Tuesday, February 23, 2021

The nihilist approach

I do not believe men can have meaningful lives without breaking the sex laws. The feminists have criminalized so much of our sexuality that life simply wouldn’t be worth living if we were actually going to obey all that. So what do men do? We are all criminals, obviously. Just to take one of the latest exacerbations, nobody will go through the “consent” formality that Danish (and Swedish, but so far not Norwegian) law now requires every time they have sex. There is an app for it, but the consent proof obtained there is only valid for 24 hours. So if you're in a relationship, how long do you think it will be before the two of you agree to skip that formality? Voila, you are a “rapist”! And remember, thanks to recent legal reforms she has the rest of her life to come to this realization, for example after a nasty divorce decades in the future, plus they have made sure the final safety valve, a jury of your peers, is gone too and you get convicted by professional feminists.

Feminists literally want to make it that easy to convict, with legislators and judges bending over backwards to accommodate them. And this doesn’t even begin to address the possibility that women can claim they didn’t consent to signing the consent document for the same vague and ever expanding reasons as they could claim they didn’t consent to sex before this latest legal innovation, which surely won't be the last either. And even if you somehow manage to prove consent every time, there is the rest of the iceberg of hateful feminist antisex laws that don’t give a damn if she consented, such as the Nordic model that will persecute you for giving her money, or if she is “underage” or a student of yours or so on and on according to a plethora of new-fangled taboos with only the imagination limiting the creation of new laws since there is no Men's Rights Movement outside of blog posts. At this point we don’t even have the pretense that men can be law-abiding, because it is altogether impractical if you want to have a sex life at all.

But what else do men do with this situation other than breaking the law? What do we do politically and activistically? Approaches to activism range from terrorist to nihilist, via quisling therapy and hard determinist therapy that I have written about before. Now that we have lost the jury I am ready for full-fledged nihilism. Because it is not given that we even have to believe in the law’s existence, and things somewhat improve if we deny that.

The violence behind it can’t be denied, but beyond that there is no necessary reality to the law. You don’t have to believe that the law carries any more significance than the growl of a tiger before it eats you. You would be well advised to heed it as a warning, but it has no causal power and certainly no moral force. This removes any moral agency of legislators or law enforcement from the picture and helps you deal with the law in purely pragmatic terms, with zero respect for its normativity. You don’t even have to believe in its language. Law is then one type of signs that some people use to justify violence to themselves and others. What the signs “mean,” if there even is such a thing as meaning, can be discounted. This is one way to try to make life worth living in an environment of total criminality -- simply don’t believe in the law and evaluate the violent agents who "enforce" it as predators instead.

I have previously said we should self-register as sex offenders. Now, let’s mock the antisex bigots further by asserting and internalizing that men can’t have meaningful lives without being sex offenders. It is a powerful realization which pulls the rug out from under the feminists and reduces all their shaming attempts to ashes! Maggie McNeill says 50% of men have paid for sex at least once, which alone makes that many sex offenders. A commenter once told me he had “no skin in the game” regarding the criminalization of men who pay for sex. But did he think through what happens when he gets so old that the only way to be with a young woman is to pay? Then he will surely realize that obeying the law is not an option, that the purpose of the police is to destroy your life -- the implications of which are very profoundly hateful indeed. This hatred must be dealt with by some kind of radicalism, and here I am at long last proposing nihilism. This way you avoid taking the poison pill of hate which mainly hurts yourself like I did for way too many years, and you avoid provoking the monsters unduly at the same time as disrespecting them maximally.

Simply breaking the law without publicly talking about it, like most men do, is also a radical position if you think about it. It is to be a legal nihilist without verbalizing it. There is no way around some kind of radicalism, because the feminists have criminalized our very nature, and failing to express that nature, for the weak men who still mean to obey the law, is also a kind of radicalism (albeit a very retarded one).

In the Robert Kraft prostitution sting, police used a fake bomb threat in order to install cameras. Yes, the cops resorted to literal terrorism just to uncover one unauthorized handjob, and then they had to drop that charge as well. I do not believe the conspiracy theories claiming 9/11 was an inside job, but that’s because there was no antisexual motive to make them credible. If the authorities had had any reason to believe they could uncover as much as an unauthorized massage by going through with all that destruction, then they would, because that is how much this society hates sexuality.

I am not so naive as to think laws are always meant to be obeyed, even when they have no compelling moral basis. For example if you slavishly obeyed speed limits you would be slowing down traffic, and the drinking age is never taken to be absolute, and smoking weed is (or was) illegal and socially accepted at the same time. Part of me wants to believe that sexuality works the same way, and I note that in the company of decent people you can live as if that is the case. But then you have these batshit crazy persecutions to remind us that the feminists do indeed mean the hatred literally and got unlimited violence to back it up. Nihilism can't cure the violence, but it can remove the self-imposed damage from thinking the law exists in addition to the violence. You can even be a mereological nihilist about instances of such violence and see them as unrelated, hence for a moment free yourself from the mental tyranny of living under feminism.


theantifeminist said...

Some good news - at least the filthy pig excrements in the UK who terrorized politicians and war heroes, at the word of master paedocrite Carl Beech, may be getting charged.


Hope they get years inside and are repeatedly battered and anally raped by their nonce cellmates.

Anonymous said...

You seem to be a big fan of anal rape, as this subject appears in 30% of your posts. I wonder what Freud would say about this fixation?

Anonymous said...

But I doubt that they'll receive a prison sentence: "Canis canem non est", and this is particularly true in the UK!

theantifeminist said...

"You seem to be a big fan of anal rape, as this subject appears in 30% of your posts. I wonder what Freud would say about this fixation?"

Whatever you say Pedopower, but you must share the obsession if you're measuring the percentage of my posts in which I allegedly mention anal rape.

theantifeminist said...

Oh look, Pedopower can refer Freud and quote Latin. That will come in so handy when he's getting a big dick in his ass from Mr Big in the shower.

Anonymous said...

The percentage moved from 30 to 31.2 per cent, apparently... As for the Latin, it was of course a matter between qualified persons, i.e. myself and the Honourable Eivind.

theantifeminist said...

@Eivind - when you say that we should register as sex offenders, do you mean all five of us?

Although to be honest, now that most of your small readership appears to come from the paedophile (and namely pederast) community, I think most of them are probably already on the sex offenders register.

@PedoPower - I don't think I've ever used the term 'anal rape' here before that comment. If you can take a break from swotting Latin and time on boychat, I'd be surprised to see if you can link to such a comment. I did often on my blog refer to the fact that anal rape is a real possibility for somebody sentenced for a feminist sex crime in the UK or West (outside of Norwegian holiday camps etc.). I wont make much of an attempt to explain to somebody like you - presumably a pedophile autist 'kind activst' imbecile - as to why, but mainly as my site was directed towards MRAs who are supposed to be concerned about 'male rape' and yet ignore the sexual holocaust and mass rape of men via the feminist prison system. Eivind doesn't believe in male rape, even anal rape by another man, and his efforts are most directed these days at attracting 'cultured' homosexual padedophiles like you to the cause, rather than fighting for normal male sexuality.

BTW, given that you are presumably such a (real) paedophile, then I think it's rather more concerning that you have an obsession for anal rape, as well as an apparent sympathy for Carl Beech and the dirty pigs who enabled him and likely share his paedocrite perversions.

Eivind Berge said...

All right, I don't feel insults about "anal rape" contributes much to the discussion, so please stop. For the record, I *DO* believe men should be legally protected from anal rape by other men AT LEAST at the level that real vaginal rape is. Whether to call it rape or have a separate concept is debatable, but reforming that is very far down on my list of concerns. Also about the pederasty, you have a point. I have been starting to get media requests again, and it worries me that if I get publicity and people come here to see these kinds of comments, it might lead to the wrong sort of conclusion about what kind of movement and forum this is and even what I am. For someone who is attracted to sexually mature females, I don't need this. I do realize that pederasts also have legitimate grievances with the sex laws, and as such, we are allies, but I need to maintain some boundaries here. Please use tact in the comments and also extremely abrasive name-calling as above is unacceptable -- at least use something less in-your-face like perhaps ThePowerofKindness instead?

To heighten the quality of this discussion and also to bring back the MRA spirit, I am now going to go look for the excellent article that I remember Angry Harry wrote about "signing the sex consent document" and post it here if I find it. I thought that was an exercise in reductio ad absurdum at the time and still can't believe Harry anticipated real events, that feminists literally managed to make this a "normal" thing to do in order to avoid rape convictions.

Eivind Berge said...

Here it is:


Signing The Sex Consent Document

By Angry Harry

Here's Robert Verkaik, the Legal Affairs Correspondent for The Independent

"A change in the law that would make it harder for men to fend off rape claims by saying that the woman had consented to sex is being considered by ministers.

The proposed reform switches the burden of proof to the defendant, who would have to present evidence in court to show that the woman had given her consent without the influence of duress or force."

In other words, men will shortly have to prove their innocence. They will have to provide proof that the woman agreed. They will be found guilty of rape unless they can prove otherwise. We're heading directly for having to sign a document every time we have sex.

I want you to imagine that by the year 2010 it is accepted by society that women need to sign a document of consent before every act of sexual intercourse. No-one complains anymore about this. We've all had enough, and we've all agreed that women must sign a document before having sex, or the men are charged with rape.

Very civilised indeed.

But this won't reduce rape. It will increase it - because this is what will happen.

Many couples, in the heat of the moment, or because they're young and inexperienced, or because they're not very bright, or because they don't feel the need, or because they've been drinking, or because they don't have a pen right now, will embark upon sex without the document being signed. They're happy with it, and no-one will know. Who cares? So they jump into bed and have a good time.

But then there's discord over something. The man and the woman argue. The man stalks off. The woman is offended. And the hysterical woman's chat show programme on the TV now reminds her that if the document isn't signed then it was rape.

She becomes even more angry. And that b*stard raped me. That's what the law says. He couldn't even be bothered to get that pen. So that's what he thinks of me. Cheap and easy. That's all I am to him. I'll teach him.

He raped me. I didn't sign that document.

And she phones the police.

Eivind Berge said...

My point is that according to the new law, he did indeed rape her. They were happy to do what they did, when they did it. She was a happy woman while she did what she did. But their later argument has changed all that. And she has re-written the History of it all. That b*stard manipulated me and raped me. Rape is what the law calls it. I have been abused.

And when he is found guilty, he will go to prison for raping her. And the very fact that she didn't sign the document will actually be taken as 'proof' that he must have raped her - otherwise she would have had the time to sign the document.

You see, rape will never end.

There will always be rape.

Because, however we define it, some couples will always cross that barrier. And when it comes to failing to sign a document, more men will cross that barrier, not less - so rape will increase.

Thousands more men will cross the line in failing to have a document signed than would actually commit an act of real assault.

There will, therefore, be THOUSANDS of more 'rapes'!

The 'rape' figures from the Home Office will therefore escalate. The 'rape' hysteria will therefore be pumped up again. There will therefore be even more demands for more convictions and for more men to be sent down.

And so it will go on.

And then, of course, we will have to tighten up the laws even more.

After all, hundreds of thousands of men every year will be failing to get their sex-consent documents signed, and the feminists will be screaming that 1 million women are now being 'raped' every year.

So perhaps the law will then demand that we will all need to go to a lawyer before having sex, so that he can witness the sex-consent document being signed. And even more couples will fail to do this. So there will be even more 'rape'.

The truth is that the feminists and the government simply want women to have the power to disempower and debilitate more men.

It's as simple as that.

The more dysfunction and disharmony that there is, the more jobs are there for those who work in an ever-growing abuse industry.

And men are the fodder.

Western countries are being heavily influenced by feminist spitefulness and female vindictiveness. And governments are very happy to accommodate to them - which is hardly surprising, since governments are the major beneficiaries of 'crime'.

The proposed changes to the UK law and the further corruption of our justice system will simply lead to more impulsive accusations, more relationship disharmony, more family breakdown and, therefore, more vulnerable and dysfunctional children.

Have a look at this from Carol Sarler (The Observer 9/4/2000). She reminds us of the ... "Bristol woman who changed her mind during sexual intercourse. She was making love with her fiancé, in the middle of which she asked him to stop. He didn't. She lived with him for a further two months, then he (yes, he) broke off their engagement. She took a further three months to stew over this, then accused him of rape. He went to jail."

How is any man to have any faith in justice or in the security of a relationship when a perverse and corrupt legal system aids and abets any vindictive woman who changes her mind, or lies, at any time?

And the massive feminist propaganda machine is there to inflame women daily, and to urge them, daily, to make false or frivolous allegations against their partners.

It will not be long, therefore, before men will just have to avoid completely any close relationships if they have got any sense.

And, as I have shown you, the situation will not change, even if we all agree to have the woman sign a sex-consent document.

As the thresholds for what are deemed to be 'abusive' behaviours move further and further into the realms of behaviours that are relatively normal, not only will thousands more actually cross these thresholds, but there will be an even greater number of people using them in order to make spurious accusations.

A double whammy!

Eivind Berge said...

The feminist-inspired hysteria concerning rape is not about assault, and it is not about rape. It is about feminists wanting women to have complete control over every man in the country by allowing them to make false accusations without fear and with impunity.

And our politicians, for their own self-serving purposes, are supporting them.

After all, the more alleged "rapes" that there are, the bigger can their various empires grow.

Yet there could hardly be anything more damaging to a society than for it to pour so much energy into creating more inter-gender disharmony.

Indeed, can you imagine what injustices there would be if, for example, every police officer who was accused of assault had actually to prove his innocence? - and if he was unable to do this, then he would go to prison!?

It would be an injustice against police officers of massive proportions to instigate such a policy.

And yet, when it comes to women accusing 'men', it seems that massive injustices just do not matter.

Eivind Berge said...

That was Angry Harry's article posted three parts. It's so depressing that not only does it keep getting worse, at the point where we have now reached the limit of his imagination, but we also don't have anyone like him to fight it anymore because men just don't seem to care.

Eivind Berge said...

Finally some police work I can approve of :-)


"(CNN)Two police officers in the Philippines were killed in a shootout with other federal agents during a botched undercover drug bust, according to official state media Philippine News Agency (PNA).

The two officers, from the Philippine National Police (PNP), faced off against agents from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in Quezon City on Wednesday evening. Three PDEA agents were also wounded in the confrontation and hospitalized.

Police from the Quezon City Police District special operations unit had been conducting a drug buy-bust operation in a fast-food chain parking lot when they found out they were transacting with PDEA agents. The shootout took place shortly after; the exact circumstances of the shooting are not yet clear."

They should do their sex stings that way too.

Eivind Berge said...

I also listened to one of Angry Harry's podcasts again:


It is a dark view of human institutions and informal groups that work together to assert more power than individuals can. These entities are made of humans, but they are decidedly not human. You can also call them AIs if you like. They start serving their own selfish interests and don’t really give a damn about individuals. Angry Harry here calls them superorganisms, and they are sure not something you should be a nihilist about, because they do rule over us.

The individual is powerless against institutions. The individual will be crushed as soon as you piss one off. The only way we can fight institutions is with other institutions. And the ideology we call male sexualism has utterly failed to produce any institutions. Normal male sexuality has no institutions to look after its interests, nothing bigger than an individual. We are even far behind the pedophiles on this, whose institutions like PIE and NAMBLA at least are or were institutions although they got mostly crushed by other institutions.

I do not know how to go about creating an organization that would have any members and be self-perpetuating, but that is what we would need to do. And before we get there we need to realize how powerless we are, both against other institutions and in terms of attracting a membership. Organizations are selfish and so are most humans. People only want to join an organization of it serves them in some way. Hence men who might otherwise not be crazy about feminism will join the police and legal profession and political parties and so on to get other benefits, and then these institutions force them to uphold the persecution of sexuality. As male sexualists we have nothing to offer them except ostracism and poverty, so they won’t join us instead.

And as Angry Harry well describes there, the superorganisms create people’s reality to a high degree. They decide what is “abuse” and have this brainwashed into the populace. Thankfully there are limits to how far this can go, as we have seen in some recent studies of how sexual experiences are self-reported, but it works well enough to enforce a feminist reign of terror. The institutions have enormous interest in expanding the definitions of “abuse” in order to empower themselves. There is seemingly unlimited money in accusing and prosecuting and treating and punishing abuse, but nothing in working to reverse this trend. So here we are in a hopeless situation.

If there is a path forward, it would be through the establishment of an organization of some sort. But I don’t know how to make it compelling enough that anybody would join. And the realization that institutions start serving their own ends once they exist also raises the dark prospect that even if we had an organization, it wouldn't remain true to our ideals for long, but get into the usual power play between superorganisms. Even though I would have been the founder, I could soon find myself seen by this entity as not serving its interests and be shrugged off. Before long it may well have degenerated into something like A Voice for Men that is just another feminist organization, because apparently only they can thrive in the current environment. If the fundamental problem is female nature plus democracy and prosperity, there is no hope until one of those conditions no longer applies.

Oh well, collapse may not be far off anyway:


According to Gail Tverberg it has already started but we pretend the lockdowns and business failures are temporary rather than a manifestation of the early stages of collapse, and that way the feminist institutions also manage to access enough resources to keep up the antisex persecution for now. Once they lose that grip, we'll be struggling for survival and not able to enjoy much sexual freedom, so this isn't an optimistic view either.

Eivind Berge said...

Accusations of sexual misconduct are the male Achilles' heel, which feminists have now mastered the art of attacking. The accusations are like a virus who enlists the resources of its victims against them. It doesn't matter how big and strong the victims are. All accusers need is a tiny string of words, like "he raped me," and then all the institutions in which men are situated will direct their might against the man. Because the institutions really serve themselves, and this is currently how they thrive. The only effort allotted to the other side is a comparatively tiny amount spent on defense attorneys, but they are also part of institutions -- law firms -- that exist to serve their own selfish ends, and it is not in the interests of these institutions either to have less "abuse." Thus, no one at all fights for the sexualist position in the capacity of an institution. Politicians do not get elected on that platform or even bother trying aside from some extremely rare exceptions like Nathan Larson who have no hope of winning.

All we have is words, and only for as long as the institutions will allow. As soon as we starting having any real impact, we are chewed up as well without an institution to fight for us, which even if it existed would likely be a pushover.

Eivind Berge said...

Oh, but she was only a helpless little 15-year-old “child” at the time, so how can she possibly be held responsible for her decision?


“Shamima Begum not allowed to return to UK, Supreme Court rules. Woman who travelled to Syria to join Islamic State group as a teenager argued she should be allowed to return to appeal against stripping of her citizenship.”

I marvel at the hypocrisy involved here compared to how society now usually treats the sexual agency of teen girls, which is especially flagrant here since this also involved sex. If her decision had been to run over to the neighbor to have sex, she would have been 100% a victim -- indeed she would have been “groomed” just talking about it -- but joining ISIS AND getting married and starting a family at age 15 are all responsible acts.

This verdict is not unreasonable, but why can't we ditch the antisex hypocrisy? How come girls are responsible for joining ISIS but not something like Epstein's circle or even having a chat with an older man at the same age? How do they expect us to believe this is reconcilable with anything but pure misandry and feminazi supremacy?

Bjorn said...

Holocaust ?


Eivind Berge said...

I was just reading about that. Of course, the mainstream media will frame it as "escape from justice" and "admission of guilt" when a man accused of sex crimes commits suicide:


But we know how much these things get distorted, so there is good reason to suspect another witch-hunt. The "sexual conduct" of which he is accused may well be normal male sexuality if more familiar cases are any indication. I had never heard John Geddert before and can't vouch for his character, but we should treat these allegations with extreme suspicion until we have truly reliable info. And what the fuck, "lying to a peace officer during a violent crime investigation," this is evidently now also criminalized?!

Police can lie all they want and even conduct stings, yet they expect us to tell the truth? Of course, you should never talk to them at all, but any obligation to tell them the truth if we do when accused is morally bankrupt to say the least.

theantifeminist said...

Bjorn said...

Holocaust ?

Sex abuse allegations, whether false or real, must surely be one of the leading causes of male suicide these days. Then if you add the dozens of suicides each year after arrests for child porn or other porn crimes, and the likely hundreds of suicides of those fearing arrest, or feelings of shame or guilt. And how many male suicides are the result of men being unable to live with the secret fear that they are 'paedophiles' or 'MAPs' (lol) simply for being attracted to adolescents and not realizing that every man is (but that nearly every man is a paedocrite)?

I think it's reasonable to assume that the issues that Male Sexualists discuss and see as real men's rights issues are by far the leading cause in the rise in male suicide over the last couple of decades, yet the MRA prats refuse to discuss that cause, while at the same time claiming victimhood on the basis of that rise in the male suicide rate.

Similarly with 'male rape'. MRAs point to statistics that show that in the USA, more men are raped than women, but simply to claim equal victimhood. They will never address the fact that most of those male rape victims are sex offenders anally raped by other male prisoners. They will certainly never question whether many of those men should have even been in prison for breaking feminist sex laws (aside from the issue of false accusations), and reject the likes of myself and Eivind as being men's rights activists for being willing to do so.

I can't decide who are the most pathetic low life - the MRAs or the 'MAPs' and cultured virtuous pedo power plonkers. It shouldn't be so difficult for a middle-ground movement to emerge - Male Sexualism - but evidently it is. Yet the struggle must go on so long as we are still alive and breathing. Dum vita est, spes est.

Holocaustum Absolutus said...

Oh Eivind I've got a terrible story to tell you. I was walking on the beach last week and there was a man and a woman with their teenage daughter. The daughter was quite pretty and about 17 and I smiled at her as we passed. The mum then started shouting at me that I was a pedo and told her husband to beat me up. I didn't know what to do, I was so scared when I saw the man raising his fists in fury, so I just thought of the anti-feminist and I shouted "your wife is a jealous old hag you filthy paedocrite" at him. Oh Eivind, I can't begin to describe the look on her face. It's still giving me nightmares. I think it will haunt me for the rest of my life. It was a look of despair, shame, and disbelief. I felt so bad. The man looked like he didn't know what to do. So I said what I should have said at the start. "You're both a pair of pedo-nazis", I said. And then I don't understand, because they suddenly started laughing. They were really pissing themselves laughing. And then the man suddenly punched me hard in the face, and I didn't konw where I was and my nose was pouring with blood, and I was looking up at them from the ground. So I said to them, I said to them Eivind - 'ut alteram praebeat maxillam', and the man started laughing again and said - "what a f***ing nonce" and started kicking me in the head. Luckily a policeman was passing and came over and said to the couple and their daughter - "ello ello ello, what have we here then?", and they told him I was a filthy nonce who was perving on their kid and that I called them pedo nazis. So I explained to the policeman that I just feel we should be allowed to smile at each other, and I told him I'm not as extreme as Eivind Berge and the anti-feminist, I don't agree with them, but I do feel we should be able to smile at teenage girls. He asked me if I wanted to press charges against the man and woman for assault and I told him not to be ridiculous. I told him I deserved to be beaten up for calling the woman a hag and the man a paedocrite, but I explained it was all the fault of the anti-feminist. I couldn't say sorry to the woman enough. She couldn't stop laughing at me and even spat on me, and then the policeman laughed too and spat on me and gave me a kick, but I deserved it.

Oh but Eivind, yesterday I read in the local paper that she's a teacher and has been arrested for having sex with one of her 13 year old boy students. I'm going to start a petition to have her freed. I can't believe I've got a chance to make up to her through exposing the female sex offender charade. It was such a horrid, horrid thing I said to her. Oh Eivind, I can't get the look on her face out of my head.

Anonymous said...

You are a skilled science-fiction writer!

Eivind Berge said...

Well, that was funny. Talk about turning the other cheek -- in Latin, lol! But seriously, is the implication here that victims of the female sex offender charade tend to be nasty feminists who wouldn't hesitate to have men beaten up for smiling at 17-year-old girls? What is the evidence for this view? Seems like nothing but prejudice to me. I don't believe anyone reading this blog has enough experience with female "sex offenders" to know that they are like that. And to the extent that they are, these women are also products of this sex-hostile age, with limited ability to think for themselves because most people lack that ability. They wouldn't be the main ideologues behind it, that's for sure, so they deserve as much sympathy as the fake "victims" who get brainwashed by the abuse industry to feel bad about positive sexual experiences. The female sex offender charade is a profound injustice on top of everything they do to men, and deserves special recognition for the aspects that go beyond the war on male sexuality, namely the pretense that positively lucky boys are victims. This topsy-turvy view of sexuality is a whole 'nother level than just criminalizing and punishing victimless sexuality, and I can't gloss over that. The absurdity of it should also work in our favor, and the fact that it doesn't yet simply means people are in a sort of trance, still stuck in that emperor's new clothes moment of not feeling like they can point out the obvious.

Eivind Berge said...

Today’s antisex headlines just at CNN:


Make sure to be properly castrated before entering politics! New York governor Andrew Cuomo has failed at this as he showed signs of being a man. Are there any kind of sexual advances that can't be called "unwanted" and thus be abuse and harassment today?


I can’t even parse what this one is about.


"A woman once believed to be a victim in a college sex trafficking case has now been charged in it" -- oh yes, did you think the feminist police state would be sated once it got through with the men you wanted to accuse? Feminists have created a monster that will eat them too; there is no controlling its appetite any longer.


"Allegations of sexual misconduct by Cawthorn, who at age 25 is the youngest member of Congress.... "His MO was to take vulnerable women out on these rides with him in the car, and to make advances," Caitlin Coulter, one of Cawthorn's former classmates, told CNN in an interview. Coulter said she was taken on something Cawthorn called a "fun drive," where he asked about her purity ring and her sexual experiences. She says she felt something was off and shut down the conversation."

Yes, college is all about the purity, isn’t it? College women are still “vulnerable” helpless victims who cannot comprehend that men can possibly have sexual intentions -- despite the man here even having a reputation for it in that community. We get the impression the female perspective on sexuality is just misconduct, rape, abuse and harassment; that this simply what sexuality is (I know from experience with women this is often not true, but it is the dominant narrative). If a man asks you out on a “fun drive” he probably only wants to see your purity ring and anything else would be misconduct. As if any normal man would only be interested in basking in the glory of asexuality together despite both of you being in the prime mating age, now backed by a perverse alliance of both religious and feminist antisex bigotry.

The overarching theme in all these articles is that women are supposed to be entitled to men not having sexual feelings or intentions, and certainly not acting on them in any manner. Coeds are in all seriousness entitled to the presumption that an invitation to a “fun drive” by a fellow male student is meant to be no fun at all.

This is what female supremacy looks like, folks. Leave your balls behind before applying for any sort of position, because the male, sexually adventurous perspective has been so entirely purged that even at the highest levels of politics will men be stripped of all power if they show any sign of masculinity.

Holocaust22 said...


This is a perfect example of the "i'm not responsible for my own actions" current sjw culture.

"I was vulnerable, I was groomed, I was manipulated, I was too young, I was too old, I was drunk, nothing I do is my fault, I'm not responsible, I can't take care of myself"

The other two articles though are problematic. Cawthorn isn't just being accused of flirting, but forced kissing, and acting like a lunatic every time he got rejected.

The other one is accusations of kidnapping? Lol wat.

Anyways, eivind, have you been keeping up with the Dahvie Vanity and Marilyn Manson accusations?

Eivind Berge said...

The other two articles though are problematic. Cawthorn isn't just being accused of flirting, but forced kissing, and acting like a lunatic every time he got rejected.

Yes, he may well be guilty of bad behavior as such. What I was reacting to is how they present it as if the women are entitled to no sexual intentions or advances whatsoever and even after accepting invitations to hang out. That men should respect a “purity ring” and be all about chastity in such situations is absurd. But sure, being rejected doesn’t give him the right to act in the reckless ways he is accused of.

Anyways, eivind, have you been keeping up with the Dahvie Vanity and Marilyn Manson accusations?

No, those are new to me. There are so many it’s hard to keep up. At this point it would be more newsworthy to list famous men not accused of sexual misconduct. Perhaps Willie Nelson is still in the clear and I can’t think of many others.

Cuomo keeps getting accused of more normal male sexuality:


Time to reject female supremacist entitlement to asexual men in the workplace, because this is what the concept of “sexual harassment” is. We need to own the reality that we are all “harassers” and “rapists” and “abusers” according to current definitions and normalize it as our healthy nature. By the power of normality shall we fight back, rendering their accusations as superfluous statements of the obvious as we go about our lives.

Holocaust22 said...

The story on cuomo is bizarre. He is being accused of sexual abuse for literally flirting with someone lol.


Look at trevor noah here, insulting him. Leftists are such dorks.

@theantifeminist. Can you bring back your old blogs so I can share them on other forums? I remember one of your old posts, about middle school girls selling their used underwear to old men in japan, before feminists came over and started calling everyone pedophiles. Why have you gotten rid of these gems. The other one about the german politician saying feminists wanted to make it illegal for two 16 year olds to kiss each other was also a good one. This is interesting historical information I've never heard of before lol.

Holocaust22 said...

@eivind. The dahvie vanity situation is interesting. He seems to be a dude that is unrelenting in his attraction to teenage girls. Even after the FBI is investigating him, he continues to sext teenagers. And even after all the accusations, when he live streams, you still see teenage girls calling him "daddy" in the comment section lol.

The singer in ICP called for his fans to kill dahvie vanity in the street, if they ever see him. I'm surprised he didn't get arrested for it.

The singer of ICP is a total poser, always acting like a tough guy.


He's talking massive shit here, challenging someone to a fight. The guy actually comes to the studio to fight him, and he backs down. Lmao.

Whereas it seems Dahvie vanity is actually a brawler


And here he is live streaming. Look at all the underage girls drooling over him in the comment section


Seems like all of his accusers are just girls trying to sleep with older guys, then they turn around and play victim when they get what they want.

I would pay money for a Pay-Per-View fight between dahvie vanity and icp.

holocaust22 said...


Corey feldman accuses marilyn manson of grooming him when he was 28 years old

It's sad this isn't an onion article.

Eivind Berge said...

"The story on cuomo is bizarre. He is being accused of sexual abuse for literally flirting with someone lol."

Yes, the worst part is how this is now completely normalized. Male sexuality is synonymous with abuse and I can't see the slightest hint in the mainstream that there is anything wrong with this situation. Only what you say about Dahvie Vanity is a little heartening, that he is still able to assert some normality. There is certainly no sanity outside of "sexual abusers," so that is what we need to stand for now as far as the mainstream is concerned. The redefinition of our sexuality into abuse is complete and we need to live with that come hell or high water.

Eivind Berge said...

With universal criminality, sexual accusations now function like a flashlight. Wherever you shine light on sexuality, lo and behold you find criminality. We are all criminals all the time (or have something in our past that can be thus illuminated), but the accusations would cease to be useful to women if they were all lit up at once, so there is this willful blindness to most sexual offending even as it goes on in broad daylight. The purpose of male sexualism is to illuminate our sex crimes so much that society can't help but acknowledge that they are normal, whereupon the feminist cuntrags and male scum who enforce the laws will lose their power.

It is obvious that universal criminality works depressingly well as a "normal" situation, but surely accusations must be applied somewhat sparingly in order to be effective. The problem with men is they don't want to self-identify as sex offenders before they have to so we can put an end to this madness.

Eivind Berge said...

Australia also going crazy with rape accusations:


It's funny how the lack of evidence besides an accuser's word and the fact that it was 33 years ago suddenly matter once a prosecutor is accused.


Good thing they get to feel the monster they created, so let's put attorney general Christian Porter on trial for that. Despite all those words, I can't discern whether the accusations concern real rape or the girl was "forced" because she was too drunk or young though.

"Reporter: So her specific allegation in the statement to her lawyer was that then you took her back to her room allegedly and allegedly then forced her to perform oral sex on you and that after that you raped her twice. What do you say to that allegation?"

This is not a description of what happened, but a judgment of it on the same retarded level as what makes so much of our normal sexuality rape and abuse. Need to be more specific than "forced" and "raped" when everything is rape, but sadly that's the level that passes these days because society is in a hysterical funk about sexuality. Even so, it stinks that he denies even having sex with her or trying to in that situation. He comes across as a slimy liar unlike so many men he helped prosecute and may well be a real rapist.

Anonymous said...


Right on time... This is actually quite joyous news. I hope the consequences of this may wake a lot more people up.

holocaust22 said...

@Eivind berge


From this article

"They think it's okay to convince a girl to perform oral sex"

Uhhh, it's not ok to convince a girl to have oral sex? What lol

"They think it's okay to get a girl really drunk on purpose and have sex with them"

That's the best strategy to get laid. What's the issue.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, of course it had to happen. Norway will define sex as rape by default and this will pass without any noticeable opposition. Men will not wake up. We already tried to wake them up but at every stage of feminist law reform they only got more apathetic.

And, yeah, holocaust22, convincing a girl to have sex is also abuse. When rape by default is established, the mere mention of consent will be the next frontier of criminalization, so that the next law reform will have to specify that signatures on the sex consent document are invalid if the girl was convinced in ways that will start by drunkenness and then inflate to cover any and all regret. At this rate Women's Day 2040 will be about abolishing the last vestiges of a valid sex consent contract under any circumstances no matter how well notarized, cryptographically signed and certified by a slew of psychiatrists that the woman was able to consent at the time. With the Danish app you already have to sign it the same way you do bank transactions, but there is no way feminists will be willing to live with that holding up in court even for a few years. Men give them everything they ask for but there is no sign that feminists will ever slow down the escalation of antisex violence against men.

Eivind Berge said...

Some implications...

With rape defined as sex with the absence of proof of consent, and the statute of limitations abolished, men will have to keep this proof for life. Since commercial apps or personal records can scarcely be relied on to last (and how do you prove the authenticity of your personal records?), a national register would seem to be called for. A register of every sexual sexual interaction of every living citizen with proof of consent curated by the government.

If men cared about their safety, they would demand such a register so at least the burden of maintaining records doesn't rest on the man even if the burden of proof does. It is mind-boggling that our everyday lives should entail such extreme risk. It won't take long before the average man has hundreds of potential rape convictions hanging over his head -- only one of which needs to succeed to destroy his life. But they don't care, and anyway it wouldn't work because a sex consent document merely shifts where the "rape" occurs to signing it instead of the sex, which will then be subject to the same inflation that has now reached its ultimate conclusion with sex.

Eivind Berge said...

On the upside if there is one, this reintroduces the concept of a sort of duty for women to have sex (right after signing the consent document), which has been absent since marriage was corrupted to not include it. However weak and legally ineffectual, a duty to have sex is unmistakably conceptualized by these apps contractualizing consent, which is quite exotic at this point. It is ironic that this is now reintroduced in a more extensive way than marriage ever was, since you can get it from multiple women, sort of comparable to the temporary marriages of Islam I guess. If I were into women's rights, I would be wary of introducing such a concept as it also smacks of signing themselves into slavery and could easily rub women the wrong way in a legal system sympathetic to men. But ultimately I don't think it will help men in Scandinavia and they won't wake up either. What little consent signing will occur will just be a novelty too rare to matter against the tons of new excuses to convict men. We might speculate that this might only be a symbolic law reform for women too without impact on actual rape cases, but if it is true as the article says that a comparable law in Sweden has increased rape convictions by 75% since 2018, men have real reason to be alarmed.

But anyway, I was radicalized by the last rape law reform in 2000, which already inflated the definition so much that it feels silly to even speak against the new law because doing so gives the false impression that things will be all right if it doesn't pass. 21 years ago is when negligent rape was invented, and the threshold of violence for first-degree rape was lowered so insanely that ANY coercion will qualify, even if it is to threaten to do perfectly legal things like break up a relationship, which the minister of justice gloated about at the time, or the example from the whitepaper (NOU) put out by the government: starting a rumor about a woman, which I count as my decisive epiphany of realizing just how evil the government is, after which I've only felt homicidal hatred for them. And unlike now there was actually some opposition to that reform, especially the negligent rape part, but it got normalized and then expanded even more by case law. At this point I have only nihilism left because I am resigned to the fact that my sexuality simply equals criminality. Men should not indulge the feminists in their sophistry any longer because it gives the impression that there is some kind of reasonableness to it that can be straightened out if only we avoid the worst excesses. That is so ridiculously far from the case that the is no common ground at all anymore, with the best-case outcome from here to remain in hell, with no better option on the table or even imaginable to the mainstream. We are past the point of debating because our enemies are just pure evil wielding brute violence and nothing else morally.

Anonymous said...

So, yesterday was the Women's day, but why isn't there a "Men's day"?

Anonymous said...

This is American justice anno 2021:


Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, looks like we are a couple of centuries too early to really do anything about the sex abuse hysteria.

theantifeminist said...

It wasn't "women's day", it was "celebration of female supremacy" day. It's the day we're reminded that the sole purpose of a man's life is to please a woman in order to get sex.

Anyway, some good news Eivind, but bad news for your pig loving fans - the non-human filth behind the hounding of elderly public figures on the word of an obvious sick paedocrite, are a step closer to getting their anuses and heads smashed by the assaulting dicks and fists of their fellow 'nonce' cellmates. Well, hopefully they'll be locked up with some Jamaican yardie gangster caged for sex-trafficking, or a Pakistani 'groomer' of white teen sluts, and not your limp wristed Latin reciting paedophile reader.


Eivind Berge said...

I wonder if men would take this too, which wouldn't surprise me at this point:

"Green Party peer says ALL MEN should face 6pm CURFEW: Baroness Jones calls for ban on males after dark to 'make women feel safer and lessen discrimination' as women share their fears of violence in wake of Sarah Everard murder."


By the way, she was killed by a cop, so maybe it should be their turn to lose some rights?

Eivind Berge said...

I know I shouldn't be, but I am stunned by the proposal by Baroness Jones there. It is the sort of thing that wouldn't even work for April Fool's a couple years ago because nobody would be fooled, but now that covid has softened the people up for curfews it slips in as normal feminism and shows us exactly what feminists are made of. If men would only think, that is, they would realize this is in the vein of age of consent and grooming laws and sexual harassment policies and just as reasonable. Men are just too dangerous to have around and women can’t consent to any kind of contact, really, so a 6PM curfew makes perfect sense. Men should only be let out to work -- of course under strict warning that any kind of sexual advance is “harassment” -- and then be kept away from women the rest of the day. We’ll get around to banning lunch dates too next time and impose 24-hour curfew during weekends and holidays. After all, if men are too dangerous to associate with at night they won’t be much better in the daytime either. And men will accept this as surely as they do the age of consent, because our nature is just that evil, isn’t it? Or will they finally wake up now?

Holocaust22 said...

Hey Eivind, did you ever hear about Justice Minister Nicole Belloubet, in france, talking about lowering the age of consent to 13?

And what european country do you think is the best in the terms of the age of consent, and very little sex hysteria

Is it true you can legally date 14 year olds in germany, portugal, hungary, and italy? And 15 year olds in france?

Out of all the european countries, france seems to be one of the countries with so many people that support intergenerational relationships with teenagers.

I'd really like to learn a new language, preferably one from a country that agrees with me about the age of consent.

Eivind Berge said...

No, I didn't hear that because it is nonsense. The garbled quote you are referring to was French Justice Minister Nicole Belloubet wanting an absolute rape age of 13 on top of the age of consent at 15, which is a worsening of the situation:


It's funny how antisex bigotry can come across as the opposite when distorted by transmission, lol! France isn't the romantic place you think and unless you just want to read the literature or "groom" girls, the language won't put you in touch with any agreement.

I don't think any European country is good. If not the age of consent, they will find another law to roast you with (grooming, abuse of position, a special age of consent for "vulnerable" people which is 18 in Norway for example) unless you are the same age yourself, because sentiment is such that they want intergenerational perpetrators removed from society.

Eivind Berge said...

This gets at how the feminists are able to manufacture sexual abuse complete with accusers who reinterpret their memories accordingly:


"In an ever-changing environment, a memory needs to be malleable to maintain its relevance... even after being consolidated, our memories can enter a plastic state that allows the incorporation of newly acquired information [that all sex is abuse]... a memory can also be temporarily inhibited by a second memory that carries information with the opposite meaning [all that feminist brainwashing]."

And a graphical representation of how the abuse industry works:


(Paweł Kuczyński)

Holocaust22 said...

It still looks like you can actually date 15 year olds in france, and 14 year olds in germany and italy though. And even lower than 14 in italy.


A court in italy allowed a 60 year old to date an 11 year old, after determining it was a loving relationship.


And 14 year old in germany ran away with her 47 uncle, brought back by police, and parents told by the court she can date whoever she wants.

Certainly these two countries are a bit better than america and your country now, right?

Maybe it may not be completely socially acceptable, but technically still legal?

Eivind Berge said...

Those articles are from 2013 and 2016, and I seem to recall at least the first one with the 11-year-old in Italy was overturned or followed by reform that would make it illegal today.

Not sure if the age of consent in Germany being 14 still means what it sounds like. Even that verdict went out of its way to condemn a relationship with a 15-year-old girl although they couldn't quite declare it illegal -- very funny how they claim not to be moralizing while being full of hate. You can't have many verdicts so out of tune with the "public morals" before the law is changed. But if I had to pick a European country as the "best" one, I would agree Germany is probably as good as it gets, until they too catch up with the times, which as we just saw in the UK really hold that men are only good for working and otherwise must be removed from society for being too vile to get anywhere near females.

holocaust22 said...

So unfortunate. I use to see europe as the beacon of sexual freedom. Now it's a feminist shit hole.


Look, 3 years after that article I sent you, italian courts now demand victim reads "feminist book" for having sex with an older man. To learn about how she was "victimized".


Although, while european countries keep getting stricter, peru went in the opposite direction. Thousands of 14 year olds in peru wouldn't go to the doctor after they got pregnant, to protect their older boyfriends. So congress voted overwhelmingly to lower the age of consent from 17, to 14. This was done with the specific intention to allow 14 year olds to date older men. Despite resistance from dumbass feminist lawmakers.

Peru the only male sexualist country that exists now? I see other countries outside of europe have the age of consent at 14 too. Like Myanmar. Myanmar recently went through a coup d'état, ousting the former prime minister who seemed to be an american feminist puppet. Wonder what the new junta leader will do with the age of consent.

Also, I've seen spanish speakers on twitter arguing about the age of consent in their country. Telling americans that it's a good thing, even without parents permission. I guess I'll start looking into spanish countries now, and give up on europe lol.

I recall a story in the USA of a police officer that caught some dude that got a 13 year old mexican girl pregnant. When he went to tell the parents, the mother was incredibly excited, and couldn't wait to have a granddaughter. Sounds like an awesome culture! South america ftw.

holocaust22 said...

In thailand, 13 year olds still marry 30 year olds in the villages. But the problem seems to be that you need parents permission. And it only applies to the villages, as the cities are completely globalized by america.

Where is my perfect country! lol.

holocaust22 said...

I gave you some love on your youtube channel. I got your back.

theantifeminist said...

In the UK here is anti-male hysteria at the moment because of the sexual murder of a young woman by a pig.


It reminds me of the climate after the murder of the little girl Sarah Payne in 2003 or thereabouts, which caused pedohysteria in the UK to explode, as well as the establishment of the sex offenders register. Except this time it's not simply 'pedos' to blame, but men - all men. The hatred of men being generated in the media and online is such that there is a counter hashtag #NotAllMen, but if you tweet it, feminists and manginas will mob and Twitchhunt you as if you had called for the age of consent to be lowered. When I started calling paedohysteria and anti-sex persecutions a 'sexual holocaust' 12 years ago, even MRAs sympathetic to me thought it was hyperbole. But really, we're starting to see it in action now. First they came for the peadophiles...

It's no surprise though that a pig did this. Virtually every police officer is a psycho who gets off on power over others, so it's hardly shocking that they produce far more rapists and killers than the average population. Ironically though of course, a pervert pig doing this will result in pigs given even more powers to terrorize normal men over anti-sex hysteria.

theantifeminist said...

"Also, I've seen spanish speakers on twitter arguing about the age of consent in their country. Telling americans that it's a good thing, even without parents permission. I guess I'll start looking into spanish countries now, and give up on europe lol."

@Holocaust22 Don't waste your time. There is nowhere to run to. If you ever did move anywhere less hysteric, by the time you settled in the laws and such would have caught up and often exceeded the place you were escaping from. Look at the Netherlands. Just 15 years ago the age of consent was 12 and they were actually taking in real paedophiles from the UK for political asylum. Now they are probably the most paedohysteric nation on Earth, and you get teachers being beaten to death by vigilante mobs. Similar with countries such as France, Spain, Germany... It wont be any different in South America. You have to understand this is a global thing, caused by feminism, and that feminism is itself caused by inevitable social and technological changes that are present everywhere. It's like trying to run from a country that has the internet or smartphones. It's impossible. But then if you can't see that it's feminists causing this, because that would be 'misogynistic', and have instead some vague sense it's all about 'American puritanism', then feel free to re-locate to Peru or whereever and then in ten years time when they raise the age of consent to 21 there and catch you with your 17 year old lover, the villagers will likely set you on fire or something. BTW, I'm pretty sure there was a femihag outcry in Peru when they lowered the age of consent a few years ago, and it was almost immediately raised back up or even higher.


Eivind - can you honestly not read an article like the above and not see that we can't change anything unless women can be changed (or disenfranchised)?

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, for a country so tough on hate speech that sure doesn't apply to men. It's amazing how one psycho pig is equated with all men, and of course the "solution" will be to empower the pigs even further and demonize more normal male behavior, which has already gone so far that they now need to attack us just for existing. It really does not make women safer from the real psychos if normal men try to keep a 1000 meter distance when out walking or don't go out at all, but that's where the hysteria leads.

@holocaust22, thanks for the support. I agree South America is probably the least hateful part of the world and that's the culture you should be approaching rather than Europe. Very well done by Peru to backtrack a little on the feminism.

Eivind Berge said...

@theantifeminist, how would you go about "changing" women? I think that is just as absurd or unethical as changing men. Of course we shouldn't enfranchise them to the point we have and give them all these unreasonable laws, but that's also a failing of men. Perhaps feminism inevitably comes with democracy and prosperity, but the good news is industrial civilization is running out of energy.

If Gail Tverberg is right, civilization is already collapsing. It happens surprisingly peacefully because we are lulled into the illusion that it is a temporary reaction to covid and all will go back to normal soon -- just a few more months of lockdowns, and then a few more and so on, with increasingly lower expectations for what the new normal will be, until it will indeed seem normal because nobody remembers the good days. Civilization doesn't just need enough energy, but also the right materials at the right time in the right places. Something as seemingly harmless as containers piling up where they are not needed and being in short supply for exporters can have huge consequences. We are just waiting for the whole system to come down somehow, and that will be the end of feminism. It will also mean we don't have much of a future to look forward to anyway, but perhaps that is for the best seeing that the alternative is a holocaust on men. Better to die of starvation than the police state.

theantifeminist said...

Lol, you hope all 7 billion of us starve to death in industrial collapse but you think it would be unethical to seek to change women.

Men and women would both benefit if we were all genetically altered to remove sexual jealousy. However, given that women are for more sexually jealous than men, women would be changed more.

Secondly, women will change themselves through cosmetic surgery and the like. An alternative is that it's likely in 100 years time we will spend 100% of our lives in virtual worlds where everybody gets to choose how they look. Women will no longer compete with each other through looks, so there is no reason to be jealous there. 90% of women will choose to look between 14-17, and the other 10 % will choose to look younger.

The problem is caused by female sexual power (girls and young women) being completely at odds with female political power (old women).

Eivind Berge said...

So you are advocating a sort of eugenics to remove sexual jealousy. Sorry, that is indeed unethical, if not in itself, then certainly forcing parents to have designer babies in accordance with some ideology is, even if that ideology is male sexualism. Perhaps you can't relate to this since you have no interest in parenthood, but imposing eugenics on families is extremely distasteful, to say the least, and I would not want this for my own kids. Female sexual jealousy exists because it was adaptive in the recent past, and can easily be again once those container ships stop sailing. You are out of touch with reality and any offspring designed that way would be almost as lost as the virtual reality that breaks down because technological civilization was just a flash in the pan, a fossil-fueled dissipative structure that seems likely to last two or three centuries out of the million-year lifespan of our species.

Eivind Berge said...

About that virtual reality theantifeminist is imagining full of 14-17-year-old-looking women... you basically mean everybody would be catfishing all the time and it wouldn't bother you because you have no intention of meeting in person anyway. Well, that is totally alien to me, but really does take your support of porn and masturbation to its ultimate conclusion. Yes, the senses can be artificially stimulated and it so happens that female beauty is synonymous with youth. But beauty is also truth. Pornography is ugly because it is fake, masturbation is meaningless because it is fake, and so would virtual reality be once you reach a modicum of wisdom.

Humans have bodies, remember? We can't leave those behind and live alternative lives without destroying what it means to be human. Perhaps another life form could live like that and even be derived from us, but it wouldn't be human and I feel no continuity of my identity with that kind of existence. So, no thanks.

Eivind Berge said...

I can't read this essay because of the paywall, but I gather from the heading that Søren Birkvad is here expressing in Morgenbladet much the same idea I do in the above blog post -- that men cannot have normal lives without being sex offenders and hence mostly become hypocrites these days -- similar to Victorian times:


Except he (or the editor making the headline) calls it abuse "awareness" rather than hysteria and thus identifies himself as one of the hypocrites, because that is a requirement to get published in the MSM I guess.

theantifeminist said...

@Eivind. Can you clearly state what your position is on the use of make-up by women? Women can completely transform how they look, from truly ugly (even by your low standards) to pretty. Surely you should be against make-up? Also the use of perfume and such.

Eivind Berge said...

I don’t have a problem with makeup, and disagree that it transforms women in highly significant ways. Sure it helps, but we can tell when women wear makeup and take into account that they won’t look like that all the time. And crucially, their perceived age is hardly affected at all. Even in pictures from their best angle there is no hope of really fooling us. Let us look at an example…


I am sure Madonna has the most expertly done makeup, yet there is no way I would confuse her at 62 with a young fertile woman and she would be completely out of consideration now that I am trying to start a family. The most realistic “rejuvenation” is probably hair color, but men are adapted to that and effortlessly factor in that it can be unnatural. We don’t go crazy over 60-year-old women even if their hair looks like they could be 15. Teeth can also be “restored,” but not gums, which give your age away with an accuracy of five years as you get long in the tooth.

There is absolutely no comparison with what you are suggesting and apparently accepting -- that women present entirely fake appearances and we treat those as real. To me it is astonishing that you would settle for that instead of being with a beautiful woman in the flesh, but then again you literally claim porn and sexbots are acceptable alternatives too, so I guess it makes sense in your twisted worldview.

As to perfume, I haven’t even heard of anybody making mating decisions based on it, so that is even less significant.

Catfishing, eugenics and wanking... that's not what male sexualism is about, man. We are about legalizing and celebrating normal sexuality, not fake and meaningless substitutes.

theantifeminist said...

"To me it is astonishing that you would settle for that instead of being with a beautiful woman in the flesh, but then again you literally claim porn and sexbots are acceptable alternatives too, so I guess it makes sense in your twisted worldview."

No I've never said that, you're lying. Or it's that we have radically different standards of what constitutes a beautiful woman. For example, you're so thirsty and undiscriminating that you dream of sex with 1,000 lb black women. I'm just honest that I would rather masturbate with a highly realistic sex robot or some quality porn than have sex with such a creature, and I don't want to live in a world in which myself or other men are arrested and locked up as sex offenders for that choice. Women are forcing us to choose one way and that's rape. All women are complicit in this and all women are rapists.

(from an earlier comment) "Of course we shouldn't enfranchise them to the point we have and give them all these unreasonable laws, but that's also a failing of men. "

It's always the fault of men isn't it? Why can't you blame women? Oh I know, because you've openly stated that you feel it would harm your dating chances on Tinder if you were seen to be 'misogynistic' (as if that horse hasn't already bolted).

Eivind Berge said...

It is evil to give power to evil people. As long as antisex is a "virtue" one must parrot to get ahead, men will pretend to support it. Look at Cuomo now being investigated under the very "sexual harassment" laws that he signed:


Charlotte Bennett, the 25-year-old former policy adviser to Cuomo sat with investigators for more than four hours Monday... The investigators have been moving quickly, and with sensitivity, to get to the heart of these allegations... "We remain confident that their investigation will substantiate Charlotte's claims of sexual harassment against Gov. Cuomo, as well as the failure of his senior staff to meet their mandatory reporting requirements under the very laws he signed." (...) "I thought, he's trying to sleep with me. The governor is trying to sleep with me. And I'm deeply uncomfortable and I have to get out of this room as soon as possible," Bennett told the network in an interview, adding: "Without explicitly saying it, he implied to me that I was old enough for him and he was lonely."

Feminists are evil and men are evil for giving them power. There is no hope, because men will literally pretend that trying to sleep with women is a bad thing -- at the same time as of course doing it to the fullest. Cuomo is a villain just for implying that a 25-year-old woman is old enough for him, and men are happy with that being the dominant narrative which they will fully support to further their own hypocritical positions all the way up to being hauled off themselves. It apparently does not bother them that there is no one left to defend normal male sexuality except a few irrelevant bloggers.

How much hypocrisy can a society take? How much of your own nature can you publicly denounce and prosecute others for? Evidently there is no limit to this at all. The only limitation is being accused yourself, and even then the average man's only regret is that he failed to get away with it, not that there is anything wrong with the antisex norms themselves and virtue-signaling them.

Eivind Berge said...

In the UK's absurdly heavy-handed approach to sex crimes it is extremely important to foster the delusion that the slightest hint of sexuality makes even the most trivial violation a fate worse than death, so the victim "can’t be named for legal reasons."


(The case concerns a man who had his penis covertly photographed.) Meanwhile it is, of course, okay to plaster the identity of murder victims all over the news. And should be if one cares about it as an actual crime rather than a hallowed taboo. If murder victims were hidden behind a faceless statistic like they try to do with sexual crimes that wouldn't inspire so much sympathy, would it? So why does the government do this with sex? Is the idea that sex is so shameful the victims need to feel ashamed and the legal system needs to enforce this view? Or is it is just random insanity combined with the British lack of freedom of speech?

Anyway, I think "can’t be named for legal reasons" would be a great name for a band. Who wants to join me and start it? Let's be male sexualist rock stars! If a lot of our fans and groupies will also be unnameable in the UK then that is the best measure of success.

Eivind Berge said...

Actually I know the answer is from their point of view, they think they get more accusations by providing anonymity to accusers, and the overarching feminist goal of punishing as much sexuality as possible trumps all those other considerations. However, this is reliant on anonymity being enforced, which has certain limitations since at least the police and courts and spectators will know, and the accused can still spread rumors about who accused them. So if the result of all this secrecy is to increase shame, it might end up being counterproductive. I honestly don't know if "anonymity" is good or bad for feminism in the final analysis. What it certainly does accomplish is to send shivers down my spine as one of the most evil and totalitarian aspects of feminist sex law, up there with abolishing the jury like they did in Norway.

Eivind Berge said...

It turns out the French absolute rape age will be even worse than the justice minister wanted. It will be not 13 but 15, equal to the old age of consent, which means there will be no such thing as statutory rape or abuse anymore, just pretendedly real rape rape rape.


"French MPs have voted to back a new law that would set the age of consent at 15 and prohibit sex with relatives aged under 18.

It is expected to pass in the Senate and will give France an age of consent for sexual relations for the first time [this is a lie -- it is the absolute rape age which is new].

It comes after a series of sexual abuse scandals that shook the country.

Supporters say it will make it easier to prosecute both historical and recent cases of sexual abuse.

The bill was passed unanimously by politicians in the National Assembly on Monday night. President Emmanuel Macron's government has said that after final approval in the spring, it wants the bill to come into force quickly."

Yes, once again a man is the worst enemy of men. And I am sure the hysterical push for more hateful laws will continue unabated with 18 as the next goalpost.

Eivind Berge said...

Why does the media insist on calling the absolute rape age the "age of consent"? It is an entirely different concept, so why use the same word? How do they distinguish the concepts, then, in countries with different ages for each, such as Norway where the age of consent is 16 and the absolute rape age is 14? And why deny that there was an age of consent before in France despite describing it in different words (that the sex was "prohibited") in the same article?

There is more than the usual media sloppiness to this, a whole lot more malice. I think it is because they want to reform the very concept of an age of consent into an absolute rape age, and erase the former from living memory. They want so badly to pretend that minors literally can't consent that we are not even supposed to have a word for underage sex that isn't rape anymore, that it be unthinkable as well as inexpressible and legally meaningless.

Eivind Berge said...

There is some more comedy gold in that article that I can't resist making fun of.

"The new law would make it impossible for those under 15 to consent to sex. The sentence for rape would be up to 20 years in prison."

Okay, never mind that laws can't do that any more than they can make it impossible for 2 + 2 to be 4. But then we are told:

"No adult will be able to take advantage of the consent of a minor."

Oh, so now you admit that they can consent after all? If they couldn't consent, there would be no such thing as their consent to take advantage of. That pretense didn't last long... We are already left with a brute lie and violence, like punishing those who "take advantage of" the fact that 2 + 2 equals 4 in their calculations.

Anonymous said...

President Emmanuel Macron's government has said that after final approval in the spring, it wants the bill to come into force quickly

With a comment like that, Macron is proving to be the King of the Hypocrites: He is married to one of his former teachers who is 24 years older than him, and she dated him (and vice-versa) since when he was 13 years old. Apparently, it is impossible to be an honest politician these days.

Eivind Berge said...

He should start by locking up his wife then. The article states it will also make it easier to prosecute historical cases, so it would be right up the alley. I wonder how; is the law actually going to be retroactive as well? But it is as if their personal lives don't exist, no matter how incongruent with politics. King of the Hypocrites indeed, and we can expect nothing else these days.

theantifeminist said...

The EU human rights bill clearly prohibits the punishing of people through retroactive laws.

Note to your American MAP readers that the 'absolute rape age' laws passed in all European countries over the last decade were 100% the work of feminist lobby groups that ended in a EU feminist directive mandating it. (so France are using one EU law to justify breaking another EU law).

And that this 're-writing the past' is clearly part of WOKE left-wing feminist culture that we're seeing everywhere these days.

More hysteria - Instagram to crack down on adults messaging 'kids' (i.e. 15 year old E-thots). Only adults who the 'child' follows are to be allowed to DM them, and even then the message will carry a 'warning' advising the 'child' that she doesn't have to answer if she feels uncomfortable (translation - this guy is probably a pedo!). Feminists seek generational apartheid.


Eivind Berge said...

Yes, obtaining convictions by a retroactive law would be a bad move that wouldn't last anywhere near the 20 years they mean to lock you up from now on for consensual sex. I bet they just mean get more accusations now that they hammer into people's heads that they didn't just have illegal sex historically either, they were RAPED. If the feminists manage to rewrite history like this, they can still use to age of consent that existed at the time to convict, including Macron's wife.

Eivind Berge said...

There is a bizarre sex-related mass shooting in the news.


A string of shootings at three spas in the Atlanta area Tuesday left eight people dead -- six of them reported to be Asian women... The suspect, Robert Aaron Long, 21, of Woodstock has "what he considers a sex addition," and claimed to see the spas as "a temptation for him that he wanted to eliminate," Cherokee County sheriff's Capt. Jay Baker said.

That's a new one, wrong on so many levels from blaming "sex addiction" to thinking he could get rid of sex workers. The feminists already employ the formidable violent power of the state to that end and make the lives of masseuses as unpleasant as possible, so what can one "sex addict" possibly contribute in addition?

Whatever this is, if not just an act of random insanity, we would have to place it with feminist ideology. Male sexualists condemn this abhorrent crime. We do not believe in sex addiction either and we celebrate whores. (We believe addiction to pornography and masturbation can be real, which is sometimes mistakenly called a sex addiction, but that is actually the opposite of sex addiction and harmful because it constitutes asexuality and displaces sex. Other paraphilias can also sometimes properly be called addictions, but again, they are not worthy of the name sex, which refers to penis in vagina, and a man obsessed with that cannot have an addiction in my well-considered ideological opinion. There is no such thing as nonparaphilic sexual addiction and male masturbation should be classified as a paraphilia because it is sexually worthless.)

Holocaust22 said...

"Anyway, I think "can’t be named for legal reasons" would be a great name for a band. Who wants to join me and start it? Let's be male sexualist rock stars! If a lot of our fans and groupies will also be unnameable in the UK then that is the best measure of success."

Lmao. Sounds like we have the same ideas. I'm a guitar player. And I've been thinking about starting a male sexualist band for a while.

Eivind, are you interested in learning martial arts at all, for self defense? I'm currently going through certification to become a teacher, and i'd be happy to teach you in a video call or something. Free of charge of course ;)

Eivind Berge said...

If we start a band and we want to perform in the UK we have to be really careful what words we use lest we end up like rapper Rico Racks who got this hilarious regulation:


For five years after the date of his conviction, Racks is bound by a Criminal Behavior Order that restricts him from using seven words that are related to the drug trade in his music or in videos on social media.

According to The Telegraph, those words are "bandoe, trapping, booj, connect, shotting, whipping and kitty."

However, I do not think they would have the nerve to ban the words "Can't Be Named For Legal Reasons" even though I can't think of a better way to mock the British justice system, because even they would realize that only heightens the mockery. It is remarkable that this asinine invocation occurs thousands of times in news stories unironically and no one has yet turned it around as a way to make fun of the bigotry involved as far as I know.

Unfortunately I don't have any musical skills, but I can learn. And yes, I would love to learn some martial arts too.

Anonymous said...

Another illustration of the so-called Justice in the US, especially when it comes to sex offenders. Scary stuff, but at least they have an association such as NARSOL that actively fights against this state of affairs:


Eivind Berge said...

"In 2007, Stephen was convicted by a jury of child molestation for briefly touching children over their clothing in public and in full view of numerous adults and other children. Unfortunately, Stephen suffers from a neurological condition called ataxia which makes him appear odd and causes him to be clumsy. The most troubling aspect is that Arizona stands alone amongst the states in requiring a defendant accused of certain sexual crimes to prove their innocent intent for the touching rather than requiring the state to carry that burden of proving guilt."

Wow, that is astonishing. I did not know they had already gone so far, though it is similar to the law Norway is about to get where men have to prove consent or else it's rape.

Anonymous said...

It seems that the reversal of the burden of proof only applies to Arizona, but judging from some of the comments on the article, the situation doesn't look much better even in the rest of the US.

Eivind Berge said...

Police in England and Wales are set to record misogyny as a hate crime on an experimental basis from this autumn, a government minister has said, as the UK faces a reckoning on violence against women.

Susan Williams, a Conservative in the House of Lords and a junior minister in the Home Office, said in Parliament Wednesday that on an experimental basis, the government "will ask police forces to identify and record any crimes of violence against the person, including stalking and harassment, as well as sexual offenses where the victim perceives it to have been motivated by a hostility based on their sex."


Okay, let's see what further draconian measures they can come up with against these sexual offences that are now also "hate crimes" of "misogyny" (while of course misandry is not). It will be tough to think of something more, but experience tells us that is the one thing that never fails to surprise.

Anonymous said...

The Antifemknist wrote
"More hysteria - Instagram to crack down on adults messaging 'kids' (i.e. 15 year old E-thots). Only adults who the 'child' follows are to be allowed to DM them, and even then the message will carry a 'warning' advising the 'child' that she doesn't have to answer if she feels uncomfortable (translation - this guy is probably a pedo!). Feminists seek generational apartheid.

Just for fun, I shall advance a contrarian view of the current men's rights situation, despite considerable evidence to the contrary, on this blog and elsewhere.
Social media presents feminists with a growing set of problems that will result in public attitudes changing and the law eventually following suit.
Tik Tok, Listal and Instagram allow kids to upload sexy pictures and videos of themselves, as we all know. Many girls are not afraid to wear thong outfits, and these are increasingly seen in the accounts of actual models, some as young as 13, that are run by their mothers. Obviously, the Puritan Police States of the Anglosphere can crack down on this, but how much can they really afford to do so? Saying the kids sexualise and exploit themselves only goes so far and you can't punish or stifle the kids too much without it looking like sexual jealousy.
How much can they afford to crack down on the mothers as well? As females and the kids' mums, they're relatively invulnerable. The girls are not being managed by some sleazy-looking old bloke that most people wouldn't mind seeing go to the slammer.
BTW I don't recommend Instagram unless you turn the sound off and cover the camera, and don't use a computer or device that has anything you particularly care to share with them- don't put any other devices within 3 feet of whatever it is you are using, and don't forget to sign out every time you've finished. Use a BS name too, and even then, I'd still think twice about it. I'm only saying what's on there, and it's getting bolder. This is true of the comments as well as the content, despite EU directives.
What is more, there is a lot of cross over with material posted of and by adult women. The same page of an image hosting account might have a 24y-o model in a thong alongside a 10-y-o girl. The two might even link to and like one another and no-one seems to consider it inappropriate.
Then there's the widely-reported story of Alana Makhanets, the Ukrainian 8-y-o Insta star who's "married" and is "moving in" with her 13-y-o boyfriend.I am sure it's for the benefit of her account, and her divorced dad accuses her mum of living off the child. Perhaps they're in some measure genuinely girlfriend and boyfriend as well. The feminists ad pedohysterics have to make do with a despised male, the father, to criticise a privileged person, a female.
Another problem rears its ugly head for the feminists. The youngsters are kissing in one photo I've seen and in other photos, are posing in quite a definitely romantic way. For those who simply view this online, this is clearly not moving beyond look but not touch, but still, account holders themselves are able push boundaries. An 8-y-o girls with a 13-y-o boy is a rather large age difference at that age, and IMHO only just small enough not to create a big fuss in its own right. What happens when a 17-y-o boy kisses a 12-y-o girl? He's still a "child" according to the fems, since under 18, so they can't go too hard on him. What happens when a 17-y-o girl who has a modelling account kisses her 30-y-o boyfriend? To an extent, the feminists have lost control of imagery that enters the public domain. They've snookered themselves.

Eivind Berge said...

You have to understand that Instagram is grandfathered in and only allowed to exist for now because it is so big. So is Facebook and these remnants of a more permissive time are both slowly moving away from it. If you created a platform for girls to post that kind of content for all to see today and you allowed minors on you would be exposed as a “child trafficker” and jailed once it became popular, and these legacy platforms will also be reformed until they turn into something like Yubo, which is a social network made from scratch in the feminist image. I signed up there a while back not knowing how fascist is, and the whole app is just one big shadowban for me. I can’t interact with or see anyone even after getting verified by passport, not other adults either apparently because I am so old that I need to be segregated from the young adults who are their primary users. And they segregate minors and adults with hysterical precision, allowing no communication or visibility across that line. That is how I imagine Instagram and Facebook will be as well before long, hermetic generational apartheid complete with image recognition to prevent anyone cheating on their age and preferably live moderators as well. Take a look at how Yubo does it to get a glimpse of the future:


The app uses face-recognition and age-estimation technology on every photo uploaded during sign up. The aim is to detect if a user is under 13 or if an adult has given a wrong age. Moreover, Yubo scans Google to see if user has collected a photo on internet to feed his profile, and every message is scanned in real time to identify problems. Flagged accounts have to download another app called Yoti to get their age verified.... In 2020, Yubo scan every video stream, which is shut down if algorithms detects nudity. In February 2020 in the United Kingdom, an independent report on child sexual abuse estimates that "the value of human moderation is evident from the success achieved by the social network Yubo, whose moderators interrupt livestreams to tell underage users to put their clothes on."

I am sure the feminists will accept nothing less from all social media.

Eivind Berge said...

Oh, and no surprise based on the world-leading antisex laws emerging there, Yubo is made in France. I think we are seeing something extremely ugly here beyond the usual old hags pushing antisex bigotry.

Yubo was created by Sacha Lazimi, Jérémie Aouate and Arthur Patora when they were engineering students at CentraleSupélec Graduate school of the Paris-Saclay University and Télécom Paris. Formerly known as Yellow, it was launched in 2015. According to the founders, the app seeks to create a space for "socializing online" and to "facilitate communication between people all over the world who share mutual interests."

What possessed these young men to go for so absurd hysteria when they made their app? Presumably they were not under direct feminist orders to make it THAT draconian. So I can only conclude that this ultraprofound level of antisex hate including zealously enforced generational apartheid is an established social norm in France, affecting all ages and men too. There is really no hope, because the younger generations will only find ways to enforce the antisex bigotry more effectively and never rebel against it in the slightest.

Anonymous said...

Wow, that guy Torres from that band is awesome, he's got a new fan. He has learned the system perfectly, and we can learn from him to stay alive. *1*) He is very friendly, never acts with guilt, never admits any sex happened, and attacks his accusers. 2) He is incredibly dominant when the time is right, and acts swiftly and powerfully which females love. 3) He acts when he is alone with the female, very important for no jealous faggot witnesses. 4) He does not cooperate with any sexual attacks against him from law or layperson. 5) He dresses lavishly to garner attention which he leverages with the girls since they love it. 6) We can learn from his mistakes, the biggest being that he leaves an evidence trail via text messaging. But, doing 1-5 correctly has still kept him out of jail. Bravo!

Still, Torres is completely insane doing this in the feminist shithole USA. Better countries are without a doubt outside the Anglosphere, whether in Continental Europe, Asia, or South America. Even as feminism creeps into these countries as antifeminist says, 99% of the time the punishments will be far less in both severity and application compared to anglo countries, particularly the USA.

The irony here is that all western women are prostitutes because they control consent, so you only have two systems - honest and dishonest prostitution. The more that honest prostitution is wiped out, the more the dishonest prostitutes can get. Women also push for the absolute criminalization of men's sexual desires because women get off on men who break the law, which is what Eivind described here and is true. Male feminists, particularly religious "Conservative" male feminists like those in the South USA (including the latest handjob massacre suspect), are jealous cucks who are the absolute worst people and allow the feminists to do their worst to all men. Antifeminist is right - women are to blame for pushing feminism. BUT, it is these conservative feminist men who are ultimately to blame for giving in to women and changing the laws. We don't blame a snake when it bites us after escaping its cage at the zoo, we blame the zookeeper for not controlling the snake!

I watched a video on a southern sheriff calling arrested men "pedophiles" who responded to 13-14 year old girls asking for sex. These are the people who allowed feminism to destroy society, these "conservative" religious feminists in positions of power. They are disgusting, weird, and odious creatures. Here is that video, if you want to throw up watching this nancyboy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o8fJWAtnRY

I locked eyes today several times with a beautiful girl in a store who was maybe 13-14 years old. She could see my desire and appreciated my attention, but that was all I could do. American sex laws are insane, and knowing I could say hello with no problem if I was in a different country with a lower age of consent, also drives me insane. But now the coronavirus hoax has locked me in this feminist shithole. One day I will get out...

Anonymous said...

@ Eivind-
I didn't know about Yubo and had no idea how obsessed with obtaining users' real identity and segregating them by age, even to the point where an adult can't pose as a younger adult. It actually blows my mind. Presumably you could still fake your way in if you go to a certain amount of trouble but it doesn't sound like it would be at all worth doing so.
Those French manginas need to be sh*t.
Instagram's first iterations date from the early 2010's when things were already pretty boring. I still think a case can be made that Instagram and some other social media is putting material online that horrifies and terrifies feminists because it has the potential to change public attitudes.
I know there's a hell of a lot of evidence in the other direction. I guess I just want to remember that it's not all one way.
Another encouraging development is that someone outside the normal men's right's community of bloggers, has discussed issues of female sexual jealousy.See the latest essay by The Night Wind, titled "Sexual Hysteria and Anglosphere Politics". Even the title makes me think the writer's been reading this blog and a few other almost completely ignored blogs.
From the article,
"With all the horror "OMG! Older men having sex with younger women! And some were legal minors! Outrage! Horror!" no one notices that Epstein was a huge supporter of the Great Reset/NWO policies."
Agree or not with the connection made between the hysteria and the hiding of NWO plans (I do), one thing stands out for me. People in the wider world are beginning to be aware of the existence and relevance of female sexual jealousy.
In another essay, "Puritans Getting Bent and Kid's Minds Getting Warped", the writer even uses the term paedohysteria-
"In our Postmodern dystopia, however, our young people are caught between the cross-currents of rampant paedohysteria and encouragement of unbridled licentiousness."
The Night Wind represents a small toehold of discussion in the wider world of things that have previously only been read by very, very few people. Of course that blog itself is not terribly well visited, but maybe in a few months' time, some other venue will pick these ideas up. A few months after that, and CNN or some other MSM outlet will have to do some sort of attack piece, and then we'll know we're getting somewhere.

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, "The Night Wind" is a great blog. I put him on my blogroll now, which was long overdue because he is also blogrolling me.

His latest article also deserves a link here:


"In our postmodern dystopia being accused of Sexual Misconduct is the worst thing that anyone can be accused of. Nobody ever has defined what 'sexual misconduct' actually means; but these days, nobody wants to split hairs over things like that."

Indeed, any reference to sexuality whatsoever will make it "misconduct," and NOBODY in the mainstream will question it, because we are by now fully conditioned to equate sexuality with criminality and rulebreaking at any level. If it can't send you straight to prison then it can certainly cost you your job if you make as much as a sexual joke or look at a woman with lust.

There he also clears up the most sex-hostile thing Jesus ever said, which taken out of context can make Christianity seem almost as bad as the feminists:

"Note: some Manosphere Red Pills claim that Christianity is hostile to sexuality, and quote Christ's saying from the Sermon on the Mount that: "everyone who looks on a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." It is obvious from the context---both in Greek and English---that Jesus is referring to lusting after another man's wife. How can one commit adultery, unless one or both parties are married? The passage they quote is in the middle of a paragraph concerning adultery and divorce."

Anonymous said...

This might be of interest to Eivind (et al.):


Eivind Berge said...

Girls are more aggressive than boys, but they use reputation destruction. Yeah, what could possibly go wrong when society is set up to believe and accommodate all their accusations?

Speaking of Jordan Peterson, he is back and saying some more interesting things too.


What he says here about how much dissent one can take fits with my experience too. It is why I can only stand the antisex news (the news at all, that is) or read the sex laws in small doses and why I have to settle on nihilism because it is just too stressful to give a damn about so much alien morality. The only remedy for the stress (and resulting ill health) of a dissident life is fame, so if you are going to go against social norms, for God's sake don't let them keep you anonymous. Fame lowers your cortisol levels even if most of society hates you.

theantifeminist said...

The blogger Night Wind raises some interesting questions about where Christian puritanism comes from and whether Christians should still interpret these passages the same in a society in which most young women are single and sexually 'loose' (a historic aberration caused by the pill, abortion, and feminism).

We used to fight with Welmer of The Spearhead and other Conservative/Christian MRAs over this. We would point out that for most of Christian history girls were considered sexy and fertile and of marriageable age from the age of 12 or even earlier (and puberty was later back then). Welmer and the others would reply that it was different precisely because women married earlier, in their teens, and that sex with teens outside marriage was never acceptable. But Night Wind appears to be closer to our position. In a society in which women can do what they like sexually, and don't get wed until they hit the wall or even later if at all, why criminalize men for having sex with unmarried teens, or at least for desiring them? There is no 'purity' or 'virginity' to preserve anymore for marriage (in most cases).

The whole Christian myth is based on an unmarried young girl getting up the spout (Mary) not knowing who the father is, and the grave importance of society coming together to support her (the Three Wise Men bearing gifts). Today we have abortion, a welfare state, and virginity is no longer important for prospective wives. Things have changed even since the social purity feminists of the Victorian era raised the age of consent from 12 to 16. There is nothing more stupid that modern age of consent laws. Teenage girls are sluts, society celebrates the fact, and yet we invent the fantasy that an older man sleeping with a 15 year old slut will magically ruin her for life, even though there is little danger of pregnancy and if she does become pregnant, she can have an abortion on demand or bring the kid up without a father on welfare.

I have to point out again to Eivind, that the reason the lie is believed is because women make it. Women know that there is nothing wrong with a teen sleeping with an older man. They know the girl wont be scarred etc. They lie because it's in their sexual interests to do so. Men believe them. Men don't lie (generally) that boys are scarred for life by having sex with an older woman, even though the feminist justice system now pretends to in order simply to ensure the 'child abuse' lie is maintained for girls. It's not simply feminists who are the problem, it's the vast majority of women.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes. What is it that the sex laws save girls from? And what are they saved for? The answer is certainly not marriage. A conservative who thinks that’s the purpose is being cucked so hard. Girls are being saved from age difference for fornication with even less committed lovers at roughly the same time if not earlier. That is all that is left of the “purity” that is now upheld by all these draconian laws -- to make sure young teenage girls don’t have sex with anyone more than 5 years older than themselves. Well, that age difference thing was never a part of the Christian concept of purity to begin with, and now it is all they have left, lol. No wonder they need new myths to justify it -- that sex will damage them for life, yeah, right. We know it is a lie, the girls know it is a lie, but the white-knighting persists. At least “The Night Wind” is a breath of fresh air able to see through it from a traditional Christian perspective.

theantifeminist said...

Pick-up artist game wont be sold on Steam : https://www.pcgamer.com/steam-will-not-sell-pickup-artist-game-super-seducer-3/
PUAs are among the biggest aspie paedocrites in the world. The game was in part developed by PUA Richard La Ruina. He claims to be a feminist, and I once read him agreeing to a comment on YouTube calling out PUAs who approach 16 and 17 year old girls. What a twat.

Some good news - Turkey is to withdraw from the infamous Istanbul Convention that is behind a lot of the sexual harassment laws (including the criminalization of PUAs) that have been passed in Europe recently. https://news.sky.com/story/istanbul-convention-protests-as-turkey-pulls-out-of-international-accord-to-protect-women-amid-rising-femicide-12252165

What about this for a paedocrite - 'black cab rapist' John Worboys, who raped over 100 women including teenage girls, kept a diary detailing the way he rationalized to himself that he wasn't a sick rapist.

"Elsewhere, he wrote: 'I don't find drunk women attractive. Only like girls 40+...I find it pervy, young girls and older men...All I want to do is get women home safely...It's because I'm too nice and caring.'


What a f****** paedocrite!!! One of your readers here once claimed hardcore paedocrisy doesn't exist. Lol! Whenever you read a rabid comment online about how a 'pedo' in the news convicted of some minor offence should be castrated, burnt alive, tortured, executed etc. then realize that the paedocrite making the comment has probably just jerked off to some hardcore child porn or is fantasizing about raping his own 9 year old daughter or something similar. That's how the world works. It's strange how our 'community' can't recognize this (outside myself and one or two others). The homosexual community trumpeted the (correct) notion that many of the most virulent anti-gays were themselves closet gays. But our 'movement' is so pathetic and filled with aspie worthless imbeciles, we instead agree with society that a man finding a ripe, fertile pert breasted teenage girl sexually attractive is a 'pervert' or at least something abnormal( a 'MAP' or 'ephebophile' lol). Even though there's a blindingly obvious motivation on the part of the femihags making these definitions and laws for claiming such obvious nonsense.

Anonymous said...

How ironic that Turkey would be withdrawing from the Instanbul Convention-good news,though.
Another snippet of hope-see the latest post on the blog "Playing the Devil's Advocate". There is a cartoon or meme about a doctor fulminating about sex with 17-y-o "children" yet happily preparing to give gender reassignment to a 4-y-o boy. Most doctors are convention-bound, moneygrubbing unaware turds so I find it quite appropriate that this lack of awareness should be conveyed by a doctor.
It's as if suddenly, awareness of paedocrisy and associated issues has made a quantum leap-needs to make a few more, but finally, it's getting to a new level.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, there are some positive signs. In theory society can snap out of it very quickly because the feminists are running a constant uphill race against our natural impulses and common sense. Laws are slower to change but they can fall out of use too like the sodomy laws were dormant for a long time and that would be good enough. I don't see that happening any time soon, but the reality of not having enough resources to enforce all their shiny new feminist laws is already hitting them as described in this twitter thread by @BarristerSecret:


Eivind Berge said...

Also this is satisfying as far as it goes, with burning police cars in Bristol:


"Chief Constable Andy Marsh said 20 police officers were injured during the protests last night.

One officer suffered a collapsed lung after being stamped on.

Another suffered broken bones as 12 vehicles were damaged."

And the police lost an antisex prosecution against themselves, thus saving others from the harm they could have done with the £3million spent on this comical investigation:


"Criminal allegations Williams faced included taking a cut from the income of a 27-year-old sex worker.

It was alleged she had set up a vice ring with Williams while she was working as a part-time escort.

She was cleared of inciting prostitution for gain at Southwark Crown Court in January 2018.

Leaving court a free man, Williams joked that Cate Blanchett could play the prosecutor in a film of the case."

Silje Ese said...

Hei, mitt navn er Silje Ese og jeg jobber i NRK. Jeg jobber for tiden med et dokumentarprosjekt jeg gjør research til. I den forbindelse er jeg interessert i å komme i kontakt med deg som blant annet leser bloggen til Eivind og kanskje deler liknede «syn» på samfunnet/verden for øvrig. Jeg har til nå fått kontakt med enkelte, men søker kontakt med flere som kan bidra til et mer nyansert bilde. Det er ikke så mange som tør å si hva de mener høyt, og jeg er derfor svært interessert i å komme i kontakt med noen som vil og kan bidra til å gi meg andre vinklinger på verden slik som den er i dag. Jeg vil også høre hva du synes er «feil» og hva som er din «historie». Kontakt vil selvfølgelig være helt uforpliktende, og som journalist har jeg taushetsplikt.

Send en mail til silje.ese@nrk.no

Silje Ese

Eivind Berge said...

I can confirm that the above comment is a real request from a journalist at the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation who wants to make a documentary, and I would encourage male sexualists (form Norway preferably, I guess) to jump on the opportunity. Yes, it is stressful to be against society, but the ability to show your face in the mainstream media makes up for that as fame is its own social status. It even anticipates some of the accusations. When they later drag you into court on some bullshit sex crime you can say “I told you so” if you are already famous for opposing those laws, and so the accusations will have lost the element of surprise and be suspicious from the outset.

Real sexualists need to speak up now or else the best they can produce for a documentary on radical men’s rights activism is probably some wimp who will opine that men should take more of the maternity leave or some such mostly irrelevant and totally inoffensive concern. We need to show the dominant narrative that men can stand for something that actually matters, that opposition to the sex laws will eventually have teeth to it as they criminalize more and more of our sexuality.

Eivind Berge said...

Although extreme bias is already evident from the scare quotes in that request. They are looking for people who share my “views” on what is “wrong” with society and want to hear their “story” -- all of which must be framed as necessarily deranged radicalism with no merit, not even worthy of being straightforwardly called an opinion. Well, that comes with the territory of being dissidents. This is the so-called Overton window at work, which we are completely outside. The most radical opinion closest to us on the inside would be to want to keep the sex laws as they are right now without further expansion, which just might get to be referenced as a view rather than a “view.” The mainstream media can only see feminism as good, can only equate sexuality with abuse which the purpose of legislation is to criminalize more and more of and will only treat alternative views as a threat to society or of interest as a true crime story at best. Nonetheless, what I just said about the advantage of speaking out instead of being anonymous victims of oppression is applicable. We just have to make the best of it and though we should realize that they will do their best to portray us as deranged misogynists and probably incels too, there are limits to how much they can distort our direct quotes.

Eivind Berge said...

Thus the only debate about the sex laws which can be called a debate today is whether we should have to sign a sex consent document every time we have sex, in the absence of which men are just assumed to be rapists. Not that anybody in the mainstream will disagree with that, but they could and still be inside the Overton window. Everything else on the MRA side is relegated to a documentary on radicalism, while the feminists can go much further still and discuss for example a curfew for men as if it would be normal.

Anonymous said...

Listen, that reporter will take everything out of context and use it as a hit piece to set back any form of rational conversation about any topic relevant to men.

The only way to use it with any kind of success is to be overly sarcastic with every response and never explain yourself. Examples:

Question: "Why do you think sexually abusing underage girls is ok?"

Wrong Answer: Having sex with girls under 18 isn't abuse because girls like sex and we should have freedom for everyone to express themselves, teen girls are developed and can make their own choices about sex, they're smart and everyone needs to have rights in society, grown men are more responsible for teen girls too because they have more experience, girls like grown men too so it's just ageist and a conspiracy by feminists to raise their buying temperature against younger girls, etc etc etc all the shit we've all heard before that never changes anyone's mind.

Right Answer: Girls under 18 are never sexual. Everyone knows when girls turn 18, they magically become aware of and responsible for all sexual impulses, which they did not understand anything about previously. That's why girls never get pregnant before 18, that's why girls under age 18 are never obsessed with men, ever. And throughout human history, every single girl under age 18 was always viewed as a sexual abuse victim, because clearly all cultures understand girls just know nothing at all about sex before they turn 18. Then, after age 18, since girls understand sex completely and fully, they never have any more bad outcomes from sex, ever. A 48 year old woman never has a disappointing time with sex because she has such a complete understanding of it at that age.

Remember this advice, don't fuck this up!

theantifeminist said...

"Listen, that reporter will take everything out of context and use it as a hit piece to set back any form of rational conversation about any topic relevant to men."

100%. If you re going to do this Eivind, only agree to a face to face interview and make sure that you record the interview yourself too, at least audio. They'll still edit you to make you look as wrong brained and degenerate as possible, but at least you can present the full un-edited interview somewhere. Perhaps not here because obviously you might be cancelled.

"Wrong answer: so it's just ageist and a conspiracy by feminists to raise their buying temperature against younger girls, etc etc etc all the shit we've all heard before that never changes anyone's mind"

I'd take issue with you here. As far as I know, I was the only person screaming that 'shit' from the rooftops. I mean obviously there were people like Roissy/Heartiste with a zillion times more clout, but they were careful to crouch it more in terms of one aspect of feminism being a pussy cartel to deny men access to 'peak fertility' 21 year olds.

The purpose was not to "change people's mind's". It was to shame feminists and their real agenda. The point was to change people's actions i.e. feminists. I still believe if we could have mustered just 100 (and that was probably about the largest we ever had) to similarly scream femihag from the rooftops, we might have made a little dent in the course of things. Feminists are not open to logic. They are - being women - susceptible to shaming. To expose them as bluntly as possible that they are not trying to protect children at all, but rather destroy the lives of teenage girls through forced victimization, in order to better their own selfish sexual interests.

Secondly, the purpose was not to "change people's minds" because 99% of males and females already know (deep down at least) that feminists are jealous hags trying to deny access to younger females. The guy on the metro who gave you an angry glare when he saw you give an admiring glance to a 15 year old girl knows it. The 30 year old woman who called you a pedo for talking to the 17 year old beauty knows it. The femihag NOG screaming to put more men in prison to be ass raped in order to 'save the children' knows it. That Norwegian journalist knows it. The Latin quoting pedo commentator here knows it. Well Ok.. he doesn't know it. The only people who don't know it are the MAPs and 'ephebophiles' who are so aspie they can't understand the universal and essential social skill of self-deceit and hypocrisy and that any sexual difference between themselves and other 'normal' men is either zero or a very small matter of degree.

I agree with your point about all the other 'shit' that's been tried trying to convince people through reason about a teenager's ability to consent etc, but my approach was completely different. It recognized that feminist anti-sex hysteria is not rational, and our only chance was through shouting out the elephant in the room, and I still think it would have worked to a small extent. At the very least, femihags would have known that we knew what they were up to. Whenever a feminist visits this site and reads a zillion articles from Eivind trying to logically dissect the 'female sex offender charade' they probably just wet themselves laughing.

theantifeminist said...

"In 2020, Yubo scan every video stream, which is shut down if algorithms detects nudity. In February 2020 in the United Kingdom, an independent report on child sexual abuse estimates that "the value of human moderation is evident from the success achieved by the social network Yubo, whose moderators interrupt livestreams to tell underage users to put their clothes on."

Sounds like literally something from 1984, where the omnipresent video screen will suddenly project a voice telling Winston to exercise or engage in the two minute hate.

A social network company banning older people from messaging younger adults has already been done in the UK years ago. In fact, they actually banned everyone over 36 as a potential paedophile. 'FaceParty' was actuallly bigger than Facebook at the time, but it backfired because they were quickly consigned to the dustbin of history.

The main reason why Instagram and TikTok are banning any interaction between 'adults' and 'teens' is because the pedohysteric UK has threatened to block them if they don't.

I used to believe that technology was accelerating so fast it would at some point exceed the rate at which feminists could keep up with their laws, and eventually they would give up or it would become meaningless (when femihags can look like 17 year old girls themselves etc). I'm not so positive now. I think femihags and their primordial sexual jealousy will actually have us all back living in caves before they allow technology to get that far.

theantifeminist said...


Yes, the pigs in the UK certainly took a real good hammering the other night. No doubt they'll be raiding a few homes of limp wristed Latin quoting 'MAPs' for messaging teenage e-thots on Instagram, and give them a beating down the station to make themselves feel manly again. Arresting 'nonces' for talking to 17 year olds or old grannies for having a cup of tea in her garden with friends is just about all the pigs in the UK are good for these days. Anybody else they get on their knees and beg forgiveness from or simply sh** themselves and run away.

Anonymous said...

I think that Eivind should only agree to an interview or a debate which is broadcasted live, otherwise they will manipulate what he says and make him sound like a nitwit no matter what. If they don't accept this simple requirement, no problem: there will be no involvement from him. Show them that they need you more than you need them.

Eivind Berge said...

Those were the most sensible comments from the antifeminist in a long time. Quite right, technology isn't helping us. Now that governments have figured out that they don't need to let people socialize or travel, they can put us in the antisex matrix for good, where algorithms flag and report any "sexual misconduct" in real time. You can see that we are down to two options now: feminist dystopia or civilizational collapse, and currently the feminists are doing so well that only a shortage of computer chips is holding them back. We can speculate if this so-called chipageddon is a sign of impending collapse, but to me it seems to have more to do with increased demand than any real difficulties producing chips anymore.

Anyway, here is Gail's new post for those who want to find solace in likely collapse:


I expect that oil prices will rise a bit, but not enough to raise prices to the level producers require. Interest rates will continue to rise as governments around the world attempt more stimulus. With these higher interest rates and higher oil prices, businesses will do less and less well. This will slow the economy enough that debt defaults become a major problem. Within a few months to a year, the worldwide debt bubble will start to collapse, bringing oil prices down by more than 50%. Stock market prices and prices of buildings of all kinds will fall in inflation-adjusted dollars. Many bonds will prove to be worthless. There will be problems with empty shelves in stores and gasoline stations with no products to sell.

Only then will society lose sight of antisex as the number one priority, and the shortage of components with which to construct their surveillance state will be a real one. Given Gail's track record at predicting it though, I am not holding my breath.

Anonymous said...

Eivind should record any interview himself so there are two copies.There would still be the issue of how to get the honest, un-butchered version out to the public, though.

theantifeminist said...

Eivind, you say you want to have children and that is the sole purpose in life, but you're adamant that civilization is going to collapse soon. Not only that, but you wish for it.

Doesn't make sense.

Eivind Berge said...

It will be a bottleneck that some will get through. If not me then my children might. People kept having children through the fall of civilizations before because this normal business of living is a higher purpose than any of those details. Failure is an option, but not trying is not. Oppression isn't new either of course, and there will be new forms or some of the old reinstated such as feudalism or slavery, but feminist antisex bigotry aided by advanced technology is a special sort of hell that does indeed make me rethink whether technology was worth it and hope for collapse.

Eivind Berge said...

Maybe this giant container ship (accidentally?) stuck in the Suez Canal will be the tipping point for some real adversity for the feminist police state?


After a year of lockdowns shaving the already just-in-time supply chains down to a bare minimum, there can't be much slack left in the system before something like David Korowicz describes here is realized:


"Despite the diversity of complex systems, from markets to ecosystems to crowd
behavior- there are remarkable similarities. For most of the time such systems are stable.
However, many complex systems have critical thresholds, called tipping points, when the
system shifts abruptly from one state to another. This has been studied in many systems
including market crashes, abrupt climate change, fisheries collapse, and asthma attacks.
Despite the complexity and number of parameters within such systems, the meta-state of
the system may often be dependent on just one or two key state variables.

Governments are so emboldened by all their restrictions still not causing collapse to think they are immune to this sort of thing. They think they are in charge because most people obey them and the rest can easily be knocked into submission by the police, but reality is the economy is first and foremost a dissipative structure, a self-organizing system that doesn't give a damn about what we want. When it must collapse, it will as surely as a hurricane blows over without regard to whatever the individual air molecules might feel about it. Even the most glorified ones elected as their leaders or who "own" everything are powerless against the physics of complex systems.

Jack said...

Come on Eivind, you're a fraud about wanting children. Your no-fap resolution is making you so randy you will go to any length to have (bareback) sex. The very idea of barebacking a woman is making you blind to everything else.

Why would you want to extract non-existing children from non-existence and throw them into a life of suffering and unhappiness followed by death? You are yourself utterly dissatisfied with life and human affairs. Your children are likely to take after you. They too will be born with a talent for unhappiness. Like yourself, they will be highly critical of Society and they will see through social hypocrisy. And like yourself they will be largely helpless about it all.

Do not perpetuate suffering in the universe. Sentient life is a tragedy.

Eivind Berge said...

Jack is always the antinatalist. He is like a Buddhist monk, albeit with hookers, trying to escape from the world and save others from the suffering that he thinks life is.

Bareback is what sex is. If you settle for less, then it might not be as bad as masturbation, but it is markedly inferior to the real thing. That does not mean one should never use contraception of any kind, but do so AFTER having as many children as you want. No, I am not a fraud nor utterly dissatisfied with life. I am against specific laws but still a very happy person. I am actually a lot less dissatisfied than most habitual complainers and nowhere close to depressed since I have so very specific and limited complaints, apart from which I appreciate so much beauty in the world. Seeing through social hypocrisy is not incompatible with happiness either, because you won’t be the only one and not least because then you can have more meaningful relationships with others who do the same, even if they don’t actively resist political regimes. Obviously life includes a lot of suffering, but I believe that love makes up for that and it is still right to bring more people into the world.