Monday, October 12, 2020

A damning objection to the persecution of teachers

First, meet the latest victim of this charade, who was turned in by an evil colleague and faces up to 60 years in prison for being nice to boys: "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."

People in our society who pretend to be smart (like the above-mentioned snitch and everyone involved with prosecuting these absurd cases and most of the media) parrot the idea that boys who have sex with female teachers are abused, even if the women are as hot as can be, the boys enjoy every minute of it, brag about it and like that case shows, even are above the age of consent. The age of consent is another absurd legal fiction itself, of course, and often mixed with the teacher abuse charade, but the boys being otherwise legal age helps distill the point I am about to make. If what the legal system claims in these cases were true, then everything positive gained from an education must be similarly poisoned by the fact that the contributor is a teacher or employed at a school. Since presumably there would be no schools if that were believed, what is the basis of this magical exception for sexuality? Does it have a basis that rational humans should accept whatsoever?

Suppose a female teacher gives a male pupil a 100-dollar bill, for example for his birthday. Does it get transubstantiated into something along the lines of theft and robbery because of her position? Suppose said teacher gives boys the pussy that most boys crave. Does it get transmogrified into rape and abuse rather than the joy and luck, pride and joy that they feel? The answer to both these questions should be “obviously not” to the rational person, but since society (or at least the justice system) is suffering from the delusion that female sexuality does indeed work that way, the nature of this supposed transubstantiation needs to be elucidated and society forced to drop the idea if it can’t defend it.

Since sex or gifts aren’t so common, let me generalize to what is. The same should apply to everything experienced or learned at school that appears to be beneficial to you. If you go to the store and do some mental arithmetic to help you decide what you can afford, then you are reliving abuse. You can’t even read this sentence without experiencing the sequelae of abuse! Oh, the horror of daily life when you think about how much is really a function of abuse by your teachers! If we are honest about it, there is no difference between this absurdity and the absurdity of thinking a boy who learned how to please a woman from his teacher is an abuse victim.

Aside from the prima facie absurdity of female sex offenders because we all know sex is a female resource, the most striking omission in the feminist criminalization of such sexuality is the failure to explain this transubstantiation. Somehow we allowed feminists to establish the "teacher = sex abuse" canard without stopping to consider if the sex was bad in the first place, which it obviously isn't with women, certainly not when it is consensual. Perhaps position can make a genuinely bad thing worse (which is why it might be relevant with male abusers, but shouldn’t be an absolute standard there either), but it cannot debase what everyone enjoys and lives their whole life consistent with having enjoyed as in these charming female teacher cases that radiate positivity in every way except the hateful persecution by the state.

I don’t mean to knock religion by using the metaphor of transubstantiation. The ritual magic of the Eucharist has a lot more going for it than the female sex offender charade because although I am sure it fails to effect chemical changes, at least it taps into a feeling of communion with the divine that people can have. But boys do not, on their own, decide that pleasant sexual experiences with women are abuse.

Perhaps the ritual magic of police interrogations and court proceedings, “therapy” and other brainwashing can have that effect in some cases, but if so, it is an industry that only exists to create problems. This is why I call it the nocebo industry, an unambiguous evil that must be abolished.

No, there must be something more according to the feminists, which they have gotten a pass on explaining so far. Enough gullibility, people! The burden is on the feminists to explain why sex doesn’t work like other good things gained from education, with something other than an empty and illogical metaphysical decree. The comments are open if anybody wants to give it a shot, but I am not holding my breath since no one has been able to put forth a good argument in the 20 years I have been at this.

Aside from some defense attorneys, the legal profession selects for psychopaths who are able to replace humanity with the bizarre logic of the law. Imagine the emotional cripple you have to be to think lucky boys like this are "victims" because the law says so. But the justice system should not be allowed to operate in a moral vacuum. We who know better must stop the persecution of sweet innocent female teachers!


1 – 200 of 222   Newer›   Newest»
Eivind Berge said...

Imagine that a "Racial Integrity Act" which prohibited miscegenation could exist just half a century ago:

However, as we know we have plenty of bigoted antisex laws in the present too -- bigotry which is transparent to most people because they buy into it as one did with racism back then.

Perhaps it helps to open people's eyes if we put the current bigotry in similar terms?

Now we have... The Minor Integrity Act... The Student Integrity Act... The Information Integrity Act (to catch those sinister pixels and texts)... The Communications Integrity Act (grooming laws) and on and on. Also it seems the intolerant taboos back then were fairly lightly enforced compared to our draconian bigotry, which helps put into perspective how bad this age really is:

"Richard and Mildred Loving were arrested in their marriage bed only weeks after their wedding in 1958. They pleaded guilty to violating the state's Racial Integrity Act, and avoided one year in jail by agreeing to keep out of the state for 25 years."

Instead of banishment and letting you live differently somewhere else, now the antisex laws follow you around the world. I am surprised, however, that Texas still has a marriage exemption to their criminalization of student-teacher sex. That is quite an anachronism in this age of no exceptions and no forgiveness ever.

Anonymous said...

The marriage exemption proves that it is not a question of "protecting innocent children".

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, an admission that "sex with teacher" isn't an inherently abusive situation right there in the same law. You would think the feminists would scramble to close this loophole, if they cared about logical consistency. But that doesn't seem to be needed and they don't give a damn (unless it would offer an easy way to lock up more people), because the sheeple go along with any hodgepodge of irrational intolerant taboos that the authorities throw at them.

Tal Hartsfeld said...

Societies are but clusters of mala prohibita.
For whatever reasons this phenomenon is a long-standing tradition of all cultures.

holocaust22 said...

"Lured 17 year old boys"

So, she asked them to come over, and they said yeah? Lmao

I love the wording they use. So manipulative.

Eivind Berge said...

News coverage of female sex offenders is the Dysphemisms Olympics. Can be used as an insult too, because only dimwits would want to engage in this sport. That is if they understand what "dysphemism" means, so maybe we have to explain it to them. The opposite of a euphemism: find the worst possible words, for in this case something normal people can't even conceptualize as a bad thing, and indeed consider some of the sweetest experiences imaginable. No other subject has such an extreme contrast between description and reality. Yes, an invitation becomes "luring," any sexual talk becomes "grooming" and when the boys eagerly comply (or probably more often do the seduction themselves, which earns the same words), it is "abuse, assault, rape rape rape rape rape" or in this case the gold medal goes to the "walking typhoon of sexual abuse," which is at least funny although it does nothing to end the travesty.

And of course, dysphemism is the rule for male sex offenders as well, even if it doesn't reach the level of an Olympic sport all the time like it does for women.

Eivind Berge said...

Of interest: From hate speech to sex speech, Amos Yee now has the distinction of being persecuted by the intolerance of two cultures.

"Yee - who was jailed in Singapore in 2015 and 2016 for hate speech against both Christians and Muslims - allegedly exchanged nude photographs and “thousands” of messages with a 14-year-old Texas girl while living in Chicago, the newspaper wrote on Friday (Oct 16).... After their relationship soured, the girl reached out to a group “interested in exposing pedophiles” and Homeland Security officials were notified, the report cited the prosecutors as saying."

AnjaG said...

That is just not fair. Everybody is getting pussy except you Eivind. So how is your plan on passing on your genes going? I was really sad to see that you had resorted to creating a donor site to be able to do what the rest of us do on Tinder. I just dont understand how it all went wrong. We all expected so much from you. Such a waste of an immense talent.

Eivind Berge said...

You have no idea how much pussy I am getting on Tinder. The problem is they all use contraception so far. is more focused on fertility and also a better site than Tinder set to outcompete it at least for this purpose. It is good to have a business as well as pussy and I am extremely proud of making it.

holocaust22 said...

Unbelievable. I only just heard about amos yee getting arrested. This is truly tragic. The poor fucking guy. Man, I'm sad.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, it is sad and horrifying. Just for talking to a 14-year-old girl whom he never met, and not that it should matter, but while being almost as young himself too. You know he did nothing bad when the only accusation is the communication was sexualized, but that's the sick society we live in. A million-dollar bail and likely sentence ridiculously far exceeding what he fled from. According to the article he spent a total of ten weeks in jail in Singapore and was fined 2000 S$ -- well, now he is about to discover what real oppression means. As much as I pity him, I have to wonder what he was thinking pushing the most hysterical hot-button of his new society. Doing so as a non-citizen takes a special kind of chutzpah that only Amos Yee had -- too brave for his own good. I will be extremely impressed if he now keeps up his politics and doesn't fake contrition and take a plea like so many men confronted with the brutal violence of the antisex police state.

Anonymous said...

Skal kællingen ikke selv arresteres? Det var jo hende, der sendte billederne til Amos via internettet.

Eivind Berge said...

They have done that sort of thing in the past -- persecuting teen girls for sending pictures of themselves -- but I think the feminists figured out that they get more mileage out of their antisex laws when they leave the "victims" alone. Especially when they are so useful as accusers.

theantifeminist said...

"Doing so as a non-citizen takes a special kind of chutzpah that only Amos Yee had -- too brave for his own good."

Amos Yee, and many like him clearly have hardcore aspergers. To be brave requires you to be aware of the consequences of sticking your head above the parapet and standing firm against oppression. This is a guy who very publicly supports sex with children (real children) and is then literally surprised when he gets recognised and beaten up in a shopping center, or arrested when he engages in illegal activity (see below). And to top it all, even after this, his aspie brain still probably supports #MeToo and calls himself a feminist. But carry on having these people as your only 'allies'.

According to news reports I've just looked at, he exchanged nude pictures with the girl and asked her to change her age on her WhatsApp. What kind of aspie would do that, a resident of the USA, when he's just about the most famous 'paedophile advocate' (a real one) in the world? Although, apparently it took a falling out between the two for the girl to report him (again, the aspie is probably still a feminist and sees all teenage girls and women as sugar and spice and all things nice, even when he's getting his ass repeatedly raped in an American jail because of their inhuman spite and jealousy).

Eivind Berge said...

If we are going to moralize, it needs to be said that Amos Yee's biggest mistake was masturbation. If he had been a nofapper like male sexualism recommends and saved the nudity for real life, he would not have been too feckless to meet the girl, so although he still might be going to prison, at least he would have gotten some real value out of it instead of this bizarre irony of being persecuted for harming and impeding his own sexuality. Also the age gap of somewhere between 3-6 years might actually be small enough to save him from prosecution for real sex. Perhaps he thought it would save him from the "child porn" charge as well and it wasn't being an "aspie" that made him surprised?

Advocating for real pedophilia does of course have a host of problems associated with it and I never agreed with everything he said, but if he were a pedophile, this girl would have been too old for him. You will note that his enemies call it pedophilia all the same and your attempt to distance yourself from him as an ally is a fool's errand. We have no other allies, man.

Eivind Berge said...

Rape prosecutions in the UK are at an all-time low, we are told -- or more plausibly, false and empty accusations are at an all-time high, so the feminist police state gets even more desperate at corrupting justice:

"Rape case prosecutors must discount sext messages"

Apparently the rise of technology offers proof that accusers are lying at such an early stage that more cases are dropped than before, so the feminist reaction to this is predictable: "suppress the evidence!"

Eivind Berge said...

Meanwhile of course, sext messages are proof that the recipient is a criminal just for receiving them in cases like Amos Yee's. A funny contradiction here between claiming that "sending explicit photos or videos is part of everyday life" for girls and no indication that they want sex -- except if they are underage, then they are horribly sexualized and good to go so we need to lock up the men before they can even meet. How can sexual communication be both meaningless and so profoundly meaningful at the same time? It means everything when the state wants to punish and nothing when the man tries to prove the girl was willing. In no case are women responsible for their behavior, except of course when THEY can be made out to be abusers by the antisex police state. The system is designed to maximize punishment above all, applying contradictory principles whenever that is advantageous. In the US it is even designed to bypass the stage of determining guilt as often as possible by coercing a plea bargain (that way they can punish A LOT more innocent people), and it will be very interesting to see how Amos Yee responds to that.

Anybody know if he can afford the million-dollar bail so he at least can be free until trial? If not, is there an effort to raise this money or did the MAP community let him down when it counts? If he were a male sexualist and not this more peripheral ally (who even supported #MeToo, as theantifeminist noted), I would feel obliged to help out myself.

Anonymous said...

Amos Yee is done, probably for at least a decade. The left wing and right wing feminists have been waiting to crucify him, and he gave them everything they need to do it easily. When will people learn that your 'cell phone' is an evidence collection device for the government? Treat your cell phone at all times as if it will appear before a judge someday.

To do what he did in the USA is so utterly insane it defies logic. He will not be a hero, he will be forgotten as he sits behind bars, if he is not outright killed in prison. I admire his honesty and advocacy, even if I think his position is too extreme. However, if you are planning on doing advocacy similar to what Amos did (which is great), do it from outside the USA and treat your cell phone as an evidence collection device for the government.

Also, none of this is legal advice, just practical every day life stuff.

Eivind Berge said...

Agreed. And be a nofapper so you never run into any porn charges (and all the other problems with masturbation), but if you must exchange nudes with underage girls, use Wickr.

Anonymous said...


Wickr is based in the USA, which means everything is available for use against you. It does not "expire", it is all backed up.

Never mention anything sexual ever if you are talking with a girl on a digital device. This also applies to all ages young and old.

The vast majority of sex-based "crimes" are proven with digital evidence of sex talk or sex photos. And Never talk to the police.

Eivind Berge said...

You may be right, but there are no public examples of Wickr being compromised or security experts who can point to a flaw (as far as I know). Even if true, they are not going to (openly) use Wickr as evidence in court and thus let the whole world know Wickr is lying when they say they don't have your username or IP or messages, just to catch you talking to a girl. At least not unless they can arrest thousands of "pedophiles" at the same time -- or possibly this cover might even be worth bigger fish than "sex offenders" -- though it is doubtful that a higher priority exists, I know.

theantifeminist said...

When I started blogging in 2008, I realized that I would never be able to do anything vaguely illegal for the rest of my life (not that I was breaking even femihag laws before then). For somebody like Amos Yee, it would apply 100x (although it is surprising he wasn't being watched closely, it appears). Apart from muddying the waters as regards the distinction between real paedophilia and feminist inflated definitions of paedophilia and child abuse, you surely have to wonder if such clueless aspies have any value as 'allies', rather than simply being millstones around our neck.

Eivind's 'no-fap' stance might be useful as a 'noble lie' when it comes to building a movement of young activists. We need activists who can avoid falling foul of femihag laws and so be unafraid to put themselves above the parapet. However, given the fact that an ever growing majority of sex offenders in prison or on the register are there because of femihag anti-porn laws, and that our movement is supposed to be about fighting the criminlization of men as sex offenders by feminists, then it's the height of stupidity - in my opinion - to adopt such a dogmatic stance.

Not to mention that NoFap is based on feminist junk science, and that when Eivind says - 'become a NoFapper to avoid being put in jail by feminists', then he's submitting to feminism and their agenda. Yes - feminists are passing these vaguely defined 'child porn' and 'rape porn, revenge porn' etc. laws in order to deter men from looking at any porn, because it's so risky to do so.

Eivind Berge said...

It's not a "noble lie" -- nofap is what leads to sexual fulfillment. When are you going to realize that feminists don't care about your virility or success with girls other than to criminalize it? They may be deluded about the effects of porn and value of masturbation (like you), but they do not have your best interests at heart and it is thus not a "feminist" position to pick the best path for men who want to maximize pussy in their lives and just as important, the intensity of enjoyment of sex, intimacy and love. It only incidentally helps against sex crime persecution because the first and only "crime" a nofapper will commit is intercourse (and possibly grooming, but at least without explicit photos).

Eivind Berge said...

Criminal or not, don’t you see that Amos Yee exemplifies the opposite of healthy male sexuality? Exchanging thousands of messages with a girl without meeting her if you can is pathological asexuality (and trust me, you can, because why else would she be talking to you for that long?). The irony is rich that the system pretends what he did is to sexualize the girl while in fact it does the opposite. It is nofap/noporn that is the ultimate sexualization of both you and your partners because it ensures that an everyday image or glance at a girl is just as sexual and arousing as hardcore porn is to the porn addict -- or actually much more so because he isn’t capable of feeling the depths of desire that we nofappers do. And needless to say, we make a move to meet for sex as soon as possible instead of asking for nudes and the other wasteful nonsense that wankers do. The other commenter above is right that most “sex crimes” happening now are proven with digital evidence of sex talk or sex photos -- most often linked to masturbation and way overdone if the goal was to meet the girl (probably serves to annoy her more than anything, making a date less likely to happen). This kind of evidence is usually what the cops go for because it’s so conveniently accessible on a device right there on everyone they arrest, and the irony is bizarre because they catch the least sexual men that way, who actually desexualize girls in their minds when they build up tolerance to porn and are too feckless to meet them in person most of the time -- and if that should happen they are probably impotent too.

The way criminalization is going, with all our sexuality now synonymous with criminality, at the end of the day perhaps the only consolation male sexualism can offer to young men is that they at least had sex before the feminist police state destroys their lives. And Amos Yee didn’t even have that by the looks of it. You have absolutely nothing to offer men when you don’t at least instill the value that we don’t engage in asexual crime. Imagine being put away for decades after not even touching a girl -- when you could have chosen the sexualist path and probably not even been arrested because the cops are too lazy to investigate real sex.

You accuse me of following “junk science” as if I looked at brain scans and went “OMG porn use looks like an addiction, we gotta quit!” No, that would be just as retarded as letting the science lead you into masturbation because you can't think for yourself. It doesn’t matter what the brain scans look like (and much of that is indeed junk science), because nofap is just as obviously good for your sexual life as a parachute is good to have when jumping from an airplane. I am sure you can scan the brain of a corpse splashed on the ground to find some still “normal” parameter to prove you don't need a parachute, and that would be analogous to you claiming porn/masturbation is a good thing based on whatever science you don't consider junk science. Sure, one can be selective like that to prove whatever, but humans must live by values or you will fall for anything and be a sitting duck to any tyrannical agenda like feminism. The opportunity cost of wanking to thousands of porn pics versus putting in the effort to meet girls is staring you in the face so starkly that only a deranged value system can make you support masturbation -- like not valuing life. You simply don’t value sex anywhere near as much as you should if you wanted to promote something worthy of the name male sexualism. You can start a fapping monastic order, but that's all your philosophy is good for.

theantifeminist said...

So why do you even mention sexting and porn cases like these, as you often have if they are unrelated to male sexuality? OK, in this case, it's interesting because of Amos Yee being somebody you declared an ally, but for over a decade you've spent a lot of time raging against feminists and porn laws, and I and many others thought it was one reason you hated pigs for enforcing such laws.

You could use similar logic to your obsession with white knighting middle-aged frump teachers who have sex with young boys. Many of these women are not just post-wall, but close to being post-menopausal. As I pointed out at my blog, these 40 year old teachers aren't fucking the shy incels, as you seems to like to imagine, but the 14 year old chads. So they're likely using their authority and power to get the semen of these young alpha boys, when those boys should be banging the hottest 14 year old chicks in class (and the only time in their lives they can legally). It's almost as bad (by your logic) of forcing them to masturbate instead of have sex with their peers.

What do you think of a c**t bag like Ulrika Jonnson? I don't know if you're familiar with her in Norway - she's a Swedish born tv presenter who got famous in the UK when she was young. She falsely accused (or rather damned him with silence) and destroyed the career of a fellow male presenter (Jon Leslie) with a rape allegation. Since then, he's been falsely accused by two other women. This crazy c**t has been posting naked selfies of her hag body and face on Instagram, including the day that Jon Leslie was cleared this week. Now according to you, if I say I would prefer to live in a world in which it was legal for me to choose to masturbate over nude pics of teenage HB10 Russian girls rather than chase hags like her for sex, then I'm not human, let alone a male sexualist. I'm a zombie, not really a conscious human being at all.

Hell, you'd even say that (presumably) if we lived in a world in which matrix style tactile virtual reality porn was possible. It wouldn't be 'real', so it's not sex. You probably (or at least should) support Ulrika in going without makeup, because that's more 'real'. You should also want to smell her body odour too, because that's 'natural'.

No thanks Eivind - I'd prefer to be a zombie. Most men aren't as thirsty as you.

Eivind Berge said...

It isn't unrelated. There is a fuzzy line between illegal porn or grooming or solicitation or enticing a minor or “corrupting the public morals” like TOC was convicted of; all the other categories being obvious sexualist issues. My definition of porn is what’s used for wanking, and that may not always agree with the state’s definition. For example they have been known to prosecute what we consider art or just random pictures laying around or received without much thought or cartoons or texts including fiction and even chats with other men about sexual interests. And then there is the general libertarian and free-speech angle which of course makes anti-porn laws anathema.

It is possible to have two ideas in one’s head at the same time. Porn can be both bad for you and anti-porn laws can be bad. I reserve the right to mention any of this. Where I draw the line is making the right to masturbate to porn a male sexualist issue like you do, because it is the opposite, degrading the sexuality of the men who do it and desexualizing the women in their life. But it is a personal matter that the law should stay out of, OF COURSE. That said, it would be very bad for male sexuality if the cops understood how stupid it is to hunt pornography but still spent as much resources on antisex. That would be a horrible nightmare indeed. It is better that cops hurt men who hurt themselves than men who help themselves to pussy, so in that sense, the porn laws are last on my list of sex laws to campaign against.

There is a philosophical chasm between fighting for the right to have sex and the right to retreat into a fantasy world. I cannot believe you find value in the latter, and as I have said previously it is probably best that we lead separate movements, though we can still largely be allies of course.

Eivind Berge said...

It has reached the point where they make a "pedo" scandal out of 24-year-old girl now:

And so Borat gets on the antisex bandwagon thinking he is funny when in fact the premise that there is anything wrong with being with 15-year-old girls makes him a bigot in the eyes of real men. Giuliani is also a shameful moron for playing along with the idea that he no has to defend himself from the implication that it would be inappropriate.

Eivind Berge said...

I had never heard of Ulrika Jonsson, but yeah I see she is despicable for redefining a normal date to "rape," though not as bad as those who take the same sort of regrets to the police and get away with having men convicted, which is literally happening now. Seems she realized that would be taking it too far and she was content with using these empty allegation to be in the "rape victim" club of feminists with the publicity that entails. Empty of a name too and how John Leslie still got framed for it is bizarre.

Good to see John Leslie got cleared, but what a sad string of false accusations which goes to show the perils of just being famous when the system is eager to prosecute anything sexual. There will always be come cunt out there who thinks she can get away with accusing you, if you are famous enough, and then it's only a matter of time for that to happen. Shame on the British "justice" system for letting an accusation of groping a breast 12 years ago go to trial. That sort of "sexual assault" should have a statute of limitations of a year or two at most, and usually it shouldn't be taken seriously at all because the woman got herself into a situation where she should be expecting it. Also shame on Britain for hiding the accusers and shame on John Leslie for supporting this and even wanting anonymity for the accused. That is a horrible nightmare of injustice and one of the few ways left to make the situation even worse, as then it will be a normal thing for men to simply disappear into a black hole that is the feminist police and prison system with no explanation -- I shudder at the horror of that and can't believe these naive men would trust the police with the power to arrest them anonymously.

Eivind Berge said...

Wow! Geoffrey Klempner, whom I blogged about earlier in my metaphysical interlude post, made some more videos and even wrote a book on the ultimate question, “I might not have existed, but someone exactly like me might have existed in my place”:

He gives some credit to me as well as the only other human in the history of the universe besides Klempner who gets what the ultimate question is really about. That is some high praise and I didn't know I was so special, but I too am struck by the lack of serious consideration of this question by other philosophers.

He doesn't want to join our movement though because he has no desire for women anymore :(

Eivind Berge said...

Meanwhile The Antifeminist wrote a post demonstrating the exact opposite, a failure to get anywhere near The Ultimate Question:

"Eivind seems to be lacking in even a basic education in philosophy, for otherwise he would know that all of our sense perceptions ultimately are just neurons firing in the brain."

Among other silly statements that are probably too dumb to address... but this one is in line with the physicalist, materialist, illusionist worldview that a lot of educated people do accept. I think there is a strong possibility it is false, however, and shall see if I can formulate what is wrong with it more clearly.

For now I will just say that even if the metaphysical theory of physicalism is correct -- and it is a metaphysical theory even if it is the dominant one -- and we are nothing but patters of matter and energy, then porn/masturbation is still worthless because it doesn't involve a connection with another mind.

Either I lack even a basic education in philosophy or I rank second in philosophical insight ever, LOL! That is quite a contrast for one day :)

Anonymous said...

Curbing masturbation leads to a better immune system, more energy, and therefore a happier disposition, all of which helps the chances of getting laid. However, nofap's direct effects on obtaining real sex are negligible because so much depends on the mindset of the female. You can have cum coming out of your eyes and be Don Juan at the same time, but if the girl you're talking to is in a different mood (99% of the time), it won't make any difference how you feel or what you say. And on the flip side, you can beat your noodle 80x a day and have low testosterone, and still if you find a girl in the right mood, all you need to do is confidently approach to get sex.

So the verdict is, masturbation comes in handy to blow off steam every once in a while, especially so you don't make a mistake and end up giving a feminist bad feelings, which as we know can result in ruin from the feminist system we live in. The less you masturbate the better your health, but there is a point where frustration gets to be a hindrance and the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.

Eivind Berge said...

You are ignoring opportunity cost, man! Totally neglecting how the time and drive lost to masturbation would have translated into more approaches and more sex for all but the most hopeless incels. And then there is the erectile dysfunction, social anxiety and other problems, but in a word, opportunity cost is the central issue, which is an invisible cost that you better put into the equation if you are going to make sense.

Anonymous said...

How far gone am I when reading this, rather than saddens or angers me, instead excites and motivates me? Feels like validation for my hatred and spiritual rejection of society! Perhaps there is something to be said for accelerationism? For the frenzy to reach such a fever pitch that hardly anyone can avoid getting burned by it?

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, of course we gotta keep increasing those punishments to satisfy the bloodlust, which is never satisfied: getting what they want is just a springboard for the next reform. There is no reason Norway should be exempt. We burnt witches in the last witch-hunt and will do it again this time around. There are enough monsters willing to do it already in power. I am hoping for something to break and give them real problems instead, perhaps related to the second wave of the pandemic or the economic consequences, but so far they aren't even looking away from the goal of burning or castrating us all.

Jack said...

Eivind, I sympathise with your raging against Society. Fact is, Societies will either contrive to kill 40% of their men through wars, or they will try to put 40% of their men in jail through sex, drug or blasphemy laws (victimless crime). The fact that they exceptionally also put the odd female behind bars like in these hot teacher cases is a red herring. The emphasis of male-entrapment laws may change every half century but their purpose is the same. Isn't that because too many males are born compared to the percentage of beddable females at any given time? That's what mother nature wants us male to be you know, killers of other males. Sad but true.

Even with a level-field, whithout such sex, drug or blasphemy laws, the shortage of beddable females would leave men like you and me high and dry. In the end, Societies are a free-for-all where the young and strong (or the young and beautiful) get everything while the normal folk like you and me are left holding the short en of the stick.

So relax, we're just killing time.

I hate Society most these days for interdicting access to suicide drugs. Knowing I can off myself at the drop of a hat without pain would do me a lot of good.

Anonymous said...

A few points on masturbation:

1. I don’t look at porn to fap. I just fantasize.

2. Masturbation doesn’t reduce my sex drive. If anything, it increases it over time.

3. If I abstain for too long, eventually I become too distracted to sleep. And I don’t have nocturnal emissions. I just wake up instead.

Not masturbating at all isn’t really an option for me.

Eivind Berge said...

Why don't you have sex? To me it is obvious that masturbation has screwed up your sex drive, because it is a normalized situation to you. Making it bearable not to have sex is self-sabotage. You are messed up to the pint that sex doesn't even occur to you when it should be the most obvious (and only!) solution to insomnia or whatever celibacy does to you.

Jack said...

The real question is not whether it is better to wank to porn than to have sex (in absolute terms it isn't). The real question is whether it is not better to wank to porn than to settle for sex with average women. These are the terms of the sexual conundrum for most men.

Put it another way: if a "compulsive wanker" could have those porn actresses pop out of the TV-screen into his bedroom, would he switch to real sex? I think he would.

Telling a man to stop watching porn and to go into the street to seek sex with whatever women are available to him is like telling a man to stop watching movies about adventures in the rain forest and instead go to the park to have real-life encounters with ducks and swans and the odd poodle on a leash.

Eivind Berge said...

You are showing a frightening normalization of masturbation, Jack. That's the attitude that leads to childlessness and misery.

There is not even anything wrong with average women, not if they are fairly young. The average 20-year-old woman is super hot and the average teen girl is a goddess.

Eivind Berge said...

Condolences to the Americans. Trump was bad, taking feminism to new extremes when he signed FOSTA, but Biden isn't any better, is he?

Anonymous said...

For those of us who see that the only solution is to dismantle (if not eradicate) the Feminist Empire, i.e., the USA, the election of Biden is excellent news. He will accelerate America's descent into absolute madness -- in several different ways -- and thereby hasten its demise. If he manages to introduce sex-crime laws more draconian than Trump's, if he transforms the current regime into an even more Orwellian version of itself in terms of its oppression and pathologization of men and male sexuality, that would be splendid indeed.

Let the Beast implode.

Anonymous said...

Splendid if you were outside the USA while it imploded, and splendid if Biden would be ushering in the end only to the USA. But unfortunately, Biden is ushering in the end of freedom of all Western humanity, because he is sponsored by World Economic Forum globalists, who wish to desexualize the entire world and impose strict Communism. This is worse than Trump, who would work against these forces from the WEF, which would at least leave the option of living outside the USA in better conditions.

Holocaust22 said...

@theantifeminist Judith levine, the feminist that wrote the book harmful to minors, and called for the age of consent to be lowered to 12, is back at it again with another book. "The feminist and the sex offender". Defending men on the sex offender registry, attacking what she calls "carceral feminism" and once again defending the rights of teenage girls to choose who they want to be in a relationship with.

Hey theantifeminist, why doesn't your hero donald trump, or the alt right people you follow, ever write books defending men on the sex offender registry, and calling for the age of consent to be lowered? Seems like the feminists you hate so much are the only ones doing it. Judith levine, calling for the age of consent to be 12. Camille paglia, calling for the age of consent to be 14 on national television. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the feminist judge in the american supreme court, calling for the age of consent to be lowered to 12. Allen ginsberg, leftist socialist hippie, railed against the age of consent until he died. Germaine greer, etc etc. Seems like we got all the cool people on the left.

Are you finding much support in your far right conservative circles with this topic? I'm still waiting for alex jones next book "STOP TURNING THE FROGS GAY. REPEAL THE REGISTRY!"

Eivind Berge said...

Absolutely true. The far right has not only left us true MRAs and male sexualists behind, but gotten worse than many feminists. Their xenophobia alone is enough to ensure that they will never oppose a sex law, because they are too invested in labeling immigrants as sex offenders. And they don't seem to have much of a libido either, not enough to care that the same laws apply to them too.

Eivind Berge said...

Klempner made another video about the ultimate question, aka the idiotic conundrum of why am *I* here rather than someone else just like me, titled "Living in the Dark":

A fair warning. You don’t want to end up obsessing over this anywhere near as much as he has done. It has ruined his life to the point that he thinks everything else is “distractions.” It even made him uninterested in sex and sexualism. Though he gives us male sexualists a mention, it is only to lament the complete lack of acknowledgment of the idiotic conundrum by anyone else than Klempner and me. So be careful going down this rabbit hole. While I still think I have some more things to say about it, I am almost afraid to ponder it. Unlike Klempner I don’t think it is a great tragedy that I will never learn the answer to what created me and why I am here, and I would be loath to change my mind on that. This is a question that can be answered by neither science nor theology nor mysticism or spirituality, and metaphysics doesn't seem to be up to it either. So I guess we are out of options and just have to live with not knowing -- live, not sit around depressed by it.

Eivind Berge said...

I am thinking I might be a homo sacer:

Or some modern version of that concept. As a male sexualist I don't participate in society -- I am outside the law out of disrespect -- a sort of self-curse. Though the lack of legal protection from being murdered isn't technically applicable, everything else is.

The meaning of the term sacer in Ancient Roman religion is not fully congruent with the meaning it took after Christianization, and which was adopted into English as sacred. In early Roman religion sacer denotes anything "set apart" from common society and encompasses both the sense of "hallowed" and that of "cursed". This concept of the sacred contrasts with the Hebrew dichotomy of "cursed/prohibited" and "sacred", expressed by "cherem" and "qadosh". The homo sacer could thus also simply mean a person expunged from society and deprived of all rights and all functions in civil religion. Homo sacer is defined in legal terms as someone who can be killed without the killer being regarded as a murderer; and a person who cannot be sacrificed. The sacred human may thus be understood as someone outside the law, or beyond it. With respect to certain monarchs, in certain western legal traditions, the concepts of the sovereign and of the homo sacer have been conflated.

The term sacred man could also have been used because the condemned could only rely on protection of gods.

Definitely a topic I should explore more. I hear Giorgio Agamben wrote a good book on it. It is possible that identifying as a sacred man makes enmity with society more bearable, because we embrace the fact that we stand outside so fully and irrevocably.

Eivind Berge said...

Actually, everyone in Norway stands outside the law since we abolished the jury and thus don't have a justice system but tyranny. I am merely special because I am the only one who cares.

Also we further curtailed freedom of speech with intolerant protection of trans- and bisexuality:

The amendments expanded the language of the penal code to outlaw discrimination based on “gender, gender identity or expression” while also changing its original “homosexual orientation” language to “sexual orientation” to include those under the bisexual umbrella.

Does that mean the pedosexuals have special protection as well?

Holocaust22 said...

I disagree that the truth can't be found through mysticism. Buddhism, and Taoism, are male sexualist religions

A girl is at the height of her beauty at the age of 15 - Buddha, tripitika.

And Taoism.

"The major Taoist sexual belief is that longevity or immortality are attainable by sexual activity. One way for men to achieve this is by having intercourse with virgins, particularly young virgins. In Taoist sexual books, the woman sexual partner is called ding, originally an ancient cooking vessel with two loop handles and three or four legs, used in the practice of alchemy. The Taoist sexual books, such as the Hsuan wei Hshin (Mental Images of the Mysteries and Subtleties of Sexual Techniques') and San Feng Tan Cheueh (Zhang Sanfeng's Instructions in the Physiological Alchemy), written, respectively, by Zhao Liang Pi and Zhang San Feng, state that the most desirable ding is a girl about 14, 15, or 16 years old just before or after menarche. Zhang Sanfeng went further and divided ding into three ranks: the lowest rank, 21- to 25-year-old women; the middle rank, 16- to 20-year-old menstruating virgin girls; and the highest rank, 14-year-old premenarche virgin girls."

You heard it here eivind. Buddhism and Taoism says 14-15 year olds are the best. Lol

theantifeminist said...

@Holocaust22 (note to Eivind - I know you're a champion of free speech and all, but when you allow somebody to impersonate one of your few allies, to attack one of your other allies, it does piss people off a little).

Complete strawman argument. I do not support Alex Jones or the far right movement. The feminists you mentioned are all outside of the pale of mainstream (or 'radical') feminism. I think you're the same paedophile who tried to convince Eivind to become feminist a while back, using the example of Pagilia. I'm more feminist than she is. Or rather, she is more anti-feminist than me. As for Ruth Ginsburg, correct she is a feminist, but shame your paedophile aspie brain can do basic research. The fact that alt-right arseholes are claiming that she wanted to lower the age of consent to 12 means nothing. The truth is she was following guidance from a feminist global 'convention' agreeing to set an age by which sex, however willing, would be automatically considered rape (13 in the UK, 14 in Germany, and recently 15 in France). That's not the age of consent. It was specifically intended to strengthen age of consent laws and make any possible defence of 'she was willing' to be meaningless. Ruth Ginsburg did not try to lower the age of consent. She tried to make any possible defence of 'consent' or willingness on the part of the 'victim' to be irrelevant. Why don't you do some research you asshole. BTW, I could count a greater number of 'right-wing' commentators who have spoken out against paedohysteria in recent years, such as Milo Yiannopoulos, Katie Hopkins, Morrissey and several more. It doesn't mean a thing, because I long ago gave up on the 'alt-right'. Doesn't mean that I can't see that a Islamist society is just or more sexually repressive as our current feminist (increasingly influenced by Islam) society.

theantifeminist said...

As for Donald Trump writing a book on paedohysteria, well trying to explain that one to you (a paedophile aspie) would be a bit like explaining the color red to a person blind from birth.

You actually state that Judith Levine is publishing a book attacking feminism for its sex offender hysteria, and you use that as proof that feminists are actually going to ride to the rescue of paedophiles and MAPS like you?

Well, you're doing a good job of convincing Eivind to become a paid up feminist. Not that it's a major achievement as he supports them on most things anyway.

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks for clearing that up, theantifeminist. Yes, the absolute rape age is another nasty corruption of justice, not a lowering of age of consent, lol. Norway had literally no such rape age until 2015 when it was set at 14, and it is still separate from the age of consent, which is 16.

However, I do not feel Holocaust22 is impersonating anyone. Our old activist friend (now sadly retired) is called Holocaust21, remember?

Holocaust22 said...

@theantifeminist Milo, the guy that wrote a book recently accusing the catholic church of being evil for engaging in completely consensual sex with teenagers? Yeah, he is definitely pro lowering the age of consent right? He said it once, got criticized, then completely changed his views about the age of consent, and became an anti. He's a clown. When Allen Ginsberg was criticized for wanting to lower the age of consent, he fought back, and owned everyone that tried to argue with him. And he's hardly outside the mainstream. The beatles literally worshipped him as their guru.

We all know there are certain types of feminists that are sex hysterical, crazy, and are ruining the world. (along with prudish christians, and people on the right). But it's not all feminists. You do know there is an authoritarian left, and anti-authoritarian left right?

Judith levine makes it clear in her book, while authoritarian feminists fought to raise the age of consent, anti-authoritarian feminists fought against them to lower it. There isn't a plural "feminism".

I think our differences of opinions on feminism come from the fact that I actually can get pussy, and you can't, so you have this resentment towards women or something. Lmao. Not my fault you can't get laid.

Also, I have no idea why you're calling me a pedophile. I have no interest in small children. I like hot teens, 13-19. And my gf is a hot 19 year old that calls me daddy. Normal man stuff. Nothing to do with pedophilia.

And LAWL at me impersonating holocaust21. As eivind said. There's a 1 number difference sun. I'm the second coming.

Eivind Berge said...

I am trying to think how someone can confuse a call for an absolute rape age with lowering the age of consent. I guess it’s an easy assumption to make if you are steeped in the “minors can’t consent” nonsense. But that’s all statutory, which isn’t good enough for the feminists, so now they are trying to make it “real.” The law can make sex illegal, but it can’t create rape any more than a law can make pi equal to exactly 3 or change the speed of light or make the sun revolve the earth. Attempting to literally change reality in this way is the feminists’ most brazen lie to date. Not the most consequential one since the punishments for statutory rape and abuse were already very draconian, but it is their most shameless crime against the truth. So far they aren’t aiming all the way up at 18 because even they understand that would be too laughable, but it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s the next frontier after 12 or 14 and so on. If a feminist says she wants an absolute rape age of 12, then that's also a reminder that girls older than 12 can consent, so if you forget that the age of consent exists, it sounds sex-positive... but of course it is very much the opposite. I don’t remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a good person at all, and this only confirms my opinion of her. I guess the only self-styled “feminist” that I know of who is on our side is Camille Paglia.

Eivind Berge said...

No argument against Buddhist notions of womanly beauty, but let's explore their concept of the self for a minute with regard to Klempner’s quest to discover what “I” is. Buddhists teach that the self is a sort of illusion, and if you meditate on pure existence you discover a higher truth, consciousness in itself which is universal -- so-called enlightenment. I happen to think it is the other way around: if you meditate too long you will be suffering from a delusion that you don’t exist individually. Buddhism cannot answer why there is “I” in the world except by pretending the question is irrelevant. That is not a satisfying answer, so the “idiotic conundrum” remains. I don’t like that word, by the way -- it’s only idiotic to get too obsessed over it; the question itself is very interesting.

And as much as I respect his thinking on the ultimate question, I have to say to Klempner that he is a fool for thinking he must support carcereal feminism because he “respects women.” I recommend this excellent new post at TOC about the evils of carcereal feminism:

Which also offers some hope that maybe not all feminists have to be carcereal.

Anonymous said...

As far as I know, it's not correct that sex with anyone under 15 years is automatically considered rape in France. That's was the intention, but the proposal was struck down by the Constitutional Court because it would violate the principle of presumption of innocence, so the Parliament was only able to increase the sentences stipulated by the old law.

Eivind Berge said...

That's the last thing I heard as well from France. They didn't quite manage to implement that absolute rape age. Criminalization is so extreme in other ways that this is mostly a distinction without a difference though when it comes to sentencing. Feminists aren't content with that because they want to control the narrative as well, but sometimes courts push back a little. I expect them to try again soon and probably be successful unless society runs into real problems, which we can hope covid is still capable of. Or will the vaccines work so well that antisex bigotry can resume the position as number one priority of civilization in 2021 already? Will the Great Reset that is rumored to be coming have any effect on sex law at all?

theantifeminist said...

Keep going with your attempts to convert this Klempner guy to the fight Eivind. With a naval gazer like him, and the MAP still waiting for Trump to write a book on the age of consent, we're going to be a force to be reckoned with for sure.

MAP - 'I'm still waiting for President Trump to publish a book on lowering the age of consent. The fact that he hasn't done so, unlike one 'feminist' out of 100 million Judith Levine, proves that the anti-feminist is a dick and we should call ourselves feminists and look to the LBGT movement for support'.

Tom Grauer - 'I don't understand. I baited several NAZI sites pretending to be a Jew who wanted to leagalize the ** of **, and the age of consent is still 18 two weeks later. I give up'. At least I did better than Eivind and the Anti-Feminist. I'll resurface occasionally to tell them how it's done.

Eivind Berge - ' (March) The Covid lockdowns are going to bring down civilization within weeks for sure. The woman who writes about Peak Oil said so. (6 weeks later). Oh, the hot water tap in my bathroom is still running. Civilization hasn't broken down yet. Looks like she was wrong. I won't mention the subject again.'

The Anti-Feminist - (12 years ago) 'The Manosphere and Alt-Right are the fastest growing political movements in the world. It seems like a more libertarian Conservatism. It makes sense to try to influence them in the fight against feminist/Islamist creeping anti-sex laws.' 8 years later, Trump gets elected and everybody knows what the alt-right and Manosphere is. Meanwhile, in 2020, France is moving beyond the anglo-saxon countries for anti-teen sex puritanism, while arresting topless women on the beaches.

Eivind Berge said...

Sure, it is the ultimate navel gazing that Klempner is into. He says he does it all day long and though he has some other hobbies like chess and photography, they are mere distraction to his idiotic conundrum. But I think he has a valid point that metaphysicians should take this question more seriously, if they want to be worthy of that job description? Because I really can't think of a more central metaphysical question -- except perhaps why there is something rather than nothing -- but that’s isn’t so profoundly important for our personal consciousness as the question of what makes you, you. So it really is the ultimate question. Is there a metaphysical reason why persons can’t be instantiated in more than one place -- and then what the hell is it??? -- or conversely that we can be copied or resurrected from a backup and still live like so much science fiction supposes. If the former is true, then even Nietzche’s eternal return can’t bring you back, and I am leaning towards that view, which is by far more metaphysically interesting because it raises the question of what in heaven’s name your “soul substance” is? Except it can’t be a substance either, but something we don’t have a name for. Cyclical universes can go on forever, or produce infinity through eternal inflation or whatever, and there can still be a sort of serial number to the person that you are right now that will never repeat. It won’t be just a number either as we understand them (unless perhaps you are a hardcore Platonist about numbers?) but something else we don’t comprehend, but we can use an analogy from mathematics and compare it to numbers like pi with infinite irregular digits. Patterns repeat in these digits, but are never really the same because each digit or sequence of digits has a new serial number in the overall progression which goes on forever. If all of reality is like that, nothing will ever fundamentally be brought back even if you get a repeating sequence large enough to reproduce the entire current universe. So Klempner may be right that there is something undiscovered here, and this is as close as I can get to expressing what it is. A cosmic serial number that transcends every possible cosmos.

And of course, none of this is as important as getting laid and fighting the laws that obstruct that objective. So yeah, back to male sexualism, which I realize Klempner is not sympathetic to. And yes, collapse of civilization is less of a concern than I thought COVID would bring on, but Gail Tverberg is still going at predicting it, albeit over a slightly longer time frame than she said previously:

Now her best prediction seems to be that energy use will fall by 6.6% per year, which certainly happened this year and as such was closer to her view than anyone else’s(!), and if she is also right that disaster will only continue we can expect to lose our industrial civilization including that hot tap water by 2050 or so, depending on where you live. Here in Norway with all the hydropower I reckon we can keep the showers hot maybe that entire time, but elsewhere will have much bigger problems sooner. I am expecting a slight recovery in 2021 but not enough to reverse the 6.6% overall decline, which is really mandated by the laws of physics at this point as peak oil is a done deal (constrained by not being able to raise the price enough to increase production -- the physics manifest in the oil price rather than apparent reserves). In fact, it is a best-case scenario as totally devastating global disasters like nuclear war can also strike at any time.

Holocaust22 said...


""""""I'm still waiting for President Trump to publish a book on lowering the age of consent"""""

I never said anything about president trump. It was alex jones. Huh lol.

"""""""With a naval gazer like him""""""""""

My religion is to know myself - Milarepa.

Is it a joke to turn inside, and get to know yourself?

"""""Proves that the anti-feminist is a dick and we should call ourselves feminists and look to the LBGT movement for support'.""""""

I never said you were a dick. I'm actually a fan. Been reading your blog for years now. And learned stuff I had never heard of before. Wish you would go back to the important stuff though, like banging hot teens. Instead of the racist/anti female teacher stuff you've been putting out lately.

Holocaust22 said...


"""""The Manosphere and Alt-Right are the fastest growing political movements in the world. It seems like a more libertarian Conservatism. It makes sense to try to influence them in the fight against feminist/Islamist creeping anti-sex laws""""

Yeah lets associate what we say with weird alt right prudes that think jews are space pedophiles from another planet. That will give people that say things like us a good image lol. Or how about we try to convince normal cool people that the age of consent is BS. Since our views are normal. Nothing at all like the strange views held by the alt right.

Also, what is your deal with muslims? Indonesian muslim girls are hot. Don't be a square. Log onto a language learning app. Talk to some indonesian girls. And get some nudes.

Anonymous said...

Young people in Japan petition to have their rights reduced:

Eivind Berge said...

That is shocking that youth can be so bigoted. Led by female university students rather than the old femihags we usually blame for raising the age of consent. And with the notorious sexlessness of Japanese men, I don't expect much of an opposition either. Very sad.

Holocaust22 said...

@eivind berge

Brainwashed slaves basically. Raised to support their own oppression. This is what happens when a society has confucianism lol.

"All koans just lead you on. But not the delicious pussy of the young girls I go down on - Japanese monk ikkyu."

Anonymous said...

The Anti-Feminist deleted the contents of his blog; it's not the first time that he does something like that. I guess he's upset that others in the movement don't spend 100% of their time wailing about "femihags" (as if young women are any better, lol!) and other Peter Pan verbiage so typical of boomers. Some folks just haven't grown up.

Eivind Berge said...

Why did he delete his content? TheAntiFeminist also had good things to say amidst the less fortunate things about masturbation and Islam and his lack of sympathy for female teachers. Please put it back up and keep writing. Did he start doubting his femihag theory in light of the news from Japan or something? Afraid of persecution against the alt-right now that Biden gets instated? But he isn't in the US so that's less of a concern.

theantifeminist said...

"Did he start doubting his femihag theory in light of the news from Japan or something?"

Get real. First of all femidog theory would almost be as good a name as femihag, and I've acknowledged many times that 20 year old women are MORE in sexual competition with teens than hags. This is the reason you will never get anywhere appealing to young women and girls themselves to join a 'sex positive' movement that is actually pro male sexuality and pro teen sexuality, no matter how many pathetic 'I am not a misogynist' disclaimers you put out.

The news coming from Japan is truly depressing, but you're just showing how naive you are again if you think it's actually being done entirely through the initiative of these young people and femihags aren't involved. And if it does succeed in prompting any law changes, it will come down to femihags and their various Sexual Trade Union NGOs that have taken root in Japan.

Really Eivind, the point I was making about Covid is that just about nobody except you and a few loons thought that 6 weeks of lockdowns were going to bring about a collapse of society there and then. Just about EVERYBODY except you has suspicions that those lockdowns will have a longer term impact that we can only guess at now. Many people suspect the craziness of this summer had a connection to the lockdowns.

@Holocaust22 - Why don't you go and move to Indonesia, or one of the dozens of other Muslim countries on the planet, and take Eivind with you if such places are male sexualist utopias? It's funny that you will post news about a handful of Japanese university SJWs demanding the age of consent be raised as 'proof' that 'femihag theory' is false, but you haven't mentioned Pakistan yesterday announcing castrastion for 'rapists' and 'child abusers'. Remember that in Pakistan and other Muslim countries, looking at a female in the street counts as abuse, and that women get lashed or dishonoured for casual sex so the incentive to turn 'regretted sex' into a false rape allegation is rather high in these places.

At least you and Eivind will certainly stick to NoFap if you have your dicks cut off by the local Immam. But maybe safer to keep to Twitter and promoting your #loveislove to the LBGT community. You never know, maybe after another 500 years they might start having sympathy instead of screaching at you that they'd like to cut pedos into tiny pieces, before having your account banned.

Yeah, lots of hot Indonesian girls, but I think you'll find most of them are from the large Christian communit (that is - as everywhere - being persecuted and slaughtered by the Islamists), and who don't marry their cousins.

theantifeminist said...

Eivind - you need to send Klemperer and Holocaust22 to Holland to teach those young thugs a lesson. Klemperer can wear a Jean Paul Sartre t-shirt, and Holocaust22 a pink one with #LoveIsLove on it. The thugs will literally sh|t themselves when they see the fury of the Male Sexualist vengeance that is about to be inflicted upon them.

Actually, when you read that story you're probably just thinking - 'doesn't this disprove the anti-feminists's femihag theory? Surely a deeper analysis is needed as to why femihags and young plain janes want to stop us having sex with beautiful young females. Perhaps peak oil, or 5G masts causing young boys to masturbate and go blind, or maybe Trump's attempts to restore WASP patriarchy with the assistance of Putin and the anti-LBGT agenda?'

Eivind Berge said...

A Jean Paul Sartre T-shirt may not be very fearsome, but an empty blog isn't helping either. We do what we can.

Vigilantes are bad, but the authorities are worse. They are torturing Ghislaine Maxwell in jail now:

Ghislaine Maxwell is woken up in her cell every 15 minutes by flashlight to see if 'she is breathing,' her lawyer says

"Despite non-stop in-cell camera surveillance Ms. Maxwell's sleep is disrupted every 15 minutes when she is awakened by a flashlight to ascertain whether she is breathing," attorney Bobbi Sternheim wrote.

Maxwell, who is awaiting her trial at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn, New York, is "in de facto solitary confinement under the most restrictive conditions," according to her legal counsel.

Maxwell is "excessively and invasively searched" and monitored 24 hours per day, treatment her lawyer says is more restrictive than prisoners convicted of terrorism or capital murder.

Of course it is, since antisex bigotry is the number one priority of this society. I am sorry COVID wasn't strong enough to put a dent in it, but the economic fallout isn't over yet.

theantifeminist said...

In today's Daily Mail :

Probably 'raped' a fully consenting 17 year old.


"Also on Thursday, a 40-year-old and a 21-year-old man were whipped 100 times each for having sex with underage partners."

Sounds like it would be the perfect Islamic Male Sexualist paradise for you and Holocaust 22 to move to. Do tell us how you get on.

Anonymous said...

At least, the doctors in Indonesia refuse to behave in cruel and inhumane ways. In the US, the APA is the lackey of the political power.

Eivind Berge said...

Antisex bigotry has consumed the world. There are no good places left. Still good sex-positive individuals here and there, but not whole societies.

When you realize the law is against you and the law is unjust, you become an ideological terrorist. When you realize the law reflects the public morality, you become a misanthrope. Except it doesn't quite because Norway had to abolish the jury in order to enforce the sex laws. The feminists would not have had to bother with that step if their sex laws had reflected the public morality. So there is still hope for humanity; just not for any of the current jurisdictions. Our only hope now is collapse of the kind Gail Tverberg is predicting. That is the only way I see the laws being brought back into line with the public morality -- and I say "laws" loosely as we might need to fall all the way back to hunter-gatherer level. Probably along with the death of 99% of humanity, but it's better than no hope at all.

Anonymous said...

Anti-male consent petition delivered to a government feminist named Yoko, what a surprise.

The "youth" aren't petitioning away their rights at all - 21 year old femihags are demanding to remove the rights of younger women who compete with them, by punishing the natural desires of men. Same old common theme.

"20 year old women are MORE in sexual competition with teens than hags. This is the reason you will never get anywhere appealing to young women and girls themselves to join a 'sex positive' movement that is actually pro male sexuality and pro teen sexuality" -a fine point.

And of course the long term impact of the lockdowns is to implement the asexual Great Reset society (own nothing, be happy[sic]).

Islam is such a weird mixed bag of extremes for a man. On one hand, it is acceptable to take a 12yr virgin bride who is almost entirely your property, on the other if you look at another woman it could be abuse and casual sex without bribes is punished severely, including prostitution. Islam doesn't seem to work well for a normal man. Of course, when you marry it with feminism, it goes completely off the rails as in the case of whippings for "underage sex".

What works best for men, and indeed everyone, seems to be the model used 150 years ago by White Patriarchal Christian countries. Slight penalties for breaking a low age of consent (around 12), slight to no penalties for prostitution and fornication, and coverture marriage. Unfortunately it seems we are moving in the opposite direction.

But ideas are always cyclical, which is why it is important to keep up activism and discussion. My feeling is that we are approaching critical mass of destructive female and non-White Christian leadership. The people running 'The Great Reset' agenda at the WEF understand and say that their window for success is very tenuous. As society self-destructs with females and non-White Christians at the helm, more and more men will question this arrangement, which is what you're seeing now actually. When those men find your blogs and then people like Ernest Belfort Bax, they will become converted.

This applies to European-majority countries primarily, as places in Asia like China and Japan are more patriarchal and sex-positive, although that is changing with Western NGO intervention. In their cases, since their race and culture is much more homogeneous, it is almost entirely the fault of creeping NGO feminism that anti-sex, anti-male laws and attitudes are spreading there. Thus the collapse of the West would seem very positive for healthy attitudes in the Far East.

holocaust22 said...


""""Yeah, lots of hot Indonesian girls, but I think you'll find most of them are from the large Christian communit (that is - as everywhere - being persecuted and slaughtered by the Islamists), and who don't marry their cousins.""""

You've clearly been studying white nationalist nonsense too much. And are getting converted to christianity, the lamest religion on planet earth. Also, is the cousin a hot teenager? If so, I can get down with marrying your cousins. Hell yeah ;)

You don't seem to understand theantifeminist, that collective groups are stupid. The majority of the muslim, christian, and any other community, is stupid.

However, when talking to muslim indonesian girls, individually, privately, you will find a lot that will listen to you, and agree with you.

It's not about muslim, christian, brown, white, or feminist. It's about the individual person you're talking to. And change starts with individuals.

By the way, you should bring your blog back up, and post more. I'm a fan. And I've been reading your stuff for a long time now. I was actually sad when a lot of your earlier blog posts were removed. I learned a lot of stuff from you, about feminism, that ive never heard of before. The alt-right stuff you've been getting into lately is a little cringe though. And the female teacher stuff, come on dude.

Holocaust22 said...

"Perhaps peak oil, or 5G masts causing young boys to masturbate and go blind, or maybe Trump's attempts to restore WASP patriarchy with the assistance of Putin and the anti-LBGT agenda?"

The age of consent being another form of bigotry was traditionally a gay activist talking point, prior to the 2000s. Raising the age of consent from 13 to 16, in 1885, also simultaneously criminalized homosexuality. Done by white christians, by the way. You're literally attacking the one group, with the most members in it, that would be likely to agree with you on this topic.

Homosexual sex, as well as sex with teenagers, is a really fun way to piss off conservative christians. Allen Ginsberg, poet, beatnik, gury of the beatles and bob dylan, railed against the age of consent until he died. Jimmy hendrix was a notorious shagger of 14 year olds. And mick jagger just came out with a song in 2016, called stray cat blues, about sleeping with a 13 year old.

The sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s was the only hope we had. When that famous scientific study came out in the 1990s, about 13 year olds experiencing no negative effects from sleeping with their 26 year old boyfriends, who attacked it? Not the gay community. It was christian narth psychiatrists. The "pray the gay away" people.

You want to lower the age of consent? Bring back the beats, the hippies, LSD, meditation, and the sexual revolution.

My ideas primarily come from the libertarian beatnik generation of the 1960s - Camille paglia.

"Eivind - you need to send Klemperer and Holocaust22 to Holland to teach those young thugs a lesson. Klemperer can wear a Jean Paul Sartre t-shirt, and Holocaust22 a pink one with #LoveIsLove on it. The thugs will literally shit themselves when they see the fury of the Male Sexualist vengeance that is about to be inflicted upon them."

Considering that I'm a martial artist, and muay thai fighter, I don't know if this joke really applies to me as much as you think it does. Lol.

Holocaust22 said...


"My feeling is that we are approaching critical mass of destructive female and non-White Christian leadership. The people running 'The Great Reset' agenda at the WEF understand and say that their window for success is very tenuous. As society self-destructs with females and non-White Christians at the helm, more and more men will question this arrangement, which is what you're seeing now actually. When those men find your blogs and then people like Ernest Belfort Bax, they will become converted."

It was white christians that raised the age of consent from 13 to 16, and spread it across the world. Your idea that the world is ruined because of brown people, and women, is completely false lol. It's white christian psychiatrist narth MEN that attack any study that shows intergenerational relationships are fine. It's actually WHITE scientific biological materialism, about frontal lobe bull shit, that perpetuates this criminalization of intergenerational relationships. How anyone can turn this into a racist attack against brown people is beyond me.

theantifeminist said...


"you don't know anything about me, I'm a martial artist and a kickboxer'.

Lol, first of all well done for attending a few kickboxing classes. You don't call yourself a kickboxer unless you've gotten into the ring with another kickboxer with the aim of knocking each other out in front of a crowd.

I might not know anything about you, but I recognise you as 'AB' who used to commentate on my blog years ago. I remember you once wrote a letter to the NSPCC questioning the law they campaigned for criminalizing sex for UK citizens abroad with under 16s, even countries with a lower age of consent. You linked to my blog, Human Stupidity and Eivind's, but made a point of saying you don't agree with us on lowering the age of consent, lol. Then you were aghast that me and my readers were a bit annoyed with you. You would leave really aspie comments on my blog, usually even directly admitting you hadn't even read my post. I remember you questioned 'sexual trade union theory' on the grounds that there was one local council in Sweden that had a rule of men having to sit down to urinate in their toilets (which was actually fake news and invented). Now you're at it again with claims such as Trump not publishing a book on the age of consent proves that feminists are not our enemy. You posted a few weeks ago that 'peadocrite is a very, very bad term, because it makes people feel bad. A better term is pedonazi'. I'd recognize your aspiness from anywhere. If we happened to share a passion for underwater hockey and both commented on the same forum on that, I'd probably recognize your unique brand of aspiness even there.

Holocaust22 said...

"but made a point of saying you don't agree with us on lowering the age of consent, lol"

Whoa what? You've definitely got the wrong guy my man. I want to lower the age of sexual consent to 13. Always have ever since I was a teenager myself. NO CLUE WHO THIS GUY IS you're talking about lmao.

"You would leave really aspie comments on my blog"

I've never even been able to comment on your blog because the comments are always turned off.

"I'd probably recognize your unique brand of aspiness even there."

It's funny that you call other people aspies. Aren't you the guy angry at women because you can't get laid.

"You posted a few weeks ago that 'peadocrite is a very, very bad term, because it makes people feel bad"

Never said this. I've actually spread the word around to my friends irl. Try again. You don't know me mate. LOL. I'm not this guy you're talking about.

Holocaust22 said...

"You posted a few weeks ago that 'peadocrite is a very, very bad term, because it makes people feel bad."

Another note on this, I don't care at all about making people feel bad. If someone is a paedocrite they should feel bad. Once again, WRONG GUY MATE. Lol.

Holocaust 25 said...

Look at how wrongbrained the antifeminist is. The young woman who campaigned to make upskirt photos illegal is a Trump supporting Alt-Righter who once shared a bed with the supposedly bent as a copper Milo Yanapopadopolus :

And look, look! A spanish woman footballer refused to stand for Diego Maradona, calling him an abuser, a rapist, and a paedophile. Everybody knows that Spain was the last country in Europe to have a fascist dictatorship. I'm still waiting Mr Anti-feminist for Diego Maradona to call for a global age of consent of 9. Not that I want the age of consent lowered, you understand. I am not as extreme as the likes of Eivind and the antifeminist. I think the age of consent is about right now.

And look, look, look, look!!! One of the biggest children's charities in the world Barnardos wants every white child in the world to learn about the evils of white priviledge. So the AntiFeminist must be wrong and children's charities have nothing to do with the age of consent or paedohysteria, because we all know that Donald Trump hasn't published a book on the age of consent. Not that I personally am in favor of a lower age of consent. I'm not as extreme as the likes of Eivind and the AntiFeminist.

Doesn't the antifeminist know that it was a man who invented the term 'paedophile' in 1625? Doesn't he know it was a MAN and a WHITE MAN at that, who was mayor of Salzburg when Hilary Clinton and her fellow women NGOs signed into law the 'everyone who looks at an U18 girl is a pedo' law in 1998? I'm so glad Eivind is head of the Male Sexualist movement and not the antifeminist. Eivind realizes it is MEN who are the enemy and that our best chance of a lower age of consent is if we all take drugs and wear pink pussy hats. It will be the 1960's all over again with extra Wokeness. Not that I want a lower age of consent you understand. I'm not as extreme as Eivind and the AntiFeminist. #LoveIsLove

Eivind Berge said...

One of the last posts TheAntifeminist wrote before he deleted his blog went something like "Why can't men even raise our fists?" But he can't even do that anymore, and absolutely no one except me and TOC opposes the sex laws under our real names. Women can make laws at will like the hateful upskirting law that passed without a single word of dissent in the mainstream. That was just the last little victory lap of a feminist movement that has succeeded in criminalizing anything at all about sexuality that any woman can possibly regret or complain about (while only a lack of imagination constrains them from making more laws), and by all appearances men don't give a damn. What little activity we have in the male sexualist movement has apparently degenerated to bickering amongst ourselves like the above. Can we really not do better than this?

Maradona must have done something right if he pissed off a feminist, but sadly I don't see any new heroes coming around. The only "positive" force with any realism that we can root for is civilizational collapse.

Anonymous said...

Dating in the #MeeToo era:

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, that's what it's come to. And following all those steps is not going to protect you either because she can still claim there was something about the situation or your position that invalidated her consent. As we have seen from the most recent rape-law-expanding convictions against Gaute Drevdal for example, the law is there to protect women from their own consent and allow them to redefine literally any sexual encounter to rape at any time in the rest of their lives. None of that obsessive checking for consent would have protected him because the mere fact of his existence makes young women "vulnerable" to him in the eyes of the justice system. Our sexuality and rape are one and the same and there is nothing we can do differently if we want to have sex at all. So we just have to risk it and the idealistic among us will also become sworn enemies of the state.

Eivind Berge said...

See, this is the sort of dedication that we need:

‘To the last drop of blood’: One Armenian vows to continue the fight as Azerbaijan handover looms

"The one who enters my house should think, for what purpose is he going to die?”

Ashot Sevyan has lived in his native village of Charektar for all 49 years of his life. Now, he is preparing to die for it.

“A few days ago, a guy came here and told me, ‘get up and leave',” Mr Sevyan says. “I am going to fight instead. For my home. For my honour.”

A beautiful story. How come men are willing to fight so valiantly and hopelessly for a piece of land, but not for their sexuality? Not one in a million will take that attitude to being picked up to serve life for victimless sexuality, and even fewer will fight proactively, or even think it is a good idea. It is bizarre and distressing how sexuality is completely left out of the things men fight for, at least overtly. Through a horrible oversight of evolution, we lack the ability to stand up for our sexual rights. It is one gigantic blind spot that the antisex laws can exploit limitlessly. It doesn't take much to get men to fight for their community or any number of crazy causes including feminism, but never male sexualism. At best, sexual rights can be a side effect of fighting for something else such as Islam.

Anonymous said...

The guy is a retard for flirting with his underaged gf openly on a train, but still...

Eivind Berge said...

Oh, yes, we need more busybodies... "Nå håper de at historien deres gjør at flere tillater seg å stikke nesen i andres saker dersom magefølelsen er dårlig." Let's call the police every time someone has an amorous-sounding phone conversation on the train or bus, shall we? Because you never know if they might be talking to someone underage. Notice his supposed crimes are only described in empty statutory terms like "grooming" and pretend-"rape" of someone under 14, never what he actually did, which means it was certainly consensual and probably not even intercourse, but dimwits don't need an actual description of what it is in order to condemn it, just the label that it is a sex crime. And eight years of preventative imprisonment can mean a life sentence, with no questions asked except that label by the entire public. Such is the complete acceptance of antisex bigotry.

Eivind Berge said...

That story deserves another comment because it illustrates the witch-hunt nature of what is going so well. The closest they come to describing what this man did is to say it made an impression on the prosecutor, from which we can be sure that it DID NOT make an impression on the girls. The badness is all in the minds of busybodies and prosecutors. Of course they use the phrase “forgrep seg på,” which is the most slimy expression in the Norwegian language and always employed in such stories. It can mean everything from “violated” in a purely statutory sense to violently assaulted, and when they carefully avoid any mention of violence, you can be sure it is the former.

Imagine if this vagueness was used for other crimes. Could newspapers get away with reporting that someone had been convicted of “a traffic-related offense” and sentenced to eight years to life with the unspoken understanding that it was definitely deserved? Of course not. People would immediately wonder what the hell it was he did and suspend judgment until told. Was it drunk driving that killed someone? Was it speeding with no accident? Was it a parking ticket? When it comes to sex, that entire range is conflated into one word and they don’t even bother reporting what it was, unless that can be used to demonize the accused further. Otherwise they just hide the actual acts behind dysphemisms. It is crazy and mind-boggling that they can get away with it, the true hallmarks of a witch-hunt.

And that unreserved call to stick your noses in other people's business really takes it to a new level. I don't think that could have been written even last year. Not with at least mentioning the downside of calling the police on every stranger one can imagine to be a sexual abuser based on some snippet of information. Has the control-freakery of COVID make us more amenable to other invasions of privacy as well?

holocaust22 said...

@holocaust 25

Kudos to the name. You made me laugh lol

"Not that I personally am in favor of a lower age of consent. I'm not as extreme as the likes of Eivind and the AntiFeminist. "

Once again. I'm not that guy you're talking about. I want the age of consent to be lowered to 13 for relationships, and alcohol as well.

I've been arguing to lower the age of consent ever since I was a teenager myself. I've lost friends, and i've almost gotten into fist fights over it.

I take pride in being extreme btw.

"Doesn't the antifeminist know that it was a man who invented the term 'paedophile' in 1625?"

I get it mate. There are a lot of dumb girls in the world. There are a lot of dumb guys as well. I'm just saying not all women.

To be honest, i've always been annoyed by feminists too. And I most likely wouldn't get along with a girl that describes herself as a feminist. I just feel like you're delving too much into sexist/racist stuff. I've shared your blog before by the way in arguments with normies. But what's going to happen when people interested in this topic see all the racist stuff on your blog? Is that going to make male sexualists look good?

I like you though dude. And I'd love to be friends in real life. Hope you keep blogging. I loved a lot of your old stuff.

I remember back in the day when i was sitting in my room, thinking about the age of consent. And I wondered, perhaps the high age of consent could have something to do with misandry from feminists? I googled it, stumbled across your blog, and it was like you were saying exactly the things I was thinking.

Great to know there are other people in the world with my opinions on the age of consent. Hard to meet them outside the internet.

theantifeminist said...

At last some success to celebrate Eivnd! Our feminist and religious nutjob allies have successfully brought down one of the largest sites on the internet

Who said the situation is hopeless? Think of all the men saved from fapping!

Eivind, serious question - would you date this woman? Leaving aside she's a pig. Than again, you know that being put in handcuffs by her, while she calls you a dirty nonce pervert pedo, for stating that attraction to teenage girls is normal, would be a bit of a turn on.

If I was offered a date with her and politely declined because I'd prefer to fap off to naked pics of an 18 year old Russian HB10, would that make me a 'zombie'?

What is your position on transgenders btw? I know you have to tread carefully here and you probably wont give an honest or consistent reply, because you are actively courting the LGBT community as allies, but would you date a transsexual? Would sex with a transsexual be preferable to masturbation?

And what is your position on 'therapy' for gay men? An honest answer please. Or do you really believe that masturbating to (hetero) porn (while actively seeking sex with attractive women) is more unnatural than sex with other men?

Again, I know I wont get any, but honest answers please.

Eivind Berge said...

Norway just passed a hate speech law for the transgenders. However, it hasn’t gone into effect yet, so for that matter I could say something hateful. And yes, I will be honest. But all honesty calls for is to say I’m not attracted to them. As far as I’m concerned, they are men, and no, I wouldn’t date them because I am not attracted to men. Beyond that, I have nothing against them. It is a false dilemma to pit masturbation up against sex with a transsexual as long as there are still millions of real women you can date, so you can’t use this as an argument against nofap even though I agree with you that if it came down to it, masturbation would be preferable.

As to “therapy” for gay men, that is abusive or foolish. Because they are gay, and won’t change. Let them live their lives. To them, homosexuality is indeed natural.

Glad to hear things are getting more difficult for Pornhub. Don’t you see that the joke is on the antisex bigots for thinking they are preventing “underage” sex while in fact they are facilitating it by helping men not masturbate? Yes, it is joyous news that those who exploit men by hijacking and subverting our sex drive into masturbation are shut down. I rejoice for the diametrically opposite reasons than the feminists, of course, but rejoice I do. And I know even some nofappers like Gary Wilson are taken in by the delusion that they are fighting “child sexual exploitation” by shutting down Pornhub, which is very cringeworthy, but he’s still one of us in effect. He is a bad man if you go by virtue ethics alone, but by the consequences of what he advocates he is fighting the good fight of sexualism. Don’t be too hard on him for his ideology and religion. It’s downright cute how he thinks men will be good feminists if they nofap, how he has a section about how porn causes “un-egalitarian attitudes towards women.” Well, I’m pretty sure Genghis Khan also didn’t fap to Internet porn, and nofappers might as well chose him as their role model. Or Islamism, or us the male sexualists. And they will most certainly be more libidinous and perform better with women, including “underage,” while porn enervates the male libido and is an enemy to all men who value sex. For all of history when what feminists call “underage” sex was just normal and men were opportunistic polygamists or worse, there was no Pornhub, so what in heaven's name possessed those nincompoops to think men learn such behavior from there?

theantifeminist said...

If Gary Wilson is 'one of us', then why don't you admit you're a feminist? Because he is 100%.

You appear absolutely delusional Eivin. A handful of feminists have just taken down the biggest porn site in the world, that literally billions of men visit. And you persist in thinking that they are 'stupid', and that you are somehow a genius for attracting two or three readers after 15 years of blogging and having had priceless free advertising during your court case in Norway.

Look here is Gary Wilson's arch enemy, a guy who regularly receives death threats from NoFappers.

OK, Gary Wilson is one of you, and David Ley is one of me.

As for your opinions on gay men and conversion therapy, you're just being a dishonest coward again. If gay sex is 'natural' for them, why can't masturbation be 'natural' for some individuals, especially those who are so ugly or whatever to find it impossible to get laid with anything above a HB4? What is your definition of 'naturalness' anyway? I thought it was getting women pregnant? Why is wearing a condom or taking another man up the ass not 'evolutionary maladaptive' but fapping is? The point of sexual attraction is to reproduce (from an evolutionary point of view).

Eivind Berge said...

I am willing to accept that masturbation is “natural” for some men if they chose that path for themselves -- just like I accept becoming a monk or celibate priest if you feel that is your calling. It depends on your values, and I don’t pretend to prescribe values for everyone. I assume gays would want to pick values in accordance with their nature and hence embrace homosexual behavior, and I have no problem with that. Gays can even claim to be “sexualists” in their sense, and we can support each other’s rights that greatly converge on age of consent and such. But a wanker cannot claim to be a sexualist, because he isn't pursuing sex. And if he is doing it because he can’t get women, then he has all the more reason to be a nofapper and male sexualist so he can improve his situation.

Yes, David Ley is a terrible porn shill who does not have male sexual interests at heart since he thinks masturbation is all fine and dandy. I’ve argued with him on Twitter and the best he could respond to my crucial argument that the opportunity cost of masturbation is the rock bottom of what’s at stake here, was to call my view crazy and lunatic. In other words he simply does not value sex over masturbation and so gives the horrible advice to men that they might as well let masturbation displace at least parts of their potential sex lives.

Sure, David Ley is generally sex-positive while Gary Wilson is not. But we need to look past that to the consequences of their philosophies. Nofap gives you a healthy mind and body to pursue girls, while masturbation makes you a pathetic sexual cripple too feckless to pursue them. Consequences speak louder than motives.

As to the definition of “naturalness,” firstly I must say that I am no slave to that concept, and anyway, it is natural for humans to enhance their environment through technology. Where I draw the line is if you replace too many meaningful human interactions with machines or fantasies. Masturbation certainly crosses this line, because sex and love are so important human concepts that necessarily involve other humans. No, it doesn’t all have to be for reproduction, but it isn’t meaningful with cold unconscious machines or no one at all. And while I respect your right to choose that lifestyle for yourself, you cannot claim it is a positive view of male sexuality worthy of the name male sexualist, that is something to strive for for young men who want to get in touch with their sexuality and navigate a sex-hostile world. My philosophy takes all of that into account and arrives at nofap along with sex-positivity and the fight against unreasonable sex laws, an altogether positive sexualism that won’t leave you feeling that you wasted your life. Our enemies want us to pursue fake sex and then persecute us for that too (the artificiality goes hand in hand with how easy it is for the police state to control), but they shall get neither.

Eivind Berge said...

My view is also the best way to protect the viewer of pornography from persecution because it follows from refusing to accept that there is any sexual value in it that there is also no sexual exploitation of women and children, at least not that the viewer is doing. If you accept the delusion that porn/masturbation is valuable to men, then you are forced to believe that the feminist claim that girls are exploited and abused by appearing in it has merit. But it doesn't under my view, and I already wrote a long post explaining just this:

So get enlightened and understand that the feminists are persecuting pornography consumers under false pretenses. The correct view to take is that these men are only abusing themselves, which should please the feminists if they understood it and cause male sexualists to warn men against porn and masturbation like I am doing.

The wanker's delusion that he is getting sexual value is the flip side of the feminist delusion that girls are exploited, and I alone reject both sides. Gary Wilson only rejects the sexual value to men while bizarrely believing that girls are exploited and need rescuing from Pornhub, and the mainstream view that David Ley espouses accepts both sides of the wanker's delusion. So yeah, Gary Wilson is a lot closer to our side than Ley; whether we should call him "one of us" is a matter of taste, but Ley certainly isn't.

Eivind Berge said...

I am disappointed that TheAntifeminist can confuse my position with feminism. Do any of you others get the point though, and see how different it is to feminism? It invalidates a basic premise of the abuse industry which underpins so much persecution, the idea that girls can be abused from a distance. Mine is an extremely heretical position once you get it, utterly incompatible with and mutually hateful to feminism and the mainstream narrative. Though I sincerely agree with the feminists that porn is bad, I believe it for diametrically opposite reasons, that it is NOT sex and gets in the way of sex rather than their view that it is sexually exploitative. Exploitation and value are logically linked here and you can't have the former without the latter. Since masturbation is garbage to men who are in touch with their sexuality and have affirmed the male sexualist philosophy, any supposed exploitation of others derived by masturbatory practices is also null and void. The illusion that men derive sexual value from porn and masturbation is needed in order to oppress on that basis. These laws require the consent of the oppressed, the philosophical agreement with feminism that such sexual exploitation is a valid concept. My rejection of that concept undermines so much of the abuse industry, and it does so in a far more incisive way than fighting for the right to use pornography as if it were a good, sexually valuable thing. After men have accepted my nofap view which holds that masturbation is nothing but self-abuse, we have only mockery left over for the feminists who pretend it exploits females, and sympathy and self-help for the men. We need to take a firm philosophical stand against persecution under false premises and help these men realize that if they are going to be oppressed for their sexuality, at least it doesn't need to kick in before there is actual sex.

Here’s an analogy. Imagine if an industry sprang up which pretended that every time you saw an image of ice cream then you committed ice cream exploitation, which needed to be punished or paid for somehow. Would you go along with it or point out that an image of ice cream has zero nutritional value and we owe them nothing? The industry based on the idea that females can be sexually exploited via images is just as delusional, and because people are suffering from a mass antisex psychosis they go along with it. I am here to help you see the truth instead.

Holocaust22 said...

@eivind berge

When I masturbate more than twice a week, I definitely feel a negative effect on my body and mind.

Body: Back pain, weakness, etc

Mind: Completely chaotic, lack of motivation, depression, etc.

Anyone with basic self awareness should know the harmful effects of over-masturbation. IE, masturbating every single day. Unless I guess they've done it every day for so long, that suffering is a normal state of consciousness for them.

Eivind Berge said...

Okay, let us explore the downside of masturbating just once or twice a week. Because that is also nontrivial. You probably won’t be chronically impotent or feckless, but it is enough to damage your sex life considerably. This is when you need to think about the opportunity cost, because there probably won’t be directly noticeable problems. At a bare minimum, there is the refractory period lasting a few minutes to hours depending on your age, where it is physically impossible to have sex. You may not think that is a big deal, but it is if a sexual opportunity arises immediately after masturbating, which is very realistic these days. Perhaps you match with a girl on Tinder who is horny right now. You gotta strike while the iron is hot. She has a thousand matches, gets a hundred messages per day and won’t care for you tomorrow. You may even think you can go again right away at least by the time you meet her, but your motivation will inevitably be lower so you will be more likely to miss opportunities because you didn’t pursue them wholeheartedly. See the problem here? Even if it only happens once in a lifetime, one girl missed that you could have slept with is something like 10% of the average man’s sexual conquests. Obviously masturbation is an odious problem even at this lowest level. And then it can get so much worse. A young man who masturbates every day will easily miss 50-90% of the sexual opportunities he could have had. It is madness if you think about it, and nofap is the self-evident way of life. Yet this opportunity cost is IGNORED by the mainstream view of masturbation and actively shouted down by the likes of David Ley. That should tell you that these guys don’t have your best interests at heart, while us male sexualists do and even Gary Wilson gives better advice than the self-styled "sex-positive" buffoons who think there is nothing wrong with porn and masturbation.

Holocaust22 said...

@eivind berge

That makes sense. What if you jerk off with a girl in a video call 2x a week.

Eivind Berge said...

You really should not jerk off to video calls either. Go meet the girl instead.

Anonymous said...

Pornhub is deleting millions of videos, after "activists" pressured Mastercard (among others) to block all payments to the platform (Thaddeus Russell called this "the best thing to ever happen to cryptocurrency", lol!). Here's what will happen: another site will take over as the default, but feminists and their soyboy lackeys will only see the decline of Pornhub and exclaim "we did it Reddit/Twitter/Facebook!". They'll pat themselves on the back, when in reality nothing has changed. Such is life in the age of slacktivism...

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, porn will always be available as long as there is a technological civilization. Men need to think for themselves and decide to stay away from it and practice nofap, not rely on feminists who hate them anyway and only engage in this sort of activism because they don't know any better and it has symbolic meaning for them with little effort.

theantifeminist said...

I am disappointed that TheAntifeminist can confuse my position with feminism. Do any of you others get the point though, and see how different it is to feminism?"

Yeah, well there's AB, your only fan, and who is trying to convince you that feminists are natural allies rather than the enemy.

I don't confuse your position with feminism - your position is identical with feminism. You even state that you oppose masturbation because it might deny a man a sexual opportunity. That's exactly why feminists oppose (male) masturbation and porn. Why can't you see that? It limits their choices. You stated earlier that it 'raises men's standards' and they demand better than a HB5, as though that's a bad thing. Well it's a bad thing for women, especially HB5s, and all women no matter how beautiful when young turn into HB5s before long.

Eivind, when Paula Elam and her crew was making us out to be 'fake MRAs' for claiming the age of consent was a men's rights issue, what was the simplest way to show her that she was wrong? It was that the age of consent was set by feminists, defended by feminists, and that present paedohysteria was driven by feminists (of course, your ephepophile, paedophile, and MAP readers deny this, but it is obvious to any non-autistic person, even apparently yourself).

Do you see?

Your position is identical with feminism. Not just the practical result of your position - banning porn and the State inevitably locking up tens of thousands of men to be raped for looking at porn - but you justify it on the very same grounds as feminists do (at least when they are honest).

theantifeminist said...

BTW Eivind, I'd like to know how often you are getting laid. When you do score, you brag about it here (not judging you for that), and you haven't done that for a while.

I know you have low standards, but I doubt very much you are getting many results on Tinder or elsewhere, even with HB5s.

BTW, the same feminist arguments that brought down Pornhub could bring down Tinder and dating sites. All they need is to find a few underage 'victims' who were abused via Tinder and Mastercard and Visa will have to pull the plug.

To the anonymous guy who thinks taking down Pornhub wont change a thing. You're quite wrong there. They were going after Pornhub because they knew if they can bring down Pornhub, they can bring down the entire porn industry. And we don't live in the Wild West days anymore. Porn tubes wont simply relocate to Russia or somewhere, as they are cracking down on porn in places like that even more than Americans or Europeans. Men will still look for porn (and find it if they try hard enough), and the feminist State will never be happy until millions of them are incarcerated. Feminists are correct when they say (and legislate) that to kill the supply you have to take away the demand. And as they can never totally remove the supply, the only option left is to remove the demand by force (by incarceration).

Bitcoin wont save the adult industry either. When Backpage switched to bitcoin after being pulled by the credit card firms over feminist screeching about trafficking, the owner was chased by the Feds for money laundering and I believe is now facing decades in prison.

Eivind Berge said...

Porn is HB0 by definition, since it is devoid of any contact with a woman. An HB5 is therefore a tremendous step up, and I am not opposed to having even higher aspirations. There is nothing feminist about this. They want their delusion that porn has sexual value to men and therefore "exploits" women with all the power that gives them through the police state. We need to snap out of this delusion so they lose that power. Hot women will, of course, always have power and accepting that isn't feminist either. Retreating into a fantasy world of fake HB10s is just stupid. Male sexualism is about not letting them have unreasonable power on top of their natural beauty, and making sure we don't waste our sexuality on porn and masturbation.

Anonymous said...

The answer why men don't fight for sexual rights is the same answer for why men support feminism: viewing women as their mothers.

Do not acknowledge that you had sex with a girl to her or to anyone else, ever. They still need that evidence.

As for Pornhub, harmful feminism is clearly a higher priority than harmful pornography.

Homosexuals are neither born that way, nor our allies. They participate in an unhealthy fetish which relies upon molesting boys at a young age to prime their sexual impulse in their developing brains. Lesbians are simply dissatisfied with pussy men, as a result of feminist laws which restrain abuse against women by men, the same abuse these women crave.

Eivind Berge said...

No, I don't always brag, as it's not always advantageous to make one's dating life public so women can read all abut it here. Suffice it to say right now that I am doing very well except still no conception. COVID lockdowns are getting in the way but I do have opportunity and I think 2021 will be the year for that.

Also I run a free dating site so if they shut down Tinder then that will be great for me. Please let's everybody head on over to and enjoy non-algorithmic matching where you don't have to fight Tinder's algorithm which is designed to keep you down unless you are among the most attractive, not to mention nickel-and-dime you to death.

Eivind Berge said...

Homosexual men not born that way? The science says they are, and if you believe it's just nurture then you would be open to the idea that you yourself could have turned gay in the right environment, which I feel is certainly not the way it works.

Anonymous said...

I see a lot of conservatives spouting that a large portion of gay men were molested as kids. This may be true, but I suspect that by "molested" they also mean adolescent boys who already know they're gay, and who seek out experiences with gay adults. If it was as easy for heterosexual teen boys to get some experience with grown women as it is for homosexual teen boys to seduce gay adult men, I'm sure a large percentege of straight men would have been "molested" as well!

I would urge you to watch this segment, Eivind. It's very relevant, not to mention refreshing!

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks, that is an excellent video! So refreshing to see someone cut through the hysteria and evaluate the arguments against underage sex on their merits, and not be afraid to let the logic lead where it must. So there are three kinds, based on supposed harm, rights-violation and exploitation, and none are really convincing. I would say there is a fourth kind which is based on superstition and metaphysics and aesthetics, and this is the most weighty one for this society. It is the abstract idea of sex with a "child" that society can't tolerate, even if all that other stuff is shown to be nonsense, because we have this religious taboo against "sexualizing children" -- and to the extent that they are allowed to be sexual it must be in a space hermetically sealed to adults.

Eivind Berge said...

Also a fifth kind that are not arguments but ulterior motives. This is where TheAntifeminist's femihag theory enters the picture, and also the interests and control-freakery of parents. Arranged marriages are out of favor, but they can have some of that control back by keeping their daughters chaste until they turn 18 and move out and at least don't make unapproved sexual choices right in the face of their parents. This is then rationalized by "harm" (without empirical evidence), "rights of the child" (totally inconsistent with everything else they are coerced into), "exploitation" (a nonsense concept that I am ridiculing right here in this blog post) and a general taboo against sexualization.

Anonymous said...

The religious taboos against "sexuaization of children", if any, are a modern construct. Even Augustine, for whom sexual activity is inherently sinful, talks about child sexuality in his "Confessions".

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, indeed. I didn't mean traditional religion. But now that's how it works, complete with its own blasphemy law that cracks down on fictional sexualization. That doesn't fit into any of these other categories. Can fictional characters be harmed? Do they have rights? Can they be exploited? No, it's a pure religious taboo.

theantifeminist said...

I guess politics is confusing right now, I can barely make sense of it myself.

Rod Liddle, a conservative, and outspoken critic of paedohysteria (you should read his recent memoirs), now in trouble for admitting that he chose not to be a teacher because he would have been tempted to shag the nubile girls. And a left-wing feminist comes to his aid after Liddle is attacked by a Left-wing female Muslim, with the feminist accusing Mohammed of being a paedophile for marrying a 9 year old (of course, in the standard left-wing pc narrative, Mohammed was not a peadophile for marrying a 6 year old and raping her at 9, and anyone who says he was is an Islamaphobe, but a 40 year old man who admits 17 year olds are attractive is a paedophile, and anybody who denies this is a paedophile apologist).

And no doubt your feminist MAP readers agree that Mohammed was completely normal for marrying a 9 year old, but still insist that attraction to 17 year olds makes them 'MAPs' or ephebophiles.

theantifeminist said...

Eivind - you think that even masturbating once is bad because it might deny the masturbator the chance of an opportunity of real sex. You think porn should be banned on that basis, even though you know full well it will lead to more men on the sex offenders register and in prison under feminist laws.

At the same time, you welcome the importation of millions of Third World mostly single, horny, males - essentially sexual refugees from (err. the Male Sexualist paradise of) Islam, and anyone like me who doesn't agree is a bigoted racist.

Do you think importing millions of sex starved horny male rivals increase your odds of getting laid?

Again - please an honest answer.

Not to mention the way that many of these men behave - real sexual assaults on rapes and local girls when they can't get laid because there is too much competition - results in feminists having an excuse to bring in even harsher anti-sex laws.

Eivind Berge said...

I never supported outright banning pornography, but it's good that the commercial hijacking of the male sex drive into asexual behavior is undermined. I support Mastercard denying Pornhub payments, but I would never condone punishment for possessing or downloading porn. We need to balance freedom speech against antisexual exploitation.

I don't think we need to drag Mohammed into this to see that this society is hateful against normal male sexuality. He only gets a special posthumous pass that doesn't help anyone today unless we actually join Islam. The attitude revealed in that article is utterly hateful to male teachers and men in general calling it pedophilia and child abuse to have sex with 14 and 15-year old girls. Of course no man in his right mind would become a teacher in this hateful environment, and I applaud Rod Liddle for making this point explicit.

I have dated a Somali girl so in my experience it is not true that immigration from these countries represent too much male competition. This society has criminalized our sexuality and deserves all the damage it can get from values that aren't so hateful. Islam has its problems, but it can't get any worse than feminism. We don't have a country or society to stand up for anymore since it is turned on us so completely and irreversibly by any other mechanism than collapse. Anyway, the pandemic has put an end to immigration for now, so this is not an issue either way and the feminists sure don't need an excuse to pass harsher antisex laws. They are pure evil and will destroy us with or without immigrants. The only question is if men can wake up and do some damage back to society on our way out, and our best bet is to at least have some Islamic allies.

Anonymous said...

That's correct, environment impacts orientation, look at what happens in prison, look at what happens in a society that promotes homosexuality (more gays are 'created'), and tendencies are increased/decreased by chemical poisoning of the endocrine system from things like plastics and mercury:

Good observation with child sexuality only allowed to occur in an ageist bubble (Romeo and Juliet laws). This plus the obsession with preventing "child exploitation" while defining a "child" as an individual who has passed the age of puberty is clearly a ridiculous regulation designed by feminists to push the interests of older jealous women, as Antifeminist and Bax rightly point out.

Eivind Berge said...

Perhaps that was unclear. I meant to say that we need to balance freedom of speech against the damage of porn. This is a girl who gets it:

"As far as their victims are concerned, top OnlyFans performers are in some sense weak superintelligences; perfectly marketed and produced superstimuli.

Perhaps something like zero-day exploits for the male mind is a better analogy."

If nothing I have said gets through to you yet, think of porn as a zero-day exploit of male sexuality. An exploit that has lain dormant since the evolution of our species and is now technologically unleashed. Men need SOME measure of protection beyond self-help against such a pernicious force, because we are as a group so helplessly vulnerable to having our sexuality hijacked into the asexual behavior of masturbation with porn. We simply cannot allow untrammeled commercial exploitation of this nasty mechanism. If this makes me less than a libertarian, then so be it. I only want anti-porn law to apply to businesses though, not personal use, since once you go there it does more harm than good as we can see already with child porn laws.

Eivind Berge said...

To the anonymous commenter who keeps arguing that homosexuals can be made by the environment--

No, there is no good evidence for that in humans. Women are more flexible, but even they tend to have an essential orientation according to the latest research. For men, it is almost impossible to "create" more gays no matter what a society does. We are at a peak of gay pride now but I don't see an increase in homosexuality since it was decriminalized. I don't see men becoming gay in prison either, though a little bit more homosexual behavior might occur. Incels also don't turn gay, far from it. You have good ideas about "child" sexuality, but your view of gayness is just wrong. It is mostly fixed at birth through a combination of genetics and the environment in the womb, and what little can change through childhood is also beyond deliberate control. You cannot raise a boy to be gay or straight with any reliability beyond the usual chances. There is a culture which subjects all boys to a gay ritual, and still they don't turn gay in any greater numbers.

Eivind Berge said...

Pakistan institutes feminist rape law, with chemical castration, special courts and British-style prohibition on naming accusers:

Unfortunately it looks like the worst of both worlds can simply be combined, and Islam is no deterrent to feminism. That leaves civilizational collapse as our only hope, and only of a Pyrrhic victory at that.

Eivind Berge said...

The analogy to zero-day exploits got me thinking if there are any zero-day exploits for female sexuality as well? If there are, some PUA should have identified it by now, and since none of their methods seem all that effective I can conclude that female sexuality is extremely robust to the modern environment. The closest I can think of is money, which allows men to temporarily access hotter pussy than we “deserve.” I don’t agree that this is comparable because unlike porn to men, money truly does provide value to women and it isn’t all that evolutionarily novel either if you count any kind of short-term resource provision that men would have been capable of since the dawn of time. So women can be considered robust enough against money as an exploit in my opinion, but the way feminists have dealt with it is instructive. They have treated money as a zero-day exploit against female sexuality and decided to ban prostitution from society for the collective good of women. If men had a men’s movement with any teeth to it, we would do the same with exploits against our sexuality, and the first thing we would ban is porn, don't you think? We would also make sure sexbots are never made commercially available.

If it is unacceptable that men can exploit female sexuality by paying for it, then it is even more unacceptable that women can exploit male sexuality by having us pay for a simulacrum of sex that gives us no real benefit even worse, makes us impotent and feckless on the mating market. Make no mistake about it, porn exploits men, not women and children like feminists and dimwitted buffoons like their useful idiot Nicholas Kristof will have you believe. We must try to remove porn from society for the good of men (and incidentally to the detriment of women since then they can't get paid for sinecure "sex work" anymore). We must not do it in heavy-handed ways that hurt men, but no porn should be the ideal.

Eivind Berge said...

If we followed the feminist lead and only criminalized the other sex like they do in the Nordic Model, we should simply persecute the women who make/sell porn while leaving men alone. So if I were really chauvinistic, that's how I'd suggest we fight it.

Eivind Berge said...

Note that the age of consent is also a supposed defense against a zero-day exploit of female sexuality. But contrary to feminist propaganda about the "undeveloped" teen brain, girls between puberty and the age of consent are not at all easy to sleep with, so this is nonsense. They are equipped by evolution with the necessary robustness, honed over millions of years.

But men are sadly unequipped to deal with digital porn, and here we are truly at day zero in evolutionary terms -- short enough that it all started in my lifetime and only one generation has so far borne the full brunt of unlimited porn exposure.

Anonymous said...

You have no evidence for any of your claims about homosexuality. However, I have evidence for every one of my claims that show I am correct.

I already gave you the article that shows mammals turn gay when exposed to mercury because of endocrine system disruption. Humans receive more vaccines now than ever before which are laced with mercury. You can look that up, that one is easy.

Next, you claim that the number of homosexuals is not increasing. Of course, the number of homosexuals is increasing:

Finally, you claim that nothing can be done during childhood which impacts orientation, that homosexual molestation is not a prime factor. Of course, the evidence proves you wrong again, with gays claiming a 46% molestation rate, compared to 7% for heterosexuals. This gap is too wide to ignore:

Now that I have proved you wrong on gays, let's stop talking about gays!

Women are not equipped to deal with many things, the most obvious exploit being contrived media popularity. Look no further than White women's attraction to glorified anti-social Black rap degenerates or fascination with Asian k-pop groups where the men act like women. Women find this attention valuable because it is popular, even though the content is valueless beyond popularity.

Next is dominance - women love a man who will simply claim them and fuck them regardless of consent (; of course, women will gladly orgasm from a rapist, then have him jailed for stealing the value of their sex, so you might not want to go this route.

Lying to women is the last exploit, easy but inefficient, everyone does it. Wealth is an obvious topic, others include things that make her feel good like compliments and activities she likes. This is the basis of the feminist's age of consent rationale, that "a woman's brain is not developed enough to understand the consequences of sex". What they really mean is that a teenager is not as smart as an adult at figuring out how much value can really be extracted from a man through using her sex, and this is true. But it's difficult for them to speak the truth, which is that older women are more efficient prostitutes, and allowing younger girls to stupidly give it up for much less damages the gender's negotiation leverage. :)

Eivind Berge said...

Lying is the oldest exploit in the book, as old as language and deception is older still. Hence it is not a zero-day exploit, but one which evolution has optimized defense mechanisms for. If you walk up to a 15-year-old girl and tell her you are a billionaire, she is only marginally more likely to believe you than a 30-year-old woman, so the greater gullibility of young girls, while true to some extent, is a pathetic excuse for the age of consent.

In contrast, pornography the way it is delivered now is a true zero-day exploit, so much more effective than lying that there is no comparison. Women can't effectively lie to us either, about their age for example even with plastic surgery. But pornography sucks in millions of men every second even though it is 100% fake! It is mind-boggling how well that exploit works when you think about it. Dominance is also old as the hills and well defended against unless they want to submit.

I am not impressed by your evidence on homosexuality, not by a long shot. An increase in gay-identifying men from 3.4% to 3.9% is not significant in my view. That could easily just be more gays coming out of the closet when it is more popular to do so. I already said women are more flexible, but even so, going from 3.5% to 5.1% isn't huge either. I don't think these numbers reflect changes in gayness or even behavior.

And that molestation study -- how do you know the homosexuals weren't "molested" because they are gay (and probably enjoyed it) rather than the other way around? Such studies are only as good as the definitions used (which are usually arbitrary as the age of consent) plus they can't show causation.

Eivind Berge said...

By the way, there is a movie called "The Invention of Lying" which shows what lying would be like if it were a zero-day exploit. That is literally what it is about, and it is hilarious.

Pornography is a lot like that. Even though men know it is fake, they act as if it is real.

Anonymous said...

Another podcast I think you'd really enjoy, Eivind (in fact I found this by recommendation from the Unregistered podcast):

They might sound grating at first, but bear with it. It made me burst out laughing out of sheer relief at a few points. So refreshing that some women can still call a spade a spade...

Some (paraphrased) excerpts:
"If you're a grown man, and claim to never have had a sexual thought about a 16 year-old girl, consider that you may be gay or in denial".

"why does no-one ever state the obvious in these cases: that older guys are hot? When I was a teenager, I never wanted to fuck boys my age".

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks, they are refreshing too. Especially good to see some women still resisting the antisex bigotry. Of course every last one of them can claim to have been "groomed," if it means someone older showed any interest in you before you turned 18. Even the virgins would be have been groomed, and this now being considered a kind of sexual abuse, such victimhood is universal, as is male predatorhood unless they put on an absurd act of not having such thoughts.

Eivind Berge said...

The “grooming” and “abuse” nonsense reads like parody at this point, and it’s easy to forget while listening to rational people that society actually takes it seriously. I came across this thesis which spells it out for us. It appears to be part of the research that goes into creating the complete antisex sanitation that we can look forward to once AIs are capable enough. I guess sites like Facebook that surveil chats in real time are already mostly there, and you know the abuse industry won't be satisfied until we have brain implants to nip every “inappropriate” thought in the bud. This is how they define predatorhood:

1.3 Defining predatorhood. Semantically, we think of “predatorhood” as having two essential ingredients. The first is an age disparity: a predator is an adult who chats with an underage individual. The precise divide between “underage” and “adult” varies with jurisdiction, but the age of 18 is a reasonable point. Wolak et al. [2010] points out that the vast majority of victims of online sexual predators are adolescents rather than young children, a fact which is frequently missing from the public perception of online predators. The second ingredient is an element of inappropriate intimacy. That is, the adult must introduce or encourage intimate conversation. This is frequently sexual in nature, but may be less overt (e.g., you’re very pretty, I love you). This may also manifest itself in invitations to meet the victim in person.

So, there you have it. “Inappropriate intimacy” is a redundant expression because any and all intimacy is “inappropriate,” even if limited to calling someone pretty or expressing love, and heaven forfend if you should try to meet for any reason. The can be no sex, no romance and nothing but cold sterile... I don’t even have a word for the aberration that they imagine “normal” interactions to be between minors and adults (and they don't stop there, as the same standards apply to education and work and any burgeoning number of taboo relationships). It doesn’t exist, except as an impossible standard by which to judge everybody as victims and predators. So all that remains for us then is to be proud predators (or victims) if we want to be human at all.

Eivind Berge said...

I read some more of that thesis on teaching AI to identify "sexual predators," and holy shit it is dystopian! That was from 2013, and now you can assume that almost everything we type online, with the possible exception of Wickr, is subjected to even more technically sophisticated and morally insane analysis to determine if we are a "predator."

Here is the link again:,Colin-MSc-thesis-2013.pdf

The Doctor said...

Studies conducted on twins show a concordance in sexual orientation among monozygotic twins close to 100%. For lesbians it is somewhat lower, but still not so far from 100%. This seems to indicate that homosexuality is either genetically inherited or due to chemical/biological events that take place in womb.

Anonymous said...

If they teach AI that nonsense, I would call it "Artificial Ignorance". And from a practical point of view, the best solution will be to prey offline...

Eivind Berge said...

Our devices are also spying on us offline. Speech is sent to Apple or Amazon or Google so their "assistants" can recognize commands, people have smart TVs in their living rooms and bedrooms that do the same and the latest news is your robot vacuum cleaner can overhear you, even without a microphone!

All this surveillance can be used to purge the world of "inappropriate" sexuality, and the hateful immorality that wants to make that happen is already ubiquitous. I bet those individual companies are already working on their "predator" detection algorithms, and before you know it will be fed into a central AI for law enforcement to monitor "predatory" behavior in real time. Good luck having any conversation that isn't picked up in one of these ways. Perhaps swimming pools will still be private spaces, but that's the only place I can think of.

Anonymous said...

Then the best thing is to do as I do: I only use vintage products and have no cell phone at all. Even my operating system is still Win XP...

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the discussion on this blog has shifted too much towards adult-minor sex issues for your liking, Eivind, but is there really a comparable anti-sex hysteria in recent memory?

I cannot be the only one who finds this bizarre. How can you be "traumatized" if you do not realize it until you're pushing 30, close to two decades after the fact? It's even stated outright that the distress comes from realizing that the man from his childhood was a pedophile - which must then automatically mean that their entire friendship was a sham, and the only reason the man ever spent any sort of time with him was in order to obtain sexual favors from him, however meager they might be...

On the face of it, it doesn't make any sense: who would spend an inordinate amount of time on someone over months (if not years), just in order to get to watch them masturbate? That the man actually enjoyed his company in general is a much more reasonable assumption. People (and that includes pedophiles) are capable of feeling both love and lust, and quite often these coincide. Reading cases like this makes me wonder if the majority of the population have the psychological insight of dung-beetles... or perhaps, many are just too afraid to question it? Or too uncomfortable at the thought of a child being sexual to entertain any other thought regarding the matter, other than a knee-jerk violent impulse?

Apparently pedophiles are akin to mythological creatures that will taint you if you ever come into contact with them - but only if you know that they're pedophiles. Yes, this is how the majority of the population believe that this man was traumatized! They find this more likely than it being due to anti-sex hysteria and mass suggestion, misinformation and caricaturization, and a culture that encourages victimhood...

Eivind Berge said...

Wow, the police are even calling for more “victims” like that to come forward even though the cases would be too old to prosecute. Which is not true going forward since the statute of limitations has been removed in 2015 or so, but for now all they can do is to use these historical cases to fuel the hysteria unlike their British colleagues who are already wallowing in prosecuting “historical abuse.” Of course it is absurd, if it wasn’t traumatizing at the time, that these memories should suddenly take on such significance because the man “realized” at 28 that his friend liked young boys (hard to believe that wouldn’t be evident at the time too). But that’s how the voodoo magic of pedophilia works in the imagination of the powers that be and all the mainstream coverage of the topic. I’d like to think the public isn’t really so obtuse, but hard to tell. So the problem here is that this boy choosing to masturbate of his own accord was sexualized by the observer? As if it wasn’t sexual to begin with? I can understand some discomfort with the gayness of it if he isn't gay, except he presumably wouldn’t be doing it in front of this man if he wasn’t ok with that. And the authorities are programmatically incapable of recognizing that aspect anyway. No, it is all down to the age disparity and according to the feminist antisex religion, even a woman would have the same traumatizing effect on boys. They have, as you say, the psychological insight of dung beetles.

Anonymous said...

Gad vide om myndighederne anvender den samme fremgangsmåde når en person udsættes for fysisk vold, med politiet der farer rundt og spørger samtlige naboer om manden vel ikke slog nogen af dem med en knytnæve for nogle årtier siden? Ifølge Bruce Rind's metaanalyse er fysisk vold 10 gange mere skadelig end seksuel vold (og her mener han ægte vold, ikke "statutory" nonsense).

Eivind Berge said...

There is a further absurdity to this retroactive traumatization of adults who find out they have been in contact with a pedophile as a child. Your brain, then, cannot react as a child at 28 or whenever this new information is discovered. Does the knowledge travel back in time and produce an alternate history or what? Or is the "victim" temporarily transsubstantiated into a child so he gets to be traumatized like the politically correct believe children are? It is very bizarre when you try to make sense of how the tainting happens, indeed the stuff of mythology. Since pedophiles are the only mythological creature that this culture officially believes in, to the extent that they figure in court cases, I guess ALL the black magic one can possibly imagine is assigned to them. You don't get to blame witches and demons or even the devil anymore, but you ARE ENCOURAGED to blame pedophiles for literally anything you feel bad about after coming into contact with one. Or really, no contact is needed either since online "abuse" or just the pedophile looking at pictures without your knowledge is taken just as seriously. The hysteria is incomparable, but sort of makes sense when you consider that all the superstition of history is funneled into this one category, where we get to be irrational again and conduct witch-hunts with no holds barred and no scientific evidence standards needed whatsoever -- lately not even a jury.

Eivind Berge said...

Anonymous wrote:

"Gad vide om myndighederne anvender den samme fremgangsmåde når en person udsættes for fysisk vold, med politiet der farer rundt og spørger samtlige naboer om manden vel ikke slog nogen af dem med en knytnæve for nogle årtier siden?"

Good point. The only violence or any nonsexual crime from the 90s that the Norwegian police would possibly still investigate is murder, and they most assuredly do not care if someone was hit by a fist and didn't report it until now. But the absurdity is deeper than that when they look into "grooming" from the 90s -- and NRK writes about how horribly traumatizing it was -- because grooming didn't exist back then! This didn't occur to me last night, but now I see there is another layer of insanity to this beyond everything I already said. I would have to look up the exact year, but I know the grooming law wasn't passed until the 2000s, ca. 2008 if I recall correctly. It also didn't exist as a cultural concept in 90s as far as I recall -- perhaps in the cutting edge of feminist academic discourse, but certainly not something that children would have been warned about and scared with by their far less hysterical parents at the time -- which also rules out that kind of societal traumatization.

What the police is doing here, and NRK propagandizes, is the equivalent of going after the Vikings for not paying their TV license. It is an anachronism, it is evil and bizarre and it shows they impute yet another superpower to the mythological creature that is the pedophile -- he can commit crimes that doesn't even exist -- not in the imagination of the victim either until decades later -- and still traumatize! Wow, that is powerful, so powerful that I almost wish I were a pedophile myself. They blow through metaphysical barriers like they were paper -- can probably be a married bachelor and impossible things like that too (if it helps to convict them of a sex crime), because no limits exist at any level. What we had back then was something called "utuktig omgang" and it sure did not include normal social interaction and intergenerational friendship, even if it included some porn watching and masturbation at some point as long as the adult didn't coerce you into it and didn't get physical. I see nothing in the story of this 28-year-old man that would have crossed that line, and "grooming" is a whole other level of criminalization that simply didn't exist. For the police and media then to apply it to all our pasts is beyond the pale and yet another barrier broken in the hysterical demonization of sexuality with its scorched earth policy -- the latest victim of which is any and all intergenerational friendships.

Anonymous said...

Jeg foreslår et tankeeksperiment: Politiet undersøger sagen og konkluderer at manden ikke var pædofil, men en almindelig heteroseksuel i beruset tilstand. Hvad sker der så med traumerne? Forsvinder de?

Eivind Berge said...

Oops, Nathan Larson in the news...

It has all the stereotypical ingredients of today's hysteria: very sophisticated "grooming," "soliciting child pornography from a minor," and Nathan went the extra mile with allegedly "kidnapping" this cooperating 12-year-old girl.

I feel bad for him, but he was crazy. Even in the best of times I couldn't really get behind half the things he was saying. So yeah, we may all be headed for the gulag but at least they picked off the two craziest of our ranks first, him and Yee.

Eivind Berge said...

I am amazed he even managed to take a flight with the "kidnapped" girl. If there is any place a genuinely kidnapped person can definitely get out of it, that would be it, so the fact that she didn't try tells us everything about her state of mind. But of course, all of that is invalidated by "grooming," that universal weapon to nullify the will of a minor.

That said, of course 12-year-old girls have parents who would be worried about them and have custody. Don't try what Nathan did, gentlemen.

Eivind Berge said...

I think I hit upon the most incisive definition of "grooming" there. The concept was invented to ensure that minors not only "can't consent" in the sense that existed previously, but now they also don't have a will of their own if it deviates from what political correctness says it is appropriate for them to want. Teen girl wants to be friends with an older man? Nope, she was "groomed" into that, and it cannot be otherwise by definition. It is now conceptually impossible for minors to want anything that feminism doesn't want them to want, according to the dominant narrative.

Anonymous said...

Regarding fags yet again, I agree that the word ‘molestation’ is loaded term that has a negative meaning, and it is possible ‘molestation’ can be enjoyed, definitely. But the issue is not enjoyment - it’s what creates more gays. Clearly, the science is settled, and observations show chemical endocrine system imbalance plus early sexual experience with a male (enjoyable or not) creates more gays, which is essentially an unhealthy fetish.

Lying is definitely a powerful exploit if you do it well, ie: tell lies that make a girl feel good, basically a good salesman, which is what everyone should be doing anyway since girls prefer good feelings over truth. This concept is proven by our corona hoax civilizational collapse from feel good rules over the truth that there is no virus threat, and the good feelings of control and relief from destruction of younger competition through fraudulent age of consent laws. Women fall for the same good lies over and over, like men fall for the same good porn. No woman wants a bad liar who doesn’t make her feel good, just as no man wants bad porn that doesn’t turn him on.

“What the police is doing here, and NRK propagandizes, is the equivalent of going after the Vikings for not paying their TV license.” - Very funny and accurate. One must wonder all the unknown crimes we commit today that we’ll be punished for in the future. Certainly thinking about shagging pubescent 13 year old girls will be one of them, if one day they can examine our memories. We used to have rules against ex post facto laws…

Wow, Nathan Larson really went all in, in the worst possible way, similar to Amos Yee. How does a guy who gets to such big brained concepts execute his vision so poorly? Did he think the parents would not complain? Did he somehow forget the strongest law enforcement web of feminist thought exists in America? How did he think he could stay in the country for even one minute after picking her up? Asking for nudes so there is evidence against him stored immediately and forever? Here is an example of an autist.

Eivind Berge said...

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the cause of gayness. I do not believe homosexuals are created by any kind of "cyclical abuse," and I believe the science is with me on this. While cyclical abuse has been a pet theory of the abuse industry, even the mainstream does not buy that anymore. By the mainstream I mean psychologists like David Ley who are still horribly misguided about other things like masturbation, but not this. Homosexuality is also an orientation rather than a fetish. And please don't use slurs against them here. We make enough enemies just by being sex-positive.

Also slight disagreement on lying, as your view fails to capture the contrast to anything we would compare to a zero-day exploit. Expectations of some degree of deception are already built into how we approach mating, and salesmanship is the norm rather than an exploit. It would take superhuman ingenuity to devise a new kind of deception that reliably gets you sex with women while also not being an already recognized crime like credit card fraud for example -- yet porn does exactly the equivalent to this when men pay for it and waste their physical mating input on it as well. There is however another blatant exploit which works on women that I failed to mention, which is birth control. Not so much to fool each other, but it allows both men and women to fool themselves in a very novel way. Evolutionarily, people on birth control are supposed to be far less attractive than they are now, and this zero-day exploit will be patched in time.

I have to agree with you on Nathan Larson though. If this isn't (fairly high-functioning) autism, then I don't know what is. Also this was a real-world test of the state of "predator-detecting" AIs, which failed intervene until the girl was already missing and the parents called the police, so there's that.

Eivind Berge said...

Since it looks like Nathan Larson won't be with us for the next few decades, now is the time to preserve whatever of his writings that deserve to be part of the sexualist tradition. I haven't kept up with him for years, but I recall that he at least had a manifesto that was pretty good. Anybody have a link or copy?

Eivind Berge said...

Another write-up on Nathan Larson,

And I have to laugh because every detail reads like it is tailor-made to produce the perfect monster by today's standards. He really did play that role well. Yet at the end of the day the only charge with any substance to it is "harboring a minor," a misdemeanor. He will be put away for a long time, but that's thanks to the bullshit "soliciting child pornography" and grooming charges that are much more powerful than anything one can do in real life.

Anonymous said...

Nathan Larson for Congress Campaign Manifesto:

Anonymous said... had a lot of potential and was by far Nathan's most successful project ever. It had attracted 7500 members by the time it was shut down and was the most active pro-pedophilia forum on the clearnet.

Due to a lot of attention by antis in social media it attracted female members, many of whom where underage. At rapey they could discuss their desire to be raped and share positive experiences around pedophilia etc. There were even a section dedicated for men to hook up with these underage girls. Apparently, that's where Nathan met this 12 year old. On his own forum. Yeah, this was no kidnapping.

On Rapey, Nathan vetted females by requiring them to submit scantily clad or naked photos with written on their bodies. Once confirmed they were assigned a badge of approval underneath their avatar as "confirmed femoid".

The forum was buzzing with illegal activity. Not only the discussing of rape and kidnapping plans or sections dedicated to hooking up with minors. A subforum/gallery titled "Priklopil's Basement" (a reference to a famous kidnapper who kept a girl in his basement for ages.) was supposedly used to share CP material.

Quoting from one of the forums still up from Nathan's servers:
"The presence of foids was not even a bad thing, as them talking about their desire to be raped and sharing positive experiences with pedophilia and incest, helped counteract the dominant feminist narrative about these topics.

There are forums for cucked MAPs that have existed for years and have done everything they can do appeal to normies and feminists, and that don't have even 1% of the userbase that Rapey had. Nathan was smart enough to know how to benefit from negative media attention. He could handle more pressure than a lot of people can, and unlike the fools that run, he actually had a consistent ideology that would benefit incels and society in general if it were implemented."

Nathan himself imo had already given up on life, he was running the website with his real identify. In the years prior he had many unsuccessful attempts at suicide. Surely he must have known the website would be illegal and that his days were numbered. It might have seem reckless by itself, but knowing the kind of trouble was already coming his way, if he hadn't been arrested for "kidnapping" he would have gone down on some other charges. E.g soliciting minors, conspiracy to commit kidnapping etc.

Eivind Berge said...

That is amazing, thanks for sharing. His actions towards running away with that girl weren't so irrational after all then since he was pretty much doomed on bullshit charges and might as well jump on the chance of some real intimacy, however unlikely it was to last.

When society can't distinguish online friendships from child abduction, they are bound to get more of the latter as men who are just talking to girls have nothing more to lose.

Anonymous said...

That is awesome, what a great forum Larson had before it was shut down. Still, it is incredible that he had the nerve and wit to make something so disruptive and revolutionary, yet he didn't simply leave the country with the girl. At least they could have had sex before he was found. Have you heard of Robert Birchtold? Now there was a guy with dedication and a plan!

Larson had it much easier than Birchtold because of the internet, yet he still managed to screw up.

Anonymous said...

It should also be noted that Larson was an unhealthy extremist. Larson married a transgender man who committed suicide, and seems to have advocated sex with infants. Yikes.

Clowns like Larson set back the movement of normal men who just want to acknowledge that attraction to young teens is entirely normal and healthy.

Jeff said...

"Larson married a transgender man who committed suicided"

What does this have to do with anything? His ex-wife never officially changed her name or gender but even if she did, so what? Transgenders have a very high suicide rate. The blog where Larson told his side of the story about his short-lived marriage with Augustine and the nasty divorce has has been censored by Wordpress, and it's not as if RationalWiki and the media articles about him are in any way objective.

"and seems to have advocated sex with infants. Yikes."

Your personal disgust is not an argument, unless you think people being disgusted by homosexuality is also a valid argument against it. Nathan was an agitator who could be purposely provocative and once stated that "When people go over the top there's a grain of truth to what they say.".

He identified as a hebephile, so I doubt he wanted to fuck infants. He wants to abolish AoC laws completely and has argued that pedophilia should be legal because in the vast majority of cases it doesn't cause serious harm or long-term trauma.

Jeff said...

"but I recall that he at least had a manifesto that was pretty good. Anybody have a link or copy"

Anonymous said...

Pursuing transgenders (or homosexuals) is fucking nasty, as is sex with infants, these are unhealthy mentally and physically, completely unacceptable for any normal man, you retard.

Man these fucking mutants. It's very simple, if a girl has hit puberty, she is attractive to men and wants a man to fuck, as nature intended.

Eivind Berge said...

Sometimes women come out as transgender later in life. Did Nathan marry that woman knowing she wanted to be a man? Even so, it wasn't really homosexual on his part. And of course there is a world of difference between homosexuality and nepiophilia, which is not only unhealthy but impossible or wrong to live out. Yes, homosexuality is somewhat unhealthy judging by the statistics of life expectancy and greater health problems they face, but that doesn't mean it is morally wrong. Part of that is due to their easy promiscuity, and if heterosexual men could have sex just as easily, we would have more diseases too. But we still celebrate such risky behavior, and as such I have no problem sympathizing with gay pride.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the girl told Nathan high tales about not having a family, living with grandparents, etc.; maybe she even mislead him about how young her age really is. Then again, Nathan has always been wacky, so who knows. I guess, realizing that he had a golden opportunity for 'underage' relations, he opted not to miss out on it. But still, there does not seem to be much long-term planning here, because they had to move out to some destination abroad in order to 'succeed,' so to speak. Seems that worldwide Covid restrictions prevented that. Nathan always had trouble with long-term planning, which is why all his projects ultimately failed. But I guess he preferred to go down like this rather than spending the rest of his life chatting up incels on his forum.

Jeff said...

"Pursuing transgenders (or homosexuals) is fucking nasty"

So, basically, you agree with the gender feminists that male-identifying women are men and that dating them is homosexuality? Transmen have two X chromosomes in every cell, just like all women. They're obviously not biological males. Nathan Larson is not gay or bisexual.

While it's legitimate to criticize the promiscuity and risky sexual behaviors prevalent in the gay community, you're not a men's rights advocate if you support shaming gays for expressing their sexual orientation. It's quite telling that tradcons like you always go after male homosexuals but usually don't have a problem with Lesbianism.

Margaret Mead and other anthropologists have shown that it used to be common in many cultures for adults to touch the sex organs of infants. Non-coercive, non-penetrative sex play doesn't harm young children and will only cause trauma if society brainwashes the child into believing they were victimized. I don't see how moral hysteria over, say, a nanny who gets caught playing with a toddler's penis or a father caught stroking his infant daughter's vulva, is more justifiable than outrage over female teachers who have sex with teenage boys.

"Did Nathan marry that woman knowing she wanted to be a man?"

According to this article on her now-defunct website, she presented herself as androgenous.

Eivind Berge said...

I agree with Jeff. Homosexuals should be supported and they are not a threat to us heterosexual male sexualists -- unless you believe homosexuality is somehow contagious, which is nonsense. I often wonder when that sentiment is expressed by tradcons and similar, is it coming from a position of insecurity about their own sexuality? Are they repressed homosexuals? Well, I am secure enough in my orientation to not feel threatened by gays living out theirs. I strongly feel it runs so much deeper than anything that could have been altered by childhood abuse either, even genuine and traumatic. Just look at how impossible gay "conversion therapy" is, and you get the idea how difficult it would be to do the reverse as well. They failed to convert men like Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing who proved that it is easier to abuse a man to death than change his orientation, so why should we have anything to fear from friendly homosexuals doing their thing?

Nathan Larson's wife was clearly dysfunctional in many ways judging by that biography, but she seems to have been a good person. Sad outcomes for both of them, but they were truly valuable activists for sex-positive causes. And if there is a lesson here about activism, it is that a "rapey" website gets the most fans, particularly young females. Popular appeal is hard to pin down and there might be more to his methods, but it isn't surprising when feminists have redefined so much of sexuality into rape, including everything underage, that "rape" is something girls crave. Nathan had the audacity to capitalize on the bold assertion that we are what they call us, and kudos to him for that.

Anonymous said...

Promiscuity theory is only half the explanation regarding the unhealthy homosexual fetish. Men tearing each other's assholes and masturbating into each other's poop is what causes disease, obviously completely different than fucking a vagina which was made for the purpose. I don't have any "moral" problem with the fetish, it's just nasty and unhealthy, the moral problem is the creation of the fetish through early sexual experience with a male while the young boy's brain is developing or vulnerable from environmental toxins such as mercury. Half of gays report this experience while almost no heteros report it - ignoring this data doesn't change this fact.

Of course "trans" people can't change their gender any more than in their own damaged minds.

Lesbianism is not a fetish, like gay males practice. Lesbians suffer from a lack of dominance and an attitude problem, they would fuck a trash can if it could put them in a collar and choke them.

Again with the infants? Get out of here, man, no one wants that and you can't be in the normal guy club.

Sexually pursuing pubescent girls is normal, good, and natural, as it has been for centuries. This is a universal truth, no need to talk about anything else.

Anonymous said...

Pursuing boys around puberty has also been the standard form for homosexuality for men for centuries, without this in any way transforming the boys in question into permanent teleiophilic homosexuals ("inverse" homosexuals according to Thorkil Vangaard's definition, i.e. men that are impotent in regard to women), and something similar can be observed among animals. Ignoring this doesn't change this fact either.

Eivind Berge said...

I am also skeptical of the environmental toxin theory. Animal observations are not directly applicable and gays seem to emerge in about equal numbers from all classes including those who live in the cleanest environments.

Yes, I also find gay sex disgusting, but so what? That has no bearing on the morality or causes. It is also inherently riskier, but that is their choice. Only during the AIDS epidemic before effective treatments was the risk truly egregious, and aside from that, it certainly seems worth it considering how important one's sexuality is.

Anonymous said...

Den såkaldte "forførelsesteori" blev faktisk tilbagevist af Thorkil Vanggaard allerede i 60'erne. Forklaringen findes i et kapitel af hans bog "Phallos", hvis jeg husker rigtigt.

Holocaust22 said...


My brain is "fully developed" and i'd still fuck a hot girl in the ass.

Holocaust22 said...


Regardless of your views on homosexuality, you still agree that teenage girls are hot though right, and the age of consent should be 13? If so, I don't really care about the gay stuff tbh hahaha.

Anonymous said...

How could one disagree that pubescent girls are hot unless they are dishonest, gay, or a woman?

13 sounds like a good starting point for total legality, 11-12 maybe community service and a fine since some girls arrive at puberty early. I remember a 12 year old with enormous tits who tried her hardest to get me to fuck her when I was 12, but I had no idea what I was doing and missed the opportunity. I still regret that one :)

It is especially important for the marriage age to be lowered similarly, and for women to be disempowered politically if we want any semblance of a normal society to return. China and Eastern Europe do well in this area, and it shows in their more stable social order.

Anonymous said...

You fail to explain why puberty should be taken as the absolute boundary line in a post-Freudian society like ours, where sexuality is no longer bounded to procreation and marriage. Some girls (and boys) are definitely horny even before the onset of the secondary sexual characteristics, while others are quite uninterested in sex even after.

theantifeminist said...

"I am also skeptical of the environmental toxin theory. Animal observations are not directly applicable and gays seem to emerge in about equal numbers from all classes including those who live in the cleanest environments.

Yes, I also find gay sex disgusting, but so what? That has no bearing on the morality or causes. It is also inherently riskier, but that is their choice. Only during the AIDS epidemic before effective treatments was the risk truly egregious, and aside from that, it certainly seems worth it considering how important one's sexuality is."

Lol, you're sceptical of the environmental theory but you swallow feminist junk science/mangina pop science regarding 'your brain on porn'.

I'm pretty sure there are far more obvious gays about today than when I was growing up.

Why is it ok for you to suggest that any man who doesn't approve of homosexuality is a closet homosexual, and wrong for me to suggest that any man who doesn't approve of porn is a hardcore wanker or paedocrite?

Of course it's true that a large percentage of the most rabid homosexual haters are self-hating closet gays, just as we know a (VERY) large percentage of rabid paedohysterics are actually self-hating paedophiles. But in the context Male Sexualism, why can't you consider that perhaps we don't hate homosexuality so much, but rather the obscenity of it being presented as natural, while what IS natural (male attraction to teen girls) is presented and criminalized as the ultimate perversion? That homosexuals are given legal protection to the point of it being a hate crime to hurt their feelings, and yet normal sexuality is being not just increasingly criminalized, but people are free to call for all manner of tortures and punishments for men who simply state (like us) that attraction to teenage girls is normal?

And the irony being of course that homosexuals throughout history have been pederasts, probably even more attracted to youth and youthful beauty than even heterosexual males.

Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing both died broken men. Not sure what you're talking about. Alan Turing's hormonal treatment led to him killing himself (or at least according to the official narrative, others say his death was an accident). Both were convicted pederasts who fucked minors and yet both today hailed as gay martyrs. It's also ironic you positing Alan Turing as an example of being 'born gay'. His gayness/pederastry is often attributed, somewhat like the character in 'Lolita', to having his boyhood best friend die when they were both teens.

Eivind Berge said...

Which part of ”feminist junk science” about porn and masturbation is it you disagree with, exactly? I mean, what should possibly make me change my mind if I knew it was junk science? Sure there is much junk science out there, but that is irrelevant, because the decisive factors aren’t open to scientific debate. Science cannot discover that porn is good for us because preferring pussy over porn is a value judgment, not a scientific question. It is also beyond scientific debate that the time and effort you spend on porn and masturbation will be lost and unavailable to chase pussy. Science can and does tell us how many men also become impotent from porn, but that is just icing on the cake, not needed to make it obvious that nofap is in the best interest of male sexuality and hence what any philosophy worthy of the name male sexualism must embrace.

The relevance of society’s abuse against homosexuals like Alan Turing and Oscar Wilde should also be obvious us straight guys. We should be just as proud of our orientation and rest assured that no matter how much society wants to “treat” us (for example our attraction to teen girls), they will fail. There is strength in that realization, and we can thank the homosexuals for serving as an unfortunate test case. I am now going to quote another homosexual, Mike Darwin, to make it clear that persecution in fact helps us realize how integral our sexual orientation is to our personhood. As a male sexualist I feel the same way in the face of feminist society’s current persecution of us -- far from “rehabilitating” me, it makes me a more reflected and confirmed sexually normal egosyntonic man including all the aspects currently criminalized.

I have read much of what Oscar Wilde has written (including most of his Yellowbook essays), his published personal correspondence and many books about his life and his internment at Reading Gaol, where he spent his days pulling oakum, treading the barrel and turning the crank. These were miserable and debilitating activities that went on for 10 hours a for years on end (so-called hard labor).

In Wilde's case, these behaviors were prescribed for the purpose of rehabilitating his homosexuality. Not only did they fail, they caused Wilde to reflect deeply on to what extent his homosexuality was an integral part of who he was as person. Most people never consider in what way common elements of their behavior and "personality", for lack of better words, are critical to their personhood. Wilde's homosexuality unarguably shaped almost every aspect of his life, work and art, as well as his dress, aesthetics and social interactions (apart from his discrete sexual behavior). To cure Wilde of homosexuality, as opposed to his homosexual behavior -- and these are two very different things -- would be something that Wilde himself would have rejected as incompatible with who he was as a person.

Perhaps an even better example is that of the creator of modern computer science and the darling of uploaders everywhere, Alan Turing. British society and government undertook a program of neurobiological modification of Turing to ablate his homosexuality. Judging from Turing's correspondence, in this they were somewhat successful. After treatment with estrogens was discontinued Turing's sense of sexuality did not recover. He describes this in detail, including the horrible sense of depersonalization that resulted from it. This was without any doubt a major factor in his decision to kill himself, which has to be interpreted as a strong rejection of personhood. Indeed, he described the experience as having left him an incomplete person. [While not routine, the brain remodeling that occurs during intensive estrogen therapy in males does not always reverse when withdrawn.]

Eivind Berge said...

So please, to you dismissing homosexuality as a “fetish” and imparted by childhood abuse or environmental pollution... take this to heart. It is every bit as integral to their personhood as attraction to women and also “underage” teen girls is to ours, and no one can take either away without killing us.

Childlover! said...

Some things to say here, that while I disagree with much of the rapey tone of Larson, he is undoubtedly a great hero of your 'male sexualist movement' as he had the guts to go out doing what he loved: kissing young girls. It is a great shame that he never had the chance to spend a night of intimacy with that girl and truly introduce her to the carnal joys of young sex, but at least he got to canoodle with her at the airport. Larson understood that with the Plandemic and the Great Reset, we are all fucked anyway. Such eccentrics find their voice at such times.

I think it is truly ironic that the leader of the Male Sexualist Movement, arguably one of the most important people of twenty-first century history, appears to be an actual adultophile who believes that nineteen year old girls are the sexiest creatures, whereas my study of history and paintings shows that the uncucked male will find the figure of a fourteen year old girl to be ideal! Ironic!

There are a few people here who are so pedophobic that they run away from the obvious truth, a truth they must embrace: children are the sexiest things ever! Eleven year old girls are a taste in themselves. Berge, you with your useless degree in Latin should know all about the sexuality of children as represented by cherubs and angels and such. Also, read Edmund Marlowe about homosexuality to understand how male faggotry is not the traditional expression of male love, which was mostly historically between a boy of early to mid teens and an adult. No doubt you have encountered such writings when you were reading for your utterly useless and gay Latin degree so know more about this than me.

These Japanese hagcunts know that the growing girl is a much sexier object than they are and so as older teens are trying to mitigate the competition, right enough, according to TheAntiFeminist's trade union theory. These women were of course seducing 35 year old men when they were twelve, so know full well they are hypocrites.

So, REJOICE in Larson! A great Man! And I hope that poor girl gets over the trauma of the stupid police and psychologists and goes on to have a happy and pro-male pro-sex life! I am a little drunk but GOD BLESS LARSON! FUCK THE GREAT RESET!

Embrace the beauty of childlove!

Thank you Eivind Berge.

Holocaust22 said...

@eivind berge

Yo dude, do you want to start some shit on twitter? I've got a new troll account. Might go into some jeffrey epstein threads, and declare him a saint, on the same level as gandhi. Come on bro! Lets fuck shit up.

Eivind Berge said...

No, you have to be careful on Twitter. But he is a saint.

As to Larson,

"So, REJOICE in Larson! A great Man! And I hope that poor girl gets over the trauma of the stupid police and psychologists and goes on to have a happy and pro-male pro-sex life!"

Amen! They are the real predators, groomers and abusers in cases like this. What happened to running away from home? Girls don't do that anymore? No, it is always blamed on a "sex predator" -- even if they meet after she runs away for whatever reason it is "trafficking" in the sick, evil worldview of the normie narrative.

The coronavirus will abate, but will we get our freedom of movement back? Did Larson use that last bit of freedom to at least get to the airports? And by the way, I see now that the only reason he got that far is because he met the girl on his own site, and thus evaded all evil algorithms that monitor our communications.

theantifeminist said...

"I think it is truly ironic that the leader of the Male Sexualist Movement, arguably one of the most important people of twenty-first century history, appears to be an actual adultophile who believes that nineteen year old girls are the sexiest creatures, whereas my study of history and paintings shows that the uncucked male will find the figure of a fourteen year old girl to be ideal! Ironic!"

He isn't leader of anything and he doesn't believe that 19 year old girls are the sexiest creatures. I can't remember him ever stating that until the MAP community got a bad press and Eivind felt he had to distinguish himself from the aspies he's courted as allies.

Anyone with an ounce of integrity or sense and any knowledge of history before the year 1990 could honestly claim that 19 year olds (and I think Eivind actually said 20 year olds.) are the hottest, especially when girls today start puberty earlier than ever before.

I remember when Welmer - the webmaster of one of the first big Manosophere sites 'The Spearhead' posted an article about how the Italian sculptor Canova was a man who understood true female sexual beauty. When I pointed out in the comments section that most of Canova's sculptures of naked females (and the sculptures Welmers used to illustrate his article) were 13 - 15 year old girls, he promptly deleted the article.

theantifeminist said...

Most of the crap that your male feminist hero Gary Wilson writes about - it being akin to a heroin addiction, it lowers testosterone etc etc.

As to the argument it is a waste of resources, you could say you blogging about middle-aged female teachers banging young boys is a waste of resources. How does that help YOU get laid exactly? The ultimate cuck, cares more about giving women the pussy pass to fuck young boys (who are at the only point in their lives where they could be banging nubile perfect 14 year old girls) while women are putting men in prison by the tens of thousands for simply desiring teenage girls.

The only thing porn had done for me is give me solace, as well as raise my standards. No I don't want to devote chunks of my life and money to chasing and dating HB5s. If I'm too old or too ugly to have a reasonable goal of banging HB8s and above, then I'd prefer to spend ten minutes wanking a day and the rest of the day enaged in meaningful activities.

theantifeminist said...

None of what you quoted about Wilde or Turing is evidence that they weren't turned into homosexuals by their environment in some way. I've read of men suffering strokes and suddenly finding that they are homosexual. And it doesn't disgust them either - they love it and immediately consider it part of who they are.

I don't hate homosexuals or wish to change them. I object to the fact it's presented as normal when normal male heterosexuality is presented as perverted. With the ultimate irony that virtually every single homosexual in history was attracted to 'minors'.

"But Prof Copeland argues that on the contrary, Turing's career was at an intellectual high, and that he had borne his treatment "with good humour".

Of the Kjell affair, Turing had written that "for sheer incident, it rivalled the Arnold [gross-indecency] story"; and immediately after his conviction had told a friend: "The day of the trial was by no means disagreeable.

"Whilst in custody with the other criminals, I had a very agreeable sense of irresponsibility, rather like being back at school."

On the face of it, these are not the expressions of someone ground down by adversity.

What is more, Turing had tolerated the year-long hormone treatment and the terms of his probation ("my shining virtue was terrific") with amused fortitude, and another year had since passed seemingly without incident.

In statements to the coroner, friends had attested to his good humour in the days before his death.

His neighbour described him throwing "such a jolly [tea] party" for her and her son four days before he died.

His close friend Robin Gandy, who had stayed with him the weekend before, said that Turing "seemed, if anything, happier than usual".

Yet the coroner recorded a verdict of suicide "while the balance of his mind was disturbed".

Eivind Berge said...

Writing a blog post doesn't diminish my sexual motivation, but masturbating would have done that including a refractory period. Some of those effects are too subtle to notice, but they are still there in terms of lost opportunities that you never thought of pursuing and hence don't know you have missed. Science can study the similarity to drug addictions -- which may be over the top -- but even drugs don't always cut into your sexual motivation the way masturbation indisputably does. Even Gary Wilson doesn't appreciate the badness of masturbation the way I do, since he is influenced by a moral aversion to pornography that I don't share and which also blinds him to the fact that men can and should avoid porn and masturbation in order to enhance their sexual practices that he disapproves of -- including sex with underage girls.

Tweets like this are very comical to us male sexualists:

In which Gary Wilson praises a grifter who has figured out how to extract money from society by posing as a "child abuse expert."

And this "expert" informs us that porn causes child molestation, instead of doing exactly the opposite, making men too feckless and impotent to have sex. Let these dimwits unwittingly serve our cause, gentlemen, because the more I think about it and the more we learn, the clearer it is that porn is evil. The grifter is right about this:

“For the younger men who had their adolescence after about 2000, men up to 40, they will have watched a huge amount of online pornography before they have sex with a human being. And in my personal view that makes an absolutely enormous difference.”

But the damage is far worse to the men themselves than to the women and girls this evil monster thinks he is helping. Because this is how you get not only the opportunity cost of time wasted but downright impotent from porn, by letting it train you in dysfunctional ways at your most vulnerable before you have sex -- which is real brain damage. The abuse industry's delusion that looking at pictures is real abuse of females actually helps us men, because without it they would have realized the truth that wankers only abuse themselves and quit helping them get over their problem so they can chase real sex partners instead. The contradiction between the abuse industry helping to restore male sexual health and condemning the same sexual behavior that they prepare men for is the funniest thing to come out of feminism.

Eivind Berge said...

Any man who had sex before about the year 2000 simply can't understand how harmful porn is to the boys who tried to first have sex after growing up with all that Internet porn. This includes me and The Antifeminist, but my arguments about the opportunity cost should also make it clear enough to us that we need to avoid it. Masturbation was always bad, and porn was bad to the extent that it facilitated masturbation, but it wasn't a full-fledged male health crisis until now in the last twenty years.

So I suggest either walking a mile in their shoes -- which we luckily can't, having avoided the brain damage of porn in our formative years and probably had sex earlier too -- or quit talking about porn as if it is harmless because it didn't mess us up. It is not the same thing now, so there is no comparison. We both had the benefit from easier, earlier sex in a less sex-hostile environment whereas boys growing up today even have the female sex offender charade working against them. The combination of sexlessness and porn is poison to adolescent boys to the point that I think comparisons to heroin addiction are not so far-fetched after all.

Eivind Berge said...

Also please do notice how it is implied in that article that men learn their attraction to teen girls via an "escalating pathway" from watching "extreme" categories such as "teen" on mainstream porn sites. I am not exaggerating, here is the link again:

This is the same logic that says gays "learn" to be gay that we debated above and I am surprised that even TheAntfeminist is endorsing. It should make us pissed off that they try to blow off our normal male sexuality as a learned phenomenon that they can defeat if they manage to suppress porn.

Well, the silver lining is that they will fail and achieve the opposite effect, men getting closer to teen girls without porn :)

Somebody purporting to read Turing's mind better than somebody else I quoted (who being gay himself is better qualified too) is extremely weak evidence in this. It is funny though that they still think they can "rehabilitate" other sex offenders. The ones formerly criminalized in history cannot be treated but the ones they happen to criminalize now can, lol. The idea that sex offenders can be treated is dangerous and wrong and we male sexualists need to stand up against it. But myths have mixed effects so precisely when it comes to pornography it is not so bad that they believe this.

Anonymous said...

If a girl runs away from home to meet her "predator" and "abuser" by plane, I dare not imagine what the alternative at home must be...

Eivind Berge said...

It seems to me that the entire concept of “online abuse” is largely an artifact of the grifters of the abuse industry drumming up more work, power and excitement for themselves. Here is another article describing how they operate:

Today I started at 8.30 and I’ll be looking at content all day long: thousands and thousands of images in a day.... This could be a child talking to somebody online and someone the other side of the screen is asking them to do particular sexual things. The child doesn’t understand they are being recorded. Or it could be a case that a child shared images with a boyfriend and those were leaked. I’ve seen more of it this year; it is girls mainly in their bedroom or their bathroom in a family home setting – quite often we know they are at home, and their parents, carers or family are downstairs. It’s really important to say there is no blame on victims or parents, those images shouldn’t be online. All of these images are a crime scene.

A “crime scene” that is invented entirely for the benefit of the grifters in the abuse industry. I've been wondering how this concept took hold and how the idiots around me manage to conceptualize it as serious. Firstly it will be instructive to consider if there is a pre-Internet parallel, because if not then there must be something magical about the Internet that confers “reality” to “abuse” from a distance, or else we must reject the concept of online abuse. Before the Internet we had other means of communication that were just as “real” if not more so, such as telephones and good old letters. Say an underage girl corresponded with a man, and the man wrote that it would be cool if she touched herself. Would the girl upon receiving the letter and doing so then be encouraged to go “OMG I have been abused, let’s have a witch-hunt against correspondence abusers”? No? If not, then why is this kind of “abuse” suddenly a “real” thing with the Internet? Something is very fishy about how this concept arose and became established in law and the mainstream narrative.

I say, it's all thanks to these grifters who benefit from it. It must be exciting to sit there and hunt “abuse images” all day long and get paid for it. It doesn’t help that wankers on the other side of the hunt also find it exciting, and thus help sustain the delusion that there is anything substantial going on.

But there isn’t. Male sexualists reject both sides of the wanker’s delusion. There is no abuse, and no sexual benefit to men. Snap out of it and go for real sex. Then the grifters will also be unemployed until they realize that they need to target actual sex if they want to fight the cause they imagine they are fighting.

Anonymous said...

"This could be a child talking to somebody online and someone the other side of the screen is asking them to do particular sexual things".

Dear journalists from "The Guardian",

you are probably correct, but you should not overlook the fact that, if someone is "asking them", that's only the first part of the idyll. The second necessary condition is that the child actually does those things, and since she is not threatened with a gun by the man on the other side of the Internet line, then we must conclude that if she chooses to do such things, it's because she finds them pleasant (in fact, nobody prevents her from closing the connection immediately).

By the way, we often hear of children that are lazy and unmotivated to do schoolwork. Maybe we should consider hiring some of these pedophiles so that, in addition to the sexual things, they groomed these children into doing their homework? If they have such a power of persuasion even online, the social benefits would be huge.

Childlover! said...

Tom Grauer: Merry Christmas! You are not forgotten.

Anonymous said...


Police in Meriden are sending a warning to parents after seeing an increase in children creating and sharing sexually explicit photos and videos. They said children are using the material to harass or bully others and ask parents to speak to their children to stop what is happening.

Meriden Police said they take possession of child pornography, even by a child, very seriously.

Police are asking parents to speak to their children about the risks and possible consequences, including embarrassment if those images or videos are shown to family and friends; about bullying and harassment from peers; the long-term consequences if the content follows them for a long time, such as the impact on college admission and job prospects; as well as trouble with police because children who send intimate images can be arrested and charged with a crime, especially if they are caught sharing explicit images or videos of other children.

Meriden police urge parents to talk to their children about technology and how they are using it; to set ground rules and consequences; to learn about parental control settings and software; and to be aware of whom your child is communicating with and discuss the importance of privacy and not sharing passwords, personal information or intimate images and videos, even with friends.

Eivind Berge said...

So the police are essentially warning children about problems that they themselves will cause for them, along with a bunch of exaggerated trifles. Yes, the police-caused problems are indeed very serious and it is bizarre that the public will stand for this propaganda and persecution.

Anonymous said...

"You fail to explain why puberty should be taken as the absolute boundary line in a post-Freudian society like ours"

We have to look at nature as a beacon to determine truth, and truth should be the beacon for determining our laws and culture. The truth is, nature has us go through puberty to prepare for reproduction. That is obvious, and that is the line. Bringing up Freud (a conman), over nature, does not help an argument that actual pedophilia should be legal.

Saying that someone made a gay fetish the center of their life does nothing to dispute the evidence that the fetish is created by early male sexual experience and environmental toxins. "I don't hate homosexuals or wish to change them. I object to the fact it's presented as normal when normal male heterosexuality is presented as perverted" is exactly it.

"This is the same logic that says gays "learn" to be gay that we debated above and I am surprised that even TheAntfeminist is endorsing. "

No, Eivind's logic is incorrect. The obvious difference is already developed men watching hot teen girls versus still developing young boys whose brains get primed with a gay fetish.

"It seems to me that the entire concept of “online abuse” is largely an artifact of the grifters of the abuse industry drumming up more work, power and excitement for themselves...Snap out of it and go for real sex. Then the grifters will also be unemployed until they realize that they need to target actual sex if they want to fight the cause they imagine they are fighting."

Oh, they realize it alright. The "conservative" Republicans are at it again, already on a roll locking up US citizens anywhere in the entire world for "raping" 15 year olds or looking at pictures of naked 17 year olds (in fact, "conservative" fag Tom Cotton was responsible for that, and he continues now). Now they say if you "induce" a 17 year old to send a naked picture anywhere in the world and have any kind of prior crime related to "minor" sexuality, you go to jail for 35 years minimum:

"By the way, we often hear of children that are lazy and unmotivated to do schoolwork. Maybe we should consider hiring some of these pedophiles so that, in addition to the sexual things, they groomed these children into doing their homework? If they have such a power of persuasion even online, the social benefits would be huge." LOL

"Police are asking parents to speak to their children about the risks and possible consequences, including embarrassment if those images or videos are shown to family and friends; about bullying and harassment from peers; the long-term consequences if the content follows them for a long time, such as the impact on college admission and job prospects; as well as trouble with police because children who send intimate images can be arrested and charged with a crime, especially if they are caught sharing explicit images or videos of other children."

Just as the coronavirus response is not about health, the child porn response is not about sexuality - the rulers are obsessed with control through dividing the populous.

Holocaust22 said...

@eivind berge

"No, you have to be careful on Twitter. But he is a saint."

I just started a mass twitter war with like 500 people. I responded to 1000+ comments for 5 hours straight. I've now come to the conclusion that the world is doomed, and everyone is retarded.

Now I know why holocaust21 and tom bailed.

Eivind Berge said...

How can such sensible views be mixed with this blind spot about homosexuals? How do you explain all the men who turn out gay without any "priming" of the "fetish" in childhood? They are too many to dismiss, don't you think? And the "molested" ones can easily have gravitated towards such experiences because they already had that inclination and were destined to be gay anyway. This is a case of obstinate beliefs blocking rational thinking. The evidence is overwhelming but you are refusing to see it.

Yeah, the conservatives are batshit crazy just like the feminists. Anything to do with "minor" sexuality is a universal excuse for unlimited tyranny, because it has proven to offer zero resistance when politicians claim to be cracking down on it. The pandemic response, although surprising is mild in comparison, because they haven't managed to impose more than fines and a few months' imprisonment yet for violators of the new taboos. I don't think they can push it to 35 years for not wearing a mask, although unlike the psychosis about looking at pictures this rule at least has a tiny bit of justification.

Anonymous said...

Ralph Tindall: The Male Adolescent Involved With a Pederast Becomes an Adult

Abstract: A longitudinal study of nine cases is reported where the adolescent male was engaged after puberty in sexual activity with an adult male. Observations are reported in the second, third, and fourth decades after the teenage years in these cases. The subjects were drawn from a pool of 200 similar cases and are the cases where the most data are available. Implications for professionals dealing with adolescent sexuality are made. Gaps between what is legally permitted and what is actual practice are pointed out. Need for further research and the areas for that research are implied. A case against premature labeling is made.
Excerpt from the discussion: Many lay and professional persons have predicted dire consequences as a result of the type of relationships described in this account...My observations support Rossman's (1976) statement that it is a mistake to assume that boys who had experience with an older homosexual will eventually become homosexual or psychoneurotic or have more problems than any other male adolescent.

Here is the study:

Anonymous said...

Eivind, I wonder what your views on female masturbation are?

Eivind Berge said...

Female masturbation is not a health hazard and may even be beneficial to them the way the mainstream view says. Unless they experience it as problematic there is no reason to be concerned at all because they aren't missing out on important experiences like men do, because sex isn't so important to them. It is also effortlessly available when they want it and they can't get impotent. No refractory period either. It is a tragedy for boys that society pretends masturbation is just as harmless to them as it is for girls -- the reverse situation of the female sex offender charade where we pretend underage sex with women is harmful. These two ideas combine to form the ultimate poison for adolescent boys. I don't think society will be ready to admit that male masturbation is bad until they admit that sex is healthy for them, because you can't keep all these minor boys from masturbating if they can't have sex and we pretend the few women who are nice to them are sex offenders. Since society cares nothing about male sexual health, it will continue insisting that masturbation is fine until we can have sex-positivity.

Eivind Berge said...

Notice that a gynocentric view of masturbation has taken hold just like it has for sexual offenses, with no room for considering that the sexes are different. It shows how powerful feminism is; they don't just make the laws, but control the norms and medical guidance as well. Before feminism, society had the balls to assert that male masturbation is harmful, but now we are marginalized as "misogynistic" extremists just for pointing that out. This society imposes the female view as the only one, perhaps unsurprisingly when it hurts males, but bizarrely when it harms innocent women as well as in the female sex offender charade. And of course it is the most hysterical, extremely intolerant female view that is taken as dominant. Women never had any reason to be concerned about masturbation though, so they won't warn you about that -- except when it can benefit a female by accusing a male, which is why all the underage girls who are "induced" into masturbating or depicted even by themselves of course are horribly "abused."

holocaust22 said...


After arguing with feminist sjws on twitter for 40 hours about the age of consent, I've changed my mind about feminism. Feminism is the greatest evil that has ever existed. And it has created hell on planet earth. I've been red pilled.

Anonymous said...

But women like Camille Paglia are feminist, so maybe the real evil are places like Twitter?

Anonymous said...


Please stop citing Paglia as a representative of the feminist movement, she's an exception ! There was a short period between 1970and 1980 roughly when the myth of "sexual freedom" prevailed. It superseded all other differences, including amongst some of the feminists at that time.
It was like the Kerensky government in revolutionary Russia : a brief period of hope and tolerance before the soviets took over.

Besides, I wonder if Paglia hasn't toned down on her more "radical" views for quite a while...

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah. While Twitter selects for SJWs and bans you easily if you disagree, they have so many users that it's not far from a cross-section of the population, and certainly most feminists feel at home there. It is really this bad. What you get when you try to argue on Twitter is the society we are up against and they already made the laws.

Anonymous said...

A cross-section of the English-speaking population and related "Axis of Evil", maybe.
Elsewhere in the world, on the other hand,a lot of people don't give a damn about the age of consent. Watch this:

Eivind Berge said...

That was all about boys and a lot of it appears to be genuine homosexual abuse. Surely the girls are much better protected and probably even overprotected. I seem to recall posting about a new feminist-style Pakistani rape law in this very thread, so there isn't much difference there aside from not looking after those street boys.

Anonymous said...

There are still people who firmly think that only rape is rape!

Eivind Berge said...

That's amazing. Her point of view is not supposed to exist according to the dominant narrative and most of the time it would be censored. The psyop to make such positive experiences "rape" has been astonishingly effective and though the truth still seeps out now and then, there is no sign that the tide is turning. Even the interviewer puts pressure on her to conform; that's how isolated she is, and I doubt this video will stay up for long if it gets significant views.

Anonymous said...

Moreover, she was not brainwashed by "the rapists"...

Anonymous said...

You know our civilization is satanic when the only time people think twice about feminism is when a girl acts masculine and pursues a man.

theantifeminist said...

Currently in the UK, the vaccine rollout program is running into difficulties because of all the red tape over vetting that was put in place due to paedohysteria over the years. There is a shortage of volunteers to give the millions of elderly their Covid vaccines because they are having to go through countless forms and checks to prove they are not a paedophile etc.

Thousands of old people will likely die needlessly because of the delays in getting their vaccines, directly caused by paedohysteria and femihag vetting demands.

Not to mention the likely hundreds of elderly sex offenders who have already died from Covid in Britain's overcrowded 'nonce' wings.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 222   Newer› Newest»