Modern sexual morality and reality blindness
The post that condemns me to hell: an addendum to Sexual Feudalism
In Sexual Feudalism, I described the modern state of affairs where men are turning to various forms of online pornography in order to approximate a satisfaction of their sexual desire, which in effect leads to their enslavement. In this essay, I will explore the reasons behind why men are turning to such degeneracy in the first place in more detail.
Sublimating desire
When any need or desire can’t be directly satisfied it, we seek to sublimate it - to satisfy it in a roundabout, indirect way. One of the first people to mention this concept was Freud in his psychoanalytic theory, where he argued that a child learns to sublimate his needs and desires because to sate them all in a direct way prevents him from adjusting to life in civilization. With this in mind, we can think of sublimating desires as a key part of living as part of society. This is most important when our desire would lead us towards doing something that our society deems immoral. However, it is not always the case that something deemed immoral by society is actually unhealthy. And conversely, something society deems moral is not always healthy. There’s healthy desires and unhealthy desires, and there’s also healthy ways of sublimating one’s desire and unhealthy ones.
Now, the question is obviously, why do men in the modern world sublimate their desires in such an unhealthy way? In short, it is because they live in a society that deems healthy male sexuality to be immoral, shames them not only for expressing it, but also for sublimating it in a healthy manner and offers degenerate alternatives as the moral option.
When sexual desire can not be satisfied in the real world, it can be sublimated by talking about it. However, all healthy forms of male sexuality are demonized and shamed in western society, which means men can not sublimate their desire in a healthy way. Instead they sublimate it in the degenerate way that is promoted by modern society.
Morally enslaved
What I described in the above paragraph happens because normies are morally enslaved by ZOG. They either do not realize the contemporary western value system is absolutely degenerate, or worse, they do realize it, but are unable to disentangle themselves from it and form their own morality, independent of political authority. This is what Nietzsche meant by going beyond good and evil, discarding the shackles of societal morality and following your own moral code. This is something a lot of normies are incapable of. The result is that they are embedded in the modern degenerate value system and are thus unable to judge good and evil in absolute terms, but are instead forced to judge it from within the moral framework put forth by modern society.
This is why men are unable to confess to finding 17 year, 364 days and 23 hours and 59 minutes old girls attractive; but see nothing wrong with jerking off to pictures of OnlyFans influencers, even if its their niece.
In my previous essay I talked about patriarchy and matriarchy, and how each system orders society. THIS is the essence of MATRIARCHY - the complete control of male sexuality and all forms of male expression. Thoughtcrime is a fundamentally female concept, because women don’t judge by actions, rather by intent. It doesn’t matter if she cheats on you, because “it didn’t mean anything”, “it just happened” and she “was thinking about you the whole time” (she wasn’t). At the same time, it doesn’t matter that you don’t cheat, because if you admit to finding other women attractive, which means that you *want* to fuck them. And wanting to fuck them is just as bad as actually fucking them. Now obviously, if your girl wants to get fucked by other men it’s already over, but for men, it’s not so.
A wise woman once told me: sexual desire in a man starts “down there” and travels “up here”, but in a woman it starts up here and travels down there.
What she meant by this is that in man, sexual desire originates in the genitals – the physiological phenomenon of arousal precedes the psychological state of arousal, but in women it is vice versa. Arousal begins in her mind, and only then moves to her pussy.
What does this mean? It means that in order to fuck her (right in the) pussy, you must first invade (fuck) her mind. Taking this to its logical conclusion, are you really fucking her if she thinks of someone ex during the act? Or are you just a vessel for his psychic imprint to have its way with her? The physical act of getting fucked by another man is just the culmination, your woman has effectively cheated on you as soon as another man has supplanted your place in her thoughts. But let’s get back to the central point.
Continuing the thread of restraining male sexuality and expression - you must not commit sexual thought crime. You must not find 17/364/23/59 girls attractive, because to do so is forbidden by ZOG morality. Not even if you’re 19 and that’s your girlfriend from high school. There is no room for nuance here, because the point is not to order society in a healthy way - it’s to limit healthy male sexual expression and force men in to degeneracy. And since strict adherence to the letter of the law is prone to purity spiraling, these days (while not illegal) it is increasingly becoming frowned upon for dating girls in 18-21 age bracket as a man older than 25. Pedos get the rope yes, but 17/364/23/59 is not a child and while technically illegal, any healthy man would admit to finding her attractive. And any sane person would understand the difference between finding someone attractive and taking steps to fuck them. But since this ideology is not sane in the slightest, it doesn’t allow for nuance. These same people celebrate the chemical (and actual) castration of 10 year old boys that are then dressed up in drag and paraded before degenerate pederasts. They celebrate the magic number 18, when something essential changes within a human female. No longer a girl, she is now a WOMYN, which means the same sexually explicit images that you were forbidden from looking at a day ago are now allowed to make your dick hard. Not only allowed, you are encouraged to seek out her sexually explicit content, give her your money and beat your meat in your study while your wife sleeps in the next room. Once she starts posting softcore porn the normie coomer wants more, he wants her to go into porn, he wants to see her get fucked by other men - because that’s the only way he knows how to sublimate his desire for young pussy as a married man in the modern world.
BARELY LEGAL
I assume, or rather hope, that the majority of these coomers are just paying lip service to ZOG morality. They don’t actually find 17 year olds unattractive, they just don’t dare tell the truth for fear of social exclusion. And yet, put on an act long enough and it ceases to be an act. I have no doubt that there exist men in this age that are so strongly embedded in the matrix, that they themselves don’t let their dick get hard for a 17 year old girl. The shackles of ZOG morality are so tightly wound around them that their sexuality is overwritten. They truly believe in the magical essence of the number 18, the Holy Number of Legality, which finally lets them contemplate WOMYN in a sexual light. However, this is still limited to a voyeuristic form of sexual desire. The normie coomer can never fuck this at-long-last-legal WOMYN, because he is too old for her. The power imbalance means she can’t truly consent, they say. And consent is the only thing that separates sexually moral from sexually immoral acts. Anything is fine, as long as it’s between consenting adults. Getting buggered is fine, as long as it’s between consenting adults! Letting your wife fuck other men is fine, as long as it’s between consenting adults! Prepping the bull is fine, as long as it’s between consenting adults! I’m sure I could go on, but please excuse me for not doing so, I don’t want to contemplate what the true depths of modern depravity look like. Since lack of consent is what makes a sexual act immoral, and this 18 year old WOMYN is unable to consent to sex with him due to the age difference (but can and does consent to sex with fellow pornographers - but it’s different, they say. she's doing sex work!) he contents himself with watching her get railed by other men and beating off while his wife sleeps in the next room. He is a moral man, after all. He lets his son castrate himself and he encourages his daughter to promote her OnlyFans. He is on the Right Side of History.
Reality blindness
In a way, it seems the social constructionists were right. Reality really is a social construct, at least for a certain type of human being. In sincerely believing in the magical essence of 18, in thinking that something essential changes when a girl turns 18 the normie reveals that he is fully embedded in the matrix, so to speak. He is unable to see the difference between the “real” world - the world as it is, and the social construction with which we assign meaning to it. He is suffering from reality blindness. There is no real-world basis for the belief that 18 is the treshold of adulthood. Instead, the real-world milestone that signifies the transition from childhood to womanhood is menstruation. If she bleeds, she is ready to breed. But the normie is fundamentally incapable of considering this.
When it comes to the normie (and the woman) there is a very interesting relationship between objective reality and the social construction of it. The normie operates fully within a socially constructed reality, but he is blind to the fact - he fully believes (ie. acts as though) to be operating within objective reality. He sees what his moral and social authority wants him to see, but believes it to be the world as it is. Therefore to him the world is what his moral and social authority wants him to see. An example, to make this idea clearer to everyone.
Observation: A man in his late 20s is trying to chat up a 19 year old girl.
Intepretation (ie what is happening): A man in his late 20s is trying to chat up a 19 year old girl.
Meaning ascribed to it by traditional morality: Nothing out of the ordinary.
Meaning ascribed to it by ZOG morality: A pedophile is trying to groom a literal child!
There are multiple ways to interpret (ie assign meaning to) an observed scenario. Now, if we assign meaning independently of morality our goal is to assign the right meaning and avoid assigning the wrong meaning. In other words, we want to represent the scenario accurately. When we are assigning meaning from within a moral framework however, we are trying to determine whether the scenario is good or bad. Most people think that when performing moral judgments, we first try to establish that our interpretation is factually correct, then make a judgment on it (in other words: assign meaning to it). In truth, moral reasoning as an automatic process takes the exact opposite order. First the moral judgment is conducted and then an interpretation is provided to justify said judgment. In other words, moral reasoning is post-hoc rationalization. If we return to the above example, the ZOGbot sees a man expressing healthy sexual behavior and because healthy male sexuality is a sin in ZOG morality, this is bad. Therefore the behavior must be framed in such a way that everyone can agree to it being a sin - pedophile grooming a literal child. This is at least partly due to the fact that ZOG morality is predicated upon linguistic subversions - twisting definitions in order to create links between genuinely degenerate behavior (such as pederasty) and healthy behavior - which lets it trick righteous, but naive, people into getting outraged over normal behavior. The true tenets of ZOG morality are thus never truly stated, they are only implied through actions, example:
You should not discriminate based on race = you WILL discriminate against white people
The normie’s issue is that he is unable to differentiate between right and wrong in a factual sense and right and wrong in a moral sense. Additionally, since the normie is unable to differentiate between the world as it is and the world as it is described, he is incapable of considering that there exists an alternative moral system*. And because moral right and wrong is (for him) the same as factual right and wrong, that means that he is also unable to consider that there is a different possible factual interpretation of events. And because he doesn’t realize he is operating in a socially constructed reality and thinks his conception of it is completely objective, he is trapped in the absolutely insane and degenerate moral framework where a man who wants to fuck a 19 year old girl is a pedophile, whereas a mentally ill tranny that grooms 10 year old boys is stunning and brave**.
In other words, the normie is completely subjected to arguments from authority and consensus, but is at the same time also unaware of the fact, because in his mind consensus equals truth.
This is very ironic when one considers the normie’s belief in moral relativism. It turns out however that this is just another linguistic subversion. Moral relativism doesn’t actually mean “all moral systems are equally valid”. It instead means “traditional western values are wrong”, just like “don’t be racist” actually means “hate white people”.
*note that the existence of multiple possible moral systems doesn’t make them all equivalent. there is a clear right moral system and clear wrong ones.
**As Thuletide put in a recent (at the time of writing) telegram post:
Imagine if average people constantly spewed NAMBLA rhetoric, taken verbatim from NAMBLA figureheads, while furiously denying any accusations that they are pedophiles or that they support pedophilia. They instantly dismiss any evidence proving the origin of their rhetoric and instead claim that their beliefs are merely "being a good person."This is modern normies' relationship with Western/Cultural Marxism. They have never heard of the Frankfurt School, or of works like Eros and Civilization, The Authoritarian Personality, and Sexuality In The Culture War. They have never heard of Marcuse or Adorno, or their protégés like Kim Crenshaw and Angela Davis. They have no idea that John Money fabricated the concept of "gender" or that Franz Boas destroyed the concept of race.
Yet, their entire worldview consists of decades-old soundbites taken from these anti-White, anti-family propagandists. Westerners are born subsumed in Marxist ideology, but they have no idea that it exists, like water to a fish. If you try to pull them out, they'll fight for their lives to jump back into the ocean.
The moral age of consent
On a related note, we should keep in mind that there are actually two ages of consent. First is the legal age of consent (as defined by the law), that only law-abiding men respect anyway (sidenote: I wonder which demographic is on average less law-abiding?). Then there is the more important one, the moral age of consent (which comes about even later than the legal one). Unlike the static legal age of consent, the moral one is dynamic, because it is enforced through social shaming of men who dare find attractive women attractive. The more globohomo morality takes root in our society, the more men get shamed for expressing something approximating healthy sexuality - therefore the moral age of consent goes up, so that truly healthy male sexuality is an ever bigger sin. Come on, boomer, you didn’t really think it was ok for you to admit to being attracted to a 18 year old, did you? Don’t you know she was 17 less than a year ago?
Similarly to the legal AOC (alexandria of color), which only law-abiding men respect, the moral AOC is only respected by God-fearing men. It is unfortunate however, that the modern “god” is satanic, therefore misguided normies are committing grave acts of degeneracy while thinking themselves good and moral.
You WILL support your daughter’s onlyfans,
you WILL marry a used up single mother,
and you WILL jerk off to porn instead of fucking her.
In truth, the only healthy formulation of a moral age of consent is the following: the age of consent is when her father allows you to marry her.
Consent is GAY
The fixation on consent is another aspect of the modern world’s moral relativism (which is very clearly wrong), itself a consequence of the social constructionist model of reality. When consent is the only thing that separates moral from immoral, any act - no matter how disgusting and depraved - can be moral, as long as both parties are consenting adults. Nothing is real, so everything is permissible. A sane moral system, on the other hand, makes a clear distinction between what is right, what is wrong and what is permissible under specific circumstances.
This is why we must refuse to let the enemy control the battlefield. We must refuse to use their language. Wanting to fuck 16 year old girls is not pedophilia. Touching 8 year old boys is. The SOYstem, backed by ZOG is trying it’s hardest to demonize healthy male sexuality in order to get you hooked on their degenerate substitutions. Jerking off to porn instead of fucking your woman and subscribing to 18 year old WOMYN’s OnlyFans to support their STRONG, INDEPENDENT and BRAVE lifestyle instead of expressing your attraction to healthy breeding age girls in male company. In order to accomplish this, it attemps to describe healthy male sexuality with the same term as perverted degeneracy, because that lets it get away with said perverted degeneracy when righteous anger at acts of real pedophilia is spent demonizing men who fuck 16 year old girls. This is just one of the many rhetorical subversions they employ to keep us in metaphorical chains. One may even notice that the only men who get demonized for this are white, but I’m sure that’s just a coincidence. Here’s some [barely legal] porn, it will make you forget all about it.
And it is precisely because normie ZOGbots give in to the idea of consent that they are unable to satisfy their sexual desire in a healthy way. There is no such thing as consent, at least not in the mainstream (gay) understanding of it. There is no “can I?” followed “Yes.” in sex. Women don’t allow you to do things to them. They give themselves to you to do with them as you please. That is the essence of a healthy relationship. However, and here’s the catch - they only do so with men that they believe to be above them in some way. There is no sex between equals, only between a man and a woman.
This is why normie ZOGbots end up so frustrated. By letting themselves get fooled by the modern idea of consent and even worse, by the idea that power imbalances make a woman unable to consent, they are complicit in their own castration. In fact, it is the contrary - it is precisely the power imbalance that results from her being subordinate to you that makes her “consent” - that makes her want to give herself up to you. This is also what pushes the normie coomer into masturbation. The concept of consent is so deeply important to him, but at the same time, arcane and elusive - because it is completely incoherent. Consent doesn’t make any a-priori sense in the mainstream conceptualization, but to make matters worse, it keeps getting redefined. From #nomeansno to #yesmeansyes, someone that internalizes the modern idea of consent can never be free to actually fuck, because he is shackled by all the nonsensical rules that are to be followed in order to not commit sexcrime. Thus he retreats to the only form of sexual gratification that is free of consent (for now) - masturbation. He doesn’t have to worry about consent if he’s jerking off, because he is the sole participant.
I won’t pretend I am not guilty of seeking consent at times. I still haven’t yet completely internalized this idea myself. I’ve been shackled by this for a significant part of my life - this is why I was able to make this post. However, the sooner one understands this rationally, the sooner one can internalize it and fully embody it in his life. If this world is to be saved, we must break the shackles of ZOG morality and realize that almost everything we were taught to believe is wrong. Hence, a return to tradition is in order.