Thursday, March 25, 2021

The persecution of Kandice Barber


theantifeminist said...

Judging from your second tweet, it seems that despite obsessing over 'the female sex offender charade' for over a decade, you still haven't given any serious thought as to why it exists.

Just like you've never given any thought as to why a relatively small number of 'stupid' feminists have managed to overturn nearly every society on Earth in the space of a generation.

Sometimes life is not only beautiful Eivind, it's simple too.

Feminists have created anti-sex hysteria because it's never been easier (if it weren't for their laws playing catchup) to contact, meet, and have sex with a teenage girl.

Feminists put women like Kandice Barber in prison because if they didn't, it would be pretty obvious why they were putting only men in prison for having sex with teenagers. It reinforces and validates the whole child abuse industry and inflated concept of paedophilia. Why should they care about maybe less than 100 women out of a population of nearly 4 billion in prison for 'child sex offences' (as compared to tens of thousands of men)? It's not even any threat or limitation to feminists or the average woman, because the average woman has zero sexual interest in teenage boys, while virtually every man on Earth has a sexual attraction to teenage girls (whatever they might say in public MAP readers).

The female sex offender charade is there because it validates and supports the male sex offender charade.

I know you don't care quite so much about the latter. And please Eivind, when you're speaking to that journalist, I expect you will be focusing on the 'female sex offender charade', but at least don't use phrases like 'patriarchal misogynist attempts to recriminalize adultery' etc. Please.

Eivind Berge said...

No major disagreements here. I have been calling the female sex offender charade a red herring to the criminalization of male sexuality for as long as I’ve been blogging about this and totally agree, it exists to validate their hateful laws against us. But I can’t leave it at that, because the real mystery is how the system including male judges and jurors (though they needed two trials in this case, so the first one worked as I envision sane people block insane laws when we get to have a jury) go along with it with this zombielike quality? And then there is the very palpable misogyny as well. The Sun says they were “romping in the field” meaning having a good time obviously, then they report her getting six years in prison as if it is completely normal. Shouldn’t it bother them (and you) that women get locked up for nothing?

Six years used to be considered (and maybe still is, for the most part) a robust punishment for real, violent rape, of the kind women actually fear, and here it is used for the smallest possible age of consent violation. This means Britain has bested France and now in practice has an absolute rape age of 16. It has to be a European record in the female sex offender charade (vs. Brittany Zamora’s 20 years in the American version of a case I consider identical, though for those who believe abuse is a function of age she would also “deserve” more since that boy was 13). I can’t even think of a man in Europe who got six years yet for having a 15-year-old girlfriend (and this wasn’t sex either, just pictures and oral). That they want to do this to men too and with this precedent will be more able is of course profoundly disturbing, but we should also care about the isolated injustice of locking up these few female scapegoats in order to normalize the oppression of men. Kandice Barber is also an individual who deserves our sympathy.

I love her defense that the sex act would be physically impossible because of her height. That is exactly in the spirit of male sexualism, because such idiotic charges only deserve gobbledygook back to suit the intellectual level of the dimwit who thinks it belongs in court. It is surreal that the justice system will touch this and grown men will debate whether she is “guilty” as if that matters at all. And it is sad that she had to threaten to accuse the boy of rape if he reported him, but not really a reflection on her character. That only reflects the perverse incentives of hateful feminist sex laws that make it her only legal way out.

Yes, that the feminists go through with this evil and sacrifice a few women for the greater “good” of being able to control male sexuality is a partial explanation for why this travesty can exist, but there is so much more here that makes me lose faith on all of humanity including men. If we as a group can’t stand up for ourselves, can we at least stand up for these innocent women? The answer for society is evidently no, but male sexualists are an elite group who are better than that, so I will continue to address the female sex offender charade as an extra poignant miscarriage of justice and a treasure trove for insights into human stupidity.

theantifeminist said...

"No major disagreements here."

And then there is the very palpable misogyny as well. The Sun says they were “romping in the field” meaning having a good time obviously, then they report her getting six years in prison as if it is completely normal.

You think a male teacher having willing sex with a 15 year old girl in a field would not equally be a romp? Of course the Sun wouldn't describe that as a 'romp', they'd describe it as rape and abuse. The difference is not misogyny, it's misandry. The fact that they can apparently see that the boy likely was thrilled by it and then justify the punishment in the next sentence, only shows how zombie like and retarded people are today, as well as the total taboo on questioning any 'child abuse' sentencing.

Then you seem to claim that she has been given a harsher sentence for being female. That's absolute nonsense. The footballer Adam Johnson was given six years for simply kissing a 15 year old girl. He was also accused of getting a blowjob off her but was cleared of that.

The UK is way ahead of Europe now and moving towards American full on retard sentencing for petty sexual offences, both male and female. They just passed a new sentencing bill last week which will mean even longer sentences. Six years was already the minimum a man could expect in the UK for the slightest sexual interaction with a 15 year old girl, probably 10 years to life with the new bill.

This woman was his teacher, clearly took the lead, AND threatened to destroy him with a false rape accusation. Yet you think this is the leading cause for a real men's rights movement??????

Besides, she'll probably be let out early, unlike most male offenders, and wont have to live in fear of being ass raped by her fellow inmates or having to eat porridge each morning that's been spat in or worse. She wont have to live in constant fear for the rest of her life, when she is released, of being targeted by vigilantes.

Why the hell should I care about this bitch? I'd bet money on two things here 1 - the boy was a chad and certainly no incel (or she wouldn't even have looked at him) and 2 - she probably (and still) thinks men having sex with 15 year old girls should be slowly tortured to death, and that it's 'different' for anyone with a pussy (as you agree). Notice also her hubby has declared he'll stick with her, just as in the Britney Zamora case. She'll probably start sucking the dicks of the black male prison guards and divorce the poor simp, just like Britney did.

Eivind Berge said...

Of course I don’t deny that 15-year-old girls can and often do enjoy a good romp as well. But underage girls having a romp is now always obfuscated behind words like "grooming" and "assault" no matter how enthusiastic participants they are. So when the media can for a change use honest language of boys enjoying it, along with no limits on how much women should be punished for being so gracious, this devaluation of women can’t be other than misogyny. Either that or they are just plain zombies who can’t feel human emotions and don’t have a clue what lust or empathy is. Why can this detachment from human experience pass as reported and legal “reality” -- is what I am always wondering. It raises some disturbing questions about how conscious people are and how little they care about others.

I knew there was a new sentencing bill coming, but hadn't quite kept up with how harsh it has already gotten in the UK. Six years for kissing is out of this world, approaching American levels indeed. And I know it won’t stop until they can give you life just for talking to a 15-year-old girl. Nobody will care, because the hate is infinite and empathy is nonexistent. To have any hope at all or just to preserve our own humanity we need to set the example that we do care, about women suffering a less extreme version of this oppression too.

Eivind Berge said...

It looks to me like the Suez Canal will be unblocked in time so civilization isn’t stroking out at this time after all. And it’s clear that covid, even if it goes on for another year, is just a drop in the bucket of what it would take to stop antisex reforms, much less reverse them. The feminists didn’t miss a beat amidst the pandemic as they keep retrying harmless women for romping in the fields or passing tougher antisex laws in the UK, Denmark, France and Norway. I wonder what it would take to put a dent in it? Maybe if London looked like Dresden in 1945, would priorities be different? Or does it need to be at the Hiroshima level? Our only succour is Gail Tverberg’s predictions which do expect destruction at least as bad as Dresden rather soon. Many areas will even be as badly damaged as Hiroshima, with no warfare needed because the unspent nuclear fuel pools will take care of it in her collapse scenario. But, it is a faint consolation for obvious reasons.

The feminists have even got the most violent men on their side. Remember I called it right away that the Atlanta spa shooting was a work of feminist ideology, and now Maggie McNeill has reached the same conclusion and written it up very nicely:

It was even more on-point than I thought:

Robert Long…had attended rehab for sex addiction and felt extreme guilt about his sexual urges, two former roommates said…Long has…[admitted] he committed the shootings because he [imagines he] has a “sex addiction” and wanted to eliminate his temptation…Tyler Bayless…spent months living with Long in an Atlanta halfway house named Maverick Recovery [a year ago]…He said Long was being treated for [so-called] sex addiction and felt an overwhelming sense of guilt over visiting massage parlors “for explicitly sexual activity…[which] he…[called] ‘relapses’…He would have a deep feeling of remorse and shame and say he needed to return to prayer and to return to God”…Bronson Lillemon, a second former housemate of Long’s, echoed Bayless’ account…Both housemates [said] that they never heard Long use racist language and had no knowledge that he ever visited racist message boards online…

Yeah, if you think visiting a massage parlor is a “relapse” into “sex addiction,” you are a consummate feminist. It is also a relapse into uniquely male sexual criminality under the Nordic Model, so of course governments do all they can to foster the view that this temptation needs to be eliminated by violence. Properly violence against men, but still, the leap is not large to take it a bit further if one buys into that antisex bigotry and pseudoscience. The Norwegian government's purpose-made propaganda outfit should be very proud of themselves for promoting this view and I'm sure their boy Robert Long is a great feminist hero to them.

Eivind Berge said...

Correction, that should be SPENT fuel pools rather than unspent, though the ability to cause harm is still very much unspent at that time:

And about that ship, this is weird:

If I were prone to conspiratorial thinking I'd say there is a message in that assrape trajectory, plus the idea that a little wind pushed such a large fully functional ship into that position is a bit suspect, but I still think global trade will be mostly okay for now.

Eivind Berge said...

And about that Norwegian antisex brainwashing outfit disguised as a health clinic, let's preserve their slimy advertising here before they wise up to the fact they are working for violence against women and make it more subtle:

"På vår chat kan du snakke med kvalifisert helsepersonell om temaer knyttet til sex, seksualitet og seksuell helse. Noen av temaene du kan ta opp er:

Hvordan beskytte seg
Psykisk helse knyttet til sexkjøp [i.e., pushing the "sex addiction" hogwash plus the idea that men who pay for sex have abusive personalities.]

For deg som ønsker samtale om sexkjøpserfaringer er det også mulighet for dette [You really think we are just gonna let you have an STD test without lecturing you?]. Enkelte som kjøper sex opplever dette som problematisk [meaning you better feel bad about it and our therapy is here to make sure you feel even worse after talking to us]. Vi lover deg å være åpne og ikke-dømmende til det du forteller [yeah, right]. Vi har taushetsplikt og garanterer deg full anonymitet [we'll see how long that lasts before we become the mandatory snitches we want to be]."

Anonymous said...

A sentence of six years imprisonment for something that is legal in most of Europe shows how basisless sex laws have become today.

theantifeminist said...

@Anonymous - sex laws in the UK have been that for a while now. It's almost as if the only meaning of them is to punish people for breaking a 'sex' law, no matter how meaningless the law is or lack of harm to the 'victim'. So most 'sex offences' in the UK today are like the sting operations where there is no actual child or victim. The fact that you were willing to break a sex law is reason enough to ruin your life. This despite the fact that the UK just this week put Alan Turing on their £50 bank notes - a middle-aged man who was persecuted for having anal sex with a teenage minor (and then blaming the lad for a burglary in order to escape punishment), yet is honored as a martyr for it.

Oh Eivind, the Suez cargo ship guy was apparently making a giant penis sign. Maybe he was one of your followers trying to bring an end to civilization?

Oh wait, if he was really one of your followers he would have drew a picture of a pussy, or a 'Free Britney Zamora' sign.

Eivind Berge said...

This is really ugly abuse industry propaganda redefining a consensual relationship into grooming and abuse and I certainly don't want to recommend this movie:

But I have a question, because this takes it one step further and assumes that teenage girls who have older lovers might "repress" their memories as well, only to rediscover them later with a "therapist." Repressed memories are a big scam anyhow, but here they take it to new levels because I thought that was about things happening in early childhood that one would struggle to recall in any event, or at least events that were experienced as traumatic if they happened later. But now, a girl supposedly forgets a love affair she had between the ages of 12 to 14 JUST because her boyfriend was 13 years her senior, and we are supposed to buy into this as a normal mechanism? This after being "groomed," which by definition is a pleasant experience so why would there be any reason to suppress memories?

It would be dumb for evolution to design sexually mature individuals who not only can't handle anything to do with sex without being horribly abused, but repress the memories of their first lovers as well. But perhaps this girl was temporarily demented or something, I don't know. Chances are she made the whole thing up for her propaganda piece, but the scary part is it is taken seriously. Get ready for a whole new level of manufactured accusations if this trend takes off.

Eivind Berge said...

Or I shouldn't just call it propaganda, that's too limited. As Angry Harry used to say, women love hearing about "abuse" and reveling in this subject. This is female porn as much as feminist propaganda if not more so. Many women would love being seduced by an older swim coach at 13, but the only way such a fantasy can be explored these days is to frame it as abuse. So instead of more romance novels we get this entire genre of grooming and abuse when society has made it a crime to call it otherwise. Let them have their entertainment, but when it also becomes propaganda for accusing men, it is a problem.

Anonymous said...

It is no coincidence that "repressed memories" of abuse only come back to mind in sexually paranoid countries, but never in places like this:

Eivind Berge said...

World record "abuse" once again:

"·The University of Southern California has agreed to an $852 million settlement with more than 700 women who have accused the college’s longtime campus gynecologist of sexual abuse.

·It’s believed to be a record amount for such a lawsuit.

·Dr. George Tyndall, 74, faces 35 criminal counts of alleged sexual misconduct between 2009 and 2016 at the university’s student health center.

Judging by those numbers, it looks like they have simply redefined gynecology into sexual abuse, because that should cover pretty much all gynecology patients at the university in that time period. Perhaps the new standard is that gynecology consultations are not to involve any nudity, and this doctor didn't get the memo yet?

Anonymous said...

Something like this, perhaps?

Eivind Berge said...

Yep, back to Victorian times and cover it all up. Except there is still plenty of room to accuse abuse there too by the touching. Oh, we have digital imaging now, but looking at screens is abuse too so you really don't get around it.

Anonymous said...

It seems that you monitor Internet for depressing news in real time. But that's more masochistic than nihilistic...

Eivind Berge said...

Actually, no. I am very nonchalant about the news and this is just what slips through without looking for it, for example because it is mentioned in another context such as Gail's blog. The antisex stories I am reporting are just the tip of the iceberg of what a masochist would find.

With regard to the MSM, what I do so as to not be bombarded with antisex news all the time is to get my daily updates on current events from economical sites like, and only VERY occasionally check the cesspool of misandry that is and the like because I just can't stand it. Not that the financial sites are any less misandrist, but they don't tend to report every single sexual accusation or feminist scream for worse laws unless it has some immediate economic impact. is also good for weeding out even more obnoxious ideology from current events. It presents you with a different one that isn't any more sex-positive, but at least antisex isn't their main focus.

holocaust22 said...

I found a famous psychologist that agrees with us. Robert Epstein, a senior research psychologist at the american institute for behavioral research and technology. And former editor of psychology today.

He wrote a book called "saving our children from the torment of adolescence". In the book, he openly defends intergenerational relationships with teenagers, and makes the argument that adolescence is a western construct that doesn't even exist.

Here are a few things from the book.

"Q. Do you mean to say that it's ok for my thirteen year old daughter to have sex with a 25 year old man?

A. The fact is some, and perhaps even many, thirteen year olds are ready for sex. Remember that throughout most of human history our ancestors began having children shortly after puberty. Our brains and bodies are designed that way. It's common in other cultures for people of widely different ages to marry, only in america do we think spouses need to be the same age. "

"Coercion. These laws imply that the person who is over the age boundary is necessarily coercing the person who is underage. But as we've seen in many cases, there is no coercion, and in some cases the younger person manipulates or coerces the older person"

There's a lot of good stuff in this book. I didn't expect the guy to be so blunt. But he is right in your face about it.

Anonymous said...

School asked all male students to stand up in an assembly to apologise for their gender (at least, they now admit that it was wrong):

Anonymous said...

Epstein wrote an interesting paper already in 2007: "The Myth of the Teen Brain". It can be found here:

Anonymous said...

An interesting paper, not least because it's written by a woman:

Anonymous said...

"Feminists have created anti-sex hysteria because it's never been easier (if it weren't for their laws playing catchup) to contact, meet, and have sex with a teenage girl."

I think this theory is incorrect. I would say youthful attraction has never been *as noticeable* due to technology and advertising, and the emotional trauma an older female experiences from simply observing digital dating trends in action is enough to create the defensive hysteria.

In terms of actually banging a teen girl, even if there were no sex laws, the difficulty is the same at best and much more difficult on average. Technology plus the virus hoax has really destroyed the teenage girl's social skills, as well as the older ones; much less girls venture outside away from their screens, and all the constant online dick offers just confuse and overwhelm them. Without competent social skills they become unbangable since a girl is attracted by dominant conversation. I speak from experience, having gamed them for years.

"The female sex offender charade is there because it validates and supports the male sex offender charade."

The case of Robert Long... he is a feminist conservative male. The same kind that brought in women's suffrage and the worst of the feminist laws. Feminist conservative males are the Trojan Horses of feminism and male hatred. They are hypocrites and losers. Is this the "patriarchy" Eivind is talking about? They seem like the opposite to me.

Eivind Berge said...

Very good. It even explains how the female sex offender charade got underway:

Similarly, statutory rape laws have gone through a dramatic development. The Supreme Court in Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County, upheld gender-based classifications in statutory rape laws as permissible under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if they “bear a fair and substantial relationship to legitimate state ends.” However, since 1981, the definition of statutory rape in regulation by the states has expanded to include gender-neutral terms. These laws are commonly on the books but not enforced, since prosecutors need the testimony of the “victim”—usually a consenting partner—to get a successful prosecution. Today, there are increased moves to enforce these laws, even if younger partners are not willing to testify against their lovers.

And since this was written, the abuse industry has also figured out how to brainwash boys into testifying against women in a lot of cases. But it is interesting that the entire female sex offender charade didn't exist until 1981, which fits with what I have been saying as well.

By the way, today I learned the technical term for what enables the female sex offender charade: pluralistic ignorance.

"Pluralistic ignorance occurs when group members mistakenly believe others’ cognitions and/or behaviors are systematically different from their own."

It is the same idea as the emperor's new clothes, except they are no longer new but permanent. The lie that women can sexually abuse is now so well established that in order to be "normal" one must go along with it at least in all official capacities, with no awakening in sight. Probably even a lot of judges don't really believe in it, but they believe other judges do so they must rule accordingly.

Eivind Berge said...

And of course, pluralistic ignorance explains a lot of pedohysteria against men as well, with for example "ephebophiles" existing for no other reason at all. And "MAP" has to be the most pluralistically ignorant term ever created, LOL!

Eivind Berge said...

Anonymous said:

"In terms of actually banging a teen girl, even if there were no sex laws, the difficulty is the same at best and much more difficult on average."

No, I would have to agree with theantifeminist that it has gotten easier, which is why the feminists are scrambling to close those avenues with the help of laws and tech companies. A combination of making all minors' social media invisible to adults and life in prison if you so much as try to follow a teen girl on Instagram will do the trick, which is where we are headed.

As to the virus, I agree lockdowns have been exaggerated but it is hard to explain the situation in Brazil right now without a real pandemic, now apparently mutated to be more dangerous to young people as well. Europe is also experiencing another wave which would be hell right now without social distancing. What I don't agree with is the draconian restrictions on international travel which clearly don't stop new variants from spreading around the world anyway.

Eivind Berge said...

But you are right in terms of how much sex teens are having. It is less, so in that sense they are harder to sleep with. That is mainly hurting young men, however. Us older generations still have some social skills from growing up when it was still normal to socialize, and if it weren't for the sex-hostility of the tech companies it would be relatively easy for us to get in touch with teen girls. A new kind of privacy has arisen where they look at screens all day, and feminist-ruled society absolutely cannot tolerate men meeting them there.

Eivind Berge said...

Can they get any more hateful? Oh, yes they can...

"Britain's most senior child protection officer today told parents who suspect their sons have committed sexual abuse to hand them over to police after he revealed that officers have received 'in excess of 7,000' testimonies."

Absolutely astonishing evil still capable of shocking a seasoned activist like me.

Eivind Berge said...

Simon Bailey is evil incarnate. So blinded is he by antisex hysteria that he doesn't even realize how radical it is to try to turn families against themselves. Familial relationships are destroyed forever if one does this, you know. What can be more sacred than family loyalty and the right not to testify against family members? Well, unless you want a dystopia like communism and now feminism.

The police would be too ashamed of themselves for making this statement about any other crime. Even parents of mass murderers are not expected to turn them in and don't have to testify, but for "sexualizing women" it is fair game to destroy families... I haven't seen my father since 2012 because he is just as evil as Simon Bailey, but most people are not and they probably wouldn't actually do it for sex crimes either. I would be extremely shocked (yet again) if any significant number of parents follow his advice. The antisex hysteria is enough for cops to get away with suggesting it without being generally seen as the inhuman monsters they are, which would be plain to all if they tried it for shoplifting or drug crimes for example, but I think and hope and pray it stops there.

holocaust22 said...

"Simon Bailey, who leads the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) on child protection, speculated that the growing school sex scandal has been fuelled by online pornography and the sexualisation of women."

I love sexualizing women lol.

Nowhere in this article does it ever mention what the "sexual abuse" is. Probably because the "abuse" was consensual drunk sex, or unwanted flirting. And they know if they talk about it, they will look stupid.

"When it was put to him if he had concerns that schools may have covered up allegations for reputational reasons, Mr Bailey said: 'I don't have any evidence for that at the moment, but I think it's a reasonable assumption"

I don't have any evidence that schools covered up sex scandals whatsoever, but i think they probably did. Uhhh, what? Hahaha. This guy is the biggest dork on planet earth.

"Cultural change in terms of behaviour in our schools and in our young people, but also in the respect that is shown particularly for women and girls."

Make money, fuck bitches.

I bet this cop is a massive paedocrite.

Eivind Berge said...

You are being waaayyy too nice calling him a dork. What we are dealing with here is the press release equivalent of Dante's Inferno, all the hell with none of the poetry. Specifically the Ninth Circle, the “lowest, blackest, and farthest from Heaven” -- for the sin of treachery. The worst sinners in the underworld are the traitors, those who betrayed their loved ones, their country, and their God. This is where Simon Bailey belongs, or possibly even lower for inciting treachery as a general principle!

Eivind Berge said...

Zero tolerance for sexuality is what this is. To remove "rape culture" as it is defined here you would have to imprison every male at birth. The only permitted perspective is to see all of sexuality as rape and abuse and harassment, which is equated with the female perspective, except when they get to punish women, in which case boys can be "victims" too. And of course, this is still only "the tip of the iceberg" of what they want to prosecute, including all the "non-recent" abuse which appears to be the new euphemism for "historical." This is the first time I've noticed that word, but I guess it makes sense that they can drum up more accusations for decades-old events if they put "recent" in there... They leave no stone unturned, do they? "Sexual abuse" eats the world, or will if feminists have their way. Which is why my solution is for all men to self-register as sex offenders and get it over with, at which point the feminists will have no one left to enforce their antisex bigotry and we are back at worse than square one with nobody giving a shit about all their perceived victimization.

Anonymous said...

Speaking about Dante's Inferno, people like Simon Bailey remind me of the she-wolf in the very first song of the Divine Comedy:

Because this beast, at which thou criest out,
Suffers not any one to pass her way,
But so doth harass him, that she destroys him;

And has a nature so malign and ruthless,
That never doth she glut her greedy will,
And after food is hungrier than before.

Eivind Berge said...

Exactly. Have you have read an article describing how things have improved after one of the endless series of feminist reforms? Did any of their laws or tougher sentencing guidelines or more specialized antisex police and so on and so forth lead to any good? Not that I have seen. It is always the same story about dire abuse everywhere that we need to address with ever more draconian measures.

Eivind Berge said...

Not only does it not work, but expanding criminalization leads to more "abuse." Before they raised the age of consent, only those who had a bad experience were abused. Then all sex became abuse and there is that much more abuse. Same for grooming. Before all sexual talk was criminalized, only those who ended up having bad experiences were abused, and now they all are. As Angry Harry pointed out, even a sex consent document would lead to more abuse. All the millions of women who previously felt no need to sign a document or verbalize their consent will now be "raped" if they don't. And so we would need still more draconian laws to crack down on this growing rape epidemic. It never ends.

Anonymous said...

I assume you don't entirely agree with this:

Eivind Berge said...

Right. That's a great attitude except she leaves out the part about masturbation being harmful to boys. I love how she wants to instill body pride and how these urges are natural, but how do we do this with boys while at the same time teaching them that masturbation is counterproductive to these goals?

She says there are two peak ages of masturbation, first from 3-6 and then from 12 onwards. This second group is old enough to understand the very same info I have been promoting about nofap. But admittedly I have not addressed how to teach a 3-year-old boy that masturbation is bad without ruining his body pride or sex-positivity. I will have to think about this and see what I come up with. Perhaps there is no optimal way to teach nofap to young boys who want to masturbate without female "sex-offending," but there should at least be a second best way that does not put then om the road to impotence, and for God's sake teach them that if they must masturbate, don't do so in a prone position, which is traumatic masturbation syndrome!

Eivind Berge said...

You can teach that something is bad by presenting a better alternative. Ideally a female should show them the proper way to satisfy those urges, obviously. Masturbation is bad because sex is good and the former ruins the latter in various ways ranging from erectile dysfunction to opportunity cost. If they still don't know what sex is, or think masturbation is sex, it is ill-advised to tell them masturbation is bad because of the damage to sex-positivity. Except you absolutely have to intervene if they engage in traumatic masturbation -- make sure they know never to put their body weight on their penis, use hands instead!

Other than that, just leave them alone I guess until they are old enough to understand. It won't be any worse than for the generations that didn't have internet porn (so the damage should be very minimal) UNTIL they start using porn, at which point you need to step in and get serious about teaching them how bad it is. At that point, they should have enough of a grasp of what sex is from seeing it in the porn that you can tell then masturbation will ruin their sex life and since sex is a GOOD thing, they should be very afraid of masturbating, especially to porn.

Seriously, if nothing else, that doctor in the video needs to get acquainted with this literature before she harms more boys by her negligence!!!

Traumatic masturbatory syndrome
L I Sank 1
Affiliations expand
PMID: 9509379 DOI: 10.1080/00926239808414667
This article describes a previously unreported pattern of atypical masturbatory behavior, which presents as either an erectile or orgasmic disorder in men. Four case histories are described of men who masturbated in an idiosyncratic manner. The distinguishing features of the masturbatory style include a prone position and daily masturbation over a period of years. It is suggested that the primary care physician or specialist (urologist or neurologist) screen for this problematic style when presented with male sexual dysfunction. Further, and more controversially, it is suggested that a primary prevention model would argue for masturbatory instruction in the home, classroom, or pediatric clinical setting.

Similar articles
Unusual masturbatory practice as an etiological factor in the diagnosis and treatment of sexual dysfunction in young men.
Bronner G, Ben-Zion IZ.
J Sex Med. 2014 Jul;11(7):1798-806. doi: 10.1111/jsm.12501. Epub 2014 Mar 28.
PMID: 24674621

Billy Pilgrim said...

"But admittedly I have not addressed how to teach a 3-year-old boy that masturbation is bad without ruining his body pride or sex-positivity. I will have to think about this and see what I come up with. "

How about you just don't try to teach 3 year old boys that masturbation is bad you bellend?

Look, nobody doubts that No Fap has helped you with your erectile dysfunction problems, or at least you feel it did. You tried a trick and it worked. Just leave it at that.

Eivind Berge said...

That's what I said, don't teach boys that masturbation is bad until they can understand why, or else you will just teach them that sexual touching/feeling is bad as they will be unable to comprehend the difference. The effect will be the same as that inflicted by sex-hostile parents, which I very much condemn.

That said, of course nofap is merited later. It is not a "trick," but a rule of life to avoid predictable sexual dysfunctions, that are now made so much worse by the constant availability of porn. It is irresponsible not to warn boys against the evolutionary trap that porn is, so much so that it might actually be better to have sex-hostile parents that are totally against porn and masturbation for wrong reasons such as religion or feminism, than to be brought up with the sex-positive but misguided attitude that masturbation is just another kind of healthy sexual expression.

theantifeminist said...

"evolutionary trap that is porn".

You mean you're going to teach 3 year olds that touching their wee wees will make them go blind to the beauty of 1,000 lb black women?

People here coming from a men's rights sympathetic point of view will be left totally scratching their heads at what they find. Post after post demanding that women be given the pussy pass for having sex with young boys because it's different for them, at the same time as demonizing little boys for masturbating. You're even using words like 'patriarchy' and 'misogyny' now.

You literally said that you are going to think of a way to teach 3 year olds that masturbation is wrong. There is NO WAY you can do that without harming them. Just as there is NO way you can build a society that demonizes porn in which there wont be thousands of men locked up to be ass raped for breaking porn laws. Just as there is NO way you will ever get feminist age of consent laws a valid part of men's rights when you post again and again that 'it's different for women and boys'. Just as there is NO way you will ever make a dent on feminists until you accept that feminists have the support of women in general, even if it does harm your chances with 1,000 lb black women on Tinder.

John Theory said...

Seems too simple for me Eivind. My theory is that stupid feminists have to be the puppets of the electromagnetic oil industry. The Suez Canal blockage was a staged attempt to disrupt Musk's plans to colonize Mars which would end hegemony of the Ronstein cartel (Google 'Voltstan conspiracy'). Hence the female sex offender charade taking root in America in response to the shooting of JFK which was ordered by the big boss for making Lunar habitation viable with the CIA funded Apollo program. Nocebo came into with Miterrand and the French passion for ooh la la, eventually infected with the Pornhub Anglo-Saxon virus which has turned them into complete yellow vested manginas, masturbating from the age of 3 backed by Belo-Russian oligarchies. Thus now even talking to 21 year old women is suspect, all because of the designs of the evil electro-magnetic conglomerate.

The question we need to answer is why am I who I am and not the anti-feminist or Holocaust22? The odds of me being me are trillions and trillions to one. The universe contains over 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms multiplied by 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. Yet for me to be me, literally all of them had to be in exactly the right place at the right time - including all the electrons and quarks, gluons and all the rest. Else I might have been the anti-feminist or Holocaust22, or even - dare I say it - you.

What does 'nocebo' mean again Eivind?

Eivind Berge said...

Yet for me to be me, literally all [the particles in the universe] had to be in exactly the right place at the right time.

Yes, but is that enough? This is the idiotic conundrum that Geoffrey Klempner spends his life obsessing over. Was David Hume right that this is all there is to it and you are just the series of perceptions caused by these particles? Or are Eastern religions right about a sort of karmic immortality, that might extend through many worlds as well? Many other possibilities have been put forth, some of them kind of plausible, but I suspect the best one hasn’t been proposed yet.

Which is why I want to organize a conference and essay contest on this question. On a tentative timeline we might call it The Idiotic Conundrum World Summit Conference 2022. Essays accepted until one year from now, April 31st 2022, and then we hold a conference say in August 2022 (probably online) where we discuss the best ones and announce a winner. We will also publish a book with essays worthy of inclusion.

Since I am currently broke I can’t promise any prize money, but if anyone wants to help with this, just send some bitcoin to my donation address and tell me it's for this purpose. This will be totally nonprofit and I can’t win it myself. Geoffrey Klempner can’t win either and I will invite him to help judge the essays and speak at the conference. The point is to get some more people besides him and me to think about this question. Hopefully some top metaphysicians, but we will judge the essays on merit only and ignore any academic credentials or lack of them.

Does this sound like fun? Who wants to chip in so we can make it a very prestigious contest and the greatest metaphysics conference of all time?

Eivind Berge said...

What is the world coming to when men have to deny relationships with 17-year-old girls and that claim can be used for extortion?

Rep. Matt Gaetz on Tuesday denied that he had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old after the New York Times reported that, according to its sources, the Justice Department was investigating a possible sexual relationship with the girl and whether he paid for her to travel with him.

The Florida Republican said in a statement to CNN that "no part of the allegations against me are true" and that the claims were being pushed by people who are targets of an "ongoing extortion investigation.

Just normal feminism at work. They are literally so hateful that this is how they want it, and they control the Justice Department to realize this misandry.

I still wouldn't deny it though -- or if it was a lie I would be sure to point out that there would be nothing wrong with having a relationship with a 17-year-old. Shame on Matt Gaetz for playing along with the misandry and implying it would be bad if these allegations are true.

Isn't this the most cringeworthy statement made by any man ever (aside from female sex offender charade)?

"The person doesn't exist. I have not had a relationship with a 17-year-old. That is totally false. The allegation is, as I read in the New York Times is, I have traveled with some 17-year-old in some relationship. That is false and records will bear that out to be false," he said.

Anonymous said...

An April fool's joke one day too early? No, this is the reality of the US:

Eivind Berge said...

It doesn't even look like they have the ability to use age of consent in that case, nor is he accused of paying for sex. But merely paying her travel expenses makes it "sex trafficking," which is even worse. So if you have a 17-year-old girlfriend, that is how easily they can get you.

Eivind Berge said...

About that 7-year-old boy charged with rape... it is amazing how responsible children become once they can be considered perpetrators rather than victims. Then he suddenly knows what he is doing, huh? How does this work? What kind of voodoo magic makes all the consensual relationships in between disappear, so that only victim or perpetrator remains possible?

Jack said...

There's a twist to the Gaetz story which suggests he may have been framed. He was the only politician to vote against some human-trafficking bill:

So you if you vote against an anti-sex law you risk being accused under such a law. This being said, the guy looks and sounds very much like a sex-hypocrite, but let's not judge by appearances.

Eivind Berge said...

All the statutory abuse of the feminist sex laws, is it discovered or invented? What if they are right and it actually exists? We put the question to serious philosophical inquiry...

The philosophical significance of sex-abuse platonism

Sex-abuse platonism has considerable philosophical significance. If the view is true, it will put great pressure on the physicalist idea that reality is exhausted by the physical. For platonism entails that reality extends far beyond the physical world and includes objects which aren’t part of the causal and spatiotemporal order studied by the physical sciences. Sex-abuse platonism, if true, will also put great pressure on many naturalistic theories of sexuality. For there is little doubt that we possess sexual knowledge. The truth of sex-abuse platonism would therefore establish that we have knowledge of abstract (and thus causally inefficacious) abuse. This would be an important discovery, which many naturalistic theories of sexuality would struggle to accommodate.

Although these philosophical consequences are not unique to sex-abuse platonism, this particular form of platonism is unusually well suited to support such consequences. For feminism is a remarkably successful discipline, both in its own right and as a tool for other sciences. Few contemporary analytic philosophers are willing to contradict any of the core claims of a discipline whose scientific credentials are as strong as those of feminism (Lewis 1991, pp. 57–9). So if philosophical analysis revealed feminism to have some strange and surprising consequences, it would be unattractive simply to reject the abuse industry. A form of platonism based on a discipline whose scientific credentials are less impressive than those of feminism would not be in this fortunate situation. For instance, when theology turns out to have some strange and surprising philosophical consequences, many philosophers do not hesitate to reject the relevant parts of theology.

Sorry, couldn't resist -- this was a spoof of:

Where they consider the implications of platonism about mathematics (which by the way I reject).

Eivind Berge said...

"There's a twist to the Gaetz story which suggests he may have been framed. He was the only politician to vote against some human-trafficking bill."

Wow, then I was too quick to judge and he might have some balls after all, though they sure aren't showing in his current statements.

Anonymous said...

The flu hoax is tied to anti-sex feminism. The connection is obvious - girls are having less sex than ever before because of the measures the governments and media are taking against the "virus". Men can't travel to fuck any willing girls that are left either. It's all part of the same agenda.

As for second waves, yea, that's all bullshit they are making up and you should be able to see it. The PCR test is completely unreliable for diagnosis and can be faked easily, according to its own creator Kary Mullis (who also calls Dr Fauci completely incompetent and a fraud). There is no relevant increase in deaths. Never was, at any point in the fake pandemic, in any country in the world. Can't have a pandemic unless everyone is dying in greater numbers constantly. News flash: they're not. There is no evidence whatsoever of a pandemic.

And if you think anything is solved by standing a little further from people sometimes, I've got a bridge to sell you, and I have to question your entire ability to be critical.

Anonymous said...

@Last Anonymous. You are dead right about all of that.
Masks also have their uses for the unattractive, especially women. In fact, the current situation goes one better than Islam in the way it allows virtue signalling not only for modesty but for hygiene and social responsibility too.
Good looking women also don't seem to mind masks too much. It's almost an axiom: women like masks.
For attractive women, they are able to enjoy the fact that they can beat the old hags at their own game. Even with masks, it's still quite obvious who's hot and who's not. Old battleaxes, OTOH, still at least get something out of masks. The attractiveness gap is narrowed a tiny bit, and in a socially-mandated way to boot. Most women are very mainstream in their thinking, even more than men, so voila!
I have read that in places where the burka is a way of life, people can still work out a lot about a woman anyway.
Almost all of one half of the population are OK with masks, and on top of that, quite a few men don't mind either, for the reason stated. Deeper into the male side, most are not prepared to pay any price at all to speak out against masks or Feminist bullshit, because most people are not very impressive that way and they are still regarding these things as something that disadvantages attractive guys and therefore gives them at least the feeling of having some sort of advantage they otherwise wouldn't have.

Eivind Berge said...

Lockdowns, travel restrictions, mask requirements etc. are highly debatable, and "positive tests" are weak evidence alone, but it is a fact that intensive care units have filled up in several countries due to the disease we call covid. I know this from connections in the health care system, not just media -- in places such as California, France, India and Brazil. ICU beds seem to be the bottleneck for how much disease modern society can "function" with, and since they are limited to a few thousand in each country, we get a crisis very quickly. In that sense, covid is real. It is also a power trip for the authorities and we don't know how it will end, but there is still a pandemic going on.

Anonymous said...

Wrong. Intensive care units are always "almost filled" because that is their business model. Always has been. That is how hospitals function administratively, ie: you can't run a financially successful hospital with unused overhead, just like any business. Which is of course completely irrelevant, because even if it wasn't completely normal, if no one is dying, then there is no pandemic whether hospitals are full or not.

Also, you forget the bad flu season of 2018, when hospitals actually became filled to capacity and they had to put up tents in hospital parking lots to accommodate patients. Another news flash - NO ONE GAVE TWO FUCKS. And yet another news flash - THIS NEVER EVEN HAPPENED WITH "CORONAVIRUS".

In the words of the fake president of the usa: cmon man!

Insane Planet said...

21 year old YouTuber 'admits' messaging 16 year old boys. Doesn't appear to be even sexual, yet having any 'interaction' with a 16 year old 'child' is grooming.

Eivind Berge said...

I see. A couple of those messages are claimed to be sexual but all interactions condemned and regretted and he is going to further “educate himself” on how wrong they are. All “interactions with minors” are now off limits -- that's literally where the taboo stands. This reported by the BBC who should represent a culture where the age of consent is 16 and “grooming” also only applies under that age by law (plus it has to be sexual before it can be punished), but no, they fall in line with what is now apparently going to be universal segregation of minors from adults. And holy shit, this “groomer” is only 21 himself but that doesn’t help either.

It can’t be long before they black out all accounts and images of minors to adults on the Internet, and then laws need to catch up so they can punish all attempts at interactions or just looking, even nonsexual and up to 18. I had another jarring experience along these lines in the past few days while following the Derek Chauvin trial. You will note that this is about murder and not sex at all. Witnesses were going on the stand and what they said was reported with a picture by But then an 18-year-old woman went on the stand and her identity was blacked out. Why? Because she was 17 at the time. We can’t see what she looked like because she had been a minor at a time in the past... How about we just exterminate all children and former children and get it over with, because humanity sure can’t tolerate itself anymore.

Eivind Berge said...

This culture has taken child-worship to its ultimate conclusion now. The "minor" is the new God, and just like the old version that they replace, anyone who sees the face of God must die.

Exodus 33:20
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live."

Replace God with minor and you got feminism.

Eivind Berge said...

We must not see what minors look like or more to the point how they behave so that we can preserve the sanctified myth of the 100% asexual child. Or even more to the point, cater to the sexual jealousy of old feminists, yeah.

Fortunately for the feminists, taboos do not need to make sense and to have a scandal it is sufficient to point a finger and cry "misconduct." More empty accusations against Gaetz that are only suited to make him look like he has a sexuality in contrast to the acceptable eunuchs of the legislature:

Gaetz allegedly showed off to other lawmakers photos and videos of nude women he said he had slept with, the sources told CNN, including while on the House floor. The sources, including two people directly shown the material, said Gaetz displayed the images of women on his phone and talked about having sex with them. One of the videos showed a naked woman with a hula hoop, according to one source.

OMG, a hula hoop! How kinky and perverse and no doubt offending against a taboo we haven't thought of yet! Lock him up for life now!

Eivind Berge said...

Now about the pandemic and how real it is in reply to anonymous above. I agree it was surprising that we can have a pandemic without excess mortality, but that’s how it goes when so well controlled. There are hotspots showing us how it can go when left alone, currently Brazil where the corpses are piling up so fast grave diggers have to work around the clock:

Filling up ICUs is not an administrative decision as you assume. Turning patients away can be, but not admitting them in much greater numbers like now, because no one goes to intensive care for fun or even severe hypochondria. Nearly all patients there are intubated at a minimum because they can't breathe and have so many problems that they need to be monitored and cared for all the time by one-to-one nursing (though I think they cut this down a bit with covid). You will be heavily sedated in order to bear all the tubes or if not you will likely be delirious because it is a living nightmare. Delirium, by the way, is another name for brain failure because your brain is failing too along with all your organs. In short, intensive care is a really bad experience that is only tolerable because the alternative is dying and even then most people opt out. If they tried to put you in intensive care without being sufficiently sick or heavily restrained/sedated, you would run away. So there is no chance that they are filling up all these beds without a real pandemic going on. Then we got the graves and mobile morgues/crematories to prove it too, though admittedly this is weaker evidence since it is only happening sporadically. If the whole world were like Norway with only up to a few hundred hospitalized at one time and less than a thousand deaths over a year, I would not believe there is a pandemic, but we are definitely seeing much worse elsewhere.

I don't have first-hand connections with the cemeteries, but I do with the ICUs and know they are treating a real, new, deadly disease.

Eivind Berge said...

Pretty good article on carcereal feminism here:

A small excerpt:

Feminists also pushed to exclude defendants in sexual assault cases from protections afforded defendants accused of other crimes. In "the midst of '90s predator panic, an alliance of women's rights activists, concerned citizens, and tough-on-crime politicians pushed through a novel federal evidentiary rule, Rule 413," explains Gruber. This exempted "sexual assault defendants from the general rule that prior bad acts are not admissible to prove current behavior." Meanwhile, they pushed handy but unscientific explanations of trauma to wave away any inconsistencies in victim stories or peculiarities in their behavior. "'Rape trauma syndrome' reflected popular views that women were 'ruined' by rape (and even imperfect sex)," notes Gruber, and thus "the trauma narrative resonated with judges and juries, and trauma became a prosecutorial trump."

The rape law reform efforts were part of a broader trend to exclude those deemed sex offenders from normal legal protections while simultaneously broadening the definition of sex offenses—and of child.

"Since the late 1980s, the age of a 'child' in federal statute was raised first to sixteen and then eighteen," note Meiners and Levine. And "as the age of consent has risen, most carceral feminists have been content to let the lines blur between the small, prepubescent people we used to call children and the fifteen- and sixteen-year-olds that much of the world regards as mature enough to make their own sexual decisions."

Eivind Berge said...

And yeah, this is how it goes with no sign of a reversal:

Plenty of feminists, veteran and ingenue, remain committed not just to upholding the existing feminist crime control regimes and closing 'loopholes' in them but also to creating new ones—new antitrafficking laws, revenge-porn laws, laws against hosting prostitution ads, laws against coercive control in relationships, laws against stealth condom removal," Gruber writes. "Emboldened by a modern antitrafficking consensus so powerful that Trump has touted preventing sex trafficking as justification for his wall, prostitution abolitionists have redoubled efforts to criminalize commercial sexual activities.

Eivind Berge said...

But damn, Elizabeth Nolan Brown who wrote that article is still a man-hating bitch herself. Here she writes about the Geatz accusations clearing up the nonsensical "trafficking" part:

But what about the activity alleged here: an adult paying for a 17-year-old to travel with him and also engaging in a sexual relationship with her?

That certainly could run afoul of a number of criminal laws. However, prosecution for child sex trafficking seems unlikely unless it could be proved that paying for the girl's travel was explicitly conditioned on her engaging in sexual activity, or that money or something else of value was specifically promised in return for these sex acts. (...)

It's how we get masses of people believing insane conspiracy theories like those spread by QAnon, in which the highest levels of government and business are supposedly controlled by child sex traffickers who harvest kids' blood. It's how we get oodles of nonsensical Facebook memes about traffickers trailing people around supermarkets. It's how we end up with dangerous laws like the 2018 Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), which criminalizes online speech surrounding consensual sex and makes it more difficult for workers in commercial sex sectors to stay safe. And it's how we end up with ever more police, FBI, and ICE stings targeting all forms of sex work, which ruin lives and drive up arrests and incarceration without actually protecting anyone.

But then she also writes:

None of this is to say that a man who is in his thirties "dating" a teenager is something to be condoned. Most people can probably agree that it is, at the very least, creepy. Many people would agree that it crosses a moral line. And depending on where the relationship took place, it could also violate a number of criminal laws.

So dating a legal teen girl is still "creepy," eh? Is NOBODY other than the male sexualists willing to stand up for that?

Jack said...

Adding to theantifeminist's post above, here's a quote:

"The present widespread cultural suppression of female sexuality exists in large part at the behest of women."

The quote is from the Wikipedia article about Roy Baumeister:

It is interesting that this is known and discussed even outside the manosphere (Baumeister is a mainstream writer, not an MRA).

call it as it is said...

Ameriskank at the gym recording herself for her hundreds of thousands of TikTok followers, notices a male gym user looking at his phone and walking about behind her. Accuses of him of creeping on her and complains to staff about him, not to mention shaming him on her TikTok account.

If you look at her TikTok video, there's no way you can tell that he's taking a creepshot, but that's the way it is for males today. A skank literally recording herself in the gym for hundreds of thousands of views, most of them probably thirsty males, is somehow violated by a man looking at his phone in the same gym. And hundreds of other skanks on her TikTok account (which is full of her showing of her skanky ass and boobs at the gym) validating her and calling her a 'survivor' and that all men are filthy beasts. Notice her TikTok link is also given in the article. She's humiliated a man as a creep and claimed victim status, just so she can get thousands more thirsty males perving on her skanky ass and liking her TikTok videos. She'd love it if the man had been not only banned from the gym but given a few years in prison as a sex offender.

And this is the type of skank that EIvind would crawl a mile over broken glass to have sex with.

Cathartic Joy said...

Pig excrements in the USA try to force their way in to a Jewish synagogue on Passover to enforce Covid-19 regulations and are told where to go by the Polish/Jewish Rabbi.

holocaust22 said...

Dave chappelle defends r kelly for sleeping with 15 year olds here. A real male sexualist. He also defends him in his most recent special sticks and stones, and makes fun of old ladies for not being as hot as 14 year olds. Comedians can get away with anything.

BTW, eivind, you still want to start a band?

I'm thinking we could change the lyrics in this song, and turn it into an anti paedocrite song, calling them fake.

Anonymous said...

Chappelle's also black, which helps. In any case, I've always liked him and what, indeed, did R Kelly do that deserved for him to be on the wrong side of the law? People talk about him as if he'd raped a small child.
I't great to see someone as prominent as Chappelle identifying the female jealousy elephant in the living room.
There's a book called "Fate of Empires", published in 1977- .
Here's some quotes from the author's discussion of the decline of the Arab Empire-
"An increase in the influence of women in
public life has often been associated with national decline. The later Romans complained
that, although Rome ruled the world, women
ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar
tendency was observable in the Arab Empire,
the women demanding admission to the
professions hitherto monopolised by men.
‘What,’ wrote the contemporary historian,
Ibn Bessam, ‘have the professions of clerk,
tax-collector or preacher to do with women?
These occupations have always been limited
to men alone.’"
"Soon after this period, government and
public order collapsed, and foreign invaders
overran the country. The resulting increase
in confusion and violence made it unsafe for
women to move unescorted in the streets,
with the result that this feminist movement
collapsed. "

Eivind Berge said...

Good to see someone defending R. Kelly and his victimless crimes. I do feel sorry for him and despair because his lack of support (with that one exception) outside of male sexualism is a frustrating testimony to how hopeless our entire movement is.

I often feel collapse is our only "hope." The idea of feminism being associated with the last stages of a civilization is not new and seems to have some merit. I remember reading some of a book called Sex and Culture by J. D. Unwin which also made a similar point. That book was popular in the manosphere about ten years ago and it also had some other baggage promoting sexual restraint and enforced monogamy that I didn't agree with though. It ought to be possible to embrace a good kind of sexual liberation without letting female sexual jealousy ruin it and also not flipping over into excessive polygamy with lots of incels causing instability. This civilization is facing greater problems than can be helped by any of that, with crises relating to energy and climate and overpopulation (compared to the resources that will be available) coming no matter what we do, but it would still be worthwhile to reduce the antisex persecution of course. We still have lives and causes to fight for even if our civilization is dying.

Even Gail has noticed how we strangely hand everything over to women in the endtimes. She is the only true prophetess of what is going on herself, but since there are no solutions it doesn't really matter that we put less insightful women like Janet Yellen and Christine Lagarde in charge of the economy. It only matters to sex crimes that women rule during collapse, but men are too feckless to care about that either anymore.


Thanks for that idea. Yes, I do want to start a band although I am not sure how to practically go about it, what with the distance and lack of skills/equipment. Perhaps we should start with some lyrics and take it from there. I will see what I can do and let you know more privately.

Anonymous said...

What might have happened if the guy accused of filming that insta-thot came out swinging?
What if he'd countered her right there in the gym and said "Fuck off, mind your own business. So what if I'm filming you? You have no self-respect yet at the same time expect to be treated like some precious commodity. Go to hell. I'll show you what's on my phone-nothing. Satisfied?"
Then HE might have become a bit of an internet sensation.
If he had been filming her, it would have been inadvisable to show the world what was on his phone, but he could have still counterattacked.

Anonymous said...

The outrage of the day:

holocaust22 said...

What did these boys even do? Did they rate girls on a scale of 1-10? lol

holocaust22 said...

Rollingstones allows comments under their articles about matt gaetz. I'm talking massive shit and not getting banned.

Anonymous said...

Nice trolling on that Rolling Stone article.

One author I read talked about how the goal of the government/media is to create a state of confusion by randomly criminalizing normal thoughts and feelings, which allows the state to increase control over people by keeping people on edge. Then, people are more willing to accept whatever lunacy the government wants you to believe next without questioning it out of fear.

This criminalization of sexual feelings for "minors" that everyone feels from time to time serves this control agenda perfectly.

Somehow we are impervious to it.

Jack said...

"One author I read talked about how the goal of the government/media is to create ...". That's plausible but why exonerate the gynocracy by blaming a larger entity (ie "the government/media")? Every time you enlarge the set responsible you exonerate the hard-core sub-set within it.

Eivind Berge said...

Honorable exception: Diana S. Fleichman, @sentientist on Twitter:

“The word "pedophile" has been so watered down by hysterical discourse that I was truly surprised to find out someone in the news who was called a pedophile was actually sexual with a child and not just a dude who liked a 16 year old's bikini pictures on facebook.”

“The vast majority of men are attracted to women after puberty, regardless of the girl/woman's age. That's why the discourse around attraction to minors is so heated- men are trying to virtue signal that they only allow themselves an erection after they check her driver's license.”

Eivind Berge said...

Apropos the royal death, I am currently reading that Elizabeth was groomed from the age of 13 by then 18-year-old naval cadet Philip, except they dispense with such modern terms for once.

“How high he can jump!” Elizabeth said to her governess, Marion Crawford, in July 1939 when she saw Philip leaping over tennis nets at the Royal Naval College in Dartmouth. Elizabeth had led a very sheltered life with her family, spending most of her time with her sister and governess. Touring the college with her parents and sister, she was dazzled by the star cadet, who would soon be off on active service. Elizabeth’s fascination was obvious to all and was most gratifying to Philip’s uncle, Dickie Mountbatten, who was hopeful of encouraging a marriage -- with himself as the power behind the throne.


During the war, Philip wrote to Elizabeth and came to stay for Christmas in 1943. Elizabeth was 17 and a young woman. Philip found her very appealing. She was not only attractive and witty, but she was cheerful and practical, very unlike his own fragile mother.

What, how can this not be abuse after all that grooming and how can they call her a woman when we are told they are nothing but innocent asexual children at that age?

call it as it is said...

New York legislators are discussing a new anti-sex law that would make it illegal for a man to lie to a woman before sex.

Eivind Berge said...

Yep, there is always something more they can criminalize. And I see this proposal already goes further than I imagined because it includes "concealment" as well:

"In a well-meaning yet exceptionally dim move by lawmakers in New York, getting a partner to drop their knickers or Y-fronts through ‘deception,’ ‘concealment’ or ‘artifice’ would be a crime.

Saying, for example, that you want a relationship when you just want quick and easy sex, or saying you’re single when you have a partner, or saying you’re a millionaire – whatever, you get the picture – would be classed as ‘criminal sexual misconduct’. Even failing to share a vital piece of your personal jigsaw could be a crime of ‘concealment’ – for example, you’re Jewish or flunked out of school etc. The list is pretty much endless.

Eivind Berge said...

Yet another milestone has been reached -- first time I've seen a woman being entrapped in an underage antisex sting:

"Jessica Mihalovits, 39, Mesa: Aggravated Luring of a Minor for Sexual Exploitation and Attempted Sex Conduct with a Minor."

“It’s like fishing. You put the bait out; the fish will come,” Phoenix Police Commander Jim Gallagher told reporters after that sting ended.

Yes, of course, you've criminalized all of sexuality and don't even need a "victim" since you can simply make one up. And many more laws on the way as if that weren't enough.

And notice the Orwellian name of the crime here, as lying pigs entrapping an adult leads to the charge of "luring a minor." And somehow all these 34 independently baited criminals based on pure fiction are all part of a "pedophile ring" as well and "child rapists" and obviously it was a "child sex trafficking" sting. No lie is too outlandish to drum up all the crimes you want in the name of antisex. But if they want to entrap more women than 1 out of 34 they still need to tweak their lies a bit -- how about posing as underage boys seeking to pay for sex? Gotta have equal injustice for both sexes and even if they achieve that, women will still support antisex because as Jack pointed out above, women are the primary perpetrators of cultural suppression of female sexuality as well.

Eivind Berge said...

Does your neighbor wear a suspicious hat? Or perhaps you'd like to report the pattern on his bed sheets? No object is too innocent to indicate pedophilia and cops want to you to report them all.

"Officers hope that members of the public will recognise something and report it, eventually helping them catch paedophiles and people profiting from child exploitation.... It could be a power socket, a vase, a reflection, a logo, a TV show in the background or even a piece of clothing."

And if you can't fit it into a sex crime, there is always "coercive control," the new weapon to make "victims" out of women and thus criminals of men for literally everything a woman does in her life, down to every last meal she has cooked:

Anonymous said...

Honestly you have to be a special kind of retarded to fuck whores without anonymity precautions or game knowledge these days. Really, prioritizing sex with non-prostitutes (prostitutes being the most honest women) is complete insanity in Anglo countries right now. They know this, hence the drive to re-criminalize prostitution as "human trafficking", especially by the so called right wing, whose little innocent angels need protection from the big bad men.

Eivind Berge said...

It isn’t retarded to do normal things. It is normal to fuck both whores and non-whores. But how to deal with universal criminality? That moment when you realize you can’t have a normal or meaningful life without being a criminal is an awakening of sorts, or should be. We all deal with it a little differently. In my view the comment above evinces too much risk-aversion at the cost of intimacy. Worse, some react by still trying to obey the laws or claiming to -- like this funny quote from that article about making it a crime not to disclose all your weaknesses before sex:

None of us singletons will ever have sex again if these laws ever truly find traction. Nope. Our sex lives are over. Done. If anyone has to declare all their foibles and bad habits to their date before they’ve even made it to the bedroom, they will never end up in bed together in the first place.

He can’t be serious about this, not when it comes down to it. The moment when it hits you that feminist sex laws are incompatible with life is also different for each of us, with most men frankly still in denial and probably still will be after that law and worse is passed in New York and elsewhere. Since sex is usually done in private and most partners don’t turn on you even if the law promotes it, it is possible to be in denial for a long time, especially if you are also low on empathy for those who do get convicted for victimless crimes.

At last we are not alone with this awakening as medical fascism is having a similar effect. It is amusing to watch a significant group of former normies realize that their principles prevent membership in society. They go oops, we can’t have a normal life following all these invasive rules up to getting an experimental vaccine and a passport to prove it, which definitely would be against our principles… so what do we do with ourselves… perhaps breaking the law is actually good and necessary? However, “civil disobedience” is a euphemism that normies use to reconcile being a normie with criminality; that way they can maintain mental separation from the “real” criminals even as they are arrested and prosecuted and get a criminal record that isn’t really crime to them. I reckon that all lawbreaking related to covid will be in this category and won’t help people realize that being a sex offender is normal too when sexuality is outlawed, but it’s still fun to watch this challenge to their view of themselves as law-abiding citizens. We can hope, but probably not expect, that being a “law-abiding citizen” will lose some of its luster now that many more find it incompatible with their values.

Eivind Berge said...

Come to think of it, maybe we should also start conceptualizing nonviolent sex crimes as civil disobedience? There is no reason why those who for example feel the age of consent is too high and therefore disrespect it shouldn't think of their actions as civil disobedience. It would help a lot against the preposterous demonization with dysphemisms like "child rape" that society seeks to impose if one took the very sensible attitude that it's just civil disobedience, which in fact it is when you think about it. Indeed it is incredible that it took me so long to realize this!

Anonymous said...

Civil ulydighed indebærer at man fortæller åbent at man agter at overtræde lovgivningen for at henlede offentlighedens opmærksomhed om urimeligheden i en bestemt lov. Og netop fordi man gør det åbent, er man da også indforstået med at tage sin straf.
Når man til gengæld overtræder lovgivningen i det skjulte i håb om ikke at blive opdaget, kan man da ikke bare forsvare sig med at det var civil ulydighed, hvis man bliver opdaget alligevel. Dette gælder specielt i sager om sex, hvor der som regel også er en anden person involveret.

Eivind Berge said...

Right, the point is that it demolishes the moralism that they seek to impart if we treat it as as a matter suitable for civil disobedience, which is seriously the level it deserves. And it would work to make punishment impracticable if enough people did it, at which point it would also be advisable to state beforehand that one intends to break these silly laws.

It's an epiphany to me that I've been too respectful, brainwashed even, of the feminist sex laws for considering myself a high-level enemy of the state when civil disobedience is all it deserves, and I'm slightly ashamed of not correcting this sooner.

Eivind Berge said...

Then again I have also being encouraging men to self-register as sex offenders in order to mock the feminists, so that wasn't too far off the mark, but it doesn't quite capture how silly and unreasonable these laws are. I mean, are they even worth the effort to subvert ironically? No, they are just plain civil disobedience material. But of course, we always run into the reality of not having a movement so nothing gets done either way :(

Anonymous said...

If I lived in Norway with the playground prisons and light sentences, you can bet I'd be participating in a whole lot of "civil disobedience"

theantifeminist said...

I remember reading a contrarian feminist book when I was a student a long, long time ago, before modern paedohysteria, and the author mentioned her view that a lot of men locked up for having sex with underage girls had chosen their sexual path for 'political reasons'. She was discussing this sympathetically in the context of a general discussion on the right to reject conventional sexual mores and the like. Unfortunately I can't remember the title or author at all. There's quite a few books I read or leafed through in bookshops decades ago that I would love to be able to remember the titles of.

Anyway, just to be clear - having sex with underage teens is wrong because it gives the feminist State the power to abuse and destroy the young person through forced victimization and therapy. Not to mention it gives the teen the power to destroy you when she turns into a bitter hag.

However, it does chime with my suggestion as to the MLTO movement - 'Men Love Teens Only'. That is strictly legal, more like a boycott of older women and being honest and unashamed of the fact that teenage girls are attractive.

As to your theme of this post - it is possible to have a sex life legally even now. However, you can only do so at the cost of being raped by the (feminist) State. No matter how high they push up the age of consent, you (Eivind) will still chase women and claim anybody who doesn't is a 'zombie'. If the feminists raise the age of consent to 40, then you will be writing posts about how '40 year old women can still look good' and such. If feminists made it illegal to have sex with any woman who weighed less than 1,000 lbs, you'd be out there 24/7 on Tinder chasing 1,000 lb women and saying it's better than masturbation.

Your only answer to the rigged sexual market is to continue to play along with it. You grandstand hypothetical intellectual thought experiments about choosing to have illegal sex with ripe girls as civil disobedience, but in the real world, you'll do the very opposite.

And it all comes down to the fact that even now, after 15 years of blogging, you still don't understand what it's all about. Even when the likes of Diana Fleischman are spelling it out for you with big coloured crayons.

Me, well I'll never break a feminist law if I can help it, no matter how insane or unjust. That's self-preservation as well as the desire (as regards AOC) not to harm (indirectly) young people. At the same time, I wont play their game and be forced into committed relationships with 30 year old post-wall women who support and benefit from the femihag rigged sexual market.

I don't want to be raped.

Anonymous said...

Jeg fandt frem til denne kommentar som jeg postede den for et par år siden. Den handlede netop om civil ulydighed:

Eivind, har du aldrig tænkt på civil ulydighed? I modsætning til drab på politimænd kunne den skaffe dig en del sympati og ville få dit budskab ud til det brede publikum, specielt hvis du lægger noget morsomt i det. Den kunne f.eks. lyde sådan her:

"For at protestere mod den meningsløse krænkelse af ytringsfriheden i Norge vil jeg, EB, den [indsæt dato] uden for rådhuset i Bergen offentligt uddele erotiske noveller og hæfter med japanske tegneserier til de forbipasserende. Kom og grib chancen for helt gratis at komme i besiddelse af en ikke-litterær erotisk historie med personer under 18 år som hovedperson og en ægte japansk manga! Der vil desuden blive budt på gratis kaffe og kager. Politimesteren og påtalemyndigheden er velkomne".

Hvis du annoncerer det ordentligt, ville du få stor omtale, og dommeren vil sandsynligvis give dig en mild dom på grund af det politiske budskab i din aktion.

Anonymous said...

Jeg skal tilføje at denne form for civil ulydighed rent faktisk fandt sted tilbage i 70'erne i Italien, tilrettelagt af Partito Radicale, som plejede at føre sig frem på en provokatorisk og iøjnefaldende måde. I protest mod at censuren havde forbudt Bertoluccis "Sidste Tango i Paris" og dømt alle eksemplarerne af filmen til at blive destrueret, arrangerede partiet en offentlig fremvisning som blev reklameret nøjagtigt på samme måde som beskrevet i min kommentar ovenfor. Politiet dukkede op og konfiskerede filmeksemplarerne, men aktionen tiltrak opmærksomhed og fik offentlig omtale, hvilket til sidst resulterede i at filmen blev frigjort og censur blev afskaffet.
Ved en anden lejlighed udtænkte de Radikales karismatiske leder, Marco Pannella (som i øvrigt døde for et par år siden), en anden aktion, hvor han midt i en TV-udsendelse på den største nationale TV-kanal, som han var blevet inviteret i, pludselig tog en klump hashish ud af lommen og forærede den til TV-værten. Det gjorde han for at opfordre til legalisering af privat besiddelse af euforiserende stoffer, som var en af partiets mærkesager.
Han kom senere i retten hvor han forklarede baggrunden for sin happening, og dommerne var sympatetiske og dømte ham kun til en mindre betinget fængselsstraf.
Du kan læse om Marco Pannella her:

Eivind Berge said...

That's an excellent idea, thanks, and obviously civil disobedience against the sex laws doesn't need to stop at that one.

By the way, I just read a powerful sexualization of minors in my local paper Strilen, of all places. Sometimes a glimpse at a sane view of sexuality still seeps through the antisex bigotry that feminists try to enforce now. Whether it got published by negligence or civil disobedience I do not know, but this is absolutely beautiful. Some dude from around here named Karl Øvretveit went to Iceland in 1920 and wrote about it. In the course of describing The Great Geysir that Iceland is famous for, when he needs the sexiest, horniest image for this attraction at the height of her prowess and beauty as opposed to her dull old age when she barely wants to squirt anymore even when you lube her well up with soap, he describes a girl in her fifteenth year (meaning 14?). Obviously, to us, but unfortunately for the feminists. They can't suppress the truth about healthy sexuality entirely because it is suffused in our cultural heritage all the way up to the past couple of decades when feminist censorship really got underway.

Here is a link where you can find it on page 42-43:

And I will quote the beautiful thoughtcriminal poem here:

Soleis tenkte eg meg Geisir: «Sjå no er Geisir tagna, ho søver seg i blund, og stormen er stilna i bringa. No er ho gamall vorti og venter kvar ei stund at klokkene i Haukedal skal klinga.

Men lenge, lenge sidan då ho var ung og kåt, som ei møy i det femtande året, ho gilja seg i heksedans og svir og harpelåt, og nækte seg for kvar ein framand dåre.

Ho nigja til deim alle, ho skratta og ho lo, so meste ho gjekk i frå sansen; og danar og tyskar og engelskmenn stod og takkade so høvisk for dansen.

Men mange vilde leika, ja -- mange, mange fleir, og trøytt ho vart og laut seg kvila taka. Dei gav henne såpa: tri-fire pund og meir fyrr rett dei kunde få 'ne til å vaka.

Og såpeskrauvet valt, og dei smurde henne trutt og tala blidt og glodde og gåpa; men svevnen var for tung, og so skyna dei til slutt ho ferdig var, det hjelpte inkje såpa.

Og no er ho tagna, ho søver seg i blund, og stormen er stilna i bringa, og gamall er ho vorti og ventar kvar ei stund at klokkune i Haukadal skal klinga.»

I'll have coffee and cookies ready if the antisex pigs show up, but given that they also would have to incriminate the newspaper and all its readers, I doubt they will bother this time.

Eivind Berge said...


I am sorry to burst your bubble that you can still have legal sex, at least in Norway. It doesn’t matter if she is 40, sex is still illegal. Ever since the introduction of negligent rape in the year 2000, there has been no such thing as legal sex even in principle. The concept of negligent rape destroys men's ability to know that sex is legal by necessity of the law's hateful design that was recognized at the time but now has been normalized as something men are just supposed to live with, so worthless are we. You cannot have a justified true belief that sex is legal because it can easily nonetheless turn out to be false by a process that is only one whimsical accusation away. Even if you fully believed it was legal and the court believes that you believed it, it can still be convicted as negligent rape when women have their regrets and accuse you, and if there is one thing history has thought us, this just keeps getting more likely. The best you can do is a Gettier example, where you chance into believing the same conclusion that courts still reach in a dwindling number of cases that sex was in fact legal -- which is already being reduced closer to zero thanks to the abolition of the jury. But you cannot KNOW that it was legal beforehand or during, and thus there is no such thing as legal sex even in principle by any reasonable epistemic definition since you cannot live your life with the foreknowledge of what a feminist court will decide faced with an accusation of negligent rape. Negligent rape can be anything that by definition you don’t know about such as a claimed fear in her head that you were threatening due to some reason only she can think of -- age difference, your job or status or reputation or whatever she damn well pleases -- the list is endless. Indeed they will probably convict you of deliberate rape anyway even if you harbor your naïve belief like they did to Gaute Drevdal and so many men who fully believed they were having consensual, legal sex but still ended up as convicted first-degree “rapists.”

And no, obviously I won’t promote the remaining “legal” sex as things get worse because there is no such thing even now. We are long past the point of universal criminality, so being a sex offender is the only game in town for men.

holocaust22 said...

14 year old guy accuses hot 20 year old cinnpie of "grooming" him.

He says her blowjobs gave him a "mental illness" LOL

@theantifeminist Why don't you just date a hot 18 year old 12th grader. Instead of 30 year olds.

Eivind Berge said...

It's bizarre how sexuality has gone from their most salient feature at that age to something they supposedly don't possess or can't handle at all. Culture used to know very well that this isn't even true for girls, and now boys are suddenly supposed to be as asexual as girls never were until the insanity of feminism. We just need to make society snap out of this delusion, for which we need civil disobedience on a large scale. Why are people so damn obedient anyway?

Jack said...

What I want to remind this point is that long before criminal sex abuse charges against men became the norm, men were already systemically raped by family law, this being, of course, the field of battle of traditional MRAs. However much we on this forum dislike traditional MRAs for their kowtowing to the abuse industry, the what they have been fighting for was legit, for most women have never wanted men in jail, they have wanted men to work for them. A man in jail was only beneficial to a woman if he was a rich man who could be made to cough up a pile of money at one go, but most men are more useful to women as slaves outside jail. There are ten thousand times more men who are alimony slaves than men jailed for sexual victimless crimes. Better be an alimony slave than in jail, yet when men become alimony slaves, their useful life comes at an end too.

Eivind here who is more than willing to father children in order to score bareback sex runs a high risk of becoming an alimony slave. What will you sexual market value be like Eiving, on one third of what you're earning now?

holocaust22 said...


This is ridiculous jack. I have no job at all, and don't even have a GeD. Yet my last three girlfriends were 18-19 year old 10s.

If you have basic social skills, you can pick up middle class bangers even if you're ugly and homeless.

Here's a homeless guy that beds 130 girls a year.

You don't need looks or money to get girls. And I've personally been a male gold digger in the past, getting hundreds of dollars given to me for free by women.

If you're dating a gold digger slut that makes you an "alimony slave" then stop dating girls like this. There are millions of girls not like this.

Eivind Berge said...

I and most men WANT to support their families. The numbers that you just cited, Jack, indicate that you as an antinatalist don't understand that concept at all and think any expense for family or children is alimony slavery. Of course we don't want to be kicked out of our families and reduced to slaves, but it doesn't happen anywhere near as much as you think. Even the MRAs who were concerned about this seem to have disappeared, and thought they did have a point and somewhat still do, the malignant sex-hostility of feminism is much more important to fight against.

Since the demise of the old manosphere ten years ago I had almost forgotten that this whole alimony/child support issue existed... Sure I heard of Jeff Bezos’ $38-billion divorce settlement, but who feels sorry for him? It doesn’t seem to be a serious problem for regular guys anymore, unless they are even more docile and silently suffering about this than the sex laws.

By the way, you would think Jeff Bezos at least would take the opportunity to get with a younger woman after dishing out all that, but instead his new girlfriend Lauren Sánchez is 51. There are clearly plenty of opportunities for older women too, which makes the feminists’ vindictiveness against sex with teen girls even more evil.

holocaust22 said...

@eivind berge

Ewww, 51. Wtf is wrong with Jeff Bezos. Granny shagger.

Eivind Berge said...

We should be tolerant of different tastes. MacKenzie Scott also remarried, proving that there is someone for everybody:

holocaust22 said...

@eivind berge

"Thanks for that idea. Yes, I do want to start a band although I am not sure how to practically go about it, what with the distance and lack of skills/equipment"

What instrument are you interested in playing?

Eivind Berge said...

Good question... It would be so cool to play the guitar or something, but as a reality check I would have to start from scratch with musical training and I really don't have a clue how to learn this. Maybe I could try to sing, or are you good at that?

theantifeminist said...

@Holocaust22 - I was making a point about Eivind's approach to combining 'activism' with pursuing a sex life. Eivind will never stop pursuing pussy. He'll attempt to do so in a legal manner (which is the sensible and even the right thing to do), despite his 'civil disobedience' talk. This means staying within femihag age of consent laws, PUA laws etc. But given that the reason for all these laws is because the femihags are trying to get men to pursue them (or their support base of the majority of women), then you're just giving in and surrendering and feeding the system, validating the feminist State rape factory. Evind talks tough as though he's leading some kind of male sexual union ('male sexualists') but his philosophy of continuing to pursue whatever dwindling percentage of second rate pussy the femihags deign to allow us to, is more akin to a strike breaker - a scab.

If the feminists raise the age of consent to 30, Eivind will pursue 30 year old women. Do you understand this?

But yes, I could try to date 18 year olds or even 16 year olds who are technically still legal in Europe. You're obviously younger than me, and don't realize the hurdles for a 50+ year old man to date even 18 or 19 year olds, even if what you say about having 18/19 year old 'tens' is true (and I'm calling bull on that). Apart from that, I no longer have anything in common with teenage girls. I've exchanged social media with several 17 - 20 year old girls in the last few years and it's not just a generational gap anymore, it's something else. I cannot grasp the Millennial generation of brainwashed snowflakes Their feeds (and all their teen friends apparently) are full of contant BLM, transgender rights, all men are bastards virtue signalling crap. Of course, you being a good progressive feminist might have more in common.

I don't believe that homeless guy story. PUA has been exposed as largely bunkum a long time ago. I don't know much about you, and sorry if I'm mistaken, but I'd guess you're exaggerating like you're probably exaggerating about being a 'kickboxer'. You've been to kickboxing classes so you call yourself a kickboxer. You approach lots of girls and you've been on a few dates with hot 18 and 19 year old girls, so you say your 'last girlfriends were 18 yo HB10s'. If I approached ten 18 year old girls a day I'm sure I could end up going on regular dates and the occasional 'bang' with hot girls. I was doing that 5 years ago in my mid-forties. I just don't have the time or the emotional energy anymore. I can't really take the jealous looks and nasty comments that I get when even out with 21 year old women these days. Nor the emotional trauma of being sadistically rejected by girls every day (if I approached girls every day), the frequent stand ups, friendzoning, cock blocking from BFFs and parents at the last moment etc etc just to get the occasional lay (which itself as Eivind points out is risky these days even if 'legal'). BTW, in the UK talking to a woman in the street looks likely to be made officially illegal (a misogynistic 'hate crime') soon, even if it was only vaguely so already (enough to have one PUA put in prison). Apart from that, I just don't have time. Even the best PUAs have to devote hours a day to get regular lays, and truth be told, unless they are 6ft+ young and good looking, the quality isn't great (unless you're as thirsty as Eivind).

I'm too busy these days. I may try to approach at least one girl a week in the summer when I'm out and about (I don't live in the UK fortunately), but other than that, I'd rather wank and/or see pros. If you're young and have the time and energy, go for it (with extreme caution). If you're 50, then the best way is probably MGTOW.

theantifeminist said...

@Eivind - your position on sex and impregnation doesn't make sense. Logically, if the reason you think sex with women is the ultimate and only natural thing for men, then you should go the whole hog and try to get every woman you lay pregnant. Otherwise, from an evolutionary POV, having protected sex is no different to wanking, in fact from your own argument it's even worse. You claim wanking is bad because it 'takes up resources', but having protected sex and all the chasing to get there takes up even more 'resources', not to mention the legal risks.

However, not only do you deny all this (despite dumping Emma because she wouldn't have children and voluntarily turning yourself back into the incel you were before you met her), you wish to bring children into the world despite your fervent hope that civilization breaks down into a pre-industrial stage or even a pre-civilization state of anarchy.

Sorry Eivind, but your children are going to likely possess the same traits as you - ie., being a bit nerdish. Such people don't last long in anarchic societies. Why would you want to bring up little Eivinds in a Mad Max world of post-industrial collapse?

Eivind Berge said...

A lot to disagree with there. I am unmoved by any argument that it is “wrong” to break the sex laws. The “iatrogenic harm” argument that you dredged up earlier has no relevance with the ages of girls that we are concerned with, and very little with actual children either according to recent studies. It is a lot harder than previously imagined to brainwash girls into genuinely feeling abused when they are not, and when I rethink all the evidence I’ve encountered in my life critically, I am not aware of any credible examples of this done to teen girls. Sure, they have been cruelly coerced, even imprisoned in order to make them cooperate with antisex persecutions, but that is different from making them think sex itself was abusive. Let the “MAPs” worry about that, but certainly as far as male sexualism is concerned, civil disobedience is indeed the proper designation. I proudly note that at least two men closely associated with our movement have done so very publicly within the past year. In the case of Nathan Larson he ran his sites in the clearnet for all to see -- a paragon of civil disobedience! The problem is our movement is so tiny that we have no hope of making punishment impracticable yet, so I will concede that it is typically inadvisable to break these laws, as distinct from wrong. That would change if they raised the age of consent all the way up to 30 though. Surely there is some point beyond which men would simply not even pretend to obey it?

Also it is a ludicrous assertion that I became incel, and what makes you think I am not going the whole hog trying to impregnate women? The problem is most use contraception. There is some truth to your argument that contracepted sex is a bit like masturbation with regard to reproductive opportunity cost, but the difference in enjoyment and the meaningfulness of intimacy is still so huge that there is no comparison, at least as long as you avoid condoms.

Eivind Berge said...

As chance would have it, I just came across this inspirational quote regarding civil disobedience:

When Thoreau was jailed for refusing to pay taxes to a government which supported slavery, Emerson went to visit him. “Henry David,” said Emerson, “what are you doing in there?” Thoreau looked at him and replied, “Ralph Waldo, what are you doing out there?”

That's the spirit! What are we lesser male sexualist activists doing outside jail when good men like Nathan Larson are in there?!

Jack said...

Let's recap what human societies are made of:

Women who have near to zero interest in sex per se with men, and whose obsession in life consists in preventing younger and prettier women from putting out. This is so bad that even an 80-year-old hag with no hope of ever again attracting any man will still see it as her holy duty to ruin sex attempts by younger people if she can.

Men hard-wired to above everything else eliminate or cock-block rivals. Self-defeating idiots who will support any anti-sex legislation limiting their access to pussy, as long as it also prevents OTHER MEN from scoring.

Now tell me, what could possibly go wrong?

You cannot change the make-up of human societies. Societies in History that seem in retrospect to have been masculinist were only so because the male population got decimated by warfare and supply and demand got skewed in favour of men.

Those were also societies in which tuberculosis and incurable STDs reigned.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, it is pretty grim. But still, the norm for human societies is to have far less oppressive sexual regulations than now. It is something about the interplay between human nature and the current environment that makes it so bad. The malignant, well-funded police state plays no small part, and the underlying prosperity that makes this possible. So does technology. Imagine explaining to the Iceland-faring poet I cited above that a hundred years later he would not only be a criminal for portraying 15-year-old girls as geysers of sexual desire, but there would be a monstrous police force dangling such temptations before men just so they can entrap them, and digitally faked girls at that. It is mind-bogglingly hateful when you think about it, how far antisex has come and how unnatural it is by any view of humanity that doesn’t just focus on the last few decades.

holocaust22 said...

@eivind berge

I'm a guitar player as well. Have a lesson later today actually. There are guitar teachers on preply that teach through video calls for only 12$ an hour. There's also guitartricks, and yousician, that work well together. There are a lot of songs that have two guitar players, so both of us playing the same instrument works.

About Nathan larson. Do you consider him to be a male sexualist? He seems like a legit sociopath. Didn't he have a "rape" and "kidnapping" website. And he supported marital rape and hitler? Seems like bad PR lol.


"I cannot grasp the Millennial generation of brainwashed snowflakes Their feeds (and all their teen friends apparently) are full of contant BLM, transgender rights, all men are bastards virtue signalling crap."

My current gf is a 20 year old thai muslim university student (who I met when she was 19) She doesn't know what the AoC is, doesn't know what feminism or BLM is, has never said anything rude about men. And I can literally talk about hot 14 year olds to her, and it doesn't even exist in her mind that there's something wrong with that. I just don't date western girls, so I don't have to deal with things like this lol. And yes, I'm younger. I'm in my 20s. But I promise you I'll be dating 18 year olds when I'm in my 70s as well. Just don't make a big deal about it, and don't talk to western girls that follow a culture you don't agree with. Leftists, and feminists, are annoying to me. Any girl that acted like how you mentioned, I would just stop talking to her. And talk to another hot 18 year old.

You have the internet. You can download a language learning program like hello talk, and talk to thousands of 18 year olds anywhere in the world. China, thailand, cambodia, vietnam, etc. Just find a cool girl unaffected by western leftist BS, move to her country, and live with her.

Here's a 17 year old in thailand dating a 50 year old man, uploading cute tiktok videos with him. They have 67 thousand likes.

The west just isn't our culture. And every male sexualist should 100% drop western culture. They believe different stuff than us. We're not a part of their group.

"Even the best PUAs have to devote hours a day to get regular lays, and truth be told, unless they are 6ft+ young and good looking, the quality isn't great (unless you're as thirsty as Eivind)"

This is a barrier you're putting up in your mind. Just know you're the shit, the king, and that you're better than everyone else. And you will get hot teens.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, I consider Nathan Larson a male sexualist. Not necessarily all his writing, but the sum of what he is known for makes him one of us. The bad words with which you associate him are just what society would call us all. He didn't seem interested in using different words, but why bother when society and law will call us rapists anyway? He passed that feminist shit-test with flying colors by agreeing and amplifying and attracting girls to his sites and his personal life who can't get enough of the good kind of rape. By the way, the popularity of his site with girls proves there are good girls here too, so you don't necessarily need to go to different cultures. Society can condemn and punish all it wants, but it can't eradicate the kind of "abuse" that girls eagerly participate in.

theantifeminist said...

"It is something about the interplay between human nature and the current environment that makes it so bad."

You still haven't a clue have you Eivind?

"About Nathan larson. Do you consider him to be a male sexualist? He seems like a legit sociopath. Didn't he have a "rape" and "kidnapping" website. And he supported marital rape and hitler? Seems like bad PR lol.

I don't doubt that the media and American filth have exaggerated the nature of his 'forums', but still, the guy seems to have been a bit of a loon. Eivind doesn't understand the meaning of the word PR. I think it's fair to say that the idea of a 'Male Sexualist movement' has been killed now if it hadn't already been by Tom Grauer.

I agree with everything Jack said in his analysis of the situation. As I get into my fifties and having a few brushes with major illnesses and such, the thought that I'm going to die without even having registered a pin prick against the Sexual Holocaust is almost too much to bear. How did this happen? Well objectively I did my part. I screamed into the wind for over a decade. At least I knew who the enemy was and why they were and are doing this (and that's quite a thing in our 'movement'). Any feminist who read my writings knew at least there was one person who could look their hideous visages in the eye and recognize them for what they were. There is absolutely no hope for us. Technology might change things but it will likely take decades or even centuries to overturn all the anti-sex attitudes and legislation that have become so embedded. Now I think is the time to leave the floor entirely to Eivind and his 'civil disobedience'. Eivind should continue his conversion to progressive attitudes by identifying as a woman. Maybe if he's lucky he'll get to share a cell in a Norwegian holiday camp with a female sex offender! Although to his disappointment, she'll probably only suck the prison guard's dicks in front of him while looking at him with disgust and contempt.


Eivind Berge said...

I think I understand PR better than you and have considerably more experience since I have actually been famous and not hiding under a rock like you. Why did you even delete your blog? It is not far from the truth that any PR is good PR, and though I am as much horrified by some of the things Nathan Larson wrote as anybody, I refuse to let that determine my opinion of him. It is much more important what he actually accomplished. Judging him by his most outrageous statements would be akin to thinking the feminists are good because they say they want "gender equality." We know we have to judge them by the effect of their laws and we know how that goes. All I know Nathan Larson actually did was attract lots of girls to his "rape" forums, so it must have been a very good kind of rape he was advocating. With laws these days it is inevitable that a lot of rape is good and if that's the word girls use, why not play along with it? Ultimately the feminists should regret legislating good rape into existence, and this is a great way to teach them.

Unknown said...

@holocaust22 @Eivind Berge

hi guys (i know holocaust22 from freespeechtube (not brainwashed is me)

this teacher case is not abuse, only the teacher is being harmed by facing jail.

im no hypocrite, if it were a male teacher with female pupil i have no prob either!