I’ve talked a huge number of women who got molested as girls. They almost all told me that their either liked it or they’re completely over it.He plainly states that he simply does not want to live in a sexually permissive society, for reasons having nothing to do with harm. When all the bullshit rationalizations are stripped away, this society is still sex-hostile just like that. Even if we defeat all the arguments we are left with the moral aesthetic judgment that currently persecuted sexuality is simply disgusting, much like one might have said about homosexuality or miscegenation or whatever recently.
That’s why I don’t believe this molestation wrecks you for life line that everyone in our society believes. Sure it does to some women, but that’s a minority, and even most of those eventually get over it.
I will tell you that I was absolutely stunned at the number of women who told me they liked getting molested. Well, sex feels good, eh? However, I don’t care if she liked it or not. I still want it to be illegal. I simply do not wish to live in a society where it is legal to molest kids.
And the exceptions are just my tiny movement which we can't even turn into a real movement. Faced with such totalitarian sex-hostility it does not make sense for me to blame women. The jealous old hags who used to be our stereotypical enemies don’t have the power to decide Robert Lindsay’s opinion. Men like him all drifted into it by a process I can only describe as cultural drift. Yes, that is a copout which does not explain anything, but it’s better to use a non-explanatory label than blame the wrong enemy. Just like doctors will say a disease is “idiopathic” when they don’t know what caused it, I now believe in idiopathic sex-hostility, brought on by more or less random cultural drift and homogenization via a global elite which tolerates no exceptions.
You all are welcome to argue against me in the comments, but at this point I don’t see any more plausible explanation. There are way too many sex-hostile men out there for me to be particularly focused on the feminists anymore. They would need a superpower to have much of a causal role in this that I don’t believe they have. Feminism's victory is complete but they didn't really get there by their own efforts, nor do they maintain this status quo by brainwashing everybody to hate sex. It just happens to be what we drifted into and the only realistic way out is probably to drift out of it too. All we can do is observe and call ourselves activists for the sake of our own sanity, but it doesn't do anything.
202 comments:
1 – 200 of 202 Newer› Newest»Men feel guilty about their own sexuality because they need to disguise it as "love" or "commitment" to get into a woman's trousers. Women feel guilty about being perceived as "sluts" (= traitors to the common cause of sexual trade-unionism). Women are seen by both men and women as victims. Men are seen by both men and women as predators/rapists/abusers. What could possible go wrong?
What is surprising in fact is that we had a few decades of real permissiveness, but that was probably because women felt liberated by the pill and wanted to experiment. Such permissiveness may never come back, alas. What is not surprising is that Society should default to the present state of everyone blaming and accusing everyone else. Sentient life is a tragedy where ageing and suffering, both mental and pysical, reign supreme. Society adds a further layer of suffering with unjust laws and persecutions.
I think the underlying tendency to female “victimhood” which is now absurdly amplified is female selectivity. That along with some tendency to hypergamy is real and universal across cultures. And then of course real, forcible rape has always been an issue. But beyond those, there is nothing inevitable about the current “sex abuse” panic. Humanity can go on for millennia without any female ever thinking she is a victim because she hadn’t turned 18 before she had sex, or 16, or probably 13 too. That kind of absurdity can only be attributed to cultural drift in my view, and it is only because it is so insanely rewarded to play into that victim role that women espouse that idea now. Including the old hags that the Antifeminist is always giving way too much credit.
Calling it cultural drift is not helpful. The cultural drift is a culmination of easily identifiable elements we all know, and are easier to resist:
Higher and stricter age of consent laws that blackmail 99% men.
Stricter and less proof for sexual abuse hoax laws that affect 99% men.
Enormous funding for Anglo UN and NGO programs pushing feminism and restriction of male heterosexuality.
Government tyranny happy to use feminism for increased power.
Male and female sexual jealousy.
Female sexual marketplace sexual strategy.
Weak male sexual strategy of appeasing women to get laid (huge problem).
Hypocritical and pathological christian feminism and evangelism.
Blue haired feminism.
Take your pick!
And of course, the hidden elephant in the room: Women love "rape", or sex against their will by a man willing to prove he is strong and obsessed with her. Sorry simps. Rape as a crime against "consent" is a hoax crime. Rape is a property crime of theft, originally against the owner of the woman, now against the whore herself. There is no difference between an amateur woman who has the power of "consent" (aka modern wife or girlfriend) and a professional whore, besides the fact the professional is more honest and probably better at sex in general.
anon69
I can't give men credit for being any less sex-hostile when they do nothing to end the oppression. In Norway we have a whole zoo of political parties and not one of them (or any male politician whatsoever) will stand out as being ever so slightly less sex-hostile than the culture as a whole. For example by wanting to lower the age of consent by just one year to 15 when they got a chance to consider it. It is the CULTURE that is sex-hostile. I obviously don't fit in here, and that's not a matter of political dissent because there is no dissent besides me. Even Quisling had a party, but I have nothing, unless you count the expert panel which recommends lowering the age of consent. And that consists of 50% women, so again, it's hard to blame women more than men.
Your point about femihags not having the power to shape Robert Lindsey's view on the age of consent is ignorent. His view is totally illogical. It's completely inconsistent with his views that young teens are sexual beings and that even most little girls who have had unwanted sexual encounters with older men 'get over it'.
He's obviously highly intelligent, so why does he insist that he is happy with the present age of consent and locking up men to perhaps be anally raped and beaten by other prisoners for committing no real harm?
The answer would be obvious to most. He doesn't want people to think he's a 'paedophile' himself trying to make it legal or acceptable for himself to bang young teens.
Of course, you can't see that Eivind, because you have little social intelligence, just as 'ephebophiles' can't see that most men are lying for the same reason when they claim they aren't attracted to 15 year olds.
And Robert Lindsey is probably 'lacking in social intelligence' himself. Thinking that he won't get the accusations of promoting paedophilia so long as he states that the age of consent is fine after every controversial sentence on child sexuality or normal male attraction to minors. This is a bit like Eivind and MAPs thinking that women and feminists will support their right to bang young girls so long as they keep stressing that they aren't misogynists.
And so who has created this society in which most men can see that it's very prudent not to risk being branded as a 'paedophile' or a 'paedophile activist'? Well feminists obviously. It's like saying that Kim Dong doesn't really have the power to make everybody in North Korea love him, so communism happened there due to cultural drift. AF
Cultural drift explains nothing and serves no tactical purpose. It's just an admission on your part that you still haven't got a clue after 20 years why society has been transformed, and globally too, in its attitudes and laws to teen sex, rape, prostitution and the rest in the space of one generation.
How does 'cultural drift' explain a society that locks men up for looking at pictures of small breasted 25 year olds, whilst simultaneously allowing trannies to teach primary school children about LBGT lifestyles?
In 20 years you haven't come up with a single practical suggestion to change things. Anything you've suggested would require us to have tens of millions of committed followers to even make sense. In reality, you have maybe 3 anonymous followers (anonymous in the sense of not even daring to have a unique username), despite several brushes with minor celebrity. 'Know thyself' Eivind. You have a good analytical brain, but you've demonstrated time and time again that you have a remarkable lack of social intelligence. Tactical thinking requires social intelligence. You don't have it. Being able to analyse a concept says nothing of any ability to figure out why something in the real world has happened and how to persuade others to change it back.
I would also say that 'cultural drift' removes feminists from any real role at all as an explanation. So what is left of you as an MRA? Since you were made 'MAP outreach ambassador to the MRM', aside from an article proudly announcing it, you've posted an article on an obtuse academic philosophy topic, and now an article denying feminists are responsible for paedohysteria and rather that some nebulous random force called 'cultural drift' is. Did the MAPs renew your contract??? Well maybe they did, as lack of social intelligence is what defines them too.
I think Robert Lindsay has enough social intelligence to know that it doesn’t matter if he includes those disclaimers about not wanting to touch the laws and assuring us that he hates pedophilia in the old sense. It doesn’t take much intelligence (or experience: I got no more hate for fully embracing the MAP movement than I did as an MRA) to realize that people will hate you all the same for defending any aspect of what is now called pedophilia, even just saying attraction to 17-year-olds is normal. He has chosen to take that hate and it would cost him no more to take a stand for legal reform as well. Hence I must conclude he has no interest in being an activist like us. I have no reason to think he is lying about being fine with the sex laws. This is very common and so sad, men having a total blind spot to persecution of men for our sexuality, even when they know there is no rational basis for such persecution. Contrast this to his ardent compassion for the Palestinians for example, and generally high political enthusiasm. Locking up men for empty sex crimes just can't elicit any reaction and thus men are complicit in the war on sex. I’ve had enough of tolerating male weakness and no longer think they are less blameworthy than the feminists.
In a university course entitled "Evolution" decades ago I learnt about "genetic drift" as a way of speciation. Drift of genes or genetic traits throughout the whole population instead of sudden appearance of traits through mutations in just a handful of individuals. I think that's where the expression came from. Being derived from biology, it has a clever ring to it. Even "genetic drift" was a questionable concept meant to explain something poorly understood, so "cultural drift" is even hazier. I prefer to think in termes of actors and their respective strategies and interests than in terms of broad-brush phenomena.
Genetic drift will happen when there is no selection pressure keeping a trait constant. It turns out there was no selection pressure to keep sexual freedom. That pressure should have been the Men's Movement, but it failed to materialize properly and the MAP movement is an abortive effort as well. Hence the sex laws are free to drift into whatever the most hateful feminists want.
This seriously sums of the failing of men. Not realizing that we have to be a cultural selection pressure if we want to keep any kind of rights. It's is ridiculous to point to evil feminists when you sit there and do nothing. The feminists merely fill a vacuum created by men doing nothing. And yes, it is cultural drift because it takes zero force to fill a vacuum.
They keep going after Gaetz even after he gave up becoming Trump's Justice Minister:
https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/us-house-ethics-committee-accuses-matt-gaetz-of-regularly-paying-for-sex-including-with-minor-girl/article69020560.ece
He seems to be a guy after my own heart (sex & drugs, he-he). What we find appalling on this forum is of course that Society should make such a big deal of a meeting with a 17 year-old.
For myself I am also appalled that he could just as well have become Justice Minister, I mean a guy enforcing unjust laws and sending men to jail for what he himself has been into all his life. Make no mistake about it, he wouldn't have used his leverage as Justice Minister to soften the plight of persecuted men. He would have led the charge of the anti-sex and anti-drugs brigade.
Robert Lindsay made a statement on Gaetz:
https://beyondhighbrow.substack.com/p/statement-on-the-matt-gaetz-ethics
Gaetz bought prostitutes. Yeah? So what! I don’t care about this at all. Liberals really think this is the crime of the century? What in God’s name has happened to liberals? I grew up in the 70’s when no liberal would say such a thing. Now they all sound like preachers. What happened?
The only liberal who is still liberal is Robert Lindsay. Liberals and and conservatives alike have gone insane with antisex bigotry. Their private lives are another matter of course, but as Jack says it doesn't help to have a whoremonger and statutory rapist as justice minister because they will all enforce the hateful irrational sex laws all the same.
Male politicians invariably act like eunuchs in their political role. Nothing they do, say or vote for is informed by their sexuality at all, only feminism and the hateful bigotry of our times which they parrot with constant obedience. I am so proud that I don't believe in any of those values or delusions, but it does nothing to alleviate the persecution that only a couple of bloggers oppose it. We failed to create a Men's Movement that politicians feel any need to take into account whatsoever. We might as well not exist for any practical purpose because the culture is monomanically antisexual by all official appearances. In the days of Angry Harry I didn't think we could sink this low, but that's what happened. The only possible further downside is that I and Robert Lindsay get completely censored too, but it wouldn't make a difference since nobody is listening to us.
There has been quite a bit of reaction to the Pelicot trial from other MRA's. so it's not going completely unchallenged. See City Crusher but I think I've seen bigger channels cover it as well-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znasvJ6O-90.
Anyway, I'm afraid I still don't buy the cultural drift explanation.
This is behind a paywall but the title speaks for itself-https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-14227645/groped-flashed-threesomes-warning-French-men.html .
The woman is obviously using this case as a stalking horse to brag about being nearly 70 but still attractive enough for men to make advances on her.
As far as Pelicot's wife is concerned, remember that this all stretches back about 20 years, back to when she was younger and more attractive. Got that? Younger and more attractive. Crying rape is her new way of seeking attention, validation and money.
To throw Eivind a bone, though I'm sure he won't like this particular one, this article goes into the legal absurdities of the case and argues that it's actually fake and part of a long-term effort to divide the sexes-https://mileswmathis.com/pelicot.pdf .
Mathis can be quite the age cuck at times but that's another story.
-Anonymous 2
You were apparently mentioned on this Mads Larsen podcast : https://teksta.no/podcasts/a8603d1b-b096-4871-95f3-e82427c6250d/5206277f-97e9-479c-a879-733a158784a2/
I'd love to know what he said about you.
It's churlish perhaps to criticize Robert Lindsey, but what is he talking about here?
"But this begs the question of how if they can consent to sex with their peers, they somehow automagically can’t consent to sex once someone turns 18.
I don’t want to beat this argument over the head too much because it will run into issues with even my own views. For instance, I think 13 year olds should be able to have sex with 13-17 year olds but not with most if not all adults.
But I wouldn’t say it’s because they can’t psychologically consent because I’m not an idiot. Of course they can. I just think they’re too young for adults to be messing with, that’s all. And I don’t have to back that up logic or science or anything. It’s simply my moral value."
If they can consent, why are they too young 'to be messed with'?
And before that, he makes the valid point that teens are harmed by the victim label and not the sex (with an older man). So he's happy for men to be locked up as sex offenders AND the girls to be harmed by the victim label and the legal proceedings (and seeing their lover be put behind bars). Just because of his 'feeling' that adults shouldn't be 'messing' with them?
There’s the moral aestheticism I was talking about: “just think they’re too young for adults to be messing with, that’s all.” This can't really be broken down into a rational belief because that’s not how it was constructed. It’s just bigotry against something which offends your sensibilities, like one used to be able to speak about homosexuality before it became accepted if one was disgusted by it. When straight men talk like this about young teen girls I am tempted to call it jealousy but then why allow teenage boys the pleasure? So it can’t really be (male) jealousy either unless the boys “don't count” in some sense, which I don’t personally buy. They can probably get them pregnant too and of course the psychological difference in being able to consent to them but not adult men is bullshit, so once again I have to conclude that the bigotry just can’t be broken down into further components, whether rational or irrational. Female jealousy does not get internalized in men, so it’s not that either. It’s just a subjectively intuitive, immediate feeling that is unfortunately extremely prevalent now, that adult men “shouldn’t mess with” young girls. And again, cultural drift is as good an explanation as any I can come up with as any for why it is so prevalent now, even among men. No matter how you try to analyze it it just sounds more insane, so really smart people like Robert Lindsay will leave it at the feeling and not try to justify it further. Unfortunately, dropping the bigotry does not seem to be an option.
Another word for cultural drift is fashion. Some feelings seem to be more popular at certain times and sometimes the reasons "make sense" in context but sometimes it is hard to spot any reason. For example one might explain racism with convenience relating to power structures. In American history racism went along with privilege, and now antisex bigotry goes along with privilege for "victims" but not for men, so why do men buy into it? I can't spot a plausible reason beyond pure fashion. It is fashionable to not want adults to "mess with" kids and meanwhile I can't even feel what is "messy" about it because I never bought into the taboo. Taboos do seem to be contagious though. Living at certain times makes you much more likely to catch them.
Perhaps I will get around to listening to that Mads Larsen podcast, and meanwhile maybe someone can review it for us?
He is sort of adjacent to the Men's Movement, but as far as I know he is only talking about gender roles and the fertility crisis. That may well be interesting as far as it goes, but I don't know that any of his opinions could get anyone out of prison. If your opinions can't at least in theory get anyone out of prison then you are the definition of an obedient normie not much worth paying attention to.
Apply that litmus test and you realize just how ridiculously obedient people are. Even in the most carcereal country on earth and in the states with the highest age of consent... you get the moral judgment that 13-17-year-olds should only be having sex with each other as we have just seen. From one of the most enlightened and still liberal people. By sheer coincidence from his Mensa-smart intelligence no doubt, nothing to do with obsequious obedience to the laws :)
"Mathis can be quite the age cuck at times but that's another story."
He makes a few interesting remarks but his article is so badly informed and full of conspirational bullshit that he looks like a perfect lunatic. That makes him totally harmless.
Mads Larsen mentioned Eivind Berge in the podcast as the only "incel" in Norway that had stuck his head out, said "Eivind is on the spectrum" etc. Forward to 59 minutes in the podcast.
One feminist enforcer shot to death in Norway: https://www.nettavisen.no/klepp/rogaland/politi/en-sivil-og-to-politi-skadd-i-skuddutveksling/s/5-95-2208309
Damn, what a scumbag Mads Larsen is then. Not bothering to even mention my ideology (if he even knows what it is) and accusing me of being on the spectrum. Pure prejudice and no substance or actual knowledge.
Yeah, finally some happy news!
Jeg tror faktisk at Mads mente det på en god måte og at han er en fan av deg Eivind, men at han samtidig føler et behov for å ta litt avstand for å ikke bli umiddelbart kansellert. Jeg følte ikke at han rakket ned på deg, men at han fremhevet deg som den eneste i Norge som faktisk har stått frem og utsatt deg selv for ringeakt og forfølgelse ved å faktisk si imot feminismen og statsmakten.
Vi trenger deg i samfunnsdebatten Eivind.
"Yeah, finally some happy news!"
Yes. Good news indeed.
Do you know about Eric Eoin Marques, Eivind? : https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-58582817
No, but I see that's another one of those symbolic "victories" against underage sex that the authorities imagine to be a real victory. This fake "reality" is so frantically constructed that the article is compelled to contain three paragraphs to that effect:
Det Chief Supt Daly said there was "a common misconception that child abuse imagery is a victimless crime".
"This sentence highlights that child abuse imagery is based on supply and demand," he said.
"In response to demand, a child somewhere in the world is sexually abused and therefore all involved are culpable."
Yeah, when they have to devote so much space to rebutting a “misconception” you know it’s obvious even to them that it’s not a misconception that this is a victimless crime. This is a special kind of witch-hunt which includes those disclaimers; I doubt that has been common historically. It is both feeble-minded and incredibly insidious at the same time.
Of course the harm to men from these persecutions is real, but luckily they single out the wankers, which is maximally sparing of sexually serious men if we look on the bright side. And imagine that one single pedomom that they usually can’t touch is more significant on our other side, fighting the good fight in favor of sexuality, than all the child porn in the world that these morons in law enforcement imagine they conquer over and over again in these fake symbolic victories. If we are going to have a war on sex, this is definitely the least malignant way to prosecute it, so I’d say let them carry on their war on wankers as long as that sucks away resources from targeting sexually serious men and women.
In other word Eivind you are dismissing child porn watchers as victims of pedohysteria and potential allies against it. This means your crusade against masturbation/virtual sex takes precedence over your fight against pedohysteria. In my view the victimlessness of image-peddling is a strong argument against pedohysteria. In the few cases where I've seen people/lawyers fighting back, one argument was that no real harm was done since only "pictures" were involved.
I want to undermine the idea that pictures are sexually meaningful, either positively or negatively. That’s the wanker’s delusion and its feminist flipside which leads to both maladaptive behavior in men and persecutory behavior in governments. I consider it extremely ideologically important to make a clear statement against the wanker’s delusion, but that said I also welcome activists from the ranks of “gooners” which they now call themselves. Perhaps one in a hundred, or thousand, or perhaps even rarer, bust some of them no doubt have activist potential. These are highly welcome in our movement, even if they don’t quit the porn, but we need to be ideologically clear: porn is not a sexual value. Neither a value nor a liability other than in the delusional fantasy of the law. Children cannot be any more abused via images or masturbating on cam than they can be attacked by a shark through their screens because they look at imagery of the ocean. It is a bizarre delusion because this society cannot be rational about sexuality but must imbue sexual images with this extra voodoo, which I will resist as long as I live.
Porn does have a negative value but only to men and only because it distracts us from sex, not because it “is” sex in some sense, which is all delusional. A picture of sex cannot sexually satisfy any more than a picture of food can provide nutrition or a picture of water can make you wet. How come we are incapable of realizing this as a society? All you can do with it is to masturbate, which you can do with purely mental fantasy too and it is equally worthless either way, except more harmful with porn because it dulls your sexual pursuit more than just masturbating to your own thoughts.
So yeah, gooners are welcome here but their "ideology" (actually delusion) is not.
Every time I hear of a child porn prosecution I marvel that they didn’t come for me first for promoting nofap, which is a hell of lot more likely to lead to underage sex. That’s another reason to maybe not be too vocal about nofap because what if they start thinking rationally about how to fight sexuality more effectively? I can sometimes spot the beginnings of this, in the same whitepaper which recommends lowering the age of consent to 15 in Norway for example. The experts there express the same sort of astonishment as me that the government is so hellbent on persecuting porn, and their feeling is opposite to my relief because they do agree with persecuting actual sex, not with 15-year-olds but younger.
"Damn, what a scumbag Mads Larsen is then. Not bothering to even mention my ideology (if he even knows what it is) and accusing me of being on the spectrum. Pure prejudice and no substance or actual knowledge."
This is actually very funny. Very observant from Mads. That is at least the truth as to how you come across Eivind, which is why that feminist made a black comedy based upon you.
@Jack Eivind has no social intelligence. In the UK, the majority of 'sex offenders' are those convicted of 'looking at pictures', as I'm sure is the case in many other countries too. This will only increase as the femihags bring in more and more laws as porn tech improves. We're seeing that right now with laws against deepfake porn and nudity apps. Just think where AI porn and VR will be in another decade. The femihags will be happy to crimialize and lock up millions of men, all of whom should be potential recruits to our movement. But Eivind sees them as wankers, and would rather white knight for a handful of sluts caught sucking 15 year old BBC, even when they would literally like to cut paedophiles like him and his 3 followers into tiny pieces.
It's dumb to say you're against people who watch under 18 porn when that's a key piece of the feminist and government crusade against men. Cut it out already. When the government decriminalizes sex with 12 year olds, then we can have that conversation, otherwise you're just alienating a huge group of potential supporters against feminism for literally no reason at all.
In terms of Robert Lindsay, perhaps it is better to first acknowledge that there's nothing wrong and everything right with under 18 sex and prostitution, even if you're morally against it, because that's not the argument right now. The argument right now is completely extreme, that a man should be killed for desiring young teen girls, and even age gap relationships. Saying under 18 sex is fine except it's morally wrong is a step in the right direction, and actually more in line with the way people used to think about this before the sex laws and culture became insane.
anon69
That's one possible future, where they keep persecuting porn and keep up the propaganda about how harmful it is even when 99% of convictions are for AI porn. Or it might become too painfully obvious that they aren't hurting real sex that way, and they will turn to getting more effective at catching men who actually have underage sex. I think the AI bubble will have to break in many ways and this is a likely candidate. It will become obvious that AI is neither sentient nor capable of being sexually abused, so the AI images will lose that sort of voodoo. I have no idea if the wankers will lose faith in wanking to them before the justice system does in punishing, but either way I don't see much of a future for the "image-based" abuse delusion. That was just so silly that it has to pass before long even if the rest of the war on sex continues, in my view of our likely future. Right now AI is overhyped in so many ways and this is another one of them.
I am hopeful that AI can teach us that images have no power to be "sexual abuse material" and that includes the "real" ones. When we can't tell the difference anymore because AI is everywhere we'll just quit ascribing so much weight to images.
Ok, I listened to Mads Larsen. It's not as bad as I thought. He says I'm kind of weird, "a bit on the spectrum," which is just a colloquial expression of an impression rather than claiming I am diagnosed with anything. So, not really mean-spirited or serious slander. I don't really care about such opinions but when they present it as a "fact" it is another matter -- a lie that I don't tolerate in any content I can moderate.
@Eivind- I have a question regarding men who say they are all for minors to have close-in-age relationships but still think men their own age shouldn't.
Don't you think there might be some status signalling going on here?
"Of course, back when I was their age, I was getting laid left, right and centre with young girls who I'm somehow not interested in anymore. I can afford to step aside for the young bucks because I was such a stud years ago. Me so noble.".
They're doing the normal virtue signalling but also another kind of status signalling which in no way contradicts the idea that they're scared of jealous older women, maybe their wives.
-Anonymous 2
I watched the 1994 movie 'Interview with the Vampire' today. You all likely know the Brad Pitt character has a 'fatherly' (yeah, right) relationship to the Kirsten Dunst forever 12 yo Vampire. This is probably our transhumanist future - men permanently around 25, and 'women' permanently young teens.
It's obviously an erotic movie, and Anne Rice wrote overtly erotic novels (female porn), as well as vampire novels. In our transhumanist future, young girls will have no hesitation sleeping with 200 year old men, so long as they look like a young Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise.
Equally, perhaps, we won't care if the little teen babe we are banging is actually 100 years old, lol.
Yeah, too bad it is complete science fiction to do anything meaningful about aging for the foreseeable future. All of us will be dead when/if that becomes possible. I have no doubt women will choose to be 12 and men 25 when it does though. The meaning of life is youth, perhaps to the extent that looking 12 while being 100 won't be the same? That's just a mental block we could get over though if physical rejuvenation were mastered.
Yes, I have little hope to see such things anymore, but anybody still in their teens or twenties might. And there is a chance that the AI singularity will occur even in the next couple of years, although far more likely to turn us all into paperclips rather than immortal sexual gods.
HG Wells also kind of predicted this in 'The Time Machine'. The human race has evolved or devolved into two species - The Eloi and the Moorlocks. The Eloi are permanently youthful and childlike. The time traveller meets and falls in love with a female Eloi, who looks and behaves like a very young girl. I sometimes wonder if the 'sexual communist' Wells was even having a dig at the age of consent, which had been raised quite recently in Victorian Britain. In another of his early novels, 'The Wheels of Chance', the heroine is a pretty 16 year old girl that the main character pursues.
Not only is it science-fiction but it will never happen. Modern medicine is good at prolonging but poor at healing. The future will be old age as usual followed by decades of alzheimer's (instead of just a few years of alzheimer's then death like it used to be). Each adult will have on average 1 grandparent and 2 parents = 3 alzheimer's cases to take care of. That's what awaits the next generation.
Interesting Anne Rice should have written vampire novels parallel to porn novels. Jordan Peterson has a clip in which he describes vampire stories as one the recurring female pseudo-sexual fantasies. To me it shows how fucked up and hopeless the female mind is when it comes to satisfying men. "Anything but what men want" is an apt description for the female mind. The only light in the tunnel for men are sexbots with AI. Eivind prefers to dream of a future where girls of all ages are legal but even if such a future does come, do you think Eivind 12 year-old girls will trip over themselves to have sex with the likes of you or me? The floodgates would open for zillions of men who now are too scared to chase girls. Where will you be Eivind when the floodgates open? You'll get washed away and drown. The 20% or so girls who want sex at all will get mopped up by the hordes of men who are younger, taller, hansdomer, more muscular, have more game, more money, can do salsa ... You and me will be back to square one. Sexbots are the only hope because they free men from birth rates, from the lethargy of the female sex-drive and from other social miasma.
Eivind should make another YouTube video naked in the shower, proudly proclaiming himself a paedophile because 'words mean whatever people say they mean.' Then launch into a rant threatening anybody who suggests he might be aspergic with a libel case.
I have a feeling it might go viral.
It's a good point Jack. The only chance we've got is because it's illegal, lol. Not that I have ever done or plan to do anything illegal. But when I was approaching young ladies around 10 years ago, I did have some success getting Instagrams and Facebooks from 16 and 17 year old girls, and a few dates. That's despite me already being in my forties and a bit ugly. Probably because most other PUAs and men in general were too gutless to approach anybody looking under 18. I even had 14 and 15 year old babes giving me their Instagrams and usually following me back.
Yeah, Eivind wants us to NoFap forever in case we don't have the energy to seize a sexual opportunity. At the same time he would be happy to flood Norway with millions of African immigrants, most of whom would be young, single, horny, and male. Maybe Chad Eivind can compete with a hundred 6ft 2" Nigerians with BBCs for one teen pussy, but most of us can't.
Here's Nirvana - Interview in the Bathroom 1992:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IbJqltfCAg
Those guys were not cool at all, right? Probably had Asperger's.
Fact of the matter is that the difference between me and them is social and nothing to do with the individual. Whether it is indicative of a “disorder” to make videos in the shower or super-cool is only a matter of what society wants to admire.
And it also happens that my shower eulogy on Nathan Larson is my most popular video ever, still getting views every day. Granted, most comments are hateful, but again, that is a problem with society and not me. Pedophilia could be the coolest trend in a slightly different society.
So yeah, it is libel to accuse me of being on the spectrum.
I am a weed. There is nothing wrong with weeds. They are just not what society is trying to grow. Whether it applies to making naked videos in the shower or pedophilia -- trends can turn around before you know it. All of a sudden I might be the coolest thing. The difference between me and the normies is that I actively seek to create trends. I don't follow: I lead.
There is a Chinese saying - the wrong man at the right time is always more successful than the right man at the wrong time. Trends do change quickly, making formerly undesirable people cool again. We will see.
Antifeminist blames women too much for feminism. We should expect women will seek to maximize their sexual strategy even to their own detriment, because that's the nature of women - selfish, childlike and stupid. But the Taliban proves that women are powerless without men. Feminism is implemented and enforced by men. Without male cooperation in the scheme, it falls apart. Simps are the real enemy. These Q-anon MAGA "men" who call other men pedophiles and bother everyone with their white knight virtue signaling; these men must be killed, figuratively or literally.
And as to the claim that lowering the age of consent to 12 will cause a deluge of men to compete for girls that age - that is simply not true at all. Look at countries right now with an age of consent of 14 and fairly reasonable "rape" laws - no men are falling over each other making approaches. In fact, it's the opposite - the vast majority of men are afraid of rejection, especially if it proves they are unattractive to the hottest, youngest girls. But most men also do not understand that 99% of girls are not particularly horny or in need of anything from men most of the time, and the reasons for rejection have nothing to do with the man personally at all.
It's just a culture of idiocy and jealousy that allows feminism to take root. The roaches only come to your house if your house is already full of garbage.
anon69
So everything is the result of random processes, like leaves in the wind. One day, everybody will accept again that 14 year olds are hot and be super cool with men banging them. One day, puny looking naked guys in the shower, with nasal voices defending middle-aged men running off with 12 year olds, will be the coolest thing ever. Everything has it's turn.
In which question, why do we even need a 'leader'?
"But the Taliban proves that women are powerless without men. Feminism is implemented and enforced by men. Without male cooperation in the scheme, it falls apart. "
All I can say to that is go and visit Afghanistan. Try to pick up and fuck a teen girl and see what happens. If you ever read my blog once or twice, you may remember I did often have things to say about Islam and feminism. But what was the point?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/30/uk-teenager-marcus-fakana-begins-dubai-jail-term-for-relationship-with-17-year-old-girl
What do you think they would have done to him if he'd been 45 and banged a 12 yo girl? Two years in prison?
It's curious that MRAs generally understand that 'women are powerless without men', but they can still see that feminism is the principle enemy. Here, it seems impossible. "Yes, I remember when the anti-feminist researched the make up of the NSPCC management and found that 95% were radical feminists, but the person who made the tea was a man, so how can we blame feminism? We just need to kill 2 or 3 billion bastard men and 115 lb naked paedophiles talking in the shower will be cool again."
You're the only one saying that aspergers is so appalling that to suggest that somebody has it is slander.
All I mean by it is that you don't have the faculties to understand tactics or strategy very well. In your case, not at all. I wouldn't even have a problem with that if you'd just stop claiming to be a leader and speaking for us with your weird views on masturbation and paedophile self-identification and all the rest.
But 'not being cool' hasn't got much to do with it. Bit strange to think that iconic popstars who had millions of teen followers worshipping them (including girls) were 'not cool', and somehow proves that talking naked in the shower about notorious paedophiles will come into fashion when the wind blows in a different direction.
It isn't the fact that you are not cool that is evidence of aspergers, it's the belief that a 'weed' talking naked in the shower about child abduction could ever be 'cool'.
Oh and....the narrow and literal understanding of words as being simple dictionary definitions rather than having indefinable ever-changing layers of meaning that make it possible for them to be used as tools of manipulation and control.
The 'certainty' that some 40 year old Instagram thot would be cool with men wanting to have sex with 12 year olds just because she poses in a bikini.
The trying to set up a successful coparenting site when you identify publicly as a paedophile and defend incest, including fathers sodimizing their 10 year old sons.
Being surprised that Tinder matches ghost you when they Google your name and see that you are a 'paedophile activist' who sees 'rape as equality'.
Being proud of being made the subject of a black comedy by a feminist portraying you as a lonely weirdo with erectile dysfunction problems caused by wanking.
Jesus,.I could go on forever with this list.
So as we go into 2025, another year closer to being sexually genocided, where are we?
I say the enemy is feminism. My 'Sexual Trade Union' theory that claims the responsibility is feminism, older/unattractive women trying to shore up their declining SMV in the face of technological and social change, is being proven increasingly correct with every passing day. In fact, even the Department of Homeland Security pretty much admitted it in 2024.
I say all we need is maybe 100 of us to constantly spread this message and it might be enough to shame feminists a little, point out the female jealousy elephant in the room, perhaps enough to even slow the legislative drip drip. At least we have our pride. The most active feminists maybe numbering perhaps 5 or 10 thousand in their lobby groups and in politics or the legal system directly involved in anti-sex hysteria.
You all say we can't blame feminists, and especially not women who were 13 year old girls once too. The fault lies in cultural drift or the direction of the Gulf Stream or something. And, of course, men. All we need to do is fight 3 billion men. And especially the police. Of whom there are nearly a million in the USA alone.
OK. There is no point. All I'm doing is providing a service to future digital archaeologists wondering how feminists were able to control male sexuality so easily, including the ungodly lie that attraction to teen girls is the greatest perversion on Earth. Though I doubt very much they would ever find Eivind's blog.
"Bit strange to think that iconic popstars who had millions of teen followers worshipping them (including girls) were 'not cool.'"
That was irony if you didn’t get it. I remember well how popular they were and when Kurt Cobain died all the girls were mourning him, as I were a teenager myself at the time, in the eighth grade and so had an orchestra seat to the very hottest girls. We can so easily imagine the coolest people doing my kind of shower appearance -- they were not very buff either -- sure they were 20 years younger but plenty of old rockers are still cool. How you don’t get this or the irony makes me wonder who is on the spectrum.
It’s not that I think being on the spectrum is necessarily so terrible. If I saw myself in the diagnosis I might embrace it as a normal variation analogous to a weed rather than a disorder, maybe even proudly like I do what is now called pedophilia when making the proclamation I just did about which girls are hottest. Even that though is still not a clinical diagnosis regarding 14-year-old girls, but autism is. I have read a lot of descriptions about autistic people and crucially self-reflections of those with Asperger’s, and I don’t recognize myself in them. You might make some superficial comparisons but then they also all have some serious disability that I too regard as a disability and slanderous from my perspective as to who I really am.
Perhaps this can serve as yet another illustration that words mean what they are used to mean. I am willing to accept the kind of mildly insulting language Mads Larsen used, which is much like the “pedophile” slur is now bandied about detached from any diagnosis. Even though I am colloquially a proud pedophile, I would not accept the diagnosis as it is currently written, which would require a very strong attraction to prepubescent children. That is really meaningfully different (but not necessarily bad -- I DO ideologically recognize the chronophilias as normal variations and not inherently abusive) just like a clinical diagnosis of autism is.
When you use "Asperger's" in a weakened sense like "bad at strategy" I'm not about to sue you for slander. However, I do take issue with it.
A few days ago someone commented on my Nathan Larson video: "This is one of the most unsettling things I've ever seen."
Clearly I am able to hit a nerve with this strategy. I don't see Sexual Trade Union theory doing that.
It can't only be my presentation that is unsettling, or the opinion that what Nathan did is civil disobedience rather than harming a victim. I am hitting a nerve in someone who is complacent about a holocaust in which they are complicit. STU can't do that.
The best activism we can hope for in the near term is to hit a nerve once in a while, which can also go viral and hit many nerves. Sexual Trade Union theory can't do that because it's not emotionally engaging. It's not emotionally engaging to be told a position you generally agree with is caused by bad people. The normies don't care who "invented" the sex laws. They don't care about that any more than they care about who invented the wheel. Wheels are simply useful and so we use them; the sex laws are useful to prevent what they think of as sexual abuse and so they support the laws and care nothing about what kind of cabal might be behind them. The universal reaction to STU theory is “SO WHAT”? And why should they care? To the normies it does not follow from any of that theory that the laws are bad, because they have internalized the laws at a deeper level. Age of consent is as intuitively necessary to them as wheels are. We need to hit a deeper nerve to make them think than point to some feminist conspiracy.
How to do that is not straightforward. No one can tell in advance what kind of message goes viral or what kind of leader gets followers. I have mostly failed, but also had some glimmers of media attention and other virality. On YouTube my shower video of Nathan Larson stands out as the only one close to successful. I am still dirt poor by influencer standards as it only reached 3k views, but at least it is better than a straightforward message tends to get. I also made a speech in suit and gown and it got 100 views. There is something about my idiosyncratic approach which succeeded somewhat.
If someone has better ideas, by all means suggest them and above all try them out yourself. The AF did try out his STU theory and it didn’t get very far. Although that’s also hampered by his own reticence and current unwillingness to even have a blog, I think we have enough trial to make a judgment. Please come up with something better.
Regarding that Dubai case:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/30/uk-teenager-marcus-fakana-begins-dubai-jail-term-for-relationship-with-17-year-old-girl
"What do you think they would have done to him if he'd been 45 and banged a 12 yo girl? Two years in prison?"
Please provide evidence that a wider age gap equals more punishment before judging Muslim countries.
I could be wrong, but I don't see them thinking that way at all. It looks to me like Dubai is giving the feminist abuse industry the middle finger by treating an 18-year-old exactly the same as they would a 45-year-old. This is a powerful statement that the entire "abuse" paradigm is bullshit and the whole thing with punishing "underage" sex is nothing more than an arbitrary culturally drifted convention, which we might as easily drift out of. Kudos to Dubai for showing the way!
"It's curious that MRAs generally understand that 'women are powerless without men', but they cant still see that feminism is the principle enemy."
AF misses my point entirely. Of course feminism is the principle enemy, and it is enforced entirely by men. AF's own claim about male dominated Arab cultures implementing even more harsh feminist age gap/marriage laws only proves my point further.
Simp feminist men are the problem, no matter the race and culture.
And I agree with Eivind, alternative methods should be tried because men have mindlessly accepted their own extreme oppression. I would also argue that exploitative Capitalism is the embodiment of feminist oppression, and I know many historical figures would agree. Therefore, Communist/Socialist politics are essential for anti-feminism, and I think that theory generally is proven correct in modern examples too.
anon69
My question about Islamic countries is serious. I am guessing that a culture which permits or recently permitted marriage to 9-year-olds is not going to obsess over the difference between banging a 17-year-old or 12-year-old girl out of wedlock, or about the man's age. All of that is projection from our own culture, assuming that if they have bought into one part of feminism as in raising the age of consent to 18, then they must have accepted all of it. If it turns out that they have, in fact, adopted feminist values about the "badness" of age gaps as well, then yeah, there is truly no hope and they are no better. But I suspend judgment until I see evidence.
Happy new year! I guess. At least the pedophobic scum Elon Musk is taking a hit:
https://www.facebook.com/eivind.berge/videos/1795931901240074/
That's karma to Musk's reputation albeit sad for the (likely owner?) who was killed by his Tesla. It is wise to avoid the products of bad people.
Whenever I read discussions of AOCs in foreign countries or foreign cultures I think "there we go again". The case of Muslim countries has been discussed here already. In old-fashioned Muslim countries worst case is heedless of the female's age you get legally killed by the husband or the brother/protector if he is not happy with you banging her. In the best case you are forced to marry the womand. If such was not the case we would see those countries spoken highly of on monger's forums and droves of men would travel to and retire there.
Even outside Islam AOCs mean nothing for us. I live in South East Asia and visit at least 2 other "sex desinations" each year. I don't bother to find out about the AOC in any of these countries. If someone told me I would not be interested, for the simple reason AOCs mean jackshit if I get arrested for hooking-up with a girl deemed too young. Peru raised the AOC from 14 to 16, then after heated debates brought it back to 14. What a victory for Eivind's and his handful of followers hey?. Well, no. Peru's change of heart was in order to prevent (mostly young) men in Peru who knocked up their neighbourhood sweetheart to be forced underground instead of doing the right thing, ie marrying her and recognising the child. The aim was never to allow the likes of us to bank 15-year olds! A father and husband was more useful to Society as a fugitive. This made perfect sense but there was nothing in it for us. I have no willingness to come forward as a father, and husband of a 15-year old Lima hood rat, thank you very much. Even if she stays attractive for the best part of a decade, which is the most you can expect for on average. Maybe Eivind thinks, from his safe abode in the Norway countryside, that he wouldn't mind.
And all this is leaving aside the label "prostitution" which in Peru, like in most other countries, will make sex with girls above 16 illegal if they're not above 18 or 21, never mind which. Pleading you were not giving the girl any money, only giving her gifts or paying her rent will not get you off the hook. This might work in a John Grisham's novel but not in the real world. You can bet any sex with a FOREIGN middle-age or elderly gentleman will per se be prostitution! Be happy if there's no trouble when you bang a 35-year old.
Yeah, there is always trouble. If not by age of consent then some other method to control the precious resource that is young girls. And doubly risky if you are a foreigner. We fight a losing battle for sexual freedom that can't rationally be motivated by any reasonable chance of success. Perhaps sexual freedom with young females in the sense of legality and being tolerated by society was always hopelessly naive and it doesn't matter if feminists or male relatives are in charge. The rational thing to do is to forget all activism and simply find the best way to optimize one's chances, be it marriage or some sort of criminality or like Jack is doing, staying within legal prostitution which then limits you to women over 21 it seems, if not 35. Yes, I would be happy to be the respectable husband of a teenage hood rat, but that too seems almost impossible even if I had the requisite wealth.
On reflection, I still conclude the Muslim system is better. Keep in mind Jack is judging the Arab world from the perspective of an expat from a Western country. Judging them by how they treat foreigners who come there to bang the hottest females is not fair from a bird’s eye ethical perspective. That’s like judging us by our willingness to cater to migrant men, at which we perform splendidly to the point of putting them up in luxury hotels and giving them a free life and protection from jealous relatives and local men as long as they respect our age of consent which suddenly looks very generous...
That’s not fair to the locals, is it? You have to judge a country or system of government primarily by the way it treats its native population. Arriving as a wealthy expat and expecting to bang the young women undisturbed is the sexual equivalent of the economic benefits migrants to Europe are expecting, and we give them because we are too generous for our own good.
If Arab men have the option to kill you for hooking up with girls they deem too young, they also have the option not to kill you, which is almost infinitely better than a totalitarian feminist state. It is perfectly reasonable that they need some kind of incentive not to kill you. Realistically this can probably only be achieved by being part of their culture and having wealth and social status in that context. Expats can just forget about it, but I am still ethically compelled to pronounce their system better than ours.
The reward for social status in our countries is sex abuse accusations and lawsuits that will bleed you dry. I’d rather risk the wrath of male relatives than a lifetime as a target of the feminist state and all kinds of opportunistic accusers if you have money. The former is quickly over with even if sometimes brutal and then you don’t have to live with systematic oppression like we do.
There are 9000 rape accusations in London annually yet the most feminist-rigged system in the world is only able to convict 200 of them.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cxr202eee0no
In other words an absolutely staggering amount of lies.
By the way, is there any evidence behind the incessant claim that reporting or testifying about a sex crime is "extremely traumatic"? What kind of definition of traumatic and how was this ever determined? Does it really compare to anything worthy of that name, even for real rape?
The English system is now rigged to the point that rape accusers don't even have to show up at trial. They can "pre-record their cross-examination by the defence and so not have to give evidence in front of a jury."
At some point you would think the credulity would end, but they are still spouting the nonsense that getting the royal treatment of a sex crime accuser is the most excruciating ordeal for women. Something so appealing they do it for sport if you look honestly.
Also you would expect the conviction rate to increase after all this "trauma" of reporting was alleviated so they can speak more freely, but it doesn't. Even prosecutors only buy into about 300 of those 9000 accusations.
Here's one of those stereotypical old hags (by trade union theory) who redefine their youthful sexual experiences as abuse in order to have a renaissance of admiration in middle age -- here in a theatrical play she has made called "Mitt pedofile eventyr" ("My Pedophilic Fairytale"). Yes, there is a place for addressing this phenomenon too even though I don't do it all the time. The AF isn't completely wrong, just far from a complete theory or strategy.
https://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/i/kwKkpj/tuva-hennum-deler-sitt-pedofile-eventyr-orker-ikke-aa-foele-meg-som-offer
https://scenekunst.no/artikler/den-pedofile-tilstanden
Tuva Hennum says at 11 she started to have what she thought at the time was romantic meetings with men but later "realized" was abuse.
This is a metaphysical invalidation of reality.
She claims reality is not what it seems (to both the girl and the man) but rather abuse. The feminist-redefined narrative replaces reality.
Don't let them redefine reality.
This is what I am here for.
I am here to reassert the male (and genuine female too) romantic reality now falsely called abuse.
Don't let them redefine reality.
This is my mission which makes all my activism worthwhile even if we can't change any laws in my lifetime.
The femihag part is obvious but the cultural drift part is the fact that this kind of play gets applause from 99.9999% of society, pretty much only my blog excepted in Norway.
It doesn't have to be that way. We need to stop applauding this shit, and we can; men can reassert our reality if we want! No one can compel men to believe a false narrative and we are in fact free to reject it and reassert the truth.
Imagine a world where this kind of play is as obscure as my blog is now, and my view is mainstream. And then guess how many women would even think about pushing the abuse narrative then! They do it mostly because that's what gets the applause and endless other benefits, mostly enforced by men and entirely aided by our voluntary indoctrination with this nonsense.
It's absolutely true that attention and prizes are the incentives set up by our weak feminist male oppressive society to become a "victim" of heterosexual sex. And it's also true that we never have to applaud them or support them, ever.
As to those "rape" accusations in London, all but 1 or maybe 2 are obvious hoaxes, but I am very curious to know what the demographics are of those who were convicted vs let off. I'm guessing disproportionally white Europeans were convicted.
Now, getting to Jack's abnormally terrible, paranoid comments: what are you smoking buddy?
First of all, we have our own freetheteens who appears once in a while to remind us of how accessible teen girls still are to older men, despite all the efforts by male and female tyrants to shut down access.
Next, legal prostitution is 18+, not 21. This is not changing any time soon in sex destinations.
Finally, under 18 sex is definitely available in countries with an age of consent that is low or just suggested. Of course, if you are cavalier about any sexual adventure with a woman of any age, you're going to stir jealousy, especially if you don't take care of your appearance. So, just be cool and generous, which is a rule that works with all women, and you're good to go. You think poor people who are happy their daughter is dating a generous, wealthy older foreigner want to change that? Yes, in poorer countries with a weak government, the opinions of violent fathers and brothers are more important than sex laws. But if you are generous and nice with their daughter, what incentive do they have to be against you if they are not sex hysterical, which is primarily a disgusting anglosphere phenomenon?
How about all the men the terrible US government still destroy for the crime of successfully going to poorer countries, being generous and getting sex from under 18's? Notably, the people in these places don't really care at all, although they will take the opportunity to create xenophobia to protect their own interests, and collect US government bribes for helping to trap sexually successful US citizens abroad. Solution: don't be a US citizen if you want to bang hot teens abroad.
Like this guy for example. He went to poorer countries and paid families to date their young teen daughters. No one really cared at all, because he was generous and caring. But the gay US government cared, because they couldn't let one of its citizens escape their feminist prison box, so they paid the foreign government to help capture him, then jailed him for LIFE for attempting to get out of the USA feminist matrix. He requested renunciation and banishment in lieu of punishment, but it was too late, and his request was denied - the feminist USA isn't concerned with protecting feminism within its own borders, it's concerned with global feminist punishment for men. And the deal they offer is, we'll give you a better job if you accept extreme sexual oppression.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-military-contractor-accused-of-sex-crimes-then-convicted-of-espionage/
Only a f*ggot would be happy with that arrangement. And the USA is expectedly full of f*ggots.
anon69
I think Jack sounded mostly realistic, if a bit cynical. The feminist police state is the worst of the worst as you well explain anaon69, but there are obstacles everywhere. Also I think Jack is mostly focused on what is unambiguously called prostitution rather than the generous dating and family oriented kind of approach. Jack has no interest in forming a family and being a provider, but if you accept that then you can probably go younger with more tolerance. As dreary as it sounds, 21 does seem to be getting more common as the minimum age for sex work as he suggests.
lol ok sure then you and jack can go look for all the 21 year old hookers while we bang the 18 yr old ones
Seeing how the antisex leader USA is raising the age to 21 just to work in a strip club, it wouldn't surprise if if this becomes the new global norm for "sex work."
Oh wait, I wasn't entirely updated: at least in Florida that isn't happening yet:
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/662337-legislature-wont-raise-minimum-age-for-strip-club-workers-this-year/
A legislative push to keep people under the age of 21 from performing or working in adult entertainment venues has died in committee and will not be voted on by the Senate or House this year barring an extraordinary development.
The bills from Republican Sen. Clay Yarborough (SB 1690) and Republican Rep. Carolina Amesty (HB 1379) were envisioned as a way to curb the problem of human trafficking by raising the age limits from 18. But the House bill did not get it on the Commerce agenda, and the Senate product was temporarily postponed in Tuesday’s Fiscal Policy committee, essentially closing the path in both legislative bodies.
But as to the real sex destinations, Jack knows more than me, so if he says 18 is risky there is something to it.
I just ckecked minimal ages for prostitution in Wikipedia and indeed most listed countries show 18. Non-listed countries are said by Wikipedia to allow prostitution as from the general age of consent. However ...
Wikipedia lists 18 years for Germany. As a decade-long monger in Germany, this got me scratching my heaad. I had been told and had seen for myself that no sex-worker under 21 worked in German brothels (prostitution outside "official" brothels is illegal in Germany). As usual, the devil is in the small print. If you google "Alter Prostitution Deutschland" after limiting the search over the last year, you get the following: "Wer eine Person unter 21 Jahren zur Prostitution (wiederholte sexuelle Handlungen gegen Entgelt) oder zu sexuellen Handlungen, durch die die Person (wirtschaftlich) ausgebeutet wird, veranlasst, wird nach § 232a Absatz 1 StGB mit Freiheitsstrafe von sechs Monaten bis zu zehn Jahren bestraft." In short it says anyone forcing a person who is not 21 year old to engage in prostitution will receive a sentence ranging between 6 months and ten years. So that's why you hardly ever find a prostitute under 21 years old in German venues: managers will not recruit under 21s because the price is too high should they get charged with "forcing". Within sex exceptionalism, there's prostitution exceptionalism, and within the latter there's age exceptionalism. Not to mention local authorities responsible for granting foreign (Rumanian, Bulgarian ...) prostitutes work permits. I trust them to apply a strictly no-one under 21 policy.
Thailand is an interesting case. No age is listed in Wikipedia as prostitution in Thailand is illegal, indeed even not recognized as existing at all. This is no problem in practice, as "ignored but largerly tolerated" is often better than "regulated". Does it mean the general age of consent in Thailand (18) is the age for prostitution? Well, sort of, but no. Prostitution is not recognised but nightlife is. Nightlife venues in Thailand are not allowed to employ people under 21. Hotels are required to check the age of visitors. Front desks often have announcements in some broken English, like "Visitors required to show ID. No visitors under 21 allowed".
Travel writer Paul Theroux wrote about how decadent and permissive Laos was during the Vietnam war ( restaurant employees doing blow jobs under the table during meals etc.). Nowadays Laos has a law actually forbidding foreigners from having sex with Lao women unless they're married. The law is loosely applied and is a major source of extortion income for the local police. But even that law is not enough, they now want to limit marriages with foreigners:
https://webarchive.archive.unhcr.org/20230531145736/https://www.refworld.org/docid/503def8b2.html
Anyways, this is to show what kind of shit you're up against when you want to date or bed teenager or even early twenties. And this is why I have zero interest in the AOC legalities of any country. I am only interested in where to find (prostitution venues) and where to do the deed (outcall or incall). In some countries the local mafia (venues, hotels etc.) offer a large measure of protection and that's why such countries are popular with sex-tourists. In other countries you're on your own.
Yeah, that's about as I expected. 21 the de facto prostitution age worldwide where it's legal or tolerated at all. Even if just enforced by the bars or your hotel checking IDs of visitors as in Thailand, I don't see an easy way around it for foreigners. This is why I am not terribly interested in going to typical sex tourist destinations, because I know it's actually easier to get with young girls here in Norway where prostitution is illegal for all ages. Hotels don't require visitors to be 21 here. Say you hook up with an 18-year-old Tinder sugar baby, or even a 16-year-old, and disguise it as dating, you're good.
Perhaps we should be careful what we wish for with "legalization" and even age of consent, because illegality works better than what they set up for us when regulated.
It is disheartening to see them cracking down on marriage too now. From that article:
Under new rules introduced recently, foreigners wanting to marry local women should be a resident in Laos for at least three consecutive months and have to provide a variety of personal documents for the government to conduct background checks, the officials said.
The stringent conditions are aimed at plugging the marriage loophole that foreign human trafficking syndicates have been using to smuggle Lao women out of the country.
This is really worse than I expected and of course packaged as "trafficking" hysteria as usual. Because unlike travelling far for teenage whores I really did think finding a wife would be a realistic option if I got wealthy somehow. By the time I have the money chances are I will either be too old or international marriage will be banned or both.
Look too at the comments-only a few, but none in favour for varying reasons including that it's too high.
-Anonymous 2
You think that's bad? Arizona successfully passed Prop 313 (Life without parole for "child" sex trafficking) after more than 60% of voters voted in favor of it in November. It was put into effect just a few days ago.
https://reason.com/2024/11/06/arizonans-approve-life-in-prison-for-sex-trafficking-a-minor/
Ridiculous! It's gonna be a taxpayer's nightmare and cause a lot of grief for families. Not to the mention the iatrogenic harm for "victims". For what? All in the name of "protecting children"? Moral righteous? To project the image of a "dirty, old, perverted man" onto a cardboard cutout? Yeah, like we already don't have a bunch of that bumper-sticker-dogma in the first place. The biggest problem is our own society. The ill-informed. The hysterical. The ones who listen to voices of politicians, the mainstream media, their social media feed, and their own preconceived notions. For one thing I'll tell you, there's gonna some idiots falling for victimless police stings and pay the price with their lives. Imagine spending the rest of your life in prison because society is afraid of you based on the little bits and pieces they hear. This is why you don't society vote on these kinds of things because they are not mature to handle these topics. This is complete and utter tough-on-crime idiocy. Why is there so much "rage" and "fear" when comes to sex? This is not one-side thing. Everyone is like this. Conservative, liberal, it doesn't matter. The fact a nonviolent sex crime that breaks social taboos can get you decades or even life in prison, but a drunk driver running over and killing someone may only get a few years. Look how far "we've" come. It as if the more days that go by, the less sexual society gets, yet the U.S. becomes increasingly puritanical. Geez, talk about Jabba the Hutt and Princess Leia, am I right?
All my time spent on Reddit and Twitter made me come to the consensus that conservatives and liberals are just the inverse of each other. They are just one-in-the-same.
In the midst of this insanity I am pleasantly surprised by that article in Reason. The new law is both shockingly insane even compared to all the hysteria I have become accustomed to, and it was refreshing to see someone outside the MAP movement who will even notice there is something off and not just scream for the next level of draconian laws which must mean the death penalty at this point for this sort of thing:
The law targets not only people forcing or coercing minors into prostitution, porn, stripping, or similar activities but anyone who merely knows a minor is engaging in such activities and fails to stop them. It also targets driving a minor to a location where they will engage in prostitution, or doing anything that enables the prostitution of a minor, if the state determines someone "should have" known the minor's age.
These parameters give law enforcement broad leeway to go after friends of any minor selling sex; people who don't condone what they're doing but are trying to help them do it safely; people who think they're facilitating or engaging in prostitution with an adult; and sex workers who, even unknowingly, work alongside someone under 18. It could also be used to go after minors aiding each other in prostitution.
It doesn't surprise me at all. AZ has some of the harshest child laws in the nation. Don't even get me started with the state of Florida, because they've too gone mad. I'm sure other states have gotten egregious too, but Arizona and Florida stand out considerably.
The sex panic has gotten out of control. Laws aiming to protect "children", ironically, don't serve to protect "children" at all. Children have been put on registries for playing "house" or "doctor".
I put the word "child" in quotations because it's a catch-all to term that politicizes "childhood innocence". A "child" is anyone who is sexually retarded. Teenagers are not children (as Bruce Rind puts it best). Many can drive, become celebrities, activists, have careers, help their communities, etc. But no, since sex with a minor is a crime against humanity. The downfall of mankind, to put it at best. We as a society fetishize the "protecting the children" agenda too much. Teaching kids like robots to become afraid and scared of simple nudity. Afterall, what's so scary about a woman's nipple on television?
This "whole" trafficking bullshit is clearly an exemplified moral panic. First there was Stranger Danger. Then there was Satan, Catholic priests, internet predators, and now there's human trafficking. There is no end to this. As soon as society changes, we freak the fuck out.
Extreme feminism sucks, especially when it's implemented by Christian Evangelical simps in Florida and Arizona. These "men" are sicker than trannies, and more extreme in punishing other men from jealousy. Christian Evangelicals in the USA have a mission - implement hell on Earth for everyone, so the world can be as f*cked up and miserable as they are.
anon69
Not surprisingly, Arizona and Florida are the only states that I can think of where an individual can spend the rest of their lives in prison for the possession of child pornography. Say what you guys want about porn, but these sentences and mandatory minimums are so outrageous, that they far exceed the punishment for more severe crimes, like second-degree murder. The fact that one can get a life sentence for downloading files and looking at pictures is absurd and draconian. Personally, I don’t think the possession or distribution should even be a crime in the first place. Though, I’m going to say that in public unless I want to get beaten to a pulp and hanged upside down in the town square. America really loves to hand out felonies like Halloween candy. It’s as easy as cutting a slice of pie. Of course, we already know that US is clearly dousing itself in the bogwash that is the anti-sex “pedohysteria” because disagreeing with draconian laws and norms can get you called a pedophile and nothing more. I’m not even a MAP or whatever (I don’t even like the term personally), but I’ve clearly recognized the stupidity of the anti-sex agenda. Arizona and Florida are outliers, unfortunately and boy, I thought the sentences Brittany Zamora and Jennifer Fitcher were bad. Think again.
More Reason articles:
https://reason.com/2011/11/07/a-life-sentence-for-possessing-child-por/
https://reason.com/2011/06/14/perverted-justice-2/
Yeah. Life in prison for porn. It can't get any more abstract than that. Abstract means pulled away. Pulled away from life is what porn is. An abstraction, idea with no significance in the world. Then you get pulled away from life to die in prison. And that's "justice" to the normies. Their minds are also abstracted from reality. They don't have two brain cells to rub together about sex crimes, or if they do think anything sensible the thought gets abstracted before it is uttered in public. Most MAP activists can't even convince themselves to say anything against the sex laws under their real names... much less convince others. And those few of us who do are abstracted from the public discourse, where lunatics like Elon Musk rule and herd the people to demand even more draconian sex laws, literally try to overthrow the government because they don't do enough to put men in prison for victimless sexuality.
The antisex freakshow that is Elon Musk has managed to make the UK government look comparatively sane. Of course they are not sane, but methodically conducting a holocaust on sexuality, still grinding out convictions for historic offenses too, but that is not enough for the vigilante antisex bigots.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/06/uk/starmer-musk-child-sex-abuse-intl-gbr/index.html
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has criticized those “spreading lies and misinformation” about child sex grooming gangs in the United Kingdom, responding to an online storm whipped up by Elon Musk.
“Those that are spreading lies and misinformation, as far and as wide as possible – they’re not interested in victims, they’re interested in themselves,” Starmer told reporters Monday.
For days, Musk – the world’s richest man and the owner of X – has used his social media platform to dredge up a years-long scandal over historic child sex abuse in parts of England.
In one post, Musk called on King Charles III to dissolve parliament and order new elections in Britain. In another, he called for Starmer’s safeguarding minister, Jess Philips, to be imprisoned, calling her “pure evil” and “a wicked creature.” On Monday, he also said Starmer should be in prison.
Lies and misinformation -- yeah, and so does the government in every case of a victimless sex crime like the "grooming" hoax. Musk is only amplifying it slightly and calling for instant executions or whatever would satisfy him, which is really nothing because this beast cannot be satisfied.
No there's nothing especially abstract or pulled away from life about porn Eivind (except that everything is relative). The powers-that-be know full well porn is the nearest thing to the real thing in matters of sex apart from sexbots which are still a minority thing, be it only on account of their price. The powers-that-be also know most of the time porn the only kind of "sex" available to 90% of males. It's male sexual release they're after, never mind how that release is achieved.
Every image is an abstraction. What we call abstract art is more abstract than photographs, up to 100% if nonrepresentational, but photographs are abstract too. They only capture two dimensions and zero life or mutual feeling that is essential in sex, or else it’s just masturbation. That may not matter to the government, but it sure should to men for their own good. It boggles my mind that you can get life in prison and some men will still choose porn over the real thing. What do they have to lose, lol? Let's leave the wanker's delusion to the government and all be nofappers.
Actually, I don’t know if you know this but not everyone who consumes child pornography is doing for the sake of sexual gratification or “pedophilic” appetite. Much like the War on drugs, people want the “material” simply because of its illegal and taboo, or otherwise reviled nature. Obviously, most people caught with drugs are not addicts. Neither are the child pornographers as despite what you hear, the link between viewing CP and committing contact offenses is weak. So, the idea of going after the supply will stop the demand is simply not true. So, with porn, people just collect things for the sake of having it. Others genuinely want to study and research it. It’s not always about pleasing yourself. Now, it was their fault on their end for deciding to do something illegal, even if the laws surrounding it are ridiculous. I do have sympathies for them but it’s heartbreaking nonetheless. So, a lot of what we know about CP is quite ambiguous. What we know for a fact is that the largest purveyors of child pornography is law enforcement. I’m sure many are fine. Go ahead, say what you want about porn but, keep in mind that these images (as well as the reasoning behind them) aren’t all the same.
Source: : https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1914496
Okay, that sounds reasonable. Collecting all sorts of stuff is a common hobby, so why not this? Makes as much sense as collecting stamps I guess, and is equally harmless. Or for research/curiosity purposes. I can see how the taboo aspect would enhances all this. These are more reasons the law is insane. It is insane to use possession of information to single out "bad" people. Once gain it is sex-exceptionalism. We don't make such judgments about someone who is especially interested in serial killers or war crimes or whatever. They can look at gruesome pictures in peace. Obviously it should be like this with even genuine sexual abuse too. The images themselves are harmless and a terribly crude way to identify people likely to do harm. Worse than useless, only suited to fill the prisons with random people.
Anonymous is spectacularly wrong. The reason people who collect CP are not contact offenders is because they masturbate to porn instead of having actual sex with either minors or grown ups. When or if they have the opportunity to have sex with a real person, they dont go for it because they dont feel like it, or they are not able to, because they messed up their libido from masturbating to their preferred porn.
Yeah, like minors were tripping over themselves to have sex with elderly men, only the latter were too engrossed in porn to realise that.
Jack, there is some truth in your statement there even if you meant it satirically. Consider all the prosecutions related to Omegle and similar. Minors were obviously tripping over themselves to self-produce all that "abuse material" for older men, which leaves me with little doubt that they would be up for it in real life too. So many wankers were too busy wanking (and creating evidence to get caught for it) to pursue a much safer and infinitely more rewarding meeting in real life.
"So many wankers too busy wanking". You may be right in one aspect. One minor having sex on screen, and 500 thousand men wanking to it. Now do you think it would be safer for the 500 thousand to have real sex with the boy/girl should the latter be up to the job? I know they say there's safety in numbers, but may be not in this case don't you think? Each time you compare "the wanking delusion" to real-life sex, you ignore the numbers involved. In porn each girl is being used by millions and it would not make any difference were she used by billions. In real life she is being used by a handful of real-life lovers at most. Maybe by four or five high payers + her drug dealer? Where does that leave us (you) with our (your) non-delusions? Of course when you compare real sex with virtual sex you don't mean real sex with the porn girls. But this only makes the comparison more dodgy. I think there's real added value to porn when millions of men can enjoy the very same girl on screen. Who is more delusional, the wanker feasting on Harley Dean or Elsa Jean on screen, or the no-fapper coveting some pre-menopausal MILFs in first world countries with a 1.2 birth rate per married couple? The pre-menopausal MILF will want 300 euros for a handjob you know. Or due to the no-fap halo effect she will wax horny and give you the handjob for free? Even in Norway there's the (rare) teen hottie: if she's up to sexual tricks she will travel to Dubai 3 times a year where she can get 3000 euro/day on a 20-day sex cruise. Where does that leave you and other normal men with their no-fap ethos? It's a market out there.
Omegle was one-on-one. No doubt some of those videos got shared, but many went no further. One Norwegian guy racked up hundreds of "victims" which we only know about because the police found his files and started their own wanking. The dude was so pathetic he didn't make any attempt to meet in real life despite having at the very least dozens of opportunities. That's an incredibly toxic mindset corrupted through and through by masturbation until there is no sexuality left.
If you think you can only get an expensive MILF that might just be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Better leave yourself open for a little miracle once in a while, and the way to stay prepared is nofap.
@Jack
Many young girls are very interested in sex, and if a man is decent looking, not scary or sad and can provide something for the girl(like a good sexual experience f.x), there is a good chance she will have sex with the man whatever age he is. But the man needs to be looking for it, grabbing whatever opportunity there is. You Jack and the Antifeminist are too far gone from porn and wanking all day though.
Anon, funny how that is. We are supposed to presume that women and girls are always victimized (more than men) during sexual encounters. Obviously, men are punished much more harshly than women for sexual crimes, evident by the criminal justice systems. Not saying that boy-women sexuality makes people angry, but if the gender roles were reserved, (girl-man sexuality) then the moral outrage would be much more severe. People would demand more draconian measures like capital punishment or castration if man did it. If a man flirts, courts, or expresses admiration with an adult, it’s called a “relationship”. If a man decides to express outward desires and infatuation for…let’s say…a mature and fully-developed teenager girl, it would be considered “grooming” and a “predatory behavior”. If the teenage girl reciprocates that particular affection back, then she is considered a victim of exploitation and grooming, all because she isn’t under the guise of “18” number. The “You’re an adult until society says that you are one” mantra. Society says that one is a victim if they happen to be with someone who violates and breaks their societal norms. Society also implies that girls cannot be interested in sex because men are always dirty and perverted in front of them, which is bullshit. It’s like when Bruce Rind and his colleagues wrote in 2000 how the idea that girls as young as 14-15 years of age cannot make sexual decisions or consent is not very supported by science (though they didn’t provide a source on that claim, unfortunately.)
I am not sure which references Bruce Rind should have provided that he didn't. His studies are themselves evidence that girls as young as 14-15 and 13 too can consent just fine (he has scant data for younger rather than a claim they can't consent either), because he couldn't find any negative consequences beyond what adult women report (and remember they also not infrequently remember their sexual experiences negatively, so we are never going to get 100% positive recall -- except for the boys who have sex with older women).
Assuming all teen girls can consent should certainly be the default and then the burden of proof is on those who claim it would be bad for them. There is no convincing evidence for that claim that I am aware of, or anything which really counts as evidence at all. Old feminist hags redefining their experiences into abuse is not evidence, and neither is the social norm which simply declares it to be grooming and abuse since none of that was evidence-based in the first place.
Playing Devil's Advocate for a minute, there is one difference I can think of between a sexual abuse image and an image of some other harm. If the former shows parts of the body the victim doesn't want seen, surely that becomes a factor? If there's a video of me getting bashed up, for example, it's not going to embarrass me as much as if I were being sexually used against my will and all my bits are showing.
-Anonymous 2
“If the former shows parts of the body the victim doesn't want seen, surely that becomes a factor?”
Then why, pray tell, is this not applied to adult women? What is worse about showing body parts of minors? Which is currently not even justified by “body parts not wanted to be seen” but rather “sexualization.” If you have an autopsy report of a crime victim including closeups of genitals, or any kind of nudity which is not “sexualized,” there is no criminalization currently.
The argument is so bad it’s not even currently used by proponents of the laws, so I don’t see how it would work in a devil’s advocate way either.
I wasn't claiming it wasn't relevant for adults. In fact, I used myself as an example, so adult+male.
I didn't even say there was anything that could realistically be done about it without the cure being worse than the disease, eg using "think of the children" or "think of the victims" as a pretext to force people to identify themselves before participating in online forums.
I'm surprised that "non-sexualized" nudity still gets a pass, but it doesn't invalidate my point. I was saying that a video or photograph will always be different when the more private areas of people's bodies are shown. And worse when the victim is not yet an adult.
The practical upshot of my observation is simply to avoid images of known coercion if you are looking for stimulating material.
-Anonymous 2
To me, all those concerns are overshadowed by an elephant in the room. You are concerned with ethical ways to get "stimulation" but I submit that there is no way images can impart any stimulation, so that entire ethics is irrelevant. What you call stimulation is the wanker sucking the life-force out of himself, NOT out of you via the images because such a thing is impossible. I preach severing "ownership" to sexual images in that sense because it was all nonsense. They should have no more protection than regular copyright law. There are situations where use is not okay and you should be able to sue them for damages, but private wanking is not one of them because that relies on voodoo nonsense to be construed as harmful to you. If they make a profit on your likeness without your consent, then sure you should be able to recover some of that if applicable under copyright law, but I do not buy into this sex-exceptionalist nonsense. This means we drop all the criminality just for possessing, whose justification was all sheer nonsense from beginning to end relying on voodoo I do not believe in.
The wanker's delusion is that images can be sexually stimulating and the same delusion from the feminist and government's point of view is that images can be sexually abusive. They are both equally wrong. The wanker cannot be stimulated but only weakened. Porn sucks the life-force which is to say sex drive he was endowed with by his Creator to be able to procreate out of him and wastes it on masturbation. This in no way robs the subject of that porn of anything sexual. Hint: procreation cannot occur that way and all the extra social nonsense which is believed to be transferred via images is just nonsense. Nothing substantial needs to be "protected" this way because there is nothing to it; unlike real sex and procreation it all goes away if we quit believing in it.
Does being a person in a "position of trust" like a teacher further make consent more difficult to fulfill, albeit more invalidated? Definitely not, in my opinion, but in society's eyes, yes.
I've seen a couple of your videos, but I don't think you ever touched on teenage female sexuality that much (please correct me if I'm wrong). You tend to focus on the persecutions of women, but no so much men, even though the answer is pretty obvious. Females tend to report more less-positive experiences and reactions than men, but like you said, teenagers are well aware of sex, want it, can initiate it, etc. Yet, we never hear their perspectives, feelings and opinions regarding their experiences from the media.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any study about teenage girls and their ability to procure sexual desires with older men off the top of my head, so if you can find any, please let me show me. The stuff I've read is all over the place, so it's not always easy to find navigate and look for certain key points. Teenage girls can certainly get access to abortion healthcare, so why is having sex such a big deal. Why is having sex only within these Romeo-and-Juliet clauses are seen "validated" by society? Is it because the government says it's okay. I have a feeling that all of this puritanism about having sex with whom and how has increased anxiety in the younger generation because they all seem so scared breaking the law or catching an STD or whatever. I find their fears honest, yet misplaced because anything to do with "sex" just makes society angry. We are desensitized by violence, yet sex is punished much more severely. I theorize that because sex is so taboo in American culture (due to how personal it is), it is the reason why sex crimes get so much outrage. That's why we hear people all the time wishing death on nonviolent child molesters and rapists (even though there are much worse and dangerous crimes out there), simply because it involved sex. It is why you can have all this violence in movies and such, but a women's nipple on TV can you the FCC breaking into your house.
It's like when there was a wardrobe malfunction during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show where Janet Jackson's boob got exposed (even though the camera was far away), and it caused a flurry of angry parents and viewers to "scream porn" at the TV.
You can hit a child, slap a child, yell at a child, but somehow an adult placing a hand on their crotch is seen as both crippling and unique traumatic? If sex at a certain age really was harmful, then I'm guessing that there would've been some sort of evolutionary mechanism to curb this, yet Kinsey and Ford (one of those said) discovered that basically immature male and females engage in every type of sexual behavior known to man. I'm glad Rind and his colleagues were the first to concretely crush the CSA hoax.
Nevertheless, I feel like this "morality" regarding teenage-adult is that way because the government says so and allows it. (I.e. legal = moral, illegal = immoral). That's why anyone under 18 are seen as the most precious thing ever, without regard to their intelligence, maturity or autonomy because they legally treated as such. If society decided that 17 or 19 was the "adult age", then people wouldn't care. It's only because that it's the status quo, that people fall for this kind of thinking. I'm curious to know where this "18" number came from and why it was selected so vigorously and specifically.
Thanks for another insightful comment, Anonymous. Not much to disagree with there. You are right about my paucity of videos about teenage female sexuality as opposed to the female sex offender charade which I have addressed quite often. Sadly I don’t think I can do the videos you ask for, not because I don’t want to but because of the high risk of banning from YouTube when endorsing sex with young girls. Newgon is already banned and I came very close, so now I am almost too afraid to say anything on topic.
Of course teenage girls can consent to men of any age if they can consent at all. Romeo-and-Juliet clauses are hogwash as far as I’m concerned and I am totally against them. This is the one little “selfish” bit of activism I allow myself, but even without that aspect there is honestly no reason for these exceptions. An 18-year-old man is not morally superior to a man my age and does not deserve any special treatment, or more to the point us older guys don’t deserve any special criminalization.
Janet Jackson's “wardrobe malfunction” sure brings back memories. I was in the US at the time (as a student in Tennessee) and caught it live. A special moment of American puritanism indeed that it caused such a stir. That was 20 years ago and only the beginning of the hysteria we are seeing now. I think at that time the outrage was mostly playful and ironic but now it would have been dead serious. There is no humor left in the kind of witch-hunt Elon Musk now leads, just frenzied condemnation of anything involving sexuality and minors as evil incarnate.
And so Sam Altman too joins the illustrious club of accused sexual abusers:
His sister, Ann Altman, alleged the sexual abuse began when she was three years old and her brother was 12 at their family home in suburban St. Louis, Missouri, according to the suit.
The abuse included “numerous acts of rape, sexual assault, sexual abuse, molestation, sodomy, and battery,” according to the lawsuit.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/08/business/sam-altman-denies-sister-abuse-allegations/index.html
There is not a shred of credibility to this, just an obvious money grab. But having seen Sam Altman grift the AI hype ad nauseam, always hinting AGI is right around the corner despite the obvious impossibility of getting there through LLMs, he kind of gets what he deserves.
You could phrase it as "ethical ways to get stimulation" if you like, but I simply wanted to say that if you did, then sexual abuse images are in something of a class of their own.
-Anonymous 2
The idea that sexual abuse images are in a class of their own does not have a long history. I remember a time when the concept did not exist at all. “CSEM” is a brand new feminist invention originating in the past couple of decades and if you go back before 1980 there was not even such a thing as child porn because it would have all been contained by the concept of obscenity, which DOES have a history. “Abuse images” are what remains of illegal obscenity after political correctness, and it’s funny to me how it got internalized by the new generation and justified in weird ways such as the body parts justification.
To me, there is no distinction whatsoever between “abuse images” and porn in general. It is all morally equivalent and equally toxic to male sexuality.
I suppose the concept of "abuse material" allows a person who thinks of himself as progressive to be in favor of porn but against abuse. That's the chief purpose of this new-fangled category aside from filling the prisons. Never mind that the distinction does not make sense when examined critically like I have done in a few comments above and many times elsewhere when writing about nofap.
Seriously, do we as a movement, whether MAPs or MRAs or sexualists, need to take the notion of "abuse images" seriously? Do we need to buy into this newly invented voodoo? Seriously!?
It is perfectly fine to be against porn. That is noble and in line with nofap. But singling out "abuse material" as its own category which is somehow especially condemnable and perhaps even crimeworthy only serves the feminists.
If we look back to the time before photography and video, there was no “abuse material” but there were obscene images. Where these images any less capable of serving as “abuse material” if that concept has validity?
Thinking about this reveals a powerful irony, because drawings and paintings are actually MORE POWERFUL than photographs! Even more so in a society not saturated by images as our times where the impact of another photo has approached zero.
So if anything, CSEM should be more of a concept in the 1800s and before than it is now, if it had any validity. Our new technology is actually not so special, but rather cheapened. In the voodoo sense of capturing your soul like believers in abuse material would have it, a Rembrandt is more powerful than any photograph and that goes for the obscene images they had back then too.
Maybe they didn’t believe in that sort of thing because it is nonsense? And we don’t know better now. We have merely drifted into a new superstition, which is not only promoted by femihags but members of our own movement, for Christ’s sake! See how I need cultural drift to explain it because it transcends any promotion by feminists?
The only thing photographs and especially video is more capable of than a painting by the Old Masters is to numb the male libido. These new images contain less soul and more maladaptive addiction potential which only harms the wanker, not the imagined victim of abuse material.
Think about that.
Agreed! I guess you can say that the incident was more about the "shock value" rather than slightly salacious outcome of it. Though this hysteria has gotten more serious, especially what happened almost five years ago where some parents complained that they had to gesture their kids out of the room because they thought that Shakira and Jennifer Lopez' Pepsi halftime performance was "pornographic". Ridiculous if you ask me. I've always wondered why parents give such a damn for anything slightly risqué or proactive in front of their kids as if they are gonna scream and cry on the floor over seeing a woman's nipple. Realistically, I'm guessing that most kids who saw that probably didn't care and just resumed to stare blankly off into space.
On the topic of female sexuality, I have further information but I'll have to talk about that in another comment.
@Eivind- I have no desire to be thought of as progressive.
I only point out a fairly obvious distinction between images containing intimate parts of people's anatomy and those that don't. The history of it all might be interesting but the distinction is there, history or not.
It's not completely "voodoo" to say that intimate images do in a sense re-abuse a rape victim, because more people can see the victim's body.
Do I think that justifies actual laws? Probably not, because the price in freedom would be too high-governments would use it as an excuse for other controls. I seem to remember you yourself saying that perhaps violent CSA should be illegal to distribute. I know I left the gate wide open with "probably not", but so did you. Perhaps well-defined extreme CSA should be outlawed and then we could see what happens. My views on the subject are really not much different from yours.
-Anonymous 2
@Anonymous 2
I see that this idea of "abuse images" has crept into our culture to the point that I am powerless to make a dent in it even when preaching to the choir. Let me nonetheless make one more argument to see if you wake up. Indeed it should make you feel guilty for having believed it.
When I see images of mangled children in Gaza, are they revictimized? Nope, they get SYMPATHY and a desire to stop the genocide.
A normal person seeing images of a genuinely raped or abused child will feel the same way. It will be painful to watch and raise awareness about stopping real abuse.
Now, the fact that you get sexual "stimulation" out of it -- even just in the sense of believing the voodoo that they are revictimized -- what does that say about you?
Your reaction is no more an argument for promoting this voodoo of revictimization than it would be for stopping the images of genocide because there are genocidal people out there who get pleasure from seeing that suffering unfold! Likewise, the fact that genuine sexual sadists exist (which I am not saying you are, just deluded) is no argument for believing in the concept of "abuse images."
It would hurt the fight to stop genocide to believe "genocide images" were some special harmful category in itself! And it hurts awareness of real abuse to believe in "abuse images."
One more point following up on this. It is painful for a normal person to watch real abuse. It is perhaps not painful to watch a child enjoying sex, and THAT is what the feminists/government/antisex bigots are afraid of! Genuine abuse images are a red herring.
Finally I will say that seeing all this suffering in Gaza for over a year now has by no means turned me into a Zionist (quite the contrary!), and I imagine it would be equally difficult to convert someone to sexual sadism who does not already have that tendency.
So there is just no good argument for your position no matter how you slice it.
It occurs to be that the child protection entities have cut themselves off from the most powerful way to fight abuse by hiding all the abuse images. They should be SHOWING abuse if they were serious, complete with the expression of anguish in the children’s faces like we are seeing from Gaza.
There is either dishonesty or a weird delusion in play here, or both. The delusion is that abuse is somehow “ongoing” in the images every time they are viewed and the children are revictimized. This is a mass psychosis of our time that I have to conclude people honestly believe in, since I am getting comments to that effect even here. This is a bona fide witchcraft voodoo superstition of our time.
And then there is the dishonesty that a lot of this supposed abuse isn’t abuse at all.
But as to the real abuse, showing it would be a far more effective way to fight it than to suppress these images. Normal people (including pedophiles) will feel heightened sympathy and the sexual sadists can’t be helped anyway. If it changes anyone’s behavior at worst it just becomes a wanking fantasy. There is no evidence that keeping such images legal to look at leads to more abuse in the real world.
The BBC has a less than bad programm called "The Moral Maze". The program takes the form of a contradictory debate, with advocates confronting devil's advocates. Some years ago (at least 8 years) there was an interesting episode about child pornography. A woman was playing devil's advocate in aggressive and consumate fashion. She confronted a male police officer specialized in "assessing" material and investigating cases. She asked him why it was not ok for people to watch child pornography but it was ok for him. The officer replied to the effect there were ways of looking at child porn that were "not criminal" (= not sinful?). The woman stuck to her guns and concluded this was bosh: if it was a crime for people to watch kiddie porn, it should be a crime for the police to do so as well.
I've tried in vain to track down that episode of The Moral Maze. I'm pretty sure it was removed.
It would be like them to remove a program like that, Jack. Real abuse can't be denied to exist simply because it is convenient to the cops. It is a very good argument. One might reasonably argue that sometimes the police is justified in causing collateral damage, for example by killing some innocent bystanders when confronting an active shooter. But you can't claim that such damage does not exist as if those people did not really die. If the police can "switch off" the voodoo-abusive aspects of looking at child porn, then well-intentioned civilians should be able to do the same. There is something so fishy about this voodoo that the government itself clearly does not believe in it, since they don't leave that line of defense open.
Jack, I theorize that the main, unspoken reason as to why CP remains illegal is because the "normies", government, the abuse industry, or whatever just doesn't want it to seen as "normal behavior" and solidify the cultural and social agenda that "children" (as anyone under 18, regardless if they are "child" or not, even if they don't feel such a way) should remain forever infantilized. This idea of "childhood innocence" is so deeply established and ingrained in world culture that changing it would cause the public to revolt, thus making it foolish to try and challenge it.
Remember John Grisham and what he said in October of 2014? It caused him so much backlash that people were posting pictures of his novels on fire, all because he claimed that laws against child porn have "gone crazy" since he mentioned that he a Canadian friend who was caught in sting by the RCMP after he got decided to get drunk one night and maneuver through a website full of "16-17" year old girls. It's a third rail you DO NOT WANT TO TOUCH, unless you want your reputation in jeopardy. No public official working for the American government or any member of British Parliament is going to stand up for "child porn". It's just crazy, just like the laws themselves and people who support it.
That's the thing, it's complete and utter hypocrisy. Judges, juries, prosecutors, police, and even the government can look at these imagines themselves, but not you? How does it "revictimizes" the victim if nobody even knows what you are looking at in the first place? Their viewing doesn't "revictimize the victim", but the your gaze does? It's ironic because the FBI frequently distributes and withholds CP. The NCMEC has the largest collection of CP in the world. Not to mention that sometimes restitution checks are sent directly in the mail to the "victims" themselves, despite the fact that we wouldn't know about those looking at CP if we didn't bust down people's doors in the first place. It's not about "protecting the children". It's about the "status quo" and how to maintain it. Those at the top of world governments fear the normalization of "pedophilia", so they have to project that fear onto their own citizens and societies to keep under control.
If people would revolt without the laws then that speaks strongly for the cultural drift hypothesis. Sadly, I have to agree that is likely. I don't know who burned John Grisham's books but am guessing it was men rather than your stereotypical feminist. The laws really are a reflection of the cultural insanity, not imposed top-down, so we just have to wait for that insanity to pass.
Berge, furthering my adventures in understanding female sexuality, I've decided to do my own "witch-hunt" type of rant stylized to yours (in the form of writing) after discovering a particularly heartbreaking article on why men are more vilified than women for the most benign of encounters.
Enter "The Persecution and Demonization of Christopher Thomas McKenna".
Article here: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/scottsdale/2016/09/16/former-scottsdale-teacher-and-coach-gets-10-years-prison-sexual-conduct-student/90507784/
After being fascinated by the Zamora case during Covid, I saw a video with a bunch of people facing the same predicament as Zamora. I've always wondered what happened to those individuals, but I've guess I found my answer...at a cost.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnpM4_jXqnQ
McKenna, a sports coach and teacher, was caught in a sexual/romantic relationship with a 17 year old girl. The mum found out and called the police. Let's begin the frenzy, shall we?
"Sexual Predator with no respect", writes one.
Funny, because one of his texts said that he loves her. If didn't respect her, then why he did he confesses his love to her? Notice the loaded language used. It's all going assumptions from here.
Notice how the word "predator" is automatically applied to anyone who had sex with someone below the age of consent or simply violating societal norms? Now, you would think that the word "predator" would applied to...let's say...a serial rapist...going around doing this and that. Nope, it's thrown across the room because society wants to have a scapegoat and needs to unleash their anger to show how wrong it is. Remember...flirting and expressing romantic feelings is considered "predatory" by 21st century American standards. An underage individual expressing his or her affection back has apparently been "groomed".
There's no end. We just don't like it so we want to demonize it to show how "wrong" it is. If there's one word that needs to be abolished from society, it has to be this one due to how politicized it has gotten. Now go watch a David Attenborough documentary and tell where do you see the "predators".
(Continue in the next comment...)
"You groomed her, you manipulated her", said the judge.
Again with the assumptions! What is this? Black magic, sorcery? Hypnosis? Is McKenna some sort of CIA interrogator? A psychologist? Where is the evidence here? There is no legitimate way to prove that someone's mind was "twisted and morphed" into a certain way. It's so metaphysical. Instead, ask the "victim" how she felt. By now, any sane 17 year old girl should be self-aware and old enough to distinguish between a relationship she approves of vs one she doesn't approve of. The "position of trust" is irrelevant because being around a person long enough is going to start stir up some coy. The idea that there this is an increased "power dynamic" because of someone's specific occupation is silly since no one is being forced or threatened. It's just same romantic feelings and "sweet nothings" any other person would express as there's nothing really anyone differentiates about these kinds of relationships with other ones. They just assume "mind games (aka grooming/indoctrination) are involved because the relationship is taboo. All it is just a violation of societal norms. Affairs between coworkers and bosses probably happen all the time, but nobody gives a damn about that. Sex and romance is not hard to comprehend. It's either you want it or you don't. It's doesn't take an entire quantum physics course at Harvard to figure it out. Can you read his mind? Her mind? Please, tell me.
"I see nothing but tragedy in this courtroom."
The only tragedy is the judge's dramaticism, the girl's potential iatrogenic harm, the lengthy sentence given to McKenna, and tears and sobs from his family. Not the crime itself. That's why I've always maintained the philosophy that true evil takes form in the laws themselves, not within the perpetrators. The only victim here is McKenna.
"We need to protect the community from you."
Seriously, they're acting he's gonna break into people's homes or something. We already know that sex offenders have some of the lowest rates of recidivism than any other class of criminal. Yet, criminal justices systems US, UK, etc. don't acknowledge this.
"It's an infection."
Despite being relentlessly called out by it, I see nothing deviant, dysfunctional, or otherwise impairing about his choices. He doesn't need "treatment" or "rehabilitation". Yet our policies are misguided and wasted. The symptom of sex offender treatment is committing a sex offense. It's vague and it's circular. It's more of a political thing, rather than a psychological one. The fact that we our so diligent and adamant to treat sex offenders, yet every other kind of criminal is punished and not treatment heavily implies that we don't understand sex and that we are afraid and disgusted by it. Post September 11th America showed us exactly how punitive and hysterical moral panics can get. The real "treatment" McKenna needed was for his alcoholism, and that's pretty much it. His entire family has been bamboozled by thinking that "rehabilitation" is necessary. It's nothing more than a placebo because you are only given that choice and you must take it and accept it. Little did they know that McKenna got sent to a private prison, which runs on profit, government contracts, and bedspace. It's essentially a business and way for politicians to ejaculate their agendas.
https://corrections.az.gov/central-arizona-correctional-and-rehabilitation-facility-cacrf
10 years and lifetime probation is terrible and for what? Sleeping with a 17 year old girl? Drunk Drivers who run over and kill people get a lesser sentence. Absurd! Bollocks! Rubbish! Whatever you want to call it. Articles like these really cement my burning disdain towards judges and prosecutors.
Thanks for those comments. Not much to add since I can hardly express it better. You provided a more general and universal rant against the sex laws and cultural superstitions than I do when ranting against the female sex offender charade. The way you put it is indeed applicable to men and women alike, who run afoul of these insane laws. The justice system then serves as a rationalization machine for superstition. Concepts like “grooming” and “abuse” and “power dynamic” are IMPOSED on reality as foregone conclusions necessarily following from a few skeletal facts like “teacher” and “17-year-old girl.” Nothing in reality can disprove those conclusions because they are treated as unfalsifiable dogma. And so the same story repeats over and over with more men and women trickling into prison as society is only whipped into a greater frenzy like the latest one led By Elon Musk. Now the idea is that the government is “tyrannical” for not locking up enough “sex offenders” and needs to be overthrown. I realize that it probably would be overthrown if it were any less sex-hostile, so there is really no hope any time soon.
Your welcome. I have so many original insights that I feel like I should write my own book on this entire sex offender hysteria. So much has changed within the last twenty years that I could go on and on about how ill-informed the normies are. Twitter and Reddit are absolute shitstorms. Quora and Youtube are a lot better because there are some people that recognize the sex hysteria, but it's always perfect. You cannot have an intellectual or nuanced conversation regarding sex crimes. It's too emotional! It doesn't fit morals or whatever, which is stupid because morals are arbitrary. It's all bad, deviant and the same and their eyes. The amount of misinformation and disinformation on these platforms is staggering. There's really nowhere else for me to post this online because very few people understand these kinds of topics very well. Like I said, I'm not even a MAP. I'm just flabbergasted by the amount garbage people fall for and I want to educate them, as well as learn something new myself. That's it! I just want to truth. Yes, people have the right to believe whatever they want and form whatever opinion they want. But at the end of the day, it's important they are given the facts, not the propaganda, and then make their decisions.
I stopped believing in the CSA hoax well before reading Rind because I just want found it "off" that CSA is somehow seen as uniquely and dramatically traumatic compared to other forms of abuse simply because it involves sex, which makes people angry. People fail to look at the other factors involve and assume by on what society tells them and their own preconceived notions.
Also, I don't believe that people should be punished for looking/collecting illegal photos/videos as well as having sex with a mature, fully-developed teenager.
It all started not because someone told me, but rather that I decided to suddenly awake from my bed one day and think for myself. I just "woke up" and that was that. Nothing really lead me here (aside from my deep internet digging). It was by manifest and curiosity for knowledge that took down the path.
Though, there are times where I have to take a break from this stuff because it clogging up my mind too much. I get anxiety and distress from reading about the harshness of laws and the Draconian punishments given to sex offenders who don't deserved to be slapped in the face really hard. Cases like the McKenna persecution make be angry and upset because there are no way to stop this sort of trainwreck. Crimes are going down, but punishments are going up. There is no "natural critic" out there. No one is going to challenge the status quo and risk getting devoured alive by lions. Some people just have too much power (like Judges) and they can easily get what they want because of their biases. The criminal justice system in the United States is terrible, not just with sex laws, but a lot of things in general like discorporate sentencing and capital punishment (which I've very much against). Everyone else blows up whenever the word "pedophile" is brought up, but me? I just put my palm in front of my face and shake my head.
It is messages like this that make my activism worth it despite near total marginalization. That I can serve as both inspiration and one of the only remaining venues in for sharing these thoughts publicly. It is also encouraging that you woke up against the CSA panic on your own and without even being a MAP. There must be many more out there who are equally aware but just keep their thoughts to themselves. If we could only reach them we could have a real movement -- or rather they have to find us, like you did; that’s how it works since I ain’t getting any help from algorithms or anything like that.
John Grisham recanted too of course:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-grisham-apologizes-for-child-pornography-comments/
I love it when the war on sex comes full circle like this:
https://archive.is/nQDd1#selection-1593.4-1953.243
A Riverside County sheriff’s deputy who resigned after being arrested on suspicion of soliciting sex from a minor killed himself on Friday, Dec. 20, according to the San Bernardino County Coroner’s Office. Anthony Michael Russo, 52, died by suicide at his home in the mountain community of Arrowbear, the coroner’s death register said.
Russo was arrested on suspicion of sending harmful matter to a minor and attempting to meet a minor for sexual acts on Dec. 11 after the Sheriff’s Special Investigations Bureau received a tip. Russo posted bail that day.
Russo “shared explicit material and communicated his intent to meet with the supposed minor to engage in sexual acts,” a sheriff’s news release said. But Russo was actually communicating with an undercover investigator posing as a 15-year-old.
I see no evidence that the cops see anything wrong with either the laws or their tactics even when they entrap each other though. The survivors just move on to the next sting. No amount of human cost will do it; we have to culturally drift out of this madness like we drifted out of other witch-hunts.
These stings are usually part of these ICAC and other task forces that are backed and funded by states and the federal government. So, even if there are some that disagree with these laws and tactics, there is nothing they can do about these since they are required to do these stings by laws. Afterall, who is going to stand up for a quote-on-quote, "predator", right? It's so stupid. A suicide isn't gonna change or stop these stupid laws. It's all about reaching the quotas and the publicity. Police departments are required to reach a certain number of arrests for a specific crime a year and proclaim they caught "this many predators" or whatever. Same with prosecutors. If they can't prosecute "X" number of people for a type of crime, then their status as a prosecutor essentially becomes worthless. They are basically "creating and manufacturing crime", not stopping it.
But of course, the police aren't gonna sit around, fiddle with their thumbs and wait for something to happen. So they are gonna poke the bear with a stick and punish people for thoughtcrime. Remember that these puritanical, moralistic laws are based upon society's fears regarding sexual deviation.
I guarantee that if you find that article somewhere else, specifically where commentors can congregate (like a Youtube video or a Facebook post) then people would be congratulating his death, saying something like "One less pedophile in the world" or whatever. It's sad, but that's how normies are gonna be. They are brainwashed and take everything reported in the media at face value.
It's in the name of "protecting the children", even though there were no "children" involved. I put the word "children" in quotations because a child (in the eyes of American society) is anyone who under the age of 18.
Death will never do society part. They will crave for more and more to fulfill their shitty, moralistic agendas.
Yeah, armies don't stop fighting just because they take a little "friendly fire." I imagine the police can lose thousands this way and it won't matter. The war on pedophiles is the one war they all agree on across the political spectrum, so we are willing to take bigger losses than Vietnam or Ukraine or you name it. It is a holocaust which will never be named as such in our time because it is just pest control in the eyes of the public.
Tim Ballard, what a scum! First watch this short footage, sends a shiver down your spine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tEqCL1-Ifo
Then peruse the Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Ballard
Same story over and over again. Pedo-hunter turns out to be a real predator. For one I am on the side of the female "victims". The latter are despicable but self-appointed pedo-hunters even more so.
It's unfortunate that we are probably the only ones (Besides Russo's family) that feel sorrow and rage for his death. Same goes with McKenna and all those people who will die in prison because of their porn-collecting habits (and soon the quote-on-quote "child sex traffickers" in AZ under Prop 313). In the eyes of society, no punishment is too harsh or too much when it comes to sex offenses. Wanna give life in prison for sex trafficking and porn? No problem? Wanna slap a school employee with a ten-year prison sentence and lifetime probation for getting in a sexual relationship with someone who is nearly an adult? Also no problem? Wanna declare that having and sex being attracted to mature minors as "evil", yet poke the bear with stick by entrapping individuals who stumble upon such a relationship as "predators", even to the point of suicide? A.O.K.
They are all equally bad, demonic, and morally depraved because they defy the "norms" that society shoves down our throats.
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2025/01/08/college-students-charged-in-catch-a-predator-style-ambush-on-soldier/
Just recently, several college student vigilantes ambushed and attacked a 22 year old man (To Catch a Predator style...remember that God awful show?) who tried to meet up with what he thought was an 18 year old woman. He fled, but not before they assaulted him and called him a "pedophile". All students who took part in the attack have been charged. Talk about keeping adult men from women's softer sides, right? I one hundred percent guarantee that if the decoy was 17 instead and 18, then people would be cheering the vigilantes on. You are completely different person from the moment you are turn 18 on your birthday. It's a magic switch and I'm totally not being sarcastic.
Though, there is sympathy for the victim (as he served in the military), but that won't even change a thing. The hysteria train is stopping anytime soon.
If society's obsession with age gaps are so stringent to the point where even the smallest of gaps can make someone's blood boil, then the sexual hysteria and pedophile panic is getting worse. To call one a pedophile because of a small age gap shows how truly retarded, brainwashed and angry some people are. It doesn't surprise me, but "pedophilia" isn't very popular and we all know that. Nothing is going to change, and as I much as I want to be wrong on that notion, vigilantes and cruel judges will continue to prevail. As for criminal justice system reform in the United States, the only change that is occurring is for leniency on low-level drug offenses, not crimes against "children". Criminal justice system reformation doesn't benefit politicians and campaigners because the ones that express sympathy for convicted felons aren't the ones getting votes since they are too "soft on crime".
Well said. All of this persecution is okay to people. Being a pedophile is the gold standard for evil you can be, and it remains the gold standard when we move the age gap down to one millisecond between 17 and 18. This proves to me that the pedophile panic never had any substance to begin with, when it referred to prepubescent children either, because remember, this unhinged intensity of panic started AFTER we pushed the definition of child up to 18. It’s all a frenzy against a platonic ideal of the supreme evil; nothing to do with reality. Reality can only disappoint someone who believes in ideal evil, which is why the mob never bothers to check if the pedophile was involved with (or more commonly just fantasized about) a 17-year-old or a 5-year-old. Both of these are disappointments compared to the supreme evil the lynch mob believes in. The only way to maintain the illusion of supreme evil is to abstract it from reality to where only the empty category of “pedophile” remains. The accusation is thus reduced to pointing a finger, since only such an abstract act can produce pure, unmitigated hate.
The 22 year old soldier case is another example of feminism gone wild. Look at the ages of the psychotic immature little babies who attacked him, all 17-20, mostly sexually frustrated, clueless males being manipulated by the c*nts in the group. They are the result of a profitable abuse industry brainwashing since birth, that has perfected the art of denying sex to men, and directing the resulting sexual frustration onto enemies of feminists, aka, any man who decides to have sexual agency and pursue a woman, especially if it is a younger woman.
The sex jealousy the abuse industry has created is historic, to the point young people are acting like complete killjoy f*ggots. The males are jealous of any man who pursues the girls they want, they don't understand girls at all, and they're willing to direct their frustration against other men at the command of women.
The females are happy to create drama to increase their own sexual value and power over men, plus they are jealous of a man's sexual agency. Girls also want to make it a contest to see if the man with sexual agency is strong enough to defeat the beta simps she sends to attack him, therefore, she's found an alpha that she wants to f*ck.
Girls are twisted, and jealous male baby boy simps are the most detestable creatures in the world.
anon69
Berge, how much do you believe in iatrogenic harm/victimology?
The state is obviously cruel to supposed victims too. Taking their lovers away, sometimes taking children from parents, fake “therapy” to tell them they are victims for healthy relationships and so on are awful things. But that’s not really what we mean by iatrogenic victimology. There is something deeper to this concept as it is commonly talked about and cited as a supposed reason it is unethical to have illegal sex with minors, namely harm resulting from an internalized idea of fake victimhood.
And this is where I disagree. Or at least, I feel we have to muster the same skepticism that we do for the supposed harm of CSA. Just as I have seen no convincing evidence for all the magical or invisible ways CSA is supposed to be harmful, I can’t think of any for iatrogenic harm either. By all means fill me in if I am missing something, but I don’t think we have a reason to believe in it. Usually iatrogenic harm would be evident in the same data which is supposed to show CSA is harmful, and since they can’t even do that convincingly when including all the iatrogenic stuff, why should I believe in iatrogenic harm? For example Rind’s studies would catch iatrogenic harm too. In the surveys of positive or negative recall rates they don’t exclude negative recollections for iatrogenic reasons, and still there is nothing significant to it.
That said, it seems plausible that the nocebo effect has some validity. But I don’t think it is stronger than the placebo effect. You can’t cure serious illness with the placebo effect, and I don’t think you can cause serious illness, including mental problems, with the nocebo effect either. You can’t cause cancer or schizophrenia or anything like that with nocebo. Plus, how often do fake victims truly believe they are victims? Most of the time, the sole reason for claiming victimhood is to get money. The second most common reason is to get attention which is also an obvious ulterior motive. Beyond that, I don’t think they much believe in it, for the moist part. And with no belief, there is no nocebo effect either, which would be mild anyway when present.
So in conclusion and until I see good evidence, I believe iatrogenic harm is bullshit. If you want to use the term so broadly that that it includes any use of force by the state against “victims” then I believe in that part, but not much beyond that. I do not buy into any kind of moralism against having illegal sex due to the risk of iatrogenic harm, since that claim usually relies on black magic which just as nebulous as the harm citied for CSA in the mainstream.
https://www.nrk.no/sorlandet/xl/linnea-var-14-da-hun-ble-kjaereste-med-en-mann-pa-over-40-1.17171859
There's a screenshot of a message he sent her. He seems genuine. Poor guy... I can only imagine his pain.
This is horrifying, really. It lays bare how blind the average person is to their biases, how incapable of reason they are when confronted with something outside their paradigm.
Yeah, a case like this poignantly underscores the fact that ours is the fight between good and evil. We are fighting an evil monoculture which is so entrenched and totalitarian that my voice is barely allowed to exist. We are fighting an evil culture which is so internalized that most men will parrot this hate against ourselves up to and including apparent dissenters like Robert Lindsay, who just published an excellent blog post against sting operations, as far as that goes:
https://beyondhighbrow.substack.com/p/a-whole-lot-of-nothing-about-british
But he cannot bring himself to say that sex between adult men and young teens should be legal. He is part of the problem, and no one listens to his moderate opposition anyway.
Well, I don’t pander to the normies at all. I don’t care that this is now called pedophilia and “pedocriminality” as this example from a Norwegian blog calls it:
https://steigan.no/2025/01/pedokriminalitet-fra-vondt-til-verre-for-labour/
And these people at Steigan.no are supposed to be freethinking and critical of those in power, and imagine that they are doing just that by criticizing the government for not being pedohysterical enough.
You can’t make up a better example of “controlled opposition” if you tried… even though nobody is controlling them but cultural drift which has infested their thinking with pedophilia as the supreme evil.
Nor do I pander to the old MRAs such as the AF who still want to be “good guys” under the same morality and are therefore terrified of being called pedophiles even though that’s the first word which springs to the normie mind about their position, which is to say that’s what the word most definitely means now.
I don’t know another way to make it clear that I am on the other side, that I am actually, substantially against the evil monoculture, than to identify as a proud pedophile. But even that is not registering. No one bats an eyelid because they are so consumed by the pedo panic that they evidently can’t parse the concept of pedoactivism. We are so far from what they are expecting that they literally can’t read it. It doesn’t fit the script at all and thus can’t be read no matter how clearly I try to put it. They are so used to the supremely evil pedophiles of their imagination not identifying as pedophiles, but denying any and all accusations, that they literally can’t see us, even to get angry about us. A proud pedophiles is just not part of the landscape.
That’s my experience anyway. I would love to be proven wrong and get some public debate going where I can be heard, but so far I am getting crickets.
So that’s my theory anyway, of why we can’t be noticed as activists and indeed the opposite happens and proud pedophiles are ignored even in the height of hysterical accusations against just about anyone. A little tongue-in-cheek, but there is truth to it. There is no more room beyond the supreme evil of all these supposed pedophiles who rule the world for activists to fit in. The hate is already maxed out against someone like Ivor Caplin or Keir Starmer or any of those guys who would never dream of doing any activism or admitting to be pedos, so when a bona fide pedophile activist such as myself comes along there is no place for me in the normie worldview, or even the “extremist” worldview of the ostensible opposition like Elon Musk or Paul Steigan.
And who can blame them, when so few MAP activists dare to use their real name and so associate their opinions with any social proof? It is almost true that there are no activists. I am like the gorilla in the famous experiment whom nobody pays attention to. Here I am waving my opinion as a proud pedophile around like that gorilla and being equally ignored, because people are conditioned to think there are no gorillas in the urban environment. The possibility of a proud pedophile, who is openly and sincerely advocating for sex with minors is so slim that the normie vision is not equipped to see him.
To change that, we need to come out in numbers! I can’t do this alone!
Eivind, if you are finding it hard to get attention, you should join B4U-ACT, and ask to be listed on their website, maybe as an official Norway representative. Their leaders get alot of hate mail and death threats, and your presence there could drive traffic to your blog.
anon69
But B4U-ACT is a "non-offending" organization. They fit the normie script of what pedophiles are supposed to do, which is to grovel before the laws with no suggestion that they need to be changed, and everything they do is centered around this idea that it is pedophiles who have a problem rather than society. Even if I could get attention that way I don't want to be associated with that ideology because it wouldn't be attention to what I honestly am.
In the final analysis there is but one hero I look up to who is currently living: Tom O'Carroll. He got the name of his blog and concept right: we are heretics. A non-heretical organization is not for me.
Being a heretic sounds pretty tame in these ungodly days until you realize that the de facto religion of our times is the CSA panic which prescribes as a mandatory belief that sexuality is harmful to minors. Going against that is the only heresy that is criminally prosecuted, which proves CSA dogma is the official religion of this culture, with an inquisition as fearsome as any historically. Sure there are other holy cows such as the trans ideology which also has unreasonable protections, but you have to engage in some degree of hateful speech to run afoul of those.
With “sexualization” of minors you can be perfectly loving and it is still a crime. This alone fits the true meaning of heresy in contemporary culture, and that is what I represent. I only want to associate with other heretics and waste no time promoting a message which is so diluted that it doesn’t even have a homeopathic dose of heresy, which sadly is my impression of organizations like B4U-ACT. I am sure the people behind it secretly agree with me and only present it that way to get funding, but it’s a really bad public image nonetheless.
As far as I know, they are not a "non-offending" organization. They simply don't take a position on the issue ("before you act" concerns bot MAPs and therapists).
Not taking a position on the laws means tacitly agreeing with them. The name reeks of non-offending even if it is mitigating if it also applies to getting therapy and then warns against evil therapists (which is all of them in many or most countries as they have a duty to report you). And even so, the focus on therapy is distasteful because it implies that it is MAPs who need to be fixed rather than that elephant in the room which they refuse to take an issue on.
MAPs should not be more likely to need therapy than anyone else. But I agree that given that a MAP wants therapy, then they should think hard about finding a good one.
That's a ridiculously flimsy basis for an organization though and anyone associated with them will be assumed to be a "good" MAP who is only focused on self-hate (and still deserves death in the eyes of the public of course).
Berge, one doesn't need to be "proud pedophile" or "activist" to recognize the absurdity of the sex panic. I figured that out on my own by not letting the sensationalist media and society control my thinking. But according to those chronically-online assholes who've ostracized and made assumptions about me, you have to be the "scum of the Earth" to stand up against the draconian and extreme punishments against child porn, student-teacher relationships, human "trafficking", victimless sex stings, and other "Scarlet-Letter-bearing" actions.
Nobody wants to listen and nobody wants to care. There is no room for nuance, intellectual discussion, or anything sort of detraction of any kind. You either are "us" or the "enemy". No in-between. Afterall, why would or should anyone "care" about the rights of a convicted child molester? It doesn't matter how exaggerated, scientifically incorrect, politically illogical, or economically flawed the hysteria surrounding sexuality is. The Boogeymen (and Boogeywomen) of our modern society must remain locked in a cage and hanged above the scaffolding (in the eyes of the normies).
Bruce Rind and colleagues scientifically disproved the "trauma" of CSA. Susan Clancy discovered it by accident. John Grisham expressed his uncertainty and disdain for the severity of child porn laws. Judith Levine wrote positively about childhood sexuality and exploration, as well as powerfully lambasting the religious right and the progressive, liberal, anti-rape feminists for shaping what she described as the "pedophile panic".
With that, they've all got their reputations destroyed. They got "cancelled". They got looked down on. They were forced to stare down at their shoes and reflect and confront their existentialist nature for trying to defy the status quo. Society fought back by branding these "detractors" with their "comeuppance" and relished by renouncing and savoring their efforts of "safety" and "protection" in the name of "justice".
What brought me here wasn't because of my inability and refusal to hand holds and sing Kumbaya with their "sheepology". It was my superpower of original thought. As I said earlier, I'm not a MAP. Neither am I a "pedophile" (political or otherwise). All of the people I've dated were adult women. Teen girls are completely out of the picture because of how infantilized they are. They are "untouchable". They are the red line you do not cross. They are minefield one should not wander into. Society will continue to label every boundary-cross and power dynamic as "grooming" or other stupid nomenclature, even though that isn't something you can scientifically r legitimately prove out of someone. That word will forever be an "assumption" in my eyes. Lazy and rhetorical.
I'm a good-looking, socioeconomically-stable young man who just got fed with the sex offender charade and society's close-mindedness. Nearly everyday, I hear people online and in the news figuratively pointing fingers and calling everything unusual around them "pedophilic", much like the witches, religious dissidents, heretics, and communists of the past. Low and behold, after months of research, reading, and digging for truth, I wound up in this blog because of my need to find a place to peacefully share my intellectual insights.
Berge, one doesn't need to be "proud pedophile" or "activist" to recognize the absurdity of the sex panic.
I totally agree, though it seems unlikely that that anyone will speak out publicly these days without being willing to be identified as one of those. Being an activist against the sex laws is my calling in life, so I know I am special even among those who are awakened to the madness of it all.
I wouldn’t be so sure about teen girls being out of the picture for you. They are easy to fall in love with, you know, and then you won’t care that they are “untouchable.” They are only infantilized to the extent that we infantilize them, and I for one don’t engage in that.
I had a girlfriend for many years who was 24 when we met, and then after we broke up I started dating teens again in my 40s! My experience is that teen girls really do have an extra level of beauty beyond “adult” women (in reality both are adults of course as the real transition is puberty), even if you think you are satisfied with slightly older, which I pretty much thought too when I was your age. They are certainly not more mentally immature either. That is purely mythical. The key word as to what teen girls have to offer is PASSION. Yes, you can fall in love with a 25-year-old woman and maybe even a 35-year-old, but a teen girl can also make you feel like you are falling in love for the first time. It is every bit as intense and special. Turns out it was only being with older women that made me feel old (so far).
So never say never. Robert Lindsay is still rocking the teen attraction in his 60s!
https://beyondhighbrow.substack.com/p/an-essential-aspect-of-the-feminine
You would not believe the situations women and even girls have tried to rope me into even in the last couple of years: 1. Mother-daughter bisexual team with 16 year old underage Teenage daughter (!). 2. Sister-sister team with 14 year old sister (!). 3. Requests by formerly molested pedo Moms for me to come live with them and molest their prepubescent daughter because Mom enjoyed getting molested and thinks the girl needs to get molested too WTF (!). 4 . 15 year old bisexual teenage child porn stars asking to come up and visit me (!!!)
His negativity to all these propositions is such a downer, but I guess that’s the only way you can get away with writing about them.
I too would have turned down this one though:
5. 58 year old woman who want to move in with me and have me pimp her out to other men or share her with all my friends, keeping all the money for myself of course.
But it goes to show that something like the Pelicot case may not be all the “rape” it is made out to be.
And yes, I believe Lindsay is at least mostly telling the truth. Because my own experiences are not THAT far removed either.
Once again Google has been messing with comments and moving several in this thread to spam after I approved them. I think I was able to restore them all now; if I am wrong, feel free to repost.
Digressing a little here. DeepSeek is now available as an alternative to ChatGPT. It works a bit differently and is worth a try. However it fails miserably when I ask it "what kind of sex activist is Eivind Berge?". It confuses Eivind with a "Norwegian artist and illustrator .. who often explores themes of human sexuality". Totally wide off the mark! When I feed the same question into ChatGPT the answer is spot on! So ChatGPT passes the test, DeepSeek doesn't.
With regards to censorship by tech moguls and their platforms, I've decided to heavily relinquish back on my devil's advocacy and criticism within mainstream social media sites. I've already faced an angry mob of pitchfork and torch-wielding maniacs, so I'm essentially already made myself the "bad guy". I talked to some individuals in the past who abosutely agreed with me and supported my negative critique on sex offenders laws, but they either moved on or have since lost contact. There's practically no one left to have a discussion with besides the people in this blog. That's why I'm here.
With that being said, I've made it my mission to publish a book on the overarching and ubiquitous sex panic. There will be the day the truth will be uncovered and that will my future book. There is support out there, but because of the spiral of silence, less people will be willing to speak out, but we do exist. You just have to find us. I've really got nothing left to lose at the moment, aside from my own embarrassment of course. I was so outward, that I'm surprised that I lasted as long as I did. Others were very hostile to my opinions, which is unfortunate. They can't think for themselves. Nobody seems to get it. They hear ubiquitous phrases like "sex offender" and "child porn" and imagine some greasy, old, fat men aggressively raping and torturing little kids in an underground facility, which couldn't be further from the truth. We all know that most offenders are not pedophiles, but that's largely used as a "catch-all-term" for anyone caught doing something perceived as "weird", like trying to meet up with a fake 15-16 year old girl, (which is obviously not pedophilia), though will be labeled as such, regardless.
It has to come a point where I need to stand up for myself and for what I believe in, which is why I may go forward with the book idea in mind. Perhaps it might not change very many minds, but if it does convince at least one person, then that's progress in my eyes. I don't care what people's opinions are, they just need to know the truth, despite how cliché that sounds.
Somebody once made a Wikipedia article about me, but it was soon removed by haters with the justification that I am not notable enough. It will be sad but wouldn’t surprise me if the same happens with AI. I half expect the next version of ChatGPT to answer “There is no one notable by that name” when asked about me. Even though its own training data is testament to the fact that I am notable enough. For a brief moment, what we write here had its rightful place in our cultural consciousness as reflected in the large language models, but you have to expect the censors to descend on this “loophole” as well.
Anonymous, I would encourage you to definitely write your book! We can publish it on the MRA Archive if nothing else ( https://mra-archive.com/ ). This reminds me that I should write a book myself too or at least a manifesto which I have been long intending to. I have already done the hard work except it’s scattered all across my blog and I need to edit it into a compendium of the best parts.
A book by you would be great Eivind. You should include the facts about your arrest and what led up to it, the court case, the weeks in jail, your lawyer, the media, your tv-performance, cancelled debates, Breivik etc. And then diverge into writing about sexualism and anti feminism. That way it will be interesting for more people that are not necessary into sexualism or anti feminism in the first place.
Looking forward to it, really. But dont rush it, but make it into a masterpiece.
That's a great idea. Also include the Spanish woman who you banged through FertileDating but who had a miscarriage. You could describe how it felt to see her naked on the bed after 18 months of religious NoFap. There could be some funny moments too. Like you could describe how it was freezing in the cabin when you were making the naked YouTube shower videos.
I think the feeling of 'specialness' that leads to the false identification of 'MAP', 'ephebophile', or even 'paedophile', is probably related to this curious need for EVERYBODY here to have a theory, or even to write their own book.
"...whom" you banged
Jack, I’m assuming you watched “Sound of Freedom”, aye? Probably? The film did not sit right with me.
So this is “Stargate”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uNqvYfXnFQ
President Trump announces $500 billion investment in AI Infrastructure project.
AI is clearly still "the next great thing." But how is this different from bitcoin mining, I wonder? I remember when I filled my house up with GPUs to mine bitcoin and how useless it ultimately was aside from speculative investments which I also ended up missing out on because I had to sell too soon. It seems to me that "AI" is the new politically correct packaging for an excuse to "invest" in computer hardware (and ridiculously wasteful energy to run it) which probably ends up being only marginally more useful than bitcoin miners in terms of any real-world utility. Complete with the need to “compete” with China too at producing soon to be useless junk. Sure, it makes these grifters richer (never mind that they are already billionaires). But is it really a good idea for the government to invest in? Or anybody really serious about producing anything of value?
One “promise” of AI they mention is to detect cancer earlier. Yeah, as if screening does anything good? We already have too much of that and it makes us no healthier, often the reverse.
That said, as long as ChatGPT gives a straight answer to who I am, Sam Altman is not all that bad. But when that ends and I’m not allowed to exist on his platform either, I will put him in the same category as Elon Musk.
Remember back in the day when you wanted to find some information, you would search Google and usually find what you were looking for within a few seconds? AI is only impressive if we forget that we could do the same with search. Now with an added risk of hallucinations and the only pragmatic benefit that schoolchildren can pass it off as their own essay with less risk of being caught plagiarizing.
Is this really worth investing half a trillion dollars in like Trump is now boasting or is it just another mining scheme that we are currently blind to because of all the hype?
At the end of all that “infrastructure investment” we are probably left with a chatbot which is only better at suppressing politically incorrect information like the truth about the sex panic. Better then that the hype just ends.
Apparently some good news from Iraq which defies the global trend towards ever more draconian antisex laws. It's a bit unclear, but the marriage age might have been lowered from 18 to 9, which is nothing short of a complete reversal of feminism in that respect!
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/21/middleeast/iraq-child-marriage-lawmakers-criticize-bill-intl-hnk/index.html
Iraqi law currently sets 18 as the minimum age of marriage in most cases. The changes passed Tuesday would let clerics rule according to their interpretation of Islamic law, which some interpret to allow marriage of girls in their early teens – or as young as 9 under the Jaafari school of Islamic law followed by many Shiite religious authorities in Iraq.
"assuming that you watched"...
"One “promise” of AI they mention is to detect cancer earlier. Yeah, as if screening does anything good? We already have too much of that and it makes us no healthier, often the reverse."
Seriously, wtf are you even talking about here? Stuff like this only makes you look even more like a weirdo to anybody outside of the bubble of special people here.
I just watched my brother slowly die in agony from colon cancer because he refused to get scans or colonoscopies, despite knowing we had a genetic risk. Went to his funeral last week. The only reason I'm still alive is because I did get checked and they found a 3cm polyp before it turned into a tumour.
Seriously man. You think no harm will come of publicly identifying as a paedophile and giving your location away. Now you're saying health scans do more harm than good. Seriously, know thyself Eivind before it costs you your life. At this point, somebody like Jack needs to be telling you to look after yourself, as I know you won't hear it from me.
What I am saying about screening is increasingly uncontroversial. The more it is studied, the less benefit is found and more harm. Doctors don't even recommend that women check their breasts anymore at least not until they are 50 since it did does more harm than good. A lot of women were mutilated for no good reason when screening was uncritically recommended.
If you know you have special risk factors like family history, then it's not really screening and may be different. But even then, it is unclear if early detection can really prevent many deadly cancers and the healthy thing to do is to be skeptical at first, then maybe change your opinion based on your specific situation, but certainly not hysterically applaud more screening like you do.
Any benefit from AI supposedly "detecting" cancer earlier for us will be miniscule at best (in terms of all-cause mortality, which is extremely hard to beat no matter how many specific cancers you prevent) and most likely lead to more harmful overtreatment overall. The problem with any test which "detects" cancer is that there will always be false positives which cause needless worry and possible iatrogenic harm and AI will make this worse.
You do not know if your polyp would have turned malignant, nor do you know if early detection could have saved your brother, and it is foolish to have absolute faith in such. When that faith turns in to telling everyone to get screened regardless of risk factors it becomes positively harmful at the population level.
It certainly bucks the trend if true, which it appears to be.
CNN obviously doesn't like it, but if it were somehow somewhere in the Anglosphere, it would be treated like it was the end of the world by the entire media. The reduction in age is actually huge, but imagine if some State in the US lowered the marriage age even by a year or two, it would still be treated almost as the end of the world.
The article states that the vote wasn't valid because there weren't enough MP's present. I'm no expert on Iraqi politics, but I do know enough about politics in general to know that parliaments can sometimes break their own laws. It all depends on the vibe at the time whether a legislature can get away with that. The speaker is in favour of the change, FWIW.
Finally, perhaps the new law only secures what has previously been tolerated discreetly. It would still be quite a change of course.
-Anonymous 2
AI is not really about knowledge retrieval as we are wont to believe because that's the use we have for it at individual level. At corporate and government level, AI is about replacing jobs. No more jobs, no more labour costs, no more labour, no more trade-unions and strikes. That's why it's considered worth investing in.
Trump said something intelligent (for once...)
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/trump-says-he-cant-call-waitresses-beautiful-as-it-will-end-his-political-career-netzens-fume-you-just-can-t-be-a-101737963378891.html
Yes, being the most powerful man in the world is not sufficient to beat the political correctness which says you are "creepy" for calling young women beautiful, particularly with an age gap. But he says it anyway by saying he will not say it, which is the rhetorical device known as apophasis.
"You used to be able to say a young beautiful waitress,” Trump said. “This was a young beautiful waitress but I will not say that because I want to continue my political career. If you call a woman beautiful today, it is the end of your political career so I will not do it.”
"I think you can call her young. You are probably not even supposed to say young. You are probably supposed to say a waitress,” he added.
Trump is actually a great orator. And his energy is impressive at an age when one is supposed to be retired. Not sure why he needs to keep doing rallies though when he is already president. Anyway, it will take more than this to end his political career at this point, so he can afford to inject some honesty about feminism. He can't go all the way and be a MAP activist, however.
What did you expect from a President who supports stuff like Anna Paulina Luna and Nancy Mace?
Too bad for Matt Gaetz. His career is definitely toast after what those accusations are currently entailing. Now, the liberal fanatics are labeling him as a "pedophile", which goes to show that this zombie virus of hatred towards sexuality reaches far and wide, regardless of political affiliation or ideology. It got me contemplating: Have we reached a new low in our society by believing that having sex with a 17-year-old girl is somehow a "crime against humanity"? Think back to the case with that coach Chris McKenna (Yes, I'm going to keep mentioning his case because his case keeps me up at night). The judge referred to what I perceive as a loving, wholesome, and willing relationship between a mature teenage girl and her track coach, a "tragedy". Yeah...it doesn't get better from here. The band-aid has already been peeled off. Whether or not those accusations from the ethic committee report about Gaetz have a grain of truth to them doesn't matter because everything and anything that detracts from societal norms is now considered "pedophilia" by modern standards. Yes, the dreaded word that has ruined so many lives because of it's finger-pointing power. There will be many others like Gaetz who will face philosophical repercussions over sexuality right when their internal kingdoms are starting collapse. What a way to fall.
One might think that moral panics are the result of excessive conservativism, but I wholeheartedly disagree on that. Just go on Reddit and every time you see the word "pedophile" enshrined within a conversation or post, expect a pack of savagery in the replies. Speaking from personal experience, don't even bother to trying to spark a nuanced discussion. You'll be flayed alive and your flesh peeled away. Stay away from Reddit. I learned that the hard way.
Libtard Reddit is a bacteria breeding ground of the most vicious, vile, hatred towards Donald Trump. Their front page bestows this exact kind of derangement with comment after comment encapsulating the seether by comparing the American president to the reigns of Adolf Hitler. I'd say, if anything, the liberals are in a moral panic over fascism. They can't get enough of the label, including the ever-so finger pointer title that is the word "pedophile". A household word, if you will. A buzzword, if you please, overused in likes of "racist", "homophobic", "nazi", whereby their meanings and usage have become so dull, that people don't even know what they are even saying anymore.
Reddit's frantic, running-around-the-street hysteria over "nazis" and fascism" is amusing, to say the least. When election night came and he won, the entire front page became silent. Not even crickets could be heard. And yet, low and behold, back to where they were a few days later, their Trump-bashing never stopped.
From racism to Nazism, the 45th and 47th president has been accused of all sorts of nonsense. It's been no surprise to me that his likeminded critics have been raging in their fiery fervor about him for years. The word "rape" has been thrown around, after it been known for years that certain accusations (albeit baseless ones) have been made against him. Shocking! A famous individual has been accused of rape! Oh wow, something that never happened before. Something that has been least expected.
Sarcasm aside, Trump's involvement with the sexual abuse of a women by the name of "E. Jean Carroll" is not short of anti-Trump rhetoric. While a civil jury found him liable, he was never found guilty in a court of law.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-was-donald-trump-found-guilty-rape-1799935
I can go and go disproving Carroll's claims, yet Trump himself has already denied such an accusation. So, moral of the story: It doesn't matter if you support Trump or not. If you are a famous male figure, expect a high possibility of a "rape" allegation being made against you, statutory or otherwise.
Everything and anything that detracts from societal norms is now considered "pedophilia" by modern standards.
Yes, that’s the gist of it. Pedophilia is just a synonym for illegal sex and beyond into violating any current cultural expectations about age gaps, or simply attitudes to age gaps or daring to call a woman beautiful when you are “too old” for her. The concept is usually devoid of anything a reasonable person would be morally concerned with and at the same time the strongest moral condemnation one can make, the gold standard for how evil you can be. It is even a “tragedy” and crime against humanity to have a loving relationship a 17-year-old as you note, because of this empty conceptual labeling as pedophilia which supersedes anything that actually matters to people.
When I got into men’s rights activism 25 years ago and saw this hysteria developing, I thought men would become proud pedophiles when enough of our natural attraction is labeled that way. That turned out to be my least prescient prediction, because I am the only one who is doing it. Matt Gaetz is cowering is sycophancy to the supposed morality of our times despite losing everything, which is the template for how every single accused man acts. They simply cannot think outside of that box. This is why pedophiles are the only ones I respect anymore, and I mean real pedophiles like Tom O’Carroll, because they turned out to be the only men with integrity. All the rest don’t dare to admit that they like the kind of girls they do just because it is illegal. This was not apparent a couple of decades ago, but now it is. There is zero spine to the “normal” male attraction because it was a pushover to changing cultural norms. So I want to be like the pedophiles politically and be one of them, who dared to stand up for their natures even when it was truly deviant. Now we are all deviants just for liking 17-year-old girls, and there is zero increase in political opposition to being thus labeled or doing anything about the excessive criminalization and cancellations. It is a surreal situation and I know the time for my kind of activism has not arrived because it is perfectly futile in this Zeitgeist, but it is the right thing to do, so I must do it.
The most frustrating thing right now is that I feel the very concept of opposition to pedohysteria is slipping from mainstream reach. I am like the invisible gorilla in the room who cannot be noticed no matter how loudly I scream that I’m a proud pedophile who actually does not believe in the antisex myths and values and laws. In a way, being ignored to this extent is worse than being hunted by a pack of vigilantes or the police, because it is as if we don’t even exist. Notice that the ways one gets labeled as a pedophile are also formulaic and ritualistic: either be caught with child porn or accused of abuse or caught up in a sting or being already famous and then cancelled for some mildly, preferably inadvertently sex-positive speech (which is always followed by an apology too) -- being a political activist against the sex laws is NOT a way “pedophiles” are made, because there can’t be any activists against the hysteria for it to work maximally. Thus I can’t get any attention for being an activist and neither can anyone else, no matter how hard we try by any method I can think of.
The impossibility of self-accusation seems to be a feature of moral panics that I’ve discovered. In theory it should be so easy to be the thing they fear just by identifying as such, but in practice there are rituals one has to go through. And criticizing the moral panic is not one of them, because a moral panic believes itself to be absolute truth, with which no human being could take issue. So you’d better become a witch or pedophile or whatever by one of the ritualistic means prescribed by the moral panic. A blogger accusing himself of being the very highest level of heretic is not interesting in the slightest.
So, Deepseek is all the rage now. Supposedly just as good as ChatGPT for a small fraction of the cost. However, Jack's test at knowing who I am, which it failed, indicates it might not be so great anyway. Perhaps the Chinese have managed to fool us with their supposed wizardry and this is not a "Sputnik moment" for the West anyway. Either that, or they are even more politically correct than Silicon Valley.
I am enjoying all the self-important rich guys losing money though. They were way too overvalued at any rate.
Notice also that Bitcoin is not going down, which suggests it might be stronger than all the stocks during bad times.
We are not afraid to say we love young girls because we are men. Thus, we are the western heterodoxy. F*ck the west. And f*ck anyone in the East who wants to impose the same oppression.
anon69
All moral panics eventually play themselves out. And just because we typically don't see direct results of our activism, it doesn't follow that it has no effect. Lenin famously remarked that "there are decades in which nothing happens and then weeks in which decades happen," but of course subterranean changes during the first are what make the second possible, and these include minds changed by activism.
Funny thing is, though, that Gaetz isn't doing too badly for himself. He now has his own TV show with big names like Rudolf Giuliani and Marjorie Taylor Green as regulars. Maybe you can survive being called a paedo, albeit in relation to a 17-y-o girl.
Further on the subject of politics, the whole dynamic of how Trump's behaviour is perceived compared with Biden's is weird.
Trump can talk about grabbing women on the p*ssy and the media is in a fit of rage, Biden borderline gropes women and girls and the same people don't care. Most of Trump's supporters make a big deal out of it, but it never seems to get noticed at all by liberals. I don't really care either, but then Trump compliments a young attractive waitress and that makes him a creep. Do people have any self-awareness?
Perhaps it's due to Trump having a certain sex appeal compared to Biden. Biden is bland, but Trump has a certain charisma. I know both of them are as old as the hills, but Biden is also bland LOOKING (plus is incontinent, it must be added), whereas Trump has a certain swagger and a somewhat imposing physical presence. Sure he's ugly, but some would consider him handsome as well as ugly.
So we have this guy secretly desired by millions of liberal women versus a nondescript fellow who, while not being the biggest mangina possible, has nonetheless played the game.
That's why the liberal bitches and their male cohorts don't care about Biden groping women and girls. It's because lib women don't want him themselves so their protective instincts go AWOL.
They react to much less from Trump because they secretly desire him themselves.
Meanwhile, another phantom paedo bust-
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/former-us-government-advisor-flew-173304635.html .
-Anonymous 2
Yeah similarly there's a faint hope that the anti-woke backlash precipitated by Trump's election can nudge public opinion in the right direction. On the other hand, we must be prepared to see Trump call for the death penalty on pedophiles and "traffickers".
Anonymous 2, how accurate are these descriptions in media articles relating to police stings? They always say that the perpetrator likes them “younger” or whatever. They can’t all be pedophiles, but is there is any underlying truth that media frequently distorts or blows it out of proportion. Like seriously? How are these “perpetrators” so “open” about what they want whenever the media reports on these stings, despite the fact that we never see any actual photographs of the messages or conversations that took place? To me, it’s like a game of telephone. I need more information. How much of what was quoted was overgeneralized into “vagueness” and whatnot?
Whenever I have looked closer at police stings I’ve always learned details that make the police look even worse, such as first making a profile of an 18-year-old and then changing their age in private conversation. It’s no wonder they don’t usually publish this information. And indeed this is the only way they can entice plenty of men because the dating sites and social media are pretty good at weeding out the kind of profile the cops will have us believe the men responded to, usually before they even go live. I guarantee you the cops or vigilantes either don’t have the patience to make a believable profile of a minor which is so unsexualized that it will survive moderation and wait for men to take the bait; no, they always go for efficiency so they can announce a big catch of dozens of men in a short time.
Anyway, no matter how it’s done, these stings are just a ritual. Think of testing if a witch will sink or float and that sort of thing. It is either rigged to convict whomever they want or casting such a wide net that they just select men randomly.
Ostensibly a sting determines “attempt” at meeting an underage girl. However, this is an attempt at something impossible, which shouldn’t be a crime by an reasonable standard even if you believed in the laws. And even if the girl were real it would still be entrapment which shouldn’t be a crime either. Again, it’s just a ritual, which does not exist because it makes sense but because there are certain formulaic motions one must go through to keep up the charade. You don’t need a sting to ascertain that for example I would hook up with a 15-year-old girl given a chance. I have said so repeatedly and this information is every bit as accurate as anything you can get out of a sting, yet the cops and vigilantes have no interest in that or anything I write here because it does not fit the ritualistic format for their witch-hunt. The ritual is the point; it must be the “correct” way to identify a witch because otherwise it would be apparent that they are just targeting random men or that their ideology is challenged if they come for me. Once we snap out of the moral panic we will see how insane it was all along.
In the witch-swimming ritual you were supposed to sink like a stone if you are innocent; only witches float. Which is to say you have to resist your impulse to swim to stay alive and drown instead. I guess a “normal” person does not have much of a survival instinct while drowning. Since witches were believed to have spurned the sacrament of baptism, it was thought that the water would reject their bodies and prevent them from submerging like the normies supposedly do. Additionally you would be bound, so it’s rigged in more ways too to ensure the witch-hunters are always right. If you reach the surface on your own you are a witch and if not then you are at their mercy to maybe save you, because obviously you would want to trust these fine witch-hunters with your life.
In the “15-year-old girl talks to you on the internet” ritual, you are supposed to not be attracted to her, because that’s what a “normal” person does. Which is to say it’s every bit as natural as passing the sinking test because that’s what normies do, they don’t have any reaction to girls under the magic age of 18 any more than they would try to swim to save their lives from drowning :)
No wonder we need very special rituals to establish the “facts” here, because it would be too painfully obvious that it applies to everyone if we just looked at real life. Only the cops and vigilantes are especially anointed to perform these rituals, which when the ritual is ongoing assumes a privileged reality which we can “trust” to determine who is a witch. And once thus identified, which just takes typing that you agree to meet one of these ritualistic girls in a text message, one is a pedo for life and no punishment can be enough.
I marvel and despair that that’s all it takes to be the target of a literal witch-hunt while at the same time I shout the same heresies here all day long and no one bats an eyelid. We are locked in a zombie nightmare with only a few awakened souls who can’t influence the plot at this time. What we do have is the communion of those souls who connect via this blog, but that’s as far as it goes any time soon.
Nigerian “sextortion scammer” who caused a suicide extradited to the US:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/29/us/nigerian-extradited-guffey-sextortion-cec/index.html
To the normies, justice is being served here, but my take is that they are prosecuting the wrong enemy. The scammer simply took advantage of the sex panic. If we got rid of the sex panic there would be no cause to either give them any money or commit suicide over “sextortion” threats. We should promote the idea that everything a sextortion scammer threatens is completely harmless unless we place a misguided belief in such harm. Just like the other kind of Nigerian scammers who claim to make you rich if you only give them some money can only hurt you if you believe in them, there is no need to extradite either of these because the proper solution is to simply quit believing in their empty threats and promises. So what if they share sexual pictures? We should all just shrug that off as a culture and support victims of such scams precisely by doing that, by proving to them that we don’t care about those pictures. Nofappers even actively avoid them for our sexual health.
He’s pleaded not guilty to charges of child exploitation resulting in death, distribution of child sexual abuse material, coercion and enticement of a minor, cyberstalking, interstate threats with intent to extort and aiding/abetting, according to court records.
That sounds so sinister, but in reality it is entirely predicated on the insane belief that sexual pictures are harmful, which we can simply chose to not believe in and then the problem goes away.
But of course the normies won’t take that path until the moral panic burns itself out by cultural drift. Nothing I say can accelerate that. For now, they prefer to maximize the problem even more.
Lawal faces up to life in prison, while the charge of child exploitation resulting in death alone carries a mandatory 30-year sentence. A court may also order he pay restitution for losses incurred by the Guffey family because of the scheme.
This is insane and once again misplaced blame. The death was not caused by “child exploitation” but sex panic which falsely pretends there is sexual exploitation in images. The real villain is the CSA panic with its superstitions that people just can’t look past to entertain any other solution than to ramp up more of the same.
Another (good-looking) female sex offender arrested:
https://news.yahoo.com/news/florida-woman-arrested-alleged-sexual-194431745.html
Note that the comments are mostly of the type "I wish that had happened to me when I was at school". Not many comments condemning her.
Good-looking she is. 26-year-old Angel Sexton is yet another victim of the female sex-offender charade. As the comments attest, this is still the thinnest part of the CSA panic, something almost no one truly believes in. So this is where I spend most energy trying to drive a wedge. It is distilled insanity, the metaphysical invalidation of obvious delectation and turning it upside down to "abuse."
Time for yet another rant? I will try to see if I can come up with something more compelling, but all my previous rants never gained any traction and there isn't much hope of eliciting any more reaction from the normies. The war on sex just keeps going even when the typical opinion is "I wish that had happened to me when I was at school." Society is capable of enforcing norms no one believes in just because it is a convention. Abuse by convention, by legal fiction which is enforced by all the powers which matter from school administrators to the police to the courts and juries and prison guards. Even if every single person in that chain personally believes it is nonsense it will still happen because they think it is their duty to uphold these norms. Much like human sacrifice would keep going in cultures which belied in that: I am sure there were people who felt it was pointless and cruel, but they were powerless to do anything about it.
What more can I say? Is there a more powerful metaphor than the emperor's new clothes or any other I have used so far? No matter how I put it, it just becomes a cliché. I don't know how to put it any more forcefully that this "abuse" is pure fiction, and even something totally opposite which most men envy and wish had happened to them -- I guess that entire track is useless because it was never about logic and reason but pure ritual and ritual is not about belief, but something we just do because that is what one does. It all comes down to cultural drift, over which we are powerless as individuals.
One path I haven't explored yet but am thinking about these days is how it compares to the convention of money, which is also a fiction and real at the same time. Is abuse established by convention and statute similar to that? I am trying to understand how these conventions establish "reality" and IF abuse has a similar grip on the normie imagination as money than it is no wonder it is so powerful. Both are backed up by state violence after all -- cash as legal tender for all debts and "abuse" by the promise to jail you for it to make it real. But I am not sure that's a good analogy because I also see obvious differences, not least the lack of any comments dismissing the reality of money like we do with abuse. CSA is therefore less than a convention and more like a witch-hunt perpetrated by the authorities against the people and in theory these are something people could be rallied against, but it doesn't work in practice so I am still wondering how the fiction took a hold of them.
Ha! Her last name is somehow a very strange coincidence. “Sexton”. Hmm? Was she the chosen one?
On side note: Here’s yet another Florida woman. Go at it, Berge!
https://www.yahoo.com/news/florida-woman-accused-posing-teen-235713577.html
These journalists and police that have the microphone do indeed make some sweeping generalizations. Though, I will admit, I’ve seen countless other articles that have used much more aggressive, loaded language like “Grooming”, as it yet another stupid, Orwellian word passed around like gospel in a game of telephone.
Yeah, go for it Eivind. Abstaining from female sex offender rants for 6 months must have been harder for you than years of NoFap. You've been sacked as MAP outreach ambassador to the MRM so you don't have to worry about alienating MRAs anymore.
Regarding sex abuse fictions and money. Yes, obviously there is a link. Sex is a currency, and its exchange rate can vary. Sex abuse hysteria and lies are attempts by women to artificially keep the value high. That's obvious to most people except normies..
Your earlier comments about AI being as hyped and worthless as bitcoin mining. You were actually bitcoin mining back when the value was 1/1000th it was today. Yet instead of learning a lesson from the incredibly rash decision to stop and sell it all, you somehow rationalise your action as being profoundly prescient, despite the fact you would probably be a crypto billionaire now. Can you ever admit to being wrong?
And you insist AI is likewise worthless, clearly speaking from complete ignorance. Your only experience of AI is probably generating BBW porn. There's a lot more to it than that Eivind.
But recognising that AI is going to change the world would be at odds with your sole hope of a collapse in industrial civilization. Btw Eivind, you criticised Sexual Trade Union theory on the basis that if it were true, 'women would always have been repressing sex freedoms'. But I have always held that feminists respond to the opening of the sex market by technology and social change (urbanisation, contraception, the Internet etc.). Yet you seem to recognize there is some link between technology and social change and sex abuse hysteria and feminism, otherwise your only 'solution' as 'leader' would not be to pray for the collapse of the modern industrial world.
Is Trump going to bat for men's rights here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zURyp3xEqkY
Quote at 0:30: "In that case all men, just about all men". He didn't have to make this incidental point, but he did!
I would agree that Trump is showing some MRA consciousness. He notes that 38,000 MEN died for the Panama Canal, emphasizing that men do the dangerous work. He is also willing to ignore sexual accusations against men he wants to work with and he resists the idea that old men are supposed to stay away from young women and not even compliment them. So far so good. Now we are only missing some action against the sex laws, and I guess that’s where the line goes for what he is willing to do or what is realistic in the current system even if he wants to. He is just one individual after all who can be replaced. We are up against an entire Zeitgeist who hates men and especially sexuality.
Use AI to generate BBW porn? Lol, I never do that. What I did that you are spinning this idea off of is I once asked it to illustrate a superfluous person (thinking of myself for a video -- after first trying “I am a weed” which it wouldn’t do). It gave me a cat lady, but a young, attractive, chubby cat lady, so sure you could call it BBW porn, but me doing that all day is just your imagination.
Those who missed it can see my BBW cat lady here:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8p_v7W3phVo
She is quite sexily dressed with nipple visible. She looks about 15 years old. It’s funny that the AI should give me this because so young women are hardly superfluous :)
Maybe the latest versions have figured out that cat ladies are supposed to be unattractive. Yes, AI is improving. But the proof of the pudding will be when the unemployment rate goes up because it can do some actually useful work. So far, employment isn’t budging, at least not here in Norway. The latest numbers are completely stable. It remains to be seen if AI is anything more than hype and investment bubble.
Sure I was wrong about how quickly Bitcoin would reach a market cap of trillions and I very stupidly missed out on fabulous wealth, but it didn’t become useful either. Almost no one is using bitcoin as the digital cash it was intended as. It remains an investment bubble like the tulip craze and now it’s even harder to use because of all the KYC crap you have to go trough to obtain it or sell it again.
I didn't think they would take that it so far, but here it goes with the trial now underway for that infamous World Cup kiss:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/03/sport/luis-rubiales-trial-spain-scli-intl/index.html
Rubiales is charged with one count of sexual assault and one of coercion for the incident, which occurred during the on-field medal ceremony for Spain’s Women’s World Cup victory in August 2023.
Prosecutors are seeking a two-and-a-half year prison sentence for Rubiales.
I suppose men will have to obtain a signed contract of consent for a kiss on the cheek too now just like the laws in effect requires for sex, because this is the sort of punishment that would only be appropriate for real, forcible rape. We have escalated the misandry to yet another level.
Absolutely unbelievable-poor man.
We all await future development.
The only consolation I can think of is that the potential 2 1/2 year sentence is a hideous n novelty but things have improved a bit since August 2023, when the "crime" was committed.
Another story here-https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14356549/Natalie-Bar-theory-Bianca-Censori-nude-Grammys.html-Australian feminazi claims Bianca Censori is being controlled by her husband Kanye West.
Also in Australia-https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14353741/Married-Sight-villain-Tim-Gromie-BUSTED-tricking-women-dating-apps-old-photos-one-shock-Tinder-messages-revealed.html.
I'm certain the show is contrived but no-one has reminded people that women do this all the time. There was one person who noted that women use filters and no-one cares so I suppose that counts.
Australia is such a cooked gynocracy.
-Anonymous 2
Talking of age gaps. Trump’s 27-yr old (pretty) WH Press Secy is married to a 59-year old real estate mogul:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt9R9V72gM4
If a woman had done it, would the result and reaction be any different?
Emmanuel Macron’s wife is not looking too hot these days (or ever as I can remember), but I thought that was just because she is old. Well, Candace Owens is convinced Brigitte is a man and is now on an unhinged series of rants about it:
https://www.youtube.com/live/xIbUXQ5c-oQ
I don’t particularly believe it and at any rate if true then that’s just what Macron is into, which is his business. It has no political implications. What’s interesting to me about this conspiracy theory is that it’s another insane offshoot of the CSA panic. Because of course they make it all about “grooming” and “predator” and “sexual abuse” and the entire marriage is thus not Macron’s own choice but our time’s special witchcraft that they believe to have infinite political implications. It’s interesting to observe the insanity on full display here personified so well in Candace Owens. This is (yet another) peak of the CSA panic and I can’t imagine how it can get any more deranged than this (I know I’ve said that many times before and it always surprised me with new escalations).
But I guess it still isn’t scary enough with a female “predator,” so they have to make her a man to whip up a big panic like she is doing to millions of followers now.
The rumors about Macron's wife having been born a man have been circulating in France for at least 3 years. It is bizarre that a major US political figure like Owens should bend so low as to rehash this story. In France the peddlers of the story have been cancelled comedians and (far-right) commentators.
There's an interesting twist to the Macron story:
"Mrs. Macron did not statutorily r*pe President Macron. Let us be clear that the age of consent in France is 15. The two met and fell in love in 1993 when she was a drama teacher and he was 15 years old. When President Macron was 17, he vowed to marry Mrs. Macron. Following through with his promise, they wed in 2007 when President Macron was 29 years old."
https://www.soapcentral.com/human-interest/news-what-age-consent-france-candace-owens-says-president-emmanuel-macron-15-met-wife-brigitte
Note that even in France they now send men to jail for "seducing" 17-year old girls. At the same time the president of France having been seduced by a 39-year old woman when he was 15 is allright.
Candace is right that it would be considered abuse by today’s standards (and perhaps even back then because Brigitte was a teacher), but the insane part is she is a true believer in those standards and presents the demonology of CSA in its now mature cultural solidification. This is bizarre to watch for me who haven’t internalized it and frightening because this part is not a “conspiracy theory” but the God-honest belief of the normies, now also internalized in the Christian faith she promotes (complete with Satanism mixed in too). I doubt the normies even find it strange that the thinks Macron became a psychopath from the grooming and abuse because sex is now earnestly believed to have such demonic powers, even by mainstream psychologists.
The letters sent back to her by Macron’s lawyers are not helping to restore sanity here either. They just push back on irrelevant details rather than the full-blown insanity about the nature of sexual abuse, and oddly they don’t even address the transsexual claim directly. Candace is right that this looks suspicious, even if she is insane about everything else. Why can’t Macron or Brigitte flat-out deny that she transitioned? Or perhaps I am missing something. Has he already done that or is there some plausible reason they won’t give a straight answer? The letters are otherwise ridiculously detailed and argumentative, so why not address the central issue of the conspiracy theory?
This goes in the right direction, but (infuriatingly) it's not about sex:
https://news.yahoo.com/news/call-german-age-criminal-responsibility-180924239.html
"The General Secretary of Germany's conservative CDU party has called for the country's age of criminal responsibility to be lowered from 14 to 12."
You can be thrown in jail at a younger age, but must be older to enjoy life. Then, when you get older, they change the rules again and tell you you can't enjoy young girls, smoking, drinking...
Reminds me of the gay USA where you can go die in a war at 18 but can't have a drink until 21.
Who would fight for or care about any places with rules like that? F*ggots and r*tards, that's who.
Does anyone honestly think the f*ggots in the USA empire will beat Russia and China, who do not have the same restrictions?
anon69
American has already lost itself in their own puritanistic cheese dip. Remember, we already had the Salem Witch Trials three hundred years ago. You are declared a “witch” if you do something off. Then, people make generalities about you once you do something “off”.
I think we're long past the point where there is any rationality involved. Maybe when AI takes over the world it will be pretty simple. 12 year olds are held to be responsible for their decisions so they can make their own decisions as to who they want to fuck.
Meanwhile, a 31 year old US model claims to have found a hack to make herself look like an underage teen again, and millions of middle-aged female Daily Mail readers are no doubt dizzy with excitement and scrambling to try it. Crazy that every women on Earth wants desperately to be attractive to a small minority of limp-wristed weedy autistic 'MAPs' and 'ephebophiles'.
Model claims she de-aged herself years with bizarre olive oil hack... can YOU guess how old she is? https://mol.im/a/14363615 via https://dailym.ai/android
Indirectly relating to the age of criminal responsibility in Germany, I found an article about how Millei in Argentina want to lower the age for owning a firearm from 21 to 18 - https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-12-16/milei-lowers-age-for-gun-posession-in-argentina-by-decree.html.
The owners of that particular rag obviously aren't happy about it, but lowering ages in one area should help lower ages of consent. You would think, but consistency is not the hallmark of the current panic we're experiencing.
However, I believe that in the long run, lowering age in one area will indeed lead to a lowering of the age of consent.
This issue needs to be situated within an overall context of men's rights. I am well aware that most MRA's are almost as paedohysterical as the mainstream, but I see a process developing. Giving men what they want in one area, such as alimony or fairer rape laws, will inevitably lead to demands for what men want in other areas, and name one thing that men want, LOL?
I won't claim that it's any more than the very beginning.
BTW, it's curious that countries with high minimum ages to own a gun are sometimes also relatively sane with AOC. Argentina's AOC is 15 while Brazil's is 14 with a minimum age for a gun license is 25.
Unfortunately, the inconsistency can go the other way too, as in the US.
-Anonymous 2
@ Aonymous of Thursday, January 30, 2025 8:36:59 AM-
All good questions.
I wasn't trying to say they weren't, if you thought I was.
-Anonymous 2
Regarding the inconsistency in age laws, the glaring one is the voting age, which is increasingly coming down to 16, with many (usually left-wing parties) wanting it brought down even further to 14.
With gun laws, drinking ages, even criminal responsibility, I guess they can still argue that the young person 'needs to be protected', or that a 12 yo may know 'right from wrong' but that making an 'informed decision' about sex is too complex. But the idea that a teen can make an informed decision about far-reaching complex geopolitical affairs, but not about sex, is blatantly ridiculous.
The first MRA - Earnest Belfort Bax - argued this in the Edwardian era, mocking the suffragettes for wanting to give 18 year old women the vote yet demanding at the same time that the age of consent be raised to 21. (AF)
I remember our class studying The Crucible play at school in the 1980's, and our English teacher, who had a reputation for flirting a little with the girls, pointed out to us that the main character lusting after and committing adultery with an 11/12 year old girl (Abigail) would have been typical back then. Looking back, that may have been my 'awakening', lol.
I know that The Crucible was primarily about McCarthyism, but it may have been referencing another brewing hysteria too. (AF)
True, as the reduction of the age gap between John Proctor and Abigail Williams was done to make the story more believable and dramatic.
Take a look at this stupid Reddit thread full of imbeciles.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/comments/1ik3b4x/is_a_19_year_old_and_a_16_yo_in_a_relationship/
One guy asked if it was okay for a 19 year old to date a 16 year old and amount of rage in the comments is hilarious.
“They can’t because they have different maturity levels”, “Power dynamic exploitation” or “ A 16 year old is still a child.”
What a bunch of nincompoops. I’m sure most of these comments are from soulless, 40-year old Facebook-esque moms and sexually frustrated, nose-ring-wearing incels. I’m glad I left Reddit. It’s such a shithole.
Så om denne saken på tv-nyhetene. Alle de tiltalte ble dømt selv om de nektet straffeskyld. Det er jo standard. Det som imidlertid er oppsiktsvekkende er at retten selv erkjenner at barnevernet har oppført seg på en måte som er egnet til å danne falske minner hos barn. Videre at politiet og barnevernet har samarbeidet på en måte som er fullstendig uhjemlet og overhodet ikke objektivt. Både politiet og barnevernet er feministiske-skrekk-etater av verste sort.
https://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/sjokk-og-vantru-etter-dom-i-skakande-overgrepssak/17438298/
So, “beyond reasonable doubt” is clearly not a concept in Norwegian courts in CSA cases. Our courts can acknowledge foul play by police and child protective services and convict anyway just to make sure, even to 20 years, which is more than murderers usually get in Norway, based on nothing but the word of a child who is obviously led by the abuse industry. Because this is the crimen exceptum, the witchcraft which must be hunted at literally any cost. And frankly I don’t give a damn anymore about convicting the likely innocent as opposed to the “guilty” because I don’t see a moral difference between them with these victimless crimes. For all I care the government can pick people at random to prosecute because my battle is with the myth itself of the metaphysical badness of sex. Beyond standing for due process in general (which in Norway means fighting to reinstate the jury) I don’t waste any energy on the question of how they should identify the people who actually do the harmless acts in question. Spending too much time fretting that the “innocent” get convicted would lend too much legitimacy to the CSA panic, and I am way past that point in my activism and despair at the current cultural insanity. We need to confront the insanity head-on with what little attention we might get, which for me sadly has dropped to zero in the mainstream with no one else stepping in either.
I was reading today that at least 350,000 Russian soldiers (mostly conscripted) have died in the Ukraine. That's one of the conservative estimates - it could be half-a-million. The number of Ukranian soldiers must be at least 100,000, perhaps considerably more. Yet even here, nobody really gives a shit. Of far more importance is the maybe 10,000 Gaza women, a lot of them no doubt the wives and such of Hamas terrorists. The disposibility of the male is why we're here, but even most of us prefer to White Knight and otherwise assign far more value to women.
Over 10,000 women, but also 17,000 children were killed in Gaza and thousands of noncombatant men too. You don’t care about the children either? And the combatants were soldiers defending against a genocide and for their land, not “terrorists.”
That spectacle does something to how you view Israel. At least it did for me. If you have strong reasons to support them it won’t matter, but from a humanitarian perspective it does, and for those of us with no particular loyalty to any culture. I lost ALL loyalty to my culture or race or nation after it instigated feminism and the CSA panic and abolished the jury in Norway.
Not just men, but also entire peoples are disposable to certain mindsets, and I don’t want to go along with that. But luckily the Palestinians are not defenseless like sex offenders. They have awesome soldiers and at least some intensity of global support. The way Sinwar died was the high point for me, probably the greatest historic moment in my lifetime. It was epic. I wish a sex offender could fight with that kind of valor.
The Russo-Ukrainian war in contrast is a very “clean” conflict with hardly any human rights abuses (beyond the sheer disposability of men) and it is between two cultures that to me are almost indistinguishable. Ukrainian is just a village dialect of Russian and the entire country is likewise similar. If they want to fight over who controls that territory then let them but I don’t think we should be involved. Russia has no interest in assimilating countries that are not culturally Russian, so they are no threat unless we provoke them.
Since this comment section is now about to overflow page one, let's continue the discussion here:
https://eivindberge.blogspot.com/2025/02/open-discussion-february-2025.html
Post a Comment