Thursday, November 09, 2023

The most tectonic moral shift in recent history

We went from something not being criminal at all in 1981 to prosecutors in 2023 asking for 100 years in prison for it. I am talking about women statutorily raping boys (in the USA; but it is a similar story in other countries). See this link to the Supreme Court explaining at great length in 1981 that they do not consider women capable of performing statutory rape in principle because these laws only exist to serve as a deterrent to men from impregnating young girls outside of marriage. Applying age of consent laws to men only is "supported not by mere social convention but by the immutable physiological fact that it is the female exclusively who can become pregnant."

Fast forward 42 years to 2023 and and see my discussion under my previous blog post on the case of Anne Nelson-Koch facing 600 years, prosecutors asking for 100 and her ultimately being sentenced to 10 for something even the law considers consensual in fact but is only criminalized because the boy was 14 rather than 16 at the time. How can something go from a non-issue, or rather a widely considered enjoyable experience if you disregard the woman’s old age in this case (remember, young teachers are subject to the same punishment), to worse than murder in my lifetime? Rest assured that my attitude has not changed since 1981. I still don’t think this is crimeworthy. But the normies apparently have no problems with this change, and I just want you to think about how profound that is.

There are broadly two possible explanations. Either women having sex with willing and most often eager teenage boys was always a heinous act but society didn’t realize it prior to the 1980s and I still don’t, or society went insane while pretty much I alone remained rational and sane. Well, I and Richard Hanania and Bill Maher and Bruce Rind and Newgon and a few others, but opposition is so thin that it rarely registers on the mainstream radar.

If the former explanation is correct, then female-perpetrated statutory rape is now in the same position as slavery was in 1900, something considered okay in the recent past which is now utterly condemned and heavily criminalized. It would certainly have to be as bad as slavery to be worth 100 years in prison. So then the question is, how can I be blind to the ethical badness of women statutorily raping boys if it really is so bad? Is it reasonable to postulate that I am so utterly handicapped, especially after spending close to 30 years thinking, reading and writing about the issue? I don’t think so, but I am leaving this explanation up here for completeness.

If the second explanation is correct, then people should listen up and snap out of their madness. Ponder that something women regularly do which wasn’t batted an eyelid at in 1980 is now practically a capital crime. If this change in attitudes and prosecutions happened for no good reason, the feminist movement should be all over it, surely? This means my blog has immense ethical value because I am one of the only ones even noticing that there is something wrong, that women are now subjected to a senseless witch-hunt as grotesque as any historical persecution except our methods of punishment are less torturous than burning witches.

It is also possible that the truth is somewhere in between. Maybe women are a little bit culpable for statutory rape but nowhere near deserving 100 years or 10 years. I reject this position because of the obvious positive value many boys get from such sex, and lack of traumatization credibly documented anywhere in putative victims, along with an evolutionary need-to-learn hypothesis to boot explaining why adolescent boys love to get sexual with older women, but if your position is they are nonetheless a little bit culpable you should still be able to see that the hysteria is way off the charts. Barring such an egregious moral position as slavery was in (and remember, the suffering of slaves was always known, so it can't possibly compare to boys enjoying sex), there is no way something can go from legal to potentially 600 years in prison without a spectacular overcorrection having happened.

When women face 600 years in prison for making love to boys and women are collectively serving thousands of years for such "crimes" as we speak, feminists do not give a damn. They are too busy whining about an unwanted kiss in the World Cup or some other triviality, but never noticing this systematic oppression with real, prolonged suffering except to cheer it on. It was feminists who got us into this mess with their false equality and sex-abuse panic. Something is horribly, profoundly wrong and it is ironic that it takes a reputed misogynist to speak out against the real misogyny.

Incidentally, MICHAEL M. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA COUNTY proves that the SCOTUS did not believe young girls are psychologically harmed from consensual sex with older men either, at least if they are 14 and older. The only issue is illegitimate children and the teen pregnancy panic which was popular at the time. All the supposed emotional harm to both girls and boys is made up after 1981. Personally I am not buying it for either boys or girls and least of all for boys. But seeing how the CSA panic is based on no real science for girls either, as Bruce Rind demonstrates so well, the difference is simply that boys are more lucky when they have sex with women, but neither sex are victims in any real sense unless you want to obsess over pregnancy and act as if birth control is no option.

The Anne Nelson-Koch case is as far removed from the original justification for statutory rape laws as you can get, since of course neither boys nor 67-year-old women can get pregnant. Yet she is now in prison for at least 10 years (and likely the rest of her life since she will be there until she is 85) due to an entirely new-fangled rationalization for laws which only became gender-neutral after 1981. And cases like hers, but usually with far younger and hotter women, happen almost every day now. It is a witch-hunt which of course won't be recognized as such until it is over, perhaps centuries from now unless people start listening to me.


Eivind Berge said...

Back when society thought it was morally permissible to enslave and torture people, they at least knew that torture was torture. Now we are to believe that sexual pleasure is torture if the person is below some arbitrary age, or much worse than torture if you look at the sentencing for statutory rape and abuse. When we had legal slavery at least we knew that people want to be free. Now we officially believe that boys don’t want to have sex when they say they want it, that they are tortured so hard by a consensual relationship that they appear to enjoy that it deserves 600 years in prison. This is true for girls too of course, but much easier to demonstrate with boys. We are also to believe that people don’t enjoy sex with teachers because of some voodoo to do with their position, and this applies after the age of consent too. I didn’t think the charade could be so normalized as it is now, especially the female sex offender charade including literally the most attractive women being twisted into these monsters.

The normies implicitly postulate a sexual soul which is contaminated by underage sex. The sexual soul is an entirely supernatural construct which cannot be observed or measured in any way, but it will torture you for life whether you realize it or not once it is tainted by underage sex. This contamination can also be used to explain all your problems in life even though you are statistically no more likely to have such problems than those who don’t have a sexually contaminated soul, or if you are more likely then we don’t care about confounding variables and the likelihood that it could be correlation rather than caused by pleasurable experiences, because there is no intellectual honesty on this topic. There is just an assumption that you obviously deserve millions of dollars in compensation because you are this gigantic victim, which is the real explanation for accusing all these teachers. The normies and their justice system and social sciences have gone stark raving mad, except Bruce Rind. He says morality corrupts the social sciences and moral panics corrupt them absolutely and this is where we are and have been since the 1980s. As he says in his book chapter published in September 2023,

Before the 1980s, most professionals saw CSA as immoral but generally not harmful, absent aggravating circumstances. By the early 1980s, professional beliefs radically shifted, seeing CSA as intrinsically traumatic, often causing severe maladjustment. This shift, however, came from advocacy and politics, not systematic empiricism, and soon occasioned moral panic (e.g., daycare satanic-ritual abuse, recovered memories). The moral panic, in turn, amplified the bias in scientific understanding of CSA. Researchers began interrogating various claims, such as, were memories of CSA true or implanted. With several colleagues, I interrogated core claims concerning trauma and harm, finding them to be highly overstated. Our research was politically attacked. Subsequently, I researched the nature of pederasty (a later major target of the moral panic) and was attacked. In this chapter, I detail moral panic bias, my research, the political attacks, and my responses.

amelio said...

I have studied roman law quite a bit as most european legal systems are based on it. I won’t delve into the 1981 »common law » judgment itself as I haven’t read it. From the information you’re providing :

« 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. »


« women are not immune to the "lewd and lascivious" law pertaining to under 14 »

1) This is very surprising from a logical point of view. In most systems there is (and was) a legal age of consent and, generally, another threshold usually lower when the offense is getting more serious ( statutory rape or rape). For exemple from 13 to 16 it could be gross indecency or something of the kind and under 13 rape. However, in 1981, an enlightened period as you see it, we have rape for anything under 18.

2) If the California law of 81 is unambiguous and applies only to men, why go to the Supreme Court ? In " Roman law" if you appeal a judgment when the law is perfectly straightforward your chances are minimal.

3) Let’s admit that this judgment is a case in point and proves that
women were immune when the victim was between 14 and 18 in 1981. Most ages of consent today are between 14 and 16. Reverting to the 81 situation would be an aggravation for men and would make little difference for women.

4) The only thing that is certain is that whenever the law was applied, the sentences were infinitely lower and psychological witchcraft didn’t enter into the picture (although it did shortly afterwards).

Eivind Berge said...

Firstly, the Supreme Court decision in MICHAEL M. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA COUNTY is not a common-law thing but concerns a California statute which, yes, explicitly excludes women from committing statutory rape. This statute is the simplest kind of law in the sense most people mean when they speak of a law, and I am astonished that you have trouble comprehending either its significance or simple wording.

“If the California law of 81 is unambiguous and applies only to men, why go to the Supreme Court?”

Because the Constitution is above state law, and state laws can be challenged in the Supreme Court. Some guy who was convicted as a statutory rapist in California in 1980 got the idea to challenge the law in an appeal on the basis that surely the Constitution would require that states don’t discriminate between men and women like this. Although attempts to pass an Equal Rights Amendment had failed in the 1970s (and still never happened as of 2023), feminist ideals were already floating around so you can see how he got the idea. But the appeal failed completely and I refer you back to the Supreme Court verdict to read why.

The Supreme Court (and Constitution since there is still no Equal Rights Amendment) allows sex-discriminatory statutory rape laws, but it does not mandate them. What happened after 1981 is that all states eventually made these laws gender-neutral on their own accord due to the ascendancy of feminism and the CSA panic.

And that’s how we got into this absurd situation which is so spectacularly powerfully brainwashing that even people who are sexually liberal like Amelio can hardly accept that women weren’t always criminalized along with men. Feminists have managed to revise history in our heads to where it’s difficult to imagine that the female sex offender charade has not always existed, making it extremely difficult to break the witch-hunt. I would not be surprised if I will be censored too, and possibly even the court records proving that things were otherwise, because the level of insanity is absolutely surreal.

Eivind Berge said...

I am fascinated that Amelio has so much trouble accepting that the California statute under discussion is the age of consent law and feels the need to dream up another one that can apply to women too. It is the very beast itself. This is it, straight from the horse’s mouth (or at any rate, I trust the SCOTUS to quote the statute correctly):

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.

Yes, there was another law for “lewd or lascivious acts” with people under 14, and that one was gender-neutral, but can we not admit that the statutory rape law is what it claims to be and is what is commonly referred to as age of consent?

Eivind Berge said...

Also, the whole idea behind the appeal in MICHAEL M. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA COUNTY is that since women are free to have intercourse with people aged 14-17, this male convicted “statutory rapist” who had sex with a 16-year-old should also be freed. Without the concept that women are free to do this, there could not be an appeal making its way to the Supreme Court on this basis. In case you STILL don’t get it.

amelio said...

"I am astonished that you have trouble comprehending either its significance or simple wording."

Quit that sort of language, will you ?

"the Supreme Court decision in MICHAEL M. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA COUNTY is not a common-law thing"

Christ ! I'm talking about the basic californian law according to which a californian court gave a judgment. That judgment was appealed to the Supreme Court. All the anglo-saxon legal system is based on the common law as most european systems are based on the roman law.

"the appeal failed completely"

Probably because the law was clear and not ambiguous. Something "floating in the air" has no bearing on the case. In our european systems , if a law is clear but seems unconstitutional on moral grounds for instance, you have to change the law first.

"even people who are sexually liberal like Amelio can hardly accept that women weren’t always criminalized along with men."

I have discussed that point can't you read :) ? I you want to go into the political arena which is very courageous of you, you have to hone your argument very carefully lest the weakest part of it can be shattered easily. And I do think that your clinging desperately to that 81 judgment as if it were the missing link proving that women can't be sexual aggressors is hardly relevant and can be easily brushed aside.

amelio said...

"I am fascinated"

I think your fascination somewhat obscures your understanding. You keep repeating the same things (pretending that it might help me understand how right you are) but you absolutely never discuss my objections, rather disingenuously I believe.

this male convicted “statutory rapist” who had sex with a 16-year-old should also be freed.

Not clever. Why should he be freed since he might impregnate the girl and this is is supposed to be why the discrimination exists ?

"you STILL don’t get it."

Next time try capital + bold, so I can understand better !

P.S. If you can't win an argument with a rather sympathetic person like me, you never will with real adversaries.

Eivind Berge said...

The appeal wasn’t merely based (in its own terms) on a moral ideal floating in the air, but specifically the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states that:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is interesting because the Supreme Court asserts that equal treatment of men and women may entail sex-discrimination in the statutory rape laws, because men and women are in fact different. The only point of the statutory rape laws (as conceptualized by 1981) is to deter men from getting young girls pregnant outside of marriage. And since only females get pregnant, the laws appropriately apply to male perpetrators only and have no relevance when women have sex with boys.

Now we have this idea that it’s “equal” to have the sex laws apply to women too, but of course it’s no such thing because equal treatment of unequals is a travesty. The courts in 1981 were honest enough to admit this.

And not just due to pregnancy but for psychological reasons too of course although they didn’t base their decision on this since no one thought sex was psychologically harmful anyway yet. Boys (on average) enjoy sex with women more than girls enjoy older men, and they are luckier to have these relationships. That’s just a fact we need to admit. But girls can consent too of course and they aren’t harmed by consensual sex, nor should this be criminal.

Eivind Berge said...

Amelio, this is not a sensible question until AFTER he is freed and the state gets to reconsider its statutory rape law for the future:

“Not clever. Why should he be freed since he might impregnate the girl and this is supposed to be why the discrimination exists?”

You have to entertain the idea that in case the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits such discrimination, then we have to just tolerate the increased risk of illegitimate pregnancies and free the men too. Or alternatively pass a new law for both sexes even if the criminalization of women is just along for the ride with no sensible basis. Which is what the states happened to chose on their own, except they don’t admit there is no sensible basis for criminalizing women -- they dream up all kinds of false mental trauma.

amelio said...

"this is not a sensible question until AFTER he is freed and the state gets to reconsider its statutory rape law for the future"

That's exactly what would happen in most countries. If the law is clear, the judge will usually apply it, with mitigating circumstances or partial excuse if he sees it fit. Then the law can be changed if it seems unconstitutional or ill adapted to societal changes.

Eivind Berge said...

I don’t understand what you are getting at here. The defendant only cares about freeing himself and new laws cannot be retroactive. So again, what happens after is not relevant to the appeal itself, or the pontification from the Supreme Court about the meaning of criminalizing male versus female sexuality. Why can’t you just admit you were wrong?

amelio said...

"Why can’t you just admit you were wrong?

Wrong about what ? How does what I say about most legal systems, which is factual, prove that I was "wrong" about your "woman abuse charade" ?
You get entangled in solipsistic logic and are unable to address criticism.

Eivind Berge said...

You kept claiming first that the statutory rape law didn’t exclude women, then when you comprehended the statute you dismissed it as not the “real” age of consent, and then you were confused about the appeal process which you didn’t even bother to read.

And finally and most importantly you dismiss that this clear thinking from 1981 shows that all the baggage which comes later is just that -- feminist delusions and lies. You seem to be guided by the very same false equality which has spread like a cancer since the 1980s, albeit to a lesser extent than the normies.

Eivind Berge said...

Once you realize that the criminalization of women under statutory rape laws is solely based on a false equivalency to illegitimate pregnancy risk and nothing whatsoever to do with harming their boy “vicims,” it ought to ring some bells to say the least. And all you have to do try this mindset on for size is to read MICHAEL M. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA COUNTY.

I am in fact trying to impregnate girls, and those who claim that’s irresponsible and ought to be punished are at least not delusional even if they are intolerant of other arrangements than traditional marriage. I cannot fault the SCOTUS of 1981 as literally insane on this matter. But those who claim there is any basis to punishing women are batshit crazy and that’s all there is to it, unless they truly understand what they are doing, in which case they are evil and misogynistic. It is therefore astonishing that this persecution can flourish with every feminist and seemingly every woman happy as a lark about it. I hope at least some normies can open their eyes to what is really going on if they read what I have taken the time to spell out here.

Eivind Berge said...

Now it is common for MRAs to claim that they don’t give a shit about women’s lack of sexual predatorhood; they only care that the boy has to pay child support. But it is insanely evil to construct a Rube Goldberg machine which pretends the woman is a dangerous sexual predator who needs to be locked up for 600 years when all you need to do is deprive her of child support payments. So that argument doesn’t fly either.

And besides, the typical teacher is married, so her pregnancy isn’t illegitimate anyway but presumed to belong to her husband. So her husband is the victim if anybody is, and if we want to punish this then the appropriate solution would be to bring back adultery laws or perhaps make a new one for cuckoldry.

Anonymous said...

Why are you entertaining the troll Amelio, Eivind? Why are you even allowing his comments? Either he dont understand anything about law, or(more likely) he is just trying to protect his own wrong opinion about hating women/girls and wanting to punish them by catching them for sex crimes.

A woman or a girl can never commit a sex crime to a boy or a man. This should be easy enough to understand for a sexualist.

And no Amelio, a woman forcing objects into a mans anus is not a sex crime either, because it dont give the girl/woman any sexual pleasure so it would not be sexually motivated and also because the anus is not a sex organ.

To be honest I would like if there were other ways you could use your time Eivind than trying to convince Amelio and the AF. I see them as lost causes anyway and they only make damage to our movement by appearing here.

amelio said...

"the anus is not a sex organ"

Freud said the brain was a sex organ.
As far as you're concerned, I think the anus is where your bright developments originate from.

amelio said...


Soliloquy is the best way to avoid contradiction.

Let’s admit that this judgment is a case in point and proves that
women were immune when the victim was between 14 and 18 in 1981. Most ages of consent today are between 14 and 16. Reverting to the 81 situation would be an aggravation for men and would make little difference for women.

Eivind Berge said...

I thought Amelio was sincerely trying to learn and arguing in good faith, but what he reiterates there means he cares nothing about women. The ethical point I was making about persecuting women for no reason -- up to potentially 600 years in prison as we have just seen and prosecutors asking for 100 years with a straight face for 25 counts of simple age of consent violation plus showing herself naked to a 14-year-old boy, means nothing to him. Apparently men don’t matter either since he doesn’t want to go back to the days when girls over 14 were unambiguously “jailbait” at worst. They were not helpless traumatized children who knew nothing about sex unless you “groomed” them, but considered perfectly good sex partners. You were just expected to marry them first if you wanted to do it in California because they didn’t want so many bastard children around. I am not conversant in the usual punishment for statutory rape in 1980 but I know it was much less than now. I would guess it was measured in months as opposed to the years or decades or even centuries it is now. Sure it would be an aggravation if we adopted 18 as the age of consent everywhere, but going back means you get to keep the age of consent they had in your jurisdiction back then. I don’t think any states and few countries have lowered their age of consent since then and many have raised it.

Anyway, I am glad I spelled this out since others might learn. If we ever get some naïve normies to read this they might genuinely learn something and have ethical qualms about the female sex offender charade and by extension the excessive punishment of men too. Amelio probably won’t be affected and I know AF never will since he is only motivated by hate, but I am not just writing for them.

Eivind Berge said...

Regarding the anal object rape mentioned by Anonymous, I agree women can't do that either as a sex crime and can't rape at all, but even those who believe women can commit forcible rape (with or without objects) ought to find this thread convincing because it's all about statutory rape. Factual consent is assumed in all the other examples here, even when the system currently seeks 100 years in prison for women. Consent is simply invalidated by statute and this legal fiction is now one of the worst crimes imaginable if we buy into the imbecilic normie thinking.

Eivind Berge said...

What if the sexualist cause morphed into the Palestinian cause. Then we would instantly be a powerful force now. I have never seen anything so powerful. And they are certainly much closer to us than our own culture which can only hate us for being men.

Watching livestream of the London protest today.

Eivind Berge said...

Israel can drop bombs but that’s all they've got and those will run out before they can conquer a single little strip of land, except their sympathy runs out even sooner. The Jews don't have anywhere near the human resources of Palestine with supporters and neither do the Christians. I see some old men counterprotesting who only believe in antisex bigotry -- Tommy Robinson and that sort of dunce. Christians are so feeble they can only rally around antisex causes anymore -- #Metoo for women and pedohunting for men (which is basically the same thing as Islam-hating too).

A culture which believes in woman-on-boy abuse does not deserve to exist. A culture which twists the vigor and beauty of youth, both male and female, into pretend-helpless sex-traumatized childhood does not deserve to exist. Meanwhile, look at the vibrant families of Gaza. Their population is said to be half children by our standards but these kids are so fearsome the IDF had to kill 5000 of them already because they can’t be distinguished from warriors.

We get what we wish for, a dying culture of antisex bigots ready to be replaced with a sex-positive one. The Muslims outbreed the feminists even while the bombs drop and they are cut off from supplies, which can’t be kept up very long anyway because they have positioned themselves to exert power everywhere, and a culture which only cares about fighting sexuality is a pushover, extremely deservedly so.

I bet the boys of Gaza grow up with healthy sexual experiences the way Bruce Rind prescribes, and the girls do too. They do not pretend friendly older women are abusers, nor do they have a delusion of an extended adolescence during which one must be protected from marriage either. Just look at this:

Child marriage in the occupied Palestinian territory... As illustrated in figure 1, two out of every ten women aged 20-49 were married before the age of 18 in the West Bank and this number increases to three out of ten women for the Gaza Strip based on PCBS data from 2014. Cases have been detected where girls and boys were as young as 12 years when entering into marriage.

That’s how you build a strong culture.

Eivind Berge said...

Women who are married before the age of 18 tend to have more children than those who marry later in life. In West Bank, 21.3 percentage of women aged 15-49 had a live birth before the age of 18, whereas in Gaza Strip, this number increases to 23.7.

Eivind Berge said...

Perhaps it is a coincidence that possibly the most sex-positive and anti-feminist territory on earth is being most ferociously bombed right now including the civilian population. But it is not a coincidence that they actually appear to be stronger or at least more resilient and supported worldwide.

Anonymous said...

It should be noted that Omegle shut down. It is fitting and expected that this would be the time it goes away, during the greatest feminist sex hysteria mankind has ever seen.

Omegle was notorious for showcasing the sexuality of youth, something that is now dirty and evil and not supposed to exist, either in the present or the past. So Omegle has no place in 2023, however, it has gifted us with thousands of videos of teens getting sexual, and that history will take a long time to erase completely.


Eivind Berge said...

Damn, I never tried Omegle and now I will never get a chance. It wasn't just for wankers, you could make actual connections I understand. The only downside is the girls would probably be very far away, which is why I wasn't so enthusiastic as I never heard of it being popular in Norway. Whatever remains from there now is just porn though, which has no sexual value and should be avoided. On to the next platform: surely this won't be the last arena for human connection without predetermined age segregation?

Anonymous said...

“Whatever remains from there now is just porn though, which has no sexual value and should be avoided.“

What a negative view! More positively, overwhelming evidence of sexual exhuberance in underagers who have clearly discovered and made full use of a medium that allows them to express what comes naturally, but is everywhere else in their lives, suppressed. Moreover, evidence that confounds the dominant narrative that childhood sexual experience is always the result of adult-sponsored abuse.

Eivind Berge said...

Oh, I agree with that. It has sexual value in a broader sense, in the same way Rind’s studies have sexual value. What I would call scientific value, but yeah it’s the same thing. No doubt lots of “CSEM” is an illegal way of saying and showing the same things Rind and other sex-positive researchers do, and what shines through in research from the antis too if you don’t buy into their forced definition of “CSA” as something bad for no other reason than age.

Just don’t use it to facilitate masturbation, and I agree it has value. Masturbation has no sexual value and porn sucks attention away from real girls, so in that sense the CSEM legislation is helping men insofar as it can deter masturbation and nudge you into trying to meet girls instead. Of course I still don’t agree with punishing self-abusers and on the whole this persecution is massively oppressive. The authorities want to suppress the truth and enforce the lie that the underaged are asexual or certainly never want to be sexual with adults unless they are “groomed,” whereupon they are horribly traumatized for life. While I recommend reading Rind et al. or MICHAEL M. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA COUNTY, my blog and other legally protected writings to combat these notions, I appreciate that the Omegle material can also help open the eyes of normies to the rich spontaneous sexual lives of minors and frustrate the authorities.

Jack said...

Speaking of porn as a sex-positive space Eivind, I advise you to have a peep at anime (manga, hentai) porn. Surprising what it can get away with in terms of portrayal of underage sex. The age issue is fudged in a cloud of artistic licence but there's no doubt we're more often than not in early teenage territory. If that is not a slap in the face of the child-abuse paradigm, I don't know what is.

Of course one reason it is so efficient at conveying raw sex is because the drawn figures are perfect, as a contrast to cinematic porn where actresses and actors are often just so-so. Which brings me to a favourite motto of mine: "there's no shortage of horniness in this World, there's only a shortage of looks".

Anonymous said...

"Freud said the brain was a sex organ.
As far as you're concerned, I think the anus is where your bright developments originate from."

How much longer are you going to continue to entertain this troll, Eivind? You've kicked the AF out, so why can't you do the same for this fake sexualist? In my opinion, you should kick Jack out of our movement too if he's going to consist in propagating the wanker's delusion.

"What if the sexualist cause morphed into the Palestinian cause. Then we would instantly be a powerful force now. I have never seen anything so powerful. And they are certainly much closer to us than our own culture which can only hate us for being men."

I agree with you 100%, Eivind. We should support Palestinians because they are the underdog like us, and child marriage is normal in Islamic culture. My city had a march for Palestine yesterday too and I attended it. When everybody was shouting 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!', I was shouting 'From the river to the sea, Paedophiles will be free!'. Of course, nobody knew because I was one voice, but I think a pretty young girl standing next to me with her father may have, because she kept smiling at me.

Eivind Berge said...

Lol, that's a funny slogan which goes to show it morphs seamlessly, with the right number of syllables and all :)

If I kicked everybody out for disagreeing it would be kind of lonely in here, and in a way that's okay because I am not here to meet anybody's expectations. I am here to express myself honestly. But it helps my expression to have opposing views to argue against, as long as they are not just trolling. So I tolerate some counterarguments provided they don't get too disruptive or repetitive (which the AF got on porn and masturbation long ago).

Eivind Berge said...

How they erode the age of consent by making everything "sexual exploitation":

Not On Record EP#94 | The "Hypothetical" Sexual Exploitation Case

In Canada but it is the same everywhere now and not hypothetical. Whenever there is an age gap they can always twist it into abuse.

Goes to show we need to oppose all the sex laws simultaneously or more to the point the culture itself. When the culture says all age gaps are grooming and abuse, it will be charged one way or another even if they can't use the age of consent. The root problem is that society hates our guts for being men and we have no place here. The hatred against us runs so deep that law reform is not going to help because the hate transcends all laws. We need to think on a deeper level and hate the culture itself back, wish it the worst and try to find another one because we absolutely do not belong here anymore if we refuse to hate our sexuality as men.

Anonymous said...

To be honest, Eivind, I think you should stop talking about society having a problem with men. You yourself can see that the biggest travesty is women being locked away for sex with boys. I thought we were going to stop trying to appeal to the misogynists?

On a happier note, I saw something that might be of interest to you. There is apparently an anti-wanking app that lets others check on how much you are wanking, as a deterrent. I would be willing to let you check up on me, Eivind. I only wank occasionally, but I'm trying to give up completely.

Eivind Berge said...

That's obviously the AF with his two hobbyhorses again but I let it through because it was remotely funny with that new app and Bill Maher's reaction to it.

As to the female sex offender charade which he still does not care about -- this is the reductio ad absurdum of feminist antisex bigotry. As long as people are unmoved by the reductio ad asburdum they won't care about the larger issue, at least not on logical or consistent grounds. That means focusing on men can only really be hate against hate which is his only style, and yes I try not to overdo that. Focusing on the women enables us to build logical and ethical arguments and see if they have any effect on the very lowest hanging fruit with regard to getting people to understand there is an irrational CSA panic going on.

The whole approach of using logical arguments backed by science and ethics against unjustified "abuse"-based criminalization of sexuality is fruitless if it can't have any effect on the most absurd cases. This means people don't care about the justification at all and simply want to lock up men and women out of hate, jealousy and other ulterior motives. This appears to be the world we are living in, but nonetheless I don't think it is a good use of my time to simply spout hate and try to rile up men that way. Both because that too has proven fruitless and because then my writings will have less value to anyone who wants to approach this issue with intellectual honesty, if anyone ever does.

Eivind Berge said...

We should be astonished and on the rhetorical level thankful that the feminists took the reductio ad absurdum of their persecution of victimless sex and made it real for us. If they didn't do that, I would have to make it up. I would raise the hypothetical conclusion of believing underage equals abuse by asking people to imagine what it would look like if we put beautiful women in prison for being nice to boys. Now I don't have to imagine. These cases are all over the news every day. The emperor has no clothes for all to see and it has no effect. If appealing to the truth is supposed to have any effect at all, we should have seen it by now. Nonetheless, I think I would be wasting my time here if I didn't appeal to truth.

We now know that persecution of sexuality can be 100% based on ulterior motives and nobody bats an eyelid. A boy who accused sex with hot teacher can even collect a million dollars afterwards and the polite fiction still goes he accused and sued because he was traumatized :)

The hot teachers are chewed up much like a kitten plays with a mouse to hone its hunting skills and then perhaps eats it, with exactly the same lack of sympathy. Teachers become obvious prey and society don't give a damn, but cheer the charade on and leave the carcasses of hot girls who only brought joy to the world to rot with no second thought in the ultimate display of waste imaginable.

This is an astonishing, shockingly cruel farce which will offend anybody who can see the truth and cares about it. Futile thought it still seems, since it doesn't even affect people in my own movement, I couldn't have asked for an easier way to point to truth.

A state in Nigeria holds the world record in female sex offender charade and mandates salpingectomies for women who "rape" boys (under 18 apparently), with also death penalty under 14:

In September [2021], the north-western Kaduna state introduced sterilisation as a penalty for child rape.

Under the new law, men convicted of the crime will be surgically castrated, while women will have their fallopian tubes removed, a procedure known as salpingectomy. If the victim is aged under 14, the punishment will be followed by the death penalty. If they are over 14 years old, the penalty is life imprisonment.

Critics say that the new law is cruel – and that it also will be ineffective in preventing rape and sexual violence, which requires a different approach.

Translation of that last sentence: it still doesn't go far enough! We haven't started to make a dent in sexual behavior with all these measures, only introduced pointless tortures to be used for ulterior motives. Even the "critics" don't actually tolerate humanity at all.

Anonymous said...

"We need to think on a deeper level and hate the culture itself back, wish it the worst and try to find another one because we absolutely do not belong here anymore if we refuse to hate our sexuality as men."

Now you see why Russia and China defeating NATO is at least hopeful. Imagine those two fat lawyers and a fat judge nitpicking the details of your personal relationship through a feminist lens in court as you pay thousands by the hour and your life hangs in limbo? If you're in that position, you've already failed because you had a chance to leave the culture and you didn't take it.

Additionally, there are a few cases where the American citizenship is emphasized when the USA government prosecutes men who go overseas to get away from the old female dominance at home and have sex with nice young women abroad. I read that the "defendant" asked the federal judge to renounce his citizenship in lieu of going to jail for the rest of his life for the hoax sex crime abroad that didn't even touch American soil or American "victims". Of course, the federal judge denied his request, essentially forcing him to retain American citizenship, and go to jail for the rest of his life. There is no rhyme or reason to the international sex laws on US citizens, it's just straight to jail, no real consideration of any legal precedents or interests. For this, you are very lucky to live outside the sex fascist USA.

anon 69

Eivind Berge said...

Another male celebrity butchered on historical accusations:

Over the six week trial, the court heard graphic and emotional testimony from five women, whose identities are protected by a publication ban, about assaults that occurred from the 1980s to the mid-2000s.

Prosecutors had said that Nygard met the women in social settings and invited them to the headquarters of his clothing empire in Toronto. All of the “tours” ended in his bedroom suite. The room had a bed, televisions and a jacuzzi. Prosecutors say the doors didn’t have handles and the locks were controlled by Nygard.

In one instance, a woman testified that she was only 16 years old when an older man she was dating brought her to Nygard’s headquarters. She said Nygard sexually assaulted her and when she was leaving the building, a woman handed her an emergency contraceptive pill.

Another broke down during her testimony, telling the court she worried any complaint against him would be dismissed. “He’s so wealthy and so powerful, who would believe me?”

Where is the evidence for any of this besides the women's words?

Jack said...

Another celebrity being destroyed by the system. Note that he enjoyed his celebrity status while the going was good but never as much as put a word in edgeways in favour of the struggling men down the social ladder who were not even allowed to patronize a prostitute for fear of going to jail.

I'm convinced there's again some lookism in the Nygard case. He doesn't look good any more you see, quite the reverse, so he should be hunted as the beast he now is or has become. Anti-sex hypocrisy, lookism, ageism ... This is mankind, the race that spends its time posturing with "Human Rights" but has about as much moral sense as a snake under a stone.

Anonymous said...

Have you been suspended from YouTube again Eivind? Your last video is gone.

I took a look at stats on your blog using an SEO tool. Appears you have around 5 visitors a day here. When you were in the news for your arrest, you were getting close to 100 a day.

Angry Harry's blog was getting 2,000 visitors a day before he died.

The AF's blog was getting about 1,500 visitors a day before he closed it. once had 40,000 visitors a day, but now has less than 1,000.

The Spearhead once had around 8,000 visitors a day.

Fertile Dating has practically zero visitors a day, although you already knew that I guess.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't see any issue with my YouTube.

Of course I am sucking at getting popular anywhere, but I am doing my best.

Eivind Berge said...

Also your numbers are underestimates. I was getting thousands of visitors at the time of my arrest and I think my current ones are a bit higher than you claim too. But there is nothing I can do to draw a significant audience at present.

Anonymous said...

Well, yes my mistake - you were getting 90 or so in 2018. The tool I'm using only counts from 2013.

The tool is pretty accurate. Around five a day seems plausible given the number of commentators here (you, Jack, a couple of anonymous followers, Amelio, Anon69, AF, none of whom probably visit every day, and maybe the occasional Norwegian reader). You don't appear to rank in Google for anything other than your name, and "female sex offender charade". So your only visitors would be returning visitors who would surely comment at least occasionally. Also the likes and comments, and subscribers on your YouTube channel suggest a very low number of readers/'followers'.

"But there is nothing I can do to draw a significant audience at present."

Well maybe doing something different to what you are doing?

Anonymous said...

anon69 is a great commenter.

Eivinds philosophies are to solid to be used to try and convince a few porn- and masturbation enthusiasts that are frequenting this blog. Yes I'm talking about the AF(yes, the guy that want sex-robots), Amelio(is afraid girls will rape his anus, because "girls do that") and Jack(the manga-guy).

I'm sure there are ways to improve the way philosophies are presented. The blog is great, but the youtube-channel will probably not draw in any new followers unless some changes are made to it.
Anyways, the philosophies are solid and should absolutely not change.

Eivind Berge said...

What did the Newgon channel do wrong?

It seems close to ideal in presenting MAP-positive content, yet it does not get more views than I do. It could have a more human touch, but I don't think it matters that much since there is simply no enthusiasm for the message.

I doubt even Angry Harry would do well today. has close to a feminist message replete with boy abuse propaganda and they still suck at getting traffick now. Even Jezebel, which of course is completely feminist, had to shut down:

Everything seems locked into the big platforms now, but even when they tolerate sex-positive content such as the Newgon channel it gets a few hundred views max. YouTube does not even have to censor us anymore because there is no interest.

There is no excitement and hardly any enthusiasm for either side because radical feminism is now mainstream and the persecution of sexuality is simply normal, run-of-the-mill police work with a sprinkling of vigilantes, who are the only ones who get some popular enthusiasm.

Anonymous said...

Would you go on a podcast, Eivind?

Eivind Berge said...

Sure. Who is asking?

Eivind Berge said...

It only has to be a serious podcast, not with anybody anonymous.

Anonymous said...

No one is asking, not yet. But I'm trying to contact some people.

Eivind Berge said...

Another victim of the female sex offender charade is Kelly Ann Schutte:

A Pennsylvania middle school counselor allegedly groomed a 14-year-old student and sexually abused him on multiple occasions over the summer before cops became involved.

Guidance counselor Kelly Ann Schutte, 35, was charged with institutional sexual assault and other crimes for the inappropriate relationship with the boy that began in the fall of 2022 and continued through the summer, according to court records and reports. Cops were first alerted to the alleged abuse in July when a family member of Schutte — who worked at Pennridge South Middle School — reportedly spotted them kissing inside her home, according to a criminal complaint obtained by NBC10-Philadelphia.

The relative, who witnessed the alleged kiss from outside, reportedly stormed into the house and demanded the teen leave, the student said. The scared teen ran out and hid behind a parked vehicle around the block and called his parents in a panic to be picked up, the local station reported.... The boy then told his parents that he was in a romantic and sexual relationship with Schutte and his mother called police the following day on July 18, the complaint states.

So people have gone stark raving mad freaking out over a kiss -- against a relative! He looks too young so there is age-gap AIDS: have to panic maximally and make sure he gets the trauma he is supposed to have! The normie brain is irredeemably broken when they can even do this against a family member; almost as bad as my family betrayed me.

She looks good for 35. Of course 14-year-old girls look better but she would be great practice to more confidently pick up the hottest girls later, as Bruce Rind explains so well.

Eivind Berge said...

If I go on a podcast I definitely want to talk about the female sex offender charade. Explain the need-to-learn hypothesis and mock the normies for believing in their charade. They might as well believe it is institutional assault for the lunch lady to serve healthy meals at school by exactly the same logic. The institutional position, or just the age gap, is believed to vitiate something healthy and positive by all observable and experiential metrics -- how exactly?

Anonymous said...

"Everything seems locked into the big platforms now, but even when they tolerate sex-positive content such as the Newgon channel it gets a few hundred views max. YouTube does not even have to censor us anymore because there is no interest."

While it's true that radical feminism and the mommy vagina government is now mainstream, I don't agree there is no interest in pushing back; there is absolutely censorship, it's just done quietly now because it's more effective that way. It's far more likely the big tech algorithms have been changed by their owners to shadowban content against feminist sex hysteria, along with anything else that is independent and non-mainstream that big tech does not own. The internet has been completely taken over by big corporate/government interests, and don't forget, government is pimping out youthful sexuality with incredible success.

I just realized we have no positive word for antifeminist in the English language. When I went to look up antonyms, all I got were words with negative connotations successfully attacked by feminists, such as misogynist, chauvinist or sexist. This might be part of the reason why English has carried radical feminism so well. We used to have "redpill" for a minute, but that was attacked and destroyed using plants like Andrew Tate.

Redpill was appealing because it was a synonym for blunt honesty. Feminism and feminist sex hysteria propagated by the state is at its core entirely dishonest. So, I searched for antonyms of that and I like the term Realist which is truly what we are.


Eivind Berge said...

I use "sexualist" as a positive word for the opposite of feminist. Let's try to get this established in the English language.

While women get ten years and such, men still have it worse of course. Here's 40 years to a voyeur, psychiatrist David Tatum. All for pure fantasy and filming and "using artificial intelligence to transform innocent pictures of children into intense pornography stills."

Most conceptually bizarre, besides the reality attributed to AI fantasies:

Tatum recorded a former patient multiple times by directing a camera up her skirt during one of her therapy sessions. She had turned 18 just five days before the visit — but Tatum wrote she was only 17 in his notes, indicating he understood he was filming child pornography, according to court documents.

So the "child pornography" consists of him mistakenly thinking she is 17 rather than 18. So many layers of absurdity here, and all against a pathetic wanker rather than a sexually serious man. At this point, having sex with girls will positively protect you from prosecution because law enforcement is so obsessed with the fake crap. There is a sort of hyperreality to porn and AI-generated imagery which gives this material higher priority in the minds of wankers and pigs alike.

In the same way men cannot reasonably consent to porn as I have written about before,

it luckily (to sexualists and nofappers) distorts perceptions of the justice system as well. There is no such thing as sex addiction, but there is porn addiction (all use is in the same category as addiction: totally bad for you) even though it provides no sexual value and prosecutorial addiction to prosecuting the same even though it does nothing to fight sexuality and actively hurts the feminist cause because they waste resources going after the wrong men.

Anonymous said...

I just can't believe that there are a majority of adults walking around who truly believe that teenagers under 18 do not know what sex is, and don't want it and enjoy it. There are too many shows and movies about this topic to be ignored. I think most adults will agree privately that a 13 year old is very horny.

But they will try to save the second part of their argument, which is that teenagers should only be having sex with each other (which belies their silly "brain development" argument), and that there is too much of a risk that an older person could be a "predator" (whatever that is), when of course it's obvious that an older person has more experience and would be far more likely to be responsible about sex and its consequences if any. Then you realize the whole thing is simply a feminist construction because older women transgress far less than 1% of the time, and more than 99% of the cases are men pursuing youthful female beauty, which is evil and must be outlawed. Nevermind the fact it takes two to tango, and the young women love the sexual attention, so they had to change the terminology from "unlawful sex" to "child sexual abuse" and "statutory rape", more fictions that have nothing to do with real rape. Feminists man...

Eivind Berge said...

How the hyperreality of digital porn/AI fools prosecutors as well as wankers is a thought almost too delightful to share lest they wise up. But it is logical that they would be prone to the same delusion; shouldn't surprise us when we know how hyperreality works. Or supernormal stimuli as they are also called: "an exaggerated version of a stimulus to which there is an existing response tendency, or any stimulus that elicits a response more strongly than the stimulus for which it evolved."

I heard today that AI now can generate human faces that look more convincing as real human faces than real human faces, at least of white people because that’s where they have most training.

It should not surprise us that AI also generates more convincing “sexual abuse” to prosecutors and digital porn in general works as a supernormal stimuli to wankers and cops alike. It strikes me that a man looking at a picture of 18-year-old thinking she is 17 like our dear voyeur above is also a kind of hyperrealism to the abuse industry: that thought is more hyperreally "abusive" than porn of a real 17-year-old, and real sex with a 17-year-old is not even worth considering for them (often downright legal too despite the porn always being illegal) as long as they have voyeurs and wankers to catch.

Porn is insidious to men because it displaces real sexual effort and enjoyment, but at least the wankers aren’t the only ones who are fooled :-)

The porn addiction -- or just more loosely using despite there being no point to it as it’s totally worthless from the getgo -- all stems from the hyperreality. Porn is to sex almost like ultra-processed foods are to whole foods like apples and steaks -- and I say almost because porn has no sexual value but fast food will keep you alive for a good while (and by the way it is mainly the number of females served up in porn which accounts for the supernormality, rather than the realism of any given one of them). If you are properly hungry, a steak or an apple tastes perfect, just like sex does to nofappers, and you only eat an amount that is good for you. But if you are used to eating fast food you feel the need to have sugar mixed into the already sweet apple and the beef processed with all kinds of additives including oily heavily salted fries that you can’t stop eating until you get fat. The hyperreal taste of all this is not the same as good taste because you don’t feel satisfied in the end. Addiction is when the wanting exceeds the liking, and you want something you don’t really like so much all things considered, and then want more of it until it is clearly bad for you.

Thankfully, it is ALSO bad for feminism to believe in the reality of porn :)

They only have so many police officers, court dates and prison places, so when they use any of this on porn or AI it is a win for sexualism.

Anonymous said...

Here's a case close to where you live, Eivind. Teacher in his thirties arrested and charged for having sexual relationships to women over 18 y.o.

If there is a court case, you should try to get inside the court.

Eivind Berge said...

So the persecution against teachers has mushroomed into not just above age of consent but also over 18 here too now. I am glad I am not a teacher or anything useful to the social order. Of course all teachers should go on strike but nobody will react to this either. They will tolerate this persecution as well as they tolerated the criminalization of "leiermål" centuries ago which we are now back to. Humans clearly don't have it in them to rebel against oppressive sexual morality, which reflects back on human nature that perhaps the persecution unfortunately is built-in. It will always find a way no matter the justification. When they can't use a religious justification that sex is only supposed to occur in marriage they will simply dream up "abuse" everywhere and carry out the persecution anyway.

The public only gets the message that sex is always abuse and criminal, and they don't want to listen to anything else. I will try to cover it if it goes to court but not expecting anybody here to listen.

Anonymous said...

Imagine having to sit through that fat old biatch haranguing you over bullshit feminist sex crimes in an interrogation room? I would've told both of them to get lost immediately.

I like that the Anglosphere is using a child hoax crime against Putin. That can't possibly bode well for the child hoax crime organizations once Russia is finished beating NATO.


Eivind Berge said...

The jury was told one of the child victims said: "Two witches holded [sic] my legs down, it felt uncomfortable, all the witches and wizards were watching."

And here we are again, back to literal convicted witches.

Defence lawyers had argued the children may not have been telling the truth, but prosecutors said it would be "off the scale devious" to make up crimes of the "most monstrous kind".

Yes, of course. Like we learned in the 80s, these kinds of accusations are always true.

"It really is highly unusual case. There have been some horrendous cases over the decades. But this one is truly shocking and the public will find it difficult to think that children can have experiences like this, that they can be exposed to such wilful and awful treatment, such horrendous abuse."

Detective Superintendent Nicola Kilbane said: "This has been a horrific ordeal for the young victims who were subjected to years of unimaginable abuse. Our thoughts are with them today and I hope this outcome can help them in moving forward.

"The levels of depravity shown in this case are extremely rare in Scotland and the courage of the victims was essential in securing this conviction.

Oh, yes. Absolutely horrendous abuse. Thank goodness we only need to get children to say some words and that's all the evidence needed.

Iain Owens, 45, Elaine Lannery, 39, Lesley Williams, 41, Paul Brannan, 41, Scott Forbes, 50, Barry Watson, 47, and John Clark, 46, were all found guilty of rape and sexual assault.

Eivind Berge said...

I used to think there would soon be so much "abuse" that people would stop taking it seriously. I don't think so anymore because it's just a way to rule. There's no reason why not at least half the people can be oppressed that way, possibly more. People will keep playing along as long as they either see some benefit in it for themselves or are kept in line by force or threat (which can be as little as fear of cancellation if they speak out).

Here's the next step already: Beyoncé's Cardiff gig crowd was scanned for paedophiles.

Facial recognition was used on crowds attending a Beyoncé concert in Cardiff to scan for paedophiles and terrorists.

South Wales Police and Crime Commissioner Alun Michael said searching for potential terrorists at such events had become normal since the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing.

He said paedophiles were also targeted as "there would be very large numbers of young girls attending that concert".

Mr Michael described using such cameras as "entirely sensible".

What a splendid idea. Why not do it everywhere girls are present, such as shopping malls, busses and streets... It is entirely sensible after all according to this civilization.

Anonymous said...

Just when you think things might be about to start improving.
It reminds me of that Brass Check TV comedy show from around 2009-the part where it is solemnly announced that the British Isles are now the Paedoph Isles.
Why not everywhere indeed. And maybe in a couple of years time, they'll expand it for legal but age-inappropriate couples who'll be booted out of concerts and other events.

Anonymous 2

Anonymous said...

"Porn is insidious to men because it displaces real sexual effort and enjoyment, but at least the wankers aren’t the only ones who are fooled :-)"

Eivind, what do you think about watching a film or TV show, or a novel, to get emotionally caught up in a fictional story? Is this a form of delusion too? Emotional wanking? Does it displace real emotional effort and enjoyment? Perhaps listening to music is a form of emotional wanking too? If not, why not?

Anonymous said...

'Paedophiles' at a pop concert who likely just want to look at pretty teen girls now treated as seriously by the UK police as Islamic terrorists who want to blow up those teenage girls to get martyr's reward in heaven with 72 pre-teen virgins.

What a clown world indeed.

Eivind Berge said...

Entertainment is fine as long as it does not eat into your sex life. So is art of nude women on your walls and so on. Perhaps fictions can also get in the way of some other areas of your life occasionally, but not anywhere near as obviously as porn. I never heard of anyone who did not go out and live because they preferred to sit and listen to music or read novels, but it's obvious what men lose from wanking. You only have so much sexual energy, and masturbating means it is spent and depleted. The waste is astonishing if you think about it, not just from the time lost but refractory period and most importantly diminished drive and initiative to seek real sex. You have to be blind to what you could have had otherwise if you compare it to listening to music in some spare moments.

These disingenuous questions all boil down to not having sexual ambition. I don't have an ambition to be a rock star or action hero, so if I listen to some music or watch a movie instead of attempting to do these things myself, so what? But I do have an ambition to have sex and I think it is pathetic to not have that ambition to the point that you can nonchalantly ask if wanking is similar to listening to music.

Eivind Berge said...

'Paedophiles' at a pop concert who likely just want to look at pretty teen girls now treated as seriously by the UK police as Islamic terrorists.

Yeah. Every time I enter the UK I am amazed the automatic passport gates still work for me. Would have thought I am on multiple suspicious-person lists by now given how outspoken I am, but no -- G.K. Chesterton's advice to hide in plain sight is solid.

You can be labelled a potential terrorist just from your Google searches. Given that the "paedophile" detection uses the same system all of a sudden I doubt they are limited to convicted offenders with that either. That came out of nowhere complete with facial recognition which indicates they have a secret registry. Before long everyone will be a suspected paedophile except those who state publicly that they are :)

You can shout it from the rooftops and get a big yawn at best, but if you try to hide, they are on to you.

Jack said...

"But I do have an ambition to have sex and I think it is pathetic to not have that ambition to the point that you can nonchalantly ask if wanking is similar to listening to music."

Fair enough, but sooner or later we are going to ask: "do you have sex"? The ambition to have it is not enough, all men (including compulsive porn watchers) have it to some extent. Time to ask yourself what your obsession with nofap has brought you in terms of scoring. Maybe your time could have been better employed (making some money to spend on sex for money?).

Listening to music instead of playing music, reading novels or watching movies instead of seeking real-life adventures, watching sport instead of working out, are all ways of being passive observers instead of actors. They can take up too much of your time too and since they imply remaining seated all along, the toll on your health can be real.

In the end, we're all killing time, that's what we're doing in life.

Anonymous said...

'Jack' still making excuses for wasting his [sex]life because of wanking to porn and not coming close to having sex. It's so pathetic that these people think porn is something to be fighting for. Laughable!

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, Jack, I’ve had amazing success and success is so much sweeter with nofap. Nofap helps you see girls in their divine aspect, which is how they really are as Alan Watts says. This is the beatific vision, only possible that way when you are in love. And only youth can have this quality since you can only fall in love with a young person. After youth one’s life energy fades and they can never be seen that way again. What a pathetic waste it is to misdirect the male gaze to a simulacrum which is a dead end to the beatific vision. And no one who has had the beatific vision will describe it as “killing time,” lol.

And this love, in that sense, is a kind of enthusiasm—which means (Text sourced from being possessed by the divine. Falling in love—although considered by practical people to be a sort of madness—is actually the same sort of thing as the mystical vision: a grace. And in its light we see people in their divine aspect. When, as the song says, “Every little breeze whispers Louise,” there is a sort of extraordinary state of mystical intoxication in which the ideal woman has become the goddess—which is, from one point of view, what every woman is if you see her with the scales off your eyes. And likewise every man, seen with the scales off her eyes.

Alan Watts also says we can thank the taboos and criminalization for making sex more interesting and therefore he wouldn’t really want to do away with the laws, but I don't think he would say that anymore seeing how far it has gone. That’s the sort of thing one could say in the years before his death in 1973. Taboos back then before the CSA hoax were playful not serious. They were rules meant to be broken and when you did you only upset a God who didn’t really believe in them anyway, or else he wouldn’t have put the beatific vision in the face of underage girls. There were no victims, only jailbaits and even that was hardly enforced.

Then a decade after Alan Watts was gone madness ensued and now the normies think sexual taboos are to be taken seriously and actually prevent us from having sex because they have internalized an insane justification with false victims. If Alan Watts could speak today they would have to scan the audience for pedos and I don’t think he would have tolerated that; he would have been a sexualist like me.

Eivind Berge said...

A glimpse into the insanity which passes as sexual research today.

They have a problem fitting everything into CSA because children are clearly sexual on their own without a groomer or abuser. So to pathologize the rest they came up with "Problematic Sexualized Behavior (PSB)." Intriguingly they note that "There was no statistically significant association identified between history of abuse or developmental delay and having displayed PSB," so the behavior is admittedly spontaneous.

The definition of PSB is so inclusive that if you masturbate twice before the age of 16 you have it.

This is the full definition of PSB:

1. All children involved were <16 years of age at time of behavior.
2. The behavior involved sexual body parts.
3. At least one of the following were present:
-Behavior is developmentally unexpected
-Behavior may be harmful to self or others
-Behavior involves use of coercion or force
-Behavior is repetitive and/or planned

Notice that just ONE of those four last criteria needs to be present. So they literally don't expect anybody under 16 to intend to get sexual in any way, except maybe masturbating once by accident is allowed. If they even think about repeating it they are sick and must be hospitalized for their Problematic Sexualized Behavior.

I wish I was making this up but you can see for yourself, it is a seriously published "research article" and they literally "treat" kids for this...

"A descriptive analysis of children seeking medical attention for problematic sexualized behavior"

Front. Psychiatry, 10 November 2023
Sec. Public Mental Health
Volume 14 - 2023 |

Eivind Berge said...

The child's role was characterized as displayer, recipient, both or unknown. The role of "Displayer" was used to identify the child exhíbiting the problematic sexualized behavior, while the role of "Recipient" was used to identify the child on whom the behavior was performed. If a child both displayed and was the recipient of the behavior, their role in the behavior was designated as "Both": This included children who were the recipient of one behavior, who then displayed a different behavior at a different point in time. The designation of "Unknown" was assigned in cases where all children involved appeared to be participating in the problematic behaviors equally without a clear initiator (for example, in sexualized play).

Now if all the children wanted to be part of this behavior and there is not even a clear initiator, what is the problem with it again?

Oh, the metaphysical badness of sex of course, which corrupts the underage soul for life, or blasphemes or whatever. At any rate it offends adults these days if children aren't pure and asexual as snow, so they better get in line! And if it doesn't offend any of the adults then we lock you up as a pedo!

At least in this study they sort of realize that it is stupid to criminalize the children themselves for their sexual nature:

Another misperception surrounding this topic is that PSB is comparable to sexual crimes committed by older adolescents and adults. Children who display PSB with other children are often labeled as "perpetrators, and viewed through the criminal lens, or considered victims of sexual abuse, although neither may be true (5, 12). The Survey on Youth with Problematic Sexual Behaviors also found that 67.8% of professionals in child-serving roles perceived children who displayed PSB to be similar to adult sexual offenders (15). Recent literature demonstrates that criminalizing the behavior and using punitive responses with children displaying PSB does a disservice to these children, who are in fact no more likely to perpetrate sexual abuse as adults when provided appropriate therapeutic intervention (16). These misinformed perceptions negatively impact the treatment of children affected by PSB and their ability to access care.

But this is only so they can prey on the children as medical "professionals" themselves before the police does. There is absolutely no way we can admit that sexuality is normal.

Jack said...

"At least in this study they sort of realize that it is stupid to criminalize the children themselves for their sexual nature".

Alas, I suspect this caveat serves to criminalize older teenagers and adults. You can't have prosecution if all parties are criminal. You need victims vs perpetrators.

Note that we can be sure the professionals who prey on the children are mostly women. Only women can massively go after normal sexuality in this way and feel good about it.

Eivind Berge said...

In this case you are right, Jack. The authors are:

Kara Thompson1* Sasha Svendsen1,2
1UMass Memorial Children’s Medical Center, Worcester, MA, United States
2Department of Pediatrics, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, United States

And for once I agree with calling them female sex offenders.

Eivind Berge said...

The need-to-learn hypothesis confirmed again and sadly, heartbreakingly they make a "sex offender" out of her:

A married Connecticut educator allegedly had sex with an 11-year-old boy in her car outside his school — after giving him a bracelet with the acronym for “Best Friends for Life With Benefits.”

Alyson Cranick, 42, turned herself into police Tuesday and was charged with two counts of first-degree sexual assault, three counts of risk of injury to a minor, and impairing the morals of children, WFSB reported.

The married mother of two was earlier fired as an administrative assistant at E.O. Smith High School in Mansfield after being accused of repeatedly having sex with the boy when he was just 11 and 12, according to the outlet.

Over two months, the boy “snuck out of his house on at least 14 occasions during the overnight hours to meet with Cranick,” according to an arrest warrant obtained by WFSB.

She either waited by “hiding behind a bush on a neighbor’s property or walking up to his house,” according to the document.

And when he was done learning and ready to move up to the hot girls his own age... "he eventually refused to meet her and did not want to have any further relations with her, according to the warrant." This rejection should be more than enough punishment in itself, but society has gone insane and now turns this helpful woman into a criminal.

Anonymous said...

Problematic Prude Behavior (PPB): A disorder of the mind characterized by a dangerous, hysterical, and obsessive overreaction to enjoyment of sexual activity by others, primarily driven by sexual jealousy.

The definition of PPB is:

1) Aged 12 or older
2) The behavior involved criticism of someone else's sexual activity
3) At least one of the following is present:
-Behavior is developmentally immature or jealousy-related
-Behavior may be harmful to self or others
-Behavior involves use of coercion or force
-Behavior is repetitive and/or planned

The role of a person with PPB is characterized as a complainer, assailant, both or unknown. The role of "Complainer" is used to identify the person exhibiting the Problematic Prude Behavior through obsessive verbiage only, while the role of "Assailant" is used to identify the person exhibiting the behavior through aggressive actions such as legal complaints or violence.

Another misperception surrounding this topic is that PPB is comparable to whistleblowing or protection of children, when the opposite is usually true according to experts. People who display PPB traumatize those they profess to protect, turning an otherwise private and pleasurable sexual experience of their victim(s) into a stigmatized and public affair. Multiple studies have found that the majority of consensual sexual activity, including that which might be classified as "taboo", is not only harmless, but beneficial to the participants. It is only when a person of perceived authority displays PPB that a participant becomes traumatized by their own sexual activity. Recent literature demonstrates that criminalizing pleasurable sexual activity as a result of PPB results in a grave injustice to all parties affected by the behavior. The misinformed perceptions of those with PPB, although harmful to persons of all ages, also negatively impact the treatment of children and their ability to access care.

Dr. Anon69

Anonymous said...

Alyson Cranick, 42, turned herself into police Tuesday and was charged with two counts of first-degree sexual assault, three counts of risk of injury to a minor, and impairing the morals of children, WFSB reported.

Where all the other countries in the world would issue just one indictment in cases like this, in the US they manage to charge people with five different counts because of a single act, apparently.

Eivind Berge said...

Yet another one:

A South Carolina private Christian school teacher and mother of two was arrested Wednesday for pressuring a teenage student into having sex and sending him naked pictures, police said.

Reagan Anderson, 27, is facing two counts of sexual battery with a child 17 years of age, according to an arrest warrant obtained by WCSC.

“A trusted coach, teacher and friend that abused our trust and violated her oath as an educator. She has ruined our son’s life,” the victim’s mother blasted Anderson during her Thursday court hearing.

“He should be 100% focused on being a fun-loving football-playing young man, but this predator has robbed him of that ability. No young quarterback or athlete is safe in our community if this woman is free.”

Sexual battery with a child... She robbed him of his innocence at 17... No young quarterback or athlete is safe... Absolutely astonishing that they can say these absurdities with a straight face.

Eivind Berge said...

That Macron article shows the media is still able to make exceptions to the student-teacher abuse hysteria, which is kind of surprisingly good news at this point. If these relationships aren't abusive in principle, the burden is on every individual accusation to show why that particular circumstance would be. Our default assumption should be that it is a perfectly good romance as portrayed there. Even if what it takes to have abuse is to have a male teacher and female student, they still need to spell that out and not just assume.

Some of the comments are good too:

Juliet2, Silicon Valley, United States, about 10 hours ago

In America she would be in jail. !

Lateesha, Marylebone, about 5 hours ago

Yeah and we all should be more like america, because yall are just so.. admirable lmao

Yes, we have imitated America for no good reason. Time to snap out of it.

But the top comment shown to me now is the standard hate again which assumes these relationships must be rooted out on general principle:

N a m a s t e, Sunshine State, Australia, about 2 hours ago

Hopefully, he'll have a chance at a normal relationship in a few years when she's gone. Based on interviews I've seen involving him, he's very handsome and well-spoken. I just feel he would have got over his crush on his teacher if she'd shut it down... and as the adult and the teacher, she should have.

It invalidates his entire ability to choose for himself including all his adult decision-making, because of the metaphysical badness of sex with minors or teachers. This metaphysical badness is the very highest principle of this civilization, the one immutable thing we are supposed to believe in, even if exceptions still shine through here and there.

Eivind Berge said...

At this point I am ready to compare Israel's war on Gaza to the female sex offender charade. I mean the starkness of obvious atrocities unfolding before our eyes and largely being tolerated is comparable.

There is much more opposition to this war than the female sex offender charade of course, but the world as a whole is tolerating both atrocities. The Gazans are not currently a threat to Israel and female teachers have never been a sexual threat to boys, yet both groups must be tormented mercilessly according to the most powerful forces in play right now. The female sex offender charade is still more bizarre though because there was never any kernel of justification for it whatsoever, but Israeli propaganda is coming close when they obviously faked the evidence after capturing that hospital, which makes us think how thin their reasons must be for attacking thousands of other civilian targets. My feeling to both atrocities is why is nobody stopping them? Were we not supposed to have gotten a little bit civilized? A classic siege and genocide and the wholecloth invention of fake sexual victimhood all tolerated?

Anonymous said...

It's funny to watch women's own laws backfire on them due to their own sexual jealousy, similar to the tranny issue. It's just too bad they were able to take over the entire government to make these policies in the Anglosphere.


Eivind Berge said...

That "backfiring" would only be funny if we could discern any unease about the sex laws in women. I see no evidence of that whatsoever, apart from the women directly targeted and only after they are caught. Women have exactly zero sympathy with other women targeted for victimless sex, as per the current evidence. The wave of persecution against female teachers must therefore be regarded as simply another victory for feminism on top of the persecution of men. There is no sign that it can possibly be self-limiting with feminists in charge.

Eivind Berge said...

We already know youth are not stupid, but what about wisdom in older age? Turns out that's largely a myth too, which calls into question the popular assumption that older people are cunning manipulators of the young.

Wisdom and Aging
Judith Glück
Current Opinion in Psychology
Available online 16 November 2023

Wisdom and Chronological Age

The bulk of existing evidence consists of analyses of correlations or, in a few cases, nonlinear relationships between measured wisdom and chronological age in cross-sectional data sets. Even with respect to this seemingly simple issue, the broad diversity of wisdom measures has led to somewhat inconsistent empirical findings. Among cognitive-focused measures, scores in the Berlin Wisdom Paradigm [7] are positively related to age between age 15 and 25 [30] and unrelated to age above age 25, except for a possible slight decline in very old age [31]. With a different measure of wise reasoning, however, Grossmann et al. [21] found a linear positive relationship with age up into participants’ nineties. For the Situated Wise Reasoning Scale, however, Brienza et al. [22] found a U-shaped relationship for the Situated Wise Reasoning Scale. Among personality-focused measures, scores in the Three-Dimensional Wisdom Scale [24] are typically negatively correlated with age, a pattern driven by the cognitive dimension of wisdom. Recently, however, a study found an inverse U-shaped relationship with the highest scores in middle age [32], and a similar pattern was found for the Self-Assessed Wisdom Scale, a developmental-focused measure [33]. Another personality-focused measure, the Adult Self-Transcendence Inventory [25], is typically unrelated to age.

In sum, as Glück [34] summarized, “wisdom increases, stays stable, increases then decreases, decreases then increases, or just decreases with age, depending on which measure you look at” (p. 324). She argued that the relationship of a wisdom measure with age depends on which components of wisdom the measure emphasizes, with different components having different age trajectories. To illustrate that point, she reported correlations of single items different wisdom scales with age. To give some examples, items assessing self-transcendence, such as “I feel part of something greater than myself” (r = .29) or “Sometimes I feel a real compassion for everyone” (r = .23) were positively correlated, whereas reverse-scored items measuring complex thinking, such as “Simply knowing the answer rather than understanding the reasons for the answer to a problem is fine with me” (r = -.27) or “People are either good or bad” (r = -.27) were negatively correlated with age. Thus, components of wisdom pertaining to self-transcendence may be positively related to age in the general population, whereas components concerning complex thinking are negatively related to age. It seems likely, however, that highly wise older people with are able to use their expertise in wisdom-relevant matters to compensate for losses in fluid intelligence [35].

Generally, statistical relationships between wisdom and chronological age are not strong; even where significant linear or quadratic relationships were found, they accounted for small shares of the variance. This makes sense given that, as discussed earlier, there is no universal trajectory wisdom development; whether and how much individuals grow towards wisdom depends on individual constellations of life experiences and intrapersonal and interpersonal resources. In addition, given the enormous historical and cultural changes over the past century in the Western world (where most wisdom research has taken place), it seems likely that cohort effects account for some of the findings discussed in this paper.

Anonymous said...

Sexually jealous people in charge, whether blue haired feminists or bible carrying christians, will continue their hysterical crusade against normal and good sexuality.


Eivind Berge said...

This article from ten years ago is surprisingly good:

Yes, we do need to change the age of consent. To 35. Only then are people ready to have sex

The first pleasure of bodily love isn’t penetration - it's disobedience

Howard Jacobson
Friday 22 November 2013 17:47 GMT

Professor John Ashton, president of the Faculty of Public Health, proposes to David Cameron that we allow 15-year-olds to have sex. Not much of a concession given that most 15-year-olds have already had too much, but these things are symbolic, which is why, no matter what is actually going on out there, I’d move in the opposite direction to Professor Ashton and raise the age of consent to 35. Let the 15-year-olds in question know what we think, no matter that they’ll ignore it... I am a believer in making unrealistic demands of the young. It’s important they confront a challenge.

Same idea as Alan Watts recalling those pre-1980s taboos meant to be broken. This would solve the problem and make age of consent the worthless garbage it was meant to be. Campaigning to have the age of consent raised to 35 is as good as asking for it to be removed and might convince a few clueless normies that these tings are symbolic and not meant to be actually believed in.

As a male sexualist I support any means to put 13 in the same category as 34 where it belongs, whether it be by lowering or raising the age of consent.

Anonymous said...

The Norwegian police state has concluded that it is illegal to contact women on the street complementing their bodies and/or looks. This apparently deserves 8 months in prison.

This shows just how hated male sexuality is in a feminist country.

Eivind Berge said...

I see. He looked at a girl though the window of a cafe... and complimented others on the street. That's it. Nothing threatening and no touching. A new level of persecution achieved via "stalking"/"sexual harassment" laws. What is the so called "objectively scary" behavior alleged here? Couldn't the girls just ignore him? Like many others no doubt must have done with no consequence to them. He is clearly not dangerous whatsoever and all he did was walk around in public and talk to some girls on the street.

Anonymous said...

Another man guilty of having bad game. He needs to choose his future - full simp or full rapist (lol). I'm not sure what he can offer Scandinavian women on the simp side - they all hate men and have money already.


Eivind Berge said...

At least Gates got rid of his hag and in effect enjoyed a harem of nubile teenage girls anyway judging by his association with Epstein. And the eradication of child marriage will take 300 years according to that article. Meanwhile feminist culture will be supplanted by Islam anyway and demands to end child marriage will no longer be relevant.

The persecution of Ellie Pattison:

The female sex offender charade also targets lesbians. Notice the metaphysical invalidation in the title:

"Teacher ‘made girl, 14, believe she loved her after having sex with her’"

A younger person cannot love, only be made to believe that she loves. She is a passive vesicle for abuse who also does not have real feelings; i.e., a philosophical hyper-zombie who unlike regular philosophical zombies even goes through feelings internally that are only make-believe feelings. Of course this is an incoherent concept, but the charade does not care.

Ellie Pattison, 29, had befriended the 14-year-old schoolgirl who lived in care and made the teen believe the pair had ‘fallen in love’. The alleged crimes happened between 2017 and 2018 when Pattison was 23 and was working as a teaching assistant in a secondary school where she looked after children in care.

The secret ‘relationship’ unravelled when a friend of the teen saw Pattison kissing her ‘passionately’ and made a complaint. Prosecutor Sarah Lindop explained: ‘She witnessed some kissing. It was not just a peck on the check. It was more than kissing. It was kissing and inserting their tongues into each other’s mouths.’

A society which makes a crime out of this is sick beyond belief, and the metaphysical invalidation of sexuality and love is even sicker. I notice that they seem to pull this particular "fake love" stunt the hardest on lesbians, but of course the LGBT movement does not care to address such institutionalized hatred and discrimination against them at all when a minor is involved. Perhaps because lesbians are unable to have intercourse their love also seems less real, and prosecutors are free to exploit this prejudice fully since there are no holds barred on the hate in "CSA" cases.

We are dealing with pure evil. I cannot find words adequate to describe how evil the current police state is, but when you ponder how they try to erase the feelings of minors from reality and replace them with the hateful feminist vision, perhaps you can get close to comprehending how insanely, absurdly evil it is. This is so much worse than any other kind of antisex bigotry like the comparatively benign Christian "sin" concept because the feminists pretend the relationships they are persecuting can't exist to begin with.

Eivind Berge said...

The normies in Norway are now freaking out because the national broadcaster NRK inadvertently made a supportive documentary about a sex offender. Oh horror, they even gave him the cozy nickname "Bamsegutt" when he should have been strictly portrayed as a monster. Jan Egil Granfoss is stuck in the Philippines and needs more welfare to get home, but of course it's such a bummer to help a sex offender, lol.

His conviction from 1991 sheds light on an intermediate stage in the CSA panic. It was no longer thought as harmless as before 1980, but not so hyperexaggerated as today either. And it was still called the far less scary, moralistically conceptualized indecency ("utuktig omgang") rather than the rape it would be called today.

«Forholdene tiltalte dømmes for skjedde i slike forbindelser når barna var på besøk. Retten legger til grunn at det ikke var tale om tvang. De fleste tilfellene synes å ha preg av impulshandlinger, og det lå ingen fast eller langvarig planlegging bak forholdene. Barna har ikke fått spesielle psykiske skader utover det som kan sies å være vanlig i slike tilfeller», står det i dommen.

Isn't that amazing... the court admits there was no force and the children are not particularly traumatized beyond "what is said to be common in such cases."

An almost cute intermediate stage between reason and the psychosis which is the current climate including, of course, the population now being scared shitless of these innocuous acts from 33 years ago.

By the way I have memories of listening to the radio in the 1980s hearing CSA cases reported where the children were said to not be psychically harmed at all, but by 1991 apparently they needed to throw some boilerplate about commonly accepted harm in there even if there was no evidence of it and they could still admit as much.

Eivind Berge said...

That is clearly a drunken regret-rape which should never have gone to trial. By her own description three was no violence and he stopped when she indicated she didn't want it anymore. The trial only happened because of institutionalized hatred against men and laws designed to convict this sort of situation much of the time as "too drunk to resist." As so often it boiled down to whether the man "should have realized" she was "too drunk" -- which is now the stereotypical "rape" after it has been so commonly prosecuted since rape law was expanded in 2000 to include this, before which it wouldn't have been taken into consideration as a possible rape at all. As I have been saying all these years we need to reverse that law to remove this whole false rape concept, plus of course get the jury back in Norway although the lay judges still managed to acquit here against the will of the professional one. That now takes luck since the professionals can exert more pressure all the way through the possible appeals.

Anonymous said...

De 2 meddommerne fortjener nesten en medalje for å ha sørget for frifinnelse, selv om det burde være en selvfølgelighet i den aktuelle saken. De idømte likevel erstatning hvilket er uholdbart. Tipper staten anker og at han blir dømt i lagmannsretten likevel.

Eivind Berge said...

Before the female sex offender charade they had, among other things, Venereal Disease Rapid Treatment Centers:

A delightful film. Very sexily made. A compassionate, if a bit authoritarian and oppressive way to treat these girls who almost seem to be criminals for catching a venereal disease. Society feels it needs to keep female sexuality in line, I guess, one way or another, and this way is more on the charming, pleasant side although it also includes gratuitous elements like having to work as a means of "rehabilitation." Since then things have both improved and gotten unimaginably worse for women. For the most part society is content with dispensing medical treatment now, except if the women's partners are "underage" then the situation is horribly worse and they are punished by sometimes decades in real prison. That particular brand of misogyny would have been inconceivable in 1944, so it's incredibly refreshing to look back to those more benevolent times.

Anonymous said...

I too remember normal times before around 2010 when things started to turn bad quickly. Teenagers were basically allowed to drink, smoke, fuck, work, get a car, aka live like adults. And I remember how hot the girls were, they intentionally made themselves attractive to men and didn't hate men nearly as much as now. They were much less socially awkward too, and rape was still understood as sex by injurious and public force. Taboo sex such as underage sex was something no one really cared about at all, unless parents wanted to shut down the relationship, which was typically done privately and only involved the cops when the man was being difficult, which of course was rare.

It was such a cool Anglo society, that is now completely unrecognizable because everything has turned into a childish feminist no-love nightmare world, with enormous penalties and hatred for anyone who manages to have fun despite the laws and culture against it. Old pictures and videos of girls from that time are essential for sanity. You don't have to fap to them for them to be relevant as a reminder of what could be if things were better again somehow.


Eivind Berge said...

Peak stranger danger: how Omegle was taken down.

The concept of talking to strangers, even in the safety of online communication on a moderated traceable service which cooperates with law enforcement, is too scary to a civilization which worships the mythical asexual innocence of the child and believes in the voodoo of remote abuse.

And of course, as usual it's mostly about lining the pockets of some anonymous bitch:

Speaking for the first time since the platform was taken offline, "Alice" or "A.M." as she's known in court documents, tells the BBC she demanded the website's closure as part of an out-of-court settlement.

Throughout her legal fight, Alice said that she wanted to take the lawsuit to a jury trial where she hoped to get $22m (£15.6m) in compensation. But she now says settling out of court for an undisclosed sum earlier this month was better for her and others.

Anonymous said...

Hi Eivind. If you are interested in watching a live stream about current rape laws in Norway, here's a link. It starts at 19:00 today:

Anonymous said...

"Alice" was a little whore.

Eivind Berge said...

That sounds good except this:

Lagdommeren [Rune Bård Hansen] kritiserer i tillegg at misbruk av overmaktforhold ikke defineres som voldtekt, og trekker fram en dom AN tidligere har omtalt.

Kvinnelig Nav-ansatt hadde seksuell omgang med flyktning – nå må hun i fengsel

– En kvinnelig saksbehandler i Nav presset en mannlig asylsøker til sex gjentatte ganger, ved å true med å nekte ham familiegjenforening med sin 12 år gamle bror. Dette pågikk over tid, og da asylsøkeren til slutt varslet ledelsen i Nav, svarte hun med å gå til politiet og anklage ham for voldtekt, sier Hansen.

– Ett år senere ble den falske voldtektsanklagen henlagt og kvinnen ble dømt til fengsel i ett år en måned, altså tre måneder mindre enn mannen som benyttet venninnens hånd til onani.

So he wants to and define "abuse of position" -- the silver bullet feminists use to criminalize and punish all kinds of relationships from coaches to teachers to friendships -- as "rape" too and open the floodgates for much longer sentences there. And he believes in the female sex offender charade too.

It is good that someone besides me is against some aspects of the sex laws, but that drive to expand rape law is a bigger downside than the reduction in sentencing he stands for. Also he seems to be fixated on the badness of age gaps, as if an older man really would be a "rapist" for this:

– En mann som var 20 år på gjerningstidspunktet, overnattet hos en jevnaldrende venninne etter en fest. De lå i samme seng, begge var fulle og mens hun sov tok han hennes hånd og la den rundt sin penis. I under ett minutt masturberte han seg selv med hennes hånd, sier Hansen.

– Hendelsen ble anmeldt først mange år etterpå. Seks og et halvt år etter at hendelsen fant sted, ble mannen dømt til ett år og fire måneders fengsel. Det er fullstendig inhumant å sette et menneske i 20-årene så lenge i fengsel for et slikt overgrep.

But probably worth listening to the livestream, sure.

Eivind Berge said...

I am absolutely appalled by Rune Bård Hansens wish to define "abuse of position" as rape. This is literally the missing link to turn 100% of sexuality into "rape." But he's a normie after all so we can't expect anything but 99% agreement with the feminist agenda. It's still good that he wants less punishment for some young supposed "rapists" by an insane definition he also unfortunately does not oppose -- just the sentencing -- but he has a long way to go to be a sexualist.

Eivind Berge said...

"Alice" was a little whore.

That's even in the name... Why else use the second most stereotypically endearing moniker to girl-lovers? The only way she could have been more obvious would be to call herself Lolita in the lawsuit :)

The nerve to demand no one else can talk to strangers either in addition to all that money.

I also agree with this comment somebody made on another forum:

Also, this bitch who sued him is an obvious psychopath as per her comments. This is not the type of person who can be manipulated by a keyboard, but the type of person who engages out of curiosity.

Eivind Berge said...

Which raises the question of what would be an appropriate name for a real victim? Maybe something like Lucrece... except it wouldn't fly for "online abuse" since that's a retarded concept anyway. But they are not even trying to make the image of a victim other than ironically. Really goes to show what a big joke the whole abuse industry is.

Alice is of course the archetype of a self-consciously sexy prepubertal girl; it actively resists the notion of being a victim.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure most of the girls that was so-called abused on Omegle were willing and knew exactly what they were doing and did not even ask for something in return. "Alice" was a willing whore.

Eivind Berge said...

I watched the whole debate which can be seen here:

Very wimpy opposition from the men there but at least they asked some good questions regarding current absurdities in rape law and they don't think a consent-based definition is a good idea. The feminists were just the same tired old hate and push to expand the law further, which is probably what will happen as usual.

Anonymous said...

I wish you had been there contributing to the debate, Eivind. You are actually a very brilliant guy.

Anonymous said...

Det var en skuffende dårlig debatt, ja! Men ikke akkurat uventet.

Eivind Berge said...

I left this comment there:

Nei til all sedelighetslov! Også kalt radikal seksualisme. Det er et synspunkt jeg kan stå inne for, selv om det ikke er det jeg har pleid å argumentere for (har nøyd meg med å stå for fornuftige definisjoner). Det betyr ikke at alt blir lov, fordi det som virkelig er straffverdig uansett vil komme i idealkonkurrens med andre lover; for eksempel blir voldtekt redusert til kroppsfornærmelse. Men det betyr at seksualiteten som sådan slippes fri og vi ikke får vanvittige strafferammer. Jeg blir dreiet mot radikal seksualisme når jeg ser hvordan sedelighetslovene misbrukes så til de grader til å straffe bagateller så grusomt hardt, slik som vi ser med fingringen i denne debatten. Ideen er langt fra ny heller. René Guyon uttrykte det samme i flere ord og man kan lese hans manifest "Human Rights and the Denial of Sexual Freedom" fra 1951 hvor han sier det bedre enn jeg klarer.

So in Norwegian our manifesto might be simply "Nei til sedelighetslov!"

Eivind Berge said...

Modern sexual life, as it has issued from two millenniums of Christian dictatorship, is indeed profoundly immoral. This immorality is not of the kind supposed by the anti-sexual ‘moralists.’ The immorality from which we suffer is falsehood, hypocrisy, and cowardice—with all of which vices we are drenched. Married couples clandestine in their infidelity and ending by murder, parents and children endlessly wrangling about the limits of authority, brains disordered by continence, characters embittered by window-dressing chastity which is belied by dreams and by auto-eroticism, sexual acts performed as furtively as theft, the lying utterances of those who publicly condemn what they secretly practice, servility in the face of the increasing violence of purity-fanatics, the outrageous persecution of those who lead a natural sex life, the deliberate blunting of our intelligence when we come to examine the code of sexual morals—combine to make our civilization a scandal and a hissing. (Guyon, 1949: 50–51)

Great read here about probably the foremost sexualist philosopher ever:

"Respectability’s edge: Transnational sex radical René Guyon"
Tamara Loos
Sexualities Volume 23, Issue 1-2.
Free access research article rirst published online November 21, 2018.


The writings and life of French sex radical, René Guyon (1876–1963), offer a fascinating opportunity to examine together western European sexological thought, human rights movements, and imperial privilege in Asia. As one of France’s early promoters of sexual rights as a human right, Guyon revealed himself to be a radical advocate for sexual liberation from what he called the ‘hideous bondage of conventional “sexual morality”’ in Europe and America. From his residence in Siam, Guyon penned his magnum opus, Etudes d’éthiques sexueles, a series of nine volumes that he wrote between 1929 and 1944 in which he promoted all consensual sexual acts, regardless of one’s sex, age or race, within ‘ethical limitations.’ His law background earned him a high position in the Ministry of Justice in Siam, where he worked as a legal reformer and judge from 1908 until 1963. His 50-plus years of experience in Siam and sexual adventures in other non-western countries served as an unacknowledged springboard for his views and provided him invaluable credentials in the eyes of his western sexologist peers. I examine the relationships among his excoriation of western sexual mores, his concept of a sexual utopia, and his life experiences in Africa, Asia and other non-western areas of the world. An examination of the life of one of France’s first promoters of sexual rights reveals the fissures within nascent human rights movements in Europe and reflects on the implications of his peculiar defense of the non-western countries where he worked.

Eivind Berge said...

Guyon fiercely argued that nearly all forms of sexual pleasure are legitimate and amoral. Physiologically, sex organs are natural and exist to experience pleasure, not exclusively to reproduce the species. He likened sexual acts to food and drink: we eat when hungry, drink when thirsty, and gratify sexual urges when they arise. These are essential human needs outside morality. ‘[T]he right to sexual satisfaction is just as inalienable as the right to eat’ (Guyon, 1953: 341).

Guyon encapsulates this idea in what he calls the ‘Mechanistic Theory of Sexuality,’ in which he argues that all sexual objects are legitimate to use for the purpose of sexual pleasure (Guyon, 1953: 430–431). It doesn’t matter what one uses, if anything, to achieve pleasure or what erogenous zone is stimulated. It could be your hand, someone of the same sex, your sister or brother or son or daughter, a vegetable, dildo, pornographic images, nudity, a dead body (necrophilia), excrement (coprophilia), or exhibitionism (Guyon, 1941: 336). It is not a stretch to imagine why, in the mid-20th century, transnational homophile organizations such as the International Committee for Sexual Equality found in his ideas support for the legitimacy and decriminalization of homosexuality (Rupp, 2011: 1032).

For Guyon, it did not matter what part of the body is stimulated: oral, anal or armpits, inside or outside the vagina, with or without a penis. Orgasm was treated similarly, as a psycho-physiological, almost mechanical response. Sexual organs are not shameful, they are just like the nose or the tongue. The only conditions he considered truly abhorrent were chastity and virginity. The glorification of chastity was ‘sheer claptrap’ that went ‘against nature,’ while he considered the concept of the virgin ‘an absurdity, a sort of monstrosity’ (Guyon, 1961: 253, 255). He went so far as to argue that ‘the chaste individual is not a valuable or desirable member of society,’ (emphasis in original, Guyon, 1961: 254) that one’s genital organs would atrophy if not used, and that a lack of sex would lead to illness (Guyon, 1941: 226–255; Guyon, 1949 [1939], 138: 140–141).

For Guyon, human bodies were created as erogenous zones and everyone had the right to exercise freely their sexual preferences so long as no violence or act of deceit was committed (Guyon, 1941: 295–297, 1953). Sadism, because it infringed upon the liberty of sexual partners and involved violence, was one of the few acts that he did not support as belonging within the sphere of sexuality (Guyon, 1941: 340–341)...

Guyon slowly built his case about children and the need for them to explore sexuality. In The Ethics of Sexual Acts, he argues that the history of laws and customs around the world reveal that the age of consent used to be low but has gradually been raised in conjunction with so-called civilization. Among the Romans and other ancient civilizations, individuals were considered adults when they were about seven years old. In France, the age of consent was puberty, set at the age of 11 in 1832, then thirteen in 1863. Until 1929, Guyon notes the age of consent in England was 12 for girls and 14 for boys (Guyon, 1941: 40, 46). The comparisons between the ancient West and contemporary Asia help build his case against the puritanism of the contemporary West. He recounts that the Quran authorized marriage for girls at 9 and boys at 12. In India, courts did not intervene in determining the age at which a girl could consummate a marriage and certain castes would marry their daughters at 5 years old and under until the British Raj promulgated an act that prohibited girls under 14 from marrying (Guyon, 1948a: 28).

Eivind Berge said...

René Guyon is our guy for sure, the accomplished philosopher closest to our hearts that I am aware of. I just need to update his philosophy with nofap and we got our platform made if one takes the radical sexualist path (but worth formulating a moderate option as well and write a manifesto for that, with a reasonable rape law and age of consent 12 or 13 at most). Guyon's philosophy of sex is impressive but his clarity on the sex laws is probably the best part, that we need to abolish ALL sexual offenses. Here is a link to his best work that I have read so far:

He also wrote a piece called "Abolition of Sex Offenses from Penal Law" which is probably of great interest but hard to find. We may quibble with his philosophy which de-emphasizes vaginal sex too much for my taste, but that title alone is really all the politics we need for a sexualist movement.

Eivind Berge said...

"Underage" girl teaches old sex-hostile hag a lesson:

A 17-year-old girl in Ohio fatally bludgeoned her older boyfriend’s mother with a rock — after giving him a five-hour ultimatum to kill her himself, authorities say.

Kaitlyn Coones of Cleveland is being tried as an adult on murder charges in the death of Nicole Jones, 53, with prosecutors saying the teenager beat Jones to death in April — just days after she left her foster home to be with her boyfriend, Jonathan Jones, 33.

Coones had allegedly given Jones — who was previously convicted over his illegal relationship with the underage girl — a five-hour window to kill his mom, who disapproved of their relationship.

“Kaitlyn had told Jonathan that they needed to do something about his mother because she was preventing them from being together, and she gave him five hours to do something about her,” Detective Jake Albright of the Sylvania Township Police Department said in court Friday, according to Cleveland 19 News.

That was seriously evil of her, but it would be better to just not have the hangup about age gaps either legally or societally. Murder is bad, but motive is a huge ingredient too, so at least 50% of the blame rests on the sex laws in my view. I can't help but admire her motivation here even if I condemn the act. I just wish she had directed her anger at the police and legislators where it belongs.

Her lawyer, Ann Baronas, has argued that the teen was a victim of Jonathan, who was not supposed to have any contact with her after his previous charges for their relationship.

The couple were previously seen walking down a local road the year before when police stopped them out of concern for their safety.

“At that time, the victim did provide a false name and birthday to officers,” Wood County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Morgan Spitler said of Coones in March, according to the Sentinel-Tribune.

At this point the "underage" sexual victimhood nonsense is too much even for the state, which is charging the murderess as an adult.

Eivind Berge said...

The globalist elites are totally on our side if you believe the fake news, lol :)

Eivind Berge said...

I am reading about how Ireland got into the female sex offender charade and am fascinated that as late as 2006 they excluded women from committing statutory rape, which was formally called “unlawful carnal knowledge” at the time, with a female under 17. And not only that, but they were still able to put forth intelligent reasons for why the law should not be gender-neutral that are well worth revisiting in this braindead age. Only a man could commit the act in question, but a woman could be convicted as aider and abettor. The female participant in the act could not, however, be convicted as an aider and abettor. They believed that since the statute was created for the protection of girls the female cannot be convicted as a party to it. Now to the discussion in the preliminary work for “modernizing” the law which shows a lot of nuance which has since been lost. Notice especially how bizarre it really is to make women prove that they did not consent to intercourse with “underage” boys -- an act the boy performs -- in order to not be criminals. That is mind-boggling when you think about it, how misogynistic that is on top of all the other absurdities with the female sex offender charade.


The preponderance of the submissions to the Committee, I understand, argue for a gender-neutral offence. I am not at all convinced that this is a correct approach, principally for practical reasons. In essence, I do not believe, for reasons which I will develop, that a gender-neutral provision is practicable unless absence of consent becomes a defence to a charge. Once consent becomes an issue the protection of young persons, which is the purpose of the law in this area, can be seriously undermined.

The attraction of the gender-neutral approach is obvious. In an age which rightly seeks to avoid sex discrimination and gender stereotyping it seems an obvious approach. The Constitution and international human rights instruments rightly support equality between the sexes.

But equality under the Constitution does not require that all situations be treated alike – indeed that would be inequality. Like situations should be treated alike, and unalike situations unalike. The law is not merely entitled but obliged to have regard to relevant differences.

It is interesting to note that the existing laws relating to sexual offences are by no means exclusively gender-neutral. The law of rape is not gender-neutral, and I am aware of no body of opinion suggesting it should be. The law of incest is not gender neutral either. On the other hand, the lesser offence of sexual assault is gender neutral. The law of buggery (now subsumed into the new law in the 2006 Act) is also in principle gender neutral although in practice likely to be committed by women only in very rare circumstances.

Eivind Berge said...

It seems to me that there are distinctions based on the physical difference between men and women which may validly be made, and arguably ought to be made. It is valid to regard penetrative sex as being of a different degree of seriousness for the woman who is penetrated than for the man who penetrates, even where a man engages in sexual intercourse without his full consent in the sense that his will is overborne. Indeed, for physiological reasons it must be rare indeed that a man is compelled by a woman to engage in sexual intercourse with her against his will. It is for this reason that the law of rape is not gender-neutral; it recognises that it is the woman who is penetrated and the man who penetrates, and it does not indulge in a false equation between the rape of a woman and the fate of a man who is compelled to participate in an act of sexual intercourse. The latter, of course, amounts at least to a sexual assault and is a serious offence although not carrying as serious a penalty as rape or aggravated sexual assault where the minimum penalty is imprisonment for life.

Statutory rape, the offence under the 1935 Act, is an analogue of rape, but without the requirement to prove consent, this being deemed unnecessary because of the age of the injured party. In my submission absence of the need to prove consent should be a fundamental element of any law designed to replace the section struck down by the Supreme Court in CC, and I believe the Oireachtas should be wary of the danger in pursuing a policy of gender equality at the price of reintroducing the element of consent. I will explain below why I think a fully gender neutral offence would have this consequence.

It would, however, be logical that a law for the protection of young persons should also deal with other forms of serious sexual abuse, by which I mean primarily penetrative sex, committed with young persons, without the need to show lack of consent, and should treat them with the same degree of seriousness. Anal intercourse with persons under 17 was already dealt with by the law on buggery (now included in the offence of defilement under the 2006 Act) which makes it an offence to engage in such if either party is under 17. A case might be made to include also the other offences covered by section 4 rape without the need to show lack of consent where either party is under 17 as is done in the 2006 Act. To this extent such an offence would be capable of being committed against boys as well as girls although significant overall differences between the treatment of boys and girls would remain and the offence would be gender neutral only to a limited extent.

There is a further difficulty of principle with a completely gender neutral offence. Under the old law the actus reus the act constituting the offence of the offences of both rape and statutory rape is penetration of the female by the male. If the offence is gender neutral, is male penetration to remain the actus reus? If so, and as seems to be the case under the 2006 legislation, the act of the male triggers the commission of the offence by the female. This seems wrong in principle. If she has not consented to penetration how could the action of the male act make her guilty of an offence? Again, it is obvious that the issue of whether the woman consented to the act becomes a central issue once in principle she can be convicted of an offence.

Eivind Berge said...


The most serious practical problem involved in extending the law of statutory rape to make it gender-neutral is summed up by Tom O’Malley as follows:

“To make both parties criminally liable would be counter-productive as it would greatly impede the enforcement of the law. If the person who may naturally be expected to report the offence risks prosecution herself, the level of reporting is likely to sink well beneath its present low level. The total abolition of the offence of unlawful carnal knowledge would leave an unconscionable void in the legal regime for protecting very young girls from sexual exploitation. The better option would appear to be a re-assessment of the age of consent and the circumstances in which sexual relations with a teenage girl (or boy) should be a concern of the criminal law.”

If the female as well as the male who engages in under age sex commits an offence, then the girl is unlikely to come forward to complain. If she does, she may be unwilling to testify without a grant of immunity. If she is to be treated as an accomplice, is a jury to be warned about treating her evidence as unreliable? If such a law is passed, on what basis is a prosecutor to prosecute the male and not the female? If both are prosecuted, it is highly unlikely that either can be convicted. If only the male is prosecuted he is likely to argue in his defence that the female ought to have been prosecuted.

If the offence is made gender-neutral, it becomes necessary to provide a defence for the person who participates in the act against or without his or her consent. This must particularly apply to the girl since it is the man who does the act which makes the offence complete, and the girl must be entitled to argue that she did not consent. The effect of this is to undermine the fundamental premise of the law of statutory rape, that is, that there is an age below which consent cannot validly be given.

Finally, it may be worth noting that when the Law Reform Commission reported on this matter they did not recommend a gender-neutral provision – indeed, they did not even discuss the issue.

Eivind Berge said...

So the gist of the absurdity they are getting at there is this:

Under the old law the actus reus, the act constituting the offence of the offences of both rape and statutory rape is penetration of the female by the male. If the offence is gender-neutral, is male penetration to remain the actus reus? If so, the act of the male triggers the commission of the offence by the female. This seems wrong in principle.

No kidding that is wrong in principle! How could we lose the plot so absurdly and quit caring that women are now subjected to a burden contrary to all reasonable principles of justice when they need to prove lack of consent on their part if they want to get off the hook for something the male did to them?

Eivind Berge said...

Another insight from this is that it is the forcing of gender-neutrality which effectively decriminalized same-age sex. The gender-neutrality short-circuited the police state's ability to identify a "perpetrator" when minors have sex with each other. It is not that they didn't want to throw someone in jail, but it just became too hard to determine whom and to get the other to testify reliably. So the gender-neutrality was good for something, but only for minors themselves and sadly not for anyone older. Instead it seems to have cemented and amplified the current obsession with age gaps, because it is by age gap one now identifies a "perpetrator," which in turn has horrible consequences for both men and women.

By undermining gender-neutrality again we throw a wrench into the obsession with age gaps, showing that this wasn't such a decisive category after all.

Eivind Berge said...

The big winners of gender-neutrality are teenage boys, who now have legal monopoly on sex with girls under the age of consent. This fact is often overlooked but highly significant because the landscape of competition for the most nubile girls was different and more level when young boys did not have immunity to prosecution for carnal knowledge of girls around their own age. They gained this immunity as well the windfalls they can collect from penetrating adult women as well. It is a mind-bogglingly good deal for them. Even if this is merely a side effect of other forces it is epically sinister that it would work out that way. A group which cannot vote and no one really cares about got all the prime pussy while the rest of society including the "strongest" men are their dancing monkeys as we can see in that NBA story above and countless other cases. The only socially acceptable way to act out one's sexual jealousy as an adult man is to attack other adult men as "pedos," so we get these bizarre displays of "caring" about the purity of 15-year-old girls they are never going to fuck.

In Ludovici's name save us from this agecucked nightmare!

Eivind Berge said...

A question to believers in the female sex offender charade.

How hard must a woman resist a minor male who wants to penetrate her in order to not be guilty of statutory rape? Is it sufficient to say "I swear I don't consent" and then let him do it? Or must she put up some resistance? If so, how much?

And what does your answer reflect about your view of women's rights?

Eivind Berge said...

Can’t any normies answer this?

If statutory rape is to be a gender-neutral offense like the feminists want, does male penetration remain the actus reus? If so, the act of the male triggers the commission of the offense by the female. This seems wrong in principle, but it can get worse depending on your level of misogyny...

How hard does the female have to resist to not be a criminal? If it’s enough to sort of ironically declare “I swear I don’t consent” and let him do it anyway I guess your misogyny is on the milder side. If you require actual resistance it quickly goes off the charts.

Ponder that feminists have made criminal laws where males can easily trigger criminality in females unless they resist and prove it. All they need to do is lie down and incriminate themselves into life in prison; can do it standing up too without any active activity. Patriarchy would never be so mean to women.

I am against criminalization of us men too for factually consensual sex but making it gender-neutral is clearly a whole other, new level of evil, and this is feminism for you. It is even demanded in this pamphlet from the UN:

"With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage."

It boggles the mind that they can say this. If they demanded there be no segregation by sex in sports it would be the same principle but less evil since at least that’s not about imprisoning innocent women. It is literally “human rights” to imprison harmless women for no reason but (falsely defined) “equality” according to the UN and their International Commission of Jurists (ICJ).

Eivind Berge said...

This is not too bad:

"Why are americans so prudish, man? Is it jealousy? Who wouldn't want to fuck prime pussy?"

Who wouldn't want to fuck a 15 year old hottie? women hit the wall so fucking fast but at 15-25 (and especially at 15-18) they're fucking radiating, glowing like sex goddesses. Everything about them is pure sex. Their hair looks straight out of a hair conditioner commercial. Everything is better about them. Their extremely tiny and tight, wet, slick, trembling, vibrating, searing hot delicious little pussies that smell amazing. Their firm but soft tits, Beautiful puffy nipples and milky titties. Natural body scent that smells like pure sex pheromones. No stretch marks. And again, beautiful slit. Absolutely perfect pristine pussy, no fucked up public toilet flora from 1000 cocks. No ass smell. Perfectly fit and perfectly shaped body. No matter how ugly SHE WILL LOOK HOT. Doesn't matter if she'll look like Shrek's wife at 25. No, at 15 SHE WILL BE HOT. No exceptions. No weird fat deposits. And they don't condition sex like prostitutes, the way old hags do. No "buy me a car, pay my rent, pay my mortgage, take me on expensive trips, buy me handbags, treat me like a lady, I deserve respect" yadda yadda.


Eivind Berge said...

You know poetry when you see it and that's it. I do have the ambition to one day write a better paean to 15-year-old girls than that but for now I can only take my hat off to that poster on that surprisingly good /pol/ thread.

Some other honorable mentions that fall short of poetry but give us cause for some optimism:

This post finished the thread, and also caused reddit to shut down permanently. Nobody else ever posted on the internet ever again, because nobody needed to. Because This post already said everything that ever needed to he said. Nobody ever needed to ever say anything anout anytbing again. Instead, humanity all just smiled, forever.

She seems to have enjoyed herself. and 15 is legal in most of Europe, I don't get mutts and their insistence that teenage girls (well known sluts and nymphos, even in the olden days) are somehow innocent little flowers. Especially today, they are mega sluts.

and their entire bodies just glow or something. It's like buying a new expensive TV with a high quality panel and staring at the vivid, natural colors. Women look like corpses after 25.

You know, I can't argue with any of this.
I grew up in the 80's and it was perfectly normal for a 20 year old to be banging a 16 year old.
Literally everyone did it.
My grandmother had her second child at 18.
This was all the societal norm until the 2000's.
Just ignore any retarded media that sais otherwise.
The only objection I would have with a 20 year old man fucking my 16 year old daughter is if he just cummed and dumped her or she got pregnant out of wedlock.
This has been going on for thousands of years and suddenly it is a crime ? No sorry I cannot accept that a mere 30 years of boomer divorced women and jews writing shitty opinion pieces for HuffPost is the transformative change we needed after 2000 years.

I don't know what the fuck is wrong with this country brother.
But one thing I have noticed is that the prudishness seems so deeply embedded in the American psyche that it doesn't matter who's in charge, they still end up being prudish in their own ways...
If the left is in charge... Society becomes ultra prudish about age gaps

I am including an agecuck comment too just to showcase the unfathomable ugliness we are up against. This is almost poetic in the other direction like something Satan would write or the principle of evil celebrating itself:

Fuck off and die. Report it to the police. Not to me i don’t give a shit unless i can smash a brick off the head of the nonce.
Anyone who interacts with a nonce and does not attack them also gets mobbed and twatted every single time he is spotted, for life.
It’s the law.
Noncehood is contagious.
You have won todays star prize of a chinese communist duck starter for 2. & the plague.

Eivind Berge said...

This one seems to pinpoint the year society went clinically insane pretty well:

When I was a senior in HS back in the day (early 2000s) I was dating a freshman. She was 13 years old and nobody said shit. Nobody cared. We were together for years. Something happened in people's brains around 2010 where they went insane on anyone who did what I did. If I had done that then I would've been crucified. It's retarded. I'm getting sick of people getting called pedos for being attracted to a girl who is literally fashioned by God to be sexually attractive and fertile as fuck. No one should have their lives ruined because they're attracted to someone a shit ton of people are attracted to but never admit it. We need to go back to this >>449776332

Anonymous said...

Yea, it seems impossible at the moment. Individuals still remember but sexual jealousy is off the charts and the right and left wing are equally hysterical about youthful sex, or even sex in general. We focus on youthful sex but rape hoaxes over 18 are supported by the left and right wing alike. The right wing is prude in general and propagates rape hoaxes against immigrants when it's clear the girls want it, and the left we are already familiar with their power imbalance and victimhood arguments. Government is pimping out the youth and the hysteria of the society for money and power. I'm not sure humanity has a chance to get out of this until a few generations die off.


Anonymous said...

They're running that story because they know it will cause outrage to even suggest that something sexual is going on, because in the USA everyone is a jealous, psychotic piece of shit when it comes to sex. It's just a nation full of frustrated, aggressive closet perverts. Russia is basically just as bad too, which is why it seems both nations are competing with each other for top pedohysteria pusher. US is currently in the lead because of its international funding of feminist NGO's, but Russia's internal anti-sex climate makes up for that.


Eivind Berge said...

New study shows children become morally developed by age four, as judged by putting morality above God, realizing that even God can't change moral truths. That's amazing -- I wouldn't have guessed this comes so early -- and makes me feel slightly ashamed for writing a blog post once entertaining the question which is too stupid for a four-year-old:

Anyway, here is the study:

"Children deny that God could change morality"
Madeline G. Reinecke, Larisa Heiphetz Solomon
Cognitive Development, Volume 68, October–December 2023

Can moral rules change? We tested 129 children from the United States to investigate their beliefs about whether God could change widely shared moral propositions (e.g., “it’s not okay to call someone a mean name”), controversial moral propositions (e.g., “it’s not okay to tell a small lie to help someone feel happy”), and physical propositions (e.g., “fire is hotter than snow”). We observed an emerging tendency to report that God's ability to change morality is limited, suggesting that children across development find some widely shared aspects of morality to be impossible to change. Some beliefs did shift over development, however: 4- to 6-year-olds did not distinguish among God’s ability to change widely shared moral, controversial moral, and physical propositions, whereas 7- to 9-year-olds became increasingly confident that God could change physical and controversial moral propositions. Critically, however, younger children and older children alike reported that widely shared aspects of morality could not be altered. According to participants, not even God could change fundamental moral principles.

And then it takes 12 years of brainwashing to unlearn their natural intuition and become convinced that the legislature can change sexual morality via age of consent.

Which is what the normies now believe as adults. A four-year-old knows it can't work like that even if God wanted to make it so, but adult normies in Norway and the USA believe sex with a 15-year-old is a cause for moral outrage in our countries whereas if you cross the border into Sweden or Denmark it is totally fine.

This would be another example of what I have previously referred to as oversocialization:

We should just give the moral socialization a rest after age four since it only gets messed up. Four-year-olds know they can consent, certainly to women, but by 18 some of them have been brainwashed into thinking they couldn't really and forget their clear thinking to the point that stinky old feminists in the legislature become more powerful to them than God, to say nothing of their own moral intuition which is obliterated at this point.

Eivind Berge said...

This is now so normal that if your courtship does not go through a "grooming" phase you aren't doing it right:

Disgraced priest Alex Crow, 30, marries 18-year-old he ‘groomed’ before pair ran off to Italy

Mobile County Sheriff Paul Burch said over the summer he believed “there was some grooming that’s gone on” between Crow, who was ordained in 2021, and the teenager, considering their age gap.

But the district attorney in the county announced earlier this month an investigation into criminal wrongdoing was closed, according to reports.

District Attorney Keith Blackwood said the young woman met with prosecutors and declined to answer any questions.

In this case the age gap police couldn't get the girl to cooperate, so he got a way with it. Can't be a priest anymore, however.

MenAreCowards said...

I cannot even wade through all the comments, but I have to agree with the Antifeminist on this one: Eivind really does underestimate the evil of adult women generally in blaming the problem of puritanical persecution on a group called 'feminists'.

It is WOMEN who have failed to speak out against the persecution of men and child sexuality, and yet Eivind seems to care most of all about a few horrid cunts who fall foul of the law and who wouldn't lift a finger to assist a man in need, one of these cunts actually having made hateful comments about childlovers on a social media post.

I do not follow his logic for why the 'female sex offender charade' is so important to us.

And perhaps it is the case with Eivind that a girl of thirteen is in the same league as a 25 year old woman, but with most men this is not the case. The physical difference is clear as daylight. Boys should be making the most of kissing lush early teen mouths rather than being raped, yes raped, by female teachers, because general sexuality among the young is suppressed so that these boys are then funnelled into the advances of these nasty cunts.

How do you think these men will feel when they are 25, only to realise their window of opportunity was wasted and they will forever live the half-life of never being with an early teen, or else risk the misery of imprisonment in shithole Amerikkka. Agony, if they have taste.

And yet this is the problem, it seems most men don't have taste and this goes to the heart of the MAP delusion, which is their they are somehow special when all men want to fuck 13 year old girls, as Polanski said in an interview with Clive Anderson.

MAPS are just kind schmucks who waste their best years wringing their hands over their sexuality while every 21-45 year old jock is setting to work on an early teen as we speak.

And, on top of it all, the fact that men are cowards means that there is no hope of seeing a free society reemerge like existed in the 'permissive countries' after WWII.

Think of all those icons of the baby boomers, the rocks stars whose music I can't stand and the moveie stars whose films I can't stomach, who were ploughing every 11-17 year old girl that moved. They may have had official girlfriends who were older, but do you really think they were going with anyone above 18? They haven't said anything about the pedohysteria. Why? Because men are selfish and they had their best years.

I CURSE myself that I was born to feel so deeply for children and adolescents, given that they have no affection for me. Girls today are now as evil as adult women.

All is lost!

Eivind Berge said...

Once in a blue moon an individual comes along who is able to think rationally about sexuality regardless of the prevailing hysteria. Aella is such a rare person, possibly the only woman in the world who is currently able to admit that it looks like the age of consent should be lower for boys:

Because of the massive sex difference in attitude to age gaps revealed in her surveys:

This is where rationality leads, the lowest hanging fruit to figuring out that there is something wrong with the sex laws. If society could regain sanity on sexual abuse, our first order of business would be to remove or at least drastically lower the age of consent for boys with women. Of course it doesn't stop there, but it is the most obvious entry point into a path to sanity.

If we don't care about the women and just focus on our own desire to have legal sex with 13-year-old girls, we come across as equally bigoted as the feminists, just another special interest group as opposed to a fair and honest, rational approach.

Eivind Berge said...

Sex with children and children meaning anyone under 18 became a universal taboo only after statutory rape became gender-neutral. I doubt this is entirely coincidental, because if there are exceptions then it's not a universal taboo. This is why the most sex-hostile normies now guard the gender-neutrality so zealously. Bring back exceptions, and the taboo is automatically weakened.

If we go back to, say, the Clive James interview with Roman Polanski from 1983 we can already see they speak of it like it's no big deal, just violating a local law in California rather than a universal taboo. That is partly because the law explicitly concerned carnal knowledge with a girl rather than a supposed gender-neutral thing -- and the justification was entirely practical having to do with pregnancy rather than violations and traumatization. We are simply not dealing with a fundamental moral principle, so even a four-year-old can understand such laws are debatable. Now with the help of gender-neutrality society tries to indoctrinate these four-year-olds into thinking sex with children is a universal taboo, and largely succeeds by the time they are grown up. To me, the gender-neutrality is obviously a huge part of the deception.

Once we understand the taboo does not apply to women, it's easy enough to get rational about it for men too. Then it suddenly becomes obvious that puberty makes girls ready for sexual intercourse, and the spell of supposed traumatization of younger girls too by any kind of sexual activity is broken because we know there is nothing intrinsic to sexuality itself which traumatizes children when boys aren't traumatized by women.

Anonymous said...

It's funny how there's no incentive to do anything successful as an Anglosphere citizen anymore. What good is becoming successful and making money if you're controlled by women and prime pussy is completely off the table? Unless you're a simp or a homosexual, it makes more sense to just chill entirely. Through this lens, it's easy to understand why the Anglosphere is falling behind permanently.


AF said...

"That would actually make things even worse, because it would remove the irrationality and officially cement the anti-male bias. The feminists will use the "female sex offender charade" to increase feminist power. Nice going Eivind!"


It's only the comments here that keeps me coming back to this place. Not all of them of course, but the likes of Jack, Anon69, and MenAreCowards. At least it reminds me that there are a few people out there who understand things and have some fight left in their hearts and hatred for feminists (and the majority of women who support feminists).

If it wasn't for these comments, this blog would almost literally drive me to despair.

Anonymous said...

Poor 'AF'. He wants this blog to echo his own hatred for women and that's not going to happen no matter how much he cries about it.

Eivind Berge said...

Look, the extreme persecution we have now rests on the superstitious belief that sex is harmful to minors. It is not the cult of the female sexual trade union but rather the cult of the underdeveloped frontal cortex, which men believe in almost equally as women these days. If we can only make that nonsense go away, the persecution of sexuality would at least subside to pre-1980s levels. The female sex offender charade is most spectacularly obviously nonsense and takes care of half the antisex hysteria in one fell swoop, destroying the basis for the rest too since there is no solid foundation that children are harmed anymore just because they are children.

Hating women gets us nowhere since it’s not even intelligible to the normies that women are to blame since they believe sex is “harmful” to minors.

Eivind Berge said...

Hate the belief and the enforcers, but hating the average believer is not warranted. During witch-hunts most people believe witches are harmful and that’s how it is now too. Normies believe sex is harmful to children. The way to attack this is to mock their intellectual standards and cite honest research like Rind et al. rather than hating them. You have to remember CSA is an honest belief to them just like I honestly believe the A for “abuse” is nonsense when the children are willing. Hating gets either side nowhere in terms of convincing the other. I will never believe CSA is real no matter how much people hate me and that is true the other way too. You simply can't resolve an intellectual disagreement with hate or brute force.

Anonymous said...

No. The extreme persecution rests on the feminist concept that an age gap is extremely harmful to girls (of any age, but particularly to the hottest young ones since they are the biggest threat to older women's power). The lie that is used to conceal this agenda is that sex is harmful to minors. They have obscured their true purpose like this because it's effective - 99.9% of victims of their psycho laws are men, with a few women sprinkled in who break ranks for selfish reasons; hence feminists have no problem prosecuting them as well.

The point is, the twitter post's message shows that they don't need the sex is harmful to minors argument anymore, because they can now just be honest and say men having sex with younger girls is wrong, and people will support it. The Anglosphere bends over backwards for women because it is run by women and womanly men, so why should women be prosecuted when it makes them sad and when the majority agree that only men having sex with younger girls is wrong? This is the direction we are heading in.


Eivind Berge said...

I don't agree with that. I think tolerance for woman-boy sex is a gateway to more tolerance for men too. Exposing the female sex offender charade is our gateway drug :)

And whatever restrictions remain after that will likely be centered on deterring pregnancy like they did in 1980, not repressing sexuality as if minors can't handle it. Understand that not every little sex act was criminalized for men either back then, even if penetration was. There was no "grooming" and you could have an underage girlfriend if you didn't go too far. In California that would have worked at least down to 14, under which the "lewd and lascivious" law applied. The link I discussed above from Ireland also makes it clear that at least until 2006 girls could consent to other sexual activities than penetration from 15 even if the age of consent was 17 for penetration which only applied to men:

Sexual Assault: This offence encompasses what were formerly two separate offences of indecent assault upon a male person and indecent assault upon a female person. There is no statutory definition. The offence consists of an assault accompanied by circumstances which are objectively indecent. Consent is a defence if the complainant is 15 or over but not if the complainant is under 15. The offence is gender neutral. Prior to 1990 the law provided different penalties for indecent assaults on boys and girls.

Consent was a defense to "sexual assault" against girls 15 and over. As we can see, these gendered "feminist" laws were more tolerant to men too and definitely worth going back too over the present gender-neutral tyranny.

I am not actually sure what happened later in Ireland. Is consent still a defence to "sexual assault" from age 15? I doubt it, but I haven't updated myself on what happened after 2006 except I know the age of consent for intercourse is still 17, presumably now also applicable to women though I haven't explicitly looked this up and don't recall any female "sex offender" news stories from Ireland.

Also it says in that link that the Irish often don't know the age of consent is 17 but think 16 as in Britain. So, funnily when caught a lot of times men will claim they believed the girl was 16 and thus confess to the crime.

Eivind Berge said...

"Sensitive." So that's the euphemism they use now. And the article literally calls him a "paedophile" for having had a relationship with a 15-year-old girl. I cannot think of anything more normal for male sexuality but we must conclude that this is indeed what society calls a paedophile and treats as a reason to be ostracized from everywhere. Even if he had worked there for years with no problems. This is truly astonishing commitment to enforcing antisex norms by the bakery, and goes again to show that this is much bigger than a female sexual trade union (this guy had even gone on to marry a probably not so young woman).

It has also emerged that the paedophile teacher who abducted a teenager sang love songs which included the chilling lyrics 'girl, I'd do it all again' and 'I was afraid someone would catch us'.

Oh wow that is so scary... We clearly can't go a bakery with this kind of monster there.

The solution, of course, is to form a community of paedophiles who can shun the haters. Be openly proud of our sexuality like I am until strength in numbers makes persecution impractical.

Anonymous said...

Yet the comments for that story are overwhelmingly that it was unfair.
Right at the top was this-
"Did the crime , served the time, his past won't affect a loaf of bread..".
Moreover, it's very uncommon to have the sheer number of votes for any comment in any article-7,992 likes plus, or minus if you prefer, 40 dislikes.
I'm certain the comments are manipulated, but I can't think of anybody-not the Fail, not 77the Brigade or anyone-who would manipulate them in favour of "paedophiles" such as Jeremy Forrest.
All in all, there is a silver lining here both for common sense and for this innocent man's future.

Anonymous 2

AF said...

I was going to suggest that we leave scathing Google Maps reviews of the bakery (Gilda bakery, Canterbury), and I just took a look and people have already started!

Anonymous said...

"He'll be hounded to his grave, with no chance of rehabilitation, because of one mistake, with a girl barely under the age of consent that he wanted to marry even when he was in prison"

'AF' now is telling us that having actual sex, which he never experienced(sex as in not wanking to porn or using sex-robots) apparently is a mistake. 'AF' is a person who has lost everything due to masturbating to porn. All that is left is hate and resentment towards women that never gave him the chance. If someone would give him the chance now, even a hooker, he would not be able because he destroyed himself too much with porn and masturbation. Also, he hates women so a women would not turn him on anyway. Maybe a trans-women would though or a man, who knows. Porn is not healthy to men, as "the AF" is a first class example of.

Others should follow what Eivind says and point your hatred towards the feminist enforcers, NGO's like Save the children and Amnesty and the lawmakers.

Jack said...

Indeed let's not forget that for most males "pedophiles", any prison sentence of any length is often a death sentence. For a female offender, any prison sentence of any length (eg 600 years) is probably tantamount to a few years in a 3-star hotel before she gets paroled. When she gets out she can copyright her story and earn herself a fortune. The dice are loaded against men whichever way you look at it.

Giving women a free ride with boys of any age in the hope that this will "expose the irrationality" so that men can later to be granted the same freedom with girls is at best a foolish gamble. This is not the way Society works. Irrationality may not even be causative. What we might be dealing with is a calculated move and power-grab by femihags, the justice system, the police, social services etc. to pimp youth and beauty for their own interest. A good analogue is the war on drugs. Criminalizing drugs is irrational since drugs are mostly a victimless crime, right? Sounds plausible until you realize the vested interests involved.

Adducing one source after another like Eivind has been doing, complete with Supreme Court rulings from the 80s, in order to "prove" children are mature and able to consent leads nowhere and may even be contra-productive. It conveys the impression there is anything to prove. There isn't. Consensual sex between anyone cannot be harmful, period. Children can consent to sex just as they can consent to a second helping of mashed potatoes, period. The age gap police, the feminists and the other pieces of shit that have taken over Society know this as well as we do but they're not going to stop because violence is the only language they understand and it takes war or violence to stop them.

Anonymous said...

If one cant end the unjust persecution of women having sex with young boys, one sure as hell cant end the unjust persecution of men having sex with young girls.

Just listen to Eivind. He have thought this through and is more intellectual able than the 2-3 girl-haters above.

Eivind Berge said...

That book goes to show that there are lots of sexual experiences that don't get redefined into "abuse" even if women are encouraged to do so. Which is why we don't hate women in general.

Eivind Berge said...

To answer my own question about what they have in Ireland now is that yes, they do have the female sex offender charade. They have what is called "defilement of a child" under 17 which is gender-neutral and an unbelievably hateful law to both men and women:

(1) Any person who engages in a sexual act with a child who is under the age of 17 years shall be guilty of an offence and shall, subject to subsection (3), be liable on conviction on indictment—

(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or

(b) if he or she is a person in authority, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

When under 15 this increases to potentially life in prison.

What is "defilement"? One dictionary says:

noun The act of defiling, or the state of being defiled; foulness; uncleanness; impurity.
noun Corruption of morals, principles, or conduct; impurity; pollution by vice or sin.

So the idea is children under 17 are "pure" from sexuality relating to anyone over 17. This is literally the nonsense this civilization believes in. It is its actual religion because it is the only one with the power of law. There are no consequences to disbelieving in any other God or other kinds of blasphemy than against the holy innocent and pure child.

Eivind Berge said...

"Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality." A must-read by Gayle S. Rubin, 1984.

The police crackdown has not been limited to homosexuals. Since 1977, enforcement of existing laws against prostitution and obscenity has been stepped up. Moreover, states and municipalities have been passing new and tighter regulations on commercial sex. Restrictive ordinances have been passed, zoning laws altered, licensing and safety codes amended, sentences increased, and evidentiary requirements relaxed. This subtle legal codification of more stringent controls over adult sexual behaviour has gone largely unnoticed outside of the gay press.For over a century, no tactic for stirring up erotic hysteria has been as reliable as the appeal to protect children. The current wave of erotic terror has reached deepest into those areas bordered in some way, if only symbolically, by the sexuality of the young. The motto of the Dade County repeal campaign was ‘Save Our Children’ from alleged homosexual recruitment. In February 1977, shortly before the Dade County vote, a sudden concern with ‘child pornography’ swept the national media.

In May, the Chicago Tribune ran a lurid four-day series with three-inch headlines, which claimed to expose a national vice ring organized to lure young boys into prostitution and pornography. Newspapers across the country ran similar stories, most of them worthy of the National Enquirer. By the end of May, a congressional investigation was underway. Within weeks, the federal government had enacted a sweeping bill against ‘child pornography’ and many of the states followed with bills of their own. These laws have reestablished restrictions on sexual materials that had been relaxed by some of the important Supreme Court decisions. For instance, the Court ruled that neither nudity nor sexual activity per se were obscene. But the child pornography laws define as obscene any depiction of minors who are nude or engaged in sexual activity. This means that photographs of naked children in anthropology textbooks and many of the ethnographic movies shown in college classes are technically illegal in several states. In fact, the instructors are liable to an additional felony charge for showing such images to each student under the age of 18. Although the Supreme Court has also ruled that it is a constitutional right to possess obscene material for private use, some child pornography laws prohibit even the private possession of any sexual material involving minors.

The laws produced by the child porn panic are ill-conceived and misdirected. They represent farreaching alterations in the regulation of sexual behaviour and abrogate important sexual civil liberties. But hardly anyone noticed as they swept through Congress and state legislatures. With the exception of the North American Man/Boy Love Association and American Civil Liberties Union, no one raised a peep of protest.

A new and even tougher federal child pornography bill has just reached House-Senate conference. It removes any requirement that prosecutors must prove that alleged child pornography was distributed for commercial sale. Once this bill becomes law, a person merely possessing a nude snapshot of a 17-year-old lover or friend may go to jail for fifteen years, and be fined $100,000. This bill passed the House 400 to 1.

A glimpse into the frenzied descent into the CSA panic in the early 1980s there although it only replaced persecution of homosexuals. Notice how laws shocking at the time are now taken for granted by all the normies.

Eivind Berge said...

Medicine and psychiatry multiplied the categories of sexual misconduct. The section on psychosexual disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental and Physical Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) is a fairly reliable map of the current moral hierarchy of sexual activities. The APA list is much more elaborate than the traditional condemnations of whoring, sodomy, and adultery. The most recent edition, DSM-III, removed homosexuality from the roster of mental disorders after a long political struggle. But fetishism, sadism, masochism, transsexuality, transvestism, exhibitionism, voyeurism, and paedophilia are quite firmly entrenched as psychological malfunctions (American Psychiatric Association, 1980). Books are still being written about the genesis, etiology, treatment, and cure of these assorted ‘pathologies’.

Psychiatric condemnation of sexual behaviours invokes concepts of mental and emotional inferiority rather than categories of sexual sin. Low-status sex practices are vilified as mental diseases or symptoms of defective personality integration. In addition, psychological terms conflate difficulties of psychodynamic functioning with modes of erotic conduct. They equate sexual masochism with self-destructive personality patterns, sexual sadism with emotional aggression, and homoeroticism with immaturity. These terminological muddles have become powerful stereotypes that are indiscriminately applied to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientations. Popular culture is permeated with ideas that erotic variety is dangerous, unhealthy, depraved, and a menace to everything from small children to national security. Popular sexual ideology is a noxious stew made up of ideas of sexual sin, concepts of psychological inferiority, anti-communism, mob hysteria, accusations of witchcraft, and xenophobia. The mass media nourish these attitudes with relentless propaganda. I would call this system of erotic stigma the last socially respectable form of prejudice if the old forms did not show such obstinate vitality, and new ones did not continually become apparent.

All these hierarchies of sexual value – religious, psychiatric, and popular – function in much the same ways as do ideological systems of racism, ethnocentrism, and religious chauvinism. They rationalize the well-being of the sexually privileged and the adversity of the sexual rabble.

Damn, that is amazing clarity! Imagine being able to see that pedophilia is not special. It is just another minority sexual interest which happens to be maximally persecuted at the moment. Meanwhile, transsexuality has curiously lost its stigma since 1984, but there is no reason for the arrangement of this hierarchy other than fashion.

Anonymous said...

Normalized erotic terror - the extreme feminist government of 2023.


Eivind Berge said...

To which I commented:

You normies take this seriously with a straight face? You literally believe the boy is a "victim" rather than lucky to be with a young woman? You don't even feel stupid using the preposterous dysphemism "sexual battering" for getting lucky?

Most other comments there are actually along the same lines like YouTube momentarily forgot to censor people's genuine reaction the female sex offender charade:

"Where were women like this when I was in middle school?"

"How does the boys get so lucky!?? All I had was the bad looking adults rubbing on me when I was the age smh."

"That 15 year old ain’t complaining."

"I was in the 7th grade new to ‘Jr High school’ consistently doing the cute lady that worked at the local liquor-store and she had a daughter in ‘High school’ much older than me. I was repeatedly molested by several different older and mature women back in my early teen years. I use to be so petrified and defenseless as they just had their way with me :)"

"America has a lot of puritan laws that are just bizarre in this day and age. Children start becoming active at exactly those ages."

"I’m not sure if you should call her a predator this these kids and I say that very lightly I don’t think those boys are innocent victims so I really believe you should look at this more careful because what you’re doing is destroying that lady’s life."

Her name is Alyssa Ann Zinger and here is a written news story too, though the video is more comical:

TAMPA, Fla. — A woman posing as a student to have what Tampa Police called an "inappropriate relationship" with an underage victim was arrested last Friday.

The Tampa Police Department said Alyssa Ann Zinger, 22, was posing as a homeschooled student on social media when she contacted the victim, who is between the ages of 12 and 15.

Police launched an investigation after receiving tips about Zinger, who was taken into custody on Nov. 24 and booked into the Orient Road Jail.

Zinger was charged with two felony counts of lewd or lascivious battery (engage) and five felony counts of lewd or lascivious molestation defendant over 18 victim 12-15.

AF said...

"Meanwhile, transsexuality has curiously lost its stigma since 1984"

No, it's not curious to anybody with an ounce of common sense. As I explained on my blog many times, the LBGTqxyz movement that your paedophile followers cling to, are championed to create the illusion of 'sexual tolerance' while millions of normal men are criminalized and demonized.

If society lets men with beards and big cocks put on dresses and calls them 'trans women' and makes it a hate crime to deny they are women, then society must be sexually tolerant and progressive, yes? 'Paedophiles' must be unquestionably evil to attract the wrath of such a 'sexually enlightened' society.

The feminists also co-opted the gay rights movement (and then the gay rights movement embraced trans rights), as I also explained (and here quite recently) that it was quite dangerous back in the 60's and 70's, often very angry with women, and often completely supportive of lowering the age of consent. Of course, ironically it has backfired a little on feminists. Trans activists are just about the only men in society (other than Islamists and perhaps incels) who can put the fear of God in feminists these days. One trans activist is worth 100 'MRAs', and worth 10,000 'Maps'.

If only you could see women as responsible human agents capable of evil, instead of sweet and passive sexual resources, a lot of the 'mysteries' that perplex you would become clear and obvious. Including why feminists let or support a handful of women be jailed for sex with underage boys to allow the bigger picture of validating age of consent laws that prevent 3 billion men from having sex with fertile young teens.

amelio said...

"I wonder why a woman like that would want to create a society in which men who find teenage girls attractive are demonized and criminalized? It's a complete mystery. It just leaves me scratching my head. It doesn't make any sense."

Really : imagine trying to sell your auntie's watercolours at the price of a Raphael or Rembrandt ?
Burn all the masterpieces ! The daubs will sell dearer !

amelio said...


"feminists let or support a handful of women be jailed for sex with underage boys to allow the bigger picture of validating age of consent laws that prevent 3 billion men from having sex with fertile young teens."

That's quite convincing. Besides, when those militants are done with men, they're not against a little bit of infighting. They hate women they see as complicit with men's/ boys' lust (when they can't convince them they were victims of patriarchal violence).

You should reactivate your blog :)

Eivind Berge said...

Omegle's legacy is the biggest "online abuse" case in Norway with 254 "victims":

It's just the standard nonsense where the feminist police state barks up the wrong tree at wankers while imagining that they are fighting sexuality, but I note one thing:

Hver gang et barn identifisert må foreldrene informeres. Det er Thea Flaattens jobb. Hun er hovedetterforsker i saken.

– Hvordan reagerer foreldrene når du ringer dem?

– Det er veldig forskjellig. Det er egentlig hele følelsesspektret fra foresatte når de får høre hva ungene blir utsatt for. Alt fra sinne og frustrasjon til redsel. Det er jo det største marerittet mange mammaer og papper har. Så det er et tøft budskap å gi, sier hun, og fortsetter:

– Men det er også et viktig budskap og gi.

– Hva er det viktigste å formidle til foreldrene?

Det viktigste er at det ikke ungene som har gjort noe galt i dette tilfellet. Ungene er nysgjerrige, og de utforsker. Her er det mann som må stå til ansvar for det som har skjedd.

So the most important thing for the cops is to explain away the fact that children are curious and active and only the parents get upset.

Well, at least they admit how it really is, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread about Omegle.

And I wrote on Facebook:

Normiene tror på noe de kaller "nettovergrep." De innbiller seg at seksualitet kan overføres elektronisk og at jenter dermed kan bli utsatt for "overgrep" ved at en onanist fantaserer om dem. Vrangforestillingen er akkurat like hjernedød i begge ender, både hos feministene som tror på virtuelle overgrep og onanistene som tror på virtuell seksuell verdi. Jeg forkaster begge deler og takker Gud hver dag for at jeg motstod hjernevaskingen til dagens heksetro.

Anonymous said...

Russia's supreme court made LGBT activity illegal. This ends up being a win for feminism because it removes sexual competition from women, in a very classic throwback to the homosexual anger at women that AF mentioned above. If Russia was serious about creating a beneficial heterosexual society, they would have also lowered the age of consent, otherwise its just fueling feminism. What's better, a society where you're ruled by women or where some assfucking occurs on the fringes? Russia's law essentially says now you must only worship all women only who are very clearly over the feminist age of consent or you face Russian prison. This is very similar to the conservative feminism in the USA south. Gay.

Some leftwing feminists are angry that an Australian psychologist told a guy he should break up with his girlfriend for having 60+ sexual partners, calling the psychologist insecure. They have a point. Some rightwing feminists are angry that leftwing feminists are angry because "bodycount" matters and a virgin is somehow more valuable than a slut, using all kinds of non-sexual analogies. No one is discussing the context, which is that women control "consent" in the West, which is no different from the "consent" an escort gives you for an agreed upon price. The difference is an amateur hides her price to better fleece the man.

Slut shaming is stupid in a society whose rules are all women are officially sluts. A non-feminist man would recognize this and have fun with the sluts while campaigning to lower their prices and their control over him. He might also consider support for taking their sexual consent away entirely while also legalizing prostitution, which is extreme but valid. Stingy sluts are peak feminism, which goes back to the Russia argument above, if LGBT was outlawed but rape hoax laws and domestic violence hoax laws were repealed, that would be progress against feminism. The right wing is simply fueling the feminist, anti-male fire.

It reminds me of the guy who says he wishes women weren't sluts, then when you ask him if he wants to get laid more easily, he says he wishes women weren't so public about being sluts. It shows insecurity, and the left wing feminists are right.

LGBT stuff is complicated. On one hand it's a shit test, women find it amusing and preferable that men who they find unattractive stop bothering them and instead try to fuck each other up the ass. On the other hand, men chasing men removes sexual attention from women, which lowers their value and goes against feminism. Also, trannies are portrayed as popular and brave, which gives them sexual clout and makes them attractive to women again. It seems the best route is gay stuff should be tolerated but not encouraged, pretty much how all societies have handled homosexuality throughout human history.


Anonymous said...

Ungene er nysgjerrige, og de utforsker. Her er det mann som må stå til ansvar for det som har skjedd.

When the "victims" in the Omegle videos are boys that show a noticeable erection, we must thus conclude that their conspicuous boners are due to curiosity, and certainly not to sexual excitement.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, it is customary to explain children's sexual behavior by nonsexual motivation. Since there is no law against curiositizing children we can say they are curious. They just can't be sexually curious or aroused because then we sexualize them and that's taboo. So their sexual behavior is either not sexual or groomed into being by an adult. We also readily use words like "force" and "coercion" but this case is oddly devoid of that. Some got money but none of the 254 "victims" are said to have been threatened in any way. Not until the police confronted them with the idea that they are victims and video of them might be shared, which also didn't seem to happen until the police made sure of it. What was just some harmless fun is twisted into self-fulfilling traumatization. Most of them probably thought no more of the "abuse" until the police got involved and tracked them down and set this whole theater in motion. Of course the police are the real monsters here without which the "abuser" would just be a pathetic harmless wanker.

Eivind Berge said...

It pointed out that, while young people might be motivated by curiosity rather than intent to cause harm, it was illegal in all circumstances under UK law to make, possess, or distribute such images, whether they are real or generated by AI.

It said children might lose control of the material and end up circulating it online, without realising there are consequences for these actions. It also warned that these images could potentially be used for blackmail.

When are they going to realize that when criminal content is so easy to make, maybe there is a problem with the definition of criminal content? I was hoping the AI-generated stuff would make that conclusion obvious. AI-generation is basically just rolling dice and getting some random results. What is the point of criminalizing random noise just because it happens to look like nude children? Can't we just realize there is nothing to it? Which has been my opinion of real pictures too. It is superstition that it has any sexual validity at all besides serving as self-abuse material for wankers.

Anonymous said...

Great news for pedo sexualists - the UK to force wankers to upload their faces in order to prove they are over 18.

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, leave it to the wankers to believe porn is meaningful and construct elaborate rituals around it, lol. And punishments which also let them lull themselves into a delusion that they are fighting sexuality while sexualists have more peace to pursue girls in real life. Yes, so do pedosexualists for that matter.

Anonymous said...

We should all move to Russia. They are much more tolerant there.

Eivind Berge said...

Russia is even more insane than the Anglosphere now, if that is even possible. 1500 stings a year in the UK now according to this link from TOC. Industrial scale antisex hate.

When are men going to fight back... At least the vigilantes are not invulnerable so we could do reverse stings. To get "entrapped" on purpose, show up in larger numbers and beat the stingers in self-defense would be feasible as a legal way to hurt them quite badly sometimes.

Eivind Berge said...

A bit more from Gayle S. Rubin's "Thinking Sex":

The consequences of [Victorian] moral paroxysms are still with us. They have left a deep imprint on attitudes about sex, medical practice, child-rearing, parental anxieties, police conduct, and sex law. The idea that masturbation is an unhealthy practice is part of that heritage. During the nineteenth century, it was commonly thought that ‘premature’ interest in sex, sexual excitement, and, above all, sexual release, would impair the health and maturation of a child. Theorists differed on the actual consequences of sexual precocity. Some thought it led to insanity, while others merely predicted stunted growth. To protect the young from premature arousal, parents tied children down at night so they would not touch themselves; doctors excised the clitorises of onanistic little girls. Although the more gruesome techniques have been abandoned, the attitudes that produced them persist. The notion that sex per se is harmful to the young has been chiselled into extensive social and legal structures designed to insulate minors from sexual knowledge and experience.

What I call the fallacy of misplaced scale is a corollary of sex negativity. Susan Sontag once commented that since Christianity focused ‘on sexual behavior as the root of virtue, everything pertaining to sex has been a “special case” in our culture’. Sex law has incorporated the religious attitude that heretical sex is an especially heinous sin that deserves the harshest punishments. Throughout much of European and American history, a single act of consensual anal penetration was grounds for execution. In some states, sodomy still carries twenty-year prison sentences. Outside the law, sex is also a marked category. Small differences in value or behavior are often experienced as cosmic threats. Although people can be intolerant, silly, or pushy about what constitutes proper diet, differences in menu rarely provoke the kinds of rage, anxiety, and sheer terror that routinely accompany differences in erotic taste. Sexual acts are burdened with an excess of significance... The most despised sexual castes currently include transsexuals, transvestites, fetishists, sadomasochists, sex workers such as prostitutes and porn models, and the lowliest of all, those whose eroticism transgresses generational boundaries...

If sex is taken too seriously, sexual persecution is not taken seriously enough. There is systematic mistreatment of individuals and communities on the basis of erotic taste or behavior. There are serious penalties for belonging to the various sexual occupational castes. The sexuality of the young is denied, adult sexuality is often treated like a variety of nuclear waste, and the graphic representation of sex takes place in a mire of legal and social circumlocution. Specific populations bear the brunt of the current system of erotic power, but their persecution upholds a system that affects everyone.

Of course the story on masturbation is not so simple as it's perfectly healthy and the Victorians got it all wrong, but she got these other things right. Most importantly that sex per se is believed to be harmful to the young. That is even worse now that we let them masturbate as much as they want and develop porn addiction and erectile dysfunctions while shielding them from sex and especially the nuclear waste that is our attitude to intergenerational sex. Small differences, like between 15 and 16 or 17 and 18, rise to the level of cosmic threats in the dimwitted, totally obsequious minds of the normies.

And yes, sexual behavior is very much considered the root of virtue, which is why only sex offenders are considered permanently bad people. Although all this happens in accordance with feminist theories and values now, the Christian heritage is also evident. It looks like sexual persecution is a given in our culture and the only question is which group will be at the bottom of the hierarchy, which can range from homos to pedos.

Anonymous said...

If Christian heritage is one of the reasons, then why are homosexuals accepted or even praised in the very same societies today? And why are homosexuals persecuted in societies that are not Christian (Islamic countries, Africa...)?

Eivind Berge said...

It bears repeating: "If sex is taken too seriously, sexual persecution is not taken seriously enough."

Sex is taken too seriously except sexual enjoyment and the beauty of youth which are trivialized, which is to say sex is only taken seriously negatively and this is taken to an absurdly superstitious level. The epitome of trivialization of real sexual enjoyment is the fallacy of misplaced scale of pornography and masturbation. Sex laws treat the nonsense known as "image-based sexual abuse" as just as serious as the real thing if not more so.

This is incredibly insulting to male sexuality because it trivializes real sexual enjoyment. This is why I am so pissed off at the conceptualization behind the porn laws, because they impute sexual value to masturbation, as if looking at a picture of a girl is equivalent to being with her. That idea is demeaning to men and for some reason I am the only one who is offended? Because you others are wankers who actually believe you get value from porn and masturbation, I must conclude. That's how insidious the wanker's delusion is, it even legitimizes the misplaced scale of porn as understood by the laws and feminists. We need to assert that porn is no more sexually valuable than a picture of food can be nutritious. There is exactly zero of the real thing in there; it is neither crimeworthy nor valuable to men.

Eivind Berge said...

"If Christian heritage is one of the reasons, then why are homosexuals accepted or even praised in the very same societies today?"

Because they assumed the "role" of the monogamous Christian ideal? Even if behavior usually does not match they pretty much adopted Christian values with marriage and all. And when they transgress, for example by fornicating with minors, there are all kinds of new sex laws to use against them even if sodomy isn't specifically a crime anymore.

"And why are homosexuals persecuted in societies that are not Christian (Islamic countries, Africa...)?"

Our culture does not have a monopoly on sexual persecution. There are other ways to get homophobia but still not pedophobia it seems.

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks to Gayle Rubin for giving us the fallacy of misplaced scale (which I just applied to porn and masturbation) and these other useful concepts with which to think about sexual persecution:

In addition to sexual essentialism, there are at least five other ideological formations whose grip on sexual thought is so strong that to fail to discuss them is to remain enmeshed within them. These are sex negativity, the fallacy of misplaced scale, the hierarchical valuation of sex acts, the domino theory of sexual peril, and the lack of a concept of benign sexual variation.

To fail to discuss them is to remain enmeshed within them -- I have to agree with this. I have only really done "sex negativity" justice in my activism so far, but she puts that better than I have have done too:

Of these five, the most important is sex negativity. Western cultures generally consider sex to be a dangerous, destructive, negative force. Most Christian tradition, following Paul, holds that sex is inherently sinful. It may be redeemed if performed within marriage for procreative purposes and if the pleasurable aspects are not enjoyed too much. In turn, this idea rests on the assumption that the genitalia are an intrinsically inferior part of the body, much lower and less holy than the mind, the ‘soul’, the ‘heart’, or even the upper part of the digestive system (the status of the excretory organs is close to that of the genitalia). Such notions have by now acquired a life of their own and no longer depend solely on religion for their perseverance.

This culture always treats sex with suspicion. It construes and judges almost any sexual practice in terms of its worst possible expression. Sex is presumed guilty until proven innocent. Virtually all erotic behavior is considered bad unless a specific reason to exempt it has been established. The most acceptable excuses are marriage, reproduction, and love. Sometimes scientific curiosity, aesthetic experience, or a long-term intimate relationship may serve. But the exercise of erotic capacity, intelligence, curiosity, or creativity all require pretexts that are unnecessary for other pleasures, such as the enjoyment of food, fiction, or astronomy.

To be truly sex-positive, we need to ditch the prerequisite that sex acts need to be "redeemed" somehow. In the absence of evidence that they are bad (as we have for masturbation to porn and forcible rape but not underage sex), we need to be positive by default. There is nothing wrong with variation unless otherwise proven.

As to sexual essentialism I agree with her to some extent, unless it is confused with complete social constructionism which is nonsense. For example, I am open to getting rid of all sex laws and treat sexual violence as just a variation of other violence where it deserves to be covered by criminal law. We don't strictly need sexual essentialism in law, and if we get rid of it there then we also get rid of the female sex offender charade because it is the sexual essentialism in it that I object to rather than the idea that women may sometimes commit crimeworthy sexual violence. No sexual essentialism in law means no age of consent, no incest laws, no porn laws as distinct from other intellectual property, no "rape" as a separate crime, no "grooming," no distinction between prostitution and other work, and no concept of "sexual harassment." Imagine that a "feminist" can be open to all this. Gayle Rubin is truly special, a real sex-positive feminist.

Eivind Berge said...

Christian sex-hostility is so funny. Bart D. Ehrman explains:

First Mary had a virgin conception, but that wasn't enough so she also had a virgin birth which means she remained intact after birth. But that wasn't enough so she had to remain a virgin for life and Jesus's brothers and sisters mentioned in the Bible be actually Joseph's children from a previous marriage (at least he got a much younger second wife, but they could never have sex since she was supposed to be a saint). But that wasn't enough since he is supposed to be a saint too and never have sex they realized in the fourth century, so those children are finally interpreted as cousins of Jesus :)

Give me Mohammad deflowering 9-year-old Aisha any day over that, lol.

Anonymous said...

Vil det være ulovlig å forherlige at noen har skutt mot en politistasjon i Bergen, Eivind?

Eivind Berge said...

Glorification is legal, and now I see what you are talking about:

Bullet holes in windows but no further info. If it were a protest against the sex laws I would be thrilled, but I doubt it.

Eivind Berge said...

So, a police station in Bergen (a small suburban one) got shot up last night without any cops in it. They don't have any suspects. This sort of thing is unprecedented around here and quite surprising. I can't think of any suspects either. Whoever it is did not shoot to kill, so they are kind of wimpy, but I guess it puts some fright into the pigs which is still amusing. If it turns out to be someone under persecution for sex crimes then it gets really exciting, but again I think that's unlikely because men don't have it in them to fight back on that front. We'll see.

Eivind Berge said...

Research article from 1987 giving us a glimpse into far less hysteric times: "Psychological Damage Associated With Extreme Eroticism in Young Children."

"Some degree of eroticization is an expectable occurrence for all children. In fact, if a child does not become somewhat eroticized in the course of development, he or she is at risk for sexual dysfunction or sexual problems in adult life."

That certainly makes more sense than the reverse.

According to this view, child sexual abuse is a matter of degree rather than the categorical toxin it is believed to be today where any amount of "sexualization" ruins the child. It is possible to both overdo the sexualization AND underdo it, with the latter having many more problems as we know.

It also says: "Very few eroticized children are referred for intensive, long-term therapy; the culture views them as behaviorally rather than emotionally disturbed."

Although this is already some years into the CSA panic if it started in 1980 as Bruce Rind says, it is still not considered inherently harmful at least by this author named Alayne Yates, MD. Notice also that they use the positively loaded word "eroticism" and downright poetic "extreme eroticism" as opposed to dysphemisms like "rape" and "violence" in service today. They do also say "molestation" but it is not believed to be seriously harmful. The then-current view was that all children are sexual and sex play is natural, but "molested" children become more preoccupied with sex than their "non-molested" peers who are often "distracted" from their sexual feelings by other play prior to puberty.

This has now been turned upside down to where asexuality is seen as their natural state.

We live in insane times, but at least we can draw some breaths of sanity from the journal archives.

I marvel that it is very hard if not impossible to use the word "erotic" or its derivatives or any negative sense, which must be why the abuse industry has abandoned this word. Try it yourself in a sentence and see if you can prove me wrong. Even if you say "homoerotic" it doesn't sound intimidating to straight guys, just charming.

Eivind Berge said...

Unfortunately I don't have the full text, just that snapshot and also this page:

Which does reveal some dubious beliefs despite their relative tolerance. Is it true that little girls can't tell their clitoris or vagina from their anus without having been "molested"?

In any case, the part about "non-molested" children being "commonly distracted from sexual interests through engagement in other activities" reveals they thought sexual interests are normal. And it is true, many children probably don't think about sex all the time before puberty even if they are definitely sexual beings.

Eivind Berge said...

The sexiest quote from that paper is probably this:

"The eroticized child forms intense, personalized relationships. If these relationships do not become overtly sexual they are profoundly frustrating to the child, who may react with anger, distancing or elopement."

I guess that speaks for itself :)

Anonymous said...

Great find Eivind, these studies provide insight. "Eroticism" is a great word that should always be used in this context.

I was thinking about the sexual jealousy alliance between religious conservatives and left wing feminists that has been so detrimental to men and youthful sexuality. We need to highlight issues these groups disagree on to break them apart. For example, the issue of no sex outside traditional marriage would cause instant disagreement between the two groups.


Anonymous said...

There's no point wondering why 'men can't fight back', when you're alienating 99.9% of men with your extreme views.

There is perhaps 1% of men currently that could possibly be persuaded, and calling incels 'losers' and porn users 'wankers', and alienating every genuine MRA and anti-feminist with the 'female sex offender charade' fixation, you are probably repelling at least 90% of that 1%.

What you have left is LBGTQ+f22hf1 pro feminist 'MAPs'. I honestly don't see MAPs ever forming 'reverse stings' to batter the shit out of Russian thug anti-pedo vigilantes. The only time they are even capable of anger is when somebody points out the MAP or 'hebophile' delusion to them, and that all men are attracted to teen girls. They probably support anti-pedo vigilantes because at least they are validating their fake 'MAP' or 'pedo' identity, which is maybe why they support feminists too.

Jack said...

The sexual malaise gnawing at the core of modern Society has little to do with science or ideas. It is a fight over a limited, shrinking and non-extendible resource: youth & beauty. Whether queuing in an airport at check-in or waiting for a train in an overcrowded station, how many doable girls do you see right or left? Hardly any. Elderly people. A few teenagers and early twenties, overweight and with poor figures. At the same time everyone ruminating about the youth & beauty they saw in magazines and on the internet, coveting the unattainable youth & beauty in their minds. Frustrated men with their bossy ugly wives, frustrated women whom men never give a second look. Faces chiseled with envy and bitterness. What could possibly go wrong?

The fight over youth & beauty can only be arbitrated by violence. Hence the futility of trying to prove our case. The capos and string pullers of this sex terror know full well sex abuse is a hoax. Violence will come sooner or later, unfortunately not in a targeted and constructive form, but as usual in a diffuse an indiscriminate form, with mayhem and misery for all.

John said...

"Is it true that little girls can't tell their clitoris or vagina from their anus without having been "molested"?"

If so, that's just another ridiculous consequence of society's unnatural efforts to repress child sexuality. There's no way it's healthy for girls to have little or no awareness of their sexual organs before puberty.

What if keeping young girls in ignorance about sex and denying them sexual experiences permanently damages their sexuality and causes them to become especially prone to sex hysteria later in life?

There is no doubt that many women are sexually dysfunctional and either can't orgasm at all or can only do so with great difficulty. Frank Adamo has investigated this phenomenon, and put forth a hypothesis attributing it to the fact that most modern women were deprived of sexual stimulation in prepubescence.

Due to the restrictions on child sexuality research, which is extremely taboo, Adamo wasn't able to carry out a study with children to test his hypothesis, Nevertheless, a lot of indirect evidence supports it.

Here's the link to his paper:

Adamo argues that the neural tissue responsible for normal clitoral arousal atrophy permanently when it goes unused during the child's developmental period. Although I disagree with him on a few minor points, such as the supposed continued existence of a sexual double standard, I think he's basically right. In fact, he understates his case; there's more evidence to support it than he seems to be aware of.

E.g, this study found a statistically significant correlation between earlier age at first sex and greater coital orgasmic capacity in women:

Another study found that women with an earlier age of sexual debut are less vulnerable to stress and have more frequent intercourse in adulthood, even after controlling for depression status:

There are also studies that associate "CSA" with hypersexuality in women. This is typically framed as pathological or as a "coping mechanism", but it could simply mean that hypersexual women just have better sexual functioning.

One study found that girls with a history of "CSA" have almost the same rate of hypersexuality as their male counterparts (48.5% vs. 53.7%):

In spite of the sociogenic trauma instilled in them by a sex-negative society, they still develop a greater interest in sex. This is remarkable considering the fact that females typically have a much lower sex drive and much less interest in sex than males.

Adamo has argued that encouraging little girls to masturbate would prevent a lot of female sexual dysfunction. I don't think this would be as natural as allowing them to engage in sex play with other children or even with adults, which is what what girls have done for tens of thousands of years before puritanism and sex hysteria put a stop to it. It's what evolution has primed them to do, and what has always allowed them to prepare for intercourse.

Interestingly, most primitive societies did not force girls to abstain from premarital sex*. Sometimes premarital pregnancy alone was disallowed, and sometimes it wasn't. Marriage typically took place when girls were in their early teens. 14 is the average age of first marriage for women in Lewis Binford's global dataset of historical hunter-gatherer societies (

*Page of 276 this book has a chart comparing the dominant maidenhood strategies in four modern societies to those of a presumably representative sample of hunter-gatherer societies:

Note that there were more hunter-gatherer societies where female premarital sex was "permitted" or "encouraged" than societies were it was "prohibited" or "restricted".

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks, John, for that very interesting comment. I had not imagined that "neural tissue responsible for normal clitoral arousal atrophy permanently when it goes unused during the child's developmental period," but it may well be. That's explosive information against the current repression! Or should be anyway if people cared about sexual health.

AF said...

"The fight over youth & beauty can only be arbitrated by violence. Hence the futility of trying to prove our case"

Great comment Jack. The number of 'doable' girls diminishes every year due to falling birthrates (at least native ones) and rising obesity in young people (not a problem for Eivind, lol). And then of course, the ability to even pursue the diminishing number of doable girls becomes ever more limited thanks to the sex terror and the drip drip of legislation.

Sex is fundamental to everything. Humans probably lack the mental capacity to look at it truly objectively, just as we're incapable of understanding something as fundamental to us as consciousness. We're all prisoners in the cave following fake moral shadows cast by the feminist fire, and if we do step outside and look at the sun, or sex itself, we're blinded by it.

The resentment of young men at not having sex, or not having prime pussy, gets reframed, internalized, rationalized, twisted by feminism and the alpha males who are getting the prime pussy. This is why incels are so interesting, and offer a glimmer of hope, as they have to a degree managed to step outside the cave and not be blinded.

There is no hope of changing things through rational argument, especially not obtuse, intellectual argument. Of course, the state has a monopoly on violence, and that won't change anytime soon, so we are left with the violence of our words. Not dense philosophical arguments and impressive vocabulary that the paedo-rationalists favor, but the simple shaming language and framing of the battle as men against hags and pigs.

Anonymous said...

What is the real difference between "intellectual argument" and "violence of words"? Bullying? Ok, but shaming language and framing the battle as men against hags and pigs has already failed, as women have become more and more enfranchised. We need to use new tools, preferably ones that are already working.

Embracing and using trannies is #1 as they are literally the only proven thing that works against feminism in 2023!

Unrestricted AI might be #2, but it's not developed yet.

Incels are #3, but they are unreliable unless guided properly, their biggest problem is defining their life by the approval of women, which is how we got to this point in the first place.

#4 - Word usage matters - look how they changed the definition of pedophile just by defaming any man who likes young teens or age gap relationships. "Eroticism" is a word that works beautifully to reframe "child sexual abuse", it should always be used. "Teenage Eroticism" is particularly a strong win for us every time it is mentioned.


Eivind Berge said...

I think this is a figure worth looking into as a representative of a tolerant sexual morality which existed a century ago: Norman Douglas.

In 1923, when he was fifty-four years old, the writer Norman Douglas boasted that he’d had sex with eleven hundred virgins during his lifetime. Those were just the girls. In his thirties, he had switched mostly to boys. No one knows how many boys there were. And by boys, I mean boys. By present standards he was a monster. During his lifetime he was considered a great man, including by many of the children who had sexual encounters with him. The people who thought him wicked often liked him for that reason. This is not the story of a child abuse scandal. It is a history of the social world of sex between men and children before the 1950s.

Pedophiles crowd our imagination. They are the villains in our headlines, but they occupy very little space in our histories. Norman Douglas was a celebrity in the early twentieth century. He was friends with Joseph Conrad, D. H. Lawrence, Aldous Huxley, and countless other fixtures in the literary pantheon, all of whom knew about his sexual life. Everyone did. He was a central figure in literary circles all the same. The photographer Islay Lyons predicted in 1948 that “a few generations from now, the name of Norman Douglas will be known … when D.H. Lawrence will have been forgotten, Huxley remembered only in part, and all the contemporary trash long consigned to the pulp-machine.” Lyons was wrong. Douglas died in 1952. After his death, he was briefly infamous, then disappeared from popular memory. Today Douglas is long forgotten, while Lawrence and Huxley still crowd the bookstore shelves. His writing has not held up well to modern tastes. His sexual life has weathered even worse.

His greatest novel South Wind can be read here:

It is said to contain a discussion of moral and sexual issues that I am sure we will find fascinating as a contrast and antidote to the current views.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, "rape" is the mandatory legal word for sex with a 13-year-old (under 14) in Norway no matter how consensual, which it obviously is in this case. The "crime" here is pure delusion and lying dysphemism and hatred against men. And he got preventative detention which can mean life too...

I don't have words for how much I hate this society back.

Eivind Berge said...

It is a poor consolation but at least we can observe that despite all the antisex hate and state-enforced violence they got, women are becoming unhappier:

Things are not necessarily better for American women today than they were for their mothers and grandmothers, according to a new report.

In recent years, the most important markers of women’s safety and health have declined, the data showed.

The Population Reference Bureau created an index of women’s well-being, identifying the factors that best indicated the general status of poverty, education, incarceration, political representation, physical and mental health, and participation in the labor force.

The index was created to compare the status of different generations of US women at the same stage of life – around ages 25 to 34.

“While there have been some areas of generation-to-generation improvement, millennials are the first generation of women since the (so-called) Silent Generation who are seeing declines in overall well-being based on our index,” said a lead author of the report, Sara Srygley, a research analyst at Population Reference Bureau, a nonprofit organization that collects population data on health and well-being. (The Silent Generation was born between 1928 and 1945, living through the Great Depression and World War II.)

Eivind Berge said...

I get survivor's guilt from these cases of preventive detention where men are locked up to prevent committing hypothetical future acts due to the exact same disposition I have, and most men for that matter. The only relevant factor which determines whether men will have sex with underage girls is opportunity; nothing to do with an unusual disposition, lol.

Eivind Berge said...

"The dark underground accusation economy."

Longevity guru Bryan Johnson is another victim.

Anonymous said...

It looks like the 13 year old girl in the case linked to above was free sex-loving spirit that had absolutely no problem going to bed with a 40+ year old man.

'The AF' probably hates her and want her to be locked up too.

Anonymous said...

I have a new goal now - cleansing the left of TERFS and bringing back masculinity to the left wing. I will direct all my frustration, anger, and outrage at not being legally able to pursue a ripe, beautiful, nubile 14 year old girl who shows interest in me onto those who stand in my way of doing so on the left wing. It has the added benefit of not bothering my friends and family with this.

All this time, I've been thinking poorly, thinking I could argue the right wing back to the reality of their history, that conservatives would be more open to lowering the age of consent to something more rational and acting against feminism. This was totally wrong, the right is completely dug in to extreme christian feminism.

What I should've been doing is cleansing the left of the feminine influence and bringing back the masculine left through leveraging the left's acceptance of the best feminist battering ram - trannies.

What we are arguing for now, like it or not, is sexual liberation. That is always a cause of the left wing, and always a theme opposed by the right wing. It is time to bring back masculine sexual liberation to the left wing.


Eivind Berge said...

One of those innocent little 17-year-old children who otherwise "can't consent" sentenced to 40 years for trying to rape teacher:

How did he become so responsible all of a sudden?