Saturday, April 08, 2017

One in four Norwegian men are childless thanks to feminism

When I started out blogging for men's rights a decade ago, feminism was still commonly claimed to lead to more sexual freedom. However, it was obvious to me that this freedom only applied to women and alpha males, and feminism in fact led to more male sexual losers, which was one of my two big reasons for becoming an antifeminist (the other one being the hateful feminist sex laws). This dismal trend has now become an established fact supported by the official statistics and reported in mainstream newspapers. We have reached the point where almost one in four men are childless at 45 and probably never will have children, and not because they don't want to, but primarily because women are picky by nature and feminism empowers them to be more picky.
Tidligere i vår kom nye tall fra Statistisk sentralbyrå som bekrefter tendensen. Blant menn født i 1950, var det 14,8 prosent som ikke hadde barn ved fylte 45 år. For menn født i 1971 var det 23,7 prosent som var barnløse ved samme alder. Samtidig var 29,5 prosent av menn født i 1976 barnløse ved fylte førti; opp fra 16,3 prosent i 1950. Tilsvarende tall for kvinner ved 45 års alder er henholdsvis 8,4 og 15, 2 prosent – også økende, men ikke på langt nær like voldsomt. I befolkningen som sådan er nesten hver fjerde mann i Norge barnløs det året han fyller 45.
Back in 2009 I pointed out that rape is equality. My intention was not to promote rape, but I do think we should make society choose between forced equality for both sexes or for neither (and it doesn't need to be rape either, but some kind of subsidy or affirmative action to help male sexual losers). Remarkably, men have simply accepted forced equality for women while neglecting to claim it for themselves, so here we are in the present situation with so many male sexual and reproductive losers that wouldn't have existed without feminism and its coercive measures to empower women at the expense of men.

I no longer think the male losers will rebel. By all accounts, the vast majority simply accept their lot. But at least now they can easily inform themselves about the cause of their situation simply by reading the mainstream media. That is progress, as far as it goes.

166 comments:

Anonymous said...

Barn er jordens avksum

Eivind Berge said...

Det må du gjerne mene, men forskning viser at menn ønsker seg barn i omtrent like stor grad som kvinner. Da er det et mannesaksproblem at vi ikke får den muligheten på grunn av feministisk politikk.

Anonymous said...

While here we have the scum of humanity, they are not chasing child molesters, they are chasing healthy men who are attracted to women of childbearing age.

Https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3274707/paedophile-vigilante-group-dark-justice-win-landmark-court-ruling-giving-them-total-freedom-to-entrap-perverts/

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Like etter at mennesket ble stedfaste og begynte å dyrke jorden, kan det se ut til at faktisk så mange som 16 av 17 menn var barnløse:

https://psmag.com/8-000-years-ago-17-women-reproduced-for-every-one-man-6d41445ae73d

Dette skyldtes trolig mest at enkelte menn fikk store ressurser og slik tiltrakk seg store skarer av kvinner, sikkert i kombinasjon med krigstokter, kanskje mot nomadiske stammer, hvor mennene ble drept og kvinnene samlet i haremer.

Personlig vil jeg tro menneskene ble langt mer grådige etter at vi tok til jordbruket, da det kun var de aller mest grådige, krigerske og nådeløse menn som fikk reprodusere seg.

Etter at vi har hatt en periode der de fleste menn fikk reprodusere seg, noe som i følge Terje Bongard er helt essensielt for å ha et stabilt samfunn, går vi nå tilbake til en tilstand som ligner den første tiden av vår landbrukssivilisasjon. Dette skyldes selvsagt i stor grad feminismen, da kvinner av instinkt ikke vil ha menn med lavere status enn dem selv, og da heller foretrekker kunstig inseminering med høystatusmenn. Men "diminishing returns" eller minskende profittrater i en endelig verden må også ta sin del av skylden.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Forøvrig bør man ikke gi opp om man er 45, da det eneste kvinner ikke ser ut til å bry seg særlig med er alder. Har man først oppnådd tilstrekkelig grad av status, ressurser og posisjon som 65-åring, kan man meget vel skaffe seg ei fruktbar kvinne. Noe som viser seg i den økende tendensen med serie-monogami, hvor eldre menn med status er ettertraktede av unge kvinner, og begynner på et nytt barnekull.

Anonymous said...

Sosialistiske kvinner sier de kjemper for de svake, men velger seg alltid den "sterke" til sin make!

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Med kombinasjonen feminisme, minskende profittrater og økende robotisering ser jeg for meg at vi får langt flere lavstatusmenn i framtida:

http://forskning.no/arbeid-okonomi-teknologi/2017/04/en-ny-robot-forte-til-seks-arbeidsledige-mennesker

Fram til en kollaps vil vi derfor se en stadig større marginalisering av menn, og en opphopning av kvinner hos noen få menn med stadig større sosioøkonomisk status. Vi kommer til å ligne mer og mer på det tidlige jordbrukssamfunnet, fram til hele byggverket kollapser og vi går tilbake til en form for primitive stammesamfunn.

Anonymous said...

Jamen vil kollapsen overhovedet ske? Ingen af de dystre spådomme er gået i opfyldelse foreløbig.

Eivind Berge said...

Det ser ikke ut som noen kollaps er nært forestående, nei. Det er vanskelig å spå om fremtiden, og det ser ikke ut som Gail Tverberg har noe spesielt talent for det heller. Om hun har rett på litt lengre sikt gjenstår å se, men hun tok i alle fall feil om de katastrofalt lave oljeprisene vi skulle hatt nå. Økonomien går rimelig bra, og det kan ikke være bare flaks som holder den oppe så lenge. Jeg må konkludere med at risikoen for kollaps er mye mindre enn hva peak oil-teoretikerne skulle ha det til, og kanskje vi overhodet ikke får noen plutselig kollaps av hele den industrielle sivilisasjon.

Anonymous said...

Ditt problem Eivind Berge er at du tar ting som har en kjerne av sannhet og så blåser du det ut av alle proporsjoner. Hele din blogg og samfunnsideologi er preget av det. La meg gi eksempler:

Du finner ut at anonymiteten på internett ikke er sikker, derfor: skriver du under fullt navn, fordi "det ikke er noen vits å anonymisere seg uansett".

Oljeprisene er på vei nedover, derfor: "kommer hele samfunnet til å kollapse".

Du er motstander er positiv diskriminering derfor: "er voldtekt og likestilling to sider av samme sak".

Du er motstander av lovverket omkring uaktsom voldtekt, derfor: "skal alle politibetjenter drepes."

Seksualiteten til gutter og jenter internaliseres forskjellig i samfunnet, derfor: "kan hankjønn aldri bli seksuelt misbrukt av hunkjønn".

Det finnes MRAs som mener at seksuelle overgrep av kvinner underkommuniseres i samfunnet, derfor: "alle MRAere som mener dette er falske profeter, kun MRA som er enig med meg er ekte vare"

Du er en ihuga biologist, derfor: "hele samfunnsstrukturen er utelukkende basert på biologisme, alle andre forklaringer på ethvert på samfunnsmessige fenomener må forkastes som kvasivitenskap"

Osv. osv.

Det er greit nok å ha bastante meninger, men å male seg så til de grader inn i et hjørne, fører jo bare til at man er dømt til å fremmedgjøre seg fra samfunnet. Synet ditt er så til de grader unyansert at det er svært problematisk å ta deg seriøst. Det er synd, siden du er god til å skrive, og gir andre perspektiver på ting der humanvitenskapen råder. Men, total uvillighet til å åpne sine vanntette skott fører bare til at du drukner i ensporethet.

Takk!

Eivind Berge said...

Nei, det er du som overdriver. Mine meninger og resonnementer er langt mer nyanserte om alle de tingene. Din kommentar er bare en ignorant karikatur av det jeg faktisk sier.

Det er forøvrig Gail Tverberg som sier at lave oljepriser er forbundet med sivilisasjonskollaps. Jeg har bare sagt at hennes spådommer hørtes fornuftige ut (noe jeg tror i mindre grad nå), og som du ser er hun også langt mer nyansert i sin analyse:

https://ourfiniteworld.com/

Jeg skriver under fullt navn først og fremst fordi jeg er stolt av mine meninger, og dernest fordi jeg tror man blir tatt mer alvorlig slik. Jeg ville ikke valgt anonymitet selv om det var mulig.

Voldtekt ER likestilling, men dette er satt på spissen og ment mest som et slagord og jeg har forklart grunnene.

Jeg har aldri sagt at alle politibetjenter burde drepes, men at jeg støtter å sende et politisk signal fra mannsbevegelsen gjennom politidrap, og slett ikke bare om uaktsom voldtekt, men mot store deler av hele seksuallovgivningen. Jeg innser at her mangler det en systematisk fremstilling, og jeg er faktisk i gang med å skrive kommentarer om alle sedelighetslovene og hva de burde vært -- det kommer snart. Politidrap er bare et VIRKEMIDDEL (som jeg støtter moralsk, men ikke anbefaler) jeg nevnte i forbifarten i en mye større politisk kamp om definisjoner på seksuelt misbruk og overgrep. Og så ble det oppblåst fordi politiet valgte å gi det oppmerksomhet. Det er ikke realistisk at mannsbevegelsen skal vinne frem ved vold, og jeg er fokusert på å overbevise om seksuelle normer i stedet, først og fremst for dem som kanskje ikke har internalisert feminismens tabuer så dypt ennå.

Det er vanvittig mye dypere grunner til at kvinner ikke kan begå seksuelle overgrep enn at seksualiteten til gutter og jenter internaliseres forskjellig. Det bunner ut i forskjellig minste investering i avkom, med det resultatet at mannlig seksualitet overproduseres i forhold til etterspørselen. Denne overproduksjonen har gjennomgripende virkninger på våre liv, hvorav en av de mest selvsagte er at det er tull å snakke om kvinner som voldtar eller begår seksuelt misbruk.

Jeg har aldri sagt at hele samfunnsstrukturen utelukkende er basert på biologisme. Selvsagt er mye kulturelt betinget, men det finnes visse universelle sannheter om menneskenaturen som ikke varierer stort mellom kulturer. Kvinnelig seksuell selektivitet (med det som umiddelbart følger av det) er den aller viktigste av disse sannhetene, og faktisk den eneste jeg kommer på som er så robust dokumentert at jeg har en bastant mening om den. Det er likevel svært mye av samfunnsstrukturen som kan variere, og det har jeg aldri benektet. Jeg er mannsaktivist nettopp fordi jeg tror at vi kan endre på en god del ting, så lenge vi ikke benekter grunnleggende kjønnsforskjeller.

Eivind Berge said...

Det er mest skuffende at du tror mannsaktivisme bare handler om uaktsom voldtekt når det er så mange av sedelighetslovene som er urettferdige. Jeg trodde jeg hadde skrevet om masse annet også som aldri skulle vært kriminalisert, men har tydeligvis alvorlig sviktet i å kommunisere hva mannsbevegelsen dreier seg om, for kampen mot hatefulle sexlover er minst 99% av alt vi gjør slik jeg ser det, og uaktsom voldtekt er bare en liten del. Senkingen av kravet til graden av vold eller tvang i forsettlig voldtekt er faktisk mye mer alvorlig (som skjedde i den ekstreme reformen i år 2000 da vi også fikk uaktsom voldtekt), om jeg skal velge én ting som er aller mest provoserende med hele feminismen. Grunnen til at jeg ikke har tatt for meg alle paragrafene på en systematisk måte enda, men bare kommentert dem i tilfeldige innlegg, er at sedelighetslovene fremkaller et så eitrende hat i meg at de er vanskelig å konsentrere seg om i lengre tid. Å lese og skrive om hele straffelovens kapittel om sedelighet er nesten uutholdelig tortur for meg, men det kommer.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Trist for de som fulgte Tverbergs råd og gav bort alle sparepengene sine til veldedige formål. Hun mente jo at de uansett ville forsvinne i en nært forestående deflasjonskollaps.

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, heldigvis gjorde jeg ikke noe så drastisk. Spådommene hennes førte bare til litt unødvendige bekymringer for min del, samt at jeg dummet meg litt ut. Nå har jeg lært å ikke være så godtroende. Verden er altfor kompleks til at noen kan forutsi nært forestående omveltninger. Det nærmeste vi kommer er slike som erkedruiden som forteller oss hvilke langsiktige utviklingstrekk vi mest sannsynlig kan vente oss. Pluss at han traff blink på Donald Trump, men det var nok mest flaks.

Anonymous said...

When you go to jail and get raped, should we scream equality for the rapist! Your sick! Stop and rethink you're thinking patterns. Sicko!

Eivind Berge said...

Homosexuals already have sexual equality in their community. The heterosexual male sex deficit, however, is a real thing and it is not just me saying that. Check out this recent article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/male-sex-deficit-catherine-hakim-female-financial-autonomy-men-love-life-feminism-gender-a7634646.html

Thanks to Catherine Hakim for telling it like it is.

Eivind Berge said...

Imagine the political outrage whenever there is a female deficit of anything desirable. There is a male sex deficit which shows up any way you care to measure it. Do men want to amplify the problem by supporting feminism, or do something constructive about it?

Anonymous said...

The rational part of a teen's brain isn't fully developed and won't be until age 25 so under 25 cannot consent!

Øyvind Holmstad said...

På den annen side har de som fulgte Tverbergs råd om å investere i små sølvmynter gjort det meget bra. Disse har hatt en verdistigning på opp mot 25 prosent siden Tverberg anbefalte dette som en måte å berge sparepengene på.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

En meget god artikkel du lenket til i dag om inkonsekvensene mellom kjønnene grunnet de latente atferdsstrategiene i egg- og sædceller:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/male-sex-deficit-catherine-hakim-female-financial-autonomy-men-love-life-feminism-gender-a7634646.html

Her er forresten en god artikkel om den store diskusjonen mellom Tverberg og Reverse Engeneer om behovet for kokt og stekt mat:

http://forskning.no/meninger/kommentar/2017/04/vi-kan-ikke-leve-av-ra-mat-alene-raw-food

Det har vel vært en del forskning som konkluderer med at skjæreredskaper var det viktigste for utviklingen av hjernene våre på kompensasjon av fordøyelsessystemet, men jeg heller nå mer til å tro at ilden var den avgjørende faktor.

Anonymous said...

Apart from the fact that the "teen’s immaturity" concept is idle chatter (see link below), performing and enjoying sex fortunately has very little to do with rational abilities, otherwise creatures such as turkeys and lobsters would face major problems in fulfilling their marital duties...

http://drrobertepstein.com/pdf/Epstein-THE_MYTH_OF_THE_TEEN_BRAIN-Scientific_American_Mind-4-07.pdf?lbisphpreq=1

Taxi Driver said...

http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/9058993/

Eivind Berge said...

That is an example of absurdly misapplied laws. Was the problem here that the taxi driver got robbed or that the got "raped" by a woman? Only an idiot would think the latter deserves to be part of the charge. Calling it rape only serves to transform the taxi driver from a victim to a buffoon. But feminists are literally this stupid, and they now control the police and justice system, so this kind of charade goes forward.

Eivind Berge said...

By the way, I just wrote this comment in another discussion about the absurdity of women raping men:

http://thoughtcatalog.com/lorenzo-jensen-iii/2014/08/19-men-share-stories-of-being-raped-by-a-woman-nsfw/#comment-3251817689

It seems plausible to me that both women and men can orgasm from forced sex, but that is not the point. Women can't rape men because it is insane it regard forced sex with a woman as such a serious crime. I have been thinking about this for a long time, and today I finally came up with the perfect analogy to explain the meaninglessness of women "raping" men. I used to think it was like a reverse robbery, but it is more like stealing air. If someone broke into your house and filled a container with air, you can reasonably accuse them of breaking and entering, but the air theft is nonsense, because no one recognizes that you have lost anything meaningful by having air stolen from your property. Male sexuality is like that on the heterosexual market. It is worth something -- actually, it is essential -- but there is so much of it to go around that any man who claims injury by having it stolen is subject to ridicule rather than sympathy. So just like a burglary isn't aggravated by the theft of air, female violence is never aggravated by sexual violation. That doesn't mean women are free to assault men, of course, any more than people are free to break into your house to steal air, but we need to leave the "rape" nonsense out of the prosecution of the crime.

The taxi driver "rape" also illustrates this point. No one cares that he was "raped" by an attractive woman, I bet including the robbery victim himself, because it is impossible for men to sympathize with that. The taxi driver has lost nothing meaningful by the sexual contact (which I am guessing was just oral, which shouldn't be called rape under any circumstances). But we can all sympathize with assault and robbery victims. Miscategorizing these crimes as sex crimes does a disservice to the victims as well as the wrongly accused women who have done nothing worthy of the punishment for rape. And it turns the entire justice system into a freak show, which of course is the reason why these stories make the international news. Feminists will claim that they depict justice, but deep down we all know it is a charade.

Anonymous said...

I just have entered a feminist wiki and in an article they​ had put this lol they take this issues seriously


'''''TRIGGER WARNING This article or section, or pages it links to, contains information about sexual assault and/or violence which may be triggering to survivors. '''''

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, trigger warnings are a feminist affectation very much in style now. But I don't think it means they take these issues seriously, because it is exactly the opposite of how you reduce real trauma, says Wikipedia:

In an interview about trigger warnings for The Daily Telegraph, Professor Metin Basoglu, a psychologist internationally recognised for his trauma research, said that "instead of encouraging a culture of avoidance, [the media] should be encouraging exposure. Most trauma victims avoid situations that remind them of the experience. Avoidance means helplessness and helplessness means depression. That's not good."[9] Richard J. McNally, a Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, wrote in the Pacific Standard[10] that "trigger warnings are designed to help victims avoid reminders of their trauma, thereby preventing emotional discomfort. Yet avoidance reinforces PTSD. Conversely, systematic exposure to triggers and the memories they provoke is the most effective means of overcoming the disorder." McNally's article cites several academic studies of PTSD sufferers in support of these claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger

Anonymous said...

http://www.dagbladet.no/sport/der-spiegel---ronaldo-kjopte-seg-ut-av-voldtektsanklage/67488728

Du angriper ofte politimyndigheter og politikere, men ser deg sjelden angripe mediene, NAAR DET ER MEDIENE DU F;RST OG FREMST BOER ANGRIPE!!!!

For hvordan kan befolkningen bare staa aa se paa at redaksjoner uten videre sprer anklager som dette... det er redaksjonene som odelegger menn ... og helst de vellykkede opp og frem menn

Eivind Berge said...

Mediene har bare så mye makt som vi velger å gi dem. Det mulig å informere seg utenom, og publisere andre meninger, så lenge det varer.

Anonymous said...

Mennene som publiserer dette HELE TIDEN> er det komplekser...

Trikomhodet said...

Grunnen til at ingenting skjer er at det er så lett for norske menn å hente damer fra andre land. Greier du å holde på en jobb får du en inntekt som er høy nok til å få henne hit, og så lenge du er norsk og har puls og litt penger får du deg dame i mange land, og ofte ganske bra dame selv om du bare er en trøtt og trygdet trailersjåfør fra Trøkstad. Men om du er f.eks. høyere og sterkere og rikere enn snittet i verden (nordmenn er et av verdens største og sterkeste folkeslag), hvit, ikke så gammel og uten synbare deformiteter, og i tillegg kan tilby statsborgerskap til et av verdens rikeste land etc., så blir du nedrent av damer omtrent uansett om du er litt smart og seriøs. Bra damer.

Kort sagt, hvorfor gidde å risikere et 99%+ sikkert tap for omtrent alle personer i et slags mislykket omegaopprør der alle kommer til å hånle av det unngåelige blodbadet med deg og alle hjelperne dine i hovedrollen, når du bare kan dra og hente drømmedama så lenge du greier å være i arbeid noen år?

Er du ressurssterk nok til å organisere et opprør er du ressurssterk nok til å holde på en norsk jobb noen år, og på det første er det < 100% på å mislykkes, mens på det andre er det < 100% på å mislykkes for mange, med akkurat samme mål. :-) Med mindre du som Profeten foretrekker 4 koner, og ikke minst også de din høyre hånd besitter. Og om du er den typen, så er det mye smartere å lede et firma eller bare jobbe masse enn å lede en veldig midlertidig opprørshær.

Anonymous said...

Du Trikomhodet, du virker litt oppegaaende? Hva er det sim gjør at menn i vestlige redaksjoner uten videre publiserer anklager som denne:
http://www.dagbladet.no/sport/der-spiegel---ronaldo-kjopte-seg-ut-av-voldtektsanklage/67488728

hele tiden...det er jo galskap, helt absurd er det...

og de er på hugget spesielt når det er snakk om ressurssterke...

komplekser? hva?

Anonymous said...

Rumenske (les Romani) kriminelle har hærtatt Norge. Siden det er politisk korrekt å synes synd på alle som ikke er vestlig, hvit og mann, så har vi i Norge sluppet dem inn med åpne armer. Løsningen på problemet er jamfør enkelte politikerne ikke å stramme opp regler omkring tigging, men å "slå knallhardt til mot sexkjøpere". Det eneste aspektet som i denne sammenhengen allerede er kriminalisert er altså ikke godt nok. Hva er det KRF politikere tenker seg? Livstid i fengsel? Dødsstraff? Korsfesting?
Kristenmoralisme har jeg lite til overs for, men verre er det når den skal politiseres og påføres andre i samfunnet!

http://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/innenriks/nrk-dokumentaren-krf-vil-ta-sexkjpere/3423332946.html

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, jeg leste nettopp om det rumenske «tiggermiljøet» på en annen blogg, meget opplysende om hva det faktisk dreier seg om:

http://steigan.no/2017/04/19/sex-dop-og-tiggerkopp/

Og så er det liksom sexkjøpere som er problemet? KrF er drittsekker på linje med andre feminister. Jeg klarer ikke se forskjell på dem; kristenmoralisme og feministisk sexfiendtlighet er ett fett.

Eivind Berge said...

KrF vil altså omdefinere sexkjøp til «grov uaktsom menneskehandel» for å kunne straffe det hardere. Disse ondskapsfulle menneskene blir aldri fornøyd med mannshatet uansett hvor mye menn blir jaget og straffet. Enhver kriminalisering eller skjerping av straffenivået er bare begynnelsen på en ny eskalering.

«Menneskehandel» er et moteriktig samlebegrep for alt man vil kriminalisere, men det er bare tilfeldig. Hvorfor ikke bare heve straffen for sexkjøp? Eller omdefinere det til voldtekt først som sist? Alt sammen er like ondskapsfullt, men det spiller ingen rolle, for politikerne bare henger seg på den moralismen som er best egnet til å sette flest mulig menn i fengsel. Norsk politikk er en eneste stor konkurranse om hvem som kan være mest mannevond.

Eivind Berge said...

Jeg sliter med å forstå hvorfor en 16-åring kan bli dømt for å seksualisere to 17-åringer:

http://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/innenriks/jente-(16)-fikk-60-dagers-betinget-fengsel-for-deling-av-video-fra-fest/3423333243.html

Eller rettere sagt, jeg vet det er feministisk sexfiendtlighet som ligger bak, men jeg forstår ikke hvordan drittsekkene av noen dommere i Sandefjord tingrett får den interne logikken til å gå opp med at 17-åringer blir seksualisert av en person som liksom skal være enda mer aseksuell i deres forestillingsverden. Hvordan takler politisk korrekte mennesker den kognitive dissonansen som følger av et så forkvaklet verdensbilde?

Eivind Berge said...

Ved nærmere ettertanke er det slik jeg ser det:

Jeg tror det vi egentlig er vitne til når barn selv blir offer for barnepornoloven, til og med for å ta bilder av seg selv, er en form for æresetikk. Loven er forkledd som om det skulle handle om offer og overgrep, det er absurd å tolke det slik når det er barnet som straffes. I stedet har vi å gjøre med samme prinsipp som ligger bak æresdrap i enkelte andre kulturer. Barnets ære, eller uskyld eller renhet eller samme hva du vil kalle det, er viktigere enn barnet selv, slik at systemet godt kan finne på å drepe barnet for å gjenopprette æren. Slik sett er det en slags indre logikk i disse straffeforfølgelsene -- de er uttrykk for en etikk som nordmenn helst ikke vil bekjenne seg til, men som likevel lever i beste velgående her også. Det er staten som ivaretar æren i stedet for familien, og reaksjonene er litt mildere enn drap enn så lenge, men det er i bunn og grunn samme fenomen som æresdrap.

Legg merke til at det er ingen andre enn mannsaktivister som reagerer. For feministene er det den naturligste ting å holde mindreårige ansvarlige for seksualforbrytelser, selv om det i seg selv er en klar innrømmelse av at de er seksuelle vesener som kan ta seksuelle valg. Forestillingen om «overgrep» eller i dette tilfellet «overgrepsbilder» er altså en ren løgn, eller en myte man bruker til å innbille seg at det ikke er æresetikk man bedriver. Det er ikke seksualisering av barn som tar skade av det som er problemet, for de tar mye mer skade av straffen, men ære som må gjenopprettes, koste hva det koste vil.

Dette er også en av grunnene til at jeg ikke ser noe poeng i å forsvare vår kultur mot påvirkning fra for eksempel islam, for vi er ikke det grann bedre, og muligens verre.

Anonymous said...

http://www.tv2.no/2015/02/11/nyheter/abort/6558198

Var det noen som sa kvinnehat?

Anonymous said...

Kvinner har jo rett til å velge hvilke menn, eventuelt velge bort hvilke menn de vil. Det er ingen aktivisme i verden som kan frata kvinner den rettigheten. Så jeg spør meg om hva skribenten vil med dette. Jeg leser at han legger skylden på feminister, men kvinner vil jo velge de som man interesserer seg for, uavhengig av dette.

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, kvinner skal ha rett til å velge og velge bort menn. Poenget er at samfunnet ikke trenger å sy puter under armene på dem slik at de blir enda mer kresne, gjennom for eksempel kjønnskvotering, som er likestilling tvunget igjennom med vold. Og HVIS vold er et akseptabelt middel til å oppnå likestilling (noe jeg er motstander av), så er det rimelig at menn krever noe tilsvarende på de områdene vi har bruk for det, altså først og fremst på kjønnsmarkedet. Husk at feministene selv bruker slagordet «det personlige er politisk» -- så hvorfor skulle ikke vi?

Anonymous said...

Så du mener altså at færre menn får seg partnere i Norge fordi vi har kjønnskvotering? Det må du gjerne utdype!

Eivind Berge said...

Det mener jeg, fordi det fører til at færre menn blir akseptable partnere siden kvinner helst vil ha en mann med høyere status enn seg selv. Resultatet blir da at de mest attraktive mennene får seg flere kull med barn, mens det blir flere mannlige tapere som ikke får barn i det hele tatt. Denne trenden er et statistisk faktum; hvor mye som kan tilskrives akkurat kjønnskvotering vet ikke jeg, men jeg tror det er en av grunnene.

Anonymous said...

I just add this 4 all the feminist motherfukers:

Here the way to go: if she can bleed, she can breed. (yeah, your OWN little princess, precisely)

@ eivind: about rape you were right 8 years ago and you are now even more.

Allah Hafiz.

Anonymous said...

If she can bleed, she can breed. Ok. But what if she can't? Simply, it's just an healthy trainnig. :)

Well, the logic is simple. If the so called "pedophilia" is such an huge problem, it's because so called "pedos" do exists. If they can make up such a great problem it's because they are many. If they are many it's because nature / Allah stated that they are a necessity; probably useful to train little girls to sex from early age to make them better breeder and keep them away from the homosexual perversion. If you mind, the more the oppressive governments pass wrong laws against men (regoulars and pedos) and enforce them, the more the number of lesbians grow.

Pedos have just born in the wrong geographic areas an in the wrong era.

About the intersting artichle over the childless men, years ago I red something about the genocide against men, that are not considered Alphas by women, perpetrated by the feminist governments by keeping jail empty from real criminals to full them whit men who exercise their natural right to straight sexuality, keeping the in and allowing females to kill their babies with abortion.
Now we know that the Whole system was re-designed to pursue that aim: a genocide perpetrated without a real identifiable hand behind of it. A perfect automatic system built in the west and now expoted with war everywhere.

Hallah Hafiz

Anonymous said...

@ Eivind:
What happened to Emma? Are you still with her? Her blog is dead...

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, we are still together, she just isn't very much into blogging at the moment.

Anonymous said...

Oh... Cool! ^__^

Anonymous said...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9RJrH1XsAImKPw.jpg

No words, see for yourself

Eivind Berge said...

Hmm, who is that woman? An admirer?

Here is a strange Twitter account:

https://twitter.com/lienariena

Anonymous said...

Anyway, one thing is important to say, this muslim woman seems feminist because she mistakenly equates the love of a woman with that of a man, does not take into account that roger, besides having a sentimental emptiness would have a sexual one because the sexuality of man is aggressive and can not be compared to the mostly passive sexuality of a woman

Eivind Berge said...

She may say those things, but she seems so impressed by Roger's killer prowess that she would fuck him instantly. It doesn't matter what women say -- as a rule of thumb, if they are talking to you at all by their own choice, you can fuck them :)

And I bet she wouldn't have given Roger time of day before he went on his spree.

Anonymous said...

https://twitter.com/MarkKavenagh/status/820406953771839488

Eivind Berge said...

That tweet refers to this piece of feminist propaganda about supposed female "rape" of boys:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/true-stories/unspoken-abuse-mothers-who-rape-their-sons/news-story/25ad244866c90d0bceac6094e2523a7e

See the pattern here? It is always an ugly feminist cuntrag pushing the lie that women can sexually abuse boys, in this case Lucetta Thomas doing her PhD on this most politically correct of all subjects.

Anonymous said...

You could explain why a woman can not abuse a child (a real one) and why could not it be that there is sometimes trauma of the act? I am very interested in your opinion

Eivind Berge said...

To pick apart the content, even if this is true:

While some boys were mentally coerced into “a full sexual relationship” with their mother, Lucetta explains that others were on the receiving end of “incredible violence” if they tried to resist. Mothers might also withdraw of basic human needs, such as food and shelter.

Then the abuse isn't sexual, but those other things. Sex with a woman can never be worthy of the term "abuse" per se. Feminists promote a dogmatic belief that sex itself is traumatizing, by some unexplained magic mechanism, and that is a lie when the perpetrator is a woman. It is only true that sex can traumatize in cases of actual rape, which can only be perpetrated by men.

Of course women can abuse boys in other ways, and it can be damaging for their lives. But it is not the sex itself which caused the damage. For a small boy, sex is usually good, as the "victims" themselves admit, but can range from good to yucky isolated from other, actual abuse such as violence or threats. A feeling of yuckiness does not amount to abuse, however; that is the feminist fallacy. Kids also feel yucky when they have to clean the bathroom or do other perfectly normal chores, and there is nothing more to it. It takes real brainwashing to go from yuckiness to trauma, which is even admitted in the article:

"As a child he felt ‘yucky about it’. As an adult he has realised the experience was incredibly damaging."

Yes, who is doing the damage here? The feminists who are pushing the lie that this is sexual abuse!

And sorry, you can't blame your adult affairs and lust for whores on this "abuse" like the author gullibly accepts -- that is just male sexuality.

Eivind Berge said...

If a feeling of yuckiness can suddenly transform into something "incredibly damaging" many years later, I would like to know what kind of mechanism might lie behind it. To me this is clearly just as absurd as if I should suddenly realize that all the times I had to clean my room as a kid were horribly abusive and now makes me a damaged adult (on which I get to blame all my problems). Perhaps that kind of epiphany is possible given enough feminist indoctrination, but if so, then feminist indoctrination is the problem that we should be attacking.

So, what is the mechanism supposedly underlying the traumatization of "sexual abuse"? Feminists will spout some vague nonsense about "abuse of power" or "trust" -- which again doesn't explain how sex can be traumatizing. It is pure pseudoscience or covert moralism. If it were true that sex with women could traumatize on its own, then how come the traumatization only shows up when there is either some other (violent or emotional) abuse going on, or after a whole lot of feminist brainwashing?

Eivind Berge said...

Just look it at this drivel, it's painfully obvious that the sex was perfectly good and harmless and is later reinterpreted as "abuse" thanks to feminist dogma:

Hamish,* now in his 50s, was 12 years old the first time he recalls having sex with his mother.

“She had this big bedroom and if we were ever sick or anything like that we’d stay in her bed. One day she just initiated it, she just started touching me and it just went from there.

“She preyed on the fact I was coming into puberty and made me feel important and special,” he tells me.

From this distance Hamish now understands he was just a child when the abuse occurred; he was unable to consent to sex with an adult in a position of power.

At the time though, it was a different story: “I thought I was enjoying it and I thought I was grown up.”


Because of the abstraction that he was "unable to consent" -- based on feminist dogma, not reality -- he is now supposed to be traumatized. Never mind that he also suffered real abuse:

“It was a good household to be in when my mother was in a good mood and it was a horrible household to be in when she wasn’t,” he says, “she would threaten to kill us and she’d lock all the windows and turn on the gas.”

“I got hurt,” Hamish continues, pointing to a decades-old scar on his the top of his head.


Yeah, who wouldn't be traumatized by that? You don't need sex to explain the badness of that childhood! So why do these feminist scumbags insist that "sexual abuse" is the defining element? Because they are either clueless or evil perpetrators of sex-hostility.

Anonymous said...

"From this distance Hamish now understands he was just a child when the abuse occurred; he was unable to consent to sex with an adult in a position of power."

For these assholes every adult is in a position to power and to be able into abuse 24 hours at day 365 days of the year, and the other individual is a vulnerable child from 0 years to 17 unable to handle any relationship. Literaly they consider 16 years old as vulnerable beings... Absolutely freaks they are.

Eivind Berge said...

I am amazed by the incredible childishness of the people who buy into these "sexual abuse" stories and dignify the feminist cuntrags who study them as authorities.

Never once does this research question the meaning of "abuse"! Abuse is assumed ipso facto based on some simplistic assumptions which are never examined.

Feminist research is received by the gullible public as if it is emanating from the fucking pope of their religion just because it invokes the term "sexual abuse."

The saddest part is that even if sexual abuse were real in some sense, this line of research would never be able to uncover it. This is not how science works. In order to do science, you need to operate on the assumption that your theories are falsifiable, and you need to pay attention to alternative explanations of the phenomena you seek to study. When abuse is defined ispo facto because there is some predetermined relationship that is dogmatically defined as abusive, such as mother and son or teacher and student or because one person is under some arbitrary age, you can never falsify it and hence never scientifically prove it either. These relationships are deemed "sexual abuse" from start to finish regardless of the circumstances and outcome just by the magic of definitions, so all the research amounts to begging the question and assuming the antecedent. It is circular reasoning which will never be able to demonstrate any causal relationship between the "abuse" and traumatization because it is forbidden to even entertain the notion that there might be none.

Anonymous said...

You have noticed that all those films in sunday afternoon are all about anti-men nonsense of battered women or fleeing from the abusive husband or the typical strong woman theme that wants success and men do not leave her that, and in the middle it is always a film about "abuse and power" of a man (always a man) and a minor girl or a teacher (male or female) and student? Always both seem inappropriate and abusive almost like warning parents ans societiy to watch over these relationships to prevent it, is not it a coincidence that all this sounds or is close to feminism and these bullshit of age/power difference is abuse?

Eivind Berge said...

I quit watching TV long ago, but I know what you mean. The assertion that age/power difference automatically equals abuse if any sexual contact occurs has been repeated so many times that it has taken hold everywhere except the hard core of the Men's Movement. It is never explained, only asserted, but that is enough to convince most people through repetition.

"Abuse" thus becomes a Procrustean bed which prevents thoughtful analysis by its very definition. It is not even true that the adult is necessarily more powerful in these relationships, but that is never admitted. How does society manage to ignore the sexual power of young girls? And how come we still think men are powerful despite the extreme and continually growing risks they face for the slightest accusation? In the case of Tad Cummins and Elizabeth Taylor, for example, merely transporting her across state lines carries a minimum sentence of ten years, yet he was willing to risk that and infinitely more. It happened not because he was powerful, but because she was.

Anonymous said...

https://www.shitpostbot.com/img/sourceimages/gay-away-pills-57e1e3eaf082e.jpeg

Please can have a doctor prescribe this for Milo

Eivind Berge said...

France is about to get a president who was "abused" in exactly the same way as Elizabeth :)

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/24/opinions/macron-marriage-drexler-opinion/index.html

Feminists are struggling to deal with the cognitive dissonance of their hateful and absurd definitions of sexual abuse. Contrast that with the certainty with which they condemn men:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/21/opinions/how-the-adults-failed-tennessee-teen/index.html

Although laws differ from state to state, there's a reason teacher-student relationships are frowned upon, if not outright illegal. By nature, they are not consensual, even if the students involved think they are, and often they do. Some students may even think they're the ones who pursued the relationship -- that they "asked for it." They may like the attention, or the power they think the relationship gives them.

But what's actually happening, in every case, is that the student is being groomed to accept what is, most definitely, a form of sexual abuse. Whether it's by promising access to things a teenager doesn't have, but would like to -- money, a car, sexual knowledge -- or attention a student lacks, in every case the adult is in charge and manipulating the situation.


We must therefore, if we are a feminist, conclude that Emmanuel Macron does not love his wife, and cannot love her, because their relationship is abuse. He is a damaged abuse victim and if he dares to think otherwise then he must be brainwashed to feel his victimhood. This is what politically correct people literally believe.

Anonymous said...

Their kind of babble is so tedious, unimaginative and predictable. If you were to remove the most recurrent 5-6 stereotypical words, then only prepositions and conjunctions would remain.

Anonymous said...

Adults can not consent among them since their attractions are irrational and chemical in nature, which the brain is unable to process a logical process to act, putting the integrity and health of both lives and those of those who surround it as their own children. Now also is needed to tell that an adult always takes advantage of another adult, adult relationships are not fully consensual as they are based on the dependence of the other partner, for example cars and gifts, marriage and psychological dependence, this a type of sexual abuse. That is why relations between adults should be not only censored but directly illegal.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, feminist definitions of sexual abuse lead to the conclusion that adult sexual relations are abuse just as easily. You are a lot more dependent on your spouse than a teacher in one of your classes. It is absurd to make so much of this dependence.

Anonymous said...

No. Why are you at all times with feminism? You say so much 'feminism' and 'feminist' for everything that looks like a joke.

I'll tell you a story.

Once upon a time some sons of bitches called 'adults', these were a parasite caste of murderers, exploiters, perverts and sadists who held all power, exploited anyone who was not their caste, ie children , These had no value nor rights but to serve the adult oligarch caste. At first, given that they died at thousands since they were psychopaths, addicts to conquest, the death penalty and slavery, they needed their human cattle called 'children' or 'infants' to reach adulthood as soon as possible to supply losses. That is why in antiquity to the industrial age, adults were just those are entering puberty, not because they followed the natural order or loved them so much that they wanted to incorporate them into their restricted adult world, but to make them complicate their evil and exploit them better.

That is why they are called children, because their value is only to be someone's 'child'.

But with the industrial revolution, everything began to change, the adult parasite oligarchs as they no longer died so much, they no longer needed to supply their numbers, they no longer wanted to breed with those inferior beings so instead of making them adults the fastest, They would make it as slow as possible, maximizing obedience to the adult caste, they called them 'minors', because these 'under ages' are inferior or 'minors' in value to adults, who would be 'upper ages', these would all The rights and freedoms, and the minors would have nothing except what their adult masters allowed, as if they were slaves (in fact they would be).

So the minors could not vote or have official positions, drink, gamble, or have free agency, instead had curfews, had to obey every adult, boys could go to war to die for their oligarchs , They could work in factories, but in generally, age up in one place, age down in another, a man could marry an underage female serf. This was very annoying to a class of people, the a-bit-little privileged (they could not vote or many other things, although at least were in the adult caste) adult women, realizing that their sexual and social position was in danger with These 'dirty underages selfs' marrying their men, they decided to cut it out for the healthy way, they developed feminism, the counterpart to the patriarchy that so opress even in their own caste, just as supremacist, barbaric, discriminating and militant, They would stop at nothing to be the first of their caste and eliminate their long-suffering competitors.

You know what the joke is about this? That feminists did not invent the age of consent, only lifted it wildly, why? Because it was invented by the male oligarchs, who only saw women as fresh flesh, despised prepubertal girls (within their contempt and supremacy over children), since they were not useful for the caste , So they created it to eliminate anyone who had a strong sense of attraction towards children, and therefore a potential dissident to their oligarchy, but the shot backfired them, since feminists willing to cut for the healthy, the Fresh meat, they used it to castrate the male oligarchs, now they could only be with vermin of their same age kind, they can now sexually dominate men and with it, the caste.

Anonymous said...

But then there would be another change the sexual revolution, of course a revolution between the dominant caste, a revolution that was more, in Orwellian terms, than absolute sexual slavery, where the most totalitarian ideology of history developed, Liberalism, with a single premise: you are free to do what you want with your body and your life, as long as you are 'adult' (only determined by the oligarch adult caste). Now the exploiting caste of adults, heterosexuals and homosexuals, males and females struggling for supremacy equally, was absolutely free and 'minors', well, they were already absolutely slaves.

But change one thing, an adult could no longer do anything sexually with a minor (aka a child), because as it would violate the supreme rule 'sex (and any thing in life) is fine as long as they are both adults', adds feminism with its high age of consent and shame to the attraction to young people, and you have the world today .

And the new reaction called masculinism or MRAs? They were only marginalized males, that they were alone in several websites looking for to return to the point 2, that is to say, in the Victorian time where minors not have rights but you could buy 12-years-old prostitutes, well, that until to be accepted by mainstream society they resigned to sex with Minors, but no matter, were never anything, nor will be anything, another right-wingers reactionaries with no future.

So if sex with minors or where there is difference of age or position is prohibited or censored, it is not only because of feminism, it is because of adult supremacism where only adults, in their unequal hierarchical equality, can only be with each other. Like in a racial state. Adults with adults, and if ONLY if they allow, minors with minors, and decide on their lives, their bodies, their ideas and beliefs and their destiny, the most absolute form of slavery and equality. Where the child is despised, the young even more, where they are two separate worlds, where to be a child means to be less, only a servant to be groomed (in a non-sexual way) and served for adulthood, where is a hierarchy, of 'you are weaker', 'you are more ignorant than me', Where people only count to be adults, as if being human is being an adult and the other just a preparation.

You only support sex (and only sex nothing more) with minors because you are obsessed with feminism, and use it as a weapon, to hurt those who hurt you. That is that feminists oppress and restringe men of sex, not that minors are modern slaves. Like you said, if children have the same rights that adults, children are most time ungovernable. Instead you are a libertarian, no more government for adults! Without feminism, you are just another liberal hypocrite.

So feminists, MRAs, all adults who believe are more capacitated, if all of you think your master race (ups, age) is superior, go ahead, but stop enslaving minors, if adults are so capacited just invent a ship and go to hell on another planet, all of you become immortal and sterile and you can live forever between ' Consenting adults' with this repugnant 'Real Adult Sex'. Minors do not consent to servitude.

Eivind Berge said...

It is true that feminism didn't invent age of consent, only raised it wildly, from 12 to 16 to 18. But that has made all the difference, hasn't it? It is how we got into this mess of pretending sexually mature individuals are "children" who are "abused" when they act perfectly naturally. It is the difference between criminalizing pedophilia and normal sexuality.

So I think feminists really do deserve most of the blame.

I agree that the "anything goes as long as it is between consenting adults" trope is not as libertarian as it sounds. It enables immeasurable injustice because it leaves too much open to definitions and excuses draconian laws. So I try not to use that expression myself.

I don't think adults hate minors as much as they fear them. For good reason, since the laws are so draconian. A good place to start, if you want to break down the caste system which makes minors a separate class, is to make the sex laws less insane. This caste system defines minors as both inferior and incredibly superior at the same time (as soon as you are accused of any offense against them). It is really schizo.

Anonymous said...

Du er fyren som har dukket opp på tv, jeg kan ikke tro det!

Eivind Berge said...

Hva mener du med det?

Anonymous said...

It's very refreshing to see someone who's not a pedophile or hebephile question these things, Eivind, and I think you're pretty much spot on. Throughout the years I've come into contact with quite a few people (women, mostly) who tell me that they feel positively about having had sexual experiences with adults as minors. Some of these say they were as young as 8 when it happened. Now, it's not the norm to be interested in sexuality at that age, but it certainly isn't impossible either. Several of my friends were actively fantasizing and masturbating to porn at that age, and I myself started not too much later.

All but one of these people said they were met with cries of "you're in denial!", "you just have Stockholme syndrome!", and the like (just look at the recent Milo Yiannopoulos debaucle) when they shared their feelings about what happened. One woman was even called "Uncle Tom" for supposedly "enabling" pedophiles. Another was rather viciously attacked on a messageboard by someone who was raped as a child: "You should shut up! Can't you see you re normalizing pedophilic behavior!? Your story is not typical. I know, since I attend therapy group-sessions for survivors!"

It all seemed so obvious to me at that time: Of course she doesn't think this story is typical, because someone who had a positive relationship would not (voluntarily) attend that form of therapy! It's insane to think of what kind of a sample bias research on this topic must be plagued by. Just to illustrate, a recent study done on thousands of schoolchildren (6th-9th grade) in Finland shows that, of all who have had sexual contact with adults (5 or more years older, so no "close-in-age" exceptions), over 40% answer that they think of it as at least "fairly positive", with over a quarter saying "very positive".

https://services.fsd.uta.fi/catalogue/FSD2943/PIP/cbF2943e.pdf (see page 270 of the actual document, not your pdf-reader).

And this is 40% of all cases of sexual contact (including rape, bribery, blackmail etc.). The percentages would undoubtedly be even higher if these were excluded, and if cases involving very young children were excluded as well.

Of course, there is no chance of this every penetrating into the mainstream consciousness: it will largely go ignored. It is simply not allowed to add any nuance to this topic whatsoever. As you point out Eivind, these relationships are dogmatically called "abuse" regardless of the minor's current (or future) feelings.

Imagine if Andrea Dworkin got her way and all heterosexual sex was deemed rape because of "power imbalances". Women would be met with "he didn't love you, he was just grooming you for sex!" and "he only made you like the sex so he could use you more often. You were taken advantage of!" These statements are no-more easy to counter than they are in the adult-minor case, because that the relationship was "abusive" is taken as axiomatic truth.

No-one wants a free-for-all where grown men are free to "hit on" little kids, but I see no justice in creating harm where there didn't need to be any. We should be able to approach the topic with some nuance, and discuss the possibility of making exceptions in clear-cut cases where it it obvious that it was consensual, everyone knew what they were doing, and no-one got hurt.

Eivind Berge said...

Tank you for you comment, I completely agree. While I am not personally affected, it really bothers me that mainstream society is refusing to be honest about what might constitute sexual abuse. Instead we have pure dogma, including "research" which axiomatically assumes what it sets out to prove. Academic honesty is one casualty, and it gets so much worse. One would hope that laws purporting to address abuse and imposing some of the harshest punishments of the justice system could be evidence-based rather than dogma-based, but that doesn't appear to be likely any time soon.

If someone can go through all the motions of enjoying something and not be damaged in any discernible way -- yet still be defined as an "abuse victim" in denial -- then we are dealing with a metaphysical claim. What, exactly, is being abused then? Is it one's soul? I am not categorically dismissing metaphysics, but if you are going to make metaphysical claims, then at least be honest about it and not confuse it with the physical realm. For example, you might subscribe to some Christian notion of "sin." Fair enough, you are entitled to your beliefs, but don't pretend that you are conducting a scientific study of sexual abuse.

sestamibi said...

"I no longer think the male losers will rebel. By all accounts, the vast majority simply accept their lot."

If it were only a matter of large numbers of men not getting any, I would agree, but what we are seeing is a large scale effort to criminalize desire. When those men find themselves deprived of freedom for very lengthy periods simply because of their desire to get laid, then all bets are off. At that point, it becomes a matter of survival.

Anonymous said...

I'd just like to clarify a poorly-worded statement I made:

"It's insane to think of what kind of a sample bias research on this topic must be plagued by. Just to illustrate, a recent study done on thousands of schoolchildren..."

What I meant was that this study illustrated the opposite. It was performed on the general population, rather than on (presumably) heavily biased clinical samples.

Anonymous said...

Anon, all men are "hebephiles" by default, it is very unlikely that a man is not sexually or emotionally attracted to a pubescent, in fact if a man tells me he has never been attracted to a well-formed 12-years-old I simply do not believe he, it is not a rare specific attraction like children

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, I also think most normal men are attracted to pubescent girls. But it isn't the age they are most attracted to, and they can certainly be happy with older girls, so I wouldn't call it hebephilia by default. It's not like I went to college and thought, "Gee, these girls are too old, I wish I were back in middle school," and I didn't observe that attitude in any of my friends. A man who did that would be slightly deviant, I think. Doesn't mean hebephilia is abusive, but it isn't the norm either.

Anonymous said...

To the anonymous that quoted a acquaintance who said: "All but one of these people said they were met with cries of "you're in denial!", "you just have Stockholme syndrome!":

Your acquaintance should tell these people that Stockholm syndrome is a defensive mechanism that can only exist while a dangerous and serious occurrence is taking place or is imminent. If the danger happened in the past and has ended, it cannot be Stockholm syndrome by definition.

Anonymous said...

Well, I also have not met personally a single man who admits being attracted to a girl under 18, even a 16 year old in high school is absolute taboo besides living in a society where the 'adult sex' to call it somehow, is absolutely socially obsessive and something almost ideological as the foundation of society, I do not see many men really happy with older women, rather I see women taking advantage of manginas who believe that a high school is better because it has more conversation than a middle school IMO.

Anonymous said...

Being attracted to well-developed 12 year-olds (who look more like they're 16) from time to time is not an indication that a man is a hebephile at all. Whereas, if he's attracted to a 20 year-old because she could pass for 12 it very well might be.

While pedophiles and hebephiles will wax lyrical about how they love the personalities of underage girls (and for many this is sincere), at the end of the day, attraction is highly visual. So if one of them were to encounter an adult who had many juvenile traits, they would likely feel some level of attraction. Similarly for teleiophilic (adult-attracted) men who see a pubescent girl with well-developed traits. But this does not indicate an actual preference for pubescent girls. Actually, it's the opposite: he's attracted to her because she looks mature. Therefore it is erroneous to state that most men are hebephiles.

Anonymous said...

It is true that normally when you see men on the internet praise a minor girl is just because she looks well-formed adult, not because she looks or is adolescent. But it is important to make it clear that this society is encouraged by passive and active, direct or subconscious the fact that a grown adult has to be attracted to other grown adults, just as today is a growing number of self-proclaimed bisexuals , which IMHO are no more than straights that are alienated by the state-sanctioned androgynism and homosexuaslism, although there are some sincere bisexuals, of course but we are not a bisexual species by default, we are a straight one even if the 50% of humans are now self-proclaimed "bisex" o "curious".

Also what I do not say is that they are hebephiles by default (note that it was in quotes, although I may have explained it wrongly), but anyone with straight sexuality by default, can be attracted to someone who has reached puberty simply because they has a minimum sexual development and therefore susceptible to stimulate sexual desire, so it always a straight men will have a minimal stimulation to even a not very developed pubescent, nor just the developed ones, so it does not make hebephiles by default, but if by default inclined to pubescent as a post-pubescent, like their as partners or not, that is the point that I want to reach.

Anonymous said...

"Why is a woman to be treated differently? Woman suffrage will succeed, despite this miserable guerrilla opposition."
–Victoria Woodhull

Nice. And why is an underage female going to be treated differently than a adult female? Sane men are going to marry 15-year-old girls and make babies with them, and we will succeed despite the miserable terror-feminist opposition.

Repress all lefties, they are just a modern disease, put an absolute monarchy with Salic law at all levels (to those over 18, under 18 females can have political franchise because under age chicks are generally nice people) and these hypocrites (who opress their more youngers) parasites of nature named 'adult and capable' women are not going to screw us up again. Not fascism or religious fundamentalism, believe me, those pricks are feminists.

Anonymous said...

Most feminists nowadays are certainly for strict age of consent laws, but that hasn't always been the case. I recall that Simone de Beauvoir signed a petition to abolish the age of consent in the 70s. You could, as a progressive feminist, spin the issue so that "denial of sexual agency" is seen as demeaning to girls. It's not a very popular position, but I have encountered a few people like that.

Nowadays, you have on one side: feminists who think that (male) sexuality is inherently predatory and an equally "powerful" (whatever that implies) partner is required in order for it not to be abuse. And on the other: conservatives who think that females are defiled by sexuality and want to protect the "innocence" and "virtue" of their daughters. I'm not the first to point out these unlikely bedfellows.

Anonymous said...

Women's rightsEdit

In December 2015, Jammeh banned female genital mutilation (FGM) in The Gambia, labelling the practice of FGM as having "no place in Islam or in modern society"; anyone that ignored the ban would face a prison sentence of up to three years. After the end of Ramadan and Eid ul-Fitr in July 2016, Jammeh further announced a ban on child marriages. In 2016, some 30% of women were married while under the age of 18. Yahya Jammeh's response was that anyone caught marrying a girl under 18 years of age would be jailed for up to twenty years.[36]

Taken from Wikipedia, feminism and Islam must die. Period. And anyone who opposes marriage to girls under 18 should be executed.

Anonymous said...

That's a little extreme. I want the age of consent to not be an absolute, but even I can't agree with child marriage (since it's binding legal contract with many observable consequences, unlike "sexual abuse" in the cases where the "victim" doesn't recognize it as abuse and shows no signs of harm). Bring on the guillotine, I guess...

Anonymous said...

Nah, now think is better jailed up them for 20 years.. they seem to like it a lot.

Anonymous said...

Eivind Berge ligner på Edward Snowden (men Snowden er litt penere!)

https://www.nrk.no/dokumentar/xl/snowden-skuffet-over-den-norske-regjeringen-1.13493806

Anonymous said...

Signs that a society should die: saying erotic things to a 16-year-old is considered creepy, kissing a 15-years-old is considered pedophilia, feminist Muslim women with jihab ask to end child marriage (ie with 17 years -old), BUT is legally and socially acepted gay marriage and take on other men's asses.

Anonymous said...

Politimann fikk sparken:
http://www.bt.no/nyheter/lokalt/Politimann-fikk-sparken-334003b.html

Mannen som hadde vært inne på en side der det tilfeldigvis var noen som hadde skrevet en erotisk historie som omhandlet noen som var under seksuell lavalder, har nå fått avskjedigelse av politiet. Han var så dum at han vedtok en bot på 15000 kr, og har nå fått sparken.

Dette altså i en instans som frikjennes for mord: http://www.ballade.no/sak/obiora-saken-politimennene-frikjent/
Konklusjonen er altså at å drepe mennesker er ikke ulovlig for politiet, men å lese fiksjon om noen under seksuell lavalder som fremstilles seksuelt er grunnlag for avskjedigelse. Dette beviser hvor hysterisk samfunnet er blitt i forhold til seksualisering generelt, og av barn spesielt.

Slå den!

Eivind Berge said...

Det verste er at den loven gjelder for oss alle. Ingen har ytringsfrihet eller tankefrihet hvis vi våger å bruke den til å seksualisere et barn. Og det er forresten under 18 som gjelder her, ikke seksuell lavalder. Det er straffbart å lese en seksualisert fiksjon om noen det er lov å ha sex med. Antisexhysteriet lar seg ikke affisere av paradokser.

Jeg husker når litteratur var noe hellig som vi ikke trengte å være redde for å lese eller skrive. Men jeg innser nå at det var en sjelden unntakstilstand jeg vokste opp med, og at det snarere er sensur og straffeforfølgelse for tankekriminalitet som er regelen. Vi skal ikke lenger tilbake enn til 1957 da Agnar Mykle fikk føle datidens sexhysteri rundt Sangen om den røde rubin. Nå har sexfiendtligheten kommet tilbake i en litt mutert form. En skumlere form, vil jeg si, for barnehysteri er perfekt for virkelig hemningsløse heksejakter.

Eivind Berge said...

Vegard Austgulen er en tragikomisk dårlig advokat som rådet politimannen til å vedta boten. Han må jo være helt blåst i hodet sitt eller en direkte ondsinnet feminist. Og nå prøver han å klage på at klienten fikk sparken fra politiet ved å lete etter verre forhold som ikke har ført til avskjedigelse. Her har han rådet klienten til å si seg skyldig i vårt samfunns aller største tabu (og altså fremstått som en feiging som er redd for enda verre straff om han skulle forsvart seg i en rettssak), og så skal han liksom snu rundt og gi inntrykk av at det ikke var så ille likevel? Hvor dum går det an å bli? Er lesing av noveller en så grusom forbrytelse at han ikke tør å forsvare noen for det? Jeg tror ikke denne advokaten har rent mel i posen. Han er en del av problemet.

Anonymous said...

Det er skummelt at det er sider på reddit som er ulovlige for nordmenn å besøke. Hentai-sider kan man egentlig bare glemme. Sikkert noen vanlige, ikke-pornografiske (men vågale!) animeer også. Eller, er det greit hvis det er en historie med "litterær verdi"? Er Lolita en lovlig bok, eller er den for "porno"?

Eivind Berge said...

Jeg tror det skal litt mer til før de begynner å brenne, og straffe folk for, bøker som allerede finnes på bibliotekene, slik som Lolita. Om Lolita hadde blitt skrevet i dag, spesielt av en ikke-etablert forfatter, så tror jeg derimot den lett kunne havnet i forbudt kategori. Den hadde vel blitt ansett som porno inntil det motsatte var bevist, tenker jeg... Og dermed knapt blitt lest, så hvordan kunne vi vite? Selve vurderingen er jo straffbar. Det føles absurd å måtte appellere til "litterær verdi" for å unngå straffeforfølgelse for å lese en tekst, men det er nå realiteten.

Anonymous said...

"Seksualisert fremstilling" er et vagt begrep. Skummelt vagt.

For eksempel, den desidert mest populære animeen som sendes i Japan akkurat nå (basert på twitter aktivitet) heter "Eromanga-sensei". Handlingen dreier seg om at stesøsteren til hovedkarakteren er en kjent erotisk illustratør (skjønt, ingen vet hvem hun er). Hun vises flere ganger i pin-up posisjoner i det hun tar bilder av seg selv (for referanse, selvsagt...)

Åh, glemte å nevne at hun er 12 år.

Dette kan være ulovlig å se på i Norge. Mildere ting har blitt stilt for retten i Sverige (en nakenscene i Dragonball, om jeg husker riktig). Akkurat nå er det stort sett umulig å besøke noen populære anime-relaterte nettsteder uten å "gjøre seg kjent med" (som ordlyden sier) denne serien. Lurer på om noen hadde turt å rope "bullshit!" hvis noen ble arresterte på grunn av denne serien eller en lignende en. Jeg tror Ola og Kari Nordmann er for redde for å bli stemplet som pedoer til å kunne gi lyd fra seg. Sies det å være for å "beskytte barn" så må man finne seg i stort sett alt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRyaX6yN4vs (rolig Kripos, ingenting uhumskt vises her)

Eivind Berge said...

Nei, jeg tror ikke noen i Norge av betydning ville ropt "bullshit!" hvis noen ble arrestert på grunn av den serien. Litteratur- og filmviterne i politiet har nå makt til å erklære hva de vil forbudt, og der stopper det, hvis denne siste saken er representativ. Ingen kan jo erklære seg uenig uten å innrømme at han har "gjort seg kjent med" barneporno selv, så det skal mye til.

Vi får bare venne oss til at politiet har definisjonsmakten på litterær og kunstnerisk kvalitet.

Women are the misfortune of men said...

Another woman just said that 16/17 years old are not children, but they are minors, and although they body is sexually matured their mind is not developed for sex and can not handle it.

Eivind Berge said...

Remind her that sex evolved at a much earlier evolutionary stage than the mental maturity one must be 18 to possess.

Anonymous Women are the misfortune of men said...

That priviledge prick does can understand nothing.

Typical feminist: "Men only seek naive young women because are afraid of a mature women."

Of course women are not afraid that men throw away their supposed marvelous "maturity" and go away with more young women or high school girls (or middle school if these monsters not make vile age of consent laws).

Sincere words that a pro-feminist man who was involved in feminism told me once in private: "feminism does not seek equality at all"

Anonymous said...

https://ourlovefrontier.wordpress.com/2017/05/04/brain-maturity-extends-well-beyond-teen-years/

This aberration is on the march, and it is real, and it is the end of humanity, we believed that before they would begin this stupidity will be at a nearer age and so traditional for Anglo-Saxons, at 21.

But no, here it is, now is being promoted that until 25 are inmature children.

Yes, a woman says that girls until 25 are not fully developed, did you doubt it?

Anonymous said...

And this stupidity is not new and exclusive of junk science proponents, comes from years ago, but now I see it everywhere, literally people use this to justify why 'pedophilia is wrong'?? is a real epidemic.

However, I do not knows personally any person who believes that until 25 are immature children, but the internet is full of these freaks.

Eivind Berge said...

Humans don't just grow to maturity and stay there. They change throughout life and rapidly decline in some ways while improving for a long time in others. A 25-year-old person has already peaked in terms of raw processing power, but despite losing brain cells every day may continue to gain verbal ability, knowledge and hopefully wisdom for another three or four decades. You can define full maturity in many ways depending on what you look for. For example, it's probably not a good idea to have a teenager as the president of the United States (the minimum is 35). But who came up with the idea that you have to be fully mature in order to have sex? It is nonsense. Let them define "full maturity" however they want, but we don't have to accept the idea that it is needed for sex.

Anonymous said...

What do you think about democracy? Are you in favor of some other different system?

Eivind Berge said...

There is a lot to hate about democracy, but I don't really have a better suggestion either. Have to agree with Churchill when he said that "democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

As an MRA I am focused not on changing the system, but on applying political pressure to prevent the worst laws. And it is incredibly important to keep the jury system. I don't think a country can be said to be a democracy without the right to jury trials, which Norway now is at high risk of losing.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Tradisjonelt var de unge kvinnene stammens viktigste byttemiddel, og av uvurderlig verdi, og de måtte derfor holdes rene for å oppnå høyest mulig verdi. De unge kvinnene ble brukt som innbytte mot makt og innflytelse, ved å gifte dem inn til de mektigste stammene og fortrinnsvis de mektigste mennene i disse stammene. Dette resulterte igjen i dannelsen av klaner, hvor mektige allianser ble inngått gjennom utveksling av unge kvinner.

I nyere tid har klanene blitt erstattet av et lagdelt samfunn, hvor det har vært uaktuelt å gifte kvinnene nedover i stand. De kongelige giftet seg med de kongelige, adelen med adelige, handelsstanden med andre kjøpmenn etc. De unge kvinnene var fremdeles familiens og slektens viktigste byttemiddel for å oppnå status og innflytelse, og styrke sitt nettverk.

Med energirevolusjonen ble ikke lenger kvinnene så viktige som byttemiddel, da vi tilsynelatende hadde evig vekst og alle hele tiden ble rikere uansett. Vi kunne tillate oss et mer egalitært og seksuelt frigjort samfunn. Den seksuelle revolusjonen sammenfalt med en fri flyt av billig fossil energi i strie strømmer, neppe noen tilfeldighet.

Nå stenges energikranene og vi begynner å merke konsekvensene av at vi lever i en endelig verden med ressursknapphet. Konkurransen mellom mennesker blir sterkere, og de unge kvinnene begynner igjen å bli viktige for å bygge nettverk for innflytelse og makt, og slik tilgang til knappe ressurser for seg og sine. Men tradisjonene og religionene er ikke lenger der for å beskytte de unge kvinnenes verdi som byttemiddel, en oppgave staten mer enn gjerne tar på seg for å styrke sin rolle.

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, hvis seksuell frigjøring bare var en bieffekt av energioverflod, så må vi nok se langt etter det fremover. Det kan hende mannskamp er nytteløst i et slikt perspektiv. Men det gjenstår jo å se hvor bratt nedgangen blir, så kanskje det i hvert fall er verdt å kjempe mot de mest meningsløse tabuene. Trenger vi sensur av kunst og litteratur, for eksempel, for å beskytte kvinners verdi som byttemiddel? Sexkjøpsloven virker heller ikke nødvendig, da det snarere blir to typer kvinner i et slikt samfunn, de «rene» og de «falne», og staten kan vel nøye seg med å beskytte førstnevnte. Men å gjøre noe med seksuell lavalder og slikt kan vi nok bare gi opp med en gang.

Anonymous said...

Macron is another sexual abuse victim and none MRA denounced that, poor man.

Eivind Berge said...

How do feminists explain that he turned out so well despite all that "abuse"? If we are to take feminism seriously, he is living his entire life in "false consciousness" thinking that he loves his "abuser" while he is in fact horribly damaged.

Or maybe the feminist notion of sexual abuse is a load of hogwash.

Anonymous said...

Macron was sexually abused? When? I do not understand what both are talking about.

Eivind Berge said...

He married his teacher with whom he started a relationship at 15. The exact same situation that is used to prosecute countless men and some women as "sexual abusers" in feminist justice systems. Just compare these two cases and see how feminists can barely contain their desire to define Macron as equally abused as the other, because it necessarily follows from their definitions:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/24/opinions/macron-marriage-drexler-opinion/index.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/21/opinions/how-the-adults-failed-tennessee-teen/index.html

Anonymous said...

That's absurd reading about maturity. Sex, a thing driven by biology, is per se against a full maturity, just to make easier reproduction. Do you relly think that a 30 years old a female would make babies (admitting she is not in menopause) the same way she would do at 11 or 13 or 15? That's the real reason why sexuality has nothing to do with maturity.
Also, at 25, 2/3 of a female's fertile years are gone.
Maturity means ageing.

Stop misleading servant of the west self defined muslims as real muslims. Thei 'r tryng to bend Islam to meet the western dis-values and feminism, but real Islam is a different thing, and totally REQUIRES child marriages between pubescent and even prepubescent females and over 30 men. Just know that sexual activity outside of marriage is HARAM (forbidden and sin), so do you really think a girl can wait to get a phd befor getting laid for the 1st time?
This is Islam, the rest is like the chatolicism after Bergoglio... an empity box. Tha is what the establishment wants for Islam: turning it in somthing empity so that can be compatible with that craziness of the west that perpetrates atrocities against men.

It's the connection between capitalism, imperialism and feminism that fucke up the world. Just 12/14 years ago the left used to oppose to imperialist wars, now they all do agree because "we must liberate the womYn".

About Macron, in my coutry MSM are glorifying him rightly because he has married that old woman who is raping him since when he was 15. They call this unnatural bestiality "progress", and call him a "progressive"; while he is the guy built and placed there by the establishment (that, as I said, is feminist).

Allah Hafiz, brothers; and a special salutation to Emma for taking care of this awesome man that is Eivind.

Anonymous said...

No functional civilization can exist considering 15-year-olds as "children," if a civilization considers that as something real then it is doomed to end up in the sink of history.Let the Roman Empire return

Anonymous said...

To The Muslim commentator: I think that you are crossing the line, sexuality and reproduction is from puberty as it is intended by nature, a prepubescent is not prepared to have children and there are hardly any that can, besides it is okay to marry minors but when they understand the subject, not with 8-years-old girls who have little knowledge of the subject, in the Roman Empire the girls could marry since the age of 12 since at that age they are mature to marry but not before

Anonymous said...

The Prophet (peace be upon him and his familiy) married Aisha when she was between 5 and 9; but he waited before consuming. Nobody is saying to have complete intercourses with prepubescents; who, however, are sexual being beside what we like to think about a wrong concept of innocence.
Adults are like: I talk against the evidences I experimented as a child because it suits me now as an adult.

However I have already wrote about the real pedos. If it's true that all the bitches are sexually abused children, as anglo-americans say in their propaganda medias and crime tv shows (and their psychologists), I'm very very grateful to pedos mashallah because they have trained them properly, driving them far away from the lesbian perversion, hatred on men and male sexuality (this is a provocation: I doubt that bitches do the bitches selling sexual services because they were sexually abused; but if it was, I would totally support that).

Allah Hafiz.

PS: we know that for muslims, extramarital sexual intercourses are Haram, but living as an incel into a western tyranny --> HARAMlands, that leads me to do something haram in order to survive. Also, bitches are kafirahs, so less harm.
If I was living under Shariah, I would not be forced to sin in order to survive because females would know their place and I wouldn't be an incel at all...ù

Islam > roman empire

Anonymous said...

Pretty face of dicks that you have all the right-wing Norwegian sick fuckers

Anonymous said...

All who say that macron issue is pedophilia and child abuse etc. are feminist and modernist junk, but the fact is that macron is just another degenerate being who likes to fuck a ugly old woman who he called her "wife", I fell disgust of today's men and their repugnant attraction to mature women

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Ser ut til at Blogger har begynt med automatisk "Rapportér misbruk" - knapp for nye blogger: http://dyssekildevillage.blogspot.no/

Ikke bra! Heldigvis kommer den ikke opp på gamle blogger enda. Kommer ikke til å endre layout.

Anonymous said...

If Macron's creepy old wife was a man (and Macron a female), today she would be jailed for 20 years or more.
The were dating and doing things since the beginning, when he was 15; but to make it "legal", the establishment (using MSM) changed the history staing they started on doing things only after he tunerd 19 (note: not 18, but 19!) whilst everyone in their village would tell you differently. It was the local scandal in 1993...

This Macron shit is pure feminism, in my opinion more than the lesbian perversion: the innatural Samantha's fantasy became true. The Control in the hands of the female and the exclusion of physichal attractiveness from the motivation leading to love (while she is believed to use tons of botox): nothing more "empowering" than this shit, aka feminism.

@anonimous --> Antifeminism is not right or left wing, you feminist moron.

Anonymous said...

Looks like french commies are already messing against the Mangina they elected.

Also, the MSM beside celebrating the president mangina, the are constantly attacking russia for the useless email leackage.
While it's clear that Fillon was politically killed by the establishment, on purpouse, using a fake scandal in order to come to this end: the establishment's darling mangina vs a woman you can't take serously because that would be crazy. Yhe Macron's victory was fabricated to be inavoidable.

Allah Hafiz, brothers.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rebecca said...

You’re so fucked up in the head, I do hope you get shit down like so many are wanting and planning to do. A bullet in your head and in this disgusting pedophile would be good for the universe. You are disgusting and are justifying RAPE and pretending its a movement. This past 15 years old CHILD is sexually confused because her teacher has already raped he and stretched he out probably causing her horrible pain and an endless amount of emotional trauma but that gets you off huh you sick fuck?! We will find you, this woman, and you inbred parents and we will kill you. It will be wonderful and joyous and those poor children will be free from you monstrrs!!

Eivind Berge said...

Meanwhile, Emmanuel Macron's wife confronts sexism, misogyny in France:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/12/europe/france-macron-wife-sexism/index.html

Ours is indeed a movement to fight hateful feminist definitions of sexual abuse, and Brigitte Trogneux is our greatest hero at the moment. She has advanced antifeminism more than all male MRAs combined.

Anonymous said...

The official stance is that Macron engage in sex when he was 19? This is not ok. An 19 year old is still a kid needs structure and boundaries. Like bed time and when to quit eating candy, finish homework, and when it is enough play time with friends. You really think engaging in sex with a 19 years old is a choice she or he has the ability to make? That poor child I wish I could protect them. And supporting your pervert of a teacher to mess with your child instead of requiring him to get his own life together an +21 adult?? What kind of horrific life did you have that you’re OK with your kindness, your child’s childhood, and your own life to be abused? You’re not fit to raise children and I hope child protection services intervenes. Your job is to teach boundaries to children until they reach adulthood at 21, something you have no concept of.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

From what I remember women's brains are fully developed at the age of 18 y.o., while boys brains are not mature before the age of 24 y.o. This is logical, as it has far worse consequences for a woman making a bad choice of partner than for a man. In the Stone Age being a single mother most probably meant that your child was doomed.

This article writes well about the subject:

http://forskning.no/meninger/kommentar/2017/04/menn-er-dyr-kvinner-ogs%C3%A5

Øyvind Holmstad said...

På mange måter tror jeg feminismen har som det endelige mål å frigjøre kvinnen helt fra mannen, eller å være avhengige av menn. De fleste menn vil i dette samfunnet være lavstatusmenn, i.e. slaver, som ingen kvinner vil ha som partner. I et samfunn hvor kvinner kan leve uten en beskyttende partner, holder det med noen få høystatusmenn som kan fungere som donorer for kvinner. Med tiden vil sannsynligvis disse donorene utvelges etter nøye kriterier, omlag slik som i nazistenes raseprogrammer. Resten av mennene vil få status som undermennesker og tjenere, helt uten tilgang til kvinner eller noen mulighet til å bli fedre.

Anonymous said...

17 years old children cannot consent. They are not old enough to make important decisions that’s why we don’t let them live by themselves. So, even if a child did verbally give their consent it would not count. The evidence that 17 years old children are harmed by pedophilia is overwhelmingly staggering! This article gives the LGBTQ community a bad name.

Anonymous said...

17 years olds don't need to give their consent, as they are usually the ones who initiate the relationship. It is rather their potential partner that has to give consent...

Anonymous said...

"The official stance is that Macron engage in sex when he was 19? This is not ok. An 19 year old is still a kid needs structure and boundaries. Like bed time and when to quit eating candy, finish homework, and when it is enough play time with friends. You really think engaging in sex with a 19 years old is a choice she or he has the ability to make? That poor child I wish I could protect them. And supporting your pervert of a teacher to mess with your child instead of requiring him to get his own life together an +21 adult?? What kind of horrific life did you have that you’re OK with your kindness, your child’s childhood, and your own life to be abused? You’re not fit to raise children and I hope child protection services intervenes. Your job is to teach boundaries to children until they reach adulthood at 21, something you have no concept of."

"17 years old children cannot consent. They are not old enough to make important decisions that’s why we don’t let them live by themselves. So, even if a child did verbally give their consent it would not count. The evidence that 17 years old children are harmed by pedophilia is overwhelmingly staggering! This article gives the LGBTQ community a bad name."

I'm getting a severe case of Poe's law here. My guess is that the second comment is sincere, while the first one is satire. Anyone else want to try?

Anonymous said...

Things have become so absurd that it is even impossible to ascertain facts from fiction.

Anonymous said...

Eivind Berge´s planned list of illegal acts in Norway:

2015 - Criticising the Government (Done)
2016 - Criticising feminism (Done)
2017 - Rape apology (Done)
2018 - Stepping on the national flag
2019 - Grafitti
2021 - Child Porn
2022 - Tax Evasion
2023 - Cat calling
2024 - Non-violent public protest
2026 - Statutory rape
2035 - Hacking in and revealing private government files
2036 - MRA Coup / becomes dictator
2037 - World War III / Feminist holocaust
2040 - Defeated by international coalition

(Death Penalty)

Anonymous said...

"For the record gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered persons oppose NAMBLA and its f*cked up purpose (which is support sexual relationships between adult men and male minors under 18 and abolish age of consent laws)”

Yes, All this garbage is real, this infectious disease is spreading throughout the world, we must purge them with fire and sword, the use of totalitarianism, slavey and wars, help us in the Great work, one day our soldiers will enter the Destroyed cities of ours impure enemies, and ask "is it an aberration to fuck 15-year-old girls?" If they have the error of answer yes, their cruzified bodies will take the place of the standards of our army to our march to cleanse the world.

Gas the fags, war now!

Eivind Berge said...

Well, some gays must obviously be supporting NAMBLA since it is a gay organization. They are not all bad.

Anonymous said...

Reported. You’re exactly what’s wrong with circlejerk. Instead of posting satire, mocking feminism and being clever and original, you continue to post lame phrases and beat to glue anything that was even remotely funny, all under the guise that you want to show what’s wrong with feminism. You don’t care about feminism. You belong to the system that this website was made to mock. You seek karma. You seek to be a power-user, a well-known name in a sea of perpetual anonymity. The higher your karma-count, the more you get off on it. You are smug and self-satisfying. You are the problem. There should be a “delete” button below your posts. Start clicking them after you post and you’ll find this world starts to improve.

Eivind Berge said...

I have too much hatred in my heart against the feminist sex laws to be satirical or funny. The Men's Movement is not about being clever, but opposing specific laws.

Anonymous said...

Kill yourself you fucking sick pedo freak. You should be jailed cunt. Fucking Jew. I am posting this all over social media to expose you.

Anonymous said...

Funny how you /pol/ types always complain about slander, SJW tactics and being censored, yet here you are...

But of course, it's OK when you do it because "muh degeneracy" and "muh Jews".

Anonymous said...

Feminist NGOs, RoK-type maculinists, alt-right and left-wing journalists are dressed up clowns – shrimps, pieces of smelly misandrist shit. All ancient relationships among adults and juveniles are now invented as same age relationships. It’s an attempt to convince modern generation that today’s porn-adult brothel has thousand-year roots. Take into consideration misandrist meanness.
Real intentions are always hidden. Otherwise they would be destroyed. Instantly – in no time.
Misandrists have been extended maximum for a hundred last years. Languages are misandrist, artificial It’s the tool of a deception, programming. To read, write, speak to look male sexuality harmfully. You become operated.
Mind, that you are surrounded by dirty porn-adults. To stay in the misandrist environment harmfully. You become an idiot.
There is no other way as to destroy misandrists always and everywhere successively.

Anonymous said...

Have you seen this:

chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-naperville-north-suicide-20170522-story.html

It's the stuff of nightmares. An innocent young man is dead, for no reason. Daily reminder that 95% of so-called "child porn" doesn't involve actual children. In this case, it was hardly even "porn" at all. But a man is dead, lost forever because of the pedo-hysteria we're living through.

Eivind Berge said...

Our feminist legislators and enforcers do not care about such consequences. All they care about is sex-hostility at all costs, including deaths of the minors that they purport to protect. This is why I preach unconditional hate against the government, because their crusade against sexuality is completely unmitigated by any rationality or mercy.

Anonymous said...

https://www.nrk.no/norge/justisministeren-vil-vurdere-a-ta-passene-fra-overgrepsdomte-1.13538268

Australia har allerede innført dette. Snart kan det bli forbudt å reise til utlandet om man er overgrepsdømt. Spørsmålet nå blir vel, hvilke type overgrep vil være nok til å ta fra en passet? Og vil denne loven senere utvides til å gjelde flere ting?

Eivind Berge said...

Enda et eksempel på at drittsekkene i Frp og Høyre og KrF er enda verre enn venstresiden. Men hvis dette kan oppildne et hat mot Staten i noen av de 20 000 mennene det (i første omgang) gjelder, så kan det kanskje komme noe positivt ut av det også for mannsbevegelsen?

Anonymous said...

Hvis de er dømt for overgreb i Australien, ville det så ikke være mere logisk at udvise dem - med andre ord at TVINGE dem til at rejse til udlandet?

Eivind Berge said...

Det er også tåpelig å innbille seg at det er fritt frem for overgrep i andre land enn Australia/Norge og at utlandet derfor må vernes. Et utreiseforbud kan like gjerne virke motsatt og beskytte de pedofile mot enda verre straffer i andre land...

Men det er ikke noe rasjonelt som ligger bak disse lovendringene, bare det eskalerende hysteriet rundt å gjøre mer og mer for å «beskytte barn». Jeg kjøper ikke grunnprinsppet engang om at seksuelle overgrep mot barn liksom er verre enn alle andre forbrytelser, så hele denne tankemåten preller av meg som vann på gåsen. Det er flaut at så mange mennesker er mottakelige for å gi fra seg hva som helst av rettigheter bare det begrunnes med å være for barna.

Anonymous said...

Hey Eivind can you give us your opinion about this video?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=39_GqN8z76A

Eivind Berge said...

A thoroughly unpleasant, unfunny and tiresome feminist. Also plainly wrong when she dismisses evolutionary psychology and the importance of sex. But the legislator she mentions appears to be an asset to the Men's Rights Movement, which is why she makes an attempt at shaming him which fails miserably.

Marc said...

Forgive me guys but I am French and I can not understand the English of the video, but she put images of post about sex with girls under 18, someone can explain what it says about that and the subjects that Eivind refers to. Thank you.

Eivind Berge said...

She presents the feminist laws against sex with girls under 18 as something we should accept and tries to shame men who disagree with them. This only works if you buy into feminist ideology, which MRAs obviously don't. So she comes across as a standard hateful feminist, and also unaware of how ridiculous she looks propagating those views as if they should be self-evident. The only reason you might want to watch her is that she is a young sexy female, I think 19 years old. Which is a bit early to be so hateful against normal male sexuality, so she is a precocious feminist at that.

Anonymous said...

That's why I started to watch the video, it's was an attractive chick and I would have liked to bang before watching the whole video and getting disgusted, but I get disgusted with these sick heads who think that sex with a 17 is bad and with 18 is ok, who can believe that shit? An evangelical pastor shouting that sex with under 18 is a satanic creation has more sense than that.

In another video, she says that she was a SJW and later an anti-feminist, and now she sees feminism better, of course, she realizes that the older she gets, the less men will go for her, she's not stupid, she knows to ban sex with girls under 18 is good for increasing their sexual market value. Now in fact the rest of older feminists than she call abuse to dating a 19 years old, they are all manipulative, at all ages, but is worse men for not rejecting ALL those over 18 and dating only with minors, all men at a time. It's the men's fault, not feminist not women.

You have seen how these girls are all day claiming rights for women and then takes away the right to have sex with women under 18, these monsters does not deserve a real man. Only idiotic, weak and coward man can dating women like she. Disgusting misandrical vile women they only can live manipulating men.

Eivind Berge said...

It is much too early to see girls under 18 as competition when she is 19, so I think it is just a case of indoctrination with hateful ideology. I think the sexual trade unionist theory of feminist sex-hostility is exaggerated, at least with regard to young feminists. At 19 she is still at peak sexual market value and can presumably clearly remember that nothing magical happened when she turned 18 that separated good from evil male attraction, so there must be some other explanation for hating male sexuality.

AMenwhohateMen said...

Well, I am a man who hate men, I am no feminist or anything, but for me man is a primitive and barbaric being, and that is why women have done everything possible to control us and to be able to throw us out of power And male domination, the fact of making a thousand laws against the male sex and that the men themselves accept them is the proof of it. I hate being a man and I hate all men. First they fucked en masse all girls they had the first menses and now most men kill you because they like you under any girl under 18 and go en masse for any 'woman' just because is a legal adult, even if just another empoderated ugly old hag or idiotic universitarian with gender studies, man are despicable
A man only needs women, they will never go to teenage girls en masse, only a few 'deviants' dating a teen girl no matter the man does not wake up is an animal happy with fuck adult women like animals, watching sport and other testosterone trash I HATE MEN

AMenwhohateMen said...

Look Vice President Mike Pence, he denounces homosexuality as a modern perversion and his wife is a disgusting old woman, no matter the motives, a man can never be with an old woman, never, the normal heterosexual man is mentally ill

Anonymous said...

The 'feminist' girl has a cute face but lacks body most girls of 14 have more body than her, in short poor heads ...

Anonymous said...

There was a disgusting feminist bandit in India that burned villages and put up warning signs for men not to marry young girls, the feminist bitch was pardoned and got into politics fortunately a guy shot and killed her.

Anonymous said...

I just read an article against feminism where feminists are blamed for attempts to legalize and normalize pedophilia (anything under the age of 18). Eivind, feminism is no longer the ultimate enemy is only a sect within the absolute enemy, being antifeminist will not solve anything.

Eivind Berge said...

It is delusional to think feminists are pushing in the direction of normalizing pedophilia, since they are the primary source of pedohysteria, as we well know. But yes, feminism has been normalized and entrenched to the point that most promoters of sex-hostility don't even realize that it is feminism they are espousing. So we are sadly fighting a losing battle against an entire culture that has gone feminist. Perhaps the Men's Movement should abandon the term "antifeminist" since people no longer understand what it means, and speak only of sex-positivity.

Anonymous said...

Manspreading is sexual harassment, according to Spanish feminists.
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/mandspreading-madrid-spain-ban-public-transport-bus-metro-behaviour-etiquette-a7779041.html

Anonymous said...

Anti-feminist Claire White engaging in more pedohysteria:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYZONMswfoE

Eivind Berge said...

She doesn't look like an antifeminist to me.

Anonymous said...

I never said you were a part of Pizzagate… BUT since you want to claim that girls under 18 are sexual predators to innocent mens, thanks again for confiming, it lends so much credence to our research. You are a manipulative charleton and a danger to children just on your antifeminist pedo promise fairytale alone, you are trying to cull more pedophiles to lower the age of consent under 18 to you can be free to fuck children. You are apart of Pedogate because mainstream media is not addressing this normalization of pedophilia and the public grooming you people are touting as free speech, it’s nonsense. This is untreated, mentally deranged Pedosadism… whatever you believe in your corrupted MRA head of yours, whether you are trying to convince people that pedophiles need acceptance, or that 'normal heterosexual mens' are harmless child fantasizing window shoppers, that your kind should start promoting and organizing a cause to stop the oppression and hate, or if you think little kids, SPECIFICALLY POSTPUBESCENT TEEN KIDS, really want sex with adults… whatever way you try to present it, YOU ARE NOT GETTING A BLESSING FROM THE REST OF CIVILIZATION TO EMBRACE A DISORDER AS DANGEROUS AND TRAUMATIZING TO CHILDREN AS CHILD LUST/RAPE, we will not relent. It is a sad day on earth when young ones have to be warned about these kinds of pedophile advocates. Teen children under 18 should be protected. You are promiting the lust and sexualization of teen children, likening MRAS to a minority that suffer from inequality or oppression, maybe you think people that like MINORS are safe to have your children alone with. Its wrong and you are mistaken for thinking this stupid write up is hurting my feelings or exposing anything about me, my followers know who I am and they AGREE with the sentiment that MENS are PEDOPHILES and need to get mental help, not parade around demanding people accept this horrific rationalization of your disorder.

Eivind Berge said...

Well, if you get so upset about a handful of MRAs who have no power, what do you think about the numerous countries around the world that in fact have a lower age of consent than 18? It would seem that we are the least of your worries if you actually believe that drivel.

Anonymous said...

19 peak attractivity? Umm... Is this a feminist blog? Are you tryingAll evidence suggests men prefer girls around fourteen if
Given the chance.
This bitch is at the end of her market value though still very much marketable this bitch knows she cannot compete with a lush childlike beauty of thirteen with all the glory and fun of life as she begins her adolescence towards adulthood so she is supremely jealous. In the past she could have gotten married and been protected through that institution.

What a hag though!

And men are just awful. We are witnessing the demise of men and it makes me so sick. All men are just emasculated sick swine. Only a gynocide will save us but I wm NOT advocating violence!!!!

Eivind Berge said...

I don't think there is much difference between girls aged 14 and 19. Both are within 99% of the peak (which I feel is somewhere in between), and most men won't feel any difference except to be scared shitless of the feminist police state in the case of the former. Indeed, there is no other significant difference, and the criminalization associated with younger teens is THE most odious travesty of our times.

Atle B said...

"a handful of MRAs who have no power"

Heldigvis

mandy jones said...

It's not normal for men to be hebephiles.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/interrogating-claims-about-natural-sexual-behavior-more-on-deep-thinking-hebephile/

Eivind Berge said...

Mandy, I have commented on that link before here,

http://eivindberge.blogspot.no/2015/12/facebook-is-evil.html

and this is what I said:

I agree that 12 is not the most attractive age and I never said most men are hebephiles. Most men, myself included, prefer fully developed girls (as young as possible), but that doesn't make sex with a 12-year-old "rape" or "abuse" and the desire for them isn't any more depraved than lusting after 40-year-old women, for example. It is slightly deviant to be a hebephile, if that means a clear preference for pubescent girls over fully developed ones, but you need better arguments than that to criminalize it. I think most men are at least somewhat attracted to pubescent girls, and there is no reason to demonize this desire or pretend these girls are damaged by sex. I myself find 12-year-old girls about as attractive as women at the end of their reproductive lives (around 40). Not optimal, but so what? Less than peak attractiveness means just that; it doesn't mean some horrible crime. The oldest mothers also have worse health outcomes from their pregnancies; does that make sex rape?

Also gotta laugh at this:

"There are two main mating strategies to secure a high chance for reproductive success if you’re male: to control the fertility of a female starting early, or to find a female who already has demonstrable reproductive success – a mother. Our closest primate relatives generally choose the latter: male chimpanzees don’t salivate over adolescent female chimps, and in fact reject them as sexual partners quite frequently. Instead, male primates and other animals fight over sex with the older females who’ve already borne a kid or two."

Well, if she is a mother, then some male must have already found her attractive, right? So how can only the second male be "natural"? Did the first pregnancy occur outside of nature?

There are good reasons to prefer females slightly older than the age of menarche as an optimal strategy, but that doesn't make attraction to subfecund females pathological. Kate Clancy makes some valid points, but then she ignores some elephants in the room -- all the reproductive opportunities which actually result from hebephilic desires -- and implies more than is warranted by the evidence.

Whenever there is a reproductive opportunity, it would be very strange if men weren't evolved to want to take advantage of it, and pubescent girls do represent such an opportunity. Men are sexual opportunists, obviously, sperm being cheap -- they don't tend to bet their reproductive success on one partner age or one partner and ignore the rest.

But let's be clear about what we are talking about here, since it is kind of off-topic: "Let’s first be clear on definitions: hebephilia is the sexual preference for pubescent children. Not teenagers, but pubescent children. In industrial and post-industrial populations, that means a sexual preference for ten to twelve year olds."

I didn't really argue that the age of consent should be lower than 12, and Øygard was only accused of having sex with a 13-year-old. Hebephilia is not a big concern of mine, except to state that it doesn't deserve anywhere near the demonization it gets.

I was talking about sex with teenagers, which unlike hebephilia or pedophilia is a huge issue for the Men's Rights Movement, and Kate Clancy isn't arguing that there is anything wrong with men who are attracted to teenagers, because that is something no scientifically literate person can claim.

Atle B said...

"Kate Clancy isn't arguing that there is anything wrong with men who are attracted to teenagers"

Hva med 11-12åringer som dine venner i mannsbeveglsen er så begeistret for?

Eivind Berge said...

Jeg kan ikke se at det er mange i mannsbevegelsen som kjemper for aksept for sex med 11-12-åringer. Men det er klart det er altfor mye hysteri rundt misbruk av mindre barn også, da det blir blåst helt ut av proporsjon og straffes ofte hardere enn mord, så sånn sett har de hebefile og til og med pedofile mange gode argumenter. Og når resten av samfunnet nå har gått fra konseptene med demonisering, utstøting og straff for alle som innrømmer at de er tiltrukket av noen under 18, så blir de hebefile/pedofile nødvendigvis alliert med mannsbevegelsen (som jo blir stemplet som pedofile uansett) og fremstår som mer fornuftige enn de fleste.

Eivind Berge said...

Jeg mener, når det offisielle samfunnet har tatt pedohysteriet så langt at de straffer en 17-åring for å seksualisere en annen 17-åring...

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/gutt-17-doemt-for-ikke-aa-ha-slettet-puppe-bilde/a/24090059/

...så har dere klart å få de pedofile til å fremstå som de normale til sammenligning med det hinsides hatske idiotiet deres. Gratulerer!