We live in ever more hateful times. This ongoing prosecution, in which a suspended policeman is charged with the newly invented crime of reading erotic short stories, pushes the envelope of feminist sex-hostility another notch forward and inspired the following essay from me.
When words are criminal, so are thoughts. Whether thoughts are written down or not makes no moral difference, and any words that sexualize a minor are criminal. My opinions on "child" sexuality (referring to anyone under 18) are fundamentally criminal, and only technical and resource limitations (mind reading technology is not there yet) prevents the state from convicting and imprisoning me. Notice that the law covers every medium of thought currently accessible to the police, and if they could read our thoughts directly, they would surely do so and base their prosecution on it.
This is the feeling the Norwegian child porn law gives rise to. I fundamentally do not fit in. I seethe with roiling hatred against the state, and the hatred is mutual, because the spirit of the law means I belong in prison and not in society. This conflict cannot be resolved, because it is fundamental, unequivocal, mutual hatred. When all is said and done, we hate each other, society and I.
Let us meditate on what this means, and face the horror of the law. Whether you have any interest in breaking it or not, the atmosphere it creates is true horror. I don't particularly care about the specific short stories that incriminated this policeman, but I care very much about freedom of speech and thought. The Norwegian legislature has decided that your mind is meant to exist in a prison of criminality, shuddering in fear of thinking unclean thoughts, reading or hearing unclean words or, horror of horrors, seeing unclean images. The scumbags in law enforcement will even target their own for perceiving unclean information, for that is how fucking seriously this society takes mind control. This society has decided that not even thoughts are free, with all the horrifying consequences that entails, because we worship the mythical innocence of the child above all other considerations. An innocence which is entirely specious, but that doesn't matter, because it is the idea of childish innocence that these laws are meant to protect, and explicitly so since they also apply to fiction.
This society is incapable of being rational about "child" sexuality, because as soon as a sexual reference is made to anyone under 18, or even according to the law someone who merely appears to be under 18 (as in acting), and even a fictional one, all expression is forbidden and the only possible response is state-enforced violence. If the law is to be taken seriously, we must burn most books and imprison all men and throw our cultural heritage out the window. If a man keeps as much as a diary or a scrap sheet of paper where anyone under 18 is sexualized in any form, he must be surveillanced, hunted down and imprisoned. It is surreal that I am damn near the only one who hasn't internalized the charade, who speaks up against it, who feels seething hatred in the opposite direction than everyone else, whose hatred is directed squarely at me and anyone who transgresses their moronic taboos. Usually the transgressor will himself have internalized the taboos, so the most he will do is claim he "didn't do it" while obsequiously parroting the same sex-hostility.
There are very few living people I respect. It is almost impossible to find a person whose mind has not been captured by these taboos. Nearly everyone supports or at least condones child porn laws, probably more than 99 people out of 100, and if you are one of them I disrespect your puny intellect and hate your guts. You gullible fool who don't understand the monstrosity you enable, at best, or odious creep who has actually internalized the sex-hostility! I know some of you have thought these matters through as carefully as I have, and chosen the other side. In that case I have no illusions of convincing you otherwise, because I know we fundamentally hate each other and it is not based on any misunderstanding.
I ponder the law and realize that my soul is criminal. My country fundamentally wants to imprison me for who I am, a normal man, and other men don't want to stand up against it even though they are just as much targeted themselves. I do not fit in, and don't want to fit into this sick society. I had to pinch myself to check that I am not having a nightmare, because this is so batshit crazy that I didn't seriously expect it to be enforced, even though I knew the law has been intending it for years. As far as I can tell, the dystopia is real. I am literally living in a country where the police can and will persecute you for reading or writing fictional stories. And worse, I am just about the only one who sees anything wrong with it. It is deeply disturbing, and breaks down certain barriers that I thought would protect us. I have never been so scared of the government as I am now, because this is not only hateful, it is absurd. When I was arrested and accused of incitement, there was at least some logic to the prosecution's case, some potentially real evil they were investigating, but this is entirely unaccountable. When the government is capable of persecuting you for the content of your library and personal records/drafts -- including fiction, for God's sake! -- is there any refuge left? Is there any limit to what they might decide next? And when they even target one of their own for such an absurdly victimless reason, what makes you think you are safe?
Monday, December 19, 2016
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
This is what's called a witchhunt. Any MAN opposing the forementioned legislation will instantly be branded as "some pervert that wants to have sex with children". Nevermind the fact that there are young women with e-cups and seriously bodacious curves that few men can avoid daydreaming about.
This is the mentality and mindset that must be broken to counter act.
All I can say is good luck.
It seems too engrained in our cultures.
Jeg spekulerer på hvad de norske myndigheder vil gøre, hvis de under en ransagning finder en stak noveller skrevet på et ganske usædvanligt sprog, såsom gujarati eller javanesisk? Vil de mon få novellerne oversat for at fastsætte hvorvidt de er sædelige eller usædelige?
The Norwegian child porn law could easily be applied to all dissenting opinions. If you disagree with the basis of the law, and for example state that it is ludicrous to pretend 17-year-olds are asexual children, then you have "sexualized children," and any exposition which sexualizes children, in any form and any medium, is considered child porn. This post could easily be considered textual child porn in Norway; the law is ready and only waiting to be applied that way. It is the perfect totalitarian tool to not only imprison dissenters, but to silence them and erase all records of their opposition as well. Imagine that everyone reading this is treated like a criminal. That is the level of insanity we are dealing with, and to my disbelief it is actually starting to be enforced, with no noticeable resistance either.
Norwegians like to mock Islam for its taboo against representations of Mohammed. There is a rich irony to doing so when your own culture is festering with a far more extensive and absurd taboo against representation, which covers not only drawings but any means of communication or store of knowledge you can think of. Since I have not internalized my culture's taboo against "sexualizing children" like the dimwitted sheeple, I see it for the bizarre monstrosity it is, and I am horrified by what is happening. Since this is something the average person in my culture truly believes in, it is futile talk any sense into them. We are up against a collective psychosis and a blank check for government oppression.
Om de vil etterforske fremmedspråklige tekster som de ikke forstår? Det blir vel et spørsmål om ressurser, men siden sedelighetsforbrytelser er absolutt førsteprioritet for politiet, så skulle det ikke forundre meg. I tillegg må de vel hente inn litteraturkritikere på det aktuelle språk for å avgjøre om tekstene har tilstrekkelige litterære kvaliteter til å unnslippe straffeforfølgning, eller om de er usedelige slik at alle som leser eller besitter dem må straffes. Da snakker vi om skikkelig politiarbeid.
Don't give up. The Feminists and the Conservadads (portmanteau of "conservative" and "dad") are not even two sides of the same coin, but really the same side of the same coin. They are indistinguishable in all but name when it comes to the topic of "child" (that is, older than 11) sexuality. Feminists are self-interested manipulators of the male protectionist instinct, and their Conservadad counterparts are males whose protectionist instinct, the instinct to protect "women and children", has been turned against the healthy (hetero-)sexuality of young people, that is: against the naturally-occurring sexual attractions, and the sexual relations ensuing from those naturally-occurring sexual attractions, between any males regardless of age and any females who are "young", the usual case being that the male is "older" (16-22) and the female is "younger" (12-15).
The issue is, frankly, one of imagination. The Conservadads have a constrained imaginative ability, so they can't even imagine that it's possible for a 12 year old "girl" to sexually desire a 18 year old male, and to relish in every millisecond of a healthy sexual relationship with such a man. They think that forcing young people to be sexually frustrated and to masturbate in loneliness for years is better than to allow them to explore their sexual appetite and be empowered by it. That's because they think sex itself is inherently "sinful" and unhealthy. These people are clueless and have the arrogant audacity to claim the "moral high ground" even as their anti-natural ideology brings nothing but pain and frustration to innocent people.
Normies are sheeple.
Lack of imagination may be a factor, but I think the most important reason for the sheeple's acceptance of witch-hunts is deference to authority.
After all, there are many varieties of sexual desires and practices that I don't understand either, yet I would never condone criminalizing them unless I had some clear and convincing evidence that they were harmful and abusive. And even then, I would weigh the dangers of giving more power to the police state up against the benefits. The Drug War is a good example of failing this test spectacularly: even though drugs can be harmful, the Drug War is so much more harmful than drugs that sensible people support legalization or at least decriminalization.
Child porn not only lacks any scientific evidence of harm; criminalizing it is like the Drug War on steroids. It is the gift that just keeps on giving to prosecutors and the police state. Since the "crime" is purely symbolic and can be endlessly replicated, the potential punishment for one inert computer file is roughly equivalent to genocide. And now we have to live in fear of incrimination for texts as well. It takes an incredibly obsequious person to accept this regime based on nothing but the decree of feminist ideologues and legislators. I have discovered to my horror that most of the population fits this description.
East Asia is the next sex-hostile child-sexuality hysterical countries
Not long ago, the possession of child porn has criminalized in Japan (Thanks UN)
Japanese Ministry of Justice has recently started to argue reforming some sex crime laws
They are trying to make the AoC 18 (currently 13)
There is a feminism NGO in Japan that tries to take public's attention to the sexy picture of minor and promoting to ban it
What is the CAUSE of all those INSANITY which is happening in ALL OVER THE WORLD? What is it? How to change it?
You said it is because of the feminists. Yes it is. But is it the only thing?
What about Anglo-saxon countries? I find it that they are extremely hysterical and punitive to the crimes relevant to child sexuality. And Their news and writings are spread to the world because English is used in the world. What they do is considered correct thing
There must be some kind of "collective amnesia syndrome" concerning the long-range memory of most people, because I have no trouble remembering the sexual desires I had for select female classmates as far back as 3rd grade (and beyond).
And some of those desires were a bit fornicative in nature as well.
And, no, they were not caused by any "acts of molestation" by any adults in my life. In fact, if anything, I kept my thoughts and fantasies a secret from, especially, my parents and other relatives. And never shared them with any classmates either. I already figured out they were a bit of an "oddity" on my part as no-one else seemed to have any of the kinds of hang-ups that were the norm for me. My desires and fantasies were purely of my own making---stuff I came up with.
I'm quite convinced that if the people in my life knew half of what I was visualizing in my mind at the time they would have been quite shocked.
Oddly enough, to this day, a lot of what would turn me on with a woman is the same things that were turning me on with the girls in my class.
But, on the subject of "childhood innocence", yes the sexual desires start prepubescent. However, due to cultural taboos and the fact that most parents wait until their offspring is "old enough to" understand certain select "facts of life", there is still that overall naivety children have about the subject as they still have no total concept of all the nuances of the subject itself, of just how involved and abstract (in the lascivious sense) the adult versions can get (and let's face it: A lot of adult sex can get WAY OUT THERE).
As such, a child's version, lust-filled as it can be, is still quite tame in comparison, even when mildly perverted. In short: A kid exposed to some of the harsher versions of "adult sex" does stand to suffer a sizable degree of "culture shock". I'm not questioning that.
I'm only stating that a lot of the basic sexual desires don't "wait until" the teenage years to start manifesting themselves mentally, emotionally,and psychologically.
One thing: I was so naive at the time I honestly thought my lust and erotic fantasies were "proof of my 'being in love with'" said classmate (I was only 9 and 10 at the time, so cut me some slack).
I also remember very clearly my own prepubescent sexual desires, which started further back than I can remember since my very earliest memories consist of lusting after girls and women around age four. If there is such a thing as childhood sexual innocence, it only pertains to knowledge rather than desires. I would call it ignorance, and it's not something worth idealizing. For example, as a prepubescent boy I was too ignorant to know that there was nothing wrong with the angle of my erect penis (I thought it pointed too high to fit in a vagina and was supposed to stand 90 degrees out), but I sure as hell knew I wanted to fuck women, and I *know* I would have benefited from actually doing so instead of the masturbation I was confined to. Criminalizing representations that "sexualize children," then, becomes a desperate attempt to suppress facts -- facts which most people must know deep down since they lived through it. Feminists use the police state to enforce a lie, which is very naive and would be comical if the consequences weren't so ghastly.
Eivind, har du aldrig tænkt på civil ulydighed? I modsætning til drab på politimænd kunne den skaffe dig en del sympati og ville få dit budskab ud til det brede publikum, specielt hvis du lægger noget morsomt i det. Den kunne f.eks. lyde sådan her:
"For at protestere mod den meningsløse krænkelse af ytringsfriheden i Norge vil jeg, EB, den [indsæt dato] uden for rådhuset i Bergen offentligt uddele erotiske noveller og hæfter med japanske tegneserier til de forbipasserende. Kom og grib chancen for helt gratis at komme i besiddelse af en ikke-litterær erotisk historie med personer under 18 år som hovedperson og en ægte japansk manga! Der vil desuden blive budt på gratis kaffe og kager. Politimesteren og påtalemyndigheden er velkomne".
Hvis du annoncerer det ordentligt, ville du få stor omtale, og dommeren vil sandsynligvis give dig en mild dom på grund af det politiske budskab i din aktion.
Problemet med milde former for sivil ulydighet er at det gir dem muligheten til å straffe, men det skader dem ikke. Når må så har null støtte i befolkningen, blir man bare straffet uten å oppnå noe. Det var et morsomt påfunn, men jeg tror at sexhatet nå er så ekstremt og stikker så dypt at det ikke nytter. For at sivil ulydighet skal fungere, må man være så mange at det er upraktisk å straffe alle, og jeg tror jeg er den eneste som ville stilt opp på en slik demonstrasjon. Men jeg er åpen for å endre mening hvis flere blir med.
Saken med politimannen som er siktet for sexnoveller er jo minst like latterlig, men hvor er sympatien?
On the topic of the collective amnesia syndrome with regard to our own childhoods, the Archdruid has something sensible to say this week:
"The bizarre modern recrudescence of the Victorian notion that children are innocent little angels tells me, if nothing else, that most adults must go very far out of their way to forget their own childhoods. Children aren’t innocent little angels; they’re fierce little animals, which is of course exactly what they should be, and they need roughly the same blend of gentleness and discipline that wolves use on their pups to teach them to moderate their fierceness and live in relative amity with the other members of the pack."
If he is right about what is causing it, then this delusion shall pass when the age of abundant fossil fuels is over. Although it may take a while if he is also right about slow collapse. Which at this point seems most likely to me. He even predicted Trump as president before anyone else, while Gail Tverberg's predictions just keep failing. Now the oil price is 55 dollars per barrel when it should have been under 20 according to her, but she still thinks low oil prices will lead to the end of civilization in short order. Unless she can explain what is causing all the resilience we are seeing in the economy right now, there is not much credibility left in that view.
So the myth of innocent children, and by extension our draconian laws meant to enforce that lie, is merely a byproduct of fossil fuels. The Archdruid doesn't think our industrial civilization can transition to renewable energy, but even if it does, I doubt there is sufficient exergy in these sources to maintain the charade that children are innocent untouchable angels up to the age of 18. That notion will seem just as quaint to our descendants as it did to our ancestors. Children will once again have to work just to survive, and the dangers of "sexualizing children" will pale in comparison to the ordinary hazards of life to the point where nobody remembers that it was a big concern.
Kvinnens renhet ved ekteskapsinngåelse har alltid vært idealet, og har blitt beskyttet av kulturelle tabuer gjennom religionene. Den liberalistiske modernismens mål har alltid vært å utslette religionene og kulturene, for å gjøre den modernistiske staten til eneste kultur og Gud.
"The Tyranny of Liberalism":
Slik jeg ser det er disse lovene et uttrykk for at staten nå spiller religionenes rolle for å beskytte den ubesudlede kvinnen. Men i motsetning til i Afghanistan, hvor det er kvinnen som steines hvis tabuet brytes, er det nå mannen som skal steines.
Det er gjerne slik at ting blir snudd på hodet når staten tar kulturens plass.
Ethvert samfunn har et dypt atferdsbiologisk behov for å beskytte sine kvinners renhet, hvilket er forklart bl.a. i essayet av Terje Bongard, "Det menneskelige grunnfjell: Følelser som tilpasninger til et førhistorisk liv":
Selv ser jeg feminismen mer som et verktøy som benyttes av den liberalistiske tyranniske modernistiske staten, for å kunne tilintetgjøre religionen, kulturen og tradisjonene, og selv ta disses roller gjennom det rasjonelle teknokratiet.
Vil selv anbefale James Kalb for å forstå liberalismens tyranny.
Ja, Gail Tverberg ser nå mer og mer ut til å eksistere i en boble, hvor hun dyrker kommentatorer som Fast Eddy, som opprettholdere av hennes boble. Fast Eddy minner meg litt for mye om Ormetunge i Ringenes Herre.
That is a good explanation. The state has assumed the role of religion and taken it upon itself to protect women's innocence. This especially applies to nubile girls before marriage, of course, whose innocence they guard with a ferocity equal to any other culture. Perhaps there is no way to escape this, human nature being what it is. Yes, the sexuality of nubile girls is of course profoundly valuable, so it will be jealously guarded one way or the other, but the religious model was far less malignant. Since the taboos are now enshrined in criminal law and enforced by a bureaucracy, common sense goes out the window and you get bizarre and unfair results such as the application of these laws to boys as well by idiots who have lost sight of their purpose and only think about their own careers.
The wanton acts of vandalism (e.g. writing on bathroom walls and the back of seats on city buses; using bonding liquid to affix the button on an elevator so that every time it lands on a floor it automatically kept returning to whatever floor we "permabonded" the button on), the prank phone calls, spitting on merchandise in stores when no-one was looking (no in-store security cameras back in the 60s), the "random acts of domestic terrorisms" we suffered at the hands of the neighborhood bullies ...
...and so forth.
...put a damper of the myth of "childhood innocence" as well.
My brother and I could be real bastards from time to time, as could most anyone else (including---but not limited to---abusive parents and teachers. However, our piano teacher was a pretty decent guy).
April Fool? No, it's just the UK...
Wow! The British have no concept of statute of limitations and no common sense in the application of their hateful laws. And these were not even serious sex crimes, but "indecency," which means nothing more than touching. And that with children who are now in their 40s and 50s. A civilized system would have considered history to be history, but nothing is too trivial or too long ago for the feminist police state. We are setting ourselves up for the same thing, with Norway now also having abolished the statute of limitations on many sex offenses (but not on the equivalent of "indecency," I think -- the British are still in a league of their own).
According to the website, the (female) police officer that prosecuted this man stated: "We will prosecute no matter how old". "She has said she hopes that this will encourage other people to come forward and reassure people that they will always investigate".
That reminds me of the she-wolf in Dante's Inferno:
Because this beast, at which thou criest out,
Suffers not any one to pass her way,
But so doth harass him, that she destroys him,
And has a nature so malign and ruthless,
That never doth she glut her greedy will,
And after food is hungrier than before.
The prosecutors also "paid tribute to the bravery of the victims of convicted 101-year-old paedophile Ralph Clarke." How brave is it to wait 40 years and then attack a frail old man? And that in a climate where sex accusers are treated like saints. I can scarcely think of anything more cowardly.
The evidence that teens, both male and female, are sexual is simply overwhelming. Yes, people will call it "selection bias", but what a selection! Here are a number of cases (not putting all the direct links because spam detectors don't like it when many links are posted):
"The two arranged to meet face to face after corresponding through Facebook . They bought wine with the help of someone the court called a “liquor Samaritan” and went to a friend’s home where they spent the night. The next day, the two had unprotected sex.
The boy also testified that the entire encounter was the girl’s idea, including the meet-up, drinking binge and sex. The judge discounted that testimony and in his ruling wrote that the boy’s testimony was “remarkable in its profession of avoidance of any responsibility whatsoever.”"
The guy's testimony was not, according to the article, contradicted by the girl. The bloodthirsty judge was, of course, furious, because all the facts presented by the guy made his conviction -- to an extent -- more difficult, given it's clear that the girl pursued him. So he lashed out and screamed "avoidance of responsibility", as if presenting the facts as they are can be that.
"A 14-year-old girl in a Detroit suburb wrote in her diary about the oral and anal sex she had with 22 boys and young men ranging from her own age up to 20.1 When her parents found out, they sent her to a psychiatric hospital in Utah for five months.1 The diary, which showed the sex to be not just consensual, but actively pursued by the girl,2 was used as evidence to identify the five of her sex partners that were over 16."
Here we have a sexually mature "girl" enjoying her sexuality and sex-hysterical parents going out of their way to convict men for a victimless crime.
This case has my blood boiling. It's clear the girl wanted to do what has been done. But society and the judges can't have enough of the "evil man - innocent woman" narrative, regardless of facts.
"The first count, filed by the Huxley Police Department, stems from an Oct. 8 incident in which police say Longnecker picked a 12-year-old girl up from her home in Huxley about midnight and took her to a location near 560th Avenue and the Heart of Iowa Bike Trail within the Huxley city limits.
According to police, Longnecker and the girl had consensual sexual intercourse, and then he took her home. Under Iowa law, minors under the age of 14 are unable to legally consent to sexual activity."
So: the police admit that the sex was consensual. Why charge? Because there is a "law". The law should be changed to reflect reality. But that would prevent the judges and the police from hunting innocent men for committing victimless crimes, so alas.
"A 12 year old Harare girl has stunned the Harare Magistrate Court after admitting to having consented to be intimate with five men. The minor was testifying in a case where a 22 year old man Nyasha Kaitano was facing charges of having raped the minor. Two of them were convicted and fined for having been intimate with a minor. Tapfumanei Kaitano (26) and one Lloyd (21) were both fined US$200 each by different magistrates. Another accused Victor Lemon (22) yesterday appeared in court for his initial remand charged with rape. He was remanded in custody to August 30 and advised to apply for bail at the High Court. According to Zimbabwean law a minor below the age of 16 is incapable of consent.
The trial of Nyasha Kaitano (22) opened yesterday before magistrate Mr Rodgers Kachambwa.
Nyasha pleaded not guilty, arguing that the intimacy was by consent. He gave evidence stating that he and the minor were in love; in cross examination the minor admitted to having consensual sex with Nyasha. He accused the girl of making the advances. Nyasha said they became intimate at a friend’s house. He claimed to have asked the minor if she had been intimate before and she admitted to having had sex with two other men. The girl’s guardian, her aunt submitted that on the night of July 30, the girl disappeared from home and they made a police report. “After a fruitless search, we decided to report her missing and with the help of the police we managed to find her the following day at one of her boyfriend’s house, Lemon. She went on to tell the court that the girl needed help.
“A medical examination was conducted and it disclosed that it was not her first time to sleep with men and when police interviewed her, she listed all her boyfriends."
Were it not so sad, it would be funny. Anglo-Puritanism has been exported to Zimbabwe. Real "Progress" in here.
"The attack happened at about 2pm on October 16, according to Detective Michael Kelly. He says surveillance video from the CVS at Bellaire and Stella Link shows a man in his 20s briefly walk inside the store, and then leave. Minutes later, the 12-year-old victim entered the store following her mother and grandmother. Police say the girl went off by herself. The man entered again and quickly approached the girl. "They went off into a corner and there were times when he was not fully clothed," said Kelly.
Kelly tells Eyewitness News the man coaxed the girl then into the women's restroom, and that's where she was sexually assaulted. "She was not necessarily all that unwilling, but at the age of 12 it doesn't matter," said Kelly."
Oh, you see. "Not necessarily" "all that" "unwilling". The girl enthusiastically jumps on his dick, and some bitch named Kelly uses 3 negative understatements in a row to describe it. It's a war against reality itself.
"A man of 19 who had sex with a 12-year-old girl had been spared jail due to “exceptional circumstances”.
Kieran Dalton, from Wirral, admitted the statutory rape of a child under 13, when he was aged 18.
However, the girl – who said it was consensual – refused to make a complaint and the prosecution was based on his admissions, the Liverpool Echo reported .
Dalton, who suffers from ADHD, said the girl told him she was 16, and that when he met her, he “thought perhaps she was only 15”.
Liverpool Crown Court heard a police officer said: “I will accept having met her she doesn’t look 12, but I don’t think she looks 16 either.”
Charles Lander, prosecuting, said the matter came to light when the girl visited a sexual health clinic.
He said she told workers “she had been talking to an older male on Facebook who told her to come to his flat”.
Mr Lander said: “She said she knew he was 18 and mentioned it was all consensual.”
Social services were informed and police visited the girl’s home, but neither she nor her family would give a statement.
Mr Lander agreed with Judge Alan Conrad, QC, that without Dalton’s admissions, “it would have been impossible to launch a prosecution”.
He said there was evidence she made sexually explicit suggestions to Dalton and wanted to meet near his parents’ home.
The teenager said he just intended to watch a film, but “she was all over me, she was kissing me, and then she eventually got on top of me”.
Dalton, who is 5ft 8in, said the 5ft 1in girl never mentioned being at school.
Mr Lander said: “He was very surprised when it was put to him that she was only 12.”"
I do not advocate doing anything illegal, of course, but if terrorists start bombing "social workers" and their offices until they're all gone up in flames, I would not shed a tear.
These are just the cases that have been brought to the police. In fact, there are plenty of stories all over the internet of "girls" aged 12-15 having sex with "boys" aged 16-20, told by both the women and the men. Women telling stories about how they lost their virginity at that age, and men telling how they had sex with young women that was initiated and very desired by the woman. Even if 50% of these stories are fake bullshit written by trolls, the other 50% is true, and the world doesn't collapse on itself, does it? But Feminists and their Conservadad allies will ignore it all, because that's what they always do. If reality clashes with ideology, so much worse for reality.
Does the article say anything about how old the "children" (girls?) in the stories the guy read were? I mean, the story is simply sickening even if they were newborns, given that these are just effin stories, but it would be even more infuriating if they were like 15-18. That would just be one of the craziest, sickening and most hateful things I've ever seen, maybe even the most sickening one.
I remember using SMS flert services back in mid 2000s. At least several times I've ran into 14 or 15 year-old girls who were very, very sexually active. One openly bragged about having a "fuck buddy" while being an eight grader and wanted to meet me as well. Of course, things have changed a lot since then here and become a lot more hateful as well.
It doesn't say the exact ages, but it does say that the website wasn't focused on underage sex at all, just general erotic short stories. Some of the characters were merely incidentally under 18, which is not an issue to any normal person, just the Norwegian police. The article makes a point of warning the Norwegian people that even if we have no interest in illegal pornography, we should be extremely careful about visiting sites with erotic stories, because some of them may inadvertently contain characters younger than 18, and then you are screwed if you have accessed them on your computer. Even more scary, the man was charged as a result of surveillance of his home network. They now use the most extreme invasions of privacy to uncover the most absurdly trivial sex crimes. Remember when surveillance was a big deal that required suspicion of serious crime and even then was considered problematic? Now it is enough that the cops are looking for erotic stories, which is such a profound corruption of basic civil liberties that I didn't think it would be possible just a few years ago. The feminist antisex crusade has succeeded so spectacularly that this is the new normal.
Anonymous, didn't right-wings support the strengthen of sex laws and police state such as surveillance for determining child pornography, Grooming laws, harsher laws in the name of "tough on crime"?
The so-called right-wing parties have actually been worse than the leftists here in Norway. They are the ones responsible for abolishing the statute of limitations on sex crimes, for example. Politics is just one giant competition about how hateful you can be against sexuality and men (and women too whenever they express sexuality), and there is no political party to vote for who opposes any of that. As sex-positive men, we are truly outcasts and pariahs with no hope.
The only thing we can do is to assert moral superiority and shame the scumbags who support the odious sex laws whenever we encounter them in our personal lives. Which is all the time, of course, so it only reinforces our status as outcasts, but I feel it is nonetheless what we must do. If enough men do it, we can eventually get a political party going, but right now I couldn't even have mustered a demonstration with a handful of men against even the most insane sex laws, such as the criminalization of erotic stories.
What exactly is being a sex-positive person?
Being sex-positive means you oppose irrational and unfair criminalization of sexuality. It means you don't tolerate the creation of victimless crimes such as prostitution, grooming, statutory rape and laws which send people to prison for the mere possession of child pornography.
It is also possible to feel more or less positive to various sexual practices, of course, but the really important distinction is what kind of laws you condone. The essence of feminism is to criminalize as much of sexuality as possible, and the essence of men's rights ideology is to limit sexual criminalization to properly defined rape and not much else.
The battle between feminists and MRAs is fought in sexual legislation and yes, social conservatives tend to be allied to feminists. There are basically two ways to be sex-negative: you can either think sex is always sinful or always abuse, and both of them lead to the same laws. These two odious ideologies combined now appear to be invincible.
You telling me to piss off on my own blog, eh? And a death threat, very nice. Thanks for illustrating the irrational hatred of the common people. This is literally the kind of antisexualism we are up against now. When Orwell wrote about the Junior Anti-Sex League, he failed to imagine how bad it would be in reality.
And in case anyone was wondering if that comment had any basis in fact -- I am not even close to being a pedophile. I have a 28-year-old girlfriend. This is the kind of hate one gets just for having an opinion about the sex laws that goes against the prevailing sex-hostility of our times.
I do not understand anything. If you (and the people who write here) know that since 12/13 can make their own decisions so you do not fight to lower as much as possible the legal age of adulthood and make them adults as soon as possible? instead of losing time to show that a "child" of 17 has sexuality. If a 17 year old can not make any decisions without the consent of their parents or state, how are they going to let her take off her panties? Please do not be naive A minor is a child according to law and society (two garbage, but the fact that they are garbage do not stop them from existing), if you like this aberration of having 14/15 year old treated as incapable children then it is also in sex, if they can not arrive more than 9 at night then do not complain because you can not put it in bed. The fact that they were minors (aka incapable of to make their own decisions) but allowed sex with them is ridiculous, they (the state and society) have noticed and cut through the (non) healthy way.
It was the men themselves who have been sex with underage girls who dug their own grave, it seems right to them that the person they are fucking is not even able to be out of their house without permission, they exploited them (as exploited a diamond mine) instead of releasing them, instead of demanding their freedom and treat them as equals.
The only way is that you defend total freedom and autonomy especially teenagers or even if you believe, older children, about themselves and no one else, not just defend that they can take off their panties but not vote or live outside their home. Making them directly legal adults, not just that the law and parents let them do certain things, I say just as now at 18 but at 12 and end of the problem.
Your argument is devoid of logic. Just because a minor can't make all her own decisions, doesn't mean all interactions with her is abuse and worthy of punishment. The same argument can be applied to all interactions with them, so why not make everything illegal, including talking to them? That is actually almost realized via grooming laws, but it is absurd. You need a damn good reason to single out sex as "abuse" amid all the activities minors are allowed to participate in, many of which are more dangerous, and no such convincing reasons exist. And you would need an even better reason to single out representations of minors having sex as worthy of punishment. If I draw a picture of write a story about a 17-year-old girl riding a horse, for example (which is much more dangerous than sex), why shouldn't I be imprisoned for that? But as soon as the subject is sex, the government wants to imprison me for mere representations, including fictional ones. The laws are not even internally consistent, since the age of consent Norway is 16 but the child pornography law applies up to 18. If you think you can justify this bullshit with logic, then you have already lost, because the system doesn't even attempt to be logical, only hysterical and hateful.
I have not said that it is my logic, but the logic of society.
A minor can not consent legally, can assent to the decision of his legal guardians, but not consent. They are legal children. Believing that the age of consent can and should be below the legal age of majority is ridiculous, that is what I mean, if a 13-year-old can consent without relying on any guardian, then just make them legally of age!
If they are considered "underage" is why they are considered vulnerable people unable to make good decisions. All that is legal with one, is because they allow it, not because it is the will of the own minor. If you know firsthand that a 17 (or any other age) year old can make their own decisions, then you should get them to be legal adults for them to be able to make that decision to participate in something sexual, just like in other things in life. Instead just support that the law allows minors (aka children) to take off their panties. It is humiliating for both parties.
Then why do all of you support the 'age of majority' at 18 if you think that before these age they can make their own decisions, even at 12 or 13? That is the question that I ask
As for the other about "child" pornography, it is done to force you to like legal adults, if you can not "satisfacy" your taste for minors, then you end up surrendering and looking for legal adults, that simple. That's despicable, but that's why, it's not to protect anyone. Remember that the attraction for "non-adults" is considered an aberration for almost the entire planet, not even you admit that you like underage girls or not?...
You misunderstand the entire concept of minority. It does not mean that they have no rights or responsibilities. For example, people are held criminally responsible from the age of 15 in Norway, and other countries prosecute much younger children. Minors can also generally participate in whatever activities they like by default, and as they get older they gradually decide more while parents decide less. There is no logic to defining consensual sex as some kind of heinous abuse -- unless you could demonstrate some great harm, which you can't.
Of course I like underage, sexually developed girls like any normal man. Duh. My attraction to girls isn't influenced by the law whatsoever, and I am not one of the dimwits who pretend it is.
I have no strong opinion about what the age of majority should be, and I think it is handled reasonably in most other ways. It is only when it comes to sex that all rationality goes out the window and is replaced by a hateful regime of draconian punishments for victimless crimes. Notice how other violations of what minors aren't supposed to do is only punished very lightly if at all. For example buying alcohol to minors -- objectively much worse than sex but, there are barely any consequences. Your willingness to single out sex as somehow logically worthy of the most extreme punishments for the most trivial transgressions of norms is idiotic. It does not make sense at all, even if we otherwise agree with the concept of minority.
Anonymous, you are a typical modern retard, incapable of absorbing new arguments. You stated a bunch of points, Eivind refuted them and then you just stated the same nonsense all over again. I have no doubt that you will state them the third time as well, because you're so fucking stupid.
First of all, I don't know where you're from but most countries in Europe do make the age of consent lower than the age of majority. So I have no idea why would somebody need to be a legal adult to consent anywhere but in nutty places like America and even there not in all states.
Secondly, yeah, there is no reason sex is any some kind of a grand exception that should be tied to the age of majority.
And in regards to voting, voting should in fact require much more knowledge and expertise than getting a dick inside you. It should only be a privilege of very intelligent men. Why you think something as crucial as political decisions and sex have anything in common is just baffling. I mean, I can understand it, but in a way I can understand any other insane ideas this society has. It's all breathtakingly stupid and irrational.
I don't know if you are delusional or if there is any truth to your stories, because you come across as so hysterical that you can't separate fact from fiction. I obviously don't support actual rape of children, but when any sexualization of anyone under 18 is equated with the most horrific rape, and anyone who questions any of these laws is seen as a blight that must be purged from the earth, then it is impossible to have a rational debate. Norwegian law no longer makes a distinction between forcible and statutory rape of someone under 14, which is a deliberate lie to demonize men accused of sex crimes, and the media follows up by calling it all rape while rarely reporting the details, so one must be extremely skeptical of any reported rape. Your hysteria isn't helping. The sex laws are too removed from reality at this point for labels like "pedophile" and "rape" to be taken seriously, unless one happens to know the details of the cases firsthand.
After reading a couple of times what Anonymous above has to say, I can't refrain from quoting R.M. Huber: "The suffering of the intelligent is among the sweetest pleasures of the stupid"...
This second anon - who is this actually pertaining to? Who is smart and who is intelligent in this case? Hope you reply before I finish writing up my reply to that freak above you and Eivind.
"No is because you don’t actually feel sorry for these people. To things like you stories of horrific assaults are just wank material for you."
I do feel sorry for people who get unjustified sentences due to maniacs like you and I don't wank on stories of horrific assaults. In fact, even as late as 2013 I COULDN'T GET IT UP WHEN A WOMAN I COERCED INTO SEX WAS THRASHING BELOW ME WHEN I TRIED TO PUT IT IN HER, despite the fact that 1. she came to my home 2. we already arranged what prize she should be given 3. she even blew me to get me hard to finally put it her 4. we even joked around later that day. This changed drastically later but what you don't understand is that most "horrific assaults" done to women today is caused by feminism, which made decent men unable to get consensual sex. That's why they must resort to rape - because consensual sex in the West is basically impossible to get unless you're really, really evil. There's exceptions but they're extremely rare.
" Hell one of your pedophile friends on you Wordpress blog asked a women victim to detail her date rape"
And what is wrong about this? Unlike maniacs like you, I don't fetishize rape to be some greatest crime and trauma on Earth. Oh, wait, neither do you if the rapist isn't a white male, and you'd let your mothers and sisters be raped by classes you see as underprivileged. But let's get back to this. This woman was under no obligation to reply so what? Btw, you know who also asks this of women who claim to have been raped? Institutions like courts do. Another thing you'd like to do away with !
"I made sure to spread his profile around to people who are willing to contact him and tell him what he outta do."
Where? To my e-mail? Nobody is even sending me any hate mail these days. Everybody knows I just get a kick out of it.
"Because of people like you I have the job that I have, out of all the hundreds of kids I’ve seen only 36 were abused by “child molesters.” "
If that's true I'd fear for the safety of anybody working with or being around such an insane, hysterical person. Adults, children, whatever. You are the ones with skeletons in your closet, I am probably not talking metaphorically. Just look at your post.
" The rest were attacked by pedophiles, pedophiles who caused lasting physical and mental injuries. Injuries so horrific some adults don’t even recover let alone a 3-year old who is repeatedly raped."
This isn't what Eivind is talking about, but now that you mention it I'll be honest - I'm not sorry. Regardless if kids were male or female, not sorry. I hate 99,9 percent of modernist Westerners and want only the worse for them. If some get abused, traumatized or even killed I don't care, no matter what the age. They would or are to grow up as bad, bad people. You are a grown up Westerner and you're a bad person. And so will/would they be.
" Pedophiles who drove 15 of these kids to kill themselves, deaths that I personally witnessed..... I’ve witnessed countless other suicide attempts by crazed victims who want their nightmares to stop....t. She killed herself when she was 10 years old not too long after I walked into an old run down shed after hearing her screaming and crying and telling the two pedophiles raping her to stop. Because of your kind she’s dead. I held her while she died and I will not forget that. I was 15-years old when she died, I still have the clothes I was wearing when she bled out. Her blood is still soaked into them and some days I have to struggle to not break down sobbing at that memory."
Holy shit I laughed so hard at this. This story continues here and here
Also, how does a 10 year-old kill herself so efficiently? Tell me more about it. Or those 15 suicides you've witnessed.
" Your kind is a blight that must be purged. If only Hitler had killed you all, if only he could’ve killed you all, if only he didn’t target Jews and Romanis."
So aside from being utterly psychotic you also lack basic knowledge of history and think 2017 world was just like 1937 world ? Had Hitler gone after pedophiles (not that me and Eivind are that) he'd kill no more than couple of hundred of people at best even including countries he conquered, at even that's probably an overstatement. He'd have to kill just convicted ones who were convicted due to actual crimes the kind of which you describe and there were really a few people like that in 1930s. It was notoriously hard to even track who is homosexual without special lists at the time and many of the names were people who were set up for some reason while some gays were protected as long as they were useful (Ernst Röhm being a prime example of this).
". I hope someone finds you and kills you and each and every one of your baby raping friends too. "
I have never raped a baby nor has any friend that I know of. I think same goes for Eivind... You, on the other hand...
"Your kind is one without remorse or sympathy, you’re incapable of understanding right from wrong or caring about the pain you cause others."
... support blacks, Muslims or any other group you think lacks privilege raping and killing even newborns because they're Sacred according to you and cannot be held accountable. I know this and you know this. I know it in the way you write phrases like "far-right" or how you mention Trump. At the same time you want white males to have no fair trials, no hearings, just off to prisons with them. So why don't you just admit what you're all about? Because, believe me, I know what you're all about. I know you. You cannot pull the veil over my eyes. I will never stop fighting you because I know what you are. Don't forget that.
"People like you destroy lives."
"What makes you think you deserve anything good in life?"
Nothing, given that I never said this. What makes you think white males will go along with your idea that they must be exterminated but Sacreds can do as they like? What makes you think modern Western women deserve not to be raped by them?
"’m not a religious man, religion is false. But if Hell is real I hope you burn there, I hope you suffer every imaginable horror and humiliation both known and unknown."
Funny, exactly something I think about you and your kind.
" The day is coming when we’ll be able to openly kill your kind again. I can’t wait for this to happen."
There was never a day when you could have killed "our kind", given that people like me and Eivind were a majority even 50 years ago in most places. Hell, I mentioned 14 year-old eight graders with fuck buddies around 12 years ago. Nobody had a problem with this. It was seen as normal. That you equate those like Eivind and me with people who rape babies while you actually support babies being raped, just by appropriate groups of people, is why you're such a laughingstock.
No, pal, the kind of people who it will be legal to kill again soon are your kind. Liberalism didn't appear for the first time in history and always ended up with slaughter of liberals, before or after they destroyed the society which nourished them. You will be exterminated by Muslims you so worship and people like me.
You are guilty of most vicious crime in the history of the world, and that is feminism. I know what it did to me and many of my friends. There will be no forgiveness.
With regard to this claim made by anonymous:
"Because of people like you I have the job that I have, out of all the hundreds of kids I’ve seen only 36 were abused by “child molesters.” The rest were attacked by pedophiles, pedophiles who caused lasting physical and mental injuries."
If this is really true, there is heavy selection bias at work. You said you work at a hospital, and yeah, injured people would be the ones who tend to end up in a hospital. This tells us nothing useful about the proportion of violent pedophiles versus pedophiles who love children and don't harm them.
"If this is really true, there is heavy selection bias at work. You said you work at a hospital, and yeah, injured people would be the ones who tend to end up in a hospital. This tells us nothing useful about the proportion of violent pedophiles versus pedophiles who love children and don't harm them."
Those 36 (btw hilarious how he just pulls these numbers, likely out of his ass) were probably sent to the hospital for "psychological damage", which likely means that they were sent there by social workers/cops and similar vermin to be actually traumatized and singled-out as problematic by psychiatry.
'This second anon - who is this actually pertaining to?'
What is probably going on you:
Hyperrationalism and existential depression.
Brokenness by the problem of evil in the world.
Atheism and genuine spiritual crisis.
Extreme mental pain.
Delusions of grandeur.
Cultlike manipulation of the inner victim child for the purpose of destroying obstacles to total control. Too stream lined and strategic to be genuine. High likelihood of an intelligence outlet. Likely reverse bluff.
I just had a phone conversation with my lawyer mostly about the government's appeal to the Supreme Court in my compensation case (they still haven't decided whether to hear the case), but also about this ridiculous concept of child pornography, and he mentioned another absurd thing about it that I hadn't thought of. When you read a piece of fiction, you don't usually know how it is going to turn out in advance. You don't know the ages of all the characters and what is going to happen. But once you have started reading it, you are already a criminal for downloading it to your computer (or receiving the book or whatever medium it is) before you get to the part where a character under 18 happens to be sexualized. Are we then supposed to know all the plot details and spoilers in advance for all texts? Read stories in reverse or what?
Hi Eivind, a long-time admirer of your stance.
I was wondering to what extent the English literature school curriculum equivalent in Norway has had to change to accommodate censorship of illegal text. I can imagine libraries across the land with big book-burning bonfires outside them, hastily destroying the literature heritage of the nation to escape a tsunami of prosecutions.
I'd predict certain of William Shakespeare's works not escaping destruction if ever the text inquisition reached UK shores. It is all so completely unhinged.
Gælder det kun for fotografier af mennesker i kød og blod, eller også for tegninger og skriftlige beskrivelser? Og hvad med advokater, intellektuelle og organisationer for civile rettigheder i Norge (hvis de overhovedet eksisterer) - er der nogen der protesterer eller på anden måde gør indsigelse?
Loven gjelder alle skildringer uavhengig av medium -- tegninger, tekster, lydopptak, hva som helst. Og nei, ingen protesterer bortsett fra meg. Troen på barnets helligdom er en absolutt religion med slavisk oppslutning fra hele befolkningen.
Jeg kan huske at der også her i Danmark for 7-8 år siden var et parti som foreslog kriminalisering af tegninger (jeg tror det var Socialdemokratiet, der bliver stadig mindre socialt og endnu mindre demokratisk...). Forslaget blev generelt negativt modtaget ikke mindst fra en japansk forening, der organiserede en offentlig Manga-udstilling i protest. Selv et par kendte personligheder, der normalt udtaler sig skarpt imod pædofile, udtrykte sig imod forslaget med den begrundelse at det ville være meningsløst at forbyde noget hvor egentlige børn ikke er involveret. Jeg følger ikke så meget i politik, da det også her efterhånden er ved at blive en joke, men jeg har ikke hørt om sagen siden, så jeg går ud fra at ideen blev droppet.
>> Anonymous (Friday, January 20, 2017 8:59:00 PM)
There was a similar situation in Japan a few years ago.
New child pornography laws banning Japanese anime, manga, drawings, novel, and any representation whatever that "sexualize minors" was proposed, but it was dropped due to the concern that "It may destroy Japanese culture industry"
Afterwards, UN is still pressing Japanese government to ban it.
I guess the law is proposed because of "Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography", but I am not sure.
(Copied a part from a comment https://holocaust21.wordpress.com/about/)
“Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children,
child prostitution and child pornography” http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/OPSCCRC.aspx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optional_Protocol_on_the_Sale_of_Children,_Child_Prostitution_and_Child_Pornography
“Concerned about the growing availability of child pornography on the Internet and other evolving technologies, and recalling the International Conference on Combating Child Pornography on the Internet, held in Vienna in 1999, in particular its conclusion calling for the worldwide criminalization of the production, distribution, exportation, transmission, importation, intentional possession and advertising of child pornography, and stressing the importance of closer cooperation and partnership between Governments and the Internet industry,”
Article 2 “(c) Child pornography means any representation, by whatever means, of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily sexual purposes.”
"What is probably going on you:"
Do you mean WITH me?
"Hyperrationalism and existential depression.
Brokenness by the problem of evil in the world.
Atheism and genuine spiritual crisis.
Extreme mental pain.
Delusions of grandeur."
Surprisingly, most of these are quite correct and only the last one is completely wrong.
I am hyperrational but my depression is more of a situational one than an existential one (https://caamib.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/darkness-2/), though I would likely also be somewhat existentially depressed in any situation, but much less than I am now.
As for the evil in the world, well, I know there is evil and all of that. But people like that first anon aren't just evil. They're dangerous lunatics who whine about some non-existent crimes, but when you actually understand their ideas you know that they're opposed to straight white males doing anything with women but would let even newborns be raped by Muslims or blacks. It's just complete insanity. I would understand if somebody is evil enough to rob a bank because they want a luxurious lifestyle or whatever. These maniacs just want everybody who they don't see as Sacred obliterated to shit, including their own family members.
I disagree with the grandeur thing completely. For one, I don' think I'm "grand" at all. Now, you might argue that this is subconscious but that's just what Eivind is talking about - imposing your crap on others.
"Cultlike manipulation of the inner victim child for the purpose of destroying obstacles to total control. Too stream lined and strategic to be genuine. High likelihood of an intelligence outlet. Likely reverse bluff."
Umm.. what is this? What does it pertain to? Manipulation of whom? Strategic - to achieve what? Intelligence outlet? Meaning what in this case? Reverse bluff - how?
I think that description was directed against the anonymous who told us to accept the hateful sex laws or else argue that minors should be granted full adult rights. Which was nonsense, of course, and has been thoroughly debunked. I have never been truly depressed, existentially or otherwise and regard myself as a positive and optimistic person who will always find meaning in the fight against evil, if nothing else -- the sort of person who directs aggression outwards. I am also not hyperrational and care little about religious or spiritual matters. However, "Brokenness by the problem of evil in the world" is a rather fitting description for the state of men's rights activism, I think. We recognize that the sex laws are evil, yet we are powerless to do anything about them or even gain a significant following among the direct victims of these laws, so some degree of mental pain is inevitable. Politically correct people don't need to grapple with this pain because they are oblivious to evil in the world, or if they do sense any evil, it would be in a direction that has huge movements and usually the government on their side. Activism against the political establishment is not for the faint of heart, which limits our numbers even further.
so are you angry about milo yianopolous?
I thought the guy was jerk. He wanted to normalize older men, younger boy relationships. He was intellectually dishonest when he attacked George Takei because George takei only discussed his experiences. He then had a media conference where he said he was abused whereas before he said it was "a good thing." dude, pick one, don't try to have your cake and eat it too. Either say you thought the law was wrong and your experienced didn't harm you. Or say your experiences did harm you.
There is nothing to normalize, because it's eveything already normal.
The new unnatural manufactured laws can state that a fridge is a t-shirt, but it doesn't mean it is true.
It's sad that Milo has not the balls to stand for what is true and right.
I should update the title of this post to say my deep self is criminal, since I don't really believe in a soul, but deep self theory very much describes what I am getting at:
But "deep self" doesn't sound quite so poetic, so I think I will just stick with "soul" ;)
Post a Comment