Monday, November 04, 2019

Why do we let the feminist sexual taboos control us?

Feminism is synonymous with antisex bigotry, and they have subjugated our culture completely. Why do we let this happen, and then just sit there and tolerate it indefinitely?

Every day I wake up to more contrived sex "scandals." Today it is McDonald's CEO Steve Easterbrook who is out "for consensual relationship with an employe." With no justification other than: a taboo exists. Ostensibly it is there to accommodate women’s hysterically frail nature which supposedly makes them infinitely traumatized by the most infinitesimal reference to sexuality, but much of the time even women have no use for the taboo, and a good bit of the time it is now women who are the victims of the senseless antisex norms.

So why do we let this taboo control us? How did feminist sex-hostility gain complete mastery of our culture? Why do men go out with a whimper of acquiescence to the odious taboos every single time, while the rest stand by and do nothing also?

Why is antisex so compelling? Because it must be compelling in order to have so much power, probably not due to the current justification for the taboos most of the time, but some sort of control freakery over sexuality wins out every time and drags in everyone from the alt-right to the feminists themselves.

The only dissidents are us, the male sexualists who don't even register on the radar. What little opposition to the mainstream that exists and actually gets noticed is concerned with inane drivel like race theories. That is what the alt-right thinks important, while they tolerate feminist sexual taboos as much as the traditional right and left. Even a reputedly less bigoted conservative man like Jordan Peterson is no help either -- just listen to this antisex rant where he claims it is bad for your soul to have more than one woman! His kind of bigotry is no doubt very differently rooted than the feminist kind, but the result is the same, antisex all the way, supporting the same laws -- with a small exception for pronouns in his case, to underscore that he takes no issue with anything of any real significance.

I know I am very different for rejecting the sexual taboos of my culture. In practice I am not alone by far -- just look at everyone who gets caught for violating these taboos in some way, and look at uncensored comment sections to articles that attempt to promulgate the female sex offender charade -- but in terms of systematic ideology I am that special quisling, a criminal soul, an enemy of the state. As absurd as it feels to use so strong words for advocacy of healthy sexuality, that is where we are.


Anonymous said...

Eivind, but women get pregnant, how do male sexualists deal with that bit of news?

Eivind Berge said...

We get ecstatic when that happens! Reproduction is obviously a very important part of sexuality, something highly desired.

Eivind Berge said...

It is now established that whores are exempt from having to pay taxes in Norway:

In addition to not facing any criminalization unlike their clients. But this is probably only a temporary female-specific exception to sexual taboos; I expect sex-hostility to prevail over women too in the long run, like it is already doing via the female sex offender charade. And many countries never quit persecuting prostitutes. Feminists may be smug now, but sex-hostility is much stronger than them and will ultimately hurt them too if they don't turn around.

Like this guy got to feel his own sex-hostility:

Man who advocated caning for adultery gets caned for adultery

Eivind Berge said...

But you gotta hand it to the Chinese for looking out for their (ethnically correct) incels...

"China is reportedly sending men to sleep in the same beds as Uighur Muslim women while their husbands are in prison camps."

Mad Mad World said...

Eivind, if we put on a scale of 1 - 1,000 your sympathy for Brittany Zamora at 1,000, what would be your sympathy on the same scale for 19 year old Rokhshana, who was stoned to death in Afghanistan for eloping with her male lover?

For that matter, what do you think would happen to 'loose women' like Brittany Zamora in places like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran or any Muslim country, which are so less bound by sexual taboos?

Eivind Berge said...

My sympathy is about equal for Rokhshana as for Brittany, and for other women who are punished because they are "loose," but my OUTRAGE is much greater in the case of the female sex offender charade because feminists construct a lie that lucky boys are "victims" that is so incredibly offensive on an intellectual and moral level beyond the religious bigotry we are talking about with Muslim countries. The religious bigotry is evil, but feminism is equally evil and then transcends that with adding unbearable and ineffable insults to injury. There is not all that much to say about Muslim antisex bigotry beyond condemning it, but I haven't even began to elucidate the depths of intellectual depravity in feminist antisex against women. Therefore, I must continue to attempt this project while denouncing religious antisex is accomplished by simply stating that I disagree with it or don't believe in it, since there is not that much more to say about such unfalsifiable claims that Allah commands this or that.

Don't you see the difference? Feminists abuse science and reason and logic and insult the male sexual nature by denying it in addition to abusing the women themselves, so they must be condemned much more verbosely.

Eivind Berge said...

Islam says we are gonna stone loose women; feminism says we are gonna stone loose women AND PRETEND MANY MALES DON'T ENJOY FUCKING THEM, BUT ARE "VICTIMS" instead. Islam may be almost as antisex-bigoted in terms of the actual behaviors it prohibits, but at least it has the decency to omit this last step!!!

Eivind Berge said...

Am I really the only one who is profoundly disturbed by the feminist contrivance of fake victimhood compared to the simple punishment dictated by religious antisex bigotry? I need to explain this in much greater detail if so. To me it is obvious that it is much worse to poison sexual relationships with the lie that they are abuse than to simply punish and be done with it. The feminist way is a scorched-earth tactic against sexuality, where the intention is so toxic that they aren’t satisfied until everything, and I mean everything is ruined and the participants are left feeling like abusers and victims. Religious bigots do not deny that sex is good, but feminists do their level best to remove all joy from it, extending into the entire past as well as the future. This is so much more invasive than simply punishing, so much more malicious and depressing and sad and pitiful that you can’t help having more sympathy for victims of the female sex offender charade than those who are merely deemed to be sinners. The “abuse” nonsense is a layer of quackery that offends on so many more levels if you share my sensibilities. And if you don’t share them, well, then you seem awfully uncouth to me and I don’t know if I can make you understand, but I will keep trying.

theantifeminist said...

Fapping is good too Eivind. Once you separate sexual pleasure from reproduction, having real sex with a HB5 is not as good as fapping to a HB10, and definitely not as good as fucking a hyper realistic HB10 sex doll while viewing 8k porn.

If you can't see that, you're a Darwinian reductionist of the most autistic kind.

And to answer your question - yes you probably are the only one. Not a good start for a hoped for rights movement. A man having his eyes gouged out because some religious hypocrite says it's necessary to save his soul after being caught masturbating is as much a victim of made up abuse nonsense as Brittany fucking Zamora.

Eivind Berge said...

You are delusional. A complete clash of values where you are out of touch with both the reality of what fapping does to you and how it matters, what matters. Obviously we represent different movements.

Anonymous said...

Big agree with antifeminist here - the religious right are far more numerous and powerful than some easily avoided harpies. This is why I'm slightly perplexed why both of you are obsessed with feminism, when the far far greater threat is the anti-sex religious right.

Especially if antifeminist is pushing MLTO... Religious Republican coalition led by Tom Cotton working hard to outlaw "child marriage", Religious Republicans Pence and Hatch not only criminalized under 16 sex internationally for Americans, but also created the draconian "child porn" laws, Religious Right under Trump has imprisoned more American johns for prostitution than the entire 8 years of Obama combined... do I need to continue? Change your targets fellas...

Eivind Berge said...

The religious right may now be nearly as hateful as the feminists in practice, but there is a philosophical difference which makes them significantly less odious. There is simply no religious belief which defines “children” as under 18 and says they shouldn’t be married or have sex (but they might need to be married first regardless of age). As to “child porn,” there is likewise no religious belief that sexualized “children” are more obscene than other obscenity. Religious people have merely latched onto these feminist notions out of convenience, because the current political climate does not permit criminalizing sex because it is outside of marriage or pornography simply because it is obscene.

Since antisex bigotry must be attacked in its philosophical roots, feminism is clearly our worst enemy, particularly since male sexualists currently have no power other than to make philosophical proclamations. To get a clue how sex-positive religion can be compared to feminism when it doesn’t need to rely on an alliance with them, consider the “temporary marriages” allowed by Islam that are otherwise indistinguishable from hookups and prostitution, even with girls the feminists consider underage. Feminists make no exceptions for any of this under any circumstances because they are made of pure antisex hate. Make no mistake, the mutual hatred between feminism and male sexualism is as deep as can be and incomparable to anything to do with religion (unless you consider feminism a “child worship” religion, which fair enough, you can do, but the traditional religions we are talking about have no superstitions of statutory rape and abuse).

Anonymous said...

“Feminists stood on both sides of the debate. Radical feminists and the religious right insisted that “voluntary prostitution” was an oxymoron and fought for both the UN Protocol and the TVPA to legally define all sex trading as nonconsensual sex trafficking. Liberal feminists and human rights organizations pushed to maintain a legal divide between voluntary and involuntary sex work… The passage, use, and subsequent meaning of these laws have been pushed and shaped by far-right lawmakers, lobbyists, charity workers, and members of the now lucrative rescue industry.”

Who knew the Democratic Socialists (Bernie) would be the first to push back against anti-sex hysteria (without even knowing it). They even said legalizing under 18 prostitution is a good idea (which it is)! But they unfortunately deleted this Tweet, probably thinking they should walk before they run.

Eivind Berge said...

I agree based on that if it comes down to voting for Bernie against Trump or another Republican who has demonstrated antisex hate, I would vote for Bernie too. But he is really an exception, and where do the religious right get their ideas from, anyway? It takes a special kind of psycho to define all sex trading as nonconsensual sex trafficking, or even come up with the under 18 = "child" hysteria, all of which emanates from feminism. The religious right are nasty people indeed, but I see them more like flies on shit produced by feminists than any real independent threat, at least ideologically. They don't even have the balls to stand for their own scriptural morality, so they need to hide behind the feminist "abuse" nonsense to get anything done. It is not a Christian idea that women don't have the agency to be whores, but the current crop of religious bigots are so feeble that they've settled for enforcing the feminist worldview that "all women are victims and all men are abusers" in order to satisfy at least some of their antisex bigotry.

theantifeminist said...

" The religious right are nasty people indeed, but I see them more like flies on shit produced by feminists than any real independent threat, at least ideologically. They don't even have the balls to stand for their own scriptural morality, so they need to hide behind the feminist "abuse" nonsense to get anything done. It is not a Christian idea that women don't have the agency to be whores, but the current crop of religious bigots are so feeble that they've settled for enforcing the feminist worldview that "all women are victims and all men are abusers" in order to satisfy at least some of their antisex bigotry."

On this I'm 100% in agreement with you. However, good luck in persuading any 'ephebophiles' and 'paedophiles' (who you and TG think are such invaluable allies) that feminists are the enemy - rather than the 'flies on shit' religious right (who are increasingly becoming irrelevant even in the US).

Anonymous said...

I doubt Bernie Sanders is mooting legal undrr-18 prostitution, as was claimed a few posts back. From time to time in American debates about prostitution, it is suggested that prostitutes under the age of 18 be no longer prosecuted. AFAIK this idea never results in legislative changes and is always hysterically shouted down by the usual suspects.

One must prosecuted 17 year old prostitutes for their own good, you see.

The person writing the comment is probably confused by the fact that it occasionally proposed to cease prosecuting under-18 prostitutes, but this is only along the lines of the Nordic Model. Punters will still be charged. Even this is howled down with great vigour and there would seem to be no way on earth any presidential candidate would even bring this up, let alone not prosecuting clients.

I don't mind being proved wrong, but I would need to see evidence that Sanders said this. If he did, everyone would know it and his race would be over.

Eivind Berge said...

I agree, it sounded too good to be true that Bernie Sanders would be that reasonable. Supporting a move to the Nordic Model of hurting men only is believable, however, since that is the general feminist trend.

Eivind Berge said...

"Rapper T.I. says he takes his daughter to the gynecologist after each birthday to determine if she's a virgin."

"Virginity tests" correctly described as nonsense:

Yet we live in a society which puts extreme importance on girls not having sex, so you get what you ask for. Virginity tests are not much different from the sex-hostility that our society very much does believe in. You won't see any articles explaining that it is also nonsense that girls can be sexually violated by sexting, for example, even though this is even more rubbish than the concept of virginity supposedly being tested for by antisex-bigoted parents.

Eivind Berge said...

On reflection, I see that this attack on virginity testing is yet another example of how much worse feminism is than religious conservatism. Under the old way, girls could pretty much do as they please as long as they kept their hymen (and even that was rarely really an issue). In contrast, feminist society is determined to monitor girls in everything they do down to the last bit of electronic communication, and if any reference to sexuality is found it is evidence of a heinous crime even if they have never touched a man. Virginity tests are only "outdated" and "inaccurate" because they have been superseded by a much more draconian and totalitarian antisex regime.

Virginity testing sounds oppressive (and is to some extent), but compared to feminism it is downright charmingly, naively tolerant, and that is why feminists denounce it -- because they have something far more sinister in store for teenage girls and the men who love them (and for women too via the female sex offender charade, which is also not uncovered by virginity tests -- we can't have a concept of sexuality which fails to capture all the newfangled contrived ways of "abuse," now can we?).

Anonymous said...

Virginity testing is basically the definition of religious right extremism along with circumcision. Also Bernie did not say anything about minor prostitution, I meant the NY Democratic Socialists did - they are a huge Bernie ally. And if you think the religious right is losing traction in America, how come their party remains in power, their laws remain on the books, and their ampitheaters remain full?

The religious right gets their ideas from men who want to control other men’s sexuality, for the sake of power over others and because they do not accept their own hetero/homo/minor feelings. This is why you see so many “scandals” when these hypocrites (like paedocrits) slip up, as if the moral paragons were to be taken seriously in the first place. The radfems are simply trying to maximize female sexual power as we know already, to the extent allowed by their white knight religious right male handlers.

In addition to right-wingers Pence and Hatch making the Protect Act which basically accounts for 3/4 of all the complaints on your blogs, and right-wingers Cotton etc currently working to remove the only allowance for legally marrying a fertile teen in the ENTIRE WORLD -

A great example is conservative judges in Pennsylvania giving draconian, decades long sentences, for breaking completely unconstitutional international age of consent laws:

While liberal (probably even feminist) judges in DC literally declare the exact same international age of consent laws unconstitutional:

Many more court examples of this. Although the trials were for weird sexual stuff, the same laws apply to normal hetero stuff too.

Eivind Berge said...

If the religious right is so powerful, how come things like gay marriage pass? I see them as basically impotent to enforce any religious morality, but very eager to jump on the feminist bandwagon when it serves their antisex bigotry. So they reluctantly accept gay marriage and very enthusiastically support age of consent and "trafficking" laws although the official justification for those has nothing to do with religious morality.

Milan Horvath said...

Maybe unnecessary, but anyway..........

I see this new pseudoleftism as successor of religious right, rather than competitor.
New form of social control replacing old, obsolete one.
Certainly being identically cruel and intrusive, but with beautiful fluffy greeny-pinky mask of tolerance and "concern" for weak, instead of booh-booh-booh you'll end up in hell.
Calvinism for 21-st century, same product with better marketing and new design.

Managements of both "companies" are fighting each other, (maybe) not knowing their "shareholders" are same people, and customers choosing between products that are working on identical platforms, made in same Chinese factory.

good quote from Rookh:
"While Anglo tradcucks spuriously try to link Anglo-American feminism to Marxism, its intellectual DNA – like that of the Anglo left in general – really originates in imperialistic Victorian Christian Evangelism"

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks, that is a good way to see it, consistent with what I am saying. The new pseudo-leftism is a successor to religious social control, updated to have "equality" and fake or superficial tolerance while cracking heavily down freedoms that really matter. Unfortunately there is no real opposition to this and things are not going to be all right. People are callous, cruel, evil, hateful, indifferent, ignorant or any number of things that enable all the antisex-bigotry that the authorities can possibly dream up. I was hoping we could have a little movement of egosyntonic sexually normal men who at least provided moral support in the face of all this oppression, but we too are torn apart by quarreling about what constitutes healthy male sexuality and whether we should support women too. To me it is obvious that we can't consider male masturbation and virtual sex healthy or normal (but it obviously needs to be legalized as harm reduction), and we need to stand up for female victims of the sex laws just as much or a bit more since their sexuality is naturally much more innocent and they lack the moral fortitude to even realize it themselves. But yeah, it is hopeless either way. I am pretty much resigned to seeing what I am doing here as therapy rather than activism, because we can't hope to change anything, but at least we can (as long as we have some semblance of free speech) explore how to maybe cope a little better with such a cruel world full of people who sincerely want to hurt us for our normal sexuality or don't give a shit even though it can easily happen to them too.

Anonymous said...

These are all good points - but the fact remains that those in charge, with the most power, making the anti-sex laws and policy - judges and legislators - are majority conservative in the US.

Also, you never know what happens in the future, and the impact of what you say here is more significant than you think. Even myself, I'm accomplished and could easily lend aid to the anti-sex machine. But I don't in part because I'm influenced by writings like your blog. I am definitely not the only one...

Eivind Berge said...

I agree it is a bit simplistic to blame feminism for the current sexual taboos. A finer analysis is certainly possible, but the way I use it is almost to refer to the zeitgeist which takes the draconian persecution of sexuality for granted no matter if you are a "conservative" or whatever. Similar to how slavery was once just the way one did things, it is now felt that OF COURSE we are going to lock you up if you are found to have a relationship with a 14-year-old girl, or you pay a 16-year-old girl for sex, or any under-18 girl sends you nude pics or you to them. It doesn't take a self-described feminist to support these things, which are now held almost as inevitable as death and taxes, but they are nonetheless feminist principles and explicitly justified as such. This is why I also use words like quisling and enemy of the state for male sexualists and really mean it because we are too "radical" to fit into the political and social order at all. Even though we are just advocating basic human decency like slavery abolitionists once were.

Anonymous said...

I can see that. When "feminists" are mentioned, it conjures up images of the Metoo women, the women's march, and suffragettes. We don't think of the people really responsible for the oppression (in the US at least) - these white knight male feminists who dress up as conservatives - the Republican judges and politicians who make these fucking terrible laws. The harpies are bitching, and the powerful men are doing their bidding. These conservative male feminists deserve to be called out much more often because I hardly see them mentioned, and they are responsible for allowing this mess.

theantifeminist said...

"Thanks, that is a good way to see it, consistent with what I am saying. The new pseudo-leftism is a successor to religious social control, updated to have "equality" and fake or superficial tolerance while cracking heavily down freedoms that really matter. Unfortunately there is no real opposition to this and things are not going to be all right."

I've been stating this clearly on my blog since day one. The very reason why we have tranny rights and all the rest is BECAUSE it's a mask of liberal sexual tolerance when in fact feminists are waging a brutal war on real and normal (sorry to offend your 'ephebophile' readers) sexuality.

As for the conservatives/feminist - who are the real bad guys - argument. It's a false dichotomy in the first place. As (again) I've made clear and pointed out on my blog for the last decade, feminism began as ultra-conservative 'Social Purity' movement in the late 19th century (overlapping with the Suffragette movement). Most of the 'Conservative' agitation for stricter regulations on (normal) male sexuality comes from femiservatives. They are just as 'feminist' as left-wing tranny loving feminists. There is no real distinction between left and right wing when it comes to feminism. Feminism is a force of nature, not an actual rational ideology. It reacts to the (blind) forces of the sexual market, themselves determined mainly by technological change.

Women will hijack any political movement, left or right, to protect their sexual interests/market value. You saw this with the so-called men's rights movement. Politics is just a vaginal tool to them.

I wouldn't be surprised if the epehebophiles manage to turn you into an open feminist Eivind. Feminists have got it right on porn, but maybe (unlike Conservatives) they can be persuaded to back pedo rights, just like they have gay rights and (largely) tranny rights. Conservatives are the real enemy.


BTW, I hate Conservatives and realize most of them are dicks, but at the end of the day, we're alongside them when it comes to fighting Political Correctness and the current establishment narrative (although you appear to actually think that being Muslim is 'anti-establishment' so you don't have a clue there either).

Milan Horvath said...

In AVFM's case, I think that with people like Elam it was predestined to it's ordeal since it started, I wouldn't blame some hags for this.

I think, that it is not directly natural female's interests that are causing these problems, rather it is toxic culture derived from various societal customs cultivated predominantly in Anglo-Saxon world, which are abusing emotional vulnerabilities of other females.
Same as religion is abusing people's fear of death to maintain intensive social control over individual's personal lives, while not disrupting illusion of freedom of thought.
Old jealous hags are just vehicle used to achieve certain goals.
People in general can be persuaded, that they deserve more....
that someone is taking advantage of them.
Same way how communism was spread.

I see feminism re-popularisation in 70's as substitute , after sexual/social revolutions started undermining conservative/religious/victorian control over personal lives.
There is some Freudian theory about correlation between sexual repression and possibility of controlling other aspects of live.

To sum it up- it is more cultural/social than biological, just exploiting biological characteristics.

Making alliance with conservatives seems to me, like making alliance with Mujahideens against Soviets, sooner or later it will fight back.

BTW Some interesting opinion about sex revolution ,(in comment section-Ian B).

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, great insights by Ian B there. Society currently acts as if the Sexual Revolution was "really a male conspiracy to enable sexual abuse" after first-wave feminism had broken down due to technologies such as the pill and washing machines and so on (sure enough invented by men). So after a brief period of sexual tolerance from the 1960s to 80s we made sure to reverse all the freedoms gained and then some, made all the more effective by new technologies that now see everything you do and is on the verge of reading your thoughts (not that they need to since they can convict even historical "abuse" on women's word alone, but they will take everything they can to hurt our sexuality). Second and third-wave feminism also added the female sex offender charade, which first-wave hadn't thought of, making it more a general program of tyrannical social control over women too than a women's rights movement and well suited for conservatives to latch onto.

We are truly living in the worst possible time for sexual rights, and it is only getting worse. I really wish there were a male conspiracy against feminist antisex bigotry and am doing my best to create one, but so far we are failing because men are really bad at creating such conspiracies and really good at pandering to feminist/puritan antisex hysteria. I certainly don't promote an alliance with conservatives either except to say that there are times when you can and should choose the lesser evil, which may well turn out to be Islam.

Eivind Berge said...

What a nauseating piece of shit this Prince Andrew is as he whimperingly denies his sexuality and panders to feminism:

Not that he is important, but the problem is he's representative of the man of our times. They really are so pathetically self-loathing and hateful to other men for our normal sexuality, down to every last one of them who has any say in the mainstream institutions or media. And they killed the only exception, Epstein, after hypocritically enjoying his services.

C said...

What is Epstein guilty of? An episode of 60 minutes made him seem like a rich asshole who avoided punishment because he's rich.

Eivind Berge said...

Epstein is guilty of victimless sex crimes that obviously shouldn't be crimes (paying teen girls) and got grievously punished DESPITE being rich, showing the utter hopelessness of our situation. Furthermore, the total condemnation of him outside of male sexualism evinces a mutual hatred between egosyntonic male sexuality and society so deep that we have nothing to do there and are living on borrowed time.

Eivind Berge said...

Words fail me for the depth of the hatred I feel against people who support the prosecution of Epstein. Because I identify with what he did as my normal sexuality, which means it is not just my life but my identity they want to destroy. Only words like quisling and realizing my soul is criminal come close to describing it. While it is always there in the laws, whenever Epstein is in the news we sexually normal men who actually stand for our sexuality have the hate against us made explicit by such a large part of the population that the feeling we have nothing to do in society becomes overwhelming.

As Robert Wright and Paul Bloom admitted, they hate men like Epstein more than pedophiles because we are not suffering from any kind of deviant desires, but merely choose to embrace our normal male sexuality, that they too possess but sanctimoniously claim to repress. It is our choice to be normal and stand for it while society chooses to persecute that makes this conflict so incredibly nasty, beyond the level of all other crime and politics except terrorism.

Society’s only regret for Epstein’s death is that they couldn’t drag more sexually normal men along with him into hell (though they are still trying to do that too). Let it sink in that Epstein's only value as a human being is how he could incriminate other men for our normal sexuality. Even prisoners on death row are accorded more concern for their lives and well-being than that. That’s how worthless they consider us, gentlemen: exactly zero sympathy for the worst things that can happen to us, even when they are the cause, because we refuse to repress our healthy sexuality. Be sure to requite the antisex bigots with the feelings they deserve, and if we ever get the chance to see them in dire straits we should gloat too.

Anonymous said...

Antifeminist - To say we are alongside US conservatives is ludicrous, when they do everything I mentioned: decide all the cases heavily against men, write international age of consent laws, write sinister pixels laws, arrest johns in record numbers, and prevent adolescents from getting married. The senator from Tennessee back in the day even gave women the right to vote because his mother told him to do it. These things are all spearheaded by self described conservative republicans in the US. They are WORSE than tranny loving left wing feminists because they actually have power and enforce it on behalf of the left wing feminists.

You’re blind to the facts if you can’t see them plainly. I’ve never seen a post on your blog about just how horribly destructive Mike Pence is to the average hetero male for example - you only hear about the straw man, how he’s anti gay because of his marriage stance, which he caved on anyway! While the left focused everyone’s attention on the moot marriage issue, Pence was busy with his conservative buddies making the draconian sinister pixels laws you all complain about, along with the federal international age of consent laws. The “Protect” Act, look it up!

Tell me again how the conservatives are alongside us. The facts are right in front of you, should you wish to acknowledge them.

Eivind - People who call Epstein a pedo are immediately written off as retarded in my book, although I don’t like using him as an example because of his sex trap role for the special tribe’s intelligence agency. My favorite person to use as a litmus test is Howard Stern from the 1990’s, not today of course. Back in that decade, he openly talked about how there was nothing wrong with girls who were developed, as young as 13, wanting and having sex with older males, or men dating younger females in general. This was discussed on nationally syndicated radio by an extremely popular celebrity. It is absolutely insane how much normal sex talk has changed in only 20 years. Astounding really. By the way, they work hard to scrub all the vintage show recordings from Youtube that say this stuff…

Anonymous said...

Ironically, the religious right is losing control of its golem in the US, which is good for us normal men:

What the legal system / abuse industry defines as “pedophilia” is of course just hyperbole for regular male attraction to fertile teen girls and vice versa. Ironically, allying with the “tranny loving left” is our best hope for short-term change. Even though they want to fuck boys and not girls, equality laws will force a gender-neutral definition that benefits normal sexuality. If the hyperbolic “pedophilia” definition (attraction to under 18 youth) becomes recognized as a protected sexual orientation, then it also gets legal and social acceptance, and we’re on the path to normalization of sexual relations again.

It is obvious that your blogs should focus on this alliance if you want quick change in favor of male sexualism. This also solves the female sex offender problem. Two birds one stone!

Eivind Berge said...

So play along with being a sort of queer for liking teen girls in order to legalize and normalize this already standard orientation? I would be more enthusiastic about that approach if the left were serious about including what is now wrongly called "pedophilia" in their protected orientations along the lines of LGBT, but I see no convincing evidence for that. I think it is just a myth that the alt-right uses for scaremongering that there is actually a trend in this direction. One rogue college professor lecturing that pedophilia is a sexual orientation is about as marginal as the male sexualist movement, but does deserve honorable mention, sure.

Anonymous said...

You're right that at this point it is marginal scaremongering. And still, I would say there is much more serious consideration for making it a protected orientation than accepting it as normal at this point because of the homosexual lobby. If I have to get on the same bus as the queers in order to legally get teen pussy, so be it.

Tom Grauer said...

When I started blogging, I was quite pessimistic about our prospects. I'm no longer pessimistic, though. In fact, I seriously think that there is a big chance that we will win, and that within the following decades (yes, such changes as we seek to bring about take decades to come into fruition) we will see drastic improvements in terms of the popularity of our worldview. The Reactionary Right, the Pro-Tranny Left, the Muslims, and the Incels are all (more or less) on board with a re-evaluation of modern sexual values. We can certainly exploit that. I wrote a post expressing my optimism here:

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wrote:

'''''''Even though they want to fuck boys and not girls, equality laws will force a gender-neutral definition that benefits normal sexuality.'''''''

Maybe, maybe not. There was a comment made on Australia's Got Talent a few months back by this gay German panel judge who seems to be the current replacement for Boy George. He called a seven year old boy on the show sexy and no-one batted an eyelid. Imagine what would have happened if a straight judge called a seven year old girl sexy, or even a fourteen year old girl-hell, even a twenty year old might get a bit of disapproval. To be honest, by the way, I might have bashed that guy up if I were that kid's father.

We are already just into formal legal discrimination against men to match the already grotesque double standards as indicated above. This discrimination allows women-only gyms and clubs while forcing men to admit women into their own organisations, men to be forced out of their own homes by domestic violence accusations and general massive bias against men in family law.

A few more years of prodding the herd in the right direction and it might be possible that every other category will be lowered for age of consent but men will have to put up with 1/2 age plus 7 or some other bullshit.

In many Anglosphere jurisdictions the AOC was higher for males than females in the not-so-distant past, so why can't it be higher for females in order to please the jellihags?

I get your logic and you might be right but we need to seize upon the double standards in conversations as well as talk comment online where possible.

Anonymous said...

I hate to pour cold water on the idea that if male sexualists hitch their colours to the LGBTQI flag, they'll get somewhere, but I have difficulty seeing how this can be so given the mood of the current times.

A few months ago on Australia's Got Talent, this German gay judher on the panel called a 7 year old contestant sexy. No-one batted an eyelid. Can you imagine hte uproar if a straight male judge said that to a 7 year old girl, or even a 20 year old if he was past his mid-20's? BTW if it was my kid, I might have wanted to bash that guy up.

We already live in a world of staggering double standards in our culture, and we have even seen chipping away at formal legal equality in favour of women. Women can have women-only gyms etc but men can't have their own spaces, a domestic violence allegation gets a man booted out of his own home, and we all know what family law is like in western countries especially the Anglosphere.

Remember, too, that not so very long ago in English-speaking countries, there were sex-differentiated ages of consent in quite a few jurisdictions, with the age for males higher than females.

So why couldn't it happen that all other ages of consent go down and men are stuck with 1/2 age plus 7 or some other bullshit?

I'm not outright saying a discussion on lowering or reducing the AOC absolutely couldn't benefit men, but I am advocating not getting one's hopes up.

One thing we can do to help forestall a differentiated AOC that is against men, is to simply take a stand about it in conversations in daily life as well as online wherever possible.

Eivind Berge said...

Sorry about slow moderation which apparently resulted in two similar comments there. I was just sleeping as it was night in Norway.

I tend to agree that latching onto LGBT++ rights is neither realistic nor desirable. While I do welcome any advances they can make, it is philosophically undesirable to claim to be one of them. Just like I care about making the point that women categorically cannot commit sexual exploitation because it is true, I care about our position that attraction to teen girls is normal. This is something that The Antifeminist, despite all his faults with masturbation, gets very right. “Hebephilia” and “ephebophilia” are just normal and require neither special words nor interest groups. The problem is that our culture has driven this part of our normal sexuality into the closet. We should fight this not by claiming queer status, but simply asserting that it is normal and healthy. Our real attraction is still defined by puberty rather than the bullshit cultural definition of “child,” but the under-18 part of it has been silenced to the point that advocacy for real pedophilia is now louder than male sexualism, which is deceptive because they are really not going to normalize pedophilia either in my view.

I agree that gays get a pass on many more displays of minor-attraction than straight guys. All they need to do is have a drag show to put young boys on total sexualized display. But let’s not confuse this apparent cultural acceptance for more than it is. Things can be cool and criminal at the same time. Just look at rap music -- all about how cool it is to be a gangsta, but they go to prison as a matter of course. Recall also that the last sodomy laws were removed long after it became cool to be gay -- by the time sodomy and other moralistic antisex laws had been reintroduced and expanded disguised as age of consent and all the other “abuse” laws, that most certainly also apply to gays and they don't get a pass when it comes to actual prosecutions. It is rather the other way around: gays should latch onto us male sexualists for advocacy of true sexual freedom that really matters! We are the true representatives of sexual freedom, more tolerant of deviancy too than the movement that supposedly represents those interests, and sorry, I don’t have much optimism at this point because everything is against us.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the response. Hard to know where it's all heading.
IMHO words like hebephilia and ephebophilia have a place, but a very limited one.
They make no more sense than some made-up word for attraction to some other category or females, eg women in their 30's. Someone could make up a word for a guy who is primarily or even exclusively interested in that age group, and such men probably exist somewhere. As with ephebophile and hebephile, though, considering this group exclusively and as something separated from the normal run of men and their desires would only serve to complicate any discussion of men's rights.

Eivind Berge said...

"SALT LAKE CITY — Tilli Buchanan is facing criminal charges after she says her stepchildren spotted her topless in her home more than a year ago. ... Buchanan now faces three counts of lewdness in front of a child, a class A misdemeanor. A conviction for that charge requires a person to register as a sex offender."

Will someone other than me think the female sex offender charade has gone too far now, or do feminists and conservatives and fake MRAs still think persecuting women like this is the most wonderful thing in the world? If not for moralistic reasons or as property of men then "for the children" -- we need to violently control female sexuality, eh?

Anonymous said...

The term for those guys is "granny-fucker" lol.

It's true there's a risk of real pedophilia being recognized before made up pedophilia simply because real pedos don't threaten female sexual power. In that case I would say it's even more imperative for male sexualists to join under the queer flag to make sure we aren't left out of the conversation!

Eivind, sometimes you have to play the system with the cards you've been dealt. There's a bigger window here than with sticking to your guns, a ship that sailed long ago, an argument that is tired and dead. The new argument is "pedo acceptance", and by choosing to be left out of the new tide as a matter of principle, you miss the forest for the trees. Might as well take a shot in a new way.

Don't you advocate for new angles on how to solve this problem? What if "pedophilia" became protected gender-neutrally? Men and women could be spared from the insane sex laws if they simply bit the bullet and agreed with society, even sarcastically, that their attraction was "abnormal". Honestly, who gives a shit, if it creates a normal society in the end it's great. Be pragmatic.

btw - utah, huge religious right contingency.

Eivind Berge said...

It is absurd to speak "pedo acceptance" in a world where royals are forced to abdicate over fucking a 17-year-old and everyone is upset because he can't be punished enough and deprived of all he owns. Wake up and smell the hate against us, man. Associating ourselves with real pedos isn't going to make it any better.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't really care if they hate us. The worst part is the pretense that men like Epstein and Andrew did something wrong, that the latter is even "sorry" for.

It is assumed that it is literally unthinkable to hold the opinion that there is nothing wrong with paying teen girls for sex and other bogus sex crimes.

Our failure to even register on the mainstream radar that there exists a group of men who sincerely hold a contrary morality to feminism is the most depressing part of the entire sex war. It means that we have failed much worse than we strictly need to. We can't stop the hate, and we can't stop the violence against us any time soon, but we ought to at least be visible as political and moral dissenters, not just criminals.

theantifeminist said...

Do you really expect Andrew to proclaim on live TV that he's a proud Male Sexualist and that banging teens is what every man lives for and is completely natural and good? That Epstein was a 100% good guy who even shared some of his premium sweet teen pussies with him?

A little while back you threatened to ban Tom Grauer because he made an 'offensive' remark against homosexuals.

Now even by your capability to twist logic, there is no possible way that you can consistently and honestly believe that homosexual desires are 'normal' AND yet that masturbating to pictures of naked teenage girls is 'worse than heroin' and not even part of male sexuality.

In other words, you were afraid of breaking Norwegian codes on 'hate speech' as regards views on homosexuality.

Prince Andrew is now the most shamed member of the Royal family since Shakespeare did a hatchet job on Richard III. And why? Because he refused to apologize or regret his friendship with Epstein, proudly said that it was honorable for him to stick with him after his conviction for trafficking a minor for prostitution, and basically claimed that the fat old whore claiming to have been raped by him and Epstein at age 17 is simply a lying fat old whore.

I haven't watched the whole interview, but it seems like he did as much as a Male Sexualist could expect, and he's been absolutely pilloried for it. Any more and it would likely have been the end of the 1,500 year old Royal Family in the UK (and it might be anyway). It's certainly over for Prince Andrew.

Eivind Berge said...

I can agree that I was too harsh on Prince Andrew. He probably did as well defending male sexuality as could be expected under the circumstances. Now that he has lost all privileges though, he might as well come out as the male sexualist he acted as when he was friends with Epstein. This society doesn't do redemption for sex offenders, and if more of them would realize that, they would dare to be more proud and defensive, I think. Whether it is formally done by sex offender registration or not, once you are "tainted" by sexuality you might as well embrace it and at that point you are truly a coward if you don't. Meanwhile only heroes become political sex offenders by choice without accusations, aka male sexualists, and sure I am not really expecting that of men in cushy positions like the one Andrew thought he could hang onto until a few days ago.

No, I did not defend homosexuals out of fear of some law. The "hate speech" law requires you to be silent at most, not defend the protected groups. I truly believe that homosexuality is normal while masturbation is pathological. Homosexuals are legitimately unhappy if they try to repress their very real and involuntary orientation, but there is no such thing as a male solosexual who would be unhappy with real sex. If they think masturbation is better then that is only because of unhealthy influence from porn and the bad ideas you promote, not because masturbation is a healthy and normal part of male sexuality.

The least pathological category you can put masturbation in is asexuality, so if you want to promote it then at least be honest that it’s not sexualism.

But masturbators don’t really want to be asexual; they want sex and would enjoy it if not for the toxic influence of porn and the cultural devaluation of sex which says most sex is abuse and masturbation is wonderful. Male sexualism is a corrective to that negativity and noxious temptations that we better see for the mirage that they are.

Men who masturbate screw up their sex lives to varying degrees, of course, ranging from very lightly to totally (think of a range from Epstein to Gally). It would be silly to make a big deal out of it for those who are mostly focused on actual sex and have plenty of it, but the philosophy of male sexualism really needs to consider the big picture and give sound advice aiming to prevent the extremely unhealthy behaviors that are not only possible, but now very common with porn and masturbation. Probably not literally worse than heroin because that also screws up your libido, but I was only slightly exaggerating there.

Eivind Berge said...

Regarding what I just said about there being no such thing as a male solosexual who would be unhappy with real sex -- correction, I suppose there are more things than porn and masturbation that can do that but those are by definition also paraphilias and pathological. I am not saying all paraphilias can be prevented by not masturbating or looking at porn, but would expect many to not surface if you live your whole life thinking that masturbation is just not something one does. It needs to start really early to have the best effect and then real sex also needs to be encouraged as early as possible to make it realistic not to masturbate.

Eivind Berge said...

The Antifeminist's latest:

"At the end of the day, men cannot co-operate on anything to do with their cocks (unless it’s cock blocking other men – ie. supporting feminist anti-sex puritanism, or religious puritanism)."

That is pretty true, but male sexualism at least tries to be an exception to the rule. My condemnation of porn and masturbation is also an attempt to cooperate very altruistically by promoting what is best for your cock, which is of course real pussy, and it's an undeserved shame that it is having so divisive effects.

The legal situation for PUAs is indeed frightening. I listened to that lawyer explain it, and agree he is too complacent because he doesn’t perceive just how hated male sexuality is. Approaching women is now effectively outlawed in the UK. They use a "public order offense" (Section Five in England and Wales and some equivalent in Scotland) whereby anything that can be perceived as "alarming" in a public place is criminal, even if it's just having a non-threatening conversation that may offend someone's sensibilities -- not even necessarily the person you are talking to, but potential bystanders or apparently just the political climate in general. Male sexuality itself is now offensive, and if you talk to a much younger woman they most certainly want to lock you up. It doesn’t help that the girl is above the age of consent or even an adult either. The law currently used is old but the new-found “offensiveness” of male sexuality allows the police and courts to apply it to any sexually motivated approach to a female in public until they got a specific antisex law made, which is surely coming because the level of punishment possible for disturbing the peace can't satisfy the antisex hate.

And of course, men won't cooperate now either, except with the feminists to make it even worse.

Anonymous said...

I agree there is hate and their accusations are absurd, and that has nothing to do with my point that the only current option that has a chance is to ride the pedo acceptance wave. Gotta be optimistic, with some luck you never know…

The UK government is hopelessly fucked up. The culture is marginally better - ironically their age of consent is lower than America and prostitution is much more accepted, but their government is horrendous. Lately the policies that originate in the UK make their way to the US, which then exports them globally. Soon we will see men who talk to girls in America locked up, I’d say within a few years.

American feminist public schools are doing an excellent job confusing teen girls more and more. I’m in a large east coast city and talk to girls regularly. This weekend was the first time ever that two girls back to back quoted feminist talking points when I hit on them. The first said she was flattered when I asked her out, but that I was probably much older and she was a “minor”(she was actually legal in my state). I asked her what that meant, she gave me a shaming look and said she didn’t want me to be prosecuted for anything. I asked her if she liked men, and if going to a cafe was illegal. She was not amused, but gave me her number anyway.

The second one gave me a shaming look and said she probably didn’t look like she was from my city because she is only 17 (aka “I’m a minor, you perv”). I asked her what age has to do with looking like you’re from a certain place, playing coy. She gave me another shaming look and a few more terse answers, before I wished her luck because she certainly will need it with that twisted mindset she’s been given by her teachers.

Both expected I would slink away in fear, or self-shock that I found a “minor” attractive sexually, even though they in fact flirted with me briefly before bringing in the feminist talking points. Very disturbing, mentally inhibited behavior by girls who were clearly intelligent. Next time, I think I will ask them why they would let some idiot in the government tell them what they can or can’t do with their feelings.

Hat tip to antifeminist for including religious puritanism in his latest post, well done.

Eivind Berge said...

"Riding the pedo acceptance wave" would make a funny meme if you used the smallest wave that could be pictured -- against a tsunami of antisex bigotry. Because that is the situation we are in. At this point they don't even pretend it is about pedos -- when the judge explicitly told PUA Addy A-game that she was locking him up and registering him as a sex offender because he approached women who were "considerably younger than you." It should be legal for me to talk to 20-year-old women because I am a "pedo"??? No, we are long past the point when they have criminalized us just for being normal men, and we need to raise an identity as normal men to stand against that. The “minor” construction is just one excuse they use when convenient, and otherwise they don’t hesitate to use something else to hurt us for our sexuality. The enemy is antisex bigotry altogether, the alliance of feminists and the religious puritanism that you quite rightly also point to, and we need to fight that with a movement of comprehensive sex-positivity. The LGBTP path isn’t really about sex-positivity, but superficial grievances that don’t really matter or help.

Eivind Berge said...

I looked into it some more and realized that sheriff Lindsay Wood, who sentenced Addie A-game with that remarkably misandristic wording, is actually a man (judges in Scotland are apparently called "sheriffs"). While he is no doubt a feminist, antisex bigotry is just as much a male problem. So another face of evil like these guys or even worse.

And they are so abundant that the raw hatred against us is omnipresent. We are so sincerely and profoundly hated for our normal male sexuality that we cannot consider ourselves part of the societies in which we reside. Upon realizing that our sexuality is hated we are expected to experience “self-shock” as was pointed out above -- what an apt word for it! Men who aren’t shocked by themselves, but instead embrace their sexuality, are traitors and enemies of our states in the strongest sense of those words. I marvel that I am still alive and free because I most assuredly do not belong here. It is a surreal situation where I exist, but am so profoundly morally opposed to the reigning cultural morality that I am worse than a pariah. The gap is so extreme that our point of view cannot even be communicated, and might as well not exist as far as most people are concerned. November 19th was the International Men's Day 2019, but even the supposedly male-friendly people who celebrate that day don't have the balls to distance themselves from the legislated antisex bigotry, at least here in Norway:

All about peripheral issues like child custody and not one word of opposition to feminist sex laws (the closest they come is "false rape accusations," but that doesn't count as contesting the laws), because every last male coward in the country has embraced the self-shock and "adapted" to hating his own sexuality!

Anonymous said...

Eivind, I thought you may find the following statements by Camille Paglia interesting. After her recent talk with Jordan Peterson, it seems as if some among her newly gained conservative fanbase have, to their horror, uncovered previous statements she has made regarding the age of consent:

She went to write that "the present age of consent is far too high", asking "who is to say whether or not a juvenile is capable of informed choice?" She then adamantly declared: "My position on child pornography is that no images, if drawn, painted, or sculpted, may be banned,"
In Paglia's mind, children are being harmed not by sexual contact with adults, but by society's stigma surrounding pedophilia: "The damage from many pedophiliac encounters probably comes, as some psychologists suggest, less from the contact itself than from the culturally enforced stress and secrecy surrounding it." She also explained that the way to put an end to under-age sex tourism in third world countries was to replace Christian morality in the West with "a more liberal pagan one" that would allow for adults to freely court children for sex in our own societies. In her mind, the "sexual borderline" between adults and children is an artificial construct that society would benefit from deconstructing: "Lolita melts the sexual borderline that society has artificially drawn between child and adult."
Also in 1994, a film entitled 'Glennda and Camille Do Downtown' premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, which featured Paglia taking a stroll in downtown New York with a transvestite going by name of "Glennda Orgasm". After declaring they were going to go shopping for "gay male pornography", they entered a store, and Camille came across a photograph that she believed had a "Greek motif", spurring her to remark: "Gay male porn is honest about the sexual allure of young people. If you'll notice, even when there are boys of indeterminate age and even when there are boys who are over the correct legal age, they're made to look below the age... it's a cult of youth and beauty, and I think that's absolutely correct, and it's like one of the great repressed subjects of right now. We're into child abuse hysteria right now. Everyone's hysterical about it..." to which "Glennda Orgasm" replied that he believed such repression is "killing sexuality". Paglia agreed, then continued: "I believe the Lolita syndrome is one of the few examples of it in a heterosexual context, and I think we're ripe for a revival of Lolita."

The hit-piece this was taken from:

And the video referenced:

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks. I watched the conversation between Camille Paglia and Jordan Peterson a while back and was impressed. They discussed lots of fake victimhood there but not the age of consent as I recall, and what they did cover is probably as far as conservatives will go (if that) while she is actually closer to us male sexualists in light of her earlier statements. A good ally to have and I am glad she makes the conservatives uncomfortable because they really need to be called out on their bigotry.

Anonymous said...

A little wave is a wave nonetheless, and helps to chip away at the anti-sex narrative.

I will never embrace the self-shock, although I felt its power when these girls attempted to use it on me. It becomes another “shit-test” to pass on the way to sex with them. The girls get it both ways - a new way to make a power play on men, and a new way to get their rocks off with the ones who don’t care! But also as you mentioned, the latter happens only rarely because girls are being so indoctrinated to not embrace their sexuality in the US.

That Paglia stuff is cool. Sex positive feminism can be very cool indeed. Notice who is the majority in the hysterical negative Youtube comments - alt-right people. Paglia also uses the queer lobby as a wedge, as I suggest we do. As to whether Paglia’s message would make for good wives, that’s another issue. But as far as “age of consent” arguments - don’t these morons know that true conservatives married their daughters off at age eight throughout American history? I think the majority there are repressed homos.

Thanks for putting yourself out there and advocating for this stuff.

Anonymous said...

It was a very good idea for Eivind to research the ADDY PUA case a bit more.
I can't quite put my finger on it, but somehow I find it a relief that the Sheriff/Judge person was a male rather than a female. To hell with him anyway.
I doubt poor Addy has the funds for an appeal, but if he qualifies for legal aid then perhaps he has a shot. If the law is vague then then that could be a factor. Perhaps also there might be some kind of grounds in the fact that the judge included his own silly personal opinion about the age differences, especially given the examples of the women he cited were all over the AOC and even over 18 in some cases. There might be enough there for a decent lawyer to argue that Addy has effectively been sentenced for violating a new AOC that has not been arrived at by Parliamentary vote, but by a vague law combined with clearly biased judicial fiat.
I agree that a caution is all he should have received.

Eivind Berge said...

The agecuckery is now a shit-test that the entire society participates in. Even when there is no law yet, we get shaming attempts like this from the media:

I'd say that qualifies as a pass on the part of Muggy Mike, but just barely. Only male sexualists proclaim in no uncertain terms that we don't give a shit about your hateful, senseless and disgusting taboo. The problem is society is all too happy to use police violence to enforce it, and an age of consent as "low" as 16 must sadly be said to be lagging behind the social mores. The will to destroy our lives is there even if they don't have the right yet (except they do in indirect ways like convicting us for talking to girls or having pictures of them). This is how much your society hates you for your normal sexuality, gentlemen. Make no mistake, we are at war.

Eivind Berge said...

Anonymous wrote:

"Perhaps also there might be some kind of grounds in the fact that the judge included his own silly personal opinion about the age differences, especially given the examples of the women he cited were all over the AOC and even over 18 in some cases. There might be enough there for a decent lawyer to argue that Addy has effectively been sentenced for violating a new AOC that has not been arrived at by Parliamentary vote, but by a vague law combined with clearly biased judicial fiat."

I agree, it is really bizarre that the court can get away with that. One "sheriff" has in effect single-handedly criminalized men in the UK from approaching women during at least five years of their peak attractiveness, 16-21, which is really mind-bogglingly draconian and shouldn't be down to a single individual like that in any remotely sane society. That's the sort of power that Stalin would envy and makes Lindsay Wood the greatest antisex fascist in the world. But if we are now living in a society which truly considers it taboo for men to be romantically involved with anyone under 18, and evidently even women in their 20s when the man is considerably older, the result of challenging this verdict may well be to make the taboo official. If they can't make it stick via this vague "public order" offense, what is stopping them from passing laws to make explicit sex crimes when society really wants this behavior to be criminal? Men are too self-shocked after internalizing the new taboo that there will be no real opposition to raising the age of consent to 18. Criminalizing age gap above that will be a bit more of a challenge, but I can see that happening too.

Eivind Berge said...

All feminists and other antisex bigots in the UK need to say in order to raise the age of consent to 18 is that you could have locked up Prince Andrew with that law. Which is already unanimous public opinion, so it's a done deal only missing the formal proposal.

Anonymous said...

"I don't do homework, I only do beautiful girls, unlike all of you apparently" or "I'm great at algebra: 24 + 16 = golden ratio" would've been the way to go. He's too good looking to have a brain though, which is part of why she fucked him. As for the girl, she's hideous, but I'd still hit it.

Eivind Berge said...

She is a really hot girl, but her personality is so-so as she felt she had to deny that they actually had sex in order to pander to the taboo:

And the coverage is nauseating as usual: "And yes, it’s not illegal, but that still doesn’t make it right." We have clearly reached the point where it is obligatory for everyone who gets a say in the mainstream to categorically state that it is wrong to have sex with anyone under 18, no exceptions for any reason no matter how enthusiastically consented and the man is a monster even if the girl lied about her age. The bigotry is now totalitarian and only inertia stands in the way of changing the law to match the cultural hate against men who don't self-castrate.

It is profoundly disturbing how the hate snuck up on us and became so extreme while we barely noticed. The Addie A-game conviction was just a wake-up call to a situation that has existed for years already. I thought I was attuned to antisex bigotry, but it is actually much worse than I thought.

Eivind Berge said...

Well, well. Taboo means you don't talk about it; it doesn't mean you don't do it. Julia Pawlak is probably a nice girl if you get to know her.

Wisdom is to at least understand that distinction. Homosexuality used to be an entire underground culture that lived by it. I suppose there is no reason why heterosexuality can't work the same way. Well, except all the advances in surveillance technology and forensics...

Anonymous said...

I just had to post this here.
I was told by someone I know who's been through it: in the German Dunkelfeld project (which is the most well-known therapy project for non-offending pedophiles in the world, and which many therapists and researchers around the world look up to and want to implement something similar in their countries), they don't only tell their patients to stay away from anyone under 14 (the German age of consent), nor do they even say that it's fine so long as they go for someone over 18 (the age of majority)... no, they tell their patients that even someone in their early 20s is a no-go because "their brains aren't fully developed yet". Unbelievable. You'd think if a pedophile could be satisfied being with a young-looking - but legal - teen (or even young adult!), then that would be great! But no... mid-20s and up, if you're older than that age yourself. Otherwise it's apparently - if not "abusive" by definition - at least seen as very sketchy. We may see the age of consent being raised to 20-something soon...

Eivind Berge said...

That is extremely disturbing. The taboo against sex with teenage girls and young women is showing up in ever more bizarre and pervasive ways, and men are simple pushovers who just accept it, huh? Based on nothing but the asinine reference to brain development without questioning how that is relevant or true.

The taboo exists at our expense for the putative benefit of women, so how come men are so absurdly altruistic that they accept it just like that (even if it had merit that would be bizarre, which it doesn't)?

I would not look to the abuse industry for wisdom in any event, but I thought they at least had a little more sense in Germany. Their age of consent is a huge anachronism then, where 14 actually means 25.

Another disturbing "sex trafficking because 16" case I just read about, which is nothing new either:

“There is not a single allegation Mr. Turley intentionally had inappropriate communications with any minor,” his lawyers wrote in court documents. “To the contrary, the alleged victim in this case professed — both online and in person — to be an 18-year old, high school senior.”

And part of the reason why they can get away with blaming men even when the girl lies that she is over 18 is that society doesn't give a shit if women are legal adults, because they now wholeheartedly want to punish us then too!

Anonymous said...

Oh lord, those comments...

"As I’ve already stated, I’m really not here to judge anyone and there are always exceptions. But someone who is 60… What do you have in common with an 18-year-old? I mean unless you’re a very rare exception to that rule which does happen, someone at least 30-35 would probably be a lot more enjoyable to spend time with... and there are plenty of lovely women In that age range. It’s not always an age game either. There are people who have these types of arrangements with people fairly close to their own age if they’re in their 30s and 40s usually. I’ve noticed the tendency that as I got older, my SDs got older as well, and the largest age gap I’ve had is 25 years. Personally, I even think that’s a lot, lol, but it worked for us. And another of my guys was the same age!"

Who on earth would pay a 30+ woman to be a sugar baby, unless said individual is positively geriatric? Maybe she is referring to normal dating? Or - more likely - she is just delusional...

Anonymous said...

I wonder why those German therapists even allow that adults and minors eat a pizza together, since the latter's brain is not developed enough to understand the chemical processes that take place during digestion? Or more generally, how can they even believe that children can enjoy a chicken with fries with a brain like that?

Eivind Berge said...

If the brain is "fully developed" for sex at 25, I am wondering what it is women over 25 do differently that is so much more "developed"? There ought to be some statistical differences if this is so, which would clearly be beneficial to those over 25 and vice versa. Brains are only evolutionarily relevant as regulators of behavior, after all, so if the behavior in question can be regulated as well as at any age then the brain must be said to be fully developed for that purpose. Do women over 25 suddenly have the maturity to do what, exactly? If anything, women over 25 are easier to sleep with than under in my experience, so it can't be that they develop more of the sex-negativity that bigots love so much. If turning down older men is what it means to be "developed," then the younger ones possess more of that. Or is it that women under 25 feel differently about sex, in ways that are somehow worse for them with certain (older) partners, even adjusted for their higher selectivity and individual predilections? Again, this ought to be measurable in some way, if it is real. How about the abuse industry START at providing this evidence before we take them seriously? Simply pointing to an arbitrary measure of brain development detached from either behavior or emotion tells us nothing relevant. This is the same sort of error as is made by those who claim porn is fine because brain scans of frequent masturbators don't resemble "real addictions." How a certain behavior shows up in brain scans, whether one is looking for "development" or "addiction," can never be the final word as to how healthy the behavior is. To answer that question you need to assess the actual impact in real life, where it is obvious that teenage girls make very sophisticated sexual decisions and men who fap to porn ruin their sexual lives to varying degrees.

Anonymous said...

“I wonder why those German therapists even allow that adults and minors eat a pizza together, since the latter's brain is not developed enough to understand the chemical processes that take place during digestion? Or more generally, how can they even believe that children can enjoy a chicken with fries with a brain like that?”

LOL - Also, why are we bothering teaching teenagers in high school the same topics they will be taught in college? They can’t even understand the nature and consequences of the complicated penis in vagina equation, how can we expect them to do things like advanced algebra and chemistry? I’m worried for the safety of our children, how can an underdeveloped 17 year old handle grown up topics like biology and history without completely destroying their lives? I for one am sick of the psychological abuse of these teachers due to the inherent power imbalance between teacher and student!

BTW old hags who can’t compete with young muff will use their male voting rights to elect politicians who promise to put anti age-gap provisions into age of consent laws, within 10 years. If you haven’t noticed, the number of people renouncing their US citizenship has already doubled in the past few years. That number will skyrocket as more aware men leave the country, leaving only the cucks and criminals behind for the stronk wahmen utopia.

Regarding having nothing in common - I thought diversity is strength?

Anonymous said...

antifeminist has an interesting new post up. a few things…

I literally tried to induce a lucid wet dream with teens a few nights ago by following a guide online, but couldn’t get there (jealous). Instead my dream actually was that I was trying to lucid dream but Prince Andrew kept trying to make sure I wasn’t looking at porn LOL

next, almost every disease except starvation itself can be beaten by fasting, and at the very least going full carnivore with no sugar/carbs.

finally, if antifeminist will in fact be leaving this mortal realm, first, thanks for your efforts, they weren’t in vain because you’ve influenced alot of people to think, including me. and if I may be so bold, might I suggest before you go, you think about sheriff lindsay wood and a male sexualist manifesto. It's suggested you dont do something violent to the sheriff.

Eivind Berge said...

I'm sorry to hear about The Antifeminist's health scare. Hopefully it is not as bad as he implies with the "12 months to live" suggestion.

But it can happen to all of us and goes to show the importance of striking while the iron is hot, which means nofap and approaching teen girls and young women by hook or by crook. Nocturnal emissions are generally a sign that you are on the right track even if they shouldn't happen to nofappers either because we would be too busy having real sex, but inducing wet dreams (other than by simply not masturbating) is a bit shady. Reality is so much better than even lucid dreaming and it doesn't count as a nocturnal emission if you willingly masturbate!

As to the policewoman inadvertently caught with a "child sex abuse video" (actually a tile image of a child's body within a video), lol yeah, let the pigs eat themselves. It was just inattention (by the court's own admission) to a simulacrum of a sex crime, so not really the female sex offender charade either. As batshit crazy as those are, We do have bigger fish to fry than the obscenity laws, as I keep saying, and it helps our focus if they really manage to eradicate porn. Impossible, I know, because they are waging a war on our thoughts/culture now that people's extended electronic brains are full of "child porn" as a matter of course, but antisex bigotry is not in the realm of rationality and can't be helped by it because the human actors in the justice system are merely cogs in an effectively insane, mindless machine that now prescribes a holocaust on sex and all its associations and simulacra regardless of what any of us thinks including the judges and politicians themselves. The monster oppressing us is not human, but a crude AI of the kind that has existed since the invention of bureaucracy, and any humanity opposing it will be beat down until a critical mass of opposition can be mounted which is inconceivable at least as long as women can vote.

But by all means, get that male sexualist manifesto finished before dying (that goes to all of us), no violence necessary or useful against this beast. It would be useful to refuse to do its bidding out of conscientious objection, but as long as the multitudes rush in to fill any vacuum, that too is futile. All we can hope is to provide moral support for each other as the few admitted sexually egosyntonic normal men and create a record of opposition during these dark times.