But that's where my agreement stops. Just like to me the sun is just a star rather than a god, a nude photo of a teen girl is just a piece of information rather than any piece of a real goddess herself or sex with her. There is nothing magical about that information even though it depicts something extremely desirable. Girls cannot sexually satisfy men via images and they cannot be exploited that way either, because the medium cannot in principle convey sexual value. Just like staring at pictures of gold bars cannot in a million years make me any richer, a homeless person cannot improve his situation by looking at pictures of mansions, pictures of food cannot ever provide nutrition, and video of a rainstorm can't make me wet, porn cannot sexually satisfy, only waste efforts one should have spent on getting and having sex.
Note that I am not denying that digital communication can convey intimacy. It is meaningful to talk to girls, but there is nothing about these "sexually explicit" pictures that the media and police obsess over that add anything to the relation. If anything they detract, since suspense and virility is lost when you see something you should have saved for meeting the girl. Hence it is laughable to preferentially crack down on "explicit" communication if you are going to crack down on such love affairs at all. By doing so you selectively hunt the men who are least likely to have sex, while leaving alone nofappers such as myself who talk to young girls with laser focus on meeting for sex. I marvel every time I ask a 16-year-old girl for a date this is legal and she can agree and sleep with me legally but if I asked for a nude, I would be in the same boat with Huw Edwards... Only sexually unambitious men ask for nudes, and ironically these are the men our society likes to hunt the most, for reasons that to a non-brainwashee are clearly metaphysical, because how else can the sight of a nude 16 or 17-year-old girl become criminal by the very fact of being a simulacrum rather than real life?
As a society we truly believe in the metaphysics of online sexual exploitation and even "abuse." We believe it as surely as another culture might have worshiped a sun god. To me it is surreal and exasperating that the normies have lost lost the plot and are so sick in the head from my point of view. But I know there is nothing I can do to convince them, because this is not only a widespread superstition but a holy cow too. And if the past history of this blog is any indication, the comment section will be replete with antifeminists too repeating the same hogwash and saying wanking is good for us. Which I am SO close to banning now.
We live in an animist world animated not by spirits and gods but sexual abuse. Sex abuse voodoo animates our computer networks to the point that the concept of private communications itself must be abolished by banning encryption, for the sake of fighting this witchcraft. "Sexual abuse" is our de facto religion, which has also colonized the digital realm with astonishing success. You can get 60 years in prison for looking at pictures, so sinister is digital information believed to be, when the metaphysical sex abuse woo is added to the mix. We no longer look to shamans to explain the sun, rather astrophysicists, but you betcha we consult shamans about digital files! They are just ones and zeros, 0101011001..., but there be sexualization there! Horror of horrors! The shamans -- NGOs and law enforcement and tech companies -- have their secret hashes to search for these evil spirits throughout our networks and computers, and such a hash alone, which looks something like 5E2E25F0D9ED464B79EBEFAFF97217A9A35A7FC8, when matched to a file transmitted to you, is enough to incriminate you. Thus we have reinvented a bizarre black magic and everyone thinks it is completely normal and compatible with the scientific worldview, because the new kind of animism has the same hold on our primitive brains as any old belief.
As a society we truly believe in the metaphysics of online sexual exploitation and even "abuse." We believe it as surely as another culture might have worshiped a sun god. To me it is surreal and exasperating that the normies have lost lost the plot and are so sick in the head from my point of view. But I know there is nothing I can do to convince them, because this is not only a widespread superstition but a holy cow too. And if the past history of this blog is any indication, the comment section will be replete with antifeminists too repeating the same hogwash and saying wanking is good for us. Which I am SO close to banning now.
We live in an animist world animated not by spirits and gods but sexual abuse. Sex abuse voodoo animates our computer networks to the point that the concept of private communications itself must be abolished by banning encryption, for the sake of fighting this witchcraft. "Sexual abuse" is our de facto religion, which has also colonized the digital realm with astonishing success. You can get 60 years in prison for looking at pictures, so sinister is digital information believed to be, when the metaphysical sex abuse woo is added to the mix. We no longer look to shamans to explain the sun, rather astrophysicists, but you betcha we consult shamans about digital files! They are just ones and zeros, 0101011001..., but there be sexualization there! Horror of horrors! The shamans -- NGOs and law enforcement and tech companies -- have their secret hashes to search for these evil spirits throughout our networks and computers, and such a hash alone, which looks something like 5E2E25F0D9ED464B79EBEFAFF97217A9A35A7FC8, when matched to a file transmitted to you, is enough to incriminate you. Thus we have reinvented a bizarre black magic and everyone thinks it is completely normal and compatible with the scientific worldview, because the new kind of animism has the same hold on our primitive brains as any old belief.
It would be nice if we could think about sexual abuse in an evidence-based way much like we do with aviation and parts of medicine, but no, there is no hope of that in sight. We remain primitives in this area -- or whether we buy into the superstition individually or not are all ruled by primitive witch-doctors with high-tech tools like digital hashes and a prison-industrial complex to make them all that more harmful.
160 comments:
"the comment section will be replete with antifeminists too repeating the same hogwash and saying wanking is good for us. Which I am SO close to banning now."
Why write an article defending your view that 99% of men are 'wankers' and then ban commentators from questioning it? Jesus, getting 'an award winning doc' made about you was the worst thing that could have happened for your already monumental sized ego.
"Just like staring at pictures of gold bars cannot in a million years make me any richer, a homeless person cannot improve his situation by looking at pictures of mansions, pictures of food cannot ever provide nutrition, and video of a rainstorm can't make me wet, porn cannot sexually satisfy,"
What stupid analogies. The visual beauty of an attractive female is her whole value. You of course wouldn't know that because you don't appear to have any appreciation for beauty, just a rabid sexual thirst to bang anything. You may as well say there is no point in admiring or appreciating a great painting unless you physically own it.
And why are you boasting that you ask 16 year old girls on dates when you admitted recently you don't approach females and only contact them on Tinder?
Firstly, quit presuming you know all the details of my personal life and quit misquoting me. I never said I only approach females on Tinder. I said I don't do cold approach in the street, but those are not the only two options. I mentioned Tinder as one avenue of many. And like anybody else, I am not obligated to share every detail of my life on blogs and social media, which may or may not be a good idea depending on how the people you associate with feel about it too. Also, the film was not a documentary.
Now to the substance of your comment, which is doubling down on the wanker's delusion in ways that still manage to shock me. It's like talking to someone who hears voices and believes they are real and sensible. Literally psychotic. "The visual beauty of an attractive female is her whole value" -- lol, have you forgotten the other senses beside sight, and reproduction too? The visual appearance of a woman is an advertisement of the joys you can have with her and her reproductive services. You can make love in the dark and still enjoy her fully (if I had to pick one sense, I would say touch is most important). Food similarly looks good if it is good. Now imagine a restaurant which offered only pictures of food. Nothing to eat, just look at pictures and video of food and they would charge you for it. Do you think that service would be worth paying for or spend time on? This is a VERY good analogy for what porn is. And not only are the feminists and normies deluded that it can sexually exploit females, but psychotic wankers like you believe you are getting sexual value out of it too.
If it still doesn't sink in, consider that a woman's love and attention, physical presence and reproductive function are fundamentally limited quantities, but porn can be endlessly replicated. Like a car company only had to make one car, take a picture of it, advertise that picture and not bother any more with the product because people are so stupid they think they get value from a picture of a car alone. This is literally how dumb wankers are.
You are confusing the advertisement with the product -- that's what wanking is!
Yeah, how beautiful a woman is determines how much you will enjoy sex with her -- even in the dark. But that's all it does; the visual beauty is not the "product" itself, dumbass! No more than the aerodynamic shape of a well-built car is its whole value.
And just ponder the replicability issue. Porn imitates something strictly limited and makes it endlessly reproducible, yet it still preserves the value?! How? Sure, just because something is commonplace doesn't mean it's worthless, just like your imagination isn't worthless, but porn isn't worth more than your imagination either (I would say less since it screws up anticipation), and as any incel or teenage boy since time immemorial will tell you, sexual fantasies are a dime a dozen, and nothing to write home about or remember on your deathbed as the highlights of life. Unlike real sex with attractive women, which you wankers barely acknowledge is possible anymore.
The visual beauty of a woman is her whole value, in that if she doesn't have visual beauty, she has no value, other than to some maladaptive sex starved clowns who will literally fuck hogs.
The visual beauty of a woman is not simply an advertisement in the way a photograph of food is. Men can appreciate the physical beauty of women as an end to itself - that's why you have a painting of a naked woman in your cabin and not pictures of cream cakes or pizzas.
The 'end product' literally is the reproduction of our selfish genes. Something you have failed to do as you enter middle-age, so you're no better than any wanker on Earth, in fact far worse as nearly all men who reproduce at least occasionally wank. Likewise, from any interpretation of your 'end product' reasoning that makes sense - i.e. a reductionist evolutionary psychological justification - the end product is not the sex itself but the impregnation and reproduction. Thus sex is only a step closer to the 'end product', but at the end of the day a 'mirage' as much as masturbation is if it fails to end in pregnancy.
You don't approach women, which is the only valid way to pursue a sexual encounter with them. Oh, sorry Eivind, I did presume you only chased chubbies on Tinder, but I apologize if you also chase them on Badoo or some BBW dating apps. Trying to get sex from a dating app for a man is like getting all your food served from McDonalds instead of preparing and cooking it yourself. It's maladaptive - surely you can see that Eivind? Do you think Tinder existed in Paeleolithic times?
As far as porn being reproducible, nobody is arguing that a pornographic image of a woman has as much value as sex with the woman. Nobody except the voices in your head. And you're somebody who maintains that the mass of young women, including chubbies and the plainest are all Godesses that every man should yearn to fuck. Yes, female sexual value is rare, and the truth is, most men can't easily access it, no matter how much NoFap they pursue. Men will take the value they can get. You're deluding yourself by pretending that chubby and plain girls have sexual value. You're more deluded than wankers.
You sound completely off the rails Eivind. Probably because you're engaging in another stupid exercise in aesetic fanatisism by starving yourself for a week.
You are delusional and I am so tired of this debate but only allowing it as educational material a little longer because it exemplifies the wanker's delusion so funnily.
Beauty as an end in itself only goes so far. Beautiful women and especially nudes are a great subject for art. I love art and have nothing against art. Art does not displace your sex life, which is the definition of porn: when it becomes a substitute for something you should have pursued in real life; when it facilitates masturbation. And here's another analogy: the image itself of great art can never be worth more than a poster. Because that's what you get when you reproduce it endlessly. So even here, there is a distinction between valuable works of art -- that are physically limited in quantity to one painting or a few prints -- and the cheap posters on my walls. The posters are nice to have around, but I wouldn't pay much for them, just like men should not give up any substantial part of their sex lives on porn and masturbation.
But you are so deluded, you think that simulacrum is really meaningful. You are a textbook example of wanker's delusion. That is not only ruining your life but also hampering our political efforts to fight the porn laws because by the same token there can be real exploitation of girls in porn too, if we confuse the map with the territory.
And you STILL fail to acknowledge any other sense than vision. Touching a woman is... not needed... because you only care about her abstract shape.
There is no sexual value in porn or sexting. It is not a matter of men "taking what value they can get" because there is less than zero sexual value in it. It wastes efforts and hurts their actual chances in so many ways. To which you respond with bizarre hate against chubby and plain women. Any bystander with a real life can see how retarded that is. Millions of men can testify that their chubby girlfriends are better than masturbating to sterile porn. And those girlfriends give them babies too, which is another thing you can't appreciate. That doesn't mean we normal men reduce life to reproduction only, but participating in reproduction is a big part of what gives life meaning. In that whole process there is beauty -- the same beauty you think you can distill down to images and enjoy, but you can't. You end up with this hollow mirage that you scream to justify while only digging yourself deeper into delusion.
Female sexual beauty is only meaningful as such in the process which created it and sustains it, as part of pursuing and having real sex and relationships and families. It does not all have to be for reproduction and casual sex is wonderful but it does have to be real. Abstracted from any of these contexts, female beauty can at best be a work of art. And art is not fundamentally about the subject. Oh yes, I might well hang paintings of cream cakes or pizzas if an artist made it worthwhile. For example, while I can't think of great cake paintings at the moment I would LOVE to have an Andy Warhol soup can painting on my wall, because he made absolutely magical art out of that subject. Art has its place, and I don't confuse it with either sex or nutrition. But you DO confuse porn with sex in a similar manner it would be to confuse a picture of food with nutritional value.
Good article. I've often said that there's an element of Magic behind most of the West's prudish attitudes towards heterosexuality (homo grooming gets a free pass since it's sex-negative behavior and just an advanced stage of 'wanking'.) In my State in the US, they're terrified of even healthy sex education for fear it will corrupt teenagers' "innocence" but then, by magic when they turn 18, they're presumed legally responsible enough to work in a strip club or pose for porn.
Magic age and magic information. While virginity is no longer prized, a sort of digital virginity is absolutely obsessed over. If there are nudes floating around of a girl then she is believed to be ruined for life, if they were taken while she was under 18. It's all magic. The closest real concept is something like reputation, but if we are going to police a girl's reputation then we should at least be honest that this is what we are doing, not fighting some sort of voodoo sex. Reputations can also be harmed without explicit pictures, so it makes no sense to single those out either. And men who sabotage girls' reputation by spreading pictures do not themselves gain anything sexual from it, when we realize that any wanking is inconsequential voodoo, so she cannot be said to be sexually exploited, only at worst harmed in a way that is no longer supposed to be an issue anyway since we do not (at least officially) hold girls to be worth more if they are chaste and virginal.
Judging by how few comments I get on topic whenever I discuss anything metaphysical or the magical aspects of feminist beliefs, I conclude that the prevailing magical thinking is largely unopposed even in the male sexualist movement. How can the dogma that girls can be sexually abused via pixels on a screen go unopposed? Doesn't this supernaturalism bother you all? Instead I get the usual pro-masturbation comments which play into the same superstition, and just one comment recognizing how weird the supposed magic is.
This is sad and disappointing. We won't get anywhere without rejecting the theory, morality and dogmas behind feminist sex law and formulating a saner alternative. We need to be philosophically serious if we are going to have a men's movement worth a damn. And no, our whole philosophy can't consist of "old hags are jealous" because the fake "sex abuse" belief system is internalized in men too, as well as our cultural institutions to a staggering degree. It takes moral seriousness to upend this. We need to be committed sexualists every step of the way in our lives and anonymous activism sure as hell is not going to cut it either.
Your position is refreshing, to say the least. Usually modern-day Puritans say that masturbation is tolerable, but pornography is grossly oppressive and dangerous; one must respect someone who consistently takes the peculiar, polar opposite position.
Anyway, do you think it's reading the stuff of de Sade? Was he a male sexualist pioneer?
I have been too put off by the reputed association with sexual sadism and violence to be attracted to Marquis de Sade's writings, so can't comment knowledgeably. However, looking over his Wikipedia now I see that for one thing he wasn't really a sadist, he was heavily oppressed for opinions and writings that in part resemble ours and far exceed us artistically, and then there is this:
Sade began a sexual relationship with 14-year-old Madeleine LeClerc, daughter of an employee at Charenton. This lasted some four years, until his death in 1814.
So, he had a relationship with a teen girl in his 70s! A true sexualist hero.
He was locked up for 32 years in prisons and asylums but conditions can't have been so bad when you could have that kind of relationship in there. That's really mind-boggling how things have changed, when even the sexually oppressed could have that kind of life.
Quora is good for something. I asked: What is the average/median age of Darwin Award winners and what does this tell us about the peak age of irresponsible risk-taking?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-median-age-of-Darwin-Award-winners-and-what-does-this-tell-us-about-the-peak-age-of-irresponsible-risk-taking
And got this answer:
A study was published in 2015 that contained much more data than just the average age of Darwin Award “winners”. Although males predominate by 7:1, people in their 20s are the most likely to take themselves out of the gene pool. Only about half as many do in their 30s and 40s. Surprisingly, teenagers rank only 4th but not far behind people in their 30s and 40s. Check out the many ways that people chlorinate the gene pool:
https://www.drfelix.co.uk/exploring-darwin-awards/
So, another nail in the coffin to the teen brain myth. People under 20 know to avoid stupid risk better than adults all the way up to over 50. Except of course, once they have anything to do with sex then they know nothing...
Looks like the Rookh Kshatriya blog has ben shut down.
what are your opinions?
I mentioned this here the other week. Rookh was the last real male sexualist or real MRA still actively blogging to my knowledge. Hopefully he has moved or is going to move to a different platform.
Is rather silly to think that you wont get deleted by blogspot for discussing controversial men's rights views in today's climate.
I am deleting trolling on the porn and masturbation issue now. If someone has something intelligent to say then maybe I will let it through, but this is not it. Just think how silly it is to bring up art with chubby women on my wall or Instagram as an "argument" in this. Like attacking a food writer on the basis that if he likes Andy Warhol then he must think Campbell Soup is the most gourmet kind of food that he eats all the time and probably wanks to. Really too silly to waste any more time on.
This is a sex-positive sanctuary where I do not allow mindless promotion of either criminalization or masturbation. I allow debate including intelligent counterarguments that we can use to sharpen our thinking, but please no more nonsense.
https://www.abc15.com/news/local-news/investigations/how-a-nintendo-switch-helped-locate-a-missing-girl-2-000-miles-from-home
Nintendo is an evil company, an enemy of men.
Sure it's all a lie, the girl voluntarily ran away with the man, and the anti-man fascists from the FBI and this "child protection" groups made it up to justify this crime.
Don't buy Nintendo.
Nintendo America is known for censoring everything that has to do "sexually" with persons under 18 years of age, in one game they raised the age of all characters under 18 (and put more clothes on them), it was not a sexual game by the way, in another you can not have romantic relationships with characters under 18, in a game set in a fantasy middle age, not in the current age, that case of censorship was so disgusting, that many players complained.
Some inspirational news for a change:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23083127/mayor-married-student-honeymoon-school-holidays/
SCHOOL HOLIDAY I’m a mayor aged 65 and just married a 16-year-old… we’re off on honeymoon but she’ll be back in school when we get home...
But bride Kauane has defended her husband and slammed trolls online.
She said: "What matters, honestly... It's just that we don't care!"
The USA right wing is going into hyperbolic hysteria mode with their new child sex hoax film by the CIA Agent and cult leader Tim Ballard. These sex fascists are deranged; if you live in one of those conservative feminist states, it is advisable to not even look at a young woman, lest some burly MAGA faggot accuse you of "pedophilia" and beat you to death, legally.
The new free speech tube by Newgon is looking sleek and promising:
https://fstube.net/w/8NRuHq7Vj5a12LRTscap5t
Yes, I've noticed the conservatives receive that "trafficking" film uncritically. They are still in a trance where no one who claims to be fighting pedophilia can do anything wrong, while the liberals are snapping a little bit out of it, to their credit, perhaps because it is increasingly becoming a deranged conservative cult that they want to distance themselves from. They still don't disagree about laws though, so we have ways to go before there is real improvement. Even now I would agree it is slightly safer in left-wing places, because the MAGA crowd is whipping up an extra level of blind hysteria beyond feminist sex law.
Conservatives showing their true colors here:
https://dailycaller.com/2023/07/20/gavin-newsom-fines-temecula-school-1-5-million-rejecting-lgbt-materials/
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has fined Temecula School District $1.5 million after it rejected a proposed curriculum from the governor’s office for its LGBT content. The Temecula County school board voted to reject a curriculum that included a social studies book that referenced Harvey Milk, an LGBT activist and politician. Opponents are reportedly concerned about an alleged relationship Milk had with a teenager while in his 30s, according to CBS News.
So it's not about LGBT but age gaps. It it pure, hateful feminism. Also they would have to censor a lot of of their own books including the bible by that line, lol.
About the Brazilian mayor and his 16-y-o bride.
Mayor=politician=scumbag, but someone doing this is better than no-one doing this because it helps "normalize" it. The scare quotes are of course very deliberate.
It's funny how every discussion here ends up talking about paedohysteria and age gaps no matter what the topic is? I myself mostly come here to do this.
But back to the mayor or rather the surprisingly, even astonishingly, objective way The Sun covered it. I've read 1-2 articles about age-related issues from The Sun and found it to be thoroughly on board with the hysteria, but here they are reporting this story matter-of-factly and maybe even positively. WTH, are we going back to the 80's or something?
Anonymous 2
A further escalation coming from the right wing:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4110469-trump-proposes-death-penalty-human-trafficking/
Not so many years ago Trump was rather regarded as an ally against feminism.
"It's funny how every discussion here ends up talking about paedohysteria and age gaps no matter what the topic is? I myself mostly come here to do this."
@Anonymous Well Eivind has literally banned us from discussing the topic of his article, so...
Do you have anything intelligent to say about it? We have been discussing this for years and I've grown tired of the same old arguments, which I have refuted so many times that it is better to point to old threads for the most part.
Why does "sexually explicit" information occupy this special status in our culture? Does it make sense to exalt it thus either negatively or positively? If you want to argue that it makes sense, then say something new about what the supposed value is. I see men wasting sexual efforts, and then because they falsely believe there is value in it they also accept the feminist theory which holds that girls can be sexually exploited by the same token. You can't have one of these sides without the possibility of the other, so for the sake of our activism too you better damn well have a good reason if you are going to give the feminists this theoretical advantage. So tell me what is this metaphysical sexual essence of females that gets captured into images and transmitted to men just by looking at them?
Unless I am missing something (and it would have to be some theory of magic), there is nothing there. It is worse than worthless because it leads men astray and makes them put less effort into what really matters. Female beauty is an advertisement and signpost to help us find our way so we can have sex and reproduce. Those are fundamentally impossible via images. Only masturbation is possible that way, which is worthless (and don't bring up fringe cases of supposed benefits that might make sense in a vacuum but are in any case much better served by actual sex). As far as I can tell, the only disagreement consists of flipping this value around and declaring that you enjoy porn and masturbation therefore it is worth something to you. Fine, you can have that value, but that is an asexualist value as far as I'm concerned. I am concerned with sexualism here and don't need more of this. But if you have something intelligent or at least slightly novel to say then you can say it.
About Trump's proposal... Yeah he is over-the-top sex-hysterical now.
“I will urge Congress to ensure that anyone caught trafficking children across our border receives the death penalty immediately,” he added... Trump also used the campaign video to promote “Sound of Freedom,” the controversial box office hit that chronicles a Homeland Security Department agent who says he investigated pedophiles and trafficking rings. The former president screened the film this week at his Bedminster, N.J., golf club.
Death penalty immediately, huh? None of the usual appeals which take many years?
This is the only way the conservatives can differentiate themselves from already maxed out insanity. When men are already getting life in prison just for soliciting nude pictures from minors under laws enacted with the Democrats, Republicans have to come up with something like summary execution to look any different at all. And somehow they literally can't see how extreme the starting point already is. No matter how tyrannical the law is, antisex is always relative and they always screams for more. Trump is just a populist who cares nothing about this personally (he was friends with Epstein after all), but it is the way the wind blows and he will go along with it to help him get reelected. At this point the Democrats actually look like a better choice. But everything is hopeless anyway because the baseline is complete insanity. The only choice is how much more deranged do we want to get.
I actually believe there's widespread human trafficking and satanic ritual abuse. However, Trump's proposal is bone headed and counterproductive, and in fact downright dangerous and alarming.
This may be of interest-https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12326747/US-womens-soccer-stars-World-Cup-opener-remain-silent-anthem-Vietnam-players-proudly-sing-theirs-hands-hearts.html.
This goes with what Galileo 2333 has been saying about how they'll create a narrative about white men in Asian countries always being exploitative brutes of the innocent locals.
One can expect to see a lot more of this in the next 12-18 months if you believe him. In highlighting this story from the Fail, I hope in some small way to take the wind out of their sails at this very early stage.
Anonymous 2
Critical thinking should tell you that there is no widespread human trafficking or satanic ritual abuse. Firstly, where would they get the victims? If widespread, we should all know about a victim, but I know of no one from my childhood or later who disappeared suspiciously. Real disappearances are so rare, the media is still going on about Madeleine McCann 17 years later. The closest you come are some extremely unique psychos who do kidnap and keep sex slaves in the basement (Josef Fritzl), but these are LONE psychos. Real pedophiles cannot muster any more cooperation than trading porn, and the rest is mythical or kept within families. That's why the police is so obsessed with their inane online stuff because they sorely need to manufacture work for themselves on this topic (which they do either by targeting something so absurdly vacuous as file sharing among wankers or resort to entrapment in sting operations). Even the one sensational case we had in Norway (Baneheia) where two men supposedly raped and killed two girls together turned out to have been done by just one of them, and the other's conviction was overturned decades later. Also, none of the individual abusers have done satanic ritual abuse.
Secondly, if there are satanic ritual abuse conspiracies, which again would be much less likely given that not even individuals are known to engage in this sort of thing, how would they keep a secret? Maybe Oprah Winfrey and Hillary Clinton can keep a secret between them, but it can’t be any more widespread. Biden can’t even keep a secret with his son about paltry business corruption, none of which revealed any rituals either. If I wanted to join a satanic ritual abuse society, where would I sign up? If widespread, there should be a way (and I realize I might have to rise through their ranks for a good while, but there must be an entry point). Do I join the Freemasons or Ordo Templi Orientis? I knew a guy from the latter who could have initiated me, and I am pretty sure they have no connection to ritual abuse or trafficking even though they are in fact ritual Satanists. The Freemason rituals have been leaked well enough for us to know they don’t do it either, plus they wouldn’t be able to keep it secret if they or any other society did it. It’s all nonsense accusations. You might claim they get all the children from the Third World, but where is the evidence? Why do actual “rescue” operations always turn up prosaic situations at worst constituting a sweatshop where “victims” must be kidnapped and locked up in order to keep up appearances that there is any trafficking?
Just think about it critically for a minute. Also consider all the police investigations from the 80s when this was an original idea (or not really, mostly a rehash of witch-hunts), all of which turned up nothing and only served to imprison the innocent. Why do you still find the idea compelling? Perhaps you are too young to remember the 80s and history repeats? Well, I do remember it. I remember the sensational news and mass arrests and endless investigations that all turned up nothing in the end. And I am aware of the feminist connection and how the idea was kept alive by Swedish academic feminists mostly, now to surface again as the QAnon nonsense and in your head too?
I forgot about one type of ritual abuse which is well known to exist: circumcision. Again goes to show they can't keep the practice of such rituals secret. There are no widespread secret conspiracies.
Why do I support sex between adult men and minor teen girls? For the simple reason that I support individual rights. For the simple reason that neither the State, nor any community, nor yourself, have any right to tell an adult man what he should do with his private life with a teenager. Whether she is 14, 15 or 16. And also, for the reason that a teenager is not a child. And for the reason that one of the most disgusting frauds, among the many current frauds, is the idea that the enemies of free love between adults and teenagers call themselves 'children's rights advocates', or 'pro-children's movement' or something like that. So they support the rights of children, which teenagers are no longer, and they refuse to recognize the rights of the other person, the adult.
If some of you are confused or deceived by the argument that teenagers are children because they are legally minors, remember that in other times the age of majority was 21 or 23, so all those who have get involved with twenty-somethings and 18 and 19-year-olds are abusers, including your grandfather, your ancestors, etc. and that fucking them is child abuse, according to this particular ideology.
"Critical thinking should tell you that there is no widespread human trafficking or satanic ritual abuse"
Your entire comment on the abuse hoax is spot-on.
In America, the conservative feminist Republican extremists refer to mere prostitution as "human trafficking", also to boost the trafficking myth. If you watch news conferences from red state areas, all the corrupt feminist police captains refer to prostitution that way.
During the four Trump years, there was a record number of prostitution arrests in red states, more than the eight Obama years combined, in a country that already has extreme penalties for buying sex from honest women. You are free to try and kiss the ass and spend all the money you have on dishonest women though, also known as girlfriends, who at this point have an artificially inflated sexual value in America that is bigger than the moon.
Trump is proposing the death penalty for prostitution - this is what is happening. There is no hope in the USA. But also, there is no hope for the USA to defeat a united Russia and China. That is exciting and hopeful.
anon 69
Hello, I saw the trailer of your film "Norwegian Offspring". I'm not clear as to what made you to choose only masturbation and sex with dolls. Are you making this as a political decision against feminism?
@anon 69
Yes, quite so: Trump is proposing the death penalty for prostitution. It is literally that bad. This from the politician who looked most hopeful for men's rights. And on the intellectual side, Jordan Peterson is telling us we go to hell for casual sex:
https://www.tiktok.com/@project_shadow_us/video/7249492988500397354
This is what "manly" men are into. Hoaxes and draconian antisex laws and neopuritanism. Disgusting, harebrained antisex all around. They manage to make self-described feminists and liberals look moderate and intelligent in comparison.
@Heinrik
You are mistaking the film for a documentary. I didn't and don't choose sex dolls or masturbation. The plot of "Norwegian Offspring" is fictional derangement based on the director's fantasy, which makes the protagonist look maximally bad and opposite to what I am. But he gets to keep my ideology at least in words, though the masturbation with sex dolls contradicts it in action. Remember that the director's and my ideologies are hateful to each other (Marlene is a feminist who hates male sexuality), so this was a necessary compromise for the collaboration and the best I could do. I only endorse the film based on the fictional character's spoken ideology and the principle that all PR is good PR. It is worse than I thought if your impression is representative, however, since I thought it was more clearly presented as fiction.
I still think all PR is good PR, but in retrospect I realize it was unthinkable for Marlene Emilie Lyngstad to direct a sex scene with sex in it. Something always goes wrong for the male character; either impotence, an even more farcical reason that you can see for yourself in the movie, or choosing sex dolls over real women. She said in an interview that men should choose sex dolls to spare women the disgust of sex:
https://www.ekkofilm.dk/artikler/en-sexdukke-doemmer-ikke-nogen/
It does seem a little artistically suffocating to be so absurdly anti-sex, so I doubt she will make anything good, though her career is certainly off to a flying start with an award from Cannes for her graduation film from Film School. Unless she loosens up, all her male characters will be impotent wankers or at best maybe get to have sex if they hold all the right feminist views and are in a committed monogamous relationship only because otherwise they agree with her that sex is always abusive and disgusting to females.
Acknowledging that this is the context, I nonetheless believe I accomplished something for male sexualism by getting this film made. Because some viewers will also be able to see through the feminism and be drawn to the sexualism. Real life is messy and you have to work with what you've got. An ideology as marginalized as ours must be glad to get any PR. It sure beats the armchair anonymous activism which is as far as most of you will ever go, so look at yourselves before criticizing my efforts.
"It sure beats the armchair anonymous activism "
I know that 'free speech' Berge wont publish this reply, but even so, I'll try to be as restrained and non-critical as possible so he really has to admit to himself he doesn't want to even listen to any opposing view. In any case, it's addressed to him, as he still doesn't have a single real follower - everyone else here thinks you're as kookie as Norwegian Offspring presents you as, and only comment here because it's one of the few places to allow comments on these topics.
Every time you make that claim about anonymous activism, you're insulting people like Angry Harry, who achieved far more than you ever will.
You're absolutely a living example of why anonymous activism is better, at least unless you have the personality and looks to pull it off - which you don't. It's widely considered that the manosphere was killed when the 'anonymous activist' InMalaFide blogger came out as rolly polly Matt Forney. And I can see that - he didn't gain anything by going public, and in spite of his looks, he is far more articulate and 'normal' than you.
What has 'public activsim' brought you or our ideas? A comedy slot on that Norwegian documentary and a feminist 'award winning Cannes movie' that presents you as the biggest loser (and wanker) in the world? And then you try to 'cash in' by turning our 'movement' into your own personal vehicle to get laid? Alienating 99% of males who are 'psychotic wankers' (while you go around taking photos of chubbies instead of approaching hot girls), calling Incels losers (who make our movement look like a complete joke in comparison)? No, take a look at yourself Eivind.
Angry Harry wasn't entirely anonymous. He showed his face in videos and talked in his own voice. It is fine to have a stage name or pseudonym, but anonymous activism as in being scared shitless to reveal your identity like you are never accomplished anything.
I agree our movement sucks, but not for the reasons you claim. It simply doesn't resonate with most men. I don't want to be like Donald Trump or Jordan Peterson because their ideas suck, and they are unfortunately the kind of heroes men want these days.
As to "photos of chubbies," this is another irrelevancy. People can judge my Instagram for themselves:
https://www.instagram.com/eivind_berge/
Most of which are selfies and landscapes; there are some street scenes and some of the women are chubby, but so what? I can't get followers there either no matter what I post.
Here we have the perfect illustration that to feminists the only acceptable man is a wanker who uses porn and sex dolls to avoid bothering women -- the meaning of “Norwegian Offspring” from the director’s point of view by means of her invented plot -- and yet this is literally the AF’s vision of a men’s rights activist. When he used to blog he spoke highly of sexbots as some kind of salvation to make women jealous. In truth, feminists are not so much jealous as disgusted by sex in general, and very happy to let men have sexbots and porn. Not just talking about old hags here either, but young like this 26-year-old student director and her entourage of scriptwriters, cameramen etc., none of whom raised a single word in favor of sexuality. This is difficult for men to grasp, but from working on this project I see how utterly hateful thought-leading women are to sex itself. And it is very much a thing of our times, even among conservatives and male leaders. Look at Jordan Peterson with his hatred of promiscuity and false insistence that it even makes men unhappy (maybe sour grapes in his case though; imagine wasting so much fame on not getting with young women!). And men flock to this kind of philosophy in droves, while I only get a handful followers, most of whom aren’t all that focused on sex anyways but varying degrees of upset that I am not positive to porn and masturbation, with the AF completely obsessed about this aspect.
It is as if humanity has collectively decided to limit population by lowering interest in sex. I don't really believe in that king of collective “intelligence” or group selection, but it is eerily suggestive of something like happened in the Calhoun mouse utopia experiments, a behavioral sink. Sex is devalued on every front from criminalization to promotion of masturbation instead of sex. And sterile alternative lifestyles like transgenderism too. Each find their own way to avoid the real thing, whether it be to criminalize it out of existence and be hysterically afraid of “abuse” or “trafficking” everywhere or be too moralistic to have sex or at best tie themselves down in monogamy. Only I am leading a true sexualist movement, truly sex-positive where we celebrate sex itself, and I don’t care how few followers I get because it is most important to keep it real.
The #MeToo situation is essentially a repeat of the daycare abuse panic of the 1980s and 90s. Only this time around it's adults who were abused by other adults due to socioeconomic difference, not children abused by adults due to age difference. This keeps with the spirit of infantalizing adults in an effort to raise legal ages of consent, after all Harvey Weinstein is considerably older than most women he had sex with, in addition to being much higher status career and financial.
The entire #MeToo regime was engineered as one of the New world order Great Reset plans, for population control and eugenics.
There's a reason Harvey Weinstein first got accused right after a hurricane named Harvey, probably a geoengineered and controlled weather event.
Weather engineering takes conspiracy theories too far for my belief, but you are correct about similarities between the daycare abuse panic and #MeToo. Both hysterias and investigations failed to turn up anything out of the ordinary, but some courts convicted anyway because the climate is so hateful and demands it. The daycares were boring places without a shred of ritual abuse, and workplaces nowadays are totally normal too or already abnormally sanitized of sexuality from decades of "sexual harassment" hysteria. But they needed a scapegoat, so Weinstein got convicted for normal consensual relationships, or just being an older man, similar to convictions for clearly made-up stories about sex aboard a spaceship in the daycare panic. The Weinstein case mirrors the Little Rascals daycare case as such.
https://www.littlerascalsdaycarecase.org/
In the beginning, in 1989, more than 90 children at the Little Rascals Day Care Center in Edenton, North Carolina, accused a total of 20 adults with 429 instances of sexual abuse over a three-year period. It may have all begun with one parent's complaint about punishment given her child.
Among the alleged perpetrators: the sheriff and mayor. But prosecutors would charge only Robin Byrum, Darlene Harris, Elizabeth "Betsy" Kelly, Robert "Bob" Kelly, Willard Scott Privott, Shelley Stone and Dawn Wilson – the Edenton 7.
Along with sodomy and beatings, allegations included a baby killed with a handgun, a child being hung upside down from a tree and being set on fire and countless other fantastic incidents involving spaceships, hot air balloons, pirate ships and trained sharks.
By the time prosecutors dropped the last charges in 1997, Little Rascals had become North Carolina's longest and most costly criminal trial. Prosecutors kept defendants jailed in hopes at least one would turn against their supposed co-conspirators. Remarkably, none did. Another shameful record: Five defendants had to wait longer to face their accusers in court than anyone else in North Carolina history.
The Epstein case is like that too, as is all the "trafficking" hysteria with only normal prostitution being real. With minors we don't even care about reality and convict all sexual relations as the most heinous abuse, and rape laws for adults get adapted too to fit men like Weinstein or just about any man getting accused. We live in hateful times that are normal to the normies just like daycare hysteria or other witch-hunts were normal in their respective times, because the horrific reality is these are the norms and beliefs of our society, with only a chosen few like me not having fallen for the mass psychosis.
Exactly correct, I agree with all points except this one which is obviously false:
" In truth, feminists are not so much jealous as disgusted by sex in general, and very happy to let men have sexbots and porn."
Women are not at all happy about men's access to sexbots and porn. They hold crusades against both constantly unless the porn and the sexbots look like grannies, and when both look like grannies, they still say it's abuse and immoral. Anything that threatens women's sexual power will be attacked in a feminist-led female dominated society.
Women will say to get away from them and use a sex bot or porn instead (which is actually a shit test, they despise men who listen to them and are unwilling to rape them because women are sex freaks and highly turned on by rape as studies show), then women will work to ban sex dolls and porn. This is how they operate.
anon 69
From: "House of Cards" – Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth
By Robyn M. Daves, 1994
A California licensed psychologist, Edith Fiore, has developed a unique specialty that she shares with at least fourteen other licensed mental health practitioners around the country. She helps people overcome the ill effects of being abducted by extraterrestrials (ETs) who hypnotized the abductees so that they would forget the experience. The symptoms of these abductions, as well as the names of fourteen other experts in this field, are listed in her recent book Encounters: A Psychologist Reveals Case Studies of Abduction by Extraterrestrials. Many of the people who were abducted were, of course, sexually molested by the ETs; on other occasions, the ETs used remarkable techniques to cure their abductees of chronic and sometimes seemingly fatal diseases. Some of the symptoms of such abduction, like sleep disturbances, are similar to those of people who have been sexually abused or who were raised in satanic cults and have subsequently “forgotten” the experience. Like other symptom lists, Fiore’s includes symptoms that could be indicative of a wide variety of (sometimes rather serious) disturbances, like “inability to account for periods of time,” “feeling monitored, watched, and/or communicated with.” Among the symptoms is listed an obsession with ETs and UFOs.
The therapy Fiore provided is remarkably simple. The ETs’ attempts to make the abductees forget their experience cannot fully succeed. Using their own hypnotic techniques Fiore and her fourteen colleagues can help the clients recall the experience. The reason that the ETs’ hypnotic attempt fails and the subsequent one succeeds is that: The subconscious mind has a memory bank of everything we ever experienced, exactly as we perceived it. Every thought, emotion, sound of music, word, taste and sight. Everything is faithfully recorded somehow in your mind. Your subconscious mind’s memory is perfect, infallible. Here we have a striking example of the “license to ignore” gone haywire—in this case, to ignore virtually every study that has ever been conducted on the nature of human memory, especially those that show that memory under hypnosis is not more accurate than in a waking state. The implications of these studies make it unsurprising that hypnosis produces “recall” of experiences involving ETs and UFOs, since one of the symptoms Fiore lists is obsession with ETs and UFOs. Bridie Murphy lives again, only this time she is sanctified by a state license.
(to be continued in Part 2)
(Part 2)
Fiore and her colleagues are far from alone in their beliefs that people are abducted by ETs. Recently (1992), I received an unsolicited report in the mail from the Bigelow Holding Corporation. The introductory chapter of the report, written by John E. Mack (Harvard Medical School professor of psychiatry), begins by observing that a “Roper Survey, conducted between July and September, 1991, suggests that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American men, women, and children may have experienced UFO abductions, or abduction related phenomena.” He continues that “mental health clinicians should learn to recognize the most common symptoms in the patient’s or client’s history that they are dealing with an abduction case.” These symptoms include fear of the dark or of nightfall, repetitive nightmares, dreams about abduction, unexplained phobias or fears, and even the appearance for no apparent reason of small scars or cuts or bruises.
Five “key indicator” questions were included in this Roper Poll. The 5,947 adults were asked whether they had ever (1) wakened up paralyzed with a sense of a strange figure or presence in the room; (2) experienced a period of an hour or more in which she or he was apparently lost but could not remember why; (3) felt the experience of actually flying through the air without knowing why or how; (4) seen unusual lights or balls of light in a room without understanding what was causing them; and, (5) discovered puzzling scars on his or her body without remembering how or where they were acquired. Of those surveyed, 119 responded yes to four or five of these items. The authors of the Bigelow report conclude: “This is 2% of our sample, and it therefore suggests that 2% of adults in the American population have had a constellation of experiences consistent with an abduction history. Therefore, based on our sample of nearly 6,000 respondents, we believe that one out of every 50 Americans may have had UFO abduction experiences.” 78 As they point out, two percent of the American adult population of 185 million constitutes 3.7 million people.
Either way, porn and sexbots have no sexual value and should be avoided.
Good old UFO abductions :)
Brings back memories of the 80s when that stuff was taken seriously along with satanic ritual abuse. There is a resurgence in not just ritual abuse but also UFO belief at the moment, but curiously without the abductions. No personal photos of UFOs or aliens either, just supposed government records. I guess with cellphones and GPS everywhere it would be too easy to record the aliens so no one claims to see them first-hand anymore. Of course, recording child sexual abuse is illegal so there the imagination is still free, and the only acceptable way to talk abut it is to make accusations. Psychology and psychotherapy built on myth still going strong there.
I agree strongly with RevolutionG23's post except that there really are satanic ritual abuse rings. Perhaps some of what was shown in the 80's was chaff designed to divert enquiry from real crimes.
I also am very happy for and about Eivind and his media exposure and agree that all publicity is good publicity.
Eivind believes I lack critical thinking skills when it comes to this issue. Grouping any theories deemed beyond the pale by the consensus as conspiracy theories itself lacks critical thinking as far as I am concerned. He also says that satanic ritual abuse would be exposed by now and people would have spoken out-another piece of normie folk wisdom that doesn't bear scrutiny. Of course you won't find anything if you make no effort to look.
This movie is IMHO not bad-not perfect, there's a bit of paedohysteria in it, for example, but a decent overview.
See this article-https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/how-many-people-go-missing-in-uk-each-year-nicola-bulley-b1058552.html. Official statistics, for what they are worth, show 70,000 children (which would be anyone under18) and 100, 000 adults go missing in the UK every year. 5% of adults and 2% of children are still missing after a week. Looking only at under-18's 2% of 70,000 is 1,400. Of course I don't know how many are missing after a month or a year, let alone precisely what happens to all of them, but I don't consider that a negligible figure.
I don't intend this to be an exhaustive reply to Eivind on these topics. I also want to maintain a tone of conversation that has been civil and even friendly and I'll stop with this post. However, I am not going to say absolutely nothing either.
Anonymous2
So, you have pedohysterical sources and you don’t even have statistics for how many are missing after a month when runaways, suicides and kids taken by an estranged parent are eliminated? Because that number is close to zero. Last time I visited the UK I was stunned by some posters of “missing children” found in shopping centers. What was so stunning was the paucity of missing children there must be because they had all gone missing many years ago and most were adults by now. If you can’t even put up two or three missing kids from the past five or even ten years IN THE MOST CONSPICUOUS LOCATIONS WHERE IT MIGHT BE USEFUL TO HAVE THEIR PICTURE, then I must conclude that kids REALLY don’t go (permanently) missing on a regular basis.
I am going to add one more point for you to think about, and you will understand why I don’t flesh this one out. Suffice it to say that I have an adventurous past including ambition to be part of something powerful, something more powerful than the police whom I hate with a vengeance, and that I’ve had little fear or criminality. When somebody knowledgeable tells you something about shady and secret dealings or secrets about his friends you should respect that what they cite as evidence is only the tip of the iceberg of what they know, and that includes evidence for the NON-existence of certain conspiracies or organizations. Because, how do you know that the person you are talking to hasn’t tried to join such a conspiracy? And used all his intelligence to figure out how and where he might join if so?
I’ve found a Satanist fraternity as mentioned, and I’ve had friends in other fraternities. I have a pretty good idea what they are up to. I will also stop there and ask you to think about this and let the evidence guide you rather than what you think “must exist” just because it sounds plausible to you and is the fashionably hysterical thing to believe in at the moment.
Anyway, here's today's laugh at cost of the scumbags in law enforcement, or shall we say slightly nice for a change since they brought a 13-year-old girl to a man?
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/26/asia/taiwan-police-operation-girl-assaulted-intl-hnk/index.html
During the [sting] operation, the girl met Chang outside a fast food restaurant and asked him to step out of the car, with two police officers monitoring the meet-up on scene. But he repeatedly demanded she get in instead, and drove the girl to a parking space about 200 to 300 meters away (about 656 to 984 feet). Chang ordered her to perform oral sex on him and she complied out of fear, the verdict said. Afterward, Chang drove the girl back to the restaurant, where police arrested him.
Delightful! The feminist abuse industry both giveth and taketh away! LOLlol! They where a expecting a total wanker pushover, so there is that kind of lesson in this too, although he was somewhat of a wanker and initially asked for nudes in addition to the meet -- I'd rate him a C- as a sexualist.
Eivind, hvor finner jeg ditt innlegg som handler om den seneste Rind-studien og funnene der?
Maybe I didn't write a proper blog post about Rind's latest article. I did make this video where I read some good quotes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3u6U-6hnFw
And I mentioned it here and there. Will look around to see what I find and maybe write a new post about it. Do please get the full text and read it. If you have a chance to make a difference in a debate or something then do your best because it really breaks my heart that all these nice women are being persecuted for delusional reasons.
Kevin Spacey cleared of all charges:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/26/uk/kevin-spacey-trial-jury-verdict-intl/index.html
I told you it was all bullshit even by current feminist legal standards. Prosecutors couldn't even bring themselves to call him a "predator" -- which is the mildest word for anything remotely serious in their minds -- but said the comical new coinage "sexual bully" instead.
@Eivind-real quick and final post for me on this topic-IMHO the 1,400 figure allows for the possibility that a few hundred children go missing permanently in the UK. To me that's not a stretch. I am as aware as you are that there's no breakdown of how many go missing how long after a week.
It's entirely possibly your friend didn't know about this stuff himself.
You could actually watch something like the movie I linked for yourself-something can have a fault but still be of value FFS. Up the playback speed to get through it quicker if you find it a bit tedious.
Anonymous 2
If hundreds of children went permanently missing in the UK each year, there would be a wall of fresh pictures. There would not be hysteria but DESPAIR, and serious efforts to find these children. UK tabloids would not need to drone on about Madeleine McCann for decades but have plenty of immediate, sad local stories. The police would be working on theories of actual organizations with plenty of leads and I would not need to watch some freaking pedohysterical video with empty speculations and imaginary children to be updated on it. Your critical thinking skills have a gaping hole when you don't think it's funny that the police does not ask the public for tips on specific children if hundreds go missing. There would be press conferences and websites with SPECIFIC info including high-resolution pictures of recently disappeared children and how they were last seen. Lastly and very importantly there would be NAMES, not a bunch of anonymous ghosts that nobody named is missing either -- the hallmark of the hysterical fiction that you have fallen for, supposedly disappeared ghosts who left no trace because they never existed.
Here is a case from 2022 which is the closest you come to ritual abuse:
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/scottish-news/20592553.eleven-people-accused-taking-part-child-sex-ring-glasgow/
Eleven people are accused taking part in a child sex ring also allegedly involving witchcraft, serious violence and neglect. The seven men and four women today faced a 14-page indictment listing 43 different charges during a hearing at the High Court in Glasgow. The accusations mainly centre around three young children, two girls and a boy, between January 2010 and March 2020 at various addresses in the city... Prosecutors state all 11 are said to have got the boy and the older girl to take part in "seances (and) use a Ouija board...to call on spirits and demons". They also allegedly got the children involved in "witchcraft" leading them to believe that they themselves had "metamorphosed into animals".
But it just looks like random play, too amateurish to count as ritual abuse, no organization behind and all the children are accounted for and alive. Plus it's almost as unbelievable as the daycare spaceship stories (how do kids fit in microwaves -- and survive in good health if all that violence happened?).
No, snap out of it and consider the real monsters. The only organized abuse is perpetrated by the police. THIS is ritual abuse, and it goes unopposed in part because people like you are looking in imaginary places and averting your eyes from the real deal:
https://www.mic.com/articles/93295/why-are-police-officers-allegedly-trying-to-force-this-teen-to-get-an-erection
In a controversial move, police officers in Virginia are arguing that they need to force a 17-year-old boy to get an erection to make a case hinging on, of all things, explicit text messages.
It sounds a bit unconventional, but that's exactly what lawyers are alleging the Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Claiborne Richardson for Manassas City, Va., wants to do — apparently, because the Commonwealth believes it's the best way to match the teenager's genitalia to the photos he sent to a 15-year-old girl who was, at least at one point, his girlfriend.
The boy in question, Trey Simms, has already been charged with two felonies — one for possession of child pornography (sexts from his girlfriend) and one for manufacturing child pornography (taking video of himself). If convicted, he will most likely serve a prison sentence and will be permanently placed on the sex offender registry.
While the police have already taken photos of the teen suspect's penis, as the flaccid does not match the erect, they now want to go even further by making the teen go to the hospital to be injected with a drug to force an erection so that they can adequately determine if the erection in the video matches his.
"He said they took him to a room and took pictures of his genitalia," the teen's aunt Stacy Bigley told NBC Washington. "I asked if they're allowed to do that, and [Trey] said, 'I tried to refuse,' which he did, he didn't want to do it. They told him if he did not they would do it by force."
Sick pigs conducting ritual abuse based on the superstitious dogma known as "the law." And here full of ironies creating the abuse they claim to be fighting too. That case was from 2014 and I heard the lead officer shot himself dead after there was public outrage against them for a change -- thanks heavens. But the ritual abuse goes on, including everything that happens to men in prison where they are solely due to this feminist dogma and ritual! Please, see what it is you are tacitly supporting when you are barking up the wrong tree for monsters. They are right out in the open in a societal-wide conspiracy, and we do not need to waste time making up imaginary ones that pale in comparison and most often serve as excuses to punish victimless sex like prostitution possibly even with the death penalty!
Also I looked at your source now. The only named victim there was Nicola Bulley, and that case has been solved now:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lancashire-66033632
Nicola Bulley's death was accidental and she did not have "any desire" to take her own life, a coroner concluded.
The 45-year-old drowned after falling into cold water, Dr James Adeley, senior coroner for Lancashire ruled.
Sad, but nothing to do with trafficking or ritual abuse. Goes to show both how big news it is when a real person disappears (much bigger for children than 45-year-olds too), and how prosaic the explanation usually is. Although it SOMETIMES happens due to crime, I can confidently say there are no organized abductions for satanic ritual abuse.
This is been an excellent lesson in critical thinking. Look at the extremely thorough coverage of Nicola Bulley in my last link. Middle-aged woman disappears in January and makes a big splash in the media for six months until it is all now resolved in a coroner's report as a drowning, and meanwhile we are to believe 100+ cute little girls disappeared and left only a throwaway statistic behind? All these girls just get an implied extrapolation in a footnote to an article about Nicola Bulley??? No pictures, no names and no one in particular who misses them. It doesn't work like that, dude. I am not trying to be mean here and I welcome to opportunity to demonstrate critical thinking. I am trying to help you with your delusion, and maybe if the MAGA crowd weren't so delusional they could open their eyes and see that the real monsters are in law enforcement and they are helping them.
' Sick pigs conducting ritual abuse based on the superstitious dogma known as "the law." '
This entire comment is 100% correct, you should make a video on this because it might get more attention due to the sound of fraud, oops I mean sound of funding, oops I mean sound of fascism, oops I mean sound of freedom hysteria.
anon 69
Ritual abuse and human sacrifices, if they occur, are more likely to take the form of major public disasters that look like accidents but were secretly deliberately rigged. An example is my theory about the Space Shuttle 2003 disaster and the child sex tourism law they enacted very soon afterwards.
Many of the major crimes and terrorist acts might have been perpetrated by secret societies as ritual sacrifices and the news media, whose owners belong to the secret satanic cults, generate cover stories to hide what really happened.
Yeah, I should make more videos but am waiting for the strike for reading Nathan Larson's manifesto to go away before I say anything more political, as I'm dangerously close to having the channel deleted. I have some good stuff there already, especially on the female sex offender charade, and don't want to mess it up.
No, Galileo, there are no secret satanic cults with that much power and not with so evil rituals either. But the open cult of feminist antisex bigotry with its belief in the metaphysical badness of sex due to numerology nonsense and other voodoo is more evil than any fiction. It sacrifices humans on an industrial scale (by making them rot in prison, mostly, including the abuses which occur there). All our attention and energy should be spent on opposing the real enemy; not dreaming up shadow conspiracies. There is so much evil in the world and it is right out there in the open.
When it comes to punishing them, children are of course competent!
US boy, 11, competent to stand trial over mother’s death:
https://thepressunited.com/updates/us-boy-11-competnt-to-stand-trial-over-mothers-death/
It is an open and obvious travesty that women can go on Youtube and read the manifestos of serial killers while masturbating to them all day, yet you can't simply read the non-pornographic manifesto of a man speaking in favor of normal male sexuality.
anon69
@Eivind, I know I'm not going to get anywhere. You are at least relatively tolerant about allowing different viewpoints, way more tolerant than the msm mostly is.
One final teensy weensy thing, not directly about the topic but about Nicola Bulley-
https://hugotalks.com/2023/02/10/nicola-bulley-media-bombardment-psyop-hugo-talks/. This is an excellent analysis of the bullshit surrounding that case.
I read a depressing story in the Daily Mail Australia about how a male school principal was sentenced to 4 years in prison for sexting and arranging to meet a 14-y-o girl for sex (turned out to be undercover pigs). In practice he'll probably get something like 2 1/2 years but it's still barbaric. I can't find it now but I'll post if and when I do.
Anonymous 2
Our little corner of the Internet never disappoints. Believing in Satanic ritual abuse for such like us is akin to Jews in 1930s Germany agreeing that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is 100% fact.
Never disappoints.
Digging our own graves every day.
Oh my God. You think the coverage of Nicola Bulley was a psyop coverup of children disappearing for ritual abuse -- not because the UK media does not have more interesting things to talk about than an accidental drowning (not knowing it was that yet, so this case looked like it could have been an abduction! How exciting!) because the UK is a frigging boring place with cameras from five angles on on every corner where that sort of thing just can't happen without the kids being found almost immediately.
This is clinical insanity. And yeah, what the commenter above said.
The UK is so hypersurveillanced that women can accuse random men they walked past in the train station and have the state track them down and put them on trial for some supposed nanosecond sexual assault that even the cameras show didn't happen:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/man-falsely-accused-of-sexually-assaulting-actress-feels-like-he-has-undergone-mental-torture-sanctioned-by-the-state-a6867366.html
And THAT sort of bullshit case, or the "underage"-constructed equivalent, is what they spend the bulk of their police resources on because there is hardly any real sex crime there and certainly no satanic ritual abuse. The UK is so low-crime that they need campaigns to warn women of men staring at them on the Underground and report them so the police can have something to do. And yet you think hundreds of kids every year go missing in front of their eyes and omnipresent cameras and with GPS in their cellphones too which at least could provide a location before the satanic kidnappers shut them off -- all of which they ignore and fail to follow up on and the media doesn't care either and parents of all these missing children don't bother to stage a public protest or make a website even.
Clinical insanity. A delusion so mind-boggling that it honestly scares me because if this is prevalent among conservatives and that kind of person came to power they really could do some truly horrific things beyond what the feminists managed. This is the sort of mindset that would bring back medieval torture chambers and burning witches who of course would confess under torture to what you already are convinced is true, and will remain convinced of regardless of any evidence whatsoever. You have a miswiring in your brain capable of interpreting literally all of reality as a coverup for this nonsense -- I get that now!
From this lunacy, and how rampant trafficking with satanic ritual abuse is now a MAGA belief, I can broadly infer two types of antisex bigotry, both of which lead to hell but differ in a notable way. Liberals fear the known and conservatives fear the unknown. A liberal does not need to believe in satanic ritual abuse because an age gap is already as satanic as it gets. The liberals have constructed a metaphysical realm where sex itself is the demon, with the damage occurring somewhere inaccessible to our senses and even coexisting with sexual enjoyment the “victim” never comes to regret, all in the “power relations,” a too “undeveloped brain” or some such voodoo which is scientifically untenable but does not posit any additional fantastical things going on in THIS world. The conservatives don’t dispute this, but it isn’t quite satisfying either. Subconsciously they question, “Can just having an older boyfriend be THAT harmful to girls? Surely there is something more to be sex-hysterical about?” And boy do they find it! In their imagination.
I just watched the clown “Hugo Talks” claim there are 14 people going missing in the UK every day, permanently, in more exciting ways than Nicola Bulley (who was FOUND, so she’s not even in this statistic). Liberals tend to be smarter and more academic, so they don’t make such outlandish claims. Instead they see demons in our everyday sexual relations, or even more mundane things like being brushed up against in the train station or stared at on the subway. Real life is so scary that they don’t need adventure stories, but apparently the MAGA crowd wants to play “manly” heroes who rescue damsels in distress and little girls from satanic conspiracies who are so unimaginably powerful that they evade police and all modern surveillance fourteen times per day just in the UK. And evidently have mind-control powers too so none of the parents of all these missing children complain. Isn’t it amazing that there are no “Help! My child got abducted!” groups on Facebook, or even a hashtag on Twitter? Elon would love to have them. This is the stuff he is into, no matter how baseless, so what is stopping them from coming forward? Real parents still miss their kids after ten years, and there would be tens of thousands to miss if something like 14 go missing every day. I have seen some parents announce a missing kid on Twitter. They were always found after a few hours and it was always something mundane like hanging out with friends and not calling home, never a satanic conspiracy. So, WHERE is the evidence that many go missing permanently? How can your intellectual standards for what you will believe be SO low? I already answered that because I can't fathom any other explanation than delusional insanity.
Didrik Søderlind er en norsk relativt kjent person som hevder det pågår, og finnes bevis for, rituelt satanisk seksuelt misbruk på barn i stor skala som utføres av høyreekstremister/nazister. Men i likhet med alle andre som tror på dette så er Søderlind jo fullstendig pling i bollen.
So the greatest pimp of underage girls in our cultural consciousness can't do better than supply an autistic girl with Down's syndrome to a billionaire?
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/27/business/leon-black-epstein-rape-allegation/index.html
And that is if this latest accusation is true, which is highly doubtful.
The lawsuit describes the woman’s account of being pinned down and assaulted. It says Black called her “demeaning, shameful, disgusting names” while forcing himself on her and causing her “unimaginable pain.” (...) A lawyer for Black, Susan Estrich, said Black has never met the woman and called the lawsuit “frivolous” and full of “vicious and defamatory lies.” Estrich also says the suit was “manufactured by the Wigdor law firm,” which had filed a previous sexual assault complaint against Black that was eventually thrown out.
And anyway, this is if true at worst one bad client out of a bunch of normal prostitution in the Epstein circle; still no hint of girls getting abducted and ritually abused and killed like is supposed to happen daily according to hysterical beliefs. When a 25-year-long investigation into the supposedly most powerful "trafficking" network turns up nothing of the sort, you know (if you are reasonable) that the whole idea is bullshit.
It is remotely plausible that Leon Black is a brute and an asshole, and if so it is unfortunate that Epstein dealt with him, but there is nothing about Epstein which delivered girls to that kind of man any more than your average escort agency or street hooker would find. Overall they probably had nicer treatment.
Another ominous development in the "science" of catching "sex offenders":
https://www.iflscience.com/how-unique-sexome-bacteria-could-help-catch-sex-offenders-68988
How Unique “Sexome” Bacteria Could Help Catch Sex Offenders. Pioneering research has found that bacteria left behind after intercourse could be enough to identify a perpetrator... “This research shows that we can detect that a heterosexual couple has had intercourse based on the bacteria we find after sex,” Dixon said in a statement sent to IFLScience. “Some ‘male bacteria’ stays on the female and some ‘female bacteria’ stays on the male. The end goal is that we’ll be able to take a swab, analyse the bacteria, and link it back to an individual, or at the very least eliminate suspects.”
While they could do DNA tests shortly after sex for decades, soon there will be a more or less permanent "test" for whether you have had intercourse with a given woman. No layperson will have the ability to challenge this or tell if it is anything more than witchcraft that gets presented as evidence. Yet another opaque tool more far-reaching than any other empowering accusers and prosecutors over men (of course it won't work the other way since they don't need a DNA test to convict either).
Does anybody else find the fixation on 18 as some sort of magical age a bit weird? Like, when a 17 year old posts a loosely dressed picture of herself on Instagram (and yes, I think at that age she knows what she's doing) and someone writes a comment that he finds her hot, he immediately gets replies by people who are telling him how creepy he is and that she's still a child and everything. But as soon as she turns 18 nobody has a problem with it. I've even met a person that thought that having sex with a 16 year old is just as bad as having sex with an 8 year old. I mean what do these people think happens at your 18th birthday?
Nobody would have noticed anything special about turning 18 if we didn't have this culturally imposed myth (or social construction, to be generous) that 18 is when you become an "adult." Additionally, nobody would get the idea that looking hot and having sex is for "adults" only without extreme propaganda on that front too. Male sexual performance peaks around 16 and female beauty also reaches a maximum well before 18 -- unless you are so obsequious to authority that you are convinced you need to look at their IDs to feel you have permission to be attracted :)
Turning thirteen on the other hand...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9q-uQrk5lQ
Maybe something about eleven too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taA1Qtf3vQA
The girl in the first video is fully adult if we are honest. She still has some growing and putting on weight to do before she is an average adult, but she is adult for all practical intents and purposes except social constructions.
Notice the 13-year-old's father says, "You're a proper adult, you don't even have a favorite dinosaur" anymore. An inadvertently honest assessment. Hardly a favorite color either. It's amazing how honest we can be where it "doesn't count" but then it's complete taboo to look at the evidence where it does.
I'm commenting again, despite my comment in the past being unpublished.
I find it interesting that you have just said that "female beauty also reaches a maximum well before 18" when in the past you have said that early twenties was peak beauty.
Studying paintings and sculpture of the past combined with poetry ( I have mentioned before how Horace preferred to fuck early teen girls ) tells us that somewhere between 12 and sixteen is probably the peak. The fascination with big breasts or even breasts at all is a more recent development, where they were mostly seen as signs of readiness for motherhood rather than a specifically erotic zone.
I wonder if that doctor is such a cuck that he is not licking out the precious pussies of those two young girls. Probably so as he sounds like a homosexual, to be honest.
I have said early twenties is within the peak (not that it gets delayed until then!), and readily agree most girls reach maximum beauty in the early to mid teens. You can't measure a decline util after 22 according to a seemingly pretty solid survey done by OkCupid I think it was, and I don't usually see one either. Of course, different surveys or opinions of ancient authors might get slightly different results, but not very different.
Also, I don't recall blocking any messages from "MenAreCowards," so that might be due to a different glitch.
I don't find Kevin Spacey being cleared of charges good news at all. It confirms gay men are MeToo-immune, being in an alliance with feminists. Alternatively, it confirms males can't be victims, something maybe Eiving would agree with. Whatever, not exactly a vindication for straight men.
Kevin Spacey is innocent; just normal gay dating behavior that in no way affects men who don't want to play on that scene. If you want to convict him, you also support criminalizing every pass men make at women as some kind of sex crime. This is largely what the feminists have accomplished, but we don't oppose it by asking for more of the same.
@Jack
"it confirms males can't be victims"
This is totally inaccurate. As far as so called "minors" are concerned, the sentences are even harsher when the plaintiffs are male.
And it's far easier to shame boys about a homosexual contact.
Like I said, age gaps are as satanic as it gets to the left, while conservatives are still afraid of Satan and Satanists. Well, a terrific example just came to my attention:
https://whatsondisneyplus.com/new-german-disney-original-series-pauline-announced/
Disney has announced a new German original series for Disney+ called “Pauline,” which is about an 18-year-old teenager, who accidentally becomes pregnant – from a one-night stand. With school stress, the climate crisis and the downfall of society weighing heavily on her mind, something she doesn’t need at all right now is catching feelings, especially not for her one-night stand Lukas, who, as it turns out, is the devil himself.
The new Disney+ Original has been written by Sebastian Colley and the executive producers are Philipp Käßbohrer and Matthias Murmann, who have previously worked on Netflix’s “How to Sell Drugs Online (Fast).” They said in a statement regarding the new show: “For a long time, the series has been and still remains a project very close to our hearts. We’re thrilled that Disney+ loves this coming-of-age story as much as we do and that we’ve now been able to begin filming with such an amazing cast and crew.”
Falling in love with the devil is seen as good entertainment and even a coming-of-age-story, but if she were 17 and fell in love with a 20-year-old it would be too taboo to make these days :)
The religious right are freaking out about this and other "demonic" shows and wanting to boycott Disney...
https://insidethemagic.net/2023/06/satanic-disney-christian-boycotts-jc1mmb/
But it really would be more helpful if they would oppose feminist antisex bigotry. I myself am puzzled by this cultural love affair with the devil, but not offended. It seems a little bad taste and quaint, but not indicative of satanic conspiracies. It is just entertainment after all and we know ritual abuse flatly does not happen. I doubt these shows influence religious beliefs either. Unfortunately, the conservatives think protesting bad entertainment is more important than stopping persecution of victimless sex.
https://nypost.com/2023/07/03/florida-lawyer-rugh-cline-deported-back-to-us-after-allegedly-paying-to-sexually-abuse-kids-in-cambodia/
Here, this 40 year old Florida lawyer is next to be crucified on the altar of American feminism. He paid teenage girls to have sex in Cambodia and a US/EU funded feminist NGO paid the teenagers and the government to testify against him and put him in jail for a few years in Cambodia. They have really developed this scam in Southeast Asia now, the region is no longer a safe destination for heterosexual freedom, especially for the few Americans remaining who are not sex hysterical.
Since he had a US Passport, he was a high value target - they knew he had money to pay them for court costs in Cambodia, and they would get even more money from the US government for catching and extraditing a "child sex abuse human trafficker groomer pedophile" or whatever.
He will now receive basically a life sentence in US Federal prison, doomed solely by his possession of a US Passport. For having sex with willing teenagers, as per the words of the article. For giving them money and treating them nicely. For not even being inside the US, and barely committing a crime in Cambodia. USA is #1 for international feminist sex fascism.
Yeah, it is totally insane. They are calling it "paying to sexually abuse" and "child rapist." All for willing sex. Words mean nothing about sex because the metaphysical badness makes it maximally demonized and bad regardless of how it happened. The authorities are playing us for fools and the normies really are fools for sucking it up without complaint.
Just another stupid farang who got railroaded by greedy mothers and authorities. Meanwhile, these same police officers are enjoying regular sex with 11-15 year old girls, laughing at foreigners who come to Cambodia to actually PAY for old hag ADULTS! They just go along with the demands of USA pressure and their disgusting NGOs.
But go on waving your flag, stupid Americans, and celebrating your "freedom". Pathetic!
Damn, male sexuality it's very fucked up. Matriarchy, that cultural system impregnated in each of the brains that inhabit the Earth that hierarchizes society by roles, has always reserved for men the role of submission, devotion, servitude, satisfaction of women's desires, that another category for which the chair of privileges is reserved at all levels. And we cannot lose sight of the fact that this role is only linked to adult sexuality. To adult sexuality as a political regime that, through “its images—films, porn, magazine photos, billboards on city walls—constitute a discourse, and this discourse, which covers our world with its signs, has a meaning: It means that men are dominated by adult women (+18).
Society, indeed, is founded by adult sexuality. And with it the relationship formulas, the dynamics of behavior, the construction of our desires and aspirations, the orientation of our vital projects. Adult sexuality is the main tool of the matriarchal system to perpetuate itself, to perpetuate violence against men, to justify making us invisible, attacking us, imprisoning us for "statutory rape", killing us. And the gear, the mechanism of that tool, is embodied in the fact that sex is only acceptable with adult women, that is, over 18 years of age. It is also "because we protect minors." So, I propose: why don't we stop fucking the enemy? Why don't we stop screwing ourselves -and therefore grease- the gear of the system that allows us to be made invisible, attacked, imprisoned and killed? I also think, male comrade, that the autonomy of men and our liberation is incompatible with adult sexuality as an oppressive hierarchical system of society. That adult sexuality is one of the main reasons why the matriarchal system remains unscathed and that the subversive and political nature of not fucking the enemy (ADULT WOMEN OF LEGAL AGE) must be valued.
And here I stop for a moment so as not to ignore all those men who are sure that they do not desire, or ever consider doing so, minor teenage girls*. But our ideology should be based on: Yes, I only date and fuck girls under 18, what's up? It bothers you? fuck you. Empowering ourselves through our male sexuality, creating self-defense strategies and exposing ourselves freely but also building security mechanisms is, well, another valid recipe.
Let's get out of adult sexuality, let's reflect on how our desire is built and how we relate to our environment and with the people around us, and let's return to the game of personal relationships only with teeange girls under 18.
Until we abolish the adult sexuality regime, we will all continue to be imprisoned and threatened with death.
*There is no such thing, all men like under18 teenage girls.
I like the idea as a protest movement -- a sort of strike -- but obviously a viable mass movement can't have that goal long-term. Male sexualists love women both over and under 18.
Our male sexualist hero Andrew Tate 'mom-shames' 52 year old female celeb for her bikini photos, telling her that she is 'far past being a teenager'. Daily feMail goes ballistic.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12356639/Amanda-Holden-cruelly-mum-shamed-vile-influencer-Andrew-Tate-posts-sexy-bikini-clad-shower-snap.html
This guy is one of the most famous men in the world, idealized almost as a God by millions of young men and boys, and he's not only an anti-feminist, he's pretty much an avowed male sexualist.
@Kaser - I like that idea of rejecting over 18 women as a political act. It seems a contrast to Eivind's view, which is that the more that women criminalize us, the more we should try to chase them.
Has Andrew Tate ever criticized a feminist sex law? I am not crazy about 50-year-old women in bikinis either, but I don't see what it does for our movement to shame them.
@Eivind - I was talking about mainly the fact that he implies that trying to look smoking hot in a bikini is best left to teenage girls. Something that no other celebrity I know of would dare to say. Not so much the shaming of the older woman, which I know you don't like, but the fact that he's openly stating that teenage girls in bikinis are hot (in fact the hottest). Hopefully that makes sense.
But yeah, what does it do to our movement to shame 50 year old women for trying to look like teen girls when 50 year old women have made the very idea that teenage girls are hot almost a criminal offence? Can't think why at all that would be a good idea for our movement.
Well he openly stated he moved to Romania to be less likely to fall victim to feminist rape laws, and messages 16 year old girls on Instagram. He's also stated that the primary motive of feminists is jealousy.
And he doesn't openly support and back the junk science behind feminist anti-porn laws as you do, and has never agreed with feminists that rape is worse than murder for a woman.
There is no science behind the porn laws. If they followed the science, and wanted to prevent "underage" sex, they would allow porn. Nofappers shun porn so we can get more motivated to have sex.
No, the anti-porn laws are based on the metaphysics which is the subject of this post, as well as an erroneous assumption that the “sexualization” in porn leads to more sex. Science tells us it does the opposite, but sex laws are never evidence-based. Porn does not sexualize either, but does the opposite for all real sexual intents and purposes (except perhaps producing the porn, but wankers get no part of that). This is where the metaphysics comes in because the supposed sexualization does not occur in this world. Both the feminists and wankers believe in that unreal sexual realm, or at least act as if they believe in it. The wanker thinks porn is worth spending sexual energy on and the feminists think girls get exploited and abused by him so doing or watching girls masturbate over the internet. Both are profoundly deluded, but the feminists at least turn it into a weapon against men while the wanker is just a sad pathetic loser.
Wankers can be losers -- I won’t stop them -- but I will stop them from soiling this blog and the male sexualist movement under my leadership with the wanker’s delusion and its feminist flipside. As noted, I am tightening up moderation in that respect. Comments promoting masturbation or porn will not be tolerated unless they bring some new evidence or arguments to the table that I haven’t countered yet. We have debated this endlessly and when it gets repetitive I won’t allow it anymore. I want this to be a nice, sex-positive place. Male masturbation is anti-sex and so is watching porn. Those practices belong in an asexualist movement if anywhere, and if you want that then go make your own movement because this is the home of the Sexualist Movement.
We do not worry about drowning risk when children watch movies of beaches and oceans and swimming. Because the element which makes drowning possible -- water -- is absent from an image on a screen. We don’t worry if they livecam with someone swimming either, because once again there is no exposure to water which could possibly drown them. And likewise we shouldn’t worry about online “sexual abuse” because sexual abuse is impossible without sexual contact. But the justice system is so obtuse it reifies online interactions as if there were a remote drowning risk too. And the normies don’t realize the emperor has no clothes, or don’t dare to point it out if they do. Only I speak against the nonsensical metaphysics of virtual sexual abuse, and by the same token the imagined sexual value of porn and masturbation. Y’all should be helping me instead of clinging to that false value. We should have intelligent comments coming up with more analogies like this to dismiss the feminist sex laws and use our newly sharpened rhetorical powers to mock the normies and make them feel stupid for indulging the feminists. This is what a healthy sexualist movement would do. And I don’t care if I am the only one -- this is what male sexualism shall mean around here.
Let’s make the normies explain what if anything is wrong with my drowning analogy. To this day there are no virtual swimming pools where people go to feel like they’ve had a taste of the real thing. Everyone who wants to go swimming demands real water, or else it doesn’t count. Why should sex be different? I submit that the only difference is a special delusion for sex. A wanker’s/feminist’s delusion that I do not share, but flatly reject and roundly condemn because it leads to the persecution of the innocent and men wasting their sexual efforts (the latter only hurting themselves, which is permissible but still negative).
While it remains solid for drowning and sexual abuse, I think my swimming analogy is actually on the weaker side against the supposed value of masturbation. Because if virtual swimming were ever perfected to feel alright, it would give you exercise, which may legitimately be your main purpose for going swimming. Simulated "rowing" machines have existed for a long time, which is good enough for exercise, as are stationary bikes and treadmills etc. But sex is not like that. Sex involves physical sexual contact by definition, and if you don’t care about that then you are a wanker, which is not a value I hold. The gold bar analogy in my original post is probably my best yet.
Eivind hates shaming 50 year old women who have made our lives a living hell, but doesn't mind calling all his readers and 99% of men psychotic wankers.
This is why they made that award-winning cringe comedy about him.
Random 50-year-old women don't have any more influence over the sex laws than we do. I am not aware that Amanda Holden has been involved in politics or promoted feminist antisex bigotry. She is an actress and singer and talent show judge, all very apolitical. Privately she could be a pedomom for all we know. There is no reason to shame her as far as I can tell. If you hate women by default just for being women then that's misogyny and incompatible with building an inclusive movement that could grow and make a difference. You sound more like incel than sexualist to be honest, a movement which just asks to be hated and can do nothing but hate.
I am also unconvinced about Andrew Tate's sexualist activism. I doubt his fans have a clue that he thinks there is anything wrong with the laws, if indeed he does. His idea of doing something for men's rights looks like nearly empty posturing to me. If he can't make a clear statement that he for example thinks the age of consent should be lower or the definition of rape is too expanded, I don't count him as a sexualist. He could do a lot better with so much influence to get the message across, if he is one of us.
Eivind put his face to a real name, like Grauer, and deserves our full respect as leader.
Thanks, MenAreCowards.
Following up on the commenter who likes to shame older women just for being women but thinks I am alienating my readers by calling most of them wankers...
It is not a choice to be a 50-year-old woman, but wanking is a choice. My readers have a choice to follow my advice or not.
Male sexualism has two parts: the politics and the mojo. Nofap is for your mojo, without which the politics won't do you much good anyway. It will help others and that's good, but don't you want to have the best kind of sex life yourself too?
Well you get the wanker followers you deserve. Autists who believe in satanic child abuse rituals and who think Tom 'legalize the rape of children, I'm outta here before the shit hits the fan' Grauer was writing under his real name.
Andrew Tate shamed Amanda Holden because she's a 50 year old trying to look sexy in a bikini 'like a teenage girl'. And if you commented on a 15 year old or even a 17 year old posing the same on Instagram you would be shamed as a pedo by 50 year old women, or even arrested.
Andrew Tate can't just say - 'the age of consent should be 13', because it would destroy him and his following overnight, aside from getting banned from all his social media and even likely webhosting, even more than he was before. I'd bet my life that he thinks the age of consent should be 13, and that all feminist sex laws are batshit insane. He openly admits that teenage girls are the sexiest, in a world in which you can't even admit that teenage girls are sexy anymore, and messages 16 year old girls for dates. There is nothing about him that I've seen that indicates he's a hypocrite or paedocrite. And btw, although I've never met Tate, I was following him long before he became famous due to him being a friend of my kickboxing trainer. He also liked one of my anti-feminist Tweets back in the day. His whole life is lived as anti-feminism and he's inspired millions of young men to question the whole narrative of feminism, including their sex laws. Of course it's not helped by autistic retards in our movement, including the people you identify with, still unable to bring themselves to recognize that these anti-sex laws such as the age of consent are primarily feminist laws.
We don't all live in isolated cabins in Norway, with nothing to lose. You yourself have admitted that you didn't realize the consequences of 'being public', such as that it limits your dating chances. You've been incredibly lucky up to now, in that instead of being hounded by vigilantes or totally demonized as a public enemy by the media, you've actually been invited on to a documentary show, and had an award winning film based upon you (even if both were more comedy than anything else).
That's largely due to Norway being the best educated and possibly tolerant society in the West at the current time. Also because you're not taken very seriously, so you can say things like 'Larson running off with a 12 year old girl is activism', and only a few outraged yanks on YouTube bat an eyelid. You like to think that your appearances in the media are due to 'serious people taking you seriously' when you speak naked in the shower, but it's the opposite it seems to me.
Nothing wrong with trying to look hot when you are not really. Men do the same when hitting on teenage girls while out of their league because we are much older. Neither should be shamed or arrested for such aspirations. Yes, society currently does this to men on a massive scale while lifting up the old women, but that doesn't mean Amanda Holden is complicit. We need to reserve judgment about random women promoting hate against men until we see evidence of them doing it, or else we get a misogynistic, totally unpleasant movement like the incels. The male sexualists are better than this under my leadership. And yes, Grauer didn't do it right either for the reason you mentioned, but he still made significant contributions and now we have an ideologically mature movement as I am formulating it. Of course we still don't have many followers, but it is more important to be sensible. Maybe it would attract more followers if I were more like Andrew Tate and said hateful things about women for no reason, but I don't want to do that. I am focused on attacking the laws, and of course the people directly responsible for them deserve our hate, many if not most of whom are actually men. I just looked up some statistics on this and found women make up only 24% of members of national legislative bodies around the world (2019). Yes, women are more like 51% responsible for voting for these hateful predominantly male feminists who make the sex laws, but it would be wrong to hate random women, even if they try to look hot in a bikini in their 50s.
I think we should applaud Amanda Holden's efforts because if she can look hot like a teenager, it follows that men over 50 are also hot enough for teenage girls :)
See, being friendly and positive is the best path to getting what we want. Except, of course, to legislators, feminist ideologues and the abuse industry as defined by Angry Harry. He didn't hate all women either and remains our greatest activist role model.
You may be right about Tate secretly being a sexualist, but then he doesn't have the balls to stand for his opinions like I do! That's not admirable.
I am not out of touch with how this can be a sacrifice either. It has been a net positive so far, but I realize that vigilantes or pigs might make life hell for me in the future. Nonetheless, I do the right ting because it is right, not because it will likely benefit me personally.
The more I think about it, the stupider Andrew Tate's approach to Amanda Holden looks. The last thing we want is for older individuals to be told to "know their place" as old and expired and not try to look, act, or date young. Sheesh!
Apparently the antifeminist thinks this is good strategy because it exposes paedocrisy, but I don't think the public gets that message even if Tate semisecretly intends it, and in any case I wouldn't touch such unpleasant attitudes with a ten-foot pole.
Women over 50 are reproductively expired and that fact is generally reflected in their attractiveness, but they still look hot to some men and especially to younger boys. As a teenager I would be thrilled to have sex with women in their 50s! Tate only speaks for the picky or middle-aged male gaze. His comment is not only tactless but wrong too. Women in their 50s have lots of men interested in them, and they can easily hook up with teenage boys if they want, just like we aspire to with girls. All of this should be celebrated not shamed. Sexualism is a sex-positive movement embracing all sex-positive people. It is not just for the most attractive people (or men over 35 would be excluded too!), and we should all have the right to try to find more attractive partners than ourselves without criminalization or oppressive shaming. When we cast aside our prejudice that older women must automatically be feminists, Amanda Holden looks like a paragon of sex-positivity and intergenerational inclusivity. I will believe this about her until she demonstrates otherwise.
"The Antifeminist" aka "TheAF" and the other incels who promote wanking and porn instead of real sex and do not think that a fit 52 year old woman can be of sexual benefit for boys is just an embarrasment to the movement!
Yes indeed. Older women are a good way for boys to get experience and have an outlet when there aren't enough young ones around. That only makes them better lovers, unlike porn and masturbation which screws up their libido and erectile function.
It's hard to take anything AF says seriously anymore. He also keeps distorting my quotes. I have not said we are taken seriously NOW -- we are obviously either overlooked or satirized or hated -- I have said I want to have an ideology which CAN BE taken seriously. Andrew Tate has influence without good ideas, which is almost as bad as being overlooked. Who cares if a billion people saw him say 52-year-old women don't look super hot in bikinis? Duh, everyone knows teens are hotter anyway, nothing to be gained from that gratuitous negativity. I am concerned with building a sensible movement that can step in with a complete, fair platform on the sex laws if there is ever a resurgence of interest in real men's rights issues. We are not going to replace feminism with misogyny either, and of course we care just as much about the female sex offender charade as we care about oppression of men.
" real men's rights issues,. We are not going to replace feminism with misogyny either, and of course we care just as much about the female sex offender charade as we care about oppression of men."
You're not an MRA and never were one. Real MRAs do not care as much about women being given the pussy pass as they do about male oppression. You killed any chance of the men's rights movement taking feminist anti-sex laws seriously as men's rights issues with your white knight female sex offender cringe obsession. The only supporters you'll get are the odd feminist MAP and real paedo. BTW, the guy who commented above is the pedo troll, surely you can see that? Your one and only real 'follower' after 20 years, national exposure, and an 'award winning cannes movie'.
And on the subject of real paedos, or 'pedosexualists' as you call them affectionately, Ian Watkins was brutally attacked, stabbed, and tortured for 6 hours in a British prison yesterday. I've read he had his eyes cut out. This happens quite regularly in UK prisons now. British prisons are not quite Norwegian holidaycamps for anybody labelled a 'nonce'.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/paedo-rock-star-ian-watkins-30638181
Unlike the AF, the sexualist movement as I lead it is in touch with reality. I know the difference between pussy and dick. Is it a “pussy pass” for women to have their own divisions in sports? No, just common sense, as is exempting them from the sex laws. Not seeing this is a variant of transgenderism which is currently faddish. We can already see that is on the losing side of history when Lia Thomas just got banned from competing as a woman:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/swimming/2022/06/19/lia-thomas-banned-competing-against-women-swimming-cracks-transgender/
When the female sex offender charade is recognized as equally absurd and unfair as letting Lia Thomas swim with the women -- which it most assuredly is -- all my ranting against the delusion that women can be sex offenders shall be vindicated, and the AF will stand behind in irrelevance like the most hysterical trans activists. I am building a future-proof sexualist movement, producing a body of work which can be recognized as the most sane voice of our times when society gets past its current psychoses.
I wouldn’t say the attack on Ian Watkins is a regular thing, because it took ten years. Larry Nassar was also stabbed recently after several years in prison. Perhaps the situation has gotten worse and this is really common now. Society is not only waging a total war on sex but also failing (or not caring) to keep sex offenders safe in prison, which is a further escalation, as is the loss or censorship of nearly all reasonable voices except mine. As I stand alone in the mainstream it is all the more important that I resist delusions which affect “MRAs” too -- namely the failure to stand up for female “sex offenders,” and the wanker’s delusion.
You know the difference between pussy and dick Eivind, and so did women except when it is was to their advantage not too. It was the fems who wanted sex to become a social construct. Let them bear the unintended consequences! Why should we not rejoice when transgenderism and feminism implode on each other? Professional sport is a waste of taxpayers' time and money anyway (do you think people who watch sport on TV do more sport than people who watch porn do sex?). I'm all for female sport getting wrecked by TS-females. Any untruth or absurdity spawned by the woke-fem galaxy is welcome to come home to roost as far as I'm concerned.
That’s why you’re not an ideological leader, Jack. Divide and conquer is fun, but it does not provide lasting satisfaction or value to men’s rights. Society is already deciding not to let transwomen ruin women’s sports. Happening with rowing now too:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/04/sport/transgender-women-british-rowing-intl-scli-spt-gbr/index.html
But the justice system is still ruining women’s lives as “sex offenders” because it is ideologically blind to the difference between men and women. Women don’t have the right to be judged as women when it comes to sex offenses but are instead judged as if they were men. It is absurd and surreal and looks like it will linger longer than the other trans fantasies, because it is mixed up with the antisex bigotry which is endorsed by liberals and conservatives alike. You may have noticed that I never bothered to say much about transgenderism because the conservatives handle that just fine. People like Jordan Peterson pushed back and now it is blowing over. But they don’t have the sense to oppose antisex and associated madness like this extra level of insanity in pretending pussies can offend as if they were dicks. It is very important that we be the voice of reason here, because no one else is.
Remember when the persecution of Mary Kay Letourneau was a global sensation. Now a similar persecution happens at least weekly somewhere in the world and it is hardly even news. It does not stand out from the war on sex as extra insane anymore because the female sex offender charade -- which to be clear is a kind of transoffending, a mandatory view of women as transmen with regard to sex crimes, and only then -- has been normalized. We have lost a part of our humanity that way and it pains me every day. I can’t live like this without protesting. A piece of our shared sanity and empathy is gone and replaced with a cold, insane algorithm. There is no more empathy for nice women and even more poignantly, no empathy with lucky boys. Humans don’t rule on this anymore; an alien artificial intelligence does, the “justice” system, which feels nothing and understands nothing about human sexuality and the difference between men and women. We need to reprogram that AI with sane values and empathy for how sexuality is valued differently by men and women and of course different when it is coming from a man or woman. Enough pretending dicks are identical to pussies, because they are obviously not and I am not going to tolerate such delusions just to score some fleeting points either. That is incredibly shallow and I can’t believe you are OK with it. I could do it with sports because I don’t care about sports, but criminalization and punishment is not a game.
The wanker of theAntifeminist pretends to be anonymous, Eivind is a loser? and you are not a loser who has not achieved anything in MRA? but to make apology to porn and jerking off, not even with 20 year old girls have managed to have a relationship, and above the guy is a paranoid mythomaniac, who believes that teenage girls look at him on the street and hit on him, not to mention that according to him, his neighbors call him a pedophile for not being married LOL
Ian Watkins is a rapist scumbag who has nothing to do with real "paedos" or MAPs, if he gets stabbed it's because this society is mostly composed of violent fascist morons, only the uncivilized and barbaric scum are in favor of raping, killing and torturing people even criminals, that scum is called "normal straight men", that normie scum we must appeal to, you say.
By the way, all the comments defended killing this guy (for the reasons I mentioned) and "all pedophiles", some even just write "sound of freedom", we have to start to rally against this moronic trash, they are nothing but pedophobic trash, most of them even don't care about children.
"Amanda Holden looks like a paragon of sex-positivity and intergenerational inclusivity. I will believe this about her until she demonstrates otherwise."
So because a 52 year old woman thinks she's sexually attractive enough to pose in a bikini on Instagram, you assume she's for lowering the age of consent and anti-feminist??? Even though any person with sense knows that probably less than 1 or 2% of women in general are in agreement with 'intergenerational inclusivity', and likely at least 2/3 would like to see you personally locked away for life if not tortured to death?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA14qsEZOAI
This is her presenting a TV morning show interviewing a pair of 'paedophile hunters'. It actually begins with the woman describing how she has a 15 year old son who was contacted online by an older woman, and that motivated her to become a paedophile hunter. Amanda Holden nods her head sympathetically. Then the paedocrite male tells her that all the paedophile hunters like him have been abused or have had family members abused, and Amanda Holden tells him she understand how rewarding it must be for him to catch paedophiles.
The male presenter btw, is Philip Schofield - the paedocrite who was found to have been grooming a teenage boy as his lover recently and has since been cancelled.
You are pure cringe Eivind. That black comedy did not even go far enough. Sometimes I genuinely think you must be an undercover police officer simply trying to discredit and kill any chance at a real men's rights movement, but then I remember you simply are pure cringe. Good luck to you and your pedosexualist army.
Look at you - your one real follower is a real paedophile who uses words such as 'pedophobic', and is so spineless they can't even choose a handle.
@feministpedomaggot - Yes, I have had relationships with 20 year old women you subhuman paedo maggot, and yes, I get looks from teenage girls every day, even though I'm in my 50's now. We're not all sad soyboy paedocels. Oh and this will make you really jealous - I even get 8 and 9 year old girls fixing their hair when they walk past me.
Yes, I achieved far more than Eivind. Angry Harry, Bernard Chapin, Paul Elam and others all supported me at one stage, and Paul Elam even wanted me to work with him when he was setting up A Voice For Men. Eivind has never been even recognized as an MRA by anyone of any importance in the men's rights movement, and most have always thought he's a loon. In fact, the only credibility he ever had in the MRM was my backing for him - and that probably cost me a lot. I've had genuine 'followers' and others have even set up blogs in my style (including Tom Grauer).
Unfortunately, Eivind has killed any hope with his cringe, his mental acrobatics in somehow managing to portray women as the principal victims of feminism and paedohysteria, and his support for real paedo slugs like you and identification as a MAP himself, and meanwhile constantly insulting any and every demographic who might help us kickstart a real movement - from incels to Andrew Tate.
I'm not FeldMarshall who you mean, but when I said we should respect Berge, that wasn't an endorsement of his views on Amanda Holden and other old, dirty, cheap scags.
My own views are frankly misogynist. Women's sexuality does not require the love of true men. Women have watched as men and boys were destroyed, despite that they could have stopped it. Men were cowardly enough to permit feminism in the first place. I am genuinely a 'girllover' in that I simply have no sexual attraction to adults. I have no respect for women, at all, and am joyous whenever one is railroaded under sex laws. Sorry Eivind.
I still think that Berge has done more for the anti-pedohysteria movement than any MRA and think the best approach for him is to create a body of work that can be viewed a hundred or hundreds of years from now when maybe some of his ideas have a chance. Perhaps the West will lose its hegemony, or something.
And AF, the fact is you have never been with one of those young girls and so I don't believe you have anything to boast about; besides, a girl checking her hair does not mean she likes you. I see girls doing that all the time when nobody is watching. You have openly said in the past that you never fucked a fifteen year old German girl because it was illegal. Lame!
Humans are pitiful sheep. Most don’t have it in them to defy authority. The way to defeat one authority or regime is to have an alternative leader, the kind I am trying and failing to be -- someone along the lines of Catiline or Spartacus or Nelson Mandela. People follow leaders not philosophies. But since I don’t have followers, the least I can do is to have a decent philosophy. Yes, I am writing for the future more than the present, which is hopeless.
If you live in a time of witch-hunts, do you cheer when it hits your enemies? If you are a mere politician then maybe so, but I want to have a sound philosophy. I reject the entire concept of statutory sexual abuse and obviously can’t applaud when women are railroaded either. Furthermore, the female sex offender charade is a witch-hunt which singles out people who are not only innocent but do good deeds, being nice to boys. This adds another dimension of evil that I need to speak out against specifically.
That interview with the “pedo hunters” makes Amanda Holden look deranged, sure. She is probably a normie, although we can’t tell for sure because those who aren’t brainwashed also tend to nod along with the antisex bigotry in their day jobs. Of course she deserves to be called out on her pedophobia (a perfectly good word, because they imagine “pedo” whether it is reasonably descriptive or not), but attacking bikini pics is not the way to do it. The normies don’t get the message that way. Instead it feeds into the same bigotry and by association sends the message that older men too are too ugly to be sexual.
Haha!
A mother is suing Southwest Airlines for racial discrimination, saying she was accused of human trafficking when traveling with her biracial child.
“Unbeknownst to Ms. MacCarthy, while they were in the air, a Southwest employee called the Denver Police Department to report Ms. MacCarthy for suspected child trafficking for no reason other than the different color of her daughter’s skin from her own,” the suit alleges.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/06/us/southwest-airlines-lawsuit-trafficking-accusation/index.html
Trafficking is so nonexistent this is the best they can come up with. The abuse industry is a ravenous beast which needs to be fed something, anything. Just grab the closest thing to hand and call it abuse and the normies are so gullible they can't tell the difference anyway.
Hvorfor valgte du å ha sex med dukker, hvis du så gjerne vil ha avkom??
Henrik asks "why I chose to have sex with dolls" in Norwegian Offspring. Please quit confusing a feminist director's fantasies with my choices. She started with inspiration from me but then took it in the direction of making this character look maximally bad and fail most spectacularly at having offspring. The dolls were her idea entirely and I would do no such thing.
In my own life I almost had offspring now but we had a miscarriage, sadly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iUQ5QJkits
I'm don't understand this site and the comments. I'm a normal straight male and going to admit it openly and I shouldn't: I'm rich. Hell, I live in a gigantic villa with a pool. I have a steady job and a good extra income. And I don't have big problems, not to mention that I practically don't have any relevant ones (I'm in good health, I love and they love me, I have a good culture, etc.). I have scrupulously paid all my taxes ALL my life, I have not committed a crime, I am an new atheism activist and CONSCIOUS environmentalist, I have studied three languages and have gone through three university degrees, I DON'T KNOW how many training degrees I have to my credit of so many that I have achieved (the last one, a phytosanitary technician), I have contributed financially to the society, a fucking madness.
Why do I have to bother fighting FOR OTHERS (Mens's Rights) what doesn't affect me? For example, third wave feminism does not affect me because I am happily married to an intelligent ADULT woman with common sense and with whom I get along very well. Sorry guys but straight men don't date minors, we like adult, intelligent and mature women, not kids.
Selfishness is the rule. And thinking you are safe yourself despite how easy it gets to make accusations because your woman is so special. Yea, lots of men made that mistake. And of course it’s nonsense that men prefer “intelligent” and “mature” as if teens are lacking this. You make up imaginary qualities that teens don’t lack to make up for what older women don’t have.
Mental age stops at 15, as a matter of fact. David Wechsler, the creator of the most widely used IQ test, wrote that “[There] are not mental age equivalents for ages above fifteen and a half, and … beginning as early as age fourteen, the differences between succeeding half year scores are so small as to make them unreliable.”
Might as well be talking astrology when you praise the “intelligence” of women older than 14, or 13 practically speaking since I doubt the difference is perceptible without a thoroughly administered IQ test.
Look at this - it is one of the most insane articles I have ever read that shows the level of unhinged sex fascism in the Anglosphere (in Conservative Utah of course), and even though it deals mostly with homosexuality, it is riddled entirely with the consequences of female domination of society.
https://reason.com/2023/08/06/inside-an-anti-porn-camp-for-teens/
Every single person in this article, including the author, does exactly what causes the most amount of destruction possible. English speaking countries are completely off the rails.
anon69
"I'm a normal straight male and going to admit it openly and I shouldn't: I'm rich."
Spoken like a true woman.
If the poster is a biological male somehow, I'm happy that he's found an old hag that he can tolerate because he sucks her ass adequately and likes being told he's a good boy with a pat on the head.
Those of us with normal testosterone levels will continue hanging out with other men who are far more interesting than your "intelligent adult woman with common sense" could ever be, and banging hot young teenagers.
anon69
@ A skeptic guy-
" I am happily married to an intelligent ADULT woman ...".
Okay, fine, but what if they raise the age of consent to over 18? Still doesn't affect you right now, but what if it does in the future?
Another what if-what if you found yourself single again and met an "intelligent ADULT woman" who's only 18? Not illegal (yet) but highly frowned upon if you're not within a few years older yourself.
From what you've written and how you've written it, I'm guessing you're American. Do you realize how much people in the US disapprove of men who go out with adult women who are considered too young for them? Legislation is often downstream from public attitudes and one day this social development might affect you.
You rail against men who dare admit their natural desire for teenage girls but don't seem to have a clue that current trends also involve pressure on men with ADULT women if the latter are deemed too young.
I'm also stumped as to how an obvious normie even learnt about this blog-did you happen upon Eivind's youtube channel and then come here out of idle curiosity?
Anonymous 2
"Mental age stops at 15, as a matter of fact. David Wechsler, the creator of the most widely used IQ test, wrote that “[There] are not mental age equivalents for ages above fifteen and a half, and … beginning as early as age fourteen, the differences between succeeding half year scores are so small as to make them unreliable.”
I'm sure the pedohysteria brigades have been confronted with this, and they sure retorted that what matters is "emotional intelligence". Emotional intelligence is a fabrication, just like "female intuition".
This is why the abuse of boys by women and homosexuals is much more serious. Girls reach psychological maturity (including 'emotional') by their mid-teens, whereas boys only develop into men in their late teens.
It's crazy we have an equal age of consent for both girls and boys, when the age of consent in today's world is supposedly based on 'maturity', and science is in complete agreement that boys reach maturity later than girls (which is also obvious just by comparing visually 15 year old girls to 15 year old boys, with their 20 year old equivalents).
It is reasonable to have a higher age of consent for male homosexuality, but applying age of consent to women with boys is bonkers because boys have nothing to lose by having sex with women no matter how immature. Maturity is completely irrelevant there. Immature boys only gain from sex with women as I've been saying all along and Rind so beautifully explained in his 2022 paper. It is INSANE to apply age of consent to women AT ALL. It must be zero if we are to be reasonable at all, or else we might as well condone witchcraft persecutions because this is equally empty.
Or rather I should say immaturity is not irrelevant with women and boys but WORKS THE OTHER WAY. Young boys benefit more from sex with adult women than adult men do with adult women (and are empirically more grateful too) BECAUSE they are immature and need to learn -- they have an evolutionarily adapted need to learn to have sex prior to sexual maturity. The women are DOING THEM A FAVOR rather than abusing them as society now pretends, which is why I am so unspeakably upset by the female sex offender charade. It is the most insane, evil witch-hunt humanity has ever perpetrated.
Insane witch-hunt indeed. But what do you expect Eivind? In some countries people (mostly men) get sentenced to death for selling extasy, a drug that has little health addiction or health damage potential, a drug that makes people happy (and horny!) for a couple of hours? What do you expect? Mankind is a mess my friend. Life is a rotten deal anyway biologically, but on top of that biological rotten deal, human Societies add their own layer of mayhem and suffering.
Have you heard of the Fermi paradox? Well, I have my own explanation for it. Any civilisation out there who made it to real intelligence (as opposed to mankind's half-intelligence) will have rejected life, ie have opted for extinction. That's why there's no one out there.
> It is reasonable to have a higher age of consent for male homosexuality, but applying age of consent to women with boys is bonkers because boys have nothing to lose by having sex with women no matter how immature.
This gay man explains that he felt attracted to adult men already as a 5 year old:
https://imfromdriftwood.com/story/dancing-in-his-underwear-for-the-garbage-man-noah-embraced-queerness-and-sexuality-since-childhood/
Sure, an age of consent for homosexuality deprives gay boys of experiences that they legitimately enjoy and never regret. But what about the interests of straight boys and their parents? Should they not be protected from pederasts to some extent? Should anything be allowed just because the boys want to do it and it's not inherently harmful? I realize trauma is a myth in such cases, but it can be socially problematic when they think back on it later.
I've said it before, minor sex or sex with minors is ok if it is same-sex. Could you imagine the same link as above, but with "his" replaced by "her"? ... dancing-in-her-underwear ... There's nothing for us in homosexual entitlement. Gays are honorary women. That's what they want to be. Getting away with what straight men get jail for is exactly what gays want. It confirms them in their status as "women".
Eivind, do you consider the children you hope to sire - what their future will be with you as a father?
Growing up knowing their father is a personality who defends paedophiles and the like, and who is laughed at? Do you understand the extent they will be bullied?
And I assume you don't want to actually take any role in their upbringing, am I right? You just want your genes replicated or some such, with no commitment on your part?
And why are you so desperate to have children when you are certain that society is on the brink of collapse? Are you confident a child with your genes is going to survive a societal breakdown and the rule of law?
I cannot imagine who this woman is who wants to have your child. I can't imagine her mental illness.
Lol, those questions are too stupid to answer. You can sense the jealousy... that a man with good values might succeed in raising children. It insults their totalitarian idea of society as completely antisex down to bullying children of men who speak up against the hate. So that's the last straw they cling to, that my kids will be bullied if nothing else can stop me... How pathetic is that?
Sure, an age of consent for heterosexuality deprives minor girls of experiences that they legitimately enjoy and never regret. But what about the interests of old women and their parents? Should they not be protected from straight men to some extent? Should anything be allowed just because the girls want to do it and it's not inherently harmful? I realize trauma is a myth in such cases, but it can be socially problematic when they think back on it later.
@Egreb
That's a good parody. The bottom line is : most people are set on rationalising their own preferences when society doesn't accept them.
As they don't want to be totally rejected they feel obliged to trample on another category of rejected people. "Look at us us ! We're just normal, THEY are the pervs".
Hence the theory that parents of teen girls shouldn't worry about sex "predators" whereas parents of teen boys hit on by homosexuals —and of course unable to say no —should writhe in anguish. In most of human history, gay boys were a small minority and homosexuality was a transitory phase among a sizeable proportion of boys who would become mainly or exclusively heterosexuals. The idea that teen boys are "less mature"than girls is pure junk science. Puberty should be the line and parental control should be the general rule.
@Amelio
I don't know if boys maturing later than girls is 'pure junk science'. First of all, the science doesn't seem to be based upon 'feminist research' (unlike for example Eivind's NoFap and porn addiction 'science'). I don't see any reason why advocacy research would have a motivation to show boys mature later than girls, if anything the opposite (unless you maybe think that the science is actually motivated by right wing homophobes - but it seems to me American Conservatives and the like are just as against teen girls having sex these days as boys). Boys do start puberty later than girls. You don't even need a science study to see that, it's all around you if you look or if you remember back to your own teens. It's also obvious in sport that teen girls reach physical maturity earlier than boys/men.
And it's worth pointing out the societal lack of consistency here. The fact is, science says that boys mature later than girls. Yet feminists base the age of consent on supposed 'science' that shows teens can't consent to sex because of a lack of maturity. If that is the case, it follows that there should be a different age of consent for boys and girls.
But still, I agree we shouldn't look down on homosexuals, or homosexual pederasts. I have nothing but admiration for them. They gave us our civilization twice in Ancient Greece and Renaissance Italy. More importantly, they make a hell of a good activist force. The problem is that feminists have co-opted them by making them renounce their rich pederast history. We need to win them back. I'm spending a lot of time reading gay literature and writings from the 50's and 60's before they were co-opted, and it's fascinating to see how utterly open they were about their attraction to teen boys, and also how they often blamed women for their criminalization.
I would also point out that homosexual pederasts are the most treacherous out there, in terms of what you referenced. Time and time again if you look at one of their blogs such as Eivind's friend Tom O'Caroll, and you'll see them claiming that men having sex with teen boys is different to men with girls, because there isn't a "patriarchal power structure' and similar bullshit. They hope to 'co-opt' the feminists back, by agreeing that sex with girls is wrong (they instinctively understand the Sexual Trade Union motivation of feminists even though they call me a misogynist for explicitly pointing it out), so long as feminists will let them fuck boys.
@Eivind - Ian Watkins had been attacked 3 times earlier I believe. Also, I was actually referring to the fact that there have been at least several cases of high profile paedophile prisoners in the UK being killed and/or tortured by other prisoners in the last few years.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-humber-55061443
I would also say Amelio that although you have a valid point when you say it's human nature for people to rationalize their sexual preferences, we should be very careful here, given that any attempt at rational discussion over the age of consent is dismissed as 'pedos rationalizing their sexual preferences'?
Can you see that?
I remember I was told on Jonathon King's 'King of Hits' forum that I was 'rationalizing my sexual preference' for teenage girls for arguing against pedohysteria. The person accusing me of this was a convicted sex offender, as is Jonathon King himself (who agreed with the commentator).
I replied back that by the same reasoning, homosexuality should still be illegal as anyone who ever campaigned for its decriminalization back in the day was simply 'rationalizing their sexual preferences', and ditto for those poor homosexuals today in places like Ghana or Iran.
Let's be honest here. Age of consent is not based on science. It is an aesthetic decision as well as a power play in the interest of parents and feminists. Older men are considered too ugly to have sex with young girls. Just like my prejudice against lowering the age of consent for male homosexuals is an aesthetic decision (mostly disgust) and I don't invoke science at all.
Nofap is also based on values and aesthetics rather than science. I make no claim for porn "addiction" and the existence or nonexistence of such a phenomenon is irrelevant because my value system already tells me wanking is a waste of time and we should be having real sex instead.
Science can't tell us what to value. It can tell us whether some of our concepts are reasonable or applicable, such as "immaturity" or "trauma" or "addiction" for that matter, but someone who values certain aesthetics or goals in life will not change their opinion because it was never science they followed in the first place.
It boils down to values, aesthetics and power. A normie will not be honest and say it outright like I am doing now; they will mumble something about immature teens when what they really mean is men are too ugly for them. It is all well and good to have the science which demonstrates the maturity of teenagers and lack of trauma from consensual sex (which goes for younger children too including pederasty), but this won't win the war for sexualism.
Instead we need to focus most on the aesthetics and power. Men need to value our sexuality and assert our power. Notice that the criminalization of “sexualization” in art is there to prevent us from having an aesthetic of male sexualism. They call it porn (and I somewhat agree with that part since it overlaps with my nofap aesthetics), but the application is much broader. Sexualization is nonetheless what I am doing as an overarching project in life. I am above all promoting the aesthetics and values of male sexualism because this is the only way we can defeat the laws, when and if enough men get on board. Oh, and yeah I am allied with homosexualists as well although I don't go all the way there, at least not on the aesthetics. I believe Tom O'Caroll does good for our movement too, and how else are going to get anywhere than to align with the few friendlies we've got?
@ AF
« any attempt at rational discussion over the age of consent is dismissed as 'pedos rationalizing their sexual preferences’ »
There’s a difference between defending a point of view and rationalising a preference.
The difference is in the arguments. If they are strong you are not « rationalising » but trying to prove you’re right. If your adversary manages to win the dispute he can argue that your reasoning was void and only destined to rationalise your personal tastes.
« The fact is, science says that boys mature later than girls. »
« Maturity » is very hard to define. Puberty is an evolutionary process and it’s coming earlier and earlier. A boy with just some pubic hair may have a stronger sex drive than a girl with budding tits. Boys are generally more curious and more sexually adventurous than girls.
What’s more the word « maturity » is mostly used in a psychological sense, when it becomes totally fuzzy. People who use it just want to state their opinion as to what is the right age to have sex.
@Eivind
"my prejudice against lowering the age of consent for male homosexuals is an aesthetic decision (mostly disgust) and I don't invoke science at all."
Absolutely but how can you lead a political movement driven by disgust ?
Politics is driven by emotions and disgust is one of them. We seek the good and avoid what we dislike. I think I am fairer than most since I want to reduce the abuse industry enormously for the pederasts too. But I recognize that there are some barriers driven by emotions like disgust, even if we are completely honest about the "abuse" aspects, against going all the way as far as TOC wants. I couldn't make parents supports that even if I wanted to and there is nothing in it for me for being so extreme.
Can we quit saying puberty is coming earlier and earlier as if this is something new? There are limits to how far that can go which we have already probably hit and these things go in cycles anyway depending on environment. There is evidence that stone-age girls matured as early as girls do now, so if anything should be considered most natural it is early puberty.
I don't think mental maturity is fuzzy. IQ tests are quite scientific and they clearly show there is no significant improvement past puberty (no, I don't believe in a separate "emotional intelligence" either). There are no magical powers which suddenly appear later, only fine gradations with no moral bearing. On the other hand the sex drive does not necessarily only start with puberty, not by a long shot especially for boys. That really is much more complex, plus adults can be asexual too.
And speaking of sexualist aesthetics, here is Lord Byron's poem to a 12-year-old girl:
Maid of Athens, ere we part,
Give, oh give me back my heart!
Or, since that has left my breast,
Keep it now, and take the rest!
Hear my vow before I go,
Zoë mou, sas agapo!
By those tresses unconfined,
Wood by each Ægean wind;
By those lids whose jetty fringe
Kiss thy soft cheeks' blooming tinge;
By those wild eyes like the roe,
Zoë mou, sas agapo!
By that lip I long to taste;
By that zone encircled waist;
By all the token-flowers that tell
What words can never speak so well;
By love's alternate joy and woe.
Zoë mou, sas agapo!
Maid of Athens! I am gone:
Think of me, sweet! when alone.
Though I fly to Istambol,
Athens holds my heart and soul:
Can I cease to love thee? No!
Zoë mou, sas agapo!
Athens, 1810.
The story from Wikipedia:
According to C. G. Brouzas, Byron's "Maid of Athens" was born Teresa Makri, in 1797. She was the daughter of Tasia Makri, at whose house Byron lodged briefly in 1809 and in February 1810. Byron apparently fell in love with the 12-year-old girl; in a letter to Henry Drury the poet declares to be "dying for love of three Greek Girls at Athens", "Teresa, Mariana, and Kattinka", and wrote the poem for her before departing for Constantinople. On his way back from Turkey to the Morea, on 17 July 1810, he stayed at Mrs. Makri's house for another ten days. At some point he offered £500 for the girl – an offer which evidently was not accepted.
Byron never met Teresa again. She eventually married James Black (1803–1868) and died impoverished in 1875 in Athens, Greece.
I shall let Byron himself explain the Greek quote in his poem (Ζωή μου, σᾶς ἀγαπῶ):
Zoë mou, sas agapo,....a Romaic expression of tenderness: if I translate it I shall affront the gentlemen, as it may seem that I supposed they could not; and if I do not I may affront the ladies. For fear of any misconstruction on the part of the latter I shall do so, begging pardon of the learned. It means, "My life, I love you!" which sounds very prettily in all languages, and is as much in fashion in Greece at this day, as Juvenal tells us, the two first words were amongst the Roman ladies, whose erotic expressions were all Hellenized. --Lord Byron.
the end of free pornography is to make gays the men who consume it
first they make it impossible to date a girl
then they show you videos of guys with their hard cocks cumming on women tits in closeup
with which you masturbate
and in the end they end up associating cocks with pleasure
and since they can't get girls, they think about dicks.
hence so much homosexuality today.
It's abnormal that we're seeing hard dicks in straight porn.
In a normal situation where porn did not exist, we would never see anyone erect.
When AI pornography becomes realistic enough, Feminists will gain another pretext to ban all porn, and religious conservatives will support their endeavor, as per usual. First they will ban AI porn featuring celebrities, then AI porn featuring ex-girlfriends, then all AI porn, and then while at it, all porn in general.
Banning all porn is the best thing that can realistically happen to male sexuality in the near term. It will help men have more sex, including lots of sex crimes. I can even state this outright as a positive without it registering to normies because they are so wrapped up in the metaphysics of digital harm.
It will also end the distinction between "child" and "adult" porn which is nonsense as far as teens are concerned. No more indoctrination into the false idea that 18 is some kind of magic universal "legal" age, and back to the usually lower local ages of consent for that. That will be a tremendous boon for sexualism.
"Banning all porn is the best thing that can realistically happen to male sexuality in the near term."
You're out of your fucking mind here Eivind. It will be sexual oppression like you have never seen before. Do you think they're just going to let men have real world sex without consequences when fake world sex is banned? How does that make sense?
You think men will rise up and force the state to acknowledge their right to have sex with hot teen girls if porn is banned? This is delusional on a whole other level. Where is the evidence for this? There is none, in fact, the evidence shows the opposite. Men have lower levels of testosterone and accept and support ever worse penalties for acting on their normal attractions.
Porn is literally historical in that it shows us and reminds us what normal sexuality looks like, specifically with under 18 porn - it shows that indeed, adolescents under 18 are highly sexual and also highly attractive, in direct and obvious conflict with the ideas of the feminist oppressors, which is why they ban it so strictly.
Take away porn and keep the oppression, and all signs point to men crumbling under the weight of the sex fascist state and culture. If you have evidence otherwise, I'd love to see it.
anon69
Given that an historical low point in sexual behavior coincides with the height of porn consumption, it is bizarre that you even come up with the hypothesis that porn promotes sex, let alone be convinced it must be so! It is plainly wanker's delusion talking: you are fooled by all this fake sex into thinking there must be more of it around.
Look backwards at our own culture and sideways to others for evidence. If you can find an uncontacted tribe totally uncorrupted by porn I bet they don't even have a concept of age of consent, and the men are all super virile from a young age. I remember the sexual energy of the time I grew up in which was much closer to that ideal, when porn was relegated to print magazines and VHS tapes rather than constantly available. We were obsessed with sex and it was much more tolerated too. We did not confuse that porn with the real thing or as a promoter of it (or as "abuse material" either like the current feminist delusion goes), but sought real sex and had more of it and at younger ages than the current generation. I even remember when teen pregnancies were a "crisis" and now it's virtually unheard of, and it wasn't because we had less access to contraception back then either.
I think it's a bit sick... surfing on the bad habit of some people here to stare at very young girls... creepy...am I the only one to feel uncomfortable with that?
Sure, we're drowning in porn, but it's all over-18 to be legal. There's way more but the types available are far more strictly controlled.
Granny porn is something the system doesn't seem to mind. Funnily enough, or not, no-one ever brings up the possibility that some of the grannies are exploited.
Because no-one fucking cares!!! They're no threat to anyone except possibly even older grannies.
It's not that I want any of the grannies to be hurt, but it stands to reason that there must have been some granny porn made sometime-maybe in Denmark 50 years ago-in which that has happened. AFAIK, no feminists have ever looked through the archives of granny port to find evidence of exploitation, and no-one's ever made a documentary about financially exploited old ladies. They could easily find something somewhere and exaggerate the extent of it, or even make it up if they had to, yet no-one ever has. Any activity at all, sexual or otherwise, will include examples of exploitation, yet no-one's rushing out to investigate the dark world of granny porn. Hot teen girls, OTOH...
Anonymous2
That's right. Granny porn is an excellent sanity check. Just imagine the contrast. The metaphysics of granny porn is... nothing. No magic, no superstition, no exploitation associated with these images regardless of what might have gone into making them. No suggestion that "demand" for granny porn can lead to more abuse either. We see how insane it would be for police to hunt down images of abused grannies again and again. And we see that granny porn has no power to "sexualize" grannies more than they would have been otherwise.
So, what is the difference? It's all in the wanker's/feminist's delusion. They can't see that there is nothing more than inert information in the porn they care to be protective or hysterical about. It provides no sexual value to men and on the other end it can hurt no more than pictures of other atrocities -- which never otherwise rise to a target of witch-hunts or even the mildest criminalization (with some very few exceptions; I heard New Zealand banned video of a terrorist attack as a momentary overreaction, and I think they soon snapped out of pursuing that).
This is how all porn should be treated, and it is the mindset you get into about all porn as a nofapper and male sexualist as I am formulating the movement.
Honestly Eivind you're being unbelievably fucking retarded about the porn issue.
You are making the false correlation that higher porn use is causing more sex negativity. Where is the evidence of this? You have none, you are strangely married to a brainstormed assumption. Your other argument about tribes is dumb and based on the exact same false premise of a brainstormed correlation without evidence.
Look, we already have concrete evidence of the exact opposite conclusion - as porn became more regulated and the age limit of porn increased (lowering the availability of youthful pornography), sex negativity has skyrocketed. How does that square with your higher availability argument?
Go type in "lolita" in the pornhub search bar, and see what it says now. We are past the point as you acknowledge that granny porn is totally acceptable and celebrated. Is there an increase of youthful porn or a decrease of youthful porn?
Sex negativity has coincided with an EXTREME DECREASE in youthful porn - this is the real focus, not pornography in general, and clearly shows the source of the sex negativity lies with feminism, and the concept of female sexual market value inflation at an extremely cruel cost to 99.9% of men and .01% of women (your beloved female sex offender charade).
If you are in favor of banning granny porn and legalizing youthful porn, that would at least make sense.
The only thing you have succeeded in doing is providing feminist sex fascists a different excuse for throwing men in jail for sex crimes. Cut it out!
Porn is a delusion for wankers and feminists alike. Feminists think they are fighting sexuality while barking up this wrong tree, and men think they are getting sexual value or that sexuality gets promoted by this fake sex -- astonishingly at the same time as interest in real sex is at a historic low. As the example with granny porn shows, porn has no power to promote sex. Grannies are no more popular today and probably less. You are also not turned gay by the existence of gay porn. You look at teenporn and delude yourself that this is helping male sexuality when it is leading men astray from the real thing to whom they would pay more attention without porn. You would be more into teens than you are now, without porn. How do you think humanity got here? It was by having a robust sex drive and most especially centered on nubile girls, which is now eroded by porn.
I am not saying feminists will ramp down their persecution of sex if they ramp up the criminalization of porn to include more adult porn. Because, again, they are deluded like the wankers into thinking porn is sexually meaningful. They may well increase the persecution of both sex and porn at the same time, and this does not change my argument. Regardless of what else happens, less availability of porn is good for male sexual vitality. I do not believe men can avoid committing sex crimes, because feminists want to criminalize everything in any event and have largely accomplished this already, but they can more often be meaningful sex crimes for us -- real sex -- when feminists bark up the wrong tree and go after porn too. Easier to get away with too when the police are barking up the wrong tree.
Don’t you promoters of porn realize how you mirror the feminist “sexualization of young girls” nonsense, when you think porn not only provides sexual value (which mirrors the metaphysics of “online exploitation”) but is somehow needed to lift up the most attractive girls over old hags?
Nature does a spectacular job of sexualizing nubile girls. Any artifice can only detract from that. And I mean ANY artifice, including the makeup and cosmetic surgery employed by older women. Older women wear makeup and dye their hair and so on to look like teen girls without makeup (always falling short, of course). The ideal remains entirely natural and all the artifice makes teen girls look less scarce and thus somewhat desexualized relative to the natural state where no one was able to “cheat” with technology. Makeup is not a problem, but when the artifice gets as extreme as digital porn, it is. Porn saps your sexual vitality in so sinister ways that it even makes you defend porn against my pointing out how it does exactly this!
Porn desexualizes, and it desexualizes the most attractive girls the most. It has hardly any effect on grannies because men would devote so little sexual energy to them anyway. Old men may still have sex with their postmenopausal wives sometimes due to monogamy but they sure don't usually look at granny porn. Porn has a sizable effect on desexualizing teens, however, since men devote such enormous attention to that kind of porn instead of pursuing teens in real life. Porn reflects men's natural interests and then desexualizes that in real life, with some fetishes thrown in that are also not good for them.
Good blog post about trafficking hysteria:
https://fiamengofile.substack.com/p/the-campaign-against-child-sex-trafficking
Janice Fiamengo is "a retired Professor of English with a long-running video series about the fraud of feminism." I had never heard of her but her blog looks popular. Besides me, apparently women make better MRAs than men these days. Like Bettina Arndt in Australia, here is another great female MRA and unlike us they are getting thousands of followers.
Lol, China didn't get the feminist memo which holds that sex is something males do to females, who need to be "sexualized" by a male predator before anything sexual can happen. They still think sexuality is a two-way street even as they are trying to adopt feminist antisex:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/14/china/guangdong-middle-school-victim-blaming-intl-hnk/index.html
A controversial lesson on sexual harassment at a middle school in southern China has stirred online debate... showing papers that said victims of sexual harassment “suffer because they dress flamboyantly and behave flirtatiously.” It added: “Girls shouldn’t wear transparent or skimpy clothes and should avoid frivolous behavior.”
And in Ireland this is a really mind-boggling expansion of hate speech law, bringing it up to the level of the porn laws where mere possession will be criminal if this new bill passes:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/irelands-deeply-sinister-hate-crime-bill/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU_X1Y8PkmE
The new law won’t just prosecute people who go online and say stupid things... The Gardai will soon have the right to search your laptop or phone for anything that may be deemed ‘offensive or hateful’. That includes books you may have downloaded on your Kindle. So, for example, if you have a copy of something like The Turner Diaries or Mein Kampf on your phone or laptop, you are now looking at a potential sentence of five years in jail.
Perhaps this can teach people a lesson in the metaphysics of crimeworthy information in your private possession. It's not just what you publish, but what you read and think privately as well, including prior drafts of your writing. Perhaps you said something offensive and deleted it before anyone could see it? Let's send the police to recover deleted files on your phones and computers in search of anything which any protected group may find offensive! I hope the normies are happy with the precedence they tolerated for so long with the porn laws, because now they don't have any principled grounds to oppose this sort of tyranny anymore.
People, please listen to Eivind and not the annoying masturbating virgin that used to call himself The AF or The Antifeminist and now is posting as anonymous. The AF is an incel that only has hatred for woman because he never was able to have sex with any of them because of his porn use and masturbation. The AF never had sex because he chose to watch porn and masturbate in stead and no woman wants that kind of guy. So The AF noe hates women because of his own choice of masturbating to porn.
Another case of metaphysical beliefs about "online exploitation" creating problems out of nothing:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/14/us/michigan-sextortion-ring-nigerian-suspects-extradited/index.html
The old type of Nigerian scams we dealt with rationally. Simply tell people it’s all nonsense and they should ignore it, never send any money or do anything for them. But sexting is different, because this society is convinced that nude pictures are meaningful. So meaningful that they are worth suicides and criminal investigations and up to life in prison. Oh, no we are not going to tell those at risk of committing suicide or do other stupid things due to sextortion that there is nothing to worry about… we are going to double down on the superstition and act as if nudes are INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS! Of course. We are incapable of being rational about this, because the superstition is literally what this society believes in at the level of an official religion, wankers and feminists alike and the "justice" system programmed by this idiocy.
Imagine if we could have the attitude that porn only hurts wankers instead of telling minors it’s black magic which steals their souls and is worth committing suicide over? Nobody but me proposes the rational solution, including the parents of the dead 17-year-old. They all want to double down on the delusions, because apparently believing in the metaphysical badness of sex and even just sympathetic magic thereof is THE GREATEST GOOD to this civilization, overriding all other values and all rationality. Intriguingly while also allowing nudists to exist and pictures of them which clearly demonstrate that there is no harm in a nude picture of you unless you create it via irrational and completely unnecessary belief.
Age 18 is considered the age of sexual maturity
@Eivind - if you continue to allow this pedo map's attacks on me (which admittedly, is like being savaged by a poodle), I promise you I'm going to 100% go to war with you, you absolute aspergic hypocritical imbecile. One and only warning I'll give you.
We are not much attacked by feminists these days. Not beyond empty slogans anyway, like the comment above AF's. But he appears to have gone completely insane and is even threatening me for other people's comments. This is not how to run a movement and the AF is certainly not contributing anything positive anymore.
My blog shall be nice and sex-positive. I don't allow promotion of masturbation and no more personal attacks either.
It goes to show the MAPs really do have a more functional movement at this point. They get things done with Newgon, creating a body of work with enduring value. Hurling insults at others in the same movement does not have enduring value, so cut it out and focus on something that might be meaningful.
AF is not contributing is an understatement! He just called you a "aspergic hypocritical imbecile". I dont think there is room in this movement for someone that hates every woman and even hates lovely teen girls(because they will grow up to be women). The person that is totally unable to see that masturbation and looking at porn is not sex should be be banned from having anything to do with this movement. Of course there should not be punishable too look at pictures of young girls, and Eivind agrees, but it's not this movements job to fight for porn users rights, is it?
For this movement to be succesful, then people like The AF needs to be surgically sliced away from the movement. Why is The AF even here? All I ever see him do is throw insults at our current leader while promoting porn and masturbation and telling us how much he hates women.
I have followed you, this blog, since about when ABB blew up Oslo and Utøya. I have found your writings inspirational and I have left to find anything by you that I disagree on. If I see one more post from The AF or others promoting porn and masturbation I will not visit here again. Ever.
@SWX - So you started following Eivind when he was praising Breivik's brutal murder of dozens of teenage girls (he called him a 'great Viking hero' or such), and then you accuse me of hating teenage girls because I hold women in general responsible for the age of consent and can see that the White Kinightism of Eivind is exactly why we are in this mess? WTF is wrong with you guys?
Eivind called me an imbecile on my old blog when I was just about the only guy in the manosphere still having his back after he was arrested. He lets commentators (real paedophiles) regularly attack me, he calls just about all his readers psychotic wankers, posts an article calling us all psychotic wankers while telling us he will ban any comments objecting to that, and now he's upset that he gets called a name?
But you're right, you and Eivind are not in the same 'movement' as myself and others here, I'm glad there is no misunderstanding about that.
While I was initially impressed that something happened to the government, I did not use those words -- never declared him a hero of mine -- and I distanced myself from Breivik very quickly when we learned more about what happened. The long-running themes of my blog have nothing to do with his ideology/insanity and of course do not support killing teenage girls.
Be nice and sex-positive if you want to comment here, and don't misquote me either. Better yet make your own blog and lead the kind of movement you envision since we have so little in common.
Post a Comment