Think of your most recent past sexual experience or relationship as an adult with an adult partner. Not your current relationship if you are in one since to be a valid comparison it needs to be in the past. Then select a few of these adjectives to describe it, however many you feel you need to get the best description.
I'll go first, and to be honest it was... "unhappy," "rejected," "sad." It was a failure to conceive and the woman does not want to try with me again. That's not representative of my past experiences or hopefully in the future either, but it happens to be what I would honestly have to answer if given a survey right now which studied adult-adult sex in a similar fashion.
Let me know in the comments which adjectives you picked.
This will shed some light on how bad "CSA" really is, because we do need a control group in order to know how this result stacks up against "age-appropriate" pairings. There are some negative adjectives there after all, so I'm wondering how they speak to the badness of CSA? Does the 4.1% "miserable" rating mean that it is, well, miserable?
I realize that my effort here won't be a scientific survey. But you get the idea how such a survey could be conducted. I suggest that Tromovitch or others publish their next article along these lines. While we do have this kind of comparison via Bruce Rind, it relies on the Kinsey data for the adult experiences, which is perhaps a bit outdated, but for what it's worth it found that minors typically rated their experiences the same as adults, and boys under 14 with women even rated them more highly.
21 comments:
Of course youth sexual experiences were awesome. Eivind, have you considered making a religion consisting of pro-sexual beliefs? Normies seem to like religion, and they are not receptive to facts or studies at the moment.
anon69
I would love to start a pro-sexual religion. However, my skills fall short. I think to start a religion you either have to be so charismatic that people follow you at anything, or you have to be a skilled science fiction writer like L. Ron Hubbard, or a trained occultist like Aleister Crowley. The latter’s approach is closest to my heart and abilities and I have been intending to start something like his Ordo Templi Orientis except called Ordo Templi Sexualis and be a sexualist religion without the Satanism. However, I don’t know enough about occultism to work out a convincing set of principles and rituals. Perhaps if someone has access to a jailbroken cutting-edge AI we could get help to get started. It would be nice to cross-fertilize it with Newgon’s corpus as well, and then I think I could handle editing our founding text into a nice little secret society for us that would be attractive to get initiated into. Normies would have to pledge sex-positivity to be considered and then there would be more secrets and vows for the initiates as well as terrific networking with other sex-positive people and a focus on jury-nullification of the sex laws since that’s a kind of activism a secret society could actually accomplish.
You know what? It may not be lack of skills holding me back, but lack of effort. I won’t know until I have put in that effort and I feel it’s now or never since I’m not getting any younger. I shan’t use AI either or copy anybody else’s rituals. This will be genuine. I shall endeavor to write down the divinely inspired seed to the Ordo Templi Sexualis, as revealed to me through a lifetime of sexualist meditation.
Religion indeed! A religion gets taken seriously. Look at the US. There's even a cult in the South (New Mexico?) where worshippers have the right to consume Peyote that contains mescaline, which is classified as a hard drug otherwise. So religion opens doors and privileges. Plus, religion goes hand in hand with fanaticism and martyrdom. It thrives on persecution, at least did so in historical times.
My apologies for being out-of-the-loop on this, but I keep hearing all of these frequent media reports of migrant/immigrant rapes/grooming/pimping of women and young children occurring at astronomical levels all over Europe for years now. Can someone explain to me what’s really going on over there? Elon Musk was boiling and fuming over it, months ago. The media is still in a trembling frenzy at the moment. Is this just another moral panic? What’s really the golden goose here?
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2016/01/04/revealed-1000-migrants-brawl-rape-sexually-assault-steal-one-german-train-station-new-years-eve/
This is an older example, but I’m not sure how accurate something like Breitbart is (probably not), but it’s been getting everyone up in arms lately.
It is a moral panic amplified by racism and xenophobia. Or the sexual aspect is, anyway. I would be more worried that the newly elected mayor in the “grooming” capital of the world Rotherham is a Muslim giving speeches in Urdu:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ux74J1l244
Not that there is anything wrong with that either in and of itself, but if you care about your native culture continuing then it's clearly in danger of being soon replaced. That’s all there is to it, but it’s so convenient to make everything about “sexual abuse” these days.
Eivind, don't you find such articles disgusting:
https://news.yahoo.com/news/people-think-prison-rehabilitation-lies-110012735.html
Those women are not hot teachers. Believeme, in Colombia women can be as nasty as men. They seduce men to rob them. They kill men. They take revenge on men by melting soap then letting the soap solidify again in a mold with razor blades inside, so that the men soap themselves with the razor blades. Disgusting pitch by the press calling for no prison for women, while 95% of prison inmates are men. When I read this I can better understand the MRAs who want equal injustice for all.
Yeah, nonsexual crimes by women are just as bad, and they should have equal punishment as men. This is not to say all punishments are fair there either, which sometimes means equal injustice, for drug crimes for example, and that’s not something I object to especially for women if laws aren’t reformed for men too. But It remains true that the female sex offender charade is something else. It goes beyond equal injustice into a unique kind of perversion of justice seen only for sex crimes, where (with attractive women) obvious delectable value is twisted into “abuse,” which is the deepest lie imaginable. It is also therefore our lowest hanging fruit to demonstrate that the sex war is insane, so if we can’t even reverse this then we are not ready to free the men either.
So this is the mess Europe has gotten itself into with all the new "groomers," except they are not so much grooming as genuinely behaving badly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt--scaMsos
I love seeing European cities smashed up. We have nothing to lose but a hateful sex-hostile culture.
These rioting Muslim people…
Isn't Islam also sex-negative though?
It allows you to fuck your wife however you want, yes. It also won't forbid you to marry a 3-year-old.
But isn't it also against sex before marriage, and "adultery"? Didn't muslim artists depict how "whoreish" women burn in hell for exposing their sinful hair, thus lighting up lust in men? Did muslims not have a practice of cutting off gentle, sensitive clits of litte girls, and call that a virtue? Why would they do that? Perhaps, so that a young girl in her holy ignorance doesn't defile herself through the horrific sin of masturbation. While Islam calls mutilating girls a virtue, and mutilating boys' genitalia a duty, it doesn't really seem like a sex-friendly heaven. In fact, it is perhaps the Abrahamic faith that has allowed the poisoning of our sexuality.
We could use a better system. Especially now, when the reasons to not be sexually promiscuous (diseases, unwanted children) could be solved through modern medicine, legal and cultural framework. The nazi types would disagree, however, they believe that it is the abscence of traditional values that has allowed European societies to rot, and want to send Europe back to the 19th century. These people are, perhaps, more dangerous than the purely religious types because they will try to make up a scientific basis for the old, outdated modes of belief.
Leftists, rightists, the rioting foreign rightists… We don't have allies.
Eivind, going off of sex exceptionalism, how bad really is “rape”, especially when compared to other crimes? Should non-violent rape be punishable (no-means-yes rape, rape fantasy enactment, and/or intoxicated/unconscious rape, etc.). If so, how much? Also, why do feminists have such a large fixation on “rape” or anything anti-sex related? Did feminists exaggerate the effects of it? In fact, why is it that they “attack” the sex stuff so viscerally and negatively? What makes sex truly different from anything else? Shouldn’t rape be approached through a gradient scale, rather than a one-size-fits-all checklist?
Now, I understand that “rape” definitions have greatly expanded in last couple of years (and decades), but shouldn’t there be a clear difference between certain behaviours like “Oh, she was kinda smarmy and ambiguous about it” type of rape versus the ‘Ted-Bundy-I’m-going-to-kill-you’ kind of rape?
https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/how-did-you-felt-while-being-raped-molested.205698/
Wow that sanctioned suicide site is interesting... I confess I actually glazed over the rape thread, I was more interested in the big message at the top saying they are being investigated by Ofcom under the Online Safety Act. The UK is trying to create a really totalitarian shithole. I hate my country! I hope Trump & co at least keep to their word and punish the UK for trying to enforce it. They said they would revoke VISAs for UK officials. I hope they do that. I hope they go further and issue warrants for their arrest on some charge of sedition against the USA or something.
Many good questions in recent comments I'll try to answer in some detail, but just a quick comment on that Sanctioned Suicide site first. The most striking thing about it, besides the UK's war on free speech, is the utterly normie attitude to "CSA" from everyone in that thread. You would think it might be an idea to give sex-positivity a chance before embracing suicide, but no, the CSA hoax is more important than life and they will stick to it to death. Thus you get comments like this:
I was a minor, it was COCSA, and I feel that the worst part of it was that I liked it. It made me feel like an adult, like Im doing something I should be and that everything is fine. I was 11 he was 14, he'd constantly act lewd and show pornography, and he was my brother.
I then forgot about it but then I was asked if I ever had sex and bam, like a truck the memorys come flooding in and I just feel disgusted, I hate it and they always show up over and over and over.
If the worst part of something is that your like it, how bad can it be? Lol! That is to say the only bad part is the social stigma. These stories make me slightly more open to the possibility that sociogenic harm is a real phenomenon. And it's depressing that none of them can entertain the possibility that they don't HAVE to feel bad about something they like just because society says so. They will sooner give up on life than blaspheme against the supposed metaphysical badness of sexuality, which shows which taboo reigns supreme as the religion of our times.
And it shows how the kind of research that Tromovitch is doing can't make a difference, because the CSA hoax is so powerful it twists positive experiences into abuse even when normies are able to acknowledge that it is indeed experienced positively. CSA is 100% unfalsifiable because ANY evidence will be perceived as evidence for abuse. It is a virus of the mind which is impervious to any kind of modification by the scientific method and we will just have to wait for it to drift away as superstitions eventually do. I am really out of ideas on how to speed up that process at this point because the normies will filter out everything and only see abuse even in the most diametrically opposite evidence.
I mean I am not completely out of ideas because we still haven’t tried to start a pro-sexual religion. Ordo Templi Sexualis is my working title. The Order of the Temple of Sexuality. I truly believe sex is a way to commune with the divine. I think if the divine is anything then it is consciousness, and the strongest way to experience consciousness is sexuality. Particularly with a young partner, to be sure. When you are young yourself youth is not so important, however. At least that was my experience being young, and then when no longer young I came to appreciate youth more and more. Makes sense because the young are themselves divine. So our religion does not teach that the young need to be “protected” form the old. Far from it.
Religion can perchance help initiates allow themselves feelings that are taboo otherwise. We can enjoy sex when it is enjoyable, also when society says that enjoyment is “bad” for some inexplicable metaphysical reason that is the normie religion. If you convert away from the normie religion then you don’t have to feel bad anymore.
How dreary to be a normie and consider yourself cut off from communion with the divine when you reach middle age and are able to fully appreciate divinity. If I followed the script I should consider my dating pool to only consist of grannies by now, with any deviance out of the question because it probably involves criminality such as paying for sex or grooming or all the other things you “can’t do.” And to be fair to the normies, if grannies are your options, dating really is a tepid affair. They mistook limiting yourself to an old partner for getting too old to enjoy sex fully. So no wonder they are not very enthusiastic about it, and instead try to find meaning in substitute activities like climbing Mount Everest or buying a Rolex or any of the religions which themselves teach sex-hostility.
There is a better way, and it shall be known as the O.T.S. (unless any of you suggest a better name before it is finalized).
My religion is heartfelt and honest. The first rule is that I shall make nothing up; everything is genuine. It probably won’t be more successful than my other projects, but at least it is a different approach than we tried for 30 years!
at least we can have some fun! how about the church of inter-generational sexual freedom? something that gets right to the heart of the matter
anon69
The "Church of Intergenerational Sexual Freedom" is too direct in my view, and fails to capture the essence. I want the intergenerational freedom to follow from deeper spiritual principles, which it does. So I like the Temple of Sexuality better. When you believe in goodness of sexuality rather than badness, the taboos vanish. And when you worship sexuality, well, firstly it becomes clear after a moment's thought that it's not exactly middle-aged women we worship as our goddesses, and secondly that cutting yourself off from the younger generations is the wrong direction, away from experiencing spiritual bliss. Our monks are rather the Epstein types than the absolutely spiritually misguided (in my view) kinds who even believe celibacy gets you closer to God. In the Order of the Temple of Sexuality (which shall be our full name; just the Temple of Sexuality for brevity) we also recognize that while there is nothing wrong with relationships, monogamy is not the way to sexual fulfilment in the long run. We must consider many other options valid including prostitution.
We'll be known as the "pedo religion" soon enough if we gain traction. For now my focus is on spiritual principles that are obviously true to me. I challenge anyone to argue against my premises which are most importantly that there is no stronger feeling of bliss than sexual (while also practicing nofap), which means communion with the divine because the divine is consciousness and this sort of consciousness is the highest level of it, and how this is intimately tied to youth and rarely accessible any other way.
Jesus said "let the children come to me for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to them" (Mathew 19:14)
@Original Insights:
I haven't forgotten your questions and will get around to them. I just got a little lazy and carried away with writing a blog post on another wonderful Housman poem:
https://eivindberge.blogspot.com/2025/06/oh-who-is-that-young-sinner-with.html
No worries, I’ve been trying to comment as much as I can too (both here and the AF’s blog), but it gets difficult for me to find spare time outside the weekends.
Any religion needs saints, so would any sexualist religion. Epstein would be such a saint. A saint and martyr.
The name of the religion should not sound too intellectual. It should not make an erudite statement. It should speak to the human instinct. Something like "The New Church of sexual freedom" would do. Easy to understand. Easy to imagine what it entails. It should yield an easy to remember acronym.
Post a Comment