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.


Eivind Berge said...

The feminist-legalistic truism that older men have an upper hand and are more able to get sex from young women because of our age of course flies in the face of reality. Reality is it gets harder and harder to get young women and they have every advantage because of their beauty -- even more so against older men than young (who don’t really care so much about this aspect because age is largely a transparent fact to them, as they naturally assume that if they can get sex at all, it can be with a young woman, and most of the time they don’t even care if the woman is young, because they are so happy to get sex at all and because they think they have all the time in the world to chase young women, which sets them up for a shocker when the reality of feminist justice hits them a few short years later).

Yet it is used to lock men up, as a bizarre justification for “rape” convictions like the one against Gaute Drevdal, which probably distills this rationale the most so far out of all court cases ever. Why do men put up with this lie? It is one thing to persecute us because women have every right to regret sex, but why in heaven’s name do we put up with a blatant systematic lie to justify it? Why not just call it the brute force of female supremacism that it is?

And this whole charade with “abuse of trust” (tillitsforhold), here taken to new extremes and remarkably at the same time not used as its own law, but confused with rape itself. What is up with that and why don’t men react?

Why are women entitled to “trust” that men don’t want to have sex because he is a leader or friend or famous or successful? So that she can have all the benefits of those things but NONE of the downside (and it is mostly feminists and old hags who claim this is a downside) it would be to be sexually desired? Why in heaven’s name do we accept that the very things that we aspire to because they might make women want to have sex with us define us as sexual predators???

Would any fellow especially more mature gentlemen like to weigh in on this?

As I see it, this is the essence of criminalizing our souls. The hatred against us enforced by the feminist police state cannot be expressed any more bluntly than what this verdict does.

Eivind Berge said...

In a way these verdicts help our cause because they make explicit what we’ve been saying all these years. Feminists no longer even pretend rape law is about violence against women, but all about the right to regret sex and even locking men up just for being old and ugly, if we should still manage to have any success with young women. It is the supremacy of old hags, plain and simple, as they dip into their former attractiveness to extract more resources and punishment from men. So perfect that they can wait decades -- now that the statute of limitations is gone they have their entire lives to revive their sexual power in a criminal trial against a man, where no witnesses or other evidence is required, just their word that they weren't feeling consenty at some moment. They still need to justify it by some sort of coercion or incapacity as well if they were over 16, but that requirement is so vague that it is a complete joke.

What we used call manginas are men going along with this -- but now, that’s just mainstream and there isn’t even a manosphere at all besides this blog that nobody reads anymore?

They corrupted the definition of rape.

They removed the statute of limitations.

They removed the jury.

And men care even less than before?

Eivind Berge said...

Indeed, the accusers got the benefit of the doubt (and really there is no doubt since none described actual rape):

My comment there (which didn't go through moderation):

Det er morsomt at 15-åringen er den eneste som ikke ble "voldtatt." Hun samtykket (bare teknisk "misbrukt" på grunn av lavalder), mens disse andre åtte hjelpeløse voksne kvinnene opptil 25 år ikke hadde kapasitet til å hverken samtykke eller avvise mannen på grunn av tillits- og maktforhold eller beruselse eller hva det nå måtte være etter feministisk rett. Eller kanskje fordi 15-åringen var den eneste som ikke trengte å smøre på med løgner og overdrivelser for å få ham dømt???

Eivind Berge said...

About that idea that older (actually middle-aged) men’s greater life experience than women in their teens and twenties makes us sexual abusers and rapists... (Here is that quote again: “– Han var en betydelig eldre person enn de fornærmede... De fornærmedes unge alder og manglende livserfaring gjør dem generelt sårbare overfor tiltalte, sa politiadvokat Hilde Strand.”)

If any old cunt opined that, it wouldn’t be worthy of comment, but seeing how it is a general premise of the Norwegian justice system (who bought this argument hook, line and sinker in the verdict against Gaute Drevdal) used to lock us up... am I really the only one who would beg to differ?

Being more experienced might make you better at seducing women, I agree. (Although reading some PUA material is probably even more effective at a younger age -- do the courts take that into account too?) This knowledge might even make up for some of your declining looks with age. But how do you go from there to the conclusion that women are “generally vulnerable” to older/more experienced men?

If one weren’t fixated on demonizing men as abusers, one might also pay attention to the positive, even altruistic aspects that might come with life experience. For example, it wouldn’t be far-fetched to assume that life experience makes you more considerate rather than more abusive.

It just doesn’t make sense at any level, even the most superficial one, to paint middle-aged men as abusers simply because of our experience and age. And if it did, it shouldn’t be more incriminating than, say, a young man having read a PUA manual. And in both cases, if women in their 18-20s are worthy of the word “adults” -- it shouldn’t be the state’s job to babysit them for this sort of vulnerability, certainly not in this most heavy-handed way conceivable which is to convict men for first degree rape.

Unless you live in a feminist hellhole like Norway where the state has decreed men to be too ugly for younger women, and generally rapists and abusers no matter what we do.

Anonymous said...

Don't men have the right to "regret" sex the same way as women, since it is considered possible that women can rape men?

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, and that helps how?

Eivind Berge said...

Even if you were a moron who thinks men have any use for sex laws to “protect” them against female sexuality, they don’t work when these other feminists considerations like being older and more experienced etc. makes the man a rapist anyway. Perhaps a counter-accusation of rape in theory could cancel out the charges when a woman regrets sex with a man of exactly the same age and intoxication when there was equal participation, but in practice that doesn’t work either and it is an asinine path to go down. Don't get me started on the female sex offender charade here as that should be too obvious.

Eivind Berge said...

Stefan Molyneux and a bunch of other wrongthinkers just got banned from YouTube:

I didn't like the guy, called him out on his racism and feminism myself a short while ago, but it's not looking good for free speech.

The reinforced policy is against “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.”

I'm certainly not a racist, but does my stance on the female sex offender charade mean I think women are "superior" in this sense? Or another overly simplistic way to look at is that males have a superior libido, and women therefore cannot sexually offend. Overall I think women are different, not necessarily superior, but how these differences manifest in the sexual market inescapably results in a sort of superiority, the sort that means women can sell sex to the opposite sex while men cannot, that sex is a female resource for most intents and purposes of course including sex crime legislation if we are honest and rational about it. Empirical facts are what they are whether one likes it or not though one might disagree about how to deal with them. It is eerily similar to how the racists are no longer allowed to claim racial IQ differences (which I don't take their word for, but it *is* an empirical question), except the difference in sexual mentality between the sexes is much much stronger and not something male sexualism can gloss over even if our platform mandates it. So we'll see if we have to move and hopefully at least Blogger is not this strict yet.

Also my arguments about the female sex offender charade hinge at least mostly on sex, not gender, so the policy is not really applicable, but I wouldn't trust them to respect this distinction.

Anyway, feminism is massively discriminatory based on age, not limited to the age of consent or 18 as we have just seen. Unfortunately this is not something that can be solved by censoring speech, though, unless we could delete the laws from the legal system. The whole obsession with offensive speech is wrongheaded since it is the laws and court rulings that count.

Anonymous said...

This might be of interest to Eivind:

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, tyranny of the majority is the way it goes. In retrospect, it is amazing that Western democracies came up with some solid safeguards against it. Most miraculous is the right to trial by jury of your peers, where it allows for jury nullification. That means a few reasonable men or women -- in its purest form in American justice just one -- can stop the tyranny of the majority in its tracks where it matters most. In Norway, female jurors were actually less likely to convict in rape trials. All of that is gone now and replaced by a system designed to impose tyranny.

Eivind Berge said...

The documents that protect us from tyranny must periodically be drenched in blood. As Thomas Jefferson put it, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." When the Norwegian jury system's number came up in 2018 there was unfortunately a shortage of patriot manure. My blood is, but I can't fight alone.

Anonymous said...

I was wondering what you'd make of this, Eivind:

Eivind Berge said...

A true believer in the female sex offender charade, eh? He was "manipulated, used, and sexualized" at 14 by a 24-year-old woman. That's his twisted memory of what would have been (and probably was at the time) a beautiful experience if not for feminist antisex bigotry. So sad. Clearly the need for secrecy messed with him -- an effect of the feminist sex laws -- but you have to be an idiot to believe that the sexual contact would have been abusive absent society's hatred.

Eivind Berge said...

As there is no hope of improvement any time soon, we can only stand back in shock and horror that society takes such superstition seriously. We haven't progressed at all from belief in black magic or witchcraft except to replace it with sexuality, which is a regression because it degrades something that should have been enjoyed and celebrated. It boggles the mind that "educated" people can literally believe that "sexualization" is causally linked to any later mental issues by whatever voodoo magic mechanism these morons imagine, but that's the 21st century for you, darker than any time in history and no doubt prehistory.

Eivind Berge said...

Right, that special snowflake wouldn't have a sexual thought before 18 without her, would he? Or if he did, they would only appropriately be of a kind that makes HIM a sexual abuser unless he immediately discards them when he turns 18? That's another bizarre switch mandated by political correctness.

Of course, the real sexual problems facing teenage boys are inceldom and porn-induced impotence (as well as easily being turned into "abusers" themselves). Women can save them from both, but are demonized for it by our sick feminist-ruled society.

Anonymous said...

His feelings were toyed with. She didn't seem to take his feelings seriously, and paraded her boyfriend in front of him. That alone is cause for some emotional pain, though wouldn't that be just as likely to have happened with a girl his own age, if not more likely (I would assume a younger girl would be more likely to mess around with a boy's feelings wantonly)? In that case, the feeling of heartbreak and unrequited love would just be seen as "part of growing up", and ideally it should be seen as such even with an older person. However, given the current cultural climate, he has no doubt had the notion that this was abusive, disgusting and wrong constantly re-enforced to him. Add to that the need for secrecy - which likely lead to a feeling of isolation - and it is understandable that this need to "live a lie" caused him sleepless nights.

Yet, instead of pointing fingers at eachother for every marginal instance of inappropriate behavior, would it not be more helpful to critique the cultural climate that makes people feel broken and victimized for even the slightest violation of their personal boundaries? Modern society is only "sex positive" in the sense that only teaching kids about STDs and condoms is "sex education" - it seems to greatly focus on the dangers at the expense of the joys.

Yes, most people will have bad experiences. Yes, you probably will encounter someone that is out to take advantage of you. This is unfortunate, and I truly wish that there were less assholes out there and that people would treat eachother with more respect. However, is this moral panic the answer? It seems only to instill in people a type of fragility, so that even minor incidents of lewd misbehavior cause far greater emotional devastation than they would have in previous eras, when these things simply were not talked about in "decent company" (that sentiment is, of course, a double-edged sword, and I would not wish genuine, serious abuse to be swept under the rug as it sometimes used to be).

To summarize: they wanted to create a culture of sexual respect, but in they end what they created was a culture of sexual fear.

How sterile do things have to get? How much does carnality have to be stripped away from the notion of "normal interactions" before too many people, thirsty for love and touch, finally revolt?

As an aside: regarding the claims made in some of these callout posts that "I do not wish to cancel the person I am calling out" or "I do not wish anything bad to happen to this person, I just want to tell the truth" - Yeah, right! These people must know as well as anyone reading that the person being accused is seen as subhuman to the public after such accusations, even if nothing can really be proven. Even if a sincere apology is offered, it does not matter. Despite what is often said, an apology is seen as nothing more than an admission of guilt, rather than "an opportunity for change and healing". All it does is let the sharks taste blood, and assuage any guilt they may have previously felt about tearing into you.

The career - if not the entire life - of the accused is absolutely, permanently ruined, which to any sane onlooker should be a disproportionate punishment for anything but the most heinous instances. Perhaps, if the public were less ravenous, and more willing to actually forgive and see the good in others, these sorts of callouts could actually have a positive effect for everyone involved. Perhaps a culture of genuine sexual respect could be possible to achieve. The roadmap for how to get from here to there is still blank, though...

Anonymous said...

I wish to add one more thing. On the topic that the "victims" in these cases feel the need for truth: why not talk to the person who you feel slighted by? Unless their actions were beyond the pale, perhaps some understanding could be reached that would help the both of you grow? At worst, why not just talk to your friends about it?

They claim they just want to be able to speak the truth. That's fine, I get it, but why would the general public need to know about the specifics of your sexual life anyway? Is your life "dishonest" if you aren't putting information on your sexual encounters out there for the public to see? Hell, wouldn't doing that be seen as a violation, if you were an older male "kissing and telling" on younger women? I would not be surprised if such a man got charged with a criminal offence in 2020's Norway...

Eivind Berge said...

Well said. I also wonder how much carnality must be stripped away from the notion of "normal interactions" before they get enough sterility and don’t put up with these nauseating denunciations anymore. In all these situations with a minor and adult they blame everything that goes wrong on sex itself, which is comically wrongheaded. There is no such thing as heartbreak or less than criminal wrongs that can be worked out and forgiven because there is only supposed to be cold, clinical sterility. And if someone despite the prohibitions manages to have a sexual relation with only good feelings, then that is wrong too and needs to be changed to the appropriate self-loathing and hate of the “abuser,” so you can’t win. Any “sexualization” can only be abuse by definition and the only times you are even allowed to talk about sexuality with a minor is if you are warning them about disease and abuse -- else it’s “grooming.” It also illegal under the child pornography laws in Norway for example to tell a story like this that's not framed as abuse.

In a sane society, the attitude that should be encouraged to the story just told is that similar heartbreak happens to everyone at one time or another and the age difference is not a material issue here. If anything, he should be grateful for what he got so young. Think of all the boys who get nothing from women or girls at that age and feel completely unrequited. All their frustration is not even supposed to exist and of course they get zero sympathy. This privileging of “abuse” over any other problem is extremely upsetting especially to incels and the reason it can be so lopsided is this ideal of sterility that is a good model of hell.

Eivind Berge said...

Anything to do with minors is the gift that keeps on giving to the antisex bigots, a taboo so successful that it won't stop until all your friends have been purged too and the earth you've walked on scorched and salted. If not grooming or abuse or sexualization then "enticement of minors" and on and on...

"Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's longtime associate, has been charged with enticement of minors."

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Ser ut til at samfunnet har utpekt hvite, middelaldrende menn, som vår fremste trussel. Kan vel ha noe med at vi tradisjonelt har hatt størst suksess med å samle motkreftene til opprør? De har vel lyktes med å pasifisere oss nå, og når sant skal sies er vi jo fritt vilt for politisk korrekte kjerringer, som søker status i venninneflokken. Forresten er den kvinnelige hjerne ferdig utviklet når de er 18, mens den mannlige hjerne ikke er moden før 26 år. Selvsagt fordi det er så viktig for kvinner å ikke velge feil mann til sitt avkom, derfor trengte de å modnes raskere enn menn. Og denne fyren så de vel som en potensielt god partner. Ser ikke bort fra at det er en samstemt hevn fordi de ikke ble valgt, samt at de slik finner bevis for at det ikke var deres vurderingsevner det var noe feil ved, men at de ble manipulert. Sikkert irriterende å være kvinne og finne at man har feilkalkulert, kan forstå det.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

De vet alt om oss nå, hvor vi er, hva vi tenker og hvordan vi har det:

Allen Ginsberg said...

@eivinde berge

This is what I have always said. It's harder to get younger women than older women. Older women are easy, and desperate, because they know they lost it lol. These SJWS don't know anything about romance.

Also, I don't like the antifeminist trying to combine our male sexualist movement with incels. We aren't nerds. Getting girls is easy. We just don't want easy old ladies. Lmao.

And what is going on with him and his obsession with vilifying innocent female teachers? Leave them alone, and start talking about important things mate. You, and eivinde berge are needed in this world. So stop being racist, sexist, and making odd blogs. Get back to the real issue. The real issue being normal men, criminalized for their ordinary sexual desire for teenagers. THEANTIFEMINIST.

Germaine greer, camile paglia, judith levine, they are ON OUR SIDE. Women are awesome, they aren't our ENEMIES.

The age of consent is also sexist against Women, seeing as how teenage girls are considered weak, vulnerable, and in need of protection by big daddy police state. Sorry police state, girls don't need your help, take a hike.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

To nye artikler:

Blir ikke det som foregår nå det motsatte av Viktoriatiden, hvor det da var kvinnelig seksualitet som skulle sykeliggjøres og utryddes, mens det nå dreier seg om mannlig seksualitet? Et Viktoriatiden II med omvendt fortegn.

Kan kampen mot hvithet også rette seg mot kvite, middelaldrende menns seksualitet? Da vi per definisjon er undertrykkere, ikke kun av andre raser, men også av den kvinnelige rase?

Øyvind Holmstad said...

"It’s one thing to decide not to have sex, for reasons of religious scruple, social pressure, or what have you. People have been doing that for thousands of years without suffering any particular ill effects. It’s quite another to be taught from the cradle onward that you have no sexual desires at all, that no healthy and right-thinking woman could ever possibly want to have sex, and that to feel the least twinge of sexual desire was proof positive that you were a vile, corrupt, unnatural creature doomed to live a life of infamy, die a shameful death, and then fry in Hell for all eternity. That’s what Victorian preachers, pundits, and physicians in Britain and America taught women, as part of a package of beliefs that insisted that any other sign of dissatisfaction women might feel toward the lives assigned to them was another bit of evidence that they were sinful, degraded wretches who deserved to get the divine boot in the face forever."

Dette må da være vår tid snudd på hodet, Viktoriatiden II, hvor det nå er menn som ikke skal ha begjær, og da særlig ikke rettet mot kvinner i sin mest fruktbare alder.

Anonymous said...

I thought this clip could help explain the extreme reaction society has to these "abusive power dynamics" situations:

Eivind Berge said...

Good video, thanks. Infantilization is certainly part of it, and fear of complexity. The ultimate simplification is the “minor” who can’t handle sex at all, sex differences are (in theory) simplified out of existence so you get the female sex offender charade, and then there are all sorts of positions and statuses that automatically make (in effect) men abusers and women victims without having to consider the actual complexities involved. There is a sort of handicap principle where everything men work for (including paying women outright) isn’t supposed to count towards getting sex, and for good measure rules out connections that aren’t necessarily dependent on the forbidden supposed advantage either, just poisoned by it so that you need to limit your sexual life to ever smaller pools of potential partners far removed from anything to do with your professional life or social standing etc. (and not much younger) lest you be accused of misconduct.

Stephen Fry is more reasonable than most, but he is still being too nice to the feminists when he doesn’t bring up the hateful elements in antisex bigotry and plain female supremacism where they simply get their way no matter what. If it were just a matter of infantilization and the need for simple categories, it’s hard to believe young girls can literally fall off cliffs without anyone suggesting that it was abusive or at least irresponsible to expose them to such dangers, like that 16-year-old French climber just did. Meanwhile teen girls who decided to "risk" extremely luxurious and well paid escorting are infinitely victims, and there is something much more sinister going on here when this is exploited by the police state to hunt men and women.

theantifeminist said...

"there is something much more sinister going on here when this is exploited by the police state to hunt men and women."

I'm still scratching my head as to why ugly old feminist hags would want to persecute men for chasing young and beautiful women/girls for sex, and impose the victim label on the young women who are benefiting (infinite variety of sex options, money and gifts etc.).

Sometimes I get the feeling that the answer is not just staring us in the face, but repeatedly headbutting us at our autistic failure to notice. Then I change my mind and think a finer analysis is needed.

It doesn't make any sense. I wish Tom would come back and then we might start getting somewhere.

Eivind Berge said...

I agree the sex laws benefit women, and primarily the old hags with most political influence. That’s why I call it feminism. But it still requires a finer analysis why feminism went mainstream, and stays there without men fighting back. It can’t be as simple as “these laws benefit women” because then it would happen in every society or at least every democracy. Maybe it does… but that still doesn’t explain why men are so feckless that we can’t even mount a noticeable opposition. It is as if a few ugly feminists managed to hypnotize the entire population to go along with their hateful agenda and actually internalize it too. It should not be possible to have such a witch-hunt against normal male sexuality as the Epstein saga for example with everyone blathering along with the asinine idea that he is a real sex offender except for a handful of male sexualists and exactly one other that I know of (Richard Stallman) objecting to it. If we better understood how feminists perform this hypnotization, we might be better able to prevent it. And I suspect there is a lot more to it, such as conservative agendas aligning and powerful men being more overtly concerned about their daughters than their own libidos. How do you go from old hags wanting something, to it happening and being enforced by cultural norms taken for granted even by most dissidents? If it were that simple, hunter-gatherers would prevent men from access to teen girls too. A lot more has gone wrong with our society than someone coming up with feminist ideology.

Antisex bigotry is now so extremely entrenched that opposition to it is less common than literal insanity. It is easier to find someone who has been abducted by aliens -- or any other kind of nutcase you can name -- than someone who will profess that Epstein and friends didn't really deserve prosecution. That is the brutal reality we face as male sexualists, not a conspiracy of old hags (which would be laughable) but an entire culture that hates our guts profoundly and sincerely and will gladly consume every last bit of its resources in the effort to destroy us.

Anonymous said...

This may be the worst sex-offender/MeToo hysteria I've seen so far:

Featuring such compelling cases as:

1. A 16 year-old girl going to live in a house with about 20 other pro-gamers/streamers, mostly fairly ugly, socially-awkward young men in their 20s, and being shocked that some of them made moves on her and that most of them seemed to be "just waiting for me to turn 18" (so even obeying the law isn't good enough to avoid "cancellation", that has been made very clear).

Honestly, how coddled are modern girls? It is extremely hard for me to believe that there's anyone who could not see this coming, lest they were an actual, pre-pubescent child. Here's a pro-tip for any girls wanting to do the same, though, either of these should work:

- Date the guy in the house that you like the best. That should keep the others from making any advances (if they aren't genuine, two-timing scumbags).

- Just lie and say you already have a boyfriend, maybe recruit a friend to play the part if needed.

- Announce loudly to everyone in the house that you are not interested in sleeping with, or dating, any of them.

Honestly. how can a girl of that age go to live with over a dozen unrelated men, and not expect anyone to make an attempt? Especially if said men haven't exactly been swimming in female attention up until now? This seems like a complete failure in teaching young people common sense!

2. A 14 year old girl declaring herself a 19 year-old pro-gamer's biggest fan, they exchange some sexts (which she said she didn't mind at the time), and it is very clear from the chatlogs that she's into him... And now, 5-6 years later he gets "cancelled" over this. And of course, he loses all sponsorships, undoubtedly will lose his career (he has a YouTube channel with over 1 million subscribers), and writes that he's a horrible person who doesn't deserve forgiveness, that he will step down and get therapy etc.

What causes such a change of heart over some mutually enjoyed sexual texting? One thing the "victim" explained was how she "understood how wrong it was" once she grew up herself... sounds like the main source of her pain, then, is the culture feeding her a sex-negative, disempowering narrative!

You often see this, with women saying: "I look at kids who are the age that I was when I was sexually involved with an older person, and I am horrified at the thought of entering into a sexual relationship with them!" This seems mainly to be caused by a lack of understanding of the differences in attraction between males and females. An average 19 year old woman probably would not be very interested in a 14 year-old boy (though, bless her if she is!), yet the other way around would be exceedingly common, even if most will not admit it.

Anonymous said...

Is it really that surprising that a 19 year-old, incel-looking male will respond to the advances of a 14 year-old girl? I don't think so, and it certainly does not make him a predator unless he knowingly pushes her boundaries. There really is no reason for anyone to feel any hurt from this scenario, but a sex-negative culture makes the girl feel guilty about what she took part in, then, strongly encouraged by society, she throws her former love-interest under the bus in order to wash her hands clean from the blasphemy of "sexualizing a minor".

That is, at least, the charitable interpretation of the motivation of the accusers. It is of course entirely likely that they are driven by the lust for attention, and the rush of power and relevance they feel from destroying the lives of minor celebrity. I have noticed that the days of "hero worship" really are over. Nowadays people like nothing more than to see stars fall from grace! I suppose we should be thankful the rockstars of the second half of the 1900s did not rise to fame today. Elvis, David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, Motley Crue... how many would have been "cancelled" because they inadvertantly stepped over the boundaries of one of their many groupies, in some drug and drink-fuelled orgy?

Even if 95%+ of their groupies (underaged ones included!) loved getting some "private time" with their favorite idols, all it would take today would be for one girl to feel a slight discomfort over something that happened. That discomfort would then be emphasized by the culture to seem like an unbearable slight against her - she is a victim of abuse and must be set upon the path of healing, which starts by speaking up! Not to mention, the allure of the attention she would get by "exposing" a celebrity in this way...

Is it only me, or does it almost seem like we are being socially engineered to be fragile and overly sensitive about any sexual matter? I would contend that a lack of lust and affectionate touch is a greater threat to our collective wellbeing than these minor cases of inappropriateness. Yet, they drum up fear of the latter problem, which only aggravates the first problem. Inceldom and general sexual-deprivation and touch-starvation may not be as visible as the offenses that fall under the "MeToo" umbrella, but I believe that they are much more insidious than most people would like to believe.

After those tangents, I will bring up the third, most ridiculous case that stuck out to me:

3. A 20 year-old engaging in mildly sexualized flirting with a 16 year-old. No videos, no pictures, not even any detailed descriptions, just flirting! One of the most damning things he said was: "I am jealous of your boyfriend, because he has you." The horror!
As a result of this "revelation", he declared himself a bad person, that he had let everyone down, and that he would stop streaming so that "everyone could feel safe". How absolutely ridiculous! Is this what passes for a "dangerous" person these days? I would feel sorry for him, if I did not feel so disgusted by the way he "bent the knee"! You would think that at least a few of these guys would have some balls? You can treat your accuser respectfully: "Don't you think doing this is a bit much? How about we talk about it, instead?". However, the members of the Twitter hate mob deserve nothing less than to be told to fuck off and get a life! If at least one of these guys did that, I would feel more inclined to sympathy...

It is saying something about how much the Americans have gone off-the-rails when it comes to age-gaps, that the latter case would be seen as a non-issue even in feminist Norway! At worst, it would be seen as "a little creepy". At least that is the case for now, I am not feeling optimistic about the future...

Eivind Berge said...

Minors are the new lepers, aren't they? You can't be too careful since any and all interaction with them can come back and destroy your life, no matter how innocent and mutual it seemed at the time. Or how about we grow some balls and cancel this disgusting sex-phobic cancel culture?

Anonymous said...

Sometimes I hope that American world hegemony totally collapses, to be replaced with China and Russia. At least these guys -- for all their flaws -- don't push anti-sexual toxic memes around the world. Maybe Osama was right: Death to America, the Great Satan.

Milan Horvath said...

I don't know what to write and do not repeat myself.........this just came to my mind after recent wordpress purge...
Problem with dissent is, that effectively countering mainstream propaganda/establishing grassroots movement is very problematic nowadays.
Interesting thing for me is, that in past, people would be outraged if there would be dependent on some geographically/culturally centralised oligopoly of informational sources, now ca.80-90% of informations are coming to them through these channels and it seems nobody doesn't care.
Having most informational/cultural outlets in hands of sick bunch of "modernised" evangelicals and pseudo-left social engineers+SPINELESS OPPORTUNISTS , yet thinking it would not affect our way of living is very naïve.
We could be manipulated into various way of thinking, yet we would not be able to realise it-just everything will be wrong and we won't know why-Maybe it is already happening.
Or maybe... book I am just reading is making me paranoid(Surveillance Valley)......

I found interesting blog in German, however it seems to me that everyone who is disagreeing with present day sexhysteria is some sort of nutter(as theantifeminist once mentioned) so take it with some reservations.
Even though it is sometimes really crazy some points are interesting.

one excerpt:
"In any case, children and adolescents who take the illusion of a liberal and sexually free society for full get a lesson in restraint more and more quickly than should be dear to them! In fact, it is probably the case that the whole brush shop serves excellently to change the sexuality of the white Europoids as much as possible, in such a way that, in addition to the cramping of the relationship between the sexes in general, making contact, choosing a partner and ultimately making reproduction extremely difficult because the whole circus is clearly addressed to them. Whether evangelical-Christian fanaticism and hatred for them the enlightened liberal tradition of Europe is solely responsible,remains questionable at least."

I think I've already mentioned it earlier- It would be very interesting to publish law comparison of last 40 years horizon from western Europe and not only in field of sexual criminal law, but also procedural law, verbal crimes....etc-
People would be very surprised I think- Everytime someone telling me that "we live in most free times ever, I have strong urge to give that person punch in the face"

BTW: Just for fun ...watching old films sometimes and wondering how scenes would be interpreted today. Must admit, that this was not very "kosher" behaviour even then, but I wonder what funny words would be used to describe this today. 20:27-22:30

Eivind Berge said...

Good to hear from you, Milan. I've never taken the power of the media seriously (which was no doubt naive) at least on me personally and especially since we got the Internet, but now I am starting to feel the effects of censorship on myself. With Heretic TOC gone, how do you even hear that point of view without going to a definitely illegal site? The result is I don't hear it at all. It's like most of these purged voices disappeared into a black hole where even fellow dissidents can't see them. Even those who came back in some form, like Roissy, are effectively blacked out. And for the normies whose only exposure to dissident views are the mainstream platforms there will soon be total silence.

I'd like to think there is a big difference between TOC promoting the legalization of actual pedophilia and us pointing out that teenagers aren't children, but I am not sure that distinction is of any consequence to the censors anymore. And they really do manage to keep alternative views out of sight. Yes, it is already happening, with a small exception for this blog for the time being. And only nutters somewhat agreeing with us... that is scary, but on the other hand there must be many out there who agree with us silently because surely media control can't change the minds of mature individuals so fast?

theantifeminist said...

Heretical Press was not taken down by Wordpress. If you look you'll see that the author has set it to private. The reason is he and the aspie 'MAP' community were getting some heat. Seems like re-defining themselves as 'MAPs', and putting men who find 17 year old's attractive in the same pervert boat as those who find 7 year olds attractive, didn't work. As I've said before, I don't understand why anyone would want to 'ally' themselves with such idiotic and clueless people. Tom O'Caroll himself is a very intelligent and undoubtedly brave man, but to say he has 'baggage' is an understatement. He and his type were advocating for the right to bang pre-pubescent boys when the age of consent even in the UK was effectively 14. You could make a case for saying he actually contributed to the backlash against the sexual liberalism of the 60s/70s, as well as turning 'paedophilia' into an identity thing, which of course was a gift for feminists to inflate and turn into a description for normal male sexuality as regards teen girls.

Btw, remember Elon Musk calling the British diver and ex-pat in Thailand a 'pedo'? Well...what a f****** paedocrite!!

Eivind Berge said...

So a 22-year-old woman is a "child bride" too now... well, that fits right in with current trends and Musk can hardly complain when he's made it a point that any old guy he doesn't like is a "pedo."

The message I get when trying to access TOC after it went down is:

" is no longer available.
This blog has been archived or suspended in accordance with our Terms of Service.
For more information and to contact us please read this support document."

Which looks to me like he's suspended against his will rather than made his blog private by choice. If anyone with more knowledge about that sphere can inform us what is really going on, that would be appreciated.

theantifeminist said...

Musk and his wife are maintaining she was 22 when she met him. Others are claiming that the Epstein's girlfriend (Maxwell) introduced her to him when she was 14 as a prospective child bride. It's ironic because Musk made the exact same accusation against the British diver - that he married his wife when she was a childbride.

I doubt if these claims are true, but I did notice that his wife looks extraordinarily young even today, and no doubt she and Musk would like to and are likely trying to look younger (in a similar vein (literally) to other transhumanists such as Musk's former colleague Peter Thiel). So he is no doubt a paedocrite, even if he hasn't done anything illegal.

I must be seeing a cached version of O'Caroll's blog. I don't know if you were ever aware of how infamous he was in the UK. I'm surprised it's taken this long, to be honest.

Meanwhile, the sex hysteria Twitchhunters have found their scapegoat for this week -

Imagine sending a girl 3,000 texts and never even so much as kissing her in the end. And then she accuses you of abuse and you get raped in prison for the next decade? He would have been better off jerking to porn.

Anonymous said...

People being anal raped in prison seems to be one of The Antifeminist's fixations. I don't know in what kind of banana republic he is living, but nobody is going to be raped in West European prisons today. It may of course happen occasionally, but it constitutes the exception rather than the rule, and the perpetrators will most likely be found and prosecuted.

Milan Horvath said...

" media control can't change the minds of mature individuals so fast"

IMO problem is, that this charade is going on for relatively long time- while progressively gradating.

For example: Even before internet, we consumed high percentage of Californian cinematography+other influence,which means that whole generation is already raised on this cultural setting. (not denying other factors, of course)
Maybe I am wrong, but I think that people tend to internalise various nuances, they've seen in films(especially things about they do not have their own strong positions ).
Not to mention active propaganda in news and campaigns.
Even I used to have very different opinions about certain issues before I've started to read more diversive sources(my curiosity was sparked by inadequate reactions of some peers to formerly normal things)

Now it could have much more monstrous dimensions than in past, as technology and thus possibilities have advanced significantly since then.

Seems that banning is probably not worst form of censorship/manipulation.

Interesting interview about it-

BTW: DJ Trashporn is also down(he mentioned it at drakhianlibrary blog).

Anonymous said...

I just realized that Eivind's (or Freud's) concept of sexual egosyntony is useful in determining if a person is or isn't following his best interests in the bedroom - thanks for that.

Eivind Berge said...

A lot of times it is taken for granted that sexual offenders are egodystonic and would want to change on some level. That misses the mark completely with male sexualists. We are at war with society and cannot be "treated."

You could make the case that it is maladaptive to resist social norms even when they have no sensible justification. Would it be better to just ask the feminists "how high" and then adjust our self-image to whatever age they say we can be attracted to in whatever contexts? Those who do certainly have easier lives in many ways ranging from less anger and more friends to lighter punishments when their behavior nonetheless does not match up to feminist norms, because they present as repentant and corrigible.

I say no, but sometimes I wonder a little if all this fruitless activism was worth it.

Milan Horvath said...

"Would it be better to just ask the feminists "how high" "

Also question is, whether their "standard" is stable, or it will be raised every time,they got what they wanted(and I don't mean only higher AOC).......I think, we all know answer for this.

"Those who do certainly have easier lives in many ways ranging from less anger and more friends to lighter punishments when their behavior nonetheless does not match up to feminist norms, because they present as repentant and corrigible."

I see parallel in communist times, when if someone attempted to emigrate, or did some anti-regime activities, was used for propaganda purposes in exchange for lighter punishment.
There were people in TV, lying how there is terrible life in west, and that they would never try to emigrate again because it isn't worth it.

I wonder how world would look like today, without "maladaptive" dissenters from the past. Maybe we'll soon find out.

Eivind Berge said...

Sad news on the female "sex offender" front as the one who started the whole thing at least in my consciousness has died:

Her "rape victim" was with her to the end.

"Mary Kay Letourneau, the Seattle teacher who was convicted in 1997 of raping a 13-year-old student she later married, has died of cancer, her former attorney says. She was 58.

Letourneau died fairly suddenly in her home late Monday, her former attorney David Gehrke told CNN. Most of her family was with her, including Vili Fualaau, her former student and ex-husband who was giving her 24-hour care the last month of her life."

The media was initially noncommittal to declaring this rape and abuse, but now that wording is unequivocal. Do the normies not pick up on the contradiction between what they call these relationships and how they actually play out in real life? Zero complexity to see here, just rape rape rape...

Eivind Berge said...

Not that it should surprise us at this point, but another nonsense “rape” case in France:

“Darmanin was accused of rape and sexual harassment by Sophie Patterson in January 2018. She said he used his position as a member of the judicial committee in 2009 to force her into having sex with him.”

How does that work exactly? I am imagining a sort of Princess Bride speech here: “My name is Gerald Darmanin and I am a member of the judicial committee of France. You must have sex with me.”

Or it's just another on the growing list of lame excuses women now can use to accuse rape. Sex while member of the judiciary committee = rape, just like any other position or social status above the accuser makes it rape. Our advice to young men should be very different now that literally every professional ambition they might have turns them into rapists if they fulfill the ultimate purpose of those ambitions. Be a ne’er-do-well like me instead. You might not attract many women, but at least the ones you get can’t use your career against you in their rape accusations. And for God’s sake never, ever be a teacher or doctor or anything like that which makes you an automatic and eternal “abuser” to everyone you come into contact with without even any accusation needed.

Anonymous said...

It's rape! (according to them)

Eivind Berge said...

It's so bizarre how this lie took hold. We are dealing with a malicious pseudo-religious belief which is supposed to supplant reality and cannot be questioned. It's worse than any kind of religion I am familiar with since the Inquisition. In my culture it's fine to debate the existence of heaven or hell, God and Jesus, but not the mandated cartoon characteristics of "the child," whose only capacity is to be abused, and now "raped" for good measure even when they go through the motions of seeking and enjoying sex and living their whole lives consistent with that having been the case. I am one of the last ones standing pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, in the case of female "offenders" so spectacularly so that I cannot take the liars seriously as human beings. They are mere receptacles of politically correct dogma.

Milan Horvath said...
hmmm.... "interesting" author

Is it only me, or this various mainstream pamphlets(no matter what ideological sticker they officially have) are same shit, different toilet.

Funny thing is, that while there is identity politics war on superficial level, when it comes to things,that are crucial to human freedom and common sense, difference between them is so insignificant.

It seems that we don't have real politics nowadays, only some marketing game that is playing with identity thing, yet internally it is absolutely empty on both sides of political spectre, only aiming to achieve more success by any means, while intensifying social control.

Question whether someone is liberal or not, was reduced to prefabricated opinions on LGBTI,misogyny, racism......

People would be very surprised how liberal politics/ideology looked like 30-40 years ago(at least in Europe) ,what issues and attitudes prevailed there.
What was formerly Woodstock resembles more Disneyland nowadays.
It is also same with conservative politics, when their values were sacrificed for sake of broader spectre of electorate.

I would liken it to business in past times vs. today.
In past,product brand was interconnected with owner, production facility, design line, philosophy of company and brand means nothing-it can be owned by someone that do not own production nor developing facility, no values, no philosophy..... it is only about marketing-or how to persuade people to buy our product, rather than to make our product really better.

If someone here speaks/understands German(or translatorish):

"It was great, until a few years ago the left become reactionary and wanted to introduce a victims hierarchy with identity politics,that you could know too well as a bad son from a better family: these are the new priests who believe that they can convince you of guilt and original sin."

Regarding pseudo-religious beliefs...
I've realised interesting thing(mentioned it already I suppose), that even in case of grievous violent crimes media are not using so much emotional words as they use in case of sexual law breaching.Also this:nobody doubt, everyone agrees....

What is this? There are same manipulative patterns as religions/sects are using,
to strengthen power of their narrative and to deter anyone from questioning it.

Other thing is, ostracisation of natural desires- I am really curious what percentage of people know, that it is scientifically proven, that vast majority of sexually mature males feels attraction towards adolescent females.
It would be interesting to know, what general knowledge there is about these things.

Eivind Berge said...

The Rolling Stone article is even more insidious than I first realized, because it attempts to revise history and make the female sex offender charade an eternal fact. The past is alterable to woke culture while denying that they do. "We have always been at war with Eastasia." They are pretending with a straight face that "rape" is how people normally would think of such relations at the time and the tabloids merely distorted this as opposed to reflecting the truth. Fact is feminist sex-hostility against women was just getting started at the time and the Mary Kay Letourneau story shocked the world for the American justice system taking the hateful laws seriously and hurting this sweet woman. And of course they get it ass-backwards: the real question is not how “child rape” got a temporary pass in the media, but how harmless female sexuality came to be demonized as "child rape"? How is this astonishing misogyny now on display possible? I know the answer is as a byproduct of feminism, but it’s still bizarre.

At least antisex bigotry never managed to brainwash the protagonist herself (or her lover), something even Rolling Stone grudgingly admits:

She spent the last few years of her life working as a legal secretary, cashing in on her notoriety by granting the occasional interview and hosting “Hot for teacher” night at a local bar. She and Fualaau separated in 2019. Apparently, to the end, Letourneau viewed her own narrative through the same lens as the 1990s tabloid media: “The cards were stacked against them, but they managed to have a long-term marriage,” a source close to the family told People after their split. “She still looks at their relationship as this amazing love story.”

Eivind Berge said...

"Is it only me, or this various mainstream pamphlets (no matter what ideological sticker they officially have) are same shit, different toilet."

Absolutely. All the MSM is utter predictable tripe. All you need is the few simple cartoonish rules of "sexual abuse" (where minors etc. can't consent) to construct the same morality tales over and over again. What I don't get is why they NEVER pay any attention to reality? When someone like Vili Fualauu can live his whole life including a long marriage and caring for his "rapist" on her deathbed without letting the "rape" get to him, shouldn't this at least be a data point? No, it is the narrative über alles, a complete allegiance to principles that can't be falsified even though they constantly are. Religion at least has the decency to concern itself with unfalsifiable things like the afterlife or a God we can't see, but feminism insists that our lived experience isn't real and they know better.

Eivind Berge said...

Øyvind, thanks for your highly relevant and insightful comments! They were stuck in moderation but are approved now and published above with dates July 3-4. I think you are a sort of shadow banned by Google to where your comments don't get sent by mail, hence the long delay before I saw them. I will check the moderation queue more often to account for that possibility and am sorry about not doing it sooner.

Eivind Berge said...

When a teenage boy gets a break form his endless streaming hardcore pornography and receives a topless picture form a real woman instead, bringing him a little closer to escaping inceldom and the impotence-inducing evils of masturbation...

The woman is rewarded with two years in prison and lifetime registration by the female sex offender charade:

"(CNN) A former Miss Kentucky who admitted to exchanging explicit photos with a teenager has been sentenced to two years at a West Virginia prison. Ramsey BethAnn Bearse, 29, also was sentenced to 10 years of supervised released and a requirement that she register as a lifetime sex offender, according to the sentencing disposition order filed in Kanawha County Circuit Court. Bearse was arrested in December 2018 and was originally charged with four counts of sending obscene material to a minor. She admitted to police that she sent least four topless photos via Snapchat to a 15-year-old former student of hers while she was employed as a teacher at Andrew Jackson Middle School in Cross Lanes, West Virginia, according a criminal complaint. The boy's parents found the photos on his phone and sent them to the police. The boy was a student at Andrew Jackson from sixth to eighth grade while Bearse was employed there as a teacher during some of that time, according to the criminal complaint."

It's a sick world, but we knew that.

Anonymous said...

Men eftersom det var hans forældre, der gik til politiet og udløste charaden, så kan man konkludere at amerikanerne har de tyranner som de fortjener.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, the parents are no doubt drooling over the lawsuit potential which I am sure the system is ready to hand them now. A few million dollars from the school because your son saw a breast of someone who worked there is only fair, right?

Milan Horvath said...

Yeah, this reminds me, that another significant problem with US is, that you can get pretty rich only by sobbing.
I am not jurist, but I really doubt that there is another law system, where people can sue other people/companies for their own stupidity and then get huge amount of money.
This is one important factor, that co-created situation they (and all their cultural dependencies to some degree) are living.

Anonymous said...

Now this is interesting. This group persists, even when the victims of the sex offenders they are targeting want them to stop: "Flere ofre for overgrep skal også ha meldt ifra om at de synes gruppas oppførsel er svært ubehagelig og de gjennom adferden gjenopplever traumene."

So what excuse do they have? "The potential benefits outweigh the downsides".

Contrary to popular belief, recidivism rates for sexual offenses are relatively low, and most cases of abuse are perpetrated by family/close friends anyway, so a sex-offender registry can at best provide a false sense of security.

What they are actually after, is to feel like "real men": protectors of family and community. However - this being the "enlightened West" in 2020 - they of course have to do this on women's terms. In other words: they need women's permission to act like men. So, they select the only "threat" they're socially allowed to bully, which is creepy white men (I doubt there are many non-Western immigrants on their list of targets. Despite them being overwhelmingly represented in the rape statistics, going after them would get them shut down hard and fast...)

Since they are of course "alpha males" in their own eyes, they can't imagine them living out their juvenile fantasies of being a Batman-like vigilante actually backfiring on them. There is no way any woman would ever accuse them of anything, after all...

Eivind Berge said...

So sad. Instead of a men's movement in Norway we have "Mannegruppa Ottar" sucking up to the feminists and trying to outdo them. They even took their name from the most radical feminists.

And UK pedo hunters also just took it to another level:

Idiots role-playing against each other with no children involved and it ends up as a "child sex offenses" case in court. Of course it is possible that the accused is lying about not believing the pedo hunters at the time, but this raises the question of whether that even matters to the courts? Or are they really taking the hysteria to yet another meta-level where even believing lies is not necessary to be a "child sex offender"? Is it still the crime of "attempting to have sexual communication with a child" to knowingly mess with self-appointed pedophile hunters who are also lying? Sure, why not let the hysteria feed on itself and create ever more absurd crimes out of nothing like this; they already do it with pornography offenses. And in this case I am inclined to sit back and eat popcorn because it's nasty scum on both sides, as The Antifeminist also funnily noted:

And no, I am not going to invite this self-hating buffoon on a guest post, lol, though he does seem to be of the same caliber as Gally.

Eivind Berge said...

Do the police and vigilantes have a monopoly on lies and deception? Why is their prey presumed to be sincere while they get away with lies that, if taken literally, constitute a clear attempt to traffic children for sex as well as sexualizing children if others perform such displays for any other reason? I am hoping this case ends up concluding that it doesn't matter what the accused believed, because that digs the abuse industry further into unfair absurdity and closer to hoisting the vigilantes by the same petard.

Eivind Berge said...

Wow, an honest-to-God instance of antifeminist activism!

However, his stance appears hilariously weak.

"Den Hollander was a self-described anti-feminist lawyer who filed suits alleging that women get special treatment in violation of the Constitution. He also pushed to outlaw ladies' nights at bars and college women's studies programs."

He wanted to ban ladies' night? Ladies' night!? As if that is the real problem... And women's studies, so what? Those trifles were enough for him to get violent, but he couldn't think of any problem with the sex laws???

Eivind Berge said...

I may have been underestimating him; will know after I read his manifesto:

In case that link to his site goes down:

Roy Den Hollander's Evolutionarily Correct Cyclopedia

Eivind Berge said...

Haven’t read all of it yet but can already say it's really good stuff. I don't see ladies' night as a feminazi issue -- just a business decision by the bars, and it's not like women need it to get men to pay for their nights out -- but Roy Den Hollander is about so much more. This is a man who gets it at least as well as Angry Harry. A true MRA, even if his sexualism leaves something to be desired. There is still powerful condemnation against sex laws in there though, especially VAWA and rape shield laws, which he calls slut shield laws. Doesn’t this make your blood boil?

The Arkansas Supreme Court denied an appeal by a man serving a 13-year sentence for rape. The court held that evidence of the victim’s alleged prior false allegations of rape was inadmissible because it was considered sexual conduct within the meaning of the state’s rape shield statute.

A young Wisconsin man was sentenced to eight years in prison for allegedly raping an older female. He was prohibited from revealing that she was currently facing criminal charges of having sex with minors, which meant she had a motivation to lie that the sex she had with him, a minor, was rape. The evidence was deemed related to the female’s sexual history and inadmissible.

In 1997, sportscaster Marv Albert was accused of assault and battery during a sexual encounter with a female with whom he had a 10-year sexual relationship. Albert sought to introduce evidence that his accuser, who had been in a mental hospital six weeks before the alleged assault, had previously made false accusations against men who had left her, as Albert, who was engaged to be married, was planning to do. Albert’s offer of proof was denied, compromising his ability to defend himself. Facing a possible life sentence, he chose to plead guilty to misdemeanor assault.

And he doesn't support the female sex offender charade either, but he believes in something called Feminine Reproduction Fraud (“FRF”) to a greater extent than I do, which I can forgive him for since it’s not the same thing. While he equates paternity fraud to rape (which is reasonable) and thinks maternity fraud is a similar issue as well (I think he goes off his rocker a bit here), he doesn’t fall into the asinine trap of wanting to punish women for sex itself as if that can be an independent violation like the AVfM morons who think men just need more feminism.

Funny quote:

"Why do you only chase young girls?

Nobody wants a flabby over-the-hill female who has spent her adult life demonizing, demeaning, denigrating, and dissing men and will continue to do the same to any man dumb enough to date her.

Whenever I see a mother and her teenage daughter -- I’m not looking at the mother.

There’s no crime in pursuing pretty young ladies, although it’s dangerous because they are at the height of their power over men. Their faces look young and innocent, but their bodies tell a different story.

Are you a pedophile?

Yes, I love to walk. Oh, you mean little girls, aren’t they missing a couple of strategic attributes?

That's the male sexualist spirit, if not activism to change the relevant laws. But the procedural stuff he gets into is important too. And his style is clear and lawyerly; I like the way he structured his manifesto as an encyclopedia where he defines and comments on the key words. This is a great template to get through writer’s block for anyone who wants to write a manifesto.

Anonymous said...

Eivind, I know you like Camille Paglia enough already, but I was listening to this:
and it immediately made me think of this blog. This really does seem like it was taken straight out of your mouth, no?

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, absolutely. When women voluntarily come together with men in a context that can lead to sex, it is freakishly evil to let them prosecute "rape" on such flimsy grounds as they can today, as if they have no clue what they are doing and no responsibility for what brought them into those situations. It is unlimited concept creep in favor of accusers and I've been saying all along that men can't accept it.

Camille Paglia says it as it is too, one of the few "feminists" who agree with us.

Anonymous said...

Just a heads up - I had a debate with a feminist friend about the ridiculously high AOC and that it should be brought back to puberty, 12 or 13. The response was the standard popular feminist point that girls that young don’t understand the consequences of sex.

I replied that just because a younger girl might not know how much she can get out of a weak man because she didn’t have enough life experience does not justify a high age of consent, nor have anything to do with mentally knowing what sex is. The room was quiet and there was a wry smile from my opponent. Use this.

Eivind Berge said...

Good point, thanks. As long as you don't use force or fraud, there is nothing wrong with shopping around for the best deals in relationships as well as business. A man who lucks out with a teen girl shouldn't go to prison any more than female gold diggers or the most accomplished sex workers like Maggie McNeill who charges $400 per hour as she is pushing 60. She is one of the good "feminists" (as opposed to what she calls neofeminists) who doesn't support the age of consent, to be sure, but you can sense her envy of younger girls when she calls the men who go for them "clearly exploitative types":

I had to laugh because she would be the best example at the other side of the table if men wanted to play that game. A girl with a teen body and her marketing mojo could no doubt pull $1000+ an hour, but so what? You have to learn by doing and even if you segregated girls from men until they are 25, they would still be inexperienced and hence "exploited" at first. It never ends and you just have to accept that somewhere out there someone is getting a better deal than you would with perfect experience. I would be banging many more girls in high school and college too if I could do it over knowing what I do now, but life doesn't work like that.

Jack said...

Children are like a wall or a chair. Children can't consent. Take the following scene from family life:

Dad: "Do you want any more mashed potatoes Son?"
Son: "No Dad thanks, I've had enough"
Dad: "Had enough?!! HAD ENOUGH???? Well, let me tell you Son, you are a child and
as such you can't consent. D'you understand? YOU CANNOT CONSENT!"
Son: "Yes dad"
Dad: "So to teach you a lesson, you'll have more mashed potatoes, there! And you'll
eat them whenever you want it or not as long as I tell you because YOU CANNOT
Son: "Yes dad"

(Son stuffing himself, then rolling under the table and vomiting while the father booms "YOU CANNOT CONSENT")

Anonymous said...

On the other hand, children are believed to be able to consent when they are to be groomed by police and therapists into believing that they have been abused, even if they never felt like that.

Anonymous said...

I had an interesting conversation with a young woman recently. When she was 15 she had a fling with a married man twice her age, and he certainly was not the most honest or upfront person about his intentions. To paraphrase what she said: "I realized later that he was kind of an asshole, but the sex was good, so..."

She said that she may have more reason to cry #MeToo than most actual accusers, but that she thought that whole movement had gone too far, and that men were now painted as rapists for "what seems more like bad decisions and regrets on the girls' part".

I dunno, Eivind, perhaps I should show her your blog? lol
She seemed really frustrated about not being able to voice her opinion on these things.

It goes to show that the opinions of people who have experienced these things, can be very different from the opinions we are made to believe that every "survivor" holds. To add another (albeit anecdotal) example of this - I know someone that was drugged, raped and recorded as a young child, and even she thinks that the child porn laws are too draconian.

"Well, why don't we ever hear about this, then? How come no-one else is speaking up?" I often see something like this line uttered as an objection to my claims that I have heard quite a few such stories, and that I have received sympathies for my views in private settings. The reason is quite obvious: even if someone privately agrees that the age of consent is too high/rigid and adult-minor sex is not always damaging, is that really the hill they want to die on? Even those who were the minors themselves in these situations have been "cancelled" for saying that their experiences were positive (Milo Yiannopoulos would be the most high-profile example of this). So, can it be expected for people with no real skin in the game to risk losing their livelihoods and their respectability to defend a cause that they ultimately don't care too much about? No-one wants to be the nail that sticks out, only to be hammered down.

What we need is a powerful enough vanguard to clear the way, and then the masses will come. I wonder if the reason why there is so much focus on "sexualization of children" and "grooming" now, is to make it easy to dismiss those who claim they do not see their experiences as abusive, and thus society does not need to confront its own discomforts regarding child/teen sexuality.

Anonymous said...

It's sad that so many girls and young women get tricked or pressured into sexual situations, yes, but to some degree it is inevitable, and it's not worth it to create a culture that is afraid of its own sexual shadow in a vain effort to prevent it. Not to mention: it is not morally right to throw those who have happy, mutually desired relationships under the bus in order to further this futile struggle.

There will always be men who use underhanded tactics in order to bed young, pretty women, as it's something most men fantasize about a lot but rarely get the opportunity to actually do (especially past a certain age, but now also it seems like more and more young men are becoming more-or-less sexless as well).

I suppose an equivalent situation for a woman would be that of the mistress to a wealthy man, who pokes holes in condoms or lies about being on birth control in order to "baby trap" him. Yes, she'd rather things happen in a more honest way, but such an opportunity may only show up once in a lifetime, so...

Yes, it's a selfish and shitty thing to do, but does it make someone worthy of being considered a criminal monster? In a similar manner: a man who plies a teen girl with alcohol in order to bed her may certainly qualify for the title of "sleazy scumbag", but a rapist?

The example I cooked up about the mistress and the rich man made me think of something funny. Certainly, if feminists were concerned, above all, with power imbalances, why would they not make it illegal to sleep with someone who makes significantly less money than you? Surely, money is one of the most obvious (as well as one of the most easily measurable) forms of power? Perhaps accelerationism is the way to go! I'll bet many would rethink their denunciation of "relationships with a power imbalance" if this was made into a serious proposal...

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks for those comments. Yes, I agree completely: the abuse industry and certainly the rape laws should be for serious, clear-cut types of situations only. We need to acknowledge that sex is inherently risky as well as likely to happen if one flirts and gets drunk in mixed company etc. Some risk is already implicitly accepted by doing these things, and you can't expect men trying to get laid to act completely honestly like it's a fucking business contact. That the law has come to do so is a travesty.

Anonymous said...

The "worst epidemic" is not the coronavirus, apparently:

Eivind Berge said...

I wonder what it would take to surpass pedohysteria then? Never liked Sam Harris. He creeps me out for some reason I couldn't pinpoint and now I know why.

Eivind Berge said...

Earlier in this thread i conjectured that people get nicer with age, and guess what, science agrees:

People become more altruistic as they age, with the reward system in their brain responding more weakly to self-gains and more strongly to to others' gains.

Eivind Berge said...

Thankfully this verdict has been 90% reversed on appeal:

See my comments in here: