Women according to the pornographic map of reality.

The Pornographic Map of Reality

Loading word count...
Listen to this article

Recently, I held a discussion with Lauren Brookes on my weekly livestream The Writer’s Block about the role that women should play in nationalist politics. I’ve been getting excellent feedback about that episode, but that’s not what I want to discuss today. I want to discuss a phenomenon I’ve observed in online discourse which I sometimes like to call the pornographic map of reality.

I’ve noticed it before and thought about it, but never really written an essay where I explore this phenomenon. Several comments on last week’s Writer’s Block, however, reminded me of the pornographic model of female behaviour and now I’d like to address it. Let’s begin by repeating some of these comments here. 

Whenever male-female relations are discussed in a nationalist or right-wing context, someone shows up to comment about how all women are fallen, all women are whores, all women are this and that. They usually call themselves groypers. Now, while I do understand that not all women are whores, degenerate or unfaithful, I do recognise the foundation of truth on which this wide-sweeping pronouncement is made. Modern women really leave much to be desired in the area of sexual propriety. But it’s the way in which these concerns are voiced that turned me on to a problem. 

The first comment that I noticed as stemming from the pornographic map of reality was concerning the mistress of the French king. Mrs. Brookes was trying to make the point that while the kings of France (or England, or Spain, or any European country for that matter) kept mistresses, these mistresses were not just hot chicks, but also refined and educated women were generally pleasant company as well. And of course, it stands to reason that a mistress, i. e. a woman who by definition is kept by a man for his pleasure would know how to please a man, and not just in the sexual sense. But our esteemed groyper viewer speculated that the king “only kept her around for anal.” 

Friend, if you’re reading this, with all due respect, but this comment tells me that you’ve never experienced anal sex, or been around women’s private parts for any appreciable amount of time. That’s ok, though. With regard to buttsex, you’re not missing a lot. After extensive field studies, I can confidently inform you that a woman’s vagina is by far a superior receptacle for your penis. It provides its own lubrication, contains no faecal matter, it’s more pleasant to the touch (and smell) and putting your dick in it is far likelier to produce a satisfying outcome for all parties involved. Engaging in buggery, on the other hand, is asking for all sorts of trouble you don’t even know is possible. 

The second comment was a hurtful remark about the guest, specifically the size of her nose. While insulting show guests’ appearance is bad enough, what really ticked me off about this one was that he compared her nose to “a black man’s cock.” Now, I’ve thrown a few big nose insults around in my time and I believe I’m not alone in saying that when disparaging the size of someone’s nose, the last thing on your mind should be a black man’s cock. Indeed, it is generally inadvisable to speak of black men’s cocks. But for some people, black cocks have become a byword for prodigious size. 

What both of these comments tell me is that the reference frame, the map of reality if you will, for the people who posted them isn’t derived from the realities of sex and women, but rather, it is derived from pornography. When we say map of reality, we mean the reference point for orientation in life which we all carry internally and can vary from person to person, but still share enough similarities for us to communicate. As always, the map is not the territory, but it should be a close enough approximation so that we do not get lost. 

Some people, I’ve noticed, have a pornographic map of reality, which is to say their map of sexual reality is derived from porn. You can always deduce who these people are, especially if your own map of sexual reality is derived from either experience or anywhere else which isn’t porn, really. So, for example a Christian monk who’s taken a vow of celibacy and has never had sex will have a more realistic map of sexual reality than someone who’s derived this map from watching porn and the monk’s map will be more similar to the map of a serial womaniser who’s derived his map of sexual reality from a wide and deep experience with women. 

However, someone with a pornographic map of reality will assume that real men and women behave like men and women in porn. And so, they will assume that women are always ready to cheat and they’ll especially assume that all white women cannot control themselves around black men, who all have enormous black cocks. They’ll assume that the ultimate sexual favour a woman can do for a man is to let him penetrate her anally. They’ll assume that women (or for that matter men) come with their assholes already pristine and lubed, or that anal sex is exceptionally pleasant for men. They’ll assume that sexual pleasure comes from ever more convoluted and escalating levels of, for lack of a better word, perversion. I understand why they believe that, because I too have watched a lot of porn. However, as a long time sex-haver, let me tell you something about sex. The most pleasant variant is good old fashioned penis in vagina, man and woman in bed type of intercourse. There’s other things you can do for variety, but once the novelty wears off, and believe me, it wears off pretty fast (sometimes before you’ve finished fucking), you find yourself defaulting back to the beast with two backs classic.

These people will then extrapolate from their assumptions about private sexual relations on broader socio-sexual issues. And so, the problem of female hypergamy, which is real and needs to be addressed suddenly becomes a problem of white women sleeping with black men, which is statistically speaking the least common interracial pairing. Women who sleep with black are not only rare, but they also are of a specific type, i. e. low-class, ugly, overweight, unintelligent and crass. In fact, if we are throwing blame for miscegenation around, reality tells us that white men are far more to blame for that in their pursuit of Asian and Hispanic women in particular. However, it should be noted that white men still overwhelmingly choose white women to mate with, even though they miscegenate at a higher rate than white women. Pornography will also have you believe that white men are weak and unattractive, but this is once again not born out by reality. White men are consistently rated as the most attractive and most desirable by women of all races. 

A further problem arises when people thus mindfucked by pornography try to insert their pornographic map of reality into nationalist discourse and make it the default map of reality for nationalist politics. Due to the fact that many young men take their cues on sex and sexuality from porn and further reinforce each other’s views on porn and sexuality online, they can overwhelm the nationalist or other thought-spaces through sheer numbers and begin to exclude dissenters on the grounds that they are “simps”. 

Further exacerbating the issue is that with internet anonymity, a lot of nonwhite men, who shouldn’t be part of the pro-white discourse but somehow gravitate around the thought-space are free to voice their opinions on white women and white sexuality and pass them off as the opinions of white men. Given that nonwhite men tend to lust after white women who usually reject them, their views of white women are twisted and resentful and as such make the discourse worse than it needs to be. A final problem arises is when the mass of hapless young men with pornographic maps of reality stumbles upon a leader who echoes their hatred of white women.. As it happens, the two most prominent leaders of such incel movements are Nick Fuentes and Bronze Age Pervert (real name Costin Alamariu), both of whom are nonwhite homosexuals and thus unqualified to speak about male-female relations and especially relations between white women and white men. 

In short, we have a situation which is primed by the ubiquity of pornography and exploited by cynical grifters or megalomaniacal homosexuals. The universe presented by pornography is not realistic but carefully crafted to engender sexual insecurity in young white men and drive them to resent white women, while also inculcating them with wrongheaded notions about sexual intimacy at the personal level. One wonders if the enormous Jewish contribution to pornography isn’t behind this, whether intentionally, or unintentionally, with the chosen people inflicting their own notoriously dysfunctional sexuality on the white public. 

Whatever the cause, I call on people to not only stop watching porn, but also to seriously reconsider the premises on which you construct your map of sexual reality. In fact, this is good general advice – do not base your map of reality on what the current system, which we know to be deceptive and anti-white wants you to see, but on your own observations and augment it with wisdom from ages past. Of course, you don’t have to go out and experience everything yourself. Other men and especially older men can help you greatly in constructing an alternative to the pornographic map of reality. Seek out your elders and ask their advice. It’s the best way to learn and they’ll be happy to help. 

Only with a proper map of reality will you be able to function normally and healthily. You have a problem finding women, but you yourself a lost. How will you find women when you yourself need to be found? You need a better map, my man. You’ll build it, in time and with experience. But first, for your own sake, lay off the porn. I know, however, that many of you won’t. So here I’ll rephrase my request: even if you don’t stop watching porn (which you should), at least do not allow it to inform your map of reality.

Post Author

Leave a comment

4.7 7 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I only got on pornhub to read the articles

At this point the DR is infested with younger millennials and zoomers whose only experience with women is limited to pornography and because of that they think that every White woman is a mudshark.

Also it doesn’t help that the manosphere keeps pushing with narrative as well.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x