Sunday, June 11, 2017

More on the female sex offender charade

Humans are a curious mixture of rational and irrational creatures. We are smart enough to operate airlines that almost never crash, yet dumb enough to have a justice system which routinely fails to achieve justice because many of the laws themselves are fundamentally unjust. There is no better example of unjust laws than the sex laws, and because sex is obviously something women have and men and boys want, the pinnacle of insane injustice is to pretend women "abuse" boys by giving them sex. The most famous female victim of feminist sex laws is Mary Kay Letourneau. Hers was the case that raised awareness of the utter insanity of feminism, at least for me, and helped radicalize me into a sworn enemy of the feminist state. Prior to that case, I never imagined that the state could be so absurdly and irrationally cruel as to imprison women for being nice to boys. It was an eye opener to the cruelty of the world and the irrationality of the justice system as well as the intellectual dishonesty and moral bankruptcy of feminists.

Now Mary Kay Letourneau is back in the news for getting separated from her former "victim" Vili Fualaau. Which means that their marriage has been amazingly solid by any contemporary standard, even to the point of not needing to deal with custody issues because their kids are all grown up by the time they get divorced. The Mary Kay Letourneau story is a triumph of love over feminism, so compelling that the media has trouble siding with feminist sex-hostility. For example, CNN says:

"Mary Kay Fualaau, formerly Letourneau, was a married 34-year-old teacher and mother of four in Seattle in 1996 when she began an affair with Fualaau, her 13-year-old student. Letourneau gave birth to her young lover's child before she went on to serve more than seven years in prison on charges related to their sexual relationship."

How delightfully put! "Charges related to their sexual relationship," instead of something along the lines of "went to prison for sexually abusing/raping him," which is the usual feminist wording. They even admit that it was a love story rather than an abuse story. I don't know how that subversive tone made it into CNN, because the same cannot be said for most cases these days. The mainstream media usually presents unadulterated feminist sex-hostility with wholehearted hatred, without any room for doubting that they really mean it. I find it deeply disturbing that they have embraced not only the hate, but also the idiocy of pretending that boys can be victims of women's sexuality simply because they are underage, which is so manifestly absurd that it flies in the face of literally all of reality including the experience of the boys themselves. Here is a current case which drives home the full insanity of our feminist legal systems:

It starts out with a normal teenage boy who gets lucky with an older woman and of course enjoys it. Then 20 years later, he "attended a child sexual exploitation course and realised what the Wadsworths had done to him was a criminal act." Feminist propaganda is presented as reality even while admitting that the propaganda itself is solely responsible for making the man think he has been abused!

This kind of coverage is deeply disturbing because the fact that the media can get away with it demonstrates that I am surrounded by idiots. A human being who can take this drivel seriously and think it was "abuse" is so far below me intellectually and morally and spiritually that I regard them as absolute dirt. I can think of nothing more apt to make me lose respect for my fellow man, and sadly, these morons are now so commonplace that it is hard to find a sane individual. Thankfully, I count some of these sane people among my readers, so kudos to you, but the rest of society is hopelessly brainwashed by feminist sex-hostility.

And of course they completely control the justice system, which routinely perverts victimless sex into "abuse" simply because someone is underage, and most absurdly of all, imposes the same standards on women even though the boys are in fact the opposite of victims.

This is the stuff of mad nightmares, and it beggars belief that it can exist. I have thought long and hard about why, and reached the conclusion that it can go on all too easily because there is no feedback in the justice system. If people are sent to prison based on absurd laws that have nothing whatsoever to do with reality, how would we know? The scary answer is that we can't. People are labeled as criminals for whatever reason, go to prison and then the narrative of criminality is self-validating and self-perpetuating, reality be damned. Abuse is abuse because it is abuse and offenders are offenders because they are offenders and that is all the proof anyone needs. Unlike air travel, which gives rise to a sense of immediate calamity if airlines operate unsafe planes that don't deliver passengers to their destination, there is no feedback mechanism to tell us that people get convicted based on gobbledygook. Well, none except a few voices of reason like mine crying out in the desert. That is all we have. It is difficult enough to reverse wrongful convictions when someone is factually innocent; when the law itself is out of touch with reality, it is all but impossible. Laws can be based on any crazy ideology or fiction and frequently are, and sadly there is no corrective influence on legislation equivalent to the laws of physics that keep engineers sane. Societies are perfectly capable of persecuting large groups of people for no sensible reason at all, and this can go on for a long time.

To get some idea of how much it takes to reverse misbegotten laws, look at the War on Drugs. It is still going strong despite droves of sensible people pointing out that it does more harm than good. And the few changes that have been made are marginal and incremental, like legalization of cannabis in a few US states after a tedious battle against a monstrous drug war. There is not nearly as much opposition to meaningless and draconian sex laws, so that gives us some idea of how far away the Men's Rights Movement is from achieving any progress. We are doomed to walk among idiots who think underage sex is "abuse" and that even women can be sex offenders in a society which does its level best to reify those lies, but I for one am on a mission to at least make them feel my contempt and disrespect for them as people. I seethe and roil and shake with hatred against all the dimwits who have internalized the antisexual norms of our times, and this is not a figure of speech, it is literally how I am every day. I have to exercise great restraint to even keep my words legal, as the record shows.


Øyvind Holmstad said...

Very well said that sex is something that women have and men wants. It's a product in the hands of women only, and they sell it to the highest bidder. Not just for money, but for social status, security, popularity, humor, poetry, skills in sport and so on, depending on what the particular woman wants.

A women is never in a relationship with a man for sex, just for what he can offer her in exchange of sex.

Anonymous said...

I must disagree with your notion that women can't rape men. Despite it's true in general terms that sex is something women have and men want, but not every woman is desirable for a particular man.

I made an analogy for this:
Let's say you love chokolate and I have a chokolate factory. So I have chokolate and you want chokolate. Now what would you call it, if I grabbed some long expired, rancid, moldy chokolate, and not just gave it to you but forced you to eat it? You love chokolate, but not the expired, rancid, moldy ones. Those you would refuse if you had a choice. But you are forced to eat it.

Eivind Berge said...

You misunderstand my argument. What I mean by saying that women can't rape men is not that they should be allowed to force men to have sex any more than anyone should be allowed to force you to eat chocolate. Both of these would be assault and should be punishable as such, but there is nothing about forced sex with a woman that makes it worse than any nonsexual assault, for example forcing someone to eat chocolate. The feminist insanity occurs when female sexual coercion is called rape and prosecuted as rape, which leads to a profoundly undeserved punishment, because the sexual aspect obviously does not aggravate the crime the way rape law assumes (there is a three-year MINIMUM sentence in Norway, for example, so accepting the claim that women can rape men means imposing this).

The cases referred to in this post are merely statutory, however, which is complete bullshit no matter how you look at it.

Eivind Berge said...

Indeed, that is about the level of severity I would ascribe to it. A lot of people seem to forget that there are other crimes than rape whenever this subject comes up. Just because it isn't rape, doesn't mean it must be legal. It is just a category error to call it rape.

Anonymous said...

"Forcing someone to eat moldy chocolate can perhaps equal being forced to have sex with an ugly woman. But neither of these actions deserves being called rape and being punished to the degree that rape is."

"Both of these would be assault and should be punishable as such, but there is nothing about forced sex with a woman that makes it worse than any nonsexual assault, for example forcing someone to eat chocolate."

The same logic could be applied to "classic" rape as well, then. What makes that worse than a non sexual assoult? Bodily harm doesn't occur or if it does, it's not part of the rape, it's also assoult. Humiliation occurs but it also happens in non-sexual assoult. Psychological harm might happen but it can also come from non-sexual assoult too. In traditional societies a raped woman was "damaged goods", but in progressive societies that doesn't happen becouse sex outside marrige isn't a big deal. The only thing that can make rape a special assoult type is that it is a little like robbery: the rapists takes it for free what other men have to pay for*. Does that warrant the so much more harsh punishment than what non-sexual assoult gets?

*The sexual market value of an ugly woman is on par with the average man. Chances are she will have to pay instead of getting payed for sex. So if she forces herself on a man, she also takes for free what she was ought to pay for.

Statutory rape is bullshit, I agree.

Eivind Berge said...

Feminists have managed to corrupt it in all sorts of ways, but I do think classic rape merits a separate crime with a harsher penalty than nonsexual assaults with a comparable level of violence. My reasoning is based neither on a patriarchal concept of "damaged goods" nor feminist rape hysteria, but on evolutionary psychology, which tells us that women appear to possess rape-avoidance adaptations because their sexuality is so valuable that their minds are designed to protect it and be very careful about which men they have sex with. One consequence of these adaptations is that real rape is likely to be far more traumatizing than other violence, to help women avoid being raped again. I therefore agree with treating rape as a separate, more serious crime, provided that it is reasonably defined. Feminists have abused this sympathy and corrupted the definition to things like statutory rape and drunken regret-rape and even applied it to supposed male victims of female rapists, all of which is nonsense that the Men's Movement needs to fight. But I do not believe we should oppose the legal concept of rape altogether.

Eivind Berge said...

"The sexual market value of an ugly woman is on par with the average man. Chances are she will have to pay instead of getting payed for sex."

This is completely false, and if you really believe it then I suggest you reorient yourself a little towards reality. One way you can do so is to run an an experiment with personal ads impersonating the ugliest woman you can think of versus the most handsome man and see who gets more offers of sex.

Somebody already tried something like that and here are the results:

Øyvind Holmstad said...

"Feminists have managed to corrupt it in all sorts of ways, but I do think classic rape merits a separate crime with a harsher penalty than nonsexual assaults with a comparable level of violence. My reasoning is based neither on a patriarchal concept of "damaged goods" nor feminist rape hysteria, but on evolutionary psychology, which tells us that women appear to possess rape-avoidance adaptations because their sexuality is so valuable that their minds are designed to protect it and be very careful about which men they have sex with. One consequence of these adaptations is that real rape is likely to be far more traumatizing than other violence, to help women avoid being raped again. I therefore agree with treating rape as a separate, more serious crime, provided that it is reasonably defined."

Men have hard to understand how traumatizing real rape is for women, as for us it was an advantage to spread our semen wide and far. Trond Andresen has an interesting comment about these differences between sexes:

"På en annen FB-gruppe skreiv jeg dette, i forbindelse med Gay Pride-arrangementet i Oslo. Noen synspunkter?

Jeg er sjøsagt tilhenger av at seksuelle minoriteter skal få leve som de vil uten diskriminering. Men det er et problem med deler av (den mannlige) homsekulturen (som ikke gjelder for lesbene, se under). Problemet er homsekulturens særegne utagerende seksuelle hedonisme.

Med fare for å erte på meg noen snowflakes med en aldri så liten mikroaggresjon, tror jeg den utagerende seksuelle hedonismen i homsemiljøet ikke bare er en slags "vi-har-vår-egen-kultur"-greie og at mange hopper på den for å være en del av flokken, slik det er for alle slags subgrupper i et samfunn. Jeg tror også den utagerende seksuelle hedonismen hos homsene kan forklares evolusjonspsykologisk. Menn har opp gjennom evolusjonen i liten grad blitt rammet av seriøse konsekvenser av å spre sin sæd i øst og vest. Mens kvinner som kjent ofte blir gravide og får ansvar for et barn.

Evolusjonen har da selektert for en kvinnelig psykologi som er mer konsekvensorientert, i retning av å finne en ressurssterk partner som tar ansvar. Dette vil også prege lesbene. Mens det for menns vedkommende ikke har vært noe seleksjonspress i retning av å være seksuelt tilbakeholdende og konsekvensorientert.

Når man da har en setting med menn som er seksuelt tiltrukket av menn, blir det sjølsagt langt mer tut og kjør; tilfeldig og spontan sex tar av i mye større grad enn i heteroseksuelle situasjoner. Gjensidig onani og munnsex på do er bare et utslag.

Og homser vil - som alle minoritetsgrupper som til en viss grad befinner seg inne i ei holdnings- og livsstils-boble - ha en tendens til å la sine normer for hva som er fest og gøy også i noen grad prege de velmente forsøkene på å stelle i stand noe for barn, når de skal feire seg sjøl. slik de gjør ved årets Gay pride.

Dette kan være et problem.

Denne innebygde seksuell-hedonisme-tilbøyeligheten hos homser gjør også at den gjennomsnittlige homse er svakere for liberalisme, individualisme og dermed høyrepolitikk enn den gjennomsnittlige lesbe. Noe som det Vestlige Imperiet er meget klar over, og utnytter til psykologisk krigføring på den geopolitiske arena."

A civilization without women cannot exist, because here men would just kill one another until one man was standing back alone. One can see this in the former Wild West, where murder rates were high as Mount Everest. When the women later came in society stabilized.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

- Menn er dyr - kvinner også:

Anonymous said...

"One consequence of these adaptations is that real rape is likely to be far more traumatizing than other violence, to help women avoid being raped again."

And what do you think about the case when a man gets raped by another man? Don't you think it is just as traumatizing, or maybe even more, becouse 1) it likely couses bodily harm, not only psychological harm, and 2) the male victim gets little simpathy?
If we can agree in this than I would conclude that women aren't special in this regard.

"This is completely false, and if you really believe it then I suggest you reorient yourself a little towards reality. "

That thread... OK, you convinced me! Also, I thought I have lost all hope in mankind already. Now I lost additional hope I didn't even know I still had!

Nevertheless, if that creature forced herself on me and somehow managed to make my dick erect and forced it into her smelly cunt, I would consider that a rape, and I'm pretty sure it would make me emotionally scarred really badly! And if people found out that I was with that thing, that would be a great shame for me, worse than being a virgin. And if they also found out that she forced me to be with her, that would give me no sympathy but only additional shame that I wasn't strong enough to resist.
Just like when a man gets abused by a woman, he gets no sympathy but only shame becouse it implies weakness wich is unmanly. (Nevermind that even if he isn't weak, the laws bind his heands.)

Eivind Berge said...

Øyvind, thanks for a nice article that tells it like it is. It is amazing how serious research on evolutionary psychology can coexist with a cultural taboo against admitting any sex differences which has even infested the legal system and leads to absurdities like pretending women can rape men.

Anonymous, I agree that it is reasonable to treat male-on-male forced sex as the same crime as rape. It is equally worthy of punishment (at least) for the reasons you mention (except for the sympathy bit -- I think that is a myth; men are very aware that REAL homosexual rape is something quite bad). The evolutionary reason for why homosexual rape is likely to be just as traumatizing is that it is an attack on the man's status, which in turn hurts his reproductive fitness.

But I still think women are fundamentally different, because they are uniquely traumatized by sexual coercion by the opposite sex. There is no way this is equivalent for the sexes. Even if you claim to be a rare exception who would get scarred just as badly, most men would not, and the law needs to be based on a reasonable man standard. However, I flatly don't believe you, because you are ignoring the fact that women are uniquely traumatized by rape because of ADAPTATIONS arising from their need to be sexually selective -- that is, rape isn't just bad because of a natural tendency to be disgusted by foul smells and ugliness like you seem to think, but something much more profound that men can't intuitively understand. If you get traumatized by a smelly cunt, well, then that's no worse than for example forcing you to lick a toilet or something, which wouldn't be a sexual crime but covered by other assault laws, just like forced sex with a woman should be. And no, it wouldn't be shameful for you that a woman forced herself on you (when we are talking about sex, not other abuse); quite the opposite. Men would envy you for being so irresistible and women would be more attracted to you due to preselection. The only way you can screw it up is to call it rape, because then you receive the kind of ridicule that I am promoting, and which is instinctively felt by most men even when they don't articulate it because they are politically correct. Getting sympathy for that is a losing battle if ever there was one, and men who truly feel they need a legal recourse because they got forced to have sex with a woman would be well advised to frame it as a simple assault rather than a sexual assault (but sadly the legal system would twist it into a sex crime anyway in this feminist climate and the man would get his share of ridicule even as the woman would likely get convicted). One absurd example of this:

A man felt he was about to be robbed or killed and the scumbag feminists in the police and media presented it as if he was the "victim" of sexual attention from women, as if the twerking was the problem here.

Anonymous said...

Man skulle tro at det var 1. april, men vi er midt i juni, så det her må være seriøst ment:

Eivind Berge said...

Wow! And even "conspiracy" to obtain a picture is to be punished by 15 years minimum.

"That means if a teenager attempts to obtain a photo of sexually explicit conduct by requesting it from his teenage girlfriend, the judge must sentence that teenager to prison for at least 15 years for making such an attempt."

As I have said before, this is our culture's version of honor killing. Our culture considers the sexual purity of minors as so important that it will gladly destroy them in order to preserve it. Adults must be destroyed too for the slightest infringement on this supposed sexual purity, obviously, but that is so widely accepted that it isn't even questioned. It is a kind of scorched-earth tactic -- these hallowed sexual objects, defined as any person under 18, have such a profound religious significance to us for some bizarre reason that their imagined asexuality is literally more important than anything or anyone. While paradoxically denying that it exists, our culture is absolutely obsessed with the sexuality of minors, in the worst possible way.

Øyvind Holmstad said...


Of course girls learn better not having a gang of boys hanging around fighting for their attention.

Patrick said...

"While paradoxically denying that it exists, our culture is absolutely obsessed with the sexuality of minors, in the worst possible way"

Couldn't agree more. I think as for as evolutionary terms, One reason why females are more reluctant to have sex is that they are the carriers of offspring.

But as for female on male rape; That would be classed, in my mind, as sexual assault, just like forcing an object into someone -- sexual assault yes, But not rape.

Eivind Berge said...

"But as for female on male rape; That would be classed, in my mind, as sexual assault, just like forcing an object into someone -- sexual assault yes, But not rape."

I can agree with "sexual assault" as an objectively descriptive term for those acts, but not as an excuse to jack up the punishment 20 times over what the violence would otherwise merit just because of the sexual aspect. Which is how the law inevitably treats "sexual assault" in these hysterical times, so we really shouldn't use that word unless there is a sexual violation that reasonable people can understand.

If someone forces an object into you, then you are probably more worried about things like pain and bodily harm than the fact that you are being sexually violated, so it is inappropriate to let the sexual aspect define the crime even if it is sexually motivated. And likewise, female sexual coercion might involve concerns about your health and safety, but reasonable men are not worried about some kind of sexual violation per se in that scenario, so it is deeply immoral to have a law which says 95% of the harm is a sexual violation. We are now in the insane position of having a rape law which holds that women deserve 3-21 years in prison for something reasonable men do not acknowledge as worthy of punishment AT ALL! It is surreal when you think about it, and the only reason the charade is not more visible is because Norwegian men still don't accuse women of rape in practice. Criminal law is a rabbit hole which is so disconnected from reality that it is difficult to understand how people can live with it. I guess they mostly deal with it by acting as if insane laws don't exist, but then you get fringe cases where they are actually enforced, leading to the kind of travesties frequently seen in the UK. Women "raping" adult men is still academic even there, but enforcement related to contrived sexual abuse of minors has reached epidemic proportions.

Anonymous said...

In fact, today I saw another news of another female teacher arrested for "abusing their minor students." How disgusting they give me this abuse-industry scum liars. But that did not end there, then in another newspaper, there was a star article on a guide for parents to 'protect' their minor children from alleged sexual predators. The climax was when I was in another news archive site looking at the coronation of bokassa, and appeared an ad about rejecting 'child' marriage, WTF?? what the hell had to do with it? Instead of an ad from a clothing store, that garbage appears to have been sponsored by some government or feminist NGO of shit. All that in just 2 hours. I hate these motherfuckers. In fact today there are feminist demonstrations in another country asking for more money for their hunting against men, because we are rapists, child abusers, murderers and sexual slavers... the monsters of humanity and 99% of men do not even try to stop these miserable feminist fascist shits.

I like 'underage' young girls, I'm glad to be a man, even if I feel ashamed of most of men, so fuck you menkiller feminist fascist scum!!!!!

Men would have to marry girls, because it is what nature commands us, just as aristocracy, militarism and masculine aggressivity must return, and I do not hate females, I like girls, I just hate this opresive misandrist women. All of this 'sex with minors is rape' are just rabble with their nonsense of protection of childhood, extended to the end, they are modern fascism.. If you look at the history of the KKK the first wave conservative feminism came mainly from there, and the second wave feminists from the UK were followers of BUF and Italian fascism. Fucking murderers.

Eivind Berge said...

If teachers had any sense, they would take action against these hateful laws against sexual relationships with students. Teachers' unions are powerful, so they could easily effect change. All it would take is a strike. But I guess teachers are generally just as infested with feminist sex-hostility as any other group these days, so they will simply stand by and let more and more of their colleagues rot in jail.

Anonymous said...

I hate the fact that even watching a high school girl people call you sick, I'm sick of this world, I hate my life, it has to be just a nightmare and I'll wake up. This can not be real.. in the ad against child marriage was a girl doing a "finger", for god's sake this should de is a bad joke JUST A BAD JOKE

Eivind Berge said...

Unfortunately it is all too real. We should not be surprised, because every culture and time seems to have some kind of sexual bugaboo. If it wasn't sex with minors, it would have been homosexuality, miscegenation or something else stranger than you can imagine. The Romans had a frightful taboo against sex with Vestal Virgins, for example. I don't know how to fix this, since all of these taboos have nothing to do with reason and simply get replaced with another one if you manage to root it out. If I were a religious type, I would say it has to do with our fallen nature, like original sin. But a more natural explanations is as a side effect of the need to regulate sexuality, which to some extent makes sense, but the justice system is such a crude tool that it also creates a lot of seemingly random, senseless collateral damage.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Feminism achieves hysterical proportions:

kek said...

░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ - - - FIGHT AGAINST FEMINISTS AND SAVE THE MEN!
I███████████████████] ( if you see this you must copy and paste this on the MRA
◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤ pages to save the Men)

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Hva er dette her?:

Kan ikke se at mannen har slått noen vits overhodet, bare kommet med et argument, om enn ikke underbygget.

Har man her funnet det perfekte offer, hvit eldre mann, og skal statuere et eksempel? Slik at man kan innføre det totale overvåkningssamfunn, og gi advokatene en ny gullalder for uttalelser som blåses opp utover alle dimensjoner? Hvilket forferdelig samfunn, hvor alle tanker overvåkes og man må tenke seg om ti ganger før man tenker, leser, skriver eller tegner noe som helst:

Eivind Berge said...

Feministene har ikke mer igjen å gå på når det gjelder lovverk og annen politikk. Det er ikke nok for dem å ha et samfunn 100% tilrettelagt for feministisk ideologi med de mest hatske sedelighetslovene de kunne finne på og likestilling på alle fronter. Det skal tydeligvis være nulltoleranse for alt de ikke ler av også. Så det er det de er opptatt av i disse dager, for de har ikke flere kampsaker igjen. Men vi må ikke la dem dra mannskampen ned på samme plan. Det er lovene som straffer falske seksuelle overgrep vi fremfor alt må kjempe mot, for det er de som virkelig teller, ikke retten til å komme med en dårlig vits.

Eivind Berge said...

Vi må ikke glemme at feminisme handler om vold. Vold fra politiet mot menn, hjemlet i lover som feministene har trumfet igjennom. Dessverre har dette lovverket nå blitt så normalisert at det for den historieløse observatør kan synes som om feminisme handler om hvilken type humor som skal være akseptabel. Men det er jo bare toppen av kransekaken på alt feminismen har utrettet. For meg som husker hvordan de feministiske straffelovene ble til og ser hvor ekstreme endringene er, er det fryktelig trist at den oppvoksende slekt får inntrykket av at kjønnskampen står om bagateller. Mannsbevegelsen har tapt så fullstendig at vi ikke engang klarer å skape bevissthet rundt hva vi faktisk står for.

Patrick said...

The sex abuse industry relies on cliches and dogma to keep the dominant narrative alive and well, and the NGOs and charities like UNICEF, NSPCC, rake in the cash, distorting stats and profiting from misery. Here is a whole article on 'sexual grooming' in other words, a pejorative term for seduction!

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, men typically go along with feminist sex-hostility against themselves, but I don't agree with your conclusion, because if men are not going to oppose this madness, then who are? We do this by generating a consciousness as a group, even if most men don't really deserve to be one of us because they support the enemy.

As to "grooming," it is not just a demonizing term for seduction. It is a clever way to make all interactions suspicious and potentially criminal, no matter how innocent. The concept of grooming ensures that there can be no such thing as a harmless interaction with a minor, because if you are not abusing them, then you can always be said to be grooming them.

Anonymous said...

Have you see this:

Sometimes I just can't stand it anymore. We are living in a puritan-feminist global dictatorship. I call it "puritan-feminist" rather than merely "feminist" because originally it was puritanical men -- rather than feminist women -- who came up with the idea that it is just and right to criminalize teen sexuality. The very notion that teenagers are kids rather than young adults has originated with puritanical men, although there is no doubt that feminists have greatly exploited this notion for their own agenda. But the core idea was invented by men during the "enlightenment" and is still overwhelmingly supported by men. If it was only women supporting this, it wouldn't exist. From my experience, women -- the ones who support this, not every woman -- only come to view the criminalization of teen sexuality as morally right after being brainwashed by puritan-feminist memes since the moment they learn to talk.

Eivind Berge said...

I was not aware of the Puritanical connection, but it does not surprise because we see time and again that both sexes participate in their own sexual oppression. For example, female genital mutilation is something women do to girls with the blessing of both sexes in cultures that believe in this. Criminalization of teen sexuality is a social problem in our culture rather than an issue of one sex oppressing the other. I still call it feminism because that is the most closely associated ideology, but you are right -- our enemies are all around us and include both men and women. MRAs are not merely dissidents; we are pariahs who don't fit into this culture at all. I keep trying to think of ways to hurt society back, but so far I am failing to come up with anything realistic.

Dan said...

Sorry that this is a bit off topic but I'd be interested to hear your view on Tverberg's predictions these days. She's still saying much the same things as she was two years ago. Do you consider her predictions of total civilisational collapse to have failed or do you think it will still materialise?

Dan said...

I would be interested to hear Oyvind's view on this too.

Eivind Berge said...

I find her less credible now because nothing has happened after several years of alarmism about imminent collapse. It seems no matter what happens, it is always a sign of impending collapse according to Gail. Oil prices too high -- collapse, oil prices too low -- collapse, and now it is Trump and Brexit that are supposed to be harbingers of collapse. I can't predict the future either, but I am not really expecting collapse any time soon based on the current situation.

Anonymous said...

Har du sett dette, Eivind?

"Den andre kvinnen kom i kontakt med politimannen i forbindelse med en leteaksjon etter mannen hennes. Da mannen hennes døde, fikk kvinnen en tekstmelding av politimannen der han ba om et møte. Andre gang de møttes hadde de sex. Kvinnen mener hun ikke følte seg presset, men retten mener derimot at han misbrukte sin stilling ved at kvinnen var i en sårbar situasjon."

Jeg ble målløs. Dette høres jo ut som om det kunne vært plottet til en romantisk dramafilm myntet på husmødre! Og en "sårbar situasjon"? Som om folk ikke søker nærhet når de er i en "sårbar situasjon"!?

Men den norske stat tror visst ikke på nærhet eller kjærlighet lenger. Alt sex er, er kynisk maktutøvelse. Tenkningen til andrebølge-feminister a la Andrea Dworkin har tatt fullstendig overhånd. For et trist syn på menneskers natur...

Eivind Berge said...

Jepp, det er standard statsfeminisme. All sex i den virkelige verden er «misbruk», kontrastert med en illusorisk idealtilstand kjemisk renset for alle virkelige grunner til at kvinner vil ha sex. Det er derfor jeg oppfordrer menn til å boikotte de fleste yrker, for jobbstatusen vil bare bli brukt mot deg til å definere deg som seksualforbryter. Gutter som vurderer å bli lege eller advokat eller noe annet flott fordi de tror det vil gjøre dem mer attraktive, bør tenke over at det snarere virker begrensende og mistenkeliggjør/kriminaliserer absolutt all kontakt. Det er vel bare sosialklientstatus som snart ikke lenger kan «misbrukes» til å tiltrekke seg damer.

Anonymous said...

Today I almost hit a Gymcel in my gym

I'm in the locker room and an guy picks up a deodorant of the brand AXE, 30 seconds, THIRTY SECONDS, in an SOLE armpit, I counted one by one the seconds, fuck. And when he finishes 30 seconds later he has intoxicated everyone in the room and then I shit on his mother whore.

I tell he "Hey, I think you need a little more.

And he tells me: what happens to you.

And the guy faces me and I scared of that so then I said that he was joking and that was cool that deodorant.

Fucking clown.

Anonymous said...

Like those other blogs and websites that try to sell the idea through different campaigns that the men killed are all women's work when most of the men killed are victims of other men, ie not given by gender issues. who use and abuse "arguments" Torticeros and delirious as men killed in wars (consequence of the rebound machismo effect), circumcision as a form of oppression and suicide men because of the gender violence laws, criminalizing feminism for it.

We can also talk about the users of "The Return of the Kings". Those who convened meetings in more than 160 cities around the world and claimed that: "We will record and photograph every woman suspected of being a feminist, we will upload the images to the Internet, identify them and ruin their lives." These self-proclaimed groups "movements for the Rights of men" (pure delirium, unless you live in another dimension), who are also engaged in harassing, insulting and intimidating hundreds of women daily using social networks (whether feminist or not).

Or the "Men's right activist" or "a voice for Men", a group that fights for "real" equality (is it familiar?)) asserting that feminism has gone too far and that men are actually discriminated against today. What are your proposals? So that the woman occupies the place that corresponds to him according to the history, the biology and the cultural tradition. In addition to combating the end of circumcision, abolishing the laws against gender violence and rape. And look at this: demanding that the state not be able to regulate sex among adults. In other words, a way of "ending" with rape would be to make them legal if they take place in private.

What things, huh? All these movements in defence of the rights of men have many points in common. And over here, in these same forums, there have been users repeating exactly the same atrocities. Lying day Yes day also on official data (facts), manipulating the information, twisting and "imagining" reality to make it as they think it is or should be.

In short, if groups of men want to make documentaries about men abused, to do them, but without lying or manipulating reality. What happens is that they end up doing this last because they know perfectly well that the reality does not give them the reason and that if they reflect it as it is they would make the ridicule. And because they know that all these lies and fallacies are very good among many men (and also women, thus bursting possibilities of sorority) and most are just believing them, either by sheer ignorance, naivety or pure victimism.

Eivind Berge said...

The facts about how men are abused are very easy to document, because the justice system keeps detailed records about whom them incarcerate and for what reasons. Our challenge as men's rights activists is to make the public understand that most of the reasons cited for punishing men (and even more so, women) as sex offenders are nonsensical and hateful.

Eivind Berge said...

"Return of Kings" are partly on the right track when they want less rape hysteria, but they are missing the point that hateful criminalization of sexuality extends to minors as well as adults (and harassing or confronting feminists is stupid -- our real enemies are laws and law enforcement). "A Voice for Men" are pure lunatics who want more sex abuse hysteria rather than less, basically feminists on steroids.

The real Men's Rights Movement fights hateful sex laws and consists of myself and a handful other bona fide MRAs. We recognize that odious sexual taboos are the primary mechanism by which men are oppressed -- a truth which feminists actually also tacitly acknowledge since most of their activism is focused on passing ever more extensive and draconian sex laws. All other gender issues are distractions scarcely worth mentioning.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Have you ever heard of Heart Progress? I think you'd fit right in with their philosophy:

Eivind Berge said...

I never heard of them and have nothing to do with pedophilia, which seems to be the focus of that forum, but they sure look like kindred spirits politically, yes.

Anonymous said...

There was no need to change the law. German females get married too late, in pre menopause, not too early. Also, if you want marry a 16 years old woman, you need her parents' permission and also the court has to check if everything is ok. No need to do anything. It was a legal exception for exceptional situations.

Of course we have to blame NGOs like Plan International, Girls Not Brides, and so on. They are winning everywhere with the criminalization of the normal male sexuality.
However it's the whole feminist system that is behind this, for the usual reason: the increase of SMV of expired females.

But I see more.
I already wrote about the Yemeni situation, the overthrow of the law banning imaginative child marriage, and the actual war; I already wrote about the corageous legalization of the possibility to marry an underage woman in bangladesh, but we don't know how it enended up.
Now I would like to add the perspective focused on Saudi Arabia and surroundings.
The Islamic world but lately I understood that it is the last line of defence of Men's rights, and the ruling class is setting up to perpetrate that coup d'etat that feminism is.

I posted the link about the Saudis not allowing foreigners to marry saudi females unless they are expired (aka over 30 years old) and there is no greater age gap than 10 years (law passed before october 2016).

During the last visit of DJ Trump and family, they wife and daughter visited the Saudi bureau for women empowerment (or something like). While the feminist west was focused on highlighting that it was composed by men, I immediately realized how the situation was serious. Few days later, the Saudi rulers passed some laws to make females more independent to visit the public administation offices and more privileges. They are still far from the shit of the westm but it's not that easy.
They are doing it, one Malala at time. (remember? the undeage satanic slut of the west, who worked to compromise pakistan.)

Suadi, UEA and friends are participating to the GWOT(tm) by bombing IRAQ (ISIS), joining the inherent resolve coalition and bombing Yemen as well; but also fighting the muslim brotherhood that notoriously are not involved at all with terrorism, and many Islamic groups who support the Shariah, branding them all as TERRORISTS.
Last month they addressed Qatar as a terrorist sponsor as well, not important if in the Qatar there is a US airbase.

I think that after that the great fear bounded to the Islamic State will be passed, there will be a global hijacking of Islam, that will be called "reform", in order to normalize it to what the feminist requirements are. In short the final idea is like the pakistan legislation: Shariah to punish the thieves (like cutting the hand) and Cyberstalking together (forgive the grotesque simplification).
And when the men that will pay the price of females' privileges, will start to disagree and will try to fight back, they will be branded as hate speech before, and then terrorists in order to easlily imprison and possibly genocide them, as like as they did agaisnt the Iraqi rebels.
Right now they are criminalizing the Wahabists.
There is one prince of Saudi Arabia who is well known to sistematically break the Shariah law, like letting his wife to dress like a western woman.
Remember, Saudis rulers and Surrondings are best friends with USA and UK, and consequently the WEST. The piece of theatre of the girl dressed with miniskirt video we saw in twitter and other social network, is just preparatory for the following "big change".

Remember that once the Islamic world and Islam itself will be "normalized" and "purged", everything will be over.
Islam is the last line of defense of men. My grandpa, today, would be a "pedophile", and my grandma his "victim"... we in the west are screwed already, but it's not too late to save the true Islam and the natural society.

(Part 2)

Anonymous said...

Today the Israeli Scientist published that the men of the "west", form 1970 to now, have lost 50-60% of fertility due to stress. Wanna bet with me that men from Yemen and Saudi Arabia are still as fertile as everyone was here before feminism? Because I truly believe that the loss of fertility of men (if it's true and not a compensation for menopause, as some says) is related to the stress of the life under feminism and the consequential demasculization. In short, female supremacists are succeding on their dreams: make the men unable to impregnate females.

You should pay attention about what is going on in those parts of the world. Yeah. Even if
1) you can't stand the sand niggers,
2) you mock them,
3) you don't like the ethnic substitution made thro refugees by the world establishment and the policy they impose,
4) you don't like a mosquee in your town,
5) you would like that one muslim chick to dress shorts instead of the veil to stare at her,
6) you don't like that they toss the gays from the buildings' top,
7) you don't like that they sqeeze your next door girl's ass during new year eve celebrations.

You should check how muslim men live and how their way of life is similar to the one we had here before feminism.
So, maybe, those who protests agaist them should have gone to protest in front of NATO bases, against imperialism; and maybe vote for those who want to quit from NATO, even if they look uberfeminists.
There will always be the risk to vote someone who will betray you. We saw Trump who went from stopping to be the world's cop and to impose to other people what to do and how to live, to bombing Syria and pressuring Muslim Allies to give privileges to females like in the west and calling terrorists everybody who disagree. He betrayed the Deplorables.
But at least we have tried it.

Mala tempora currunt. I see thousand of years of oppression and genocide, with the cunts accepting the killings and suicides of their male children, in order to keep their own privileges.

Allah Hafiz, brothers.

(yeah, my engish sucks; but english is itself cultural imperialism)

Anonymous said...

I realized I left behind a forecast about Germany...
I believe hardly AOC will remain the same after that they will pass that sick new law.

Again, Allah Hafiz bros.

Eivind Berge said...

Welcome back and thank you for your contributions. I agree that Islam is the last line of defense for men. I don't think it will be purged and made to conform to feminism though. I looks too strong for that. Hopefully it will be the other way around. Like, the Germans may take advantage of the refugees now to pass more feminist laws, but I bet Islamic values will push back down the road.

There was a case just now in Norway of a 17-year-old boy getting convicted because he failed to delete a boob pic he received from a 17-year-old girl, so we have already gone full retard.

Teens don't even need to ask for pictures at this point, they are all criminals anyway just for existing and owning the incrimination device that everyone carries around.

We are not up to 15 years in prison for each picture (or request) yet, but that is only a matter of time.

Anonymous said...

I can't stand ageism, but they may have listened to me in the wrong sense. LOL! XD Poor boy... :'(

The islamic values may push back, but as for now they are getting digged with bombs. If you listen to EU politiclowns (but they are very dangerous), you will notice that now they shamelessy admit they want to impose the western values to the other people. Not only to those who come here, but to the foreign countries (ingerence and meddling are the 1st justification of so called "terrorism" that to me looks more to a war where the rich countries bomb the poor people who don't want to obey).
Until 10 years ago, this shit was exclusive of Yanks, GW Doubya Bush and the moronic allies he collected (UK, Spain and Italy). Now it's the fil rouge of all the EU establishment and even antiestablishment (those from alt right who hate muslims).

Once, we had the very same values as christians, until a few decades ago.
It's the principle. When you give even 1 stupid concession, like the short skirt, the rest will be a consequence. See the right to work (I know that many MRAs are hating me because I support the idea of women being provided with stuff, but that is it).

When the saudi rulers will apply for the "big change", the crackdown on opposition will be bloodly. It will be the same that the Barain rulers perpetrate now on Shia oppositors; or the tyrant Al Sisi in Egipt.

Allah Hafiz.

Anonymous said...

"Seyran Ateş (the old entitle cunt who formerly founded the copicat of this fake mosque in Berlin) originally said women wearing niqabs and burqas were not allowed in the Berlin mosque"


Indeed she attaks the holy Sharia, the last line of defense of men's rights.

Allah hafiz

Anonymous said...

"and also women, thus bursting possibilities of sorority"

Who's this idiot / intellectual dishonest monster?
The post itself look a repost form some facebook feminist Group. It looks composed following a strict algorithm.

The sorority between females is a fact, so much that females are able to sacrifice their own male children to keep their privileges.

Men do get killed and beaten by women's work, usually the executor is another man but the hand controlling the puppet is a female one and, in the last 20 years, men killed in wars are consequence of the forced exportation and imposition of feminism; and men do attempt and do suicide because of the gender violence laws, female privileges that allow them to reject, use, abuse and emotional violence by females.
This is a real genocide. We even see that when suicide concerns men, it's almost always a proxy Killing by females, in which the proxy is the man.
I underwent that shit myself, if what happened to me was happened to a female, the man would be jailed and his life ruined.

The users of "The Return of the Kings" would be real heroes if they do that.

Equality between unequals mean privilege. That's the point. Females are not equal to men, maybe they are complementary.

Men are discrimanted on daily basis and in every possible filed; first the juridical one.
The solution about Females to occupy the place that corresponds the them to the history, the biology and the cultural tradition is the only possible solution; to stay that way the muslims are ready to fight and die. They don't want to became like the west, they want to protect their male children when they grow up.

The state should stay out from the citizens' bed. It actually does, when it's about sodomy.

The fact that the western socity is rigged, manipulated by twisted storytellings, faked lecture of datas and informations, corrupted science bending the reality to support feminist positions, in order to justify the commitment of atrocities against men (age of consent is only the best indicator) the crush against men's natural rights (never proclaimed human rights) and human rights as well, all this shit doesn't make the fight less valid and every possible means is legit.

Just look at suicide rates at the UN. It's not a case that the non feminist countries (mostly muslims) have a real gender equality in suicide, or even gender inversion; and however the overall numbers are risible if compared to the west.

The solution in the west? Censor the suicides in the social medias.

Females' victimhood is the best built lie in the Whole history. The real victims are men, and according to the feminist istitutionalized twisted vision, the victimization of female does happen when the female is only put in the condition to know her place and respect that.

The real feminist marsterpiece is that they have been able to fool all the people all the time; up Lincoln's ass.

Allah Hafiz, brothers.

Anonymous said...

"A civilization without women cannot exist, because here men would just kill one another until one man was standing back alone. One can see this in the former Wild West, where murder rates were high as Mount Everest. When the women later came in society stabilized."

WTF? A civilization without females can not exist because the human kind would became extint. In which way do you make babies? with Milo Yannopoulos anus?

I would have liked to see the murder rates in the wild west if the "women" came were feminists in place of brothels' whores.
That's a joke...

May Allah take care of you and enlight you...

Anonymous said...

Dunno. When I was 13, I didn't want sex. I was not even ejaculating. Or maybe I started that very same year. However, me away from me an expired 34 yo theacher hag with saggy tits.
Maybe her daughter... Sorry but that's it. Relationships with older women is something unnatural.

Also, Eivind, stop telling that females don't like sex and it's only an Exchange value. Females do like sex.
Have you ever been in a discoclub or a bar? It's just about the guy's look.
I had lived the evidence that it's not how you say, and it sucked very badly.

Only when it turns to marriage, that females pounder other things like religion, political views, fun and so on. A cute guy who: is a devoted muslim, or an athlete because she has that life style, or a clown cause she like to laugh, or an anti feminist cause she is morally clean and intellectually honest; or everything they, the females, can mind at.
And forget about money and social status; females are committed to get money alone, they want a cute guy, not a ugly guy with a lot of money (unless they are like donald trump, zukerberg or gates).

The 1st condition, however, the necessary condition that is not sufficient, is the look. If you look good (in the meaning of the main stream), you have all the sex you want with decent young girls. For young girls, the meaning depends on the society. It's based on the age when usually ppl have the 1st child.
Where it is like 25/26, for Young gilrs it's intended 11-20 years old, max 22. Then you have to build up a relationship, in which females care about other factors than the look alone, so if you are an average guy you can have chances.
Where it is 35/36, it could go up to 40. Recently I had the pleasure to see the news calling a 49 years old dead hag, a "girl"! DX This doesn't mean that thise females are anything else than old expired hags (they are those who gain form the atrocities of age of consent laws). Usually, this kind of females end up running behind est european almost child girl to buy their egg to conceive. This is another side of the feminist crazyness (children manufacturing, like if they were objects).


Anonymous said...

Back on topic, if you are an "ugly" guy, you can only watch the cute ones going into the discobar's bathroom having sex with stranger girls. However today there is the internet that gives more chances. Example: cute guys who are fat, usually were considered ugly guys; however today the internet allows girls who like fat guys to find them and obviously, choose the more handsome ones. 10 years ago, it could have happened, but not frequently like today. However, when it's time to go serious, the fatness alone is not enough... here a case of sexual objectification of men. They are ok when the girl is horny, but not good enough to turn the thing serious.

But if you are an ugly guy, in the meaning of an ugly face, you are done.
Average guys usually end up marrying females that the year before would have rejected them, cuz they were "not enough". They have to wait for the females to "settle down".
Then you assist to a weird thing: those girls, who live in the feminist era, are so anxious to get the family name of their men, that they change their facebook account. You see that they are not really feminists, they just are enjoying the advantages of that. But they still want you to take care of them, to control them, to look and be strong (not about your muscles... it's the behaviour).
Getting the family name of the husband is a blasphemy for real feminists.

In short, we live in a de-facto matriarchy. Everything is up to the females. The fact that they don't want to have sex with you, doesn't mean that they are not gonna have sex with the guy seating next of you. Promisquity is the way to go.

The money? bullshit that was not true anymore even for the last Xsters. I was very ugly, both for genetics but also because some doctor messed up with my mouth and face, when I was a child. The Whole geometry of my face was compromised.
Once I had a new nice ride, nothing very special, but an average car bought new. Following the theory of the greedy females, you should think that it must have helped me to date minimum a less than average girl. Well, no. I was the ugly guy with the nice car. Rejeceted even by the deformed, forever alone chick.
I saw the same for guys equipped with ferraris... or gymcels who are just muscled uglyes.
Meanwhile, the cute guy riding the old bucket was getting laid like a slayer.
Sorry peeps, it doesn't work anymore.

As for today, I have had some operations because the damages I underwent to were getting serious with time, compromising functionality. I could see the change on the behaviour of the unknown females interacting with me. But the time played against me and furthermore I'm still not enough to be considered "cute". Also, I'm not intested in old winky hags à la sex and the city.

Allah Hafiz.

Anonymous said...

Reading again , I have to specify that in no way I do support any punishment that took place against Mary Kay Letourneau.
If the guy was more precocious then me and he was a perverted gerontophiliac, this doesn't justify a criminal conviction against that old woman.
People who were raped without knowing that don't exist, that is a mith of feminist retoric, that gave Birth to the wrong laws that crate the atrocities killing so many good men.
Nobody is raped if they don't feel they were; and those who feel are still to be evaluated.

Anonymous said...

New interesting feminist atrocity perpetrated by the UK government; threading men's natural rights.

“You used and abused her. You did not care about her feelings.”
...Oh, poor baby girl

“You told her 14 was the age of consent."
It should not exist at all. Also, this is the evidence that the 14 years old woman was willing.


It looks like in the UK the people get good sense only when their loved ones get targeted by the feminist system. I bet that the female supporter of Bell would be cruelly joy and blaming the victims (the are the guys), blaming against the (imaginative) "paedophiles". Yhis way the tirrany will never end.

This is one of the goverments bombing the muslim people to impose what they call "human rights".

On the comments here, I spot surprises everytime I read:
" women appear to possess rape-avoidance adaptations because their sexuality is so valuable that their minds are designed to protect it and be very careful about which men they have sex with. One consequence of these adaptations is that real rape is likely to be far more traumatizing than other violence,"
"Men have hard to understand how traumatizing real rape is for women, as for us it was an advantage to spread our semen wide and far. "

Ehmm... no.
Females do fantasize about being raped. Rejection the way to try you out to see how much u r interested for real. Females admit that theirselves. Actually it is something already well know, just like the fact that women do want to be dominated and controlled and evend degraded (today the privileges gave to the females made the realization of those conditions not possible and now they craves even more - see the converted female muslims or the fetish sites), but I suggest you all to look for the evidences reported into blog. Together with other truths like that females love categories of toughs, assasins, gangsters and so on (bad guys).

Also, it's just sex; in the era of medicalized abortion, in no way a straight sexual intercourse could harm a female. The "I feel dirty, I wanna die" bullshit is just the result of wrong laws titillating the worst females' narcissistic instincts, that drives the females to play victimhood. Old laws about rape were to protect the natural society's familily, in fact it was seen as a crime against the husband and the morals. But the crooked western society turned to see it as a crime against the female person; so the mahiyem started.
I'm assisting to cases in which 70 years old females whine to be "raped" by 20 something illegals. The only rape I the one that illegals self inflicts rape to themselves by having sex with those old farts, because the feminized western society crushed their sexual needs (the "starve the beast" theory).

The only real Rape is the female rejection, that causes the intolerable amount of men's Death everyday in the westens societies; a phenomenon that is trivialized, silenced, objurgated on daily basis.

Allah hafiz, brothers

Anonymous said...

inside the


I pasted from the article, (don't ask me why it is gone empity...):

It looks like in the UK the people get good sense only when their loved ones get targeted by the feminist system. I bet that the female supporter of Bell would be cruelly joy and blaming the victims (the are the guys), blaming against the (imaginative) "paedophiles". Yhis way the tirrany will never end.

This is one of the goverments bombing the muslim people to impose what they call "human rights".

Anonymous said...

again it looks gone

I try again:

"He jailed the pair for 12 years, telling them to sign on the Sex Offenders Register for life and serve indefinite Sexual Harm Prevention Orders.

Bell and Turner hugged and kissed family members in the public gallery, with one sobbing woman shouting: “You don’t get that for murder.”

The supporter then bizarrely yelled at the judge: “Paedophiles don’t get that – you’re a disgrace.”

It looks like in the UK the people get good sense only when their loved ones get targeted by the feminist system. I bet that the female supporter of Bell would be cruelly joy and blaming the victims (the are the guys), blaming against the (imaginative) "paedophiles". Yhis way the tirrany will never end.

This is one of the goverments bombing the muslim people to impose what they call "human rights".

Anonymous said...

I don't know why the reported article go missed

Eivind Berge said...

I see, 12 years for a victimless crime. That is normal now. Of course the girl was willing. Indeed it is admitted in the article that it was a "consensual offense," or else there would have been rape charges and even longer sentences.

I guess you can't use those brackets since the system here interprets it as HTML tags or something.

Eivind Berge said...

12 years for consensual teenage sex, and meanwhile killing a woman for a ridiculous reason gets seven years:

Society is sending the clear message that having sex at 14 is a fate worse than death. How did we get to this point of absurdity? At least there were people in that courtroom shouting some words of reason, though the justice system and media are fully insane.

Anonymous said...

In which way you ask?
Simply. It's feminism. The quisling papa bears, the handsome alphas getting your sexual quote, the oppressed manginas (cucks) with stockolm syndrome; not the females only. And the support of the establishment (soros, rotshilds, rockfeller, ...). If we came to this it's because of men who supported these atrocties.

But the nastier part is composed by those mothers who see this shit and not only don't take an action but even do agree. They hate thir own boys and participates actively to the oppression and killng of them. Yhis is unnatural; even beasts protect their offspring.

Also, the real trauma in such cases is done by cops and the quisling psychologists forcing the girls feeling as victims.

Meanwhile, the governmental monsters, who are persecuting the poor innocent guys in the UK, set definitely the immunity for the terrorist and war criminal Tony Blair:

You see that, besides the crazy feminists of the Islamic State, muslim rebels are all right.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I forgot:

Allah Hafiz

Anonymous said...

I Always forget something...

Just want to say: in such a situation, the criminalization of sex with underage women is somehow the last of problems by itself.
It's all the rest, from how the whole system deals with straight sexual and marital relationships to the crazy dolls case.
Age of consent (or marriageable age) is only the indicator of the overall situation, like the engine's overheating light when starts lighting up.

Allah Hafiz

Anonymous said...

In Taiwan are worse:

Death penaty in Taiwan:
Child and Youth Sexual Transaction Prevention Act [9]

Committing and purposely killing the victim of
Making a person under 18 engage in sexual transaction by violence, menace, medicament, control, hypnogenesis or other ways against the will of himself/herself
Intending to making a person under 18 engage in sexual transaction, and to deliver or accept him/her to or from other person by dealing, impawning or other ways and by violence, menace, medicament, control, hypnogenesis or other ways against the will of himself/herself

Eivind Berge said...

The punishment may be worse, but that law at least seems to ascribe some will to minors.

Anonymous said...


Eivind Berge said...

Because as far as I can tell, all of that applies to things done against their will, rather than just statutorily defining them as victims. But there are probably other laws that do just that with a lesser penalty.

Anonymous said...

It's called Tyranny.
Any reaction is justified, right and morally correct.
So called "rape" never justifies any penalty and death is a moral atrocity.
Hope the real victims will go all the way, like some are doing in India, to punish the society that allows this inhuman shit.

Anonymous said...

"control, hypnogenesis or other ways"...
Are you sure, Eivind Berge? Do you think it could be hard to manipulate people to lie about their will?


Eivind Berge said...

I agree it is tyranny. But there are levels of tyranny, and the fact that the lawmakers feel they need to respect the will of children at least conceptually tells me that they haven't quite reached our level of tyranny yet. In Norway, as of the new penal code implemented in 2015, the law conceptually denies any will to a person under 14. Any sex with them is "rape," not statutory rape; the law explicitly lies and pretends they don't have a will. It is the difference between an outright lie and a weasel formulation that can be applied to anything in practice, but still respects the concept of children having human qualities such as the ability to decide if they want to do something or not. Norwegian legislators treat the people as idiots who are unaware of this self-evident reality, and they are getting away with it because Norwegians evidently are that dense, while Taiwanese legislators feel they still need to be intellectually honest. These conceptual distinctions may not matter in practice, but I find them philosophically significant.

Anonymous said...

But they still oppress men and kill them.
Do you think the cops would have problems to get "evidences" about "hypnogenesis"?

If there are other laws that criminalize sex with lighter penalties, as you pointed out; it's like they brought the western legislation and, to conceptually distinct and admit the personal will, they just increased to the extreme the penalty for pure rape, while keeping the western copycat legislation for the criminalization of other sexual occurrences.
To me, such a distinction is pretty pointless.
I bet that in Norway a "child rapist" gets the same penalty of Anders Brevik.
Tyrannies are Tyrannies, including those who try to fake out intellectual honesty.

I don't like you using the term "children" to define people who are 14 years old; they are gronw adults. The legal age of majority has nothing to do with adulthood; historically the age of consent and marriageable age for women were settled a way before the age of majority.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't think it is even possible to hypnotize a person against their will, so that just seems like a pure excuse for punishment where any "evidence" will do.

I agree it is mostly a distinction without a difference. But it says something about the mentality of regime. Western governments have simply thrown all logic and rationality out the window and replaced it with make-belief, like passing a law making pi equal to 3.0.

You are completely right that "child rapists" in Norway often get the same punishment as Breivik, which is what we call "forvaring" which means "preventative detention." This is a time-unlimited sentence which is euphemistically expressed in a minimum number of years, where his is 21 and theirs would typically be a few years shorter, but both can actually be locked up for life. It doesn't take much at all to get preventative detention for sex crimes in Norway; no contact needed, sometimes talking to women or minors online can be enough, but it also depends on how incorrigible the offender is deemed to be, which is a matter of pseudoscience and other motivations to lock him up for a very long time ("pedophiles" are prime targets, of course). It is infinitely worse to get five years of preventative detention than 21 years in prison (which is the maximum regular sentence), so these terms can easily confuse foreigners and make them think Norwegian justice is milder than it is. I think this deception is by design because liberals like to pretend that they believe in lenience, but they don't.

I agree that "children" strictly only refers to prepubescents and will try to be more precise.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Eivind Berge said...

So Transformers is child porn, ok. Let's lock up everyone who has ever seen it or had anything to do with it, then. That is literally the intention of the child porn law.

Wow, that reviewer has been well indoctrinated. The "ick factor" of a 17-year-old being called hot? What about the absurdity factor of making that statement? Have we reached the point where that doesn't even register?

Anonymous said...

The author is crazy, I clicked on her timeline and there are articles about rainbow babies #LGTBIbabies ??? !!!!

Anonymous said...

The west and its accolities are corrupted, rotten and sickening. Age of consent is only the nastier tip of the iceberg.
Here something interesting from Marthyr Julian Assange:

Nothing new to me (and I totally agree on females' condition under the talibans and Islam) but it feels good to see that published into the Assange's twitter. Feminism has justified the worst war crimes and existential & natural rights violations perpetrated during the last 16 years.

Another evidence that the Clinton Rodham CIA is behind the terrorism in Syria; a proxy to harass Ahmadinejad, the resistance of Hez Bollah and Russia (somehow it's not different to the feminist proxy war perpetrated by the subhumans in jail who rape men accused of the so called "sex crimes"):

Meanwhile the terrorist CIA and Army establishment are keeping up to subvert:

Allah Hafiz, brothers.

(Hello to all the Carrie Mathison reading this; you suck my balls)

Eivind Berge said...

Good to see that from Assange. He has not particularly distinguished himself as a men's rights activist, but perhaps the past seven years of feminist persecution has taught him something after all.

Anonymous said...

Assange is (was) an Alpha, like a rockstar. He never had issues on getting quality pussy. He had no reason to be an MRA, actually he had part of your sexual quote... (that's being Alpha).

They used feminism when he became a problem for the establishment's plans.

It's the same pattern, Always. Remember DSK in France? He kept the financial dogs during the grecian crisis. A guy like him would have fucked up france against the power, if elected. The solution? Criminalizing and demonizing his sexuality.
It happened again when Assange, during the DNC gate, was alleged to have had a chat with a 15 years old girl a so-called "child".
Milo Yannoupolos? The same, and it was just about SPEECH, not even actions.

The "poor victim" of Assange is a cunt who had relations with the DAMAS DE BLANCO, a subversive feminist Group intent on regime change in Cuba. She is not new on NATO secret services operations.

Allah Hafiz.

Jack said...

Eivind, you are absolutely right about those young guys getting lucky and it being madness to jail the women who did it. But we live in a world of gender-bias madness and from a tactical point of view many genuine MRAs and MGTOWs (like myself) still consider it is a good thing for women to be victims of that madness from time to time. In other words if you jail a man for being kind to an consenting underage girl, at least jail a woman for being kind to a likewise consenting underage guy. The point I'm making s a purely tactical one and it does not alter the fact that jailing a woman for being kind to a teenage guy is madness and indicative of a very sick Society.

Eivind Berge said...

How is that tactical support of injustice working out for you? Last time I checked, feminists were only enthusiastic about the same laws being applied to women. They seem to be perfectly content with equal injustice for all as long as they can have their sex-hostile laws.

Eivind Berge said...

I can't fathom why you would even think of fighting injustice with more of the same. This is something only our generation can come up with, probably because feminists have been so successful at instilling the charade of gender equality. Without this brainwashing, I submit that it would not even occur to MGTOWs and pseudo-MRAs to use this tactic. Imagine if, during the Vietnam War era, those who opposed that war didn't call for it to end, but instead claimed they wanted to start another pointless war for which women would be conscripted until you had an equal number of dead women. Would that make sense? There is zero evidence that it works, and more importantly it is not right to create more innocent victims just to make a point.

Jack said...

Your thought experiment with the conscripting women into the Vietnam war is not so far-fetched as you think. I'm convinced Societies are run by women and for women although men stand in the forefront doing the dirty work. As soon as women get hurt and killed, Society sits up and takes notice. The reason we haven't had any nuclear war is because atom bombs kill women as well as men. Killing women in war is war crime, killing men in war is spot on.

Reverting to sex, your mantra is that women cannot possibly rape men. While this makes sense, it is not helping men at all, at least as long as the scales of justice remain so atrociously tilted against men. If things continue as they are going, men will get hanged for having sex with consenting 15-17 year-old girls. One way to prevent this is to see that women who act similarly with boys also get the same sentence. Society will shrink from hanging people only if women are among those to be hanged.

The right mantra is not "women cannot rape men", but "no one can rape a consenting adult or nubile teenager". If I'm not mistaken it is a mantra you would not be averse to. Alas, it is also one for which our Time has zero tolerance.

Women going to jail for making young guys happy requires a overdose of hypocrisy. With time, in a best case scenario, the hypocrisy bubble will burst and the case of the men going to jail for the same crime will come up for discussion.

Incidentally, Turd Fling Monkey (TFM), an otherwise sensible MGTOW, has uploaded a vid on his Youtube channel that would infuriate you. It is entitled "Gynocentric grooming gangs". It includes some sickening lament about underage prison inmates who were "abused" by a female prison guard.

Eivind Berge said...

The biggest reason for me personally why I can't bring myself to say that women can rape boys would be the intellectual dishonesty of it. However, I also question your premise that society is unwilling to hurt women in just as horrible ways as men. Because didn't that happen during the witch-hunts? Women were not just hanged, but burned at the stake for just as meaningless reasons as the justification given for locking up sex offenders. So I honestly don't think it is a good tactic to call for persecution of both sexes.

Jack said...

You shouldn't bring up the witch hunts because the witch-hunt myth is another one that needs debunking. In fact men were ten times as likely to be exectued for heresy or witchcraft as women. Even the so-called "salem witches" had a number of men among them, which History books completely ignore. Most witch cases follow a regular pattern: some women get hysterical and inquisitors get involved. The women "confess" having been bewitched by certain men and the latter burn at the stake.

The women who initiated the hunt usually got off with their lives. Very similar to false rape accusations when you come to think of it.

Eivind Berge said...

I know men were also victims of witch-hunts, but my point is that women definitely were too, and it didn't prevent this kind of persecution from lasting for hundreds of years. So even if the tactic of holding women equally responsible for bullshit crimes ultimately can be successful, I do not think it is worth the price.

Jack said...

Take drug crime. You probably agree that in 99% of the cases drug crime is victimless crime. Now suppose governments decided to go a step further than the already existing gender-bias and exonerated women entirely from prosecution for drug crime. Such a scenario is not at all impossible as women are increasingly considered unaccountable for criminal behaviour. Would you say this is good because from then on a country would only jail 5000 men for drug crimes instead of jailing 5000 men + 1000 women like it did the year before? I'd say not. I'd say it would be very bad news.

As another example take prostitution. There are basically two systems of prostitution interdiction in the West. 1) The US system where both the prostitute and the john can get prosecuted. 2) The "Nordic" system ("Swedish system") where only the man is at risk. Now tell me which is worse? I'd say the latter, much as it breaks my heart to see a beautiful prostitute treated like a gangster by US justice for providing sex to men.

We need women on the tumbrel bearing prisoners to the guillotine for the guillotine to stop.

Eivind Berge said...

Even if the idea of criminal "equality" had some merit as a tactic (which I still don't agree with), you are neglecting the emotional cost. The Men's Rights Movement is unlikely to make much of a difference at all, to be honest. One of the things we can do, however, is to at least express some truth and honesty which is banished from all other sides. I am not interested in being part of a movement which is indistinguishable from the mindless repetition of irrational sexual taboos that feminism consists of.

I also prefer to take the ethical high ground and not sacrifice innocent people as a means to a tactical end. If governments decided to only prosecute men for drug crimes, then yes, that would be slightly less bad than the current Drug War from a selfless ethical perspective. The Swedish model of dealing with prostitution is also slightly less bad than the American model for the same reason. And again, I would hope that these injustices incite hatred in the hearts of men against our governments rather than against women, leading to eventual retaliation. Fighting for expanded criminalization is a harebrained, counterproductive way to retaliate against laws that are unjust to begin with.

Anonymous said...

An update.
I wrote about the big change I was feeling the smell about Saudi Arabia.
Well, it's happening.
The prince Mohammed bin Salman, the guy who removed the holy women's ban to drive cars (huge parties in new york happened after that), said that they will promote a "moderate" (aka feminist and western friendly version of) Islam. In short the manipulated islam to meet the western disvalues' requirements.

And it will happen just like I wrote: since Saudi Arabia is a tyranny, it's easy to make up coups against men, and the huge backlash that will surely happen, will be classified as "terrorism", in oder to justify the most violent Crackdown possible.

Those are the guys turining Yemen (country in which marriageable age for females is the start of puberty) into a parking lot.

"We will not spend the next 30 years of our lives dealing with destructive ideas. We will destroy them today," he said.

The last line of defense of Men's rights is gonna be devasted by the corrupetd and coward saudi tyrants.

Allah hafiz...

Anonymous said...

I think this will conclude every possible discourse over Saudi Arabia.

This is wrong, sick and disturbing.
Mohammed bin Salman is a real perverted, wronged in brain and Dangerous (due to his power) individual.
This is the full project:

In 1 word: TAKFIR. Saudis elected themselves as protectors of the doctrine to justify their persecution against the Shias, but it was a real bullshit: it was about the control of the area.
Saudi governors are the real perverted, rotten apostates.

Allah Hafiz, may IRAN save us all.