“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.
85 comments:
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.
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.
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.
@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
@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
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.
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.
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.
Good job buddy. Proud of you.
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
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.
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'.
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.
"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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Why do you call yourself a pedophile and not an ephebophile?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
@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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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."
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
@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?
@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
I passionately hate police, ref.video:
https://youtu.be/Ee3feQTcnuM?si=xNWqWoas6bIQipWg
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.
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.
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?).
«When a man harasses a girl with the intention of raping her, I kill the man. That's my policy."
Harry Callahan
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
'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.
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.
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?
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!
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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).
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?
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.
"The AF" sure is fighting(if we call writing comments fighting) for his right to masturbate to porn and never meeting an actual girl.
Post a Comment