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:
219 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 219 of 219@AF
"if all the plain and unattractive women were to disappear from the world"
Ok but as it will never happen it's much better to keep them busy. If men think the real thing with a fatso is much better than wanking on unattainable beauties, it's all right with me. I even think these men are benefactors of humanity :)
People are getting older and fatter in our countries. We must take this into account. Food is plenty (for now) but beauty is gold dust and competition is fierce.
That's probably why those absurd laws about 17 yo chidren, grooming etc - were invented.
Why this obsession to defend porn? In "legal" porn, to begin with, they can only appear over 18 years of age. That is, the age at which we should repudiate them sexually, 18 is the age of evil, if it were so good that we liked those over 18 it would be a crime, I don't even consider them "teenagers", they are shitty "adult women".
So stop looking at sluts over 18 years old, they feed on the fact that girls under 18 are "prohibited" to corrupt you, physically and morally, worse w hardcore p0rn.
Is it really necessary to see almost anorexic whores from 18 to 25 years old being penetrated by addicts and blacks and bleeding as if they were virgins?
If you really need to want to jerk off, at least you look for girls under 18, there are tons of them, they don't even need to be naked, you cum in a minute because they are so delicious, and it's not necessary to see a 19-year-old slut receive semen in her face from a tattooed beast.
And you have to masturbate in moderation, every 3 months is healthy, testosterone has all of you dominated, if you need relief, look for some pictures of a pretty 14-year-old girl without tattoos and enjoy for a minute (you won't take more).
And please look for teens with dangerous curves... I'm sick of 17 year old ice skaters and gymnasts looking like anorexic 11 year olds!
I don't repudiate over 18, but you are absolutely right that porn is not needed to any man who keeps his masturbation below clearly unhealthy levels (and this is even a good way to check if you have a problem, because if you feel you need porn then you are desensitized to the delicious beauty that is all around us that healthy male sexuality should perceive). This is what I meant by everyday life becoming a porn reel to nofappers. If you keep it at no more than once every three months then almost none of the bad effects should apply and a random picture of a teen from something like Instagram or a stock photo from a middle school or high school will be just as or more arousing than the most hardcore porn is to habitual wankers.
It is a giant lie that porn sexualizes, because it does just the opposite. It robs everyday girls of the sexual arousability they should have to all normal men who observe them. The AF is so deluded he thinks wanking to porn spares his arousability to the most beautiful girls, but of course it does no such thing, or else he wouldn't need porn of those girls either.
And as always, I recommend complete nofap, but if you must masturbate, that is the right frequency and attitude: max every three months and no porn needed!
AF wrote
"Well, as a hypothetical thought experiment, if all the plain and unattractive women were to disappear from the world, I'm pretty sure there would be no Sexual Trade Union and fewer laws against teen sex, porn, prostitution etc."
My understanding is that back in the early days of first wave feminism, feminist leaders such as Germaine Greer made a point of showing their lack of concern for young girls being viewed sexually by men. There's that comment about how sexual intercourse with a willing little girl will do no harm, for example. Greer made other, opposite comments but consistency has never been her strength.
It has occurred to me that these women may have been "attractiveness signalling", ie they were throwing down the gauntlet and saying they could compete with any age group. It was a form of of one-upmanship to women the same age or older. As they themselves aged, well...
How might this form of "attractiveness signalling" return?
Anonymous 2
@Anonymous
Germaine Greer was second wave feminism, which was not like first wave or third wave (present) feminism.
It was pretty much a blind response to the sexual revolution, which was suddenly brought about by the invention of the pill, and which nobody had a clue what was happening.
Feminist 'leaders' of the time were literally in their early twenties, and were getting lots of sex. The more usual 'feminists' were compartmentalized as 'radical feminists' such as Andrea Dworkin (Eivind would bang). The 1960's and early 70's were just a unique time in human history. You can't draw many conclusions from it. Female babyboomers had just entered further education en masse, just at the time the pill was allowing no strings sex (and escalated the trend as women could put off marriage and child bearing). Feminism had also gone quiet for a couple of decades or more because the vote and age of consent had been achieved, and because of the upheavals of WW2.
Also, feminists from the second wave like Germaine Greer have become celebrities and we still have them on TV today, because they are quite nice and friendly personalities. There might be some survivorship bias going on there and their previous importance is overstated. But they are quite irrelevant today. And most feminists today see her as anti-feminist.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/01/can-germaine-greer-still-be-called-a-feminist-after-her-comments-on-rape
So I don't know about this 'attractiveness signalling'. Feminists and women don't even admit that teenage girls are attractive, despite spending hours and huge amounts of money every day trying to look like 16 year old girls - presumably to make themselves attractive to hebophiles, lol!
In terms of what might cause feminists to not care about men finding young girls attractive anymore, as I've said in the past, it will be tech that levels the sexual playing field, such as the Metaverse (where we will all be idealized avatars) or skin rejuvenation and such.
It's a fair point about porn under current laws legitimizing and normalizing the idea that U18s are out of bounds and non-sexual, but only to an extent.
Despite all the laws, and the fact you could get 60 years in prison for stumbling across a PornHub video in which the girl was underage, legal teen porn is still by far the most searched for adult content. And most legal teen porn involves school uniform/cheerleader/babysitter/stepdaughter content. Even in 'MILF' porn the actress is on average 23 years old.
And that's of course another proof to the fairy aspie 'hebophiles' that all normal men want to have sex with teens.
If and when feminists succeed in raising the age limit for porn to 21, as they are trying, then it might be a real issue.
Returning to the chubby question, in relation to teenage girls, it seems to me that those of you arguing that chubby teens are attractive are indeed true 'hebophiles' if such a word has a meaning. Because chubby teens almost completely negate all the physical reasons why teen girls are attractive - such as nubileness, perky tits, daintiness etc. Their skin due to their diet is also often terrible.
So if you are into chubby teens, you probably are just attracted to their teenage minds.
Of course, we could have a discussion on whether it is 'normal' for men to be attracted to teenage minds and personalities in themselves. I think that's true to an extent, although today's teens are in general retarded and infantilized compared to previous generations. But principally, men are attracted to teen girls because of their bodies.
@Amelio
Yeah sure, fat girls need loving too, we all know that.
Unfortunately in today's world, it's the mass of unattractive women that are the driving force of the laws that are criminalizing male sexuality. Yes, go with a chubby girl if you can't get laid with an attractive legal teen or young woman, but be aware you are in a very real sense being raped by her.
Personally I don't give a shit whether plain jane feminists are getting laid or not, when they've prevented me from having a lifetime of sex with gorgeous teens.
As far as the 'aging aesthete' is concerned, presumably you are referring to me for opposing Eivind's insistance on 300lb black women over masturbation to 18 year old porn, or masturbating to the hot 14 year old you saw earlier that day in the street with her butt cheeks exposed.
Well unlike Eivind, I do approach young (legal) females. For sure if I lowered my standards to pretty much zero like him, I'd be getting laid every day. But not sure you can call somebody who approaches women an aging aesthete over somebody who is on Tinder all day. Rather be an aging aesthete than an aging ascetic.
@AF
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not against ageing aesthetes, being one myself. I just think that, as Eivind rightly put it, these preferences better be discreet(and legal). Fat lovers should not be put down for having low standards. But fatsos or disgruntled people should not be empowered to punish beauty lovers.
Usually people are fond of causes that serve their own interests. Eivind likes chubby teens and women but he thinks sex laws are too harsh concerning teens above the age of puberty. His militancy goes beyond his own tastes.
But just like you I absolutely object to nofap or the "female predation charade" being put on par with the main theme, that is sexual totalitarism .
The blog of Anglo-Bitch has been removed by blogspot : http://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/
He was one of the few true MRAs.
@Amelio
Fair enough. But in my case, the question of 'ugly girls' is central to the explanation of what is happening (i.e. Sexual Trade Union/Green Pill/Pussy Cartel theory).
Ugly women, acting as a kind of trade union (early feminism) DID create the present-day age of consent laws and many anti-prostitution laws. That's an objective fact of history that is there in the historical records. There's no dispute with that. And it continues today. It is unattractive women who dominate the countless NGOs constantly lobbying for harsher punishments and new laws. It is women who are saying that any sex with older men when they were teens was abuse.
Yes, people are fond of causes that serve their own interests. You nailed it. Now can you see that this applies to women and sex laws that criminalize men and benefit women?
We're constantly told that we're just paedos who are trying to justify our attraction to teens or the 'right' to have sex with them. Yet I appear to be remarkably the only effing one of us who turns that on its head and points out that it's women who are manifestly serving their own sexual interests by creating these laws and inflating the definition of paedohysteria.
There was a time (most of human history it appears) when homosexual men were forced to stay in the closet and marry women and start families. If you look at gay literature before the 1970's, and it's clear that self-aware homosexual men blamed women for this. Gay men used to refer to women as 'breeders'. It's odd to the extreme that in our community, it seems near impossible for us to blame women, even though the same thing is happening to 'us'. Anyway, you can be sure that homosexual men back in the day when their sexuality was criminalized, were not crying about 'breeders' not getting enough loving.
Yeah, Eivind appears to 'go beyond his interests' by championing the right of slutty teachers to bang Tyrone in class, but that appears to be just classic white knighting. Maybe he projects himself as 'less of a hebophile' than me too by proclaiming his lust for 400 lb black women (though it strikes me as odd that he still appears to rarely get laid despite being open to sex with HB1s). And he still gets called a pedo by normies just as much as he would if he never mentioned the female sex offender charade or his love for BBWs. In any case, there is not a chance in hell we can ever change things in our lifetimes. So none of us are 'serving our interests' really by trying to fight these laws or arguing that the laws should be different. We can only live authentic lives. Hooking up with a plain jane, 40 year old, or a chubby because the sexual market has been skewed to favor such women (with their support) doesn't sound like authenticity, it sounds like validating the feminist project, or even being raped by your oppressors.
BTW, I'm not discreet in admiring pretty teen girls I pass in the street. I'll make a point of smiling at them. I get called a pedo a lot, almost invariably by older women who notice, or if the girl herself is not so pretty and a plain jane. Still, it's an act of defiance, and one of the few legal ways we can still be defiant.
Why do you side with Catiline against Cicero Eivind? I can forgive you for many things, but not this. Do you realize that Cicero married a 14 year old girl when he was 60?
Another giant of history who the MAP fairies would like you to believe is a 'hebophile'.
"being raped by your oppressors".
Another extension of the definition of rape ? Being compelled to inaction! People who are burgled are raped.
Women who are contradicted feel raped. It's endless and meaningless. If we were not caught in a spiral of lunacy we would stick to the sensible definition of rape : a sex act imposed by force or threat.
All the rest could be punishable as offenses against parental authority or disrespect for the legal age of consent.
"the sexual market has been skewed"
Ok, but wasn't that unavoidable, in a way or another, in countries where there are more and more old people and fewer and fewer youths ? How do you change that without the help of a majority of men who know that even if the laws were relaxed they would not get access to all the pretty girls they salivate on in virtual life ?
Besides is there nothing between 200lb black blobs and teen mermaids ? I mean someone you can share sex and affection with.
Yes, it is threat of force - the threat of state force and violence, the threat of social shaming, the pedo accusation etc, unless you follow the norms and date somebody your own age. I was talking to a neighbour some time back - an elderly woman - and she kept asking me why I wasn't married, and insinuating I must be a paedophile for being single. Five hundred years ago they burnt spinsters as witches, now they burn bachelors as suspected paedophiles.
But really its about transforming the hate and shaming from feminists into something we can throw back at them. I don't think using this language to frankly state the sexual motivations behind feminist inflations of rape laws, is actually going to extend the definition of rape.
Normies call me a paedophile for admitting teens are sexy. I call them paedocrites. Feminists call me a rapist for saying teens can consent. I call a feminist a rapist for telling me teens can't consent. But hell yeah, maybe I'm wrong, and we need to be less like the incels and more like the MAP fairies. Just keep painting rainbows and unicorns and chanting 'girl power' and 'youth rights' and women and feminists will come on board and reverse all their laws.
"Ok, but wasn't that unavoidable, in a way or another, in countries where there are more and more old people and fewer and fewer youths ? How do you change that without the help of a majority of men who know that even if the laws were relaxed they would not get access to all the pretty girls they salivate on in virtual life ?"
The majority of men could still pay for sex with youths. It would incentivize men. Look at Japan, which 10 or 20 years ago had just about an open sexual market as you could get, and any Japanese middle-income man could find a 14 or 15 year old girl to 'sponsor'. Their demographic collapse was way ahead of ours, btw.
Are you saying it doesn't matter if women try to skew the sexual market to limit competition, because demographics already limits it? Or are you saying there's no point to appealing to the majority of men that they are being 'raped' because they couldn't get prime teen pussy anyway? Well maybe the sort of men we should want to attract are the rich/alpha males who could get young and attractive females if they were allowed. Of course, there are the incels, who clearly do have fighting qualities. Perhaps it might even be a useful lie to men that they could get prime pussy if they defeated feminism? Btw, 'fighting age men' are usually considered 18 - 30/35. Pretty sure most men that age could be in with a chance of at least scoring occasionally with a teenage girl in a truly open sexual market, given that historically, an age difference was the norm in relationships.
"Besides is there nothing between 200lb black blobs and teen mermaids ? I mean someone you can share sex and affection with."
Well sure, but we were originally discussing Eivind's preference for 'chubby girls' over wanking. Personally, I can't find plain women attractive, and in any case, I don't want to end up in a relationship with a plain woman who would probably cut my balls off if she so much as caught me glancing at a teen girl. I'm sure I could fall in love with a plain girl or a 40 year old woman if she had a nice personality and I was seeing her a lot, for example at work or wherever, but I don't mix with such people at all, and I certainly don't want to spend hours on Tinder chasing them.
You could also argue that dating chubby girls is validating their lifestyle choice, a form of 'fat acceptance' and further limiting the number of nubile hotties in the sexual marketplace.
Interesting turn of events in the BBC scandal that has been brewing all week. For those not familiar with it, a much loved BBC presenter has been accused by the parents of a young woman of paying her for explicit photos when she was 17. The woman (who is now 20) has issued a denial through her lawyers that anything inappropriate took place.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66159357
You can find who he apparently is on Twitter. All the hordes of paedocrites calling him a nonce and a paedophile, even though the worst he is accused of is paying for nude photos of a 17 year old girl.
The BBC presenter is a wanker. He paid lots of money for nudes and didn't have sex. Absolutely shameful, but not crimeworthy of course.
We need sexualism to save men from the law and also from themselves for doing stupid shit like this, hence my incorporation of nofap in the male sexualist ideology.
@AF
"BTW, I'm not discreet in admiring pretty teen girls I pass in the street. I'll make a point of smiling at them. I get called a pedo a lot, almost invariably by older women who notice, or if the girl herself is not so pretty and a plain jane. Still, it's an act of defiance, and one of the few legal ways we can still be defiant."
What is your response, if any? It would seem like a good opportunity to ram home some home truths about jealousy, but I'm not there so not in a position to know whether that would be wise or not.
I do the same thing, but I never seem to get caughtor criticised for some reason.
One time I did caught, though, in a sense. I was on a bus and from the back window I could see a very cute girl of 11 or 12 waiting at the kerbside to cross the road. All of a sudden the most excited look came onto her face. I didn't realize right away, but it dawned on me that it must have been because she caught a not-terrible-looking bloke checking her out. I'm glad I made the young flossie's day.
Anonymous 2
"Are you saying it doesn't matter if women try to skew the sexual market to limit competition, because demographics already limits it?"
I mean the circumstances were more favourable for women militants due to demographics. Especially as the younger class comes more and from extra european muslim families whose veiled daughters are mostly not part of the global mating or sex "market".
"You could also argue that dating chubby girls is validating their lifestyle choice, a form of 'fat acceptance' and further limiting the number of nubile hotties in the sexual marketplace."
Yes it's dreadful to see slim teens turn into fatsoes in line with the "come as you are " Mc Donald's slogan.
Quick heads up-The night Wind uses the word paedohysteria again. Wouldn't be much if the situation wasn't so dire, but in the circumstances, every little bit helps.
I keep hoping the word catches on. I presume it hasn't because
-it isn't being promoted in the me-juh so the average Joe isn't noticing what's going on
-possibly, the some in the legacy media know the word but are deliberately refraining from using it.
Anonymous2
No, we don't need to be discreet about admiring teen girls. That's not what I meant. We should be proud, and indeed such pride is central to growing our movement and making real male sexuality normalized. Only if you have a "pump and dump" mentality should you be discreet, because obviously relationships are valued by many men and then it does not look good if you proclaim you can't love anyone over 18. That's not the recipe for any conceivable mainstream movement, and it won't work as a "minority" thing either because other men are competing with you for the same girls and look like they have more to offer them.
A note on Kevin Spacey to the commenter who is justifying the trial. If he did these things to random men in the street then yes but this is nonsense comparable to feminist "date rape" regrets. The men got into these situations willingly and only got what they should expect. If you don't want Kevin Spacey to grab your dick then don't go drinking with him or whatever. He is in no way a threat to any sensible man, in no way someone society needs to protect us from. Prosecutors even made up a new unusually weak word indicating they don't take it seriously -- "sexual bully" -- whereas sex crimes always start at "predator" even if it's just asking for a nude from a 17-year-old girl. So this is milder than even that in their view.
But anyway, I got a new post up on the Huw Edwards situation:
http://eivindberge.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-metaphysics-of-online-sexual-abuse.html
Post a Comment