I’ve resolved to do a lot of things differently this time around, and perhaps above all in the way I interact with readers and other ‘anti-sex hysteria bloggers. When I read back some of my old posts, and the comments sections underneath them, I’ve often found myself cringing a little at the way I rather childishly bandied around the ‘aspie’ term as an insult.
But I did have a point, lol!
I’ve become convinced that the whole failure and futility of trying to kick start a ‘Male Sexualist’ movement can be diagnosed to a very large degree by the following:
- Many more people than we think would agree with our views, and can see the increasing absurdity of present anti-sex laws and hysteria. But a) most have enough sense, or at least sense of self-preservation, to largely keep quiet (or even become out-and-out paedocrites), and b) those that do speak out tend to be ‘on the spectrum’, not realising the dangers and consequences of speaking out and in revealing that the emperor has no clothes.
- This leads to a skewed demographic in the small ‘anti-sex hysteria’ commnunity – namely, most are on the spectrum. And the more vocal they are, the more likely they are to be on the spectrum.
- This has many consequences unfavorable to creating any kind of effective ‘movement’ or opposition to anti-sex laws. Firstly, the old ‘herding cats’ thing. Individuals with aspergers tend to think they are ‘special’, and have notoriously poor social skills. This lack of understanding of ‘other minds’ also leads invariably to them to being completely inept when it comes to tactics. Secondly, it leads them to taking the words of others at face-value. This leads to ‘MAPs’ and ‘ephebophiles’ believing other men when they say that they have no interest in teenage girls, for example. Perhaps just as insidiously, it leads anti-sex hysteria rationalists to believe feminists when they say they are trying to ‘protect vulnerable women and children’, but have simply ‘gone a bit too overboard’. This I’ve chosen to mock as ‘paedo rationalism’. It’s the tactic that has been tried for the last fifty years. And if it didn’t work in the 70’s, then guess what? It wont work today.
As I mentioned in another post recently, this is all self reinforcing too – on ‘both sides’. For example, MAPs take it at face value that other men are not like them in finding ‘minors’ attractive. This leads other men (with aspergers) to look at MAPs and think – “I’m one of them!”. It also leads ‘normal’ men to strengthen their own paeodcrisy – “I’m not a MAP! Look at those MAPs – they are a minority of austic weirdos who find kids attractive! I’m not like those perverts – I’m a normal man!”
Similarly, with the paedo rationalist view that feminists are well-meaning but have just gone too far, or have been corrupted by ‘cultural drift’, or ‘American puritanism’, or the devil or whatever. This effectively legitimizes the feminist sex laws, or at least the ‘save the children and women from patriarchy’ narrative behind them – it allows feminists to frame the debate. Not only in the ‘anti-sex hysteria community’, but in society itself.
Non-aspergic individuals who have spoken out against paedohystria, almost invariably are aware both that most men find teenage girls attractive AND that female sexual jealousy is a driving force of the hysteria. But rather than starting a blog, or creating a movement, they have the ‘sense’ to voice it a little more subtly. For example, by satarizing it.
So is there any hope? Surely it is possible to ‘weaponize autism’, as 4Channers infamously claimed to be doing? No doubt those ‘on the spectrum’ do have certain strengths and assets, but I believe that when you get beyond a certain percentage that it simply becomes impossible. The 4Chan culture might have influenced the Manosphere and red pill movement and set off many memorable and effective memes, but it was never a political movement in itself and probably only a minority of 4Channers were autistic. Likewise, although many incels are aspergic, the majority are simply ugly.
So we seem to be in something of a catch-22 situation. Until it becomes even slightly ‘normalized’ to openly admit that teenagers are attractive and debate around the age of consent and related laws becomes permissible, then the anti-sex hysteria community is likely to attract mostly individuals who are in some way on the spectrum, with all the consequences that follow from that. But not all hope is lost. A handful of non-aspergic inviduals, simply angry at what feminists are doing, feel they have to speak out. I feel I am one such person (although I have aspergic qualities myself), the readers Jack and Anon69 are two others. Hopefully, more will follow.
Eivind and the MAP rationalists should make an updated video of the infamous ‘Dear Woman’ that had all of us MRAs in stitches back in the day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLRu6PJtRv4
Why is that virtually ANYBODY who opposes feminists can see the obvious truth about them, and yet the people who are the worst victims of feminism, can’t? It’s as though Jews were the only people on Earth who thought NAZIs ‘had a point, but they’ve just gone a little too far in their reasoning’.
The oddest thing perhaps is it should be most obvious of all to somebody who is appreciative of real female youthful beauty.
https://x.com/DScmitt/status/1923473586104434748
You got me lost there for a while with “anti-sex hysteria”. This only works in writing (and provided you place the hyphen correctly!). If you misplace the hyphen on paper or in your head, you get an opposite meaning: “anti sex-hysteria”. Or maybe it’s just my nitpicking mind that plays tricks on me.
Aha, I am always a little unsure if I’m placing the hyphen correctly in that phrase. Maybe we need to think of a better word? Anyway, I asked Grok: “I want to express being opposed to what I see as negative hysteria over sex (by feminists and the religious right). I use the term “anti-sex hysteria”. Is that the correct way, or am I placing the hyphen wrongly?”
It’s reply: The term “anti-sex hysteria” is clear and conveys your intended meaning—opposition to what you see as exaggerated or irrational fear surrounding sex. However, hyphenation depends on context and style:
– **Correct Usage**: “Anti-sex hysteria” is generally fine as is, especially in informal writing. The prefix “anti-” is often attached without a hyphen when the meaning is clear (e.g., “antisocial,” “antivirus”). Since “sex hysteria” is the noun phrase being modified, “anti-sex hysteria” reads naturally.
– **Hyphenation Consideration**: Some style guides (e.g., Chicago Manual of Style) recommend a hyphen in “anti-” compounds when the second element is a single word or could cause ambiguity (e.g., “anti-intellectual”). Here, “sex” is a single word, so a hyphen helps clarity, especially in formal writing. Without the hyphen (“antisex hysteria”), it might look awkward or be misread.
– **Alternative Phrasing**: If you want to avoid hyphenation debates, you could rephrase, e.g., “hysteria against sex” or “sex-negative hysteria.” The latter might resonate with critics of certain feminist or religious rhetoric but could sound more academic.
If you’re writing formally, stick with “anti-sex hysteria” for clarity and consistency. In casual contexts, either “anti-sex” or “antisex” works, but the hyphenated form is safer. Check any style guide relevant to your audience (e.g., APA, MLA) for specific rules.”
On the subject of AI, Google revealed the first AI that can solve decades old maths problems and actively improve its own code.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCTvblRXnzg
Yea, you have to be socially awkward with nothing to lose to publicly talk in favor of “pedophilia” since the feminist state has made it so dangerous, and then they become easy fodder for feminist women and cowardly men to mock. Eivind, Amos Yee, Nathan Larson… while they all fit this description, I also have enormous respect for them regardless. But we must also remember that real thought leaders were censored (Roissy) and others were paid off to sell out their pro male beliefs (Danger and Play/Cernovich).
The real head scratcher is why men aren’t on this blog in the thousands commenting anonymously in favor of elimination of hateful feminist sex laws, and hateful anti-youth freedom laws. Youth freedom is the most restricted in history I believe – no smoking, no drinking, no working, no fucking… total state (and parental) control of youth is the goal and it is working. I think it’s obvious most men are just broken and trying to deal with the situations they find themselves in.
I’m a believe in the idea of a ‘tipping point’. We need to reach a certain number for other men to start to feel it is acceptable to ‘join in’. For example, before the MRM got going, it was completely unacceptable for men to ‘stand up for their rights’. It wasn’t particularly dangerous, but it was something of a joke and you would be met with derision. Similar with the incel idea of complaining about not being able to attract a girlfriend. Of course, MRAs and most certainly incels are still mocked by normies, but they got to the point where their ‘communities’ became large enough to form their own little worlds and they grew from there.
We never quite got to that point. If the moderators of the Reddit men’s rights sub, or Paul Elam, had been more tolerant, things might have been different. But then we would still have run into the zero tolerance attitude social media began to take and the MRM would probably have quickly abandoned us.
Still, I do have some hope. I’m seeing more positive comments online, such as the “first 24 hours in prison for a predator” one I quoted. Now we need to figure out how to get these kind of people to find us.
Nevermind, this was the one I was looking for. What even is the “first 24 hours in prison for a predator”?
Also, have you tried r/MensRights? What’s up with that?
You can find the answers to both of your questions if you read the articles and the comments.
Then the young are even more unaware of their plight and more unwilling to rebel than grown men are.
As an antinatalist I believe “thank you mum & dad for giving me life” is a hoax. We should not be grateful to our mum and dad, they were selfish and irresponsible in bringing us into this World. This hoax includes blind obedience to mum and dad. Since we are required as per hoax to thank them for our lives, we are required to obey them for half our lives.
The taboo about questioning adults’ power over the young derives from the mother of all taboos: that life is a rotten deal and that “coming into existence is always a harm” (Benatar’s words).
I had a lot of issues with my mother over this, especially when I was going through very hard times as a teen and a young man. I regret blaming her now though, even though I still believe I would probably have been better off not being born.
I still haven’t read Benatar yet, just a few YouTube videos discussing his views. I have so many books on my shelves waiting to be read. Also, given I’ve had to cope with a couple of family deaths, I don’t want to read something that might depress me (although I guess Benatar’s view might be consoling in a way).
To the antifeminist: postings on your blog disappear or never get visible. I posted a reply to anon’s post above and for some reason it didn’t show after I clicked “Post Comment”.
Hi Jack, sorry about that – I’m not sure what is causing it. I’ve looked in the spam folder and there are only spam comments. I have approved every reader comment in the moderation queue since I went back online. I’ll check my settings and also log out and try to post test comments myself to see if the same thing happens to me.
I found the comment Jack – it had been placed automatically in the trash can by the spam filter settings. I checked my settings and I saw that I had a lot of words and strings that I was forced to include as spam triggers because of the amount of spam I was getting a few years ago. So I’ve refreshed the settings again – there shouldn’t be any problem now.