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?

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?"

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.”

Anonymous said...

The one who wrote that Norwegian police don't care whether the prosecuted is guilty or not, was exactly right.

Now it seems that the policeman did not read the sexualized stories of children, after all, but his son did. So, he claims in a letter. But the police is not interested in reopening the files. The case is closed as far as we are concerned, because the policeman excepted a plea bargain!

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, it wasn't even a plea bargain he accepted, but a flat out guilty plea since Norway doesn't do plea bargaining. The policeman was unbelievably stupid and his lawyer is an incompetent moron for recommending it. And that's not even mentioning how incredibly insane the basis of the charges were in the first place. Here they had a chance to fight the insane principle that reading stories should be a criminal matter and they let the prosecution win on walkover.

Anonymous said...

Young people today are having less sex than ever before, because the whole of society and especially the females are in a state of constant sexual anxiety, where sex is perceived as one of the scariest things ever. That’s life under puritanism.

This is in contrast to the old, very old times when most people couldn’t afford a large house with several rooms, often having the entire family living within the same room, so children almost inevitably heard and saw their parents having sex at night, every night, since the moment they gained sentience and until they left home. This point can’t be stressed enough: “sexual innocence” is a modern puritan myth, “child sexual innocence” is likewise a modern puritan myth, and from a historical perspective, children today are less “sexualized” than ever, which is why, as I said, people today are having less sex than ever.

If an evil crazy sadistic ruler somehow forced all family members to live in the same room, children would again start hearing and seeing their parents having sex as was the case for the vast majority of people throughout the vast majority of history (and just as slaves had seen their masters having sex right next to them; furthermore, wherever there were animals such as livestock and so on, there was sex out in the open), and then the very pretense so beloved by puritans of “child sexual innocence” will fall down crashing to pieces, and the state of sexual anxiety that the puritans have foisted on society and on women will end within a single generation.

It was normal for children to see their parents having sex, and it was normal for slaves to see their masters having sex, and it was normal for the whole family to see the animals around having sex, and so “sexual anxiety” was unheard of back in the day. Puritanism can only exist in a materially affluent milieu where a child is effectively (and unnaturally) segregated from direct exposure to sexual intercourse throughout most of his or her young life, with predictable results.

Heck, even if some of the larger houses had a few rooms in them, they didn’t often have doors. But the majority of houses were single-room, which means that the kids *were there* when dad fucked mom. A puritan would tell you that it was horrible catastrophic traumatizing child abuse, and cite some misleading statistics from wikipedia or whatever about how people today have sexual anxiety at the “young” age of 18.

The state of affairs today is the most unnatural ever in history. A return to single-room occupancy would behead, crucify, and drown — all at once — the modern fanatical cult of puritanism. I mean, it’d be difficult to institute such a thing; but when there’s a will, there’s a way. Of course, there are other methods, but this one is like a “cheat code” that gives you automatic victory of the whole game.

Anonymous said...

And this is even without going further back in time to prehistory, when there were no houses in the modern sense. There were caves, open fields, and so on – meaning that privacy was non-existent, and so everyone saw everyone else having sex, and children certainly saw up-close their parents fucking, day after day.

Which state of affairs lasted millions of years, basically. All the folks whining about “sexualization of children” have no idea what the hell they’re even saying. Society has been de-sexualized very effectively, with the predictable — perhaps intended — result being that people today have less sex than ever before.

All of human prehistory, people had seen their parents (and not just them) going at it in the caves, in the fields, and wherever prehistoric man had lived; then almost all of human history, people saw their parents going at it in the houses, which were usually single room. These are the facts. This is actually what has occurred, in real life. So much for “muh child sexual innocence, boo hoo evil evil sexualization.”

The thing about modern puritan society is that like fish in a toxic aquarium, the sheeple can’t even grasp that outside this reality there was, and there can be, a different reality that is altogether dissimilar to the current one. And yet, as the sages of yore would say: “it is what it is, m8.”

It’s important to have the correct perspective in mind when discussing any of these issues. And the correct perspective is as I described it.

“So what you’re saying is that for millions of years, until the last few hundred years, most people worldwide had seen their parents having sex, like, literally every single day, until they left home?”

Yep, exactly what I am saying.

“And there was nothing odd about it? It was just normal for everyone involved?”


It’s hard for people to accept that the way they think the world should work, and the way they’re used to the world working, are not in fact how the world has always worked since time immemorial. Just the opposite, in this case.

The idea that children had “sexual innocence” is preposterous and false. It’s impossible, and contradicted by all the known facts about everything that has ever happened. This myth is only perpetuated by puritans and the puritan agenda. An example of such a puritan with such an agenda is John Harvey Kellogg, who sought to eradicate masturbation among boys and girls by chopping off their genitalia. Due to Kellogg, all too many Americans have been mutilated, savagely.

For the nonsense of “child sexual innocence,” penises were sliced.

I’m pretty sure that many of us, though perhaps not all of us, have memories from childhood that directly and completely contradict the prevalent puritan narrative about sexual development. Like sexuality in general, these childhood memories have been severely repressed – unsurprisingly, people today have less sex since ever in history. Sexual anxiety predominates the sexuality of young people today, but people are in deep denial about this glaringly obvious and well-documented fact, unwilling to admit that something’s gone awry.

A certain modern-day philosopher says that reality is always “more redpilled” than any single individual is willing to admit. On this issue, only a scarce few people are honest enough to slaughter the politically correct big fat cow and make use of all its organs. I have just gone ahead and slaughtered it; it’s a thankless job and people call you all kinds of names for performing it, because the redpill ain’t tastin’ like sugar. But truth will win out the day.

Anonymous said...

When you scare people off sex ever since they are born, completely sealing them off from it and treating it like a "dirty" subject, naturally they'll find sex intimidating and even "gross" - especially the women.

Then, the puritan comes in and uses the very fear of sex that *he himself* has instilled in the young minds, to argue: "look how incompatible childhood and sexuality are." This utterly disingenuous game of circular reasoning has been going on for so long, and so strongly, that most people can't even perceive it.

Eivind Berge said...

I remember history professor R.P. Gildrie making the same point in a lecture when I was in college and taking a course on American history. All generations up to a certain time witnessed their parents having sex, even in American history. I don't remember exactly which period he was referring to, but am guessing many people were still so poor that whole families had to sleep in the same room in the 1800s. It was mentioned as a curiosity, but yeah, the end of these living arrangements goes a long way to explain how the present age can maintain such an insane phobia against letting children anywhere near sexuality, which is not the natural state at all.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Self-proclaimed "family safety evangelist" talks about protecting "children" by preventing your 16-year-old daughter from talking to men online, they are children under 20 !! you have to protect them !!

MonicaMRA43 said...

Hi, I've come here because a lot of people have been talking against your blog in A Voice For Men, I've been reading some of your articles on the subject of porn and I'm going to explain what we think about it in the modern MRA.

Something is happening all over Europe today, particularly in countries like the Czech Republic (the most atheistic country in the world), Russia or Hungary. Like all young people I've also watched porn and I always miss the disproportion of girls from the east. Thousands of young girls have thrown themselves into the arms of degenerates paedophiles ("producers") to let themselves groomed by these "produers" and earn cheap money. How will a kid who entered with 18 years old in that "industry" finish? Probably with mental disorders, ETS and above all, repudiated by the boys who, had not been allowed she to being drilled in all the possible holes, could have chosen her as a wife. To see who is the men who gives "a step forward" (man up) and decides to share his life project with someone who on the internet comes out doing all the sick things inimaginable.

Well, since the fall of the Iron Curtain there are many young women who have passed (and continue to) in this world, which is a tremendous loss of genetic potential. At the same time the male population is also disadvantaged, especially in Western European countries. That is to say, with the damage produced in Eastern Europe it is possible to damage the western one. What happens in the West? Since the normalization of feminism and paedophilia, underage teen sex, "sexual liberation" and the plight of our women, large masses of men have been left without access to a woman. The state has occupied the role of provider and contraception allows women to fuck everyone who wants without fear of an unwanted pregnancy. To that must be added the masculinization of the western woman, her loss of femininity, the disgust that many uncles generate who simply look for a woman, not an uncle or a whore who does not charge in cash for her work. Before this panorama many men have been launched to the unique substitute of sex that can find of easy form: the porn. Recent scientific studies (see the web "your brain on porn") have shown how addictive it is. The neuronal circuits of stimulation and production of dopamine alter their normal functioning, so they increasingly demand more impactful content, which yesterday excited no longer today, and thus it is very easy to fall into an addiction.

The effect of sexting, grooming and adult-teen sex in the male population is summarized as:

• Countless hours of your life lost in front of a screen.
• Neural stimulation-response circuits made a crap.
• Normalization of Paedophilia and underage sex: for example, the internet is full of "teen sex" videos that casually are usually simulating female teacher-young boy, and all other way around. That sinks more in the psychological misery to a man already repudiated by the females of his environment, to see a pervert women molesting a teen boy with an angelic face.
• Loss of vital energy.

It is clear the interest that the feminist world powers have in underage sex, for something is the only free mass drug.

If the great mass of mens of this country did not have been groomed by famale taeachers to satisfy their sexual instinct, perhaps a revolution exploded the day less thought, it is surprising that there has not yet been any uprising among the civil population after 40 years of thefts and genocidal corruption when in the last century they were for much less.

Thus, the MRA revolution will be anti underage teen sex or it will not be. In fact a strategic point to attack by any insurgent movement should be the porn pages themselves, leave them out of service. If Anonymous really interested the popular health and would have attacked some web of these open pedophiles like In this way the diffusion of the modern soma would be avoided.

Eivind Berge said...

Hi Monica, I agree with you that watching porn is harmful to males and I don't recommend it. However, that does not excuse the criminalization of victimless sexuality, and watching porn is no worse than a personal health issue such as smoking or obesity. I do not agree that girls are harmed by the porn industry eithee, or if they are, it is their choice. And as to the "normalization of pedophilia," this is pure nonsense. If anything, porn leads to the abnormalization of sex under 18 which usually goes beyond even the age of consent, since 18 is a special and universal porn limit that tends to brainwash porn addicts into thinking it also applies in real life.

TheAntiFeminist said...

@Eivind, Monica : Are there any male readers or writers at AVoiceforMen left??

Anonymous said...

Literally child under 18, absolutely pathetic:

However under Child Protection Act, the Age of Consent could be raised higher to 18 years old.[34] The argument used is that sexual act to a child could results in bodily and mental injury, while the definition of a child is anyone who is under 18 years old. A reported court verdict using the Child Protection Act was done back in 2009 against an Australian national.[35]

The Japanese Penal Code sets a minimal age of consent of 13 regardless of gender or sexual orientation.[49] However, the Children Welfare Act chapter 34 forbids any act of "fornication" (淫行) with children (here defined as anyone under 18 years of age)[50] with prefectures and districts specifying further details in (largely similar) "obscenity ordinances" (淫行条例) like adding exemptions for sex in the context of a sincere romantic relationship (typically determined by parental approval).[51]

Lyra Grey said...

@TheantiFeminist, Eivindberge:
People who prey on girl under legal age are just sick. You never get a highschool girl, and if you don't, please don't fantasize because that's just encouraging pedophilia.

Basically, don't expect too much, but have fun because normal male sexuality is dating 40 years old cool girls like me. Normal male sexualiry is what normal men make of it! I'm sorry if I said anything offensive or anything, I really didn't mean it, but just you are a group of perverts. Also, I'm basing this off of a sexy 40yo women vs. a low pretty average school, and of course we are better that 17 old kids. Hope this helped!

Eivind Berge said...

So what you call the modern MRA movement is dominated by middle-aged women and seeks to keep men away from teenage girls, under the pretext of "pedophilia"? That is, when they are not busy labeling girls and women as sex offenders themselves, which amounts to the same thing. Yup, it really looks like the classic Men's Rights Movement needs a new name, because this is as far removed from what I recognize as you can get. No wonder the only men left in the current movement are freaks who worry about getting "raped" by females and welcome any law against sexuality they can get.

Hannah Wallen said...

The hypersexualization of children and women, the bitter denounciation with normal women and transsexuals in the real Men's Rights Movement and the outrageous promotion of underage sex that is done for false MRA like TheAntifeminist has only one objective: LEGALIZE PEDOPHILIA.

They are removing parents from the competition on the sexual education of children, the decisions of children under 18 to have a childhood, that prey on underage teen girls is "normal male sexuality" and similar shit, so that in the end parents do not have the right to protect their children and they are the ones who "decide "who want to have sex with adults and parents have to swallow to see how a son of a bitch like theAntiFeminist abuses his 17 year old daugther and if they protest to be accused of hate crimes and to restrain the freedom of the child.

It is all that is pursued: LEGALIZE PEDOPHILIA. Include pedophiles in the group of protected groups. Take away the power to protect our children from the sexual abuse of the so-called "lovers" of teenage girls like TheAntiFeminist.

This has to be cut off NOW!

Eivind Berge said...

This is wrong on so many levels. Firstly, attraction to teenagers has nothing do with pedophilia, which refers to prepubescent children. Prepubescent children are usually under 12, and I don't see anyone in the men's movement trying to normalize that kind of orientation.

Attraction to teenage girls *is* normal male sexuality, no matter how you feel about it. It is also true that teenage girls tend to be unattainable to men over 30 or so regardless of legality, but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with lusting after them. Most men are not so picky anyway, so I don't understand what the middle-aged women are so hysterical about. Teenage sexuality isn't really a problem for anybody until you start criminalizing normal sexuality, at which point it becomes a men's issue to stop the persecution -- a cause for the real Men's Rights Movement. If the movement represented by Hanna Wallen instead wants to go to the opposite extreme -- even more than most of the world has already -- and define sex with 17-year-olds as "child abuse," then it is not a movement for men by any stretch of the imagination, but a pure sex-hostility movement like feminism.

Anonymous said...

What a mania with criticizing the attraction to girls under 18 that have these new MRA feminists.

Until now people from 12-14-16 years were already working and living outside the home of their parents the vast majority.

You say child abuse? Having a person of 12-18 years retained and forced to study, schedules, and shit and much more seeing the panorama today ......... it is normal that there is so much mental disorder

Adolescence is something created less than a century ago.

Formerly did not exist as such, that child sexual abuse was going to have a person working from age 12 ???

Anonymous said...

Eivind, how do you get such crazy comments? I mean, these guys have to be trolls, right?

"They are removing parents from the competition on the sexual education of children,"

Like you would deny the decision of parents who would want the sexual education of their child to include actual sex with a somebody like a prostitute? My, my, the hypocrisy... This is like Soviets in 1917 saying that the Whites want to remove them but that Soviets themselves don't want to remove any opposing ideas. Hahaahah. And it gets worse. A lot worse.

"the decisions of children under 18 to have a childhood"

Not everybody under 18 is a "child" and childhood can include sex, why not?

"that prey on underage teen girls is "normal male sexuality" and similar shit"

Underage due to despicable laws, is normal male sexuality.

"so that in the end parents do not have the right to protect their children"

Protect them from what? My parents harmed me a lot by not finding me a prostitute when I was a very phobic teenager, for example. Not all sex is harmful. Most of it is pleasant and quite useful, in fact.

"and they are the ones who "decide "who want to have sex with adults and parents have to swallow to see how a son of a bitch like theAntiFeminist abuses his 17 year old daugther and if they protest to be accused of hate crimes and to restrain the freedom of the child."

This can't be real. This is EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT AND THEY DON'T. They say somebody under 18 can have sex if they choose so, you say that they're necessarily victims if they choose so. AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOME FREEDOM OF A CHILD?? And, finally, you want the sole talk about these issues being a criminal act, not them. They're for freedom of speech.

You're just amazing. You're either a troll or have the self awareness of a very damaged slug.

Eivind Berge said...

They might be trolls, but at this point I can't tell the difference because I know for a fact that there are people who literally believe that 17-year-olds are "children" who are "abused" or even "raped" by consensual sex. And even in jurisdictions with a lower age of consent, there are always the insane child porn laws that criminalize sexualization of anyone under 18, so this bizarre mindset is always there on some level, just not consistently enforced. We live in hateful, surreal times.

Anonymous said...

Feminist junk has recently increased the age of consent in Tunisia from 13 to 16 and have completely reformed the penal code with each of its laws, in all areas of these crazy: domestic violence, rape, etc., all to the root of a presenter of TV that talked about the right of the women to be able to marry with its alleged rapist, although I do not approve of that, it is worth remembering that for feminists sex with so-called 'children' under 18 is rape per se.

Anonymous said...

Sorry new Age of consent is 18 NOT 16!!!

"Tunisia has taken a historic step towards the advancement of women's rights. The Tunisian parliament passed a law on Wednesday night to prevent and punish "all violence against women" [...] Now, anyone who has sex with a child under 16 can face 20 years in prison or even to life imprisonment, depending on the context; will be five years of detention if the girl is between 16 and 18 years old. The new law also includes the crime of sexual harassment - a huge problem in Tunisia - including verbal, for which fines of about 1,000 dinars (about 350 euros) are available."

"For this reason, the adoption of a comprehensive law against gender-based violence was an old demand of the Tunisian feminist associations. "It is a very exciting moment and we are proud of Tunisia, having been able to unite around a historic project," said the Minister of Women, Naziha Laabidi."

"The text contains important advances in various fields and satisfies the ambitions of civil society organizations. In the field of exploitation of minors, for example, persons who use underage girls in domestic service will face imprisonment of between three and six months. One of the issues that sparked a further debate in the Chamber last Wednesday was the question of the age of sexual maturity. Finally, it was extended from the 13 years of the current legislation to 18 years."

"The promulgation of the law has not been easy. The process has required more than three years of deliberations and the drafting of numerous drafts. However, the new legislation, which came into force within six months, had the favorable vote of the 147 deputies present in the Chamber, including representatives of the moderate Islamist party Ennahda, Parliament's first force."

Conervatives and feminists as usual! Totally sick!

Eivind Berge said...

Totally sick, indeed. Men are incapable of standing up for themselves anywhere.

Anonymous said...

Something for your, ah, shall we say, "delectation":


Anonymous said...

Eivind, I'm sure you know that we are both aware that there are in fact people who do believe that aoc should be 16/18/21/80 whatever. There are a lot of people who believe in a lot of crazy things - feminists, flat earthers, socialists/communists, whatever. But my claim that this Hannah Wallen person has to be a troll isn't about that. It's about how the person is making the accusations about the same things you criticize, like when she makes hilarious claim you want limit parental choice or freedom of speech to even discuss aoc. This is obviously false to anybody actually reading your posts but if the person is actually a troll this insane 180 degree turn would be a clever and cheeky mockery of the whole situation. Similar with how she claims AntiFeminist molests his 17 yo daughter. I don't know much if anything about him but I am sure he has enough haters to be reported right away if that were actually true.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't know, because I got into a discussion with the real Hannah Wallen on Twitter recently, and she is crazy enough to say those things. So the "Hannah Wallen" commenter here or may not be a troll. Also, I don't think she claims that the AntiFeminist molests his own daughter, but rather that parents have to put up with their teenage daughters being free to have sex with men, which is very much what the real Men's Rights Movement stands for.

Atle B said...

" Prepubescent children are usually under 12, and I don't see anyone in the men's movement trying to normalize that kind of orientation."

Eivind Berge said...

It is one thing to normalize pedophilia and another to be against draconian punishments. I personally -- and I think I speak for most of the Men's Rights Movement here -- don't have a problem with an age of consent at 13 or so, but the punishment needs to be reasonable (on the order of months rather than years in a case like the one above, in my opinion), and we need to quit the pretense that it was "rape" when it was consensual. We also don't need to cause iatrogenic harm by telling the child that she has been "abused" when she feels love. Given that the five-year sentence in this case was overturned by a court that heard more of the facts than we do from the tabloids, I trust that it was for good reasons and not due to acceptance of abusive pedophilia. It really sounds like there was no objective harm in this case, so then it becomes a question of how to deal with that without being hysterical, while also not normalizing pedophilia, and I think the judge did an admirable job because five years imprisonment is clearly not appropriate. That doesn't mean it should be completely legal, but we need to be reasonable.

Anonymous said...

Dedicated to Atle B:

Twelve Year Old Woman

I've spent the best days of my life with you
Days of love, days of laughter, but now I feel blue
A tear is rolling down from my eye
Now I know that our love was based on a lie
How could you be so mean
Told me you were sixteen
I'll never stop blaming myself
For not seeing that you only were twelve
So tell me

How can I believe in love anymore
When I've been betrayed by the one I adore
Tell me how can I ever fall in love again
Being hurt by a twelve year old woman (twelve year old woman)

Now I know the meaning of the phrase:
You should never ask a woman about her age
Because your heart will fall apart
If you ever catch a glimpse of her ID-card
The most beautiful girl I've seen
Told me she was sixteen
It hurts me so - I found out too late
She was born in nineteen eighty eight
So tell me

How can I believe in love anymore
When I've been betrayed by the one I adore
Tell me how can I ever fall in love again
Being hurt by a twelve year old woman

Deep in my heart she means everything to me
And sometimes I wish that I told her
That even if her parents are planning to sue me
I'll be back when she's four years older
Just tell me

How can I believe in love anymore (how can I believe)
When I've been betrayed by the one I adore
Tell me how can I ever fall in love again
Being hurt by a twelve year old woman

How can I believe in love anymore
When I've been betrayed by the one I adore
Tell me how can I ever fall in love again
Being hurt by a twelve year old woman

How can I believe in love anymore
When I've been betrayed by the one I adore
Tell me how can I ever fall in love again

Anonymous said...

Eivind, what is your view on Camille Paglia?

I found this interesting interview, where I think she hits the nail on the head regarding the causes of our modern sexual neuroses and pedo-hysteria:

"Now you see this goes to the heart of the whole modern definition of childhood. It was romanticism that really invented these borderlines between childhood and adulthood, and the whole sort of sanctification of childhood, the Rousseauian, Wordsworthian view of the purity, the perfection, the saintliness of the child. Freud, 100 years ago now, postulated his theory of infantile sexuality, contending that the infant is an erotic being from the moment it is born. That theory is still so hot, so explosive, that it has never been fully absorbed by Western culture after a hundred years.

I believe that Freud was more correct that Rousseau's or Wordsworth's view. Most people who study artistic creativity understand that it's an ability to return to the childlike state, to the naive state of innocence and look at things in a fresh way. Part of the reason for the hysteria is that people are still laboring under the Rousseauian and Wordsworthian view. They have this tired scenario of the adult molester who comes to pollute and contaminate the perfection and saintliness of this child.

Parents find it absolutely impossible to imagine that their children are in fact fully sexual beings. They cannot imagine it. Because if they were to fully process that consciously, it would activate the incest taboo. That's one thing that has to be suppressed in the modern nuclear family, which is trapped in these prison cells of houses, completely divorced from the old extended family. A process of repression is at work, a process of denial of children's potential sexuality. As a consequence, hatred and persecution are directed against anyone who would raise the issue.

The child abuse hysteria is coming directly from the deepest unconscious layer of the modern bourgeois mind, and every possible tactic must be exploited to attack that, from every direction. Normally I loathe Foucault, I think he's a fraud. But Foucault did speak out on this issue. All his followers in the academy suppress a lot of this, they suppress the boy-love part, they suppress the part where Foucault said that he was against rape laws. He thought that the law should never concern itself with sexuality. And I agree with him on that. I believe that the law should only concern itself with ideas of assault, and there should be no sexualized laws of any kind, so violence and brutality and coercion can be forbidden. But to sexualize a law, to fine-tune it in a sexual direction, is already an intrusion into real freedom. But of course, these issue of Foucault are always suppressed."

Anonymous said...

"It wasn't that long ago when the tribal paradigm still existed. Like in my family, which came from Italy, it's only one generation ago that you have a large family and a lot of people living together in a house. Everyone's jammed together at tables, everyone's eating together. The physical intimacies that are part of that world are completely lost to us. We can't even imagine them.

I see lot of contemporary homosexuality as being a search for something that was simply part of a larger, more cohesive fabric of life earlier, up to about 100 years ago. To me it's not simply, "Oh, homosexuality was oppressed before and now it's free to express itself." I don't see that.

What sprang to mind as you were talking just now is how one of the great images from ancient times was Father Tiber, a reclining, burly, middle-aged man with a big beard and so on, but totally nude, and he is aswarm with infants, infants are all over him. It's supposed to be an allegorical picture of the great river that flows through Rome, and these babies swimming all over him are symbols of fertility or abundance. I think that really expresses something about Italian culture. There's a kind of physical pleasure in all this crawling and baby flesh all over this man.

Working-class families with large numbers of children crammed into small places still have this much more than the bourgeois families with their two-point-five children in their larger houses. I see this when I walk to work in Philadelphia these little groups of working class black kids with their mothers. They're sitting on the stoop, everyone is on top of each other, and there's this wonderful exuberance and vitality, there's pushing and shoving and playing.

As you move into the middle class this is simply one of the rules of history body language becomes much more repressed, people become much more isolated, there are new rules for physical contact, both for aggression and for love and sex. There's this whole process of withdrawal into the self. You don't impinge on anyone else's personal space. The laying on of hands is completely forbidden, you scale down your gestures, your body language has to become smaller in order to fit into that office world. So I see a major, major crisis in the West. A lot of our sexual problems, I am continually arguing, are not coming from patriarchy; they're coming from this collapse down ward into the nuclear family."

"Many of the things feminists are complaining about the culture and blaming on men are in fact a product of that huge transition and the collapse downward from that extended family into the nuclear family.

You know, it wasn't that long ago before central heating. A hundred years ago in many parts of America, people just piled all into one bed in one room. Everyone was on top of each other for body warmth. And there was a kind of sensual, tactile, whole-body touching, a mingling of every body that has been completely lost. You would always have a large family, and you would have like eight children of ages ranging from three to like sixteen, and everyone, of both sexes, totally inter twined with each other.

The problem is this evolution in our culture toward increasing isolation as the great extended family shrinks down to the nuclear family of two parents and two children. Not only that, but when you are living on the land, you're living out among the operations of nature, and you see the sexuality of animals going on around you. You're part of taking horses to stud, and all kinds of things. Now we have this increasing puritanism and increasing sanitization and increasing hysteria about touch. There's every kind of over-regulation now about these things, that they are automatically "sexual harassment.""

Anonymous said...

"I think that the modern Western attitude toward childhood is completely dishonest. It infantilizes children and does not acknowledge that they are thinking beings on their own. And furthermore I've argued in Sexual Personae that our bourgeois demands for job readiness have crippled our attitudes toward children. That is, we say, [ ironic tone] "Oh yes, the child's body is physically ready to procreate, but mentally they're not ready yet, they're not adults yet." Romeo and Juliet were thirteen and fourteen when they were engaged to each other. That was natural in the old days. You'd get married early, as soon as you were ready, as soon as you hit puberty. I don't want to badmouth capitalism, because it's my favorite system, but since the industrial revolution what you hear is, "Oh no, you're not ready to take a job yet; you need all kinds of job training. You got to go to college, you got to go to grad school, you got to have those early years in your career, and so forth." So now there's this ridiculous gap between the flowering of young people's sexuality and when society officially, paternalistically declares them adults. It is that period which is the most suppressed.

So you have the stupidity of someone like Joey Buttafuoco being prosecuted for statutory rape, sex with a minor, and Amy Fisher was like a few weeks short of her seventeenth birthday. Amy Fisher, one of the most powerful young women on the face of the American continent, who I've described as "the Long Island barracuda," is being defined as a child. She twisted Joey Buttafuoco around her finger; it's like ridiculous. But attempting to publicly discuss these issues usually produces absolute hysteria."

Zamy said...

One thing I do not understand is do you really believe adults and children under 18 are the same mentally, physically, and emotionally? Do you believe a child under 18 can survive and live a good life without an guardian and at what age? Do you think children under 18 know what is best for them all the time? Do you know children under 18 may want to do something that can harm them, like run out into a street or drink bleach? All while children can refuse to do what is good for them such as only want to eat candy or not wanting to go to school? Children are not born as fully matured adults. Under 18 are children, not adults, sex is only between consenting adults, no problem with adults have sex, is not your bussines, but if you have sex with a child under 18 you deserve jail time.

If you know how to raise a child better than non-pedophiles then why have you not adopted? It seems pedophiles like to judge and assume how to raise a child but yet they never attempt to. If you think non-pedophiles are disrespectful and never listen to children then please adopt and foster. We need as many good parents as possible. You and other pedophiles cannot make such harsh claims but then not adopt and foster children. It seems like you just talking trash because you are frustrated at the world.

Anonymous said...

Eivind Berge said...

Og med det har feministene vunnet sin største seier og Norge er ikke en rettsstat i teorien engang lenger :(

Anonymous said...

Why are juries good?

Eivind Berge said...

Because juries are our final protection against tyrannical laws. As you know, the sex laws are now unfair and tyrannical against men. Up until now, there have been many acquittals in rape cases because regular people don't agree with the feminist legal definition of rape. Securing such convictions is the explicit motivation behind abolishing the jury in Norway. While there will still be a majority lay judges, the new system is designed to give professional judges more influence and force the lay judges to provide a reason for their votes. Since the only reason for going against the feminist definition of rape is to nullify the law itself, which is forbidden, such acquittals will be hard to come by and feminists will finally be free to enforce their hateful laws.

Anonymous said...

Here is a comment I left on another blog; take is as "food for thought":

At the risk of sounding like a tinfoil-hatter “conspiracy theorist”: pedohysteria is a CIA psychological operation designed to demoralize the American public and to foster irrational fears among vast segments of society in order to legitimize and expand the intrusive surveillance state, aka the American Panopticon. Pizzagate specifically was a CIA psyop meant to instill pedohysteria into the alt-right, and it has succeeded tremendously. Because the people of America are in the majority puritans, usually Anglo puritans, such pedohysterical fear-mongering really works wonders on them; it’s a new moral panic, and it’s not at all “spontaneous,” but dictated by the tyrannical state, the very same state that raised the “age-of-consent” and illegalized “child pornography” so it could fill up its prisons and thoroughly demoralize a society composed of guinea pigs.

Pedohysteria, just like rapehysteria, and just like feminism in general, is a CIA psyop. Look up what the CIA was up to in the 50s and the 60s to understand what it is doing nowadays. Now you are free to call me all names in the book: “conspiracist,” “nutter,” “truther,” or whatever. But I am telling it like it is.

Anonymous said...

Zamy - everything you spout here had been explained about 10,000 times already. Just you equating "living a good life", which most people can't do at 18 ,48 or 78 with sex is what's hilarious. Why is sex such a great danger, this big issue? I could comment on more but it's a waste of time.

Anonymous above me - woah with the conspiracy theories ! It's much more simpler. America had been going insane since 1910s, with banning prostitution and drugs, and it culminated in the 1920 by giving women the vote. You couldn't notice the exact consequences then but you could by 1960s. No need for some great conspiracy today. Americans are dumb brainwashed vermin who have believed in the wrong things for more or less a century and that's all you need to know to control them. It really doesn't take much effort.

TheAntiFeminist said...

Hannah Wallen and the Honey Badgers seem to think that young males in prison are more at risk of being sexually exploited by female prison guards than they are of being violently sodomized by their cellmates.

Anonymous said...

Cultural appropriation is one step further in the process of oppression against the white man by the politically correct elite. In Norway a debate has been raised all since the secretary of treasury, Siv Jensen, dressed up as an Indian. (Or to be more PC, a native american).

Even though her costume was simply a caricature of "native americans", as associated with old westerns or cartoons, and hardly related to the real deal, the elite in Norway got angry and called it disrespectful. The leftists went to their "left wing theory books", and named it cultural appropriation. The true meaning of the phrase seems hard to fathom, but it gives ominous association to the newspeak from 1984.

Even though many found the criticism ridiculous, and even though Jensen is a woman, the blame was given to the "white western man.": The actor Ulrikke Falch, claims in an article that those who supports Jensen's choice of costumes are white western men. She goes on claiming that white people live "privileged and carefree lives".

The notion is of course standard procedure in PC rhetoric, and is one of the reasons why there is so much hatred against white people in general, and against white men in particular by the left. The idea that men have so much power, further supports or gives credibility to the draconian sex laws in our society.

Anonymous said...

I think that the "child's play" case were the Australian police were running a site for pedophiles, just goes to prove that the police isn't really interested in stopping child molestation. They are interested in finding someone to arrest. If they can't find criminals they will create them, themselves.

Eivind Berge said...

Very true. The cops are equally interested in pursuing victimless crimes than ones with at least an alleged victim, if not more so. If you give them a technicality that can be used to incriminate someone, they will use it at every opportunity and even manufacture more bogus crimes by entrapment instead of helping real victims. Perhaps there aren't enough real victims of sexual abuse for all the police resources, but I am pretty sure they could be of better service to the public good by investigating burglaries and such instead of victimless sex crimes.

TheAntiFeminist said...

Hannah Wallen is now posting the #opdeatheaters hashtag in her Tweets. This is the crazy Twitter mob that was promoting the Hampstead false accusations of satanic abuse and that even posted the names and addresses online of dozens of children that were allegedly the victims of devil worshiping 'pedosadists'. When it was revealed that the whole thing was a hoax invented by the 'evil ex-wife' of the father of the children making the accusations, the 'opdeatheaters' group (likely a bunch of crazed hardcore paedocrites themselves) denied that it was they who had posted the personal details of the supposed child victims.

This is the MRM today, led by middle-aged women who promote satanic abuse hysteria that is used by scheming divorced wives to destroy the lives of their husbands and his children.

Eivind Berge said...

Nothing surprises me anymore about Hannah Wallen and that bunch of fake MRAs. They have gone full retard long ago.

Anonymous said...

"Age of consent" exists where fertility is no longer valued. Had people still been worshipping the fertility goddess, the idea of limiting fertility by forbidding sex several years past puberty would have seemed like an absurd. We need to go back to cherishing fertility as a supreme value.

Eivind Berge said...

That seems to be true. Which means a ridiculously high age of consent is associated with wealth also, along with all the other feminist nonsense. We now live in an age where a bunch of stuck-up entitled actresses become the most important news story because they had to endure some sexual advances or give some sexual favors to boost their careers. Material wealth makes us blind to what really matters because we take it for granted and start obsessing over contrived abuses. That is the downside of a prosperous civilization, but the good news is that civilizations also fall.

Anonymous said...

Do you think Hannah Wallen is the only one who thinks a 17 year old is a child? or until 20 are just girls and the "law should protect them from abuse"?

this is from any female middle-age (42) TV presenter, is not American or British, and refers to girls of 17/18 literally as "girl" in the sense of a "female child" like you brits use little girl

""But that does not depend on me. I can give very good education to my child and if the press jumps it ... To know what the girl does ... I believe that Alejandra has learned, by me, that she has to take things with the greatest naturalness possible. That they take a picture of you is not a terrifying thing. But, it must be taken into account that a girl turns 18 is still a girl, not left [their childhood] in a day. Make no mistake. A girl has to go to college, have her classmates, go out with her friends ... There [at 18] law does not protect her.""

Anonymous said...

Not only is it illegal to buy sex in Norway, it is even illegal to make an attempt to buy it.

13000 just for considering buying sex is pretty harsh it seems, but there is more:

even if the prostitute stimulates herself, and someone pays for it but without any touching, it is still considered illegal. So paying someone over the Internet will be considered a violation of law.

But it is not illegal to sell sex, however.

One should ask one selves, who are the real victims here?

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, that's how hateful the law is. Norwegian rape law is like that too -- no touching required. And still we don't have a men's movement able to mount any resistance at all. That case was from 2010 and it has only gotten worse. I can only conclude that Norwegian men like to be oppressed.

Anonymous said...

Can you give examples of how it has gotten worse in terms of the law against buying sex?

I am also confused as to why the parties in charge don't do more to abolish the law, they claimed they wanted to put an end to.

What is really going on here? Why are the politicians on the right so afraid to enact what they preach?

Why is the law so elaborate? I cannot understand how it is justifiable to even criminalize the very idea of buying sex. Should those on favor of it, like these politicians be criminals as well?

Eivind Berge said...

I was thinking about the sex laws in general. The sex purchase law is unchanged, but since 2010 the statute of limitations on rape as well as "abuse" of minors has been abolished and the minimum penalty for rape has increased from two to three years. There age of consent has also been raised to 18 when the minor is in a "vulnerable position in life," and the criminalization of sibling incest now covers all sexual activity, not just intercourse as before and which is all that can possibly be justified on any rational basis. The crime of stalking has been expanded as well. And the definition of child pornography which is actually enforced now includes fictional texts. And there is much more to come, including the abolition of the jury next year.

To understand why the laws are so elaborate, you just need to accept that there is no rational basis to them, just a profound sex-hostility which pervades Norwegian society. I recently had a conversation with an aunt, who is completely mainstream, and was shocked to realize that her opinions are an exact match to the law on every count. Norwegians really are that hateful against sexuality now, with the exception of a mere handful of MRAs, so there is nothing we can do.

Anonymous said...

And furthermore, more and more boys and men fall short in society education wise, and in other ways. A new separation of class awaits, and it gets increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to get sex for those at the bottom of the ladder. What kind of impact will this have on society in a few years?

Eivind Berge said...

Also forgot to mention that the crime of revenge porn has been established, not by new laws but creative use of existing ones. That covers all porn that isn't child porn at the whim of any woman depicted in it, even when she published it herself, and applies to private possession as well and such acts as showing someone a picture on a cellphone screen or failure to delete a received message. To understand the depth of sex-hostility in this country now requires a complete suspension of everything you thought you knew, because it is nothing a rational person would have thought possible. You really have to see it to believe it. We have entered a twilight zone which makes the Puritans seem tolerant by comparison.

Anonymous said...

And did you know that France is now considering passing a new law to fine men who harasses women on the streets? "We have to redefine what is acceptable behavior" Wolf whistling is still legal it seems, but to follow her on the street is harassment. In older days, what was defined as hooking up with someone, is now considered harassment.

In the future, how long can a man look at a woman in the street, before it gets illegal?

Anonymous said...

And equally important: what impact does all these comments on the front pages of every newspapers in the world have on women as to how they regard men? Does it make it easier in the future for a man to get a partner? I think not... Forces are working against it.

Eivind Berge said...

Impact? Well, we can hope for a few lone wolves uprising, but I am not counting on a substantial men's movement any time soon. Norwegian men are too conformist and wimpy even when they suffer directly from hateful laws, and all attempts at getting a mass ideological movement going have been fruitless so far. I don't see this changing just because more men are persecuted and incel. We will merely get to the point where, for example if you want to see a hooker then the expected cost is 2000 kr to her and 20,000 to the police and men will simply suck it up and pay the fine, or even go to prison for it and still not fight back. The state has assumed the role of a pimp but almost no one cares. In fact it has monopolized pimping, which is ironic given the sanctimonious criminalization of it for everyone else.

Anonymous said...

Time and again you talk about activism. But I am not really sure I understand what you want underprivileged men to do. You think spending time in jail makes the miserable less miserable?

Eivind Berge said...

I will refrain from answering that question for my own safety, but my opinion on activism is already well known.

Anonymous said...

But still, ending up in jail, doesn't really do anything good for anybody.

Eivind Berge said...

I disagree, and it is easy to think of jailed activists who did a lot of good for their cause. For example Nelson Mandela, who was a full-fledged terrorist by any standard, yet his movement eventually succeeded and he came to be widely admired.

Anonymous said...

Trude Kleven:"Det jeg sliter med å forstå er at folk tåler så lite av andre. Klart vi må stå opp mot overgrep, maktmisbruk, trakassering og mobbing. Men, vi må jo også kunne tåle at noen i verden - det være seg kvinner eller menn, prøver ut seksualiteten sin, tester ut spenning, nærmer seg oss på måter som vi kanskje ikke liker. Ikke at den som er utsatt for overtramp har ansvaret for å sette grenser - men jeg synes vi kan akseptere litt. Så mye rart som ligger i den seksualitesbag'en vi har med oss fra oppveksten. Så mye usikkerhet, så mye fomling, skam, ubehag. Likevel er lysten der, begjæret etter den andre - og vi må føle oss fram. Vi har jo ikke direkte tilgang til den andres tanker, lyster eller ønsker. Vi vet ikke hvordan tilnærmelser vil bli tatt imot. Og noen er veldig dårlige på å kjenne igjen følelsene de har, eller følelser de vekker i andre."

Anonymous said...

"The #MeToo process helps create a false impression that all men are sexually abusive and simply waiting for an opportunity to assault innocent and defenceless women.

Worse, serious crimes are trivialised as the #MeToo tweeters who recount some relatively minor (albeit discomforting) experience are equally blessed with retweets, likes and public endorsements praising their bravery. Blurring the boundaries between rape and ever-broader definitions of sexual harassment doesn’t just trivialise serious offences, it further inflames a climate of hysteria in which the sexual harassment of women comes to be presented as a routine part of life.

Life for women is presented as a battleground where we are all only one bad joke, one wolf whistle or one stare away from being assaulted."

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, hvis det var noen som tvilte på at såkalt seksuell trakassering og til og med voldtekt var det samme som vanlig mannlig seksualitet bare kvinnen føler for å fordømme det som sådan, så er Weinstein-hysteriet definitivt bevis. Absolutt all seksuell oppmerksomhet teller, bare kvinnen føler noe som helst ubehag, og hun kan godt vente mange år på å bestemme seg for at det var uønsket.

Anonymous said...

Tja, hva skal en si?

Eivind Berge said...

Jepp, menn er naturligvis mest tiltrukket av tenåringsjenter, helt fra starten av reproduktiv alder. Det rare er at samfunnet offisielt klarer å innbille seg at det er avvikende bare fordi man vedtar en vilkårlig lavalder. Det er både intellektuelt uærlig og hatefullt på samme tid.

Anonymous said...

"Jepp, menn er naturligvis mest tiltrukket av tenåringsjenter"

Jeg foretrekker kvinner i 20-årene fremfor 13-åringer.
Er jeg en avviker/mangina? :-p

Eivind Berge said...

Nei, men som de grafene viste, alt som kan måles ved mannlig tiltrekning til kvinner når toppen i tenårene. Ikke noe galt i å foretrekke eldre kvinner, men du kan ikke påstå at det bare er det som er normalt.

Anonymous said...

Another one. It's literally another one. Just change the name and age of the guy.

Unbelievers, do all of you think this is just this? there are already thousands of men in jail to say "fuck you" to his wife, for false allegations of domestic violence (in Europe only the word of the woman is worth, there is no presumption of innocence to the man), for false accusations of rape etc.

They are literally try to kill all men.

I just saw Twitter on a "MGTOW for life", its timeline is full of Hannah Wallen and Blaire White, this is the "dissident and anti-feminist" man today, driven literally by disgusting middle-aged women and "fake women" transsexuals (people that even the hardcore feminists themselves do not want).

FYI Hannah Wallen is a self-proclaimed "Men's Rights Advocate" and repulsive monster who says that any man who has had a single sexual thought with a 17-year-old should be raped in prison.

So except some legit women, is true that women are the scourge of MANkind... but and most men are traitors o just ignorants?

Eivind Berge said...

Unfortunately, most men are indeed traitors to their sex. Supporting feminist sex laws is a kind of virtue signaling that most men think they benefit from somehow, until they get accused themselves, and even then they rarely question the ideological basis behind the laws. We are up against social norms enforced by all the institutions, and most people just go with the flow no matter what.

It is more puzzling that some supporters of draconian sex laws feel the need to call themselves MRAs.

Anonymous said...

It isn’t so much that they dislike straight men as they dislike what they imagine about straight men. The types of discourses you see on social media sites are quite repetitive—straight men raping underage girls, straight men having consensual sex with underage girls and then leaving them, straights as child porn users and groomers destroying childhoods online. People are living in a society that is changing rapidly. ‘The straight men’ has become a projection point for all these anxieties in society.

Peter said...

But wait, even better ... indoctrinate 'em whilst they are young so that they can begin to think as I think. Be Quiet White Men:

TheAntiFeminist said...

Seems like Neil Lyndon, one of the first MRAs and publisher of 'No More Sex War' in the 90's, is much closer to Eivind and Angry Harry than the modern 'MRAs' :

"It can even happen that pretty young men may be preyed upon by more powerful women – as I was happy to experience when a stunningly attractive female member of staff at a school I attended took a shine to me. For that abuse of power and office, she would certainly have been sacked and drummed out of the teaching profession; but for the whole of my life ever since, I have remembered the outrage with undying affection and my only regret today is that there wasn’t a lot more of it."

I tried posting the link to Reddit/r/mensrights but it was deleted by the moderators. One of the mods is TyphonBlue, the first 'Honey Badger' to infiltrate the MRM, so no surprise there.

Anonymous said...

Wow, the truth is surfacing.
It's all about old menopaused females' privilege to avoid nubile, fertile women's competition.
The fact that the TV tells you that 40 are the new 20 or that you value, doesn't mean it's the truth.

Men having preference for creepy old 40 yo womyn? TAKFIR! At 25 you are already expired, hitting the wall 2 times.

Allahu Ackbar!

Anonymous said...

Theantifeminist! Another of my heroes!

Allah Hafiz, brother.

Anonymous said...

I already treated he Tunisia case.
Of course it was a etherodirected coup d'etat.
It started when, after the revolution and the sacrifice of the islamic incel marthyr mohammed bouazizi (who set himself on fire), the Ennahda ruled government tryed to pass a new cosnstitution in which men and women were not equal but complementary, as it should be everywhere.
There were riots, with the help of western feminists (Femen with the stupid woman Amina, but not only), and the false flag assasination of a oppoistion member that triggered a government crysis that ended up with a "grosse coalition" in which Ennahda kept ruling but was bridled by the western powers. The leader just became a west's servant, and the sane part of the party just couldn't oppose. This was, in my opinion, the best Crackdown against democracy in the last 20 years.

You could see the effects in every aspect: in economy the west is funding them in all possible means (so much that spanish an italians oil producers are suffering the competition of Tunisian subsidized oil), the cops and army are getting training and toys for free from the west, but the more rilevant is the way in which the corrupted Tunisian goverment deals with muslim.

All the mosques in which imams don't follow the western dis - values are closed, they are imprisoned as terrorists, together with their followers. PPL suspected of so called "radicalization" are just thrown in the jails. Practicing real islam is just not possible anymore. No surprise that Tunisia has the biggest number of so called "foreign fighters" in the ISIS army, many naive guys really believed to the drem withouth noticing the truth about it (just a CIA's tool to remove Assad, that gone bad when Al-Baghdadi's boys rejected feminism).

Children are 3 years old, not 9. Aisha is such an hottie...

Allah Hafiz, brothers.

Anonymous said...


Damn! I love pissing feminists...

Allah Hafiz, brothers.

Anonymous said...

Interesting the discourse about fertility, but it's not only that. It's about groups of power, lobbies.
A woman who turns 30 is practically in menopause, and at 18, 1/3 or even 1/2 of fertility is gone. For a sane society, this is just not sustainable.
But, even if it were, men are rightly attracted by women at their fertility peack, that means between the start of puberty and 17 years old.
Laws can not change byology, just fill jails with probe men and keeping out assasins and thieves.
What we are undergoing to is the results of successful attempts to institutionalize the oppression of men by feminists lobbies (Soros, US and UK government and the evil feminists who rigged the system.)

Alllah Hafiz.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Kanskje du finner denne diskusjonen interessant?

Anonymous said...

Flott fyr. :-p

Øyvind Holmstad said...

"Perspective Needed -- Feminism's Lie: Denying Reality About Sexual Power And Rape":

Anonymous said...

Hey fellow Muslim poster ! I always find your posts so uplifting. You are always in such good spirits and seem like a younger guy. What I really like about you is how you're a perfect example of a natural alliance between Islam and antifeminism. This alliance is what will ultimately crush the liberals, as their ideology forces them to see Muslims as sacred beings. They have no understanding of the fact that their sacred beings are in fact completely incompatible with their views and will eventually turn on these liberals who worship them so much, slaughtering them to a man.

May I know where you're from and how old are you? Are you in the West or somewhere in the Middle East?

Anonymous said...

Forsvarsministeren strøk journalist på låret
Mangeårig forsvarsminister og nestleder i Det konservative partiet Michael Fallon vil neppe bli husket for sin innsats i kampen mot IS, som han har ledet siden 2014, men for at han måtte gå av som følge av seksuell trakassering.

Fallon beklaget i går at han tok en kvinnelig radioprogramleder på låret i 2002.

Selv om kvinnen selv ikke synes at det er en stor sak, så har det versert flere historier om Fallon i mediene den siste tiden.

– Jeg regner meg at det kommer flere anklager. Jeg tviler på at det bare dreier seg om mitt kne, for hvis det er det så er det absurd, sier Julia Hartley-Brewer.

Det er riktig: selv om "offeret" selv synes saken er absurd, blir liv lagt i ruiner etter slike anklager.

Eivind Berge said...

Jepp, nå er det nulltoleranse for alle tegn på seksualitet, uansett hvor svakt den kommer til uttrykk. Får håpe britene finner noen aseksuelle mennesker til å lede forsvaret, da. Det er jo det viktigste kriteriet for alt nå. Samme med Hollywood, har de noen skuespillere eller produsenter igjen som ikke har besudlet seg med seksuelle fremstøt? Kanskje eneste løsningen blir å erstatte mennesker i alle viktige stillinger med roboter som er sertifisert aseksuelle? For jeg vet ikke hvor de skal finne nok mennesker som kan leve opp til dagens seksualfiendtlighet. Det beste de kan gjøre er å late som de er aseksuelle frem til de blir anklaget for å ha seksuelle følelser, og det er tydeligvis slik menn som ikke er med i mannsbevegelsen lever nå. Det må være slitsomt å holde den masken. Glad jeg har meldt meg ut av samfunnet.

Anonymous said...

6 måneders fengsel for å ha kjøpt sexdukke. Det innebærer ikke overgrep mot barn, men det fremstiller dem på en støtende måte, i følge Fredrikstad tingrett

Eivind Berge said...

Så sykt samfunn vi lever i at de fengsler folk for fremstillinger som ikke skader noen, men som støter makthaverne. Fremstillinger som ikke engang publiseres eller kommuniseres, men eksisterer i privatlivet. Da har vi tatt steget inn fullstendig tyranni. Nå må alle leve i redsel for at noen ord eller tegninger i en kladdebok eller en klump med modellkitt eller hva som helst de har liggende kan få dem fengslet, og det er bare teknologien som foreløpig setter en stopper for at de kan få tatt oss for støtende tanker også, for viljen er absolutt til stede. Jeg har ikke ord for hvor sterkt jeg hater drittsekkene som støtter disse lovene, og for meg finnes det bare ett ord som er dekkende -- Quisling -- for jeg har intet til felles med samfunnet lenger.

Anonymous said...

Han ble jo hovedsakelig dømt for barneporno da, men at han "isolert sett" skulle ha blitt straffet med en "forholdsvis høy bot" for å ha kjøpt en dukke som er "støtende" er likevel for jævlig. Jeg hadde aldri betalt den, uansett hvor lenge de ville ha kastet meg i fengsel for det. De siste årene har jeg mistet mye respekt for norske lovgivere...

Anonymous said...

Hvem er smagsdommeren der bestemmer hvad der er "stødende" eller ikke?

Anonymous said...

Theantifeminist: "The new MRA call me a pedo pervert for like 17yo Anna Kournikova. The MRA was the last hope of men. We fail! The game is over, men, is over!"

LOL. The MRA is nothing. If they supported us, I would NOT change anything. MRA counter of victories = Zero. They are a political cult for incel losers. They are less important than the KKK. Forget them now and stop crying because that irrelevant scum does not accept us.

Eivind Berge said...

I think it is a problem that these fake "MRAs" occupy space in the political landscape of many people's minds where real MRAs should have been. It makes it seem like we don't even exist.

Anonymous said...

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, "nice" is the only appropriate reaction to female teachers having sex with boys. South Park got that right, and it is a huge embarrassment to the police that feminists have managed to force them to treat it like a crime in real life.

Anonymous said...

Yes, but the Norwegian channel NRK is actually working on a couple of documentaries on this issue, from quite a number of different angles.
The police and the lawmakers aren't the only ones who can influence.

This is BTW Emma@NRK examining the doll in question:

"I'm getting queasy and I don't know if I can... *eagerly examines the crotch area* oh my, yes it's got two holes... one in the front and one in the back."


Eivind Berge said...

There is no other angle in that article than blind devotion to child porn law, and I find it hard to believe that NRK or any other mainstream media will cover different angles. Seeing grown men treat dolls as a grave crime is too preposterous for words. Are they so brainwashed by child abuse hysteria that they don't even realize how idiotic they look to rational observers? And how come the journalist isn't imprisoned too for examining the doll? I guess she thinks she is exempt because she is one of the "good" guys, but that distinction is purely arbitrary and what NRK is doing here is fully covered by the letter of the law. If the doll is child pornographic, then NRK has done a lot more to propagate this material than the man who purchased it for personal use.

Anonymous said...

Why yes.
It is effectively a review.

Which is hilarious.

She even goes so far as to show how the orifices of the doll can be warmed up by the included usb-powered heating stick.

I'm in tears.

Anonymous said...

Wednesday, November 08, 2017 12:50:00 PM Anon...

My, my, are we haughty.

"MRA counter of victories = Zero."

As opposed to our counter of victories? Unless you count abused men shooting at cops and accusers, which isn't much of a political victory.

"They are a political cult for incel losers."

Oh wow.

First of all, they're not. Two groups are basically not affiliated at all. And I mean all incels, the imbecile lookist manchild kind and actually serious people who were incels and have struggled to beat it.

Secondly, you're an idiot to think all incels are losers. You are basically incel in the West if you have the slightest bit of morality and intelligence and not a shitload of money to fix this shortcoming. Eivind himself was incel for years simply due to feminism and he's obviously not a loser. C'mon, dude.

"They are less important than the KKK. Forget them now and stop crying because that irrelevant scum does not accept us."

As opposed to your relevancy?

I mean, don't get me wrong. I don't like current MRAs but Paul Elam is where many of us got started. This video was first of my red pills

It's easy to just yell at how irrelevant somebody is from your own position of even greater irrelevancy.

Anonymous said...

Eivind Berge said...

Good video. Amos Yee is a reasonable and brave activist. I certainly agree that children can consent to sex and that pedophiles are unfairly punished, and I fully agree with him about child pornography, which should not be criminalized at all. However, there may be other reasons to ban sex with prepubescent children that he is overlooking. NOT because it is automatically rape, which it obviously isn't when it is consensual, but because it violates norms in other ways, not least the interests of parents. I do not believe age of consent laws exist for children, but for the parents, and how do pedophile activists intend to deal with their interests? Pointing out the idiocy of pedohysteria is easy, but the fact remains that most parents don't want their kids anywhere near pedophiles even if they don't buy into the sex abuse nonsense. Every society that I am aware of discriminates against pedophiles to some extent, and I don't think it is rational to oppose this. What we need to do, in the interest of truth and justice, is to quit demonizing pedophiles as horrible monsters when they are not, but they will never be equal to other sexual orientations.

Anonymous said...

My apologies for not having seen the video in its entirety, but the arguments in the introduction section seem very familiar, and I think as a minor attracted person (MAP as we like to say) myself, I can comment a bit on the (most relevant) issues.

First, there is the issue of what exactly do we mean by "consent", and within the field of cognitive development, what *precisely* do we mean by /informed/ consent?
Much of the debate is based on morally prejudiced opinions on cultural propriority, in the sense that in judeo-christian based civilizations children are seen as *property*.
Logically then, it follows that until they are "adults", their sexuality is tied to the resource-management of the household of their parents.
Which goes a long way to explaining why their fertility can be bartered away freely under laws regarding underage marriage (down to 13 yo in the US), but they cannot negotiate or enter into any sort of sexual exchange with adults outside of the rules of transactions and commitments set forth by the church (and / or state).
The absolutely ludicrous juggling of terms such as "child" for a person who has been fertile for at least seven years (like 17 yo) - half of Danish girls become fertile before nine years of age - completely skipping the terms "teen", "tween", and then shifting to "underage" when it comes to describing for example Jerry Lee Lewis' church sanctioned marriage to his cousin at her 13 years of age - the cognitive dissonance inherent in such compartmentalization is only possible through feminism's gradual influence to incite mass delusions.

That said, we needs must distinguish between "children" (minors, really) firmly IN puberty, and the actual children who have not entered puberty.
One of these groups (minors) fully understands what sex is as they have raging hormones and are frequently masturbating, the other group (children) don't even have access to proper sex education.
Which is another thing that is beginning to change, as the minors themselves become the main producers of "child pornography".
And you can't stop that, really: Sexting is here to stay, no matter how much money the government throws at introducing a surveillance society.
As such, "informed" consent quickly becomes covered by the fact that "children" can see for them selves their own age-peers having sex, and can on the basis of demonstration make up their own minds if that is something they want to participate in or not.

The good thing about all of this is that in reality, sex ed and pornography both, serve to postpone sexual debuts - the kids see what the fuss is about, and don't feel that the adults are keeping something good secret and away from them, but together with mobile communication they can get their rocks (and ovaries) off online, which many do.

In conclusion, society changes, and the EUROPOL currently doesn't bother much going after teenage sexual communication.

What happens as feminazism is sliding further down the shitter and has to justify its prime reason for existence by keeping on demonizing men as if they were the Ubergender, is of course anybody's guess but I would think in their spastic death-throes as they lose more and more relevance, we haven't seen the worst of it yet.

May whatever gods exist see in mercy to us all.

Anonymous said...

Regarding all this "paedophilia" crap I more and more see the idiotic argument that every adult is automatically in a position of authority over an teen.

What nonsense !

The idea that adults always have a power over a teen in sexual relationships is an ridiculous lie. If you have a teen of about 13 with some intelligence and a needy guy of, say, 25, with not much success with women, guess what will happen? Once she gives him pussy she basically has all the power over him.

SHE WILL PROBABLY LEARN HOW TO CONTROL HIM, believe it or not. She will learn she has something he needs badly and will use that to her advantage. The guy literally has to do what she asks for sex, she makes him buy her stuff and do stuff for her, and at any times she can withhold sex and manipulate him that way.

The idea that HE is somehow in charge is so absurd and unrelated to reality that it boggles the mind. Even if he had some sexual experience before her and she had none it doesn't matter at all, since doesn't stop her from realizing the power she has and using it like a pro.

I have seen this first hand, from an experience my, um, "friend" had :D

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, that is what has always bothered me the most too about feminist power differential nonsense. Sexual power is always ignored in that equation. This applies not just to minors but also women in the workplace. Women can obviously use their sexuality to get favors and advantages in their careers, but when they do so, they are defined as "sexually harassed" and all the blame is put on the man. This is so dishonest that it boggles the mind that they can say it with a straight face, and even get manginas to go along with it.

And now, with all the hateful sex laws, the natural sexual power of women and minors is amplified immeasurably, since the slightest accusation of anything to do with sex is enough to wield more power than the most powerful men in the world.

Anonymous said...

Hey eivind.i was Mr 'MgtowforLife on Twitter until 2 days "defense" of Louis c.k,the apologizing,groveling comedian apparently was good enough for twitter to ban me for literally the 34th time.anyway,I'll probably start another new account,i see al Franken,the senator, is a also apologizing profusely after allegedly
"groping" a female he was on a is tour a decade,the woman is asleep on the plane back from Iraq,and someone takes a picture of hem "grabbing" her boobs,but not actually touching her!AND now he can't stop apologizing.seeya on Twitter i guess.

John said...

I don't see me going near any woman anytime soon.and these cowardly snitches on Twitter pisses me right off.the more you engage on there,the more your odds of getting account suspended.having consensual sex with a 17 year old is now "rape" and this teacher got 22 like to stay on Twitter but to do that,i can only retweet."freedom of speech" is all but dead in america.i also despise cop pigs for several reasons not only because they happily enforce these anti male laws and set men up online(never women,i wish)war on drugs,war on men,war on the world,that's what the u.s is all about.

Eivind Berge said...

John, you are a Twitter-masochist. I would stay away long before they banned me that many times. But welcome back of if you want even more of it.

I am waiting for a male celebrity to be accused of some ludicrous "sexual assault" or "harassment" and then refusing to apologize. That kind of role model is what the Men's Movement needs most right now. By apologizing, all these manginas are legitimizing feminist definitions of sexual abuse that we need to resist. But I am starting to lose hope that there is such a thing as an accusation so ridiculous that a man will simply say "So what?" -- which is how I would have us respond. Men these days will apologize for literally anything feminists disapprove of, and worse, support whatever laws the feminists come up with too, no matter how hateful against male sexuality.

Jonathan Manor said...


John said...

Ha,yes I love twitters torture I guess.they are never going to leave me alone,but it is addictive.anyway,yes MY response,if I were Louis c k,or franken,hell,any of these guys,would be exactly that- 'so what,big deal'!thats MY idea of an 'apology' no victim=No crime!I mean,what is is hard about that concept? America has just way,WAY too many laws and WAY too many pig cops.and yep,i have zero access to women.its probably for the best sadly.

John said...

Oh,i almost forgot.i was eating at a local restaurant this morning,when I overhead 3 men talking about weinstein,Louis c.k,etc etc.'i hope they bury these guys,but especially they wanted al franken to go down badly.NOT surprising since Franken is jewish,'liberal''progressive'(this US the south I live in after all).well,i REALLY wanted to inject myself into that conversation,but I wisely didn't.
Trying to explain to these dolts that they're supporting feminists,more anti male laws,etc would've probably ended badly for me.somebody might just call the cops,as Americans are want to do at the slightest possibility of 'trouble and dealing with these cop pigs? NOT something you ever want to do if you can avoid it.

Anonymous said...

A second country - the first was the UK - has jailed someone for importing a sex doll. This time it is Norway.

Rationale for Norwegian courts sending a man to prison (on 3 November) for six months for importing a child-like sex doll: “The dolls are very realistic, and it is possible that sexual intercourse with the dolls can break down barriers to commit violence against children.”

Comment on the decision here:

Eivind Berge said...

When children play with dolls, they are usually smart enough to understand that they are pretending, and that no one really gets hurt no matter what you pretend the dolls are doing. The adults in the Norwegian police and justice system are apparently not so smart. Or are they REALLY that dumb, or just hateful? I submit that they are primarily hateful and egotistical. These scumbags enjoy every bit of power that the law gives them, and the more the merrier from their point of view. You can count on prosecutors to put their own power trips and careers above the reasonableness of the law, which is why it is so important to avoid passing bad laws.

The problem is that the gullible populace accepted child porn laws in the first place. I am proud to say that I took a firm stand against child porn laws from the very beginning, as these odious laws were starting to be introduced in the 1990s. But once you allow the government to criminalize the possession of child pornography, there is no logical reason why it should only apply to two-dimensional media. So you are really asking for them to apply the same hateful laws to sculpture as well, which is now being done. Once you have allowed mere representation to be criminal, you have given up freedom of thought, because it makes no difference whether information is represented in images, texts or thoughts -- all is fair game to the police state you have accepted. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people now have a blind spot to incursions on otherwise self-evident rights as soon as it is "for the children." The taboo on sexualizing children is now so culturally ingrained that there will be no one to stand up for you when they come for your thoughts. As we have seen, even your lawyer will likely recommend that you plead guilty, because he is brainwashed himself. And chances are you were one of the fools who condoned child porn laws, so you have yourself to thank.

Anonymous said...

Ingeborg Heldal til BT i forhold til spørsmålet om hun er blitt seksuelt trakassert:"Jeg har heldigvis blitt forskånet for det, både i arbeidslivet og privat. Så jeg har ikke krysset av for #Metoo. Min erfaring er at menn er profesjonelle og viser stor respekt. Så har jeg selvfølgelig opplevd det jeg kaller sosial klønethet, menn som har forsøkt å sjekke meg opp uten å forstå at jeg ikke har vært interessert. Men jeg har til dags dato ikke møtt en fyr som ikke har tatt nei for et nei."

I motsetning til tradisjonelle feminister har hun ikke inntatt offerrollen i fullt monn. Det er nettopp den såkalte "sosiale klønetheten" "sjekkingen" kall det hva du vil, fra menn som feministene nå slår stort opp som "seksuell trakassering." Det er ikke hva hun har blitt forskånet for, men hennes manglende evne til å innta synet som er rådende i dagens samfunn som forklarer hvorfor hun kan få seg til å si at "menn viser stor respekt". De som ikke evner å se dette, baserer ikke sine opplevelser på objektive kriterier men på et skremmende mannshat,like irrasjonelt som Nazistenes Jødesyn under andre verdenskrig. Feminismen har et fascistisk grunnsyn, men der fascistene hadde sine kritikere, finnes nesten ikke det samme overfor feminismen. Den blir hyllet av det store flertall, og vokser med gruoppvekkende styrke for hver eneste dag i vesten.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, there is no longer any distinction between "sexual harassment" and courting. If a man shows any sign of being attracted, then women are free to define it as harassment. It is hard to imagine where courting may be appropriately conducted anymore. The entire workplace is a taboo area for romantic interactions. If you are still a student, then you may court women unless they decide you are a harasser, which they can do for any reason whatsoever. And it is the same in the street and on the Internet. Feminists have succeeded completely in defining all of male sexuality as some kind of sexual abuse or misconduct on a woman's whim, regardless of how it is intended.

John said...

It's unbelievable.i never thought it would get THIS horrendous.going to be a LOT of singles now and in the,permanently single like I am.incels,mgtows.well,men allowed it to happen and we all get to see just HOW much worse it gets.

John said...

This is insanity.'what are YOU in for? Oh,having sex with a doll'.

John said...

Since,as you mentioned,the workplace is OUT for courting women,and on campus,thats aalso a legal & financial minefield,theres ALWAYS... online 'dating'! Unfortunately it obviously favors women,naturally,what doesn't any more?Women get to pick and choose in online dating,men just post a picture,wait,and hope.waste of time and money for men.hillary Clinton said: 'the future is female'.i don't see how this situation could improve for men.sooner or later,thanks to the now record inequality+feminism their will have to be a revolution in america.and non violence has shown it's ineffectiveness over and over.even in an armed uprising,millions will die(men,of course) to reestablish sanity,civil liberties,privacy that we've lost since the gross overreaction to 9/11 and an actual patriarchy,not the bullshit one that feminists yap about non armed revolution looks inevitable.

Anonymous said...

John, are you John Halder that used to post here?

John said...

Guilty!yes,I've been completely offline since last february,after that feminist supremacist on Twitter MADE twitter suspend that account.then,they,twitter,allowed her to post my physical address!I'm lucky no maniac white knight/cop showed up
at my door.i recently went back on Twitter and my new account was just suspened,no reason given.i must've pissed off a feminist and or,I'm back thinking of starting yet another account on twitter.course,I'll be censored AGAIN cuz..- merica and "free speech"

John said...

So,anyway,for me twitter is a place to rant.if you're a self confessed 'mgtow and or an 'mean if you put that on your bio,you know,if course,you're never going to acquire very many followers,if thats what you're looking,i end up talking to myself most of the time on twitter.yep,we 'mras 'incel' will never fit in.i stopped trying to a long time ago.all women are terrified of me(And most men,to be fair) now,thanks to feminists,the media hysteria.after every 'mass shooting' the question arises 'why why? well,I KNOW why.theyre basically suicides,but,obviously not in the traditional sense.the udea is to 'take some with you' but its also forcing your own hand.the second after this Las Vegas shooter STARTED shooting,he knew he had minutes left and that's part of it.suicide is hardly a "cowardly" act as these politicuans/pundits insist it is.flying a plane into the twin towers is "cowardly"? Hardly.if it were so easy to do,I myself and millions more would do it.of course I'm 'depressed'.shit,I'm a ghost,no reason to live,merely a commodity.people don't get righteous anger.or,they do,but won't acknowledge it.and I'm packed full of rage.gotta reign it in 24/7.america loves/lives to lock men up that aren't wealthy/billionaires/celebs.we don't 'contribute'yada yada.the best thing that can happen to you is not to have been born.ESPECIALLY so if your mother was/is a lying sack of crazy shit like mine was.i don't dissaprove,of course these mass shootings.i just wish they picked their targets with more accuracy/meaning than just random victims.but I get THAT'S much more difficult And with most of these guys it's about numbers.and,to think,son many people in this country just love & respect these dirty pig cops.brainwashed turds supporting a hyper violent police state!amazing.twitter gives one a glimpse into the REAL america,and it's ugly.oh well,my rant is now concluded.seeya later good people.

Anonymous said...

On an aside, I've had a poll on those sexdolls running for two weeks now and enough relevant participants have responded that I feel it can be shared:
Personally I feel they are icky, but might want to give one a try just for the novelty of it all.
Most respondents at the VirPed forum (who are pedos against sex with kids) are quite liberally inclined to the idea - many even considering it an exciting if kinky option - and I'm not reading any voices buying into the whole "well if I use a doll then of course sooner or later I am bound to become an offender".

In my opinion the whole issue is bullshit, as sexdolls formed like inflatable sheep have been sold for comedy value for ages and you're not hearing bloody sheep farmers crying into their milk about how society is falling apart and won't somebody please think of the poor innocent lambs?

Also why on earth would you want to possess a sexdoll weighing 60 kilos - with what all that entails of cleaning it etc - if you could have one weighing 35 kilos?

Anonymous said...

Oh and I might add, the respondents are about 1/3 women and 2/3 men.
Which means, yes the chicks are pretty much equally positively inclined to the dolls as the men are. Just as an FYI, b/c most people think of minor attracted persons as just being men, but na-ah, that ain't so.
(of course there are /more/ men than women who identify as such, but also it is /harder/ for women to get to the point where they accept that they are indeed this-or-that, just because society always harps on about how it is just "bad men")

Eivind Berge said...

You have already done more research than the government will ever consider. And still there is no evidence of harm, unsurprisingly. Criminal law should take a hint from evidence-based medicine, because it is still in the dark ages of pure superstition. You would think that locking people up is serious business that should be supported by some scientific method. But no, it is left to the witch-doctors who are free to pull assertions out of their asses, and society is fine with that.

John said...

And,of course,a truly advanced civilization might one day consider lack of free will in charging/sentencing people.still have to put the likes of Ted Bundy away.theres no possibility of rehabilitating serial killers,but drug/property crimes should definitely be considered.buts it's all about policing for profit,mass warehousing of mostly poor/minorities.two tiers of the "justice" system,one for banksters/wealthy & the other who can't even afford to bail out.and without a paid attorney you have NO chance,unless your prior record is clean,& it's a property offence.i have quite a few stories to tell about my very own experiences with the system and these scumbag cops.too lengthy to go into here.i read last year California was going to vote on a proposed law that would make it illegal/unlawful to be a man in ANY park alone without his OWN child accompanying him.i don't know what happened with THAT particular anti male,pedo hysterical bill.

Unknown said...

Eivind Berge said...

Yup, the "skeptic" community is just another flavor of bigots with their own irrational beliefs.

Anonymous said...

Hundreds of thousands of words have been written about why this society exterminates all sexuality with people under the age of 18, why people under 18 are considered by society and the law as "children" and why this liberal world is the greatest totalitarianism ever created and why some of us oppose it, the answer was and is only a simple sum:

Feminism = Women and children are helpless beings in perpetual abuse.
Liberalism = Everything is fine along are between consenting adults
Adults at 18 years of age by decree.

Result: Minors are under the age of 18 so they are children and not adults, therefore it is not okay because they are incapable beings in perpetual abuse.

Note that the order of factors does not alter the product, even the sum of feminism or liberalism alone, also below 18 are "children" and therefore abuse.

Some may ask, perhaps not, why do anti-feminists, like feminists, hate relationships with minors, is logical because they are sexual liberals and what is the dogma of the liberal? Everything's fine while it's between consenting adults, and you guessing when they're adults? Adults at 18 years of age by decree. Even an' anti-liberal' thinks that sex is OK "as long as it's between heterosexual adults who consent"!But what's "this"? This is literally the shit that is now in most heads of the human population!!





There is nothing more satisfying for a totalitarian state like slavery disguised as freedom.

If a state or political or social system were to declare racial equality among an entire race but declare others inferior would NOT be racial equality, it would be a regime of selective inequality.

If states and belief systems declare sexual and emotional freedom as long as they are ONLY consenting adults then it is not a system of freedoms and rights but a system of inequality and sexual and emotional inequality and repression of others, that is to say minors.

Adults throw themselves the freedom to legislate the lives of minors, they give themselves freedom, but they enslave minors, they curtail their lives, expressions and bodies while they can express themselves as they wish, they can copulate with whomever they want as long as there is another clear adult, remember: the superior race (legal adults) does not mix with the slave race (minors), and if someone mixes they are lynched publicly.


PARENTS: to own their children and brainwash them (aka "right" of parents to the education of their children).
STATUS: To own youth and brainwash them (aka state public education).
Feminists: to have power over castrated and submissive men.
LIBERALS: in order to be able to divorce 4 times and make cropophagy and anal sex with a prostitute older than 18 between adults while they are skinning alive by their neighbor just for sending an sugestive message to their 14-year-old neighbor.

Parents and feminists and liberals declare that we want to legalize "paedophilia" (a term that means loving eros of children/young people) as a "right" of minors, but they use as their right to force minors to obey them, to think with them, to use their bodies as they want, they are ABUSERS OF MINORS and CHILDREN!!

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, it is amazing how successful that brainwashing campaign has been. There is no greater taboo in our culture than to question the pretended asexuality of minors, and both sides of the political spectrum are aligned on enforcing it. Seeing what happened to Amos Yee, even I will be more careful with what I say from now on because I don't want my Twitter account suspended. He hasn't even been advocating violent activism, so the intolerance is now at an astonishing level where a simple expression of opinion is enough to be banned. If the public had their way, he would also be lynched. We are dealing with the same sort of mob mentality that results in actual witch-hunts here, so best to be careful. We have long passed the point where this topic can be debated rationally in public discourse, and anyone who naively thinks they can do so is in for a shock.

John said...

Yes,as I've mentioned before,in february,this feminist supremacist
@justkelly_ok on Twitter posted,with help & blessing of twitter my physical home address AND she said she called the local police in my area.i immediately abandoned the ENTIRE internet.just came back online last month & my last account was suspended,no reason given with about 40 followers.this 'Kelly Ellis person is suing google for 'sexual harassement' shocking right? She despises men.penis envy? Fuck I don't know anymore.i know I DIDN'T do anything to her,zero threats,zero "stalking".shes in fucking San Francisco,I'M in florida.but she's a 'verififed' bitch alright.anyway, "breaking news" now,Russell Simmons allegedly raped a women in 1991.WITH a witness according to her.WHY didn't she report THAT THEN? rarely is there ever a real witness of course.AND ol Charlie rose has been accused of,you guessed it "sexual harassement" he can't stop apologizing-"shocking" I know..his show/career is OVER.AND the actor Jeffrey Tambor has been accused,massive apology soon to follow,also career-, kaput.these are high times for feminists and misandrists!whether or not I was "guilty" I would NEVER apologize and in fact would say,prove it you lying whores.

Eivind Berge said...

It is open season on men and the only noticeable response men can come up with is to apologize for being men. No wonder it just keeps escalating as long as men are such pushovers. And there is no other reaction in sight yet, so this will likely get much worse. "Sexual harassment" is now fully established as a magic word women can use to cow any man and fleece his workplace, because all the men that matter have obsequiously internalized the feminist definition which lets it mean anything a woman wants it to mean.

John said...

Yes,and twitter is more or less ran by sjw/feminist/manginas.step out of "line" on there and its suspended explanation given.its mostly for celebs,famous place for me on there.i go back,they know it's me by my isp# .I miss the old internet...

John said... Natalie Portman is getting in on the act.although she says she was NEVER assaulted,NEVER- in her own words,she suddenly remembers "100s' of "incidents" where she felt "scared" "intimidated" by producers,directors,etc.jeeesus Christ
Soon,it will be illegal to talk to a female! we'll all have to wear dashcams.

John said...

I meant bodycams.the kind the pig cops turn on & off when it's time to beat/kill somebody.course,there's plenty of times they didn't bother,no need to.straight up murder caught on tape & they walk IF they're even indicted.America's decay is a nasty little downward spiral.and the homeless/dead broke everywhere now!well when all the wealth is concentrated as it is,that's the inevitable consequence.however,once again, it's heady time for feminists!

Anonymous said...

John said...

I see it's Matt lauers time to go.when does he start apologizing? Anyway,for some reason,I'm going to start yet another account on would be NICE if they'd can Trumps ass.but no,I'm MUCH more dangerous being on Twitter that the fat fuckin retard.

John said...

Wow,i came back on Twitter just last night,and already it's been locked twice.the censoring has reached all new levels.i expect the account to be suspended within 24 hours.why? Beats fuck out of me.

Eivind Berge said...

Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. Being on Twitter is completely futile for you then. Maybe you should start a blog instead?

John said...

Well,it looks like for now,twitter is 'allowing' me to stay.i just can't activate those sjw back as @elimina8misandry now,lol I know that's never going to happen of course,it's just a name.start a blog? maybe maybe.anyway,"good news" they captured the 27 year old "perv" some high school teacher,who ran off with a poor lil 17 year old "girl" who went with him very,he's fucked of course.

John said...

Well,'good' news.i survived the 'twitter purge' AND just got pulled over by the pigs but got just a verbal warning.i spent xmas,my birthday,and news years alone.not good but shit I can do about it.women are terrified of men in general now and thats that.i don't have the looks to overcome the fear.

Ed Snowed Us said...

Jennifer Fichter received 7 years for sex activity with boys nearly 18 at the time while in nearby Alabama any 16 year old can do as they please legally.
The remaining 15 years was for having an ABORTION meeting the disapproval of the woman-hating judge "keep them barefoot & pregnant too tired to make a fuss I always say." Ensuring his remaining a state judge in backwards Florida.
Sadly Judge Glenn T. Shelby cannot undo his mistake as he is dead of cancer oh well.

Eivind Berge said...

That's interesting. But surely the justice system or politicians should be able to mitigate this monstrous injustice via appeals or pardon, if there were any sane people in the system. This is not the work of one crazy judge, but an entire twisted system. Perhaps if we bring it to his attention there is a chance Trump would pardon her though?