Monday, October 23, 2023

Meet the Norwegian "Neighborhood Watch" antisex organization

It feels like everything in the world is now locked into its grooves. Nothing I write here can attract any more readers than the handful regulars I’ve had for twenty years. The powerful have consolidated their power and they sure as hell don’t tolerate sexuality. When I once reached 1500 followers on Twitter I was already too big for the establishment and decisively beat down. All political activism is futile if not on side with one of the dominant ideologies who may well clash in epic battles these days, say between Jews and Muslims for example. The world is locked in grooves, but it is never permanent.

Sexual liberation is on nobody’s radar unless you mean the utterly superficial things going under the Pride banner. Nonetheless, the only thing I can do is to keep writing. Because I have failed to find a “proper” role in society. I am always and forever doing what I am “not supposed to do.” I fit neither a “job” role nor a “disabled” role where they say “that’s okay we’ll just give you money to live,” and neither do I get private donations as might have come with a substantial movement. From month to month I have to beg the state for sustenance. I failed at a career and I failed at being a failure (which wouldn’t be a failure but one of those respectable roles). Every single thing I do or sincerely stand for is hated by the majority. Nothing gains traction, nothing flies. Universal basic income would suit me, but does not exist.

While government roles are created by force, a “job” in private business consists of someone else exploiting your labor so they can make money. Neither is the selfless thing it is made out to be. In theory, if your labor is worth something you can work for yourself. I have tried that too, but nothing I offered was worth something, or if it was it was quickly shut down by regulation. Bitcoin trading is the only business I mastered to the extent that others found my services worth paying for enough that I could make a living, but as soon as I was in that position the government instituted licensing requirements that I couldn’t possibly meet. Then I made a technically great dating site called Fertile Dating, but nobody wanted to use it or invest in it in order that we could market ourselves.

I have been listening to Alan Watts a lot lately. I am neither depressed nor derealized psychologically, but I realize life is a game the way he gives the game away, which is a sort of philosophical derealization and depersonalization which one can then enjoy like a triviality. Life isn’t serious, but the first rule of the game of life is to pretend it’s serious. While I also don’t religiously seek a state of nirvana, I can slip into that cosmic consciousness easily enough. I can feel one with the universe to where the kind of opposition which I constitute is needed for the others to define themselves, and therefore I am not ultimately out of place after all. There must be losers for winners to exist, death is a contrast needed in order to know we are alive, and so on. The worker bees would not know they are hard-working without slackers to compare themselves to. I wouldn’t even know I am a sexualist without feminists who hate sex. In that sense, we are all needed and not a single grain in the universe is out of place.

If that sounds amoral then that’s because it is. Buddhism has no commandments, only a few guidelines that point out how to more easily reach enlightenment (i.e., don't lie, steal, exploit your passions or get high on drugs); but there is no hurry to get there as there is no such thing as saving your soul since your soul is the same as everyone else’s. Preaching is irrelevant because one can only preach to egos and they do not believe in egos. If you want to be Hitler for a thousand lifetimes, that’s okay and there is nothing fundamentally immoral about him either according to Buddhist philosophy. I have a hard time being so amoral myself, but I realize that if I had from the beginning ditched my morality then I would have been going with the flow and I would probably have been a normie with respect to career and socioeconomic status as well. When you don’t try to be a reformer or heretic, all that energy becomes available to you for other uses -- not to mention you are not persecuted -- so you can easily fit a role which flows with the stream. The normies who never think for themselves are always backed by the stream, so everything they do becomes that much easier. When you spend no energy hating, you even have more energy to hurt your enemies, and those who do not oppose the sex laws have more occasion to break them -- hence the proliferation of those the Antifeminist likes to call paedocrites.

As such, I chose stupidly. I am the heretic you can hate in an effortless collective way, with full institutional backing. And if that’s not enough, you can always set up a vigilante organization on top of the mainstream hysteria, like, and milk the normies some more to support yourself in the ultimate politically correct role.

That would be the apotheosis of going with the flow. Pedo hunters exploit the moral panic to the max. There is a sort of intelligence to that, though I suspect the most Zen way is to just let go and be the blank slate of the stereotypical normie, ready to be filled with whatever morality society throws at you. It emphatically does not matter if that is Nazism or feminism or whatever -- going with the stream means accepting everything with equal detachment because you are the stream. There is nothing to hang on to. Everything decays, including morality, plus it’s cyclical so we probably get back to a more humane morality soon enough anyway. Activism can’t take us there faster, because nobody ever changes their minds in response to persuasion. Hell, I didn’t even become a sexualist by persuasion; it feels like I organically grew into that role and now for example read people like Bruce Rind who scientifically proves CSA is a hoax because his were always my opinions. No matter how good the evidence, people practically never change their opinions after seeing the evidence.

The normies believe sex is a demonic force which corrupts the young. They believe sexuality puts children in hell, even if they are enjoying it, particularly when they are exposed to a person who is more than a couple years older. They implicitly believe in a sexual soul (or perhaps “innocent” soul) which is silently corrupted by sexuality. This corruption is then believed to manifest as something like PTSD throughout the “CSA victims’” adult lives, and again the damage can be silent there too so that positive memories are false consciousness. Sexuality is believed to have an entire alternative universe where all of sexuality relating to minors is this demonic substance, “pedophilia,” that they need to hunt and exorcise except it can’t be exorcised so the Pedophile must forever be separated from society via incarceration and registration. This is a superstitious belief akin to demonic possession or animism whereby the physical and psychological phenomenon of sexuality is imbued with an extra, perfectly evil dimension. In short they believe in the metaphysical badness of sex. Sex is the new Satan for all the normies to believe in even if they are atheists.

And this is where we are now, but oh well, life isn’t serious anyway. Perhaps I realized this too late -- and I am still not completely sold on that idea which can be summed up in the idiotic conundrum of whether consciousness is singular (in which case morality has no meaning) or plural (in which case one should have compassion with other souls). If you believe in nothing, you are the perfect candidate to go with the flow, which is what society is. I am the rare rebel who enables them to feel like they believe in something even though they believe in nothing.


Anonymous said...

I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you Eivind, but I can assure you I am far more of a conventional failure than you are lol.
Lindsay has a new article-
His writings on the age of consent and pedohysteria have resulted in this article-
Without getting into the weeds about hebephilia, this article is fairly measured and in a less marginal forum than here or Beyond Highbrow. It's also quite good that it extensively covers pop songs and video clips of past years-the pedoloony parents and grandparents of 2023 are forced to face the fact that the world was very different in relatively recent times.
By chance I've discovered these two characters- and
They're interesting for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they appear to be a welcome and necessary corrective to the dominant claim that people in Greece and Rome were all bent-I exaggerate only slightly. Having read the Satyricon, plus some other scraps of knowledge I have on the subject, I suspect that they've over corrected this trend. But the really salient thing about them is that they buy into contemporary ideas about age differences and that sexual contact with adults is always traumatic for children and adolescents. It's almost as if they're being used to hammer in these notions while giving a more truthful account of homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world at the same time. Or if they're not actually being used in this way, they have certainly been taken in by all the propaganda over they years.

Anonymous 2

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, Lindsay got this right:

Reacting at an extreme level to 12-14 year old girls seems to be fairly normal... Those who act on these feelings are not mentally disordered; they’re simply criminals.

Which begs the question of why this normal and not inherently harmful activity should be criminal, but I guess he doesn't want to be an activist for sexual freedom there. And then he raises a possible explanation for why the psychiatrists refrained from pathologizing hebephilia which says a great deal about the moral panic. They wanted to protect us from the bathshit insane legal system which is guaranteed to jump on such a diagnosis to keep sex offenders locked up in civil commitment beyond their prison terms:

To be completely honest, they’re not really correct, and some of the decision was political. For instance there were serious worries about expanding this insane unconstitutional Mentally Disordered Sex Offender bullshit the sex fascists put in. Nowadays, once you get labeled a MDSO, after you serve your jail or prison term, you go to some sort of prison/mental hospital where the sex fascists basically keep you for the rest of your life.

So Lindsay seems to think hebephiles are in fact slightly disordered but not so much that they deserve to be locked up except as punishment for actual crimes. This is disappointing. We did fine without a hebephilic "disorder" for all of human history, so why on earth should we need one now? As you note, we are so used to being hammered with the CSA dogma that almost no one can resist it anymore.

The longer article looks more promising and I'll read it tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

"Technically, I would say a hebephile is any man who is more attracted to 12-14 or 12-15 year old girls than they are to older women."

the Anti Feminist is a confirmed hebephile, how are you going to live your new sexy orientation, AF? I'm also a hebephile, we can be BFF UwU

Eivind Berge said...

Robert Lindsay makes many good points, but I really do not think he is a greater authority on mental disorders than the entire world psychiatric establishment which has now rejected hebephila in both the DSM-5 and ICD-11. Not that I respect psychiatrists very much, but if anything we need to reduce the number of "disorders," not make up new ones of our own.

I see from the HubPages article that ICD-10 did include hebephilia as a subset of pedophilia but changed their minds in the 11th edition:

The DSM-5 considers hebephilia to be a normative sexual attraction that adults have toward adolescents who are between 11 and 14 years old, and it does not classify it as a paraphilia or as any kind of psychiatric disorder... One of the reasons that Dr. Blanchard provided to the A. P. A. for wanting them to reclassify hebephilia as a psychiatric disorder was because the ICD-10 deemed it to be a paraphilia. The irony of these actions on his part is that WHO issued the Eleventh Edition of the International Classification of Diseases ("ICD-11") on January 1st, 2022, and, in that publication, WHO no longer recognizes hebephilia to be a psychiatric disorder. Therefore, I am somewhat optimistic that Dr. Blanchard has laid such efforts of his permanently to rest.

This article is very good and thorough, much better than expected. Unlike Lindsay the author "JASON B TRUTH" has the testicular fortitude to push against the laws too, if not to reveal his real name.

I love the cultural references including music videos showing how normal it is. We already have a cultural heritage so much richer than the morons who get to define these relationships now. It shouldn't take much to cancel the haters and go back to beautiful art and life. And his conclusion:

In my humble opinion, because hebephilia and ephebophilia are not psychiatric disorders but merely normative social constructs, then they are really nothing more than labels that marginalize innocent individuals. The world would be a better place without the existence of these two terms and their likes.

Anonymous said...

It might be worth to mention that Blanchard and James Cantor are both gays - had they lived 80 years ago, they themselves would have been considered deviant or even sick to be treated. Homosexuality was considered a disorder back then, but not anymore today, and many Western governments even actively support gay prides. But since homosexuality is not different today than it was 100 years ago, this means that psychiatric diagnoses, especially in the field of sexuality, are based more on fads and morality than science.

Eivind Berge said...

Lord of the Flies, loli version:

Or maybe their undeveloped brains don't produce so discordant results after all? I am surprised they got ethical approval for this experiment given how incompetent they are supposed to be.

Dr. Aaliyah said...

Hi. I am a sexologist. Age of consent laws are like Speed limits and play an important role in making teens safer — but they aren't always clearly marked, and can vary based on time, culture and more. So please be a responsible adult and limit yourself to over 18, and if possible, better with women your own age like me, sometimes your interest in younger women could be seen as predatory.

Eivind Berge said...

I read recently never to trust anybody who calls themselves a sexologist. Where was that again? Ah, it was in the article linked above by J.B. Truth:

A YouTuber named Sydney Watson warned her viewers never to trust anyone who identifies themselves as a sexologist. I'm beginning to see the wisdom of Ms. Watson's advice after watching Dr. Ross's entire video above.

Dr. Aaliyah is another version of Dr. Ross. And JB Truth -- now I get that too! Read him for the truth about jailbaits.

By the way, I have to say "Chevy Van" is the most unapologetic and possibly best MAP song ever:

Well Done, Sammy Johns! It would be cancelled at the outset today, but Wikipedia says...

"Chevy Van" (1975) reached No. 5 on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart and remained on the chart for 17 weeks. The song had been recorded in 1973, but was initially shelved and only released after 18 months with the album. The song sold three million copies, and is credited for an increase in van sales the following year. In Canada, the song reached No. 7 on the RPM Magazine charts.

So it can't be the subject matter itself that is keeping us down. And women's nature was the same in the 70s too. The problem is the Zeitgeist.

Anonymous said...

People aren't born with a steering wheel between the legs. Sexual organs, on the contrary, have been placed between people's legs by nature from the very moment they are born. And this is why you cannot compare speed limits with ages of consent.

Eivind Berge said...

Agreed. Evolutionarily we are not well adapted to anything more than running speed, so it's almost a miracle we can drive safely at all. Of course we need speed limits there. But we don't need speed limits for sex any more than we need them for running.

Eivind Berge said...

If a person is able to run then she is able to run when she wants to. She does not need five more years for the brain to catch up with the legs. Jailbaits are just that -- excuses to to lock men up. They are not "abused" and there is no biological justification whatsoever.

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, that policeman is scum, but the way society goes about it is retarded. We should not be validating "online abuse" by punishing it. Supposing this trauma is real, it is all the more important to tell girls that nude pictures are harmless to them as a matter of objective reality, so they don't need to worry about it and harm themselves:

The South Wales Police officer, who joined the force in January 2021, posed as a 14-year-old boy and forced his victims to make indecent videos and images of themselves, which he covertly recorded.

He then used the recordings to blackmail his victims into sending increasingly graphic and explicit images. He also sent videos of himself performing a sex act.

Some of the girls that were subject to his campaign of abuse told the court of how his crimes had affected them - with many self-harming, contemplating suicide, losing friends and left fearful of going out.

Porn is only harmful to wankers, aside from the needless harm created by the belief that it hurts girls too. Imagine if girls were thoroughly educated that only wankers are harmed by porn, then they could laugh at that pig along with us nofappers instead of harming themselves -- without society needing to make a crime out of it. Criminalizing is counterproductive that way, though it may possibly help wankers get better ideas. The girls themselves will be more harmed by society's insistence that explicit pictures are incredibly harmful.

I've got a video about this too:

Sextortion: A new super-dangerous international crime?

For proof that nudes are harmless just look at your nearest nudist colony. None of them can be blackmailed by nudity itself, and that's the attitude we should instill in girls. Meanwhile the wankers need to get nofap for their own good, and no, I won't back down from that position.

Eivind Berge said...

It is unbelievably pathetic...

Lewis Edwards, 24, who groomed 210 girls aged between 10 and 16 on Snapchat between November 2020 and February 2023, was today jailed for life with a minimum term of 12 years.

Imagine being 21 years old and thinking you have to pose as a 14-year-old to get in touch with teen girls. He disqualified himself from building a genuine connection with girls before he even tried.

Being so pathetic is enough punishment in itself. The wankers dig their own graves sexually. If we get past the silly cultural hangup about "explicit pictures" they are a threat to no one but themselves.

Nofap is about getting closer to girls. Porn only takes you farther away from girls; using a fake identity doubly so. Always be yourself, and then the girls who are still interested are the ones worth talking to.

Anonymous said...

As far as I can see there are four main 'demographics' we could appeal to as a movement. Eivind manages to totally alienate all four, and then bitches about it being society's fault that he only has one pedocel follower, and one Breivik supporter as follower, after 20 years.

1/Incels. The only 'angry young man' online demographic where a real male sexual consciousness has emerged, and where anti-feminism and an honest admission that teen girls are the hottest exists. Of course, Eivind dismisses them as pathetic losers, despite the fact that he himself has been an admitted incel in the past, and even had an opportunity of perhaps becoming a 'leader' of this vast movement that has shaken normies to their core. But...he doesn't want any incel association to get in the way of his 'alpha male' persona that might land him a girlfriend.

2/MRAs. This is how the male sexualist idea emerged, as a real men's rights movement in opposition to the equal injustice of all idiots such as Paul Elam. But Eivind has no awareness that posting every other article about giving women the pussy pass to fuck young boys, is going to leave any MRA visiting this site both repulsed and scratching their heads.

3/Sex offenders. Any hope exists in somehow 'politicizing' some of the tens of thousands of men caught up in feminist sex crime laws. But the majority of sex offenders are 'wankers' to Eivind.

4/ 'Maps'. I don't personally see these limp wristed autists as a demographic to appeal to, but Eivind clearly does, even identifying himself as a 'MAP'. But he's way too 'misogynist' for these white knight pro-feminist creeps, as well as upsetting them by his acceptance that attraction to teen girls is normal male sexuality. MAPs are just self-identified 'ephebophiles' under another name. The term 'MAP' makes no sense other than as an identity of minority status. MAPs certainly dont think that the average man is a MAP like them.

I know Eivind will reply to this by doubling down and screaming about wankers, incels etc etc, but I'm just pointing out why he has maybe two or three true 'followers' after 20 years of blogging, and three national exposures. Yes, it's partly due to society being so brainwashed as to have no ears to any message like ours, but it's equally due to his idiocy in alienating every single potential group of followers.

Anonymous said...

The incel loser posting at 9:42 AM is of course The AF again. He's wanking to porn as always, as the 60 yo. virgin that he is. I would love to meet The AF in person to let him know what I think about pathetic wankers like him.

Well... Back on topic. I feel sad hearing about your difficult financial situation Eivind. We need to do something about that since we very badly need your important and impressive writings. I'm Norwegian so I will see what I can do.

Anonymous said...

The incel and virgin for life that calls himself The AF is obsessed with wanking to porn and with punishing girls and women for having sex with lucky boys. He hates women and girls, but he loves his porn-computer and and stroking his own little penis. He is a loser and that is okay and not a problem for anyone else but himself, but it's not okay to promote his own how-to-be-a-coplete-virgin-loser-recepie on other men and boys reading this blog. He should be banned.

Eivind Berge said...

The female sex offender charade is a litmus test for whether empirical reality can have any bearing on CSA dogma at all. It is both the lowest hanging fruit for showing how the sex laws are unjust and a crowbar against the entire “theory” of CSA since that belief system dogmatically states underage boys are equally abused when they have sex with women as girls are when they have sex with men.

Women do not tend to wax poetic about former lovers at any age. They take a dim view of most men except their current love interest. Hence when you survey women how they felt about losing their virginity to a 30-year-old man at 13, they answer it was a negative experience over 50% of the time. This looks bad for sexual liberation at first glance, and the normies do not have the attention span to compare it to a proper control group. You see, when we ask women how they felt about losing their virginity at 20 to a man the same age as them, they ALSO say it was negative 50% of the time. This is where the boys shine in contrast.

Because boys unequivocally love sex with older women. Oh boy do they wax poetic, or at least tick the “most positive” box on surveys. The most positive sexual experiences known to science are boys under 14 with adult women. These experiences are more positive than the ones adult men have with adult women. I suspect they can only be surpassed by the joy of a middle-aged man getting a teen girl, but that hasn’t been well studied and isn’t really relevant here.

There is a window at something like 12-14 when boys go through puberty and shortly after where sexual attention from older women is especially profoundly uplifting. We have both empirical data from humans and other primates and biological theory (the need-to-learn hypothesis) explaining why this should be so.

If there is any hope of rocking the CSA dogma at all, this is where to start. I understand this, Bruce Rind understands this, but the AF can only whine whenever I bring it up. If we cannot even convince MRAs that standing up for female sex offenders is a worthwhile cause, then that’s evidence that empirical reality does not enter into people’s opinions on sex crimes at all. If our own movement can’t be guided by empirical results, then how the hell can we expect the rest of the public to be? The female sex offender charade is a special level of crime against humanity because the kind of sex it makes out to be “abuse” is a special kind of positive experience to boys that is heartbreaking and harmful to deprive them of. It not only deprives them of joy but also stunts their development and makes them less adjusted, particularly when you also promote masturbation and porn, which is more harmful in the absence of sex.

Eivind Berge said...

I feel sad hearing about your difficult financial situation Eivind. We need to do something about that since we very badly need your important and impressive writings.

Thanks. I wish there was a way I could devote myself to this without being dirt poor.

Eivind Berge said...

And the insanity continues...

Missouri teacher Rikki Lynn Laughlin, 24, faces 20 years in prison for sending nudes to 16-year-old student and inviting him over for sex while her husband was away. The married mom-of-one now faces charges that could land her 20 years in jail.

So the boy took a break from the normative wanking to hardcore porn and got some attention from a real woman, for which he is officially corrupted for life and she must be destroyed. Can't have sexual generosity but of course they can have all the guns they want which right now resulted in 18 dead in Maine. America truly deserves the consequences of their priorities.

Anonymous said...

She definitely doesn't deserve a single day in prison, but for doing something so stupid in a country like the US, 20 lashes would be quite appropriate...

Anonymous said...

Perhaps everyone here has been unlucky enough to be born at the wrong time. Normies,OTOH, are never born at the wrong time for the simple reason that they adapt to any time. Oh well, there's all sorts of fascinating things in the world regardless and better luck next time.

Anonymous 2

Jack said...

Googling "teacher sex student" digs out many interesting cases. Safe search should be on in order to cancel out the noise from porn (@Eivind: porn seems very supportive of female offenders!). As usual male offenders get the more harsher treatment, but there seems to be a spade of cases related to female offenders, with the following looking like a new escalation:

In this case the male "victim" was 18 years-old and consenting. A new law regarding "abuse by person in authority" came into play. Soon no one will want to be a teacher or a mentor any more, except maybe LBGTQ people.

The following short article will infuriate Eivind as it rails against the so-called double standard:

Finally a positive drop in the ocean for men:

Quote from the judge's mouth: "What I can say is that if he is innocent, and a playground plot can end a career and destroy a reputation, the school is not providing a safe working environment for its staff, in particular for its male staff."

Wow! "Providing a safe working environment ... in particular for .. male staff". That's something we hadn't heard for a long time.

Anonymous said...

America is a vaginal country, and as such, it will continue to be a contradictory and utterly deranged hellhole when it comes to sex.

The organization that got those anti-sex laws passed in NH is called The Every Voice Coalition. A quick inspection of their website reveals exactly what it always reveals - a gaggle of ugly old women who wish they were still hot enough to be raped, homosexual girly males who hope to get a small whiff of used up pussy by pretending to be a feminist, and a smiling politician willing to use all of their insanity for personal gain. They are funded by "women's rights" government entities like the National Women's Law Center.

While it is true that Conservatives take what the feminists give them and make it 1000x worse, there is no doubt the impetus for anti-sex hysteria comes from women's rights groups and feminism.

Let's see if Russia and China can contain vagina USA, it shouldn't be too difficult at this point.

Anonymous said...

I was not to long ago a so called victim of this moronic vigilante named Aron Jahnsen that was active a few years ago in and around Norway. He found my name from a verdict when I was convicted of sex with a hot 14 year old back in 2006. So the low-IQ vigilante seeked me out some 14-15 years later believing I would be scared of him. I chased him away threatening him with violence and... well death. He threatened me with reporting me to the police, LOL. The bitch coward. I later found out that he actually reported me to the police for threats against him and also apparently for being a pedo who fucked 15 year olds. Both were dropped by the police for "lack of evidence". Good times!

Eivind Berge said...

The whole model of vigilante action relies on shame. When men are sexually egosyntonic, the vigilantes work to our benefit because the very idea of a proud sex offender undermines the sex laws. If you were convicted of sex with a hot 14-year-old you can safely brag about it and the vigilantes can only help us brag more.

Yes they can also accuse us of more crimes in hopes that the police takes action, but most "evidence" they turn in is extremely low quality, so nothing is likely to come of that.

I wish the vigilantes would "warn" every Norwegian about me and my blog so I can get more attention to sexualism.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, he also put my verdict and some other writings about him in my neighbours mail boxes. It did not bother me much. I never talked to police or to the court in my case and neither did I admit 'straffeskyld'. I never tried to talk myself out of guilt by talking about taking responsibility for my actions or showing regret. Because I did not talk at all and I have absolutely no regret and have no responsibility other than showing the girl a good time many times which she texted to her ugly girlfriend who told her parents and it escelated from there.

The vigilante guy was reported to the police for his actions and was sentenced to prison and to pay compensation to his victims. I never reported him because Im anti-police and want nothing to do with such scum.

Eivind Berge said...

That is exactly the right attitude. Well done!

Eivind Berge said...

I have a problem with disappearing comments. Google removes some comments after I approve them. Right now I noticed the top comment in this thread by Anonymous 2 was missing; however, I was able to resurrect it by clicking the approval link in the notification email again.

To counteract this problem which I suspect is caused by an overactive spam filter, I advise two things: Firstly, don't use any "bad" words in your comments. And secondly, preferably comment from a trusted source such as your own Google Account. Yeah I know you won't do this, but it's what we all should be doing for maximum visibility.

Eivind Berge said...

To reiterate, anonymous comments are allowed but discouraged. Not because I mind, but because Google might delete them -- very annoyingly even AFTER I approve them. If you use proxies or Tor I have to fight the spam filters to keep your comment alive. I do my best, but probably overlook some deletions.

This is mainly a problem of cowardice in our movement. Truly anonymous comments are likely to be spam anyway, so we can't blame the filters too much. Once again, as we saw in Chesterton's example, a direct approach is the best policy. I can't fathom how you think we are supposed to make a dent in the antisex regime by staying anonymous. Anonymous voices are most often unceremoniously deleted and certainly carry no political weight.

Anonymous said...

I have my reasons for staying anonymous. As a Christian, albeit very liberal in many ways, I am ambivalent about sex outside marriage and contraception, with abortion on a whole different level of wrong. That's one reaon among several I want to remain anonymous-I'm one of those people who are otherwise super trad about sex but don't share the current hysteria about youth and age diffences.
If an apparently okay comment from me does not appear, then I will asume it's Google.

Anonymous 2

Anonymous said...

"I can't fathom how you think we are supposed to make a dent in the antisex regime by staying anonymous."

Some of us might not want to be forced to spend the rest of our lives on welfare benefits in a cramped little ramshackle cabin. You're posting this under an article in which you're complaining about what your life has ended up as, and the fact you have close to zero followers after 20 years. So where has got you this being public all that time got you Eivind? That award winning documentary that won because your character was such a cringey loser? Do you honestly think you've 'advanced the cause' further than somebody like Angry Harry, for example? Do you think Matt Forney was MORE influential after he went public, or when he was the uncrowned king of the manosphere under his fake anonymous persona at InMalaFide? You can't even get anti-pedo vigilante scum to notice you.

So Norway doesn't even have a sex offender register. Also, you can be a proud sex offender and it wont even affect your sentence. This compares to the UK, where you can literally be kept imprisoned for the rest of your life if you don't repent. Remember that British boy lover who died in prison because he wouldn't say sorry for drawing nude pictures of boys? Or Gary Glitter who was recalled to prison simply because he was looking at ballet videos on YouTube?

I tried to watch your latest video, it looked quite interesting, as I've never heard of the reddit that you were discussing, but I honestly couldn't watch more than 10 seconds of it. You talking naked in the shower is so cringey it hurts. I wonder what you hope to get out of it? Maybe another feminist will turn you into a laughing stock and make a black comedy with you the sad loser main character? It certainly doesn't seem to be attracting new YouTube subscribers.

MenAreCowards said...

Wish I lived in Eivind's house and it's in an ideal setting, certainly not somewhere a dead beat on welfare would live. Exactly the setting where one would want to settle down with a lovely 11 year old girl to grow old with.

But, really, I think the best thing a young male person can do is practice nofap in a non-religious way, and find a real girl. It's all right to jerk off once every month or something if you are desperate. Minor attracted people like myself haven't got clubs or dating sites to use.

Anonymous said...

The AF is on it again posting as anonymous at November 01, 2023 9:38:00 AM.

I really have to talk to you in person The AF! What is your real name and what's your address? I will travel to see you any time. Just let me know where and when to go!

Eivind Berge said...

To the AF's negativity again... I don't care if you hate my shower videos and know from experimenting that I don't get more views no matter how I dress anyway, even wearing a tie.

You can always find some anecdote of some anonymous guy who was more successful than an open activist, but the fact remains we need to stand up for ourselves to do politics. I never thought Matt Forney was so impressive anyway. Roissy was king of the manosphere. Whatever prosexual impetus existed in the manosphere all died down or splintered into the sexualists, incels and MAPs (and PUAs and nofappers on the self-help side). Only the latter two (plus nofap) are now on the public radar and the incels are by definition a movement only losers would want to associate themselves with. Incels also seem to have declined lately as a social force while MAPs are rising. My strategy is therefore to be a sexualist and MAP, because they are our only serious, respectable political allies. And a nofapper for personal growth, which anyone who tries it will find it really works for.

One thing you all can do while anonymous is to donate, however, to support my writing and also the visibility of your own comments submitted through anonymous channels. I will archive everything at the eventually but haven't developed that site so much lately because we seem to be tolerated here for now. My first priority there is to put Angry Harry up on a subdomain, which I will get to work on right now. I HAVE resurrected my original Twitter account though at

Contributions are not expected but they certainly are possible, even totally anonymously with Monero, and much appreciated.
Bitcoin: 1MRAbudkmGvxi6ZqVZjFcrSAEvqG7mZvJ4
Monero: 4AAusECnXMyAFwHi2CFVfEL63N8okXuwhDLmVpCZQ8gcJ22F4UkGJmi4FCdyhMyEv27UrwnVQa1cKJJzYSxCjRWU5gDfcYm

Anonymous said...

On the outside world, AF is a classy, beautiful, professional and respected member of society. However, unknown to her family, friends and fans, she's obsessed with teen pussy. He truly believes that teen pussy is a food group. In fact, he's been the mastermind behind (now directs to the onlyfans of a random wh*re) since he began brofap to Angry Harry long ago. He could have been crowned leader of the MRA/Male sexualism but all he wants is to be able to fucked and gangbanged senseless by all teen women (specially by Spanish girls with pigtails who look like anime girls and Russian skaters) after working. By his estimate, he's had her duck and tongue buried in a little over 7,000 teenie pussies so far. No wonder why he always has a grin on her face.

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, this is why it makes me feel slightly optimistic to see hundreds of thousands march for Palestine in places like London. Like Finkielkraut famously said in 2014: “Does Europe have a future in Europe?” This doubt is now becoming visible reality, and considering what our culture has come to that's not entirely a bad thing. Europeans -- both Christians and Jews -- have betrayed masculinity by embracing feminism, so they don't deserve to rule anymore.

Anonymous said...

The AF has clearly stated that he hates women and girls, which probably is the reason why he calls himself "The Anti Feminist". But he has also stated that he loves looking at digital flat images of naked woman and girls, plus guys doing sexual things to them. The AF looks at dicks alot. He also likes his own palms wanking his own penis.

My point is that The AF is what we dont want to become, and that if we become that we are going to lose this battle. Try not to be a porn watching masturbator with ED like The AF. Dont hate woman and girls like The AF does, because without them we are nothing.

You should hate feminists, NGO's, lawmakers and absolutely hate police not matter what.

Anonymous said...

to the anonymous above

AF jerks off with an artificial vagina, he confesses it on his blog, justifying that a battery-powered vagina gives more pleasure than a real vagina, the guy is fucking sick haha

I imagine him with his electric vagina watching porn of virgin girls who have just turned 18, watching how they bleed from their vagina thanks to a muscular bald man, and the Doritos as a means of nourishment for their masturbation sessions, they are really fucking human failures in the shape of a man, how disgusting this is.

Jack said...

I hadn't realised Eivind was so serious about building a movement. What did you expect Eivind? The core doctrine (fighting AOCs and other male entrapment laws) is easy to agree on for a lot of MRAs. The problem is what you add to the mix as sine qua nons:

1) NoFap/NoPorn.
2) Immunity for women who violate AOC laws.

With 1) and 2) you divide your number of possible followers twice by 10. Out of a sample of 100 followers who agree on the core doctrine, ten will be left after 1). Out of these 10 only 1 will be left after 2).

Re 1) : few MRAs will want association with the crackpot antisex neoconservatives who make up the majority of campaigners against masturbation and porn.

Re 2) : few MRAs will want to lift a finger to alleviate the plight of female AOC laws violators as long as men are routinely given life sentences for as little as looking at a stick-drawing of a child on the internet.

This doesn't mean of course that 1) and 2) aren't challenging topics of discussion in their own right.

Eivind Berge said...

It all comes together if you think about it. Nofap is the obvious way to have more sex, so all men who care about sex should be into that (of course including illegal). And realizing that it is especially absurd to punish women for AOC violations drives the most powerful wedge into CSA dogma as I explained above, because CSA dogma holds sacred the idea that female sexuality is equally bad. This means we only need to demonstrate the most painfully obvious commonsense fact that lucky boys are lucky, and then that does all the work for us and liberates the rest of sexuality too.

Anonymous said...

To the comment above:

Yes, those facts about AF shows just how pathetic he really is, combined with his hatred he has against women and girls. Could AF actually be gay or a so called boyl0ver?

Anyway The AF's suggestions should be thrown in the garbage as it don't help our cause at all! On the contrary. Lobbying for even more porn usage and more sex toys for men is not something we should condone. It make's men generally look pathetic just like AF himself does to the extreme. It should never be illegal though, as it only hurts the users.

Standing up for our obvious right as men to be giving pleasure to girls/women at the same time as we receive pleasure ourselves by having sex with girls/women and doing what we are designed to do by nature(or God/Allah) is what we should be arguing and fighting for. Having sex should be a human right and putting a damper on that should be illegal as long as there is no force/violence/threats used in the process.

Eivind knows how to philosophically articulate this and he sure knows how to write better than anyone, so he is the only person that can be the leader of this movement.

The AF on the contrary is a creep that dont event want to have sex with girls and just wants to look at other guys having sex(with men? Boys? Or whatever). He is sick and should be banned from the movement.

Eivind Berge said...

Since philosophical articulation is our only weapon, it is important to get that right and focus on it. The feminists could not have made a bigger philosophical tactical blunder than the female sex offender charade, because nothing can be more obviously wrong. It is obvious to the standard human intuition that women cannot be sex offenders. It jumps out in our qualia when we see beautiful women in court accused of sharing their beauty with boys that something is horribly wrong with this picture. And then they made an even bigger tactical blunder when they insist this is the exact same situation as men having sex with girls. They do all our activist work for us by being so stupid. All we need to do at this point is to get people to open their eyes to the obvious farce of putting women on trial for victimless sex, and then the rest takes care of itself. At least conceptually it does. I know people don’t think rationally about sex, but if they do they will see that the whole CSA dogma undermines itself and completely obliterates itself if you only touch base with reality at this simplest point which is when you see a beautiful female “sex offender.”

amelio said...

"when you see a beautiful female “sex offender.”"

What if she's ugly ?
Why not a boy with a handsome male gym teacher ? Where would rape start ? A young priest ? an ugly old priest ? a middle aged rabbi ?

I think this young man with an ugly fat female is a mismatch. Will my disgust turn that mismatch into a sex crime ?

Eivind Berge said...

I say beautiful female sex offender because this distills the concept that sex itself is believed to be metaphysically bad and abusive contrary to all human understanding, perception, instincts and common sense. Unlike most of you who can only focus on immediate oppression that you can see yourself as victims of (the routine punishment of men for harmless sex), I am most focused on the conceptual level (even if comparatively rare in real life) since that's where we can make a difference. We probably can't help anyone who is currently imprisoned or soon will be, but we can leave philosophical writings for posterity which may be more favorably received when the moral panic is over and humans once again can think rationally about what is now called CSA.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the female sex offender charade is a genius way to show to the lay person how insane the sex laws have become and with which insane increased amount of resources the police use on these cases. It also illustrates how police, prosecutor's, court's, feminist NGOs and the prisons are driven by evil.

amelio said...

"sex itself is believed to be metaphysically bad"

No, when nearly everybody is well fed, have a roof above their head, access to sex with a beautiful partner remains limited or impossible for most. Hence jealousy, bitterness and anything goes to chastise people who have a happy sex life, or at least scapegoats who shall bear the brunt.

"Unlike most of you who can only focus on immediate oppression that you can see yourself as victims of "

True , we don't need hospitals or medicines. Transcendental meditation should be enough :))

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, indeed. What happens next when we have distilled and isolated what the panic is really about, which is sex itself or even pure beauty, via the female sex offender charade and especially when the very most attractive females are put on trial, is that we have demystified ugliness, because ugliness is the ONLY remaining "badness" in these other relations with ugly women or men or mismatched couples of any kind. We see then that there is no voodoo in CSA that makes it so frighteningly abusive as the normies think, just plain ugliness or suboptimal attractiveness. You EITHER must believe pure beauty and enjoyment thereof is abusive, OR you must concede that the only thing wrong with CSA is ugliness. And ugliness by itself does not deserve anywhere near the criminalization and demonization it gets this way. After all, age-matched couples can be mismatched in attractiveness too, and if that's so bad then we should be consistent about it and crack down on that too. Then the age gap voodoo goes away and the normies must choose if they still want to come down so hard on ugliness.

Jack said...

"It jumps out in our qualia when we see beautiful women in court accused of sharing their beauty with boys that something is horribly wrong". Yes you're right, it's revolting. But then why hardly grow indignant about the cases where the hottest party is the male one? Answer: because you're male Eivind, and as a male you're not programmed to pay attention to male sex-appeal. There's nothing wrong with that, it's how you and me are hard-wired. The fact is if you picture a rather ugly MILF getting off with a teenage boy, your indignation at her being prosecuted will be a fraction of what it is when the woman is hot. This means you may then be miles away from "philosophical articulation".

If male sex-appeal were visible to other males, the latter would be even more rabidly envious in wishing the offender to be punished. I wouldn't be surprised if envy didn't also play a part in women wishing beautiful female offender to be jailed. Humans have a hypocritical relationship to everything pertaining to physical beauty. Physical beauty or the lack of it is an abscess in any social construct and deep within each individual's psyche. What could possibly go wrong?

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, Jack. Any sexual morality is bound to be further mixed up with jealousy and abused in various ways. But don’t you think there is a place for critiquing the sexual morality on its own terms? If it makes wildly delusional assumptions, those should be called out. It’s hard to come up with a more retarded system than the current sexual morality which is the basis for the laws, and I think we should take full advantage of that weakness.

It boggles my mind that the normies have made their whole sexual morality so ridiculously easy to debunk. It makes the job for us sexual libertines to justify our actions so much easier when they don’t base it on God anymore. CSA is a gigantic step down from God in terms of plausibility. I can’t prove just by looking at female sex offenders for example that there is no God who gets angry at fornicators. These women can be as pretty as can be, and there still might be such a God. Hell, I can’t even readily prove that it’s not good for the social order, even in the absence of any divinity, to prohibit fornication. But I can tell just by looking at a beautiful female sex offender that she does not traumatize eager and willing boys by opening her legs to them just because she didn’t wait until they were 18. Since this supposed traumatization is now the sole remaining rationale for criminalization, and they claim this is even a gender-neutral consequence of sex with minors, our job as sex-positive activists couldn’t have been easier, philosophically speaking. The “CSA” dogma is sheer madness and then compounded by the Orwellian term “sexual self-determination” which is believed to be handed to minors by taking this very thing away from them. You can’t make this shit up, and it is literally the current social order! The antisex bigots are so obtuse that the mere shaming for intellectual dishonesty should be enough to stop them -- if people can be rational about sexuality.

Anonymous said...

Jack's right - in addition to prosecuting females who break the sex laws to give the impression that the laws are fair when in reality, men make up 99% of the cases and receive 5x the punishment, females are also happy to prosecute other good looking females out of pure jealousy and competition.

A society made up of essentially jealous lesbians and feminized men is the worst society, and it is the one we have currently in the Anglosphere.

Anonymous said...

To the comment above:

Jack is a wanker like the AF. We don't need to appeal to right-wing MRA creeps who want to punish beautiful woman for giving boys the most precious thing in the world for a male of any age - sex. Jack and AF want boys to grow up wanking to porn instead of getting lucky with beautiful, kind women who will teach them about sex. Somebody told me Jack, the AF and Angry Harry once had a lesbian sex session together, except they are such wankers, they used a Fleshlight on each other instead of their cocks and vaginas.

Anonymous said...

This will sound stupid, but Eivind is always right. Everything he says or writes is well thought through and cant be challenged in any meaningful way. The AF and Jack seems to disagree for no other reason than that like to masturbate to porn and/or they hate woman.

Eivind Berge said...

It is nonsense that I don't allow challenges. If anything, I have been tolerating too much stupid arguments over the years. Every thread is practically half full of propaganda for porn and wanking even though this is supposed to be a sexualist blog and those things only detract from sexuality. And when I defend women who have actual sex with boys I similarly get whining which takes up about half the remaining comments and does nothing to promote sexuality.

I have started cracking down on some of this but I am evidently still too tolerant, because this thread is still like that.

Anonymous said...

"I have been tolerating too much stupid arguments over the years."

Bingo Eivind.

Lets throw the wankers, the pedophobes, the misogynists, and the incels into the trash can where they belong, and the rest of us can move on, with you as our leader.

The AF, Jack, and Amelio can wank their sad little lives away, while we take a stand against the sex oppressors.

I've followed you since that stupid petition to have you canceled over your 'rape is equality' article. I can't remember disagreeing with you once.

Eivind Berge said...

Here we go again with more ragefuel against the charade...

An Ohio social worker accused of sexually abusing a 13-year-old boy in her care previously expressed support of the death penalty for pedophiles on social media, where she shared an image with the message, “Dead pedophiles don’t reoffend.”

An X account belonging to Payton Shires reveals the 24-year-old — who has been charged with unlawful sexual conduct with a minor — at one point in time supported the death penalty for pedophiles.

Shires seemingly backed capital punishment for those convicted of sexual abuse in 2020, retweeting a post on her personal X account featuring a vehicle’s bumper sticker that read: “Dead pedophiles don’t reoffend.”

The social worker also retweeted a post about a father who was trying to save his young daughter from being abused by her mother’s boyfriend.

Nothing wrong with her sexual conduct, but her tweeting is not entirely praiseworthy.

You can see from the pictures that she is super hot, almost looks like a teen herself. When is it going to sink in with the normies that these prosecutions are insane?

Eivind Berge said...

A little more commentary on Payton Shires that I wrote on Facebook: A society which makes this a crime is sick beyond belief. It is the ultimate life-negation, the ultimate human stupidity and the ultimate witch-hunt because we now single out not just aimlessly but the very NICEST women to be persecuted. However, as nice as her sexual conduct was she still does deserve some disrespect for her hateful tweets, so it makes sense to highlight those like the article does. The New York Post is still fully insane calling her behavior "despicable," however, and not pointing out that this is a senseless, batshit insane prosecution which only a society completely out of touch with the meaning of sexuality is capable of. There can be no better illustration that "The Emperor's New Clothes" is a true story than the beauty of this woman, and the normies are so transfixed by their new religion of feminist antisex bigotry that I am almost the only one pointing out the commonsense truth anymore, that the boy of course is only lucky rather than abused.

I've come to realize, hate the culture not the hypocrite. It is the culture that is sick. She is only parroting mindless shibboleths while also not taking the laws very seriously, and the latter makes her better than those who do anyway. I'm also not blaming her for intimidating the "victim" because that too is a result of a sick society. I'm sure she would be perfectly nice if she weren't the target of a witch-hunt.

amelio said...


"Shires seemingly backed capital punishment for those convicted of sexual abuse"
"Nothing wrong with her sexual conduct, but her tweeting is not entirely praiseworthy."

I think a woman's wish should always be fulfilled. She ought to be put to death first.
I'm quite amazed (if I read you well) that you're putting the stress on that bitch being the victim of society and not on her being a pathetic actor of global sexual victimhood.

amelio said...


Your brown nosing isn't even funny

amelio said...

"Humans have a hypocritical relationship to everything pertaining to physical beauty. "

Agreed, for once. Especially when all their other needs are more or less fulfilled.

Anonymous said...

Wow, amelio want's the pretty 24 yo. girl with a 1 y.o baby be put to death! Even though she is clearly a woman that don't take the insane laws against sexual relations to minors very seriously and she is actively giving sexual pleasure to underage boys.

We don't need people like 'amelio' in our movement!

Jack said...

I second Amelio's stance on Payton Shires. She comes across as a despicable pedocrite, to use the AF's word. Wake up Eivind, think with your big head, females can be sociopaths as well as men! No reason to exculpate women just because they exhibit some aspect of sexual behavior that tickles our male sexual instinct.

I've wondered who has been behind the retarded anonymous attacks on first the AF, then others on this forum. I've surmised it might be the AF himself, spoofing.

Amelio's other point further above about modern Society's inability to do anything about the shortage of attractive sexual partners is one we should keep in mind. Accommodation, good healthy food, education, free time, medical care: everything is provided EXCEPT attractive sexfriends/spouses/lovers. The shortage of the latter sticks out like a sore thumb in our supposedly hedonistic Societies. Dwindling birthrates are here to stay, the only hope I see is Sexbots.

Eivind, supposing AOC and other hurdles against intergenerational sex were removed overnight, do you think we might have our pick of the litter? Decriminalisation is no match for demographics. Men younger, better-looking, more aggressive, are ready to pounce. The end of the stick we end up with might be so short we wouldn't notice the difference with Today's stalemate.

My father was not at all good-looking. What business had he to procreate? Irresponsible fool he was, like most humans. Oddly, my mother was the local village beauty. Silly cow to waste her genes with my father's! I had a vasectomy when I was 31. If we can't pull girls from the street (regardless of the legal context) our genes belong to the rubbish bin. This is the introspective work we must do on ourselves before we complain or campaign about anything.

Eivind Berge said...

We need to break the cycle of normativity of hating MAPs. We do this by recognizing that yes, now it's normative to say "death to pedos" just like it's normative to say Allahu Akbar or Hail Mary or whatever in other cultures. It is the creed of this civilization and it means nothing more than the person is brought up here. Normal people are also highly likely to break the sex laws because the sex laws are inhumane. When someone both chants the slogans of our time and shines through as human by breaking the sex laws, then this doesn't make them worse than a normie -- it just makes them a normie.

So yes you heard me right, Amelio. If we take the antisex bigots at their word and give them the punishment they asked for, we will never get out of this mess. And least of all can we expect women to have moral fortitude to resist real oppression until men lead. Today's feminism is a joke only capable of speaking in pre-approved platitudes like the ones she was retweeting. Resistance to the female sex offender charade can only come from the male sexualist movement, so it's truly my responsibility to lead here.

Eivind Berge said...

Jack, what I just said applies to your comment too. We need to break the cycle of hate, and that means forgiving paedocrisy. You can scarcely find a sex offender who didn't parrot that line before he or she was caught. Most MAP activists are too afraid to break the laws they openly oppose because they (incorrectly in my view; conf. Chesterton and Alan Watts like I said in my blog posts) think they are more likely to be suspects, whereas chanting the Hail Marys of our time offers some imagined protection, so sex offenders are usually paedocrites. Indeed I am not surprised they go the extra mile and call for the death penalty even more frequently than the average law-abiding normie -- which really looks suspicious, but that's another story. We need to break the cycle of normative hate by not playing along with it at all. Seriously.

Anonymous said...

I'm one of the anonymous behind the attacks you are calling "retarded" on AF. And I'm a fellow Norwegian of Eivind but from another part of the country. My English is not the best, so you can probably spot all of my comments by the bad spelling. Sometimes I comment in Norwegian.

I'm absolutely not the AF spoofing this comments section.

Anonymous said...

Oh my God, Jack is a depressed virgin too, just like the AF. I'd rather identify with people like the moron Andrew Tate rather than chronic depressed virgins like the AF, Jack and amelio. At least Andrew Tate is doing what all of us should be doing, namely having sex with beautiful young girls. When his case is over, I am sure he will be an activist for change in sex laws as well. Of course he dont have the brilliant mind of Eivind, but I am sure he can be a great activist.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't know who is sending anonymous messages, and I think we've had enough ad hominems. What I do know is that we need to reject antisex bigotry unconditionally. The concept of a female sex offender is complete nonsense with no justification whatsoever. In the same way that we don't oppose female genital mutilation on the condition that the girl has the right attitudes about anything, I don't only oppose the female sex offender charade for women who agree with me about the sex laws. I oppose insane sex laws, period, and nothing can be more insane than punishing women for being sexually nice to boys under the pretense that they are "abusing" the boys. If society wants to punish this, then the least we can ask is that they use an intelligible justification, such as "adultery," "fornication" or plain misogyny. Our very first order of business as a sexualist movement is to stop the lies and distortions about the value of sexuality.

I was born into a world without female sex offenders under the "abuse" paradigm. It's obviously not that hard to have such a world, since we had it all the way up through the 1970s. We just need to snap out of a very new-fangled insanity. As someone who wasn't born into it I see clearly that the concept of a female sex offender is equally faddish as the idea that a man can literally become a woman. Truth tends to find a way sooner rather than than later when we go so far off the rails, but the CSA insanity is proving remarkably persistent, so I don't know if it will happen in my lifetime. What I do know is that I at least want to leave some sane writings to distinguish myself from the normie retards who bought into CSA and female sex offenders.

amelio said...

""I was born into a world without female sex offenders under the "abuse" paradigm."

That's because you were born into a world where male CSA sex offenders were far less numerous. The number of female offenders is proportionate to the male one (0,5 ? 1 % ?). Keep in mind that the sex offender extension was aimed at males. Just like you, most people (normies) snicker at the idea of boys being initiated by experienced women. Most of the time affairs between boys and women are ushed.

But when the sex affair becomes public, this position becomes untenable. It's difficult to extol sex equality and not to punish both sexes equally (when it's impossible to do otherwise). That's why a very small number of women are prosecuted and punished for consensual sex.

It is the price to pay and the desire for sex control over males is too burning : the female sex offender has to materialize sometimes.

Personally, as a teen, I would have disliked equally being hit on by older women or older males. My preferences were girls my age or, if unavailable, boys or young men only slightly older (transient phase :)

Eivind Berge said...

You are right that age of consent laws more or less formally applied to women too already when I was born, which was not the case in the 1800s when the feminists first raised them from 7 or 10. However, they were not applied in practice, and this is a conceptual distinction rather than a proportional one because people did not think that way about female sexuality. I vehemently oppose applying age of consent, rape and other sexual abuse laws to women on general principle, and it is that principle I am an activist for. Proportional application is NOT okay, because it is the very idea that women can sexually abuse that is bullshit! Sexuality just does not work like that; it's category error to criminalize female sexuality that way. If you insist on criminalizing female sexuality you must do it another way, under a moralistic or property-based paradigm where females are perhaps wards of the state or something and you don't tolerate women dispensing their own sexuality. Or if there is violence involved it can be common assault, but never a sex crime. The only remotely close exception is incest, but not as something done to a "victim," just something society chooses not to tolerate for inbreeding or moralistic reasons.

Eivind Berge said...

Here is a glimpse into the transition point into female sex offender charade:

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

The key year in the United States is 1981, three years after I was born. Notice that the transition just sort of happened via legislatory creep without any real debate and certainly no scientific or philosophical inquiry into whether it is reasonable to assert that women can sexually abuse. It was a trainwreck of unintended consequences and loose-cannon prosecutors and the system grinding mindlessly from one premise to the next, increasingly influenced by the feminist idea of "equality" but with no ability to adapt it to real sex differences.

Here is more on that Supreme Court of California decision which in 1981 was sane enough to agree with me that discrimination is reasonable (which does not mean I agree with the age of consent for men either, of course, but I agree with the principle of excluding women from the law):

No. 79-1344. Argued November 4, 1980-Decided March 23, 1981
Petitioner, then a 17 1/2-year-old male, was charged with violating California's "statutory rape" law, which defines unlawful sexual intercourse as "an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a female not the wife of the perpetrator, where the female is under the age of 18 years." Prior to trial, petitioner sought to set aside the information on both state and federal constitutional grounds, asserting that the statute unlawfully discriminated on the basis of gender since men alone were criminally liable thereunder. The trial court and the California Court of Appeal denied relief, and on review the California Supreme Court upheld the statute.

Held: The judgment is affirmed.

This means Amelio is wrong about California least, and seemingly all of the United States. They did explicitly exclude women from being statutory rapists as late as 1981. This was the last gasp of sanity from the legal system before we slipped into the female sex offender charade. Notice also that by the time of writing the first article cited above, which was 2011, gender-neutrality was "commonly on the books" but still not said to be enforced. Now the norm is to enforce these laws "even if younger partners are not willing to testify against their lovers," which is a mindbogglingly tectonic shift from the world I was born into. I am horrified at the insanity of the normies who condone this as if it were normal. For people my age and older I especially wonder how it is possible to be so absurdly brainwashed into an alien "reality"?

amelio said...

"This means Amelio is wrong about California least, and seemingly all of the United States."

How's that ?

At the beginning of the 80's the sex laws were getting more and more repressive and CSA was becoming a major concern (see the film Witch Hunt and whole families accused of CSA). As I said the landslide was bound to knock off at least a few women for the sake of gender equality. They're just collateral damages.
There's absolutely no reason to think that affairs between adults and sexually mature minors are more damaging when men are involved.
Since the whole reasoning rests on power imbalance and inability to consent for lack of maturity, I can't see much of a difference.
Only if physical force was involved could we assume that women are less likely to commit "rape".

Maybe you're trying to titillate normies with old memories of sex fantasies ( "remember how hot your best school friend's mother was ") but to no avail.The causes are much more profound and I concur with Jack on that point.

As far as proportionality is concerned, I wonder how you can take so much to heart the case of women perpetrators when 99% of the accused are men (who get, by far harsher sentences) . I doubt the sycophantic bitch will get her 20 years unless they intend to include her double-dealing into the sentence.

Eivind Berge said...

You were wrong that female sex offenders were simply less numerous. As we have seen, they did not exist at all (with some variation depending on jurisdiction of course) because their crimes were not on the books.

But yeah, California already had an insanely draconian age of consent at 18 for men having sex with girls. I can't blame the 17-year-old boy who was also criminalized under this law for using an "equal injustice" defense where he argued that he shouldn't be so unfairly treated when women aren't. And I agree that there is practically no difference at that age as teen girls are of course fully capable of consenting and having intercourse with no problems (the only difference is boys are luckier because sex is a female resource plus they have an evolutionary need to learn beyond what girls have as Rind points out).

But the principle remains because we have to imagine that the age of consent could have been more reasonable, say 12 or 13 like I have been advocating, or let's say 9 so we don't offend the Muslims. There exists an age below which we should not attempt intercourse with girls, so the age of consent has a kernel of truth at least when it goes low enough to correspond to physical limitations (not saying this necessarily needs to be legislated by age of consent, which stupidly criminalizes harmless activities too, but it needs to be taken into consideration one way or another so girls don't get hurt). Boys with women don't have this problem at all, at any age, so there is never any justification to have an age of consent applied to women. It is also gibberish to bring mental maturity into it for boys since they have nothing to lose, sex being a female resource. If they want to attempt intercourse with a woman at 5 years old or whatever, that is only cute. Furthermore, this position has been normative for all of human history until the 1980s; it is not some personal quirk of mine!

When I speak in the abstract about female sex offenders, I am allowed to imagine that the rest of the sex laws are brought to a level which male sexualism can condone. And this is where we see that discrimination based on sex is not only permissible, but morally required. It is required because it is immoral to have intercourse with girls who are harmed by it and it is immoral to make up nonsensical rules for women just because there exists a reasonable rule for men.

amelio said...

"When I speak in the abstract about female sex offenders, I am allowed to imagine that the rest of the sex laws are brought to a level which male sexualism can condone."

You think that you can make people come to reason by explaining the obvious female sex offender absurdity. Once they realize that, they can more or less accept other types of relations labelled as CSA. But, as I said before, most men at least think, just like you, that hot female initiators should not be punished. That's why most cases are hushed up or settled discretely.

"it is immoral to have intercourse with girls who are harmed by it"

Of course, but in nearly all of these cases the harm is supposed to be psychological not physical.
It's never a valid defence to say that the victim was unharmed.
In the case of a boy/woman relation, the only difference is that the boy who "got lucky" with a hot women is less prone to shame or remorse except if he relieved himself sexually with a fat cow and his parents or himself are interested in victimhood and compensation.

Eivind Berge said...

"Of course, but in nearly all of these cases the harm is supposed to be psychological not physical."

No, this is where you missing out, Amelio. You are missing out on an opportunity to put yourself into the 1981 mindset as a thought experiment and feel what happens. Because as a matter of fact, people back then did not believe underage girls are psychologically weak either. The "undeveloped brain" myth hadn't been invented yet! And they did not believe in physical damage past puberty either. They were solely concerned with pregnancy.

I invite you to read the Supreme Court decision in full and see how they rationalize it:

And the statute is not unconstitutional as applied to petitioner who, like the girl involved, was under 18 at the time of sexual intercourse, on the asserted ground that the statute resumes in such circumstances that the male is the culpable aggressor. The statute does not rest on such an assumption, but instead is an attempt to prevent illegitimate teenage pregnancy by providing an additional deterrent for men. The age of the man is irrelevant since young men are as capable as older men of inflicting the harm sought to be prevented.

See how charitable the old view really was now? Once pregnancy is tolerated or brought under control, which is easy peasy with birth control, sex with minors becomes completely harmless.

Please give the old view a try. I think you will really like it aside from this very small modification. And it is central to it to understand that women cannot be sexual abusers, because otherwise you cannot comprehend that the only thing they were afraid of was pregnancy. There is no imagined psychological frailty of postpupertal minors -- none whatsoever! And only a very slight one for prepubescent children either, as the CSA panic hadn't arisen yet.

When I say I was born into a sex-positive world, I am not joking. We really did not believe minors are harmed by sex. There was merely a teen pregnancy panic.

Eivind Berge said...

It is mindbending that a law which as late as 1981 explicitly according to the courts only existed to control illegitimate pregnancy has been retrofitted with so much insane gobbledygook. Meanwhile we have entirely forgotten the original purpose of statutory rape laws. We have injected an entire new mythology about psychologically weak adolescents, complete with a brain development myth which holds them incapable of controlling their emotions until 25, and projected it onto a law which had nothing to do with that baggage because people did not believe anything of the sort when it was made and enforced up to the 1980s.

Of course women cannot statutorily rape boys because boys can't get pregnant. Duh. But now, lo and behold, 17-year-old boys can even be "groomed" by women because it is so horribly dangerous that they might fall victim under this same law which is conceptually inapplicable to them... And you guys don't even want to push back on the concept that it can apply to boys at all. Thereby you also miss out on the best way to assert that girls aren't mentally weak either, because the law had nothing to do with mental weakness and in my living memory our culture did not believe in that nonsense, only pregnancy.

When I grew up we were told our brains are so powerful we only need to use 10% of them. Of course we did not believe either boys or girls were too mentally frail to have sex. That would have been a perfectly alien concept that did not even occur to those who wanted the age of consent to be 18 (and only for girls). How our culture twisted this new adolescent weakness which it plucked out of thin air with no science into the sole rationalization for age of consent is the insane story of the CSA moral panic. And integral to that story is the dogma of gender-neutrality, which gifts us a powerful wedge to attack it again too as only we the male sexualists under my leadership and Bruce Rind can keep a cool head about female sex offenders.

Eivind Berge said...

Meanwhile back in 2023 our feminist witch-doctors have bestowed upon us yet another scare beyond CSA, beyond grooming, and beyond safeguarding...

A Non-Clinical Referral Tool to Help Identify Problematic Child Sexual Behavior: Development, Training, and Initial User Feedback. Early identification of children and youth who engage in problematic sexual behavior is important for all parties involved, such as children who exhibit and are impacted by the behavior. There are several reliable and valid identification tools that can be used to recognize problematic sexual behavior in children and youth (PSB-CY) in clinical practice; however, professionals who work with children in non-clinical settings (i.e., child development centers, youth programs, and schools) often have limited resources and tools when they encounter PSB-CY. This paper describes the development, content, and user feedback of a referral tool (RT) that was designed to help identify incidents of PSB-CY for use with military agencies and schools. Specifically, the RT was designed to help professionals, who may have observed or who may have been made aware of sexual behaviors in children and youth, organize their observations of the behavior in alignment with evidence-based information about PSB-CY and consistently document these occurrences. The RT guides users in determining if the observed behavior is normative, cautionary, or problematic and promotes informed decisions about whether the behavior needs to be referred to those who have experience using clinical tools for further review and the identification of next steps for supporting the children and families involved. Early adopters provided feedback on the use of the RT. The feedback suggested that the tool was user-friendly, understandable, and helpful as they made objective decisions about how to identify and handle referrals of PSB-CY.

Damn, this is sinister. We now have yet another spooky acronym "PSB-CY" for "problematic sexual behavior in children and youth." Way to pathologize normal spontanesouly occuring sexual interest and mystify and dumb the persecution down at the same time so not only the high priests (clinicians) but supposedly also teachers and parents can observe the witchcraft with this helpful guide. Between "CSA" and "PSB-CY" they have covered all of child and youth sexuality in abuse and pathology. Now we not only have a CSA and grooming and safeguarding panic but the PSB-CY panic too.

Which by the way would make a good name for a band :)

Eivind Berge said...

As hateful and intolerant as they were in their own way, the hysteria which came later makes the conservative Renquist court and associated teen pregnancy panic seem positively saintly in their crackdown on sexuality. They were remarkably tolerant and comparatively charmingly pleasant as they only cared about illegitimate children while sexuality otherwise was left alone to flourish.

The 1980s... those were the days! And I am old enough to remember them. Imagine if we could go back to this way of thinking about youth sexuality, how much better it would be (quoting the United States Supreme Court in 1981 again -- and yes it went all the way there, not just California):

Canvassing "the tragic human costs of illegitimate teenage pregnancies," including the large number of teenage abortions, the increased medical risk associated with teenage pregnancies, and the social consequences of teenage childbearing, the court concluded that the State has a compelling interest in preventing such pregnancies. Because males alone can "physiologically cause the result which the law properly seeks to avoid," the court further held that the gender classification was readily justified as a means of identifying offender and victim. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment of the California Supreme Court.

Eivind Berge said...

You can either believe in marriage and illegitimacy and adultery -- or CSA and PSB-CY and all that malignant sex-hostility which is now completely blighting our culture. If you are a conservative these days I guess you can believe in both. But originally, conservative values were not anywhere near so odious. They spared female sex offenders for one thing. And you could get married young, or if you didn't, punishment was only meant to deter pregnancy.

There is no doubt who is most evil.

Eivind Berge said...

Of course I support neither the conservatives nor the feminists but we must admit society will control sexuality one way or another. Freedom is only transient at best. We can now conclude that reliable birth control did nothing to increase sexual freedom long-term. If anything, it made it worse, much worse, as CSA and PSB-CY are much worse bogeymen than illegitimate children ever were.

What we can do is promote the conservative worldview minus their own moralistic and hysterical parts. The teen pregnancy scare seems rather silly in retrospect now that we can barely convince women to have children at any age, so I doubt they will bring that back any time soon.

Anyway, yesterday's good times just keep giving as today's "sexual abuse," and here is the latest accusation:

Former child model Jeanne Bellino has filed a lawsuit at New York’s Supreme Court alleging Steven Tyler sexually assaulted her twice in 1975 when she was 17 years old.

In 1975, Aerosmith were extensively touring the US with their third album ‘Toys in the Attic’ featuring the hit song ‘Walk This Way’. At the time, a 17-year-old Bellino was at a fashion show when a friend arranged for her to meet Tyler at the Warwick Hotel in Manhattan.

Bellino alleges that while walking down 6th Avenue on the way to the hotel, Tyler forced her into a phone booth where he “stuck his tongue down her throat” and groped her as others in the group “stood by outside the phone booth laughing”.

The legal documents allege that while at the hotel, Tyler pinned Bellino against a wall and sexually assaulted her as others once again watched. Tyler then went to his room and had a colleague ask for Bellino to join him, allegedly.

Bellino claims she ran outside and took a taxi home, where she “began crying hysterically”.

The lawsuit follows a prior one against the Aerosmith frontman, filed last year by Julia Misley, who alleges that Tyler assaulted her when she was 16-years-old in 1973. The Aerosmith singer would have been 25 or 26 at the time.

Misley is suing Taylor for sexual assault, sexual battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Seems like the only outward sign that any of this was abusive is the supposed crying afterwards which nobody witnessed and can't be verified. But nobody cares about verification anymore since "underage" sex is ipso facto abuse in the gullible minds of the normies.

amelio said...

The Supreme Court judgment of 1981 is not representative of society's attitude towards FSO(female sex offenders) at the time.
It's a Romeo and Juliet case both the offender and the victim being minors ! Apparently the age of consent law had been broken with a risk of a young girl without means having to support a baby. I'm sure the result would have different if the case had been about a 40 yo women and a 14 yo boy (though the boy can impregnate the woman as well). There had to be laws against corruption of minors that didn't mention the sex of the offender. But, you're right here, these laws hardly applied to men in the 70's and women were de facto totally immune .

This 81 case doesn't prove that the risk of pregnancy was the only factor that justified the condemnation for men and the exemption for women.
Sex laws were there to protect public morality and decency. The Behemoth(your find) that made a mere survivor of anybody who had been exposed to sex before a certain age wasn't yet born !

Eivind Berge said...

Sigh. It's not a Romeo and Juliet case. The boy is denied relief from punishment, for Gods' sake, despite being a minor himself. This is the opposite of Romeo and Juliet, and if anything the boy is being more harshly treated because of his young age... which the Supreme Court states is not gonna help him at all since age is irrelevant.

And as they explain and justify at great length the law does not apply to 40-year-old women or any women. Women were not just de facto immune, they were de jure immune. But I guess you want to believe that the world I remember and provide documentary evidence of here is a fantasy land...

Jack said...

"Of course women cannot statutorily rape boys because boys can't get pregnant."

I cannot let this pass without putting my oar in. We agreed that the risk of pregnancy was no longer relevant nowadays thanks to the pill, the day-after pill, abortion, and a woman's right do decide on her own whether to keep the child. News just in: pregnancy-rapes now are overwhelmingly perpetrated on men by women!

Unlike the odd woman unfortunate enough to have fallen on a real rapist (very rare these days), the pregnancy-raped male cannot get off the hook. His fate is child-support for life.

A 14 year-old boy, while clever enough to decide he wants sex with an older woman, may well be considered not mature enough to contemplate the social consequences of inseminating that same woman. What I've just made is a case for female transgressors of AOCs to be punished more harshly than male ones.

Don't tell me you reject the enslavement of men through child-support anyway: you despise the MRAs - ie the Paul Elam crowd - who dedicate themselves to fighting that particular wrong.

Out of schadenfreude I'd like women to be given free rein with boys. God it'd be funny to see gold-digging whores loitering outside rich boy's academies.

Eivind Berge said...

Have the feminists really manged to distort history to such an extent that you refuse to believe there did not exist a law for 14-year-old boy and 40-year-old woman, Amelio? You want to believe the feminist laws always existed no matter what the historical record proves?

That is astonishing if so, that you won't even believe history. No, there did not exist a societal attitude that such women should be punished and no laws for it either, and the only challenge to that effect in 1981 was a boy wanting to escape punishment grasping at an "equality" straw -- not any male "victims" coming forward either.

You are wildly deluded, so now the question is if you are able to see that you were wrong?

Eivind Berge said...

Let us unpack this belief of Amelio's:

"There had to be laws against corruption of minors that didn't mention the sex of the offender."

You are assuming that sex was believed to corrupt minors, but it wasn't! That's not the worldview in effect back then. I know it's difficult to grasp if you are so young you've heard sex corrupts minors your whole life, but that's not what we believed and I still don't.

Hence even if there was a law against corruption of a minor, it would not have applied to sex, which was LEGAL between minor boys and adult women. You can't "corrupt" boys into something legal.

What did exist that was gender-neutral at the time, according to that Supreme Court ruling, was this:

All persons are prohibited from committing "any lewd or lascivious act," including consensual intercourse, with a child under 14.' And members of both sexes may be convicted for engaging in deviant sexual acts with anyone under 18.'

So they did have sodomy laws, which are not "victim"-based, and women could be convicted under those. That is not what we today understand as a sex offence, but a moralistic law. And similarly "lewd and lascivious acts" with children is not CSA but a moralistic concept as well, a crime against nature or God rather than children. Only for that can you speak of a sleeping law that was not used against women, but not for boys 14-17, who were explicitly legal for women to have (non-deviant) sexual intercourse with.

Eivind Berge said...

Jack, it is unhelpful to conflate "pregnancy-rape" of a male with a sex offense. Child support is a financial issue rather than a sexual one, so please don't bring it into this. You are needlessly muddying the water which is very clear in that Supreme Court case: women cannot perform statutory rape. It is by this clarity we fight antisex bigotry. If you dislike female sex offenders you can think of them as reverse collateral damage from getting at the truth. We don't need to deny their existence out of a motivation to help them directly, but because it is needed in order to express the truth that sex does not in fact corrupt minors, boys or girls alike.

Child support laws can be reformed in other ways to be fair, rather than constructing a Rube Goldberg machine of female "rape" to accomplish the same thing as men opting in to fatherhood or refusing it as calmly as women can consider physical abortion during a similar timeframe after conception.

amelio said...

"to sex, which was LEGAL between minor boys and adult women"

It certainly wasn't under the age of consent that was different then according to the state you lived in. It could be very low in some states.
You are making the whole thing vey confused. Whatever the reason was (moralistic, religious) sex acts between minors under a certain age and adults of either sex were prohibited. They may not have been as "victim centered" as they are today but what difference does it make as regards you main topic : women as sex offenders ?

By the way, I'm older than you and have known that period as a young adult.

amelio said...

"All persons are prohibited from committing "any lewd or lascivious act," including consensual intercourse, with a child under 14.' And members of both sexes may be convicted for engaging in deviant sexual acts with anyone under 18.'"

"you refuse to believe there did not exist a law for 14-year-old boy and 40-year-old woman, Amelio?
You are wildly deluded, so now the question is if you are able to see that you were wrong?"

Do I need to comment further ? I don't think you need to sigh or behave like an exasperated teacher scolding an unruly pupil. Just take care of your contradictions. Your reasoning about CSA is great until you try to wedge your FSA charade theory into it by force.

amelio said...

"It's not a Romeo and Juliet case."

I mean it's an outlier amongst a majority of cases with a much older male (or female) and an underage boy or girl.

Eivind Berge said...

If you want to frame it that way you need to specify that there was a different age of consent for women. For women only the forerunner of a pedophilia prohibition applied (called "lewd or lascivious acts" rather than "rape of a child") and applied in name only since only men were prosecuted. And it was never higher than 14 as far as I know as of 1981. This is not what we commonly call age of consent, which is rather the statutory rape age from which women were explicitly excluded.

And yeah I truly believe victim-centrism matters a whole lot because CSA as we know it today didn't exist for men either. It was more like a sodomy thing similar to the persecution of gays. Getting back to that framework will help the MAP cause a whole lot.

We didn't call homosexuals sex offenders back when they were moralistically persecuted, so why do you want to retroactively call women so for something they weren't even prosecuted for in practice? It was not the social mores to believe in female sex offenders and I still don't believe in them.

Eivind Berge said...

"Under 14" means 14 is legal.

Eivind Berge said...

"I mean it's an outlier amongst a majority of cases with a much older male (or female) and an underage boy or girl."

Once again, there were no cases of an older female charged for statutory rape, by legal exclusion, and if you believe they put women on trial for "lewd or lascivious acts" in a manner equivalent to the female sex offender charade prior to 1980, I would like to see evidence.

Anonymous said...

The Antifeminist is an autistic wanker who can only get laid once a year, when he visits Thailand to have sex with ladyboys. When I say sex, I mean he can only get them to wank him off, because wanking is the only thing he enjoys. At least Jack can have actual sex with a ladyboy occasionally, but he has to have a shemale porn movie playing during it, otherwise he can't get it up.

Anonymous said...

I heard that the AF got into men's rights when he spotted someone wanking in the bushes. He asked the man what he was doing, and the man replied that he was wanking in order to stand up to feminists, who wanted to deny men the right to wank. It was Angry Harry, and from that point on, Angry Harry and AF would wank together in those same bushes every Sunday. Later on they were joined by Jack, and then Amelio.

Eivind Berge said...

Okay, I am going to stop publishing such comments that are nothing but insults. I have serious things to say, and this isn't helping. New readers might think we are not serious when they see this nonsense. And for all I know it's the AF who has found another way to promote wanking when I cut off his usual ways, making my threads just as full of talk about wanking as ever. Enough already.

Anonymous said...

Eivind is a traitor and a coward just like the AF. He stabs you in the back when you are trying to support and defend him from wankers. Maybe he is a wanker too, just like all the hypocrites and false prophets? He is probably wanking in the shower when he is making his YouTube videos, and laughing at us all.

Eivind Berge said...

I let one last wanker comment through because I think it settles who was the new troll. None other than the AF has such an unhealthy obsession with wanking AND a pathological need to talk about it on my blog. Jack was right.

To "support and defend me from wankers" was the AF's very last wanker tactic on my blog. From now on I shall moderate comments in such a way that male sexualism gets the healthy community it deserves.

amelio said...


Yes, you're right, we were there, the three of us. We saw you beat around the bush hoping to get stuffed. But we declined, you are too ugly !

Eivind Berge said...

Meditating on the names for sex crimes as exemplified by that 1981 Supreme Court verdict, I have a feeling that those archaic words played a role in immunizing me against the CSA panic. Because when I grew up, the sex laws still only used such words as “lewd,” “lascivious,” “indecent,” or in Norwegian “utuktig.” I doubt the normies do this, but I have always paid attention to what crimes are called and what that implies about why they are criminalized. When you grow up hearing that men are sentenced for “utuktig omgang,” then it seems to me that you would need to be anchored in the value system signified by that word in order to internalize the badness of it. I don’t think you can believe in a taboo without having some operational theory of *why* it is bad. So, what the hell does “utuktig” mean? I don’t think anyone in Norway has a feeling for that word anymore, nor did I growing up. The dictionary definition is “som strider mot gjeldende kjønnsmoral, slibrig, usedelig” -- which means “contrary to current sexual morality” without explaining *why* it is bad. You also get a couple more of these to me uninternalized words there as synonyms roughly meaning “indecent” or “lewd.” What kind of morality is all this rooted in? It’s not the CSA panic, because that hadn’t arisen yet, though these laws were certainly picked up by that panic and used with these words until they could pass new laws with updated feminist terminology.

It seems to me that the root morality in words like “indecent,” “lewd,” “utuktig,” “usedelig” is Christian sex-hostility. You can’t really get a feel for these words and agree with them without having internalized that culture somehow, if you take the words seriously and don’t just use the laws because they happen to criminalize the same thing as some other morality such as a CSA panic that you believe in. Crucially, it is not sexuality itself that is criminalized by these words. There is something external to sexuality, perhaps best visualized as a disapproving God, which makes the acts bad. To illustrate this, consider that the very same act, say sex with a minor, can be “indecent” or decent depending on whether it occurs outside or inside of marriage. God does not disapprove of sex with minors per se. It is something extrinsic to sexuality which can make it bad if you devoutly buy into this value system. Then feminism with its CSA panic came along in the 80s and told us sex itself is bad -- but I wasn’t having it because my culture had already told me that sex isn’t inherently abusive that way. By the time they had changed the wording in the laws from “utuktig omgang” to “seksuell omgang” (from “indecent” activity to “sexual” activity), it was too late to brainwash me.

I am old enough to have grown up with the older terminology (and much less fierce criminalization) -- while also not being a devout Christian, so I never took the rationale behind the sex laws seriously. To me it looks like a complete joke that sex itself, or “sexualization” in the blasphemy laws which is the new word for indecency there, can carry a taboo all by itself. There would have to be something more, or else it at most has the force of a speed limit which is arbitrarily decided. After all, nobody thinks there is anything immoral or spooky about a given speed itself. It all comes down to the application of it, whether it is reckless or safe enough under the circumstances, and that’s subject to rational evaluation and debate, not some scary taboo based on arbitrary classifications.

Eivind Berge said...

Thus I am old enough to have escaped the brainwashing which seems to be occurring to later generations. They grow up getting the message that SEX ITSELF is scary and harmful to minors. Although I am wondering how stable such a taboo can be. When it’s not longer anchored in anything but the irrational CSA panic, how long until people realize that it has no basis? All it takes is to think for yourself like did when growing up and decided that I didn’t care if God disapproves of certain kinds of sexuality. Now there isn’t even an external disapproving force, just the assertion that sex is bad for an empty reason. As I keep saying, belief the metaphysical badness of sex is the religion of our times.

Oh, and then after changing the terminology from “indecent/utuktig” to “sexual” they doubled down too and called some of it (with under 14) “rape/voldtekt av barn” for good measure. I don’t think this helps their cause either because it just makes them more ridiculous. I may not have a good mental model of what “utuktig” means, but we sure as hell know that consensual sex is not rape.

So in short, I think the feminists have shot themselves in the foot with their “modernized” terminology. I wrote about this in a blog post before too:

Jack said...

Putting down Today's with-hunt to irrationality may obscure its causes and motives. In Today's affluent Society, owing to inverted population pyramids, one commodity is scarcer than ever: youth/beauty.

Who stands to gain from this scarcity? Obviously the young and beautiful one might say. Alas the young and beautiful have no political or social rights. They get pimped as so-called victims by parents, older women, the courts, the police, politicians, child-protection mafias ... This society-wide pimping is the real child-sex abuse.

Denouncing the repression as pure madness and irrationality may be good tactics though. It would attract less censorship than denouncing the pimps, and parallels with historical witch-hunts might ring a sympathetic bell with some mainstream libertarians.

Eivind Berge said...

Sure, the ulterior motives for seeing sexual abuse everywhere are not precisely irrational. More like selfish, deceptive, manipulative, sometimes sadistic. You are right the young get pimped as victims by their parents, the abuse industry and often their older versions many years later when it becomes highly convenient to accuse for some easy money.

But if we take the CSA panic at face value, it is insane. There is a place for addressing the literal meaning of their claims too, which in turn might give them less support if they fail to brainwash quite so many people not directly involved in the abuse industry. Those who benefit from construing "abuse" will not be swayed by the truth, but they might still be impeded thanks to our efforts.

Anonymous said...

There is a problem in the English language, where sex hysteria is rooted in the words themselves and carried by the language. This is why non-Anglo countries with different languages have less hysteria, or a different type of hysteria in some cases, but the flavor is different for sure.

It's amusing that the Christians have become so Christian Feminist and anti-sex. The Christian Feminist wing has always been present in the form of prude women, but it was always countered and marginalized by the male leadership. Now, since we're all "equal", Christian feminism has its chance to blossom.

The irony, besides "child marriage" and minor sex all over the Bible, in some cases even prepubescent, is that according to the Bible itself:

1) women should be quiet and never dominate men
2) besides bestiality, homosexuality, incest, and adultery, all sex is fair play

Modern Christians like to twist the "temptation" language into something about sex, because that's all they think about. But "temptation" in the Bible references the temptation to deny the existence of God. Additionally, modern Christians read "fornication" as being any kind of unmarried sex, yet again the Bible references "fornication" as being any of the four things above.

So it seems like something else is going on, it seems like another selective reading of the Bible to serve an agenda, which seems to be anti-heterosexual fascism aimed at men and by default also punishing women.


Anonymous said...

That's a very good point Jack. The government created an artificially inflated ownership market around a hot commodity (sexual labor of young people) and now pimps out that commodity for money and power. This is literally exactly what's happening.

How are artificially inflated ownership markets usually broken? We can look at drugs for a very similar analogy. Either the demand for the commodity runs out, the laws that create the artificial market are broken through widespread use of the black market or legislative change (the result of changing attitudes/leaders), the empowerment of those who are owned in the case of human labor, or through external cross-border competition for that labor (the Anglo government has made traveling outside its borders for young sexual labor illegal for its citizens).

My tranny trolling campaign focuses on minor sexual empowerment rights through use of the tranny movement.


Eivind Berge said...

To the pimps it matters not whether they pimp out sex or "victimhood." Now there is much more money to be made from the latter plus this is totally socially acceptable, celebrated pimping. I was just looking at a random law firm who bragged about how much money they got from "sex abuse" cases, and one million dollars per "victim" was on the low end. Of course this is when you sue "abusers" with deep pockets such as a school or university or church. The pimp takes maybe half. Then you can easily get more from a single instance of "victimization" than a lifetime of honest whoring. Of course it's totally cool to redistribute money from actually socially worthwhile causes to these pimps and "victims." Nobody cares if the church or school goes bankrupt because nothing can be more important than the abuse industry.

Eivind Berge said...

I told you the female sex offender charade is the shortest path to enlightenment about the CSA hoax. Let them dig in and stare the absurdity in the face. Since the normies are committed to the idea that all CSA is created equal, all it takes is to see this most obvious lie for the entire house of cards to collapse.

I can't imagine it leads to true reputational damage either. Pedo slurs ring hollow against any confident MAP activist and especially when the feminists and normies have dug themselves into the most grotesque hole that is the female sex offender charade. They are mad fools screeching nonsense that no sensible person needs to take seriously at all. That tweet of his is exactly the right tone in which to dismiss them, stating bluntly that nothing can be more insane just like I have been doing all these years: "Modern society has many weird ideas about sex. But few things will ever be more disturbing than the fact that we lock up adult women for having relationships with teen boys."

This shows we are serious. We are not merely on a power grab because we would like to have sex with teen girls ourselves: we call out the CSA insanity as it really is from the reasonable human perspective.

Eivind Berge said...

"Members of the Mosuo tribe become adults at age 13, and can engage in walking marriages. These marriages are founded on the basis of mutual love and affection between the man and woman. At night the man will visit the woman's house to sleep over and then return to his own home in the morning. They can be together and have kids without ever needing to be legally married."

Somebody didn't get the CSA memo yet, lol.

Wikipedia says:

The coming-of-age ceremony, which occurs at the age of thirteen, is one of the most important events in a Mosuo child's life. Before this ceremony, Mosuo children all dress the same and are restricted from certain aspects of Mosuo life, particularly those that involve religious rites. Also, a child who dies before this ceremony does not receive the traditional funeral. Once they come of age, girls are given their skirts, and boys are given their trousers (thus, it is called the "skirt ceremony" for girls, and the "trouser ceremony" for boys).

After coming of age, Mosuo females can get their own private bedroom, called a "flowering room"; and, once past puberty, can begin to invite partners for "walking marriages."

We have a coming-of-age ceremony in Norway too at 14 (confirmation), but we pretend it doesn't signify coming of age anymore, which is put off to 16 sexually and 18 otherwise.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, this is really all you need to know about age gaps at least in practice:

"The biggest mismatch, what really stands out more than anything, is the massive difference in attractiveness."

Well done debunking many myths people use to rationalize it in that first article there, though I wish he said early teens rather than late teens for when people attain mental maturity to where individual differences far outweigh age as a factor. Making age out to be a decisive factor really stands out as ridiculous when you consider real differences like IQ which does vary dramatically between individuals, but not because of age as everyone comes close to their peak mental agility by 14 anyway. If mental ability were so important for "consent," Mensa members should be considered superpredators unless they stick to their own level. No, the one thing which genuinely varies dramatically with age is physical attractiveness -- until frailty also kicks in in old age, plus of course women lose their reproductive capacity in their 40s already.

And quoting the second link this is solid evidence against a sexual trade union of older women motivated by competition with the young:

For example, one interpretation of intrasexual competition driving age gap taboos is that older women disapprove because they are competing with younger women. If this is true, then we should expect older women to show lower support for age gaps.

My data didn’t indicate that, however. Across all age groups, women showed similar approval of both age gap and hierarchical relationships. I found no effect of female age on approval. Not great news for the intrasexual competition hypothesis, at least if you believe it is directional from older women to younger women.

There may still be something to it when you look at actual accusations. The endless stream of older women who redefine their youthful experiences to "abuse" is hard to ignore, but perhaps it is mostly a celebrity thing? And opportunism rather than real disapproval of age gaps.

I think I have been putting this trade union where it belongs in my blogging. A factor to consider, but certainly not the be all and end all of antisexual attitudes and laws.

Anonymous said...

I would assume that whether or not the older women are single or married with children could have a significant impact. Personally I've heard some very honest takes regarding the attractiveness of teenage girls (and their awareness of and willingness to use said attractiveness to their advantage) by mothers and grandmothers who have been married for a long time and have long since made peace with the fact that their days on the "sexual marketplace" are over.

AF said...


All I can find is this "For women, age was not significant (F(2, 100) = 0.091, p = 0.913). Post-hoc analysis did not reveal any significant pairwise differences in support for age gap relationships between female age groups."
The "older" category he used was only 32+.

They weren't being asked 'do you think it's wrong for a 40 year old man to have an 18 year old girlfriend'. They certainly weren't being asked - 'do you think it's wrong for a 40 year old man to have a 15 year old girlfriend'. From what I can see, they were being asked a simple question as to whether they approve or not of 'age gap' relationships. So a 32 year old woman thinks it's ok for a 32 year old woman to date 38 year old men? Well that certainly debunks Sexual Trade Union theory. We can discount the fact that every single NGO that is pushing for these anti-sex laws is filled to the brim with ugly, older women then.

AF said...

Eivind, not only do you allow your psychotic follower/s to post comments that abuse myself and other commentators, and even Angry Harry, but you blame them on me. As for a 'pathological obsession' with wanking, it's clear that you're the only one here with that. Most of see it as natural and harmless unless taken to an obsession, although we do of course object to feminist shaming and criminalization of masturbation and porn. If your Norwegian followers are screaming wanker at everyone, they are only following your own unhinged obsession.

AF said...

Anonymous also ignores the fact that the study showed a clear difference in approval between men and women, just as study after study has found that women show far more disapproval towards sex robots, prostitution, porn etc etc. As you would expect from evolutionary psychology basics.

Men can be jealous bitches too of course, a gross example here of the brother of footballer Gary Linker facing chants of 'pe-doh, pe-doh' from the audience at a podcast he was taking part in. All because he is 63 and has 30 year old girlfriends.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, the difference between men and women with regard to how much of sexuality they want to criminalize is very real. But it doesn't markedly increase with age. We can blame women for a lot of the current criminalization but we can't specifically blame "old hags." Except they have more political power than young women, so in that way they are more responsible.

As to Lineker, it's not just 30-year-old girlfriends but a legit teen hottie the crowd is jealous of:

Lineker has long been accused of having a penchant for younger women, with three of his much younger girlfriends eventually becoming his wives.

Among them was Zoe Davey - their friendship began when he was 29 and she was a 15-year-old Essex schoolgirl.

But lol he denied they had sex at the time:

'This isn't a Bill Wyman-Mandy Smith situation,' Lineker insisted when tabloids asked him about their association, referring to the Rolling Stone's infamous relationship with a 14-year-old.

'Zoe is a virgin and she'll stay that way until she is at least 16.'

They later married and had a daughter, now 16 herself, but the relationship broke down and Lineker moved on.

We need to rename the sex offender registry as the bragging rights registry and simply laugh at the haters. MAP Pride is the way forward.

Eivind Berge said...

Now the Norwegian (unofficial, vigilante) bragging rights registry has another entry who is a victim of the female sex offender charade. Of course they are raving lunatics who play along with the charade and call her an abuser.

En kvinnelig miljøarbeider fra Skien som jobbet på et asylmottak og var kontaktperson for en 15 år gammel asylsøker, er dømt i Tønsberg tingrett for å ha skaffet seg seksuell omgang ved misbruk av stilling, avhengighetsforhold eller tillitsforhold, og/ eller å utnytte en person under 18 år i en særlig sårbar livssituasjon heter det i dommen. Kvinnen hadde et dobbeltliv med en gift mann som trodde han skulle bli pappa; sannheten var at kvinnen var gravid med en mindreårig asylsøker hun var kontaktperson til. Kvinnen som er 37 år gammel fra Skien var gift på dette tidspunktet hun innledet et seksuelt forhold til en mindreårig asylsøker som hun også ble gravid med og fødte hans barn, men den mindreårige gutten ville ikke ha noe med barnet å gjøre. Nå er kvinnen dømt til fengsel i 1,5 år for seksuell omgang ved misbruk av stilling med en mindreårig. Kvinnens nåværende samboer gikk også uvitende om kvinnens rettssak og han ble først opplyst om rettssaken da den var ferdig i retten. I dag med en dom på seg som seksualforbryter og venter på soning så jobber kvinnen på en institusjon for syke barn i Telemark. Dommen på 1,5 år fengsel ble avsagt i Tønsberg tingrett 13. september i år. Navnet på den domfelte kvinnelige overgriperen [sic] er Cathrine Gonsholt.

One and a half year for not even an age of consent violation -- the laws cited are the extended criminalization up to 18 due to "vulnerable life situation" ("victim" being an asylum seeker) and the silver bullet "abuse of position" which can be used at any age simply because the woman is a social worker. The insane hateful criminalization of any and all sexuality now rears its ugly head in full force against women in Norway. We are firmly back to leiermål.

Apparently she tried to cuck some other guy after getting pregnant by the migrant and that's the real "crime" here, but they twist it into "sexual abuse of a minor" under the feminist paradigm because that's now the only thought available to this retarded civilization in which to think about sexuality.

Jack said...

Well, if it's true she tried to cuck some other man after riding the migrant cock carrousel, she deserved what she got. I can guess the kind of female low-life she is. The kind who will call the cops on you if you dare staring at her for a second in the underground when she's on her way back from getting herself gang-banged in the ghetto.

Anonymous said...

Asking women for their opinions and expecting them to tell you the truth about their actions is probably the most beta thing I've read on your blog in a long time.

Women have one power over men - their sexuality. If you ignore women and their cuck male collaborators using age of consent laws to increase female power over men and eliminate younger competition, which is literally their entire purpose, why are you even here? Just go follow any TERF blog instead because that's where you belong.

Actions and Words are two different things, if you rely on women's words you will get exactly the laws and culture that we have today. I can't believe I have to say this here, but maybe this was just a hiccup. I'm hoping at least.


Eivind Berge said...

Jack, I am deeply offended by “justice” served on false principles. It does not matter if they occasionally manage to punish someone who might deserve it for different reasons. If society wants to punish cuckolding to protect husbands, then be honest about that. If we want to punish women who consort with foreigners then be honest about that too. Don’t pretend a boy who got some free pussy and probably doesn’t even have to pay child support is a victim. If you don’t stand up for the principles of justice when someone disagreeable gets prosecuted, then how are you supposed to consistently support genuinely nice women such as a female teacher who wasn’t cheating on anyone?

The whole society is further cucked here because we have to pay to have this woman punished too. All to serve this hallowed minor immigrant’s phony “victimization” because he was (barely) a minor. It is sick to have this delusion about minors and doubly sick to have them about boys (remember the whole justification for statutory rape was because girls can get pregnant). We need to stop it. Let the racist sex-fascist vigilantes who are gloating over this woman’s punishment because to them she is a “pedophile” at least come up with an intelligible justification if they want to have laws against what she did, such as “adultery” or “paternity fraud” or even “treason.”

This used to be criminalized as laycase, with God as ultimate justification. Then God transmogrified into “pedophilia” and we are back to where we started two hundred years before the Sexual Revolution ushered in a few decades of the closest modern man every came to sexual freedom. Now it does not look like even the relatively tolerant climate of the early 20th century can be brought back, much less the 1970s which was probably peak sexual freedom.

Eivind Berge said...

@anon69 The racist fascist agecucked organization who brought us this news is composed of men. Seeing how disgusting men are I have a hard time blaming women for the sex laws. If men were men we would just laugh at old hags wanting to criminalize sexuality anyways, even if they truly have this drive to a significant extent.

Eivind Berge said...

Richard Hanania mentioned it is a trend for fathers to pose with guns in their daughters' prom photos. Now who do you think is the biggest threat really, mothers or fathers?

Anonymous said...

Oh, and of course the Norwegian social worker they are sending away to prison is really beautiful too.

amelio said...

@ Eivin

"remember the whole justification for statutory rape was because girls can get pregnant"

Sorry Eivind but you can't say this is an ascertained fact to "remember". You just tried to demonstrate it using a 1981 California judgment but , in my view, didn't succeed. The rest of your reasoning is quite clever but it's never a good idea to "sandwich in" a very feeble or unproved argument.

amelio said...

@a 69
"using age of consent laws to increase female power over men and eliminate younger competition"

But this is quite natural provided they are given that power. Who would let competition win if they can help it ?
The question is why they were given that power. One of the possible answers is that men in power either don't mind (or morally favour) these laws or think that they can be above the sex laws due to their status. Pandering to women's needs or fears is essential to get the woman vote (they usually vote more and more emotionally).

Eivind Berge said...

I did not just use a California verdict, Amelio. I used a Supreme Court of the United States verdict, where it was upheld and explained at length that it is all about pregnancy. Here it is again:

So certainly the whole USA officially took this view of statutory rape at the time, that it was only serve as a deterrent for men to not get girls pregnant before marriage. If you believe anybody in any country thought differently in 1980 I challenge you to cite evidence. So far you have only cited yourself, but I think you have false memories created by the CSA panic, which made gender-neutral laws and retroactively applied this thinking to all of history now. So you absorbed that part even if you didn't go all the way like most normies.

Eivind Berge said...

The ability to revise history is so frustrating with these panics. It's almost like the Mandela effect. Amelio would like to think he was "protected" from women as a boy with statutory rape laws when the truth is nobody though there was any need to protect boys from female sexuality, certainly not over 14 years old. The entire mindset that they could be "victims" that way was absent. There was the "lewd or lascivious" thing with children under 14 which was already gender-neutral but it wasn't thought of or enforced that way.

Furthermore the very idea that boys could be victims was only brought up as a technicality some male defendant used to try to defend himself, piggybacking on the new wave of "equality" between the sexes. That idea was a solution in search of a problem, and so they later made up all these contrived "problems" of women "abusing" teenage boys to satisfy "equality"; not the other way around.

Eivind Berge said...

There is a rumor Amos Yee has been rearrested. For using the internet to publish a blog post while on parole. Apparently for this:

Well here we are, back again. The longer I’m a public figure the more I appreciate just how much people have cared about my story. Unlike how I was 3 years ago, I won’t take that for granted.

Hi everyone! I am so excited that I am out and able to share some writing to all of you oh my. For those who don’t know, I just spent 3 years in American Prison for exchanging nude pictures with a 14-year-old when I was 20...

Eivind Berge said...

I was unimpressed with Amos when he was a wanker who didn't even try to meet the girl, and a pushover who took a plea instead of defending himself and using the trial for activism, but this shows some spirit:

But in summary: I believe there’s enough real-life and scientific evidence showing that most sexual relationships between children and adults have been consensual and beneficial to both sides. You should definitely imprison adults who sexually force themselves onto children, but if the act isn’t forceful, there’s nothing wrong. You shouldn’t say a relationship was an act of manipulation or rape just because a child was involved, you need actual evidence of force and harm for the act to be immoral.

So yeah, imprisoning me for my relationship with this 14-year-old who I never manipulated, who willingly masturbated to those nude pictures and encouraged me to continue sending, and also the fact that I just spent 3 years in Prison and my supposed 14-year-old ‘victim’ was literally gloating online about how she got me sent to prison, I think people should reconsider who the real ‘victim’ is.

It’s ridiculous, it’s unjust, I think this is the sort of thing that if it happened to most people, they’d never post anything online again, start leading a very private, secluded life, start irrationally hating people and be needlessly wary of their intentions, would sink into some deep-seeded trauma and depression that would take decades of therapy to recover back any semblance of sanity. Fortunately though I’m not like most people, and frankly if I develop another close relationship with someone underage that I’m sexually attracted to, I’d break the law again, and do something sexual with that kid. I’m not just saying this, you know from my history in Singapore deliberately speaking out against the Government and getting arrested, that I consider it an honor to break unjust laws. Literally months before I was released from prison, I was interviewed and told every police and parole officer that I don’t think I should have been arrested, that I defend pedophiles, that I support NAMBLA, yet they still let me out of prison, which they should have because I should be innocent, but in terms of enforcing the law and ‘keeping children safe’, it kind of doesn’t make sense.

Of course it's an honor to break unjust laws, but the porn laws are neither unjust nor just: they are simply delusional. The wanker is deluded that he gets sexual value via pictures and the feminists are deluded that they "protect" girls from sexuality by locking up wankers, who only removed themselves further from girls by wasting time asking for nudes when they should be asking for a meet. What Amos did is neither crimeworthy nor bragworthy but frankly cringeworthy.

At least the system isn't so insane that it ACTUALLY thinks it's "keeping children safe" by imprisoning Amos, lol. It's all a charade to keep the abuse industry busy and the prisons full.

Eivind Berge said...

Nonetheless, Amos has redeemed himself with that blog post. He has now genuinely earned our respect because he is unafraid to get arrested, this time for a genuine act of activism unlike the wanking. He is even taking that a little too far in my view:

So, I’m going back home. Even if by some chance the Singapore Government chooses to ignore me and doesn’t imprison me for escaping the military, I’ll definitely find other ways to get arrested: writing critical posts, conducting political gatherings, conducting illegal public protests, the opportunities are endless. It’s hard to find a time in history when great political change occurred where no one was arrested. To paraphrase Gandhi (inarguably the greatest political activist of all time): writing and preaching your political views can only go so far, but by gathering people together to publicly protest, perhaps breaking an unjust law and allowing yourself to be imprisoned for months, maybe years, that shows an act of commitment to your cause that deeply resonates with people, enough for people who never cared about politics to start to care, and from that first act of caring, we eventually change the world. I seem to be blessed with the luxury of getting in arrested in my home country, and so I will gladly oblige.

What is the deal with Singapore? It's not just sex laws he's protesting there? This looks more like protest for protest's sake to me, which is stupid again.

Eivind Berge said...

Damn, another one already:

A former Maryland teacher allegedly engaged in sex acts with an underage middle school student, according to police, who said there could be more victims.

Melissa Marie Curtis, who's now 31, was a teacher in Montgomery Village Middle School in Montgomery County, Maryland, when the alleged abuse happened in 2015, according to police.

It allegedly continued for "several months" when Curtis was 22, police said.

She is still cute in her mugshot from yesterday, so imagine how hot she would have been at 22!

Society is sick beyond belief. And no excuses, Jack. Focus on the injustice itself.

AF said...

"Yes, the difference between men and women with regard to how much of sexuality they want to criminalize is very real. But it doesn't markedly increase with age. We can blame women for a lot of the current criminalization but we can't specifically blame "old hags." Except they have more political power than young women, so in that way they are more responsible"

Yes, that's a key point that I'm glad you noticed. We can blame "old hags" because they are the ones who are lobbying for and creating these laws.

I found another poll that was taken during the Russell Brand 'exposure'. A YouGov poll asked British people if they supported a staggered age of consent, and 76% of women said they do, and 52% of men did. Again, a man asked such a question will feel he is practically being asked 'are you a nonce or do you support a staggered age of consent?'. A woman can speak honestly, because contrary to the impression you would get from reading this blog, only 0.00001% of women have any fear or likelihood of ever being caught up in anti-paedophile laws or hysteria. I'd say the true figure would be more like 20%/72%.

Indeed, with this poll it actually shows that the younger the respondent, the more likely they are to support a staggered age of consent, although it doesn't break this down by gender.

I've always said that young women are more likely to be pro anti-sex laws and age of consent laws, because they are more directly in competition with teenagers. The hags are mainly just bitter. The fact remains, we need an enemy, not some conceptual theorizing that make you feel like an intellectual, and that 'somebody serious' might reflect upon. And femihags are the enemy, because they are the ones making the laws, with the support of younger females. Most men will always white knight for young women, but not so for older post-menopausal women. Hence society in the past never had any problems burning hags as witches.

It's interesting that you feel the term "old hag" is somehow 'beneath you' and would mean you 'wouldn't be taken seriously by serious people', but again, you're happy to constantly throw the childish wanker accusation at other men, even men you are praising such as Amos Yee.

amelio said...

"you didn't go all the way like most normies."

Name-calling again ?

"Amelio would like to think he was "protected" from women as a boy with statutory rape laws"

This caricature is grotesque... Pretending you're shouting my name to a virtual audience is not in the best of taste either.

"nobody though there was any need to protect boys from female sexuality, certainly not over 14 years old. "

Here you go again with your "14 years old". As I've told you before ages of consent varied according to the States. So, at the time nobody thought there was a need to protect ANYBODY from sexuality over a fixed legal age(14 in California apparently). The only legitimate discussion would be about those (male or female) who transgressed the law. Your California judgment is not representative at all as it concerned two minors !

Maybe the truth is too simple :

There were laws protecting minors under a certain age against lewdness or anything that was deemed untimely sexual.
These laws din't turn any sexuel activity into rape and were applied rather leniently unless there was a public sandal.
As men were rarely prosecuted for consensual sex with teens, women were hardly ever prosecuted. Common sense prevailed : girls can be impressed by grownup men but boys need to take their load off.
As CSA was becoming a crime akin to murder, it became impossible not to have a few women perpetrators from time to time. In the same logic there were more and more rapes among children even very young ones. Just because the stress was put on psychological violence of which women were deemed capable of.

Eivind Berge said...

The age of consent was 18 in California in 1981. This is the statutory rape law which explicitly did not apply to women, and you are still refusing or unable to comprehend this.

14 was for the separate lewdness thing and it was really there to target pederasts and protect girls from men.

Since you literally cannot or will not understand that a law can be meant and can apply to men only, I guess there is no point in continuing this discussion. The fact that you think this verdict is irrelevant because the concerned happened to be minors shows you can't read legal texts. The supreme court justices don't give a damn about that detail as they are making a precedent for the whole country.

Eivind Berge said...

Goes to show it is pointless to discuss legal concepts and rulings with people who won't bother to familiarize themselves with the most basic details. It wasn't a Romeo and Juliet case as that had nothing to do with the principle being decided. The question to be decided by the Supreme Court was whether it is unconstitutional to have an age of consent law which only applies to men, and they decided it is not unconstitutional, but perfectly fine to discriminate that way, because as they see it, the only point of statutory rape laws is to provide a deterrent to men from impregnating young girls. They thought girls are enough punished by nature when they get pregnant, so it was fair to place this extra legal burden on men.

This ruling has still not been reversed as far as I know, so states are still free to have age of consent for men only (but they don't want to due to CSA and "equality" hysteria).

amelio said...

"you can't read legal texts"

Funny, I must say. Do you have any legal training of some kind ?

Eivind Berge said...

No, and it is not needed to understand such elementary things as we are discussing here. The law is meant to be legible to laymen and when it says it only applies to men, and we have the highest court concurring and explaining why this is so in also highly readable language, then just who are you to deny it?

Eivind Berge said...

The US Supreme Court is only there to set a precedent. It cares nothing about details of cases, such as the fact that the defendant here was under 18 when that had nothing to do with the principle being ruled on, which was whether it is permissible for states to have an age of consent which only applies to men. The defendant had tried to appeal his conviction on the basis that he had been sentenced under a discriminatory law. In theory, if California was not allowed to punish only men then he should be freed and they would have to make a new statutory-rape law for the future which applies to both men and women. He first appealed in California and the Supreme Court there disagreed. Then he appealed to SCOTUS and they also ruled that such discrimination is perfectly all right. It still is in principle, I think.

amelio said...

"the only point of statutory rape laws is to provide a deterrent to men from impregnating young girls"

the judgment quotes the danger of being pregnant as one reason in that particular case (between two minors) but doesn't say it's "the only point". I'm not familiar with legal procedures in the States but there are general rules that apply everywhere. If the law doesn't explicitly specify that
it applies to men only, then it applies to both sexes. Incest cases come immediately to mind or even teachers making out with minors that must have existed at the time.

amelio said...

"The law is meant to be legible to laymen and when it says it only applies to men"

The law doesn't explicitly say that and this case is not representative as the law about statutory rape is meant to protect minors from adults of either sex.

Eivind Berge said...

Wow, you have still not accepted that the law EXPLICITLY SPECIFIES that it applies to men only... How much clearer does it need to get?

Here's the California statute as quoted by SCOTUS:

California's "statutory rape" law, which defines unlawful sexual intercourse as "an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a female not the wife of the perpetrator, where the female is under the age of 18 years."

Only females can be victims and since intercourse can only be performed on them by men, only men can be perpetrators. (There was a separate sodomy law to catch the homosexuals, but NOTHING to criminalize women who have normal intercourse with boys aged 14-17.)

amelio said...

"It wasn't a Romeo and Juliet case as that had nothing to do with the principle being decided."

You're right, it wasn't really. But I used this analogy to explain that, both being minors, it was difficult to find the guilty party.

Eivind Berge said...

No, it was not difficult to find the guilty party be cause the law says only females can be victims. Do you still not get it?

Eivind Berge said...

What is your reading comprehension when you can't read a law which specifically covers "an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a female not the wife of the perpetrator, where the female is under the age of 18 years" and only that?

I must conclude that the CSA panic overrides every single sensory input. It is literally a belief in a metaphysical reality which is "more real" than this one in every respect including the wording of our laws when they deviate from the dogma that all sex with minors is abuse and men and women are equally criminal.

amelio said...

What about women who had intercourse with boys under the age of 14 ? Were they immune too ?

18 is not pertinent. If any sexual act with an under 18 had been sanctioned in courts as rape in 1981 you wouldn't see that time as a golden age (compared to now). Unless of course you're only interested in the very few women accused, just because you would have liked to bang them as a teen.

amelio said...

You are blinded by ideology just like the people you rightly criticise.

Eivind Berge said...

So you finally realize that the statutory rape law specifically did not apply to women who have intercourse with boys 14-17.

The SCOTUS says in the same ruling that women are not immune to the "lewd and lascivious" law pertaining to under 14, and also not to a law against "deviant sexual acts" with anyone under 18 (which is a holdover of sodomy law it seems to me, the same thing which applied to homosexuals of all ages until about then). I am not sure exactly when these laws were made gender-neutral but am sure there were few if any prosecutions against women on this basis. And yes there was incest but that's not a victim-based law and the lewdness also has more to with morality than "sexual abuse" which came to be the only lens through which to view sexuality thanks to the CSA panic and feminism.

And yeah, the California age of consent was draconian for men back then too, but compared to the madness we have seen later it was still a golden age.

amelio said...

The important thing is not the law in itself but the way it was applied.
There are plenty of laws, quite strict in theory, that are never applied. About illegal immigration for example.

Eivind Berge said...

That's true enough, but it's also important what is not criminalized even in theory. Age of consent did not apply to boys with women, at least not unless they identified as female which was also not a thing back then.

That Supreme Court ruling is an important historical document because it shows the thinking behind having age of consent applied to older teens in the first place, which is only to do with pregnancy (and specifically "illegitimate pregnancy") as far as the SCOTUS is concerned. So we only need to point back to 1981 to demonstrate that ALL the supposed psychological harm from sex with teens over 14 is made up later, to both sexes. Mental immaturity is also a non-issue since girls could perfectly well have babies in marriage at that age.

AF said...

I can't recall ever having a crush on a female teacher when I was a teen, or any 'older' female for that matter.

Your high school years are the only time in your entire life when you can legally bang prime teen pussy. You're surrounded by them every day. Nobody will bat an eyelid when you're out dating them, even making out with them in public. And of course, unless you have the misfortune to be an unattractive incel, they will often be attracted to you. You have one brief chance that will be over in literally just 2 or 3 years, to get your fill of teen sex. Yet Eivind wants to encourage cougar teachers to seduce boys in class, and who will no doubt jealously guard those boys from the girls. This is surely the opposite of his logic when it comes to porn and 'wanking'.

I mean seriously. If Eivind or any of us could turn back time and return ourselves to 14, would any us really want to be wasting time with the female teacher when we're surrounded by jailbait (or rather, legal 14 year olds)?

Also, this argument that your Norwegian follower put forward claiming that the female sex offender charade is a 'genius method of showing the absurdity of feminist sex laws'. If men see it as absurd, they probably just put in the same bracket as a lot of 'equality' nonsense in the modern world. I don't see how pointing out the absurdity in locking up the occasional woman for sex crimes helps our fight against feminists locking up men for the same crime. Modern society is constantly pointing out the 'absurdity' of laws against homosexuality or trans people. Despite the best efforts of the left-wing Maps, that hasn't helped our cause one iota, has it? Why does arguing that it's silly to lock women up for sex with underage boys, because women are merely sexual resources for men, make it more likely that society will question the age of consent as applied to men and teen girls? It's just a white knighting distraction that kills any hope of appealing to the men's rights demographic.

Eivind Berge said...

I do not believe most 14-year-old boys can distinguish the hotness of a 14-year-old girl vs. a 22-year-old woman. I remember I could not at that age. If you asked me at 14 who was the most attractive woman in the world I would have probably said Marina Sirtis in Star Trek rather than a girl my age, except if I happened to be in love with one but then that was by accident of proximity rather than her younger age.

It is reasonable to ask whether there is an opportunity cost when boys have sex with their female teachers, as this is indeed the logic I use to condemn porn and masturbation, but upon careful reflection I think it is nonsense to ascribe any weight to it with actual sex with older women, AT LEAST up to menopause (and I know I personally would have been thrilled to have women in their 50s and 60s too when I was a teen).

AF might be one of the rare exclusive hebephebophiles to whom it would have mattered that he didn't get distracted with a 20s woman when he could have a legal 14-year-old girlfriend, but to make this a general rule is absurd. It is immeasurably more important to let boys enjoy the experiences they can get with older women than to obsess over an opportunity cost which is minuscule at most to most boys. Frankly this only matters to pedophiles missing out on their last socially acceptable chances to be with an actual child.

Eivind Berge said...

Now to the argument that the extreme absurdity of the female sex offender charade can help us attack "CSA" in general -- yes, at least if we reach anyone with intellectual curiosity and integrity. Someone who doesn't just want to hate feminists or women but understand what is happening. When such a person, hypotethical as he might be in this day and age since it is taboo and criminal to be intellectually curious about sexuality when it goes against the gibberish prejudice that children shall not be "sexualized" -- well, if such a person exists, then he will most easily realize that he has been lied to about sexual abuse when he examines the research on how much boys enjoy sex with women by Rind et al. And that sense of betrayal by the authorities and "experts" ought to count for something. I know it does for me when I formerly trusted someone who turned out to be corrupt. For example, I trusted the covid vaccine experts in the beginning, but that turned to not be such a good idea and now I probably won't trust them next time. As such, you can see how a hypothetically curious, honest person would quit trusting the feminists when they proclaim girls are harmed by sex either, after he saw how much they blatantly lied about boys.

Eivind Berge said...

Indeed, I am such a person. Not for boy abuse which I never believed in anyway but I have even quit believing in CSA of little, prepubescent girls after I realized there is precisely zero intellectual honesty in the CSA panic. Rind is not joking when he says moral panics corrupt the social sciences absolutely.

Eivind Berge said...

It occurs to me that Rind actually has the solution to the "opportunity cost" problem. This is the idea behind the need-to-learn hypothesis. If there were no CSA hysteria, we followed the primate and human data on what is best and boys were allowed to develop healthily, they would be encouraged to play around with an aunt or something, or why not a teacher, from before sexual maturity, say no later than 12-13, giving them the confidence to pounce on girls their own age as soon these girls become sexually mature. Then boys would get the best of both worlds, being already experienced and confident with 13 or 14-year-old girls rather than fumbling their way and usually failing to get lucky anyway as they do now even if we tolerate them having "age-appropriate" girlfriends. It's not a question of choosing older women over prime pussy, but letting older women guide them into enjoying prime pussy maximally too.

This would be the healthy ideal if not for the CSA hoax. After all, a 13-year-old girl is not the best teacher for a boy to learn sex with, but if he already has learned how to please women from experienced women in their 20s and older, he can have a better time with a young girlfriend too.

Anonymous said...

AF is a self-confessed exclusive hebephile, I think he is almost incapable of having an erection with an adult woman, in fact he has been unable to have a relationship with a 20-year-old woman, I think he even has real pedophilic tendencies, because he is obsessed with girls right at the beginning of puberty and not at the end like most of men, or that he prefers ice skaters and gynasts who have thin bodies without developed secondary attributes, almost like prepubescent children.

Eivind Berge said...

Well, it could be the wanking rather than exclusive hebephilia. After all, if he fails to get an erection with a 20-year-old girl, then he might imagine that he would perform well with 14-year-olds, but he does not get to test this for obvious reasons. I suspect he would have ED with them too. Porn addicts who share their nofap recovery stories invariably report that they had ED with the very most attractive women to them before they got nofap. Often this is what finally motivated them to try nofap. You see, porn-induced ED does not make exceptions for the most attractive ones and ironically wankers do get erections while masturbating to porn of the very same women they can't perform with.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you Eivind - AF is a wanker AND a hebophile. He is a pedophobe yet clearly has pedophilic tendencies. His little cock probably reminds him of a small boy's cock, and that's why he loves stroking it so much. He claims to be the angry man and says you are the intellectual poseur, but his patheticly English genes leave him a spineless wreck when it comes to real activism. He is a virgin like Amelio, and wishes he could be you. He has not one atom of our viking spirit, that is why he hates both you and Breivik. It is no wonder he prefers to wank to Russian ice skaters rather than have sex with a hot MILF.

Anonymous said...

Guys, I don't think you understand the balls Amos Yee has to make this statement in the face of the American court system:

"...and frankly if I develop another close relationship with someone underage that I’m sexually attracted to, I’d break the law again, and do something sexual with that kid."

They will read that statement and completely flip out. Eye-wateringly based.

Also AF is obviously correct - in high school, everyone knew older chicks were not interesting compared to those our age and younger, and if you think otherwise then you have a mommy fetish.

Every day I kick myself for accepting the feminist lie - work hard and don't focus on girls in high school, and then when you're older all the young girls will fall in your lap. Except they never told us the second part, that they would make it illegal and evil to pursue those young girls later on. Well, Fuck That!


Eivind Berge said...

I don't remember high school that way. I and my friends liked younger and older girls alike with an emphasis on older simply because there are more of them. I thought there was literally no difference in attractiveness up to 30 and barely any up to 35, 40 still very attractive too (not what I think anymore as standards do rise with age). I always thought the age of consent was bullshit and I disrespected it (only slightly more than my peers because nobody respected it) but I didn't go out of my way to try to break it as there was no need. Certainly would if I happened to have a chance though, because I believed it is insane to miss a chance for bullshit reasons. I read Lolita and thought Humbert was normal as I didn't know a special word to separate him -- "hebephile" wasn't on my mind and "nympholept" only sounds poetic for a normal state of mind from time to time for all men. We simply had a broader conception of normality. You didn't have a "mommy fetish" for liking older and no deviance for nymphets either.

We need to break down these needless partitions and stand for sexual freedom. "Hebephile" is not helpful but "MAP" is because it is political and pretty much back to the inclusiveness I grew up with. Everyone I knew would be a MAP today, or AAM as a minor, because we did not believe in the segregation that unfortunately makes these words necessary now.

Anonymous said...

AF has confessed he is a white knight who worships Russian teen gymnasts and cries like a bitch over Eivind's support for a fellow Viking like Breivik. He is probably wanking right now to that Russian ice skating slut he has a crush on.

For the first time I maybe disagree with you Eivind. I think hebephile is correct because it defines people like the AF perfectly. AF is a hebophile who has no interest in women in late teens with developed secondary sexual characteristics. We are ephebophiles/MAPs who prefer older teens and even up to older women. AF is a wanker and a hebophile, and we need to distance ourselves from perverts like him.

AF said...

MAP is an attempt at 'liberal' 'progressive' identity politics inclusion. Yes, everybody here is a 'minor attracted person', but so is just about every other man on Earth. MAPs aren't saying - you're a MAP, you're a MAP too, and you - EVERYBODY is a MAP!'. They're saying 'we are MAPs and we can't help it, so why can't society treat us kindly like it does with gays and trans?'

Regarding your psychotic Breivik supporting paedophile Norwegian follower, I realize who he is now. He was the creature that was leaving absolutely horrific comments on my blog, projecting his own disgusting paedosadist fantasies on to me. The language is identical. When I announced on my blog that I was going to close it, he downloaded everything. I made sure to note down his IP. Seems he was driven insane both by my criticism of you, and my stance on 'ephebophiles'.

Eivind - you really are close to a red line allowing these disgusting comments attacking me and now making lies about me. Yes, I've been very critical and that's only because you are claiming to be the 'leader' of our non-existent but hoped for movement. Not only that, but first you proclaimed Tom 'legalize child rape' Grauer as a leader, who had simply appropriated my title heading into 'Male Sexualism', but then you change it to simply 'Sexualism' and you explicitly admit that your motive is to attract a female follower you can have sex with.

Nobody in the history of the men's rights movement had an ego big enough to claim to be the 'leader'. Not Angry Harry, not even Paul Elam, even if he acted like one. And to be fair, Paul Elam probably had thousands of 'followers' at one time, and had no clear rival. You at most have 2 or 3 followers it would appear, and it's unclear if they are the same one psychopathic Norwegian paedophile, as he/they post under 'Anonymous' every time. You don't even have a 'goal' (other than getting laid with a follower), except waiting for the collapse of industrial civilization based on your obsession with the 1970's idea of 'peak oil'.

Imagine if Paul Elam had not only declared himself leader of the MRM, but changed its title to simply 'the Rights Movement', and was open about the fact he was hoping to bang female followers? Then he started insulting 90% of his base, calling everybody 'wankers', 'incel losers' and the like, while claiming that the biggest issue in his 'Rights Movement' was the travesty of a few women being sent to prison. Do you think he would get a little bit of criticism? Of course, he didn't have to do that, because for whatever reason, the MRM attracts a lot of 'lovely looking Sheilas'. Our 'movement' will never do so, despite your hope that women are going to flock to it to support the idea that men can have sex with young girls', or perhaps even more absurdly, fighting for their own right to fuck young boys.

Eivind Berge said...

I am leader if nothing else by virtue of being the only public activist for MRM in the tradition of Angry Harry now called male sexualism or just sexualism. Whenever a journalist or filmmaker shows up and wants to interview representatives of any of these movements, I am the only one who comes forward, so I get to speak. This is not hypothetical as it has happened repeatedly. If they want to speak to a MAP they have a few more options to get a hold of and I don’t claim to lead that movement, but I am allied because I see the good political work they are doing (and I do consider the MAP movement pretty much synonymous with Newgon; lone wolfs like Amos Yee also shine bright at times but it is Newgon who is building an extensive resource for MAP activism and information).

You speak like sleeping with female followers is a bad thing and you would rather repulse them, lol. Or perhaps you have picked up feminist notions of a taboo on hierarchical relationships. I don’t buy into either of these. Attracting female followers is not very realistic at the moment, but nothing wrong with it in principle. And it is false that women are as evil as you claim anyway. Our most depraved enemies are the male vigilantes and other scum who will make the world an antisex hell all by themselves if we let them.

I don't have a goal? Lol, every time I speak against a sex law the goal is to repeal it. At it's most extreme our goal is to remove all sexual legislation, but the details can be discussed and Newgon's platform is a good compromise for now. The red line which defines a sexualist as I see it is that one at least wants to bring the age of consent down to 13, with no staggering whatsoever, and zero for women.

Going forward I will keep tighter moderation. I don’t know or care who an anonymous is who posts nasty comments; I will simply delete them. This is the last thread which shall be full of slurs about wanking or similar.

Eivind Berge said...

And another hot one:

Cassidy Kraus, a 24-year-old educator at IKM-Manning Schools in Iowa, faces criminal charges for allegedly engaging in sexually inappropriate conduct with three students aged 13 to 14.

Just last week, Kraus was arrested on two counts of lascivious acts with a child, three counts of dissemination of obscene material to a minor and third-degree sexual abuse, according to a press release from the Carroll County Sheriff's Office.

A criminal complaint filed against Kraus and obtained by Fox News Digital goes into slightly more detail. Allegedly, the Iowa teacher "perform[ed] sex acts with a person 14 years of age and "disseminat[ed] obscene material" to one victim via Snapchat in 2022 and two more in 2023.

In at least two instances, Kraus allegedly "fondl[ed] or touch[ed] the pubes or genitals" of children, per the Carroll County Court complaint.

Of all the things Americans could have chosen to conduct a witch-hunt over, they chose women flashing their tits to boys on Snapchat and similar inane banalities or warm generosities. It defies description how absurd this is.

Eivind Berge said...

Meanwhile this female teacher is not hot, so the prosecutors asked for 100 years in prison to make up for the ugliness I guess...

A 75-year-old former school teacher in Monroe County, Wisconsin, has been sentenced to at least 10 years in prison for sexually assaulting a student at a school where she worked.

Anne Nelson-Koch was sentenced in prison on Friday afternoon in Monroe County after she was found guilty at trial on over a dozen counts, including sexual assault of child, child enticement-sexual contact and exposing genitals/pubic area/intimate parts to a child.

Nelson-Koch was 67 at the time, and the boy was 14.

"Court documents show Nelson-Koch was charged in April 2022 with forcing the 14-year old student to repeatedly engage in both oral and anal intercourse during school hours throughout the 2016-2017 academic year," prosecutors said in a press release.

The former Wisconsin teacher had been facing the possibility of 600 years in prison.

Monroe County Assistant District Attorney Sarah Skiles told Fox News Digital that her office had asked for a sentence of 100 years and that the family wanted a sentence that would have kept Nelson-Koch behind bars for the rest of her natural life.

I seriously doubt the boy was actually forced though; I wouldn't have to be at that age even if the woman was so old. Or perhaps the whole thing is made up given her age, because it's hard to believe grannies can be quite so lusty.

Do keep in mind that a hot teacher would also be facing 600 years for the same thing :)

Eivind Berge said...

These are the records of that granny-witch-hunt that history will look back on to see how easy it was:

Trial lasted only three days during which 25 counts were "proven" based on what the now adult man said happened seven years previously; just a little formality to pave the way for suing the school for millions of dollars no doubt.

Count no. Statute Description Severity Disposition
1 948.02(2) 2nd Degree Sexual Assault of Child Felony C Found Guilty at Jury Trial
2 948.02(2) 2nd Degree Sexual Assault of Child Felony C Found Guilty at Jury Trial
3 948.02(2) 2nd Degree Sexual Assault of Child Felony C Found Guilty at Jury Trial
4 948.02(2) 2nd Degree Sexual Assault of Child Felony C Found Guilty at Jury Trial
5 948.07(1) Child Enticement-Sexual Contact Felony D Found Guilty at Jury Trial
6 948.10(1)(a) Exposing Genitals/Pubic Area/Intimate Parts to a Child Felony I Found Guilty at Jury Trial
7 948.10(1)(a) Exposing Genitals/Pubic Area/Intimate Parts to a Child Felony I Found Guilty at Jury Trial
8 948.02(2) 2nd Degree Sexual Assault of Child Felony C Found Guilty at Jury Trial
9 948.02(2) 2nd Degree Sexual Assault of Child Felony C Found Guilty at Jury Trial
10 948.02(2) 2nd Degree Sexual Assault of Child Felony C Found Guilty at Jury Trial
11 948.07(1) Child Enticement-Sexual Contact Felony D Found Guilty at Jury Trial
12 948.10(1)(a) Exposing Genitals/Pubic Area/Intimate Parts to a Child Felony I Found Guilty at Jury Trial
13 948.10(1)(a) Exposing Genitals/Pubic Area/Intimate Parts to a Child Felony I Found Guilty at Jury Trial
14 948.02(2) 2nd Degree Sexual Assault of Child Felony C Found Guilty at Jury Trial
15 948.02(2) 2nd Degree Sexual Assault of Child Felony C Found Guilty at Jury Trial
16 948.02(2) 2nd Degree Sexual Assault of Child Felony C Found Guilty at Jury Trial
17 948.07(1) Child Enticement-Sexual Contact Felony D Found Guilty at Jury Trial
18 948.10(1)(a) Exposing Genitals/Pubic Area/Intimate Parts to a Child Felony I Found Guilty at Jury Trial
19 948.10(1)(a) Exposing Genitals/Pubic Area/Intimate Parts to a Child Felony I Found Guilty at Jury Trial
20 948.02(2) 2nd Degree Sexual Assault of Child Felony C Found Guilty at Jury Trial
21 948.02(2) 2nd Degree Sexual Assault of Child Felony C Found Guilty at Jury Trial
22 948.07(1) Child Enticement-Sexual Contact Felony D Found Guilty at Jury Trial
23 948.10(1)(a) Exposing Genitals/Pubic Area/Intimate Parts to a Child Felony I Found Guilty at Jury Trial
24 948.10(1)(a) Exposing Genitals/Pubic Area/Intimate Parts to a Child Felony I Found Guilty at Jury Trial
25 940.45(3) Intimidate Victim/Threaten Force, etc. Felony G Found Guilty at Jury Trial

Eivind Berge said...

A comment on the first article sheds more light on how the witch-hunt proceeded:

So, having to put my money where my mouth is, I did some digging. Since this is a relatively small incident in Nowheresville, Wisconsin, there isn't a whole lot of information to be had.

I did, however, come across a piece following her conviction in the Appleton Post Crescent that summarized the complaint and described a bit of the method used to arrest Nelson-Koch.

The student didn't bring forth a complaint until December, 2021, after Nelson-Koch began attending the same church as the victim and restarted the inappropriate behavior. However, she had sent him some rather creepy cards that suggested an inappropriate degree of intimacy and alluded to the sexual encounters. The police set up a sting that involved the now-young man engaging in a recorded phone conversation with Nelson-Koch to try to obtain a confession of their relationship. She attempted to deny and gaslight it (pedophiles are craven but not stupid) while acknowledging his "trauma" which she tried to claim was related to his parents' divorce.

The evidence and testimony was sufficient to secure a conviction on all counts.

So it was definitely a mutual relationship and not force if there was anything at all. He basically went to the police and described his gerontophilic love interest, which in a sane world would be shrugged off as his own idiosyncrasy, but here of course it gets twisted into pedophilia and infinite punishment and compensation. We even worship grannylovers as infinite victims now, which has a different flavor of surrealism to it than the hot teacher abuser charade, but is nonetheless batshit crazy. If the boy deserves anything at all it is mild shame for going for the least attractive female in the school.

Eivind Berge said...

Also two more features of the Anne Nelson-Koch witch-trial worth mentioning:

08-09-2023 Motion
Additional text:
Motion to Preclude Recording and Photographing Crime Victim During Sentencing

08-08-2023 Motion
Additional text:
State's Motion to Seal documents and exhibits

So he is ashamed of his gerontophilia and the state helps him hide it at the same time as treating him as a larger-than-life victim worth ten lifetimes of punishment. How perfectly convenient to hide from public view all evidence of how lovey-dovey he was with the old lady.

All that remains for posterity is the distorted view and dysphemisms like "2nd Degree Sexual Assault of Child" -- hmm, it doesn't even have to be a "first degree assault" to deserve 600 years? I looked up the definition in Wisconsin:

(2) Second degree sexual assault. Whoever has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person who has not attained the age of 16 years is guilty of a Class C felony. This subsection does not apply if s. 948.093 applies.

So they do not even pretend there was force. Just a simple age of consent violation, which can get you 40 years per count. And just seeing the old lady naked is worth 3.5 years per count. Which may not be a pretty view but damn, we have gone insane.

Eivind Berge said...

Goes to show that even in these cases which on the face of them look most likely to be coercion if any female teacher case ever is, when you dig into it you find a romance replete with Valentine cards and whatnot, and which even continued when the man was in his 20s. The worst word even true believers in CSA used when they looked up the actual details is “inappropriate behavior.”

Think of that next time you see a genuinely hot teacher on trial for “raping” a boy.

Anonymous said...

I never look for interracial porn or anything similar on xvideos. However, I keep getting videos of that genre. Of course, the guy is always black with a big penis, and the legal teen age girl (18-19), or woman, is of European descent, usually blonde with very light skin.

Even if you don't look for it, it appears to you. You have no doubt already thought about the most obvious objectives of whoever produces these videos, to normalize interracial sexual relations. The smartest of you will also understand that it is about representing the black man as an alpha male with a huge cock (although it is all due to good casting, camera tricks and even rubber prostheses), with the consequent demoralization that this represents for the incel white boy who watches the video (it doesn't affect me specifically because I compete with them). But there is still another deeper and more evil objective.

When a male sees a heterosexual couple of his own species having sex, he instinctively feels aroused. This is so that the male feels the desire to compete for the female. But faced with the impossibility of intervening and the resignation of assuming the role of mere spectator, this excitement becomes pernicious and leads to sexual deviations.

If you look closely, there is an aspect of porn where the actor's face is never seen, only the actress. This type of porn is much healthier, because you can imagine yourself having sex with the girl, jerking off and goodbye, which is what it should be about and what I was looking for. Even if the actor shows his face, if the guy has a similar phenotype to you, you can still imagine it's you.

But when the actor is black, there is no human way for the white person to identify with him. What he sees is a rival from another tribe failing a girl from his tribe, as if after having lost a war (linking to the second of the objectives we have mentioned, assuming the role of loser, beta, demoralizing yourself). But it doesn't end there. Because on the one hand you are repulsed by the scene, but on the other hand you are programmed to feel aroused when you see sex. And since they offer it to you for free and so often, without asking for it, you end up not rejecting it. Since porn is something so easy to get, after a while watching those types of videos where they humiliate you by showing you how men from another very different tribe fuck those from your tribe, you become addicted to such humiliation. Because for you, sex is about that, watching how others fuck. That explains phenomena like cuckolding, which actually have nothing to do with homosexuality, but with the pleasure of being humiliated.

Interracial sex wants you to feel pleasure when being humiliated. Not only if you are a man. Women who get turned on by a black man do so because they feel dirty having sex with a primitive being.

Eivind Berge said...

I can't relate to that not just because I am a nofapper but also because I've had my share of black women, who have been very good to me. I even dated an 18-year-old black girl in my early 40s. So if sex is a competition between the races for their women, we got even :)