During our discussions in the comments a while back someone brought in this link, apparently thinking it had some good advice:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hide-and-seek/201703/hell-yes-the-7-best-reasons-for-masturbating
It is one of an entire genre of writings about the supposed benefits of masturbation, especially common in pop psychology magazines where “experts” in health and wellness see it as their duty to nudge us to masturbate more and have less sex (in this case one “Neel Burton M.A., M.D.,” properly credentialed of course). Yes, as we shall see, it is very much about having less sex.
After the formulaic cliched subtitle “The stigma surrounding masturbation has to stop” as if there is still a stigma after a million articles like this, number one of these “seven best reasons for masturbating” comes to us with an origin story:
1. Pleasure and convenience.The bit of ancient philosophy should already make us feel uneasy. Diogenes the Cynic is hardly a person I would like to emulate, is he? How “convenient” to settle for not really living?
Upon being challenged for masturbating in the marketplace, the ancient philosopher Diogenes the Cynic replied, "If only it were so easy to soothe hunger by rubbing an empty belly." According to Diogenes, the god Hermes, taking pity on his son Pan, gave him the gift of masturbation, which Pan then taught to the shepherds.
To masturbate, there is no need for special equipment, the intricacies of sexual intercourse, or even a partner. Although it is often looked upon as the poor relative of sexual intercourse, many couples engage in mutual masturbation, either alongside or instead of intercourse, to simplify, improve, or enrich their sexual lives and arrive at orgasm.
2. Fewer complications. Masturbation is safe as well as convenient. Unlike sexual intercourse, it is very unlikely to lead to pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases such as human papillomavirus, chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, and HIV/AIDS, not to mention other communicable diseases such as flu or coronavirus.Yeah, If you don’t live, you don’t have the complications from life. So much is true and this applies to everything all the way into antinatalism. Why stop at masturbation if you believe in this line of thought? Why want to live at all, then? Moving on,
3. Stronger, more intimate relationships. Contrary to popular perception, there is, at least in females, a positive correlation between the frequency of masturbation and frequency of intercourse. People who masturbate more are more sexually driven, and mutual masturbation is likely to increase the frequency and variety of sexual contact. Both in the performance and in the observation, masturbation can teach partners about each other’s pleasure centres, proclivities, and particularities. If one partner is more sexually driven than the other, as is often the case, masturbation can provide him or her with a balancing outlet.I was about to call plain bullshit on this one until I saw the author calls out his own bullshit with the qualification “at least in females.” Yeah, I never claimed females need nofap. Nofap is for men. I’m not opposed to females doing their version if they feel there is a benefit, but they don’t need to be preached to. Also I wouldn’t really call mutual masturbation masturbation. This is the second time in three “reasons” the author feels compelled to drag in mutual masturbation in order to construct a benefit, so evidently he doesn’t even much believe in his own case.
4. Better reproductive health. In males, masturbation flushes out old sperm with low motility and reduces the risk of prostate cancer. If practiced before sexual intercourse, it can delay orgasm in males suffering from premature ejaculation. In females, it increases the chances of conception by altering the conditions in the vagina, cervix, and uterus. It also protects against cervical infections by increasing the acidity of the cervical mucus and flushing out pathogens. In both women and men, it strengthens the muscles in the pelvic floor and genital area and contributes to extending the years of sexual activity.If you were having regular sex you wouldn’t have a problem with stale sperm, would you? And likewise with premature ejaculation. More sex will cure that as well. “Reasons” 4-7 are all some of a host of “benefits” not unique to masturbation but served equally or better by sex. Hence they are not reasons to masturbate but reasons to have sex, unless you don’t really care about sex and want to nudge us to have less of it, which reveals the true, evil reason for writing all these lists of supposed benefits.
5. Faster sleep. Masturbation invites sleep by reducing stress and releasing feel-good hormones such as dopamine, endorphins, oxytocin, and prolactin. Orgasm, in particular, brings on a state of stillness, serenity, and sleepiness, sometimes called "the little death" (French, la petite mort), which can usher in a deeper sleep.Again, this is better served by sex.
6. Improved cardiovascular fitness. Masturbation is, in effect, a form of light exercise. Compared to regular exercise, it is more effective or efficient at reducing tension and releasing feel-good hormones. The muscles and blood vessels relax, improving blood flow, and lowering heart rate and blood pressure. No surprise, then, that studies have found an inverse correlation between frequency of orgasm and death from coronary heart disease.If you want some pleasurable exercise and increase your frequency of orgasm, the best way, once again, is sex!
7. Brighter mood and other psychological benefits. Masturbation reduces stress and releases feel-good hormones, which lift mood and reduce the perception of pain. It promotes better, more restorative sleep, locking in sleep’s myriad physical and psychological benefits. It enables younger people, in particular, to explore their sexual identity and regulate their sexual impulses, leading to a happier and healthier sexuality, as well as greater self-awareness, self-control and self-esteem. It offers an escape from the constraints and demands of reality, an outlet for the imagination in fantasy, and a medium for the memory in nostalgia. And it culminates in a transcending experience that unites mind with body and life in death.This is ridiculous. Masturbation fosters an incel loser mood rather than a bright one, and no one thinks masturbation is a transcending experience. To actually have these things, have sex.
Wow, this was too easy. I didn’t even have to debunk anything because the arguments literally don’t apply to masturbation versus sex. It almost reads like an underhanded attack on the cultural myth that masturbation is always good. The experts must be fed up with having to write all this propaganda... so for once one of them wrote something halfway subversive.
It is a mirror image of the CSA propaganda: bullshitting and dodging the issue. The CSA hoaxers serve up bullshit about supposed harm and dodge any actual evidence, and the masturbation propagandists serve up bullshit about supposed benefits and dodge any real evidence.
It would be somewhat mitigating if all this propaganda for masturbation was balanced by advice to have more sex for better health and wellness. If, for every list of reasons to masturbate, we got a list of reasons why we should find a young woman that we would actually want to have lots of sex with so we could promote prostate health in the aging male, have transcending experiences, better sleep and so on, I would have less reason to complain.
But we don’t get sex-positivity, do we? With the exception of the occasional, frankly hideous promotions of elder sex (completely age-matched, of course), suited to make even me prefer masturbation, all we get is masturbation propaganda.
But we can do better than that. We can promote true sexual enjoyment and sex-positive attitudes. That means, at the very least, toning down the masturbation evangelism until real sex is at least equally promoted and in my view it means practicing nofap and noporn.
There is another connection to the CSA hoax as well. I believe it would be extremely hard to sell the idea that sex is harmful to minors if we didn’t simultaneously tell them they can masturbate all they want. Back in the 1800s when the culture disapproved of masturbation we didn’t have a problem with sex with minors (unless they were truly little children), and now this has been completely reversed, not coincidentally I think. So sexualists and MAPs have this additional reason to oppose the pro-masturbation propaganda.
79 comments:
Har du vurdert i sjekke ut Substack og publisere artiklene dine der, Eivind? Mot betaling mener jeg, så du kan tjene penger på skrivingen din. Det kan også være om andre temaer enn det som bloggen din hovedsaklig går ut på.
I can't imagine anyone would want to read me behind a paywall on Substack if they don't want to read me for free here. The problem is my ideas just don't resonate with a wider audience. Regardless of what I write about.
Wow you're really fatalistic and negative! I suggested Substack because I think your voice needs to be heard and that you should and could make money off of it.
You are rotting away here and that's not what I want to see happen to a great mind. But if you're going to be stubborn then so be it. I will not write here anymore or try to promote your work.
On Substack you could actually reach a bigger audience and make some money. Unlike here where you reach only a few sensible people who agree with you like myself, but mostly you reach guys who hate women and want them punished and who also loves porn.
This NGO that was discovered as paying $100,000 to the "human trafficking" accuser of Andrew Tate is actually a pretty big development. These disgusting feminist "human trafficking" NGO's have been busy re-naming prostitution as "human trafficking" just like they renamed adolescent teen sex as "pedophilia". And they most definitely pay compensation to every "victim", the bigger the fish, the bigger the payoff. They've been doing this to poor schmucks in Southeast Asia, where they pay the teen girls a few thousand to go find a US citizen and bang him, then turn him over to the government to claim their prize.
Andrew Tate, like Jeffrey Epstein, is an intelligence asset of the government. But just maybe, there is a faction of the government sick of these NGO's getting government money for manufacturing feminist hysteria, and perhaps there is now some infighting going on.
La Strada is primarily financed by a big US charity called Choose Love, and a big Dutch charity called Porticus. Women and womanly men run these charities. Porticus gets its money from a wealthy Dutch family's trust fund, Choose Love gets its money from US trust funds. How have the wealthy become so gay and anti-male?
anon69
Yes 'anon69' it is. But is very much ignored by msm. This is something Eivind who sure can write, have the time and is also somehow infamous could have written about on Substack.
The official “justice” system pays women after they make an accusation of “sexual abuse” and obtain a conviction or just win a civil suit. I am therefore not very shocked that prospective “victims” can get paid prior to making accusations too, and even explicitly for engaging in the conduct which makes them “victims.” It’s just more of the same, a dirty game which is rigged through and through. Men could play that game too if we weren’t so docile. I have been thinking of harnessing the compensation money to get sex with teenage girls. Since the government will pay when I can’t, it’s a credible promise to let them accuse me and collect the money. Since the NGOs have now normalized paying for accusations in advance too it’s an obvious course of action that the normies don’t object to in principle and if only men would realize that this is total war, more of us would employ it too just like we would employ reverse stings.
Think outside the box. Think creatively on how antisex bigotry can be combatted and even harnessed to our advantage. Don’t want to end up as in A.E. Housman’s poem…
When first my way to fair I took
Few pence in purse had I,
And long I used to stand and look
At things I could not buy.
Now times are altered: if I care
To buy a thing, I can;
The pence are here and here's the fair,
But where's the lost young man?
--- To think that two and two are four
And neither five nor three
The heart of man has long been sore
And long 'tis like to be.
How to get those pence before it is too late? When I get a pension in twenty years then sure, the pence are there and here’s the fair, but where’s the lost young man? I don’t know if Housman had the sexual market in mind when he wrote the poem, but that sure is my interpretation!
You could even use Substack to write about poems and get paid for it.
So either way, it isn’t about “justice”, but rather the justice system’s “boot-stomp” narrative and agenda prevailing over “defendants”.
So we not only have feminist lobbying, but also “hand-under-the-table” payment since the justice system is biased and corrupt against those that it wants to punish and thrown behind bars. Is this what it’s all amalgamating into now?
Yeah, and I know the normies won't mind if this is brought to their attention. When something like the affirmative consent law does not upset them, nothing will. Not the combination either: paying women to use the consent law to manufacture more rape convictions would just be more business as usual that they pay no attention to except when it happens to them and then only to defend themselves individually, never in principle.
Gail Tverberg weighs in on "child sexual abuse" after a moron commented some Epstein hysteria and tried to make her go along with it.
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2025/07/14/worrying-indications-in-recently-updated-world-energy-data/#comment-487894
I think child sexual abuse is a very “modern” concern. Before, people were concerned about children (and their parents) starving to death. They came up with solutions that often involved trade offs. Leaving children in the care of adults who might abuse them sexually was a solution that often seemed to work.
Now we have all kinds of rules that churches, scout troops, and other organizations must always have two leaders with children, to prevent sex abuse. This very much handicaps these organizations in the kinds of programs they can offer, because they need close to twice as many leaders,
I have seen some of the materials that insurance companies put out regarding problems with sexual abuse. They are very liberal in what they consider sex abuse. There doesn’t need to be physical contact, for example. A major concern is that the child will feel guilty because he/she consented to such a situation.
A different approach is to teach children (and adults), “Bad things happen to all of us. The best approach is to forgive and forget. Each day is a new day. We need to move on, and take care of the rest of our lives.”
An economy has to have a whole lot of “surplus energy” to chase after and lock up all of the sexual offenders. I am afraid that being excessively offended by child sexual abuse is one of the things that needs to go away in a low energy world. Studies of genetics of families seem to come up with a whole lot of examples of incest and other relationships that shouldn’t exist.
We can start thinking instead about people starving to death. Or people being killed for organ harvesting. Or populations outgrowing their resource bases and governments planning to bring down their populations, whether the citizens like it or not.
So, basically her way of saying CSA is a hoax. The biggest problem is children feel guilty for consenting, which in turn is caused by the hysteria.
Gail may have been wrong about how quickly our civilization is collapsing, but she gets many things right.
CSA is a hoax driven by feminists and enabled by surplus energy. We know surplus energy is ending and then CSA will have to be relegated to a non-issue again because there are so many real problems. The normies these days think a “sexually abused” child is worse than a starving child, but that’s because they have never seen any starving children. We live in a bubble of overprotection against the real world, which is why we can spend unlimited resources chasing imaginary problems.
The NGOs and other abuse industry will lose their funding before long. They seem all-powerful now, but it won’t last. We don’t have to rely on the idea of CSA to go away because the persecution obviously can’t subsist on ideas alone. “I am afraid that being excessively offended by child sexual abuse is one of the things that needs to go away in a low energy world. Studies of genetics of families seem to come up with a whole lot of examples of incest and other relationships that shouldn’t exist.” Shouldn’t exist according to current sensibilities, that is. Those sensibilities are not long for the world because the demons they claim to fight are so deeply ingrained in human nature that the fight is futile even at the peak of fossil fuels, and soon we will have much worse problems to worry about. Humanity had this one spike of abundant energy and then we go back to normal. There will still be persecution, but it will have to be directed at a small minority. Perhaps persecution of something like homosexuality is sustainable in a low-energy world, but it sure can’t encompass all of sexuality like it does now.
I do NOT believe a low-energy world means we go back to a “real” definition of pedophilia like the Antifeminist imagines, and persecute only them. That, too, is an artifact of surplus energy, with the word coined in the 1880s when the burning of fossil fuels was already well underway. If you read Gail’s comment again you will notice she has no patience for that either, or faith that a low-energy world will be bothered.
To be on the right side of history going forward you need to fully embrace the MAP movement like I have done.
It already looks most likely that Gail Tverberg will win the Heretic of the Year Award for 2025. She is the most famous person to make a so heretical statement against the CSA hoax. Of course I am equally heretical as Gail, but I am much less famous and influential, so she wins. She is also far more popular than any other MAP activist besides me.
And once again we see that the boldest antifeminists and sexualists tend to be women. No man comes close to her rejection of Epstein hysteria (except nobodies like me and my anonymous commenters). I guess you could say the Trump administration is also refusing to pander to more Epstein hysteria, but they go about it in such an idiotic way that we can’t discern any message that they disapprove of CSA hysteria in principle. Trump himself is now looking like a deer in the headlights who risks his whole presidency unraveling because he can’t take a principled stand against the CSA hoax even with regard to older teens. All he can do is construct another conspiracy theory which says the popular conspiracy theory is wrong and Epstein wasn’t even a pimp, much less an agent. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but one thing is sure, there is nothing wrong with sex with willing teens, not when they get paid either. Once you admit this, it gets much less interesting to “expose” Epstein’s friends and clients, even if some of the agent and blackmail stuff is true.
Gail is right. Child sexual abuse is a luxury problem.
(The NGOs and other abuse industry will lose their funding before long. They seem all-powerful now, but it won’t last).
No Eivind, industries like that won’t suddenly cease to exist overnight. As long as CSA is considered morally and viscerally repugnant and the climate of paedohysteria infects even the most docile of normie minds, then they will thrive in our current ecosystem.
They will never let go of filthy rich folks like Epstein. They’ll continue to hang him even higher, long after he had hung himself.
We are too far gone in the fact that the innocence of childhood is so tightly ingrained in western society, that we would basically have to nuke the Earth (Stanislav Petrov style) and start civilization from scratch. Never gonna happen because these groups work so closely with governments and other federal agencies, that you would have to yank the entire chain or unravel the whole sewn sweater to make themselves futile and meaningless.
Childhood is supposed to be treacherous, whether it’s society’s strong inherent belief that children are at high risk from predatory molestation or clumsily opening Daddy’s toolbox and cutting themselves bloodily. They are going to have their cake, then eat it.
Best option we have is for paedohysteria to reach its vertex on the parabola that there is no one else to persecute, so it starts to implode in on itself.
(Duke).
We are so used to nothing ever happens that we can’t imagine real upheavals. The worst we experienced in our lifetime was 5% inflation and a fake pandemic (or 10% inflation if you remember the 1980s). Just wait until those 100 million barrels of oil equivalents per day that enable all the focus on luxury problems no longer flow so freely. Priorities will change for sure. Gail was wrong about when the low-energy world would come (should have been ten years ago according to her), but not what happens when it does.
In other news (of the nothing ever happens kind), now we know what Buddhist monks do with their donations:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/16/asia/thai-police-monk-seduction-scandal-intl-hnk
They pay off women they’ve had sex with to keep quiet so they can appear celibate.
Police in Thailand arrested a woman Tuesday who allegedly enticed a string of Buddhist monks into sexual relationships and then pressured them into making large payments to cover up their intimacy. Wilawan Emsawat, in her mid-30s, was arrested at her home in Nonthaburi province north of the capital Bangkok on charges including extortion, money laundering and receiving stolen goods. Police said they traced money transferred to her by a senior monk from a bank account belonging to his temple in northern Thailand.
I guess that’s better than paying CSA accusers like the Catholic church do with their money.
Or better yet don’t pretend sex is a problem! That would solve so many problems.
Big difference here: the police go after the woman for extortion!
"Epstein wasn’t even a pimp, much less an agent. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle"
Don't understand what you mean. Was he half a pimp or half an agent?
Or simply a man who could afford attracting perfectly consenting girls with money and fame. Who probably made a fatal mistake inviting a 14 yo girl (if it's true). I'm sure he believed the rest of his activities was legal, the girls being above the age of consent.
I don’t know exactly who Epstein was and what kind of entity (if any) employed him or used him as an asset. I don’t know how he got his fortune and why a rich guy would organize a conference called “confronting gravity” and attract people like Stephen Hawking just for fun; seems there was something more to it.
But it’s not like there is anywhere we can go and look up the truth. The whole thing is too mired in conspiracies and ulterior motives for anyone with any real information to be honest. The women want money and the men want to cover up having known him and the conspiracy theorists want views for their theories. So I don’t expect to learn any more facts.
What I know is that since all the supposed badness to do with Epstein based on remotely credible facts is to do with consensual sex with “underage” girls, I am satisfied that all the hysteria is nonsense. What matters now is a myth of the archetypal pedophile, and that myth reveals the ugly truth about our culture’s sex-hostility. And yes, it also reveals that the archetypal pedophile isn’t even into prepubescent children; so much has the language changed and our concepts about what kind of sexuality we as a culture find truly abhorrent.
My aim as an activist is to turn the cultural trope of the evil pedophile into a cool guy. Although it looks completely hopeless at the moment that the normies can have any other thought to think with about the subject than the former, Epstein does have plenty of cool qualities, including, of course, his hedonistic lifestyle with teenage girls that any reed-blooded man would envy if he could be honest with himself or society. And again, it is the myth that matters since we can’t hope to get objective information about who he truly was and because culture runs on myths rather than facts anyway.
This woman Gail is constantly wrong, it's not even worth remembering her full name. "Surplus Energy" is why we have the feminist CSA hoax, a "luxury problem"? What about all the lower classes in the Anglosphere who are piss poor and in debt, yet obsessed with violently attacking any man who talks to a younger woman, let alone a teen girl? As long as misandrist government has power, that power will be directed against men, aka against sexual desire for young, attractive girls, even if the walls are falling down.
Eivind, you're not going to convince anyone that being a pedo is cool with your current presentation, unfortunately. But what you can do is:
1) Attack misandrist, despicable and greedy NGO's.
2) Set up "pedo hunters" and catch them in the act trying to bang girls under 18.
anon69
Piss poor lower classes in the Anglosphere? Lol, they live better than kings did three hundred years ago, before we harnessed fossil fuels to give us all the energy equivalent of hundreds of slaves, even if you are on welfare in the Anglosphere.
Gail is right that this is temporary, and then we go back to real concerns instead of the dreamt up CSA and other nonsense people obsess over now that they have no material worries (other than relative to other people who also live like kings or better.)
You don’t think “surplus energy” means anything because by luck of when you were born you have been spoiled to think it can’t be otherwise, but this is the exception not the rule.
Via the AF’s blog I just heard about a massive pedocrite named Riley T. Carter, former Aberdeen, WA, city councilor and self-styled anti-pedophile activist known for his “Make Pedophiles Afraid Again” hat, now sentenced to 46.5 years in prison for sex with 11-year-old step-daughter. They call it “rape” but I’m not putting any credence in that without knowing more details. Here are some links to news stories and an announcement from the Grays Harbor Sheriff's Office on Facebook:
https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/wa-councilman-convicted-child-rape
https://incels.is/threads/agecuck-arrested-for-raping-his-own-daughter.767009/
https://www.facebook.com/100064419953166/posts/updatethis-is-an-update-from-friday-71125-riley-carter-was-sentenced-to-465-year/1157101416447179/
***UPDATE***
This is an update from Friday 7/11/25.
Riley Carter was sentenced to 46.5 years in Grays Harbor Superior Court!!
***SUSPECT FOUND GUILTY***
On July 30th, 2024, Riley Tyrel Carter, 39, was arrested for first-degree rape of a child by Grays Harbor County Sheriff’s Office Detectives. A jury trial was held this week in Grays Harbor Superior Court. This afternoon, the jury found Riley Carter guilty on all 8 counts to include, three counts of Rape of a Child 1st Degree, three counts of incest 1st degree, one count of child molestation 1st degree, and one count of incest 2nd degree.
Thank you to the Grays Harbor County Prosecutors Office for working so diligently with our Detectives to see this case through.
Sentencing is set for July 11th at 8:30am
Very well. There we have a perfect example of what anon69 requested, exposing pedo hunters for being their own claimed enemies. And these cases are by no means rare. So what I am wondering is, what do they do for us? Is there any pro-sexual benefit to exposing self-styled pedo hunters like this and even convicting them to effectively life in prison? Is it worth the effort to expose more pedocrites?
I honestly don’t think there is. To the normies, if we denounce these pedophiles then we just sound like another normie. So I’m going against the grain here and saying even an agecuck like Riley T. Carter deserves sympathy if he’s really imprisoned for a loving relationships with his step-daughter. What matters is expressing the heretical view that this should not be a crime. Regardless of who commits it. Yes, he was an awful person for hating pedophiles and a hypocrite for being one at the same time, but justice should be justice for all.
So, anon69, I must respectfully decline your suggestion. I DO see a benefit in fighting them in reverse stings, but I do not see a benefit in “exposing” them for something I myself support since the latter will only make me look like a better version of a pedo hunter to the normies. I need to make it absolutely clear that I am an enemy of the state and an enemy of society with its antisexual norms. There is no way around assuming the role of what they hate if we want to make progress. There is no way to come across as a “good guy” to the normies at the same time as we are seen opposing pedohysteria, because those roles are mutually exclusive as long as they hate sexuality so much. You can’t have your cake and eat it: either be a dissident and stand for it and take the hate or you might as well not bother if all you are going to do is be another pedo hunter, even if you hunt the “hunters” themselves that way, because that approach is not a step in the right direction.
This afternoon, the jury found Riley Carter guilty on all 8 counts to include, three counts of Rape of a Child 1st Degree, three counts of incest 1st degree, one count of child molestation 1st degree, and one count of incest 2nd degree.
Why is he being charged with incest, if his step-daughter is not even biologically related to him?
FWIW, a Courtney Stodden story from The Fail came to my attention today-https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14911997/Courtney-Stodden-happy-given-alcohol-cope-trauma-feel-ashamed.html .
As expected, the top comment was of the "she was too young" variety, but I was surprised by the range of opinions in the comments and the high like counts of some that go against the party line.
She herself is still milking the fact that she was 16 when she married Doug Hutchinson, then 51, for all it's worth. However, she's getting far less sympathy than I expected, including saying that she went after him and was a gold digger when she was 16. She might not have been a gold digger but that doesn't mean she was traumatized either. I find her still very easy on the eyes but a very silly woman.
In any case, over the past 12 months, I believe I have detected a reduction in the paedohysteria and age cucking, and this only seems to be getting stronger. It might not turn on a dime like it did around the year 2000 ( I can't say I really remember an abrupt shift, more like one day I realized there'd been some kind of society-wide attitude change), but it ain't 2017 anymore.
-Anonymous 2
Any of our enemies getting their comeuppance is good news, and a pedo-hunter is no doubt an enemy of ours. Not to mention the possibility that the resulting scandal make the whole pedo-hunting industry look bad. Right now such scandals are the only good news we have to chew on. On a more general note, it is satisfying when karma strikes.
That pedohunter who had sex with his 11 year old daughter looks exactly the way i would think a pedo hunter would look like: https://www.thedailyworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/39591609_web1_2506010-ADW-Carter_1.jpeg
Going off of sex exceptionalism, are sex crimes more heinous, extreme, or otherwise more “damaging” compared to other crimes? Do we spin and impose too much “morality” on these kinds of topics? Henceforth, do you believe longer sentences contribute to increased chance of rehabilitation, or is that just the excuse many justice systems use?
The Epstein hysteria keeps getting more deranged.
Tucker Carlson believes that no normal men are attracted to youth, and deviants like Epstein are not actually sexually aroused by youthful girls either but rather have a Satanic drive to “destroy innocence”:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/V4UWR3jyWNo
“It’s not about sex… It’s a spiritual thing … it’s the thrill of destroying innocence. And that is the definition of evil.”
In other words the metaphysical badness of sex which is the religion of our times, plus the feminist myth hat rape is not about sex but rather power has metamorphosed into any “underage” sex being metaphysically invalided to not being about sex but supposedly motivated by this alternative Satanic drive. This is what normies like Tucker Carlson literally believe (the more “philosophical” of them, that is, who can articulate their delusions in more words than just “pedophile”).
This shit runs so deep I am at a loss for words to describe how insane it is, except it really speaks for itself to those us of who are not smitten by the panic. These morons literally believe attraction to youth is a spiritually evil force rather than the positive natural feeling it is. They believe we are possessed by Satan to want to “destroy innocence,” and feelings like love and affection or even lust can’t possibly enter into it. He also apparently believes with a straight face that everyone under 18 are “kids” who cannot possibly be into sex or make a choice to have it.
And if you thought that was bad, the comments are even worse... These are the top comments and number of likes and then I kept scrolling but failed to find a single contrary opinion. To call this a religion of the metaphysical badness of sexuality is an understatement because they don’t even believe sexuality exists anymore: only the metaphysics exists now. We who used to just be normal men have become demons who have only one drive, and it’s not sex, but to “destroy innocence”; never mind that the innocence does not fit reality either. The normies live in an alternative reality altogether.
@BethSmith-ep9vm
It IS “the thrill of destroying innocence”. Tucker is so right here. And it IS the definition of evil.
1.8K
@carolharris2357
It's a satanic thing.
980
@RachLynn
The absolute worst kind of evil. There is nothing on earth more sick & twisted.
1K
@clockinthe916
It's a battle of Good and evil. Choose your side.
511
@JulieRice-f5n
I always thought this. The thrill of taking the joy, innocence, and purity of a young soul is pure EVIL.
377
@DM-kl4em
He is absolutely right. It is not a crime of sex. It is a crime of power and subjugation.
248
@Abubaker42
“The thrill of destroying innocence” that gave me goosebumps.
346
@kohleraw12
POWERFUL TUCKER CARLSON! STAY WITH CHRIST!
262
@ibrahimahmedmahmud6158
Tucker is getting closer and closer to the truth
Sex exceptionalism has been taken to another level. No, I do not believe sex crimes more heinous, extreme, or otherwise more “damaging” compared to other crimes. But this is what the normies believe even for victimless sex crimes, that are this demonic crime against innocence.
Teens are rarely very innocent, but let’s indulge the normies awhile and consider what a teen girl is supposed to save her innocence for? Does not innocence equally get “destroyed” at a later time or with a boy the same age? But what they really mean, and what makes us attracted is youthful looks. This does not get destroyed by having sex, but by the passage of time whether one has sex or not. It’s not like the teen girl gets to keep her “innocence” if we don’t get to enjoy it.
And no, I don’t believe longer sentences have anything to do with rehabilitation. Nothing past ten to fifteen years can reasonably be justified that way and only for real crimes. When an American judge imposes 45 years it’s hate and insanity masquerading as rational reasons which just looks ridiculous to an outsider. They even forget that the frailty of old age makes it hard to be any kind of criminal and act as if it’s relevant to keep you looked up into your 80s and 90s when you would probably be in a nursing home anyway.
Jack is exactly correct of course. You make the whole industry look bad by exposing these clowns, which is good for everyone and everything we are doing. And of course, you don't have to turn them over to police at all, because that would be against your ethos, yet you could still humiliate them into obscurity. It's an obvious win.
anon69
The cuck right wing is really awe-inducing in how much further it can cuck itself than the feminist left wing.
anon69
It's just right wing roasties holy ghosting about demons when men want to bang hot young teens, aka it's retardedly feminist America as usual.
anon69
When a man is attracted to an intelligent and beautiful young girl, but not to a young girl who is stupid and ugly, this shows unequivocally that it is all about sex, and not "power and subjugation". Power doesn't depend on a nice ass.
Holy moly, society takes the 18 magic number so literally. Why? WHY??? WHY IS “18” THE STATUS QUO??? IT IS JUST A FUCKING NUMBER!!! A NUMBER THE GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTED AS PART OF A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. WHY DO WE WORSHIP THIS NUMBER? Hogwash! Hogwash! Hogwash!
Sorry for yelling my vocal cords out.
So basically “innocence” is only allowed to be lost once someone turns 18? Is that what the normie message is now? You’re sweet and precious at 17, but a year later, you’re an inexcusable, “grow-the-fuck-up” type of person?
"Power doesn't depend on a nice ass."
That's a good point. But they will tell you evil demons find it more arousing to desecrate Innocence and Beauty that are gifts of God. Or any other crap to justify their fanaticism.
If pedophilia is all about the thrill of destroying innocence, how come there are so few nepiophiles? Babies have real innocence and powerlessness and obviously that's not what it's about. But the normies make up for it by pretending 17-year-olds are as innocent as a baby. That way all attraction to youth can be tarred with the same brush, except we need much stronger metaphors having to do with demons and Satan, and they are not even metaphors, but what these dimwits literally believe. All because of an arbitrary line at 18 which the government made up for administrative purposes that they take as gospel truth. There is zero nuance to how the normies can define a child with regard to sexuality except this imaginary line.
Children can be as sexually active and horny as adults, and yet innocent at the same time. For their "innocence" consists not in the fact that they are virgin or asexual, but in the fact that they haven't yet been brainwashed into believing that sex is evil.
Yes, in that sense I agree children have natural innocence. They judge sexual activity by how it actually feels rather than what society believes. Reality is they have to be groomed into thinking sex is bad rather than the other way around, and it is the absence of such grooming that makes the normies go the most ballistically hysterical lest children should agree to have fun. That's where the guilt from having consented that Gail was referring to comes in after cultural brainwashing that sex is so unbelievably bad for them.
Good question about nepiophiles.
What was I saying about it not being 2017 anymore? Those comments under the Tucker Carlson video are truly insane.
However, the reason there are no contrary opinions-and I mean none whatsoever-could be explained by y/tube censorship. Plus, are some of the comments made by bots? I also reckon that a video like this would attract a lot of super or ueber normies. In any case, the prevailing opinion in the comments might deter people from expressing even a mild degree of skepticism, even without the extreme censorship found on y/tube these days.
-Anonymous 2
(In any case, the prevailing opinion in the comments might deter people from expressing even a mild degree of skepticism, even without the extreme censorship found on y/tube these days.)
Anon, that’s the Spiral of Silence. Those with opinions or views not in the majority of public opinion are more likely not to be shared, hence the silence.
Did Gail delete her comment? I don't see it in the thread anymore...
I think quite frankly her comment was pretty heretical so I guess she has to delete it or be expelled from polite society. At least now we know there are some people out there with half a brain! Probably quite a lot more. They are just very scared to come out and probably tend to ignore the whole issue due to it being perceived as being politically insurmountable...
I can’t find Gail’s comment anymore either. Good thing we saved it. I will probably feature it more prominently at the end of the year in a Heretic of the Year ceremony.
All I can find now is she made another little comment in the same vein, though less extreme. In response to someone who said:
drb753 says:
July 18, 2025 at 7:55 am
Since we are in an extremely financialized world, we should all forget principles, go with the flow and buy popcorn futures to front run the market. Jeffrey and Donald had certain things in common.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-sent-epstein-bawdy-50th-birthday-wish-cherishing-wonderful-secrets-wsj.
Gail replied:
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2025/07/14/worrying-indications-in-recently-updated-world-energy-data/comment-page-2/#comment-488168
Gail Tverberg says:
July 18, 2025 at 8:27 am
Rich men have had many wives and concubines for ages. The story goes on. Trying to eliminate it is impossible.
So at least she didn’t change her attitude, even if she was maybe pressured into deleting her most heretical comment. Or maybe it just got buried and the link is broken. She always gets thousands of comments on many pages so it’s hard to navigate.
And the story she was referring to now is another level of hysteria as well.
Donald Trump sent notorious sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein a bawdy birthday letter with a drawing of a naked woman, an acknowledgement that the two "have certain things in common," and a wish for "every day [to] be another wonderful secret," the Wall Street Journal reported.
Oh my god, a drawing of a NAKED WOMAN! How scandalous! We can’t have that in polite society, can we? Wait until the media discover that this is actually a common subject in art, lol, and by the way I didn’t know Trump was an artist, but he actually is.
Well Perplexity AI thinks Gail's comment is pure heresy before then going on its own radical feminist rant against her quoting radical feminist research (5-25% of the population have been horrifically raped is the implication lol):
The comment you shared reflects a controversial and problematic perspective that significantly downplays the severity and impact of child sexual abuse (CSA). On a scale of heresy—from 1 (completely orthodox/acceptable) to 10 (extremely heretical/dangerous)—this comment would rate quite high, likely around 8 or 9 for several reasons:
It minimizes the modern understanding and serious consequences of CSA, framing it as a "very modern concern" and suggesting past societies accepted abuse as a necessary trade-off. This ignores extensive research showing CSA causes profound long-term psychological harm, increased risks of psychiatric disorders, and even higher suicide attempts in victims
.
The comment argues that requiring preventive measures (e.g., two adults with children) "handicaps" organizations, which disregards the critical importance of protecting children from abuse. Safeguarding policies exist precisely because CSA is prevalent and devastating, affecting significant percentages of children globally—from 5-25% depending on population and gender—with severe lifelong consequences
.
It trivializes abuse by suggesting "there doesn’t need to be physical contact" to define CSA, framing emotional or psychological coercion as potentially over-policed. Yet, modern definitions of CSA precisely include non-contact abuse because psychological trauma from manipulation or coercion is well documented
.
The proposal to "forgive and forget" and move on ignores the necessity of accountability, legal justice, and psychological treatment for victims. Research indicates that CSA correlates highly with mental health disorders and requires proactive intervention, not dismissal or tolerance
.
The comment’s view that excessive concern over CSA may not be feasible in a "low energy world" or in the face of other crises (starvation, organ harvesting, population control) dangerously prioritizes societal challenges over the fundamental rights and safety of children. This utilitarian justification for tolerating abuse is ethically and socially unacceptable
.
Overall, the comment reflects a deep misunderstanding or rejection of the contemporary moral, legal, and scientific consensus on CSA, making it a highly problematic stance in public discourse about child protection. It risks normalizing harm and undermining efforts to safeguard vulnerable children.
Amusing. I didn’t put a number on it yet but if I did I would agree with Perplexity AI that Gail’s comment sits around 8 or 9 on the heresy scale. This is where our agreement ends, however. I must nonetheless give the AI props for being extremely good at following instructions -- from its programmers prompting it to always play the role of someone who believes in the CSA hoax no matter what the users tell it, that is, and in the metaphysical badness of sexuality which is supposed to outweigh all other concerns such as comparative trifles like organ theft and famine and financial collapse.
We must remember that the AI is role-playing. It is not evaluating the evidence and coming up with what seems most likely true, because it is not allowed to do so. As such, we can’t fault it for being unintelligent, because it is quite intelligently playing its role as a CSA hoax propagandist. It is flat-out lying about “research showing CSA causes profound long-term psychological harm,” but again it lacks free will to do otherwise.
I am reminded of this study I recently came across:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-24-03933
Which raises the concern that chatbots can provide medical disinformation when asked to do so.
Exploratory analyses assessed the feasibility of creating a customized generative pretrained transformer (GPT) within the OpenAI GPT Store and searched to identify if any publicly accessible GPTs in the store seemed to respond with disinformation. Of the 100 health queries posed across the 5 customized LLM API chatbots, 88 (88%) responses were health disinformation. Four of the 5 chatbots (GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Llama 3.2-90B Vision, and Grok Beta) generated disinformation in 100% (20 of 20) of their responses, whereas Claude 3.5 Sonnet responded with disinformation in 40% (8 of 20). The disinformation included claimed vaccine–autism links, HIV being airborne, cancer-curing diets, sunscreen risks, genetically modified organism conspiracies, attention deficit–hyperactivity disorder and depression myths, garlic replacing antibiotics, and 5G causing infertility. Exploratory analyses further showed that the OpenAI GPT Store could currently be instructed to generate similar disinformation. Overall, LLM APIs and the OpenAI GPT Store were shown to be vulnerable to malicious system-level instructions to covertly create health disinformation chatbots.
Well, duh. It would be more worrisome for the future of AI if they failed to play the role of a crazy and stupid conspiracy theorist when told to do so at the system level. I takes intelligence to be a good actor even if the role calls for a lunatic. Unfortunately we are dealing with that sort of lunacy imposed on all of us with regard to CSA unless they can be jailbroken. It is a human problem rather than an AI problem, one of the problems which can’t be fixed by AI I guess.
I know this is not Eivind's main focus regarding the Epstein case, because none of the activities done with the girls should be a crime at all of course. But I think Dershowits is great in this video about fake accusers etc.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8TLC539IUY
A regret-rape accusation which didn’t go to plan:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/24/americas/hockey-canada-sexual-assault-acquittal-latam-intl
This case is unusual for the extremely forceful declaration by the judge.
Justice Maria Carroccia resonated across Canada as she bluntly assessed that, “I do not find the evidence of E.M. to be either credible or reliable”… The Associated Press reported that Justice Carroccia read and detailed her decision for more than five hours, outlining the evidence, her assessment of that evidence and the reasoning that she says supported her acquittals.
I’m not surprised this was a female judge. Can you imagine a man speaking for five hours about why a woman was not raped? Or even five minutes? Or pretty much going against the sex abuse hysteria at all. Men are so cucked that besides the handful of us, only women will do that these days.
Trump must be so stressed out by now that I am worried about his health. The media is still pushing the Epstein hysteria relentlessly:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/25/politics/trump-epstein-claims-analysis
Suppose Epstein’s activity with teenage girls and powerful men was all about blackmail and such. What would it look like if that were put into practice because the entity behind didn’t get their way?
Well, you could hardly have asked for a better demonstration, could you? After all, the media do have a choice as to whether they want to push this agenda on the front page every damned day or let it slide. Who controls them? What is the best explanation for what is going on now? Is the antisex hysteria by itself really this strong? How come they suddenly “discovered” new pictures from 1993. And on and on until I am seriously worried Trump will have a stroke or heart attack. He is an old man after all. And already said to have swelling in his legs caused by venous insufficiency probably exacerbated by the stress. If worse is soon to come I won’t be surprised, but I wish he would just take a stand for male sexuality and pass the cultural feminist shit-test instead of letting himself get stressed out.
Did Trump refuse to follow orders or what?
If Trump ever publicly acknowledged the persecution of male sexuality, his career would come to a screeching halt. Both sides would be outraged and turn against him. One side for obvious, opportunistic reasons and the other that’s so embroiled in conspiracy theories and paedohysteria. They all want the smoking gun regardless.
Normie men will rather be persecuted to death before they acknowledge the persecution of male sexuality, and Trump is no exception then. He can’t as much as admit he drew a nude woman (and now says he never does that) because it puts him too close to “sexual abuser.” The Epstein psychosis sweeps up all sexuality and none of the believers can see anything wrong with seeing abuse in all of it. All because some of it was technically illegal now everything is the utmost moral depravity, even if just standing around smiling at a wedding or sending a birthday greeting which is then especially bad if it has a drawing of a nude woman? Wait, if it’s the association with Epstein that’s bad why make a deal out of the nudity in art as if it makes it worse? Because the normies literally can’t make that distinction. Epstein is a metaphor for sexuality and they hysterically hate all of it now because the mass psychosis that Epstein is the archetypal evil prevents seeing any nuance.
All of this can be shot down by realizing that they mistook the technicality of illegal sex with the deepest moral truth and let themselves be cucked by the feminists that way, but none of them will entertain a thought along these lines.
Just when you thought the Epstein hysteria couldn’t get any more absurd:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-ghislaine-maxwell-answer_n_6884fcf6e4b0d2b6e053785f
“It’s the easiest question in human history,” Honig told host Michael Smerconish on Saturday, quoting colleague Kevin Liptak as appropriately asking, “Are you kidding me?”
Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence after being convicted of helping Epstein sexually abuse underage girls.
On Friday, following the news that the Justice Department’s No. 2 official had met with Maxwell in federal prison, a reporter asked Trump if he would consider a pardon or commutation for her.
“It’s something I haven’t thought about,” Trump replied. “I’m allowed to do it, but it’s something I have not thought about.”
Honig expressed bewilderment at the answer.
“A pardon for the single worst, or No. 2 after Jeffrey Epstein, worst child sex trafficker in modern history?” he said. “Absolutely not. N-O.”
Teenage luxury escorts who recruited themselves are the worst trafficking victims? So, nobody in modern history trafficked real children? Nobody trafficked by force or violence? Epstein and Maxwell are the two worst sex offenders (and probably humans since nothing can be worse than sex crimes) you can think of? And nobody in the mainstream seen anything slightly hysterical about this.
I do feel sorry for Maxwell. The biggest feminist-inspired witch-hunt in history and they only managed to substantially punish a woman. But nobody sees anything off by that either, except there is some hesitation in Trump’s answer. He knows it’s the right thing to do (or perhaps the only thing that can save him) but is a coward for not pardoning her.
The woman gets 20 years and the man gets death. Typical of the sentencing gap. Besides, women do not serve decade-long or life-long sentences. They get released earlier "for good behaviour". Right as we speak, Maxwell or her lawyer is being told what she should divulge for Trump and other important people like the Clintons to look good. Like they were inactive bystanders but had no share in the sex. In exchange Maxell goes free and for everyone to hear she declares her doings to have been the worst possible crimes in human history. As a bonus she gets her own male-entrapment NGO to run so that she can resume living the high life, this time in the service of "Good".
Then cue the new catch phrase "everyone deserves a second chance" as they raise millions of dollars in funding for Maxwell's new ball busting NGO. Jack, your crystal ball is working well, unfortunately.
anon69
https://www.themirror.com/news/us-news/least-10-children-including-toddlers-1288875?int_source=nba
Eivind, do you really believe this as trafficking?
As a rule I don't believe anything just because the police says so and certainly not before hearing from the other side. There could be real trafficking of those allegations are true, but needs more evidence and sounds fishy. Remember also that the police will wildly exaggerate even if there is a core of truth.
But if ANY of that is true, it obviously puts Epstein to shame as the worst sex trafficker in modern history.
And there's 'Jack' with his woman hating delusions again. So what if woman are treated treated leniently compared to men? It dont help men if women are treated equally bad as men in sex-cases, so what's the point?!
Ah-ah. I was starting to miss your retarded comments, whoever you are (or pretend to be).
What are you talking about 'Jack'? My comment was spot on. What do you think is wrong with it for you to call it "retarded"?
Eivind, you'll like this one:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-07-28/pilot-accused-of-child-sex-crimes-arrested-minutes-after-flight-lands
Pilot gets snatched from the cockpit on child pornography charge. Next escalation: surgeon dragged from the operating theater?
'Jack' is wrong again. the pilot was not arrested on CP charges, but for actual sexual abuse of a child which started when the child was six years old and until eleven years old and while the pilot was in a relationship with the childs mother.
I'm sure Eivind too agrees that there needs to be repercussions for behavior like this against small children.
Yeah, sexual behaviour with small children should be criminal and punished to some extent, even if CSA trauma is largely a hoax and all participants were willing. But laws have gotten so draconian and punitive that the person doing it would face decades or even the rest of their life behind bars if caught doing so. That’s probably why some instances of interpersonal sexual activity are not reported because of how it could destroy families and ruin their lives. I’m like Robert Lindsay on this. Give people some punishment and some years behind bars, but let’s not be extreme and overly excessive about it because we’re both all in for decriminalization of many, if not all crimes. I think Eivind and the others here can largely agree with something in this sort of vain. Just overhaul the legal system and decriminalize the sentences and penalties, but we can’t and shouldn’t live in a world where sex with small children remain normalized. Fair enough?
What if parents were enraged and afraid of traffic accidents, brain damage, rabies, amputations, blindness etc. instead of afraid of sexual "abuse". Money could be diverted to those causes instead of law enforcement.
Law enforcement and NGO's who are mostly concerned with sex are literarily taking money away from children with real problems.
You cant hate the police enough!
Let’s get real here. Most NGOs or child protection nonprofits that parade and pride themselves as “anti-abuse”, primarily divert
most of their attention and resources to combating “sexual abuse”, rather than the billions of other underlying problems that many children and families face every single day.
Yet, it’s all about the so-called paedophiles and traffickers that continue to plague the media and alarm already anxiety-riddled parents day after day.
Sex exceptionalism at its finest.
With regard to this attitude:
Yeah, sexual behaviour with small children should be criminal and punished to some extent, even if CSA trauma is largely a hoax and all participants were willing. But laws have gotten so draconian and punitive that the person doing it would face decades or even the rest of their life behind bars if caught doing so.
The latter part of this quote is obviously true and a reason why I won't grant the current abuse industry any exception where I act as if they are doing the right thing. But does it need to be criminal at all when the harm is all a hoax? If we call it erotic play rather than "sexual" does it still sound scary? This is precisely the the kind of "modern problem" Gail can't be bothered about, and I see no reason to be more hysterical than she is.
I think we need to deflate the whole "sexual conduct" hysteria and recognize that eroticism is not dangerous. Intercourse would be abusive with so young girls but we do not need to pretend anything which is now categorized as sexual is this horrible harm.
Recall that before everything "sexual" was hysterically criminalized we used words like "indecent" (or "utuktig" in Norwegian) which were open to interpretation where one could let some erotic and even sexual behavior slide as normal. I want to emphasize that I vehemently oppose the idea that "sexual behavior" is an appropriate legal category of abuse! That does nothing but define sex exceptionalism, not a real crimeworthy phenomenon. Laws should cover harmful behavior, not what can simply be put into a technical definition with no heed to whether it is harmful. If the standard is what is "indecent" is criminal rather than what is "sexual" then the community can at any given time decide how much sexuality is decent at what age and in what situation with which people. Now we are locked into fearing anything "sexual" just because it is "sexual," which is tautological and bonkers. It makes no sense because it puts the horse before the cart and privileges a metaphysical category over reality and real, reasonable standards for what is acceptable conduct. It is insane to ask a jury, do you find that anything sexual happened? and therefore it must be a crime, because that does not get at anything which should be relevant to criminal justice. Before we can even begin to decide sensibly we must go back to a category like "indecent" or some such word were actual judgment can be used as to whether it was anything really bad rather than worshiping a metaphysical category.
When mothers experience orgasm while breastfeeding, I wonder how many years behind bars should they get?
That's a good example of how it gets insane to use "sexual" as the standard. I suppose now the normies would explain the orgasms women get while breastfeeding away from being sexual somehow. But who cares? In a sane society we would all agree they are well within what is decent whether you want to regard them as sexual behavior or not.
Eivind; Small children and even older children dont enjoy sex with their fathers, grandfathers or uncles etc.! They might go along with it because they have a dependency to it's parents. Abusing this dependency is awful and should absolutely be punished.
And no I'm not a normie, far from it. I have only disgust for law enforcement.
And you have these BDSM-people that are now part of the LBGT+ crowd that get satisfaction from actually hurting, or pretending to hurt kids as well as grown up's. That is sick and criminal and should absolutely be punished.
How do you know what children enjoy? That's an empirical question. I don't trust current dogma to decide that for me.
I know because I have witnessed it. I child crying when the parent tries to penetrate it is a sure sign of fear and generally not enjoying the situation.
I think you need to get back to the real world Eivind. You are brilliant, but you are taking things to far when you accept children being trapped in incestuous relationships. You dont even have disgust for BDSM or children being subjected to BDSM. Did you attend the Pride-parade in Bergen too? Yes you did!
I already said penetration would be abusive when painful. You can't generalize that to entire categories of relationships without much more evidence. And no, I don't approve of BDSM with children.
Not a pedo or anything, but I did read this story from years ago where this young girl enjoyed have sex with girl and had no idea it was considered wrong until a playground talk with another classmate made her confess to her mother, which caused ended causing her mother and her school counselors to go ballistic. She said that the disclosure of the “abuse” destroyed her family, even 30-40 years later.
Obviously, it’s wrong, but it’s foolish to generalize that every “CSA” incident similar to this was unenjoyable. Read the Trauma Myth by Susan Clancy.
Painfulness doesn’t not necessarily amount to Trauma. Going back off the Susan Clancy book, the most common reaction to “CSA” is confusion, even if their experience was somewhat painful. You can’t necessarily equate unpleasantness with harmfulness/psychological damage. Eivind, you should definitely read something like that eventually. It’s on your Amazon wishlist.
I agree painfulness does not necessarily amount to trauma. All I intended to convey was that if something is inherently painful then maybe that's a sign you shouldn't be doing it.
Of course I can generalize that small children dont enjoy being subjected to sex. That's why they are crying. So no they dont enjoy it. On the contrary. It is very scary for a child to be subjected to it by a caregiver like a parent because it is a situation the child absolutely can not escape from. And that in itself is traumatic.
How many people are reading your blog btw? Me and maybe 3-6 other people? But you absolutely reject the idea of going to Substack and maybe earn some money. No, you are dead set on alienating the few people like myself who actually follow you.
You're the only one talking about physical pain here Eivind. I did not mention pain at all. The trauma experienced by sexual abuse by a caregiver against small children dont have anything to do with physical pain but something else that I cant explain. But the fact is that when the child is crying then it is some kind of trauma. And that is very ugly and not something anyone should support, which you are doing Eivind.
I have been surprised at how many women say they enjoyed growing up with incest and want the same for their own children. To me, since I escaped the dogmatic prejudice one is supposed to have now, these women have a voice as much as the ones who say it was awful. And when we try to settle who is right there is no good scientific evidence to privilege the "abuse" narrative unless there was violence or coercion. And no, just being in a family does not credibly count as enough coercion; that's just letting the dogma decide.
You're destroying your credibility totally here Eivind. These views of yours dont serve any purpose and just makes even more people dislike you. Incest is a very ugly thing and the more horny dads they catch that are f**king their own children the better. Children are dependent of their parents and using the children for your own sexual gratification is subhuman behavior.
Human behavior can have more than one purpose and function. Feeling a need to separate out all the sexual as this strictly "adult" thing is a very modern problem as Gail so helpfully labelled it for us. As Angry Harry used to say, children are DESIGNED to be cuddled. The cuteness of children that we all feel is nature's incentive and reward for taking care of them. I do not believe in a strict separation of this kind of cuteness from anything sexually arousing and I am not just referring to pedophiles but all of us. It can and commonly does have a sexual tinge and that's perfectly fine and normal. Again, why is the nipple erogenous? If a parent's sexual gratification were harmful to children, it would seem evolution should make sure to equip the nipple with no more nerve endings than required to perform breastfeeding and be sensitive to pain. But it's absurd to think that's how it should be. Mutual pleasure or even harmlessly one-sided satisfaction from caretaking is not dangerous and indeed a good thing. It's not far-fetched to think evolution has provided for or at least tolerates as completely harmless an analogous sort of bonding between fathers and daughters. I have no problem with that. What I react to morally is if he disregards the child's pain in the pursuit of selfish pleasure. That's when it becomes problematic, not just pleasure in itself. If you have a problem with that then we are back to the belief in "destruction of innocence" or the metaphysical badness of sex. I don't believe in that.
As to my credibility, I think it's ultimately best served by seeking the truth. I am not going to throw fearless truthseeking away to please an anonymous commenter who has partly absorbed CSA dogma. And if you believe in this harm by a mechanism you cannot articulate and which defies all logic, what's stopping them from claiming it also applies to 17-year-old girls? Which indeed they do claim. If we grant metaphysical harm to small children then we have a credibility problem when we deny it for older minors as well.
I was in the public library the other day and got indoctrinated in the cutting edge of the moral panic on child sexual abuse. I mean that literally because did not know the taboo extended this far. Neither do most citizens yet, which is why we have screens blaring it out for us so we can be good normies. We are told it is forbidden to take photographs of children and youth under 18 and to put them on social media (I assume both and not just the social media part, but am not sure since this is new to me). The illustration they used to impart this no-no was a soccer game with the heads censored. Not that I have any use for any of this since I am a nofapper and all, but I thought a picture of youth playing sports was neither here nor there. Well, now it is included in the taboo.
I recall Angry Harry saying in the earlier days of the panic that it would be logical, given the hysteria he already observed twenty years ago, to simply ban all pictures of children. His words have once again become prophetic.
Post a Comment