prison for looking at pictures, so sinister is digital information believed to be, when the metaphysical sex abuse woo is added to the mix. We no longer look to shamans to explain the sun, rather astrophysicists, but you betcha we consult shamans about digital files! They are just ones and zeros, 0101011001..., but there be sexualization there! Horror of horrors! The shamans -- NGOs and law enforcement and tech companies -- have their secret hashes to search for these evil spirits throughout our networks and computers, and such a hash alone, which looks something like 5E2E25F0D9ED464B79EBEFAFF97217A9A35A7FC8, when matched to a file transmitted to you, is enough to incriminate you. Thus we have reinvented a bizarre black magic and everyone thinks it is completely normal and compatible with the scientific worldview, because the new kind of animism has the same hold on our primitive brains as any old belief.

It would be nice if we could think about sexual abuse in an evidence-based way much like we do with aviation and parts of medicine, but no, there is no hope of that in sight. We remain primitives in this area -- or whether we buy into the superstition individually or not are all ruled by primitive witch-doctors with high-tech tools like digital hashes and a prison-industrial complex to make them all that more harmful.

"Norwegian Offspring" goes to Cannes

The film Norwegian Offspring premieres in Cannes today (May 25th, 2023). It is the most sex-positive piece of mainstream-celebrated culture since... Lolita perhaps? In these works where a character expresses sexual views in disagreement with the mainstream there is a tension between the creator and the work which must be explained away through some sort of plausible deniability lest they be cancelled. Nabokov pleads unreliable narrator and art for art's sake, assuring us that Humbert does not speak for his own desires. Well, maybe not, or maybe the author is unreliable there? How else would he come up with such beautiful descriptions of taboo sexual enjoyment? Director Marlene Emilie Lyngstad on her part explains the sex-positivity away by attributing all such lines TO ME:

Mens Stein og Eivind er meget forskellige, er alle filmens replikker sagt af den virkelige mand, fortæller instruktøren.

”Selvfølgelig har han en ideologi, som jeg synes er meget ubehagelig at høre om, fordi den er langt væk fra min egen,” siger Marlene Emilie Lyngstad.

And I proudly stand for them. I proudly stand for the ideology. The plot is another matter, however; entirely the director's invention. I made a couple of videos with commentary:

Yeah, the character based on me is a wanker. He is impotent with a real, attractive woman and visits a sex doll "brothel." He does that and other stupid shit I would never do, but my ideology is preserved faithfully. See it as a work of art plus male sexualist ideology, not a story "about" me, because it fails at that spectacularly, or rather does not attempt to be so. This is the director's artistic vision, which is all fine by me of course since I don't mind anybody making the kind of art they want and I am above feeling insulted by a fictionalized character. But I would like to personally distance myself from the plot and his reactions because she obviously does not know how male sexuality works.

The character "Stein" is a demisexual who can only be aroused when there is deep emotional intimacy -- not with a random attractive woman who is giving herself to him. Marlene's notion of male sexuality is hilarious, but I am very proud and thankful to get my ideology across nonetheless in her movie. That's how it goes when a woman directs a movie about the male sex drive and fails to listen to male input about our natural and healthy reactions. But she didn't distort my ideology, so male sexualists and MAPs should be happy. Especially if the film can draw more people into our movements, so I welcome any and all publicity now.

To hopefully spark a discussion with comments from an actual male point of view besides mine, what do you all think about the director's notion that men might visit a sex doll brothel to avoid having to "disgust" real sex workers? And how many male demisexuals are there, anyway? Do any men really get hard-ons for close emotional bonds sooner than attractive bodies? I think she is projecting... I think the movie shows us what men would be like if we didn't see women as "sex objects" the way they complain about us with that word.

In reality, of course, we are mostly turned on by physical attractiveness, and we consider that admiration to be complimentary of them rather than degrading. It's great to have a deep emotional connection too, but I doubt it has much impact on erections. Ugliness (usually synonymous with old age) cannot turn into beauty (youth) via emotional bonding, and conversely if a man fails to respond to attractive, fertile-age females without knowing them well then he is dysfunctional, plain and simple. The diagnostic criteria for erectile dysfunction do not stipulate that one has to be monogamous or demisexual and it would be absurd to define all healthy masculinity as only functioning on such prudish female terms. Women can wish we weren’t like this all they want, but they can't change us and moreover it is a hateful condemnation of male nature that all men should vigorously oppose because it is by that standard we get all the oppressive, misandrist sex laws.

A commenter asked me if I have allowed a feminist to completely parody my entire philosophy? But no, that's not what's going on, because this is so farcical that it's funny. And it's not complete parody because my direct quotes about the female sex offender charade and age of consent are NOT parodied, but rather foregrounded by the parody, which is too silly to take seriously by anybody but the most delusional feminists. Stein's sex-positive lines were improvised by me during rehearsals, written into the script and are spoken by the professional actor in earnest.

I really do think Marlene ends up parodying feminism in the end, not me. I think the Men's Movement has won an aesthetic victory with this work, inadvertently to the director, because this feminist vision of how they think men are or ought to be is exposed as so unnatural and self-hating. I don't think most male viewers can identify with the narrow-minded version of male sexuality that feminists can accept, and if you want more objective proof just ask doctors how they diagnose erectile dysfuntion. The day they apply a demisexual standard to male erections, whereby we are supposed to experience no primary sexual attraction -- the type of attraction that is based on immediately observable characteristics such as a youthful appearance or smell and is experienced immediately upon a first encounter -- is the day masculinity has been officially abolished, not just demonized and criminalized as it is now.

Of course, I don't want to be an impotent wanker like Stein. But neither do other men, and this is where Marlene Emilie Lyngstand and Emilie Koefoed Larsen, her fellow female scriptwriter, have miscalculated. Because other men don't want to be impotent wankers, either. They don't want to resort to sex dolls to save women the disgust of male sexuality. They don't think it's cool to be impotent in casual sex situations because it's supposedly more human to only feel arousal within committed relationships. LOL! No, that is only a female version of sexuality, and a near-asexual one at that (even the proud demisexuals place it on the asexuality spectrum).

I dare you to correct me if I am wrong, but I think other men can't identify with Stein either as Marlene thinks he ought to be. The only question is, are they man enough to admit it in this context, or too afraid to be associated with me, a leper for speaking the truth about male sexuality? Will you sink so low as to embrace a clinically impotent "ideal" of masculinity in order to pander to the feminists?

But enough with Stein for now; let's look at healthy masculinity. I conclude this post with some words of wisdom from the real me:

Zombie culture

I would like to introduce a new rhetorical figure to our discourse against feminism. They have "rape culture," "toxic masculinity" and all sorts of insults that don't really mean much but get plenty of airtime. And what do we have? The only recent innovation I can think of is "agecuck," which is quite fitting for male feminists, but we lacked a more general term. "Zombie culture" is my new word for the entire mindset which invalidates sexual agency or claims to lack sexual desire themselves. Zombie culture encompasses both philosophical sexual zombies (which feminism claims minors are) and actual zombies (with regard to some feelings if not all: for example all sexual desire, formerly known as asexuals but now also including those who claim strong attraction to 18-year-olds but zero attraction to 17-year-olds).

Philosophical zombies have heretofore populated the thought experiments of philosophers, who have been too distracted with the debate as to whether such creatures are metaphysically conceivable to notice that our culture already takes them for granted. The strictest definition of a philosophical zombie is a molecule-by-molecule replica of an adult human which functions identically except it lacks an internal subjective life. The transition between child and adult is held to be exactly this. All the molecules are the same, as is the behavior of a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old, yet we believe so strongly that the former lacks sexual subjectivity that the state wants to imprison you for "sexualizing" her if you should disagree!

If this is not a belief in zombies, I don't know what is. It is a compulsory belief. Since it is risky to question it, I shan't flesh out the counterarguments so much here. But I think I have established that the term "zombie culture" is apt. The question then becomes, do we believe in zombies? Are you comfortable with being defined as one yourself when you are or were under 18? And then there is the other kind of zombie in zombie culture which deletes so much zest from our cultural heritage. One might stop and wonder if that is really cool, and hope not to get deplatformed just for raising the question.

This post would have looked out of place a few decades ago when we had much the same laws but far less hysteria. Today, I am not exaggerating. This is what the normies literally believe, or so they claim. This is a zombie culture.

Time to (mostly) ditch Google

Sad news and a watershed moment for MRAs and sexualists. After 15 years of blogging, for the first time the feminists have managed to make Google take some action against this blog. Not quite censorship, not a claim that we did anything illegal or broke any rules for what can be published here, or even an "18+" type of restriction, but three of my blog posts have now been put behind a “sensitive content” warning which requires an extra click before you can read them. Today I received three emails like this:

One was for a silly early post of no consequence, but the two others hit nofap threads that I am fairly proud of and consider important: Anosognosia and Is nofap misogynistic? Even though it has done no real damage yet, the message is clear: Google is hostile and hateful to male sexuality and sexualism. We must therefore move elsewhere for our activism. Thanks to my current programming course it is piece of cake for me to make websites like this now, except the comments which require a backend that I haven’t learned yet (but will in the coming months) plus it would be difficult to deal with spam on my own even with advanced coding skills. I shall endeavor to at least make an archive and home for new essays elsewhere (by me and others such as Angry Harry, probably on my already registered domain mra-archive.com) while perhaps keeping comment threads going here, heavily moderated so we don’t get hidden behind “sensitive content” warnings or worse -- and please think before you write to make it easy for me! You can rest assured that new comment threads will eventually be archived along with the old ones at our new site too, so Blogger can’t permanently delete anything. If I manage to write some incredibly bland new blog posts, I will also post them here as long as my blog stays up. Nofap will be off-limits, though.

Nofap is the most hard-hitting sexualist measure available to men today, so I’m not so surprised this is targeted first. It may have been accidental, perhaps a result of using new AI to analyze all content, but this is definitely how intelligent feminists would attack us as a first priority: suppress nofap information from men to weaken male sexuality maximally, ensuring that most men have low sexual ambitions and exist in a state of near-impotence. The notion that porn is bad for you is heresy in a world governed by feminist antisex bigotry; so much so that I wouldn’t be surprised if they manage to memoryhole the entire nofap movement now that Gary Wilson isn’t around to fight for it anymore (that post didn't get flagged for some reason, nor did any of my overt MAP activist posts such as my praise of NEWGON). No, they got their priorities straight alright. Intelligent feminists can’t let the public know that prominent MRAs/sexualists/MAPs are anything but porn-loving masturbators themselves, depriving us of the opportunity to be role models in the self-help department. To be clear, and at the risk of this post also getting a “sensitive content” warning, I practice nofap and recommend this for men who care about sex. You are frankly not taking sex seriously if you think masturbation is okay or watch porn. There I said it again, come hell or high waters for this post, but now let’s be bland from here and move our edgy content to where Google can’t touch it, trying to salvage what we can of legacy clicks. The main reason for sticking with Google was visibility anyway, which they have undermined enough with these warnings that I won’t feel like I’m missing out by switching to my own servers for new work.

Comments are still open, including for discussion of this new situation, but please don’t make me stop your comment by saying anything “sensitive,” okay? Whatever that means, which I honestly don't know the boundaries of. It does feel a little anticlimactic if our whole movement gets silenced in the mainstream because we advise men not to masturbate, but this is serious and apparently some of our enemies are also getting smarter, or their AI tools are. It is meager results for the antis to only get this little nag screen after reporting almost everything I wrote over the years, but it is unacceptable for me to blog behind a content warning. This blog is for general audiences and seriously contains no sensitive, NSFW or any other content which can reasonably be restricted from everyday browsing. It is also a red flag for using Google for anything else, such as Gmail or work documents, because they appear to be losing their sanity, liable to restrict our content for unaccountable and sometimes bizarre reasons going forward. It is time to begin looking for alternatives now while the sanctions are relatively benign. These little warnings on a tiny part my blog don't qualify as evil yet and certainly don't compare to the vicious bigotry of Elon Musk, but Google clearly cannot be trusted anymore.