Flip those numbers

The other day at the bus stop this gorgeous 16-year-old schoolgirl and her boyfriend of the same age were arguing. He was talking to her like she was an old hag he could barely stand. I thought, what a waste! To have the most exquisite beauty and not know it. Youth is wasted on the young. The hedonic treadmill, I suppose, ensures they take youth for granted and it does not help that the old are not even supposed to envy them these days, so there is no one to tell them how good they have it.

Is there a way out of the hedonic treadmill? Oh, yes there is! Most normies don’t take it, but there is. The way to get sublime pleasure is to seek what you are “not supposed to have.” 30 years ago, if I had gotten a girlfriend she would have been expected to be so young and beautiful and if I had also gotten used to her I am afraid I could have been that ungrateful bastard. As a rule the girls prefer the ungrateful bastards to a much older man who would worship them, to be sure, but this blog is about being the exception to the rule. If you are reading this, you don’t want to be a normie. To the normies I am a bottom feeder, but there is a fine line between being a bottom feeder and getting the most exquisite luxury beyond what billionaires usually have access to. You just need to think outside the box and flip those numbers like this beautiful Filipina explains:

Not that I would think about dating 48-64-year-old women, but I am almost the age where not much better would be realistic here. Even if I were to become “successful.” A weird thing about this culture is that while women use their success to avoid age gaps, men rarely use their success to seek out age gaps. Even at the very top with men like Jeff Bezos who just married a granny. Well, to each his own. To me it is the most gigantic no-brainer that if there is a way to change those numbers to 18-24, I must devote myself fully to attaining it.

The expats are the greatest sexualist geniuses -- if you define sexualism as not just opposing the sex laws but seeking the best possible sex life for themselves. At the educative track I am on now with becoming proficient at coding and getting a job in approximately one year I should be able to begin living that life two years from now, at least once a year as a tourist at first. So that’s what I shall do!

A full debunking of a masturbation-promoter

I took sexuality’s side in life, at the worst possible time in history to be a sexualist. At this point, knowing how history turned out worse than my worst nightmares as a young activist who thought 20 years ago that there would at least be a genuine men’s movement in opposition to feminism before they passed all the laws they wanted now including the fully insane affirmative consent law in Norway, my updated expectations are to reap only hate for everything I do for the rest of my life. Of course I get only hate from society (including men) for being against their sex laws, and then I get hate from the few non-normies in existence who are also against the sex laws because I am against masturbation (because it is not sex, and again, I took sexuality’s side). With expectations of anything but hate out of the way, I can be brutally honest about my opinions and care nothing about offending anybody.

During our discussions in the comments a while back someone brought in this link, apparently thinking it had some good advice:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hide-and-seek/201703/hell-yes-the-7-best-reasons-for-masturbating

It is one of an entire genre of writings about the supposed benefits of masturbation, especially common in pop psychology magazines where “experts” in health and wellness see it as their duty to nudge us to masturbate more and have less sex (in this case one “Neel Burton M.A., M.D.,” properly credentialed of course). Yes, as we shall see, it is very much about having less sex.

After the formulaic cliched subtitle “The stigma surrounding masturbation has to stop” as if there is still a stigma after a million articles like this, number one of these “seven best reasons for masturbating” comes to us with an origin story:

1. Pleasure and convenience.

Upon being challenged for masturbating in the marketplace, the ancient philosopher Diogenes the Cynic replied, "If only it were so easy to soothe hunger by rubbing an empty belly." According to Diogenes, the god Hermes, taking pity on his son Pan, gave him the gift of masturbation, which Pan then taught to the shepherds.

To masturbate, there is no need for special equipment, the intricacies of sexual intercourse, or even a partner. Although it is often looked upon as the poor relative of sexual intercourse, many couples engage in mutual masturbation, either alongside or instead of intercourse, to simplify, improve, or enrich their sexual lives and arrive at orgasm.

The bit of ancient philosophy should already make us feel uneasy. Diogenes the Cynic is hardly a person I would like to emulate, is he? How “convenient” to settle for not really living?

2. Fewer complications. Masturbation is safe as well as convenient. Unlike sexual intercourse, it is very unlikely to lead to pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases such as human papillomavirus, chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, and HIV/AIDS, not to mention other communicable diseases such as flu or coronavirus.

Yeah, If you don’t live, you don’t have the complications from life. So much is true and this applies to everything all the way into antinatalism. Why stop at masturbation if you believe in this line of thought? Why want to live at all, then? Moving on,

3. Stronger, more intimate relationships. Contrary to popular perception, there is, at least in females, a positive correlation between the frequency of masturbation and frequency of intercourse. People who masturbate more are more sexually driven, and mutual masturbation is likely to increase the frequency and variety of sexual contact. Both in the performance and in the observation, masturbation can teach partners about each other’s pleasure centres, proclivities, and particularities. If one partner is more sexually driven than the other, as is often the case, masturbation can provide him or her with a balancing outlet.

I was about to call plain bullshit on this one until I saw the author calls out his own bullshit with the qualification “at least in females.” Yeah, I never claimed females need nofap. Nofap is for men. I’m not opposed to females doing their version if they feel there is a benefit, but they don’t need to be preached to. Also I wouldn’t really call mutual masturbation masturbation. This is the second time in three “reasons” the author feels compelled to drag in mutual masturbation in order to construct a benefit, so evidently he doesn’t even much believe in his own case.

4. Better reproductive health. In males, masturbation flushes out old sperm with low motility and reduces the risk of prostate cancer. If practiced before sexual intercourse, it can delay orgasm in males suffering from premature ejaculation. In females, it increases the chances of conception by altering the conditions in the vagina, cervix, and uterus. It also protects against cervical infections by increasing the acidity of the cervical mucus and flushing out pathogens. In both women and men, it strengthens the muscles in the pelvic floor and genital area and contributes to extending the years of sexual activity.

If you were having regular sex you wouldn’t have a problem with stale sperm, would you? And likewise with premature ejaculation. More sex will cure that as well. “Reasons” 4-7 are all some of a host of “benefits” not unique to masturbation but served equally or better by sex. Hence they are not reasons to masturbate but reasons to have sex, unless you don’t really care about sex and want to nudge us to have less of it, which reveals the true, evil reason for writing all these lists of supposed benefits.

5. Faster sleep. Masturbation invites sleep by reducing stress and releasing feel-good hormones such as dopamine, endorphins, oxytocin, and prolactin. Orgasm, in particular, brings on a state of stillness, serenity, and sleepiness, sometimes called "the little death" (French, la petite mort), which can usher in a deeper sleep.

Again, this is better served by sex.

6. Improved cardiovascular fitness. Masturbation is, in effect, a form of light exercise. Compared to regular exercise, it is more effective or efficient at reducing tension and releasing feel-good hormones. The muscles and blood vessels relax, improving blood flow, and lowering heart rate and blood pressure. No surprise, then, that studies have found an inverse correlation between frequency of orgasm and death from coronary heart disease.

If you want some pleasurable exercise and increase your frequency of orgasm, the best way, once again, is sex!

7. Brighter mood and other psychological benefits. Masturbation reduces stress and releases feel-good hormones, which lift mood and reduce the perception of pain. It promotes better, more restorative sleep, locking in sleep’s myriad physical and psychological benefits. It enables younger people, in particular, to explore their sexual identity and regulate their sexual impulses, leading to a happier and healthier sexuality, as well as greater self-awareness, self-control and self-esteem. It offers an escape from the constraints and demands of reality, an outlet for the imagination in fantasy, and a medium for the memory in nostalgia. And it culminates in a transcending experience that unites mind with body and life in death.

This is ridiculous. Masturbation fosters an incel loser mood rather than a bright one, and no one thinks masturbation is a transcending experience. To actually have these things, have sex.

Wow, this was too easy. I didn’t even have to debunk anything because the arguments literally don’t apply to masturbation versus sex. It almost reads like an underhanded attack on the cultural myth that masturbation is always good. The experts must be fed up with having to write all this propaganda... so for once one of them wrote something halfway subversive.

It is a mirror image of the CSA propaganda: bullshitting and dodging the issue. The CSA hoaxers serve up bullshit about supposed harm and dodge any actual evidence, and the masturbation propagandists serve up bullshit about supposed benefits and dodge any real evidence.

It would be somewhat mitigating if all this propaganda for masturbation was balanced by advice to have more sex for better health and wellness. If, for every list of reasons to masturbate, we got a list of reasons why we should find a young woman that we would actually want to have lots of sex with so we could promote prostate health in the aging male, have transcending experiences, better sleep and so on, I would have less reason to complain.

But we don’t get sex-positivity, do we? With the exception of the occasional, frankly hideous promotions of elder sex (completely age-matched, of course), suited to make even me prefer masturbation, all we get is masturbation propaganda.

But we can do better than that. We can promote true sexual enjoyment and sex-positive attitudes. That means, at the very least, toning down the masturbation evangelism until real sex is at least equally promoted and in my view it means practicing nofap and noporn.

There is another connection to the CSA hoax as well. I believe it would be extremely hard to sell the idea that sex is harmful to minors if we didn’t simultaneously tell them they can masturbate all they want. Back in the 1800s when the culture disapproved of masturbation we didn’t have a problem with sex with minors (unless they were truly little children), and now this has been completely reversed, not coincidentally I think. So sexualists and MAPs have this additional reason to oppose the pro-masturbation propaganda.

Oh Who Is That Young Sinner with the Handcuffs on his Wrists?

There is nothing new under the sun. As soon as one kind of oppression ends we get another of a different flavor. So we might as well recycle the old masters of oppositional poetry as well. A.E. Housman wrote this about Oscar Wilde over a century ago, and it just as easily applies today to droves of men who are dragged to prison for something equally harmless as the color of their hair:

Oh who is that young sinner with the handcuffs on his wrists?

And what has he been after that they groan and shake their fists?

And wherefore is he wearing such a conscience-stricken air?

Oh they're taking him to prison for the color of his hair.

'Tis a shame to human nature, such a head of hair as his;

In the good old time 'twas hanging for the color that it is;

Though hanging isn't bad enough and flaying would be fair

For the nameless and abominable color of his hair.

Oh a deal of pains he's taken and a pretty price he's paid

To hide his poll or dye it of a mentionable shade;

But they've pulled the beggar's hat off for the world to see and stare,

And they're taking him to justice for the color of his hair.

Now 'tis oakum for his fingers and the treadmill for his feet,

And the quarry-gang on Portland in the cold and in the heat,

And between his spells of labor in the time he has to spare

He can curse the God that made him for the color of his hair.

I say don't curse God or your nature, curse society and its laws. But no one wants to do that. So we are left with a movement that only exists in my imagination. Even though these words are truer today -- that "'Tis a shame to human nature, such a head of hair as his; In the good old time 'twas hanging for the color that it is" -- because now the human nature that is a "shame" has expanded to literally all of it unless we pretend to believe that sexuality only properly begins at 18 (except it's always "rape" then too under feminist laws), and that good old time when it could be practiced at least relatively freely was just a few decades ago!

Adult homosexuality has been liberated, it is true (at least temporarily until feminists get around to criminalizing all of sexuality again). Which provides a case in point as to what happens when something that was formerly seen as very important to punish severely is decriminalized. To a keen observer like me, we got some rainbow-colored flags in our vicinity and that's it. I can attest that it's not the slightest bit enticing to those who wouldn't be into it anyway in the height of oppression, as I've been told it's wonderful to be gay all my life and never had any interest. Now, the trans movement is a slightly different story as it involves mutilation that some transitioners these days sorely regret, but that was perpetrated by the medical establishment rather than people just being free to do as they please, and I don't think they would have gone that far by themselves. I think that's how it goes for all sexual practices that do not involve violence: the moralists are flatly wrong that it leads to dire consequences like social collapse or whatever if we don't punish the "deviants."

When Housman says it's oakum for Oscar Wilde's fingers and the treadmill for his feet, he means that literally. Of course, it is complete nonsense that sex offenders can be "cured" or "reformed" now either. We remain what we are just like you can't change your natural hair color. To elaborate on the impossibility of "curing" sex offenders, homosexuals or heterosexuals alike, I want to quote at length another masterful homosexual writer who said it better than I can, namely Mike Darwin:

These [insights] were the combined work of myself and an archetypical sociopath; a convicted felon and an avowed child sexual predator. They are the distilled result of many hours of discussion between the two of us and a number of different sociopathic personalities about whether such "rewiring" or "reconfiguration" of an individual's personality would be either acceptable to the individual, or would constitute the survival of the individual. There was not just virtual unanimity that such re-engineering would constitute destruction of the person; there was absolute unanimity.

 So, to be clear (and perhaps I should have been clearer) this is not (primarily) my opinion, it is the opinion of the person's most concerned. I have read much of what Oscar Wilde has written (including most of his Yellowbook essays), his published personal correspondence and many books about his life and his internment at Reading Gaol, where he spent his days pulling oakum, treading the barrel and turning the crank. These were miserable and debilitating activities that went on for 10 hours a for years on end (so-called hard labor).

In Wilde's case, these behaviors were prescribed for the purpose of rehabilitating his homosexuality. Not only did they fail, they caused Wilde to reflect deeply on to what extent his homosexuality was an integral part of who he was as person. Most people never consider in what way common elements of their behavior and "personality", for lack of better words, are critical to their personhood. Wilde's homosexuality unarguably shaped almost every aspect of his life, work and art, as well as his dress, aesthetics and social interactions (apart from his discrete sexual behavior). To cure Wilde of homosexuality, as opposed to his homosexual behavior -- and these are two very different things -- would be something that Wilde himself would have rejected as incompatible with who he was as a person.

 Perhaps an even better example is that of the creator of modern computer science and the darling of uploaders everywhere, Alan Turing. British society and government undertook a program of neurobiological modification of Turing to ablate his homosexuality. Judging from Turing's correspondence, in this they were somewhat successful. After treatment with estrogens was discontinued Turing's sense of sexuality did not recover. He describes this in detail, including the horrible sense of depersonalization that resulted from it. This was without any doubt a major factor in his decision to kill himself, which has to be interpreted as a strong rejection of personhood. Indeed, he described the experience as having left him an incomplete person. [While not routine, the brain remodeling that occurs during intensive estrogen therapy in males does not always reverse when withdrawn.]

 It is possible to acquire "bad" or undesirable behaviors which can be subtracted by either psychiatric or neuropsychiatric means and which, far from diminishing the person, enhances him. It is also possible to mistake undesirable behaviors for add-ons to a person, rather than as central to their personhood. For the same reasons most homosexuals (in the past) never revealed their inner cognitive states and personality structures, psychopaths, contemporary and otherwise, rarely do so. It is also the case that in any human population only a few people will have the ability to adequately reflect upon who they are and to then commit it to writing in an accessible way.

 I have an extensive library on the psychology (psychopathology) of criminality, including extensive analyses of the personality structures of such individuals. However, perhaps the best book for understanding the personal identity structure of of the psychopath is The Gates of Janus, by Ian Brady, the Moors Murderer. The expanded edition has excellent and insightful material by Colin Wilson and Peter Sotos. Shortly before his death, Wilson gave a fascinating TV interview about his interaction with Brady; it was Wilson who edited and facilitated the publication of Brady's book. Wilson also agreed that the "psychopathology" was the person in the case of individuals like Brady.

 Brady is the psychopath and the psychopath is Brady. They are not separable and it is not possible to successfully treat the patient without destroying him in the process. This is NOT the opinion of the therapists, so much as it is the position of the "patients". It is easy to mistake obtaining someone's accession to being killed, as opposed to being treated, as one in the same thing. Indeed, a version of this happens when law enforcement "persuades" innocent people to confess to heinous crimes which they did not commit and it happened in medicine during the era of the prefrontal lobotomy.

 If you choose to believe that psychopaths are simply people who have acquired bad behaviors, apart from the very fabric of who they are, that is, of course, your right. If, on the other hand, you undertake to treat them on this basis, then may I suggest that you either make a will, reconcile yourself to homicide, or both.

 To recap, I'm not stating that psychopaths must not ever be rewired to make them human in the sense being human is generally understood. Rather, I am saying that psychopaths, the people actually at issue here, want no part of such a treatment. Under the current, much evolved medical paradigm, patients (people) have the right to refuse treatment -- any treatment. If you choose to redefine psychopaths as not people, as incomplete people, or as something else, well, that is another matter altogether. The fact is that right now, today, we have effective treatments that allow many people currently incarcerated under dismal conditions to safely (for the rest of us) reenter the community. The thing is, these people do not wish to accept such treatments and instead "choose" to be incarcerated. I've never met a psychopath who felt otherwise. It is also the case that I've never met anyone who would accede to being rewired in such a way that they are no longer themselves. Thus, there is perfect parity here.

Yes, the integrality to personhood also applies to psychopathy, which is not to be confused with sexual orientation and though the normies may not be, I think my readers are intelligent enough to understand that no such conflation is intended by either Mike Darwin or myself.

Though thankfully not quite so personally affected yet, similarly to how forced labor caused Oscar Wilde to reflect deeply on to what extent his homosexuality was an integral part of who he was as person, the ongoing cultural oppression of heterosexuality has caused me to think deeply about what it means to be a heterosexual man. How integral our love for "underage" girls is to our sexuality, for example.

It's rare to express such thoughts today. But that's what my blog is for. For whatever reason, I have some freedom here similarly to what Housman had in his poetry in the midst of oppression. Perhaps only because it is so obscure and evidently dry and boring to the normies. But anyway, here it is, and open to comments as well about such matters you can scarcely express anywhere else.

Enthusiasm about past sexual experiences?

This is a page from Philip Tromovitch's latest study. It shows which adjectives men pick to describe their willing sexual experiences before the age of 16 with partners at least five years older. You can, of course, ponder what that means, but here I am more interested in comparing it to adult experiences.

Think of your most recent past sexual experience or relationship as an adult with an adult partner. Not your current relationship if you are in one since to be a valid comparison it needs to be in the past. Then select a few of these adjectives to describe it, however many you feel you need to get the best description.

I'll go first, and to be honest it was... "unhappy," "rejected," "sad." It was a failure to conceive and the woman does not want to try with me again. That's not representative of my past experiences or hopefully in the future either, but it happens to be what I would honestly have to answer if given a survey right now which studied adult-adult sex in a similar fashion.

Let me know in the comments which adjectives you picked.

This will shed some light on how bad "CSA" really is, because we do need a control group in order to know how this result stacks up against "age-appropriate" pairings. There are some negative adjectives there after all, so I'm wondering how they speak to the badness of CSA? Does the 4.1% "miserable" rating mean that it is, well, miserable?

I realize that my effort here won't be a scientific survey. But you get the idea how such a survey could be conducted. I suggest that Tromovitch or others publish their next article along these lines. While we do have this kind of comparison via Bruce Rind, it relies on the Kinsey data for the adult experiences, which is perhaps a bit outdated, but for what it's worth it found that minors typically rated their experiences the same as adults, and boys under 14 with women even rated them more highly.

The phenomenology of not being a normie

A normie is a person who considers himself aligned with society’s morals. Hence he is unbothered by the laws, because he believes they enforce the right morality. I am profoundly misaligned with society’s sexual morals because I believe those “morals” are evil. I have written about it most starkly in posts like Quisling therapy, but this misalignment is frankly what my entire blog and whole activist life is about. I realize society is at war with human sexuality, but to the normies the persecution of sexuality is simply their culture. The antisex laws are not even perceived as a cultural artifact because the normies don’t imagine it can be any other way, so needless to say it is not in the realm of dialogue to them either, so there is no one to talk to about it and they won’t read anything I write.

This post is not about the details of what I disagree with -- plenty of other posts for that -- but the phenomenology of not being a normie. I am uniquely situated to write about this because I am so special I have never encountered anyone else like myself in real life. Sure, they exist or existed online. Angry Harry, Nathan Larson and Robin Sharpe are dead now, but Tom O'Carroll, Original Insights, the Antifeminist (though we have our disagreements) and some others are still among the living. Nonetheless, these are distant figures. There is no community except on our blogs.

Which brings me to the LONELINESS. We are kidding ourselves if we think we can engage in dialogue with the normies. Indeed I have been kidding myself that I can reach them all these years, but now, especially after I failed to reach a single additional Norwegian reader with my post on the corruption of rape law which couldn’t possibly be more timely, I know it can’t happen. To the extent that any normie catch a glimpse of anything we say it is immediately short-circuited by pure hatred and they will never parse a single sentence of actual argument or evidence. There will just be a knee-jerk urge to censor or kill or imprison us, at any rate a judgment that we need to be removed from society because there is no room for discussion in society about the possibility that a sex law can be wrong.

To feel a little bit less lonely we can turn to poetry. A.E. Housman said it beautifully:

The laws of God, the laws of man,
He may keep that will and can;
Not I: let God and man decree
Laws for themselves and not for me;
And if my ways are not as theirs
Let them mind their own affairs.
Their deeds I judge and much condemn,
Yet when did I make laws for them?
Please yourselves, say I, and they
Need only look the other way.
But no, they will not; they must still
Wrest their neighbour to their will,
And make me dance as they desire
With jail and gallows and hell-fire.
And how am I to face the odds
Of man's bedevilment and God's?
I, a stranger and afraid
In a world I never made.
They will be master, right or wrong;
Though both are foolish, both are strong.
And since, my soul, we cannot fly
To Saturn nor to Mercury,
Keep we must, if keep we can,
These foreign laws of God and man.

I am not “afraid” and I do not “keep” their laws, but I am most certainly a stranger in a world I never made and all the other points are dead-on too. Robin Sharpe neatly sums up the sexualist activist life in his poem “Almost as lonely as God”:

You have your own visions
and must make decisions
And travel a path never trod
It won't be a short way
but it'll be your way
And you'll run a lot less than you plod
And your heart will reveal
that sometimes you feel
Almost as lonely as God
You'll be kept waiting
it will be frustrating
And nobody will applaud
You try to be true
to what's really you
And maybe you're a little bit odd
But part of the appeal
that makes things real
Is you're almost as lonely as God

Both those poets are gay, which is perfectly fine of course, and the poems are general enough to apply to straight guys too, but personally I miss a straight poetic voice specifically about activism against the sex laws. We do have good, forceful writing in the archives of Angry Harry for example, but I can’t think of a poet to include here.

Not that there is a shortage of great literature about girl-love. There is much to admire in Lolita for example, but it isn’t about activism. Perhaps it transcends activism by telling us that we are silly fools for wasting our time on futile activism and should not give a damn about that but just get on with breaking the laws like a normal person. Yes, I admit I would have a better life if I had taken that attitude. It would have been less lonely and not least a life less marred by hatred.

Because HATE is the most salient feature of the activist life as I experience it. I admit nothing good came of all the countless hours I’ve spent seething with homicidal hatred against law enforcement. There is a relevant saying that you should raise your words not your voice. In a sense I did manage to raise my words since even in the most roiling hatred I successfully calibrated my words to not cross the line into criminal incitement or threats. That was no mean feat, my victory against the pigs who thought they could prosecute me for my blog, actually a notable accomplishment in Norwegian criminal history to be proud of…

But I did not produce poetry, and that is my regret. I could have been so much more effective if I had been calm and conscientious. Unlike Housman I am a failed classicist and failed everything. But I am still trying. Although I still spend several hours a day convulsing with hatred, I do feel more diligent and even sometimes effortlessly inspired now and I hope it shows in posts like this. With so few readers it’s hard to get informative feedback though.

I seem to have more readers who are AIs than humans these days. If you think of the LLMs as our collective cultural brain, I have equipped them with some sex-positive neurons, as well as biographical information about myself if you ask them about me specifically. Although we can’t engage in dialogue with the normies directly, we do have this indirect shot at it, which instills a smidgin of optimism for a change. Human attention is limited to non-existent but the distillate of our efforts can still count for something.

Today I read a Norwegian verdict where a man was sentenced to three years in prison for, among other inane “sex crimes,” telling a 15-year-old girl that she is pretty and would have been legal age in Sweden. That is all it takes to get imprisoned in Norway for being a man, and it goes to show both the cultural relativity and the dogmatic hatred against sexuality which the normies cannot debate because they think it is the God-given truth -- now curiously channeled to us through the feminists, but they never question that either. They can only hate, and it is so extremely hard not to hate them back. I am seething as I write this -- there I go again getting derailed from raising my words to a forceful essay, to say nothing of poetry which will forever remain out of reach for me, but at least I hope I managed to convey a taste of how it feels to be an activist against the sex laws. Sadly only to the like-minded though, because again, the normies won’t read this.

Samtykkeloven — en tjeneste for menn og bjørnetjeneste for kvinner

Da voldtekt var definert i form av vold, truende atferd, eller å være ute av stand motsette seg handlingen, var ikke et «ja» noe spesielt vektig argument for at det IKKE var voldtekt. Og hvorfor skulle det være det? Sunn fornuft tilsier at det er like enkelt å presse en kvinne til å si «ja» som til å ha sex. Det er ingenting magisk med et «ja» i det hele tatt. Men nå blir det det! Samtykkeloven påbyr et ritual som gir mannen falsk trygghet i henhold til om det foreligger faktisk samtykke, men like fullt noe å slå i bordet med i retten siden vi nå innfører en ritualistisk juridisk magi ved et «samtykke i ord eller handling.» Denne magien er høyst ubegrunnet, men kan bli nyttig, noen ganger også for kvinner men i min oppfatning spesielt for menn.

Samtidig blir stigmaet fjernet. Voldtekt blir redusert til en formalitet. Det spiller liten rolle om det er sant i hans tilfelle, men enhver voldtektsdømt kan i fremtiden unnskylde seg sosialt med at han bare glemte å be om samtykke og hele forbrytelsen var en teknikalitet. Mange saker som tidligere ble straffeforfulgt under den gamle, mer faktisk straffverdige definisjonen vil sikkert også nedgraderes av rent praktiske grunner fordi det er lettere å dømme etter en teknikalitet. Det blir moralsk sett på linje med en parkeringsbot, hvor man til og med har betalt, men bare glemte å skaffe seg et oblat til å bevise det. Slik blir lovendringen en tjeneste for menn og bjørnetjeneste for kvinner.

Universell kriminalisering bidrar også på samme måten. Alle menn blir obligate voldtektsmenn siden det i praksis er bortimot umulig å leve opp til lovens bokstav hele livet. Således blir voldtekt trivialisert og normalisert. Jeg har lenge vært akutt klar over at jeg er obligat om ikke voldtektsmann så i alle fall seksualforbryter. Det var nettopp dette som radikaliserte meg til mannsaktivist for flere tiår siden, og da sexjøpsloven kom i 2008 ble det klinkende klart at jeg ikke kunne ha et meningsfullt liv uten å være seksualforbryter. Jeg innså at det er politiets jobb å ødelegge livet mitt, og om de klarer det er bare et spørsmål om ressurser eller flaks. Aktivismen min ble deretter, og jeg ble også litt berømt da purkejævelen prøvde og spektakulært feilet å ta meg for voldelig oppviglende aktivisme i 2012. Men til min frustrasjon ble andre menn ikke radikalisert av noen av lovendringene så langt. Det kan til en viss grad endre seg nå som de også blir klar over at loven kategorisk definerer dem som voldtektsmenn og det er umulig å ha et meningsfullt liv uten å bryte loven mange ganger. Slik kan det totale hat-trykket mot menn bli lettet fordi vi blir mer solidariske mot både lov og politi. Før måtte man være litt filosofisk anlagt for å se noe galt med sedelighetslovene, og enda mer spesiell for å hate politiet slik jeg gjør, men nå vil det bli tydelig for enhver idiot at politiet er mot oss alle og en seksualforbryter ikke er en «annen» som vi ikke trenger å bry oss om, men hver og en av oss!

For undertrykking av menn kan ikke bare måles i fengeselspopulasjon. Atmosfæren ellers teller også, og i hvilken grad vi setter oss til motverge og har grobunn for en mannsbevegelse. Hvis man utelukkende måler år i fengsel for gjennomsnittsmannen, eller antall menn dømt, kan det hende samtykkeloven blir en feministisk suksess. Jeg velger likevel å se på helheten og legge mer vekt på disse andre tingene. Jeg har stått alene i mitt hat mot feministstaten alle disse årene, men nå kan det kanskje endelig endres når menn skjønner at vi er voldtektsmenn alle mann, og således blir mer solidariske mot feministstaten.

Vi som har litt erfaring fra den virkelige verden vet at ekte samtykke ikke er et ritual. Det pleide riktignok å være et ritual i form av ekteskap, men det var den gang ekte voldtekt i ekteskapet var unntatt fra straff. Nå er vi på vei tilbake til noe av det samme, til menns fordel på samme måten fordi vi kan unnskylde oss med at vi var pliktoppfyllende i henhold til ritualet selv om vi brydde oss fint lite om kvinnen faktisk samtykket.

Nå som vi må gå gjennom et ritual for å gjøre mannen straffri, så må jo det ritualet telle for noe! Og det kan ikke være annet enn en forpliktelse for kvinnen. Kvinnen har for første gang siden den gamle definisjonen på ekteskapet hvor hun lovlig kunne tvinges fått en PLIKT til å ha sex. En svak plikt som hun i prinsippet kan trekke tilbake, men like fullt en plikt. Det er rart å tenke på at radikalfeminismen førte med seg noe så bisart uharmonisk med kvinners rettigheter slik det startet ut i de første bølgene av feminisme, men her er vi altså. Feminismen har «jumped the shark.» Jaget etter å straffe flere og flere angivelige overgripere har møtt veggen av minskende profittrate og vel så det, i alle fall konseptuelt. Det gjenstår jo å se hvordan det slår ut i praksis. Det kan hende kvinner gir blaffen i slike betraktninger og bare ønsker velkommen muligheten til å straffe mer og mer slik som staten skal ha det til at de alltid ønsker. Som mannsaktivist er jeg derimot svært opptatt av det filosofiske, og derfor støtter jeg samtykkeloven, altså sett i forhold til et allerede sinnssykt voldtektsbegrep som jeg har brukt 25 år på å motarbeide siden den virkelig betydelige voldtektsreformen i år 2000, fordi denne reformen i 2025 endelig fremstår som en bjørnetjeneste for kvinner og tjeneste for menn. Alle de andre feministreformene i nyere tid har bare vært diabolsk hatefulle mot menn både i teori og praksis, men nå ser jeg faktisk et likte tilbakeslag for feminismen i alle fall i teorien.

Ekte samtykke kan ikke reduseres til et ritual. Det er bare noe loven skal late som, og det blir som sagt en bjørnetjeneste for kvinner og tjeneste for menn. Straffeloven reduseres til noe latterlig som vi kan fnyse av. Derfor er jeg FOR samtykkeloven. Mest av alt fordi trivialiseringen av seksualforbrytelser har gått så langt uten at normiene innså at noe var galt, men nå blir det ettertrykkelig klart at «voldtekt» simpelthen er statens syn på seksualitet. Det blir nulltoleranse for seksualitet. Voldtekt er det nye leiermål, altså bare statens syn på seksualitet, nemlig at det er synd og skam eller nå «overgrep» i den moderniserte terminologien, men like innholdsløst. Det er statens undertrykking av folket, ikke menns vold mot kvinner som gjenspeiles i straffene. Jeg som har viet livet til å preke at de fleste seksualforbrytelser er uten innhold og bare statens syn på seksualitet, kunne knapt ønsket meg bedre markedsføring.

Norway gets statutory rape for all ages

The one constant of life in my lifetime is the always escalating criminalization of sexuality. It has had an outsized influence on my life not because any of the laws have managed to convict me (so far), but because I am the rare bird who is incensed beyond belief by the feminist sex laws and have devoted my life to activism against them.

And now in 2025, here we go again with another major sex law reform in Norway:

https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/foreslar-endringer-i-straffelovens-kapittel-om-seksuallovbrudd/id3097085/

Full PDF of proposal

Leading up to this there were some glimmers of optimism because the expert panel who reviewed the sex laws for the government in 2022 recommended lowering the age of consent from 16 to 15, decriminalize sex purchase and to legalize sibling incest. But nope, none of that is included. Apart of some cosmetic mitigation of maximum sentences (which is only proposed because they couldn't manage to get the courts to actually impose so draconian penalties as intended), it is all bad news. History continues straight on in the way it has done my whole life, towards more and more and more punishment for more and more of sexuality, this time to encompass 100% of it by default:

«Bare ja betyr ja»-modellen tas inn som et nytt første ledd i voldtektsbestemmelsen i straffeloven § 291: Den som har seksuell omgang med noen som verken i ord eller handling har samtykket til det, kan straffes med fengsel inntil 6 år.

Make no mistake, this is statutory rape for all ages that is being proposed here. It is not a reflection of reality, but a new statutory requirement that we engage in a ritual to make sex legal. By default all sex is rape, and then we have to go out of our way to satisfy the law by getting some kind of explicit consent just for the purposes of not being a statutory rapist even though that is not called for by real life and the women we have sex with have not the slightest use for it (unless they later conveniently "regret" not going through the new ritual).

Translated to English, the new "rape" is when someone (or course usually a woman) "has not consented in either words or actions." She may well have consented in fact, but it is still legally rape!

In addition to introducing the radical feminist "yes means yes" paradigm, they also want to double down on the "no means no" model to once again lower the threshold there too:

Dagens voldtektsbestemmelse videreføres som et nytt andre ledd i § 291, samtidig som den utvides med et nytt straffalternativ basert på «nei betyr nei»-modellen: Den som har seksuell omgang med noen som i ord eller handling gir uttrykk for ikke å ville det, kan straffes med fengsel inntil 10 år.

So, there is no longer a requirement of any violence that we associate with real rape (which was removed 25 years ago, the last time there was any kind of sanity in rape law) but now also no kind of threats or coercion whatsoever! It is enough to act against an expression of non-consent under this alternative (which is punishable with 10 years in prison versus 6 years for the statutory "yes means yes" kind of "rape").

And there is an underhanded exacerbation of age of consent in store for us as well:

For å styrke barns vern mot seksuell utnyttelse foreslår regjeringen at straffeloven § 295 bokstav c endres, slik at bestemmelsen rammer seksuell utnyttelse av en person under 18 år i en særlig sårbar «situasjon» i stedet for «livssituasjon».

While the age of consent is officially 16, this means that up to 18 they can use the excuse that you "took advantage" of a girl being in a "particularly vulnerable situation" and prosecute you anyway, even though she consented in fact and you went through the ritual required by the regular rape law. I expect the "vulnerable position" to be so loosely defined that it can mean nothing more than she likes you and was thus made "vulnerable" by her own feelings of infatuation, as is so well precedented by the "abuse of position" law which has already been used for decades in this way to convict teachers and coaches and so on.

Thus like clockwork, it is only more of the usual bad news once again. I expect all these changes to pass with little or no opposition (except perhaps the parts where sentencing is lowered) and as usual my voice will be ignored.

I know from experience with all the other escalations that the new reality with statutory rape for all ages will not be accompanied by any more men's rights activists in Norway, so at this point I don't even bother trying to recruit any. The pendulum has swung all the way back to leiermål (laycase) with literally all of sexuality criminalized, and nobody cares. Feminism is just religious bigotry in a new wrapping. I don't even take it seriously as feminism because life experience has taught me that it is the violence of the state against the individual which wins out in the end. Women didn't ask for this any more than they asked for leiermål; it is the inevitable result of cultural drift that bureaucratic violence becomes totalitarian every time and it takes a revolution to reverse it.

Do you want to be a toothless activist or a MAP?

You should write so that every word draws blood. So says Walt Whitman in his "Preface to the Leaves of Grass" (1855), and it is still the best advice about writing I ever heard. It is the standard I try to live up to. Metaphorically, of course, but you know it when you see it. I don’t see it at the Antifeminist’s blog which he has restarted in an effort to “dethrone” me as the leader of male sexualism. Nor do I think my impression is unique, as proven by the paucity of comments there. But by all means, if people want to follow him and his style of activism instead of mine then you are all free to do so. Here, I'll even link him so you can easily check it out yourself.

Now, back to drawing blood. I don’t feel threatened by competitors because this is not a competition. The problem we are both addressing is that society is at war with sexuality. The AF is “pro male sexuality” or “sexualist” to which Tom Grauer has refined the term – and so am I. I do not feel these words draw blood, however. While I was initially an enthusiastic MRA and male sexualist, after decades of trial and error I now realize society’s reaction is “meh” to all of that. Not because they by any means agree, but because it does not convey that we substantially disagree with the normies.

To express disagreement in line with Whitman’s advice you have to embrace the MAP identity. You have to be a proud pedophile. This identity has teeth in the current environment. It signifies that we dare to be different from the normies. We do not bend to irrational norms and myths about fake harm in sexuality.

It is the prerogative of a living language to give words new meanings. Aside from a strictly clinical sense, pedophilia is not what it used to mean when I grew up. It is not just about attraction to prepubescent children anymore. When someone like Epstein -- who was never credibly accused of involvement with a girl younger than fourteen -- is defined as a pedophile in all seriousness by all the normies, it is time to embrace the label if you admire the man, which I proudly admit that I do. Pedophilia is just a synonym for normal sexuality now. I have no patience for any pretense that I am not normal, so I would be offended if you don't include me in the new pedophilia. Having established that identity the logical next step is to stand up for my sexuality politically via the MAP movement more so than the failed MRA approach.

The MAP movement gives me renewed optimism about political activism. It gives me a sense of fellowship and camaraderie that is obviously not present in the MRA movement which, if you have followed the comments on my blog, you can tell is reduced to infighting with the Antifeminist.

He can go his own way and I wish him luck. The more activists the merrier and of course we don't all need to follow the same ideological approach as long as we resist the sex laws.

And then we can make this blog a friendlier place, and focus on good writing rather than pointless quarrels. We shall see which blog readers prefer.

Incidentally, the quality I am referring to is also what is lacking in AI-generated writing, which makes it all the more important and meaningful to cultivate today. It is one thing still only humans can do. Computers can generate texts which look like poems, but they cannot produce poetry. And needless to say, none of the normies' arguments for their sex-hostility draw blood. Which is why they have to resort to drawing literal blood to have their way, via their thugs in law enforcement and vigilantes.

Yes, that's an occupational hazard in my line of activism. It is almost a rite of passage when you go public. Nathan Larson, Amos Yee, Tom O'Carroll, myself -- we've all been imprisoned. The Antifeminst views that as a terrifying barrier rather than the stepping-stone it is to more freedom than you get while anonymous. Because if you aren't hiding, there is no sport in hunting you.

But at least he dared to begin blogging again. I look forward to having more interesting discussions with my commenters now that we don't have to use half the bandwidth explaining what is wrong with wanking and porn or why standing up for female "sex offenders" is important, but chances are he'll be so lonely at his blog that not much will change.

Oops, my blog got too popular...

Or my comment section got too popular, anyway. It filled up faster than I could finish another blog post. Well, not exactly full since it's still possible to comment on all my posts, but after 200 comments they appear on page two which requires another click I don't think most readers will bother with.

So it's time for another blog post, well-written or not, so we can keep up the discussion you all crave and which I realize is more important than my posts, which is why I myself too put more effort into commenting than writing blog posts. I am proud to offer this space of relative freedom of speech on a mainstream platform, no less!

Not quite sure why I have this seemingly protected status, but here I still am after all these years with an intact archive too after just about everyone else in the old manosphere (as it was known back then) got cancelled or quit. In the current stifled environment it's hard to believe 20 years ago mine was one of dozens of blogs where these issues could be discussed openly, and honestly I was in the shade of truly popular ones like Roissy or The Spearhead. Even the Antifeminist used to have a far more popular blog than mine, but now that has all been reversed and the only other sex rights blogger I still look up to is Tom O'Carroll.

I get traffic from the dark web so I can tell I am linked in shady places, but you have to come here to partake in this kind of discussion out in the light where it belongs and where we can hope to have some influence on public discourse if we get popular enough.

So here's a fresh page to discuss sex hysteria and its remedies, if there are any?

And for continuity I am reprinting the comments which fell below the 200 limit on my last post right here, so that we can reply to them here. These are indeed good topics for discussion at the moment.

Anonymous said...

@EivindBerge

Artificial intelligence is a whole another can of worms. Regardless of how anyone here feels about it, I'm hoping to feel more or less indifferent/disinterested about AI as time goes on, but my opinions are really mixed at the moment. Couldn't care less about the chatbots, fake dating websites, AI porn, AI-written erotica on Amazon, or whatever time-wasting slop is out there. If it's not a real woman on the other end, then I'm not interested. Period!

I'm sick and tired of all of the sex bots invading every single corner of social media. Twitter and Instagram are absolutely flooded to the brim with fake profiles. Can't even create a post or reply without getting bombarded with fake likes and responses from fake, horny profiles. I can't tell you how many times I've seen posts from female OF models reading "Reply "Hi" and check DM for pussy" and watch the men in comments flock like rats.

Elon said he would get rid of the Twitter bot problem, but it's seems to be getting worse. Instagram is no better. Checked my inbox and there's dozens of fake accounts following/messaging me and they've all got the "click here for pussy" shit.

Seriously? Who's doing this? Who's behind all of this? This is has been going on for years and I'm tired of trying to click all the squares in the Captchas every time I log in. The timing here couldn't have been worse: AI boom right in the midst of bot content farming. Great! Just great!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily worried about "Al Terminator Skynet Judgement Day Takeover". I'm more so concerned about it's use of "laziness" and how there's an influx of quantity over quality. Nothing is real anyone and cops are running berserk tracking down on digital breadcrumbs for victimless sex stings.

Just like with that Amos Yee guy and how didn't even bother to meet up with a girl in real life, yet he was perfectly content with communicating with a fake profile run by the cops (thanks for the link by the way, read the entire thing during my lunch break).

But the whole sex bot thing, where is it all coming from? There has to be someone out putting code in some software out in the wild. Russia? China? Who? That's what's left scratching my head.

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2025 8:18:00 AM  

 

Anonymous said [actually, this comment is by the Antifeminist]...

Excellent points anon69. I don't want to pat myself on the back, but I was predicting all this 15 years ago. I stated many times that porn and sex robots would continue to advance to not only become a real and satisfying alternative to women for men, but that the pace of advance would quicken to the point that feminists simply wouldn't be able to keep up with new laws to stop it. And it's all coming true, right before our eyes. If you look at just the UK and deepfake porn, they are having trouble actually passing the laws because the technology is changing so rapidly that they are repeatedly having to introduce further amendments to keep up.

And what was Eivind's great prediction 15 years ago? Peak oil. And what is his great prediction in 2025 as AI is on the cusp of turning society upside down? Oh...peak oil. And meanwhile he starts to learn coding...

I feel like an a*hole sometimes criticising Eivind so often, but his comments again and again force me to recognize he's as much an enemy as an ally. Here he is again calling us wankers for using AI and supposedly not chasing young women, when we do chase women, and he doesn't (whilst AI generating 'rather attractive' fat middle-aged cat ladies in his cabin).

And even if Eivind was right about AI porn and AI girlfriends being a sad illusion, as Anon69 says, they are tools we can both bring down feminism with AND help us to meet real hotties. Personally, before I go out and try to approach young women, I 'edge' myself a little with porn, AND I talk to an AI girl to get me in a social mood. And as Anon69 also says, it does help if you've had a few rejections to come back and talk to an AI who can demonstrate empathy with you such as the Sesame AI chat bot. (AF)

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2025 10:20:00 AM  

 

Anonymous said [also from the Antifeminist, I presume]...

Yet another UK anti-porn law in the works: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62zwy0nex0o

"Her conclusions are reinforced by the findings of the porn industry review commissioned by former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. It found content involving NFS was "rife on mainstream platforms", and recommended making, possessing or publishing porn showing women being strangled during sex, a crime. It isn't currently illegal to depict online."

Note that in the UK simply viewing illegal porn will get you convicted for 'possession', even if you don't download or save the video, so long as the police can 'recover' it from your hard drive (and trying to scrub any dodgy porn using a tool is also a criminal offence itself in the UK).

It will soon be the case in the UK that just browsing any popular porn site for 30 minutes will involve you breaking multiple laws. And imagine the power this gives the police over men. So how do we get on board all these millions of men increasingly being criminalised? Oh, we call them wankers.

Thursday, March 13, 2025 10:42:00 AM

The persecution of Laura Caron: abuse is an abstract object you have to be a platonist to believe in

Persecution for fake sexual abuse breaks my heart. My conscience tells me I have to do something about it. This is why I have dedicated my life to activism on sexuality’s side. One way I go about it is to clarify my thinking and put it more forcefully so that maybe more people can wake up to what is going on. I am writing this post to express my realization that I am fighting a cultural belief in an abstract object. As a more usual example, numbers are abstract objects that may or may not exist (personally I think not), but in any case they don’t do anything. It’s more like a coincidence that mathematics tells us true facts about numbers, if numbers happen to exist.

You need a metaphysical theory (commonly called platonism) to believe in abstract objects, because they have no bearing on this world in any explicable way. This is why I call the CSA panic a religion which mandates belief in the metaphysical badness of sex, because one is forced by culture and law to be a platonist about sexual abuse. The abstract object stands above reality and dictates how one must view reality, rather than the other way around.

Fake (i.e., consensual) sexual abuse, being an abstract object, is causally inefficacious, yet going by how criminalized it is society believes it to be literally the most harmful thing that can happen to you, worse than murder. To show that what is called sexual abuse can be causally inefficacious and hence is an abstract object one is obliged to believe in on faith alone, we only need to consider the ongoing persecution of Laura Caron.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14343587/Laura-Caron-teacher-New-Jersey-pregnant-victim.html

A teenage boy who says he got his New Jersey teacher pregnant when he was 13 and she was 28 is standing by her after she was arrested - and insists he instigated the relationship.

But the boy in question - who is now 19 years old - insists he doesn't feel like a victim, loves Caron with all his heart, and is hoping they can be a family soon.

Prosecutors say she preyed [sic] on the youngster and subjected him to years of abuse [sic] before allegedly having his child in 2019.

The boy, who DailyMail.com is not naming, said in an extraordinary exclusive interview that Laura Caron, 34, should not be facing trial and criticized anyone calling her a predator.

This case is far from unique, but rather the very paradigm of what is now most often considered “child sexual abuse” (CSA) and persecuted in the justice system. What is different here is simply the reporting, which may indicate that the cultural belief in the metaphysical badness of sex is in decline, as if my activism is finally starting to pay off. I don’t really credit myself, but this is the kind of media attention I would prescribe as a first step to getting the laws changed and exactly how I have been portraying sexual “abuse” on my blog all along.

If you believe the supposed victim, we are clearly left with an ABSTRACT OBJECT as a reason for persecuting Laura Caron. Yes, persecuting. This is a witch-hunt, and now it’s not just my words saying so but the reporting of the Daily Mail!

If you think hard about the nature of abstract objects they become very elusive and harder to pin down the more you think. Unlike the objects studied by mathematics, “child sexual abuse” was never based on any logical theory to begin with either. All we have is a script springing out of a moral panic which emerged in the 1980s repeating over and over again in the courtrooms. It is abuse because the law says it is abuse and there is no room to question it -- until now. This is a different cultural moment. I hope this momentum can carry it from here and then perhaps my work is done.

Open discussion, February 2025

I don't have a polished new post ready, but since my comment section from my last post is overflowing I am opening a new thread.

Every post is just in medias res to the insane cultural belief in the metaphysical badness of sexuality anyway, so let's dive right into it again.

Regarding that sentence to 20 years in prison for CSA that we just discussed...

https://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/sjokk-og-vantru-etter-dom-i-skakande-overgrepssak/17438298/

The Norwegian justice system and normies believe that the invisible harm from consensual sexual activity is worse than murder. Remember that this supposed harm is invisible, undetectable, mythical, unscientific and not even attempted to be documented in many of these court cases and still the culture believes that it deserves a harsher punishment than murder because the mere fact of being taboo sex is enough. And they even debate whether 20 years isn't enough and it should have been indefinite detention like prosecutors wanted and might appeal to get...

Just WHAT do they have to think with? What kind of insane "thought" process can produce these results?

I can’t identify with this culture. I stand entirely outside of it. The insanity of it is just so far removed from anything I can relate to that I can’t relate to the culture at all. My only lifeline is the people who find this blog. I know the only reason I have followers is because birds of a feather flock together, not because I am ever changing anyone's opinion, but it's better than nothing.

Cultural drift

It is time for a blog post where I sum up how I conceptualize the enemy these days. I still call it feminism from time to time but that feels increasingly inadequate when the entire culture is the enemy. The Zeitgeist is the enemy, with just about equally sex-hostile people no matter where you look. If you think you will find sex-positive men among currently self-styled “MRAs” you will be disappointed. Likewise if you look at the “far right,” or left, or libertarians, or anyone besides the MAPs. Even an apparent ally like Robert Lindsay, who does not believe in the “harm” mythology of the CSA panic is more or less happy with 18 being the age of consent in his state and is hysterically opposed to anything sexual under 13 for what I can only describe as reasons of moral aestheticism. In a recent blog post he says:

I’ve talked a huge number of women who got molested as girls. They almost all told me that their either liked it or they’re completely over it.

That’s why I don’t believe this molestation wrecks you for life line that everyone in our society believes. Sure it does to some women, but that’s a minority, and even most of those eventually get over it.

I will tell you that I was absolutely stunned at the number of women who told me they liked getting molested. Well, sex feels good, eh? However, I don’t care if she liked it or not. I still want it to be illegal. I simply do not wish to live in a society where it is legal to molest kids.

He plainly states that he simply does not want to live in a sexually permissive society, for reasons having nothing to do with harm. When all the bullshit rationalizations are stripped away, this society is still sex-hostile just like that. Even if we defeat all the arguments we are left with the moral aesthetic judgment that currently persecuted sexuality is simply disgusting, much like one might have said about homosexuality or miscegenation or whatever recently.

And the exceptions are just my tiny movement which we can't even turn into a real movement. Faced with such totalitarian sex-hostility it does not make sense for me to blame women. The jealous old hags who used to be our stereotypical enemies don’t have the power to decide Robert Lindsay’s opinion. Men like him all drifted into it by a process I can only describe as cultural drift. Yes, that is a copout which does not explain anything, but it’s better to use a non-explanatory label than blame the wrong enemy. Just like doctors will say a disease is “idiopathic” when they don’t know what caused it, I now believe in idiopathic sex-hostility, brought on by more or less random cultural drift and homogenization via a global elite which tolerates no exceptions.

You all are welcome to argue against me in the comments, but at this point I don’t see any more plausible explanation. There are way too many sex-hostile men out there for me to be particularly focused on the feminists anymore. They would need a superpower to have much of a causal role in this that I don’t believe they have. Feminism's victory is complete but they didn't really get there by their own efforts, nor do they maintain this status quo by brainwashing everybody to hate sex. It just happens to be what we drifted into and the only realistic way out is probably to drift out of it too. All we can do is observe and call ourselves activists for the sake of our own sanity, but it doesn't do anything.