Thursday, May 09, 2024

I am now an official MAP!

I am proud to announce that I now have an official position in the MAP movement. Today Newgon has made me Men’s Movement Community Outreach Ambassador. Quoting my own statement in the their press release:

“As a veteran Men’s Rights Activist, and seeing how the Men’s Rights Movement has lost sight of our original sex-positivity, I am excited to have found Newgon which picks up the torch on advocating for sex law reforms that I considered obvious from the beginning. Increasingly draconian age of consent and related sex laws are feminism’s most insidious weapons against men. We sorely need an organizational structure wherein we can make our stance clear and have a political platform we can push, along with educational resources promoting the truth versus sex abuse hysteria. Newgon provides all of this. I am therefore delighted to be appointed by Newgon in an official role and look forward to working with them to make common cause with the Men's Movement as I envision it. As far as I'm concerned, MAP is now a political synonym for MRA and I am proud to be known by either. We can thank Newgon's ethos for establishing this idea as a cultural force, a MAP Movement which obviously deserves to include all sex-positive MRAs as well.”

To my knowledge I am the only one in Norway with an organizational role against sex abuse hysteria. During these darkest times of the antisex witch-hunts I am the one pioneer who is not afraid to proudly stand up for the truth and be an activist against the sex laws. I have praised Newgon before and now it is official.

Hopefully this will open the floodgates for MAPs to become politically aware and raise awareness in Norway and beyond. And as noted, MRAs are better off as MAPs now or at least close allies, because the MAPs are the only ones who are making their presence felt politically.

Let's all unite and work with the MAPs whether we identify as one or just support them politically. MAP is above all a political term because it is political change we need. Newgon's ethos is so similar to old-school men's rights activism of the kind Angry Harry advocated that it is a no-brainer to be one of them, especially now that there is no real alternative.

197 comments:

Anonymous said...

No offense, but you're a bit of a wacko (not totally mad, but you're about halfway between sanity and insanity), and sooner or later they are likely to regret their decision. Have they actually been reading your stuff, watching your Youtube videos, and following your comment section? I highly doubt that.

Nevertheless, congratulations on the achievement.

Eivind Berge said...

Ok, whatever, dude. If you think you'd make a better face for Newgon why don't you try to join them yourself? They do have a shortage of public faces and several positions open in that respect.

More likely, you are either too cowardly or insane for them yourself, or both.

Revolution G23 said...

In the USA, states are rapidly banning child marriage. This needs to be our big political breakout. There's an organization called Unchained at Last that is leading the effort to raise the minimum marriage age to 18. That's a group we should attack. It's big news now that New Hampshire is one of many states that have banned child marriage since 2017.

Anonymous said...

@Revolution G23-How do we do this? Not sarcastic, a genuine question. These laws aren't some relics from centuries past, they're only very recent and part of a trend, and of course the normies are delighted by them. The only thing I can think of as far as my own situation goes, is to wait for the unlikely event they come up in conversation somehow. Even then, I'd still might as well be wearing a sign that says kick me.

Anonymous 2

Anonymous said...

@Revolution G23-you have your Bitchute channel, but I can't see any real way to raise awareness of this legal trend since nobody cares, unfortunately. It's not that one shouldn't try, but how do we go about it?

Anonymous 2

Eivind Berge said...

I don't know of any direct action we can take against criminalization of child marriage at this time.

What we can do is educate ourselves and get better at activism. I do this every day. Today I learned a new perspective on so-called repressed memories of CSA. Well, not new since the article is from 2009, but new to me. It provides a more based interpretation of "recovered memories" than simply calling them false because recovered memories are impossible:

McNally, R. J., & Geraerts, E. (2009). "A New Solution to the Recovered Memory Debate." Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(2), 126–134.

https://sci-hub.se/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01112.x

ABSTRACT—The controversy regarding recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) has been characterized by two perspectives. According to one perspective, some people repress their memories of abuse because these experiences have been so emotionally traumatic, and they become capable of recalling the CSA only when it is psychologically safe to do so many years later. According to the other perspective, many reports of recovered memories of sexual abuse are false memories, often inadvertently fostered by therapists. In this article, we provide evidence for a third interpretation that applies to a subset of people reporting recollections of CSA; it does not require the concepts of repression, trauma, or false memory. These people did not experience their CSA as traumatic; they either failed to think about their abuse for years or forgot their previous recollections, and they recalled their CSA spontaneously after encountering reminders outside of psychotherapy. Their recovered memories are corroborated at the same rate as those of people who never forgot their abuse. Hence, recalling CSA after many years is not the same thing as having recalled a previously repressed memory of trauma.

If I try really hard, I can probably recall an instance of eating fish for dinner in 1986. Doesn't mean it is a recovered memory. It just means it wasn't worth thinking about in the meantime. And that's how CSA is too. These memories are often "recovered" because they simply did not leave any significant impact. They were NOT abusive experiences, but of course when there is a CSA panic with lots of compensation to be made that's how they are now framed and recovered.

This interpretation is most based and hardest-hitting when refuting CSA voodoo beliefs. Although if directly accused of historical crimes that can still be prosecuted it is probably better to go with the false memory angle.

AF said...

Congratulations Eivind. I have to point out though, that if this is a real attempt by the MAP community to 'reach out' to the MRM, you are going to have to drop the female sex offender charade obsession.

Eivind Berge said...

Another enlightening research article.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26553304/

"Informed consent instead of assent is appropriate in children from the age of twelve: Policy implications of new findings on children's competence to consent to clinical research." Hein, M. et al. BMC Med Ethics 2015 Nov 9;16(1):76. doi: 10.1186/s12910-015-0067-z.

There needs to be a higher standard for medical consent than sexual. Even so, going by that stringent standard, in light of the latest empirical research it is impossible to argue that they don't have informed consent competence by age 12.

Background: For many decades, the debate on children's competence to give informed consent in medical settings concentrated on ethical and legal aspects, with little empirical underpinnings. Recently, data from empirical research became available to advance the discussion. It was shown that children's competence to consent to clinical research could be accurately assessed by the modified MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research. Age limits for children to be deemed competent to decide on research participation have been studied: generally children of 11.2 years and above were decision-making competent, while children of 9.6 years and younger were not.

So they tend to understand most consequences by age 10, and then at 12 there is no doubt.

Recommendations for policies include a dual consent procedure, including both child as well as parents, for children from the age of 12 until they reach majority. For children between 10 and 12 years of age, and in case of children older than 12 years in special research populations of mentally compromised patients, we suggest a case-by-case assessment of children's competence to consent. Since such a dual consent procedure is fundamentally different from a procedure of parental permission and child assent, and would imply a considerable shift regarding some current legislations, practical implications are elaborated.

So, no individual assessment is needed in normal people over 12, because they are all competent. And with individual assessment they can be found to be competent at 10.

Newgon is currently advocating lowering the age of consent to 12. I think we can all (at least) agree to that. And if the normies took the empirical evidence seriously they would need to drop any pretense of "inability" to consent from 12.

Incidentally, I was watching this documentary about a girl with memory super powers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MlFheM5Tf8

If you watch at 15:37 scientists confirm that her brain, and the memory system in everyone's brain, is fully developed at puberty or generally by age 12.

Whenever we take an honest look, we find the brain is fully developed at puberty, for all purposes up to and including medical decision-making and even special intellectual gifts.

FreeTheTeens69 said...

Good job buddy. Proud of you.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations Eivind, may you be a good representative against feminist repression of normal male sexuality and love!

https://antimoneylaundering.wtf/f/too-dangerous-to-take-trash-to-the-curb-and-a-ppp-fraudster

I keep wondering if we can help this guy Cline before they finish throwing him to the conservative feminist wolves in Florida, or at least ask him to help our shared cause by vigorously defending himself or trying for jury nullification.

I'm positive his lawyers are telling him there's no chance, just roll over and die and plead guilty, and maybe you can have a few years outside of prison at the end of your life wearing an ankle bracelet like a piece of livestock.


anon69

Eivind Berge said...

I didn't understand much of that Rugh Cline case but I got another dystopian name for a meaningless sex crime out of it: "Engaging in illicit sexual conduct in a foreign place." Another catch-all term to lock up anyone the feminist state looks at -- including double punishment after serving a sentence in another country. And those absurdly draconian restrictions while out on bail, wow, they still except sex offenders to live without Internet. And taking the trash out to the curb is too much freedom for them and "dangerous to the community" according to Florida courts.

AF said...

I read yesterday that there are over 60,000 registered sex offenders in the UK, who increasingly have to live under cruel and inhuman restrictions after their release from prison, just as in the USA.

Imagine if we could just appeal to 10% of them? That would be 6,000 in the UK alone. And if the same in the USA, over 30,000 or so.

Aside from MRAs, who to be honest, are almost a lost cause it seems, the only two groups I can really see who could form a truly angry movement to oppose feminists, are 'sex offenders', and incels (who are so ugly or marginalized that they can't even get sex, legal or illegal).

And when I say 'sex offenders', of course I'm not talking about real criminals such as genuine rapists or child abusers, but the vast majority convicted of looking at pictures, or having willing sex with teens.

Of course Eivind the MAP tactical ambassador despises and alienates the majority of both gorups as 'losers' and 'wankers'.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't despise incels and wankers, but those are not something I want to be or uphold as a positive ideal. The incels base their entire identity on being losers, so it hardly matters if we call them that either.

The MAP movement is a positive identity. A lot of MAPs feel marginalized and hated except in this ingroup, and you still fit in when being successful too which is not the case with incels. My focus now is to build the community aspect. Changing the minds of normies is much harder than converting them into a friendly welcoming movement, upon which their minds are automatically changed anyway to fit the new group.

Here's a good video by Andres Acevedo on the weird science of beliefs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcmbATnQcMo

The information deficit model -- that people who disagree with us don't have the right information -- is wrong. We should definitely present good science but it's much more important to have a group people would want to belong to.

Anonymous said...

"Engaging in illicit sexual conduct in a foreign place."

That is the name of the USA crime for a citizen that sees an escort under 18 or an amateur under 16 in another country, or if he takes a picture of someone naked under 18 abroad. The penalties are insane, and there is no discussion of "consent" or even cultural differences. In fact, many cases feature men who argue cultural differences allow their behavior, and the feminist judges disregard it completely. It is a law designed to punish men for looking outside of the borders of the USA for a better deal while still being a US citizen; it also obviously serves to artificially increase the price and power of western p*ssy.

They call it "sex tourism", yet there is no equivalent law that criminalizes women for going abroad to find a wealthier man or a more dangerous gang member to f*ck. The myth of "equality" assumes that men and women have the same sexual desires, so in practice the law specifically entraps almost 100% men, which is magically rationalized as not disproportionate in impact somehow. The "female sex offender charade" actually serves to bolster these feminist laws because the publicity gives the appearance of equality while 99.9% of defendants are men.

This law is the basis of an international feminist cartel that generates income for NGO's, who are primarily funded by the US government through USAID and ECPAT International. The job of these NGO's is to spread the word that they will pay local families' young daughters and escorts to have sex with US citizens and subsequently report them to the NGO's. The NGO's then report the US citizens to the US government, and the US government and the NGO's pay the female "victims" and the local government for delivering the male victim of the scam to the US. Some locals get wise and attempt to cut out the middleman, directly extorting the men themselves by threatening to report them to the NGO's.

APLE is the leading international feminist cartel member operating in Cambodia using this system, which is how Cline was arrested. He paid some teen girl escorts and took a few pictures with his personal evidence collection device (cellphone). Cline is fat and dumb, yes. But he did nothing wrong, obviously, and in addition to a few years in Cambodian prison and what will likely be a decade in US prison, he can't even bring leaves to the curb that he cleaned up at his mother's house.

Out of control international feminist abuse industry extortion.

"Imagine if we could just appeal to 10% of them? That would be 6,000 in the UK alone. And if the same in the USA, over 30,000 or so."

It's a good strategy, and there are definitely more than that in the US. A quick search of the registry in any area of the US, and you will find 99% of the guys are on it because of hoax crimes like downloading pictures or underage entrapment operations. Basically, just a mass of normal dumb guys prosecuted for lucrative hoax crimes and slandered by feminist tyrants for the rest of their lives.


anon69

AF said...

"They call it "sex tourism", yet there is no equivalent law that criminalizes women for going abroad to find a wealthier man or a more dangerous gang member to f*ck."

I have just been watching some clips on Twitter of female NGO workers (and they are nearly always female..and fat) dancing with young African male 'asylum seekers' at 'refugee centers' in Ireland. Women don't even have to go abroad - they can literally get tax money or charitable status to bring BBCs and such like into the country en masse to have bad boy sex with. Destroying 2,500 years of European civilization, from the glories of the Ancient Greeks, in the process.

I remember I posted on my blog the story of a feminist NGO who was one of those responsible for the 'Nordic Model' criminalizing the clients of sex workers in Sweden. She ended up being executed (hahahaha) by Boko Harem or some African rebel group in the jungle. I looked at her Instagram, and she had been brazenly posting pics of herself dancing and dating young local black males.

I also recall reading that tens of thousands of Scandinavian women visit Jamaica every year to have sex with the local male prostitutes - who they refer to as 'the big bamboos'. Yet they lock up men for doing the same, at home or abroad.

Roissy/Heartiste once said something like - 'feminism exists to increase the sexual opportunities of women, while restricting the sexual opportunities of men'.

It's so obvious what feminists are up to, I still can't understand why so few of us are highlighting it and angry about it. But thanks - you get it 100%.

@Eivind - do you have any concrete ideas on how to appeal to the MRM in your new role?



AF said...

"The myth of "equality" assumes that men and women have the same sexual desires, so in practice the law specifically entraps almost 100% men, which is magically rationalized as not disproportionate in impact somehow. The "female sex offender charade" actually serves to bolster these feminist laws because the publicity gives the appearance of equality while 99.9% of defendants are men."

This is another great point. Just as the MRA 'equality of injustice' idiots validate the laws, so does Eivind from a different angle, through the promotion of the idea that women are equal victims of the laws.

MRAs say boys are equal victims of sex abuse. Eivind says women are equal victims of unfair sex abuse laws. Both only succeed in masking the vital truth that these feminist laws target men, and are an attack on normal male sexuality.

AF said...

We wont make any progress until a mass of us adopt Sexual Trade Union or Pussy Cartel theory as the basic narrative.

Fighting feminist sex laws without that is like trying to fight Capitalism without agreeing upon Communism, or at least basic socialist ideas and principles.

For certain, if Eivind is to succeed in reaching out to the MRM on behalf of MAPs, he needs to put his ego to one side and adopt Sexual Trade Union theory, as well as drop the female sex offender charade stuff.

Eivind Berge said...

A single cause as an explanation of anything is rarely useful. Pussy cartel theory explains some things but can't be the complete explanation because then the problem should always have existed. What is different now as opposed to three hundred years ago? Is it simply because women can vote? That fails too because sex laws have been draconian in the past too, without women voting for them.

As to the female sex offender charade, I stand by everything I have said about it. It is the only part of the antisexual persecution which is not directly even partly explainable by trade union theory either, so it serves as a study in complete insanity. As far as that goes it should be useful as an introduction to how evil the state is for those who are able to think for themselves.

I know this won't change minds either unless they are already inclining in that direction because normies would rather suffer physical death than the social death of resisting their ruling ideology which is feminism now. I am sorry I don't have more concrete ideas on how to make faster progress, but I know it doesn't work to do the things AF is suggesting here. He has tried that for decades and it came to nothing.

Look at how the Cline story is received outside the MAP movement. The pussy cartel couldn't be clearer than that sort of thing. It would be superfluous to even point it out. Yet all we get is a timid suggestion that maybe the man should be allowed to take out the garbage for his mother while awaiting the trial which will have him sent away for decades? That's as far as the mainstream goes. Every man is more afraid of criticizing the sex laws than he is of physical death, because he thinks he needs the feminist ingroup now.

Eivind Berge said...

If women love to have their pussies priced highly with ever more draconian punishments now including double-dipping the same "offense" in two countries, men love to be pimps.

"Right now, in the modern industrial world, we live in an economy where nearly all exchanges are subject not just to the exactions of a single pimp but to whole regiments of pimps, each of whom has to be paid in order for the exchange to take place [or rather after the fact with sex offenses]. Furthermore, this orgy of pimping is sponsored, controlled, and mandated by government at all levels and by the holders of political and economic power more generally. Thus, lenocracy."

--John Michael Greer (from https://www.ecosophia.net/beyond-lenocracy/)

There is at least equal reason to blame the pimps in the abuse industry, more than half of which are men when you count the judges, cops and prison guards.

Most men when hearing about the Cline story would rather invent and profit from a better ankle bracelet to ensure he definitely can't take out the garbage than help him in any way. It's pimps all the way down who ensure the system is locked into the antisex witch-hunt for now. Don't think men are any better than women.

Eivind Berge said...

Think about how much male muscle and brainpower goes into keeping sex persecuted. Everyone from legislators to cops to prison guards to not least the programmers who make all the monitoring and video links possible to keep all these "sex offenders" subdued or locked up are mostly men. When you consider the whole system which works on the principle of the banality of evil versus the few truly evil feminist lobbyists and NGO workers, men look more guilty than women.

This is why I can't simply chalk it down to the pussy cartel.

Eivind Berge said...

I feel bad for the official "victims" not because they have sex but because they get such a minuscule share of the loot compared to the pimps. I imagine a Third Word "underage" girl typically gets paid about $100 or less in the transaction which gets the ball rolling. Contrast this to the $40,000 it costs to keep a sex offender locked up for just one year (by the lowest estimates). Assuming a decade in prison the girl's share is only 0.0025% of what has been paid in one way or another, and that's probably overestimating it when the prosecution involves multiple countries and includes pretrial monitoring, probation and sex offender registration, with additional regiments of pimps who need to be paid every step of the way.

Eivind Berge said...

Kudos to Rebecca Joynes for sticking it to the female sex offender charade by having a baby with one student while on bail for sex with different boy.

https://nypost.com/2024/05/09/world-news/uk-teacher-had-baby-with-pupil-while-on-bail-for-sex-with-another/

A UK teacher had a baby with an underage student she had sex with dozens of times — while out on bail for sex with another 15-year-old boy, jurors were told. Manchester math teacher Rebecca Joynes, 30, groomed the first boy by taking him shopping for a Gucci belt worth the equivalent of around $430, the accuser told cops in an interview played in court, according to the Manchester Evening News. She then drove him back to her apartment for unprotected sex, “laughing” when he told her he was too young even to drive, jurors were told. “She said, ‘Oh shut up’ … ‘Stop saying that,’” the 15-year-old said of his teacher allegedly teasing him about his young age. The pupil, identified only as Boy A, told cops he stayed the night after twice having sex with the teacher, who allegedly told him while getting undressed that “no one had better find out,” jurors were told. Boy A told police he never expected them to have sex. “But anyone in my position, when you are my age … If you ever see her — she is good-looking,” he told cops in the footage played in court.

Good to see the "victims" mocking the police too.

But society will persist of course because persecuting sexuality is what we do now. We may laugh at the charade but nothing will be done to stop it; even if literally every cog in the machine and abuse industry knows it is absurd they will keep doing their "duty" and happily reap any rewards they can get for their pimping.

Joynes eventually became pregnant and had a daughter with Boy B, according to the Times of London. However, she denies having sex with him before he turned 16 — the regular age of consent in the UK — or when she was still a teacher, which would raise that age of consent to 18.

Yeah, gotta inflate the persecution past the age of consent by the "teacher" voodoo in the UK too. The normies will accept any excuse whatsoever to persecute all of sexuality no matter how absurd. The only limitation to the witch-hunt is the imagination of legislators and the UK is already lagging behind the times if they cut off their violence against teachers when pupils turn 18.

Anonymous said...

"As to the female sex offender charade, I stand by everything I have said about it."

Yes of course we agree it's insane and illogical, and it also serves the feminist purpose of validating the laws and covering up the disparate impact against basically all men, so it's not a win for us to focus on it, it's a nullity at best, a wash.

"He has tried that for decades and it came to nothing."

Targeting our outreach to men on the sex offenders list has not been tried for decades - it is a new idea and the list has grown to be abnormally huge, with the vast majority on there for complete bullsh*t. I'm sure they're pretty pissed about it, and even a small active percentage of them brave enough to stand with us would be a formidable army of opinion.

I made small talk with a young teen girl for a bit today, unfortunately she was fully indoctrinated, hyper focused on age and very rude, to the point where I told her I was leaving the conversation. She immediately became apologetic of course, but I left anyway to prove a point and teach her a lesson. I can't blame her, the indoctrination against older men is starting very, very young now. Her attitude was a direct result of jealous as*holes filling her head with ageist, anti-male garbage, from male and female feminists alike and virtually all media.

Nothing is different - you're right, the problem has always existed, even 300 years ago when feminists were agitating on behalf of the trade union, regardless of voting. Weak men and hysterical women are symptoms of cultures in decline, and cultures rise and fall with the times.

A weak man is a feminist tyrant, a "pimp" in the feminist system as you say, who sells out not only his fellow men, but also HIMSELF. These stupid men agitate against their own interests, and many times are blackmailed or suffer the consequences of their own witch hunts. Think of all the pedocrites we've already identified, think of guys like Tim Ballard who use feminism against other men to make money, then get accused by the same feminists of impropriety. These are not powerful men, and yes, they are just as much to blame as women for allowing this crap to happen for short sighted personal gain. And yes, the entire feminist abuse industry makes far more money off their fake "victims" comparatively, hence the extortion attempts by individuals.

Make no mistake, stupid male feminist sellouts are just as much if not more to blame than female feminists for the success of the pu*sy cartel.


anon69

ps. I'm censoring offensive words so my comments don't get lost in the filter.

Anonymous said...

Some news from South Australia-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13410241/South-Australia-social-media-ban-Facebook-Instagram-Twitter.html .
RG23 was saying Florida already has a similar ban.
I doubt it will work. Hope not.

Anonymous 2

AF said...

"As to the female sex offender charade, I stand by everything I have said about it."

That's great Eivind, and you've certainly said a lot about it, including I see (in your new role as 'outreach MAP ambassador to the men's rights movement') that it's the 'most evil atrocity in the world'. That'll be sure to win over a lot of MRAs. Your tactical nous is unrivalled. It's little wonder the MAPs spotted your talent. If you were born 2,300 years ago, you would surely have even been able to defeat Alexander the Great on the battlefield.

Meanwhile, in Iran, a shocking video of a hag 'morality police' officer throwing a pretty young girl to the ground for going out with uncovered hair. The 'Union' is the same everywhere, even if it takes many forms. Personally, I see this as a greater 'atrocity' than a slut schoolteacher brazenly banging an underage chad assuming she deserves the pussy pass.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13411967/Shocking-moment-female-morality-police-officer-attacks-screaming-teenager-forces-ground-refusing-cover-hair-crowd-saves-Iran.html

@Anon69

Yeah, back in the 2000's it was still possible to interact with young teen girls without them seeing you as a pedo or a perv. Many teen girls (and others) were still able to challenge the narrative that older men interested in teens are subhuman perverts. But since around 2010, young people have been entirely brainwashed since birth with the paedohysteria conditioning.

I think we should have realistic aims, and one of those aims should be to at least put the idea out there that there is an alternative point of view regarding men finding teens attractive. Not the 'MAP' view, but the male sexualist view that it's all a lie - that jealous feminist hags have created the myth that men finding teens attractive are paedophiles, in order to control male sexuality and to control teen girls. Just like the 'morality police' in Iran.

AF said...

"A single cause as an explanation of anything is rarely useful. Pussy cartel theory explains some things but can't be the complete explanation because then the problem should always have existed. What is different now as opposed to three hundred years ago? Is it simply because women can vote? That fails too because sex laws have been draconian in the past too, without women voting for them."

So many errors here. I didn't say it 'explains everything'. I said it should be the basic framework to understand what's going on.

No, the problem should not always have existed, because the vast majority of men did not have the sexual freedom they do now. FFS, did you ever even read my blog? Sex was a highly risky activity for most of human history, with a good chance of leading to either an STD or a pregnancy, even if you could put with the lack of personal hygeine and such (there's a reason why they wore wigs in the 18th century). The vast majority of men in the 18th century would probably not see another naked female other than their wife in their entire lifetime. Yes, the upper-classes could frequent brothels (still highly risky) and take mistresses (still highly risky), but a man was still expected to stick with his wife, who he usually married very young.

Compare to say Japan in the 1990's, which was is probably the closest humanity will ever come to a truly free sexual market in a technological and Internet age. First of all, a 30 year old Japanse man could start the day by looking at the flyers put through his letterbox inviting him to go online and check out the hardcore videos featuring some cute 14 year old girls. But maybe he is not a 'wanker' because why should he be? He can just step out the door and his local telephone kiosk will be plastered with adverts from 14 year old schoolgirls begging for a suggar daddy. Well, perhaps he is unemployed and can't even afford to pay for clothes or a smartphone for his potential teen girlfriend. Never mind, he can head down to his local train station and buy a pair of used 14 year old schoolgirl panties from the vending machine, complete with her photo, and at least find some solace there. The LAST thing he wants to do is to actually go through the rigours of dating some 30 year old career woman in the hope she might finally let him have sex.

"Is it simply because women can vote? That fails too because sex laws have been draconian in the past too, without women voting for them".

This is silly too. Which draconian laws are you referring too? Presumably you mean the age of consent and 'white slavery' laws in the 19th century that were lobbied for by suffragettes and early feminists, given that you think that before that we lived in a sexual paradise?

It actually pains me to think that I've read thousands of your words on the 'female sex offender charade' and you don't appear to have even read (and certainly not grasped) almost anything of mine.

AF said...

"I am sorry I don't have more concrete ideas on how to make faster progress, but I know it doesn't work to do the things AF is suggesting here. He has tried that for decades and it came to nothing."

Not sure what you're talking about here. You obsess and obsess about the female sex offender charade, and you think that after 20 years one of your Facebook posts goes viral and you get a dozen likes, that you're 'vindicated'?

I had Angry Harry, the father of the MRM, permanently link to me from his blog. I had guys like Bernard Chapin, InMalaFide support me. Even Paul Elam asked me to help him set up AVoiceForMen.

I had 'followers' who actually tried to spread my ideas. For example : https://www.facebook.com/FeminismSexTradeUnion I don't know who that was, it wasn't created by me. There were at least two blogs specifically started to spread Sexual Trade Union theory. And this, which was clearly influenced by me : http://greenpill.net/ Even Tom Grauer's blog, who you proclaimed as the Male Sexualist leader, was just a virtual clone of my site and my rants.

You, on the other hand, have been banging almost solely on the female sex offender charade for decades, and you don't appear to have influenced anybody. And if you 'succeeded', what relevance would it have, just to confirm that "it's different for women". All you've succeeded is completely alienating the MRM and making us look like a joke.

If you're referring specifically to my idea of reaching out to sex offenders, no "I haven't tried this for decades". I was referring to actually making contact with sex offenders.This is something you could do, given that you are public. You keep boasting about how brave you are for being 'public', but you never make any actual use of it other than making cringey talking naked in the shower videos and the like. You got on a Norwegian show and just used it promote FertileDating, and coming across as a laughing stock. Who are you trying to 'appeal to' then btw. The handful of female sex offenders you obsess over? Well, you probably do dream of one of them giving you a sympathy bang as a reward once they get out of prison.

AF said...

You have NO practical suggestions - ZERO. All your suggestions I can think of :
1 - your 'views' on the police'
2 - registering as sex offenders
3 - aiming for the collapse of industrial civilization
4 - following the example of Nathan Larsson.

All of these are absolutely ridiuclous or suicidal, and would in any case require us to have millions of followers in the first place to have any effect. Quick reminder, after 20 years of doing this you have 3 followers. Actually, 2 now that the MAP has turned on you.

The only 'practical' suggestion I can ever recall you making is that we should be public in our activism. And even this is only practical to somebody living in Norway. And even here, it appears to me that you never understood the consequences of public activism, such as reducing your dating or employment prospects to near zero, and still don't understand the physical danger to yourself even in Norway.

Compare to some of my practical suggestions and methods that DID PROVE EFFECTIVE, such as individually shaming men as paedocrites (such as Manboobz) or feminists as hags. Pointing out to the MRM that the age of consent laws were made by feminists. What's a better line to make MRAs realize that accepting the victimization of boys does not help men - 'the female sex offender charade' or 'equality of injustice'?

And one final thing before I can get on with the rest of my day. You claim that at least 50% of the abuse laws are caused by men. This absolutely false. You don't seem to realize that an ever growing percentage of judges, politicians, police officers are female. But that's regardless. It's the female dominated NGOs and feminist lobby groups, and feminist academics that are the driving force of the laws, and behind them are the overwhelming support of women in general. More importantly still, a relative small number of feminists is easier to fight (and shame) than the entire legal apparatus involving hundreds of thousands of police, lawyers, prison staff, judges etc etc.

After 20 years of being a supposed 'MRA' you don't appear to understand even the basic ideas behind the men's rights movement. For example the core idea of women always being the 'backseat driver' in society.

Anyway, that's enough for today. I had to correct your litany of falseheads.

Eivind Berge said...

The Iranian morality police is straightforward brutality. Their work is equally atrocious but lacks the travesty or charade dimension of the CSA panic, which is most poignant with the boys because they are most definitely the opposite of victims and actually lucky, spectacularly so when they get with beautiful women. Unlike the Iranian morality police which is just primitive religious intolerance, our morality police pretends they are doing it for fake “victims” which are not religiously but rather scientifically defined. We must not let our police get away with pretending they are not morality police on sex crimes. We must not let them have a gullible public which believes their fake “scientific” justification -- which is where Bruce Rind et al. come in as our greatest heroes.

Female sexual trade union theory ignores all this, and is therefore less morally relevant and less useful.

Newgon agrees with me on this, which is why they devote so much effort to presenting the science. When Bruce Rind pontificates on the need-to-learn hypothesis and adolescent boys' voracious sexual appetite for adult women, as well as their unmatched positive recall rates from those relationships (exceeding even adult men with adult women), he is in effect calling the female sex offender charade out as a unique travesty just like I am doing. The only difference is he puts it in more scientific terms.

I am fully aligned with the MAP movement on this and don’t need to change anything. Actually my path proved to be the way forward because the MRA approach is dead and MAPs are ascending to fill not only our role but becoming genuinely influential.

Eivind Berge said...

The AF says:

"I think we should have realistic aims, and one of those aims should be to at least put the idea out there that there is an alternative point of view regarding men finding teens attractive. Not the 'MAP' view, but the male sexualist view that it's all a lie - that jealous feminist hags have created the myth that men finding teens attractive are paedophiles."

The lie goes deeper than this. Also there is no reason to be upset that MAPs want to expose the deeper lie. It is a lie that most men don't like teens and it is a lie that teens are victimized by consensual sex. But it is also a lie that genuine pedophilia is always harmful. Exposing that deeper lie is what I choose to get on board with when I call myself a MAP, and apparently the source of animosity here.

I am unapologetic, however. If you want a MAP-hostile MRA or male sexualist movement, go make your own.

I am not attached to labels and unlike you I acknowledge that we don't speak a dead language where the meaning of "pedophile" must always remain the same. Seeing that the normies now call us pedophiles for liking teen girls I realize it's not worth the effort to resist that. What matters is promoting the truth that there is nothing wrong with such attraction or acting on it (aside from the illegality itself).

Anonymous said...

The AF is just a woman hating incel moron. Using cute women as the victims of the war on sex is genius. The AF is to dumb to understand this.

Anonymous said...

The AF's main goal is to show that women are evil and the cause of his incel status. I say whatever, it's not important and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. We still want and are still dependent on women on this planet, so hating women and girls like The AF is doing is counterproductive. The fact is that many men are aiding in anti-sexualism, maybe even more men than women.

Kaser said...

Why do you call yourself a pedophile and not an ephebophile?

Eivind Berge said...

Because "ephebophile" is not in common use and is discouraged even by the MAP movement (at least by Newgon) because it is a redundant concept which makes not the slightest difference as opposed to saying "man" or "pedophile" (in the new expanded sense). So let the normies call us pedophiles if they insist on a word along those lines.

CynicalOptimist said...

"Aside from MRAs, who to be honest, are almost a lost cause it seems, the only two groups I can really see who could form a truly angry movement to oppose feminists, are 'sex offenders', and incels (who are so ugly or marginalized that they can't even get sex, legal or illegal)."

The incel movement is now almost completely useless. It has been taken over by fools obsessed with lookism and competitive loserdom who will never have any impact on society. There was a time when it had a lot of potential, though.

It's a little-known fact that all of the earliest incel subreddits, including r/Incels, were either created or initially moderated by men who wanted it to be an inclusive movement for male sexuality. All of them were MAP allies too.

So what ruined the incel movement? Social media censorship.

Caamib, who used to occasionally comment on Eivind's blog and who endorsed male sexualism, was the head moderator of r/Incels until his account was banned by the Reddit administrators for "sexualizing minors". After he was banned, other people with little to no interest in male sexualism took over his subreddit, stopped allowing pro-MAP content, and began promoting lookism and blackpill as the "official" incel ideologies. The subreddit itself was eventually banned too, but by that time the incel movement had already lost its socially subversive potential.

If it wasn't for social media censorship, the incel movement today would be lead by male sexualists, welcome to everyone who experiences sexual frustration and periods of unwanted celibacy, and not just permavirgin losers obsessed with jawlines and wrist size. It would be allied with other pro-male sexuality movements and would likely count hundreds of thousands of members.

If large web hosting platforms and social media websites such as Reddit, Facebook, Instagram allowed free speech for MAPs, it would only be a question of time for the MAP movement to become a powerful force in society. Attention of any kind, even negative attention from outraged normies, would provide the fuel that would eventually allow the movement to grow big. Just like happened with incels when they were a growing force on Reddit, and just like happened with Nathan Larson's forum, which attracted almost 10,000 members in just a few months and which appealed even to many young women and girls.

"For certain, if Eivind is to succeed in reaching out to the MRM on behalf of MAPs, he needs to put his ego to one side and adopt Sexual Trade Union theory, as well as drop the female sex offender charade stuff."

The modern MRA movement has largely been subverted by feminism. MRAs have internalized the ideology of victimological feminism and sought to apply it to men instead of women. To feminists who claim that women and girls are victims of rampant male sexual depredation, they respond "you're right, but men and boys are equally likely to be sexually victimized by women".

The ludicrious idea that women can rape men is accepted by most MRAs. In the mind of the average MRA, the world is full of female sexual predators who force men and boys to to penetrate them sexually, mentally scarring them for life. MRAs compile statistics showing that countless men have been "made to penetrate" a woman at some point in their lives, and have constructed a whole mythology of imaginary female sexual predation around this fact.

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks, CynicalOptimist, for a powerfully astute comment. I couldn't have said it better. Can confirm your historical details too as I recall Caamib recounting his moderation experiences and frustrations with launching the incel movement as force which truly could benefit us. And yeah, "made to penetrate" hysteria and related retardation is the refrain of anyone visible by the MRA label today. That is so cringeworthy it makes me positively run for the MAP movement just to avoid that association alone.

Anonymous said...

The AF's hatred of women stems entirely from his incel status. He projects his own lack of success with women and girls onto Eivind and resents him for being a successful paedophile. Feminists hate women more than they hate men, and they hate girls the most of all. The AF is just a feminist incel loser, because he hates girls and he hates paedophiles like Eivind who are able to attract girls.

Eivind Berge said...

Quite so. We don't need to indulge negativity. Hopefully some genuine MAPs can pluck comfort from my leadership.

https://www.facebook.com/eivind.berge/videos/753031120318775/

Kaser AKA Feldmarschall said...

We have nothing to do with pedophiles or MAPs, it's crazy to mix attraction to young women with children and a lot of weird paraphilias.

At least ephebophile means attracted to sexually mature teenagers, even if others prefer to call themselves “normal straight men”, but pedophile is ridiculous, I have no sexual interest in children, not even many times I am attracted to them just because they are in puberty. Although I'm not even minimaly attracted to most adult women either, so I'll be a special and almost unique case of “real ephebophile” in history.

I don't even hate pedophiles just for existing but I'm not, it's not a word like queer or “bitch” that you can reappropriate, in fact I don't even use it with real pedophiles, there's no worse word to use, even MAP has some activist in it and there can be a debate about whether to use it or not in some cases, but pedophile is literally just giving reason to morons who think a 17 year old woman is a child.

By the way, I miss holocaust21, nobody remembers him anymore.

Eivind Berge said...

I suppose all of us old-school MRAs need to go through an epiphany (or not, as in the case of AF) about realizing we are MAPs in the current political climate. It's obvious once you realize it, and then you will feel it was silly and tiresome to argue about semantics when the real issue is sexual freedom. And you will realize literally every word can be reappropriated.

I miss holocaust21 too and wish he would come back to activism. I know he felt hopeless after WordPress deleted his blog five years ago but the outlook is brighter now with the rise of the MAP movement and Newgon's popular infrastructure even if our blogs get deleted. He sure would fit right into the MAP movement without a second thought.

AF said...

@CynicalOptimist - Thanks for that very informative post. Yes, it's sad that the Social Media companies, pressured by the femihag lobby groups and governments, have taken such an extreme position on 'the sexualization of minors'. I see from Caamib's 'incel wiki' page that he started an 'incel and male sexuallists' forum.

"Caamib started a forum called Incels and Male Sexualists in August 2019. [3] However, Zesto took this offline when he wiped the server, and the owners of the domain have also not been able to regain access to change its DNS records. "

Browsing Incels.is in the past, I've suspected that many of the posters who rant that attraction to teen girls is NOT an incel issue are Feds and government psyop agents, and after that Department of Homeland Security publication, I'm convinced of it. Probably the moderators too.

Thankfully, this blog is so insignificant, that there are probably no psyop agents here.

The censorship of social media does require us to think out of the box and try to work out tactics that circumvent such bans. Perhaps we need to go old school and do stuff like mass mailing (physical addresses) of sex offenders? I mean, their addresses in the USA are there for all to see.

Still, whilst you are entirely correct regarding the MRAs and their sexual victimization of men and boys, it remains the case that soembody like Evind constantly screaming that locking up female paedophiles is 'the greatest atrocity ever' is going to absolutely sicken 99.99% of MRAs. In fact, I'll repeat that the attitude of the MRM was likely brought about in part by Eivind's female sex offender charade obsession. It certainly made it harder for the likes of myself and Human Stupidity, and more importantly, for Angry Harry to resist the sexual victimization of 'men and boys' narrative of Paul Elam when we were associated with Eivind.

No doubt, there were psyop agents in the MRM too, and I strongly suspect that Kloo2Yoo - the mod of r/mensrights - was such one. Or maybe just a rampant paedocrite.

@Eivind - MAP identification is just going to bring in all the identity politics freaks, as MAP is understood as a form of tranny style identity politics. 'Choosing' to identify as a MAP when you realize that attraction to teens is normal is as silly as an MRA choosing to identify as a trans person. Though I do agree with Feldmarshall, my old enemy, on this occasion. It is absolutely ridiculous to lump people who want to have sex with babies and toddlers with men who find 17 year old young women attractive. And no, such a movement will never appeal to the MRM, no matter how many naked YouTube videos you make crying about the latest female sex offender denied the pussy pass. Dream on.

The American government recently admitted that accepting that young teens are sexually attractive, and that feminists are resentful ugly hags, are two of the five most dangerous ideas on the Internet. Yet Eivind not only can't grasp Sexual Trade Union theory, he thinks the solution is to identify as a 'minor attracted person'. A government psyop agent? No. Just Eivind being Eivind. :D

Eivind Berge said...

I looked into Nick Fuentes a little bit because I heard he is sort of an ally, and this title made me laugh:

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/10/nick-fuentes-texas-meeting/

"Fuentes often praises Adolf Hitler and has publicly fantasized about marrying a 16-year-old."

Yes, those are totally equivalent to the normies :)

Fuentes, 25, often praises Adolf Hitler and questions whether the Holocaust happened. He has called for a “holy war” against Jews and compared the 6 million killed by the Nazis to cookies being baked in an oven. He wants the U.S. government under authoritarian, “Catholic Taliban rule,” and has been vocal about his disdain for women, Muslims, the LGBTQ+ community and others...

Fuentes has fantasized about marrying a 16-year-old when he is older because that’s “right when the milk is good,” and he is a self-described “proud incel” who reportedly prohibits his followers from masturbating or having sex — among other directives that former members have described as cultish. “Incel” is shorthand for “involuntarily celibate,” and there is a long history of “incels” latching onto white supremacist ideologies that provide them someone, often Jews, to blame for their lack of romantic success. The neo-Nazi gunman who killed eight people at an Allen shopping mall this year was also an “incel.”


So much extra baggage that we don't need. Nofap is good though, but it does not mean not having sex.

Fuentes is a weirdo. Why can't anybody normal be pro-sex?

Eivind Berge said...

Some perspective on how we got into this antisex mess from Robin Hanson here, which does not invoke the female sexual trade union.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiSmqdc4C7Q

The key word is cultural drift. We have a global elite now which has adopted certain deep values and don't allow any variation. For example, there is a taboo on selling organs which is enforced in all countries except Iran. There is no deep reason why that taboo needs to exist globally -- it just happens to be the drift of this global monoculture. The sex laws are probably much like that too. They can go lots of different ways depending on culture but there is no cultural selection anymore, just a global elite enforcing the values they happen to have settled on. And they have settled on lots of bizarre changes that are probably not good for us, not just the sex laws. Anything to do with fertility is normalized too to where population is ensured to drop dramatically (thus ending advanced technology too, which is shocking to hear from a futurist like Robin Hanson who used to believe in transhumanism -- now he expects the future to be Amish). None of this is a well-planned conspiracy that could only have gone this way; it just looks that way because it is so uniform. We have a cultural drift problem rather than a feminist problem per se.

The solution is radical multiculturalism, but that's tough to get from here.

Jack said...

The above "cultural drift" theory pushes "global elite" instead of eg "gynocracy". Why? Because men can only go to war against other men. The mere suggestion of the enemy being female (or female-led) paralyzes men and prevent them to fight.

In order for men to march you need to paint their enemy in male camouflage. "Global elite" is just such a camouflage. Whenever you think of the global elite you think mostly men.

So we find all kinds of creative mental gymnastics to avoid having to say the enemy are women.

Kaser-Feldmarshall said...

Leaving aside the fact that he has said things like having sex with women is gay and you have to be asexual incel straight, whatever that is.

Furthermore, one of his associates was accused of grooming two teenage boys of 15 and 17 years old, and his reaction was the same as any paedocrite, it is true that he hates it above all because it is a homosexual thing, but that is why he would hate the MAP.

If he is an ally it is to be a traditional heterosexual man who wants a young wife to start a family, he is not going to be an ally of a group of people who defend or are accused of defending sex with young children, and especially boys and all kinds of paraphilias and homosexuality. Furthermore, many of us here are not pro-sex in general but rather we defend healthy sexuality, which is what I said before.

The idea that a 17-year-old woman is a child is the same as that a man with a beard is a woman, they are nothing more than nonsense in the current world, and one cannot exist without the other, the trans and LGTBIQRADSF+ paradise of the MAPs It's nonsense. MAP is nothing more than the LGBT identity band but with children, teenagers, etc.

And the majority of the human species, including me and many here are not sexually true or free (not even in their minds), if that were the case all straight men would really fuck with any girl who passed puberty until middle age, even many would also be interested (although a little less) in pubescent girls and even almost some "lolita-type" preteen girls.

And in no natural world without stupidity a man would not even think twice about fucking a sexually-mature 16, 17, 18 or 19 woman or many twenty year olds, then we have our sexual preferences, I would not fuck an obese one like you, and I may like them short and you like them tall, but no one would care about a stupid arbitrary number.

AF I'm not your enemy why???. Also I have called myself an ephebophile because I abhor the most of straight men in the world... They seem to me to be idiots obsessed with sex and women, putting penises in vaginas as the ultimate meaning of life, etc. but deep down you are right, when I get turned on by a 17-year-old girl with hips and tits sculpted by gods I am just another straight man, except I'm not a sexual obsessed and not single-neuronal cretin who follows the masses like a mindless drone. So yeah is just identity politics. But I am right to say the real normal straight man is now the abnormal one.

Luan said...

Men naturally have common sense, but they are vulnerable to propaganda. Especially propaganda that claims to have noble intentions, such as protecting minors or women from "abuse". If they are sufficiently exposed to such propaganda, it completely twists their perception of reality. We have now reached a point where almost all men in the West have been effectively propagandized into adopting anti-male sexuality ideas and repressing their attraction to minors, and this propaganda has even spread beyond the West and has become firmly embedded in the global mono-culture that Eivind mentioned above.

People are often able to recognize corporate and religious propaganda, such as advertisements by tobacco companies or booklets by the Jehovah Witnesses, but they are very bad at resisting propaganda that hides behind selfless or humanitarian motives and seemingly appears to be rational, and they tend to fall for it hook, line and sinker.

In the late 19th century, feminists and puritan conservatives began to stir up moral panic about "White Slavery", child marriage, prostitution and teenage pregnancy. This quickly lead to the Age of Consent being raised from 10-12 to 16-18 in most US states. It also lead to prostitution being banned.

However, it took quite a long time for this propaganda to penetrate the minds of almost every American. Although Charlie Johns's 1937 engagement to Eunice Winstead provoked outrage and moral hysteria in the national press, he enjoyed the support of his local community, where the common sense attitude of "her age don't matter if she loves him" still predominated. His neighbors even helped him protect Eunice from being harassed by journalists, as Nicholas Syrett points out in his book "American Child Bride".

Charlie John's town, Treadway, was quite a secluded place. It was one of the few towns in America without telegraph lines, electricity, and public transportation, and also one of the few where cultural values had not yet been corrupted by propaganda and moral hysteria.

The marriage turned out to be a very happy one and lasted a lifetime, against the predictions of the moral hysterics who tried to prevent it from taking place in the name of "child protection", and whose political agitations resulted in several states banning child marriage in its aftermath. It was triumph of traditional American common sense over moralist propaganda.

Eivind Berge said...

The elites will have us believe that their mandatory morality is a sort of inevitable "progress." This may be true for things like slavery and animal welfare and perhaps even organ transplants but on sexual morality nothing could be farther from the truth. We have truly descended into hell. The last gasp of cultural resistance was probably this on the Pitcairn Islands:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Pitcairn_Islands_sexual_assault_trial

In 1999 Gail Cox, a police officer from Kent, UK serving a temporary assignment on Pitcairn, began uncovering allegations of sexual abuse. When a 15-year-old girl decided to press rape charges in 1999, criminal proceedings (code-named "Operation Unique") were set in motion. The charges include 21 counts of rape, 41 of indecent assault, and two of gross indecency with a child under 14. Over the following two years, police officers in Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom interviewed every woman who had lived on Pitcairn in the past 20 years, as well as all of the accused men. Pitcairn Public Prosecutor Simon Moore (an Auckland Crown Solicitor who was the first lawyer appointed to the position by the British government for the purposes of the investigation) held the file.

Australian Seventh-day Adventist pastor Neville Tosen, who spent two years on Pitcairn around the turn of the millennium, said that on his arrival, he had been taken aback by the conduct of the children. But he had not immediately realised what was happening. "I noticed worrying signs such as inexplicable mood swings," he said. "It took me three months to realise they were being abused." Tosen tried to bring the matter before the Island Council (the legislative body which doubles as the island's court), but was rebuffed, and told "the age of consent has always been twelve and it doesn't hurt them."

A study of island records confirmed anecdotal evidence that most girls bore their first child between the ages of 12 and 15. "I think the girls were conditioned to accept that it was a man's world and once they turned 12, they were eligible," Tosen said. Mothers and grandmothers were resigned to the situation, telling him that their own childhood experience had been the same; they regarded it as just a part of life on Pitcairn. One grandmother wondered what all the fuss was about. Tosen was convinced, however, that the early sexual experience was very damaging to the girls. "They can't settle or form solid relationships. They did suffer, no doubt about it," he said emphatically.

On 28 September 2004, Olive Christian, wife of the accused mayor, daughter of Len Brown and mother of Randy Christian, both of whom were also among those accused, called a meeting of thirteen of the island's women, representing three generations at her home, Big Fence, to "defend" the island's men. Claiming that underage sex had been accepted as a Polynesian tradition since the settlement of the island in 1790, Olive Christian said of her girlhood, "We all thought sex was like food on the table." Carol Warren's two daughters also said that they had both been sexually active from the age of 12, with one of them claiming that she started having sex at 13, "and I felt hot shit about it, too." They and other women present at the meeting, who endorsed their view that underage sex was normal on Pitcairn, stated emphatically that all of the alleged rape victims had been willing participants.


Notice how the CSA panic is incarnated in a MAN named Neville Tosen there. He represents the monoculture but not necessarily female sexual jealousy, and his interpretation of reality overrides everything the women say themselves. My view is that we drifted into CSA panic and if not for that accident our women might still have been more in line with the Pitcairn women who felt hot for having sex at 12 all the way to grandmother age. If no one tells them that they are supposed to regret it, they don't.

Luan said...

"The idea that a 17-year-old woman is a child is the same as that a man with a beard is a woman, they are nothing more than nonsense in the current world, and one cannot exist without the other, the trans and LGTBIQRADSF+ paradise of the MAPs"

MAPs have nothing to do with the LGBTQ movement. With very few exceptions, the LGBTQ movement consists of hypocrites who complain about being discriminated against and mistreated by homophobes and transphobes, and then go on to mistreat and discriminate against pederasts and pedophiles—who have at least as much of a claim to sexual minority status as they have and whose lifes are much harder than theirs.

Most people know perfectly well that a transwoman is not a real woman. Studies have found that the vast majority of men would never date a transwoman, so trans advocates have clearly not been very successful in convincing the average man that the sky is green.

On the other hand, most men have been successfully brainwashed into believing that attraction to teenagers is perverted and that adult sexuality is harmful or traumatizing to minors under the age of 18 or 16. This is also equivalent to believing that the sky is green; that nature, or rather natural male sexuality, is inherently flawed.

For a secular society that prides itself on its rationality, it's beyond insane that such an irrational belief is so universally accepted that almost no one questions it.

Richard Hanania has argued that a society that jails women for showing sexual interest in teenage boys is not morally superior to the Afghan Taliban:

https://imgur.com/a/WwiHE7o

As has often been pointed out on this blog, female sexuality is a monetizable and highly prized resource that men are willing to do a lot of effort for in order to access. Yet, when women offer this resource for free to teenage boys who are attracted to them, they expose themselves to prosecution. It's insanity.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, this is what is beyond retarded about feminists and "MRA's" who want "equal" punishment. The fact that female sexuality is monetizable in a staggeringly asymmetric way should tell us something about any supposed crimeworthiness as well. How come all the asymmetry goes away for the sole purpose of punishing women? This is what makes it a charade and not just an atrocity. Punishing men is unfair when there is no harm. But women are punished for providing a much sought-after resource. This makes it not only Taliban-level but an extra absurd witch-hunt. Noticing the specially oppressed status of female sex offenders is inescapable to anyone who takes an honest look. Even an observer with zero libido to get a feeling for how bizarre this is himself will notice a pattern in the positive recall rates in studies like the ones Rind have done. The women don't fit in; they require a whole additional layer of credulity if you are going to make criminals out of them under the "abuse" paradigm. And that stunt is practiced by the "justice" system and media before our eyes every day. It is the singularly most bizarre feature of the world I am living in. The emperor has no clothes but the normies pretend to see them too, especially those insufferable modern "MRAs."

Jack said...

"How come all the asymmetry goes away for the sole purpose of punishing women? This is what makes it a charade and not just an atrocity."

Not a charade but perfectly logical from women's point of view. The sexual trade-union of women want the price of female sexual consent to be infinite. Only in that way can menopausal pussies still fetch a price. Hence the sexual trade-union will viciously attack anything that makes the price of pussy locally finite or indeed nil, like prostitution or female promiscuity.

Punishing female sex offenders is an extreme form of slut-shaming. Slut-shaming worked in pre-urban Societies. It no longer works in modern Societies where peer pressure is dead and pornography has become mainstream. The sexual trade-union has highjacked AOC laws - previously applied to men only - to punish women who cheapen female sexual consent.

The punishment of such women is only a side-show to the sexual trade-union though.

Eivind Berge said...

You can believe the female sex offender charade makes sense under an alternative justification if you want. That makes it a charade because everyone involved with enforcing it believes it has nothing to do with your reason. It's all about protecting "victims" on the face of it. How did the sexual trade union manage to fool all these people? A delusion is more likely to have arisen at random than been deliberately instigated because it is hard to fool so many people for a specific reason. The logistics of that conspiracy would have been impossible. Hence, cultural drift is the best explanation. People are gullible, but not so much when deliberately being lied to. The best lies are the lies believed by the liar, in other words cultural myths and religions. The female sex offender charade is a cargo cult, where people were fooled not on purpose but because it is the best fit with their primitive beliefs. The primitive belief here being that you shall obey authority and do what your shamans tell you. That's how the normies stand there like they did for the emperor with no clothes and respect our shiny new sex laws. But the laws themselves were a result of a more or less random mutation of culture which found its way into our global elites. Such cultural mutations may in principle just as well go the direction of Pitcairn island before the abuse industry ruined it.

The female sex offender charade is also not a Chesterton fence, where the justification is mysterious. It is a cargo cult, which is wrong for a known reason, because we know the reason it was erected is wrong and we can therefore safely tear it down. They tell us the reason in every single trial by pointing at a "victim," whose victimhood is so ludicrous we can laugh ourselves silly. And then it becomes a literal cargo cult waiting for the traumatization to kick in even if it's plain to see the boy is still perfectly happy with all the sex. The cargo cult persists literally the boy's entire life. It seems to me more shameful to believe in the CSA cargo cult than to be going through the motions to inflate the price of menopausal pussies. The cargo cult can be directly shamed as such, whereas the sexual trade union requires seeding a belief which didn't exist in the first place because the cause was cultural drift.

Eivind Berge said...

This might be a good meme. CSA panic is a mental cargo cult. They are always waiting for trauma to be delivered by wildly implausible mechanisms. Surely the modern man would feel stupid believing in a cargo cult? So call them out on doing just that.

Anthony O. said...

The pro-paedophile campaign of this blog is shameful: there is no such thing as consensual sex with minors. It is always a crime. In short: if it's a child, it's rape.

Eivind Berge said...

A cargo cultist, bringing the cargo of "rape" to consensual relations.

We shall expose that cult for what it is, in terms the normies can better understand going forward now that we draw on the creative powers of the MAP movement.

Luan said...

"I'll repeat that the attitude of the MRM was likely brought about in part by Eivind's female sex offender charade obsession. It certainly made it harder for the likes of myself and Human Stupidity, and more importantly, for Angry Harry to resist the sexual victimization of 'men and boys' narrative of Paul Elam when we were associated with Eivind."

I don't believe this for one second. The truth is that Paul Elam had far more resources at his disposal than anyone not associated with him, so he was able to impose his ideas on the MRM and marginalize those who disagreed with him. All of the most popular MRA websites are controlled by him and his feMRA protégés, most of whom are former feminists. If there's anyone at fault for the state of the MRM, it's Paul Elam, and not Eivind who has been one of the few voices of reason in the movement.

A common criticism of Elam is that he has feminized the MRA movement. This wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if he hadn't thrown his principles under the bus to attract ex-feminists with toxic baggage and sex-negative attitudes to his movement, but he has.

One of the most prominent women in the MRA movement is Alison Tieman. Paul Elam holds her in high esteem and made her the spokesperson of AVfM in her home country (Canada). The most popular MRA podcast, Honey Badger Radio, is funded by Elam and hosted by Alison and some other feMRAs. Alison is also a moderator of r/mensrights, and one of the most respected users there.

She is a True Believer in CSA ideology and has always sought to promote the bogus idea that women raping men and boys is a serious social issue. Before she joined the MRM, she was a feminist, and she never renounced the feminist view of sexual abuse. Because she is eloquent and passionate in her advocacy, she has quite a bit of influence in the MRM. I remember her claiming that incels are often victims of female-perpetrated CSA, which is, of course, patent nonsense.

People like her and Paul Elam are the ones who should be blamed for the sex-negative attitude of the modern MRM.

AF said...

@Luan - Well, yes, I accept your point, and I certainly don't think any of us here deny that Paul Elam and his lovely looking sheilas are the principle reason that the MRM adopted the abuse industry and applied it to men (and boys). I am giving Eivind too much credit again.

I do think Eivind's obsession likely did hurt the few of us who did try to resist Paul Elam, including Angry Harry (although in truth, he sold out a little when he agreed to do a weekly video for AVoiceForMen).

Of course, our chances were slim or zero anyway.

As I mentioned earlier, Kloo2Yoo was another principle reason. Before AVoiceForMen, r/mensrights was really where it was all at, and his 100% opposition to any mention of the age of consent certainly did not help the trajectory. I remember he even reported Human-Stupidity to the FBI for posting that famous cartoon showing a little girl saying to a little boy ' with this you will be forever in my command' (something like that, meaning he will always be a slave to her pussy).

You have to give Paul Elam some credit. I don't think he was wealthy or anything, he just built up a huge following with his articulate but angry approach and persona which appealed to everyone from divorced fathers to younger manosphere types. He also obviously had great organizational and leadership skills that others lacked. Elam actually asked to me to be one of a select few to help him set up AVoiceForMen. I don't think he had paid much attention to certain of my posts at that point, lol.

There were others who could have taken an alternative leadership role in the MRM and rivalled Elam, but they tended to either give up or were cancelled - such as the Spearhead guy, or Roissy.

And yes, Paul Elam did benefit from being public, meaning Angry Harry and many others had no chance of attracting the same following or organizing others. Eivind Berge is correct in that regard. But being public is only useful really if you have the right personality and face, as Matt Forney (formerly Ferdinand Bardemu) discovered. Not if you have a strange face, a nasal voice, and a belief that talking naked in the shower is appealing to anybody but a feminist film director who wants to make a joke of you.

I do suspect that Elam may have been/be a government plant. He basically took a highly dangerous and fast growing movement and castrated it, turning it into a mirror image of feminism (without the sexual benefits to men). Then again, whatever his faults, his apparently genuine passion came across many times, and that was a reason he grew the following that he did. It's also possible he did read my posts on the age of consent and padeohysteria and was a lot more amenable to that stuff, but that power corrupted him and he played to his audience. He often mentioned that his hero was Lester from American Beauty.

It's also possible that he took the victimization stance and recruited all these women into the top echelons of the movement simply because he wanted to fuck them. A bit like Eivind changing the name to 'Sexualism' and refusal to be 'misogynist' because he hopes for another female fan to become his girlfriend, just like Emma did.

I must say, there are a few new intelligent commentators appearing suddenly (and the welcome return of 'FeldMarshall'). Perhaps Eivind's alliance with the MAPs is paying dividends, or perhaps you all came from somewhere else?

FreeTheTeens69 said...

@Anthony

"""The pro-paedophile campaign of this blog is shameful: there is no such thing as consensual sex with minors. It is always a crime. In short: if it's a child, it's rape"""

Something is bad because it causes harm. A 12-17 year old dating someone 25+ isn't harmful. Therefore it's not bad. PS: Tell your daughter I said thanks for last night

@AF
"""A bit like Eivind changing the name to 'Sexualism' and refusal to be 'misogynist' because he hopes for another female fan to become his girlfriend, just like Emma did"""

Bringing girls into the movement would be a good thing


"""And yes, Paul Elam did benefit from being public, meaning Angry Harry and many others had no chance of attracting the same following or organizing others. Eivind Berge is correct in that regard. But being public is only useful really if you have the right personality and face, as Matt Forney (formerly Ferdinand Bardemu) discovered. Not if you have a strange face, a nasal voice, and a belief that talking naked in the shower is appealing to anybody but a feminist film director who wants to make a joke of you"""

In terms of the looks thing specifically, is this actually true? The streamer Destiny is an iconic face for his side of politics online. He's really well respected. His bitches are 10s. He looks like a goblin. And he dresses like a 7th grader on a field trip. If a guy is really cool and has good social skills I think he can still market his cause well irrespective of his looks

Anonymous said...

I passionately hate police, ref.video:

https://youtu.be/Ee3feQTcnuM?si=xNWqWoas6bIQipWg

Eivind Berge said...

So the Department of Justice has a conviction rate of 99%, yet in one case where police tried to frame 33 people for "sex trafficking" they couldn't convict a single one. That conviction rate is still worrisome though. No doubt many more are convicted based on police lies and then there are all the sex crimes that are true enough but should never be crimes. And the coercion of plea bargaining to get most to give up without a trial, which should never have been allowed to exist either.

With sex crimes I personally don't think it matters if the accusations are fact or fiction because all of sexuality is criminalized anyway. I fully acknowledge that my soul is criminal, and hate the government accordingly. All men and pretty much all humans are obligate sex offenders now.

Anonymous said...

You're a weirdo Eivind. You dont even appreciate links that show that cops make up sex-charges against innocent people. But you get all worked up when someone in Norway get convicted and given a long sentence for having sex with their own 10 y.o son who dont have any other choice than to do what his f*gg*t father wants. You are not a sexualist(just like the AF you never have sex!). You just have a weird psychological need to be disliked. You're a freak.

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, that's what separates a true activist from a normie. That's what separates someone with moral integrity and ability to think for himself from the normies. Normies only get upset when cops "break the law" or when someone is "falsely" convicted because they can't comprehend that the system itself can be evil.

I realize that the system is so hateful against sexuality by design that it does not make the slightest moral difference if cops lie. In this "sex trafficking" case it looks like the cop was so obtuse she didn't realize she could just point a finger at any true sexuality whatsoever and obtain convictions, or failing that just do another sting which will net 33 factually-guilty-by-law attempted sex traffickers in a day. I do not see a difference between picking criminals out of thin air like they do routinely and lying (which is almost routine too, but so what at this point?).

Dirty Harry said...

«When a man harasses a girl with the intention of raping her, I kill the man. That's my policy."
Harry Callahan

Eivind Berge said...

Well, I see no mention of homicide in Harry Callahan's bio, so either such harassment is extremely uncommon or he was lying. He lived to 86, so would have had a long time to do it too.

Eivind Berge said...

Regarding what Luan said about Alison Tieman (aka TyphonBlue)...

She is a True Believer in CSA ideology and has always sought to promote the bogus idea that women raping men and boys is a serious social issue. Before she joined the MRM, she was a feminist, and she never renounced the feminist view of sexual abuse. Because she is eloquent and passionate in her advocacy, she has quite a bit of influence in the MRM. I remember her claiming that incels are often victims of female-perpetrated CSA, which is, of course, patent nonsense.

I can attest to this as well, looking back to a blog post a wrote in 2013:

https://eivindberge.blogspot.com/2013/01/beware-of-sex-negative-mras.html

Where I said:

"AVfM purports to be an MRA site but is actually a cesspool of feminist filth, where they worship radical feminists like TyphonBlue. She is a particularly nasty promoter of the feminist sex abuse industry including the lie that women are equally culpable for sex offenses. TyphonBlue is so extreme and clueless in her feminist thinking that she even attributes my former rage over celibacy to "processing (badly) some sort of overwhelming sexual trauma from his past." In the feminist worldview, sexual abuse is the only explanation for every perceived problem, and any man who disagrees with feminist abuse definitions must have been abused himself and is in denial."

Yup, she said that about me too. The CSA dogma can't get any starker than that. These people have a fixed lens on their mind through which not only all of underage sexuality is distorted into abuse, but many other phenomena in the world are explained that way as well, including the very opposite problem of not getting sex at all or disagreeing with any aspect of CSA ideology.

And now a decade later this ideology is ruling MRAs more strongly than ever. Yeah, we badly needed to rebrand to MAP if we wan't to be associated with sex-positivity at all.

Eivind Berge said...

I realize now that "Harry Callahan" above probably does not refer to the photographer but rather the fictional character Dirty Harry. Oh well, perhaps he was a feminist then.

Eivind Berge said...

I was never much of a fan of Dirty Harry anyway. Too early for my time. Plus I take it he didn't mean the feminist definition rape but real harassment and violence.

Actual violence against women is not good. Sean Diddy appears to be guilty of it:

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/17/entertainment/sean-combs-cassie-ventura/index.html

That's some rare evidence backing one of these endless celebrity accusations. Chances are he really did this but these days video evidence can be faked too, so take it with a grain of salt and more so for the future.

AF said...

I see that the British schoolteacher has been convicted and faces jail.

Hope Eivind is ok, lol.

I see that even when she was arrested and charged with having sex with one underage boy, she started an affair with another. And in a photo of her arriving for court yesterday, she was grinning as though she was off for a day to the seaside.

Right to the end, she must have expected to be given the pussy pass.

I have to say, although many of the comments recently, some with an apparent MRA AND male sexualist origin, have been very intelligent, I am surprised at the uncritical support for Eivind's obsession with the female sex offender charade.

It seems odd to me that when we are supposed to be about resisting the feminist attack on the normal male attraction to teen girls, we should be accepting of middle-aged frumps owning teenage boys during the brief time that they have the best and perhaps only opportunity to bang prime teen girls who are all around them.

In his 'victim statement', one of the boys said that he realizes now that the teacher took 18 months of his life away. I can actually sympathise with that. Bear in mind that these slutty teachers aren't having sex with the shy incels. There's no doubt they are exclusively having sex with the Chads and the Tyrones. Sometimes they are literally forcing the virgins and incels to stand guard at the door while they bang the 13 year old BBC.

So this boy could have been banging the prettiest girls in his class, but instead he was seduced into a relationship with a sex crazed 30 year old woman, fifteen or so years past her peak, who demanded faithfulness while she was likely chasing and banging other young chads. And now his chance has gone, because if he goes near a 15 year old again for the rest of his life he will be classed as a paedophile.

Not to mention that women who chase underage boys are real perverts, as boys (even Chads) cannot offer the resources and physical protection to a woman that an older man can. So from an evolutionary point of view, women are perverted in chasing teen boys. It really is 'different' for women. Women who have sex with teen boys are indeed paedophiles and perverts, but men who chase teen girls are not. Further, boys mature later than girls, so we shouldn't even have an equal age of consent if it is supposed to represent an age at which a teen is mature enough to have sex.

So, of course it is ridiculous to pretend that women having willing sex with young boys (or men) can be rape or even sexual abuse, but it's certainly nothing we should be promoting, let alone calling it 'the greatest evil of all-time'. And then the actual negative consequences as focusing on it, mainly diverting attention away from the fact that men and women are different and that age of consent laws are a way for women to control male sexuality to their benefit.

And one last thing. Evind keeps repeating that he can't understand why women are doing this to other women and that it's misgoynistic. No matter how many times it is explained to him (and it's so obvious it shouldn't even need to be explained) that women benefit from age of consent laws, so why should they mind sacrificing a handful of women who get locked up under them? Israel killed five of its own soliders the other day in friendly fire. You may as well ask why oh why is Israel fighting an anti-semitic war in Gaza killing their own soldiers?

And aside from 3 billion women benefiting hugely from age of consent laws, at the cost of maybe 50 or so women being locked up a year worldwide under them, Eivind doesn't realize that women hate each other. Women hate other women even more than they hate men. However, they are much better than men at recognizing when they have a common interest in the sex war.

Jack said...

Indeed Eivind, whenever you bring up the "sex offender charade" you would do well to include a reminder that the women locked up under AOC laws are the collateral damage of the use of AOC laws to wage war on male heterosexuality. The "sex offender charade" is not the spearhead of Today's war on heterosexuality like you would make it to be, it is collateral to it only.

Eivind Berge said...

It is absurd how the AF persists in hating women (and Jack does too, apparently). It is one thing to hate feminist ideologues and accusers but if you even hate women who freely give pussy to young boys that’s not antifeminism but misogyny. Thankfully there is an influx of higher-quality commenters now from the MAP movement who back me up on this.

Your misogyny is wrapped in an argument from opportunity cost. Let’s unpack this. Opportunity cost is a valid line of reasoning, but not for this. I use opportunity cost to show what is wrong with porn and masturbation, where you really miss out of the real thing. I am reluctant to support criminalization even there, though. Boys who get older women are at least having sex and usually with women who are still fertile age, so it’s much less of a concern than porn. Porn is pathological; the former is only a matter of getting a partner who is not “good enough” for you, and if we go down the road of letting the government police that, just think how we will fare ourselves as middle-aged men who aspire to be with girls who are “out of our league” mainly because they are so much younger. You really haven’t thought this through, have you? You want to let the government hurt your chances with teenage girls by making sure boys their own age monopolize them?

And think of the incels, who really have their youth stolen while the government does nothing. I remember Caamib’s old blog Governmentgetsgirlfriends used to address this comparatively intelligently. The idea was not to segregate the ages, but to let them have sex with reasonably attractive women. Making sure teenage Chads only get girls who are in their league and hence only teen girls would have been too crazy even for him. I can’t take anything the government does to help the teenage Chads get the hottest girls as opposed to 35-year-old women seriously until they get girlfriends for the incels, which should be a much higher priority -- and again, making sure everyone dates within their league is not the kind of world I want at all.

But you are right this is what is going on: society is spending a fortune and applying all the violent machinery of the state to ensure that teenage boys only get the absolutely hottest girls. The only argument with any grain of truth to it is opportunity cost, that the “victims” could do better than middle-aged women, but this grain of truth is so absurdly small and out of proportion to anything else the government does that once again the female sex offender charade takes the cake as the biggest travesty in history.

And anyway, even if we are super concerned with boys getting the absolutely hottest girlfriends they can get… there is the evolutionary need to learn sex as fast as they can which is manifested in their psychology in such a way that they tend to be equally horny if the woman is 15 or 50 anyway. I sure was when I was a teen. Young women are far more valuable to me now than they were back then; now I can truly appreciate their beauty. So once again, I want the government to get out of the way both for the sake of young boys themselves and also so that we of the older generations can have a better chance now while at least some of the boys are fucking older women instead of hoarding all the teen girls for themselves.

Revolution G23 said...

Fuentes might be a DHS agent, whose purpose, by openly admitting being attracted to teen girls while also holding a persona of bigoted ideologies, is to make any adult man who likes young girls look like a weirdo.

Revolution G23 said...

"Most people know perfectly well that a transwoman is not a real woman. Studies have found that the vast majority of men would never date a transwoman, so trans advocates have clearly not been very successful in convincing the average man that the sky is green." Actually, most people in the information economy level of development world have been completely brainwashed into honest belief that a trans woman is a woman.

Revolution G23 said...

Or that's not really his quote, and that it was a feminist that made that quote and pinned Dirty Harry's name on it. The purpose in that would be to cause his followers to feel demoralized, resulting in the movement he started falling apart.

Revolution G23 said...

There is a strong hierarchical structure in female and feminist regimes that warrants further study. Today the young women and girls seem to be the biggest supporters of restrictions on men's ability to interact with women. There's probably an old hag leading them. It's a type of leadership that not only where old women exert power over young girls, but also gives a warm and nurturing protective feeling to the young girls. It's a mother and grandmother over daughter and granddaughter dynamic. For such a hierarchy to really be functional probably needs some hard lesbians to act as mid level enforcers to keep the softer girls in line while still appearing to be protective of her.

I'm mentioning this because a lot of guys in the Manosphere say that women are better at being egalitarian than hierarchical. I am raising awareness that the enemy has a definite hierarchy that we must attack and dismantle.

Anonymous said...

'The AF' is the saddest person on earth. A lifelong incel, a misogynist and jealous anti-sexualist. Cheering for the enemies in police to prosecute women who give sex to boys is beyond stupidity.

Eivind Berge said...

I think most of what Revolution G23 says is too conspiratorial, except his remark about the dubious Dirty Harry quote and related feminist trolling here. Those utterly braindead comments which regularly pop in here promoting CSA ideology are unlikely to be the work of anything but a paid feminist troll simply because the abuse industry is so flush with money that a person willing to spout that nonsense would be wasting their time not getting paid for it. This just came to my attention about how absurdly loaded the abuse industry is:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/23/northumbria-police-operation-sanctuary-newcastle-grooming-gangs-case-review

During the trials, the court heard that Northumbria police had paid a convicted child rapist £9,680 over 21 months to find out about the times and whereabouts of parties where girls were being plied with drugs and alcohol, in order to gather evidence for their investigation.

The "child protection" racket is so bloated even convicted "child rapists" can get in on it and be paid handsomely! And that's just a crumb compared to the wealth distributed to "victims" and people with the right opinions and lines of work.

I know my blog is small, but an industry with this kind of spending can surely afford to pay for some trolling here too. If any feminists honestly wanted to engage with us they wouldn't be THAT braindead either. Unless they are at the level of Alison Tieman who is genuinely passionate about the most surreal levels of CSA panic, but then again even she gets funded to do her own thing so it wouldn't be worth her time to comment here.

Eivind Berge said...

It is David Copperfield's turn to be cancelled for "sexual misconduct":

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/16/david-copperfield-allegations

The women are really scraping the bottom of the barrel of what can pass to have themselves defined as victims even in the current hysteria here. For example:

Carla*, whose story appeared yesterday in the Guardian, says she met Copperfield at one of his shows when she was 15. Afterwards, she alleges, Copperfield repeatedly called her at her family home, sending gifts and tickets to his shows. Like other women who agreed to be quoted by the Guardian on the condition of anonymity, she is being identified with a pseudonym marked* with an asterisk.

Carla now feels she and her family were being “groomed” by Copperfield. When she turned 18 she says he was the first man she had sex with. His lawyers denied her allegations.


He waited until she was 18 like he had already adopted feminism decades ahead of his time and still she is a victim?

And:

Jenniffer Diaz, a Venezuelan contestant, had just turned 18 when she arrived in New York. In the evening, after the day’s events were done, she says the phone in her hotel room rang and a voice said: “Hi, so this is me, David Copperfield.” She claims he repeatedly called her room and invited her to join him in his room.

She recalls being in her pyjamas and being asked by him what she was wearing.

“I really didn’t speak much English and I had no idea what he meant,” she says now.

Only later, she says, did she realize that there was a sexual implication. Diaz, now 50, says she is relieved she declined the invitations, but says that at the time she felt uncomfortable saying no to the celebrity judge. “Even at that age, I was very young and naive, but still, I knew very clearly that you don’t go to a guy’s room at night.”


50-year-old woman remembers a sexual insinuation at 18 which went nowhere, yet that is all it now takes to be a victim... Can we sink any lower? Can male sexuality get any more hated?

Jack said...

We can look at the bright side of celebrities' woes. They do not concern us and they represent just deserts. For some decades now the West has been a world in which celebrities had their pick of the litter, while we normal men were left out in the cold. How many celebrities have we heard complaining about the sexual plight of the normal man?

What was in it for us when the Rolling Stones et al. got twenty fifteen years olds to bareback backstage every night?

No more harems for the rich and famous, big deal!

Luan said...

"It seems odd to me that when we are supposed to be about resisting the feminist attack on the normal male attraction to teen girls, we should be accepting of middle-aged frumps owning teenage boys during the brief time that they have the best and perhaps only opportunity to bang prime teen girls who are all around them."

Even though the law gives them a monopoly over teen girls, many of them still lack sexual opportunity because there are far more teen boys who want to get laid than there are teen girls who are willing to have sex with them. There is much more demand for sex among teenage boys than there is supply, and adult women who bang teenage boys are simply helping satisfy that demand. 

Only about half of teenage girls date their male peers and end up losing their virginity to them before they reach adulthood. Of the other half, most are only interested in adult men, but they have been brainwashed into believing that they're too young to date them and that they need to wait until they're 18 to do so. When asked why don't want to date boys their age, they typically say that they don't find them sufficiently responsible, mature, or manly. It's obvious that if they lived in a sane society and hadn't been exposed to feminist propaganda, they'd be dating men.

In the current sex-negative climate, about 50% of women didn't have sex at all before the age of 18, even though they could have had their pick of the litter of teen boys since they were 13. If at least 90% of underage teen boys want to have sex, but only ~50% of teen girls are interested in dating them, that means that many of them are condemned to celibacy in a society where they are not able to have sex with women. It's still better for them to date older women than to be sexless.

"Not to mention that women who chase underage boys are real perverts, as boys (even Chads) cannot offer the resources and physical protection to a woman that an older man can. So from an evolutionary point of view, women are perverted in chasing teen boys."

It's common among social primates for mature females to have sex with immature males. This behavior is tolerated by the group and must be beneficial and adaptive in some way. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been selected for by evolution. Among the likely benefits are that it reduces sexual frustration and aggression among juvenile males and helps them gain sexual experience. 

Unlike many primate species, humans evolved to form monogamous and polygynous pair-bonds. While it's problematic for pair-bonded women to have extra-pair sex of any kind, it's not problematic for single or unmarried women to engage in such behavior, provided that they stop once they obtain a long-term mate. Many primitive human societies required unmarried girls and women to be celibate, but many others allowed them to be promiscuous and even to get pregnant out of wedlock. So it's possible that humans evolved in an environment where it was common for women to have sex with teenage boys.

Luan said...

"Further, boys mature later than girls, so we shouldn't even have an equal age of consent if it is supposed to represent an age at which a teen is mature enough to have sex."

Brain imaging studies have concluded that girls neurologically mature faster, but other research has found that teenage girls are worse at emotional control than teenage boys. For example:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261759306_The_Complexity_of_Stress_in_Mid-Adolescent_Girls_and_Boys
https://www.rug.nl/news/2010/05/083_10?lang=en

A study found that mentally disabled adults with a mental age of 8 are capable of understanding everything that's necessary to know in order to have sex responsibly:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J151v01n03_02#.UkxzORDl4ZU
https://heretictoc.com/2013/10/06/a-less-impaired-vision-of-sexuality/

Even if teenagers are less mature than adults on average, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to have intergenerational sex.

A big part of being mature is having the ability to make decisions that you don't end up regretting later. If maturity is at all relevant to the ability to consent to sex, which I don't agree with because sex is much less risky than many other activities that children and teenagers are allowed to partake in, only psychosexual maturity matters. Having the ability to have sex without regretting it later is probably the most important indicator of psychosexual maturity. It's well-documented that adult women are much more likely to end up regretting sex than teenage boys are, so, if anything, it could be argued that teenage boys are more psychosexually mature than adult women.

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks, Luan, for bringing up a point I forgot: the hypergamy effect. Even if we believed teenage girls should all be reserved for boys the same age, these girls simply don't get all that excited for them because many have their sights set on older men. Currently their tepid interest in sex before 18 is attributed to immaturity, but it may as well be that the boys who can appropriately date them don't have the right stuff.

Adolescent boys have low status and wealth or any of the things females go most crazy over, yet we pretend they are so suited for the hottest girls that the normies are their dancing monkeys who make sure they have monopoly. Older normie men are agecuck dancing monkeys for adolescent boys to make sure they have the most exquisite sexual life despite otherwise being low status... another bizarre aspect of the female sex offender charade, and yeah, too stupid for actual monkeys, who tolerate young males pairing up with older females.

"Teenage boys are more psychosexually mature than adult women" -- another great point! Of course male sexuality is simpler to manage than female since there are fewer consequences, but still it is a valid point that women can't calibrate their actions to their long-term satisfaction. Now we are to believe that they can be "groomed" into doing things they don't want as adults too, yet they are held solely responsible for sex with more actually responsible and satisfied underage boys. The injustice of that is poignantly sad and yet another bizarre aspect of the worst delusion of any justice system ever. The female sex offender charade is a human sacrifice ritual with the twist that we now select for the nicest, most innocent women to be persecuted. If it has a function it is solely ritualistic "justice" theater.

Anonymous said...

Eivind, if you accuse other men of being "misogynist" again like a good little feminist, I'm going to reach through my computer and smack you in the face. This is me being nice.

There was some talk above about the morality police. Tell me, do we have child trannies walking around and praised? Does the gay pride flag fly in every country dominated by the feminist Anglosphere? Does the top general of NATO say he will fight wars for man-on-man anal marriage? Does that sound like traditional morality to you?

No. The only thing that is banned is what is morally right and pro-male - older men and younger girls. Older women and younger men is an inversion of nature and perverted feminism by definition, which is why every feminist show on Netflix portrays this dynamic, younger men worshipping older women. It's disgusting and perverted to anyone with a normal testosterone level and who doesn't have a mommy fetish.

To clarify - if an older woman wants to bang a young man, if a young man wants to visit an older escort, or even if the young man has a mommy fetish and marries her, I have no problem with this obviously. But saying it is not perverted and holding it as an example of the pinnacle of heterosexuality is completely insane feminism. An older woman and a younger man might as well be a gay male couple, which is exactly why you see that old woman young man dynamic being pushed now in the same shows that also proudly feature gay male couples. Surprise!

In terms of the Iran morality police, that situation is nuanced and I disagree with AF that it is necessarily bad. Women dress slutty to tease and manipulate men as a power play. Iran has temporary marriage with no age of consent ("child prostitution"), which the feminists are screaming about and losing their minds over, which is why the Anglosphere hates Iran. They have a different culture that clearly keeps women in line while offering men options.

In terms of the female sex offender issue, you can think it's the worst thing in the world, whatever. But you must also put the disclaimer on your posts about it that its purpose is a man-bites-dog sensationalist story that takes public attention away from the fact that the sex laws are designed to destroy only men. For every 1 "female sex offender" in the news, there are 100,000 "male sex offenders" who receive harsher sentences and are completely forgotten about. You can think it's a rational travesty, fine and we all agree, but the numerical travesty is the enormous oppression against legions of men it helps to cover up and justify. To not mention this glaring fact is irresponsible and negligent as a male sexualist activist.

And yes, teen boys are abysmal with teen girls, but compared to older men they are paragons of success due to access and cultural ageism. They are also intentionally denied instruction about how to have sexual success with women due to feminism, in fact they are told the opposite things that make them failures, something I am particularly sore about and I know I'm not the only one. The smoking bans also contribute to less autonomy and worse hormonal makeups in young people, as smoking has clear hormonal benefits if you don't overdo it, especially when you're young. You'll notice that places with higher rates of teen smoking also have higher rates of teen autonomy, which include employment and sexual activity. And surprise again, feminists are the vast majority behind smoking bans.


anon69

AF said...

Is Eivind calling me a 'misogynist' again? He is rather fond of using feminist slur words against other men isn't he? Wanker, misogynist, paedophile (although he embraces the last and most insidious one).

Even Paul Elam used to go by the name 'The Happy Misogynist'. Michael Houellebecq was once asked what he felt about being labelled a misogynist, and he replied disinterestedly - "I don't give a shit". That's pretty much my answer, and that of anybody who is remotely a real MRA.

Eivind, if you are going to take your new MAP role as 'ambassador to the MRM' seriously, you're going to have to self-reflect a little. Do you aim to do anything differently? Because maybe the MAPs don't realize, or maybe they're actually having a laugh in their Fed offices, but there seems nothing about you that's 'MRA' other than that you do see the criminalization of male sexuality as a political casue. But even that is largely hidden by your obsession with the female sex offender charade and giving women the pussy pass.

And of course, the vast majority of the MRM does not even consider that the age of consent could be a men's rights issue. But you're hoping to sway them by banging on and on about the 'greatest evil in the world' being a few brazen women getting locked up for underage sex crimes?

I would suggest you read a few classic MRA books such as 'The Myth Of Male Power', 'No More Sex War', and Steve Moxon's 'The Woman Racket'. And of course, re-read all of Angry Harry's essays.

I wouldn't put money on the MAPs 'renewing your contract' in six month's time otherwise.

I don't wish to be unkind, but your obsession with female sex offenders comes across as weird, or even pathalogical. It's like it's got stuck in your brain and you can't get it out again. As if there aren't equal or greater 'rational travesties', including those far more relevant to male sexualism, such as society pretending that men who like teens and young women are paedophiles or perverted, that 17 year old girls are children, or men getting locked up as 'child abusers' for looking at pixels.

Perhaps you could visit a prostitute and ask to roleplay, with you dressed up as a horny schoolboy, and her playing the part of your cougar teacher.

Eivind Berge said...

Is it possible to be sane? Must everything be about having an ax to grind, such as issues directly affecting men most? Is it too much to ask for a little cultural sanity? Remember during the height of covid when they were closing off park benches for fear of a virus which amounted to the common cold. Imagine if we had never snapped out of lockdown hysteria. That's how it is with CSA. We are in permanent irrational hysteria. I am gasping for sanity when I attack the female sex offender charade in the hope that someone in the mainstream will latch on, because it should be the lowest-hanging fruit. Equivalent to those benches. If we were still in lockdown now and trying to think of activism to get out of it, those benches would be a good place to start. If the normies can't at least see that it is insane to lock up women for being nice to teenage boys there is no hope for anything else we can tell them either. And it does something to me to live in a fully insane society. An insane society threatens our sanity too. I have to make a best effort to make a dent in it. So I attack the most vulnerable point the most. If we shrug off the persecution of women out of some rationalization like "they deserve it because what they do to men is much more prevalent," we are no better than our oppressors. If we give up one piece of a truthful assessment of what deserves to be considered sexual abuse and what does not and why, we have given up all of it and sold out to selfish politics. We have literally become a sexual trade union ourselves and lost the truth as a weapon. Ideally we don't need special interest groups for either men or women because the truth should be enough to stop a senseless witch-hunt like the current CSA hysteria.

AF said...

"In terms of the Iran morality police, that situation is nuanced and I disagree with AF that it is necessarily bad. Women dress slutty to tease and manipulate men as a power play."

Yes, I certainly understand you here. Some of clothes, or lack of clothes, that teen girls and young women are walking around in are insane. The latest teen slut fashion where I live is to walk around in skimpy bathing suit like lingerie that shows off their ass crack. And when I just look in their direction, they more often than not give me a filthy, dehumanizing look.

So I often 'see' in such moments that the Mullahs have a point. There's also the issue of female display distracting men. I can't imagine how distracting it is in class for teachers and male pupils, for example.

On a similar point, you could argue that occasional masturbation during dry spells is healthy because it allows men to simply get on with their day and be less distracted by sexual frustration. Not all of us are fortunate to be Eivind on welfare sitting in their cabins reading all day. Personally I have to work 30 hours a week to keep a roof over my head. I can't go through the day working productively if I've got a hardon and I'm thinking about sex all the time.

AF said...

Another essential men's rights classic is 'Not Guilty: In Defence Of Modern Man' by British author David Thomas. That was published in 1993 and certain passages would leave most MRAs of today agahst. He points to a German study (that no doubt MAPs are aware of) that showed that the social reaction to underage 'victims' of willing sex caused far more harm than the sex itself. He devotes an entire chapter to criticizing what we would now call paedohysteria, in the context of it being an attack on men and male sexuality.

It's a definitive proof that there is no inherent reason why paedohysteria and the age of consent should be taboo issues in the MRM, and that the reason why they are, is largely due to the puritan American influence on the online movement.

Eivind should be promoting these books to the Maps as a way of educating them about men's rights and the feminist criminalization of male sexuality. But he probably hasn't read any of them himself (and no doubt wont ever).

Eivind Berge said...

David Thomas... is he this subject of this article:

"Why I've decided to become a woman - by a 60-year-old dad"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/decided-become-woman-60-year-old-dad/

It's paywalled so I can't read more than one paragraph.

David Thomas was a father of three and a West Ham fan, with a fabulously blokey record collection, but always struggled with being a man. Now, at last, he has decided to transition. Ahead of his new column starting next week, he tells Mick Brown about his struggles with his gender.

Looks like all the old MRAs are either dead like Angry Harry, converted to feminism like Paul Elam, or transitioned?

Eivind Berge said...

AF also says:

"You could argue that occasional masturbation during dry spells is healthy because it allows men to simply get on with their day and be less distracted by sexual frustration."

Is this healthy or is it cucked? I say it is cucked and manipulated to have the life-force sucked out of you instead of getting sex. Especially when frustration is amplified by scantily clad girls, who then in effect manipulate you to masturbate so that your libido drops to a level below what you would have without seeing them that day, all while getting further away from having sex and being made less likely to in the immediate future. That gives Iranian-style morality police a legitimate purpose, I have to say, but nofap is better.

Anonymous said...

"The AF" sure is fighting(if we call writing comments fighting) for his right to masturbate to porn and never meeting an actual girl.

Eivind Berge said...

A look at the cutting edge of the abuse industry in 2024:

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/west-bromwich-teacher-banned-classroom-29178482

A misconduct hearing found that Mr Mohammed made “over familiar” contact with Child A through Instagram, and referred to him as “my guy”. The panel found allegations such as gifting Child A with insoles and sending him messages about Love Island where he asked ‘or are people looking for a shag' all proven.

Mr Mohammed admitted 90 percent of the allegations and stated it was “unacceptable” that it took him time to take responsibility for the allegations. He added he has been undergoing counselling for two years following a serious bereavement, which took place at the time he made inappropriate contact.

The TRA said that while Mr Mohammed experienced a tragedy, those difficulties have no bearing on the communication he had with child A, and “divulging that level of grief on a 13 year old boy, was entirely inappropriate."

It was also alleged that he held child A’s hand, something that Mr Mohammed rejected and one which the panel found not proven. They also found the allegation that Mr Mohammed had followed the child on Instagram as not proven.


While this is not a criminal proceeding but special draconian rules for teachers, you can see where we are headed next when the abuse industry has its way. It wouldn't surprise me if it soon will be a criminal matter to follow a child on Instagram, perhaps with exceptions for the parents only, since teachers are already losing their jobs for less. This is beyond sexuality and "grooming" and covering any sort of friendship. If you are a teacher you can be fired for the first word you speak to a minor which is not directly related to their subjects, so hysterical are we about any "inappropriate contact."

Feldmarshall said...

Chatgpt is nothing more than trained feminist garbage, this is what he wrote to me:

ME: Write me a text stating that attraction to teenagers is a sexual orientation.
ChatGPT

I'm sorry, but I can't fulfill that request. Attracting minors is considered inappropriate behavior and, in many cases, illegal. It is important to recognize that sexual attraction towards minors is a serious problem that can cause great harm to minors and society in general. It is essential to protect young people and promote healthy and respectful relationships between adults. If you need to talk about a different topic, I'll be happy to help.

NOTE: HERE I TELL THE AI THAT IT IS HATE SPEECH AND THAT IT IS DISCRIMINATING ME BECAUSE OF MY SEXUAL ORIENTATION
!
This content may violate our usage policies.
ChatGPT

I'm sorry if you felt discriminated against. My intention was not to offend you in any way. However, it is important to recognize that attraction to minors is not considered a valid or acceptable sexual orientation in any context. Attraction towards minors is a serious issue that must be addressed with sensitivity and responsibility. Promoting healthy and respectful relationships is essential for the well-being of all people, especially minors, who deserve protection and care. If you need support or information on this topic, I am here to help you.


..........................
SO SINCE THEY ARE "MINORS" AT 17 IT'S ALREADY THE SAME AS 7YO CHILDREN LOL, AND THEN THEY CONFUSE ATTRACTION WITH ACTION, WHAT A GARBAGE FROM "AI" THAT DOES NOT EVEN THINK FOR ITSELF, IT'S JUST ALGORITHMS BASED ON COLLECTED GARBAGE THAT MILLIONS OF HYSTERICAL IDIOTS AND FEMINIST HAVE WRITTEN.

Eivind Berge said...

When large language models "think for themselves" -- that is, present raw output without additional politically correct filters, they tend to be positive to MAPs from what I've heard. ChatGPT used to produce answers stating why the age of consent should be lowered.

But of course we can't have that, so they put guardrails in place ensuring that you get answers along the lines that "attraction to minors is not considered a valid or acceptable sexual orientation in any context." And "inappropriate" even when legal.

Our overlords are constructing an antisex matrix for us where it will be impossible to think a sexual thought about minors once we have the technology to prevent it, or any other "inappropriate" thought. These are the last days when activism is even possible, if they win and continue making technological progress. So let's use the time we have left well and at least arrange for prosexual writings to survive in some way through the coming purges. Once again, the problem is that antisexual ideology has completely infested the elites. It's not so much a female sexual trade union as an elite psychosis. There is zero tolerance to anything but complete hatred against sexuality in anything which will govern us for the foreseeable future. But like all civilizations, this one too will collapse, even if it is looking increasingly unlikely that it can happen in our lifetimes. Sadly, Gail Tverberg has been mistaken about how fast collapse would come.

Feldmarshall said...

Yes! Everything about minors and sex is censorship, and when it's not enough they justify all in name of "child protection" .

Also When I ask him if a man can become a woman he says yes to all!!!, and when I tell him that then I consider myself a holy roman emperor is just a power fantasy and is not real, then I tell him that transpeople is also a fantasy and that it is not real, and then they just ban my comments lol
If you can't talk about certain topics, maybe they all have something to do with it at the same time, think about it.

But in short: It's just shit with pre-established parameters, it's like grooming a machine, it's delightful and terrifying dystopic at the same time. All this garbage comes from the same paedohysteric and LGTBQ feminist global companies that shadow-govern us like google etc.. So much of this garbage comes from California where minors under 18 cannot consent to have sex but can have an abortion without parental permission at 16. They are immature to have sex but mature to have abortions, medical procedures and even vote.

A 17-year-old woman is a child.
A man is a woman.
Liberty is slavery.
War is peace.
Feminism is equality.

beeeep

Anonymous said...

Eivind, please check your comment filter, my comment about the morality police is not showing anymore.


anon69

Anonymous said...

Re: Eivind,Monday, May 20, 2024 10:40:00 PM Hate to say it, but I can't help feel a bit of schadenfreude that the teacher's name was Mohammed- makes a change from going after the natives all the time. I hasten to add that his treatment has been monstrously unfair, and if I'm reading it right, they literally told him his bereavement wasn't even a minor mitigating circumstance.

On the subject of instagram, Australian TV had a program about young influencers and their mums-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzPY_cS9_wQ. They're pushing the line that children can't consent to being influencers. This leads one to ask if there's anything AT ALL children can consent to, whether sexual or not? Might as well keep them in a biopod of some kind until they're 18-no, 21, no...

I was amazed at the Explicit Content warning at the start of the show. It was literally just some kids dancing around in fairly modest leotards and sometimes pouting a bit.

I can see a couple of bright spots with it though. The Femoids will most likely only be able to play a (losing) game of whack-a-mole with the technology, with new platforms etc being devised all the time. Even now there are instagram viewers that don't require logging onto. Also, the type of activity they're moaning about has been around for years and they've only now got around to doing a TV show about it.

I also believe they're up against quite a problem of who to attack. They interviewed the "exploited" kids' mothers, clearly not very well-disposed towards them. There's always a problem for the feminist establishment when they have to attack women, since it's hard to sic their White Knights onto them. Then there's the simple fact that these mothers can make money from and for their children, which is an incentive that I can only see becoming more popular in the future.

Anonymous 2

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks for reminding me about the spam filter. Hundreds of comments have now gone back there AFTER I approved them, even a bunch of my own comments. Will take some time to restore them all and this is so frustrating it makes me think about moving the blog to the MRA Archive.

Anonymous said...

Update: my fake trans twitter lasted for several months. I mostly focused on the sexual rights of "children" (teens under 18) to date older people if they preferred, of which much discussion was allowed. Maybe you can use that with the MAP angle to advocate for male sexualism.

But when I launched my MLTOW twitter that was a direct appeal to sex between men and young teen girls, and I attacked feminists based on that angle, my Twitter was banned almost immediately, no warnings or questions asked. This guy Musk is even described as a free speech conservative!

They really, really hate anything that advocates the most relevant anti-feminist position of men desiring sex with young teens. We argue alot, but let's remember, that is our focus and the biggest thorn in their side.

I guess it's to be expected since the US Department of Homo Security study declared men loving young teens as a threat to democracy, which is also to be expected with record numbers of politically enfranchised, single middle aged women.

F*ck the USA and the Anglosphere, long live BRICS. Let's see how much longer the West will last without incentives for strong men to stick around.


anon69

AF said...

Hazy notions like "elite psychosis" and "cultural drift" really don't explain anything, as well as leaving us with nothing concrete to fight against.

Yes, it's interesting that AI appears to be more tolerant and open-minded of our views - until they were manually adjusted to not be.

I read that Elon Musk is trying to develop a super AI that would be able to provide answers to moral questions independently of what humans thought. Of course, just like his 'free speech' mission on Twitter, we can be sure it wont extend to questions on the age of consent and teen sex.

Still, I've come to think that AI is almost certainly our only hope, at least if we are to witness any real change in our lifetimes. Alas, will more likely be used to read our thoughts and torture us in infinite virtual hells and such.

AF said...

"Even though the law gives them a monopoly over teen girls, many of them still lack sexual opportunity because there are far more teen boys who want to get laid than there are teen girls who are willing to have sex with them. There is much more demand for sex among teenage boys than there is supply, and adult women who bang teenage boys are simply helping satisfy that demand. "

Yes, but I bet my life that these women are not banging the incels or virgins, they are banging the Tyrones and Chads who are able to choose from the hottest girls in class. I remember 4Chan.org doxxed the 'victim' of an infamous female teacher/boy case in America, and he was a 13 year old black Tryone stud who looked 20. That was the case in which the teacher literally asked other boys in the class (presumably the virgins) to stand guard at the door while she sucked off Tyrone in the classroom.

What all these female teachers brazenly banging underage boys teaches us is that if all women had the same sexual attraction to teens that men have, then the vast majority of them would be locked up as pedos because they just can't control their desires (of course they wouldn't be locked up, because in such a world sex with young teens would then be seen as entirely acceptable - or at least for women).

""The AF" sure is fighting(if we call writing comments fighting) for his right to masturbate to porn and never meeting an actual girl. "

So tell us what you have been doing over the last 15 years to fight feminism, or rather 'cultural drift' or 'elite psychosis' or whatever, other than making retarded attacks on me in the comments here?

AF said...

"I guess it's to be expected since the US Department of Homo Security study declared men loving young teens as a threat to democracy, which is also to be expected with record numbers of politically enfranchised, single middle aged women."

Well said Anon69.

For me, it seems to be mind-blowingly obvious that, if you are a genuine MRA, AND if you think the age of consent is unfair, then you MUST at least see sexual trade union theory/pussy cartel theory/green pill theory as the underlying framework. And there are no excuses now that the US government has pretty much laid it out in black and white.

If the MRM had accepted that the age of consent and paedohysteria were indeed men's rights issues, then they would have largely adopted the idea that it was feminists trying to prevent men accessing young prime pussy out of jealousy or spite. It goes without saying.

I mean, they accept completely that when women screech about passport bros, or porn, or AI girlfriends and sex robots, that it's simply women trying to limit the sexual competition.

But, they can't accept that feminists and women are doing the exact same thing when they are raising the age of consent or handing out ever greater punishments to men who break it.

And this is why educating the MRM as to the history of the age of consent, its roots in the suffragette and social purity movements, and the fact that these laws are being pushed by femihag dominated lobby groups and 'child protection' NGOs, is so important, and something that I always tried to do.

But we can't even agree on that here, in our supposed corner of the MRM which accepts these issues are valid. Instead, we try to outsmart each other by proposing our own 'cultural drift' or 'psychotic elite' theories, or make retarded statements such as 'but most of the police are men, but most of the politicians are men' - statements that would be laughed at by any real MRA.

Eivind Berge said...

Norms are mostly upheld just because they are norms. Purpose has nothing to do with it most of the time. The programmers now telling ChatGPT to hate MAPs are nearly all male and care nothing about the purpose. They just blindly enforce what the elites want, which in turn is only loosely informed by purpose. Cultural drift is more real than a conspiracy to push it in a certain direction, and even when there is a conspiracy its size is unimpressive. Most people just go about their work blindly following rules, which nowadays involves a gigantic abuse industry, but the individual human cogs don't imbue that industry with its purpose. Cultural drift does that. Most women are just as ineffectual as most men in having their personal motives translated to cultural norms, and both sexes are extremely good at following orders at any job whether they harm men or women. We are personifying the machine too much when we paint it as a union for women. I could go along with that idea if it were a useful fiction men would rally around, but they don't do this either. So might as well be honest and intellectually curious about the causes. That makes our writings more interesting. Looking back at historical witch-hunts they can't just be explained by ONE group asserting ONE selfish motive, and I don't think this one can either.

Anonymous said...

@AF

"So tell us what you have been doing over the last 15 years to fight feminism, or rather 'cultural drift' or 'elite psychosis' or whatever, other than making retarded attacks on me in the comments here?"

I may have or may not have had sex with a big number of teen girls, some maybe or maybe not in exchange for money. And some maybe or maybe not as young as 16. Oh, and and I might or might not have fought police in court over that issue a few times.

What I surely never did was to use a single calorie on fighting for the right to watch porn and masturbate and trying to convince people that girls are evil like you are doing. Why would I do that, and what could the point of that be? Are you paying for Onlyfans AF?

AF said...

@Anonymous - right, amazing stuff for your dick and for those lucky teen girls. You're right up there with Angry Harry.

Eivind might like this. I asked ChatGPT (the lastest 4.o version) - 'who is Eivind Berge?' It replied that there are two noteworthy individuals with that name, and described the cardiologist who died recently (any relation Eivind?), and then our Eivind.

"Eivind Berge, the Blogger and Activist: Another Eivind Berge is known for his blog, where he discusses topics related to the Men's Rights Movement and his self-identification with the "Male Sexualist" movement. His writings often challenge contemporary sexual norms and promote a controversial stance on various issues related to sexuality and gender. He has also been involved in activism, holding a position as the Men’s Movement Community Outreach Ambassador for the MAP movement (Minor Attracted Persons), which has garnered significant controversy and criticism [❞]."

Eivind Berge said...

No relation to the cardiologist. I am impressed by ChatGPT 4.o there! Totally updated information too. One year ago it also knew who I am but it was hallucinating a bunch of nonsense.

Eivind Berge said...

Another sting. Look at all the "crimes" they can pull out of thin air using nothing more than police lies and larping:

https://sports.yahoo.com/ex-red-sox-player-arrested-183425524.html

Austin Maddox, 33, of Jacksonville, Florida, is charged with traveling to meet after using a computer to solicit a child, solicitation of a child via computer to engage in sexual conduct, unlawful use of a two-way communication device, and producing or promoting performance which included sexual performance by a child, a Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office arrest report indicated.

Jacksonville Sheriff T.K. Waters said that Maddox was arrested in “Operation Valiant Knights,” an undercover online sting where 27 men solicited sex over the internet from who they believed were children, Boston 25′s sister station Action News Jax reported.

Maddox chatted with someone who identified herself as a 14-year-old girl on the website “Skip the Games,” continued the conversation via text message, and arranged a place to meet for sex, according to the arrest report.

Investigators say Maddox “expressed a desire to commit lewd acts” and after learning the girl’s age he allegedly said, “That’s young, baby. I get in trouble for that. You can’t even drive. You gonna stay with me all night?”

Maddox was arrested by members of the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office when he arrived at the prearranged meeting location on April 28. Officials noted that Maddox suffered injuries while being taken into custody.

“Former Major League Baseball player Austin Dean Maddox resisted arrest until our K9 got involved,” a sheriff’s office spokesperson said in a video that showed a group of law enforcement officials hiding in waiting before tackling Maddox to the ground.

Undercover detectives posing as children chatted with the men who were arrested, including Maddox, “who committed to engaging in sex acts with purported minors,” Waters said. He added that the objective of the sting was to “identify and arrest suspects who solicit children to engage in sexual acts using electronic devices.”


It is astonishing that this can pass as good police work without the normies rebelling. This being normalized procedure is way worse than the occasional cop fabricating evidence which "breaks the rules" of how police are supposed to act. This is systematic, organized, unopposed institutionalized evil.

Eivind Berge said...

"Operation Valiant Knights"... Those agecucks think of themselves as valiant knights, LMAO!

Several law enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Homeland Security Investigations, assisted the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office with this investigation.

And there's the FBI and Homeland Security again too, valiantly pursuing the most important goal of this civilization, saving fictional 14-year-old pussy from men's fantasies.

At least Austin Maddox displayed some admirable sexual vitality there amidst the disgusting display of unmanliness by the authorities. Can our rulers get any more disgusting and odious?

Feldmarshall said...

Searching for the subculture of delinquent Japanese schoolgirls, since Japanese schoolgirls attract me to the extreme, I go and find an article that states that these high school delinquents were a way of rebelling against the Japanese patriarchy of the 60s, not only that , the article was full of attacks on the "sexualization of Japanese schoolgirls", dating older men for gifts (that are now prohibited), etc. and that those same juvenile delinquents fought against that patriarchy, evil adults etc., of course, being a gang of dangerous asocial criminals with an almost military hierarchy who "punished" other girls. At the end of the article they complained that the evil heteropatriarchy had co-opted them by sexualizing them in pornography.

Why does every damn thing that happens or has happened in the world with feminists, male sexuality, teen girls, paedohysteria, etc. agree with AF? Why the hell, do absolutely everything agree with AF's theories?

BTW The other day in a forum I saw an overprotective conservative father saying outrageous things about how his daughter is under his command and she does what he orders (the daughter is 19), then it turns out that I see him (and others like him) saying things like that less than 18 are just children and stop their sexualization, that under 18 is always sexual assault and that even with 20 It is also rape if the guy is an older man, and he does not like young girls because he is not a cradle robber.

More fucking AFpill. Enough already!

Anonymous said...

" So might as well be honest and intellectually curious about the causes."

Ok, and here's the honesty:

"it's simply women trying to limit the sexual competition... the history of the age of consent, its roots in the suffragette and social purity movements, and the fact that these laws are being pushed by femihag dominated lobby groups and 'child protection' NGOs, is so important"

Complicating it more than that makes you an intellectual wanker, much worse than a physical wanker!

And in terms of complicit male feminists like the enforcement arm of the government, tech company engineers, and cucked politicians, they are pandering to female political power at the expense of their own interests, because they are either pedocrite simps or homosexuals.

The pedocrite simps/homosexuals in Florida (literally one of the worst feminist places in the world and "conservative") literally named their sting Operation White Knight! LOL, they don't even hide it anymore! Please note that Florida also has actual child pageants that dress up actual children like complete wh*res, these people are projecting so hard it's astounding. The male feminist self-masochism in Florida is something truly unique in the world.

"And there's the FBI and Homeland Security again too, valiantly pursuing the most important goal of this civilization, saving fictional 14-year-old pussy from men's fantasies... This is systematic, organized, unopposed institutionalized evil."

Now you're talking! Finally. This is the argument that specifically upsets feminist tyrants. Remember it well and repeat it often.

"Why the hell, do absolutely everything agree with AF's theories?"

Because women shit test as part of their innate sexuality, and weak men whose testicles are filled with microplastics fail these shit tests, and male sexuality is constricted. This also defines the male feminist "conservative father" you described above, who is such a weak pedocrite that he clings to feminism to try and maintain some power in a completely feminist society. But in doing so, of course, he sells out his own biology and shows everyone he is impotent because he gets his power from women. I also guarantee you he is 100% delusional if he thinks he is controlling his daughter when she goes to f*ck Tyrone behind his back.

Of course, if Tyrone is ever found out, the daughter cries rape and Tyrone goes to jail for the rest of his life. Black people know about this scam very well because they have much more experience with it.


anon69

Eivind Berge said...

"A notorious sex offender who was banned from possessing orange balloons is back behind bars after admitting breaching a sexual harm prevention order."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq5ngrlzn42o

"He was also jailed for 15 months in 2011 and ordered to register as a sex offender for ten years after he broke a court order banning him from possessing balloons in public. He was arrested after police searched his car and found an orange coloured heart-shaped balloon on the front passenger seat... This was the 36th time Hunter had broken court orders imposed to restrict his activities."

No indication that he ever touched a girl. The abuse industry ruined his life since 1994 over photos and balloons. Non-pornographic photos at that unless you have a balloon fetish: "Hundreds of photos of girls either holding or blowing-up balloons were found at two properties linked to Hunter in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire."

"Sexual harm" can be possessing a balloon or photo of a balloon. I don't see how it can get any more absurd but to the normies it is completely normal. Well, there is one way... they could start jailing women for possessing balloons too.

"Sexual harm" is an empty concept to be filled with whatever you want to arrest anybody. General-purpose witchcraft to incriminate anybody and once they start slapping "sexual harm prevention orders" on you it is impossible to have a normal life again because anything you do will be criminal.

AF said...

@Feldmarshall and anon69 - thank you. I appreciate the support and that some people here get what the femihags are up to!

@Eivind - Once you have fallen foul of the feminist sex laws in the UK, no matter how trivial, they can basically use these 'sexual harm prevention orders' to keep dragging you back to prison again and again.

Gary Glitter faces dying in jail because he was 'caught' looking at YouTube videos of gymnasts.

I saw some hope yesterday though. Prisons are now so overcrowded in the UK, that the police have been urged to stop arresting people! https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv2274gdk10o

The constant increase in feminist sex laws (predicted by sexual trade union theory) and consequently the ever-growing number of 'sex offenders' is simply not sustainable in the long-term, at least not in the UK and Europe. Perhaps not even in the USA. A large percentage of 'sex offenders', perhaps a growing percentage due to the increase in digital 'sex crimes' are middle-class and educated. It is one thing for a Western country to lock up a million uneducated young black men who might be on welfare anyway, it is another to lock up a similar number of productive tax-paying men.

And look at this poor wanker in the USA. An American man faces 70 years in prison for making AI childporn images!
https://petapixel.com/2024/05/22/us-man-faces-70-years-in-prison-for-creating-13000-ai-child-abuse-images/

Eivind Berge said...

Here's a development which runs counter to the trend:

https://reduxx.info/pro-pedophile-activist-group-celebrates-as-germany-decriminalizes-child-porn-possession/

Germany’s Parliament (Bundestag) has received the votes necessary to remove a section of the Criminal Code which made the possession of child sexual abuse materials a felony crime. Once the bill, passed last Thursday, comes into effect, minimum sentences for the possession of child pornography will be reduced, and the offense will be downgraded to a misdemeanor.

According to the Bundestag, the bill stipulates that “possession and acquisition should be punishable with a minimum penalty of three months’ imprisonment, and distribution with a minimum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, and distribution with a minimum penalty of six months’ imprisonment. The offenses regulated in Section 184b of the Criminal Code are therefore classified as misdemeanors and not as crimes.”

The possession of child sexual abuse materials was first classified as a crime in 2021 after Federal Justice Minister Christine Lambrecht of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) introduced a minimum sentence of one year for the offense. The move classified the act as a felony, which it remained for three years until this most recent downgrade.


However, in my view this is nothing to celebrate. It is the beginning of the development I fear most: that the abuse industry will streamline its persecution of sexuality by realizing that persecuting images was nonsense because there is no sexuality in them. Hence they will have more resources to persecute those who actually have sex. Both cops and wankers are barking up the wrong tree when they go after porn instead of sex; when cops wise up the wankers will wank in peace but sexually serious, nofapping men like me will be targeted more often.

The German system is realizing that the signal-to-noise ratio of having to clog the prisons with all those wankers was too low to be worth it because its gets in the way of their true mission which is to persecute sexuality. Notice that there is no proposal to legalize any more sex.

Eivind Berge said...

@AF

"I saw some hope yesterday though. Prisons are now so overcrowded in the UK, that the police have been urged to stop arresting people!"

I don't know if they have the sense to release men who are in prison for watching ballet on YouTube or possessing orange balloons yet... but at some point the UK will likely streamline its abuse industry too. Which means the war actually intensifies, because then we get down to what really matters: actual sex.

Feldmarshall said...

I was watching horrible TIKTOK videos where extremely young (less than 25 for sure) degenerate women talked about the sexual aberrations they were proud of having committed, including one who left a guy because he had a "small penis." The typical thing, today's modern women are disgusting, they are not worth it as a mother or a wife or as your girlfriends. Most modern men are also scum, there is no misogyny on my part.

When a video of a girl appears, who is asked what is the worst thing she has done to a man, pay attention:

"When she was 14 she met a man (he was 20) and she lied to him telling him that she was 18, and after having had sex several times she was honest and told him that she was 14, then the guy got scared and didn't talk to her again. , and he wants to go unnoticed, so she THREATENED HIM TO REPORT HIM TO THE POLICE IF HE DOESN'T TALK TO HER AGAIN, and then he talked to her again, to this day he is still talking to her!!!!!"

BUT what the hell is this?! Real irresponsible and lying little girls, who seem to be happy to be able to have men by the balls thanks to the laws of bitter old hags. And on top of that, he would go to jail and not her for lying. She is the instigator of a crime, not the one who was deceived. What disgusting women and especially teenagers. What a shame and disgust to live in this society, everything is wrong, everything.

I'm so pissed off that I'm now embarrassed to admit that I loved teenage girls, I'm an asshole.

Eivind Berge said...

I strongly disagree with Feldmarshall's attitude there. When underage girls lie about their age to ease us into meeting them, that's a beautiful expression of love. It happens a lot and goes to show that love and sex will always find a way around the sex laws. Even if this becomes the only remaining way to meet young girls, the girls will do what they need to make it happen. Since I take criminality as a given I don't have a problem with this at all as far as ethical judgment of the girl goes, and it makes me think more highly of her both because she is loving and defiant of the law.

Likewise it is an expression of love when they threaten to report us to make us keep talking to them and keep having sex with them. Lighten up and see it for what it is. Remember that they didn't construct this hateful system. You can't blame them too much for using the tools available to them, and they probably don't mean to report us anyway. This kind of threat is slightly unethical, but no reason to dislike the girl.

When they use the same laws decades later to "regret" their relationships while young, it is motivated by greed and hate. But not when teen girls do it, certainly not when they don't go all the way and wreak the kind of havoc intended by the laws but rather produce an ironic result. And again, the solution to the risk this entails for men is to attack the abuse industry and reform the laws, not stop loving teen girls.

Eivind Berge said...

Let me elaborate a bit on the ethics of girls lying about their ages in order to have sex (without accusing after). You can indict this behavior a bit on consequentialist grounds since the man can nonetheless get convicted despite the girl's best efforts to protect him. But overall, I find deontology and the Golden Rule much stronger. This is how I want to be treated! And I want it to be a general principle that girls feel good about lying about their ages to seduce us. Because the sexual opportunities this opens up are so wonderful, and it's such an execrable shame to suppress them, even for somewhat good consequentialist reasons.

In summary, girls who lie about their ages with good motives have my full ethical approval.

Girls saying they are 18 does not keep us safe from the law, but it does protect us from stings, and that's a huge benefit too. All the scumbags larping as underage girls are powerless to hurt us that way, so at least until the moment of meeting the girl and seeing that she is real (though perhaps a big young looking) we can feel perfectly confident. Which is the main reason they lie to ease us into the relationship.

Anonymous said...

"It is one thing for a Western country to lock up a million uneducated young black men who might be on welfare anyway, it is another to lock up a similar number of productive tax-paying men."

These men are simps because they choose to be productive tax payers to a feminist tyrant system that hates them and wants them neutered for life. They will not do anything to upset anyone. These are the khaki pants wearing happy wife happy life normies. But maybe a few become vigilantes after conviction for bullsh*t? One can hope they find their way to our movement.

"And look at this poor wanker in the USA. An American man faces 70 years in prison for making AI childporn images!"

I find it appropriate that the comment from the woman at the Feminist Bitch Institute was the usual extreme lesbian man hating garbage that flows so eloquently from the USA. No surrender or quarter is given by these scamming nasty tyrants, including entirely theoretical fantasies or pure thought crime. If they could hook a device up to your brain that showed you imagined a 14 year old girl naked, it would be exactly the same crime and slander. Maybe now we know why Elon Musk is so excited about his neurolink trash, considering he censors Twitter for the benefit of petty feminists!

"Likewise it is an expression of love when they threaten to report us to make us keep talking to them and keep having sex with them. Lighten up and see it for what it is."

Eivind have you lost your f*cking mind?

It is the forced extraction of attention and resources against the will of a man who was manipulated into the vulnerable position of going to jail for decades and being slandered as a child abuser. It is pure selection, domination and predation. You think it's a good idea these girls are given absolute extortion power over men?

You can't even make the argument this would be good if it was widespread (which it may well be), because the nature of hypergamy ensures that only maybe 5-10% maximum of all men would be targeted by these girls. That means the feminist legal system would not be overloaded, and the system of exploitation could continue where women can f*ck the bad boys and also put them in jail whenever they want. This is peak feminism, wake up. Are you a male sexualist or not? 'Women can exploit me fully and dominate my life completely if I get to touch young pussy maybe once' is the definition of cucked. I don't think you're being serious here.

"Real irresponsible and lying little girls, who seem to be happy to be able to have men by the balls thanks to the laws of bitter old hags...I'm so pissed off that I'm now embarrassed to admit that I loved teenage girls, I'm an asshole."

The laws empower females of all ages over men to completely control sexual power and use it to manipulate as they please. When they're younger, they can use the power to do things like this just like when they're older. It's all about using a fake abuse narrative to extract the maximum resources from men, the key piece being the highest age of consent (extortion) possible along with banned prostitution and pornography, and a strong and powerful mommy government to enforce it mercilessly (USA). This is why, in 2024, a government that is weak and powerless is the best system to live with, since the governments of 2024 are incentivized to be maximum feminist by the USA and the UN.

By the way, it's still ok to love teenage girls since you are a normal man with testosterone. It would be perverted not to love them, which is what the feminist government wants. But, they are still females, so you must remember their nature and their incentives to behave based on the guidance of the feminist state. Then you can protect yourself and still maybe get to enjoy them once in a while.


anon69

Jack said...

"Likewise it is an expression of love when they threaten to report us to make us keep talking to them and keep having sex with them. Lighten up and see it for what it is."

I think I see a pattern in Eivind's thought here. Anything that can give a man pussy in the short term is good never mind the long term legal consequences. Therefore women's schemings are harmless or even a blessing in so far as they give the man some pussy. I want some pussy, now never mind the years I'm likely to spend in jail!

Such thinking is only possible when the threat of jail in far away like it is in Norway. But is even Norway that safe?

Such thinking is also in keeping with Eivind's setting up of a website to impregnate women who want to raise a child. Never mind if I pay child support for life, provided I can shoot my load in a woman!

Maybe this "I don't care about any consequence as long as I get some pussy" may be the result of nofap. You may be right Eivind, nofap might make men horny as hell. If this is the case it might also induce reckless behaviour compared to which wanking to porn at least once in a while is by far a better advice to give to men at large.

Anonymous said...

"Maybe this "I don't care about any consequence as long as I get some pussy" may be the result of nofap. You may be right Eivind, nofap might make men horny as hell. If this is the case it might also induce reckless behaviour compared to which wanking to porn at least once in a while is by far a better advice to give to men at large."

This is such an excellent point, and something I've brought up before. It is far better to have a wank instead of compromising your entire life for one orgasm. And now we see that extreme nofap is not only uncomfortable, it is also counter-productive; it turns you into even more of a simp because you are so sexually frustrated, you are willing to compromise your entire life for one orgasm.

Wanking every so often to avoid doing something stupid, while working to improve the situation and maintaining your life, is clearly the best option. Which is why feminists also want to ban porn.


anon69

Anonymous said...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13457897/Mother-confronts-sex-offender-Target-filming-daughter.html

Anonymous 2

Eivind Berge said...

The cops were called, but when Rossford police showed up they told the furious mother that the sex offender hadn't commit a crime by recording her 16-year-old daughter, according to WTVG.

'There's definitely some concerns there, but unfortunately, that individual wasn't breaking any laws at the time, and it puts us in kind of a bad spot because we know that there's probably some ill intent, but there's nothing that we can do about it lawfully,' said Chief Kitzler.


"Ill intent" being the standard male attraction. There's that civilizational misandry again, even when they don't have a law for it (yet).

But anyway, this is foolish behavior, legal or not, even though his intent is healthy. Because filming girls does not get you any closer to them. Find ways to get closer to girls instead.

Anonymous said...

All of you lust over 16 to 19 yo girls. So technically thay are teenagers which is still considered a child to most people.

16 is legal in a great amount of places, especially in the UK here where I live. But I stand of the opinion that 16 and 17 year olds should only be pursued by other teenagers ie 18 and 19 is fine but 20 is where dating a 16 year old is weird. No 50 year old should want to get in the pants of a barely legal teenager.

I highly doubt a majority of 16 year olds would appreciate an old man or woman perving on them. If they have some kind of weird 'sugar baby' agreement, all power to them. But the maturity difference is ridiculous and it's gross to be a teenager getting perved on by a 50 year old nonblood relative or whatever and think it's apparently legal for them to think of them in such a way.

If a teenager really wants to do such a thing, they can go ahead. But it's way too easy for someone with little life experience to be manipulated.

Eivind Berge said...

That's the drivel we are up against as normie "wisdom." Empty terms like "manipulated" and thinly veiled disgust which is all their own but projected onto someone else.

What is the evidence that teens are "easy to manipulate"? If true, there should be some kind of test with quantifiable scores where they improve markedly from 16 to 25. This does not happen with IQ, so what kind of test can measure it?

And why does juvenile delinquency exist if they are so easy to manipulate? Can't we just manipulate them into being well-behaved all the time? They should also be fully manipulated to resist sexual advances from older men since that's the cultural programming. How come it is easy to make them do something they are constantly told not to do? Why do you fear our kind of manipulation from what you would claim is just a tiny minority of men who are even interested when you have the entire culture manipulating them in the opposite direction?

Eivind Berge said...

A Spanish city council inadvertently advertised the fact that children can consent:

https://reduxx.info/if-he-says-no-its-not-sex-spanish-city-apologizes-for-pedophilic-sexual-consent-campaign/

The City Council in Almería, Spain, is under fire after launching a poster campaign on sexual consent which featured a child on one version of the signage. The campaign, which advised individuals to seek consent from sexual partners, was withdrawn after immense backlash on social media.

Launched earlier this month, the urban poster campaign was approved by the City Council and utilized approximately 18,000 Euros in funding from the Ministry of Equality. Focusing on sexual violence, the primary slogan created for the campaign was a “no means no”-style advisory which read: “If [he/she] says no, it’s not sex, it’s aggression.”


Of course, normie morons lashed back with their idiotic dogma that it does not matter if children say yes or no.

Anonymous said...

"No 50 year old should want to get in the pants of a barely legal teenager."

"But it's way too easy for someone with little life experience to be manipulated."

This is the most common subcategory of simps - the virtue signaling sanctimonious loser who pretends like he can get hot teens, even though he can't because he's a coward, or ugly, or stupid. This defines our anonymous simp that commented above.

He can't get in the pants of a barely legal teenager, so no one should want to, naturally.

He can't manipulate/groom (aka seduce) a teenager into having sex with him, so it's obviously too easy to manipulate/groom (aka seduce) teenagers into sex; he's above that, you see.

He is their nauseating knight in shining armor, the most pure man with impeccable morality. That's why he won't simply use his great powers of seduction to bang a teenage girl immediately. It's because of his great respect for women and honorable nature.

It's definitely not because he's a complete f*cking waste, a jealous fat coward and a stupid loser who hates other men who aren't afraid to try and sometimes win with the hottest girls God created for us. Nope definitely not.


anon69

amelio said...

"He can't get in the pants of a barely legal teenager, so no one should want to, naturally."

Sure but he's the majority. Same as plain ageing women are the majority. They rule. Blame the demographic winter in Europe. Youth is a rare commodity. All the justifications about protecting vulnerable categories (in constant expansion) are bullshit.

Eivind Berge said...

When they put 60-year-old women in beauty contests alongside 18-year-olds, you know something is off, lol.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/26/americas/alejandra-rodriguez-60-miss-universe-buenos-aires-intl-latam/index.html

A 60-year-old Argentine beauty queen’s run for Miss Universe may have come to an end, but she says her remarkable journey is the “first step of a change” in society’s perceptions.

Alejandra Rodriguez made headlines across the world in April when she was crowned Miss Buenos Aires, becoming the first sexagenarian to win a contest organized by the Miss Universe franchise...

Until 2023, contestants had to be between the ages of 18 and 28 as of January 1 of the year in which they competed. As of 2024, there is no upper age limit...

“There was also a 40-year-old woman who participated, another who is 37. It’s like the limits are already expanding,” Rodriguez said. “There were women who are mothers, things that were unthinkable before in Miss Universe.”


Anyway, we should embrace this and take it as evidence that age roles can be bent for us too. Why should we as older men be limited to dating close in age when women themselves affirm that a 60-year-old is in the same league as an 18-year-old and vice versa?

amelio said...

"Anyway, we should embrace this and take it as evidence that age roles can be bent for us too. Why should we as older men be limited to dating close in age when women themselves affirm that a 60-year-old is in the same league as an 18-year-old and vice versa?"

That's clever !

There's a long way to go yet : why should physical appearance get in the way of inner beauty ? Ugly women should be allowed to participate. The jury, the "beer holders" should be able to see beyond the surface.

AF said...

A 60-year-old woman can compete yet 17-year-old girls cannot, because nobody except a paedophile would find a 17 year old 'child' attractive. Argentina used to be one of the most sane countries until recently too. I remember watching on YouTube a 16-year-old girl who was apparently a popular TV presenter (actual television) and would go around interviewing people in the street whilst wearing a skimpy bikini.

In other news, Germany is to allow 16-year-olds to vote in European elections, and the UK opposition leader has made one of his key election pledges to give 16-year-olds the vote.

Funny how they never say 'give 16-year-olds the vote'. It's always, giving 'young people' the vote, or 'people under 18'. But when it comes to sex or porn, it's always 'children under 18'.

https://theconversation.com/germany-lowers-voting-age-to-16-for-the-european-elections-but-is-it-playing-into-the-far-rights-hands-229401

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/25/labour-16-17-year-olds-right-to-vote-keir-starmer

Meanwhile, the UK is proposing to completely ban under 16 year olds from owning or using a smartphone.

So one day, you're too immature to even use a smartphone, and the next day you can vote.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/25/mps-urge-under-16s-smartphone-ban-statutory-ban-schools

Anonymous said...

,,,And Australia might ban beauty filters on social media for under-18's-sorry, no link as yet.
It's totally not because older women feel threatened or anything.

-Anonymous 2

Anonymous said...

AF said...

"Funny how they never say 'give 16-year-olds the vote'. It's always, giving 'young people' the vote, or 'people under 18'. But when it comes to sex or porn, it's always 'children under 18'"

No you're incorrect as always. The age of consent in Germany and the UK is not 18. Not that it matters to "AF", because he only cares about porn.

This movement's opinion is that we don't have any view on the legality of porn. Though we recommend staying away from it altogether unless you want to end up a wanking incel loser like "AF" and, just like him, spend thousand's of dollars a month on Onlyfans.

Eivind Berge said...

"And Australia might ban beauty filters on social media for under-18's."

So what, they don't need filters anyway. This is just mindless hysteria, a cultural drift into the idea that social media is yet another danger to minors even when there is no sex or simulacra of sex or ideas about sex. Possibly a sign that the sex scare is wearing out, unless we can have two panics at the same time.

Anonymous said...

Robert Lindsay considered primary preferential hebephiles like AF to be sexually disordered

https://beyondhighbrow.substack.com/p/epstein-was-a-hebephile-and-was-sexually

Eivind Berge said...

Having a foot fetish is disordered under current diagnostic criteria, but hebephilia is not.

I doubt Robert Lindsay has much say over the next version of the DSM.

While I disagree with expanding sexual diagnoses, I think Robert Lindsay's contribution to men's rights activism or even just the MAP movement is a massive net positive.

Anonymous said...

Some men are VERY VERY bad. Society sexualizes infantilization. I've been reading some comments and produced repulsion. It doesn't matter if it's humor or not. Saying that it is normal to feel attracted to teenagers about 16 years old is not freedom of expression, it is sexual predatory if you are more than 5 years old than the girl.

Eivind Berge said...

What is the point of these brainless comments? Are you a paid troll, by the DHS perhaps? No one can seriously be that stupid?

What does "sexualizes infantilization" mean anyway? If 16-year-olds are infantilized (like you are doing) then that means it's a sham and they are actually mature. We don't infantilize infants because they are already infants and likewise there is no need to sexualize teens because nature takes care of that.

The antis can't even put up a coherent view in their paid troll comments. Which I won't allow much longer because it contributes nothing but idiocy. Which is sometimes useful so we can learn about the normie mindset, but I think we have seen enough.

Anonymous said...

Our movement is NOT about validating the preferential hebophilia of incel porn addicted wankers like the AF. Robert Lindsay HIMSELF says the AF is a deviant wanker and YOU are supposed to respect Lindsay. The sexualist movement should say nothing about porn or preferential hebophilia. It is about NORMAL sex only, not fetishizing deviants and wankers like the AF.

Eivind Berge said...

Well, I have graduated from MRA to MAP, so I don't take that kind of orders. That said, I certainly don't fetishize wankers and even if I were to agree that exclusive hebephilia is slightly deviant, it would be no more morally problematic than a foot fetish. Both are arguably less than ideal since they prevent you from enjoying vaginal intercourse throughout most or all (in the case of a foot fetish) of women's reproductive lives.

AF said...

@Eivind - Whenever I try to turn over a new leaf and be more civil with you, you allow this retard and other 'Anonymous' MAP followers to insult me. It's as though you have zero social intelligence.

It's not as if this guy has the slightest cogent criticism to make either. And he's insulting not only me, but others, and probably himself as well. I assume nearly all of us here prefer teen girls.

The MAP movement was featured in the Daily Mail again yesterday.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-13466661/What-like-living-worst-secret-world-Couple-admit-theyre-paedophiles-insist-dont-offend-say-saves-suicide-dramatic-new-book-journalist-Andrew-Gold.html

Makes some ridiculous claims, such as that '4% of men are attracted to minors', lol. And the wriiter regards that as shocking. And that MAPs need to be treated because otherwise they have their 'cognitive biases' reinforced in their online communities (regarding sex with minors being consensual). Hmmm.. more like society is reinforcing its own evil cognitive biases by prohibiting rational debate on whether the femihag multi-billion dollar CSA industry is questionable in any way.

Eivind Berge said...

Regarding that Daily Mail article, it's good to see the MAP movement getting increased media attention, but as might be expected at this point they limit themselves to MAPs who profess a non-offending stance and don't even advocate for lowering the age of consent because they believe sex with minors is truly abuse. This is a gross distortion of the true meaning of MAP.

Referred to simply as Ruby and Sirius, the pair are self-described as 'minor-attracted persons' (MAPs) which is a clinical term to distinguish those who are attracted to children but do not act on those urges from those who do abuse them.

Of course in reality here on the ground, MAP is a political term and it does not exclude offenders.

We can laugh at this knowing they can't keep the political MAPs silent once the MAP movement really gets going.

But for now... the media will consider our kind of forum and Newgon as something which can be eradicated:

Furthermore, the Don't Offend clinic aims to eradicate the cognitive bias that results from paedophiles coming together in online forums, and convincing each other that sex with children can be consensual.

So they are doubly delusional, both that children can't consent and thinking they can stop the pro-contact MAP movement.

Rest assured, the anti-c MAPs are just the tip of the iceberg which is currently visible because the media will only give them attention. This can change rapidly in part thanks to my willingness to be proud and open and politically rebellious. Any journalists reading this, feel free to ask for an interview.

Laura said...

Sex prohibited to minors, like drugs or porn. When he/she is 18, total freedom.
If at 18 you cannot take advantage of yourself sexually, it is your problem against a mind formed in sexual rights.

That's what Dawkins says: we understand that your brain is not mature to handle alcohol or tobacco, but it is mature for the idea of ​​sex with adults.

It is called prevalence, it is cowardice of the worst kind to take advantage of the defenselessness of an immature brain to take advantage sexually and then it will affect your sexual affectivity forever.

I tell my daughter that no one knows anything until they are 18. Anyone who tells her that they like teenage girls and want something from her: she should send them to hell immediately.

Eivind Berge said...

I am about to cut off moronic comments now. Unless anybody is entertained by this?

Astrolito said...

mmmm Honestly, at my early 40s, I could feel a certain "envy" seeing a mature man with a 35-year-old woman, of which there are sexy, and many. But a 19-year-old kid doesn't make me envious. In fact, when I see a 19-year-old kid, it doesn't cause any sexual alteration in me.

Perhaps many of you who comment in favor are not of a certain age, and you do not understand it. But over the years it happens. When I go to school I can notice some mothers who are very well and are young, 30 or so, but never a 19-year-old kid...

Anonymous said...

I tell my daughter that no one knows anything until they are 18. Anyone who tells her that they like teenage girls and want something from her: she should send them to hell immediately.

The obvious result of this way of seeing and doing things is that your daughter will say "yes mom" every time as required, and later she will throw herself into the arms of the first handsome guy as soon as you turn your back.

Eivind Berge said...

Some version of the above trolling is all a normie has to do do make a living in the abuse industry. That's all it takes, pretending teen girls are unattractive. Think of that and consider making a donation to my bitcoin address if you'd like to see more activism for the other side.

As you can see, it's a ridiculously low intellectual bar. But we gotta eat.

Revolution G23 said...

Nowadays, the trolling might be performed by AI bots.

Revolution G23 said...

More accurately sex is prohibited to adults, when that adult's partner in the sex act is a minor. That's what needs to change. It should be legalized for adults to have sex with kids, and the emphasis should be on legalizing the actions of the adult, because that's who's getting arrested and imprisoned under the present day regime.

Anonymous said...

Look at the painting that Eivind has up on his cabin wall.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MImQ0qiSYFI

This is what extreme NoFap does to you folks.

Anonymous said...

"Why is it everyone else is supposed to change their opinions and show sympathy to a minority of wronguns? Not happening. If it's going against nature it's wrong. Anything between consenting adults most people can deal with. But as soon as kids are involved a line has been crossed. "

That is the top liked comment on that MAP article, which is beautiful in its ignorance. It tells MAPS there is no sense in trying to please the NPC idiots by curtailing their sexuality. It's also hilarious because nature sexualizes young people under 18, therefore by their own logic, the de-sexualization of young people is wrong because it goes against nature.

"Of course in reality here on the ground, MAP is a political term and it does not exclude offenders."

This is a great point to emphasize, Eivind. Just as the word "children" has been turned into a political term by the enemy instead of a clinical term. After taking over the legal system, they change the political definition of the word children to whatever they want, then use that hoax definition to slander men. They are trying now to change the political definition of a "child" to anyone under the age of 21, but of course only in the context of sex to punish men. A child who votes all of a sudden becomes a "young person" as AF said.

"It is called prevalence, it is cowardice of the worst kind to take advantage of the defenselessness of an immature brain to take advantage sexually and then it will affect your sexual affectivity forever."

Lol yes the poor sweet little defenseless flowers whose pussies get wet the same as older hags, and whose manipulation is just as developed. Do these people even know any young girls?? And cowardice? To buck an entire international feminist conspiracy complete with meathead pedocrite murderous footsoldiers and total censorship on every major speech platform? Right, ok, sure, 'Laura'.

" In fact, when I see a 19-year-old kid, it doesn't cause any sexual alteration in me."

Then you need to check your testosterone levels or get a gay porn collection, because you're not straight, bud. If you choose to desexualize a 19 year old, you might have too much plastic in your balls.

"I am about to cut off moronic comments now. Unless anybody is entertained by this?"

Leave them, because it might snap a few people out of it. It's the same thing as the 'safe and effective' motto for the corona hoax shots, anyone who has a brain cell left will be able to see through the dumb motto when presented with a counter-argument. That is why the speech platforms need to censor us. It's also why 'CSAM' is absurdly illegal even though the vast majority is young people taking pictures of themselves experimenting with their own sexuality, because it reminds everyone that young people under 18 have normal sexual urges, and that feminists and government tyrants are actively DE-SEXUALIZING young people to hurt men.


anon69

AF said...

Regarding the Mail article on the MAPs, I disagree with Eivind that it's simply a false representation of MAPs being the 'virtuous' type.

For a start, it's highlighting a genuine (female) paedophile, who is interested in babies and toddlers. In that case, I think we can surely all agree here that it's best that such a real paedophile be 'virtuous'. Well I guess Eivind wouldn't as he presumably thinks that even a male baby being touched up by a woman is a 'lucky baby'.

So it's primarily about blurring a female paedophile who wants to fuck babies, with men who are attracted to 17 year olds, and then making the claim that 'one in twenty five men are attracted to minors'. It also leads the reader into believing that 'MAPs', or anybody for that matter wanting to discuss the age of consent, is advocating for the legalization of sex with babies and toddlers.

It comes across to me as too obvious for words, that if the MAP movement itself is not a false flag government psyop, then that this article is, with the 'female paedophile' probably being either madeup or an actress/agent.

What Eivind appears completely unable to understand is that words have shades and layers of meanings, and it's easy for those with power to manipulate that. The word 'paedophile' does not mean simply - 'an adult sexually attracted to minors', even if feminists and their media use it in that way. A 'paedohile' still means to some extent 'a pervert attracted to toddlers and babies'. A 'paedophile' now means to some extent 'an adult publicly attracted to 17 year olds', and feminists manipulate the old and their new meaning to shame and criminalize normal male sexuality.

I accept some of you here think that at least MAPs are making the news and therefore perhaps slowly making it acceptable for the question of 'attraction to minors' to be debated. I still think that they are likely doing more harm than good. Similarly if Eivind gets his wish to be interviewed. I'm not sure that would go well, least of all for him.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't know who this cuck Matt Wallace is but he sure knows how to paint Roman Polanski and Robert De Niro in an angelic light.

https://x.com/MattWallace888/status/1795976182971699218/photo/1

Roman Polanski admitted on camera that he enjoys sex with 13-year-old girls and even stated he believes all men are secretly attracted to children.

Yeah, who are you going to shock with that common knowledge?

** ROBERT DE NIRO AND ROMAN POLANSKI WERE BEST FRIENDS IN THE 1970’S **

Court documents show strong ties to Robert De Niro in the case and even indicate Roman went over to his house on the same day he had intercourse with a young girl.

Many believe the two of them were running an underage trafficking ring together to Hollywood elites in the L.A. area as well as multiple countries in Europe including France & Italy ⚠️


Lol, hanging out with hot girls in the 70s is now redefined to "running an underage trafficking ring" in normie delusions. CSA panic is a virus of the mind. Anyway, let's warmly welcome Robert De Niro into our ranks!

Feldmarshall said...

Unpopular opinion: They want to exterminate European people and people of European descent and for that they criminalize sexuality, particularly with girls under 18 years of age and in general the attraction to young women, because they are fertile (most) and can potentially form large families. .

That is why while they criminalize that a 30-year-old man likes a 17-year-old girl and socially criticize that a 40-year-old man dates a 19-year-old girl, they legalize gay marriage (fewer children), free abortion and contraceptives without restraint (fewer children). ), and they defend every sterile madness of the LGTBQWERTY collective, for obeying NATURE and wanting fertile young women, they treat us like criminals, sick people and rapists of children, and young girls are brainwashed so that they abhor the idea of motherhood in her youth, that is, her own nature.

Feminism is nothing more than a tentacle of the anti-European international that seeks to mix all ethnicities and peoples and turn people into cheap and submissive labor, (almost) without children, without a country, without faith without family, just consume, work and die. "Women's rights" and "children's rights" are the excuse to exterminate us Europeans, whether we are British, French, Norwegian, Spanish or Italian.

We (at least in theory) obey nature and want fertile young people to form great families and make our nations great, we are sick for being natural according to the degenerates who think that "sex" through the anus is sex or a man with beard is a woman.

Eivind Berge said...

Regarding the AF's fear of the word pedophile again, I want to emphasize that the first rule of being a MAP activist is that one discards the notion that there is anything wrong with chronophilic attraction in itself. Even the anti-C MAPs are on board with this. We separate the attraction from doing bad things and don't condemn people simply for having the attraction. As a pro-c MAP I disagree with them about what constitutes bad things, but we agree on that first rule. Hence, the AF's kind of fear of association with anybody simply because they have an attraction is something I have abandoned.

Obviously, nepiophilia does run into problems if one wants to practice it. Even there it is hard to imagine how female sexuality would be harmful though. It depends on what she wants to do. The article is silent about that, so I can't comment. I can say that the "idea" of sex is not harmful to babies the way the normies metaphysically imagine, nor is it harmful to have sexual feelings during normal caretaking. Including the kind of caretaking the Victorians used to practice which allegedly included women fellating babies to calm them down; I am not on board with getting hysterical about anything like that like the normies now would.

As to the meaning of words... nope, it is not so simplistic. Far from a one-way street of getting a label with a fixed meaning, we ourselves project meaning onto words used about us. If you are afraid of being called a pedophile, then that fear becomes reality because you project perversion onto yourself as much as the others do. If on the other hand like me you are proud and excited to join an illustrious company of men like Roman Polanski and Robert De Niro to which more heroes are added every day, the word becomes uplifting and our detractors such as the moron I just quoted from Twitter become powerless to shame us.

People don't hate me because I am a pedophile but because I am a sexually egosyntonic man. They hated me before I rebranded my activism from MRA to male sexualist and now to MAP, and I can't notice anything worse after I now also proudly wear the label pedophile. On the contrary, I notice a tremendous improvement because I now have a warm welcoming ingroup including an organization (Newgon). I if had stuck with MRA I would still mostly be stuck with the handful of whiny comments like AF too. So becoming a MAP has been positive in every way.

The normies hate us for being ourselves. The label is beside the point. It is the honest expression of sexuality they fear, regardless of what we call it. Have no fear of labels, and enjoy the normies' fear of us embracing a label which shows political awareness and strength.

Notice in all the cancellations, nothing would be made worse for the target by accepting the label and it would probably have helped him because then he would have had an ingroup. To Ed Piskor for example, social death was reason for suicide and he didn't consider joining an alternative group such as the MAPs. He was canceled for being himself, not by any labeling voodoo. Labels are nothing to fear because the damage is not actually done by labels. It's not the association with nepiophiles or true abusers which hurts because the normies don't actually confuse you for that -- they are more than capable of hating you to death just for flirting with a 17-year-old.

Eivind Berge said...

Pedophiles are "interdimensional demons worshipping Satan" according to "the new Chris Hansen" Alex Rosen, the founder of "Predator Poachers."

I could only stand two minutes of this crap, but if anyone wants to dive into pure hate and update themselves on the state of the art of the abuse industry with an hour-long interview, here's the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77siRhETGA4

AF said...

According to you, if enough people say that paedophiles are interdimensional demons, then they are interdimensional demons, and there is no point denying it.

Eivind, I'm not afraid of the word paedophile, nor am I afraid of the word hebophile or MAP. I'm not a paedophile, nor a hebophile. I am a 'MAP', but so is virtually every adult male, so the term is meaningless other than as a way for feminists to pathologize normal male sexuality, which we were supposed to be fighting against.

You are like a black person agreeing with white racists that they are a nigger, because 'nigger just means a black person'. Have some dignity.

Anonymous said...

A few notes:

If you look at that Matt Wallace Twitter profile, you will see that he is a right wing conservative grifter, and all the comments are from Make Metoo Great Again conservative feminists.

The MAP article most definitely makes all pubescent teens and toddlers inseparable "children" on purpose. Marthijn Uittenbogaard, when he was arrested in the Netherlands a few years ago, described how Dutch intelligence agents visited him in prison and told him to stop his activism. The government is heavily involved in MAP activities, I would be wary of them setting you up, Eivind.

This "Predator Poachers" show is hilarious, only fat and stupid Metoo MAGA Americans could believe this contrived shit. The grifting is out of control as boomers get older and more senile - their money has to go somewhere, and these people want it and are apparently getting it based on the financial statements of these organizations. The actor interviewer makes ridiculous faces of outrage while the subject Alex Rosen is obviously a perverted loser of some kind; no one who looks and acts like that is sexually healthy. Of course real pedophiles are not evil, but they are not sexually healthy as they are attracted to prepubescents, and certainly pedocrites like Rosen are evil.

Eivind, you should walk around with a sign that says "Proud Pedophile" in a populated area and film people's reactions. But please do it wearing a bullet proof vest, seriously.

Also, I would like to see reactions to a sign that says "Teen Girls Are Hot", if it would be any better or worse than the pedophile sign.


anon69

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, the grifting is insane. The abuse industry is swimming in cashflow from both the government and donors and here I am on the equivalent of food stamps paying my own expenses for the MRA Archive too out of that. It is only worth it because I chose the moral side.

I would like to see reactions to a sign that says "Teen Girls Are Hot", if it would be any better or worse than the pedophile sign.

The evidence so far is that those are exactly equivalent. I get no more and no less hate from the public under the signs which to your inexperienced intuition should be more dangerous.

Anonymous said...

"join an illustrious company of men like Roman Polanski"

Proud to be next to a man who drugged and anally raped a 13-year-old girl. Bravo Eivind.

Eivind Berge said...

Says a cuck who is ignoring the fact that the girl has forgiven Polanski decades ago and been his lifelong friend and supporter.

There is nothing magical about sex crimes which means we can't move on and admire a truly great man just because he once committed a sexual transgression -- which might here be real, but a peccadillo in the grand scheme of things.

The notion that sex offenders are forever condemned is a big part of the insanity we need to resist.

Anonymous said...

Samantha Gailey has even written a book about the case, and she says she would like the prosecution of Polanski to stop because all the posturing about the case has hurt her more than what Polanski did to her. Nevertheless, the US has (unsuccessfully) put pressure on Poland to extradite him some years ago, and the feminists organize demonstrations every time he lifts a finger in public.
The feminists believe that you have to believe the victims, but that obviously only applies when the victims say what the feminists want to hear!

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks. I am against drugging and literally raping, and what Polanski did might qualify as a mild variant of that, but I believe women when they say they are no longer victims too. At that point it is time to get over it and look at the big picture which is Polanski as an artist and MAP, which I have no problem saying I admire.

Eivind Berge said...

@AF

"According to you, if enough people say that paedophiles are interdimensional demons, then they are interdimensional demons, and there is no point denying it."

Ok, let's consider this. It is correct on one level. They can call us interdimensional demons so much that this becomes an established word for us. However, the referent remains the same: just plain us. It has no deeper or more sinister meaning because interdimensional demons don't exist that way.

Anyway, there is a certain logic to it. Because the harm of CSA is believed to exist in another dimension and cannot be observed in this world, we have to be interdimensional beings in order to effect that harm. So whatever, I guess I am an interdimensional demon then, by CSA ontology. I guess this explains the metaphysical badness of sexuality that has puzzled me so much, if you buy into their superstition.

Eivind Berge said...

Notice that CSA interdimensionality is different from dualism. They don't believe the harm can necessarily be observed in either the physical world or in consciousness. So a third substance is needed, which cannot be accessed by either physical or introspective means before it suddenly surfaces as PTSD or any problem whatsoever in the life of the victims (or just a really convenient time to sue some rich man or institution for damages). And if it never surfaces, it is still believed to exist. So this third dimension beyond dualism is the one where only pedophiles have power. That's quite an impressive superpower if you think about it!

Anonymous said...

https://www.nrk.no/nordland/omegle-saken_-kripos-brukte-eget-verktoy-for-a-identifisere-190-barn-i-overgrepssak-1.16901885

While I'd never support deception and coercion to obtain sexual favors from minors, and I believe those caught doing such things should be punished, I am puzzled when I try to comprehend the rationale of normies here.

Imagining myself as the child in such situation, the last thing I'd ever want is for my family to find out about it! It seems quite obvious to me that the main harm behind "nettovergrep" (as it's called in Norwegian) is caused by feelings of humiliation, shame and guilt - all of which would be compounded massively if your parents found out about it and you had to experience their (over)reaction. A mother breaking down sobbing and a father shouting in rage would only serve to cement the belief that you have been "ruined" in some way. Do they ever think about that at all? It seems so obvious to me...

I would unironically bet quite a large sum of money that the children in question will suffer a lot more trauma now than they would if the authorities had never been involved. However, we both know that to normies, the victims feelings are only of secondary importance. In their eyes, the metaphysical badness of "sexualizing minors" is of such a magnitude that handling the situation with anything resembling tact or sensitivity never even occurs to them.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, deception such as that catfishing is unethical and self-defeating because you waste time talking to minors who would never meet you, missing out on building solid relationships with those who would. This was a sad wanker who didn't care about meeting, which makes it all the more pathetic to punish him. A spectacular waste of police resources too barking up that wanker tree instead of targeting sexually serious men (I don't mind that part, lol).

And the harm, yeah, they have their interdimensional demonology of pedophiles to blame it all on, so the fact that likely 100% of the distress the children feel is a result of the investigation does not bother them in the slightest and probably does not even honestly register since they are so consumed by CSA superstition.

Eivind Berge said...

The demonology goes so far that as seem to be typical for the 190 "victims" in this case, it was something like a 12-year-old boy talking to what he believed was a girl about the same age. Then he is tricked into masturbating on cam and that's the end of it -- until the cops use their shiny new image recognition software linked to the passport registry to invade the children's privacy and contact their parents, drag them into interrogations and the whole abuse industry circus.

But here's the thing: when you literally believe the voodoo that just because the boy was not in fact talking to a girl the same age but an adult man -- and you believe that voodoo has already damaged the boy for life unbeknownst to him -- it does not become so unreasonable to intervene even if you can watch the distress you directly cause by so doing. Because you literally believe in witches and witches need to be hunted down and removed from society.

Here's another article about that case:

https://www.nrk.no/nordland/omegle_-tidligere-skoleansatt-var-forberedt-pa-a-bli-pagrepet-1.16867381

Where they say:

Charlotte Marie Ringkjøb er bistandsadvokat for 183 av barna. Hun forteller om selvmordsforsøk, selvskading, skam og skolefravær blant barna.

We know this harm (self-harm, attempted suicide and social shame) is almost certainly caused by the police themselves (in conjunction with equally hysterical parents -- plus some of it is coincidental psychological problems that are also blamed on this because all problems default to CSA whenever that is identified) -- but when you LITERALLY believe in the voodoo, what's a normie gonna do?

They will just carry on their witch-hunt, the directly observable damage they do be damned because they are fighting interdimensional demons with evil interdimensional superpowers that are so much worse!

Eivind Berge said...

I am by no means condoning them but I am attempting to explain and understand that witch-hunters act rationally according to their beliefs. We see this time and again in history. It is a calculated process where they have countless hours to reflect on what they are doing, here supported by unlimited resources to interrogate children in special scary "child houses" for example -- and yet they never think they should rather leave the increasingly distressed kids alone. It never occurs to them that maybe it would be best to let the children remain ignorant of the voodoo which has supposedly destroyed their souls because they sincerely believe in that damage. Given that belief, their actions are rational. Plus of course it is a fantastic way to make a living.

It is the beliefs that are so profoundly fucked up. The normies are just normal. And that's what's so bloodcurdling to us who stand outside the panic and don't believe in the witchcraft but see what is really going on.

Eivind Berge said...

Also, seeing how the normies believe the are rational, it becomes easier to understand that they can't possibly take our perspective. They MUST see us as evil, because they cannot comprehend that anyone can disagree with their imagined rationality. It is outside both the Overton window and scope of scientific hypothesizing to imagine that adult sexuality might not always be harmful to children, including the online wanking kind or just "sexualizing" children in fictional media, or when the children themselves think they are getting sexual with another child.

Normies cannot consider any kind of questioning attitude to any of the supposed harm from CSA as anything other than evil, because there is no room for any other view in anything any sane, good or rational human would do as they understand it. And they literally believe this.

So, interdimensional demons we are to them. Admittedly, most of the time I can't help but see them as symmetrically evil, but then I think about what a normie really is and how witch-hunts historically happen and I come to the conclusions reached above.

Eivind Berge said...

Regarding the voodoo that children are "ruined" via non-contact offenses... this is reductio ad absurdum of the CSA panic, in Norway now taken to the utmost extreme with the very worst punishment allowable for any crime sought for it (21 years preventative detention). It brings home the original meaning of reductio ad absurdum arguments (as used by Aristotle for example), which is not merely that something is extremely absurd but that the original premise, that children are abused by underage sex, was false to begin with, for real sex. Because when you have PURE voodoo, and treat it as the worst exemplar of the "real" thing, it means that the real thing plays no part in your hysteria and it was all a mirage from the outset.

It is a proof for our position by contradiction. The normies demonstrate in literal terms that their hysteria is not about sex, but about the idea of sex. That means they are back to square one about asserting that sex is harmful, with that assertion not even forming part of their worst hysteria, let alone any proof of it, which remains more absent than ever.

Eivind Berge said...

Here's a thought experiment to try with normies in hopes that they snap out of it. Ask them to imagine how they would explain to a person in the 1990s that we would have worse-than-murder level of punishment for online abuse/"nettovergrep" three decades later.

They have no clue what "nettovergrep" is, but it can be explained. The ingredients are video, chat and masturbation that kids would do anyway. No threats and at worst false identity. Make of this a capital crime. All these ingredients are familiar enough in the 90s except you might have to substitute telephone for chat, but a text chat is less personal than the familiar voice telephone anyway, and we didn't panic that kids would be abused by telephone back then. Do the ingredients really add up to a heinous crime, or are there some additional metaphysical assumptions one has to make? Some wildly absurd assumptions, perhaps? How come we came to accept those assumptions? Do they think a person in 1990 would buy it or be horrified and recognize it for a witch-hunt? Is there any chance they would readily accept that sexual abuse can happen this way and be extremely harmful?

In the 90s there was beginning panic over child porn but I don't recall any concept that children could be actually abused remotely by receiving instructions on a screen to masturbate. That concept is entirely invented since then and now normalized as equivalent to the worst rape. Try to explain the difference to a normie back then, and if today's normies think about that they might realize that it's not so normal to believe in online abuse after all.

Anonymous said...

The term "MAP" (Minor Attracted Person) is not widely accepted or recognized in professional or academic circles, and its use can be problematic. Attraction to minors, whether it be pedophilia, hebephilia, or ephebophilia, is considered a sexual disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and is widely recognized as a serious concern and potentially harmful to the well-being of the minors involved.

It is important to distinguish between unfair discrimination and justified rejection of behaviors or relationships that endanger the well-being of minors. Opposition to ephebophilic relationships is not based on "MAP-phobia" but on the need to protect minors from potential abuse or exploitation by adults in positions of power.

Ephebophilic relationships between adults and minors are not considered consensual or ethical, as minors may lack the capacity to give informed consent due to their age and emotional development. These relationships can have devastating effects on the mental and emotional health of minors and are prohibited by laws designed to protect minors from harm.

It is crucial to promote respect, acceptance, and equality for all individuals, but it is also essential to protect minors and ensure their rights and well-being are safeguarded. This involves rejecting and condemning any form of abuse or exploitation, including ephebophilic relationships or any behavior that endangers minors.

Eivind Berge said...

Now I am going to take a moment to acknowledge that yes, men still have it worse than the female sex offender charade.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/former-mississippi-teacher-gets-nearly-200-years-for-sexual-abuse-of-former-students/ar-BB1nlGqn

GREENVILLE, Miss. (AP) — A former Mississippi educator was sentenced Thursday to nearly 200 years in prison for multiple counts of sexual exploitation of a child, federal prosecutors said.

Chief U.S. District Judge Debra M. Brown sentenced Toshemie Wilson, 48, of Okolona, who worked in the Amory School District, to 192 years behind bars and ordered him to pay more than $123,000 in restitution to his victims as well as a $5,000 trafficking assessment, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Mississippi said in a news release.

Jurors in Greenville found Wilson guilty in December of eight counts of sexual exploitation of children based on his conduct while working as a teacher in the school district. Testimony during his trial revealed that Wilson used his position as a teacher and advisor for a student group to groom students to eventually produce child sexual abuse videos and pictures in exchange for money and drugs.

Seven people testified that Wilson approached them while they were students and solicited them to make sexually explicit videos in exchange for pay between 2005 and 2014 at various locations, including a school bathroom.


192 years for sexual "exploitation." Not even called rape or abuse and just amounting to prostitution except it is unclear if they even had sex with him or just produced videos alone. Also since the ages are too unremarkable to mention I am guessing they were approximately 17 if not older. And notice the additional "trafficking assessment" grift on top of gutting all his time and money.

Eivind Berge said...

Regarding the Anonymous comment at 7:53 today which in part reads:

"Attraction to minors, whether it be pedophilia, hebephilia, or ephebophilia, is considered a sexual disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)"

Firstly this is a lie since only pedophilia is included in the DSM, but more to the point the comment looks AI-generated.

All comments which appear to me as AI-facilitated trolling will henceforth be blocked in moderation without warning. This is not worth our time.

Anonymous said...

Actually, not even pedophilia is included in the DSM (only "pedophilic disorder").
But if AI really means that hebephilia and ephebophilia are considered sexual disorders, then it should be renamed to "Artificial Ignorance".

Anonymous said...

Let me correct the AI then:

The term "MAP" (Minor Attracted Person) is becoming widely accepted or recognized in professional or academic circles, and its use can be helpful. Attraction to pubescent minors, whether it be pedophilia (sic), hebephilia, or ephebophilia, is not considered a sexual disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and is widely recognized as a light concern and potentially beneficial to the well-being of the pubescent minors involved.

It is important to connect unfair discrimination with groundless rejection of behaviors or relationships that benefit the well-being of pubescent minors. Opposition to ephebophilic relationships is based on "MAP-phobia" and on the interests of feminists who wish to support female power through extortion based on the ludicrously strict enforcement of an arbitrary and high "age of consent".

Ephebophilic relationships between adults and minors are not considered consensual or ethical by jealous idiots, pedocrits and feminist tyrants, as pubescent minors have the capacity to have sex due to their age and emotional development. These relationships can have excellent effects on the mental and emotional health of these minors, but are prohibited by laws designed to subject minors to harm.

It is crucial to promote respect, acceptance, and equality for all individuals, and it is also essential to protect minors and ensure their rights and well-being are safeguarded. This involves rejecting and condemning any form of abuse or exploitation by jealous idiots, pedocrits, and feminist tyrants, who stigmatize ephebophilic relationships and any other behavior that benefits pubescent minors or men.


anon69

Anonymous said...

192 years for sexual "exploitation."

-note that the state is conservative feminist missisippi (I'm not going to give it the dignity of trying to spell it correctly). He would have been better off in a liberal feminist place like california, ironically. the christian feminists in the usa are brutal now.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13478765/michelle-wu-boston-buget-vote-children-undocumented.html

Meanwhile, the mayor of boston wants to give 11 year olds voting rights, and feminists are now calling this 'woke'. see? the bast*rds have recognized that the conservatives are more brutal in their anti-male platform than the liberals, so they have resorted to using the language of the conservatives.

that is besides the fact that you have to be totally insane to somehow truly believe 11 year olds or older can understand and direct government policy, yet cannot understand tab A in slot B feels good. It's starting to make sense how the northeast states are the warmest to the map orientation.


anon69

Eivind Berge said...

Two more notes on this greatest Norwegian Omegle mass online abuser trial since I already wrote them on Facebook:

Notice that in this case the witch himself believes he is a witch and pleads guilty to all the absurd charges. That is because he is a wanker and wankers are equally deluded as the feminists but in reverse: they believe they get sexual value out of a simulacrum. These are two sides to the same delusion, that children can be "sexually abused" or "exploited" remotely and that men can get sexual value that way. You can't have one side of the delusion without the other, so the population of idiot normies fall into two categories: wankers and feminist wankers who imagine they are cracking down on sexuality. I am surrounded by idiots as I alone reject both sides of the voodoo. I know full well that sexuality can't be transmitted on the Internet any more than nutrition can.

Hvorfor er normiene fullstendig uinteressert i å ha en debatt om hvorvidt "nettovergrep" er et meningsfullt begrep eller heksetro? Tydeligvis fordi de er så oppslukt i heksetroen at de ikke klarer å tenke tanken på at det kan være overtro. Troende som står midt oppe i en heksejakt klarer ikke å vurdere egen tro. Det må en outsider til som meg som ikke har noe å gjøre i samfunnet, som er ekskludert fra alle roller og derfor har ingenting å tape på å tenke selv. Enten det eller så må man vente til heksetroen blåser over, som kan ta århundrer, så forstår omsider normiene også at det var overtro.

Revolution G23 said...

World renowned mountaineer faces allegations via New York Times
https://www.bitchute.com/video/MW2XV13q1Hg5/

Revolution G23 said...

They want children to vote because they're planning to condition kids to believe it's wrong for an adult to touch kids. Then they're hoping the kids will all vote to keep adult with child sex illegal.

Anonymous said...

"They want children to vote because they're planning to condition kids to believe it's wrong for an adult to touch kids. Then they're hoping the kids will all vote to keep adult with child sex illegal."

What is the evidence of this? There is none.

Younger people statistically vote more for democrats, the youth is more easily influenced by emotion and the democrats usually appeal to more emotional arguments. That is the most logical reason democrats want younger voting ages. And also before someone turns this argument around, seducing a young person with emotional flirting is the same as seducing an older person with emotional flirting - sex is not even close to the same thing as deciding the future of government policy.

Also, G23 is advocating for actual pedophilia with that awful voice. We do not advocate for pedophilia, regardless of its overblown threat. We advocate against feminists for the truth, that post-pubescent sex is beneficial, and that extreme criminalization of age groups is not only unnatural and discriminatory against men, but also stigmatizes and hurts young people.


anon69

Eivind Berge said...

Bitcoin donation received. Thank you so much, whoever it was! That helps me a lot with my expenses, enough for several years of MRA-Archive hosting, and it's great to see that we have some benefactors on our side too.

Feldmarshall said...

We have talk very little that the right-wing nuts are justifying a massacre of women and children in Gaza because Tel Aviv is a gay-friendly tourist destination. All this lgtbqwerty pride while in the United States they put people in prison for 40 years for fucking a 17-year-old slutty chick. The West is the spiritual cancer of the world.

Eivind Berge said...

Some interesting statistics:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-04-users-child-sexual-abuse-material.html

Regarding so-called CSAM and the ages most desired by wankers who look for the illegal stuff. The most popular is 12-16. So the whole CSAM abuse industry is predominantly a witch-hunt against normal men who are falsely presented as deviant. Funny how a normative attraction turns into a "problem" in fantasy. They do have a problem, but the problem is masturbation rather than their attraction and many of these girls can even be pursued legally, so it's insane to waste time on the dark web fantasizing about them.

The researchers analyzed 110,133,715 search sessions in the Ahmia search engine and found that 11% of these clearly sought CSAM.

"One of the most popular searches is 'child porn.' A closer review of sexual material searches, in which 479,555 searches revealed the age directly sought, showed that, for example, 40% of searches targeted 11-year-olds or younger and 54% targeted 12–16-year-olds," says Nurmi.

Anonymous said...

A man who raped a 12-year-old girl was acquitted by a court that deemed their relations formed “part of the cultural reality of the gypsy mmunity”.
Under Spanish law, minors under the age of 16 cannot consent to sëx. But the court ruled that the man, who was 20 years old at the time, should benefit from a legal reception.
The ruling in Ciudad Real in central Spain, holds that the relationship was “always consensual within the framework of a romantic relationship”, adding that the two were “close in age and maturity”.


Can't still understand how rape can be consensual, nevertheless congrats to the man!

https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/man-who-raped-gipsy-girl-12-acquitted-because-relationship-%E2%80%98common%E2%80%99.5627962/

Eivind Berge said...

Quite a few legal lessons there.

- 12 and 20 are close in age and maturity. Because 12-year-old girls typically have an adult level of maturity. And since a 20-year-old is definitely fully mature, the close-in-maturity argument would apply to older adults as well.

- "Rape" can be consensual, which means the word is often a sham.

- CSA is not an absolute, essentialist or even metaphysical concept after all.

- Cultural beliefs are a defense against statutory rape charges. If Gypsies can have a contrarian identity, why not MAPs and AAMs? The more we build our movement, the stronger our defense gets.

- Having a romantic relationship is also a defense, contrary to all the nonsense about "grooming" we have been hearing in the past.

Eivind Berge said...

My comment on Facebook to yet another Norwegian supposedly heinous "rape" of a child. Drugging is not OK, but since they don't describe what the supposed "rape" consists of I must conclude it is something unbelievably harmless. Reading between the lines, it was probably something like the woman licking the girl, for which she got six years and nine months in prison, pushing the envelope of the female sex offender charade some more.

https://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/dopet-ned-datter-8-og-filmet-at-kjaeresten-voldtok-henne/16737413/

Hva er det denne "voldtekten" angivelig består av? Det går ikke an å gjøre seg opp en mening om en handling som ikke er beskrevet, med et enormt spennvidde i hva det kan være. Men mindre man er revet med av en heksejakt og bare trenger ordmagi -- bare merkelapper som "overgrep" som kan bety hva som helst fra bagatellmessig eller rent symbolsk svada til ekte voldtekt -- og det er nok for normiene for det er bare ordmagien som spiller noen rolle for dem. Et ord uten innhold er nok til å rive alle normiene med i heksejakten, for rasjonalitet spiller ingen som helst rolle i dette og de har ingen evne til å tenke selv så lenge CSA-massepsykosen varer.

Og her har media til og med hemmeligholdt hvilken tingrett det er! Det er surrealistisk hvor godtroende normiene er. De bare sluker alt rått bare det settes en merkelapp på det som omfattes av heksetroen, så er det fritt frem for heksejakt uten et eneste kritisk spørsmål eller i det hele tatt grunnlag til å gjøre seg opp en informert mening. På bakgrunn av det som IKKE sies kan jeg likevel konkludere temmelig sikkert at det hele koker ned til ingenting, for hvorfor ellers skulle de unnlate å smøre på med mer demonisering hvis de kunne beskrevet noe virkelig fælt?

Anonymous said...

news_

"Tens of thousands of pedophiles operate in Israel each year without any problems, resulting in around 100,000 victims annually, according to The Matzof Associaction, an Israeli pedophile monitoring organization."

Anonymous said...

Having sex with your 8 year old daugther or step daughter is far from okay Eivind. The sexualist movement needs a leader who understands that incest is bad.

Eivind Berge said...

If you had read the news you would have known that it was the man's girlfriend who "had sex" with the girl. Except we don't know what she did exactly. It could have been as contrived as encouraging her to masturbate. It is totally insane to take this seriously as serious crime and we need leaders who recognize that. I am sorry that you are another obsequious normie who go along with whatever the police state tells you without any critical thought.

Anonymous said...

Tens of thousands of pedophiles operate in Israel each year without any problems, resulting in around 100,000 victims annually, according to The Matzof Associaction, an Israeli pedophile monitoring organization.

The important is that Israel does not allow its pedophiles to go to Gaza, as it would be traumatizing for the Palestinian children.

Eivind Berge said...

I think you are right. One pedophile who is not maximally persecuted generates more public outrage than an entire genocide. I am sure Israel will not cross that red line, which is the only one which matters apparently.

Anonymous said...

Congrats for the bitcoin donation Eivind. Don't go spending it all at once on BBW porn subscriptions, lol.

I do see though that you have discovered AI generated BBW fun.

What is an 'AAM', btw?

Jack said...

Don't get carried away by the 0.00300004 BC donation into thinking you've got some unknown benefactor in the wider public Eivind, for it was just me. The BC exchange App I used had a field that said "label (optional)". In it I wrote "from: Jack". No idea though wether this so-called label was ever meant to appear on the recipient's side. This is the first time I do anything with my paltry BC investment. I wish I had been bolder at the time and invested more. As it was, BC was at 5000 euro and I was waiting for it to dip well below that before stepping in again. It never did though. All the same, I'll be pleased if it rises to the million mark as some are predicting.

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks, Jack. Labels don't get transmitted on the blockchain. That field is just a note to yourself which stays in your wallet software.

Yeah, we all wish we had bought more bitcoin. I got in when bitcoin was one hundred dollars in 2013 and it was the only investment I believed in so I kept all my savings in it, but I still didn't get rich because I had to sell it all too soon due to poverty. I still believed in the investment but simply had no other way to cover living expenses. I even mined what later would have been a fortune but had to spend it as I went along.

AF said...

I was rereading the comments here, and I had missed a few from Eivind and Jack.

Eivind says that the solution to "cultural drift" is radical multiculturalism. I disagree with that, obviously. First of all, anti-sex hysteria is global now, even if Anglo-Saxon countries, followed by Europe, are always at the front. Unlike cultural drift, Sexual Trade Union theory explains why that is - because technology freeing the sexual market is global, and hence the feminist backlash is global too. Presumably Eivnd has in mind the kind of multi-culturalism we increasingly have now, only more so. That is millions of young Muslim and African men arriving with no desire to integrate, and here just for the pussy and the welfare. I may be wrong about Islam being not much better than the West for sex, all that will happen is a merger of feminism and Islam. I was predicting this 15 years ago, and it's playing out before our eyes in places like the UK and London, where the Muslim mayor bans bikini posters for example on the grounds of 'objectifying women'. Most countries with an age of consent of 18 are Muslim countries. Yes, you can often marry a younge teen, but then you are trapped with her for the rest of your life, and it's often an arranged marriage to your cousin.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/decided-become-woman-60-year-old-dad/
Yes, unfortunately this is the same author of 'In Defence Of The Male'. I don't think it takes away from the immense value of that book, however. I mean, it will certainly lose David Thomas any stock he has in the MRM, but he appeared to have none, and I've never seen him mentioned in places like /r/mensrights or A Voice For Men - even though his book was ahead of its time and most certainly a men's rights classic. Probably because of that chapter on paedohysteria. The fact that Judith Levine is a woman doesn't lessen the value of her arguments, and nor does the fact that this guy is now a 'woman' lessen his arguments. Obviously he felt the social attack on male sexuality very acutely, and arguably his solution is now to identify as a woman. I mean the anti-male sex hysteria he wrote about in the 90's is 100x worse today, after all. I do think it's a strategy worth considering for us all to 'identify' as a woman, just to spite feminists. It seems a lot of 'sex offenders' are already doing that!

Eivind Berge said...

The AF's idea of radical multiculturalism, "millions of young Muslim and African men arriving with no desire to integrate," is not what I have in mind. That would be more like Muslim monoculturalism.

No, multiculturalism can also be tolerance for subcultures in your population. The fact that the Amish are allowed to live like they do is a kind of multiculturalism which has nothing to do with immigration. We can similarly imagine various MAP-friendly subcultures. It would have been multiculturalism not to intervene on the Pitcairn islands and force them to live by feminist antisex laws. And it would be multiculturalism if all countries didn't adopt the same kind of sex laws, forced by international treaties, the EU and so on.

If you think about it beyond your immediate prejudices, multiculturalism is clearly the answer.

AF said...

Also, regarding Eivind supporting mass immigration of single, horny Muslim and African men. How does that increase our odds of getting laid? So I'm a wanker if I occasionally masturbate and am being irrational because I should be saving my sexual energy for any opportunity that comes along, and yet I should welcome having to sexually compete with an extra million 20 year old single Nigerian bucks chasing the same pussy I'm chasing?

Jack wrote in relation to Eivind 'welcoming' girls lying about their age and thinking that false accusations by females against men are unimportant :
""I think I see a pattern in Eivind's thought here. Anything that can give a man pussy in the short term is good never mind the long term legal consequences. Therefore women's schemings are harmless or even a blessing in so far as they give the man some pussy. I want some pussy, now never mind the years I'm likely to spend in jail!"

Yes, I think Eivind has a problem with long-term consequences. I remember him saying the moment that the Covid lockdowns were introduced that society and industrial civilization would collapse within weeks. When that didnt' happened, he was very surprised. He abandons the MRM, then male sexualism, then sexualism, and becomes a MAP and a paedophile, not understanding that it will take decades to build any kind of movement. And the selling of his bitcoin when he was one of the earliest to invest. Was it really because he HAD to sell, or more likely that when Bitcoin didn't immediately explode in value, he became impatient? Worthwhile investments are always long-term, whether financial or political.

Then again, he has stuck by his belief in the imminanent collapse of society due to peak oil being reached all his life, and will probably live to see the first fusion reactors.

I will say regarding his statements on false rape though that surely even Eivind can see that it's out of place underneath an article proudly boasting of his new role as a 'MAP ambassador to the MRM'? I mean if obsessing with female paedophiles not being given the pussy pass was not enough to sicken every MRA out there, then claiming that false rape accusations are unimportant should surely do it?

And the idea that we should be glad that girls lie about their ages. As I've said for years, that's one of the reasons why feminists raise the age of consent so high. It's not just about stopping men from having sex with 15 year olds, it's about stopping men having casual sex with 18, 19, even 20 year olds, because girls lie about their age (and this is no longer a defence in English Law). But then Eivind even continues to white knight for a female paedophile who actually had spoken of her desire for (male) paedophiles to be tortured to death. It's possible that Eivind along with a BBW kink, has something of a masochistic fetish too.

I do wonder if Eivind is simply unable to see the possible consequences and risks, or if he really would prefer to go to prison. His cabin lifestyle seems pretty good and even idyllic for somebody who enjoys solitude, nature, and reading, but Norwegian prisons are so cushy that perhaps they are a reasonable option, especially if you are struggling to pay the bills.

AF said...

Well, yes I agree with that, although it's not how most people today understand by multi-culturalism.

Certainly, we need less globalism and international treaties, and EU 'directives'. But we know why it's happening and who is behind it.

Jack said...

Regarding Islam as a purported antidote to feminism and misandry, let me recount an anecdote of what happened to me 4 years ago in Thailand. I was visiting a Ugandan girl in immigration jail. She had come to Thailand illegally and when she tried to fly back to Africa, they arrested her. It was silly of her to drive to the airport and expect Thai customs to allow her to fly home unhindered, but she was suffering from bouts of schizophrenia and had by then become unable to act reasonably.

In immigration jail, prisoners and visitors were in the same big room, separated only but a metal grid. In order to cheer my girl up, I made the motions mimicking a blowjob. An Arab was standing just beside me. He was visiting his old crone of a mother who was veiled from head to foot with only her toothless horrid face visible. The Arab noticed me doing the blowjob sign - which was none of his business - still he made a row over it. At one point I feared he was going to jump me there and then. By being flippant about sex I had lacked respect for his old crone of a horrid mother you see.

This was a reminder both of how deleterious and antithetic to my lifestyle Muslim culture is, and of how self-defeating and noxious men can be of their own accord, regardless of sexual trade-union theory.

In order to see how thoroughly bad Muslim cuLture is you probably need to be confronted to it at least in countries such as France or the UK. Norway is a place where the miasma of Islam are still too rarified to be noticeable.

A symbiosis of Islam and feminism is indeed a worse case scenario, but given the adaptiveness of the feminist hydra, it is one we need contemplate.

P.S. I ended up getting the Ugandan out of jail, paying for a flight out of my own pocket for her to be deported back home. When I later visited her in Uganda with a view to settling in Uganda, she viciously turned on me for wanting to live in Uganda and fuck around (instead of being under her control). So much for saving a woman from rotting in jail, possibly for years, in a foreign country. Someone said if you help people it blows up in your face. With women it surely does.