Feminist sexual taboos grow all around us like kudzu, covering ever more of our healthy sexuality in darkness or criminality. Antisex bigotry is not new under the sun, as it also existed in the Middle Ages for example, but the fraudulent "abuse" or "exploitation" justification is new. Better, then, to merely be a bigot who posits a God to justify her intolerance, than to poison human relations with contrived "abuse" like the feminists do. Even though it tends to prohibit most of the same acts, the concept of "sin" was far less toxic and intrusive to our lives than pseudoscientific pretend-abuse which is supposed to define our very souls and obliterate all lust, love and affection. And nowhere is this feminist bigotry more fraudulent than when applied to female "offenders," who even in principle cannot do the things claimed because human sexuality fundamentally doesn't work like that.
Now Sweden has done it too, gone and embraced the female sex offender charade: Woman convicted for sex with 15-year-old boy. The punishment has thankfully not yet reached American levels -- just probation and community service -- but the conceptual fraud is the same, the pretense that a sexually lucky (and even aggressive) boy is an exploited "victim."
How did society lose the plot so completely on sexuality? How could feminism even be turned against women like that? And worse, how do people go about their lives as if there is nothing wrong? As opposed to convulsing with hatred against the sex laws several times per day like I do? (Despite making an effort not to for health reasons.) The one thing worse than living in a country that has gone off the rails with odious and nonsensical laws is that no one else seems to care about it, and that is where we are now.
As exemplified by the publication to which I linked, there are segments of the population in Norway and no doubt Sweden who believe immigration is a serious problem. But how can they be concerned with such a comparable trifle when the stark hate of feminist antisex bigotry stares them in the face? And worse, Scandinavians opposed to immigration and Islam believe feminist sex law is a useful weapon against their imagined enemies. They thus become pure scum, as if the racism weren't enough, with a complete inability to be critical of any sex law, no matter how insane and misandristic and misogynistic too.
It is conceivable that excessive Islamization can be a problem, and cherishing one's culture does not have to be a bad thing. It is even conceivable that immigrant men from certain cultures commit more real rape and abuse than the locals, but we have no way of knowing when the sex laws are so messed up. These laws are so corrupt that Islam is most assuredly a lesser evil than feminism, and even if we got rid of all the immigrants we would still have the hateful laws. Male sexualism has therefore decided to consider Islam an ally against the antisex bigots. My own culture is now alien to me and I do not consider it worth protecting. I am a Quisling in reverse, the only reasonable, sex-positive man left standing after my culture has been consumed by antisex bigotry of the most pernicious kind conceivable.
Monday, December 23, 2019
Thursday, December 05, 2019
A gift horse to the antisex bigots
Since everything has failed us so far in our battle to stem the tide of criminalization of our sexuality, it is time to think of novel ways to conduct men's rights activism. For best results it needs to be nonviolent, legal, democratic, and for good measure give the impression that we share society's hysterical concern about "sexual abuse" and "predators." What could be a better fit to all these criteria than to advocate for voluntary sex offender registration?
Society can't get enough "sex offenders," so I don't see how they could possibly turn this offer down. What's not to love about letting men, and why not women too, register as sex offenders without having to convict them first? Let's advocate for legislation to make that happen! Let sexually dangerous people identify themselves. A little Christmas gift from the male sexualists to feminists and society, yay!
The plan, of course, after it has become compulsory for governments to accept sex offender registration from anyone who wants it, is to register en masse in order to sabotage not only their registries, but the entire concept of a sex offender.
Who isn't already a sex offender, anyway? Only the label is missing for most of us, so this is the logical conclusion. I am certain that we could pull this off even while explaining what we are doing, like a Trojan horse clearly labeled as such, so cuntsure are the antisex bigots of themselves in their sanctimonious hatred of sexuality.
We know from the Epstein case that anyone who fancies a 17-year-old is a "pedophile," and anyone who associates with said pedophile is also ruined for life.
We know from the Addy A-Game case that -- I dunno if approaching 20-year-old women in the street makes you a "pedophile" -- but it certainly makes you a sex offender who should be on the registry for ten years.
And if that isn't enough, or you are still young enough not to be incriminated by an age gap, perhaps you touched a girl's arm once in a clumsy effort to befriend her? Or you just looked at a picture of someone you never met? For the women, being topless in your own home is enough to be a sex offender, so they should register too.
The bigots' hubris is infinite. Having defined all of sexuality as abuse, which is to say normalize it, it is time for society to face the consequences. Letting the feminists have their bigotry and use it as a tool of oppression is not necessary, because with such numbers we can easily turn the tables. All that is missing is for most men (and optionally women) to admit that we are the pedophiles and sex abusers that society now considers us.
Society can't get enough "sex offenders," so I don't see how they could possibly turn this offer down. What's not to love about letting men, and why not women too, register as sex offenders without having to convict them first? Let's advocate for legislation to make that happen! Let sexually dangerous people identify themselves. A little Christmas gift from the male sexualists to feminists and society, yay!
The plan, of course, after it has become compulsory for governments to accept sex offender registration from anyone who wants it, is to register en masse in order to sabotage not only their registries, but the entire concept of a sex offender.
Who isn't already a sex offender, anyway? Only the label is missing for most of us, so this is the logical conclusion. I am certain that we could pull this off even while explaining what we are doing, like a Trojan horse clearly labeled as such, so cuntsure are the antisex bigots of themselves in their sanctimonious hatred of sexuality.
We know from the Epstein case that anyone who fancies a 17-year-old is a "pedophile," and anyone who associates with said pedophile is also ruined for life.
We know from the Addy A-Game case that -- I dunno if approaching 20-year-old women in the street makes you a "pedophile" -- but it certainly makes you a sex offender who should be on the registry for ten years.
And if that isn't enough, or you are still young enough not to be incriminated by an age gap, perhaps you touched a girl's arm once in a clumsy effort to befriend her? Or you just looked at a picture of someone you never met? For the women, being topless in your own home is enough to be a sex offender, so they should register too.
The bigots' hubris is infinite. Having defined all of sexuality as abuse, which is to say normalize it, it is time for society to face the consequences. Letting the feminists have their bigotry and use it as a tool of oppression is not necessary, because with such numbers we can easily turn the tables. All that is missing is for most men (and optionally women) to admit that we are the pedophiles and sex abusers that society now considers us.
Tuesday, December 03, 2019
The female sex offender charade is worse than the Tuskegee syphilis experiment
We know female sexuality is unworthy of punishment for what feminist justice systems call "sexual abuse" because sex is a female resource (that's the executive summary of my position; for a slightly more nuanced view see my "Devil's advocate" post where I distinguish between sexual exploitation and abuse and conclude that women categorically cannot commit the former and almost never the latter). We know syphilis is treatable and should be treated. Allowing these evils to run their course is unethical. Allowing men's bodies to be ravaged by syphilis and women's lives to be destroyed by antisex bigots despite better knowledge and ability are both unconscionable acts.
The most shocking aspect of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment is not that people could be so cruel as the doctors conducting the study, but that it happened openly and was condoned by society for decades, even published in medical journals while ongoing. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment and the female sex offender charade are both openly published travesties, but only one of them has been rectified.
The prosecutors, judges and jurors in female-perpetrated "sex abuse" cases are like the doctors directly involved in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, except the latter at least had the extenuating circumstance that they were conducting an experiment while the courts who sentence harmless women to prison are committing an unmitigated evil from which nothing more can be learned (it did indeed shock me in a morbidly curious way, but we know by now that society can be so cruel as to go along with it seemingly indefinitely).
I cannot stop the courts directly, but like the millions of people who heard about men with syphilis who were purposely denied treatment, I am in a position where it would be unethical for me to remain silent about the ongoing travesty against women accused of absurd sex crimes. I therefore do my part as a whistleblower and activist against the senseless practice of punishing women for being sexually nice to boys.
I promised a series of posts comparing the female sex offender charade to other weird things, and this is the second installment. Read my first here where I compared it to female genital mutilation. Next up I will probably do lobotomy.
The most shocking aspect of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment is not that people could be so cruel as the doctors conducting the study, but that it happened openly and was condoned by society for decades, even published in medical journals while ongoing. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment and the female sex offender charade are both openly published travesties, but only one of them has been rectified.
The prosecutors, judges and jurors in female-perpetrated "sex abuse" cases are like the doctors directly involved in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, except the latter at least had the extenuating circumstance that they were conducting an experiment while the courts who sentence harmless women to prison are committing an unmitigated evil from which nothing more can be learned (it did indeed shock me in a morbidly curious way, but we know by now that society can be so cruel as to go along with it seemingly indefinitely).
I cannot stop the courts directly, but like the millions of people who heard about men with syphilis who were purposely denied treatment, I am in a position where it would be unethical for me to remain silent about the ongoing travesty against women accused of absurd sex crimes. I therefore do my part as a whistleblower and activist against the senseless practice of punishing women for being sexually nice to boys.
I promised a series of posts comparing the female sex offender charade to other weird things, and this is the second installment. Read my first here where I compared it to female genital mutilation. Next up I will probably do lobotomy.
Sunday, December 01, 2019
The difference between "indecent" and "sexualized"
Here I want to explore the depths of depravity in the current antisex hysteria via the different words used for sex crimes before and after feminist reforms. The shift from religiously connotated words like "indecent" or "lewd" to ostensibly neutral descriptions like "sex act" (or descriptions thereof) is not yet complete in all jurisdictions, but you get the idea. In Norway the transformation has been most complete, from words like "utuktig omgang/skrift" to "seksuell omgang" or "fremstillinger som seksualiserer barn." This transition is more significant than it might seem at first glance, and far less convincing than the reformers had hoped, for the same reasons.
There is a tendency to assume that the new laws carry forth the same abuse concepts, but they don't really. Even I didn't notice for many years that the new laws don't just expand, but radically transform the concept of sexual abuse. The reformers themselves probably think they have merely modernized the language, but in reality they have exposed a gaping hole in the new sexual morality.
There is a tendency to assume that the new laws carry forth the same abuse concepts, but they don't really. Even I didn't notice for many years that the new laws don't just expand, but radically transform the concept of sexual abuse. The reformers themselves probably think they have merely modernized the language, but in reality they have exposed a gaping hole in the new sexual morality.
Even when the laws mostly apply to the same things, the philosophical grounding is entirely different, to the point of non-existence. For example, the concept of "indecent/utuktig" did not make the claim that minors are asexual. What might be "indecent" in some contexts under the old morality could be perfectly okay within marriage, so it's not sex acts themselves that are problematic, but something more consequential in the scheme of things, at least if one believes in the larger value system in which these prescriptions are situated.
If something is "indecent," then okey dokey, it must be indecent because higher morality and probably God says so given that you believe in that worldview. I ain't smart enough to understand how that works and won't opine before going to divinity school first. But if something is simply a "sex act," or "sexualized," how do you jump to the conclusion that it is wrong and should be criminal? The new laws leave a gaping hole now filled mostly by pseudoscience like the nocebo nonsense of the abuse industry, if at all.
We are to believe that something is wrong because "sex," period. Which is a non sequitur. If you want to make that leap without a concept of the "decent" and "indecent," or some other higher-power framework, you would need to justify it from the ground up in humanistic, rational terms (I wrote a post once showing how it could be done, but it didn't go over well because it puts a damper on abuse hysteria).
What we have is a new supernatural framework masquerading as rationality. Sometimes it is also comedy gold. I mean, how did the Norwegian lawmakers come up with a concept as retarded as the crime of narratives that "sexualize children [under 18]" without considering if the "children" where asexual in the first place? Which if you think about it for two seconds is sheer nonsense, an assumption that the old concept of "indecency" wisely avoided.
It is most instructive to consider how the victimless laws are justified. There is always a maximally exaggerated violation when there is a "victim," but what is being violated when there is no victim, and also no indecency/utuktighet to ground it in? What is being blasphemed against, exactly, in a fictional narrative which "sexualizes children"? Can it literally be something so retarded as the lie that everyone under 18 is asexual and not sexually attractive to normal people?
I suppose the reformers could appeal to the "public morals" and claim that as an ultimate basis for their laws. But this is a vague concept in the extreme. Where do I find justification for the secular public morals? Is it the view promoted by national public broadcasting? Is it whoever screams loudest on Twitter or perhaps alternative media like Resett.no? Before or after moderation, and if after, why do the moderators get to decide what the pubic thinks? Is it evidence-based in any way, and if not, isn't that a problem when use to make criminal laws? And don't even get me started on the female sex offender charade...
The feminists have undermined their own agenda by switching to a clear language of sexual abuse, because this also brought clarity to the lack of justification for their sex laws. They need to come up with actual, credible justification if they want to be taken seriously as other than a display of brute force against sexuality. Or conversely, if they want to be accepted on faith alone, they need to revert to a mystical language which obscures a source of morality that can't be falsified so easily or at all.
The new sex laws rest on a belief in the metaphysical badness of sex, divorced from any larger value system and grounded in nothing but this metaphysical belief itself. To gloss over how philosophically flimsy it is they always postulate a "victim," and to my horror this strategy has been 100% successful to date, even when the "victim" does not exist or identifies as anything but. We can only hope that one day people will wise up to the vacuity of the current antisex bigotry and do our best to expose it.
We are to believe that something is wrong because "sex," period. Which is a non sequitur. If you want to make that leap without a concept of the "decent" and "indecent," or some other higher-power framework, you would need to justify it from the ground up in humanistic, rational terms (I wrote a post once showing how it could be done, but it didn't go over well because it puts a damper on abuse hysteria).
What we have is a new supernatural framework masquerading as rationality. Sometimes it is also comedy gold. I mean, how did the Norwegian lawmakers come up with a concept as retarded as the crime of narratives that "sexualize children [under 18]" without considering if the "children" where asexual in the first place? Which if you think about it for two seconds is sheer nonsense, an assumption that the old concept of "indecency" wisely avoided.
It is most instructive to consider how the victimless laws are justified. There is always a maximally exaggerated violation when there is a "victim," but what is being violated when there is no victim, and also no indecency/utuktighet to ground it in? What is being blasphemed against, exactly, in a fictional narrative which "sexualizes children"? Can it literally be something so retarded as the lie that everyone under 18 is asexual and not sexually attractive to normal people?
I suppose the reformers could appeal to the "public morals" and claim that as an ultimate basis for their laws. But this is a vague concept in the extreme. Where do I find justification for the secular public morals? Is it the view promoted by national public broadcasting? Is it whoever screams loudest on Twitter or perhaps alternative media like Resett.no? Before or after moderation, and if after, why do the moderators get to decide what the pubic thinks? Is it evidence-based in any way, and if not, isn't that a problem when use to make criminal laws? And don't even get me started on the female sex offender charade...
The feminists have undermined their own agenda by switching to a clear language of sexual abuse, because this also brought clarity to the lack of justification for their sex laws. They need to come up with actual, credible justification if they want to be taken seriously as other than a display of brute force against sexuality. Or conversely, if they want to be accepted on faith alone, they need to revert to a mystical language which obscures a source of morality that can't be falsified so easily or at all.
The new sex laws rest on a belief in the metaphysical badness of sex, divorced from any larger value system and grounded in nothing but this metaphysical belief itself. To gloss over how philosophically flimsy it is they always postulate a "victim," and to my horror this strategy has been 100% successful to date, even when the "victim" does not exist or identifies as anything but. We can only hope that one day people will wise up to the vacuity of the current antisex bigotry and do our best to expose it.
Monday, November 25, 2019
Announcing FertileDating.com
My commenter Jack who always pops in to say something antinatalistic is going to hate this, but I made a dating site specifically for reproduction. I had to delegate the coding since I don't have that skill, but the project is under my creative control and we know what we are doing, so this is going to be great. The brand is magic, it's already a stylistic and technological marvel (especially the unique geographical match) and the current version is completely free too. I have an idea how to monetize without interfering too much with the user experience and especially not for women, but of course we can't do that before we have a decent amount of users.
So come check it out, and please help spread the word if possible:
https://fertiledating.com/
I know, a dating site with no users is boring, but we have to get started somewhere and unlike so much crap out there I am not going to waste anybody's time with fake profiles. Even supposedly serious ones like Tinder does that, not to mention actively work against you if you aren't among the most attractive. My site is honest and real all the way, and even works in accordance with male sexualist principles (except we had to make it 18+ in order to stay in business in today's world). Perhaps the only way to grow a real men's movement is to have a big family, and now you got the perfect platform to find a woman for that.
It also goes to show what can be done with the kind of focus that comes with nofap and a generally positive attitude such as I promote. Can incels really be incel if they didn't try starting their own dating site? Well, that won't work if everyone does it, but it's one obvious example that they probably didn't think of because they were too busy fapping and complaining about things they CAN change.
So come check it out, and please help spread the word if possible:
https://fertiledating.com/
I know, a dating site with no users is boring, but we have to get started somewhere and unlike so much crap out there I am not going to waste anybody's time with fake profiles. Even supposedly serious ones like Tinder does that, not to mention actively work against you if you aren't among the most attractive. My site is honest and real all the way, and even works in accordance with male sexualist principles (except we had to make it 18+ in order to stay in business in today's world). Perhaps the only way to grow a real men's movement is to have a big family, and now you got the perfect platform to find a woman for that.
It also goes to show what can be done with the kind of focus that comes with nofap and a generally positive attitude such as I promote. Can incels really be incel if they didn't try starting their own dating site? Well, that won't work if everyone does it, but it's one obvious example that they probably didn't think of because they were too busy fapping and complaining about things they CAN change.
Monday, November 04, 2019
Why do we let the feminist sexual taboos control us?
Feminism is synonymous with antisex bigotry, and they have subjugated our culture completely. Why do we let this happen, and then just sit there and tolerate it indefinitely?
Every day I wake up to more contrived sex "scandals." Today it is McDonald's CEO Steve Easterbrook who is out "for consensual relationship with an employe." With no justification other than: a taboo exists. Ostensibly it is there to accommodate women’s hysterically frail nature which supposedly makes them infinitely traumatized by the most infinitesimal reference to sexuality, but much of the time even women have no use for the taboo, and a good bit of the time it is now women who are the victims of the senseless antisex norms.
So why do we let this taboo control us? How did feminist sex-hostility gain complete mastery of our culture? Why do men go out with a whimper of acquiescence to the odious taboos every single time, while the rest stand by and do nothing also?
Every day I wake up to more contrived sex "scandals." Today it is McDonald's CEO Steve Easterbrook who is out "for consensual relationship with an employe." With no justification other than: a taboo exists. Ostensibly it is there to accommodate women’s hysterically frail nature which supposedly makes them infinitely traumatized by the most infinitesimal reference to sexuality, but much of the time even women have no use for the taboo, and a good bit of the time it is now women who are the victims of the senseless antisex norms.
So why do we let this taboo control us? How did feminist sex-hostility gain complete mastery of our culture? Why do men go out with a whimper of acquiescence to the odious taboos every single time, while the rest stand by and do nothing also?
Why is antisex so compelling? Because it must be compelling in order to have so much power, probably not due to the current justification for the taboos most of the time, but some sort of control freakery over sexuality wins out every time and drags in everyone from the alt-right to the feminists themselves.
The only dissidents are us, the male sexualists who don't even register on the radar. What little opposition to the mainstream that exists and actually gets noticed is concerned with inane drivel like race theories. That is what the alt-right thinks important, while they tolerate feminist sexual taboos as much as the traditional right and left. Even a reputedly less bigoted conservative man like Jordan Peterson is no help either -- just listen to this antisex rant where he claims it is bad for your soul to have more than one woman! His kind of bigotry is no doubt very differently rooted than the feminist kind, but the result is the same, antisex all the way, supporting the same laws -- with a small exception for pronouns in his case, to underscore that he takes no issue with anything of any real significance.
I know I am very different for rejecting the sexual taboos of my culture. In practice I am not alone by far -- just look at everyone who gets caught for violating these taboos in some way, and look at uncensored comment sections to articles that attempt to promulgate the female sex offender charade -- but in terms of systematic ideology I am that special quisling, a criminal soul, an enemy of the state. As absurd as it feels to use so strong words for advocacy of healthy sexuality, that is where we are.
Friday, November 01, 2019
Yes, masturbation makes you blind
Whoever said that (male) masturbation makes you blind was right. Not the kind of blindness that doctors will currently diagnose, but that is because they care very little about men's sexual best interests. The kind of blindness we are talking about consists of not seeing women's beauty properly and therefore not behaving as you should with regard to them. The other faction of the Men's Movement can make fun all he wants, but it remains true. When I started writing this post I meant to make a distinction between literal blindness and a metaphorical kind, but the more I think about it I see that this blindness isn't metaphorical. It is real, rising to the level of anosognosia even, which is a downright hyperreal sort of blindness.
How can we expect society to be anything but blind to male interests when so many men are themselves blind to male interests, including a faction of supposed male sexualists? No wonder they only see the harm of male sexuality -- and blow that absurdly out of proportion -- when sex-positive male sexualism (which should be redundant, but when we have a faction which doesn't think it is important to chase pussy...) is so rare I'm practically the only proponent (aside from other nofappers, but they lack the ideological awareness). If you don't realize that male masturbation is detrimental to sex, then you are part of the problem and already halfway in agreement with feminism.
Vision is so much more than your eyes doing their job. What you do with that information is what really matters, and when your brain is impaired in that respect, it is also real blindness. Masturbation, certainly when you also use porn, leads to neurologic -- not psychological -- harm in the male viewer. Crudely speaking, masturbation literally impairs men from seeing women as sex objects, and that is a kind of blindness so sinister that it would be hard to replicate with optic blindness. Indeed, since medically defined blindness would probably cure the masturbatory kind, I am almost tempted to second the biblical wisdom:
How can we expect society to be anything but blind to male interests when so many men are themselves blind to male interests, including a faction of supposed male sexualists? No wonder they only see the harm of male sexuality -- and blow that absurdly out of proportion -- when sex-positive male sexualism (which should be redundant, but when we have a faction which doesn't think it is important to chase pussy...) is so rare I'm practically the only proponent (aside from other nofappers, but they lack the ideological awareness). If you don't realize that male masturbation is detrimental to sex, then you are part of the problem and already halfway in agreement with feminism.
Vision is so much more than your eyes doing their job. What you do with that information is what really matters, and when your brain is impaired in that respect, it is also real blindness. Masturbation, certainly when you also use porn, leads to neurologic -- not psychological -- harm in the male viewer. Crudely speaking, masturbation literally impairs men from seeing women as sex objects, and that is a kind of blindness so sinister that it would be hard to replicate with optic blindness. Indeed, since medically defined blindness would probably cure the masturbatory kind, I am almost tempted to second the biblical wisdom:
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out,
and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for
thee that one of thy members should perish, and
not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
--Matthew 5:29
But luckily, all you need is nofap.
Monday, September 30, 2019
Innocent victims of unenlightened times
Women prosecuted for witchcraft centuries ago are today rightly considered innocent victims of unenlightened times:
You need to read no further than the title of this typical presentation of the current madness to understand that this is a literal witch-hunt:
Sex Abuse Victim Has Changed Thanks To Teacher Brittany Zamora’s ‘Black Magic,’ Lawsuit Contends
Prosecutors and the media accuse women of black magic with a straight face, courts sentence them to decades in prison for patent absurdities and I am the only one horrified. The only one horrified! This in a supposedly civilized country too, I am the only one who loses sleep over it. Others don't object to the gobbledygook of the witch doctors which imputes harm to boys via mechanisms so preposterous that they literally can't be described as anything but black magic, which makes me feel so alone and frightened and indignant and righteous and of course smarter than those dimwits, in addition to sorry for the innocent victims of our unenlightened times.
Just listen to the witch doctors' wishful conjurance of harm from their imagined black magic... Hell, the Malleus Maleficarum is more convincing than this shit!
Thus we have a woman serving 20 years based on nothing but the wishful thinking of a charlatan who makes his living drumming up contrived abuse while fraudulently attributing harm to it. And she is just one in an ongoing witch-hunt! We need to care about this!
The delusion that exposure to friendly female sexuality can harm boys is the most bizarre superstition of our times, and I am on a mission to undermine it.
Lilias Adie died in prison in 1704, before she could be convicted, strangled and burned at the stake for a crime to which she had reportedly confessed -- of being a witch, and having sex with the devil.
She was buried on a beach in Torryburn, Fife by locals -- who were so concerned that she might "reanimate" and rise from her grave that they buried her under a large stone.
But why is it so hard to see that we aren't done with that sort of persecution, complete with the bizarre and draconian efforts to contain the "witches"? Nowadays the unenlightenment has shifted to "sexual abuse" instead of "witchcraft" (well, not quite, as we shall see -- but who cares -- the concepts are mostly interchangeable anyway), and it is every bit as absurd. To make it worse, the selection process has grown more malignant because we now single out the sweetest, most innocent, nicest women for prosecution, those who are kind to young boys rather than an imaginary devil. (We even manage to target some of the most beautiful women, which makes me suspect that there is a touch of women-as-property oppression also going on here.)
You need to read no further than the title of this typical presentation of the current madness to understand that this is a literal witch-hunt:
Sex Abuse Victim Has Changed Thanks To Teacher Brittany Zamora’s ‘Black Magic,’ Lawsuit Contends
Prosecutors and the media accuse women of black magic with a straight face, courts sentence them to decades in prison for patent absurdities and I am the only one horrified. The only one horrified! This in a supposedly civilized country too, I am the only one who loses sleep over it. Others don't object to the gobbledygook of the witch doctors which imputes harm to boys via mechanisms so preposterous that they literally can't be described as anything but black magic, which makes me feel so alone and frightened and indignant and righteous and of course smarter than those dimwits, in addition to sorry for the innocent victims of our unenlightened times.
Just listen to the witch doctors' wishful conjurance of harm from their imagined black magic... Hell, the Malleus Maleficarum is more convincing than this shit!
Clinical psychologist Dr. Richard Gartner, who co-founded "Male Survivor," formerly the National Organization on Male Sexual Victimization, evaluated the victim in 2018, according to the lawsuit.
Gartner noted that while the boy is not yet exhibiting obvious signs of post-traumatic stress disorder or depression, he said it is very possible it will develop later in life. He said it is difficult to predict what specific symptoms the boy will likely develop "in the years and decades ahead."
He said the boy "has shown signs that he can become explosive if angry feelings break through his capacity to manage them." He went on to say that it's common for sexually abused men to get into compulsive behaviors like alcoholism, drug addiction, workaholism and compulsive spending.
Gartner said the victim should be watched and supported now and into the future.Yeah, there is no discernible harm, but ye must have faith in abuse hysteria because... any bad thing that could possibly happen in this boy's life can now be blamed on the contrived abuse; never mind that there is no scientific or commonsense reason to expect that he will fare worse than anyone else, except possibly by the nocebo effect if the witch doctors get lucky with their hateful agenda.
Thus we have a woman serving 20 years based on nothing but the wishful thinking of a charlatan who makes his living drumming up contrived abuse while fraudulently attributing harm to it. And she is just one in an ongoing witch-hunt! We need to care about this!
The delusion that exposure to friendly female sexuality can harm boys is the most bizarre superstition of our times, and I am on a mission to undermine it.
Saturday, September 28, 2019
Right answers for wrong reasons
I marvel at how two diametrically opposed sexual value systems have reached the conclusion that porn consumption is bad for men. How is it possible to be either a prude or a hedonist and both agree that porn is a bad thing?
My answer is that men who see themselves as sex-positive and believe porn is good are suffering from anosognosia. Feminists and religious fanatics who see themselves as sex-negative are similarly deluded because they don't realize that abstinence from porn and masturbation is the pathway to the greatest male sexual vitality and (if one is so inclined) promiscuity. Either that, or they hold a bizarre and to me alien value system which holds that fantasies are equivalent to real experiences.
Or alternatively, pornography is just an easy target loosely connected with male sexuality on which to bring down the violence of the state. Since prosecutions are easily based on possession of information alone and requiring neither victims nor witnesses, the feminists can afford to miss their antisex mark much of the time.
I cringe when I see otherwise ideologically sound men buy into the official narrative like The Antifeminist is doing here: David Ley On How ‘Your Belief In Porn Addiction Makes Things Worse.’
The pro-porn advocacy quoted there is so stupid that it's not even wrong, just irrelevant. I don't care if "porn addiction" is a meaningful concept or even if it's harmful to believe in it. What I care about is whether porn interferes with the sex life you could have had without it, and that is never considered in that piece. As I keep saying, the opportunity cost should be our paramount concern with regard to pornography and masturbation. The cited research does not ask how much more sex with how many more females you could have had if you never looked at porn and never masturbated, because the researchers don't care if men have sex.
Such indifference to sexuality is ultimately even more sinister than criminalization, I think. It represents a withdrawal from the world and acceptance of the idea that men might as well be asexual as long as they feel happy about it. I agree that nobody should be criminalized for retreating into a fantasy world, but male sexualism is a nobler ideology, the radical idea that sex is a good thing for us, and thus we do not align ourselves with that kind of junk science.
Pornography is neither worth criminalizing (if one is anti-sex) or supporting (if one is sex-positive). The apparent gains are self-defeating either way. There are many laws I disagree with for reasons other than my male sexualist ideology, and the anti-porn laws happen to be in that category, rather to be opposed on libertarian and free-speech grounds, because yes, they are certainly wrong when viewed from those angles. But they are not an impediment to our healthiest sexual expression, and if anything, obeying them actually helps that.
The Antifeminist makes some better arguments in his latest post here:
Or alternatively, pornography is just an easy target loosely connected with male sexuality on which to bring down the violence of the state. Since prosecutions are easily based on possession of information alone and requiring neither victims nor witnesses, the feminists can afford to miss their antisex mark much of the time.
I cringe when I see otherwise ideologically sound men buy into the official narrative like The Antifeminist is doing here: David Ley On How ‘Your Belief In Porn Addiction Makes Things Worse.’
The pro-porn advocacy quoted there is so stupid that it's not even wrong, just irrelevant. I don't care if "porn addiction" is a meaningful concept or even if it's harmful to believe in it. What I care about is whether porn interferes with the sex life you could have had without it, and that is never considered in that piece. As I keep saying, the opportunity cost should be our paramount concern with regard to pornography and masturbation. The cited research does not ask how much more sex with how many more females you could have had if you never looked at porn and never masturbated, because the researchers don't care if men have sex.
Such indifference to sexuality is ultimately even more sinister than criminalization, I think. It represents a withdrawal from the world and acceptance of the idea that men might as well be asexual as long as they feel happy about it. I agree that nobody should be criminalized for retreating into a fantasy world, but male sexualism is a nobler ideology, the radical idea that sex is a good thing for us, and thus we do not align ourselves with that kind of junk science.
Pornography is neither worth criminalizing (if one is anti-sex) or supporting (if one is sex-positive). The apparent gains are self-defeating either way. There are many laws I disagree with for reasons other than my male sexualist ideology, and the anti-porn laws happen to be in that category, rather to be opposed on libertarian and free-speech grounds, because yes, they are certainly wrong when viewed from those angles. But they are not an impediment to our healthiest sexual expression, and if anything, obeying them actually helps that.
The Antifeminist makes some better arguments in his latest post here:
In his utter foolishness, Eivind doesn’t seem able to grasp that it’s just a fact, that the lines between ‘porn’ and real relationships are going to increasingly blur. For example, consider selfies. The age of consent is 16 or even lower in most countries in Europe, but the minimum age for ‘sexualized’ selfies is 18. This makes it difficult in today’s world to even pursue or maintain a relationship with a 16 or 17 year old, without breaking the law (‘child pornography’ laws). And this will just get ever more problematic. And not just because of the difference between age of consent and child pornography laws. Most men take sexy pics of their girlfriends. Now they could be prosecuted under ‘revenge porn’ laws if they ever show them to another person, or in Germany already, if they even fail to delete such pics at the end of the relationship.While these are good points, the solution is not to weaken our libidos by being complacent to porn. It should be possible to advocate the right to healthy sexuality without aligning us with something detrimental to it. I certainly agree that when the criminalized "child porn" or "revenge porn" is nothing more than a selfie received from a girl one is talking to or pictures taken in a relationship, rather than a substitute for the girl, this is among our utmost concerns. Reality is that lots of men use such and other pornographic material as a substitute for sex, however, so we must be careful not to conflate these.
(...)
To be honest, I don’t see the age of consent laws (at 16) as being even close to the worse feminist injustice. What is so wrong about the present age of consent is the insane and draconian punishments that are meted out now to transgressors. As well as that, the idea that being attracted to teens is a perversion – namely paedophilia. But that itself has likely been caused by the feminist definitions of child porn, rather than the age of consent. Even in Britain, for example, jokes about ‘jail bait’ were commonplace until the child porn laws were ‘strengthened’ and raised to 18 in 2003. Child porn laws essentially carry with them the idea that it is perverted, wrong, and ‘paedophilia’, to even look at or be attracted to a person under 18.
Saturday, September 21, 2019
The nocebo industry
If we can have entire industries selling placebo, such as homeopathy for example, it is not so surprising that there are also industries selling nocebo. As a side note, I feel a bit sorry for the homeopaths because the only homeopathic medicine that works beyond placebo – vaccines – isn’t considered homeopathy. But back to selling placebos and nocebos. The premier nocebo industry is, of course, the sex abuse industry, and most flagrantly the female sex offender charade. Let me again use Brittany Zamora as illustration (and read this for a textual version replete with words like "black magic" to underscore the intellectual level we are dealing with):
Every day I rack my brain trying to think of more ways to mock the bigots who want to punish victimless sex, and this is what I got for you today. Angry Harry was fond of the word "abuse industry," but I think the "nocebo industry" packs more punch. There is also some real abuse, so the abuse industry isn't entirely useless, but the nocebo part is a vast monstrosity, and when it comes to female "sexual abusers," nocebo is all they have.
The worst part is, there is zero interest in sorting out the nocebos from actually harmful sexual offenses. There are no studies daring to pose such falsifiable questions and no feedback that the legal definitions of sexual abuse are wrong. Brittany Zamora will rot in prison for 20 years while no one (except me) gives a flying fuck that she is in there for nocebo, a vicarious nocebo at that constructed by antisex bigots who then had to brainwash (and pay) the "victim" to (pretend to) feel like one.
I am that one responsible person speaking up on this issue. Kind of like Greta Thunberg on global warming, except it would be an economic disaster to deploy her remedies while mine can be implemented with no social harm at all. Well, except all the prison guards and other members of the nocebo industry out of work, but I am even willing to let them keep their jobs if they quit hurting real people. How about we make some wax dolls for them to put on trial and guard? That way we can have placebo punishments too instead of the real punishments for fake crimes, and there would be some semblance of justice again!
The worst part is, there is zero interest in sorting out the nocebos from actually harmful sexual offenses. There are no studies daring to pose such falsifiable questions and no feedback that the legal definitions of sexual abuse are wrong. Brittany Zamora will rot in prison for 20 years while no one (except me) gives a flying fuck that she is in there for nocebo, a vicarious nocebo at that constructed by antisex bigots who then had to brainwash (and pay) the "victim" to (pretend to) feel like one.
I am that one responsible person speaking up on this issue. Kind of like Greta Thunberg on global warming, except it would be an economic disaster to deploy her remedies while mine can be implemented with no social harm at all. Well, except all the prison guards and other members of the nocebo industry out of work, but I am even willing to let them keep their jobs if they quit hurting real people. How about we make some wax dolls for them to put on trial and guard? That way we can have placebo punishments too instead of the real punishments for fake crimes, and there would be some semblance of justice again!
Saturday, September 14, 2019
How to categorize criminals without retributive justice
As I was getting at in my hard determinist therapy post, there are strong enough philosophical arguments against free will to do away with retributive justice. If we ever do so, however, that would leave some serious gaps in the categorization of criminals in my view. I therefore propose the following new categories to fill in the gaps and retain the right to take responsibility if one wants to be an enemy of the state or society. To compensate for the loss of presumed free will we need a couple new categories out of respect for the criminals, or potential criminals which means all of us so we can be better citizens and feel we are taken seriously! Instead of the two or three categories we have today (common criminals, the criminally insane and in some countries those condemned to preventive detention), we need four categories in a future without retributive justice.
1. Common criminals. The garden variety criminals of today minus the retributive aspects, sentenced with an aim towards rehabilitation and deterrence only. Burglars, muggers, egodystonic sex offenders, affective and negligent murderers, white-collar criminals etc.
2. Enemies of the state. Quislings, whistleblowers, spies, activists -- obviously terrorists, but also conscientious objectors, civil disobedients, most egosyntonic sex offenders -- basically everyone who is at least somewhat normal or claims to be and would get insulted or risk having their identity destroyed by attempts at rehabilitation. I am naturally-born into this category.
3. Enemies of society. Those resistant or averse to rehabilitation but not for political reasons. Psychopaths, misanthropes, senseless mass murderers, serial killers, sadistic egosyntonic sex offenders, the criminally insane and dangerous who refuse treatment.
4. The criminally insane. Same as those considered insane today plus perhaps some more based on a deeper understanding of pathologically determined behavior. Subject to court approval, but must be voluntary! The certified insane are to be offered treatment instead of punishment, always with an option to decline since psychiatric coercion is wrong for convicts and non-convicts alike. If an apparently insane person considers himself sane, the most the justice system can do is to consider him an enemy of society if very dangerous, or else he will be treated like common criminal or enemy of the state if he so desires.
If, for example ten years is enough to rehabilitate a murderer and reasonably deter such crime, then ten years is all he should get without retributive justice. No more harsh punishments that serve no other purpose than revenge. The current trend is in the other direction (except perhaps in the US where retributivism is already maxed out), but there are good reasons to turn this around, which is in fact what I advocate provided that we make the compromises indicated herein.
My motivation for writing this is that I as a male sexualist activist -- a conscientious objector to the war against normal sexuality -- don’t want to lose the right to be taken seriously in the event that we ditch retributive justice. I am not planning to be any category of criminal, unless conscripted to go against my male sexualist values, but it is important to state this just in case, as you never know what you can be accused of and this also applies to false accusations.
Not that retributive justice is in danger of going out of style any time soon either, but just in case it does we must pave the way for some exceptions in order to preserve the sanctity of human free will, which is central to human dignity whether it actually exists or not. It should be an inalienable human right to be treated as though you have free will if you insist!
Under my system, most criminals can choose to be convicted into the common-criminals category, which is also the default when they don't indicate other wishes. There may be some exceptions forced into the enemy-of-society category as a pragmatic admission that rehabilitation is impossible for them, and that is the only other category anyone can be forced into, but even then they have the option to be an enemy of the state instead.
ANYONE convicted of a crime can be an enemy of the state if they want, which means you CHOOSE not to be rehabilitated for political or moral reasons. These can always choose category 3 and usually category 1 if they like instead -- but unless you wanted to be an enemy of the state, better not bother going through with something like terrorism in the first place.
It is reasonable that enemies of the state and society get longer sentences, but remember, we don’t have retributive justice so it must not get out of hand either. Current punishments should be an upper limit.
How do we categorize those who keep claiming innocence after conviction? They can be common criminals too or another category if they choose and qualify. It will also then as now be that case that some convicts are in fact innocent, and it is inhumane to force them to pretend that they are guilty or apolitical or give them significantly longer imprisonment.
Since "enemy of the state" is a label selected by the convict (an unconditional right to guard against political abuse by the state against the individual), it does not guarantee that one is a better person than a common criminal or even an enemy of society. There may therefore be no difference in how enemies of the state and society are handled except that dictated by the dangerousness of the crime. There is obviously a great deal of practical difference between a terrorist and a conscientious objector, but they are morally in the same category since they offend for political reasons, and conversely it should be possible to declare yourself an incorrigible parking violator if you want to, but that doesn't mean you need to be locked up as long the truly dangerous enemies of the society.
When I was accused of criminal incitement in 2012 I was de facto put in category 2: enemy of the state, so that is good. An attempt launched by my traitorous family to put me in category 4 luckily failed. Like I said, my system will become more relevant if and when we give up on the idea of retributive justice, since my categories are sort of how it works anyway at the present time plus more retribution for everybody minus the unconditional right to criminal sanity which is sadly lacking today.
We might say that a more aggressive version of category 3: enemy of society exists today, in Norway for example with preventive detention and sometimes with civil commitment elsewhere. Preventive detention and this odious new use of civil commitment basically means "enemy of society," so the concept already exists, but it is far too draconian. I am fine with forcing some seriously dangerous criminals into the new category 3 if they don't want to be political and don't want rehabilitation or treatment, but they will get longer sentences or perhaps even the death penalty instead of indefinitely extensible detention, which is fundamentally unjust because it's easily out of proportion to the crime.
We might even say that sex offender registries, where these exist today, are a sort of enemy-of-society category. Under my system -- well, firstly such registries shouldn't exist, but if they must -- we would break them down into my categories so that the political offenders are duly recognized.
People who break the law in an extremely deliberate, habitual and/or politically motivated manner are not the same as common criminals, and we need to recognize this. While I have little sympathy for enemies of society, it is a badge of honor to be an enemy of the state for ethical reasons, and we need to make sure this right is never taken away.
As an additional consideration, I acknowledge that there are two different types of political crimes: those done to protest and those done for intrinsic reasons that one politically thinks should be legal. Examples: violent activism vs. sex offenses. My system allows for them both to be in the same honorable category where they belong.
1. Common criminals. The garden variety criminals of today minus the retributive aspects, sentenced with an aim towards rehabilitation and deterrence only. Burglars, muggers, egodystonic sex offenders, affective and negligent murderers, white-collar criminals etc.
2. Enemies of the state. Quislings, whistleblowers, spies, activists -- obviously terrorists, but also conscientious objectors, civil disobedients, most egosyntonic sex offenders -- basically everyone who is at least somewhat normal or claims to be and would get insulted or risk having their identity destroyed by attempts at rehabilitation. I am naturally-born into this category.
3. Enemies of society. Those resistant or averse to rehabilitation but not for political reasons. Psychopaths, misanthropes, senseless mass murderers, serial killers, sadistic egosyntonic sex offenders, the criminally insane and dangerous who refuse treatment.
4. The criminally insane. Same as those considered insane today plus perhaps some more based on a deeper understanding of pathologically determined behavior. Subject to court approval, but must be voluntary! The certified insane are to be offered treatment instead of punishment, always with an option to decline since psychiatric coercion is wrong for convicts and non-convicts alike. If an apparently insane person considers himself sane, the most the justice system can do is to consider him an enemy of society if very dangerous, or else he will be treated like common criminal or enemy of the state if he so desires.
If, for example ten years is enough to rehabilitate a murderer and reasonably deter such crime, then ten years is all he should get without retributive justice. No more harsh punishments that serve no other purpose than revenge. The current trend is in the other direction (except perhaps in the US where retributivism is already maxed out), but there are good reasons to turn this around, which is in fact what I advocate provided that we make the compromises indicated herein.
My motivation for writing this is that I as a male sexualist activist -- a conscientious objector to the war against normal sexuality -- don’t want to lose the right to be taken seriously in the event that we ditch retributive justice. I am not planning to be any category of criminal, unless conscripted to go against my male sexualist values, but it is important to state this just in case, as you never know what you can be accused of and this also applies to false accusations.
Not that retributive justice is in danger of going out of style any time soon either, but just in case it does we must pave the way for some exceptions in order to preserve the sanctity of human free will, which is central to human dignity whether it actually exists or not. It should be an inalienable human right to be treated as though you have free will if you insist!
Under my system, most criminals can choose to be convicted into the common-criminals category, which is also the default when they don't indicate other wishes. There may be some exceptions forced into the enemy-of-society category as a pragmatic admission that rehabilitation is impossible for them, and that is the only other category anyone can be forced into, but even then they have the option to be an enemy of the state instead.
ANYONE convicted of a crime can be an enemy of the state if they want, which means you CHOOSE not to be rehabilitated for political or moral reasons. These can always choose category 3 and usually category 1 if they like instead -- but unless you wanted to be an enemy of the state, better not bother going through with something like terrorism in the first place.
It is reasonable that enemies of the state and society get longer sentences, but remember, we don’t have retributive justice so it must not get out of hand either. Current punishments should be an upper limit.
How do we categorize those who keep claiming innocence after conviction? They can be common criminals too or another category if they choose and qualify. It will also then as now be that case that some convicts are in fact innocent, and it is inhumane to force them to pretend that they are guilty or apolitical or give them significantly longer imprisonment.
Since "enemy of the state" is a label selected by the convict (an unconditional right to guard against political abuse by the state against the individual), it does not guarantee that one is a better person than a common criminal or even an enemy of society. There may therefore be no difference in how enemies of the state and society are handled except that dictated by the dangerousness of the crime. There is obviously a great deal of practical difference between a terrorist and a conscientious objector, but they are morally in the same category since they offend for political reasons, and conversely it should be possible to declare yourself an incorrigible parking violator if you want to, but that doesn't mean you need to be locked up as long the truly dangerous enemies of the society.
When I was accused of criminal incitement in 2012 I was de facto put in category 2: enemy of the state, so that is good. An attempt launched by my traitorous family to put me in category 4 luckily failed. Like I said, my system will become more relevant if and when we give up on the idea of retributive justice, since my categories are sort of how it works anyway at the present time plus more retribution for everybody minus the unconditional right to criminal sanity which is sadly lacking today.
We might say that a more aggressive version of category 3: enemy of society exists today, in Norway for example with preventive detention and sometimes with civil commitment elsewhere. Preventive detention and this odious new use of civil commitment basically means "enemy of society," so the concept already exists, but it is far too draconian. I am fine with forcing some seriously dangerous criminals into the new category 3 if they don't want to be political and don't want rehabilitation or treatment, but they will get longer sentences or perhaps even the death penalty instead of indefinitely extensible detention, which is fundamentally unjust because it's easily out of proportion to the crime.
We might even say that sex offender registries, where these exist today, are a sort of enemy-of-society category. Under my system -- well, firstly such registries shouldn't exist, but if they must -- we would break them down into my categories so that the political offenders are duly recognized.
People who break the law in an extremely deliberate, habitual and/or politically motivated manner are not the same as common criminals, and we need to recognize this. While I have little sympathy for enemies of society, it is a badge of honor to be an enemy of the state for ethical reasons, and we need to make sure this right is never taken away.
As an additional consideration, I acknowledge that there are two different types of political crimes: those done to protest and those done for intrinsic reasons that one politically thinks should be legal. Examples: violent activism vs. sex offenses. My system allows for them both to be in the same honorable category where they belong.
Thursday, September 12, 2019
We are conscientious objectors
Male sexualists are not violent insurgents. Not because society doesn't deserve it, but because then we would be pathetically easy to take out. We don't even incite violence, which is why the government were thoroughly humiliated when they tried to prosecute me. Instead, we are conscientious objectors to the war on sex. We simply do not participate in the persecution of normal male sexuality, nor do we participate in the female sex offender charade, and we promote such conscientious objection for all.
If you are judge or juror in a sex case based on the laws we oppose, you must refuse to convict regardless of the facts. If you are a prison guard tasked with incarcerating such an offender, you must quit your job. If you are a police officer you must likewise resign if ordered to enforce unjust sex laws. And so on throughout the abuse industry, down to therapists and teachers and health care workers and everyone else ordered to promote sex-hostility in every way.
This is how to be a male sexualist. Let it be known that we are conscientious objectors. Conscientious objection is the mindset we must assume, and an easy way to explain why we always go for jury nullification and otherwise refuse to contribute to the sex war.
We take the moral high ground and do what is honorable, what our conscience tells us. We are the conscientious objectors to the war on normal sexuality. We are the male sexualists.
If you are judge or juror in a sex case based on the laws we oppose, you must refuse to convict regardless of the facts. If you are a prison guard tasked with incarcerating such an offender, you must quit your job. If you are a police officer you must likewise resign if ordered to enforce unjust sex laws. And so on throughout the abuse industry, down to therapists and teachers and health care workers and everyone else ordered to promote sex-hostility in every way.
This is how to be a male sexualist. Let it be known that we are conscientious objectors. Conscientious objection is the mindset we must assume, and an easy way to explain why we always go for jury nullification and otherwise refuse to contribute to the sex war.
We take the moral high ground and do what is honorable, what our conscience tells us. We are the conscientious objectors to the war on normal sexuality. We are the male sexualists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
