The most tectonic moral shift in recent history

We went from something not being criminal at all in 1981 to prosecutors in 2023 asking for 100 years in prison for it. I am talking about women statutorily raping boys (in the USA; but it is a similar story in other countries). See this link to the Supreme Court explaining at great length in 1981 that they do not consider women capable of performing statutory rape in principle because these laws only exist to serve as a deterrent to men from impregnating young girls outside of marriage. Applying age of consent laws to men only is "supported not by mere social convention but by the immutable physiological fact that it is the female exclusively who can become pregnant."

Fast forward 42 years to 2023 and and see my discussion under my previous blog post on the case of Anne Nelson-Koch facing 600 years, prosecutors asking for 100 and her ultimately being sentenced to 10 for something even the law considers consensual in fact but is only criminalized because the boy was 14 rather than 16 at the time. How can something go from a non-issue, or rather a widely considered enjoyable experience if you disregard the woman’s old age in this case (remember, young teachers are subject to the same punishment), to worse than murder in my lifetime? Rest assured that my attitude has not changed since 1981. I still don’t think this is crimeworthy. But the normies apparently have no problems with this change, and I just want you to think about how profound that is.

There are broadly two possible explanations. Either women having sex with willing and most often eager teenage boys was always a heinous act but society didn’t realize it prior to the 1980s and I still don’t, or society went insane while pretty much I alone remained rational and sane. Well, I and Richard Hanania and Bill Maher and Bruce Rind and Newgon and a few others, but opposition is so thin that it rarely registers on the mainstream radar.

If the former explanation is correct, then female-perpetrated statutory rape is now in the same position as slavery was in 1900, something considered okay in the recent past which is now utterly condemned and heavily criminalized. It would certainly have to be as bad as slavery to be worth 100 years in prison. So then the question is, how can I be blind to the ethical badness of women statutorily raping boys if it really is so bad? Is it reasonable to postulate that I am so utterly handicapped, especially after spending close to 30 years thinking, reading and writing about the issue? I don’t think so, but I am leaving this explanation up here for completeness.

If the second explanation is correct, then people should listen up and snap out of their madness. Ponder that something women regularly do which wasn’t batted an eyelid at in 1980 is now practically a capital crime. If this change in attitudes and prosecutions happened for no good reason, the feminist movement should be all over it, surely? This means my blog has immense ethical value because I am one of the only ones even noticing that there is something wrong, that women are now subjected to a senseless witch-hunt as grotesque as any historical persecution except our methods of punishment are less torturous than burning witches.

It is also possible that the truth is somewhere in between. Maybe women are a little bit culpable for statutory rape but nowhere near deserving 100 years or 10 years. I reject this position because of the obvious positive value many boys get from such sex, and lack of traumatization credibly documented anywhere in putative victims, along with an evolutionary need-to-learn hypothesis to boot explaining why adolescent boys love to get sexual with older women, but if your position is they are nonetheless a little bit culpable you should still be able to see that the hysteria is way off the charts. Barring such an egregious moral position as slavery was in (and remember, the suffering of slaves was always known, so it can't possibly compare to boys enjoying sex), there is no way something can go from legal to potentially 600 years in prison without a spectacular overcorrection having happened.

When women face 600 years in prison for making love to boys and women are collectively serving thousands of years for such "crimes" as we speak, feminists do not give a damn. They are too busy whining about an unwanted kiss in the World Cup or some other triviality, but never noticing this systematic oppression with real, prolonged suffering except to cheer it on. It was feminists who got us into this mess with their false equality and sex-abuse panic. Something is horribly, profoundly wrong and it is ironic that it takes a reputed misogynist to speak out against the real misogyny.

Incidentally, MICHAEL M. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA COUNTY proves that the SCOTUS did not believe young girls are psychologically harmed from consensual sex with older men either, at least if they are 14 and older. The only issue is illegitimate children and the teen pregnancy panic which was popular at the time. All the supposed emotional harm to both girls and boys is made up after 1981. Personally I am not buying it for either boys or girls and least of all for boys. But seeing how the CSA panic is based on no real science for girls either, as Bruce Rind demonstrates so well, the difference is simply that boys are more lucky when they have sex with women, but neither sex are victims in any real sense unless you want to obsess over pregnancy and act as if birth control is no option.

The Anne Nelson-Koch case is as far removed from the original justification for statutory rape laws as you can get, since of course neither boys nor 67-year-old women can get pregnant. Yet she is now in prison for at least 10 years (and likely the rest of her life since she will be there until she is 85) due to an entirely new-fangled rationalization for laws which only became gender-neutral after 1981. And cases like hers, but usually with far younger and hotter women, happen almost every day now. It is a witch-hunt which of course won't be recognized as such until it is over, perhaps centuries from now unless people start listening to me.

Meet the Norwegian "Neighborhood Watch" antisex organization

It feels like everything in the world is now locked into its grooves. Nothing I write here can attract any more readers than the handful regulars I’ve had for twenty years. The powerful have consolidated their power and they sure as hell don’t tolerate sexuality. When I once reached 1500 followers on Twitter I was already too big for the establishment and decisively beat down. All political activism is futile if not on side with one of the dominant ideologies who may well clash in epic battles these days, say between Jews and Muslims for example. The world is locked in grooves, but it is never permanent.

Sexual liberation is on nobody’s radar unless you mean the utterly superficial things going under the Pride banner. Nonetheless, the only thing I can do is to keep writing. Because I have failed to find a “proper” role in society. I am always and forever doing what I am “not supposed to do.” I fit neither a “job” role nor a “disabled” role where they say “that’s okay we’ll just give you money to live,” and neither do I get private donations as might have come with a substantial movement. From month to month I have to beg the state for sustenance. I failed at a career and I failed at being a failure (which wouldn’t be a failure but one of those respectable roles). Every single thing I do or sincerely stand for is hated by the majority. Nothing gains traction, nothing flies. Universal basic income would suit me, but does not exist.

While government roles are created by force, a “job” in private business consists of someone else exploiting your labor so they can make money. Neither is the selfless thing it is made out to be. In theory, if your labor is worth something you can work for yourself. I have tried that too, but nothing I offered was worth something, or if it was it was quickly shut down by regulation. Bitcoin trading is the only business I mastered to the extent that others found my services worth paying for enough that I could make a living, but as soon as I was in that position the government instituted licensing requirements that I couldn’t possibly meet. Then I made a technically great dating site called Fertile Dating, but nobody wanted to use it or invest in it in order that we could market ourselves.

I have been listening to Alan Watts a lot lately. I am neither depressed nor derealized psychologically, but I realize life is a game the way he gives the game away, which is a sort of philosophical derealization and depersonalization which one can then enjoy like a triviality. Life isn’t serious, but the first rule of the game of life is to pretend it’s serious. While I also don’t religiously seek a state of nirvana, I can slip into that cosmic consciousness easily enough. I can feel one with the universe to where the kind of opposition which I constitute is needed for the others to define themselves, and therefore I am not ultimately out of place after all. There must be losers for winners to exist, death is a contrast needed in order to know we are alive, and so on. The worker bees would not know they are hard-working without slackers to compare themselves to. I wouldn’t even know I am a sexualist without feminists who hate sex. In that sense, we are all needed and not a single grain in the universe is out of place.

If that sounds amoral then that’s because it is. Buddhism has no commandments, only a few guidelines that point out how to more easily reach enlightenment (i.e., don't lie, steal, exploit your passions or get high on drugs); but there is no hurry to get there as there is no such thing as saving your soul since your soul is the same as everyone else’s. Preaching is irrelevant because one can only preach to egos and they do not believe in egos. If you want to be Hitler for a thousand lifetimes, that’s okay and there is nothing fundamentally immoral about him either according to Buddhist philosophy. I have a hard time being so amoral myself, but I realize that if I had from the beginning ditched my morality then I would have been going with the flow and I would probably have been a normie with respect to career and socioeconomic status as well. When you don’t try to be a reformer or heretic, all that energy becomes available to you for other uses -- not to mention you are not persecuted -- so you can easily fit a role which flows with the stream. The normies who never think for themselves are always backed by the stream, so everything they do becomes that much easier. When you spend no energy hating, you even have more energy to hurt your enemies, and those who do not oppose the sex laws have more occasion to break them -- hence the proliferation of those the Antifeminist likes to call paedocrites.

As such, I chose stupidly. I am the heretic you can hate in an effortless collective way, with full institutional backing. And if that’s not enough, you can always set up a vigilante organization on top of the mainstream hysteria, like https://nabovarselnorge.no/, and milk the normies some more to support yourself in the ultimate politically correct role.

That would be the apotheosis of going with the flow. Pedo hunters exploit the moral panic to the max. There is a sort of intelligence to that, though I suspect the most Zen way is to just let go and be the blank slate of the stereotypical normie, ready to be filled with whatever morality society throws at you. It emphatically does not matter if that is Nazism or feminism or whatever -- going with the stream means accepting everything with equal detachment because you are the stream. There is nothing to hang on to. Everything decays, including morality, plus it’s cyclical so we probably get back to a more humane morality soon enough anyway. Activism can’t take us there faster, because nobody ever changes their minds in response to persuasion. Hell, I didn’t even become a sexualist by persuasion; it feels like I organically grew into that role and now for example read people like Bruce Rind who scientifically proves CSA is a hoax because his were always my opinions. No matter how good the evidence, people practically never change their opinions after seeing the evidence.

The normies believe sex is a demonic force which corrupts the young. They believe sexuality puts children in hell, even if they are enjoying it, particularly when they are exposed to a person who is more than a couple years older. They implicitly believe in a sexual soul (or perhaps “innocent” soul) which is silently corrupted by sexuality. This corruption is then believed to manifest as something like PTSD throughout the “CSA victims’” adult lives, and again the damage can be silent there too so that positive memories are false consciousness. Sexuality is believed to have an entire alternative universe where all of sexuality relating to minors is this demonic substance, “pedophilia,” that they need to hunt and exorcise except it can’t be exorcised so the Pedophile must forever be separated from society via incarceration and registration. This is a superstitious belief akin to demonic possession or animism whereby the physical and psychological phenomenon of sexuality is imbued with an extra, perfectly evil dimension. In short they believe in the metaphysical badness of sex. Sex is the new Satan for all the normies to believe in even if they are atheists.

And this is where we are now, but oh well, life isn’t serious anyway. Perhaps I realized this too late -- and I am still not completely sold on that idea which can be summed up in the idiotic conundrum of whether consciousness is singular (in which case morality has no meaning) or plural (in which case one should have compassion with other souls). If you believe in nothing, you are the perfect candidate to go with the flow, which is what society is. I am the rare rebel who enables them to feel like they believe in something even though they believe in nothing.

The wisdom of G.K. Chesterton in "The Man Who Was Thursday"

Hearing Alan Watts speak highly of G.K. Chesterton I was inspired to read his novel The Man Who Was Thursday (first published in 1908; Chesterton lived from 1874 to 1936). I am impressed! It is usually described as a metaphysical thriller, which as ambitious as it sounds I must say it fully lives up to. It is also so much more, most superficially a kind of detective story, with much wisdom along the way not least about activism, which is why I found it surprisingly relevant to our sexualist movement. I recommend reading it as a philosophical exploration of activism and heresy, good and evil, and the meaning of the whole universe and existence itself. At the deepest level it can be read as an allegory of how God brings souls into the world:

“Are you the new recruit?” asked a heavy voice.
And in some strange way, though there was not the shadow of a shape in the gloom, Syme knew two things: first, that it came from a man of massive stature; and second, that the man had his back to him.
“Are you the new recruit?” said the invisible chief, who seemed to have heard all about it. “All right. You are engaged.”
Syme, quite swept off his feet, made a feeble fight against this irrevocable phrase.
“I really have no experience,” he began.
“No one has any experience,” said the other, “of the Battle of Armageddon.”
“But I am really unfit—”
“You are willing, that is enough,” said the unknown.
“Well, really,” said Syme, “I don’t know any profession of which mere willingness is the final test.”
“I do,” said the other—“martyrs. I am condemning you to death. Good day.”

Life is first of all surprise. The only known fact to begin with is that you are sentenced to death, from which all the variation of life springs out (you can't even know you are alive without knowing you must die). This is the "joyous cosmology" of Alan Watts which despite the latter's atheism and nihilism (Buddhism) bears an amazing resemblance to the cosmology of the deeply Christian Chesterton here. Given that you have accepted the challenge to be an activist or perhaps just to live at all, we get this delightful wisdom about how to go about it. Should people like anarchists, MAPs and sexualists disguise their identity? I know none of you will believe it, but there is much truth to this:

“The history of the thing might amuse you,” he said. “When first I became one of the New Anarchists I tried all kinds of respectable disguises. I dressed up as a bishop. I read up all about bishops in our anarchist pamphlets, in Superstition the Vampire and Priests of Prey. I certainly understood from them that bishops are strange and terrible old men keeping a cruel secret from mankind. I was misinformed. When on my first appearing in episcopal gaiters in a drawing-room I cried out in a voice of thunder, ‘Down! down! presumptuous human reason!’ they found out in some way that I was not a bishop at all. I was nabbed at once. Then I made up as a millionaire; but I defended Capital with so much intelligence that a fool could see that I was quite poor. Then I tried being a major. Now I am a humanitarian myself, but I have, I hope, enough intellectual breadth to understand the position of those who, like Nietzsche, admire violence—the proud, mad war of Nature and all that, you know. I threw myself into the major. I drew my sword and waved it constantly. I called out ‘Blood!’ abstractedly, like a man calling for wine. I often said, ‘Let the weak perish; it is the Law.’ Well, well, it seems majors don’t do this. I was nabbed again. At last I went in despair to the President of the Central Anarchist Council, who is the greatest man in Europe.” [...] I said to him, ‘What disguise will hide me from the world? What can I find more respectable than bishops and majors?’ He looked at me with his large but indecipherable face. ‘You want a safe disguise, do you? You want a dress which will guarantee you harmless; a dress in which no one would ever look for a bomb?’ I nodded. He suddenly lifted his lion’s voice. ‘Why, then, dress up as an anarchist, you fool!’ he roared so that the room shook. ‘Nobody will ever expect you to do anything dangerous then.’ And he turned his broad back on me without another word. I took his advice, and have never regretted it. I preached blood and murder to those women day and night, and—by God!—they would let me wheel their perambulators.”

And I know -- I know I will keep getting 99% anonymous comments after this hilariously touching quote too. But you are mistaken about the utility of keeping your true colors hidden in your daily lives as majors or bishops or whatever is your "respectable" role. The fact of the matter is that such secrecy is counterproductive not just to our movement but your personal safety against the feminist police state as well.

Certainly now that society currently isn't persecuting heretics. Even for sex crimes now when antisex is the state religion, the heresy itself isn't punished. Just watch me deny the metaphysical badness of sex in blog post after blog post without getting arrested -- or if I do get arrested, at least without conviction. Hey, even Heretic TOC is still up and I have no doubt women would let him wheel their perambulators because he is so open and honest about his activism, not the least bit creepy or hypocritical. The closest we come to punishing heresy is the obscenity laws, which admittedly come very close and sometimes do serve as repurposed blasphemy laws but still allow considerable rhetorical leeway. Chesterton allows us to imagine what it would be like if the police were philosophers and not just brutes:

“You are not sufficiently democratic,” answered the policeman, “but you were right when you said just now that our ordinary treatment of the poor criminal was a pretty brutal business. I tell you I am sometimes sick of my trade when I see how perpetually it means merely a war upon the ignorant and the desperate. But this new movement of ours is a very different affair. We deny the snobbish English assumption that the uneducated are the dangerous criminals. We remember the Roman Emperors. We remember the great poisoning princes of the Renaissance. We say that the dangerous criminal is the educated criminal. We say that the most dangerous criminal now is the entirely lawless modern philosopher. Compared to him, burglars and bigamists are essentially moral men; my heart goes out to them. They accept the essential ideal of man; they merely seek it wrongly. Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it. But philosophers dislike property as property; they wish to destroy the very idea of personal possession. Bigamists respect marriage, or they would not go through the highly ceremonial and even ritualistic formality of bigamy. But philosophers despise marriage as marriage. Murderers respect human life; they merely wish to attain a greater fulness of human life in themselves by the sacrifice of what seems to them to be lesser lives.”

I would add that most sex offenders have no political or philosophical beef with the sex laws. They have no interest in denying the supposed metaphysical badness of sex with minors, or women's right to regret-rape laws or whatever. They merely thought they could get away with breaking these laws, or that they are somehow more innocent at heart than other men doing precisely the same things. The protagonist replies thus to the policeman:

“How true that is,” he cried. “I have felt it from my boyhood, but never could state the verbal antithesis. The common criminal is a bad man, but at least he is, as it were, a conditional good man. He says that if only a certain obstacle be removed—say a wealthy uncle—he is then prepared to accept the universe and to praise God. He is a reformer, but not an anarchist. He wishes to cleanse the edifice, but not to destroy it. But the evil philosopher is not trying to alter things, but to annihilate them. Yes, the modern world has retained all those parts of police work which are really oppressive and ignominious, the harrying of the poor, the spying upon the unfortunate. It has given up its more dignified work, the punishment of powerful traitors in the State and powerful heresiarchs in the Church. The moderns say we must not punish heretics. My only doubt is whether we have a right to punish anybody else.”

This is eerily similar to what I have been thinking ever since I was arrested in 2012 and found myself to be the worst person in the prison from the point of view of philosophical policing, because everyone else was this sort of "conditionally good person" or someone who had problems with impulse control and I alone a heretic. I marvel that I am not punished for speaking heresy against the sex laws while pathetic harmless wankers who would never say a bad word about the sex laws are.

But rest assured the police does not read Chesterton, and neither do the feminists who deliver their ideological premises. They are set to continue their absurdly misguided war on sex for a long time, which leaves us peace to organize our intellectual opposition. Newgon is on track to produce a powerful body of work which can jumpstart a movement for sexual liberation in no time when conditions are right. If the feminists wise up a little bit it it may well have to survive in illegal channels for a while like the "CSAM" the state also fights with perfect futility, but I am confident it will persist. The feminists can kill us, but they can't kill our ideas because we are already too many dedicated activists for that to succeed.

As to the book I just reviewed, there were no spoilers here. Go ahead and read it for fun and edification and perhaps even the deepest meaning Chesterton seems to intend, which is a sort of periphrasis of the Bible. It is not overly preachy, however, closer to Alan Watts as such. Although the subtitle is "A Nightmare," it feels uplifting in the end, whether you ultimately believe in a God or not. It is a bringer of good news as in a gospel and renewed sense of wonder. Poetry is the art of saying what cannot be said, and I think this succeeds as such. Since it cannot be put simply, you would have to read it to find out what this is. To me it even speaks to my role in the battle between good and evil as a male sexualist. To paraphrase the ending a little bit, I am left with an unnatural buoyancy in my body and a crystal simplicity in mind. I now feel in possession of some impossible good news which makes every other thing a triviality, but an adorable triviality.

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 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 lost lost the plot and are so sick in the head from my point of view. But I know there is nothing I can do to convince them, because this is not only a widespread superstition but a holy cow too. And if the past history of this blog is any indication, the comment section will be replete with antifeminists too repeating the same hogwash and saying wanking is good for us. Which I am SO close to banning now.

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

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

"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).