Friday, June 10, 2016

Obscenity laws come roaring back

Traditionally in my culture, up until the mid 20th century, there was a ban on pornography in general. Then we had the Sexual Revolution and a brief period of freedom. Now anti-sex hysteria is manifesting itself again in more pernicious ways than we have seen in hundreds of years, and this includes the return of obscenity laws.

Society figured out that children couldn't handle nudity, so we got child porn laws starting in the 1990s -- and insanely draconian, hateful laws they are.

Society recently figured out that women can't handle nudity either, so now there is a scramble to enact draconian "revenge porn" laws applicable to any situation where women feel bad about the existence of nude images of themselves. When women do something and regret it, it is never their fault; our society has a sick need to blame a man every single time. Analogous to the regret rape laws, now women are to be given laws enabling them to blame a man and have him imprisoned whenever they regret posing nude, or even taking nude pictures of themselves and sharing them.

The now ubiquitous and relentless propaganda in Norway makes this quite explicit:

"Uansett om man selv har posert på et intimt bilde og sendt det til en person man stoler på, eller om man har vært utsatt for bildetyveri eller snikfotografering, så er ekspertene klare i sin tale: Det er aldri offeret sin skyld."

["Whether you have posed for an intimate picture and sent it to a person you trust, or if one has been subjected to image theft or candid photography, the experts all agree: It is never the victim's fault."]

Yes, our scumbag legislators explicitly want to blame and imprison men for women's choices! They don't even attempt to cover it up as anything else.

I can't stomach reading most of the ongoing barrage of propaganda or examining the laws sought (and some places already enacted) in detail, just wanted to exclaim my hatred. I shake and seethe with hatred against our legislators and law enforcers.

Wouldn't it be better to just bring back general obscenity laws on moral grounds than this insane proliferation of criminal laws to protect supposed "victims" defined in ever more expansive and creative ways? Women and children evidently can't handle freedom of expression, so it would be best for all, "victims" and criminals alike, to have widely enforced taboos preventing this "victimization" from readily existing in the first place. If women couldn't pose nude willingly or send nude selfies without running afoul of cultural taboos and hence rarely did so, there could be no revenge porn either. But no, that would not satisfy the feminist establishment's bloodlust against men; it would not satisfy the scumbags in law enforcement who make their living hunting men for their sexuality -- the feminist abuse industry is an insatiable beast that will always come up with more ways to imprison more men no matter what we give them. Feminists want to have their cake and eat it -- total freedom and total criminalization at the same time, violent blue thugs to coming to their rescue whenever they have their regrets or have their feelings hurt about anything at all.

My blood boils with hatred against the authorities which I express to the full extent permissible by law, which is just the tip of the iceberg, being confident that paralepsis is legal in Norway. If anyone wonders how I became so hateful, this is just another example in a long line of malicious propaganda and increasingly hateful laws against men -- and hate breeds hate in healthy men. The sickly and feeble-minded ones become brainwashed manginas and internalize these disgusting sexual taboos themselves, who along with the feminists now form the majority that we are up against.

So in summary, my position on revenge porn (and child porn) is this: We either take the wailing about victimization seriously and enact a blanket ban on obscenity, with cultural norms to go along with it to prevent the basis for this victimization, or we don't take it seriously and get rid of all these laws which single out men to be imprisoned whenever a woman has her feelings hurt. What I cannot accept is this reign of terror where everything is permissible until a woman has any regrets, and then the full force of state violence is brought down on some man or men for that sole reason. Personally I believe victimization by images is complete bullshit, sort of like Voodoo magic and homeopathy combined, but society needs to make up its mind and either stand behind its taboos comprehensively or get rid of them, because it is obscenely unfair to make men shoulder all the responsibility. The current approach does not nothing to prevent victimization, if that's really what it is. No matter how many men you imprison, it is the nature of digital information that it can and will be shared indefinitely once it is released, so the only effect is to expand the feminist police state.

If women and children are really so delicate as feminists claim they are, then perhaps we need to ban all images of children and never allow women to appear in public without a burka and police escort. I am willing to entertain the notion that any transgression of such norms are "abuse," but then you all better get with the program and share responsibility for enforcing these taboos. Then there will be little opportunity for men to become criminals and be imprisoned just for hurting a woman's feelings, and we can all live happily.


Eivind Berge said...

This is beyond what I thought possible even after what I just wrote:

A man has a nude picture of an ex-girlfriend on his phone, shows to it to a few friends -- not distributing it, just showing the phone on one occasion -- and the scumbags in law enforcement take it seriously, drags him to court and has him convicted. That is how far it has already gone, in Norway...

And still they agitate for more hateful laws...

I am old enough to remember when women went topless on the beach. Nudity was no big deal, and now it is tantamount to rape. Merely showing a picture privately THAT A WOMAN HAS POSED FOR OR SENT YOU is a sex crime. The world has changed so much in terms of ramping up sex-hostility that it is surreal.

Eivind Berge said...

Er det noen i Norge som begriper hvordan denne drittsekken av en dommer i Sør-Trøndelag tingrett kan få seg til å skrive noe sånt?

"– I skjerpende retning vil retten understreke at det – uavhengig av om fornærmede tidligere eventuelt hadde samtykket til å vise frem nakenbildene, slik siktede har forklart – er det tale om en alvorlig integritetskrenkelse overfor fornærmede, står det i dommen."

En "alvorlig integritetskrenkelse" å vise frem et bilde som kvinnen hadde samtykket til å vise frem? Er det mulig å være så sykt mannevond i hodet sitt???

Jeg blir så full av hat at jeg har ikke ord...

Anonymous said...

Of course several government agents needed to examine the images (and probably others that weren't disclosed), but of course it's not felt as a violation for them do even more invasive things since everyone recognizes their superior position.

The Night Wind said...

In the United States, these types of laws only apply to heterosexuals and are strictly enforced---including by many unofficial policies and social stigmatizing.

For homosexuals, Sexual Liberation is not only still valid, it's been so expanded that nearly anything they do is legally and socially sanctioned. The only time any homosexual ever goes to jail for a sex crime is when he's a member of the Christian clergy or the Republican Party.

Cultural Marxism is behind nearly all these so-called anti-obscenity laws.

Anonymous said...

I'm gald to see a good old ways post like this: Eivind is back!

This happened in italy this week:

Females untouchable and omnipotent: it's a worldwide cup d'etat, against men.

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks. Good awareness of men's rights issues in that article. Very true:

"In the recent past there has been a full-fledged linguistic/legal/cultural manipulation whereby what before was called "young woman" or "girl" became "child," "little girl," "kid" or "minor"; what was called "to have a love relationship" and "to get acquainted with" became "luring" and "grooming"; what was called "consensual sexual intercourse" has become "little girl raped." I'm talking about women who up until a few decades ago were defined as "women of marriageable age," not 5-year-old little girls."

And I didn't know that even the Pope got on the man-hating bandwagon and raised the age of consent from 12 to 18 in the Vatican. Wow, what a scumbag.

Anonymous said...

AGAIN! Some words desappered... I will use "" now

Eivind, the first step into the lawmaking of wrong laws into the direction of tiranny, is the verbal/linguistic manipulation. Wanna manufacture a criminal? Redefine the activity you want to criminalize. This is the gold rule, infact, what do you find as first lines into the law texts? The definitions.

Out of law texts, I noticed this into the normal Language. In english, the meaning of the words "creepy", "creep" and "creeper" was remanufactured by feminists.
You know, creepy creep and creeper are used mostly to shame men (after they proposed themselves) because they are "not enough" (Young or handsome or sometimes both; less often rich for various reasons, but it still possible) BUT before the '80s they were used only for animals that moves through their belly on the ground, or some plants, the creepers.
My english teacher, a 70 something year old irish woman, once I used that word C. about a man into an execise, said to me it was an error because "the snake creeps".
I run at home and looked for that into a 1979 printed dictionary, and she was right: there is no reference to a meaning that can allows the use over a man or a person.
In short I noticed that each time into a movie a man was shamed with a not clear adjective, into the original english version the word used was creepy or creep or creeper. But in italian, the "creepy" thing was translated as:
- clammy
- scaring
- awry
- something else I don't even remember
- ...
In short: there is not a real meaning behind the most used word to shame, bash men. The feminists remanufactured the meaning through mass medias. That's creepy, isn't it?

The only activity in which Pope Francis Bergoglio is involved is into criminlaize the normal straight male sexuality. Look at his motu proprio initiatives: all only against men.

It's a coup d'etat, Eivind, perpetrated against men all around the world.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, you have to use different signs like "" because those brackets don't work. I deleted the redundant comments.

I totally agree, changing the definitions is the number one way to impose tyranny. That is why I have been railing against the feminist redefinition of rape and all the legal reforms to this effect since I started blogging. The concept of rape has been changed beyond recognition, and yet the courts and media pretend it is the same thing, deserving the same punishment or even worse.

Changing the definitions has been extremely successful because it really does not seem like most people stop to think about what these words really mean. The words are more like metaphors that trigger knee-jerk reactions, and this can be carried incredibly far. Whoever controls the legal definitions can impose any kind of tyranny they wish and get the people to go along with it just by changing the meaning of established crimes. Most people are too uninterested in legal matters to even notice that laws change, but they will continue to have the same hysterical reaction whenever someone is labelled a "rapist" or "abuser" and so on as before. So it is up to us MRAs to raise awareness about the true content of these crimes in the current hateful climate. Our task is staggeringly difficult because of the normative power of laws. It takes a very strong-willed person to challenge the authority of the state and take a stand against its laws.

Anonymous said...

Hi again, I'm the italian guy...
The normal straight male sexuality is not the only victim of feminist sphere: now also weapons are! After the Orlando shooting, the AR-15 is under main stream meadias (all feminists) attention. They messed up the terms by the manipulation of the "Assault rifle" expression to manufacture the "assault weapon" expression.

AR-15 is a sport oriented, civilian designed rifle; that ONLY looks like a military rifle (M4, M15, M16). In their mind, your average honda ricer fitted with huge output to look fast, could beat a 7.5L american muscle. Lol!

Before Yesterday, Ive never cared about weapons, but their self referenced arrogant manners and lies make my blood boils up,... so now I'm a supporter of the right of civilians to own and carry weapons, all around the world.
Probably the most part of gays killed into the PULSE club were "neutralized" by pig-cops trying to kill the terrorist, and not by the terrorist.
Hands off 2nd amendment!

Eivind Berge said...

I see the usual propaganda in favor of tougher gun laws, but I don't think the 2nd Amendment is going anywhere. That is one good thing about America.

Here in Norway, the scumbags in law enforcement are currently conducting a prosecution which seeks to expand the criminalization of revenge porn to everyone who downloads it:

They don't really have any laws for it, so prosecutors are making it up as they go along, seeking to establish the precedent that laws against receiving stolen property can apply to downloading revenge porn. They also have several alternatives such as defining it as sexual harassment or of course child porn if the woman is under 18.
Do you see where this is going? Soon mere possession of "revenge porn" will be criminalized just like child porn, and the pigs will have a tremendous new weapon against men. Since women are free to revoke their consent and decide that pictures of them are "revenge porn" at any time, you can never be sure that a nude image isn't criminal.

By the way, two other hateful escalations of sex laws just happened: The law against sibling incest has been expanded from intercourse to all sexual contact (§ 313 in the new Penal code), removing the logical basis and making it just as irrational and hateful as the rest of our sexual legislation. It even includes masturbation! And the age of consent in Norway has been quietly raised to 18 when the person is in a "vulnerable life position" (§ 295). So now the scumbags in law enforcement can use that excuse to prosecute men who have sex with girls between 16 and 18.

And the hatred in my heart grows accordingly. My country is now so morally repugnant to me that I have nothing left in common with it and fully define myself as a Quisling. No other word is strong enough at this point. I used to feel like a rebel, but now I feel like a full-blown traitor because the chasm is so deep. I look into the abyss and see only hate, and I become hate. This is not the country I grew up in and not the kind of society I want to live in. Just when you think it can't get any worse, they come up with new aspects of sexuality to criminalize, and the man-hating hysteria is always directed at the new target with undiminished strength. The goal posts keep changing but the hysteria always remains, and the media never relent on their hateful propaganda against men. Who would have thought that women who regret taking nude pictures of themselves would be the new rape victims? Yet, that is where we are at. When revenge porn has gained the same legal status as child pornography, the feminist abuse industry will simply move on to the next hysteria, which will be added to all the others in a cumulative fashion. I can't imagine what the next hysteria will be, but I do know this: They will NEVER be satisfied. As long as there is a mangina willing to fight for them, they will wage war on male sexuality and female too.

Eivind Berge said...

The verdict in that case is now ready and just as bad as I predicted:

Norwegian men now risk 120 days in prison for downloading nude pictures that women regret sharing. Even the mere possession of such images has been criminalized:

"Gjennom denne dommen sendes i prinsippet et signal om at all befatning med denne typen bilder og materiale er straffbart. Ansvaret er plassert hos de som tilegner seg, besitter og deler bildene – ikke hos jentene, sier Thomas Stærk, leder av Seksjon for internettrelatert etterforskningsstøtte i Kripos i en melding som er gjengitt på Kripos' Facebook-side."

I left the following comment:

"Mens det før bare var barneporno som var straffbart å laste ned, betyr denne dommen at man risikerer å bli kriminell av å laste ned eller besitte absolutt alle typer nakenbilder. Kriminaliseringen av normale menn er dermed skrudd opp noe enormt i et hysteri som har tatt helt av.

Når det nå er slått fast at heller ikke voksne kvinner takler nakenbilder, og når som helst kan angre seg og få sendt alle som har dem i fengsel, da mener jeg faktisk det er bedre å forby alle nakenbilder for å beskytte menn mot politistaten. Det ville vært mer redelig og rettferdig. Da får kvinner som tar nakenbilder av seg selv også være med på å dele det kriminelle ansvaret."

Where I reiterate that it is better and fairer to just ban all nude images. The women who share them should also bear criminal responsibility, because this reign of terror against men alone on the whim of women changing their minds about pictures of themselves is monstrously unjust.

Anonymous said...

Just from homosexuality a rare phenomenon in norway?forgive my bad English..a guy from Greece.nice blog by the way

True2God said...


True2God said...

"I don't think the 2nd Amendment is going anywhere. That is one good thing about America."

I'm for the 2nd Amendment too.

Anonymous said...

Politiets prioriteringer gir resultater.

Eivind Berge said...

- Går heller i fengsel på statens regning, enn å betale bota

Det er den rette holdningen, kudos til Ole Andreas Hammari! Det vil gjøre livet surt for politi og rettsvesen om alle gjør det i stedet for å akseptere bot i slike tullesaker.