Saturday, April 30, 2022

The persecution of Katie Smith

I am interested in how the female sex offender charade got tacked onto the rest of the antisex hysteria without debate. It is the singularly most insane thing any culture has ever done. There is zero evidence that female sexuality can be harmful to anyone, and mountains of evidence that it is beneficial to boys. So how did we go so wrong? That's what keeps me up at night, philosophizing about how society can lose its mind so completely and feeling sympathy for the victims. The latest victim in the news is Katie Elizabeth Smith:

Shocking details have emerged of how a glamorous PE teacher groomed a 14-year-old school boy with Snapchat sexts - as she walks free from prison after almost 18 months.

It is not the details that are shocking, you morons in the media, but the feminist police state's reaction to them!

Katie Elizabeth Smith, 30, bombarded the teenager with sexually explicit messages and sexual videos and photos while teaching at a NSW Hunter Valley school.

Smith also fondled and touched him but was later convicted and jailed after her attempt to blame the affair on the child failed to convince police.

It can now be revealed that Smith urged him to stay silent and warned he would get 'into trouble' with law enforcement if he didn't do as she said.

During their months-long dalliance, Smith lured the boy to a storeroom where they kissed as she placed her hand onto his school shorts.

They met in a car park where she touched his genitals, the Court of Criminal Appeal heard this week.

The boy then returned to class and during their affair sent Smith three photos of his private parts, one of himself naked and and one video of himself naked or engaging in a sexual act.The then 26-year-old teacher responded with five intimate photos of herself and two videos of herself, including one of her performing a sex act.

Multiple sexual images were exchanged between the boy and Smith over at least five months.

The details of how the illegal affair rapidly accelerated days after the schoolboy added Smith to his Snapchat account in late 2018 have now been laid bare after she successfully appealed her sentence.

Smith, who sobbed uncontrollably in the dock in 2020 when a judge sent her away for a maximum three years and ten months jail, has had 18 months slashed off her sentence.

How is it possible to conceptualize this as a harmful situation for the boy and think punishment is appropriate? (To their credit, the Daily Mail does not call it abuse, merely illegal, but they don't object to the criminality either.)

Is it similar to how China seems willing to commit suicide over a commitment to zero covid? Not on the face of it, since covid is a bad thing unlike sex. Illness is worth avoiding; you just need to be proportionate about the measures taken. But if we ignore how the female sex offender charade made zero sense from the beginning, perhaps society's implementation of it is comparable. We blindly follow rules to achieve simplistic goals, whether it be zero tolerance to covid or the "absolute prohibition on sexual activity with a child" that this sentencing judge clings to even when she can see it leads to absurd verdicts. Corrective mechanisms are sorely, sadly lacking, in China perhaps because the state is too authoritarian.

In our case, pathological deference to authority is a major factor too, and we have less excuses about threats of violence for not conforming ideologically. We could end the female sex offender charade if enough people pointed out that the emperor has no clothes. Look, I am not arrested for publishing this. I am not even censored, and experience zero social discomfort, not for the female sex offender charade at any rate! Because there is literally nothing to it -- nothing to sustain it besides a flimsy delusion that people snap out of when they are made to think twice. It is a paper tiger sustained by a trance. All it takes is to make people think, and it shatters at least to where only grift remains. You can do it too, simply say you don't believe in it! And then we refuse to cooperate with the persecution. Be conscientious objectors to the war on sex. We can do it! It's all about the mindset because the thugs in law enforcement are nothing without our superstition. They feed on superstition to do their evil. They need our consent, which is grounded in delusions that can be changed by thought. So, think!

Society is dreaming that female sexuality is harmful, but it does not believe it. We are in a collective dream state. Dreaming is the suspension of disbelief. We've all been there -- one second before waking up still believing wildly untrue things because they are part of the dream. All it takes is the blink of an eye and reality snaps into view. Women "sexually abusing" boys is exactly like that. A conceptual nightmare where feminist theory has replaced reality. The dreamer cannot see the truth, but all it takes is to wake up.


1 – 200 of 201   Newer›   Newest»
The AF said...

Some 30 year old post-wall bitch seduces a 14 year old boy (robs him from prime JB pussy), then tries to ruin his life by accusing him of rape when she realizes she wont get the pussy pass.

I'm sure there are millions of Male Sexualists out there willing to take to the streets over this outrage.

Jack said...

AF, lol.

Meanwhile some good news. It's about one of the most hateful femihags of all times, Alice Schwarzer, a rabid man-hater who campaigns among other things to have prostitution banned in Germany. She's drawn flak after petitioning for Ukraine's surrender:

Appeasing rapist Russia does not go well with her constituency.

Eivind Berge said...

Another sweet innocent victim of the female sex offender charade:

A mother-of-three who twice had sex with a schoolboy and then tried to blame him has been jailed.

Laura Stephenson, 28, exchanged "flirty" messages with the 15-year-old in 2018 before taking advantage of him in her house while her boyfriend was working away.

The victim - who suffered mental health issues - confided in his GP, who made a referral to social care.

Stephenson, of Rotherham, told police the sex was consensual, although she felt guilty, and attempted to blame her victim.

But she admitted two counts of sexual activity with a child when she appeared before Sheffield Crown Court.

She was jailed for 21 months and handed a 10-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order. She was also ordered to pay victim costs of £140.

Investigating officer Natalie Duffy, of South Yorkshire Police, said: "Stephenson claimed she knew her actions were wrong due to the boy’s age, but this wasn’t enough to stop her, and instead she presented a number of excuses for her perverse actions.

I cannot comprehend how this psychotic belief in statutory abuse got to the point where it is transferred to women too without anyone in power calling bluff. This is to me the singularly most disturbing and bizarre witch-hunt in history because we now single out the NICEST women for persecution. It was never evidence-based with men either, but why didn't society demand evidence before applying it to women? Shouldn't that be an occasion to reexamine the foundation for statutory abuse and see if there is any independent argument applicable to women as opposed to just a series of deductions from flawed assumptions? Garbage in plus more garbage denying sex differences equals the übergarbage that is the female sex offender charade.

Do true believers in this "abuse" believe it is an aversive experience rather than an appetitive one for boys to have willing sex with women? Is your worldview THAT WARPED? Or do you believe the abuse happens on a metaphysical plane unconnected to and unobservable yet more important than everything we experience? Since the "abuse" bears no causal relation to this world, why should we care about it? The abuse realm must be something akin to platonic numbers and mathematics, except wholly illogical too, only derived from arbitrary decrees taken out of... nothing besides the expedient of older women maximizing their sexual market value and parents doing the same with their daughters, then further corrupting the rationalized theory behind that.

I know true believers won't even answer what they actually believe because persecution needs no justification. They won't be honest that this is a metaphysical persecution or care that none of the claims make sense in this world. But I can't live with that. I must expose it.

Milan Horvath said...

Wow, Schwarzer??? This is surprise to me, must say.
Maybe even this old bitter hag knows, that if our(european) economy will be totally screwed, (as a result of playing this stupid game, which not in european interest)
there will be possibly less funding for her sisters at various NGO's.
Also people with existential problems tend to not care much about non-important issues.

Or besides, being nasty puritanical misandric hag she is also German patriot, who do not want to see her country fucked up.............

IDK how to understand this........

Also this is cute:

Green party leader Britta Haßelmann said in an interview with the “Stuttgarter Zeitung” and “Stuttgarter Nachrichten”: “Where are there supposed to be ‘compromises’ when Putin attacks a free European country in violation of international law, cities are razed to the ground, civilians are murdered and rape is systematic weapon is used against women?”

Member of party that used to be so radically left-liberal in past, is now drumming for war.
Funny thing about many conservatives is that they are complaining about some "leftists" and "liberals", but what these parties have to do with radicalism or liberalism of 60's/70's ?
It is only disneyised shit serving interests of their "shareholders".

Only parable that came to my mind to compare left then and now are these hippies photographies.

BTW: I know there are plenty of articles about this issue, but anyway....

(I do not necessarily agree with everything this guy publishes)

The AF said...

"sweet innocent victim"

Sweet??? She is repulsive and obese.

Is that the type of 'HB10' that you claim to be banging through sperm surrogate sites?

And again she attempted to blame the boy when the pussy pass was revoked.

Does Jack or anybody know if there are any blogs left that actually defend male sexuality rather than somehow manage to portray women as the primary victims of feminism? I can't switch on the news or go online without seeing some anti-male sexuality story in the MSM (for example, another claim today in the UK that 'predatory males' are taking advantage of Ukrainian refugees simply by offering them accomodation). It would be nice to have just one blog that actually spoke out against the criminalization and demonization of all things male sexuality. I might even have to start a new blog. Or just read the Incels forums...

Freetheteens69 said...


Again, why does everything have to be one or the other? Why is it only defend men, or only defend women? Why not just defend everyone convicted of stupid crimes? And men as a collective group aren't our allies. So fuck em. Individuals are our allies. Support any individual that agrees with us. And fuck all our enemies.

Milan Horvath said...

@ Freetheteens69
I can't speak for AF, but problem for me is not advocacy for women convicted of sexual encounters with adolescent boys(or girls), but notion that "it is special for girls/women" and thus women should be exempted from prosecution of sexual crimes altogether.
I don't like misogyny that is frequent phenomenon within MRAs, but this smells like opposite extreme.

amelio said...

@Milan Horvath

"besides, being nasty puritanical misandric hag she is also German patriot"

She may be right about Russia being pushed to war and the sheer barbarity of using Ukrainian men as cannon fodder in this obviously
unequal fight (unless Nato steps in and the world explodes).

On the other hands, as they want to appeal to third world countries, the russian media play the racism/sex abuse card to the full in order to expose western immorality.

Russia is certainly not the the only guilty party in this war but it's not an alternative to western suicidal stupidity either...

Milan Horvath said...

@ amelio
I am not adoring Putin's Russia....godforbid
I am well aware, that they are also instrumentalising sexual issues.(we can see it frequently on, not even to speak about new laws adopted last 10 years)

Even nasty,totalitarian communist Soviet Union is more sympathetic to me than present reactionary nationalistic Putin's regime, as it was more cosmopolitan and secular.

Actually I do not care much, what will happen with Russia, problem is, that we (europeans) will bear consequences of this American geopolitical game, as we are economically interconnected with RF.
And it will also strengthen US influence in Europe even more.

When it comes to geopolitics, my ideal/dream is to have economic (EEA/EFTA) and military(something like european defence treaty) alliance without influence of USA, Russia or China.

Something like this (except,not sure about that french influence... )

"De Gaulle and the Gaullists did not support Europe as a supranational entity,[1][3] but did favour European integration in the form of "a confederation of sovereign states mutually engaged in "common policy, autonomous from the superpowers," and significantly influenced by France.[1] De Gaulle's hopes to advance this sort of union largely failed, however, "in the face of the desire of the other European powers to remain closely allied to the United States."[1]"

Jack said...

Whatever we may think about Russia, the only hope for Ukrainian men not to end up butchered is Russia winning that war quickly. That would be for Ukrainians to decide wouldn't it? Or did you mean "for RUSSIAN men not to end up butchered"?

Returning to our muttons, Katie Smith got 28 months (after 18 months were slashed on appeal). That's just a little over 2 years. How much would an accused man have got in an identical case? 10 years? 15 years?

By the way Eivind, how well or poorly did your sperm donor scheme pay off in terms of banging doable women? At the time I told you not to expect too much. If such a scheme were great it would've be all over the internet (and lost its niche advantage) in no time.

The AF said...

"I can't speak for AF, but problem for me is not advocacy for women convicted of sexual encounters with adolescent boys(or girls), but notion that "it is special for girls/women" and thus women should be exempted from prosecution of sexual crimes altogether."

Yes, absolutely. Evind appoints himself leader of a 'Male Sexualist' movement, and yet spends half of his time not only advocating for the very small minority of sex offence cases 'perpetrated' by women, but actually justifies the age old trope that 'it is different for women'. This is the second article hes devoted to this particular woman, who actually made a false rape allegation against the young boy she fucked.

Strange how 'Free The Teens' says 'fuck em' to men because they are 'not our allies', but will not say the same about women, despite the overwhelming evidence that women are responsible for these laws, both in the general public support and demand for them, and their near total domination of the NGO's campaigning and legislating for these laws. Not to mention basic evolutionary psychology (which is supposed to be the foundation of Eivind's philosophy) which clearly entails that older women will try to prevent men from taking younger women as sexual partners, something a cretin could understand.

The fact is that I was one of the few MRAs who actually was a Male Sexualist, and probably am the very last. Eivind, Jack, Human-Stupidity, all likely found the men's rights movement through The Spearhead and similar, and agreed with the anti-feminist platform, but were never really in to the men's rights side of it.

I still don't understand this. I read Neil Lydon's 'No More Sex War' when I was a student in the mid-90's and immediately could see the connection between men's rights and the feminist war on male sexuality. Then I found Angry Harry (I think before his '' domain and agreed with everything, but then read him state he agreed with the current age of consent, and that turned me off men's rights for another 10 years or so until I read Warren Farrell's The Myth of Male Power, which got me into the online men's rights movement.

I don't understand why so few MRAs see the connection. And I still don't understand why so few anti-sex hysteria thinkers see the connection.

amelio said...


"Or did you mean "for RUSSIAN men not to end up butchered"?

You're not stupid to the point of thinking that "butchered" russians —being more numerous and better equipped —will not strike back ?
Why on earth the US, who sowed war all around the globe, should fuel that war and cause European deaths ?

The russians will not return the territories they've conquered. That would mean the persecution of all the russian-ukrainians by Kiev once the russians have left.

Milan Horvath said...

."..Then I found Angry Harry (I think before his '' domain and agreed with everything, but then read him state he agreed with the current age of consent, and that turned me off men's rights for another 10 years or so" ...

Maybe it is off-topic, but this reminded me one thing I cannot digest when it comes to AH.
Despite I respect much of his work, it seems that he was too much careful to not piss off his audience which (my guess is) consisted mostly of divorced fathers.

Take this article as an example:

And the first thing that one has to strip away when trying to understand the arguments that follow is that there is no dispute over the fact that the downloading of such images is illegal - and that it should be so. But when we have done this, we are left with the fact that Chris Langham's crime was trivial - certainly in comparison to many other crimes for which the punishment is slight.

So he wrote an article that is actually denying any reason in criminalisation of
(non-commercial) downloading and possession of illegal pornography, yet he is saying that it should be so.

Maybe people are total retards, and when you want to end witch hunt, you should not shout that: "there are no witches", but rather try to slowly disprove it by rational arguments
(and sometimes even by emotional manipulation), while pretending that you are approving it, to prevent mob to lynch you................
Maybe it was his tactic, unfortunately he can't tell us no longer......

Eivind Berge said...

We see the connection. No one here is denying that older women tend to want to restrict men's access to younger women and most intensely teen girls. But society is more complex. One interest group does not simply dictate policy, and focusing on that particular motivation does little to turn men against feminism. I still don't know what might work, but am pretty sure we would be equally unsuccessful if all my posts were about the female sexual trade union and I never stood up for female "sex offenders."

I strongly believe it is different for girls (since their sexuality is at least in principle exploitable by men, even if the laws now cover so much more) and especially unjust for women to be accused of sex crimes. I have explained why many times, and keep trying to come up with better arguments too because this is clearly not sinking in yet.

Here is another one:

A relief teacher from rural South Australia has faced court for inappropriately communicating with a child.

Ammy Singleton faced the Port Augusta Court on Wednesday morning after being charged with communicating with a child to make them amenable to sexual activity between November 1 and 30 last year.

So the school freaks out and sends a hilarious letter to parents warning them about this grave danger. The danger of female beauty. Children exposed to female beauty are "harmed," is the current psychotic cultural belief. That simple substitution with a word which means the same thing as sexuality in these cases ought to help some people snap out of their psychosis! We can use beauty as a synonym of sex for what constitutes the supposed malevolent entity in the female sex offender charade (certainly when young teachers like this are accused), and that ought to also underscore how it is different and more absurd for women.

In order to believe the laws should be equally applied, unless you believe in some brainless banal concept of "equality" for its own sake, you need to come up with a justification for why female beauty is harmful to children. That justification must be INDEPENDENT of everything society has ever done to persecute men. Do you have such an independent argument for why women should be subject to prosecution for sex crimes, Milan?

Eivind Berge said...

Is female beauty toxic to children? The dogma goes that sexuality is a sort of toxin. A mental, nay metaphysical toxin. I have never understood how it works, but we are stuck with it. And now we can equate it with female beauty too, which ought to help defamiliarize us with the superstition because it is so mind-bogglingly absurd. Female beauty is toxic. Beauty is harmful to children. It is so toxic that just communicating about it is a crime, and a hysterical danger to every child in this sort of nuclear blast radius of toxic beauty.

Milan Horvath said...

There could be more reasons, why have some sexual taboos or restrictions,
One of them is just cultural and mostly irrational : common decency
Then we could see it as breach of their "morals".

If we should prosecute every or most encounters between adult person and person under AOC, regardless of(objectively and thus measured without bias) harm inflicted on them, it is just cultural thing, and therefore I can’t see reason why to have different treatment of female and male offenders in culture that present itself as egalitarian.

And then, we could see it through optics of real bodily or psychological harm
(way which I prefer) but it would be better to judge it from case to case.

Trying to advocate for total exemption of adult females from sexual criminal prosecution on some rational basis, means that cases of male adolescent or child, harmed by sexual encounter with adult female is non-existent, or incredibly rare(on scale of statistical error).

Maybe your audience would be more convinced by some research outputs, links with opinions of some people with expertise.INDEPENDENT FROM IDEOLOGY.

BTW: What exactly is "female beauty", sorry but however I do appreciate some of your articles, it sometimes feels like I am attending church on Sunday.

Eivind Berge said...

Okay, I have no huge problem with what you just wrote, Milan. The problem is your reasons are out of tune with how the sex laws are currently justified. They contrive a "victim" who is "abused" or "exploited," and that cannot possibly be reconciled with any rational justification when boys are getting lucky with hot women and loving it.

I have never said that my arguments against the female sex offender charade as a specially heinous travesty apply to morality-based crimes. With those we are back to general sex-negativity that I oppose on equal grounds for men and women. If a society believes adultery is immoral, or prostitution is or anything else that is not based on a concept of a "victim" but rather offending God or whatever, maybe even "common decency" as long as they don't pretend the boys are personally worse off from having sex, then I will not single out prosecution of women as a special travesty.

There are very few morality-based sex laws left in our countries. Or they masquerade as victim-based, but even if it's only a masquerade I think we should take the "philosophy" behind them seriously for the purposes of activism and not play along with it as if it makes sense on any level. It is so spectacularly disjointed from what the law can possibly reasonably be about (even assuming intolerant "morals") when they trot out a fake victim who is actually lucky. Then we are down the rabbit hole into full insanity and it needs to be called out as such.

Eivind Berge said...

Trying to advocate for total exemption of adult females from sexual criminal prosecution on some rational basis, means that cases of male adolescent or child, harmed by sexual encounter with adult female is non-existent, or incredibly rare(on scale of statistical error).

Yeah, when it's rare enough to not show up at all in Rind's latest study (linked to in my blog post above) based on that fantastic data set, this is exactly my position. One cannot intellectually entertain the notion that female sexuality can harm boys, if one is honest. (Not more than nonsexual abuse, anyway, if it is forced, in which case it isn't the sexuality causing the harm.)

Eivind Berge said...

Think about it... The entire concept of applying age of consent to women with boys is bonkers. It does not have the slightest kernel of truth AT ALL, even if you take it to the most extreme. Age of consent for girls can at the crudest level be justified by the fact that very young girls aren't physically ready and will be hurt (of course normal people don't need a law to know not to do that, but just to catch the brutes who might try). But there is no age below which a vagina is harmful to a penis, just by attempting intercourse. None! It is entirely based on an empty premise to have an age of consent for women doing that. It cannot be rationalized in any victim-based way, so once you go down that path you get COMPLETE insanity. It is not a matter of degree, but category error, since we also know any psychological harm is a complete fabrication, made up to rationalize the law after we got it. It is a post-hoc "reality" that is imposed back on the world after feminists had their way with the law and their ideology was too crude to make distinctions between boys and girls because they also have an "equality" charade going.

But if on the other hand we declared that God hates sex outside of marriage, and the marriage age is 18, then you can punish women without running into falsifiable absurdities. Cutting the insanity doesn't necessarily lead to less punishment, but I nonetheless consider it very important to do so for mental hygienic reasons. Because it upsets me to no end to live with a system which has lost the plot. If I have to chose between a highly intolerant moralistic system and the current insanity of fake victimhood behind every sex law, I will chose the former (which to be clear I also oppose).

Eivind Berge said...

BTW: What exactly is "female beauty", sorry but however I do appreciate some of your articles, it sometimes feels like I am attending church on Sunday.

This is the qualia that the feminist state redefines into abuse. Consider that the "abuse" is equally real to the feminists and law no matter how attractive the woman is and how much the boys enjoy her. So for most intents and purposes, given that most of these relations are highly consensual, it is beauty that is being made out to be toxic to boys, along with lust and pleasure. The abuse exists (except it doesn't) on a metaphysical plane that is causally disconnected from our world, since no conscious experience that the boys can have, no matter how subjectively positive, can possibly prove it wrong.

Milan Horvath said...

I will read more in detail that new Rind's study when I'll have time-it looks interesting.

In former studies (Rind? or other.. IDR) I saw that there was difference in perception of sex between genders, but I am not sure whether male participants were involved only in homosex. activities or heterosexual Even if there are differences between genders, would there be count of males who did perceive sexual act with woman (as adolescents) negatively, equal to zero?
No? Then there is no reason to say that harm does not exists, it is just less frequent.

There should be compared comparable things, prepubescents should be not mixed with adolescents voluntary acts not mixed with coerced, incest+relatives not mixed with extrafamilial relations.
We should have same case of
adult F+adolescent M uncoerced extrafamilial ca. 10years age diff next to
adult M+ adolescent F uncoerced extrafamilial ca. 10years age diff
Then we could compare.
Also it would be good to conduct research in various cultures, which is problematic as sex-positive societies doesn't exist anymore and with globalisation there is less and less uniqueness between countries.
If I am correct Rind's research was made in USA, which is another catastrophe, as it is incredibly gynocentric, sex-negative, victimhood cultural environment.

Culture and upbringing significantly affects way we think about things.
People raise boys and girls differently(I am not necessarily saying that they should be raised absolutely same) despite all fake egalitarian gaga it's still:GO FOR IT for boys and DON'T GIVE IT for girls.

It depends if we consider negative feelings imposed by sociocultural enviro as harm, if so- many of these boys could later feel negatively about their sexual affairs, as well.
If not, how we could know for sure that it is not same case in girls?
Yes you could say evolutionary this and that, but its just conjecture.
We don't know unless it is objectively measured.

So it would be good to have more and more and more unbiased detailed researched conducted in various cultural environments.

BTW: Trauma Myth by Clancy is probably well known book..................
I don't support her moralistic gaga, but main thought about how activity initially viewed as harmless is suddenly reformatted as harm according to sociocultural norms.

Milan Horvath said...

Think about it... The entire concept of applying age of consent to women with boys is bonkers. It does not have the slightest kernel of truth AT ALL, even if you take it to the most extreme. Age of consent for girls can at the crudest level be justified by the fact that very young girls aren't physically ready and will be hurt...

If we would see AOC as mere prevention of physical injury
(as it was probably case before long time ago) we wouldn't need it at all, as there are laws about bodily harm.

But present AOC laws are not about that,we could speculate whether if social fabric and culture would be somehow magically changed if any non-injuring, uncoerced sexual contact regardless of age and gender would be harmful, or we could live some bonobo style.

Eivind Berge said...

When you take an entire national sample like Rind did in his latest paper, and you can't find any statistical indication that the boys who had early sex with women feel any worse about than those who didn't, then yes, I believe we are entitled to say the harm does not exist. Additionally, Rind presents powerful arguments and evidence for why sex with women is BENEFICIAL to prepubescent boys. It is as he says APPETITIVE, evolved to be so because it is beneficial. He makes the evolutionary case, which is overwhelmingly consistent with the evidence, that boys benefit from practicing intercourse with adult women while still immature, in order to be more ready to impregnate girls as soon as they have sperm. This is indeed different for girls. Boys benefit from skills and experience far more than girls do. Therefore it is spectacularly worse to deprive boys of early sex with women and INSANE to call them victims!

Eivind Berge said...

Oh, and this latest research is made in Finland, not USA. I highly recommend reading the entire thing and digest it. This is a study that grows on you, as you slowly realize how powerful it is. It invalidates all claims of trauma due to age difference alone for boys (even homosexual); there is simply no credible evidence for it when it fails to show up in such a national cross-sectional sample.

Remember that the proper control group is people who have sex with same-age peers, which is provided here. Any objection you can think of is accounted for then, and you can't simply point to people who had sex with someone older and regret it, because they need to feel worse than the control group for this to even be worth considering. And it happens that the only group for which this is somewhat true is young girls who have sex with men 10 or more years older, but there too the effect is small and arguably linked to social brainwashing (the data also tracks how that effect grew over recent decades). As Rind says, this finding in girls should carry some weight; we can't entirely ignore it. But for boys, there is no such effect at all, so we better stop entertaining such nonsense.

The AF said...

"He makes the evolutionary case, which is overwhelmingly consistent with the evidence, that boys benefit from practicing intercourse with adult women while still immature, in order to be more ready to impregnate girls as soon as they have sperm. This is indeed different for girls. Boys benefit from skills and experience far more than girls do."

Given that we are talking about older women, and that despite what your thirsty glasses tell you, most of these female teachers fucking 13 year old boys are fat pigs, you could make the case that it is harmful for these boys to get used to sex with this type of woman. I can see that these boys could potentially grow up with an older woman fetish. It is not in a male's evolutionary interest to prefer older women. However, the opposite is true with girls. If a girl has sex with older men when she is a young teen, and develops a 'daddy fetish', then that's fine. In fact, it's probably beneficial to her, as for all of history an older male has been better able to provide the resources to take care of a female of any age.

Furthermore, how exactly does a pre-pubescent boy 'practice having sex' with an older female before he can get erections or ejaculate? In any case, most of the cases you feature and that we read about in the news, involve 14 year old chads who have been seduced by an older female teacher, and thus denied having sex with the prime jail bait all around him and that is for the one brief time in his life legal to access.

I have to say, it is ironic that Eivind's entire philosophy is based upon evolutionary reductionism, and yet his making this case is just about the most evolutionary self-defeating act of cucukoldry it is possible to imagine. He is basically putting himself at risk, destroying his chance of a career in the modern world (by making these arguments publicly), all to defend a woman's right to fuck young boys, when he and every man is denied access to teenage girls because of women and their Sexual Trade Union pussy cartel (otherwise known as feminism). Plus his other political positions are likewise cucked, such as wanting mass Third Wold immigration of thirsty Muslim and African males that will make it 10 x harder for him and other native males to have sex with women.

Eivind Berge said...

A little teaser from Rind 2022, but you really have to read the whole thing:

Moreover, in contrast to most other CSA research, which has assumed equivalence in reactions by boys and girls (Rind et al., 1998), Felson et al. provided a detailed review backing why boys would be expected to react differently to CSA—as well as to sex with same-aged peers—given that both theory and evidence indicate that males and females in general, and boys and girls in particular (starting prior to puberty), differ in both their sexuality and proneness to deviance. For example, males (including boys, especially in adolescence) are less discriminate and have a stronger sex drive, greater desire for sexual variety, and greater willingness to engage in casual sex. Boys fantasize about sex at younger ages and with greater frequency, and their fantasies are more intense, sexually explicit, and positive, while those of girls are more likely to occur in the context of romantic relationships, real or imagined. In terms of deviance, gender differences also emerge in childhood and persist through adolescence, in which boys are more willing to behave in antisocial or deviant ways and are less bothered when they do so. Based on these considerations, Felson et al. expected the boys in their study to react far more non-negatively than girls to both CSA and peer sex.

Their predictions were strongly supported. For reactions in retrospect to CSA, for example, boys reacted negatively far less often than girls did (11% vs. 35% of incidents, respectively), a large difference in terms of odds ratio effect size (OR=4.39, girls vs. boys). This sex difference appeared also in boys’ versus girls’ rates of negative reactions to peer sex (3% vs. 11% of incidents, respectively), with similar large magnitude in effect size (OR=4.82). Contrary to characterizations commonly conveyed popularly or in the professional literature, often based on anecdotes or clinical-forensic cases, these incidents infrequently involved overt coercion (12%), incest (6%), or children younger than 12 (11%). Logistic regression analysis indicated that negative reactions were reliably associated with particular contextual factors, similarly in both CSA and minor-peer sex. For boys, these factors were being coerced and having a male partner. For girls, they were being coerced, younger age at the event, having partners who were relatives or strangers, and having non-penetrative sex. For CSA, greater partner age difference also increased the rate of negative reactions.

These are not just speculations from evolutionary theory, but lived experiences, the bold part something I most assuredly experienced myself growing up, and it is so refreshing to finally have it scientifically validated against the insane lies we are constantly told.

But notice how underage girls are more happy with penetrative sex than less consummate relations, which indicates that they also are far more frisky than their reputation. If sex itself were harmful to them, this trend should be opposite. There you actually have some evidence for your side, Milan, that the gender difference may to some extent be socially constructed (but that only goes so far).

If we go by odds ratio effect size for negative reactions, those convicted of "CSA" against boys rather than girls should have their sentences divided by 4.39. However, that includes pederasts, so the fair factor for FEMALE "offenders" is so large that no punishment is conscionable. Harm from female-"perpetrated" sexual "offenses" does not show up in any serious statistics, certainly none at all from consensual sex.

Eivind Berge said...

Furthermore, how exactly does a pre-pubescent boy 'practice having sex' with an older female before he can get erections or ejaculate?

Huh? Erections start at birth (or before) and ejaculation is not necessary for intercourse.

Milan Horvath said...

"Logistic regression analysis indicated that negative reactions were reliably associated with particular contextual factors, similarly in both CSA and minor-peer sex. For boys, these factors were being coerced and having a male partner. For girls, they were being coerced, younger age at the event, having partners who were relatives or strangers, and having non-penetrative sex. For CSA, greater partner age difference also increased the rate of negative reactions."

I must admit, that I am not an expert in statistics and
I didn't read that study yet, but from what you present, it seems that those statistics are made from "goulash" of coerced- voluntary sex, incest-non incest, adolescent-prepubescent.
What would be good is to have girl vs boy statistics within comparable group- for example:
adolescent+adult, heterosex., uncoerced .

Then we could conclude for example(imagined results)

females 30% negative 40%neutral 30% positive
males 10% negative 50%neutral 40% positive

while there will be almost same figures for peer-sex

this would be argument for abolition of AOC for voluntary intergenerational heterosexual sex. activities. involving adult females

but if it's let's say

females 30% negative 40%neutral 30% positive
males 10% negative 50%neutral 40% positive

and let's presume it's in peer age group:

females 10% negative 20%neutral 70% positive
males 3% negative 20%neutral 77% positive

What I am trying to say that when you have higher incidence of negative experience in intergenerational sex than peer sex when it comes to underage males it is not argument for exclusion of females from sexual criminal prosecution, but rather to have system which is judging from case to case in both males and females.

And I am talking about non-coerced relations, still do not see reason why in case of coercion there should be some "ordinary abuse " conviction for females while in males it should be
"heinous sexual abuse" conviction, when there will be clearly negative consequences for males (even maybe less frequent).

My ideal is to have set some AOC as guaranty of legality, and cases when person under AOC is involved to be judged from case to case.
However I support right of legal guardian’s to abort such relationships.

If we would somehow expunge “cultural morality” laws or if we would go even further and disregard culturally imposed negative feelings, we may conclude, that majority of uncoerced intergen. relationships are not harmful regardless of gender.
But I am sure that cases of such non-harmful relationships when adult males are involved vastly surpass those of when female is involved in absolute count.(even if we admit gender differences)
So I still can’t understand your preferential treatment of female sex offenders, when there are much more males(in absolute count) who didn’t commit real harm and yet are prosecuted(with much harsher sentences).

BTW: It would be interesting to have some intercultural comparative research of this type, from 40 years ago, when cultural diversity was still existent within Europe and between Europe and A-S world. Unfortunately we do not have time machine.

PS: I wonder why is Rind using culturally-morally charged term "CSA", instead of
adult-adolescent or adult-prepubescent neutral term.
It is scientific research, not article for NSPCC.

Eivind Berge said...

That was only from page two where Rind sums up some previous research before getting into his own, better conducted study, addressing your concerns about mixing coerced and voluntary etc. And when you publish an article like that I think it's good to use the term CSA in the beginning to ease your audience into it since that's what they're used to. It also packs more punch by the contrast when you end up demonstrating that the "abuse" dogma is bullshit. He gets into the current study on page six where he also makes a note on the terminology:

The current study, using the same data set employed by Felson et al. (2019), examined the full range of subjective reactions, from negative to positive, reported by minors having sexual interactions with both older persons and peers. Given the importance of positive reactions to understanding these behaviors, as explicated above, the current study then focused on accounting specifically for positive reactions as a function of contextual variables. These analyses supplement Felson et al.’s focus on accounting for negative reactions. To be consistent with the larger body of research on subjective reactions, the current study focused on reactions to first sexual encounters, such that all analyses were based on cases rather than incidents, unlike in the Felson et al. study.

A note on terminology is in order here. The term “child sexual abuse,” as used throughout Felson et al.’s article, is problematic. In that study, the vast majority of minors involved with older persons were adolescents (89%), not children, and only a small minority of them identified their interactions as abuse (16%; see Lahtinen et al., 2018). In scientific discourse, “abuse” implies harm, something to be established rather than taken as axiomatic, and its presumptive use can therefore be biasing (Rind et al., 1998). Hence, caution is exercised going forward in use of terms, where, for example, CSA is often replaced with “minor-older sex,” a more accurate and neutral descriptor. Findings from the analyses can then be interpreted more appropriately, as in being informative about all types of sex involving minors with older minors or adults. In contrast, interpreting the present results as applying to “CSA” is more problematic, given that, operationally in research, CSA has often been restricted to unwanted sex with older persons and peers. The minor is referred to as “participant” rather than “victim,” and the older person is referred to as “partner” rather than “perpetrator,” given that the latter terms imply some type of injury, which again is an empirical question, not a presumption....

Based on the foregoing literature review, it was expected that, for both minor-older and minor-peer sex, boys would react positively more often than girls and adolescents would react positively more often than children. Furthermore, it was expected that rates of positive reactions would be higher when the partner was a friend rather than a stranger or relative, the sex was more intimate, it occurred multiple times rather than just once, and coercion was absent. For male participants, whether involved in minor-peer or minor-older sex, it was expected that female partners would elicit higher rates of positive reactions than male partners. For minor-older sex, it was expected that rates of positive reactions would increase with less age difference, especially for female participants, and when participants initiated the sex.

Boys' positive reactions to older women in fact exceeded expectations, and I profoundly disagree with your wanting to include them in the age of consent. Laws based on irrelevant factors are pure insanity, and yes, that is pretty true for male "offenders" as well, so abolishing the age of consent is an eminently reasonable option.

Anonymous said...

>PS: I wonder why is Rind using culturally-morally charged term "CSA",
>instead of adult-adolescent or adult-prepubescent neutral term.
>It is scientific research, not article for NSPCC.

Already in his meta-analysis from 1998, Rind started using the term "CSA" because his research was intended for professionals who were accustomed to using that term. But in the conclusion, in the right of the results of the meta-analysis, he wrote:

An important reason why the assumed properties of CSA failed to withstand empirical scrutiny in the current review is that the construct of CSA, as commonly conceptualized by researchers, is of questionable scientific validity. Overinclusive definitions of abuse that encompass both willing sexual experiences accompanied by positive reactions and coerced sexual experiences with negative reactions produce poor predictive validity. To achieve better scientific validity, a more thoughtful approach is needed by researchers when labeling and categorizing events that have heretofore been defined sociolegally as CSA (Fishman, 1991; Kilpatrick, 1987; Okami, 1994; Rind & Bauserman, 1993).
One possible approach to a scientific definition, consistent with findings in the current review and with suggestions offered by Constantine (1981), is to focus on the young person's perception of his or her willingness to participate and his or her reactions to the experience. A willing encounter with positive reactions would be labeled simply adult-child sex, a value-neutral term. If a young person felt that he or she did not freely participate in the encounter and if he or she experienced negative reactions to it, then child sexual abuse, a term that implies harm to the individual, would be valid. Moreover, the term child should be restricted to nonadolescent children (Ames & Houston, 1990). Adolescents are different from children in that they are more likely to have sexual interests, to know whether they want a particular sexual encounter, and to resist an encounter that they do not want. Furthermore, unlike adult-child sex, adult-adolescent sex has been commonplace cross-culturally and historically, often in socially sanctioned forms, and may fall within the "normal" range of human sexual behaviors (Bullough, 1990; Greenberg, 1988; Okami, 1994). A willing encounter between an adolescent and an adult with positive reactions on the part of the adolescent would then be labeled scientifically as adult-adolescent sex, while an unwanted encounter with negative reactions would be labeled adolescent sexual abuse. By drawing these distinctions, researchers are likely to achieve a more scientifically valid understanding of the nature, causes, and consequences of the heterogeneous collection of behaviors heretofore labeled CSA.

Anonymous said...

"The Imminent Failure of NOMAP Ideology" on Freespeechtube is IMHO one of the most important, and encouraging, pieces I have ever read on the subject of youth sexuality and how the zeitgeist might be changed. It's written from the perspective of a paedophile, but there's plenty in it for egosynctonic straight males as well-if only there were more of us.
Sorry to butt in with this, but the piece is at least generally relevant to every thread on Eivind's site including this one.

The AF said...

"So I still can’t understand your preferential treatment of female sex offenders, when there are much more males(in absolute count) who didn’t commit real harm and yet are prosecuted(with much harsher sentences)."

It's the same reason why 'women are the primary victims of war', and the media obsessed over the image of the pregnant woman emerging from a bombed out hospital in the Ukraine, while ignoring the thousands of Ukrainian male deaths, and gleefully claiming that 25,000 Russian (male) soldiers have been killed.

Eivind is as big as a white knight as you can get, and he still scratches his head wondering why nobody except me and a couple of others ever took him seriously as a men's rights activist.

The AF said...

"Huh? Erections start at birth (or before) and ejaculation is not necessary for intercourse."

I realize that little boys can get random, non sexualy aroused erections, but that hardly pertains to the ability to have sex. You've probably been reading Tom O'Carrol too much.

Are you sure ejaculation is not necessary for intercourse? Isn't non ejaculatory sex little different to wanking from an evolutionary perspective? You once even stated here that sex with a condom is not authentic sex.

Eivind Berge said...

Dude, have you not been a boy yourself? I know perfectly well that I wanted and would be able to have vaginal sex as a young boy (AT LEAST as young as four, going by memory). I masturbated since before I can remember, all discovered on my own. Erections can most assuredly be sexually aroused. And dry orgasms work just fine. Even the evolutionary perspective is right on since like I and Rind said, this is PRACTICE in order to be better at impregnating women than boys who didn't have this head start. Which is why it is appetitive, which I also know damn well from how much I wanted it and fantasized about it, even if fantasies are less frequent than when you reach puberty. It is a horrible travesty that we call it "abuse" when women give it to them and consign boys to masturbation which REALLY messes them up and gives them the opposite of a head start: a dysfunctional one where they are likely to remain virgins for longer and be bad at it when they finally have sex, until they discover nofap. This is why I so bitterly resent both the female sex offender charade and our cultural lie that masturbation is harmless to boys. They amplify each other too and make an evil, noxious environment for boys to grow up in, now even worse than what I had since Internet porn sucks boys further into asexuality and dysfunction. Luckily I escaped paraphilias and stupid "kinks" that distract you from vaginal sex but those seem to be on the rise because of porn culture.

The AF said...

Well OK Eivind, if you were fapping at age four, then that's unusual and I can see why you developed some psychosis about masturbation.

Anwyay, here is something we can agree on? 'Hometown hero catches a sexual predator in action'. Some paedocrite white knight 'catches' a 32 year old man flirting with a hot 16 year old girl and 'breaks it up' while filming them. Despite the fact that the paedocrite has obviously frightened her and violated her rights by posting the video online, it gets 8,000 + upvotes on Reddit and nearly all the comments are supportive of the paedocrite.

I think this world would be a better place today if Russia and the USA had nuked each other in the 1950's or something, so long as Europe and the rest of the world had been left intact.

Milan Horvath said...

"I think this world would be a better place today if Russia and the USA had nuked each other in the 1950's or something, so long as Europe and the rest of the world had been left intact."

hahaha....I think I fell in love (platonic of course) right now.......

That is exact thing(word to word) I keep thinking for at least 10 years

Anonymous said...

"Despite the fact that the paedocrite has obviously frightened her and violated her rights by posting the video online, it gets 8,000 + upvotes on Reddit and nearly all the comments are supportive of the paedocrite."

If you willingly frequent spaces explicitly intended for the imbecile mob, you'll find nothing but imbecile comments. Self-imposed torment. As Dante says: "...but in the church with saints, and in the taverns with the gluttons".

Eivind Berge said...

No, it is far from unusual to masturbate at age four; even the medical encyclopedias I read as a kid said it was very common from age three to six and this part is not even controversial. I did not develop a psychosis about masturbation unless you count thinking it was fine for far too long, but ultimately I found nofap and got the healthy view. The real psychosis belongs to society, of which I was merely another victim: of their programmatic thinking that masturbation is fine and encouraging boys to do more of it instead of guiding them into healthy sexuality. Boys will discover masturbation on their own, which is not a big deal -- not saying they should be shamed so young -- but they need to stay away from porn (except maybe a little bit for educative purposes) and have sex as soon as possible to be healthy. An adolescence filled with porn and masturbation and no sex destroys healthy sexual function. Sex is somewhat protective against porn-induced damage because then your nervous system gets some training at the real thing, but ideally you should have no porn and only sex while quitting masturbation as young as possible (preferably not even beginning, but that requires having some really loving women around you, I guess).

As to the video, yeah, that's one of the most disgusting examples of blueknighting ever filmed. I can't believe that asshole feels heroic -- until I see the comments and remember this is another cultural psychosis. Yeah, from the way he was harassing both the man and girl with no concern for her welfare, consumed by a psychotic antisex-crusade like zombie in all other respects, at this point I have to say it's just as bad as the female sex offender charade (but still not as bad as thinking masturbation/porn is fine, because if you limit yourself to 18+ girls you still get great sex, but if you masturbate you don't).

This quote is apt:

"Many psychiatrists and psychologists refuse to entertain the idea that society as a whole may be lacking in sanity. They hold that the problem of mental health in a society is only that of the number of 'unadjusted' individuals, and not of a possible unadjustment of the culture itself."

--Erich Fromm

Milan Horvath said...

Other question is how much these discussions on "Californian platforms" displays representative opinions in society, as they are frequently censored and manipulated.

If I remember it correctly there were some attempts to discuss AOC policy at Reddit
(with unorthodox opinions) and it was deleted by admin citing some policy about inciting/propagating harm to others.

..Yeah,.. about my previous post: It was little bit hyperbole, it doesn't mean that I viscerally hate everyone who is holder of US passport, and I admit there are many great things from US , but it's influence (especially last 35 years) is so toxic to personal freedom and reason in society, that I would rather live without those things.

One excerpt from J. Evola(I don't necessarily share his other views, but this one is interesting, I think)

Americanisation in Europe is widespread and evident. In Italy it is a phenomenon which is rapidly developing in these post-war years and is considered by most people, if not enthusiastically, at least as something natural. Some time ago I wrote that of the two great dangers confronting Europe - Americanism and Communism - the first is the more insidious. Communism cannot be a danger other than in the brutal and catastrophic form of a direct seizure of power by communists. On the other hand Americanisation gains ground by a process of gradual infiltration, effecting modifications of mentalities and customs which seem inoffensive in themselves but which end in a fundamental perversion and degradation against which it is impossible to fight other than within oneself. It is precisely with respect to such internal opposition that most Italians seem weak. Forgetting their own cultural inheritance they readily turn to the United States as something akin to the parent guide of the world. Whoever wants to be modern has to measure himself according to the American standard. It is pitiable to witness a European country so debase itself. Veneration for America has nothing to do with a cultured interest in the way other people live. On the contrary, servility towards the United States leads one to think that there is no other way of life worth considering on the same level as the American one.

BTW: speaking about social media

Eivind Berge said...

That's a good point. American influence rots us from within and takes hold of our customs. We are not supposed to feel normal about normal attractions anymore because the most draconian American state decided they have to wait to 18. Not even a general American rule, but it takes over the world. I get the point about staying away from the most hostile forums and know there is censorship, but shouldn't our type of forums also attract a good following if this is not total societal insanity? I know incel forums do somewhat but last I heard they were banning discussion of the age of consent too.

Milan Horvath said...

"We are not supposed to feel normal about normal attractions anymore because the most draconian American state decided they have to wait to 18."

I would say, that it is more complex thing, Americanisation doesn't changes societal norms just in taxative manner, but also in way, how people think about relationships, justice, societal problems.....It's change of entire OS, not just particular software......

"I know perfectly well that I wanted and would be able to have vaginal sex as a young boy (AT LEAST as young as four, going by memory). "

Despite being interested in this problematic,I must admit that I've actually never studied psychosexual development in depth.

Your personal experience is surprising to me. I myself have never felt any urge to have "copulative" sex until age of ca 12??.
I was not raised in some prudish environment and since age of 5 I was well aware of sexual intercourse and it's purpose.

Only memories I could recall , from pre-puberty 5-10 (that may be considered as sexual) are those, that-- I had, desires/experiences towards/with +/- peer females,
that were not of "copulative" character but rather in some form of intimate games (undressing,touching, famous "doctor games").
Also I didn't perceived adult women,or older girls as potential partner for such games,
this changed only after onset of puberty, and thus onset of hormone driven "copulative" desires.
I wonder how "normal"/"abnormal" this is........

Human sexuality could be influenced by many factors, thus there could be real diversity in personal perception of it.

Milan Horvath said...

...straight instead of pointing upwards. If I had had that experience with an adult woman instead, it would have been a fantastic learning experience, teaching me that my erections were perfectly fine and all the other good things that would come from what society now incorrectly, evilly calls "abuse."

Personally I don't regret that I didn't get more "far" when it comes to my childhood experiences.
I am pretty happy about how it was.
Speaking about education, maybe there are other ways how to teach youth/children how it works and what is normal. Problem today is (as you've mentioned earlier) that present-day sex ed, while it pretends to be enlightened and liberal (for what is heavily criticised by cons.)
is actually secular puritanisation with some LGBT tolerance gaga on top of it.
How to teach proper sex ed in times when innocent books like Zeig Mal! are on verge of illegality and there are criminal laws saying what materials you can show to your children.
There is law in many countries, that makes it criminal offence to show sexual materials to persons younger than 18 years-Paradoxically even in countries that have AOC of 14,15,16 y.

Also how to illustrate development of children or adolescents, when there are laws preventing any (probably even for educative purposes)sexual imagery of persons under 18, even when it comes to animations.
Thus any materials, that could explain how genitalia should look like at age and in state you are describing above, would be probably illegal.

few links that came to my mind while writing this

Jack said...

Dude, have you not been a boy yourself? I know perfectly well that I wanted and would be able to have vaginal sex as a young boy (AT LEAST as young as four, going by memory).That's damned weird. Vaginal sex, indeed any kind of sex, remained fuzzy in my mind until after I was ten years-old as far as I can recall. No urge to have sex or masturbate before that age for sure. Of course I grew up in a "protective" environment. Anyway, I'm not sure having sex that young would have been any good since I was to be starved of sex later on well into my late teens and even beyond.

The AF said...

"That's a good point. American influence rots us from within and takes hold of our customs. We are not supposed to feel normal about normal attractions anymore because the most draconian American state decided they have to wait to 18"

And that's why we should resist the 'MAP' terminology. It's actually a validation of the American idea that attraction to 'minors' is a perversion. At least 'MAPs' should show some intelligence about it. Alan Turing who is idolized on both sides of the Atlantic, was 'martyrd' by the homophobic state for having sex with a lad who at the time was a 'minor' according to UK law. Why don't the MAPs adopt him as their 'poster boy'?

BTW, I still think the major influence in Europe adopting 18 as the cut off point for acceptable attraction was the raising of the child porn limit to 18, a direct consequence of the Convention On The Rights Of The Child, which the USA didn't even sign up to (because they wanted to continue to put 16 year old black kids onto death row), and the biggest lobby group for was, if I remember, the German ECPAT feminist/femiservative 'child protection' group.

@Eivind - you say sex without ejaculation can be good practice for little boys. So too can porn, most deinitely virtual reality porn, which is already being used to treat men with sexual phobias. The evolutionary value of male masturbation is likely as a form of 'practice' in the imagination for real sexual opportunities.

Milan Horvath said...

BTW, I still think the major influence in Europe adopting 18 as the cut off point for acceptable attraction was the raising of the child porn limit to 18, a direct consequence of the Convention On The Rights Of The Child, which the USA didn't even sign up to (because they wanted to continue to put 16 year old black kids onto death row), and the biggest lobby group for was, if I remember, the German ECPAT feminist/femiservative 'child protection' group.

ECPAT is not originally German organisation, IDK from where you get this information.
And when it comes to "Convention On The Rights Of The Child"- USA maybe didn't signed it (paradoxically), yet they played main role in incorporating part about sexual exploitation into it.
Originally this convention was initiative of (then communist) Poland, and was rather about preventing child labour (if I remember it correctly).

I noticed, there is some moderation happening on this forum, if it's done by you Eivind I understand it,(if it's not done by you-then it's time to change platform).
However I don't know what was problematic in my comment where I cited Evola.
If it deemed "hateful" to you please delete also Monday, May 09, 2022 3:11:00 PM.
Without clarification(that I hate American influence, not ordinary Americans) I've posted consequently it looks even more hateful, which I don't want.

Eivind Berge said...

I have not moderated that comment, Milan. Your comment about Evola was (almost certainly since I have no other explanation) deleted by Google admins! That is not good... will have to think about this and maybe change platforms, yeah.

Eivind Berge said...

I can see from my logs that multiple comments in this thread were reported to Google, which is not unusual since our haters always do that. However, for the first time (that we noticed?) they actually deleted some content, apparently. Simply deleted it silently. There are also at least 12 reports that they took no action on though.

Milan Horvath said...

If it's not too much effort/time consuming could you publish list of unsuccessful flagging.
(of this thread)
I am curious what comments are most outrageous to our "moral guardians" and who is leading.
Timestamps would be enough.

Eivind Berge said...

I can't tell which comments got reported, sorry. This morning's moderation log only shows up to me like this:
5.10. 03:32:48

Eivind Berge said...

It must have taken the feminists lots of effort to make that many reports. I hope they are happy with the results. Actually the admins might have deleted your comment by mistake, Milan, since after hundreds and hundreds of reports they are bound to push the wrong button eventually.

Milan Horvath said...

According to time at which comments were flagged, it seems, that our "freundin" who is caring about purity of morals is either suffering insomnia
(who wouldn't- with so many hate speech and ghastly abuse apology out there)
or they are from different time zone.

Milan Horvath said...

BTW: When I looked at your very first articles (of this entire blog), there were some juicy comments from various Witnesses MacKinnon's.
Are they still (sometimes) trying to comment at your articles (and you are deleting them) or they gave it up already.

It was little bit annoying, yet incredibly funny to read.

Eivind Berge said...

They gave up on the trolling after I enabled pre-approval for comments. Yes, they were entertaining at times, but unmoderated comments got so disruptive we can't have it. I am learning the same thing with my dating site now. Feminists get so incredibly nasty with all the ways they try to attack it with fake accounts that we have to develop methods to keep it under control. They make fake profiles who interact with each other to try to frame us for things like child sex trafficking. And then there was the impersonation of others in our movement when I had open comments here. It would be nice to have some funny trolls but the price is just too high to make it easy for them.

Eivind Berge said...

The AF wrote:

@Eivind - you say sex without ejaculation can be good practice for little boys. So too can porn, most definitely virtual reality porn, which is already being used to treat men with sexual phobias. The evolutionary value of male masturbation is likely as a form of 'practice' in the imagination for real sexual opportunities.

Beyond some limited exploration, masturbation is not training for sex. When continued into adolescence it does the opposite of practice for boys. It mistrains them, and when they use porn the mistraining is truly devastating. This point is lost on the mainstream (and you), the misadjustment caused by masturbating to porn. Boys learning bad habits at a deep neurological level and thus unlearning how they should be sexually aroused in order to have good sex or even sex at all since many become impotent. "Practicing" to porn is worse than no practice at all because it messes you up to where you don't even have your raw instinct of how to do it. Since the invention of digital porn, the incidence of erectile dysfuntion has gone up over 30-fold, from under 1% in the 1940s to over 30% today, all because of this mislearning that society won’t recognize for what it is.

Yes, porn would have cured me of my erection angle complex as a little boy (but of course real practice would have been better). And maybe there is a role for treating phobias, though sex surrogates are better there too. And yes, VR or anything more realistic than looking at screens will be less harmful because greater realism means less mistraining. Lifelike sexdolls might not be harmful in this respect at all, but are still a waste of time.

Beyond these limited roles, masturbation is toxic for males. When it mistrains you or is used as a substitute for sex it is pathological. Note that animals don't masturbate to completion unless something has gone horribly wrong such as with the Australian jewel beetles or chimps in captivity. Wild animals are smarter than that because they are adapted to their environment. Humans used to be, too, before digital porn, and now we need to deliberately shun that in order to be healthy.

Milan Horvath said...

Amelio:"On the other hands, as they want to appeal to third world countries, the russian media play the racism/sex abuse card to the full in order to expose western immorality."

Just bumped onto this on YT...hahaha

The AF said...

Apologies to Milan, yes I must be going senile in my old age.

I remember (I hope!) in the UK when the Sexual Offences Bill in 2003 incorporated that UN Convention's protocol on child pornography, and the minimum age was raised to 18, the general belief that even attraction to 17 year olds was 'paedophilia' happened almost overnight.

Anna Kournikova had emerged on the scene a few years earlier and become a sex symbol at 16 (actually she was still 15 when she made her debut at the French Open a few weeks before Wimbledon and had every male drooling over her). Nobody would throw about the word 'paedophile', it was just taken for granted. Britney Spears was doing her sexy videos at 17 in 2000, and again the shops were full of Britney calenders with her in sexy poses, and she also did an erotic lingerie shoot (age 17) for a British lad magazine that nobody complained aboout (and millions of men bought the magazine).

The Sun and other tabloids were still posting 16 year old page 3 girls topless. The 'Sunday Sport' had a couple of 16 year old girls topless in school uniform on their front page the week before the bill. Now those same tabloids condemn Prince Andrew as a the Royal pedo, for allegedly having sex with a 17 year old girl in the same time frame.

The USA certainly pressured European countries to adopt the Convention's protocol on CP. And that was driven to a large part by the emergence of the Internet which meant every American male could visit Dutch and European sites and fap off to 17 year old girls in hardcore porn.

Eivind Berge said...

Well, there you see how porn can be harmful. It can normalize abnormal taboos, on top of all the other problems! There is no such thing as "CP" in my ideology. Nofap respects no distinction between "CP" and other porn. It is all equally harmful and shunnable to us. Therefore we are also impervious to mentally raising the age of consent to the special porn age of 18 like wankers are prone to. Indeed they are terrorized by the law into obsessing over this contrived limit to avoid trouble, so no wonder they start thinking it defines something really bad and probably pedophilia. After being traumatized by that legal terror, they don't even dare look at 16-year-old girls without shame.

Get with nofap, folks. It solves a lot of problems and helps us fight the feminists. It is a lot harder for them to crack down on sexuality in real life than in porn, provided that you don't adopt the wanker mindset and let the feminists control you via it.

The AF said...

Lindsay Lohan at age 17 plays 14 year old Emma Watson in a SNL parody of Harry Potter.

What a nation of paedocrites.

The AF said...

That's true Eivind, but it also acts against the feminist and MSM narrative that 40 year old women are desirable. The market doesn't lie, and even the 'MILF' niche has the average age of the actress at under 30 (and then usually it's a 'stepmother' incest fantasy storyline). Feminists would have to raise the minimum age for porn to 40 to change that.

Honestly Eivind, I don't know what kind of demographic you are appealing to, but obsessing over female sex predators and calling 99% of men wankers is a very niche target audience I feel. After 20 years of this and the two most regular commentators (out of a handful) are still me and Jack, and neither of us agree with most of what you say apart from the general anti-sex hysteria sentiment.

Eivind Berge said...

The most ironic insult in all this injury is feminists and laws claim underage girls are "sexualized" in porn. Nothing could be further from the truth. Because no one needs porn to sexualize anyone, and in fact it works in the opposite direction. Porn is an instrument of desexualization. Peak sexualization occurs with nofap. That comes from within, or we wouldn't be here, as we are the product of millions of years of evolution without porn. Men are natural sex machines, from which porn can only detract. We have sexual processing built into every gaze, which porn hijacks and abuses. It sucks men into the asexual practice of masturbation and lowers libido, performance and motivation to pursue real girls. And then on top of that it now culturally desexualizes girls under 18 and makes men afraid to approach them, literally feeling like deviants when they do. I have zero hangups about coming on to 16-year-old girls because I don't buy into this crap. We don't need the tabloids or porn to tell us 16-year-old girls are attractive, but clearly they can do a lot of damage by promoting a taboo pretending they are not.

This is why it's so important to promote nofap/noporn as sexualist ideology, because if we don't, we fall victim to grievous desexualization and become unworthy the name of our movement.

It is a masterstroke in retrospect of the feminists to exploit porn this way, because how else would they establish the taboo on sex with all "minors" without changing all the age of consent laws first? Sure, they could double down on the propaganda showing California as a super-reality with laws applicable to all, but it wouldn't have so much teeth without some local laws to enforce it on the average man. Who sadly thinks he needs porn and thus presents himself as an easy target of brainwashing.

Milan Horvath said...

@ AF
Nothing to worry about , I too have sometimes chaos in my head from all those information and dates and events .............

Speaking about ECPAT, it is sure that local offices (including that German) influenced legislature, but German office of ECPAT is only a tentacle of greater institution which is not of German origin.

About that SUN...yeah I think that also Sam Fox was at page 3 too.

The evil monsters are ECPAT, by the way, which I described in my last article, the fundamentalist Christian organization that claims they care about children. Oh, and they vigorously defended the man’s conviction over this image, too, arguing about “violations of children on a conceptual level”. Even the police argued publicly against the law banning possession of child abuse imagery here, arguing – from their viewpoint – that it protects child molesters, as they are forced to hunt comics fans instead of real crime. This is similar to my argumentation in this and the previous article.

Yes, this is the same ECPAT that made it illegal for you to possess naked or sexual images of yourself from before your 18th birthday, arguing that it violates “children in general on a conceptual level”.

Milan Horvath said...

It turns out that the pressure for banning possession of child pornography comes from a whole fruit salad of Christian fundamentalists, under the pretext of protecting children. In the United States, this is pretty much every nutjob in the entire Midwest. In Sweden, this role is primarily dominated by the front organization ECPAT, which pretends to care about abused children, but which has its roots in the fundamentalist Christian organization ECTWT (where the E stands for Ecumenical), and where these Christians keep being in majority at every general ECPAT assembly. Every time these fundamentalists have mentioned child abuse as a pretext to demand new laws, we end up with new criminalization of teenagers instead.

This is where we connect the dots of cui bono with the murder-and-jaywalking deception method, and hairs rise on our arms and chills go down our spine as we connect the dots mentally:

Making insecure teenagers feel guilt, fear, and shame over their own bodies and natural desires, causing them to suppress their instincts in fear, even criminalizing natural behavior and destroying their lives, was never a side effect. It was the whole idea.

In Sweden, ECPAT has pushed through laws that make you a jailable criminal for possessing images of yourself from before your 18th birthday. Can we have a show of hands to see how many think this makes any kind of sense? That this would catch any child molesters?

So does the fact that this law exists – criminalizing people who have photos of themselves, pushed through by Christian fundamentalist organization ECPAT – rhyme better with a concern to catch molesters, or better with the hair-rising conclusion above: an effort to scare teenagers into submission with fear of their own bodies?

Using child molestation as a pretext for shoving your fundamentalist religious morals down the throats of insecure teenagers is about as low as you can sink in my eyes. These people stand lower than earthworms in terms of human value to me.

The fix for this particular problem is to tell the fundamentalist Christians in ECPAT and similar organizations to fuck right off with their perverted high-horse dogmatic morals, throwing them out of the legislative process headfirst, and limit the child pornography laws to cover pre-pubescent children only. Murder and jaywalking should not be covered by the same legislation, because they are not the same thing. Rape of a seven-year old and two seventeen-year-olds making love should not be covered by the same legislation, because they are not the same thing. In case a hard age limit is needed, I would suggest separating children from teenagers at that exact age – children are children until they become teenagers. Many enough have their sexual debut at 13 today. (This suggestion doesn’t mean porn of 13-year-olds could, or indeed should, be sold. Commercial exploitation can always be separately regulated. What it does mean is that teenagers cannot and should not be branded as sex offenders for something they do voluntarily, happily, and consensually.)

Interesting thing is that German oh-so radical internet freedom party of Deutsche "Pay-rates" and other of these Disney-radicals have distanced themselves from Rick over those articles, despite there is nothing radical or controversial-it is even regurgitating various paedohysterical orthodoxies many times.
BTW: Funny how lefties/liberals and traditionalists are blaming each other, not seeing their own shit. He didn't mentioned (pseudo-left) feminists even once.

Milan Horvath said...

"The USA certainly pressured European countries to adopt the Convention's protocol on CP. And that was driven to a large part by the emergence of the Internet which meant every American male could visit Dutch and European sites and fap off to 17 year old girls in hardcore porn."

I would say that internet is/was problem, but not only, when it comes to wanking-but rather as medium that made it possible to instantly exchange ideas, thus it would be possible to see other ways of life, for more strata of population.
.....”Mummy why Liam, is allowed to go to party and I am not?”..…

I think that I've already posted this in past but anyway:

At best, the haste and urgency with which this is being pushed forward could be surprising, because the Europeans are by no means rebellious towards the juggernaut, but rather submit to its demands and impositions like model satrapies - nevertheless, in the next chapter we will see with what unbelievable speed and massive US initiated pressure to act,
the Americanisation of their national sex criminal laws is being dictated to them.
In conclusion, one thought should be recalled that explains this most conclusively and for which Herman Melville's novel “Taipi” offers a very suitable example for illustration:
Europe in particular would remain with its still high standard of living and comparatively liberal and constitutional states.
If sexual offences law would remain untouched for a long time as an “island of freedom”,
which would still be the case today in comparison to the described US American conditions -without the child molester craze with corresponding tightening of the law that has meanwhile been hammered into the country, this would not only be a problem for the Europeans certain backing and strengthening in order to face the American octopus' encroachment on their own continent more firmly and also to counteract it, but it would be above all for perhaps a fifth of Americans who have enough money to travel or as soldiers to get around the world, regularly a good object lesson that it is possible to do without Megan's law, that not only children with serenity and without persecution hysteria are significantly better off, but simply every human being.
This could result in thoughtfulness, an incentive to strive for something better, rebelliousness in one's own centre, crystallization points for socio-political reflection and debate at the universities or even in the ranks of soldiers or even officers. A delusional world of cruel oppression and disenfranchisement, as we know it from the European Middle Ages, simply works better without comparison possibilities, be it the Arab world, which was more advanced at the time up to the Crusades, be it the Renaissance, be it today, as long as it still exists , a Europe with good cuisine, with wide beaches for sunbathing without stripes and for children building their sandcastles naked with enough space for everyone, with unmolested(by state) young lovers and with general relaxed personal contact and even with sexual temptations. One likes to be seduced by it, just like Herman Melville once did in the Taipi Valley by the sexual freedom and easygoingness of a Polynesian primitive people. That is why this Europe in the new Imperium Americanum should disappear as quickly as possible from the scene and thus also from the perspective of its own US citizens, who travel, read, think ..

Milan Horvath said...

Just looking at Harry Potter: Hermione Growth Spurt - SNL
...comments under video like....
!it’s pretty creepy she was this sexualized at such a young age".........
...."nah dude its innapropriate to normalize that for underage kids. Pretty gross".....

I 'll bet, they are using left hand for wanking, while they write outraged comments with right hand at the same time.
What to say.....let's sing instead...

Eivind Berge said...

I'll bet, they are using left hand for wanking, while they write outraged comments with right hand at the same time.

Lol, yeah, that's how it goes. The very definition of paedocrisy. I am surprised SNL could get away with that skit in the early 2000s since I thought we were already well into humorless feminism at that point. But that only shows how successful they have been with normalizing the new hysteria as if it always existed. Come to think of it, Seinfeld dated a 17-year-old girl around the same time and it was not a big deal yet. When the "Metoo" hysteria started in 2017 or so I though it was just more of the same feminism we had since the 90s, but it's really another level of evil.

Milan Horvath said...

Even 'merica itself wasn't such Absurdistan in past as is now.
Sorry for shitting discussion with links/MEMEs but, I can't help myself.

This says a lot. DD was a cult film(for girls) at that time.
Czech dubb was better: He said-before we had invent these things.

Milan Horvath said...

Mea culpa, I've misunderstand it.
He meant bringing their wives together as an "idea" instead of considering mere nudity as pornography.
Sometimes I hear what I want (in my anti-paedohysterical fervour) instead of what was really said.

Milan Horvath said...

I know, that we could post links all the day and night when it comes to idiots on internet,
but this really pissed me off(somehow). Both people displayed there, but also that moralising (piece of shit)narrator.

Another reason why I hate certain cultural import- not to say, there would be no virtue signalling and fakeness here without it, but this is another level, it seems to me like society where nothing is genuine, everything is just a fucking theatre, very surreal one.

Now, we get to the narrator and that photo with those people with passports and baby
(end of video).
This is actually one of reasons, why I have opinions that I have, why I write in this forum, and why I would be doing activism, if I had means to do it properly.
It is not because I want to bang teens(however I wouldn't say no,thanks to such proposal😜).

But it is rather my visceral hatred towards people who are making our short lives on this place unbearable by enforcing various nonsensical rules (that sometimes even they themselves have no clue, why such exists).
By making world shitty place, where people who caused no harm to anyone have their lives ruined. By forcing people to live in fear and imposing unhealthy restraints on them.
By raising generation of intellectually lazy and emotionally disturbed,
authority-dependent morons.

Am I weird, that I don't find anything wrong with that photography?
I know that such photos won't contribute to solving problem of war conflict, but in contrast with other "posts" I see it as tasteful form of message.

They are not having sexual intercourse on that photo, but rather it should be a message of "make love not war" with product of that love in front of them.
Even if they would have sex in front of their baby (o.c. let's presume it's not involved in that act itself), what harm would be inflicted on it.
Even if we would somehow, presume that being witness to parental sex is grievously damaging experience (which is not, and if,-it is culturally conditioned) children up to age of 3y usually do not remember much.
So this twat is calling for removal of that baby from (probably) loving family, just because his shitty morals are being hurt?

How society, would look now (and we could estimate that, as there was 70's),
if people were raised in environment, where sexuality is not considered something shameful, filthy and dangerous.

Milan Horvath said...

Just reading older article at German chaosfragment blog (shadowbanned by Google).
Normally I would just link it, but it's in German and this bloke is frequently using various slang words, thus it is problem with G-translator. So I will try to correct mistakes.

There was actually a time when nudity, including that of 15-year-olds such as in this
, was presented with a certain degree of “matter-of-factness” and without sperm-inhibited, infantilised/retarded, artificial panting, as the media sex cretins on duty do today for every slit in the dress, while at the same time man is forced into the most self-conscious self-censorship measures that speak for themselves when documenting testimonies of those happier days.

“Wow! Verona Pooth with a hammer décolleté in a tight velvet dress”

“Only in a thong: Here Heidi Klum lolls in bed”

“Hot declaration of love: Oana Nechiti in a nude dress”

“Uh la la! Bonnie Strange topless on the beach in Bali”

In general, it is noticeable that in the majority of these hysterical, blatant headlines collected here in a few days on Internet news portals, it is already clear from the outset that in most cases it is at best about SEMI-nude and even the supposedly naked are always by no means completely visible (blanket!) which, however, is always accompanied by an artificial shriek, but the intensity of which should easily reach the level prevailing in various Islamoid or other similar cultures, for example when a girl's chador and headscarf slip and SEXY HAIR oozes out, but they shouldn't be seen by no male other than husband and/or brother. So there, where it doesn't even need a slit in the dress to trigger a Taharrush mass grab party with the all inhibited sexual energy excess of men.

Even a Western tourist walking alone in one of these Indian Hindu villages, dressed in a bikini top and hot pants, shaking her ass shouldn't evoke a bigger fuss than B. Becker's closet daughter(Anna Ermakova), for example with MEGA LEG SLIT and "deep décolleté" among the tabloids of our liberal, tolerant, sexually liberated WESTERN VALUE COMMUNITY (WVC) who hammer these nudities that tickle the senses into the rest of the viewer's brain in their own imbecile language, as soon as he sleepily opened the browser ! No, you don't have to read the attached slob or even put in the linked "celebrity clips", the headlines alone are enough, they are designed to sully the rest of the viewer's brain with the concentrated evil of the epoch and thus should be understood as psychological warfare,
and that applies in general, not only to the context described here. One shouldn't think that all this is just harmless nonsensical nonsense, no, that's how values ​​and attitudes are conveyed or framed and nudged and moods are created - just hominid dressage.

As the narrator has already noted elsewhere, "T-tanic" (German satirical magazine) had already taken up and addressed that stupid game of the virtual tabloids with "nudity" a few years ago.
But as is almost always the case, the Titanic remained on the surface and left it at the absurdity that “NAKED” was used to lure people in and then at best to serve “SEMI-NAKED” things, if at all.

Instead, it is no coincidence that the increasingly hysterical hype about (already disappearing) nudity is actually reminiscent of the chatter about taboo violations in those patriarchal cultures of violence(I....) that the WVC presents as the exact opposite.
It also goes hand in hand with the import of the barbaric, Islamoid US sexual criminal law, which generally declares the sexuality of “minors” to be pathological and criminal,
as regular and attentive fellow grouchers here will hopefully have internalised by now.

Milan Horvath said...

Whereas in the USA any sexual activity among minors constitutes "rape under the law" and is sanctioned as such, based on the unreal premise that under no circumstances are minors capable of consenting to sexual acts by consent , not even among “peers” and in general feeds on the scandalisation of everything sexual, even physical. In this way, the oversexed shrillness in the media and the implementation of a repressive sexual morality with correspondingly inhumane legislation are ultimately completely intertwined.

Well, one could argue that sex and the physical are also celebrated in the news about breast flashing and that the (slightly) clothed body is often even more stimulating than complete nudity. The narrator unreservedly agrees with the latter in particular, and that is precisely where the crux lies: EVERY hint of nudity is now charged with sexual meaning to an extent, sexuality is always associated with sin and the forbidden at the same time, that nudity is no longer separated from sexual references (and so that sin and taboo breaking) can be seen.
And then no "celebrity" needs to be surprised anymore if he/she receives a fat shitstorm from the agitated mob instead of the expected likes:

Iris Aschenbrenner: Mega fuss about a shower photo with her child Iris Aschenbrenner probably didn't expect this reaction. As is so often the case, the former “Cologne 50667” actress published a photo with her son on Instagram. The motif: Iris and the 14-month-old toddler naked in the shower. The presenter did not understand the shitstorm that was triggered.

Opinions can be divided about photographing and making public photographies of naked offspring. However, we live in the “most tolerant, liberal, sexually liberated, and therefore most enlightened times of all”, in which personality disorders or physical deformities have to be recognized as gender, how can it be that the mere sight of a naked small child together with his naked mother causes waves of outrage worried? So something that one might assume is just about the most natural, primate-typical thing out there? But that's just the way it is in the real sexual hell, where you've declared war on your nipples, and a hole in your jeans is hailed as pure sin. A TODDLER near NIPPLES?!! “Yes, that's not possible at all!”, the stupid beast bleats with the residual brain shitted on by sexy sex hell memetics.

Well, the layman is amazed and the narrator is also humbly amazed at how gradual this development has been since the times when in this country even minors were allowed to pose NAKED or SEMI-NAKED on magazine covers in all their adolescent beauty as a matter of course, without there being such a hysterical screeching was organised around it, up to the current over-excited conditions, where young people who exchange pictures of themselves are persecuted by US “secret” police for "child pornography" and dragged to court, while the media sex cretins can hardly get themselves out of sheer sexiness all the time

But wait a minute, it's not like they wouldn't offer anything to young people. They even get all the
Katja Krasavice bitches
as identification figures and role models, who nevertheless signal their values ​​on the good side. In the USA, for example, Cardi B. may be a fucked-up, shitty vulgar ex-stripper, but she's on first-name terms with Joe and in her videos she's by no means a willing sex object, but rather a bitch with attitude, who makes precise announcements about where she wants to have "it" how! And of course "Black Lives Matter" and "Respect!"

Milan Horvath said...

In Germany, Katja Krasavice is the "mommy" for the stupid, attention-deficient and brutalised underclass brats. In a silly way, utterly ordinary, plastic and elastic in the buttocks, in the tits, in the lips and who knows somewhere else, the rest also operated on and filed accordingly, everything somehow synthetic including the bleached plastic strands on the doll's head -one can assume that for the target audience of this half-naked, half-synthetic vulgarity.
Plastic-Katja conveys pure WVC. Really now. To be a bitch, that's the philosophy of life here and doesn't mean that a woman is a easy-willing sex object. No, the "bitch" is sexually active, then the sex-tables are turned and on the same tour in which the rapping stallions demanded how the bitches should serve them, the blatant "bitches" are now doing the rapping -Macho world, so to speak, as female machos, the same, give corresponding lick-fuck instructions in the imperative, which even ten-year-old girls can sing along by heart - iamwhore! And that's how they learn early on that the guys have to please them first. The fact that you let the doctor cut you up and pump you full of plastic is not a contradiction in terms, after all you want the guys to have a high and not too tight! Yes, the narrator can confirm that even "prepubescent" boys can sing along to the female plastic Katja fans and that boys in early puberty consider the plastic Katja to be the epitome of hornyness, a wanking fantasy embodied, so to speak. And somehow that's #alsoagain..., ääääh, so #alsointeresting again.
How would it be if the boys and girls excited by these plastic bitches could simply act according to the set impulses? You could write some nice stories about it, but you'd better not to, because something like that doesn't work anymore-because of "Kinderborno" and stuff like that, nothing there with artistic freedom. Since the sex-hell has just set the appropriate control instances and that children and young people take this fake sexual freedom for real and live it out accordingly is then again considered sick, criminal, not accepted. So on the one hand constant hornyness, on the other hand pathologisation and criminalisation of the horny ones. It would have been enough for Germany, if sexually mature minors were allowed to live out their sexuality in the digital media largely unmolested by state and without sanctions, which would at least be the logical consequence of social developments well into the 1980s, before the changed course was set had an unmistakable effect. Even in the noughties, the prevailing tenor was that sexting should be accepted and not demonized as part of youth culture and the logical consequence of young people's use of the new media, despite the long-established paedohysteria. There are risks, but ultimately it would be a matter of sensitising young people to this and training them in media skills, etc. In the meantime, young people sexting online are de iure either sex offenders or at least very close and none of these super-strong bitches feel responsible for it. Rather, the plastic Katja fuels sexual-hell by citing a chapter when presenting her “Bitch Bible”, in which she denounces her own father as a “paedo”, who is probably all the little neighbour girls who visited the Krasavices' properties, nibbled on them, or what she is trying to suggest, but she only writes it so that we all greedily buy the "Bitch Bible". The narrator doubts about the authenticity and it is quite likely that someone just tailored some blatant fake stories onto the plastic body of this impertinent person. But even if it should be true: fuck it! Characters like Plastic-Katja are ultimately just riotous stress-mongers who deepen the gap between the sexes, mess up their often still childish clientele and at the same time hide the pitfalls under all the sexualised shouting.

Eivind Berge said...

We have to do archaeology to find reasonable mainstream views on sex these days. Even digital archaeology uncovers a saner world. This one is so sweet I'll quote it in full:

From the Northern Echo, first published Friday 29th Dec 2000.

A NORTH-East teenager has been chosen to represent the region on a national board which looks at the important issues affecting teenage girls.

Sarah Wilson, 15, of Edmondsley, near Chester-le-Street, was chosen to be the voice of the North on the Generation Wicked board - the first national teenage advisory board.

Top of the agenda at the recent inaugural meeting attended by Sarah were sex, drugs, alcohol, clubbing and bullying.

Sarah, a pupil at Sacriston's Fyndoune Community College, was shortlisted for the committee after logging on to Wickedcolours. com - the fastest-growing Internet site for 11 to 17-year-old girls.

After leaving her e-mail address and a brief description of the issues important to her, she was amazed to find herself shortlisted, and eventually selected, for the final 12-member board.

She said: "When I was picked, it was without doubt the proudest moment of my life.

"Thousands of people tried to get on to the board so it's a real honour to make the final group."

At a recent board meeting at the Grosvenor House Hotel in London, Sarah and her contemporaries discussed some of the biggest issues facing teenage girls in the 21st Century.

Among the topics aired were eating disorders, the age of consent to sex - including hopes to lower it to 12 years old - and a need for hard-hitting education on drugs and sex.

Sarah said: "Speaking to girls from other parts of the country was interesting because we all thought about the same type of things.

"I did get the impression that there are probably more drugs in the North-East than in other regions, though."

Sarah is waiting for her next call-up for Generation Wicked, which could see her travel to London in February next year for another meeting.

But instead of Generation Wicked we got Generation Prude who can't consent at all. There is activism though, now also with memes on our side:

Milan said...

I wonder how long this post will be on twatter.

Eivind Berge said...

Also from the year 2000:

Girls say teenage sex campaign is 'out of touch'

SCHOOLGIRLS have dismissed the Government's campaign to tackle the high rate of teenage pregnancy as "patronising" and "completely out of touch".

They said the £60 million drive to halve Britain's "shameful record" of teenage conceptions was a "total waste of money" and would have been better spent on clinics for young people wanting confidential advice.

The attack on the initiative, in particular the £2 million advertising campaign to persuade schoolchildren that it was not embarrassing or shameful to be a virgin, emerged in an internet poll of 42,000 girls aged 12 to 16. Nine out of 10 respondents did not believe in waiting until marriage to have sex, while 87 per cent said the age of consent should be lowered from 16.

Sex education was criticised as out-dated, uninformative and taught too late, with little structured literature about sexually transmitted diseases, same-sex relationships and how to deal with pregnancy. They said teachers needed to elect representatives to talk to teenagers in confidence about sex, rather than relying on school nurses. They also said that free condoms should be supplied in the girls' lavatories because boys were too immature to "make proper use of them".

Better find some more mature boys, then. They are well indoctrinated with feminism now, but we didn't get into this mess thanks to teenage girls themselves.

Eivind Berge said...

Absolutely stunning how we changed history of 20 years ago from a time when teen girls were complaining about not getting enough sex with mature enough men to a time full of historic abuse. The record is still there, but we ignore it.

Milan said...

"They also said that free condoms should be supplied in the girls' lavatories because boys were too immature to "make proper use of them".

I understood it as, they are inflating condoms for fun, so it would be better to have it in girls lavatories to prevent wasting of that (as it was free), not necessarily that they consider those boys too immature to be potential sexual partners.

Full agreement with other things, though.

Milan Horvath said...

interviewer:Which society do you think is more open to nudity: today or then?

Will McBride:Definitely the ones from the 70s. Everything is very tight nowadays, the laws are stricter and I don't really have any options anymore. I mean, there's no way I could put the book back on the market now, it would be torn up in mid-air. In the 70's it was something new and that's why it was so interesting.

Milan Horvath said...

As you are frequently interested in female "sex offenders" I am not sure if this case wasn't mentioned here already, it is 2 year old thing.

"Simply because Miss Buchanan is a woman, she is facing this charge," Farrell says. "Therefore, women throughout Utah are at higher risk of facing a criminal charge simply because of their gender. There are different ideas around what morality is or is not. But the state's reach to criminalize morality based on gender and gender stereotyping is incredibly problematic."

I know that her advocate is trying easiest way, which is understandable.
But why this is easiest way.
Interesting thing is (especially in USA,but it is spreading) that they could prosecute you for dubious reasons, police could beat shit of out of you, but only problem is when there is some form of discrimination (sexism, racism...etc).
Propagating this form of "activism" smells to me as "divide et impera" tactic.
Why not protest against oppression by state altogether instead of screeching iamawoman,iamblack,iamwhiteheterosexual....blabalbal...
While at the same time noose is tighten more and more............

BTW: There are various conspiracies, why there is so much tolerance towards excessive immigration between elites......couldn't it possibly be (among other much prosaic reasons) that when you have such intense diversity among population you could play game of "divide et impera" even more................
Why #blacklivesmatter instead of #americansagainstpolicebrutality

Milan Horvath said...

And something similar again....

"I think it's really stupid that people of all genders can't show their breasts here," she told CBS, also criticising the use of a drone. Others put it on record that the officials first went to black bathers.

...but isn't constant surveillance and nagging, persecution for minor infractions against (mostly irrational) societal rules much worse problem than discrimination itself.
Isn't this "identity politics" actually preventing to emerge any form of genuine activism.

"According to CBS and Vice, the area's Golden Valley Police Department launched a camera drone over the beach and began prosecuting violators. According to the authority, the decision to use the beach was made because they had received "more than a dozen complaints" about nudity, alcohol consumption or drug abuse on the beach in the past few months.

According to the police, several people could be arrested in the event of violations.
"It's about time people were held accountable for their actions," said Randy Mahlen, an inspector with the police force."

Did you think (as me) when you were young/child and modern technologies like computers were emerging, that more technologically developed world, will be also more free, rational and liberal in social sphere?..........

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, what a way to create problems that don't exist. We can now put drones in the air to be offended by nudity that no prudish person would see anyway. Can even catch sunbathers in private gardens that way. Isn't technology great or what? It creates more bullshit offenses and gives law enforcement more ways to catch them.

The identity politics is the only way people know to attack it. Normies believe they have to work within the system and find loopholes and technicalities like "discrimination," because they can't bring themselves to disagree with the actual norms. They can never, ever say something like "sex/nudity is not that bad." The antisex laws can never be opposed. Even the female sex offender charade can only be reacted to in some roundabout and equally absurd way such as piling more "equality" on it like they did with the topless woman in Utah. It was "equality" that got us into that mess, but they can't see anything wrong with the concept itself, or the underlying sex-hostility. All this supposed crimeworthiness of sexuality is their supreme religion that they can never question. Only pariahs like us can do that, even though normies said similar things just one generation ago.

I am still dumbstruck that my sexualist position of lowering the age of consent to 13 is tamer than girls themselves favored 22 years ago. Maybe our platform should say 12 too then?

By the way, I got the link to that wrong. It needs to be accessed through the Wayback Machine like this:

Milan Horvath said...

"I am still dumbstruck that my sexualist position of lowering the age of consent to 13 is tamer than girls themselves favored 22 years ago. Maybe our platform should say 12 too then?"

My personal opinion about AOC* stays same and it is 14 (except people of close age-for them no AOC),
there could be of course judgment from case to case as it was practised in Italy or Brazil.

*by AOC I mean old European understanding of AOC, not American-style absolute rape age laws.
Also I think that AOC laws should be consistent with criminal responsibility laws.
Which is not case, when it comes to many countries-I call it hypocrisy....

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, if we are going to have an age of consent, or course it needs to be the old European kind where violations are statutory abuse even for very young children when they in fact consent, not a pretense of literal rape. Which to my dismay is working out fine for the feminists. Norway's new absolute rape age of 14 is now being enforced with a straight face by the bigots and no opposition outside of male sexualism.

And needless to say, none of this can ever reasonably apply to women.

The age of criminal responsibility cannot reasonably be lower than age of consent -- unless, to remove the absurdity that minors can consent only while raping and abusing, there is an exception to criminal responsibility for sex crimes until one hits the age of consent. Or else you get not just a bizarre contradiction but also a perverse incentive to accuse rape, since that's the only way women can exculpate themselves for sex with minors if we are also going to have the female sex offender charade.

Eivind Berge said...

If society wants to keep punishing women, they need to change the justification to something like misogyny, because the "exploitation" framework is patently absurd from beginning to end for them. We also need to change the justification for punishing male homosexuals to homophobia (usually from the point of view of the parents), and while doing so I can see having a higher age of consent for them than for girls (14 or even 16 is fine in my view). My male sexualist position is now 12 for girls, and I shall argue so unabashedly publicly, seeing how insane it is to pander to feminism more than even teen girls themselves did not long ago.

Milan Horvath said...

"And needless to say, none of this can ever reasonably apply to women."

Well you know my position about this, maybe Rind will change my mind..maybe not
(when I'll have more time, I must look to it).

Personally I would be for substitution of crime of "rape" and other violent sexual crimes with just one crime called "sexual assault" which could cover all more serious* sexual violence.
*Unwanted grabbing could be considered as misdemeanour as it is case in less serious non-sexual assault (at least in my country).

And then sexual abuse, which would cover explicit sexual activity** with person under 14, perpetrator would be significantly older, and it will be proven that prosecution is in interest of protected person.

**Which means not,hugging, kissing,skinny-dipping,caressing, cuddling,bathing together and etc. -enough with persecution of parents for normal things

When it comes to sentences for sex crimes I am pretty OK with state of things during communist times-only sentences not entire content.

Excerpt from Criminal code of Czechoslovak socialist republic from 1961:

Crimes against human dignity

§ 241
Who, by force or threat of imminent violence, forces a woman to have sex, or
who abuses its helplessness for such an act,
shall be imprisoned for three to eight years.
By imprisonment for five to twelve years, the perpetrator will be punished,
if it causes serious harm to the health referred to in paragraph 1, or
if he commits such an act on a woman under the age of fifteen.
The offender shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of ten to fifteen years if he causes death by the acts referred to in paragraph 1.

Sexual abuse
§ 242
Whoever has sex with a person under the age of fifteen or who sexually abuses such a person in another way will be punished by imprisonment for one to eight years.
The offender shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two to ten years if he commits the act referred to in paragraph 1 against a person entrusted with his supervision, abusing his dependence.
An offender shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of five to twelve years if he causes serious harm to his health by the acts referred to in paragraph 1.
The offender shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of ten to fifteen years if he causes death by the acts referred to in paragraph 1.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, please read Rind. You are endorsing a framework which is comically absurd, even if much better than the height of feminist hysteria. Even if you demand that prosecution only happens when it is "in the interest of protected person" -- which in practice leaves greed as the the only motivation for accusers and prosecutors to prey on women -- it is still jarring and unjust because nothing stops them from claiming such "interest" from an act that is socially, psychologically and evolutionarily a FITNESS PAYOFF rather than an offense against boys.

Milan Horvath said...

"in the interest of protected person" means that prosecution should be stopped if it causes more harm to protected person than act itself...thing that was practised in Italy or Brazil
(if I am correctly informed about their criminal law).

Of course, ranks of forensic experts (psychologists,sexologists etc.) should be purged from various "moralunternehmers" and fanatics and opportunists, otherwise they will not work for truth but for ideology or profit.

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, how do you prevent all those parasites from pushing "victims" into accusing when it's not really in their interest? As far as I can tell, the only way is to have reasonable laws in the first place, which do not allow prosecution for nonsense like women "sexually exploiting" boys.

yeahhokay said...

Eivind Berge said...

In order for age of consent to make sense, it must exist in relation to some kind of vulnerability. With boys and women, there is NONE. The age of the woman vs. boys is not a factor contributing to "sexual abuse" in any conceivable way. That legal fiction doesn't just not exist, but as Rind so eloquently explains is substituted in reality with the diametrical opposite, namely that young boys are especially suited to consent because they are immature, so they can learn. "In short, the nonhuman primate data suggest functionality for immature male-adult female sexual interactions across the primate order, a functionality that appears to be reflected in proximal mechanisms such as immature males taking the initiative and exhibiting eagerness.... Because boys are primates, too, it can be speculated that maturing boys may likewise be biologically prepared, as a conserved adaptive trait, to find sex with nubile women appetitive, prompting initiatory behavior, context permitting, and a clear eagerness." Which is what all evidence and experience point to. Then it is absurd to make any reference whatsoever in criminal law to a woman being "significantly older" than a young boy as if that is any reason for concern at all.

If you still want that, then you should be honest about the justification being something like misogyny, or some supernatural law like the wrath of God for inexplicable reasons, or a hang-up about literalist "equality" no matter how absurd it gets (by that logic we should also be building maternity wards for men and things like that in equal numbers).

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks for the link, yeahhokay. That insanity needs to be spelled out here for posterity:

RICHMOND, Texas (KIAH) – A woman was convicted in a Fort Bend County court for allowing her 13-year-old daughter to endure sexual abuse by a 47-year-old man as "a normal part of their religious beliefs."

Cherry Payton, 43, was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a young child and sentenced to 30 years in prison last week, according to the Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office.

Prosecutors said that in 2017, the victim admitted to her doctor that she was sexually active with "her husband," who she said was 47 years old. Payton, who was also at the doctor's office, said the victim was married with her consent and the marriage was a part of her religious beliefs.

Prosecutors discovered that Payton allowed the victim to be married for nearly a year before coming to the attention of authorities. They also had evidence that Payton had sexually abused the victim herself, under the guise of a different religion.

While a person must be 18 years old to legally be married in Texas, there are certain exceptions that allows minors who are at least 16 years of age to marry.

"Although the child victim in this case was failed by her mother time and time again, she was surrounded in the courtroom by a strong support system," prosecutor Jessica Ramos said. "We are grateful to her adoptive mother, her court advocate, her CASA, and the caseworkers from Child Protective Services that supported the child throughout this investigation and trial."

Oh yeah, let's throw away women's lives, in addition to men's of course, in hopes of eradicating sexuality and all remaining cultures with more permissive norms... Scorched earth! There is still room to grow here, as I'm sure there were more people involved with facilitating the wedding. How about locking up the priest and catering crew and cleaning ladies and on and on; we clearly need harsher laws still and are sure to get them soon unless civilization collapses first.

The Night Wind said...

The US used to be a far less paedohysterical society than it is now. It used to be common that when a boy reached about 14-15 years, an older relative would arrange a discreet meeting with a sex worker---it was usually arranged so that it would like a natural chance encounter to the boy. It did wonders for a young man's sexual confidence. When I got to college age you could see the difference between boys who had that experience and those who didn't just by how they approached women.

MH said...

"Prosecutors said that in 2017, the victim admitted to her doctor that she was sexually active with "her husband," who she said was 47 years old. Payton, who was also at the doctor's office, said the victim was married with her(mothers') consent and the marriage was a part of her religious beliefs."

I do not doubt that (female) prosecutor,advocate and various people from CPS are full of shit.
If those two would met at IDK...piano lessons and he would seduce her ....and it will become some"love affair" or whatever, we could maybe talk about it then.
But this seems to me as arranged (aka. forced) marriage. Not sure if I would endorse that.
However, those American sentences are draconian and imbecilic 30y...165y..1508y...5 life consecutive sentences..breaking wheel punishment(televised live by NBC)...

Religious freedom should be no excuse, when it comes to criminal law in secular country.

Eivind Berge said...

Arranged marriage does not have to mean forced. There is no indication of that or other abuse here, looks like a typical incidental discovery by a dishonest doctor who violates patient confidentiality (now, that may be forced by mandatory reporting laws). Don't you think these cuntrags would take pains to mention it if she were unwilling or unhappy in that marriage? It is reported exactly like consensual relationships will be nowadays. Curiously, they didn't even call it rape, so she must have been VERY willing. Also, religion may be the only cure for feminism, so this is something I totally endorse.

Anonymous said...

Kindergartners in a school in Canada were reportedly sent home with a masturbation assignment:

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, of course, the war on sex is greatly enhanced by promoting masturbation, so that's what they do.

MH said...

"Kindergartners in a school in Canada were reportedly sent home with a masturbation assignment"

Best solution to these problems, would be some sort of decentralisation in school system, where state curriculum will be reduced to national/regional language, foreign world language, exact/natural sciences and some basic civil rights/law education, rest of curriculum should be decided by owner of school or some parents school board(in case of public schools).

Parents/local community should decide about these things so everyone will be happy (that his child his educated according to his beliefs).
Yet it seems, that both camps would rather force their view up to throats of those others', instead of making some reasonable deal.

Anonymous said...

This is becoming a common trend - a teenager goes to a psychiatrist and blames their problems on an easy target, the psychiatrist takes the accusation to the cops, the cops then interrogate the rape hoax victim and confiscate electronics. This is why it is extremely important to: 1) never, ever send anything sexual via electronics, and 2) never talk to the police and admit to having sex. The feminist enforcers cannot prove these cases on the word of the accuser alone.

We forget that the state does not pursue what it cannot enforce. If everyone is breaking a law and the state can't do anything about it, the state backs down, always, to preserve its own power. Look throughout history, it is always the same. Honestly, the best kind of activism you can do against feminism is to learn good game, and use it to bang as many young illegal teenagers as possible and not get caught, simply by following the two easy steps above.

Imbecile Above said...

You way want to think about deleting the comment of the imbecile above, Eivind.

MH said...

I intended to write something similar, albeit more polite.
Firstly, I am not very confident whether, such ideas would really help to reverse trends in society.

Secondly,controversial or anti-establishment thoughts could be expressed, however it is necessary to do it wisely.
This is not .onion forum and I bet that even in most permissive jurisdictions
(when it comes to speech) incitement is not considered legal.
There are people who are not inclined to "our"(at least what we could agree on) ideas, watching this forum.

Eivind Berge said...

Let's discuss it instead. I think he means well, but some of the advice is dangerous. It is false that you can't be convicted on the word of an accuser alone. Happens all the time, even and perhaps especially in historical cases. But of course he is right that you must not talk to police! I would go further and say you must not even tell your lawyer some things, or tell him to not use it before trial, not enter it into any records that the prosecution has access to. With false accusations it is important to not let the prosecution know any exculpatory evidence before trial! Because they WILL adapt the accusations accordingly with things like alibi and such. They will change the date you are supposed to have raped some girl if you have proof you were in another country at the time.

Of course, you don't want to leave incriminating electronic evidence around, but don't be rude to girls. We know from Rind's latest study that they react much more positively to more intimate relationships, no doubt including courteous communications in channels they are comfortable with.

Also I think he is wrong about young girls blaming (consensual) sex on their problems when they go to doctors and therapists. That may happen later if they turn into mean feminists, but the usual story is the sexual activity is incidentally revealed and the abuse industry turns it into "abuse." We are dealing with horrible, systematic evil, of the worst kind the world currently sees! Sometimes they will even torture the girls to make them testify:

"The case of "Amy", a 12-year-old girl from California, is one blatant example of this institutional abuse. Amy's family sought counseling in California after Amy and her stepfather revealed to the mother that he had fondled her on several occasions. The family therapist they consulted reported the incident, as required under California law, to the police, who filed felony child abuse charges against the stepfather. The stepfather pled not guilty when he was charged, and the girl refused to testify against him. Frustrated by Amy's will not to testify, child protection workers placed Amy in solitary confinement in a juvenile prison. For 9 days, she was confined to a four-by-eight foot room with only a bed and lamp, and for a few days, a television set. When the judge in the case saw that Amy's resolve not to testify could not be broken, the case was dismissed. [...] A more recent case in Massachusetts involves two youths, ages 14 and 15, who were confined in various locked facilities for at least a five month period--part of the time in Federal facilities--as "material witnesses" in the case of a Boston-area man with whom they had lived, who is accused of Mann Act violations, after they attempted to recant all or part of previous statements they had made concerning the man."

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks also weighing in on this, MH. I would take issue with you about this sort of thing not being effective. We must be the change we want to see in the world, and if lots of men decided to flaunt the sex laws it would most assuredly have an effect. The feminists only rule over us because most men consent to it or go like lambs to the slaughter.

Also I need to emphasize that his comment does not contain incitement in the criminal sense. Incitement is when you tell specific people to do specific things and they are imminently likely to carry it out. Stating that a certain kind of activism is good does not qualify, not by a long shot, or else I would be imprisoned a long time ago. Whether it is wise to leave it here is another discussion and I am still undecided.

MH said...

Not saying that stupid laws should be necessarily meekly obeyed, yet wouldn't it be better to not have them at first.

I am not lawyer, and maybe I am paranoid.....
But you know, judges and prosecutors are being more and more creative when it comes to interpretation of law, and when there are some political/ideological goals to achieve.
It however depends on jurisdiction, I hope that it is not case of Norway or country of anonymous commenter (from anywhere he is).

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, they try, but prosecutors failed so spectacularly and embarrassingly at expanding the legal limits of incitement with me, that they ultimately only got the courts to reaffirm the boundaries that I just mentioned, making it much more difficult to try again any time soon. In Norway it is not criminal incitement to merely advocate for a course of lawbreaking/activism by asserting that it is morally good or even "best" like the commenter above said. Not in the USA either. Your utterance must be referring to specific acts that can directly be carried out and literally be telling your followers to do so, in order to be punishable. In practice that means we would have to be talking about specific girls in this context, not just a mindset of what your approach to relationships or activism should be. What we are discussing here is general sentiment, morality, ethics and strategy, all of which is fully legal even if it favors breaking the law. Discussing what one should do in hypothetical scenarios cannot be incitement no matter what your opinion is. Think of it as trolley problems, because that's how detached from direct action this comment section really is. We don't even know if anonymous commenters are trolls or whatever, and thinking they would directly lead to criminal acts because of something they wrote is not worth entertaining. Also we get reported all the time no matter what we write, so there is hardly a need to avoid provoking the feminists.

I delete anything I think can cause serious trouble or censorship. I know I am right about the law, but could be mistaken on the censorship, so feedback is welcome, but currently I don't think I need to delete anything. Also, if they can't allow something like this it is high time for thinking about moving anyway. When I do, it will be to my own server where no one else has the power to moderate, only take us offline at most, and then I can put the exact same site up on another host/domain indefinitely all the way until I am in prison, and even then hopefully with the help of others.

MH said...

OK, I am glad, you clarified it.

It is not my style, actually I abhor public lynching/shaming, but sometimes I think, that- if it wouldn't be bad idea to establish some hall of shame for dishonest public figures from judiciary, media, NGO's. However I am not sure whether it will be legally tenable.

This old article from Maggie (when she was yet readable) reminded me that idea.
It's old, notorious case for anyone who is interested into these things.

...Prosecutor Daniel Ford likely engaged in serious misconduct and open bigotry in winning his conviction…yet…has never been investigated or disciplined for his role in the case…and [is now] a judge on the Massachusetts Superior Court…Ford [presented]…an edited video interview…[showing] several children alleging that Baran had sexually abused them. But edited out was footage in which some of the children denied any abuse by Baran, accused other members of the daycare faculty of abuse or of witnessing abuse, and, most importantly, depicted interrogators asking the same questions over and over—even after repeated denials—until a child gave them an affirmative answer. Some children were even given rewards for their answers…...
...For three years, then District Attorney Gerard Downing, who assisted in Baran’s original trial, claimed to be unable to locate the tapes. When Downing died of a sudden heart attack in December 2003, David Capeless took over as D.A…[and] was able to produce them within months.” ....
...During the 22 years he was imprisoned for “crimes” that existed only in his accuser’s evil minds, “Baran…was raped and beaten more than 30 times, necessitating six different transfers to new…institutions.” With help from the National Center for Reason and Justice, an organization founded “in 2002 [by] several writers, human and civil rights advocates, and attorneys…to support Baran and others falsely accused of child abuse,” Baran sued the state and won $400,000 compensation last August. But when he asked for his records to be expunged, Massachusetts attorney general Martha Coakley (whom we have seen before) refused without any valid reason:...

Baran was freed in 2009 and died of a brain aneurysm on September 1, 2014.

How is that, there are no consequences for such people.
Enjoying respectability, while some people's lives have been ruined thanks to them.

Eivind Berge said...

Another one!

I am seething, but right now I only have the energy for a tweet:

She got 7.5 years for victimless sex and the misogyny is unrecognized due to supernatural belief in the badness of sex which is the state religion. Facts of seduction get distorted into "abuse" which literally replaces the truth for a brainwashed populace.

Eivind Berge said...

A bit more commentary in tweet format:

How much longer are we going to let this witchcraft pass as facts? How many more lives must be ruined before we can face the truth that consensual underage sex does not lead to trauma, so the justification for locking up these women is gibberish?

Why can't we have evidence-based laws? How can a connection with no scientific evidence that the "victim" group is any worse off than the control group pass as 100% certainly caused by the thing criminalized in our justice system? Isn't that spectacularly bizarre and unjust?

In order for crimes of supposedly traumatic abuse to make sense there should be evidence that victims have more trauma than a random control group. For CSA this evidence is comparable to witchcraft and for male "victims" of women, the evidence says BETTER outcomes than controls.

The boy in the above story claims sex made him traumatized and suicidal, but why can't people see this is no proof? The MECHANISM must also make sense or else it might as well be an accusation of murder by Voodoo. Which is exactly how backwards the justice system is on sex crimes!

We live in the dark ages where evidence-based laws haven't been invented yet and probably never will be. Which makes it all the more impressive that we pulled it off for medicine.

The AF said...

@Eivind - after 20 years, we can't even convince more than a handful of people to discuss sex hysteria and the age of consent as a problem, but you think you can launch a mass resistance movement of tens of thousands of men willing to break feminist sex laws?

Often I suspect you might be/have been an undercover cop all along, but then I re-watch your appearance on Norwegian tv...

Oh another fat middle-aged pig has gone down for having sex with a boy? The other week a British man was jailed for 6 years for being caught by an anti-paedophile vigilante sting. In other words, 6 years in prison for fantasizing about sex with a non-existing child who was actually an adult paedocrite.

Well, going to prison in Norway is more of a holiday camp, so not so much to fear for you and no disgrace doing so for some anonymous imbecile (or a cop or a troll) hiding behind 20 TOR nodes, and for the right of middle-aged fat pigs to play the pussy pass and seduce 12 year old 'lucky' boys. I think I'm out of here though.

Eivind Berge said...

You don't understand how incitement law works. Considering that I have been through several trials related to this and won in the end (both criminal and civil), maybe you should concede that I know more than you. Anyway, I only allowed a comment for which I am not personally responsible and neither are you -- only the poster is -- and I am not trying to test the limits of legal incitement any more myself since there is nothing to gain from that (and I've already said way more extreme things too). Any distinction between the sentiment I've promoted all along and a phrasing such as his is immaterial, so there is no point in putting it that way, which only fosters paranoia on our part and nothing else. If they were able to lock me up for this sentiment they would have already done it and this changes nothing. My acquittal was not due to a technicality but the fact that such opinions are legal in Norway, as determined by lengthy deliberations twice to the Supreme Court. Everyone understands what we stand for anyway and it's a false safety that you think you are safe from cops just by stating it a little differently. It was always about profound, genuine disrespect for the feminist sex laws and I hope you don't really mean that it's "immoral" to break them, even justified by secondary, internalized psychological harm which Rind's latest study shows is almost non-existent at the population level. Girls are not so stupid that they really believe this shit, even if some take advantage of the laws to cash out later. Civil disobedience is indeed the appropriate term for what this fake victimization really consisted of, with well deserved honorable connotations of activism as opposed to causing harm.

I have warned you before about accusing me of Asperger's, and next time I will delete that in moderation because it gets too tiresome to have to point out to new readers that it's a lie. I do have some rules here and your fear of that "troll" is based on your ignorance of the law rather than lax moderation on my part. I declare him not a troll because his heart is in the right place, even if his comment included some infelicitous statements that I wouldn't put that way.

The rules are, in order of importance:

1. No accusations of bad faith. I am an activist on my honor and conscience and will tolerate no one taking a crap over that.
2. No accusations of autism, which is a lie and also crapping over my blog.
3. Nothing illegal or likely to get this blog shut down (with a little leeway on the latter since it would be beneficial in the long run to move to a server I control, even if painful at first).
4. Of course no spamming or impersonation either.

Finally I still don't understand why you are so upset that I stand up for women convicted under these insane laws. It is irrational to make the resistance more sectarian than it needs to be.

Eivind Berge said...

Another country adopts feminist sex laws: UAE.

The new UAE Penal Law decriminalised consensual relations out of wedlock, introduced provisions for unmarried parenting, and expanded the definition of rape crimes.

The Federal Decree Law no. 31 of 2021 concerning the UAE Penal Code, announced as part of the UAE's largest set of legislative reforms last month, aims to enhance the protection of women and domestic helpers while strengthening social cohesion and public safety.

To be effective from January 2, 2022, the law, brings major amendments to the Federal Law no. 3 of 1987.

One major highlight is raising the legal age of puberty from 14 to 18 years old, which means victims of rape, sexual molestation or consensual sex under 18 are classified as minors under the new Penal Law.... the new law raises the age limit of juvenile victims of consensual sex to 18, as opposed to 14.

Funny how they think they can legislate puberty... But at least they are honest about calling them "victims of consensual sex" rather than pretending minors "can't consent." It appears that they gave in to Western pressure to legalize sex outside of marriage, but then they grabbed all the feminist taboos they could get to make up for it, while not really taking the mythology behind them seriously.

MH said...

"homos are the very, very worst paedocrites"

Yeah, I've noticed that every group that is threatened by "The Majority" is trying to diverge attention elsewhere aka. "kick the shit elsewhere".

Doesn't mean that all these groups should cooperate,especially if they have clearly different goals, but it is interesting how they spread dishonest criticism and are enhancing witch-hunt towards other groups despite they are/were victims of witch-hunts themselves.

"The new UAE Penal Law decriminalised consensual relations out of wedlock, introduced provisions for unmarried parenting, and expanded the definition of rape crimes."

....process of gradual infiltration, effecting modifications of mentalities and customs which seem inoffensive in themselves but which end in a fundamental perversion and degradation against which it is impossible to fight other than within oneself......

Not that I would personally cry for middle-eastern culture and customs, but if it is working even for such different culture, then it's alarming. (9:35-10:25)
I think I've posted this link in past.

Anonymous said...

Funny how they think they can legislate puberty...

In a paper concerning the condemnation of his meta-analysis from 1998, Rind writes something similar:

"But our case is also different from Kinsey's, because our research was condemned in a congressional resolution, bringing matters to a new level.
Critics of Congress and APA's concessions have analogized this situation to that of Galileo. At the APA's annual convention in August 1999 in Boston, an anonymous source, unknown to us, posted stickers around the convention that satirically read, "If the US Congress says that 'The sun revolves around the earth,' then that fact will be given most careful consideration in all articles published by the APA."

Anonymous said...

Men in Dubai should throw all their maids off the balconies in protest.

Anonymous said...

One of many stories over the years of early puberty appeared in The Daily Mail today.

Some comments sarcastically joked about Republicans wanting an excuse to lower the marriage age, others about the Democrats wanting to use the phenomenon as a excuse to promote MAP's (as if either is true), but none seeing any kind of bigger picture or that both Reps and Dems are parties of paedohysteria.

There was one comment about how it could be due to sexualization somehow. Obviously this is a highly speculative notion. Perhaps, though, it is worth noting the possibility that the reverse is true-ie that infantilization and DEsexualization is the culprit. Human beings can only take so much bullshit before their bodies themselves rebel.

Oh, in case you didn't know, apparently these days it's a taboo now to have a relationship with a woman you knew as a child, for some reason. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a law or two about this coming down the pipeline.

There's so much nasty news, as with the UAE, but virtually no good news. It's as if the situation has a mind of its own.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, the situation does have a mind of its own. The Antisex Juggernaut or whatever you want to call it... it's as if it hijacks minds into finding every conceivable excuse to be against sex -- even if people think of themselves as free-spirited they are drawn into it by some taboo that gets past their defenses, always some excuse even if you have to resort to having known a woman as a child to somehow twist it into "abuse" and invalidate consent.

There are still moments of clarity for some people, like this tweet I just read, but they are getting rarer and rarer, the opposite of what I would expect:

brecht apologist
in total sincerity, i think it’s alarming how puritanical people are getting regarding sex, nudity, etc and i don’t know how so many of the more left leaning people who engage in this prudish behavior/thinking don’t see how reactionary it all is

and one good reply: woking oneself all the way back around to sexual repression

MH said...

Interesting comments there....

I love how some of them are trying to find problem in recent past, while asserting that it was somehow "significantly different" or too much permissive in 10's or 00's....hahaha nooo way-
US is fucked beyond belief since mid-80's and its' "old continental" satrapies since ca mid/late-90'.

Other funny thing is notion, that we can't live in sex-repressed times, because there is so much porn and sexuality in media. (My repost from chaosfragment is dealing with that)

BTW: Interesting citation IMO

"Fraenkel (1992) realizes that the supposed “sexual revolution”, alleged to the West since the late 1960s , is improper. Sex is not really used freely and this is observed in all cultural fields (” repressive desublimation “). In order to move away from what would be our real sexual liberation, we are obliged to modify our mental structure and our moral inhibition. Conversely, Judeo-Christian morality still remains and small social changes are exaggerated because they are seen in focus. Even many who claim to be atheists simply secularized and internalized the same old moral precepts. "

MH said...
Oh and these libertariano-anarchist "radicals".
Haha, my grandma is more radical than this dude.

MH said...

Rape as weapon??? WTF is that?
This is consequence of years and years of feeding various feminist parasites, who wouldn't have any chance of getting decent job in real world.
Did you notice that various of these "law novelisation" were initiative of "equality" (aka.feminist) ministries rather than those of justice or health.
Same it is on EU level with "Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality"
(BTW isn't that name dumb, what about -committee on white people rights and racial equality)

AA said...

Joanna Garnier is a feminist leading a crusade against Polish men offering accomodation to Ukrainian refugees for (implied) sex.

Here she is giving a TED talk. I wonder what her motivation could be?

MH said...

....ludzie ktorzy zabierają nam prace.......
She's member of organisation "La Strada", which is generously funded by EU.

page 94

According to that video it seems she's brave and also very attractive woman.

Her motivation is of course only and only welfare of those poor women from war-torn Ukraine.
How dare you to think something else, you nasty toxic masculine.................hahahaha

MH said...

Speaking about "how dare you"

Anonymous said...

"We're too old to get any teen girls (other than undercover vigilantes/cops) even if we tried."

Wow, this is bone-headed retarded thinking. Honestly, if you're thinking like this, it's better that you don't have an "anti-feminist" blog.

A simple Google search will show you all those "dirty old men" who had sex with teen girls under 18, but unfortunately they admitted to sex in their electronic communications, and/or admitted sex to the cops. Many more "dirty old men" get away with illicit sex because they don't mess up in this way. Girls only complain when they feel they can get an advantage or they want revenge because you were mean to them - Eivind is right that keeping girls happy will keep you out of jail in this example, otherwise known as "good game".

Eivind is right an accusation is enough to get you arrested, but I am right in that an accusation is not enough to prove you actually had sex. And if they can't prove you had sex either from DNA evidence, a witness, or your own admission either in a text message or in a statement to the police, they have no case against you.

Activism can be fun!

MH said...

they are just using old tricks.........
In 1874 the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Children was founded (New York Society for the Prevention of Violence Against Children - NYSPCC), which rapidly shifted its activity from the fight against physical child abuse to the denunciation of sexual abuse, which, in the words of its New York consultant, the gynecologist W. Travis Gibb, was "much more common than commonly thought" and for which the "indecent" living conditions of the "lower class" were blamed.
The NYSPCC effected the formation of 300 similar unions across America by 1910, for which by about 1908 combating the "unspeakable crimes" of sexual abuse of young girls had become a priority.1 Also in 1874, middle-class Protestant women formed the Woman's Christian Temperance Union (Christian Women's League for Temperance - WCTU), which originally campaigned against the sale of alcoholic beverages, but developed a more general program from 1879 under the long-standing presidency of Frances Willard, which was ostensibly associated with progressive demands such as those for the introduction of the campaigned for women's suffrage and the eight-hour day, but consisted above all in a crusade for »social unity«. The WCTU, which by 1892 had grown to become the largest women's organization in the United States at the time, with nearly 150,000 paying members and branches in every state, denounced the spread of "prostitution and immorality," set up hostels for "fallen women," and advocated a chaste and "moral ' Lifestyle of young women, especially working-class girls threatened by 'vice'. To the enthusiasm of Willard's WCTU, Protestant clerics founded the White Cross Society in 1885, which soon also had nationwide branch offices, in order to propagate sexual abstinence and "moral purity" as a gimmick, even among young men.
The tabloid press that was emerging in the USA at the time, with newspaper tsars like Hearst or Pulitzer, who hammered such anti-sexual propaganda into people’s heads with a completely different ideological power than the pulpit and local newspapers of the past.
Even then, a leitmotif was the sensationalist reporting on extraordinarily serious sex crimes, which created public hysteria about the sex killers allegedly lurking everywhere - in 1915, for example, the New York press couped with new headlines about the sexual murder of two small children that had just been committed. After molestation of an eight-year-old girl in the Upper East Side, an armed mob of 50 men and boys almost lynched a completely innocent passer-by and only determined police intervention saved his life.

Another sweeping law enforcement—alongside the Comstock Law's reintroduction of antisexual censorship—that this movement done was able to enforce was the raising of the age of sexual consent.

MH said...

At the federal level, another judicial triumph of the suffragettes and their allies in the ecclesiastical and classical political reaction in 1910 was the passage of the Mann Act by the American Congress. Supposedly directed against forced prostitution - flagrantly castigated as white slavery, but in fact long since punishable - the Mann Act criminalised any "transport" of a woman from one state to another "for immoral purposes".
For example, Charlie Chaplin could be prosecuted under this law in 1944 solely for paying his younger friend Joan Barry a train ticket for a train trip from California to her native New York, and this well-known case may be cited here just as an example of the countless unnamed victims of this arbitrary law suffice.
Incidentally, this also marked the birth of the American Federal Police (the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) headed by J. Edgar Hoover for decades),which for a long time devouted a significant proportion of its police resources to Mann Act snooping and prosecutions.
As a result of this development, today's American sexual criminal law, which we have outlined above, has been in its basic form since the 1920s - the totalitarian puritanical moral dictate of the New England colonies had completed its metamorphosis into today's secularised "modern legal matter".
With pseudo-scientific foundation and constitutional disguise its substance of the sharpest sexual repression preserved. As for the criminalisation of youth sexuality that characterizes this law, Mary Odem has reconstructed a vivid picture of the criminal proceedings in California by evaluating the case files of lower California courts from the period 1910 to 1920, which began in California at that time with the raising of the sexual age of consent to just 16 years, then 18 years began.
“With the passage of the Age of Sexual Consent Law, the state took an active role in policing the sexual behaviour of working-class women and girls and their male partners. Police officers made checks on trains, entertainment venues, cafes and dance halls looking for suspected indecent activities. They also regularly raided downtown hotels and arrested couples who had broken the law. Adult males arrested for 'statutory rape' were usually held in the county jail pending a preliminary hearing at the police station or in a county court. . Young women and girls were often held in county juvenile detention centres awaiting trial. During this arrest, all girls were subjected to a compulsory examination of their genitals to determine whether they were still virgins. If the doctor found signs of sexual experience (a ruptured hymen or a dilated vaginal opening), the girls faced a stern interrogation about their sexual behaviour by probation officers, who coerced them into revealing the names of their sexual partners, which they then turned over to the police. (...) These investigations sometimes led to the arrest of several young men for raping one and the same girl.

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, the Mann Act is still in use. That was the basis of the majority of charges against R. Kelly, which where then further enhanced by RICO, making his whole "enterprise" criminal without adding any more substance to what he actually did. And no one cares that this law also has a very dark racist history because the new obsession with "sex trafficking" makes it all nice and shiny again. Gone is also any recollection of these laws abusing women too. A "victim" cannot be abused by the system no matter what it does to her, the thinking now goes, because prosecuting sex crimes is so important that we can't even take that into consideration.

Look at the lack of self-awareness in this story:

The FBI is oh so concerned about "sextortion" leading young men to commit suicide, but it would never occur to them to reduce their own hate-mongering and enforcement fueling the hysteria that nudes are horribly dangerous. If asking a girl for a nude picture is worth life in prison, no wonder men get the idea that it is a matter of life and death.

MH said...

"Teen brains are still developing," said Dr. Scott Hadland, chief of adolescent medicine at Mass General in Boston. "So when something catastrophic happens, like a personal picture is released to people online, it's hard for them to look past that moment and understand that in the big scheme of things they'll be able to get through this."

Of course when you are programming young people minds 24/7/365-6 that sex and nudity are serious as multiple sclerosis- then they are thinking like that.
I mean (for example), what would think some German lad from 80's about his nude photo leaked?

Eivind Berge said...

Yup, they use that definitive proof (they think) to why we need the sex laws even there. The teen brain is "still developing," so OF COURSE that's why anything to do with sex or nudity is a horrible catastrophe to them and we need draconian policing... Can never get enough, just double down on the sex-hysteria no matter the results.

Regarding the supposed immaturity of the teen brain, I have been thinking about how difficult it is to learn a new language as a teenager. In your teens it is already too late to learn to speak like a native, without an accent, and I think that gives us an idea of just how developed their brains are sexually as well. Ossified is the right term, not "undeveloped."

Eivind Berge said...

I had full immersion in English at thirteen for a year living in the USA, but couldn't lose the accent. Then six more years of college and graduate school later, and still couldn't lose it (but got really good at grammar and vocabulary). I know from personal experience that my sexual maturity was also exactly the same at 13 as it is now, minus the experience. If teens are sexually naive, it is only because they are denied experience, and if you wait as long as society now prescribes, you are frankly handicapped, much like trying to learn a mother tongue too late, especially if you are a male who has used a lot of porn.

The AF said...

"Wow, this is bone-headed retarded thinking. Honestly, if you're thinking like this, it's better that you don't have an "anti-feminist" blog.

A simple Google search will show you all those "dirty old men" who had sex with teen girls under 18, but unfortunately they admitted to sex in their electronic communications, and/or admitted sex to the cops. Many more "dirty old men" get away with illicit sex because they don't mess up in this way. Girls only complain when they feel they can get an advantage or they want revenge because you were mean to them - Eivind is right that keeping girls happy will keep you out of jail in this example, otherwise known as "good game".

Eivind is right an accusation is enough to get you arrested, but I am right in that an accusation is not enough to prove you actually had sex. And if they can't prove you had sex either from DNA evidence, a witness, or your own admission either in a text message or in a statement to the police, they have no case against you."

No, if I wasn't thinking like this it would be better not to have a blog, and to not even have a username, as you. No doubt you're hiding behind 20 vpns too.

I don't know what the legal situation is in the USA, but in the UK, the courts just have to have 'reasonable belief' that you had sex with the alleged victim. Old men are getting locked up on the say so of old women who claim they were abused 60 years ago, when there could be no possible 'electronic evidence' to confirm it.

You are absolute autistic boneheads. I get that civil disobedience through breaking unjust laws is a historically valid method of activism, but in this case, all you are doing is inevitablly harming yourself and harming the 'child', and in calling for it here, likely to get Eivind arrested and his blog closed down. Well, he seems happy enough about that I guess. Why not just have sex with 16 and 17 year olds (or whatever the age of consent is)? Feminists would like that to be illegal, but haven't managed it quite yet (at least in Europe).

Jesus, if you're relying on 'Game' to keep you out of prison, God help you. You have to keep 'the girl happy' for the rest of your life.

How does your expert knowledge of the law explain convictions like this, btw?

Eivind Berge said...

I am well aware that no evidence but a woman's word is needed to convict you (or former boy for that matter), and with historical accusations you also have no chance to defend yourself effectively because evidence of alibi/consent is lost or your memory is too foggy to think of it. But we can turn this around. Why obey the law when no evidence is required to convict you anyway? Do you want to be one of the men destroyed by feminism without even having sex? I am unconvinced that there is even a correlation between having illegal sex and going to prison, and know for sure that many men are imprisoned because they STOP having sex or turn girls down, thus triggering false (or true) accusations. The truthfulness of an accusation is irrelevant as I see it, because most of our sexuality is criminalized anyway in one way or another and lies are prosecuted with equal zeal. And stings, which are 100% based on lies, are considered fine police (and vigilante) work, once again entrapping many men who never had sex.

All things considered, and without telling anyone what to do, it is plausible to me that good game and the defiant attitude of our anonymous poster here is MORE protective than being fearful and obedient under the law, as long as you also don't incriminate yourself by talking or electronic evidence.

Eivind Berge said...

The Alice Sebold case is a good example of your attitude to "obeying" the law having no effect at keeping men out of prison, as Alice didn't single out a man who had illegal sex with her for accusation, did she? She claims it was mistaken identity, but even that is dubious and the system is more than happy to convict men at random.

Aside from actual violent rapists, I think the legality of the sex you have is a poor predictor of accusations and to an only slightly lesser extent, convictions. Because that's simply not how accusers are motivated. They are most often motivated by greed, and what are the odds a greedy opportunistic bitch who comes your way also happens to be one you had sex with, even if you had lots of illegal sex? Girls DON'T CARE about age of consent. They only care if they want to have sex with you or if they want to accuse you, with no clear progression from the one to the other. To accusers, the feminist sex laws are just a rationalization for something motivated by opportunism, and lies work better than the truth because it can be tailored to what the courts want to hear. The accusations that go all the way to conviction, particularly when you don't do something stupid like talk or take a plea bargain, are probably distinguished by being the flashy stories the system wants to hear, which is best accomplished by lies.

MH said...

Wouldn't someone who is doing any antisexhysteria activism (whatever that is), have much more stable ground (when it comes to arguments) if he is doing it for principle, rather than for instant gratification.
If I would decide to break sex laws* I would do it for fun/pleasure, but certainly not for political reasons.
Arguments of someone who is visibly led by his "thirsty glasses" would not be ever considered as serious, no matter how good and truthful arguments he have.

*AOC in my country is still 15,prostitution is still (but for how long???) decriminalised,
so I could (personally) exist without breaking sex law.

Eivind Berge said...

No, civil disobedience is a numbers game. The police and courts and ultimately society are not going to care if your intentions are pure or you did it for the thrills when you protest. Can you tell if environmental protesters have "principled" intentions when they chain themselves to a construction site or tree?

Perhaps some of them primarily wanted the adrenaline rush of getting arrested, or the warmth of belonging to a group, or whatever, but it does not matter as far as activism is concerned. When lots of people break laws and mean it, society has a problem enforcing those laws and might have to change direction. Sexualist activism can work the same way, and we already have enough civil disobedience going on if men would quit their denial of being the sex offenders society wants to define us as.

There was a Twitter poll recently asking "Do you find anyone under 18 attractive?" and 90% said no. Then they asked again something like "Do you think other men are honest when they deny attraction to teen girls?" and 80% said no.

The AF said...

"No, civil disobedience is a numbers game."

Eivind, you've been doing this (blogging) for 20 years or whatever. You've twice now had national exposure that no amount of money could buy. And you still only have a handful of readers it appears, many of whom disagree with you on important points. Yet you think you can persuade millions of men to risk being beaten and raped in prison for the rest of their lives as an act of civil disobediance. And your attempt to do so is only going to get 1/this blog shut down 2/'Male sexualism' as any kind of proto-movement banned for eternity 3/ possibly yourself arrested and imprisoned.

Perhaps at some point its best to realise that your strength does not lie in matters such as 'tactics', but rather making some interesting analytical points and breakdowns of feminist 'logic' and such like?

"There was a Twitter poll recently asking "Do you find anyone under 18 attractive?" and 90% said no. Then they asked again something like "Do you think other men are honest when they deny attraction to teen girls?" and 80% said no."

Well, it's almost as though I got something right with my 'paedocrite' meme.

The AF said...

I remember when I asked Eivind why he didn't try to spread the 'pedocrite' portmanteau meme, and he said something about people not understanding it, and that he preferred 'the hyper inflammation of the cortex of the social brain immune system in response to the female sex offender charade', or something like that.

And aspies like 'Ian B' also would claim they couldn't understand what 'pedo-crite' meant, while 'FreeTheTeens' thinks it's a terrible, terrible thing to call somebody because it makes them feel bad.

Contrast this to our enemies who (perhaps copying me) have turned 'pedopology' into a successful meme word that they use to shame anyone discussing rationally the age of consent. Pretty sure not one of them ever asked - 'but what does pedopology mean exactly?', or gave some long-winded alternative, or expressed horror at the cruelty of it.

MH said...

I would like to see that discussion with Ian (if it would be possible to find it).

I think it's not bad meme, only problem I have with it-
that it seems to be implying, that hypocritical moralising person is (real) paedophile.
On the contrary, if they(opponents) could use term paedopology for things involving adolescents, why not to use paedocrite.

I 'll personally prefer old boring language and call such person hypocrite and coward, in context of discussed matter.

MH said...

….. but stick to the current spread of the new American child molestation craze to most countries around the world since about 1990. It should be undisputed that this is a process of actually global proportions - North America and Europe are already two big parts of the world, but I will not easily forget how a few years ago at Siem Reap airport (near Angkor) huge billboards greeted me with threat of severe punishment for tourists who sexually abuse children, and whatever one thinks of such billboards, they certainly did not get to poor Cambodia without international coordination.
But it is all the more astonishing how little one learns from the press or other common sources of information about the central control and coordination of this process, without which, from a logical point of view, it could never have reached such global proportions.
However, the media simply suggests that it is the Dutroux case in Belgium, there the Megan Kanka case in the USA, there the Fourniret case in France, then again the Natalie case in Germany, who startled "the public" and, under their "pressure," made many governments independently agree that they had much more to do to protect children than they had done before. But it couldn't have been like that, and it wasn't like that.
Large-scale delusional trials such as the McMartin monster trial wouldn’t be conceivable without some secret agreements or instructions - because without such, no public prosecutor's office in the world would make obvious delirium like that of Judy Johnson the content of a nationally well-noticed indictment – nor there would the completely uniform, i.e. synchronised treatment of the whole topic by the mass media in many countries for years and years .
Incidentally, it is also striking that almost everything that an ordinary person who does not have access to specialist information can find out about the systematic harmonisation of the many different national sexual criminal laws with US law. It has to be painstakingly "stuttered together" from the most special publications of an already semi-internal specialist legal literature - long-winded and unpublished legal dissertations sometimes contain just as interesting bits of information here as such an obscure specialist journal, which is usually only accessible to practising specialists, such as the European Journal of Probation, Subscribers will include the non-public libraries of Europol or a few Max Planck Institutes, as well as the corresponding American think tanks, but not just the general audience.
Having said that, a rough overview can be given of the central control and coordination of the global harmonisation of the relevant penal laws in many countries with today's US American sex offender laws by so-called: "Non-governmental organisations" which have played and still play a very important role in this whole process. They were founded with a very special focus on sexual offences and have since been important drivers and agitators in the incessant worldwide tightening of sexual criminal law. Of course, like practically all "NGOs", they are financed predominantly or entirely from taxpayers' money; in addition, financially strong foundations of US corporate capital and the churches are particularly involved.
The oldest of these new NGOs is perhaps the one already mentioned International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (ISPCAN), founded in 1976. As early as the 1980s, American "child protectionists" were able to extend their influence to a number of other countries via these and similar "professional organisations", although in some cases only directly through the possibility of publication in the corporate media or direct state support they could also trigger official and judicial delusional proceedings because of alleged organised "ritual child abuse" in satanic cults and the like.

MH said...

For example, ISPCAN organised a conference in Sydney in 1986 with 1600 participants.
Robert Summit, Kee MacFarlane and Astrid Heger (all figures now known to us but unfortunately not to the general public for their true roles) appeared as speakers and all three focused their melodramatic elaborations on the alleged mass ritual abuse at McMartin Preschool;
David Finkelhor rounded out these presentations to the shocked audience by reporting on other cases of ritual child abuse he allegedly researched, thereby suggesting as credible the claim that the McMartin Preschool defendants were members of an internationally organised Satanist ring.
This congress, of course duly covered by the local media, unleashed a wave of delusions about ritual child abuse in Australia and New Zealand, which led to various criminal cases; in the so-called Civic Creche trial in Christchurch, New Zealand, for example, the kindergarten teacher Peter Ellis was sentenced to ten years in prison for such fabricated allegations.
In the Netherlands, on the other hand, according to the later findings of a commission of inquiry (Werkgroep Ritueel Misbruik) of the Ministry of Justice, massive sensational reporting about the McMartin trial and relevant materials sent by American "child protectors" to Dutch "expert" colleagues caused mass hysteria because of rituals child abuse with a spectacular investigation in the Dutch town of Oude Pekala in 1987 that ended without a conviction. Always triggered by media propaganda about the wave of McMartin trials in the USA and the multi-channel dissemination of American delusional constructs.
Between 1985 and 1993, there were similar legal proceedings or official coercive measures (such as the withdrawal of custody) in several other countries: above all in the anglophone countries Great Britain Canada, Australia and New Zealand, but also in Sweden, Norway and - Germany;
In Germany, an important link to the US source of the coordinated, top-down induced delusions about organised mass child abuse may have been Tilman Fürniss, a professor of psychiatry from Münster who was funded with millions by the federal government and who trained and better bred "abuse counsellors" nationwide, who in turn then worked for various major trials against innocent people in Germany. In this way, the mass mood of hysteria about sexual abuse of children was prepared early on in important industrialised countries, as was needed for the further program of worldwide dehumanisation of the penal laws affecting sexuality.
While these delusional processes, which announced what was to come, were taking place in various cities in the most modern industrialised countries, the Christian Asian churches formally founded what is probably the most important "non-governmental organization" in Bangkok in 1990 that still exists in this field: ECPAT This acronym stood at the beginning for End Child Prostitution in Asian Tourism, but that meaning was eventually subtly swapped for End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes.
The most striking thing about this organisation from the beginning was that it has always remained unknown to the public, but has always enjoyed almost unlimited financial support from numerous governments around the world. This gave ECPAT a rapid international rise; today it has national groups in over 70 countries. Soon after its inception, the organisation's Bangkok headquarters was able to move to new headquarters paid for by the Japanese government, and as early as 1993 ECPAT held its first international conference, hosted by the German government. Even today, ECPAT likes to present itself as an association that primarily fights child prostitution, in particular its use by foreigners (»sex tourism«) or its bringing about by organised crime (»human trafficking«).

MH said...

But no matter how much the declaration of war on these atrocities is supposed to win everyone over to ECPAT, the obvious question should be why the governments involved, which can have laws made and have a police force at their disposal, also have an international police force to combat serious crimes would finance some church association for this purpose.
So behind this honourable and sympathetic facade, ECPAT is actually pursuing much more comprehensive and, above all, completely different goals. Because the focus of their activities very quickly turned out to be the implementation of a much more comprehensive legal policy program: The organisation, which now has a global presence, calls for international agreements in the field of sexual criminal law to be drawn up and then signed and implemented by as many countries as possible around the world. For its global standardisation in this way, ECPAT raises various concrete but not very trumpeted demands, three of which are central - and congruent with the core content of US sexual criminal law - are: First, the term "child" should be defined as any person under the age of 18 - as, by the way, what one can always refer to, "accidentally" has been required for the first time since ECPAT was founded by an international agreement, namely the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child from November 1989 -, secondly, there should be an excessive definition of "child pornography" that encompasses all representations all sexual abuse of persons under the age of 18 - including only technically simulated actions - and even all "representations of their genitals", i.e. simply naked pictures, with a (at least imputable) sexual connotation, and thirdly, the punishable "child prostitution" should also be included boundlessly be defined as the involvement of People under the age of 18 engage in sexual acts not only for payment, but also for any other type of "quid pro quo" (e.g., gratuity or encouragement, invitations to eat, gifts such as cinema tickets or books, etc.). As already indicated, ECPAT's propaganda baseline is of course to hide such very tangible demands in a jumble of words about the shocking denunciation of "child prostitution", the depiction of children's misery and at the mercy of unscrupulous human traffickers and sex tourists as well as many noble appeals to the welfare of children. But with this jumble of words, ECPAT ultimately always calls for international agreements, which for their part are then very carefully formulated, but at the same time legally very clumsy, pour exactly these demands into binding “international treaty law”. And then ECPAT only needs to demand and monitor the worldwide individual state acceptance and implementation of these agreements, behind whose authority, which ECPAT itself helped to create, it can immediately hide again.

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks, that was very informative, as well as scary and depressing. I knew about the power of NGOs, but hadn't noticed ECPAT. I have thought in terms of the abuse industry since the early days of Angry Harry, but they are even more powerful and well organized than I knew, then. And even with all this, they still manage to maintain the near universal public attitude that this kind of charity needs more money. It's hard to sort out how much the "child-protectionist" NGOs are a symptom of the hysteria of our times or a cause, but they certainly serve to perpetuate it now. They are even wedded to Big Tech to the point of total surveillance and reporting, and of course they can censor anything they want. As soon as an opposing view becomes a nuisance it is shut down and consigned to places where it won't have influence. So it's hard to see how any of this can improve without collapse of civilization first. We are living in an antisex machine, our entire civilization being a superorganism/AI with the supreme goal of cracking maximally down on sexuality. It is so good at it that people don't even see it and would dismiss all this as either a crazy conspiracy theory or something we of course need because they 100% agree that sex with minors is the worst thing in the universe. Mostly the latter, which makes the "child-protection" racket a fantastically easy way to empower and enrich oneself, which in turn fuels more hysteria etc. Yeah, it must come down via a catastrophic event and my hope is on Gail Tverberg's scenario. Which also destroys us, but who wants to live like this anyway?

Bring it on! Let the debt bubble supporting the world economy pop already.

That debt bubble is the real power of feminism, and they don't know how fragile it is, so reading this gives us a little schadenfreude if nothing else. Perhaps the first real hardship for feminists will be the ongoing inflation.

Anonymous said...

There's a video I recommend-A Study of Decadence(When Societies Commit Suicide), on good old paedohysterical y/tube/ It says nothing directly about AOC or youth sexuality, but it does go into how divorced people in the West are becoming from verifiable, physical reality. Having said that, I'd be pleasantly surprised if the narrator wasn't a normie despite making this vid and being an historian.
As for this spreading worldwide, I don't know. Remaining US and Western influence could account for it in part. More comfortable living conditions and consequently more sexual trade influence would also be a factor. Plus it has a god damned mind of its own.😃

The AF said...

" It's hard to sort out how much the "child-protectionist" NGOs are a symptom of the hysteria of our times or a cause, but they certainly serve to perpetuate it now. They are even wedded to Big Tech to the point of total surveillance and reporting, and of course they can censor anything they want. As soon as an opposing view becomes a nuisance it is shut down and consigned to places where it won't have influence. So it's hard to see how any of this can improve without collapse of civilization first"

Rather than call for the destruction of civilization and the deaths of millions and billions more in millenia of suffering and poverty, how about we just declare feminist NGOs to be our enemy? I'm not saying defeating a relative handful of feminist NGOs would be easy, but to be honest, it would be more in tune with reality than a Norwegian blogger who (despite twice gaining national exposure) has maybe a dozen readers after 20 years, believing he can cause the collapse of civilization, or cause a million man mass breaking of feminist laws. More people might take you seriously if you let go of your ego a little and try to ground yourself in a little bit of humble reality.

Imagine in the 1950's, and the hopes of gay rights were in the hands of a Norwegian eccentric whose only solutions were to call for nuclear armageddon, or for a million gay men to pick up twinks in public toilets? Or transgender rights in the 1980's..

Eivind Berge said...

We are powerless against collapse anyway. Gail does not offer hope even if her best suggestions were implemented (basically to abandon "green" energy as a futile waste and avoid raising interest rates like the central banks now think they can do since they don't realize we have hit thermodynamic limits to the value of money).

In theory we could have some effect on the sex laws, but no one listens to us so we can only observe there too. The situation has a life of its own while people are sleepwalking in public and breaking the laws in private. The mismatch between their political and sexual lives does not seem to bother them at all. All that criminality is simply denied until it is too late, and then only defended against in ways which carefully avoid attacking the laws themselves, thus lending further legitimacy to the system and feeding it with lambs to the slaughter.

All we have is our moral integrity. We stood up against the bigotry and should be proud of that even if it leads nowhere.

MH said...

Older (actually pretty old-from 2000) articles from German Telepolis.
You may not agree with everything, but it is interesting though.
I am not sure if I didn't linked it in past.

Erik Moeller now lives in USA and became target of criticism by some nutters in FOX news.

MH said...

Few highlights

...Fighting and tickling prohibited
In an online guide for foster parents, based on the "research" of such child therapists, would-be child caregivers are taught how to properly deal with "clever, devilish children" (Denver Rcky. Mtn. News). One of the situation examples:

"Your 14-year-old foster daughter and 12-year-old foster son are scuffling and tickling each other on the living room floor. -- Countermeasure by the foster parent:
- Step 1: Complete the storyline. Command the children to stop and ask them to stand up. - Step 2: Name the behavior. 'You children fight in the living room.' - Step 3: Name the rule. 'Brawling and tickling are not allowed in this house. It may seem like fun, but it can lead to harmful touching or even sexual touching that isn't allowed in the house.' - Step 4: Distracting the children or applying consequences. 'Since you know the rules and have broken them, there is a consequence. Both of you go to your rooms and clean them up especially thoroughly this week.'" 11
Sexual acts, aside from occasional masturbation and looking at someone else's genitals without touching them, are of course just as strictly forbidden. In the worst case, the child ends up in a therapy center.
Like young Chad: his parents found a gay magazine on him and called the police. He was then taken to a closed therapy facility. An erection measuring device was attached to his penis and he was shown pictures of naked men. If he got an erection, he was given electric shocks. This is called "aversion therapy" in technical jargon. Chad escaped and took refuge in an illegal "safe house" where he was interviewed in 1998. According to Shannon Minter of the San Francisco National Center for Lesbian Rights, 50,000 teenagers are admitted to "rehab centers" each year.

.....The boys had to wear erection measuring devices. But girls were not spared either. For example, a 12-year-old who had exchanged consensual but illegal affections with her little sister. The therapists kept telling her that she was a rapist and that only if she cooperated would she recover. She had to listen to an audiotape of a violent fantasy over and over again, and then inhale the tearful ammonia afterwards, three times a day. One day she was found with a plastic bag over her head, she had tried to commit suicide......

and other article

In fact, Ms. Bundschuh has developed her own model of the emergence of pedophilia, which, in terms of its scientific nature, reminds me of Freudian Oedipal models. Using a complex (but not empirically based) diagram, she explains that children would develop in the direction of pedophilia because the patriarchal society imposed false role models on them. Manhood rites and macho culture turned men into monsters.......
....According to some therapists, children abuse each other; whether they find the "abuse" pleasant and repeat it is irrelevant or a sign of an emerging tendency to later become abusers themselves. Cases are cited as examples in which one can be sure of general approval - rape, cases with large age differences - until then 11-year-olds also come to therapy and/or prison for "abuse" (see the Raoul case).
Due to the lack of public discussion of the therapists' questionable methods, this new wave of "abuse with abuse" can spread unhindered....
....It was interesting for me to get such a deep insight into the world of child and youth protection. The way the BPjS deals with science and its claim to establish generally applicable standards certainly call for a broad public discussion - it is surprising that the media hardly reported on the conference, since they themselves are affected by their decisions. For this reason alone it would be desirable if critics of censorship would also attend the next conferences, as (active) listeners and speakers.

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, that is a special kind of hell for children who have to be cared for by these bigots. It always sucked to be an orphan, but why did they have to create this new antisex terror once we have the resources to take proper care of children who can't be with their parents? A 12-year-old female "sex offender" is even worse than I have covered on this subject previously. And aversion therapy I haven't delved much into but I know there have been atrocities, maybe sill going on too?

MH said...

Maybe I edited it too much, and mixed up two stories.....ammonia and other inhumane treatment was not exclusive treatment of orphans, but also kids who were sent to "treatment" facilities by parents or by judiciary.

One of most (in)famous cases(presented in Europe) of those times was case of Swiss-American boy Raoul Wüthrich.

there is even book about it written by his parents, (but only in German)

If such books and many other literature and articles/reports came to(mainstream*)light at those times maybe world would look differently now.
Ordinary people have no clue, what degenerate charlatans helped to create present framework when it comes to sexual criminal law.

*but we all know that mainstream media are not watchdogs of democracy,justice,reason or free society, but rather mere instruments of soft power of their shareholders.

MH said...
probably already well known song here, but anyway

The AF said...

Feminist argues that the sexual revolution was a disaster for women, especially now in the digital age.

It's almost as if my Sexual Trade Union theory of feminism being an ever more vicious and desperate backlash against the ever expanding sexual possibilities that advancing tech gives men, was right all along.

Of course the REAL reason is American Conservatism, and the sexual inflammation of the social female sex offender peak oil wanker immune system.

MH said...

....Of course the REAL reason is American Conservatism.....

BTW....being polite here is sometimes very difficult for me.............
Reasons are multiple as it is complex thing.

Fanatics, opportunists/calculative(including what you call STU) and cowards............

Many many many times I've explained here that, when I am criticising US influence, it is not criticism of evangelicals/conservatives alone, but whole culture, society.

excerpt from article by British libertarian Sean Gabb

..However, this was not the end of the story. The next Puritan advance came after about 1850, and had little to do with Calvinism. Its legitimising ideology was “social improvement.” This was often expressed in wholly secular terms, and was even opposed in some of its measures to religious belief. People who would once have justified their drive to power by talk of seeking the Lord now spoke about the declining birth rate and the need to maintain Britain as a great power. Often, they were Darwinists. Sometimes, they were atheists.

It is the same with our own Puritans. Ideologies and religions come and go. What remains more constant within a stable population is the balance of dispositions. During the 1970s, Mary Whitehouse and her friends were undoubted Puritans. They wanted an end to the social liberalism that had followed the Second World War. But they were religious Puritans in an age that had no time for traditional religion. The successful Puritans never looked in The Bible. Instead, they took up and shaped the doctrines of Cultural Marxism into their legitimising ideology. Men and their books were dragged out of the obscurity in which they might otherwise have remained, and were put to uses they might not themselves have had in mind. The restored Puritan ascendency in Britain and America has nothing to do with the religious disputes of the Reformation. Harriet Harman believes in gay marriage. Oliver Cromwell was a chain smoker. They have nothing in common but a particular disposition. Bring them face-to-face, and each would itch to persecute the other. They are Puritans not because of their form, but because of their possibly innate substance. The latter is unchanging across the generations. The former depends on circumstances.

It should be also answer for you notorious question: "How do you explain tranny Flowjob ?"

Also how I will explain Russia? Well, ECPAT and similar organisations had it's presence established in EEurope since 90's.
Russia was fallen state in 90's, with its populace drowning in poverty, so human trafficking was real problem there then.(Not saying that now, it is paradise)

Present-day establishment switched ideologies, from communism to religious/reactionary.
(they themselves do not believe in either of ideologies, it's just instrument of power)
.....They are just instrumentalising it, they see it works in west well why not use it for their purposes.
Russian paedohysteria is like old Lada, it was car made by Soviets, bought by Soviets, made from Soviet materials...etc.....yet it was actually more or less an Italian car-Fiat 125.

MH said...

As for that article, yes it is full of mixing up things,purposeful misleading.....
It's basically traditionalist gynocentric gaga, clothed in some modern robe.
All this is : I am little princess, I want this and this and that, if it has some negative consequences it is others' fault....blablbalba
I want to be equal, but only when it suits to me, when not- I want traditional society, I want to eat my cake and have it, cherry-picking all the day, and when someone tells me I ought not to do that, I will tear big crocodile tears, and all society that is learned to take girls' tears seriously will do what I want anyway.

But she was raised like this, since childhood she knows, sobbing and blaming others will work.

(Only one thing I could agree with her, that present culture is enormously vulgar when it comes to sexuality, but it is not fault of "vile aggressive men" but rather culture that portrays any nudity and sexuality as something filthy and depraved.
Culture that people like her helped to create.)

One thing is nature, other thing is nurture(culture).

I don't like Elam but one of his "allies"
have interesting site called
Also I don't agree with everything Rookh is saying, but I think he has some point when it comes to this:
Unfortunately it is old article and differences are less and less visible.

MH said...

It is full of dishonest pseudoarguments.
She is implying that either it should be like in 50's or so, when having sex for female would be considered something like kidney donation, so men should behave according to that, or there is now some other extreme,lonely, cold free sex culture without relationships.
Nothing between.
But that is wilful misleading, there could be sexually free society with many variations when it comes to interactions between sexes, free sex, committed relationships, "open" relationships....and so on.....
What is problem is shitty culture that breed narcissism,unbounded selfishness, mistrust,violence ...and so....not sex positive culture

But she knows this very well.
There should be tolerated variability, someone could marry his/her childhood love and be together for entire live, someone could change sex partners like socks until age allows it , and then finds someone as just companion or whatever else.
Many people, many solutions, it is only important to know your limits to not miscalculate yourself.
Then not blame others....
BTW:Look at discussion, not exclusively female.............

MH said...

It is not important, but source of that article( was not best choice.(as I am reading now other articles from that site).
I doubt that Sean Gabb gave them permission to publish it on their site.
Here's original source.

The AF said...

"However, this was not the end of the story. The next Puritan advance came after about 1850, and had little to do with Calvinism. Its legitimising ideology was “social improvement.” This was often expressed in wholly secular terms, and was even opposed in some of its measures to religious belief. People who would once have justified their drive to power by talk of seeking the Lord now spoke about the declining birth rate and the need to maintain Britain as a great power. Often, they were Darwinists. Sometimes, they were atheists."

Taken from the article that MH linked to. For the life of me, I just can't understand how somebody can even be aware of the social purity movements of the 19th century and not acknowedge that fact that they were overwhelmingly female dominated (and proto-feminist).

Similarly, Mary Whitehouse was a woman, and all the social commentators I'm ready right now praising her as being 'precient' about 'the sexualization of minors, the horrors of porn etc' are women.

From an evolutionary psychology perspective, it's too obvious for words. The mass produced condom, in combination with urbanization and men mixing like never before with young unmarried females in the new factories, lowered the 'price' of male access to females. Likewise, the pill unleashed the sexual revolution, which only lasted a decade or two before the feminist backlash started in earnest, speeded up by the rise of the Internet and all the potential for giving still further ease of access to young women and teens for men.

Maybe Milan isn't a follower of Evo Psy. Perhaps he considers it sexist or crude or whatever.

Evind is a believer in evolutionary sciene in extremus, even to the extent of holding that the sole purpose of a man is to impregnate women, and the sole function of a woman is as a sexual resource to men, or that wanking is evil because it is 'evolutionary maladaptive'. Oddly, he can't see at all that the most rudimentary 'law' of sex competition predicted by evolutionary theory in a modern society would be that older women/low sexual value women will try to restrict access to younger women/high sexual value women.

I think it's something to do with the fact that his intellect is capable of focusing in on very narrow things, such as the 'female sex offender charade', and he becomes single-mindedly focused on it, and he can't contemplate the bigger picture. Literally can't see the woods for the trees, or rather can only see one or two trees such as the female sex offender charade'.

@Milan - I recommend you read Steve Moxon's 'The Women Racket'. Get hold of a copy of it while it's still in print.

MH said...

♫♫...doctors and nurses and juvenile verses replaced by a culture of blaming and curses....♫♫

Eivind Berge said...

Here is a scientific observation of the femihag theory (which we might define as female nature leading to harsher sex laws):

Yes, it is real and I never denied it, but it also has limitations. It applies the strongest to prostitution and hookup culture but not to incest and rape. We can't use it as an explanation for everything. There are an awful lot of men supporting the same laws too that need to be accounted for and I never heard of any men changing their minds simply because we point out women's more sex-hostile nature. We need better arguments than that and I am not sure what would be gained if I focused more on this particular fact -- except maybe convincing some men who are already hardcore sexualists that giving women the vote is a fundamentally bad idea. (But then again, men can give us horribly oppressive sex laws such as leiermål -- so are women really worse?).


Asao, K., Crosby, C. L., & Buss, D. M. (2022). Sexual morality: Multidimensionality and sex differences. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences. Advance online publication.


Despite the increase in the scientific study of morality over the past decade, one important domain remains relatively underexplored—sexual morality. The current article begins to fill this gap by exploring its multidimensionality and testing several evolution-based hypotheses about sex differences in moralizing distinct components of sexual morality, including incest, sexual coercion, sexual infidelity, and short-term mating. Study 1 (N = 920) and Study 2 (N = 543) tested predictions derived from evolutionary psychological hypotheses and used factor analysis to identify seven core factors of sexual morality separately for male and female actors: infidelity, short-term sex, sexual coercion, outgroup sex, long-term mating, same-sex sexuality, and paraphilic sex. Study 3 (N = 380) provided an independent test of the evolution-based hypotheses and factor structure. Results strongly support sex-differentiated predictions about short-term sex, but not sexual coercion or incest (possibly owing to ceiling effects). Discussion centers around sexual morality as a complex domain not readily explained by more domain-general theories of morality and the necessity of comprehensive theories of morality to include sex-differentiated components in their formulations.

Eivind Berge said...

I can't get full text, but here's a little more on that study:

Impact Statement

The current article explores the multidimensionality of sexual morality, and tests evolution-based hypotheses about similarities and differences between men and women in their moral judgments of sexual behaviors. Across three studies, results revealed that sexual morality coalesces around 7 partially distinct, but not mutually exclusive factors: infidelity, short-term sex, sexual coercion, outgroup sex, long-term mating, same-sex sexuality, and paraphilic sex. Results support sex-differentiated predictions about short-term sex (more negatively moralized for women than for men), provide mixed results for sex-differentiated predictions toward infidelity, and do not support sex-differentiated predictions about sexual coercion or incest (possibly owing to clear ceiling effects on moralization of these clusters). Discussion centers around the utility of viewing sexual morality as a multidimensional psychological construct and suggests that theories of morality need to include sex-differentiated components in their formulations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Why is it important?

Sex is one of the most moralized domains of human behavior. Laws and policies frequently restrict who can have sex with whom and what kinds of sexual behavior are permissible or prohibited. Therefore, understanding how people morally judge sexual behavior is useful from both a theoretical and applied lens.

Total agreement with that!


“My goal in creating the Sexual Morality Inventory was to provide other researchers a tool to investigate and understand why people view some sexual behaviors as morally bad and others as morally good. Hopefully, future research could help understand and prevent homophobia, sexual double standards, and sexual coercion. This could ultimately lead to more equitable policies and cultural shifts in the ways we think about sex.”

Kelly Asao

My suggestion: Maybe study more specifically attitudes to age gaps and age of consent laws next time. Are we really doomed to have hateful laws on this due to women's nature? How could knowledge about women's more moralizing nature lead to more equitable policies? Does this mean democracy itself is flawed?

MH said...

There are natural traits in humans....but there is something that is suppressing or enhancing them.
Does culture, environment, upbringing means nothing?
Isn't that also forming how people will behave too?

Are we reduced to robots/animals with pre-written code, regardless of environment we are living?
Isn’t environment we are living in, also slowly changing our genetic code?

Let’s imagine some hypothetical experiment,
It’s year 1968 and there are two female monozygotic twins born somewhere in Uruguay.
One of twins is adopted to evangelical protestant* parents in Chimichunga county, Texas and other is adopted to easygoing, atheist (or catholic-lite) parents in Bad Schmuckau W. Germany.

*(if it was now, you could change it for woke Hillary-voting progressive lesbian pair,if you wish- it would be still evil, different evil,but evil)

Let’s call them Chastity and Tanja .

Chastity is raised in environment like this:
…….. 14-year-old foster daughter and 12-year-old foster son are scuffling and tickling each other on the living room floor. -- Countermeasure by the foster parent:
- Step 1: Command the children to stop and ask them to stand up. - Step 2: Name the behavior. 'You children fight in the living room.' - Step 3: Name the rule. 'Brawling and tickling are not allowed in this house. It may seem like fun, but it can lead to harmful touching or even sexual touching that isn't allowed in the house.'………...

Tanja is raised in environment which is something like this:
……. Where is the limit for what you will accept of sexual play in kindergarten?
– As long as they do not harm each other, it is mostly fine. But we say to them that they must not put things into each other. Hygiene, I think we should not be so afraid about. There is a lot of snot and [???] in kindergarten anyway, says Friis,……...

(I could include much better examples, but I am lazy to think/find it now.)

These girls are genetically identical, they could accept organ transplant from each other without taking immunosuppressants for whole life.
Yet, do you think they will show same attitudes when it comes to nudity, sexuality, relationships between sexes, between other people, solving problems.....

I've never dismissed your theory, only thing I am keeping saying, that it is just part of greater picture, not only one and universal explanation.
We should be aware of some biological traits, motivations of females and so…....however.

Genetic predispositions are not changeable (at least not so easily), culture is changeable.
IMHO from tactical point of view it is better to attack culture/customs than half of population.

Eivind Berge said...

I think they already controlled for environment in this study, because it compares women and men, so they probably have a good selection of equal environments for each. The problem found here carries some weight. We can't deny it any more than we can deny female aversion to promiscuity no matter how sex-positive their environment is. Sex outside of committed relationships doesn't have to be quite like donating a kidney for them, but certainly something far less desirable than men view it as. We don't get around this because our mentality was formed when humans didn't have access to reliable contraception, and it isn't changing any time soon. This is also why the female sex offender charade is so execrable and we cannot ever in good conscience advocate gender-neutral sex laws.

But I agree from a tactical point of view, maybe it is better to attack culture and customs plus make men aware that there will inevitably be conflict over sexual freedom and men need to stand their ground a bit more. Disenfranchising women isn't a viable strategy either, but we can move away from trying to please the feminists so much.

The AF said...

MH - you're banging your head against a brick wall if you don't understand that the culture isn't a random process, it's always the interplay between environmental conditions and genetic predispositions (primarily relating to the basic needs of survival and reproduction).

Feminism has spent the last 150 years attacking half the population and as a result it overturned millenia of 'patriarchy' in the space of 4 or 5 generations. Our present plight is a case of feminists absolutely dehumanizing and criminalizing half the population (leaving aside Eivind's weird obsession with a handful of female sex offenders).

Of course, you can say it's different with men attacking women, but is that genetic or cultural MH? In either case, you contradict yourself.

I agree however, that I was possibly too harsh on women in general. But to say (the obvious scientific truth) that women are genetically inclined to try to preserve their sexual market value by restricting male sexual access to younger, hotter females when they can, is an attack on culture. Women are succeptible to shaming. I think they are even succeptible to realizing their behaviour is wrong, and changing it in the hope of being better people.

In any case, the principle target is feminists. You know, the actual people who are lobyying the governments to put you and me in prison for simply discussing age of consent laws. Whether or not you feel some mysterious and nebulous puppet force called 'American Conservatism' is pulling their strings, an unstoppable force of nature that is somehow impotent in the face of tranny rights and such.

You and Eivind are like blind men shaking your fists at the sky above. You have no idea how to actually defeat 'American Conservatism', or 'change culture'. Quoting German academic journals from the 70's or obsessing over a few 40 yo fuglies being imprisoned for baning mini-chads wont cut it.

I maintain that my approach was the only and best chance. That with just 100 or so following the blueprint I laid out, we would at least have had SOME impact - highlighting and shaming the relative handful of feminists at the top of these NGOs, calling out their primitive sexual motives, rightly portraing it as an attack on normal male sexuality.

Look at the 'trans activists' and the success they have enjoyed, using very similar tactics I called for. A relative small number of aggressive bearded men with penises have almost succeeded in having the identity of half the world's population erased. On the face of it, that's even more unlikely than us being able to overturn feminist anti-sex hysteria, but they achieved it. Especially if like you, we can't call out women or offend them in any way, because (like the anti-sex hysteria 'rationalists' of the last 70 years believe) we need them 'on our side'. Sorry Milan, but you will never convince 3 billion women to think middle-aged men banging teen girls is 'harmless'. However, by calling out the motives, you may get the few hundred or so feminists actually creating these laws to shrink back into the shadows. And I don't want the straw man response that we will never win over 3 billion men by calling their wives nasty. We need to call out and demonize the feminists who are the enablers (even if they are largely following the 'will' and needs of the female population at large).

The AF said...

"But I agree from a tactical point of view, maybe it is better to attack culture and customs plus make men aware that there will inevitably be conflict over sexual freedom and men need to stand their ground a bit more".

You don't do that by making every other article about middle-aged women not being given the pussy pass Eivind. Men need to learn to abandon their white knight instincts, yet you're a clasic example of it.

Eivind Berge said...

The female sex offender charade is incompatible with human dignity. You can call it a pussy pass if you want, but we need to make clear that it is the same sort of pass that, say, 100-year-old men get to be exempt from military service. In the event of war, we do not refrain from conscripting 100-year-old men to be nice, but because it does not make sense. That has to do with things like being too weak to carry equipment, too blind to see where to shoot, too hard of hearing to hear commands and too demented to remember them. Female sexuality similarly has no relevance to the law’s intended function. “Protecting” boys from female sexuality has the same relevance as fielding platoons of 100-year-old men would have to a war effort, except less so because the enemy doesn't even exist or came on a friendly mission. It would be a waste and cruel treatment. If we insist on “equality” then we get a clown world in both cases, in addition to extremely serious persecution when women are now subject to some of the harshest penalties currently imposed, all for no reason.

The AF said...

No, it's 100% white knightism, the very thing we're up against, even if you have a point about it being absurd to regard a 'lucky boy' as a victim. We're talking about a relative handful of female sex offenders compared to literally tens of thousands of men being locked up worldwide, and further hundreds of thousands or more likely millions being criminalized. Why can't you see that? It's a small injustice, and obsessing over it clouds or even works against our cause. We're trying to get men to achieve 'sexual consciousness' ie. that their natural male sexuality is being criminalized and demonized by feminists. How the F does your obesession with female sex offenders and endorsing the view that it's 'different' for girls, advance that?

Time for another article Eivind, you normally put out one a month, and remember, it has to be not about the female sex offender charade, as your last one was that (please try to keep it under 50% of your writing). And preferably not about NOFAP and wanking too. Your last post that had anything to do with male sexualism was February.

Meanwhile, it looks like 'Mainlander' has been banned from, but he still has a lot of support there :

The AF said...

More paedocrite pigs busted! A new one every day it seems.

Anonymous said...

[I posted this post yesterday but it has apparently not been received, so here you go again]

The Los Angeles Times Tuesday published an interview with humorist David Sedaris in connection with his new book, Happy-Go-Lucky. Here's a passage from the interview concerning a graduation speech Sedaris gave which is apparently included in the book.

Q: You also tell those graduates in the speech, "Do not, however, petition have a Balthus painting removed from the Met because you can see the subject's underpants. The goal is to have less in common with the Taliban, not more." If you think our culture is becoming more repressive, how do you think we get beyond that?

A: Make it mandatory for 12- and 13-year-old girls to appear naked in public all the time, and then we'd just get used to it. I mean, I don't know.

The AF said...

Anonymous said...

Some good news for Eivind and feminists is that Spain is now seeking to have porn banned under their forthcoming bill outlawing sex work - a bill supported by both the left and right. The other week they criminalized cat-calling and wolf-whistling.

Catholic Spain now one of the most anti-sex puritan places on Earth, thanks to feminists of both the left and right. Not sure how that easily fits in with the 'anglo-saxon puritanism' model of sex hysteria.

MH said...

"Catholic Spain now one of the most anti-sex puritan places on Earth, thanks to feminists of both the left and right. Not sure how that easily fits in with the 'anglo-saxon puritanism' model of sex hysteria."

I've explained it many times. I've had enough- since now I am ignoring you.

Anonymous said...

I wonder what it is about Spain that made it go from an AOC of 12 as recently as the late 90's to its current state. No wolf whistling? I wonder what the ban on porn would actually involve, ie to what extent it will be enforced.

On the plus side, AF's first link, the y/tube rant, was great.

Unpacking it as I see it, it's quite a significant development.

Opinion in the comments was strongly in favour of not raising the AOC to 21 or whatever age the STU can get away with. Judging by media coverage and public reaction, 18 is not quite the firm upper limit we would all like it to be (in that it can't get any worse), but it does appear to be a considerable barrier nevertheless.

AFAIK, this video is the first time these sorts of concerns have been raised outside of tiny outposts like here. What is more, if you look at what else this guy talks about on his channel, he includes it in other attacks on liberal politics and double standards. He also gets a fair number of views. IOW, he is semi-mainstream.

I see he has Pepe images here and there on his thumbnails. Whether you like Pepe or not, it means he's reaching a semi-mainstream alt right audience. This alt right has never been distinguished by the sort of rationality he displays in the video. That is, they have always gone along with demonizing older men with younger women. I saw Owen Benjamin talking about how a 30 y.o. man is a paedophile for going out with an 18 y.o. woman f for example. , I was pleasantly surprised by the video and the reaction.

Eivind Berge said...

Porn, when synonymous with fapping as it is now, leads to a demotivational syndrome in men. Let's call it Masturbatory Demotivational Syndrome (MDS). It doesn't quite lead to amotivation in most men, but demotivation is an appropriate word for the universal sexual effect of male maturbation (plus it gets much worse for a significant number, with erectile dysfunction now 30 times more common in young men than it was before digital porn).

So if Spain bans porn and the wolf whistle at the same time, those are contradictory forces. It is good for men to quit porn and get out there wolf whistling and better. I don't agree with using punishment as an incentive, and probably the only real effect is that more men get criminalized, but it is good to send the message that porn and hence masturbation is bad.

Eivind Berge said...

Somebody else is catching onto the pedohysteria which has reached yet another height:

For those of you who are smart enough for your curated internet experience to deny you a window into this, a pretty big chunk of teens and even college-aged kids have gotten weiiiirdly and viciously puritanical. And it's not the really hyper-christian ones it's the other ones.
3:42 AM · Jun 3, 2022·Twitter Web App

Like, "you aren't allowed to consume media starring someone under 18 even if it has no sexual or sensual content, or else you're a pedophile" weird.

Then she gets into masturbation positivity which I don't agree with but will include for the laughs:

One of the wilder conclusions they drew a while back was that it was sexually predatory to masturbate to the idea of someone without their permission, so you had to ask first. I'm going to give you a minute to process how that'd go.

But damn, nobody smokes, they're not drinking, they're not getting drivers licenses, and they can't even quietly get off in the comfort of their own homes. no wonder that age group is so fucking depressed.

Wow, this tweet is Doing Numbers! I know it's a little tacky, but I just want to do a little promo/shoutout here for masturbation. Give it a whirl!

Nope, masturbation is not the solution to this. We need actual sex-positivity.

The AF said...

"I wonder what it is about Spain that made it go from an AOC of 12 as recently as the late 90's to its current state. No wolf whistling? I wonder what the ban on porn would actually involve, ie to what extent it will be enforced.

On the plus side, AF's first link, the y/tube rant, was great."

Feminists adopt a strategy of targeting 'the weakest link', and ensure it becomes the strongest. Their NGOs were harassing the Spanish governement for a long time about their low age of consent. Native feminists set up lobby groups spring up and radicalize when faced with an open sex market that threatens their pussy price. It has absolutely nothing to do whether the society is 'anglo-saxon' or whatever. This whole process started in the USA and the UK with the social purity movements. But the reason it did so was not even primarily because these countries were 'conservative'. In fact it's just the opposite. London was famous in the 19th century throughout Europe for its prostitution (particularly child prostitution), and there was an estimated 80,000 prostitutes in London alone in a population of 2.5 million. In the USA you had salon culture where prostitues were freely offered, and child prositution was widespread. Watch the Brook Shields film 'Pretty Baby' (make sure its the censored version) for an understanding of how sexually liberal the USA was at the time their social purity backlash began.

We've seen it too recently with the Netherlands, going from the most sexually tolerant place on Earth to being one that is even more paedohysteric than the UK, with men being quite regularly beaten to death by vigilante mobs. 'American Conservatism' or 'anglo-saxon puritanism' does not explain why the protestant Netherlands went from an age of consent of 12 and home of the famous 'Channel Seventeen' porn studio, to bark raving mad paedohysteria in the space of 10 years. It doesn't explain why catholic Spain went from an age of consent of 12/13 to banning porn and prostitution and giving 10 year jail terms for kissing a 15 year old (or even wolf-whistling at her). It doesn't explain why India went from an age of consent of 12 to hanging men for 'raping' their 17 year old girlfriends.

They are trying the same in Japan, which is obviously a very tough nut to crack even for the feminists. Still, considering how sexually free Japan was even 10 or 15 years ago, and what it is today, they have succeeded.

A convincing theory should have explanatory power. A convincing and practical theory for a political cause should be both convincing and useful. An obsession with 'American Conservatism' fails on both counts. The 'inflamation of the autistic social sexual immune system female sex offender no fap peak oil pray for nuclear armageddon' theory, fails on both counts on a monumental scale. Sexual Trade Union theory suceeds on both counts.

But still, I'm whistling into the wind. So ignore me if you please and continue waving 1970's German academic journals at the Great Satan above.

Eivind Berge said...

Good channel:

Wild Heather

Latest video:

Makes the good point that sexual "predator" on willing teens is a METAPHOR, and a bad one at that.

The AF said...

Hags don't want men witnessing the beauty of 15 year old Russian iceskaters :

The AF said...

Don't know who is behind that channel, but he seems to make a lot of use of David Ley.

I wonder if Eivind knows that David Ley is the chief debunker of NoFap junk science?

Eivind Berge said...

David Ley does not "debunk" nofap, he shills for the porn industry. He is an asexualist who does not take sex seriously, does not care about the opportunity cost of masturbation, called me a lunatic on Twitter for bringing it up. That's not an argument, but a different value system which does not value sex. If you would like to end up as an old loser with few sex partners and no children, by all means listen to Ley. Sexualists practice nofap and preferably nocontraception too until they have as many children as they want.

The AF said...

Why are you using the term 'Sexualists' again Eivind, and not 'Male Sexualists'?

Is it because you want to get laid with a 'female follower'?

And what has having children got to do with male sexualism? It's male sexualism, not male reproductivism. We should rejoice that effective birth control was invented so that we could have lots of sex with different women and not be bound by the old consequences (and hence morality). This is what created the 60's and the sexual revolution.

I think 'lunatic' is a bit harsh, but your aspergers is clearly off the scale.

I can disagree with Milan, and he can disagree with me, but at the end of the day, we're both on the same side, and although our approaches are different, they can work alongside each other. I honestly think at the end of the day, you do more harm than good.

Validating the difference between boys and girls when it comes to the 'double standards', promoting White Knightism, portraying women as the principle victims of sex hysteria, demonizing male masturbation and porn, alienating any and all possible allies - from Incels to David Ley, risking the possibility of getting us banned through your comments and the comments of another reader...

Eivind Berge said...

If you believe masturbation is fine then you might as well obey the feminist sex laws because you don't think sex is important, lol. That's not my ideology. I am a sexualist. Whether I am a male sexualist or just sexualist is not a contentious issue to me either. What sets us apart is that we promote sexuality instead of asexuality, and you can't really have a positive view on male sexuality without looking favorably on female sexuality as well. We just need to get rid of the fake "abuse" criminalization, which hurts genuine female sexuality too.

I won't let you soil another thread with autistic slander: final warning. I just let your last comment through because I have already addressed that lie here.

By the way, I haven't had a chance to finish another blog post because I am busy with an important job. You see, I have taken the step from documentary media work up to the movies. I am now an actual actor. Since I am playing a fictional role, your concerns about how my next exposure will be received are moot too even though the character may be inspired by me. This is not some crappy direct-to-TV production either, but enough said about it for now.

Anonymous said...

The Night Wind has just written a great piece on paedocrisy and paedohysteria.

He (presumably) has commented here once or twice, I hope he sees this comment and I hope people check the article out, as well as the amusing and revealing meme he links to.

Prior to this, he did briefly comment on these matters, but didn't write a whole article on them. Apart from perhaps the UNZ review, this latest article of his may be the first outside of our own sparsely populated wilderness to discuss them.

TNW itself is not exactly Rolling Stone in terms of audience size, but it's still progress.

I found the article itself to be very perceptive and interesting and to touch on things that have never occurred to me.

The AF said...

OK Eivind, actors are getting cancelled for asking for the phone numbers of 17 year old girls, but you are going to be a Hollywood star and get laid with even more HB 10s wanting to bear your Alpha Male children in the inevitable post peak oil nuclear holocaust. I admit defeat and bow to you as our supreme leader.

Anonymous said...

Apparently, AF is compelled to do a thousand sophisticated turns of phrase in order to circumvent the autism warning...

Anonymous said...

"How does your expert knowledge of the law explain convictions like this, btw?"

I'm glad you asked -

1) "He volunteered to appear in a lineup. He volunteered to provide blood or hair samples, and to take a lie detector test. The more evidence cops had, he thought, the more obvious it would be they had the wrong man."

-Rule #1 broken, never talk to cops.

2) "The district attorney at the time, Richard Hennessy Jr., created the sex crimes unit the year Sebold was raped. It had its problems. Hennessy would disband the new unit less than two years later. By 1983, prosecutors had lost nine rape cases in a row, according to newspaper stories. Uebelhoer complained in a 1983 interview that juries were too reluctant to issue guilty verdicts in rape cases. Jurors wanted to see “perfect victims,” she said. “It’s not enough for a woman to say she was raped and that’s the guy who did it,” she told the Herald American in March 1983. “They want to see torn blouses, cuts, bruises.”"

-The prosecutor literally says witness testimony is not enough. I will give an exception to the Weinstein and Cosby cases, where a big group of women got together and testified against them and that was enough. However, this was only possible because they were celebrities.

3) A white woman in the 80's accused a black man of rape in America - this was a racist conviction that was, and still is, common to America. It also happened to Mike Tyson. Really, any accusation against a black man in America has at least 2x the likelihood to stick.

Yes, God help us that we need good game to stay out of prison, because it is the truth. You will also find that the "old men" being locked up by old women are those who have admitted to sex because they thought it was no big deal, they're mostly celebrities, and they have terrible game such as apologizing and groveling.

" I am unconvinced that there is even a correlation between having illegal sex and going to prison, and know for sure that many men are imprisoned because they STOP having sex or turn girls down, thus triggering false (or true) accusations. The truthfulness of an accusation is irrelevant as I see it, because most of our sexuality is criminalized anyway in one way or another and lies are prosecuted with equal zeal. All things considered, and without telling anyone what to do, it is plausible to me that good game and the defiant attitude of our anonymous poster here is MORE protective than being fearful and obedient under the law, as long as you also don't incriminate yourself by talking or electronic evidence."

100% true. If you want to see an example of how even moderately decent game keeps you out of jail, look up the story of Dahvie Vanity from the band Blood On The Dance Floor. He was ruthless, but that's what it takes.

Anonymous said...

The AF is a moron!

Masturbation and porn makes men not pursue actual real sex. Sex has to be with a person other than yourself. Your sex-doll is not a person The AF.

Eivind Berge said...

Great new post by TOC relevant to something we've been discussing above:

First I have to laugh my ass off at David Ley who is cited there as being ignorant as to whether prepubertal orgasm is even possible. So no wonder he is also ignorant of the harm done by adult male masturbation to porn! But TOC sets the record straight, as does modern science to those in the know unlike Ley. And seriously, how is it possible to be so ignorant when you even claim to have a clinical practice related to sexology? Granted that he might not have experienced it himself like me and TOC, and it is possible to shirk on academic reading and still be a decent person, but you only have to speak to less than 10 men before statistically encountering someone who can tell you they orgasmed by age 7. So Ley is a gigantic, ridiculous fraud. He has also blocked me on Twitter now because he is afraid of the truth.

So here's the real deal:

It is now commonly accepted, if not universally known even among professionals, that the neurological and genital capacity for sexual arousal to orgasm exists in children from before birth. Ultrasound examinations have demonstrated that fetuses suck their toes and fingers and male fetuses touch their penises. Erections are commonly seen in ultrasound images (Hitchcock, Sutphen, & Scholly, 1980), and masturbation in utero has also been observed in sonographic studies. Of a seven-month fetus (Meizner, 1987). Giorgi and Siccardi (1996) observed on sonography what appeared to be masturbation to orgasm in a 32-week female fetus, noting that she touched the region of her clitoris with her hand repeatedly for 30- to 40-second intervals, displaying short, rapid movements of her pelvis and legs, after which she stopped for a few minutes. After approximately 20 minutes of this behavior, which was also observed by the mother, the fetus displayed contractions of trunk and limb muscles, followed by tonic-clonic movements of the whole body, after which she “relaxed and rested. ” While such apparent masturbation to orgasm in utero may be phenomenologically quite different from its homologs in postnatal life, Giorgi and Siccardi point out that female sexual response is distinct from reproductive function and “does not need a full sexual maturity to be explicit”.

This goes even further than I knew (though I suspected this also was possible), with orgasm occurring in fetuses both male and female. And before somebody is going to jump on this as "evidence" that masturbation is natural and healthy and I am wrong about nofap, let me say that it refutes none of my claims. Obviously I am not going to start preaching nofap to fetuses, and I never would because I always acknowledged that a little masturbation in young boys (and females of all ages) is harmless. You just have to guide the boys into vaginas before masturbation can get maladaptive, certainly before porn can hijack their sexuality and harm their virility.

Jack said...

Eivind, let me ask you whether this sexual behaviour of mine is maladaptive and qualifies as masturbation or as real sexuality. In order not to take Sildenafil every day during my 6-week stay in Brazil, every other day I have my girl giving me a hand-job in 69 position. She would be willing to give me a blow-job instead but I can be brought to ejaculation better by a hand-job. So this is it: no intercourse (because no Sildenafil to give me the necessary lasting hard-on), just a hand-job while I have my face between her ass-cheeks (I ask her to come early, around 10am without having showered since morning, taste and smell turns me on).

My point is, especially as you get older and many things (including intercourse) get old, sexuality can revolve around fetishes that may be as remote to "full intercourse" as masturbating to porn.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't have a strong objection to your behavior under the circumstances, Jack, (since few clear opportunities lost plus you are getting intimacy after all,) but don't you see how maladaptive it would be for a young man to just want handjobs from women? Or worse, be content with dead images while giving themselves handjobs. It is freakishly maladaptive when you consider that this behavior is now rampant in young men to the point that I in my 40s have sex with more teen girls than most teenage boys do, because they are so consumed by porn. I talked to an 18-year-old today who had had zero girls, yet it didn't sink in that he should quit the porn and start pursuing girls in serious ways. That's thousands of times he could have had sex with hot teen girls wasted and he doesn't realize how bizarre it is. Even the "successful" boys tend to waste years of prime virility wanking. It is their life to waste, and all the better for my chances to hook up with teen girls, but we should at least be honest about what it is they are doing to themselves and not tell them it's healthy. I feel sorry for them because they have poor insight into their own pathology, which is how an evolutionary trap works.

The male sex drive is amazing when you let it work naturally. You get the right focus and do the right thing. Which is hardly surprising when we consider that all our ancestors managed to reproduce, all the way back to the origin of life. Masturbation was mere child's play to them, or a pastime in the womb funnily enough, not something that can possibly be considered a valid substitute for sex. However, they didn't have to be mindful of how maladaptive masturbation is because very compelling, prevalent porn only arrived 20-30 years ago, so it was self-limiting. To pretend masturbation is still harmless to males is insane, and that is literally what charlatans like David Ley do, along with the entire zeitgeist. It is a way to be ostensibly sex-positive without offending the feminists, except there are plenty of ways to be a "sex offender" while only abusing yourself as well. Provided that you stick to the politically correct kinds of porn, which by now probably include a taboo on age gaps of more than five years even there, nothing can be more celebrated than masturbation in this culture. Because this culture has zero tolerance for sex, and the surest way to keep men away from sex is to make them to something that by definition excludes it. The ultimate cuck is the man who goes along with the feminists on this and thinks wanking is fine and dandy. And no, you do not fight the feminists by calling for less criminalization of porn. That is a complete distraction since there was never any sexual value in porn to begin with.

My view is that if boys continue masturbating once they hit puberty then they have a problem and should feel ashamed for their own good, so they can think better of it and get with nofap. Also if they masturbate in the prone position while younger then parents need to intervene because that is physically harmful even if they don't watch porn (which is probably problematic even for prepubescents, though I am less confident making bombastic statements for them as to how much difference it makes).

Anonymous said...

"The adult masturbator is the ultimate cuck"

Now that has a nice sound to it.

There really is no excuse, they want you alone and masturbating to porn while you eat bugs and own nothing. The only value is when women themselves are too dangerous due to feminism, but if every man refused to masturbate and just fucked the women they wanted without regard for feminist consequences, enforcing feminist laws would be impossible, like our underage teen activist mentioned above.

But we are not at that point yet, so it's still better to masturbate than to fuck a really unstable female, or to do it using bad game that could leave you exposed. So if your choices are limited, work on becoming unlimited, and if you have to masturbate a few times to stay out of trouble along the way, so be it.

Anonymous said...

Granted that he might not have experienced it himself like me and TOC, and it is possible to shirk on academic reading and still be a decent person, but you only have to speak to less than 10 men before statistically encountering someone who can tell you they orgasmed by age 7.

Correct, but it is also correct that you only have to speak to 10 men before encountering someone who can tell you that they masturbate and have no problem with that, no matter how many "nofaps" claim the exact opposite on their site!

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, that's the denial I was talking about. Young men can be incel virgins and still think spending most of their sexual energy wanking is no issue, somehow not even related to them not having sex. When I go on Tinder 99% of teen girls don't even have me in their age range so they never see me. That's how stacked the cards are against me. Yet, I still manage to match with teen girls and meet them. For a young man to think it is normal to masturbate rather than take advantage of his 100 times greater chances to meet the most attractive girls is astonishingly dumb.

Let me remind you of the secret to magical attainment as defined by John Michael Greer.

Next comes the most important rule of magic you will ever learn. If you retain nothing else from this book, retain these words: “In order to achieve an end you must outline that end and limit yourself to it, rejecting all that is irrelevant.” There. You’ve just learned the secret of magical attainment. It really is that simple—but “simple,” of course, is not the same thing as ”easy.”

You can attain anything that’s possible for you to attain if you follow Fortune’s rule. Let’s say you want to have a million dollars. Nothing could be simpler. All you have to do is focus your entire life on making that million dollars. When you get out of bed each morning, assess every hour of the day before you and figure out how you can use that hour as a stepping stone to your million dollars. Consider every activity you might engage in, and if it doesn’t further your goal of making money, skip it. Treat every penny that comes your way as a tool for making more money—one of the secrets of wealth, of course, is that you get rich by making your money earn money for you. Have your eyes constantly open for opportunities to earn money, and pay just as much attention to saving the money you earn and putting it to work for you. Do this, and you’ll have your million dollars much sooner than you think.

If sex is worth attaining, is it not worth getting rid of obviously unhelpful distractions such as wanking and porn?

Perhaps it takes a mystical mindset to realize this that only holy men like the former archdruid and myself possess...

It really is magic and I am a magician. When I dated an 18-year-old girl recently and she was the most enthusiastic lover of my life bordering on nymphomaniac, I was practicing high magic that goes over most men's heads, even though I only followed the simple and seemingly purely rational rule of focusing on the goal and removing all that is irrelevant from my life.

In order to achieve an end you must outline that end and limit yourself to it, rejecting all that is irrelevant.

The AF said...

45 year old German ex-footballer shamed as a quasi-paedophile for dating a 21 year old woman :

Some reader posted the following comment :

"Good for him, what's the point in being rich and famous if you can't date women half your age. Good luck to these 2 consenting adults. DM stop trying to wind up menopausal bitter old women"

Good to see that there are some real Male Sexualists out there after all.

The AF said...

Not trying to be clever or funny at all Eivind, this is a genuine question. If it is true that you are finding that 18 year olds and HB 10s are walking into your life - have you ruled out the possibility that they may be undercover police officers?

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, that is ruled out. Only wankers can "meet" feds because they don't actually have sex.

The AF said...

Perhaps the laws are different in Norway to the UK. At least until recently, undercover pigs in the UK routinely slept with targets and even formed long-term relationships with them. There was a big controversy not so long ago when a male undercover pig impregnated a female target. Perhaps the law may have been changed or the tactic officially discouraged.

I remember when you claimed to have been targeted by vigilantes on a dating site. My first assumption would have been that it was the pigs.

The AF said...

"Perhaps it takes a mystical mindset to realize this that only holy men like the former archdruid and myself possess...

It really is magic and I am a magician. When I dated an 18-year-old girl recently and she was the most enthusiastic lover of my life bordering on nymphomaniac, I was practicing high magic that goes over most men's heads, even though I only followed the simple and seemingly purely rational rule of focusing on the goal and removing all that is irrelevant from my life."

Sounds like you are on more drugs than Jack, lol.

Eivind Berge said...

The vigilante and hacking attacks against my site are really amateurish. They are easy to identify and get nowhere. Every attempt helps us improve our defenses as well. We just banned another 60 trolls a few days ago. If you log in now you can still see their epitaphs in the public chat.

*** Mommy123 has been killed by admins, forever*** Killlaa has been killed by admins, forever*** jjjjja has been killed by admins, forever*** Whatisthissite has been killed by admins, forever*** Iwantbabies12 has been killed by admins, forever*** TerjeAas has been killed by admins, forever*** Terje has been killed by admins, forever*** DamienKa has been killed by admins, forever*** DamienK has been killed by admins, forever*** Paul sadie has been killed by admins, forever*** Max marston has been killed by admins, forever*** Styrmann has been killed by admins, forever*** Styrmann1 has been killed by admins, forever*** jegerstor has been killed by admins, forever*** Magnus has been killed by admins, forever*** Cedrik_93 has been killed by admins, forever*** Johan94 has been killed by admins, forever*** Himboned has been killed by admins, forever*** Himbone has been killed by admins, forever*** Hahajomfru has been killed by admins, forever*** Wtfisthisvirginwhomadethis has been killed by admins, forever*** abekatt has been killed by admins, forever*** cumman69 has been killed by admins, forever*** flirtile has been killed by admins, forever*** Rocky67 has been killed by admins, forever*** Rocky83 has been killed by admins, forever*** Kjell has been killed by admins, forever*** kjell has been killed by admins, forever*** Monika has been killed by admins, forever*** Pauline has been killed by admins, forever*** Dundar solar has been killed by admins, forever*** Emma ;) has been killed by admins, forever*** XXYXXXYYX69 has been killed by admins, forever*** sexydog123 has been killed by admins, forever*** Louis has been killed by admins, forever*** dunzo has been killed by admins, forever*** Spiritoflove has been killed by admins, forever*** pufferfish has been killed by admins, forever*** bob has been killed by admins, forever*** abcdo has been killed by admins, forever*** Thickdickdaddy has been killed by admins, forever*** Lars berge69 has been killed by admins, forever*** test1212 has been killed by admins, forever*** Arneline has been killed by admins, forever*** Elsa has been killed by admins, forever*** Fertile_slut has been killed by admins, forever*** Sidetdu has been killed by admins, forever*** Kongen has been killed by admins, forever*** Blabla7362892 has been killed by admins, forever*** Krister43 has been killed by admins, forever*** Hannah has been killed by admins, forever*** anonymous has been killed by admins, forever*** James Smith has been killed by admins, forever*** Rider has been killed by admins, forever*** Troubleshooter has been killed by admins, forever*** Osama Bin Laden has been killed by admins, forever*** old fag has been killed by admins, forever*** grimblobimblo has been killed by admins, forever*** Dr. Cocktor has been killed by admins, forever*** FoxyMoxy69 has been killed by admins, forever*** DeathToIsrael has been killed by admins, forever*** Test.Cou2 has been killed by admins, forever*** TestF has been killed by admins, forever*** heihei has been killed by admins, forever

Eivind Berge said...

I got a new post up:

The AF said...

Eivind, I know you like philosophical speculation. Here's a thought experiment for you.

Suppose we are all brains in vats. Suppose our brains in those vats are actually controlling our bodies remotely. The world is just as real as ours. The sensory impressions coming from our bodily senses transmitted to the brain are just as real and accurate as if the brain was housed in the skull of those bodies.

Would it make the great sex you are having any less real?

Eivind Berge said...

I saw Daniel Dennett recently in a video dismissing thought experiments as "intuition pumps." That's what they are. Yours is supposed to pump the intuition that porn and masturbation can't be so bad because we don't know if our bodies are real in the first place. As such, I suppose it succeeds a tiny amount. We don't know if our bodies are fundamental or a sort of icon for a deeper level beyond physicalism, which is what Donald Hoffman argues somewhat convincingly for example:

Our bodies may be nothing more than an adaptive fiction constructed by not our brains because those are adaptive fictions too, but something deeper that we can't directly observe except feel it in our consciousness (where it appears to us as physical bodies and other stuff). However, thought experiments don't prove anything and in any case this one fails to address the fundamental distinction between interacting with another consciousness (which if you don't care about bodies could be done remotely, sure) or the dead images with which most masturbation occurs. Nor does it address the erectile dysfunctions caused by porn, nor the opportunity cost of wasting sexual energy on maladaptive fictions rather than adaptive ones. The distinction between maladaptation and adaptation remains even if you believe all of reality is a fiction, because fitness payoffs are still real and porn only leaves you with a flimsy illusion that you are getting those. In your case maybe the illusion lasts for life but I have already woken up to it and the nofap movement proves that lots of men have it in them to wake up.

Jack said...

The distinction between maladaptation and adaptation remains even if you believe all of reality is a fiction, because fitness payoffs are still real and porn only leaves you with a flimsy illusion that you are getting those

You are using the vocab of darwinism. Under darwinism "fitness" is roughly the number of your offsprings. The third-world moron with his ugly multi-pregnancy wife has more fitness than the well-to-do "densensitised" wanking bachelor in the first-world. By the same definition, as long as you have fathered no offsprings you have no more fitness that said fapper.

Eivind Berge said...

It's not just about reproduction, but the wellness one feels from doing what one is adapted to. For example whales are happiest in the water not just because that's where they find mates and reproduce. You can't deny Darwinism even if you have no interest in offspring, because fitness is so much more. There is a word even the wankers themselves use for the unsatisfying nature of their orgasms: "post-nut clarity." Contrast this with the love and connection one feels with a partner, even if she isn't the prettiest. Plus I'm sure the Third-Worlder started out with a young and beautiful wife. He really is most successful at life.

Jack said...

Now that's interesting. I never thought I would live to see the mainstream media dissenting with peadohysteria:

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 201   Newer› Newest»