Saturday, January 20, 2018

How the Men's Movement came to embrace pedophile rights

I have noticed something funny. Outside of my own blog, The Anti-Feminist, Holocaust21 and Steve Moxon, there appears to be more activism for pedophilia than hebephilia and ephebophilia. Isn't it funny that there are more people extolling the virtues of attraction to 7-year-olds than 17-year-olds, if my impression is correct? Despite this kind of attraction being so normal that no one can tell the difference on a blind test, someone who goes to jail for sex with a 17-year-old or a picture of a 17-year-old gets almost no support, except from the four MRA blogs mentioned and what exists incidentally on pedophile forums.

But I think I know why. Hebephiles and especially ephebophiles are just normal men who are arbitrarily criminalized, so they lack an identity of their own for the very same reason. Even the words used here to describe them are not in common use, because there is truly no good reason to set them apart. Why should someone who is the victim of an arbitrary age of consent, or even more arbitrarily being four rather than three years older than his 15-year-old girlfriend or something like that, have an identity? The only thing they have in common is blind criminalization, so no wonder they feel no unity. Pedophiles, on the other hand, with their attraction to prepubescent children truly are different than the majority, so it is not surprising that they form communities of the like-minded, whether they are politicized in favor of legalization or of the "non-offending" variety.

This brings me to the question: should pedophile rights be an MRA issue? I don't have the energy to answer this question definitively right now, but suffice it to say that we wouldn't have a movement to speak of without that kind of activism. Someone like Tom Grauer would not exist or be interesting beyond the hard core of MRAs without the inclusion of pedophile rights. And I did proclaim him our new leader for a reason. I invite further discussion in the comments.

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

The Men's Movement has a new leader, and his name is Tom Grauer

The aim of the Men's Rights Movement is to defeat the Puritan-Feminist morality which criminalizes normal male sexuality, and so far we have only failed. Not entirely for lack of trying, as I, for example, have made myself the worst Norwegian enemy of the state since Quisling in an attempt to overturn it, but we failed to affect policy at all. To win the sex war, we need someone like Tom Grauer of The Daily Antifeminist [Update: Tom now blogs at The Triweekly Antifeminist]. He seems shocking at first sight, but now he has explained the method in his madness:

Rape Apologia: Explainig The Method in The Madness

And it is highly persuasive! Actual madness would be to keep doing the same thing while expecting a different result, but that is not what he is attempting. The Daily Antifeminist blog represents a radically new approach, the rationale for which he explains well in the above post. So troll on, Tom, and good luck!

I will, however, leave the trolling to him. One benefit of that blog is that I get to be a moderate in comparison. Of course, I knew even as I was being put in prison as an "extreme blogger" in 2012 that I was not really extreme, but since we had no one like Tom Grauer to compare me to, that was the public perception. Some perspective was sorely needed, and now we have it.

So when he says, for example, that rape should be legal, I can present a counterargument which sounds -- and is -- very moderate and reasonable, but at the same time encapsulates all that is really needed to liberate male sexuality. My reluctance to proclaiming that "rape should be legal" is not due to thinking that we necessarily need rape laws, most of which I have been resisting all along, but the other crimes subsumed in "rape" that we really can't do without. For example, in order to rape a woman (I mean really rape her, not some feminist regret-rape) you have to violently assault/threaten/restrain her somehow, and that means you have already committed other crimes before you get to the sex. So rape would not be legal just because we abolish the crime of "rape," unless we also instate exemptions to a lot of other crimes for the purpose of rape. And that would be insane -- we would have a situation where you could knock someone out in the street or threaten them at gunpoint and then excuse yourself by saying you were only trying to rape them. The reasonable position is that having an extra, aggravating crime of "rape" on top of all other laws that deal with violence is optional, and in any case it needs to be reasonably defined.

I am here to say that feminist sexual legislation needs to be entirely repealed, and only then can we get around to discussing reasonable alternatives. Thank you, Tom, for making it more possible to even have this debate without being labeled as an extremist.