Saturday, August 03, 2019

Which is worse: the female sex offender charade or female genital mutilation?

It is difficult to think of anything as deranged as the lie that women can commit sexual abuse -- and believe me, I have tried! The closest contender I can think of so far is female genital mutilation (FGM). Both are done to mutilate women sexually, the former by means of incarceration and/or "sex offender" registration and the latter more directly. Feminists support the female sex offender charade as vigorously as they oppose FGM, which goes to show that sadly, enlightenment in one area is cancelled out by new-found antisex bigotry in another, making our culture at least as bad as any other.

My point of making this comparison is to help readers snap out of the lie that there is any need to punish women as "sexual abusers." Because if you could see that both practices are equally baseless and indefensible (or based on ulterior motives), surely you wouldn't be so cruel as to want any of this? But it is difficult to see so from within your own culture when it is committed to such things, I know.

I am friends with a girl from Somalia whom I met on Tinder. She is a victim of FGM. Even more startlingly, it was her idea. Her parents weren't going to make her have it, but she got the idea that she needed it. Not because it is a good idea, obviously, but because her culture somehow told her so. We know female genitalia don't need to be mutilated as surely as we know that boys can't be "abused" by exposure to female sexuality. But cultures can be horribly misguided sometimes, and that is not okay. It is imperative that we do what we can to resist such practices when we understand how pointless and harmful they are.

Let us first consider the causes. "For every complex phenomenon there is an explanation that is," as the saying goes, "clear, simple and wrong," which is not what I am getting at. But one thing that jumps out is that these atrocities are primarily perpetrated by women. They are female-on-female violence or self-harm. Feminists begged for our current sex laws and it is mothers who egg their sons on to accuse women of contrived abuse on the basis of these laws, while men like me stand back in shock and disbelief, except sometimes when fathers are blinded by greed into supporting the accusations. Women have their daughters circumcised, or girls even chose it themselves. The female sexual trade unionist theory seems to have some merit in explaining both sorts of cultural misogyny. As explained by Baumeister & Twenge in this paper, "the evidence favors the view that women have worked to stifle each other’s sexuality because sex is a limited resource that women use to negotiate with men, and scarcity gives women an advantage." I think there is some overlap between this and the notion of women as property, and both go some way towards explaining the antisex bigotry which harms women. And finally I think such customs are partly down to random chance and noise. Superstitions get established on the whim of some supposed authority and then they stick. Luckily, we don't need to know the exact causes to know that they are bad. All we need to know is that women thrive with intact genitalia and both women and boys thrive where intimacy between them isn't persecuted.

Which is worse of these two travesties is a close call. On the one hand it is dreary to live in a society with a high prevalence of FGM, and most women still escape harm from the sex laws in ours. But then you have some lives completely ruined by the female sex offender charade, with prison terms up to the 22 years against Jennifer Fichter which I think is the record, making this probably worse for these women than to have been genitally mutilated, and remember, feminist sex-hostility is still very much ascendant so this might be only the beginning!

We also need to consider the secondary harm to males. Boys who could have enjoyed sex with women if not for the deterrence of our malicious sex laws are also victims of the female sex offender charade. FGM likewise leads to less sexually enthusiastic women because they enjoy it less, which is bad for boys and men too. At least partly as a result of this, my genitally mutilated Tinder date did not want to have sex with me unless we got monogamous and preferably married! This is a pest or cholera situation where if I had to make a choice, I would still declare the female sex offender charade worse because of its intellectual offensiveness on top of the moral travesty. It's a sad, cringeworthy sight to see so many people make retards of themselves and spout support for the female sex offender charade. At least FGM doesn't come with a lie you have to be an idiot to accept intellectually -- that boys don't "really" enjoy sex when they appear to when making love to a "sex offender"; that sex isn't a female resource and male sexuality is equally exploitable by women -- instead it puts a damper on female sexuality indiscriminately for reasons that don't purport to fit into the scientific worldview. I find it less offensive to just cause harm to everybody because that is what one's culture does for whatever bullshit reasons than to single out some victims for harm for even more bizarre reasons.

The female sex offender charade, in contrast, has been adopted by the social "sciences," which heightens the charade because at least FGM doesn't have a "science" backing it up. The way they go about it is that no question is ever allowed to be posed in a falsifiable manner if such a negative finding would go against our dogmatic definitions of abuse. Just look what happened to the Rind report. You can't observe a possibility that is taboo to consider with anything but righteous, brainless, knee-jerk condemnation, so our social sciences now dutifully report all the "abuse" the antisex bigots arbitrarily defined into existence. Once again Baumeister deserves and honorable mention, however, for going against the grain with this paper on sex as a female resource, where his formulation of the female sex offender charade appears on page 351-2. Although a bit weaker than mine, it captures the gist:
Moreover, an asymmetry in victims’ reactions supports the view that sex is a female resource. Male victims of sexual coercion by women typically report far less distress or trauma, and they are more likely to look back on the incident as minor and unimportant (even if distasteful), as compared with female victims of male coercion. In an important sense, the male victims seem less prone than female victims to feel that they have lost something of value—consistent with the view that sex is not a male resource. [...] An extreme version of the social exchange analysis would insist that women would never rape or sexually coerce men. Clearly this would be false. A milder version thus holds simply that female coercion of male victims lacks an important dimension, namely theft of the resource, and so the trauma and victimization are less severe.
The difference between what Baumeister is saying here and all my rants against the female sex offender charade is quite small, almost cosmetic. I don't deny that female sexual coercion happens and may sometimes deserve prosecution as lesser crimes than sex crimes; all I am saying is precisely like him that they lack the dimension of theft of sexual resource. The difference is that he foolishly abuses the word "rape" and isn't explicitly calling for legal reforms to bring the sex laws back into line with reality, but it would certainly follow from his position as well that women deserve far less punishment than the justice system is determined to give them now that they are to be treated like men, complete with the charade that men have a sexual resource worth protecting from women to an equal extent as vice versa.

Biology is not yet so corrupted as the social sciences, but it isn't doing anything politically to stop this madness either, with evolutionary psychologists confined to a little corner where they are shamed and marginalized, though they have the right ideas. And the pedophile activist movement does not do enough for women, only incidentally standing up for them when they also stand up for men. They may be right about men, but they fail to realize that we need to go much further for women because the entire concept of "women sexually abusing boys" is gibberish even when the boys are unwilling (or if you want to get into the finer nuances, sexual exploitation is the component which needs to be removed from the laws with regard to female lawbreakers, for which I am literally the only activist).

And what about the humanities, you might be wondering? Well, ignoring crap like women's studies, the female sex offender charade is mostly not an issue to them because it isn't found in their subject matter. There is not a single example of a female "sexual abuser" in the entire literary canon, for example (of any culture, not just Western!), because great writers were not so silly as to dream up such nonsense. Nor is it found in anthropology, mythology, history, philosophy, ethics or jurisprudence until recent feminist crap. Literature is full of female sex offenders, but they are like Hester Prynne, victims of an at least ostensibly very different kind of antisex bigotry than the feminist kind, though their actions are often indistinguishable from what feminists now want to punish under the pretext that I call the female sex offender charade. The fact that feminist-defined female "abusers" are often the same who would be punished for abusing themselves and thus squandering a sexual resource belonging to someone else (as in adultery or fornication which brings shame on the family) under the old system should give feminists pause, but feminists are too dense to realize that they are playing into the same notion of women as property of men or religion that gave rise to the scarlet letter treatment.

I distinguish between two levels of female sex offender charade: half and full retard. Half-retard female sex offender charade is the belief that women's violence can be aggravated by a sexual component and so deserves to be prosecuted as for example "rape" or "sexual assault" with the inflated punishments that come with this categorization. These cases I only designate as half retard because they may reasonably be prosecuted as lesser crimes such as simple assault. They are also extremely rare (not necessarily because they don't happen, but because men don't accuse even though doing so is now the most politically correct thing in the world, which is further evidence that we don't want your stinking feminist sex laws), to the point that the female sex offender charade almost would be reduced to an academic gripe of mine if we managed to get rid of the full-retard part. Most actual court cases are full retard, where it is imagined that women can commit statutory (but reified) sex crimes hinging on supposed sexual exploitation of a victim, such as violations related to age of consent or positions of authority. Get rid of this, and we liberate all the teachers who seem to make up most female "sex offenders." Jennifer Fichter and Mary Kay Letourneau are poignant examples of full-retard cases, where you have to be a total inhumane dimwit to accept that any crime has reasonably occurred at all.

For completeness' sake, I should mention (again) that not all prosecutions of women for sex crimes fall within the female sex offender charade. When women are punished, say, for adultery because it is "a sin" or "immoral," this is plenty bigoted and tyrannical but does not qualify as a charade. Sharia law is a pure example of this. The United States still also retains a "vice" component to sexual prosecution that is not based on the idea of victimhood and is mostly used against hookers. In the most feministic countries, however, it is as if we have forgotten that sexuality can be prosecuted on anything other than a "victim" pretext. With what started as the Swedish model of criminalizing the purchase but not selling of sex, governments still conduct a war on whores, but we pretend that they are victims of men, who are then formally prosecuted while the whores are mistreated and downtrodden as a side effect. It seems to me that people here use the "victim" charade (with extreme inflation of both female and male victimhood) partly to hide the fact that they are control freaks about everything to do with sexuality, even more antisex-bigoted than people in countries that still have sex laws overtly based on religious intolerance. I suppose if you are dense enough to truly believe all the "victim" nonsense, this really works and you get to feel good and "liberal" and "feminist" about yourself while having your antisex bigotry too.

Thankfully, my position on full-retard female "sex offenses" coincides or at least greatly overlaps with pro-contact MAP activism such as the kind espoused by Tom O'Carroll, so I am not alone on this. But imagine if you lived in a society where no one but you spoke out against female genital mutilation. That is the situation in which I find myself with regard to the (half-retard) female sex offender charade, and why I can't stop writing about it because if I don't then no one will and I can't bear living in a moral vacuum. The female victims of non-charade sex laws also have activists (mainly sex workers like this verbose individual), but I am the only one comprehensively standing up for women on all three levels of sex crime, from pure intolerance to pure fantasy that they be abusers.

This has been the first of a planned series of posts where I compare the female sex offender charade to other weird, bizarre or absurd cultural phenomena, which I find to be a fruitful way to shed light on just how outlandish it is. Examples: UFO encounters, magic, belief in the supernatural or the afterlife, the Singularity, Roko's basilisk, metaphysical idealism, open individualism, empty individualism, shamanism, insanity, mereological nihilism, Bolzmann brains, quack healing, belief in self-driving cars and other supposedly near-term AI, mystical experiences, the perspectival theory of entropy, cannibalism, human sacrifice (already did a post on this one, but should do another because it is an excellent parallel both in terms of cruelty, pointlessness, irrational beliefs and presumably the lack of any organized efforts from victims to fight back) -- probably none of which are as weird as the female sex offender charade, and I shall explain why in due course. If anyone has suggestions for more weird things to compare it to, be sure to let me know in the comments. All words for the crazy, stupid or evil fail us when it comes to describing what it means to put women on trial for being sexually nice to boys while contriving "abuse," so we need to approach this phenomenon in extraordinary ways through a multitude of lenses to get closer to understanding what is going on and perhaps persuade those capable of rational thought on the subject, if there are any left.


Anonymous said...

I thought you said you were moving away from this topic, leader. The number of adult female victims of the sex laws is so utterly trivial, and one can hardly blame men, especially minor attracted men, from enjoying seeing an adult woman punished given most of the time they get away with so much.

I want to know if you have an opinion on this story:

Why is such a young girl so hateful towards men, and I mean even young twenty-something men, who show interest in her. Is this natural? KindWolf at boychat has posted so.ething on it.

Eivind Berge said...

It is true that the number of adult female victims of the sex laws is small, almost trivial, but they keep trickling in and it really bothers me. For example Brittany Zamora now in the news:

We can't just ignore this, and even if the number is trivial, the idea of punishing women for such contrived "sexual abuse" is certainly not since it represents a major moral failing of our civilization, as well as a batshit crazy superstition. I am sure some cultures would sacrifice a "trivial" number of people to appease the gods also, but can we as decent, hopefully enlightened people stand by and condone such a custom? No, we need to be honest and oppose pointless suffering. And to those who enjoy seeing women suffer for victimless sex crimes I can only say that you need to reevaluate your morals because that is so wrong and plays right into what the antisex bigots want for both men and women.

I checked out your link and am very saddened by it. Is it normal for a 13-year-old girl to act like this?

"Hey guys! So once again I am bringing this to your attention because I'm a 13 year old girl and he is 21/20 super creepy."

She is creeped out just because a man says "Hi" to her, huh? No, I don't think this comes naturally. It is what you get when we have a culture of antisex hate centered around a grand taboo against contact with minors. The very existence of normal male sexuality is now seen as "predatory," to be artificially sealed away from minors. You can evidently bring up (some) girls to talk like this, but it is no more normal than having them ask for genital mutilation. The way to fight this is firstly to take a moral stand against it, which includes stating very clearly that we disagree with doing any of this to women either!

Eivind Berge said...

The female sex offender charade takes a another bizarre turn:

"A woman sexually abused her baby when she performed a sex act on herself while he was in the same room, a family court judge has ruled... Judge Thomas Greensmith concluded her behaviour can be appropriately defined as sexual abuse of a child - fitting a definition used by children's charity the NSPCC."

You can't make this shit up; it's so freaky that supposedly rational people like judges are so sick in the head that I don't have words. How does this MORON become a judge???

The judge said: "The mother has admitted that she has (performed the sex act) in the presence of (the baby) on numerous occasions and on some occasions whilst he was in her arms during her stay at the assessment centre.

"In my judgment what the mother has done fits an appropriate definition of sexual abuse.

"The mother's exposure of (the baby) to her sexual act... is in my judgment an instance where the mother failed to take proper measures to prevent (him) being exposed to sexual activity.

"Applying the NSPCC definition of sexual abuse, I find that the mother has sexually abused her child.

"This demonstrates, in my judgment, that the mother does not have an appropriate understanding of the effects exposure to sexual activity will have on a young child. I am satisfied that this was an act of sexual abuse on the part of the mother."

How does this idiot imagine that humans got by for most of history when parents didn't have separate bedrooms from their children? How is it possible to believe that this bizarre definition of "sexual abuse" is the "correct" one? How the fuck did we get into this delusion that "exposure to sexual activity" will damage children, and how can people with seemingly normal IQs believe this?

Eivind Berge said...

It's a bizarro world, a surreal freak show of institutionalized insanity, anything to do with sex in our culture. It's as if all superstition has been laser focused into this as we got more enlightened in other areas, blowing away any ability for rational thinking or common sense.

And when you take all the antisex bigotry and superstition and distill it once again, you are get the female sex offender charade, the ne plus ultra of all insane beliefs ever invented.

You can have very different beliefs than mine in many different areas and I will still consider you human. But the female sex offender charade is different because it negates so much of our shared experience of what it means to be human and replaces it with an alien metaphysical layer of “abuse” that is supposed to override our intimate experiences and feelings and intuitions. I don’t care what gods you believe in (if any), or whether you even believe in physical reality. You can be an idealist and even solipsist for all I care and I will still take you seriously as a person. You can also be callous, hateful or psychopathic and completely selfish, and I will still respect your basic humanity. And you can be a literal idiot with too low intelligence to understand what crime and punishment even means, and I will take you seriously.

But not so if you believe in the female sex offender charade, especially the full-retard kind. Because nothing is more dehumanizing than to deny a boy’s sexuality and replace it with “abuse.” (As well as constructing imaginary harm from "exposure" when sexual activity is just irrelevant, as the above example shows.) Because I know in all the ways it is possible to know anything, from personal experience to observation and theory that the idea is so bonkers that it doesn’t belong in the human condition. Once you go down that rabbit hole, I can no longer take you seriously as a person because too much of our shared reality is denied. Then you appear to me as a zombie, a nonplayer character in a charade and nothing more, saying your vacuous lines with no soul inside.

In the history of really bad ideas, this one stands out as more offensive than all the rest because it attacks your soul the deepest. It’s like throwing acid into your soul attempting to blot out your whole identity. No idea can be more dehumanizing, with the possible exception of solipsism, but no one acts as if they believe that anyway. The justice system acts as if the female sex offender charade is really valid though, which is so staggeringly insane that we need to do our parts to stop it! No, I am not moving away from this subject, because it deserves to be at the forefront of not only male sexualism but common decency if anybody still had that.

Eivind Berge said...

The female sex offender charade is an attack on all men (and a few women), not just boys growing up now and in the future. It is too late for me to be “abused” as a boy, but still part of my identity that I would have wanted it and know I would have benefited from it, so attempts to take that away from me and replace it with the delusional belief that my only sexual capacity was to be abused while underage are extremely upsetting!

I hope you guys who still follow my leadership of male sexualism can begin to appreciate that this is a nontrivial issue on many levels. We are not just trying to prevent a few good women from going to prison, but to save a large part of our masculine and human identities from evil. This is an epic struggle between good and evil, truth and lies, love and hate, life/fertility and death. This is more compelling than, say, the story of Jesus, whom it is hard to take seriously as a perfect being or sympathize THAT much with his charges of pissing off the authorities, which was for comparatively silly reasons if you think about it. These women are so obviously pure, and more angelic the more “guilty” they are! Putting them on trial is the greatest contrast between good and evil imaginable, surpassing all others, real or imaginary.

As men, when our sexuality is criminalized we at least know what we are: enemies of the state, quislings as some of us are painfully aware and we have a tiny but real, proudly egosyntonic movement. But women are 100% brainwashed. They must rely exclusively on men to stand up for them because they have no ability to do so themselves. Even all the female activism against non-charade sex crimes is ultimately fueled by the male sex drive, since sex workers wouldn’t exist without it and hence would have no need for activism against the so-called war on whores (which again underscores how limited their focus is). So there is exactly zero female sexualist activism flowing from within; all is a product of the male sex drive. The female libido is weaker than laws and social norms for all intents and purposes except they do manage to “misbehave” sometimes, but the only way they will stand up for themselves after misbehaving is if it wasn’t sexually motivated in the first place. All female desire is instantly overpowered by social oppression once it rears its ugly head. Hence you have some sex worker activism, but zero victims of the female sex offender charade will make any political noise.

Male sexualism is that important! And our resistance to the female sex offender charade so essential. Let’s not lose sight of this. We are the only hope for so much of sexuality and thus humanity.

Eivind Berge said...

I still can't stop laughing at that judge. Who thinks a woman touching herself will harm a baby in the same room, but at the same time he no doubt buys the prevailing belief that the same boy can engage in unlimited masturbation and not be harmed. Because that fosters asexuality, so it's fine. See how evil this culture is, focused on breaking down all intimacy and rooting out sexuality? See how this ties into why the mainstream hates nofap? It is fine if a boy destroys his sexuality because sex is loathed in our culture anyway. Sex is so incredibly harmful that just someone, even a woman, masturbating in the same room will harm you, and it is better to end up impotent and incel so we can "protect" you from sex.

Let’s try to enumerate the levels of delusion the judge has accepted:

1. That children are automatically damaged by exposure to sexual activity.
2. That masturbation is sexual activity (when it suits the antisex bigots, but not when boys self-abuse).
3. That boys and girls are equally damaged, and female sexuality is equally damaging as male.
4. That it doesn’t even matter if they are too small to understand, or don’t care that someone might be carrying out such a “sex act” in the same room.

That’s four layers of delusion piled on top of each other, and in addition it takes a monster to want to take children away from their parents for something so insanely trivial even if you buy into this charade. I’ve often wondered if there is a point where people will catch on to the insanity and refuse to go along with the agenda of the antisex bigots and the definitions of the sickos in the NSPCC etc., but if they can swallow this there is really no hope because I can’t come up with anything more bizarre. Antisex hysteria will not end by the bigots overplaying their hand and earning ridicule, because people are not capable of independent thought on sexuality. Our only hope, once again, is to build an ideological resistance such as male sexualism.

Anonymous said...

So, according to that judge, the laws are made by the NSPCC and not by the Parliament? Seriously, his wig should be seized and sold to the local Carnival store, and he himself should be transferred to the team responsible for washing the courtroom floors (provided that he, after so many years as a sitting puppet, is even capable of holding a broom in his hand).

Eivind Berge said...

A male sexualist has fallen, driven to suicide by the feminist police state.

RIP Jeffrey Epstein, a brilliant male sexualist in deed if not in expressed ideology. And those are the most significant ones anyway, while us ideologues don't make a difference. If only more practicing male sexualists could become politicized, we really would have a chance of changing the laws against our normal and healthy sexuality. Instead they simply flaunt it until they sometimes get caught, which no doubt is the recipe of having the best life but sadly does nothing to end the war on our sexuality.

Norsk said...

A great man is dead. I loathe the people who drove you to this. Rest in peace, Jeffrey.

Anonymous said...

The attacker against a Norwegian Mosque had references to the INCEL-movent on of his online profiles. Was he actually an aggressive INCEL rather than a moslem hater? Will the INCEL movement be the next great threat to mainstream society?

Eivind Berge said...

Let's see, this "terrorist" only managed to kill his adoptive little sister and then was overpowered by an unarmed 75-year-old at the mosque. I haven't checked out his online profiles, but if this has anything to do with the incel movement, it does take it to a new low.

Not only is this an attack on the wrong "enemies," but also not much of a threat against society, is it? But sad about the sister. Anyway, can the incels please get it into their heads that it is the sex laws that are our enemy!? If anything, Islam is less sex-hostile than the current feminist regime and should be welcomed rather than resisted if you want to enjoy a healthy sex life. He should be banging his Muslim/immigrant sisters, not killing them.

Get male sexualism and nofap, and then you will see the light.

Eivind Berge said...

I see the shooter is identified as 22-year-old Philip Manshaus, and the evidence linking him to incels seem to be that he liked a parody group on Facebook called "NO to sex, YES to Jesus."

But this is a parody group in the delusional belief of its members only, because they promote the idea that masturbation is harmless and even sex-positive, which we male sexualists know couldn't be more wrong.

I'm not going to rehash all the reasons for nofap now, but suffice it to say that Philip Manshaus is proof positive. Instead of trying to have sex with the 17-year-old Chinese girl who had joined the family, he killed her. That is so messed up, if you still don't understand that masturbation is maladaptive, I don't know what more to tell you.

Eivind Berge said...

Another weird idea that compares favorably with the female sex offender charade: retrocausation.

I am not convinced, but it is something serious people can take seriously and discuss intelligently. Serious people don't defend the female sex offender charade, but unfortunately they don't do much to stop it either (except me), which lets the idiots reign.