Who wants a staggered age of consent?

Let us consider the idea of a staggered age of consent, which is currently floated in the UK as part of a campaign of hatred against men led by the government and media and a woman who had a relationship to Russell Brand when she was 16 and now fancies herself a victim -- not just of an alleged assault but of the entire relationship in principle because he was 30. Of course the feminists would love to raise it to 18 for all, but a staggered age of consent is suggested as a kind of compromise. But is it really?

Actually it brings discrimination front and center at a time when we are not supposed to discriminate, which is probably why surveys show less support for this concept than raising the age of consent absolutely. Let’s say the law gets staggered so people under 18 are restricted to consenting to 20 and under while anyone older is defined as an abuser if there is any sexual contact. You get two classes of people. The “morally pure” up to 21 who can be trusted with teenage lovers down to 16 and the second-class citizens 21 and over who cannot. The moral class division is inescapable, forcing us to think of what was previously regular adults as morally inferior to not just children but some semi-hallowed class in between.

A, say, 40-year-old normie will not conceptualize it like he is a bad person or worse than a 20-year-old and therefore cannot sleep with 16-year-old girls, but that’s what this scheme says. Having been indoctrinated with feminist antisex bigotry his whole life he will sputter some shibboleth about a “power imbalance” when asked why, but even if true then why does he assume he will use his power for bad? He must think he is a bad person! He is full of self-loathing while also managing to ignore that the teenage girl has tremendous sexual power over most men, so why should she choose to let him boss her around? Why can’t she choose an older man (if she happens to choose an older man) who is both “powerful” and nice? Oh, they don’t exist, do they? Then we are back to the idea that men over the staggered age of consent at something like 21, or the regular age of consent at 16 for that matter, are morally worse persons than below. And what is the evidence for that?

The evidence I know of says people become more considerate with age. People become more altruistic, with the reward system in their brain responding more weakly to self-gains and more strongly to others' gains. It would be astonishing if sex is an exception to this and we all reach maximum sexual benevolence at 16 or 18 or 20, after which we all irredeemably become sexual monsters. It is absurd. There is also an awful lot of sexual aggression by men 20 and under which is hard to reconcile with making them out to be a morally pure class. Real rapists tend to be quite young while accusations against men 40 and older are almost always statutory.

Now a normie would be likely to bring up naiveness -- that it is somehow better for young girls to have their first experiences with naïve boys. Even if there is a grain of truth to the idea that a virgin or timid incel boy would be less likely to mistreat girls, naiveness is not related to age but experience. The boys teenage girls are likely to sleep with of their own age don’t remain inexperienced for long. Realistically we must imagine the 16-year-old Russell Brand-accuser choosing instead (if there had been an enforced staggered age of consent) not some virgin 16-year-old boy but a 16 to 20-year-old version of Russell Brand or similar alpha, who would probably already have had dozens of girls and act similarly already as he did at 30. It is indeed possible that Russell Brand was an inconsiderate lover, but age of consent does not solve the problem. Frankly it does the opposite -- as sexual aggression goes down while compassion goes up -- and I think even he has calmed down over the years and would not now at near 50 do what he is accused of with the 16-year-old if he should get the chance to have another Alice, which by the way is: “'forced his penis down her throat' and 'made her choke', only stopping after she punched him in the stomach.” The problem with older men is not that they tend to act like that, whereas I am not so sure that teenage boys weaned on today’s porn yet know better than to act like that. You see, they are all really not so naïve after all even if they never had sex, and not in a good way.

It is of course true that attractiveness declines with age, but that simply makes age gap relationships less likely rather than more inherently abusive. Attraction isn’t always zero, and whoever remains interested in an older man do not need a law telling them that they can’t consent. It is also entirely possible, even likely, that an older man is a more considerate, empathetic lover and will use whatever power he has over you for good rather than bad. If your view of human nature is that vulnerable equals abuse victim, I don’t see how you can trust any kind of relationship. There are many more profound ways to be vulnerable than to be young, and if you think your partner is only waiting for you to be weak so he can hurt you it would be dangerous to even fall asleep next him at any age, or be frail or incapacitated for any reason. Yet this is what the feminists will have us believe, selectively applied to age gap and sexuality. It may be consistent with their hateful agenda, but not with reality.

A taste of armageddon

When the twenty-third episode of the original Star Trek series first aired on February 23, 1967, little did they know how prophetic it would be. In this episode, the crew of the Enterprise visits a planet engaged in a completely computer-simulated war with a neighboring planet, but the casualties, including the Enterprise's crew, are supposed to be real. Although praised as allegorically powerful, the premise seemed almost too implausible to make a compelling story according to critics at the time. But that was before the Feminist War On Sex in which we are currently mired. Now it is seen as completely normal to lock men up for computer-simulated crimes. This is no longer a metaphor or philosophical speculation about how war could be "sanitized," but our everyday "criminal-justice" reality.

Let us take the most low-tech scenarios first. A sting operation is a simulation, a game, and it is considered plenty justification to lock men up. And then there is online sexual abuse and so-called image-based sexual abuse which is completely virtual but considered fully real crimes of which the metaphysics isn't the least bit suspect to the normies -- exactly like the docile aliens in Star Trek who obediently enter the disintegrator after a computer simulation tells them they are supposed to be dead. They literally believe these norms are reasonable and Kirk is a barbarian for wanting to keep it real.

Simulated sex crimes have recently reached their conceptual limit in AI-generated porn, and the normies dutifully oblige the simulated war with offerings of real casualties. Now there is a rush to criminalize this last bit along with the other fake nonsense if it isn't criminal already. Currently the news is full of titles like "Outcry in Spain as artificial intelligence used to create fake naked images of underage girls" -- and the normies gobble it up as a justification to make more real casualties out of men. The "scientific" journals are likewise full of deference to the simulation game, as one would imagine the corresponding "war studies" to be in Star Trek. Here's a fresh example: "Experiences of Online Sexual Violence: Interviews With Swedish Teenage Girls in Psychiatric Care," reifying this "violence" in a journal called Violence Against Women. The normies are so duped they don't even think about all this "violence" being completely simulated:

The technological development of the internet and smart devices has in many ways been positive, but has also created more arenas where sexual violence can take place. In recent decades, research of sexual violence has expanded and now also consider online arenas (Jonsson et al., 2019; Svedin & Jonsson, 2017; Zetterstrom Dahlqvist & Gillander Gadin, 2018). The modi operandi for online sexual violence include, but are not limited to, repeated requests for nude pictures, dickpics, online publication of nude pictures, and unwanted sexual advances such as unwanted solicitation, online grooming, and online rape.

Sexual violence is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as “any sexual act, attempt to obtain a sexual act, unwanted sexual comments or advances, or acts to traffic, or otherwise directed, against a person's sexuality using coercion, by any person regardless of their relationship to the victim, in any setting, including but not limited to home and work.” (WHO, 2012). It is regarded as a serious global public health problem, and can be perpetrated in different arenas, and in different modalities. In this article, we have used a broad definition of online sexual violence that includes a range of practices and events that have the common aspects of; being unwanted or perceived in a negative way by the subjected person; of a sexual nature; and perpetrated through some kind of digital media.

The prevalence of online sexual violence depends on how it is conceptualized and the method of measurements. Online sexual harassment, which is defined as being subjected, via electronic means to, for example unwelcome sexual comments, jokes, or gestures, or being asked to do something sexual when one does not want to, is thought to affect around 15% of American teenagers (Copp et al., 2021). A specific kind of online sexual harassment that has become ubiquitous in the present time is receiving unrequested pictures of male genitals, the so-called dickpic (Ringrose et al., 2021). The prevalence of receiving a dickpic among youth is not extensively researched, but some research suggests that for women who had at one time received a consensual dickpic, 90% had also received unwanted dickpics (Marcotte et al., 2021).

Another form of online sexual harassment is unwanted requests or pressure to send nudes, so-called pressurized sexting. This is often tightly interwoven with the practice of consensual sexting (Ringrose et al., 2013, 2022; Thomas, 2018; Thorburn et al., 2021). The prevalence of sexting was around 20% in a Swedish sample of youth from 2014 but this had increased to 37% by 2021 (Jonsson et al., 2014; Svedin et al., 2021). A meta-analysis of four studies from Canada, the US, Europe, and the Czech Republic found a prevalence of having one's sext furthered without consent was 8.4% (Madigan et al., 2018), something that some researchers propose should go under the label of image-based sexual abuse (McGlynn et al., 2017)

There is also the case of more severe forms of online sexual violence, which is often referred to as online sexual abuse, or when the survivor is underaged: online child sexual abuse. The prevalence of online child sexual abuse among youth in a large community school sample in Sweden was around 0,5% (Svedin & Jonsson, 2017).

It is bizarre that all this passes as "violence" -- exactly equivalent to having a simulated war with real casualties. And men who suffer from wanker's delusion dutifully play along, thinking they have gotten sexual value out of nothing.

Captain Kirk is powerfully wise in "A Taste of Armageddon." This type of "sanitized" war is a nightmare horror when you think about it for a while or see it dramatized in this great episode. That interplanetary war has been going on for almost 500 years, with millions of casualties every year. It could only go on for so long because they had found a way to spare the infrastructure and make death painless or hidden like we do with prisons to which men similarly report with little or no fight. People obey an ancient "treaty" which says we roll over without a fight based on a decision made by a simulation. Why the hell should we obey such a treaty or "social contract" as the normies probably would dignify it? The crew of the Enterprise does not hesitate for one second. It is instantly clear what your attitude should be to that treaty, and watching the episode is a powerful lesson not just in rationality but how humans can live morally with our violent natures. Kirk does not deny that we have war in our blood, but the direct way to go about it was not so bad after all when you consider the "woke" alternative. When the horrors of war are on full display, at least it provides an incentive to make peace from time to time.

So, take a hint from Captain Kirk. Men must break the treaty which holds that we accept real punishment for imaginary crimes. If the feminists want war it must be a real war on both sides, not a one-sided one where men are real casualties for simulated crimes.

A further absurdity to the persecution of Kandice Barber but a silver lining too

Being sexually abused by sexiness. Nothing can be more conceptually retarded. It is the ultimate absurdity humanity ever came up with, the most bizarre and evil witch-hunt, the height of misogyny, and STILL I am the only protester besides Bruce Rind. Men are asleep, women are asleep, and feminism is a joke when it can't address the most absurd travesty against women (feminism is what got us into this mess).

What is so unspeakably painful about this, besides the persecution of an innocent woman, is the absence of common sense, the absence of protest, the absence of a sane public voice besides Bruce Rind's and my own and Newgon's. But we do have something akin to satire in the mainstream. It is sort of hidden between the lines, but this piece in The Sun is definitely lampooning the verdict against Kandice Barber for being too sexy for a 15-year-old boy and now too sexy for her new job too:

A TEACHER jailed for having sex with a 15-year-old pupil has allegedly been moved away from her post-prison job as a security guard - because she's "too distracting".

Kandice Barber, 37, from Princess Risborough in Buckinghamshire, was jailed for six years and two months in 2021 after she was convicted of grooming the teen.

The mum-of-three later worked as a gate guard at a building site in Hounslow, west London while on temporary release.

But the Mail now reports that she has been moved from the job after distracting other workers.

A builder told the newspaper: "She's attractive looking, so she's already proving a hit with the lads, who have no idea about her background.

"It's no secret she's a massive flirt and lots of the staff there have already noticed her."

Thanks to The Sun for doing their little part in mocking feminist antisex bigotry. I wrote about Kandice Barber myself back in 2021 too and her case still profoundly upsets me, but this is at least some kind of balm. In times of insane witch-hunts we can find solace in satire if nothing else.

I realize that what compels me to rail against the female sex offender charade in particular is not so much the evil (which is pretty standard incarceration which regularly happens for bad reasons anyway) as the insane conceptualization behind perpetrating the evil. Had the authorities instead used for example a "laycase" justification for persecuting sexuality like Norway did centuries ago, it would just be run-of-the-mill senseless persecution that I could address along with the Sex War against men too. A world which conceptualizes the very same persecutions as laycase, which is an offense against God and the King rather than "sexual abuse" against a putative "victim," is a less insane world than the one we now inhabit. I lose faith in humanity because no one else reacts to the insane conceptualization, even if they don't care to stop the injustice, which is hardly ever to be expected anyway.

This was the chief value of traditional religion as I see it: to reduce secular superstitions, to avoid poisoning our personal relationships with insane justifications for the authorities' control of sexuality. Since the justification for antisexual oppression was outsourced to a supernatural realm, people could have their feelings in peace. Love and lust are above "sin" and not corrupted by that concept in this world, unlike the feminist concept of sexual abuse. Instead of believing in God and perhaps at worst an unpleasant afterlife for sinners (who can be forgiven anyway unlike current sex offenders), we now believe in zombies, people who act sexually but aren't really because this world doesn't count -- the flesh is now held to be the only life we got, but it is demoted to a less real realm than the Christians deemed it. Back when Christianity was the state religion rather than feminism, we didn't pretend women can "sexually abuse" boys at all, and certainly not by pleasantly seducing them. They also pretended much less fake sexual abuse for girls. The age of consent was something like 10 and didn't apply to female "offenders."

History will judge our time as dominated by the religion of "sexual abuse," with its irrational belief in the metaphysical badness of sex for many bizarre reasons, chiefly among them that it inevitably corrupts minors and does so equally for boys and girls and by men and women including the most sexy ones -- a kind of transsexualist belief where we pretend there are no differences, which also had some additional nonsexual absurdities manifesting in our times which waned sooner than the "sex abuse" superstitions. Future historians may or may not call it feminism like I am doing, but this will be the gist. I realize I am writing for that future rather than our own time when none of this can sink in because the religion of our times is literally that.

The metaphysics of online sexual abuse

To believers, a supernatural reality isn't metaphysics but simply real. In an animist world the extra beings are just there. Hence with this post I probably lost most people at the title already. Including men who share much of my politics or I otherwise sympathize with, because wankers suffer from the same delusion as the feminists, except in reverse because they see sexual gratification where feminists and normies see sexual exploitation. Huw Edwards is the most famously scandalous wanker at the moment. I certainly agree he did something scandalous or at least cringeworthy because think of all the sugarbaby fun you can have for £35,000, and he (allegedly) chose to buy nudes...

But that's where my agreement stops. Just like to me the sun is just a star rather than a god, a nude photo of a teen girl is just a piece of information rather than any piece of a real goddess herself or sex with her. There is nothing magical about that information even though it depicts something extremely desirable. Girls cannot sexually satisfy men via images and they cannot be exploited that way either, because the medium cannot in principle convey sexual value. Just like staring at pictures of gold bars cannot in a million years make me any richer, a homeless person cannot improve his situation by looking at pictures of mansions, pictures of food cannot ever provide nutrition, and video of a rainstorm can't make me wet, porn cannot sexually satisfy, only waste efforts one should have spent on getting and having sex.

Note that I am not denying that digital communication can convey intimacy. It is meaningful to talk to girls, but there is nothing about these "sexually explicit" pictures that the media and police obsess over that add anything to the relation. If anything they detract, since suspense and virility is lost when you see something you should have saved for meeting the girl. Hence it is laughable to preferentially crack down on "explicit" communication if you are going to crack down on such love affairs at all. By doing so you selectively hunt the men who are least likely to have sex, while leaving alone nofappers such as myself who talk to young girls with laser focus on meeting for sex. I marvel every time I ask a 16-year-old girl for a date this is legal and she can agree and sleep with me legally but if I asked for a nude, I would be in the same boat with Huw Edwards... Only sexually unambitious men ask for nudes, and ironically these are the men our society likes to hunt the most, for reasons that to a non-brainwashee are clearly metaphysical, because how else can the sight of a nude 16 or 17-year-old girl become criminal by the very fact of being a simulacrum rather than real life?

As a society we truly believe in the metaphysics of online sexual exploitation and even "abuse." We believe it as surely as another culture might have worshiped a sun god. To me it is surreal and exasperating that the normies have so lost the plot and are so sick in the head from my point of view. But I know there is nothing I can do to convince them, because this is not only a widespread superstition but a holy cow too. And if the past history of this blog is any indication, the comment section will be replete with antifeminists too repeating the same hogwash and saying wanking is good for us. Which I am SO close to banning now.

We live in an animist world animated not by spirits and gods but sexual abuse. Sex abuse voodoo animates our computer networks to the point that the concept of private communications itself must be abolished by banning encryption, for the sake of fighting this witchcraft. "Sexual abuse" is our de facto religion, which has also colonized the digital realm with astonishing success. You can get 60 years in prison for looking at pictures, so sinister is digital information believed to be, when the metaphysical sex abuse woo is added to the mix. We no longer look to shamans to explain the sun, rather astrophysicists, but you betcha we consult shamans about digital files! They are just ones and zeros, 0101011001..., but there be sexualization there! Horror of horrors! The shamans -- NGOs and law enforcement and tech companies -- have their secret hashes to search for these evil spirits throughout our networks and computers, and such a hash alone, which looks something like 5E2E25F0D9ED464B79EBEFAFF97217A9A35A7FC8, when matched to a file transmitted to you, is enough to incriminate you. Thus we have reinvented a bizarre black magic and everyone thinks it is completely normal and compatible with the scientific worldview, because the new kind of animism has the same hold on our primitive brains as any old belief.

It would be nice if we could think about sexual abuse in an evidence-based way much like we do with aviation and parts of medicine, but no, there is no hope of that in sight. We remain primitives in this area -- or whether we buy into the superstition individually or not are all ruled by primitive witch-doctors with high-tech tools like digital hashes and a prison-industrial complex to make them all that more harmful.

"Norwegian Offspring" goes to Cannes

The film Norwegian Offspring premieres in Cannes today (May 25th, 2023). It is the most sex-positive piece of mainstream-celebrated culture since... Lolita perhaps? In these works where a character expresses sexual views in disagreement with the mainstream there is a tension between the creator and the work which must be explained away through some sort of plausible deniability lest they be cancelled. Nabokov pleads unreliable narrator and art for art's sake, assuring us that Humbert does not speak for his own desires. Well, maybe not, or maybe the author is unreliable there? How else would he come up with such beautiful descriptions of taboo sexual enjoyment? Director Marlene Emilie Lyngstad on her part explains the sex-positivity away by attributing all such lines TO ME:

Mens Stein og Eivind er meget forskellige, er alle filmens replikker sagt af den virkelige mand, fortæller instruktøren.

”Selvfølgelig har han en ideologi, som jeg synes er meget ubehagelig at høre om, fordi den er langt væk fra min egen,” siger Marlene Emilie Lyngstad.

And I proudly stand for them. I proudly stand for the ideology. The plot is another matter, however; entirely the director's invention. I made a couple of videos with commentary:

Yeah, the character based on me is a wanker. He is impotent with a real, attractive woman and visits a sex doll "brothel." He does that and other stupid shit I would never do, but my ideology is preserved faithfully. See it as a work of art plus male sexualist ideology, not a story "about" me, because it fails at that spectacularly, or rather does not attempt to be so. This is the director's artistic vision, which is all fine by me of course since I don't mind anybody making the kind of art they want and I am above feeling insulted by a fictionalized character. But I would like to personally distance myself from the plot and his reactions because she obviously does not know how male sexuality works.

The character "Stein" is a demisexual who can only be aroused when there is deep emotional intimacy -- not with a random attractive woman who is giving herself to him. Marlene's notion of male sexuality is hilarious, but I am very proud and thankful to get my ideology across nonetheless in her movie. That's how it goes when a woman directs a movie about the male sex drive and fails to listen to male input about our natural and healthy reactions. But she didn't distort my ideology, so male sexualists and MAPs should be happy. Especially if the film can draw more people into our movements, so I welcome any and all publicity now.

To hopefully spark a discussion with comments from an actual male point of view besides mine, what do you all think about the director's notion that men might visit a sex doll brothel to avoid having to "disgust" real sex workers? And how many male demisexuals are there, anyway? Do any men really get hard-ons for close emotional bonds sooner than attractive bodies? I think she is projecting... I think the movie shows us what men would be like if we didn't see women as "sex objects" the way they complain about us with that word.

In reality, of course, we are mostly turned on by physical attractiveness, and we consider that admiration to be complimentary of them rather than degrading. It's great to have a deep emotional connection too, but I doubt it has much impact on erections. Ugliness (usually synonymous with old age) cannot turn into beauty (youth) via emotional bonding, and conversely if a man fails to respond to attractive, fertile-age females without knowing them well then he is dysfunctional, plain and simple. The diagnostic criteria for erectile dysfunction do not stipulate that one has to be monogamous or demisexual and it would be absurd to define all healthy masculinity as only functioning on such prudish female terms. Women can wish we weren’t like this all they want, but they can't change us and moreover it is a hateful condemnation of male nature that all men should vigorously oppose because it is by that standard we get all the oppressive, misandrist sex laws.

A commenter asked me if I have allowed a feminist to completely parody my entire philosophy? But no, that's not what's going on, because this is so farcical that it's funny. And it's not complete parody because my direct quotes about the female sex offender charade and age of consent are NOT parodied, but rather foregrounded by the parody, which is too silly to take seriously by anybody but the most delusional feminists. Stein's sex-positive lines were improvised by me during rehearsals, written into the script and are spoken by the professional actor in earnest.

I really do think Marlene ends up parodying feminism in the end, not me. I think the Men's Movement has won an aesthetic victory with this work, inadvertently to the director, because this feminist vision of how they think men are or ought to be is exposed as so unnatural and self-hating. I don't think most male viewers can identify with the narrow-minded version of male sexuality that feminists can accept, and if you want more objective proof just ask doctors how they diagnose erectile dysfuntion. The day they apply a demisexual standard to male erections, whereby we are supposed to experience no primary sexual attraction -- the type of attraction that is based on immediately observable characteristics such as a youthful appearance or smell and is experienced immediately upon a first encounter -- is the day masculinity has been officially abolished, not just demonized and criminalized as it is now.

Of course, I don't want to be an impotent wanker like Stein. But neither do other men, and this is where Marlene Emilie Lyngstand and Emilie Koefoed Larsen, her fellow female scriptwriter, have miscalculated. Because other men don't want to be impotent wankers, either. They don't want to resort to sex dolls to save women the disgust of male sexuality. They don't think it's cool to be impotent in casual sex situations because it's supposedly more human to only feel arousal within committed relationships. LOL! No, that is only a female version of sexuality, and a near-asexual one at that (even the proud demisexuals place it on the asexuality spectrum).

I dare you to correct me if I am wrong, but I think other men can't identify with Stein either as Marlene thinks he ought to be. The only question is, are they man enough to admit it in this context, or too afraid to be associated with me, a leper for speaking the truth about male sexuality? Will you sink so low as to embrace a clinically impotent "ideal" of masculinity in order to pander to the feminists?

But enough with Stein for now; let's look at healthy masculinity. I conclude this post with some words of wisdom from the real me:

Zombie culture

I would like to introduce a new rhetorical figure to our discourse against feminism. They have "rape culture," "toxic masculinity" and all sorts of insults that don't really mean much but get plenty of airtime. And what do we have? The only recent innovation I can think of is "agecuck," which is quite fitting for male feminists, but we lacked a more general term. "Zombie culture" is my new word for the entire mindset which invalidates sexual agency or claims to lack sexual desire themselves. Zombie culture encompasses both philosophical sexual zombies (which feminism claims minors are) and actual zombies (with regard to some feelings if not all: for example all sexual desire, formerly known as asexuals but now also including those who claim strong attraction to 18-year-olds but zero attraction to 17-year-olds).

Philosophical zombies have heretofore populated the thought experiments of philosophers, who have been too distracted with the debate as to whether such creatures are metaphysically conceivable to notice that our culture already takes them for granted. The strictest definition of a philosophical zombie is a molecule-by-molecule replica of an adult human which functions identically except it lacks an internal subjective life. The transition between child and adult is held to be exactly this. All the molecules are the same, as is the behavior of a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old, yet we believe so strongly that the former lacks sexual subjectivity that the state wants to imprison you for "sexualizing" her if you should disagree!

If this is not a belief in zombies, I don't know what is. It is a compulsory belief. Since it is risky to question it, I shan't flesh out the counterarguments so much here. But I think I have established that the term "zombie culture" is apt. The question then becomes, do we believe in zombies? Are you comfortable with being defined as one yourself when you are or were under 18? And then there is the other kind of zombie in zombie culture which deletes so much zest from our cultural heritage. One might stop and wonder if that is really cool, and hope not to get deplatformed just for raising the question.

This post would have looked out of place a few decades ago when we had much the same laws but far less hysteria. Today, I am not exaggerating. This is what the normies literally believe, or so they claim. This is a zombie culture.

Time to (mostly) ditch Google

Sad news and a watershed moment for MRAs and sexualists. After 15 years of blogging, for the first time the feminists have managed to make Google take some action against this blog. Not quite censorship, not a claim that we did anything illegal or broke any rules for what can be published here, or even an "18+" type of restriction, but three of my blog posts have now been put behind a “sensitive content” warning which requires an extra click before you can read them. Today I received three emails like this:

One was for a silly early post of no consequence, but the two others hit nofap threads that I am fairly proud of and consider important: Anosognosia and Is nofap misogynistic? Even though it has done no real damage yet, the message is clear: Google is hostile and hateful to male sexuality and sexualism. We must therefore move elsewhere for our activism. Thanks to my current programming course it is piece of cake for me to make websites like this now, except the comments which require a backend that I haven’t learned yet (but will in the coming months) plus it would be difficult to deal with spam on my own even with advanced coding skills. I shall endeavor to at least make an archive and home for new essays elsewhere (by me and others such as Angry Harry, probably on my already registered domain mra-archive.com) while perhaps keeping comment threads going here, heavily moderated so we don’t get hidden behind “sensitive content” warnings or worse -- and please think before you write to make it easy for me! You can rest assured that new comment threads will eventually be archived along with the old ones at our new site too, so Blogger can’t permanently delete anything. If I manage to write some incredibly bland new blog posts, I will also post them here as long as my blog stays up. Nofap will be off-limits, though.

Nofap is the most hard-hitting sexualist measure available to men today, so I’m not so surprised this is targeted first. It may have been accidental, perhaps a result of using new AI to analyze all content, but this is definitely how intelligent feminists would attack us as a first priority: suppress nofap information from men to weaken male sexuality maximally, ensuring that most men have low sexual ambitions and exist in a state of near-impotence. The notion that porn is bad for you is heresy in a world governed by feminist antisex bigotry; so much so that I wouldn’t be surprised if they manage to memoryhole the entire nofap movement now that Gary Wilson isn’t around to fight for it anymore (that post didn't get flagged for some reason, nor did any of my overt MAP activist posts such as my praise of NEWGON). No, they got their priorities straight alright. Intelligent feminists can’t let the public know that prominent MRAs/sexualists/MAPs are anything but porn-loving masturbators themselves, depriving us of the opportunity to be role models in the self-help department. To be clear, and at the risk of this post also getting a “sensitive content” warning, I practice nofap and recommend this for men who care about sex. You are frankly not taking sex seriously if you think masturbation is okay or watch porn. There I said it again, come hell or high waters for this post, but now let’s be bland from here and move our edgy content to where Google can’t touch it, trying to salvage what we can of legacy clicks. The main reason for sticking with Google was visibility anyway, which they have undermined enough with these warnings that I won’t feel like I’m missing out by switching to my own servers for new work.

Comments are still open, including for discussion of this new situation, but please don’t make me stop your comment by saying anything “sensitive,” okay? Whatever that means, which I honestly don't know the boundaries of. It does feel a little anticlimactic if our whole movement gets silenced in the mainstream because we advise men not to masturbate, but this is serious and apparently some of our enemies are also getting smarter, or their AI tools are. It is meager results for the antis to only get this little nag screen after reporting almost everything I wrote over the years, but it is unacceptable for me to blog behind a content warning. This blog is for general audiences and seriously contains no sensitive, NSFW or any other content which can reasonably be restricted from everyday browsing. It is also a red flag for using Google for anything else, such as Gmail or work documents, because they appear to be losing their sanity, liable to restrict our content for unaccountable and sometimes bizarre reasons going forward. It is time to begin looking for alternatives now while the sanctions are relatively benign. These little warnings on a tiny part my blog don't qualify as evil yet and certainly don't compare to the vicious bigotry of Elon Musk, but Google clearly cannot be trusted anymore.

Elon Musk is a bigot and liar

When Elon Musk acquired Twitter and proclaimed himself a free speech absolutist who would offer a general amnesty to suspended accounts, I got hopeful that I would be let back on. The criteria were to be “provided they have not broken the law or engaged in egregious spam,” so it should be easy. Not only have I not broken the law, but my @fertiledating account was even suspended without Twitter citing a specific instance of my having broken the "Twitter rules." Though they will not tell me, I suspect the reason is I had just said 13-year-olds can consent, perhaps along with a determination based on the the entire account that I am a sincere and incorrigible advocate along those lines -- in a word, because I am a sexualist.

However, Musk's promises proved to be deceptive. When I appealed my account suspension to the new management, all I got was a reply stating "Twitter reserves the right to permanently suspend accounts that violate the Twitter Rules or Terms of Service without further notice. This account is permanently suspended and will not be restored."

So, Musk was outright lying. He will suspend accounts or keep them suspended "without further notice" or explanation, which is as far away from free speech absolutism as you can get. He is a tyrant who has also been known to ban people simply for making fun of himself.

I believe that Twitter should be nationalized, perhaps even supernationalized and run by the UN, and truly function as a town square, where it would take a conviction in a court of law to have you removed, provided that you are willing to prove your identity and tweet openly as yourself as I have been doing. The bar should be the same as imprisonment or higher, preferably higher because speech is really a more fundamental right and prisoners as still allowed to make public statements. If anything should be removed, it should only be the specifically criminal tweets, not lifetime bans for arbitrary reasons like Twitter is doing now.

Given that I have only been banned twice in thirteen years of active tweeting (and never on Google or YouTube for saying the exact same things), it should be obvious that my kind of rhetorics is relatively inoffensive even though I profoundly disagree with normie dogmas. Whether you get banned by leftist "woke" management for saying the things I do is hit or miss, which goes to show how extreme Elon Musk is for not giving me a second chance or even explanation at a time of supposed general amnesty. There is still the prospect of restoring my first account @eivindberge, which lasted ten years up to 2019 and I haven't yet appealed, but I doubt it.

I now feel extreme distaste for any Elon Musk product. I would never consider getting a Tesla or anything like that, and I hope he fails in all his endeavors. It is a tragedy for mankind that someone so evil gets to control so much resources. I hope Twitter goes bankrupt so we can start over, but I realize that anyone rich enough to run something like an Internet town square would probably be a tyrant, and even if they truly believe in free speech, the entire model of private ownership is flawed because advertisers would decide in the end. So we would need to try something more robust, like government of the people, by the people including courts of law at their best, which there is probably also no hope for anymore.

RIP Nathan Larson

This requires its own post, because it marks the passing of a male sexualist hero. Take a moment to remember and appreciate a balanced activist life as summarized and vindicated in a comment I just received from "Jeffrey." And by balance I mean Nathan found ways to live in addition to being an ideologue for our cause.

I've been informed that Nathan Larson died on Sunday September 18th, one day before his 42nd birthday. He'd been on a hunger strike for months and was being held in a prison hospital. I've not yet been able to confirm this news from official sources, but the person from whom it originates was a good friend of his and an administrator on his forum. This same person has just uploaded a 20-page handwritten manifesto by Nathan in which he explains why he chose to risk chose to risk so much to pursue a relationship with a young girl.

The manifesto begins with the following paragraph: "As the government seems to be putting forth a misleading narrative that I sought to sexually exploit a young girl using coercion or deception, I feel it is time to correct the record."

Here is the link to the complete manifesto: http://www.dropbox.com/s/difrft7zf04jj8u/Nathan%20Larson%27s%20Manifesto.pdf?dl=0

It's important to remember that Nathan was not quite the monster or psychopath that the media has made him out to be. Granted, he has posted fantasies on the internet that would make the Marquis de Sade smile, but those posts were not indicative of how he acted in real life. To quote his own words, "When people go over the top, there’s a grain of truth to what they say." (Source: https://archive.ph/UyO1F).

The girl that he "kidnapped" told one of her friends that she had fallen in love with him (source: http://archive.ph/AhMO2), and there is no evidence whatsoever that he used coercion or threats to convince her to leave her parental home with him.

Claims that he drove his ex-wife Augustine to suicide are highly doubtful, considering that she killed herself shortly after "Child Protective Services" removed her daughter from her custody indefinitely. It's much more likely that sadness about losing custody over her daughter is what motivated her suicide. In the end, both her and Nathan lost as a result of her misguided attempt to be granted sole custody.

"Augustine took her own life on June 8, 2015, shortly after the Department of Human Services removed her child based on an anonymous tip claiming that she had mental health issues preventing her from safely caring for the child. Augustine denied this, but was unable to persuade the court to release the child from state custody. The child is currently in the care of August's parents." (Source: https://archive.ph/895bn).

Claims that Nathan violently raped Augustine also seem to be false. She had a rape kink and they had an agreed-upon safe-word. While Nathan has admitted that he ignored the safe-word on at least one occasion, it doesn't seem to be the case that he ever used physical violence against her. It took her weeks to decide that what happened was "rape." (source: http://archive.ph/bHeGG).

Acting

I owe y'all an explanation for the film role I said I was getting. So, here it is.

Skepticism vs. ideological possession

Here is a reminder that we don't need to conduct any new studies to debunk false sexual abuse of the sort claimed to lead to trauma despite being consensual and physically harmless. We don't even need the old studies, because they never presented any real evidence to begin with. All we need is plain critical thinking the way it always should be applied to something new. Forget all the propaganda: just treat CSA as a new claim and see what happens. Angry Harry already made this point some twenty years ago when he came up with the idea of "tea abuse." Suppose some people claimed that that having a parent who drank tea when they were children was a later cause of major depression, illness, suicide and psychological dysfunction. Do we need studies to refute this? No, skepticism is enough, at least until someone presents extraordinary evidence for the claim, with the burden of proof clearly resting on them.

There are times when something new really is harmful. Leaded gasoline is a great example, which we luckily figured out and got rid of within 50-100 years, and really should have thought better of from the beginning as it was hardly a secret that lead is toxic. Tea has been consumed long enough that we can rest easy though. And as to sex, we have eons of experience against feminist claims taken out of thin air in the past century alone with no evidence to back them up:



We just need hard-nosed skepticism to refute the feminist claims of CSA. The fact that girls are evolved to reach full reproductive competence at 11-13 years of age (along with the psychosocial maturation necessary to function as an adult in a primitive society), and did so in the Old Stone Age as well as now (only interrupted by periods of poor nutrition in between), sets the bar of skepticism astronomically high to any claim that sex with teenagers is inherently abusive. That skepticism is lacking because of ideological possession, but it is nothing more than what a rational person would apply to either a newly discovered/reputed toxin such as tea or a supernatural claim. All we need to do is cut through the ideology and special-interest politics benefiting old hags and jealous parents and their entourage of parasites in the abuse industry -- in a word, feminism -- and all the "abuse" goes away too, retaining no more force than tea abuse. So what if society has gotten more complicated in other ways recently? You might as well claim we need a degree in quantum physics in order to not be traumatized by taking a shit, so removed from real biology and mentality is our contrivance of "child sexual abuse" -- nothing more than a superstitious excuse to punish whatever you want.

Society is ideologically possessed as if by an evil antisex demon, and I as a man am only trying to defend ourselves against the mad injustice. Look at the ethereal nonsense "sexual abuse" has become, of both children and women and men too, a complete farce that puts the Malleus Maleficarum to shame in the bullshitting olympics of the ages. Look at the latest permutation of "rape" in the feminist state of Norway, which has lost literally ALL the substance traditionally associated with that concept and now consists of sheer nonsense, where perfectly willing girls are even "raped" by charging you money for sex, and the bigger the luxury prostitution the bigger the offense because offering a girl money is defined as a sort of violence used to get her to sleep with you (it is really bad game to pay girls so much, which as we can see makes them treat you like shit, plus he was a sometime wanker too, but he did nothing morally wrong and comes off as a role model on balance, finding ways to swim in premium pussy at the tender age of 19 when many of us were still incels). Supposedly 24 girls have been "raped" with exactly zero grounding in any real rape or abuse... One does wonder, do the normies really, REALLY read this and think OMG A HORRIBLE SERIAL RAPIST or are they able to see through the bullshit on some level and realize that this is just a ridiculously generous sugar daddy, even more silly because he is young enough to go on regular dates with these girls without raising an eyebrow?

Tiltale: Ung mann betalte unge jenter store beløp for voldtekter

En ung mann fra Østfold er tiltalt for voldtekt av i alt 24 jenter. 13 av jentene skal ha fått betaling for overgrepene, hvorav én fikk 300.000 kroner.

Mannen var i slutten av tenårene da han i løpet av et års tid mellom høsten 2019 og høsten 2020 skal ha gjennomført alle overgrepene.

Mannen fra Østfold er tiltalt for voldtekter av i alt 24 jenter under 18 år i løpet av denne perioden. De yngste jentene var kun 13 år da overgrepene startet, og for flere av jentene skjedde overgrepene gjentatte ganger.

Overgrepene besto ifølge tiltalen både av fysiske overgrep og overgrep via nett.

Den unge mannen er også tiltalt for å ha betalt 13 av barna for overgrepene. Flere av dem skal ha fått svært store beløp.

 En av jentene skal i alt ha fått utbetalt 300.000 kroner over en periode på noen måneder, samt sigaretter, snus og alkohol, mens en annen skal ha fått 143.000 kroner.

Mannen skal også ha betalt tre unge kvinner over 18 år for sex.

I tillegg er mannen tiltalt for å ha betalt en av de unge kvinnene 90.000 kroner for at hun ikke skulle kontakte politiet og fortelle at hun følte seg plaget av ham og presset til å ha sex med ham mot betaling.

Det er satt av tolv rettsdager til saken som skal starte 19. september. (NTB)

No, as far as I can tell the normies still don't care how absurd, how hateful, how senseless this is, how empty the accusations (including the retarded idea that girls can be "abused" over the Internet, as if there is any sexual value in wanking), because they are functional morons in relation to everything to do with sex crimes, impervious to any more reason than existed in the darkest witch-hunts. What passes as justice is indistinguishable from witch-doctoring, it is witch-doctoring, and no true believer is even going to read this post or anything else approaching a critical analysis of "sexual abuse" because they are so smug or complacent in their true belief that they think they don't have to. What's next, is holding hands and dancing with a 17-year-old sexual abuse too? Oh wait, that already happened, astonishingly even pioneered by a female "offender" on male "victim," and people are immunized from speaking up because they are conditioned to view ALL of sexuality including all flirting and "grooming" and lack of humorless draconian "safeguarding" and boys getting lucky with the slightest scrap of affection from women as abuse. Are you feeling uneasy yet if you followed those links and admitted a flash of consciousness, or still a normie? Normies cannot spot the intolerance because their mass psychosis dictates that all persecution of sexuality must be for good reasons, so I bet you don't feel it unless you are one of my regular readers or perhaps coming in from the MAP movement who are our only extant kin.

It hit me anew how isolated I am when my grandma died recently and because of the situation I didn't attend the funeral. How profoundly I don't belong, how I have severed all connection not just with society at large but my former family by my activism and the normie reaction to it (though I certainly still hope to start my own family!). As antisex bigotry marches on laying ever greater swathes of sexuality waste it strikes me that the only effect of our activism at this point is to destroy our own families too. They will feel the hate, but they won't pause to try to make sense of it from our point of view, coasting along in the smug conviction that feminism is always right and there can't possibly be anything wrong with the sex laws. When yesterday's sugar daddy is today's rapist, just to name the latest escalation which should shock the bejesus out of any decent person, they don't give a flying fuck about the redefinition of our normal sexuality into criminality, as if it has always been that way and there is nothing to see here. Sometimes I feel it is still worth doing activism just so our families can feel there is something wrong, even if they can't comprehend that it is not me who has gone insane. They will never allow themselves to hear a single rational argument, sticking exclusively to feminist propaganda, with journal articles by Rind et al. also off limits and my blog at best relayed and distorted though the news media where it is simply dismissed as "extremism." They will only ever think that I am sick or at best ideologically possessed, even though it is society who is both and still on its way to ever more extreme feminism.

I shall complete this post printing what I also wrote in Norwegian on Facebook about not going to my grandmother's funeral. For reference, this is the first post I wrote about my family's betrayal: "Why I have repudiated my family," which I now follow up with an update ten years later, the first notably sad consequence since I really did mean to go to that funeral and was even asked to be a pallbearer. But I didn't, and with that I lost the final gathering of that side of the family, which I hear was grand with lots of relatives coming in from Sogn and Sunnfjord to give her a worthy sendoff. It was the end of a whole generation, the one which experienced World War II. It was quite sad to miss the funeral, but at least it gave me the impetus to write this yet another futile attempt to explain that us sexualists are not doing it to be mean or anything like that, but because we are deeply morally convinced and intellectually sure of our activism. Rather than sick violent misogynists we are near-pacifist conscientious objectors to a senseless antisex war which hurts us all, even if your only feel for it is that a family member no longer considers you family (and of course you care nothing about the men in prison).

***

I dag begraves min farmor, Dorthea Berge (født 1926). Jeg skal ikke i begravelsen. Jeg skulle gjerne gått i begravelsen, men naturligvis vil min far være der, og det ble for stressende. Jeg har unngått min far siden 2012 fordi han da samarbeidet med politiet mens jeg ble arrestert og fengslet for min mannsaktivisme. Og ikke på en naiv tilgivelig måte heller hvor man snakker godt om en person uten å vite at det er dumt å snakke med politiet i det hele tatt, men ondsinnet hvor han tok deres side og fortalte alt han visste i den tro at det kunne hjelpe til å få meg dømt. Det hadde slett ingen effekt da jeg ble blankt frifunnet av Gulating lagmannsrett, og saken til overmål var så grunnløs at jeg senere fikk erstatning for urettmessig straffeforfølgelse i en sivil sak som jeg reiste, men det var ikke takket være pappa at det endte godt for meg, som altså valgte purkejævelens side i straffesaken -- en avgjørelse han må leve og dø med, for det innebærer et endelig brudd, fra HANS side.

Selvsagt, men jeg skal forklare hvorfor i tilfelle noen fremdeles ikke skjønner tegningen. Og han ser ikke ut til å forstå alvoret selv, da han nylig presterte å formidle gjennom NRK i "Gutter mot verden" at «det ikke var meningen å bryte kontakten» med meg. Det var et vanvittig flåsete utsagn som impliserer at jeg burde late som ingenting har skjedd og fremdeles ha kontakt. Det går naturligvis ikke, for hva ville det sagt om meg om jeg gikk med på det?

Det ville være den ultimate ydmykelsen, en fraskrivelse av egen aktivisme som om jeg skulle "innrømme" at politiet hadde rett -- ikke bare i å ville dømme meg som de altså heller ikke hadde loven med seg på (uten at det hadde spilt noen rolle) -- men at feminismen har moralsk rett i å lage de sedelighetslovene vi har. Jeg er mannsaktivist på ære og samvittighet, eller det jeg nå kaller seksualist. Det er moralsk overbevisning det dreier seg om, samvittighetsnekt mot krigen mot seksualitet. Jeg blogget med overlegg og mente hvert ord jeg skrev, som er summen av all min livserfaring og nå altså har blitt postmeditert i ti år til uten at jeg har endret mening. Å late som ingenting har skjedd etter sviket fra familien vil være å "innrømme" at vi egentlig er på samme side og feminismen har rett. Det vil aldri skje fordi krigen mot seksualitet er en høyst reell konflikt og jeg er en av de få som kjemper på seksualiteten sin side.

Å være seksualist kan sammenlignes med å reise tilbake til antikken og være mot slaveriet da ingen, ikke engang Jesus, hadde noen moralske motforestillinger mot å holde slaver. I den forstand er pappa et produkt av sin tid, hvor hele samfunnet nå mener at seksualiteten skal straffeforfølges maksimalt og det ikke er mulig å finne på en sedelighetslov som går for langt i hva den rammer, kort sagt at feminismen har alltid rett. MEN, at han tok politiet sin side kan ikke bortforklares så enkelt heller, for det er ikke noe man gjør mot familiemedlemmer, full stopp. Han ville aldri gjort det mot de andre barna, uansett hva de var anklaget for (og jeg var altså bare anklaget for blogging som ble hevdet å være oppvigling men slett ikke var det heller i lovens forstand). Det blir gaslighting å late som denne normen ikke eksisterer heller, noe den gjør ikke bare i og med at han fikk klar beskjed i avhør om at han ikke hadde plikt til å si noe som helst (som ingen har til politiet, men forskjellen er at retten ikke tvinge deg til å vitne heller), men at terrorlovgivningen til og med inneholder et unntak for straff for familiemedlemmer som skjuler en terrorist etter de verste terroranslag (§ 137), langt, langt verre enn blogging.

Hvis jeg skulle kunne forsone meg med hva han gjorde... Hva ville det si om forskjellen på mine søsken og meg? Det ville si at jeg ikke fortjener den lojaliteten som normale mennesker har til sine familiemedlemmer, og dette skal jeg liksom akseptere? Det vil være en selvutsletting av hele mitt menneskeverd. Det ville sagt at jeg ikke HAR noen venner, og enda verre (da han også mente jeg var "syk"), ikke har evnen til å ta moralske valg, som altså skal overprøves av politi og rettsvesen, til syvende og sist med mitt samtykke om jeg hadde gitt avkall på at det var noen reell konflikt mellom pappa og meg. Det er evnen til å ta moralske valg som definerer en person. Det er det som skiller oss fra dyrene. Hvis ikke mine meninger blir tatt på moralsk alvor og jeg skulle akseptere det så har jeg gitt avkall på menneskeverd, og det er ikke aktuelt. Mennesker holdes ansvarlig på godt og vondt, og hvis du mener jeg er ond så må du innse at det er en reell konflikt, ikke tro du kan "rette" på min moral med annet enn ikkevoldelige argumenter.

Menmen, jeg fikk besøkt farmor på kort tid før hun døde, og det får være nok. Hun var 96 år og har vært dement de ti siste. Det var absolutt hennes tid, men trist at familien ikke går overens nok til jeg kan gå i begravelsen. Enda et vondt resultat av feminismen. Det koker ned til at pappa og jeg har verdier som helt grunnleggende ikke går overens, da han er feminist (eller normie, som nå er det samme) og jeg er seksualist. Det går an å være politisk uenig i en familie, men ikke bruke vold til å tvinge meninger på andre, som han altså prøvde seg på da han samarbeidet med politiet. Om det skulle lykkes så ville det endt som i 1984 eller snarere filmen Brazil... Det ville ikke vært noe igjen av meg, for en slik hjernevasking kan bare utføres over mitt lik. Du kan ikke trylle frem en Eivind som ikke mener meningene sine og heller blir feminist, for den personen eksisterer ikke, samme hvor mye makt du bruker.

The wonderful Newgon

The meaning of words change over time; only dead languages stay the same. I am old enough to have seen my type of activism go through several names, from antifeminism in the 1990s to men's rights activism (MRA) in the 2000s to male sexualism in the 2010s to MAP activism in the 2020s. Yes, "MAP" has grown on me despite my earlier misgivings about using a special word to denote normal sexuality. YesMAP as opposed to NOMAP, obviously, since we have absolutely no affiliation with the anti-contact crowd. I am not ashamed of the MAP label because I acknowledge that language is evolving and if someone carries forth your activism under an unfamiliar or superfluous name then we should focus on the politics rather than the lingo and be thankful.

I am thankful for Newgon because they ensure that our activism lives on regardless of what happens to this little clique over which I sometimes style myself as leader with varying degrees of seriousness. In truth, we are almost irrelevant, but Newgon is a serious organization. Just look at their page on the female sex offender charade! I could scarcely have done it better myself:

https://www.newgon.net/wiki/Testimony:_Adult_Female_with_Minor

Kudos and praise to high heavens! We are not alone! We have kindred activists out there whose ideology if not precisely identical at least overlaps a good 90% with what we used to call the Men's Rights Movement back in the days of Angry Harry and now refer to as male sexualism here on my blog -- or just sexualism is really what I have landed on. I say 90% because they don't seem to be on board with nofap, but you can't have everything. The Newgon site is much more impressive than it looks at first sight, archiving all kinds of sex-positive writings that may otherwise get lost, and even better, I know the people behind it are solid, enthusiastic activists. So even though I don't expect us to make much political progress any time soon, I can rest assured that sexualism is in good hands irrespective of my own efforts. Long live sexualism as (mostly) synonymous with MAP activism! I still prefer "sexualism" and use that in my own writings, but I warmly welcome our new allies, regardless of how they want to style themselves.

Perhaps we should reflect a little over the linguistic shift from antifeminist to MAP. The more I think about it, the more sense it makes because feminism is now synonymous with the culture in which we unfortunately find ourselves. The normies are feminists without using that word, which is now reserved for only the most newly extreme antisex bigots who probably want to raise the age of consent to 25 at this point and change the definition of rape to all sex without a consent document signed every five seconds. A normie who thinks it is wrong to have sex with minors under 18 does not usually identify as a feminist, even though his ideology is radfem by 1990s standards. He simply does not know how bigoted he is because feminist indoctrination has been so successful at normalizing their hateful criminalization, even instituting the most extreme jurisdictions (typically California) as the norm for the entire world. As such, calling ourselves antifeminists would hardly be intelligible to this society as it would not even begin to describe to them how radical we are. "MRA" doesn't get the point across either since the ones still known under that label are busy celebrating 1990s feminism and applying it to men too. That leaves us with sexualist -- which is a fine word for all resistance to oppression of sexuality, but not in common use -- and MAP, which has actually gone mainstream, at least as a word and identity if not a serious challenge to laws yet.

So, here we are. Lest anyone think I am aligning myself with child abusers, have a look at Newgon's ethos page:

Elective 12 is our (non-binding) Age of Consent position

The best available evidence supports the idea of an elective-emancipation system for young people aged 12 and up. We do not bind participants to this position.

The proposed model is in effect, a passport system where young people age 12 and up, can sign to emancipate themselves in (potentially) a variety of areas. With respect to adults and emancipated minors, this will include legal consent to physical/sexual relations. Other important rights may be included, however, we will not campaign on most of these issues until there are signs of an emerging policy consensus:

• Education
• Employment, inc. military
• Finance
• Driving a motor vehicle
• Alcohol, substances, gambling, body modifications and medical
• Graphic media content bars
• Voting (this might be dependent upon the above)

We propose that emancipation will be the choice of the young person, assuming they can be assessed by a doctor as mentally competent - broadly in line with their peers. With respect to sexual relations, the age of 12 is identical to the system employed in the Netherlands up until very recently. However, allowing young people to self emancipate gives them the power to choose what aspects of their lives they will be responsible for. Various controlled outcome studies will be conducted by social scientists after these changes are put into effect, creating more jobs.

Not sure I agree with those other areas or the passport model, but it is a refreshing position in this day and age and close enough to our own ideology as to be almost indistinguishable. If anything, they are more moderate than us. I would also say that an age of consent of 12 is non-binding but at least as low as 13 is definitely binding to be called a male sexualist, along with a complete rejection of the female sex offender charade as equally nonsensical as criminalizing witchcraft -- and I do not care how this is received, because my conscience does not permit me to condone the persecution of harmless women. As you can see, neither Newgon or us are currently trying to normalize actual pedophilia in men, but we do not care what the public calls our eminently sensible positions on male sexuality either.