Category Archives: Male Sexuality

Some Logical Consequences of Eivind Berge’s NoFap Thirsty Philosophy

Rather than rant off on Eivind’s blog, I’ll post some stream of consciousness rants here. Although I’ve probably already triggered Eivind with that first sentence, as he doesn’t believe I’m conscious. Rather, he thinks I’m a zombie for preferring to live in a world in which I could fap to nude photos of HB10 teen girls to chasing the likes of crazy middle-aged cunts such as false rape accuser Ulrika Jonsson for ‘real sex’.

1 – As described above, sex with a ‘real’ woman, no matter how hideous – physically and mentally – is inferior to any kind of masturbation, even involving ‘virtual sex’, even when the object (whether a photograph or a virtual sex partner) is a HB10 ripe beauty. If feminists succeeded in raising the age of consent to 40, Eivind would still claim that any man who chose to fap to pictures of young females, rather than chase 40+ women for sex, would be a ‘zombie’.

2 – You only become a homosexual when you have a real homosexual encounter. A man who lived his entire life fapping to gay porn, never once showing any sexual interest in females, could not be described as a homosexual. Even if he fruitlessly (excuse the pun) chased males every day of his life (between wanks), he would not be a gay man.

3 – No matter how real virtual sex becomes, even when it reaches the level of Matrix style indistinguishability from the real thing, it will have nothing to do with ‘sex’ or ‘sexuality’ according to Eivind. Eivind seems to be lacking in even a basic education in philosophy, for otherwise he would know that all of our sense perceptions ultimately are just neurons firing in the brain.

4 – Eivind really should insist on ‘au naturale’ at all times in anything related to sex. Females should never wear scent. They should never shave their legs or armpits. They should not wear make-up. Perhaps they should never wash at all? Anything else is surely artificial and making things less ‘real’?

5 – Most certainly, it would appear Eivind should insist on raw sex at all times. A condom is surely unnatural and a primitive form of ‘virtual sex’. Indeed, a condom defeats the whole purpose of sex, which is fertilization of the female. Unless it leads to fertilization and pregnancy, is it even real sex? Eivind’s thoughts, such as they are, seem to be rooted in a very literal reading of evolutionary science. Otherwise, it’s not clear at all why jerking off to a girl on live webcam, is so much inferior to say, getting a handjob off of her in ‘real life’. Sex seems to have to be real physical penetration, because that’s what male sexuality is ‘about’. But strictly speaking, what male sexuality is about is impregnating as many ripe and beautiful females as possible in order to spread one’s genes. Any sex that doesn’t lead to pregnancy is as worthless in this sense as fapping. As (as far as I know) Eivind has never succeeded in impregnating a female (in fact, the reason apparently he dumped his girlfriend Emma the Emu), then Eivind is no better than a virgin who has spent his entire life fapping.

6 – Male sexualists should support an Islamist Sharia style society in which women are covered up at all times. In fact, one wonders why Eivind doesn’t emigrate today to some ideal heaven such as Afghanistan. For the reason women are covered up is for much the same reason porn is banned in these places (and Christian shit holes too), as well as increasingly feminist shit holes – so that men are less likely to fap contentedly (at the sight of female flesh) rather than seek sex (in the case of religious societies, through marriage). To elaborate further – I know of no place on Earth, past or present, in which images of females (ie. porn or nudity) were forbidden, but that free sex was permitted.

As to whether I and other readers who believe porn should be legal, that there is nothing shameful in masturbation, and that the ever creeping criminalization of (male) pornography by feminists is something worth fighting against, are ‘zombies’ – as Eivind claims, all I can say is that this says more about Eivind’s psychological condition than it does about our supposed lack of one. The inability to see minds in others has a clinical name, and it begins with an A.

I would say that in a real sense Evind, while conscious, is more of a zombie. That’s because he seems to not only be in chain to his ‘selfish genes’ (as we all are), but he doesn’t even seem aware of it. Rather, he seems to go the extra mile to live his entire existence blindly at their will.

And here I’m not accusing him or shaming him of being an ‘animal’, as feminists and MRA frauds do to us for talking about the age of consent or attraction to teenage girls being natural. No, I’m saying that Eivind is almost becoming a parody. It’s one thing to point out that feminist legislation is built on lies regarding the claims that attraction to young girls is ‘perverted’ and ‘unnatural’, it’s another to argue that the only thing that matters is fulfilling your DNA evolutionary programming, and that anything else (such as fapping) isn’t even anything related to sex, or male sexuality.

Finally, I need to point out that Eivind’s criticism of me is built on straw. I do not choose fapping over real sex. I just think that men shouldn’t go to prison for fapping, and that fapping to a picture of a HB10 teenage girl, is preferable to chasing a HB5 skank who is benefitting from the very laws that put men in prison for fapping.

Never once in my life has my fapping led to me not chasing real pussy. I fap less these days just as I chase real pussy less. It’s called getting older, resulting in lower testosterone as well as a realism that a 50 year old man has to spend an awful lot of time and effort to bang a hot, legal teen girl (short of paying for it). Of course banging a hot girl is preferable to wanking over a pic of the same girl (although if matrix style virtual reality tactile porn is ever invented, it wouldn’t really be any different to real sex – at least if it involves a real partner).

Yes, I’ll admit, fapping in my youth probably did lead me to spend less time chasing skanky pussy. It raised my standards. It led me to chase hotter females.

And no, I’ve never been into sex robots or a champion of them. They are just sex dolls that can ‘talk’. I’ve argued here that a better solution would be for females to be genetically modified to be permanently younger, more beautiful, sweeter, and hornier. To which Eivind came on my blog to White Knight and call me an ‘imbecile’ no better than radical feminists.

Plato’s Allegory of the Prisoners

It is the year 2040. In a gloomy European prison cell, a group of three sex offenders sit chained. They have committed different offences. One has been convicted of sex with a 19 year old girl. They met at a party, and the girl told him she was 22 – one year above the age of consent in the year 2028. He was sentenced to life. He admits he is an ‘ephebophile’ – different to other men – for being attracted to women who look under 21, but he maintains he is a virtuous ephebophile, and that he would never make the same mistake again.

The other two prisoners call themselves ‘Male Sexualists’. They have not broken any sex law, other than blogged years ago about what they described as the creeping insanity of ‘anti-sex’ laws. For that, they were both convicted in the late 2020’s of sex thought crimes and also sentenced to life. One is Eivind Berge, and the other is the Anti-Feminist.

All three prisoners are bound in such a manner that they are forced to constantly stare straight ahead at the dimly lit wall facing them, unaware even of what is taking place around them in the prison cell, let alone the world outside. They have been in that situation for over a decade. The ‘Ephebophile’ has forgotten what the prison cell looks like other than the wall, never mind the world outside. Eivind Berge still vaguely remembers details of the prison cell behind him, but has largely forgotten the outside world. The Anti-Feminist, however, still retains a vivid memory of life outside the prison cell.

Behind them is a fire, which causes shadows to flicker and change shape on the only wall the three inmates can see.

On the floor, in front of the fire, scuttle cockroaches, also known as paedocrites. They cause vague and fleeting shadows to appear on the wall. The ephebophile thinks these are normal people walking in front of them. He wishes he could be like them, but he can’t. He knows he is a bad man, unlike the paedocrites, but if only he could be released from his chains, he would show he can be a virtuous ephebophile. Eivind and the Anti-Feminist both laugh at the ephebophile for being so stupid and submissive.

Larger shadows come into view occasionally on the prison wall. These are the prison guards passing in front of the fire.

The ephebophile thinks these are Gods come to save them. He has vague memories of the feminist judge sentencing him to life without parole, and gloatingly telling him and the court that he is a subhuman paedophile who will get raped repeatedly while incarcerated. Over years of mental deterioration caused by his situation, the ephebophile connects the shadows to feminist Gods, who have omnipotent power over the world – the prison cell – and as Gods are benevolent, will one day save him and other ephebophiles if only they pray fervently enough and prove their virtuous nature to the feminist God.

Eivind realizes that the ephebophile is mistaken. The shadows are not Gods, they are male prison guards. Eivind wishes he could tear the prison guards with his bare hands, but when he attempts to grab them, he finds there is nothing there. He still cannot see that they are merely shadows.

Still, Eivind thinks he has the answer. If only he could enlist the help of the ephebophile, perhaps the combined might of the two of them could reach out and grasp the guard whose dark shape appears to be tauntingly moving right in front of them on the wall?

But no, the ephebophile is furious at Eivind for suggesting he attack the Gods who are their only chance of freedom.

Only the third prisoner – the Anti-Feminist – realizes that the shapes on the wall are not Gods, nor are they actual prison guards, but they are in fact merely the shadows of prison guards. Trying to grab them is, therefore, futile.

Furthermore, not only is the Anti-Feminist the only prisoner who can see that the shapes on the wall are merely shadows, unlike Eivind, he remembers that the prison guards themselves are not the ultimate cause of their life in the prison cell. He recalls that it is the feminists themselves, out in the real world, who are causing their experiences in the prison cell, and that the male prison guards are simply puppets.

Finally, one day, after disturbing dreams, Eivind woke up and realized again that it was the feminists outside the cell, who were the real enemy, the real cause of their captivity.

He turned away from the ephebophile at his side, and he turned away from the shadows on the wall, and he looked at the Anti-Feminist again as his brother, in order to make one final bid for freedom, to escape the prison cell, and to confront the feminists in the outside world with the light of defiant truth once more.

But Eivind remembered he had killed the Anti-Feminist years ago. He had choked him to death in a fit of self-righteous fury when he caught him fapping to a shadow on the wall, that by a trick of the flickering light, bore a very erotic resemblance to the shape of a nubile 17 year old Russian ice skater.

Eivind realized there was no other option left but to side with the ephebophile. The ephebophile was so happy that Eivind had been restored to sanity. He lost no time in finally convincing Eivind that the shadows on the wall were in fact feminist Gods, and that they must bow down and pray before them every day for the rest of their lives in order to reach deliverance and truth in the next world.

A finer analysis is not needed.

In the allegory, Plato likens people untutored in the Theory of Forms to prisoners chained in a cave, unable to turn their heads. All they can see is the wall of the cave. Behind them burns a fire. Between the fire and the prisoners there is a parapet, along which puppeteers can walk. The puppeteers, who are behind the prisoners, hold up puppets that cast shadows on the wall of the cave. The prisoners are unable to see these puppets, the real objects, that pass behind them. What the prisoners see and hear are shadows and echoes cast by objects that they do not see.

https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm

Why is there still no pro male sexuality movement?

The invention of the pill changed the sexual landscape forever, and fifty years later, society is still coming to terms with it and working out a new sexual moral code. Or more accurately, women have been working out how to continue justifying and protecting their maladaptive needs, and constrain male sexuality, in a new sexual rulebook enforced upon society and men through feminism (and femiservatism).

The pill, as well as other technological ‘advances’ such as abortion on demand, effectively separated sex from reproduction for the first time in tens of thousands of years of human existance. It ought to have, and for a brief time did, largely separate sex from stifling morality. The pill sexually liberated men far more than it did women, and certainly older women (the type of women which tends to have political power). The problem for men is that in the decades since, whilst feminism has exploded in its Second and Third Waves as a response to the new sexual realities, and as a brutal counterrevolution to the sexual revolution, there has been a near complete lack of male reply.

The pill enabled men to have sex with women without consequence. Sexual morality for thousands of years had been based upon the need to compel men (and the community) to support impregnated women. In fact, Western Civilization today is built upon the Christian myth of the virgin Mary and her baby Jesus, a myth we celebrate each year at this time by giving gifts, mirroring the gifts (resources) given to Mary and the fatherless newborn child Jesus. The pill changed all this. It didn’t liberate women, because women’s psychology didn’t change. The philosopher Schopenhauer wrote that after sex, a woman wants to embrace and hold her man, the man just wants to go to sleep (no doubt, to dream of sex with other young fertile women). Men no longer had to be held accountable for the sex act, as a woman was no longer left potentially high and dry, holding a baby. Men thought the sex war had ended, and gleefully left the battlefield with their cocks in their hands. In fact, the war was about to take on an ever greater brutality, with only one side fighting it.

In terms of political movements comparable to feminism, men have thus far come up with the Men’s Rights Movement and MGTOW, and more broadly the Manosphere, and even more broadly I guess, the alt-right.

The men’s rights movement had promising beginnings, with even its very founder – the Victorian thinker Ernest Belfort Bax – being a free love advocate, railing in his extensive writings against such things as feminist definitions of sexual assault, and the raising of the age of consent (their ‘favourite krank’ as he put it). This continued into the modern age when, for the first time, the sexual upheavals of the 60’s and 70’s were analyzed from the point of view of men, by ‘men’s rights’ authors such as David Thomas, Neil Lyndon, and Lionel Tiger, and the online MRM founder Angry Harry. The latter three, certainly, recognized the pill as fundamentally changing the balance of power between the sexes, and all of these early MRAs were positive in their view of male sexuality that had been diminished by the feminist response to the sexual revolution (and all of them recognized intuitively that feminism was responding to the sexual revolution of the 60’s that had liberated men more than women, not creating it as per the standard narrative).

Since then, as we have documented here recently, the MRM has turned into a curious mirror of victimhood feminism, not merely in the sense of being a male version of feminism, but actually validating feminist sexual morality and demanding ‘a piece of the pie’ in terms of shared and equal victimhood in a regrettably free sexual marketplace.

The MGTOW appears on the surface more promising. At least MGTOWs, who reject women completely, aren’t likely to suffer the fate of the MRM in being infected and taken over by female ‘sympathetic’ parasites such as the ‘Honey Badgers’. Unlike MRAs, MGTOWs do also propose a sexual strategy in response to the changed sexual universe men and women now inhabit. Go your own way and leave women behind. However, there are two major problems with the MGTOW approach. Firstly, it seems more like an admission of defeat on the part of men, rather than a new battle tactic in response to the changed formations of the enemy (feminism). If men can no longer fight on the sexual battlefield, it’s time to leave it. Secondly, MGTOWs tend to be a little short on details of how men, especially young horny men, are actually supposed to lead a sexually fulfilling life in the absence of women and girls. They don’t tend to talk about porn much, and certainly don’t seem to rage against the ever increasing criminalization of porn. Maybe they think we should just castrate ourselves, or think about puppies, or Margaret Thatcher, every time a sexual thought enters our head? The one exception to this rule is sex robots. MGTOWs like to talk about sex robots..A LOT! If you subscribe to any of the leading MGTOWs or even the ones with a dozen subscribers, every other video now is about sex robots and how sexbots will lead to the MGTOW sextopia. And fair play to them, they do appear to recognize that feminists such as Kathleen Richardson are trying desperately hard to ban sex robots (for obvious reasons).

A third issue with MGTOWs is that it all seems to be a little too much like the feminist modus operandi – older, less sexually valuable individuals telling their younger more sexually valuable (and viable) rivals that sex is wicked, that it will lead to harm, that we’re only telling you this to protect you etc. Not that I believe that MGTOWs are hypocrites or actively trying to stop young people having sex out of bitterness and rivalry, as femihags are doing, but let’s just say it’s easy to be an MGTOW when you’re an old unattractive fart like me who women, and especially young hotties, don’t want anymore.

The Manosphere and the ‘alt-right’ have pretty much gone the same way as the MRM – heavily influenced by ‘sympathetic’ and invariably conservative women (the alt-right are currently having this battle with ‘tradhots’ – at least, unlike MRAs who are supposed to actually be a specifically MEN’S movement, the alt-rightists like RooshV recognize the danger of letting women speak for them).

Some readers may remember a time when Ferdinand Bardemu, the webmaster of InMalaFide and one of the founders of the Mansophere, would heavily promote this site on his weekly link dump (and I’m eternally grateful to old Ferd). Then Ferdinand Bardemu turned into Matt Forney, an ultra-traditionalist who wanted a piece of the growing alt-right action, and who recognized that being sympathetic to such taboo issues as the age of consent would be near suicide, as Milo later discovered.

Heartiste/Roissy, another founder of the Mansophere, also bravely and explicitly spoke up on issues such as paedohysteria and the age of consent, and is still bravely doing so, even if tempered a little (30 year old men dating late teens ‘icky’???).

The alt-right was indeed very promising as a possible pro male sexuality movement. After all, it has an openly gay Englishman who boasts of sucking black cocks as its nominal head. It grew as a young conservative male’s alternative to traditional mainstream establishment Conservatism/Republicism – recognizing the bullshit of the Left as regards transgender rights and anti-male sexuality feminism, and seeking some form of middle-ground between the wisdom of traditionalism and the realities of the changed post-pill sexual landscape for men. Finally, a possible men’s movement that sought to create a genuine new male sexual morality unconstrained by outdated female orientated traditionalism whilst sticking two fingers up at feminism and so called ‘progressivism’. Sadly, as you would expect from an American dominated conservative movement, it has descended back into traditionalism and now alt-righters spend most of their time accusing Democrats and left-wingers of being ‘paedophiles’, apparently so brain dead that it came as a genuine surprise when their own sort – such as Roy Moore – inevitably started facing the same accusations.

American politics is now conducted akin to the thinking of World War One generals. A Republican will consider that if the last man in the USA not imprisoned for paedophilia or sex crimes is a Republican supporter, then that will mean that the Republicans have won.

And finally, a brief word on PUAs. PUAs again promised to bring something new to the table. A new sexual strategy in the new sexual landscape was finally being promoted by men for men. Further, a lot of the leading PUAs, such as our old friend Krauser PUA, were political and anti-feminist. In the end, it brought nothing. PUAs didn’t want to actively fight feminists because all this ‘red pill’ shit would ‘lower their frame’ and threaten to reduce their 1 in 100 lay ratios to something as beta as 1 in 125. Never mind that one day very soon talking to women in the street will be illegal, and it in fact might be in the UK by the end of next year). Most of these PUAs are so clueless and unaware of anything but their relentless pursuit of HB6 pussy that they will actually be non-plussed when they run up to a woman from behind with the ‘Yad stop’ and have their scripted negging routine rudely interrupted by the hand of a copper on their shoulder. Further, when PUAs are aware and politicized, they are inevitably traditionalist, and somehow perform mental gymnastics to accommodate this ultra-traditionalism with a life devoted to trying to pump and dump conservative teenage virgins in Eastern Europe.

So MRAs, MGTOWs, Alt-Righters and PUAs have all disappointed and we still await a movement by men and for men that actually puts forward a positive sexual path for all men in an era when sex and reproduction (and hence rationally speaking sex and morality) have and increasingly will be divorced, and that is furthermore prepared to fight for it.

10 Famous Pornstars Without Makeup (this is what you’re really fapping to)

I remember my old English teacher telling us that modern makeup is the only reason why the relatively recent phenomenon of females marrying outside of their teenage years is possible. Judging from the evidence here, it seems that makeup is the only reason why the billion dollar adult porn industry can exist too.

Allie Haze

allie-haze-without-makeup

Allie Haze without makeup

Anita Toro

anita-toro-without-makeup

Anita Toro without makeup

Bonnie Rotten

bonnie rotten without makeup

bonnie rotten without makeup

Brea Bennett

Brea Bennett without makeup

Brea Bennett without makeup

Bree Olson

Bree Olson without makeup

Bree Olson without makeup

Crista Moore

Crista Moore without makeup

Crista Moore without makeup

Dani Daniels

dani-daniels-without-makeup

Dani Daniels without makeup

Diamond Kitty

Diamond Kitty without makeup

Diamond Kitty without makeup

Eden VonSleeze

eden-vonsleaze-without-makeup

Jessica Mor

jessica-mor-without-makeup

Jessica Mor without makeup

Jynx Maze

jynx-maze-without-makeup

Jynx Maze without makeup

Keira King

keira-king-without-makeup

Keira King without makeup

Tiffany Tyler

 

tiffany-tyler-without-makeup

Tiffany Tyler without makeup

As the great Woody Allen once said – ‘sex is 99% in the mind’. And this is why those who believe that virtual sex will never replace the ‘real thing’ are 100% wrong.