Monday, September 30, 2019

Innocent victims of unenlightened times

Women prosecuted for witchcraft centuries ago are today rightly considered innocent victims of unenlightened times:
Lilias Adie died in prison in 1704, before she could be convicted, strangled and burned at the stake for a crime to which she had reportedly confessed -- of being a witch, and having sex with the devil.
She was buried on a beach in Torryburn, Fife by locals -- who were so concerned that she might "reanimate" and rise from her grave that they buried her under a large stone.
But why is it so hard to see that we aren't done with that sort of persecution, complete with the bizarre and draconian efforts to contain the "witches"? Nowadays the unenlightenment has shifted to "sexual abuse" instead of "witchcraft" (well, not quite, as we shall see -- but who cares -- the concepts are mostly interchangeable anyway), and it is every bit as absurd. To make it worse, the selection process has grown more malignant because we now single out the sweetest, most innocent, nicest women for prosecution, those who are kind to young boys rather than an imaginary devil. (We even manage to target some of the most beautiful women, which makes me suspect that there is a touch of women-as-property oppression also going on here.)

You need to read no further than the title of this typical presentation of the current madness to understand that this is a literal witch-hunt:

Sex Abuse Victim Has Changed Thanks To Teacher Brittany Zamora’s ‘Black Magic,’ Lawsuit Contends

Prosecutors and the media accuse women of black magic with a straight face, courts sentence them to decades in prison for patent absurdities and I am the only one horrified. The only one horrified! This in a supposedly civilized country too, I am the only one who loses sleep over it. Others don't object to the gobbledygook of the witch doctors which imputes harm to boys via mechanisms so preposterous that they literally can't be described as anything but black magic, which makes me feel so alone and frightened and indignant and righteous and of course smarter than those dimwits, in addition to sorry for the innocent victims of our unenlightened times.

Just listen to the witch doctors' wishful conjurance of harm from their imagined black magic... Hell, the Malleus Maleficarum is more convincing than this shit!
Clinical psychologist Dr. Richard Gartner, who co-founded "Male Survivor," formerly the National Organization on Male Sexual Victimization, evaluated the victim in 2018, according to the lawsuit. 
Gartner noted that while the boy is not yet exhibiting obvious signs of post-traumatic stress disorder or depression, he said it is very possible it will develop later in life. He said it is difficult to predict what specific symptoms the boy will likely develop "in the years and decades ahead."

He said the boy "has shown signs that he can become explosive if angry feelings break through his capacity to manage them." He went on to say that it's common for sexually abused men to get into compulsive behaviors like alcoholism, drug addiction, workaholism and compulsive spending. 
Gartner said the victim should be watched and supported now and into the future.
Yeah, there is no discernible harm, but ye must have faith in abuse hysteria because... any bad thing that could possibly happen in this boy's life can now be blamed on the contrived abuse; never mind that there is no scientific or commonsense reason to expect that he will fare worse than anyone else, except possibly by the nocebo effect if the witch doctors get lucky with their hateful agenda.

Thus we have a woman serving 20 years based on nothing but the wishful thinking of a charlatan who makes his living drumming up contrived abuse while fraudulently attributing harm to it. And she is just one in an ongoing witch-hunt! We need to care about this!

The delusion that exposure to friendly female sexuality can harm boys is the most bizarre superstition of our times, and I am on a mission to undermine it.


Eivind Berge said...

Another travesty unfolding before our eyes:

Dayna Chidester facing at least 15 years for a loving relationship with a 14-year-old boy.

Also a case of contrived lesbian abuse of a 15-year-old resulting in 26 years!

Holy shit, this is even more disturbing than what they did to Zamora. It is difficult to view the monsters who perpetrate these witch-hunts as human, since they can be so profoundly sick in the head as to either literally believe that these harmless relationships constitute heinous abuse or so evil that they want such draconian punishments for something they understand to be victimless. Either way they are abject monsters who occupy the exact same moral position as those who burned witches.

Eivind Berge said...

In other news, it's also a myth that red meat is bad for you:

Even I believed in that shit, to some extent though not enough to change my habits. See how easy it is to be fooled by "experts" who claim to know things they don't have scientific coverage for? And the red meat studies were a lot stronger than their sexual fabulations used to conduct entire holocausts.

Eivind Berge said...

And what does REAL child abuse get you?

Daycare Worker Was Caught Breaking The Legs Of 4 Different Toddlers In The Same Day

In Florida, land of extreme punishments and psychotic sex-hostility which locks up Jennifer Fichter for 22 years and Laruen Debenedetta for 26 for being NICE to teenagers...

"Curtis paid her low $4,000 bond and is out free, waiting for her day in court."

Anonymous said...

You should see the high school and college students America is producing these days - embarassing, confused husks of non gendered individuals

Eivind Berge said...

So when responsible adults like me die out there will be no one left to protest the female sex offender charade and other gender confusion? No, I don't believe that. I think lots of people know better including today's students, but they are cowards who don't dare stand up to the madness of our times.

Here is at least one other person who is speaking out against exactly this phenomenon, I was just watching:

"This phenomenon, emanating mainly from universities and the media, seems to allow only a certain set of convictions. Douglas Murray uncovers the religious nature of this development and describes the looming dangers in his interview with Roland Tichy and Achim Winter of the German magazine Tichys Einblick."

Eivind Berge said...

There is no gender confusion in these numbers:

Out of 193 people persecuted for buying sex in Norway in 2018, all are men, many of them young.

On the ground when it really matters, no one is confused about the fact that sex is a female resource. Only the sickos in the police and justice system and abuse industry attempt to impose the charade that male and female sexuality are equal, but when it comes down to it no one acts that way. Well, except the trannies, but it is only a politically correct charade that we take them seriously as well.

Also very sad the the victims of the sex purchase law are not becoming MRAs and male sexualists yet. But we are working on that.

Eivind Berge said...

Now we know what a man being murdered for living in his apartment is worth in Texas: 10 years is the sentence for Amber Guyger, not even close to the most contrived of sex crimes. How is it possible to get it so backwards?

Tal Hartsfeld said...

If there was such a thing as a Nazi handbook on "How To Turn Anyone Into A 'Jew'" ("Jew" in quotations, of course) I would believe a lot of those in charge (as well as a lot of commoners) were taking pointers from it (and also in other areas besides just the "sex abuse" categories).

As for the "symptoms" of the boy "having been traumatized by" his brief relationship with his teacher---they're so commonplace and ubiquitous any number of factors could be responsible for the presence of such afflictions in most anyone.
A lot of people have such afflictions who have never had such experiences, so the good doctor's faux analysis is purely subjective. And also does nothing to enhance the credibility of his profession.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes. Who can't "become explosive if angry feelings break through his capacity to manage them"? That is true by definition, a tautology. It may even be true that "it's common for sexually abused men to get into compulsive behaviors like alcoholism, drug addiction, workaholism and compulsive spending," but he is lumping all real sexual abuse by men into it and fraudulently claiming it should apply equally to friendly relationships with women. I have looked at the studies provided by people who make this claim, and they always include such confounding variables and then just assume we are stupid enough to accept their unsupported conclusion that sex with women must be bad too. There is also usually nonsexual abuse when there are bad outcomes, which certainly can be perpetrated by women, but again that tells us nothing about the effects of pleasant sexual experiences with women, or men for that matter.

And then those kinds of problems are pretty common among non-abused people as well, so it's hard to establish cause and effect even for indisputable abuse. It is also the case that most people who come to the attention of psychiatrists do so because they have problems, so there is a selection effect which ignores all the "sexually abused" people who don't get into trouble or seek treatment. Pretending a boy who has only had positive experiences and only entered the court system because of hysteria and greed should end up traumatized is irresponsible in the extreme as well as intellectually dishonest. It's like they are really wishing for this boy to have problems so they can justify their hate against the woman.

Eivind Berge said...

I am trying to think how the myth that positive sexual experiences cause trauma came about and ultimately attained its current monstrosity applied to female offenders as well, and even with male “victims.” Especially that last step beggars belief even compared to all other insane beliefs mankind has ever come up with. You can sort of understand the first step as a result of overprotection and management of nubile sexual assets backed by myths to facilitate that, as old structures based on religion and family broke down. A series of abstract “abuse” concepts decided by whatever sickos are in authority then take precedence over reality and get reified wherever they can be applied so that only the label counts regardless of how the individuals involved perceived it. I suppose you could understand the woman-on-boy-abuse idiocy as a byproduct of the rest plus the feminist lie that the sexes are equal and the motions we go trough to pretend that, but I would have expected more vocal dissent than my solitary voice. Granted, there is always lots of noise about lucky boys when comments are allowed on news sites, and many voices are silenced and others are too scared to say what they really mean, but why no better organized movement against the female sex offender charade, and why can’t I at least get some enthusiasm for my concerted effort from other male sexualists?

Sometimes I feel as though other than me, humanity died with Angry Harry. While he wasn’t focused on female sex offenders as a special charade above and beyond the rest, he always had sensible comments against the excesses of the abuse industry. One of the things he’d say when people were sentenced in draconian ways for statutory abuse is that it must be traumatic to know that you let that happen by getting involved with this person. That is the only plausibly traumatic part, something genuinely difficult to bear for the boys if they are normal compassionate humans unlike the sickos in the abuse industry. No one says this anymore; it's just assumed that antisex hate is all there is and the boys “of course” get with this program rather than feel sorry for a friend who will now spend 20 years in prison just because of some harmless fun or even a loving relationship. Perhaps some accusers really are this callous in light of all the money and encouragement they receive, but the absence of any hint that it is normal to feel bad about hurting someone for no good reason is really striking.

Contrast this with the very public act of forgiveness we sometimes see in murder cases:

WATCH: Botham Jean's brother forgives, embraces Amber Guyger

In contrived sexual abuse cases there is no reason to forgive since there was never a real offense to begin with, so that might partly explain why the “victims” are so unforgiving, but I would at least expect some regret that they participated in the prosecutions. Perhaps the fake victims will still come to their senses and speak out against the witch-hunt in the decades ahead before women like Brittany Zamora are released, but if not, it paints a really bleak picture of mankind and places a heavy burden on us male sexualists.

Anonymous said...

You call them "unenlightened times", but since the hysteria was triggered and is kept running by NGO's and spin doctors like this one, all of them working for governments, the correct term should be "unenlightened absolutism".

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, yes, but...

"Every man is the creature of the age in which he lives; very few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of the time." --Voltaire

Just the few of us pissing in the wind. But for such a noble cause it is worth it.

Anonymous said...

Speaking about doctors, it seems that doctors in banana republics have higher ethical principles than ours:

Anonymous said...

1) You should start a podcast
2) antifeminist should start a podcast
3) the captcha isn't working right on anon comments, I have to keep resubmitting

Eivind Berge said...

Good to see some bona fide medical ethics. This refusal is heartening, a male sexualist bastion in a world gone mad. Well done by the Indonesian doctors! Apparently they are the only ones who recognize that the antisex bigots have crossed yet another sacred line here, and do what they can to stop it for now. I also admire the convict's attitude that he would rather die than be chemically castrated -- that's the male sexualist spirit right there -- though I can't vouch for all his crimes against girls that young. No matter what anybody has done though, castration is always an unethical punishment and those who perpetrate that automatically become the most contemptible scum involved while the sex offender becomes a victim. They become worse than him because institutionalized wrongs are worse than individual crimes.

Meanwhile in other news, via Maggie McNeill, cops once again display their nature at the very other end of the ethical spectrum:

Cops don't care how many lives they destroy with their sick fantasies

"Hamid Keshmirian committed suicide...after bonding out on charges related to his conversations...with a...[pig fantasy role-playing a teenage girl], where Keshmirian responded to an ad that appeared to be for an adult escort...but [was really placed by lying pigs]...Keshmirian, a [62-year-old] single man, whose two adult daughters say he was battling depression and loneliness...ultimately agreed to meet up with the [imaginary] girl on Thursday, Sept. 19 — his birthday. He was arrested upon arrival, spending two nights in jail because...[pigs] denied him a phone call and kept his arrest out of the computer system while they continued to hunt other men...the [victims]...were looking to talk to other adults on legal, adult dating sites and...would never have considered talking to underage teens...[but] bait-and-switch tactics on adult dating sites have become more frequent for [pigs] that seek to boost arrest numbers related to sex crimes...[lying pigs] have resorted to teasing men who didn’t want to meet up with underage teens, pushing conversations about sex on men who didn’t want to talk about it, and offering gas money to convince one man to make a trip he initially declined. Some men are arrested for their conversations with decoys, even if they don’t ever travel to meet up...most of the [cops' victims]...have no real criminal history and suffer from behavioral and/or emotional disorders...Some...are autistic..."

I have not forgotten the male innocent victims of our unenlightened times either. I guess suicide can be seen as a sort of reverse-sting protest and it does have some effect, but of course the perpetrators deserve far far worse.

Anonymous said...

It is an extremely corrupt abuse industry from top to bottom. Although the cops are simply maximizing their bureaucratic mandate from the politicians and the uninformed masses.

The best anti-puritan hope at the moment is Amos Yee. We are lucky - he has much experience being persuasive, and he actually bases this persuasion on facts. He also has balls. Someone tell him to post his Bitcoin wallet address ASAP!

Eivind Berge said...

The mandate to persecute sexuality is ultimately a social problem; that it is a feature of our times to be sexually unenlightened and believe in poorly reasoned abuse hysteria. Our job is to convince the public to relinquish this mandate (except in cases of real, serious abuse) so that those in power can no longer take advantage of the witch-hunting opportunities it so easily leads to.

Activism to this end has been tried across a diverse range of extremeness. Here is a representative selection ranging from most to least extreme:

Tom Grauer's troll posts
Amos Yee
Tom O'Carroll
The serious male sexualists such as myself
Angry Harry
Maggie McNeill
Roissy and whatever remains of the sex-positive manosphere
Roosh and other traditionalists who hate sexual freedom but also hate feminists

And none of them are having any noticeable effect when it comes to changing the actual tide of legislation, or even mass opinion. I appreciate them all somewhat but think I have found my ideal position in the middle. Amos Yee's approach scares me and I wouldn't want to be associated with that. He is basically asking to be censored or worse and I haven't heard about him in a long time because all the platforms unsurprisingly gave him that.

Eivind Berge said...

And to be realistic, perhaps that last level on my list is the only viable one in the real world. I count Islamism to this category and am pleased to note that all the wars on Iraq failed to bomb feminism into them:

Sexual freedom under Islam isn't perfect, but at least they don't have a problem with teenage sex as long as it is within marriage, and such marriages can be temporary.

theantifeminist said...

Honestly, why don't you go and live in any one of the dozens of Islamic countries in the world? You appear to have no ties to your home in Norway and I'm sure you could make a living online to pay the bills in somewhere like Morocco or Indonesia.

You're like one of those Cold War Western Marxists who would never dream of actually living in the Soviet Union, no matter how many times they claimed it was superior to their Western middle-class suburb.

Oh, and good news for you and others in the Free Brittany Zamora movement - YouTube are getting tough on indecency and nudity as you wish, and are closing down the accounts of PUAs on that basis.

Eivind Berge said...

Brittany Zamora is one of the worthiest victims of antisex bigotry to be fighting for, and very photogenic. This makes her a litmus test as to whether we are making any progress at all (sadly not). It is also safer to talk about female victims on platforms that are close to censoring us, I would think, though it didn't work for me on Twitter.

I see they are outlawing street pickup outright now, which is appalling but you can't blame me or my anti-pornography stance. Any activity aiming to meet women, or instructional material to that end, obviously does not fit my definition of maladaptive asexual behavior, and I never supported the pornography laws anyway. If they now want to use those laws to target PUA material, well, yes then that is a male sexualist issue.

But once again we aren't going to make any progress until we at least manage to garner sympathy for our most photogenic victims. The deformed and aspie PUAs you refer to are very, very far down on the list in that regard. The only ways a man can get sympathy in the mainstream is to either be a victim of a factually false accusation or commit suicide after being entrapped by lying pigs without displaying any MAP tendencies beforehand. Other than that, we are only despised for our sexuality and feminists can do what they please. We now literally live in a world where it is a crime to approach young women in the street and ask them for coffee, and you want to change this by extolling the virtues of pornography and fapping??? That doesn’t even make sense. And it promotes harm to male sexual health and separation from women. I am trying to create a wholesome and positive male sexualist movement which is supportive of sex-positive women too.

As to Islam, I wonder how long you will see them as worse than feminism considering the things your own culture does to you. In light of the rapid criminalization of PUA tactics, pretty soon the only way to hook up with a young woman will be by a marriage (permanent or temporary) obtained via a Muslim cleric. I don’t like it either and no, I am not emigrating yet, but there is something to be said for going with the lesser evil.

Eivind Berge said...

Also, it would be naive to think they wouldn't target PUAs without the pornography laws. Then they would simply use another law like "harassment" or make a new one if they had to. Raising the age of consent and/or grooming age to 18 or above would help too and I have no doubt they would do so, or come up with a law against age difference which also covers women over 18. There is simply no reason for us to make this a pro-porn issue, period, because that is both counterproductive to our sexualist values and irrelevant to the real war we are fighting, which is against antisex bigots who are in fact trying to prevent us from having sex (the same effect that porn has, unless you twist the meaning to include pickup instruction). Any talk about porn obscures the depth of the true mutual hatred we are dealing with here between the feminist state and sexually egosyntonic men.

Anonymous said...

Laws against age difference which also cover women over 18 would be unfair to gerontophile women...

Eivind Berge said...

The antisex-hysteria has been constant in my experience no matter how many laws against sex the feminists manage to make. There is always propaganda like this pushing for worse:

Because the laws are just a means to an end -- sincere hatred against male sexuality, defining the male sex drive as predatory by definition -- not to eradicate the technical "crimes" covered by the laws. I suppose the "underage" hysteria has a little room to grow by criminalizing any kind of interactions with 16 and 17-year-olds no matter how friendly, but beyond that there will be a need to criminalize age gaps soon, because male lust will be just as hated if we only approach women over 18. How else are they going to "protect" the women who aren't "underage" and don't feel "harassed" either? And I guarantee you that they won't care about gerontophile women any more than they care about the current female "sex offenders." But age gaps won't do it either, since there will still be young PUAs, so there we go again and on and on.

Perhaps we should give up on arguing about "laws" altogether because it is the feminist antisex ideology that is the real problem, and laws to suit them are only a few months away anyway if we manage to stop a particular one. Conversely, Islamic countries may have laws that sound very repressive, but since they don't really believe in antisex, there are loopholes like temporary marriages that make them much more friendly to men regardless. Don't judge a book by its cover or a society by its superficial signals, but go deeper and judge them by the content of their character, which in the case of our feminist society is rotten to the core. There is no hope because male sexuality is genuinely despised in our society even by most men.

Eivind Berge said...

Notice that the article I just linked to implies as a basic tenet that talking to a 16-year-old girl is inherently abusive, and of course should be illegal if it isn't yet. It cannot be mitigated by marriage either, or no matter how loving and considerate the man's intentions are, because our culture believes there is something inherently damaging to everyone under 18 about sexuality. It is assumed that the slightest possibility of sexual intentions poisons every interaction, regardless of how it is perceived by the participants. This is a damning indictment of our culture which tells me that there is simply no hope; misandry is now integral to it (with the female sex offender charade as a byproduct). Since our culture sincerely believes that men are that dirty, and all the institutions from the legislatures to the justice systems to the media throw their might at enforcing that belief, there is nothing left for us to do but hope for the downfall of Western civilization and root for an alternative such as Islam which believes no such thing.

After separating sexual morality from religion we replaced it with the much more pernicious belief that sexuality is inherently unclean, with no redemption possible. It is believed that male sexuality is by definition predatory. Men can only be accepted if they are egodystonic about their sexuality and deny it even exists. This is how revolutionary egosyntonic male sexuality aka male sexualism is.

Eivind Berge said...

And of course this belief in the inherent uncleanness of sex by no means stops at 18, but continues and in tons of contexts after that ranging from paid sex to because it occurs in schools and workplaces etc. What they all have in common is that there is no redemption. A teacher cannot marry his student to make it "not abuse" once the relationship is tainted by our superstition of abuse. "Abuse" takes precedence over everything else as a transcendent "fact" about sexuality according to the twisted antisex bigotry of our culture. It eats up more and more of the realistic situations where sex can happen, with the latest casualty being street approaches, and the next sure to follow as soon as laws and legal precedents are set to punish the one the feminists are working on now. Actually there are multiple paths of criminalization being pushed at the same time, with the expansion of rape law always as the most odious weapon.

Anonymous said...

They find prison unfair - but only when it's their turn!

Eivind Berge said...

Another travesty against innocent men. Notice the behavior of the girls whom our sick culture calls "victims":

A dozen men have reportedly been arrested in two statutory rape cases that allegedly took place on and near Alabama’s Jacksonville State University over the past year.

The defendants, which include JSU students, face charges of second-degree rape and second-degree sodomy after allegedly having sexual relations with two underage girls between the ages of 13 and 15, NBC News reported, citing a university attorney.

The girls were making contact through social media connections and then coming onto our campus or adjacent to our campus to meet these individuals,” university attorney Sam Monk said.

One of the defendant’s attorneys, Bill Broome, argued against the charges while casting one of the two girls as “a 15-year-old female predator” who portrayed herself as a 19-year-old JSU student on social media, going so far as to know class schedule times and instructors’ names.

Tom Grauer said...

That 15-year-old is a lying liar, but it's our victimization-obsessed, police-state culture that forces these chicks to lie about their age - they are "jailbaits" against their will.

The road ahead of us is long indeed.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes indeed, I don't mean to criticize the girl's behavior, just highlighting that even the most blatantly lustful approaches by girls make no difference to the police state's insane insistence that they are "victims."

Anonymous said...

They shouldn't describe a horny 15-year-old girl as a predator... when the only predator is the cops! as so often the case. Sad that even the defense lawyer can't bring himself to say that. A female predator charade of sorts going on there.

Eivind Berge said...

It is built into the word "jailbait" that the girl is a wholesome piece being exploited by predators (cops or sex-hostile society). It also follows that the prey is just following his natural appetite, so to go from there to "victim" and "rapist" is resisted by the word itself. Yes, in order for girls to be bait, men must be prey, hunted by the state!

Calling them jailbait thus actually signals male sexualist values, but girls should not be called predators unless they maliciously use themselves as bait, which does not appear to have happened in this case. Unfortunately, the defense attorney cannot shake his cultural indoctrination with the idea that somebody must be punished for underage sex, so he fails to put the blame on cops or society and blames the poor girl instead.

With "jailbait" being such a "child"-sexualizing word, I wouldn't be surprised if it soon becomes taboo if it isn't already.

Eivind Berge said...

The wisdom of the abuse industry:

"In 2017, the government's flagship treatment scheme for people convicted in England and Wales of rape or child sexual abuse was scrapped after it was shown to raise the risk of reoffending."

They would probably have better luck with The Antifeminist's asexualist approach of unlimited porn and masturbation, but let's not give them any ideas :)

Anonymous said...

We should all take a minute and thank Roosh for giving up that no good terrible PUA stuff, embracing modern marriage and demanding men buy into that female primary system which doesn't threaten women's autonomy (like that no good terrible PUA stuff).

In light of this, I wonder why he wasn't banned from Twitter after his great transformation?? hmmmmmm

/end sarcasm

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but what does "PUA" mean?

Anonymous said...

PUA means things men do to regain control of their own sexual agency.


Eivind Berge said...

PUAs are pickup artists, men who apply systematic “game” to meeting women and sometimes attend PUA “bootcamps” and other instruction by “gurus.” PUAs had their heyday around the publication of Neil Strauss’s THE GAME in 2005, when the methods did produce some results too, but since then the effectiveness has decreased (is it even possible to make women look away from their phones anymore?) while the hate has increased from the point of merely being disliked to where society now wants to throw you in jail merely for approaching a woman. It is no wonder Roosh wanted to drop the PUA image by now, but why the antisex moralism?

As I see it, Roosh has always had that negativity in him, always shamed sluts; he merely tolerated them before because he could get some pleasure out of them (and money selling books about pickup) but now apparently his libido has dropped below his sex-hostility and he sees new opportunities in being a religious teacher. All of that is very, very different from what I am promoting. The difference is that I truly love women, especially sluts, and see sex as something positive. He is delusional about both the value of casual sex to normal men, which he now idiotically discounts as meaningless (while it is in fact profoundly rewarding), and also about the supposed psychological harm to women and even men from having lots of partners, as if monogamy is what we are created for.

Eivind Berge said...

I read that sexual fascist article, very good! I see it is from 2006 but the situation has only gotten worse. Unfortunately his prediction came true that there is ever "less freedom and more insecurity for all who might engender the wrath of puritan preachers or stoke the greed of media outlets and pandering politicians. For now, it seems unlikely that even those who traditionally guard our civil liberties or those who traditionally challenge state repression from the left, will dare speak out, lest they, too, be marginalized and shunned."

Female Christian conservatives are part of the problem, yes, but so are most leftists and a whole lot of men on both sides, even Roosh now. They make up such a powerful antisex alliance that there isn't much hope any time soon. Only a cataclysmic event that gives society real problems to worry about can maybe upset the antisex hysteria in our lifetime.

Anonymous said...

Well said. The solution might be making everyone into victims of society/circumstance/culture since that's the only thing that plays to victim culture society.

Also check out the Traci Lords story. This Puritan shit has been building for decades.

Eivind Berge said...

"Early menopause: I'm 15 and already know I won't have kids

Two years ago, Annabelle's periods stopped. Since then she's been told she has early menopause and found out she won't be able to have children.

Only one in 10,000 women under the age of 20 are diagnosed with early menopause."

Can you imagine, it is already too late to have kids years before the antisex bigots say she can have sex? That's actually reality for some women.

Eivind Berge said...

"The police simply assumed allegations against [Savile] to be true and therefore that all complainants were indeed victims. This then became policy for all abuse investigations."

You can't make shit up dumb enough to that the British police won't believe it, as long as it is a sexual accusation.

And that doesn't even begin to question whether the legal definitions of "abuse" are reasonable.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why the British police, instead of doing their job, set up these periodic "operations" with comic names. It would seem that they are more interested in circus than in protecting citizens.

Tom Grauer said...

To our tremendous misfortune, it *is* their job, because modern sex-crime legislation, influenced by Puritan-Feminist ideology in academia, brainwashing in the media, and through lobbying in parliament, dictates thus. Also, pigs much prefer endless operations against easy targets than actually eliminating legit mobsters and gangsters.

Anonymous said...

It really stems from a complete lack of understanding of the female psyche by cuck men. I've encountered many girls who want to be forced to have sex, but they can't say it (and I won't do it because who needs that worry? This also leaves the girls unsatisfied and they can't figure out why). It's part of their attraction mechanism, girls need dominance to be turned on - proven by multiple suppressed studies. In light of this fact, all laws regarding made-up things like "rape" and "consent" need to be seriously considered obsolete and retarded as they apply to females. Females are not men, definitions cannot be applied equally. Consent in itself is a masculine concept, as women hate taking responsibility for anything. The modern definition of rape only applies to unwanted homosexual assault at best.

Tom Grauer said...

Here's something for Eivind:

A sexy special education female teacher exchanged sexual text messages (it's called "sexting" nowadays) with one of her students aged 16, and had sex with another one of her students aged 17. Some people find it shocking, because the students are literally retarded. I find it hilarious, and estimate that approximately 95% of male retards -- i.e., those who aren't gay -- would be glad to be so "abused."

She faces up to 20 years in prison.

I'm sure Eivind has a solid opinion about the matter. And I'm sure TAF, who should urgently get monogamously married to a MILF, would have a trollish response to the whole affair.

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, it's insane that anybody would want to punish her. They are more retarded than the retards who got lucky, in an important sense. Even the idiot narrator of THE SOUND AND THE FURY knew sex is good (which is why he had to be castrated). I am at a loss for words to describe the level of (selective) retardation it takes to believe in the female sex offender charade. Do they believe just because someone is retarded or underage that money loses its value to them? Is it financial abuse to give them money? No? Then why should it be sexual abuse to give them sex with a woman? The antisex bigots have obsequiously internalized the feminist dogma that the kids "can't consent" -- which even if true doesn't change the fact that sex with women is valuable. Consent is damn near irrelevant to something so unambiguously good, and they certainly don't need any higher understanding than what even retards possess.

Eivind Berge said...

Also notice the newspaper calling her "depraved." That is wrong on multiple levels, the least of which is that we don't even know she is guilty yet as these are only accusations at this point. And we know she is nice rather than depraved if guilty, positively the Mother Theresa of sex giving it to boys who can't normally get it much. And she is extremely attractive too, so how is it possible to get it so spectacularly wrong? Is the journalist Joshua Rhett Miller so sick in the head that he actually believes this crap, or does he feel compelled by other cuntrags to tow the feminist line? Or maybe the editor puts that word into all sex crime stories to pander to feminism? Either way, this charade is now endemic and it must be our first priority to oppose it.

Lyndsey Sherrod Bates is another victim of our unenlightened times and I don't care what The Antifeminist thinks, we must stand up for her!

And what does this mean: "If convicted of engaging in a sex act with a student younger than 19, she faces up to 20 years in prison and must register as a sex offender for the rest of her life" -- has the age crept up from 17 to 18 to make it extra criminal to have sex with students? Not that they need such a raised limit since "abuse of position" or of the mentally impaired can apply at any age. The sex laws are such a clusterfuck of hate and irrationality that it's hard to think of ways to make to make them even worse, but it looks like Alabama has found a way I didn't notice before.

Eivind Berge said...

How can something good be rendered bad by the position of the giver? How does sex that the boys enjoy become "abuse" just because the woman is a teacher? This is something the antisex bigots don't even feel compelled to explain, but it is a glaring hole in their logic. The same logic should apply if the boys manage to learn something useful in their classes... everything should be abusive to them by the voodoo magic of the position of teacher.

We know that sex is a female resource that girls don't want to give to just any man who wants it, so it makes sense under some circumstances, but not all, to have a rule against male teachers having sex with students. Same thing with homosexual male teachers. But somehow they jumped from this to applying it to women with no justification whatsoever, except the non sequitur that the woman is a teacher and therefore it must be abuse. This is pure nonsense (which would be equally applicable to anything good that the boys get out of their education, as noted), yet the antisex bigots are so arrogant that they don’t even bother to justify it further! If any true believers in the female sex offender charade are reading this, can you please articulate why you feel compelled to accept this step of illogic? Is it just the false dogma that men and women are equal that gets you or do you have any explanation at all?

Until such further justification is forthcoming, we can’t even begin to take them seriously. And I know where it would lead if they dared think critically about it because I can’t imagine I have missed any reasonable explanation if there is one after thinking about this for 20 years.

Eivind Berge said...

If sex with female teacher were abusive, it would need to stand on its own terms, not just follow from a chain of illogic. The female sex offender charade is a frightening example of garbage in, garbage out, and more garbage all around as they add more criteria for "abuse," criteria so far removed from reality that they rarely apply to ANYBODY anymore. They have so spectacularly erred on the side of catching all abuse that they have created a psychotic freak show of hate and madness. I cannot for the life of me understand how people put up with it.

The female sex offender charade hurts so much (beyond the obvious harm to women) because it makes an assumption which flies right in the face of what is actually in the boys’ best interests. This is why it is also very much an MRA issue, not just a (hypothetical, if women cared) women’s rights issue. Imagine if schools presumed that all girls naturally loved to be sluts and encouraged that in every possible way. Women would rightly feel nauseated by that, and so do we sane men feel appalled by the pretense that every boy is a “victim” if he has sex with women because feminist cuntrags project their asexual image unto him and male sexuality.

Eivind Berge said...

Life may be a tale told by an idiot, but idiots don’t narrate something as stupid as the lie that women can sexually abuse boys. It simply isn't part of the human condition, but a lie that only exists on life-support from political correctness on top of a pathological abuse hysteria. The female sex offender charade is transcendentally, ineffably retarded and evil. It requires a leap of bad faith of mystical dimensions in all the wrong directions. It ought to be low-hanging fruit to make humanity understand when they are that wrong! I should get the Peace Prize for this, seriously.

Eivind Berge said...

In contrast to our "depraved" female sex offender, notice how these convicted murderers are described in the same newspaper:

The worst words used to describe them are "brazen" and "remorseless," with no attempt to paint their character as really bad. The tone of the news report is downright admiring, I would say. For killing a 15-year-old! It is difficult to understand that society believes sexting makes you a much worse person than that, but this is where we are.

Tom Grauer said...

The cruel irony must be noted, though, that someone with IQ<70 and possible deformities had free sex with this truly hot woman, whereas millions of incels worldwide can only fantasize about getting a chick like her in their wildest fancies.

Eivind Berge said...

I'm surprised he merely lost his license and didn't get locked up along with the other fake abusers:

Dental hygienist labeled sexual abuser and stripped of license because he slept with a patient — to whom he is married

And another profession men should boycott as a matter of conscientious objection. Antisex bigotry is only possible if we go along with it. Be a conscientious objector to their antisex policy and don't be a dental hygienist.

theantifeminist said...


Sexual freedom under Islam isn't perfect, but at least they don't have a problem with teenage sex as long as it is within marriage, and such marriages can be temporary."

Again, I'm curious why you don't go and live in a Muslim country if life is so much better there? You would probably need to earn around $20 a day online in order to live in somewhere like Morocco with a decent standard of living. I'm sure somebody of your IQ could manage that, never mind getting a part-time job offline. Unless you pour all your money into Bitcoin and then sell at a loss just before it explodes.

And why does somebody who appears to pride themselves on their intellect and ability to think rationally continue to use ad hoc individual cases to egotistically try to define an entire movement? (oh look, the antifeminist is wrong - in one war torn chaotic Muslim country a corrupt cleric will let men 'marry' teens as a way of getting around pre-marital sex laws. Oh look, the antifeminist is wrong - I stopped fapping months ago and now I feel a bit better than I did before).

theantifeminist said...

"only a cataclysmic change in society could change things".

Are you sure about this Eivind? Why does it have to be 'cataclysmic' I wonder?

Was the invention of the female contraceptive pill 'catalysmic' or simply 'revolutionary', which turned European society almost overnight from a place where homosexuality was still illegal and pre-marital sex frowned upon, to a place where child porn was sold openly in newsagents in some countries and casual sex with 14 year olds would rarely be prosecuted even in those countries with high aoc's?

You do appear capable (unlike 'ephebophiles') of actually conceptualizing that technology will make the society of ten or twenty years into the future different. At least if you try hard. For example, you invested in Bitcoin years ago (and then sold just before it exploded).

A recent study found that a drug known as 'female viagra', which is increasingly being prescribed to women, increases their sexual desire. Within the next ten years the first treatments that can actually reverse the physical signs of aging will be on the market.

These thing aren't 'cataclysmic' but they will transform society. Some things that are going to be taking place soon (or eventually) like 'mind reading' technology, will be 'cataclysmic' but they may or may not make things better for male sexualists. Mind reading tech obviously has frightening and dystopian potentials, but at the same time it might end male sexual hypocrisy.

Why can you only look to a 7th century epileptic paedophile for hope?

Eivind Berge said...

I care more deeply about these issues than can be fixed by emigrating. Being a dissident in a foreign country is ill-advised, but here I have as much right to have my own opinion as the feminists who had their way against us. The wrongs here will still bother me if I go somewhere better for me personally. My saying Islam is less sex-hostile than feminism is I think a correct observation, but not a complete endorsement of them or to suggest I necessarily would be happier in one of those countries. The wars and instability there are also problems even though they are not feminist problems.

I would be very interested in what "treatments that can actually reverse the physical signs of aging" you believe will be on the market in ten years, because I don't see that coming. This I know something about because life extension is another hopeless subculture I’ve belonged to for most of my life. I have seen so many hypes fizzle out to nothing, ranging from vitamins to antioxidants to sex hormones to resveratrol to stem cells and nanotechnology (and by the way, "female viagra" has flopped too). Any anti-aging technology that will be on the market in ten years already exists at least in animal models. In ten years I envision that we can be prescribed metformin for this purpose, and perhaps rapamycin. The rich can get parabiosis (blood transfusion from young people or something based on that). And there may be some other marginal remedies, but altogether I expect they can only maybe add a handful years of healthy life (not increase maximum lifespan) and have a barely perceptible effect on your appearance. The only place women can be rejuvenated in ten years will be in virtual reality, but we can do that already... Women can send you pictures of their teenaged selves, and you can fap to them. So if that's your level of ambition, knock yourself out, but I care about reality both in terms of nofap and politics and medicine.

The third hopeless subculture I belonged to was Bitcoin, and yes I sadly pulled out right before it got real. I can’t predict the future particularly well, and there may be surprises. I am not seeing anything but a cataclysmic event to end the feminist war on sex though. And it won’t be on the upside like you think, but more like a Greatest Depression (at best; my fourth subculture is peak oil so I know it can go much worse) which will give society more pressing concerns than persecuting victimless sex.

Eivind Berge said...

You vastly underestimate how hard of a problem aging is. The next ten or twenty years will likely result in another list of flops like this:

And I don't have much more hope for the next century either. We haven't even done the basic research to have a clue how to reverse aging. We can't synthesize a single replacement cell by any foreseeable technology, and your body only has a limited number of divisions to work with, resulting in poorer quality each time. We can transplant most organs except the brain, but the result is always worse than an original young version.

This realization alone should lead to nofap and male sexualism as I see it. Which is to make the most of the life you are given. Grab life by the pussy; don't waste time wishing for unrealistic technologies or retreating into a fantasy world -- is the male sexualist ethos.

Aldus said...

It's over for the foids :

Eivind Berge said...

I know most of my readers probably have a low opinion of the NSPCC already, but did you know they could be so cruel and incompetent in this way too?

"A young British girl committed suicide after her personal details were exposed to the police by the ChildLine after the girl reached the help center to confess that she was having suicidal thoughts and need some advice and guidance.
But the next day, Jesse discovered the police reached out to her house and realized, the helpline disclosed her confidential details to the police. She felt she was betrayed by the helpline whom she trusted to confess her awful thoughts.
According to her mother, Heather Walker, Jess felt agitated with the helpline after breaching the confidence, and she went back to sleep, exhausted. She further claimed that her daughter didn’t attend the college that day, and later that evening, she discovered Jess hanging."

Eivind Berge said...

And here we go again with the female sex offender charade :(

Megan Parris is the latest victim. Albeit in this case the reporter is able to dispense with the "depraved" and "abuse" hyperbole of the other psychos who promulgate the charade and merely accuses her of "acting inappropriately with a student." Also "unlawful sexual activity" and "misconduct" -- these do not convey the depths of retardation commonly seen on this subject, but they beg the question of why in heaven's name this harmless activity needs to be criminal?

Anonymous said...

Now they're coming after the cheekily named "child-marriage" next (aka marrying an attractive female, as opposed to an old roastie or another male, which the media/courts greatly prefer).

Republican "right wing" closet homos actually proposed a federal law against it!

Anonymous said...

Excuse me for using your blog to vent - I hate America intensely because of its insane mommas boy culture that it imposes on itself and the world. And I hate having to live in it, for now.

Mommy culture creates:
1) Jealous hysterical out of control females
2) Jealous males who do not understand female sexuality
3) Serious sexual oppression at all ages

It’s a fucking shit show and I hate it. Flush this place down the toilet.

I can’t be the only one. But I might be. Which is why I’m leaving next year.