Thursday, May 25, 2023

"Norwegian Offspring" goes to Cannes

The film Norwegian Offspring premieres in Cannes today (May 25th, 2023). It is the most sex-positive piece of mainstream-celebrated culture since... Lolita perhaps? In these works where a character expresses sexual views in disagreement with the mainstream there is a tension between the creator and the work which must be explained away through some sort of plausible deniability lest they be cancelled. Nabokov pleads unreliable narrator and art for art's sake, assuring us that Humbert does not speak for his own desires. Well, maybe not, or maybe the author is unreliable there? How else would he come up with such beautiful descriptions of taboo sexual enjoyment? Director Marlene Emilie Lyngstad on her part explains the sex-positivity away by attributing all such lines TO ME:
Mens Stein og Eivind er meget forskellige, er alle filmens replikker sagt af den virkelige mand, fortæller instruktøren.

”Selvfølgelig har han en ideologi, som jeg synes er meget ubehagelig at høre om, fordi den er langt væk fra min egen,” siger Marlene Emilie Lyngstad.
And I proudly stand for them. I proudly stand for the ideology. The plot is another matter, however; entirely the director's invention. I made a couple of videos with commentary:

Yeah, the character based on me is a wanker. He is impotent with a real, attractive woman and visits a sex doll "brothel." He does that and other stupid shit I would never do, but my ideology is preserved faithfully. See it as a work of art plus male sexualist ideology, not a story "about" me, because it fails at that spectacularly, or rather does not attempt to be so. This is the director's artistic vision, which is all fine by me of course since I don't mind anybody making the kind of art they want and I am above feeling insulted by a fictionalized character. But I would like to personally distance myself from the plot and his reactions because she obviously does not know how male sexuality works.

The character "Stein" is a demisexual who can only be aroused when there is deep emotional intimacy -- not with a random attractive woman who is giving herself to him. Marlene's notion of male sexuality is hilarious, but I am very proud and thankful to get my ideology across nonetheless in her movie. That's how it goes when a woman directs a movie about the male sex drive and fails to listen to male input about our natural and healthy reactions. But she didn't distort my ideology, so male sexualists and MAPs should be happy. Especially if the film can draw more people into our movements, so I welcome any and all publicity now.

To hopefully spark a discussion with comments from an actual male point of view besides mine, what do you all think about the director's notion that men might visit a sex doll brothel to avoid having to "disgust" real sex workers? And how many male demisexuals are there, anyway? Do any men really get hard-ons for close emotional bonds sooner than attractive bodies? I think she is projecting... I think the movie shows us what men would be like if we didn't see women as "sex objects" the way they complain about us with that word.

In reality, of course, we are mostly turned on by physical attractiveness, and we consider that admiration to be complimentary of them rather than degrading. It's great to have a deep emotional connection too, but I doubt it has much impact on erections. Ugliness (usually synonymous with old age) cannot turn into beauty (youth) via emotional bonding, and conversely if a man fails to respond to attractive, fertile-age females without knowing them well then he is dysfunctional, plain and simple. The diagnostic criteria for erectile dysfunction do not stipulate that one has to be monogamous or demisexual and it would be absurd to define all healthy masculinity as only functioning on such prudish female terms. Women can wish we weren’t like this all they want, but they can't change us and moreover it is a hateful condemnation of male nature that all men should vigorously oppose because it is by that standard we get all the oppressive, misandrist sex laws.

A commenter asked me if I have allowed a feminist to completely parody my entire philosophy? But no, that's not what's going on, because this is so farcical that it's funny. And it's not complete parody because my direct quotes about the female sex offender charade and age of consent are NOT parodied, but rather foregrounded by the parody, which is too silly to take seriously by anybody but the most delusional feminists. Stein's sex-positive lines were improvised by me during rehearsals, written into the script and are spoken by the professional actor in earnest.

I really do think Marlene ends up parodying feminism in the end, not me. I think the Men's Movement has won an aesthetic victory with this work, inadvertently to the director, because this feminist vision of how they think men are or ought to be is exposed as so unnatural and self-hating. I don't think most male viewers can identify with the narrow-minded version of male sexuality that feminists can accept, and if you want more objective proof just ask doctors how they diagnose erectile dysfuntion. The day they apply a demisexual standard to male erections, whereby we are supposed to experience no primary sexual attraction -- the type of attraction that is based on immediately observable characteristics such as a youthful appearance or smell and is experienced immediately upon a first encounter -- is the day masculinity has been officially abolished, not just demonized and criminalized as it is now.

Of course, I don't want to be an impotent wanker like Stein. But neither do other men, and this is where Marlene Emilie Lyngstand and Emilie Koefoed Larsen, her fellow female scriptwriter, have miscalculated. Because other men don't want to be impotent wankers, either. They don't want to resort to sex dolls to save women the disgust of male sexuality. They don't think it's cool to be impotent in casual sex situations because it's supposedly more human to only feel arousal within committed relationships. LOL! No, that is only a female version of sexuality, and a near-asexual one at that (even the proud demisexuals place it on the asexuality spectrum).

I dare you to correct me if I am wrong, but I think other men can't identify with Stein either as Marlene thinks he ought to be. The only question is, are they man enough to admit it in this context, or too afraid to be associated with me, a leper for speaking the truth about male sexuality? Will you sink so low as to embrace a clinically impotent "ideal" of masculinity in order to pander to the feminists?

But enough with Stein for now; let's look at healthy masculinity. I conclude this post with some words of wisdom from the real me:


Jack said...

Indeed emotional commitment or commitment for short, such as happens in marriages, is a cause of impotence in men. Speaking for myself, even getting chummy with a girl is enough for me not to go off her. The best sex I've ever had was with women I wouldn't want to live with in a million years ("hate fuck").

Evolutionary psychologist David Buss described thus the male ideal: "orgies with beautiful strangers".

Pornography, which Eivind considers damaging to men, at least reflects male sexuality one hundred percent.

Eivind Berge said...

Porn is damaging because it prevents us from getting on with the orgies, or at least trying to hook up with beautiful strangers (because of wasting time if nothing else, but often erectile dysfunction too and reduced libido applied to real life). So let's keep it real and practice nofap. Plus if a man wants to be monogamous it's even more damaging, which you appear to be showing signs of, Jack. It is one thing to disappoint strangers, and a terribly bad sign to be impotent at the start of a potential long-term relationship. Highly unlikely that bonding will improve that, but removing the porn probably will.

Jack said...

My point was that pornography is a quintessential reflection of male sexuality and male sexual desire. It is staring women in the face 24/7 these days, yet women still don't get it. Women think men should be educated to get off on boring things like emotional commitment, from which financial commitment of course is never far behind.

Pornography is invaluable as a reminder to women of what men want (and maybe also as a reminder to some men of what they really want).

Eivind Berge said...

Porn reflects male sexuality rather like fast food reflects human dietary preferences. We absolutely love these tastes and can't get enough of them in their natural form, where the balance of effort to reward is precisely what we are adapted to. Promiscuity is deeply gratifying to men, with almost zero downside to the individual when it occurs naturally, and whatever downside there is (STDs) being entirely incidental rather than a feature of sex itself like it apparently is to women. The only way men can willingly have "too much" is with porn/masturbation, where the effort spent gets in the way of pursuing real sex (plus other side effects) and it is therefore harmful. I agree porn is a signpost of what men really want, but the message is stronger from real life since porn can easily be dismissed as fantasies that you don't really want to live out, plus it would be insane to advocate acceptance of something so harmful just for that tiny positive effect.

Eivind Berge said...

The director has just informed me that we won the 1st prize!

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks. My activism and hard dedication over the years finally paid off on an international stage.

Eivind Berge said...

About the laughing and cringing... yeah, I laughed and cringed too when I saw it. I laughed and cringed ever since I learned the plot would be this impotent guy. I already covered how that does not reflect me as a person or my ideology or activism.

Jack said...

Eivind, at least this impotent guy didn't become impotent because of wanking to porn!

Anonymous said...

@Jack - more likely from not wanking to porn. The evolutionary reason why all men masturbate is probably to remind our minds and bodies that we still have a working dick during periods of no sex. Of course porn on tap can lead to addiction in a minority of men, but Eivind can't see things in any other way than black and white extremes. His silly fast food analogy would lead to Eivind banning all fast food, even when that was all a man could afford for the better part, leading him to become so hungry he would eat a worm infested mouldy apple at the first sight of it. That's the state Eivind has been left in through years of NoFap - no discernment of standards of female beauty so he will jump at the chance of banging a 300lb 40 year old black woman if it was offered to him. That's the real fast food analogy. Eivind is like some extreme krank who believes we should fast for 40 days at a time because having food on tap is 'unnatural', and ends up scoffing greedily at a half-eaten hamburger left in a trash can through sheer hunger.

And as Jack referred to in an earlier comment, a liberal attitude to porn has so many other benefits in the fight against feminism, such as confirming the natural way of things regarding female beauty and youth (and not to mention preventing feminists jailing tens of thousands of men as sex offenders under anti-porn laws.). But again, Eivind can't see subtleties - everything is black and white.

Eivind Berge said...

You are right that the fast food analogy falls short, and that's the only thing you are right about, and for the wrong reasons. The fast food analogy falls short because there is nutritional value in fast food and it's not bad for you in moderation, but there is zero sexual value in porn. Porn is not even the equivalent of fasting, which is beneficial intermittently. Porn is never beneficial but rather toxic, worse than just wasting time and effort since it degrades sexual performance and enjoyment. It is delusional to think porn will improve sexual performance, except maybe if you look at it WHILE having sex, which is stupid for obvious reasons and there too it would put you on a downward trajectory.

As to "remind our minds and bodies that we still have a working dick during periods of no sex" -- all the reminder/maintenance you need during periods of celibacy is provided naturally in your sleep where erections occur all the time and emissions too if necessary along with a good bit of harmless sexual dreams, none of which degrades performance like porn. There is absolutely no need for masturbation ever in a man's life and even less for porn.

MenAreCowards said...

I'll be quite honest in saying that I am too immiserated to even bother to read these articles and their comments let alone watch the trailer for the movie. We are the last men and there really is no hope, especially for a CL like myself who only loves girls and not women. I hope Eivind can find a nice girl under the age of 18 ( for 18 and above is rape of men ) off the publicity for this film.

Jack said...

Watching porn during sex is not that unusual in swingers' clubs and in settings like sex on drugs. What porn does is to overload the senses with sexual stimuli and in the case of a couple on their own having sex while watching porn, create a sense of roman orgy, decadence, complicity with the wicked side of an otherwise self-righteous and censorious Society.

Sexual imagery (that's what porn basically is) belongs to our technological age. Our World would be poorer without it.

I also surmise women might get more out of porn when they watch it during sex because they can get a some bisexual kick out of seeing other women. Plus, women are loathe to watch porn on their own, so being able to watch some from time to time without losing face may be something they're grateful for.

Porn is a Pandora's box, there's so much more to it than just an "evolutionary trap" for men living in their mother's basement!

Eivind Berge said...

Nice trailer with me in it.

It should cheer GLs up too.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, we are truly the last men. This culture is now so impoverished that it takes me to inspire the most celebrated new works of art. However, if we go back to Emily Dickinson, we aren't fit to touch the hem of her garment of course, because she knew too and put it far more poetically:

Emily Dickinson's poem 455 is about puberty as I read it. She should be cancelled for this by today's standards. "The difference made me bold" and proud and enjoying the male gaze rather than confused and retarded and victimized like feminist dogma now holds:

It was given to me by the Gods –
When I was a little Girl –
They give us Presents most – you know –
When we are new – and small.
I kept it in my Hand –
I never put it down –
I did not dare to eat – or sleep –
For fear it would be gone –
I heard such words as “Rich” –
When hurrying to school –
From lips at Corners of the Streets –
And wrestled with a smile.
Rich! ‘Twas Myself – was rich –
To take the name of Gold –
And Gold to own – in solid Bars –
The Difference – made me bold –

Anonymous said...

Every time someone criticizes the dogma: "if he or she is of legal age/adult, let him do what they wants" and that there's nothing wrong with a person under 18 doing the same thing that a person over 18, like posing in underwear, like for example, the daughter of Heidi Klum, people jump to and defend that "the age of majority is set at 18 and that you have to obey it because it is the law, period".

In fact, they openly admit to me that if the age of majority was set at 21 or 23, it would be wrong for you to like them when they're 20 and they can not go out in underwear in ads, not to mention that if you hook up with someone who's 19 or 20 or 21, you'd be a pedophile who abuses underage girls, these people are real, they mean it, they admit it, they're nuts!

These people are real, they don't even think that adolescents are real children and it's child abuse, it's that the current law is the truth and what determines what's right or wrong, that's why until they are 18, don't touch or look at them, it's just the law, if the law set at 16 or under the legal majority they would say it's okay to fuck them at that age!

Anonymous said...

Now you will discover what those who call themselves "hebophiles-ephebophiles MAPs" think.
Even another anti-C MAP friend of him has a page called "feministMAP" or feminismMAP something like that.

Here come the opinions of this feminist hebophile-ephebophile MAP:

Why MAPs shouldn't ally with people like Eivind:

"""""I may sound a little harsh now, but I want to make it clear: it is important that people who think like this do not feel represented in map spaces. I don't have objections to mras and other alt right types using the resources we collected to learn and educate themselves, maybe to find better friends - but they should be excluded from any activism till they leave these views behind. Map spaces should not be turned into places for these people to push for their ideology. No, not for the sake of "diversity", not for the sake of "just hearing another point of view", just no. And things we do should not cater to them.

And if you think I am TOO harsh, take a better look at this guy's blog and what exactly he believes in about sex, women, and masturbation."""""

About age of consent:

"""""""I support age of consent 16 with exemptions for close in age couples (e.g. 14 and 18). If you have been in the community for a while, you know that this is the position I've held for years. In fact, when I first got involved in contact discourse, it was people who wanted AOC 18-25 who were my most frequent opponents.

That does not, however, change the fact that I am "the woke left". And many pro cs you probably know are "the woke left" too."""""""

This guy says that most of the antiC MAPs (((feminists))) wanted to raise the age from 18 to 25!! he looks like pro-C in comparison WTF!!

About incels:
""""Incels can't get laid because they view sex like an opposition between a man and a woman with the woman's eventual loss, and they're looking for women who think the same way. If they could stop thinking in these terms, they'd find a lot of women who want to make friends, fall in love, and fuck without turning it into a constant battle.""""""

AF said...

@Eivind - I just don't know what to make of 'your' film award. Maybe I'm jealous or whatever, but from the two trailers I've seen, the descriptions of the script, and the interviews with the director and the jury, it seems that it's a black comedy with you chosen as the inspiration for being a textbook krank. You might be 100% correct that it's still something we should celebrate - 'at first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, and then they fight you'. So maybe we have finally progressed to stage two thanks to you.

I still have reservations about the image you portray though. I mean, a few days ago you were defending the choice of your 'zombie' meme, on the grounds that we needed an obtuse intellectual abstract metaphor that only a relative handful of academic philosophers would understand - because 'we need to be taken seriously by serious people'. But then you're uploading videos of yourself talking in the shower, and when the makers of the Cannes film splice it into their own trailer to demonstrate that the truth is even stranger than the fiction, you say it's a 'nice trailer'. Just seems to me you are contradicting yourself again. You think the most important thing is to be taken seriously by intellectuals, but you celebrate a film that is ridiculing you (as well as distorting your views).

@Anonymous - Yes, if feminists succeed in pushing up the age of majority (at least 'sexual majority), then Joe Public will absolutely support it 100% and pretend that any person under it is not a sexual being and off limits to even look at. Just like today they completely swallow the idea of 16 or 18, with no idea why those ages were originally set back in the late Victorian era by puritanical feminists opposed to sex before marriage and prostitution (and homosexuality).

MenAreCowards said...

I agree, Anonymous, how they are completely without the ability to think. They have no concept of what is morally right.

What I, as a girllover, who fell for the delusion of believing my feelings were 'special' and that I had 'a connection' or even 'a gift', hate the most is the realisation that were childlove legal tomorrow and socially acceptable, these same baseless animals would be in relations with the same creatures who I have tortured myself over for essentially two decades of my miserable adult life.

How many of these pedo hating chads are fucking their fourteen year old nieces? I think quite a few, actually.

Eivind Berge said...

Now you will discover what those who call themselves "hebophiles-ephebophiles MAPs" think. Even another anti-C MAP friend of him has a page called "feministMAP" or feminismMAP something like that.

Well, duh, of course anti-C MAPs are enemies of sexualists and vice versa. The dude you quote who supports AoC 16 is also anti-C, because that is the status quo a lot of places and so does not even constitute activism at all. I can't fathom why anti-C's need a movement, because they are literally normies.

Don't you realize there is a pro-C MAP movement? They are even further away from anti-C's than we are and most definitely allies. Newgon is the real deal (about the same level as us), as is TOC (way more extreme than us).

Eivind Berge said...

Said on a pro-C forum:

I just keep thinking of this news story about a 24 YO guy with a 12 YO gf. They had a public relationship with support of all families and friends. She got pregnant, they decided to embrace it and start a family. The girl's mom threw them a baby shower, and all their friends commented such nice things about it. They went to the hospital to give birth, the cops barged in, arrested the man, gave him 20 years for 1st degree rape, and arrested her mom a week later. This happened in Tulsa, and they were all from Mexico. The man was from Nayarit, where the AoC is "puberty." He had no idea why the police were interested in their relationship and asking if he was the father, which he proudly said yes. What pisses me off the most is all the comments about how this guy is such an evil monster.

When I say MAP movement, these are the people I mean, not the anti-C morons. I am glad I am not welcome on anti-C forums because they are not welcome here either they and are even banned themselves from pro-C MAP spaces.

Anonymous said...


They are not girllovers, they are just normal straight men (in the bad sense of the word, not the positive one used by theAF), they don't really love child girls or adolescent girls, we do have a special attraction, in fact I think neither AF nor Eivind nor most of other male sexualists have it, they like young women (which includes or prefers pubescent or adolescents females because they are fertile young women in their prime) and have enough intellect, morals and personality to admit and defend it to the best of their ability, unlike most men who are pathetic and miserable cowards.

But you and I are really girllovers, if you don't like those medicalizing terms like "hebephile" or "ephebophile", we are specifically attracted to adolescence or pubescence or "girlhood", we not only like them sexually but we need girls as life partners, emotionally. We like it even when they tell us their daily nonsense common to at that age, it's not just sex and mate with young and fertile women like common heterosexuality.

AF said...

@Anonymous (17:00)

Aside from the stupidity of confirming the feminist pathologization of attraction to teens, the inflation of the terms 'child' and 'minor' etc., you're surely able to admit it's a matter of degrees, unlike (despite what some gay propagandists say) homosexuality?

Virtually all men are sexually attracted to young teens. Being one of a minority who are able to admit that doesn't turn you into a 'hebophile' or whatever.

Philip Schofield, the tv presenter I linked to yesterday, in trouble for having an affair with a young man he met when the man was a 15 year old boy, only 'came out' as homosexual a couple of years ago. He was a homosexual the day before he 'came out, and he was a homosexual the day after he 'came out'. Admitting to your sexual preferences doesn't make any difference to who you actually are.

Likewise, there are no degrees to homosexuality. Some obviously have stronger sex drives than others, but you are a homosexual if you fancy other men, and whether you admit it or not - it's as simple as that.

BTW, I thought I was the same (had a strong preference for teens) until a few years ago, then I fell in love with two beautiful women, one 25 and the other 20.

AF said...

When you start talking about 'demisexuals' and all that stuff, I have never discussed that (don't even know what the hell it means) - that is Eivind's domain. You may be confusing me with him. But of course I don't think people who like ONLY teens are sick. Who knows even if it's particularly normal to be strongly attracted to women in their twenties. Perhaps we're mostly only conditioned to after forming a bond with them in their teens, as it was with most relationships in human history?

But the other reason I think it's a mistake to endorse the 'hebophile' or 'MAP' label, is the fact you guys have so little fucking fight in you.

You were saying in an earlier comment that you can't even bring yourself to read the comments here because you have no hope. Now you're saying you don't give a fuck what feminists think. You and Eivind were pointing to some 'MAPS' who are actually pro-feminists, and pro-feminist age of consent, and possibly the majority of them are.

Why do I fight feminists? I guess we really are different, like a different species. I'm a human being. I was born with dignity, and I'll die with dignity. If some guy spits at me or shoves me in the street, I'll raise my fists in the air and try to knock his head off, even if they are bigger than me. I wont drop to my back on the pavement and dangle my arms and legs in the air like a submissive dog. I'm proud of what I've done. I'm one of the only men who shouted back at the feminists what the fuck they were doing - raping men through their ridiculous laws and artificial 'pedo' shaming - and what they were/are - disgusting jealous hags. Maybe I didn't change anything, it takes more than one man to change anything. But at least I tried and I failed with dignity.

FieldMarshal said...


I'm not that anonymous you refer, you must have confused me with another guy, I've only written here since I replied to MenAreCowards so I'm going to use a temporary name or something here.

I have not been confused you with Eivind, it was to tell you that there are many different orientations, and it has nothing to do with LGBT and woke nonsense, the world does not end in heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual as we have been told.

The problem is that you base everything on being "normal", nobody who fights against the system is "normal", normal people do nothing, they are gregarious beings who submit to the masses, that's why the normal heterosexual man is nothing more than a slave, and they will never follow you or confront feminism, it doesn't matter if millions of men are the majority.

In my opinion, by appealing to normality, it is one of the reasons why you have failed.

Yes, your sexual inclinations are normal, but you are not "normal", if you were "normal" you would come to this blog and call us "child rapist scum".

But you have a fear of ceasing to be "normal" that even if you were exclusive like me, you would never consider yourself an "girllover" or "hebe" because you would think youre abnormal, which is synonymous with sick freak.

But failing a battle is not losing the war, why let yourself die like this? even with what a such a passive-aggressive jerk you are to me and Eivind, to everyone.

Eivind Berge said...

That's too funny, and really speaks to whether "child sexual abuse" is real or constructed out of opportunistic circumstances:

Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting, who are both now 72, claimed in a legal filing that a scene in which Hussey's bare breasts and Whiting's buttocks were exposed amounted to child abuse... The director's son, Pippo Zeffirelli, told The Guardian earlier this year that the actors' decision to pursue a legal challenge was "embarrassing" and argued it was unrealistic for them to "wake up to declare that they have suffered an abuse that has caused them years of anxiety and emotional discomfort" some 55 years after the film was released.

Anonymous said...

So much talk from anti-feminist, yet his website remains deleted by choice, while we are still here fighting it out. Choosing to lay down your sword in the middle of the battle while the enemy still attacks is gay.

Congrats to Eivind. We'll see how this movie plays out. They are painting you in a creepy light, so a mixed bag of people will find it appealing - weird losers who will make us look bad, and those few who can see through the bad portrayal and understand the greater concepts. If I were you, I would put on a shirt and stop making shower videos so the weird losers are turned off.

Also, I was listening to Loveline recordings from the 90's which are still publicly available somehow.. The hosts talk about sex openly and honestly with 13 year old girls who have had multiple partners, something that is supposed to be impossible because 13 year old girls don't have a sexuality and are all perpetual victims of abuse, even by their own dirty little bean-flicking hands!

It was refreshing and reminded me of saner times before sex hysteria really went nuts.

AF said...

@Anonymous (not sure if you are the same anonymous I replied to earlier, as you don't even have the courage to choose a distinctive anonymous handle).

You and your fellow spineless autists are the reason I deleted my blog. After 20 years, I had to ask who I was doing it for, and it certainly wasn't for the likes of you and your 'ephebophile army', who would constantly criticize and even threaten me while not even raising a voice against feminists, who in your unfathomable aspergers hell, you actually consider to be your friends.

Fair play to Eivind, he is still fighting, even though it seems as much to do with not being aware of the dangers rather than true courage (as he is surprised for example, when blogging openly affects his dating efforts).

You on the other hand, think you're doing more than me simply by commentating here occasionally (although you said you don't even have the courage to read the comments)?? I am fighting feminism in many different ways, and definitely in a more valuable and courageous way than leaving the occasional comment here expressing no hope.

Continue with your head up Eivind's ass and 'fight' for the right of women to bang underage Chads while they would lock you up to be raped for so much as looking at a 20 year old.

MenAreCowards said...

I am MenAreCowards and I always sign my name as such. You are addressing the user Feldmarschall. I am the user who agrees that GL is a delusion, and who openly admits that he wasted his life agonising over my attraction to mostly 10 to fifteen year old girls, thinking that I had a special connection to them, that I was given a gift of sympathy towards them and that they would respect me because I didn't patronise them and 'took them seriously', and who wanted to look after them and guide them like a parent would, when I am really just one of those rare sensitive men who would feel exactly the same towards an adult woman were I attracted to adults. Most men just want to bang girls and would happily fuck 12 year olds senseless if it were legal tomorrow, the exact same men who will throw bricks through the window of a local 'nonce' who got lucky with a sixteen year old girl, and in fact guys like me would merely find it harder to find girls as there would be more competition. Girls are only interested in fucking, also, and grow up to be evil demons.

As for not having the energy to read comments or add to them, I am constantly in a state of misery knowing that I have wasted my life, missing out on improving my career and all these other things out of spending all my time agonising and being depressed over my attraction. So, yes, there is no 'fight' anymore. TOC is a veteran of a previous age when CL advocacy achieved actual shortlived results in the Netherlands, so he did far more than an anonymous commentator on a blogspot. Yes, Eivind is crazy but at least he lives in a nice looking shack in a lovely lake and probably will find some crazy young girl to love when she sees this cringe movie. Girls are attrackted to the famous, even if it's just being associated with weirdos who are a little infamous.

Eivind Berge said...

I tend to agree you were deluded, MenAreCowards, because pubescent and adolescent girls don't need special sympathy (albeit it's still charming that you thought so, nothing to feel so bad about). They fit right into adult roles when handed that responsibility (as everyone here knows, the brain science attests to this as well when we ditch the myths). I don't see a difference in how they communicate or presumably feel either, apart from context and inexperience (which is VERY easy to get over when given the chance). Just look at their social media updates... I see no difference between 13 and 18 or 23 for that matter apart from the curriculum they refer to studying. Needless to say, both groups talk about sex all day long too and it's all the same except the former talk more about things like losing their virginity because that's when it tends to happen.

How relatively attractive they are is another matter, but they don't need special sympathy and I see them all as women, as would the normies if not for our insane norms at the moment -- like you have come to understand.

The AF's answer as to why he deleted his blog makes no sense... no one is forcing him to publish comments from autistic ephebophiles any more than he needs to let feminists have a voice there. It would be hard for the ephebophiles to beat the attacks I've withstood on my blog; all you need is tight moderation and some courage.

Eivind Berge said...

"Hate raiding small youtubers" doesn't sound like a very fruitful activity to be honest (how important can they be if they are small?), but the guy this loser has on there sounds like a reasonable man who could use a boost of followers:

"Androcentric black pill" is what he calls his ideology, which sounds like another word for male sexualist.

FM said...


I thought you shut down your blog because normal straight men, even those who call themselves "anti-feminists", don't give a **** what you think.

It seems that the only ones who pay attention to you are autistic ephebophile people, how bad that they are autistic, aspeger and ephebophile, they are not normal straight men who pretend to be "alpha males" and deceive young girls to have laid and force them to abort, those are the "good people".

btw theantifeminist seems to have been the most hurt by the fact that his ideas never became mainstream anti-feminism/MRA/masculinism, as if those people mattered! he's so autistic that he doesn't realize that antifeminism-MRA-incel are all a worthless movement that only autistic people follow, they could accept all the ideas of theantifeminist and Eivind and it wouldn't matter because they are a marginal movement full of hateful, misogynistic, and anti-basic human rights people.

Girls and women (including teenagers, just are most sexually f*ckable, its the teenpill!) are all evil and stupid beings who only seek to exploit men, men are just poor deceived people who don't know the truth that theAF and Eivind give to them, those feminist slaves idiots!

How strange that with all the beautiful things you think of them, that some of you can't sucefully date girls? damn women!

Eivind Berge said...

@FM and all

That was a very negative comment which misses the mark with me at least (I want to reproduce, I don't think all women are bad, some girls like me, and I don't hate aspies either). However, I love the word "teenpill." This meme is masterful (and brand new? I certainly never heard it and can't find it on search), probably better than my philosophical zombie rhetoric which means the same thing. Men who take the teenpill see the truth that teen girls are not children like feminist society deceived us into thinking but rather the most attractive women. Be teenpilled! This is powerful stuff... "Pill" comes with so much positive anti-normie energy and an air of wisdom and enlightenment -- who doesn't want to take one! Yay, let's run with this! Never mind that it originated with a hateful feminist: teenpill is golden, the potential seed of a whole new men's movement.

FM said...

I'm not a feminist, even by your standards, the comment had some truth to it, like the current manosphere is a worthless movement and much "straight men" are people who really don't love teen girls, but it was mostly trolling.

What they have told me is that I am hateful, especially to people who insult me for free and consider me a spineless worm and a piece of shit just for not considering me a "normal straight man" as theAF calls me.

The bad thing is that as soon as I put on my name, theAF has recognized me, I can no longer troll him.

Anonymous said...

Yes, teenpill is a great new verbal weapon-concise, easy to understand, and has clear precedents in other "pills" that will be recognized by many people-red pill, blue pill, black pill and so on.
"Friend, are you teenpilled?"😁


Anonymous MAP said...

Oh Eivind, I just don't know what to do. I'm just lying on my back on the floor, typing this on my phone. I just don't see the point. I'm sorry, I don't have the courage to watch your last video. What's the point? You're not like me anyway. I only like teenage girls. I'm not even like the other MAPs. I only like girls age 13 years and 3 months old. Don't be like the AntiFeminist and confuse me with MAPs who like girls aged 13 years and 4 months old. Oh Eivind, I just don't see the point in fighting. Why let them change your way of thinking. I'm just going to keep lying here, and maybe when I get up, feminists will have put all the Conservatives in prison, and changed the law so that we can all bang 13 year old girls in the a$$. There's nothing we can do to change anything. What's the point? Don't be like the AntiFeminist. He spent 20 years fighting feminists, but what's the point? He just let them get inside his head and change his thinking. Better just to lie on the floor and think about butterflies, and unicorns, and flowers, and feminists. Oh Eivind, congratulations on your win. Don't worry that they portrayed you as a weird loser and a wanker with erectile dysfunction problems. You're not a wanker, we all know you're not a wanker, you're not a wanker and a mysognist like the AntiFeminist.

AF said...

But teens are immature and retarded these days. Of course they can still consent to sex, because sex requires very little maturity or intelligence to consent to.

I notice your massive ego precluded you from mentioning the Green Pill, even though others have taken it up and it would clearly take our 'movement' forward. Instead you need to create your own 'pill'.

Eivind refuses to see that paedohysteria and anti-sex laws are largely about female intrasexual competition, even though a retarded 5 year old who had read one easy-to-read primer on evolutionary psychology could see it, because he's the biggest White Knight in the manosphere, and always has been. He's basically given up his own dating life to fight for the right of sluts to fuck underage Chads and Tryones. The very same evil sluts who would have him tortured to death just for saying teen girls can consent to sex with older men. That's the biggest act of cuckoldry in the universe.

""Hate raiding small youtubers" doesn't sound like a very fruitful activity to be honest (how important can they be if they are small?)"

It's probably a lot better than playing the pseudo intellectual king. That's all we can do at the moment, as our numbers are small. At least it's showing we have some fight in us instead of lambs to the slaughter like Anonymous and his fellow 'ephebophiles'. Normal men are more likely to join us if we show we have some effing fight in us.

I think I have quite a bit more to lose than Eivind. I'm not in some little cabin in Norway on benefits talking in the shower all day.

Eivind Berge said...

Enough trolling. This is a serious blog.

The AF's comments are also just one step above trolling at this point. I don't understand why he gets so butthurt about every new idea we try out, except maybe jealousy because I am the only one with the courage to do anything for male sexualism publicly? I don't know what "Green Pill" means without looking it up, which goes to show it failed so far, but I am not attacking it either. If it's a great idea then why don't you go promote it on your own blog? The teen pill is pretty much self-explanatory and comes in addition to whatever other rhetorical devices we have. It breaks the mold of using colors that just add confusion at this point. It is also the most beautifully evocative pill to date, which should be deliciously easy to swallow for any red-blooded male. Definitely worth a try.

teenpilled said...

The teenpill is about that Feminism was an invention of puritanical and envious Victorian hags who sought to prevent men date and get laid with young girls that is natural and healthy, and based on laws (of sexual consent, that feminist garbage of "consent") and social shame, forcing you to be with "womym of your age", and today they have almost achieved it, millions of imbecile men who instead of date young women in their most fertile age are date thirty-year-olds with several abortions and short-haired premenopausal women because they "are not paedophiles" what a bunch of spineless worms!

We need a MALE REVOLUTION: Illegalization of feminism (obviously), it is a reactionary, totalitarian, criminal and disgusting ideology, incompatible with human rights and Western civilization.
Abolish these very high modern ages of consent that are ABERRANT and imprison millions of INNOCENT men, it is nature and biology that dictates at that age are WOMEN, and when they are of childbearing age are women like in the LAST 10,000 YEARS OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION.

BTW any minor who seduces an adult must get JAIL, enough of brats seducing men and getting off free because they are "young girls victims of evil predatory men, poor little things."

If the body develops also the mind. Enough of the bullshit of supposed "immaturity" TO ABORT THEY ARE NOT INMATURE to feminists? hypocritical hags.

If you are a MAN, you like girls and young women, period, you do not deceive me with your insults and threats to hide who you are. And that is the age that a man must want to women be his partner, whether you like the older ones or not, that is your paraphilia, not ours. AND IT IS THE TRUTH. THE COUNTER OF TEENPILL IS FEMINISM, AND FEMINISM IS A DISEASE OF THE WEST.

Eivind Berge said...

I am going to start deleting nonsense comments now.

Anonymous said...

Forget the trolls and focus on the goal:

Take the teenpill


Eivind Berge said...

Mo Gawdat needs to get teenpilled lol.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't even know what kind of pill we need for thinking Bart Simpson can be sexually abused...

A Sunderland student ended up in court after looking at a computer-created image of child cartoon character Bart Simpson being sexually abused - by his TV animation mum Marge. Moon, 23, faced up to three years behind bars and a spell on the sex offenders register for his crime... He avoided both after a court heard no real child was involved, he had not distributed the images, his offence was committed three years ago and he had not reoffended. But she said they could be addressed via a 12-month community order, containing 20 days of rehabilitative work... Moon must pay a £114 victim surcharge.

What the hell is a victim surcharge? And anyway, isn't Bart Simpson about 35 years old by now?

Anonymous said...

Dear Eivind, I just fapped with a camgirl's help at my leisure, and it was awesome.

Unfortunately, I missed my chance to have real sex with a land whale. I also did not waste time, money and dignity chasing after multiple land whales until one would give me sex. I also missed out on being falsely accused of rape and jailed for years by a land whale, and I have also deprived a land whale the opportunity to sue me for all I'm worth at any time she pleases in the future without any evidence (no statute of limitations now for "sexual abuse", just ask Bill Cosby). And, I've removed the chance of the land whale falsely claiming I'm the father of her child and paying child support for 18 years for offspring that is not mine. I especially feel bad about not taking the chance of getting an STD from an over-privileged fat slut. If I visited a prostitute, which is very illegal in my area due to feminism, maybe I could've been arrested for that too! Clearly, I have hurt our anti-feminist cause by experiencing "the occasional joy of masturbation".

I am still very much teenpilled, however. And I intend to continue teenpilling everywhere I go.



amelio said...

Why on earth bother chasing teens if you fancy BBWs ?
Even though there are more and more fatsos among teens due to unlimited access to food (and limited access to sex?), fat generally sets in with age (cellulite etc...).

Eivind Berge said...

Strange question. Obviously both fat and skinny women are attractive, and young women (teens) are most attractive, so much so that they can't possibly become unattractive by being too big. It would be an absurd level of pickiness to claim a teen girl is too fat.

Tickets are now on sale to see Norwegian Offspring at another festival, in Copenhagen later this month:

After that I hope it gets released more generally so you all can see it.

amelio said...

"Obviously both fat and skinny women are attractive"
Not obvious, no.
"It would be an absurd level of pickiness to claim a teen girl is too fat."
Not absurd, no .

Men who fancy young women or teens usually like them slim. Fat (though it plagues more and more young women who rightly think it's ugly) means loss of freshness, nimbleness, grace, youth...

Eivind Berge said...

I would agree that youth is lost faster if they are fat, but it still takes a while. I disagree that liking young women is related to liking them slim. Some men indicate they care more about slimness than youth, which is strange to me.

Anonymous said...

US conservative feminists strike again, and RT uses their hysterical report to continue anti-US agenda, while ignoring the fact that no one in Russia gives a shit if a heterosexual man has sex with a teen girl. The comments are full of cucks calling this "pedophilia".

AF said...

@Amelio - Eivind has a painting of an overweight naked woman hanging in his cabin. He has a BBW fetish.

Most men do not find fat women attractive, not even fat teenage girls attractive.

Eivind, you really have disgustingly low standards. I never, ever want to get to the point that even obese teenage pig girls have sexual power over me. You need to start having the occasional wank for Christ's sake!

Eivind has also said in the past that even 98 year old women have sexual power over him.

And again, I would question whether you actually can discern true female beauty. You cannot, it seems to me, appreciate the beauty of say a 15 year old Brooke Shields, if you find 200 lb teenage warthogs sexually attractive. It truly is as though your NoFap is the equivalent of a man starving himself half to death ending up not being able to taste the difference between a mouldy Big Mac and a meal at a world-famous restaurant.

Eivind Berge said...

Nope, not exactly a BBW fetish, and also no interest in geriatric women (would have banged them while young and incel, however). My poster is Botero who is a great artist -- often of fat women, sure, and nothing wrong with that.

Being fat does not necessarily make a woman unattractive, and teens are so beautiful that practically nothing can make them unattractive (unless they go trans). It is insanely maladaptive standards to look down on "obese teenage pig girls" -- yet more proof that fapping can mess you up beyond any semblance of healthy male sexuality. Absolutely mind-boggling that you would prefer the worthless desolation of wanking to these truly angelic, extremely high-value real partners.

About that RT story, it's nice to think they only put on the feminist antisex bigotry for propaganda purposes, but I am not so sure it's better in Russia. They are not a lesser evil as far as I can tell and in any case we are at war with them; nothing positive to look for there except maybe the potential Armageddon really will obliterate feminism too on both sides.

AF said...

Man, oh man, so much stupidity here.

"no one in Russia gives a shit if a heterosexual man has sex with a teen girl"

Google "This is How Russian Vloggers Hunt Predators". You can also find it on the site Katoic dot com

BTW, sex with an under 16 in Russia now carries an automatic life sentence. And trust me, prisons in Russia are not Norwegian holiday camps.

@Eivind. Yes, you do have a bbw fetish if you are attracted to obese girls and women. Most men are not, in fact are generally repulsed by them. Hence you have a fetish if you are attracted to them.
An obese teen was probably almost unheard of for most of human history. It's not just that we would have evolved no attraction to obese people, young or old, but obesity is essentially deforming, and obscuring and deforming classic evolutionary markers of fitness, such as most obviously an hour glass figure in women, and no doubt many facial markers of fitness which we have evolved to find 'pretty'.

I wish you would stop with the kranky stuff. Actually saying that we should torture ourselves with extreme NoFap just so we can find obsese stinky 200 lb teen slobs 'truly angelic high-value real partners' - that's real kranky and the reason they made a black comedy out of you. Not because you're some kind of noble champion of contrarian free thought.
And wasting resources chasing fat pigs is not only completely contradictory when you claim the reason for NoFap is to not 'waste resources', it's certainly not the behaviour of an 'alpha male Chad'.

Eivind Berge said...


Anonymous said...

Can we please have AF aka. TheAF cancelled from this comments section? All he ever want is to be a wanker and all his comments are about him wanting to have a wank in stead of meeting real willing girls.

AF said...

Eivind, The reign of the Glory of the Men has begun...a great day today, in which I'm vested with the office of King, on this movement —Male Sexualism, of the Movement of which I'm the Founder and Supreme Leader. The great Reing of the Glory of the Men begins: The King foretold by many mystics and in many prophecies; the King who unites in his veins the blood of Britain, the noble blood of Britain, with the true blood of Russia and with the blood of the chosen people, the Occidental people. There, the grandeur! I'm will not delay long before taking up the sword and fulfilling the mission of emperor and great monarch like a certain man named Charlemagne, who married a 14 years old girl....It was also foretold in prophecies in past times how this king would be elected: namely through the direct intervention of the Apostles. There is no other way of opposing the Feminist Occupation Government in Occident from which the antimen will come....Only the simple and humble of heart will recognize the true King: The man behind Theantifeminist.

Anonymous said...

Yea fat girls of any age are repulsive.

Russia might be shitty inside their borders but at least they aren't demanding other countries follow their feminist laws like the USA.

Eivind Berge said...

Will the female sex offender charade ever get too absurd for the normies? Now we have girls accusing each other where the crime consists of not being male.

Georgia Bilham, 21, is accused of posing online as a boy named George Parry during an on-off relationship with a girl she met on Snapchat in 2017. A jury at Chester crown court has heard that Bilham, from Cheshire, wore a hood while meeting her shortsighted victim, claiming to be “paranoid” because of an involvement with Albanian gang members... The defendant denies nine counts of sexual assault and eight counts of assault by penetration. The alleged victim insisted she was unaware that Georgia had been posing as male.

You can't make this shit up. The part where the "justice system" takes it seriously as a crime, I mean, and normies not protesting no matter how surreal it gets. This is also at least the second time a gender-confusion sex abuse trial happens so it's routine in the UK by now and no one cares.

Whenever you shine a light on sexuality there is always criminality. Anyone can accuse anyone about anything for any reason, because we have built a machine that makes persecuting sexuality the number one priority of this civilization.

Imagine how pointless it is to fight for something like a reasonable age of consent when accusers can simply make up any pretext whatsoever. It's like trying to stop the wind with our fingers, the wind being society's zero tolerance for sexuality. Humanity has become allergic to itself, to anything to do with sex and reproduction, and is now on a mission to extinguish itself.

I also wonder why the accused can't simply identify as male and have the case dismissed? Does it not upset the transsexuals that she can't? Goes to show that antisex trumps Pride, who can only concern themselves with entirely cosmetic issues, never any real sexual rights.

Eivind Berge said...

Firstly, that is written from a point of view which does not care if you have sex. As a man it would be absurd to identify with such studies/propaganda and assume you have the same interests.

Secondly there was no pornography when these behaviors evolved and they are not adapted to go along with that. I have said myself masturbation wasn't a big problem until the rise of digital porn, because it wasn't compelling enough to be done in such a way as to hurt your sexual chances very much.

Often the animal behavior is also improperly labeled as masturbation in my view, and does not resemble men's maladaptive behavior since it is not a substitute for sex at all:

Maturbating (without ejaculation) before sex increases arousal – a tactic that may be particularly useful for low-ranking males who are likely to be interrupted during sex, by helping them to ejaculate faster, according to the researchers.

We are left with an extremely limited role:

Secondly, masturbation (with ejaculation) lets males shed inferior semen, leaving fresh, high-quality sperm available for mating.

The next hypothesis, called the 'pathogen avoidance hypothesis', proposes that masturbation reduces the risk of an STI after sex by cleansing the urethra.

The former would not be an issue if you have a regular sex life -- which of course should be your first priority instead of trying to rationalize your fapping -- and we also have far better ways to deal with diseases now. Again, it would be silly to rationalize your masturbation with this tiny archaic potential purpose.

As to the other claimed "benefits" such as helping you relax, these are all also much better served by sex.

This kind of propaganda is like saying it is beneficial to sleep under a bridge. Sure, if you are homeless it might beat sleeping on the kerb, but why would you want to arrange your life in such a way as to be homeless in the first place? And if you are homeless, should you be immersing yourself in this kind of advice or fucking do something about your situation!?

Anonymous said...

But your whole NoFap stance is based on Straw Man reasoning Eivind.

We can agree that porn addiction is bad. That's quite different to saying that all (male) masturbation is evil.

Do you actually approach women Eivind? Surely with your lack of standards, you wouldn't find it hard to get laid regularly if you approached every young fat woman in Bergen? If you don't approach virtually every woman you see, what on the Earth is the point of all this NoFap 'saving sexual resources' nonsense??

Are you saying we should torture ourselves by never masturbating even when we have no regular girlfriend, increasing our chances of prostate cancer, and our dicks falling off from lack of use, just for that 1 in a trillion opportunity that might come along when a pair of horny 16 year old girl guides come knocking on our doors fundraising, and we let them in and both are up for some wild sex, and because we never masturbated for months, we don't suffer any erectile dysfunction problems (but do prematurely ejaculate even before they even get naked)?

In other words, can you explain exactly how your NoFap self-torture is helping you to get laid or to get a girlfriend? Sneeky underhand methods of setting up your own 'fertile dating' company, or becoming an insemination donor do not count.

Jack said...

"... young women (teens) are most attractive, so much so that they can't possibly become unattractive by being too big"

Ah, we're talking at last!

I remember some time ago I maintained - like I still do - that at any given time only 20% of men and women were attractive to the opposite sex. Eivind didn't agree, going as far as saying that most women were attractive if not too old.

Excess weight blurs women's curves. I can't see myself being attracted to a woman of any age who is not guitar-shaped. Men who retain some attraction for big women tend to be men who are strictly into tits and not at all into lower bodies.

Note that I'm not talking here about exceptional women (see Corazon Kwamboka) who are big but still curvaceous. I'm talking about what 98% of BBW women look like.

As I said before, this scarcity of attractiveness in people (no more than 20% attractive at any given point in time) is the root of the sexual malaise in human Societies.

There's no shortage of horniness in both men and women. There's a shortage of looks.

Eivind Berge said...

Imagine thinking that you don't need to put more effort into approaching or talking to girls because macaques have been observed to rub stones on their genitals...

Sure I approach. Digital approaches count and sometimes girls are down to meet the same day you match, or a random day of their choosing, in which case it is supremely important to be ready. Nofap is not just about avoiding porn addiction, or hardly about that at all since addiction isn't treatable per se and will most often spontaneously resolve anyway. Nofap is primarily a lifestyle to maximize your sex life, something you need most when you are most complacent and average like you are (says anonymous but I presume AF writes most porn-loving comments on here). I agree your guide girl scenario is one in a trillion, but I believe based on experience that the average (at least youngish) man can get an attractive girl to meet him for sex spontaneously at least once per year. And many of these girls would ghost you or lose interest if you hesitate, so it's crucial to be ready!

You don't decide which methods count or not. Thanks to my Fertile Dating and activism and so on I even have an award-winning film out there that could attract a fangirl at any moment. Very odd to think this isn't good enough. It was only the second most prestigious film event so it doesn't count until we win an Oscar; is that it? Nothing is ever good enough so might as well wank... I think at least 90% of my readers can see how maladaptive (and jealous) that is.

AF said...

"Imagine thinking that you don't need to put more effort into approaching or talking to girls because macaques have been observed to rub stones on their genitals..."

But that's why I asked you if you are approaching women Eivind, and it seems you aren't. So going to NoFap extremes results in spending 16 hours a day on Tinder, messaging land whales who despite their low sex appeal are getting hundreds of messages from other thirsty males every day? And it doesn't help you to actually approach women in the street, where the odds of success though still low, are much higher than online dating so long as you can do so confidently?

And I don't know anybody other than men with real erectile dysfunction problems who could not perform with a Tinder date who unexpectedly called, just because they had a wank earlier in the day or a couple of days previously. Male porn actors jack off before shooting a scene as a matter of routine, in order that they can perform for 30 minutes or whatever without ejaculating too early.

As for the Cannes film, then it did at least correctly describe you as 'believing that society is repressing male sexuality', and so yes, you're right to say that you have achieved something huge there, given that the very idea of society 'repressing male sexuality' is so incredibly novel to normies, and perhaps I am a whiney jealous bitch to complain about it. Still, you can't deny it is a feminist made film that presents you as an object of ridicule, even presenting you as the thing you hate - a wanker. Even if a feminist movie were made of me that won an oscar that ridiculed me as a sad kranky loser, I'm not sure I would call it 'my film'. In fact, I'd probably sue them. I remmeber when some mainstream news channel made a documentary on the Men's right movement and represented Paul Elam as an absolute wild eyed loon, and I recall him defending himself vigorously and angrily, not boasting about finally achieving some mainstream recognition (although perhaps he was secretly over the moon).

But I'm sorry if I have detracted from your big moment Eivind. It's good to see you looking so happy in your YouTube videos, and I hope when the movie gets shown more widely, it will at least get some thinking about the idea of male sexuality being repressed, and you might get more followers here, and even a girlfriend out of it.

Eivind Berge said...

Now 24-year-old women can be "groomed" too:

A woman from Northern Ireland has told the BBC she was recruited and "groomed" for sex with the lead singer of the German heavy metal band Rammstein... "I was groomed, 100 percent, no doubt in my mind. I was groomed for sex," she said.

Simply being invited backstage is "grooming," and it didn't even succeed and nothing happened, yet she is a victim apparently. Being a rock star these days is not even a shadow of what it was, but has devolved to a feminist shitshow.

After demands from several politicians, including the German families minister, Wednesday's show in Munich went ahead with no "Row Zero".

There were specialist "awareness teams" on hand to assist anyone in a vulnerable position.

Anonymous said...

It's one reason why popular music these days is becoming increasingly dominated by women and androgenous asexual appearing 'men'. What is the point of becoming a pop star if you can't bang the groupies?

Here's a reminder of how different times were once - I just saw this for the first time today.

Eivind Berge said...

"Old enough for kisses" -- what a great line! So refreshingly sensible, and true in the world I grew up in. Now it's groooming to even look in their direction, and a kiss is practically rape.

Clint Eastwood is the man -- one of the last of the old breed still standing without being cancelled while so many male celebrities from that time were only alpha enough to pull it off while young.

Jack said...

"Clint Eastwood is the man -- one of the last of the old breed still standing without being cancelled while so many male celebrities from that time were only alpha enough to pull it off while young."

Depends on whether famous men hold on to their looks or had any to start with. There's much lookism in MeToo. Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Woody Allen ... Men who don't look good are made to pay as usurpers. Chads tend to be protected by their looks.

By the same token, it's amazing some scandal-ridden celebrities like Alain Delon were never MeTooed He was really into sex parties (real parties, not just "grooming"). Of course he was politically as highly connectes as was possible at the time. But there were so many women and girls. Amazing not a single one has come forward to this day. Ironically what may have saved him was that he didn't manage to make it in Hollywood.

Eivind Berge said...

A look into the mind of antisex bigotry is provided by Tucker Carlson here who is one of the truest believers:

What is wrong with the world is that we are getting too lenient on child molesters and losing the taboo against it. The MAPS practically rule the world in Tucker's mind, with the power of their acronym alone enough to make him hysterically afraid that pedophilia will be legal and normalized any minute now. All without a single serious proposal to change any laws, he already thinks the MAPS are winning. So we need to double down with more antisex, obviously, or "Cling to your taboos!" as he puts it.

How is it possible to be so deluded in the midst of a witch-hunt? Or maybe that's how they work. Just like an anorexic can never get thin enough, we can never have enough laws and taboos against sex. They look in the mirror and see a fat person or a society which allows all kinds of sexual dissolution. Or actually the latter delusion is worse, since they constantly think the problem is getting worse no matter how hard they fight it, whereas an anorexic who is starving herself to death presumably at least thinks she is stable.

Anonymous said...

Look, he claims that hitting women used to be taboo and now it's ok. It's never been more shamed for men to hit women than it is today. He also says politicians used to lose their credibility when they did sexual impropriety and now they don't, like he's completely forgotten about #MeToo.

Eivind Berge said...

Tucker has forgotten about #MeToo because he thinks it has nothing to do with sexual morality and everything to do with science. If a man is found to have had an affair with a 17-year-old girl then OF COURSE he must be cancelled/imprisoned, and it isn't due to moralism but muh brain development. Tucker believes this so strongly that he can simultaneously accuse the feminists and liberals of not having any morals, because they don't believe in what is left of self-conscious conservative morality (mostly related to homosexuals and transsexuals but not at all related to underage sex because that's a "science" now).

This is because Tucker believes in another myth on top of the teen brain myth: the myth of modernity. Thanks to John Michael Greer for making me understand this with his blog post this week:

It all comes together when we realize the myth of modernity is also in the mix. This myth holds that anything "scientific" (which is basically everything we think now) is NOT based on moralism or arbitrary beliefs and customs. That is how the claim that the brain isn't developed until 25 or 30 because the fancy scientific machines told us so becomes a perfectly believable rationale for persecuting anyone who has sex with younger -- all while thinking it has nothing to do with either moralism or feminism. Everyone should read JMG's post to realize how social the process of science really is:

Other societies, other ages of history, had subjective opinions about what’s true or false, right or wrong. We and we alone supposedly know the truth about everything that matters, and if we don’t happen to know it yet, nobody else could have known it either. That’s the heart of modernity. That’s the conviction that keeps people nowadays from making use of any of the hard-won lessons of past civilizations, or even learning from our own civilization’s catastrophic mistakes. It’s a fond, false, foolish belief, it’s hardwired into the foundations of contemporary thought.

The normies are happy to dismiss our ancestors' notion that girls become sexually attractive at puberty rather than 18 as wrong and evil because only modernity is right, because only we have science. Never mind that our "truths" are formed by a

complex social process of peer review and the evolution of scientific opinion, which has at least as much to do with academic politics as with anything nature is doing. The hypothesis you devise is a product of your education, a social process, and also of current fashions in the field... -- anyone who thinks that scientists are immune to the blandishments of intellectual fashion has never met a scientist. What equipment is available for you to test your hypothesis depends on who’s put how much money into developing which kinds of experimental gear, and also on what gear is popular and readily available in your field just then. Your experimental design is just as subject to fashion, and it also has to appeal to funding sources and to whoever controls access to the necessary equipment and other resources in your department. The decision to grant or withhold funding for your experiment, finally, depends entirely on the behavior of human beings involved in the funding process.

And then if, say, a brain scan of the "teen brain" comes out of that process, the normies will take it as gospel, ignoring all the assumptions that goes into having it mean what they think it means.

Eivind Berge said...

Not just "underage," but all the "abuse"-based sexual norms are beyond reproach by conservatives. They just can't fathom that there is anything wrong with the sex laws (except not being strict enough) because they are true believers in the myth of modernity and modernity thinks science has discovered that women "can't consent" in all sorts of situations ranging from being "underage" or "groomed" to being drunk to working at the same place as a man. Notice that Tucker Carlson mentioned Bill Clinton with Jennifer Flowers as an example of the old morality but NOT Monica Lewinsky because she was a "victim" in a way modernity construes as self-evident and beyond debate and has doubled down on now with #MeToo. Hence Tucker doesn't even notice #MeToo, because it is like water to us, part and parcel of modernity.

Conservatives can't possibly attack #MeToo and they can't see it as a way to impose morality either; just the way things are because we moderns have discovered what abuse is. All they have left to be different about is rainbow-colored decorations of no consequence. They think they are not feminists or liberals because they are disgusted by patterns and designs that mean as little as the Easter Bunny in terms of influencing politics and actual behavior. On the laws they fully agree and complain they don't go far enough.

Anonymous said...

This Galileo2333 guy is brave and clearly says the most controversial things you can say in modern society. However, his voice is absolutely horrible. He should use an AI voice that is pleasant to listen to, and his message would spread much faster.

If he is reading this - use an AI voice recording on your videos!

Eivind Berge said...

I wouldn't worry about the finer points of enunciation because Galileo's channel will soon be gone anyway the way he goes about it. Please try to learn some subtlety when doing activism on the mainstream platforms, and even then there is a high risk of censorship.

Not the female sex offender charade this time, but another kind of flagrantly misogynistic "justice":

A British woman who used medication to induce an abortion after the United Kingdom’s legally allowed limit has been sentenced to prison for 28 months, the PA Media news agency reported.

In a case that sparked calls for an overhaul of reproductive justice laws in the country, the mother-of-three, 44, was handed the sentence by a judge in Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court in central England on Monday. She had pleaded guilty to dispensing drugs or using instruments to obtain an abortion. The maximum sentence in the country is life imprisonment.

The woman will serve 14 months in custody and the remainder on license after her release. She was first charged with child destruction and pleaded not guilty.

I certainly have a strong moral intuition that women can take whatever drugs they want -- which is a clear case of doing something to their own body -- particularly at such an advanced age when pregnancy ins't really advisable anyway. If a teen girl did it I would feel morally worse about it, but not enough to want to punish her either.

In this case I think the feminists can agree with me. How come they can't see the madness of the female sex offender charade as well?

AF said...

"How come they can't see the madness of the female sex offender charade as well?"

Christ, how many times does it have to be explained to you Eivind? You know this thing called evolutionary psychology? Apparently, you base your entire philosphy and sense of meaning in life around it, so presumably you have at least heard of it. Well, you know, it's like this. Older and unattractive women are obviously hard wired to maximize their own reproductive opportunities, just like every other sexual human being, in fact, just like every other life form on the planet. Well think about it. Feminists, who tend to be older and or unattractive, make laws preventing men from having sex with young and sexually attractive females. You can see that this is consistent with them maximizing their sexual fitness, just as every life form in the history of life on Earth does?? In fact, it would be 'maladaptive', almost as maladaptive as men wanking, if 40 year old women were happy with men fucking smoking hot fertile 15 year old girls. You can see that? Yes, sure, a dozen or so women a year out of 4 billion get locked up for brazenly banging 14 year old Chad or Tyrone in the class, while they force the incel boys to stand guard by the door. But you can see that's a drop in the ocean can't you? Surely? 99.9% of women don't want to fuck 14 year old boys. They do want to stop men fucking 14 year old girls. And that's because 99.9% of men would like to fuck 14 year old girls. Why oh why does the Ukraine shoot down Russian missiles over Kyiv when they know occasionally the debris will fall on somebody and injure or kill them?

I didn't want to criticize you again Eivind, but you seem to be going full on feminist MAP with your 'girl power' videos and now supporting the feminist position on abortion. Soon you'll be having butterflies on your blog background, or maybe the LBGTQ+ pride flag. I guess a feminist making a movie about you has convinced you that they can be persuaded to support your position on the age of consent, or at least the female sex offender charade, which seems to matter most to you.

Eivind Berge said...

On the subject of the female sex offender charade, this brand new article takes the witchfinders' creativity to a new level:

Art therapists want in on witch-hunting too, on the ripe new ground of hunting women specifically! Just ask children to draw a bird's nest and conclude they have been "sexually abused" by their mother. Children don't have creativity, only symptoms of sexual abuse, which adults can use their creativity to read into anything at all that children do.

Based on the assumption that the metaphor of the bird’s nest elicits attachment experiences, the drawing is thought to reflect the artmaker’s internal representation of caregiving (Sheller, 2007).

How about we also recycle phrenology and dowsing as tests of sexual abuse? Anything will do, as the gullibility is infinite on this subject and any profession can get in on the sadistic fun and profits of hunting witches by a slight tweak of the tools of their trade.

Eivind Berge said...

Also the method of recruitment for that bird's nest study is funny. No attempt to be representative about sexual activity there...

"The participants were recruited using a snowball technique based initially on personal connections, who then suggested other possible participants, and on a convenience sampling design where advertisements were posted on social media and at treatment centers."

Snowballing is the perfect metaphor to construct any theory you want, lol. Also a great way to recruit a gang of accusers against any given individual.

Can't take this seriously until they include happy incestuous families and see how they draw their nests. They recruited people (including only one male) who believed themselves to be victims from the outset. If happy incest "survivors" draw happy nests the badness can't be sex per se. Probably more to do with a generally abusive atmosphere in those families, if the bird art has any validity at all and isn't just random creativity (which it may well be with a sample size of 14 and no control group either).

Eivind Berge said...


Older and unattractive women are obviously hard wired to maximize their own reproductive opportunities, just like every other sexual human being.

Okay, this is roughly true, but the explanatory power for the current war on sex breaks down once you realize that men almost uniformly go along with this persecution of their own sexuality. How come men don't have any fight in them? Shouldn't male resistance be more or less equally predicted by the theory? I see too many nasty agecucks to blame it all on women.

Also, the women you blame are almost post-reproductive anyway. Women over 40 are what, 90% done with reproduction? 95% without IVF?

So it can't really be about their own reproductive opportunities. More to do with the reproductive opportunities of their children. And for every mother, there is a also a father who wants to control his daughter. That goes a long way, I think, to explain why men are almost as nasty feminists (and religiously or otherwise culturally intolerant to free sex with teens before the feminist "abuse" paradigm). The rest is explained by the added incentives of the abuse industry to everyone who works to maximize "abuse" hysteria, including many men. There is very little left that female nature alone has to explain, which I think forms no natural barrier to have a sex-positive society provided these other obstacles can be defeated.

Eivind Berge said...

Despite our constant fantasies of younger women, reality is that most men become functionally infertile some five years later than women, because we fail to attract fertile women anymore. Age gaps are small on average, commonly up to five or ten years at most, so in general there is no huge practical incentive for men to advocate for the freedom to be in an extreme age-gap relationship. But on the other hand most middle-aged men have (or used to until the upcoming generation) a daughter. So it makes sense that he is of a political persuasion that he thinks will benefit her, whether it is the right to arrange marriages or keep girls in line via age of consent. In neither of those types of societies are teen girls fair game to any random man. The former is more tolerant of age gaps, but at the cost of vetting by the girl's parents.

Male nature is clearly prone to support feminism because it plays into their tendency to control their daughters, without detracting that much from the average man's sexual success since he will have little chance with girls the same age as his daughters anyway. And alpha males (think they) don't need rules because they do what they want and only make the rules for others, in which case they will also tend to support feminism or traditional morality because that keeps everyone else in line for easy government.

That's the sad reality. Feminism is latent in both men and women, unfortunately. As a sexualist I oppose this state of affairs but I realize what an uphill battle it is, expecting almost equal resistance from men and women. I intend to be an exception to the rule of small age gaps and functional male infertility after 45 or 50, but I know it is an ambitious goal. I am 45 and socially infertile already, as a rule of thumb. But I am not giving up. It ain't over till the fat lady sings, and that goes for both my own reproductive chances (as long as there is biological fertility there is hope) and those of male sexualism, which is worth fighting for until the collapse of industrial civilization.

Anonymous said...

I'm agnostic about whether or not women oppose older men with younger women as part of a reproductive strategy for their own daughters. Whatever the truth of that, at the end of the day, older female jealousy is a feature of human nature.

IMHO, Eivind is correct men with daughters are at least as bas as female feminists as far as wanting to deny access to young females for other men is concerned. Again, I am less interested in theories than the simple fact of the matter.

Is it a coincidence that legal penalties for gay sex in the US were removed even from "red" States at the same time the ages of consent were raised in the US to no lower than 16 anywhere? I would assume the passage of the anti- gay sex laws involved a trade-off, with the need to compensate by being seen as more moral with AOC. Maybe one day f-gs will push for a lower AOC now they've had victories with decriminalization and marriage, etc.

Which brings me to me final point. If the majority ever change their opinion about age gaps, advocates for men's rights will have to have something to say about drag queen story hour and similar things. We need to clearly differentiate ourselves from these other things in order to be noticed and to have a ghost of a chance of being heard and not immediately condemned.


Anonymous said...

(Taken from Tom O'Carroll's blog)

Today in Moscow a 12yo dated a 50yo man for sex to spite her parents and psychologists treating her from adult attraction:

Eivind Berge said...

That is psychotic in the extreme if that's what they really claim (I can't read Russian), but essentially what they do here too even if they don't put it so honestly -- "treat" minors' attraction to adults.

Anonymous said...

I just found this by accident, thoughts?

Anonymous said...

In fact, they acknowledge that she acted voluntarily. They did not conveniently explain away her action by saying that she was "groomed".

Eivind Berge said...

Reddit is agecuck central.

Is it weird that my 35 year old friend is waiting for a 17 year old girl to turn 18 so he can ask her out? [...]he laughed and said "a true gentleman waits until they are 18." He genuinely sees nothing weird or wrong with this.

Yeah I agree it is weird, but for the opposite reason than they think.

Back to the notion of "old enough to kiss" that we discussed earlier -- it is really bizarre that there are no gradations anymore. To the normies 17-year-olds are obviously not old enough to kiss, and you can't even think about asking them out or feel any attraction for them until they are suddenly old enough to gangbang.

Anonymous said...

It was hard work wading through the inanity of those comments, and Reddit is indeed agecuck central.

The fact that for the majority of folk nowadays there is little difference between a sexual relationship with a 17-y-o and raping a baby goes back to my last post. This is all their comfortable rut allows and that includes conflating any discussion of age gaps or sexual contact with unnder-18's with drag queen story hour etc. I'm not sure how this could possibly happen, but the normies need to be made aware that we either oppose these things or at least do not consider them relevant to our cause.

With paedohysteria and age cuckery, there seems to be something for almost everyone. Almost everyone has some incentive to support the system, so much so that it is a mystery to me how it was ever any different. Maybe war/high male mortality prevented it from taking hold in times past.

Anonymous 2

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, Berlusconi's girl was not only super hot but also of a good character at least at age 18 there when she says she only had positive experiences when they were together at 17. Now she is about 30 and still hasn't turned to my knowledge despite #MeToo which surely could have been very profitable for her to jump on. Perhaps the only difference between her and Epstein's "victims" is age (40+ seems to be prime accusing age) and she will also turn around and claim to have been groomed into the whole thing later including lying about what they did which was all horrible abuse, but I hope not, because then I will lose all hope that women can be good.

Anonymous said...

Sex With The Hot Teacher – Jimmy Dore (Stand Up Comedy)

Son of a Chicago cop, Jimmy Dore, "You know that law was not written by 14 year old boys."

Anonymous said...

I too hope Ruby doesn't turn to stone.
I wait with baited breath for a comedian to do a routine where the sexes are reversed, eg
"You know the law was not written by 14 year old girls."
Back in 2003, there was a light-hearted pop song called "Stacey's Mom" about a boy with a crush on a girl's mother.
You'll never get a song in the charts about a teen girl being in love with Chad's dad.

Anonymous 2

Eivind Berge said...

You'll never get a song in the charts about a teen girl being in love with Chad's dad.

Maybe not exactly that, but Benny Mardones comes close with "Into the Night":

Another of my favorites is "Magic Carpet Ride" by Steppenwolf:

"My Sharona" by The Knack comes close too:

And Winger's "Seventeen":

Lots more MAP music listed at Newgon:

Enjoying this kind of music is a great way to help renormalize what the culture obviously used to take for granted. Consider it microactivism.

Anonymous said...

Video killed the radio star makes an excellent anthem for the idea of minor attracted or pedophile activity, especially including pictures or imagery now defined as criminal.

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, Japan is a goner.

The new law replaces “forcible sexual intercourse” with “non-consensual sexual intercourse,” and expands the definition of assault to include victims under the influence of alcohol or drugs, those with mental or physical disorders, and those intimidated through their attacker’s economic or social status.

WTF!? Looks like Japan has made all rich or famous or powerful men rapists by definition. I mean, we also have that in cases like Weinsten, but this takes it to another level and makes it explicit in the law itself.

Anonymous said...

Not great news from Japan. The law about intimidation could be so vague as to be unenforceable. The thing I find hardest to accept is that I thought the power of America was on the wane, along with the paedohysteria. However, it could be a feature of the 21st century far more than that.

One consolation is that 13 was only the AOC in a few places, such as Greater Tokyo. Prefectures have the power to set their own AOC and it's been mostly very high (17/18) since well before this nonsense started. It may even be that they were trying to placate the West by raising the National AOC to just high enough to take the spotlight off them for the foreseeable future. Perhaps.

The clip for Into the Night has a couple of interesting things. Firstly, the father answering the door isn't happy, but doesn't look like he's about to kill Mardones either. Second, he and his 16-y-o girlfriend are depicted in the throes of passion. I have no idea if the girl was actually 16, but it doesn't really matter. The main thing is to note how times have changed.

BTW, I looked at the lyrics to Gypsies Tramps and Thieves, and it said
"I was 13 he was 21" when I only know "I was 16 he was 21."
Unless it's the Mandela Effect, the lyrics in the link are incorrect.
Anonymous 2

Eivind Berge said...

Japan has gone full feminazi including, it seems to me, the ability to enforce these new laws. They have brazenly spelled out the essence of #MeToo in that intimidation by wealth criterion which enables women to openly loot rich and famous men. There are no fans or groupies anymore, only rape victims, who can simply say they were intimidated by wealth and status.

Japan has also made sex with disabled people extremely dangerous as they don't seem to have any way to consent anymore even in theory. Including physical handicap. And since women no longer have to exhibit intent to resist rape under any circumstances, the very concept of consent is abolished in principle. Even a sex consent document would be invalid since they don't need to resist signing it. Affirmative/enthusiastic consent is also invalid since why should women need to resist their own impulses if they are attracted? Everything is rape. There is zero tolerance to sexuality. If this iteration of sex laws doesn't go quite this far they are already working on the next step.

I made the same observations about those songs. I couldn't find Cher or anyone else singing "Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves" with 13 in it so I guess Newgon is mistaken there. And yes, in the Mardones video from 1980 there is already a sort of norm that older men should leave 16-year-old girls alone. The father's point of view minus hateful feminism is nicely depicted there. He doesn't think the older man would be the best boyfriend for his daughter, and since she lives at home and he has a say he will try to influence her. There is no suggestion that there is anything wrong with being attracted to her or that such a relationship would be harmful in principle, however. All that came later. The teen brain myth isn't invented yet, "grooming" would not be an applicable concept and it probably would have been legal. But you get the sense that such fathers are not going to be a formidable opposition to feminism either, and sadly he speaks for the majority of men.

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, not sure what to make of that song as far as activism goes. It affirms attraction, for sure, as something natural and inevitable. But in terms of rebellion against the law or even social norms, it leaves something to be desired. I would have put that aspect WAY more forcefully. Frankly it is not present at all in the song as they wrote it as far as I can discern.

We REALLY need to start a sexualist band. "Can't Be Named For Legal Reasons" is my working title for a name (that's what we came up with earlier to mock UK law mainly -- maybe too UK-centric -- any better suggestions?) Anybody wanna help out write some songs and music too? And we need musicians. I can't play any instruments but will try to sing :)

And I would most assuredly be a public face for such an endeavor -- anybody else here got the balls for that? Maybe some band members can be anonymous if not, and help with those other tasks.

AF said...

"Not great news from Japan. The law about intimidation could be so vague as to be unenforceable. The thing I find hardest to accept is that I thought the power of America was on the wane, along with the paedohysteria. However, it could be a feature of the 21st century far more than that."

Yeah, the rationalist MAPs and the rationalist anti-sex hysteria academics such as Milan Horvarth have a tough nut to crack in trying to explain Japan. American Conservatives can't even keep drag queens out of kindergarten, or bearded men wearing dresses out of girl's restrooms, but they can dominate Japan so culturally that they have forced them to raise the age of consent and introduce a raft of sex laws, something they couldn't do in the previous 75 years, even when they were militarily occupying the country.

Of course it all makes sense if you try take on board the crazy idea, that all these laws being enacted worldwide lobbied for by countless feminist NGOs, are the result not of American Conservatism, not Martians, not time travelling NAZIs, but...well you know... feminists.

Honestly I am curious how you could form the opinion that 'paedohysteria is on the wane'. I certainly see no evidence of it.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, it's rare enough to find songs affirming any types of attraction, let alone activism. The closest I have found is civil disobedience, and those songs are usually written as a joke anyway (which §195 probably was too).

One option that may become viable in creating a male sexualist band is to seek help from AI. Soon you'll be able to generate music in any style and use the best voices (there are already AI's imitating famous artists amazingly well), all you'll need is to feed it the lyrics or just a theme for AI to work with. Finally you can have AI generate the music video to accompany the song.

A question is also who are you making music for? A small group of sexualists or the whole world?

It might be worth aiming for a high production, catchy type of pop music that intrinsically will appeal to the masses. To have the sexualist message penetrate across millions of homes.

Using famous artists voice and style could be another way to bring the message out, if doing that well you have an attention grabber.

amelio said...

"There are no fans or groupies anymore, only rape victims, who can simply say they were intimidated by wealth and status."

Well said. Specially when wealth can no longer be bestowed on them for their looks.
They can still be marketable through compensations.
Most women have a certain amount of morals. But they're being egged on by the voice of society :" You didn't get a fair deal, you were exploited, can't you see ?"
Same thing in war : most men balk at violence but when society tells them it's their duty to kill the enemy...

Anonymous said...

Our grandparents didn't know more than his wife (or at most a slut from the neighborhood who was of their same country and not a *********). The only cock they saw was his own, and his wife's hairy pussy.

Our parents may have already been exposed to shitty porn but at very specific moments (video store tapes, that you had to go there to show your face for that, or the censored porn channel on analog TV)

And now these 8-year-olds already have access to "18 teen with big tits facefucking assgaping anal destroying ultrapower big cock anhilattion creampie 4K VR".

The average teen has seen dozens of sluts getting fucked by huge alpha cocks, and he's been exposed to complete and utter depravity. And all this seems normal to people.

You go out into the street and see teenage girls with short shorts up to the bottom of their buttocks, showing their navels, with makeup... You open the instagram or tiktok and again dozens of sluts under 15 years old showing off and enjoying their flesh and their sexual provocation.

And at the same time any move he makes or display of masculinity is censored by this sick and deranged society.

Raising a child in this society and these conditions is HORRIBLE. And whoever can't see it is that he is totally absorbed by feminism.

Eivind Berge said...

"The average teen has... been exposed to complete and utter depravity."

Yes, and the effect is to desexualize the hapless boys who grow up to be into that shit along with the girls they fail to notice so much anymore. It is grotesque and absurd and tragic because without porn and fapping, fully clothed everyday teen girls walking down the street are more arousing than the most extreme porn of whatever men are into after developing various unrealistic kinks that can only be satisfied with porn and only in a deathly way at that since none of it is real.

Porn is indeed harmful, but in the opposite direction than the mainstream will admit. Because if they knew that real life becomes a porn reel in the absence of porn, they would surely be even more hysterically hateful of our sexuality. If they knew that the best way to sexualize youth is to nofap then I would be shot on the spot. I shudder at the thought of cops or vigilante mobs who don't suffer from the same delusion as the wankers...

Anonymous said...

It's likely Blackrock, Vanguard and other giant financial cartels that actually are driving anti-sex feminism. They're the real world government.

Jack said...

"... real life becomes a porn reel in the absence of porn ..."

There we go again. If it's that easy, stupid are the men who don't edit porn out of their lives then. Eivind, no one here believes you have turned you life into anything like a porn reel.

Not to mention that privileged men like Charlie Sheen who did turn their lives into a porn reel went on watching porn, if stories that pop up about them on the strengh of some scandals are to be believed.

As to wealthy and influencial men in the West and Japan not being allowed any more to wield their prestige to scoop up young pretty women, it's a bad sign for men's rights. However, it's not something I can feel sorry about without feeling at the same time like a cuckold. As long as they could get their pick of the litter, those men never lifted a finger while the masses of less fortunate men got castrated.

AF said...

"Eivind, no one here believes you have turned you life into anything like a porn reel."

Agreed. If I could believe that Eivind torturing himself with extreme NoFap had turned him into a charismatic approach machine, perhaps even giving off so much testosterone vibes that hot girls were actually approaching him, then I'd be tempted to give NoFap an extended try myself.

But Eivind doesn't even pretend to have gotten any results from it. The big reward he boasts that he gets out of it is that he becomes so thirsty he wants to fuck every fat girl he sees, as well as viewing them as 'angelic beings'. But he still can't approach them. He just goes on Tinder for hours every day, and very occasionally maybe gets lucky. If he's happy with that, good for Eivind. But it seems to me it doesn't justify calling people wankers, and the insistence that NoFap is as much as an essential core of our ideology as the age of consent or prostitution laws.

AF said...

Appalling story from Australia-

Truly a disgusting story. And the paedocrite perps only got 8 - 10 years prison time, so they will be out again in a few years time, after likely being treated as heroes in prison (and bullying the 'nonces'). I guess if the father they murdered actually was a 'paedophile' the courts would have given them a fine or a suspended sentence or maybe even a reward.

This is why I don't understand the MAPs and people like 'FreeTheTeens', who just want to paint butterflies all day, and who think calling somebody a paedocrite is a 'terrible, terrible thing to say', or like Eivind, think that sluts being occasionally locked up in a cushy prison for banging underage Chads and Tyrones is 'worse than the Holocaust'.

Go on a gore site and watch some poor sap being beaten or tortured to death, and consider that 90% of the population, 90% of the people you pass in the street, would like that to happen to you, simply for having desires for teenage girls. Then put down your butterfly drawing crayons and raise your fists in the air, and resolve to go through this life with some dignity.

Eivind Berge said...

Did nobody get the sense I was trying to convey? I mean the intensity of attraction to girls you see in real life. A girl's face is more arousing to a nofapper than the most extreme porn to a habitual wanker. It is hilarious that the feminists think porn is sexualizing when it does precisely the opposite. Nofap doesn't mean you necessarily get lucky, but you get your best chances and in any case real life is better porn than porn, even when women are almost covered up. This is why burkas need to be so extreme to have any effect at thwarting the male gaze at all and still fail if the eyes are visible. You have to be insane to want to debase your male gaze with porn and masturbation: that is a legit delusion, maladaptatation, pathology. It is doubly sinister because of the anosognosia that commonly goes along with it, which means men literally don't realize there is anything wrong, which means that yes, trying to correct this delusion needs to be part of the male sexualist ideology up there with denouncing the feminist sex laws.

Anonymous said...

I have to disagree with you Eivind. When I practice extreme nofag, I mean nofap, my sex drive is blunted and my interest in sex diminishes. When I start the occasional joy of masturbation again, my interest in sex increases. Your increased sex drive theory is not widely applicable, at all.

Eivind Berge said...

It is part of the wanker's delusion to think like that. If you were truly getting more interested in sex you would spend your energy looking for ways to get sex rather than looking at porn and fapping.

You cannot know what you would have come up with until you apply yourself to actually getting sex. Hence you can't know what you are missing either. Including the surge in sexual interest from actually having sex... which much like the retarded justification that you are fapping for prostate health is much better done via sex.

Also, many men experience a "flatline" (up to a few weeks) with diminished libido once they start nofap before experiencing the benefits, so maybe you never got past that.

Anonymous said...

"I have to disagree with you Eivind. When I practice extreme nofag, I mean nofap, my sex drive is blunted and my interest in sex diminishes. When I start the occasional joy of masturbation again, my interest in sex increases. Your increased sex drive theory is not widely applicable, at all."

This is pretty much what real scientific studies have found when they look at long-term effects of nofap. There might be a short-term boost in testosterone, but after a few days, it actually declines.

Makes sense when you think about it. Masturbation is probably evolution's way of keeping men who aren't getting any sex, motivated.

Sad that Eivind tries to base an ideology on feminist junk science, especially when that science is used to lock men away as sex offenders under anti-porn laws.

Eivind Berge said...

Evolution has not had a say on digital porn yet since it has only been around for one generation. You can speculate that monkeys occasionally rubbing stones on their genitals has something to do with getting ready for sex (and note that most of the time they don't even do it to ejaculation). If digital porn sticks around long enough for evolution to have a say, you porn-lovers will be weeded out of the gene pool and the remaining men will find porn as unsexy as stones again. Sadly you don't have the intelligence to realize that if you find porn more compelling than stones then you are in the grips of maladaptation.

Eivind Berge said...

If evolution "wanted" us to masturbate, it would have made the stuff available over evolutionary time inducive to masturbation. And sure it happens occasionally, but it is self-limiting. Anything which makes you want to masturbate more than a stone, your hand, a fantasy in your head or at most a cave painting cannot be said to be intended as such by evolution. So if you masturbate more than you would with only these traditional things available, you have evolutionary reason to believe you have a problem.

AF said...

Returning to the question as to why evolution hardwires (most of) us to prefer slim girls. For most of human history, fat girls were probably very rare. So seeing a woman with anything other than a slim belly, was a sign that she was pregnant, which most fertile women were 95% of the time.

So in other words, the evolutionary hardwired trait in men of finding chubby girls a turn off is probably to ensure we do not waste sexual resources chasing already impregnated women.

Jack said...

Eivind, you like to go on about "what Evolution wants". Yet what Evolution wants is for sex to lead to pregnancy. If Evolution could have its way, every single sexual intercourse would result in pregnancy. Pregnancy is the worst case scenario for sex. It removes young attractive women from the pool of eligible females. It deprives even a husband (ie a man who paid the highest price for pussy) of sex for months or years. In modern Society, it is disastrous for men as it entails child support slavery & cuckoldry.

You are reinventing Evolution to suit your Nofap asceticism.

Note that over the course of History, attempts at Nofap may have led to the banning of human imagery that is in force in some muslim Societies. Just like attempts at shielding femihags from the beauty of young stunners may have led to the veiling of women.

Eivind Berge said...

No, evolution does not intend all sex to lead to pregnancy. Social functions and pair-bonding are just as much evolutionarily intended and part of our natural lives. When you choose fapping, however, you choose to drop out. To be clear: wankers are the ascetics. Not me, who is trying to have an authentic life and lead a movement which supports the authentic life and wants to legalize it. It would be too lackluster to bother with a movement which fights for the right to retreat to a fantasy world and look at all the porn you want. Lol, that is sad. That has nothing to do with sexualism -- though it should be legalized for other reasons, simply because losers who want to hurt themselves should be left alone. Wankers are like self-flagellants. No reason to have a law against that, and no reason for me to be part of a movement for it even though I would pity self-flagellants who were also subject to criminal persecution.

There are many kinds of persecution and injustice in the world one could be an activist against and not enough time in anybody’s life to fight for every victim of systematic oppression even though I do sympathize with them and would help them if I had the power. When it comes to fighting for a cause as an underdog and putting lots of largely futile effort into it, I choose to be a sexualist because it entails celebrating something positive, something to be proud of, in addition to being a worthy cause for justice alone. I am proud of my sexuality, which gives me reason to be enthusiastic about it politically too, and with the female sex offender charade there are additional philosophical reasons because it maps the extremes of human stupidity and tests the question of whether our social institutions can be rational at all: the battle between witchcraft and rationality is nowhere better exemplified. If you mix in porn and shameful wanking as something we should fight for alongside all the positive and meaningful things, that’s not my kind of movement any more than I want to be known as a self-flagellation rights activist.

And no, men are not hardwired to find chubby or pregnant women unattractive or else they would be unable to pair-bond through pregnancies. We do have an ehterially strong attraction to slim teens but it would be silly to think our attraction is supposed to stop there.

To repeat: wankers are ascetics. A wanker is an ascetic who falsely imagines that he is experiencing pleasure for good reason just like an autoflagellant thinks his pain serves a purpose. Both are living dead.

Anonymous said...

Everyone who's trying to say that male hebephile girlovers like AF are all just normal men eventually employs some argument that goes like "all men like thin girls with clear skin, Natural Femininity, and simple wants, and teenage girls embody this". Which, first of all, isn't true about the girls, and second, completely inapplicable to me as a gl. This is not what I look for. If she's not some kind of a pervert and not at least a little bit angry and bitter, I don't want her.

MAYBE there are teleio guys who mistakenly believe teenage girls are just like adult women, but more in line with their ideal of beauty, but what does it have to do with me?

AF said...

"And no, men are not hardwired to find chubby or pregnant women unattractive or else they would be unable to pair-bond through pregnancies."

Most men aren't sexually attracted to pregnant women, that's why 'preggo' porn is a very narrow fetish. Of course it's different for the husband or boyfriend who has gotten her pregnant, who has already pair-bonded with her and has had his brain flooded with oxytocin, and knows she's got his kid growing inside her.

This is all important and I have right to scrutinize you for your views, because we were supposed to be a movement fighting to defend normal sexuality, and then you're championing NoFap on the basis that it distorts our sexuality (makes us want to fuck fat girls).

Eivind Berge said...

(cue an Eivind rant about stupid feminists not realizing they would do more harm to men by allowing porn)

Doing harm to men and doing harm to male sexuality are two different things. The porn laws obviously do great harm. They are based on a psychotic belief in the voodoo of images analogous to the wanker’s delusion that he gets sexual value out of masturbating to the same sterile pixels. The porn laws cannot harm our sexuality because there is no sexuality in porn. Rather we are talking about random acts of evil. I cannot take the porn laws seriously as systematic oppression of our sexuality because our sexuality does not need images and cannot reside in images. Images are abstractions that derail us from the real thing. We had better sex before porn and have better sex now without it. Getting 60 years in prison for crossing a border with pictures is as senseless as getting hit in the head by an icicle. Both are easily avoided if one takes precautions, as well. Don’t cross borders with potentially incriminating files on your phone, and don’t walk close to a building with icicles hanging from the roof. In the former case, the harm is indeed perpetrated by an organized conspiracy, but it isn’t a conspiracy against our sexuality, even if the morons in law enforcement and their feminist legislators think so. I wrote a blog post where I explain this at length titled "The implications of false pretenses behind persecutions." Let’s not credit a psychotic witch-hunt with any sense behind it, or else we become part of the problem.

I oppose the porn laws without believing in the wanker's delusion that he gets sexual value from porn. How about trying that out yourself? Indeed, my position ought to be a more forceful opposition, theoretically -- since claiming masturbation is good for you sexually lends some credence to the justification for the porn laws as well -- unless the feminists wise up to the fact that men get better at real "abuse" as they define it if we ditch the fantasy nonsense.

I totally understand opposition to the porn laws, but why do you need to let the feminists deliver the premises behind that opposition?

Anonymous said...

"Attraction to teenage girls is bad because it's unhealthy, abnormal, and can and should be medicated away" and "attraction to teenage girls is okay because it's healthy, normal, and an inherent part of male sexuality" may seem like the ideological opposites, but they aren't.

These two points of view use different evidence and come to different conclusions, but they're operating within the same logic - appeals to nature and scientific justification as a measure of goodness.

And it's a dangerous logic to follow.

Eivind Berge said...

While I agree that what is natural is not always good, in this case the feminists and normies are lying about standard male attraction patterns. They are also lying about female brain and psychological development and making up mythological harms. There is a place for arguing against this nonsense within the same framework even if one does not necessarily agree with that framework. I do not believe one needs to be "fully developed" to consent to sex, but it gets too tiresome to bring up the problems with that assumption every time the teen brain myth is repeated when we can just point out that teens aren't the retards they are made out to be now.

Eivind Berge said...

Have to laugh at this. Wanker gets his whole family killed for wanking in his own room, because neighbor girls could see it through the window and their father is a psycho.

Pedohysteria is an evil demon possessing governments and citizens alike. If you think 60 years in prison is reasonable for looking at pictures, something like this would be rational as well. I bet the mass murderer will get a lot less than 60 years since what he did was comparatively nothing and possibly even justified in eyes of the court. The saddest part is he will have an easier time in prison too.

Reader since 2011 said...

"Don’t cross borders with potentially incriminating files on your phone, and don’t walk close to a building with icicles hanging from the roof."

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Eivind's obsession with nofap has sadly deteriorated this place to where it's basically like reading a hateful feminist blog.

AF: We need you back, Eivind has totally lost the plot. Would you consider blogging again?

Eivind Berge said...

Have I lost the plot because I don't oppose the porn laws for the right reasons? Those reasons being a wanker's religion that porn is a sexual good? Methinks you have lost the plot for believing in that religion.

Reader since 2011 said...

You've lost the plot for many reasons. NoFap is really just the tip of the iceberg.

Sex deprivation has lowered your standards to the lowest of lows. Given your extremely awkward mannerism and off-putting appearance, we all understand that your standards were low to begin with. But starving yourself has turned your lust into a pathetic display of desperation of which not even your typical Incel can compete with.

Including, as you've repeatedly stated, to the point that you'd be happy if a "woman" with the look of a naked mole rat fucked you - and if she did so with a spiked strap-on from behind, against your will. That should not be a sex crime you say. Because despite you not being able to walk for days afterwards, there's no such thing as a woman being able to rape a man. The ugliest fat old hag is a reward. That's how deprived you are. That's how depraved you have become.

That's your life now. That's what you crave. That's what 45 years of hardly any sex culminating into NoFap has turned you into.

From mens right activism point of view, there's a point that should be beneath you.

Like hand in glove, you fit right into the feminist narrative. You've turned into the number one cuck for feminism. The poster boy.

Why? Because this is EXACTLY what feminism is about. Starving creepy losers like yourself to the point that you're willing to take anything with two legs and a hole that still breaths (and I'm not too sure about the breath part).

This pathetic display is you losing the plot. You let feminism take your soul.

And you're probably so wrapped up in your own little world that you're unable to see this. You have zero self-insight. No self-reflection on how you appear to the outside world. For gods sake, look at yourself! You think sporting a long receding haircut is a good look when you're almost 50 and balding?

You've been awkward forever, but the way you speak now is really strange. It's truly painful to listen to your videos just due to the mannerisms alone. It's like you're talking to yourself with sloughing the words, sudden loud voice spikes etc, but you're filming it. This is the sort of look and vibe people warn their kids to stay away from. Being honest here, you're sending of extreme creeper vibes. And considering what you're willing to have sex with these days, I guess it's not unfair to say you are one. Right to the bone.

Male Sexualism was coined by one of the biggest porn addicted wankers in the manosphere. Your version of Male Sexualism has tarnished everything the daily antifeminist attempted to build, and his short lasting legacy in our sphere garnered more success than your last decade of drooling.

So tell me, who has lost the plot?

From Tom Grauer's Sexualist Manifesto:
"Blue Knights hate men, hate masculinity, hate sexuality,
hate teenage sexuality, and most of all hate male
sexuality. They hate pornography because they hate
men, who consume it; [...] when sexually-alluring pornography and viable
sex-bots are made illegal, men are left with no choice
but to seek out flesh-and-blood women, even if these
aren’t particularly sexually appealing to them. Thus, we
see that older and uglier women stand to benefit men’s
attention by criminalizing young sexuality and
alternative sexual outlets, which reveals a common
source of the fanaticism with which they call for tougher
measures to be applied in bogus “sex-abuse” cases."

Anonymous said...

That Idaho killer is yet another mommy loving pussy sniffer in conservative feminist america. You see his response? "Tell my children I protected them." From what?

His own female family members couldn't stop themselves from watching a man masturbate, so they created a dramatic situation to see who would win a fight between their little baby mommy lover with a gun and the downstairs neighbor.

Will his family members be charged as accomplices for their planning of this crime? I would bet all my savings the answer to that question is 'no' because it's a question if the cuck feminist judicial system (with the added oppression of conservatism) even knows the truth about women and what happened. Oops I mean conservative pussy sniffers don't even know anything about their obviously sweet little innocent angels.

Once women are out of control under feminism, they will use their weak and confused little baby boys with guns to entertain themselves. It happens every day, including with the recent Australian killer. It is literally the exact same little baby mommy lover mindset cultivated by feminism.

AF said...

"Attraction to teenage girls is bad because it's unhealthy, abnormal, and can and should be medicated away" and "attraction to teenage girls is okay because it's healthy, normal, and an inherent part of male sexuality" may seem like the ideological opposites, but they aren't.

These two points of view use different evidence and come to different conclusions, but they're operating within the same logic - appeals to nature and scientific justification as a measure of goodness.

And it's a dangerous logic to follow.

That's an interesting point of view, and have some sympathy for it when comes to the 'rationalist' approach to fighting our case, which is adopted by everybody from MAPs, Eivind, and the 'youth sexuality' advocates like Milan Horvarth.

However, my approach is to cut to the chase and call out feminists on what they are and what they are doing - jealous rapist hags who are inflating paedohysteria and using the violence and control of the State to increase their own sexual market value. That way, you don't even have to debate their millions of 'arguments' about teens not being able to consent and such, you just point out the absurdity of anybody taking the arguments of these rapists seriously.

Nobody is ever going to listen to our own arguments about consent, or the teenage brain, or whatever. Milan Horvarth and his academic friends could publish dozens of million word texts on sophisticated and rational arguments, and it would just be a circle jerk for the condemned. Likewise with the MAPs and their 'girl power' and 'freetheteen' arguments. However, you can wake men up, and point out that a bunch of hags are controlling their dicks, and the simplest way to do that is to point out that it's so obviously true that attraction to teens is normal male sexuality.

But you have a point. If you look at somebody like David Buss and his view on Epstein. The normies when pushed, might admit that attraction to teens is normal, but they'll just fall back on 'but men can do the right thing, we are not animals' etc. The only way you can wake up somebody up like David Buss, is to point out the obvious (and and it should be obvious especially to him) fact that women, in the political form of feminism, are simply maximizing their own reproductive interests. Teen sex laws have nothing to do with 'goodness' or 'abuse'.

Eivind Berge said...

Bunch of nonsense from “Reader since 2011” there. Absolutely delusional. Nofap is no end triggering to wankers and I am used to insults but that I would be into pegging…? That is a new one, lol, and does in no way follow from my not wanting to classify it as a sex crime, because it isn’t sex, just assault, and a bad one when done by women too as I have said. You don’t know what sex is because you are a wanker and so used to accepting fantasies as good enough for you. Also I am actually extraordinarily picky by now since I only go for women with good fertility which means the age gap needs to be at least ten years and preferably a lot more.

The only kernel of truth in that comment is my pronunciation. Like most anyone who speaks a foreign language, accent is never going to be perfect. Does that mean I should hide like an anonymous coward for that reason too, perhaps using AI speech? Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Also some of my theatrical experimentation and scenery and so on might not turn out well, but it is by experimentation you find something that works, if anything. And if not, I’m glad I wasn’t another anonymous coward who didn’t try.

You call me creepy? Lol, our whole movement is creepy. Just liking younger women is creepy to current society. Here’s a lesson that anonymous cowards never get: the cure for creepiness is fame. The most creepy you can be is anonymous. Machine speech is more creepy than a bad accent. And the worst style by current standards can become a new trend if you are famous enough. Not that it matters, but it’s false that I am balding because my hairline hasn’t changed in decades. I think having long hair now is a plus because I am not bald or grey which makes me look younger than a lot of the competition.

And the notion that I am “feminist” can only be arrived at by living in a fantasy world where sex does not matter. If you are a wanker that far gone then yeah, we need separate movements. You represent the asexualist movement as have written about previously, which does not care about anything but porn and is so triggered just by my not opposing the porn laws for porn-loving reasons even though I do oppose them that you confuse my entire ideology with feminism.

AF said...

"Everyone who's trying to say that male hebephile girlovers like AF are all just normal men eventually employs some argument that goes like "all men like thin girls with clear skin, Natural Femininity, and simple wants, and teenage girls embody this". Which, first of all, isn't true about the girls, and second, completely inapplicable to me as a gl. This is not what I look for. If she's not some kind of a pervert and not at least a little bit angry and bitter, I don't want her.

MAYBE there are teleio guys who mistakenly believe teenage girls are just like adult women, but more in line with their ideal of beauty, but what does it have to do with me?"

Oh I see you're just the MAP with an identity crisis again. Why do you think you're somehow better than me because you tell yourself you're special, and a 'girl lover', and that I'm somehow in denial and ashamed of my attraction to teenage girls because I don't call myself an 'ephebophile' and read blogs with butterfly and rainbow backgrounds? I've blogged for 20 years fighting feminists and their persecution of men under the lie that its a perversion (the greatest) to find teen girls attractive. And my real world activism is 1000 x greater than that. And you think you're special because you identify as a fairy 'girl lover', and wake up every day believing the LBGTQ+ community will finally embrace you and your fellow 'Maps'? You're just a pathetic coward who will go to your grave neither knowing who he was or who he was fighting.

AF said...

From mens right activism point of view, there's a point that should be beneath you.

Like hand in glove, you fit right into the feminist narrative. You've turned into the number one cuck for feminism. The poster boy.

Why? Because this is EXACTLY what feminism is about. Starving creepy losers like yourself to the point that you're willing to take anything with two legs and a hole that still breaths (and I'm not too sure about the breath part).

This pathetic display is you losing the plot. You let feminism take your soul.

I agree 100% with this, sad to say. Eivind at this point is far more feminist than men's rights activist. Our aspiring 'movement' was supposed to be about preserving the true spirit of the MRM that Paul Elam and the likes of Kloo2Yoo at r/mensrights had betrayed with their 'equality of injustice' and validation and championing of feminist sex abuse victimhood culture.

Extreme NoFap has nothing to with our cause. As you point out, it actually furthers the feminist cause, and validates their whole enterprise, which is the artificial raising of their own pitiful sexual value (and that of their demographic, including post-wall women and chubby pigs).

Eivind just insists upon being 'kookie' in many ways. Yes, it's ironically led to an award winning Cannes movie being made about him, but I'm honestly very pessimistic that it will ever lead to even a couple of new 'followers' here. And even then, what kind of 'followers' would they be? Extreme NoFap kranks? Double standard defenders?

Eivind Berge said...

The notion that nofap/noporn heightens women's sexual value is not exactly false, but it is highly misleading because it is the women who already have the highest sexual value who get most of the increased attention as well. Nofap does not change your preferences; unless they were maladaptively skewed by porn into fetishes and unhealthy kinks then that can improve, but otherwise you simply put more effort into the girls you found most attractive all along. And with bolstered confidence you think you are more likely to get them too, so if anything, nofap makes you more picky.

Eivind Berge said...

Nofap is not good for the feminist sexual trade union... Lol, that is a silly thought when you actually have experience with it! It is the girls who need heightened attention least -- teen girls -- who get 99% of my added energy from nofap/noporn.

Jack said...

I've said it before but here it goes. Porn can be adaptive rather than maladaptive. It satisfies the need of the male for exploration and self-testing. A man who's been watching porn is much less likely to fall for a woman whose body doesn't tick his boxes. Of course, so does visiting prostitutes.

Men who are promiscuous with women these days are men who patronise prostitutes. Such men will usually also watch porn. They will often dabble in porn pics and vids themselves, albeit mostly for their own use and for showing to selected male friends. As for me, I can't separate fucking prostitutes and watching porn. I often wank AFTER having sex because I have women over for short time as long time is poor value for money at my age, and the cannabis high lingers, incentivating me to watch porn and wank after the girl leaves. Often I don't pop a second time but I toss all the same.

Porn makes men very demanding in terms of female looks. Eivind is right when he says porn can make many men unable to fuck the girl next door should the opportunity arise. But such inability may result not from reasons Eivind is keen to put forward (ie wanking fatigue). It may simply be a result of learned fastidiousness. Again, the same can be said of patronising prostitutes, as prostitution allows a man to hire women far better looking than the type of women he could pull from the street.

Eivind Berge said...

How much exploration and self-testing does a man need? Seriously, this is something you should have figured out by age 13 or at most 14 if you are healthy (the last bit only having to do with ejaculation while most possibly educational masturbation should be left behind while prepubescent already)! There is nothing more to learn after that, and in any case prostitutes and other helpful older women would be better for it (as Bruce rind so nicely explains young boys are adapted to crave in his latest paper).

All that remains after your full sexual maturity at 14 is to enjoy your sex life, which to be sure includes lots and lots of promiscuity for successful men. That some of these now also let porn hijack some of their sex lives, though to a far lesser extent than incel wankers, does not mean wanking is good.

Anonymous said...


NO "All men like thin petite girls who don't think much about feminism, so of course they prefer teenage girls"

YES "Hebephilia is a preference for traits, typically found among teenagers. Amount of body fat and political views are age neutral"

Eivind Berge said...

Somebody on my YouTube (Nat White) left this comment recently: "You're allowed to watch a flower starting to grow, they don't try to put a bag over the flower and say you can't see it."

If you like flowers, you don't just like fully sprung flowers. Every single person who can appreciate flowers can also see some beauty in them while they are bursting out of the bud. That's how men are about pubescent girls as well. I think hebephilia is nonsense.

AF said...

100% in agreement with Jack.

Eivind just can't see the absurdity of his situation. Promoting extreme NoFap in order that we spend all day on Tinder messaging countless chubby girls and skanks who probably wont read any of them. And all for a movement that is supposed to be about fighting the repression of normal male sexuality. Not to mention calling for the destruction of industrial civilization, which might make contacting girls on Tinder problematic.

This is why they made that movie.

At least you've got a fellow chubby chaser in that pedomap.

Eivind Berge said...

Masturbation is escapism from sexuality and worse than worthless because it harms male sexual ability. Hence it is contrary to any male sexualist movement to promote masturbation or pornography in any way, and imperative that we tell the truth about the harm.

I am a sexualist, not an asexualist, which is what you become by escaping from sex and substituting it with a simulacrum. You are free to go lead your asexualist movement if that is what you are into. And by the way, men who apply themselves to getting sex come up with many more avenues than Tinder. For example, I made a whole fertile dating site and inspired a movie that might spark curiosity in girls. You need to put in the effort before you know what you would have come up with -- and this opportunity is decimated or worse by fapping. Imagine being so sexually unambitious that you are content with porn? I would be ashamed, and will have no truck with that aboulia.

Jack said...

When all is said and done Eivind, the skepticism about the success of NoFap in your particular case could only be alleviated if we saw the results.

I was always skeptical of PUAs and their freebies. How good-looking or how average those freebies were no one ever knew. Roosh V retired to his orthodox monastry bringing with him the secret of how the girls he banged actually looked.

Things are somewhat different with expat pussy hunters as these sometimes publish pics of their fucklets for other mongers to see. Barring that, at least they say where (which club etc.) they sessioned a girl. Often, the girl's nom de plume is mentioned. Other mongers can track her down and give her a rating.

Even so, many such pussy hunters get riduculed by other members when a girl they rated an 8 turns out to be a 6.

I have another questions to throw at you. Why do horny men travel en masse half-way around the world to crime-ridden mosquito-plagued countries in order to have some sex, if they can achieve anywhere near the same result with NoFap? Do you think those men are dumb? Men are not dumb and they're not blind either. I remember once in Munich a bus carrying refugees did an unscheduled toilet stop in a residential area. A couple of African girls, unaware solliciting in the street was very much against the law, stood a stone's throw from the bus to see if they could lure some men. The police got there within half an hour (the sexual trade-union had sounded the alarm). But within those 30 minutes at least 3 men emerging from nowhere had had time to approach the girls. I saw them with my own eyes from a distant. Not bad for wankers with dead libido. Porn or not, men have a radar for any sexual opening and their radar never sleeps. Unfortunately, no radar can throw up a signature if there's nothing to detect.

Anonymous said...

Response to AF:

Teenagers/Young women are just that YOUNG and therefore minors!!!! Very obviously they are not on the same level as a grown woman. They are still growing and experiencing mental and bodily changes that are confusing! I know because I was one! There was a vast difference in myself as I grew to be an adult woman. I was ready and able to make decisions knowledgeably and I knew what I wanted as a women. I did not have a clue as a teenager! I was certainly not ready for sex with boys my own age let alone would I have ever wanted to have sex with some old man. It was extremely disturbing and creepy to me!

Eivind Berge said...

It is more important to meet girls than to brag about it or have any of you believe me. If they google me and find my political views that's one thing, but if they also find that kind of bragging with pictures I don't think that's good for me. I've had one very public girlfriend you can see for yourself, and others I won't identify unless I am sure they are ok with it. That goes for Roosh and other PUAs too, so it doesn't mean they didn't score with hot girls. Though it seems Roosh went crazy and doesn't even want girls anymore.

I assume the men who approached those African girls in your anecdote weren't wankers, or at least hadn't wanked that day. Which goes to show the need to be ready at all times, because you never know when surprise opportunities arise -- and they do in everyone's life! So nofap is extremely important. With those kinds of girls coming here, we don't even have to travel to mosquito-infested hellholes, and they might not all be professional hookers either. And traveling to such places as a last resort is also something a man might get motivated to via nofap as well, typically when so old that there really are hardly any chances left here with the girls we want. So every step of the way, nofap is valuable, including finding the motivation to amass the wealth needed to become an expat or bring a girl here.

Anonymous said...

The extreme focus on being ready to please any woman who rarely comes along for sex by depriving yourself of the occasional joy of masturbation is one of the gayest, pro-feminist arguments you can make.

FOCUS - Male sexualism, anti-feminism, is about one thing only - sexual pleasure for heterosexual men on our terms. That's it. It's not about always being ready to pleasure women. It's not about women going to jail for having sex with teenage boys. It's not about trying hard to create sexual opportunities with women (also gay and a giant waste of time).

It's about changing the point of view back to the heterosexual man and his needs, where it has been throughout history, and needs to return now. Jack's comments about masturbation are correct - where is the evidence that torturing and depriving yourself of all masturbation results in a net positive effect? There is none.

If a normal man wants pictures of a hot, naked 15 year old girl to relieve some pressure, this is our right and our concern. It is not illegal to torture and deprive yourself of masturbation, and not masturbating does not change the laws, at all. However, it is illegal to possess and now, even look at those pictures. There is no other issue of concern to us.

Eivind Berge said...

The reason why porn can't have sexual value and can't be crimeworthy (for simple possession or looking at it) is one and the same: there is no sex in it and therefore necessarily no sexual abuse either. Just like there is no water in a picture of rain or gold in a picture of gold bars, girls do not transmit any of their sexual essence into an image. A likeness is just that, a DIFFERENT object that is made to look like you. Once you realize that there is ZERO sexual value in porn and masturbation, it becomes obvious that it must be eliminated completely if that can help you have more sexual value in your life. And it is obvious that this is the result, from the simple facts that you can't do two things at the same time, life is short, men have refractory periods and diminished drive after ejaculating. You can only ignore this by some mixture of delusion and intellectual dishonesty. At the very least, you should admit that anecdotes of porn stars and alpha males occasionally masturbating don't prove your case, because who knows if these men also wouldn't have more sex on nofap? You would need a representative control group to test if less porn and masturbation leads to more sex as a net effect, and the only proper control group we DO have -- the time before internet porn a generation ago -- definitely had more sex than those who are now growing up with unlimited porn and the belief that it is harmless. About something so important as your sex life you would apply some precaution and at least consider the possibility of harm if you weren't in the grips of a wanker's delusion that makes this topic as taboo as the possibility that sex might not be harmful to minors is taboo to the normies. These two taboos are both mainstream and you only manage to question one of them.

Anonymous said...

I regret having ever been a part of the "male sexualist" movement.

The whole "male sexualist" ideology is based around a "alt-right" obsession with sexual activity, and the misguided idea that positions love and sex to be the same.

Most "male sexualist" activists are selfish and dogmatic with the aim to justify their own AoC endangering reforms.

Everything "male sexualist" is a farce.

If a teen attracted adult truly loved teenage girls, they'd be against sexual contact.

Eivind Berge said...

If you believe sexual contact with adults is harmful to teens you were never one of us to begin with. Good riddance.

Meanwhile I am a little bit excited today because I saw the first sign in the mainstream of a sexualist movement emerging there:

We like to think that we’re making progress in tolerance, openness and enlightenment. But we’re currently in the middle of a vicious anti-sex backlash, which includes attacks on reproductive rights, LGBTQ people and sex ed. Sex workers, in particular, have been targeted for censure, censorship, harassment and violence. Friday’s debut of “No Hard Feelings,” a sex work romcom that doesn’t want to admit to its own subgenre, is very much of our era.

This is the first time I have seen from an outlet like CNN the word "anti-sex" used. And furthermore anti-sex is considered a bad thing. Systematic oppression of sexuality is seen as a bad thing, from where the step is short to a general sexualist movement. Of course they don't yet include normal male sexuality in the ranks of the oppressed, and studiously avoid mentioning oppression based on age gaps, but nonetheless this feels different. Maybe this is the first sign that feminism has peaked.

You, sir, who just renounced sexualism are part of that vicious anti-sex backlash, and we might just be starting to see a silver lining against people like you now.

Eivind Berge said...

'Tis a most peculiar species of anti who thinks he alone loves teens. This basically the anthem of anti-contact MAPs: "If a teen attracted adult truly loved teenage girls, they'd be against sexual contact." On top of the normie delusions they are full of themselves with wanting to "protect" teens from sex out of what they think is superior love. A weird mix of self-loathing and imagined superiority.

In truth, of course teen girls need no such "protectors" who if anything are only suited to bore them to death if there is any interaction. To think teen girls dream of lovers who think they are too good/bad to make love to them, lol!

Anonymous said...

"Most "male sexualist" activists are selfish and dogmatic with the aim to justify their own AoC endangering reforms."

LOL you're damn right, now get lost woman

Jack said...

Now it's Elvis' turn:

Much of History has already been rewritten in terms of feminism, now it is being rewritten in terms of sexual abuse.

Eivind Berge said...

Indeed it is. Sex abuse revisionism.

But here is a story which goes in the opposite direction. 13-year-old girls are supposed to be babies who can't do anything, but...

In past weeks the world has been astonished by the story of four Indigenous children, aged from 11 months to 13 years old, who survived in the Amazonian rainforest for 40 days after an aircrash. Our Essay this week shows that this was less a ‘miracle’ more a logical outcome of a culture of parenting which emphasises children’s capability and involvement in household tasks and looking after younger ones.

13-year-old girls are badass survivors AND they can take care of a bunch of children in the wilderness, but we are to believe they can't consent to sex. Yeah, right. The truth is obvious to anyone who wants to look at it honestly. Our culture can snap out of feminism as soon as there is a will to do so. The way to best promote this is not by arguments but being a cool person who openly likes teenage girls, like Elvis. Anonymous activism has no effect, my activism has some effect (made a move that got noticed), and only when celebrities dare to stand up for their sexuality will we get anywhere.

Focus on being a cool person who openly likes young girls first, and secondly we don't really need arguments and evidence anyway because the whole abuse hysteria was nonsense to begin with.

Eivind Berge said...

I have the same sexual orientation as Elvis Presley. Which would be the normal male sexuality. And I am extremely proud of that. Nobody noticed anything wrong with it in his lifetime, again because it is normal. Now the feminists are falling over themselves to revise -- and perhaps they can seize Graceland and hand it over to the “victims,” but there is a double effect to all this demonization. The more they document all our idols and ancestors as being the same, the more they help to renormalize as well. Please do keep it up and before long all they will have left are some paedocrites who briefly claimed to be different to please the feminists before they too were discovered to live a double life. The only men left standing with dignity are male sexualists and MAPs. And I shall stand with dignity until my death, regardless of the cost. They want to segregate me from society and put me in prison, and they might succeed at that, but they will never take my dignity, my egosyntonic proclamation of being a sexually healthy man. The sexualists are like Nelson Mandela and Rosa Parks fighting an even more sinister segregation, because the feminists aren’t content with segregating us to a separate society. They are pure evil, only satisfied with destroying us. I recently refreshed what happened to the Pitcairn Islands to get a sense of the scale of the pogrom against men. Those were few individuals because the society was so tiny, but feminists happily put over half the male population on trial. They can easily do the same to us given the resources. It ain’t over yet and could get much uglier before gets better.

Anonymous said...

Yeah I just read in a newspaper that he is a "pedophile" because he was "obsessed with 15 and 16 year old girls".

16 fucking years old.

Those of the LGTB pride doing twerking and walking naked in front of primary school children.

Sick society. This is feminism.

AF said...

"The more they document all our idols and ancestors as being the same, the more they help to renormalize as well. Please do keep it up and before long all they will have left are some paedocrites who briefly claimed to be different to please the feminists before they too were discovered to live a double life. The only men left standing with dignity are male sexualists and MAPs".

Well said Eivind. However, I'm not sure the MAPs have dignity, and I doubt very much identifying with or validating MAP's attempt at identity politics helps renormalize male sexuality, rather than simply normalize the feminist lie that it's not normal to find teens attractive. They would like to claim Elvis as one of their own, a MAP fairy and a 'hebophile', despite it being 100% obvious he was the archetypal male of the 1950s, or of all time really.

If MAPs were saying something like what you wrote, that they were simply stating they are proud to say/admit that they find teens attractive, then it wouldn't be a problem. Or as I suggested once, we identify as 'Men Love Teens Only (MLTO) as a conscious response to the attempt by older women to restrict normal male sexuality. But MAPS really are identifying themselves as a minority, and in their aspie ways really believe that society will give them their rights, and protect them like they do gays and trans people, simply by appealing to reason.

Meanwhile, more details about that horrific vigilante killing in Australia. They abducted him from his house, kept him in the boot of a car for 21 hours in the baking summer heat, made him dig his own grave, strapped him to a table, then sawed off his hands and feet with a chainsaw, then shot him in the back of the head. And they got 10 years in prison for that, when men are being given 60 years in prison just for having pictures on their phone.

Yet the MAP fairies believe calling such people paedocrites is such a horrible, horrible thing to call somebody.

Eivind Berge said...

Like it or not, "MAP" is established for men like us. Normal men, yes indeed, and not a minority, but even the cops are using it to name their sting operations, because this society is at war with regular men (you know they don't pretend to be children, but teens we all like):

Dubbed Operation "MAP Mirage," with MAP standing for Minor Attracted Persons, Bloom said the men, ages 22 to 79, were arrested during a five-day sting last week.

You either embrace the MAP identity or you don't have a movement besides us handful sexualists. I am more proud of the pro-contact MAP movement (especially Newgon) than I am of other sexualists or MRAs than myself. The anti-contact self-styled MAPs can simply be ignored.

Cops are evil but at least they correctly identified their sting as a mirage. A mirage of a crime of something that shouldn't be a crime. It's a mirage of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of two mockeries of a sham, as Woody Allen would have said.

Anonymous said...

Society is against attraction to teenagers and specificaly teenage girls because it is something healthy and society is sick, it is literally that, do you want proof? I just read that a pro-LGTBI teacher in the UK (who surely support hang and gang rape you for being attracted to teens) has told a 13-year-old girl that she has to go to the mental asylum for saying that "a girl can't be a cat" and that there are 2 biological sexes, man and woman, these people are sick, they hate children, and they hate you because you are healthy and sane and they are sick and seek to kill humanity.

Anonymous said...

Funny how the wankers believe that Tinder is the way to get sex with ripe girls, LOL. You can find an akward but skinny and hot goth-teen that is ready to fuck about anywhere in the world. Or just to make your life even easier, you can offer some money. Porn-users/wankers dont notice opportunities right infront of them.

Jack said...

Madame Butterfly was 15. That's all very well, only at the end of the opera she commits suicide stabbing herself with a dagger. How realistic is that? Women don't commit suicide, much less through hara-kiri.

Like other romantic works of art (eg Verdi's Traviata), Madame Butterfly sold female victimology.

All the same, there's room for rewriting in terms of abuse. She was too young to have a relationship with an older man. The relationship made her so confused she took her own life.

Eivind Berge said...

Feminists have rewritten life including all of culture and religion to sexual abuse. Sexual abuse is the original sin which is the root of all problems. And at the metaphysical core of sexual abuse is age gap. The age gap sin is so powerful that it trumps all other explanations for everything. Of course it is piece of cake for this culture to turn every literary story with an age gap into abuse as well, which of course is the explanation for every bad thing happening to the characters just like it is in real life.

The solution is the same as we have been doing all along in the sexualist movement -- or at least the leaders have who are not anonymous. We must be the change we wish to see in the world. We reject the feminist mythology and go forth and be role models for not believing in false sexual abuse. We must live and breathe sexualism to make a difference, because everywhere it is assumed that everyone buys the abuse story. Be true to yourself first and only then will you be ready to teach others. Truth will overflow when you live an authentic life yourself, and others will take notice as they have with me. I am becoming a true role model, and I am just getting started.

Anonymous said...

I heard mentioned in passing on the radio some years ago about how there's something in Mozart's oevre about how a fifteen year old girl should be an expert flirt with any man. I've tried to find it but no success-perhaps someone with a good knowledge of classical music might know.
However, I did find this-
Of course she is.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't know about Mozart, but now is a good time to bring up a wise woman named Anne Frank, who indeed became as wise as a woman can ever be in her 15 years.

On sex, Anne Frank writes about how a young woman will start getting her period when she is about 14, “which is the sign that she is ready to get into a relationship with a man, but of course one does not do that before one is married.”

She goes with a candid description of sexual intercourse and contraception, before writing about prostitution: “All men, when they are normal, go with women, on the street such women talk to them and then they go together. In Paris, there are big houses for that. Dad has been there.”

Possibly the last sex-positive person who is too celebrated to be cancelled by feminism, though I am sure they will selectively dismiss these thoughts as immature.

Eivind Berge said...

More historical revisionism in Australia and another bizarre stretch of "sexual abuse." Proposing marriage to 16-year-old girls in 1980 is now "grooming" and the relationship sexual abuse even though they went on to be married.

Judge Huggett sided with AB, finding that Dawson had groomed the teenager while she was still his pupil. AB said she began babysitting for Dawson when she was 16, often staying the night at Dawson’s house. “He asked me to marry him when I was 16, many, many times, I always felt obligated,” AB had alleged. Judge Huggett said she accepted the evidence that Dawson had proposed to AB at least once in 1980, when AB was 16. The judge established there was “powerful evidence” within a 17th birthday card sent by Dawson to AB in early 1981, in which “the accused, a mature man, as opposed to an immature teenager, was confident in the existence of a reciprocal and permanent relationship. And that was because a sexual relationship had commenced” in 1980.

Oh yes, those "immature teenagers" who are separate beings from adults... the principal lie of this civilization.

To put this into perspective, meanwhile the creator of the most widely used IQ test, David Wechsler, wrote that “[There] are not mental age equivalents for ages above fifteen and a half, and … beginning as early as age fourteen, the differences between succeeding half year scores are so small as to make them unreliable” (quoted in An Empirical Introduction to Youth by Joseph Bronski).

The justice system is its own reality with alternative facts. It is not evidence-based at all regarding such dogmas as the supposed immaturity of youth.

Anonymous said...

Except maybe Eivind, we are not "normal heterosexual men", but a sexual minority, that's why we need an identity, and with it a name to differentiate ourselves from heterosexuals, like ephebophilia, an ephebophile pride flag etc.

In fact I think theAF is not even an ephebophile, he is a hebephile with a predilection for peri-pubescent girls and girls with barely any physical development and very short, as shown by his obsession with ice skaters and gymnasts, in fact ephebophiles like girls more developed.

If you like pubescent children from 11/12 to 14 you are hebephile..
If you like adolescents from 15 to 19, you are an ephebophile.
If you like adults from 20 to 40, you are a teleiophile.

Eivind Berge said...

I'm Past My Prime [from LI'L ABNER]

I'm past my prime
What a shame
And I'm losin' time
Guess the old clock's run down
Seventeen last spring
My, what a wasted life
Still without a ring
When will you be a wife?
I'm past my peak
You're an early antique
Look at this physique
Just hear the old bones creak
Where there was a glow
There ain't a glow no more
Now the wrinkles show
Where art Thou Romeo?

Eivind Berge said...

More from the same song:

I ask you who's elated when you's Methusilated
Oh, me, oh, my
Like a mummy underground
When you is antiquated
boys ain't enchanticated
Oh, me, oh, my
They prefers you in the round

Life's just like pie
Huckleberry or peach?
When you're young and spry
Heaven's within your reach
But it's just a crime
How can it be sublime
When you're past your prime?
When you're past your prime?
When you're past your prime?

A joke of course, but who can't see some truth in it too? :)

Eivind Berge said...

To the anonymous above who advocates for hebephilia and ephebophilia as identities...

Nope, I'm not buying it. There is a slight but negligible validity to hebephilia (negligible because they are shown to be equally or only slightly less reproductively successful -- look up the controversy surrounding the adaptationist argument against including hebephilia in DSM-V and the decision not to) and none whatsoever to ephebophilia.

Listen to the musical I just quoted again, from back when men could joke about these things and remember there's a grain of truth in every joke. We are all hebephiles to some extent and ephebophilia is just plain vanilla masculinity. Maybe overly picky, but not a separate orientation by any stretch of the imagination. Of course, you are free to make flags and do a Pride march for it... just as you are free to make flags for gentlemen who prefer blondes or whatever, but I don't see the point.

Eivind Berge said...

This is not the place to debate the authenticity of Anne Frank's diary, but I am honestly unaware of good evidence that it wouldn't be.

Louis XV was an "ephebophile," LOL!

No, the whole "sexual minority" business is suited to offend most men because it adds a layer of specialness that is false and entitled. Let's say two men both agree girls peak somewhere between 13-17 and one of them puts up with monogamy while the other does not. The one who believes in monogamy accepts probably getting only one shot at the most attractive girls, lasting only a few years with such sublime beauty. This has been the traditional way to go about it all while agreeing that girls are indeed most attractive at that age. Now along comes some "ephebophile" who waves a flag in his face and claims minority status? I would be offended, and LESS likely to listen than to a general sexualist message that we need to quit criminalizing victimless sex because it hurts the innocent. Flaunting minority status tells the monogamists that our message isn't relevant to them, so why should they care? Which is not only false because they can become single again too, but it is counterproductive and obnoxious, a very bad idea in my opinion.

Eivind Berge said...

To identify as a hebephile or ephebophile is to flaunt a double-dipping, cherry-picking lifestyle. The others (normies in saner times) be like yeah, we like cherries too... nothing special about that... the only difference is claiming some special entitlement to picking cherries your whole life. It doesn't take much thought to realize that such a movement won't fly. If you want that lifestyle you should be relatively discreet about it, because it elicits jealousy for good reason. But fighting injustice is universal. Anyone who cares can do that, because it is based on a sense of fairness rather than entitlement. Hence I am a sexualist and normal man. We don't want to criminalize sex with the most attractive girls much like we don't want a 100% tax on millionaires, because it would be unfair and we would like to have a shot at enjoying such benefits too even if we don't believe it is an orientation to be a millionaire or ephebophile.

Anonymous said...

Last message about Biden's son that I just read: one said that he is a pedo and another said "as long as the girl is over 18, they can do what they want".

You never convince anyone (or even normal straight men) of anything other than that they have to be at least 18, the fight is between feminists who want older men not to go with younger girls and anti-feminists who say that at 18 it's fine.

Why 18?

Society is not anti-sex or sex-negative, sex is free, what it is anti-fucking children, who are under 18 (yes, we know that is NOT true, that is what they believe), if they are over 18 (aka adults) nobody tells you anything except the nasty radical feminists, but those hate everyone.

You can only argue and fight to lower the age of majority (adulthood) to less than 18.

Another thing is to argue in favor of fucking children, that is, pedophilia, and you know what society thinks of that.

Those who say it's okay to like Heidi Blum's daughter is because she is already 18 and a legal adult. If she was 17 it's would be wrong.

No one accepts under 18 because are NOT considered adults.

That is the foundation of our society. Any contrary discourse is destined to fail. You will never convince them.

"You can have sex with whoever you want as long as they are consenting adults"

This is the basis of modern society, even libertarians and sex-positive people.

THE THING: Under 18 they are real adults! 18 is a legal lie! that is what we have to defend.

amelio said...

"If you want that lifestyle you should be relatively discreet about it, because it elicits jealousy for good reason."

Exactly, especially in our societies where old people outnumber young people by far(demographic suicide).
You can't have ageing women left to rot after a certain age (or weight) and older men feel ridiculous hampered by an ugly wife.
The ideology of liberation is bound to fail.

Anonymous said...

Re: Anonymous Thursday, June 29, 2023 3:08:00 PM
I'm sure Galileo 233 has something to say about 18 (6,6,6,) being the acceptable/ legal age for sex with a partner of any age.

You know, I'd settle for an AOC of 18 if a lot of other things improved in the world and I was sure it wasn't going to lead to an even higher AOC. As for what those other things are, let's just say a lot of other people who go against mainstream narratives are also as paedohysterical as the mainstream population. If my "conspiracy loon" tribe won, and there was free energy and hangings at Gitmo etc, then I would put up with an AOC of 18-for a while.

As far as the Biden clan is concerned, the way Ole Joe publicly gropes females of a wide variety of ages is the one single thing I like about him. It's strange, but not overly surprising, that the MSM overlooks it and the conspiracy crowd makes too much of it-it's a bit invasive but the absolute least of his crimes, and I am sure the girls he's mildly felt up aren't going to be scarred for life.

Anonymous 2

Eivind Berge said...

Age of consent is just the tip of the iceberg of the war on sex. Just ask Harvey Weinstein, who is in prison for totally normal consensual relationships with women over 18 that got redefined into "rape." They can do that with anything with the current sex laws. All it takes is a desire to accuse, for example to gain wealth, and the system will zealously persecute men regardless of the circumstances. Whenever you shine a light on sexuality there is always criminality, because there is zero tolerance to sexuality in this civilization. As far as I'm concerned, whether you have sex with women over or under the age of consent is irrelevant because all sex is criminal anyway. This is the reality we have to deal with, which radicalized me into an MRA and now sexualist. It wasn't primarily due to age of consent that I became an activist, but the corruption of rape law which is the core of feminism. You are kidding yourself if you think you can be safe as long as you respect the age of consent, because there are myriad other sex laws they can use, and something will ALWAYS be applicable to your situation. This society hates our guts for being men and will bend over backwards to persecute us even if there is no accuser, in which case they will use prostitution law or manufacture an accuser out of thin air if they have to -- which is considered totally normal police work (stings).

Eivind Berge said...

This civilization hates sexuality so much that it has even recriminalized gay sex among adult men under the feminist "abuse" paradigm. Look at Kevin Spacey's new trial over total nonsense.

When there is an incentive to loot, there is always a sex crime that this society will pursue.

Anonymous said...

@Eivind-you're quite correct to state that AOC is just the tip of the iceberg. One only has to look at the legal disadvantages faced by men when a woman accuses them of sexual misconduct.

The allegations against Kevin Spacey, if true, are of fairly aggressive sexual activity that satisfies my idea of sexual assault-I don't know about anybody else's.
OTOH, I've notcied that all the accusations are being heard together and the similar evidence rule, which used to forbid that, is now a thing of the past. That rule was in place for a reason and that reason is no longer considered sufficient in today's prosecution-friendly courts.

Is Spacey a token gay thrown under the bus to create the impression that there isn't a systematic attack on normal hetero male sexuality? Or is there indeed an anti-sex tendency? This would need to be assessed in the light of other developments that could be described as pro-sex in their own way-drag queen story hours and gay and trans promotion to kids k-12, Pride promotion, ads on TV that have a disproportionate number of gay and lesbian couples, etc. It seems that everything is being promoted except attraction between the sexes, not confined toi but especially when it involves older male/younger female.

Anonymous 2

AF said...

The age of consent was the start of the infantilization of women. Once you accept the absurd idea that 17-year-olds are non-sexual children who can't consent because of a supposed 'imbalance of power', then it's easier to say the same for 'adult' women in all kinds of situations, whether a 'drunk woman', or an actress on the casting couch.

Further, the age of consent is so absurd, and girls 14-17 being turned into victims, or allowed to feel like victims, when they may have seduced their older boyfriends and had multiple orgasms every time, that every instance of such post-sex victim identification is a form of false rape 'regretted sex' accusation against the man. Absurd age of consent laws normalizes the culture of false rape accusations being an instrument of power for women against men.

Even more so when you consider a man can go to prison for 'child abuse' for picking up a 17 year old in a nightclub who told him she was 21. As Eivind says, feminists have made virtually all sex potentially criminal.

As far as Kevin Spacey is concerned, it would be a good thing if feminism fucks up gay hookup culture. It might turn the gay community against feminism in the end. They might even remember that they were pederasts before feminists co-opted them. Of course, the likes of Spacey are collateral damage in the wider feminist plan. Feminists have no real interest in persecuting gays, it's just that the MeToo culture they started to prevent heterosexual men sleeping with young women has spread to the gay community. Just like women being sentenced for sex with young boys is an unintended consequence of paedohysteria, it's merely collateral damage to feminists.

amelio said...

"Absurd age of consent laws normalizes the culture of false rape accusations being an instrument of power for women against men."

Absolutely but the vast majority of men don't seem concerned until they're accused or their son is.

Anonymous said...

I was browsing twitter and a group of extreme anti-feminists (they called themselves misogynists directly) were forcing a 14-year-old girl to close her twitter because she uploaded risque photos, calling those who like underage girls sick, it's disgusting see the alleged anti-feminists.

The head of this scum gloried in preventing the "sick" from continuing to see the girl.

They are not fake anti-feminists, that is anti-feminism.

Those thousands who liked that 14-year-old girl are not "normal straight men", they are hebephiles, a sexual minority persecuted by fascists, right-wingers and misogynistic rabble that you believe are the potential "saviors of normal male sexuality".

The others are not "peadocrites" they are normal heterosexual men, and they do not want girls who could be their daughters, nor minors. Not anymore, and all of you refuse to admit it.

We are not normality, we are a sexual minority.

Anti-feminism is a farce. Feminism is equality, it is true, and in the worst case it is that all heterosexual men are persecuted equally, whether they are adult women or minor girls, and I am glad, I support injustice for both. At best we will be the new LGTBI guys.

Anti-feminism seeks to make it only legal and accepted
sexuality with adult women but then persecute those who want underage girls, because we are "sick that we like children".

Go to any forum full of straight men and what they think of people who like young girls.

I'm getting off anti-feminism/MRA/masculinism etc. forever. And do the same if you want to save yourselves!

I am a proud hebephile-ephebophile. I'm sick of straight men calling me sick. To hell with normal straight men! Our liberation will come with rainbows and butterflies.

Eivind Berge said...

Don't you realize Twitter selects for those kind of morons because it is the only "antifeminism" Elon Musk will allow? You appear to be insane, thinking you are special but you are not. We are simply barred from telling the truth about sexuality on the mainstream platforms and especially Twitter.

AF said...

"Go to any forum full of straight men and what they think of people who like young girls."

You really are an imbecile.

You may as well point to 'any forum full of North Korean citizens and what they think of Kim Jong' and serve it as 'proof' that they really do all see him as 'Dear Leader' and are happy with totalitarian rule.

No doubt many men feel they are speaking the truth when they say they don't find teenage girls attractive. It may be even that many men have conditioned themselves so successfully that they feel no attraction towards teenage girls. But what would that entail for what it means to be a 'hebophile'? That a hebophile is somebody who hasn't successfully been able to condition himself to not find teen girls attractive? That doesn't make sense. It would still not be a genuine 'sexual orientation' like homosexuality or whatever. We know from history that it was always perfectly normal for men to prefer teenage girls, let alone just be attracted to them. There is countless evidence for that. Even in the UK as recently as the 1990's, the most popular topless models were 16 year old girls (one newspaper even counted down the days until they could show Lindsey Dawn Mackenzie topless on her 16th birthday). Were all the readers of these tabloids that sold millions 'hebophiles'? We know from evolutionary psychology that it makes perfect sense for men to PREFER teen girls, but for certain to find them sexually attractive.

We know that powerful men always prefer teenage girls. We see it from everyone from Ghengis Khan to Mao Tse Dong to cartel bosses in Mexico. F***, you're having a laugh if you think the most dominant alpha male brutes in history were fairy 'ephebophiles' like you and your friends.

Jesus, you're like a literal manifestation of how I described aspie feminist ephebophiles on my blog. I can't believe you are real, rather than some troll just trying to wind us up.

In any case, why don't you and your 'ephebophile army' go and fight for your rights, and we'll try to fight for the rights of the 'normal male'? Go and fight for your rights and the approval of feminists at any number of 'map' blogs like Tom O'Carrol's.

Really, this is what happens when Eivind muddies the waters and thinks it's a smart move to embrace the clueless 'maps'.

Anonymous said...

Eivind - you might not think the child porn hoax laws have anything to do with real sexuality, however, consider this - the state surely does.

The feminist state uses fake child porn laws as a cheat method to punish men for having sex with young girls without actually having to prove sex occurred. Fake child porn laws are the #1 tool for increased oppression of real life sexuality.

Instead of having to go through the difficult process of proving sex occurred, jealous feminist state prosecutors simply show the man's text message history with his girlfriend and put him in jail for decades based on fake child porn laws alone. You would be wise to reconsider your position.

Eivind Berge said...

I have considered this carefully. Buying into the wanker's delusion that porn is sexually valuable or its feminist flipside of voodoo abuse is not the solution. Why is it so hard to to acknowledge that this is persecution based on false premises? It is nonetheless persecution that I oppose of course, just not as persecution of our sexuality directly.

Do you think the only way to be against witch-hunts is to believe in witchcraft and uphold it as something good? Why can't we just cut through nonsense and oppose persecution for what it is? I totally agree it is often a cheat method to punish men for having sex with young girls without actually having to prove sex occurred, and then we should be honest that this is what is going on and oppose it because we are sexualists who believe sex is harmless and good, not that porn or masturbation is!

It is astonishing how obsessed this is society is with "sexual content" as if it's something sexually real that steals the supposed innocence of children. Here's the latest draconian absurdity: a new Texas law forces vendors to rate sexual content in schoolbooks, in effect banning the sale of books about sex to schools.

I will have no part in this charade at any step of the way. It is sheer madness. Educational material about sex does nothing but educate and porn does nothing but hurt the male performance. The wanker's delusion is a delusion and the feminist/conservative flipside is equally delusional, even if it indirectly hurts sex too when used to persecute men who also had sex or would have if they didn't rot in jail on the bullshit pornography charges.

blah blah said...

Porn has many positive sides, apart from the obvious fact that a society that demonizes porn is almost invariably a society that demonizes sex (outside marriage with hags etc.).

But you're never going to be convinced Eivind. And your brain is too rigid to ever 'consider carefully' the obvious fact that feminists are not 'deluded' about porn, they ban porn because it gives men an alternative to sex with them. And you'll never be able to see that it's dangerous to agree that something is evil when the men are being put in prison by the tens of thousands on the basis that that thing is evil. You're like some 'libertarian' politician agreeing that cannabis is the most evil thing in the world and calling users dirty pot heads.

So carry on being raped by HB4 chubbies you work tirelessly to pursue on Tinder Eivind. Hope you don't feel disgusted with yourself afterwards :)

@Anonymous - that pig sounds like a real fu**ing paedocrite!!

Going back to the discussion of the fairy MAP feminist and his 'evidence' for hebophilia being a forum where men don't admit to finding teens attractive.

I was browsing Facebook the other day, and one feed about classic movies showed a photo of 15 year old Elizabeth Taylor. Some men were commenting that she looked beautiful, and women were ganging up and leaving pedo comments and shaming them. Even some paedocrites joined in, and their comments accusing the other men of being pedos were 'loved' by the middle-aged women and skanks.

I so wanted to comment that they were just jealous hags and paedocrites, but hell, my family and friends would see it. So no choice but to just bite my lip.

Happy Wanker said...

Eivind talks about wanker's delusion, yet he is actually using extreme NoFap to delude himself and his cock into believing that chubby women and HB4s are sexually attractive.

It is normal to masturbate, at least occasionally, and if you do not currently have sexual partners. Eivind is doing something very unnatural and artificial, with the deliberate intention of deluding himself into seeing unattractive women as attractive! He hopes to have sex with unattractive women, and presumably reproduce with them, yet his children will share their unattractive genes, and find it hard themselves to reproduce. He is intentionally putting on a pair of beer goggles 24/7 and seeing women not as they really are. To intentionally receive false sexual fitness signals from them.

Then he uses mental gymnastics to convince himself (and nobody else) that he is the epitome of 'natural' and 'authenticity', following his blind selfish gene urges to successfully reproduce without any interference from technology (well apart from Tinder and smartphones).

amelio said...

It's a good thing that men can be attracted by plain women. They're nor forced. It's absurd to shame them.
What would the world be like if a bunch of (usually) ageing aesthetes were appointed to ditch females who didn't meet their criteria ?

On the other hand, men shouldn't be shamed if they prefer fantasizing about unreachable girls at least at certain periods in their life.

It's good advice to state that real life is better than fantasy and that wanking should not become an addiction.
It's ideology to pretend that wanking ruins your sex life (in all cases).

Real MRA said...

male sexualism? better ped0s when they can't look at 16 year old's underwear

i see here people crying about a 16 year old being less sexualized in magazines now lol

people here just got upset because the law ban sex with an underaged person

everyone complaining about censorship is complaining that you can't see the underwear of a 16 year old anymore


male sexuality is ok if you aren't a sexual weirdo

The underage sex was never intended to be integral to your enjoyment in the first place, supposed "normal straight male". Just go and date adult women.

This "update" in MRA movement caled "feminism" by ped0bears is a purge long-needed, as someone who used to love Men's Rights but ended up being harassed by out of the community long before this "update" ever came around.
Let's actually welcome a new era of Men's Rights, and let's also try to form a community that isn't so quick to sexualize children and discriminate against queer people or people of color.

Anonymous said...

The confused ramblings of "Real MRA" sound more like a Real FED to me.

But let's take him seriously for now - he can have all the 30+ year old hags he wants since he thinks that is normal, and leave the hot 15 year olds to the weird male sexualists.

anon 69

Anonymous said...

@Real MRA-you know that saying attributed to Gandhi about first they ignore, then they attack you, etc? You are providing evidence for this maxim.
I actually welcome your presence here. It shows that the hags and their mangina enablers are beginning to freak out.

Anonymous 2

AF said...

Sounds like we are being subjected to trolling again. 'Real MRA' sounds suspiciously like that aspie MAP guy the other day. Not that most MRAs since Paula Elam aren't arseholes like this.

But if you are serious learn your effing history. The age of consent was part of mens' rights from the first MRA Ernest Belfort Bax right up to the 70's and 80's. Even Angry Harry often spoke out on child porn laws and paedohysteria.

It's ironic as I came here to post a comment relating to my research on how the gay rights movement got co-opted by feminists and abandoned the age of consent as a cause, and then I see 'Real MRA's comment, which is pretty much the same thing.

Anyway, I've been looking more closely at the history of gay rights. It seems in particular that the gay (as in homosexual) rights movement was neutered on the topic of the age of consent by their lesbian allies. I found an article from 1993, in which a 'young dyke' actually disagrees with her sisters on this issue :

AF said...

"It's a good thing that men can be attracted by plain women. They're nor forced. It's absurd to shame them.
What would the world be like if a bunch of (usually) ageing aesthetes were appointed to ditch females who didn't meet their criteria ?"

We're not talking about 'plain women' we're talking about Eivind seeing unattractive chubby women as 'angels' because of his NoFap addiction and encouraging (or rather insisting) that other men be like him as leader of the 'sexualist' movement (he's even changed the name of the movement so that he can get laid with his hoped for female followers). I once posted a story of a 400lb black woman charged with having sex with a 13 year old boy, and Eivind still insisted he was a 'lucky boy'.

Well, as a hypothetical thought experiment, if all the plain and unattractive women were to disappear from the world, I'm pretty sure there would be no Sexual Trade Union and fewer laws against teen sex, porn, prostitution etc.

amelio said...

"if all the plain and unattractive women were to disappear from the world"

Ok but as it will never happen it's much better to keep them busy. If men think the real thing with a fatso is much better than wanking on unattainable beauties, it's all right with me. I even think these men are benefactors of humanity :)
People are getting older and fatter in our countries. We must take this into account. Food is plenty (for now) but beauty is gold dust and competition is fierce.
That's probably why those absurd laws about 17 yo chidren, grooming etc - were invented.

Anonymous said...

Why this obsession to defend porn? In "legal" porn, to begin with, they can only appear over 18 years of age. That is, the age at which we should repudiate them sexually, 18 is the age of evil, if it were so good that we liked those over 18 it would be a crime, I don't even consider them "teenagers", they are shitty "adult women".

So stop looking at sluts over 18 years old, they feed on the fact that girls under 18 are "prohibited" to corrupt you, physically and morally, worse w hardcore p0rn.

Is it really necessary to see almost anorexic whores from 18 to 25 years old being penetrated by addicts and blacks and bleeding as if they were virgins?

If you really need to want to jerk off, at least you look for girls under 18, there are tons of them, they don't even need to be naked, you cum in a minute because they are so delicious, and it's not necessary to see a 19-year-old slut receive semen in her face from a tattooed beast.

And you have to masturbate in moderation, every 3 months is healthy, testosterone has all of you dominated, if you need relief, look for some pictures of a pretty 14-year-old girl without tattoos and enjoy for a minute (you won't take more).

And please look for teens with dangerous curves... I'm sick of 17 year old ice skaters and gymnasts looking like anorexic 11 year olds!

Eivind Berge said...

I don't repudiate over 18, but you are absolutely right that porn is not needed to any man who keeps his masturbation below clearly unhealthy levels (and this is even a good way to check if you have a problem, because if you feel you need porn then you are desensitized to the delicious beauty that is all around us that healthy male sexuality should perceive). This is what I meant by everyday life becoming a porn reel to nofappers. If you keep it at no more than once every three months then almost none of the bad effects should apply and a random picture of a teen from something like Instagram or a stock photo from a middle school or high school will be just as or more arousing than the most hardcore porn is to habitual wankers.

It is a giant lie that porn sexualizes, because it does just the opposite. It robs everyday girls of the sexual arousability they should have to all normal men who observe them. The AF is so deluded he thinks wanking to porn spares his arousability to the most beautiful girls, but of course it does no such thing, or else he wouldn't need porn of those girls either.

And as always, I recommend complete nofap, but if you must masturbate, that is the right frequency and attitude: max every three months and no porn needed!

Anonymous said...

AF wrote
"Well, as a hypothetical thought experiment, if all the plain and unattractive women were to disappear from the world, I'm pretty sure there would be no Sexual Trade Union and fewer laws against teen sex, porn, prostitution etc."

My understanding is that back in the early days of first wave feminism, feminist leaders such as Germaine Greer made a point of showing their lack of concern for young girls being viewed sexually by men. There's that comment about how sexual intercourse with a willing little girl will do no harm, for example. Greer made other, opposite comments but consistency has never been her strength.

It has occurred to me that these women may have been "attractiveness signalling", ie they were throwing down the gauntlet and saying they could compete with any age group. It was a form of of one-upmanship to women the same age or older. As they themselves aged, well...

How might this form of "attractiveness signalling" return?

Anonymous 2

AF said...

It's a fair point about porn under current laws legitimizing and normalizing the idea that U18s are out of bounds and non-sexual, but only to an extent.

Despite all the laws, and the fact you could get 60 years in prison for stumbling across a PornHub video in which the girl was underage, legal teen porn is still by far the most searched for adult content. And most legal teen porn involves school uniform/cheerleader/babysitter/stepdaughter content. Even in 'MILF' porn the actress is on average 23 years old.

And that's of course another proof to the fairy aspie 'hebophiles' that all normal men want to have sex with teens.

If and when feminists succeed in raising the age limit for porn to 21, as they are trying, then it might be a real issue.

Returning to the chubby question, in relation to teenage girls, it seems to me that those of you arguing that chubby teens are attractive are indeed true 'hebophiles' if such a word has a meaning. Because chubby teens almost completely negate all the physical reasons why teen girls are attractive - such as nubileness, perky tits, daintiness etc. Their skin due to their diet is also often terrible.

So if you are into chubby teens, you probably are just attracted to their teenage minds.

Of course, we could have a discussion on whether it is 'normal' for men to be attracted to teenage minds and personalities in themselves. I think that's true to an extent, although today's teens are in general retarded and infantilized compared to previous generations. But principally, men are attracted to teen girls because of their bodies.

AF said...


Yeah sure, fat girls need loving too, we all know that.

Unfortunately in today's world, it's the mass of unattractive women that are the driving force of the laws that are criminalizing male sexuality. Yes, go with a chubby girl if you can't get laid with an attractive legal teen or young woman, but be aware you are in a very real sense being raped by her.

Personally I don't give a shit whether plain jane feminists are getting laid or not, when they've prevented me from having a lifetime of sex with gorgeous teens.

As far as the 'aging aesthete' is concerned, presumably you are referring to me for opposing Eivind's insistance on 300lb black women over masturbation to 18 year old porn, or masturbating to the hot 14 year old you saw earlier that day in the street with her butt cheeks exposed.

Well unlike Eivind, I do approach young (legal) females. For sure if I lowered my standards to pretty much zero like him, I'd be getting laid every day. But not sure you can call somebody who approaches women an aging aesthete over somebody who is on Tinder all day. Rather be an aging aesthete than an aging ascetic.

amelio said...


Don't misunderstand me. I'm not against ageing aesthetes, being one myself. I just think that, as Eivind rightly put it, these preferences better be discreet(and legal). Fat lovers should not be put down for having low standards. But fatsos or disgruntled people should not be empowered to punish beauty lovers.

Usually people are fond of causes that serve their own interests. Eivind likes chubby teens and women but he thinks sex laws are too harsh concerning teens above the age of puberty. His militancy goes beyond his own tastes.
But just like you I absolutely object to nofap or the "female predation charade" being put on par with the main theme, that is sexual totalitarism .

AF said...

The blog of Anglo-Bitch has been removed by blogspot :

He was one of the few true MRAs.

AF said...


Fair enough. But in my case, the question of 'ugly girls' is central to the explanation of what is happening (i.e. Sexual Trade Union/Green Pill/Pussy Cartel theory).

Ugly women, acting as a kind of trade union (early feminism) DID create the present-day age of consent laws and many anti-prostitution laws. That's an objective fact of history that is there in the historical records. There's no dispute with that. And it continues today. It is unattractive women who dominate the countless NGOs constantly lobbying for harsher punishments and new laws. It is women who are saying that any sex with older men when they were teens was abuse.

Yes, people are fond of causes that serve their own interests. You nailed it. Now can you see that this applies to women and sex laws that criminalize men and benefit women?

We're constantly told that we're just paedos who are trying to justify our attraction to teens or the 'right' to have sex with them. Yet I appear to be remarkably the only effing one of us who turns that on its head and points out that it's women who are manifestly serving their own sexual interests by creating these laws and inflating the definition of paedohysteria.

There was a time (most of human history it appears) when homosexual men were forced to stay in the closet and marry women and start families. If you look at gay literature before the 1970's, and it's clear that self-aware homosexual men blamed women for this. Gay men used to refer to women as 'breeders'. It's odd to the extreme that in our community, it seems near impossible for us to blame women, even though the same thing is happening to 'us'. Anyway, you can be sure that homosexual men back in the day when their sexuality was criminalized, were not crying about 'breeders' not getting enough loving.

Yeah, Eivind appears to 'go beyond his interests' by championing the right of slutty teachers to bang Tyrone in class, but that appears to be just classic white knighting. Maybe he projects himself as 'less of a hebophile' than me too by proclaiming his lust for 400 lb black women (though it strikes me as odd that he still appears to rarely get laid despite being open to sex with HB1s). And he still gets called a pedo by normies just as much as he would if he never mentioned the female sex offender charade or his love for BBWs. In any case, there is not a chance in hell we can ever change things in our lifetimes. So none of us are 'serving our interests' really by trying to fight these laws or arguing that the laws should be different. We can only live authentic lives. Hooking up with a plain jane, 40 year old, or a chubby because the sexual market has been skewed to favor such women (with their support) doesn't sound like authenticity, it sounds like validating the feminist project, or even being raped by your oppressors.

BTW, I'm not discreet in admiring pretty teen girls I pass in the street. I'll make a point of smiling at them. I get called a pedo a lot, almost invariably by older women who notice, or if the girl herself is not so pretty and a plain jane. Still, it's an act of defiance, and one of the few legal ways we can still be defiant.

Anonymous said...

Why do you side with Catiline against Cicero Eivind? I can forgive you for many things, but not this. Do you realize that Cicero married a 14 year old girl when he was 60?

Another giant of history who the MAP fairies would like you to believe is a 'hebophile'.

amelio said...

"being raped by your oppressors".

Another extension of the definition of rape ? Being compelled to inaction! People who are burgled are raped.
Women who are contradicted feel raped. It's endless and meaningless. If we were not caught in a spiral of lunacy we would stick to the sensible definition of rape : a sex act imposed by force or threat.
All the rest could be punishable as offenses against parental authority or disrespect for the legal age of consent.

"the sexual market has been skewed"

Ok, but wasn't that unavoidable, in a way or another, in countries where there are more and more old people and fewer and fewer youths ? How do you change that without the help of a majority of men who know that even if the laws were relaxed they would not get access to all the pretty girls they salivate on in virtual life ?

Besides is there nothing between 200lb black blobs and teen mermaids ? I mean someone you can share sex and affection with.

AF said...

Yes, it is threat of force - the threat of state force and violence, the threat of social shaming, the pedo accusation etc, unless you follow the norms and date somebody your own age. I was talking to a neighbour some time back - an elderly woman - and she kept asking me why I wasn't married, and insinuating I must be a paedophile for being single. Five hundred years ago they burnt spinsters as witches, now they burn bachelors as suspected paedophiles.

But really its about transforming the hate and shaming from feminists into something we can throw back at them. I don't think using this language to frankly state the sexual motivations behind feminist inflations of rape laws, is actually going to extend the definition of rape.
Normies call me a paedophile for admitting teens are sexy. I call them paedocrites. Feminists call me a rapist for saying teens can consent. I call a feminist a rapist for telling me teens can't consent. But hell yeah, maybe I'm wrong, and we need to be less like the incels and more like the MAP fairies. Just keep painting rainbows and unicorns and chanting 'girl power' and 'youth rights' and women and feminists will come on board and reverse all their laws.

"Ok, but wasn't that unavoidable, in a way or another, in countries where there are more and more old people and fewer and fewer youths ? How do you change that without the help of a majority of men who know that even if the laws were relaxed they would not get access to all the pretty girls they salivate on in virtual life ?"

The majority of men could still pay for sex with youths. It would incentivize men. Look at Japan, which 10 or 20 years ago had just about an open sexual market as you could get, and any Japanese middle-income man could find a 14 or 15 year old girl to 'sponsor'. Their demographic collapse was way ahead of ours, btw.

Are you saying it doesn't matter if women try to skew the sexual market to limit competition, because demographics already limits it? Or are you saying there's no point to appealing to the majority of men that they are being 'raped' because they couldn't get prime teen pussy anyway? Well maybe the sort of men we should want to attract are the rich/alpha males who could get young and attractive females if they were allowed. Of course, there are the incels, who clearly do have fighting qualities. Perhaps it might even be a useful lie to men that they could get prime pussy if they defeated feminism? Btw, 'fighting age men' are usually considered 18 - 30/35. Pretty sure most men that age could be in with a chance of at least scoring occasionally with a teenage girl in a truly open sexual market, given that historically, an age difference was the norm in relationships.

"Besides is there nothing between 200lb black blobs and teen mermaids ? I mean someone you can share sex and affection with."

Well sure, but we were originally discussing Eivind's preference for 'chubby girls' over wanking. Personally, I can't find plain women attractive, and in any case, I don't want to end up in a relationship with a plain woman who would probably cut my balls off if she so much as caught me glancing at a teen girl. I'm sure I could fall in love with a plain girl or a 40 year old woman if she had a nice personality and I was seeing her a lot, for example at work or wherever, but I don't mix with such people at all, and I certainly don't want to spend hours on Tinder chasing them.

You could also argue that dating chubby girls is validating their lifestyle choice, a form of 'fat acceptance' and further limiting the number of nubile hotties in the sexual marketplace.

Eivind Berge said...

The BBC presenter is a wanker. He paid lots of money for nudes and didn't have sex. Absolutely shameful, but not crimeworthy of course.

We need sexualism to save men from the law and also from themselves for doing stupid shit like this, hence my incorporation of nofap in the male sexualist ideology.

Anonymous said...


"BTW, I'm not discreet in admiring pretty teen girls I pass in the street. I'll make a point of smiling at them. I get called a pedo a lot, almost invariably by older women who notice, or if the girl herself is not so pretty and a plain jane. Still, it's an act of defiance, and one of the few legal ways we can still be defiant."

What is your response, if any? It would seem like a good opportunity to ram home some home truths about jealousy, but I'm not there so not in a position to know whether that would be wise or not.

I do the same thing, but I never seem to get caughtor criticised for some reason.

One time I did caught, though, in a sense. I was on a bus and from the back window I could see a very cute girl of 11 or 12 waiting at the kerbside to cross the road. All of a sudden the most excited look came onto her face. I didn't realize right away, but it dawned on me that it must have been because she caught a not-terrible-looking bloke checking her out. I'm glad I made the young flossie's day.

Anonymous 2

amelio said...

"Are you saying it doesn't matter if women try to skew the sexual market to limit competition, because demographics already limits it?"

I mean the circumstances were more favourable for women militants due to demographics. Especially as the younger class comes more and from extra european muslim families whose veiled daughters are mostly not part of the global mating or sex "market".

"You could also argue that dating chubby girls is validating their lifestyle choice, a form of 'fat acceptance' and further limiting the number of nubile hotties in the sexual marketplace."

Yes it's dreadful to see slim teens turn into fatsoes in line with the "come as you are " Mc Donald's slogan.

Anonymous said...

Quick heads up-The night Wind uses the word paedohysteria again. Wouldn't be much if the situation wasn't so dire, but in the circumstances, every little bit helps.
I keep hoping the word catches on. I presume it hasn't because

-it isn't being promoted in the me-juh so the average Joe isn't noticing what's going on
-possibly, the some in the legacy media know the word but are deliberately refraining from using it.


Eivind Berge said...

No, we don't need to be discreet about admiring teen girls. That's not what I meant. We should be proud, and indeed such pride is central to growing our movement and making real male sexuality normalized. Only if you have a "pump and dump" mentality should you be discreet, because obviously relationships are valued by many men and then it does not look good if you proclaim you can't love anyone over 18. That's not the recipe for any conceivable mainstream movement, and it won't work as a "minority" thing either because other men are competing with you for the same girls and look like they have more to offer them.

A note on Kevin Spacey to the commenter who is justifying the trial. If he did these things to random men in the street then yes but this is nonsense comparable to feminist "date rape" regrets. The men got into these situations willingly and only got what they should expect. If you don't want Kevin Spacey to grab your dick then don't go drinking with him or whatever. He is in no way a threat to any sensible man, in no way someone society needs to protect us from. Prosecutors even made up a new unusually weak word indicating they don't take it seriously -- "sexual bully" -- whereas sex crimes always start at "predator" even if it's just asking for a nude from a 17-year-old girl. So this is milder than even that in their view.

But anyway, I got a new post up on the Huw Edwards situation: