Friday, March 22, 2024

Behold! James Cantor, the leading witch-doctor, does not believe in witches!

This screenshot is epic. It's like reading a postscript to the Malleus Maleficarum where the authors inform us that oh by the way, we don't believe in any of this. It's just that social conditions are such that witches are perceived as extremely dangerous now, and studying and hunting witches is a mighty fine way to make a living. So we go along with that in our work, while on the down-low we admit there is no evidence that witchcraft itself is harmful. There is no proven harm besides the harm arising from believing it is harmful. That's an open secret in intellectual circles anyway and it really has no bearing on normie perceptions or our livelihood as witch-doctors that we admit what we really believe for those of you who actually bother to read our work. We don't want to be remembered as one of those fools who truly believed in the panic after it blows over anyway, so here is a little Easter egg of honesty.

So, there you have it. Dr. James Cantor does not believe in the metaphysical badness of sex which forms the basis of pedo panic.


Anonymous said...

Did you see this too?

Eivind Berge said...

New to me. Thanks for sharing: it shows I understood him correctly and he is not wavering on this unless he has changed his mind recently.

Anonymous said...

The metaphysical badness of sex has arisen from the female exaggeration of the impact of unwanted or regretted sexual interactions. Fifty years ago, 'rape' was being dragged into the bushes by a stranger and violently taken. Even then, while the man was rightly locked away for years or decades, the woman would be expected to get on with her life. Now women are saying that men 'cyberflashing' them are leaving them with lifelong trauma, or a deepfake porn pic is akin to rape.
And anybody with an iota of intelligence or a basic grasp of evolutionary theory would understand what their collective and individual reproductive/sex value vested interest is in doing so.

But Eivind thinks 'rape is worse than murder' for women, which doesn't even make the slightest sense from an evolutionary point of view. There can be nothing worse than murder (i.e death) from an evolutionary point of view, certainly not having sex, even if it was unwanted or regretted.

A 14 year old girl, was happy to be cuddled and kissed by an older man, but as soon as he dumps her for his previous girlfriend, she realizes she has been 'abused' and had her life wrecked. So he gets years in prison thanks to her 'victim impact statement'. He didn't even have sex with her.

Maybe one of Eivind's MAP creep acolytes will pen a cringey poem in honor of this beautiful girl? 'FreeTheTeens' probably thinks he deserves it because breaking up with a teen is a 'dick move'.

Anonymous said...

I see you are attracting p*d0 fa**ots that are hanging around on boychat with likeminded homosexuals. I'm sure your boychat-fan is also a big porn user. People hanging around sex forums usually are.

Eivind Berge said...

Boychat is an activist forum rather than a sex forum. Or at least it is no more a sex forum than my blog is.

Instead of letting homophobia get the better of you I suggest appreciating the added power to Cantor's words from the context of pederasts, many of whom are truly pedophilic rather than hebephilic too. When he speaks with scientific authority to them that there is no evidence of direct harm, it makes the normies all that more ridiculous for dreaming up trauma from a romance with a 14-year-old girl, does it not? Shouldn't we be thankful for that?

Cantor is not as vilified as Rind, so normies can't dismiss him so easily unless they now want to cancel him too for this. When he can't find anything in the scientific literature which even counts as evidence of inherent harm, that should be spectacular to a normie who thinks the literature is nothing but evidence of harm. So all it takes at that point is a little intellectual honesty, as in conceding that they probably don't know more than the experts.

Eivind Berge said...

This is also a good place to repost Michael Bailey's (who is another competent sex researcher) similar statement of what the scientific literature is telling us.

The idea that pedophilic relationships can be harmless or even beneficial to children is disturbing to many people, including me. It is difficult for me to imagine a future heterosexual boy enjoying a sexual relationship with a man, and it is easy for me to imagine a man using a child sexually for his own pleasure at the expense of a child’s welfare. The lack of scientific evidence supporting my largely visceral reactions against pedophilic relationships has been one of the most surprising discoveries of my hopefully ongoing scientific education. Persuasive evidence for the harmfulness of pedophilic relationships does not yet exist, perhaps because research on childhood sexual abuse has not been sufficiently high quality to establish harm. This partly reflects the impossibility of controlled experiments in this domain, but I suspect it also reflects the certainty of researchers that adult-child sexual contact is harmful and the understandable inhibition against considering the alternative.

From his review of Tom O'Carroll's book Michael Jackson’s Dangerous Liaisons.

As straight men disgust to pederasty is understandable but we should rise above that and not confuse it with harmfulness. Otherwise we are no better than the feminists who confuse their jealousy and regret with sexual traumatization of teen girls!

Anonymous said...

No, boychat is a place for homosexual p*d*s who are interested in their preferred kind of porn. I'm pretty sure the same users meet in other forums too, besides boychat.

You really have sunken low now. What a train wreck!

Eivind Berge said...

Says an anonymous noname who does nothing for sexualism.

Without the boylovers, there would scarcely be any MAP activism at all. Newgon sprang out of boylove but generously includes the girls, and most notable activists and even researchers useful to our side (such as Cantor) are gay.

I take the boylovers seriously because I am a serious activist. I am not just here to confirm a prejudice or personal liking or disgust, but to expose the truth, and it so happens that following the scientific evidence on boylove also most decisively blows the feminist nonsense about traumatized girls out of the water. Therefore I am grateful for homosexual MAP activists, many of whom I know to be recruited from or hanging out at Boychat.

Anonymous said...

Feil Berge! Jeg gjør min del for seksualismen. Blant annet skal jeg møte 2 søte og unge Ukrainske flyktning-jenter i kveld. Og jeg er mer enn dobbelt så gammel som dem. Du skal derimot fortsette og skrive om hvor flott incestuøse sex-overgrep med smågutter er, samt hvor mye du mener at du er hatet(selv om du egentlig er helt irrelevant siden du nekter å skrive noe utenom denne bloggen din). Kanskje du stikker innom boychat også for å se hva homseporno-gjengen der inne har å si, idet det og incest tilsynelatende er det mest viktige for deg.

Eivind Berge said...

This kind of pointless divisiveness is a big reason for the failure of sexualism. Hardly anyone is above some kind of CSA panic. For example, among former MRAs it is common to believe hebephilia is good but pedophilia is sick. Or they might be homophobes or scared shitless of incest. How much better it would be to just take a dispassionate look at the evidence like Cantor and Bailey have done? That doesn't make us gay or whatever we dislike personally; it just makes us honest. And it is the most compelling way to show what is wrong with the sex laws. If we claimed sex with teen girls is harmless but pederasty or incest is always abuse, then we would need pseudoscience to back it up which makes us look worse to anyone who is intellectually honest and informed. I say no thanks to that.

Anonymous said...

Jeg er imponeret over hvor rolig, saglig og rationel Eivind formår at være når han på denne blog konfronteres med billige insinuationer og tomme beskyldninger fremsat under en forargelse som minder om den vi kender fra medierne og det store samfund. Alene af denne grund fortjener han et tak.

Anonymous said...

No problem, Eivind will just find new followers among the gay porn - and incest enthusiasts inside the gay p*d0 site boychat.
I've followed this blog for more than ten years, agreed with everything, linked to it in forums and comments sections, e-mailed journalists and editors about it etc. Not anymore after the gay incest comments that Eivind made and now will earn him followers from the boychat forum.

Jack said...

I wouldn't put it past the present hysteria to contrive to legitimate gay and incest pedophilia only. Homosexuality is metaphysically good and the family should be protected at all cost. One hallmark of the present pedo-hunt is that it largely spares mums & dads. Pedos are sought and hunted outside the family.

AF said...

@Jack - I remember writing an article about why the MRAs had abandoned the age of consent and normal attraction to teens as valid issues (which wasn't always the case). I argued that it was because the father's rights element were happy to have the focus switched from the abusive father to the stranger danger paedophile.

It was really another co-opting of any effective opposition emerging to the sexual trade union, just as feminists did with the gay rights movement.

On the subject of gay rights and Eivind, I had the thought this morning about his 'metaphysical' insistance that porn is not part of 'male sexualism' (or whatever name Eivind wants to give his movement to get himself laid). It's akin to gay rights activists in the 1960's insisting that men arrested in public toilets for 'indecent behaviour' (i.e. publicly wanking, which is what gay men were mostly arrested for) was nothing to do with gay rights as it is not sex, and in fact, that such men are not even homosexual because they are not 'having sex' with each other, and rather 'asexual'. Of course, gay rights activists in the 1960's never did such a thing, and any self-proclaimed 'leader' would probably have gotten lynched by his fellows if he had.

Eivind Berge said...

Have we reached yet another level of misandry?

Spanish prosecutors are seeking a prison term of two years and six months for former soccer chief Luis Rubiales for giving an unwanted kiss to star forward Jennifer Hermoso after Spain’s World Cup victory.

The Public Ministry has formally accused Rubiales, the disgraced former president of the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF), of sexual assault for kissing Hermoso “without consent or acceptance,” according to an indictment seen by CNN.

Two years and six months for a one-second surprise kiss? Not forced, just a surprise and she didn't object at the time.

Anonymous said...

Wow, and I thought it had all blown over with Luis Rubiales.

I thought that with a certain amount of support for Rubiales even in the MSM, plus the inherent absurdity of the case, it would blow over.

Apparently not.

BTW, just an observation I might as well share, but AFAIK, no-one predicted the current situation of sex hysteria, paedohysteria and anti-white male bias of current times. It just goes to show how hard it is to get forecasts right.

Anonymous 2

MenAreCowards said...

Not true, Michel Foucault famously predicted pedohysteria.

AF said...

Now they bully you into suicide for merely talking to a 17 year old girl.


Well perhaps a lot of people could see what the trend was, it depends how far back you go really. If you can associate anti-male sex hysteria with feminism (something the MAPs find astonishingly difficult to do) then it's a given that an increasingly feminist society will result in an increasingly anti-sex society.

Of course, it's complicated by the fact that the 'sexual revolution' of the 1960's, commonly associated with feminism and womens' rights, initially led to much greater sexual freedoms across the board. But I'm sure there were many astute observers who could see that it would be short-lived and that the feminist backlash would come. I mean, even in the 60's you had the radical feminists screaming that all sex was rape, even if they were a bit marginalized at the time.

The first 'MRAs' such as Ernest Belfort Bax who fought against the suffragette's campaigns for the vote AND to increase the age of consent could probably see where it was all leading. I mean, he mocked them for wanting to raise the age of consent to 21, so in that sense, we aren't quite there yet. Maybe he would be surprised that it's taken feminists/enfranchised women over 100 years to get to this level of insane anti-male sex hysteria and legislation?

@MenAreCowards I must admit, I haven't read much Foucault, but I will definitely read his seminal work on sex sometime soon.

I was thinking the other day - I wonder what percentage of 'MAPs' even are aware that it was feminists or proto-feminists/suffragettes who originally raised the age of consent? I would guess probably less than 5%.

And another thing. I can't think of a single meme or idea that the 'MAP movement' has given us, other than the crazy and disastrous idea that men who find 17 year olds attractive are a minority and that there is no difference between a man finding a 2 year old attractive and a 17 year old young woman attractive.

Compare with the Incel movement that Eivind so despises. 'Chad, Becky'... the idea that dating has become skewed in favor of women thanks to apps like Tinder and female hypergamy and love of Chads. 'Incel rebellion', 'foids' etc. Can anybody name a single 'MAP' meme that has broken into popular use or awareness, other than the two feminist lies I mentioned above?

Eivind Berge said...

The greatest MAP meme is currently the acronym itself. All it takes is those three letters to threaten the social order, judging by the hysterical reactions it gets from normies ranging from Jordan Peterson to Joe Rogan.

Other than that, MAP memes break through whenever they are allowed to be posted in the mainstream, which is not often. Instead of whining, how about trying to spread some MAP memes yourself? You can find them at:

Do scroll down past the flags and see just how much effort the MAP community has put into clever/funny/satirical/informative memes, which puts us to shame for not having ANY sexualist or MRA memes. If you are going to whine that MAP memes are no good, at least make some MRA memes first so they are even an option to spread.

Ed Piskor was a pushover to commit suicide before he was even legally charged and maybe couldn't have been on those accusations. Charity begins at home, in the hearts of men, by accepting our sexuality and not allowing ourselves to be shamed by hate. If they can't even take that step, they are beyond hope. Still a sad story though, but I am not expecting any normie to be moved any more than they were by Nathan Larson's equally tragic death. The only acceptable opinion in the mainstream is that all men who can be tainted by any sort of sexual accusation deserve the anything bad you can think of -- even if it is for doing something legal as it probably was here -- so that's what we need to embrace for ourselves for now. There is only hate, and we need to turn that around to an attitude that we don't care how much we are hated because we are proud to be men and it is masculinity itself which society now hates.

Eivind Berge said...

My sympathy for Ed Piskor evaporated reading his suicide note with self-loathing phrases like "There is no way I would have a 17 yr old stay at my place. Maybe not 18 even." Apparently normie men can't even own their masculinity in a suicide note anymore, lol, so saturated are they with internalized feminist antisex hate.

Eivind Berge said...

This is instructive though:

"Some good people reached out and tried to help me through this whole thing but I'm just not strong enough. The instinctual part of my brain knows that I'm no longer part of the tribe. I'm exiled and banished. I'm giving into my instincts and fighting them at the same time. Self preservation has lost out. From the sound in everybodies voice I think we all knew this was the conclusion."

That's the thing -- when you rely on the normie tribe for validation of who you are they really can kill you with cancellation. No need to even send any cops because shame alone will do the trick then.

This can't happen to me because I don't identify with the normie tribe.

I am part of the MAP tribe.

And my tribe is better anyway, lol. There is no loss in cancellation when you realize how senseless the normie values are.

Eivind Berge said...

It is mind-boggling, astonishing... the depth of the antisexual indoctrination and how it persists into death for the normies.

"I definitely shouldn’t have chatted with her when I found out how young she was. Seeing someone younger representing r crumb and GG Allin gave me hope for the next generations and made me curious. Curiosity killed the cartoonist."

Merely the shame of chatting with a 17-year-old... and swearing into death that he had no intention of doing anything more than chatting because he wouldn't even meet an 18-year-old... even so, the mere shame of this absurdly innocuous act is enough to kill if you are of the normie mindset.

We have reached yet another low. With men like that feminism is profoundly victorious, consuming every pore of their being, and men like this now dominate society.

But because of this another tribe has also arisen. MRAs and sexualists don't really have a tribe but MAPs do. Identifying as a MAP can save lives long before we gain any political influence.

Of course it sounds absurd to identify as some kind of sexual minority just because you once chatted with a 17-year-old... But then we see here that this is literally all it takes to be exiled and banished from the tribe who is supposedly not a sexual minority, to make him feel that "I have no friends in this life any longer."

And then, the MAP label does not become so misplaced after all, on hordes of men more than those who currently identify. Who didn't chat with a 17-year-old at some point, perhaps years ago but screenshots of the conversation can still be produced? If that's you -- and now I'm talking to random new readers if any ever see this because they are the ones who need to hear this -- consider joining the MAP movement before it is too late. If your self-worth is wrapped up in belonging to the tribe who hates groomers and pedophiles and nonces and MAPs, and you would feel you have no friends in life without that tribe, you might just find yourself cancelled and shamed to death if you don't change course now.

Eivind Berge said...

More Rubiales madness:

A Civil Guard spokesperson confirmed to CNN that Rubiales was detained this morning after landing at the Adolfo Suárez Madrid–Barajas Airport on a commercial flight from the Dominican Republic.

He was detained by the Civil Guard’s Central Operative Unit (UCO) on the runway before being driven away in a van.

The UCO is a body of the Spanish Civil Guard which investigates and fights serious and organized crime in Spain.

Oh yes, a harmless celebratory kiss is serious and organized crime. And having chatted with a 17-year-old girl is so shameful you can't live with it.

I could not have made this future up. It exceeds the most doom-mongering rants about the abuse industry from Angry Harry back in the day. And all without even having any MRAs around to oppose it anymore, just MAPs.

Eivind Berge said...

“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie.”

- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

This is how I'm living. I don't take part in the lie of fake sexual abuse.

“The myth of ‘normal’ is that we assume the conditions of society are healthy simply because we are used to them.”

- Gabor Maté

Men like Ed Piskor are so used to thinking we are not supposed to have sex with minors or even flirt with them or otherwise "groom" them that they literally cannot think there is anything unhealthy about that norm. They will rather die than question it or see themselves as someone who could conceivably violate the norm.

Jack said...

Indeed, some good memes under this address. Eivind, would it be possible to have a few of them in your blog? Some memes speak more than a thousand words.

Anonymous said...

@Menarecowards-ok. I feel a bit foolish but at least I now know. I'm going to have to look that up. I knew Foucault was against it but I didn't know he actually predicted it.

@AF and -thanks to you, too, for the interesting if tragic reply. I'm actually surprised my little off the cuff comment would get as much feedback as it has.

@Eivind-OMFG, and I would have thought Spain was safe from the worst of this. In their case at least, it seems that being Latin hasn't helped. I have trouble believing even an Anglo country would be so insane.

Anonymous 2

Anonymous said...

Re: Fail story about Ed Piskor.

The top-rated comment was intriguing-not directly supporting his conversation with the 17 yo nor paedohysterical either, but going in a completely different direction altogether.

Best to avoid any contact with Gen Z. Just leave them to their fairyland world.

Anonymous 2

Eivind Berge said...

I take that as in other words, time to pursue Generation Alpha :)

I think the MAPs won that comment section.

Eivind Berge said...

There is truth in the relative safety of it too. Thanks to the rise of the MAP movement, Gen Alpha are growing up with the awareness that if they talk to adults while minors then they are AAMs (Adult Attracted Minors), who are also part of the MAP tribe. Having that identity they are less likely to accuse or shame.

Eivind Berge said...

Essentialist categories to the rescue. Woo-hoo, two can play this game! Essentialist categories like predator or MAP, AAM or victim, groomer and sex offender and so on do not have to make sense and rarely do. Their purpose is simply to define an in-group and an out-group. The way the mainstream now define themselves it is time for more and more men to find another in-group.

The MAP movement will be strong before long at this rate of cancel culture.

Eivind Berge said...

For completeness' sake on the Ed Piskor suicide I am including the deadly accusations here so we and future readers can marvel at the intensity of the pedo panic, with perhaps this being the peak? This is so tame even by cancel culture standards up to now. It was this Instagram post that pushed him over, with an "accusation" (if we can call it that for something so ridiculously normal) from that deranged Zoomer girl Molly that he likes little 17-year-old girls.

Ok Ed Piskor is a fucking CREEP he likes little highschool girls and slid into my dms when I was 17 years old. I didn't know of him and he found me simply by me liking one of his pictures. Sending me a post of myself in my school uniform calling me a cute nerdy girl and saying to come out to Pittsburgh and stay with him he'd take me out to lunch to meet other pg cartoonists. Overall fucking weird with no gray area for what he was trying to do over the course of a year (obvious to anyone on this planet). Calling me a good girl, and a naughty girl all the time. Sending me unfinished pages of his as a "secret" and gassing me up constantly basically trying to groom me into whatever the fuck. Saying my art was so good and saying he'd promote my work. Eventually as covid phased out and I think he saw I was not just some nobody highschool girl drawing gore art, I started ghosting him. Eventually understanding this was WEIRD AS FUCK.

So there you have it. It is WEIRD AS FUCK for men to talk to 17-year-old girls, who are groomed into victimhood by any sort of friendly communication whatsoever. Our culture is literally this deranged; it is a culture I don't belong to because I am now a MAP, which is the category of sane men created by this insanity.

Anonymous said...

what a terrible attention whore, enabled to the fullest by a sexually jealous, total feminist society to push up the price of her pussy to astronomical levels by destroying another weak man. let's not forget, that's what this scumbag who killed himself was - he was an enormous male feminist who would willingly throw any man who did what he did under the bus while he was alive. then he apologized for his existence and killed himself. good riddance!

if that were me, and some people complained about me flirting with a 17 year old, they would be embarrassed after i was done with them. it would look something like that british guy who had a teen girlfriend calling out his haters that you posted a few months ago.

however, on to the positive subject of using and popularizing the Adult Attracted Minors acronym - genius! this is essentially what i was doing with the tranny profile before they finally banned it, but now I have an official acronym to use. i am excited! the sex fascists are gonna have a tough time with that one, their "child protection" argument is turned against them. i'm going to make new tranny social media profiles dedicated to popularizing this acronym. it's gonna be alot of fun!


Eivind Berge said...

The age of consent in Pennsylvania where Ed Piskor lived is 16. It boggles the mind that it does not even occur to him to mention that it would be legal against an "accusation" that we was interested in a 17-year-old girl. How is it possible to be so consumed by cultural hysteria? This is Darwin Award-level stupidity.

But again, it's all about not belonging to the in-group anymore, in which he had invested all his worth, and then it doesn't matter that the accusation was legally baseless.

Anonymous said...

Most men do not like teenage girls, they even prefer them over 20 or over 30:

"At 32 years old, I don't see the interest in a 20yo kid, precisely because she is a kid. Although physically she may be good, if she doesn't have a mature mind, I personally don't like her. I want to tell you that I wouldn't date with a 20 year old."

"No, I like them between 20 and 40, and someone who is 21 tells you that."

And if they are in favor of free sex, it is ALWAYS betwwn consenting adults, i.e from the age of majority: 18. Less than 18 is moraly wrong, a crime very accurately legislated and condemned, and the younger she is, the more pervet and pedophile you are.

These are all genuine comments from men.

Stop lying to yourself and others.

Eivind Berge said...

That's what the normies like to virtue-signal, yes. But even a normie willing to die for that virtue signal secretly prefers teen girls, as we have just seen. He asked her to be his "partner in crime" even though it wasn't a crime, lol. Sometimes I wonder if the normies are even able to wrap their minds around the possibility that he age of consent might be lower than 18, but they still go for younger when they can.

Anonymous said...

Islam is our enemy

Text of a moslem about muhammad being a pedophile:
-When Muhammad went to Aisha she was not a child, since Islam subordinates sex and marriage once puberty has entered and the prophet was the one who most obeyed Allah.

You will believe that your model is better, but it is your law that allows pedophilia, not Islam. Although it is not common, there are girls who at 16 years old are not pubescent nor have they reached their first period and in UK it is legal to have sexual relations with them. Allah is the one who knows the human body better than anyone because He created it and who best knows the times of it and the appropriate law for humanity.

Maybe you will think that your model is better in which 15-year-old girls already tired of going from cock to cock declare that they are fed up with sex. Or the same model in which political parties of different colors vote against opening investigative commissions in parliament on supervised underage prostitution rings depending on whether they occur in the city they govern or not. Maybe what you like most is seeing magic wands appear and disappear in one of the many faggot parades in UK.-

Eivind Berge said...

Of course I disagree with looking for late-developing girls and imposing extra restrictions on them, but let's just compare these options. How many sexually mature girls under 16 are there who would be liberated by Islam versus the rare exception over 16 who would be curtailed? If we have to make a compromise, this looks like a good one.

AF said...

"Most men do not like teenage girls, they even prefer them over 20 or over 30:"

I don't know how old you are, but anyone like me over 50 with a memory knows what the world was like just a few decades ago, when the most popular video porn franchise in Europe was 'Channel 17' (featuring as its name suggested, 16 and 17 year old teens), when even the Sun - the modern champion of pedohysteria - featured a topless 16 or 17 year old every other day, when pop songs would have titles like 'sweet 16' etc. etc. I could go on and on but what's the point. Even if it was different today (it's not really, 'teen porn' is still the most popular adult search keyword, despite it potentially landing you in prison, and the average age of a 'MILF' in porn is 25), it would just mean that men had been brainwashed and perverted from their natural sexuality.

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks for sharing. I had never heard of that movie and don't know if I will ever watch it because it sounds rather disturbing. 1977 when it came out was very early in the pedo panic if not before (if we consider 1980 the starting point), so I am surprised prisoners really cared to gang up on them. I never heard that slang term "short eyes" for "child molester" but it sounds less demonizing than what one might be called today. I suspect it is more about prison cruelty in general than a unique badness of pedophilia and would be surprised if that vision is clearly on display. I would have to watch it to tell but one review seems to emphasize what I am guessing rather than pedo panic as the main theme:

Along the way we experience religious presence, soulful expression, prison hierarchy, sexual intimidation, mental coercion, utter rage, blinding fear, confiding, alienation and displacement. In other words, the range of emotions from several characters displays to the viewer the depth and severity of how living in a world where entropy is the only constant. There is a passage in the movie where the complete ambivalence of every person becomes evident; there are no longer any allies or any semblance of trust when it is exposed that everyone will take what they want when possible. The guards are an important part of the population but there is no real opposition there- no protagonists to speak of, only a film of corruption over the cruel survivalist scene. Stirring, impassioned material.

Anonymous said...

The "Most men do not like teenage girls, they even prefer them over 20 or over 30:" person hasn't been back to respond to AF's observations, I see.

Just from the POV of observing people and society, it's fascinating to see the denial going on.

How did it happen at the time, I wonder? Did men who oggled topless 16-y- Mirror Birds all change their attitudes overnight? What did they do with any old newspapers that were lying around? What was their attitude to their former selves of 6 months previously?

It's telling IMHO how they say "over 20 or over 30". It's as though they've trained themselves to accept ever higher acceptable age limits. It's just pathetic.

Notice also how they justify their moral superiority by claiming men who like teenage girls are a minority. People virtue signal by supporting minority rights except for this one minority right, where they virtue signal anyone who dares to admit their attraction to teenage girls. Then it's suddenly all about bashing the minority, which is of course not a minority at all.

Anonymous 2

Anonymous said...

Yes, it seems to me that it's quite a sympathetic portrayal of the paedophile, who again is a real paedophile who admits to having sex with 8 and 9 year old girls. The director is clearly (seems to me) wanting the viewer to question who the real animals are, and whether the paedophile is a helpless victim of his condition as much as the prisoners are of theirs (incarceration and its effects). He even has the paedophile describe to another prisoner how the police beat him up, he had electrodes attached to his penis to see if he could 'get it up for a big girl', and vigilante mobs wanted to burn his home. He is accused of actually raping a 9 year old girl (actual rape, so it even draws a distinction between willing sex and forced sex), but at the end it is revealed that he was the victim of mistaken identity. The other prisoners (who do not know about his prior convictions) when told, after cutting his throat, are completely disinterested. Obviously the director is making the point that their hatred and violence is not even about what the paedophile has or hasn't done, and more with their own sexual powerlessness. I doubt very much that film could be made today.

I think the USA and the UK have always or nearly always been hysteric about real paedophilia, at least in the 20th century. In the UK I know that they used to force paedophiles to gag reflex when looking at pictures of underage girls as behavioral therapy. And in the 1920's there were riots in major cities and demands for the age of consent to be raised to 21 after some lurid cases of underage sex.

I noticed you have a very interesting site in your sidebar that I've never come across before :

From his widget bar : "Maia Kobabe’s Stonewall Book Award-winning graphic novel Gender Queer has been savaged by conservatives as targeting vulnerable youngsters with pornography and grooming them for a life of sexual deviance. Yet Kobabe’s message curiously accords with what the social conservatives themselves want for adolescents: no acknowledgment of pubertal changes, no sex, no gender reassignment, nothing but a state of suspended animation in pre-lapserian innocence. Whither the paradox? "

Eivind Berge said...

"In the UK I know that they used to force paedophiles to gag reflex when looking at pictures of underage girls as behavioral therapy."

Maybe so, but they also tried to "cure" homosexuals in brutal ways, so I wouldn't say pedophilia was considered uniquely bad. Prior to the 1980s, when there was no rape or forced contact I doubt you could have made a plausible prison horror movie which centers around how evil pedophiles are, like you can today just from the label. And that label can be applied just from looking at pictures or chatting to girls. We are in an extremely unique witch-hunt and it didn't have to be that way: if the gay liberation movement hadn't ditched the pedophiles it might have been different already and the MAP movement is here to pick up that slack.

Eivind Berge said...

Regarding the claim that "most men do not like teenage girls," here is a recent reference he can knock himself out with and argue against if we wants:

William D. Lassek, Steven J.C. Gaulin, "Evidence supporting nubility and reproductive value as the key to human female physical attractiveness." Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 40, Issue 5, 2019, Pages 408-419.

Following Symons, 1979, Symons, 1995, we consider a woman to be nubile when she has menstrual cycles, has attained maximal skeletal growth, is sexually mature based on Tanner stages (see below), but has not been pregnant. Maximal skeletal growth and stature are usually attained two to three years after the onset of menstrual periods, the latter typically occurring at ages 12-13 in well nourished populations (Eveleth & Tanner, 1990; Table 1). In a representative American sample, completed skeletal growth resulting in maximal stature was attained by age 15-16 (Hamill, Johnston, & Lemeshow, 1973).

Age 15 or 16 is currently peak female beauty as honestly judged by the majority of men? Sounds about right and does match my own feelings.

Anonymous said...

Hashtag Metoo on that, LOL.

I can very much appreciate women over 15-16, of course, but I also very much don't appreciate being boxed in by jelliehags.

It's not that he doesn't do a good job, but I don't listen to most of Galielo2 2333's videos on Bitchute because I believe I know enough and I don't need to be depressed or angry.

However, I did listen to a recent one about how apparently in Seattle, there's a group of women who are organising-with City approval-to identify men who are keeping company with "inappropriate" aged girls. They're going to hand out tickets to these men-these will have no legal force (yet), but it will be municipally-approved creep shaming. There's more of this planned to be rolled out elsewhere, starting in liberal places-you know, the ones where the age of consent is about to be abolished (sarc). Yikes.

I guess it's time to read that study and spread the word. The fact it was even published is something of a miracle.

I also seem to be noticing more direct references to age-related female jealousy and paedohysteria in memes and MRA videos. See about 10:20 here for example- . The people putting out these videos have been pretty timid about this so far, but that might change.

Anonymous 2

Anonymous said...

The problem, apart from the childish mentality they have, is that they are quite dirty, in the sense of not being very clean. It seems that mothers still have to tell them to get in the shower

Nothing to do with women of 30-something, or 40, there are already grown-up women and they behave as such, as WOMEN

At teens, 20-something, mentally they are of absolutely no use, they don't learn anything other than the typical experiences of those ages, or the movies they watch on Instagram and Tik Tok.

They stay green, just like most kids of that age.

When I was 18-20 years old I was already fucking 36-38 year old chicks and believe me it was another level in fucking, interest and everything, some colleague of the time told me when he saw me with someone, "bastard if she looks like your mother!!", my mother yes yes, but what a REAL fuck it gets me while you fuck kids

Luckily, after wasting my time with girls at that age of 18-20, I took the leap into fucking REAL women to see what the movie was really about very early on,

And not like the majority of kids today, who hock up with girls who can be 1.60 meters tall and have childlish voices and claim that they have succeeded in live.

I look at them and think, you believe that you ae a real men, an alpha , and most likely you will not get anything good in your life, but there is each one with his ignorance.

Then on top of that you date these girls and they do almost nothing right, but on Instagram they make their "teen star movies" with their photos and their dances to the same repetitive music, pretending to be interesting

It's not okay to fool ignorant people and keep the whole picture: if you are a real men, you need date real women not kids.

AF said...

"if the gay liberation movement hadn't ditched the pedophiles it might have been different already and the MAP movement is here to pick up that slack."

You're right about the gay liberation movement, and I have explained many times (probably uniquely) as to why they did so (because they were co-opted by the Sexual Trade Union).

The problem is that the 'MAP movement' ARE the paedophiles. You may as well say that NAMBLA is here to pick up that slack.

It's also wrong to state that they 'ditched the paedophiles'. FFS, all gay men were 'pederasts' throughout all recorded history until the Sexual Trade Union allowed them to live openly as sanitized 'gay men' accepting an equally high (or even higher) age of consent. They didn't 'ditch the paedophiles', they sold their own souls. Jesus, I wish you could somehow be aware of the potential damage you're doing by accepting the feminist greatest lie in history that finding teens attractive is paedophilia. If you were a military general, you would lead your men to be slaughtered in the first battle. Commander Publius Quinctilius Varus Bergeus.

At this stage, given that it's unlikely we will every change anything in our lifetimes, we can merely try to do two things :

1 / Call the jelliehags out for what they are doing. At least have the dignity to make them aware, before we're all in our graves, that we knew why they were doing this, and we fought it to the end, even if were just a handful of men. We're not autistic MAPs or cringey 'girl lovers', we are men, and we know why feminists (with the support of the majority of women) are oppressing our normal sexuality.

2 / Understand why it's all been so futile, and why we can't put up any resistance at all. This may benefit future activists in 100 years or 200 years. As I see it, it's clear to me that the primary reason is that the oppressed group (normal men) are unable to achieve 'consciousness' of their oppression, because the oppressors have successfully created another much smaller, weaker, risible, and even mentally handicapped group ('paedophiles', 'ephobhiles', 'MAPs', 'girl lovers' etc) as the recognized 'oppressed'.

And of course, General Berge leads his men into the ditch by blindly accepting this feminist /MAP ruse.

AF said...

"However, I did listen to a recent one about how apparently in Seattle, there's a group of women who are organising-with City approval-to identify men who are keeping company with "inappropriate" aged girls. They're going to hand out tickets to these men-these will have no legal force (yet), but it will be municipally-approved creep shaming. There's more of this planned to be rolled out elsewhere, starting in liberal places-you know, the ones where the age of consent is about to be abolished (sarc). Yikes."

Jesus, that is shocking, even though I've been predicting stuff like this for literally decades now.

AF said...

"How did it happen at the time, I wonder? Did men who oggled topless 16-y- Mirror Birds all change their attitudes overnight? What did they do with any old newspapers that were lying around? What was their attitude to their former selves of 6 months previously?"

It's astonishing the double-think that must be necessary every time a man over 50 comes out with a rant against pedos (in relation to teen girls). I sometimes see former schoolfriends posting anti-pedo memes or jokes on Facebook, calling for Prince Andrew to be tortured and such, and feel like leaving a comment, then think better of it.

It does sometimes worry me that we will be the last generation to remember that things were different.

It feels like Orwell's 1984, and Winston being aware that there was still a generation who were alive before the revolution and could still bear testimony to the lies of The Party, before history has been completely and forever rewritten. He's conscious that that wont be the case for much longer, so he seeks out an old person in the pub in the worker's district, and tries to get him to talk about his memories of life before The Party, but the old man can only seem to remember inconsequential little incidents.

I go back and re-read 1984 every year. It's astonishing how almost every single element of it, you can see a parallel with today's society.

Eivind Berge said...

Yet another hateful escalation. They come as clockwork every year and 2024 is no exception:

Criminalization in the EU is now to include pedophile manuals, which breaks down yet another barrier before they can come for my kind of political speech.

The amendments to Article 2(3)(d) are meant to ensure that the definition of child sexual abuse material covers these technological developments in a sufficiently technology-neutral and hence future-proof way. In addition, there are manuals in circulation that provide advice on how to find, groom and abuse children; on how to avoid being identified, investigated and prosecuted; and on how best to hide materials. By lowering barriers and providing the necessary know-how, these manuals, known as “paedophile handbooks”, contribute to inciting offenders and support the commission of sexual abuse, and should therefore also be criminalised.

And they are tightening age gap criminalization...

More particularly, Member States should be able to exempt from criminalisation consensual sexual activities involving exclusively children above the age of sexual consent, as well as consensual sexual activities involving peers. The amendments to that Article are intended to clarify the scope of the derogation, in light of the fact that some Member States appear to have interpreted its original wording too broadly (e.g. by exempting from criminalisation consensual activities between minors above the age of consent and adults of any age, considered to be ‘peers’ despite a significant age difference).

For now this just for porn, but we can see how this same ideology makes the logical next step to mandate the criminalization of activities between minors above the age of consent and adults of any age, which is to say make the age of consent 18.

We are one step away from removing any trace of sex with minors except people disappearing into the prison system, and to that end children are very much able to consent:

John Smith, 34, of Chester, denied two counts of rape but was found guilty after a Manchester Crown Court trial.

Cheshire Police said Smith was aged about 10 or 11 at the time of the first offence but "he knew what he was doing was wrong and committed the offence on more than one occasion".

A temporary moment of sexual lucidity there just long enough to be a sex offender, a retroactive 10-year-old pedophile 20 years after the fact.

Eivind Berge said...

How can a 10-year-old know what he is doing while "raping" but a 17-year-old can't consent to taking a selfie and sharing it with an adult? There is this fog of innocence which is only conveniently broken for the purposes of increasing the prison population. And then the minor goes back into the fog of innocence and stays there for 8 more years, except when he is committing more "offenses" (we are not told what these offenses are because the mere label will suffice and the normies are so indoctrinated they don't inquire so they can think for themselves). And yet we are to believe this childhood innocence represents something real, which is "exploited" and "abused" by adults when it is adults who most conveniently can be preyed on by the police state.

Once you see how insane this is, you can't unsee it. Once you know it is all based on a lie, you can't have a normal life. Not if you have a strong sense of justice like me.

Anonymous said...

@AF, Tuesday, April 09, 2024 9:13:00 AM-

Yes, it is shocking. They're the equivalent of the red youth brigades of Maoist China. BTW I said Seattle but it was San Francisco, as if it matters.

I just hope that consciousness of what is going on and reaction will overtake this process.


"It's astonishing the double-think that must be necessary every time a man over 50 comes out with a rant against pedos (in relation to teen girls). I sometimes see former schoolfriends posting anti-pedo memes or jokes on Facebook, calling for Prince Andrew to be tortured and such, and feel like leaving a comment, then think better of it."

Nothing really to add but to say yes, it truly is. Plus, maybe AF could write a bit of George Orwell fan fiction? That would amuse us all as the Titanic is about to list so badly that we all get flung into the icy deep!😂

Anonymous 2

Eivind Berge said...

Amos Yee has managed to publish a blog post explaining why he's back in prison:

I’ve been to prison 7 times, fought 4 different cases, and have done 4-and-a-half years in prison total in both Singapore and America. All of that, and I just reached the age of 25. I’m writing this from prison, and I’m in prison again because I violated my parole.

For those who don’t know what “parole” is: I just served 3 years in prison for exchanging nude photos with a 14-year-old (for details of that, read here), after that I’m supposed to serve another 3 years of “parole” where I’m let out of prison, but have to obey certain rules or I’ll be imprisoned again. Most parolees have restrictions like: you can only be out 12 hours a day (for me it was 8am to 8pm), you have to wear an electronic device on your knee which tracks your location, you can’t drink alcohol or smoke marijuana etc.

However, if your case like mine is a “sex offence”, as in raped or molested someone, or you have a consensual but legally not consensual relationship with someone underage, or you’re on a dating site and a 15-year-old lies about their age and you have sex with her and her parents find out and oh dang gee whizz that’s 8 years in prison (I have talked to 4 people where something like that happened), the parole restrictions for sex offenders are much worse: you have to go to sex offender class weekly, you can’t use the internet, you can’t go to places like a library or church because children are there. What the fuck?

So naturally I decided to break all the rules, I went to the library to use the internet 5-10 hours a day, I posted a blog post on the internet, I went to about 8 different churches knowing that Jesus definitely wants my attention and definitely wants me to break the law. After spending 3 years in prison, I managed to stay outside for 1 whole month before getting arrested again.

Well said and done!

I'm looking forward to great new activism from him when he gets out which is now projected about a year from now.

Eivind Berge said...

If I just cared about myself, I’d have remained outside. But because I care about other people, I deliberately chose to get myself arrested again to protest these ridiculous rules towards sex offenders, out of a moral obligation as a Pedophile Rights’ Activist. There’s definitely a necessary relationship between going to prison and creating political change. It’s hard to find a time in history where political change occurred without political activists being sent to prison (or if you’re in a better country that doesn’t arrest you for stupid reasons, you’d probably have to be attacked or suffer deeply in some way). It’s simply not enough to speak out defending your case, you need to voluntarily suffer to show a commitment that will move people’s hearts. Gandhi did it, Martin Luther King did it.

Yeah! I did it too!

Anonymous said...

" It's not okay to fool ignorant people and keep the whole picture: if you are a real men, you need date real women not kids. "

The entire post this knuncklehead made was completely incoherent. The funniest part about these NPC feminist drooling retards is that if they truly believe having sex with old women is some kind of transcendental mommy experience, they are free to have all of it that they desire! But, if you want the opposite, that's a big no no! I wonder why? hmmmm, I can't figure it out, something to do with jealous old hags and their jealous husbands I think. Otherwise, why would a granny f*cker care at all about someone else who isn't interested in f*cking grannies, if his interest is truly only about f*cking grannies? Purely selfish, lying, virtue signaling.

" It's also wrong to state that they 'ditched the paedophiles'. FFS, all gay men were 'pederasts' throughout all recorded history until the Sexual Trade Union allowed them to live openly as sanitized 'gay men' accepting an equally high (or even higher) age of consent. "

Ah so that was the trade off - we'll legitimize your lifestyle in exchange for your full support of the feminist age of consent hoax. Women and male feminists are truly abhorrent. I wonder where that puts Russia, since they are anti-gay and anti-teen sex.

"the oppressors have successfully created another much smaller, weaker, risible, and even mentally handicapped group ('paedophiles', 'ephobhiles', 'MAPs', 'girl lovers' etc) as the recognized 'oppressed'."

I can see that, and I have to disagree slightly. The bigger issue is simple sexual jealousy among men. Older men with the ball and chain who have sacrificed their dignity and sexuality all of their lives DO NOT want to see other men succeed where they failed. They do not want to see other men having what they have forsaken. Also, younger men don't want the competition of older men. Sexual resentment and envy is enormous in Anglosphere culture at this moment. So, it's essentially crabs in a bucket all the way down into the abyss. Eventually, it will end, but how and where nobody can predict. Perhaps AI. Perhaps trannies.

Bravo to Eivind and to Amos, true activists willing to go to prison while the NPCs walk around as if life is normal. But I wish Amos would focus on getting out and to a friendlier country, he's got his cred now that's for sure.


AF said...

Oh look. Members of the UK government were recently the victims of an attempted honeytrap plot, conducted by the likes of Russia and China. Hot females sent them texts and sexy pics, and guess what? They were of teenage girls.

Why would they pose as teenage girls? Did they have inside information that for some bizarre chance, all those senior government figures happened to be MAPs/ephebophiles?

I wonder what our ephebophile friend thinks when he reads stuff like this? Every single day, no exaggeration, I see evidence like this of that completely contradicts his view that 'most men aren't attracted to teenage girls'.

It occurs to me that the level of dishonesty, double think, or whatever you want to call it, that ephebophiles must experience or display when faced with the question as to whether attraction to teens is normal, is very similar that of paedocrites when they deny any attraction to teen girls. It's almost like ephebophiles and paedocrites are two sides of the same coin. Or that paedocrites are ephebophiles turned inside out, and vice versa.

And you know he wont even reply to this. He'll just appear again in a few weeks with the exact same comment he always leaves, quoting (or making up) what a couple of paedocrites he encountered online have told him as 'proof' that men don't find teens attractive.

Another Daily Mail article the same day covered a pair of former ISIS members now on trial in Germany, for raping 11 and 15 year old Yazidi girls in Syria. ISIS enslaved and raped young teenage girls, They weren't very much interested in 25 year olds, or 30 year olds that ephebophiles think men are attracted to. Just like the Arab and Ottoman Turk leaders would have their harems full of teenage girls. Just like Genghis Khan would take teenage brides. Just like Mao Tse Tung would bang almost exclusively (thousands) of teenage girls. Just like the chief of the KGB would bang thousands of the prettiest teenage girls in Moscow, willing or unwilling.

Were all these ueber alpha males for some strange reason 'MAPs' and ephebophiles? Hmmm, not sure the likes of Ghengis Khan has much in common with MAPs.

The other day I was sitting in Starbucks in a shopping center. A group of language students in their teens came in, some of them absolutely gorgeous. One was Russian and Ukrainian, and looked a bit younger than the others - maybe 13, but it could have been because she was petite. I noticed that EVERY SINGLE man who walked past took a good look at her. Even when they were with their wives. Not one or two, but EVERY SINGLE MAN.

Ephebophiles must see stuff like this. Do they repress these memories? Or maybe they don't actually leave their rooms, or in a situation like that, they wouldn't dare to even look in the direction of the girls, being virtuous MAPs and such.

AF said...

It occurred to me this morning, that those of you who still refuse to accept that it is women who are controlling male sexuality and responsible for our oppression, should consider the sex culture of gay men, at least until it was co-opted or tamed by society or the Sexual Trade Union.

I mean, before homosexuality was legalized, when all gay sex was criminalized, pretty much every single gay man was chasing teenage boys. There was no distinction before the 60's between a pederast and a 'homosexual' (I'm not sure even if 'homosexual' was a much used word, probably no more used than 'paedophile' was).

In other words, gay underground 'society' was pretty much a world in which only men made the rules. And there was definitely no rules against sex with teens, or for that matter, against promiscuity or paying for sex.

A similar thing in societies such as Ancient Greece in which women had no power at all.

Sex with teens is forbidden or frowned upon, because of women. It's as simple as that, at its core.

The above is also another proof, of course, against the ephebophile/MAP delusion.

Eivind Berge said...

The AF makes up an ephebophile straw man. While a few may be like that they are not representative of the MAP movement. Newgon is representative of the MAP movement, and Newgon is all about demonstrating how common and normal attraction to minors is. Ephebophilia is a superfluous concept to Newgon philosophy because of course most men are maximally attracted to girls this age, which is the age of nubility as we have just seen.

Since the Men's Movement has failed male sexuality we have to go with the MAPs to find a significant activist community. That community does not try to pretend ephebophiles are special because it is way too scientifically informed for that. Newgon is a repository of truth about sexuality, and anybody who cares about the truth should join.

Eivind Berge said...

This is pretty good as far as hebephilia goes, from our old friend J.B. Truth:

Not only does the A. P. A. refuse to reclassify hebephilia as a paraphilia, but they will not discontinue deeming it to be normative even if every state jurisdiction in the United States decides to raise the statutory age of consent to 35 years old. That is, in figurative words.

If your 20-year-old son or brother is sneaking around with a 13-year-old girl in the neighborhood and taking her out on dates, then nobody has the legal means to lock him up in a mental institution for doing so. Now if he gets that 13-year-old girl pregnant, then, of course, he will become vulnerable to criminal prosecution.

A sexologist named Ray Blanchard is a hero to self-proclaimed child advocates, social-justice warriors, and societal fundamentalists in their mission to reclassify hebephilia as a paraphilia. This same spin doctor has even attempted to convince the A. P. A. to integrate hebephilia with pedophilia in the form of a proposed diagnosis called pedohebephilia.

Luckily, the A. P. A. remained wise against this same self-serving tactic of Dr. Blanchard back in 2013 when they were getting ready to release the Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ("DSM-5"). They simply were not interested in his rhetoric.

Also he has the remedy for the laws:

I do not oppose the doctrine of jury nullification either in such cases. For example, if I had been summoned to serve on the jury that decided the fate of the Matt Koso trial, I probably would have voted Mr. Koso as being not guilty despite what the law had to say about it.

But then he goes on to hating Newgon and pedophiles which I don't agree with:

What is so interesting is that Mr. Lindsay is as easily able to observe as I am that the Newgon Organization attempts to deceive its readers on their website by first presenting situations in which two sweethearts may have so happened to be on opposite sides of what today would be deemed as the legal age line. Then the Newgon Organization slowly attempts to use such situations to justify their actions to condone sex crimes against pre-pubescent children.

Nonetheless, it is a glimmer of sex-positivity from a non-MAP source, which is extremely rare today. If we are going to make a difference we need to join the MAPs though like I have done.

Anonymous said...

Thoughts on this, Eivind?

I wonder how much of this woman's traumatic feelings are due to feeling that "it was wrong"? And then of course, that feeling of guilt can only be alleviated by placing the blame on the man, which just leads to further stigmatization of any older male/younger female relationship... can reason ever break this eternal loop?

Had she lost her virginity the usual way, to some same-aged Chad who broke her heart shortly after, leaving her crying in bed for days, this would just be seen as a normal part of "growing up", and she would probably get over it eventually because there is no stigma attached to it.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, they are obviously just spinning an "abuse" tale out of the age alone. Which is standard procedure to try to ground the legal fiction in reality. It is interesting though that she ALMOST understands that she did in fact consent and it's wrong to reinterpret it as abuse:

Kvinnen fortalte at hun etter hvert begynte å forstå at hun som femtenåring ikke var den som burde ha skyldfølelse.

Hun tenkte derimot at tiden for å bevise dette begynte å renne ut, dess nærmere hun kom grensen for seksuell lavalder.

– Jeg tenkte at jeg måtte si fra før jeg var 16 år. Jeg hadde inntrykk av at om jeg var med ham etter jeg var 16 år, så hadde jeg tatt et valg om at det var greit. Da kunne jeg ikke klage etterpå.

But we have to let that go too and get with the abuse program even though it's plain that there is nothing other than a legal fiction separating what happened before and after the magic line of 16. So she gets to retract her legally responsible judgement as well and reinterpret the whole relationship as abuse.

Teen girls are a lot more sensible than their future versions, as we can see, but the self-serving voodoo of older women reigns supreme now.

Eivind Berge said...

This also, from the same trial, fills me with seething hatred against the system:

Første diskusjon i retten, ble hvorvidt tiltalte kunne være til stede under fornærmedes forklaring.

Kvinnens bistandsadvokat ville at den tiltalte skulle forlate rettslokalet og se det som skjedde på video.

Ønsket ble avslått av tiltalte og hans forsvarer.

Tingrettsdommer Stein Dons Heinfjell, henviste dermed den tiltalte til en stol lengst bak i rettssalen.

Imagine being denied full participation in a trial against yourself! And having to take a back seat if not leave the room entirely.

It puts the hateful systemic power of feminism on full display, and yet men just act like lambs to the slaughter. Even if they buy the abuse narrative they should at least see a problem with dimming the evidence to the accused so he can't even fully take in what he is accused of and what drives the accusations.

Eivind Berge said...

Another thought on that JB Truth article. It's so funny that it could have been written by AF because it is expressing the same MAPophobia:

If adult men who identify as hebephiles are hanging around pedophiles in a digital forum, then they are only shooting themselves in the foot in doing so. It's like if you're a clean-cut, law-abiding Salvadorian-American and an MS-13 gang member knocks at your front door to ask you to join his gang, you don't invite him inside your house for a can of beer. You slam the front door in his face and lock it.

The same course of action applies if you're German-American or Austrian-American and a member of the American Nazi Party comes knocking at your front door and says the same stuff. You want nothing to do with these people, even if you're from the same ethnic background as them.

Likewise, people who identify as hebephiles should avoid coming in contact with pedophiles at all costs. Most pedophiles are always going to be a danger to children. On the other hand, adult men who may be identified as hebephiles are more likely to respect the boundaries that a young girl's parents, guardians, or other elders lay down for them as demonstrated in an online mental-health forum.

It is one thing that mainstream society is starting to panic about the rise of MAPs, but apparently the few remaining sex-positive MRAs are also panicking (Robert Lindsay is too)... because the MAPs are getting monopoly on expressing sex-positive views.

Well, if you really think so, become more visible then. Don't just write anonymous comments and articles like the one by Jail Bait Truth here, whoever he is.

Anyway, as we know from the evidence summed up by James Cantor above, it is factually wrong that "most pedophiles are always going to be a danger to children." So no reason to panic even if real pedophiles get to decide the agenda on sex law reform. Only a tiny minority would want to hurt children and they are overwhelmingly condemned by the pro-contact MAP movement too.

Anonymous said...

Dette må du se Eivind. SVT har laget en dokumentar-artikkel om en nordmann som er dømt for flere voldtekter. Ikke en eneste av kvinnene fremstår som troverdige og/eller beskriver noe som juridisk er voldtekt. Samtlige har frivillig innledet forhold til mannen via Sugardaters men har tilsynelatende blitt skuffet av at mannen var styggere og fattigere enn de hadde trodd.

Anonymous said...

as we know from the evidence summed up by James Cantor above, it is factually wrong that "most pedophiles are always going to be a danger to children"

What is factual, and which he of course doesn't say, is that psychology and psychiatry, in the approx. 150 years of existence of these pseudosciences, have constantly managed to spread a lot of bullshit which was later debunked time and time again.

Eivind Berge said...

I looked at the sugardaddy "rapist" story.

"Sugardaddyn är storbedragaren Markus Halvorson som tidigare hette Frank Sandberg... Han kommer att dömas för att ha våldtagit kvinnor vid 13 tillfällen. Det gör honom till en av Sveriges värsta serievåldtäktsmän... Markus Halvorson döms hösten 2022 till fem års fängelse för bedrägerier, sexköp och 13 fall av våldtäkt mot 9 kvinnor. I två fall av våldtäkt frias han. Sugardaddyn erkänner bedrägerier, men fortsätter att förneka våldtäkterna."

And yeah it's all bullshit or fraud at worst. But Sweden has gone even further than Norway with rape law corruption. Sexuality is simply redefined to rape. Perhaps he could have been convicted already here too and definitely would be for sex purchase by the Swedish model we already imported.

Eivind Berge said...

I made a short video about a funny new low in pedophobia. FetLife, a supposedly kinky site, is so scared of minors' sexuality that they can't even let anybody mention having read an erotic book or scene while underage.

We have to imagine that everyone's erotic lives came into being after 18 and we can't even recall any formative experiences before that (unless presumably it is "abuse").

This is the straitjacket normies have to wear so as to not seem to be pedos or sex offenders.

Eivind Berge said...

Another example of how sex (including incest) is harmless but the taboo is problematic.

I enjoyed my molestion…

I was sexually abused by my father since I was 4 until I was 19 and honestly, the memories of it were mostly positive. Instead of being blatantly forceful, he turned my SA into a game. It didn’t even feel like abuse at all. He knew my sensitive spots and stuff so he made it really enjoyable for me. It would usually be in the bathtub or while we were playing with toys and after I’d get candy or he’d take me shopping. I felt loved. I assumed this was how all daughters bonded with their Dads. At first it wasn’t consensual but I guess it did become consensual once I found out the shit was wrong and became a whole ass adult. I willingly kept having sex with him until 19, cheated on my boyfriends with him alot. I don’t know why cause he wasn’t that attractive. I just genuinely liked the feeling I guess. But now that I’m grown I have ptsd thinking about it. Not because of trauma or pain, but because I realized how gross it is to have sex with your own Dad and actually fucking enjoy it. I vowed to never do the sh’t again dispite his attempts. Thankfully it’s been years since we’ve done it. Still… I really wish I was dead.

I’m definitely fucked mentally. So yeah. Thanks Dad.

Rather thank society for saying you are supposed to be traumatized.

Eivind Berge said...

To be clear, I am not buying the PTSD part whatsoever. That would be giving way too much credit to something that is merely a ritual, like a greeting before they get down to the meat of the conversation. Saying "I have PTSD from molestation" is like saying "Hi, how are you." Just a way to get ready for "and here's what happened..." which they are now free to enjoy in the insanely censored environment of Reddit. Without that intro or framing they couldn't even talk about it in the mainstream. It is the only way to have erotic storytime about anyone younger than 18. The "trauma" when it was consensual is merely a social script which is the mandated way to talk about it

The taboo is still problematic because men and women get imprisoned, of course, but not because it gives PTSD from enjoyable experiences. Let's not be gullible, folks, and that goes for the trial currently underway in Bergen too, which similarly has a girl continuing a relationship for two years after the age of consent and then turning around and redefining the whole thing to abuse with society's approval. It is the mission of my life to fight that hateful and insidious social approval of a senseless witch-hunt against sexuality.

Jack said...

Except the guy above is really some kind of sicko. His story is probably an invented story though.

Note how this relates (again) to gay sex. Note too that the person to be exonerated is a close relative. The abusers are to be sought outside the family. The stranger is creepy, mum & dad not so much.

Anonymous said...

But now that I’m grown I have ptsd thinking about it. Not because of trauma or pain,

PT means "Post Traumatic", so it is not possible by definition to get ptsd if there was no trauma.

Eivind Berge said...

The story is from a woman. Notice the line "I assumed this was how all daughters bonded with their Dads." Also she talks about potential motherhood in other posts.

Eivind Berge said...

CSA panic is like an onion. It's all skin with no core. The casual person believes all this skin must surely have a core of real harm, but as we peel we only find more hysteria. Normies can perhaps follow a couple of layers deep and see it's all hysteria so far but they still believe all the experts must have basically handled it responsibly which is how we arrived at believing in harm. But what if it's all like that all the way down? Every time it is consensual the core always disappears when you try to peel the onion and there is no real harm whatsoever. It's just a matter of peeling the onion and anyone can see it has no core, but normies won't do that because they don't have the attention span to look into it to where they believe the core must be, where the convincing scientific studies must be and so on. They leave that to our high priests the therapists and judges and so on who can simply present hysteria which leaves us with a situation where society is content with there being no core.

Jack said...

Child abuse is now increasingly being used as an excuse to suppress prostitution.,the%20sexual%20exploitation%20of%20children.

MAPs are no threat (yet) to the sexual trade-union but prostitution definitely is. The campaign in Colombia is hugely hypocritical in a country where violent crime - including an epidemics of kidnapping for extortion - is rampant. Note that these campaigns against "child abuse" (= prostitution) take place in a context of barely veiled xenophobia. Countries are closing in on themselves to stew in their own pedohysteric sex-negative juices.

Before he became an utter charlatan, French writer Michel Houellebecq wrote: "after prostitution has been banned the world over, mankind will enter the Grey Ages".

Eivind Berge said...

A quote for today, by TheSavannahApe:

"If you don't start off with the assumption that sex is bad, you can't get there logically."

Eivind Berge said...

And the female sex offender charade of the day:

A Jersey Shore teacher is in hot water for allegedly having steamy sex with a student in a nature preserve, authorities said. Jessica Sawicki, 37, of Point Pleasant, an English teacher at Hamilton High School West in Trenton, is accused of sexually assaulting the student at the Assunpink Wildlife Management Area in Upper Freehold Township on multiple occasions this year, Monmouth County prosecutors said.

The teen was described in the criminal complaint as being “at least 16 but not yet 18.” The married teacher gushed about her profession on her now-deleted “about the teacher” page: “This is my 7th year working at Hamilton West teaching English . . . I truly enjoy getting to know the students here and helping them become the best versions of themselves while they strive for their futures.”

An excellent description of what society has truly criminalized in bold there.

But normies don't care that good things are criminalized. They are just obsequious sheep who lap it up.

At least they describe it as "steamy sex" here rather than just use dysphemisms like "rape" and "abuse" all the way, though they do throw in an obligatory "sexual assault."

"Steamy sex" and "sexual assault" referring to the same thing in the same story is just normalized schizophrenia about the women these days.

Anonymous said...


Sex with teenagers is banned because you live in an adultist dictatorship where teenagers (and children and anything that is not an "adult") are inferior beings, they are not complete people, they are sort of adults in training who have no right to their freedom. Until they are considered "mature enough" people, only then can they become citizens and direct their lives within the limits of the dictatorship.

Feminism is an adultist ideology and therefore advocates subjecting teenagers to adults, only within its anti-men feminist ideology, hence its emphasis on teenage girls and adult men.

Why do adults have the right to govern teenagers? Why do those over 18 have the right to direct the lives of those under 18? Nobody has given me a single logical reason for 10 years.

You live in a totalitarian system of adults, you, by looking at teenage girls, are challenging the caste system, you are an "age traitor" or a "generation traitor." Only they don't even know it, that's why it's a perfect dictatorship.

It is the most perfect tyranny in history, they don't even know that these concepts like "discriminating for being young" exist. In the modern constitutions of supposed democracies it is written that no one is discriminated against based on age, and yet they discriminate against you until you are an "adult."

They do not have civil rights and political rights. They are not full citizens. That's why they are called "minors" or "under age".

If before it was seen ok that an adult was interested in teenagers, it was because it was understood that they could be used to satisfy the passionate desires of adults, as one of their privileges, 99% of men have never given a shit about teenagers as people in themselves.

50 years ago you could desire a 15yo girl because it was seen ok to fuck with thoe of inferior caste.

Now it is "creepy" to desire a 15yo girl because "we have become civilized" and fucking those of inferior castes is wrong.

Just a change in perspective, no one gave them moral agency and real rights. It's morally disgusting.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't see minors being treated as an inferior caste. They have extremely high status, like the Roman Vestal Virgins. Vestal Virgins were hallowed beings, but if they had sex the punishment was death for both them and their partners.

Minors now have a similar status rooted in fake fragility. We have this insane concept of psychological fragility to sexuality which justifies all the "protection."

Female sex offenders piling up every day now:

Erin Ward, 45, was arrested on Saturday morning after police found her in a car with a 17-year-old boy...

The boy then hopped into the driver's seat and fled the scene before he crashed the vehicle about two blocks away, and ran away. Police found him more than an hour later dressed in boxers, socks and a T-shirt.

After the teen was located, he was taken to 'a safe place to receive care and be interviewed.'

Oh yes, our fragile little vestal virgin needs to receive care after the sex scare. It is necessary in order to soothe our religious belief in the innocence of minors. That's the explicit justification; of course there are ulterior motives such as sexual jealousy towards young girls, parental control and a cultural hangup with "equality" which means boys get the same treatment as a byproduct.

We have forgotten that 17-year-old boys (and girls) are obviously anything but fragile.

“Every high civilization decays by forgetting obvious things.” --G.K. Chesterton

Anonymous said...

I think the care was because of the car crash.

Eivind Berge said...

If he needed care due to the car crash then why is he not in a hospital or why did they not at least specify medical care? Looks like he was sent to an antisex brainwashing camp (like a police station) so his "innocence" can be restored.

Jack said...

Minors have extremely high status? Yes but they get pimped by adults (parents, the justice system, social workers ...). Hoes who get pimped have very high status with clients but they have little freedom of their own.

Mexico has been in turmoil for several decades because Mexicans fight over cocaine.

Because of declining birth rates youth ("children") is the new cocaine. Societies fight over youth. They descend into gang warfare over youth. Whoever can pimp a pretty youth is rich. Protection of children = pimping of children (for sex or sex extortion).

Eivind Berge said...

Yet more expansion of "sexual abuse" law, though luckily they are barking up the wrong tree at wankers this time:

The creation of sexually explicit deepfake content is likely to become a criminal offense in England and Wales as concern grows over the use of artificial intelligence to exploit and harass women.

Under a draft law, anyone who creates such an image or video of another adult without their consent — even if they don’t intend to share it — would face a criminal record and an unlimited fine, the UK justice department announced Tuesday. It is already illegal in England and Wales to share explicit deepfakes without the subject’s consent, with perpetrators facing jail time.

Laura Farris, the United Kingdom’s Minister for Victims and Safeguarding, told ITV Tuesday that “to the best of (her) knowledge,” the two countries within the UK would be the first anywhere in the world to outlaw the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes.

Under the draft law, such content would include both pornographic images and nude deepfakes, whether or not the subject is engaging in erotic behavior.

I don't care about deepfakes or other porn, but it's ominous that the government thinks they have the right to criminalize digital stuff that you don't even intend to share. Under the extended mind theory our digital devices are part of our mind, so this is literal thoughtcrime.

Also notice the dystopian title of that minister. "Minister for victims and safeguarding" is straight out of feminist hell and this is the world we are living in.

Anonymous said...

All of this anti-youth sex stuff is the result of male and female feminism. The anomaly of a few deranged old women getting caught having sex with teen boys, that is just a convenient distraction from the fact that 99% of age gap sex crime hoax victims are men.

And this AI stuff? Women hate it, not because people could mistake it as them, but because it cheapens their sexual value if people think they're whores or if people can simply imagine them naked without paying the price of attention and money, which is the main concern of feminism - the maximization of female sexual value and the constraint of male sexuality.


AF said...


100% correct.

Not sure if this has already been posted :

It quotes several women who had sex with David Bowie when they were 15 or 16. Refreshingly, they don't seem to consider themselves 'survivors'.

"back in 2019, the Mail spoke to two other women who were under the age of consent when they slept with Bowie. Lori Mattix, who had a liaison with him aged 15, explained: 'I never thought of David Bowie as a paedophile. He would f**k anything. If he liked it he would f**k it.'

Early girlfriend Dana Gillespie concurred, revealing to the Mail: 'As far as sex went, if it moved, he was there. Man, woman, old or young. Times have changed and it doesn't always look so good in black and white now, but in those days we were just having fun; there were no rules.'

It's odd that nobody, not even the Daily Mail, seems to want to 'cancel' David Bowie as a 'paedophile'. Usually it doesn't matter to them if a man is married or has shown no previous interest in teenagers, just one dalliance with a 17 year old or even caught looking at a naked pic of a 17 year old and you're marked as a paedophile for life.

AF said...

@Eivind - I have made some AI 'porn' pics, but I haven't 'wanked' off to them ever. That pic you've got up in your cabin of the BBW might be classed as 'pornographic' by this law if it had been created by AI rather than a classic painting.

And no, feminists are not 'barking up the wrong tree by targeting wankers'. As Anon69 said, it's about protecting their pussy price. But no matter how many times it is explained to you, seems you will never be able to understand that.

Eivind Berge said...

I know the digital content regulations are not all about wanking, which is why I criticized them as an attack on our extended minds. To the extent that humanity is merging with machines it will be a dystopian future of mind-control by antisex governments and NGOs. We will be living in the Antisex Matrix where all our sexual thoughts are screened and censored before they can happen.

As to David Bowie, I guess he still has a spell on the establishment which prevents cancellation. The "would fuck anything" rationalization is just an irrelevant excuse which shows how flexible pedohysteria is. It can be applied to anyone but also turned off for no reason because it was all nonsense to begin with.

Eivind Berge said...

Another hateful escalation with yet more exceptionalist oppression of pedophiles:

It covers the most serious sexual offence - [statutory] rape of a child under 13.

Speaking to BBC News, Ms Harman said paedophiles who were guilty of that crime in the future would be "automatically deprived" of their parental rights.

Ms Harman, a former deputy leader of the Labour Party, said she proposed the change after hearing the story of Bethan on the Today programme.

She said the story highlighted the "glaring anomaly" that left a convicted paedophile's parental rights intact, and often forced women like Bethan into long and expensive legal battles to protect their children.

She described this as "part of the hangover of the patriarchy".

Convicted pedophiles will lose their parental rights even if their children are not the "victims."

Same bitch Angry Harry was always ranting about. We know how it all turned out now. Harry and the entire Men's Rights Movement died and she is free to do as she pleases.

Before she became a man-hater, however, Harriet Harman was actually in favor of surprisingly liberal sexual legislation. Can read about that at Newgon:

Eivind Berge said...

Between 1978 and 1982 Harman was legal officer for the National Council for Civil Liberties (now Liberty), an organisation that supported reducing the Age of Consent to 14 -- rejecting abolition only because of public opinion.

At the time she made the official submission, she was a senior figure in a civil liberties organisation that wanted the age of consent to be lowered to 14 and incest decriminalised. It also defended self-confessed paedophiles in the press and allowed them to attend its meetings. (...) Miss Harman was a newly qualified solicitor when she became legal officer for the National Council for Civil Liberties, now known as Liberty, in 1978. At the time its general secretary was Patricia Hewitt, who went on to become health secretary under Tony Blair. Among the groups affiliated to NCCL were the Paedophile Information Exchange and Paedophile Action for Liberation, whose members argued openly for the abolition of the age of consent. NCCL complained to the press watchdog about their treatment by tabloid newspapers and said in one article: “We support any organisation that seeks to campaign for anything it wants within the law. They have that right.” In NCCL’s official response to the Government’s plans to reform sex laws, dubbed a “Lolita’s Charter,” it suggested reducing the age of consent and argued that “childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage.” It claimed that children can suffer more from having to retell their experiences in court or the press. Amid growing public concern about adults preying on children, the Protection of Children Bill was put before Parliament in order to tighten the laws on child pornography by banning indecent images of under-16s. NCCL’s official response, signed by Miss Harman and submitted in April 1978, claimed that the new law could lead to “damaging and absurd prosecutions” and “increase censorship.” She suggested that a pornographic photo or film of a child should not be considered indecent unless it could be shown that the subject had suffered, and that prosecutors would have to prove harm rather than defendants having to justify themselves. Her submission states: “Although this harm may be of a somewhat speculative nature, where participation falls short of physical assault, it is none-the-less justifiable to restrain activities by photographer which involve placing children under the age of 14 (or, arguably, 16) in sexual situations."

The above background was further brought to light in 2014, leading to far greater scandal:

The NCCL submitted a document to parliament's Criminal Law Commission in 1976 arguing for the lowering of the age of consent potentially to as young as 10 and for incest to be legalised. This was submitted at a time when Dromey was on the executive and Hewitt was general secretary, and remained the official position when Harman became legal officer two years later in 1978. The document said: "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage." It also said it was "logical" but "not politically possible" that the age of consent be abolished altogether, and said therefore that the age of consent should be lowered to 14 – or 10 "provided it is demonstrated that consent was clearly given by the child."

So she went from perfectly reasonable to the very worst kind of antisex bigot. Even more liberal than what I have argued for as an MRA and male sexualist, but at this point, now also as a MAP activist I've come to realize that it's best to argue for the reasonable position outlined in bold there with total abolition of the age of consent as the ultimate goal at least in theory and with no prevarication on that. It's not like we have anything to lose or any reason to compromise on our ideology as we have no political influence anyhow. We only have to go back to the 1970s to see that the truth was widely available, so why should we be any more cowardly?

Eivind Berge said...

In light of what even the most virulent feminist used to realize was the truth (and probably still does privately), and knowing how the CSA panic arose in the 1980s based on no real evidence which is obvious in retrospect, I feel ashamed for ever having said 13 could be an acceptable age of consent.

Apparently I was somewhat affected by CSA panic myself, but I shall spend the rest of my life repenting for that and be a good MAP activist.

Anonymous said...

about:David Bowie

Well now he's a MAP, welcome to 2024, so stop that "normal straight men" nonsense. You are a MAP and you are going to be one until you die, it is not something you have chosen but you are, unless you become "transstraight" and make the world believe that you are no longer a MAP but a "normal heterosexual man" and you force the rest of humanity to follow your i-want-to-be-a-normie obsession.

MAP is a political label, and it is not voluntary, if you like minors then you are a MAP, it doesn't matter how developed and biologically women they are, and how normal is that atracction, that has nothing to do with being a MAP. A guy who sometimes likes a 17 year old as an 18 year old is a "normal heterosexual man", not you, you are a hebephile with an extreme fixation on pubescent, even peripubescent, girls.

Even the one who admits that sometimes he likes a 17 is a MAP if he reaches that level of awareness. The concept is a bit strange but basically it's when the "normies" are no longer your tribe. It doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense biologically, it makes sense socially. A man who likes 40-year-olds is a mesophile, it doesn't matter if 99% of men like MILFs, it's called chronophilia and yours is 100% hebephilia. And if 99% of straight men like 14-year-old girls, it would still be hebephilia. Defend what you are, and stop camouflaging yourself with shit that you are NOT.

Eivind Berge said...

Even the one who admits that sometimes he likes a 17 is a MAP if he reaches that level of awareness. The concept is a bit strange but basically it's when the "normies" are no longer your tribe. It doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense biologically, it makes sense socially.

Yes, this is precisely what I have arrived at. Forget everything about what is normal from a statistical perspective and consider what kind of awareness it takes to be in the normie in-group. I obviously don't belong there, even though my sexuality is textbook normal as certified by evolutionary psychologists and it is literally a mental illness NOT to like 17-year-olds (can be diagnosed with hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) by the DSM if you don't have the normative attraction to girls over 13 and fail to perform well with a teen girl if you happen to be in a relationship with her), because I don't play their awareness game. A schizophrenic awareness game it is, but it is the game the normies play now.

Thankfully, there is a MAP tribe we can belong to now, with which we can go to war against the normies with our own social support.

AF said...

"MAP is a political label, and it is not voluntary, if you like minors then you are a MAP"

But identifying yourself as a MAP is to say that others are not 'MAPs'.

If MAPs are using the term as a political label, rather than just identifying themselves as a sexual minority, like gay and trans people, then they are doing a freaking bad job of communicating that.

A much better political label is Male Sexualist, because that communicates that attraction to teens is normal behaviour, whilst 'Minor Attracted Person' communicates that it's a minority pathology.

And you're wrong - if 99% of men were attracted to young teens (which they are to greater or lesser degrees) then we wouldn't have the term hebophile, as that is a word to describe a pathology.

'Defend what you are'.

I am defending what I am. I'm a normal man who admits that he finds teens attractive. Yes, I may find teens more attractive than most men, but that's probably just because I have a higher sex drive or an appreciation of female beauty than most men.

You know what really makes me sick, is I spent fifteen years blogging and engaging in other forms of activism, and defending the right of men to find teens attractive, and here I am regularly getting told I'm a coward or ashamed of my sexuality, by subhuman aspergics who are so effing cowardly they can't even choose a regular handle when posting comments on Eivind's blog, and so effing blind, they not only can't see who their oppressors are (feminists and women) but worship them like the dogs they are.

The main reason I don't identify as a MAP, or a hebophile, or a quintohebophile, is because all I can see is you are mentally handicapped dogs.

AF said...

"Thankfully, there is a MAP tribe we can belong to now, with which we can go to war against the normies with our own social support."

Fantastic. That's great Eivind, but just accept that you're a MAP, hebophile, and a paedophile, and stop using the terms Male Sexualist, or Sexualist. Leave that for others who may be able to build a movement that fights for normal male sexuality.

Eivind Berge said...

I use both "MAP" and "sexualist." Sexualism is the umbrella term for all sex-positive activism. For example when opposing feminist rape law reforms "MAP" doesn't always cover it. But the mainstream has no clue what a sexualist is and no interest in learning. MAP, on the other hand, packs political punch. Just using the word is worth more than an entire treatise of sexualist writing (which they will completely ignore), communicating the greater part of the sexualist agenda in three letters and pissing people off in the bargain, as well as building a community we have failed to do with sexualism and lost with MRAs too. It's not "gentle argument" but very forceful and threatening; the fact that we are building a SOCIAL community with tribal feeling is the most threatening part to so many normies, and you completely miss out on that as an anonymous sexualist with mapophobia.

Eivind Berge said...

Remember the MAP movement has not yet peaked. There is no telling how far it can go and not out of the question that it can get on par with LGBT. The MRAs peaked in 2014 and if you tell anybody you are an MRA today they just ignore you, knowing it represents no political threat whatsoever. Even the incels have peaked, and sexualism never got off the ground.

The only remaining political hope for male sexuality is MAPs (unless you count Islam, which is slightly better than feminism but too intolerant in its own ways).

In order to succeed as a political movement it needs to have a certain memetic structure, which resonates with lots of people. It does not work to say "we are normal" and "normal is not what you think." It simply does not work for fundamental memetic reasons having to do with the very nature of tribalism. A tribe defines itself by who it decides to include or exclude, so you can't tell a tribe that you as an outsider or low-status kind of person know how the tribe is actually supposed to be. You have to fight it with another, rivaling tribe -- or from a high position within the tribe which nobody will do for fear or cancellation.

It works so poorly to take the "normal male sexuality" approach that even the government itself can't do it. For example the Norwegian government has had two appointed expert groups in a row conclude that the age of consent should be lowered to 15, yet persecutions still continue and when men are on trial for sex with 15-year-old girls, such as the one in Bergen right now, they don't even reach for this immediate resource to defend themselves. The idea that the tribe can be wrong AND you still belong to the tribe is literally unthinkable to these men. They will not even reach for readily available expert opinion that "normal" can be different than the tribalist sex-hostility says right now, because they want to be the kind of normal that the tribalist sex-hostility (feminism) accepts as normal. They don't have a life outside that, to the point that it's even better for them (they imagine) to get convicted and be in prison as a repentant sex offender than having taken a moral and political stand anywhere in the process which would result in their exclusion from the tribe.

To have a life outside the tribe you have to be a MAP, or else you are just exiled and banished to die of exposure, figuratively and perhaps literally as happened to Ed Piskor. It didn't occur to him either to assert that attraction to 17-year-old girls is normal and even legal in his case, because it is the tribalism that counts. Oh I'm sure he knew all right that other men like the same girls but it's irrelevant because it would do nothing to prevent his banishment, and can't when presented as a memetic structure where we seek to redefine what is considered normal by this tribal beast that we have no say over.

Anonymous said...

I had high hopes for Eivind, but when he started speaking for and protecting gay fathers who did gay things to their 10-year old sons, that respect completely vanished. There is absolutely nothing Eivind can do to bring any respect back. And also, he dont do anything worthwhile anymore. Absolutely nothing except writing comments to a few of his blog posts that almost nobody reads. He refuses to send any of his texts to the media. He even more or less apologized to the police for writing what he did back in 2016. He said he would be more careful in the future. Oh my god has he been careful! Without anything to lose, he's been quiet like a church mouse ever since he got some attention. He havent used the attention that he did get to any good at all. It's like his goal is to be hated by everyone, which he tried to accomplish by advocating for gay fathers raping their below 10-year old sons.
Eivind is of course no "leader" of any movement anymore, like I used to address him earlier. Not at all.

Eivind Berge said...

There's another one who speaks from the mindset I was talking about. The idea that one can reform the normie tribe via anonymous voices like himself and low-status people like me. It doesn't work. We have to change tactics, and yes that includes standing up for sexual minorities that are statistically uncommon too, but provably harmless so why shouldn't we? Once again, the taboo is your identification with the tribe which I have rejected. As long as you are unwilling to break taboos you can never make a difference.

Eivind Berge said...

Also I did not apologize and everything is still here. It's not me being quiet but lack of interest, even when I spoke in a documentary on NRK and there was a film made.

The normies simply have no interest in anything I say. They have no interest in any rational arguments for more sexual freedom.

But the MAP movement is making a splash, maybe not in Norway yet but hopefully there will be more MAPs than just me here too before long. In general everything looks hopeless but if anything can make a positive difference to the sex laws in my lifetime it will be the MAPs.

Anonymous said...

You had an opportunity to talk and to build on the momentum of your notoriety to say, but you totally wasted it by only being quoted as saying you "would be more careful in the future". The program on NRK made you look like you were a part of the incel crowd and none of your actual ideas were portrayed. If you only wrote a piece of text and sent it to a bunch of newspapers in Norway, I know some of them would take the bait. But you dont, because you want to be seen by the few that follow you as a person that is more hated than anyone else. If you were published, that illusion would be broken.
You've now aligned yourself with gay fathers raping their below 10 year old sons, right? Should you not also align yourself with Peter Madsen and others like him that get sexual arousal by restricting movement of, stabbing, choking and dismembering young women?

Eivind Berge said...

You accuse me of being too careful and too shocking at the same time, which makes no sense.

CSA is a cult and you are in it too. The metaphysical badness which makes it "rape" regardless of the facts is the religion of our times and you won't distance yourself from it or admit the possibility that it could be wrong, exactly like most normies. So why should I listen to you?

Sure, it's always good to submit texts for publication in for example newspapers but it is a matter of prioritizing and resources how much effort I want to put into that as opposed to publishing for myself like I have done continuously. It's not about "wanting to be hated," just how I happened to prioritize. Maybe or maybe not I could have gotten more visibility but now we have others saying the same things as I did about rape law for example and the public isn't receptive to it, so why should they be to me? It would be just a slightly better version of this debate here if I had participated:

"Hvorfor skal akkurat voldtekt straffes så hardt?"

It got negligible views; it was on the radio too and nobody cares.

Also this sort of article now saying exactly the same thing as what radicalized me when these law reforms were made 24 years ago:

"Bryr vi oss nok om rettssikkerheten til unge menn?

Straffeutmålingen i voldtektssaker ser ikke ut til å skille mellom grove og mindre alvorlige krenkelser, skriver Kjersti Thorbjørnsrud."

Saying that sort of thing would have been the best I could have hoped for as an MRA/sexualist in the mainstream and it would have made no difference just like these dissenters make no difference to the escalating sex laws with a probable new rape law expansion coming soon. Because men are not stirred by the arguments. They prefer to be lambs to the slaughter. We have zero recruitment to the Men's Rights Movement, with probably nobody who remotely identifies under 30 years old now.

To make a new kind of statement now one has to be a MAP. Feminism has completely won otherwise. We need to change the premises behind the supposed need to criminalize all this sexuality, by attacking the CSA cult with its belief in the metaphysical badness of sex, which only MAPs are up to while you hysterically accept a verdict of life in prison for incest which only solidifies the status quo.

Eivind Berge said...

Quote of the day from a British guy:

In England women hold extreme power over men in that their scorn is empowered by the state: There are hundreds of agencies flush with cash ready to prosecute men that women point finger at: ' he made me feel raped! ' ' At the time i thought i consented, but now i see he coersed me, and i feel raped and abused! '.

This is real. I've known it happen to men with far more social savvy and resouces than me. In England an innocent man is never more than one phonecall away from getting his life ruined by a hysterical/scornfull/brainwashed/idiotic woman. The woman NGOs have deep ties to the police. If a phonecall is made, then within the hour the man will get a knock on hte door from the police and be arrested.

I know men who have been absolutely solid in English society for 40+ years get utterly wrecked by a single phonecall like this. They get arrested, prosecuted, socially castrated on social media, they lose their jobs, friends, often their familes. They have to be bailed from jail. The prosecution has unlimited cash and resources. After 9 months the police+prosecuting agency decide whether to take the case to court and nearly everytime the answer is no because the man is innocent, and they have no evidence except a hysterical idiot woman playing victim and just accusing some random chump. But the man has already been dragged thru 9 months of hell.

MRAism isn't completely dead, but nothing they can do.

Jack said...

The quote from the British guy above is very sad indeed.

Apart from my own language and culture, English life and culture has been what I identified with for most of my life, having partly studied in England, read its classics, adsorbed its radio and TV programs. Now the UK is a country I would even consider dangerous visiting. A country as antithetical to me as Russia now is, albeit on different grounds.

Anonymous said...

One thing I've realized when occasionally talking to females about this stuff, including close friends - they all immediately jump to accusations of homosexuality if you explain this stuff to them. Their rationale is always that you must be a homosexual if you don't accept abuse from women and feminist oppression. Curiously, this is exactly the same thing suffragettes were doing 100 years ago, and probably even before that. It is the standard operating procedure of women - call men gay if they speak up in the face of female power. Women always play the sexual card because instinctively they know their sexual power is the best asset they have.

There was someone recently who wrote an article about how anglosphere men were more masculine than non-anglosphere men because they figured out how to deal with feminism and still reproduce. To that person I would say you are an idiot, what about the collapse of birthrates in the west and the extreme unhappiness of both men and women shown in disproportionately high prescription drug use? This oppression of male sexuality is clearly ruining everyone's quality of life in the anglosphere, just because men passively accept it doesn't mean it isn't an enormous negative influence. It just means that western men are failing.


AF said...

@Jack I'm glad I escaped the UK long ago. I rarely go back, having no reason to since my mother died.

A couple of summers ago I did go back. The only reason I do go back now is to browse the book shops mainly. I was in Foyles, the most famous bookshop in London, when my eyes were diverted by an attractive young woman wearing a tight short skirt. She was definitely over 18, and I did have a millisecond glance checking her out. She noticed, looked horrified, then actually went to the staff member at the till and pointed me out. I didn't hear exactly what she said, but I heard the (male) member of staff say something about that being horrid and was emphasizing with her, whilst looking back at me repeatedly.
Honestly, that was all I did - just glance at her up and down. I wasn't leering at her. And although I'm obviously getting old, I'm not particularly ugly or anything. So I just laughed at the surrealness of it all and walked out of there.

@Eivind - is this MRA called 'British Guy' or are you going to tell us who he is? It's sad to think that if British Guy visited this blog, he would be turned away in an instant by all the articles claiming women are the real victims, not to mention if he got as far to the comments and read you defending the right of fathers to bang their 10 year old sons up the arse.

Eivind Berge said...

Although I know this to be hysterical nonsense, it is interesting how the CSA cultists now believe age of consent is actually under threat and might realistically be abolished soon.

So, think about this — if a child can now legally consent to body mutilation, why not homosexual sex with whomever he pleases, including adults?

After all, if consent can be given by minors for dangerous, life-changing hormones (permissible now in Oregon, e.g.), there's no reason (using radical, liberal logic) a middle-schooler can't have “safe” anal “sex.” Sex education programs promoted by Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, and GLSEN maintain that anal intercourse is a normal, manageable sexual activity.

Remember hearing the slogan “No one can choose who they love!”? What happens when 13- year-old Jason “likes” his 21-year-old male student-teacher — who just happens to “like” him back?

But don't you know that under H.R. 5, boys who are 11 will have the “right” to say, “I can interact with adults however I want because I identify as a female performer”? All it will take to morph this into a “right” for a minor child to have sex with an adult is a carefully chosen court case, and a challenge to age of consent will be launched.

The chosen “partner” may be a teacher. Will the NEA mount a defense of its union member's right to date a child? Probably.

Several key components might be that no assault is involved, no pregnancy is possible, and sodomy is no longer illegal, so how can it be corrupting? Obscenity laws are so weakly applied in many states that these won't aid in a defense. Many academics now write papers insisting that adult -child sex does no harm to children when children give “consent.”

Law has traditionally held that minors are unable to give such consent. But that's another barrier being smashed daily in many schools, with well intentioned but age-inappropriate new state laws mandating “consent” lessons in the era of #MeToo. Administrators already routinely go behind parents' backs to “support” gender-confused students in their emotional disturbance.

Any school teaching “comprehensive sexuality education” (CSE) also teaches middle-schoolers about consent, usually dwelling on saying “no.” But these kids simultaneously learn they have a right to say “yes,” even though this contradicts existing age of consent laws, which hold that minors cannot give consent to sex.

So back to the potential court case. Whether the parents are on board may not matter, which brings up the other huge boundary H.R. 5 would smash: parental rights. You as a parent will have no right to influence your child's new sexual identity, in view of this bill (if it becomes law) that treats “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” as immutable.

Age of consent for homosexual behavior is poised to fall. All the chess pieces are in place, and all “LGBT” activists need is for H.R. 5 to pass and then the weak-willed Senate to go along — for “compassion”— and certainly we can expect Mitt Romney, Rob Portman, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski to do their part to aid depravity.

It's delusional, but that's how they think, which makes identifying as a MAP genuinely threatening to them. And if enough antis think like this it might become a self-fulfilling prophecy, because why would they enforce laws they believe to be powerless? Also we obviously need to remove the heterosexual age of consent as well because equality, so the whole chain of liberation is covered here.

Luan said...

"@Eivind - is this MRA called 'British Guy' or are you going to tell us who he is? It's sad to think that if British Guy visited this blog, he would be turned away in an instant by all the articles claiming women are the real victims, not to mention if he got as far to the comments and read you defending the right of fathers to bang their 10 year old sons up the arse."

I don't believe that Eivind is in favor of genuinely non-consensual sex between adults and children. A straight 10-year-old boy would never consent to sex with an adult male, unless he is abnormally insensitive to disgust, but may well be interested in sexual contact with girls or with women.

The truth is that the vast majority of gay and bisexual MAPs are not interested in straight boys because they know that those boys would not respond positively to them. They're looking for boys who are homosexual like them and who would enjoy their attention. It's a myth that homosexuals are turning boys gay by having sex with them, like many people still believe. This is based on the flawed idea that any child who shows sexual desire has been corrupted by adults. Rather, boys who have consensual sex with adult men are usually homosexual themselves, just like boys who have sexual contact with women are usually straight.

The vast majority of pedophiles do not engage in penetrative sex with young children. In his book, Tom O' Carroll quotes statistics to the effect that 90% of convicted pedophiles never had penetrative sex with a child because they know that children wouldn't like that. They are far from being the psychopathic monsters that they are made out to be in the media.

Needless to say, if a man forces his son, or any other child for that matter, to have sex with him, or uses blackmail or threats to get him to say "yes", he should be considered a criminal. Such individuals are not representative of 99% of MAPs, though.

AF said...

It's delusional, but not as delusional as believing that 'identifying as a MAP is genuinely threatening to them'.

MAPs are just a joke to everybody.

This is like your 'let's all voluntarily become sex offenders' idea.

You need millions of 'MAPs' or 'voluntarily sex offenders' for any hope of that to even start to have any impact whatsoever. Not a handful of autists who are deluded into thinking they are special and different from other men, and that feminists will eventually treat them like gay or trans minorities.

Again, there is nothing I have seen that for MAPs, identifying as a MAP is a 'political statement'. The Anonymous poster who claimed that it is, is the same guy who repeatedly claims that men aren't interested in teen girls and prefer 30 year old women (although, admittedly, it's hard to know if they are the same person, as the one thing Eivind's followers have in common is a refusal to choose a regular handle when posting).

Even if MAPs did consider their identity a politically chosen action, it still is a brainless form of activism given that it draws no distinction between real paedophiles and the normal attraction to teenage girls (and as far as I can see, most MAPs are real paedophiles).

The delusion we are supposed to be fighting is the delusion that attraction to teenage girls is perverted and paedophilia.

And meanwhile, in the real world, a woman in the UK can beat a random man so severely he is left with a 1 and 1/2" scar - a real tangible scar - and receive a suspended sentence, while a man just generating a naked AI woman will go to prison.

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks, Luan, I agree with everything in your comment.

@AF: Where do you think the delusion that attraction to teenage girls is perverted is most effectively rebutted, in terms of people actually paying attention? I could be wrong, but I think Newgon, which gets over 50 thousand hits per day. I think nothing comes close in terms of activist impact (correct me if I'm wrong). That's all thanks to the MAP movement. We know makes people think and serves as a recruitment center for people to get into pro-contact activism. That's how all the memes I linked to earlier got made, just to mention as small part of their energy.

Can you point to a comparable resource without the pedophilia? If not, do you see how important the MAP movement is now?

Anonymous said...

I just saw some anti-feminist anti-woke men on Twitter say that a woman's prime is her 20s, what AF says is to go and tell them "oh no, you're wrong, my friend AF says that a woman's prime is basically a 14-year-old kid and it's not paedophilia, he told me that, and he's a normal straight man like you not a pedo, believe me."

It's so ridiculous that I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

"The delusion we are supposed to be fighting is the delusion that attraction to teenage girls is perverted and paedophilia."
99% of men think that.
TheAF: women are to blame for everything!!! men are poor innocents!!!

Irrefutable arguments:
Men look at the ass of 15-year-old girls. (who look 20 and not 15)
100 years ago I jerked off to topless photos of 17-year-old sluts (who looked 21 and were dead at 30 because they were involved in a disgusting sex industry that AF support).
If I tell Dimitri (the man who is 1'90 with "pedokilla" tattooed) that I am a normal straight man like him, I'm sure he won't hurt me.

Hundreds of millions of men openly say that they would not fuck a teenager and that they do not like them or they like them very little and most say that prefer a 25 year old who is no longer a spoiled brat.


2 guys in a forum admit that they like some 15-year-old who looks like a 22-year-old
theAF: you see? I was right!!!!

You are like the pedophiles on pedophile sites, who say that everyone is actually a pedophile and that everyone denies it or lies to hide it.

YOU ARE A FUCKING MEME. AN AUTIST complaining about autistic people.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't think it's worth debating whether most men like teens, because it's obvious that they do. What is at stake is custom and awareness. The majority of men are clearly capable of living with a custom which says you only go for women 18 and over. It doesn't mean they don't like younger; just a cultural convention, which they will then pay varying degrees of lip service to, and even help imprison other men for breaking the convention.

If you have a problem with the convention, you are a MAP. Being a MAP is all about awareness and politics to me. We have a movement seeking rights for this sexual "minority" (and again it is the awareness that counts, not whether they are actually different), so the logical thing to do is join their movement if we care about that kind of sexual freedom. Trying to change the normie convention of what they consider normal has failed spectacularly, so we know the MRA/sexualist approach is a dead end at this point and MAP is the only game in town.

Eivind Berge said...

A female sex offender charade with a twist:

Babros said officers also arrested 46-year-old Holly Holgate, who police say told Battillo about the criminal investigation, thus allowing him to leave the school before officers could contact him. She too was booked into jail on charges of hindering prosecution and failing to report child abuse or neglect.

See the widening witch-hunt there. Scorched earth against anyone who has ever been in contact with anyone who has ever been in contact with a minor etc, or just spreading a rumor about an investigation. The antisex beast demands that everyone sell their souls to it or they will come for you, no matter how microscopic your noncompliance and how many degrees removed from any actual sex.

Which there wasn't in this case at all since it was only about pictures:

Officials say police arrested 37-year-old Patrick Battillo, a boys basketball coach at Peoria High School who also went by the moniker "Mr. ORNG" at Suns games, after he asked juvenile students to send him images and videos of them performing various sex acts in exchange for money.

Kristopher Babros, a department spokesperson, said police were told about an investigation into Battillo on Tuesday morning after school administrators contacted the school resource officer. Babros said officers arrested Battillo without incident in Goodyear and booked him into jail on suspicion of several felony charges including luring a minor for sexual exploitation and child sex trafficking.

Court documents state that Battillo approached a 16-year-old boy and asked him to send pictures and video of him performing sex acts on himself and his girlfriend, who was also a minor. Documents say Battillo told the boy that he sold similar child pornography to an unknown woman, though the boy later suspected the woman didn't exist and was actually Battillo.

A charade of a charade of a mirage of senseless persecution of victimless crimes, and normies are all fine with this. Only the MAPs care.

AF said...

Eivind seems incapable of learning from his failures, re-evaluating himself, developing self-awareness, adjusting his strategy or methods.

I mean, after 15 years blogging and three times massive media exposure, he has 3 or 4 'followers'. All three of these are 'MAPs', which he seems happy about.

One is the guy above who comes across as legit retarded.

Another is a Norwegian anti-misogynist who accuses me of 'hating teen girls' for blaming women and feminism for paedohysteria and sex hysteria, yet at the same time regards Breivik, who butchered dozens of teen girls in cold blood, as his hero.

Another is the guy (also Norwegian) who occasionally 'defends' Eivind and accuses me of being an incel, wanker, shames me as an ephebophile for declaring my attraction to a 15 year old Russian iceskater who was melting the hearts of millions of men around the world... This same person used to post sick comments every day at my old blog as 'The Frenchman' projecting his depraved fantasies onto me, causing me to stop blogging.

The thing they appear to have in common is that they are all insane and also that they refuse to post with a regular handle. This is ironic when Eivind constantly boasts about being public (and then complains that to his great surprise, he's discovered he can't get laid on Tinder because of it, or get a job).

Compare them to the rational and constructive comments from the non-MAPs, such as Jack, Anon69, Antonio etc.

@Eivind - MAPs aren't even trying to change 'normies'. They're just trying to get society to be sympathetic to them. The MAPs are just giving the 'normies' encouragement to remain paedocrites. We need to be calling out 'normies' for being paedocrites. You're forcing your own conception of MAPs onto them it seems to me. Can you point me to a single 'MAP' blog or social media post in which the MAP expresses a view similar to yours?

Anyway, I am happy you have found a community of like-minded souls Eivind. I still get the feeling though that in a couple of years you'll be saying 'the MAPs have failed' and be moving on to something else.

Eivind Berge said...

I can point you to Newgon but I can't make you read it. I am proud of what they have done. It will be far more influential than any of us can do without the MAPs, or even what the best MRAs like Angry Harry have left behind.

You have no clue what the MAP movement is really like because your impression is contaminated by anti-c's (who are indeed only trying to get society to be sympathetic to them without changing any laws). I don't consider them part of the MAP movement at all and Newgon is purely pro-contact.

Anti-Common straight men (AKA the normie scum) said...

I was following a streamer guy for the last few months, he seemed like someone a common sense anti-political correctness guy, now I find an old message of him saying those on Epstein's island are "degenerates" who are coming to light.

Straight man, anti-political correctness, doesn't give a shit what feminists on Twitter think.

He is not a paedocrite.

He thinks we are degenerate trash to be exterminated.

I am very saddened. This person has accompanied me during the last few months.

When you will understand that love for minors (incluces TEENAGE GIRLS) is considered an absolute aberration by the ENTIRE human race except us.

What Epstein did is "raping children", nothing you do is going to change that. Youre now a fucking pedo.

Nobody differentiates between teenage girls and children. This is 2024, not the 50s. The past is not coming back.

Heterosexual men aka "adultwomenfuckers" hate the love of teenage girls.
This is my last stance: every "normal heterosexual man" will be automatically ignored and placed on the list of murderous Nazis, there is nothing more to debate with these maphobic scum.

PS: I leave a list of clues to know if someone is a fucking disgusting straight man who hates love for teenagers:

-Refers to people of 17 or even 18 as "kids"
- calls 14-year-old girls "little girls"
-He is seen with women his generation and never with someone young
- his discourse refers to teens as a generation of immature people that has nothing to do with him

Being a feminist or not is irrelevant in benig a maphobic

Just I don't know how I didn't realize that idiot was an anti before.

Eivind Berge said...

Maybe it helps (for our own wellbeing and sanity) to ignore the content of the distinction and realize that they are simply looking for scapegoats and enemies. They are defining an outgroup and the criteria can be literally anything. The sexual criteria used now are completely meaningless except to label an enemy. I am in the outgroup with Epstein but I realize it is nothing more than an arbitrary distinction and it only matters when you are the victim of police violence. The normies may not distinguish 17-year-olds from children but they still haven't made the age of consent universally 18; for example here it is 16, so fine, we can legally have sex with children then.

If they didn't use this they would use racism, classism or some other meaningless criterion. Either way we don't escape hate. Homo homini lupus.

As Freud said:

Men are not gentle creatures, who want to be loved, who at the most can defend themselves if they are attacked; they are, on the contrary, creatures among whose instinctual endowments is to be reckoned a powerful share of aggressiveness. As a result, their neighbor is for them not only a potential helper or sexual object, but also someone who tempts them to satisfy their aggressiveness on him, to exploit his capacity for work without compensation, to use him sexually without his consent, to seize his possessions, to humiliate him, to cause him pain, to torture and to kill him. Homo homini lupus. Who in the face of all his experience of life and of history, will have the courage to dispute this assertion?

Certainly can't dispute it. And it doesn't get better no matter how "advanced" civilization becomes. Witch-hunts merely take different forms based on new superstitions.

Kaser said...

Their entire culture is based on the fact that the world of adults is for adults, an adult has to relate intimately only with adults, a non-adult is restricted to one's own child, a child of the community or adults in training.

I am sure that 95% of those who attack Esptein and friends have not even seen more than 5 minutes of the news, "island, sex and children" is all they need to make a definitive judgment on a group of people. That half of the alleged pedophiles have not even been to the island makes no difference to them.

A few years ago Michael Jackson was the worst pedophile in history, now he is a "hero" who seems to have refused to go to the island, and they theorize that he was supposedly killed because he knew of an alleged pedo conspiracy. From an evil child molester to a martyr for the cause of children. Amazing.

And the best thing is that many of them are legitimately idiots, the typical people who consume Tiktok about idiots dancing for 10 seconds, but a group that really believes themselves to be intelligent and out of the norm, however, they are more papist than the Pope when it comes to the taboo of adults and love and sexuality.

Normally I would argue that this is the fault of feminists (and in fact it is to a large extent, but it's like saying that the Nazis were the cause of anti-Semitism, it's simplistic) and that our attraction is simply being a normal healthy heterosexual man... but our culture is not with theirs, we have as much to do with them as with the Taliban, this is not our world.

We see teeangers (even children in some form) as complete people, not as incomplete beings, their stage is not a transition, it is being themselves, just as being an "adult" is not a transition to being old and dying. That's what they hate us, conscious in some and unconscious in others, that's what they want us to suffer for: every insult, every threat, every oppressive law, their only objective is to continue their perfect adultist world for a thousand years.

Those who believe they are Winston Smith in 2024 are as much a part of the Party as the rest, that is the perfect dictatorship. The revolution will not come from the proles, it will come from the "pedos." It's not going to come from the "common straight man."

Kaser said...

"The normies may not distinguish 17-year-olds from children but they still haven't made the age of consent universally 18; for example here it is 16, so fine, we can legally have sex with children then."

The number is clearly irrelevant to a greater extent, it is because it has to set arbitrary limits for its state bureaucracy to function. If you look when someone talks about a 50-year-old man with a 20 or 22-year-old person, those who are against say that it is wrong because he/she is still a "child", and those who defend that say is fine because they are both adults.

Ironically, the biggest enemies of this "consenting adults" garbage are feminists because they also seek to censor a large number of things that happen between adult men and women, only with us no libertarians or anti-PC people (who are as adultist as any other) will say that what we want to do is fine. We have no counterweight to feminism.

AF said...

The MAP poster who claimed that the right-wing un-PC guy he formerly admired 'was not a paedocrite' is mistaken.

Admitting that you are attracted to teenage girls is beyond 'un-PC' at this point. He might not give a shit what feminists think, but every sane man worries about being labelled a paedophile. The only people who aren't, simply aren't able to see the consequences. Amos Yee is genuinely suprised he gets beaten up in a shopping center, or that the feds were watching him when he was sexting a minor. Evind is genuinely surprised he can never get a girlfriend or a job again.

Then you have his need to not alienate his predominantly (I assume) right-wing followers.

Eivind and Jack will remember Matt Forney, who formerly used the pseudonym 'Ferdinand Bardemu' and ran the key early manosphere site 'InMalaFide'. Every week he would post a round-up of the best articles from the manosphere, and he would usually have one of my pieces at the top (sending me thousands of visitors). He was fully supportive of my efforts to make pedohysteria and the age of consent a men's rights issue. Then, when he came out as Matt Forney and tried to position himself as one of the leaders of 'alt-Conservatism', he promptly ignored me and never to my knowledge mentioned the age of consent or anything to do with it again. He continued to write trolling shock essays on 'how to kill your girlfriend' and such crap, but never anything related to the age of consent. He wasn't worried about upsetting feminists.

Good luck with pedos starting a revolution. I admit that I don't visit pedo blogs, but the only anger I ever see from them is when they get their identity questioned. MAPs are just the paedophile movement rebranding themselves. The same pedo activists like Tom O'Carroll who have been around since the 1960's, trying with their pedo rationalism to convince society that children have the right to be fucked by older men. They couldn't succeed even in the sexually free 1960's, so what chance do they have now? In fact, they made things worse. In the 1960's, men could freely fuck 14 year old girls (even if technically illegal in places like the UK). Yet the pedos demanded the right of men to fuck 9 years olds in the ass. Just fuelled the backlash.

AF said...

Feminists and femiservatives at the United Nations wanted strongly to make a global age of consent of 18 when the 1980's 'Convention on the rights of the Child' was being drawn up. It had American backing of course, but I remember reading there was a lot of opposition from South American countries, and some European ones as well - so it was dropped.

I think governments prefer the drip drip legislative approach. They can introduce a new 'crackdown on paedophiles' whenever they need votes. In any case, in nearly the whole world now the 'child' prositution laws (also a result of that UN Convention), reinforced with anti-grooming measures', mean it's extremely dicey to have a sexual relationship with an U18 even in countrys with a low age of consent. Paedohysteria and social shaming means it's a brave middle-aged man who dates a 20 year old (if he is lucky enough to be able to attract them).

@Eivind - The poster who criticized you for becoming less relevant has a point I think. Back in the day when you were writing articles like 'rape is sexual equality', or 'criticizing' the police, even if over the top, at least made you interesting and somebody to admire. Now all you do is try to show you are a philosopher by throwing the word 'metaphysical' about every other sentence and calling most of your readers wankers on the basis of 'metaphysical' arguments. The best thing you still do is allow comments, but no doubt the comments section will be taken over by MAPs.

Anonymous said...


Maybe they think that having sex or wanting something sexual with a minor (which includes teenage girls) is morally repugnant. That is to say, they can admit that occasionally you see a adult like teenage girl as sexually attractive (the older they are, the more acceptable) but that this does not justify anything and that it is wrong to try anything with them.

Obviously they are not going to say it publicly that the typical 16 is attractive to them, it already costs them blood, toil, tears and sweat to admit even with an 18... now the "based" thing is that you like them at 20, but anything less is a "no-no" (it seems), but maybe they genuinely think that it is morally repugnant to do something sexual with a minor.

This I am referring to people like that streamer who says the anon. Many times they seem to admit that it is normal for a man to like a adult-like teenager but that they made the mistake of "not checking their age", as if it does not matter if they are sexually developed or not, what matters is that they are minors according to the law and society.

In short, what I'm saying is that people admitting that men like teenagers does not mean that they advocate anything with them, including "sexualizing" them. They are as if they are off limits because we are a civilized society, not uncivilized savages.

Eivind Berge said...

During slavery in America, "drapetomania" was a "disorder" afflicting slaves who ran away from their masters. This was one way society normalized slavery. "Pedophilia" serves much the same function today. I do not participate in this normalization of oppression. I am with Amos Yee who says it is an honor to break unjust laws. And I most assuredly am not ashamed to be labeled a pedophile, nor do I think it is sane to worry about being labelled a pedophile. It is a great honor in the same way it would be an honor to participate in a slave rebellion. I am proud to be classed with Amos Yee and Tom O'Carroll publicly; though I am not a pedophile in the latter's sense of the word, that is beside the point when the word is also used for men like Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew whose sexuality corresponds 100% with my own!

AF said...

No, the equivalent of accepting you are a paedophile is a slave accepting that they are a slave.

"There's no point in pushing back against it, a word means what the masters say it means, if they say I'm a slave, I am a slave" (Jack Berge, 19th century black American slave and self-proclaimed leader of the OBS movement ('Obedient Black Slaves'), which had 2 other members, and which fought to improve the conditions a little of black slaves by exposing the 'white slavery' of young white female prostitutes who were the primary victims of the slave trade.

I mean seriously, you compare a made up quack disorder designed to force black American slaves to accept their slave status, with somebody like myself or Jack, or anon69, who refuse to accept the feminist made up label of 'paedophile' designed to accept their status as perverts and deviants?

You lost the plot years ago Eivind. I'm the last person on Earth to be ashamed of being attracted to teenage girls, of any age. But to my death, I will never accept the feminist label of paedophile, which still means at its heart, the perverted attraction to toddlers.

Eivind Berge said...

You're doing semantics wrong. Words do mean what they are used to mean. All men are pedophiles now (except most hide it) because that's the way the word is used.

The question is do you want to go along with that oppression by hiding? Sadly you do.

Jack said...

Eivind, you can afford to identify as a pedophile (or as anything else) because you live in a free-speech vigilantism-free country like Norway, which is your own country to boot.

I could get deported asap if I bragged about being a pedophile. But that would not the sole reason for my not identifying as such.

Another reason would be that I am not a Minor (only) attracted person. Rather, I should define myself as a MILF non-attracted person. I cannot get it up with a woman on whose body the onset of old is beginning to show. In South East Asia where I live that means a woman over 35 years. In other countries where some women are fitness freaks and get the right plastic surgery at the right age, that may mean 40 or even 45 but that is rare and doesn't alter the point.

To me there's no quantum leap between a hot 16-year old and a hot 22 years-old like there is for real MAPs.

Plus, youth per se holds no attraction to me if beauty is lacking. A plain 16-year old is as undoable to me sexually as a 50-year old hag. For some genuine MAPs this may be different.

Neither do I wish to put myself in the same boat as people whose sexuality is directed to prepubescent children. Such people have a psychological problem that is not my mine.

Eivind Berge said...

It’s fine to resist changes to language insofar as you are in a position to do so. But once a change has entered common usage, it becomes a burden and impedes communication to act as if nothing has changed. Crucially, it removes your ability to be a role model here. Boys growing up today will be called pedophiles if they keep liking younger teen girls past their 18th birthday (if not before). So, who is going to tell them it’s cool to be a pedophile? That it’s perfectly normal for men of all ages to like young teens; i.e., there is nothing wrong with being a pedophile as they honestly understand the word? Only the MAPs? Very well, but then I am a MAP too, which is another scary word to you. The kids are left with no role model from your kind of movement, except some convoluted disclaimer that attraction to teens is fine but it isn’t pedophilia -- which they will never read or understand. They will take your hysterical fear of being labeled a pedophile to mean that there is something wrong with their attraction too, which means you serve the oppression imposed by that label, an oppression which is only possible if we play along with the idea that the word refers to something bad.

For example if you are on a committee deciding the next version the DSM, you should definitely resist expansion of “pedophilia.” But that only refers to a diagnosable mental disorder, not what people commonly mean when they use the word. Again, it impedes your communication to act as if the DSM definition, which still ends at puberty, is the “real” definition. Language does not work like that. We call people autistic or crazy or psychopathic and so on all the time without bothering to check that it matches official diagnoses, and that’s just how language works, so why should pedophilia be exempt? It’s just another loose term in common usage and the sane thing to do is to accept that and act accordingly. Which means it’s cool to be a pedophile unless you hate yourself. There is no black magic in the label; that’s all a superstition and trance that you have fallen into because your mind is too weak to assert yourself against the witch-hunt. Yes, in that sense the word is exceptional, but only because it currently facilitates a witch-hunt. We need to break that spell and I am proud to be a role model in that respect.

Eivind Berge said...

Jack, I think you are on to something here...

"MILF non-attracted person"

I mean that's probably what a lot of MAPs mean. Say, when they say their age of attraction is 13-30 and they are a MAP then they are really only MILF non-attracted. Don't get too hung up on exclusive attraction to minors because many or most self-identified MAPs are not like that. Probably most "hebephiles" and definitely all "ephebophiles" are more accurately described as MILF non-attracted. But we don't want to base a movement on putting MILFs down.

Also you pretty much exactly describe reliably fertile age (except the point of disagreement below). If they push their attraction to 45 with plastic surgery then they are cheating in that respect.

"A plain 16-year old is as undoable to me sexually as a 50-year old hag."

I strongly disagree with this. I don't think 16-year-old girls can be plain. They are all extremely beautiful, the "plainest" of them perhaps an 8/10 and most 9s or 10s. So I guess that makes me a genuine MAP, but anyway it's primarily a political label so these details are unimportant. Fun to discuss, but not decisive as to whether you should identify as a MAP.

Jack said...

"I don't think 16-year-old girls can be plain. They are all extremely beautiful, the "plainest" of them perhaps an 8/10 and most 9s or 10s"

Ah-ah, this is interesting. This is a divide between us.

I consider myself only at most 15% bisexual, in the sense that I don't flip out if I men are close by in a swinging club. But given the choice between sex with a beautiful 16-year old (androgenous?) male and sex with a plain 16-year old female, I'd pick the former.

For instance waist-to-hip ratio is a requisite for me. Some females have disastrous waist-to-hip ratios, indeed worse waist-to-hip ratio than your average Cameroon soccer team. To me that's a no-no, it's nearly a monstrosity.

I feel sorry for a plain young girl. My sexual brain rationalizes the futility or procreating with her (of throwing in my genetic lot with her). Maybe I foresee the plain twenty something she's going to grow into and that turns me off.

Anonymous said...

Just when you're starting to think the hysteria can't get any more ridiculous...

Eivind Berge said...

I see, they are panicking because the MAP/AAM tribe is gaining strength. Hilarious and awesome!

"Etternamnet Aam blir oppfatta som ei forkorting for eit uttrykk som er forbunde med seksualisering av barn på Facebook og Instagram.... Uttrykket betyr «mindreårige som blir tiltrekt av vaksne».... – Det blir forbunde med tabu. Eg har ikkje turt snakka så høgt om det. Det fortel 25 år gamle Sivert Rabben Aam frå Volda. – Faren min har alltid sagt eg ikkje skal gjere skam på slekta mi. Og det å få eit slikt stempel kvar gong namnet på slekta blir søkt opp, det er jo ei slags skam på slekta det."

Scorched earth on sexuality is now coming for your surnames, lol!

Mr. Aam needs to quit feeling shameful and embrace our movement. Of course that won't stop harassment by Facebook and Instagram but people should ditch these platforms so they can live their lives. At some point it will hopefully be clear that antisex bigotry is just too annoying if nothing else.

AF said...

Eivind thinks 'words mean whatever they are used to mean'.

Strangely, he's spent his whole life trying to convince society that they are using the words 'sex offender', 'child rapist', 'paedophile' wrongly when describing a woman caught having sex with underage teens. He claims 'women can't rape men', yet probably 99.9999999999% of the world would say that a woman forcing a man at gunpoint to have sex with her is a rapist'.

Similarly, his views about watching porn, or using sex toys, having nothing to do with sexuality. A 'gay' man is not actually a homosexual unless he has had sex with another man. He can be a gay incel who faps to gay porn every day and lusts after every man he sees, but he is asexual according to Eivind until he actually has gay sex.

Nothing about Eivind is consistent.

Eivind thinks he can 'reclaim' the word paedophile as something positive. Eivind should call the next black person he sees in the street a 'nigger' and see what happens. After all, a 'nigger' just means a black person doesn't it? Or how about calling a trans person a 'tranny'? Black people may call each other 'nigger' as a way of defusing the impact of the word upon them, but they don't simply accept they are 'niggers' because white people call them that.

What was supposed to be a movement that tried to resist the greatest lie in history - that men who find teens attractive are paedophile perverts - has been turned by Eivind into a movement whose only chance of success is if society comes round to the view that men fucking 3 year old toddlers is fine, or men raping their 10 year old sons is at worst a minor transgression.

What does the word paedophile mean? Whatever it says in the dictionary, the correct definition of 'paedophile' according to how it is widely used in 2024, is - 'a slander used against men convicted or associated with sex with teens, in order to shame all men into accepting their normal sexuality as devient and wrong'.

AF said...

@Jack - I get 'accused' by Evind's ephebobophile followers of ephebophile for having posted pictures of beautiful Russian ice skaters on my blog.

I would say that if 'ephebophile' has any meaning, then it refers to somebody who has an emotional rather than simply sexual fixation on young teenage girls. I must confess, when I was in my twenties and even thirties, I still felt inside I was a teenager. Probably because I had a hard time in my teenage years, and missed out on a lot of things. I was attracted to teen girls as much by their teen personalities as their looks. Now, I still find pretty teen girls hot as hell, but I realize that they can be immature, moody, air headed and so on. Of course, still able to consent to sex, which is a trivial think today with abortion, contraception, a welfare state, little or no slut shaming etc.

Somebody like Eivind, who is attracted to EVERY teenage girl, even plain and ugly ones, is probably an ephebophile in this sense. When I was in my twenties, I probably would have loved the company of even fat and plain teen girls.

Of course, another explanation would be that his extreme NoFap has left him as the thirstiest man in the universe who would bang anything in a skirt that moves.

AF said...

@Jack MILF-non-attracted person is a good one. But remember that the average age of a 'MILF' in porn is 25 (and often are featured in scenes with their 18 year old 'daughters'.)

Despite what Eivind's MAP follower claims, I doubt very much the majority of men are into MILFs at all. In fact, similar to what you said about your brain picturing how a plain 16 yo would loook at 25, I bet most men fantasizing about an MILF are really picturing how she looked at 16, or how her daughter looks or will look at 16.

I put forward the idea of Men Love Teens Only (MLTO) as an alternative to the MAP or ephebophile identification, inspired a little by the MGTOW movement. Similar to what Eivind says the MAP identification brings - an acceptance that you love teens and a political statement to boot. But unlike the MAP identification, it does not meekly accept the feminist and social classification of yourself as a sexual deviant, but rather states proudly that you are not willing to be raped by feminists into a normie sexual relationship with non-teens.

Anonymous said...

LOL, The Antifeminist aka AF aka theAF hates girls and thinks girls can rape men and are doing so in great numbers. AF hates women and girls. He's never had sex with a woman but might have had sex with men, so this might explain his hatred.

Eivind who seems no have a need to be hated by everyone, has recently made excuses for geigh fathers who are caught penetrating their own less than 10 year old sons in the azz.

None of these two clowns are worthy leaders of a sexualist or mens movement.

Sexualists love girls that have the beauty of girls. We also love beautiful women. We dont believe that any women or girl can rape a man or boy no matter what the circumstance is. And we do understand that having sex with your own child puts the child in an extremely difficult situation where not going along with what happens is not actually a choice. Even giving in to your fa**ot father. If having anal sex with small boys is not an evolutionary trap, then nothing is.

Bare steng denne bloggen!

Eivind Berge said...

Once again the AF demonstrates his linguistic cluelessness:

"Eivind thinks he can 'reclaim' the word paedophile as something positive. Eivind should call the next black person he sees in the street a 'n-' and see what happens. After all, a 'n-' just means a black person doesn't it? Black people may call each other 'n-' as a way of defusing the impact of the word upon them, but they don't simply accept they are 'n-' because white people call them that."

Nope, the N-word was reclaimed by black people for real. They can and do use it as just another word, not just to diffuse racism. There is no linguistic reason white people can't use it as a non-derogatory word as well (not in your example, obviously, but in some contexts it ought to be acceptable). The only reason we can't do that is racism against us now. (Which I think is wrong, but that's not a battle I care to fight.) Words don't have magical powers that can make them permanently bad. They mean what they are used to mean, and if the N-word is used affectionately then it is affectionate.

If "pedophile" is used for men who like teens then they are pedophiles and that's the world we are living in now. Yes, it is something positive and I am proud to wear that label in that sense. But if "pedophile" is positive then "MAP" (and its complementary "AAM") gives us superpowers, as we have just seen. It can bring shame on entire families unless they want to support us instead. "Aam" is a surname in Norway and now they are harassed as sex abusers by Facebook and Instagram simply for having that name and anybody searching for them on these platforms are blocked and told they are connected to sexually abusing children in a new hilarious height of antisex bigotry. Can your words shake up the normies like that? No, they don't even get noticed because to all appearances outside of a minuscule blog you are just another normie who is scared shitless to be called a pedophile.

When I say women can't rape, it is also not the word that is important. There is no reason we can't use "rape" for less bad things like female sexual coercion (or good things for that matter, like statutory rape), but the problem is the unfair punishment that comes with using it as a legal term currently. There is no punishment for simply identifying as a pedophile, however, so you don't have that problem there.

Eivind Berge said...

To the Anonymous with a fixation on anal penetration who now tells me to close my blog...

May I remind you of the commenter who said:

The vast majority of pedophiles do not engage in penetrative sex with young children. In his book, Tom O' Carroll quotes statistics to the effect that 90% of convicted pedophiles never had penetrative sex with a child because they know that children wouldn't like that. They are far from being the psychopathic monsters that they are made out to be in the media.

You are far more fixated on anal penetration than the pedophiles... I wonder why? I don't even know if the case in question involved that, but you assume the mere category of homosexual incest automatically deserves life in prison which can't be argued with any nuance whatsoever. I refuse to participate in that hysteria. You certainly come across as far more deranged than at least 90% of pedophiles, so once again their group is the one to take refuge in for sanity.

Anonymous said...

"The vast majority of pedophiles do not engage in penetrative sex with young children. In his book, Tom O' Carroll quotes statistics to the effect that 90% of convicted pedophiles never had penetrative sex with a child because they know that children wouldn't like that"

So because of this it's okay for you that fa**ot fathers do other types of sexual activities with their own male toddler sons? An evolutionary trap even worse than masturbating to porn.

Eivind Berge said...

An important reversal...

The New York Court of Appeals on Thursday overturned the sex crimes conviction against Harvey Weinstein, the powerful Hollywood producer whose downfall stood as a symbol of the #MeToo movement.

The court, by a 4-3 vote, ordered a new trial.

“We conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes because that testimony served no material non-propensity purpose,” the ruling, written by Judge Jenny Rivera, states.

“The court compounded that error when it ruled that defendant, who had no criminal history, could be cross examined about those allegations as well as numerous allegations of misconduct that portrayed defendant in a highly prejudicial light. The synergistic effect of these errors was not harmless.”

And just like that, all the bullshit redefinition of consensual sex into rape can come crashing down and all of #Metoo with it.

The delusion that minors can't consent is next.

Eivind Berge said...

"An evolutionary trap even worse than masturbating to porn."

Nope, homosexuality is not an evolutionary trap. An evolutionary trap tempts your normal tendencies into your wasting resources on something maladaptive. I am not tempted by homosexuality at all, hence it can't make me do anything maladaptive. Homosexuality is a normal variation which only tempts those who have that tendency (not so sure about you since you have this fixation). Society has now settled on defining homosexuality as a normal variation rather than a pathological deviance like it sometimes cruelly was considered in the past, and I agree with this reversal because it's just how they are; it's their identity to be homosexual which is theirs to embrace if they want (and it would be foolish not to since it can't be cured). It's not about tempting common predilections and hence it's harmless to us straight guys, no trap there at all. Not for young boys either provided their right to consent or not is respected.

Eivind Berge said...

What the fuck?

A Louisiana man has been sentenced to 50 years in prison and will be physically castrated after pleading guilty to raping a 14-year-old girl, District Attorney Scott Perrilloux announced.

On April 17, Glenn Sullivan, Sr., 54, of Springfield, pleaded guilty to four counts of second-degree rape.

On Monday, Judge William Dykes sentenced Sullivan to 50 years in prison and mandated him to be physically castrated, which was part of his plea agreement with prosecutors, Perrilloux said in the statement.

"I want to say I've had three people ordered to be chemically castrated but, to my knowledge, this is the first physical castration to be ordered," Assistant District Attorney Brad Cascio, who prosecuted the case, said, WBRZ reports.

Is physical castration a lawful punishment in Louisiana? Are you kidding me?

We descended to yet another level of feminist hell and I didn't even notice it was enabled?

Eivind Berge said...

It also came with another level of insanity as it was a plea deal. He willingly (well, more or less -- who knows how he was tortured) agreed to be sentenced to prison until he is 104 years old AND BE CASTRATED instead of taking a trial with a theoretical chance of going free... and I am guessing they still can't sentence castration if he had lost that trial? Also still not death, so it would be life in prison at worst which he got anyway without defending himself.

Eivind Berge said...

I found more info. It is indeed real but the castration is unlikely to be carried out -- unless he lives to 104.

A 2008 Louisiana law says that men convicted of certain rape offenses may be sentenced to chemical castration. They can also elect to be physically castrated. Perrilloux said that Sullivan's plea requires he be physically castrated. The process will be carried out by the state's Department of Corrections, according to the law, but cannot be conducted more than a week before a person's prison sentence ends. This means Sullivan wouldn't be castrated until a week before the end of his 50-year sentence — when he would be more than 100 years old.

It is still shocking that mutilation is a lawful punishment and we can see the obvious direction for feminists and conservatives to take it to make castration a more immediate threat. Probably won't remain optional for long either with these scumbags in charge.

"Sex crimes against juveniles are the most malicious crimes we prosecute," Assistant District Attorney Brad J. Cascio, who prosecuted the case, said in the release. "I intend on using every tool the legislature is willing to give us, including physical castration, to seek justice for the children in our community."

Oh yes. The crimen exceptum, with literally no limits to the punishments they want to impose and only a matter of legislatures pandering harder to feminists and their useful idiot males.

Anonymous said...

I wonder which galactic requirements a punishment must meet to be considered "unusual and cruel" and thus prohibited according to the US Constitution?

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous of Friday, April 26, 2024 1:37:00 AM-indeed, and it has taken all this time since the founding of the United States to legislate this diabolical punishment. Would you happen to know the details? is it just the testes?

Thought I'd alert y'all to this article- .

The author, Simon Webb, has a fairly well-known y/tube channel and recently did a talk on this subject. However, it appears to have been taken down, but it was only a short video and the article itself is fairly detailed.

Webb doesn't strike me as silly by any means, but he assumes that people like Richard Dawkins were victimized badly even when they themselves shrug it off.

And who knows, maybe children were indeed expected to put up with being somewhat sexually imposed upon a few generations ago and even most of us would disagree with that.

However, I'd love to have him do an equally factual companion piece about how paedohysteria and age gap prejudice against straight men have gripped the UK and many other countries. Somehow I don't think so, unfortunately. As fond as he is of attacking certain sacred cows, there's others he leaves alone. I've listened to quite a few of his videos and found nothing to indicate he'd give such a presentation.

BTW I believe the term MLTOW, presumably pronounced 'miltow"(el), is catchy and therefore useful and worth a try.

On the subject of the good news of the Weinstein ruling, it reminds me of this article-

Anonymous 2

AF said...

@Eivind - I took a look at the newgon site - mainly the homepage, or the page that explains the MAP movement. I'll admit that it's good that they are preserving some useful archival material, just like you are doing with Angry Harry and maybe some others. Some brief things I noticed :

1/ Even the MAPs do not accept that paedophile 'means however it is used to mean'. They appear to draw a distinction between 'paedophilic' and 'non-paedophilic MAPs'.

2/ As I expected, the focus is on the right-wing Conservatives as their enemy, with only a passing reference to feminists, and they appear to question if they are 'real feminists', just like the commentator Milan Horvarth used to do here. In my opinion, the paedocrite Conservatives are attacking the MAPs the most because MAPs appear to be trying to tag onto the 'progressive liberal' movement. They are using MAPs as a stick to beat the degeneracy of the left with. Unfortunately they cannot see, as Anon69 points out, that a man with a beard and big cock wearing a dress and saying he is a woman is a million times more degenerate and a symptom of social decay than a man having a sexual relationship with a fertile 15 year old girl. In fact, it should be obvious that it's a symptom of social decay that for the first time in human history, we regard such relationships as perverted.

3/ They correctly point out that the gay movement only distanced themselves from the 'boy lovers' in the 80's and 90's when they got 'assimilated'. However, they presumably do not understand who they were 'assimilated' by or why (the Sexual Trade Union seeking to effectively castrate them and validate their age of consent laws).

4/ They admit (unlike your follower) that the vast majority of men are attracted to teens, but appear to differentiate themselves as MAPs because they actively 'prefer' teens.

And still, I cannot fathom the stupidity of adopting common cause with those who are sexually attracted to toddlers and infants. It essentially means that to be a MAP is to resign yourself to being a perpetual virtuous MAP, as to any sane person, never in a million years will society ever normalize and decriminalize sex with young children. So despite what they and you say, there isn't really any difference between a virtuous and 'non-c' MAP.

They're starting to physically castrate and even execute paedophiles - how can anybody possibly think that it's a 'genius idea' to throw your lot in with real paedophiles?

@anon69 and Anonymous2 - thanks for your support of the idea of MLTO. Anonymous2 spelt it MLTOW, which perhaps is a good idea. My thinking is that people would just assume you have misspelled MGTOW, at least without context. Anyway, the actual name is certainly open to discussion. But I think it's an important idea to have this alternative to MAP, that allows for that 'ingroup' identity, and even that ephebophile feeling of being 'special', but that reaffirms at the same time we are REAL MEN, rather than the latest degeneracy after trannies.

Eivind Berge said...

Simon Webb is well worth reading for a history lesson, but damn is he taken in by CSA panic. It is especially disappointing given his age and the fact that he lived through a time when the British legal system was actually quite sensible about child molestation. In his childhood we was obviously exposed to the sort of sentiment informing the judges here:

In the middle of May 1951, four little girls, ranging in age from six to nine, were playing by a deserted riverbank in the Lancashire town of Clitheroe. A man appeared and began urinating into the river. This was evidently no more than a pretext for getting out his penis, because he then called over one of the girls, who was nine, and asked her to touch his penis. She did so. By good fortune, she was not afraid to tell somebody what had happened... Three judges sitting that day were unanimous in their belief that an assault must be accompanied by hostile action of one kind or another, whether words, gestures or physical contact. In this case; nothing of the sort had happened. The man had simply asked the girl to touch him and she had done so willingly.

You have to be delusional to think there is some horrible abuse simply because a girl touches a man's penis willingly (or sees it, which he also makes a big deal of unlike the justice system until 2003). Simon Webb is another one of these right-wingers who found feminism to be the perfect tool especially to serve their hate against immigrants, who of course they believe to be the primary targets of the new sex laws they love so much.

Is it not common sense than an "assault" must be some sort of hostile action? You have to believe in metaphysical CSA violence to include friendly touching. Sad to see this delusion rot the brains of otherwise smart men who weren't even socialized into that kind of thinking, but absorbed it as adults from the 1980s. If you had asked Simon in the 1970s what he thought about these matters I am sure he would have said the same as those judges.

Anonymous said...

Another one bites the dust:

Eivind Berge said...

Regarding the abuse of Richard Dawkins:

Richard Dawkins relates that he was pulled onto the lap of a male teacher, who then pushed his hand inside the boy’s shorts and fondled his genitals. Incredibly, sixty years later, the victim of this abuse refuses to condemn the perpetrator, even now minimizing the action by describing it as ‘mild touching up’.

I think this crosses the line into offensive touching and thus deserves to be a (very low-level) crime, but we also have to respect the boy's own opinion of it and not interfere if he says it's okay. I think Dawkins judged it rationally and once again Simon Webb is beset with CSA panic.

Anonymous said...

Normal men are not ped0s and I still do not understand why the woke left wants to sexualize children at all costs, under 18 are children.

Doing something as big as having sex, dominated by their hormones at an age when they have not yet matured and may regret it later, and there are many cases already, and several sadly end in suicide.

Eivind Berge said...

I let that moronic comment through just to illustrate what we are up against.

Something as "big" as having sex... True in terms of how wonderful it is but not how difficult, lol. Yet that's the delusion we are up against. That something every tiny mouse-brain can handle with no problem is too difficult for the teenage brain at the height of human acuity. At the same time they can be chess prodigies or whatever they can't think one step ahead about sex.

It ought to be easy to build a movement against such stupidity, and the MAPs are actually having some success at it.

@AF: Don't get too bogged down into the formulations on Newgon. It is a work in progress and we can join and influence it.

"Even the MAPs do not accept that paedophile 'means however it is used to mean'. They appear to draw a distinction between 'paedophilic' and 'non-paedophilic MAPs'."

I cannot remember any MAPs actually describing themselves as "non-paedophilic MAPs" but if that's what it takes to get more men to join, feel free to use that label.

As for me I keep it simple and just consider MAP one big family. My movement or tribe consists of pro-c MAPs, AAMs and supporters. You are not going to find any significant sex-positive ingroup anywhere else, dude, so just forget about MLTOW.

Anonymous said...


" Is it not common sense than an "assault" must be some sort of hostile action? You have to believe in metaphysical CSA violence to include friendly touching. "

Yes, the abuse industry threw common sense away decades ago, with the blessing of the NPC's.

"Normal men are not ped0s and I still do not understand why the woke left wants to sexualize children at all costs, under 18 are children. Doing something as big as having sex, dominated by their hormones at an age when they have not yet matured and may regret it later, and there are many cases already, and several sadly end in suicide."

Snore. Get lost, you cause suicides with your terrible personality.


Eivind Berge said...

I think if the Overton Window is widening then that's thanks to the MAPs. The MRAs will follow along but they won't lead. You may be observing some early sign of MAP movement success there.

Eivind Berge said...

Norway pushing the age gap panic down to less than two years:

Søndag var flere områder i Molde sperret av, og politiet gjorde undersøkelser i forbindelse med en såkalt «sedelighetssak», altså seksualforbrytelse.

Det bekrefter politiadvokat Kristin Stokke.

– Jeg kan ikke si så mye om selve hendelsesforløpet og informasjonen vi har nå til. Men saken etterforskes som seksuell omgang med barn mellom 14 og 16 år. Straffelovens paragraf 302.

Hun vil ikke si hvor mange som er involvert i hendelsen og heller ikke om det er flere fornærmede, men alle skal være under 16 år. Også de to siktede.

Everybody involved is between 14 and 16 and it's not suspected as rape, just a consensual age of consent violation, yet they are investigating it with such a tiny age gap and all being minors.

Yet another escalation of the feminist police state. Hopefully the MAP movement is gaining ground culturally but the police violence has not peaked yet.

Eivind Berge said...

I can sense puzzlement from the journalist too here at the police aggression:

– Hvor alvorlig ser dere på denne saken?

– Seksuell omgang med barn mellom 14 og 16 år er under sedelighetskapittelet, og en sak man generelt sett ser alvorlig på. Det er en alvorlig siktelse, svarer politiadvokaten.

Going by that definition the children have mutually abused each other (paradoxically while not being able to consent to doing it) -- yet the police consider it a serious crime. If we read between the lines we can sense some fright at a witch-hunt out of control even from NRK here.

Anonymous said...

@ Eivind-you are correct, MRA's have so far been careful not to go too low. Perhaps they've been trying to get the balance right for their channels-to criticize, but not so much that they get in trouble with everyone, including their dumb paedocrite fans, which let's face it, they will mostly be.

Also, it doesn't look like the AOC in Norway is about to go down after all.

-Anonymous 2

Eivind Berge said...

Right, I am only expecting it to get worse. Norwegian society is pure hate against sexuality. The only protests are because the sex laws aren't harsh enough to the normies. Just in Bergen 2000 showed up this month to demand another rape law expansion:

And the martial arts coach got convicted:

I wrote the following rant on Facebook which gets no reaction whatsoever. Thousands show up physically for harsher antisex laws and I literally can't even get one like from anyone in Norway for anything I write against the sex laws.

Enda en dom som minner oss om at maskulinitet er synonymt med seksualforbrytelser fordi samfunnet har omdefinert seksualiteten vår til kriminalitet. Jeg erkjente tidlig i livet at jeg er obligat kriminell bare fordi jeg er mann, og i motsetning til normiene bestemte jeg meg for å være egosynton, altså ikke sette opp en prektig fasade hvor man later som det går an å være lovlydig under feministlovene slik som denne mannen gjorde helt til det ikke gikk lenger. Menn er obligate seksualforbrytere under disse lovene like sikkert som katter er obligate kjøttetere. Våre sjeler er kriminelle. Jeg erkjenner at vi lever i helvete og purkejævelen er Satan. Det er fysisk virkelighet og også spirituell virkelighet når du er sensitiv til at hatet mot oss er offisiell politikk slik som jeg er (bare den siste biten som er forskjellen på meg og andre mennesker). Om de klarer å få oss fengslet er bare et spørsmål om ressurser og tilfeldigheter; hver bidige mann kan dømmes under en eller annen sedelighetslov da de dekker 100% av seksualiteten og gjør at hver og en av oss skylder mange ganger mer straff enn vi har leveår. For eksempel loven som ble brukt her om såkalt "utnytting av tillitsforhold" kan brukes mot hver bidige mann som jenter realistisk kommer i kontakt med -- alle man er trener for i dette tilfellet, men det er bare fantasien til politiadvokater som setter grenser for anvendelsen. Dette alene er en universallov mot all seksualitet, samt at de har andre for enhver anledning slik at vi i praksis har gjeninnført kriminaliseringen av leiermål og mye mer til. I motsetning til normiene affekterer ikke jeg noen pretensjon om å tilhøre det "gode selskap" av sedelighetslovlydige menn, fordi jeg vet at det gode selskap er falskt og jeg orker ikke løgnene som menn til og med forteller til seg selv. Alle menn er seksualforbrytere nå, men normiene konstruerer en falsk fasade hvor de later som de ikke er det -- noe som funker også helt til de blir anklaget, men det er falskt fordi alle kan anklages for et eller annet som politiet entusiastisk vil straffeforfølge og retten ganske sannsynlig dømme. Jeg vet utmerket godt at jeg er samfunnsfiende bare fordi jeg er mann og er intenst bevisst på det gjensidige hatet med samfunnet hele tiden, så jeg spiller ikke det falske spillet. Jeg har ikke noe å tape siden jeg allerede er lavest mulig status, så jeg kan like godt være ærlig og distansere meg fra falskheten og om mulig utgjøre kimen til en mannsbevegelse.

Eivind Berge said...

Apropos the witchcraft theme in this tread, this quote from an earlier version of the Wikipedia CSA article deserves to be included:


Psychologists have noted the following spiritual effects [of CSA]:

1) Soul wound, soul death, or soul murder

2) Demonisation requiring exorcism or deliverance ministry

This is what the normies believe and their scientists put into pseudoscientific terms and was almost included literally in Wikipedia. I guess they didn't want to admit it so honestly, so it was removed from the latest revision of this article, but it's what informs the entire cultural perception of sexuality; it is the metaphysical badness of sex that they believe in.

And all those protests for harsher sex laws are deliverance ministry from this demonology they believe in. We are dealing with a demonic folk belief that can't be reasoned with rationally at all. So even if the government's own experts recommend lowering the age of consent as happened in Norway, it can't be implemented until we defeat the superstitions. If the government proposed a law to lower the age of consent to 15 can you imagine the protests that would cause? Probably millions would show up against me alone in favor. The hate is in the air and in the depths of the people. I do feel soul wound, soul death, and soul murder from the antisex climate, to be honest.

But that's because I'm too spiritually weak, I suppose, and too altruistically inclined to activism. Because I care about justice too much. Because I am hyperpolitically disordered. I need to learn to ignore the sex laws more until the moment I am arrested like other men. The normies clearly don't want my activism anyway. They prefer to be lambs to the slaughter. With the honorable exception of some MAPs (in other countries at least) who do care, which is why I have rebranded my activism from MRA to MAP. Being an MRA was unbelievably thankless and being a sexualist can't be established in people's vocabulary, so MAP it is.

Anonymous said...

An article full of completely insane feminist "child abuse" language about a post pubescent female who gave a post pubescent male a blowjob.

The Feminist B*tch Institute (FBI) even got involved! To investigate a blowjob! Is it possible to be more embarrassing than the USA?


Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, plus it is the female sex offender charade to boot, a hot young woman at that. And they even stayed religiously pure...

During interviews with federal agents, the boy allegedly said Gray had given him oral sex but they didn’t have intercourse so he could “stay pure,” according to the docs.

But to the state religion of feminism it is the dirtiest abuse. To the FBI it is the most serious crime and I am surprised the Department of Homeland Security didn't get involved because usually "child abuse" is treated as a matter of national security as well.

CSA is the actual religion of our times, which alone should make the traditional religions queasy, but they lap it up and subordinate themselves too to the all-consuming altar of CSA panic.

Anonymous said...

Just got done watching this. He certainly does not come across as humble (and is likely not a fan of Mr. Cantor, based on what he's saying here...)

He boldly claims that attraction to minors stems from shame and anxiety about not feeling "man enough" in relation to adults. I suspect this is more projection than science - at least, he certainly projects an image of affected masculinity.

He seems to have an obvious blind spot - is he not confusing cause with effect here? It seems obvious to me that someone with a stigmatized sexuality would feel shame, anxiety, and have difficulty forming close connections with others (provided they are not ego-syntonic, of course). It is so obvious that I feel it shouldn't even need to be pointed out...

Eivind Berge said...

Psykologspesialist Atle Austad er karakteranalytiker og spesialist i sexologi (Nordic Association of Clinical Sexology). I april-nummeret 2021 av “Tidsskrift for norsk psykologforening” var det et intervju med ham, der han bl.a. forteller at han gjennom årene har hatt cirka 300 pasienter som har blitt dømt for overgrep eller annen vold.

Yeah, if you start with the assumption that illegal sex is violence as a basis for your "therapy," that will tend to be what you find. Typical normie (or worse: abuse industry professional) who is incapable of treating CSA as a hypothesis rather than dogma. I bet he never asks a sort of question which leaves open the possibility that any of it was less than traumatizing to the "victims" or a reflection of pathology in the "abusers."

I can't stomach two hours with this asshole. All I heard was language like "forgripe seg" loaded with CSA dogma which passes judgment before looking at the facts and is never open to revision in light of them.

Additionally, his sample is presumably only men who got convicted, so what makes him think he can generalize to those who don't get caught? And his paycheck depends on pathologizing because why else would they need therapy? He is paid to fix a problem created by the system in the first place through criminalization, so obviously he can't admit that maybe there wasn't a problem with these relationships if the police hadn't gotten involved.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Talking about asshole mangina psychologists, this is probably the worst one in Norway.

Eivind Berge said...

We have reached the ultimate belief in CSA witchcraft in Norway now, with a no-contact online "abuse" case (apparently based on Omegle) being prosecuted as deserving the maximum punishment of 21 years, which is the same as mass murder.

Meldingen fra dattera til mora fikk ballen til å rulle. Og førte etterforskerne til en mann i 50-årene i ei nordlandsbygd. På det tidspunktet jobbet han på en skole.

Etter at etterforskerne hadde gått gjennom beslagene fant de 447 egenproduserte videoer med en spilletid på 48 timer og 39 minutter.

Alle videoene inneholdt overgrep mannen skal ha gjennomført. Selv erkjenner han straffskyld. Strafferammen er 21 års fengsel.

Et hundretalls identifiserte og uidentifiserte barn har status som fornærmet i saken som regnes som en av Norgeshistoriens største overgrepssaker på nett.

The prosecutor is a complete moron who who appears to literally believe in it. Or is paid to believe in it, but what difference does it make?

– Dette er en svært alvorlig sak. Ofte når man har en strafferamme, så ligger man ganske lagt unna toppen. Men i denne saken, så begynner vi å nærme oss lovens strengeste straff. Dette er en meget alvorlig sak, sier statsadvokat Thor Erik Høiskar.

I said on Facebook which nobody will notice as usual:

Tenk å tro at "nettovergep" er noe reelt og straffverdig. For meg er det innlysende at det er like sinnssykt å tro at barn kan misbrukes seksuelt over nett som å tro at de for eksempel er i drukningsfare eller fare for haiangrep om de ser på strandbilder. Det en patetisk overtro, troen på vår tids heksekunst som er denne metafysiske ondskapen i seksualitet som normiene tror på. Og så kan det liksom fortjene lovens strengeste straff på 21 år... uten noen som helst kontakt. Hvor dumme i hodet går det an å bli? Jeg gremmes over å leve blant idioter som innbiller seg det går an å "forgripe seg" på nett. Det er like idiotisk å tro at barna blir "misbrukt" som det er fra onanisten sin side å tro han får noen seksuell verdi ut av det uten kontakt. Begge deler er prinsipielt umulig og jeg forkaster begge sider av vrangforestillingen om "nettovergep."

Eivind Berge said...

I wrote some more about "online abuse" on Facebook:

Det er rart å tenke på hvordan forestillingen om “nettovergrep” har oppstått. Dette er en overtro som helt og holdent har oppstått i min levetid, så jeg kan dermed spore historien med førstehånds autoritet. Det mest bisarre er at denne mytologien har glidd inn i hjernen til andre på min alder også. Hvordan sånn hjernevasking skjer til og med i voksen alder vil jeg nok aldri forstå. Det er dypt forstyrrende at normiene tar sånn idioti for god fisk og tror denne heksejakten er sånn det skal være. Mine skriverier om det er terapi for meg selv for å komme litt nærmere å skjønne hvordan normiene kan være så syke i hodet sitt å tro på noe så meningsløst -- eller for å være så snill jeg makter, skal vi si godtroende? Jeg har til gode å høre en normie forklare med egne ord hvorfor han tror på noe sånt. Folk blir zombier så snart temaet tas opp og later til å utelukkende kunne snakke i politisk korrekte floskler som de lirer av seg nesten ordrett fra feministpropaganda, så jeg skjønner ærlig talt ikke hva det er de egentlig tror den metafysiske skadevirkningen består i. Jeg vet ikke om noen andre enn meg selv ærlig talt har tenkt over det og faktisk mener noe selv eller bare er papegøyer.

Da jeg var liten hadde vi ikke “nettovergrep” for det første fordi vi ikke hadde nett. Men hvis fenomenet er reelt så burde det bygget på noe vi hadde. For eksempel, telefonovergrep, brevovergrep, flaskepostovergrep? Kanskje grooming per telegram av den gamle sorten? Vi manglet da ikke teknologi til å kommunisere med den gang heller. Så hvis det refererte til et legitimt fenomen, ville vi hatt en forløper. Men det hadde vi ikke, for vi var ikke så dumme at vi trodde på den slags overtro. I motsetning til idiotene nå til dags.

Prøv å tenk dere om litt. Har nettovergrep oppstått ut av overtro eller teknologi? Og hva er det i så fall som er unikt med denne teknologien? Hva er magien som injiserer seksuelt misbruk? Hvordan går det i det hele tatt an å tro at seksualitet kan overføres elektronisk? Hvis den ikke kunne det per brev eller telefon eller telegram før i tiden, HVA er liksom den nye magien, annet enn ren overtro?

Anonymous said...

Det er vel samme grund til at de opsøger psykologer!?

Eivind Berge said...

Yes... the psychologists are jealous. Gotta keep a tight monopoly on their right to interact with minors.

AF said...

@Eivind - You've done a great job in the comments above deconstructing the psychology of the psychologists involved in the CSA industry. This is where your genius lies. It doesn't lie in the 'tactical' sphere. When it comes to tactics and the like, it would be better if you could come to the self-realization that it's not your strength. You're not a general, you're an academic.

It's good that you are identifying solely as a MAP now, and I'm sure your analytical strengths will serve the MAP movement well. You need to update your introductory blurb as it still says you are an MRA and a male sexualist.

Eivind Berge said...

That's hilarious. Direct link to the document:

Bi-Annual Report From Diverting Hate
March 2024 | Volume 3

This project is funded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, opportunity number DHS-22-TTP-132-00-01.

Section 1: Growth of Online Male Supremacy
Male Supremacy Scale: A YouTube Case Study
An Overview of 3 Key Evolving Trends
‘Stop Simping’: How Misogynistic Influencers Humiliate Women to Discourage Sympathy
Passport Bros' Rise, the Disparagement of the “Modern Woman" and the Rise of Tradwives
'Hitting the Wall' and the Pervasive Sexualization of Younger and Underage Women

The Department of Homeland Security clearly has too much money. Going to war against the idea that younger women are sexual, lol. At least they admit that underage women are women too.

It's kind of sad that they don't mention MAPs, but I'm sure subsequent reports will because the MAP movement is getting stronger every day. Also I didn't say that I identify SOLELY as a map. I commend the incels for their sexualization of younger and underage women as far as it goes, but the signal-to-noise ratio at that in their movement is way too low (plus of course it's loaded with negative baggage that is only for incels). Anyone who is serious about fighting for sexual freedom ought to join the MAP Movement. If the DHS is scared of incels and tradwives and the "hitting the wall" meme, just wait until they discover Newgon with its treasure trove of MAP memes.

Anonymous said...

Eivind had his time in the spotlight without even mentioning age of consent-laws at all. Now no one gets to hear his arguments -- which are good arguments(except his love of gay incest to small boys from their f*g*ot fathers) -- because Eivind never even tries to get his word out in any serious media.

Eivind Berge said...

Having read some more of this report I must say it is the clearest example yet of the female sexual trade union. Once again I am shocked how old hags can take over the government. Luckily it's not about laws this time but rather psy-ops but this is the sort of thing that would make young women off-limits to middle.aged men if they could. 25 would be too low an age of consent for them, certainly for men over 30.

Prior to seeing this I would have thought it too far-fetched that for example the nutcase who keeps commenting here that men don't like teens and prefer older women could be a paid government troll, but now I know this is literally what they do. The Department of Homeland Security might as well be called the Department for the Inflation of Middle-Aged Women's Sexual Value. They do take it astonishingly far, pursuing a delusional ideal as a matter of homeland security.

It's a threat to homeland security that men prefer teens and 20-year-olds over 40-year-old women. You can't make this shit up. They have trolls on our forums larping as the kind of guy who would prefer 40-year-olds, so remember that next time you read such comments.

This meme is now almost literally true:

Anonymous said...

That's the DHS that was started as a result of the September 11 2001 attacks that were performed by the US military (an inside job) and blamed on a patriarchal religion that encourages old men to marry young girls (strict Islam).

Tarana Burke, the inventor of the Me Too movement, was born September 12 1973, the year the World Trade Center opened. The weather girls released their iconic feminist anthem song "It's raining men" on September 10 1982, 19 years before 2001.

Anonymous said...

"The ‘wall’ is meant to emphasize that self-actualized, empowered, independent women are actually less desirable than young, naive, virgin girls and women."

Feminists officially leveraging the power of the US federal government department of homo security (DHS) combined with the feminist bitch institute (FBI) to redefine reality in their favor is... astounding. It certainly accounts for the worldwide pervasiveness and aggressiveness of the "underage" psyop.

I guess they will never stop until reproduction is literally ceased.


Anonymous said...

I thought the purpose of Homeland Security was to fight terrorism:

Eivind Berge said...

Two more to the female sex offender charade:

“Investigators found sufficient evidence to support that Wingerter was involved in an inappropriate and sexual relationship with at least one 18-year-old male student, as she acted in the capacity of the student’s educator.”

Yeah, those vulnerable little 18-year-old children again.

And just kissing a boy is “abuse” too now:

A 24-year-old Wisconsin elementary school teacher was arrested Wednesday for allegedly “making out” with her fifth-grade student — less than three months before her wedding.

Madison Bergmann’s alleged abuse of the 11-year-old boy came to light when the student’s mother overheard her son talk to the teacher on the phone... In one of the letters, Bergmann allegedly wrote, “One of my cousins is in the 5th grade and I can’t imagine a man talking to her how we talk. I know we have a special relationship and I do love you more than anyone in the world but I have to be the adult here and stop.”

It’s not clear how long the abuse had been going on, but Bergmann told investigators she was given the boy’s phone number by his mother in December when his family invited who they thought was a beloved teacher with them to the Afton Alps for winter break.

The parents “thought” she was beloved until evidence of actual love turns that upside down because the metaphysical badness of sexuality in an invisible world with no connection to this one is the one which counts, where the boy’s sexual soul was tortured and forever tainted by kisses he enjoyed in this world.

Even the journalist Katherine Donlevy has gone off her rocker on this. Which is par for the course for women these days, being worst instigators of the female sex offender charade and never showing any spine to oppose these witch-hunts, but this kind of language is still not always seen about women in news stories:

The accused pervert has since been placed on administrative leave and barred from contacting any district students, parents or staff, the Hudson School District told parents the same day as her arrest.

Jules said...

In a well-known Spanish forum used mainly for men they are now talking about whether all men are ephebophiles and those who are not lie, I have used Google translator because I don't know well Spanish, so.. what do Eivind, AF (i think he know some spanish) and others think about this guys?

Eivind Berge said...


Ephebophilia (from the Greek : ἔφηβος young puberto and φιλία, philia) is the sexual preference towards adolescents or young people located in middle or late sexual development, usually extending between 15 and 19 years of age. The term was originally used in the 19th century and in the middle of the 20th century. It is a series of sexual preferences across age groups subsumed under the technical term known as chronophilia . Ephebophilia denotes attraction to sexual partners of adolescents or young people. Let's see, I'd rather spend the afternoon with a 19-year-old girl than with a 60-year-old lady, yes, of course.

Lol, yeah, who wouldn't?

Also, girls this age are not in "middle or late sexual development." The average age of menarche here in Norway is 13 (or actually 12,9 in the latest data from 2016). At 15 a tiny minority would be in the late stages and the vast majority would be done with sexual development.

How can they even discuss whether this is normal attraction?

By the way, some fun facts about when girls develop sexually in Norway and how this has changed over time:

Første menstruasjon i Norge

I 1861 var gjennomsnittlig alder for første menstruasjon 15,6 år.

I 1940 hadde det sunket til 13,3 år.

Alder for første menstruasjon var stabil på litt over 13 år frem til 2000-tallet.

Vekststudien i Bergen 2 fant at blant barn målt i 2016, hadde gjennomsnittlig alder for første menstruasjon sunket til 12,9 år.

So, already in 1940 girls tended to be developed at 13.

Perhaps "ephebophilia" in the range of 15-19 could have been a thing prior to the 1860s, but I am not aware of anybody thinking this was anything but the most attractive age to most men then either.

Eivind Berge said...

Finally getting some play on Facebook. 1300 views already on my video on the persecution of Madison Bergmann for kissing a boy:

Getting multiple likes too for the first time. Attacking the cutting edge of the female sex offender charade is clearly the way to start driving a wedge into antisex hysteria in the mainstream.

I know most of you are sadly too shy to use Facebook for anything MAP-related, but like and share if you can. You can also debate the normies in the comments.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand about jury trials Eivind

All this comes from having seen a documentary about a child killer
It seems fucking crazy to me that a person's innocence or guilt is subject to the decision of someone who has no fucking idea about laws xD. People who must surely be led by impulses or prejudices.

I guess something is escaping me because it doesn't make much sense for it to be like this as I tell it.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, something profoundly important is escaping you. Nothing less than the very foundation of democracy itself. Do you want the people to ultimately be in power? Do you want the people to have the option to resist tyrannical laws directly? DIRECTLY, not by elections for legislators. The jury is (or in Norway: was) our lifeline to resist tyrannical laws, such as the feminist redefinition of rape. And it worked pretty well too. Juries nullify too unreasonable laws by finding you not guilty even though you are guilty by the letter of the law and intention of the legislators.

That is what you are willing to give up, if you don't support jury rights.

Eivind Berge said...

The point is that we don't always want to be ruled by the law... And if you are so naive that you don't think legislators can make laws we don't want to be ruled by then I don't know what to tell you.

You should be able to understand, however, that there is no symmetrical risk in reverse by having jury rights and therefore some kind of danger to having them. The professional judges will (unless corrupt) stop accusations with no legal basis before they reach juries (plus you can appeal a guilty verdict too which can be overturned by professionals if it has no legal basis). So you don't risk juries deciding to lynch you for no reason. Not unless the whole system wants to lynch you. Of course you risk juries finding you guilty as legislators intended, but it's vastly better to at least have a shot at nullification. And that is only achieved via an independent jury who does not have to justify its verdict (since it's difficult for them to overtly go against the law).

Anonymous said...

The vast majority of the population does not have any problem with the police.

It seems that the one extrapolating from your personal, shitty experience is you.

People do not live marginalized, nor do they feel pressured by the police or justice, because they are more dedicated to their family and well-being than to doing activities that are, if not illegal, then uncivilized.

But of course, the State oppresses me, the citizens do not understand me.

Eivind Berge said...

There's a nasty troll again, and of course he is right that most people DO NOT care about rights and protections from tyranny (until it is too late). Which is how we lost the jury in Norway.

However, those who want to learn don't have to take it from me. William Keyte says it much better and he is not a misfit or personally oppressed. I highly recommend these videos to understand the importance of the jury and also what a real constitution is (it's not what you think or how we treat it in Norway as just another law that is a little harder to change).

I really can't stress the importance of juries enough. It is a special level of retardation to think this is something only "uncivilized" people should care about.

Eivind Berge said...

From William Keyte's website:

Trial by Jury - the way people govern

Trial by Jury is astounding. Not all societies around the world have a system of Trial by Jury because their Rule of Law is not based on Common Law.

Trial by Jury is fundamentally a Common Law mechanism and is the primary feature of a democratic system of governance (not voting in elections as most believe).

This is the astounding bit - Trial by Jury is not merely about judging on the guilt of the accused - important though that is.

A jury also has the power to judge on the justice of the law! They can decide on the appropriateness of a piece of legislation.

That feature above is the most profound and important of a common law-based constitution. Think about it! It places the people in authority over the legislature. Most people - even constitutional commentators and 'experts' in the establishment - never talk about this. Why? Either because the powers that shouldn't be don't want those concepts expressed openly and certainly not communicate it to you - or they are simply ignorant of it due to miseducation and propaganda.

The jury has the power to return a 'Not Guilty' verdict - even though the defendant has technically broken the law. This causes what is called Annulment by Jury or Jury Nullification. More simply, this is known as Jury Independence: the people's right to disregard the 'law' (legislation) and decide according to their conscience. That is the main way in which people retain their sovereignty and authority over their own administrative government under a Democratic Common Law Constitution.

With the jury we don't (in theory) even have to change the law to defeat unjust laws such as age of consent and the feminist definition of rape. Of course this falls short in practice but every bit helps.

By the way, I got 10k views on my Facebook video on Madison Bergmann! And 48 likes, so this is a different ballgame than I'm used to. Maybe censorship is cracking a little bit. Of course this is just the female sex offender charade, which is the reductio ad absurdum of CSA panic I am attacking but it is a start.

AF said...

I watched Stanley Kubrick's 1962 version of Lolita for the first time today. It's interesting that the producer stated that they cast a 14 year old (Sue Lyons) to play Lolita (rather than the pre-pubescent 12 year old of the novel) because they wanted her to be a sex object for the audience.

"Producer James B. Harris explained that 14 year-old Sue Lyon looked older than her age: "We knew we must make [Lolita] a sex object [...] where everyone in the audience could understand why everyone would want to jump on her." He also said, in a 2015 Film Comment interview, "We made sure when we cast her that she was a definite sex object, not something that could be interpreted as being perverted."

Allegations were made in recent years that the producer was banging Sue Lyons during the filming, which he has refused to deny or admit.

And of course, we know that Sue Lyons turned into a yet another crazy, bitter hag resentful of the fact that her entire fame was due to her lost teenage beauty.

AF said...

Well guess what? It looks like Kim Jong Dong is a MAP!

He apparently selects 25 teenage schoolgirl virgins to be his lover every year.

Crazy how all these ruthless, powerful Alpha Male individuals from history, from Genghis Khan to Mao Tse Dong, were all MAPs, and yet those who identify as MAPs today appear to enjoy painting butterflys and unicorns and composing cringy 'girl love' odes.

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, a 14-year-old Lolita was enough to make it socially acceptable or at least non-perverted to the normies in 1962. She should have been 12 by the book and not entirely prepubescent either. Making it faithful to the book would depict hebephilia, which is still considered normative attraction by the psychiatric diagnostic manuals.

In my view, casting a 14-year-old Lolita makes the story more like an ordinary romance rather than taboo love. Not that there is anything wrong with ordinary romance, but it lacks the dimension it came to be so well known for. Lolita should be 12, and if Nabokov had made her 14 from the beginning the book would only now in the past 20 years have become a MAP story rather than a plain vanilla mainstream love story, I think. Literary love affairs with 14-year-old girls are a dime a dozen in the 20th century and were not considered mappy at the time. For example, Gabriel García Márquez’s Memories of My Melancholy Whores concerns a girl that age and nobody bats an eyelid.

In 1997 when Adrian Lyne made his adaptation with Dominque Swain as Lolita -- well, she was born in 1980, so I guess she was at least 16 when filming. At this point the movie only retains its taboo aspect from association with the novel and the actress pretending to be younger than she is (14 again), and it was not very well reviewed. Somebody needs to do it right and make Lolita 12.

And I bet most men still wouldn’t honestly find it perverted. MAP pride!

I have seen both movies made so far and really enjoy Kubrick's version though it falls short of perfection as noted. I actively dislike Lyne's version for having Humbert slap Lolita.

Anonymous said...

Could it be that your subconscious betrays you and you see women, especially young girls, as sexual objects? and it bothers you that in 2024 you won't be able to continue using them as you please.

Isn't that because they were/are sexual psychopaths and not people who fall in love with girls?

People like AF and the troop of insane misogynists do not understand that it is their contempt for women and the sexual use of women and girls for the pleasure of men that have created the reaction of feminism, which is another group of sexist insane people who seek to subjugate half of the population.

Here are people talking about how child prostitution is fun... are you crazy or is this just a bad joke?

Hateful intolerant feminist activists come from the "normal heterosexual man" who has exploited young girls for thousands of years.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't know what your point is. The MAP movement takes ethics very seriously. The AF will have to speak for himself and given that he hates MAPs perhaps his standards are lower, but I certainly wouldn't call him a sexual psychopath. If anything, he has the opposite problem -- being satisfied with too little from girls and women, since he is happy just wanking to porn.

"Sexual object" is a common feminist slur for just having an attraction and you don't seem to use it in a much more intelligent sense either. Seeing them as sexual objects is a precondition for falling in love. No objectification, no love either. The man who only feels sexual attraction as an afterthought to falling in love would be on the asexual spectrum and called a demisexual which means half-sexual, not normal or a good thing to be.

AF said...

"People like AF and the troop of insane misogynists do not understand that it is their contempt for women and the sexual use of women and girls for the pleasure of men that have created the reaction of feminism, which is another group of sexist insane people who seek to subjugate half of the population."

I'm not sure I see what your point is either. Your rant just appears to be another way of confirming Sexual Trade Union theory that feminism is the result of older unattractive women trying to stop men having sex with younger or more attractive women. You rationalize the normal male preference for fertile young females as 'sexual objectification, exploitation, abuse, sexualisation of minors' and all the rest.

Presumably you are the ephebophile MAP who has turned on Eivind, just like that other creepy one did. Eivind seems incapable of learning from experience.

I remember a creepy paedophile from Tom O'Carroll's blog once left a comment calling me similar things because I posted a PUA video featuring the PUA chatting up a 16 year old girl. He raged at me for 'objectifying' girls instead of having a committed relationship with them. These psychotic creeps think society will accept their 'loving relationships with 9 year olds' if they side with feminists against men who want to bang hot 16 year olds.

AF said...

Thinking about Kubrick's Lolita again, it's certainly possible to see that he understood Sexual Trade Union theory.

Really, the whole world of Lolita (his movie) involves sexual competition, jealousy, and deceit.
Quilty is the ultimate paedocrite, adopting the roles of a fake police officer, a concerned school psychologist and the like, all to stop Humbert accessing Lolita who he wants to keep for himself.

Of course, Lolita's mother's rage at Humbert when he finds out about their affair, is about jealousy of her daughter. When Humbert's neighbor comes round to inform them of the gossip going around about their relationship, it is a woman.

Kubrick understood that underneath the veneer, everything is about sex, and in particular, everything is about men wanting to bang young girls.

Eivind Berge said...

I agree Kubrick directed it all towards normal guys and understood what everything is about. I love how the "normal guy" scene sums it all up:

When Quilty says to Humbert "It’s good for us normal guys to get together and talk about normal things," and "I said to myself when I saw you, that's a guy with the most normal-looking face I ever saw in my life" -- normal is to be taken literally. We are not looking at deviants: we are looking at ourselves, and that's why the story is so compelling. Nabokov was a decent writer but it's not the elegant language that made Lolita a classic. His other books aren't nearly as popular although their literary qualities aside from this being the most archetypal story are just as good.

Eivind Berge said...

Funny testimony by Stormy Daniels today:

A supposed "adult film star" who is so clueless that a sexual situation may arise when she goes with a man to his hotel room that she is jump-scared by seeing him in boxers, blacks out during sex for no reason, then is shaking and ashamed afterwards.

Daniels then said that after she went to the bathroom, she emerged to find Trump on the hotel bed in his boxers and a T-shirt. “At first I was just startled, like a jump scare. I wasn’t expecting someone to be there, especially minus a lot of clothing,” she testified.

She said that Trump “stood up between me and the door. Not in a threatening manner. He didn’t come at me, he didn’t rush at me. Nothing like that.” Daniels said she blacked out while they had sex: “I had my clothes and my shoes off. I removed my bra. We were in missionary position.” (...) Daniels went on to testify that she was “shaking” while she got dressed and made sure to have future meetings with Trump in public. Daniels said that while she told lots of people she met Trump and went to his hotel room, she confided in very few people about the sexual encounter, in part because she was “ashamed.”

At this point I have to wonder if this is how every old hag remembers her sex life, no matter how it was. Maximally unpleasant if not rape. Never any "adult" responsibility on their part despite being an adult star.

Or this is so parodic of the old hag who regrets everything and never had any agency that I am wondering if Trump is telling the truth that it never happened.

Either that, or menopause so destroys women's ability to remember sex as anything but the most disgusting, unwanted experiences that this is how they truly remember it. In their mind in retrospect they go from innocent groomed teen to disagreeable old hag with no responsibility in between either. Everything was just totally shameful and frightening until there is no sexual value left.

I know not all women are like that, but it's the impression I get from reading the news.

AF said...

A post-menopausal woman bears as much relation to her teenage self as does a caterpillar and a butterfly. A 45 year old woman is truly a different individual than her younger version. She may share memories and life-experiences, but she has no right to regret anything she did as a teen unless the consequences truly do carry over to her present life. Teenage sex doesn't, unless it led to a pregnancy or an STD or some such. 'Feeling abused' is just a rationalisation of resentment that she is a different person, with far less sexual power. And of course, it's also a weapon they use to justify anti-sex laws that limit young women's power.

This is why I have no problems 'hating' older women, and why your MAP followers are wrong to claim I 'hate teenage girls'. I don't even really hate women, other than feminists, but most of us know that the white knighting and pussy pedastalizing male instinct is one of the principle reasons men cannot unite and fight back.

Oh yea, that 'normal guy' scene is great - I forgot to mention that. As to be expected, the commentators under the YouTube video don't get it, projecting their 21st century paedohysteria onto it as well.

Eivind Berge said...

If Stormy Daniels’s personality here is representative of 45-year-old women then yeah, they are totally unlovable at that point. Not only has she lost most of her attractiveness and probably all fertility but her personality now at presumably perimenopause has undergone equally ugly changes. Not saying all women are like this but calling a spade a spade here.

This is an encounter she admits she walked willingly into. It was consensual even by the hysterical standards for consent in the #Metoo era, yet it was so unpleasant it made her black out and shake and feel ashamed -- all the same symptoms they claim for girls under the age of consent or when women are raped. Her mind now has tunnel vision on asexuality as if the slightest bit of flirtatiousness did not exist, even at the height of her adult entertainment career and peak ability to consent at over 25 years old, so we can even grant them all the brain development nonsense for the purposes of this discussion. I am assuming she didn’t really act like that at the time -- it would be astonishing if she didn’t flirt at all and impossible to believe she didn’t know what was up when going to the hotel room -- but if that’s how they remember it then that does not reflect well on women’s ability to age as the same person.

Meanwhile Trump was 60 years old at the time which goes to show men age much more gracefully and congruently not just in reproductive ability but personality as well -- still talking about grabbing pussy at 70 too. Different world, different ideals that cannot be squared with losing interest in sex by 45, let alone re-imagining all youthful experiences as asexuality too.

I know this case most heavily reflects politics and greed rather than an honest survey of women’s personality, but the fact that this sort of testimony is considered reasonable says a lot. From the perspective of their postmenopausal selves, no wonder teen girls can’t consent because they can never enjoy sex and remember it past 40 anyway, so ANY excuse to turn sex into crime and lawsuit fodder is welcome. Truth has nothing to do with it and the male perspective is culturally invalid. We can thank Trump for nonetheless bringing it out in the open, though. The contrast here makes him surprisingly likeable.

Revolution G23 said...

The reforms needed to society are to remove the ability of post menopausal women to be able to have any effect on men's ability to have intimate relationships with young girls for or any other part of men's liberty.

Anonymous said...

We are forgetting that male feminist tyrants are just as much to blame, if not more, for using feminism as part of their sexual strategy against other males in competition for the best teenage girls.

After seeing the latest hateful video made by a pack of homosexual feminist tyrant criminals, I had to launch my blog:


Anonymous said...

From about 2:05- I don't know WTF these people are but how they could be cast as teen Romeo and Juliet is beyond me.

Re: Anonymous Thursday, May 02, 2024 5:57:00 PM-9/11 was some sort of inside job, that's for sure. No way three huge towers could have been brought down by 2 relatively flimsy aircraft with essentially kerosene for fuel, for example.

Mad thought: What if the Deep State anticipated or desired the current paedohysteria decades ago, and 9/11 was done at least in part in order to produce the current environment? RG23 has been saying that all sorts of events, including 9/11 have been foreshadowing the current regime, and I have to agree.

I know I've now lost everyone but RG23 plus the writer of the comment. if they're not the same person, but think about it. If things are so crazy that the DHS lists MAPs. MRA's, incels etc as security threats, why can't people also look at the evidence of 9/11 being an inside job and as part of the same larger plan?

In any case, I'm astonished, yet also glad and relieved, about the actions by the DHS. It is evidence that the deep state views threats to the current feminist ascendancy-very much including anti-paedohysteria/age cuckery-as an existential threat. We can all feel vindicated and maybe even surprised that it's even more important to them than we thought.

Anonymous 2

Jack said...

Except we here do not give a rat's ass about whether 9/11 was an inside job or not. For all we care 9/11 may have been carried out by the aliens from another planet with the help of the jesuits. The gynocracy has little to fear if its opponents are of the kind who get themselves into a sweat over boring conspiracy theories concerning events dead and buried.

Eivind Berge said...

I agree, Jack. Conspiracy theories get us nowhere, even if they happened to be true. It is organizational work we need. To that end, check out my new blog post:

Let's take the next step and organize politically against the feminist sex laws.

Revolution G23 said...

We can start by attacking the laws that raise the marriage age to 18 that are now quickly spreading across all the states in the USA.

Anonymous said...

@Jack and Eivind-if you think it's boring that wars were fought over complete bullshit-three free-falling skyscrapers and only two planes, if you've ever stopped to think about it-and untold blood and treasure spilt-then I feel sorry for you. This is especially so since these wars and tyranny have been used to advance paedohysteria. No connection at all?

Anonymous 2