All Men Are Pedophiles And Other Things Radfems Get Right

Radical feminists Vs. Regular Feminists

Public Interest in basic bitch feminism has fallen off since its peak between 2014 and 2017:

I think this is due partially to the anti-SJW-era feminist cringe compilations. For younger readers who weren't around then, this type of content was super big around the same time third-wave feminism picked up on college campuses. Here’s how it worked, conservatives or edgy trolls would provoke an unattractive feminist into an over-the-top reaction and post it on YouTube. These videos made all feminists look ugly, weird, and crazy to a lot of Gen Z. Still, the fall of normie feminism probably had more to do with transsexuals blurring the lines on what exactly a woman is, which made it difficult to organize them as a group. Radical feminism however has had more staying power:

This is probably because a large portion of them are TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) and are therefore defending a more objective standard of womanhood. They're also more correct in diagnosing issues with the sexes because they're more essentialist. A lot of regular feminists legitimately believe the only important difference between men and women is how they are socialized. Radfems on the other hand often think something along the lines of "all men are born scum and will always be". Operating under an essentialist framework leads Radfems to a more correct understanding of the fundamental nature of men and women and the tensions caused by their differences. Not all radfems are TERFs or essentialists but a lot of them are and the ones who are get a lot more right.

The Pedo Question

Oh yeah so if you're wondering about the title I'm being 100 percent dead ass. I wasn't sure at first, but after much research on the subject, I've figured out the age range of the women men find attractive. Radfems have us guys dead to rights on this accusation. If you go by how we use the word colloquially which is all that matters, basically 99% of men are pedophiles. It is true that if you're going by the dictionary definition “a psychiatric disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child” only about 1 to 4 percent of men experience pedophilic attraction. However, 9 times out of 10 when someone's calling a person a pedophile online that's not what they mean.

Russell Brand, Matt Gates, CallMeCarson and a million other dudes are all branded pedophiles and they did nothing approaching definitional pedophilia. In each case listed above the girl was post-pubescent, and all of them were 16 or older. The definition of a word is however people use it. If enough people say you're a pedo for finding a 17-year-old attractive it's true regardless of what the DSM5 or dictionary says. I'm actually understating the scope of the accusation, with the rise of age gap discourse pedojacketing has become extremely popular online. You can say you find any woman between 18 and 25 attractive and someone on X or TikTok will call you a pedophile. But let's stick to the under-18 definition for now.

You could say that men who pursue underage girls are a small percentage of the population and you'd be right. In an Australian study of a random sample of men, the percentage of them who admitted to having had sex with sub-18-year-olds was 3.2 percent. If you trust self-reporting then we can use the same study to determine that only about 5.7 percent of men are specifically attracted to sub-18-year-olds. So as a stated preference, only about six percent of men are pedophiles, not much right? If we take them at their word most men are wholesome chungus adult women enjoyers. There's one tiny issue with this method of analysis. You have to be kind of a retard to admit you're into girls under 18 in any circumstance.

So what about their revealed preferences? Instead of asking men, what if you showed them a series of images of naked underaged girls and naked adult women and then measured their reactions (don't ask me how this study was legal)? Well, then the percentage of men who are attracted to sub-18-year-old girls is by no means a minority.

This study was conducted in 1970 on a sample of 48 healthy men, not the population of Epstein Island. Each of them showed no indications of psychological illness i.e. none of them were diagnosed pedophiles. These men were all enlisted in the military and the average age of the sample was 20. Basically, they took a bunch of dudes, put monitoring devices on their penises, and showed them images of nude adult women and nude underaged girls, then measured when their dicks got hard. They classified the images into three groups. Children ages 4 to 10, adolescents ages 12 to 16, and adults 17 to 36. (How the fuck did they get away with this lmao). As you can see in the graph above men were about as likely to get an erection seeing a nude adult woman as they were seeing a nude adolescent girl.

Now, this is just one study. Could it be that these results are a one-off? Maybe men were just way more pedophilic in the 1970s. And after all, popping a stiffy isn't a perfect heuristic for sexual attraction. I did a bit more digging into the subject which probably got me on a few FBI watch lists.

This next study was conducted on a sample of 150 men ages 18 to 40 in 2013. No penis monitoring machines were involved in the creation of this study. Instead, participants were shown a sample of female faces ranging from age 11 to 65. They were asked to rate each face on a scale from one to five on how attractive and feminine they are. As you can see in the graph above, men rated the faces of adolescent girls as the most attractive followed by adult women, and rated menopausal women last.

In the first study, there was very little difference between the amount of arousal men experience from seeing nude 12 to 16-year-old girls and nude 17 to 37-year-old women. In the second study, men expressed a preference for adolescent girls ages 11 to 15. So from these two studies, the results indicate that men are either more attracted to adolescent girls than adult women or almost as attracted to adolescent girls as they are to adult women. Either way, it's not looking good bros.

Results like this, prove something that we all know deep down but are uncomfortable about confronting. Your father, your grandfather, your brother, your male cousins, your uncle especially, conservative men, liberal men, men who are in age gap relationships, and feminist men, who shame those other men for being in age gap relationships are all likely attracted to minors.

The vast majority of them don't pursue minors sexually. Most men will say they are repulsed even by the thought of getting it on with a girl under the age of 18. I'm not saying all of those men are knowingly lying. Some of them are, but most of them are just responding to social incentives. They legitimately have convinced themselves they could never find a teenage girl attractive because such attraction is legally, morally, and socially prohibited. None of this changes the fact that if you show them images of 15-year-old girls in bikinis their penis becomes erect.

Oh, one last thing before I move on. If you are a woman reading this, I want to give you a very helpful piece of advice. If you have a guy friend who regularly says things like "I'm 27, I could never find a girl who's 19 attractive that's freaking weird and gross" that's the type of guy who is knowingly lying and he is a dangerous sociopath. Run.

What Else Do Radfems Get Right?

So now that we've established that all men are pedophiles, what other things are radical feminists right about? There's a bunch of obvious ones. Men are more violent. Men are way more likely to kill or rape women than the other way around. Men do basically control all of society. Men by and large view women they don't know as sex objects. All of the above statements are true in every country and culture on Earth in the past, now, and forever.

“erm… where is the source for this one my guy”

Fuck off faggot you know it's true.

Radical Feminist Descriptions

So what do they think the cause of these issues are? As I said in the beginning a lot of radfems are essentialists who hate men and think they are scum by nature. They are what I like to call based foids because they are a lot closer to the truth than their normie sisters. Unfortunately, Just like a lot of stupid regular feminists some radfems also ascribe these outcomes to socialization. The normie feminist line goes “Men are rapey, abusive, and attracted to teenagers because of how they're socialized in our patriarchal society.”

There's just one small problem with this explanation. Men are deliberately socialized specifically not to find teen girls attractive, not to be abusive and not to rape. Every behavior previously listed is harshly penalized both legally and socially. Each behavior has different words assigned to stigmatize it; pedophile, wife-beater, abuser, rapist, etc. Each behavior elicits socially sanctioned violence from other nearby males. Each behavior carries criminal penalties; domestic abuse charges, statutory rape charges, regular rape charges, sexual assault charges, regular assault charges, etc. All of the aforementioned behaviors are portrayed negatively in the media. The social, legal, physical, and cultural penalties for rape, pedophilia, domestic abuse and homicide have made these behaviors much less common.

Men behave less violently, are less abusive, and behave less pedophilicly than ever before. If it were true that all of men's bad behaviors are due to poor socialization it should follow that removing men from society would make them better. In reality, if you remove all extrinsic social factors and place men back in the state of nature for a couple of generations they become way more violent and rapey.

Take a look at the table above, then look up the homicide rate in your own country. We don't see homicide rates like this today except in active war zones. In pre-civilization times something like 1/4 of all males died due to having their skull caved in with a rock by another dude. About 1/10 of the Skulls from prehistoric women have also been found with rock-shaped holes in their heads. Given that most female homicide victims throughout recorded history have been killed by men I think it's reasonable to assume that was probably the case back then too. I can't find good stats on prehistoric rape because unlike getting hit with a rock it often doesn't result in skeletal trauma that anthropologists can later identify. That said, the idea of sexual consent being important is a relatively modern phenomenon. Let's be real if a fella is willing to bash your head in with a rock I don't think rape is far-fetched.

Our patriarchal society makes men behave far better than they otherwise would. That said, the previous studies showing the ages of girls men find attractive demonstrates the limits of socialization. We can change men's actions and stated preferences but their underlying drives, urges, and desires will always remain the same. To summarize, the essentialist radfem who believes that all men are born violent rapist pedophiles is a lot closer to being correct than her moderate counterpart, since she doesn't try to shift the blame from men onto some nebulous social structure.

Radical Feminist Prescriptions

Now that we've gone through their descriptive beliefs let's move on to their prescriptions. What do radfems think is the solution to the problems men create? They often give the same obligatory statements all feminists give about "dismantling” or “pegging” the patriarchy or whatever. These are the least interesting prescriptions they offer because as they will constantly remind you pretty much every society now and throughout history has been some form of patriarchy. When you ask them for an example of the society they want to create, some point to the handful of matrilineal societies as examples of successful matriarchies: The Mosuo in China, the Minangkabau in Indonesia, and the Garifuna in Central America. But every example listed still has men with all or most of the political power and at most grants women some autonomy, inheritance, and social power.

Radfems are still feminists and women so they're still mostly wrong about everything. Their worldview prohibits them from accepting that the patriarchy is natural, inevitable, and good. But being wrong has given them some interesting solutions to an inescapable problem. After years of screaming “smash the patriarchy” with not much success, some radfems have come up with solutions for how to live better within the begrudgingly male-dominated world. Some of them I actually think are good and should be implemented.

“Solution One: Sex Strike”

Some radfems and normie fems have been trying to organize a sex strike by copying the mostly unsuccessful 4B movement from Korea. 4B has four principles which in Korean all start with B hence the 4b.

Bihon: No marriage

Bichulsan: No childbearing

Biyeonae: No dating

Bisekseu: No sex with men

It's just a female version of MGTOW (men going their own way) and will be about as successful as the male version. Women are way more sexually in demand than men so I guess a WGTOW could hypothetically be more successful. The problem is women are not an organized block with homogeneous views of men and society. Even if you could get a movement like that off the ground it would be really hard to maintain because you'll always have that one scab who says "Oh but my boyfriend is different. He's a feminist so it's okay to fuck him" and then every other bitch does it and there goes 4b. But hey if it makes the average woman less slutty I guess give it the old college try sweetheart.

“Solution Two: KILL ALL MEN”

This one is less of a political prescription and more of a cope disguised as a call to action. But let's examine it anyway since it's useful for giving us a theory of mind for radfems. There's a common feminist skit on TikTok where a man says “Without men who would protect women?” and the woman retorts “Protect us from who?" and she's completely right. In the past you could just say "Wolves bitch." but this is no longer the case.

The world today has been completely tamed by mankind. Men imposed civilization on a multitude of violent unforgiving ecosystems. We exterminated, contained, or domesticated every potentially threatening species. The man versus bear discourse is laughable since the general lack of bears in our presence already proves that men are the more dangerous animal. At their core human males are violent predators millions of times more dangerous than bears, with a capacity for cruelty and destruction unmatched by any other member of the animal kingdom. That's why we won. If humanity was a purely female species that could reproduce without dick, we'd probably still be living in caves or died out thousands of years ago.

Fast forward to the present day and no more external threats are coming from nature. The most likely animal to kill a woman is a human male. From the perspective of a radfem men are just a violent threat who serve no purpose. I've often thought about what I would believe if I were a woman and I'm sure I would have at least had a radfem phase cause this argument is very compelling from a female perspective.

I hope if I were a woman I'd realize that the systems that keep civilization alive and prevent nature from swallowing it don't maintain themselves. Humanity cannot live on spreadsheets and HR memos alone. Keeping an urbanized, fat, aging population from dying requires a lot of shitty work that women don't do. Sweetie, do you really wanna dispose of medical waste? Girl, do you really wanna lay sewer pipe? Honey, do you really wanna hit the oil rig? But even if we assume women could maintain civilization on their own, men are also responsible for about 90% of new inventions, innovations and startups. There is no female Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, or Bill Gates. At best a world without men looks like humanity stagnating on this rock till it's inevitable extinction.

Having said all that I get why girls fantasize about killing all moids. On an individual level, an average man can overpower most women provided there are no good men around to interfere. If men as a group decided to reduce women to chattel they could, but an attempt to do the same by women to men would just provoke laughter from the entire male population. No matter how much progress they make, women are eternally at the mercy of their male counterparts. This is the primary source of resentment that drives feminism.

“Solution: Three Gender Segregation”

A lot of radfems talk about building female-only spaces within society or more fancifully breaking off from society and forming a female-only state. The latter is dumb, unrealistic, and would end in one generation. The former is epic, redpilled, and based. We need a lot more gender segregation in real life.

People today, especially the youth, are isolated and online most of the time, but the time they spend in the real world is mostly in sex-integrated spaces. This sucks for members of both genders. Boys and girls from cradle to grave are always forced to be together. They attend the same schools, are part of the same extracurriculars, go to the same colleges, share the same workplaces, have the same friend groups, and spend their leisure time in the same spots. Forcing the sexes to be together all the time makes us all act way more feminine.

I'm not saying men and women must be apart all the time but the amount of time we spend together right now is creating a toxic dynamic for everyone. Women in sex-integrated spaces are forced to moderate conflict and act more feminine to compete socially with other females for male attention. Males in sex-integrated spaces are forced to censor their locker room talk (not be too offensive and scare off the hoes) and compete in an embarrassing, controlled fashion for female attention.

I think a lot of the reason young people spend so much time online is that a lot of the spaces only cater to the sensibilities of one sex or the other. This allows for monogendered communities to form. An example of this happening with two entire websites is 4chan for boys and Tumblr for girls but more often it happens within specific communities on websites.

Now just to be clear I'm advocating sex-segregated spaces, not radfems having control over these spaces. These girls should have absolutely nothing to do with creating, implementing, or maintaining such a social space. I'm not entirely sure what these female or male-only spaces should look like in the current year. Certain types of sex discrimination are legally prohibited such as only hiring men in the private sphere. A female only restaurant or bar would also run afoul of civil rights law. Single-sex schools and universities are legal so long as they don't receive government funding. Ideally, we would repeal anti-discrimination laws and freedom of association would reorganize the private sphere, educational institutions, and society as a whole. But that's an ideal to strive for and will take a long time to reach. For now, I think a return to 1950s-style gendered social clubs would be a nice model to work off of. Private clubs have the most leeway in terms of bypassing anti-discrimination laws. What I'm suggesting is the re-establishment of male and female-only social spaces built around interests and activities that are popular today.

A men's bowling league today could look like an IRL competitive gaming club where dudes get together, shoot the shit, and play Fortnite. A modern-day women's sewing circle could be a group dedicated to making pottery, gossiping, and drinking wine together (I don't know what women do for fun). A modern-day version of the Boy Scouts could look like the Boy Scouts but without all the child molesters. For far-right internet denizens like myself, a 2025 John Birch Society could look like the Nietzsche club or if you're content staying online the Tortuga Society (this one already exists and is awesome). Also, we should bring back lodges and male fraternal orders in general cause they were cool and Squidward was in one and he got to wear a cool hat.

Sources

Krytogals essay on how society makes us all act more feminine

Femininity is Fake, But Masculinity is Real

Pedophile definition

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedophilia

1 to 4 percent of adult men pedophile stats

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26241201/

Australia men pedophile study

https://www.humanrights.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/Identifying%20and%20understanding%20child%20sexual%20offending%20behaviour%20and%20attitudes%20among%20Australian%20men.pdf

Study of men's erectile response to nude adolescent and adult females

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5422891/

Study of men's perception of female facial attractiveness by age

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470491301100209

Homicide decline over time graph image

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Estimates-of-homicide-rates-in-the-United-States-1700-2015_fig4_326020920

Domestic violence overtime graph

https://www.vox.com/2014/4/19/5628454/were-keeping-domestic-violence-low-we-could-be-doing-more

Rape graph

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

Child sexual abuse graph

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/US-child-maltreatment-rate-trends-1990-2016-From-Finkelhor-et-al-2018_fig2_335850742

Stats on male and female hunter gatherer homicide rates

Book: Lawrence H. Keeley in War Before Civilization (1996)

https://archive.org/details/warbeforecivilization

Image of hunter gatherer homicide rates

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Hunter-gatherer-homicide-rates-per-100-000-person-years_tbl1_353866460

Stats on percent of female inventions and innovations

https://www.axios.com/2024/03/08/patents-women-science

Stats on percent of female startups

https://carta.com/data/gender-gap-by-sector-2023/