Six of the top eight countries for men spending their time searching for porn, are Islamic nations, with Pakistan topping the list. This is despite porn being illegal in all of those countries except Turkey, with Pakistan having some of the harshest penalties for those caught.
I’m not sure how Male Sexualists square this with their core beliefs that 1/Islam is good for male sexualilty, and 2/ watching porn, and masturbation in general, is sinful.
Maybe penalties for porn watching are simply not harsh enough in places like Pakistan? Perhaps they need to be more severe in their enforcement of Islamic law, and start executing men caught knuckle shuffling to indecent images of uncovered women, as ISIS and the Taliban have been known to? The male sexualist solution – greater regulation of the ‘commercial exploitation of pornography’ (I wonder how many thousands of times that phrase has been used in a gender studies essay somewhere in the world?) isn’t really open to the Pakistani government because…well because I guess not a lot of commercial porn is produced in Lahore or Karachi. Not to mention that most porn online nowadays is amateur generated, and the only way to stop that is either prosecute the women uploading (not going to happen), or prosecute the men downloading.
Still, it’s true that if we enable a society in which men have their doors broken down in the middle of the night for not only looking at pictures of 17 year old girls in bikinis, but 21 year old women in biknis too, the male sexualist movement will have achieved some kind of victory. At least in terms of a victory for equality of injustice that would make even the likes of ‘MRAs’ Paul Elam and Hannah Wallen envious.
What does the Koran say about looking at women and girls?
However bad things are in the West, it’s not yet illegal to look at even young girls in public places. Although this may change soon in the first European country to become femislamized – the UK.
According to the Koran, it is sinful to look lustfully at women, whether covered or uncovered, Muslim or Non-Muslim. Contrary perhaps to male sexualist expectations, and to how hypocritical Muslim men often behave in the West, it is considered wrong to look lustfully even at non-Muslim women wearing sexy clothing (or lack of clothing).
It is only permissible to look at the face and hands of a non-Muslim woman, and according to Ihtiyat Wajib, one must refrain from looking at other than these two parts of her body. G
Looking at the bodies of women who are “common place”, who if were commanded or requested to observe the hijab would not listen, is not a problem, with the condition that the look is done without the intention of lust and no fear of falling into a haram act – and in this ruling, there is no difference between Kuffar or other women (such as Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc…). Also, there is no difference between the hands, face and other parts of the body that they do not usually cover. S
Note: In the event that the non-Mahram is a non-Muslim and her covering is less than women like her would wear, then according to Ihtiyat Wajib, it is not allowed to look at her. For example, those women who in order to sexually excite others, wear a specific type of clothing. Therefore, it is not a problem to look at the hair, hands, and feet up to the knees or any other place that non-Muslim women usually do not cover.
33 – Rule: According to Ihtiyat Wajib, it is not allowed to look at the private parts of a Kafir.S
34 – Rule: If one knows or fears that in the event that he will look at non-Mahram who are non-Muslims they will fall into sin or corruption, then they must not look at them.ABGKLMST
But what about the paedophile allies of male sexualists? Surely they can dream of a better world under Islam, where even if looking at (all) porn is illegal, and men get stoned to death for cheating on their wives, they will at least be able to walk down the street admiring and dreaming of marriage with every 8 year old girl they see?
It is haram (proscribed by Islamic law) to look at the body of a non-Mahram girl who has not yet reached 9 years of age, however, she understands between good and bad. Also, it is haram to look at her, if that look normally may stimulate or arouse sexual desires, and similarly (it is haram) to look at her hair, whether it is with the intention of lust or without. In addition, it is also haram to look at her face and hands if it is with the intention of lust and furthermore, looking at her without the intention of lust even, is not free from doubt. (This ruling comes under Ihtiyat Wajib). G
Islam, sex robots, and beauty pagents
In 2002 in Nigeria, feminists and Muslims joined forces in violently protesting the holding of the Miss World beauty pagent in their country. Muslims were furious because they thought the women were cheap whores revelling in indecently exposing their flesh. Feminists were furious because they thought
the women were cheap whores revelling in indecently exposing their flesh the spectacle degraded women.
Over 200 people died in the protests.
I do not know where Male Sexualists stand on the idea of Miss World contests. Presumably, they are against them, on the same grounds as their opposition to masturbation and porn. The very same grounds that feminists, Muslims, and American evangelists oppose masturbation, porn, and beauty contests. Looking at women is substitution of the real thing (procreation).
If you are against masturbation on these grounds, you should be agianst beauty pagents, you should be against uncovered women, you should be against sex robots. In fact you should be violently opposed to sex robots as the worst evil in the world, just as feminists are rigidly opposed to them. Sex robots represent the end of male sexual dependence on women. Muslims will oppose this (Muslim riots already took place when a ‘sex robot’ conference was planned in Malaysia recently).
Paul Elam can see this. MGTOWs can see this. I can see this. I fear Male Sexualists can’t see this. Or at least their position on sex robots will be something like their position on porn – ‘sex robots are evil and harm men and male sexuality, but the feminists who inevitably make laws against them using arguments we agree with are evil, and the pigs who enforce their laws against sex robots are even more evil’.
Sex robots represent the final battle between anti-feminists and femnists, between men and women. This battle has already started and the outcome will be clear within the next ten to twenty years. If they ban sex robots, then they’ve won. If we can stop them banning sex robots, we have won. Ernest Belfort Bax has won. Angry Harry has won. Chris Brand has won. Steve Moxon has won. Paul Elam can see this. MGTOWs can see this. I doubt very much if Male Sexualists can see this, and thus I refuse to consider myself one of them any longer.
The Schopenbecq Rule of Thumb
In deciding whether or not an issue or position is consistant with pro male sexuality, a good rule of thumb is to ask – ‘would a feminist agree or disagree with me?’. If the answer is it would agree, then you’re probably wrong, and at least you should admit that the onus is on you defend your position.
For example. All of us can agree that the MRAs have got it wrong over the issue of the age of consent. We can confirm this simply by applying this rule of thumb. Do feminists agree or disagree with us on the age of consent? No, they disagree. In fact, as I’ve shown here I would say quite conclusively over the years, the whole reason feminism came into existance was to raise the age of consent. You simply can’t get a more of a fucking valid anti-feminist cause than lowering the feminist age of consent.
Similarly, let’s ask the question – do feminists agree or disagree with the view that looking at porn is wrong and harmful to men? Yes, they do. In fact, they are the ones who created the junk science advocacy research that led to the meme ‘your brain on porn’.
Let’s also ask the question – do feminists agaree or disagree with Islam? Well here the answer might not appear to be so clear, because Islam is anti-feminist right? I mean, don’t they stone to death women for adultery, deny them the vote, the right to even drive in Saudi Arabia and such? Well, yeah, but as again as I’ve shown here over the years, these aren’t feminist issues, and this is why feminists are so silent on these things. Feminism is controlling male sexuality in order to raise average female sexual market value. Telling men they can’t look at young girls, can’t have sex with unmarried women, that beautiful females have to be covered up like every other woman. Eivind and Tom Grauer agree that feminists dominate governments and the media in the West, yet the West has been allowing the Islamic colonization of itself via the unrestrained mass migration policies that they have gladly pursued. They are even locking up those who criticize these policies and their consequences. Last week a well known British critic of Islam was arbitarilly arrested and immediately sentenced to 13 months in prison, and the British media has been forbidden from reporting on it. Yet it’s suggested that converting to Islam is a means of ‘getting back at the state’?? Hmmm. I’d sooner become a full-time Canadian no life tranny dyed hair Reddit/Tumbler feminist jerking off to SALO whilst screaming for teen bikini pics to be banned, in order to ‘get back at the State’, than I would convert to Islam.
We are in competition with Islam, not its bedfellows
If Tom and Eivind are looking for a religion to confirm their Male Sexualist beliefs, they would be better off choosing evangelical Christianity and joining forces with the American religious right. At least Christianity will get young Male Sexualists laid. Go to church, look your best, put on the act, and you’ll eventually meet some nice prim glasses wearing virgin who will let you date her for years before finally letting you bang her after the marriage ceremony, at which point you will be tied to her for life (and God help you if you so much as ever look at another female). But at least you will get laid. Islam is a perverted death cult that leaves the majority of its young males sexually frustrated. The Alpha Male 1% tribal chiefs get to fuck their multiple wives and harems, whereas young men, who are denied even the consolation of looking at uncovered female beauty in the street, are told not to be resentful, because their patience will be rewarded with 72 ripe 12 year old virgins to bang for eternity in heaven…so long as they commit Jihad in the name of Mohammed. Or maybe they can marry their inbred mustachioed female cousins.
Recently we’ve seen on two occasions young male incels committing atrocities in the West openly because of their right to sex being denied by the crooked, feminist regulated sexual market place. No, that’s not quite true. Recently, we’ve seen dozens of young male incels committing atrocities in the west obviously because of their right to sex being denied by the crooked, feminist regulated sexual market place (but in the case of the Islamist attrocities, being lied to and manipulated by their Muslim elders into believing they can get that sex in the next world).
Of course, I need to stress, that I and nobody else here agrees with the violence of the acts of Incels or of Islamists. But we do need that anger, and to channel it into a non-violent political movement that will at least call out femihags for what they are, rage against the likes of frauds such as Paul Elam and Hannah Wallen for denying real male sexuality as part of men’s rights, and be unafraid to see women as the enemy (and the mangina dogs who they manipulate and exploit). We need these angry incels. We need white angry incels. We need the millions of angry Muslim incels. But we need to take them out of that crooked religion first. We are in competition with Islam, not allies. They offer young incels lies and fanatasies about a sexual paradise when they die, we can offer them the true promise of a sexual paradise on Earth.
I will alway stand by Eivind and see him as a brother. We’ve been through a lot together over the last decade, trying vainly to shout the cause of male sexuality and stop the frauds, manginas, and ‘lovely looking sheilas’ from taking over the men’s rights movement. And maybe there are some advantages of putting ‘No Fap’ as a core Male Sexualist issue. Well, one advantage I can think of is that it would sharpen our political bite if all followers renounced porn – simply because porn browsing is such a legally hazardous undertaking these days that it would lessen the power of state control over men and male political activism. However, porn isn’t bad in itself, it’s only bad because feminists have made it dangerous and shameful for men. And at the end of the day, I refuse to be part of a movement that puts the age old female inspired condemnation of masturbation as the starting point of its ‘pro male sexuality’ cause.