Monday, January 20, 2020

Interview with Maxwell's demon about CP law

Seeing how child pornography is the ultimate something for nothing in criminal law, a perpetual punishment machine that can just keep going and going with no fresh input, I thought who better than Maxwell's demon to consult about this strange phenomenon of information crime? So I conjured up the demon in my imagination and conducted an interview.

Eivind Berge: Greetings, Maxwell's demon! Perhaps our readers would first like to know, if they aren't so well versed in physics already, who you are and why you don't work. How come you never stepped out of the realm of thought experiments and into our technology? Although it would surely get us into another mess with different pollutants or shortages before long, it would be good to have a way to produce unlimited energy without carbon emissions at this point.

Maxwell's demon: Yes, be careful what you wish for. It is probably for the best that I can't exist in the material world, so your eventual doom at least gets somewhat contained and survivable by a few. The idea, conceived by James Clerk Maxwell in 1867, is that I would control a small door between two chambers of gas. As individual gas molecules approach the door, I would quickly open and shut the door so that only fast molecules pass into one of the chambers, while only slow molecules go into the other. Because faster molecules amount to more heat, my behavior would cause one chamber to warm up and the other to cool down, thereby decreasing entropy and violating the second law of thermodynamics, in effect creating a perpetual motion machine that can be used to perform whatever work you want.

I can't exist though because my brain would need to keep track of the moving gas molecules, which might work for a while, but since I don't have infinite working memory (because the universe or at least our light cone is finite), sooner or later I would need to erase information in my brain, and that would require more energy than I produce by my behavior! Either that or I would need to be replaced by a fresh demon, which also takes energy to create. It is always the case that in order to reliably decrease entropy locally, you must produce more entropy elsewhere, so the second law is never violated and I can't help that.

EB: I see. It took me years to grok this part about erasure rather than recording of information being the limitation, but it's clear that you can't work.

And just like you would be a way to get energy for nothing, child porn laws are ways to get incrimination for nothing.

Md: Yes, that is eerily similar. And they do exist!

EB: But is information really nothing though? Doesn't it always have to be embedded in a medium?

Md: Perhaps it becomes clearer if you consider the formerly used medium of punch cards, where the information consists of nothing but holes.

EB: What about the air in the holes?

Md: The air would be there anyway without the punched cards. We are familiar with the concept of sinister pixels, but you can also have sinister thin air or even a vacuum if you like. Yes, you do eventually run out of people to incriminate because of other problems having to do with a finite world, but you can easily conduct entire holocausts based on this nothing.

EB: I see. Information really is the reaction of an observer to something perceived, a measure of how surprised you are at seeing something. It has no independent existence, except perhaps in some platonic realm if you believe in that. Due to the real consequences of some of those perceptions though, I can understand criminalizing certain communications such as threats and frauds, but simply possessing information?

Md: Sadly, laws aren't subject to the laws of physics the way technology is. Nothing prevents legislators from passing laws designed to put people in prison for gobbledygook reasons. Why should the way I arrange information on my private storage media be criminally relevant as long as it just stays there?

EB: No, it doesn't make sense. So why do you think it happens?

Md: Child porn law is truly weird, I agree. It involves multiple absurdities and superstitions and draconian exceptions to how information is otherwise handled by law. The most "charitable" way to look at it is a labeling exercise to identify pedophiles. But this breaks down when you consider that the law puts the boundary for "child" at 18, which means the cases can involve 17-year-olds for all the justice system cares and have nothing whatsoever to do with sexual deviancy. It also isn't very charitable or true to assume that all pedophiles are likely abusers even if you could identify them with some accuracy, which the laws obviously aren't designed to do in any event.

EB: Yes, identification of (statistically likely) sexual abusers can't be the whole explanation, and if it were I wish the justice system would be honest about it rather than claim intrinsic harm.

Md: Another angle, which is more in line with how these laws are actually written, is a metaphysical belief that such material constitutes a real harmful crime in itself, a sort of voodoo theory that "victims" are "revictimized" by the transfer of information that they know nothing about. This is sheer superstition.

EB: Indeed.

Md: A third argument is that child porn somehow creates a demand for abuse and therefore must be eradicated, but in practice such eradication creates more demand for actual abuse because the porn more often needs to be produced anew instead of copied.

EB: The antisex bigots don't look good no matter how you slice it, do they?

Md: Well, let's at least give them a sound hearing. A fourth way to look at it, which is most accurate in my view, is that the child porn laws are actually blasphemy laws which enforce the quasi-religious belief that "children" are asexual, the myth of the innocence of the child which now has status of state religion in feminist countries. This is undeniable when the laws also apply to fictional representations in text and drawings and cartoons and sculpture and spoken words as they do in for example Norway and Canada and Australia.

EB: Yes, I am right in the most deranged jurisdictions. I shiver just writing this because who knows when they will step up the persecutions to the next meta-level such as philosophical musing that we are engaged in here.

Md: A fifth way to justify child porn law is to claim that pornography somehow causes more sexual behavior in the viewers (other than masturbation, which would rather fit the metaphysical point). This claim is the diatmetric opposite of the truth, since pornography actually suppresses real sexual behavior in men as Gary Wilson so helpfully teaches. I abstain from all porn and masturbation in order to increase my testosterone and drive to pursue women and teen girls as well as my performance with them, and I am quite certain that I would do the same in order to better abuse children if I were a pedophile!

EB: Yeah, just look at the Amish. If there is a group of men who abstain from porn and masturbation, or at least view a lot less Internet porn it must be them, and their sexual behavior mocks the idea that cracking down on child pornography does what our feminist society naively imagines.

But oh well, there is nothing we can do besides pointing out the absurdities and extolling positive virtues until they crack down on this too. That's my demon for supporting nofap and still be chasing pussy at 153 years of age! You can be an honorary male sexualist demon too. It was good talking to you and perhaps we'll meet again.

Md: So long!


Anonymous said...

Jury nullification is what CP laws are for!

Milan Horvath said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Eivind Berge said...

Thanks, those are very good points. Yes, we are talking about mere possession/consumption of information here. There must be more people who see the madness of criminalizing that but don't speak up. And I also think Puritans are using the "pedo" hysteria for more than it's worth in order to enforce their prudery against sex and nudity in general. It just happens to be very convenient right now to pretend they are doing it for the children.

Anonymous said...

Human rights and the denial of sexual freedom:

Eivind Berge said...

That is a well-written manifesto for sexual rights, from 1951 but as relevant as ever. Thanks for sharing.

This is the guy who wrote it, whom I had never heard of but I see that he is quite a precursor to male sexualism:

René Guyon (/ɡwɪˈjɔːn/; French: [gɥi.jɔ̃]; 27 May 1876 – 1963) was a French jurist, best known for having written upon the topic of sexual ethics.

Eivind Berge said...

From René Guyon's manifesto:

"Briefly, the twin cornerstones of this legal revision are these fundamental precepts:
(a) sexual acts or activities accomplished without violence, constraint, or fraud should find no place in our penal codes; (b) sexual acts or activities accomplished with violence, constraint, or fraud should be punished according to the type of violence, constraint, or fraud committed, and the sexual element should not be considered a relevant or aggravating circumstance."

I wasn't planning to go quite this far in my own manifesto (letting them have a crime of "rape" reasonably defined is fine by me, perhaps even some further protections for small children), but doing so would solve all our problems and be infinitely preferable to the status quo. And it is EXACTLY what I want to do with the female sex offender charade!

Plus he doesn't even stop there...

"In addition to banishing the 'sex crimes' from the penal law, one might well add, for security, a new criminal offense: that of violating the right to sexual freedom. Such a provision would aim to put a stop to the denunciations, the houndings, the comminatory interventions in private life, and the censorship of all those puritan agents or Leagues who, with an elaborate sadism, make life insupportable for their neighbors in the name of the stupid and ruthless doctrines which so delight them."

What a guy! A true male sexualist hero.

Anonymous said...

Glad that you're planning the manifesto.

I think that totally unprovoked rape should probably be illegal, but if the "rape" was preceded by a sexual interaction with a woman (e.g., teasing on her part), it should no longer be illegal, or at least not classified as "rape." Basically, the very moment a woman starts sexing you up, the "rape" notion should no longer apply to your interaction. In the event a rape accusation is made by her, the court will have to review the evidence and determine whether or not the rape, such as it is, was unprovoked. And even in the case of totally unprovoked rape, the circumstances that led to it should be carefully considered - is the perpetrator a heartless psychopath, or a frustrated incel? This will force the courts to adopt a case-by-case attitude towards rape.

Similarly, the very recent invention of "marital rape" needs to be abandoned utterly, which I'm sure even many cuckservatives with Trad-leanings can agree with. (The "domestic violence" industry in general should be obliterated)

Anonymous said...

By the way,

The charade continues in full force.

Anonymous said...

Eivind's latest article is very clever and in a cerebral way a bit of light relief from the persecution.

I also like the idea that CP laws have moved into the category of enemy law, if they ever weren't.

I find it interesting that many people are quite reasonable about some feminist topics. People are glad enough if a female accuser is found out and a man exonerated, and most people I know realize that the family and other courts are biased in favour of women.

They would support the work of most men's rights organizations and at times you'd even think feminism was on the back foot somewhat.

Problem is, both the public at large and most men's rights groups draw the line at any disapproval of the disapproval of male attraction to teen girls.

Maybe if some of these father's rights' groups etc. supported a lower AOC, the rest of their work would be more effective, maybe it wouldn't. Perhaps there's no real connection between the sets of issues, but then again, there kind of has to be. I'd like to see a mainstream men's group at least try to connect the two and see what happens, but I fear I'd be waiting a long time.

Anonymous said...

Good comments here. Daily Stormer of all places has a piece today trying to bring rationality to the pedo-hysteria. When the left wing is so far off base that the right wing is bringing arguments for sexual freedom, you know there's a problem.

Regarding rape, let's start by keeping in mind that females are different than males - females are turned on by male confidence/domination, females fantasize about forced sex, and females orgasm during forced sex. If there is an assault along with the rape, that is a different crime, but problem is females also enjoy being assaulted, so the assault is actually a crime against the society's incentive to keep their females healthy. A female cries rape ONLY because there are money and attention incentives available, or to have an ego boost. Therefore, is forced sex with a female a crime against the female?

It's not, because of the reasons above, and societies throughout the majority of human history agree. Forced sex with a female is a crime against the order of society, because if it were legal to force girls to have sex, you can imagine what would be happening. But then is it a good idea to basically turn all females into prostitutes by allowing them "consent"? Then you get the terrible situation you have now, where females are ultra-hypergamous, extracting the most attention and money they can get out of men in order to have sex (and in the process, leading men on and taking their resources of attention/money without even putting out). You also get the insane pedo-hysteria as more and more females get older, and resent the fact they can extract less and less out of men as they are less desired.

What about putting consent back where it belongs, with fathers/brothers/husbands? Forced sex with a female then becomes a blow against family formation and planning control by the men in the family. This makes sense. It also makes the crime less severe, which is correct because the female enjoys it, requiring a lesser penalty. This is basically the traditional crime of fornication, which is actually the true definition of a "rape" because you define it through the male lens, the only thing that makes sense.

You could still have official prostitutes with this system for more fun. You could still have slutty girls with this system for more fun, you would just risk something like a fine or minimal jailtime for all sex unapproved by a male family member, which is where the penalty rightly belongs. Sex-positive people would be valued. False accusations and hysteria would shrink considerably. Society would be maximally efficient because you wouldn't have men throwing so much time and money into a black hole simply to win (or lose) female hypergamous "consent". And there would be order because forced sex would remain illegal, but with much more reasonable investigation and consequences. It would go something like this: 1) Was she a prostitute? [No] 2) Was she married to you? [No] 3) Did her closest male family member consent to her having sex? [No] 4) Penalty of fornication (rape), maybe a $500 fine for first offense, can make it higher and add jailtime for subsequent violations.

That is a system which is far more preferable to the insane one we have now.

The rape of a man, however, is always a crime because a man is not turned on by the attention/dominance of another man (in the majority of cases).

Milan Horvath said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Eivind Berge said...

We can discuss this here as grown-ups, unlike just about anywhere else, whether there should be any sex laws at all, or they should be grounded in the rights of male relatives. I am intrigued by that idea and agree it would be much better than what we have now, but... if we face the world with that position in a manifesto it will lead to automatic hysterical dismissal and we have to take into account the breakdown of the extended and even nuclear family. Many women don't have such a close relationship with male relatives anymore that it makes sense to regard them as victims of her rape.

Same with too much extremism with regard to pedophilia: I agree with Milan that we should avoid (legitimate) "peadogeddon" accusations. I invite you all to write alternative male sexualist manifestos if you strongly believe in those positions, but as for me, I will probably go with supporting an age of consent at 12 or 13 and have a protection against rape based on individual autonomy including female self-ownership. Going back 30-35 years when the laws were far more reasonable (including how they were enforced, not just how they were written) would indeed satisfy 90% of our gripes in my view.

Anonymous said...

What’s to lose? Just about any position counter to the narrative is faced with hysterical dismissal, so might as well move the needle in a big way and make people think outside the box. You might end up with a compromise at rape laws as they were 30 years ago; if you start your argument there, you’ll get a worse compromise. Don’t forget forced sex is also a crime against the order of society, so a guardian could be appointed by the state to fill in for any lack of a preferred, close male relative.

It is indeed great to have an open forum to explore these ideas, thank you for this.

Anonymous said...

Det mest bemærkelsesværdige om Guyon er at han var en dommer!

Anonymous said...

Speaking in terms of daily practicalities, the HTML "links" provided by people are dead, at least on my server. That means I can't always paste them in and get the article or video or whatever to come up.
I'd like to check out the video recommended by Milan ( but at least on my server I can't access it.
I might have much more luck with the actual title, so both the title and the "link" would be good to post.
I'll do the same if I have something to share.
BTW I never cease to be amazed at how completely and utterly forgotten the relatively recent legal situation of many countries is. It's as if the laws as of 2020 have been unchanged since the dawn of time.
It seems there's nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come, and nothing so ignored as an idea the world simply isn't interested in.

Anonymous said...

I suggest introducing a new sex-law: It should be forbidden to cause another person sexual frustration. Such a law will protect men (and some women) from a type of real sexual abuse that is never discussed by society, and will counter Feminist interpretations of regular sex-law. If causing someone to experience sexual frustration resulted in a lengthy prison sentence, there would probably be less involuntary celibacy. And under such a law, we'll have real female sex offenders - which are not nice women who provide sex, but nasty women who deprive men of it. Food for thought!

(Obviously such a law should only apply to heterosexual interactions; homosexuality is a deviance and is irrelevant as such)

Milan Horvath said...
Vile Pervert The Musical time=7:58
Nothing can beat being professional victim.......

In case that youtube won't show it

Anonymous said...

Thank you Milan.
It's pretty funny.

Milan Horvath said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Eivind Berge said...

Get ready for antisex bigotry being taken to another insidious level:

"The Met said in a statement Friday the technology will be deployed to places where data indicates people responsible for serious and violent crimes, such as gun and knife attacks and child sexual exploitation, are most likely to be located. Clearly marked cameras will be focused on small, targeted areas to scan people's faces as they walk by, it added."

Technology is just getting started at actually enforcing the hateful ideology they have legislated. Here's to hoping the coming pandemic will wipe out some of the bigots and perhaps weaken the infrastructure a bit.

Eivind Berge said...

So it turns out labeling sex offenders by the content of their library wasn't the cutting edge for long. Soon walking down the street will be enough to get you pegged as a sex offender, based on whatever algorithms the antisex bigots tell to do their bidding -- which is only the beginning because they will no doubt rely on AI to pick out suspects in ways we don't even understand, based on limitless information about you. And all opposition from the public to this level of surveillance will vanish as soon as the cops utter the magic phrase "for the children," which they have already done.

Humanity is fighting a war against its sexual nature, and technology will win that war. The ideological battle over sexual freedom was lost long ago, and now it's only a matter of enforcement. The only hope is instability of technological civilization itself, such as risks of pandemics or financial collapse, even climate change will be our friend. Our sexualist activism is merely therapy for us to make it a little more bearable to watch the persecution run amok. We could pre-empt the persecution by self-registering as sex offenders as I proposed previously, because social force does beat technology, but too few men want to do that.

Anonymous said...

Pretty sure that women exaggerate how bad rape is for them, in the same way they exaggerate all the issues that affect them. As a matter of fact, breaking-up with someone is often a thousand times worse than rape.

What are the arguments that "rape is bad"? Physical pain - divorce (between 60% to 80% initiated by women) is physically catastrophic for men and results in measurable detrimental health effects. Emotional pain - break-ups are emotionally devastating, duh. Long-lasting trauma - pretty sure that the trauma from a break-up or a divorce lasts at least as long as that from rape, if not longer. Morally unjustified - well, morality is not objective, and I can think of several reasons why rape may be morally justified, and plenty of reasons why divorce is morally unjustified. Feelings of violation - seeing the household which you've been building for years destroyed and abandoned by your partner on a whim brings a much greater feeling of violation than mere forceful penetration.

If men had a spine, which we emphatically do not, we would criminally sanction the initiators of divorce as harshly as we sanction rapists, if not harsher.

Eivind Berge said...

More heinous sexual abuse of women discovered:

Influencers 'being offered thousands for sex'

"She says she was only 19 when she was first propositioned, with an offer of £20,000 for dinner and drinks."

Oh yes, there is no offer or arrangement that wouldn't be abuse, because sex is the dirtiest thing in the universe. We need harsher laws and better enforcement to lock these men up forthwith.

Eivind Berge said...

According to feminist dogma and as enshrined in the Nordic model of prostitution law, a woman's loss from sex is so great that it cannot be made up for by any amount of money and regardless of how freely she enters into the transaction. The damage can only be addressed by additionally punishing a man and treating the woman as a victim. So profound is the state-enforced hatred against my sexuality, and scarcely a second goes by when I'm not keenly feeling it and seething with hatred back, even though I know it's bad for my health and I try to tone it down.

Anonymous said...

It's interesting how Norway uses left wing anti sex victim feminism to successfully shame men, while the USA uses religious right child protection moralism to successfully lock men away for decades. Norway is better for you at least.

Eivind Berge said...

Now it is also considered fine for judges to be openly biased against men accused of sexual abuse and say things like "I just signed your death warrant":

Milan Horvath said...

Brits are sometimes even more crazy than Americans when it comes to sexhysteria and totalitarian practices, I am curious how much their famous tabloids contributed to this.
(not to say that pseudo-left media like Guardian are innocent).

Seems, that possibilities of population control with digital technologies will make former communist regimes in east bloc, look like nice fairy-tale.
People thought, that digitalisation will bring them freedom and independence, but the opposite is true.
Would be nice, if something in future will make it impossible for digital devices to work, but I know such thing is impossible.

Ad prostitution: (nothing new, you and others mentioned such theory multiple times)
When I found interesting opinions somewhere, and further "investigated" their authors,
I've realised, that most of people who dare to criticise present discourse, are either single or gay(which means that, they can't be sent to "sleep on couch" for their heretic opinions).
Elimination of prostitution is nothing more than increasing power of women's voice, by increasing price of pussy.

Ad rape: I don't think that rape is justifiable, and would never compare it to break-up, but I cannot stand this almost religious language that is frequently associated with it (eg murder of soul), seems that feminists like old conservative narratives, when it suits to them.
It is assault/bodily harm, nothing more, nothing less. There is no reason why it should be punished more harshly, in modern society, where we have accessible contraceptives, abortion and virginity/chastity is not considered as valued as it was before.

With invention of pill, many things have changed, but way that girls are raised didn't, and that was IMO big fault. We've raised (and english speaking world especially) generation of spoiled princesses without no responsibility and shred of humility. When they are talking about "toxic masculinity" I am talking about toxic femininity. I do believe that current state of things is more cultural thing than biological. I wonder (for example) how would world look today if there were no gendered magazines with petty-bourgeois redactors spreading their bullshit to other women.
Most of you probably know how female "friends" can convert nice and honest girl into jealous neurotic bitch.

Eivind Berge said...

Both systems are batshit crazy, but the nice thing about American-style antisex bigotry is that women get to bear some of the persecution (aside from the female sex offender charade). American hookers are still flat-out oppressed without the pretense that they are victims as in pure feminist countries. Amazingly, this isn't considered abuse or exploitation because the system hates them even more than it hates men, apparently.

"Over 14% of sex workers said that they had been threatened with arrest unless they had sex with a police officer, and 2% had been arrested after having sex with an officer anyway. In many US states, it is technically legal."

"They get to screw us for free, and cops love freebies."

It seems to me that this is so ingrained that it would be even harder to institute the Nordic model in the US than to go the other way and get more sexual freedom. American cops love abusing whores too much to give up all that fun and just go after men. That's the only little silver lining in the sex war I can see. It isn't as offensive as the female sex offender charade because it doesn't pretend to be anything other than it is, the subjugation of women. So if we are going to have equal injustice, that's the way to do it, just straight up intolerance of sexuality for all.

Milan Horvath said...

Why is my comment not showing? Something is not okay with it, or it just wasn't delivered?

Eivind Berge said...

No, nothing wrong, your comment is published now. I just didn't notice it before going to bed last night, sorry.

I agree rape shouldn't be legal in a system with sane laws all around. Whether it should be treated as more serious than assault/bodily harm, however, is debatable and my default position is to agree that it should. Not because of any feminist arguments, and it certainly isn't murder of the soul or anything like that, but evolutionary psychology tells us women may possess adaptations that make them uniquely traumatized by rape (in order to better avoid it) because sexual selectivity is so important to them. Ironically, feminists deny the existence of any such adaptations, and if they are right about that, then rape should just be non-aggravated assault unless it is aggravated by other reasons than the sex. I need to think more about this before making up my mind for the Manifesto.

Anonymous said...

This Nassar guy is awesome! His response to the evil sluts’ witch hunt:

“Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”


And wow this Aquilina attention whore cunt certainly did her best to steal the spotlight from the young hot girls attempting to whore all the attention for themselves. The nerve of the young fillys, coming to her big girl court thinking they could hog all the attention!

I like to say there are two kinds of whores - good hearted and bad hearted. The good hearted ones uphold their end of the bargain when you give ‘em attention. The bad hearted ones break the unwritten rules and squeeze the man for every last drop regardless of the impact to the man, or very well society. Nassar obviously was surrounded by vultures young and old, in a system that specializes in delivering carrion to the beasts.

Regarding prostitution, the right wing religious moral excuse keeps prostitution illegal and female SMV even higher. And when that isn’t enough, the right wingers just align with the left and call regular prostitution “sex trafficking” where everyone involved just goes straight to jail. America wins the most feminist Olympics.

Milan Horvath said...

Bodily harm can be anything between few punches in the face and pouring acid over face, latter will be probably considered as aggravated.
I think that average (real,forcible,penetrative)rape is somewhere in the middle between these two things.

It is problem nowadays, to differentiate, to what degree is rape trauma affected by natural adaptation or by cultural environment.

I may agree with you that women can possess some natural attributes, which can make their perception of various problems different than men will experience.
Problem is, that if we want to rely on old natural order of things and be fair,then we should also take into account specifically male issues (things that are hurting males predominantly in "natural society")

I personally prefer modern concept of equality between sexes over traditional one.
Women should accept both pro's and con's of their emancipation, not only cherry-pick what suits them, as contemporary mainstream (anglo)feminism is teaching them.
That is reason why I like post 68, pre victimhood-cult times.
Women then tried to be more "masculine", not in terms of physical appearance but by life attitude.

Now they behave like weepy little girls who want draconian measures to prevent every slight unpleasantness they are experiencing. Living as male in contemporary society is like to be a parent of unemployed young adult who wants your protection and money, but is not obeying your rules anymore.
We should decide if we want traditional(patriarchal) society or a modern one,
but it should be coherent one, not some weird hybrid, that will later or sooner screw up everything.

BTW: interesting article (but you've probably read that already in past)

Eivind Berge said...

The problem with feminist rape law reforms is that they've expanded the definition while keeping or increasing the punishment (plus applying it to women in the female sex offender charade is another problem). I am inclined to let them have a crime of rape considered especially heinous if we go back to the old definition. That included not just being forced, but also taking reasonable steps to prevent it before they get that far. One example is the marital rape exemption -- if they don't want marital sex, don't get married! And don't go on dates or get drunk and cry rape after going home with men either. Then all they should be able to claim is the bodily harm, which if none would make it simple assault at worst.

But in the interest of honesty and fairness, which male sexualism should aspire to, I believe in retaining a traditional concept of rape for worthy victims. This crime cannot be gender-equal, because it obviously doesn’t apply to female perpetrators and it does acknowledge that women are especially vulnerable, which in fact they are to sexual coercion since they have so much more to lose to the opposite sex. So the modern concept of equality between the sexes must be rejected, but mostly because it is a lie: equal treatment of unequals isn't equality.

Does this mean I want a hybrid system? I guess you can call it that, and why is that bad in recognition of real sex differences?

Eivind Berge said...

If women were like chimpanzees, I would not want to have a crime of rape. Because female chimpanzees are not selective, or so I am told; they just happily mate with whatever male is available, usually the dominant ones but she doesn’t pick them because of that. One thing I’ve realized recently is that you can’t use parental investment theory to explain the difference and why sexual selectivity is such a big deal to women, because that applies equally to chimpanzees. The difference might be that women have had more freedom to choose and thus opportunity to evolve selectivity, but most important might be the fact that they pair-bond while chimpanzees don’t. And rape can screw up a woman’s pair-bond, so it makes sense to have special rape-avoidance adaptations that make them very traumatized, hence justifying a crime of rape considered more heinous than other comparable violence. This bears some resemblance to the idea that rape is a crime against men, but since the mechanism of harm is that the woman gets traumatized, it is reasonable to consider it a crime against her. And modern society doesn't make much difference to the sexual mentality of the sexes, so we do need to be traditional about this even if society has changed.

Eivind Berge said...

"What do you call a guy who can openly celebrate his sexual relations with children in books and on TV without being prosecuted?

A giant of French literature."

Great post on the Matzneff affair at Heretic TOC:

Also a fine summary of the AOC history and situation in France. The latest antisex reform from 2018 still falls far short of feminist standards, but I guess that is set to change once again now thanks to this latest hysteria. We are approaching a global delusion that everyone under 18 can't consent, which isn't enough either because you have to call it rape and punish accordingly.

Eivind Berge said...

Utah keeps pushing the envelope of the female sex offender charade:

On Tuesday, a Salt Lake City judge rejected a challenge to the charges by Ms. Buchanan’s lawyers, who had argued that the law, which forbids exposure of “the female breast below the top of the areola,” was unconstitutional.

“The Court finds the government has an important interest in enacting laws to protect the health, safety, welfare, and morality of children, and to prevent them from being exposed to lewdness,” wrote Judge Kara Pettit of the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County.

It's hard to imagine a more absurd case, but of course they can keep increasing the sentencing which is only up to three years in this case, one for each child who saw her breasts, plus ten years on the sex offender registry.

And what a pathetic challenge from her side, just arguing that she should be allowed to be topless when men can. How about addressing the actual absurdity of pretending female sexuality is harmful to children instead? Once again we se that neither women nor any of their lawyers have any moral fortitude. Their arguments are as silly as the law in the first place and the hateful drivel of the court.

Anonymous said...

The pair-bonding argument obviously doesn't apply to "marital rape," though. I think that no man should be penalized for forcing his wife to put out. I also doubt that drunk sluts need to have their pair-bonding faculty protected. The courts' involvement should really be minimized.

Eivind Berge said...

Indeed, "marital rape" was historically never a crime (until the late 20th century) and I strongly support reinstating the marital rape exemption. However, you can see how rape by other men is a threat to marriage in ways that other violence isn't, which supports the idea that rape needs to be its own category with a more severe punishment. We can support this as long as it's reasonably defined, which means the women absolutely must resist to the best of their ability, and obviously so so the man knows it, no drunken regret-rape nonsense.

Eivind Berge said...

The Utah topless woman case is incredibly depressing. Not because of the hate, as we know bigots will be bigots, but the asinine defense which accepts that it is taboo to even suggest that there is anything wrong with sex-hostility. When asserting that female breasts aren't lewd because topless men aren't is the best they can come up with, it shows a level of hopelessness that I hadn't yet imagined. The female sex offender charade and all the other antisex bigotry is now so dogmatic that it is unthinkable to suggest that sexuality can be harmless, even for women and the most minuscule hint of it. I never thought we could sink this low. How hard can it be to attack the bigoted delusions themselves rather than affirm them by clinging to a technicality? Hers is the kind of defense Gally would come up with, which does more harm than good for both the cause and the victim of the sex laws who is reduced to a grovelling sycophant of the antisex bigots, giving them all they want and denying no part of their lies that sex is harmful.

Eivind Berge said...

Because we gotta believe women's abuse stories even after they have been convicted as false rape accusers:

Eivind Berge said...

Wow. Check out this Twitter thread on the most dystopian kind of facial recognition already real and used even in antisex sting operations:

And this article:

"When men sent photos to undercover officers posing as children online, investigators ran those photos in Clearview’s database to identify them."

Could be used in reverse stings as well. Who wants to bait the cops with photos of other cops and vigilantes?

Anonymous said...

that's fuckin funny using other cops' photos.

btw the reason the lawyers didn't make a moral argument is because US law doesn't work that way. When the law is made, it's basically set in stone, and the lawyers and judges simply try to work with it. In the topless case, defense figured the best angle to try was to use other equality laws, since that is allowed by the system.

Eivind Berge said...

She can and should go for jury nullification in the trial phase. I realize that this was challenge to the constitutionality of the lewdness law on grounds of "equality" between male and female breasts before they got to the actual trial, but even there, there ought to be some way to make the point that the law is simply insane. The failure to do so is not cool. At the very fucking least, make a statement to the media with your true opinion so you don't look like an idiot. And for God's sake, campaign to have the law changed! Finally, demand a pardon which is also a no-brainer. I know Trump doesn't believe in the female sex offender charade, but the question is if he is also a slave to the system.

The trouble with the female sex offender charade is precisely that sex laws can NOT reasonably be equal for men and women, so going for gender equality is the worst possible angle! It undermines the entire moral defense she should make. Even if you believe in making that asinine point as a first line of defense, trials take place not just in court but also in the media and rest of the political system, and they aren't trying a different approach there because they are so obsequious to antisex bigotry. Especially now that the "equality" angle has failed, what do they have to lose?

Eivind Berge said...

How come our culture is able to distinguish between male and female breasts, but not penises and vaginas? The ruling that female breasts can be "lewd" even though topless men can't be is actually a good sign, if only such differences could be applied whenever appropriate. Of course any law prohibiting nudity (of both sexes) in your own home is execrable, but that is a separate question. This precedent supports my campaign against the female sex offender charade because it shows that sex differences at least sometimes can be acknowledged.

Now we need to apply this difference to the entirety of female anatomy and sexuality and hammar home the truth that female-perpetrated sexual abuse is a wrong conceptualization with no reasonable referent in the real world. Female breasts will of course be arousing to boys, but there cannot be any harm in that and same for vaginas.

I am really glad the topless woman failed in that particular challenge because it would have set a worse precedent if we were to instill the delusion that not only are penises and vaginas equal, but male and female breasts are as well. Now she needs to tackle the real problems with the charges, of which the lowest hanging fruit should be that no reasonable person has any problem with female lewdness, and secondarily that nudity in the home should be none of the state's business. Anyone claiming that children are damaged by just seeing nudity must also be dismissed out of hand.

The evolution of mammals would be rather difficult if the young couldn't see nipples, lol, and why the Utah bigots aren't ashamed of themselves for their dimwittedness if nothing else is beyond me.

Eivind Berge said...

Oh wow, sex-hostility finally ran into a limit. It turns out that Kobe Bryant's death wasn't yet another good occasion to bring up "sexual assault" allegations. Instead the bitch who thought so got 10 000 negative reactions from the public so the newspaper had to suspend her, which is another good sign that they care more about reputation than feminist ideology.

But I am sure that was just a temporary blip and antisex will shortly return to growth.

Anonymous said...

A fourth way to look at it, which is most accurate in my view, is that the child porn laws are actually blasphemy laws which enforce the quasi-religious belief that "children" are asexual, the myth of the innocence of the child which now has status of state religion in feminist countries".

One of the real reasons why people are not allowed to see child porn is that, if they were, they would discover how sexually "un-innocent" children may be. By forbidding possession, in other words, it is easy to manipulate the public opinion by telling all sorts of shamefaced lies, knowing that nobody will be able to contradict them anyway.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, that fits in with the blasphemy or should I say heresy that these laws are meant to suppress. They try to do it with scientific research as well such as the Rind report, which is denounced in every way except making it punishable to write or possess yet. Maybe they will come after science and ideology too, or maybe they don't need to go that far because of the lockstep conformity of all the media and most publishers and platforms. The truth about minor sexuality is already relegated to the dustbin of history and the few remaining survivors... well, a recent comment on TOC poignantly sums up how we treat them:

"A few days ago Gabriel Matzneff gave an interview to French television in Italy, where he remains in exile following the Springora case. He preferred to hide his face, but he was very affected. He was about to cry. In his own words, he is devastated. He said he regrets his past. He said that at that time no one spoke of crimes, but of corruption of minors or non-violent indecent assault. He said his love affair with Springora was the most beautiful love story of his life. He said he feels very alone. He said that the state wants him to kill himself and that now he will have to live on other people’s charity, since they are going to take away the pension he receives as a retired writer and he does not keep any fortune. Sad end to the license of French writers. Sad end to the dream of an era.

And I don’t know if I understood correctly, but I think when he said that the state wants him to kill himself, he immediately added, “I will, I will. The interview was broadcast on BFMTV and can be seen here:"

Anonymous said...

When attention whores hit menopause, their only way to continue to receive attention is to turn into sadists and betray the man they loved. She-spiders eat the male after copulation, so what do you expect from a know woman anno 2020?

Anonymous said...

I'd say they don't even have to go as far as banning the science because the knowledge is already so much suppressed, and the sheep people are entirely scared and controlled by the left and right wing feminists.

Regarding the un-innocence of children, two recent memories immediately come to mind.

The first, I was at a waterpark with a good friend and his young niece, maybe 7 or 8. We were chilling in the pool, and she splashed water at me, so I splashed her back. From that point on, she made it her business to be at my side, and I also caught her checking out my trousers when they were wet, obviously outlining my piece. I have no attraction to pre-pubescent children, but I know what behavior I saw from her.

The second, I was in the local museum, seated on a bench with about 6 other people. One of them was a girl around the age of 6 or 7. As I'm sitting on the bench, the girl stretches out, moves towards me, and touches my ass, leaving her hand there as if she was stretching her arms, but what she was doing was obvious. This startled me, as I didn't even see her before she touched me. I waited for a second, wondering what was going on, then decided to get up and move away. But again, I know what behavior I saw from her as well.

Both girls also knew exactly what they were doing. All this was obvious and known to everyone before the right and left wing feminists took over.

And great point that after menopause, if a female sees a way to get novel attention out of her sexuality, you can be damn sure she will exploit it for gain.

My problem is with all these windbag boomers like Matzneff who turn into sad sacks of crying shit when the tables are turned on them. It's no wonder feminism was so easily able to take over the right and left wing when weak ass boomers like this are walking around. Don't they understand female nature? Don't they get that you have to treat them like fucking vipers or you risk ruin?

This Matzneff guy should've got over his bullshit crying years ago, and instead embrace whatever anger is left in his old shriveled balls over the massive injustice currently being perpetrated against him. When will one of these old motherfuckers grow a pair and stand up for himself, and everyone else, who's been wronged by the system that is now governed by total feminism? What's there to lose, his pension is already gone and they want him dead. So his and others' solutions is to just lie down and take it up the ass from these feminists who already destroyed them? Gay.

Eivind Berge said...

I also wish Matzneff and others now accused of "historic sexual abuse" would stand up for themselves, but it's not really surprising that they don't because that's not how they were selected. Their surprise at the current hate is further evidence that their sexual behavior was normal anyway, and it didn't take an activist to say the sexualist things he said back in the day. He was merely a slightly edgy intellectual, and what are the odds someone like that will also be a resistance fighter when shit hits the fan?

The kind of man who will resist a social order that literally seeks to remove dissidents (either by death or decades in prison) is not likely to be found in the cushy circles that Matzneff belonged to. They need to emerge from wherever it is the bravest of men are found, and most of those are now sadly brainwashed with feminist antisex bigotry.

Fiona Cooper said...

Keep up the good work Sir. It's wonderful that you are spreading the word concerning the evils of porn addiction. I would invite you to come fully on board and also promote the dangers of sex addiction. Gary Wilson compared the brains of porn viewers and found similarities to those of cocaine addicts. He did the same with the brains of promiscuous men with frequent partners and found the same thing. I would welcome you to write an article on the evils of sex addiction - or 'sexual obesity' as we in the YourBrainOnPorn community are now calling it, from the perspective of Men's Rights. You would be doing your readers a service if you would take the opportunity to strike while the iron is hot, as it were, in relation to the Harvey Weinstein verdict, and pen a piece on sex addiction and the dangers it poses to a normal and consensual heterosexual long-term relationship. I would also invite you to submit your article to our long established site - The Good Men Project. You will be pleased to learn that none other than Gary Wilson is a regular writer there.

Eivind Berge said...

You have completely misunderstood what I stand for. I do not believe "sex addiction" is a valid concept and the problem with porn use is precisely that it prevents full sexual expression, including promiscuity, which I have no problems with and know is profoundly satisfying to most men.

I never heard of Gary Wilson attacking promiscuity either or claiming it bears any resemblance to porn addiction or makes men impotent like porn does. In fact I recall him say explicitly that frequent sex does not have such adverse effects, even with many women. Please provide references or else I will assume you are making that up.

And obviously, The Good Men Project is a feminist site that I don't want to be associated with.

Eivind Berge said...

If Gary Wilson is against promiscuity for moral or religious reasons, then I don't agree with that but it would be his personal issue with no bearing on what he teaches about porn. It is also sad if he writes for the Good Men Project, but not enough to discredit him. If he believes in "sex addiction," however, then he is a charlatan and must be disowned by the male sexualists (though nofap is still valid for its own reasons). In my experience, however, he always made it clear that porn addiction is not a kind of "sex addiction" and I never saw him make funny claims about promiscuity either, even morally and certainly not biological or psychological ones.

You have made very serious defamatory accusations against Gary Wilson that you now need to back up with evidence or else I need to be very clear for the record here that it is a lie!