Look, 95% of humans are straight, not gay. If you, the boylover, want to have sex with boys — pubescent or prepubescent — I don’t give a fuck, and I certainly don’t want you to go to jail for it. As far as I’m concerned, you should have the right to, say, go to Africa or Thailand or the nearest orphanage, and literally buy a bunch of boys for the explicit purpose of having anal sex with them on a daily basis. Sexual slavery is the best kind of slavery, in my opinion.

But here’s the thing: it doesn’t make sense to make boylovers the front and center of the “young sexuality” movement. Think logically: if the population is overwhelmingly straight, why should homosexual boylovers — a minority within a minority — represent the movement to liberate young sexuality? It doesn’t make much sense, now, does it? The thing is, we have historical records, and the historical records say that in 1880, the AOC in Delaware was 7. That’s in the fucking United States, the heart of Anglosphere Puritanism. It’s not impossible to present the idea that young people are sexual entities. It’s just that we have to be smart about how we conduct our propaganda efforts.

What you need to understand is that you, the boylovers, have failed. I don’t blame you — we have failed just as much as you did — but it is what it is. And part of the reason for your failure is that most people are not even comfortable with regular “adult” homosexuality; so you can’t just straight out sell them on boylove. Let me propose a scenario: imagine that we, the straight “pedophiles” (most of us aren’t even pedophiles, but that’s what they call us anyway), succeed in reducing the AOC or, ideally, abolishing it. Wouldn’t that allow you to say: “hey, if straight young sexuality has been liberated, maybe we should also liberate gay young sexuality?”

See how it works? I’ve spoken to enough people to know that, if they are really, genuinely open minded, you can convince them that there is a sound biological basis for heterosexual relations with pubescents. Because there is, in fact, a biological basis for such relations. In contrast, you will not, currently, be able to succeed in convincing even the most open minded individuals to accept boylove, because like all forms of homosexuality in general, it’s not something that people are comfortable taking “as it is.” We know that an AOC did not exist in most of the world prior to the 20th century, whereas homosexuality was forbidden all the way back in Biblical times. It logically follows that our propaganda should focus on the very modern innovation which is the AOC, rather than on something that historically has been looked down upon.

Again, it’s nothing personal. I support unity in the movement and it’s not my intention to stir unnecessary division. But look: historically, homosexuality has been severely marginalized, and in the population at large, homosexuals are a small minority. These are facts. Yes, I know about ancient Greece and so on, but that’s some weak sauce – right now we need to reverse the last 150 or 200 years in terms of “sex crime” legislation; you can’t just outright reverse the last 2,500 years, just because some societies back then tolerated your lifestyle. One must be logical and smart in order to succeed.

NAMBLA was a failure. Do we want to succeed or not? Then we must learn from the mistakes of the past. NAMBLA may have been an honest-to-God organization, but by becoming the public face of the young sexuality movement, it basically sank whatever prospects it had to succeed. It bound — completely unnecessarily — the young sexuality movement with homosexuality, thereby ensuring its failure when it comes to mass persuasion. If I were planning on building a Controlled Opposition organization to ensure that the AOC would never be abolished, I would create NAMBLA.

“But isn’t that hypocritical coming from someone who says he supports Child Prostitution and Rape?” No, it’s not hypocritical, first because I never proposed to make Rape and Child Prostitution the front and center of our outreach efforts, and secondly, Child Prostitution was not merely accepted but actually quite common before the Feminists and their Puritan puppeteers decided to stamp it out (the AOC was raised by Feminists specifically in order to eliminate Child Prostitution); likewise, Rape was often accepted in many situations, as the modern definitions of “rape” are very different than the historical conception of “rape.” I believe in pushing things as far as they can reasonably be pushed; but everything has to be done strategically.

I’m okay with this sort of thing, but does it make for successful propaganda?

TheAntifeminist asked why there is no pro-male sexuality movement. While there are several reasons for it, I believe that part of it is that, by drawing disproportionate attention to themselves, the boylovers made it impossible to use effective propaganda for our cause. On a visceral, hindbrain level, all heterosexual men find female teenagers to be sexually attractive; effective propaganda should appeal to this subconscious, hindbrain (lizardbrain) attraction. It’s a force that is already there, and all we have to do is appeal to it effectively. Surely, then, focusing instead on boylove is a losing strategy. Why should the movement be centered around “a minority within a minority,” when we can try to persuade more neurotypical people?

I don’t ask the boylovers to “go away.” I just ask them, and everyone else who’s in it to win it, to seriously think about the proper manner to optimize this whole business. Because let me say it: after decades of complete failure, this business needs some real optimization.

Please explain to me where, exactly, my reasoning is wrong, if you think it’s wrong.