Monday, August 10, 2020

Why are empty accusations compelling?

Sexuality has been criminalized and demonized so hard in this feminist age that the vast majority of sexual accusations nowadays are empty. That is, we can grant them complete truth and they are still meaningless. Most often the emptiness is hidden from normie consciousness because people are so brainwashed with antisex bigotry that they don't notice that the allegations merely describe normal sex, but there are times when the charade of emptiness is made explicit at least by defense attorneys.

Male sexualism is the political movement against empty sexual accusations. Unlike the normies, who at most might be concerned with false accusations, we notice and are disturbed by such emptiness all the the time. But let us pause to consider why humans go along with empty accusations?

The root cause of why empty accusations are compelling is because humans need to belong to a group. You go along with with what your group says -- at least outwardly -- or (if they can't punish you into submission) get ejected and die of predation or exposure (unless you can join a new group, which often isn't feasible either unless you are a young woman). It is a rare individual who can survive on his own for more than a few days, so if you aren't planning on conforming to the group, and also don't want to fight or go to prison, death is the only realistic alternative. Of course, there are gradations. If you are reading this, there is still room for some dissent, though this simple little speech act of resistance is increasingly imperiled by purges that have already silenced most of my fellow activists. And a lot of times, there is no need for coercion because people are brainwashed anyway. Other times the accusations are just too darn convenient to go along with even if you understand they are nonsense, because they serve some selfish interest or another, which is perhaps the single most important reason for why empty accusations are compelling.

We can conduct entire wars based on empty accusations, the WMDs of Iraq being a recent example (though you might argue those were false rather than empty; that was a bit unclear at the time). So imagine how defenseless the individual is. It is astonishing how far the authorities are able to stretch the emptiness while getting the dimwitted populace to sing along, these days best exemplified by the witch-hunt against anyone who ever came into contact with Jeffrey Epstein, which has now caught up with Ghislaine Maxwell:
The indictment describes Maxwell's relationship with three victims, identified only as Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-2 and Minor Victim-3.  
Maxwell, along with Epstein, is accused by prosecutors of luring the young girls into their circle, inquiring about their schools and families, taking them to the movies or shopping. After developing a rapport with them, she would allegedly steer the relationship into sexual territory, talking to them about sexual topics or undressing in front of them, followed by encouraging them to give Epstein's massages, during which the girls were fully or partially nude, the indictment says.  
Those massages, some of which Maxwell participated in, according to the indictment, sometimes developed into sexual encounters. In both the indictment of Maxwell and that of Epstein, federal prosecutors described the Epstein's resulting abuse from these encounters, which allegedly included touching a girl's genitals, using a sex toy on them or directing a girl to touch him while he masturbated.  
The indictment alleges that Maxwell participated in "multiple group sexual encounters" with Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida between 1994 and 1997, gave Minor Victim-2 an unsolicited massage in New Mexico in 1996 while the girl was topless and encouraged Minor Victim-3 to give massages to Epstein in London between 1994 and 1995, "knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse [her] during those massages."
The only word that might be other than empty here is "abuse," if it meant something, which it doesn't. It's just more of the same emptiness which here consists of the delusion that minor girls can't decide to be whores. If you are going to believe that, at least be consistent and also deprive them of the ability to be naughty or criminal in other ways. If I enticed one of these glorified sexual victims to rob a bank with me at the same age because I told her we would surely get rich, she would be held responsible as an accomplice and robber. But the certain reward of a little harmless sexual activity isn't something their brains are able to evaluate, so that the enticer then bears all the responsibility and the girls none, in the bizarre worldview of feminism. Or really not so bizarre when you consider how self-serving it is of women and power. The authorities are playing us for fools pretending teenage girls are selectively blind to sexual offers out of proportion to anything else they are considered able to do. Unfortunately, most men are foolish enough to condone these hateful and illogical laws.

And so like they did in Iraq the powers that be keep up the illusion in normie consciousness that they are doing something more than exercising brute force. Even though they started out with empty accusations the words sound solemn and serious and get amplified further in vulgar use. Sexual accusations feed on themselves ad nauseam and keep going not only despite being empty, but even sometimes after they are dropped as well, which is how Assange is still in prison.

The rape accusations against Weinstein were empty, but at least the court blew those off so far and only convicted him of a similarly empty crime -- "third degree rape." In Norway, empty rape accusations tend to lead to first degree rape convictions because the legal definition is more corrupted, which is how they spun the empty accusations against Gaute Drevdal into what is legally treated as real rape.

My advice to you gentlemen is this: don't be afraid of empty accusations. The violent power behind them, yes, that is a different matter, but don't be afraid of the accusations themselves. And how to determine if the accusations are empty is if they refer to something you are egosyntonic about, and you are a reasonably good person. Yes, there are impulses and actions a good person shouldn't condone, but those who act like that are not the target audience of male sexualism, which refers to normal and healthy male sexuality -- not real harmful deviancy and not personally maladaptive crap like masturbation either (to which we can now add occult reasons for why it's unhealthy thanks to this funny post by John Michael Greer). We could turn the tide and perhaps even win the sex war just by showing that we are not afraid of empty accusations, for example by self-registering as sex offenders. That formal step is not required, however; just be proud of who you are, and openly so!


Anonymous said...

Beware the COVID-19... Sorry, I meant: beware the doll!

Eivind Berge said...

A fine example of concept creep. The laws against abuse are so extreme -- and presumably real abuse is so well controlled now -- that people worry about a button on a doll that it takes the perverted mind of a feminist to sexualize. Once they get that sorted (either by stretching current laws some more or making new ones), the pedohysteria will simply move to the next frontier even further removed from the real thing. It is an insatiable monster that can't be appeased.

Meanwhile Ghislaine Maxwell is now jailed without even the right to know who is accusing her!

It occurs to me that it is unlikely that the accusers stopped doing sex work at 17, which means they are criminals too and should beware that the feminist police state might come for them next. Or perhaps they in turn recruited someone else. So they do have reason to hide, and I would be careful talking to prosecutors at all if I were them. Your "victimhood" is only temporary until the antisex bigots can figure out a way to hurt you too, and I bet your "crimes" are already committed.

Anonymous said...

Oh but Eivind you should know better than anyone that a female prostitute is simply a trafficking victim, or an empowered woman practicing her sexuality, while a man who uses a prostitute is a dirty perverted criminal...

The Ghislaine Maxwell case is so deep into the Mossad blackmail program that it's difficult to tell exactly what's happening, why she's even in the US at all, etc. But what is clear is her case is being used as a weapon by the feminist media to demonize men's natural attraction to young teenage girls.

Someone made a comment which coined the term "police grooming" or "therapist grooming" to create a child sex victim. This was an awesome term! Truly the proper definition of "grooming", as it has an evil tone when used in this circumstance. What the courts call "grooming" now is simply happy, normal seduction that they try to demonize.

Police groom child sex victims! Therapists groom child sex victims!

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, that's the feminist party line and Nordic model of prostitution law, but in the US women over 18 are still criminalized for selling sex, with the only exception of regulated brothels in Nevada as far as I know. But sure, they will be offered immunity by prosecutors in exchange for testifying against Ghislaine Maxwell and others, as part of the police grooming, which I agree is a hell of a good word for their hateful agenda unlike the positive seduction that men do.

Holocaust22 said...

"Maxwell, along with Epstein, is accused by prosecutors of luring the young girls into their circle, inquiring about their schools and families, taking them to the movies or shopping."

So they flirted with girls, learned about them, and took them on dates? Wow, sounds so SCARY. Lol.

"Taking them to the movies or shopping." #surprisepikachuface :O

Eivind Berge said...

Exactly. How do people bridge the gap from the harmless acts Epstein and his circle are accused of to the monsters they are made out to be? One way they do it is conspiracy theories about actual slavery and violence, but why doesn't that show up in any of the the criminal accusations if there is any truth to it? As far as I can see, there are ONLY innocent acts in the entire case. But that is enough for this culture to support any and all punishments, because that is how demonized sex has become. All it takes is the slightest sexual tinge along with any technicality the feminist police state cares to dream up (in this case the "minor" delusion), to make it the worst thing ever in the eyes of the people.

Eivind Berge said...

Just when you thought feminism couldn't get any worse because everything to do with sexuality is already criminalized, a new world record for the most bizarrely hysterical sex-hostile law ever is set...

Sex abuse accusers in Victoria, Australia face jail if they publicly identify THEMSELVES 😂

Anonymous said...

For your information:

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, sting operations are an entire category of empty accusations that is just business as usual to lock men up for. It is amazing that such a mainstream article is expressing second thoughts, because I don't expect this to change any time soon.

Wow, not just the concept but scale of it is horrifying:

"As many as two dozen have been rounded up in a single sting and charged with attempted rape of a child, as Jace Hambrick was, even though no actual children were involved. The emails and texts offering sex are written by undercover officers. The 'girls' in the photos are not 13. They are police officers, typically the youngest women on the force."

Also the victims are given conflicting information -- so how come a number like 13 takes precedence over a picture of an adult woman (and other clues to her not really being a young girl) in the lies these men are convicted of believing? The stings aren't even internally consistent, but courts don't care because sexuality is a universal excuse to lock men up for nothing and cops of course only care to entrap as many as possible and are professional liars to that end.

Sometimes I wonder if I have previously been too hateful of cops, but then I think about sting operations and realize that they deserve any and all evil.

Anonymous said...

I think judges are even worse than cops, since they agree to convict people on such a slender basis. In fact, there might be several other reasons why these men agree to meet the supposed "minors", such as simple curiosity or a genuine interest in ascertaining if such "horny minors" actually exist. Nobody can prove that these men had a real intention of engaging in sex, so where is the presumption of innocence? Who can prove that the "mens rea" was not merely a "mens curiosa"?

Jack said...

Did you see what's happening to Ron Jeremy? He now has 30 or so accusations of rape to answer for. I'm more convinced than ever there's a good part of lookism in the of persecution of men. As I said before, poor-looking guys like Weinstein and Woody Allen get a more rougher deal, all things equal, than better-looking celebrities. There's a societal instinct to prevent unworthy men from passing on their genes, something I remember being mentioned in evolutionary psychology. I don't remember where I read it but I did.

Everyone knows that a man born with poor looks will have a hard time getting women. What is less knows is that in fact such a man is not even entitled to get women at all. These things should be taught at school or better, written down in the Constitution.

Eivind Berge said...

It's hard to tell if there is more to it than the generally worse treatment ugly people get everywhere. Someone doing a dissertation in evolutionary psychology might look into that, but we should be focused on changing the laws that we know can hurt any man for his normal sexuality. And once you get accused especially if you are famous, there is a bandwagon effect where more "victims" easily join in because there is so little risk to them of being exposed as a false accuser.

Anonymous said...

operation net nanny - the perfect name for a bunch of conservative feminist faggots enforcing american female hypergamy and male prison abuse.

the claim is always modern society is "sexualizing children" which of course makes no sense - throughout history, girls at puberty were married off, fucked like rabbits, and started families. in reality, there is the least amount of "sexualized children" in all of human history, right now.

the list of things in that article that await a normal man dumb enough to reveal his normal sex drive for mature girls under the feminist "age of consent" is absolutely horrifying. those punishments are at least as backward as socrates being forced to drink hemlock and galileo scheduled for execution. a complete historical aberration.

additionally, the article states many of these draconian laws and permissive societal violence against "sex offenders" came about from completely unrelated, sadistic homosexual pedophile murders from decades ago. try explaining the difference between that and an urge to fuck a horny and willing 13 year old girl to your violent 80IQ cellmate. All he sees is "sex offender" on your papers and a license to kill. would hate to be in america - glad they chose self-destruction from the flu hoax.

Eivind Berge said...

Indeed, do teen girls need a nanny? Do fictitious teen girls need a nanny? Fictitious teen girls who only exist in the imagination of cops and courts for the purposes of entrapping men, most of whom would never come near a real underage girl. And if the point is to catch pedos, how come they don’t at least pretend to select for men interested in prepubescent children, but girls in the last stages of puberty or older who look identical to (and indeed are) policewomen in their 20s? Obviously so they can prey on normal sexuality, both because it is demonized anyway and they would have trouble finding enough victims otherwise. And how come it is acceptable to bait and switch men going about everyday legal activities like trying to hook up with milfs on dating sites into accepting fake offers that would never be found there if the cops weren’t abusing the sites? And even if the men spent their whole lives looking for 13-year-old girls in such places, they would probably still fail to hook up with any…

Imagine if this sort of predatory policing were used for other crimes than the hysterical exception we make for sex. Would society tolerate cops going into stores to plant fake, extra tempting merchandise, encourage customers to steal it and then arrest them? Imagine if you went to the bank to discuss a loan but were redirected into a fake office where a cop talked you into participating in a scam instead? Or the accountant you hired was actually an undercover cop who talks you into committing tax fraud?

In any other context than sex, we see such police methods for the abuse that it is. Thankfully my own country is less tolerant of stings, but when it comes to sex they let vigilantes do that dirty work for them and then harvest the strange fruits here too.

Is there a place for stings? Certainly never when it is entrapment -- when it is the cops who are offering to provide something illegal or enable a crime. I can see a use in extreme cases to catch someone already providing criminal services, such as a hitman on the dark web, but only when it is a real problem (evidenced by otherwise inexplicable murders) and not merely to catch a fantasist who would probably never get any customers or actually carry it out. And even then, the sting should only be used to uncover evidence of actual crimes that otherwise wouldn’t be solved, not form the sole basis of a trial and conviction because a cop dreamt something up.

But you gotta love it when the cops prey on themselves :)

"Sergeant Stephen Utter, 37, with the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office was arrested this month for trying to meet a 14-year-old girl for sex. According to investigators, Utter was made immediately aware of the girl’s age before he began to sexually groom her. Luckily, the 14-year-old girl was a cop and not an actual child." Luckily they were both cops.

Anonymous said...

Your point about having victims to bleed for money and political power is apt. Imagine if the police used a picture of an actual prepubescent 10 year old girl. Very very few men would pursue that.

Eivind Berge said...

In a mildly amusing turn of events towards our side, the antisex bigots are shitting themselves because a movie called "Cuties" apparently dared to deviate from society's hysterical fear of child sexuality. For example:

Movies don't change laws (so what are they whining about?), but kudos for pissing off the morons. And I don't even think the movie intended to be all that sex-positive. Here's a more level-headed review:

There’s a saying in criticism that “depiction does not equal endorsement.” Art should be able to address taboos without necessarily advocating for them, but some surface-level readings miss what the work digs into because it’s not obvious at first glance. In the wake of conservative outrage over an early poster of debut writer/director Maïmouna Doucouré’s “Cuties,” this is a sentiment that bears repeating. The film actively critiques the very thing pearl-clutchers were mad about—the sexualization of children—but Doucouré received death threats. Netflix, the movie’s distributor, issued an apology.

I would have to watch it myself before deciding what it really means.

Anonymous said...

I understand the outrage over Cuties as the girls were slightly pre-pubescent and the movie primes viewers to at least consider actual child sexuality, not the bullshit under 18 feminist version. On the other hand, when considering pre-pubescent sexuality rationally, you realize (and in some cases remember) that 11-year olds are thinking and doing sexual things. I know I was at that age, and certainly wasn't the only one. And I don't regret or feel bad about any of it. My view is correlated with other studies on the topic which show these early experiences are overwhelmingly positive; negative feelings later in life mostly come as a result of victim grooming. With this in mind, the logic of the past makes the most sense - don't encourage the behavior, but if it happens, it's not a big deal. Cuties brings out people's shame about their own past, as a result of their feminist victim grooming. I look at it and go, well it's a bit strange, but what's the problem exactly? Young people are sexual, I know this because I was, as well as many of my friends at that age.

Above is an example of the insane USA male feminist - ultra violent, and ready to relieve his insanity on the first "acceptable" target. Note he makes no distinction between ultra-feminist "statutory rape" and real pedophilia. The feminist politician delivers normal men to this insane monster, using it to maintain power. The USA is a disgusting place.

Eivind Berge said...

No big deal indeed, even if dealing with actual child sexuality rather than the extended fiction which goes up to 18. Firstly it is just a movie, and secondly it depicts kids doing harmless stuff on their own initiative, not being abused. That sort of thing wasn't cracked down on when I was growing up and the laws were not intended to prevent kids from playing. I guess now they play at twerking and taking pictures instead of "playing doctor" like we did but it's essentially the same thing.

Then we got the insane child sexualization law which may or may not apply to this depending on whether the movie's artistic merits are deemed to justify the sexual stuff (I am sure they do in spades since it made it to Netflix despite the hysteria). What we are left with is a sense of outrage at blasphemy against their child asexuality dogma which goes further than even the draconian child pornography laws. It's funny that the outrage is mostly coming from the right this time because leftists aren't usually any better.

Eivind Berge said...

And that was the charitable view of the outrage. You are right it would be more accurate to see it as a drive to unleash their violent insanity on any socially "acceptable" target they can find, especially among right-wing wannabe machos and these ex-con types. Everyone gotta have somebody to define as below them, huh? Even if you are a despicable criminal yourself. By the way, pedophiles aren't really at the bottom of the prison hierarchy. Snitches are at the very bottom, followed by anyone who testified against their friends to get a lighter sentence and probably ex-cops too before you get to the sex offenders -- who in actual fact can mostly be left alone if they don't make these other mistakes.

Anonymous said...

"That man's theories do not suit to a scientific meeting, but rather to a police report" (as stated by professor W.Weygandt at the Congress for German psychiatrists and neurologists in 1910, concerning Freud)

Nowadays, instead, the issue is not "sexualization of children", but rather "desexualization of young people"...

Eivind Berge said...

I agree completely and would add that the desexualization of young people is a sort of dehumanization. Because sexuality is a major part of what we are as humans. Different when young, but still present! If you are going to get it wrong, it is better to exaggerate it like Freud did than assume it doesn't exist at all, because that makes us all poorer and constitutes a crime against humanity.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the global corona scam, the desexualization of feminism, all coming together at once with the goal of dehumanization. Why is the world so evil today? The religious say lack of faith, the conspiracy nerds say Israel, the economists say China, the antifeminists say feminism...

Eivind Berge said...

And the doomsters say it is an energy crisis:

Which is obvious when you zoom out. Feminism is a separate problem though and in fact enabled by energy prosperity. The decline in per capita energy consumption started in 2007, at which point feminism was already firmly established. And on that downslope there will be conflicts over everything no matter what we do because humans will never have it so easy again.

Eivind Berge said...

Look what I found:

Hooray, Heretic TOC is back! At a hopefully more speech-tolerant host than WordPress and with his own domain now.

Eivind Berge said...

More empty accusations leading to conviction in what must be another high-water mark of redefining normal male behavior into sexual offenses:

"The court heard how the first offence took place when Elphicke invited a woman in her early 30s to share a drink with him while his children were asleep and his wife was up country with work - the first time she had been away since the birth of their son.

The woman said Elphicke asked her about bondage and sex, then kissed her and groped her breast before chasing her around his home.

Breaking down in court, she told jurors: 'I was just shocked - really, really shocked.

'He was saying really bizarre things that are embarrassing, like 'I'm a naughty Tory'.

'He was trying to grope me and trying to grab my bum.'

The second complainant said Elphicke also tried to kiss her and then groped her when they met for a drink in Westminster in April 2016."

You read that right: If a woman accepts your invitation to go on a date with you and you do even ridiculously tame sexually suggestive things like saying "I'm naughty" or try to kiss her, she can later have you locked up for "sexual assault." And as usual, if you have had any success in politics or any other status or with younger women, that will be used to further twist you into an abuser.

What did the women (supposedly) expect would happen and what gives them the right to pretend they weren't willingly going into a sexual situation? Which didn't even amount to anything...

Since our sexuality is now indistinguishable from criminality, we are obligate criminals. Men are OBLIGATE CRIMINALS, rather like cats are obligate carnivores, unless you are completely asexual and aromantic. Life then becomes a war with society, of which most men are in denial until they are convicted but at least I am chronicling here on this blog.

On a lighter note, I discovered this theme song of the (opposite of) the female sex offender charade which is oddly not censored yet:

Busted - What I Go To School For (Official Video)

Should be roughly as offensive as "Cuties" except it's schoolboys who are being sexualized -- and in an unapologetically positive way at that! So the humorless antisex bigots might want to get on the case to ensure our cultural heritage is sanitized of these few remaining breaths of fresh air that can still be found out there.

Eivind Berge said...

Meanwhile in the real world, the female sex offender charade reigns supreme:

"Teaching assistant found guilty of sending topless pictures to 15-year-old pupil. Mother-of-three Kandice Barber, 35, is also accused of having sex with the teenage boy in 2018 but she now faces a retrial in January after the jury were discharged."

It boggles the mind that "serious" humans working in the "justice" system and such can be so bizarrely sick in the head as to think it worthwhile to prosecute such a pointless case or to tolerate the resulting injustice of hurting a perfectly harmless woman for being nice to boys. The outside world is just like the song of course, but it's like the justice system is a parallel, insane universe with no understanding of human sexuality except to define it all as abuse. Luckily we only experience that madness when we read about it, enter the courtroom or become one of the poor souls locked up for victimless sex (or are one of us few activists who think about it all the time).

How can "justice" be so profoundly out of whack with real human norms and experiences? We have progressed no farther than when they used to burn witches -- a parallel universe of insanity emerging out of individuals that are usually much nicer and more reasonable individually. Aside from a few certifiable lunatics who engage in vigilantism (and even they only try to entrap men), the antisex madness resides at an emergent level and is thus an artifact of the system we have created rather than humanity itself. That also makes it so hard to correct because no human has the power to do much about it. People worry about artificial intelligence running amok without realizing that it has already happened -- the justice system is precisely such a monster, using humans as cogs for its calculations and commands and which can only be amended incrementally in small and unpredictable ways.

Anonymous said...

The UK is not "real world". It's a joke.

Anonymous said...

Basically, any English-primary country is a cancer upon the Earth. USA, England, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, all worthless to live in as a man. I celebrate their demise.

Anonymous said...

Basically, any English-primary country is a cancer upon the Earth. USA, England, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, all worthless to live in as a man. I celebrate their demise.

A number of us are looking forward to seeing a materialization of the solution set out in the movie "Mars Attacks"...

Anonymous said...

Yo Eivind, you may want to add the following male sexualist blogs to your blogroll:

They're the only ones left on WordPress.

Anonymous said...

The quote below, which is taken from Tom O'Carroll's blog, provides a further argument in support of the hypothesis that the UK is a joke:

As for UK law, the Sexual Offences Act of 2003 moved the law drastically in an anti-sexual direction. Strictly speaking it even made kissing between minors an offence if done for sexual gratification, but I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted solely for kissing a willing partner.

Anonymous said...

No UK-joke, this time:

Eivind Berge said...

They managed to mitigate the female sex offender charade a little bit and turn it into a show trial instead of a real travesty this time? That is good news, but of course it should never have gone to trial or been illegal at all. The travesty of pretending the lucky boy is a "victim" remains and that alone makes my blood boil with hatred against anyone who condones it -- although I shouldn't feel this way because they clearly have no human understanding or consciousness and therefore don't deserve to treated as anything but mindless pests.

Eivind Berge said...

We can think of it in terms of evil, but a handicap is closer to truth. Imagine being so emotionally crippled that you think so much of the sexuality that healthy humans appreciate is just rape and abuse... We should pity them, in addition to doing everything we can to oppose them, of course. The antisex bigots (of this variety that construct "victims" everywhere) are suffering from psychopathy on steroids -- worse than psychopaths because it has just come to light that they aren't as stunted as we thought:

Are psychopaths moral‐psychologically impaired? Reassessing emotion‐theoretical explanations
Rasmus Rosenberg Larsen
First published: 22 September 2020

Eivind Berge said...

New candidate for the most delusionally written female sex offender charade:

She "crept into the child's room," "attacked the child," "targeted him," "assaulted the boy," "performed abusive sex acts" and "raped him" in this "sex attack" after "grooming."

Sounds really horrible, doesn't it? But as far as I can tell, ALL OF IT is constructed because he was 16 when the age of consent in California is 18. It boggles the mind that any "functional" human can concoct all that nonsense out of nothing and vomit it out with a straight face, and then be celebrated for it too, even by what passes for a "men's" perspective in the mainstream...

Eivind Berge said...

Given that she was only sentenced to six months even in the antisex champion state of California, we can be sure that there was no violence involved whatsoever and he was more than willing, which means all those bad words are just another way of saying "age gap." That is literally how demonized it is now, even for women. Also funny that a British newspaper is laying the "rape" terminology on so thick despite that kind of relationship not even being criminalized there, but I guess that's just because the laws haven't caught up with the climate of opinion yet.

Anonymous said...

Actually we can be sure she got the USA pussy pass. If a man did this, he'd be put away for a decade in this joke of a country.

Eivind Berge said...

Another empty "rape" conviction in Norway, even if we take everything the women say at face value -- no allegation of violence or threats whatsoever, just the feminist-normalized excuse to regret sex because they were drunk or the man didn't read their minds for hidden fear.

"Tiltalte uttrykte i retten at han innehar en stor seksuell glupskhet. For ham har det vært helt vanlig å gå ut på byen like før restaurantene og barene stengte. Deretter oppholdte han seg utenfor disse bevertningsstedene kun med det formål å møte kvinner som han kunne ta med seg hjem for å ha sex med.


Tiltalte har bevisst henvendt seg til enslige berusede kvinner utenfor serveringssteder i nærheten av sin bopel, sjarmert dem på en forførerisk omsorgsfull måte og erobret deres anseelse.

Retten oppfattet dette handlingsmønsteret «som utstudert, utspekulert, beregnende og manipulerende».

In other words, any conceivable tactic to increase your chances with women makes you a "rapist" in the judgment of Norwegian courts now, such as going out just before the bars close. LOL, that's what I always did until I quit drinking 12 years ago, and now that alone is criminalizing... Wow, I never expected it could go so far. Apparently you have to be a caricature of a normie who only incidentally gets laid without any PUA tactic or even particular motivation to meet women to escape suspicion, but even then they can regret the few times you get lucky and successfully accuse rape, of course.

Unlike the case against Gaute Drevdal there is no social standing that he supposedly abused either -- just ability to bed women by charm alone after cold approaching them, even in the most traditionally accepted setting for pickup, is enough to make him a rapist by Norwegian law. Our sexuality is criminalized through and through down to every conceivable method and chance to have sex -- I am become criminality and can only stare into an abyss of hatred that was my former society.

At this point, it’s only comical, isn’t it? I mean, too absurd to hate back… They don’t deserve it, because this isn’t a society -- everything has been reduced to a sex oppression machine. Just treat them as the garbage they are and elbow your way to the few remaining pleasures you can have before the persecution catches up with you too, because there is nothing left to save now, no community, no masculinity that isn't criminal, no rights and no moral fellowship because human beings who could partake in these concepts or even remember them don’t exist anymore.

Eivind Berge said...

I left this comment there:

Vi vet fra tidligere dommer for eksempel mot Gaute Drevdal at menn må være livredde for å havne i "tillitsforhold" med kvinner, eller ha høyere sosial status enn dem eller være mer enn noen få år eldre, da dette innebærer kriminalisering av vår seksualitet som "voldtekt." Men nå er altså omdefineringen av maskulinitet til kriminalitet fullendt ved at enhver handling som tar sikte på å øke sjansene for sex, rammes. Det fines ingen lov mot å gå ut på byen på bestemte tider for eksempel rett før stengetid, men hvis det gjøres av strategiske grunner for å øke sjansene for sex med minst mulig stress, så er man altså voldtektsmann. Det kan ikke uttrykkes klarere at ”voldtekt" nå er et tomt begrep som passer alle anklager, og nå som de også har fått fjernet den siste skansen av rettssikkerhet som menn hadde i juryen, er feminismen komplett.

But isn't it ironic that going out to the bars right before closing time to approach women is still way more stressful and wasteful than just meeting them online? If I could do it over again, I would never have bothered with the bars at all (my dumbass should have been inventing Tinder instead twenty years ahead). Every swipe you take online is a "calculated" effort to have sex and therefore makes you a rapist if it succeeds... so the feminist courts still have some catching up to do with the times as they are busy imprisoning these old-school Casanovas while not so much cracking down on online pickup yet at least not on dating sites and apps.

But don't tell the feminists because they will get around to that too, now that they have established that the very intention of having sex is incriminating. It is difficult to imagine how these cuntrags imagine sex can legally happen then -- perhaps by a sort of Brownian motion of people randomly bumping into each other like gas particles? -- but of course there is no need to imagine that because they truly do mean to criminalize everything.

Eivind Berge said...

I am wrong that literally no one shares my values because at least Tom O'Carroll is brilliant as usual:

Best review ever of "Cuties." As he points out, there is absolutely no reason why young sexuality must be paired with bad things, and he goes further to assert that a vulgar aesthetics as in twerking isn't inherently bad either -- it just seems so if you are a snob.

I can totally get behind his message that we should be nice to each other. Which is not the same thing as desexualization, of course; as we know all too well those who think so are most often decidedly not nice.

Eivind Berge said...

Another sad, evil, frustrating travesty in the making, along with some incredibly bizarre "abuse" language in this article although it doesn't quite rise to the last example I cited of the female sex offender charade:

"Teacher and mom, 24, indicted for sex with three teen boys after boy is overheard wondering if he got her pregnant.

The single mom would pick up the boys in her car and bring them back to her house for sex

A Texarkana teacher’s aide is looking at spending up to six decades in prison for allegedly having sex with three teenage boys on separate occasions, The U.S. Sun reports.

Ashlyn Faye Bell was allegedly quite the walking typhoon of sexual abuse over the last year or so. The teacher lured two 17-year-old boys into her clutches and also had sex with a 16-year-old.

Although the age of consent in Texas is 17, it’s illegal for an educator to have sex with a student of any age unless they’re married to each other.

Bell’s run in with the law began after a teacher at her Texarkana school overheard a group of boys gossiping about her supposed pregnancy following sex with her pupils.

Police promptly began investigating when they heard this skuttlebutt from the teacher with the sharp ears."

Yeah, as if 16-17-year-old boys need to be "lured" into having sex with 24-year-old women. But at least it wasn't "rape" this time. I guess we can interpret the comical language as the journalist not really buying into this being a crime at all, but any punishment will still be real and we should take THAT seriously.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Ah, visdom fra Bongards "Det biologiske mennesket". Forunderlig få som har lest denne boka, ser ut til at folk ikke ønsker å vite hvem de er og hvorfor.

Anonymous said...

The constitution should declare that men are entitled to young girls and women regardless of his physical appearance or shape or age.

Anonymous said...

The purpose of desexualization is population control for agenda 21 and 2030 sustainable development goals.

Eivind Berge said...

If you mean men should be entitled to not be prosecuted on the basis of his age or physical appearance compared to young women and teen girls, then I agree. The way you phrased it is open to wrong ideas though.