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. 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.