No, Patrick. Knee jerk reaction is not a counter argument.

Recently a few pages I follow on social media were negatively affected by “guidelines” for opposing feminism, the LGBT lobby, multiculturalism, and communism. It was clear Facebook and Twitter refused to acknowledge their rights to free speech in accordance to the first amendment which American companies should abide.

Not only that. Many of them were removed because people reported them. And I did notice something curious. Their detractors either reported them or went on an insult rampage, but non of them actually  refuted their arguments.

I have been there. I have been called “fucking pedophile” event though I got no interest in prepubescent females, just for saying teenagers are attractive to the average male (I am sure many of you will say “I didn’t know she was [X]teen at some point in your lives), by people who are either femihags, blue knights, or actual closet pedophiles (The most aggressive ones I am sure raped someone).

But, whenever I put the evidence on display, not a single one of them actually refutes it, and they keep calling me names. Of course, feminists not just call me names, they claim my evidence is false because I am a straight white male or because it was made by “patriarchal science.” After all, they think on terms of power, and they are unable to grasp any concept not directly tied to power or entirely independent of it (Such as love, loyalty, trust, self confidence, dignity… And nearly anything nice). They believe power is only used to oppress others, and never to help.

For such people those topics lead to a violent emotional response because they challenge their notion of the world. Now, I will admit I am no exempt of having a strong emotional response to anything I oppose, but if it is backed with evidence I consider reliable, I will at least be open to agree with some things.

For example, there are two camps of male sexualism. One neutral to porn and one against porn. I am in the neutral camp (Honestly all I want is to be free to love who I want and not be demonized as a male for my sexual preferences), but I have seen some strong evidence from the group against porn that at least reminds us we should draw a line.

It is true that many are negatively affected by some forms of pornography. And in fact I dislike studio pornography because it feels unpleasant, fake, unrealistic, and generally deviant. (No, Patrick. Scat is not normal sexual behavior, neither is BBW, gerontophilia, or anal prolapses). I do understand why some people would warn against such content. While I am against prohibition I agree there are some things that are not recommended and might harm your mind.

Several studies, which also prove women with more than 10 sexual partners are ruined mentally by it, prove excessive porn consumption, especially of extremely unrealistic material, leads to becoming a sexual deviant. Moderation is required, and I feel at ease because I prefer softcore content over hardcore fetish content.

My arguments in favor of pornography as an entirely harmless thing were partly refuted. While moderation keeps it harmless, there is a line in which the groups against pornography are right. If both sides remained in a knee jerk reaction instead of exposing evidence, arguments, and counter arguments, reason would never be achieved. But there is a bridge which allows communication.

Disagreement is part of intellectual discourse, so is arguing, but ad hominem attacks and immediate emotional response is not. Whenever you require to prove someone wrong, back your claims. Don’t just tell people they say bullshit, tell them why it is bullshit.


Disagreement as a source of accomplishment.

I am a very controversial figure, especially when it comes to my stance on age gaps between lovers and my stance on spirituality. With that said, and without delving deeper into those, I can tell I have a very controversial stance on disagreement.

Whenever a group of people start pushing for an endeavor as a team, there will always be disagreement, and I have seen that happen quite often. In most cases it is generally solved, but on occasion it leads to intrigue, infighting, or purge of “dissenters”.

As a general contrarian, I have been “purged” quite often from many circles, and found myself in conflict with former “comrades” on different matters. Recently I have taken the banner of male sexualism so to speak.

While I have always been clear with my end goal being to end the demonization of men, end the demonization of age gaps, end the government supported abuse of men, and overall give freedom to all, I am well aware different people in the same circles of male sexualism and anti feminism in general disagree with me on many, if not, most points.

I incline to support such disagreement, for a hivemind is what one should avoid. Cohesion and teamwork are great, but once dissenters are removed, restraint ends, and we see how that went for other movements in the past.

Especially feminism, the incarnation of all negative aspects of women (There are positive ones, in case you ask), has become an evident hivemind where any dissent is met with hostility. That of course gives them a lot of power, but also caused their current downfall since no one stopped them from doing what they do the best, ruining things, including their own movement.

Recently I read somewhere that male sexualism began to slowly adopt an anti porn and “no fap” stance so to speak. Well. That is a cause of worry for me as an individual. Honestly, if we take any freedom away from men in terms of sexuality, that is a reason of concern. Even if it is jacking off to a drawing of some fictional character, if male sexuality is restricted… Well… i don’t feel like that would be something I, as a male sexualist, would campaign for.

Of course, I am not telling people what to do, or what to think, but sincerely, porn and masturbation existed before feminism, so with all due respect, as someone whose sole purpose is to undo all laws imposed by feminism (Including any age of consent above 14), I won’t act against porn, and if that makes me controversial in yet another circle that is fine, and worthwhile.

I firmly believe such disagreements and resulting discussion are necessary for any team effort to function. Because, if even one single member of the team has a valid counter argument for or against something, it should be discussed, lest we become what we detest. Narrow minded dogmatic idiots who believe they are the only carriers of truth and entirely unable to make mistakes or wrong assumptions. Anyone who finds itself in the delusion of being immune to criticism risks causing great harm, especially when calling for a greater good.

Proving each other wrong leads, on the long run, to higher success rates than all agreeing to crash into a wall as feminists, especially aged up ones do in many senses. Hitting the wall is not a manly thing to do.

From a volcel to the incels of the world.

Look. Many of you are probably either resentful volcels who feel the world failed you or actual incels who are held back by either society or yourselves.

To those screwed over by society or biology (Born without a penis makes you a guaranteed incel, so does born disfigured), there is little advice I can tell you. Mostly because all you can do is try to fight back against society, but you won’t defeat biology. Sadly if you are born dickless, your best hope is biotechnology.

But for all those volcels and incels who lack confidence, well, let me tell you one of the most important things to realize is that the current sex market is broken. You should understand your worth is higher than media tells you. Even if you are not a footlong cockmonster hunk, you are much likely normal in looks, and have other traits to your advantage. Most females have none.

That is a fact. Most women have only their bodies to offer to the world, and once they are past the wall, they are done for good. But for men there is no fucking wall. Why? because our body is not our only tool to climb up in society. We can, and should, work hard to achieve our goals.

If you are ugly, work out. You will slowly notice your own sex market value the healthier you get. If you think you are stupid, study, and keep an eye on those “equal to you” and see how you are actually more intelligent than they are because you actually tried to be smarter and they didn’t.

We are expected to be something we can’t be by modern feminist societies. But the truth is, that only diminishes the sex market value of men. And once we start believing in ourselves we understand two things. First, being a volcel is better than having low quality sex with a dozen of femoids. Second, it is more likely that you are a volcel who resents the vast amount of low quality women than an incel.

After all, most men are capable of pleasing their sexual needs on their own, but they seek women to complete emotional and intellectual needs, and the amount of imbecilic femoids produced by feminism and mass media are the reason we feel frustrated, sexually, emotionally, and intellectually, even when we have a woman in our bed.

You owe women nothing, and they owe you quite a lot if they are like the average femoid, so start acting like you own the world.

My stance on divorce.

One of the core, and unanimous goals of male sexualism is getting rid of all feminist laws, and feminism altogether. Other than that, we are trying to reach an agreement on different topics. A manifesto of sorts.

As such I would like to contribute to my individual position on divorce. So that other male sexualists use it to the benefit of the end goal.

My stance on divorce is not as complex as it would seem due to the long wording I use, which I proudly call my flair and panache. To make it quick and simple. I oppose divorce.

The long part will be more detailed and is as follows. I oppose no fault divorce, and I oppose non factual divorce.

I oppose any divorce under arguments such as “He is not good enough.” Or “He is loud.”

I oppose any divorce initiated by a woman on emotional basis.

Only divorces I support are those based on actual harmful acts or cheating (In particular I support a man who was cheated on to decide the fate of the woman). I support a divorce from a man who murdered his own child. I support a divorce from a man who constantly beats his wife for fun. I support divorce based on evidence.

I oppose any other form of divorce. Him not being handsome enough is no excuse. Him not being funny at parties, or your mother hating him is no excuse.

And I oppose child support and alimony. If you divorced, it is over. You should never see each other again, or hear of each other. That is unhealthy in all senses.

Now. Why my focus on men? Because, especially nowadays, men rarely ask for a divorce on petty excuses. When a man seeks a divorce it is because his wife is crazy and stabbed him once. Not because her feet smell weird or because she is “Not as funny anymore.”

No fault divorce is a feminist thing, is a matriarchal thing, and is harmful to humanity.

Therefore I believe all divorce laws, just as consent laws, and rape laws, should be revoked and reformulated from a male sexualist, or at least anti feminist, position.

I do have my own ideas on how that would work, and it would be pretty much as it was before feminism. Similar to the laws of late 18th and early 19th century.

Laws should be made to prevent harm, not increase it. And modern feminist divorce laws only increase harms. Ergo, I oppose divorce.

A rulte to stay a sane man.

I think any man, especially a male sexualist, should follow a simple rule to stay sane.


Simple as that. If you avoid those women, who by standards before feminism, and even according to women I have spoken to who were born before the 60s, are spinsters.

Yes. No offense to women older than 25, and I won’t blame them since feminism tries to narrow the space for marriage. It is a simple truth. Any woman is older than 25 and unable to land a decent relationship probably is not worthwhile. Why? Because the closer you are to the end of your fertility, they harder it will be to land a partner, men won’t like a postmenopausic woman unless they are closer to andropause.

I am not saying “Never marry a woman older than 25”. Actually if you are 37 or 47, it makes sense to date someone who is literally 10 or 20 years younger (You could do better though). And a wife is something worth keeping no matter how much you have aged together. But in a pragmatic sense, it is not worth having someone you won’t produce offspring with, unless you already gave up on having progeny of your own.

At this moment I bet some blue knights and femihags are foaming in their mouth yelling “Then what is the lower end?”

Well. The lower end, at least to me, is to never date under 10, and avoid prepubescents. Simple as that. Never older than 25, never younger than 10. That secures a wide room for love. Of course, if you are past your 30s, you might benefit from someone older than 25, but only because of the reasonable age gap.

Most of the time scientists have declared that a 5 year age gap is considerably healthier than same age relationships. And I agree. In fact I prefer an age gap between 10-20 years younger than myself in a pragmatic sense. That is, If I am likely to cease my fertility around the age of 60-70, I need someone at least 10 years younger than myself so that she won’t stop being fertile while I still have more than a decade of fertility ahead.

One of the current issues in society, which is leading to a dangerous population decrease in many first world countries, is that people engage in relationships with people their own age, and therefore have a lower fertility window.

Once you hit puberty, age is just a number, but society is held back because many still give a damn fuck about the number instead of the character of the one who carries that number.

Soy boy facts.

Soy has been present in the diet of several Eastern cultures. Then how come it was until late 2016 that people began to notice the emasculating effects of soy on Western men? Why many Eastern men are capable fo remaining masculine despite soy consumption?

The key lies in something people forget. It is not just soy. The amount of phytoestrogens found in soy is similar to that found in other oily seeds, such as almond and walnut. And that is exactly the issue. Soy boys are not soy boys because of soy, but because of their overall diet.

Most of these homunculi feed on mostly plant matter, avoiding any animal product as much as possible. It is not just soy that is ruining them, but the fact that their diet, while allegedly healthy, is unbalanced. A lot more unbalanced than that of the average barbecue fan.

They eat little to no meat, and avoid any dairy product, replacing them with plant matter, which has different levels of phytoestrogens. Most importantly, they eat things with high levels of such which are often overlooked by average people having a normal diet, like wheat grass.

Even apples have a high amount of phytoestrogens, but most people counter their effects by simply eating cheese and drinking milk, which contain a bit of testosterone. In the end a herbivore or mostly herbivore diet makes men… Well, not men.

A healthy man never goes vegan or vegetarian. Not to mention the hormonal imbalance makes them depressive.