Sunday, January 28, 2024

Weeds don’t spoil: my reading of SOUTH WIND by Norman Douglas

“Weeds don’t spoil.” That’s my most memorable quote from South Wind by Norman Douglas and a proverb made to order for me. Because I am a weed and I’d like to think that I don’t spoil. Of course this is wishful thinking as I age all the same as anyone else, but there is still something to it because I don’t abide by convention and can therefore perhaps reap some fresher benefits than others. I dare to think differently and be different. You can all read the South Wind here as I’ve put it up on the MRA Archive and styled it pleasantly for reading on all kinds of devices. I have also corrected numerous typos throughout, so I think this is the best version on the Internet. In doing so I felt almost like the character Mr. Eames who says: “Have you ever tried to annotate a classic, Mr. Heard? I assure you it opens up new vistas, new realms of delight. It gives one a genuine zest in life. Enthralling!”

So, why did I bother with this classic, and is it a classic? Given what we know about his personal life, Douglas would have identified as a sexualist or a MAP or both like I do if he had been alive today. That is why I wanted to give him a chance. I like to test the merits of an old sexualist on his word rather than his reputation. He was a weed even in his own time, once (in 1937) having to flee Florence on allegations he “raped” a 10-year-old girl, so it’s quite possible he never attained the literary estimation he deserves. Let us get directly to the sex via the character whom all the men in the novel adore:

He worshipped from afar. He would have liked to worship from a little nearer, but did not know how to set about it; he was afraid of troubling what he called her innocence. Hitherto he had scored no great success. Angelina, aged fifteen, with the figure of a fairy, a glowing complexion, and a rich southern voice, was perfectly aware of his idealistic sentiments. She responded to the extent of gazing at him, now and then, in a most disconcerting fashion. It was as though she cared little about idealism. She did not smile. There was neither love nor disdain in that gaze; it was neither hot nor cold, nor yet lukewarm; it was something else, something he did not want at all—something that made him feel childish and uncomfortable…. And another pair of eyes were watching all the time, her sinuous movements—those of Mr. Edgar Marten. This young scientist, too, cherished loving thoughts about Angelina, thoughts of a more earthly and volcanic tinge; certain definite projects which made him forget, at times, his preoccupation with biotite, perlite, magnetite, anorthite, and pyroxene.

Yeah, that is beautiful. Another sexy passage I just have to quote:

The capacity of an English girl for coming to the point will take some beating. She paralyses you with directness. I will tell you a true story. There was a young Italian whom I knew—yes, I knew him well. He had just arrived in London; very handsome in the face, though perhaps a little too fat. He fell in love with an elegant young lady who was employed in the establishment of Madame Elise in Bond Street. He used to wait for her to come out at six o'clock and follow her like a dog, not daring to speak. He carried a costly bracelet for her in his pocket, and every day fresh flowers, which he was always too shy and too deeply enamoured to present. She was his angel, his ideal. He dreamt of her by day and night, wondering whether he would ever have the courage to address so tall and queenly a creature. It was his first English love affair, you understand; he learnt the proper technique later on. For five or six weeks this unhappy state of things continued, till one day, when he was running after her as usual, she turned round furiously and said: 'What do you mean, sir, by following me about it this disgusting fashion? How day you? I shall call the police, if it occurs again.' He was deprived of speech at first: he could only gaze in what you call dumb amazement. Then he managed to stammer out something about his heart and his love, and to show her the flowers and the bracelet. She said: 'So that's it, is it? Well of all the funny boys. Why couldn't you speak up sooner? D'you know of a place round here—'"

That's my experience with English girls too and I love them for it. It gets even better:

“Chastity be blowed. It's an unclean state of affairs, and dangerous to the community. You can’t call yourself a good citizen till you have learnt to despise it from the bottom of your heart. It’s an insult to the Creator and an abomination to man and beast.

This, I think, is Norman Douglas speaking to us as a sexualist and the heart of his philosophy. But I must say one does not read this book as a sort of erotic story, and certainly not pornographic. It is also not really a discussion of sexual ethics. I waited in vain for any sort of sustained discourse of that nature to pop up. Nonetheless, there are tidbits. There is a character called Mr. van Koppen who is just like Geoffrey Epstein except he keeps the girls on a yacht named The Flutterby rather than Lolita Island and he hoards them all for himself. Whatever discussion occurs of sexual ethics coalesces around this figure:

“Ah yes,” replied Mr. Heard. “I wondered, supposing these reports about the ladies are true, how far you and I, for example, should condone his vices.” […]

“How would you like to be haled before a Court of law for some ridiculous trifle, which became a crime only because it used to be a sin, and became a sin only because some dyspeptic old antediluvian was envious of his neighbour’s pleasure? Our statute-book reeks of discarded theories of conduct; the serpent’s trail of the theologian, of the reactionary, is over all.” [...]

“That is how I feel—expanding, and taking on other tints. New problems, new influences, are at work upon me. It is as if I needed altogether fresh standards. Sometimes I feel almost ashamed—”

“Ashamed? My dear Heard, this will never do. You must take a blue pill when we get home.” [...]

Something new had insinuated itself into his blood, some demon of doubt and disquiet which threatened his old-established conceptions. Whence came it? The effect of changed environment—new friends, new food, new habits? The unaccustomed leisure which gave him, for the first time, a chance of thinking about non-professional matters? The south wind acting on his still weakened health? All these together? Or had he reached an epoch in his development, the termination of one of those definite life—periods when all men worthy of the name pass through some cleansing process of spiritual desquamation, and slip their outworn weeds of thought and feeling? […]

In the first place it was a singular fact, much commented on, that nobody had ever been invited on board the yacht. That alone was suspicious. IF YOU WANT TO GET ANYTHING OUT OF OLD KOPPEN—so ran a local saying—DON'T PROPOSE A VISIT TO THE FLUTTERBY. More curious still was the circumstance that nobody, save the owner and certain bearded venerables of the crew, had ever been known to land on the island. How about the other passengers? Who were they? The millionaire never so much as mentioned their existence. It was surmised, accordingly, that he voyaged over the seas with a bevy of light-hearted nymphs; a disreputable mode of conduct for a man of his advanced years, and all the more aggravating to other people since, like a crafty and jealous old sultan, he screened them from public view. Impropriety could be overlooked—it could pass, where a millionaire was concerned, under the heading of unconventionality; but such glaring selfishness might end in being fatal to his reputation. […]

And then—the difference between himself and the millionaire in life, training, antecedents! A career such as van Koppen’s called for qualities different, often actually antagonistic, to his own. You could not possibly expect to find in a successful American merchant those features which go to form a successful English ecclesiastic. Certain human attributes were mutually exclusive—avarice and generosity, for instance; others no doubt mysteriously but inextricably intertwined. A man was an individual; he could not be divided or taken to pieces; he could not be expected to possess virtues incompatible with the rest of his mental equipment, however desirable such virtues might be. Who knows? Van Koppen's doubtful acts might be an unavoidable expression of his personality, an integral part of that nature under whose ferocious stimulus he had climbed to his present enviable position. And Mr. Heard was both shocked and amused to reflect that but for the co-operation of certain coarse organic impulses to which these Nepenthe legends testified, the millionaire might never have been able to acquire the proud title of “Saviour of his Country.” [...]

“That's queer,” he mused. “It never struck me before. Shows how careful one must be. Dear me! Perhaps the ladies have inevitable organic impulses of a corresponding kind. Decidedly queer. H’m. Ha. Now I wonder…. And perhaps, if the truth were known, these young persons are having quite a good time of it—”

He paused abruptly in his reflections. He had caught himself in the act; in the very act of condoning vice. Mr. Thomas Heard was seriously concerned.

Something was wrong, he concluded. He would never have argued on similar lines a short time ago. This downright sympathy with sinners, what did it portend? Did it betray a lapse from his old-established principles, a waning of his respect for traditional morality? Was he becoming a sinner himself? [...]

“Can it be the south wind?”

"Everybody blames the poor sirocco. I imagine you have long been maturing for this change, unbeknown to yourself. And what does it mean? Only that you are growing up. Nobody need be ashamed of growing up…. Here we are, at last!

Yes, here we are. We are communing with a real man, a sexualist, an antidote to the normies more so now than ever and a breath of fresh air. This is one reason to read this book, but it is not sufficient reason to read 500 pages. One must also enjoy the plot, the style, and the many characters who have little to do with sexualism. What can I say overall? Well, it was slow to get into. It was not like G.K. Chesterton’s masterpiece The Man Who Was Thursday -- also highly relevant to activism -- which I found suspenseful from the first page. But once I got into the South Wind, I can say I enjoyed this novel for all its literary qualities including a liberal sprinkling of humor throughout and good old classical learning which is so homely when you know Latin. It is a beautiful novel.

There is a character named Mr. Keith which for some reason reminds me of our commenter Jack here. He and others really come alive and their various musings are worth listening to. Correct me if this is not also your philosophy, Jack:

Money enables you to multiply your sensations—to travel about, and so forth. In doing so, you multiply your personality, as it were; you lengthen your days, figuratively speaking; you come in contact with more diversified aspects of life than a person of my limited means can afford to do. The body, you say, is a subtle instrument to be played upon in every variety of manner and rendered above all things as sensitive as possible to pleasurable impressions. In fact, you want to be a kind of Aeolian harp. I admit that this is more than a string of sophisms; you may call it a philosophy of life.

The setting, too, is beautiful. A fictional island called Nepenthe situated near Italy shines vividly in my imagination, not least through the brilliant device of Mr. Eames the annotator of a classical work about the island which is often quoted along with potential annotations to update us on how it developed until the present day. The south wind -- the sirocco -- which blows all summer is also an essential ingredient tying it all together. I learned later that Nepenthe has a real equivalent called Capri, but it works just as well as a complete fiction.

And all the characters have flaws which makes them so human, because although it gets over-the-top sometimes it is not far from the truth. Everybody cheats in some way, just like in real life, some in more harmful ways than others. I have to say that cheating the sexual norms like Norman Douglas himself did so much, and I do and we male sexualists and MAPs make our creed and ideology, is one of the more harmless ways to cheat social norms. There is, in addition to the Epstein clone, a forger of antique sculptures, a cruel Duke Ferdinand who used to rule the island (“his method of collecting taxes—a marvel of simplicity. Each citizen paid what he liked. If the sum proved insufficient he was apprised of the fact next morning by having his left hand amputated; a second error of judgment—it happened rather seldom—was rectified by the mutilation of the remaining member”), a drunkard lady who exposes the bad natures of those who profess to be concerned about her, a corrupt judge, the Bishop of Bampopo with an African perspective, a bunch of savage Russians including an illiterate Messiah figure, a murderess whom everyone including the reader excuses, a lawyer who is so immoral that he is moral…

He was profoundly convinced of the prisoner’s guilt. This was lucky for the young man. Had he thought otherwise he would probably have refused to take up the case. Don Giustino made a point of never defending innocent people. They were idiots who entangled themselves in the meshes of the law; they fully deserved their fate. Really to have murdered Muhlen was the one and only point in the prisoner’s favour. It made him worthy of his rhetorical efforts. All his clients were guilty, and all of them got off scot free. “I never defend people I can't respect,” he used to say.

This resonates with me. When I was charged with incitement in 2012, in all sincerity I was and am still the guiltiest man ever to be brought up on those charges since Vidkun Quisling, and that is precisely why I got away with it, because I am not messing around. Sometimes guilt is redemption, especially when one is honest to a fault, because the laws were not designed to catch an honest man and it is below the paygrade of a great lawyer to defend a man who is simply innocent.

Now I understand why Nabokov includes this figure in Lolita as a kindred spirit to MAPs or at least pederasts (Gaston Godin, Humbert's homosexual colleague at Beardsley College, has a photograph of Norman Douglas on his studio wall). Yes, Douglas was a boylover -- but he also says he deflowered 1100 virgins and South Wind is all about girls. It belongs on the MRA Archive and is thankfully out of copyright since it was first published in 1917. It is not a succinct work of activism by any means, but is a literary masterwork and spiritual food for our sexualist hearts. This is forceful writing which leaves me feeling uplifted both on its literary merits and because it offers some escape from the brainless, hateful, humorless, pedophobic antisex bigotry which consumes our present times, especially the Epstein hysteria which is so artfully mocked in the excerpts I have presented herein, proving once again that weeds don’t spoil. Indeed, Norman Douglas is fresher a hundred years later than he could have foreseen and even his normie characters are rebels now.


AnonyMAP said...

And here you will find a little more information on Douglas:

I finished reading South Wind recently too and enjoyed it very much despite its at times archaic flavor, but from:

Eivind Berge said...

I see Heretic TOC did his due diligence. Norman Douglas was a remarkably nice man. Even if pederasty is distasteful to straight men like me, one can't really find fault with what he did with all those boys. And rumors he mistreated his wife also appear to be false.

AnneFemme43 said...

You cannot have sexual relations with a person under 18 years of age in the same way that you cannot have sexual relations with a baby or a mentally disabled person, because they are not sexual relations: IT IS RAPE.
I am very glad that pedophilia is now ilegal.

AF said...

"Given what we know about his personal life, Douglas would have identified as a sexualist or a MAP or both like I do if he had been alive today"

Well, he certainly wouldn't identify as a Sexualist, because you are literally the only person on the planet who does, except maybe a couple of your readers. I doubt very much he would identify as a 'MAP' either. Have any of famous or powerful people convicted or accused of underage sex over the last couple of decades identified as a 'MAP' or anything else? Even that French author who is facing prison or been jailed for banging 14 year olds and writing about it in the 70's doesn't identify as anything as far as I know. That's probably because it's normal behaviour. He made the mistake of writing about it, but back in the 70's, it didn't raise an eyebrow, and most intelligent people probably predicted that the age of consent would be no higher than 11 or 12 by the year of 2020.

I've been meaning to read his most famous novel since I saw that article trashing him a few weeks ago. I doubt if he did much more than most men with power to do so back then. Every 'homosexual' in history was into teen boys. Homsexuality didn't even really exist as a concept, it was just 'pederastry' (ie lover of boys).

Again, I haven't read the novel yet, but in one of the very quotes you give he describes a second man having the same sexual desires for a young girl. Did the two characters know each other through a 1910 'MAP meetup' or something?

Maybe he had a higher sex drive than most, and was fucking more ripe teens than even his peers. In that case, he was perhaps the Jimmy Savile of his day. Not really doing anything else his peers weren't doing, except perhaps a lot more of it.
So I'm sure he just regarded himself as a normal man, and wouldn't feel the need to identify as anything. Why identify as a 'MAP' when every male on Earth is attracted to 'minors' (except maybe 1% who are truly asexual or have a granny fetish. BTW, back then, a minor in the UK was anybody under the age of 21.
Identifying as a 'sexualist' or to return it to the original idea of a male sexualist, only makes sense because our (normal) sexuality is being criminalized (principally by women, which makes the idea of calling it a 'sexualist' movement ridiculous).

Eivind Berge said...

MAP is a political label to me. I do not identify as having a different sexual orientation than most men, except politically. I am of course well aware that men are just as attracted to 14-year-old girls as 18-year-old girls, but they don't have the political fortitude to admit it without a label these days. With some rare exceptions like Gabriel Matzneff, yes, but that's because he is 87 years old and remembers a time when it was just normal. I doubt we are going back to that normal any time soon except via a MAP movement or similar. Furthermore I do not see a problem with using "MAP" as a purely political label even though it puts me in the same group as pedophiles. The normies consider you a pedophiles whether you like it or not when you have this political orientation, so why not leverage the already established political word for it?

As to Norman Douglas, I think he might have identified as a MAP for reasons of actually being different too. Tom O'Carroll in his blog post linked by the first commenter above says "Douglas liked boys on the cusp of puberty but not yet pubescent, from around eight years old to 10 or 12... A number of these affairs would last a couple of years or more until the boy was 14 or 15. These youngsters would often remain friends with Douglas long after that. He became a father-figure to some of his former lovers. After they grew up and married, he would visit their wives and children." I am no authority on either pederasty or homosexuality, but it seems to me this is more on the pedophilic side than your typical gay man.

One wonderful source linked to in TOC's comments is this:

There we learn that the epitome of Douglas's attraction is "a very small possessor attached to a very large possession," which perhaps indicates some hebephilia too, but I think his primary attraction was definitely pedophilic.

We also get a nice view into how he was living his last days on the real-life version of Nepenthe from the memoirs of two literary men who visited him. Not only did his love life never spoil, but he was extremely fortunate not to live closer to our times where we would have been hunted as a monster and probably die in prison.

In the autumn of 1951, the journalist and boy-lover Michael Davidson (1897-1975) joined his friend, the writer Robin Maugham (1916-81), whom he had known since 1947, on the latter’s yacht, the Clio, in the Mediterranean. Maugham was a lover of youths in their mid-teens to early twenties, and had also with him his twenty-year-old boyfriend Jim. They decided to visit the then still well-known writer, eighty-two year-old Norman Douglas, who had been living on the Italian island of Capri since 1946, and whose love of boys was widely known in literary circles. All three writers were also of the British upper-class. Their visit evidently made an impression on the two younger ones, who both wrote about it in their memoirs.

Eivind Berge said...

Here is Michael Davidson's account which was published in 1962:

On Capri we found Norman Douglas, drank negroni with him at a cliff-top cafe behind the piazzetta, and took him to dinner in the small trattoria that he loved and where he was loved. He was brimming with fun and wit: very old on his legs but youthful in mind: the deep-set blue eyes still lively and laughing, the splendid Augustan face still relishing 'copious conversation, copious wine'. He talked of Boris de Chroustchoff and Irving Davis, Pino Orioli's partner, and others of the old Bloomsbury days; and gave us each a signed copy of the Maurice Magnus pamphlet, that venomous castigation of D. H. Lawrence. With him, came always a 12-year-old boy, whose duty was to guide Norman's tottering footsteps back to Anacapri. 'I've always liked,' Norman said (I paraphrase slightly), 'a very small possessor attached to a very large possession.'[1] Two months later he was dead. I've sometimes wondered whether those gay and festive days with us didn't hasten his death— he was, after all, over 80; but if they did, he certainly enjoyed them. I suppose his Attic and witty writing, with its exquisite workmanship, infinite sensibility, and exact, scholarly observation, will always be read by people who love the perfect—in spite of the captious and envious denigration of Richard Aldington. Surely 'Old Calabria' must remain in the first rank of England's literature.

[1] [A footnote in the 1997 edition:] a very small boy, attached to a very large cock.

Eivind Berge said...

Robin Maugham put it this way:

He saw me glancing at little Paolo and smiled. “I’ve always loved a very large possession attached to a very small boy,” he murmured.

We began to talk about literature. Norman talked of the old Bloomsbury days. “You must let writing ferment,” he said to us.

At that moment a bearded sailor with a gnarled face approached us, knelt down in front of Norman and kissed his hand. Norman ruffled the man’s grey hair.

“You wouldn’t believe it,” he said after the sailor had gone, “but thirty years ago he was the prettiest creature on the piazza.”

Suddenly he turned round and noticed that Paolo had slipped away. “Where’s that boy gone?” he asked.

“Shall I go and look for him?” Michael suggested.

“No, no,” Norman said. “He’ll come back.”

They always came back until he died at 82 and obviously never regretted it later either. I have no interest in boys but you gotta find this heartwarming.

Anonymous said...

F*cking homos, F*cking pedophiles and trannies. Disgusting.

It's an outrageous injustice what the feminists and their f*ggot governments have done to criminalize normal male sexuality, lumping us in with these aberrations. It's hard not to blame normal men for letting this happen, spineless pieces of sh*t. Now we're forced to ally with these nauseating groups against the feminists and their governments. It's a cursed travesty.

But it has to be done.


FreeTheTeens69 said...


"""You cannot have sexual relations with a person under 18 years of age in the same way that you cannot have sexual relations with a baby or a mentally disabled person, because they are not sexual relations: IT IS RAPE.
I am very glad that pedophilia is now ilegal."""

If having sex with the mentally disabled is rape then everyone you've ever had sex with is a rapist.

Anonymous said...

from Russian media (Google Translate)

Some details of a high-profile story from the Leningrad region (near St. Petersburg) have become known, where a 25-year-old woman teacher became a defendant in a criminal case about the seduction of an 11-year-old schoolboy.

According to media reports, the young teacher was a class teacher for fourth-graders. Last fall, one of the students in the class began to show signs of attention to the woman and give her compliments. After some time, she began to respond to these advances.

The woman and boy began to retire to the school nooks and exchanged candid photos in the messenger. One day, the boy’s mother saw her son’s correspondence with the teacher and contacted law enforcement agencies. During the interrogation, the young teacher did not deny it and said that she fell in love with the student, and he fell in love with her.

Earlier it became known that a young teacher who worked at a school in the village near St. Petersburg was suspected of seducing a fourth-grader. It was reported that the woman left an 11-year-old student after school and corrupted him. A criminal case was opened against the teacher for seducing a child, and she faces up to 20 years in prison.

At least, Novosti calls it "a hig- profile story" and correctly reports that "the student showed attention to the woman and she began to respond to these advances", instead of just saying that she "groomed" him.

Eivind Berge said...

That Russian story evokes a beast bludgeoning common sense out of humanity. The Russians still have some common sense with regard to woman-boy love but their system does not -- and remember the "justice" system is literally an AI and thus not human at all although it was programmed with "laws" by humans, upon which humans are mere cogs in the machine enforcing these algorithms. This AI antisex beast having been programmed with a mind to put such nice women in prison for 20 years is now able to effect that outcome irrespective of whatever common sense is left, which will soon be entirely irrelevant because the oppression becomes so normalized as it already is here in the West.

First they came for the pederasts, then they came for all men and now all women too. Humanity cannot tolerate sexuality anymore because we have built a beast hellbent on destroying all sexuality, and that beast is far stronger than common sense and whatever is left of movements in the opposite direction which are now reduced to the highly marginal MAPs and politically irrelevant MRAs/sexualists.

Eivind Berge said...

Or if you prefer a more fine-grained analysis than just visualizing the enemy as an antisex beast, this is of interest:

Gruber, Aya, "Sex Wars as Proxy Wars" (May 28, 2019). Critical Analysis of Law. Vol. 6 (2019), U of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 19-18, Available at SSRN:

The clash between feminists and queer theorists over the meaning of sex — danger versus pleasure — is well-trodden academic territory. Less discussed is what the theories have in common. There is an important presumption uniting many feminist and queer accounts of sexuality: sex, relative to all other human activities, is something of great, or grave, importance. The theories reflect Gayle Rubin’s postulation that “everything pertaining to sex has been a ‘special case’ in our culture.” In the #MeToo era, we can see all too clearly how sex has an outsized influence in public debate. Raging against sexual harm has become the preferred weapon of those attacking heterogenous power differentials. Focusing on sex, advocates wage proxy wars for other values, from equality in professor-grad student relationships to gender diversity on corporate boards. However, when we have our sex blinders on, it is difficult to seek remedies to — or even see — the problems for which sexual harm stood in as a proxy. In this essay, I make the case that combining queer-theoretical methods with a distinctly sex-indifferent stance brings a useful perspective to some of the thornier aspects of the contemporary debate over sex regulation.

Anonymous said...

Sorry to read about your financial problems Eivind. We need more paedophiles like you and Tom O'Carroll to come out and he honest about your sexuality. Unfortunately, it probably does mean that your ability to earn a living has been curtailed forever.

Eivind Berge said...

There comes a point in the persecution of sexuality when pedophiles are the only sane people left in the world. That time is now. Everyone else has either lost their mind or pretends to go along with the antisex insanity with their public persona so they can have a “respectable” role. I bet you don’t even dare to call out the female sex offender charade with your real name. I don’t play that game. I am not afraid to associate with pedophiles when everyone else has gone insane. I am afraid not to because else you literally have no friends and everything is fake and based on lying to people who would kill you for your real self just to keep up the appearance of normiehood even though they themselves are most likely lying too.

Jack said...

You are right Eivind, but identifying with pedophiles, ie calling oneself a pedophile, goes to far for many people. Maybe it's allright in Norway. In most countries it is suicidal. Besides, I have zero attraction for non-pubescent girls, so calling myself a pedophile would be a gross inaccuracy.

I confine myself to saying I don't agree with the feminist redefinition of pedophilia and I don't agree either that pedophilia as correctly defined is the worst crime imaginable. If challenged I explain what pedophilia was meant to mean according to the people who coined the word decades ago.

Eivind Berge said...

Pedophilia just means illegal sex now (outside of diagnostic manuals that no one pays attention to, and even those are corrupted to “generally” apply it to girls up to and including 13, which is deliberately misleading with regard to puberty). It is the new way to conceptualize sexual immorality. The normies hold a “morality” (yes, they sincerely think this is a morality) that sex with anyone under 18 is wrong, which they call pedophilia. The least bigoted normies might be willing to tolerate it down to the age of consent, but they don’t see puberty as a dividing line in any of this. And since they don’t, I have come to realize that it does not benefit us to think that line is meaningful for activist purposes either. Of course our attraction remains the same and I am not interested in non-pubescent girls either, but so what? The most serious sex crimes typically apply until long after girls are sexually mature. Even the absolute rape age has nothing to do with puberty -- e.g., 14 in Norway and 15 in France, so it is pure delusion that we are “better” for not being pedophiles in the old sense. Remember that the normies think teen girls have immature brains even if their bodies are mature, and the harm of sex is believed to be mostly or entirely mental, so the new sense is every bit as “real” to them.

AF said...

@Jack Read the last comments under the previous (Angry Harry resurrected) article. Eivind says he is identifying as a 'proud paedophile' and that 'words mean whatever people who use them mean'.

Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to understand that words have shades and layers of meaning and nuance and that feminists are exploiting this. Words have descriptive, literal, prescriptive, legal, scientific, or emotional meanings, that can all be different and all be manipulated in language. Words can also be used in one way by the masses, out of fear or intimidation. Feminists are exploiting the true and original meaning of paedophile (a pervert who finds pre-pubescent children attractive) to shame normal men who are in any way associated with (normal) attraction to teens. Anybody who disputes the meaning, or who in any way does not play the language game, is shamed as a pedo themselves.

Eivind justifies his position by claiming that 'there is no point in pushing back against the feminist definition of 'paedophile'. I think there's a better chance of that than pushing back against the negative slander of the word 'paedophile' - perhaps the greatest shaming term in human history.

Does Eivind agree that a man who breaks the law and has sex with a 17 year old girl, is a 'child molestor', a 'child rapist', a 'nonce' etc etc, as most people would use such words for that person, and 'words mean how they are used'? If you ever break the law and stand in court for having sexual relations with a 15 year old Eivind, would you identify yourself as a proud 'pervert', ' kiddy fiddler' etc? as well as 'paedophile'?

It's also amusing that Eivind one minute boasts about being a 'proud paedophile' and in the next, when a paedophile commentator praises him for his courage, reacts angrily and claims he is only 'associating' with paedophiles. Are you a 'paedophile' or are you not? Holocaust21 was the same. Odd how these 'proud paedophiles' don't actually like being called a paedophile.

Eivind - you've read a lot of philosophy, apparently. Go back and read 'On the Genealogoy of Morality' and try to understand what Nietszche was trying to do, and relate it to this conversation.

Eivind Berge said...

If I stand trial for sex with a 15-year-old girl, I don’t take any characterization of that act as something negative seriously. I am a proud whatever-you-call-me, but of course I don’t use words myself which I consider negative. “Kiddy fiddler” just sounds comical in that connection… kind of charming… and damn, there is really no word you can use which has negative force, which feels negative to anyone other than a deranged lunatic that I, once again, don’t take seriously. And that includes the scumbags in law enforcement and what masquerades as a “justice system” in Norway, which we don’t have anymore since we lost the jury.

If people want to call me a pedophile then yes, I am a proud pedophile. It’s not a word which comes naturally to me but since this is now what we are just for being normal men, I fully embrace it when it is applied to me for what I am. I do this precisely because I am highly sensitive to shades of meaning, not out of ignorance as you stupidly think. We have been doing your approach of “educating” people that this isn’t really pedophilia for 30 years and it didn’t work. The MAP movement might not be effective either, but at least it is different.

Eivind Berge said...

There are two issues here. One is the rather trivial question of what to call ourselves. Is “pedophile” okay? On that I submit that the stigma has undermined itself out of overuse and so yes, the word is fine. I see teen girls using “pedo” affectionately about their older friends. It is not a bad word anymore unless you associate with deranged antisex bigots who are turning into straw men at least as far as any insulting power of that word is concerned.

The more substantial question is, do we want to support pedophiles in the old sense, the kind of activism done by Tom O’Carroll and PIE in the 1970s? Well, that comes with joining the MAP movement, which I have done. I respect Newgon’s ethos of not considering (currently diagnosable) pedophiles disordered and wanting to further the long-term goal of decriminalization there too. There is no MRA movement anymore and sexualism didn’t catch on, so if you want to matter politically and be SEEN as fighting for sexual rights in 2024, as opposed to just doing endless monologues and pointless bickering about strategy on a blog with five readers, the MAP movement is the only option.

Eivind Berge said...

Nice MAP song:

Which goes to show the MAP identity is a powerful cultural force now.

Anonymous said...

"We have been doing your approach of “educating” people that this isn’t really pedophilia for 30 years and it didn’t work."

Eivind is correct. The only problem with using the word pedophile as an identifier is literal physical safety, which comes in numbers in countries that are tolerant. I'm happy Norway seems to be a good place for that... all countries don't have to change at the same time, it is fine if the movement to normalize and defang the word pedophilia has a base in Norway.

I think it might be helpful if you add more proud pedophile language to your blog header, but be careful to have a backup in case they ban you.


Anonymous said...

"Pedophile" is no longer seen as a derogatory word by young girls anymore just like Eivind says. In my experience 18-ish year old girls use this term about me as a 40 yo man for no other reason that Im I'm actually fucking them and dont pretend that Im more interested in mature women.

'the AF' is just really dumb btw.

AF said...

Imagine claiming that 'paedophile' is no longer a derogatory word used by young girls, and then calling somebody else stupid for disagreeing with that sentiment in the next sentence.

@Jack - I think it's primarily an ego thing with Eivind. He has a 2 or 3 paedophiles here prepared to call him 'leader', so he embraces the paedophile identity.

""We have been doing your approach of “educating” people that this isn’t really pedophilia for 30 years and it didn’t work."

What has worked you imbecile? You could say that about anything. You 'educating' people over the 'female sex offender charade' for 30 years hasn't worked, so let's just roll over and accept that women who bang teens deserve to be in prison as child sex abusers.

It's not about 'educating' people, it's about preserving one's dignity, and not letting your very identity be defined by the people who are oppressing and criminalizing you for their own selfish (sexual) ends.

Having said that, it was essential to have any hope of attracting demographics such as MRAs to point out the feminist inflation of the term paedophilia, and that we are not paedophiles.

All you're left with now is 'MAPs' and real paedophiles. In that case, please stop referring to yourself as an MRA and just focus on the fact that you are a paedophile. There is nothing about you that is an MRA, nothing, and never has been. Anon69 is right. Adopt a butterfly pink background, and change your title to something like - 'resisting the patriarchal oppression of paedophiles and girls'. I'm sure a HB10 (Eivind scale) feminist will eventually become a fan and let you bang her.

Eivind Berge said...

The AF has absolutely nothing to contribute anymore. He claims to be blogging again but won't say where so that's probably a lie too. And he's afraid of a word which is becoming a term of endearment especially in the demographic that matters most.

Yeah, you can keep the MRA label, which is now perceived as devoid of pro-sexual activism since anyone who uses it and gets noticed just supports feminist sex-hostility like you yourself do with female sex offenders. MAPs are the new MRAs really fighting for sexual freedom, which now includes real pedophiles because society has decided that's an irrelevant distinction and we need all the allies we can get.

AF said...

'Scottish prisons can't cope'

Prisons in the UK and Europe are now reaching maximum capacity because of the ever increasing number of sex offenders. As I predicted over a decade ago. Something that will only get exponentially worse as porn gets ever more realistic and something that anyone at home can produce themselves, as well as now 'sex crimes' in the metaverse being treated as seriously as in the real world. Something will have to give soon. Society will be faced with a choice between having a rational discussion about sex laws and the continual criminalization of male sexuality, or they'll have to go through with a final solution to the 'pedo problem' and resurrect the gas chambers. No society can lock up 10% of the male population, especially when they are mostly intelligent and productive.

What does Eivind have to say about this? "Porn is evil, let's throw our lot in with men who want to have sex with three year olds, and we just have to wait patiently for Peak Oil that's been predicted since the 1930's to finally hit and industrial civilization will collapse and the feminists will be smited and all the autistic paedophile alpha male chads here will be knee deep in pussy. AF is dumb for thinking there will be no Tinder to match with obese HB3s just because there wont be electricity or McDonalds in a post-industrial world."

Anonymous said...

When I said 18 yo. girls I might instead have meant girls somewhere around the age of consent. Girls of that age call me a pedophile often. And I dont mind that at all. The fact that they are still interested in f*c*ing an old ped0 is a testament to how meaningless this word has become. At least among young girls.

'The AF' on the other hand has found the formula for being a forever incel like himself; He masturbates to porn, because of porn use combined with masturbation no woman wants him because he cant perform(which is very off putting for women/girls), he's using sex toys, he's saving himself for future sex-robots, he might see himself as a potential victim of a sex-crime if he'd ever put his penis inside a woman's vagina(ref. his previous comments).

Anonymous said...

'The AF' needs to shut up. He's an unintelligent loser! Girls are throwing around the P-word all the time, but it dont stop them from having sex with these guys as long as the guy is not a masturbating fool that wastes his life looking at porn. Because that means he cant perform, and nothing is worse for a girl if the guy is hesitant to have sex with her and/or if he cant perform sexually.
And yes, they can sense these things. Young girls brains are highly capable.

Anonymous said...

'The AF' is not talking about the "sex laws" at all. He is only talking about the porn laws, no doubt. As people can clearly see, he dont make any distinction between porn and sex, so he is really dumb and is nothing our movement should be associated with.
Plus he is lying about Eivind and falsifying statements that Eivind never said or meant. 'AF' is pure shit and using the same tactics as the most evil feminists out there. I really, really wish to see 'AF' face to face. That would be fun as hell!

Anonymous said...

Need a little levity in here.

Also, anonymous comments should have handles or be deleted, it's too confusing.


Eivind Berge said...

Here's a fresh example from the wild on how "pedophile" is used:

The number of public-facing “working royals” has dwindled in recent years as “the Firm” sought to rebrand in step with the times. Only working royals carry out engagements on behalf of the King, splitting the 2,710 visits and events of last year between them. That group was supposed to consist of 14 family members: King Charles, Queen Camilla, Princess Anne, Prince Andrew, the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, the Waleses, the Sussexes, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, and the Duke and Duchess of Kent. That is, until Prince Harry and Meghan chose to step down and Andrew was forced to, in the light of his relationship with the late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Now, 11 members of the clan conduct royal duties - more than half of whom are over the age of 70.

Notice that CNN does not include an asterisk or footnote explaining that this is not really pedophilia. They literally with a straight face use the word to refer to sex with teens 14 and older.

Every day I become a prouder pedophile as I see it used just for normal red-blooded men. It would be shameful not to be called a pedophile these days since that implies your sex drive is laughably anemic. Regarding attraction to girls over 13, by DSM diagnostic criteria it is literally the non-pedophiles who are disordered. They got hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) or what in the DSM-5 is now specifically called male hypoactive sexual desire disorder.

Anonymous said...

IMHO it is indeed encouraging that the word "paedophile" is losing its force-in some contexts.

The mention to Epstein being a paedophile is not neutral or positive in the same way an 18-y-o girls can describe her 40 y-o boyfriend as such.

Eivind says the younger women are the ones who matter when it comes to using this word. My answer is Yes and No. Jellies make up the majority of the female population, and simps the majority of the male, and the word has by no means lost its sting in the right context.

Meanwhile, does anyone want to try their luck in Kazakhstan?
Be assured that it's only for the worst offenders.

For now lol.

Anonymous 2

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 2

Tragic how the media and the politicians have more focus on only the sex, but not so much the killing and the incest. I'm pretty sure everyone here, except the dumbest like f.x. 'the AF' do not have a problem with punishment for guys that kill girls or for the fathers having incest relations with their daughters.

Anonymous said...

The sexualist movement and it's leader Eivind Berge do not of course accept violence to girls, murder of girls or incest.

Eivind Berge said...

Damn, they are laying it on thick here:

Pedophile teacher Mary Kay Letourneau's daughter gives birth to baby boy three years after predator's death: Infant's grandpa was raped by Letourneau from the age of 12... Letourneau who died of colorectal cancer in 2020 first raped her former second-grade student Vili Fualaau when he was just 12 and she was 34.

How many dysphemisms can you fit into a sentence? Lol. Looks like we have to normalize not just pedophiles but also rapists and predators. Don't they realize that there comes a point when it just becomes absurd? Maybe that's what they are aiming for and this kind of satire veiled as serious demonization is the new way to assert that female sex offenders are a hoax? I mean when you can't say outright like I am doing that you don't believe in it hyperbole does the trick? Or are the normies now so braindead that they take this seriously?

amelio said...

"How many dysphemisms can you fit into a sentence?"

I think it lacks a few adjectives to make it juicier : vile pedophile, soulless predator, was ferociously raped (adverb!), a well-deserved cancer etc...

"the new way to assert that female sex offenders are a hoax?"

Parity, that's all.

AF said...

"The sexualist movement and it's leader Eivind Berge do not of course accept violence to girls, murder of girls or incest."


Except that he considers Anders Breivik, who slaughtered dozens of teenage girls without mercy, to be a 'Viking hero' - a sentiment firmly shared by one of his most loyal followers.

And another or the same of his handful of loyal ephebophile followers trolled me every day by projecting his absolutely sick fantasies onto me in my comments section, leading me to give up blogging.

Also, that '(sexual) violence towards girls' has come to mean consensual sex with underage girls, and that 'words mean whatever feminists say they mean' according to Eivind (unless it's calling women who have sex with 12-year-old boys paedophiles).

Not to mention that he first became mildly infamous by penning an article in which he declared that women deserved to be raped in the name of equality.

Yes, that Kazakhstan castration policy is disturbing, and I saw yesterday that Madagascar are planning the same thing. But everything's ok, because Eivind and his 3 followers will save us all by embracing and normalizing the use of the word paedophile.

Of course, no plans to physically castrate or mutilate female paedophiles (err. I mean victims of the female sex offender charade). Sexualists rejoice.

Eivind Berge said...

Everybody, pay no attention to AF's descriptions of me. He lies or distorts most things. It gets too tiresome to correct all the time, so just ignore every word he puts into my mouth!

Eivind Berge said...

Only read what I say myself if you want my opinion.

It is true that I don't accept violence to girls, murder of girls or forcible incest.

I also don't accept cruel punishments even for real abusers and murderers. Castration (including chemical) or any other kind of mutilation is never an acceptable punishment in a civilized world. Unfortunately, the world is not civilized on sexuality and the normies don't want it to be because their minds are so addled by CSA hysteria that they can't think rationally about it.

Eivind Berge said...

Married Virginia teacher Megan Pauline Jordan, 25, faces up to 50 years behind bars after pleading guilty to having sex with her 14-year-old student over the school year — at his home, where “her DNA was recovered from his bed linens”:

France: Study finds that population is becoming increasingly sexless:

Well, what do you expect in a culture which hates sex so much?

France: Director Benoit Jacquot Getting Metooed for “Raping” actress Judith Godrèche for 6 Years Almost 4 Decades Ago, when she was 14 yo:

According to her:

“Consent does not exist when you’re 14,” she said. “I wasn’t seduced, I was completely manipulated.”

This is a delusion women now literally get away with while normie men don't care and the feminist police state perpetrates on women too as in the first example. We need to reclaim masculinity and truth. The way the system is stacked now that means becoming proud political pedophiles.

Anonymous said...

'The AF' wants revenge on women and girls. That is why he's so determined on having them all put in prison. He never got lucky with a real girl, and his sex toys are not doing it for him either. Even with the use of his large porn collection, it still dont work. That's why he's putting his faith in some tech-company soon making a realistic sex-robot. "It will change everything" 'The AF' have said numerous times. 'AF' thinks girls rape boys in big numbers and girls should be convicted and punished for sex crimes at least as much as men. Eivind disagrees with this, so that's why 'AF' throws a temper tantrum every so often in here.

'AF' is everything us in the sexualist movement is absolutely NOT about. We dont recommend men to use porn, we dont have any interest in sex-robots or any other sex toy, we dont want to hurt women that are nice to boys by giving them sex by throwing women in prison etc.


I dont care that the guy in that story was subjected to what is a cruel punishment. Not because of the sex crime that he committed, but because of the murder of the girl. Sex is never evil. Violence and murder is.

Eivind Berge said...

Maybe that guy deserved it, but if we tolerate that sort of punishment you know there is more public support for using it on sex than violence and murder. It should be obvious that we need to oppose the trend from the start.

amelio said...

That constant bickering is tiresome. Can't you guys agree that you have your differences and stop being so aggressive !

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, let's not have bickering. This is supposed to be a positive place where sex-positive people can feel uplifted and enmity is only directed against the sex laws and the abuse industry.

Anonymous said...

The AF is an incel loser who is jealous of Eivind because of all the girls he is having sex with and bringing to multiple orgasms as they scream pedo at him affectionately.

If only he could stop wanking and embrace NoFap, he might even have enough testosterone to get one of Eivind's leftovers, which would be more sex than he's had in the last 20 years.

And the AF supports Israel over Palestine, and yet Palestine begins with the letter P, and so does the word paedophile, so that makes AF the biggest feminist that there is.

MH said...

"I also don't accept cruel punishments even for real abusers and murderers. Castration (including chemical) or any other kind of mutilation is never an acceptable punishment in a civilized world ..."

How rare is to see something like that these days (unfortunately)

Anonymous said...

THIS is the most important and crucial news article for our activism BY FAR:

This man admitted to and was found guilty of sexually molesting a baby girl. He identified as a trans woman, he hired a trans lawyer, and suddenly, his decades long felony charges were reduced to SIX MONTHS PROBATION misdemeanor (no jail, no criminal record), NO SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY. This news article deserves a blog post of its own. Do you understand how significant this is when normal men are getting decades in prison for simply saying sexual words to teenage girls under the age of consent?

Now, this point is ENORMOUS - If this man identified as a pedophile, he would get no reduction in his sentence, perhaps even an increase. But since he identified as a trans woman, he received NO JAIL TIME for sexually molesting a baby, and as we all know, pedophilia now means sex with a baby or sex with a 17 year old. Meaning if he had sex with a 17 year old girl and identified as a trans male, his "pedophilia" would be similarly excused.

Eivind, you should identify as a trans woman IMMEDIATELY. In fact, we all should, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain, from economic rights to sexual rights. You don't even have to do any of the surgery or drug treatments, just start saying you identify as a trans woman! It is DEMONSTRABLY far more powerful to identify as a trans woman than as a pedophile to further the goal of destroying feminist criminalization of male sexuality.

No one cares about male sexualists or pedophiles, but male sexualist trans women would get enormous attention and popularity, that is a guarantee!


Eivind Berge said...

Any benefit to identifying as trans will be short-lived. There is so much pushback on this already that I don't see more than a handful of men getting lesser sentences for sex crimes because of their gender identity before it will be prevented in some way, even if the leftists have to backtrack on the entire idea that men can become women and it's so wonderful to accept that transition.

Jack said...

That's what I had been advocating for some time. Since sex is just a social construct, why not register en masse as women? We could do so not only in order to get away with sexual crime of the type described above, but in general to stop getting discriminated against based on gender. If there's nothing left but women in Society, what's the point of feminism?

Speculating about leftists' backtracking "on the entire idea that men can become women" is only a cop-out. Besides, bringing about such a backtracking would be a victory in its own right. Any backtracking would not go without a fight. It would put LGBTs at loggerheads with feminists.

Anonymous said...

That's absolutely correct Jack.

Even if you are skeptical and assume it's a flash in the pan, the fact is it obviously works right now. Nothing else comes close. Why waste that advantage? You can always switch back and "de-transition" by identifying as a man again, no harm done.

And what if you're wrong and the trend lasts another 20 years? Then you've wasted all that time identifying as a pedophile making no progress, when you could've taken advantage of the trans identification.


MH said...

Apropos that Reduxxx careful where you are getting your information.
While I acknowledge that many mainstream media are lying scum, various of these alternative news could be even much worse (and they frequently are)
While I am no fan of this trans lunacy(and many of these "TRANS" are just people with some personality disorders IMO ), that site seems to be about few "Jezebels" obsessed with M-F trannies.

It seems to me, that when it comes to diaper changing HE was doing nothing much wrong there (maybe except dumb comments) and his relatively lenient sentence could be explained that HE stumbled onto reasonable judge/jury.

Also some female indoctrinat.....eeehmm teachers don't like to see their monopoly in child indoctrination business being threatened.

Eivind Berge said...

"his relatively lenient sentence could be explained that HE stumbled onto reasonable judge/jury"

Yeah, that's a more plausible explanation. There is no substantial advantage to identifying as trans, unless you think using the women's bathroom is some kind of monumental victory.

MH said...

This attitude with identifying with TRANS movement resembles me various IT/Cypherpunks..etc
fighting growing surveillance state with various hacks and apps and privacy tools to obfuscate ever more growing privacy-disrespecting legislative.
It may be way how to temporary escape(or to mitigate consequences-which BTW I dont believe would work in case of TRANS) ever more growing totalitarianism of our times but core of problem is elsewhere.

"Queer theory questions just those categories that the new market / state / technological system itself questions and deconstructs (gender, sexual orientation) in the course of this system's dissolution of materiality, locality, and tradition to abet ever greater circulation and global metropolitan domination.

"Queer theory resolutely does not question the provisionality and construction of categories ('child', 'abuse victim' 'sex offender', pedophile', 'sexual predator', 'child pornography') that are thrown up as substitute points-on-the-compass and are at the core of a massive new regulatory and penal apparatus -- one transforming Western jurisprudence in directions that uncannily replicate the totalitarian precedents (preventative imprisonment, post-sentence lifetime incarceration, mutilation, state-abetted vigilantism, lifetime public shaming, killing, and a perpetually inflamed public rhetoric of hate). ....Why are we now in the West constructing masculine sexuality as utterly demonic? Butler is grammatical and popular, I'd suggest, because she resonates with the singularly peculiar circumstances of this moment in history: the apparent end of the reign of the biological, locality, and patriarchy as humans are increasingly pickled in the brine of the global techno / market / state. (Whether the market-abetted rise of asexual monoculture will be our undoing is another question.) "

BTW: Eivind, as you have now working website with archives, wouldn't you consider (in distant future) archiving W.A. Percy (or at least what's left of it). I know it is rather (oldschool)homosex than MRA but there are good articles IMO.
I wonder whether WA Percy foundation have it's copy saved or they are stupidly relying on

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, I would be happy to archive W.A. Percy. If someone could prepare the files that would be helpful.

The quotes from that link are right on. It was written in 2007 and that's exactly what happened: "the rise of a new post-death-of-God state religion emerging as reigning ideology in the West (which is veering toward something resembling totalitarianism)." As he says queer theory might claim gender is socially constructed but the minor is ontologically absolute according to the religion of our times, as are the categories of "abuse victim," "sex offender," "child pornography" and so on. It is full of contradictions and constructs highly dubious "realities" to say the least, but nobody cares if it makes sense because this is a religion we are dealing with, and an excuse for a totalitarian state that the normies won't challenge at all.

Eivind Berge said...

I got an account at Bluesky which is a new Twitter open for anyone to join now:

Perhaps they can be slightly more tolerant than Elon Musk's insane bigotry at the platform this is meant to replace and I hope it will.

Let's all sign up and get a sexualist movement going there. But be careful so we don't get banned there too.

Eivind Berge said...

I made a donation page at the MRA Archive:

Bitcoin is just starting a bullrun so now is probably a good time to buy for yourself too. Can also donate monero if you want to be anonymous.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't know if Kentucky is so backwards. I have just a little experience from there but I did live for six years right across the border in Clarksville, Tennessee. I don't think the people I knew back then would have freaked out over this:

According to witness testimony, a co-worker had asked Childers for assistance in changing an infant’s diaper. While Childers was cleaning the baby’s genitals, the co-worker noticed that the infant appeared to be in distress and asked Childers if he was hurting the baby. She then witnessed Childers rub the infant’s genitals in a “circular motion,” while saying “that was her clit area and she likes it. It just made her day.”

While Childers was reported to management at the Academy, he was only given a “write up.” Police later learned that Childers had also been accused by other co-workers of leaving the children in high chairs for “hours” without care.

I also don't think they would be impressed with transsexuality as a mitigating factor. I still think he probably was lucky enough to run into a prosecutor who was reasonable enough to realize that this should pass as a "Class A Misdemeanor Sexual Misconduct" rather than pressing all-out hysterical felony charges as if the baby had been raped. How the hell are you going to identify truly dangerous abusers if you can't distinguish them from such a harmless joker? It was probably nothing more than a diaper change to the baby anyway, with some lewd comments that it didn't understand either. I would be more worried about the high chair incident and it does seem that this person is not fit to work in a daycare, but no need for any more hysteria than that.

Kentucky has probably gotten more hysterical than the people I remember, just like everywhere has, but there is still a chance that you can run into people who are not batshit insane even if the system generally is. I wouldn't bet on it, but just because something can technically be classified as "1st Degree Sexual Abuse" doesn't mean every prosecutor, judge and jury blindly thinks it's the worst possible thing regardless of the facts.

Eivind Berge said...

A pair of Russian female influencers who shared a passionate kiss and posted it to social media were forced to apologize and say it was all a joke after authorities interrogated them for displaying lesbian love that could harm children:

Video of the police interrogating the pair:

Police officer: "Did you understand that your video could be watched by minors and that the French kiss you performed might have harmed their psyche?"

You can't make this shit up. Russia is even more insane than us, if possible. I suppose we are only better insofar as we tolerate lesbians kissing but the "minor harm" sex panic is otherwise much the same. And we are just as blind to the insanity of the female sex offender charade as the Russians are to their anti-lesbian charade.

MH said...

I don't know who do you think you are, but next time let's have some decency while communicating your dissenting opinions please..... I am not interested in your tantrums..........

If you want to prove your "theory" give us some hard data, which proves that biological males identifying themselves as females are getting more lenient sentences for sexual crimes (instead of some feminist tabloidish rant)
Are you sure there are no "cis" males who got lenient sentences for such (or similar) acts?

Why do you think "Reduxx" A FEMINIST WEBSITE and literally an ARMY of TERFS is obsessed with hating trannies? Why? What could be the reason, dumbas*es?

My comment was meant, that this site have anti-trans BIAS, which means they would write anything to incite negative emotions towards certain group of people, no matter if this is objective picture of reality..but sometimes if you look closely at those cases, you could realise that reality and reasoning by authorities' decisions is different

There is no reason to think that when biological males "en masse" will claim they indentify themselves as females, it will reverse repressive trends of last few decades.

Also some of us here are not living in US and I can tell you for sure that in most countries in continental Europe playing Tranny-card will not help you even in individual case.

Eivind Berge said...

Joe Rogan: “We are one step away from ‘minor attracted persons’ being something that everybody’s cool with.” He is hysterically afraid of our awesome power when we use that label :)

Then he trots out the tired old brain development myth and says he was “a fucking idiot” at 21 because men’s brains don’t fully develop until 25.

These morons inhabit a parallel universe of utter delusion and ignorance, but one thing is sure: there is power in identifying as the MAP movement!

Eivind Berge said...

Passcode AOC12: another gem from my favorite MAP singer John Sydney McNair.

Oddly he has fewer followers than me on YouTube.

Let's help lift him up to the fame he deserves.

Eivind Berge said...

John Sydney McNair has also either done it or at least fantasized about starting a MAP "Pagan Temple" sort of religious movement. "Its focus will be on building a global counterculture based on tolerance, love and finding personal spiritual direction through community and shared experience... Tolerance of sexual orientation and general lifestyle choices are key for the temple." I want to join this church and get spiritual guidance from the "highly trained clergy" that the beautiful Persephone is referring to here. This is our religious tribe as MAPs, folks. We just need to manifest it into existence as it seems to be little more than one man's fantasy and art project at this point:

And before anyone brings up his disclaimers I don't think they carry weight. This is the real deal ideologically and spiritually, not some anti-c nonsense.

Eivind Berge said...

"This is Persephone... I will always be around as I'm an archetype and a representative of a forbidden love. A love which society condemns but secretly wants. Hades and I share a love truly beyond understanding but one we should not despair of ever having ourselves. Love is love no matter what our age. Don't ever give in to the hateful despisers who judge. The future is going to be positive for us."

Much kudos. Definitely the kind of religious symbols we need. Very impressive that this activism is slipping through the cracks into the mainstream platforms too.

Anonymous said...

The MAP temple and spiritual movement is a genius idea Eivind. I've often been struck by the spirituality of your videos, especially when you show the landscape of Bergen and your home.

I believe this movement will grow, and there will soon be thousands of both male and female members, of all ages and races. I hope more and more MAPs will recognize you as the true leader, both spiritual and political of our global cause. One day, perhaps, Bergen will become a kind of pilgrimage site for MAPs and paedophiles everywhere.

John the Maptist, prophesizing and then Christening Eivind the redeemer of man. It has a good ring to it.

Eivind Berge said...

The sex-positive MRA movement has a global potential of five members which I maxed out ten years ago, after which nobody new has appeared. The MAP movement does have potential for millions, right now, including lots of women and young female AAMs. We gotta fake it till we make it so I don't care how pretentious this is. A MAP church or temple can't fail harder than the MRA movement, that's for sure. And that of course that is just a small segment of the MAP movement whereas MRAism is dead everywhere else. I am an MRA general but just a lieutenant in the MAP movement. Even so, I get more followers in no time as a MAP than I ever had as an MRA.

MH said...

Absolutely off-topic, but I noticed that you have Guyon at your archives.
It is highly unlikely that you didn't see this yet,but in case.....

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks. I hadn't seen that. Very interesting!

What I have archived so far is just a small part of Guyon's writings on sexual ethics. We can read there that he was so provident that he even proposed laws to protect us from the abuse industry:

In addition to banishing the "sex crimes" from the penal law, one might well add, for security, a new criminal offense: that of violating the right to sexual freedom. Such a provision would aim to put a stop to the denunciations, the houndings, the comminatory interventions in private life, and the censorship of all those puritan agents or Leagues who, with an elaborate sadism, make life insupportable for their neighbors in the name of the stupid and ruthless doctrines which so delight them.

And sadly no one even associates sexual rights with human rights anymore even though history says otherwise.

It looks exceedingly unlikely, but we can only hope for this assessment to come true in some distant future:

It is not unreasonable to assume that in a future society, less benighted by the shadow of past ages, Guyon will rank among the immortal emancipators of the human race. His valiant efforts may eventually accomplish in the sphere of sex what the advanced thinkers of Voltaire's day achieved in the realm of political freedom.

Anonymous said...

I like the power in the MAP identification, that also seems like a viable route in addition to the power of the tranny identification. I am in support of all power plays against these feminist lunatics.

These feminists can't even show what they are talking about when it comes to "brain development". Nobody knows exactly what that means except it was mentioned in a study at some point, in the midst of other studies that say "brain development" stops anywhere from age eight to infinity. "Grass on the field" used to be the easy measurement of whether the equipment was ready for the game.

And then of course, they have to magically link "brain development" with the ability to safely enjoy sexual pleasure, somehow, which is also never explained. It's just a saying they parrot back mindlessly because they aren't comfortable with the idea of young people having sex. Imagine what a f*ggot you have to be to sincerely have that belief? Welcome to America and Russia now I guess.

What the feminists honestly are saying is that a girl doesn't have enough *life experience* to understand just how much she can manipulate her sex partner to give her what she wants in exchange for sex, or what a young girl wants is not the same as what an older hag wants. Now that argument has some truth, which is why it's so refreshing and forbidden to have young, sincere sex, before they are corrupted and demanding.

Doug Stanhope laid it out for us:


Anonymous said...

"Doug Stanhope laid it out for us"

The AF is an autistic plagiarist, who likely stole his misogynist idea regarding a female sexual trade union from Doug Stanhope, because he wasn't bright enough to come up with the idea of the female sex offender charade.

galileo2333 said...

Galileo2333 is now on TikTok

Anonymous said...

David Futrelle's blog has been 'rested' for some time. There are rumors that details of some sordid sex scandal involving him is going to break soon. Who could have predicted that?

galileo2333 said...

I was banned very quickly from bsky for advocating legalized age different adult with child sex contact.

FreeTheTeens69 said...

"Now that argument has some truth, which is why it's so refreshing and forbidden to have young, sincere sex, before they are corrupted and demanding"

The idea that 13-17 year olds are easy and not "demanding" is a myth. 13-17 year olds are not easy. They are incredibly demanding/discerning in who they choose to sleep with. And they are suppose to be. As men, our sexual desire is like fire. It's incredibly fast and powerful. Girls sexual desire is like water. It's slower, and keeps our fire from getting out of control. If girls were easy to get, everyone would be having gang bangs in the street. And dying from aids. Girls balance us. They slow us down, make us have more control, and motivate us to become cool, and do cool stuff. If girls were easy we would never do anything lol. We would just sit around playing games all day and nothing would ever happen in the world. People have to understand yin and yang. And understand why the sexual differences exist. Yin being hard to get is HELPING us. Despite the fact that it might seem annoying to you at first. It is complimentary in the long run.

AF said...

"The idea that 13-17 year olds are easy and not "demanding" is a myth."

Really? That's not how I remember it when I was a teen. But that was back in the 80's when teens and young people were having far more sex than today's generation.

Even in my 50's I'm sure I could pull teenage girls more easily than young twenty-something women - if it wasn't for a/the legal restrictions and b/the brainwashing of teens to despise older men as paedophiles (save for several chads here who get called pedo affectionately by young girls).

Teens are less demanding. They haven't learn't fully to see themselves as part of the sexual trade union, to judge whether the 'price is right' for every sexual interaction, or to keep the general price of pussy high by being 'demanding'. By the time they are in their late teens and off to college or university, they have learnt, as Doug Stanhope says, to 'unionize their pussy'. Teen girls are more inclined to just see sex for what it is - the beautiful and intimate pleasuring of two people attracted to each other. This is why they are so dangerous to feminists and the resulting need for older women to control teen girl's sexuality.

It's ok for the Alpha Map Chads here, as we know the likes of you are getting HB10 17 year old teen pussy regularly. I read recently that something like nearly half of 20 year old men aren't even getting any sex these day. But if girls are still 'demanding' for you, then have a thought for the average male. I know you'll say again - ' you just have to learn some game'. If every girl is demanding, then dating and sex is a zero sum game and there will be a few male winners and far more losers, especially when it's compounded by age of consent laws, MeTOO hysteria and laws, and dating apps such as Tinder.

You might have a point about if sex was TOO easy, we wouldn't get anything done and society would be like Haiti or some failed African nation, but it's clear we've gone way too much in the opposite direction thanks to feminism. There is now NO incentive to get things done, because you can be literally a billionaire and friends of princes and presidents, and still you'll end up hanging yourself in a little cell if you use that wealth and status to bang even 17-year-old girls.

AF said...

Regarding that Joe Rogan podcast on 'MAPs' - it's clear that the 'MAP movement' has replaced NAMBLA as the comical bogeyman and symbol of 'what will never be acceptable no matter how progressive we get'.
Just as NAMBLA became a joke and effectively killed ANY chance of it ever becoming acceptable or legal for gay men to have sex with teenage boys, MAPs will do the same for men and teenage girls. Though it's worse than that, as NAMBLA was really a US thing, and now Eivind and the Internet are bringing the MAP joke to Europe, where the age of majority is 18 - 21, and the age of consent is 14 - 17.

NAMBLA enshrined the (false) idea that men loving and having sex with teenage boys was apart from normal homosexuality. MAPs will do the same for normal male sexuality and love of teenage girls.
I suspect NAMBLA was a government false flag operation, and the same is probably true of the MAP movement.

Eivind Berge said...

My impression is also that teenage girls are harder to get than older women. We can debate the details of that. For example it is highly likely that they get more demanding financially as they get older, when and if they care about the man’s finances, simply because they have more financial needs when not living with their parents anymore, but on the other hand they may be more open to just have fun as teens. Your mileage may vary and it also varies over time, with a current sex recession.

One thing we can be sure about is that young teenage girls do not have some kind of deficiency in their brains which prevents them from making the “right” decisions. Who is to say that it is more right to have sex for the maximum other benefits or just for pleasure? Or for a little extra pocket money when that’s all they need? This is where the mainstream view is sex fascism and fraudulent neuroscience. There is nothing wrong with the teen girls’ own sexual agency to justify invasive laws.

You can argue that nobody has free will ever, but you can’t coherently argue that free will begins at 25. If the normies really meant that they should be willing to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 25 as well, not just fantasize and moralize that anyone younger who has sex with an older person is exploited. It’s all just a convenient excuse to control sexuality.

My own experience is that I was more responsible and risk-averse in my teens than twenties. I never touched any drugs and barely any alcohol until I was 20, then I got very irresponsible for a while but quit all that again when I was 30. Nothing notable happened when the fabled fully developed self-control is supposed to kick in at 25. I am sure my experience is not all that unusual. Why do all the careful kids and teenagers not carry weight? We know from statistics on Darwin Awards that risk-taking peaks in your 20s. Teens just win Darwin Awards at the same rate as 50-year-olds. That’s the literal truth about teenagers, that they are just as careful and safe as middle-aged people. When a skill requires practice, such as driving, older might be safer but only because of experience. Those who learn to drive at an older age are not safer. One reference to that is Curry et al. (2015) whose study methods were as follows: From a unique linked database containing licensing and crash data, we selected all drivers who obtained their NJ intermediate license at 17–20 years old from 2006–2009 (n = 410,230). We determined the exact age at which each driver obtained an intermediate and full license and created distinct, fixed cohorts of drivers based on their age at intermediate licensure. For each cohort, we calculated and graphed observed monthly crash rates over the first 24 months of licensure. Further, we examined crash rates by age at licensure, driving experience (i.e., time since licensure), and license phase157. If the brain is still developing the way the folk belief goes it should show up on studies like this, but it does not.

Another funny statistic quoted in Bronski's An Empirical Introduction To Youth is that teens actually use the most condoms too. They are too scared of risk to prioritize fun unlike men like me in our 40s who use the least condoms. Reality is hilariously opposite to the folk beliefs about teenage risk-taking.

FreeTheTeens69 is basically right that female selectivity slows us down, makes us have more control and motivate us to become cool, but we do know what happens when men get unlimited sex too because this is how gay culture works. Gay men are still able to be productive and even make great contributions to art and science (Alan Turing for example), so getting all the sex you want can’t be all that bad either. Not unless a police state fucks it up, anyway. We know from the lives of absurdly sexually successful men that there is often no downside to it whatsoever; just look at the life and writings of Norman Douglas!

Anonymous said...

Eivind what is your view on NKVTS in Norway? Their research seem to show the complete opposite of f.x the Rind-studies.

Look here f.eks.:

The author is using some study from NKVTS to prove that Norwegian girls have never been more mentally ill and more suicidal than today because allegedly sexual abuse. I have suspected for a long time that NKVTS is not totally honest in many aspects. What do you think?

Eivind Berge said...

I am not very familiar with NKVTS, but that seems completely absurd.

I NKVTS-rapporten om omfang av vold og overgrep i den norske befolkningen fra 2023 kom det frem at 22 prosent av norske kvinner har blitt utsatt for voldtekt. For de under 29 år var tallet doblet siden 2014.

22% of Norwegian women have been raped, and for those under 29 the rate has doubled since 2014?

All this while sexual activity has decreased overall? Young people now have less sex but more rape as if made to order by feminists? Which I think this study really is. There is definitely something wrong with their definitions, as the law is corrupted too, and perhaps some outright fraud as well going into making these data (with so many academic scandals lately at least it wouldn't surprise me -- just look at all the plagiarism scandals and retractions).

And even if the prevalence here were valid, there is nothing in this methodology which can demonstrate causation with mental problems:

I løpet av perioden juni 2021 til juni 2022 ble 4299 personer i alderen 18–74 år (51 % menn og 49 % kvinner) intervjuet per telefon om sine erfaringer med vold og overgrep.

More likely, the definitions of both what constitutes "sexual violence" and mental illness have been fudged, and perhaps the more anxious/depressed/whatever people are also more likely to define their sexual experiences as abuse rather than the other way around, and increasingly now after #Metoo made it so popular.

And finally, I don't see anything to contradict Rind here since they don't seem to study consensual minor-adult experiences in particular or identify those how have them and what happens to them as an independent group, do they? It's all mixed up with forcible rape.

It is possible that mental health has declined, though I suspect it has a lot to do with certain diagnosing becoming more fashionable...

Psykiske plager er ikke uvanlig blant ungdom. For ungdomsjenter har andelen som rapporterer psykiske plager som bekymring og stress økt over tid. Andelen barn og unge som blir diagnostisert med en psykisk lidelse i spesialisthelsetjenesten har økt de siste ti årene, spesielt for jenter og kvinner i alderen 12-24 år. I 2022 ble seks prosent av alle barn og unge diagnostisert med en psykisk lidelse i spesialisthelsetjenesten.

But even so, we have no way to convincingly link this to more sex, even the truly abusive kind, and certainly not to consensual but simply illegal sex. If anything, the sex recession could indicate that one reason for poor mental health is too little sex.

Anonymous said...

If you are not familiar with this Eivind, NKVTS also got a little bit of heat for pushing absurd conspirancy theories a few decades ago. They, NKVTS, had publicised something about kids being ritually sexually abused, often ritualistically murdered etc. without a smidge of evidence.

But of course nothing more happened and they are still going strong today. Actually they are the people that are feeding the government with data when they are evaluating new sex laws. It would be a scandal like nothing if their data was manipulated(which it is) or if it was actually falsified.

Eivind Berge said...

I see. Dagbladet... that's mainstream, even feminist media calling them out on the fake abuse studies, in no uncertain terms.

NKVTS seems to reflect the hysteria of the times, whatever it is, and get "studies" made to order accordingly. In the 1980s that was satanic ritual abuse. Now sex itself is so scary that minors and hardly adults either can have sex other than it be seen as rape or abuse of some kind, so we get the studies to reflect that. No reason to believe the current studies are any more in touch with reality than the ones who found satanic rituals.

Anonymous said...

Yes that is exactly my point Eivind. Someone needs to retort to these writings that I linked to as an example. And start asking questions to what NKVTS' material and what they are actully presenting to the public.

I am absolutely sure in my mind that NKVTS are fraudsters. They did show it before that they are, and the data they are producing today gives me a clear indication that they are still fraudulent since none of their findings are adding up. I'm sure if someone took a look at their research, they would find a lot of fraudulent data. I'm sure you have the brains to do this Eivind!

Eivind, du må skrive i norske aviser. Du er ekstremt flink. Du er en naturlig arvtager etter Tor Erling Staff. Kun du kan gjøre dette i norsk offentlighet tror jeg.

Anonymous said...

Jeg tror ikke at norske aviser (og vestlige aviser i det hele taget) er særlig interesseret i at være talerør for Eivinds synspunkter. Måske skulle han kontakte Tucker Carlson...?

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks. Tor Erling Staff is my hero and I would like to pick up his legacy but sadly the mainstream is not receptive to my ideas at all except in satirical works like the documentary and short film. If that ever changes at least they can come here or the MRA Archive to read all this.

Pedo panic in Hungary:

Hungarian President Katalin Novak has announced that she is resigning from office following mounting public criticism over her decision to pardon a man implicated in a child sexual abuse case.

“I decided to grant a pardon last April, believing that the convict did not exploit the vulnerability of the children whom he had overseen,” Novak said in her speech during a national televised address on Saturday.

“I made a mistake, as the pardon and the lack of reasoning were conducive to triggering doubts about the zero tolerance that applies to pedophilia,” she said.

So there is no critical thinking allowed about pedophilia at all or any sort of nuance regardless of the facts. Zero tolerance to any idea that it can be less bad than the worst thing imaginable. I am proud to represent the pedophiles against such absurd insanity. It is my true calling in life, the kind of activism that is absolutely most valuable because almost no one is doing it. I know the Gazans are more intensely genocided at the moment but they have millions of supporters and awesome resistance fighters, whereas pedophiles are just lambs to the slaughter while every last politician preaches zero tolerance for fear of even more deranged normies with pitchforks.

Children are supposed to have no sexual agency, except when they are the rapists themselves, then suddenly the ontology of child innocence is upended...

Greater Manchester Police said in a statement to the Manchester Evening News: "At around 6pm on Saturday 10 February 2024, officers were called to reports of a rape in Newbold, Rochdale.

"Four boys aged 12, 13, 14, 14 have been arrested on suspicion of rape and remain in police custody. The victim is currently being supported by specialist officers."

How did they get so responsible all of a sudden? Just because there is another victim we can suddenly disregard the dogma that these boys are incapable of deciding to have sex?

I wish these contradictions would crush the superstition, but unfortunately it does not work that way because there is zero tolerance for critical thinking about children and sexuality.

Anonymous said...

The resignation of the Hungarian president gave us confirmation that saying certain things publicly is taboo, but we already knew this. The new thing is that we saw a head of state who was capable of reasoning rationally and who probably thinks the same way even now, given that she resigned following pressure due to purely political reasons. So, if we leave aside the hopelessness that characterizes Western politics today, it doesn't seem to me that what happened in Hungary was even that depressing.

Anonymous said...

"Jeg tror ikke at norske aviser (og vestlige aviser i det hele taget) er særlig interesseret i at være talerør for Eivinds synspunkter"

It's normal for papers to print opinion pieces written by acsdemics or anyone really. Eivind is quite a master of the written and Im sure he would not have a problem for him to get published.

Opinions are not endorsed by the newspaper thats publishing them.

Eivind Berge said...

I agree I should try, but the usual rules do not apply to this subject. If the Hungarian president had pardoned a random murderer there would have been no uproar, but no reason can be good enough to pardon a pedophile -- or give them any kind of help unless I pose as a Virped :)

Anonymous said...

As the Norwegian commentator above says, Eivind should definitely offer Tucker Carlson the opportunity to come to Bergen and visit his cabin to interview him. Pretty sure he would accept. Now he's interviewed Vladimir Putin, there aren't many people left in the world who could stimulate and challenge him like Eivind could. He has probably heard of you already, but in case he hasn't, just send him a link to one of your YouTube shower videos and I'm positive he would be impressed and jump at the chance to let you put the case for paedophiles and MAPs to a global audience.

Anonymous said...

The "Norwegian" commenter above is obviously Danish. And he is probably joking about contacting Tucker Carlson.

Anonymous said...

Some good recent news on the 'MAP' and tranny fronts working together against feminism, bringing us closer to legal access to tight young teen girls again:

Biden admin forces colleges to accept chosen gender and sexual orientations (which may soon include 'MAPS'):

And Connecticut gets really really close to naming MAPS as a protected identity, which really pisses off the Catholic feminists and their simp homosexual mommy lovers:

'MAP' is a literal c*nt hair away from being recognized as a sexual orientation, which might actually happen in 2024. And when that happens, it will be illegal to prosecute someone based on their sexual orientation. Yea, we know it's as normal as apple pie to desire hot young teens as heterosexual men, but the ends justify the means, there is no doubt. Shit, you can call it the evil demonic twisted pedophile satan child mind destroyer orientation, if it gives legal access to hot young teen girls, then that will be my identity.

I'm sending emails of support to the ACLU and other organizations involved with this, asking them to help recognize MAPS as a legal sexual orientation. We all should.


Anonymous said...

Another banger from Mrgirl:

Eivind Berge said...

"Would you still love me if I was a pedophile..." Good to hear some satire on the panic but I thought his "I Kill Pedophiles" song was better:

Anonymous said...

"too scared to jack off to cuties, fuck you"


Also, really really popular. Could this guy be the tipping point that finally gets us back on the path to sexual freedom in 2024? I'm hopeful, his stuff is obviously infectious and real.


Anonymous said...

Nevermind, on his website he says he believes the AOC should be 18. These feminist Jews like to be provocative but always fall back to the feminist anti-male narrative. Well, maybe at least his content will spark a productive conversation regardless of his beliefs.


Anonymous said...

Hot and cold, this- ,
and this- .
Of course, it's quite possible to be against the age cuckery yet still oppose the death penalty for paedophiles, especially if one knows about how the new Florida statute will allow people to be executed even if the minors were willing.
The good people at patriactionary don't seem to be aware of this nuance, however.
On the bright side, my impression is that 3-5 years ago the age cuck idiot would have gone completely unchallenged.

Anonymous 2

Eivind Berge said...

I am also disappointed in the man behind Mr Girl because I see you are right and it is even worse because he thinks sex with a 17-year-old would be "child abuse."

"Are you pro child abuse?
No, I believe the age of consent should be raised to 18 across the US."

That means child abuse is legal in most of the world? This is insane bigotry which just makes his satire seem pathetic. You can't even come up with a more plausible-sounding reason than a contrived definition of children?

"My work is often provocative, and for this reason I am currently banned from YouTube, Patreon, and Twitch."

And all that for nothing, lol. He is not even "edgy" enough to support the current age of consent. His real persona displays no ability to think critically about this subject at all, except to assert that the persecution hasn't gone far enough by a long stretch.

Anonymous said...

@anonymous 2

The patriactionary blog is a great example of american sexual schizophrenia (brought on by complete immersion in victorian feminism). On one hand arguing age gaps are ok, on the other arguing that "minors" have no sexuality. At least it's better than the usual garbage. The usual garbage being the hysterical witch hunts that make all youthful sex illegal, like what Eivind mentioned above.

The laws are designed to be anti-procreation, that is beyond obvious. Curiously, it plays in with the global warming hoax and the coronavirus hoax. It seems like the people who make the laws just don't want people breeding - might be related to AI replacing everyone's jobs.

But they can say whatever they want, it's still possible to leave the worst feminist infested areas (the anglosphere) to enjoy much younger pussy, and even if it wasn't, my "hormones are balanced" so I would never stop being attracted to those sweet teen girls.


Anonymous said...

Mrgirl's whole shtick is telling people they are liars for not admitting any sexual attraction to minors.

He is trying to normalize having pedophilic thoughts, such as finding an 11 year old girl sexy (his cuties review).

He's still (at least publicly) against "abuse" and wants to raise the AOC. But has also stated he is no fan of prison as punishment.

I think there's value in confronting people about their cognitive dissonance.

You have to start somewhere and screaming out "lower AOC" probably isn't going to win normies over anytime soon, not to mention the deplatforming risk. His I kill pedophiles video has 500k views on youtube alone. Pretty successful even if not going all the way.

Eivind Berge said...

You have to start somewhere and screaming out "lower AOC" probably isn't going to win normies over anytime soon.

I get that, but why does he have to scream "higher AOC"? That is mind-boggling in a bad bad. Imagine someone in the midst of a witch-hunt asking to expand the definition of witches when they don't have to. Hard to take that seriously as any sort of enlightened person at all.

Anonymous said...

How do you think mrgirl managed to get unbanned from youtube 3 times despite his videos on pedophilia?

Whenever he gets banned (or questioned in a way that risk deplatforming) he'll argue that he is actually against abuse, wants to raise the AOC, protect children etc. He will argue that he is simply stating a fact that men are attracted to underage girls. It's a disclaimer that allows him to speak.

It's actually very logically consistent to argue that way (Men are attracted to kids - this is a problem - what are we going to do about it?). The first point is to establish that men are attracted to kids. Currently society refuses to acknowledge this fact, and most men are in denial. We need this fact to be established before any other progress can be made.

So he is playing into the other side. That's why he still has relevance.

What his true opinion is we can't possibly know because it is life destroying to share it. That's something to keep in mind. Even his current approach has caused him to lose most of his funding (banned from pateron and after 3 times (probably due to mass reporting) again he was banned on youtube), but he is still on twitter and many other platforms.

Mrgirl is sympathizing with pedophiles in public, and normalizing the idea that men find underage girls attractive. He'll need some kind of disclaimer to speak about this topic. He can't just go "men are attracted to children and *I* am attracted to children" with a sly smile and expect to stay on any platform. He'd get banned everywhere.

He could do that of course. I would respect that more, but then he'd also be stuck here on your blog making no progress.

Honestly I'm not sure where mrgirl stand, and yes, morally it's wrong to argue for higher AOC. But I think there's some value in what he does. Expose the liars first, expose the denial, expose the cognitive dissonance - THEN talk about where we go from there.

His pedophile content is some of the best stuff out there. Who else makes songs about pedophilia? Where is your music band that you talked about earlier?

Mrgirl content on youtube has millions of views despite his ban and Mrgirl's own discord channel has 3079 members with 928 online right now. Pretty impressive numbers for someone singing "I'm a pedophile", "Would you still love me if I was a pedophile" and publicly admitting to be drooling over 11 year olds in cuties.

Eivind Berge said...

Mind-boggling in a bad way, I meant to say. Especially since he seems to think 18 is some kind of God-given boundary which transcends politics. When states and countries have different ages of consent at least we can use that to easily make the point that they are defined by political bickering rather than serious moral standards, but he does not even want to use or keep that argument.

Eivind Berge said...

"He will argue that he is simply stating a fact that men are attracted to underage girls."

Yeah, but then he states that other "fact" that under 18 equals "child abuse" which cancels out the former. It is ironic that he is banned from YouTube while I am not, though.

Anonymous said...

>It is ironic that he is banned from YouTube while I am not, though.

The sad truth is you're irrelevant on youtube. Nobody cares what you post. Mrgirl had a large following and garnered tens of thousands of views per video.

If you get to his level you'll be banned too.

Anonymous said...

"he states that other "fact" that under 18 equals "child abuse" which cancels out the former"

Not really, both can be true at the same time.

Eivind Berge said...

It would be weird and unexpected if it is human nature to want to abuse children. If humans can't handle sex until 18 but just about everyone is attracted to them from puberty that would be an astonishing fact about human nature. It would suggest that human (and particularly male) sexual nature is systematically evil and we need a tremendous regime of sexual regulation to prevent abuse.

Mrgirl manages to piss of both sides. It is triggering to me to hear that kind of assertion about human nature, yet I also appreciate that he is pissing off the other side, sure.

Eivind Berge said...

Let me refine that last point a little bit. It is true that nature is often cruel and it is consistent with human nature to have many abusive tendencies. Cannibalism, slavery, raping and pillaging have all been normal at various times and circumstances. I don't dispute that these practices are abusive. But what they all have in common is that the victim fights back to more or less the best of their ability and they certainly don't like it very much.

If you believe sex under 18 is child abuse, there are an awful lot of willing and eager minors to explain. That's the really mysterious part of the official dogma. We can grant them that people can be evil on a large scale, but how come there is no corresponding aversion in the victims, like we find in other kinds of abuse? Why is it not human nature to be averse to sex until 18 with someone over that magic line? It would be more helpful to focus on willing minors than attracted adults if you want to challenge the dominant narrative, and taking for granted that they are genuinely abused like mrgirl does is absolutely unhelpful.

Eivind Berge said...

This sure is looking like a trend as Idaho follows Florida:

A proposal to make lewd conduct with a child punishable by death could drastically increase the number of death penalty cases in the state.

In 2022 alone, Idaho prosecutors filed 217 cases charging adults with lewd conduct with a child under 16, a crime currently punishable by up to life in prison.

In January, Rep. Josh Tanner, R-Eagle, introduced HB 405, which would make that crime punishable by death. That bill has not yet received a public hearing. House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee Chairman Bruce Skaug, R-Nampa, is a co-sponsor of the bill.

On Tuesday, Skaug told Idaho Reports he plans to give the bill a hearing and hasn’t heard much negative pushback yet. The bill is modeled after a bill that passed in Florida in 2023.

Should the legislation become law, only cases that involved children under the age of 12 would be punishable by death. The Idaho Supreme Court case data obtained by Idaho Reports does not break out the ages of victims involved in each case. Some cases also had multiple charges of lewd conduct with a child under 16, meaning either multiple incidents of abuse occurred, or the case involved multiple child victims.

This makes it very clear that it is not just rape that is meant to get the death penalty but simply "lewd conduct with a child."

And this week it actually passed:

Eivind Berge said...

A slight correction. The bill passed the Idaho State House in a 56 to 12 vote but still needs to go to the Senate where it is also likely to pass given this level of support. And then the US Supreme Court needs to approve and change the current precedent of only allowing death penalty for murder before the states can start killing pedophiles.

Then it's only a matter of time before this goes up to 18 too and I'm sure even "dissidents" like mrgirl will still be avowing that that's the proper demarcation to identify child abuse and pedophiles even if he does not want to kill them. With friends like that the future is looking really bright for MAPs, or what?

Anonymous said...

18 or 12, it doesn't matter what the number is. Killing anyone for "lewd conduct" (literally just a touch) is beyond evil.

Is there really no limit to the punishment in US?

I remember in 2012 reading about a norwegian man stuck in arizona prison with an 80 year old sentence for simply touching a minor (fully clothed) inappropriately. That was in 2012. Ever heard of him? Jan Eldar Børrud.

Can't find any non-pay-walled news. Guess he is still rotting away?

Anonymous said...

> Then it's only a matter of time before this goes up to 18 too and I'm sure even "dissidents" like mrgirl will still be avowing that that's the proper demarcation to identify child abuse and pedophiles even if he does not want to kill them. With friends like that the future is looking really bright for MAPs, or what?

Have you considered going on his podcast? Either for an interview or just one of those where he accept guests. You could ask him about this.

Anonymous said...

You attacked me when I politely asked you for Gallys verdict, Eivind. And now you are sabotaging the movement by not even acknowledging that Mgirl can actually move our cause forward. That's just dumb. Almost as dumb as Amos Yee who's now rotting in prison without getting anywhere with his activism.

Eivind Berge said...


I provided a reference to Gally's verdict. I don't feel comfortable posting it because his name is all over it and I am currently too lazy to redact it. Once again, my activism is unpaid volunteer work where I don't have to do anything I don't feel like. While this verdict is notable, it is only a small part of the immense climate of antisexual legislation and legal theory with any number of rulings you could analyze, so I don't understand the fixation on this one.

Whether mrgirl can move sexualism forward has next to nothing to do with me since I am unknown to most of his fans. It has whatever effect it has, much of which may well be good but I still feel I pointed out a conspicuous flaw. Luckily, most of his fans will probably not read that disclaimer and just listen to his songs, so the effect is highly marginal, but I really do not like the idea of raising the age of consent to 18 everywhere. Which is even more intolerant than most feminist battle cries.

Anonymous said...

What's the purpose of a Supreme Court if lawmakers blatantly disregard it's rulings?

Eivind Berge said...

It is the nature of witch-hunts that ordinary principles of justice do not apply. This is the crimen exceptum we are talking about, so don't expect any sort of rationality. The nature of this pedo panic is that we always have to push the envelope on punishing pedophiles. Life in prison for fondling a child doesn't cut it anymore, because people got used to that so now it's just mediocre and they want more blood, literally this time. So legislators try their luck with the Supreme Court to set a new precedent. I have no reason to think the death penalty will suffice either. Crueler punishments are always the way forward as long as the panic persists. The only fitting punishment for pedophiles is something harsher than what was used the last time. After briefly celebrating their victory at getting the first pedophile on death row the normies and legislators will be disappointed at how slow the death penalty grinds, so they have to change the system to make it swift. Then when celebrating corpses piling up the methods will be seen as insufficiently painful to kill pedophiles, so they need to devise certain ways to torture them to death. And then of course there will be a problem with the conviction rate so we need to expand the definitions again and perhaps remove the jury like we did in Norway to ensure that "justice" is done.

Anonymous said...

It's incredible that such intelligent sounding people can talk so smoothly about a policy that is literally insane. The Idaho policy demonstrates deeply embedded psychological disorders dealing with sex. The people in these red states are really sick, and seem to be getting sicker. Let's hope that blue states continue to legalize MAP identity and push in the opposite direction. If all the people with sex disorders want to move to red states that permit murder for lewd acts, while MAP identity is legalized and AOC's lowered in blue states, that situation is just fine.

It's also true that Mr. girl's videos are popular not because he's saying the AOC should be 18, but because he's saying "pedophilia" (really not pedophilia because I haven't heard him talk about prepubescents) is normal and fine in a catchy way. That is definitely valuable, even if he has to put a disclaimer on it so he isn't banned. The first step to relaxation of the hysteria is changing the culture, and it seems like his videos are wildly successful at doing that so far.


Anonymous said...

@ Eivind on Sunday, February 18, 2024 5:23:00 PM-as noted by myself (Kazakhstan) and AF (Madagascar), crueller punishments are on the way. If surgically removing genitalia were being proposed as punishment for anything else at all by even one country, it would cause a hue and cry around the world, and rightly so. This is especially the case considering that any form of corporal punishment has been phased out of legal systems in most parts of the world, yet here we have it being reintroduced in a truly barbaric way without a peep from anyone.

If Mrgirl is in fact saying "paedophiles" shouldn't automatically go to prison, that would be no trivial thing. Most of the punishment for "paedophilia" consists of prison, and if you take that away, you're left with relatively little-at least until the surgeons come into play.

Continuing with the witch burning analogy, it would be like someone saying that they, too, want withes caught, but not burnt at the stake or drowned, etc. This would constitute a major advance on the way to complete cessation of witch persecution. That's my take on it anyway.

@Anon 69-Patriactionary is Canadian. As you note, at least it isn't completely bonkers about it-many other blogs are far worse. I agree with your comment about inhibiting procreation and global warming. And if one wanted to continue in a conspiratorial vein not popular among most readers here, it could be remarked that Kazakhstan's capital Astana has been theorized to be the capital city of the New World Order. It would explain how a supposedly Muslim country would be preparing to cut off the junk of anyone who fondles a willing underage person, which is where it will eventually go.

Anonymous 2

Anonymous 2

AF said...

"I get that, but why does he have to scream "higher AOC"? That is mind-boggling in a bad bad. Imagine someone in the midst of a witch-hunt asking to expand the definition of witches when they don't have to. Hard to take that seriously as any sort of enlightened person at all."

I agree with that 100%, but isn't that what you are doing with the MAP and especially the 'paedophile' identity Eivind? Countries are now proposing to physically castrate and execute 'paedophiles', and you think it's a genius idea to self-identify as a paedophile and accept the feminist lie that even men attracted to 17-year-old girls are paedophiles.

At least this 'MrGirl' (haven't looked at his videos) may have a pragmatic motive, as the commentator said, in avoiding getting banned. I still disagree with that, and agree with you, that it's far too dangerous.

As I said, I haven't looked at this MrGirl, but it would suggest to me he is just a typical MAP/ephebophile/girl lover, who seems to have an identity fetish that's even bigger than his attraction towards 'girls'. Like most 'MAPs', he'd probably be happier in a world with an age of consent of 18 which nevertheless respects and protects his identity as an 'ephebophile', than he would where attraction to teens is seen as normal and sex with teens legal. It's ironic that you have been calling us all wankers and yet you're allying with these 'virtuous MAPs' who don't appear to even want to have sex with teens (just 'worship' them from afar, and be respected for doing so).

Anonymous said...

At least Google AI supports MAPs, or it did before they promptly changed the algorithms.

Eivind Berge said...

Bitcoin did what I predicted. Those who had bought on February 9th when I recommended it could have sold today for a 32% profit. Since no one could spare any satoshis I am guessing no one bought for themselves either. I have no idea if it will continue up though. We are overdue for a crash like Gail is predicting. All this wealth newly created in the markets is a mirage that won't turn into real goods because there is not enough surplus energy for that.

Anonymous said...

On the right side you have robby starbuck and the conservatives, on the left side you have lesbians, both extreme feminists calling normal men perverts and pedophiles for liking pubescent girls. This world is so f*cking lame and gay in 2024! No smoking, no drinking, no fucking, no fun, everyone afraid of everything, victims everywhere, slut-shaming, "pedo hunters" covering up their own pedophilic feelings with violence against others. The life sucked out of humanity. Who knew it would end up like this.

Don't these people realize one day they will be old, and then they will die?

Absolute idiots.


Eivind Berge said...

Yup, they sucked the life out of humanity. There used to be a proverbial concept called locker room talk where men talked about how much they like girls and bragged about conquests but these days I imagine they talk about how they can entrap pedos and what a huge monster Epstein is and how scandalous it is that none of his clients have been arrested yet, especially Prince Andrew who had sex with a 17-year-old girl, oh horror of horrors victimization of the poor little child! I am not exaggerating. Judging by what I see online normies are literally that revolting now. Sanity is only preserved among pro-contact MAP groups such as Newgon.

Jack said...

Listen to this folks:

What a display of prudery and hypocrisy! An the vocab ! The tone of voice of the old fraud's when he asks her "did you disrobe"? Those people are sick.

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, they are insane, Jack, and that very much includes Dr. Phil. He is one of those disgusting spineless normies who make a living pandering to hysteria. Whatever "abuse" he can make entertainment out of he will without a second thought, just like the pedo hunters will hunt anything that is criminalized.

It sucks to be Elvis these days:

An Elvis impersonator from Michigan who has toured the country for decades faces child sex charges after he was allegedly caught with a naked 16-year-old New York runaway in a Pennsylvania motel room.

Matthew Chantelois, 45, was arrested about 4 a.m. Jan. 24 at a Motel 6 off I-90 in Summit Township, where state troopers found him with the naked girl from Schroon Lake, a small town in the Adirondacks, reported.

The teen told police she had sex with Chantelois in their motel room, drank vodka he had given her and sent him nude images of herself after he met her via social media months earlier, according to the outlet.

Chantelois was charged with ​one count each of enticing a minor to make sexually explicit videos; using a computer or other electronic device to transport images of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct; and possession of images of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct....

He faces a minimum of 15 years and a maximum of 60 years behind bars, as well as a fine of up to $750,000, officials said.

Notice that all the charges are for bullshit side-issues that are easily dispensed with rather than actual sex. Being a nofapper can save you from this kind of trouble or at least make it much harder to convict, since they then would have to make the girl testify against you. And that is if 16 is even underage which in many places it is not. With men now seeming to think nude pictures are an obligatory part of courtship (if not replacing sex altogether like it did for Amos Yee and countless others), feminists don't even need to raise the age of consent any further to have total criminalization under 18.

Jack said...

I hope Dr. Phil. gets his comeuppance soon. It should be only a question of time before one of his female interviewees/patients lodges an abuse complaint against him. I just perused the Wikipedia article about him. His whole life and career reeks of corruption, pandering and opportunism.

Revolution G23 said...

Have a look at this amateur music video I did for the song Jet Boy Jet Girl.
See any patterns or stuff that could be hidden connections?

Anonymous said...

"Being a nofapper can save you from this kind of trouble or at least make it much harder to convict..feminists don't even need to raise the age of consent any further to have total criminalization under 18."

Yes, child porn laws are effectively raising the age of consent through the back door, which is why it's utterly stupid to proclaim agreement with feminists that 'porn is evil', and in this case, that even a nude pic of a 16 year old is wrong.

Meanwhile, an evil cunt is suing Roman Polanski for 'raping her' when she was 16, even though she gave an interview 3 years later saying that she was fascinated by him when they met and wanted to have sex with him.

Eivind Berge said...

Porn has zero sexual value. It is completely sterile information which cannot convey sexuality any more than pictures of food can convey nutrition. It is insulting to men to imply that men get sexual value out of porn and masturbation. This is why I hate the porn laws: they mock men by punishing a worthless activity as if men had gotten value out of it -- and also harmless to women and children for that matter -- but the most salient feature which upsets me is the perversion of what is meaningful to male sexuality.

Men SHOULD stay away from porn, because it IS evil. It is evil for diametrically opposite reasons than feminists and the laws claim: because it hijacks male sexuality into a worthless activity where we should be pursuing females, rather than the false and insulting idea that porn itself exploits females which wankers and feminists alike buy into.

By asserting that porn is evil I am not agreeing with the conceptualization behind the laws which is that phony exploitation of females, but asserting that it self-exploits male sexuality by leading men into maladaptive behavior.

And then we get this practical consideration that being a nofapper also facilitates legal sex with girls who would be illegal to depict in those very same sexual situations, which is a funny bonus, a way to mock the feminists back in addition to the obvious code of conduct that it inspires which is something nofappers would do anyway for selfish reasons even if there were no porn laws: never encourage a girl to send nudes. What's not to love about this bonus? Well, wankers go to jail, but they seriously are partly to blame when they can't even appreciate such a sweet incentive as the law outright helping us choose sex over porn by only criminalizing the latter.

Eivind Berge said...

A trans ally?

Doritos has fired a transgender activist who appeared in one of its promotional videos after being alerted to her sickening old tweets... Samantha Hudson, 24, appeared in a new partnership with Doritos Spain through a 50-second video called 'Crunch Talks that has now been deleted from the brand's Instagram...

Many social media users posted a screenshot of a tweet Hudson made in 2015, when she was 15, writing in Spanish about the seeming assault of a minor.

The post in question read: 'I want to do thuggish things to get into a 12-year-old girl's [expletive].'

Another post translates to: 'In the middle of the street in Mallorca in panties and screaming that I'm a nymphomaniac in front of a super beautiful 8-year-old girl.'

Those tweets don't look very offensive to me but that's how the hysteria goes. Thanks to Doritos for temporarily promoting a MAP anyway, and even more so for bringing attention to the cause by playing into the supposed scandal.

Eivind Berge said...

Another bad side effect of transitioning discovered:

Apparently it leads to lifelong inability to orgasm if puberty blockers are started at Tanner 2. But that's weird because prepubescent children can have orgasms, so why can't they after puberty blockers? Taking it with a grain of salt.

Eivind Berge said...

Interesting paper on history of the age of consent (which gets much more complicated than just feminism when you look closely):

"The Emergence of a New Taboo: The Desexualisation of Youth in Western Societies since 1800." January 2000. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 8(4):459-477. Author: Martin Killias.


Sexual abuse of children and minors is, nowadays, regularly highlighted in the media. As such, it became an offence, however, only during the nineteenth century, along with the development of a particular, child-like social role of juveniles. Before 1800, adolescents were less excluded from adult life including marriage and procreation. Sexual activities were also generally criminalised outside marriage. Statutes concerning child abuse had their origins in these laws, as well as in statutes extending the scope of rape to the abuse of immature girls. Along with the increase of the age of consent from 10–12 to approximately 16 in most countries, abuse of boys and sexual contacts other than intercourse have been included in these statutes. This movement, sometimes supported by moral crusades against immorality, occurred in most Western countries along with the extension of the school system, and with the acceptance of the view that adolescence should, as a distinct period of life, be devoted to the preparation for adult life. In recent years, the focus has shifted from combating immorality to the protection of vulnerable parties. Sexual contacts between juveniles have been gradually decriminalised, whereas recent moral crusades call for more tougher prosecution policies, bringing to the courts a higher proportion of cases, including those involving acts committed abroad and/or in the remote past.

Some excerpts from the paper:

However, what made moral standards [on sexual contacts] somewhat more relaxed was the ambiguity of the definition of marriage before the reforms of laws regarding marriage, brought about by Protestantism and the Council of Trent in 1563. Before these reforms, the church considered as married any couple who engaged in sexual acts with what was called animus matrimonii, that is, with the idea of a lasting relationship (Plöchl 1960, vol. II, p. 269). Given this wide interpretation of marriage, any heterosexual relationship between unmarried persons could be seen as a matrimonium clandestinum, that is, a ‘secret’ or, rather, an informal but nonetheless valid marriage. In the light of this definition of marriage, only sexual relationships with persons already married and promiscuity – prostitution – were problematic.

A wide definition of marriage may have been in line with the interests of rural communities where it allowed the easy arrangement of many otherwise embarrassing situations. However, it hardly responded to the interests of the ruling bourgeois classes in Europe’s growing cities, since it did not help parents to control the choice of partners by their children and prevented them from using marriage as a tool of accumulating wealth and forming alliances with other family clans. The public announcement of engagements, the increased minimum age and the requirement of parental consent to marriage belonged, therefore, to the most popular features of the Reformation among the ruling classes in the cities, and explains in itself to a large extent its success particularly among Europe’s urban populations. During the Council of Trent, the Catholic church had, therefore, to concede that no marriage should be valid unless it was concluded before a priest after a public announcement in due form (Plöchl 1960, vol. IV, pp. 218, 269).

Eivind Berge said...

In practice, however, the narrower definition of marriage had not been easily accepted by rural populations even by the end of the eighteenth century, as writings by poets and early tourists (including Goethe) – describing e.g. the morals in Swiss villages and other rural areas – as well as official records from rural France illustrate (Depauw 1972).

Under the criminal law before 1800, the young age of a seduced girl might, at best, have been considered as a mitigating circumstance, but never saved her from being viewed as an accomplice in an indecent act rather than as a victim. Age was, until the early 1800s, irrelevant from the viewpoint of criminal law as far as sexual relationships between ‘consenting’ parties over the age of puberty were concerned.

At about the same period or slightly earlier [i.e., the middle ages], similar statutes appeared in several cities and principalities in Italy (Kohler 1897, p. 501) and throughout the German Empire (Würtenberger 1933, p. 105). They were probably influenced by the writings of criminal law professors, such as Damhouder in the Netherlands and Clarus (1583, p. 44) and Menochius (1587, vol. 2, p. 412) in Italy, who, under the influence of Roman law (Digesta 48, 19, 38, 3 de poenis), developed the concept of the incapacity of very young girls to consent validly in sexual matters. Most influential throughout continental Europe was the statute of 1577 of the Prince Elector of Saxony which became well known through the famous treaty of criminal law by the Saxonian professor Benedictus Carpzovius. Rather than relying on puberty as the – necessarily vague – criterion, it introduced an age-limit of 12 years, under which any sexual act committed by an adult was considered to be an offence tantamount to rape; in the treaty of Carpzovius, this offence appears in the chapter concerning rape (stuprum violentum) as well as in the one concerning fornication (stuprum voluntarium). This illustrates well the ambiguity which surrounded the new offence: it was not certain whether it should be considered as an offence directed against individual interests (as in the case of rape), or rather as an offence against public morals (as in the case of fornication). This uncertainty continued until the nineteenth century.

Also he got this right, which is sadly true:

The fact that prosecutors tend to seek the solution through policies of non-prosecution rather than by asking legislators to amend the statutes concerning protection of juveniles in sexual matters, illustrates the difficulty of repealing or amending offence definitions which are no longer in line with current views and standards. It seems as if a taboo, once in the criminal code, is there to stay eternally whatever the problems it produces in practice.

They are referring to declining to prosecute when close in age there but of course we should quit prosecuting older people too. If ever it does happen it probably won't be because the age of consent goes down. Hence the only viable approach at least in our lifetimes is simply to disrespect the law, which when it gains enough momentum prosecutors will have to follow.

Anonymous said...

It's just f*cking sad man, no one wants to have any fun anymore. Everyone is afraid because feminism has completely taken over western society. I was gonna write people don't take risks anymore, but then I thought about "pedo hunters" and the russian army... they certainly don't mind taking extremely violent risks on behalf of women's rights and feminism. So yea, it's just feminism, and the glut of old women over 30 who are unmarried and empowered. We're basically just living out the results that were predicted by anti-suffrage men 100 years ago. With the left wing telling girls they are all victims and the right wing telling girls they are all sluts, how is anyone surprised that no one is having sex anymore except for homosexuals?

Our best hope is still with trannies.


Eivind Berge said...

Being "uninterested in judgment about dating younger" sounds like a good trend...

But so far it only applies to female celebrities who date men in their 20s. Not even an attack on the female sex offender charade.

Still, Madonna has some good points:

“I’ve created a very unconventional family. I have lovers who are three decades younger than me,” she told the publication. “This makes people very uncomfortable. I feel like everything I do makes people feel really uncomfortable.”

She added, “I believe in freedom of expression, I don’t believe in censorship.”

“I believe in equal rights for all people. And I believe women should own their sexuality and sexual expression,” Madonna said. “I don’t believe there’s a certain age where you can’t say and feel and be who you want to be.”

Jack said...

"I believe in equal rights for all people. And I believe women should own their sexuality and sexual expression" said Madonna.

Sounds yet another piece of female rights advocacy to me. Note that she's careful to say "equal rights for all people". Not "equal rights for women and men". Maybe she assumes men had those rights? That's typical of feminism: assume men have lots of rights they haven't got, then demand "equal" rights for women.

Women have tried to have a free rein with males of all ages. In the US and a few other countries they have been met by what Eivind calls the female offender charade. Whether in these charade countries or in other countries where women are immune, there has been zero pay-off for men. What unites charade countries with non-charade countries is that men go to jail in both.

Eivind Berge said...

You are right that women tend to take men as the standard for rights. They assume men already have all the rights anyone could ask for and then don't go beyond that even when highly reasonable. This is why they lack the spine to resist the female sex offender charade, because they can't imagine that women deserve MORE sexual rights than men. They can't even think of the obvious reason that a too small dick can never make intercourse harmful for boys, that's how unimaginative they are, so it does not occur to them that the age of consent needs to be zero as far as women are concerned.

By the way, it is the women who can't consent to sex with "underage" boys under current law; not the other way around. Intercourse is something the male does to the female, remember? If the woman is criminalized, then she is criminalized for her own consent! Which should be a tremendous rallying cry for feminists, but they have zero interest in addressing an injustice even so absurd.

Anonymous said...

Natalie Portman that got her fame by being a 13 year old lovely slut in the movie "Leon: The Professional" and later turned feminist is now getting a divorce from her husband because he's been having an affair or more affairs. I'm sure he had his affairs because of Portmans silly feminist ideas.

Anonymous said...

Once again, the Anglo-Saxons show themselves masters in the art of demonizing long-dead people

Earl Spencer, the younger brother of Diana, Princess of Wales, said he was sexually abused as a child at boarding school.
In an extract from his memoir, published in the Mail on Sunday, Earl Spencer said he was targeted by a female member of staff at Maidwell Hall, Northamptonshire in the 1970s.
Now 59, he alleges the abuse began when he was just 11 years old.
Earl Spencer attended Maidwell Hall between the ages of eight and 13.
In his new book A Very Private School, he alleges that a female staff member, whom he described as a "voracious paedophile", groomed and abused him and other young boys in their dormitory beds at night.
Earl Spencer said he had established that the employee now either lives abroad or is dead, the Mail reports.
He also alleged the school's then headmaster, John Porch, inflicted "brutal beatings" and he believed the teacher gained "sexual pleasure from the violence". Mr Porch died in January 2022, according to an obituary in his old college newsletter.
Earl Spencer said reliving his time at Maidwell had been an "absolutely hellish experience".

Eivind Berge said...

So, we are to believe sex with that woman felt as bad as those brutal beatings by the headmaster, if not worse? Or is he just retroactively hurting in his sexual soul now after being updated on feminist politics?

Anonymous said...

Voldtektstallene har økt med intet mindre enn 70% i Oslo og pornoen har skylden. LOL! Jeg lurer på hva feministen vil frem til? Vil hun forby porno eller enkelte typer porno? Ikke godt å si, men uansett er ikke vi tilhengere av porno i noen form som helst, men forbud er vi også motstandere av.

Jeg antar at tallet på 70% økning i voldtekt kommer fra de motbydelige aktivist-løgnerne som kaller seg for politi. De har selvfølgelig falskelig unnlatt å nevne at økningen ene og alene skyldes at jenter nå også kan voldtas via internett-kabelen og at hver eneste video eller bilde som de frivillig sender til overgriperen sin er å anse som en voldtekt hvis de er under en viss alder. Som jeg har skrevet før, så er politiet i Norge intet annet enn en feministisk terrorist-organisasjon som utelukkende opprettholdes på grunn av deres egne falske opplysninger gitt til regjering og storting.

Man må gjerne begrense tilgang til porno - intet ville være bedre - men ikke ved forbud. Og dessuten ville det uansett føre til at reell seksuell omgang ville øke, herunder også det feministene omtaler som "voldtekt".

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, Norway made the rape law resemble the fake war with real casualties in the Star Trek trek episode I blogged about:

Normie men are a different species, might as well be aliens relative to me. They just accept any persecution ostensibly based on sexual abuse no matter how absurd. And a lot of them are wankers who agree with the law that there is actual sexual value exchanged online.

Humans don’t believe pictures of food provide nutrition. Humans don’t believe pictures of water can either hydrate or drown you. But they do believe "sexually explicit" pictures can abuse and rape girls and sexually satisfy men. They are insane, and this is the environment I am doomed to live in because they are completely unreceptive to considering what is wrong with their worldview. These idiots deserve to go to prison for porn as long as they promote this ontology, though. I focus my activism on getting real sex legalized first, which is luckily more legal than porn as it is too. It would not bother me personally if all porn gets criminalized as long as it does not apply to actual sex, so I am happy to let the feminists bark up that misguided tree when they must criminalize something. Getting porn legalized again should be the very last of our priorities as sexualists, if we care about it at all. Prison helps no one but of course it is good for men that porn is made less available. Ideally it should be an offense for men to masturbate, certainly to porn, but of course it should not be conceptualized as abusing women and girls because it is only self-abuse: abusing the man's sexual efforts by wasting them on a dead end.

Eivind Berge said...

I need to make a clarification to the above so I am not misunderstood on this: If we do ever criminalize male masturbation in general I would want to make an exception for prepubescent boys. Because they are less harmed by it and also because while very young they can't be excepted to understand the ramifications, so it would send the wrong message to tell them not to masturbate, which they perhaps might even confuse with a sex-negative or body-negative norm. Adult wankers also often don't understand that nofap is sex-positivity, but at least they can be expected to understand it if they apply their intellect to it. Masturbation is bad because sex is good and life is short. It is really simple to understand for anyone over age four to six at most. But just to make sure we don't inadvertently promote any sex-negative parenting it is perhaps permissible to not give boys nofap lectures until closer to puberty.

Anonymous said...

I try to avoid writing really long posts but I have a lot to say this time.

Galileo 233 has some new videos about Florida raising the age for stripping to 21 because muh soft human trafficking.

First it was Texas because muh minors working in venues where they serve alcohol, or something. Now the veneer has lost another layer and they don't feel the need mention alcohol.

G2333 does some very impressive analysis of gematria etc that accompanies the anti-male agenda and these videos are no exception.

I'd be fascinated to see his take on some sort of positive development, except that there don't appear to be any.

We are all aware of the shift in attitudes concerning men with females much younger than themselves, and to a much lesser extent the converse, that occurred around the year 2000. This represents a huge departure from most of human history, and it seems that it won't be turned around in a hurry and we're only about 25 years into it. It's as though there are two columns of countries, one being where this change is well underway and the other where relative sanity still prevails. Nevertheless, all countries are being brought one by one over to the bad side of the ledger and the bad countries are getting worse.

I see no reaon to believe raising the stripping age won't be both a trend in itself and a springboard to raising the AOC in the US and around the world. Oh, they'll have close in age exemptions and this will be widely percieved as reasonable, but the US drinking age gives no cause for optimism. There appears to be no pressure on US lawmakers to lower the drinking age to 18. In more sensible times it was lowered for a few years but that was then and this is now, and politicians have nothing to lose and everything to gain from going higher.

In EU elections later this year, the franchise is being lowered to 16 at the very same time attitudes and laws are restricting men interacting with and appreciating younger females. So far there is nothing to indicate that the majority of people won't just placidly nod along to all of this despite its highly self-contradictory nature.

G2333 says that there are now ghettos and shanty towns in Florida where sex offenders, almost all male. are forced to live. He's a smart guy but seems to think that eventually they'll all march on the State Capitol and start a revolution. I'm more inclined to believe they'll just keep sitting around destroying themselves with meth and ratting on each other when they get the chance. Apart from this hobo army and a few girls who are annoyed at losing income, what else is out there in the wider world?

See too this new City Crusher video-

-Anonymous 2

Eivind Berge said...

Most humans just go with the flow. Doing so morally too also follows from the free energy principle which explains our other senses, I think. We are evolved to detect moral values, not create them. The path of least resistance is to not just obey but pretty much believe in the norms, because then you don't have to feel frustrated about injustice all the time like we do. Even sex offenders themselves are not individually helped by putting up a political display against the laws, because you have to show contrition to get parole and so on. So that's the line 99.99% of them will take. And yes, probably rat out other sex offenders too when expedient.

None of this stops the normies from breaking the sex laws when they feel they can get away with it, but it does not bother them that the laws exist. The justification for the laws is irrelevant. An arbitrary demand for human sacrifice to appease the gods will be equally received. Now we sacrifice “sex offenders” and everyone is happy with it. Leave it to the high priests to do the intellectual work of understanding why it is needed, because the normie path of least resistance does not include such mental strain. Blind acceptance is the way to go.

It does not help that birth rates are also collapsing, making young people all that more scarce and precious. John Michael Greer's latest blog post details just how dramatic this is:

Let’s start with the demographic realities. It requires a total fertility rate of 2.1 live births on average per woman to maintain population at any given level; this is called the replacement rate. (That .1 is needed to account for the children who die before they reach reproductive age themselves, or who never reproduce for some other reason.) In 1970 the world’s total fertility rate was well above 5 live births per woman; now, it’s right around 2.3 and is falling steadily. Africa still has a total fertility rate of 4.1, down from nearly double that in the mid-20th century and still falling; but Asia and Latin America both have fertility rates of 2.0, North America (including Mexico) is at 1.8, and Europe is down to 1.6 live births per woman.

Some of the biggest countries are surprisingly far down the curve. India, the world’s most populous nation these days, is at 2.0, below replacement rate; China, second most populous, is at a stunningly low 1.1 despite recent efforts by its government to encourage births. The United States, third most populous, is at 1.7, and Indonesia, fourth, is at 2.1. Only with the fifth, Pakistan, do you get a rate that will sustain population growth, 3.3, and only with the sixth, Nigeria, do you get the kind of fertility rate the whole world had half a century ago, 5.1. Only six countries on the planet have a higher fertility rate than Nigeria does, while 187 have a lower rate. At the very bottom is South Korea, with a 0.8 fertility rate; if that stays unchanged, it will leave each generation not much more than a third the size of the generation before it.

It’s an unfamiliar world all right, and that includes unfamiliar taboos and superstitions on sexuality. We will have to get used to this being the case for our lifetimes. And to understand why most people simply will get used to it with no resistance, I think the free energy principle is helpful, even though I haven't seen it used to explain morality before:

The free energy principle is based on the Bayesian idea of the brain as an “inference engine.” Under the free energy principle, systems pursue paths of least surprise, or equivalently, minimize the difference between predictions based on their model of the world and their sense and associated perception.

We who get surprised by ever more draconian sex laws are a dying breed, soon to be extinct altogether.

Anonymous said...

Indeed, Eivind-and the energy principle "least surprise" idea is rather cool.

About halfway through , the movie reviewer critiqued by City Crusher describes exploitative age gaps as "men dating a woman ten years younger". She give Leonardo di Caprio as an example, in fact she uses him as a kind of shorthand for such relationships. LdC has been reported as going out with women much more than 10 years younger than himself. The woman in the video would no doubt know this but her lazy conventional mind can't accept it.

It's as if ten years difference is also now a kind of a shorthand for age gap relationships because people simply can't bear the idea of anything larger if the older person is male. All the Pavlov's dogs know what she means when she mentions his name, and ten years might as well be fifty, or a grown man going out with a 2 year old, if that were possible.

It's also very telling that Finer Things, the movie being discussed, has as its female lead a character with an adult body but the brain of a baby, and guess what? She's sexually exploited, or they try to sell it that way. Because 25 year old brain of course.

-Anonymous 2

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, it won't surprise me if age gap over ten years becomes a reflexive thing just like "underage" where all thinking shuts down and the man is now maximally bad, probably designated by the word "pedophile" and deserving any and all persecution. Normies don't want to be surprised by any nuance beyond such simple categories, so that's where thinking ends for them.

Anonymous said...

The Superior Justice Court in Brazil, the second highest court in the country, repealed an accusation of statutory rape in the relationship between a 20-year-old guy and his 12-year-old girlfriend. The mother of the girl reported him and lo and behold, she will have to swallow the relationship, unless more stuff happens. It's a funny story.

The four most interesting things in this case:

1. The defendant did not know it was illegal (impressive!), because they were in love, lived together for a while and he wanted to build a family with her. Many people in Brazil think that pedophilia implies force and damage and that true love does not count as a crime.

2. Interfering would cause more harm than good, because the girl was pregnant and the man wanted to keep and raise the baby, even though they no longer lived together. It would actually do harm to the victim and the baby she is expecting.

3. One judge literally said that the case is an "exception that confirms the rule", so exceptions are acceptable, even for the heinous crime of loving the young.

4. Due to how the justice system works, doing something against this decision would require reappraisal of facts and proofs and it can not be done, in this case, in that court, for reasons I do not understand. The decision is unlikely to be reversed.

Eivind Berge said...

That's great except they still believe in the ever-present mythical "harm" of underage sex. Still better than usual that they can see punishment only makes it worse.

Perhaps there is some kind of double-jeopardy protection against trying twice to get a conviction in the same court, which is a highly sensible principle of justice. Otherwise one could just keep trying until everyone is convicted for anything. Presumably the highest court could still overturn this verdict but then it would have to go all the way back to the lowest court again.

Anonymous said...

Good piece from The Night Wind. Some interesting ideas on sexual jealousy and touches on paedohysteria as a pretext for attempting to ban Twitter/X right at the end.

Anonymous 2

Eivind Berge said...

Now Norway is at it too with the maximum punishment possible for any crime (same as Breivik got, 21 years of preventative detention which means potentially life) in a "sex abuse" case where no one got hurt in any tangible or provable way as far as I can tell.

Society has gone completely insane with CSA hysteria and there is sadly no sign of any hope of a reversal in our lifetimes. The whole thing is so unbelievably distorted that I can't even tell if the case had anything to do with any kind of genuinely non-consensual activity, or any of the supposed psychological harm is real and really caused by this "abuse." It is certainly impossible to suss out the facts from this media coverage, which relies entirely on blind acceptance of the hysteria to the point that they don't even feel the need to bother listing any description of what the abuse is supposed to consist of so we can judge for ourselves. Just the magical term "sexual abuse" suffices to have everyone transfixed -- everyone in Norway but me and perhaps a few of my readers.

Eivind Berge said...

The pattern of using the most extreme punishment for metaphysical sex abuse should frighten us. I know we are used to hysteria by now but this is another level where the next step must be to invent new punishments just for sex. If Norway had the death penalty we would be using it too.

Meanwhile the constant slaughter of children in Gaza barely makes the news anymore. That's
something we can get used to apparently.

And murderers rarely get anywhere near 21 years in Norway. The normies are literally so deranged that they think sex is worse than death.

Anonymous said...

That nightwind article is fantastic. He hits it right on the head, in real time, as to what is happening in the USA, which is then spread out over the world like a poison cloud through its English-based social media. This is why I hope Russia and China finish this war sooner than later, to beat back the beast. Say what you want about pedohysteric Russia internally, they have no international media reach like the USA, and their ally China is still entirely anti-feminist, going as far as putting #Metoo agitators in jail and maintaining a 'suggested' age of consent of 14, the way it used to be in the West and the way it should be without a sex abuse industrial complex ruining your society.


Anonymous said...

We're building a nice little paedophile army here under General Berge. Amelio, anon69, and all the Anonymous paedophiles. Let's hope Jack and the AF can have the courage to enlist!

Anonymous said...

Jeg er ikke enig med deg her, Eivind. Dette selv om jeg stort sett er enig med deg i det meste. I den aktuelle saken du viser til, så handler det slik jeg forstår det om at de tiltalte har hatt sex med egne barn under 10 år og under 14 år. Samt med mindreårige søsken under 10 år. Slike incestuøse seksuelle forhold er noe som åpenbart er veldig negative opplevelser for barn i et familiemiljø der deres ve og vel er 100% styrt av foreldrene. Vi bør fullstendig ta avstand fra slikt.

Jeg er imidlertid enig i at 13 åringer er fullstendig kapable til å ha sex med hvem de måtte ønske og å samtykke til dette.

Eivind Berge said...

Det er ikke åpenbart at det er skadelig. Det er et empirisk spørsmål, og systemet er ikke egnet til å ta stilling til det siden det ikke kan behandles på en måte som åpner for falsifisering.

Anonymous said...

Saken du omtaler Eivind omhandler også en fars seksuelle omgang med sin egen mindreårige sønn. Er du der nå at du ikke ser noe som helst galt i at en voksen mann har sex med sin 10 år gamle sønn? Og du har ingen som helst reservasjon mot incestuøse homofile forhold? Jøss!
Jeg er helt enig i at forhold mellom 13 år gamle jenter og mye eldre menn er helt i orden, men når du promoterer incest mellom far og 10 år gammel gutt da sier jeg rett og slett farvel til deg.

Du gjør for tiden ikke noe som helst for mannssaken eller for seksualist-saken. Du er absolutt ikke interessert i å gå i noen debatt eller å skrive seriøse innlegg i medier som faktisk når frem til folk. Du nekter å legge ut dommen til Gally(selv i anonymisert form hvilket er enkelt). Nå har selv jeg mistet helt troen på deg.

Anonymous said...

Du har åpenbart mistet det helt nå. Vært isolert for lenge? Jeg pleide å ha stor respekt for deg, men nå etter at du velger å godkjenne incestuøse homofile seksuelle forhold mellom voksne og 10 år gamle gutter, og at du livredd for å legge ut dommen til Gally, så er min respekt for deg i ferd med å forsvinne helt. Latterlig rett og slett!

Anonymous said...

Hvis du ønsker å frastøte deg absolutt alle, så greit. Du kunne faktisk ha gjort en forskjell siden du har de talentene som du har, men du velger å være ekstrem i kommentarfeltet på bloggen din. Det er synd, siden jeg kunne skaffet sponsorer hvis du hadde spisset filosofien din og faktisk fremmet poengene for et større publikum.

Eivind Berge said...

Det kommer an på gutten om han hadde lyst på det. Jeg er ikke din eller noens slave, men søker sannheten om dette temaet. Jeg ville skammet meg intellektuelt om jeg skulle gi inntrykk av at jeg tror det er opplagt at 10 år gamle gutter nødvendigvis tar skade av seksuell omgang, inkludert homoseksualitet og incest. Jeg vet utmerket godt at jeg var alt annet enn uskyldig i den alderen selv og at sex med kvinner ville vært vidunderlig om jeg hadde fått det. Jeg var absolutt ikke tiltrukket av menn, men jeg kan ikke snakke for dem som er det. Dette gjelder altså skadeligheten; om vi skal forby det er en annen sak, noe jeg er tilbøyelig til å være enig i, men da ikke på langt nær med så streng straff og jeg er ærlig nok til å erkjenne at begrunnelsen da blir noe i retning av homofobi siden skadeligheten ikke er dokumentert når det er frivillig.

Videre skal vi huske at det er dogmatisk for feministene og nå også normiene at det er likt for jenter og gutter, så om man aksepterer det dogmet så kan man heller ikke tro det er automatisk skadelig for jenter når man har motbevist det for gutter. Og siden den type dogme er alt de har av evidens, kollapser hele CSA-panikken bare av min egen erkjennelse av at jeg ønsket sex med kvinner som barn. Det er like umiddelbart opplagt for meg at jeg var kåt på voksne kvinner (inkludert familie) og ville nytt sex som at jeg likte sjokolade eller så farger eller var i stand til å føle smerte som barn -- og jeg blir akkurat like irritert om du skulle prøve å benekte noen av delene.

Dette er det altså du prøver å gjøre mot de homofile, og det er jeg ikke med på selv om jeg kan være med en lavalder for dem av estetiske grunner for oss andre, som sagt homofobi eller moralisering og altså ikke noe misbrukshysteri.

Anonymous said...

"We're building a nice little paedophile army here under General Berge. Amelio, anon69, and all the Anonymous paedophiles."

I'm not a pedophile because I'm attracted to post-pubescent girls under the age of consent (generally), and I use the classic definition of pedophile, not the feminist redefinition. But I identify as a trans woman lesbian now :)

P.S. There is this absolutely beautiful, stunning really, perfect hardbodied 13 or 14 year old girl at a social event that I frequent, and we flirt all the time. It is tearing me up inside because I live in an extremely intolerant, feminist place, and for youthful age gap sex under the age of consent hoax, they have specialized "child protection" teams that would put me away for life sooner than a murderer, as you say.

The feelings of sadness from this constant oppression and suppression of natural love are getting so bad, but in a few months I will be moving away from here to a more heterosexually tolerant place, and I will not be confronted with it anymore. It's sad, but the cost/benefit of giving up any illegal incredible sex and relationship now in order to live the rest of my life and gain opportunities I can actually act upon elsewhere with minimal risk after waiting just a few months more is worth it.

It's like the old saying: "why run down the hill and fuck one cow, when you can walk down the hill and fuck them all"


Eivind Berge said...

Normiene tror på en barneessens og en seksualessens som kombinert skaper en CSA-essens. Denne misbruksessensen er uten unntak og omfatter veldig mye mer enn penetrering, siden det er en angivelig idealessens i seksualiteten som skaper den. Det er også dogmatisk at det ikke spiller noen rolle om det er gutt eller jente og med menn eller kvinner, siden det altså er denne overnaturlige barneessensen som blir "misbrukt" av voksenessens. Det er et animistisk verdensbilde helt på nytt igjen som har oppstått i denne overtroen.

Jeg ble født inn i en verden som ikke trodde på den og har sett med forskrekkelse hvordan CSA-panikken har råtnet hjernene på folk rundt meg siden 1980 mens jeg fremdeles tror det ekspertene mente da jeg ble født i 1978: at man gjerne kan mene at sex med barn er umoralsk og bør forbys, men det fins ikke noen idealessens i det som skader barn hverken psykologisk eller metafysisk slik folketroen er nå.

Og nå har vi altså en nordmann her som tror på CSA-panikk for barn under 13 selv om han ikke tror på de eldre delene. Prøv å se filosofisk på det. Gir barneessensen mening? Gir seksualessensen mening? Som altså angivelig er like reell om den overføres gjennom bilder og slikt... Gir kjønnsnøytraliteten mening? Altså at noe som i aller høyeste grad dreier seg om kjønn IKKE HAR NOE MED KJØNN Å GJØRE, men en derimot en "BARNEESSENS"? (En kategori av "uskyld" som jeg VET ikke eksisterer i alle fall ikke i alle barn siden jeg VET den ikke gjorde det i meg.) Gir CSA-essensen mening når den er laget av alle disse tvilsomme ingrediensene, inkludert en åpenbar løgn om at en vagina er like farlig som en penis?

Tenk på det i stedet for å slenge hysterisk dritt om at jeg er "ekstrem" når jeg ikke er med på CSA-panikken. Og selv om det skulle være noe ekte misbruk i denne saken (altså ikke bare noe som er konstruert av essensielle kategorier man slavisk tror på uten å trenge å høre hva som skjedde engang) så fortjener den ikke 21 år eller forvaring. Det er Norges versjon av dødsstraff vi snakker om her, lovens strengeste straff. Det er også en kvinne involvert som fikk 18 år! Det går an å sette det i perspektiv og innrømme at det fins verre ting som de strengeste straffene må være reservert for om man ikke bare er oppslukt i et hysteri.

Og jeg bryr meg ingenting om hvor mange jeg frastøter med fornuften her. Om jeg er eneste seksualist i Norge inkludert de anonyme, så får det bare være sånn. Jeg er uansett på lag med Newgon og MAP-bevegelsen i andre land.

Eivind Berge said...

I cannot stomach any part of the CSA hysteria. I cannot unlearn what I have learned by seeking the truth of the matter. I know the derangement does not stop at puberty and then the justice system suddenly becomes sane when there is a case with younger children. These metaphysical essences are largely what they judge there too. Make no mistake: they judge supernatural essences rather than what happened and how it realistically impacted the involved. I can't ignore the witch-hunt there either, and anyway being a full-blown MAP activist only takes me from one to zero followers in Noway so it hardly makes a difference. I am evidently also still so boring that I can't get more readers that way from haters either.

Anonymous said...

I have told a woman (in her 30s) who is supposedly not a "radical feminist", why it is wrong and pedophilia for a 30-year-old man to date a 19-year-old, these are her responses:

""""""""""""""""I don't know what other opinions that woman will have but on this one in particular I agree with her.

It's one thing to physically like a 19-year-old girl, which up to this point, everything is understandable and normal if you're not blind. Another different thing is that you really consider having something with that girl. Too much age difference for the stages you are in.

I would think the same about a 34-year-old women who likes a 19-year-old guy. Like it beyond seeing him handsome, I mean.

Yes, I was with an 18-year-old boy when I was 28 and I felt like the biggest pedophile in history. In my defense I thought the kid was 23... When she told me her age I had to ask for her ID and I stopped seeing him shortly after. Damn, the difference in maturity was very noticeable.

Then in other stages it is not so "abusive". 28/38 for example, is another story. But at 19 neither a boy nor a girl is really mature. They may be "for her age", but it is not comparable to someone who is almost twice their age.

And I thought the same when I was 19, if that consoles you. An guy of 34 at that age saw him as a grandfather, no matter how unfair he was. Also, I'm 30-something, but I have eyes and I see handsome young guys... but it would seem to me to take advantage of trying something, so I don't let them lose me some abs or a pretty face.

Well, okay, I'll buy it for you. I know that when you like someone you can get a little upset, but it is more likely that there is manipulation, even unintentionally, when you like someone much younger, it is a reality."""""""""""""""""""""

Change the number 19 for under than 18 or 23, it doesn't matter, AGE OF CONSENT is just a number. There you have it, middle age women, everything else is a waste of time.

Eivind Berge said...

CSA is believed to be abuse of not anything to do with being boys or girls (since it is dogmatically gender-neutral) but a non-sexual quality which is supposed to transcend the victims' sexuality, namely the quality of being children. Thus, something which obviously has everything to do with sex is believed to be abuse of a non-sexual essence. This logical incoherence is alone enough for me to disbelieve in CSA. It is an incoherent concept unless believers want to argue that the gender-neutrality is a coincidence, rather than a result of CSA being a violation of a nonsexual “child” essence which renders it irrelevant whether it is a boy or girl or with a man or a woman. If the “abuse” flows from sexuality but is only coincidentally just as bad when done by a woman with a boy as by a man with a girl or boy, then the CSA concept is not logically incoherent, but then it becomes an empirical question whether the coincidence is real or imagined. This is where Bruce Rind shines supremely in his latest papers which spectacularly falsify the hypothesis of gender-neutrality. Since the gender-neutrality dogma still persists contrary to empirical reality, CSA must be sheer nonsense. Of course, we have many more reasons to believe CSA is nonsense, but this is the simplest way to prove it logically that I know of.

By focusing his attack on the female sex offender charade Rind wisely found the shortest path to disproving CSA. He knows what he is doing and great minds think alike, which is why I have been doing the same for many years.

Eivind Berge said...

"it is more likely that there is manipulation, even unintentionally, when you like someone much younger"

You should ask her how come people become better manipulators at the same time as IQ and all other skills decline with age. Every other cognitive skill peaks in your teens and then by the time you are 74 you only have to answer right on half as many questions on an IQ test to have the "same" IQ relative to your age group. A 20-year-old is in other words twice as intelligent as a 74-year-old in real terms. Except when it comes to manipulation, which he excels at relative to the 20-year-old?

It's just a senseless rationalization for sex-hostility that age gap facilitates manipulation, unless you want to claim that the older person is the victim, which would have some basis in fact.

Eivind Berge said...

Manipulation is a skill. If you spend your life studying how to manipulate people I suppose you can get better at it, but who does that? Saying an older person has an advantage on "manipulating" the other (whatever that means anyway) is like saying a 50-year-old will obviously beat a 16-year-old on an algebra test. Unless the older adult happens to be a math teacher, he would be hugely disadvantaged both because he has a slower brain and because he probably hasn't been practicing algebra for decades. That's how it is with social skills too. You don't automatically get better at them and old age erodes all skills. Indeed you usually get worse already as a young adult because you probably settled into some routine including a dull marriage or whatever where you don't have to think about it, unlike the fast-paced life of teens where they are acutely aware of social dynamics.

Anonymous said...

Det er enorm forskjell på sex med mindreårige og incest, Eivind. Sex er fra naturen til for å lage avkom, og avkom som er et resultat av sex mellom personer i samme familie kan du f.eks. se her:

Derfor er mennesker sannsynligvis adaptert til å ikke tenne seksuelt på eget avkom. Er man derimot pornoavhengig, pervers og psykisk skadet slik som personene i nyhetsartikkelen du viste til, så er normal menneskelighet sannsynligvis forsvunnet og man kan finne på å ha sex med eget avkom, og til og med avkom med samme kjønn som deg selv.

Barn i slike hjem befinner seg i en gisselsituasjon, der det eneste valget de har er å godta å ha sex med sine sinnsyke, perverse og porno-besatte foreldre. Respekten jeg hadde for deg er nå helt borte. Du kan nå smykke deg med 3 følgere mot tidligere 4.

Jeg har tidligere omtalt deg flere ganger i diverse norske medier/kommentarfelt/forum etc. og jeg har tatt direkte kontakt med redaktører, kjente bloggere, podcastere osv. og oppfordret dem til å lage noe med deg eller sammen med deg siden jeg tidligere mente at budskapet ditt var viktig. Ingen har bitt på. Jeg skal selvfølgelig slutte med dette nå. Det virker som du har tippet helt over.

Og ja, legg ut dommen til Gally slik du lovte.

Anonymous said...

Og du er sykelig opptatt av at du er så forferdelig hatet også. Som om det fører noen veg å påpeke dette i annenhver setning.

Eivind Berge said...

While incest and inbreeding should generally be discouraged, it is not clear-cut that we need to jump into a hysteria either. It is self-limiting by nature (typically low attraction as you note) and far milder social conventions than 21 years in prison. Whatever still happens can generally be ignored in my view, except when there is violence, which again needs to be proven in each individual case rather than assumed by hysterical default without even feeling you need to look at the facts. All I did in the case under discussion was question the facts (was there evidence beyond the word of the victims, for example?) and assert that the harshest punishment possible for any crime in Norway, essentially life in prison, is far too much for something like this where no one is killed or physically hurt even if there was some forcible abuse.

If that's too "extreme" for you then I don't care. I said the same thing on Facebook and no one even reacts to it. If anything, I am too dull and I can't comprehend where your fear of associating with someone with these opinions is coming from -- except from being consumed by CSA hysteria yourself.

Eivind Berge said...

Let's reinject some sanity here to cleanse ourselves of that incest hysteria. Hearken back to this formerly almost mainstream view that incest can be positive from an article in Penthouse in 1977 archived by Newgon:

It is not difficult to guess the benefits that accrue to the incestuous father, but what’s in it for the 15 percent of daughters who inform Farrell that they liked it? The answer is a tender, nonfumbling, and loving introduction to sex that is wildly arousing for all its wickedness and devoid of the usual teenage backseat trial and error. One daughter told Farrell that she preferred her father to “the locker room jerkoffs” who were interested only in scoring with her. She felt that they, rather that her father, were trying to take advantage. If the father lets his daughter go gently, avoiding jealous fits, their relationship may be fondly remembered. Some have been known to continue after marriage.

“When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200,” says Farrell, “the incest is part of the family’s open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve — and in one or two cases to join in.”


Incredible? Impossible? Insane? Well, just such a father-daughter case happened in New York City. A forty-two-year-old Jewish writer, contentedly married for twenty years, phoned Farrell after reading his ad and related the following story.

Two years ago the writer happened to be at his beach house alone with his attractive fifteen-year-old daughter. He watched her strip out of her bikini — nudity was not unusual in the family — and fantasized about having sex with her while she showered. His wife’s appendix operation had curtailed his sex for the previous five months. This day the women on the beach and a few beers had led him into special temptation. When the daughter emerged from the bathroom in a towel, he greeted her in the nude and erect. Although he had never consciously desired incest before, he told his daughter that he missed sex. Without further prompting she fellated him to orgasm. Then she cried until he assured her that they hadn’t done anything wrong; he asked her not to tell her mother.

Two weeks later the daughter walked around the house naked until the father approached her. That day he deflowered her to their mutual satisfaction. But the father was careful not to push things. He did not want to hurt his daughter, who seemed to have an active sex life with boys her own age. Several weeks later the daughter took the initiative again, this time with a girl friend as a third party. This threesome was the most exciting sex the father had ever had. Soon the father and daughter were having intercourse three times a week, repairing to motels with their secret passion. When they were six months into the incest, the wife unexpectedly returned to the apartment from shopping and caught the pair in the act. Despite some initial hysteria, the wife okayed everything. Apparently she was relieved that her husband’s strong sexual demands could be met at home rather than with hookers, and she hinted that she’d like to watch the two of them in bed. When the writer talked with Farrell, the incest had been ongoing for two years. The father is enjoying himself immensely, and he says that his daughter prefers his expertise to the groping of her boyfriends, who just want to be “deepthroated.” The writer insists that they’re both much better friends now that before.

Incredible. Impossible. Insane. But unless the writer is deluded, it is perhaps true and definitely positive.

Eivind Berge said...

Let us also cleanse ourselves of hysterical fear of inbreeding via this answer on Quora:

During my time working in pathology clinics, I seen the results of a daughter having a father’s baby. It happens more often than people think, not rape, not forced sex, but the impregnation was by choice and consensual with the daughter.

Most I seen were married women whose husbands were infertile, and the couple had agreed for the father to impregnate the daughter because the couple felt secure, these impregnations were never reported and no one was any the wiser.

I done many of the test (the patients were anonymous and only had an identity number). The doctors were not obliged to divulge the patient information, so there it ended.

I seen the same for single career women who did not want a relationship and for lesbian couples who were breeding from fathers, brothers and uncles, to be comfortable in life. And surprisingly there are very few birth defects, and of those most are happening in society anyway.

It is happening at rates the authorities cannot even guess at.

In short, I wouldn't be worried unless it becomes a multi-generational thing, because there is not enough added risk to stand out from the noise of genetic defects occurring in the general population.

Eivind Berge said...

Another sane view on incest comes from none other than Angry Harry:

Of interest perhaps: Many years ago I actually came across two women who had had incestuous relations with their sons.

"In both cases, the situation was this.

"The sons had always been emotionally 'distant' from their mothers and from others. Perhaps they were slightly autistic or something. I can't remember.

"And these two mothers were desperate to arouse some kind of positive emotional feelings in them. Trying to "wake them up" emotionally. Trying to make them feel positive towards them - as mothers - and towards other people.

"They did not want their sons to be emotionally dead zones.

"And so they initiated sex in the hope that this would spark some kind of loving responses in their sons.

"Well, in both cases, this did not work.

"But can you blame them for trying?"

Incest may not cure autism, but Harry had the sense and compassion to concede that it at least was a good initiative and indicative of love rather than pathology.

Certainly nothing to be hysterical about.

And that is not an extreme or particularly unusual position at least if we go back a few decades.

What has changed is not me. I have always believed this. But my former follower here has obviously gone insane along with feminist society on incest.

Eivind Berge said...

Good video. Incest is not a universal taboo since there are pretty solid cultural counterexamples. As I said, natural instincts are probably enough to keep us from overdoing it, perhaps reasonably supplemented with some mild social disapproval but nothing more when it is consensual. The feminist police state is perverse overreach.

Anonymous said...

And Eivind scratches his head as to why investors aren't pouring money into

Anonymous said...

Incest is even more maladaptive than masturbating to porn. They also seem to always be filming and taking pictures of the incest acts, so I assume they are heavy porn users.

Eivind Berge said...

I am honestly shocked that someone would fail to see any gradations between "promoting" homosexual pedophilic incest (which I am not doing) and thinking it obviously and inarguably deserves life in prison. If that's not a sure sign of hysteria then I don't know what is.

Anyway, I wrote a new blog post:

Eivind Berge said...

With regard to:

"Incest is even more maladaptive than masturbating to porn. They also seem to always be filming and taking pictures of the incest acts, so I assume they are heavy porn users."

This is largely due to the selection effect that those who take pictures and share them are much more likely to get caught. And yes this would tend to be wankers who think porn is meaningful and probably spend more time wanking than doing actual incest. You don't hear about all the loving secretive incest families (who don't feel the need to show off because they don't buy into the feminist/wanker delusion that sexual interactions can be had via pictures), and when it leads to healthy offspring (which you also most often don't hear about) it obviously wasn't maladaptive.

Anonymous said...

Eivind's 'metaphysical picture wanker' argument only seems to make sense if it has some kind of reductionist view of evolution and reproduction as life's sole meaning underpinning it.

But obviously fucking your 10 year old son is about as evolutionary and reproductively maladaptive as it gets.

Jeez it makes my head hurt just thinking about Eivind's 'argument' and trying to make sense of it.

So reading Shakeseapre is not emotionally valuable because Macbeth is only a play...
They actually did make that kind of argument when novels started to become wildly popular in the 18th century.

And then you remember that Eivind has a pic of a sexualized BBW on his wall and goes around taking photos of girls, and probably hasn't got laid or even talked to a female for months...

Eivind Berge said...

Must be the AF desperately trying to justify his wanking again, with bullshit arguments and accusations I have addressed many times before.

So look to previous threads for in-depth nofap theory, but I will address the "reductionism"... The implication there being that only reproduction must be reduced to biology and everything else about sexuality might as well be digital? Yup, that is what he is saying. He is that far gone. He does not even care about touching, tasting or smelling a girl! Also not having an emotional connection with her, apparently, since though that can be conveyed digitally it does not come from porn of girls you don't know.