Discussion In Response to Progeny of Horus

[uo89997]

Recently, I responded to an excellent post by user @Progeny of Horus.

I have reposted my reply here (along with some edits for better readability) to a) allow for further discussion around it and b) for the line near the end: "if we want feminists and the rest of society to start listening to us and to understand our ideas, we have to start presenting them in rational and academic ways as opposed to what we're doing now".

This line is a large part of what I believe in and I wanted to get a sense of the community sentiment towards it in this present moment (I'm expecting there will be some backlash but I am unsure).

So, without further ado, enjoy.

I just admire the qualities associated with younger foids (15-17) such as fertility, angelic beauty, submissiveness and most importantly SHEER tightness. Watching a woman scream in shock and agonizing pleasure as she gets invaded by a manly cock is actual bliss. Seeing women in pain in general is a turn on for most men, which is why I love getting off to rape confessions, but I digress. Virginity is also a major deal, but obviously being this young no longer guarantees that. There's this magical feeling about opening and deflowering a nubile virginal cunt and having all the torn hymen blood mingle with your ever-thirsting semen. You are irreversibly taking something special from her and marking her as your property for good.

So yeah, I don't have some mad lust towards 'children'; I just consciously value the truly feminine traits.

I agree with the theme of your post.

1. Women aged 15-17 are attractive to men despite what society tells us
2. Submissiveness and "tightness" is also desirable to men
3. Deflowering a virgin is a typical male fantasy (one you and I share)

And yet, from the way you have titled and organized your post, you will have instantly sparked outrage in almost every bluepiller who reads it.

Why?

What you have described is not pedophilia, a term with a largely negative connotation that describes attraction to teenagers under 13 years of age, but instead ephebophilia, a word that is largely unknown and describes attraction to teenagers aged 15-19 years of age.

If you had instead entitled this post "An argument for ephebophilia" and filled it with lists of evidence as to why you believe ephebophilia is natural among men, no one would have read it, but it also would have been far harder to argue against.

Instead, you chose a more sensationalist title "I'm not a pedophile but ..." and who could really blame you?

This is a forum that boasts almost 10 million posts and is being bombarded every second with more (I myself am guilty of this).

If you want to be heard you almost have to sell yourself and your ideas.

And yet, it is precisely this pressure to sell and to constantly create[2] that weakens our words and turns us into sensationalists.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: if we want feminists and the rest of society to start listening to us and to understand our ideas, we have to start presenting them in rational and academic ways as opposed to what we're doing now.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go study with my girlfriend[1] - she has a trigonometry quiz tomorrow.

1. In video game mods, in video game.
2. Is the highest achievement on this forum not obtaining 10,000 posts?

 

[gangrenemax]

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go study with my girlfriend[1] - she has a trigonometry quiz tomorrow.

ragebait-dickhead-cel

 

[Dramus17]

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go study with my girlfriend[1] - she has a trigonometry quiz tomorrow.

Hope you're joking tbh

 

[ForevrAlone]

dnr

 

[Progeny of Horus]

And yet, from the way you have titled and organized your post, you will have instantly sparked outrage in almost every bluepiller who reads it.

Funnily enough, IT made a fuss about my post reaching 1k upvotes calling me a legitimate pedophile and whatnot. I typically like to keep my thoughts unfiltered and unadulterated, but this post in specific was meant to deliberately provoke bluepillers and passivistcels alike. I do agree it could have been worded way better.

What you have described is not pedophilia, a term with a largely negative connotation that describes attraction to teenagers under 13 years of age, but instead ephebophilia, a word that is largely unknown and describes attraction to teenagers aged 15-19 years of age.

Strictly speaking, you are absolutely correct. But we'd both be coping if we think proposing that mating with a 15-19 yo whore as 22+ male is going to be accepted in the West, specifically the cucked US, under ANY label. 'Ephebophilia' would be considered just a euphemism for pedophilia and the proposer would be accused of "semantically trying to weasel his way out of the situation".

And yet, it is precisely this pressure to sell and to constantly create[2] that weakens our words and turns us into sensationalists.

Absolutely agree.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: if we want feminists and the rest of society to start listening to us and to understand our ideas, we have to start presenting them in rational and academic ways as opposed to what we're doing now.

Here where I disagree most. If your premise(s) are that sex/romantic love is a basic a human right and is necessary for development and growth, that unattractive men have it way worse than their female counterparts OR that promiscuity and hypergamy are ruining our society; then you'll met by nothing but disdain, rage and hatred by feminists and their simps, regardless of how you present your argument. This is just my opinion though, if you think 'logicmaxxing' is the way to make our voices better heard, then I absolutely salute you and wish you best of luck. I just think it's an unwinnable battle.

 

[uo89997]

ragebait-dickhead-cel

I would say that is an apt description of myself.

 

[uo89997]

dnr

To me, what you are really saying with those three letters is "I want to be a retard".

Philosophers read Nietzsche, psychologists read Freud, romantics read Shakespeare, idiots read nothing at all.

So go through the post properly and let me know what you think (you can skip my introduction in italics if you choose).

 

[uo89997]

Funnily enough, IT made a fuss about my post reaching 1k upvotes calling me a legitimate pedophile and whatnot. I typically like to keep my thoughts unfiltered and unadulterated, but this post in specific was meant to deliberately provoke bluepillers and passivistcels alike. I do agree it could have been worded way better.

I suspected that may have been the case. I think it's a lot of fun to provoke IT (I have done so many times myself much to their chagrin) but, at some point, we are going to have to begin to get more serious if we want to start actually changing some minds.

Strictly speaking, you are absolutely correct. But we'd both be coping if we think proposing that mating with a 15-19 yo whore as 22+ male is going to be accepted in the West, specifically the cucked US, under ANY label. 'Ephebophilia' would be considered just a euphemism for pedophilia and the proposer would be accused of "semantically trying to weasel his way out of the situation".

Fair point.

Here where I disagree most. If your premise(s) are that sex/romantic love is a basic a human right and is necessary for development and growth, that unattractive men have it way worse than their female counterparts OR that promiscuity and hypergamy are ruining our society; then you'll met by nothing but disdain, rage and hatred by feminists and their simps, regardless of how you present your argument. This is just my opinion though, if you think 'logicmaxxing' is the way to make our voices better heard, then I absolutely salute you and wish you best of luck. I just think it's an unwinnable battle.

This is another fair point and I actually agree with you. Most feminists will disagree with the ideas I am planning to present in subsequent posts; the hope is that one will agree. That one feminist will stand up and speak out on behalf of our struggle.

Maybe it is an unwinnable battle, but it is one I am willing to rage; for I don't have much else on my plate other than my eventual death.

Like I stated from the beginning, your post was excellent and so too was your response. Thank you for taking the time to write it.

 

[ForevrAlone]

To me, what you are really saying with those three letters is "I want to be a retard".

Philosophers read Nietzsche, psychologists read Freud, romantics read Shakespeare, idiots read nothing at all.

So go through the post properly and let me know what you think (you can skip my introduction in italics if you choose).

Interesting.
Is posting philosophy on an Incel forum the highlight of your life? Flexing your pseudo intelligence around?

I'm a millionaire, I can go out right now and buy a 911 if I wanted and there are users here that can attest to that. IQ and intelligence mean absolutely nothing if you're here, so keep coping, loser.

 

[mrlunatic]

Recently, I responded to an excellent post by user @Progeny of Horus.

I have reposted my reply here (along with some edits for better readability) to a) allow for further discussion around it and b) for the line near the end: "if we want feminists and the rest of society to start listening to us and to understand our ideas, we have to start presenting them in rational and academic ways as opposed to what we're doing now".

This line is a large part of what I believe in and I wanted to get a sense of the community sentiment towards it in this present moment (I'm expecting there will be some backlash but I am unsure).

So, without further ado, enjoy.


I agree with the theme of your post.

1. Women aged 15-17 are attractive to men despite what society tells us
2. Submissiveness and "tightness" is also desirable to men
3. Deflowering a virgin is a typical male fantasy (one you and I share)

And yet, from the way you have titled and organized your post, you will have instantly sparked outrage in almost every bluepiller who reads it.

Why?

What you have described is not pedophilia, a term with a largely negative connotation that describes attraction to teenagers under 13 years of age, but instead ephebophilia, a word that is largely unknown and describes attraction to teenagers aged 15-19 years of age.

If you had instead entitled this post "An argument for ephebophilia" and filled it with lists of evidence as to why you believe ephebophilia is natural among men, no one would have read it, but it also would have been far harder to argue against.

Instead, you chose a more sensationalist title "I'm not a pedophile but ..." and who could really blame you?

This is a forum that boasts almost 10 million posts and is being bombarded every second with more (I myself am guilty of this).

If you want to be heard you almost have to sell yourself and your ideas.

And yet, it is precisely this pressure to sell and to constantly create[2] that weakens our words and turns us into sensationalists.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: if we want feminists and the rest of society to start listening to us and to understand our ideas, we have to start presenting them in rational and academic ways as opposed to what we're doing now.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go study with my girlfriend[1] - she has a trigonometry quiz tomorrow.

1. In video game mods, in video game.
2. Is the highest achievement on this forum not obtaining 10,000 posts?

Who cares what foids and feminists think about us?

 

[uo89997]

Interesting.
Is posting philosophy on an Incel forum the highlight of your life?

Yes, because this is the only community that allows me to say what I truly feel; this is the only community that accepts me for me.

Enjoy your Porsche.

 

[uo89997]

Who cares what foids and feminists think about us?

Good question.

I plan to outline this in a future post but essentially I see it something like this.

I think the first phase of the acceptance and promotion of sexual rights for involuntary celibates had to be reactionary.

Like him or not, if the guy in your profile picture[1] hadn't done what he did, I'm fairly certain this community would not exist today and, if it did, I probably would have been unaware.

This means that the reactionary phase of the incel movement has largely been successful in its goal of notifying the general public of our existence.

However, the problem with the violent acts of Elliot Rodger and others like him, is that they also generated a lot of hatred towards incels from feminists.

This has led to the further censorship and repression of our ideas.

What we need now, is the beginning of the "mainstreamization" of incel ideology.

What this means is that instead of solely building our theories off of the Blackpill, we should also draw and build upon the knowledge of feminism, critical race theory, and, yes, even Marxism itself.

Why?

If we combine our ideas with theirs, it creates compatibility.

This means that if a left-wing feminists wants to adopt our ideas, she will be able to justifiably do so because adoption of our ideas will not mean the release of her feminist philosophy.

Hopefully, this will eventually lead to mainstream advocacy for incels by feminists and legal action towards protecting things like a man's right to polygamous marriage (the practice of taking on multiple wives).

If, on the other hand, we fail to maintreamize our ideas, this community will continued to be censored and shunned and, in my opinion, will eventually reach extinction.

The choice now is ours.

1. Elliot Rodger, in case you change it.