Sunday, November 04, 2018

The male sexualist color and flag

As the leader of male sexualism, I declare pink to be our political color, and a pink flag is to be our symbol.

Why pink?

The simple explanation: Pink is the color of pussy, the celebration of which is the male sexualist ethos. Women of all colors have pink pussies, so it is all-inclusive.

Pink is currently seen as a sort of girlie and cutesy color that men don't want to be too wrapped up in. My picking this color is deliberate because society wants to shame us for our sexuality, and we need to deal with that. By embracing pink we proudly admit that we like pussy, including a great deal of (unfairly) criminalized pussy, which is the raison d'être for male sexualism. Men who are too timid to support us outright yet can practice wearing some pink to get over their embarrassment, as a sort of training wheels for male sexualism if you will.

Another reason is simple availability. The white flag is taken (and we certainly don't want that!), the black flag is taken by the anarchists, red and blue and green and brown are established political colors, but pink is claimed by no ideology that I know of.

Pink is also a beautiful color, admit it! That is almost reason enough.

You might object that it is too heterocentric. To that I would reply that if you don't like pussy, you already have a flag with a rainbow on it. We need a straight pride flag too! The pink flag does double service as straight pride and the symbol of male sexualism. If the gays ever man up to resist the feminist sex laws, in future demonstrations we can even fly the pink and rainbow flags side by side.

Now we also have a new male sexualist rallying cry: "Give me pink!"

If you want to call the pink flag a pedophile flag, I would not object to that even though I and most of us are not pedophiles (this is a way to disarm the ridiculous accusation that we are pedophiles just for liking teen girls under the age of consent too). You can also call it a MAP flag (but not NOMAP or VirPed -- well, I can't stop them either), an antifeminist flag or a positive masculinity flag. All told, it is a flag against oppression of sexuality -- the flag of sex-positivity. Obviously women can use it too against the female sex offender charade, if they ever come to their senses and resist that. My vision is that the pinks will be mentioned alongside the reds and blues and other colors of the political landscape as we gain traction.

215 comments:

1 – 200 of 215   Newer›   Newest»
john said...

hmmm.. I don't know. pink is also strongly associated with feminism and the endless 'fight against breast cancer' at the expense of a plethora of other conditions, especially mens. but that's gynocentrism for you.

Eivind Berge said...

Well, you won't find a well recognizable color that isn't associated with something. Even orange has a politics now -- Trump. Feminists have not adopted pink as a banner and color, except for the fight against breast cancer, which isn't such a bad thing anyway. And they have a ribbon, not a flag for it. I think pink is the best available alternative for all the reasons I mentioned, perhaps even the best conceivable alternative because of the lovely association with pussy. When used as our political color after we have appeared on the radar, it won't be confused with minor issues like breast cancer.

Anonymous said...

Takk for at du staker ut kursen for oss og definerer de ideologiske standpunktene for vår bevegelse på en så god og kompromissløs måte. Til nå har jeg ikke funnet noe av det du skriver som jeg ikke kan stille meg 100% bak.

Men hvordan få publisitet igjen, Eivind? Hva med politianmeldelse mot det kvinnfolket som forsøkte seg på "entrapment" mot deg, bl.a. for å ulovlig ha utgitt seg for å være politi(strl. § 164)? Er det noe som vil bli plukket opp av media tror du? Eller skal vi rett og slett ha som standpunkt at vi ikke anerkjenner politiet og således ikke verken benytter oss av dem ei heller samarbeider med dem?

john said...

well, since only what? 6 of us will see it I guess it works lol

Eivind Berge said...

How to get publicity again? Yes, that is a good question. I could have reported the entrapper for posing as police and perhaps that would have brought some media attention if nothing else, but I don't really feel like using the police more than necessary. Of course, when forced to defend yourself, you go all out including maximum media exposure and litigation to the hilt like I did last time, but I will probably let this slide since they backed off. I am still hoping the video will go viral though.

Anonymous said...

Noe som bør presiseres er at vi er motstandere av incest mot umyndige selv om vi er tilhengere av ingen eller en lavere seksuell lavalder. Incest er absolutt noe vi burde kunne ta avstand fra. Mye av hatet mot menn som har, eller ønsker å ha sex med mindreårige tror jeg stammer fra alle incestsakene vi har hatt. Omtrent alle heterofile menn tenner seksuelt på eksempelvis 13 år gamle attraktive jenter, men av antakelig biologiske årsaker oppstår ikke denne seksuelle tenningen mot egne døtre blant friske menn. Så menn som har seksuelle tanker mot medlemmer innen egen familie antar jeg har en eller annen mental lidelse eller forstyrrelse. Så ja, vi bør presisere at vi tar avstand fra incest selv om vi er for en lavere eller ingen seksuell lavalder.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, father-daughter incest has never been accepted in any society that I am aware of, and is also not advocated by male sexualism. It would be just abut as deranged to claim that this is normal as it is to claim that minor teen girls should be off-limits to men in general. The latter is a sick norm that male sexualism exists to oppose, among other unreasonable sex laws.

holocaust21 said...

I dunno, the alt-right may accuse male sexualism of being "gay" or LGBT if a pink banner is adopted... They might also accuse it of being a "feminist" decoy movement or something.

Anyway, as for the entrapper I'm all for locking them up and throwing away the key (oh how I now love that expression, I used to fear it because it generally referred to horny males like I was when I was young, but now I can use it against other people I don't like). So why not report them? I guess I understand if you think the police will just try to lock you up instead, with their feminist bias they are quite hard to trust.

Eivind Berge said...

If I were to pick a single color to represent gayness, it would be purple in my view -- because of the association with vanity, I guess -- and in any case they got their rainbow flag, so what more do they need? Whoever is using pink right now are almost as tiny as us and have no more claim to it as I see it. There is a women's group called Code Pink:

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

But they are obscure and don't even seem to be all that bad, apparently opposing war instead of sexuality.

john said...

yes.Medea Benjamin is the founder of code pink.she's always on fstv- 'free speech tv'.i like her for her anti war, anti imperialism.not so much for her feminism. fstv claims to have no 'bias', but they are big time pro liberal feminism and that's oops! bias to ME.

their mangina host from 12- 3.pm is Thom Hartmann.this is the guy who very quickly hangs up on me 3 times now and has succeeded in pissing me off each time, and I'M a liberal!

the LAST time I phoned in I got about 12 words in, he cut me off, called ME a trump troll on the air.and I hate trump.you simply can NOT talk sense to ANY of these radicals.

Anonymous said...

There is a problem. I think there is a lot of obsession here with vaginas. In my case I repudiate vaginas all my life, indeed I asked my former girlfriend (she was teenaged, not an old one) to showed me her vagina and I got sick enough to look the mess what's inside, so I never had vaginal sex with her (or any unnatural orifice like anus etc.).

Eivind Berge said...

Well, you are not sexually healthy then and it seems you could use some kind of therapy for your aversion to vaginas. Maybe you don't have much of a libido at all? There might be a treatment depending on what is causing it. Have you checked your testosterone, for example?

Anonymous said...

My libido and my testosterone are fine. In fact it's so high, that I think all day about have non-penetrative sex with teenage girls, and I don't want to waste my time watching porn, although given my high level of libido I like erotic and suggestive images that only incite me to desire even more non-penetrative sex with teenage girls.

Eivind Berge said...

You need to quit the erotic and suggestive images, because that is porn! Porn does not exist; it's how your brain makes use of stimuli that determines what is porn. If you use suggestive images as porn, then it is porn and you are deluding yourself if you think you don't have a porn problem. Certainly if you masturbate to this, then you are in deep trouble and you need to quit both the porn and the masturbation! Try it for at least 90 days to see if your sexuality will normalize and you will desire to penetrate vaginas, because right now you sound like a classic case of porn addiction with a practically nonexistent real-life libido (well, classic except for your weird belief that you don't like vaginas, but it seems plausible that this is also one form it can take). And of course, after 90 days you need keep staying off the porn, but if the problem persists at that point I would look for additional issues and potential treatments.

Anonymous said...

And isn't it a brain stimulus to be attracted to women in itself? I mean, a human is nothing but flesh, bones, blood, veins, muscles, with all kinds of fluids and so on. That's very disgusting if you think about it. The vagina is not more disgusting than that either, I admit it. Women also does not "exist". Is really better that watching photos? Instead the brain gives you stimuli to copulate with her, deep down is just an impulse. It would be like taking my cat and putting my penis in her vagina. A zoophile has the same impulses but with the body of a non-human animal.

You talk about masturbation. If someone wants sexual release, then they masturbate and get their sexual satisfaction, simply the difference is that instead of your body (your hand) and your brain giving a stimulus with an image, real or a cartoon, or your imagination, is with the body of another, and that also your brain gives you stimulus to believe that skeleton composed with blood, fluids and veins is desirable. I don't see much difference, TBH.

Eivind Berge said...

You need to trust me and follow the instructions if you want to get better. Don't worry so much about the philosophy for now. The truth will come to you as you start to recover. Your delusional thinking that masturbation is equivalent to sex convinces me even more that porn is your problem.

I can assure you that women exist, and you will see them too and respond appropriately to them sexually once you manage to drag yourself out of the evolutionary trap that you have fallen into.

Anonymous said...

What do I gain by fucking a woman instead of masturbating? Apart from sexual relief, of course.

Eivind Berge said...

Just to mention one fundamental difference, women have feelings too, unlike porn, and you want to connect with them in order to have a satisfying sex life. But that's not the whole problem here because masturbation has caused neurological miswiring which makes you incapable of functioning properly with women, and that's what the reboot is meant to cure.

Anonymous said...

You still don't explain why sex is so important and why we should have a sex life with women.

Gally said...

This is Gally.

I see that some twats have been impersonating me, and unfortunately that has raised suspicion.

So in lieu of signing my messages with a gpg-key, I'm instead going to say things that only I would know.

'Gally' is the name that Ido gave her, upon finding her head in the pile of rubble raining down from Tiphares. Her real name is Yoko von der ScharpenKlinge.
And so, anybody who tries to impersonate me, will have to reveal details of the ZOTT that only a panzerkunstler-afficionado can know.

Like who'se the bucket head and what rounds does she use, and what is the name of the sister-city of Tiphares, and what combo is unit six recommended to use?

Gally said...

Oh and just to add, James Cameron is going to be doing the first few archs of the series. Not last order, and not the powerball, but just the scrapyard it seems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2BhLUFoIxY

Panzerkunst is the art of fighting in zero gravity, against armoured cybernetic opponents. Schattenvolgen and Herzer Hoen are the basic requisites from moving from Lehrling to Krieger.

Thought and concepts need not be taken literally, but can serve as usefull placeholders and metaphors.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, like I said I didn't have proof that it was Gally, and he may well be telling the truth here. We know that somebody has been targeting the entire male sexualist movement and used tactics such as impersonation which has had a corrosive effect on us.

Anonymous said...

Gally is still nothing but a bloody moron it seems. Why dont you go and confess some more to the police? Make their job even easier. Tell them how all you wanted was treatment and that's why you downloaded a million chidl pr0n images and ten thousand videos. Wanker!

Eivind Berge said...

"You still don't explain why sex is so important and why we should have a sex life with women."

Well, I see that as an assumption that is built into being a (heterosexual) man, so I didn't think it would need justification. If you don't think that is important, then I assume you have picked some uncommon path such as being a monk and maybe the male sexualist movement is not for you, except you should still be a supporter for moral reasons in my view.

Gally said...

'Gally is still nothing but a bloody moron it seems.'

Well, we all have our flaws and I think it is usefull to confess to our shortcomings - rather than focusing on others'.

That said, all Eivind could have done would be to mail me and then we wouldn't been having this misunderstanding (in regards to imposters and such).

'Wanker!'
Yeah and who isn't and who are you to judge my sexual habits, proclivities, or preferences?

Du skal være snill mot andre og være kjekk og grei, og forøvrig kan du gjøre hva du vil.

It's a simple and nice sentiment.

Eivind Berge said...

I have also been impersonated on other blogs, and I'd like to provide a way to prove that I am me if it becomes necessary. One of the best ways to do so is to sign a message with one of my bitcoin addresses, for example:

1EivindBk5GVrdf8K8MU72nueSVf3C27ZQ

Such messages can be verified in Bitcoin Core. Alternatively I could send you a small amount of bitcoin from that address, which of course requires the private key that no one else should have. That way you need no technical knowledge, just a bitcoin wallet to receive bitcoin.

Trust no one who claims to be me and isn't willing or able to do one of the above.

Gally said...

That sounds like a nice way to sign a message, yes.

Also, kind of recently the 'Manga Guide to Cryptography' was translated into english ( https://www.amazon.com/Manga-Guide-Cryptography-Guides/dp/1593277423 ).

It's probably the outmost heaviest technical book in the 'Manga Guide to X/Y/Z' there is.

There's also 'Zero Knowledge Proof', if you want to get really hardcore techie about it ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof ).

But, just seeing the IP-address and knowing where I live is good enough, really.

Also the Space Angels team have three AR-units, Zwølf und Elf, und Sechs.

Anonymous said...

Gally is on it again, with his incoherent drivel. To bad he cant be blocked.

Gab is Evil said...

Bad news about Gab… It’s just another nest of pedohysterics, “defense of freedom of expression but when only I want it!”

https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2018/10/gab-bans-lolicon-calling-it-demonic-garbage/

Eivind Berge said...

I hadn't heard about Gab until couple weeks ago, and as soon I do, what I hear is that they shut down content. So typical. It seems there can be no platform that is both popular and freedom-loving.

john said...

I 'tried' tinder. I didn't know I had to set up a Facebook account.so I did but I didn't put MY face up there.so, I'm swiping'and I didn't swipe in the right direction and ran out of 'likes'.then they try to sell you 'likes'.i got bored VERY quickly.women do nothing for me.I've only met a few with ANY kind of sense of humor.so, yea maybe I'll go back on and put my pretty face on there but I doubt it.

Eivind Berge said...

You can pay for unlimited likes (something like 20 dollars per month) or else just wait for some more every day. You should use your face and swipe right on the women you like. That way you should have some matches before long, at least if you are not too picky.

john said...

yes.now I have to get someone to put my face on there.i don't know how to do that.it's just that simple.i know I know it's easy peasy but I don't know to do it.so, yeah gotta find someone to do that, great.they are showing me a lot of 40,50 yr old women.some are sixty. whatever.....maybe I'll settle down with a sweet ninety year old.sounds pretty cool huh?

Eivind Berge said...

You can regulate the ages of women that you swipe in the settings. No need to look at old women. For example select 18-35 to get some young but still attainable ages. And if you have a smartphone it really should be easy to take a picture.

john said...

oh I'm sure it is.I'LL just have to figure it out on my own of course.no help for THIS guy EVER in this life.I'LL just have to have a blast in the next, fictional life to make up for this! 18-35 is going to be rough once they see me, but I don't mind rejection.

Erich said...

I cannot use Tinder. It's beyond my morals. I will never date, touch, nor approach anyone over 18 years of age, they are the oppressors of minors and only deserve my hatred.

Also dating people over 18 because under 18 is banned or almost impossible because laws and society is a type of rape and sexual abuse.

Some men say "noFap" mine is "no18".

Gally said...

'Some men say "noFap" mine is "no18".'

It's funny that you would claim that, because it is such an unrealistic attitude to relationships.

In fact, had you tried pulling that line over at the virped-forum (a support forum for actual pedophiles), I bet you they would (90%+ of them at least) snicker and even deride you for that.

So that sweet honeypot-pussy doesn't run dry after 18, and in fact just like good and settled Barley-wine, it just gets better in time (because people become better at fucking with experience, of course).

---
Gally's first body given by Desty Nova was initially too fast for her, so she experienced blue-shift - moving faster than light.

Erich said...

If you had said any other pedophile group yet, maybe, just maybe, it would make sense what you say. But not virped. Virped is not a support forum, is a cult, cowards who obey and kneel before the imposed nonsense of society, I tell you bluntly, virped are unpleasant scum that deserves the worst, it is an honor that such a pile of human garbage dare to try to "snicker and deride" at me.

A virped is an imbecile who considers sex with minors of a ridiculous arbitrary age rape (18, 16, I don't think they come down from there, they don't have personality) is a loser who is ashamed of his pedophilia or natural attraction to teenage girls as if the rest of people in society were better, is an aspie who believes that if she likes teenagers she is an "ephobophile" or how many ridiculous "philias" they invent to think of themselves as "special".

What a phrase "I can't get youngest girls" you said, any old feminist hag would be proud of you, your transformation to a full feminist is almost complete. No. That's what those who can't get fresher, younger girls says to fool themselves. Women don't get better with age. They just become more unpleasant and old. Women don't get better at sex or need it, they just get better at manipulating you.

What to think of a guy who has an alter ego a "warrior woman" and doesn't even recognize his enemies for what they are. You keep believing that you are "hebophophile" for being attracted to pubescent and teenage girls like 99% of men, that feminists are not the real enemy and that women improve with age. You are the underdog in this fight, Gally.

Gally said...

Well, that was quite a lot of disdain that you laid upon me.
And you don't really know me.

So, I must assume you have your own issues.

Much of the points you try to raise have no interest to me, in particular I feel I can state that even though I have had my disagreements with Eivind, we are aligned on the issue that the age of consent is too high.

And also, on similar issues, such as I belive it is completely ridiculus to prohibit sex for money. If for no other reason than that a lot of handicapped people would benefit from that being legalized, and of course prostitutes would have more protection from abuse.

So yeah.
I can think of aspects of society that can rightfully be critizised, and I am certainly ready to discuss them.

And don't you ever, ever again, try to deride me for my connection to the Newtonian mechanics that for the very basis of panzerkuntst.

---
Alita had a choice to make, in front of the Jovian Consensus and Arthur's reincarnation as Melkizedek.
She chose to be reborn.
And as the arrival of an iron and steel angel heralds the beginning of the end, so shall the outcome of my plans be influential.

Anonymous said...

Erich says the same things that theantifeminist says, have you noticed? it's exactly word for word what he would say... maybe it's an incognito name?

Eivind Berge said...

Nah, TheAntifeminist was never that extreme about rejecting girls over 18, was he?

Anonymous said...

Maybe it's just a parody of men who don't date girls under 18. Sometimes a parody is the worst of the attacks. One of the ways to make pedohysteric men see how ridiculous they are when they talk about not dating under 18 is by parodying them at inverse. Sometimes I've think on that tactic, but I'm lazy and there would be a lot of incompression.

john said...

well, yea I'm not too excited, as you can probably tell, about tinder, women in general, any dating site.i know how badly women hate men,even the most wildly successful women despise and blame men, even the ones with net worths in the 100s of millions! and I'm not great at pretending just so I can "get some".sleeping with the enemy doesn't exactly turn me on so much but I'll swipe some on tinder I GUESS.

Anonymous said...

@Gally You are a fucking idiot! Go suck some police dick, you fucking tranny.

Men using the handicapped and the safeness of the prostitutes as argument for not outlawing prostitution are even more scum of the earth than the feminists and manginas wanting to outlaw it.

Gally said...

That pretty much sounds like somebody who's paid.

I will reach the Zenith on Marslow's pyramid.

You can't stop me.


---
Alita chose to be an artist, for a few years, before joining the powerball.

Tom Grauer said...

Virpeds are either government agents, or dupes acting in a manner indistinguishable from how government agents would act.

The whole Virped "meme" was created for two reasons, and two reasons only: a) to demoralize people seeking to challenge the pedohysterical status quo by maintaining a facade of, "Pedophiles themselves all support age-of-consent and anti-CP legislation, so there!"; b) to attract low-IQ pedophiles so that the police will know whom, from within the general population, to monitor more closely. It's a psyop and a trap at once.

Just as surely as "child sex trafficking" does not involve children, does not involve trafficking, and often enough does not involve sex, the Virpeds are neither virtuous, nor -- for the most part -- are they genuine pedophiles. It's a trickity trick.

Gally said...

Well, those are possible alternative explanations, to be sure.

Myself, I'm not buying into everything, and its quite noticable that with a global populace of 1% of men being genuine pedophiles, only some 2000 have signed up on the virped forums (and most are inactive).

Either the issue doesn't attract much debate (life being what it is, and there not being many forums for people who miss their left leg), or it could be as you say, a sting operation.

Only problem is, I have spoken to the admins and either they are geniuses at deception or they are genuinely very, *very* inept.

So as with most things, go by Finnegan's law: 'Never attribute to malice that which incompetence in itself suffice to explain'.

Only keep in mind the corrolary: 'Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice'.

---
In the original arch, Alita tried to save the baby-girl Kotomi from Zaitan's rampage. Kotomi grew up to be a reporter, and interviewed the then deranged Desty Nova where he led them to Yoko's incarnated body.

Gally said...

Oh and I forgot, if it is of any concern, I don't support the virped 'org' much anymore.

Mainly because I agree with this (more than I like to):
'Pedophiles themselves all support age-of-consent and anti-CP legislation, so there!"; b) to attract low-IQ pedophiles' .

For the record, soft-core child-pornography (such as merely nudism and sexually suggestive poses) has been found to lower the incidents of actual child abuse, because those who are predisposed to wanting sex with minors rather than adults, use that soft-core pornography as a substitute.

The virpeds are against that, and their inner core are misguided and misleading and dumb christians to boot.


---
Seeing as those twats who tried to impersonate me can't read up on a simple manga, nor obtain a Norwegian IP-proxy in my vicinity, I think we can make ado with my little rambling of Last Order-trivia.

Anonymous said...

I can't be sure that's theantifeminist. But once years ago I saw it on another blog saying that a man could refuse to date with girls over 18 because it could be a form of "rape" by the feminist system. Nor does he seem to want to date girls over 18 now. He also has a contempt for men to go NoFap like this Erich.

Anonymous said...

Male sexualism is dead. It's time to face it. Tom Grauer has tried what many have only dreamed of: trying to create something new. Unfortunately he has failed. How each and every one of us failed.

Male Sexualism was rather Tom Grauer's personal ideology which was a bizarre mix of rape, pedophilia and extreme masculinism. It's not for the rest of the world, it's just something for Tom Grauer.

Even that then something is dead it is better to bury with dignity and let it rest than to turn it into a drifting zombie. No, our color is not pink, but the black of mourning, oppression and death.

Let us bid farewell to Male Sexualism and let us look to the future.

Eivind Berge said...

No, male sexualism is not dead, and not just Tom Grauer's personal ideology either. Tom's male sexualism was a first draft (which in turn was based on the lessons of the failed Manosphere) that I am now refining. We need to straighten out the worst extremism, emphasize what really matters to most men and find a way to gain broader appeal.

Anonymous said...

Yeah... about that.

I don't think what matters to most men is the colour pink, nor is it too be perceived as overtly interested in (what basically is personal) sexual matters that for the most part can't be changed, such as power imbalances (swinging either way, really) in individual relationships (or segments of the society).

What matters to men is building careers in order to be perceived as having a surplus of resources so that their ability to amass resources and influence can be used as bargaining chips in procreation with the opposite gender. Also known as 'marriage', which in all modern cultures is monogamous in nature because the female wants to monopolize the access to said advantages, for her offspring.

You're not going to change that, ever never ever, and in fact men want it that way too because whilst a woman can be (almost entirely) sure that the baby she carries is hers, a man can't be.

So, whilst it is good that you have a plan... to make a plan, to make others agree with you, most men spend their time on planning other things - such as their own lives and their own future.

The rest - well, let's just say extremism has always appealed to people not feeling successfull in life, and / or have an axe to grind.

So your appeals can't really be built on rationality and reasonableness, because those areas are already perceived as covered by feminism.

Anonymous said...

The pit of feminism, so stinky that the MAP feminists on TOC blog can feel nauseous:

https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/05/men-pursuing-underage-girls/

Anonymous said...

That is a true gem in demonstrating cognitive dissonance.

There are so many ways she is arguing against her own shtick, that I think I lost count after half a dozen.

But, yeah. Feminism is worse than Nazism, because at least the Nazis didn't consider half of humanity to be Subhuman Untermensch - nor did they consider *all* of the pop-culture of the time (or high culture / art) to be depraved and degenerate propaganda from 'Ze Juden'.

Only problem is, crazy women who for 99.99% of history would have been grandmothers and find themselves not being able to outcompete with young women of today no matter how much clownish makeup they put on because let's face it, youth is attractive because it is a sign of health and vigour - as opposed to saggy-titted, deranged and vitriolic hags.

Unfortunately the wheel of history moves slowly, and as feminism makes women feel they can blame men for all that is wrong in the world then as a consequence they can make themselves believe that only privileging women more can save our irresponsible consumerist cultures from total collapse, so they are going to be riding that witch-broom until third world war breaks out and they get confronted with the problem of being conscripted too.

Let's see what they have to say for themselves in a scenario where they start getting their daughters back in bodybags.

john said...

wars aren't fought that way anymore.even in usa occupied forever Afghanistan "we" only lose 2,3 guys a year.america fights "bravely" with drones now.

and yes the nazis DID think at least half of humanity was untermensch, but that's history,and neither here nor there. and we all know the "future is female" no matter what we do.

I did enjoy yet another of Jordan Petersons YouTube videos:
'jordan Peterson DESTROYS British feninist'.

these guys LOVE to use "destroy" don't they? but in this one, he does "destroy" this particular feminist idiot.

we've seen this before but this is a good one.

Eivind Berge said...

"What matters to men is building careers in order to be perceived as having a surplus of resources so that their ability to amass resources and influence can be used as bargaining chips in procreation with the opposite gender."

Yes, but it SHOULD also matter to men that all their reproductive efforts can be wiped out by one accusation under a feminist rape law, or some other unfair sex law such as age of consent. Sexual politics should matter, beyond individual efforts to be more attractive. It should of course matter that so much of our sexuality is criminalized. Male sexualism would be important to rational men. They just sadly don't see it. We must not give up just because we haven't succeeded yet.

john said...

well it surely matters to me.i could've easily went to jail on a completely unprovable charge of online "rape threat". I'm actually lucky the bitch didn't feel like flying here from cali to make her bogus complaint.

but the LAST thing I want is kids.I'd have to homeschool em? no thanks. with no heirs, the state will get my house upon my death.however, if it's literally the last thing I do, I'll happily burn it down so all they get is a lot,with the car in the garage of course.

have I given up trying to convince/explain to men that feminism is terrible for both sexes and is evil? yes, yes I have.

most Americans can't even LISTEN to what you're saying, forget about incorporating it into their little minds.they just talk right over you, or immediately call me a sexist, misogynist etc. and for me,the internet is dead. all I do is watch YouTube.

I won't be doing or saying anything political with this new Facebook account I was forced to create so I could go nowhere on tinder.i still haven't put my picture up yet if I ever do.

frankly,one HAS to be a billionaire now to affect any kind of change,for better or worse.

if I were a billionaire for example, I'd arrange for Jordan peterson to have his own show, reaching millions daily sounds great to me.

Anonymous said...


First off, the nazis were initially concerned with labelling as ’Untermensch’, undesirable ethnical minorities in their own contry, such as jews, gypsies, and slavs.
See:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany

Your claim that they considered half of humanity as ’Untermensch’ has no merit, even as the usage of the term itself was contested and debated fiercely amongst German racial theorists - for example, of chief interest was precisely defining ’Aryan’ as being superior, not mainly to define as many as possible non-Germans as being non-Aryans and by extension, being ’Untermensch’.
See:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany#Other_%22non-Aryans%22

So at least even the crazy German racial theorists tried to do things in a rational and methodic way, not just spout sloganering rethoric such as ’CIS-scum’.
For your further education, john, I suggest you find it in your interest in your old days to check your facts a little more. You might learn something other than being self-obsessed with your old ways and cranky about it to boot.

Next up, the viability of fighting high-tech wars on multiple fronts when your economy shifts from being proped up with trade and capitalism through exploitation of the poor, that can provide a sustainable ’passive draft’ of enough dunderhead cannon-fodder.
TO, what wars have been mostly been for, throughout human history: Getting rid of your own restless, excess population, in particular young men who are prone to make demands for their future which, quite frankly, no longer exists.
You may have been following the news above and beyond sports, so you have possibly caught up on the fact that the IPCC-report of 08.10.2018 clearly states that the goal of only 1.5% global warming is slipping out of reach, and that we may have to start scrubbing the atmosphere for CO2.
Good luck with that as the economy goes down from 4% growth annually on average for western nations, to the pre-industrial 0.1%.

Oh, and did we mention the hundreds of millions of climate refugees yet?
Do you honestly believe drones are going to stop them?

Your technological progress and lack of perspective blinds you.
Therefore you look for a quick fix in everything: Even the end of the world.

Anonymous said...

'Yes, but it SHOULD also matter to men that all their reproductive efforts can be wiped out by one accusation under a feminist rape law, or some other unfair sex law such as age of consent.'

Well - that becomes a question about relative risk, and negative sum games.

As long as you can project outwards an air of supporting the dominant narrative, and you don't buy into the fairy tale that all men are equally at risk of being randomly targeted for persecution, it shouldn't really matter to you that some men do get accused of harassment, or grow up poor and end up in jail, or speed on the road and end up in car-crashes, or invests poorly in finances or choice of spouse or profession and end up losing parts of their stability in life.

The #metoo charade in itself shows that your pet peeve isn't actually being taken much seriously beyond some token commenting from 'both sides'.

'if I were a billionaire for example, I'd arrange for Jordan peterson to have his own show, reaching millions daily sounds great to me.'

And would you characterize that also as a 'should'-question, that (all?) 'men' have some kind of obligation to make come true for you - making you a billionaire so that you can host a TV-show?

Or when put that way, does it more sound like an idle daydream of an unemployed and uneducated man with a pet peeve and way too much faith in his own opinions?

Anonymous said...

Oh and I forgot, you opinionated twitter-obsessed basement-dwellers might want to pick up a book on psychology and sociology (or a dozen), and get learnt that there are things out there (beyond the confines of your own dwelling or limited experience through your deselective narrow social interactions), that are of a much higher contemplation (and wisdom!) than your drivel.

Such as game-theory in the context of social interactions and emotionally based decision-making.
See http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/game-theory-and-social-emotions/

For example, the excerpt about zero-sum games (which apply in a limited world with finite resources, i.e. any world that experiences stagnation in economic growth):
---
Therefore, whatever has worked to the advantage of the other has diminished the self. In its harshest forms, zero-sum holds that not only does one person win and the other lose, but in order for one to win, the other must lose. Zero-sum emotions include:

total scarcity — if you gain (wealth, status), I lose
Schadenfreude — your misfortune brings me gladness;
envy — your success diminishes me;
triumphalism — I’m bigger because you are smaller; and
resentment — as long as you have more success than me, I despise you, if necessary in secret.

The appeal of these emotions — risking all to feel triumphalism and dominion — is well-nigh universal. Hence, in civil societies, zero-sum games are delegated to sports and gambling. In prime divider societies, they invade the realm of real life: “war is the sport of kings.”

In order to understand this mentality, we have to put aside cognitive egocentrism. We are raised in a culture that places heavy emphasis on positive-sum relations, or on the notion of mutually beneficial win-win. We consider positive-sum so obviously appropriate that it is virtually synonymous with rationality. When our economists assume rationality as their axiomatic understanding of individual decision-making, they reflect this widespread cultural assumption that, at least formally, dates back to Adam Smith. And not surprisingly, the mentality of zero-sum – one wins, one loses – strikes us, as self-destructive.

Let us consider the nature and logic of zero-sum interactions, especially in terms of the emotional pay-offs. The basic rule of human interaction in many honor-shame cultures holds that honor is a limited commodity, that one person’s honor means the loss of honor of another. Politically this leads to what Eli Sagan has termed the “paranoid imperative”: rule or be ruled. “If I don’t rule over you, you will rule over me. I must therefore try to dominate you lest you dominate me. If you win, I lose; in order for me to win, you must lose.”
---

Now apply that to how you really think the world is going to react to nations not wanting to reduce their carbon emissions, and you get the old saying cecami un occhio.
See http://fonderiausa.squarespace.com/poke-one-of-my-eyes-out/.

A starving farmer finds an old oil lamp in his field. He rubs it and a genie comes out. "I will grant you a wish," the genie says "but your worst enemy will get double of whatever you wish." The farmer can't make up his mind, walking back and forth, imagining different scenarios. He could wish for immense wealth or food to last him a lifetime since he is starving, but his hatred for his enemy is such that he turns to the genie and says: "Poke one of my eyes out".

Anonymous said...

Im so full of hatred against Stacey Dooley and the other "good doers" in this so called documentary where the only child abusers are the cops themselves and Stacey Dooley herself.

https://tv.nrk.no/serie/stacey-dooley/KOID23003817/02-05-2018

Pay attention to how the cops and Dooley themselves makes up alle by themselves a fantasy about torture of kids that actually never happens. It is all a fantasy by these sick cops and filmmakers themselves. This entrapment of poor mothers on pure fantasy from the cop-scum themselves and Stacey Dooley makes me hate those feminist scumbags so much!

Anonymous said...

Stacey Dooley is a sick witch!

Anonymous said...

I just came up with one more thing, if you don't mind.

Take for example the TV-series 'Game of Thrones', where in one of the arcs the story is about the issue of slavery and it's contribution to the economy (an issue which also played a part for the US).

Suppose all the slaves could be replaced with machinery - robots, AI, and automated manufacturing lines and such - at a tenth of the price it would cost to feed and clothe the slaves.

Do you think the slaves would benefit from that?

john said...

haha.yes I am completely broke(and live in my long dead mothers basement, or so I've been told repeatedly by feminists, manginas) and have no education! and even though I run my own business, of COURSE I'm unemployed!(I give all the money I make to RAINN) how'd you know?! and yes my "pet peeve" IS feminism! and yes "everything is opinion" Nietzsche said it, it MUST be true! I think the earth is flat! it's all opinion...feminists suck, but that's just an opinion also!

I can't PROVE feminism sucks, so it might be wonderful! and I certainly can't PROVE the earth is round(ish)! I also can't PROVE technology will destroy everything but i do despise it and I'm positive(in my delusional way) that it will.

I also can't PROVE 99.9 of billionaires were born into it despite their denials(Trump comes to mind, he only started out with $400 million in the 1970s, NOT a lot of money, especially back then :)

it's all just opinion....like "chemtrails" I can't PROVE it's horsehit. you mentioned something about "sports".yea, I don't WATCH any of it. but there's that ASSumption about all Americans again.and for the record I'm actually a military historian,my specialty being the eastern front.

any other projections or guesses about me?

john said...

good thing I NEVER gamble or watch sports.now, it's back to my basement.oh right, darnit there ARE NO basements in Florida.once again, that's just my opinion, for all I know, there COULD be homes with basements somewhere in florida. NOT mine though.

Anonymous said...

'any other projections or guesses about me? '

Not really, other than a) on the internet nobody knows you're a dog, and b) all greeks are liars, and c) I wouldn't know much about the eastern front really as I would be more concerned with the western (seeing as Rommel got the short end of the stick).

In any event, I found the interview of Jordan Peterson on 'Skavlan' (a leftist debating program) quite delicious in that he completely owned the stage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkkD8QS4JfM

So, yah as we say in norwegian, you can't 'prove' it, but what holds up in court is the issue of probabilities.

And honestly I think he makes an extremely good figure in that report.

john said...

all Greeks are liars!? well, I'm not Greek so I wouldn't know.

Rommel, in the eyes of the nazis was a traitor.I mean, he did plot to kill Hitler, and he was given a choice to shoot himself or hang on a meat hook(after the humiliating trial) so I do believe he got a break there..

the western front was largely irrelevant as it was the Russians who did almost all the fighting, and dying to beat back the imperialists.sadly, they're being threatened YET AGAIN by imperialists.but then, when have they not been.

Eivind Berge said...

"We are raised in a culture that places heavy emphasis on positive-sum relations, or on the notion of mutually beneficial win-win."

Yeah, and that works too (in business) when the economy is growing! Which I agree is about over now. Politics has always been zero-sum, and you are right that I have been too idealistic. My men's rights activism has been morally virtuous but not so good for me personally. If I had been focused on career and selfish politics to the extent that I had gone into that, I would be in a much better position now. Trying to find a woman to have children with without much provider ability is very tough. But not impossible.

I have been operating under the naive assumption that men should care about principles and not want their sexuality to be criminalized regardless of personal risk. I haven't been so naive that I believed men are actually like that, but I feel that they ought to be.

john said...

yes, I'm happy I concentrated on making money, the prime directive here, instead of dreaming I'd change the world somehow online.all I really accomplished was nearly getting arrested over...nothing.never get tangled up with women I guess not even VERY long distance. my money and house never won me a female anyway,so even success doesn't make that inevitable as it surely did decades ago.

women no longer need men.they can work, or sue, or sue some more. or work, then sue later!
pretty good gig they've got going.

john said...

wow. I see Meg Ryan,even at 56, is getting married again. women truly are recyclable.is she marrying her plumber?! nah, just john mellencamp another famous multi millionaire.

only men marry down, never women! and i used to have an acquaintance who always asked me 'why do you want to be famous so badly'? oh,I don't know, maybe for the tons of money, the way youre treated,like a god,the high end cars, living in nice big mansions ,all the free perks,and 1st class travel(not that coach shit) and,last but not least, the best women.everyone wants to be a celebrity in this country.if someone says they don't, they're LYING.

so, this latest shooter, the ex marine.yea,this guy was NOT crazy, and the usual fools ask why?! oh dear Lord why?

when I inform them it's a combination of feminism,getting disrespected DAILY, being raised by a single mother(in his case, even worse, he was living with his mother, she's lucky he didn't shoot her first) and being actually unemployed, I get a big pile of thumbs down of course.

just go with he was "crazy" like the 100s of other "crazies" that finally went off, it's sooo much easier.

problem is, these dumbshits want to expand the already massively bloated police state even MORE with every "mass shooting". well, they're wish is the govts command!

john said...

oh,so you're PRO slavery then? a real deal right wing racist(oops, I meant "nationialist") huh?
slaves were actually HAPPY back in the day.got it.check.I'm sure David duke would agree with you!

Anonymous said...

only men marry down, never women!

Yeah, which is basically why:
1) the consequence of introducing feminism in India plus freedom of choice amounts to
2) gender selective abortions which in turn leads to
3) poor people running short of potential brides since the upper castes wants male children and therefore
4) they rape.

So there you have it.
Feminism + free choice + free-market capitalism = rapes.

Why do you think so-called 'patriarcal' societies are mostly clan-based when it comes to economy, and most traditional societies have separated, assigned roles for genders and emphasizes the importance of family and each man having one wife?

To make sure the distribution of resources and privileges are the most fair, stable, and even of course.

Anonymous said...

I have been operating under the naive assumption that men should care about principles and not want their sexuality to be criminalized regardless of personal risk. I haven't been so naive that I believed men are actually like that, but I feel that they ought to be.

Well, you’re not the first person to become disappointed and disillusioned.

Only, weird thing is, that ’success’ depends on your definition of it - not society’s.

Take, for example this dickweed right here: https://www.quora.com/profile/Eivind-Kj%C3%B8rstad

He’s probably the most popular Norwegian writer on Quora with 20.000 followers, and has been a ’Top Writer’ since he joined - five years straight now.

He is also a pathological liar, autistic, and narsissistic.

And given that I know him very well, having been friends with him for three years, I find it somewhat refreshing whenever I feel a little down, to read his answers and know that not just does he manipulate people’s perception of him by carefully picking his wording and chosing how he comes across, he is actually a person with no principles or values whatsoever.
Not truth, not kindness nor compassion, not love, nothing. He’s basically very much like how Immanual Kant described Jeremy Bentham: ’He is a man who lacks the basic fundamentals of humanism, as he goes about his life regarding others around him with no more thought or concern than flies on a summer’s day.’

Jeremy Bentham by the by, was the inventor of Utilarianism, and a proponent for a great many humanitarian issues and reforms. At the end of his life however, he came to the conclusion that the State as an Institution, in and of its nature, was evil rather than good.

But, my point: You can do good and still not be very ’successfull’ or likeable in the eyes of others - and as the philosopher Slavoj Zizek has argued, ’Why be happy when you can be interesting?’ .

Or, you can be successfull and likeable in the eyes of others, and yet not do an ounce of good for anyone, being abandoned by you children who see through your charade, and remembered by no one except for those who’se lives your narcissism has adversely affected.
As with this Eivind Kjørstad character, who'se own mother clearly tells him in the company of strangers: 'YOU don't need to lecture ME', his children at the age of seven tells his friends that he lies, his brother who nearly doesn't have anything to do with him, and who'se wife he drove out in the cold autumn nights when she was near giving birth, merely for disagreeing with him.
And who on Quora, plays the role of a feminist and comes across as the most polished and sensible and genuinely likeable person. And it's all a fake.

john said...

yea,we already have a guy just like that here in America but with tens of millions of "followers". he's "our" president-- pathological liar, narcissist, autistic (much like bush)none other than lifelong criminal and con man,Donald Trump!

his supporters are racist idiots that know nothing of history, (and don't want to) and reject facts and science.they also continue to defend anything the idiot does or says-sheeple vermin.a very dangerous buffoon in very dangerous times.

hindsight is 20/20 but it's obvious Hillary would've made THE better man,or beast, whatever.at least she could and would've presented herself in a presidential/leader like fashion, and not run America by 'tweet'.or call the press the 'enemy of the people'(I NEVER saw that one coming!)

we ARE going to have a female president, sooner than later, and of course the bitch will be feminist,and a war criminal.but that's now automatic. war criminal is what all of our presidents have been and ever will be.

so,what is so "great" about America? it isn't our vanishing privacy, it's not our disappearing rights,middle class,upward mobility or fake "freedoms".

I posit it WAS our entertainment.back in the day, I would go out to see a movie every friday.I've seen one half of one movie so far this year.i walked out as soon as they started pushing the males are losers/stay home watch the kids while mommy goes and save the world trope.

the perfect example of how movies and tv are now all sjw/grrrl power/feminist agenda driven crap is the "walking dead". ALL the main male characters have been killed off, everything is now ran by 20 something females or younger, and diversity abounds! even the old white lady is just madly in love with the black guy with dreds.ratings are plunging.

"music" is also now driven almost exclusively by "empowered" females singing songs about their "lousy" boyfriends.

America gave the world climate change, agent Orange,napalm, carpet bombing, endless economic sanctions, invasions,permanent occupation, waterboarding,and yes feminism.feminism mostly originated in the u.s.and 3rd wave? definitely originated here.

sadly, it was entertainment that was America's greatest and only "gift" to the world, and now THAT sucks.

I want to see $merikkka DEFIANT again.the America from a century ago would have NEVER tolerated this insane, unprecedented inequality.

MAYBE,after the race war is over, Americans will finally unite against our real enemies, the corporate state, the billionaires.I'm not holding my breath though.

Anonymous said...

I want to see $merikkka DEFIANT again.the America from a century ago would have NEVER tolerated this insane, unprecedented inequality.

Mmm, yeah, except... his supporters are racist idiots that know nothing of history,.

FYI, America a century ago was just heading towards the economic crash in the thirties, and I assure you inequalities were very tangible and real. Then came the crash and things got worse, until Germany ended up being their biggest trading partner - which they didn't change much about as it continued to adopt their theories about race, crime, and sterilization and eugenics until Hitler came to power.
IBM itself provided the punchcard machines used to plan the trains bringing jews to concentration camps, and even during the war that was kept quiet.
Oh and only reason the US considered entering the war was because Churchill stopped informing them of locations of German subs, so that US passenger ships travelling to the Great Britain got torpedoed.
Then they actually started planning when it was obvious the Soviets were turning the west-front and would end up taking over Germany's entire industrial production if they didn't carve out their piece of the pie.
You may call that 'Defiant', I call it 'Cowardly and Opportunistic'.
The US and USSR forces met in Berlin, remember? They kind of built a wall there for a few years.

Meanwhile Stalin wanted to drive them to the sea, and was assasinated by his own generals for that. After which Great Britain placed atomic mines on the borders of East- and West-Germany, to stop a similar blietzkrieg assault that the Germans had been successfull with - taking the initiative due to the advantage of their newly installed radios in their tanks, which France was one week away from implementing and as such bypassed the Marginot Line.

Goes to show defenses are against yesterday threats, and the new threats are Sklavs, Cyberwar-fare, Trolling teams who influence elections and of course nuclear powered cruise missiles and hoovers ( https://thediplomat.com/2018/03/russia-reveals-unstoppable-nuclear-powered-cruise-missile/ ). Not to mention hypersonic bunkerbusters, which narrows the window of reaction down so much you would need automatic systems to make the decision for retaliation.

With the civil rights movement you could have talked about a possible 'race war', but that time is long gone and what the problem is now is trade and resource wars, and in such a scenario all civil unrest will be dealt with because nations that are players cannot afford the distraction.
Take the imprisonment and 'reeducation' of Uighurs in China as an example.
I doesn't matter if such breakaway-issues are foreign or domestic inspired or supported, just like Martin Luther King Jr. was assasinated for having communist ideas, not for wanting civil rights.

In regards to the corporate state, you might want to read PriceWaterhouse Coopers analysis of the job market of 2030 causing a divided world. Future conflicts won't be about skin-color, it will be about the have's and the have nots, and no there will be absolutely no unity at all: Just 'diversity'.

Anonymous said...

So, I had the pleasant experience of getting started on a marathon of Jordan Peterson's 'Jordan Peterson: 5 Hours for the NEXT 50 Years of Your LIFE (MUST WATCH)' ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8e_dvbXoCQ ) yesterday.

Now, this guy is a psychologist and a scholar, with quite an interesting background, and he draws heavily on explaining rather deep mental issues about developing as a human being (and by extension, understanding society), by referrencing to things that are a part of wisdom handed down in the form of stories - be those from the Bible or from Disney - and much of what he says leaves you with the feeling that 'I am so glad you said that; because really, in my heart of hearts I already knew it but I couldn't face it before somebody articulated it to me in a way that gave me a sense of peace about it'.

So, instead of playing soldier - which is what finding a leader, creating a movement, and making a flag is really all about, the infantile playing of little boys who haven't grown a pair, I think y'all should instead take his words into mind, and 1) read books, 2) contemplate your self and your future, and 3) try to develop and mature and accept things for what they are.

This is advice which by the way doesn't just address some kind of faction or fictional army consisting of special snowflakes with an axe to grind against some windmill that they have projected their disappointments in life on, but rather everyone, in the greater society.

And by doing so, he's got some genuine appeal because what he says is constructive advice as well as constructive criticism - as opposed to merely criticism without offering better alternatives, which is the lowest form of intellectual exercise there can be. You know, the kind of cognitive developing exercises for kindergarten children; look at a picture and draw a circle around the things that seem to be out of place in it, then compare with what others think and see if you can agree which are actually out of place and maybe which are the most erroneously so.

So go read up on some psychology and sociology.
Or, just go the Breivik play-pretend soldier route (without the terrorism) and buy yourself a uniform, pick some medals of imaginary valour, and waltz around in it already.

And whilst you're at it, pat yourself on the back for finding things that are wrong in society.

Eivind Berge said...

I agree that Jordan Peterson has some useful things to say (and I've listened to much more than five hours myself), but I don't agree with your criticism of the male sexualist movement. We are not just "playing soldier" here -- we are a social movement with a specific agenda: changing the sex laws to decriminalize all the sexuality criminalized by feminists, ranging from the age of consent (which needs to go back down to at least 13) to the expanded definition of rape to the law against paying for sex, etc.

The problem with Jordan Peterson is that he basically agrees with the status quo, apart from some insignificant laws at the margins (compelled speech and enforced equality of outcome). So his advice only goes that far. Great for self-improvement and cleaning your room, useless for opposing hateful politics.

And I'm being very restrained with the military symbolism when I call for a flag and color. This is not comparable to Breivik's stolen valor or anything fraudulent or silly like that; just an analogue to other informal political symbols like the rainbow flag or the anarchist sign.

Eivind Berge said...

Or I guess I wasn't being entirely fair to Jordan Peterson calling him useless for opposing hateful politics, since he does make a very big deal out of the danger of falling into totalitarianism such as communism with its gulags or the like, and he warns of how close the left currently is to that sort of nightmare. But he fails to see the problem with the feminist sex laws, aside from getting worked up over pronouns, and that is a huge blind spot which makes him not a men's rights activist.

Contrary to what you insinuate, the male sexualist movement most assuredly has an alternative to what we find wrong with society -- abolishing or changing quite specific sex laws -- which I admittedly haven't communicated with sufficient clarity, but I am working on it and the plan is to produce a comprehensive manifesto.

JP is too ideology-phobic in my view. This is a flaw, seeing everybody who cares about ideology as "ideologically consumed" subhumans. It is disingenuous because his output has far more to do with politics than he cares to admit, and naive because we do need ideologues to oppose an ideologically organized adversary such as feminism.

Anonymous said...

And in today's papers we are reading that the Norwegian government is investing 1,2 Billion NOK in educational reforms, as they are recognizing that the future's job market requires a different take on reeducation.

Sexual autonomy is intricately linked to education, by the way. Public schooling introduced in Britain in 1876, AoC increased from 13 to 16yo the year after.

So if anything, what we may be seeing is an increase in AoC, not a decrease. But, the future is uncertain.

However, I can't on the top of my head come up with any kind of ideological movement that started out as an ideological movement, and then argued the merits of itself. Rather the other way around.

So let me know which books and research articles and polls support your point of view, what your arguments for and against are, and which organizations would be involved in your suggestion that the AoC should be lowered.
Might be interesting to hear how you actually plan to attack this issue, if nothing else.

Eivind Berge said...

And finally I want to say to that comment (which misses the mark in so many ways) that you vastly underestimate my idealism and commitment to principles when you imagine that I am "projecting" my disappointments in life onto society and merely react to those in a misguided way. As a matter of fact, I am profoundly morally and ideologically opposed to the current sex laws regardless of my personal situation, even to my detriment as I am feeling now that I am trying to date new women. For example, I was just talking to a 16-year-old girl who wanted to be my girlfriend and have a baby with me. I am not referring to a trap or any bullshit like I described in my previous blog post, but a genuine legal teen girl. She was totally into me, until she googled me and told me to fuck off. So I kind of missed out on the ultimate prize there (although I might add that she had Asperger's and veganism in addition to feminism, so might not be such a good mother after all -- I could easily have ended up with an autistic malnourished baby there, so maybe it was for the best).

Nonetheless, I have no regrets. And maybe the next girl (or the one after the next hundred who reject me or whatever) will be opinionated in the right direction, like my last girlfriend was.

Now in response to your very last comment, I can't figure out what you mean by an "ideological movement that started out as an ideological movement, and then argued the merits of itself." It seems to me that if you have an ideology, then you obviously believe (or should believe) in its merits, so those do come first. I have believed in the merits of what I am espousing since before I became an activist, and indeed became an activist for that reason (while also refining my thinking as I go along and keeping an open mind to more evidence). And I don't need polls and research articles to support my view (although those are useful as well and do exist) -- I am at liberty to state an ideology and advocate for it. And "ideology" as I use it is almost indistinguishable from morality, because this is a profoundly moral issue for me. I don't take this lightly or selfishly or play games for show.

Eivind Berge said...

To answer the association of AoC with education (and implication that the latter justifies the former), that is not even consistent with the law, because it is focused on age gap rather than preventing schoolgirls from having sex at all. The consequences of sex with boys around their same age will not interfere any less with education (actually more) than the phony badness of older men that the AoC laws actually criminalize.

Anonymous said...

Mm, no.
AoC begins at sixteen, the exact same age at which public education ends.

Now, we may be going a bit in circles here, but whatever your conviction / ideology / belief is, you need to find a way to convey it - talk about it in a way that other people can relate to.

You can't just go around saying 'I believe in X', because then, that's just, like, your opinion man. So you need to form your arguments - if you have any, because I'm not finding you very clear on what they are (and I happen to agree with your opinion) - in the way of appealing to a balance of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos ( https://www.pathosethoslogos.com/ ). Preferrably in that order, as it happens to be that we are not thinking machines, we are emotional machines that cooperate and just so happens to do so by thinking (and communicating).

There are lots of great examples of how this can be done to persuade people, but that's a starting point. Write down a list of things you can think of that are arguments, then consider who they may appeal to.

For example, a starting point for pathos might be:
'Lowering the age of consent might possibly force the courts to consider whether relationships between minors are abusive or exploitative, instead of just dismissing claims of exploitation on the grounds of the parties being above the AoC and close in age. This would send the signal that consent is not strictly bound to age, but to behaviour. This would be more in line with the intention of the law, rather than ignoring a sixteen year old girl's complaint that her boyfriend of 18yo has been abusive. AND, it would also be a better alternative than her having to file a false rape accusation in order to get justice, which currently is her only recourse to get the courts to take her seriously.'

For logos:
'Age of Consent was determined in a time in which sex-education and prevention and social support was virtually non-existent, and since then not only have all of these improved to the point that there are almost no dangers of medical, social, or exploitation complications, but also the age of menarche has dropped by seven whole years, so it is completely out of tune with the fact that young people mature physically much earlier than in the past. Therefore, the current AoC makes no logical sense.'

So, you get the idea - you need to not only state what you believe in (or feel strongly about), but also convey it in a way that convinces others that you have valid points and not just a pointy prick (pun so oh so intended).

Eivind Berge said...

I do not support lowering the age of consent in order to invent more forms of "abuse" to punish, so your "pathos" argument, though it is suited to make the feminists drool over the possibilities, is never an argument I would make. Only actual rape shall be punishable, not relationships that are merely exploitative or abusive in a lesser sense. You see, I actually disagree with the intent of the law, not just its application. The male sexualist position is so far removed from the mainstream that appealing to them in the pathos sense is not going to work, nor is it desirable. This is war, not bootlicking or appeasement. Your logos argument makes more sense and is in line with what I have been saying, but is hardly going to appeal to them either. I do not believe we can appeal to them, because this is a case of genuine mutual hatred that can only be won by brute force like they are doing now. I am trying to convince men to vote against the feminist agenda, not appease it. We must not be ashamed to admit that we actually disagree, and don't in fact secretly agree with the spirit of the law and just want to tweak it a little bit.

Anonymous said...

I don't see who you mean 'them' are, nor do I see how you plan to 'vote against the feminist agenda'.

As for war, you are not a nation and as such any aggression you could possibly muster beyond angry words on your blog would be quickly dealt with by the authorities.

You're also fighting on three fronts here, trying to become more successfull financially, getting a waifu, and making people agree with your views.

So that's quite a bit on your platter already, and maybe you should consider which ones of these are the most important to you and which you have the highest probability to succeed with - and what your timeframe for success in each is, as well as how much failure you are willing to accept before reprioritizing.

It's a good thing to shift focus and reprioritize every now and again.
Amos Yee failed to do that and didn't learn from adversity and failure, so.
Lots of boys talking like big men out there who are clueless as to how difficult it is to effect change.

Eivind Berge said...

I am fully aware of how difficult it is to effect change, and haven't claimed that we will be successful. But I am not interested in agreeing with the feminists just because we are losing. Sure it is just angry words, but so what? My activism is still worth infinitely more than the bootlicking that you stand for (and worse, it seems that you substantially agree with the feminist agenda).

As to my personal life, that is indeed prioritized and my goals there have a reasonable chance of success.

Anonymous said...

Okay, so you don't grasp the concept of dialectics. Or, are unwilling to do so on a pride-basis, as in: 'My opinion is worth more to me than being right'.

At least that's not an 'agenda' in any way, it's just a pet peeve, so I can't fault you for that anymore than I can fault somebody for eating peas with honey.

So, thanks for the chat, and as I'll be a bit busy in the next few days what with attending a conference for people with sexual challenges, I bid thee good day, Sir.

Eivind Berge said...

Dialectics is fine where appropriate, but I do not engage in dialectics with people who want to criminalize my sexuality. Male sexualism is about drawing a line beyond which our sexuality shall not be criminalized with our consent. This is an issue comparable to genocide, or at least slavery, or rather somewhere in between those two -- one does not ideologically compromise with that kind of oppression.

Anonymous said...

There are two ways to cut a cat's hair, they say.
I'm sure you are familiar with the saying, so let's cut to the chase: Put this in your pipe and smoke it ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q9qmp0qjng ).

Now. About this thing you call 'compromise' and which I call 'dialectics'.

Which do you think gives you the greatest pleasure of righteousness and which is the most effective?

VII said...

I admit my attraction to teenage girls and that's why I'm interested in this movement, but I'm getting fed up with anti-vegans who have no idea of veganism. That here they are a legion. Veganism is not bad for your health, nor does it prove that causes autism (as long as you not believe in these alt-right pseudocientific type of crap), veganism is proven to be suitable for all stages of life, from pregnancy to old age, as already demonstrated by the WHO and serious health studies.

You only eat meat, milk and eggs because you have been taught to do so since you were a child, not for any reason of health or logic. Millions of vegans prove it day after day by being healthy and having healthy children. Veganism doesn't cause autism. Vegan people (and children) get sick from poor diet planning just as non-vegan people get sick from poor nutrition.

Just use common sense: An omnivore does not need to eat meat, no species in any period of their life needs to drink milk from another animal species, no one needs to eat the period of a hen. Where's the malnutrition to feed on plants, fruit and seeds? I can get the same proteins with a few seeds and no cholesterol at all.

You should also know that meat and milk are full of female hormones that are used to speed up animal production, so they can be very harmful to testosterone and male hormones. I am not more 'fag' and effeminate since I am vegan.

Also using animals for food or any other way is immoral, and unjustifiable:

Non-human animals are not moral agents, and therefore cannot decide whether an action is right or wrong, and not guilty of their actions. Mentally developed humans are moral agents, and therefore we have a responsibility, which is to base our actions on ethics.

And what ethics says that harming others is immoral, using others without their consent is immoral, so it is illegal and socially repudiated to commit these acts with other human beings, the only thing we do and tolerate with animals is because their species, just as it was previously justifiable to do so with people of other races.

If it were justifiable to eat animals because other animals do, then we should practice cannibalism, infanticide and rape because other animals do.

Then one will say that "each one has his own ethics". Ethics is not personal, if it were so it would be justifiable to kill and rape other humans, ethics is universal and part of reason. There is no argument that justifies killing, exploiting and harming others for pleasure or being of another species.

Speciesism is just a group prejudice like any other, but it is the most deeply rooted of all, since childhood we are taught that animals are here to serve us. Just as in other times they taught that women and blacks only existed to serve us and their desires and integrity did not matter. Speciesism is as despicable and absurd as racism, there is no moral difference.

If you think it's immoral to do to others what you don't want them to do to you, then choose veganism and don't participate in animal exploitation anymore, or choose "veganism is stupid" and believe it's right to kill, exploit and use someone becuse their species. We don't need animal products of any type to live and be healthy.

Eivind Berge said...

I watched that video, and it was impressive how tolerant the Jews can be about intact boys. The framing of inclusiveness works in that setting in part because the Jews don't have the power of law to force circumcision, so it really is an inclusiveness issue rather than a tyranny issue like the sex laws. I don't see these as comparable.

Eivind Berge said...

I didn't mean to imply that veganism causes autism, which has never occurred to me. There is some heritability, however, which is what I was worried about with the girl who had Asperger's. I think that risk is slight though and it wouldn't have stopped me. She also did not seem malnourished and the baby would probably have had adequate nutrition as well. She was a Marilyn Monroe lookalike and not skinny (she looked even better than we remember Marilyn Monroe since she was so young!). But veganism is no fun. She even wanted to go to a vegan restaurant for our first date (if we had got that far), and that already is a minus because I really don't enjoy vegan food. I certainly can't imagine eating it all the time. I don't know that much about veganism, but I know you need supplements almost to survive so it can't be healthy.

Eivind Berge said...

Let me address the ethics of eating meat as well.

"If it were justifiable to eat animals because other animals do, then we should practice cannibalism because other animals do."

No, this does not follow. It would be horrible to hunt or raise humans for meat because humans understand what is happening to them, and so do their friends and families who will miss them, so they can't possibly have perfectly good lives under those conditions. With animals, killing them for meat is not in itself unethical, because it is no worse than any other death to them and usually better since they don't need to suffer disease and old age. So as long as you don't treat them cruelly, I think it is fine to slaughter animals for meat. I don't think an individual animal's longevity is important as they are oblivious to how long they will live anyway, and we keep breeding new ones, so why is anything ethically worse if you eat them? I think you should focus on avoiding animal cruelty and I would agree there is a lot that needs to be done about that, but I don't have a problem with eating animal products per se.

Anonymous said...

Cows are known to hide their newborns in animal farms because they fear slaughter, and have seen other separations, and slaughter of babies.
Cows, when pushed towards the slaughter wheel are seen to experience fear and cry, and the sight and smell of blood, they lick the hands of the human who push them on the wheel, in a desperate attempt to be saved. Same is with every other animal who is slaughtered.

Taken from: https://www.quora.com/Do-animals-feel-affection-for-each-other

Eivind Berge said...

I am skeptical and think you are reading to many human qualities into the behavior of farm animals. I agree it would be better if we could grow meat in a lab, but that is probably science fiction. For most of human existence it has been and will be a necessity to eat meat and other animal products pretty much whenever you can get them. The norm is a struggle for survival where you consume what is available and don't have an economic or emotional surplus to care about the finer feelings of animals. Even I don't have the luxury to be vegan even if I wanted to because I lack the finances and skills to cook palatable and nutritious meals that way. What I do is get whatever is cheap because it's close to the expiration date, usually meat and cheeses.

john said...

yes, it's damn pricey to eat vegan.and you're always hungry because eating only veggies and fruit just doesn't do it, especially if you're active.

i hate tofu and kale is awful.and nope, eating broccoli every day won't prevent you from getting cancer as some actually believe. just look at Steve jobs.at one point, he had lost 40 pounds in one month.his team of doctors told him he needed animal fats, protein.

I could be wrong but I don't think any hard evidence exists vegans live any longer than meat eaters.caloric restriction, fasting periodically,just eating smaller meals does appear to increase longevity.

Anonymous said...

Okay lets stay on topic here everyone. This place is for reforming societal attitudes so that men of all ages are considered entitled to sex access to young girls. Let's not get distracted by discussions about food and meat.

Jack said...

Pink is the colour of the gay party in German local elections ("Schwulenpartei").

Eivind Berge said...

That's too bad for the gay party then. They are going to have to find a new color if they don't want to be associated with us.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, um.

You are autistic. And you may have a learning disability, to boot.

Try and address that, before you ruin your life.

VII said...

I'm sorry, but anti-vegans exhibit remarkable confusion about these issues:

First, a vegan or 100% vegetable diet [without animal substances] gives us all the nutrients we need at any stage or circumstance of life. This is recognized by all associations of nutritionists, such as the prestigious Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. If you want to be correctly informed, I suggest to read their position about vegetal based diets:

https://www.eatrightpro.org/~/media/eatrightpro%20files/practice/position%20and%20practice%20papers/position%20papers/vegetarian-diet.ashx

"It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes."

Secondly, the fact that so far humans have hunted or bred other animals does not justify continuing to do so. That merely points to a fact, but is not a valid argument.

Third, humans are not "predators". I am a human being and I do not prey on anyone. And like me, millions of human beings live perfectly without having to kill anyone to eat or survive. So these facts refute this claim. Apart from the fact that human civilization is not based on predation, but on agriculture and industry.

Fourth, there is enough room in the world for everyone. The animals we use for food (or any other purpose) are not in this world of their own free will but have been raised expressly by man for our benefit. What we have to do is stop bringing non-human animals into this world.

Fifth, if you are against animal mistreatment and activities such as hunting or the use of furs then you should also be against any other use we make of other animals. Because they all involve harming them, causing them suffering or killing them. It is not coherent that some forms of exploitation seem bad to you and others not, when all of them are essentially the same.

In addition, all use of non-human animals is without their explicit consent, so it is immoral to do so. Would it be okay for others to use you without your consent, without your permission, for their own benefit? Surely not. So you will explain to me why you apply a different criterion to other animals just because they are not human.

Sixth, the fact that animal exploitation is legally regulated does not morally justify its existence. Unless you think the laws themselves establish what is right and what is wrong. No one really thinks that way. Because what legislation enacts is purely conventional (although it may have moral grounds) and does not imply that it is ethically acceptable.

The question is not whether the cages of non-humans are more or less large. The issue is that we do not have the right to cage any animal for our own benefit or that of others.

VII said...

Seventhly, plants are not sentient. There is no proof or evidence that plants can have sentience. The fact that they are alive does not imply that they can feel and be conscious, since they lack a nervous system and do not possess any analogous organ that can perform that function.

Eight. Serious studies only indicate that humans consumed meat in prehistoric times. Nothing more. They do not prove, or even claim, that meat consumption had a fundamental influence on the evolution of the human brain and its intelligence. Other studies on the evolutionary development of human intelligence indicate that it was the invention of cooking that influenced human evolution; but all kinds of vegetables were also cooked, some of which would not be edible without being cooked. Bearing in mind that there is no nutrient that our prehistoric ancestors could not obtain from vegetables, the hypothesis that meat consumption influenced the evolution of human intelligence has no consistency or even logic.

If you have arrived here I thank you for your attention because it is clear that you have paid attention to the content of my text. I hope that your opinion of animal exploitation will change, if any of you decide to question these prejudices.

Eivind Berge said...

To the humorless moron who called me autistic: Apart from your own deficiency, another reason to ignore the gay local German party is that male sexualism is not about local politics, as our agenda cannot be implemented other than nationally. We need to change the sex laws, and local elections are no use for that. If we ever grew to a sizable movement, we might also run for local elections, but that would come last after controlling the legislature.

Eivind Berge said...

And to mistake a sarcastic show of defiance against an obscure gay party's ownership of a color as a "learning disability" is, well, evidence of a real learning disability. Except more charitably I will interpret it as a sign that we are so far apart politically that we truly hate each other (and therefore are extremely biased to see some kind of pathology in what would be considered normal from people we like), like I was referring to earlier as the reason why I refuse to engage in dialectics with the supporters of the sex laws. There are certain issues where understanding brings us closer, and then there are issues where understanding what others truly stand for leads to the most sincere, abject hatred on both sides. Male sexualism vs. feminist notions of sexual abuse is in the latter category. This is truly what you have been referring to as a zero-sum game, and I am not gonna pretend otherwise.

Eivind Berge said...

Now to veganism vs. carnivorism. I am glad you brought this up, because it also illustrates a fundamental disagreement where understanding the other's arguments might not bring us any closer. (And unlike our resident feminist here I am not going to dismiss our disagreement as some kind of learning disability or autism.) What it boils down to is that I and most people in the world want to eat meat, even if entails some degree of animal suffering which veganists consider ethically unacceptable. And here I luckily happen to have the laws on my side as firmly as the feminists do on the sexualist issue, so for a change I represent the mainstream.

There are two separate issues here, ethics and nutrition. I have stated my position on the ethics. As to nutrition, it is very complicated and largely unknown, I think. The science on nutrition "proves" everything and nothing. Perhaps I would be slightly healthier as a vegan, but even the difference claimed by the zealots (with any backing in longevity studies) is so small that I might just prefer to eat meat anyway because it provides a better quality of life.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't hate vegans. But I probably would if they made laws preventing me from eating meat... (Unless an equally good artificial alternative was available.)

Anonymous said...

Whether food is from plants or animals has nothing to do with the fact that a man is entitled to sex with women as he chooses. Ignore this vegan avtivist, theyve been seen in numerous other forums attempting to distract us and probably undermine our ideology.

Eivind Berge said...

Maybe so, but that's not how I would describe our ideology, so I am not sure who is trying to undermine here. I never said that "a man is entitled to sex with women as he chooses." The same goes for your comment above that "men of all ages are considered entitled to sex access to young girls." What I have been saying, of course, is that women and teenage girls should be entitled to choose to have sex with men of all ages without any criminalization of anyone involved.

Eivind Berge said...

Hey, check out this new word I made to describe my kind of sexual chronophilia: "agywphile."

Inspired by this article,

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0198783

which uses the acronym "AGYW" for adolescent girls and young women. They define the age range as 15-24, but I would say it can reasonably be extended a bit in both directions. For example, most females aged 13-29 are arguably AGYW, perhaps even up to 35 and down to the onset of puberty.

Now for the humor-impaired who like to see autism in every joke they don't find funny, I need to point out that this is tongue-in-cheek. Of course we don't need another word along the lines of hebephile, ephebophile, MAP, etc. But there is a grain of seriousness, because society lumping men who are attracted to adolescent girls in with pedophiles is a serious problem. Whereas they should, of course, be lumped in with those who like young women, which is to say regular men.

So if you are any of the other stigmatized words but NOT a pedophile, you might want to call yourself an agywphile instead to drive home the truth that you are just a normal man.

Anonymous said...

So extremely creepy. The way you make it sound in your comments is that you LOVE the fact that a 16 years old plays into pedophilia is f**king disgusting. 16 YEARS OLD LOOKS LIKE SHE IS A CHILD ! WITH HUGE BOOBS ! so sick. Plus at 16 they doesn't even have American F-cups, she has JAPANESE F cups, which is only a DD in the USA, which honestly sounds like a bit of an exaggeration just by looking at her I can tell that she's probably only a C cup in USA sizes.

Eivind Berge said...

Right, a child with huge boobs, what a concept ;)

Sort of like a married bachelor, though not quite at that metaphysical level of impossibility, because one could, in principle, imagine a child with huge boobs. But the problem is that 16-year-olds also tend to be fully developed in every other sexual respect, so being attracted to them has nothing whatsoever to do with pedophilia.

Anonymous said...

I've reported a misogynist pedophile blog to no avail. Why?

The men who runs this blog routinely posts misogynist content, like rape apology and videos of intend to date with teenage girls (some as young as 15) and encourages her followers to date them, and posts hate speech against people based on their gender. He is an grow men, not a teenager, and is a self-described radical anti-feminist.

"While Blogger values and safeguards political and social commentary, material that promotes hatred toward groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity is not allowed on Blogger."

"Blogger does not allow:
Illegal sexual content, including image, video or textual content that depicts or encourages rape, incest, bestiality, or necrophilia, is also prohibited."

According to that, his blog should be taken down for promoting hatred toward groups based on gender, rape apology and sexualize minors under 18. His worst posts are older and you will have to dig to find them (I reported them individually), but he is still posting misogyny and still sending people to harass and cyberbully child safety advocates who admit to being fake minors to stoping online pedophile predators.

I'm not sure why this blog is still online even though it clearly breaks several rules.

Eivind Berge said...

Haha, you are too stupid to understand the rules. I am hateful against feminism, which is an IDEOLOGY, not a gender; I never promote hate based on gender or gender identity or race and chastise those who do. There is also no rule against advocacy for changing the sex laws such as age of consent or the ideological sexualization of minors which that logically entails as long as it is not pornographic. No rule against encouraging men to date legal teen girls either, or exposing entrappers who pose as underage girls.

To the extent that anybody has posted illegal sexual content or actual promotion of rape or other TOS violations, that has probably been done by yourself before I have deleted or noted it, and Google can see where that is coming from. Go home, loser.

Anonymous said...

"According to that, his blog should be taken down for promoting hatred toward groups based on gender, rape apology and sexualize minors under 18."

Sexualize minors under 18? I don't know what planet you are from, but here most minors under 18 are so asexual that they would get your little bed to shiver...

Anonymous said...

We repeat: sex with minors IS NOT a Men's right. It is not, no matter how much some like Eivind Berge say it is.

The legislation on underage sex is different in each country, but in the vast majority of countries sex with a under 18 is a crime, which in some cases, AND ONLY IN SOME CASES AND WITH LIMITATIONS, is decriminalised at 16 or 17.

But it IS NOT a Men's right.

Eivind Berge said...

Of course it is a men's rights issue, primarily. And a human rights issue because women are also sometimes victims of the hateful feminist sex laws.

Eivind Berge said...

Also you sound like an idiot for pretending 18 is the usual age of consent, but perhaps you really are that stupid? We are not buying your autistic freak show on this blog, however.

Anonymous said...

Indeed, in my country the AoC is 15 without limitations. And what should "we repeat" mean? What's the reason for using the plural?

Eivind Berge said...

It is also funny how "they" talk of sex being "decriminalized" where the AoC is less than 18. As if 18 was the God-given or natural AoC. Of course, it is the other way around: YOU need a good reason to criminalize sex, and the fact that that age is creeping upwards for ever more hysterical reasons is neither rational nor natural nor consistent with any traditional laws or morality.

Anonymous said...

Actually, my best friend's mother was 16 when she gave birth to him. And it was not the Holy Spirit's work, but her boyfriend's who was 23.

Anonymous said...

Internet sexists complain of oppression and violence towards them: 'They treat us as if we were women and autist'.

Enough of calling someone misogynist just because he uses misogynist websites and reproduces his speech,' says Berge.

This morning hundreds of people again flooded the blog with complaining messages about the persecution they suffer for their political ideals.

The user WomenAreScum wrote that 'There is no right that, just by promoting a hate speech that calls for rape is equality, people lose respect for you in this way'. The user Nathan Larson aka ILikeRapeLittleGirls says he is right and added a personal experience: 'The other day I was walking down the street with my "I Fuck my daughter aged 4" t-shirt and a recently tattooed nazi cross on my forehead when a foid started calling me a rapist piece of shit Is this normal?

The different misogynist groups on the internet believe that political tension is to blame. One of their spokespersons, who uses the pseudonym ElliotRodgerLives, says that 'We can't be attacked in this way, we have the right to say whatever we want until we can get those foids and manginas into a gas chamber'.

Finally, Incel1488 argue 'There is only one thing that hates more than women, blacks, leftists, Muslims and fags: The intolerant.

Eivind Berge said...

Now, that was at least funny. But it misses the mark with regard to this blog. When I said "rape is equality," that was a reductio-ad-absurdum argument against equality (particularly affirmative action) rather than a call to rape.

And I never ever came close to promoting anything that can be confused with racism or homophobia or hate against women just for being women. In fact, I actively oppose those things.

On the other hand, Nathan Larson and the sites he created don't escape those accusations so easily, which is why some of his content was actually taken down unlike mine. But I am not responsible for what he says. Remember the cartoon about how subcultures are nested fractally down to the very bottom. Nathan Larson and his small circle is an extremist splinter group of male sexualism -- I mean he is an extremist compared to me the way I am extreme compared to the mainstream. Also he is by his own admission on the autism spectrum, and it shows. He did some crazy things like making an empty threat against the POTUS knowing he would go to prison for it just to make a statement of civil disobedience, and he says things like wanting to rape his own daughter with an apparent straight face. I am not making excuses for that sort of behavior, even if he also says things I agree with mixed in with all the craziness.

Eivind Berge said...

To help against the sense of futility of the male sexualist journey, here is some beautiful poetic inspiration. We must remember to value the journey itself. And many of the obstacles on our way are only there if your soul sets them up for you -- such as the monsters who can only hurt you if you believe their lies of being beautiful young girls, or Nathan Larson's self-incriminating letter to the Secret Service. I even set up some problems of my own by being more provocative than I needed to be. A pure spirit will be undeterred by feminist entrappers or Laestrygonians or Cyclops or things like that, because we know we hold the moral high ground, and one purpose of the journey is to cleanse our own spirit of the malevolence around us, even if we can't help so many others in our lifetime. Gentlemen, male sexualism is an epic journey; enjoy the ride.

C.P. Cavafy's poem "Ithaca," recited by Sir Sean Connery, with music specially composed by Vangelis:

https://youtu.be/1n3n2Ox4Yfk

As you set out for Ithaka
hope the voyage is a long one,
full of adventure, full of discovery.
Laistrygonians and Cyclops,
angry Poseidon—don’t be afraid of them:
you’ll never find things like that on your way
as long as you keep your thoughts raised high,
as long as a rare excitement
stirs your spirit and your body.
Laistrygonians and Cyclops,
wild Poseidon—you won’t encounter them
unless you bring them along inside your soul,
unless your soul sets them up in front of you.

Hope the voyage is a long one.
May there be many a summer morning when,
with what pleasure, what joy,
you come into harbors seen for the first time;
may you stop at Phoenician trading stations
to buy fine things,
mother of pearl and coral, amber and ebony,
sensual perfume of every kind—
as many sensual perfumes as you can;
and may you visit many Egyptian cities
to gather stores of knowledge from their scholars.

Keep Ithaka always in your mind.
Arriving there is what you are destined for.
But do not hurry the journey at all.
Better if it lasts for years,
so you are old by the time you reach the island,
wealthy with all you have gained on the way,
not expecting Ithaka to make you rich.

Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey.
Without her you would not have set out.
She has nothing left to give you now.

And if you find her poor, Ithaka won’t have fooled you.
Wise as you will have become, so full of experience,
you will have understood by then what these Ithakas mean.

(Translated by Edmund Keeley/Philip Sherrard)

Eivind Berge said...

Another great poem by C.P. Cavafy which is relevant to our cause and nobly inspiring, keeping in mind that there are probably less than 300 male sexualists, but our tiny number should not discourage us:

Thermopylae

Honor to those who in the life they lead
define and guard a Thermopylae.
Never betraying what is right,
consistent and just in all they do
but showing pity also, and compassion;
generous when they are rich, and when they are poor,
still generous in small ways,
still helping as much as they can;
always speaking the truth,
yet without hating those who lie.

And even more honor is due to them
when they foresee (as many do foresee)
that in the end Ephialtis will make his appearance,
that the Medes will break through after all.

[Commentary from Wikipedia: "There are some principles in our lives that we should live by, and Thermopylae is the ground of duty. We stay there fighting although we know that there is the potential for failure. (At the end the traitor Ephialtes will appear, leading the Persians through the secret trail.)"]

I guess I need to work on the "without hating those who lie" part, especially for my own health.

holocaust21 said...

Well, Jordan Peterson recently landed in Norway and gave a talk, to which one of the audience asked him if he could become the Prime Minister of Norway. Unfortunately, he declined. However, I think the position is still open for Eivind Berge ;) If nothing else he could follow the Nathan Larson approach of running as an independent. He might want to make sure his bitcoins are backed up though, and no passwords are left lying around in case antifa thugs show up to steal his hard drives. Also CCTV goes a long way towards getting them banged up (albeit, the police would do it rather reluctantly).

Eivind Berge said...

I don't have any significant amount of bitcoin, so being robbed is not a concern, but I don't think I could get many votes. We still have a lot of grassroots work to do before there is any point in entering politics on a male sexualist platform. I guess Nathan Larson is doing it for the publicity of being a candidate in itself, and that is certainly a valid reason though.

holocaust21 said...

Yes, exactly. By running you will attract publicity, and you may also get some votes, which will attract more publicity undoubtedly of the "omg a misogynist is running and he got 2% of the vote OMG OMG" kind. However, from there you can accuse the media of lying about you (which they are) and that tactic usually works quite well (both Trump & Roosh have used it). Anyway from where we are, if you get 2% of the vote then that is pretty cool. I think Nathan Larson might have achieved close to that.

Mike Buchanan has been running in the UK and he's certainly attracted some attention and raised some awareness. Of course, he doesn't bash the age of consent like we do though, and in general he doesn't really criticise the sexual offence laws very much other than for the erosion of due process.

I'd like to figure out why our movement isn't going anywhere though. Maybe it's because we are all too lazy/afraid/not outspoken enough. It's curious how Jordan Peterson became famous and yet we can't achieve the same. It's either because:

1. His core point/message speaks to more people somehow.
2. He packages it better than we do.
3. He just has more energy, chooses the right platforms to push his point etc.

If it's 1. then it's a problem as that means no one cares about knocking up underage girls being legal. Obviously 1. and 2. kind of go together, it might be no one cares that much about knocking up underage girls being legal but there could be some broader movement that could ideologically encompass it (better package). Unfortunately so far "the paedophiles" always seem to get singled out of any movement and thrown out. It's not really clear why this happens. Even theantifeminist was accusing me in one of his posts on here of "being a real paedophile" so if even if he is finger pointing and trying to oust the paedophiles then how can we convince anyone else not to!?

In any case, it's also possible it is purely 2. that is the issue. Maybe almost the entire male population (except for some gays/trannies etc) would actually like to fuck underage girls but our packaging is still wrong for them, maybe they find it too scary to be called a Male Sexualist as it's still like being called a Paedophile and they are scared of that. Though, I don't think we have had a broad enough platform to test out the Male Sexualist message yet, only a few people have read it.

So that takes us onto point 3. maybe we are just too lazy and need to be making consistent youtube videos, running for politics etc to attract attention. I don't know which one of the points is our main problem, though.

One take away we might have from Jordan Peterson is his whole "Maps of Meaning" thing which seems to be his approach to thinking about totalitarianism could have relevance to our ability to come up with a better mental understanding of the world. He said he would think and write about stuff for 3 hours every day for I think it was 13 years, maybe just picking concepts like "Victim" and then seeing where that leads him.

Eivind Berge said...

Jordan Peterson is a talented public speaker, hard worker, and he has just the right background to attract an eager audience, being a clinical psychologist. He is basically providing psychotherapy for the masses, which is something people pay good money for anyway.

That's not all it is, since his message is also highly opportune for our times, making men feel a little bit powerful and masculine again in the face of feminism.

I also don't think our male sexualist message has been properly tested, and it may be that someone like Jordan Peterson could take it mainstream if he were committed to it. Alas, he is very tame on the sex laws, like other truly public figures. I don't think the "pedophile" slur runs as deep as it seems though. It just happens to be the bugaboo of our times, and this can and will change with the right trigger. I don't believe men are happy about the sexual suppression going on, but no one (except us) dares to be the first to admit that they are just as attracted to adolescent girls as young women.

"Male sexualism" is not a stigmatized word, and it would not be easy for the feminists to stigmatize it, because then they would first have to make it famous, which could have the opposite result. Plus I've coined a completely neutral, nay positive word -- "agywphilia" -- to describe attraction to adolescent girls and young women if we ever need it, so we are all set to change the tide. Just missing that viral impetus. Oh, and we need to finish our manifesto, which can be a job on the scale of one of Peterson's books if any of us is up to the task (I will try), and might yield some results.

john said...

did anyone else see this YouTube video on YouTube that claims 'no fap' cures social anxiety! yea,NO,and it doesnt cure cancer either.

if you're an introvert, you're going to die an introvert.if you weren't properly socialized as a young child, and or got your neurotic ways from one of your patents(usually the mother) you'll also die an introvert/social anxiety victim.

benzos surely help, but no fap? lol! people don't/can't change, not for lack of will but lack of free will.

john said...

what i love about Peterson is his word precision, the way he stays calm in the face of raw ignorance.i can't articulate like that in a public setting.but he's been giving lectures and now interviews for a good LONG time, and I'm basically a hermit/introvert.i CAN talk to women though.they don't intimidate me.

Eivind Berge said...

I believe nofap helps against social anxiety. Whether it cures it depends on the severity and can't be guaranteed, but it should be a big help. Being more social so you can meet more women is the single biggest benefit after better erectile function.

Anonymous said...

Well, Jordan Peterson has said in one of his interviews that he is more of a "sexual conservative" so I think there goes him supporting any notion of a teacher in a class room stripping off and teaching all the 14 year old boys and girls to have an orgy. You know, 1960s porno style. Mind, some argue sexual liberation lead to this mess. I guess there's something to be said for sexual conservatism if it's conservatism and not barbarism. I mean like Peterson has said he's big on monogamy. I think he's argued polygamy results in more violent societies. On the other hand, he's also argued that monogamy should just be a culturally enforced norm, rather than a criminally enforced one. Which, I suppose, one could argue is the difference between conservatism and barbarism. The barbaric (feminist-style) approach would be that if a guy is married and then he touches some other woman on the arm then he'd be arrested by 10 police officers who bundle him into a van, drag him through a court that then convicts him of "polygamy" and he gets 100 years in prison. Where as, non-barbaric conservatism would be someone just saying "dude, you're married, wtf you doing!?"

But, still, the question remains: Do sexual conservatives support paedophilia? Being sexually conservative often implies you want to ban something. However, it also means keeping things consistent as they've always been. And paedophilia has been pretty normal for all of human history. It wasn't even called paedophilia until the feminists decided to pathologise normal male behaviour. And I do feel like there's an argument that paedophilia leads to a better life for men & women. For men it leads to them getting a young fertile wife who can give them lots of children, rather than a near-menopausal hag. For women it means they will actually be able to have children, rather than finding they can't, and thus turning into a bitter twisted feminist hag. I've often wondered as well as to whether nature intended that period between adrenarche and post-puberty when girls become sexual but cannot get pregnant is a period when they might be sexually free to find the best mate. Feminism though, destroys that possibility, so as a consequence you have a bunch of single mums who got fucked by Chad for the first time when they turned 20 and then realised their Chad wasn't Chad but, oh too late!

Anyway, "Male sexualism" is not directly stigmatised true, but it has the word "sex" in it, which is kinda stigmatised. Or maybe that's just because I'm British. Then again, i think the British just have a habit of thinking that their hatred of sex is just because they are British, when actually it's because of a global feminist conspiracy to lock up all men. As for agywphilia the trouble with that is I can't pronounce it, and I can't possibly guess what it might refer to except for the "philia" part but that makes it sound scientific, like we've been pathologised by scientists, which is not good.

Anonymous said...

Child pornography is prohibited and for good reason.

Children's privacy must be protected.

Enjoying watching videos where people have been abused and used is immoral.

Any person who have in possesion pedophilia videos should be incarcerated.

john said...

let's say it does.where oh where am I going to meet a better class of women? I don't see me being invited to any weddings or cocktail parties anytime soon, or ever.i don't want to date or fuck drug addicted/alcoholic single mothers with cheap tattoos covering their body,yuch.

oh I know! tinder! haha.i haven't gone back on since I tried it once and I still haven't put my picture up-that could very well be a BIG mistake.and since privacy in the u.s doesn't exist anymore, all my prospective mate would have to do is Google(I think my "rape threats" show up, oh goody!) my name, or spend a few bucks for a complete profile.wow,I think I hate technology more than the Unabomber.

john said...

well,it's that time of the year again.I have to decide where I'll be eating thanksgiving dinner alone again.it's super uncomfortable of course, to eat alone at any 'real' sit down restaurant. I might just skip the whole thing and eat a tv dinner instead.

Eivind Berge said...

I will take a "sexual conservative" over feminism any day. I don't know if Jordan Peterson has thought this through, but to live up to that description he would have to ditch most "abuse"-based sex laws and replace them with morality-based ones, that can also be very harsh but at least don't pretend minors are always abused and women are raped without actually being forced. He would also have to ditch all the child porn laws and replace them with an infinitely more fair ban on all obscenity, which I am not all that opposed to. Pretending there is anything worse about underage porn is idiocy, but all porn is harmful to men as we know it causes impotence and low libido around real females, so it would help us to remove it as long as the law is not so hateful.

Peterson has said many times that girls are much more vulnerable to sex than boys, so it follows that he can't agree with the female sex offender charade at least if he thinks it through. He has also said that girls START getting vulnerable to sex at puberty, so he can't really be into the hysterical lie that children are MORE vulnerable to anything to do with sex either if he is consistent (which he might not be). But anyway, I take his silence as tacit approval of the current sex laws, so until he proves otherwise, he is not one of us, not a male sexualist.

As to agywphilia, I agree the pronunciation is a bit tricky, but not hopeless either. The way I say it is a-DJIW-philia. The etymology is the acronym "AGYW" for "Adolescent Girls and Young Women," found in scientific journals, plus the familiar "-philia." It would encompass what is now known as hebephilia, ephebophilia and teleiophilia, and hammer home the truth that all of these are normal and belong together rather than with pedophilia.

John, you need to put a picture in your Tinder profile, and then I suggest reading this about the so-called ELO score so you don't mess it up:

https://www.swipehelper.com/2016/11/16/tinder-algorithm/

I read this too late so my ELO score is rather low due to swiping too indiscriminately in the start, but I still get some matches. It is best to be somewhat picky with the women you like on Tinder: "Both swiping right to everyone and to almost no one are penalized, though mass swiping right a lot more severely than being too picky. A right swipe quota of 30-70% seems to be the sweet spot." You should have no problem with this if you don't like tattoos though, since almost everyone has it. I am not a fan of tattoos either, but I have started to not really notice them unless the woman is egregiously covered up. I am attracted to pristine feminine beauty, and tattoos and piercings get in the way of that, but since it is now the norm to have these things I have learned to accept them.

Also check out the unofficial Tinder FAQ:

https://www.swipehelper.com/2018/10/28/unofficial-tinder-faq/

Eivind Berge said...

And seriously, John, you should be able to find a woman to have Thanksgiving dinner with, or at least a regular date soon, if you use Tinder right. It is also important that you talk to your matches both to maintain your ELO score and because that's the whole point. You are not going to meet them unless you talk to them, so do it if you match, which means there is a good probability that they will say yes to a date. You don't want to be too direct or too boring, but asking relatively soon for a meeting is good. Of course, you can also go nuclear and just ask for sex right away like I did with the feminist troll (who correctly turned out to deserve no careful attention), but that will put most of them off.

Anonymous said...

I searched agywphilia in google and I found nothing, or is just a invention of your mind?

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, "agywphilia" is my coinage. I am not saying it will necessarily catch on, but every word has to start somewhere, so who knows? If you search for "AGYW" you will find it already means adolescent girls and young women, and from there it is just a small step to tack "-philia" onto it.

Anonymous said...

You have no arguments to defend child pornography.

Eivind Berge said...

Should we throw a vowel in there to make it easier to pronounce? Agywophilia? I don't personally think that is necessary, but it might be helpful.

Eivind Berge said...

I am not interested in defending pornography, because I know how harmful it is. And I know that the male viewer is the real victim, having his libido and virility crippled -- not the girls depicted as dimwits believe. Women (and children for that matter), become more vulnerable to sexual aggression if men don't watch pornography, so if anything, and if they were honest and well-informed, feminists should support and promote pornography. I am not going to help them with that project, however, except to point out that pornography possession is a victimless crime (other than to the viewer himself) and therefore should not be criminalized just like recreational drug use should not be criminalized, but if society demands criminalization, then it needs to apply equally to overage and underage porn since that distinction is irrelevant.

So to sum up, I oppose laws against pornography, but I recommend that men don't use it whether it is legal or not, for their own good.

Eivind Berge said...

All right, now that I've thought about it and seen that the pronunciation of "agywphilia" doesn't flow so well, I am going to root for the -o- interfix, making it "agywophilia." This letter does not contribute to the meaning, but it is standard in words that are difficult to pronounce otherwise, such as "manosphere" or "speedometer," so there is nothing out of place with it here either.

Dictionaries might list it thusly:

agywophilia

n. Attraction to adolescent girls and young women; the most common form of male heterosexuality.

agywophile

n. Someone, usually a man, who is primarily attracted to adolescent girls and young women; the average heterosexual male.

Eivind Berge said...

Now some further thoughts on pornography and nofap, because I cannot stress enough how bad fapping and porn are. Men who do this are frittering away their sexuality, and worse because it really does lead to social anxiety and erectile and other dysfunctions. As it turns out, C.P. Cavafy has an inspirational poem for this too. Substitute "Prudence" with "pornography" in the poem below to realize the horror of your ways, if you do not yet practice nofap.

An Old Man

At the noisy end of the café, head bent
over the table, an old man sits alone,
a newspaper in front of him.

And in the miserable banality of old age
he thinks how little he enjoyed the years
when he had strength, eloquence, and looks.

He knows he’s aged a lot: he sees it, feels it.
Yet it seems he was young just yesterday.
So brief an interval, so very brief.

And he thinks of Prudence, how it fooled him,
how he always believed—what madness—
that cheat who said: “Tomorrow. You have plenty of time.”

He remembers impulses bridled, the joy
he sacrificed. Every chance he lost
now mocks his senseless caution.

But so much thinking, so much remembering
makes the old man dizzy. He falls asleep,
his head resting on the café table.


[If there is ever a time to look at porn, it would be when you are over 80 years old, aged out of any consideration by AGYWs and probably medically unable to perform anyway. And the very worst time to use porn is when you are an adolescent boy and very vulnerable to sexual miswiring. Our culture has it so backwards, and cares so little about male sexual health, which is why I keep saying we need male sexualism both for self-help and political resistance to the hateful sex laws.]

Provisional High Commissioner said...

You are an enemy of male sexuality, you use pseudoscience to justify NoFap garbage, you are an potential ally of those who want to ban eroticism, which is as necessary to us as water and air, you have delusions of grandeur, you are a tyrant, in your lonely madness you believe that you are the voice of TheAntiFeminist but your pervert all His legate! That's why I CONDEMN OFFICIALY YOU, in the absence of TheAntiFeminist, the only leader of us:

'Eivind Berge. You have committed the ultimate treachery. Not only have you turned your back on TheAntifeminist and stepped from His light, you have profaned His name and almost destroyed everything He has striven to build. You have perverted and twisted the path He has laid for Men to tread. As your own decrees have stated for a enemy of male sexuality and men's rights, there can be no mercy for such a crime, no pity for such a criminal. I renounce your lordship; you walk in the darkness and cannot be allowed to be one of us. Your sentence has been long overdue and now it is time for you to disappear.'

Eivind Berge is striped of their rank of leadership, Male Sexualism is condemned as a perversion of Male Sexuality and Men's Rights. And it will be our enemy who is part of it. From now on it remains in our provisional command until TheAntiFeminist returns to us.

Eivind Berge said...

Well, well, I guess we will just have to split into two splinter groups then, with one leader each, and then we shall see who wins the most followers? It's a pity that such a marginal movement as male sexualism needs to be split even more, but this is an important issue. Porn is detrimental to eroticism, because it serves de-eroticize real potential sexual partners who are overlooked in favor of a fantasy, and degrades your sexual performance to boot in what little is left of your real sex life.

Anonymous said...

Pornography destroyed my life.

I spent all my youth consuming porn, hundreds of videos, even though I was a loner and at moment I couldn't date any girl, it would have been better not to watch porn because those sexual things I saw pursue me every day.

Now I feel disgust when looking at women, I am practically incapable of having sex with them, once I could have sex with one, and I couldn't, she was naked but I was incapable, I felt raped, I sobbed out of the room.

I hate my life. I have nothing in my life. If I hadn't seen porn I would have felt good enough to to found a girlfriend and discovered sex for myself, clean and healthy sex with a person I loved and not the atrocities I saw, now I would have a wife to take care of me.

Pornography is the drug of the 21st century. Please destroy this aberration, please keep that crap away from our young people. If it's outrageous to ban images, it's more outrageous to let them exist. Until pornography is eradicated by any means necessary, humanity will be condemned to slow and painful destruction.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't want to ban images, but I will warn men that using porn can massively degrade your sexual performance, motivation, opportunities and enjoyment. It is usually possible to at least partially recover, however, and have a reasonably good sex life once you realize that porn messed it up. Unless you are already so old that there wouldn't be much left anyway. The vigorous sex life you could have had in your youth will forever be gone, but all is not lost if you are willing to stick to nofap.

Anonymous said...

I want a general's uniform for political activism, so I need a peaked cat, khaki or green tunic, trousers, etc. medals I don't know what to wear or maybe I shouldn't wear any at the moment, military rank is very important, so when I'm confirmed in the rank of general so I guess I would use 4 silver stars from a full general.

Eivind Berge said...

I accidentally rejected your comment, John, so here it is with my reply:

"and uh how's that working out for YOU? now that you're a super attractive stud from nofap? I suspect not well! 'lookism' is quite real.so is height.so is rape hysteria,false rape culture, male toxic masculinity, the evil male gaze.etc etc etc.. ...

I'm all done blaming myself for women not being attracted to me.

i consider myself a great catch in fact! single, no baggage, OWN MY own home, have my own money, not a a drug addict,don't even drink! it'll never be enough for the super crazy picky females here.unless of course, I had tens of millions to buy her cars,and $3000 handbags.well, you know the deal."

My reply:

I hooked up with a 22-year-old girl within a couple weeks of being on Tinder, a real AGYW who wanted sex immediately, so it worked out very well. But she was on the pill and does not want to have children, so I am still looking for women who want that. Those are harder to find, especially since I am poor. With your wealth it should be relatively easy though.

Anonymous said...

WTF? is that people in your movement wears uniforms with medals and you have generals and high commissioners and stuff like that?

Eivind Berge said...

No, that's a joke, dude, lighten up. The only serious part with regard to symbols and insignia is the pink color and flag, and even that is not really serious until we are strong enough to mount at least a street demonstration, as opposed to having just one or two public figures and a handful of anonymous bloggers.

Anonymous said...

Hey Eivind, what do you think of those who wear their own military-type uniforms and use titles and ranks?

Eivind Berge said...

I think it is silly unless you are an actual fighting force. I guess there is something to be said for titles and rank in a secret brotherhood such as the Freemasons, but we are not that either. Now, there's an idea to help with recruitment; perhaps we should transform ourselves along those lines :)

Anonymous said...

Well, in blogs where they talk about you they say that you are a madman who have a US marine uniform with fake medals in your closet to wear when the day of the "male uprising".

If it's not true I think they're trying to make you look like a possible right-wing or incel terrorist and try that the police will search in your house or even arrest you, beware of with these type of things.

Eivind Berge said...

That is a lie, and also the police didn't find those things the last time they searched my house, so they would be bored to try again (and would be embarrassed in court again if they did). Everything I stand for with regard to a male uprising is out here in the open, and everything in my personal life is utterly boring from a police perspective with nothing illegal or any criminal plans.

Eivind Berge said...

Also I am not incel, and I believe most incels can be helped by nofap. What someone like John here fails to do is to separate the big picture from our individual lives. Political awareness is part of being a well-rounded individual and activism is noble, but don't forget your own life. Zoom in on the woman i front of you whom your are trying to meet on Tinder or whatever and forget about all the societal misandry, because it only applies when it does and you as an individual can evade it. All it takes is one lucky match to get laid. And if you don't practice nofap, then no amount of incel uprising is going to help you because you will be sexually dysfunctional.

Anonymous said...

I don’t see what I’m saying that’s so controvefsial. Ok, maybe there’s not an ‘epidemic’ of child sexual abuse, but where did I ever say there was? Ok, MAPs do not feature markedly among the abusers, but that’s a point I’ve made myself, over and over.

All I’m saying, and will go on saying if necessary, is that child sexual abuse is something that exists in the real world.

However much it’s frequency and severity is amplified by ‘feminists’, there is a core of lived experience that needs to be accounted for.

Why? Because denying or minimizing it is no less propagandistic than deploying it as a political weapon.

Don’t you recognize that there’s genuine anger underlying the moral panic, hysteria and hyperbole? Maybe I’m preaching to the converted and setting up a lot of straw men, but that doesn’t explain why it’s so problematic for me to champion a feminist pov.

Some of these women have a genuine grievance. If a ‘pro-underage sex’ argument exists, these are the people you need to sell it to, feminists. So don’t caricature them as revenge hungry harpies fueled by fevered fantasies of Sadean excess, just admit to your worldview the possibility that pressure on women to be sexually available begins in puberty, and some of them are sick of it.

Eivind Berge said...

Sorry, I have no sympathy for women complaining of a "pressure to be sexually available." The male sexualists are not advocating for rape; even if we succeed in lowering the age of consent to 13, teenage girls can still be abstinent just like 25-year-old women can be abstinent today if they so choose. Demanding anything more is indeed the work of evil harpies.

john said...

yes,I CAN seperate the micro from the macro.there is NO woman in front of me.

I'm NOT wealthy.true wealth in the u.s equals millions.i don't have one million.but I also don't have to work.I do though because I want/have to do SOMETHING.

and you've had what now? one hookup in..what..the entire year of nofap? I'm
interested in results.

anyway, I average one "fap" a month! I'm not addicted to porn.it's free and I rarely even look at it.with once,or even a whopping twice a month? I see NO negative effects whatsoever.

Eivind Berge said...

I had a girlfriend before I went on Tinder. The results came almost immediately.

john said...

yea, that's called nature.but don't fret, what with constant anti male media i.e "toxic masculinity", bullshit "rape culture", that infamous "evil male gaze" etc etc, women are now ACTUALLY terrified.

all men have been painted as "potential rapists". the end result? a shit ton of single(I'm one, of millions) lonely people, and of course, dropping birth rates, more suicides(from men)

and dating sites highly favor women.it's just ANOTHER way these extremely picky women can screen men.I don't use them.

but feel free to be another mangina.go march with the feminists and wear a pussy hat, rush to defend their "honour" on Twitter, complain, and get as many men booted off that platform as possible.yahoo!

Eivind Berge said...

Dating sites favor women because they have all the choice by nature anyway, but they also favor men more than the old methods because of the clarity of focus and magic of double matches so you don't need to pay much attention to those who aren't interested at all. I wasted my 20s sitting around in bars waiting for women to show up, and then clumsily hitting on them with an extremely low success rate. That was an epic waste that would have be been so much more effective on Tinder if it had existed.

Anonymous said...

This photo is posted in several forums, they afirm it's you, so it's really you?

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b23848166f431ac069ebd31e72738ded

Eivind Berge said...

No, that is not me, and also this whole uniform and medals joke is not funny anymore. No one who knows me would suspect it fits my personality to dress up in fake decorations. I have actually been in the army and know how to wear a uniform appropriately if I would wear one.

Anonymous said...

Wow! Have you been in the army? Why? Why haven't you ever told that thing?

Eivind Berge said...

Because I was conscripted I served one year in the Army Corps of Engineers before going to college. Even got a real medal for completed basic service. But this isn't terribly important or related to anything I've done since, just something all Norwegian men are required to do (or at least were at the time).

Anonymous said...

16 years old is too young for me, and it should be for you. A real man wants mature women, not girls, unless obviously if you're a pedophile.

Eivind Berge said...

Actually, the consensus among men is that 16 is at the height of a woman's beauty. If 16 is "too young," then that would be for stupid practical reasons such as living in one of the rare places with an even higher age of consent rather than any lack of attraction, obviously. I don't think 16 is realistic for me either and don't actively pursue them younger than 18, but it is a possibility that I wouldn't turn down if it should arise.

This is a troll calling me a pedophile, but the mainstream is almost that retarded and evil, so I do think we should put "agywophilia" into use as a positive new word for for the age range that most men are genuinely most into.

theantifeminist said...

What are your standards in chasing pussy Eivind? I think you mentioned, or perhaps one of your nofap supporters did, that the only time a man should look at porn is when he's 80 or so and can't get laid (or maybe the meaning was that he likely wouldn't have any sexual desire to 'dysfunctionalize'?).

I'm well into middle-age now :( I have a better physique and I'm fitter than 99% men my age, but still, even when a hot (legal) young chick appears physically interested in me, when she finds out my age it's usually time for the friendzone.

How low do you set the bar? I must admit, I still chase only hot young women, much hotter than the average. I just can't be bothered with females who wouldn't get looks in the street from most men. I don't see the point in jumping through all the hoops of dating and such for HB5 or even a 6 or low 7 (unless she has a really sweet personality or something).

You make a good point about Tinder. No doubt that's a reason why hags and manginas are targetting it for these 'pedo hunting' stings that you experienced personally. No doubt they'll eventually create a hysteria that forces apps like Tinder to use ever more tedious age verification hurdles and such before you even sign up. They are already getting good practice in this through their war on porn.

Yeah, I'd much rather look at porn than chase a HB5 or a 35 year old. Feminists want me to chase HB5s and 35 year olds rather than look at porn. You want me to chase HB5s and 35 year olds rather than look at porn. Maybe you should include a generic picture of a HB5 on your pink pussy flag?

BTW, I rarely look at porn these days. Mainly because my libido is declining with age. It's certainly not declined through looking too much at porn. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if I set myself a goal of fapping once a day to porn, it would actually raise my libido as well as my interest and energy levels in chasing real women again.

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, I recommend that men wait until they are 80 before they watch porn for both of those reasons, but mostly because there wouldn't be much sexuality left to dysfunctionalize. Of course we want to stay as functional as we can for as long as possible, so as long as a satisfying sex life is an option, you don't want to squander it on substitutes or degrade it by masturbating to porn.

These days, I am most interested in fertility. That means young, most preferably under 35 because that's when their fertility seriously starts going downhill, but I don't have any particular standards beyond that. It's hard for a young woman to be unattractive, so I don't have any minimum rating. Men rate most women as attractive as long as they are young, and I am no different. I'd say 99% of them get at least a 6 just for being under 30, so a HB5 doesn't really fit our flag, but a generic young woman (or AGYW) does. What we should count off for, though, is being on birth control, but this is sadly an evolutionary trap, similar but not as depressing and worthless as porn, that we haven't evolved to see for what it is yet.

And no, you can't raise your libido by fapping to porn! All you can do is create a delusion that you feel more desire while your real libido -- meaning your actual behavior with regard to women -- is seriously degraded. See how pernicious this evolutionary trap is? You still don't realize how bad it is! Male sexualism has so much work to do before this sinks in even in our own movement.

sean said...

DEFEND MALE SEXUALITY?

https://theconversation.com/clementine-ford-reveals-the-fragility-behind-toxic-masculinity-in-boys-will-be-boys-103760

ha ha ha lol!

Eivind Berge said...

As usual it is not a defense of anything that matters to men. Just platitudes about being soft and sensitive while the criminalization of our sexuality is not mentioned except to support it. Also bad for the climate for women and men to maintain separate households and not very economically realistic unless you are an entitled feminist like her.

Anonymous said...

The age of consent In Malta has been Lowered from 18 to 16
Maltese youths can vote, marry, and bang legally at 16
https://lovinmalta.com/news/local/the-age-of-consent-in-malta-has-been-lowered

Eivind Berge said...

WOW, that was a rare example in the right direction!

Anonymous said...

Now I have not seen any difference between feminists and antifeminists on this issue. Both hate it equally and a minority supports it. Now almost every anti-feminists are the biggest enemies, I don’t see what sense it makes to be an anti-feminist, it has only served to make people reject us as reactionary misogynists.

There are currently more feminists in favor than anti-feminists, what does that mean? I’m the only one who realizes that this antifeminist narrative doesn’t work?

The last time it was raised in the UK refusal to lower the age of consent to 14 were the conservatives who were opposed with disgust.

Anti-feminism was a political stance who become a personal obsession of TheAntiFeminist (the pun is in the name) for years that has become a snowball rolling down who dragged you and others into extreme anti-feminism, the rest of the anti-feminists simply reject TAF because anti-feminism is antisex with minors.. BUT He’s will deny this because is emotionally attached to feminists. It’s like someone who hates something so much or someone who can’t ultimately shuns it because they’ve already become part of it.

Eivind Berge said...

It is true that sex-hostility is rampant both among feminists and conservatives. The main difference is that conservatives think sex is sinful while feminists and other leftists think there is always a victim who is being abused, but they converge on the same laws.

I call myself anti-feminist rather than anti-conservative because the feminist sex-hostility is more pernicious and pronounced. Conservatives would not have lowered the age of consent by themselves and also not invented new categories of abuse such as marital rape or sexual harassment. But once these concepts exist, conservatives run with them and support the resulting laws, so they are also our enemies, to be sure. Male sexualism is its own ideology, in opposition to both sources of anti-sex. We do not define ourselves by the antifeminist label alone, but it is certainly fitting.

I don't see any point in changing any of this branding since feminists are not going to be sympathetic to our position anyway. They don't even support my stance against the female sex offender charade, so why should they care about criminalized men?

Anonymous said...

I am a old MRA but I am disturbed by how many of the responses were about sexualizing minor girls. It really shows how down Men's Rights have go.

Eivind Berge said...

Maybe if the original MRAs had stuck to the program and not conceded the feminist sex laws we would have a more comprehensive movement.

Of course, men's rights activism is not only about age of consent.

It is just as much about other corruption of sex laws, most especially the expanded feminist definition of rape like Amnesty is pushing here, and they manage to implement in more and more countries:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/rape-legislation-europe-sexual-health-intl/index.html

But old MRAs are not even resisting that, are you? What would be the point of your existence at all then?

Anonymous said...

I hope if I find a man he doesn't practice NoFap.
NoFap causes autism.

Eivind Berge said...

Haha, nofap actually causes the opposite of autism, as we know it leads to more extroverted behavior and even cures social anxiety. But women do find it threatening and should if men practiced nofap en masse. Females have no problem absorbing and even enjoying the consequences of the few men who practice nofap today, but if everyone did, it wouldn't be pleasant for women. That would certainly lead to an explosion of unwanted sexual attention that feminists call sexual harassment, rape, sex with minors and male sexualist ideology.

Eivind Berge said...

This brings me to an important ethical point. The fact that pornography and masturbation lead to less sexual violence is not an ethical argument for these pathologies. Just like no sane physician would recommend that men walk around with broken arms instead of having them properly treated on the pretext that men can't use a broken arm for violence so easily, we must never argue that porn is "good" because it leads to less rape. Fapping means walking around with a continuously broken libido and erectile function as well as being socially inhibited and cowardly around women. The fapping man is a cripple compared to the sexually healthy man, so naturally he would be a less effective rapist as well, both statutory and real. But none of this matters because ethics dictate that health must be restored first and foremost. Restore a healthy libido first, and then figure out what to do with it.

The male sexualist ideology prescribes ethical sexual behavior, even for sexually healthy and very horny males who practice nofap. For one thing, prostitution would be a legal alternative to rape, and prohibitions on underage sex would be vastly reduced, making it realistic to practice nofap and not commit crimes at least for all agywophiles. (I'll leave it to our splinter groups to decide what to do with the pedophiles. It is conceivable that they might still want to opt for masturbation, but I can't bring myself to personally recommend it even to them.)

Anonymous said...

Unge mænd, hvis de er liderlige og alligevel ikke masturberer af principielle årsager, får ufrivillig sædafgang om natten. Det er tegn på at de skulle have masturberet.

Eivind Berge said...

Nope, nocturnal emissions are a sign that they should be sexually active, and probably will be before long if they don't stunt their libido by masturbating instead!

john said...

no evidence whatsoever that nofap "cures" social anxiety.once again, NOTHING cures social anxiety.it's one part genetic,and or one part experiences(bad ones) one part not being socialized at an early age, and or being rejected by females.

I could easily(and have) quit "fapping" for a year,i'd still have social anxiety,even with taking benzos daily.

and some people are born introverts, or wind up being one due to any one of several of the above reasons.

Eivind Berge said...

Porn addiction tends to cause social anxiety, and nofap can certainly cure that kind. I agree there are other causes of social anxiety, so nofap is no panacea, but it should still help. There might be no definitive cure in those cases, but I would advice nofap and plenty of exercise and a generally healthy lifestyle with no alcohol or other recreational drugs and benzos only when absolutely necessary (there have been some frightening studies coming out in recent years linking benzo and other hypnotic use to dementia when you get older; even OTC antihistamines such as Benadryl seem to be much worse than previously believed). Exposure therapy should also help, as with any phobia.

It is astonishing that society tells boys that masturbation is harmless and even good for them. It feels like living in the age when doctors used to recommend cigarette smoking and were big smokers themselves, which also proves that society can be so spectacularly wrong about something so big. Part of the reason is ignorance of the causal relationship between porn and masturbation and sexual dysfunctions that are currently diagnosable, and partly the problem is that missed male sexual opportunities and inceldom are not considered morbidity. But morbidity they are, trust me. This latter blindness is an ideological problem which amounts to a devaluing of the male experience, to which male sexualism is the antidote. We have so much work cut out for us, not just against the sex laws, but against the simple bizarre idea that male sexuality is worthless even to the men themselves. Contrast this with all the blathering about women being oppressed because they don't live up their potential in every area. Yet it is considered fine for boys and men to squander their sexuality on worthless and harmful substitutes. This is madness!

Anonymous said...

SELVBESMITTELSE (fra: "Thornams Sundhedslexikon", 1895)

Selvbesmittelse, Onani, er en af Sundhedens allerfarligste Fjender, og desto farligere, fordi denne Last læres og øves i en Alder, hvor man endnu ikke har Forstand nok til at indse det fordærvelige, fordi Legemets Kraft netop er i udvikling, og fordi fornemmelig Kønsorganerne efter Naturens orden endnu ere umodne. Næsten ubevidst forfalde Drenge og Piger til en Last, hvis Følger gennem hele Livet kan nedbryde deres Sundhed og forkorte deres Liv, og selv naar de faa Øjet for den Ulykke, der allerede er anrettet, da hører der en Viljekraft og Selvbeherskelse til for at afbryde denne Vane, som ofte fattes dem. Thi det er ikke alene Legemets Kraft, der undergraves ved denne unaturlige Tilfredsstillelse af Sanseligheden, men alle de aandelige Evner sløves, Forstanden omtaages, Viljen svækkes, Fantasien har alt for frit Raaderum, Karakteren gaar tabt. Man hører og læser ofte Følgerne af Selvbesmittelse beskrevne med saa mørke Farver, at man tror, at Faren er overdrevet, men ingen bør lade sig blænde af denne Tro. Enhver, som raadspørger sin Læge, vil høre, hvor utallige Eksempler han kan anføre paa denne Lasts Ødelæggelser, og hvor ofte den er Kilden til ofte ulægelige Sygdomme. Kunne man kaste et Blik ind i Sindssygsanstalters Befolkning og gennemskue Aarsagerne til de ulykkeliges sørgelige Tilværelse, da ville man forbavses over, hvor stor en Rolle Selvbesmittelse spiller som Kilden til mange Sindssygdomme.

Følgerne af Selvbesmittelse netop paa den tid, da Legemet er i Vækst og behøver alle Kræfter til Udviklingen er først Svækkelse og Afmagring. Ofte gaar vel Væksten ligefuldt fremad, og man er let tilbøjelig til at finde Aarsagen til Magerheden deri, men Legemet taber tillige sin ungdommelige Friskhed, idet hele Ernæringen lider. Der er en paafaldende Uro til stede, Ansigtet er afvekslende blegt og blussende rødt, Øjnene ligge dybe, omgivne af blaa Ringe, ofte med en unaturlig Glans. Kræfterne slaa ikke til. Straks om Morgenen er Legemet mat, ved Bevægelser trættes det, Aandedrættet bliver kort, der indtræder let Sved, hele Udtrykket er sygeligt, Holdningen er vaklende osv. Samtidig bliver de Unges sind forandret. De blive indesluttede, sky og forlegne, søger Ensomhed og unddrage sig andres Opsyn eller Selskab, deres Blik er ustadigt, de undslaa sig for Lege, osv.

Naar Lasten fortsættes, tiltager Magerheden i en foruroligende Grad. De se ud som Brystsyge, de blive nervøse og ømfindtligere for Vejret, Aandedrættet bliver besværligere, de faa Hjertebanken, føle Smerter snart her snart der, oftest i Ryggen, Træthed i enhver Stilling, især over Lænderne. Sanserne, Synet og Hørelsen svækkes. Der følger ofte Krampe, hysteriske Tilfælde, St. Veitsdans, osv. Kort sagt, der kan udvikles Brystsyge, Hjertesygdomme, Rygmarvstæring med alle dens Følger, forstyrret Fordøjelse, Hæmorrhoider oma. Hos Fruentimmer desuden sygdomme i Kønsorganerne, Ufrugtbarhed, osv.

Ikke alene henslæbe De Livet med et usselt Legeme uden Saft og Kraft, men det aandelige gaar til Grunde, idet Hjernens virksomhed sløves. Først tabes Hukommelsen, og man mærker allerede hos Drenge ofte, hvorledes deres tidligere Lærenemhed gaar tabt, og derefter sløves de andre intellektuelle Evner. De blive mismodige, har Ulyst til deres Forretninger, udygtighed til Arbejde, til alt. De se og erkende deres Fejl, men kan ikke aflægge den, opgive al Modstand, blive hypokondere, og ofte ende de som Sindssvage. Den form for Sindssygdom, der hyppigst kan udledes af Onani, er Fjollethed.

(fortsætter)

Anonymous said...

(fortsættelse)

Blandt de mange Aarsager til denne fordærvende Last er maaske slet Selskab den fornemste. En slem Dreng kan gøre mere Skade i et Nabolag, end alle dets kristelige Arbejdere tilsammen kan modvirke. Sammenligning med en i Bund og Grund fordærvet Dreng ere Kolera- og Koppeepidemier intet at regne. Intet Nabolag synes at være frit for disse Hugorme. I enhver Skole findes der een eller flere af disse unge Fristere, der paa en listig og underfundig Maade indskyde slibrige Tanker i sine Kammeraters Sind, og paa en kort Tid udsaa Lastens Ukrudt i mangen en dydig og ærbar Drengs Hjerte. Denne Last griber om sig som en Løbeild. Den er mere smitsom end den mest smitsomme Sygdom, og naar den een Gang har faaet Fodfæste, klæber den sig fast værre end Spedalskhed.

Forældre og Børn bør derfor se nøje til, at deres Børn omgaas med kun dydige Kammerater. Og det er Børnenes Pligt at sky slet Selskab, ligesom de ville undgaa et Aadsel eller den mest foragtelige Genstand. Det er forbavsende, hvor tidligt Børn, især Drenge, undertiden lære de hæsligste og skammeligste Lastens Kneb, som hvert aar føre mange til Fortabelse. Ofte er Barnets amme skyld i, at det udøver denne forfærdelige Last.

Man bør lade sine Børn kun omgaas med dem, som man ved ere dydige. Men da det ofte er en vanskelig Ting at afgøre, hvem der virkelig er ubesmittet, er den eneste sikre Vej den at begynde tidligt at advare Børnene om Faren ved at give dem Undervisning og Oplysninger i forhold til deres Alder og Forstand.

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks for that, which shows that it used to be known that masturbation is harmful, albeit they got the mechanisms wrong and attributed more health problems to masturbation than the evidence justifies. No, masturbation does not cause heart disease and probably does not shorten life span. They also wrongly believed that girls were affected.

They did get the social anxiety right though: "De blive indesluttede, sky og forlegne, søger Ensomhed og unddrage sig andres Opsyn eller Selskab, deres Blik er ustadigt, de undslaa sig for Lege, osv."

And crucially, masturbation is much more harmful today than in the 1800s because it goes along with Internet porn. Sadly, the previous exaggerations led to the current ridicule of any and all claims of harm from masturbation and the now entrenched myth that masturbation cannot possibly be harmful. Boys and men are paying for our ignorance today and would be well served by some traditional values if they can't comprehend the male sexualist rationale for nofap.

It is possible to arrive at good rules for life by horrible reasoning, and traditional value systems were pretty good at that because even though they knew little about how things work, they often knew what works. It is a shame that we have to overcompensate and throw out all their insights just because modern science has proven some of their claims wrong.

john said...

I agree with most of that.clear research proves men with a mate live longer than men that are single.I didn't choose to be an incel.

that starts with cutting off millions of nerve ends(I'm bitter about THAT believe me)continues with the shaming, being ridiculed for having smallish hands(didn't choose that either!) and women, TOTAL strangers mind you,insinuating I'm a "pedo"? right to my face?! what can you do? I wanted to slap one bitch that said that to me but then it's off to jail, even though she deserved WAY more than that.can you imagine ME dating a female with kids?! NEVER going to happen.so,you see? I'm EXACTLY where I'm 'supposed' to be.

I'm just living out what can NOT be changed, considering these factors.and being raised by an insane mother, coming from a broken family?

remember, people don't change, they can't, even when they really must.for example, I'm doing the same things I was doing ten years ago,and I'm sure youre doing the same things you were doing ten years ago Eivind.thats that old pesky no free will in action again, or should I say inaction.

as for benzos, it might be true it brings on early dementia with daily/regular use(in some people) at the very least, benzos create tolerance and addiction--guilty!

benadryl is also not too good for ones health but not sleeping is worse, and benadryl is FAR "safer",and much less expensive than sleeping pills like belsomra,($10 each!) lunesta and ambien,etc which do nothing for me.

another thing that's just accepted is that anti depressants work. they don't. ask anyone who's ever taken them, or currently on them+ they're packed full of side effects.

but a LOT of women are on them in America which might help explain why they have nearly zero libido.

Eivind Berge said...

I still believe in free will, and have indeed changed in some important ways over the last ten years. Nofap is a big one. But changing becomes less effective as we get older since we have less left to work with. The really huge potential gains are sadly lost, but we should of course make the best of our remaining options.

john said...

'nofap'isn't much of a big change imo. and once again, what have been the results? one chic, one night? going forward,I can't predict the future and almost all attempts to have failed,although,it sure looks like the u.$ is moving in an authoritarian direction, not good. but I can say,with a high degree of certainty, you and I will be doing the same thing ten years from now.assuming we're both still alive,and not in jail of course.

Eivind Berge said...

The results of nofap are not just measured in your number of girls, but even more importantly how well you perform with them. This girl happened to be so horny that she still wasn't satisfied after we had done it three times and asked me to finger her too. But what more can she expect in one night (at my age) -- I think I did very well and couldn't have done it without nofap. A porn addict would have been hopeless in comparison and lucky to do it once. Plus he probably wouldn't have been chosen by one of the rare girls who look for casual sex on Tinder in the first place because he would be too busy with porn and apathy to swipe enough girls and talk to them. A small minority of girls are truly horny and slutty, but it takes serious work to find them. Once you do though, it's a completely different world than how most girls behave most of the time to most men, and don't you want to get some of that? Nofap is nothing short of a superpower if it can work such magic, and I believe it can because I've experienced it.

Anonymous said...

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-side-effects-positive-and-negative-if-any-of-masturbation-1?redirected_qid=2227831

john said...

o kdoke then.if it works for you that's really all that matters.I'm obviously not too serious about tinder not even putting my pic up even.but that could be a huge mistake.and using my actual name? I don't like it.

Eivind Berge said...

That Quora answer is not serious or well-informed. If you want to know all about the bad effects of masturbation, this is the go-to site:

https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/

There is also the NoFap subreddit with 380,000 members:

https://www.reddit.com/r/NoFap/

john said...

ok.to better respond to your question.frankly,no,I don't want to hook up with women that are going to have to be pretty gross to get with me.

a much better thing than 'nofap' for me would be to spend the 35 grand on a nice set of brand new shiny white teeth. that would be way more of a confidence boost than never jacking off again,lol.

now,I didn't choose to grind my teeth down to nothing(yet another example of how we have no free will)in fact, I started taking benzos not just for "social anxiety".

it was thought, WAY back in the day,benzos might stop/slow down/cure the bruxism. shocker! it didnt. so,why would any female 20 years younger than I am hook up with me? so,it's going to HAVE to be some 40-50 year old, no kids! WHY would any good looking female pick me when they have their pick of 1000s of men on tinder? rhetorical of course, they wouldn't!

Eivind Berge said...

It is true that middle-aged and older men face difficulties that make young incel worries seem like a picnic -- and not just seem, but really be luxury in comparison. Nonetheless, it is not yet hopeless at our age. Getting a woman 20 years younger is within the realm of possibility, and if all else fails, you could afford a mail-order bride if you really wanted to start a family.

The girl I just met was 18 years younger than me, and as I said I talked to a 16-year-old who was not at all deterred by age -- that's a 24-year difference! -- just political disagreements.

Gally said...

Hey fuckers.

Take a gander at dis rigt her: https://presse.no/pfu-nyhet/fem-felt/

---
UTSATT:
Sak 192/18 – NN mot Sandnesposten

PFUs uttalelser blir publisert i PFU-basen så snart disse er renskrevet og formidlet partene.

Forslag om forenklet saksbehandling
I møtet vurderte PFU også 16 saker der sekretariatet hadde innstilt på «ikke brudd» etter forenklet behandling. En av sakene ble sendt tilbake til sekretariatet for full behandling.
---

Yeah. Guess wat. I don dat.

AND. I. AIN'T. EVEN. STARTED. YET.

Eivind Berge said...

Congratulations on that minor victory, Gally. Now if you would also take a stand against the actual charges against you on the basis that the sex laws are immoral, you could be a real male sexualist. I also recommend proceeding under your real name instead of NN for greater impact.

john said...

no no noooo family for me. if one "chooses" to be alone for as long as I've been,I couldn't live with anybody. it's getting late in the game anyway to have kids of my own. guess I'll just try tinder again,yippee.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 215   Newer› Newest»