Sunday, September 10, 2017

Jennifer Fichter is still not free

Back in 2015 I blogged about Jennifer Fichter, the teacher from Florida who was sentenced to 22 years in prison for stereotypically victimless sex of the kind that feminists have been so successful criminalizing. The American justice system has now proven that it really is so obtuse and malicious that it keeps supporting this injustice in a cold and calculated manner and refuses to rethink its insanity at all. I notice that even the parents of the fake "victims" support this astonishingly draconian sentence as if it were normal and now blame problems in their sons' lives on the contrived sexual abuse. If social mores had been slightly different, they would have blamed masturbation, or witchcraft, or low self-esteem or whatever mumbo-jumbo society believed at the time, but they are children of a feminist age and show it fully. The sum of all irrationality seems to stay the same, and now it happens to be sex which is supposed to explain all problems, because feminists told us so.

I do not believe humanity can be enlightened, but can we at least channel our irrationality into forms which do not have so ghastly consequences for innocent victims such as Jennifer Fichter? For example, how about going back to the days when everything that went wrong was blamed on low self-esteem? Those were happy days! It was the age I grew up in, when the humorless, completely insane and utterly malicious sex-hostility we see today was but a distant horror story that I never thought possible. I would never have guessed that men were to be imprisoned for playing with dolls, or writing or reading fiction, and of course I didn't foresee the female sex offender charade. All we were told to do in those days was to think positive, and it generally worked -- not exactly as intended, but it worked to prevent atrocities! No one would have thought of locking up a harmless woman for 22 years for affectionate sex with a teenager, or even a man similarly accused. There were also witch-hunts going on in the 1980s, but they were focused on prepubescent children while teenage sexuality was largely left alone to flourish. The Satanic Panic was nasty in its own ways, but it did not allege that teenagers are damaged by consensual sex. Indeed, the very fact that they felt the need to invoke bizarre satanic rituals to explain abuse back then indicates a far healthier view on sexuality, because now the "abuse" is indistinguishable from normal sexual relations aside from some technicality or another such as employment status or age. This age is so docile and unimaginative in its cruelty that all it takes to drum up the most incriminating "abuse" is to assert that one of the participants is a teacher.

So here we are, at a whole new level of insanity. I don't know what can be done, but I am pretty sure it doesn't help to call for more of the same. It is disheartening to see otherwise intelligent men such as my commenter Jack here claiming that we ought to voice support for the kind of injustice that befell Jennifer Fichter in the hope of ending similar injustice done to men. It just doesn't add up, because history has proven that society is perfectly capable of persecuting women as well as men. Witch-hunts can continue for hundreds of years, and their present incarnation in the female sex offender charade is now as stable as industrial civilization itself and its institutions. As we await peak oil that's not saying much, but it is as bad as it gets.


Anonymous said...

IMO Compulsory adult sexuality is a tool of adult supremacism to place minors (aka so-called children) in a subordinate position relative to adults.

Sexuality among adults is not the natural way of living sexuality; it is a political and social tool with a very specific function that juvenile liberationists denounced decades ago: subordinating minors to adults; a regulative regime of sexuality whose purpose is to contribute to distribute power in an unequal way between minors and adults, thus constructing a category of oppressors, adults, and oppressors, minors (and those who love minors).

I draw two conclusions:

1) Adulthood means belonging to the generation that holds all power.

2) Sexuality among adults is the main tool of adult supremacism.

To forget that in most historical periods adults, if they had been able to choose, would have chosen not to have sex with other adults, not to live with them, not to relate to them, to forget something fundamental in the history of adults (and of the minors).

It is sexuality between adults that truly sticks to the lives and bodies of adults. Placing oneself in the physical space of attraction to minors can be liberating insofar as one assumes an outsider position regarding adult sexuality, while the body feels freer and breathes, while one can observe ) from outside, and become more aware of the oppressive mechanisms that operate upon us.

Adult sexuality is not only taught, but in addition, we make strenuous efforts so that the majority of the adults feel that they have no other option; the sexuality of adults is strongly induced, and hence the multiple mechanisms designed to support it, to teach it, to favor it, to punish dissent, to pressure adults so that they do not approach underage teens in short: psychological, social, economic, political. If adult-adult sexuality were natural, or even beneficial to people, it would not need the enormously complex mechanisms that are employed to keep them within it.

It is known that any adult may like minors.

There is no rigid ideological construction of the minority of age; it is not necessary, the only requirement of the minority of age is that this is contingent in each historical moment to the desire to the adults in power.

Hence that phrase can be uttered as a threat: I would not allow an adult to mess with my underaged children, that is, you want to free my slaves from my property, I am going to kill you.

Many people are attracted to minors who claim to have chosen to be or for political reasons or, even though they are not aware of that choice, they say they have come to the conclusion that they are happier because they are attracted to minors because they find that relationships with minors they are endowed with qualities that they do not find in other adults.

Many others feel that choosing a life with minors is choosing a life away from that which have led other adults with divorces, fights, assaults and lies.

Adult supremacism fights so that the minors do not use their intellectual and / or affective energies with the adults.

Many people would have much to gain if there were an equation that would put equal attraction to minors and sexuality among adults or even encourage non-sexuality among adults. We are taught how to limit physical, mental, economic, political and personal health problems, but nothing is said to us that these problems could also be combated by living a lifestyle attracted to minors.

Sexual persecution is only exercised today against minors and adults who are related to minors because adults are the only ones who in this society can find themselves in the position of power. Only an adult can feel that he has the symbolic, cultural, historical legitimacy that adult supremacism gives him to enslave a minor. When an adult attacks another adult for liking or relating to minors, it is an aggression for hatred of minors, which is what adult supremacism is simplifying a lot. Therefore: The persecution of sexuality with minors is a violence aggravated by the hatred of the minors themselves.

Eivind Berge said...

I do not agree that adult sexuality is intrinsically different than sexuality involving (sexually mature) minors. Most people wouldn't even think about the distinction if not for the risk of persecution. I think most of these teacher-student affairs, for example, are caused by proximity more than anything else. Attraction is bound to happen sometimes when people spend a lot of time together, and then they find themselves in these horror stories of persecution without really planning to get there or being a particularly minor-attracted person to begin with. So I think you are overanalyzing it, and also giving too much credit to the oppressors for thought, when in fact they are mostly mindless thugs who enforce insane laws. And these laws in turn are shaped by public hysteria and the now prevailing feminist ideology, but legislation is a chaotic process without any one coherent philosophy, and certainly not adult supremacism as the overarching principle.

Anonymous said...

Eivind, du skriver andetsteds at du har planer om at få tatoveret på dig selv et billede der seksualiserer børn.
Hvad med en offentlig uddeling af udvalgte værker af Sigmund Freud i stedet for? Han var den første der beskrev barnet som et væsen præget af sesksuelle og erotiske lyster – han betegnede ligefrem børn som "polymorfe perverse", hvilket skabte en del forargelse i sin tid.

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, Freud drev definitivt med seksualisering av barn, og slike ytringer er i prinsippet straffbare i dag. Men kultureliten som laget loven har klokelig gitt seg selv immunitet, da den eksplisitt er basert på trynefaktor: «Bestemmelsen rammer ikke fremstillinger som må anses forsvarlige ut fra et kunstnerisk, vitenskapelig, informativt eller lignende formål. Bestemmelsen gjelder heller ikke for film eller videogram som Medietilsynet ved forhåndskontroll har godkjent til ervervsmessig fremvisning eller omsetning.»

Verker av Freud vil derfor ikke rammes så lenge han har høy nok trynefaktor til å være «forsvarlig», om ikke på vitenskapelig grunnlag nå til dags, så antakelig informativt/historisk eller kunstnerisk. Det er et farlig spill eliten bedriver når de lager lover som skal straffe de lavere klassene eller personer man bare misliker for akkurat de samme tingene som de selv skal kunne komme unna med, men per i dag tror jeg neppe noe man finner på bibliotekene vil være straffbart, for ellers blir det altfor mange bøker å brenne og bibliotekarer til å arrestere på en gang. Man vil nok renske ut disse tingene også etter hvert i seksualfiendtligheten navn, men vi er ikke der helt enda. Jeg ser for meg at loven enten vil endres til å være absolutt, eller tolkningen av «forsvarlig» skrenkes inn ytterligere, men det er en utfordring å destruere så store deler av vår kulturarv og å ramme så mange anerkjente personer, så her vil nok feministene trå varsomt noen år til. Jeg må innrømme at det hadde vært fornøyelig å se medlemmer av eliten selv fengslet for en bok av Freud i bokhyllen, og det kan absolutt skje under dagens hatefulle normer, men i praksis trenger vi nok enda noen innsprøytninger av friskt historieløst blod i påtalemyndigheten og rettsvesenet først.

Så er spørsmålet om jeg har høy nok trynefaktor selv til å seksualisere barn på originale måter også. Jeg har kunstutdannelse, hjelper det? Jeg er litt usikker på om min skole (Austin Peay State University) er flott nok til å beskytte meg, eller om man må ha gått på en skikkelig anerkjent kunstskole. (Og hva med folkekunstnere, som mangler formell utdannelse, har de lov til å produsere barneporno?) I tillegg har jeg en viss anseelse som politisk aktivist, noe som gjør flere virkemidler «forsvarlige», vil jeg tro. Så kanskje jeg også er immun, kanskje ikke. Det er bare én måte å finne det ut på :)

Anonymous said...

I was taught that a person under 18 is a child, and they also taught me that children can not give consent, what do you have to say to that?

Eivind Berge said...

And you simply accepted those preposterous claims uncritically? What happened to thinking for yourself?

Eivind Berge said...

Your cartoonish acceptance of extremist sex-hostility also makes me wonder -- whatever happened to the concept of youth? Youth, juvenile, adolescence -- these were words that used to describe an intermediate stage between childhood and adulthood back when I was a youth. Has youth now been abolished?

caamib said...

"I was taught that a person under 18 is a child, and they also taught me that children can not give consent, what do you have to say to that?"

That you're an idiot if you accept what you were "taught"?

Ffs, aoc is lower than 18 in most places in the world anyway.

And this "children can't give consent", haha, the fuck is that? Children aren't chairs or walls. Of course a child can express consent. It is the sick society that degenerates and infantilizes "children" under 18 to a point that they're somehow seen as small babies. And even here most of society sees that this is hilarious. Sadly, what they don't see is that even ages of consent like 15 or 16 are just more of the same irrationality. Aoc, if it should exist at all, should never be above 12.

Anonymous said...

Selena Gomez claims to feel raped in a last interview, I leave one of her phrases:

"I remember feeling really raped when I was younger, even just being on the beach.I was about 15 or 16 and people were taking pictures of me, photographers.I really do not think anyone knew who it was.But I felt very raped and I did not like it or I understood, and that felt very strange, because I was a young girl and they were adult men.I did not like that feeling. "

Anonymous said...


"I remember just feeling really violated when I was younger, even just being on the beach. I was maybe 15 or 16 and people were taking pictures — photographers. I don’t think anyone really knew who I was. But I felt very violated and I didn’t like it or understand it," she reflected. "That felt very weird, because I was a young girl and they were grown men. I didn’t like that feeling."

Another turning point came when Gomez was 18 and she was working on the last season of her Disney Channel show. "I didn’t feel like it was about my art as much. I was on the fourth season of the show, and I felt like I was outgrowing it. I wanted something different and obviously, I fell in love for the first time,"

LOL aoc at 18 you say Selena?

Eivind Berge said...

Selena Gomez is just being very careful not to sexualize children. Pretty soon we will all have to talk that way to stay out of prison, since admitting you had any sexual feelings or understanding before 18 is a violation of child porn law.

Untill18isRape!! said...

Conservative says that 24yo dating 17yo is undecent and paedophilic:

“The queer-themed coming-of-age drama “Call Me By Your Name” drew critical raves after its Sundance Film Festival premiere in January, garnering early Oscar buzz for stars Armie Hammer and Timothée Chalamet.

One person who isn’t buying into the buzz, however, is James Woods. The 70-year-old actor, who is known for his conservative views, blasted the film for its portrayal of a romantic relationship between a 24-year-old academic (Hammer) and a 17-year-old American expat (Chalamet) living in Italy.”

James Woods on Twitter: “As they quietly chip away the last barriers of decency. #NAMBLA”

Anonymous said...

Caamib is exactly correct here.

We're living in a puritan occupied world. On the left-wing they call themselves "feminists," and are usually female; on the right-wing they call themselves "conservatives," and are usually male. The bottom line is always the same: infantilization of everyone through the school system and the media/entertainment industry; criminalization of innocent sexuality followed by unjust imprisonment of innocent sexually active persons; and finally - brainwashing of the entire society through academia and other platforms into thinking that this oppressive state of affairs is how it should be.

I am fond of saying: we, redpilled men everywhere, are prisoners-of-war (POWs) in a puritan occupied world (POW).

Jack said...

I have a theory that the most rabid SJWs driving these which-hunts are pre-menopausal women who have lost any value they might possibly have had on the sexual market. These women who are past it use young adults as jailbait to blackmail and acquire power.

Jack said...

Apparently there's a petition afoot in Europe to set her free. Here:

Note, for the sake of argument, a comment by someone in that article: "If this was the other way around and a male teacher had sex with three underage girls, you’d be telling them to hang him and hang him high."

Even if one agrees that 2 wrongs don't make 1 right, the double standard is an issue that will not go away. I'm glad to see it raised thus, although of course I want to see it raised to focus attention on the plight of men, not to justify the sentence passed on the woman.

Atle B said...

22 år?? :-O

SickOfFeminists said...

Spanish state-funded feminists denounces that women dressed as teenage schoolgirls promotes pedophilia:

Eivind Berge said...

While I can't understand that article, it fits in with the idea from child porn legislation that depictions (or even just descriptions) of women who are dressed to look like they are under 18 even though they aren't are just as criminal as pictures of actual minors. So the logical next step is to criminalize women who do it in real life and thus "sexualize children."

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I have seen the totalitarian attempt by the new fake MRAs to censor you.

Paul Elam is a fraud, a scammer and a despicable human being.

Keep up the good work, Eivind, never give-up before totalitarians like all the neoMRA feminists.

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks. The fake MRAs are now actively trying to silence me for speaking out against hateful feminist sex laws -- that is how invested they are in feminist sex-hostility and abuse hysteria. But I will not shut up and I will keep calling my self a men's rights activist, which is a label they have no right to monopolize and pervert.

Anonymous said...

Wiretapping Sex Workers, Punishing Pre-Crime, and National Strategy to Stop Sex-Buyers Approved by Senate

“Introduced by Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the bill (S.1312) gives the attorney general power to file a civil suit against anyone suspected of committing or planning to commit “any action that constitutes or will constitute” a violation of various federal statutes. If a court agrees, the person or entity would have to stop whatever activity allegedly contributed to a current or future crime.

This is power above that of normal police and criminal law proceedings. It could allow the feds to preemptively shut down websites, search engines, social apps, browsers, encryption services, or brick-and-mortar businesses because criminals (broadly defined) might communicate there.

But the bills’ upsides are few, squeezed as they are between the grotesque bureaucracy building and impositions on civil liberties.”