It seems that there is a, frankly unbridgeable, schism developing between two sides of Male Sexualist thought.

On the one hand you have the Bergian wing. Under the ‘leadership’ of Eivind Berge, they are composed mainly of ‘paedosexualist’ LGBT, Muslim (or sympathetic to the Muslim world view), feminist supporting, Left leaning ‘MAPs’ and ‘Ephebophiles’. Their leader, Eivind, is also fervently anti- masturbation and anti-porn, although it’s unclear if any of his followers or those who identify on the same Male Sexualist wing as him, actually share his views on NoFap.

We could call them Bergians, Bergian Male Sexualists, or perhaps LGBT, as their common goal appears to be to gain acceptance within the LGBT movement, which would become the LGBTP movement. Let’s settle then on LGBTP male sexualists.

Members of the Bergians include (or comprise of) the notorious Tom O’Carroll, Holocaust 21, the notorioius Tom Grauer, and Holocaust 22(!).

The other school of Male Sexualist thought, largely rejects the idea of a movement all-together. In fact, those who might be loosely classified under the term, might not even acknowledge themselves as ‘Male Sexualists’, let alone be part of a movement.

But it’s clear that there is a very small group of bloggers and commentators left over from the early days of men’s rights and the Manosphere (and they might even reject those terms), who remain both staunchly anti-feminist, and honest about issues of male sexuality and its persecution by the feminist state.

So we wont give them a name, other than ‘Male Sexualists’ (if for no other reason than the simplest description of men who still discuss normal male sexuality). Their numbers include of course myself (the antifeminist), Scarecrow (Men-Factor), Rookh (Anglo-Bitch), and others, including commentators such as ‘Jack’, even if they comment regularly at LGBTP blogs such as Eivind’s.

As the anti-feminist wing of Male Sexualists is not really a ‘movement’ (of course, neither is the LGBTP wing), there is no ‘leader’. Just a loose and small collection of bloggers and online commentators who share certain positions (and disagree on lots!). Despite this, most or all would likely tip their hats at certain figures who went before, such as the great, much loved and much missed Angry Harry. Perhaps also, certain early figures of the Manosphere who are no longer around, an example of whom is Roissy, or those who are still here but who have been transformed into something so different as to not really be the same thing at all, like a caterpillar into a butterfly, like a beautiful teenage girl into a femihag, as ‘Ferdinand Bardemu’ into Matt Forney.

Can the two sides get along, or even, dare I say it, reconcile? The former, probably not, unless simply to ignore each other. As for reconciling, it would be in at least my view that the LGBTP ‘male sexualists’ are at this stage more of an enemy than a friend, and that the differences are irrecocnilable. Anti-porn, anti-masturbation, failing to distinguish normal male sexuality from ‘paedosexuality’ (another clumsy invention of Eivind it seems), failing to even discern the primary enemy (feminists). Eivind today seems intent on taking on the equivalent role that Paul Elam performed in the MRM, and committing the same murderous deed – taking the roots of a dangerous revolutionary but fledgling intellectual idea, cutting them out and replacing them with something benign and feminine, while still (vaguely) claiming to be fighting for men.

As for calling Male Sexualism a movement – this is almost as absurd as annointing ‘leaders’. The modern online MRM had hundreds of active participants before anyone even called it a movement, and even then, I can’t remember anyone ever calling somebody a ‘leader’. After it had been established for some time, and consisted of thousands of men active in blogs, and then on other forms of Web 2.0 (now known as social media), then many of us started to refer to Angry Harry as ‘the father’ of the MRM, or Roissy as the founder of the Manosphere (and Roissy himself called Michael Houellebecq the ‘father’ of the Manosphere). Angry Harry certainly never called himself or thought of himself as leader of a men’s rights movement. Even today, nobody has ever tried to claim a ‘leadership’ role (of course, Paul Elam did in all but name, but did not succeed).

Should we then ignore the LGBTP male sexualists, attempt to get along with them, or attack them? Perhaps ignoring them is the best option, but consider that if one side embraces the term Male Sexualism (which might be a deadweight term already because of Tom Grauer), then it might succeed in hijacking our cause, especially if ‘our side’ doesn’t particularly acknowledge that banner (Male Sexualism). On the other hand, they are such a ragamuffin band of (to be frank) autists, that they wont make any headway (thankfully). I mean, seriously, to anyone not an autist – what are the odds of a movement trying to reconcile Islam, LGBT(P), ‘paedosexualism’, normal male sexuality (though Eivind increasingly likes to pretend this is cougar chasing), NoFap and masturbation shaming, the female sex offender charade..succeeding? Or even attracting more than a dozen followers in the next 100 years?

So yes, let us ignore them (finally!).

No doubt I triggered all this with my article 2 or 3 years ago lamenting the fact that no such movement for male sexuality had arisen, and immediately up popped Tom Grauer – who did certainly have a (brief) go at kickstarting something, and perhaps he ought to be considered a (clumsy) hero for that. Unfortunately, it has to be more deft, slow, and organic than he had wished for, particularly as cancel culture (which the clueless and autistic LGBTP male sexualists don’t seem able to associate with feminists either) becomes increasingly vicious.

Certainly, despite their lofty ambitions and overblown pretensions, the LGBTP male sexualists, with their pink pussy hats and flags, and their #LoveIsLove slogans printed on their pink t-shirts, wont be storming the Bastille anytime soon.