Ug. Well, I can't lie, reading this makes me want to get a divorce, surround myself with cats and dogs and trees and books the rest of my life, and possible start advocating for major male-specific eugenics to at least improve half the species. But ultimately, I can't argue that I came to all of these same conclusions long ago. I just don't think about them the way I don't think about death and rotting and slaughterhouses and animals being eaten alive by other animals every day.
But since you think all the "solutions" of the radfems are either unworkable or laughable, how does this one strike you? It formed some of the plot of a fantasy novel I once started and then got bored of. You note men are necessary for physical labor and maintenance, but really that's only like maybe a quarter of guys that do that stuff, especially since they only do it a portion of their lives. You also correctly note men are responsible for most innovations, but that's an even tinier portion, like less than 1%. Could not women just let men live together in barracks doing their guy things, and their jobs would be the physical labor stuff, and women would live in and manage society, since they seem to be much more interested it? Let the guys do whatever it is they want to do in their barracks...play video games, sports, whatever. Do men really care that much about gardens and nice houses and the arts and office and caring and service jobs, otherwise? I always hear they basically just do that stuff for women. So then the trade-off is that the women get to live in society having it be nice and safe and pretty and not having to worry about men at all, bc the men are locked into their barracks at night, but the trade off to keep the men happy and not trying to leave is that the young women all trade off and as their civil service they each have to go have sex with the men like twice a month or something. So the men would get as many women as they want, sexually, the women would only have to put up with them two nights a month for 20 years, and otherwise no one would need to demand or expect anything from anyone. The problem here is we would still want scientists and innovators, but I think you could easily identify those boys, who are rare enough, in childhood and take them out of the standard male system and put them in schooling and labs and research where they'd be happy. I guess you could either treat them as sort of a priestly class. I don't think you'd even have to educate the other men much, since most don't seem to naturally like school anyway. And if there are "extra" males or some not living up and contributing...well, the other men in the barracks can figure that out amongst themselves and decide what they want to do with them. The boys would go into barracks land around age 8 or 9.
I don't think men or women on average would be less happy with this system. What do you think? Just trying to be creative! 😉
I disagree with your gender segregation thing because that's what's already happening online as you note, and it's just making men and women hate each other more. They did not get along that great in the past either. There was a short golden age for a few decades where they began integrating but before the internet allowed them both to see exactly what the other is doing when they're "alone", and they got a long quite well in that era. But now everyone knows too much. Also, the segregation thing doesn't work for me personally because I generally prefer or at least towards conversing with men...I just have to constantly suppress thinking about the facts.
Thank you for reading my piece. I'm glad you had a chance to read it as you were one of the authors who inspired me to write it. I'm going to compartmentalize your response that way it'll be easier for me to respond to each point.
> and possible start advocating for major male-specific eugenics
This is unironically my ultimate solution to the issue. In the past eugenics was actually performed somewhat unintentionally in Western Europe with around 1% of the most violent elements of the male population( rapists murderers etc) being executed each generation before they could create offspring for about a thousand years. I think Ryan Faulk ( the alternative hypothesis) did a study on this. It had a massive effect on the Western European gene pool both raising its IQ and domesticating it somewhat. In pre Medieval Times northern European men had rates of homicide exceeding some African societies. I think more feminists should take a serious look at Eugenics as a solution to the issues they have with men since “ teaching men not to rape” is probably not going to eradicate the issue entirely. Plus many of the four foremothers of the feminist and Reproductive Rights movement like Margaret Sanger were ardent eugenicists.
> . Could not women just let men live together in barracks doing their guy things, and their jobs would be the physical labor stuff, and women would live in and manage society, since they seem to be much more interested it?
There is already a culture that does something like this, the Mosuo in China. Men and women live separately and perform different functions but meet for conjugal visits at night and part ways in the morning. I’ve heard it works pretty well for them however they are agrarian for the most part. I'm not sure how it would do in a modern industrialized economy.
> I disagree with your gender segregation thing because that's what's already happening online as you note, and it's just making men and women hate each other more.
I agree that gender segregation Online probably does cause more division between the sexes and I therefore believe there should be less of it. The reason for this is both sexes catch wind of what the other is like in private online. Girls can still go on 4chan or incel forms and see the worst men have to offer and men can do the same with women. But this is a function of the internet not of gender segregation. Social spaces IRL tend to discourage the worst behaviors of each sex.
> Also, the segregation thing doesn't work for me personally because I generally prefer or at least towards conversing with men…
I'm not advocating for a gender total apartheid state. Just the establishment of some third spaces, Clubs, or workplaces which are sex exclusive like gentlemen's clubs or women only salons. In general I think the majority of society including companies, governments and social spaces should be open to both sexes. Basically something halfway between what we have now and the fifties would be most desirable. Tomboys would still certainly have a place in such a society.
Yes I agree with you that the real problem is that the internet has allowed for segregated male/female spaces where both amplify and act in their worst instincts...anonymity making that even worse...while the other can watch exactly what they're doing. That's been way more information than most can handle.
I also unironically agree with your eugenics against the most violent thing...I don't even know why it is such a taboo thing, yet it is and I am regretting typing this as I type. It doesn't have to be mean, it could just be sterilization or humane methods, but we really do not need the most criminal and violent 15% of men reproducing and passing on their traits. I'd love it if you could simply convince women not to have babies with those men, but sadly that doesn't seem to work. Lots of dads serving long sentences.
The only legal measure I could see working out would be offering murderers, child molesters and rapists shorter sentences if they voluntarily get sterilized. Ultimately, I think the eugenics solution will come from the private sector. There is a lot of new groundbreaking technology that allows for the genetic modification of embryos before insemination. If even a small portion of people do this over a long enough time scale, it will have a significant effect on the gene pool. Selecting against traits like aggression and low IQ will help reduce the number of people with genetic predispositions to violence, as most rapists, by and large, are genetically predisposed to higher levels of aggression and have a lower genotypical IQ than the general population.
Free IUDs would have (and to some extent are having) a eugenic effect. They have especially reduced teen pregnancy, and as women get older they get at least somewhat better at choosing baby daddies. In part because that gives men who are impulsive/violent more time to get themselves locked up.
So your plan is to confine all but a few men to life imprisonment in a vast Arbeitslager, where they can continue to pay the taxes and keep the lights on, while women lord it over them and live in freedom doing make-work jobs. And you think this is reasonable because – smelling salts at the ready! – those lustful brutes are attracted to young girls like 16-year-old Britney in Hit Me Baby, who according to a demented interpretation of a legal fiction was no different in that video from a toddler frolicking in the playground. (And, apparently, because 25 men in the '70s were induced to pop a stiffy for younger girls under very weird conditions, in an experiment that probably could not be replicated today without incurring prosecution and imprisonment).
I suggest you come off the high horse and learn to appreciate some male virtues that you might regret banishing from your utopia, such as intellectual charity and a lack of petty vindictiveness. By most accounts, the dissident right is a scary place, where radicalized men gather to vent venom about anti-male governments and spoiled undependable women. I can't imagine swanning into an analogous group of radicalized women, cheerily toting a plan to lock them all up in a slave camp on the grounds that they can't help being attracted to violent felons, and encountering anything like the civility that Bliss has shown to you here.
Admittedly, at least some of this tolerance comes from a desire on the part of dissident right men to make common cause with turves and "reactionary" feminists against the trans agenda. But I have no idea what trannies have done to these men that could justify their seeking common cause with such women, who have all the hangups and hypocrisies of the stereotypical Victorian scold and not a tenth part of her virtues.
They talk about rescinding our right to vote all the time, this is no different. And I don't know what you're on about make work and taxes, are you seriously under the impression that everyone who's job isn't construction or on an oil rig is just doing "make work"? Because that means 90% of the economy is fake jobs today anyway, man and woman. If you like doing just the jobs you consider "real" anyway then what's the problem? Also guarantee I pay more in taxes each year than everyone combined in this thread lol.
It is very different. Taking away the suffrage from half the population (sometimes advocated on the DR on grounds of fairness, e.g. because men hold voting rights on ultimate condition of conscription whereas women do not) is in no way equivalent to permanently imprisoning the other half in a labour camp system. If you want a misogynist equivalent to your proposal, I would suggest the fantasy world of Gor, which in my limited understanding (I'm not into chick lit) has all the men as masters and all women as their sex slaves.
As for real jobs and paying taxes, did you not say you wanted the men in work camps and the women "managing society"? And do you propose to leave that vast male slave population to administer itself? Surely the main task of women in such a world, excepting a few low status customer-facing jobs in female society, would be to form a governing class vis-a-vis the men. That would make them essentially state bureaucrats, who pay tax only as a legal fiction, since their work is not of a productive nature.
You imagine kicking men in camps but my point is I think they'd prefer living there. You could easily just tell them that all the stuff women do is lame women's work and they'd lose all interest, as they tend to with anything associated with women. You're thinking a prison I'm thinking a lodge they strongly prefer.
Anyway it's just a silly creative idea. The DR talks about removing rights from women cavalierly in the regular, fair's fair. Plus most women are against the draft and against wars in general, so the conscription thing is a terrible argument for premising votes, if that's the argument...it's other dudes who start wars and make men fight them, as the author himself noted. Besides the fact no one's been drafted in 50+ years and the military itself strongly disfavors it...real soldiers hate fighting with guys who were forced to be there (I'm assuming you're talking about the US here).
$125K, everyone else? You may have *me* beat individually, but everyone else in the thread? Some fairly affluent men get into this stuff if only because we have to look over our shoulders all the time.
I seriously doubt anyone outside Nick Fuentes and a bunch of far-right accounts is interested in repealing the 19th. I bet a lot of radfems would love to repeal *our* right to vote and kill us.
There are millions of "far right accounts" and like 8 rad gems so don't worry about it. 😊 Besides women don't have guns or do violence so none of this matters, they'll barely even be mean to someone's face and boy moms will defend their sons even if they're serial killers. But yes, rad gems would be happy to take away their right to vote, that is true.
I think you're leaning way too far into stereotypes (though I know most people just pretend they don't exist). There are more radfems than that, and their effect on modern culture is not negligible--look at all the endless 'men suck' movies etc. Also, women are very good at getting men to do their bidding and being mean *behind* someone's face. You don't tell them to go to hell, you go to HR and say 'he looked at me the wrong way and made me feel uncomfortable'.
(I should add I've never advocated for repealing the 19th.)
The ones who influence movies and culture aren't rad fems though, they're standard incoherent sort of normal feminists. Like @Bliss is saying, they're the ones who believe men are just socialized by patriarchy, that's why they even bother with all their attempts to educate, shame, lecture, hector etc...because they believe men could NOT be like that if only they had the correct thoughts and socialization. Most rad fems are more likely to either want gender segregation or they just give up and deal (mostly the latter, unless they are lesbians in which case an all female society becomes much more appealing), but they don't think you could actually persuade or socialize men into being different from what they are. Not unless you actually start genetically engineering them to be different or otherwise modify biology.
Real rad fems are so rare I feel like one could almost make a list of them. And half are lesbians, who are already rare. They have basically zero actual impact on society whatsoever. There's not really any danger of them being influential on women because most women are attracted to men and therefore not interested in following along with or aspiring to be a lesbian. Which is too bad in a sense, but even I don't want to be a lesbian, even though I consider them very admirable people (much moreso than your average woman). Most women don't even admire them and try to separate themselves and make it very very clear to everyone they're not lesbians, to the point of using it as an insult even. So I wouldn't worry about rad fems ever having cultural influence, because they just simply don't. I can tell you that my beliefs are much more strongly in the rad fems or bio-essentialist vein of things, and most women STRONGLY push back on that. Men are way more accepting of it than women are. Women almost always argue and push back, and they very, very much want to believe that men could be perfected by proper rearing and socializing. I think they basically just can't deal with the truth and it's too upsetting for them so prefer fairytale that are more hopeful.
Sherri S. Tepper more or less imagined this in the scifi novel *The Gate to Women's Country*. (Minus the scientist priestly class, since she wouldn't admit we'd actually be good at something useful.) I read this in my teenage years while growing up in Deep Blue America and the results were...ah, unfortunate.
I think this probably appeals to women who get along poorly with men (which of course describes most radfems). Surprisingly a lot of women actually enjoy having men around, and once you get to the childrearing point having an extra pair of strong hands is actually useful...and if you have a son you need a positive role model.
Is it a good book? Or at least entertaining? I haven't read fiction in ages but should try to do it eventually. I don't think it's actually true that rad fems don't get along with men I think they get a long with them better in a lot of cases. They deal with them more as they are instead of how they want them to be. IDK, most lesbians I've known tend to have a lot more guys who are close friends than your average normie woman. If you're thinking specifically of RadFemHitler, she's a strange case as she actually seems to dislike men a lot, yet also spends almost all her time interacting with them then, so idk what's up with that exactly.
Why yes, men do actually care about gardens and the arts and all those other things even without women. Perhaps we wouldn’t bathe quite as often, though personally I don’t think that’s a crime that justifies eugenics but maybe that’s just me
All humans are evil, fallen creatures with an instinct to sadism and dominance, and destruction. It's just that men happen to be configured in a way where it's moreso tied to our sexuality. Women are no better just because they aren't inherently capable of penetrative rape, or being adept at violence. The best solution is already known and practiced, accountability for our actions. This is the crucial part, most men are against women running things because we've seen what happens when they do. Accountability for bad actions falls off a cliff. Most of us want men to be held accountable for bad actions because we also find it disgusting when the most vulnerable are taken advantage of. Women are currently the #1 obstacle to that accountability.
It's really not just the sex, most violence and domination men do is against other men. And they have demonstrated throughout history that they are perfectly willing, without qualms, to slaughter millions of men (and also sometimes women/children) they don't know or know anything about because someone told them to/paid then or they're wearing a different uniform or live over on the other side of a line we've put on a map.
I mean, if you don't even trust men to draw lines on a map, I don't know how you could trust them to do something like holding other bad men accountable, or even integrating their natures in a constructive way. Is it the fallibility of the lines drawn on maps that makes the entire concept of them not worthy of taking seriously?
Everyone may have noticed this was the plot of a fantasy novel and not exactly a real proposal. However the idea that "the average woman has nothing to worry about" is preposterous. The average woman works full time her entire life other than maybe one or two 6 to 12 weeks off for child birth, pays taxes, pays off student debt and makes mortgage payments, and has to arrange childcare and take care of duties at home, etc. I'm not sure what fantasy world you're living in or who you think the "average woman" is. Less than a quarter of US households headed by married couples have the male as the sole earner, and once you factor in all the households that are single or not married, that's like 10%.
As for the race thing, that's a male obsession, not something women worry about. Male prisons generally segregate into race-based gangs, and women's prisons don't. And our military is about the most racially integrated institution we have in the US.
It happens with lots of words and phrases. Stupid people start to misuse a word and eventually the more intelligent pick it up.
One phrase that really gets my goat is " Having your cake and eating it", which ostensibly means having it both ways. But look at what it says. Anybody can have a cake and then eat it. The real and original phrase was" To eat your cake and still have it", which actually conveys the intended meaning. Unlike the now corrupted phrasing which doesn't.
Never in my lifetime have I actually heard anyone say the phrase correctly, no matter how intelligent.
So, yes, pedophile will just eventually come to mean big age gap relationships. Any attempt to correct the misuser will likely just confirm the accusation in the mind of the accuser.
Good article, lots I agree with, lots I don't. As it should be.
Everything you said is true but I think the right is making some gains in this front. The popularization of words like dei, sjw, woke, critical race theory show that the right is learning to play The language game.
As an example, Chris Hansen has been explicit in stating that most of the predators he has caught are not pedophiles. Doesn’t stop the TCAP community from labelling them as such. And they’re all pretty disgusting individuals so no one is going to die on the hill of enforcing the correct usage.
As someone who was red-pilled by EP about two decades ago, this is all firmly in no sh** territory.
I think bringing back sex segregated spaces would be great for a lot of reasons. Radfems have realized that self-id means there are no female-only spaces; any man can claim to be a woman, and by definition, anyone who claims to be a woman is, and to question the person's sincerity or motives is to "invalidate their right to exist" and is tantamount to murder. But why should women have women-only spaces if men can't have men-only spaces? It's almost cosmic justice in a way.
I'd like to, for example, do BJJ, but although not many women are interested, there's usually one. As we all know, in the Current Year, to exclude females is practically a felony...even to not have any simply because none are interested in itself considered deeply suspect. And yes, I could in theory just say, "I'm sorry, nothing personal, but I don't want to practice with a woman." But my entire lifetime of socialization makes that extremely awkward, like announcing to roomful of strangers, "I like to f*** pigs!" (Maybe I should pretend to be a Muslim.)
And that means I can't do it without getting in a fight with my wife, who is gorgeous and awesome and super-based, and cooks and cleans from me every day, and is from a more traditional culture and ethnicity that is known for being crazy jealous.
And at this point I can't even say she's wrong. Every society since the dawn of time has had sex segregation. Maybe there are good reasons for that. Maybe it isn't appropriate for married men to socially mingle with, let alone wrestle with, other women (and vice versa for married women).
All this nonsense in our culture about how any degree of jealousy means you're "insecure" and it's a character flaw you need to overcome... It's idiotic. Pure denial. Jealousy is an instinct that evolved to protect our sexual relationships. It is not obsolete. Threats to relationships are real. People cheat all the time. Many men and women alike actively attempt to poach others' mates, all the time.
Yes, it's possible to resist such temptations, people should expect you to and hold you morally accountable. But even though she has a threshold for such things that I think is pretty extreme, I think it's perfectly reasonable for a husband or wife to say, "I'd rather you just not put yourself in a situation where anything could happen." I gave up drinking and have never been tempted, but I'm not going to keep an unopened bottle of vodka on my desk just to prove I can.
Since I am now happily married, I no longer need or want other women at any hobby clubs I'd want to go to; I'd love to be able to go to a male-only club. Maybe if women want to do it, they should have their own groups. But sadly we can't have nice things anymore.
Men are naturally attracted to a certain level of neoteny in women, but I don't think this means men are pedophilic. Male attraction to underage women is high when they are told the women are of age, but far lower when explicitly told they are underage. Like, your sister might be hot, but you probably have something deep inside you which is preventing you from being sexually aroused by her because she's your sister. If you did not know she was your sister, you might be attracted to her, but because you know it makes her immediately less attractive. It's the same way with "ladyboys" -- even in the rare circumstance that a man passes perfectly as a beautiful woman, the knowledge that "she" is actually a he, is an instant turnoff for hopefully the majority of straight men.
>"That is, mean ratings of the sexual attractiveness of the girls labelled as younger were lower than those of the (same) girls labelled as older, and those of the women. In addition, correlations revealed significantly longer responding times when younger girls (and men) were rated as more highly sexually attractive. These associations were reversed in response to the photographs of women. We take these findings to indicate an inhibitory effect arising from generalized sexual norms relating to the inappropriateness of sexual attraction to young girls"
First things first, I’m using the word "pedophilic" in the colloquial sense—referring to finding any girl under 18 attractive. Do most men find 7-year-olds attractive? Probably not. But 17-year-olds? Probably.
You're right that if you tell someone a girl is 17, they'll often claim they don’t find her attractive. My argument is that either they’re knowingly lying or they’ve been socially conditioned to deny such attraction due to stigma. If we were to examine their brain activity in an fMRI while showing them images of girls in bikinis (with ages listed), the areas associated with arousal would likely activate not just for adults but also for those in the 13-17 age range.
Essentially, I’m arguing that, based on revealed preferences, most men would fit the colloquial definition of what people consider to be pedophiles.
Part of it is the lying/social conditioning but part of it is probably also that said social conditioning has actually weakened their attractiveness response on a deeper level.
I'm not sure that's even possible—it depends on how malleable you believe human sexual attraction to be. For the most part, I assume that just as many men today are attracted to individuals under 18 as their ancestors were before the establishment of age of consent laws. The difference is that modern men are less likely to act on such attraction due to legal and social prohibitions.
I'm not aware of any studies using fMRI scans to measure sexual attraction in this way. However, I do know of studies where men were shown a picture of a 13-year-old girl and rated her attractiveness lower after learning her age. But you can't really measure this sort of thing by just asking them because of the social stigma surrounding the topic. I'm not sure if this disparity would be reflected in an fMRI or other types of brain scans.
I think it is possible as I’ve experienced it before. I’ve become less attracted to thirst traps after learning that they have an onlyfans where they do porn
But here’s the question: Do you just think you’re less attracted to them, or are you actually? If we measured your brain waves before and after learning that a woman did pornography, would there be a noticeable difference?
To my knowledge, sexual attraction arises from the primal recesses of the brain because sex is an ancient instinct. I believe people have far less control over what they find attractive than they realize. While they might be able to suppress certain feelings, those feelings still exist.
You might view a promiscuous woman as morally duplicitous due to her profession, but concepts like sexual morality are far newer than sex itself. Such prejudices may influence behavior, but I’m not convinced they can override true feelings.
Honestly I believe that system would end up being more unstable than the current due to the inherent risk of congegrating men together. As was stated earlier in the post, having women in a space results in a feminizing effect, and not having that effect especially during boys formative, pubescent years would probably lead to some sort of catastrophic even for women wherein, once a critical mass oh high T socio/psychopaths is reached, they esentially blackmail the matriarchal half of society into submission.
Going off the eugenic route, I suppose the most optimal solution (from a radfem perspective) would be a scenario where they could forcibly change the sex of a fetus and engineer a gender ratio between 1:5 and 1:10 men to women. This would leave sufficient males to do the grunge labor while also giving them enough sexual variety to hopefully temper their more violent impulses as they have a reduced need for power since there are far fewer males for them to compete with. However this system would probably run into the issue of technological/civilzational stagflation and regression as its very hard to convince men to go beyond what is functionally necessary to propagate society w/o sufficient incentive (starvation or not reproducing) and I dont believe women are capable of maintaining civilization on their own due to their biology/psychology.
Personally, I feel some some 40s to 60s intersexual dynamics minus the female franchise would probably be optimal, but I just wanted to offer my 2 cents on your comment
I suppose if you grew fetuses in some type of artificial environment, you could get that ratio without even having to "forcibly change" the sex of the fetus, because I thought all embryos started off as basically female until some type of androgen bath turned them into males. Though that can't be right, because I think they can identify the sex of IVF embryos prior to implantation, so I'm not sure why you always read about everyone starting out female til androgens create masculinization.
But anyway, with respect to your ratios, it SEEMS intuitively correct that a ratio with more females but leads to less violence, but that actually is not true and leads to the opposite. At least, as far as anthropological studies I've read, cultures with an excess female ratio have MORE violence because instead of the men taking a communistic "plenty for everyone" attitude they seem to treat it more like a lottery with even greater rewards for the winner, and are apparently interminably greedy in this respect and will start murdering each other to consolidate the largest harem. You can somewhat see this in sub-cultures today with these gender ratios bc most of the men in the community are in jail...despite ample women for the ones who aren't, they tend to murder each other MORE, not less. Whereas primarily male environments like the military or monks adopt strict systems of hierarchy that reduce violence and disputes.
But noted that things would not be very nice for young boys in such a system, and there'd likely be some psychopathic hazing and abuse. I think the main trouble would be that moms would not want their boys to leave and would object strongly. Especially single moms of boys have a tendency to get pathologically attached and protective of them, and tend to turn them into lover/husband substitutes.
>>> You can somewhat see this in sub-cultures today with these gender ratios bc most of the men in the community are in jail...despite ample women for the ones who aren't, they tend to murder each other MORE, not less.
A prime example of reverse causation. The men went to prison for violence first, and the other men in their community are also violent. It's not about intrasexual dynamics.
Would be very nice if Wikipedia scrapped its policy of automatically banning anyone who is even remotely attracted to anyone below the legal age of consent, even if one condemns adult-minor sex and actual child porn. Attraction does not necessarily mean acting upon it, after all.
I never had much time for the idea that we would see a paedophile rights movement appended to the alphabet of degeneracy, but nowadays I can just about see it happening by the sort of zigzag movement in which democratism excels. Once every ordinary male who thought Britney Spears looked hot in Hit Me Baby One More Time has been shoved into the 'minor attracted persons' category, there will be a huge constituency for lowering age of consent and questioning the logic behind the laws, and the actual paedos attracted to actual children need only quietly tag along for the ride. The zigzag might well be initiated by the ever-useful, ever-idiotic right wing, which takes to 'reactionary' feminism and puritan hypocrisy like muck to a porker.
It's a possibility but I'm not certain. There will certainly be a reaction against the whole “she's 21 you sick fuck” thing. Just as there was a reaction against rabid sjwism in the 2010s. I don't think it would ever go so far as to legalize pedophilia.
Pedophilia should not be legalized, but re-legalizing child sex dolls/robots--and of course cartoon/animated child porn--strikes me as being a great idea, either with or without a doctor's prescription, depending on what will produce better results, I suppose. I also wonder if the penalty for possession of actual child porn should be made a misdemeanor along with lots of mandatory therapy, with the penalty being upgarded to a felony if one does not attend therapy. Might be a more prudent approach than *automatically* designating such people felons. Their attention should be redirected towards cartoon/animated child porn and child sex dolls/robots.
I agree with Justice Brennan's dissent in *Osborne v. Ohio* about the definition of child porn being too broad, though. I don't think that a family giving a photo of their naked toddler to a family friend should be considered child porn, though AFAIK, legally, it might be. That should be changed.
This is one of those things it's not PC to talk about, but I do wonder if this is one of the few actual reasons sex robots might be a good thing. There are people whose desires cannot be ethically fulfilled. Might cut down on violence against actual humans.
Agreed, though even if the effect on violence was neutral, it could still improve people’s quality of life. If you’re a virtuous pedophile, right now, you’re pretty much just stuck with castration (chemical or physical), or trying to order a child sex doll/robot and getting arrested for this afterwards, and losing your doll. That’s not a very high quality of life.
Could also help zoophiles. Animal sex dolls/robots!
There are many problems with criminalizing child porn possession (it requires massive surveillance, it's too easy for police or accusers to plant something on someone, and the definition of "child" is being extended to the sexually mature), but I can't think of a more cursed idea than child sex robots for paedophiles. Surely humanity has better things to spend its finite energy resources on than that.
There’s a Japanese company named Trottla that apparently already makes child sex dolls for pedophiles. I hope that it will eventually extend its business into making child sex robots. Would be even better if they could master stem cell technology to create human-like skin for these robots.
Well, we really should re-legalize child sex dolls/robots. I'm serious. Whether this should be done with or without a doctor's prescription is, of course, a separate debate.
The claim that kids spend more time online because there are no gender-segregated spaces irl doesn't make much sense. People can still hang out in male- or female-only spaces in their free time. The question is why they choose to spend their free time online rather than with friends
I find it funny that even though you come to the same conclusions as some of the most bitter radfems, you're a man, so your conclusions are rational and solutions based.
As I said in the article, the effective definition of a word is determined by how most people use it. The behavior and attraction the vast majority of men exhibit is enough to get you called a "pedo" on Twitter, so I think the label is accurate. I acknowledge that the tendencies I describe most men as having don't fit the dictionary definition of pedophilia. That said, they do fit the colloquial definition.
Isn’t this basically the same way ‘fag’ was used by high schoolers until it became a taboo word?
What percentage of men who were called a ‘fag’ at least once do you think had actual fag tendencies?
I suppose my point is that colloquial use doesn’t trump dictionary use if the term is used in both contexts.
E.g. my best friend in HS and I would frequently call each other fags. And then one day we inadvertently drove through a pride parade and saw a group in bondage gear and my friend exclaimed ‘look at all these fags!’.
The example you provided proves my point about the democratic nature of language. The word "fag" initially meant a bundle of sticks. It was then used as a pejorative for homosexuals. Then it simply evolved into referring to males that exhibit "effeminate / annoying" traits while retaining it's anti-gay usage as well. With the rise of gay rights it was pushed back into just a derogatory term for homosexuals.
The word pedophile was initially used as a clinical term for individuals with an attraction to prepubescent children. Then it was expanded to mean individuals with an attraction to any minor regardless of sexual development. Now it's being expanded into meaning anyone attracted to a woman who is under the age of 25. Like the word "fag" it is subject to change based on how it is used colloquially. The dictionary definition does very little to tether its meaning in place. If there were some extrinsic factor, like the gay rights movement was for the word fag, I suppose the definition could be pushed back to one of its previous iterations.
Pedo used colloquially in certain a context still refers specifically to a man who indulges a predilection towards underage girls or boys although I agree the lines are somewhat blurred as to whether this includes adolescents and at what age it becomes non pedophillic abuse.
I think social media platforms are a good thermometer on this sort of thing because hundreds of millions to billions of people use them. But if you prefer I choose a different platform we can use tik tok, Reddit, Facebook, Instagram or any social media platform you like to measure this. Go make a post saying you find some 17 year old actress attractive. Hell go on there and say you find a 22 year old hot. In either case you're getting called a pedo.
My point is that everyone knows that what anonymous (or polemical) figures say on the Internet is exaggerated and not how real people talk in real life
Ug. Well, I can't lie, reading this makes me want to get a divorce, surround myself with cats and dogs and trees and books the rest of my life, and possible start advocating for major male-specific eugenics to at least improve half the species. But ultimately, I can't argue that I came to all of these same conclusions long ago. I just don't think about them the way I don't think about death and rotting and slaughterhouses and animals being eaten alive by other animals every day.
But since you think all the "solutions" of the radfems are either unworkable or laughable, how does this one strike you? It formed some of the plot of a fantasy novel I once started and then got bored of. You note men are necessary for physical labor and maintenance, but really that's only like maybe a quarter of guys that do that stuff, especially since they only do it a portion of their lives. You also correctly note men are responsible for most innovations, but that's an even tinier portion, like less than 1%. Could not women just let men live together in barracks doing their guy things, and their jobs would be the physical labor stuff, and women would live in and manage society, since they seem to be much more interested it? Let the guys do whatever it is they want to do in their barracks...play video games, sports, whatever. Do men really care that much about gardens and nice houses and the arts and office and caring and service jobs, otherwise? I always hear they basically just do that stuff for women. So then the trade-off is that the women get to live in society having it be nice and safe and pretty and not having to worry about men at all, bc the men are locked into their barracks at night, but the trade off to keep the men happy and not trying to leave is that the young women all trade off and as their civil service they each have to go have sex with the men like twice a month or something. So the men would get as many women as they want, sexually, the women would only have to put up with them two nights a month for 20 years, and otherwise no one would need to demand or expect anything from anyone. The problem here is we would still want scientists and innovators, but I think you could easily identify those boys, who are rare enough, in childhood and take them out of the standard male system and put them in schooling and labs and research where they'd be happy. I guess you could either treat them as sort of a priestly class. I don't think you'd even have to educate the other men much, since most don't seem to naturally like school anyway. And if there are "extra" males or some not living up and contributing...well, the other men in the barracks can figure that out amongst themselves and decide what they want to do with them. The boys would go into barracks land around age 8 or 9.
I don't think men or women on average would be less happy with this system. What do you think? Just trying to be creative! 😉
I disagree with your gender segregation thing because that's what's already happening online as you note, and it's just making men and women hate each other more. They did not get along that great in the past either. There was a short golden age for a few decades where they began integrating but before the internet allowed them both to see exactly what the other is doing when they're "alone", and they got a long quite well in that era. But now everyone knows too much. Also, the segregation thing doesn't work for me personally because I generally prefer or at least towards conversing with men...I just have to constantly suppress thinking about the facts.
Thank you for reading my piece. I'm glad you had a chance to read it as you were one of the authors who inspired me to write it. I'm going to compartmentalize your response that way it'll be easier for me to respond to each point.
> and possible start advocating for major male-specific eugenics
This is unironically my ultimate solution to the issue. In the past eugenics was actually performed somewhat unintentionally in Western Europe with around 1% of the most violent elements of the male population( rapists murderers etc) being executed each generation before they could create offspring for about a thousand years. I think Ryan Faulk ( the alternative hypothesis) did a study on this. It had a massive effect on the Western European gene pool both raising its IQ and domesticating it somewhat. In pre Medieval Times northern European men had rates of homicide exceeding some African societies. I think more feminists should take a serious look at Eugenics as a solution to the issues they have with men since “ teaching men not to rape” is probably not going to eradicate the issue entirely. Plus many of the four foremothers of the feminist and Reproductive Rights movement like Margaret Sanger were ardent eugenicists.
> . Could not women just let men live together in barracks doing their guy things, and their jobs would be the physical labor stuff, and women would live in and manage society, since they seem to be much more interested it?
There is already a culture that does something like this, the Mosuo in China. Men and women live separately and perform different functions but meet for conjugal visits at night and part ways in the morning. I’ve heard it works pretty well for them however they are agrarian for the most part. I'm not sure how it would do in a modern industrialized economy.
> I disagree with your gender segregation thing because that's what's already happening online as you note, and it's just making men and women hate each other more.
I agree that gender segregation Online probably does cause more division between the sexes and I therefore believe there should be less of it. The reason for this is both sexes catch wind of what the other is like in private online. Girls can still go on 4chan or incel forms and see the worst men have to offer and men can do the same with women. But this is a function of the internet not of gender segregation. Social spaces IRL tend to discourage the worst behaviors of each sex.
> Also, the segregation thing doesn't work for me personally because I generally prefer or at least towards conversing with men…
I'm not advocating for a gender total apartheid state. Just the establishment of some third spaces, Clubs, or workplaces which are sex exclusive like gentlemen's clubs or women only salons. In general I think the majority of society including companies, governments and social spaces should be open to both sexes. Basically something halfway between what we have now and the fifties would be most desirable. Tomboys would still certainly have a place in such a society.
Yes I agree with you that the real problem is that the internet has allowed for segregated male/female spaces where both amplify and act in their worst instincts...anonymity making that even worse...while the other can watch exactly what they're doing. That's been way more information than most can handle.
I also unironically agree with your eugenics against the most violent thing...I don't even know why it is such a taboo thing, yet it is and I am regretting typing this as I type. It doesn't have to be mean, it could just be sterilization or humane methods, but we really do not need the most criminal and violent 15% of men reproducing and passing on their traits. I'd love it if you could simply convince women not to have babies with those men, but sadly that doesn't seem to work. Lots of dads serving long sentences.
The only legal measure I could see working out would be offering murderers, child molesters and rapists shorter sentences if they voluntarily get sterilized. Ultimately, I think the eugenics solution will come from the private sector. There is a lot of new groundbreaking technology that allows for the genetic modification of embryos before insemination. If even a small portion of people do this over a long enough time scale, it will have a significant effect on the gene pool. Selecting against traits like aggression and low IQ will help reduce the number of people with genetic predispositions to violence, as most rapists, by and large, are genetically predisposed to higher levels of aggression and have a lower genotypical IQ than the general population.
Free IUDs would have (and to some extent are having) a eugenic effect. They have especially reduced teen pregnancy, and as women get older they get at least somewhat better at choosing baby daddies. In part because that gives men who are impulsive/violent more time to get themselves locked up.
Um….
" Why can't live in forced labor barracks and women run things?".
So your plan is to confine all but a few men to life imprisonment in a vast Arbeitslager, where they can continue to pay the taxes and keep the lights on, while women lord it over them and live in freedom doing make-work jobs. And you think this is reasonable because – smelling salts at the ready! – those lustful brutes are attracted to young girls like 16-year-old Britney in Hit Me Baby, who according to a demented interpretation of a legal fiction was no different in that video from a toddler frolicking in the playground. (And, apparently, because 25 men in the '70s were induced to pop a stiffy for younger girls under very weird conditions, in an experiment that probably could not be replicated today without incurring prosecution and imprisonment).
I suggest you come off the high horse and learn to appreciate some male virtues that you might regret banishing from your utopia, such as intellectual charity and a lack of petty vindictiveness. By most accounts, the dissident right is a scary place, where radicalized men gather to vent venom about anti-male governments and spoiled undependable women. I can't imagine swanning into an analogous group of radicalized women, cheerily toting a plan to lock them all up in a slave camp on the grounds that they can't help being attracted to violent felons, and encountering anything like the civility that Bliss has shown to you here.
Admittedly, at least some of this tolerance comes from a desire on the part of dissident right men to make common cause with turves and "reactionary" feminists against the trans agenda. But I have no idea what trannies have done to these men that could justify their seeking common cause with such women, who have all the hangups and hypocrisies of the stereotypical Victorian scold and not a tenth part of her virtues.
They talk about rescinding our right to vote all the time, this is no different. And I don't know what you're on about make work and taxes, are you seriously under the impression that everyone who's job isn't construction or on an oil rig is just doing "make work"? Because that means 90% of the economy is fake jobs today anyway, man and woman. If you like doing just the jobs you consider "real" anyway then what's the problem? Also guarantee I pay more in taxes each year than everyone combined in this thread lol.
It is very different. Taking away the suffrage from half the population (sometimes advocated on the DR on grounds of fairness, e.g. because men hold voting rights on ultimate condition of conscription whereas women do not) is in no way equivalent to permanently imprisoning the other half in a labour camp system. If you want a misogynist equivalent to your proposal, I would suggest the fantasy world of Gor, which in my limited understanding (I'm not into chick lit) has all the men as masters and all women as their sex slaves.
As for real jobs and paying taxes, did you not say you wanted the men in work camps and the women "managing society"? And do you propose to leave that vast male slave population to administer itself? Surely the main task of women in such a world, excepting a few low status customer-facing jobs in female society, would be to form a governing class vis-a-vis the men. That would make them essentially state bureaucrats, who pay tax only as a legal fiction, since their work is not of a productive nature.
You imagine kicking men in camps but my point is I think they'd prefer living there. You could easily just tell them that all the stuff women do is lame women's work and they'd lose all interest, as they tend to with anything associated with women. You're thinking a prison I'm thinking a lodge they strongly prefer.
Anyway it's just a silly creative idea. The DR talks about removing rights from women cavalierly in the regular, fair's fair. Plus most women are against the draft and against wars in general, so the conscription thing is a terrible argument for premising votes, if that's the argument...it's other dudes who start wars and make men fight them, as the author himself noted. Besides the fact no one's been drafted in 50+ years and the military itself strongly disfavors it...real soldiers hate fighting with guys who were forced to be there (I'm assuming you're talking about the US here).
$125K, everyone else? You may have *me* beat individually, but everyone else in the thread? Some fairly affluent men get into this stuff if only because we have to look over our shoulders all the time.
I seriously doubt anyone outside Nick Fuentes and a bunch of far-right accounts is interested in repealing the 19th. I bet a lot of radfems would love to repeal *our* right to vote and kill us.
There are millions of "far right accounts" and like 8 rad gems so don't worry about it. 😊 Besides women don't have guns or do violence so none of this matters, they'll barely even be mean to someone's face and boy moms will defend their sons even if they're serial killers. But yes, rad gems would be happy to take away their right to vote, that is true.
I think you're leaning way too far into stereotypes (though I know most people just pretend they don't exist). There are more radfems than that, and their effect on modern culture is not negligible--look at all the endless 'men suck' movies etc. Also, women are very good at getting men to do their bidding and being mean *behind* someone's face. You don't tell them to go to hell, you go to HR and say 'he looked at me the wrong way and made me feel uncomfortable'.
(I should add I've never advocated for repealing the 19th.)
The ones who influence movies and culture aren't rad fems though, they're standard incoherent sort of normal feminists. Like @Bliss is saying, they're the ones who believe men are just socialized by patriarchy, that's why they even bother with all their attempts to educate, shame, lecture, hector etc...because they believe men could NOT be like that if only they had the correct thoughts and socialization. Most rad fems are more likely to either want gender segregation or they just give up and deal (mostly the latter, unless they are lesbians in which case an all female society becomes much more appealing), but they don't think you could actually persuade or socialize men into being different from what they are. Not unless you actually start genetically engineering them to be different or otherwise modify biology.
Real rad fems are so rare I feel like one could almost make a list of them. And half are lesbians, who are already rare. They have basically zero actual impact on society whatsoever. There's not really any danger of them being influential on women because most women are attracted to men and therefore not interested in following along with or aspiring to be a lesbian. Which is too bad in a sense, but even I don't want to be a lesbian, even though I consider them very admirable people (much moreso than your average woman). Most women don't even admire them and try to separate themselves and make it very very clear to everyone they're not lesbians, to the point of using it as an insult even. So I wouldn't worry about rad fems ever having cultural influence, because they just simply don't. I can tell you that my beliefs are much more strongly in the rad fems or bio-essentialist vein of things, and most women STRONGLY push back on that. Men are way more accepting of it than women are. Women almost always argue and push back, and they very, very much want to believe that men could be perfected by proper rearing and socializing. I think they basically just can't deal with the truth and it's too upsetting for them so prefer fairytale that are more hopeful.
Sherri S. Tepper more or less imagined this in the scifi novel *The Gate to Women's Country*. (Minus the scientist priestly class, since she wouldn't admit we'd actually be good at something useful.) I read this in my teenage years while growing up in Deep Blue America and the results were...ah, unfortunate.
I think this probably appeals to women who get along poorly with men (which of course describes most radfems). Surprisingly a lot of women actually enjoy having men around, and once you get to the childrearing point having an extra pair of strong hands is actually useful...and if you have a son you need a positive role model.
Is it a good book? Or at least entertaining? I haven't read fiction in ages but should try to do it eventually. I don't think it's actually true that rad fems don't get along with men I think they get a long with them better in a lot of cases. They deal with them more as they are instead of how they want them to be. IDK, most lesbians I've known tend to have a lot more guys who are close friends than your average normie woman. If you're thinking specifically of RadFemHitler, she's a strange case as she actually seems to dislike men a lot, yet also spends almost all her time interacting with them then, so idk what's up with that exactly.
Why yes, men do actually care about gardens and the arts and all those other things even without women. Perhaps we wouldn’t bathe quite as often, though personally I don’t think that’s a crime that justifies eugenics but maybe that’s just me
>they began integrating but before the internet allowed them both to see exactly what the other is doing when they're "alone"
There's a ton of self-selection in who does "gender discourse" IMO. IRL interactions should be expected to be more representative.
All humans are evil, fallen creatures with an instinct to sadism and dominance, and destruction. It's just that men happen to be configured in a way where it's moreso tied to our sexuality. Women are no better just because they aren't inherently capable of penetrative rape, or being adept at violence. The best solution is already known and practiced, accountability for our actions. This is the crucial part, most men are against women running things because we've seen what happens when they do. Accountability for bad actions falls off a cliff. Most of us want men to be held accountable for bad actions because we also find it disgusting when the most vulnerable are taken advantage of. Women are currently the #1 obstacle to that accountability.
It's really not just the sex, most violence and domination men do is against other men. And they have demonstrated throughout history that they are perfectly willing, without qualms, to slaughter millions of men (and also sometimes women/children) they don't know or know anything about because someone told them to/paid then or they're wearing a different uniform or live over on the other side of a line we've put on a map.
I mean, if you don't even trust men to draw lines on a map, I don't know how you could trust them to do something like holding other bad men accountable, or even integrating their natures in a constructive way. Is it the fallibility of the lines drawn on maps that makes the entire concept of them not worthy of taking seriously?
Does it give you the " ick"?
Everyone may have noticed this was the plot of a fantasy novel and not exactly a real proposal. However the idea that "the average woman has nothing to worry about" is preposterous. The average woman works full time her entire life other than maybe one or two 6 to 12 weeks off for child birth, pays taxes, pays off student debt and makes mortgage payments, and has to arrange childcare and take care of duties at home, etc. I'm not sure what fantasy world you're living in or who you think the "average woman" is. Less than a quarter of US households headed by married couples have the male as the sole earner, and once you factor in all the households that are single or not married, that's like 10%.
As for the race thing, that's a male obsession, not something women worry about. Male prisons generally segregate into race-based gangs, and women's prisons don't. And our military is about the most racially integrated institution we have in the US.
Fully-developed secondary sex characteristics absent any premature development disorder <> pedophilia.
That doesn’t mean the relationship isn’t abusive, especially when there’s a sizable age difference.
Definitionally you are correct. But as I stated in the article the meaning of a word is however people use it.
Yeah, this basically happened with the word racist a few years ago.
It happens with lots of words and phrases. Stupid people start to misuse a word and eventually the more intelligent pick it up.
One phrase that really gets my goat is " Having your cake and eating it", which ostensibly means having it both ways. But look at what it says. Anybody can have a cake and then eat it. The real and original phrase was" To eat your cake and still have it", which actually conveys the intended meaning. Unlike the now corrupted phrasing which doesn't.
Never in my lifetime have I actually heard anyone say the phrase correctly, no matter how intelligent.
So, yes, pedophile will just eventually come to mean big age gap relationships. Any attempt to correct the misuser will likely just confirm the accusation in the mind of the accuser.
Good article, lots I agree with, lots I don't. As it should be.
Ted Kaczynski
Everything you said is true but I think the right is making some gains in this front. The popularization of words like dei, sjw, woke, critical race theory show that the right is learning to play The language game.
As an example, Chris Hansen has been explicit in stating that most of the predators he has caught are not pedophiles. Doesn’t stop the TCAP community from labelling them as such. And they’re all pretty disgusting individuals so no one is going to die on the hill of enforcing the correct usage.
As someone who was red-pilled by EP about two decades ago, this is all firmly in no sh** territory.
I think bringing back sex segregated spaces would be great for a lot of reasons. Radfems have realized that self-id means there are no female-only spaces; any man can claim to be a woman, and by definition, anyone who claims to be a woman is, and to question the person's sincerity or motives is to "invalidate their right to exist" and is tantamount to murder. But why should women have women-only spaces if men can't have men-only spaces? It's almost cosmic justice in a way.
I'd like to, for example, do BJJ, but although not many women are interested, there's usually one. As we all know, in the Current Year, to exclude females is practically a felony...even to not have any simply because none are interested in itself considered deeply suspect. And yes, I could in theory just say, "I'm sorry, nothing personal, but I don't want to practice with a woman." But my entire lifetime of socialization makes that extremely awkward, like announcing to roomful of strangers, "I like to f*** pigs!" (Maybe I should pretend to be a Muslim.)
And that means I can't do it without getting in a fight with my wife, who is gorgeous and awesome and super-based, and cooks and cleans from me every day, and is from a more traditional culture and ethnicity that is known for being crazy jealous.
And at this point I can't even say she's wrong. Every society since the dawn of time has had sex segregation. Maybe there are good reasons for that. Maybe it isn't appropriate for married men to socially mingle with, let alone wrestle with, other women (and vice versa for married women).
All this nonsense in our culture about how any degree of jealousy means you're "insecure" and it's a character flaw you need to overcome... It's idiotic. Pure denial. Jealousy is an instinct that evolved to protect our sexual relationships. It is not obsolete. Threats to relationships are real. People cheat all the time. Many men and women alike actively attempt to poach others' mates, all the time.
Yes, it's possible to resist such temptations, people should expect you to and hold you morally accountable. But even though she has a threshold for such things that I think is pretty extreme, I think it's perfectly reasonable for a husband or wife to say, "I'd rather you just not put yourself in a situation where anything could happen." I gave up drinking and have never been tempted, but I'm not going to keep an unopened bottle of vodka on my desk just to prove I can.
Since I am now happily married, I no longer need or want other women at any hobby clubs I'd want to go to; I'd love to be able to go to a male-only club. Maybe if women want to do it, they should have their own groups. But sadly we can't have nice things anymore.
this nigga took a BLISSful vacation to isla Epstein
“The woke are more correct than the mainstream”
Men are naturally attracted to a certain level of neoteny in women, but I don't think this means men are pedophilic. Male attraction to underage women is high when they are told the women are of age, but far lower when explicitly told they are underage. Like, your sister might be hot, but you probably have something deep inside you which is preventing you from being sexually aroused by her because she's your sister. If you did not know she was your sister, you might be attracted to her, but because you know it makes her immediately less attractive. It's the same way with "ladyboys" -- even in the rare circumstance that a man passes perfectly as a beautiful woman, the knowledge that "she" is actually a he, is an instant turnoff for hopefully the majority of straight men.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-015-0504-6
>"That is, mean ratings of the sexual attractiveness of the girls labelled as younger were lower than those of the (same) girls labelled as older, and those of the women. In addition, correlations revealed significantly longer responding times when younger girls (and men) were rated as more highly sexually attractive. These associations were reversed in response to the photographs of women. We take these findings to indicate an inhibitory effect arising from generalized sexual norms relating to the inappropriateness of sexual attraction to young girls"
First things first, I’m using the word "pedophilic" in the colloquial sense—referring to finding any girl under 18 attractive. Do most men find 7-year-olds attractive? Probably not. But 17-year-olds? Probably.
You're right that if you tell someone a girl is 17, they'll often claim they don’t find her attractive. My argument is that either they’re knowingly lying or they’ve been socially conditioned to deny such attraction due to stigma. If we were to examine their brain activity in an fMRI while showing them images of girls in bikinis (with ages listed), the areas associated with arousal would likely activate not just for adults but also for those in the 13-17 age range.
Essentially, I’m arguing that, based on revealed preferences, most men would fit the colloquial definition of what people consider to be pedophiles.
Part of it is the lying/social conditioning but part of it is probably also that said social conditioning has actually weakened their attractiveness response on a deeper level.
I'm not sure that's even possible—it depends on how malleable you believe human sexual attraction to be. For the most part, I assume that just as many men today are attracted to individuals under 18 as their ancestors were before the establishment of age of consent laws. The difference is that modern men are less likely to act on such attraction due to legal and social prohibitions.
I'm not aware of any studies using fMRI scans to measure sexual attraction in this way. However, I do know of studies where men were shown a picture of a 13-year-old girl and rated her attractiveness lower after learning her age. But you can't really measure this sort of thing by just asking them because of the social stigma surrounding the topic. I'm not sure if this disparity would be reflected in an fMRI or other types of brain scans.
I think it is possible as I’ve experienced it before. I’ve become less attracted to thirst traps after learning that they have an onlyfans where they do porn
But here’s the question: Do you just think you’re less attracted to them, or are you actually? If we measured your brain waves before and after learning that a woman did pornography, would there be a noticeable difference?
To my knowledge, sexual attraction arises from the primal recesses of the brain because sex is an ancient instinct. I believe people have far less control over what they find attractive than they realize. While they might be able to suppress certain feelings, those feelings still exist.
You might view a promiscuous woman as morally duplicitous due to her profession, but concepts like sexual morality are far newer than sex itself. Such prejudices may influence behavior, but I’m not convinced they can override true feelings.
Honestly I believe that system would end up being more unstable than the current due to the inherent risk of congegrating men together. As was stated earlier in the post, having women in a space results in a feminizing effect, and not having that effect especially during boys formative, pubescent years would probably lead to some sort of catastrophic even for women wherein, once a critical mass oh high T socio/psychopaths is reached, they esentially blackmail the matriarchal half of society into submission.
Going off the eugenic route, I suppose the most optimal solution (from a radfem perspective) would be a scenario where they could forcibly change the sex of a fetus and engineer a gender ratio between 1:5 and 1:10 men to women. This would leave sufficient males to do the grunge labor while also giving them enough sexual variety to hopefully temper their more violent impulses as they have a reduced need for power since there are far fewer males for them to compete with. However this system would probably run into the issue of technological/civilzational stagflation and regression as its very hard to convince men to go beyond what is functionally necessary to propagate society w/o sufficient incentive (starvation or not reproducing) and I dont believe women are capable of maintaining civilization on their own due to their biology/psychology.
Personally, I feel some some 40s to 60s intersexual dynamics minus the female franchise would probably be optimal, but I just wanted to offer my 2 cents on your comment
I suppose if you grew fetuses in some type of artificial environment, you could get that ratio without even having to "forcibly change" the sex of the fetus, because I thought all embryos started off as basically female until some type of androgen bath turned them into males. Though that can't be right, because I think they can identify the sex of IVF embryos prior to implantation, so I'm not sure why you always read about everyone starting out female til androgens create masculinization.
But anyway, with respect to your ratios, it SEEMS intuitively correct that a ratio with more females but leads to less violence, but that actually is not true and leads to the opposite. At least, as far as anthropological studies I've read, cultures with an excess female ratio have MORE violence because instead of the men taking a communistic "plenty for everyone" attitude they seem to treat it more like a lottery with even greater rewards for the winner, and are apparently interminably greedy in this respect and will start murdering each other to consolidate the largest harem. You can somewhat see this in sub-cultures today with these gender ratios bc most of the men in the community are in jail...despite ample women for the ones who aren't, they tend to murder each other MORE, not less. Whereas primarily male environments like the military or monks adopt strict systems of hierarchy that reduce violence and disputes.
But noted that things would not be very nice for young boys in such a system, and there'd likely be some psychopathic hazing and abuse. I think the main trouble would be that moms would not want their boys to leave and would object strongly. Especially single moms of boys have a tendency to get pathologically attached and protective of them, and tend to turn them into lover/husband substitutes.
>>> You can somewhat see this in sub-cultures today with these gender ratios bc most of the men in the community are in jail...despite ample women for the ones who aren't, they tend to murder each other MORE, not less.
A prime example of reverse causation. The men went to prison for violence first, and the other men in their community are also violent. It's not about intrasexual dynamics.
Would be very nice if Wikipedia scrapped its policy of automatically banning anyone who is even remotely attracted to anyone below the legal age of consent, even if one condemns adult-minor sex and actual child porn. Attraction does not necessarily mean acting upon it, after all.
I never had much time for the idea that we would see a paedophile rights movement appended to the alphabet of degeneracy, but nowadays I can just about see it happening by the sort of zigzag movement in which democratism excels. Once every ordinary male who thought Britney Spears looked hot in Hit Me Baby One More Time has been shoved into the 'minor attracted persons' category, there will be a huge constituency for lowering age of consent and questioning the logic behind the laws, and the actual paedos attracted to actual children need only quietly tag along for the ride. The zigzag might well be initiated by the ever-useful, ever-idiotic right wing, which takes to 'reactionary' feminism and puritan hypocrisy like muck to a porker.
It's a possibility but I'm not certain. There will certainly be a reaction against the whole “she's 21 you sick fuck” thing. Just as there was a reaction against rabid sjwism in the 2010s. I don't think it would ever go so far as to legalize pedophilia.
Pedophilia should not be legalized, but re-legalizing child sex dolls/robots--and of course cartoon/animated child porn--strikes me as being a great idea, either with or without a doctor's prescription, depending on what will produce better results, I suppose. I also wonder if the penalty for possession of actual child porn should be made a misdemeanor along with lots of mandatory therapy, with the penalty being upgarded to a felony if one does not attend therapy. Might be a more prudent approach than *automatically* designating such people felons. Their attention should be redirected towards cartoon/animated child porn and child sex dolls/robots.
I agree with Justice Brennan's dissent in *Osborne v. Ohio* about the definition of child porn being too broad, though. I don't think that a family giving a photo of their naked toddler to a family friend should be considered child porn, though AFAIK, legally, it might be. That should be changed.
This is one of those things it's not PC to talk about, but I do wonder if this is one of the few actual reasons sex robots might be a good thing. There are people whose desires cannot be ethically fulfilled. Might cut down on violence against actual humans.
Agreed, though even if the effect on violence was neutral, it could still improve people’s quality of life. If you’re a virtuous pedophile, right now, you’re pretty much just stuck with castration (chemical or physical), or trying to order a child sex doll/robot and getting arrested for this afterwards, and losing your doll. That’s not a very high quality of life.
Could also help zoophiles. Animal sex dolls/robots!
There are many problems with criminalizing child porn possession (it requires massive surveillance, it's too easy for police or accusers to plant something on someone, and the definition of "child" is being extended to the sexually mature), but I can't think of a more cursed idea than child sex robots for paedophiles. Surely humanity has better things to spend its finite energy resources on than that.
There’s a Japanese company named Trottla that apparently already makes child sex dolls for pedophiles. I hope that it will eventually extend its business into making child sex robots. Would be even better if they could master stem cell technology to create human-like skin for these robots.
Well, we really should re-legalize child sex dolls/robots. I'm serious. Whether this should be done with or without a doctor's prescription is, of course, a separate debate.
The claim that kids spend more time online because there are no gender-segregated spaces irl doesn't make much sense. People can still hang out in male- or female-only spaces in their free time. The question is why they choose to spend their free time online rather than with friends
what is a male-only space that you can go to in your free time?
I find it funny that even though you come to the same conclusions as some of the most bitter radfems, you're a man, so your conclusions are rational and solutions based.
This is easiest block I've ever done. It usually takes some time to determine that some imbecile should be blocked.
"In my medical opinion, that is a STUPID HAT!"
> Herbert Ludwig
Teenage women are attractive. 30 yo roasties are ugly.
6ft tall guys who date 5ft foids are pedos.
Is this RFH's alt account?
RFH isn't that based
As I said in the article, the effective definition of a word is determined by how most people use it. The behavior and attraction the vast majority of men exhibit is enough to get you called a "pedo" on Twitter, so I think the label is accurate. I acknowledge that the tendencies I describe most men as having don't fit the dictionary definition of pedophilia. That said, they do fit the colloquial definition.
Isn’t this basically the same way ‘fag’ was used by high schoolers until it became a taboo word?
What percentage of men who were called a ‘fag’ at least once do you think had actual fag tendencies?
I suppose my point is that colloquial use doesn’t trump dictionary use if the term is used in both contexts.
E.g. my best friend in HS and I would frequently call each other fags. And then one day we inadvertently drove through a pride parade and saw a group in bondage gear and my friend exclaimed ‘look at all these fags!’.
The example you provided proves my point about the democratic nature of language. The word "fag" initially meant a bundle of sticks. It was then used as a pejorative for homosexuals. Then it simply evolved into referring to males that exhibit "effeminate / annoying" traits while retaining it's anti-gay usage as well. With the rise of gay rights it was pushed back into just a derogatory term for homosexuals.
The word pedophile was initially used as a clinical term for individuals with an attraction to prepubescent children. Then it was expanded to mean individuals with an attraction to any minor regardless of sexual development. Now it's being expanded into meaning anyone attracted to a woman who is under the age of 25. Like the word "fag" it is subject to change based on how it is used colloquially. The dictionary definition does very little to tether its meaning in place. If there were some extrinsic factor, like the gay rights movement was for the word fag, I suppose the definition could be pushed back to one of its previous iterations.
Pedo used colloquially in certain a context still refers specifically to a man who indulges a predilection towards underage girls or boys although I agree the lines are somewhat blurred as to whether this includes adolescents and at what age it becomes non pedophillic abuse.
That's assuming Twitter = colloquial and I think that's pretty far-fetched.
I think social media platforms are a good thermometer on this sort of thing because hundreds of millions to billions of people use them. But if you prefer I choose a different platform we can use tik tok, Reddit, Facebook, Instagram or any social media platform you like to measure this. Go make a post saying you find some 17 year old actress attractive. Hell go on there and say you find a 22 year old hot. In either case you're getting called a pedo.
My point is that everyone knows that what anonymous (or polemical) figures say on the Internet is exaggerated and not how real people talk in real life
Nobody calls men pedos for cat-calling college girls. Maybe pigs.
https://x.com/Melo_Malebo/status/1841917511958462676?t=RqhwRVuz3tuh7Dn53HhlaQ&s=19