in defense of harry sisson.
free my boy.
My entire writing career is dedicated to becoming famous enough to enjoy free nudes from women, and to tip my fedora in the cringiest way possible in the process. I want women to send me nudes, and I will respond, “ok, now this? This is epic.” There is no other purpose here. In this DeepLeft house, Harry Sisson is a hero.
America, effectively, has legal separation between sex and state:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of sexual norms among consenting adults, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The right of the consenting adults to send and request nudes, shall not be infringed.
You can be trans, a furry, a gooner — none of this is illegal. Politically and culturally speaking, in the Republican Party, you can be gay or even trans, as long as you are sufficiently loyal to Trump.
So why is Harry Sisson currently under attack? The claims are that he is “creepy,” “manipulative,” and “deceptive.”
If Republicans were welcoming Sisson over to their side, defending him, and pointing out how pathetic leftists sound when attacking him, I would be willing to give them a point on this issue. But that’s not what’s happening.
There are plenty of issues where I wish the Republican Party would be more woke. Open borders, foreign aid, support for Ukraine, abortion rights, animal rights, and lab-grown meat are all issues where I would love Republicans to plagiarize from the left. If Republicans want to go organic, get pesticides out of the food supply, protect clean air and water, I’m all for it! I’m loyal to principles, not parties.
I am grateful that sexual wokism has shifted the Overton Window to the point where gay marriage is a given. I am not personally wrapped up in the moral panic over women’s sports and bathrooms.
If “men in dresses” are all rapists, I see no reason why they should be allowed in the boy’s room, either, so the Republican stance on this is impotent and performative. No one is suggesting that transvestism be banned from public life.
The only sport I watch is tennis, and I would gladly watch Serena Williams get destroyed by men on a daily basis. I don’t see any value in gender segregation in sports other than to inflate the egos of men-hating lesbians.
But one aspect of sexual wokism irks me personally, which is the demonization of white male heterosexuality. Republicans could easily push back on this, if they wanted to, but they don’t. They prefer to score a cheap political point against Democrats. This is dangerous for our democracy.
I understand that no one is going to listen to me, and my words are written in the water. Republicans will continue to demonize white male heterosexuality when it is convenient for them, and Democrats will continue to demonize white male heterosexuality even when it hurts their own party. This is a run-away feedback loop, like many elements of leftism, with no brakes.
The problem will get worse, and this article won’t help. White men will come under increasingly harsh scrutiny. There really is no limit to sex-negative Maoism.
If the right-wing was willing to put a stop to this, I would give them a point. If President Trump would stand up to defend Harry Sisson, I would praise him:
“Have you heard what the Democrats are doing to Harry? I call him handsome Harry, he’s a handsome guy. Well he put the smooth move on some girls, and we all know that when you get a bit of fame, it goes to your head. Everyone knows that. We need to have forgiveness in this country. The left has gone insane.”
I would be the first to second Trump’s motion.
hate the game, not the playa.
Harry Sisson is a certified loverboy. Back in the day, we would say, “Harry Sisson is a pimp.” In technical terms, Harry Sisson is a non-ethical non-monogamist.
How much energy should we, as a society, employ to patrol non-ethical non-monogamy?
Historically, if people had sex outside marriage, this was considered adultery, and according to the Bible, it was punishable by death. In practice, upper-class men had mistresses without many restrictions on their sexuality, while lower-class men were hit over the head with rolling pins. There is an entire genre of comedy dedicated to laughing at middle-to-lower class men who are browbeaten (or literally beaten with rolling pins) by their wives for looking at a hot woman walking down the street.
In 1960, as long as you weren’t married, you could go on a date with a new girl every week. You would be called certain names, like a cad or a rake, but no legal action would be taken against you. The Kennedy brothers were both banging Marylin Monroe. Despite being in a wheelchair, FDR was banging his mistress. Epic.
In earlier times, aristocratic gentlemen and ladies would attend dances and balls where individuals could freely dance with one another. It wasn’t sex before marriage, but there was a kind of “try before you buy.” At the very least, public balls and dances gave you an opportunity to smell your partner before marrying them.
The reason why none of this happens anymore is because people (especially young people) just don’t do anything in real life. In the absence of face-to-face meet-and-greets, increasingly, virtual sexting is a precondition to dating.
If this is bad, then, the corrective response would be to attack the practice of sexting itself, and to declare, in boldfaced letters, that women should be shamed for engaging in the practice.
If women were shamed for sexting, sexting would stop. It is not morally tenable to attack white men for sexting when it is women who are the progenitors of the entire culture.
stop blaming the victim.
Harry Sisson was manipulated by women. These women were attracted to his fame, and they wanted a piece of him. They seduced him and sent him nudes. Harry was tricked into thinking these women were just being nice to him because they were nice people. The truth is that these women were attempting to hijack Harry’s sex drive, to use it against him for their own advantage.
There is nothing more deceptive than pretending to be attracted to a man, and then turning him around and calling him “creepy, predatory, gross.” These women don’t believe anything they’re saying. They are making these false claims as an act of revenge against Harry for the crime of not marrying them — or whatever the Gen Z equivalent is (long-term-partnering?).
If Harry truly were “creepy, predatory, gross,” what does this say about the agency, discernment, and judgment of the women who were attracted to him?
Let’s say that a man signs up for OnlyFans, and an OnlyFans model promised him that he was her “favorite fan.” He became enamored with her, and he started sending her lots of money. Then, when he ran out of money, she cut him off, and called him “creepy, predatory, gross.” How would we approach this situation? Who is the victim, and who is the predator?
There actually isn’t a victim here. The man is at fault for signing up for OnlyFans. The woman is just doing her job. Her job is to create a fantasy world for lonely men in exchange for cash. It’s an unfortunate situation where the man hurt himself by being gullible. The idea that we should cancel or shame or attack OnlyFans models for seducing men would be a waste of time. It would be a form of paternalism to protect dumb and deranged losers from their own deficiencies. Instead, we should shame men who sign up for OnlyFans.
Women who go around sending their nude pictures to men on Snapchat have no one to blame but themselves if those men decide not to wife them up. Why would they? Who are you kidding here?
I have no sympathy for a man who sends millions to an OnlyFan model and who receives nothing in return. I have no sympathy for a woman who sends nudes and receives nothing in return. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
But there is nothing wrong with asking women for nude pictures of themselves. Here, let me give you an example:
Ladies of Substack, send me your nude pictures!
Are you offended?
I am neither as handsome nor as famous as Harry Sisson, so I am not likely to receive any nude pictures from the beautiful ladies on Substack. But the idea that this request is some kind of grievous offense is the most pathetic prudish sensitivity imaginable. Get over yourself, Catturd.
the mcgenics counter-argument:
Mahin Hossain countered me with the following:
Harry Sisson’s crime is not being sufficiently high-status before attempting those pursuits; these women are punishing him for insufficient reproductive fitness. (No generational wealth, no Ivy League degree, probably under 6ft, and these girls know very well that being a full-time DNC apparatchik as a man in 2024 is deeply soy — if Luigi Mangione had been doing this, the ick wouldn’t have been triggered and the punitive mood would never have coalesced.)… An individual woman might be tempted to settle… so the occasional collective punishing of a substandard guy helps to police the maintenance of standards… keeps everyone single and searching.
This is classic McGenics. Women are encouraged to remain “single and searching” rather than “settle for substandard.” The result is the collapse of marriage rates since 1980, with a corresponding decline in fertility.
McGenics is the idea that everything bad for you is good for humanity. By making reproduction extremely costly and difficult, only the strongest survive, and the weak perish. Even if these costs aren’t positively selective (as conservatives claim), McGenics is a kind of “Thanos Snap” to reduce overpopulation and pollution.
When I defend Sisson, I am doing so out of political expediency, male solidarity, and self-preservation. I do not want the Democratic Party to continue to drive out young heterosexual white men, because then we will lose elections, and Republican policies are overall worse. I do not want Catturd to put me in jail for requesting bobs and vagene. I do not want my friends or male family members to have their lives destroyed because a woman decided, after the fact of sending nudes to them, that they were “gross.”
I believe in the right to privacy. If every private conversation between humans were exposed at the slightest injury (“he didn’t devote himself to me”), the world would be a worse, lamer, lower trust place.
Obviously there are some private conversations which are more professional in nature, and not personal at all. Exposing a private conversation with Trump where he betrays certain policy positions is very different from exposing a private conversation about sexual matters.
Harry Sisson is a public figure, but his discussions with women were not professional in nature.
i’m sorry, harry.
I predicted this, and I will summarize here:
Democrats are excellent on genetic, homosexual, and reproductive freedom. But they are hysterical and Puritan around age gaps, consent, and sexual harassment.
Leftist sexuality is a two-tier system where LGBTQ+ porn-culture is granted infinite tolerance, but white male heterosexuality is one anonymous decades-old accusation away from “rape.”
Young white men won’t die for a country which outlaws masculine aggression. A mercenary enterprise, like the Gulf Arab states, is dangerous for our democracy. Mercenary states are fragile and corrupt.
On the other hand, persecuting heterosexuality helps lower fertility. I support costs on sex to make it less feasible for the unemployed, uninspired, and undedicated. My question is, “do I want to plummet the birth rate, or do I want the country to function?”
Persecuting low-status men for sexual aggression is good, but when the crusade attacks high-status men, it fuels populism, and encourages high-status men to turn against the left. It is a self-inflicted wound when targeted at important Democratic players like Harvey Weinstein or Andrew Cuomo.
I would feel silly if the leopard ate my face. But what’s my other option? Conservatives are hyper-focused on lesbian sports, transgender bathrooms, and “groomer” kindergarten teachers, so I don’t see them coming to my rescue.
Harry Sisson is a martyr. I am Harry Sisson. We are all Harry Sisson, or we will become him, someday.
You either die young, you go gay, or you live long enough to become Harry Sisson.
My heart is with Harry, but there’s not much to do here except shout a powerless protest into the wind.
That’s the theme of the blog. I’m just a guy with opinions.
but if i could…
Bentham recently wrote an article entitled, “The Right Demands Loyalty, The Left Demands Purity.” It’s good. You should read it.
If I were a Republican, my task would be to figure out how to disentangle the party from Trump. Otherwise, you risk a Franco-style collapse, where the head honcho goes down and there’s no one to replace him.
For Democrats, the number one priority right now should be stopping the purity spiraling. The Democratic Party needs to learn from Republicans and become a big tent again. The FDR coalition in 1932 was big enough to include big times racists like HP Lovecraft and Father Coughlin, but also communists, Jews, Catholics, and eventually, even black people.
Since FDR, Democrats have overperformed with blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and women. But since 2016, Democrats haven’t lost a single white vote — instead, they’ve been losing non-whites.
Some Democratic strategists argue that Democrats need to “go back to their base,” and more aggressively signal in favor of black nationalism. This is deranged. The Democratic Party in 2024 is the most pro-minority political force in America’s history — there’s nothing left to squeeze out of this dried up lemon. It’s time to go back to the white vote.
In 1932, FDR only won 21% of blacks in Chicago. By 1936, he won 76%.1 Democrats need to do this kind of FDR-level play on white guys. They could start by defending Harry Sisson.
I’m not predicting that will happen, just wishing it would. Instead, the best hope for Democrats is that Republicans deliver a Hoover economy and voters hold their nose and vote for Kamala, again. I give it a 23% chance.
There. Are you happy, John Mayer? I said what I needed to say.
You can download a PDF here explaining more about the history of the black vote:
pubs.lib.uiowa.edu/annals-of-iowa/article/5013/galley/113858/download/
It’s always very disconcerting for me to learn how much more complicated and manipulative sex becomes when women are involved
>I am Harry Sisson. We are all Harry Sisson, or we will become him, someday.
I am not Harry Sisson, have never been Harry Sisson and will never be Harry Sisson.
I am not Harry Sisson and will never be him because I have a wife and a bunch of kids. Cheating on my wife would make me a less effective husband and father, because hypocrisy is an ineffective position. Cheating on her with retarded whores who expose you for clout would likely get me divorced, wrecking my kids' lives. Even if I could avoid divorce, I would lose moral authority and respect, making it harder for me to help my kids make the right decisions which will lead to them having big, healthy families. By acting like Harry Sisson, I would be destroying my own evolutionary fitness and adding to my long list of sins for which I'll have to answer to God.
I have never been Harry Sisson because, even in my hedonistic secular days, I would never have focused on something as lame as getting a girl who liked me to send me nudes. My goals were always more concrete and material than that. As lief be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb.
In the big picture, this is all Mouse Utopia behavior, sociosexual dysfunction leading inexorably up to a collapse.