Wednesday, September 12, 2018

Reasons why people believe in the female sex offender charade

Whatever their reasons, people do not believe that women can sexually abuse because it is true. As I have resoundingly pointed out, it is logically impossible, given the core beliefs and values that I hold, for women to sexually abuse boys. In this post I will examine possible reason for why people believe, or say they believe that women can be sexual abusers despite the obvious falsehood of this proposition.

- Virtue signaling. Now that it is established as politically correct to believe in female-perpetrated sexual abuse, that in itself will make a lot of people say it just because it increases their status. It is a classic case of the emperor's new clothes -- social status counts more than perceptions and one tends to say what powerful people want to hear.

- It follows from other strongly held beliefs. I am thinking of feminists who posit that the sexes are equal, which is how we got into this mess. Once it is axiomatic to you that there cannot be any sex differences, women must be able to do everything men can no matter how absurd, and so female sexual acts must be equivalent to male abuse despite no one ever feeling it. This is similar to how some physicists feel compelled to believe in the multiverse. Neither phenomenon can ever be observed, but one must believe in it for the sake of consistency.

- Projection. Women project their own sexual feelings (or lack of them) onto males, honestly not realizing how different we are. Notice that women are by far the most vociferous proponents of the female sex offender charade, as well as having invented it, and we often hear that "abuse" was accused only because a boy's mother egged him on. Men used to keep such lunacy in check, and it can thus be seen as a nasty side effect of giving women too much political power.

- Their paycheck depends on it. Is a policeman, prosecutor, judge, school administrator, therapist or journalist going to go with his instincts, which if expressed will get him instantly fired, or what brings home the bacon and furthers his career? The choice is dishonorable, but understandable. These figures will almost always follow the profits. The same goes for accusers and their families who stand to gain from suing the school etc., in which case greed is the proper name of the sin.

- Thoughtlessness and going with the flow. I know I am special because I have thought and read extensively about sexual abuse, and there are doubtless people who give it little thought. I am sure I hold irrational beliefs on some other subjects myself, perhaps some of them equally ridiculous as the assertion that women can sexually abuse boys. But I wouldn't know, because I don't examine these views critically, and there isn't enough time in anybody's life to think critically and research the facts about everything. This is probably the most excusable excuse, but it can't remain excusable for long if you are made to think about the topic.

- Socially acceptable misogyny. To label a woman as "sex offender" is to declare open season for any hate anyone wishes to heap on her, and this being the sole remaining politically correct way to hate women, naturally it will attract misogynists. This hate is so strong in some men that they will pathetically deny their own sexual nature as boys in favor of claiming abuse, and this applies to accusers as well as bystanders. Thus you have grown men spouting the lie that they didn't want to have sex with their female teachers in school, or that they were "abused" if they did. I am willing to accept that their hate is stronger than their sex drive, but they were most assuredly not abused, because that would require a consensus reality in which I could intuitively partake and not just a false and self-serving belief. This doesn't even have to be misogyny, but the same kind of misanthropic malice that causes a person to jump on the bandwagon and participate in any old witch-hunt or lynching. Vigilante pedophile hunters are cut from this cloth.

Insofar as people believe in the myth that women can be sexual abusers, how do they justify it to themselves?

- The aversive experience delusion. We all know that boys want sex, but somehow, for the purposes of expressing an opinion on female "abusers," this knowledge is blocked out and replaced with the message promulgated by the theatrics of feminist abuse hysteria. They may be laboring under the delusion that "children" are asexual, never mind their own memory to the contrary. And the "teacher or similar status = abusive power differential" myth is a powerful destroyer of common sense. All it takes is a mumbo-jumbo explanation like that and a lot of people's minds go blank and ready to be filled with whatever authority tells them. This is similar to how the "rape is about power rather than sex" canard got established. It sounds like a sophisticated thing to say, so having heard it all his life from intelligent-sounding people, the man in the street will parrot it even though it bears zero resemblance to how he feels his own sexuality works.

- The more pseudo-sophisticated explanations. Some true believers will admit that boys go through all the motions and feelings of wanting and enjoying sex, but then all this is somehow made irrelevant by a metaphysical layer that still makes it abuse. Or it is believed that some kind of "trauma" will surface later. Of course this is gibberish unless you go out of your way to brainwash boys into thinking they have been abused -- which is to say actually abusing them -- but it is an explanation for how these dimwitted minds work.

- Misguided equality or an MRA tactic. Some men understand that the female sex offender charade is completely or mostly nonsense, but they want to punish these women anyway just to be "equal" or get even or convince women that the hateful sex laws were a bad idea (which never happens). This belief is common among men who have partially opened their eyes to the abuses of feminism, including a lot of self-styled "MRAs," but of course they are no such thing.

- The irrelevant harm theory. This is also common among "MRAs," who will want to punish women not for sex itself, which they know is harmless, but consequences such as child support. They may have a point, but this should be dealt with by reforming child support laws rather than pretending that women can rape or sexually abuse boys. Apparently they lack the imagination to do anything but go along with the feminists on 99% of issues.

If you look at the comment section below any news article about supposed female sexual abusers, wherever comments are unmoderated it is always teeming with men who express disbelief that it can be abuse or say they wish they had been so lucky themselves. So this is one issue where male sexualists are decidedly not alone. I would say we represent the true majority, but those who promote the female sex offender charade wield disproportionate power, enough to make it the law of the land for now. This is a horribly wrong situation that we need to change, gentlemen. As male sexualist activists we must never forget to stand up for women accused of sexual abuse as well, because we know this charade is every bit as absurd and odious as any historical witch-hunt and even more troubling than the hateful persecution we face ourselves.


Gally said...

This is not necessarily a discussion that I wish to engage too much in, but let me ask the obvious question: 'What could convince you that you are wrong?'

Second, let me point out an obvious flaw in your theory, and finally thirdly point out a less obvious one.

The premise and inevitable conclusion that follows from your arguments, is that you do not believe that a man has a right to say no to sex with any woman. As such, you are proposing that men does not have the very basic and firmly established human rights of neither agency nor consent in sexual matters involving females. Regardless of their age-difference and seemingly also regardless of the type of sex involved.
How can you argue such an aberration from established ethical norms for decent human interaction?

Secondly, you seem to forget a point which many sexual offenders who act out their attraction to minors do, that I believe should be emphasized for the sake of the one third of minor attracted people who are females: Our experience of past events are not static. We have neither photographic memories, nor does our recollection and views of past events stay the same.
In other words, we mature and what was seen as okay in the past, can take on a different perception as we gain experience and put more pieces together.
For this reason alone, there should be an age of consent. People sometimes regret giving consent, and it is not fair to risk that a young person who has not sufficiently developed his pre-frontal cortex to the point of understanding risks and consequences, should bear the responsibility of giving consent.

So. I am naturally interested in your views on these points, so feel free to share.

Eivind Berge said...

Your first point is missing the mark and the second is plain wrong.

I did not say that a man (or boy for that matter) has no right to say no to sex with a woman! I am merely denying that it can be rape or sexual abuse. Rape is an aggravated assault, right? Worse than a common assault of comparable violence, which is why the punishment is so much harsher and there is so much hysteria etc. Does this apply to female sexual coercion? I am saying that it obviously does not and it is absurd to pretend that it does. The sexual aspect cannot aggravate women's violence over nonsexual assault. But a man still has a right to say no and have it prosecuted as common assault and battery, so there is no human rights issue. We just need to be honest about how to categorize it. If anything, sexual intent would tend to be perceived as an extenuating factor in women's violence, but I am willing to ignore that and allow prosecution for common assault or whatever the nonsexual violence merits. That is as far as I will go.

As to the idea that boys can consent to sex with women and still somehow be abused because they are children, that is just plain nonsense, sorry. Boys should have protection against abuse that is actually bodily or psychologically harmful -- and some of this can be sexualized, sure, but sex is not enough of an aggravating factor to put it in the category of rape or sexual abuse like the legal system does now when women are the perpetrators. Therefore I categorically state that women cannot commit sexual abuse. I am willing to accept an age of consent for girls against men and for boys against homosexual men, but it is insane to apply it to women at any age. By the way, it's fine to have a different age of consent for heterosexuality and male homosexuality. The highest I can go for girls is 12 or 13, but I am willing to extend the male homosexual age of consent a bit higher, perhaps even 16. This is in the interest of the parents, mostly, and I am open to debate from other male sexualists on this -- perhaps I am being too homophobic?

Eivind Berge said...

So this is a bit of a matter of misunderstanding that I just want to recategorize female sexual coercion back where it belongs as no worse than other violence. Yes, it can be abuse, but not "sexual abuse" in the sense that it merits more punishment because it is sexual. It can be sexual abuse in the sense that it is sexualized, but that's not what the sex laws mean -- they all mean to send the punishment through the roof just because of the sexual aspect, which is unconscionable and misogynistic to apply to women because it doesn't match how these acts are actually perceived.

The second point is a true disagreement, and my position is that you have been indoctrinated by an utter falsehood if you think boys can be sexually abused by women at the metaphysical level because they will later "regret their consent" or similar. As I explained in my last blog post, there is nothing to exploit, and therefore nothing meaningful taken from them that they can regret (unless you brainwash them into thinking so, but then YOU are the abuser). Female sexuality is harmless, period, or rather a good thing in the vast majority of cases for small boys too (in the absence of OTHER abuse, which is then what should be addressed rather than pretending sex is the problem).

Eivind Berge said...

It is very sad that society tells female MAPs that they are "abusers" rather than nice to boys, and I will categorically state that male sexualism will have none of it! We shall forever laud these women as the heroes they are. Male sexualism is by definition pro-contact, especially for women.

Eivind Berge said...

And to answer the question of what could convince me that I am wrong (on this second point)? If you could demonstrate causation between early sex with women and bad outcomes in boys, that would be evidence for your view. There is not a single study showing correlation even (in the absence of other abuse), and even if you found a correlation you would have to separate out the brainwashing that you support which is telling boys that they have been abused if they have sex. Only if you had such evidence would I begin to take your claim seriously. And then we need to ask if the benefit of criminalization outweighs the harm, which is a pretty tall order in itself. Just because something is harmful does not mean we should outlaw it; there also needs to be a clear net benefit of doing so. Even if there are some cases where some boys end up feeling abused, you need to take into account all the positive experiences other boys have with women, and I'd rather not ruin it for them just because of a few outliers, not to mention the cost and harm of criminal punishment to the accused women, most of whom are unambiguously good.

In conclusion, this is one of the things I am most confident about out of all my knowledge about everything. Women cannot sexually abuse boys. This is up there with death and taxes and second law of thermodynamics in terms of certainty.

Gally said...

Am I to understand then, that you are making the general point that unless society recognizes something as a bad thing, then it cannot be?
Or, are you only counting in sexual things in what you consider as being something that society 'brainwashes' people into feeling as abusive later in life?

And if so, on what psychological cognitive theory are you basing this on?

Eivind Berge said...

No, I am not making that general point, which is obviously false. There can be lots of harmful things that society does not recognize as such (and I can miss them too). Masturbation is one, for example (I didn't realize the harm until I was in my 30s!). So this isn't even generally true for sexual things. It just happens that I have spent a lot of time thinking and reading about "sexual abuse" and reached the conclusions that I have presented.

And the most relevant psychological cognitive theory would be evolutionary psychology, which tells us that sex is a female resource and explains why this is so. It boils down to the difference in minimal parental investment between the sexes, which makes female sexuality much more precious than male, so it would be astonishing if boys could be "sexually abused" by women. The burden is on you to show something so unexpected, and all attempts to do so have been nothing but absurd feminist sex-hostility with its pseudoscientific theories.

Eivind Berge said...

The closest a woman can get to sexually abuse a boy would be to entice him into masturbating. If she refuses sex but sends him nude pictures of herself and such, then she would be messing up his sexuality, decreasing his performance with women later. The problem with criminalizing this, however, is that he would be getting porn anyway, so it's hardly worth addressing at that level. The proper way to deal with it is through education (and perhaps religious norms since they work so much better at actually modifying behavior) about the harms of porn and masturbation for males.

Gally said...

I understand better where our disagreement lies now, thank you for that.

However, the burden is not on me to prove something that there is scientific (and general) concensus on. Rather the opposite, point me to a single recognized psychologist within the fields of either sexology or better yet, developmental psychology, who agrees with you.

On a sidenote, you might want to know that there are three exceptions to Article 19 (the one granting Freedom of Speech to all) in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
One is where one incites to violence, one is for libel, and the last is reserved for what you risk being accused of doing here.

'Going against public morals'.
It's a very seldomly used law, but I would advice against risking it.

You could end up with having not just your blog closed, but your twitter account too - neither is a big deal, but finally you could have your facebook account closed.
And there is no way facebook gives back account to people accused of condoning or inciting to what society views as sexual abuse of minors.

So I hope the best for you, and good luck.

Eivind Berge said...

And if she has sex with him, she would be helping him avoid or at least reduce the harms of porn and masturbation, needless to say. It breaks my heard that this truly beneficial interaction is criminalized while boys have unlimited access to porn. Boys growing up today thus get a double whammy of an insane abuse industry which keeps them away from healthy sex on the false pretext of "protecting" them, while positively encouraging actually harmful practices. This is another reason why this is such a morally charged topic for me.

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, Gally, you support the mainstream and I am saying that the mainstream is wrong. They are fighting a war on healthy sexuality, and just because they are winning and may well destroy me and my blog does not mean that it is proper to take their side.

I will fight to the bitter end stating what I believe is true and moral about sexuality.

Gally said...

I'm not necessarily 'supporting the mainstream', as you say, and I agree with you on several of your points, but in this day and time people who go against common perceptions on such strongly loaded issues, tend to not find much opportunity for expressing themselves or reaching an audience of relevance.

Case in point, Amos Yee who seems to have gone quite quiet lately.

You might end up having your girlfriend harassed too, so if you are willing to take that risk then perhaps your opinions mean more to you than they should. At the very least you might want to collect legal documents showing that your views are based on independent research, such as for cases just like the ones that you believe are harmless.

The law can very easily be used against people who don't know what it says or how it is practiced as a tool for harassment and silencing unpopular opinions.

Eivind Berge said...

We can now add another reason for supporting the female sex offender charade to my list:

- Telling the truth goes against the "public morals," which may result in unlimited censorship of your views to the point where you have no voice on the Internet or at all.

What a wonderful way to perpetuate a lie once it has been established. The system has built in a way to eradicate all dissent, then. It may well be that bad, but that is no moral reason to give in, or even a tactical reason. If I wanted to turn my ideology into something along the lines of NOMAP, I wouldn't bother with sexual politics at all because I am concerned with sending a real message here, not just calling the status quo by another name.

Eivind Berge said...

Here's a document supporting my point of view:

I haven't read the book, but just the text available there is enough to show how absurd the modern definition of sexual abuse is.

"The previous chapters of this book have clearly demonstrated that contemporary western definitions of child sexual abuse cannot be easily or unproblematically applied to past societies. They have shown the dangers of looking at abuse through the lens of early twenty-first-century understandings of this issue which imply a teleology in which contemporary ideas about appropriate adult—child relationships are imposed as ‘correct’ or ‘more enlightened’ on people in the past and which have a tendency to misinterpret, and even to demonize, their attitudes to children. One needs to go no further than the opening paragraph of Lloyd deMause’s A History of Childhood to argue for the importance of examining historical case studies which call into question such universalist and essentialist attempts to understand what is now commonly known as child sexual abuse. In a parallel way, social anthropology has recently begun to engage with issues of child sexual abuse, looking at how it is defined, and by whom, and how, as anthropologists, it is possible for us to distinguish between indigenous cultural practices, which may appear abusive to outsiders, but are not considered so internally to a community, and those which are acknowledged as aberrant. The most important lesson for an anthropologist looking at the previously discussed historical case studies in this book, is the necessity of analysing and understanding child sexual abuse within its specific local or historical contexts, as well as in the broader sense of the social values and hierarchical structures prevailing in the wider society at particular times."

What happened between the historical or anthropological view and our modern mainstream definition of "abuse"? Do you really think that psychologists built a rigorous and impartial case for defining it that way, Gally? And we are not even talking about that here, but whether it should apply equally to women. As far as I can tell, that was accepted by the justice system WITHOUT DEBATE or any kind of studies to credibly shed light on the matter, just because feminist dogma that the sexes are equal is so strong. So what we have is bullshit heaped on top of bullshit. You are wrong about the burden being on me here, Gally, just because a myth is now institutionalized as the "public morals."

Gally said...

Well, may we keep in mind that the word 'child' is used in the term 'child sexual abuse', to define everyone under the age of 18 in large parts of the western world?

Oh and I know exactly why the age of consent was raised from thirteen to sixteen, but I'm not having that debate now, some issues I am saving for my own future blog,

Feel free to browse a quick explanation on the background, though:

Eivind Berge said...

As I said, the female sex offender charade is bullshit heaped upon bullshit. The laws protecting female sexuality are themselves messed up beyond any reason, and then we are supposed to believe that they ought to apply equally to women and boys as well. When the mainstream can't even inject a little bit of sanity at the upper edges of that, pretending that 17-year-old boys are exactly the same as girls, then why should we respect them intellectually with regard to small boys either? Their pronouncements about prepubescent boys are equally dogmatic and could only be right by sheer accident rather than any honest empirical examination of the topic, which they haven't done.

Gally said...


Neither sexuality nor politics have ever, nor will never, be about rationality.

And especially not about the scientific method's requirements for empiricism.

So, if you are trying to win such a battle of opinions, you will have to appeal to something other than merely pointing out flaws in other's logic. And especially, you will need to study the underlying cognitive, moral, and cooperative motivations for other's ethical and practical attitudes.

Which I have begun doing, by the by. And it is quite challenging, especially when people don't want to look bad by losing face. Or an argument. Or am willing to concede that the opposing arguments may have some merit to them.

Eivind Berge said...

Well, I don't see your strategy making any headway either. So far you have only managed to antagonize the mainstream into using you as precedent for even harsher sex crime punishments. So what exactly you think you are appealing to, I don't know. There is no victory in agreeing with your enemies, and though it should logically lead to more lenient treatment, they don't even appear to notice in your case.

Gally said...

My strategy is long term.

And so far two of the lawyers employed at the arguably best law-firm in my city of birth, both have an impression of me as a reasonable, kind, self-controlled and well-spoken person of integrity.
And their boss has decided to handle my appeal himself, because he understands that I mean well and that I am neither stupid nor a liar.

And I currently have two complaints against the Norwegian press under way, one which is so simple that I flat out butcher the editor at the local newsrag with logic and precision the likes of which simply cannot be argued against.

And I have succeeded in making people in both local police stations and the county-administration underestimate me greatly to the point of making fatal mistakes such as attempting to apply laws that have officially been put out of force over 25 years ago.

So my appeal is not only to reason, but to faith, hope, and yes, also love.

I believe I can contribute to changing the world to the better, but I don't see how that is achievable by merely disagreeing with other people.

You need to learn your enemies, and in order to do so, you need to learn to lose to them.

To quote Sun Tzu, and my apologies for the cheesy youtube video but it has some additional good nuggets of advice in there except for just Sun Tzu:

In brief, though:
Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

Anonymous said...

You really would consider a female relative or a girlfriend a "hero" if she had been having sex with 14-year-olds? Often these women are married, sometimes they are having sex with multiple boys at once. It's like if a woman had sex with a dog, I don't care if the dog enjoyed it or if internet commentators like the idea. Perhaps "abuse" is being misapplied, but that's because society is too "advanced" to punish degeneracy as defined by a higher power.

Eivind Berge said...

I respect that you can see it from other perspectives that also make sense. If you are trying to have a respectable family and your wife has sex with a 14-year-old boy, that may not the greatest thing for you. It still is for the boy though, and the cruelty and insanity of society treating it as "abuse" is so heartbreaking that I feel we need to stand up for these women to the utmost. I also don't think we should go back to punishing adultery. That should be a personal matter that the law stays out of. Unfortunately, society didn't advance past that, but instead descended into an unprecedented "abuse" charade that we would, indeed, be better off replacing with the old morality-based laws if we can't have them be based on rationality.

It is becoming clear that the old conceptions of degeneracy as defined by a higher power had a lot more going for them than we care to admit, and we abandon them at our peril because the alternatives can easily be much worse. Jordan Peterson does the best job of pointing this out at the moment, though he doesn't focus as much on the sex laws as he should and perhaps he is partially brainwashed by them himself. One thing he does mention often, however, is that females are more vulnerable to sex than males, and it follows from that that you can't fairly treat female sex offenders the same. He even says that females begin to be vulnerable to sex at puberty. Note the wording, BEGIN! Prepubescent children are actually less vulnerable to sexual abuse if we are to be honest about it, which is what evolutionary psychology predicts as well. The extreme hysteria surrounding this is a projection from the parents.

Anonymous said...

You remember when theantifeminist warned people "MAP" or "hephebophile" like Gary that they were no more than feminists with sheepskin? You only have to read their comments.

"Regardless of their age-difference"

The age difference is irrelevant. If we take age as relevant, then it is the age of the person himself, not the age difference with the other person.

"How can you argue such an aberration from established ethical norms"

Honest and true people care about the established norms of your unnatural society between zero and nothing.

"many sexual offenders who act out their attraction to minors do"

Attraction to minors does not exist, or exists same as exist attraction to Chinese citizens, illegal aliens or other bureaucratic concepts. There is the attraction to biological children or biological adults whether young, mature or old.

"we mature and what was seen as okay in the past, can take on a different perception as we gain experience and put more pieces together.
For this reason alone, there should be an age of consent."

No, there should not be, and by that "argument" even less, if we pay attention to such nonsense there should be prohibited sex with girls aged 18 and 20 because at that age still have to mature even more. Only a neutered man, a homosexual or a blue-haired feminist lesbian can suggest such madness that attempts against everything for which we exist.

"People sometimes regret giving consent"

Consent is given or not given ipso facto, cannot be withdrawn (or given) after 5 months or 5 years, can you imagine someone withdrawing consent in the middle of an medical operation, or after 5 years? "hey doctor I regret giving my consent 5 years ago so I'm going to denounce you". What you expose is both a moral as well as a legal aberration.

"it is not fair to risk that a young person who has not sufficiently developed his pre-frontal cortex to the point of understanding risks and consequences, should bear the responsibility of giving consent."

The latest studies "show" that the prefrontal lobe does not develop until the age of 25.

Other more honest studies ( show that the brain is fully formed since the age of 13 and if you do not leave a young person the responsibility to consent or will not, they will become an imbecile and incapable adult, ie 99% of current modern humans. And our instinct asks us to continue our species, not to extinguish it, as you will understand, that is why we cannot pay attention to these feminist madnesses.

"if you are trying to win such a battle of opinions"

No one using reason wants to win an opinion battle with an oppressor, there is nothing to dialogue (or win) with tyrants and criminals like your "mainstrean" system. The system wants to exterminate us for being heterosexual men. They won't stop until they finish us all.

"I'm not having that debate now, some issues I am saving for my own future blog,"

If you don't want to debate don't come to a debate blog.

Anyway why do you want to name your blog with something non-existent? Hebephilia does not exist, I advise you to stop believing in unfounded absurdities and go beyond pseudoscience and start basing your statements on logic.

Gally said...

Ok, thanks for your comments.

I'm done with this discussion, have fun bickering and whining among yourselves as a replacement for handling your mental and social issues.

Gally said...

Oh and in case you brave intarweb keyboard warriors just didn't get it, my goal isn't 'acceptance' or even the lowering of punishment.

In your eagerness to only see your side of issues and unwillingness to compromise, you completely misunderstand and misrepresent me to the point of it being unintelligible.

You forget the most important aspect of somebody who understands what love is, and wants to care for others: Helping encourage the introduction of a demonstrated effective prevention program, so that sexual abuse of minors can be greatly reduced.

And with proper substitutes and therapy, perhaps even almost eliminated.

But you don't think about the greater good for others, because you are shut in loners with issues that nobody but you weirdoes sympathizes with, and fail to think of the benefit to others when one is willing to work not just for petty bullshit issues, but for the greater good of society as a whole.

In brief, try to get out more, eat healthy, and try to find somebody who genuinely cares about you. And get help, even if you have to get it for free from talking to a priest or something.

Eivind Berge said...

It is all well and good to want to reduce sexual abuse of minors, but you need to get your definitions straight first. Let us not forget that some of the nastiest people in world ostensibly work for that goal, but their definitions and methods are so messed up that they become a force for pure evil. How to define abuse is NOT a petty bullshit issue; it is at least as central as the kind of remedies you support. I have no doubt that you mean well on that latter part, Gally, but you can't be said to be working for the greater good of society as a whole unless you are willing to tackle the definitions as well.

Anonymous said...

Faktisk forstår jeg ikke hvorfor "pre-frontal cortex" og kognitive evner i øvrigt skulle overhovedet have noget at gøre med muligheden for at ønske og nyde seksuelt samkvem. Det er som om udøvelsen af seksualitet, i stedet for at bygge på basale naturlige instinkter, skulle kræve løsning af differentialligninger. Hvis seksuelt samkvem krævede kognitive evner, så ville væsener som kalkuner, krebser og andre nærmest hjerneløse skabninger have et problem med at opfylde deres ægteskabelige pligter! [sorry, det er svært for mig at udtrykke disse begreber på engelsk]

Eivind Berge said...

Minor-attracted females should be warned of the risks, but we should never go along with the charade that they are ACTUALLY abusers if they act on their desires. Our advice should take the same tone that we would have used to warn women about how to avoid accusations of witchcraft 500 years ago, because that's exactly as devoid of meaning (and almost as dangerous) the female sex offender charade is today. The same goes for a lot of the accusations against men, obviously, but it is especially poignant for women that they are not in fact abusers and we need to stress this.

Gally said...

We live in a time of information sharing; where corruption and incompetence of police and authorities and politicians are constantly exposed.

They have a need for 'Usefull Jews', and they are never going to back down on claiming the moral higher ground simply because they have nothing left to fall back on to legitimize their 'representative democracy' which does not represent the people's interests at all.

In addition the middle-class is getting reduced to serfhood and the rich are getting richer whilst income disparity increases and the planet is dying from overpopulation and -exploitation and the economic growth shifts from 4% a year to below 1% and humanity as a whole is losing their human rights and deselection instincts are triggered all over the place and nobody seems to have the wherewithal to understand that we are headed straight to third world war.

In amongst all of this, do you really think people care about definitions of words such as chronophilic paraphilias like nepiophilia, pedophila, hebephilia, ephebophilia, teleiophilia and gerontophilia?

Heck, many spelling programs don't even recognize 'misandry' as a word.

So if you want to use some favourite pet peeve of yours to be pissing against the wind, be my guest, but more educated and influential people than you have tried before and if you neglect to cooperate and find a solution that more than 0.01% of humanity agrees with you on, then you are effectively wasting time that you could spend better on reading books.

In fact I think you should try reducing your oh so cherished internet-posting career and start gaining some real knowledge instead of attempting to achieve internet-fame or winning arguments.

Just my two cents though, oh and for the record: The bitcoin trade is going to become regulated and it is traceable so everybody involved in that should maybe save up some money becomes the state is now so desperate for tax-payer's money that they will stop at nothing to preserve their dysfunctional pet-peeve little turfdoms of shitty institutions and departments and organisations.

Now if you will excuse me, I have to complaints against the police for violence and unlawful arrest to write, two against lawyers, two against judges and two against media, one against the county and I need to apply for a number of things, but I have started and there is nothing stopping me because I don't just work for myself, I work for the betterment of people who I care about and that just so happens to be minors so go right ahead and look down upon me and trash-talk me for that too.

Gally said...

'Faktisk forstår jeg ikke hvorfor "pre-frontal cortex" og kognitive evner i øvrigt skulle overhovedet have noget at gøre med muligheden for at ønske og nyde seksuelt samkvem.'

It doesn't, that's a made-up reason after the fact that people exploit eachother and that includes trading money for sex - or simply pressuring them.

We wouldn't need half the laws we have (or any military) if people simply were considerate of one another and practiced equality; but guess what - we don't.

Eivind Berge said...

Gally, pressuring others into sex is not a uniquely human phenomenon, and adaptations in response to that have occurred long before our prefrontal cortex reached its present size. So sorry, that explanation doesn't cut it, to say nothing of the fact that we are mostly talking about sex that is isn't pressured or paid for.

Gally said...

Yeah, well problem is how can you tell - when, you yourself, started this debate by arguing that people make up claims about exploitation?

Age of Consent is merely a legal construct to avoid the law having to spend time on figuring out which is lying - which is difficult enough in rape-accusations that you yourself have spent considerable time pointing it out.

What is a uniquely human phenomenon though, is that we have laws. Some of which are admittedly stupid, but the current psychological (mal)-practice of for example developmental psychology has been said to back-trail establish academic knowledge by over a decade; and laws about sexuality are now currently approaching 150 years of being 'over-simplified'.

Finally, 'adaptations in response' to something that is wrong does not make it right. Nor do everybody 'adapt' the same way. Reanna 'Tara' Huskey for example, who I have spoken to and defended personally, did not respond so well to getting a dick and massive dildos up her arsehole from she was four 'till the FBI finally found her at nine.

She is now a massive slut and has serious problems with other people hunting her down and bullying her by amongst congratulating her on her cock-sucking prowess and willingness to go arse to mouth on a dick. Not to mention having to live with knowing that tens of millions of people jerk it to her abuse (which was really horrible).

So yeah. Life isn't so simple as to merely lay down some definitions, try and change terminology, apply logic and wash your hands of the consequences that arise and simply repeat yourself ad nauseam.

Eivind Berge said...

It would be pointless to argue that we shouldn't have laws at all. However, I am not willing to accept overbroad laws that are justified the way you do just so you can catch some abuse at the expense of criminalizing large swathes of human sexuality. Age of consent is one such insanely overapplied concept. Unless perhaps you side with the most liberal countries and agree that our laws at least need to be brought into line with those. For example, in Germany it is 14, and then minors have some extra protection against "vulnerable" situations until they are 18, but charges need to be pressed by the victim herself and not the state as in most other countries. But you don't even seem to be willing to do that. Your cozy attitude to the sex laws no matter how bad they are is extremely disturbing.

Gally said...

No, you are correct on those points.
Which have also been brought up by others, such as Gunnar Roland Tjomlid who have written extensively on these matters.

Overly broad laws are unfortunately in vogue with the criminal 'justice' system of today, who has reduced the queue down for serving prison time from 5000 (out of a population of 5.3 million) down to minus 300. Already the prisons have begun complaining that they aren't full enough to run as 'cost efficiently' as they wish.

Oh and there have been put up new tool-booth stations on the roads which can do number-plate recognition as well as passenger facial recognition and can build up patterns of the travel of individuals, and the police have been given expanded powers for hidden surveillance to the point where they on May the of 2017 carried out an un-authorized full-scale TEMPEST-attack and read the keypresses of all keyboards in the entire center of the city within a radius of hundreds of meters, just to get to my email-account.
They forgot that it is protonmail though, which allows you to log login-attempts (and failures).
They collected so much data it took them three hours and four attempts.

Welcome to a future where the police rules over new legislation AND decides which ones to persecute, and as you say: 'Overbroad' laws.

On the topic of my personal opinion, I believe age of consent should start at 13 which is when you are no longer a child but a teenager, especially in light of the fact that average nutritional quality has brought the age of first menarche down by seven entire years since it got raised to 16.

So we are much in agreement then, and thank you for taking the time to clarify and discuss these issues.

Anonymous said...


Alle disse klagene og anmeldelsene dine kommer du ingen vei med. Det kan alle som noen gang har vært i kontakt med politi, påtalemyndighet og rettsvesenet og deres klageorganer fortelle deg.

At du får en advokat til å ta saken din betyr ikke at du er en spesielt fin eller smart person. Advokater tar alle saker så fremt de har tid og det ikke foreligger noen inhabilitet. Selv Elden som er veldig kjent, tar en rekke småsaker rundt omkring i landet. Det betyr ikke at det er noe ekstraordinært ved deg.

Og legg ut dommen.

Gally said...


Det virker som om du er av oppfatning at det er noe 'ekstraordinært' med deg, siden du uttaler deg så skråsikkert om så mange ting, uten noe detaljert informasjon.

Det kan jeg nok ikke hjelpe deg med, men jeg kan betrygge deg om at jeg oppfatter deg så absolutt som et helt vanlig, litt bittert menneske. Med noe feilplasert selvsikkerhet, kjekleinteresse, og ikke minst vansker med å akseptere andre sine valg.

Hint: Det der er signaler som forteller kvinner at de ikke har noe å vinne ved å satse av sin tid på deg.

Og det gjør heller ikke jeg.

Jeg vil gjerne dele med deg - og andre - en inspirerende video som min mor delte med meg.

Oprah Winfrey | 5 Minutes For The NEXT 50 Years of Your LIFE

Og forøvrig: Norge har blitt felt på en rekke saker i Menneskerettighetsdomstolen i det siste, som gir grunnlag for håp.

Anonymous said...


En konstatering av at det har vært et brudd på menneskerettighetene er i henhold til vår høyeste rettsinstans en god nok reparasjon i seg selv. Så du har svært lite å vinne på å skulle påberope deg menneskerettighetsbrudd. Dette er jo ditt første møte med rettssystemet, så du er kanskje unnskyldt for at det er så lite du forstår. Du kommer til å sone lenge og det er absolutt ingenting du kan gjøre med det. Du har jo vært så dum at du har innrømmet skyld, så da kan ingen anke hjelpe deg. Du er like skyldig uansett og da hjelper det deg null og niks hvis politiet har brutt noen lover eller prosedyrer.

Eivind Berge said...

Det er fullt mulig å si at du har endret oppfatning om skyldspørsmålet i ankesaken, og nekte straffskyld. Jeg anbefaler Gally å gjøre dette, om ikke annet så for å få inn en politisk protest mot barnepornoloven.

Eivind Berge said...

Om jeg var Gally ville jeg sagt at jeg har kommet med i mannsbevegelsen siden sist, og blitt overbevist om at barneporno ikke er straffverdig. Derfor nekter jeg selvfølgelig straffskyld, samme hva loven sier, og appellerer til det lille vi har igjen av lekfolk i rettsystemet å gå mot loven.

Slik er du ærlig hele veien. Det er lov å endre mening, men problemet er vel at du fremdeles ikke innser at barneporno ikke burde vært straffbart å besitte. Selv om du skjønner at det faktisk fører til mindre "misbruk av barn" i virkeligheten, som ironisk nok henger sammen med grunnen til at vi mannlige seksualister anser pornografi og masturbasjon som en styggedom.

Gally said...

I'm confused.

Are you saying that you believe that your perception of what you see as an 'abuse' of definitions of words, are on par with the perceptions of young boys who have experienced unwanted sexual contact with grown women?

Eivind Berge said...

As I said, UNWANTED sexual contact can be abuse even from a woman, but isn't aggravated by the sexual aspect like the "public morals" and laws now will have us believe. They will have us believe that it was "sexual abuse" (with all the draconian punishments and sex offender registration etc. that go along with that concept) because he is an underage boy and she is a grown woman and whether he wants it or not. That perception is absurd, and LEADS TO much more abuse than it ostensibly protects against, if you can see more than children in the world (and children are not worth more than adults in my opinion!).

Perceptions about what words mean don't matter that much as long as they stay in your head, but the legal definitions of "sexual abuse" are profoundly important for obvious reasons, and those are what I, as an activist, am concerned about.

Eivind Berge said...

To talk about unwanted or forced sex with a woman is almost academic since nearly all cases you actually hear about only allege willing participation (before they apply the metaphysical nonsense "abuse" layer), but let me give an example to illustrate. Let's say a woman kidnapped a 10-year-old boy off the street and made him clean her toilet and do other chores for her against his will. Abuse, right? Now let's say she forced him to have sex and he literally didn't want to. I am arguing that this example is MORALLY EQUIVALENT to the first. Nothing is worse just because it is sex rather than other abuse! There would be plenty of punishment for both these cases just by using laws against kidnapping and simple assault etc. while ignoring the sexual aspect, and that is how what is now wrongly labelled female-perpetrated "sexual abuse" needs to be treated. We need to end the charade that it is worse just because it is sex, because that is a lie!

Anonymous said...

Gally dont get it.

Anonymous said...

Somebody ban gally i'm sick of this excuse for a man.

Gally said...

Aaaaand I believe that concludes my participation in debate with the Anonymous people here.

Though I am beginning to understand why they are claiming to be constantly banned themselves, from other sites.

Best of luck to them in finding partners and friends in real life who will appreciate and respect them.

Gally said...

Also, needless to say, I don't get how you can equate cleaning the toilet bowl with having sex, but to each their own I guess.

Although I would advice you got checked that out on the, because, well. We are all different and I respect that, but if you are lacking in agreeableness or empathy then it's a good thing to be aware of that otherwise it could lead to problems down the line.

Again, just my two cents and I am only a hobby-psychologist.

Eivind Berge said...

I am indeed lacking in agreeableness, which is a good thing. As Jordan Peterson keeps saying, high agreeableness is one major reason why especially women don't do well in their careers and sometimes personal lives, and one of the most common things he provided to his clients when he was a clinical psychologist was assertiveness training. This is almost up there with therapy for anxiety and phobias in terms of importance. And frankly, I would say you sorely need some assertiveness training yourself, because you can't even assert that you are not guilty when accused of a bullshit crime!

But you are dead wrong about empathy, because why on earth would I be an activist for legal reform if I didn't empathize with the victims! I just see more kinds of victims than you, and understand that so-called sexual abuse is incredibly less harmful than it is made out to be, so much so that it is a complete charade when applied to women. And you can't even see that you yourself is a victim, or empathize with that kind of victimization, unlike me.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't agree with the name calling against you from the anonymous posters here, Gally, but one thing is right: appealing to human rights violations and bad treatment by the press and such is likely to get you nowhere, especially when you admit guilt. I am only a hobby psychologist too, but this is a clear case of too high agreeableness as I see it, after listening to all those lectures by Jordan Peterson. You are letting yourself be bullied, in unnecessary ways, and can't seem to be able to assert any disagreements with your bullies that actually matter. It doesn't take much assertiveness to plead not guilty, especially when you are not coerced by a plea deal like in the US. I am not saying you would win, but it seems to me that the court would probably respect you more if you showed some spine, and at the very least you have nothing to lose.

Gally said...

I've been to about a dozen court hearings by now, which I believe is more than you, and I can assure you that your theory about 'showing spine' when the judge has already made up his mind, gets you nowhere but to the path towards inciting harsher punishments.

Do keep in mind that the only reason you were not sentenced was that the new laws hadn't come into effect as they had simply not been programmed into the police's computer systems at that time. Or you would have faced jailtime, so nothing you did actually helped you evade imprisonment.

For the rest of it, I feel we are returning to my strategies which is premature, and I'd rather discuss that personally than publically.

Eivind Berge said...

Then you don't understand my case, Gally. In my final trial which granted me compensation, Gulating lagmannsrett specifically addressed the issue of whether my utterances would have been criminal after the law reform which came into effect after I was released, and they say no. This is what is called an obiter dictum, as it wasn't the issue at hand, but it is still highly significant as these were indeed the same judges that I could have appealed to in a criminal trial as well. And they make it clear that I could have said the same things today and they would be legal!

You can read the verdict yourself here:

And by the way, it really is a good thing to publish court documents to clear things up. It is fine to be ignorant about my case, but then I suggest you don't make pronouncements that you don't understand. And if you don't understand this, then maybe you should show some humility to the views of those of us who have been through this process and even won. Maybe stop to wonder if there are some more things that you don't know? About your own case even?

Gally said...

Yes, quite good, quite good.

I prefer the sung version of the 'Navy Seals Copypasta' bettar, though:

Gally said...

Oh and by the by, I understand that my case is interesting to you all, but I do prefer to take things in my own tempo - and also do them my way. Which is my prerogative, after all.

And 311 is a bit more complex than most other paragraphs - as is the entire issue, which raises some very interesting legal questions that I would gladly return to in a debate.

In fact I may just give my two cents in the near future, if Aftenposten grants me a response-article to this one:

Apart from that, I'll try and confer with my lawyer whether I should post a link to the verdict and the appeal, this Wednesday. So hang in there little kitties!

Anonymous said...


"I've been to about a dozen court hearings by now"

Du kan klage så mye du vil om hvor dårlig politiet behandler deg eller benytter ulovlige metoder for å avsløre deg, eller hva det nå det er du egentlig vil frem til med alle disse alt for lange tekstene dine. Det eneste du teoretisk sett vil kunne oppnå, er at politidistriktet som etterforsket saken mot deg blir ilagt en bot eller får kritikk. Det samme gjelder dine klager på media. For din egen sak og deg selv, vil det ikke bety noe som helst. Du kommer til å bli dømt uansett og da spesielt siden du har vært så imbesil og tilstått og erkjent straffeskyld for dine handlinger.

Denne bitterheten som du utviser her inne nå i det siste er jeg ikke i tvil om handler om det at Eivind har kritisert det som er dine absolutte hovedinteresser i livet, nemlig runking og porno. Du har jo til og med sagt flere ganger at porno er bra fordi det kan få menn til å unngå ekte sex, hvilket er omtrent det motsatte av hva vår bevegelse med Eivind Berge i spissen står for.

Gally said...

Tja, nå er det jo slik at omtrent en fjerdedel-tredjedel av alle menn her i Norge aldri får barn, og vi kan anta at det betyr at det er mange menn som har vansker med å finne seg en partner.
Og utviklingen går bare i den retning at 'attraktive' menn blir såkalt 'resirkulert', og en god del menn opplever skilsmisser hvor de mister mye.

Så der har du realiteten, og hvis du ønsker å gjøre noe med det så ser jeg ingen annen utvei enn å nekte kvinner utdannelse og ansettelse. Eventuelt legalisere prostitusjon og eksempelvis sponse sex-reiser til lavkost-land.

Hvis det er hva 'deres' bevegelse - som om 'dere' (du) skulle ha monopol på forståelsen av hva menn sine rettigheter og sex-positivitet handler om - så kan ihvertfall du ta dine påstander om 'bitterhet' og tenke deg om både en og to ganger om kanskje du med fordel kunne blitt bedre på konsekvensanalyser.

Beklager om det blir for langt for deg, så jeg avslutter bare med å presisere at jeg vil tro at samme hvor lite intellektuel eller gjennomtenkt du er sent på kvelden, så ser du antagelig at masturbasjon er bedre enn 'ekte' sex, som du velger å kalle det, for mennesker som har vansker med å finne seg en partner innen lovens rammer.

Til opplysning hadde grekerne tretten forskjellige ord for mannlig masturbasjon, og som et siste innspill: Jeg hører ingen av 'dere' snakke om å forby sexleketøy for kvinner eller snakke om at de skulle slutte å bruke vibratorer og dildoer for at 'dere' skal få det lettere å skaffe dere kvinner som med all tydelighet av det jeg leser av deres poster her inne, har meget gode grunner til ikke å ønske å ha noe med 'dere' å gjøre.

Oh and BTW: Filipinene har nå nettopp opplevd total rasering av ris-avlingene og enorme ødeleggelser, og skal du ha deg ei dame så vil det være enklere for deg å kontakte et seriøst ekteskapsbyrå og jobbe litt med hvordan du selv fremstår, enn å tro at å legge pikken ifra deg automagisk får damer til å sverme etter deg.

Gally said...

Og ja, min hovedinteresse i livet er å tilegne meg kunnskap og jeg må derfor skrive ut fire sider per ark for å spare papir og toner når jeg samler på artikler, og jeg leste 7700 sider under fire måneder i varetekt og er på min andre mastergrad.

Så jeg vil ikke tro det er jeg som er 'bitter', tvert imot projiserer du, det er du som er teit og jeg som er smart og jeg forstår utmerket godt at livet ikke alltid er rettferdig.

Men det betyr ikke at man bare skal gi opp. I det minste kan man skaffe seg god erfaring og samfunns-forståelse av det hele. Og det er behov for oppegående, samfunnsoppdaterte, teknisk kompetente sakkyndige vitner med rettspolitisk forståelse i saker om datakriminalitet.

Gally said...

Dessuten er det morsomt å fortelle avsnittsleder for personsaker ved den lokale politistasjonen når han forsøker å ta tak i meg muntlig for å manipulere meg inn til avhør: 'Du, nå har jeg sagt til deg TRE ganger at jeg går ikke i avhør (verken uten skriftlig innkallelse basert på at det er tatt ut tiltale) uten etter samråd med min advokat. Skal jeg si det til deg en fjerde gang, eller trenger jeg å skrive det ned for deg?!'

Samt morsomt med nyutdannede, unge politibetjenter som møter opp på døra med maskingevær for å kun forkynne en midlertidig forføyning fra kommunen, og som benytter anledningen til å foreta ulovlig ransakelse av kåken og romstrerer oppi esken min med sex-leketøy og tror de kan vippe meg av pinnen. 'Ha en fin dag folkens, prøv å ikke skyte noen! Ja, du også!'
Nice comeback there.

Anonymous said...


Forsvareren din er ikke din personlige rådgiver slik du later til å tro. Om du skal legge ut dommen og ankeskrivet er i grunnen utenfor forsvarsadvokaten din sitt mandat. Mulig han har en mening om det, spesielt ankeskrivet som han/hun jo har skrevet, men utover det tror jeg vedkommende stiller seg helt likegyldig til om du legger ut dommen eller ikke. Din forsvarer ønsker å gi råd rundt spørsmål som staten betaler vedkommende for å gi råd i, hvilket er fengsling, forsvar i forbindelse med tiltale samt i politiavhør. Du kan altså ikke forvente at din forsvarer skal ha noen mening i spørsmålet om du skal legge ut dommen eller ikke.

Jeg selv har hatt nok av kvinner i mitt liv og har null problemer med å tiltrekke meg kvinner. Jeg har imidlertid blitt skikkelig dolket i ryggen av noen av dem ved en rekke anledninger og da godt hjulpet av overivrige feminist sympatisører.

At grekerne angivelig har hatt flere ord for mannlig masturbasjon har Eivind allerede besvart deg på, men jeg vil legge til at Grekerne ikke hadde tilgang til en enorm strøm av grov pornografi ved enkelt tastetrykk(noe du jo vet bedre enn de fleste), så den sammenligningen din er totalt på jordet.

Anonymous said...


Hvorfor utelater du å fortelle at årsaken til at politiet rykket ut bevæpnet for å pågripe deg var at du angivelig skal ha truet naboen din med kniv?

Du er sannsynligvis en gal mann som er alt for glad i å runke og vi i denne bevegelsen ønsker på ingen måte å bli satt i bås med patetiske runke-menn som deg!

Gally said...

Sandnesposten sin artikkel har blitt klaget inn til PFU.
Anklagen ifra min nabo ble henlagt dagen etterpå.
Hva gjelder han, har jeg punktvis anmerket i mitt tilsvar til Sandnesposten sitt svar på klagen til PFU, anført:
...unnlater de å informere om at min nærmeste nabo, for å ta det punktvis:
1. Er diagnostisert bipolar
2. Har vært leder for lokalpartiet ‘Venstre’ inntil han ble vedtatt fullstendig mistillit mot og hele lokalpartiet kollapset som følge
3. Har gjeldsordning da han i en økonomisk sak har blitt regnet som strafferettslig utilregnelig
4. Har diverse angstvansker og annet av psykiske og helsemessige utfordringer, så som kols
5. Har fritidsproblemer, og et oppmerksomhetsbehov som jeg aldri har observert hos andre
6. Begår diverse lysskye aktiviteter som heleri av mobiltelefoner (som førte til at dama hans gikk ifra ham), og har trakassert min mor etter å ha havnet i grøfta på mopeden sin i fylla (mannen er 48 år gammel og kjører moped i beruset tilstand) med krav om at vi skulle betale for det som helt klart er karosseriskraper av utforkjørsel
7. Har fem barn med antagelig like mange mødre hvorav kun en av dem gidder å ha noe med ham å gjøre, og ingen av dem lar barnebarna besøke ham eller være til hans tilsyn alene

Jeg kunne lagt til flere punkter. Men, ikke alt er av interesse i den sammenhengen, for PFU.

Politiet kommer også til å bli sendt inn opp til flere klager på, blant annet for to tilfeller av bruk av vold så kraftig at ambulansen måtte sette en sprøyte smertestillende i meg på glattcella for at jeg i det hele tatt skulle klare å snu meg om på ryggen, og de måtte være to om å reise meg opp for å se om jeg klarte å gå.

Hva gjelder deres 'bevegelse', virker den som for det meste å bestå av bitre menn med diverse psykiske vansker, som lider av samme problem som klimafornektere: De er litt for lite intelligente til å forstå hvor tankene deres kommer ifra og hva som motiverer dem, og tar ikke inn over seg andre sine argumenter.

Jeg har derfor besluttet å ikke ønske å assosiere meg med dere.

Noen mennesker kan man ikke hjelpe, og det er faktisk slik at hvis man omgås mennesker som har litt for snevre og sære interesser, så har man ikke noe utbytte av det i lengden, men blir bare understimulert av dem.

Lykke til videre, og jeg håper dere klarer å skrive gode nok artikkler om deres synspunkter til at en avis gidder å trykke dem. Eventuelt at dere oppsøker den hjelpen dere måtte vurdere at hadde gagnet dere.

Gally said...

Og, beklager at dette kom i omvendt rekkefølge, men her er min klage til PFU (oppdelt da grensen er 4096 tegn):

‘Jeg, en pedofil knivdesperado? J’accuse...!’

Ifølge regler for god presseskikk har man krav på å komme med tilsvar til påstander som blir publisert om sin person, og det benytter jeg meg herved av da Sandnesposten nå med sin siste artikkel har gått for langt – og er anklaget inn for Pressens Faglige Utvalg for brudd på ‘Vær Varsom’-plakaten samt retningslinjene i PFU sine prinsipputtalelser.
Tanken slår meg at dette er ukjent for den typen journalister som jobber for ei slik ´bygdablekke’, men nå blir de ihvertfall av PFU informert om at presseetiske regler eksisterer, og får anledning til å forklare seg for sine brudd blant annet på omtale av kriminalsaker. Sandnesposten har nemlig formidlet krenkende og feilaktige påstander, som om de var beviselige fakta.

Sandnesposten påstår at jeg er en ‘Åpen pedofil’.
Det stemmer ikke, og dette er dermed injurierende samt dypt ærekrenkende.
I korthet er pedofili i Norge regnet som en diagnostiserbar seksuell parafilisk forstyrrelse – sagt helt enkelt, under et knippe kriterier som må oppfylles (og kan måles), mennesker med pedofilsk forstyrrelse feilkobler omsorgs-instinktet til barn – som de fleste mennesker har - med en seksuell tiltrekning i tillegg. Det må nevnes at det er ikke dermed gitt at man er farlig eller har andre psykiske utfordringer (eller nedsatt intelligens), og faktisk har man nå i femte utgave av diagnosemanualen for Den Amerikanske Foreningen for Psykiatere, klart satt et skille mellom pedofili som en parafili (et tankebasert tenningsmønster tilnærmet sammenlignbart med en seksuell legning) og pedofili som en mental forstyrrelse.
Dette har sammenheng med at man ønsker å gjøre psykiatrien mer forskningsbasert og empirisk, og gå bort ifra kultur-basert moralistisk patologisering – eksempelvis har halvparten av menneskeheten voldtekts- og draps-fantasier fra tid til annen, uten at vi alle er verken voldtektsforbrytere eller drapsmenn.

Dette er ting som for lekfolk er ukjent, men basert på nå tretten års erfaring med å behandle pedofile i det tyske ‘Prevention Project Dunkelfeld’, så er det altså publisert dokumenterbare resultater fra behandling. Tyskland er unikt i denne sammenheng fordi der har man ikke meldeplikt, men omvendt: Man har meldeFORBUD og står i alvorlig fare for å miste lisensen til å praktisere som helsearbeider om man melder tidligere begåtte, selvrapporterte overgrep til politiet. Terskelen for å rapportere en person som ikke er mottagelig for behandling, er derfor ekstremt høy.
Av denne grunn oppnår de også unike resultater – det kommer mennesker til dem frivillig for å få gratis behandling, som er ukjente for politiet, OG de klarer da det politiet ikke kan: Få barn ut av situasjoner som de ikke bør være i, FØR det har gått årevis med misbruk og barnet selv har blitt gammelt nok til å si det til noen.

Dette i skarp kontrast til Norge sin totale uansvarlighet hvor man gjør ingenting utover å skru opp straffene hardere og hardere etter kadaverdisiplin-prinsippet om at stor herlig straff (som påfører skade for livet) er fornuftig. Det er bare det at for det første så bruker de av samfunnets midler på å påføre folk alvorlige sosiale dysfunksjoner som oppstår av fengselsstraff, ETTER at noe galt har skjedd OG det har blitt avslørt, heller enn å forebygge i forkant og dermed spare barn for overgrep.
Over 90% av de innsatte i norske fengsler har dyssossiale personlighetsforstyrrelser, og sedelighetsdømte er antagelig de som har det vondest. Det har blitt sagt at det er ingen ting som bryter ned den menneskelige ånd kjappere enn dårlig behandling, og mange som kommer ut lider av psykoser resten av livet. Dette risikerer å gjøre dem ustabile, uberegnelige, og direkte farlige.

Gally said...

Del to:

Men viktigst i denne sammenheng er hensynet til barna: Man kan ikke legge alt av ansvar for å forhindre overgrep på barna selv, ved å fortelle barna at det er de som må varsle, spesielt ikke når barnet er glad i overgriperen og forstår at politiet kun kan ødelegge andre mennesker med fengsel, aldri hjelpe dem med noe som helst.
I den forbindelse kan det også nevnes at i USA som har de strengeste straffene, er det 13 ganger så mange barn som dør av mishandling, som i Tyskland. Ønsker vi virkelig å kopiere det amerikanske straffesystemet?

Sandnesposten bedriver forhåndsdømming i media.
De påstår at jeg skal sone, når dommen tross alt er anket. En ting er å være journalist og finne seg en saftig sak, en annen ting er å tro at man kan tre inn i rollen som dommer, jury og bøddel bare fordi man får saken sin på trykk. Den slags type rolleblanding kan pressen i Norge faktisk ikke tillate; og det er nettopp derfor vi har Pressens Faglige Utvalg.

Men den største forkludringen ved saken, er at det blir presentert som at politiet kom tungt bevæpnet for å pågripe meg på torsdag den 19.07. Det er fullstendig feil, de kom utelukkende på ærend for Boligtjenesten for å levere et brev, og innhente min signatur på at jeg hadde lest det.
Det kan i den sammenheng bli interessant å finne ut av hvem kildene til denne artikkelen i Sandnesposten er, for kildekritisk sans og faktasjekk finnes det ikke spor av i denne artikkelen.
Eksempelvis ble påstanden om trussel med kniv henlagt dagen etter det ble påstått, den 18.07, og artikkelen ble publisert den 20.07.

Selv har jeg mer interesse av å bruke av min tid for å bidra til å opprette et hjelpetilbud for spesielt unge pedofile, enn å krangle med eldre mennesker i aksellererende forfall med så alvorlige psykiatriske diagnoser at de har blitt vurdert som ikke strafferettslig tilregnelige, eller nyutdannede journalister som ikke har interesse av eller evne til å sette seg inn i ansvarlig nyhetsformidling.

Det er nemlig slik at når samfunnet ikke tilbyr unge pedofile hjelp – og mange av dem vet at de er pedofile allerede i puberteten – men kun insisterer på at alle pedofile er overgripere, da er det en del unge pedofile som tror på det og velger å begå selvmord. Det er fullstendig unødvendig all den tid de aller aller fleste mennesker som begår overgrep mot barn ikke er pedofile, men bare drittsekker, og det overveldende flertallet av pedofile forstår at overgrep er galt og skader derfor aldri noen.
Blant suksessfulle hjelpeprogrammer som eksisterer er blant annet Prevention Project Dunkelfeld i Tyskland, og prøveprosjektet Priotab i Sverige, og jeg mener at Norge kunne med fordel øket sin kompetanse innen dette området, og erkjent at det er faktisk ikke typisk norsk å være god, det er bare typisk norsk å være selvgod.

Som Emma Claire Gabrielsen så treffende demonstrerer, da hun i avslutningen på ‘dokumentar’-serien ‘Innafor’ hvor hun intervjuver pedofile og hebefile, sier: ‘Vi VIL IKKE forstå dem’.
Ingen har noensinne løst et eneste problem her i denne verden, ved å nekte å forstå det.
Tvert imot, har det blitt sagt om Renessanse-perioden, at den startet med de tre ordene: ‘Jeg vet ikke’. Og, at ingen konge, prest, dommer, politibetjent, politiker eller person som har blitt født rik og aldri tatt noen utdannelse av betydning, har noensinne hatt noen som helst interesse av å innrømme sin manglende kunnskap og forståelse, ei heller innsett sin egen grad av ignoranse og inkompetanse.

Eller erkjent at de kun gjør vondt verre.

Anonymous said...


Ja for PFU er det kjemperelevant å vite hvilke "hjelpeprogrammer" som finnes. For en klovn du er. Selvfølgelig er ikke det relevant i denne sammenheng.

Avisen skrev at politiet rykket ut etter melding om knivtrusler. Dette er en 100% korrekt gjengivelse av faktum. Avisen skriver ikke at du har knivtruet noen, derimot at noen har meldt i fra om knivtrusler.

Konklusjonen er at klagen din ikke når opp til realitetsbehandling, idet forholdene i klagen ikke synes rette seg mot det mediet du anklager for å ha brutt god presseskikk.

Anonymous said...


"Men viktigst i denne sammenheng er hensynet til barna"

Du er latterlig, Gally.

Anonymous said...


Du mener altså at Sandnesposten plikter å opplyse om at melder i knivtrusselsaken mot deg var bipolar og eventuelt hvilke andre sykdommer vedkommende måtte ha? Dette i tillegg til hvor mange barn han har og at- og på hvilken måte han har vært tilknyttet til lokalpolitikken hvilket ville gjøre han lett identifiserbar for mange? Jeg kan garantere deg at om avisen hadde fulgt din idiotiske anbefaling, så hadde avisen blitt felt i PFU uten tvil. Dette i motsetning til din egne grunnløse klage.

Eivind Berge said...

Gally, du antok uten grunn at jeg ville blitt straffet om bare loven var oppdatert. Du innrømmer selv skyld for å gjøre det ekstra lett å bli dømt selv. Merkelig nok samtidig som du sloss med politiet eller opptrer på en måte som gjør at de bruker ekstrem makt mot deg. Jeg føler med deg hvis du er offer for politivold, men det virker som du oppfører deg ustabilt (for mye å drikke, kanskje?) samtidig som du ikke makter å benytte deg av den grunnleggende rettigheten du har som siktet til å la være å inkriminere deg selv. Mener du at det er så viktig å straffe folk for barneporno at du må gjøre jobben for politiet med å bygge en sak mot deg? Da har du ganske riktig kanskje ikke noe i mannsbevegelsen å gjøre. Jeg hadde håpet du ville lære litt av oss, men det virker som du står fast på både den feministvennlige politikken og juridisk selvskading. Da er det ikke rart du blir dømt også, og alle klagene du jobber med kan ikke endre på den saken.

Gally said...

Vi er ferdige her.

Jeg er ikke en tyggeleke for tisper, og hva Eivind angår så har han brutt vår gentle-man's agreement-avtale om deling av utbytte fra bitcoin-trading, så jeg anser ikke ham som en mann når han ikke kan holde sitt ord.

Dere andre anser jeg som underutviklede, kjeklete unger som pisser hverandre opp etter leggen, og dere har ikke fullt ut innblikk i saken. Det er ikke min plikt å gi dere det heller. Utover at jeg kan opplyse om at PFU på eget initiativ pekte ut hvilke punkter for Vær Varsom-plakaten de kom til å realitetsbehandle, så mine kommentarer trengte ikke å addresssere punktene.

Jeg vil konkludere med hva Harald Eia sa til Eivind Berge da han deltok i debatt på NRK: 'Men, det er ikke staten sin oppgave å skaffe deg en ektefelle'.

Og å kalle seg 'sex-positiv' mens man samtidig er imot masturbasjon, samt å hevde at gutter ikke kan bli begått seksuelle overgrep mot?

Eivind burde ha tatt imot rådet ifra foreldrene sine om å blitt psykiatrisk utredet. Da hadde han hatt et håp om å ha fått uføretrygd idag, men nå er det for sent fordi staten strammer hele greia inn, og han har heller ikke tatt imot mitt råd om å diversifisere sine investeringer og bitcoin går addundas og han går kun økonomisk ruin og psykisk sammenbrudd i møte.

The end.

Eivind Berge said...

Jeg har ikke hatt noe utbytte som går an å betale ut, og jeg har betalt deg tilbake det du har investert. Først måtte jeg ha klart å dekke helt nødvendige utgifter til livsopphold selv, og det gikk ikke i den lille tiden jeg hadde pengene til å handle med. Prøv selv og se hvor langt du kommer. Nå må jeg handle med 0% margin bare for å få kjøpt bitcoin. Og så kan jeg selge for et par prosent fortjeneste hvis ikke kursen faller i mellomtiden, noe den har gjort ganske mye i det siste.

Du holdt ikke ord om å la meg beholde pengene lenge nok til at jeg kanskje kunne fått det til å gå rundt uansett. Og det var bare 10 000 kroner, så hvor mye hadde du forventet på kun noen måneder?

Eivind Berge said...

Du mener jeg skulle latet som jeg var syk for å få uføretrygd? Snakk om selvskading... Jeg kan heller ikke diversifisere noen investeringer når jeg ikke har penger til å investere. Det eneste håpet er å handle alt med den lille marginen som jeg kan oppnå på LocalBitcoins. Og det er hardt arbeid, ikke noen passiv investering som du ser ut til å tro.

Eivind Berge said...

Og for å ta det med sex-positivitet, så teller ikke en deprimerende etterligning i det begrepet. Å være positiv til falsk sex som gjør det vanskeligere å ha ekte sex er det motsatte av sex-positivitet. Det samme er det å late som om gutter som nyter sex med eldre damer er misbrukt. Det er forresten feil at jeg har sagt at gutter ikke kan bli begått seksuelle overgrep mot -- da de fremdeles kan det av menn.

Gally said...

Nei, jeg mener at du som alle andre som har kognitive defekter, ikke selv innehar tilstrekkelig kompetanse eller selvinnsikt til å vurdere dine dysfunksjoner.

Som en siste opplysning så masturberer selv fostre i livmoren. Har du kanskje noen kloke råd å gi dem også, om hva 'falsk' sex er?

Anyway, over og ut, du har levd over økonomisk evne over tid og brent mange broer, og mine råd var å trade mellom forskjellige cryptovalutaer og også investere i spesifikke prosjekter, men du hadde ikke intellektuell kapasitet til å forstå det og foretrakk å bruke av din tid på twitter til å poste det samme pisse-gnålet dag ut og dag inn for det er hva hele livet ditt består av, manisk besatt som du er av en ensporet sak.

Oppsøk en nevropsykolog og bli utredet for autisme / aspergers snarest, og du vil få en diagnose og kan ha et håp om å søke uføretrygd, for arbeidsavklaringspengene går ut kjappere enn du tror og da er det kun sosial-stønad som står igjen og det er kun minimum livsopphold og det er folk som har begått selvmord etter å ha levd på det over lengre tid, uten støttespillere eller familiekontakter som hjelper dem.

Seriøst. Jeg ble selv flyttet til en slik leilighet hvor en kar hadde ligget og råtnet i noen måneder, likstanken hang i veggene, linoleumen var klisset av kroppsvæskene som hadde syret seg ned i den, og alle overflater var dekket av et lag av råttent fett.

Ta ansvar for å endre livet ditt istedenfor å syte og dyrke de logisk inkonsistente, sære meningene dine. Finn annen mening enn bare å være sær.

Anonymous said...

Eivind, du skrev tidligere dette:

Let's say a woman kidnapped a 10-year-old boy off the street and made him clean her toilet and do other chores for her against his will. Abuse, right? Now let's say she forced him to have sex and he literally didn't want to. I am arguing that this example is MORALLY EQUIVALENT to the first.

Lad os antage at en kvinde tvinger en dreng til sex, og at han bogstaveligt talt ikke vil ha' det. Hun tvinger ham alligevel, og på et tidspunkt slipper hun ham fri. På vej hjem møder han en mand, der tvinger ham til sex nøjagtigt under de samme omstændigheder, og drengen yder samme modstand. Hvordan kan du påstå, et dette er et overgreb, men det første tilfælde var det ikke, når omstændighederne er identiske og han har modsat sig på samme måde i begge tilfælde?

Anonymous said...

Hej igen

For at gøre mit forrige eksempel mere interessant kan vi antage at drengen bliver tvunget til at modtage (ikke give) et blowjob, det vil sige at hverken kvinden og manden tager deres eget tøj af. Set fra drengens synspunkt er det altså nøjagtigt den samme form for tvungen handling i begge tilfælde, ok?

Eivind Berge said...

Jeg har ikke noe Aspergers, kjenner meg ikke igjen i noe jeg har lest om det eller som er skrevet av personer med diagnosen. En utredning ville heller ikke kunne finne det med mindre jeg spilte syk, og det blir for dumt og farlig selv om jeg gjerne skulle hatt en trygd. Jeg har ikke noe arbeidsavklaringspenger heller, kun mindre inntekt enn en sosialstønad, så det ville vært en oppgradering å få det og jeg blir ikke suicidal av å leve på så lite. Meg jeg har fremdeles tro på at jeg kan klare meg uten å gå på NAV. Det er helt normalt at et foretak tar tid før det blir lønnsomt, og det er ikke så lenge siden jeg sluttet med oversetting og begynte med trading. Det viktigste akkurat nå er å bygge opp ryktet slik at flere og flere stoler på meg, og det går strålende.

Det er klart jeg kunne blitt rik hvis jeg kjøpte rette kryptovalutaer til riktig tid selv for småpenger, men det er ingen som kan vite det på forhånd og det har ingenting med mangel på kognitive evner å gjøre. Da jeg ble kjent med deg var det allerede for sent, og jeg kan ikke se at du har blitt rik på krypto selv eller at noen av de prosjektene du har anbefalt har blitt lønnsomme.

Man er ikke autist fordi man er opptatt av politikk eller uenig med deg. Jeg begynner derimot å lure på om du har normale kognitive evner når du fremdeles ikke klarer å skjønne argumentene mot masturbasjon. Det er kombinasjonen med moderne porno som gjør det så skadelig. Selvsagt kan ikke et foster som onanerer sammenlignes, og hvis alt du hadde var Playboy og lignende, så skal det også godt gjøres at det tar over sexlivet ditt. Men det har tydeligvis internettporno gjort for deg, og mange andre menn, som nå også begynner å reflekteres i en vitenskapelig litteratur som du bare har møtt med å henvise til de gamle grekerne.

Eivind Berge said...

"For at gøre mit forrige eksempel mere interessant kan vi antage at drengen bliver tvunget til at modtage (ikke give) et blowjob, det vil sige at hverken kvinden og manden tager deres eget tøj af. Set fra drengens synspunkt er det altså nøjagtigt den samme form for tvungen handling i begge tilfælde, ok?"

Nei, det er ikke det samme. Det som kvinnen gjør registrerer ikke som noe verre enn den fysiske volden (og det betyr slett ikke at det er greit! Det er likevel mulig med ganske streng straff). Oppigjennom hele historien har menn vært enige om at sodomi er noe som fortjener en egen kategori og straff på linje med voldtekt. Dette har ikke skjedd med kvinnelig seksuell tvang, før feministene plutselig bestemte seg for at det skulle være det samme. Hvis du kjenner etter, så håper jeg du kan føle det intuitivt selv, og hvis du har lyst på en evolusjonsbiologisk forklaring, så er den at det å bli seksuelt nedverdiget av andre menn er en trussel mot mannens status, som igjen henger sammen med reproduktiv suksess slik at det føles omtrent like ille som voldtekt. Å bli tvunget av en kvinne er bare bra for det formålet, så vi forventer ingen traumatisering utover selve volden, og observerer det heller ikke utenom i løgnaktig feministpropaganda.

Eivind Berge said...

En spesifikk kommentar til anbefalingen om "å trade mellom forskjellige kryptovalutaer": dette er spekulasjon, og ikke det jeg driver med. Med mindre du opererer din egen børs og får provisjon av alle handler, så er det å trade mellom valutaer så godt som ren gambling på at kursen skal utvikle seg i din favør, og en oppskrift på å tape alt med mindre du har ekstrem flaks, noe som ingen har i lengden. Jeg driver ikke med noen gambling, bare kjøp og salg samtidig med en liten margin. Akkurat samme prinsipp som bankene bruker når de kjøper og selger reisevaluta, bortsett fra at marginen for bitcoin er mye mindre. Denne typen handel er avhengig av at noen har lyst å kjøpe og selge til deg for den prisen du setter, og konkurransen er nå så hard at det er vanskelig. Men jeg er som sagt fremdeles optimistisk, for det er alltid noen som kan leve av dette, og det hjelper å stå på og bygge opp ryktet slik at flere og flere vil handle med deg.

Peter said...

Hi Gally. I have a true account of an ex-lover of mine: in her nudist family of two parents and two daughters, the mother waited until both girls started to naturally masturbate. And when they did, she would show them exactly how and allowed the girls to touch her parts. Also, both parents would openly masturbate, in the main room, right in front of the children and they too would also whilst sitting there.

With my lover, she and her mother would regularly and up to the present time, lie on the bed side-to-side and masturbate blissfully together. I must say that such massively aroused me whenever she discussed it with me.

There was an unwritten rule that no semen passed into either girls’ mouth or vagina, but otherwise the daughters were allowed to masturbate their father. One common practice among them was he would have a female on either side of him while they took turns masturbating him.

Also, many years later, when the mother was quite ill and in hospital for a long time, my lover decided to “mercy wank” him as he and his wife would make love at least two or three times a day.

Then, only a few years ago, now almost fifty years old and post-menopausal (so unable to become pregnant), she finally had full sex with her father during what was an orgy between her parents, she and her husband and his best friend. I kid you not!

So yes they were incestrous, but I can assure the reader that the two daughters became very well-rounded adults with absolutely no trauma at all. Indeed, funningly enough, the sister married a very conservative man and I believe there was nothing incestous in that family. My lover, though, remained hypersexual but that gave her immense satisfaction ever since.

A true story, I promise.

Eivind Berge said...

I cannot in good conscience recommend male masturbation even in the presence of girls, but if you are going to do it, that would be the most benign way to go about it. I see nothing in that story which should traumatize the girls either, unless of course the authorities got wind of it, in which case the whole family would be traumatized.

Anonymous said...


Do you have a point in there somewhere? Eivind is absolutely right, masturbation and porn is harmful to men and boys.

Anonymous said...


Legg ut dommen.

Erik said...

Masturbation itself is not harmful. What is harmful is porn that is nothing more than sexual violence filmed with a camera (not "sexual violence" as rape as feminists say I mean violence as gore movies or violence).

What happens to you is that you are sexual obsessed, monomaniacs, whose only objective of value in your life is reduced to putting a penis in a vagina.

A penis in a vagina is worth little. The ultimate goal in a man's life is not to put his penis in vaginas.

Masturbation is for sexual relief just as we drink water or soda when we are thirsty. I have better things in my life than chasing pussies.

I sometimes like pre-pubescent girls and paedophiles who dedicate their lives to trying to fuck little girls and spend 23 hours a day thinking about them look like idiots. As idiots as those who seek all day to fuck grow women.

Also what is harmful is compulsively masturbating, as it is harmful when you do without moderation everything that exists.

And those who support masturbation leave porn which is really what is contaminating your brain.

Eivind Berge said...

Does anyone masturbate without porn anymore? Aside from the odd nudist family and boys who are too small to use the Internet, I am guessing very few. Sure we could promote "responsible" masturbation instead of just saying it's bad, but I don't see much point since it isn't very realistic.

And it's not just compulsive masturbation that is problematic. I am sure lots of men can quit pretty easily if they wanted, and it's still very harmful. The main problem is ignorance, as I see it. Since they believe in the myth that masturbation is always harmless, they make no effort to quit. Just trying and cutting down as far as you can will make a big difference, but none of this will happen if they don't know it's bad for them.

Gally said...

Eivind Berge masturbates with child pornography, some are girls up to 2 years old! Fucking chimo.

Eivind Berge said...

Gally has gone fully insane, apparently. Must have been insane all along. A 42-year-old virgin who can't even tolerate the suggestion that sex is better than wanking... Just WOW. If you wanted a horror example of why masturbation is bad for you, look no further.

Anonymous said...

You should post Gallys verdict as he already consented to it in the comment section of this post:

Gally said...

Soon I'm going to open my own blog,, and among my first articles I'm going to expose your bitcoin scam. You're a dangerous psychopath and scammer and I'm going to warn everyone about it.

Eivind Berge said...

What bitcoin scam? We've had a collaboration that didn't work out so well, but you got your investment back and there is no scam. I have been losing money most of the time and selling off other assets to live, and you expect return on investment already? I said all along that it would take time to be profitable and that might have happened if you hadn't pulled out your money so soon. Which wasn't much anyway. Am I supposed to have scammed you out of some fantastic profit that doesn't exist?

I think you are too stupid to understand how bitcoin trading works. This isn't some scheme with the potential of huge profits, just a regular job that needs trading capital.

Eivind Berge said...

Also, it was your idea to throw money at me. I didn't ask for it, just came up with an idea of how to use it. First some mining (that you did get payouts from) and then trading. I see now that you are dangerously stupid, unreasonable and unstable so it was a bad idea to accept that offer. You are both a political enemy siding with the feminist sex laws (despite bizarrely being a victim of them yourself) and a thoroughly nasty and untrustworthy person. It is no wonder you antagonize everyone you come into contact with, and now I totally understand why the cops show up at your house armed and need to use so much force to restrain you.

Caamib said...

Eivind, I haven't been around much but am looking at this Gally comedy with amazement. I hope you learn a few things from this

- there a lot of crazy, delusional people in this world, and should not be trusted in any way, shape of form.

This lunatic is here diagnosing you and telling you what to do to achieve some social graces all while having a damn verdict saying he will go to jail for what is, I assume, CP. Do you not get it, Gally? You will never have any clout yourself, you'll have a much lower reputation than Eivind does, and you're fucking crazy. Just above you say your gonna open a blog with hebephilia in it but you think some of the "normies" (aka people unlike me or Eivind) will listen to you or respect you?

And Gally is a 42 YO VIRGIN and he believes he can tell others how to behave and what to do? All of these years he couldn't bother to see a prostitute or rape, which modern Western women, despite statistics Eivind presented, are unlikely to report as they're verminous sluts?

I attacked Gally immediately when he first started posting here as I could feel something was off about him and it turns out I was not wrong.

It blows my mind. But today's world is full of nutty people like Gally and they really believe they are coherent and have anything to offer but laughs.

Anyway, Eivind, what's keeping you from posting that idiot's verdict? If he already consented to it anyway, then why not publish it? Are you afraid he's gonna sue you?

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks, Caamib. I should have gone with my gut instinct as well that something was off with him, more than a little eccentricity and naivety or slave mentality that I gave him credit for at first. He clearly has some serious personality disorder that makes him dangerous to people around him. No wonder the neighbors had him kicked out and the cops treat him as unstable... It's not because he's attracted to pubescent girls like normal men are anyway, but because he's flat out impossible to get along with once he gets pissed off for some unpredictable reason (in this case criticism against masturbation, apparently). Perhaps borderline personality disorder or something along those lines, though I am not qualified to diagnose, I know I don't want to be associated with people like him in any way.

Sure I could post the verdict, which is public information anyway, and I am almost ready to do that now, but the only thing holding me back is that I don't want to escalate things with such an unstable person because who knows what he could do next? Now he's accusing me of having autism and also trying to frame me as a bitcoin scammer and who knows what crazy shit he could dream up or do?

Eivind Berge said...

Why I think Gally has borderline personality disorder, going by the symptoms here:

Markedly disturbed sense of identity
Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment and extreme reactions to such
Splitting ("black-and-white" thinking)
Impulsivity and impulsive or dangerous behaviors
Intense or uncontrollable emotional reactions that often seem disproportionate to the event or situation
Unstable and chaotic interpersonal relationships
Self-damaging behavior
Distorted self-image
Frequently accompanied by depression, anxiety, anger, substance abuse, or rage

"The most distinguishing symptoms of BPD are marked sensitivity to rejection or criticism... Other symptoms may include feeling unsure of one's personal identity, morals, and values; having paranoid thoughts when feeling stressed; depersonalization; and, in moderate to severe cases, stress-induced breaks with reality or psychotic episodes."

Is because he ticks at least 6 or 7 of these criteria, possibly even including a psychotic break with reality at this point if he really thinks I am a scammer. It is one thing to be slinging mud in here like we both do, but the scam accusation is delusional as well as splitting ("black-and-white" thinking). You don't approach people with effusive enthusiasm about helping them out and investing in their projects without a clear contract even, only to suddenly turn around and call them psychopathic scammers when the investment only yields a near flat return -- but IS returned on demand as promised -- unless you are borderline. Both these extremes are classic symptoms. Gally also engages in self-damaging behavior when he pleads guilty to bullshit crimes and spends his life masturbating to porn, to say nothing of substance abuse. And he lacks a clear self-image or sense of morality as all his attempts to formulate a philosophy or ideology have been incoherent rambling without a principled stand to support his own actions even (future nonexistent blogs don't count). And having "unstable and chaotic interpersonal relationships" couldn't be clearer as he appears to have no friends and an attempt to make one ends like this.

john said...

yea,I thought he was nuts or just plain full of shit from the start.but you seemed to like the guy eivind.

Eivind Berge said...

That was poor judgment on my part, John. I sympathized with his plight as a victim of the police state, and thought we could cut him some slack for indoctrination with feminist sex-hostility since the people accused of these crimes are also a product of our culture and don't have the ideological grounding that we have in our tiny men's movement. But he failed to learn anything from us and also turned out to be unreasonable to deal with as a person, to say the least, potentially dangerous.

When the police shows up at his house heavily armed just to serve him a letter, while they didn't even bother with any firearms while arresting me for suspected terrorism, it shows the difference in personality and this is not accidental. I am correctly perceived as an ideologue, however outspoken, while he is just a common criminal and a crazy one at that. Well, let's hope we can move on with the politics now and nothing more comes of this, but if anything happens to me you know whom to suspect.

john said...

well,anyway...all the news now revolves around kavanaugh and his "rape victim" from 36 years about a blast from the past.and, right on time,a pile of women have come out with their stories of being raped decades ago.ronald Reagan's daughter, through an admitted cocaine and booze haze,seems to remember being raped in 1975.and a lot of the wimmins came out to declare how "brave" she would've been a helluva lot braver to report it then, imho.i reported my being assaulted by a pig cop I'd LOVE to torture to death, immediately after the 'event'.it appears that to even attempt to get justice here, I'll HAVE to pay upfront an lawyer will take this case on a contingency basis.other than my first attorney who did, then decided, of course, not enough cash to be had in it.i guess you have to be paralyzed/shot WITH video and maybe then you'll find some measure of justice.

john said...

yes,well you do know him in person then.i think he's harmless but who knows and isn't he going away or was that bullshit too?

Eivind Berge said...

I haven't met him in person and he lives (thankfully) a couple hundred miles away, but have talked to him on the phone and over email. I also think he is most likely harmless as he doesn't appear to have a history of actual violence, but the last few comments from him are still disturbing.

Yeah, the #MeToo movement is now a parody on itself even, but still manages to be taken seriously. We'll see how long this can last before there is a real backlash -- maybe Kavanaugh will be the turning point.

Eivind Berge said...

And yes, he is going away (for something like a year or two, most likely) if he loses his appeal trial, which you can count on because he is pleading guilty. That story is true enough, though I am not so sure about all the paranoid details of surveillance, in light of the above quoted tendency of people with BPD to get paranoid when feeling stressed.

john said...

yep.predictably,the left wants to hang him, with support from the the mangina army,like these bitches NEED any "man" to support them,sickening.and the right bashes her 24/7 online.the polarization continues..

john said...

ah,ok then.well,I've been paranoid myself,sometimes more,sometimes less, but I feel justified.i mean hell I live in a police/surveillance state, and the cops hate me.course they hate anyone not in their uniform.i think you mentioned on Twitter this female cop that walked in what she THOUGHT was her apartment and just blew a guy away.incredible, and only charged with manslaughter.I'd love to go back on Twitter but doesn't look like I will be at least through this year but I still read it(THAT'S not illegal YET for a "banned" user)

Eivind Berge said...

Oh, yes, the surveillance state is very real and cops get away with crazy shit, but do they really have the capabilities Gally claims as well as use them on him? Like above he says they performed a "TEMPEST-attack and read the keypresses of all keyboards in the entire center of the city within a radius of hundreds of meters" just to get his email. Maybe, but I'm taking it with a grain of salt.

john said...

yes I HAVE to be skeptical of that.since I was forced by that beast off twitter and doxxed,and everything else thats happened to me, i cant trust anyone or these,the internet has turned into a giant information gathering and surveillance machine.what a pity.

john said...

I wish I knew more about masking i.p numbers and so much more but really what's to gain? I've yet to change anyone's mind about anything online and almost got in huge trouble so fuck,all I've been doing online, besides watching pretty much every Jordan Peterson lecture,interview and debate on YouTube, has been leaving comments on Yahoo news. as usual,I get almost all thumbs down. my fellow Americans are such imbeciles it's really infuriating.they blind believe whatever Trump and fox news says.the left IS more intelligent but are probably more damaging.either one,they can't be reasoned, Iran is THE latest and maybe last country on America's imperial checklist.N. korea is safe thanks to their nukes and shared border with China.if republicans lose the midterms, Iran
is in danger.america just can't leave these people alone.

Anonymous said...


Didn't Gally get cautght by the simple fact that the police searched his shitty apartment that the state is paying for as they were searching for drugs? That's what it says in one of the articles i read about the case. The article also stated that he showed up so intoxicated that the case could not go on the first time.

Im the one who called Gally a fucking mangina several times before in here. And I was right. Gally is asking for treatment for men who like girls and the best he can imagine is porn and masturbation. He stands for the opposite of what we stand for. Im glad he's finally gone. There was an other idiot in here who also did not get it at all who called himself Smiley as I remember. Maybe the same moron perhaps. IDK.

Anonymous said...

Dette er vel saken mot Gally?

Bare legg ut dommen Eivind, men i anonymisert form. Gally er ikke i stand til å skade en flue kan jeg tenke meg og skulle noe som helst skje, så blir det kanskje en anmeldelse av deg eller en klage til PFU. Men både anmeldelse og klage er en god ting da det vil gi sårt etterlengtet publisitet til deg og saken. Norge har bruk for din stemme, Eivind.

john said...

what "stunning" breaking news! kavanaugh has a brand new accuser who admits she was stone drunk at the time, but DEFINITELY remembers seeing a penis in her face,apparently kavanaughs, 35 years,he's probably finished. women can destroy any man at will now, and they can even do it anonymously or talking through a lawyer!

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, that would be Gally's case and the verdict also says the reason for finding CP was a drug search. I guess it doesn't help to be an expert on cybersecurity if your lifestyle invites cops into your home. I am not surprised if he showed up intoxicated to court as well. Having a drugs or drinking problem does not necessarily mean you have a bad character, but he is not making up for it in other ways either.

I am indeed interested in posting the verdict at least anonymized, not because I want to have anything more to do with him personally (he is clearly not an asset to the men's movement and I am not interested in any conflict either), but because of the general discussion that it contains. It gives an insight into how the abuse hysteria works, and is quite amusing actually. Think about how much "abuse" can dance on the head of a pin, and you get the gist. Like how do you count the amount of abuse in a series of pictures of the same girl posing, for example; metaphysical considerations like that that only make sense if you are batshit crazy and have accepted principles that are ludicrous to begin with.

As I only have a PDF that is not anonymized, this might take some time, but I aim to share it. There is no law granting him anonymity, but it's not worth risking my blog in case it would violate Google's policy against doxing or anything like that.

Eivind Berge said...

By the way, this would be a good time for Gally to finally post the verdict himself if he wants to ensure that the anonymization is up to his forensic standards.

I saw those new accusations against Kavanaugh, John, and they are just ridiculous even if true, a complete non-issue to any reasonable person. Let's look at what is alleged to have happened: sconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez

She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.

That is no more than a girl should expect from attending such a party. All it says is she saw a naked man and pushed him away when he came onto her (describing it as causing her to touch his penis without her consent doesn't make it anything other than pushing him away). There is no victimization there at all. He quit when she pushed him away, so what is the problem?

john said...

ha,I know,it really is was a non event,if it even occurred at all.i hope this is helping to deligitimize the metoo gang and their mangina buddies wearing their 'believe women' t-shirts.yuch.

john said...

IF I had a son in high school,or college, I wouldn't know what to to say. I guess, don't go to parties, don't drink, don't have ANY fun.and don't even think of exposing yourself! I guess just give him cash to go visit a whore?! its just a BIG old minefield now.

Gally said...

Being anti-masturbation and anti-porn has NOTHING to do with fighting against feminist anti-male sex laws. To actually put these things at the heart of a men's movement that you are clearly promoting as the continuation and representation of all the efforts of myself, and a few others, is selfish and shameful. You think wanking is wrong. Great. Why don't you just accept that's your own personal peccadillo, rather than something essential to campaigning against feminist sex laws?

The fact is, you're 100% agreement with feminism here. You're validating their whole enterprise. The whole feminist movement has been a response to the ever greater range of sexual alternatives for men to the average woman on the street (and women are getting more and more average by the day, at least in the West). How the hell can you seriously rage against feminist anti-porn laws when you agree with the feminist junk science basis for them?

You also completely fail to see what's going to be happening in the next few decades. Sex is going to become increasingly virtual (and indistinguishable from the real thing), and basing a 'male sexualist' (i.e. pro male sexuality - the hijacking of a term I've been using for 10 years) movement on being anti-porn, anti anything not sticking your dick in a real, wet hole of a HB5, will have about as much relevance to male sexualilty and the modern world as campainging against the use of condoms.

This is the last thing men need in the face of the tsunami of anti-porn based feminist sex puritan laws. I'd go as far to say as you're as much of an enemy to men as feminists are at this stage. And given all the work you've done for the last couple of decades, includes bravely standing up to the Norwegian State, that's a real tragedy.

You drew an analogy elsewhere with cannabis legalisation campaigners. The cannabis movement is probably about 1,000,000 bigger than ours, yet if you can point to one single pro cannabis legalization activist (let alone 'the leader') who actually promotes the idea that smoking cannabis is harmful and should be avoided, then I'll apologize to you and become a 'Male Sexualist'.

We're struggling to get more than a dozen followers out of the 3 billion men on the planet affected by feminist sex laws, and you want to narrow our appeal down even more to Islamic minded anti-masturbation incels who crave spending their lives with a HB4 just when AI sex robots and virtual reality sex are becoming real??

Eivind Berge said...

The above comment from "Gally" doesn't sound like him, but something The Antifeminist would say, so I assume it is you. You are once again attacking a straw man, because I DO accept masturbation as a personal peccadillo and have said so repeatedly.

I am not campaigning for laws against pornography or wanking or virtual sex, except to reject the distinction between child and adult porn. I believe that there is no moral or rational basis for banning underage porn while allowing adult porn, so if society must prohibit any of it, then it should apply to all of it. It would be infinitely better to just have an obscenity law rather than the fake-abuse-based laws we have now. That is the extent of my support for laws against pornography, that I would prefer a law against all obscenity rather than what we have now, but ideally there should be none at all and everything should at least be legal to possess and distribute noncommercially.

If sex is becoming significantly virtual (which I doubt), then perhaps it is good to have a movement for sex in the flesh, and I think male sexualism is well suited for that. Again, not to promote draconian laws, but to celebrate real sex with women and tell men how to best achieve and enjoy it. That means not just condemning the hateful laws against our sexuality, but also discouraging porn, masturbation, and yes, condoms too.

You seem to think that only a HB10 teen girl will do, and if you can't have that then porn or virtual sex is better and should be promoted, but I can't support that sentiment. You can have your virtual sex, but I will never uphold it as the ideal, or even a reasonable substitute for real sex.

And once again it's not "feminist junk science" either. Feminists are (or should be) delighted to have male sexuality go to waste by wanking to various substitutes. The problem is that pornography is what is known as an evolutionary trap, a hypernormal stimulus that hijacks and subverts our sex drive. I am only advising men not to fall into that trap.

Caamib said...

Gally, I will reply to you though my goal isn't so much for you to read it, as you're a delusional idiot, but to make an intelligent reader, somebody who really wants to learn about this stuff, see why you're wrong and misrepresenting a lot of what we believe.

"Being anti-masturbation and anti-porn has NOTHING to do with fighting against feminist anti-male sex laws. "

Jesus, what idiocy ! Of course they don't have nothing to do with it. You're right. You know what it has to do with? Actual improvement in male lives. Making it easier for healthy, reasonable males to get women. Which masturbation actively impedes by making them less motivated to do so. But the fuck would you know about any of that?

That's basically the reply to that entire paragraph of utter bs. Let's go on...

"You're validating their whole enterprise. The whole feminist movement has been a response to the ever greater range of sexual alternatives for men to the average woman on the street (and women are getting more and more average by the day, at least in the West). "

You have no idea why and how feminism comes about. Today's males have far less sexual choices than those in 1970s, when there was less feminism. Another thing that's a waste of time to discuss with you.

"How the hell can you seriously rage against feminist anti-porn laws when you agree with the feminist junk science basis for them?"

Which "junk science" are you rambling about? Feminists were never against masturbation, in fact they deem it to be an acceptable "solution" as their idea of a nightmare is whites having any kind of sex. But this is also something you're too stupid to get.

"You also completely fail to see what's going to be happening in the next few decades."

No, in fact you do. Your idea of robots replacing women in that women will not happen. And I'll tell you why. There's several reasons. First of all, the technology won't develop. In late 1998 people believed they'd have robots as servants and various other stuff by 2018. We don't. We have been stagnating technologically since around 2000 and your fantasies simply won't happen. Chances are that technology will decline, not improve with times.
Other issue is that there's still a lot of shame connected to using such technology.

But there's one reason that is much more crucial - men and women still want to be with each other. I still meet women 13-40 with my online ads, because modern Western women, as messed up as they are, still are looking for somebody to control them and own the shit of them, to put them in their place. You won't replace this and the male need to do so with any robots and virtual reality.

And there's a more important reason as well- why would we want to do so? Can you marry a robot, have a child with a robot? No? So what is the point, anyway? Why live in a virtual reality and knowing you'll never procreate? You think men like fschmidt, Nathan or myself would have kids if we did so? Why don't you just take drugs or kill yourself if you don't want to live in the real world?

"This is the last thing men need in the face of the tsunami of anti-porn based feminist sex puritan laws."

No. This would be a blessing, which he understands full well as he's not as dumb as you are. It would make thousands of men get off their asses and take women.

"'I'd go as far to say as you're as much of an enemy to men as feminists are at this stage"

No, he's just not a delusional idiot like you.

Caamib said...

"And given all the work you've done for the last couple of decades, includes bravely standing up to the Norwegian State, that's a real tragedy."

Standing up to delusional idiots like yourself, who pretend to be their friends (unlike the less perverse Norwegian state) is also quite brave. As I told you, he's just not a delusional idiot like you.

"yet if you can point to one single pro cannabis legalization activist (let alone 'the leader') who actually promotes the idea that smoking cannabis is harmful and should be avoided, then I'll apologize to you and become a 'Male Sexualist'."

No. Another thing you get completely wrong. An actual comparison would be "find me a cannabis legalization activist who actively promotes harmful chemical alternatives to pot that are known to destroy people's lives". And that is what masturbation is - a shade of actual sexuality, nothing. A dangerous tool that makes you complacent and unlikely to seek out actual sex. If you think being a male sexualist is about helping males jerk themselves off in dark rooms... Well, I'll just say that getting rid of that would be the first step to not being an idiot.

"We're struggling to get more than a dozen followers out of the 3 billion men on the planet affected by feminist sex laws"

But feminist sex laws would collapse quickly if men stopped jerking off. Because, guess what? You are not a hebephile. There's no such thing. All sane men would sleep with 12 year-old girls and younger. And they'll be much more motivated to so when they don't jack off. When millions do it regularly, and they will when boys are discouraged from masturbating, it will be easy.

"Islamic minded anti-masturbation incels who crave spending their lives with a HB4 just when AI sex robots and virtual reality sex are becoming real??"

No, no, no, no.... Just no.

Everything wrong and stupid. The problem with the term incels is lookism and cultism, which didn't exist when I was in charge more, as I explained in my June article. This is directly connected to their takeover of the term after July 2016, Also, you miss the real point. Incels aren't meant to be popular or liked, of course feminists will hate them. The point is to promote actual solutions, which don't have to do with looks but are extremely contrary to feminism (finding non-feminist wives, rape etc). When men who call themselves incel seek actual solutions then the term will be seen more seriously. The idea that you will get a political solution in Western countries is pure idiocy. I just want to help men improve their everyday's lives. Politics is a waste of time and these countries like Norway will collapse like all countries which adopted their policies did.

It's your stupidity and idiocy and listening to mainstream media that you believe incel is some political term or whatever. It isn't. You're a fucking incel.

My goal is simply to improve the lives of men, not some great political solutions you dream of.

I already addressed the robot thing. Your assumptions about the state of technology and human nature are wrong.

If I chose robots instead of women I'd never have a daughter now, for example. Or several girlfriends or willing sexual partners, not to mention less willing ones.

Caamib said...

Also, I'd like to address some of the shit you said before, some of which I painstakingly translated..

-Eivind's ideas on women being the owners of sex don't mean that men can't reject sex. They just mean women forcing it on them should be very lightly punishable. If I don't want chocolate that moment and somebody force feeds me some delicious chocolate am I some great victim? That's nonsense ! And Eivind did say that in cases of harsher violence these women should be charged with assault. But for giving somebody chocolate, which is how men see women's sexuality? Of course not. Another thing you'd know if you weren't a brainwashed house negro.

- No, male fetuses masturbating in wombs aren't a problem. Males usually develop first serious interest at women at around 12-14. Besides, their penises are usually too small to be properly masturbated before around 10-11-12, so they masturbate them the way clitorises are played with before that age (at least that is my experience). So such males don't develop penile sensitivity and can be successfully directed to have sex with rl girls of similar age of slightly younger/older. See how stupid and clueless you are?

Also, remember just one thing, Gally. Sperm doesn't ask. It doesn't ask if you're worthy enough, if you achieved this or that, if you have this or that level of consent or respect. It just impregnates. Think about that. So impregnate somebody. Do your role in the world.

I was attacked for saying I should have killed 12 year-old girls with C4 and burning rubber tires around their necks, but guess what? THIS IS WHAT MODERN WESTERN WOMEN WANT. What they don't want is anybody of IQ above that of a goldfish and any respect. This went down the drain from the first moment they got basic "rights" like suffrage, which are nothing but privileges that enable the destruction of society.

Oh, and another thing. Regarding islamic minded incels, you're completely wrong, as usual. Those in such communities who are most islamic minded, like myself or fschmidt, aren't even incel anymnore. Most actual incels, at least by my definition, are lookist fools who know nothing about history or wqmen's nature, want to have consensual sex (and nothing else) with dirty Western sluts who get raped regularly anyway and don' give a fuck about it, and then they're are angry when this fails.

Caamib said...

Now that I've studied the structure of his post, it is likely AF and not Gally. Still, I think you should check IPs and make some rules against this kind of manipulation of your posters. I was basically goaded into replying to what is likely AF as if I'm replying to Gally and making some statements that probably don't apply to AF, since he's not Gally.

Still, whoever wrote that has some serious issues with reality. Their ideas that a) such tech will be widely accepted b) men will want to replace real life with them

are nonsense.

Eivind Berge said...

Good posts, Caamib. Thanks for setting the record straight about the value of sex vs. masturbation. And you are right about the self-help aspects of male sexualism being probably most important right now. I will still address the politics, but let's face it, we are not going to change any feminist laws any time soon. Any man who adopts the simple tactic of not masturbating, however, will improve his life tremendously. I think most incels can be cured that way, and if you aren't incel it will make sex better and get you more women and motivate you to have children too.

By the way, this is where the incel action seems to take place these days:

Looks like a pretty intelligent sub, thought their obsession with lookism is very strange and I really don't think they are held back nearly as much by how they look as they imagine. The main problem is not trying enough with women, which would require the aggression and persistence that nofap can give them.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't have a way to see the IPs associated with posts, or edit any names or content in them. So the name will just have to stay there, but I pointed out in the next comment that it can't be Gally. Anyway, it seems that The Antifeminist and Gally have the obsession with porn and masturbation in common? So a lot of the answers apply to both of them.

Please don't impersonate other people here.

Anonymous said...

Porn is degenerate tbh. It's the one of the reasons our culture has become so hypersexualized and gynocentric. Porn goes hand in hand with "sex positivity" and ultimately contributes to our suffering.

Eivind Berge said...

No, porn equals sex-negativity (watching it, not starring in it), and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding himself. It leads to asexuality rather than hypersexuality because, again, it is a delusion that watching porn is an expression of your sexuality rather than a repression.

Just step back and see it for what it is. Imagine you are a different species looking at humans, and it would look like beetle masturbation looks to us:

If you were a beetle who claimed to be sex-positive for promoting bottles, it's easy for us to see it for the delusion that it is. Our porn is the same way. A hypernormal stimulus that is robbing you of sex. Degenerate, yes (if you want to use that word), sex-positive, no.

Eivind Berge said...

It is a myth that our culture is hypersexualized, the kind of myth that goes along with the delusion that masturbation is sex. The truth is that we are undersexualized and having less sex than a generation ago, less teenage pregnancies too. The good news is that we as individual men can choose to go against that trend. We can say no to porn and masturbation and yes to sex and procreation, which is the true sex-positivity.

Anonymous said...

Eivind, the video is fun and you have a point of truth. Although I think it would be more like having sex with dolls. But I think it's one thing to fuck a bottle of beer and another to use your laptop to masturbate looking at non-nude barely pubescent girls (use good VPN if you try that btw).. that with those little sexy mouths and bodies who can say no? remember Eivind sex with very underage girls is illegal, how am I going to have sex then without ending up in jail? answer me that question.

Hell, I can't even use a dating app to date not-so-underage girls. I can live without fucking a 13 year old girl. But not without fucking a well-endowed 16 or 17 year old. I have high sex drive. And I can't fuck a 16 or 17 year old so easily, Eivind. It's almost impossible at any age now, imagine a minor.

john said...

well, you'd have to go to Thailand or the Philippines.I've never done that myself but it's common knowledge.

john said...

man this kavanaugh business has me SO pissed off.the bill cosby conviction(after she accepted 3.4 $million!) with zero evidence sets a terrifying precedent for men also.and I don't like either one of these guys.I'm a political centrist. even IF kavanaugh "put his penis in the face" of the drunk wench, and even she's not sure it was even him! its simple battery at MOST. NO sex was involved.i can't seem to stop watching these train wrecks but I need to!

Eivind Berge said...

It is unfortunate that your brain interprets a laptop as close enough to a female to want to use it as a sexual outlet, objectively every bit as a bad as a jewel beetle trying to mate with a beer bottle. If you need illegal girls, however, I don't have a good answer, except to be part of the male sexualist movement to effect political change. Which might not pay off in our lifetimes, so it's a tough question.

And it is possible that your taste might normalize somewhat if you don't masturbate, at least worth trying. Porn addicts often report developing bizarre interests just because of the insanity of the addiction (which is why there is so much anal sex and other grossness in porn, I guess), even to the point of wanking to transsexual and gay porn without being gay in extreme cases. Something milder happened to me, as I got almost a fetish for BBW which disappeared after I quit. Now I prefer slim girls, and it is possible that you would also start preferring postpubescent girls if you quit. What seems to happen in my experience after you remove the noxious influence of pornography and masturbation is that your taste converges with the evolutionary psychology textbook example of perfect female beauty. Come to think of it, I even started liking mature women less and now can't believe I used to masturbate to postmenopausal women sometimes, so it works for age too! In the clarity of your natural sex drive you see that the most fertile age is the one you should focus on, and these women become most attractive to you. I doubt this would work for a full-fledged pedophile orientation, but it should be effective on the margins.

Caamib said...

"underage girls is illegal, how am I going to have sex then without ending up in jail? answer me that question."

I will try to answer it for you. This very much depends on your age and location. In some areas of the world it would likely be too risky to try something like that and then you must travel to Asia. In other areas the risk of somewhat lower.

If the risk isn't very high like in some areas of America, try creating a facebook acc as a teen and fill it up with content. Have 100s of fake friends if need be. Then start messaging teenage girls. Look for apps that are for teens that want to create "friendships". Go to some school forums or local forums/facebook groups for teens. Be resourceful in trying to play a teen. I've heard of cases of in their 20s and 30s actually attending high school classes for a semester. Not in some African country but United States !

Also, do you hate modern Western women? Do you believe they should have no rights and that they're just worthless sluts? Eivind might not agree on this as his years long relationship might have softened him but I know that the tastes of modern Western women are irreparably broken and that the only thing they deserve is to be used and that laws should not apply to them.

Have you read my text on limited political pedophilia? It states

"I am a limited political pedophile.

What does this mean?

I am not attracted to female children below the age of 12, but I would still have sex with a modern Western female even younger, even a toddler.


Because I hate almost all modern Western women and don't care what happens to them. I know they will all become worthless sluts who will fuck the dirtiest men around (actual omegas - and that they will reject any male who will be interested in a serious relationship, let alone marriage. They might marry a beta when they're 35 or so just so he can feed their disgusting omega spawn but even then they'll fuck dirtbags who will still have them.

I don't care what happens to almost any Western female toddler (excluding women from sane groups in the West, like Amish, Mormons, Mennonites or Orthodox Jews). Would I get hard on 3 year old female toddler were I to get one? I don't know, I honestly haven't been with one before. But even if I could not, I'd still try to lick its vagina or something like that, just for experiment. I suspect it would be easier with some developed girl who is like 11. I have no doubt I'd be attracted to her and would fuck her well.

The point isn't attraction. Were I attracted to below 12 jailbaits I'd be sure I could get it hard even for a 3 year-old, but I can't be sure of that right now for reasons I've mentioned - a) I am not attracted to them now b) I have never been with somebody who is, like, a toddler.
The point is something else completely -as a modern Western female, you have no rights in my eyes. You are lost, broken, tainted, worthless. You will never be anything than a public urinal. You have no capability of being a good wife or a mother.

On the other hand, I'd never act in ways I described with a female from a non-feminist country !

So in that sense I am a political pedophile, in a limited sense (I am not a political pedophile toward non-feminist women). "

This is why I am for violence even against women younger than 12, though I am talking about it from a moral perspective and not saying anybody should go and do it now (for safety reasons). If you apply this view you will lose sight of the non-existent moral reasons for not treating such women violently, but it will sharpen you to avoiding criminal charges. It will ultimately be a good thing. These women deserve nothing better.

If you employ the mindset I have as limited political pedophile to women older than 12 as well you will no longer have moral qualms about raping them. So maybe that would become an option as well.

john said...

yeah! go out and rape! that's an 'option' really?!in the u.s? well, as long as you don't mind doing 20 not into going to prison for any length of time.i also don't care what happens to western women and I know of at least one I'd love to strangle.but i won't be going out raping anytime soon though lol.too many video everywhere, and that darn DNA ruins all the fun.

john said...

haha, you say: try creating a Facebook acc and fill it full of content, then start messaging teenage girls?! is this 'advice' on how to get arrested? and just exactly where in america is the risk not very high? just an accusation is enough to get you arrested, and you're suggesting texting teenage girls? do you live in america? wow

Caamib said...

John, regarding your first post, you seem to misunderstand the gist of what being a limited political pedophile entails. It is a means of destroying a hated group of people. Modern Western women are a group of people I hate so I have no qualms about doing any kind of harm to them. America has vast tracts of empty land where people can still dispose of things like bodies. I mean, it's up to you to don't try to get caught, IF and only IF you think it's worth the risk. But the crux is hating of your ideological and genetic enemy, which modern Western women are to me because they're simply unable to make good choices of mates in feminist societies.

Regarding the second post, you don't just get arrested for messaging teenage girls. You get arrested if it's a honey-trap or a girl reports it. So try to recognize any eventual honey-traps the feds might set up. Understand that you have a certain advantage, as you've created this fake profile before police did even have you in their radar.

I've managed to use the Tinder for teens back in 2016 to get THREE dates in about a week. Imagine what you could do if infiltrated in some teen groups with a good Fb profile. Once you meet the girl you can't just assume she'll report you. If she says so of course it's smart to get away from her immediately. But maybe she won't and maybe you get sex out of her. But, yes, if you're about 40 and pretending to be 15 this won't work. It only works for younger people.

For older ones there are other options. Do you know some very run down neighborhoods where teenage girls will sell their bodies for drugs, for example?

I am not from America but have been there once as a teen and know what a feminist, anti-intellectual shithole it is. What I also know is that it has a huge population and lot of empty space one can use. Why do you think most serial killers operated in America? It allows for certain advantages.

Caamib said...

As for you Eivind, it is quite disappointing to see you, of all people, diagnosing somebody online and with a personality disorder (!), no less

As you have stated many times, psychiatry is the vodoo of medicine, and within this voodoo personality disorders are even worse voodoo. Gally's behavior is contained within basically all personality disorders (well, the one that remained in DSM5, I guess), exactly because personality disorders are a bunch of crap and diagnosing them is just within the discretion of a "doctor". 2-3 "doctors" can diagnose the ones that cancel each other out.

Gally's problem isn't a personality disorder but that he's a fucking brainwashed, socially conditioned idiot who licks the hand of his abusers, like a fucked up dog. He also lacks any self-awareness whatsoever. There are millions of men like him. You are yourself aware that there are liberal men who are not just incels but virgins who came to your very blog and told you, a man in a years long relationship, what you're doing "wrong". These same men have tried to tell me, a man who fathered a little girl and had 3 relationships, the same.

People are just irrational swine lacking any self-awareness. Don't amplify that by dabbling into personality disorder nonsense and giving credibility to psychiatry like that. Of course there are some things in psychiatry that are valid, but this isn't one of them.

Caamib said...

Also, Eivind...

"Thanks for setting the record straight about the value of sex vs. masturbation."

Well, honestly, you settled it long ago in various posts. It's just that people are too idiotic to understand your very simple and common sense points.

As for that braincels subreddit, it's not a complete disaster but it's pretty bad compared to what we could have and will have. The problem is that I have a messed-up personal life that doesn't allow me to really settle down. My relationship ended a month ago and I'm still messed up, didn't even have a desktop computer up to few days ago.

We need to have our own forum, host and pay for it, but this is quite hard. I have to pay for it in bitcoin just not to reveal my identity (which had not been revealed and those who think so are lunatics as nobody would post what I do if their identity were revealed), as I don't even trust the service providers in Asia I intend to use. The amount of hatred such a a forum would bring would be immense. When I tried starting it in June on Nathan Larson's servers a guy appeared pretending to be you within couple of hours. A forum that would openly discuss issues like rape, murder of sluts and sex with minors would cause extreme anger. But I know which host to use for now.

john said...

yah, I'm very aware.but the Ted Bundy days are over and done.he could never do what he did today.maybe, one, maybe two, and he'd be toast.even if someone kills real deal whores, you'll only get a one hates feminists more than I do but going around raping and killing? haha, nah I'm good.sending dick pics to teen girls? nah I'm good there too.having ten cops kick down your door is just no fun.and driving to somewhere, to meet a 'girl' to get set up? nope I'm also ok on that.but great advice there you have if you want to do hard time!

john said...

plus, it's pretty insane.and delusional.

Caamib said...

John, regarding raping and killing, you forget that new technology, while it can be used against you as well, can also be used by your to evade capture and commit crimes more easily. But ok, let's drop that.

I never said anything about sending teenage girls dick pics. You don't want a lot of sexual communication before you and the girl meet up and you certainly don't want to send them dick pics. Your goal should be to meet as soon as possible and then do sexual stuff in real life :)

I already addressed the set-up thing. You are paranoid and seeing set-ups everywhere, but not every teenage girl is a set-up.

john said...

just to ram this point home.bill Cosby is just about to be sentenced, in a few minutes in fact, for his 2004 sexual encounter, and it was a he said she said evidence was presented and yet at age 81,he's about to go to prison.fortunately for him, he committed the bulk of these drug/rapes in the 60s through the 80s.people that don't live in the u.s just do not understand your every move is being tracked, using your license plate..cameras are EVERYWHERE, every intersection. and traveling around with that cell phone? well, if one doesn't mind allowing Google/police knowing your, once again, every move, hey go for it.heres the thing.even if you put it all into just living off the grid? it's not going to happen.unless you can live off the land,toss out all your cards,phones, never drive again, then MAYBE.this is the real deal police and 24/7 surveillance I said before, Bundy killed around 50 college girls. thats impossible today.

Eivind Berge said...

Don't take my diagnosing too seriously. It's mostly a comeback to him accusing me of autism, but there could also be something to it as people do have personalities, whether you want to label them as a "disorder" or not, and Gally's is obviously not one I would recommend dealing with.

I can't condone what you say about hating Western women, as I think the laws are the real problem and they are just using them, but respect your fearless political speech. Limited political pedophile is an interesting concept, but not something I can get behind myself.

Caamib said...

John, I already covered most of this but you do know that Ted Bundy was a notoriously sloppy serial killer, do you? I mean he was extremely unskilled at what he did and the only reason he lasted as long as he did was that the police thought he was too clean cut to be a murderer. He had a sporty, attractive personality (for that time, today he would be considered too intelligent and well mannered to be attractive to modern Western women). That one stupid film I saw about him, where he's portrayed as creepy and clumsy, is exactly the opposite of how his actual filmed interviews and court appearances portray him.

To use Ted Bundy as an example of a successful serial killer is... well, not really fair.

As for Bill Cosby, oh, c'mon. Regardless of what he did or didn't do you think all those football player jocks care about or practice "consent" when fucking their cheerleader sluts? You think these sluts mind?

john said...

uh, they seem to care sooner or later! .anyway, Cosby is going to prison 3-10 years. a big victory for the metoo gang and it sends a bad message that a man can go to prison merely on an accusation.and Cosby had a $million dollar defense team.MY advice to men in this country has been very consistent.don't marry, don't use rufies, dont try to fuck teen girls, especially never use a phone to even try to do that, and NEVER accept an "invite" to meet some teenage girl at her home, naturally. go mgtow, use whores, go overseas..

john said...

Bundy got away with what he did because of NO cameras, NO cell phones, NO DNA.and yep, he was considered attractive and women were vastly more trusting ah, good luck.i'm going to talk some hot college girl into my car? to help my with my groceries? WHERE do YOU live? I'm in the u.s.

john said...

how is it 'unfair' to use Bundy as a an example of a successful serial killer? wtf? I mean let's see now, he was the "best" serial killer of the 20th century.because he eventually got caught? ya know, he WAS offered life in prison by Florida, a very generous offer I must say considering his priors, his escapes from custody.but he turned the offer down!so he fried.bundy was a sloppy driver though.his awful driving got him arrested twice in fact.

Caamib said...

I will address other posts later but it's unfair to use Bundy as an example of anything because he was a sloppy serial killer. I don't mean his driving or whatever. He'd leave evidence all around and should have been caught years earlier. Truly good serial killers don't get caught and the best ones are the ones who we know nothing about because nobody even knew they were serial killers.

john said...

well, fly over here and get busy then! show everyone just how MANY women you can rape and kill.or,OR maybe,just maybe get some help? ALL serial killers get caught, they can't help themselves.bundy couldn't stop killing so that makes it just a matter of time.but yes, if your "goal" is to become a serial killer,and it appears to be,I'd skip America.100s of millions of cameras put a real dent in EVERY type of crime.oh yea, it's a feminist police state also, in case you hadn't noticed.

john said...

I would much prefer it if you came over here and took out a few cop pigs.thats about the max number that an individual CAN kill before you're shot to pieces.
'serial killer's really don't exist anymore.this last 15-20 years has seen the rise of the mass shooter, usually acting alone, usually killing their self right before the police do.and the police response is getting ever faster with each much so,that these latest shooters get in 3,4, before it's
all be a 'long term' serial killer, one should become a cop FIRST.thanks to Trump,cops are now ADORED no matter what they do.even IF they go to trial, AND there's clear video evidence of their murdering someone, they go home about 98% of the time.not bad for scum!

Anonymous said...

holocaust21 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Eivind Berge said...

I had to moderate a comment there due to suspected impersonation and sabotage. Please keep all comments on underage sex political rather than pornographic! For the safety of all of us and this blog.

Anonymous said...

Jeg laget et skjermbilde før du slettet det. Jeg har vedlagt bildet med en klage for barnepornografi.

Eivind Berge said...

In all likelihood that was Gally trying to sabotage my blog by posting child sexualization, which is just what you would expect from a child porn convict, isn't it? I deleted it as soon as I saw it, but he claims to have made a complaint with a screenshot first. Hopefully the Google admins will see that I am not to blame and not do anything, but if my blog goes down, now you know the explanation and it will of course go back up elsewhere.

I am so sorry that I didn't listen to you all from the start about what a nasty person Gally is :(

But I have learned my lesson and will do my best to not let him ruin things for us. I will pursue this as far as it goes if Google takes any action and hopefully they will side with me. Gally can't go to jail soon enough and we need to be extremely careful about possible hacking or social engineering or false evidence attempts now as I am sure he will try to damage us any way he can.

Caamib said...

The Norwegian person above (likely Gally himself) is being ridiculous. That is not "child pornography" and Eivind can't really control what his posters post initially. It's obvious he deleted it immediately and thus didn't condone it (if only for the sake of security of his blog). Besides, Eivind posted actual blog posts of him recommending rape on his blog and nothing was done.

Keep posting your wet dreams, Gally. Your description made it so obvious that you never had sex, as any man would actually bang a 14 yo who goes to a motel with him. Especially somebody like Holocaust, who would see this as a gold opportunity in fascist Britain. To say this didn't happen but you just had oral sex is a fairy tale.

Gally, you are a pathetic abused dog who likes his abusers. I can see why Eivind would be scared of you. You're seriously fucked in the head.

I'll reply to the rest later.

Eivind Berge said...

It's worse than that, because the impersonator also tried to incriminate Holocaust21 by confessing sex crimes in his name in graphic detail, with a link to his blog in the name. Watch out for similar impersonation on other male sexualist fora!

Eivind Berge said...

I have been reported hundreds of times and hopefully this will be no different. But it is also a different climate now with even less tolerance, so it is scary.

Let us all be very careful what we say and not jeopardize the male sexualist movement. I was not expecting that our worst enemy should be one who has every reason to be one of us if he wasn't insane, so that's one reason I didn't see this coming.

Caamib said...

Well, ok, but incriminate him with what purpose? Any police force that would want to persecute somebody for that post would see that the IP isn't that of actual Holocaust21. Otherwise I can just post I'll kill all of Norway and say I'm Eivind Berge and the cops would come to your door? So unless they just want to wave that screenshot around, and that is something Holocaust is WAAAAAY of a too low profile for, what is the point but their fucking insanity?

It's like those lunatics who claim that police can find me because they believe they have my dox. Um, no, even if you had my actual dox the police would have to investigate by checking who is posting under a certain IP and confirm it first and would not just read it from some troll sites. And if they did investigate like that they'd find I'm actually somebody else. So most reports against me are by now, I assume, laughed out simply because my haters are reporting somebody else and claiming it's me. It's amazing how insane and stupid people can be.

Eivind Berge said...

Well, if that comment had been believed to be from him it would be reason to investigate him (and they like investigating historical sex offenses a lot in the UK), which at the very least would be highly unpleasant. We are dealing with a very dangerous person here, because he does have some expertise. Spoofing an IP would be comparatively easy. I wouldn't underestimate what he can do if he sets his malicious mind to it. Can he dox you, Caamib? Probably not, but we don't really know what he can do, or what kind of other nasty characters he can enlist to help him. I will have to be suspicious of comments from you too now, as any of us could be impersonated. I just want to forget him and move on most of all, but we need to be alert.

Caamib said...

Yes, I agree it would be unpleasant, given what Holocaust writes (they must end up combing his blog and finding some or other bs crime to accuse him of), but in the end it remains a stretch that the police would even investigate this given what we wrote about it later and in the end at least when it comes to this comment they'd see it wasn't him.

As for Gally, no, I don't see how some batshit middle aged Norweigan can dox me. He's the kind of person to buy into anything, just like he bought into feminist nonsene, so he'll just probably believe what most sheep do about my identity. It's all the same mechanism. Few people can actually check sources and think for themselves.

Caamib said...

ooops.. *they might end up combing

Eivind Berge said...

It's funny how bad laws sometimes manage to catch exactly the people who should be in prison despite being bad laws. Child porn laws are based on nonsense, but they managed to hit the bullseye in this case. Laws for nonviolent drug offenses often work the same way, and here they came together and worked karma magic. A bad character will tend to eventually catch up with you no matter what the system, and conversely you can get away with breaking more stupid laws if you are generally good.

Sometimes really innocent people are still victimized, however, which is why I will continue to campaign against bad laws.

Caamib said...

I’ve seen this claim before this week by somebody and in both cases it wasn’t explained at all. There are several ways in which such an arrest can be avoided. From texting the girl briefly and with vague messages and meeting up as soon as possible, to beating a retreat the moment things become fishy and you think she’s gonna tell somebody, to many other things. It would all depend on your communication with the girl and instincts. When I tried my Tinder for teens experiment, weeks before it was cancelled, I went for one girl as young as 13 and she was real, just really immature so the youngest I did in fact meet was 15 and thus legal. Though I would have lied on that site where I was doing my report if I met some younger girl, just so I don’t get reported to the authorities by cucks and femifascist scum there.

Caamib said...

Amazingly, another imposter above !

Of course this text you see above me, although mine, is a complete non-sequitur and was actually posted here

But thanks for even bothering to link to my blog, kind sir, I know that must have been painful.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, we are under attack. I am still pretty sure Gally was the one who wrote in Norwegian about reporting me, but there could be others behind some of this impersonation as well and he knows how to cover his tracks so we will never have proof.

Anonymous said...

Hvis han virkelig har gemt et skærmbillede af teksten og er i besiddelse af det, har han så ikke selv begået noget ulovligt?

Eivind Berge said...

Quite right, Gally could be prosecuted under Norwegian law for that, but he is already so thoroughly incriminated on that crime that I don't think he cares at this point. Hopefully he still cares about not committing other crimes, however, as those could still add to his prison sentence.

Caamib said...

Anyway, back to posts here..

John, back up for a second. You sound like a typical irrational American now. The only reason why we even started talking about serial killers is that you mentioned them when I talked about limited political pedophilia and what it entails. There are some serial killers that have never been caught (Jack the Ripper and Zodiac are famous examples of that) but that's not even my point. I don't care about serial killers nor am I one nor do I intend to live in America. The point is simply that, to a limited political pedophile, lives of Western women aren't just expendable but a hindrance.

Regarding invites from teenage girls, I said nothing about that. In what I talked about you invite them somewhere, it's not like they invite you. You're so damn paranoid, like most Americans.

Eivind, the issue with personality disorder isn't whether people have or don't have personalities. The issue is that there is no way to diagnose such disorders but mere impression of a doctor and that most symptoms overlap, which makes the whole thing even more flimsy. Like I said, it's very easy for 2-3 shrinks to diagnose personality disorders that exclude each other. It's a big fat, sad joke. Gally diagnosed you because he is, as we know, a crazy idiot. But if you're doing at as well, even tongue-in-cheek, the problem is that other crazy idiots will take it seriously and do the same. I mean, I've seen entire discussions with hundreds of posts about what diagnosis people like you and I have, from non-psychologists who have never even seen us. People who are that dumb and delusional don't need much encouragement.

Anonymous said...

Du har 48 timer til å lukke bloggen din og din Twitter-konto. Hvis du ignorerer dette, vil jeg få en rettsordre for at politiet skal komme inn i huset ditt og ta dine elektroniske gjenstander. Ikke lek med meg.

Caamib said...

Forgot to explain the part about limited political pedophilia.

I understand why you're not a limited political pedophile very well, Eivind. Honestly, I would likely not be as well if I had been in a relationship as long as you did. Men have a natural urge to want to protect and care for women. But when these women turn into monsters this urge dissipates. You can't really recognize this a lot since you've been with a woman for so long but I can, I could even during my last relationship of 2017-2018. This isn't to say that you adjust your convictions based on your circumstances, not at all. You are a noble, brave and good man but some ideas, like limited political pedophilia, are very violent and extreme and unless a man became extremely disappointed with Western women for a long time of course they will be repugnant to somebody.

Now, if you, as I might say it, "went back to the trenches", which means if you became single again, I am pretty sure you'd soon face multiple failures and disappointments just like you did pre-2012, so you might become closer to becoming a limited political pedophile but I would never wish you to suffer so much again.

Caamib said...

"Du har 48 timer til å lukke bloggen din og din Twitter-konto. Hvis du ignorerer dette, vil jeg få en rettsordre for at politiet skal komme inn i huset ditt og ta dine elektroniske gjenstander. Ikke lek med meg."

Go masturbate to that new stash of child porn you gathered since the last bust, you'll feel better.

Anonymous said...

Wow what happened here? Anyway I think it's better to stop this, I think they're just feminist trolls or guys from Anonymous.

So going back to the above issue, you should make a post explaining how to quit porn, it's an addiction, it's not as easy as saying "stop smoking". So your opinion would be very helpful in helping men to quit porn.

Caamib said...

I guess Eivind might make a how-to guide if he has some experience and thought about it. I just quit cold turkey, knowing what is in store for me if I manage to stay disciplined - a lot of free pussy. So I can't really make a step-by-step guide. But my problem wasn't porn but things like erotic stories or pictures of jailbaits.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't really have better advice than quitting porn cold turkey. Also you should delete any you might have laying around so as to not get tempted, but that's really all there is to it: don't look at it and don't masturbate. There is a lot written about the so-called reboot process on various sites such as, and it follows a pretty consistent pattern which contains some surprises if you didn't believe in it. There may be withdrawals, but those are harmless and should be ignored. You will probably go through what is known as a flatline where your libido appears to go into hibernation, but it will come back with a vengeance and that's when you are ready to have a healthy sex life. This is also when you will truly realize what you have been missing and how bad porn and masturbation really is. If you relapse, just restart the reboot, and if you are really struggling with the addictive aspects it might help to go to these sites where men talk about their rebooting and support each other. Remember that the rewards of quitting this crap are greater than just about any other bad habit you can imagine, so it is really, really worth it.

Alice said...

I don’t personally believe that women have any more agency in their sexual decisions at 20 than they do at 13, and arranged marriages with brides that young were uncommon but unremarkable occurrences in the West until about 200 years ago. However, the rampant fucking of girl children triggers the powerful ‘protect children’ instinct, which by virtue of its power must be a fundamental truth in the sense of natural law. When my neighbor’s seven year old daughter tells me that she’s not wearing panties, it makes me want to reach for a noose and drag her and her junkie injun boyfriend, who was probably fucking her, behind my car.

Caamib said...

"When my neighbor’s seven year old daughter tells me that she’s not wearing panties, it makes me want to reach for a noose and drag her and her junkie injun boyfriend, who was probably fucking her, behind my car."

This is also something that has sparked a new idea for those of you in the US who want jailbaits. Are there some trashy trailer park neighborhoods where things like these are going on? Maybe you can find nice jailbaits there and pay their boyfriends with drugs or something. It's better than nothing, just make sure to wear a condom.

Eivind Berge said...

I am glad I don't feel that "protect children" instinct, because what it makes you want to do to the children is obviously nothing of the sort. A more honest description would be a "destroy children if they are sexualized (and everyone associated)" instinct, which is indeed how both the modern feminist police state and some equally nasty traditional moralities operate.

Caamib said...

Protect the children ! By forever scarring them when you send in a rabid bunch of pig cops and scumbag prosecutors to imprison their lovers, shame them at school, scrutinize their lives and make them suicidal, all of doing what is completely normal and having sex with older men ! That will protect these girls alright !

john said...

MORE terrible "advice"? my advice has always been the same, only NOW it can't be stressed more, go overseas for your jailbait. if you lived in the u.s, you'd get it.

john said...

caamib, come to America man! you want 12 year olds? go straight to Disney world.parents bring their kids there so plenty of 12 year old hotties and guess what? no cameras! airports are also great pick up places too.just hang out around the women's bathroom and hit on the kids when they come out! you can thank me later!

Jack said...

In my view the crusade against female sex-offenders is an extreme form of slut-shaming and is being led by women. Women resent some women giving sex to men for free.