Saturday, November 20, 2021

Laycase and the battle for the battle

Feminism is horrifying. Absolutely horrifying because it translates into violence against us for our sexuality. And I am just about the only one who can feel the horror even when not imprisoned myself. Must it be thus? Perhaps it helps to study similar criminalization on pretexts that are no longer current beliefs. To realize the horrifying truth that there is no social upheaval even if they criminalize most of sexuality and no matter how draconian punishments get, look at leiermål. So why should it be any better now? It isn’t, and we can’t expect it. People simply put up with it. The authorities just need to base their laws on the superstitions of the times, and no one will rebel. Back then it was the wrath of God, now feminist notions of rape and abuse are used to accomplish the same prohibitions. People are no more enlightened, just in thrall to different superstitions. It doesn’t fly to punish the lack of a marriage certificate anymore, but to say that one person is “underage” works wonders. People believe this gibberish like they believed the old crap. And so on for an endless series of taboos to suit every occasion. All involved are adults but one is a teacher? Lock her up! He paid for sex? Lock him up! And of course every occasion is “rape” if the woman or prosecutors say so. All of sexuality is criminalized and I am the only one who is horrified, along with a handful of other male sexualists and our allies the MAPs.

We have gone from believing in the badness of sex because a supernatural power disapproves to believing in the metaphysical badness of sex itself. The only passable justification for criminalizing sex these days is that somebody is a “victim,” but once you invent a victim there is no limit to how far it can be contrived, up to an including blasphemical information that is solemnly prosecuted as if there is any substance to it.

Our sexualist activism is like going back to the ancient world to preach abolitionism. It didn’t even occur to Jesus that slavery was wrong, and similarly no “good” people today see anything wrong with the persecution of sexuality. Such is the enormity of our task. Before we can fight the battle, we need to fight the battle for the battle. The battle for the battle is to make people understand that there is a war on sexuality, that persecuting sex is not inevitable like death and taxes. This is the stage we are at: our battle isn’t even recognized because the normies are in lockstep agreement that sexuality must be persecuted to the max. I am not just an enemy of the state: I am an enemy whose enmity can’t be acknowledged as anything more than crime and craziness because the war on sex is not seen as a war. Politics is simply a contest about who can come up with the most hateful sex laws, with left and right outbidding each other with new ways to lock up more people for more and more sexuality. As long as they can make up some story related to a “victim,” persecution is never opposed in the mainstream. Even most prisoners and sex offender registrants don’t see themselves as enemies of the state because the persecution is so normalized. But what if the public could snap out of the fake victim narrative? In theory, that would help because people don’t believe in religious justifications anymore. Perhaps then they can realize that feminism is the same shit as leiermål in a different wrapping, and more malignant because there isn’t even the slightest exception to the persecution like marriage used to be. Now they just persecute all sexuality indiscriminately.

We need a word like “leiermål” to make sex offenders see themselves as enemies of the state and get everyone to realize there is war on sex going on. A word that obviously means “sex criminalized for the hell of it” or to the benefit of our rulers. Don’t let them make us call it rape and abuse when it isn’t. Coin an English word with the same valence as leiermål and use it to undermine the feminist agenda. (And in Norwegian we can just start saying “leiermål” again, of course.) Let us pull the fake moral rug out of their language with an honest word for their criminalization of sexuality. Suggestions? Perhaps something like “laycase”? ”Sexual misconduct” is already just as meaningless, as is “statutory rape,” but we need something more catchy, one short word which flows well in common usage.

By all accounts the normies were less enthusiastic about criminalization back then. Sex offenders weren't stigmatized. Although it wasn't enough for rebellion, surely it must have helped turn people against the laws that the word so clearly signified oppression rather than the fake victimology our oppressors use these days.

Now I am going to translate and paraphrase some of the Wikipedia article on leiermål to get a flavor of what we are talking about. But we might as well be quoting current laws, because they are practically identical apart from the justification.

Leiermål (from Danish words for lay/intercourse + case) is a bureaucratic (legal and ecclesiastical) term which was used for various kinds of sexual relations outside of marriage. Laycase was especially impactful for women and men of all ages and social classes i Scandinavia in the 1600s and 1700s because of new laws and draconian punishments that were introduced at the time.

Laycase was considered a crime and usually discovered when resulting in pregnancy, but pregnancy was not a precondition for regarding the act as illegal and punishable. Various kinds of laycase had different degrees of severity. There was a distinction between simple whoring and double whoring (see below). In addition to being called whoring, laycase was also referred to by words like intercourse, laying together, sleeping together, sharing a bed, etc.

In the 1600s, state and church had common interest in developing a new set of laws which also regulated sexual conduct and punished violators. Motivation was twofold. They wanted to avoid the wrath of God, but also to regulate and control people.

Criminalization of laycase was a Nordic phenomenon. In other European, Catholic countries, extramarital sex was just as “sinful” as in Norway, but not a crime and therefore did not concern secular authorities. In Sweden, there were laws concerning lägersmål and in Denmark lejermål similar to the Norwegian ones.

These laws were in part based on the Bible, including many Old Testament rules and legal principles from the books of Moses. The laws are therefore characterized by what we would today consider barbaric sentencing, torture and unacceptable definitions of sex crimes and norms for sexuality, plus a stigmatizing concept of humanity [yeah, right, as if feminism isn't equally stigmatizing!].

On 16 October 1617, a decree was issued which made the prohibitions even more restrictive. Both men and women were made criminally responsible and the fines were to be paid to the King. Lawbreakers of both sexes were now to be punished more harshly than before for extramarital affairs. At first, the law was not taken literally, and until 1661 it was mostly men who had to pay fines for their laycases.

It was innovative that laycase represented a violation of both secular and ecclasiastical law, and both men and women therefore had to “atone” to both these “offended” authorities. It was required that violators first confess their sins publicly to priest and congregation in church, and then pay their respective laycase fines. The fines for so-called simple laycase (see below) was 12 riksdaler for men and 6 riksdaler for women.

Whereas few women were punished before 1661, an increasing number were prosecuted and had to atone with fines and corporal punishment (whipping, forced labor, execution) later in the 1660s.

If the accused were unable to pay, which was often the case on part of the woman, they were to be sentenced to a subsidiary penalty. For the authorities, two things were important. Income from the fines were important to the king, and it was of moral importance that the letter of the law was upheld.

There was a difference between the public laws and the norms of the people. Nighttime trysts were common and largely accepted, and betrothal was was recognized as the starting point of sexual relationships. It was relatively common to cohabit before marriage. In the 1500s, intercourse was understood as a binding act which should lead to marriage. If that didn’t ensue, the man was convicted while the woman was considered offended. If the couple got married, any children were considered legitimate and the parents got away with a fine for “too early intercourse.” After 1791 this fine was skipped if the couple got married before birth, and in 1812, first and second-offense simple laycase was decriminalized and the fines abolished, thus leading to a century and a half of respite before feminism reinstituted a worse regime.

As to the severity, the laws applied to various different kinds of sexual relations. The different kinds were considered more or less severe. Suspects who were found guilty risked very harsh penalties, even execution, for example for repeated offenses. The classification scheme they employed illustrates the peculiar morality of the times and sheds some light on the development of sexual crimes from then up to the current situation with equally deranged laws with a feminist justification.

The following crimes were considered most serious:

· Whoring in the form of one-sided adultery, which is sexual relations between one married and one unmarried person (also called half whoring).

· Double whoring in the form of two-sided adultery, which is sexual relations between two people who are each married to someone else (also called whole whoring).

· Laycase in forbidden connections, which is to say sexual relations between cousins, second cousins or in-laws.

· Incest was defined as sexual relations between persons closely related, up to 3. degree and also including relations by marriage.

· Homosexuality, sexual relations between persons of the same sex.

· Bestiality -- sexual acts which involve animals.

· Sodomy -- a collective term for both homosexuality and bestiality.

Less serious sex crimes (punished by a fine):

· Maidenhood violation, which is to have intercourse with an unmarried woman after a false or invalid promise of marriage. The term and thinking stems from medieval times and is rooted in the idea that unmarried women’s chastity is valuable. [Notice how this one has been turned completely around to the MOST serious sex crime by feminism, using the entirely new justification that age gaps are abuse!]

· Simple laycase, which is intercourse between two unmarried persons (also called loose laycase).

· Too early childbirth, which is to give birth earlier than 7 months after getting married (also called legitimate laycase).

Leiermål was clearly a common and prevalent sin and crime. Two thirds of public confessors in the 1700s were involved in laycase. Church records reveal that more than half of all girls and women who got married were already pregnant.

The penalty for a first offense of so-called simple laycase and other less serious instances was a fine, 6 riksdaler for women and 12 for men. Those who couldn’t pay had to serve a subsidiary prison term. There were many who didn’t have enough money for such big fines, especially women (one year’s pay for a maidservant was commonly one riksdaler).

In 1715, two second cousins were convicted by a court in Western Norway after admitting that they had slept together. She was married to someone else. The sentence required both to confess publicly in church within eight weeks. She also received two years’ forced labor and a fine. He received two years’ forced labor.

In a case from 1736 where a stepfather had impregnated his stepdaughter, both were sentenced to death. He was guilty of both incest and whoring. However, the King took into account that she was young and commuted the death penalties to life in the nearest fortress for him and life in jail for her. [Notice how the feminists have explicitly and unabashedly recriminalized exactly the same thing as one of the worst crimes, with youth being aggravating rather than extenuating!]

In 1761, a 47-year-old widow who had given birth outside of wedlock was sentenced to death because the man she had the child with was a brother of one she had slept with about five years previously and then became pregnant, but the baby was stillborn. This new crime was nonetheless to be considered incest. The father was sentenced to 8 years of forced labor. Evidently the old concept of incest could be stretched almost as far as feminist “sexual abuse.”

The persecution of sexuality outside marriage, and the draconian penalties were meant to uphold the social order. This entailed that the population in prisons and other penal institutions was of a very different character in the 1600s and 1700s than today. The huge fines would also have served the state’s (king’s) revenues well since up to 80% of court cases in some parts of the country were about leiermål. The majority of inmates in the country’s jails, workhouses and fortresses were classified as vagrants and beggars, but the group of laycase offenders was large. The group “women sentenced to death for incest, but pardoned” was considerable. Incest, such as sex with a sibling, cousin, second cousin, parent or other relative, was a serious felony which entailed a risk of capital punishment. If an uncle had a child with a niece, both were to be executed by beheading and then burnt on a bonfire. There was also a considerable number of women and men locked up for repeat offenses of extramarital sex and women who had given birth to babies while trying to conceal it (dølgsmål). (According to Wikipedia,) only ca. 10% av inmates were convicted of crimes that qualify for prison sentences today; however, I dispute this and think the author is in denial about the true malignancy of feminist sex laws. If not under current laws, certainly most of them could be imprisoned under the new concept of “rape” that Norway is about to get which requires the man to prove consent every time.

Women who were sentenced for third time laycase received whippings and men were in such cases either sentenced to death or a combination of jail and confiscation of wealth. For whoring between two people who were each married to someone else (so-called double whoring) the punishment was confiscation of their net worth. Half of the estate was seized for the King's coffers, and the other half remained with the innocent spouse.

For a second offense, married parents were sentenced to banishment from the diocese or county. If they offended a third time, they could expect the death penalty.

Those who were convicted of laycase in forbidden connections, which also includes relation by cousinhood, second cousinhood or marriage, were sentenced to confiscation of property in addition to forced labor for two to four years. If anyone offended a second time in a similar manner, death penalty awaited. Incest leading to birth was punished by death. It was defined not just by having children with a parent or sibling, but also included cousins, second cousins and other relatives, even in-laws.

Those who were sentenced to death could appeal to the King. If they were pardoned, the death penalty was usually commuted to lifelong forced labor.

The harshest penalty was imposed if a married woman and a married man had an extramarital affair. By law, if these sinners did not break off their relationship, the man was to be beheaded and the woman should be tied up in a bag and drowned. Double-sided adultery was thus something akin to how feminism treats age gaps: the very worst offense imaginable and their whole morality in a nutshell.

For a third offense of laycase, the woman was to be whipped publicly and the man beheaded (the ordinance of 1619).

In 1767, the public confession in connection with simple laycase was repealed and the penalty lowered to eight days in jail. For rich people it was possible to buy oneself out of this punishment, but it was expensive: 10 riksdaler, the equivalent to almost 10,000 kroner today. For young servant girls who had an annual wage of 1 daler, it was impossible to pay such a fine. In principle, laycase remained punishable under the Norwegian Penal Code (straffeloven § 379) until 1972, but it was a sleeping law the final decades of its existence.

Which is when feminism picks up and over the course of the next four decades reinstates a worse regime than the height of leiermål, crowned by the abolition of the jury in 2018. We need to wake up to what it really is. Think about it: why should the authorities be more reasonable just because they speak in terms of “victims” rather than biblical admonitions? Both are excuses to control us and further the careers or our oppressors, with added financial incentives for accusers today to make it even worse. The difference is merely that the normies now believe in feminist mythology of  “sexual abuse,” “grooming” and all that crap rather than the books of Moses, so the fake victim approach works. It serves the same purpose as the old criminalization including redistribution of wealth, this time to the whole abuse industry rather than the king. Their definition of rape and other sexual abuse is a joke which means nothing more than laycase, so let’s make our language reflect that to at least undermine their moral standing if not yet the violence against us. If we can’t make war against the sex war, let us at least make words. Make them face up to what the conflict is really about. Don’t let them call us misleading names like “far-right extremist” or "misogynist" any more, and the way to make them realize that male sexualism is something entirely different than they imagine is to actually educate them like I am trying to do with this post, because they literally don’t comprehend this, so brainwashed are they with feminist antisex bigotry.

As we have seen, there was very much an equivalent of the feminist female sex offender charade in our history. However, as loathsome as it was, they never sunk so low as to pretend women can commit rape or sexual abuse. They would certainly want to punish the same women that feminists so gleefully persecute today, but it wold be for laycase rather than the mind-boggling absurdity of pretending female teachers “abuse” their lucky male students and such. If we can accomplish just one little increment in our lifetime, I pray that this is the one we get. It should be the lowest-hanging fruit of the entire War on Sex due to the insane stupidity of it, so is this too much to ask? They don’t have to stop imprisoning the women for this wish to be granted. Just quit adding insult to injury by pretending lucky boys are victims.


Anonymous said...

There is not a 'war on sexuality', there is a war on 'male sexuality', or rather 'male heterosexuality'.

How does your 'war on sexuality' explain gay rights, 'trans rights', 'slut walks' and the rest?

You so sadden me Eivind. You're a good writer. You get that we need a battle (to wake up society that there is a war on (male) sexuality), and then you go off on your female sex offender charade obsession again.

Surely some part of your brain can understand that a 'Male Sexualist' movement cannot get off the ground by having its chief goal the liberation of female sex offenders?

Good for you Eivind. You're willing to sacrifice your life, your happiness, and your own sexual life, in order to win the right of women to fuck 13 year old boys in class.

For somebody who is a noted armchair evolutionary psychologist, surely you can see what an almighty cuck you are? Just about the worst possible?

Eivind Berge said...

We are all in this sex war together. Female sex offenders don’t have a voice addressing the special kind of persecution they face (relative to what their “crimes” actually consist of) -- except me. Male sexualism is not weakened by standing up for the most oppressed. The liberation of female sex offenders will not come at our expense if it comes at all. On the contrary, with that even more absurd witch-hunt out of the way, we could more clearly and morally focus on the persecution of men.

Eivind Berge said...

Oh, and how do I explain gay rights, trans rights and slut walks? None of those fight against the sex war, do they? Slutwalkers don’t give a damn that female teachers are locked up for being slutty. Gay rights don’t care about age of consent, the ever-expanding definition of rape or anything substantial. Transsexuals likewise. So yes, it is very much a war on sexuality, unopposed by anything that matters to legislators.

Anonymous said...

"On the contrary, with that even more absurd witch-hunt out of the way, we could more clearly and morally focus on the persecution of men."

You keep using the pronoun we, but you're the only person who cares about this. Surely after 20 years of blogging and gaining 4 'followers' (not sure if they are even followers or trolls) , despite having at times huge exposure (to be repeated this week), would indicate that to you?

"Oh, and how do I explain gay rights, trans rights and slut walks? None of those fight against the sex war, do they?"

That doesn't even make any sense to me. The point is that you claim there is a 'war on sexuality', and yet certain groups appear to be doing rather well from a historical perspective. Women have more sexual power than they have ever enjoyed in history. Yet you're claiming that it's a war on female sexuality as much as male sexuality. 99.99% of women have not the slightest interest in teenage boys. What percentage of women are being incarcerated for sex crimes in the West?

Why don't you just call yourself a 'sexualist'? Are you a 'male sexualist' in the same way somebody like David Futrelle is a 'male feminist'?

Or better still, why don't you just join Holocaust22 and become a feminist? Maybe like Milan Horvarth, you could try to draw a distinction between the 'good feminists' uncorrrupted by the great Satan, and the 'bad feminists'?

Milan Horvath said...

Speaking about gay and trans rights...,_Marketing,_Tailending:_The_U.S._Left_and_Same-Sex_Marriage

....maybe it is written by radical-leftie pederast, but it is still interesting POV IMO.

And some correspondence between prof. Erwin J. Häberle(who died recently) and Blachard/Cantor.
Reasonable sexologists are dying off, and are being replaced by unscientific ideologue twats like Cantor and Blanchard.

Eivind Berge said...

Great discussion! "The LGBTQ etc. acronym purports to reflect an actually existing community—as was explicitly stated, for example, in the 2008 Duluth–Superior GLBTAQI Pride Guide: “We must always remember the struggle the GLBTAQI community has faced and the hard work that has already been done.” But no such community exists. I would argue that just as there is no such thing as an “LGBT person,” there is no shared community among the hodgepodge identities lumped together in the acronym. That is all the more obvious in view of the absurd lengths to which the acronym has expanded, such as LGBTQQIAA2S (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, allied, asexual, two-spirit)."

Imagine having all that, but NOT include a letter which represents men who just want to be left alone from persecution if they happen to have a normal relationship with a 17-year-old girlfriend. The whole thing is a meaningless charade when it comes to furthering actual sexual rights, and evidently many of those other identities are a sham as well. "Some might see it as progress, expansion, and greater inclusivity, others as a tombstone for what was once a radical sexual liberation movement." Exactly my point.

Eivind Berge said...

Another great quote form David Thorstad on "gay liberation" with regard to intergenerational sex:

“2, 4, 6, 8, how do you know your wife is straight? 3, 5, 7, 9, hey, lady, your husband’s mine!” Gay youth chanted this slogan at the 1985 New York City gay pride march. They were quickly shushed up by an adult monitor—less for the slogan’s implied subversion of marriage than for its suggestion of youth–adult sex. It is impossible to imagine gay youth chanting such a slogan these days, now that the state is financing adult gay and lesbian baby-sitters to keep them in line. As Malcolm X pithily put it: “When they lay those dollars on you, your soul goes.”


"Gay-identifieds have become the new straights. They act like straights; they seek to justify their sexuality by appealing to straight norms. Both the gay movement and the left are mired in a liberal approach to sexual oppression. Instead of challenging heterosupremacy and capitalism, the gay movement has made peace with them, and the left tailends this accommodationism."

Those straight norms are really feminist norms. Carcereal feminism is completely unopposed in the mainstream, no matter how many letters they add to their alphabet soup. Perhaps someday they will even add a P, but it will represent NOMAP and just add more weight to the same oppression.

Eivind Berge said...

The War on Sex just keeps getting more hysterical:

Old Dominion University has put a professor on leave amid controversy over their research into adults who are sexually attracted to minors, saying it had put campus safety at risk.

The public university was facing a firestorm over Professor Allyn Walker’s use of the term “minor-attracted people” and whether that language and approach destigmatizes sex offenders. Students protested on the Norfolk campus Tuesday, outrage spread on social media and an online petition to remove Walker had garnered thousands of signatures within days.

On Tuesday night, university officials announced that Walker had been placed on administrative leave. Reactions to Walker’s book and academic research “have led to concerns for their safety and that of campus,” have disrupted campus and are interfering with teaching and learning, officials wrote in a statement online.

“I want to state in the strongest terms possible that child sexual abuse is morally wrong and has no place in our society,” the university’s president, Brian O. Hemphill, said in the statement.

Walker, an assistant professor of sociology and criminal justice, said Wednesday that the research is aimed at keeping children safe from predators — a goal Walker, who is transgender, said they have had since working as a counselor and advocate for victims.

“The idea that I’m somehow condoning child sexual abuse is absolutely outrageous,” Walker said. “I really think it’s a coordinated effort about attacking the LGBTQ community” and academic freedom.

So the mere use of the word "MAP," even by someone who isn't trying to change any laws, is enough to cause a witch-hunt because the speaker isn't sufficiently bigoted against sexuality.

A university spokeswoman said there had been threats against Walker’s life and those of their family members, and the threats were serious enough that Walker was being provided with armed security while on campus.

“Many individuals have shared with me the view that the phrase ‘minor-attracted people’ is inappropriate and should not be utilized as a euphemism for behavior that is illegal, morally unacceptable, and profoundly damaging,” Hemphill, the university president, said in a message to campus Tuesday. “It is important to call pedophilia what it is.”

Eivind Berge said...

We are now literally at the point where hysteria is directed at those who fail to use the most demonizing words for sex offenders, but it is no weaker than before. The laws can hardly get harsher (well, except more torture and mutilation) because there isn't more sexuality left to criminalize, but that doesn't matter to antisex bigotry. There is always another target to attack because the beast is never sated. Pretty soon if you don't cheer loudly and hatefully enough at the execution of sex offenders, you will be the next sex offender.

Also, the escalation does seem to be coming mostly from conservatives at this point. That transgender professor was just doing what feminists do, careful not to upset any of their values by calling for less criminalization. But it wasn't enough for conservatives, who want to go even further.

AF said...

""Gay-identifieds have become the new straights. They act like straights; they seek to justify their sexuality by appealing to straight norms. Both the gay movement and the left are mired in a liberal approach to sexual oppression. Instead of challenging heterosupremacy and capitalism, the gay movement has made peace with them, and the left tailends this accommodationism."

Those straight norms are really feminist norms. Carcereal feminism is completely unopposed in the mainstream, no matter how many letters they add to their alphabet soup. Perhaps someday they will even add a P, but it will represent NOMAP and just add more weight to the same oppression."

I made the exact same argument years ago. Gay and trans rights are all about feminists creating the illusion of 'sexual tolerance' and 'liberalism', via a 'liberated' but controlled 'sexual minority'. Gay marriage is really about validating female monogamy (for heterosexual men).

Those on the left (like this 'transgender professor') and the 'MAPS' just don't understand the whole feminist enterprise. There is no such thing as a 'MAP' - all men are 'MAPS'. Maybe some men are more attracted to teenagers than other men, but that's just a difference on the spectrum of normal male sexuality, not a 'sexual identity'. Maybe if professor Allyn Walker gets burnt at the stake by the righteous mob, then at least the aspie MAPs might wake up and realize that their approach is wrong.

On a similar theme, I happened to read just yesterday of a British man convicted of child sex offences. I had a quick look at his Facebook, and whatdyaknow - his profile is full of likes for online anti-paedophile vigilantes groups.

Eivind Berge said...

Of course, all men are MAPs. Those who promote the term are rather Mob-Appeasing Persons, an approach which does not work. Male sexualists do not flinch from our consciousness as normal men.

Milan Horvath said...

#NotAllMen are MAPs
...just joking

Milan Horvath said...

Something about persecution of sex researchers.
Articles are from 80's but unfortunately still actual.
I think both articles are worth of reading as whole. Here are excerpts.

Vern L. Bullough: Problems of research on a delicate topic
In short, I was regarded as a dangerous American, someone who was
subversive and, at least during one period of this country's recent
history, I could have been sent to a concentration camp under certain
conditions. The question is why?
The answer is rather disturbing to those engaged in sex research.
The most fascinating and fearful thing about my file, and the one of
most concern to members of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex
(SSSS), is the FBI's concern with my sex research. At each annual
or biennial check of me made by the FBI from 1965 to 1972 (the last
date for which I have received information), my research in prostitu-
tion led the list of my subversive activities. Listed also were some of
my talks and scholarly papers on sex, homosexuality, pornography,
abortion, etc., and my chairmanship of the American Civil Liberties
Union committee on sex which initiated the ACLU effort to
decriminalize homosexuality, oral-genital contacts, transvestism,
transsexualism, as well as recognize the existence of gay rights, and so
on. Once the FBI began monitoring my activities in the field of sex
research, they found that I was active in civil liberties groups, and this
became a second overriding reason for monitoring my activities.

David Sonenschein:On Having One's Research Seized
Comments by arresting officer Sgt. John
Russell may be of interest to other investigators: "Your research is through.
Your research is over. I have finished your research for you. You can research
anything but this."
These events raise a number of issues in two major areas. One is, of course,
the right to do research, to conduct critical inquiry into areas of one's choice,
without having that choice defined or restrained by the state. Corollary issues
entail having the rights of access to and possession of materials necessary for
that research, and the freedom to present publicly documents, findings, and
opinions for open consideration. At issue is the right of any citizen to inquire
into the validity of "expert" claims, to have access to materials and voices
supporting or denying any given position, and to speak or write critically of
official views without fear of arrest or exploitation and abuse by the news

More than half-a-dozen states now have laws against the mere possession of
visual representations of children and sex, and a similar federal law is now
being considered, one which also recommends the legal age of a child be raised
from 18 to 21 for such depictions.

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks for that historical lesson which shows the "child porn" hysteria was already well underway in the 1980s and used to suppress research. Only the technology has changed since then in the persecution of blasphemy and information, as back then these forbidden symbolic sex acts were humorously performed by a photocopier rather than computer files (which goes to show how these superstitions are only funny in retrospect):

In January, 1986, Terry Morris, a research psychologist, was arrested and sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for receiving child "pornography" in the mail during the course of his research; the court has also ordered psychiatric counseling. I know of three other cases of arrest and seizure but cannot detail them because the individuals do not care to be publicly identified.

Finally, in September, 1984, my own 4-year accumulation of research on pedophilia and children's sexuality was seized. At this writing, nearly 2 years later, the materials (including illegally seized legal files and personal and political writings) are still held; it was over 7 months before American Civil Liberties Union lawyers and I were able to inventory the documents. The newsmedia again helped directly in promoting the project as a "ring," and I was charged with "sexual performance of [sic] a child" for photocopying photographs from commercial "kiddie porn" magazines for content analysis. I have been fined $5,000 and sentenced to 10 years in prison.

And on gerontophilia, this Twitter thread may be of interest. Women don't really seem to be built for sex much past the age of 52, so I guess that would be a reasonable age of consent if antisex bigotry is taken to its final conclusion.

The labia minora LITERALLY fade away! If all penises shriveled up starting at age 52, we’d have vaccines available for prevention. #AUA19
Rachel S. Rubin, MD
May 3, 2019
Symptoms of #GSM: decreased lubrication, pain w/ sex, urinary frequency/ urgency, and recurrent urinary tract infections. Why is fixing this referred to as #rejuvenation!? #AUA19
Rachel S. Rubin, MD
May 3, 2019
GSM is chronic, increases in severity over time, and does not improve without treatment. #AUA19
Rachel S. Rubin, MD
May 3, 2019
Women will NOT bring up #GSM. They have never heard of it and nobody warns them what happens to their bodies in #Menopause. All they hear is hot flashes. It is our responsibility to educate our patients about #GSM. #AUA19.
Rachel S. Rubin, MD
May 3, 2019
When the urethra is falling on the floor and the tissue is thin and friable of COURSE women will get UTIs. Nitrofurantoin and peeing after sex will not fix a prolapsing urethra! #AUA19
Rachel S. Rubin, MD
May 3, 2019
Treatment is easy, safe, and it works! Local vaginal therapy does not increase risk of clots, heart disease, dementia. Data shows no increase risk of breast cancer and many oncologists will allow it in patients with active breast cancer. #AUA19
Rachel S. Rubin, MD
May 3, 2019
If words don’t convince you then let’s go to pictures. Antibiotics and cranberry pills will not change vulva #2. Vaginal hormonal therapy WILL and quickly. Show your patients this picture. No woman on earth will forget their twice weekly treatment. #AUA19

Eivind Berge said...

A Xerox machine doesn't have quite the same voodoo power that it used to, does it? Even physical books seem to have lost some of their power. The most "real" representations these days happen on a screen, and while the cops might still try prosecuting and get away with it due to inertia of the system, I think the spell of old technology that no one uses any more as capable of abusing children has been broken. We get to the point where it's banally obvious that copying one sheet of paper to another does in no way harm children.

Why can't we realize the same about digital information? Zoom out and see it for what it is. Only immersion in a given value system sustains its superstitions.

Milan Horvath said...

Among many other(illegitimate) purposes, criminalisation of viewing/accessing of such materials serves well to prevent any layperson to verify claims of authorities
(and various self-proclaimed child protectors from non???governmental org's)
about this problematic.
Also if there is exemption for researchers, I am sure that authorisation to inspect such materials is reserved for researchers with certain views, and predestined outcomes of their research.

AF said...

@Milan - The femihags have successfully made a big push in recent years for the term 'child porn' to be replaced by 'child abuse material' or 'child sexual abuse material' (even has its own acronym now - CSAM).

I suppose their motivations are many. Now they can refer to a slightly sexy picture of a young looking anime girl in school uniform as 'child sexual abuse material' whereas their previous preference under their insane definitions as (virtual) child pornography was evidently ridiculous.

But I wonder if another motivation is so they can eventually have published or online discussion of paedohysteria and age of consent laws legally classified as 'child sexual abuse materials'?

To the commenator asking why the human rights organizations aren't speaking up about the young American man left paralyzed by prison guards. I was just reading a BBC article on how the pandemic has led to an 'increase in child sexual abuse in India'..

"In April 2020, human rights experts from the United Nations had warned that "travel restrictions and the increase in online users will likely lead to a significant spike in sexual grooming online by paedophiles and predators, live streaming of child sexual abuse and the production and distribution of child sexual abuse material"."

Unfortunately, all the human rights NGO's are completely on board with the feminist project.

Milan might remember around 15 - 20 years ago a famous case in Austria, where Amnesty International took a great interest in the case of a (middle-aged) homosexual man put in prison for having sex with a 14 year old boy. The age of consent at the time was 14 for heterosexuals and 18 for homosexuals, so their angle was that he was being discriminated against. I doubt if an NGO like that would ever do such a thing again, and more likely use it to demand the heterosexual age of consent be raised to 18 (which it effectively has been anyway in Austria and most European countries).

Milan Horvath said...

Yes, I agree.
The new terminology of CSAM,CAI is IMO used because old term (child) pornography was originally referring to explicit sexual activity.
And when these laws were passed in 80s, unlike today, they have covered mostly explicit, sexual activities with persons under AOC.
I could remember few films from 90's (when such laws already existed) which no-one would dare to shoot nowadays. (Normal mainstream? films, no obscenities,just few nude scenes)

Also term pornography is implying a moralistic motivations for this laws, while they want to persuade people that this is about violent/highly damaging acts prevention, that we live in modern permissive era where only acts that are forbidden are those which are really necessary to forbid.
That's the IMO reason why they are suppressing critical research and increasingly starting (in some countries) to persecute dissident opinions. Many jurisdictions nowadays consider even written materials as CP, which is making it impossible to use description of personal positive experiences of people as part of criticism.

Yes we could still have many things banned on purely moralistic reasons, but it would be hard to persuade general populace, that we need so much harsh laws, so intensive measures and so much public money have spent on either victimless, or at least not so grievously damaging acts.

No, I don't remember case in Austria, some link (if you have) would be helpful.
But what you are saying about that, they will now demand equalisation of AOC upwards is unfortunately truth.

I remember discussion at EU parliament about changing name from CP to CAI
Mostly mixture of middle-aged women and rabid male religious fanatics.
Head of that committee was Carl Bildt's wife
(Scandinavians know who Carl is and what his politics is about).
I cannot forget words of some female speaker there,which was something like:
We should be inspired by American system of protection of children, and not only that we should make it even more intense.....

Speaking about human rights organisations and homosexuals, I have similar case in Canada .....

Sorry for posting articles written by NAMBLA activists (if it offends someone),
but good article is good article, regardless of who wrote it.
Also interesting fact coming out of this article (case of Joseph Doucé), that France have this anti-apologia law even in 90s, but at the end, it is not so much surprising-land of Voltaire unfortunately is not putting much value in freedom of speech for long time.

Milan Horvath said...

That Percy's site is full of interesting articles. Here's another article by Harris Mirkin

Assertions that child pornography sexualizes and harms innocent children, poisons the minds’ of viewers, and leads to the rape and molestation of the young, are rarely questioned. Attempts to examine these issues meet with rage and disgust. Consequently discussions of it often resemble an Amen Chorus in which beliefs are confirmed, the concept is broadened, and the penalties are made more severe. The belief is held to be beyond question, and as in earlier conflicts about homosexuality, race, and gender, advocates of change to the dominant standards are rare and have little credence. They are grouped with those who advocate a return to slavery, or the reduction of women’s rights, as people who are silly value relativists and don’t believe in moral progress. Whatever the comparator group, these issues are all considered to be moral, cultural or religious issues rather than political ones, and dissidents are thought to be evil rather than just wrong.Since it is difficult to even look at child pornography without courting a long jail sentence, and it is very dangerous to download it, there has been little empirical work in the area. Scholarly or journalistic examination of either the concept or of the fact claims that are made by it are rare. The popular press tends to pander to the dominant perspective, and almost all the articles in law reviews and scholarly journals simply assume that we know what child pornography is, and go on from there to discuss what public policy in the area should be. Questioning this consensus is not likely to be rewarded with grants, graduate student help, tenure or promotion.
As a consequence, though most of us have an image in our head of torture (gained through comic books, the news, and the cinema), of the world of organized crime, of the KKK, of concentration camps, of atrocities committed by various political leaders, and of various modes of murder and rape, people have almost no empirically grounded mental image of child pornography. They simply meld the concepts of “child” and “pornography.” Still, there is certainty that it is made for people who rape kids, by people who molest and hurt them, and is harmful to public and private morality. These beliefs lead to fear and outrage, and the passage of increasingly severe legislation.

BTW: It is paradox, that if there wouldn't be such irrational excesses which we could observe last 25 years in mainland Europe (35 in EN speaking world), I would NEVER EVER have opinions about sex policy as I have now. There are many other issues that should concern every libertarian, but unlike sexual criminal war they are at least to some extent opposed.
Sometimes partially successfully like war on drugs, sometimes less successfully like war on terror/surveillance state.

While in case of other issues, people with different opinions are afraid to speak up, in case of sexual criminal war, people are even afraid to think differently-I've experienced it myself.

AF said...

@Milan - Amnesty International still has the case up on their website. An Austrian man in his 30's ('Franz L') was arrested for sex with a 15 year old boy and upon questioning, he admitted to having sex with other young teenage boys. Amnesty International described him as a 'prisoner of conscience'.

"Amnesty International considers Franz L to be a prisoner of conscience and urges the Austrian authorities to release him immediately and unconditionally. The organization also urges the Austrian authorities to repeal Article 209, and ensure that legislation is consistent with Austria's international obligations to prevent discrimination and protect the right to privacy."

The case was in 2001.

If a man who has sex with a 14 year old boy is a 'prisoner of consciousness' because the age of consent is 14 for heterosexuals, but 18 for homosexuals, why no criticism in 2021 of the fact that an Austrian man can (technically) legally have sex with a 14 year old (boy or girl), but a man who happens to have a British or French passport who has sex with a 14 year old boy or girl in Austria, faces prison back home in the UK or France?

What a hag.

Eivind rages against the 'pretence' that women can be 'sex offenders'. I rage more at the fact that women like her can actually convince society (and pass laws) that pretend that it is the ultimate perversion for men to find 17 year old girls attractive, while at the same time presumably 'normal' to find a woman like her attractive (she obviously spends a lot of time and effort trying to make herself look young and attractive).

Milan Horvath said...

Thanks for that link, I am surprised that Austria had such law in 2000s, we had almost identical law, but it was repealed almost immediately after Velvet Revolution as somethings backwards and unworthy of free country.

As to Amnesty and most of other similar NGO's, I see them as pressure groups/soft-power in disguise, enforcing politics of their founders/donors, rather than some moral arbiters worthy of respect.

Regarding that Eivind's crusade about female SO's, even if he's right in this (which I don't think), can you imagine a world, where women are absolutely extemped from prosecution of sexual crimes.
I mean in most cases it works like this in practice nowadays, but if it will be law,sexual criminal law will become absolute weapon against men, even more intense than it is now.
And not only when it comes to sex, but also when it comes to every-day things like parenting, with further impact on our society. (2:00-2:22)

On the contrary, it could maybe contribute to awakening.....or more intense hostility between sexes..........who knows???

Extraterritorial laws- yes this is nasty,nasty thing, it basically says that you are property of your government. When I will go to Saudi Arabia, and will be buggering some bloke at public, they will execute me, and no one would(and should) object, yes because it this their country and their rules. If in some country they have AOC of ...let's say 12, it is none of business of other countries.
But for western countries it is more easy to arrest few sex tourists and pretend to be oh-so moral, rather than do something with underlying causes of sexual tourism in these countries.

Maybe too much leftie, but IMO interesting document.

Eivind Berge said...

Am I the only one who pays attention to the reality that laws don’t just punish acts? Feminist sex laws impose the feminist worldview where if a boy has sex with teacher then he is “abused” or “exploited” as a general rule. They don’t just prohibit and punish, but assert a “truth” which is a lie. Living with these laws is to live with a constant affront to our common sense (and science and art and anything which illuminates the real truth).

Imagine if practicing mathematics were banned because the King hates math or the King’s religion hates math. That would be tyrannical, but not mess up our emotional lives. The old leiermål laws were like this. If on the other hand the King passed a law declaring 2 + 2 = 5 or a range of other gibberish one had to abide with if one were to publish mathematical results or teach math in school or do business, then we would have to live with constant insanity that is not just tyrannical, but wrong on a whole other level. The female sex offender charade is exactly that.

I am saying women need to be exempt from sexual crimes against victims. Any time the justification for the law is someone is raped or sexually abused or exploited, it is wrong to include women in the same way it is wrong to impose a false system of mathematics, except that analogy doesn’t convey the depth of the moral horror here either. I feel that horror constantly because we have to live with these laws. Note that this objection would vanish if they went back to something like leiermål for women. I would object to those laws on other grounds, that they are simply tyrannical and pointless, but not on the level of my opposition to the female sex offender charade. If we are told that God hates something, that is too abstract to mess us up the way fake female sexual abuse does, which is a negation of our humanity and basic decency.

When male sexuality is criminalized based on the “victim” and “exploitation” narrative, that is also plenty upsetting of course, but it is fundamentally an exaggeration rather than a lie. Pretending that female teachers sexually “exploit” their male students is not in the realm of hysterical exaggeration of a kernel of truth (or a kernel of truth to a general rule of such situations which arguably describes the nature of male sexuality), because there is no kernel of truth to it with women, just a flagrant lie because the boys are in fact systematically lucky.

Milan Horvath said...

Comparing humanities (as psychology, and even evolutionary psychology) with exact sciences (as mathematics) is little bit daring.
For me important factor to consider is physical or psychological damage of victim caused purely by act, not by society's reaction to, or perception of it, which is culturally dependent and could be changed.
If there is any psychological research(actual research-not guesses by evolutionary psychologists), claiming that comparable acts of sexual/sexualised violence or abusive sexual behaviour committed by males are significantly more damaging that those committed by females, I would gladly see it.......
However I do not deny that males commit such acts more frequently than females.

(Only difference I could accept is violent impregnation, which I consider as serious aggravating circumstance)

Eivind Berge said...

Male teachers of hebe and teen girls naturally feel like they are in a candy store. They are in a candy store. This is truth. Each case needs to be evaluated independently and we should respect girls' agency and consent, but in principle it is clear that the men can get carried away and exploit them. With women, it is the other way around. Female teachers are the candy (certainly the young ones!!!), and if the boys get a taste of it then all the more power to them. Now the legal system is forced to institute a lie, and does so willingly. Judges are like mathematicians who didn’t object when the King decreed that 2 + 2 = 5. Instead they amended all their proofs to reflect that new “truth.” The worst horror is I live among zombies who seemingly don’t care that such falsehoods are imposed upon us.

AF said: “Eivind rages against the 'pretence' that women can be 'sex offenders'. I rage more at the fact that women like her can actually convince society (and pass laws) that pretend that it is the ultimate perversion for men to find 17 year old girls attractive, while at the same time presumably 'normal' to find a woman like her attractive (she obviously spends a lot of time and effort trying to make herself look young and attractive).

Yes, this is bad too. And the normie way to go about it for men is to pretend they don’t like candy, that only perverts like candy. But we know it is a lie. And even have a protest movement! Small as it is, we are doing it. Women don’t do that. Women don’t have moral fortitude. We need to stand up for them too as male sexualists, including pointing out their egregious persecution due to falsehoods that systematically demean women more than men.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, Milan, all the research done on female sexual coercion supports my view. Just look up that phrase, subtract all the ideology (keeping in mind most is published by feminists desperately wanting the sexes to be equal) and tell me what is left.

Eivind Berge said...

Without delving into all the details which should be a whole dissertation, let me address this point:

However I do not deny that males commit such acts more frequently than females.

On the face of it, this sounds like a reasonable argument. Rarity doesn’t necessarily mean less severity when it happens. It is true that old ladies rarely commit violent crime, but if one were to murder me I would be just as dead as if a stereotypical thug did it. Women don’t commit a lot of sex crimes at any age. They also don’t commit much of other crimes, but if we adjust for that and just look at the most criminal women, even that group is typically uninterested in committing sex crimes. If the most amoral, violent women show no interest in “raping” or otherwise “sexually exploiting” males, we have to conclude that there is little benefit in it for women (in contrast to men of a similar mindset who reliably put rape at the top of their agenda). Again, harm does not need to be correlated to benefit to the perpetrator. Some crime is just crazy vandalism or sadism which benefits no one. But at some point you need to acknowledge the whole picture. The pieces fit together and give you an impression you can’t sensibly ignore. Mirroring the scarcity of female sex criminals is the lack of male commercial sex trade with women as buyers. Again, we see that male sexuality don’t have much value. So why assume there is equal value with regard to “sexual abuse”? What does this theory have going for it? WHY do you keep insisting that these acts are “comparable” when women do them? There is simply no evidence for it, and an overwhelming mountain of counterevidence. What makes you think you can ignore all this?

Milan Horvath said...

"keeping in mind most is published by feminists desperately wanting the sexes to be equal"
Prevailing ideological branch of feminism only pretends to be for equality, but in reality they are for cherry-picking.
But yes humanities are frequently tainted by ideology, that's true.

Also whether something benefits perpetrator is not as much relevant for me in judging seriousness of crime.
Important is IMO harm to victim. So I don't see much difference in motive, whether it is sadism or sexual gratification. Theoretically I would have no problem with abolition of sexual crimes and prosecuting such acts with assault or coercion laws.

Output of one article(I've just read) seems to be that females have more consequences than males, however it is not 100 vs zero. So it could be better if there would be case to case judgment rather than exemption of females from sexual crimes. Also cultural environment is IMO affecting reactions to some extent. So I hope, that I will find some either cross-cultural research, or some research out of western civilisation circle.

Now put violent or extremely coercive behaviour aside.
Antifeminist have mentioned similar thing in past if I remember.....
When I was teenager- we had in high school German teacher (well-looking, in her early 30's),
she liked to have sex with young boys, mostly sporty types- it was public secret, but tolerated by school management, because hiring qualified foreign language teacher at that time was incredibly difficult and she was really good at doing her job.
I really, really doubt, that she was riding all those sporty young boys to help them
(they usually hadn't problems with finding gf anyway), but she just liked their firm young bodies-she liked young flesh and if she was helping someone it was herself.
Maybe some teachers are like woman in "preparez vos mouchoirs" helping young shy boys by initiating them into sexual life, but it isn't universal . Also if some good-looking young teacher will initiate shy less-attractive girl into sexual life I don't see reason why it should be perceived differently.

Eivind Berge said...

Oh, but you have to remember that the baseline is not zero harm to men as a result of female violence. Sexualized or not, we expect some harm whenever there is violence or extreme coercion. That’s what nonsexual laws like those for simple assault address, which I have never suggested removing for male victims. In order to justify elevating it into a “sex crime” category, however, you have to demonstrate considerable additional harm just because it is a sexual violation. With real rape and abuse, with male perpetrator against women and men, I believe this exists and justifies its own category, though I would be okay with removing that as well like you suggest (which is just not realistic or worth arguing for, in my view). And obviously feminists are abusing this special protection of a real vulnerability by inflating the definitions, which is actually the best argument for gender-neutrality, because we are long past the point where men also get routinely locked up for nothing.

But ideally, discussing this with an aim towards rationality rather than the tactics of the moment, I think we should retain a criminal concept of rape which excludes female offenders.

And when you look at research demonstrating harm from female sexualized violence... take care not to confuse it with secondary consequences that are sexually harmful rather than sexual violations per se. Lorena Bobbitt is not considered a sex offender even under the most expansive feminist laws, for cutting off a man’s penis. Why not START there, with something obviously harmful to male sexuality, if you are going to argue that women can commit sexual offenses? It’s so incredibly hollow to dream up these imaginary violations that men don’t care about while being okay with not elevating clear sexual harm to its own categories of heinous crime (to say nothing of paternity fraud and false rape accusations). Don’t you feel like a tool of the feminists for letting them set the agenda? If it’s good enough to prosecute a woman who chops off a man’s penis as a perpetrator of generic violence (with no sex offender registration either or anything of the sort), then I struggle to see why female sexual coercion shouldn’t also be considered generic violence with no special elevation due to the sexual aspect. And I really do believe generic violence is the appropriate categorization in both cases (which also takes into account things like grievous bodily harm and punishes that much more severely, all without resorting to absurdities like female rapists).

freetheteens69 said...

"but she just liked their firm young bodies-she liked young flesh and if she was helping someone it was herself"

Why make it sound so creepy. She liked having sex with attractive people. Like all of us xD

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, nothing wrong with it and very wrong to criminalize it. So what if female teachers mostly go for boys who are popular anyway? That is just the nature of female choice, not very egalitarian, but it's still more egalitarian to not have age restrictions.

By the way, our TV premiere has been postponed to December 6th.

Jack said...

All people who speak out ever so little against the madness find themselves forced to "apologise" in the end. So for example John Grisham (from Wikipedia):

"He [Grisham] believes that prison rates in the United States are excessive, and the justice system is "locking up far too many people". Citing examples including "black teenagers on minor drugs charges" to "those who had viewed child porn online", he controversially added that he believed not all viewers of child pornography are necessarily pedophiles. After hearing from numerous people against this position, he later recanted this statement in a Facebook post. He went on to clarify that he was defending a former friend from law school who was caught in a sting thinking he was looking at adult porn but it was in reality sixteen- and seventeen-year-old minors and went on to add, "I have no sympathy for real pedophiles. God, please lock those people up." "Anyone who harms a child for profit or pleasure.... Should be punished to the fullest extent of the law."

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, the only acceptable normie opinion is to crack down on sexuality "to the fullest extent of the law." You are not allowed to have an opinion on sex laws except to make them harsher. The main product of this civilization is sex crimes, except it now also produces mutant coronaviruses almost as prominently. Will the Omicron variant finally make a dent in feminism? We can hope something important to them will break soon.

Milan Horvath said...

Isn't it paradoxical, that in country, where you can legally publicly glorify regimes that killed and tortured millions of people, you could be incarcerated for lifetime for just consuming information. I am supporter of freedom of speech so I am not criticising former.

Let's have an example: Someone is downloading illegal pornography, let's say it is not some 16 years old bikini or whatever-but instead it is some nasty sadistic stuff with toddlers.
Person who is downloading such material, didn't transferred any finance to producer or distributor, and is not distributing such material further.
Regardless of motivation of downloader, whether it is curiosity or sexual gratification, what causal link between atrocities committed in that downloaded materials and his act of reception of it is there?
What legal interests are being protected by prosecution of such person?
Should someone who is watching war documentary, seeing near-fatally injured children there, chanting racist slogans about sand-monkeys and having a passion from suffering of others be incarcerated?
NO!!! He is just nasty person, but not criminal!

And I am not even talking about materials that are not depicting suffering, or they are not even depicting illegal acts like e.g. people above AOC making love or children skinny-dipping(at least things that were legal as of recently).

BTW: Yesterday, there was a horror three-house episode of Simpsons in TV, where Sidekick Bob keep killing Bart and then re-animating him and then killing him again by various gory ways.
It reminded me case, (I think it was in Australia) when someone was convicted of possession of cartoon with Simpson family engaging in incestuous acts.
Or another example with Simpsons- there was some bloke who uploaded episodes of Simpsons on YT. He always added an modified thumbnail to increase interest in his uploads, at some episode there was something like this but he erased their swimsuits. People in discussion section were outraged:Don't you know that children are watching this!!! Are you out of mind?! (not to mention that, what thumbnail depicted was easily observable reality at many European beaches not so long time ago)

Yet they are happily letting their children to watch scenes of lethal violence.
I am NOT moralising here,nor calling for ban of violence in media-rather it is just a sort of reflection about it.

Eivind Berge said...

It is a mass psychosis without any kind of rhyme or reason to it. People are not able to think clearly about sex crimes, or if they are, they are too afraid to express it. With illegal pornography, the science doesn't even align in the same direction as the hysteria, but they don't care. If porn led to more sex I wouldn't be a nofapper, but either they are incapable of comprehending the reality that staying away from porn leads to more sex and sexualization or they literally think representations are evil in and of themselves. They really do seem to believe in a reality of symbols that is alien to me, selectively applied to sex only.

Eivind Berge said...

Antisex is a transparent religion, which is why we need a battle for the battle to even be recognized as an alternative view. The supernatural beliefs and rituals of antisex are embedded in all the regular cultural institutions from government to education to media. They transcend party politics and suffuse the other religions and so-called atheism too, and even popular science, with rational discussion of sexuality at best relegated to obscure journal articles that can’t be cited in the mainstream without denunciation and cancellation. The normies believe in the metaphysical badness of sex without admitting it; it’s just “normal” including support for all the draconian laws which flow from that irrational belief, with debate limited to how to most effectively eradicate and punish more sexuality, never whether all that criminalization is a worthy goal in the first place.

Now, if the normies have a religion of antisex, does that mean male sexualism is also a religion? I am coming around to seeing it as such, or at least what we in Norwegian call “livssyn” (is there an exact translation?). The only way we can gain recognition as something other than sick and crazy is probably to affirm a completely different worldview, not just arguing with points within this culture. I’ve been pondering how different I am lately because of something related to the NRK documentary. The producers told me that they needed to let my family respond to my saying they betrayed me by siding with the police, and their answer is bizarre. Apparently my father still believes he was “helping” me by cooperating with police. He does not acknowledge that it is possible to disagree with the sex laws, because feminist antisex bigotry is literally the only view he can imagine that a sane person can hold. A stark reminder of the need for the battle for the battle, because now we are simply dismissed as sick. To the normies, the only decent human being is an antisex bigot, and the need to brainwash us into submission trumps literally everything including all human rights and things like family loyalty in the face of criminal prosecutions. If you disagree with the sex laws, you are not a person to them. The definition of a person is a morally responsible agent, as I see it. From the normies’ point of view, a decision to disagree with the sex laws can never be acknowledged as a moral choice, not even an evil moral choice because the unperson is below moral agency. I am an unperson to my family, or rather they falsely believe there is a person inside who agrees with them and will emerge with enough coercion (which of course will only happen over my dead body, or if they managed to produce a living result it certainly wouldn’t be me, not someone I identify with at all unless I was just lying, which with enough persecution I suppose might happen). Free will is only for those who agree that sexuality needs to be maximally persecuted, so if you disagree with that then you are excluded from all human values. You are no better than an animal, considered to have no moral agency because the normies do not believe opposition to the sex laws is within the realm of debate or politics or moral value judgments. Antisex is the only value to this society, and it only becomes clearer that we must renounce the culture completely, because they have already renounced us. We have no humanity to them, so why do we even try to fit in?

Eivind Berge said...

This isn’t about sexual orientation. Most pedosexuals are normies too and I am not pedosexual. It is about metaphysical belief; religion. We male sexualists think we are rational for not believing in the metaphysical badness of sex, but it has proven impossible to get that point of view recognized as falling within rational debate. You see, the normies believe they are rational too, or if they are religious then they believe they can segment their “faith” from rational considerations, under which they believe the sex laws fall. So it’s probably futile to win the battle for the battle without embracing an identity as a different religion. Which won’t even begin to win the actual battle, but that’s not on the roadmap at this point. Before the battle can begin, we must get past the point where we are cancelled before our arguments can be confronted. My father told the police that he doesn’t read my blog. He doesn’t need to, because he just “knows” he is right and I am sick.

Eivind Berge said...

A little poetic inspiration... imagine if men could be like this about the sex laws:

by Rudyard Kipling

It was not part of their blood.
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When men began to hate.

They were not easily moved.
They were icy -- willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere men began to hate.

Their voices were even and low,
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When men began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When men began to hate.

It was not suddenly bred,
It will not swiftly abate,
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That men began to hate.

Jack said...

I also like Kipling as a poet, much as I find him indigestible these days as a novelist.

However I take exception to this: "It is a mass psychosis without any kind of rhyme or reason to it." I side with the Antifeminist in believing this whole Inquisition is water to someone's mill. I remember an author remarking that each time someone got tortured somewhere on Earth, it was because someone else felt their interests threatened. Likewise the driving force of this "mass psychosis" is not too difficult to identify: the femihags of course, but also feminoid envious men. What with the insane cult of bodily beauty in this technical age and the scarcity of that same beauty in any snapshot of mankind, the envious outnumber the contented 10 to 1 at least. Therefore no wonder.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes I think that judges have been vaccinated against feeling shame:

Eivind Berge said...

A 90-year-old “dangerous sexual predator”? Because he molested boys 40-50 years ago...

Recorder Philpotts told the retiree: “You have to face the consequences, albeit late in life, of what you did as a younger man.

“There are clear and significant aggravating features. These violations are gross and repeated breaches of trust.”

Aggravating? What about taking into account that everyone has long since moved on and this case is only opportunistically brought up now. No, everything to do with sex always has to be a hysterical urgent crisis even when it is history. You can’t be a judge without falling into this trance, because the system is set up to squeeze this behavior out of all participants.

The judge ruled that Youngman’s age had “very little weight” in sentencing, as Youngman was sentenced to ten years in prison on Friday, which “was effectively a life sentence.”

Recorder Philpotts added: “This is basically a life sentence. There’s a good chance you’ll never be released.’

They feel no shame because this is what they want to do to ALL sex offenders and increasingly can.

Milan Horvath said...

I wonder how such cases are investigated, after those years?
Practically everyone could be put down with such laws, some conflict within family-"He abused me 20 years ago!!!" It only depends how much is complainant educated about these things, or how much he/she is gifted when it comes to acting/storytelling.
Also it depends on impartiality/zealousness of forensics.

And not only when it comes to personal conflict, some groups could not like your opinions or work, whether it is publishing of secret information like in case of J.Assange or your art like in case of D. Hamilton and many other photographers/directors.

Milan Horvath said...

It is grant application, understandably unsuccessful as uncle György is supporting only human rights agenda that suits his business interests.

Especially second point (starting at page 10) is interesting.

Eivind Berge said...

Very interesting! Thanks for sharing. A great effort even if it goes nowhere, good to see other sexualists out there.

Just one little tidbit quoted there:

‘The laws against sexual
offenders in the United
States have caused an
unfortunate, and probably
unexpected, effect. Sexual
offenses have been placed on
a pedestal and have become
the gold standard for how
evil people can be. No other
crimes require this kind of
treatment and therefore
it can be inferred that no
other crimes are as evil.
Man’s ability to imagine and
execute evil is limitless, so
it seems very premature to
mark sexual offenses as the

– online comment posted in reply to
‘America’s Unjust Sex Laws’,
The Economist
August 6, 2009

Lol, yes. It would be very surprising if the greatest evil humans can come up with is really more or less indistinguishable from normal reproduction. You have to be very unimaginative to believe that, or suffer delusional belief in the metaphysical badness of sex.

Anonymous said...

The Economist The Year in 2019 cover with the DaVinci theme shows the Vitruvian Man with #MeToo tattooed on his heart.

This hints that #MeToo is connected with new world order agenda. It's one of their big plans for population control for Agenda 21/2030 and sustainable development.

The reason is simple. By making it hazardous for men to approach women for sexual interaction, less pregnancies and less babies getting made.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous - it seems at least that China isn't part of the New World Order, given their treatment of the 'missing' tennis player who accused a party head of sex abuse.

Or maybe it's like Covid - their special agents infected the rest of the world with the #MeToo virus while ensuring that they themselves have immunity from it.

Anonymous said...

"Male teachers of hebe and teen girls naturally feel like they are in a candy store. They are in a candy store. This is truth. Each case needs to be evaluated independently and we should respect girls' agency and consent, but in principle it is clear that the men can get carried away and exploit them. With women, it is the other way around. Female teachers are the candy (certainly the young ones!!!), and if the boys get a taste of it then all the more power to them. Now the legal system is forced to institute a lie, and does so willingly."

Even if you think the age of consent should be lower (as we all do here), there's still a case that teacher/student relationships are questionable. The teacher is there to teach, not to fuck the pupils, and clearly a sexual relationship can lead to favoritism, and this applies equally whether or not it's female teacher/male pupil or male teacher/female pupil.

Not saying that these cases (if above the age of consent) should be criminalized, but myabe a disciplinary matter that would apply equally to male and female teachers.

Eivind, serious question? Did you have a real crush on one of your female teachers at school? Maybe you could tell at the time she was interested in you and tempted, but backed off because of fear of prosecution? It must be something like this that has led to your almost deranged lifelong obession with female sex offenders?

Meanwhile, in the UK where female teachers who have sex with 13 year old boys get two years in a cushy women's prison, a male teacher gets 17 years for just kissing and blowjobs from two pupils.

Eivind Berge said...

When I was in school in the 80s and 90s, the psychotic belief that it would have been “abuse” had not yet emerged to my knowledge, at least not in Norway. The first time I heard of a female “sex offender” under the “abuse” paradigm was Mary Kay Letourneau when I was already in college, and I was absolutely shocked and stunned that Americans could be so retarded and evil. Sure I had crushes on female teachers in school, but I don’t think it entered anyone’s mind at the time that it could have been prosecuted as “abuse” or that was what held them back. It is just common sense and normal human decency that make me stand up for women so accused under the present mass psychosis. That delusion is profoundly disturbing on a deeper level than just innocent women getting persecuted, because it targets the best things in life and turns them upside down, so how anyone can not be affected by that is beyond me. I don’t need an unusual personal reason to stand up for truth and justice. And one of the things I am proud of about male sexualism as I present it is we are not a special interest group -- might as well just be called sexualists because we stand up for female sexuality too (positively defined, not the feminists exploitation of exaggerated female victimhood).

I am appalled by the persecution of male teachers too and don’t see how it would help them if I quit talking about the women. Yes, if it were just a disciplinary matter related to school policy rather than criminal law, I wouldn’t make a big fuss about these female teachers, who would then get fired at worst. Likewise if both men and women were prosecuted for laycase we wouldn’t need to pontificate about the special horror of the female sex offender charade. But when they conceptualize it as “abuse,” or more to the point “exploitation” we need to because that creates an additional lie which categorically cannot be true for female sexuality. With men, with sex being a female resource that teen girls have more of than anyone, we should be honest and admit that the transfer of value in such relations tends to flow from the girls to the men, while also making it clear that it takes more to make it abuse than just being employed as a teacher or the girl being below the age of consent that feminists have arranged for us.

The way to defend male teachers and other men accused of statutory abuse is to argue that girls should have the right to make their own sexual decisions. That doesn’t necessarily mean those decisions are optimal, merely that there are limits to how far society should go in “owning” the female sex resource. With boys, a special protection of their “ability” to consent is irrelevant because there was never anything there that could be exploited in the first place, so it is absurd for the state to manage it as a resource. Once again, I am annoyed by your apparent acceptance of an age of consent applied to women with boys, because the concept has no reasonable relevance to that situation whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I noticed that you were referring to yourself as a 'sexualist' of late. Why not just call yourself the 'Free female sex offenders' movement? I'm sure Holocaust22 will still follow you.

I reckon Eivind really wants to be the 'leader' of a sex cult. He knows the only sexual success he's had in his life came from a 'fan' of his (Emma). He's hoping the (hit job) from Norwegian TV will launch him as the leader of a 'sexualist' sex cult that women will flock to and let Eivind father their children.

Just lol.

And Eivind, your 'sexual resources' argument is largely irrelevant in an age when women have contraception, free abortions, a welfare state, no slut shaming, pre-marital sex etc etc.

A man having sex with a 15 year old girl is NO WORSE than a woman having sex with a 15 year old boy, even 'in principle' (anymore). Perhaps the girl will be more harmed than the boy by the victim labelling and forced therapy (a 21st century feminist version of slut shaming), but that's about it.

You confuse the fact that the average woman has way more SMV than the average man, with a false claim that only women are sexual resources. Of course to the female teacher, the 14 year old BBC Tyrone she is sucking off is a sexual resource - why else would she be sucking him for Christ's sake??

It's like you read a book on evolutionary psychology 25 years ago, poorly understood it, and haven't been able to critically reflect on your (poor) understanding of it at all in the next 25 years.

freetheteens69 said...

Amos Yee just got 6 years in prison for flirting with a girl 5 years younger than him.

Anonymous said...

anonymous posting at 8.08 is a moron!

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, leiermål/laycase didn’t go so far as to punish flirting. Even though they had love letters back then that were more intimate than the digital messages that are now construed as real abuse. The essence of feminism is belief in the metaphysical badness of sex, a construct which extends to the idea itself and communication/information about it. The evil of feminism is truly unprecedented.

As the grant proposal discussed above shows (page 9), they even wanted the death penalty in cases like Amos’s and for chatting with adults pretending to be underage too, but were just barely struck down by the Supreme Court, having to content themselves with life in prison plus indefinite civil commitment, for now. I am assuming Amos took a plea to get it down to six years? Thus they torture you out of your right to even have a trial.

Anonymous said...

@Holocaust22 I wonder if Amos Yee is still a feminist? I wonder how many dozens of butt rapes he'll have to endure in his cell before he stops believing feminists will ride to his rescue?

And these are hopeless aspies Eivind claims as allies.

Eivind Berge said...

Now to Anonymous at 8:08 which sounds like the AF:

A man having sex with a 15 year old girl is NO WORSE than a woman having sex with a 15 year old boy, even 'in principle' (anymore). Perhaps the girl will be more harmed than the boy by the victim labelling and forced therapy (a 21st century feminist version of slut shaming), but that's about it.

No, that’s not it. We can’t deny the resource part of the man being worse, if we are to be honest. And I think it is important to be honest, because otherwise why should we have credibility when we claim it isn’t abuse? Denying the supreme value of female nubility is just as retarded as feminist belief in the metaphysical badness of sex, which they now also apply to male “victims.” Honesty requires us to acknowledge the former and reject the latter. If a 15-year-old girl decides to have sex with any of us, she isn’t abused, but I don’t honestly expect her parents to be happy about it unless we jump through some hoops. That hoop can be a bride price or whatever it takes to get their approval, realistically also being a better match for her. Now society only formally requires that we wait until she is 18, which is a worse deal for parents than many other social arrangements regulating female sexuality, but it is all they got, which is why they so reliably cling to feminism at this time. We need to oppose this tactfully and truthfully, not delusionally.

Sex as a female resource is an empirical fact that we must acknowledge in order to have a sound basis for our ideology. One way to demonstrate it is to put it up for sale or giveaway. There is a reason why vigilante creeps only entrap men (with just ONE exception so far). Another way to prove it is how the parents feel about it. Before feminists started dangling million-dollar compensation lawsuits in front of parents of boys to make them comply with the antisex program and pretend sons are “victims” too, there were only high fives all around when 15-year-old boys slept with female teachers. Not so for 15-year-old girls. Parents believe their nubile daughters’ sexuality belongs to them, and want to control it because it is a wonderful resource. One way to control it is by arranged marriages, but now they employ the age of consent. The interests of the parents (plus vengeful feminists later, but they wouldn’t have so much power alone) is the real reason for the age of consent, and it is silly to pretend this reality does not exist. We can disagree with it and argue sensibly for lowering the age of consent and removing other sex laws, but it only makes us look stupid to pretend there is absolutely no basis there, not even a resource aspect, which is only true for female sex offenders.

Anonymous said...

"Parents believe their nubile daughters’ sexuality belongs to them, and want to control it because it is a wonderful resource. "

So the age of consent has nothing to do with feminists and female sexual jealousy? So it's always single, middle-aged women who are campaigning tooth and nail to raise the age of consent, whether in 1860 or 2020, but it's actually parents who are responsible for the age of consent??

"Parents believe their nubile daughters’ sexuality belongs to them, and want to control it because it is a wonderful resource"

From an EvoPsy point of view, it appears you're trying to explain the father's paternal desire to ensure his genetic survival through marriage ('daddy's maybe, mummy's baby'). Again, this is completely irrelevant today in a world of contraception, and when we allow premarital sex and the like. Even if the age of consent was raised to 21 and strictly enforced, most women would have at least several years of fucking around and daddy would just have to live with it.

You confuse the disparity in SMV, and the fact that women are the 'gatekeepers' of sex, with some ridiculous statement that only women are sex resources.

You need to take more care with analyzing your basic concepts, especially if they lead you to crazy conclusions that repel most readers and potential supporters, such as supporting the double standard when it comes to the age of consent and so on.

Why did Britney Zamora suck off a 13 year old Tyron in class? Is it because his BBC was a sexual resource to her, or do you really think she just was some kind of angel who was dispensing her own sexual resources to him out of charity?

Eivind Berge said...

Feminists are the pushers of antisex laws, but parents are their enablers. Your line of reasoning is like saying junk food shouldn’t taste good anymore now that people have reliable access to nutritious food. It doesn’t work that way. People will overindulge in fast calories from sugar and fat because our instincts are unchanged from when that was scarce, and they will indulge in sexual overprotectionism of their daughters when given the chance, which even spills over into a ludicrous charade for boys when you throw easy money into it. Feminists would be nothing without this larger force, which indeed is the real reason for the Sex War. Feminists and the rest of the abuse industry are merely parasitical exploiters of the parental drive to control the amazing resource which is young female sexuality, more for their own purposes than that of the girls themselves. When you also throw a tyrannical police state into the mix which thrives on beating people down, we get the present War on Sex.

None of this requires Brittany Zamora to be a selfless angel either, but the system will punish charitable women who want to help incels just as much, ensuring that they are not supposed to exist. Why can’t you see the problem with that?

Eivind Berge said...

Such selfless women are not supposed to exist, and even denounced on a philosophical level as “abusers” so as to be dogmatically unthinkable. I can’t imagine a more toxic view of human nature than feminism, which is why it is so profoundly disturbing that it gets to be the law of the land with female sex offenders as its most spectacular sign of supremacy.

Eivind Berge said...

Here is a news story on Amos Yee:

It is surreal. Absolutely surreal that this can pass as a real crime. And why does he simply surrender and plead guilty? What horrors did the prosecutors threaten him with to make six years seem like a good deal? And what happened to his activism, which also has been completely tortured out of him, rendering him a docile lamb to the slaughter? Look at this total silencing on top of the draconian punishment which is still made out to be mild compared to what he "deserves" from all the charges combined. And what's with that absurd order not to contact the "victim" until she is almost 30, as if the "minor" metaphysics still lingers on until then? Well, the whole thing is already so absurd in the first place that the only way to make it more absurd would be to have a female "offender"...

Singaporean blogger Amos Yee was sentenced by a US court on Thursday (Dec 2) to six years in jail, after he pleaded guilty to two charges of child pornography and grooming.

Yee, 23, was also ordered by the Chicago court not to contact the victim, who was then 14 years old, for two years after his release from jail.

Yee had also faced 16 other child pornography-related charges, which were dismissed as part of a plea deal he accepted.

According to the first charge of child pornography, Yee solicited, persuaded and induced the victim to appear on video and other mediums and pose, which involved lewd behaviour, between February and July in 2019.

The charge, a class one felony and second-most serious type of offence under Illinois criminal law, carried a prison sentence of at least four years and up to 15 years....

Yee, who spent most of the hearing replying to questions with yes or no answers, declined to speak when the judge asked if he had anything to say before she imposed his sentence.

The judge, as well as his public defender, both wished him luck at the end of the hearing, which lasted about 20 minutes.

Yee was 20 at the time of his offences, and living in Cook County, Chicago.

Yee met the victim in February 2019 over the Riot chat app, beginning an “online courtship”, said Assistant State's Attorney Marcell Taylor.

He said Yee repeatedly requested that the victim provide him with photos showing naked parts of her body as well as engaged in role play and sexual fantasies.

“On several occasions, this offender did, in fact, request that (she) engage in those role play and sexual fantasies by saying, ‘Show me your naked body' as well as several questions of that nature,” he added.

Eivind Berge said...

Two teens engaging in online courtship, one saying "show me your naked body," and poof, he's a sex offender facing 4-15 years per pic. Apparently they caught him with 17 pictures which could have resulted in 255 years in prison plus the grooming charge. Okay, six sounds less harsh, but why does Amos assume that a jury would be so sick in the head as to find him guilty and send him to life in prison for this harmless behavior? Why not go for jury nullification?

The whole concept of plea bargaining is evil and serves the same function as medieval torture, not least because it prevents such cases from being judged by the people rather than a tyrannical ruling ideology. And the threat is very effective, but he did have the right to a jury trial. I am disappointed that he did not use it. Six years is already so much that the rest hardly matters anyway as he may well be dead by then, yet he let the feminist state win on walkover. Realistically perhaps a jury would have been just as deranged as the prosecutor, but there is a small chance at least one person per jury would have woken up to the cruelty and said stop, which is all it takes to keep him out of jail. The state would have retried a few times, but with hung juries they would be forced to eventually give up. That is how easy it actually is to override tyranny with jury rights! Just one person out of twelve jurors not going along with the mass psychosis.

And by the way, I just listened to another good talk on mass formation/psychosis/hypnosis:

Mattias Desmet and Chris Martenson, highly recommended by me. It is striking how the worst atrocities begin once public dissent is eliminated. Well, Amos Yee was one of the last public voices of dissent... We live under antisex totalitarianism already, but shit is about to get really real when no one speaks out against it anymore. We can expect something like Stalin's purges where most people killed weren't even nominally guilty.

Also striking is how all the collateral damage of a mass formation such as the sex war is ignored because of the totalitarian focus on solving one "problem," here the metaphysical badness of sex. Amos's life is worth precisely nothing to people in mass formation, because literally the only thing they can value is to root out minors' sexuality for its metaphysical badness, even if that supposed badness only resides in sterile digits of computer memory.

Anonymous said...

Thank God Amos only got 6 years. Maybe he can get out in 4 if he's lucky. A while ago, I told you people important advice on how to bang young girls and not get caught - I told you to never acknowledge sex or send anything sexual on a digital device. Amos would not be in jail today if he followed that advice. He could have just set up a platonic meeting and then got sexual in real life, instead of through a computer screen logging his every move for the cops to use against him in court. That is how they catch everyone, because they need evidence to prove something sexual occurred, and they can't do it on a "victim's" word alone. Take this advice seriously.

We do alot of whining around here, but the fact is in many countries, it is still legal to have sex with girls under 18. Although Anglo countries and certainly the USA are completely lost, let's be productive and discuss what countries might be best for male sexualist refugees:

Italy, Bolivia, Mexico, Hungary, Portugal, China... these countries all have an age of consent at 14, Mexico even lower I think. Pretty good places for us!

What are some other countries that are good for banging young teen girls without going to jail?

Anonymous said...

"I told you people important advice on how to bang young girls and not get caught"

How about you just accept the obvious fact that the moment you speak out on paedohysteria and the age of consent, you're being monitored 24/7, and that having to adhere to the letter of every feminist law, however crazy, is the price you have to pay? How is it possible for people like Amos Yee, or that Nathan guy, not to realize that? Oh I remember, it's because they are clearly hardcore autists. The type that Eivind think make good allies.

Just like Eivind somehow thinks he's about to be given a balanced platform on Norwegian TV and people are going to think - 'well, I'd never considered it before, but that man had some fair points about the female sex offender charade and wankers'. Actually, thinking about it, they could just give Eivind a fair presentation and he would still come across as wacky, because he is.

Your advice on Amos doesn't even make sense. From what I read, he was jailed for 'online grooming' or such - he didn't even meet her physically did he? Oh Holocaust22, btw, 'online grooming' laws are 100% the result of feminist NGO lobbying. Amos is probably getting his tender young virgin butt raped by 40 year old cell mates already, and it's 100% down to feminists (and his autistic stupidity).

There is nowhere to 'escape to'. You could spend 5 years learning Hungarian, for example, and within that time they will probably raise the age of consent to 18. In fact, they may already have as most of the recent 'anti-gay' bill that the Western media were making a fuss about was actually 'protecting minors from paedophiles'. You would still be subject to your home country's 'sex tourism laws' anyway, until you obtained citizenship which usually takes at least 10 years. Probably China is the only hope left to resist the feminist war on male sexuality.

Eivind Berge said...

In my judgment on Amos Yee, his greatest failing was he was a wanker, probably still is too. I feel sorry for him, but damn, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. He suffers from the wanker’s delusion that there is sexual value in porn and masturbation, and so he asked the girl for nudes. That way the feminist state got to apply their counterpart of the wanker’s delusion -- the metaphysical gibberish that porn abuses girls and/or is blasphemy to their religious belief in the asexuality of minors -- and lock him up.

If he had been a nofapper, he would probably be free today, at least if he had also not talked to police and not cowed to plea-coercion either. While it is also frighteningly common to get convicted on a female’s word alone, a court may have found reasonable doubt if he had simply followed nofap and common sense all the way.

Be a nofapper firstly for your own sexual health. Notice that Amos apparently didn’t even try to set up a meeting with the girl -- which nofappers of course will do ASAP! -- so feckless are wankers. That nofap also prevents you from incriminating yourself is a cool bonus, but the legality of pornography is irrelevant because you shouldn’t be using it in any event (at least not to fap to; nothing wrong with nude and pornographic art and I realize you can still get prosecuted for content you don’t regard as pornography, but in general it is highly unlikely that nofappers get wrapped up in those witch-hunts because the antisex bigots have such an abundant supply of lower-hanging fruit for them, an endless supply of naive wankers who play along with their superstitions that it has sexual relevance such as Amos unfortunately turned out to). Nofappers do the right thing and always seek sex with no nonsense, never wasting time on falling into either evolutionary or criminal traps.

Nofappers are contact-only offenders. That is the only way the sex laws can touch us (well, there is also “grooming,” but not if you plan a platonic meeting first). If we get caught for sex crimes, at least we will have had sex first. The funny thing is I regularly give this advice and the normies don’t even realize I am mocking and subverting their hateful antisex agenda because they are so wrapped up in their psychotic belief in the metaphysical badness of sex including all that symbolic crap with zero value to sexualists that they think I am agreeing with them when I concede that porn is bad. Sex is such a tiny sliver of what they have criminalized that we do indeed tend to go under the radar when we have laser focus on sex. I do not believe feminism can be escaped by moving to other countries, but just being a nofapper gets you 99% of the way. They will only be monitoring irrelevant stuff because their flipside of the wanker’s delusion tells their puny minds that that’s where the sex crimes are. It feels good to use their own idiocy against them, doesn’t it? Too bad Amos missed out on that joy.

Take heed when I recommend nofap. I know what I am doing. Masturbation makes you blind, so this needs to be said until you snap out of it and gain the power of sexual vision. Thus nofap is integral to our sexualist ideology as well as our vision and allover health and meaning of life; I can't stress this enough.

Milan Horvath said...

"And Eivind, your 'sexual resources' argument is largely irrelevant in an age when women have contraception, free abortions, a welfare state, no slut shaming, pre-marital sex etc etc.

A man having sex with a 15 year old girl is NO WORSE than a woman having sex with a 15 year old boy, even 'in principle' (anymore). Perhaps the girl will be more harmed than the boy by the victim labelling and forced therapy (a 21st century feminist version of slut shaming), but that's about it."

100% agreement with this.

"How about you just accept the obvious fact that the moment you speak out on paedohysteria and the age of consent, you're being monitored 24/7, and that having to adhere to the letter of every feminist law, however crazy, is the price you have to pay? How is it possible for people like Amos Yee, or that Nathan guy, not to realize that? Oh I remember, it's because they are clearly hardcore autists. The type that Eivind think make good allies."

That's true, but I wouldn't be surprised(in his case), if they'll fabricate some accusations/evidence if they couldn't find it.

Anonymous said...

@Milan - that's true, as it's very easy to do with 'anti-porn laws'. I mean, I doubt very much they show the girl's alleged 'sexual posing' to the jury, as that would be 'viewing child porn' (or 'child abuse images' whatever the hags call it these days).

Note that Eivind doesn't recommend NoFap because of these reasons, but because of the feminist hogwash about 'addiction', lowered testosterone and the like. In fact, lets be honest, Eivind is against masturbation in part, so he doesn't get accused of looking at illegal porn. Just as his obsession with female sex offenders is likely partly due at least with a desire to avoid accusastions that he's a paedophile. Of course neither works. He still gets called out for 'defending child porn', and still gets accused of being a paedophile wanting to bang children, even in the context of his defence of female teachers having sex with boys.

I don't know Milan if you read about a shocking scandal (yet another) involving the Met (London) police recently. A pair of male police officers were sent to guard the corpses of two women who had been stabbed to death by a psycho in a London park. They both took photos of the women and then shared them with dozens of other police officers in WhatsApp groups, making sick jokes and memes about them. One even superimposed his face on to the dead body of one of the young women. This came shortly after a serving police officer in uniform used his Covid powers of arrest to kidnap off the street, rape, and murder a young lady. The backlash has been so great in the UK that there have even been calls for all police officers to have random checks on their mobile phones. I bet countless of them are shi**ing themselves now at the thought that their browsing history is going to be examined.

Eivind Berge said...

A refusal to take into account unique female vulnerabilities -- such as most notably their much greater potential for traumatization from sexual coercion by the opposite sex -- can legitimately be called misogyny. While I am not a misogynist, I would not be so upset if the solution weren’t to pretend males are equally vulnerable, which is the approach this feminist society takes. Because that creates the female sex offender charade, a travesty which is mind-bogglingly offensive on multiple other levels including to men and boys deprived of sexual opportunities and which also ends up harming innocent women anyway.

Eivind Berge said...

Final warning: accusing me of bad faith is not allowed here and will henceforth be blocked in moderation. I will no longer tolerate any false accusations alleging that I don't sincerely believe masturbation is bad for men, don't feel real sympathy for female "sex offenders," or anything like that contrary to what I take great pains to argue sincerely.

Knock it off, you fucking moron! Hopefully readers can see how wrong you are, but I don't want to deal with this crap any more, so it will be blocked on sight from now.

Eivind Berge said...

I don’t give a flying fuck if I am accused of being a pedophile, and I have weathered multiple false criminal accusations and vigilante entrapment attempts. They don’t really bother me and can’t go very far unless the cops are in on it -- and even then they all failed so far.

But don’t you dare accuse me of bad faith. I wouldn’t bother writing anything if I didn’t mean it. This is a serious blog, for serious commenters too!

Eivind Berge said...

Accusations of pedophilia are to me similar to calling me gay. Only men who have repressed feelings of that nature are really offended. I am completely relaxed about both sorts of accusations because they simply don’t apply to me (except of course the inflated feminist definition of pedophiles aka MAPs that we all are just by virtue of being normal, healthy men).

Bad faith arguments don’t apply either, but they disrupt the serious image of this blog. In order to have a serious debate we need to assume people mean what they say and address their arguments rather than some speculative ulterior motive. Especially when I have spent perhaps as much as half my effort on this blog explaining what is wrong with the female sex offender charade -- it is unacceptable to brush all that aside in favor of a bullshit explanation. Nofap is also something I am passionate about for reasons I have explained at length. It is fine to disagree with these positions and just about anything, but not my motives, not here.

Another thing I have banned in the past is accusing me of being autistic. So that pretty much sums up the rules for this blog, of course in addition to not posting illegal content, impersonating others, spamming, or saying anything which threatens the existence of this blog in light of Google’s Terms of Service.

Eivind Berge said...

I am learning from replies on Twitter that Amos was entrapped:

She sent pictures to get him in trouble, yes. She was connected to a pedo-hunter group. She had a Twitter account with the word "hunter" in it where she talked about working with pedo-hunters to catch pedos. More about it here...

Anonymous said...

Honestly when you post like that Antifeminist, you sound like a stupid faggot. Amos went to jail because he left a digital evidence trail, that's the point. He could have met her physically and had no issue if he never discussed sex on an evidence collecting device, which is far better than fapping to pictures.

Also, do you know anyone who has gone to jail? Because I do. Ass rape in jail is not common, it is done mostly by willing homosexuals, it is a feminist myth meant to increase the fear of penalty from chasing horny underage girls. So every time I read someone who starts perpetuating the "ass rape in jail" myth for breaking age of consent laws, I know immediately they have no clue what they are talking about.

Let's get back to productive conversation. There are indeed places to retreat to, China seems to be one as you mentioned, but Hungary does not seem to be one with increasing pedohysteria there. And the only country that bothers to enforce transnational sex laws with any seriousness is the USA, and in the case of a lower age of consent than the USA, you would have to be arrested first in a country where what you did was not illegal; so it's not even a real concern.

Also, it would help to have good game and not show beta traits to girls that you sleep with. When they lose respect for you, it increases their feelings of regret and resentment, which lead to false rape accusations. It is best to have an arranged marriage with a pre-teen girl and pursue prostitutes on the side if you need them, like how it's been throughout most of civilized human history before the modern feminist insanity. This is truly the ideal we should strive for, but in the meantime, destruction of the feminist age of consent myth and support for countries with better laws, such as moving to them and paying taxes to their government, is the most we can do.

Anonymous said...

Amos is a clueless moron who was entrapped by a mentally ill power hungry cunt, but if he had better game, she might have left him alone and maybe even fallen in love with him. Of course the whole thing could've been avoided and much better in general if he didn't leave evidence, and met up in real life.

Eivind Berge said...

Very true. It seems that even though she set out to entrap him, she initially liked him and only because he was an asshole did it end up this way. Of course, Amos does not deserve to go to jail for any of this, but it goes to show that even that kind of girl can be won over with good game. And if anything should be charged it would have to be the alleged emotional abuse rather than the sexual stuff, but that's how retarded this civilization is, tunnel vision on sex as the worst thing imaginable no matter how innocent.

Milan Horvath said...

@AF Despite I disagree with all these, "different for girls","don't touch your willy" things and consider this attitude really harmful, I do not think that Eivind is being insincere or opportunist about this.
I can't see into his head, but I don't think, he's like that.

@ Anonymous (December 05, 2021 7:35:00)

"Let's get back to productive conversation. There are indeed places to retreat to, China seems to be one as you mentioned, but Hungary does not seem to be one with increasing pedohysteria there. And the only country that bothers to enforce transnational sex laws with any seriousness is the USA, and in the case of a lower age of consent than the USA, you would have to be arrested first in a country where what you did was not illegal; so it's not even a real concern."

You have absolutely no clue about European realia,politics and law it seems.

(irony-on)And only thing they are waiting for, in Hungary/Italy are foreigners who want to have arranged marriage with a pre-teen girls.
Yes they will welcome you with open arms, and dish of Gulyásleves/Minestrone, and they even let you choose your harem in local elementary school. They have even law for it. Come and try....(irony-off)

"Also, it would help to have good game and not show beta traits to girls that you sleep with. When they lose respect for you, it increases their feelings of regret and resentment, which lead to false rape accusations. It is best to have an arranged marriage with a pre-teen girl and pursue prostitutes on the side if you need them, like how it's been throughout most of civilized human history before the modern feminist insanity."

I am guest here, so I wouldn't tell my host what to do.......but...
be this my blog,
with real name, with years and years of bitter struggle for change of sexual criminal law....
...awaiting more traffic on my blog from broader public, after I will be televised.....

I would ban you for ages of ages for such comments.

More and more often, I am starting to put myself a question: Are there any normal/sane people,between those who are against present-day sexual criminal law???

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, Milan, thanks for that wake-up call... The suggestion to have an arranged marriage with a pre-teen girl was jarring, but I let it slide because it was part of a larger at least partly sensible comment (the part about Amos Yee I agree with and he is also right about prison rape being rare). To be clear: I do not condone marriages to pre-teen girls, and of course it is pure fantasy that such would be available in Europe (there are current reports from Afghanistan, on the other hand). Also I read it as maybe arranged while pre-teen and consummated later? Anyway, please think before you write.

And as to emigrating... under Norwegian law I can't even legally see a 50-year-old escort in a country where prostitution is legal, much less hook up with underage girls. We are stuck with feminist laws and need to try to change them in our own countries. In China maybe the communist leaders can escape the worst #MeToo hysteria for now at the expense of international condemnation, but that's about it and I don't think I would be welcome there.

Anonymous said...

The head moderator of the biggest 'catch a predator' reddit community has been exposed as a predator of underage girls.

Well who would have thought that?

Paedocrite of the year.

Eivind Berge said...

Here it is:

Jack said...

First of all, I'm sure "pre-teen" was a Freudian slip. I'm sure few if any of the posters on this blog would show any interest in girls who are not well into their mid-teens at the very least.

Then there's this, again, from someone anonymous above: Italy, Bolivia, Mexico, Hungary, Portugal, China... these countries all have an age of consent at 14, Mexico even lower I think. Pretty good places for us!

Why don't you buy yourself a ticket to one of those "pretty good places for us", and report? China would be a good place to start, their jails are full with false or real Covid violators, so I'm sure they have no room left for sex criminals. Of course you need to have this AOC map from Wikipedia ready in order to humiliate the cops if they make a move for you :

In Mexico, on top of banging teens, you can have your stash of cocaine. All you need for the cops to retire with egg on their faces is this :

The AF said...

"Here it is:"

Well Eivind I watched it and all I can say is that Norway is a very civilized country, probably the most civilized still in Europe, despite having feminist laws that are as crazy as anywhere else.

I don't want to rain on your parade, if you are happy with how they presented you, then I'm happy for you too.

All I saw was you talking briefly about wankers and how that all incels have to do is nofap for 3 months in order to get laid, and then the rest of your (lengthy) segement was devoted to you pitching FertileDating to some entrepaneurs.

Meanwhile, other young men (or rather young men, as the journalist herself pointed out you're not young anymore) talked about the criminalization of male heterosexuality, about inceldom etc.

And none of them will ever visit this site, and if they do, they will no doubt leave non-plussed.

As I said weeks ago, it was the best we could have hoped for.

Eivind Berge said...

I talked plenty about the sex laws with them, but can't control what they choose to include. Still very good publicity for my dating site and also our movement, I think. At least if viewers get the idea to come here they can read and discuss more in depth, and so what if it is the incels who are most vocal about male marginalization in this show? Everything helps.

The AF said...

@Jack - I think he should go to Russia. Everybody knows that the recent law mandating life in prison for anybody so much as kissing a minor is just Western propaganda. Same with the supposed prison rapes. All so exaggerated. Russian prisons are holiday camps, I'm sure.

the AF said...

" Still very good publicity for my dating site'

I hope the Fertile Dating Movement gets you many lays Eivind.

BTW, the presenter herself called you out for hoping to get laid through your own website Eivind, and you readily admitted to it, so please, please don't ban me for this comment. I'm sure you are going to get thousands of new visitors and YouTube followers, and the Fertile Dating Sexualist movement is going to go from strength to strength, and I want to be part of it! We've waited so long for this, nearly 20 years. Incel losers can go to hell!

Eivind Berge said... is for everyone who wants to find someone to reproduce with, and I am not at all ashamed to include myself in that group. Obviously our ambition is much bigger than just me getting laid though, including great help for many incels who just need to quit wanking and get serious about sex and relationships because there is really nothing more wrong with them. As with the female sex offender charade, you are setting up a false conflict with our movement. These all go together synergistically -- male sexualism, female sexualism, nofap, Fertile Dating -- you just can't see it because you are a cantankerous old curmudgeon for some reason. Feminists are the enemy, remember? Not all these good things I am promoting.

Eivind Berge said...

See how masturbation makes blind? If you were interested in solutions and able to see them, you would make a profile on Fertile Dating instead of attacking it. But you just want to wallow in incel misery, huh? Even though a partial solution to all sexualist problems is right here. Can’t change the laws, but it’s great self-help. We are getting free publicity in Norway right now, but I have a Google Ads campaign set up to target any country or city on the planet, just waiting for funding. Fertile Dating is free, but those who want can donate towards marketing. Just tell me which area to target with the money, and you have the greatest, most cost-effective way to get laid known to man, unlike Tinder completely aligned with our genetic interests as well! We don’t have algorithms and feminazi management to keep you down and squeeze money out of you either; it is 100% efficient and friendly and you would be the first to show up for broody young women who search for ways to get inseminated! Including lesbian threesomes that many men dream of who are craving sperm! It is astonishing that you can’t see an opportunity here, but rather attack it for some dumb reason that can’t be anything other than wanker’s blindness if not something even more pathological.

The AF said...

"Can't control what they choose". Well probably because you were just ranting on about female sex offenders.

We did warn you, but you seem happy that it gave 'exposure', even if consisted of a fake set-up meeting with entrepaneurs whose barely controlled laughing faces the cameras kept zooming in on. At least it wasn't a hit job, more like a pi$$ job. You were the 'comedy segment' in an otherwise quite serious look at male online subcultures.

There is no 'our movement' Eivind, and if you keep insisting there is, then I have every right to be angry at you single-handedly changing the name of it and so on.

"so what if it is the incels who are most vocal about male marginalization in this show?"

Mmmm. well the show itself presented you as Norway's most famous incel, and then you talk about how incels only need to stop wanking for 3 months in order to get laid. The only anger and real 'movement' for male sexuality emerging today, and probably the last hope is incels. But you disavow them and degrade them (I wont go into the possible reasons why, otherwise mr 'intellectually honest free speech' Berge will ban me), despite a role as spokesperson being handed to you on a plate on national tv. Does this make any sense to you Eivind? I'm sure it would have 10 years ago. I was reading some of your articles from then recently, before you became obsessed with female sex offenders and NoFap. It's almost like you've got dementia or some kind of brain trauma. Have you been in a fight or had an accident or something? Is this really what NoFap does to you? I honestly have never seen such intellectual decline as yours.

BTW, I totally disavow the violence of a handful of deranged individual incels, as well as their extreme misogyny, but the fact is, incels are relevant, you/we are not relevant.

I may well be too harsh on you, and take you too seriously. After all, as I said, you are a comedic figure now. Nobody here takes seriously anything you write about NoFap, or share your obsession with female teachers even to a small degree. Nobody is going to follow you, ever. The closest thing to followers you have is 'freetheteens', a retard who thinks feminists are our friends and tries to convince you of it (a bit like a 'follower' of Jesus trying to convert him to Islam), and the anonymous guy who leaves a comment asking how to bang young teens and get away with it, the very day before your big piece on national tv. That's about as good as it will ever get for you Eivind. I do take you too seriously, probably because I remember how you were 10 or 15 years ago. You are no threat, not even to any 'male sexuality' movement. It doesn't matter what you say or do under that banner, or even change it to 'sexualist' movement or Fertile Dating movement. I could set up a website tomorrow and it would get more visitors than you do in a year, even with all your wasted publicity. I hope you get laid Eivind through FertileDating and your 'Sexualist' movement. I sincerely do. Maybe you wont even have to NoFap.

Eivind Berge said...

I am puzzled as to where all this negativity is coming from to AF. Don't you realize that incel, if one ever identifies as such, is supposed to be a temporary state rather than an identity? I got out of it over ten years ago and was only in it for brief periods before that. I have no allegiance to an "incel" movement just because I was famously sort of associated with it before it got started, and never sunk into the kind of negativity that they exhibit today. If you are incel for life then I feel sorry for you, but you are not even trying, man!

I don't understand how a dating site suited to bring easy bareback sex with young fertile women can be negative to a man who claims to be incel. Makes no sense at all that millions' worth of free publicity for such a site can be negative and you don't even want to try it. I honestly don't understand what you are trying to accomplish for male sexuality or yourself if that counts for nothing.

And don't you realize that the entrepreneurs are only there so I can pitch to the people? I don't care what they think and it's better for the site that I am fully in charge anyway without having to please investors, if we can capture the market without.

Of course this documentary could have been better for male sexualism if they had included more of our arguments. But it is what it is and I am happy about it. Where are your public appearances or even a blog? How about doing something better yourself before complaining about my efforts?

Eivind Berge said...

I was in fact never an incel as that term is understood today. I was rather a late bloomer (age 21) and then I had some dry spells lasting up to a couple of years, but nothing comparable to for example the real incel in the same episode we have seen today who is a 28-year-old virgin (probably won't be for much longer though, now that he has some fame). Never followed the subculture either. I was an MRA, then a male sexualist. Expecting me to be a spokesman for incel is uncalled for and not something I want because they are truly losers and don't seem much interested in changing their situation. I see from the link you put up about the latest paedocrite exposure that they have some feisty comments against agecucks, and I admire that, but please understand that I am a male sexualist rather than an incel. I don't "disown" them; I am just not one of them and never was. I do welcome them as allies, however, just like I do the "MAPs" without thinking I am different that way because I know I just represent normal male sexuality. My sexual success, though I had a late start, fell within the normal range and is by now vastly better than average. I don’t care if you don’t believe me or that I am bragging, but frankly I am now in the alpha category, or chad as they say today.

I think a good many incels could be cured just by thinking in terms of "late bloomer" and "dry spell" instead of their toxic subculture, plus nofap and getting serious about dating through whatever means are available including my site. It is not that hard unless you are imprisoned, and though the feminist laws are scary, it should be more scary to miss out on even trying.

To me it is important to emphasize that the feminist sex laws are the enemy of men of all statures from incels to chads. The male sexualist movement should ideally unify us all, and that is the movement I represent.

Anonymous said...

Today in the USA I walked through my local college campus because I was bored, and I saw many high school students dressed formally and taking pictures for their mid-year prom. The girls were all 13-16, and looked just so absolutely sexy and stunning, at their peak SMV. I could barely contain my arousal, especially since I'm nofap.

Then, I passed by what looked like a 10 year old girl, with tits just starting to bud, and she made hungry eyes at me, then smiled and looked down. She was jealous all the older girls were getting attention, and she wanted to feel sexy too. Her little pussy probably got wet in that moment. Young girls understand sexuality obviously, it is not pedophilia, it is entirely normal and natural, which is why girls were married off at very young ages throughout the entire history of humanity. Feminism has killed the sexuality of pre-teen girls almost entirely.

The 13-16 year old girls were with their equivalent nerdy loser males who had no clue what to do with them, a complete and total waste. And that's not really a knock on the young males, they have been trained to be complete losers by the extreme feminist society, plus they are at the beginning of their lives and haven't accomplished much.

The bottom line is this - I live in a society where my reward for working hard and being a good man is to be barred from the best pussy in the society, and then actively hunted down, demonized, and prosecuted fully if I pursue it. What incentive is there for me to stay here and better myself? The chance to win an old whore who controls all my rights and freedoms? No thanks, I will leave that to the destroyed married morons who are everywhere in this society; you know the type, the "happy wife happy life" crowd, never thinking, just shuffling along to their doom until they die. They get what they deserve. I cannot be the only man to realize this, and in fact I am not, which is why there have been a record number of citizenship renunciations every year that goes by.

A society that bars its best men from the best pussy will not be the best society for very long. Long live China.

Eivind Berge said...

Another doer rather than a wanker. I appreciate that. But please for the love of this blog tone down the poetry with regard to so young girls. You may be anonymous and even using Tor, but this is not some dark-net forum where you can say anything without consequences for anyone.

Jack said...

I live in a society where my reward for working hard and being a good man is to be barred from the best pussy in the society, and then actively hunted down, demonized, and prosecuted fully if I pursue it.

What traditional MGTOWs were advocating was drop-out, stop feeding the beast, avoid serving in the police and the armed forces, pay as little taxes as you can, relocate to a friendlier country etc. Note that some of these points are to some extent mutually exclusive: you can't relocate unless you managed to save a lot or your line of work is in high demand.

To Eivind: your sperm donor scheme is not new (google "coparent" and "coparentalys"). Very popular in France, where sperm donors cannot (yet) be sued for child support. I doubt this can bring lookers to your doorstep. Think about it, if she wants to get pregnant a woman with acceptable SMV who doesn't have her feet nailed to the ground can find herself a stud in town on any day she's ovulating.

Women who resort to donor websites are likely to be cock-scared frigid man-haters with a lot of mental bagage. The beautiful lesbian is as rare as the hot teacher, and she is likely to insist on a no-intercourse donation.

There may be a fringe membership of couples in a cuckold relationship, on whose side finding a sperm donor is a pretence. Not that you would mind I suppose, but such couples would be targeting the gangbang/swinging crowd and would have different requirements regarding the kind of men they're after.

Eivind Berge said...

Jack, you speak from prejudice and limiting beliefs regarding sperm donation/coparenting/fertile dating. I have experience with this and know it is not so bleak. I know other coparenting sites exist and know they suck compared to mine because I have tried them. Nonetheless, I managed to have success there. A 23-year-old beautiful Spanish girl chose me to impregnate her, and we tried once (over multiple days, but one cycle) before Covid. Then she got pregnant with another man but now she is talking to me again about having yet another baby.

I know you are at least partly a doer and not one of those wankers or incels who dismiss everything before they have tried, but you haven’t tried this. This niche is the friendliest to male sexuality, with the best sex ratio and nicest women who are too focused on their ovulations and actually wanting to be inseminated to get into false rape accusations and other feminist crap. And contrary to your prejudice, natural insemination is quite popular with women who seek a donor, lesbians too (okay, maybe not a threesome, but at least the one who is carrying will often want it). The segment was just missing a site that is not managed by idiots. At, that Spanish girl had to pay for membership before she could contact me, something like $30 per month. And I had to pay, which isn’t problematic, but requiring both is beyond retarded. They get plenty of women, but since few women pay for dating sites, they are 95% ghost profiles who can’t be contacted even by men who pay. With competition like this, I can’t fail to succeed if only I get some marketing. Yes, any ovulating woman can get inseminated in five minutes by the local stud anywhere, but my own sweet empiricism tells me enough choose my kind of site to make it heaven for men who show up, which for to me inexplicable reasons few men do. I guess partly because of such prejudice as you are displaying and partly because they don’t want to risk the financial responsibility (also an overblown concern), and partly because of fecklessness related to porn addiction and other feebleness. The world is full of sexual opportunities for the taking if only you can see them and go for them, and our culture’s acceptance of masturbation is a case study in pathological failure to do so. I feel sorry for boys who grow up without learning nofap because they are missing out spectacularly on what they could have had.

Seeing the attitude of all you guys towards my site is just a massive facepalm. It does not match what I would consider a healthy interest in sex and sexualism. If not in ways like this, where the hell do you plan to meet women? Do you still go to bars or something? Which is a stone-age level of efficiency compared to this. Or do you not plan to meet women?

The AF said...

So you're going to unify the various strands of Manosphere sub-cultures by continuing to call them 'losers' and 'wankers'?

Has the TV show aired yet Eivind? Where are all the new commentators and readers? I see you still have 4 subscribers to your YouTube channel.

Did you watch it Jack? I'd be interested in your honest opinion (if Eivind allows it).

One thing of note about the whole programme was that the female presenter made a big thing about how she was 'bullied' and was unpopular in school (she claimed she got called names because of her hairy arms and somebody even sent her a razor through the post). I assume her message was that young women get bullied and go through difficult adolescences, but don't form 'toxic' sub-cultures such as incels.

Well actually they don't need to, because women like her become feminists, which is the dominant ideology of our times. And literally tens of thousands of men (or more) are currently going through hell in prison cells because of feminist laws, and millions more have their liberties curtailed because of them, as well as demonized and the like.

Whatever harm the incel culture has done to women or society, feminism had done a million times more harm to men and society (as well as all the girls and women forced to undergo victim labelling, all the sex workers denied a livelihood etc.).

Eivind Berge said...

The show is just up for streaming right now, don't know when it will air. My number of YouTube followers is irrelevant since I haven't posted anything there in ages and am not trying to promote it since there ins't much there anyway.

However, I have been participating in another video channel with the developer of my site. Now is a good time to plug it:

It's at a more censorship-resistant site than YouTube, so we don't shy away from controversial issues and plan to make more videos about whatever interests us. I don't claim to have much good content there either yet, but it sure serves as an example of how to create an intellectually serious atmosphere rather than the whining which is all you seem to be able to contribute anymore.

Jack said...

Coming back to our moutons, have a look at this, you can feel the lie exuding from every pore of this "victim", it makes me puke !

Eivind Berge said...

So we are supposed to believe that Sarah Ransome admittedly was an escort but somehow Epstein didn't bother to pay her and raped her instead? Yeah, right.

Also funny how all the stories there inject "just" before the women's ages:

"Sarah Ransome said she was recruited into Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sex trafficking ring in 2006 when she was just 22."

"Just" 22, huh? "Groomed" at 22? When do women become responsible for themselves, then? She can't play the "underage" card but desperately wants to fit into the "victim" club anyway and the media and courts oblige.

Milan Horvath said...

I can't stand how they are using term survivor, when it comes to (fabricated or real) cases of sexual violence or abuse.
English is not my native language, but I suppose that term survivor is derived from word "survive", which means survive life-threatening situations: holocaust survivor, cancer survivor, (serious) car accident survivor.

"Ransome was born and raised in South Africa by a single mother. She was raped for the first time at age 11."

If it's not completely fabricated, I wonder what acts exactly she understand as "rape".

.. yeah, when we are sharing links with emetic properties, my contribution to collection :

Bon appétit!!!

It is highly unlikely that anyone here is so masochistic to actually watch it but anyway

BTW: probably nothing new to others here.....

the AF said...

"I can't stand how they are using term survivor, when it comes to (fabricated or real) cases of sexual violence or abuse.
English is not my native language, but I suppose that term survivor is derived from word "survive", which means survive life-threatening situations: holocaust survivor, cancer survivor, (serious) car accident survivor."

They refer to such victims as 'survivors' and yet will assume (and call you a paedophile apologist if you deny it) that they are psychologically wrecked by their 'abuse'.

So they must really think that the 'abuse victims' had a real risk of death, albeit they 'survived' it scarred and damaged.


Feminist therapy circle : You ought to feel bad because you have been abused. You have been abused because you feel bad.

Angry Harry was brilliant at arguing the point that if anti-abuse campaigners were really interested in preventing the psychological harm of abuse, they wouldn't insist to the victim that they have been psychologically harmed and damaged for the rest of their lives.

I just checked on Angry Harry's website, and it doesn't load. I hope Paul Elam the imbecile hasn't abandonened it. I think several of us downloaded the entire website after he died, I know I have it somewhere.

The AF said...

Hatchet faced 30 something woman wearing the most skin tight revealing yoga pants ever publicly accuses random 'creepy old guy' of staring at her butt, thus likely ruining his life. Her ass is literally streamed in close up to her thousands of TikTok omega male simps, and now likley has hundreds of thousands of views since going viral.

Remember guys, don't be a wanker or an incel loser - NoFap for just 12 weeks and you too will crawl over a mile of broken glass to get a sniff of this beautiful woman's stinky ass.

The AF said...

Meanwhhile, the UK is going to make 'incitement of hatred towards women' a hate crime under a bill that will be passed next year.

So from next year it might be illegal in the Uk to make a claim such as - 'age of consent laws are the result of female sexual jealousy'.

Guess we will just have to focus on female sex offenders and blame everything on American puritanism and male cock blocking.

Just as well we already do that anyway.

Thank heavens for the incels.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Go to the end of this discussion with Will Storr:

Maybe some hope?

Milan Horvath said...
I think it was this article..
According to, it seems it is defunct at least since September.

Eivind Berge said...

That is a shame if we can't keep Angry Harry online. He is one of the original and best MRAs and definitely deserves to be preserved. I would be willing to maintain a domain if someone can provide all the files. I have at least some of his articles saved, but not in a readily publishable format.

About that new hate speech law in the UK, seems they backed out of the worst parts:

"Under the Law Commission’s proposals, ‘stirring up hatred’ under the Public Order Act 1986 should be extended to cover ‘transgender and gender diverse’ people, as well as the disabled. Judges should be given the power to hand longer sentences to offenders who target transgender people in crimes such as assault, its 545-page report added.

But it rejected the idea of adding sex and gender to the so-called ‘protected characteristics’ under the law, which allow crimes against those groups to be treated more seriously by the courts.

As a result, the proposals mean some offences against transgender people could attract longer jail terms than those aimed at biological women.

Jack said...

In Belgium from now on they're not going to mention the gender any more on ID cards. This, and the charade (preceding post) about "offences against transgenders" brings to my mind the only way out of the woods for us men: register as women.

Since gender is a social construct and everyone becomes entitled to choose to be a woman, let all men answer the call to henceforth be considered women.

Anonymous said...

It would not surprise me if they were to change the Genesis accordingly: And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male, female and fifty-fifty He created them.

The AF said...

If you go to the Daily Mail homepage right now, literally in the middle of about a dozen stories on 'paedophile' Epstein, is the disgusting case of a British man who 'wore a chastity belt' to stop him abusing under fives, and who filmed himself having sex with a dog.

Just sums up the very careful, deliberate and evil conflation by the feminists of older men having sex with teenage girls and real paedophilia. Whether or not Epstein broke the law, whether or not he's an 'abuser', he certainly wasn't a paedophile. His middle-aged girlfriend is on trial. One of the stories is about him 'dating a Norwegian heiress who also dated Donald Trump'. He's about as far away from the real paedophile who fantasizes about toddlers as you can get.

Really, when you think about it - how evil is the conflation of real paedophilia and child abuse with (alleged) age of consent breeches with teenage girls and the entirely normal male attraction to such girls? Just to shore up their declining sexual market value? But then, this is the gender that commits a million abortions (child murders) every week, and riot in the streets if any government is brave and moral enough to try to curtail those numbers.

As far as the Angry Harry site is concerned, Paul Elam owns the domain now - Angry Harry's wife asked him (or let him) take it over to preserve for prosperity. I don't think Elam ever really respected him, especially after Harry called him out on his support for labelling men as 'sex abuse victims' at the hands of women.

Anonymous said...

A woman is apparently a 'survivor' if somebody puts her face on a pornographic image using deepfake technology.

We may be weeks away from World War 3 if Russia invades the Ukraine. I don't share Eivind's apocalyptical shadenfreude, but at least it would mean the present snowflake woke generation would discover what 'trying to survive' really means.

Not sure why anyone would want to put her face on a porno, she must have been a LOT better looking at 18 than she is now, or else it was just a joke making fun of feminists. Surely not sexually motivated.

Look at all the downvotes.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, that takes the cake in the feminist dysphemism olympics. That some digital image resembles you is really lethal, huh? As I keep saying, it's all about metaphysical belief in the badness of sex at this point. A pure abstraction of an abstraction of a fiction ad infinitum even of something that wasn't even sexual to begin with is equated with the most brutal rape. So they all get to be "survivors" and bring down all the violence of the state on the supposed offenders. Which the state takes extremely seriously as long as it is able. I can't help but wish for something to disable the state or at least cripple it to the point where this won't be its top priority anymore.

Eivind Berge said...

I see in that video they are even calling men who make deepfakes “sexual predators” with a straight face, lol! But this is something we can do something about. All men need is nofap to break at least their side of the delusion. The wanker’s delusion has two sides: the delusion that men get sexual value our of porn and masturbation and the delusion that women are abused by the same symbolic representation and men fantasizing. It is a symbiosis of delusions that fuels the abuse industry on this fakery. The proper attitude to all the criminalization of pretend-sex is to not believe in it; see it for the empty, irrelevant garbage that it is. I do not believe in deepfakes, revenge porn, child porn and all that delusional fake “predation” that has zero value and zero harm unless women bring that harm on themselves via delusional belief.

The incarceration rate of leaders in our and related movements is very high, and much of it is due to this delusion. Don’t feed the troll! Nathan Larson deserves honorable mention for at least meeting a girl, but Amos Yee played right along with the absurd pretense that sexual fantasies are as good as sex. I am so disappointed that he didn’t even make a statement that he is a victim of fakery, apparently because he actually suffers from the underlying delusion. He must be, because otherwise he would try to meet the girl instead of asking for nudes, which evidently made him so ridiculously impotent that he sat there for YEARS without making a further move. Can you imagine having your life ruined because of a fantasy of wanting to do something and then conceding that the fantasy is good enough for both you and the ones who are criminalizing it? The wanker’s delusion is literally that insidious. I can’t stress enough how important nofap is for our ideology and men’s sexual health.

Jesus said that "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart," but Christians didn’t really take this seriously until the feminists came along and with the help of men’s vulnerability to the evolutionary trap that is digital porn made it a criminal reality as well as a delusion that many men fall for. We can do better, gentlemen. Just say no to porn and masturbation, and then the police violence which feeds off of these delusions will shrivel up and be reduced to the mockery that it deserves. Feminist criminalization or pornography is a monster that men set up inside their souls, and it will go away once they quit believing in it.

You’ll never find things like that on your way
as long as you keep your thoughts raised high on real girls,
as long as a rare excitement
stirs your spirit and your body uncorrupted by masturbation.
Laistrygonians, Cyclops, feminist pigs,
wild Poseidon -- you won’t encounter them
unless you bring them along inside your soul,
unless your soul sets them up in front of you.

Eivind Berge said...

In light of Matthew 5:27–28 you can see now that feminism is a lot like Christianity on steroids. For centuries they had the old laycase laws which covered intercourse, but now we take Jesus at his word and criminalize men just for looking. I guess partly because we now have the technology to do so. Looking at girls now leaves a digital trace that they can detect and convict. They have not only recriminalized adultery, but a literal fundamentalist interpretation of Matthew 5:28 as well. No wonder there is no opposition to feminism when it was already so ingrained in our culture.

Jesus expanded the old prohibition on adultery, which in the Ten Commandments just meant stealing another man’s wife, into a general antisexual principle. That was bad enough, but then feminism came along and gave us the present nightmare.

Anonymous said...

"Also I read it as maybe arranged while pre-teen and consummated later?"

Absolutely correct. If anyone is offended by this concept, they are offended by human history, and clearly are still under heavy feminist sexual abuse industry mythology.

"Russian prisons are holiday camps, I'm sure."

Definitely not, fuck Russia. Prison is different from country to country, and obviously Russia is not a good male sexualist destination.

"How about doing something better yourself before complaining about my efforts?"

Agree, anything is better than complaining constantly.

"To me it is important to emphasize that the feminist sex laws are the enemy of men of all statures from incels to chads. The male sexualist movement should ideally unify us all, and that is the movement I represent."

This is the concept that unifies us normal men.

"In Belgium from now on they're not going to mention the gender any more on ID cards. This, and the charade (preceding post) about "offences against transgenders" brings to my mind the only way out of the woods for us men: register as women."

Although this sounds insane, it is actually true that transgender acceptance is the biggest threat to feminism. Men can claim to be women and be put in women's jails. They replace all female athletes. They receive the same feminist protections. Traditional feminists like JK Rowling hate them. It is a promising angle.

"Can you imagine having your life ruined because of a fantasy of wanting to do something and then conceding that the fantasy is good enough for both you and the ones who are criminalizing it?"

Very lame and useless to lose it all over a lackluster fantasy.

"Jesus expanded the old prohibition on adultery, which in the Ten Commandments just meant stealing another man’s wife, into a general antisexual principle. That was bad enough, but then feminism came along and gave us the present nightmare."

I would argue Jesus's original sex-negative comments applied to unnatural fornication, such as incest and homosexuality, which makes far more sense because they are harmful to health. The human church was the entity that fabricated anti-sex themes for control of the population, which were enforced lightly and heavily based on different times in history.

Jack said...

Eivind let me tease you a bit. Since you're into insemination for fun, have you considered having a vasectomy? I had mine long ago, even needed the signature of my then wife.

It is unclear how much being vasectomised protects you against women's greed. This may vary a lot from country to country. In the US many men who are officially no biological fathers are paying child support. I was told in Germany you can't be forced to pay child support for a child that isn't yours, but I'm not sure a mother can be forced to give access to her baby for a blood or hair test.

The law varies a lot too regarding whether sperm recipients have a right to sue the donor for child support. Although this right is another female privilege right, on principle I would consider it legitimate, as I don't see why (vasectomised!) taxpayers should pay for other people's irresponsible behaviour.

You're not too bothered about that right now are you? I know the feeling. You want to shoot your load badly. You're on a mine field though.

Eivind Berge said...

A vasectomy? I am not about to drop out of the gene pool if I can help it. Men now risk incarceration and child support, sometimes both combined. That's peanuts to all the problems previous generations had to face, yet they typically tried to have as many children as possible. Why be such a wuss? Try to solve problems instead of running from them.

Weird story from China today shows their marriage age is actually 20.

"The legal age for marriage in the country is 22 for men and 20 for women, but there's no specific penalty for breaching the law."

Maybe that's the best way to deal with feminism. Give them everything they want and then just not enforce it.

The AF said...

""How about doing something better yourself before complaining about my efforts?"

As I've made clear, you're free to do what you like on your blog. Except that you not only have many times repeatedly made the claim that you are the 'leader' of a movement that is only an aspiration, you've claimed that 'wankers' (i.e the 99% of males who look at porn) don't belong in it, and even flirted with the idea of changing the name of it (to 'sexualist'). That's a grave insult to not only myself, but the likes of Angry Harry. This was always about a REAL men's rights movement, not some free Britney Zamora or NoFap obsession. If you were just presenting this as an invidual's blog, I wouldn't bother with any criticism. You called me an 'imbecile' once on my blog for saying something about women's monogomy and propensity for 'regretted sex' being 'maladaptive'. I had no pretensions at the time (and still don't) about being your'leader'.

How do you know I'm not 'doing something better' anyway? This is one of the last places I'd conduct activism for 'male sexualism' at.

"Maybe that's the best way to deal with feminism. Give them everything they want and then just not enforce it."

No. Surely you've learnt that from Operation Yewtree/Jimmy Savile and the persecution of old men for 'crimes' that were legal fictions when 'committed' half-a-century ago as young men?

Eivind Berge said...

That is a good point. They can decide to have a witch-hunt later using laws that nobody took seriously at the time. To prevent this we need statutes of limitations, but feminism has abolished those as well and it wouldn't surprise me if they start making retroactive laws too or just conduct purges outside the law. There is no higher principle that can hold back antisex persecutions because antisex is the highest principle of this civilization.

Looking through my files from Angry Harry's site, I think I have most of it. I might reconstruct an archive if no one else does it. Yes, he was a real MRA, and guess what, he agreed with me on the female sex offender charade. He ridiculed James Landrith for claiming "rape" by a woman, which is when he fell out with Paul Elam/AVfM and then he sadly died not long after.

The AF said...

Yes, I admit that Angry Harry agreed with you (and me) on that. In fact we were both encouraging Harry to call out Elam over it, which he did. However, the point of view from which I was/am arguing is that the 'equality of injustice' that Elam's MRAs demand, only results in the validation of the whole feminist abuse industry - whose primary victims by a long way are men. You are obviously more focused on the 'injustice' faced by the female 'sex offender', and even to some extent support the 'double standards' that enrage MRAs.

Other MRAs took the side of Angry Harry on this too :

To be fair, Angry Harry also was against boys and young men being exposed to sexual imagery, in fact that was his big thing in his last years. Again, it differed I think quite a bit from your position as regards NoFap and porn. He certainly would not call people 'wankers' and the like, or I doubt very much support any bans on porn.

Our old friend Scarecrow of Men-Factor blog downloaded the enetire Angry Harry site too, but unfortunately he suddenly stopped posting early this year. I think he mentioned some illness shortly before, so I hope very much he hasn't been yet another to pass away.

Something worth reading that was published yesterday :

Anonymous said...

Now they are coming for Jimmy Page, lead singer of 70's rock group Led Zepelin.

Jack said...

Another rock star falling. Should I feel sorry?

I was an incel sensu stricto in the 70s and Mister Jimmy Page did not share any of his girls with me. Sexual laissez-faire entails Marxian pauperisation: the rich and the glamorous accumulate bigger and bigger harems while normal chaps have less and less access to pussy. A lot of good that'll do me if I'm allowed to approach any girl I fancy but none of them will give me the time of day because they're too busy chasing the Beautiful People. Good to keep in mind folks!

Let teen hotties become toxic to the rich and famous! Not that hotties rejected by the rich and famous will then come our way, but at least the hotties will have their gold-digging dreams thwarted. Serves them well!

The AF said...

A lot of the comments are quite encouraging by the standards of the Daily Mail. Many "it was acceptable back then, so we shouldn't judge by today's standards" type of comments.

There was a story in the Mail the other day about a middle-aged American track coach who had been banging one of his 18 year old British athletes. All UK athletes have now been banned from working with him. Nearly all the comments were pointing out how it was a fully legal relationship and so not the business of anybody else. Of course, if she had been a few months younger (i.e. 17) they would likely have been screaming for the 'paedophile' to be castrated.

In that Jimmy Page article, the author of the 'biography' he is trying to sell claimed that he had interviewed Paul McCartney and 'the difference was that the Beatles never said yes' to their teenage groupies.

Yeah, right. She was just 17.... I remember once reading a story about somebody once seeing John Lennon with a 14 year old girl groupie on his lap and the obvious massive boner he was getting.

You might enjoy this thread from Jack :

Jack said...

Well, having sex with someone who is HIV positive is harmless provided they're taking their retrovirals. The virus load is then near zero. I know because I researched the topic about ten years ago before having an African girl over for protracted bareback sessions. She was not hiding her HIV status. I'd just got my hands on some good pills and I needed a girl I could trust for sex & ravin' & rolling. "Trust" was paramount, overshadowing the 0.0000001% risk of catching HIV.

P.S. Eivind, maybe that would be another niche for you? You could set up a platform for hooking-up with girls on antiretroviral tri-therapy. Think about it, girls who used to be too popular and/or too promiscuous for their own good! Higher percentage of beauties there for sure than among sperm beggars.

Jack said...

It's me again. I realise the link posted by AF was not about HIV sex. I was misdirected the first time I clicked on it.

Anonymous said...

There needs to be a lot more comments demanding that adult men having sex with very young girls should be made acceptable in society today.

Comments saying that "it was acceptable back then and we shouldn't judge it by today's standards" are absolutely no help.

We need to change society so that type of behavior is acceptable and ubiquitous.

The AF said...

@Anonymous - yes, of course that's true. But even admitting that times were different once is half the battle, or at least a punch in the eye to the feminists and puritans. They want to erase or alter history in order to shore up their absurd and transient claims that sex with young teens is inherently bad. That's the purpose of these witchhunts. As Milan said here once, it's important to point out and keep alive the memory that society was very different once (and so can and will be again).

Eivind Berge said...

We need to resist current norms. Allowing the past to live by their standards is pathetically weak resistance. Try to influence attitudes here and now. Start by removing the stigma by refusing to use their deceitful dysphemisms like "rape" and "abuse" when it isn't. Call the criminal charges something morally neutral like laycase instead.

Refuse to go along with empty accusations. The Esptein trial going on right now is ridiculous, but not being called out enough on its bullshit. The prosecution rests after presenting absolutely nothing of substance. The best they can come up with is the girls "freezing":

"Once she pulled down the sheet I felt like kind of frozen," she testified. "It didn't make sense to me that that would happen. I just wanted so badly to get off the table and have this massage be done."

We are led to believe that the metaphysical badness of being "only" 16 years old and exposed to sexuality (if only a massage) made her freeze and unable to say no to anything, therefore she was "abused," and so it goes for all the accusers. Including when they actively came back to make more money and brought more girls who wanted to join in the fun, we are to believe they were nothing but passive victims, because that is the suspension of disbelief that the current antisex psychosis requires of us which our culture literally purports to believe. If we don't, we are enemies of the state, and men need to wake up to that reality. Don't sugar-coat it and act as if the current situation is tolerable or right. It is only because we go along with preposterous lies that the persecution can continue. All it would take to end it is to call the bullshit out for what it is, if enough men did it.

How is possible to entertain this insane double standard that 16-year-old girls understand nothing about sex yet hold them responsible for everything else, like shoplifting or driving a car? They would have to be treated like infants in all areas of their lives if this were to be made consistent. If they do anything wrong they can simply say they "froze" and didn't understand any of it, so they bear no responsibility for anything. Why grant them this selective sexual stupidity? Of course, it is to serve the abuse industry and parents who want to control their sexuality, but why does the general public dutifully lower its intelligence so as to not mention how irrational it is?

Anonymous said...

Alluding to the remark by the mainstream media of "the Beatles always said no to underage groupies" sounds like historical revisionism to claim it actually wasn't acceptable back then or nearly as much as many today say it was.

To that we should respond with something to the order of "regardless of what was or wasn't acceptable back then, it should be made acceptable today for creepy old dudes to have sexual interaction with teen girls".

Eivind Berge said...

But why do you call them creepy?

Anonymous said...

Creepy is a term that is subjective. It's used to describe and give negative stigma to a man who's considered undesirable by mainstream society.

Let's destigmatize the word creepy.

Eivind Berge said...

I feel that's too much of an uphill battle, but just maybe, like they did with words like "queer," we can be proud to be "creepy." In general though, the best strategy is to use different words than well-established slurs.

Anonymous said...

It's easy to attack the slur of "creepy" because it's immature and fake and makes no sense - all you have to do is say so, and then ask them to explain what it means. Any explanation will make them sound insane. They will say something like "sex with minors is repulsive" and then you can ask if there has ever been an example of an age gap relationship involving a teenager before. Or they might say something like "you're perpetuating abuse", and then you can ask if two people happy in an age gap relationship is abuse. Etc

Basically, as long as you question their disingenuous and pathetic logic, and importantly never explain yourself or apologize, you are guaranteed to win hearts and minds.

The AF said...

I agree with Eivind. You can't 'destigmatize' words like creepy or 'pedo'. 'Queer' is a good counter example I suppose, but the word 'queer' (simply meaning something 'different' or 'odd') never had such negative connotations as 'creepy'.

"Basically, as long as you question their disingenuous and pathetic logic, and importantly never explain yourself or apologize, you are guaranteed to win hearts and minds."

Not really. It's been tried for the last half-century. You'll be forever blowing in the wind. Look at the comments under Eivind's YouTube videos. Again and again simply - 'children can't consent'. Whose hearts and minds are you winning if you try to argue logic and facts with them?

The best weapon is not logic and appeal to reason, but simply pulling out the rug from under their feet and calling out the elephant in the room (regarding hags and paedocrites). i.e., "you only say 'children can't consent' because you're sexually jealous of 14 year old girl's sexual power over men".

Eivind Berge said...

In perhaps the only little setback to feminist antisex bigotry this year, a Danish politician has actually been sentenced to jail for separating immigrant couples because one of them was young. Only 60 days in jail, but the symbolism is significant.

Danmarks tidligere innvandringsminister Inger Støjberg er dømt for en ulovlig instruks om at asylsøkere som var et par skulle skilles, hvis en av dem var mindreårig. Hun dømmes til 60 dagers ubetinget fengsel. 25 av de 26 dommerne stemte for kjennelsen.

– Instruksen var ulovlig fordi det ikke skulle gjøres individuelle vurderinger av parene, heter det i dommen. Dommerne mener at hun med forsett har overtrådt loven, og at hun hadde fått klare advarsler om dette fra embetsverket.

Les dommen her:

Anonymous said...

Politikerne overtræder loven og forventer samtidigt at vi andre overholder den...

Eivind Berge said...

Classics in Psychology: The Asch conformity experiments

"That intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white black is a matter of concern." –Solomon Asch

This is how the female sex offender charade works too, and so much fake sex abuse. Why jury nullification is so hard. Trials are not a matter of deciding guilt or innocence, but exercises in group conformity. We can't expect people to be nonconformists even if they are well aware of the truth, have to attack feminist ideology at its core as a social problem.

Eivind Berge said...

Scorched earth against sexuality has now reached Hugh Hefner, who was such a bad man for having sex and sexualizing women:

Like clockwork, celebrity women turn to antisex as their sex appeal fades, to renew their fame a little bit. This one certainly follows the script. By 41, Playboy bunny is transformed to sex-hating feminist. The cultural trope that men steal women's souls by taking "sexually explicit" pictures of them even extends to professional models. It is absolutely mandatory now, isn't it? You can't be a sex offender without being a wanker.

Billie Eilish has little bit more sense, correctly pointing out some actual problems with porn, hinting that it desexualizes and thus removes male attention from what we should be into:

Being still young and hot, she hasn't gone sex-negative yet, just correctly realizing that porn neither is nor promotes healthy sex.

Eivind Berge said...

A couple of good articles on Harvey Weinstein. First the ridiculous overkill of "evidence" allowed:

[The judge] had granted the prosecution’s request to bring up as many as 28 other incidents to attack Weinstein’s credibility. Justice Angela Mazzarelli noted that one of those incidents involved Weinstein throwing a table full of food at an employee in the late 1980s, and questioned why that was permitted....

Manzanet-Daniels challenged the relevance of another incident that Burke allowed prosecutors to use to rebut Weinstein’s testimony. “What did leaving his employee on the side of the road in a foreign country have anything to do with this sex crime case?”

After criminalizing all of sexuality, the feminists still needed to rely on that kind of character and propensity evidence to convict, grasping for any straws they can use to show he is generally a bad guy, which is uniquely allowed in sex crime trials because that is the crimen exceptum where we don't give a shit how the man is convicted.

And a good long analysis:

A New York appellate court is now scheduled to hear Weinstein’s appeal. Few people know that he was acquitted in New York on the two most serious counts brought against him. Even fewer understand the dubious methods employed to put him behind bars. Lacking a firm basis in evidence, the charges against Weinstein rested instead on novel ideas of consent, conspiratorial accounts of power, and gross caricature....

Like that of Bill Cosby, whose conviction was recently overturned on appeal, Weinstein’s trial was unusually reliant on so-called Molineux evidence—witnesses who testify that the defendant committed bad acts or crimes with which he has not been charged. Use of such testimony is tightly limited, because it risks stripping the defendant of his presumption of innocence and relieving the prosecution of its burden of proof. It can lead a jury to convict a man because of what it assumes about his character, rather than what it has learned about his conduct.

Only the most pertinent conclusion is missing, that the feminists have outright redefined male sexuality into criminality. It is not primarily about due process, but society's judgment of zero tolerance to sexuality. I hate this gullible sense that these convictions are some kind of accident that can be prevent with due process while not having to reverse the laws. Even so, this is a very good article by Matthew Schmitz indicating that some changes are afoot to current sentiment which celebrates as much punishment as possible for the widest possible interpretation of sex crimes. Maybe at least some conservative men are starting to wake up? Maybe 23 years for empty sex crimes indistinguishable from all our normal relationships isn't justice after all? What took us so long to realize this? Once you come out of it, you see the trance for what it was, that complete suspension of disbelief at any and all sexual accusations no matter how absurd because you went along with our culture's belief in the infinite metaphysical badness of sex.

Eivind Berge said...

I predict that we are going to see a reversal for Weinstein, which means basically no further progress came from #Metoo now that Cosby is also free. The sex laws were already profoundly hateful before that, and then they tried to augment them with "he's a bad man" sentiment followed by descriptions of normal relationships to convict. And it worked for while. Also for Gaute Drevdal in Norway, which just might be reversed too now on appeal. But that was peak feminism, I think -- 2020 was the peak. Men are not going to stand for it any longer, not just literally having our relationships redefined into rape, though the agecuckery is set to linger on awhile longer. India is now at the cutting edge of agecuck with increasing the marriage age to 21:

But that's just marriage, so not all that significant. If they can do the same with the age of consent, it will be a real advance, but I don’t think it will be well received to go any further there.

2020 was peak feminism not coincidentally the same year as peak oil and peak industrial civilization. The world already has bigger crises than women regretting sex and needing to get revenge for it, and soon it will be unmistakable too that this can't be the top priority of civilization any longer.

Anonymous said...

"you only say 'children can't consent' because you're sexually jealous of 14 year old girl's sexual power over men".

What if it's a male calling you a pedo? "You're just jealous because you can't get 13 year old pussy" is much more crude than asking a question like - so you think of having sex with three year olds when someone mentions teens are sexy? That's weird.

Eivind Berge said...

I thought this was well said by the former archdruid. Though he is not talking about the female sex offender charade specifically, this is exactly how it works:

The worse things get and the more obviously failure stares you in the face, the more likely you are to demand even more extravagant proofs of loyalty from those around you, and the result is that you expect people to believe a series of ever more preposterous claims in defiance of everything that’s happening around them. In due time you end up living in a dreamworld defined wholly by your own absurd demands for blind faith in abstract impossibilities—and it’s at that point, by and large, that the facts break down the door.

Except failure will never stare them in the face directly on this, because imprisoning innocent women doesn't exactly "fail." There is no feedback against the injustice stronger than my ineffectual writings. Rather it must end because the managerial classes screw up in more consequential ways to themselves.

We’re probably not far from that stage just now. Turn on the media, if you can stomach it, and you can count on getting an earful of abstractions serenely detached from the grubby realities they claim to represent. When “safe” means “it kills people,” “effective” means “it doesn’t work,” and “the situation is under control” means “all our predictions turned out to be wrong and we have no idea what to do,” you’re looking at a ruling class that’s got a great big concrete wall across the road ahead and the accelerator slammed flat against the floor.

And "abuse" means love. Perhaps if they lie enough about other things people will finally realize that they can't be trusted on sex either.

the AF said...

"What if it's a male calling you a pedo? "You're just jealous because you can't get 13 year old pussy" is much more crude than asking a question like - so you think of having sex with three year olds when someone mentions teens are sexy? That's weird."

No, you call them a paedocrite.

But I don't honestly see why your line is any less 'crude' than mine. Not that I disagree with either the substance or the style. We need to be more crude. That was my point. You and Eivind and Jack think you're going to 'win hearts and minds' by stroking your intellectual dicks talking about nocebo, and 'leiermål'.

You have to shock people. You have to shame people. Are you autists really totally incapable of learning anything from the Incel movement, the only corner of the Manosophere who accepted our views on paedohysteria and the age of consent?

Are you the same guy who made those comments the day before Eivind's TV appearance? And you have such a lack of self-awareness that you think you have the 'answers' when it comes to anything remotely to do with social persuasion?

I'm seeing my arguments and 'femihag theory' expressed all the time in the Incel forums. It filtered through there somehow. And certainly, the incel culture is far more closer to my approach than that of Eivind or any of the other countless 'rational anti-sexy hysteria' bloggers.

This is not an intellectual argument, and we can't win by reason. Thankfully, there is no need for violence. Words would be enough. I always said just 100 of us regularly calling out the elephant in the room might be enough to affect the pace of legislation. But it's obviously not possible. Probably because we can only attract autists. Hopefully another sub-culture like the incels will emerge, less extreme and less prone to produce or attract deranged invidivuals and thus wont get banned before it can really make a change. That's probably our only hope.

Jack said...

Now that it can jail men for sex again, the justice system is moving away from drugs:

Society needs victimless crimes to put men in jail. Centuries ago men got jailed on other grounds, like denying the Trinity or doubting the Wholy Spirit could descend upon people.

freetheteens69 said...

"In that Jimmy Page article, the author of the 'biography' he is trying to sell claimed that he had interviewed Paul McCartney and 'the difference was that the Beatles never said yes' to their teenage groupies"

Yeah but his excuse for "I saw her standing there" I'm sure would be it was written when he was like 20, and the AoC is 16 in the UK. Paul Mccartney is just a joke, and the beatles could never hold a candle stick to the rolling stones, or led zeppelin. The beatles were like a normie broadway band lmao. I can't believe Allen Ginsberg even let Paul Mcartney play guitar for him. Clearly Paul was so stupid that not even the legend Allen Ginsberg himself could help him.

"You might enjoy this thread from Jack :"

Oh look, a group of incels jealous because dudes who are into 1 year old babies are cooler to girls than them. It's not their fault of course. It's everyone else's fault. Damn chads xD

freetheteens69 said...

Ok, I take back what I said about incels. Because some of them in here are cool lol

Anyways, eivind. Did you go on television? Where can I watch it?

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, looks like more and more incels are realizing that they can't be bothered to uphold blue-knighting and agecuckery on top of their exclusion from the mating market. That would be too degrading even for them, as the men who enforce that kind of shit at least get some kind of reward from women.

See my TV show here: