The worst part is, there is zero interest in sorting out the nocebos from actually harmful sexual offenses. There are no studies daring to pose such falsifiable questions and no feedback that the legal definitions of sexual abuse are wrong. Brittany Zamora will rot in prison for 20 years while no one (except me) gives a flying fuck that she is in there for nocebo, a vicarious nocebo at that constructed by antisex bigots who then had to brainwash (and pay) the "victim" to (pretend to) feel like one.
I am that one responsible person speaking up on this issue. Kind of like Greta Thunberg on global warming, except it would be an economic disaster to deploy her remedies while mine can be implemented with no social harm at all. Well, except all the prison guards and other members of the nocebo industry out of work, but I am even willing to let them keep their jobs if they quit hurting real people. How about we make some wax dolls for them to put on trial and guard? That way we can have placebo punishments too instead of the real punishments for fake crimes, and there would be some semblance of justice again!
15 comments:
"I am a good and genuine person..." this chick is so empty-headed it's doubtful if even breeding potential was lost. I guess it is tragic that she didn't have the opportunity to have a career in a whorehouse, but life isn't fair
Maybe so, but being empty-headed shouldn't be a crime punishable by 20 years (or up to 44 if the prosecutor had her way).
As usual, even as I grapple for the worst words I know, they scarcely begin to describe the travesty that is the female sex offender charade. "Nocebo" is a damning indictment of what the "justice" system is doing here, but usually it refers to something neutral like a sugar pill or pointing at someone with a stick, not being positively angelic to boys. So I need to keep trying to come up with more appropriate words to describe it. Any suggestions stronger than "nocebo" along this line?
And regarding the empty-headedness, I am not sure we should read so much into these quotes from people on trial. It is easy for us as armchair sex offenders to say that she should have stood up for the truth and told the bigots that “Boys can’t be harmed by beautiful women being sexually nice to them, you morons!” But remember that she is faced with people who are literally so sick in the head as to believe these superstitions and also have the power to destroy her entire life. Kind of like expecting women accused of consorting with the devil during the witch-hunts to proclaim “Satan doesn’t exist, you morons!” Women who say these things to their tormentors would only get punished harder, so in fairness we can’t expect it.
The saddest part is always when the inquisitors manage to break the women and make them believe that they really are offenders, which no doubt happens, but I am holding out some hope that Brittany Zamora is feigning stupidity and saying something insipid to avoid an even worse fate. Wouldn't you lie and say something inoffensive to the antisex bigots if it could save you 24 years in prison? I'd like to think that I would still be a male sexualist activist under such duress, but I don't blame those who try to save themselves.
Who would have thought that South Korean men would be the first to muster an actual antifeminist movement, with real street rallies?
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/21/asia/korea-angry-young-men-intl-hnk/index.html
They probably have tame goals compared to male sexualism, as in "fair trials" for men accused of sex crimes instead of turning back the legal definitions of abuse, but that's impressive as far as it goes.
What does 'nocebo' mean exactly? I assume a shortened version of 'no placebo'? I don't understand how you can think this 'packs more punch' than 'abuse industry', which is something that actually is spoken of quite widely and Angry Harry was perhaps the first person to 'popularize' the term. But good luck with it.
It is of course an obscenity that this woman has been sentenced to 20 years, but a male teacher would have gotten probably 200 years (in America) banging 13 year old girls in the classroom while other pupils watched a video. She'll probably be released within ten years and she will have had a relatively comfortable time in prison, while male sex offenders in American jails are likely to be anally raped multiple times (don't project your experience of a Norwegian prison on to the rest of the world).
I also can't believe that to do something so brazen (have sex with a 13 year old pupil in the middle of a class) she must have thought that feminist sex offender laws wouldn't apply to her.
The fact that a female judge sentenced her (and wanted to give her 40 years in prison) just shows how inherently evil natured women are. All women know that 'abuse' laws relating to teens (both girls and boys) are nonsense, but she would condemn another woman in prison for life just so it validates those laws that primarily protect her own (a woman's) sexual market value.
You still make some good points Eivind, but honestly, this blog appears now to be solely concerned with female sex offenders and shaming men for masturbation and looking at porn. You say that 'your policies could be implemented with no social harm at all'. Well that isn't really true. Yes, a handful of perverted female teachers would be able to bang 13 year old boys in class without any legal consequence, but it would be hard to change attitudes over the 'abuse' of teen girls when you yourself are validating the idea that 'it's different for girls'. But more seriously, your dogmatic claims that 'porn is more harmful than heroin' would make it impossible to prevent millions of men going to prison under ever harsher anti-porn laws.
Already the number in prison for pornography offences far exceeds the number of sex offenders actually caught having sex with underage girls. This will only grow (unless feminists plan on raising the age of consent to 30) as porn becomes ever more available and realistic. The line between 'porn' and 'real sex' will also increasingly blur. Whether you or I think this is a good thing or not is moot - the reality is the feminist sexual holocaust against 'paedophiles' is and will continue to be conducted primarily through anti-porn laws.
I care about the million men or more who could have their lives destroyed over the next decade around the world for falling foul of feminist porn laws. You seem to care only about a handful of American cougars falling foul of 'nocebo (what?)' laws. BTW, the abuse industry has no meaning. Maybe you don't even understand Angry Harry's use of the term. When 'child protection' becomes an 'industry' it has at that point become nothing but self-serving injustice. There was no 'abuse industry' in the 60's and children were adequately protected from real abuse.
"Who would have thought that South Korean men would be the first to muster an actual antifeminist movement, with real street rallies?"
Yes, what a surprise Eivind. Especially when South Korea is a relative 'male sexualist' utopia where porn is illegal and even sex dolls and robots will soon be banned?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-sexdolls/sex-doll-ruling-arouses-controversy-in-south-korea-idUSKCN1US0YG
Please be sure to turn these asexualists away from your blog if they ever visit.
Nocebo is the opposite of placebo: something inert that only harms because of negative expectations. “Placebo” is Latin for “I will please” and “nocebo” means “I will hurt.” I thought this was common knowledge so didn’t define it in my post, but perhaps I should have.
It packs more punch because even Angry Harry said we “of course” need an abuse industry to some extent:
https://www.angryharry.com/esDoWeNeedAnAbuseIndustry.htm
But we certainly don’t need a nocebo industry, which is 100% quackery and harmful. So I am talking about the part that we DEFINITELY can do away with, such as the female sex offender charade.
The rest of your negativity is also uncalled for. You are blind to both the harms of porn and masturbation and the need to start at the worst travesties -- the pure nocebos -- if we are going to convince the public that sex crime prosecutions have gone too far. When men are accused, there is perhaps 5-10% real abuse in the mix while the rest is nocebo, so it is more complicated to argue against these laws. Since most people have a very limited attention span to these matters, it should be obvious that clear-cut cases like the one against Brittany Zamora serve as great examples.
To be clear, I am not trying to supplant Angry Harry's excellent criticism of the abuse industry, but supplement it with a stronger word we can also use. AH said it extremely well and I am in complete agreement with this:
"Do We Need An Abuse Industry?
Yes, of course we do.
But it is too big.
The organism has become a monster, and it is feeding off the broken lives that it, itself, is creating. The abuse industry needs to be cut down to size so that it only has the wherewithal to deal with serious cases of abuse. As with most things in life, it is all a question of balance.
And the laws and the various definitions also need adjustment so that innocent people -- and also those who have not done anything seriously bad -- are not dragged through such a horrible mill.
Once again, it is all a question of balance."
It is precisely the nocebo effect that Angry Harry is describing here as well, so I am not even being innovative except using the word:
"Furthermore, we should not allow the abuse industry to damage victims of abuse even further by injecting over and over again into their minds the thoroughly debilitating and self-fulfilling notion that they are doomed to suffer for life.
Unless they have lost a limb, caught some crippling disease, or experienced some long-term excruciating pain -- or something similar -- there is no intrinsic mechanism in normal humans that forces them to suffer long term from short-term incidents of what is nowadays alleged to be 'abuse'; apart, that is, from those psychological mechanisms that will respond in concordance with any continued deluge of convincing propaganda that tells them that they are doomed forever to suffer.
Such propaganda instils considerable fear, anxiety and depression in the very people whom those in the abuse industry would claim they are so concerned about.
Of course, victims of abuse -- children or adults -- MIGHT be horrendously damaged by their various ordeals, but when those in the abuse industry make blanket pronouncements suggesting that all cases of 'abuse' lead inevitably to significant permanent psychological harm, then they are talking absolute nonsense and damaging the most vulnerable victims in the process.
Most unwanted sexual abuse, for example, is probably a bit like having a car accident of some sort.
It MIGHT cause long term permanent damage -- e.g. a major road crash -- or virtually nothing at all -- e.g. a minor scratch on the hood.
Most acts of 'abuse' AS CURRENTLY DEFINED by those working in the abuse industry are, like most car accidents, relatively trivial. It is those working in the abuse industry who always try to make matters sound far worse in order to gain extra funding - and also IN ORDER TO DEMONISE MEN.
And, in doing this, not only does it damage people's relationships, it causes significant harm to victims of both serious and trivial 'abuse'."
Here he is talking about UNWANTED abuse, which is made much worse by the nocebo effect thanks to the despicable people in the abuse industry. When the "abuse" is wanted and pleasurable such as what these female teachers are doing, the nocebo effect is the ONLY plausible mechanism of psychological harm.
Harry got it right as usual, saying the same things as I. I wonder what he would have thought about our nofap debate? Don't think he expressed an opinion, but I suspect he would have come around to my side if he had lived to see the current developments and heard my arguments.
I should add that nocebo is not the only harm from the abuse industry, since they also perpetrate iatrogenic harm. When, for example, they medicate a supposed victim with drugs that cause real side effects, or they otherwise restrict her or his freedom, they inflict damage that is not all down to nocebo. So calling it a nocebo industry is actually being too nice to them. But still, I think the term has some utility because it can make more people think and perhaps provide some insights that they otherwise wouldn't have. And it is another insult we can use that will probably be genuinely hurtful to some people in the abuse industry and make them feel guilty and shameful because they are smart enough to know that it is true.
The abuse industry harms innocent men and women, obviously, by punishing them for nothing or gross exaggerations, and it harms "victims" by nocebo and iatrogenesis. One might argue that nocebo is a subset of iatrogenesis, but I take issue with this because it isn't really justified to use the word "iatrogenic" when the thing "treated" is utter gibberish from beginning to end, as is the case with the full-retard female sex offender charade.
“Already the number in prison for pornography offences far exceeds the number of sex offenders actually caught having sex with underage girls.”
All right, let me comment a bit further on this. I see it as a labeling and culling exercise whereby men are imprisoned just for being sexually normal men, but the method of identification is so crude that they single out men who are LESS likely than average to have sex because they waste energy and virility on maladaptive pursuits. This crudeness is a result of ignorance and the limitations imposed by our few remaining civil rights (they can't target our thoughts directly yet without some surrogate marker, however superficial and meaningless in itself). I wouldn’t count on this trend to last, though, because there is no natural law which says our oppressors must be stupid. There are also smart feminists like Robert Wright who wouldn’t hesitate to use his knowledge to hurt our sexuality in much more efficient ways. We can expect the feminist states to hone their methods to where they won’t care so much about the pornography anymore and rather try to catch the sexually serious men earlier. I would rather not help them speed up the honing of their methods, but rather keep them ignorant as long as possible, thank you very much.
“The fact that a female judge sentenced her (and wanted to give her 40 years in prison) just shows how inherently evil natured women are.”
To be exact, it was the female prosecutor Lacey Fisher who wanted to impose the legal maximum sentence of 44 years, but then judge Sherry Stephens limited herself to "just" the minimum sentence of 20 years. Brittany Zamora also got two lifetime terms of probation on top of that.
So this is indeed an evil perpetrated by women on women, and I do not yet envision that any man could be as misogynistic as the prosecutor, at least. So there we agree; when it comes to hurting other women for victimless sex, women's evil is unparalleled by men. But I wouldn't go so far as to attribute it to an inherently more evil female nature, as historical witch-hunts speak against that idea. Instead it is probably due to the greater female ignorance about male sexuality, making them more prone to the bizarre superstition that boys can be sexually abused by women. Men of course intuitively know that the boys are lucky, so you don't see male prosecutors asking for the maximum punishments yet, at least unless they are exceptionally sadistic monsters who stand out as such from their peer group of law enforcers, even.
Additionally, we must remember that this was a plea bargain, so 20 or even 44 years does not represent the full evil of what the system seeks to impose on harmless women like Brittany Zamora. She could easily have gotten the 200 years you speak of if she had gone to trial, and likewise men also often take similar pleas. The sex laws are ineffably fucked up; all I can do is to try to evoke the true magnitude of their horror by all my different approaches to writing about the female sex offender charade. And please understand that even though I write more about women, 90% of the same injustice also applies to men, plus of course the number of men affected is much greater. I really think it is uncalled for to criticize my focus on female victims, for all the reasons I have put forth.
This result indicates that we only need 10% male sexualists to prevail, but those need to be really committed like me:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51595379_Social_consensus_through_the_influence_of_committed_minorities
"We show how the prevailing majority opinion in a population can be rapidly reversed by a small fraction p of randomly distributed committed agents who consistently proselytize the opposing opinion and are immune to influence. Specifically, we show that when the committed fraction grows beyond a critical value p(c) ≈ 10%, there is a dramatic decrease in the time T(c) taken for the entire population to adopt the committed opinion."
So it is getting to the first 10% that is the hard part, which in our case probably means 20% of men.
Hey Eivind
Please join us at https://incelsandmalesexualists.com/ - the first forum for male sexualist issues along with incel issues.
I'd be very happy if you could promote it with a specific post as well. Register there and start making a difference !
Also, ffs, you still have to approve every post manually? I explained why it's a bad idea that has pretty much killed your blog. You need to toughen up.
Post a Comment