Sunday, June 28, 2020

The conviction of Gaute Drevdal for feminist-contrived "rape"

Male sexualism is all about how most sexual charges nowadays are not accusations, but rather redefinitions of our normal sexuality to rape and abuse. A big trial just concluded in Norway which makes this very clear. Gaute Drevdal, a former magazine editor and generally cool guy who had lots of success with women, is sentenced to 13.5 years for what is by all reasonable interpretations normal and consensual sex with nine women:

When the prosecutor feels the need to protest that she isn't conducting the very definition of why we need male sexualism in her closing statements, you know that is exactly what it is:

"– Denne saken handler ikke om sex man angrer på, ikke om sex man ikke husker og ikke om gjensidig seksuell kontakt i en slags gråsone mellom frivillighet og utnyttelse. De fornærmede i vår sak har fortalt at de våkner opp til at tiltalte har seksuell omgang med dem, sa statsadvokaten i prosedyren melder NTB."

And of course, it's also about getting an older man for success with young women and the phony idea that women attracted to men in any kind of higher positions makes it abuse:

"– Han var en betydelig eldre person enn de fornærmede, og han hadde den gangen en sosial maktposisjon i miljøet. De fornærmedes unge alder og manglende livserfaring gjør dem generelt sårbare overfor tiltalte, sa politiadvokat Hilde Strand."

Notice how the greater life experience of an older man is used to twist his sexuality into abuse, quite apart from his "position" as well. The feminist police state is not content with age of consent for that, nor the age of majority, but keeps pushing this excuse for women into their twenties to regret consensual sex and have the man thrown in prison. If you are attracted to women at the age the vast majority of us find them most attractive -- around 20 -- then your sexuality is by definition abuse. Could it be any clearer that we are dealing with pure, unadulterated hatred of our very souls, of everything that makes us men? How can men still not wake up and fight back?

A commenter asked me:
I agree with your analysis and perspective about the age difference thing, Eivind (with regards to the recent sentencing of Gaute Drevdal, as well as in general). However, there is something I want to add. The real reason the age difference is "skjerpende" (the English word slipped my mind here), is that it's an indicator that it's less likely that the sex was consensual, since most young women would be put off by the age-gap. Now, why am I bringing this up? Well, imagine a defense attorney using the fact that an alleged rape victim was old and/or fat as "evidence" that his client was not likely to want to commit a sexual offense against her. Can you imagine the screeching on social media? Yet, that is very similar to what is being done here with the age-gap thing, no matter how much they claim it's about the "imbalance of power".
Hmmm... good point, but am not so sure the age difference is just a probabilistic thing, like arguing that men would be unlikely to want to rape an old woman (which as you note, however true would cause an uproar if used as an argument in court today -- certainly a double standard). When the prosecutor says young women are "generelt sårbare overfor tiltalte" -- "generally vulnerable in relation to the accused" -- she means something much more sinister and fundamentally damning of us than what that probabilistic analogy would indicate. This line of argument reeks of the idea that older men are inherently disgusting in an absolute sense, so that women who are sincerely attracted to us and want sex are still victims. It is also flatly untrue that women are unlikely to want sex with men who are seen as leaders in a community, even if older, and this man wasn't even that old: he is 50 now and these "rapes" date back up to 15 years. There may be an attempt at a probabilistic argument in addition to this, but clearly no amount of adoration from a woman will absolve us, and feminist prosecutors are just itching to throw us in prison for that alone just like they do with girls under 16 or 18 without construing a "rape" -- which here consists of the women allegedly being asleep during some parts of the consensual encounters -- that universal weapon to turn every single night you spend with a woman into rape.

To claim that adult women can't make their own sexual decisions, but are "generally vulnerable" to men who possess the "wrong" attractive characteristics would be just as insane as to claim men are "generally vulnerable" to fall for women with augmented boobs or heavy makeup or a flirty disposition or whatever and therefore should be entitled to a refund for child support or whatever negative things followed -- but no one cares, absurd hatred against men to the benefit of women is infinitely tolerated in this society.

Also, the word "skjerpende" -- aggravating -- can't really be used of a probabilistic thing after conviction. You are either guilty or not, and if found guilty then the court can't claim something that merely heightens their confidence in that fact as an aggravating factor in sentencing unless it actually aggravates the crime. The man being older is clearly taken to be an aggravating factor in the crime itself, if that word is used to support sentencing. Which is exactly like saying rapists should get a lighter sentence if the woman is old or fat, LOL! Not an argument that the rape probably didn't happen like a defense attorney might claim, but something much worse, that old and fat women are less worth, and older men are too.

Also I wonder if they are willing to turn it around and give handsome rapists of exactly the same age as the victim a sentencing discount 😂

If not, they should just drop the whole age gap thing.

I can't find the whole verdict at this time, but some excerpts here:

He was literally just accused of being most attracted to women from 18-25 in his 40s, and getting lucky with them and then anything which makes him attractive (such as his ability to get them into cool clubs and such) is used against him as supposed "abuse of trust" -- as if women should "trust" that older men don't want sex and are too immature to understand any of it into their 20s! "Rapes" where they "pretended to be asleep" because they didn't want to reject him and that sort of thing. Them letting him have it instead of fighting back or even saying no is considered his fault! Can you imagine eight women being "raped" and not one giving a hint of resistance? But that's irrelevant today because rape is redefined to regret only, formally because one were too drunk or asleep, or alternatively "abuse of position," which is technically another statute if they wanted to use it, but here it seems they blended that too into rape, which is quite an innovation. Plus there was one count of statutory "abuse" of a 15-year-old. No real victim there either.

His own reaction:

The women coordinated their accusations and still they didn't come up with anything that a normal person would consider rape. Of course the feminists are hailing it as an enormous victory and step forward, which indeed it is to them:

At this point they might as well drop the charade that there is a trial, and just throw men directly in prison upon all sexual accusations. The court will give them anything they ask for anyway, even if they have to reason based on no other premise than the man is older. Plus he's the one who needs to prove his innocence, as if that would even be possible when all sex is rape and abuse anyway because our very souls are criminal abusers.

"– For å være helt ærlig føler jeg meg lurt av tingretten. De sa innledningsvis at det er påtalemyndighetens oppgave å bevise skyld, ikke den tiltales oppgave å bevise uskyld. Det motsatte har skjedd, mener Drevdal."

And we won't even get a jury for his appeal trial -- so completely have the feminists clinched their victory.

And a funny thing. The 15-year-old girl was not raped -- just an age of consent violation -- while the eight other women up to 25 years old at the time were what the law considers literally raped at least predominantly because they were too young and clueless to understand what was going on. So there's a glaring inconsistency right there in the verdict. But don't tell the feminists because then the solution will just be to turn statutory abuse into rape convictions, with the much longer sentences that will entail.

So however bad this sounds, there is still plenty of room for innovation which I am sure they will get busy with once this level of misandry is normalized. I mean, when adult women are infantilized to this degree, it should be piece of cake to establish that teenagers between 14 and 16 literally can't consent (like they already have recently done for those under 14). And then the next step after that would be to raise this new absolute rape age to 18, which the public is also already ready for.

All the women who conspired against Gaute Drevdal used the minimum accusation needed to have him convicted, which is very clever. They didn't allege any violence since that would hurt their credibility, but everyone believes they actually had sex. The 15-year-old didn't need to embellish at all since the law already has her regret covered. The others make up just the bare minimum of lack of consent in their heads or supposedly being asleep or too intoxicated, and then they fill in the rest by the general idea that older men are abusers, and voila, the Norwegian feminist "justice" system hands them all the convictions they ask for. ALL of them. That's the recipe for most successful false accusations -- first make the justice system institutionalize false rape and abuse, and then play into that while not lying about things like actual violence that can expose them. I notice that false rape accusers in other countries often make up violence and hence get exposed as liars, but that's certainly not needed here.

Monday, June 15, 2020

The implications of false pretenses behind persecutions

Just because somebody is in a position to persecute doesn’t give them any special entitlement to the truth. There is no reason why persecutions can't be based on nonsensical theories. I mean not just exaggerated entitlement or factually false accusations, but complete gobbledygook. I think most readers will agree that the witch-hunts we know from history were in this category, including the Satanic Panic of the 1980s which is still somewhat ongoing. The other types of persecution occur because one group decides to grab unreasonable benefits for itself, including reckless disregard for your rights or well-being (think American cops killing black men) or draconian punishments for trivial offenses operating under the principle that might is right -- or there can be a mixture of selfish interests and gibberish justifications. These give rise to logically comprehensible movements in opposition such as Male Sexualism or Black Lives Matter. But if you find yourself a victim of persecution based on complete gibberish, what do you do? I know this isn’t an exercise of the intellect if you are actually accused, in which case your best bet is to find a good lawyer who will work within the limitations of his profession to exploit any loopholes in the system that he and you can get away with. But a blog post isn’t subject to any such limitations and I am free to give idealistic answers.

I don’t have a pat answer to how to end persecution based on gibberish pretenses (except maybe “defund the police” would go a long way there too -- thanks to BLM for that push), but I know one thing you should not do, at least not ideally. And that is to identify with the thing persecuted as if it were real or legitimately classified. Persecuted “witches” who formed witches’ organizations and fought to have witchcraft accepted would not be putting on a sound defense, in my view. Even though that approach might have worked for some, it came at a cost of forming an identity that reasonable, educated people probably don’t want. I don't mean to knock those who want to identify as witches, but at least it should be obvious that it is not for everyone.

I have arrived at this analogy because I feel this is what The Antifeminist will have us do regarding pornography offenses, like the absurd crime of possessing pictures of 17-year-old girls. I agree those constitute persecution which we should oppose, but we must also consider the implications of the lack of any sexual benefit to the man -- lack of benefit which I have exposed at length in my series of posts on nofap. A sexualist movement cannot treat persecution for empty or downright self-harming offenses the same as persecution for our healthy and valuable sexuality. There has to be implications for our activism when something isn't sexually beneficial, hence my views on pornography and male masturbation. If men are going to get persecuted for our sexuality, we better damned well derive some sexual value before we concede that we are, in fact, being persecuted for our sexuality, and fapping doesn’t fit that bill. Any persecution which falsely claims to crack down on sexual exploitation when there is none to our benefit better be called out on that falsehood! As I hope the historical witch-hunts illustrate, there is such a thing as persecution under egregiously false pretenses, which should be dealt with differently than persecution of our healthy and self-identified nature. Persecutory accusations can be false, unreasonable or gibberish, and it is the latter I am concerned with here.

Perhaps an analogy to so-called hate crimes can make it clearer. Whether you agree with hate crime legislation or not (which I probably don’t), at least you can see the point why people think the systematic hate against a group makes such crimes worse. And just like there are hate crimes, there are also hate laws when hateful people get to make the laws, like feminists do now. For example the age of consent is a hate law against men. When crept up way past puberty it targets our normal, healthy sexuality in a way that actually and systematically hurts us. Contrast this to the pornography laws. They may claim the purpose is to criminalize the sexual exploitation of girls and women, but in actual fact they do no such thing because the true victims of pornography are men: the male viewers who often incur impotence and other dysfunctions as well as the inevitable opportunity cost that it displaces sex or at least some sexual drive and pursuit. We are no slaves to politically correct dogma, but able to think for ourselves and realize that the pornography laws are random acts of evil rather than hate laws against our sexuality, paralleling witch-hunts rather than, say, anti-Semitism or racism. And to the extent that the pornography laws have any systemic effect at all, they help promote male sexuality rather than hurt it since they help men not masturbate and have sex instead (talking about deterrence rather than incarceration here, since being in jail obviously doesn’t help). Once again, being in a position to persecute does not confer any entitlement to truth, and while we can’t do anything about their violence for now, at least we don’t have to buy into their bullshit concepts!

From an activist standpoint, hate laws are a very different beast than random acts of evil, and do not deserve to be treated the same way in our manifesto-writing. It does a disservice to the fight against true oppression of our sexuality to conflate it with evils that are not in that category -- and please note this does not mean I dispute that they are evils! The persecution can be of the worst order, but just because an oppressor claims a sort of persecution is for a specified purpose does not make that true. Oppressors can write elegant treatises, even put them into Latin like the Malleus Maleficarum, and it is still nonsense. The feminists can rave all day long about how men need to be locked up because images in their possession “exploit women and children,” but that doesn’t make it true, and men of integrity do not go along with that charade any more than we go along with the female sex offender charade -- which also constitutes persecution under false pretenses. Likewise the right-wingers can blather along with feminist theories of “abuse” as a new-found outlet for what they used to call “sin,” and that makes neither the victimology nor their original position true or compelling (though I will give them that that the old conservative moralism was slightly less bad than feminism).

If we were to assume The Antifeminist’s position of outrage that that the “child/revenge/upskirting” etc. porn laws go against our sexuality, we would in an important sense be no better than our oppressors. You would have two sides of superstition pitted up against each other, both of whom are delusional because it is impossible for girls to be exploited via remote consumption of pornography and impossible for men to sexually benefit from the same. Both these superstitions necessarily go together, or at least the former necessitates the latter, because you can’t have “exploitation” without somebody doing the exploitation and benefiting from it in some way. Since I as a nofapper understand that porn actually hurts the male viewer’s sexuality, in a way diametrically opposite, no less, to what the feminists claim, so that he becomes less effective at exploiting females if he thinks porn and masturbation are good things, we must reject the entire conceptual framework behind the law. The only exceptions are if the law is applied against what might otherwise be called grooming, conspiracy or solicitation, in which case it is a bona fide male sexualist casus belli, of course. It is the core tenet of male sexualism that the feminist theories of abuse are not so much accusations as a redefinition of our sexuality to abuse, but of course we can’t acknowledge the inclusion of something that isn’t sex or aimed to get sex as even an attempt at that: it then becomes pure gibberish.

The Antifeminist has long been a beacon of reason against words like “ephebophile” and “hebephile.” We reject these labels because they merely refer to normal male sexuality: you would be hard pressed to find a “teleiophile” man who isn't also an ephebophile and (at least to some extent) a hebephile. The Antifeminist correctly understands that hunting ephebophiles is (almost; see below) as nonsensical as hunting witches, because the “ephebophiles” are just normal men just like the “witches” were normal women. We are male sexualists aka normal men, not “MAPs” or whatever: we don't buy into the categories of our oppressors, or their useful idiots on the other side for that matter.

After that stroke of insight, how come he fails to see that “child pornography” is not a valid category? It matters not one whit to our sexuality if the actresses are underage: pornography is harmful all the same when combined with masturbation, harmful to men only. We therefore don’t care about child pornography, except to recommend that men stay away from it along with other porn.

But we do care when people are persecuted, for whatever bad reasons including pure gibberish and superstitions like the delusion that porn exploits females and benefits men. How to oppose such harmful human stupidity is an important question that I can’t solve here and now, but I do hope I have pointed out one pitfall to avoid. In theory, enlightenment should help since the core problem is misguidedness rather than evil, but sadly it seems we make up new superstitions at about the same rate as the old ones are cleared up. We went from sacrificing virgins for a better harvest to sacrificing virgins like Gally for equally absurd reasons, and that’s just the way it goes. Our attitude to such laws should be one of bemused horror like I tried to convey in my interview with Maxwell’s demon, horror that humanity can be so delusional, and at least not partake in the delusions ourselves. Laws against child sexualization in representation are as alien to me as the similarly outlandish (but much more limited in scope) taboo against drawing the prophet of a certain religion. That is what they are -- alien and horrifying that humans can be so intolerant of inconsequential blasphemies -- not a bona fide conflict of interest with my sexuality.

Let us now see how this definition of complete gibberish stacks up to the rest of feminism. The female sex offender charade comes closest. Here you have persecution of sexuality based on entirely false premises, but at least it is persecution of sexuality. Women are punished for being sexually nice to boys -- to the detriment of both sexes and especially males when you consider the bigger picture where only we are really sorry that such relations are outlawed -- so at least there is real persecution of sexuality. “Sexual harassment” and “stalking” laws likewise represent a true sexual conflict of interest, even though they impose unfair restrictions on men. Laws against paying for sex that feminists impose wherever they gain power also represent a real sexual conflict of interest, though not one between the parties actually involved since they are both harmed by the laws, but women as a group benefit while men suffer. Statutory rape and abuse where men are “perpetrators” also get half the story right. Not the rape and abuse part, which is just a legal fiction, of course, but the part where the so-called abuser is sexually benefiting is correct. The biggest, most harmful part of feminism is to expand what used to be the real definition of rape to any instance where a woman regrets sex, and this also gets at least half the story right (except when it refers to getting a woman to masturbate like the Norwegian rape law now enables, or to copulate with objects, in which case it fits squarely in the topic of this post). Because we are an interest group for male sexuality, not merely fighting against persecution of any kind, it is crucially important that at least one part of the conflict of interest be present in order for something to be a male sexualist issue. As such, we are a contact-only movement.

It has just come to light that Facebook paid a ridiculous amount and lost every last bit of pretense that they care about privacy for anybody including the genuinely persecuted people who need Tails OS, in order to catch a no-contact “child predator.” It was the ultimate case of normies oppressing normies, wankers oppressing wankers -- the dimwits employed at Facebook even considered him “the worst criminal to ever use the platform.” 😂 The fools who believe girls can be abused via pictures are just as much wankers as the men who are content with that sort of thing. They even call it “content” as if there is anything there, LOL! Male sexualists believe neither; we see pornography for the inert, worthless garbage that it is, equivalent to the beer bottles littering the Australian outback fooling male jewel beetles to waste their mating efforts. I am sure Buster Hernandez was not a nice person, and yes, he deserves prosecution for criminal threats if he said he would carry out shootings and bombings at the girls' schools if they didn't send him nudes, but the idea that he thereby sexually abused these girls is a complete mirage that is sustained by nothing other than the idiots’ belief in it including their evil imposition of this voodoo belief on the girls as well. Criminal pornography cases are typically such displays of witch doctors hunting witches who believe their witchcraft is meaningful, usually even without the threats to do anything in real life, which admittedly this case was exceptional at. We can only stand by and laugh at the normies wasting their resources cracking down on or consuming asex when we are about sex. The idea that the worst sex predator who ever used Facebook never touched a girl is so hilariously absurd and ironic that it frankly makes the feminists look like pathetic pushovers in thrall to the wanker's delusion, and it makes nofappers seems like superheroes even though we are just normal, LOL!

I am disturbed both by society’s reification of pornographic voodoo magic -- by the persecution as well as the irrationality that it reveals -- and some men’s belief in the same on the opposite side. Honestly I don't know which is worse, the feminist police state or men believing porn is sexually valuable, and we have to admit these men are many and even include some otherwise close to my own movement. But on the plus side, I shudder at how much more damage the antisex bigots could do to sex if they spent all their resources where it matters, so perhaps it is for the best that the police state is so deluded.

I marvel at the poverty of real-life experience that must underlie a conviction that pictures or words are so important that girls can be “sexually exploited” simply by sending a nude. I studied art and learned that it is something you play around with, something you fearlessly control. Ditto for literature and any kind of symbolic representation. It isn't real, and it is absurd to think that you possess them just because you have captured someone’s likeness. That sentence sounds violent, but it is just a metaphor. Sometimes I wonder if the normies don't know this? Do they think they inhabit a reality of sympathetic magic where an image can steal your soul like in the joke about primitive people? Slightly more charitably, what the antisex bigots who hunt wankers in the belief that it carries sexual significance are engaged in is to avenge the “honor” of girls. Unlike sexual abuse, this is something external to the girl, her sexual market value if you will. It is indeed a symbolic construct, her social reputation, so it can be messed up by pictures and words (which again doesn't benefit men sexually, so it's not in that realm of conflict). But do the feminists really want to go there? Weren't we supposed to be past a world where a woman’s value is wrapped up in her sexual purity? Well, apparently not. Again, they may claim they are fighting sexual exploitation and abuse, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Having the power to persecute confers no entitlement to truth, and we see right through them.

As a bonus, I invite you to look at this Twitter thread as an example of the sad amorality of women pertaining to the female sex offender charade. I thought this request would be an occasion for some enlightenment, but no, it was only “an assignment” to her and she had zero interest in the moral implications, so she blocked our most excellent @fertiledating twitterer.

Saturday, June 06, 2020

Hulk Hogan's incredible racist award

In 2016, a court in Florida awarded Hulk Hogan $115 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages (later settled to $31 million) because a "sex tape" with him had been illegally shared. If it were really just a sex tape, there would have been no trial and the video would have been met with either high fives or yawns all around including from Hulk Hogan himself, probably most yawns given that the woman was middle-aged and the Hulk is a faded celebrity as well. No, the real issue was that Hulk exposed himself as a racist in the video, which ended his wrestling career. As such, the compensatory damages may reflect actual losses, but why would a society which ostensibly cares very much about racism compensate a man who lost his showbiz income because he is a racist? This astonished me at the time, and I could only conclude that it was because the taboo on sex was stronger than the taboo on racism, and because it enabled promotion of the former, everyone went along with a charade that Hogan had been a sort of "sexually violated" to the point that his racism could be ignored and its negative consequences compensated. It speaks volumes about how the manufacture of sexual violation (or absurd exaggerations thereof) is a racket that of course women benefit from all the time, but also men can get in on.

I bring this up now because recent events may have brought the mainstream closer to my male sexualist view, and I want to test that hypothesis. Giving Hulk Hogan the right to be a racist in private, on pain of wild compensation if his racism is admitted in the court of public opinion, is sort of like saying it's OK for cops to beat and kill unarmed blacks as long as it isn't filmed, and I don't think society accepts that anymore. So if this post resonates with more than my regular readers, we have actually made some progress against senseless sexual taboos.

Following the murder of George Floyd it has become fashionable to call for defunding the police, which warms my male sexualist heart. But it brings up the reverse situation of Hulk Hogan's "sex tape" trial, because now we need to downplay rather than exaggerate sexual violations. Presumably there can't be a policeman in every bedroom, a prostitution sting on every corner, or a cop pretending to be an underage girl in every chat room if the police are to be defunded? It is amazing that the feminists would allow this, but times do change.

Perhaps it will even become unacceptable for right-wing bigots to use feminist antisex hate as an excuse for their racism? Of the kind Stefan Molyneux is still laying on thick here:

If current events are an indication, it can't be okay for much longer to basically define all black or immigrant sexuality as abuse. It is the feminist position as well as the conservative one, but enough already. Sometimes formerly highly virtuous attitudes become the the mark of a bigot, and for good reason. The male sexualists are finally on the right side of history at something.