Thursday, February 06, 2020

Metaphysical interlude

Today I would like to take a break from male sexualism and explore some metaphysics. Or not really a break because the philosopher I am about to recommend is the closest I have seen to a male sexualist philosopher since Diogenes of Sinope (who was one of us for defying the social order but gets minus points for wanking). Geoffrey Klempner is a metaphysician with balls:

“The only thing I have that is truly mine is my libido, the flame of my desire. Wanting something, or wanting to do something, or do something to someone, is the only reason for existing. So I say thank you, God, for making me a man.”

I watched all his videos and would recommend that. In the recent ones he reads out his entire latest work the Philosophizer's Bible with commentary, and his assertion that it is the most important philosophy book of the 21st century may well be merited. Don’t let the politically incorrect tone fool you. Klempner is a professional philosopher, or was before he retired. He dropped out of the academic world after his doctorate and a little lecturing back in the 1980s and 90s because he realized that game was so full of bullshit, and rather started his own school on the Internet. Which is to say he was a sophist, but there is nothing wrong with that. A while back I called for more role models, and I think we have found one. Deceptively soft-spoken, he is actually an infidel who takes no nonsense from feminists, or religious moralists for that matter. A Transcendental Satanist! Half-joking, as he isn’t really religious apart from his respect for the transcendent, but that’s as close as he comes to anything I have words for. He is emphatically not a solipsist, but his concept of the self is so strong that even God could not create it.

I am not sure about that but can’t refute it either. Klempner definitely helped me understand that personal identity is a further fact beyond the world -- or at least there is a strong possibility that it may be. The world can be just like it is without you in it, even with a person just like you in every observable respect. Consider a complete scientific description of the world, including all the people in it and their consciousnesses. Nothing in that description can tell you who you are; you need something outside the universe pointing to you in order to know that! This is the most central philosophical question, or should be, so deep that even a soul could not explain it because a soul could in principle be duplicated too. People who don’t recognize this deep mystery are what he calls zombies. Probably not really, but they are brainwashed with theories according to which they might as well be, and academic philosophy isn't helping.

In our own movement, such zombification is exemplified by the faction led by The Antifeminist who welcomes sexbots and is positive to masturbation. Only a zombie would be satisfied with another zombie as a sex partner, Klempner would say, because his strongest point is that in order for anything to mean something, we must believe that it is real.

Klempner has a little war going with the academic philosophers and he hates political correctness mainly for screwing up his hobby of street photography, which feminism has made impossible. But of course, his conflicts are peanuts to male sexualism, since we are actual enemies of the state and society also considers us enemies of society (see this post for the distinction). Nonetheless, he provides strong guidance on everything from the metaphysical to the tactical:

“All power, all force, ultimately depends on belief. The power of the laws depends on the belief that they are just and will be enforced.”

As I have been getting at when I for example called for voluntary sex-offender registration, our refusal to believe that the sex laws are just is our strongest virtue. While we can’t do anything about the enforcement yet, half the battle is won if we can get people to morally disrespect the laws and genuinely believe they are unjust.

Klempner is no stranger to criminals either, as he wrote a paper about his ethical discussion with a murderer who took his distance learning course from death row. What he thinks about us male sexualists remains to be seen though. On the negative side, he is kind of a nihilist about ethics so I can’t imagine him as an activist. He says he writes “because I get off on it,” and though that expression unabashedly shows his antifeminism, it is not for a cause. He just wants to philosophize. But he is still around, I think 68 years old now, so maybe we could engage him in dialogue and bring him on board with the movement.

If you don't want to watch them all, these are the two videos I recommend the most, and they do deal with the pure metaphysics of personal identity. After thinking about it for 40 years, this is where he got: - Descartes and the soul - Why am I here? (Revisited)

I aim to work out this question for myself too, but am not sure I can come up with anything further. Perhaps the only thing we can do is wonder at it. Luckily I am not obsessed with such questions and think sexual politics is much more important, so probably back to that next time.


Anonymous said...

I’m glad you brought up the insane (and feminist) concept that all masturbation is bad, again. Now I can tell you a story about how it saved me just last week.

I started dating this girl who was really into me and would tease me both physically and visually, but would push away when things got going sexually. I gave her one more date to see if she would cut the bullshit. In the back of my mind was the fact I could easily jerk off if needed and save myself any further hassles from this female.

On the last date, she was the most suggestive of all the dates. We went back to my place, and once again as I escalated things sexually, she pushed away. I made the decision there and then to kick her out for good. As I did this, she asked what was happening, which I ignored (she knew her scam was recognized). Then, she blurted out “so we’re not going to fuck?” creating an ultimate bait. I asked what she was talking about and ushered her politely out of my place.

You see, this female was the most devious of them all. This female figured out she can achieve maximum orgasm AND maximum power over men by having them rape her. This is what all females want btw because it’s DNA wired (just as men get excited from a visually attractive girl), and the only thing that holds a female back from this total fulfillment of her sexuality and ego is her own stupidity; in other words, she just hasn’t figured out she can maximize her sexuality and power by teasing a man until he rapes her. This is why the “rape” of any female is not a crime against the female - in fact it is the ultimate thing she desires.

Wise to her game, I recognized it for what it was, and made the measured and responsible decision in 2020 that jerking off with a cam girl is miles better than giving this female what she wanted - forced sex - thus putting myself in the clutches of the feminist system for the sake of busting one nut.

Masturbation saves lives; it saved mine.

Eivind Berge said...

If that girl was likely to accuse rape, you might have done the right thing kicking her out, but I have my doubts. It seems like she was just wanting you to take charge. And even if she actually enjoys being "forced," I am sure many more women do that than accuse rape afterwards, so why not go for it? I am pretty sure I would have been able to fuck her after getting that far. But in any event, masturbation is not the answer. Of course you should immediately pursue the next prospect if this one is out, and then the next and next and so on until you are fucking and impregnating women. Masturbation always deals a setback, whether big or small, anything from full-fledged porn addiction with erectile dysfunctions and/or metaphysical delusions that sexbots are worthy partners to a temporarily diminished sex drive. I suspect it is closer to the latter in your case, but even so you made a grave mistake.

You have spectacularly undervalued sex (and it's you who are feminist for doing that). It is time to realize that life is too short for that garbage! As I have just noted in the above post, your life may be so unique that even Nietzsche's eternal recurrence can't bring it back! And you think it's OK to waste any part of it on masturbation!? Crazy!

Eivind Berge said...

I am going to use this thread as a notebook for my (disorganized) thoughts on the personal identity question, and I do have some thoughts waiting to be written down. The question is basically "Would a copy of you be you?" A lot of science fiction takes this for granted. It would be lethal use a Star Trek transporter for example if this is not true, or anything where you are destroyed and recreated. And though the practical implications are pretty much nonexistent yet (cryonics is the only one I know of: probably completely futile if you can't be destructively scanned and reconstructed), the world is a much stranger place if it isn't true. Or the metaphysics is, anyway.

One reason I think provides some solid support for Klempner's view is the Boltzmann brain problem. Boltzmann brains are devastating to certain cosmologies based on the observable universe, but they are even more devastating to the idea that multiple instances of the same brain would be the same person. Because if that were true, then Boltzmann brains must be ruled out not just in this universe or multiverse, but in all possible worlds, and that's a pretty tall order. You know you are not a Boltzmann brain because then you would disintegrate before reading to the end of this sentence, and there can't really be many of those anywhere in reality if they couldn't help but be you if they momentarily provided the same experience. So most likely yes, there can be Boltzmann brains somewhere, and some of them are like you, but they are not you.

About eternal recurrence, this is ruled out by known physics anyway (would be against the second law of thermodynamics), but like the Boltzmann brains, I can't rule it out for all of eternity with possible new universes. Would you be the same person the second time around? I don't know, but even if you did, wouldn't this simply provide a way to get the eternalist view of time? Where the past is equally real as the present and future, like Einstein's block universe, which is a strong possibility anyhow.

You could object "open individualism," that there is no real individual identity so the question is resolved that way. I tried to read Daniel Kolak's book I Am You: The Metaphysical Foundations for Global Ethics which makes this case, but I found it unconvincing and tediously, verbosely badly written, but perhaps that is just me. Empty individualism as in Buddhism would also make the problem go away, but that is even more unconvincing.

This is a real problem that requires more thought. Hopefully Klempner will make more videos on it also.

Anonymous said...

Literally any more “taking charge” would involve me forcing her to have sex. Are you seriously saying this is worth the risk in 2020, after all you’ve written about evil feminism? Maybe because you live in Norway, where prison is a joke, sentences are light, and accusations are scarce compared to the states. Even if she didn’t go to the cops, she then holds that over my head. Over busting one nut. That is a retarded decision. You are incorrect entirely. Better to blow off some steam masturbating before heading out again after a night like that.

You have pussy on a pedestal my friend, you just don’t see it. Again, you are seriously saying it is better to give a woman ultimate feminist power over a man, plus intense pleasure for her, at the risk of going to prison, all for one wad of sperm from a slightly less pleasurable experience than actual sex. You also sacrifice future sex for years with more level-headed women because you’re getting fucked in the ass in prison. You understand how this makes no sense right?

Chronic masturbation is a problem. Smart masturbation is an asset.

Eivind Berge said...

Don't you realize that she already has power over you? If anything, she is more likely to accuse rape because she didn't get what she wants. And the feminist justice system is only interested in enforcing her word. Being alone with her is what incriminates you, not forcing her.

Eivind Berge said...

I am just giving the advice I wish my younger self would have gotten. Yes, life is dangerous, and we are antifeminist activists in an effort to reduce that danger as far as false and unreasonable sex-crime accusations go, but we still have to live. Our moral philosophy can be based on how the world should be, but our personal lives cannot. We have to take the world as we find it and at least try to get the maximum benefits along with the risks we have to take, which at this point are so grave that a woman's word is enough get you locked up anyway.

I don’t understand the motivation you are attributing to this girl that is supposed to make her especially dangerous, seems she really liked you. Unless she had some nefarious plan where she already knew she wanted to accuse you, she isn’t more dangerous than average except for the fact that you have scorned her instead of had sex with her, which is how many if not most rape accusations happen.

And then you make the even worse mistake of masturbation. I guess you are relatively young, so you don’t yet feel the opportunity cost of missed opportunities that you can never make up for. It is clear to me now that any man who masturbates does not take sex seriously, even though he may well think (like I did) he is sexual monomaniac. As you get older and it becomes harder and harder (or more expensive) to get young women, the insane opportunity cost of youthful masturbation will hit you hard. You will look back on the girls you didn’t fuck with profound regret knowing that the extra drive from nofap would have impelled you to succeed more often.

As a male sexualist I take sex seriously and value it appropriately. Society only values sex negatively, and they do so wildly out of proportion and often for nonsensical reasons (entirely so in the case of the female sex offender charade), but in all that hysteria there is still a valid hint that women and society value sex so profoundly negatively because it is so profoundly positive to us men! Those are at least sometimes two sides of the same coin, but not always of course as we all know women can enjoy sex and then (sometimes much later) accuse abuse to get more benefits on top of that. And they use every opportunity to downplay that positive value to men while bizarrely retaining the punishments. Making you think that you might as well masturbate and look at porn plays right into that. Don’t fall for it.

Eivind Berge said...

None of this is news to male sexualists, but rape prosecutions are now just a joke where women get to redefine entire relationships to "rape."

And then keep coming back for more "rape," even by their own admission alternating between that and consensual sex for years, and the evil feminist system still prosecutes.

But it remains to be seen if the jury convicts in this case. Since there still is a jury here and it's not like Norway where feminists have managed to abolish it for the express purpose of convicting cases like this, I predict Weinstein will be acquitted. Normal people are not yet quite so evil, I think.

Eivind Berge said...

Since we learned recently that the scumbags in law enforcement are using facial recognition to hunt and entrap men just for thinking about sex, it should come as no surprise that the next step is already here:

Using the same technology to target children and young women so they can be brainwashed to suffer like good "victims" based on cops wanking over a picture, and of course all men (and women) in their vicinity be purged. The abuse industry is an insatiable monster that will utilize every conceivable means to eradicate human sexuality, and nothing will stop it short of collapse of civilization because all it needs to silence any opposition is to utter the magic spell "for the children." Collapse which cannot come soon enough, and luckily there is a good contender for a triggering event propagating exponentially as we speak.

Eivind Berge said...

Anther bizarre regret-rape case dropped, but not before doing a lot of damage to the accused including a woman:

Corrupting the the definition of rape to "too inebriated to consent" is a license to destroy lives and we need to put a stop to this as I have been saying all along.

Anonymous said...

You need evidence for rape beyond words. No fluids = no evidence.

Also, if the sex doesn’t happen, it doesn’t cause her mind to think about anything rape-related. And you are wrong about the cause of accusations - the cause in 99% of cases is to preserve social standing (she doesn’t want to be perceived as a slut, and you’ve done something to publicize that perception). This girl was certainly more dangerous than others because she preferred to be forced to have sex as opposed to giving it willingly, which opens up all these problems I’ve mentioned.

Actually, I’m older and more mature, and understand that busting one nut at slightly less arousal is better than taking a greater chance that could send me to US prison for years (where there are no women - there’s your opportunity cost). It’s actually become easier for me to get women compared to when I was younger because my game is better and I have more experience.

Better to get rid of the frustration temporarily, and keep the focus on finding more good-hearted females, which will certainly come. I’ve already had 2 in January almost half my age… If you have no game, yea, losing one opportunity to have sex is going to sting. Maybe if that bothers you, you need more abundance!

Eivind Berge said...

"You need evidence for rape beyond words. No fluids = no evidence."

There are many men in prison who found out this is not so. Do you think there were fluids in the Cosby case, for example? None of the "historic" accusations have that. Ok, those are limited in the US by statutes of limitations (that are now getting removed), but newer cases also seldom have fluids. The woman would have to go to the police immediately for that, which is rare in "date rape" like this. If she decides to accuse then your defense of passing up the opportunity is probably weaker than claiming consensual sex anyway including the fact that she liked it rough, because most men and women in juries can't relate to what you did. If you have abundance then great, but the median man has only had eight women, so they are not going to understand why you would reject one who is begging for it. Nofap still applies with abundance too, because why should you want to impose a handicap on yourself at all?

Eivind Berge said...

It is really bizarre if the gay community doesn't take a stand against pedohysteria yet:

A gay man calls a 16-year-old boy cute and talks to another 21-year-old, and this is enough to justify a witch-hunt. Absolutely mind-boggling if they don't realize this is the same as they did to Alan Turing and Oscar Wilde etc., now justified under the pedo or just age-difference bigotry that also targets straight men, yet neither of those groups are willing to resist?

The portrayal of that 21-year-old as a victim just for being flirted with by an older man is just as ominous as what they did to Addie A-Game in Scotland and shows it was no accident; they really mean to target age gaps well over 18! It is a surreal, but completely real dystopia that is now firmly established, a cancer rotting our civilization so morbidly that no cure short of destroying the entire thing is possible anymore, because there is no good left to save -- well, there are still few good individuals like us but nothing that can sustain a healthy society.

I hope the virus triggers financial collapse and gets the job done.

Eivind Berge said...

The manosphere has been studied, but they didn't discover the male sexualists:

The “manosphere,” as it is known, is divided into four broad groups. “Men’s right’s activists” (MRAs) claim that family law and social institutions discriminate against men. “Men going their own way” (MGTOW) take this feeling of grievance further, arguing that society can’t be “amended”; they often avoid women, blaming them for their problems. “Pick-up artists” (PUAs), meanwhile, date and harass women; they believe society is “feminizing” men.

I wouldn't ready too much into this claptrap (which of course claims that misogyny is ever ever increasing), but it's disappointing that we are not even on the map and not one of all those "misogynists" have anything worth noting against the sex laws. There is not a single voice with any substantive opposition to feminism on the radar, just gibberish which misses the point. And any man who tries to learn game is a "harasser," apparently, yet so obtuse that he can't think of anything worse about feminism than that it "feminizes men"?

Anonymous said...

Crosby admitted he gave them ludes and fucked them. Yes, if you make the prosecution’s case for them, you might have a problem regardless of the level of feminism involved. lol

My defense would be keeping my mouth shut. Which won’t happen anyway because I didn’t trigger her mind to even think about it; that’s the whole point, women are not cunning in a planning way, they are more idealistic and reactive.

Jerking off was not a handicap, but a stop-gap. And yes, anyone would understand it is better not to force a girl to have sex, vs simply going out and finding a more reasonable girl, which if you put your mind to and read about how to do it, is not impossible. I’m no Brad Pitt, or Donald Trump, and I’ve landed 21 girls in 3 years since I began. If I can do that anyone can. lol

Geez, I must be the complete devil according to that article. A man who believes in male sexualist positions AND knows game - a true harasser and independent threat to the cathedral :)

Eivind Berge said...

Klempner posted another video: The ideology of materialism.

He says materialism is not a sound theory because it isn’t falsifiable the way it is believed, and I agree that is one way to tell. We should be suspicious of any claim that doesn’t admit a way that it might be falsifiable. As sexual-abuse skeptics we know all about this, and the feminists keep insisting on that dogma even when it is beyond absurd (and actually falsified in myriad ways) like the female sex offender charade.

But back to the personal identity question. I can think of another way we can be more special than just the structure of our brains, so that even an exact copy down to the last atom wouldn't be you. If Donald Hoffman is right about his interface theory which is a sort of idealism with natural selection (I am not going to argue his point because I am not convinced there is so little truth to our perceptions, but this is one way there can be something very different behind them):

Since we don’t know anything about the ultimate nature of the conscious agents behind the interface that represents us and other people, it allows for containing a cosmic serial number, as it were, in every sentient being. Perhaps every particle in the universe is equipped with a serial number for all we know, and might even possess some degree of spirit if not be made of nonphysical stuff altogether. Physics can’t be the final word if it can only describe the interface, not the noumena themselves. There is a constant turnover of our atoms, but this is happening in the interface as well so who knows what is going on behind that veil. We can’t rule out the possibility of something beyond the process itself, that we might visualize as a cosmic serial number to each subjective person that can’t be transferred or copied. It would have to be made of something other than matter or information or consciousness as it is currently theorized… so what is it?

Eivind Berge said...

Looks like we are going to get our wish that governments will soon have more real problems to worry about than persecuting sexuality. The virus unfortunately has no preference for antisex bigots over us though, so it will be a Pyrrhic victory at best. There may only be 1% mortality with optimal medical care, but you are unlikely to get that in a pandemic. Something as simple as oxygen therapy may be able to save a lot of lives from this disease, but won't be available at the scale needed unless they prepare for it very soon, which isn't being taken seriously outside of China. And then if the pandemic triggers the next big financial crisis we have been expecting anyway, the real problems begin. So there may be interesting times ahead and while most of us can't be prepared, at least we can have a good idea what to expect. I get the most insightful views from Mike Darwin, whom I have followed for 25 years in various fora, so I know he knows what he is talking about:

Milan Horvath said...

Sorry for being off topic.
I've just stumbled upon theantifeminist's article.
I am not sure if article was directed against me (as I am frequently criticising US influence here) or it was just some universal bitching with his usual "paedo-aspie" insults.

When I am using term "puritans", I do not mean religious/conservative types necessarily, but rather certain type of people.
It is way how these people are treating societal ills (real or fabricated), what I dislike, regardless of their political/religious affiliation.
Their inability to see things in grey scale, absence of "c'est la vie" attitude.
All this "we must do something" or "war tolerance" slogans.
Enforcing "morality" with every means,even if it will do more harm than good.

Switching from nasty persecution of LGBTI people to forcing "tolerance" to everyone is just assimilation to modern era. Bogeymen changes in time, but methods and desired outcomes not.

I am not saying that female jealousy/envy is not factor significantly contributing to present hysteria,however I think that it is just one element within many others.
Opportunism in general and cowardice are also significant factors among many,many others.

Excellent description of puritanism/progressivism in Ian's articles:

Regarding US influence-we can compare laws/customs in France,Spain,Italy,Netherlands, German speaking countries,Slavic countries in past 50 years with US laws- then it will be very clear to everyone where is source of this circus.
Fact that "puritan" mentality is spreading through the world is very easily explainable.
Media plays strong role in forming moral judgments and attitudes.
I wouldn't be far from truth if I'll say that media are more significant factor in forming next generations morals than their parents/native culture.(not to mention opportunist reasons to accept it)

Notice how sexcrime issues was handled in American films.
How many times are rape and murder mentioned in conjunction as worst crimes, but for example GBH(usually having much more serious consequences than rape) is never mentioned.
How many times are victims of moderate sexual crimes portrayed as brutally damaged for life. etc. etc.....
Where most of modern sex-offence framework originates?
(terms like date-rape,grooming,survivor,harassment..............)

I wonder what percentage of "knowledge" used worldwide regarding sex-offending, is originating from these American circles?

Need to say that this DOESN'T mean that I viscerally hate USA. There are many excellent things that USA gave to the world, but this forum is not about science or music it is about sex-policy,men's rights and in this field I don't see many positive things coming from USA.

Eivind Berge said...

The Antifeminist really doesn't like "ephebophiles" -- he's now written another post where he makes fun of them (and my nofap):

And I totally agree it's a bullshit concept; attraction to teen girls is simply normal male sexuality. We had a bad example on my blog as well with Gally who was exactly like the prisoner described in the allegory even after being a literal prisoner and on his way back to prison. But are they all necessarily so dense? Maybe many of the self-described "ephebophiles" and "hebephiles" just don't know any better, having been brainwashed so thoroughly with feminism -- not because they are "aspie" -- that all they can do is protest to that tiny extent that the sexual minority identification gives them. They need education rather than hate, as I see it, at least until proven otherwise.

Anyway, Plato's allegory of the cave works against porn, so not a good way to knock me on that. Whatever the true nature of reality, porn is certainly one more step removed than real women.

theantifeminist said...

@Milan Horvarth

No I wasn't really attacking you, although I disagree obviously with your belief that American puritanism is the chief cause of paedohysteria and repressive feminist sex laws in Europe.

I was going to write a more measured and longer article attacking your position, with the thrust of my argument that you are committing the 'genetic fallacy', but I haven't had the time yet.

You seem way more nuanced and intelligent than the 'aspie pedos' I'm throwing insults at. I have no idea your background or anything. I would say though, that when you clearly state that you're arguing in the context of men's rights, surely you can see that it's easier to convince (or rather less impossible) the average MRA/father's rights activist, that age of consent laws are a valid issue because they are the result of feminism more than simply American puritanism?

I've been hitting my head against a brick wall for ten years and more trying to get across the simple point to my fellow MRAs that feminist age of consent laws are valid men's rights issues because they are....well FEMINIST age of consent laws (and they are, both in the late 19th century and in the late 20th century and today).

Eivind inviting real paedophile activists, who blindly think that one day, surely, the LBGT and progressive rainbow Left will finally take on board and protect pedos, to come join us, if only we be nice to feminists, is pretty daft in my opinion.

And you still haven't answered the question (as far as I can see in your comment above) - if American puritanism is such an unstoppable global force in today's world, how do you explain gay rights and trannys? (I can explain it, and have many times on my blog, I just think you and others can't).

American puritanism's biggest role today is perhaps preventing Eivind and myself from discussing these issues in the men's rights community (Paul Elam and the rest). Until the MRM became essentially an American dominated movement, British MRAs had a long history of treating these issues as valid and even core men's rights concerns, from the first MRA - Ernest Belfort Bax - to Angry Harry. And btw, Ernest Belfort Bax, writing in the late Victorian and Edwardian era, was all to aware of the FEMINIST role in raising the age of consent - he called it their 'obsession'.

And Ian B is an aspie, sorry. He gave himself away when he developed an obsession with mocking Steve Moxon's valid argument that when FEMINISTS raise the age of consent to 16 from 12/13 in the late Victorian era, girls didn't generally start puberty until 17 or 18. Firstly, he just couldn't see the negative value in attacking that (anti-age of consent) argument, and secondly, for somebody with an obvious high IQ, he somehow doesn't have the ability to put himself into the mind of another to conceptualize the notion that a '17 year old' could look like a 12 year old, and still be a '17 year old'.

Eivind Berge said...

I was partly right about Weinstein. He is found guilty only of "rape in the third degree" which isn't rape and "a criminal sex act in the first degree" which isn't sex. But they can still ruin his life with those convictions and the whole thing was an absurd mix of feminist redefinitions designed to escalate the seriousness by introducing irrelevant evidence -- which nonetheless mostly failed.

Even thought the actual rape charges failed, and the even more supposedly serious "predatory sexual assault," this is horrible news for men which reinforces the idea that women can redefine entire relationships to abuse, cherry-pick some incidents that they had no problem with at the time and have men convicted.

So in the end he turned out to be convicted of forced oral and the "third degree rape" which is simply a statutory offense based on age or some other inability to consent that I can't even wrap my mind around what means here. Did she claim to be intoxicated and use that excuse to regret it? Or did the jury conclude that it was "third degree rape" because there was no enthusiastic consent with affirmations all the way? Either way accusation failed and the verdict on this count is a throwaway consolation prize for the prosecution. ALL the "rape" nonsense boiled down to infantilizing Jessica Mann as a little girl, with NONE of her claims of forcible rape being believed! Weinstein is screwed, but conceptually this is a crushing defeat of feminism and their ridiculous contortions to expand the meaning of rape once more. They just had to resort to applying the age of consent law to women because adult women can't consent either for the flimsiest of reasons, a universal way to get revenge for any regret whatsoever. In a way this is the most hateful sex law because it criminalizes all sex with girls under 17 and makes sex without consent that women nonetheless go along with "rape" (in a half-hearted way the law itself doesn't really believe in because the maximum punishment is just four years and there is no minimum), but it must leave a bitter taste in the mouth of adult women when all they can come up with to have a man locked up is the same infantilization of themselves.

Apparently this is the "third degree rape" law in New York:

§ 130.25 Rape in the third degree.
A person is guilty of rape in the third degree when:
1. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is
incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than
seventeen years old;
2. Being twenty-one years old or more, he or she engages in sexual
intercourse with another person less than seventeen years old; or
3. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person without
such person's consent where such lack of consent is by reason of some
factor other than incapacity to consent.
Rape in the third degree is a class E felony.

Eivind Berge said...

The New York "third degree rape" is explained here. It is not even considered a violent crime and feminists haven't managed to make the punishment for this nonsense particularly harsh yet, but headlines now scream that he is guilty of "rape" as if it means something. The fraudulent social stigma based on dysphemisms is in effect but that is all it is. The most shocking part though is that they can take this technicality and apply it to a relationship.

New York City Third Degree Rape

In New York (and most other places), rape is characterized as engaging in sexual intercourse with another person without that person’s consent. The varying degrees of punishment for this behavior are determined by the unique facts and circumstances of the sexual encounter. Generally speaking, people have a conception that the phrase “without that person’s consent” entails the use of force or some sort of coercion, but this is not always the case. Under the law, a person can be raped even if they initiate the sexual contact and, in their own mind, are fully compliant with the encounter. This is possible because some people are legally incapable of giving consent due to reasons other than their unwillingness to engage in sexual activity.

A person commits Rape in the Third Degree (NYPL § 130.25) when they engage in sexual intercourse with someone who is incapable of consent. It should be noted that this statute does not apply to people who affirmatively indicate that consent is not being given, but rather to people who actually lack the capacity to consent. There are two main ways that the law deems someone incapable of giving consent to engage in sexual intercourse, the first is a person’s age, the second is their level of intoxication.

If an individual is at least 21 years old and has sex with a person younger than 17, that person has committed Rape in the Third Degree. This is what is known as a “strict liability” crime. It does not matter if both parties are willing, engaged in a monogamous relationship, in love, etc. If one person is 21, and the other is under 17, and they have sex, the older party has committed statutory rape. Ignorance of the other person’s age is also not a viable defense. It does not matter if they appeared older, or more mature, the law views children under the age of 17 incapable of consenting to contact with a person over 21.

Additionally, if two people have sex, but one person is extremely intoxicated, that person can later claim that due to their inebriated state, they did not have the mental faculties required to consent to sexual contact. This charge assumes that no force or coercion was used to compel sex, but rather that the person was not in the state of mind to provide consent, and that the other person knew, or should have known, and took advantage of the drunken state.

Rape in the Third Degree is a non-violent E felony, punishable by up to one and a third to four years in prison. While serving prison time for what is frequently a consensual sexual encounter is difficult enough to understand or accept, a conviction for Rape in the Third Degree will also require registering as a sex offender, which will make just about every aspect of a person’s life extremely difficult. Finding a place to live, obtaining a mortgage, car loans, school loans, getting or keeping a decent job, and many other activities that most people take for granted become extremely difficult once a person is branded a sex offender. The societal stigma is the same for someone who was convicted of Rape in the Third Degree as if they had been convicted of Rape in the First Degree.

Anonymous said...

Anti-feminist’s latest cave allegory post is excellent, even though he misunderstands a few things, still entertaining.

I would add again that Conservative Feminists are the ones who enabled this terrible situation when they changed the laws. Look no further than the PROTECT Act which creates the feminist punishments mostly complained about here. It was written by Mike Pence and Orren Hatch, “conservatives.”

Eivind Berge said...

His post about the tranny question also got me thinking that the female sex offender charade is a sort of involuntary transsexualism that (feminist + "conservative") society now imposes on women. Female sex offenders are involuntary transsexuals, forced to take on a male role for the purpose of sex-offenderhood. At least this is one way to temper the insanity of it and bring it down to the level of “just” the tranny delusion. Under this view, society doesn't really believe that women can be sexual abusers, but it believes that women can be men. Or acts as if it believes it in certain situations, enough to have very morbid effects on the justice system. Deep down, of course, we know that men are not women and women can't be men either.

Anonymous said...

That is a good point. The insane equalism culture that allows trannies also allows women to be treated as men under the law, as if there are no differences between the sexes. I wonder how feminist "conservatives" like Pence would react to the question of how can you be in favor of treating the sexes equally under the law while also being against trannies...

Of course that's not to say it isn't fun to watch women suffer what they brought upon themselves, but we can enjoy that and also make the point about gender difference denial. Let's not have too big a heart for these women, who would gladly hang a man by his balls for their exact same crime.

Milan Horvath said...

Thanks for response.

I must admit that I am using word puritans incorrectly, because most people will imagine some religious right-wing nutters, but I mean by it rather social control freaks in general (including FEMINISTS,FEMISERVATIVES,progressives…..).

When it comes to sex laws, there is frequently some natural force behind it.
In case of teenage sex it can be female jealousy/envy,male envy, parental possessiveness/fear.
We all share +/- same natural attributes.
But social/cultural/political environment is creating power that is transposing natural forces into enforceable norms.
American/Anglophone societal environment was always IMO especially fertile ground for moral panics/crusades, unfortunately nowadays it spread everywhere, so it doesn’t matter so much where it came from.
However I still frequently find much more easy to discuss social/sexual issues, or find common ground with European (from both east and west)than North American, they often seem to me like aliens from other galaxy with absolutely different thought framework.

As for tranny/gay question-I’ve clarified that my interpretation of American puritanism doesn’t strictly mean only ultraconservative religious fanatics, however even they are not so rigid as we would think, throughout history they’ve modified their dogmas multiple times according to current trends.
Homosexuals(or rather their monogamous/castrated form) pose no danger to sex-negative,totalitarian society, only small minority can be affected by homohysteria.
Social control freaks have better bogeymen now, stoking up paedohysteria is helping them to maintain their totalitarian dreams upon majority much,much better.
It is just evolution.

Ad marketing:
To be able to spread sex-positive antifeminism/anti-paedohysteria to other people than incels/divorcees/MGTOWs, it would be wise to be careful with that misogynous tone.
Even mainstream “moderate” feminists are not openly preaching that men are inherent evil, rather they are trying to “enlighten” people.
Our enemy should be sometimes our inspiration (but not too much-we are not Elam).
Even though I do not intend to do it, I think that it would be more easy to sell people slogans like:
oh those bloody Muricans are imposing their shit on us,
than to sell :your girlfriend/wife, mother,sister are evil bitches.
Attacking feminist ideology(but also other social control freaks) instead of females per se would be better.
It would be also good to decide to what kind of choir is appropriate to preach, seems to me that e.g. Human-Stupidity had certain urge to appease to some ordinary bloke with his law&order bullshit, not knowing that this type of people are not very appropriate audience regarding his other opinions.

Ad (real)paedoactivists, ephebophiles:

Any association with paedoactivists will mean that most people will immediately switch off and stop hearing.
There should be clear distinction, as this is very socially harmful to our cause.
However that doesn’t mean that they do not have sometimes good points.
I also wouldn’t ever associate myself with hounding on them: slogans like throw key away, hang ‘em high, castrate ‘em are repugnant to me. I wish every of these self-appointed
“child soul protectors” will start to have deviant desires one day-that would be fun
(but...maybe they already have,it wouldn't surprise me much)
Punishment/measures IMO should reflect real inflicted harm, instead of level of moral outrage.
I think that people with normal sexual preferences calling themselves MAP or ephebophiles are just coward cretins, or maybe victims of brainwashing, but former is more likely to be truth.

Ad Ian B:
What you’ve mentioned seems to me like some misunderstanding rather than serious problem, but frankly I didn’t get point of it exactly.
It would be nice to know context of that discussion.
Anyway he seemed to me one of most sane people from anti-feminist commenter sphere.

Eivind Berge said...

"Any association with paedoactivists will mean that most people will immediately switch off and stop hearing."

Yes, but what if we truly don't have any other friends? Which I feel is the case now. Sexuality is so universally hated that we can't be picky about our allies. Where I draw the line is those who promote porn and masturbation as if it were sex-positive.

theantifeminist said...

@Eivind - I don't want to start this battle again, but please, get the hell down from your cloud and realize you have no right to define Male Sexualism, or decide who or who isn't part of the 'movement' or our 'ally'.

You ally with real paedophiles who want sex with 5 year olds legal, yet you don't want anyone here who thinks there is nothing wrong with fapping to porn occasionally.

You think a fat 60 year old unattractive male is engaging in activity worse than injecting heroin if he finds sexual relief in masturbating to porn rather than (realistically) being enslaved to some equally unattractive fat hag. At the same time, you appear to welcome gays and even trannies as being normal.

However intelligent you are, however many good points you make on the subject of anti-sex laws, you just don't have any kind of clue about 'building a movement'. Why does it surprise you that MRAs wont listen to you when nearly every article here is about the 'female sex offender charade', interspersed with the occasional 'metaphysical interlude'? You were in the headlines for your inceldom years before 99% of people had heard of incels, and yet you've managed to attract one incel reader. Why would an incel take a second look at your site when all he sees is you getting angry at the occasional entitled woman getting punished for having sex with young boys, or getting equally angry at any male who seeks solace by using his hand? You want women to have even more sexual choices yet you shame men for simply masturbating.

Eivind Berge said...

You are using the least relevant examples. If a man starts masturbating at 60, I wouldn’t say much (and it would be far less harmful as well because his nervous system is accustomed to sex unlike the young boys who easily get impotent from porn), but you know there are many men who masturbate in their prime. Most commonly they probably start in their childhood or early adolescence and unless they discover nofap, they will never even get to experience what a healthy male libido is like! And yes, I think some shaming is in order for them, but note that I don’t want any criminalization and this is a very different shame than the kind feminist society seeks to impose. Male sexualism means internalizing only the sort of sexual shame which equals not living up to your potential. Masturbation is therefore most shameful for young teenage boys, who by masturbating diminish their sex drive in the short window when it it is socially and legally acceptable for them to pursue teen girls under 18. This is closely followed by young and middle-aged men, but I agree there comes a point when the opportunity cost of masturbation is so low (because your sexual potential is so low anyway, especially if you are low-status, poor and and fat) that the harm of masturbation shall not concern us for them. If a man starts masturbating at 60 (or make that 65 because that’s when old age really starts), he probably had a good run and can qualify as a male sexualist role model. But a young man who thinks masturbation is all right definitely does not, and not men in their 40s and 50s either because we can still realistically score.

Imagine if social shame could be used to serve male sexual interests rather than feminist ones? I know it is a lofty goal that most people won’t even consider, but sorry, I won’t back down from those. With so little political clout, one of our few satisfactions is to at least have a wholesome, well-thought-out and uncompromising ethical foundation.

Milan Horvath said...

@ Eivind
I have no intent to persuade you, I know it would be futile, and since there is no real movement at this time, there is no reason to be fighting over it.
It is just statement of my positions.
Even though I really appreciate your other writings,
I profoundly disagree with"LAW SHOULD BE DIFFERENT FOR GIRLS" and in case of FAP or NOFAP, I consider it as much important as whether someone is washing his bollocks every day or twice a week, it is personal problem not societal.
Seems to me that you are blaming your lack of sexual success in past on masturbation.
But frankly, fact that we live in society where girls are taught that their participation in sexual act is commodity worth selling(instead of just fun), is IMO having much more negative impact on chances of boys to lead satisfactory sexual live.

We can guess, what impact will have combination of making pussy an overpriced commodity (female sexual power), and eliminating alternatives to this commodity(NOFAP).
At least you are not against prostitution.
I am sometimes telling to myself that I cannot blame girls/women for their behaviour,
if there would be enough people worshipping me since my puberty like a god,
telling me that others are taking advantage of me,that thing between my legs has enormous price and I deserve much more- Would I behave differently than them ?

IMHO Since making love is now not inherently connected to procreation, females have no reason to act in case of sexual intercourse(except procreation) like they are donating their kidney.
You are talking about-how we should be natural/traditional about that,regardless of scientific/societal development.
Well,from what I know, my natural attributes as a male, regarding procreation- is for example to hurt any other male that will mate with my female counterpart-as cuckoldry is hurting my natural instincts.
Are we considering something like that normal/moral? Should we?
Innovations are just changing societal order.

Milan Horvath said...

When it comes to paedoactivists

When there will be some bloke telling me that attraction towards 13,14,15,16,17 yo girls is a perversion I am 95% sure that he is possessing same attraction, and I can defeat him as hypocrite, as this is scientifically proven by PPG(peter-meter) examinations on representative sample of normal male population.
I can refer to not so distant past about average marriage age and etc.
In case of association with real paedophiles this wouldn't be possible as majority of people do not possess this type of sexual preferences.

However my perception of paedohysteria is not limited only on issue of teenage sexuality.
I think that even when it comes to issue of real(prepubescent) child sexual abuse, hysteria has gone way too far.
Any association with real paedoactivists would make impossible to fight this part of hysteria, that is BTW reason why I've deleted my comments in your previous article, not because I would consider them as "leprosy", but because it could invalidate my position next time discussing these issues.

Even if I disregard problem of cruel and inhumane treatment of
few unfortunates suffering with this deviation(orientation,immaturity??????IDK),
this hysteria is still predominantly hurting normal population,it has huge negative impact on:
-interactions between children and (male)adults
It practically eradicated any close contacts, making all males suspicious-I wonder how females would react if they were treated in same manner about this.

-interactions between children
Even in totalitarian communist shithole(I was raised in) in past nobody would ever think that it is good to prevent children from natural exploratory behaviour, or punish them for that or consider it as pathological treatment-worthy behaviour.

-formerly relaxed attitude towards nudity.
One parable: Can you imagine that you would be telling to Catholics: that because priests are abusing children, they should keep them away from contact with this religion and their representatives till they reach adulthood and will be able to decide for themselves.
That you will ban(or make legally uncertain) production of materials that will contain religiosity in conjunction with minors?
How many adult religious people do you think will be left after 20,30 years of practising that policy.

Oh, it's too long,and I am repeating myself.I got too much excited again....

Anonymous said...

@antifeminist - I don’t see what the big deal is in your latest post. It’s hand in hand man - the sex negative left brings in trannies to real children to confuse them about heterosexuality, while the sex negative right calls all men exploitative devils and all teens angelic innocent children who would never think about sex, and if they did, they aren’t developed enough to understand sex because again, they’re innocent little pure children. Better off siding with the trannies, at least if the tranny left gains power over the right, there’s a chance AOC laws could be lowered or removed. There is zero chance of that happening with the right wing in power over the left.

Again you ignore the legislation, created by feminist conservatives, that is responsible for criminalization of what you complain about the most. 1,000,000 women shrieking doesn’t put men in prison - laws do. Look at comments on Youtube vids that feature news stories about men breaking AOC laws by fucking a teenage girl under 18; the commentators with the most vitriol are right wingers, always. They are less open to sexual reform than feminist left wing people. Every time.

No one thinks trannies are healthy or sane. But you gotta admit, they are throwing a huge wrench into the feminist system.

Eivind Berge said...


Let me first address your opinion that the same sex laws should apply to men and women. The only way I can agree with that is if we remove the sex laws altogether. If there is violence then let regular assault laws apply (by which women indeed deserve the same punishment), and otherwise there is never a crime and nothing is ever considered aggravated because it is sexual. I can get behind this, especially since we see that the sex laws are horribly abused. For example the “third degree rape” that Weinstein got convicted of has no business ever being applied in a relationship, though it might be appropriate for an unconscious homeless woman or something like that. Since the feminist justice system is incapable of refraining from applying such laws hatefully, they don’t deserve any sex laws at all.

But once you entertain the concept of a sex law, it is always inappropriate to apply them to women. I have tried at length to explain this, but obviously it needs much more arguing. Because, yes, sex differences in sexual mentality don’t go away just because women have contraception and abortion. Sex remains a female resource and until you change that (which you clearly can’t), it is wrong to hold women culpable for a sex crime which implies theft of a sexual resource. The relative value of sex for males and females hasn’t gotten any more equal since either the decoupling of sex from reproduction or all the other political correctness claiming that we are equal. If that should happen, why haven’t men started to value sex less after women started using contraception? That men might start valuing sex LESS is a flip side that you must at least consider feasible if you want to argue that women are less emotionally harmed by rape now that there are much less consequences. Truth is that men will eagerly try to have sex with women on contraception, and pay good money for it too as well as invest long relationships, even though we intellectually know they can’t get pregnant. Consider how hard it would be to tell men that young women who can’t get pregnant aren’t sexually interesting, and you get an idea how hard it would be to tell women that rape is no big deal for the same reason! Human nature is just too strong to be overridden like that, and that’s why sex laws of the crime-against-a-victim variety only have a role regulating male sexuality. Now if you want to justify the sex laws differently, say because God hates fornication or women are property, then it's a different matter, but that requires a different worldview too.

Jack said...

Before dismissing sexbots, you should try one out. I did on 2 occasions (sexbot brothel in Germany). I think the technology still has a long way to go. However, I discovered features of sexbots and of my own mind I wasn't expecting to find. Like how beautiful the sexbot girl's face appeared to me and how I felt a wave of empathy towards "her" I haven't felt to flesh-and-blood women for a long time. Once the technology is mature in terms of positioning, ie making intercourse in different positions comfortable, sexbots will be more popular than real women.

As to masturbation, who cares? I have lived most of my life in countries where prostitution was accessible and affordable. I have been relieved to take a break from real sex into fapping at regular intervals.

Eivind Berge said...

About nofap, yes I agree it is a personal matter, but those are not off-limits for opinions and advice either. And I think it is a social problem that there is so much propaganda out there claiming to be sex-positive and pro-porn at the same time, often abusing academic research and positions to claim that porn/masturbation is good for you. These frauds really get on my nerves and need to be countered by something equally public. And again, it doesn’t work to just tell women to enjoy sex more and price it less… men need to work for it and are well advised to get the extra motivation they can get from nofap, not to mention the performance and enjoyment that fapping also ruins.

You write:

“Well, from what I know, my natural attributes as a male, regarding procreation- is for example to hurt any other male that will mate with my female counterpart-as cuckoldry is hurting my natural instincts.

Are we considering something like that normal/moral? Should we?”

You can consider that natural and moral if you like, but if you act on it you also have to live with the consequences and face self-defense or retribution which is also natural and moral. I think it is better for all if we mostly dispense with such violence. Controlling these impulses is entirely justified by the desire to live peacefully (so you can in turn have more women also; no reason to take monogamy too seriously anymore) and not an argument against taking into account sex differences for the purposes of sex laws if we are going to have sex laws (which I agree is optional, but IF we are going to have crimes like rape, they must be reasonably defined, which means women can’t commit them).

Regarding pedoactivism, you make good points. I am not trying to argue that attraction to prepubescent children is normative (except of course it's harmless when women do it). There are others who go much further and make a radical case for pedophilia, and that is their battle, not male sexualism. It just so happens that some of them are quite reasonable people and just about the only ones left willing to consider that there is nothing wrong with attraction to and sex with 13-17-year-old girls either. It is increasingly absurd to try to have a separate movement going when we are marginalized into oblivion, yet I do try to maintain a separate movement (for the reasons that you list: that we can indeed honestly say to be fighting for normal sexuality); just acknowledging who our allies are.

Eivind Berge said...


I appreciate your input, but must say your perspective is alien to me and I think most men. I can't imagine feeling empathy towards a doll, and if I did I would interpret that as a sign that I was losing my mind, because an object with no mind does not deserve that kind of attention. Whether sexbots will be popular is of course an empirical question that is not for me to rule on, but I don't belive it until I see it, and in any case my philosophical objections apply. It would be a tragedy not just for women, but also men if sexbots turn out to be more sexually popular than real women.

Milan Horvath said...


You are mentioning Rookh in positive manner and at the same time you are angry about someone
mentioning Anglo-Saxon puritanism? Anglobitch???

“If you ignore the facts that ‘American puritanism’ with regards to the raising………….”

Well, if you mean 1989 child rights convention, this convention was initially
(then communist) Poland's initiative from early 1980’s, but sexual abuse element was added later by USA.
Reason why they didn’t ratified paper bastardised by them, was not that they would be too sexually permissive ,it was probably that they couldn’t practise their nasty law&order measures against youth,if they would ratified that.

G7 is like NATO, we pretend that it is grouping of equal independent states, but in reality everyone knows who is wearing pants in this relationship of convenience.
And leaders' spouses proclamations are as important as windscreen wipers on a submarine, they've just opportunistically followed trend that was already existing at that time.

NSPCC just copied American NCMEC,stopitnow,CII and co. bullshit and then helped to infest continental Europe with it.
Wherever I read (continental) European literature about CSA, (very questionable) content from NSPCC or some US,Canadian counterpart is cited frequently as a source.
UK itself being “neither flesh nor fowl” is serving as gateway to Europe for various
“smart ideas" imports.
Child protection act 1978(Cyril Townsend, Mary Whitehouse) was preceded by it’s American counterpart in 1977,if I am correctly informed at that time no such laws existed in continental Europe(only some vague obscenity laws).
Whether it was then caused by hysteria about few Herberts-Perverts from PIE/NAMBLA I can't judge.

Rise in feminism, feminisation of politcs as a(partial)reason for present day hysteria-
Yes I agree, that it is female dominated, but decline of conservatism? Huh? Conservatism and feminism was always interconnected, even you are admitting that "liberals" vs. conservatives is a false dichotomy, when it comes to these issues.

Paedohysteria is a WMD in hands of semi-retarded apes, everyone knows that it will sooner or later screw up everything but no one in power is reasonable enough to resist temptation to push that shiny button, or is too coward to prevent others to do it.

Uhhhh 1968 was evil erosion of our beautiful traditional morals since then all this paedofornication started. Uhhhh those damned hippies.
Feminists:There is toxic masculinity everywhere males are raping young girls because they want groom them into role of submissive wife in future.
Lefties: There is inequality everywhere, people from poor households…….
Should I continue? Opportunism and general.

Where this stupidities with trannies started?? It is not Spain,Italy,Czech Republic....
It is Anglo-Saxon world.
Which is not surprising at all as it is known that,
repression is source of perversion and vice versa. Reason why this is not fought, is that modernised pseudo-left branch of puritanism is prevailing over that old YEE-HAW form, mask of tolerance is needed to be able to sell it to new post-traditional generation.

BTW: Do you remember your old article about visiting Madrid and then few years later
San Sebastián ?

Anyway, as I've said, arguing over source would be now as important as searching for initial tumour in stage IV cancer patient. But I don't like situations when somebody will screw up something and then we say :Oh it is fault of all of us-NO, IT IS NOT.

Milan Horvath said...


"I am not trying to argue that attraction to prepubescent children is normative (except of course it's harmless when women do it)"

"And again, it doesn’t work to just tell women to enjoy sex more and price it less… men need to work for it"

Proclamations like these(whether they are based on truth or not) are more valuable asset to female supremacists that would ever be Golem (
made from Solana's ashes glued together with MacKinnon's vaginal juices and Dworkin's lard.

Of course I wouldn't persuade women that rape means nothing or that their sexual value is same as male's- if they were taught opposite since childhood, by culture they are living in.
Why would anyone voluntarily give-up her position on a pedestal,
although being princess is not always enviable position.
Yes such culture was developed from then natural realities, but they've ceased to exist and present state of things is only cultural residuum of it.

I would compare it with pork HARAM for Muslims, it was created as a prevention of parasitical infection, which is no more valid concern, however Muslim forced to eat pork still can be heavily traumatised, based purely on cultural grounds.

Purely hypothetically, if I would raise let's say 200 children(100+100)since toddler age on some isolated but well equipped island with available modern healthcare.
They would be raised in culture where sex would be considered as massage or kissing is now.
On purely voluntary basis, and of course without involvement of adults(no paedo things).
I am 90% convinced, they wouldn't retreat into traditional roles, but I cannot prove that for obvious reasons.

What you are saying about sex laws, ideally I would be 100% pro for their abolition-assault/bodily harm laws and laws against children maltreatment(including sexual) would be sufficient.

I absolutely cannot agree with you that "when women do it-it's harmless"
If someone adult in my let's say 8 years of age, would abuse me
(in true old meaning of sense), I wouldn't care less if perpetrator is male or a female.
This is not to say that I should necessarily have some life-ruining trauma from it, and if-
It would be probably more because of society's reaction rather than from act itself.

Eivind Berge said...

Are you familiar with the finding that gender equality leads to greater sex differences? I first heard this from Jordan Peterson, but it is really well established now. See for example:

And it makes sense that freedom to express your natural tendencies leads to more sex differences if the sexes really are different. I think this would happen on your hypothetical island as well. And we actually don’t need to set up such an experiment because we already have one: gays and lesbians are sort of islands within society with minimal influence from the opposite sex. And they don’t display the same behavior at all. Lesbian sexuality is extremely lackluster by male standards and male homosexuality shows how promiscuous men really want to be. The girls on your island would be like lesbians except the boys would influence them into a sort of compromise, which also happens in our heterosexual society. They would still price their sexuality as highly as our women do, with plenty more demand for it than they want to meet, and if anything, social norms would tend to pull women into more sex with more partners than they really want. Despite all our sex abuse hysteria, this is still how it works here too. The feminist myth of the slut is larger than life, which is one reason they need all the hair-trigger rape laws to make it “safe” for women again.

There comes a point when the social constructionist theory of sex differences is crushed by so much evidence that it just becomes ridiculous. Do you really not think we are there yet? How much more evidence do you need? Don't you think we already have done enough experiments? It’s not like Muslims and pork at all. That taboo wouldn’t spontaneously arise, but you can be sure the usual sex roles would, at least in terms of how they feel about promiscuity and rape. Another example is the arranged marriages in some traditional societies versus the hypergamous serial monogamy in feminist countries. Traditional society makes women more sexually willing than they really want to be, and when nothing constrains them they go back to chasing alphas and capitalizing more on their sexuality because they can.

Once again, applying rape and sexual abuse laws to women is nonsense for the same deep reasons. You are flatly wrong by your assertion that the 8-year-old you could have been “sexually abused” by a woman. Sure you could have been genuinely abused in a sexualized way, but that is different: there can be no reasonably acknowledgeable AGGRAVATION by the sexual aspect itself!

Eivind Berge said...

Here's an analogy to support my distinction between sexual abuse (that women can't commit) and sexualized abuse (that they can). A crime can be motivated by racism or "racialized" without deserving an extra exacerbating category of hate crime -- unless you believe that sort of categorization is sensible because some groups are more valuable than others. The crimes of sexual abuse, and the harsher penalties that go along with them, are a sort of "hate crime" on top of generic violence and abuse. In the case of male perpetrators, this arguably makes sense because sexuality is really that significant and worthy of special protection. But female perpetrators don't have that capacity! What you are left with, then, is an entirely baseless and arbitrary "hate crime" amounting to misogyny just like the hate laws easily amount to racism themselves. The conceptualization of "sexual abuse" or "sexual assault" or "exploitation" is a meaningless, superfluous and hateful maltreatment of women when applied to them, which reasonable men need to oppose.

Remember that "sexual abuse" is a formal category with severe consequences, while "sexualized abuse" is just a description. You can even use the word "sexual abuse" for all I care if you don't mean to imply that the same laws should apply to women, but since that's invariably what is meant in these sorts of arguments, I need to very firmly state that women can't commit sexual abuse.

Milan Horvath said...

Social sciences are not exact sciences.
In latter experiment can definitely prove or disprove some theory as it can be effectively cleared of any bias.
I would dare to say that in some cases there is present desired outcome that is afterwards rationalised. At least there is significant space for doing so.

By term “traditional roles” I meant by it “only regarding recreative sex value”, I am not denying differences between males and females as whole, because there are proven differences by exact scientific methods.
I am only guessing, whether there would be strong reduction of capitalisation of female sexuality, in form as we know it today,
if we will severe ties with present civilisation and change some conditions that formed our customs.
I am not saying that male and female behaviour would be absolutely identical.
Anyway humans and other species are accommodating to conditions and circumstances they are living, in long term run.

Only thing that could(partially) prove or disprove my theory would be to set an experiment in society which is absolutely isolated from sex-negative societies influence, yet it have available modern reproduction control.
Such society does not exist. Only societies maybe close to sex-positive (what I know) were Polynesian ones, but yet without modern healthcare.
Homosexuals and “equal” societies are not comparable example.
Homosexuality is not standard sexuality, so there could be many other causes for their behaviour.
When it come to “equal” or a feminist societies they cannot be taken as a example because they are neither equal nor sex-positive, despite they are pretending to be.
Sex-negativity(don’t give it to them so easily) is still taught to girls, although it is packed in some modern outfit, with psychobabble, instead of fornication-god hates you.
Traditional narrative with modern face.

There must be absolutely severed ties to other cultures to have conclusive outcomes.

Regarding your link: There are many other ways how to understand those outcomes.
Yes we can see Scandinavia on one side and Islamic world on other, but there can be and probably are many other factors affecting it.

I have no education to study and correctly interpret various researches to argue with you over it.
Even if I would have it, I wouldn’t waste energy on it as I see commenting on this blog rather as relieve, rather than to influence some (probably very tiny minority) of people.

What I know for sure is that your activity regarding female sexual power and NOFAP as a
pro-male activist… like I would have defence barrister, who will bring to court evidence against me-because he want to be truth seeking and ethical.
It is not to say that I adore activists who puts out blatant lies as the end justifies means for them,
but there should be some reasonable balance between:

BTW: Various of these traditionalists are pretending to be friends of male, fighting against evils of feminism, but in fact their doctrines are only nurturing white-knightism, same as yours.

Eivind Berge said...

The noblest quality of male sexualism is that we refuse to be nonchalant about punishing people like the rest of society, at least not for sex crimes. Whenever I see someone wanting to apply the sex laws to women just because it is "equal," or to get even because men face so many injustices, I am shocked by such nonchalance.

It is one thing to wish for a gender-equal utopia, quite another to treat people as if it already exists, and worst of all to dole out extreme punishments on that basis. This is what the female sex offender charade does: you want to punish women based on some hypotethical view of how they (and men) might be if society somehow were set up to produce equal sexual mentalities in men and women. Never mind that all experiments to that end have failed and it looks ridiculously unlikely that it can ever succeed by social construction.

You argue for something with no evidence, and yet you refuse to acknowledge all the evidence against it. Homosexuality is indeed standard sexuality for the respective sexes except for the homo part; that is well documented. You don't need to look at the homosexuals either because surveys of straight preferences in the most feminist countries show the same pattern, even in the youngest generations after all the gender-equalist propaganda they have been brought up with. Men want many more partners no matter what society tells them and this inevitably leads to the commodification of female sexuality. It is absurd to conduct sexualist activism on the presumption that this difference shouldn't really exist.

Anonymous said...

Take a look at this article criticizing the casting of a 10 year old girl as a sex robot in a courageous new film from Berlin:

All of these critics fail to realize marriages to 8 year olds were just fine for the majority of human existence - husbands would simply wait until girls got their periods before consummating the marriage. It’s amazing how modern Western societies have constructed a morality around making sure a female is a consumer for as long as possible before “marriage” (which isn’t really marriage anymore in any traditional sense of the word).

Anyway, my point is, if you look at the comments, both male and female are religious right conservative feminists. These are the people who are our true enemies. They will never change, and they believe normal male sex drives are evil, so they pass laws that oppress the world.

However, it seems like we won’t be thinking about sex for a while with this dumb virus going around. Maslow’s needs will dictate survival first.

Eivind Berge said...

I agree that film is courageous, but the intolerance would be there without the religious right because feminism is an antisexual worldview in its own right now, and furthermore feminism has no history of being anything but an antisex ideology while Christianity at least used to tolerate marriage.

But yeah, now we are in a time of plague and it will be interesting how that plays out. I guess there will just be less of everything including antisex persecutions and then that will return along with business as usual when the pandemic is over. So not really a reason for optimism even if the virus does manage to kill a lot of bigots, unless there will also be an economic collapse which shakes up the world order. With the Chinese now going back to work that doesn't seem likely, though.

Eivind Berge said...

If you want to stare into the abyss of evil and insanity that is the female sex offender charade, there are 50 of them here:

On the other hand I finally found something else equally strange as the lie that lucky boys are "abused" by women: Meinong's jungle.

It is the idea that even self-contradictory worlds are real.

Meinong, an Austrian philosopher active at the turn of the 20th century, believed that since non-existent things could apparently be referred to, they must have some sort of being, which he termed sosein ("being so"). A unicorn and a pegasus are both non-being; yet it's true that unicorns have horns and pegasi have wings. Thus non-existent things like unicorns, square circles, and golden mountains can have different properties, and must have a 'being such-and-such' even though they lack 'being' proper. The strangeness of such entities led to this ontological realm being referred to as "Meinong's jungle."

So now we know where female sexual abusers reside. They are the very most bizarre creatures of Meinong's jungle.

Eivind Berge said...

A candidate for the hottest ever female "sex offender" and hence luckiest boy:

The judge is sick in the head as usual and considering locking her up. Also this was when she was, 17, so only 4 years difference and the sicko still wants to pursue this! We live in a world so deranged I am shaking with hatred.

Eivind Berge said...

I took a 16 km walk to try to calm down, and recorded a little rant:

My despair of the female sex offender charade

Not listing this on my channel since it isn't fabulous, but had to get out something. I need therapy for the PTSD -- post-traumatic sexlaw disorder -- that the female sex offender charade gives me.

Anonymous said...

US/UK is clearly experiencing record levels of sexual repression to endorse this kind of hatred of sex.

However, let's not shed a tear so quickly for the girl involved:
"She then falsely claimed he had raped her but a jury rejected the allegation"

...and she wasn't a 'nice girl' like you claim, she was simply following her hypergamy and found a 13 year old male more dominant and popular than the other males in her life. Save the 'nice girl' talk for when females start fucking those they consider weak and pathetic out of sympathy (hint: that will never happen).

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, but that rape allegation was only a result of having to defend herself against the sick laws that pretend she is a sexual abuser. When the only legal options are to be a victim or abuser with nothing in between, we can't blame her for choosing the former. The problem is the perverse law which denies most of reality and replaces it with its dishonest categories, and the dimwits who even accept this framework without risking punishment but rather out of greed because they want to work in the abuse industry.

It's just another way the evil perpetrated by the antisex bigots feeds on itself and creates more evil. We male sexualists need to be the grownup in the room who says stop, this madness needs to end, because no one else will. Attacking the character of the poor innocent woman is a complete red herring.

The judge here takes the antisex bigotry to another absurd level by pretending that not only is the sex damaging to the boy, but having managed to impregnate her is as well:

"It seems to me that one of the evils here is that, for the rest of his life, the victim will know that that baby girl is laying somewhere that he does not know about and that - I can say as a man - would be as scarring for a father as for a mother."

Where do these absurd non sequiturs come from, and how did this idiot convince himself that the solution is to punish the mother rather than let the father have contact with his daughter? It is a religion of hate and nothing but hate, where the only remedy for their imaginary problems is to ramp up the antisex hate with more and more damage -- real damage for imaginary abuse while these sickos pretend they are the good guys. A scorched-earth policy against sexuality and everything associated with it; the feminists will leave no smidgin of humanity and love unburned.

Anonymous said...

It seems that women have even gotten the right of veto with regard to which books may be published and which may not:

Eivind Berge said...

No, the way I understand it is he was never on trial for rape. The "rape" was merely her testimony in her own defense, not an accusation made to get him punished. It could only go so far as getting her found not guilty by the jury, not hurt him at all. Theoretically the police could put him on trial next, but that would make the antisex prosecutors (who had formerly painted him a victim) look so ridiculous that the only shame they have left would have prevented it. They care nothing about hurting the innocent, but contradicting their own antisex bigotry is another matter.

Jack said...

@Eivind : Her accusing the boy of rape makes it hard for me to feel sorry for her. What if the boy had been 16ish? He would have been in for a rape charge that could have ruined his life and she would have accused him all the same, only with more success before the court. According to you the girl was only defending herself. But wait, were not other defences possible instead of crying rape? If this was a victimless crime, as it most certainly is to the readers of this blog, why was she playing victim?. She could have alleged the boy taunted her or made her horny or he wanted it badly or looked older or looked like some sex would do him good etc. These would've been sex-positive defences. Instead she defaulted to the "man raped woman" feminist mantra like all women will. How predictable! If this girl can accuse a 13-year-old of raping her, imagine what she would accuse a grow man of. No sympathy from me this time.

Eivind Berge said...

What probably happened to Leah Cordice is that she was incriminated in connection with her pregnancy, due to naively stating who the father was, not knowing that this society hates sexuality so much that it will even persecute teenagers for having sex with each other. Only if she went to the police on her own accord to accuse rape does an attack on her become applicable. Assuming she didn't do that, she was just dragged into a situation where the abuse industry must have its pound of flesh. That is a situation more hateful than any human can conceive on his own, because the entire system thus grinds in order to destroy the people it has swallowed according to its hateful antisex algorithms. You cannot blame her for not coming up with a sex-positive defense, because none is possible in that framework. Sure, as a male sexualist I would go for jury nullification, but that is not realistic nor does it occur to normal people. And you have to understand they also put her on trial for sex after she was 18, which would have produced a much longer sentence. The antisex bigots were determined to destroy her life, and though false rape accusations sound really bad, they were really just a white lie in this context because there was no chance they would be used against the boy. What could have happened is that the jury would have found reasonable doubt, or perhaps used that as an excuse for applying some sanity (in effect jury nullification).

We need to give credit where credit is due. Putting any part of the blame for this horror on the woman is to excuse some of the antisex bigotry and the laws. Instead we need to realize how hateful the system really is. Hate the legislators and enforcers, not the girl.

theantifeminist said...

Eivind seems to assume that the lucky boys these MILF teachers are banging are the shy, virgin incels, of the type he once was - delivering them from inceldom.

I rather doubt it.

More than likely in 9 out 10 cases it's the Alpha Chad, who is also banging all the hot chicks in his class too.

BTW Eivind, whereas I look to something that is inevitable and potentially positive - transhumanism - as a small glimmer of hope, you appear to be hoping that the coronavirus brings about a breakdown in society while killing millions of people (primarily the older generation who are the only ones who can still remember what society was like before feminism and paedohysteria).

I don't entirely doubt this could bring about the collapse of society and a Mad Max type environment.

What leaves me almost speechless is the idea that you can actually think that such a scenario is something to be hoped for and might suddenly bring about a sexual utopia. You may want to Google some Mexican cartel gore videos to get an idea of whats in store for us 'nonces' in 12 months time if and when the rule of law breaks down and power becomes localized and fought over between the most violent gangs of thugs and criminals.

Eivind Berge said...

It is true almost by definition that the boys who get lucky with older women such as teachers are usually the alphas. However, this does not change the fact that the female sex offender charade is the most bizarre travesty of justice in history, deserving of our utmost attention for so many reasons ranging from the injustice of it to the absurdity and lessons in human irrationality that it provides. And remember that the less popular boys at least have the option to pay for sex from women who are also persecuted by the feminist police state. Somehow prostitutes seem to be much less frequently put on trial for sex with underage boys than teachers, probably because there are less boastful rumors going around to incriminate them, but the feminists would love to persecute them too if they could and the laws are certainly ready for it and must be fought by everyone who cares about sexual justice.

I did not mean to imply that financial or societal collapse can bring about a sexual utopia. Collapse will be horrible, but at least the antisex bigots will also suffer. That is perhaps the only consolation we can hope for in our lifetimes. Survivors may be able to rebuild a civilization without the feminist sex laws, but we won't be among them because the antisex bigotry is now so entrenched that it would take a near total replacement of the population to get anything different, whether by time or a sudden dieoff that will probably kill us too. And no, transhumanism is far from inevitable; more likely there will be a technological setback. It is no more inevitable that our technology keeps progressing to the Singularity than is was for the Romans or any other civilization. If anything seems to be inevitable, it would be collapse and another dark ages.

Anonymous said...

I'm really excited about this brand new virus. It won't deliver us from the ghoulish grip of Feminists and their manservants, but things are going to get shakey-shakey for the system, and I'm in favor of that prospect. I'm rooting for high infection rates worldwide.

Eivind Berge said...

I am particularly rooting for collapse of the economy. So the wealth that the antisex bigots hope to extract from men like Epstein and Weinstein won't be there for them to collect. Or even the resources to lock men up for 23 years for every time a woman had a dick in her mouth that she comes to regret when she no longer has any use for a relationship.

When seeing the entitled cuntrags' vindictive screeds for infinite retribution because a 17-year-old girl was paid good money to have sex continue even today...

It becomes all too clear that the world needs a monster to give the feminists real problems instead.

And it might finally have arrived.

Anonymous said...

The thing about Weinstein is he was convicted by a jury of normies in NYC. Same with Cosby, convicted by a jury of normies in Pennsylvania. So we know the problem is not just top down, it's also bottom up. Basically, "the public sucks, fuck hope" -George Carlin.

However, all places in the world are not the same culturally. Eventually, the smartest men will leave America to go where they are more welcomed, leaving only the low IQ behind. This will cause the country to decline in every way, eventually until it is no longer powerful, and cannot culturally influence other places anymore. The timeframe for this is probably 20 years. This scenario gives me hope, as I am one of those men :)

Eivind Berge said...

At least the normies found Weinstein not guilty on the most serious charges, but the judge didn't respect that and imposed the near maximum sentence on the little bit he got, which also shows due process has been abandoned. So yeah, the problem goes both ways, but far more from the top down. It also took two trials to get Cosby convicted and it was a tiny scrap compared to all the accusations.

20 years is a too long time frame to make plans, in my opinion. Business as usual already appears to be over and whatever happens next will play out fast. The time to leave... is probably too late. But by all means make the best of whatever opportunities are left.

Anonymous said...

This is a great article and required reading for any man:

Just replace “Neo-Nazi” with “bluepilled man” and it applies to almost all Western men, feminist liberals and feminist conservatives alike. The author nails it right on the head, exactly what I’ve been saying, about how the right wing is even more cucked than the left. Mostly in the form of “my innocent little child angel daughter was exploited, abused, raped and trafficked by the big bad pervert man”. And in the case of feminist conservative women, “my innocent little child angel son…” which results in the female sex offender charade.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, the right-wing men are just as bad as the feminists and possibly worse. It is incredible that it is now considered "cool" to be anti-sex across the entire political spectrum and even among extremist groups who otherwise think of themselves as manly. Don't these "men" have a sex drive themselves? Do they only live vicariously via their daughters' imaginary innocence?

Øyvind Holmstad said...

I dag traff jammen deflasjons-spøkelset meg igjen midt i magen som et rekyl:

Eivind Berge said...

Hi Øyvind, long time no see! Yep, Gail is looking more right every day now, doesn't she? I just recorded a little statement on this myself: