Weaponizing Age Gap Discourse

Imagine DiCaprio in a Maga hat

Unless you've been living under a rock for the past five years, you've probably noticed that "age gap discourse" has been popping off on all social media platforms. The issue tends to break along gendered lines but is becoming increasingly ideological since women are moving left and men are moving right. You can even see it in the search trends:

The cause of this trend is actually pretty obvious. The term was slowly entering the lexicon from 2004–2019, but it kicked off around 2020—coincidentally just after #MeToo was dying down and just as the Jeffrey Epstein stuff came to light.

And with declining marriage rates,

millennial women entering their mid to late thirties around this time,

and the fact that men's preferences for looks in women don't age beyond 20,

we had the perfect storm.

So, you had a bunch of unmarried late-twenties to early-thirties women who just a few years ago could get guys to do whatever they wanted for them and were now seeing their looks (and therefore power) decline. And then a crisis of Hollywood sexual abuse and an international child grooming ring comes to light. Very quickly, from 2020 to 2025, what was previously "let consenting adults do what they want in the privacy of their own bedroom" morphed into "she was 27 years old, you sick fuck." Pedo paranoia and female insecurity culminated in mass hysteria. Basically, conditions aligned such that pedo-jacketing against consenting adults was inevitable.

Just type in "age gap" or "x year old dating x" on Reddit, Twitter, TikTok, or even here on Substack and you'll find some discourse on how this 20-something dating this 30-something is heckin' pedophilia because muh prefrontal cortex or whatever. Here's a few highlights, but there are literally thousands to pick from:

But none of this is news to regular Bliss readers. I've written three articles touching on this topic, which I'll link at the end of this article. You may wonder why I've written about this so many times despite the fact that it has nothing to do with the rest of my work. The truth is, I don't really care about this issue in and of itself. It has two main uses.

In the first place, I care about using it as a wedge issue to push men to the right. We've seen these fracture points before—moments that radicalized different segments of the population, pushing them toward one direction or the other. On the left, movements like #MeToo, Black Lives Matter, and a bunch of little gay flashpoints. We've had our fair share as well: Gamergate, the alt-right, Andrew Tate, and the incel crisis. But each of those things affected young men, whereas this one more so hits men in their late twenties onward.

This is a very useful group to court. They have money, they have status, and by and large, the more wealthy and powerful a man is, the bigger the age gap between him and his wife—so the more useful ones are more affected. This means that we now have the chance to get a lot of wealthy, powerful men on our side simply by aligning ourselves with their interests. All that's really required of us is to say:

"Hey, I know those left-wingers call you a groomer or whatever, but over on the based and red-pilled side, your old ass can fuck around with college baddies, and not only will we not get pissed, we'll give you a high five." Creating and normalizing a space and permission structure like this on our side will be of the utmost importance for recruiting elites.

But there's also a deeper purpose here. I've said in prior articles that the most important thing is to change people's axioms, and this is a perfect opportunity to do that. But first, we have to figure out what axiom is motivating this discourse so we can properly provide its opposite.

The Axiom Audit

In case you're new here, an axiom is an idea that is accepted as true without proof and serves as a starting point for reasoning or argument. It's the first principle which cannot be questioned any further because there's nothing beneath it.

To understand why anyone does anything or wants anything—what they are motivated by in principle—you should always first do an axiom audit. This really means just asking "why" until you can go no further. If you're curious about this method of analysis, I'll link to an article here where I get into it more deeply.

Axiom Audit:

Feminist: Large age gaps between consenting adults are still morally wrong.

Man: Why?

Feminist: It's weird and creepy.

Man: Why?

Feminist: They are at different life stages.

Man: So?

Feminist: It's predatory.

Man: Why?

Feminist: There's a power imbalance.

Man: Why is that a problem?

Feminist: I believe in equality.

Man: Why?

Feminist: ……..

So the underlying axiom here is equality—at least that's how it's being argued. I don't think the women who argue against large age gaps really believe that, because it's not a principle they apply consistently in their own relationships. I've never really seen a woman specifically desire a man who makes roughly the same amount of money as her, is equally as strong as her, is equally as smart as her, has the same social status as her, is as popular as her, etc. Usually, they prefer partners far exceeding them in all these areas. I can't really see many of these women rejecting Chris Hemsworth or Brad Pitt on the basis of inequality, even though such a relationship would have a massive power imbalance.

The actual argument here is that men shouldn't be attracted to youth because it discriminates against and therefore disempowers women outside of their desired age window. The equality angle is just an acceptable, less pathetic/low-status way of manipulating men. Previously, they would argue that the younger party are just gold diggers, but since it's no longer morally permissible to criticize other women, they must now argue that the men are groomers bordering on pedophilia. But I'm really glad they're doing this.

We've Been Here Before

We had basically the same argument in regard to race a few years ago, and it was the genesis of the alt-right, which eventually went on to reshape racial discourse in favor of whites. White identity is now much more normalized than it was in 2014. It took a long time to get there, but basically the term "racist" lost its power when whites realized they didn't have to care. It went something like this:

Liberal: It's wrong for whites to pursue their own interests as a racial group.

White: Why?

Liberal: It's racist.

White: Why?

Liberal: Whites have more power, therefore it's wrong for them to advocate on behalf of themselves.

White: Why?

Liberal: I believe in equality.

White: Why?

Liberal: ……

In both cases, it's just asking one group not to pursue their interests in the interest of equality. Whether or not the manipulative party actually believes in equality as an axiom is irrelevant. What matters is that it's the rhetorical weapon they're using. But each time they use it, they run the risk of exposing the axiom itself to challenge.

Why It's Useful: Turning Men Against Equality

The alt-right largely succeeded in convincing a significant portion of whites that it was morally good to advocate for their own interests. It failed, however, in directly confronting the axiom that equality for its own sake is worth striving for. Mostly, alt-righters argued that mass migration and anti-white identity politics are unfair, and that's why white identity is

needed so that whites can advocate on behalf of themselves just like any other group. This framework still exists within the left-wing paradigm of equality.

One of my main goals with Bliss Productions is the total destruction of equality pursued for its own sake. And turning a very powerful group—in this case wealthy older men—against this axiom would be a great start to that end.

It doesn't really matter for our purposes whether or not the feminists are correct about these types of relationships. I don't really think these relationships are predatory or unequal in the case of the young woman. In fact, the gold digger analogy was probably a more accurate description of the dynamic, given that women are generally better at manipulation than men regardless of age(which is based af). Frankly, I wish the men were the Machiavellian predators feminists portray them as. But whether it's true or not doesn't actually matter. It's the way they're framing it which is useful.

We shouldn't argue these relationships aren't predatory or unequal. The collective response from the accused must be:

"I don't value equality, so I don't care."

The argument must always center on the idea that the pursuit of equality is a negative thing. "I don't believe in equality" must be the mantra. And it must be the mission of the right to communicate to men that:

"Hey, those bitter old bitches on the left don't want you to bang that hot 20-something at the bar—but if you roll with us and reject equality, you can."

We must use this as a wedge to get men to reject equality on both an internal and behavioral level.

Article 1: All Men Are Pedophiles And Other Things Radfems Get Right

Article 2: The Culture War Cycle

Article 3: Why No One’s Hot Anymore