What is so unspeakably painful about this, besides the persecution of an innocent woman, is the absence of common sense, the absence of protest, the absence of a sane public voice besides Bruce Rind's and my own and Newgon's. But we do have something akin to satire in the mainstream. It is sort of hidden between the lines, but this piece in The Sun is definitely lampooning the verdict against Kandice Barber for being too sexy for a 15-year-old boy and now too sexy for her new job too:
A TEACHER jailed for having sex with a 15-year-old pupil has allegedly been moved away from her post-prison job as a security guard - because she's "too distracting".Kandice Barber, 37, from Princess Risborough in Buckinghamshire, was jailed for six years and two months in 2021 after she was convicted of grooming the teen.The mum-of-three later worked as a gate guard at a building site in Hounslow, west London while on temporary release.But the Mail now reports that she has been moved from the job after distracting other workers.A builder told the newspaper: "She's attractive looking, so she's already proving a hit with the lads, who have no idea about her background."It's no secret she's a massive flirt and lots of the staff there have already noticed her."
Thanks to The Sun for doing their little part in mocking feminist antisex bigotry. I wrote about Kandice Barber myself back in 2021 too and her case still profoundly upsets me, but this is at least some kind of balm. In times of insane witch-hunts we can find solace in satire if nothing else.
I realize that what compels me to rail against the female sex offender charade in particular is not so much the evil (which is pretty standard incarceration which regularly happens for bad reasons anyway) as the insane conceptualization behind perpetrating the evil. Had the authorities instead used for example a "laycase" justification for persecuting sexuality like Norway did centuries ago, it would just be run-of-the-mill senseless persecution that I could address along with the Sex War against men too. A world which conceptualizes the very same persecutions as laycase, which is an offense against God and the King rather than "sexual abuse" against a putative "victim," is a less insane world than the one we now inhabit. I lose faith in humanity because no one else reacts to the insane conceptualization, even if they don't care to stop the injustice, which is hardly ever to be expected anyway.
This was the chief value of traditional religion as I see it: to reduce secular superstitions, to avoid poisoning our personal relationships with insane justifications for the authorities' control of sexuality. Since the justification for antisexual oppression was outsourced to a supernatural realm, people could have their feelings in peace. Love and lust are above "sin" and not corrupted by that concept in this world, unlike the feminist concept of sexual abuse. Instead of believing in God and perhaps at worst an unpleasant afterlife for sinners (who can be forgiven anyway unlike current sex offenders), we now believe in zombies, people who act sexually but aren't really because this world doesn't count -- the flesh is now held to be the only life we got, but it is demoted to a less real realm than the Christians deemed it. Back when Christianity was the state religion rather than feminism, we didn't pretend women can "sexually abuse" boys at all, and certainly not by pleasantly seducing them. They also pretended much less fake sexual abuse for girls. The age of consent was something like 10 and didn't apply to female "offenders."
History will judge our time as dominated by the religion of "sexual abuse," with its irrational belief in the metaphysical badness of sex for many bizarre reasons, chiefly among them that it inevitably corrupts minors and does so equally for boys and girls and by men and women including the most sexy ones -- a kind of transsexualist belief where we pretend there are no differences, which also had some additional nonsexual absurdities manifesting in our times which waned sooner than the "sex abuse" superstitions. Future historians may or may not call it feminism like I am doing, but this will be the gist. I realize I am writing for that future rather than our own time when none of this can sink in because the religion of our times is literally that.
96 comments:
Jeg digger hvordan du nærmest umiddelbart etter å ha startet denne bloggen gikk rett i strupen på politimyndighetene i dette landet. Du hadde rett helt fra begynnelsen.
You postet this in 2009:
Feminists, the abuse industry and even some misguided MRAs sometimes claim that women can be rapists. It is really too ridiculous to even consider, but since some people apparently say it with a straight face, I took the time to explain what is wrong with the notion of the female rapist. Feminists don't tolerate much dissent, however, so when I posted my views on this in a thread titled Can Women Rape Men? over at the Feminist Critics blog, my comments were deleted. So I shall post them here instead...
You are the [only] true leader of this movement and you are in fact absolutely brillian, Eivind.
imagine being imprisoned for this!
And now it’s called “grooming”
always unbelievable
It is I John Halder!
I voluntarily left twitter.I’m through with trying and failing to change anyone’s “minds”
About pretty much everything
Trumps gotten himself 91 felonies!
Yet people still support the fool.
just fucking crazy all of it.
Welcome back, John, and screw Twitter now appropriately called X and headed for bankruptcy. Yeah, there is universal criminality, for all our sexuality and now also for Trump though he is no more dishonest or violent than other politicians. Every lie of his can be twisted into a crime if there is a will to prosecute, just like all our sexuality can. And the US is now a banana republic where just that happens. Banana republic and kangaroo courts. Boil a criminal saga out of trifles like hiding an affair and being a sore loser at an election. It's not like Trump commanded terrorists or had more fraudulent business dealings than the norm, but the laws are so cancerous they can be used for anything.
The problem is that that banana republic is revered and held up as an example throughout the western world.
"while on temporary release"
Do male offenders get temporary releases so easily ?
I don't know if a man would get that, but it is inappropriate to complain about "leniency" with regard to a nonsensical conviction. Equal injustice is not an ideal to strive for and I am unaware that it has ever been a good tactic either because history shows that women are more than happy to punish other women for victimless sex, having no moral integrity of their own but going along with moralists and feminists alike.
My only concern is to lift these innocent women up, never to suggest that they deserve ANY punishment. Here are some inspirational quotes from The Scarlet Letter to help:
“For years past [Hester] had looked from this estranged point of view at human institutions, and whatever priests or legislators had established; criticizing all with hardly more reverence than the Indian would feel for the clerical band, the judicial robe, the pillory, the gallows, the fireside, or the church.” [Learn to disrespect the law!]
“No man, for any considerable period, can wear one face to himself, and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true." [Don't for a moment suggest these women deserve punishment even as a misguided tactic to make feminists taste their own medicine! It doesn't work and it corrupts your soul.]
“At some brighter period … a new truth would be revealed in order to establish the whole relation between man and woman on a surer ground of mutual happiness.” [The new truth Hawthorne was onto is male sexualism! It has been revealed, but not widely adopted yet.]
“The tendency of her fate and fortunes had been to set her free. The scarlet letter was her passport into regions where other women dared not tread.” [In theory, being labeled a sex offender should enable anyone to join our movement because they have nothing to lose by that affiliation.]
Of course, "sex offender" registration for women is far less effectual than the scarlet letter in Hawthorne's novel. Female sex offenders are not successfully shamed, but rather celebrated and admired as the tabloid stories about them being too sexy exemplify. But the punishment is real, albeit usually shorter than what men get. It is funny to think about though, how antisex bigots have completely lost the ability to shame women by abandoning religious moralism in favor of the feminist "abuse" paradigm. This is a paradigm which simply cannot shame women, even though it can punish them extremely severely. Really mind-boggling that decades-long prison terms can coexist with public admiration of these female "sex offenders"; goes to show that "justice" lives its own life detached from human values, which is frightening because then you know it can't be reasoned with either.
It is men who should find spiritual succor in Hawthorne's book. I read it in college 20 years ago before the female sex offender charade took off, so I didn't relate it to anything contemporary for women at the time. But now I see that it very closely anticipates the effect of sex offender registration for men. Men really do get shunned, indefinitely beyond their sentences. It is a very good book that offers much inspiration in how to disrespect society's hateful intolerant sexual norms and be strong, even stronger for it than the normies because the hate against us shapes our character favorably.
Old jealous hags, how natural male sexuality bothers them and the FACT that a 17-year-old adolescent woman is a thousand times superior to an ugly hag with menopause like most of them, is a FACT that feminism is a sexual union of women who seek to increase their sexual market value, especially jealous old hags, hence the obsession of these bitches in criminalizing and stigmatizing relationships with young women, especially teen age women, who are physically and mentally unbeatable to form a lasting relationship, which is what annoys them the most, and is a FACT that thousands of millions of retarded men, that is to say, useful fools, pedocrites, follow their evil game and play about "MILFs" and "real womans", in a futile intent of not being called "pedophiles" or "perverts" for liking a 19-year-old girl, a word that no longer means anything thanks to inflating the definition of an adult who fucks 8-year-olds to one of 22 or 30 who flirts or admits that a woman of 17 years and 10 months is hot. Envious old hags, that is the origin and ultimate goal of feminism.
Then there are those who want to end feminism, the most brutal and totalitarian ideology in history and cannot even admit that a mild-to-late teen is ready and hot. "Less than 30 is very young for me" you start to hear. "It's okay to put that guy 15 years in jail, the law says it's wrong", a law made specifically to screw over and criminalize men made by femiservatives whores like in Spain and Japan, but a the same time inciting them to free sex from the tender age of 12 so that they learn to hunt men and screw up their lives. Those pedocrites even consider themselves masculinists and antifeminists. Fucking losers. In the end femihags are right, straight men in XXI century are a fucking shame.
You mean these priests didn't follow the time-honored Catholic tradition of "abusing" children in real life, but were wankers instead? Further evidence of the evils of masturbation, indeed. I didn't know the Catholics still preach nofap, but if they do, this is certainly a plus even if some priests are hypocrites.
If you read the article you would see the following :
"A report in 2021 found there had been more than 200 abusers and more than 300 victims - mostly under the age of 14 - between 1975 and 2018 in the Cologne archdiocese area."
I guess if they had practiced NoFap there would have been thousands of victims.
Actually I think the early years there had a reasonable number of "victims." Fapping didn't hamper sexual behavior much in the 1970s and 80s because porn was so low quality. But then the priests gradually had more of their sexual vitality sapped by porn until past 2018 in that archdiocese they aren't even accused of sex anymore, just wanking. Which is pathetic, and I reckon they are so feministized they won't say a bad word about masturbation or (legal) porn from the pulpit anymore either.
Robert Lindsay is in fine form:
https://beyondhighbrow.com/2023/08/20/get-rid-of-sexual-assault-rape-etc-descriptions-for-crimes-that-do-not-involve-those-things/
How on Earth can you abuse someone who is loving the experience and having a blast? Fun, enjoyment, and pleasure are now abuse? How does that even make sense? What on Earth have we turned into? A society or dour nuns and church ladies? Why don’t we just call our sex fascist culture the no-fun-, pleasure-hating-, Puritan-, Victorian-, party pooper, turd in the punchbowl-, or sex-hating culture? Because we are all of those things.
So that’s just dumb. Even the people who get molested insist they were not “assaulted” or “abused.” How on Earth can you insist that someone got assaulted or abused when the victim doesn’t even see it that way? It’s ridiculous.
Right on.
It's the clearest I've seen Robert Lindsay be on this subject. Previously, you would be disappointed to read the whole article and find he was talking about of both corners of his mouth. However, in this article there is no backtracking AFAICS.
Anonymous 2
- true pedophilia (a preference for children under 13) being quite odd and abnormal, HE THEORISES would be caused by some form of brain damage
These theories have been put forth by the Canadian psychologist James Cantor 15 years ago, but they are based on studies undertaken among convicted men and have never been confirmed. Moreover, "abnormal" and "brain damage" are biased words for "brain difference" as we see them in left-handed people, people with absolute musical pitch and even between men and women.
Yeah, Robert Lindsay contradicted himself there a little bit, but he is still very good. Of course normal men are turned on by 14-year-old girls and look at them at least secretly. 83% is a low estimate in my opinion for significant attraction. And the behavior he called "not exactly normal" went slightly into harassing territory anyway, something most men don't do even if they are maximally attracted. It was a mother complaining on Reddit:
https://old.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/15r2m8k/shopping_with_my_14yearold_niece_yesterday_was/
She found this lime green leopard print thong and held it up laughing because 14-year-old humor. A man who was much older said "Hey, you'd sure look cute in that." I thought I was going to knock him out on the spot. I said "Excuse me?" at full-volume and he just laughed and walked away. All of this was in the course of a few short hours. I know I was oblivious to that sort of attention as a kid but witnessing it was so horrifying and just so blatant. What the hell is wrong with men? I know that's a gross generalization, but honestly I don't know how else to describe it. It makes me terrified for young girls and teenagers in general. Ugh. I need to hide under a rock for a bit -_-
This mother certainly deserves to have her illusions shattered about normal male attraction, even if she maybe has a point that this man had bad manners.
Lindsay isn't kind to pedophiles, however, since he calls them brain-damaged. The science he refers to sounds like what Cantor is describing here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6VyuDS33Ms&t=3s
Values are one thing, but I can't fault the facts too much. Exclusive pedophiles are formed that way in the womb. I wouldn't call it brain damage but a different neurotype, like autism. Arguably an objective disability, since it hampers the formation of productive relationships (reproductively productive, that is). In return they have an added ability to appreciate children, just like autists can have some superpowers too even though they are generally disabled. And in both cases it would be unethical to force "treatment" on them since you would have to destroy the person and create a whole new personality (thankfully impossible so far). Unfortunately for pedophiles and unlike autists, there is currently no accepted role for them except as the most gigantic scapegoat, but that could change.
Whether hebephilia is also a bit of a different neurotype is more controversial, but I find it somewhat plausible if we are talking the 3% who are preferentially or perhaps even exclusively hebephilic rather than the vast majority of men who also experience significant attraction to pubescent girls or are undifferentiated. Also I think the ages cited are overestimates for girls. No way 14-year-olds can easily be differentiated from 17-year-olds, and many 12-year-old girls can easily be too old for pedophiles and fully attractive to teleiophiles (ephebophilia is COMPLETE nonsense and hebe would most commonly be 9-12 -- I really have a hard time believing in preferential attraction to older than that but NOT young women -- certainly not as a neurotype -- since they are identical for all intents and purposes except the current social constructions). I know the DSM puts the limit to pedophilia at 13, but that's to include the boys and for political reasons.
Arguably an objective disability, since it hampers the formation of productive relationships (reproductively productive, that is).
In that case, teleiophilic exclusive homosexuality is an objective disability too.
There we have the endgame of the abuse industry:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/22/us/san-francisco-archdiocese-bankruptcy/index.html
The Archdiocese of San Francisco has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy as it faces more than 500 lawsuits alleging child sexual abuse.
“The unfortunate reality is that the Archdiocese has neither the financial means nor the practical ability to litigate all of these abuse claims individually, and therefore, after much consideration, concluded that the bankruptcy process was the best solution for providing fair and equitable compensation to the innocent survivors who have been harmed,” Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone said in a Monday news release.
That's what it comes down to. "Sex abuse victims" own the world and everyone else is either bankrupt or imprisoned or both. Men being lambs to the slaughter will not rise up anywhere along the way. Even more pathetically for men, in this latest heist against the Catholic Church feminists had to dredge up "abuse" from 30+ years ago because nowadays men are mostly wankers. But feminists have that covered too with the porn laws going forward, so it will hardly slow them down on their path to world dominion even as men no get no value for their sex crimes.
Women's Soccer World Cup predictably also turned into a sex abuse exhibit:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/22/opinions/spanish-football-federation-kiss-womens-world-cup-filipovic/index.html
"This is about far more than an unwanted kiss on the lips." Of course. It's about dominating everything based on supposed sex abuse victimhood, spun out of ever more flimsy bases. Women even managed to feel victimized by wearing white shorts in that Cup:
https://edition.cnn.com/style/wwc-2023-womens-soccer-white-shorts-intl-hnk/index.html
No white shorts... The move is part of a growing trend — and one not limited to soccer — aimed at tackling period anxiety among female athletes.
Women are so brave, strong and powerful they must be handed everything!
Hey Eivind
can you clarify your stance on the porn/wanking issue so we can resolve this useless point of disagreement and be more strong and cohesive?
I see porn and wanking as beneficial when used properly, and you disagree and say it is always detrimental. That is fine and I can respect your opinion, sure.
But you can also understand that one of the main ways the sex fascists put men in jail for real life sex is through the back-door use of the insane anti-pornography laws.
Therefore, can we just agree that possession and viewing of all pornography should be decriminalized? Then we have no issue. If your position is it should be heavily discouraged and avoided but decriminalized, this is fine and reasonable for everyone.
anon69
Yes, of course all possession/viewing of pornography should be decriminalized. There should be no criminal-law exceptionalism for sexual content over any other information. I do not believe in a special crimeworthiness for pornography, and to the extent that it would be crimeworthy is because it hurts men (wankers) because it is an evolutionary trap that they are neurologically incapable of consenting to. I do not believe in the "harmful to minors" nonsense because it is sexually mature males who are most affected (with perhaps a special vulnerability for pubescent boys since bad habits acquired at that time might be harder to unlearn, and especially if they are deprived of real sex porn is very harmful). Porn has no metaphysical power to abuse or exploit females and female masturbation is usually innocuous. I sometimes point out the value to male sexuality of suppressing pornography, including by criminal law, but that does not mean I agree with these laws any more than I agree with criminalizing drug addicts who are similarly victims of an evolutionary trap. Both should be dealt with in less punitive ways. There is a case for regulation of both, but not by punishing the users. The regulation should be limited to commerce, where these things are maybe not made freely available for sale without consequences to the sellers. The moral justification for regulating commerce is that it makes use of infrastructure which belongs to us all, like roads and internet and energy resources, so the public does not need to put up with that being used to promote harmful things. Porn is regulation-worthy but not crimeworthy.
What I do object to is presenting it as a sexualist issue when porn users are criminalized, as if porn is good for our sexuality. It insults me because it creates the impression that all the men in prison for porn got some sexual value out of their crimes. They did not: they only hurt themselves. It is therefore adding insult to injury to pretend we have some kind of men's union protecting pornography because it is good for us. Reality is completely opposite: we need a sexualist movement to inform males about the harms of porn and masturbation so they can have more meaningful sexual lives, and that is what I am trying to do as a leader. This is the responsible, ethical position and the only one consistent with sex-positivity. Again, I am upset when porn gets presented as sex-positive because it is precisely the opposite. Porn is like a false god whose promotion is heresy. You need to understand that's my position and I cannot worship false gods any more than religious leaders can! This is one place intolerance is truly called for -- not by wanting to criminalize but by keeping my ideology pure and having sometimes to ban people like AF from imposing their views on our spaces. This is also about being a good role model and keeping this place friendly and supportive for men with sexual ambitions and promote the joy of sex and celebrating our successes rather than assuming it can't be done. Yes, porn/wanking is always detrimental because even if no other harm there is always the opportunity cost: you could be having sex instead, and if you imagine you can't get very attractive girls there is also likely something wrong with your ambitions.
It is often due to a failure of imagination that we say things like "a little masturbation is fine." I am guilty of it myself. For example I would say it's okay to masturbate in fertility clinics because the benefits far outweigh the harm and opportunity cost. But I shouldn't be content with leaving it at that, because a little imagination tells me it doesn't have to be that way in all possible worlds. We can imagine sperm clinics employing teenage girls to assist you with your donation -- instead of providing porn magazines. It wouldn't take different laws of physics or anything like that, just radically different social attitudes to sexuality, porn and masturbation. The kind of attitudes that male sexualism ideally promotes even if they aren't realistic to implement yet.
Don't let the feminists be the only ones with a wild imagination. If they can blow up a little celebration kiss after a World Cup victory to some onerous oppression of women that we probably need yet more harsher sex laws for, we can use our imagination in the opposite direction to imagine how the world can be improved in favor of our sexuality, including things that we "happily" consign to masturbation now. No, while some exceptions might be tolerable now we shouldn't be entirely happy about them either because things can be improved to where no masturbation is needed ever, including for adolescent boys who would get proper training from older women in an ideal world and sperm donors who would have girls to assist them.
I don't object to criminalizing the worst child porn, but the punishment should fit the crime. When it comes time to serve your sentence, a picture of you in a prison cell should suffice. The punishment needs to be at the same philosophical level, following the same logic of consequences as the thinking behind the crimeworthiness. It is never appropriate to punish an imaginary crime, a pure fantasy that you had no intention or plans to carry out, with a real punishment. If the government insists on punishing, you should have the right to make that equally imaginary as the crime. If the government wanted to tax your Monopoly money you should of course be able to pay them in Monopoly money, and likewise if they want to punish your wanking to porn they can have prison guards do whatever they want to a picture of you. Following the same logic as what the government thinks happens when porn gets downloaded, uploading a picture of you is equally effectual in serving your sentence.
Porn is a false god. Porn is a hoax, an evolutionary trap, a simulacrum of anything valuable with no sexual value in itself. The feds are playing wankers for fools, and the wankers oblige them by falling for the same delusion that porn has sexual significance. Men are pathetically prone to this hoax and for MAPs it seems to be downright mandatory. Nobody thinks playing Monopoly has economic significance, except perhaps wasting time you could have spent earning real money, but porn is believed to have sexual significance for both the wankers and the girls they fantasize about. This is the only game or entertainment where we can’t as a society distinguish fantasy from reality, where the culture is genuinely confused.
I don’t indulge that delusion on my blog and urge my readers to snap out of it. Pick a synonym that speaks to you the most and contemplate what it really is. Perhaps hoax? On the feminist/punishment side hoax is most fitting, and false god is perhaps most applicable to the falsely “sex-positive” side. In all cases it is a delusion, although that word is too kind when applied to law enforcement. They must know on some level it is nonsense, but they will never say so because it is so convenient for them to go along with.
Norwegian Offspring just won another prize, at the Norwegian film festival in Haugesund:
https://www.filmfestivalen.no/article/her-er-festivalprisvinnerne
Vinneren av årets Next Nordic Generation er ikke enkel å beskrive entydig. Fortellingen (historien?) har flere lag og vage antydninger om bakgrunn for hovedkarakterens motivasjon og handlinger. Det oser av ekthet i hans møte med fire skarpskårne biroller, understøttet ved mesterlig bruk av et grelt naturalistisk produksjonsdesign, lyssetting og foto. Vi er langt unna tilgjort Instagram-vellykkethet, selv om nettet er et halmstrå ut til verden. Hovedpersonen må selv hanskes med sine demoner, og både manuskript og regi evner å menneskeliggjøre de mest nedrige tilbøyeligheter og tanker med empati, sårbarhet, sinne, avmakt, avvisning - ja, selv med humor (ps: kan vi ane et snev av inspirasjon fra østerrikeren Ulrich Seidl?). Dette er modig og vellykket filmkunst. Vinner av Next Nordic Generation 2023 er Marlene Emilie Lyngstads Norwegian Offspring fra Den Danske Filmskole.
So that's great for the director but sadly I am not seeing any new followers yet on my blog or social media. Perhaps the film isn't inspiring anyone to look up the background. I have a feeling it's so unambiguously made to make the character look defeated that there is no sense of controversy. The normies are only left with a congratulatory feeling that feminism always wins after seeing it, so they don't bother looking for more answers. There might still be some attention down the road though when and if the film becomes available outside of festivals.
There is a new important article by Bruce Rind!
"Subjective Reactions to First Coitus in Relation to Participant Sex, Partner Age, and Context in a German Nationally Representative Sample of Adolescents and Young Adults."
Arch Sex Behav. 2023 Jul;52(5):2229-2247. doi: 10.1007/s10508-023-02631-5. Epub 2023 Jun 7.
Abstract: Analysis of a Finnish nationally representative student sample found that subjective reactions to first intercourse (mostly heterosexual; usually in adolescence) were highly positive for boys and mostly positive for girls, whether involved with peers or adults (Rind, 2022). The present study examined the generality of these findings by examining subjective reactions to first coitus (heterosexual intercourse) in a German nationally representative sample of young people (data collected in 2014). Most first coitus was postpubertal. Males reacted mostly positively and uncommonly negatively in similar fashion in all age pairings: boy-girl (71% positive, 13% negative); boy-woman (73% positive; 17% negative); man-woman (73% positive, 15% negative). Females' reactions were more mixed, similar in the girl-boy (48% positive; 37% negative) and woman-man (46% positive, 36% negative) groups, but less favorable in the girl-man group (32% positive, 47% negative). In logistic regressions, adjusting for other factors, rates of positive reactions were unrelated to age groups. These rates did increase, in order of importance, when participants were male, their partners were close, they expected the coitus to happen, and they affirmatively wanted it. Reaction rates were computed from the Finnish sample, restricting cases to first coitus occurring in the 2000s, and then compared to minors' reactions in the German sample. The Finns reacted more favorably, similarly in both minor-peer and minor-adult coitus, with twice the odds of reacting positively. It was argued that this discrepancy was due to cultural differences (e.g., Finnish culture is more sex-positive). To account for the reaction patterns shown in the adolescent-adult coitus, sizably at odds with expectations from mainstream professional thinking, an evolutionary framework was employed.
A little analysis and quotes:
https://www.boychat.org/messages/1613128.htm
German participants subjectively reacted predominately non-negatively to their first coitus, including minors having coitus with adults. The pattern of reactions for males was remarkably similar in all three participant-partner age-class groups (boy–girl, boy–woman, man–woman), with rates of positive reactions ranging from 71 to 73% and negative reactions from 13 to 17%. Boys having first coitus with women, in other words, did not react as would have been expected from either the CSA paradigm or the mainstream perspective. That is, they did not react negatively in most or the majority of cases, with positive reactions being uncommon. Nor were their reactions anomalous compared to age-class-equal coitus, which should have obtained if boys’ age-gap coitus were inherently traumatic or otherwise troublesome for the boys. Instead, the boy–woman pattern of reactions was in line with the relevant-empirical perspective. Empirically, for example, it matched the pattern in the Finnish sample in form (mostly positive, uncommonly negative reactions). Evolutionarily, it fit the pattern seen across the primate order for immature males vis-à-vis coitus with adult females (e.g., interest, enthusiasm), a concordance arguably reflecting shared ancestry (e.g., a conserved evolutionary trait). Boys’ favorable reaction to coitus with women, despite the cultural negatives surrounding this behavior, suggests that the predisposition to react favorably is robust in adolescent boys.
I already made a video on how this roasts the female sex offender charade:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q1xp5BXv30
Quoting some more from that Boychat link:
Boys'/men's reactions to their first heterosexual intercourse:
„Minor“-peer: 12,9 % negative, 16,2 % neutral, 70,9 % positive
„minor“-adult: 16,7 % negative, 10,0 % neutral, 73,3 % positive
Adult-adult: 14,7 % negative, 12,0 % neutral, 73,3 % positive
Girls'/women's reactions to their first heterosexual intercourse:
„Minor“-peer: 36,6 % negative, 15,1 % neutral, 48,2 % positive
„minor“-adult: 46,6 % negative, 21,3 % neutral, 32,2 % positive
Adult-adult: 36,3 % negative, 17,8 % neutral, 45,9 % positive
The age of boys and their reactions to sexual intercourse with an adult female:
Under 14 years (n=11): 0 % negative, 27,3 % neutral, 72,7 % positive
14 to 15 years (n=12): 16,7 % negative, 8,3 % neutral, 75,0 % positive
16 to 17 years (n=37): 24,3 % negative, 5,4 % neutral, 70,3 % positive
This shows again: The general assumption of traumatization in sexual acts at a young age is pure delusion.
The age of girls and their reactions to sexual intercourse with an adult male:
Under 14 years (n=20): 50,0 % negative, 25,0 % neutral, 25,0 % positive
14 to 15 years (n=58): 48,3 % negative, 29,3 % neutral, 22,4 % positive
16 to 17 years (n=98): 44,9 % negative, 16,3 % neutral, 38,8 % positive
END OF QUOTE.
Note that no boys under 14 had a negative reaction to an adult woman!
And the older minor boys react about the same as adult men do.
With girls it's different but they aren't abused either when it's consensual. They just like promiscuity less and this goes for adult women as well as young teen girls. Young girls are happy to have sex with older men when they feel close, and there is nothing intrinsically harmful about the age gap.
Bruce Rind is the greatest role model alive, a beacon of sanity in a world gone insane. Not only does he show age gaps are harmless to minors; he also takes on the added insanity of persecuting women for these victimless crimes, because young boys are evolved to crave, enjoy and benefit tremendously from such relations. The current witch-hunt which pretends these women are “abusers” is a level of insane evil the world has never seen before, because the contrast between legal fiction and how nice they actually are is unprecedented in any systematic persecution in history. We now literally single out the NICEST women to be burnt, which is another level beyond any witch-hunt that went before, the ne plus ultra of both insanity and evil.
Get your full text of this very important study here, folks:
https://www.scribd.com/document/662577282/Subjective-Reactions-to-First-Coitus-in-Relation-to-Participant-Sex-Bruce-Rind
If we have a persecution at random that is bad. If you single out some group we call it a genocide or a hate crime which is worse, but there is something worse still. And that is to punish the best deeds. This is literally what the female sex offender charade does. It singles out women’s best deeds and creates a witch-hunt against the nicest women. The persecution of men for victimless sex crimes is “only” in the first two categories of evil -- plenty bad, but not quite at this level.
Yes, feminists use the porn laws to more easily break up and punish actual relationships with girls under 18 too, even if above the age of consent. If you buy into the idea that a sexual relationship nowadays pretty much necessarily involves porn or sexting/recording of some kind -- like many wankers seem to believe as evidenced by their behavior which so often gets them into this kind of trouble -- then the age of consent effectively becomes 18 globally, since that is the "legal" porn age. This is one thing men can reject right now. Just be a nofapper and don't involve porn in your relationships and preferably not in your life at all. The feminists will still try to destroy you, but they won't have that extra weapon which inflates the age of consent to much higher than it usually needs to be. Sex with young girls is both better and more legal without porn. You boost your libido and avoid incriminating yourself at the same time, which is really funny since you would think the feminists would preferentially want to crack down on the real thing. But they are not rational; they have fallen for the same delusion as the wankers, that porn has sexual significance by sympathetic magic. Or they are partly deluded and partly opportunistic about using the porn laws to hurt men as much as they can just because they can whether they believe in sympathetic magic or not.
Re: anaon69's post-It's disappointing to see feminist nonsense spread to a relatively sane part of the world.
I hope it doesn't get much worse there, because the ages of consent and popular attitudes in that region are almost men's last best hope.
And it's funny how it's apparently OK to write "gringo." It's almost as if no-one cares when a non-English speaking country breaks the rules. Not that it bothers me personally, it's that there's such a dead hand of censorship throughout the Anglosphere and much of Europe.
Anonymous 2
Yes, Latin America does its corruption much more bluntly. They will virtue signal for money from feminists and in the same article use racist language to stoke hatred among the population for the victim of the scam. This guy isn't even a gringo, he's from India!
The bad news is Latin American governments participate in the new lucrative scam that is being funded by the US government. If you are an American citizen using Facebook to arrange sex with girls like this guy, you have an enormous target on your back, because you have an easy evidence trail that is very valuable to the Latin governments as they get paid alot of money to arrest you and turn your ass over to the FBI for just about any sex crime real or imagined.
The good news is that the culture and people of Latin America are still a long ways away from accepting this feminist sex hysteria gibberish, and if you are not an American citizen, the government can't make much money off you and isn't very interested. It seems at worst you'll be asked for a reasonable bribe if you run into problems.
USA citizenship grants you international feminist sex police exposure and international taxation. I can't imagine why someone with the means to live outside that cesspool would retain that citizenship.
anon69
I don't care if that Spanish football president keeps his job, but are we also going to have them classify that little kiss as criminal "sexual aggression"?
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/28/football/luis-rubiales-spanish-prosecutors-spt-intl/index.html
Spanish prosecutors have opened an investigation that could end in sexual aggression charges against soccer federation boss Luis Rubiales.
The case centers on the unwanted kiss on the mouth he gave to player Jennifer Hermoso after Spain won the Women’s World Cup on August 20, a statement published by the country’s Prosecutors Office said Monday.
“We have agreed to contact Jennifer Hermoso in order to inform her of her rights as a victim of an alleged crime of sexual aggression in the next 15 days,” the statement says.
Yet another escalated level of antisex hysteria?
I saw a news report of the guy in front of some sort of court or tribunal, standing defiantly with his bald head like an erect phallus, while his mangina careerist persecutors were sitting down like women peeing.
Okay, a bit over the top, but I had to get it off my chest.
And in all seriousness, the footage did unintentionally make him look good, especially with his own daughter testifying for him.
Anonymous 2
It's like Rubiales is the new Weinstein, who also had consensual relationships but at least he had sex. Good reaction by his mother too:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/28/football/luis-rubiales-spanish-prosecutors-spt-intl/index.html
Earlier, Rubiales’ mother locked herself in a church and went on hunger strike to protest the “inhumane, bloodthirsty hunt” of her 46-year-old son, Spanish media reported.
Such a hunt used to be reserved for something more than a one-second kiss on the lips that the woman did not object to at the time. We can all see there was nothing more, just a normal celebration:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/U6C6qPpoG6I
She was smiling the whole time and is probably going along with the "victim" role now because everyone is pushing her into it. And she's not even young but 33 years old, so this really is a new level.
In other news here's a good debunking of the "multiple intelligences" myth which is related to the idea that minors "can't consent" because that kind of intelligence matures later:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1217288/full
CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS article
Front. Psychol., 28 August 2023
Sec. Educational Psychology
Volume 14 - 2023 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1217288
Why multiple intelligences theory is a neuromyth
A neuromyth is a commonly accepted but unscientific claim about brain function. Many researchers have claimed Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences (MI) theory is a neuromyth because they have seen no evidence supporting his proposal for independent brain-based intelligences for different types of cognitive abilities. Although Gardner has made claims that there are dedicated neural networks or modules for each of the intelligences, nonetheless Gardner has stated his theory could not be a neuromyth because he never claimed it was a neurological theory. This paper explains the lack of evidence to support MI theory. Most important, no researcher has directly looked for a brain basis for the intelligences. Moreover, factor studies have not shown the intelligences to be independent, and studies of MI teaching effects have not explored alternate causes for positive effects and have not been conducted by standard scientific methods. Gardner’s MI theory was not a neuromyth initially because it was based on theories of the 1980s of brain modularity for cognition, and few researchers then were concerned by the lack of validating brain studies. However, in the past 40 years neuroscience research has shown that the brain is not organized in separate modules dedicated to specific forms of cognition. Despite the lack of empirical support for Gardner’s theory, MI teaching strategies are widely used in classrooms all over the world. Crucially, belief in MI and use of MI in the classroom limit the effort to find evidence-based teaching methods. Studies of possible interventions to try to change student and teacher belief in neuromyths are currently being undertaken. Intervention results are variable: One research group found that teachers who knew more about the brain still believed education neuromyths. Teachers need to learn to detect and reject neuromyths. Widespread belief in a neuromyth does not make a theory legitimate. Theories must be based on sound empirical evidence. It is now time for MI theory to be rejected, once and for all, and for educators to turn to evidence-based teaching strategies.
That is quite a sex-positive statement if we take them at their word!
Respect the rights of all individuals to exercise autonomy over their lives, including their sexualities, and fully realize sexual rights, and ensure bodily autonomy, integrity and sovereignty, by taking the following actions: Eliminate all laws and policies that punish or criminalize or that limit the exercise of bodily autonomy, including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents to provide consent to sex.
ILGA is an organisation that works for the rights of LGBT people and apparently wants youth as low as 10 years old to be able to consent to sex. The queer/trans movement could perhaps open up doors for the causes of the movement that Eivind is the leader of. They have the influence that we dont. I used to argue with the LGBT people but I have stopped because of this. Let them cut off their own dicks. It dont really affect me, but if supporting them helps our movement too, then Im all for it.
Can't all these anonymouses disciplined into choosing a proper nick?
be disciplined
Normie gets what he asks for when he asks the pigs for "help" with his lewd daughter:
https://www.wral.com/story/nash-county-father-goes-to-police-for-help-then-police-charged-his-10-year-old-daughter-for-having-nude-photos-of-herself-on-pho/21027714/
The man said his daughter was taking inappropriate pictures of herself. He was concerned about who she was sending them to. The father called Rocky Mount police.
Authorities seized the phone with the father's approval.
"They asked could they seize the phone because of the content that was in the phone," the father said. "So, I told them 'yes,' that I had no problem with that."
Shortly after, the father received this document from the state department of public safety.
His daughter was being charged with a felony: Second-degree exploitation of a minor.
LOL! Being too naive and thinking the antisex state isn't there to destroy you really serves them right. Children "exploit" themselves and are just as much criminals as adult victims of these blasphemy laws because this culture is at war with the very idea of child sexuality.
Some good news regarding Marshall Burns of consentingjuveniles.com:
https://reduxx.info/leading-academic-journal-publishes-paper-claiming-sexual-relations-between-youths-and-adults-are-not-harmful/
It is only a small publication on cancel culture affecting sex researchers, but still.
Full text here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qq4-TRBKnfxC6avrkFijpCt1UmKfneQZ/view
The primary cancellation issue that arguably helped set the stage for what we face today and that remains the most lightning-rod subject of all. It ignores the elephant in the room: youth sexuality, and in particular, discussions of sexual relations between youths and adults without an a priori assumption of abuse and harm... Most of the above cases were precipitated by research findings that sexual relations between youths and adults are not always abusive and harmful. Any understanding of why that may or may not be true requires understanding the sexual dynamics of youths who have such relationships and those who do not. Studying those relationships is the tip of the lightning rod. At the base of the lightning rod is the field of youth sexuality in general.... Pfaus (2023) concluded with the admonition “The only way to stop the spread of this cancer is to push back with open dialog that places a higher value on empirical evidence than on purist political and social ideologies.” The special section is an important step in that dialog, but in a way that only chips away at the edges of the problem, leaving the core to seed ongoing dysfunction. That core is the lightning-rod subject; it is the elephant with the commanding presence in the middle of the room—while everyone stares out the window.
Typical clueless Americunt Dad who probably rants about pedos even as he blasts out Led Zeppelin who were famous for their relations with 12-16 year old girls.
America is a disgusting, immoral society based on hate and fear, that has completely renounced its civilising tendencies of the post war period up until the 1980s.
What a shithole! What an immoral, nasty shithole!
This typical moron is the kind of person who flocks to see Sound of Freedom. When he is sixty years old it will suddenly hit him that he will never taste the sweet flesh of a 12 year old girl and that he has wasted his life living on feminists' terms. His daughter will be on the sex offenders registry, probably for life.
Well done! Put on a maga hat! or a Hilary hat! GOD BLESS THE TROOPS!
The word of the day is "korephilia," which you all can learn about in this exciting new video from Newgon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Olpl5Gr7zQ
Great sexualist activism as it is, Newgon does not actually acknowledge this channel. We don't know who is behind and for all we know it could be the feds or any other manner of trolling, but either way it is worth watching, liking and subscribing at this point because the propaganda serves our side regardless of ultimate intention.
Intergenerational Lesbianism, also known as Korephilia, is an age-structured relationship between a woman and a girl. Many women experience romance as a maternal feeling, and often express that love through nurturing and caring for the loved girl. From the outside looking in, you might just see them as a mother and daughter. But the maternal bond they share triggers romantic feelings in them. The woman is often romantically fulfilled by doing things for the pleasure and benefit of the loved girl.
Male feminists are the worst. Goes to show how hopeless the situation is for male sexualism because the "female sexual trade union" is only the least of our enemies.
As the furor over that infamously unwanted kiss circles around Spain’s Football Federation chief, Luis Rubiales, some may be surprised to learn that the initial complaint wasn’t filed by the woman he kissed, but a man watching the match in Madrid.
Miguel Ángel Galán was watching with pride as Spain won the Women’s World Cup. His joy turned to disgust when Rubiales planted that forceful kiss on the team’s star striker, Jenni Hermoso.
Within minutes, Galán, the head of the National Training Center of Football Managers, said he was drafting an official complaint to the Spanish government’s High Council of Sport (CSD).
“It was a sexist and intolerable act. A chauvinist act, by a president who is already plagued by corruption scandals and sexism,” he told CNN on Thursday. “Those are the two structural problems of the Federation in Spain: corruption and sexism.”
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/04/football/rubiales-complaints-intl/index.html
Honorable mention to Norwegian diplomat Terje Rød-Larsen for being a great friend of Epstein's:
https://www.dn.no/politikk/terje-rod-larsen/jeffrey-epstein/ipi/amerikansk-storavis-med-nye-detaljer-om-terje-rod-larsen-og-jeffrey-epstein/2-1-1511293
https://steigan.no/2023/09/amerikansk-storavis-med-nye-detaljer-om-terje-rod-larsen-og-jeffrey-epstein/
Terje Rød-Larsen was unfazed by the initial criminal charges against Epstein in 2006 and kept visiting him until 2017. Kudos for that. However, it is shameful of Terje Rød-Larsen not to distance himself from the current condemnation of Epstein. Obviously he's a sexualist privately (like most men of course), but sadly he does not have the balls to admit it publicly and be an activist. We are never going to get anywhere with this kind of whimpering acquiescence in feminist antisex bigotry even from men who are exposed as likely sexualists.
The word of the day is AAM (pronounced "aim") -- adult-attracted minor.
Beautiful new video from the unofficial Newgon channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eic3yEPQLSs
The lucky guy Terje Rød Larsen probably had a lot of contact with lovely teen and pre-teen pussy during the years he had contact with Epstein.
Anon: pre-teen pussy?
Did he, though?
Seems to me that most of the Epstein girls were around 17-19ish and only a few were as young as 14. A load of hysteria, it seems to me that Epstein, who though a deeply moral man who would have sympathised with those suffering from the 'GL delusion', was mostly interested in fare that would have been pretty standard choice for men just 25-30 years ago. In fact, my general impression is that Epstein may have even preferred older girls ( 17- 19 ) than the truly desired age to fuck that pathetic men secretly feel ( 12-16 ).
All I can say is that if his was an elite child sex network, it was pretty lame actually.
I repeat what I have said before: why, why, why do people not apply the same ire to the likes of Page and Bowie, where it is DOCUMENTED they slept with girls of thirteen years old?
i misunderstood the term "preteen" I instead meant early teens. I dont think there were any girls below the age of 16 in Epsteins stall of girls. And all of them were willing and had a great time. Like Nadia Marcinko who was reprtedly around 14-17 at the time and super hot.
https://christinenegroni.com/will-jeff-epsteins-popular-global-girl-face-sex-crime-charges-too/
Yes. 14-17 and above is the credible age range of Epstein's girls, with the most high-profile accusations concerning 17-year-olds as the one with Prince Andrew. These are the facts based on which the mainstream narrative deems men maximally evil. Girls are conceptualized with the intelligence and agency of garbage bags: passive vesicles to be filled with abuse, no matter how willing. The Epstein case has taught me how profoundly and sincerely this society hates me for being a man, because they know fully well that the archetype here is an enthusiastic older teen, and they don't care: this is how they create monsters out of men and stick to that narrative with scorched-earth tactics. And not just the mainstream either, but those who fancy themselves as independent thinkers on both the right and left such as steigan.no are fully on board with this demonization of male sexuality and sterilization of female consciousness. Make no mistake: this civilization has zero tolerance for masculinity. We aren't even represented on the map as anything but the most universally condemned evil.
Pedophobia is today's topic at the Newgon channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hbz6l76-djI
I wonder how long YouTube will allow this. Good to see it's not algorithmically censored, but I doubt they will let it get popular. Thankfully they can't touch Newgon itself and we shall always find ways to publish this treasure trove somewhere. Currently at:
https://www.newgon.net/wiki/Main_Page
Weird statement by Priscilla Presley which seeks to normalize the feminist idea that 14-year-old girls shouldn't have sex with older men:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/06/entertainment/priscilla-presley-elvis-presley-married-marriage-age/index.html
At a press conference following the premiere, Presley addressed her age gap with the late singer, saying he was “respectful” of her age. The two met in 1959, when Priscilla was 14 and Elvis was 24... “Elvis would pour his heart out to me, his fears, his hopes, the loss of his mother which he never ever got over, and I was the person who really really sat there to listen and to comfort him. I was a little bit older in life than in numbers and that was the attraction. And you know, people think, Oh, it was sex… Not at all. I never had sex with him. He was very kind, very soft, very loving. But he also respected the fact that I was only 14 years old. We were more in mind and thought. And that was our relationship.”
However, I suspect she is lying. Will say anything to fit into the times without having to cancel Elvis, I guess.
This is gay but so hilarious and informative about the abuse industry that I wanted to share it here:
Undercover cop realizes sex with kids not so bad
Posted by boycel on 2023-September-6 at https://www.boychat.org/messages/1616990.htm
https://youtu.be/QP3_kSjm9Wc?si=XsTpNpFmlbn6z-Aq&t=2209
After spending lots of time looking at child pornography and speaking to pedophiles recount their sexual experiences with children, this undercover cop realized that maybe having sex with children was not so bad after all, and that it might actually be appealing. He then starts to worry that he might be a pedophile himself, and that he might be open to the idea of having sex with children.
https://youtu.be/QP3_kSjm9Wc?si=gVqRIYmIJa-vsIgL&t=2711
When talking about saving a 12 year old boy from having sex with men during a sting operation, he states:
"Which is the sad thing about it all. You're expecting someone to come in who's going to be horrified, screaming and shouting, but there's no screaming or shouting because the boy... This was comfortable for him. This was his environment."
Truly the saddest thing is that they aren't being raped, and that they are actually having a fun time having consensual sex with older people. That is the saddest thing. It would be much preferable if he were saving him from violent rape. The fact that he actually enjoys having sex and feels comfortable is harrowing.
https://youtu.be/QP3_kSjm9Wc?si=HGRKYxHWfWW6qv5q&t=4380
Here he mentions (in accordance with statistics) that the victims don't even view themselves as victims, which is why it is so very important for law enforcement to save them (they can't save themselves if they don't even know they are victims). And in a show of compassion for the 12 year old boy he heroically saved from predators, he mentions that the 12 year old boy might have gone on to become a predator himself!
https://youtu.be/QP3_kSjm9Wc?si=v649RB1SEq_FQ74H&t=4439
Here he states that predators love children, and sadly, children love the predators back.
Is anyone else ever astounded by the amounts of mental gymnastics, cognitive distortions, and pure bullshittery these people have to go through to deny that adults and minors can want sex with each other, enjoy it, and it can be totally fine? Do they even believe their own lies?
I'm actually disgusted by Priscilla's comments. She was the ONE person from that era who I still respected. I remember seeing a clip of her from some god awful British tv program called The One Show in which she corrected the presenter who stated her age as having been sixteen when she began to date Elvis. What changed?
Just goes to show how EVIL women really are. I always respected them as a perfect childlove couple, because Elvis was what would be called minor attracted if he was a loser who spent time on GL support boards or whatever today. Just like Charles Chaplin.
How disappointing!
She's just DENIED a central aspect of Elvis' being. His emotional AND sexual attraction to early to mid teen girls.
What a traitor and a disgusting animal! Just like Olivia Hussey.
There really is NO HOPE so long as WOMEN have power in this world.
The ONLY thing that can save us is the imposition of some kind of Male Fascist Sexualism.
I do HATE women. And I'm sorry, Eivind, but I cannot find any sympathy whatsoever for the ugly adult women who are 'kind to boys' and get in trouble for it.
Why haven't women spoken out against the persecution of men? Men may be cowards, but women could at least have had a try.
Because they are EVIL! They hate sexuality.
The poison of feminism should have NEVER been allowed to prosper. Women deserve NO equality with men in the slightest.
I agree Priscilla disappoints, but not because women are evil, or more evil than men anyway. Men also disappoint when not a single friend of Epstein's will stand up for him, and now claim they totally resented his relationships with young women and regret ever knowing him. This kind of revisionism is necessary in order to pass as a normie today. Priscilla could not have Elvis presented as man with attraction to "underage" girls and still be seen as a "good" guy, so she chose the latter.
Child sexual abuse is an unfalsifiable concept to the normies. It is a fixed dogma at the base level of reality which no amount of evidence can threaten. They don't go out there and see if the children are abused or benefited by the experiences because it's already decided they are abused by definition, reality be damned. Sexual abuse was never a hypothesis to be tested in the first place, but came into the dominant narrative as a fixed dogma. Only some extremely rare researchers like Bruce Rind treat it as a hypothesis, but of course the normies don't pay attention to that and they won't accept anecdotes from history either. No matter the evidence that the kids enjoyed it -- like the video discussed above full of evidence for our side -- "abuse" always wins. I'm sure Elvis is close to falling down on the "abuser" side in our cultural consciousness (he must have "groomed" her even by all that denial), but it won't change the narrative because not even the King can make a dent in this beast.
New article from Robert Lindsay-
I don't know the actual metrics but Lindsay is somewhat well-followed on the internet. This article provides sorely-needed cross-cultural reference points for people in the Anglosphere. Their views can be supported by this article and they may thereby be encourages to express opinions that are closer to what they really think. Or if they're paedohysterical morons, they can be shocked out of their comfort zone with the thought that not everywhere in the world has the same attitude as they do-Americans especially.
There's the usual silly equivocation-silly because he comes out batting for the truth of teen sexuality so hard that he might as well not bother to equivocate. OTOH I like the way he doesn't see the need to defend every action Roman Polanski is accused of-read the article for context.
But in any case, the article is still a bit of a milestone. The title alone is enough to attract attention to the issue of teen sexuality in a wider audience.
Anonymous 2
Yeah, two new great posts by Robert Lindsay there, despite his constant disclaimers that he is not engaging in activism to lower the AOC and can live with 18 just fine in California. He knows and shows perfectly well that non-coercive earlier sex is harmless or self-harm regret-rape at worst, so the only remaining argument against allowing it is aesthetic: that he does not like it. That makes him seem like a selfish killjoy and sadist for wanting to imprison harmless men and women, which is actually saying quite a lot and perhaps all he dares.
Here are direct links:
https://beyondhighbrow.com/2023/09/03/french-versus-american-opinion-about-teen-adult-sex/
https://beyondhighbrow.com/2023/09/03/feminism-and-child-sex-hysteria/
Good quotes:
By the way, all of these teenage girls suffering “terrible harm” from getting “groomed” or having sex with adult men never would have experienced one lick of harm back in the day. Now we have generations of basket case teenage girls and young women claiming they experienced “child sexual abuse” (child molestation or grooming) in their teen years.
Never mind that that’s not even possible. CSA cannot occur after age 12, nor grooming. What they experienced was attempted seduction by adult men (probably perfectly legal) and in some cases, statutory rape by adult men, which typically causes zero harm in the girl.
And the reactions of these girls towards these fake traumas of their teen years, as usual, tend to be of the “regret rape” variety. Usually they loved it at the time, but then when they thought it over some more later on, like years later, they decided that it was wrong and damaging and ruined their life, and this is where the “damage” began.
Obviously if they were damaged, it would have been the case from the get go. There’s no such thing as regret rape. Things either effect you or they don’t. Events are not time bombs. They don’t lie dormant forever with a shrug of the shoulder and then suddenly explode later on when you change your mind about them.
Any girl or woman getting harmed via regret rape isn’t experiencing real harm. Basically the harm they are experiencing instead is a form of self-harming. They created the harm in their own minds and imposed it on themselves and they can decide to lift anytime they want to also just the same.
And on the female sex offender charade, though he is wrong about the lack of erections:
Yes, women molest boys, but a lot of little boys like it! I recall a case where a female teacher had a lot of her little boy students over at her house. She taught 2nd or 3rd grade. She ended up naked on her bed and she invited boy after 7 year old boy into her bedroom to lick her hairy red-haired pussy.
10-20 boys ended up doing it and they all liked it just fine, although I doubt if they got erections because little boys don’t get those. Later on in high school and as adult men, they continued to croon about this wonderful experience.
Now hear me out. I don’t want grown women having sex with little boys. It needs to be illegal. But it doesn’t look like boys get much harmed by this sort of thing, does it? Still, I don’t want to live in a country where it’s ok for women to have sex with little boys or for adults of either sex to have sex with children of either sex.
I hope he is kidding about not wanting legal reform, but in any case this egoistic line of reasoning highlights the evil of criminalization for no good reason.
Somebody pointed out to me the role of royalty money with regard to Elvis Presley. If his music is still earning royalties and Priscilla has a stake in that, it becomes more understandable why she does not want to cancel the golden goose. Of course it is preposterous that Elvis held radical feminist antisex beliefs before the feminists had even invented them, but those are the norms you have to play by now if you want to appeal to the mainstream.
We can let Elvis speak for himself :)
https://fstube.net/w/a6CzRtLUJQn1mJAEhqjigF
Hey little girl, you sure look cute to me
Come up a little closer, so I can see
Hold it baby now stay right where you are
Hey little girl you oughta be a movie star
Alright...
Hey little girl, come on and dance with me
You're about the cutest thing I ever did see
Hey little girl, I'd like to take you home
Come on, come on, come on I want you for my very own
Alright now
Hey little girl, you better hang on tight
I want you swing it to the left, and shake it to the right
Hey little girl, you know your lookin' fine
Get ready honey let's go just-a one more time
Alright honey
Alright, alright, alright
Sexceptionalism: What Is It And Why Is It Problematic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkoA66YWsRU
Newgon is right on.
https://www.newgon.net/wiki/Sexceptionalism
A minimalist sexualist manifesto might be simply to get rid of sexceptionalism. René Guyon is the foremost spokesman for this most radical sexualism, while I have been somewhat more moderate. I am beginning to realize that the system cannot be trusted to enforce any sex crimes responsibly however, even for what they call forcible rape, so it is most ethical to oppose the concept of sex crimes altogether. Just look at Danny Masterson now getting 30 years with no evidence but a woman's word, or France distorting reality by having an absolute rape age of 15 below which we are to believe consent literally does not exist.
I'm afraid that whereas I will always respect you for coming out into the open and stating your well-considered beliefs, I agree with TheAntifeminist's views on women much more than yourself.
Of course, women are more evil than men, who may indeed be wicked cowards, because it is women who have both introduced the evil system of sexual repression and persecution, and women who have remained SILENT throughout it all when they are much more able to speak out with impunity.
But, anyway, humanity is dead so far as I am concerned. So whatever!
I just feel a moron for having lived on society's shitty immoral terms for so long. Sad! I just wish I had the perspective that I have now throughout my twenties when I would have hit on young teen and tween girls, practising nofap to spur me on.`
@MenAreCowards : Except you might not have had much success with "young teens and tween girls" back then all the same. I'm old enough to have grown up before the now prevailing hysteria. Twenty percent of the young guys (and probably twenty percent of the girls too) had a sexual life. The remaining 80% were frustrated puzzled onlookers. The sense of missing out was overwhelming and had nothing to do with wanking or porn (besides porn was not readily available).
Likewise, if young people of any ages became legal overnight, would it be that much of a game changer for us on this forum? Teenage girls attracted to upper middle-aged men are just a little less thin on the ground than hot teachers. They would not trip over themselves to hop into bed with older men like me or the AF? Eivind would be barely young enough to score with a few of them, but only just.
I don't know, Jack. You say that but it seems to me a lot of quite ugly guys end up with pretty girls. Paying them money is an option. You paint a depressing picture of the past. For me ,as someone who is not in the SLIGHTEST attracted to adults, the pre-hysterical age is something of a dream. But you hear different views. And there were young girls selling themselves on the streets of New York, London etc.
I thought that girls were more interested in prestige and money. I'm after that girl who wants an older man to look after her. Even though I don't have money. There was a young girl of twelve who had a relationship with a man in my area, before they were caught. I think there is far more opportunity with tween girls than a girl of 14 who is already on her way to being a horrible bitch for a life of leading men by the nose. Generally speaking.
To be honest, I don't fucking know what girls want! I really don't know.
Why were we put on this awful fucking planet?
All I want to do is what nature has given me, the desire to sexually and emotionally love young girls, and yet NONE of them seem interested. It's just a 'wtf' situation.
It would have been better not to have been born. And to think my father didn't even teach me about sex or introduce me to young girls when I was a child. What a fucking failure!
But your comment about the past depresses me, and you will forgive me for thinking you may be a bit negative there, given much that I have read.
It just astonishes me, I mean amazes me, that there was a time when I could walk down an American city and just look at a couple of twelve year old girls, smile and say how pretty they look. Are you saying I wouldn't have had any success? I don't know. But I wouldn't have been arrested, that's for sure.
The upshot is that I genuinely believe that the female sex is EVIL. Didn't the religions get this? Why should we presume they were wrong when there is so much wisdom in the Old Testament and such?
Jack is right that sexual frustration always existed, even during the Sexual Revolution and the briefly more lenient times that he grew up in. But you don't know if you would have been successful or incel until you have tried. Not being hated and persecuted just for trying to get with young girls surely would have helped. It would also have helped to have some guidance from a father figure as you note. It is absurd when you think about it how the lack of any decent sex-positive advice is not even recognized as dysfunctional. You should at least have explored the opportunities when it was socially acceptable. I take it you are in your 30s now, which is still relatively young, so it's not too late. As a nofapper you mostly go under the radar of what the feminists persecute anyway.
But your misogyny isn't helping. There are sex-positive women, and when you realize most of the persecution is so stupid it doesn't even target real sex, the outlook is much brighter. Indeed it has paradoxical effects because when all the idiots who send dick pics and/or ask for nudes are weeded out it is easier to befriend girls on social media. Don't say anything overtly sexual before physically meeting.
I didn't want to comment on Eivind's blog again, but I see some sensible discussion here and I thought I'd join in.
Yes, I agree with Jack that legalizing teen sex would come too late for me and him, and anybody here over 50. It wouldn't even be enough to lower the age of consent, as you could still have the same 'pedo' stigmatization as you do in most countries now for pursuing 'legal' 16 or 17 year olds (or even older if there is an age gap).
I do believe that it was a lot easier before paedohysteria really took hold, and that if you had a social circle or you were in contact with teens, it would have been pretty easy to find girls willing to have sex with you even into your forties, especially of course if you had money. I remember it used to be that teenage girls would be flattered by being considered mature enough by an older guy to date. Now it's the complete opposite, and teen girls are taught that even being dated by a billionaire with a private island or by a literal Prince will leave them scarred for life as a victim of paedophilia.
I remember my dad used to wolf-whistle at 14-year-old schoolgirls as they walked past our garden, and they'd just smile or maybe giggle. Now he'd be arrested or have vigilantes burn down our house.
Maybe my memory is faulty, but most of the teens at my school were having casual sex all the time. I met up with some friends of my older brother at my mother's funeral last year, and we talked about our teen years, and all the hot girls in my year that I mentioned, they knew because they had banged them (when they were teens). And they weren't particularly 'chads' or anything. I missed out because I was a mentalcel at the time, which is probably why my attraction to teen girls remained higher than most for the rest of my life.
I agree of course that the female sex are evil in a sense that men are not. Maybe it's a particular type of evil, a more passive cruelty, and a completely instrumental view of men. Houellebecq points out that it's always men who are hacking each other to pieces with machetes. But it's women who are attracted to these men.
I think one reason why Eivind sees women and girls as 'angels' is because he worships them from afar, like probably his paedophile followers do. If he was actually approaching women and teen girls, as surely is the whole effing point of NoFap, then he'd be routinely reminded of female cruelty. For example, I've been struggling to approach women for a long time now. I've contented myself to admiring them as they pass me in the street or as I sit observing in cafes. But yesterday I fapped for 10 minutes in the morning before going out, just edging to the point of climax and then stopping, so I had a permanent hardon for the rest of the day. I went out to the local shopping center, and managed to make my first approach in ages. A young woman of perhaps 21, not staggeringly beautiful but quite a sweet and friendly face. First I asked for directions (my confidence not yet enough to stop and say 'hey, you are beautiful'), then asked her if she lived round here, and then 'what do you do, are you a student? as my heart pounded. 'Eww, none of your business' was her reply and she walked off with a look of disgust on her face. She probably messaged all her friends later, maybe even posted on Twitter, how a creepy old perv dared to make conversation with her while she was out shopping. If I hadn't approached her, as Eivind wouldn't, I'd probably just have looked at her and thought 'oh, what a sweet angel she obviously is'.
AF, or Ass Farty as he should be known as, keeps putting words in Eivinds mouth. Can the bitter old man please be banned for good, as he's constant whining an promoting of porn and masturbation is the exact opposite of what we need. I'm sure Eivind is approaching girls whenever there's an oppurtunity.
AF admits to being incel his whole life. Cause: porn and masturbation.
His lame ass unsuccesful way of losing his virginity is to ask a girl for directions, which of course is creepy as hell.
AF is a true misogynist.
I saw a documentry many years ago which was about an old Chinese man living in Sweden and teaching Taoist sexual theory and practice.
He had a 15-y-o girlfriend who said, "He is a lovely lover, never boring."
This guy had a flowing white beard and looked like Confucius. He was downright old, not late middle aged or anything.
Motto of the story:it's never too late.
On the topic of lowering the AOC not making a difference, I can think of a couple of times when I could have banged 13 y-olds but held back because of John Law.
I nevertheless agree that lowering the AOC might not make a huge amount of difference overall. Which makes me wonder why it's such a taboo to even suggest it given that women probably don't have much to fear since the increased competition from their "younger sisters" is mostly in their own minds.
Anonymous 2
Anonymous 2
Mainstream US News Outlet Directs Conservative Child Tranny Backlash Back To The Conservative Feminism That Causes Child Trannies
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/sep/14/luka-hein-sues-medical-center-removing-her-breasts/
At least that would be the honest title of the article. The article is written to redirect against men the frustration of people who don't believe in the tranny religion. It tells the story of an insane Nebraska woman who regrets chopping her tits off and hires a lawyer from India to sue the doctors who made a bunch of money off her insanity.
And where does the article put the blame for her tragedy? You guessed it - "Ms. Hein was struggling with depression and anxiety after her parents divorced, then was preyed upon and threatened by an older man online."
Aha! That evil older man bastard online predator again, now he's responsible for causing poor innocent little angel fully empowered strong tough girls to chop their tits off and regret it. What an asshole, this older man who talks to young women, he's the one who causes this entire child tranny problem after all! Let's kill him and throw him in prison for life, especially if there is any age gap or violation of the sacred and pure and beautiful "age of consent".
Honestly, is there any difference between believing in the child tranny religion and the age of consent religion? They are exactly the same from what I can see, they both come from man-hating feminism, and they both support each other.
So if Conservatives (Nebraska is 200% Conservative) want to adopt extreme feminism, like they have done and continue to do worse than the blue states, then I celebrate more and more of their children mutilating themselves and causing them misery. Fuck them all.
US Conservatives are like dogs that chase their own tails - dumb as rocks and deserving of all their misery that they bring to others by being so fucking stupid.
You can see in the article comments that the intended effect was achieved - the Conservative sheep are all taking a stand based on the sacred and pure and beautiful "age of consent", the most feminist concept ever invented! Now, according to the Conservatives, as long as you respect the "age of consent" it's totally cool to chop off teen tits if they feel sad, but don't even think about talking to younger girls, because that is child abuse which will cause the girls to chop off their tits and regret it later!
They deleted my comment on the article of course - revealing their true intent would be too upsetting to a few brainwashed normies and undermine the evil older man narrative.
anon 69
Regarding the debate about whether trashing the age of consent would matter for banging young chicks, the answer is absolutely it would matter, but more in the health and freedom of society than actual sex. Of course, it would reward men who pursued it, but not many would try or succeed based on evidence from all of human history before the last few decades. This indeed proves that, like everything women support, the threat of increased competition from younger women is mostly in their minds - an emotional, stupid and hysterical overreaction that is detached from reality. Sound familiar?
All feminist concepts that destroy society, from affirmative action to domestic violence laws, begin with the age of consent as a foundation, and the higher the age, the more leverage is applied, because the entire concept itself is a farce. True age of sexual readiness is determined only by nature, forever. Complicating that simple concept shows immediate bad intent to manipulate and deceive.
Thanks for providing your blog as an outlet for this important content.
anon 69
"Child sexual abuse" is a general-purpose superstition which to the normies explains any and all behavioral problems or other bad outcomes. Like witchcraft. CSA is THE witchcraft of our times. It erases the person and inserts whatever demon you want, including totally projected ones like girls willingly going for the "wrong" men out of no agency of their own of course, being instead possessed by this evil omnipotent CSA force. Critical thinking is compartmentalized to where it can't apply to this subject. All you need is an anecdote and an outlandish claim -- why not medical predation too? That is when girls don't become nymphomaniacs or frigid from CSA they might end up transsexual, since every contradictory outcome and everything in between is supposedly explained. We are lucky and brave to be able to criticize it at all since there are actual blasphemy laws too in addition to the full force of social and corporate ostracism. Or not exactly brave because it feels ridiculous having to stand up against insanity which shouldn't exist because it's too retarded. We have methods to test such hypotheses now, so there is no excuse for not applying them. Placebo or nocebo effect, statistics and skepticism are suddenly taboo for no good reason. The same people who won't trust a vaccine without placebo-controlled studies will jump on any causation from CSA and be immune to alternative explanations; it is just selective insanity or regression to superstition.
Hey Eivind you disgusting fraud - you remove that pedo's comment. I'm warning you mister, I am NOT letting you degrade all the 20 years of work I've put into this any longer. I'll start posting articles about you online, YouTube videos etc. And btw, I'm not a sad loser on benefits in a little isolated cabin, who spends his days talking in the shower on camera because he thinks his scrawny body is somehow buff, and practices extreme NoFap so he has the 'testosterone' to go round taking creep shots of chubbies and posting (some) of them on Instagram while calling everybody wankers.
You're 1000 x worse than Paul Elam. Remember how much we hated him for presuming to lead the men's right's movement and dissing Angry Harry? It's as if Paul Elam had claimed to be the leader of the MRM because Angry Harry was anonymous, then changed the name of the Men's Rights movement to the 'Rights Movement' so that more women would join and he could bang them. Then a feminist asks to make a film about him, and his ego is so massive he say's yes (and because she'll go on 'dates' with him), and when it wins an award, it inflates his monumental ego still further and he calls it 'his movie', even though it mercilessly presents him as a sad mentally ill lonely wanker (well, some would say it is the truth).
BTW, that paedophile follower of yours should be reported to the police (who I know you have a good relationship with these days) - he proudly boasts of being attracted exclusively to six year old girls and at the same time calls others wankers and incels (and 'pedophobes').
I let that nasty comment by AF through because my response will be educative about nofap. I am amazed he thinks he has a point regarding those “creep shots” as he calls them. Thinking I am hypocritical about nofap if I have pictures of girls on my Instagram takes a truly stunning level of wanker’s delusion where the idea is that I am trying to extract some kind of sexual value from those girls. Nofappers know it is impossible to get sexual value out of an image, and also they are not “creep shots” but what used to be called candid photography or street photo which is still practiced by serious artists despite the new feminist slur which the “antifeminist” oddly buys into. There is nothing wrong with making pictures of pretty girls and it does not make you a wanker unless you buy into the wanker’s and also feminist’s delusion that sexual value can be captured and transferred in images; that females can be “sexually exploited” that way.
It is true that female beauty is one way to get a nice picture; indeed this is is the entry level for art, one reason art students spend so much time drawing and painting female nudes as I did myself when I was a student. But if you think the purpose of that is to steal their sexual essence, i.e. wanking metaphorically or literally, then you are astonishingly lost. A sure way to make some appealing art despite low skills is to depict beautiful women. But that is only the most superficial level of art. Art is not about what you paint, but how you paint. A great artist can paint a beautiful painting of an ugly person, and the same goes for photography and other art forms. Unlike the AF, artists understand that art is not a competition to make the most sexually arousing or pornographic images. If that were the goal, then most artists could do it a hell of a lot better than they do, but then they would only be in the running for fame as a pornographer, catering to those who suffer from the wanker’s delusion. There are no notable pornographers as far as I know. Hugh Hefner is the only household name in that field precisely because his magazine is closer to art than pornography, showing no explicit sex at all.
I am failing miserably to be big on Instagram (16 followers) or in any other artistic endeavor but it does not make me hypocritical for trying.
Seriously, does anyone else here think the AF has a point? Am I a hypocrite? You can all judge my Instagram for yourself and I cannot fathom what he is “threatening” to “expose.”
https://www.instagram.com/eivind_berge/
I see Justin Roiland is a horrific abuser along these lines:
Roiland frequently followed and interacted with the starstruck “Rick and Morty” fans on social media and dating apps. He’d offer compliments, calling them “super cute” or “hot.” And he’d ask their ages and where they were from.
And this with girls as young as 16 -- oh my god he is evil. "He also found he could use his fame to strike up conversations and develop relationships with young fans." What, a man USING his assets, in this case fame he has rightfully earned? Does he not know it is forbidden to attract women by being attractive to them no matter how honestly? Because the measure of man that women (18+ only) legitimately can be attracted to is an anonymous blob in a vacuum and anything more is an abusive power relation.
It is the same story with Russell Brand now:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/16/entertainment/russell-brand-response/index.html
On Saturday, British outlets The Sunday Times, The Times and Channel 4 “Dispatches” published a joint investigation in which four women alleged Brand sexually assaulted them in separate instances between the years 2006 and 2013. One of the women said she was 16 and Brand was 31 at the time of the alleged assault in London.
Promiscuity and age gaps rebranded to rape is the usual feminist story. Men are kidding themselves if they think it is possible to be promiscuous and go for only legal-age girls and still be legal, because society sure does not see normal male sexuality as legal anymore.
Regarding the attitude which AF conveys by using the word "creep shot" for candid photos, I noticed a similar infestation when I was out flying with KLM recently. Now on every flight a speaker warns us along with the usual safety information that taking pictures or video of anyone on the plane (both passengers and crew) without asking for consent first is not allowed. They also have this new rule printed in their in-flight magazine. As with their persecution of MAP activists it goes to show the once-liberal Dutch are now at the forefront of feminist hysteria.
Imagine what street photo would be like if one were to follow this rule. You have to ask permission from every single person before taking a picture, which even if successful would ruin the scene you were trying to photograph. At best you could get some posed pictures or else limit yourself to empty streets and buildings.
I don't really care about these restrictions but it is a barometer of the intolerance of our times.
Wearing a condom during sex doesn't mean you're having sex. You're literally fucking a plastic bag, your penis isn't actually touching the vagina. If you've had sex with hundreds of women but each and every time you wore a condom you would still be a virgin since your dick never made contact with the vagina. It's literally the hardcore version of a wanker. Imagine sticking your dick inside a girl and still being a virgin, kek.
"but it's birth control!" No excuse, there are alternative measures that don't force you to fuck a plastic bag
"but it prevents STDs!" If you're going to fuck someone whom you know isn't clean you deserve the STD
"but it feels like real sex!" But it isn't.
This is your daily reminder, now that you've read it you understand the truth. You can reply with whatever delusional comment you want but the facts will remain in your head no matter what you say.
Be a real male sexualist.
Angry Fart (AF) is a bitter, jealous pedophobe and Eivind should ban him. He takes after his misogynist incel hero Angry Harry, who was better described as Assy Hairy. There should be no room for pedophobes, incels, misogynists, and wankers in our Sexualist movement. Eivind is our leader and if we stick together, we might become strong enough to be accepted by the LBGT movement. The MAPs and the Sexualists should unite with the MAP movement under Eivind and we should call ourselves the pedosexualists or the pedo-sexualists.
Two more troll comments here and I won't let that get out of hand because this is a serious blog -- but the attitude to condoms expressed there is at least in the right direction. I don't consider sex with condoms to be literal masturbation, but it does not fully count as sex either (though it has other benefits of intimacy and certainly isn't harmful like masturbating to porn). I have cited this scientific article before:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01677.x
Which explains how much more beneficial vaginal sex is than masturbation to both men and women and includes this gem:
Although there might be a direct chemical antidepressant effect of semen absorbed from the vagina, the large difference in mood and suicidality might also be a result of intercourse with condoms not really being intercourse, but something akin to mutual masturbation with the same latex device.
Nofap does not include a prohibition on sex with condoms, but let's be honest: as far as your penis is concerned, it is akin to mutual masturbation with the same latex device. For your brain, however, unlike actual masturbation there is no pernicious effect aside from a reduction in enjoyment -- no porn-induced impotence or anything like that. Condoms are discouraged, but if you have no choice on that it is better to get the benefits of intimacy with a woman than to turn down the opportunity or God forbid wank to porn.
Just always remember, quoting that article again:
A wide range of better psychological and physiological health indices are associated specifically with penile–vaginal intercourse. Other sexual activities have weaker, no, or (in the cases of masturbation and anal intercourse) inverse associations with health indices. Condom use appears to impair some benefits of penile–vaginal intercourse.
I spoke to a young person of 19 in the pub the other night… he said he was interested in a girl but found out she was 16 and was suddenly not interested? now this isnt a 40 year old, but a 19 year old! this is worrying.. i said, but not much age gap?? but he says, but shes just left school! but whats that got to do with anything?? shes there against her will anyway.
If i was interested in someone and they were 16, i would be relieved as i wont be prosecuted! Just called named by the bullies.. which is most people, sadly.
Yeah, you can't be too careful with the sexual taboos if you are a normie. Men have no fight in them but also no edginess: only obedience to antisexual norms plus a huge margin on top of whatever is legal to signal groveling virtue. 16 may be legal but it's adjacent to the big taboo, so no-no. And if a girl is 17 she just left the school-leaving age so that's too close too. At 18 she just became an adult so obviously she's too immature. And at 19 she's still an immature teenager! At 20 her brain is still developing until 25 or was it 30 now? In the end any resemblance of youth is taboo, even if feigned by an old hag.
On the bright side there is more for us who don't give a damn about the taboos when men remove themselves form the competition even beyond what the law requires.
Comparing unprotected sex with protected sex is comparing pears with apple. Unless you're a Saudi prince who owns a gated harem, you can't be promiscuous for long if you don't use condoms. The comparison should be between monogamous protected sex and promiscuous unprotected sex. So who's having "real sex"? The monogamous barebacking nofapper or the promiscuous condom user?
Equating protected sex with masturbation is not without its unintended consequences though, as it shows the limits of the nofap ethos. As nofap seems to have no-condom as a corollary, it also has "boring" written all over it. To the monogamous man, there comes a time when wanking to porn gets more rewarding than struggling to get a hard-on with the same woman (even supposing that woman to remain attractive as she ages).
Of course you can escape this dilemma by positing the nofapper should practice unprotected serial monogamy. But this will only do if new partners are far in between, ie if serial monogamy is little better than simple monogamy, otherwise we're in STD territory again. Not to mention of course the success with women serial monogamy demands if you live anywhere but in the few remaining pussy havens on this Earth.
There's a famous proverb among mongers: "For every super hot woman out there, there's a man tired of banging her".
Jack, your answer indicates little or no experience with unpaid women or even amateur whores and sugar babies. My experience is different. It is indeed possible to have a richly rewarding promiscuous life with minimal or acceptable STD risk (a few curable ones aren't so bad and herpes will likely be asymptomatic). And you don't have to be a Saudi prince either. Indeed it is the norm among the 10% most successful men who have 50-100 lifetime partners to do so with girls who rarely want you to use condoms and have a similarly relatively moderate STD risk. If you have to rely on professional sex workers who see ten clients per day and have thousands of lifetime partners, then I agree with your assessment, but nofappers should strive to do better and I myself have gotten very close to that top 10%. I have also been privy to swinger circles and know neither condoms nor STDs are prevalent there. It is a myth that you have to be monogamous to avoid STDs and wild delusion that you have to be so to avoid bad ones like HIV (unless you are gay, and even they don't really have unacceptable risk nowadays with many more partners than we aspire to).
I strongly suspect I am even underestimating here the level of promiscuity you can engage in as a heterosexual man and be fine without condoms as long as you avoid professional sex workers. If we look at the 0.1% most successful men, celebrities who bang hundreds or even thousands of hot girls, I seriously doubt they use condoms and I don't see them struggling with STDs. The only straight celebrity I have heard of who might have gotten HIV that way was Magic Johnson. It was different back when syphilis was incurable, but not now. How many rock stars with AIDS do you know of?
It appears that legal "grooming" is now a thing in the UK because I don't see what is criminal about this "grooming" accusation against Russell Brand:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/russell-brand-denies-criminal-allegations-that-havent-aired-yet
Accused of sexually assaulting four women between 2006 and 2013, including one who was just 16 years old, Brand has denied the allegations. The 48-year-old took the extraordinary step of trying to pre-empt the accusations on the eve of the documentary airing, saying that all his sexual relationships have been consensual.
One of the women who has accused Brand of sexual assault said she was 16 when the comedian approached her in London’s Leicester Square and began making advances. In Channel 4’s Dispatches documentary, she said Brand appeared to have no qualms about her age, telling her, “I don’t give a fuck if you’re 12… I need to know where I stand legally.”
While she was above the age of consent in Britain, she recalled Brand referring to her as “the child” and becoming aroused upon learning that she was still a virgin.
“Russell behaved in the behaviors of a groomer. But back then I didn’t even know what that looked like. He would try to drive a wedge between me and my parents, taught me to lie to them,” the woman, identified only by the alias Alice, told Dispatches. She alleged that Brand used to send a car to pick her up from school so she could meet with him.
Is that all there is to it or is there some "assault" against this girl too?
Kudus to Brand for not giving a fuck about the senseless taboos themselves and only trying to obey the law as evinced by that refreshingly honest and male-representative statement about not caring if she is 12 or 16 other than for legal reasons, but that doesn't seem to have helped as he is accused anyway now. Let that be a lesson to men who try to suck up to the law in earnest: all our sexuality is criminal no matter what you do because this civilization hates masculinity itself. Anyone can be accused for anything, but in this case it appears he also needed to get cancelled because he had gotten annoying to the establishment in recent years.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/18/entertainment/russell-brand-allegations-police-inquiry-gbr-intl/index.html
Quote: "I have also been privy to swinger circles and know neither condoms nor STDs are prevalent there."
Uhm ... this makes me doubt your having much swinging experience. I was a fixture in German swinging clubs in the nineties and the beginning of this century. When partners were swapped condoms were used for intercourse while blowjobs were uncovered. That was the unspoken norm. I doubt this may have changed much since then or that Scandinavia would have been different.
Incidentally, HIV is no longer the main scare. Multiresistant gonorrhea is. You can live with HIV, not with gonorrhea.
I knew American swingers and met them informally but I doubt they used condoms at their official meetings either and anyway, that scene is just a tiny part of the promiscuity which goes on and not the most exciting part (not many teen girls there).
There are extremely few cases of multiresistant gonorrhea yet, which sounds like another scare to cover up how exciting the sex lives of the most successful men really are. If we imagine they use condoms all the time then we are even missing out on the jealousy and drive to be like them, lol. Do you think Russell Brand used condoms with the 16-year-old for example?
Here's a listing of the accusations btw:
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/17/a-timeline-of-sexual-assault-allegations-against-russell-brand
He wasn't always very nice, but he's no rapist even if all this is true. The women did not fight back or when they did he quit. They are re-imagining the worst moments of a relationship like this:
Jordan Martin alleges Brand sexually assaulted her and was physically and emotionally abusive towards her during a six-month relationship from February 2007. She claims he assaulted her at the Lowry hotel in Manchester when he became angry after finding out she had spoken to an ex-boyfriend, and ripped her phone case apart to pull out the battery, before touching her sexually. She said she was “not ready for this intrusion” and did not find it pleasant.
Ok, so if a woman being "not ready" for every single sexual touch and later claims she felt unpleasant for a moment is the standard then that's classic feminist redefinition of any relationship whatsoever into rape.
Obviously, just like Masterson, Cosby, Epstein, Weinstein, and thousands of other average men who don't make the news, Brand has done nothing wrong with the whores, the crimes are fake feminist crimes which any man could be guilty of, as Eivind points out. Heterosexual sex is illegal in English speaking countries, all it takes is a complaint from a woman who sees a benefit in making a complaint. Police know this and in the past would disregard complaints from women all the time, but not anymore as there are now special "task forces" dedicated to the fake crimes created by feminism. It's a profitable business for the feminist government, both in power and money.
You have less of a chance of a fake accusation if you respect the feminist "age of consent" and you minimize evidence of sexual activity, it's true. But who wants to live like a prisoner in his own country? Outside of English speaking countries, both the feminist hysteria and the potential penalties are far less severe. So, it seems like the best options for normal men are either to disregard the age of consent completely since all heterosexual sex is illegal, or leave English speaking countries as soon as possible (and if you are American, renounce your citizenship so they can't apply the disgusting extraterritorial PROTECT law against you, or pay the foreign government to help the US apply it against you, which at this point is established procedure. You can look up all the foreign governments that now collaborate with the US DHS because they are paid by the US to extradite US citizens for things that are barely considered crimes in the foreign country. The story of Rugh James Cline comes to mind recently).
Yeah, FreeTheTeens, Bev Turner is a hero! And what an annoying moron she is arguing with, Andrew Pierce. She is so right, they had a huge media conspiracy to shut down Russell Brand and those flimsy allegations are all they could come up with. Given how promiscuous he was he must have been an absolute saint when they can only dredge up four women to have some half-hearted anonymous regrets and of course the "grooming" only serves to normalize that concept as a synonym for dating since we can't see any criminality in it and there is none here unless they raise the age of consent some more.
The antisex bigots are eating their own too, further diluting "sexual misconduct" for us :)
A married anti-child slavery activist who was the inspiration for the “Sound of Freedom” film has been dogged by allegations he sexually harassed seven women on overseas missions and took advantage of a Mormon elder.
Tim Ballard, who founded the anti-sex trafficking organization Operation Underground Railroad (O.U.R) a decade ago, abruptly resigned in June after the group started probing the sexual misconduct claims against him, Vice News reported Monday.
Sources familiar with the investigation said Ballard — who was portrayed by Jim Cavaziel onscreen in “Sound of Freedom” — had allegedly asked women to act as his “wife” on undercover missions carried out to rescue sex-trafficking victims.
He allegedly pressured women to share a bed or shower with him during the missions, suggesting it was necessary to fool the traffickers, the sources claimed.
Ballard, a former Department of Homeland Security official, was also accused of sending one woman an underwear-clad photo of himself and asking how far she was willing to go to save trafficked kids.
So he literally trafficked women in order to catch "traffickers." Of course, male nature always manifests even in a regime where the greatest good is to crack down on sexuality, in the men most virtuously dedicated to that project. Too bad we can't have sexualist morals instead of hypocrisy, but we will always have sexualism in action.
Here's the link to that Ballard story.
https://nypost.com/2023/09/19/sound-of-freedom-hero-tim-ballard-accused-of-sexual-misconduct/
The comments however are not the usual antisex gullibility. As with Russell Brand, sexual accusations are now seen as the standard way to take a man down. Feminism has finally reached its limit that way and devolved to partisan politics. As long as he is "our" guy, nobody cares anymore at least outside the legal system.
True believers in trafficking remain true believers and say things like this:
Great movie which depicts the reality of this current, sick world we live in. And this brave man exposed it by bringing it to the big screen despite years of threats and battles from the establishment to keep it out. Naturally, "they" are after him and will do anything to take him down and try to discredit him.
I like this comment though:
This guy is such a fake and a Q-anon clown. This behavior is not more surprising from a fake "pious Christian" man than from Russell Brand, in fact, even more to be expected, because those types surround themselves with the gullible who believe in magic fairies, adrenochrome, Planet Pizza Pedos, and other nonsense.
The 16-year-old has really turned into the most vile kind of feminist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMvKLukQOzk
She saw nothing wrong with her relationship with Russell Brand until she reached her 30s and "reflected" on it, whereupon she "realized" all the current feminist tropes, grooming, power imbalance, coercive control, that her brain hadn't been fully developed etc. And in her 30s she cannot imagine that anyone her age can find a 16-year-old attractive; they are just not in that category at all to "normal" people so this is 100% sick and predatory. Now she and her mother are campaigning to raise the age of consent, which according to the BBC here is an archaic law made in the 1800s that needs to get updated to modern standards. It is consummate hatred of male sexuality: as this is the official broadcaster it cannot get any clearer that this civilization sincerely hates our guts for being men.
But hopefully FreeTheTeens is right that it is having the opposite effect than intended. Have they finally gone too far? Actually it wouldn't surprise me if the UK raises the age of consent to 18 as the public seems to be ready for it and some other jurisdictions have literally gone that far.
"Now she and her mother are campaigning to raise the age of consent"
She realises that , though society tells her she's at the peak of her attractiveness now, she's becoming more and more transparent to the"male gaze". No Russell Brand would stop her in the street now. She doesn't radiate anymore. And it can only get worse. How couldn't she be in rage ?
It is also the same if they raise it to 17, which I don't believe because they would already raise it to 18, which is their fetish and pseudo-religious age that they worship as a divine law, although if it were for old women they would raise it to 21 or 25, even If there is a gap of more than 10 years, they just don't do it because it is maximum madness even for pathetic normies.
Haha! Tim Ballard's terrible male feminist game exposed is absolutely hilarious and expected. The stories write themselves with these people. Lame ass bitch boy Ballard virtue signals with his anti-sex organization so he can try to use the fame and money to bang women in the most retarded manner possible. A childish imp leading a nation of childish imps. It is a perfect fit. His game apparently never improved beyond an 8 year old's idea of playing house or doctor. Fucking ignoramous! Maybe if someone showed him how to talk to women, we could've avoided all of this damage he's done to society?
You guys are missing the forest for the trees with the Russell Brand saga. First, since when did the government care about what people think about anything? They have more than enough "evidence" to destroy him now, and they will. Second, that is old news. The new news is much worse - they are using this rape hoax to strengthen their age of consent hoax by introducing what we all knew was coming, what the woman and male feminists have always dreamed about, the criminalization of age gap relationships. Their exact language is they want to create a "staggered age of consent", the dream of the Women's Christian Temperance Movement comes true 100 years later to impose maximum female dominance. Trannies are our only hope in this fucked up situation, and of course the "opposition" Conservatives hate them!
If you still remain in the Anglosphere, you get what you deserve at this point.
anon 69
Just to lighten up the mood a little bit, here is the "I'm Just a Normal Guy" scene from Kubrick's Lolita:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIb3cRvQYw8
Quilty (Peter Sellers) pretends to be a police officer and proceeds to have an awkward conversation with Humbert (James Mason).
"That's a guy with the most normal-looking face I ever saw in my life. It's great to see a normal face because I'm a normal guy. It would be great for two normal guys like us to get together and talk about world events."
It is brilliant, and exactly what we have been saying over the years: normal male sexuality is what we fight for.
But now some hate fuel. Here is the UK government fishing to reopen historical cases:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/child-sexual-abuse-victims-urged-contact-panel
This is astonishing proof that the sex war is the government's absolute first priority. They are actively urging "victims" to try to accuse again in cases closed decades ago for lack of evidence. If your false accusation didn't succeed the first time, they are now bending over backwards to let you try again. Meanwhile if you are a victim of a real crime like car theft or burglary in the present time, they will hardly investigate because nothing is as urgent as the most trivial and contrived "sex abuse" from fifty years ago.
And look at this drivel the government is putting out to fight end-to-end encryption...
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-urges-meta-to-protect-children-from-sexual-abuse
Even the tech companies are getting tired of it and now switch on more encryption so they don't have to deal so much with the government's asinine war on sexuality.
"Now she and her mother are campaigning to raise the age of consent, which according to the BBC here is an archaic law made in the 1800s that needs to get updated to modern standards."
where they say these things? I haven't seen it
Re: Free the Teens 66 post of Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:38:00 PM:
To me, the argument between the two presenters looked staged. IMHO, the Russell Brand allegations are also staged, ie Brand himself is playing a role. Many would disagree with such conspiracy nuttery, but I don't care.
As to precisely what they're trying to achieve, I don't know. Probably it's to fuel the flames of hysteria even more against older men with younger women and have the AOC raised. Less likely, it may be to provoke a backlash. TPTB would have their own reasons for doing this that I can only speculate on. It may also produce a backlash whether intended or not.
As for the y/tube video of the woman and her mother campaigning to raise the AOC in the UK, "Comments are turned off." Of course they are.
Anonymous2
Russell Brand is controlled opposition? Seems highly unlikely to me. There is already a police report made by a woman who was apparently not part of the admittedly very strange show to have him cancelled. Now there is immense pressure for any nutcase to crawl out and accuse. Will TPTB be able to save him from a justice system which primarily exists to fight sexuality? I know they created this system or programmed such values into it, but that does not mean they control it. They could not save Epstein who was also supposedly a construct according to the conspiracy theorists. The sex war really is the highest or most powerful level of government with nothing to override it even though government agents may certainly break the laws themselves and probably have no more sincere belief in them than we do.
Evidently we just don't see things the same way, Eivind. One thing I WILL keep on about is the two TV presenters. The so-called debate seemed very contrived to me. I presume they had the female TV presenter playing the advocate for Russell Brand (or really just old-fashioned innocent until proven guilty) for the obvious reason that these days it would be out of the question to have a male in that role.
Anonymous 2
Post a Comment