You need a metaphysical theory (commonly called platonism) to believe in abstract objects, because they have no bearing on this world in any explicable way. This is why I call the CSA panic a religion which mandates belief in the metaphysical badness of sex, because one is forced by culture and law to be a platonist about sexual abuse. The abstract object stands above reality and dictates how one must view reality, rather than the other way around.
Fake (i.e., consensual) sexual abuse, being an abstract object, is causally inefficacious, yet going by how criminalized it is society believes it to be literally the most harmful thing that can happen to you, worse than murder. To show that what is called sexual abuse can be causally inefficacious and hence is an abstract object one is obliged to believe in on faith alone, we only need to consider the ongoing persecution of Laura Caron.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14343587/Laura-Caron-teacher-New-Jersey-pregnant-victim.html
A teenage boy who says he got his New Jersey teacher pregnant when he was 13 and she was 28 is standing by her after she was arrested - and insists he instigated the relationship.This case is far from unique, but rather the very paradigm of what is now most often considered “child sexual abuse” (CSA) and persecuted in the justice system. What is different here is simply the reporting, which may indicate that the cultural belief in the metaphysical badness of sex is in decline, as if my activism is finally starting to pay off. I don’t really credit myself, but this is the kind of media attention I would prescribe as a first step to getting the laws changed and exactly how I have been portraying sexual “abuse” on my blog all along.
But the boy in question - who is now 19 years old - insists he doesn't feel like a victim, loves Caron with all his heart, and is hoping they can be a family soon.
Prosecutors say she preyed [sic] on the youngster and subjected him to years of abuse [sic] before allegedly having his child in 2019.
The boy, who DailyMail.com is not naming, said in an extraordinary exclusive interview that Laura Caron, 34, should not be facing trial and criticized anyone calling her a predator.
If you believe the supposed victim, we are clearly left with an ABSTRACT OBJECT as a reason for persecuting Laura Caron. Yes, persecuting. This is a witch-hunt, and now it’s not just my words saying so but the reporting of the Daily Mail!
If you think hard about the nature of abstract objects they become very elusive and harder to pin down the more you think. Unlike the objects studied by mathematics, “child sexual abuse” was never based on any logical theory to begin with either. All we have is a script springing out of a moral panic which emerged in the 1980s repeating over and over again in the courtrooms. It is abuse because the law says it is abuse and there is no room to question it -- until now. This is a different cultural moment. I hope this momentum can carry it from here and then perhaps my work is done.
At the other extreme to Eivind are the faggotty victim culture MRAs : https://x.com/JohnDavisJDLLM/status/1889003927338733898
ReplyDeleteBut what about this? Is Andrew Tate becoming our Male Sexualist messiah?https://x.com/Cobratate/status/1890004411792990537
Looks legit. The Andrew Tate post, that is. Apart from the bits about false rape accusations, “Gender Studies for Men” is only digging himself into irrelevancy. Precisely the direction the entire culture is just about fed up with now, I see he’s got a link to a book called “Women Who Rape Men” as his pinned tweet. This is a parody of men’s rights.
ReplyDeleteBut Tate truly is impressing in the other direction!
I have double digit children.
All of my sons will elicit children from women half their age for the benefit of the Tate clan.
My daughters will never be allowed to date a man anywhere near their own age.
All this “she’s too young for him” talk is from bitter old hoes and men who are too poor to get a young girl.
Nobody dates old ladies unless they’re lacking somewhere.
I hope my daughters get pregnant at 19 from 50 year old ultra wealthy rich men.
I, Andrew Tate, as a globally famous ultra adored sexy human trafficker, have unlimited female attention.
Every Instagram baddie in the world is begging to meet me all day everyday I’m a famous rich badguy.
Why would I talk to a girl above 25? I’m not gay?
Well done turning the “human trafficking” accusations around to an accolade as well: another feminist concept bites the dust along with the age gap panic.
Feminists have brainwashed society into believing that 13 year olds can't consent to sex, no matter how willing they are. You need to address that. I'm sceptical as to how talking about Plato's forms or the 'metaphysical badness of sex' is going to change anybody's mind.
ReplyDeleteI did address it, by implication that it’s the abstract object of a child that can’t consent. Modeled on a moral panic rather than reality and inserted to replace reality. Real 13-year-olds can consent just fine, of course, so if we had bothered to look at reality rather than this bullshit abstract object we would never have gotten into this mess. But lo and behold, the Daily Mail is taking a look at reality for a change!
DeleteYou didn't address it. "Abstract object of a child that can't consent' is just a fancy way of saying - "of course 13 year olds can consent'. It doesn't say anything, let alone anything that might be persuasive to literally anyone on the entire planet.
ReplyDeleteWhat about a 3 year old? I expect you might say a 3 year old can consent, but most of us even who believe a 13 year old can consent find that idea repellent. So where does Platonic Forms help us with that?
Feminists raise the age of consent to stop men having sex with younger, hotter females, motivated by jealousy, bitterness, and fear of sexual competition. They don't really care about women having sex with boys, or for that matter, homosexuals having sex with boys, but they have to be covered by the same age of consent laws or society would cry double standards and it would be obvious to everyone what they were up to. This has been explained to you a million times but still, you need to invoke increasingly obtuse metaphysical ponderings to stop yourself beating your head against the wall.
The Daily Mail has been instrumental in fuelling paedohysteria and promoting anti male sex laws. It routinely calls men who have had sex with 17 year olds paedophiles. It absolutely demonized and dehumanized that Eastbourne male teacher who ran off with a 15 year old girl he was clearly in love with and wanted to marry throughout his long prison sentence. Now it and its majority middle-aged female readership has sympathy for a female teacher who got caught banging a 13 year old Chad pupil. You think that's a victory - I think it's absolutely sickening and makes my blood boil.
It helps because the abuse industry has committed to a narrative -- a platonic ideal asexual hypervulnerable “child” -- which is supposed to apply to boys and girls and men and women equally. Now that they are questioning it for boys and women -- yes, that’s a victory in itself for selfless humanitarian reasons and a necessary step to freeing the men too. I have been saying that we should pursue the lowest-hinging fruit first and I do rejoice when this approach gets results, even if we are only at the first step, of possibly reversing the very most absurd part of the war on sex which is the female sex offender charade, so far.
Delete3-year-olds are also human beings rather than platonic forms. For them reality will obviously be closer to the dominant narrative than for teens, who have precisely zero resemblance to it, but you have to look at reality rather than platonism there too to know the truth. It sounds like you are committed to abstract objects to some extent while I really am a pure nominalist. This is precisely the problem, thinking a gut-level repellent idea is so important it can override anything and you don’t need to pay any attention to reality whatsoever -- like feminists do when that gut feeling is jealousy too or just greed and grifting like most of the abuse industry is driven.
And yeah, I can count on the Antifeminist to complain no matter what I write. Attacking the CSA hoax via attacking abstract objects is one angle out of many, none of which is a silver bullet. It might hit a nerve in those who are convinced there are no abstract objects, for example some philosophy students who have a passion for this. As always, we are lucky to reach one person and even then only when they basically didn’t believe in the sexual taboos to begin with, but the Daily Mail does have a bigger audience and I am extremely happy that they are now doing my activist work for me.
I wonder how the AF thinks we are supposed to reach sexual liberation without freeing the women. That’s some bizarre misogyny which is wrong on every level. We finally get some remarkable publicity that 13-year-olds can consent and don’t feel like victims in retrospect as adults either, and he finds it “sickening.” What they used to do to women and still do to men is sickening and needs to end. A reversal for women is obviously a first step since it must happen for both in order to leave the CSA panic behind. If you don’t want sexual freedom for women then you are no sexualist, and “equal injustice for all” only got us the disgusting type of “MRA” who wants victimology for men too. Fairness is a legit ideal, but we have to expect that the moral panic can’t end all at once and be happy with any progress. Women were the last in and will be the first out of prison for fake sexual abuse; that’s just how it goes.
Some snippets worth including here from a conversation about Laura Caron on another forum:
ReplyDeleteLook at the sheer audacity of characterizing this as rape after stating the teen is emphatically protesting against it.
It's called Doctrine Over Person, part of Robert Lifton's eight point description of ideological totalism. If someone's reality doesn't conform to the cult doctrine, it has to be denied or reinterpreted to fit the doctrine.
Yeah that goes with almost any ideology. Ideologies are true by definition. There is no such thing as evidence against it.
In the case of the CSA doctrine, you can point to a whole bunch of cultic features. Not just Doctrine Over Person but also Loading the Language, Milieu Control, Sacred Science, Mystical Manipulation, Demand for Purity.
To be fair, all of that is an absolute necessity due to how weak their position actually is.
Berge, on a side note, do you believe that a lot of the “rape/SA” trauma you hear from a bunch of women in the media the result of sociogenic-instilled beliefs, rather than actual harm? In other words, do you think that people are more traumatized by the immorality/tabooness and societal views of rape, rather than the act itself? Like since feminists announce rape as “worse than murder”, that others who “experienced” it have to reach societal expectations? People like Angry Harry were very critical and skeptical of the feminist uprising against rape, so was that even a point he ever considered?
ReplyDelete(Mind you, I’m using a lot of quotations because definitions can be subjective and warped, as what we’ve seen with the abuse industry. Most importantly, the whole “anti-rape” system was made and advocated for women by women, so there probably was (or is currently) some sort of bias involved.)
I wouldn't say I'm sickened by Eivind's prioritizing of female sex offenders-he's not some cunning crawler- but I do believe it comes from a white knight instinct he hasn't completely shaken off.
ReplyDeleteThe comments under the Fail article about Laura Caron are among the worst I've ever seen. OTOH, as has been noted, the "victim" is being allowed to express their views, so I consider the article as a whole to be a qualified victory.
If they'd allow a female "victim" of an older male to have her say, that would be a real breakthrough.
This could be in part due to the ongoing problem of alternative views literally not being given a platform.
-Anonymous 2
I am extremely skeptical to the entire concept of sociogenic harm. More likely the self-described victims are either lying or attributing all kinds of random problems in their lives to the supposed rape or sexual abuse. They are met with zero skepticism to this after all, so it’s a free-for-all to engage in that sport.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I don’t doubt that real rape can be traumatic. I read the book “A Natural History of Rape” by Thornhill and Palmer which says there is good evidence for trauma. However, they define rape as “copulation resisted by the victim to the best of her ability unless she will probably get killed or seriously injured.” How much of the “rape” we hear about in the media fits this definition? Maybe 1% or less? If it doesn’t, then I flatly don’t believe it traumatized them, sociogenically or otherwise.
Does anyone know if the speech Trump gave when he praised women and girls for their beauty as he was discussing the new ban on transgender "women" in women's sports has been noted anywhere but here, eg Sandman, Better Bachelor or Aaron Clarey? I haven't been interested in following these people for a while.
ReplyDeleteIf it has, that would be great, but I have no idea. Will it turn out to be one of those things that have cropped up occasionally over the years which seem to presage better times, but which turn out to go nowhere? In answer to my own question, I find it hard to believe it means absolutely nothing, since the US President himself said it, but I don't know how much commentary or follow up there's been.
-Anonymous 2
I have not seen Trump's MAP moment noted anywhere else either. Maybe partly because he does so much worth paying attention to it got lost in the deluge and sadly the culture is probably not ready for it anyway. If Laura Caron gets hateful comments from the general public then that's a really bad sign that things aren't significantly changing at this time. The normies want their witch-hunt against victimless sexuality to continue I guess :(
ReplyDeleteYes, and there are plenty of comments under that story about how the "victim" doesn't know their own mind.
ReplyDeleteDoctrine over person in action.
-Anonymous 2
It's a genius move Eivind. The AF is just a jealous little bitch. We need to wake up the millions of men being restricted or criminalised for their normal male sexuality. We need to wake up the tens of thousands of male sex offenders imprisoned and degraded by feminist anti-sex laws that serve women. A real men's rights movement.
ReplyDeleteSo what better way than to highlight the injustice of another woman caught and punished for banging a 13 year old boy under her care? But adding Platonic Forms to it is the real genius move from Eivind. So not only do we tap into the burning rage of men when they read about another female sex offender charade case, we combine it with their tinderbox rage against Ancient Greek metaphysics. I was waiting for the bus just yesterday Eivind and two young men were almost coming to blows over the age old idealist/materialist debate. It's mayhem out there on the streets. There will be riots against Plato soon. With Eivind as leader, we will surely have millions of members before we know it, or at least one or two before we all get sexually genocided.. And surely one of them will be a female fan willing to hook up with Eivind, like Emma the Emu did, which is the really important thing, and why we call ourselves Sexualists now. I just hope you make a YouTube video of this in the shower Eivind. It will be watched by serious people. You should send it to Tucker Carlson and Jordan Peterson. They need your traffic.
There are many more men interested in metaphysics than sex law reform. Thousands enrolled in philosophy courses right now who study Platonism. We do have at least hundreds of activists against the sex laws, but only if we count the MAPs you hate so much. They are the only ones who will end up caring about either men or women. There is no MRA rage we can harness because men don’t care, or if they do it is only because the sex laws don’t go far enough. The closest we come is Andrew Tate’s assertion of masculinity with his millions of followers, but that never gets off the ground into activism against the laws. It does forcefully assert that there is nothing wrong with age gaps with 18-year-old women, but that’s as far as it goes.
DeleteThe normies believe minors don’t know their own mind, as Anonymous 2 put it so succinctly. This is a philosophical belief. A belief that minors are sexual zombies as I’ve also characterized it, or a belief in abstract objects as I am doing now. Nothing I say has any measurable effect on public opinion, but it is more likely to at least be seen as relevant the belief system that we are up against than to go on about jealous old hags which no men care about. Even sex offenders in prison don’t care about that.
Did you see Eivind?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/tidligere-sametingsrad-er-dod/s/5-95-2289029
I see, Norwegian politican Mikkel Eskil André Mikkelsen was driven to suicide by persecution for looking at heretical information.
DeleteMikkelsen var siktet for at han i perioden april til juli 2024 i Bodø eller annet sted, delte og anskaffet han seg tilgang til materiale som viste seksuelle overgrep mot barn eller fremstillinger som seksualiserer barn.
I am guessing it was pictures but can also be texts according to the definition, could literally be my blog. I do have survivor’s guilt because if the witch-hunters were rational they would hunt me first because by any rational definition it is worse to be a lifelong public heretic than someone who takes a peek at heretical material in private and probably doesn’t even have a wholehearted heretical thought at the time. Mikkelsen was innocent as a lamb, not using his political position to voice a single heretical view as far as I know. Well, conducting a witch-hunt rationally is an oxymoron anyway, so I am pretty confident that won’t happen.
Even though I get reported all the time. Just last week Kripos (our version of the FBI) loaded one page at my blog and lost interest. They clearly prefer to hunt the innocent lambs and drive them to death in shame over giving me the public attention I crave. I guess that at least makes sense given that they are sadists, and they like to look at something arousing over my dry philosophical pontification. Which is funny, because if the “abuse” material isn’t enticing to the normies they might as well be reading my blog :)
It is also absolutely possible that the images that the now deceased by suicide politician Mikkel Eskil André Mikkelsen allegedly had looked at or downloaded or the stories he had read was of girls 17 years old. That would at least be most likely as that age is the age that men find girls the most attractive according to studies.
ReplyDeleteIt strikes me that the Norwegian “child porn” law is not written in a way which necessitates any appeal to sexual arousal, which would be the traditional definition of pornography. From the meaning of “fremstillinger som seksualiserer barn” it can be dry as a mathematical formula or a denial of an abstract object and still fit this exceptional law which has all the hallmarks of a moral panic and then some. It is therefore misleading to call it a pornography law, except that tends to be the way it is enforced. In addition to using a nonsensical definition of “child” which includes 17-year-olds, It is also much more broadly worded to catch heresy as much as pornography if we take it at face value, plus it cracks heavily down on blasphemy against the idea that children are asexual and includes a voodoo aspect as well.
ReplyDeleteIt is a mixture of a law against pornography, voodoo, blasphemy and heresy in that order, with the latter maybe not enforced at all unless another aspects is present.
The pornographic aspect is obvious and always enforced whenever they get a chance, sometimes even for fictional texts. This is material that is intended to be sexually arousing and involves a minor. Pornography in its very broadest sense including the most soft-core erotica of fully clothed minors in alluring poses, or adults posing as minors.
The blasphemy aspect goes further than this because it also criminalizes non-arousing material which shows “abuse” (“materiale som viser seksuelle overgrep mot barn”). Even if it is presented to show how bad abuse is and pedophiles don’t get aroused by it either (unless they have some kind of entirely unrelated sadistic deviance), it is criminal. This is highly curious if you think about it. Perhaps the most bizarre part of the whole law, because if it were a general principle it would impede awareness-raising about atrocities, and it does indeed prevent that for real sexual abuse. Note that one does NOT have to be a heretic to be covered by this! And not sexualize children either, since they can be seen as asexual victims who only have something sexual done to them and the material merely documents this. I guess this is why they had to split the definition up into two categories. This aspect covers DOCUMENTING abuse, which is mind-blowingly absurd if you imagine that they had the best interests of children in mind, because if so we definitely would want it to get documented for awareness and justice purposes like one does with a genocide. To make sense of this we have to insert a voodoo aspect which is the belief that abuse is ONGOING in information like ones and zeros just because it is sexual and this voodoo grows every time it is viewed or shared. Which is what the normies literally believe. This is the closest parallel to the witchcraft supposedly hunted by previous witch-hunts, every bit as absurd to believe in.
And then there is pure heresy, which does not either attempt to arouse or does not depict or narrate “abuse,” but merely “sexualizes” children in the abstract like we do here politically and philosophically. This is covered by the wording of the law but not in practice -- at least not yet in Norway. Not by Google admins either, who thrash all the constant reports against me by the feminist trolls.
We can still get away with heresy some places in the mainstream, even Facebook where I routinely say the same things as here. But not on X. Not on YouTube except when worded extremely carefully like my Nathan Larson eulogy. Not on Quora anymore either. I quit answering questions on Quora because they started removing my content for being “sexually suggestive” about minors, which is another away to encompass heresy that moderation policies are increasingly adopting beyond the “explicit” or “exploitatitive” rules.
ReplyDeleteFinally it strikes me that this analysis I just did of the meaning of the law is completely irrelevant to the normies and they would never read or understand one word of it. To them, it all boils down to simply pointing a finger at a pedophile, and it does not matter whatsoever how that was accomplished, be it a sting or loading the wrong webpage or receiving a nude selfie from a 17-year-old admirer or whatever (the most likely kind of scenario for a politician). It all collapses to the shame which killed Mikkelsen because he had that finger pointed at him. The real issue is who gets authority to point that finger; how it is used is irrelevant because that is a “fill in the black” sort of deal where that authority gets to make up anything. I have discovered that I can’t point that finger at myself, because no one cares that I say am a proud pedophile, so the mythology of how the authority to identify the witches of our time is constructed is its own topic for analysis that I will explore another time. It does not exactly correspond to the law since you can get cancelled for not breaking the law too. But one thing is sure: once you are cancelled, nobody besides your family cares that you commit suicide because you are already dead to society.
Regarding the topic of “knowing one’s mind,” a recent extendive brain study sheds some more light:
ReplyDeletehttps://cambridgebrc.nihr.ac.uk/2022/04/07/brain-charts-map-the-rapid-growth-and-slow-decline-of-the-human-brain-over-our-lifetime/
The volume of grey matter (brain cells) increases rapidly from mid-gestation onwards, peaking just before we are six years old. It then begins to decrease slowly. The volume of white matter (brain connections) also increased rapidly from mid-gestation through early childhood and peaks just before we are 29 years old. The decline in white matter volume begins to accelerate after 50 years. Grey matter volume in the subcortex (which controls bodily functions and basic behaviour) peaks in adolescence at 14-and-a-half years old.
So, the number of brain cells peaks before you are six years old.
Your brain matter for controlling basic behavior (sexuality is surely basic behavior) peaks at 14 and a half, which coincides with the full adult mental age as measured on IQ tests.
Brain connections keep increasing until you are 29 and then decline.
We must be careful with concluding from a measurement of the brain to an ability to know one’s mind or making the right decisions. For one thing, if we use this approach for knowing when you become yourself, you have to conclude that people lose their ability to “know their mind” as they decline past age 29 or even 14.
But it’s interesting nonetheless that the brain matter responsible for basic behavior peaks at 14 rather than 25 or 30 as the myth goes for what you need for sexual consent.
I guess the normies will still argue that sexuality is not basic behavior but something super-complicated you need maximum brain connections to manage. But then how do they cope once they hit 30 and start declining again?
On second thought, we do observe that many don’t cope very well indeed. Many middle-aged and older women call everything abuse, perhaps because they have lost the brain cells and connections needed to understand consent which was as clear as it could ever be to them when they were 14.
Weirdly enough Dagbladet published a newsstory about his death today. Even though its a days old story already.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/tidligere-sametingsrad-er-dod/82689849
I see he even intended to plead guilty. He had no fight in him, was just an obedient lamb to the slaughter and then even though the punishment for this would have been not very severe in Norway went all the way and killed himself because that's what public opinion calls for.
ReplyDeleteWell his career was over, he probably lost all his friends, perhaps even his family. You, of course, don't have to worry about such things.
ReplyDeleteLooks like he may have been a typical paedocrite too. https://www.highnorthnews.com/nb/sexual-abuse-northern-norway-we-must-not-abandon-them-now
DeleteTrue enough. The only area where I have a little bit of prestige is as a MAP activist. So no wonder I want to maximize that and be the best activist I can be. If I lost my reputation as a pedophile it would be a step down for me, lol.
DeleteThat said, the lack of any willingness to make sacrifices is sad, given the enormity of injustice happening over and over again to perfectly harmless people like Laura Caron and now Mikkel Mikkelsen.
Did you see the guy who burned himself to death for Gaza? The American soldier who wasn't connected to them in any way. Even I wouldn't go that far, but there is a middle ground between doing nothing and losing everything.
Hmm. I see he was a driver of the "Tysværsaken," which is kind of like a Norwegian "grooming gang" case connected to a municipality. As I recall it was Sami people supposedly raped by Norwegians or something like that in a structural way similar to how the Brits lost their mind over Pakistanis. I remember a lot of hysteria form around 2017 but not how it turned out. How many convictions did they get and was any of that anything more than hysterical bullshit? I am strongly guessing the latter.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, I think that tells me enough to retract my characterization of Mikkelsen as harmless. He was a pedocrite. Didn't deserve to die though; ideally his own persecution should have thought him a lesson about being the kind of politician who is pushing for that sort of thing!
Ok, I looked into the Tysvær case. Here is a very long article about what I concede is a core of truth to it:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.utdanningsnytt.no/hovedsak-overgrep-i-barnehage-og-skole-seksuelle-overgrep/laereren-misbrukte-elever-i-35-ar/183667
But that’s just one pederast who was a teacher and operated for 35 years. It is much exaggerated in its own way as usual because we can tell at least most of this must have been consensual, consisting of teenage boys who kept coming back for more “abuse” again and again. The teacher was eventually convicted to four years in prison.
But this is only the beginning of the peak hysteria in 2017 which Mikkelsen fanned some more which claimed 151 abuse cases in the municipality. At that time they had 82 victims and 92 suspects… none of which have been convicted to my knowledge even after researching it. My memory about an ethnic grooming gang panic was somewhat faulty but my judgment was as not wrong.
Seems like the hysteria just died down until now our political hero of that investigation tasted his own medicine. Karma?
After perusing that tour de force CSA narrative about the police investigating that pederast teacher which was also a tremendous tour de force delving into cases long past the statute of limitations because the police just can’t get enough “abuse” to investigate…. I must say it is a textbook case of stereotypical CSA panic where all of reality is twisted to blame the villain of our times. With some added unintentional humor:
ReplyDeleteOvergriperen lagde sår i guttene. Sår som ikke er grodd. Én orker ikke tegne, én drikker ikke kaffe av liten kopp og en tredje spiser ikke karameller. Mange av dem har hatt problemer med nærhet og seksualitet. Alle samtalene har gjort etterforskeren klar på at man må ha åpenhet om seksuelt misbruk av barn.
When it comes to the supposed harm, I was expecting something more sinister than “not eating caramels,” lol. When you interview scores of men and ask them about problems in their life which can possibly be related to the “sexual abuse” which can’t possibly be defined as anything other than abuse even if they liked it and the entire culture is expecting them to come up with something devastating -- yeah, you will find harm, because nobody is perfect, but I can’t imagine this is worse than you would find in a random sample similarly pressured to blame any random cause. This evidence is at the level of astrology. And the one who does not eat caramels because it reminds him of his abuser -- hmm, if that bribe was enough to turn him gay as a teen -- NOT a child -- then I don’t think he was altogether straight anyway.
There was no force, just the usual metaphysical redefinition into abuse. The boys were 13-16 and resourceful ones rather than special needs kids and then the abuse magically ended when they reached the age of consent but it does not say whether the sexual activity ended or we just quit pretending it is abuse at that point?
Have we no ability to comprehend that a teen is actually a human at the height of his mental powers as I just posted a study of? If he can be “abused” by some caramel candy then something is wrong with your definition of abuse!
This culture is insane, but we knew that and we can’t make them understand -- once again they have to drift out of it.
Another lamb to the slaughter...
ReplyDeletehttps://eu.jacksonsun.com/story/news/crime/2025/02/03/jackson-youth-pastor-pleads-guilty-sexual-crimes-against-minor/78183021007/
Ryan McElrath, a former Fellowship Bible Church youth pastor in Jackson, pled guilty to sexual crimes against a minor in court on Monday.
Appearing in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service in the U.S. District Court for the Western Division of Tennessee, McElrath, 40, entered a plea agreement on Count 1 of his indictment on charges of Statutory Rape by an Authority Figure, Sexual Battery by an Authority Figure, and Aggravated Statutory Rape.
The plea agreement stipulates that he faces a minimum prison sentence of 10 years and a maximum of life, a maximum fine of $250,000, and supervised release for not less than five years and up to life.
I am noting this case because it quite possibly holds the world record in metaphysically invalidated text messages sent by a teen girl (aged 14-17). Of course none of these in any way indicate that she was into him or that there was any kind of mutual relationship. It was all abuse :)
Morrow noted that over the course of three years, McElrath and the victim exchanged more than 39,000 text messages, many of which were sexually explicit in nature, including the scheduling and various locations for sexual activity.
The ability of this panic to ignore reality is absolutely limitless.
"On June 11, 2024, the father of a minor teenager, referred to in court documents as "Minor A," reported the assault against his daughter to the Jackson Police Department, according to the state warrant."
ReplyDeleteAnother Conservative Red State Male Feminist Simp H*mo F*ggot Jealous Evangelical Christcuck.
The f*ggot "right wing" is simply a party of deranged pedocrite lunatics, more oppressive and brutal than the left. Their feminist thought leaders like Nancy Mace are also more shrill and psychotic.
anon69
Hate to say it but I can't see how men who study philosophy, as a group, are going to be very good MAP activists.
ReplyDeleteI take an intermittent interest in philosophy and I've seen one or two y/tube videos in which the speakers are totally on board with the program.
Here's another example-https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=larkin+rose .
This guy absolutely takes the cake.
He criticizes people for being emotion-led but towards the end says all child sex offenders should be shot. No nuance whatsoever and he's supposed to be a libertarian.
Maybe he knows and hasn't got the stomach for a fight, just like the vast majority of philosophy geeks I'm sure.
The video is nevertheless interesting for a couple of reasons. He reminds us of the limitations of US Presidential powers, specifically in relation to the (rumoured?) possible future Executive Order about executing child sex offenders. It's also good, I guess, that he's prepared to call out people who are happy to have the rule of law subverted without considering the possibility that it erodes the rule of law and leads to dictatorship. But that's as far as he goes. He doesn't question blowing "child sex offenders' " heads off, only who should sign the death warrant.
It's a lot like the Libertarian slogan I've come across about how they want to see a gay married couple being able to defend their marijuana patch with fully automatic weapons while saying nothing about paedohysterical laws. Whoop-de-frickin-doo.
-Anonymous 2
I studied philosophy at a leading university. I remember noticing during my first tutorial with our professor that he actually had a book of age of consent arguments on his shelf. He flirted openly with the 18 year old female freshers, and (allegedly) had many affairs with students. He is sadly dead now.
DeleteIf you mean philosophers as a group won't be on our side (speaking not as a 'MAP' but as a real man), I think that's just true of any group. I remember Peter Singer once said something very controversial about sex with children, admitting that his consequentialist philosophy might lead to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with it. And that's where Eivind goes wrong. It's not about a belief in Platonic Forms, it's the lie that willing sex as teens leads to bad consequences. That has to be addressed. Women say that the sex they had when 14 has led them to have all sorts of problems at 30. They do this for many reasons. Partly it is reframing their experience to cope with their loss of SMV. Partly or many times they are simply lying out of bitterness and jealousy. Sometimes they are seeking victim compensation. They may also just have been brainwashed by the feminist narrative, or genuinely scarred by the victim label or any forced therapy. This all needs to be addressed and fought against. The simplest way is to point out the sexual motivation or jealousies of feminists (and older women in general).
But yes, Ivory Tower philosophers talking about metaphysics and Plato make poor activists. (AF)
Do you remember the name of the book by chance?
Delete@,Anonymous - No, sorry, I can't remember the name of the book my Professor had. It was the 1990's. Around that time I read a couple of books in libraries arguing for sexual libertarianism whose authors and titles I forgot, and I so wish I hadn't. One was by a male author and he devoted a chapter to the age of consent. He made the argument that paedophiles are probably providing an evolutionary benefit in teaching children about sex, and that's why their genes persist (he must have been talking about real paedophiles, but I can't remember for sure). The other book was actually by a heretical feminist. What I remember about that book is that she claimed many sex offenders in prison are there because they actively chose political resistance against age of consent laws. Whenever I'm browsing second hand bookshops in the UK I hope to come across those books.
DeleteWith these pederasty cases, when you are not a pederast and not gay, it’s easy to think that was disgusting so it must be harmful. I do that too with descriptions like this of that Tysvær pederast:
ReplyDeleteEtterpå kler de på seg og kjører videre. Nå skal de på kaffebesøk, sier læreren og er glad. Fredrik vil hjem, og i alle fall ikke på besøk. Han er redd for at noen skal kjenne at det lukter sæd fra munnen hans. Men han sier ingenting og blir med på besøk til de voksne vennene til Læreren.
I can easily get carried away into thinking this is bad too because I am not a homosexual, but then I remind myself that disgust is not the mechanism they believe in. They believe the same harm applies when the teacher is a hot young woman. That means we are dealing with metaphysics.
Don’t lose sight of this. It’s all superstition. When the abuse industry can’t distinguish between a pederast and a beautiful woman they can’t be taken seriously to even attempt to define anything real. Their entire “theory” of CSA harm is 100% bullshit. And even if you only look at pederasty we have a control group consisting of tremendous pederasts like Norman Douglas who has sex with hundreds of boys but left behind no “victims” at all because the culture at the time did not believe they were victimized and the boys didn’t end up believing that either. There can’t be anything real to it and even the supposed sociogenic harm from the CSA panic probably goes away when you compare to a random sample, because they now get to blame every problem in their life on the supposed abuse.
A boy who does not like pederasty can simply say no and of course it would be abuse if he is coerced. But that is not what we are talking about and there is no harm from the sex itself.
@Anonymous 2 I’m actually libertarian, I have a bit of right-wing/conservative beliefs, voted Trump, but I don’t agree with what that guy said at the end of the video.
ReplyDeleteBelieve it or not, I’m actually against the death penalty. I find these asinine and ridiculous sex offender/pedo panic laws completely irrational and out of control. Not a shocker for a place like this, but I’m probably an outlier for my party because I don’t pour myself onto Twitter and wish death for “pedos” every five minutes. It will be shocker to “them” that most people who commit and fulfill “CSA” are not even pedos. So, in turn, ironically wishing death on “pedos” isn’t literally going to give them what they want.
I’m also not the one for the “lock ‘em up and throw away the key” mentality either because America’s CJS is also hogwash too. Some many things wrong with it, yet everyone else thinks it’s so perfect. QANON is baseless too, so that’s just a bunch of foolishness as well.
Several months ago, a user on Quora hostility declared me a liberal, (even though I’m not) after I told him that I was against a Spanish mother setting her daughter’s rapist on fire (especially since he had already served his time) after he “taunted” her. He screamed and yelled at me in capital letters, making all sorts of misconstructions and assumptions, before finally ending the sentence on the notion that I must be “liberal” because I don’t support vigilante justice against sex offenders. Checked his profile and he definitely was a conservative Trump supporter. Yet, little does he know that he just disrespected one of own kind. Never got to respond to him because blocked me in I presume an act of moral righteousness/superiority. I have an extra account, just in case I feel like I need to respond, but so much time has passed since then that I am still contemplating on whether I should continue the conversation or not. Lesson here is to engage in critical and intellectual discussion in a respectful manner. Though alas, polarizing politics have made this nearly impossible.
I will admit that I have seen liberals act like this too, in a way that they also use the whole “rape/pedo” rhetoric against Trump and his supporters. The whole “rage” against “CSA” comes from all sides of the political spectrum, but conservatives have been the most historically and staunchly vocal about it because their party revolves around “nuclear family values” and “law and order”. Feminists are the one that got the laws in book because their push was so loud and prominent.
The Clintons, Tipper Gore and Joe Liberman were also running amok with the “protect the children” dogma in the 80s and 90s with the PMRC, opposition to violent video games, and tough on crime agendas. Though, they’re all well known democrats with liberal ideologies, so it really isn’t that black and white. You just have to aware that the whole “pedorage” infects the minds of anyone who is a “normie”, not necessarily because of their political party affiliation. The true believers are the whole recognize this bullshit and fight against the ocean tide.
If CSA leads to bad consequences, there must be some kind of mechanism for it. Very well, let’s explore what the mechanism is. Is it because it is a bad experience? Nope, it can be an absolutely beautiful experience with the most beautiful woman and it is still dogmatically believed to cause problems. Is it because it is shameful? Nope, a boy who gets a beautiful woman becomes the envy of both his peers and older men.
ReplyDeleteThe normies believe in harm that is out of this world. Disgust, coercion, shame, whatever you can think of that might plausibly be a mechanism for harm is irrelevant to the dogma because it is always applicable anyway. It is unfalsifiable. The essence of CSA is causally inefficacious by any identifiable mechanism and still believed to cause harm.
When the normies don’t need a mechanism in this world to explain their supposed harm, what else is there left for us to do but to confront the metaphysics? They are making a metaphysical claim about abstract objects at that point, so that’s how it must ultimately be dealt with.
When there is no causal harm, the only arguments they got left are of the type “it is wrong because it is wrong.” So it might be about belonging to a community of believers. Who cares if the belief if true? You just gotta believe to belong. This is how religious groups operate, and CSA is indeed the state religion of our time.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many other reasons to restrict sex. Parental control. Jealousy. Employment for the abuse industry and payouts to “victims.”
If you want to upset this status quo you automatically become a big misfit like me. There is no way to make a living that way and as a rule you are either hated or ignored, with the latter most usual for me.
We are misfits and outsiders just for questioning CSA. Most of you dabble in opposition rather than do it full-time like me, which does not threaten the status quo. Governments don’t even care about MAP or sexualist activism at all because it is so insignificant. In contrast to…
Germany’s Orwellian Nightmare: Police Raid Homes Over Memes—JD Vance Slams Insane Hate Speech Crackdown! Prepare to be shocked as "60 Minutes" exposes Germany’s jaw-dropping crackdown on free speech, where posting a meme or an insult online can land armed police at your door! In this viral segment, German prosecutors proudly admit to raiding homes, seizing phones, and fining citizens for what they deem “hate speech”—including reposting memes or even liking controversial posts. The absurdity reaches new heights as "60 Minutes" rides along with police storming an apartment over a racist cartoon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTnnMO6FWxs
Ok, maybe it’s a good thing that we are so obscure at the moment, because we wouldn’t have a chance if they really decided to crack down on us. On the other hand, what they are cracking down on there might actually get so strong that it will prevail in Europe. Too bad it is led by antisex bigots like Tommy Robinson and I don’t know if AfD is any better?
Right now maybe fighting the Russians is a bigger priority though. Is Europe deciding to go to war without the US? Crazier things have happened before. Not most likely but it might happen. We will be crushed for sure.
“That said, I don’t doubt that real rape can be traumatic. I read the book “A Natural History of Rape” by Thornhill and Palmer which says there is good evidence for trauma. However, they define rape as “copulation resisted by the victim to the best of her ability unless she will probably get killed or seriously injured.” How much of the “rape” we hear about in the media fits this definition? Maybe 1% or less? If it doesn’t, then I flatly don’t believe it traumatized them, sociogenically or otherwise.”
ReplyDeleteExactly, how much of “rape” is actually just benign, like interpreting “no” as “yes” or a mutual “rape fantasy” where two people are aroused, but one has to at least “initiate” the intercourse. Perhaps someone was doozy, but not impaired, though the cues given were ambiguous. You know, the non-violent rape? Not the “rape-rape” where an armed, foul-mouthed, and ski-mask-wearing thug breaking into her home and tying up a woman in a chair or a man pinning down his wife/girlfriend after a fight escalated from a domestically-violent argument. That what’s most people (especially woman) think of as the ideal rape scenario. That it is also sadistic and pervasive at epidemic levels because feminists love to use a rape as a figurative metaphor for all the suppression from “patriarchy” that is happening to them. Rape trauma is subjective to the circumstances and the situation involved. Not to mention, a lot of women’s problems could be attributed to a bunch of other things occurring in their lives, such the relationship between the person that did it.
Regardless, rape is legally considered sexual violence, even if it doesn’t involve violence, force, or coercion. That is where the nuance should be applied. Even if there was trauma, I don’t it’s permanent. Even people with near-death experiences and serious injuries who are still left intact don’t suffer for the rest of their lives. It is not like torture or getting paralyzed where you may not be able to function for the rest of your life. I just hate how the whole anti-rape system can’t just let “real-rape-rape” women be resilient or grow out of it because they wanna how “wrong” it is.
I would love to see a “Rind-esque” meta-analysis conducted on non-clinical/legal samples of assault/rape and see where it ranks on the scale. Let’s see where the ones that don’t report or don’t feel strongly about being a “victim” stand.
But a study like that would probably be extremely difficult to conduct because how tedious it would be to find people willing to respond, participate in research and then get compared to a control group that deals with such sensitive topics?
I know I haven’t spoken fondly of Reddit in the past, but I did discover a thread where a woman who was raped didn’t feel traumatized and said that most rape victims just want to play the victim. She said that has been around women and believes that they can just be as cunning, evil, and nefarious as men. I remember one of her comments mentioning “The Trauma Myth” book by Susan Clancy. So, take of that what you will. If I find it, I’ll post it.
Yes, rape law has been corrupted beyond any resemblance to what might be traumatizing. You have to go back to the common-law definition of rape to find it reasonable. There are still remnants of this in some jurisdictions but then that's called first-degree rape and they have added on many more bullshit categories including statutory rape which in turn keeps getting expanded. As I recall, Thornhill and Palmer does not even humor the possibility that that sort of thing might be traumatizing. The definition I quoted is very good at capturing what might plausibly be traumatizing because it involves literally overpowering the woman's will. An abstract notion of "consent" need not be factored into the definition if you look at how much she resists. Even a very drunk woman can resist enough to make it unambiguous, so there is none of that grey area stuff where it is a matter of opinion whether she "really" consented. Also they do not consider being young a substitute for force like corrupted rape law does, and they hypothesize and present some evidence that women are most likely to be traumatized at the height of their fertility whereas raping a postmenopausal or prepubescent girl is less traumatizing. I don't know if exactly that research has been replicated and I wouldn't put TOO much faith in it, but it does follow logically from the idea that it hurts more to lose something more (reproductively) valuable. It is exactly opposite to popular belief which can't imagine anything other than children being most vulnerable to everything.
Delete@ Anonymous, Monday, February 17, 2025 10:14:39 PM-I was commenting in the context of Eivind's idea about reaching out to men with qualifications or a serious interest in philosophy.
ReplyDeleteLarkin Rose might not be quite what Eivind had in mind, but close enough, and his lack of self-awareness appears to be off the charts.
My basic point is that I don't see an army of giga chad philosophy PhD's taking up the cause.
Good for that professor, but how long ago was it?
BTW, with his views on abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, I wouldn't want Peter Singer on my side about anything.
@Anonymous, Monday, February 17, 2025 9:58:27 PM- I can see where you're coming from and I too am against the death penalty and long prison sentences for the sake of it, even though many of my views are conservative/libertarian.
I was once speaking to someone I liked and respected with somewhat similar ideas about the world, and the topic of "paedophiles" came up and he said he though anyone who had sex with a person under 18 should be executed.
Just as with the Quora jerk, most of the time one doesn't have much to work with.
And absolutely, both sides try to out-do each other.
-Anonymous 2
The concept of "rape" is a feminist hoax as it is currently defined, which is sex against "consent". Women talk about "rape" constantly because they fantasize about being "raped" and want it. And b4 anyone says anything else, 50 shades of grey is the top female porn best seller, there is nothing to debate here, it's right there out in the open and confirmed. Most women also have orgasms when they are "raped" even when it's the classic "punch and rape". Also, if you've ever banged women successfully without paying them money, you already know you have to be aggressive and push the line between consensual sex and rape if you want to get laid.
ReplyDeleteWomen are attracted to the concept of a man who doesn't care about a woman's opinion or the law, a man who is so turned on by the woman that he is willing to risk his life to have sex with her. This is another reason why women will keep pushing more ridiculous sex laws, because the man who is willing to break them to bang her must be more daring, which turns the woman on. Then, of course, the woman can control the man by blackmailing him with the sex laws afterwards, crying "rape" at any time to get money and attention.
The worst baby boy male feminist pathetic simps implement this system, especially conservative english-speaking populations that ban prostitution and push the "human trafficking" feminist myth. Best to just leave these people to their misery, since they will die off soon anyway because they are weak.
anon69
There is much truth in this. Given how rape is defined these days to mean almost anything, it follows that women enjoy rape if they enjoy sex at all. Which they do, especially when the man shows some initiative which is so often confused with rape. And that's without getting into their explicit rape fantasies which are also numerous.
DeleteMisandrist stereotypes. That’s exactly what these sex laws are rooted in and inspired by: To keep debaucherous men away from women and girls. That’s why men are punished so severely for these crimes because society believes they have powerful and pervasive impulses.
ReplyDeleteIs this sick or what?!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3415628/It-motivated-love-Professor-s-begging-letter-judge-jailed-sexual-relationship-diaper-clad-man-cerebral-palsy-not-speak.html
Anna Stubblefield gave this disabled man the time of his life and she was sentenced to prison, supervised parole for the rest of her life and in addition has to register as a sex offender.
Because sex is first of all bad.
ReplyDeleteAnd it’s the root of all evil. Remember, if you ever want to make an audience despise a character, turn him into a rapist and you’ll have everyone begging for his comeuppance. At least, that’s what most “cop-paganda” soap operas do.
DeleteI'm not sure about this. It's clearly about whether he could consent and, unlike the schoolboy sex cases, not clear he even enjoyed it - at least from my quick initial reading of the article. We can all agree that feminist society inflates the harm of even unwilling sex AND raises the consent threshold way too high, but just framing it completely as a superstitious or metaphysical belief that 'sex is bad' or in ' Platonic Forms' seems to be missing a huge deal. If somebody showed me a video of a tranny coming into my bedroom last night and sucking my cock and touching my butt while I was asleep, for sure I'd be absolutely disgusted and want to do him some harm, and it's not because I'm a Platonic Idealist who believes 'sex is bad'. Eivind might say the tranny merely 'physically assaulted me' but I'd feel less victimised if he'd just punched me, even if he left a tangible physical harm such as a black eye. Eivind may also argue that it would be different if it was a (real) woman. Well, I'm not sure that it would, if it was an unattractive middle-aged woman like the one in the article. (AF)
DeleteThere is a non sequitur in all these cases based on a supposed inability to consent, such as with Anna Stubblefield and a disbbled man and all the female teachers and their contrived "victim" students. It does not follow that sex is a bad thing even if we were to grant them that first step of denying consent.
ReplyDeleteHow can we so totally disregard the real issue? The most relevant question to ask is, was the sex a bad thing in any way? And if not, then don't prosecute! Definitely don't prosecute when all you have is metaphysical badness. But that is what they do, and the normies are happy with. Even when the facts attest that the sex was a very good thing, it is taboo to consider that aspect (until the Daily Mail at least reported it with Laura Caron).
So yes, the supposed badness of sex is the supreme principle of this civilization. It is the most sacred truth to the religion of our time. None of the traditional religions managed to demonize sexuality to this extent. It took a supposedly secular legal framework to go this insane.
I don't agree with you, but even if it is true that this disabled man didn't enjoy it, it is much worse to deny sex to all the disabled people who do enjoy it just because it's unclear if they can consent. This is an evil general rule and therefore evil to apply in a particular case like Anna Stubblefield too. Comparable to antinatalism in its anti-life philosophy, or worse because it means disabled people must be born and bear all the drudgery of life but can't enjoy sex just to be on the "safe side" that no one has it without consent.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason why that general rule seems like a good idea to this society is because the metaphysical badness of sex is the supreme value. The culture assigns no positive value and infinite negative value to sex. Absolutely no positive value which can weigh against the need to be on the safe side that no one is abused. They would rather do away with sex altogether than risk any "abuse." I don't want to live in that kind of world, which is why I am an activist against it.
Well, I do agree with your general sentiment, but just like with the age of consent, there has to surely be a line somewhere, and it's not entirely reducible to a metaphysical belief that 'sex is bad'. If you think it is, then it follows you think a man having sex with a baby is fine, so long as it gives no clear indication that it doesn't like it, as well as sex with a coma patient.
DeleteThe details of this particular case are that he is severely mentally retarded and cannot communicate at all other than through controversial 'facilitated communication'. This woman was fulfilling that role for his family. His family claim that she told them that the man 'communicated' to her that he liked listening to Bach in the car (just like her), that he wished to be a vegan (just like her), and then that he wanted to live with her.
BTW, he is black, just like so many of the 13 year old Chads that white female teachers get caught with. Seems 80% of Eivind's activism in resistance to white women restricting the sexual rights of men with teen girls is actually defending the right of white women to suck underage (and now sometines even vegetable) BBC. It's as if Sinwar thought the most important thing was to fight for the right of Jews to live in beachfront mansions in Gaza.
Feminists have amplified the issue of 'sexual consent' and given it all-importance as a means to restrict male sexual opportunities with young girls, prostitutes, casting couch etc. etc. A few women getting locked up for sucking a 13 year old black Tyrone or a black man in a wheelchair is just insignificant collateral damage as far as feminists are concerned.
But if you believe in the mysterious metaphysical entity of 'cultural drift' as the explanation, then you remove human agency and goals, such as that of feminists. When Marx saw that the job of philosophy was 'to change the world, not just interpret it', he realized that he had to abandon the Hegelian idealist belief in a 'world spirit' directing social change, and instead become a materialist and look only at Earthly economic processes driven by all too human motivations for profit and greed. I wish Eivind could give up on superstitious abstract nonsense like 'cultural drift' that explain nothing and inspire nobody and look instead solely at the manifest human motivations behind sex laws.
I found it.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/8cl6ej/comment/dxk4xqp/
“Rape is one-sided sex, and I’m finding it hard to see it as any more damaging than any other kind of physical assault. Rape victims would have a better argument if they emphasized the fact that rape means unwanted risk of pregnancy and STDs instead of the “trauma” it inevitably causes. Like, do people think that unwanted dicks are covered in “oh poor me” spores that’ll infect women and ruin their lives? Some of the bullshit I’ve heard equating rape to things like losing an arm or being tortured is just unbelievable; sex doesn’t magically go from being the greatest human pleasure to something torturous simply in the absence of consent.”
“My mother was raped at the age of 23, but she wasn’t traumatized; my college friend was raped at the age of 19, but she wasn’t traumatized; I was raped at the age of 16, but I wasn’t traumatized. I don’t know what you think trauma looks like, but everything I’ve ever seen or experienced when it comes to non-violent rape has directly contradicted everything I’ve ever heard about rape. It makes you wonder how many women out there believe they are traumatized because they are told that they just have to be, how many women out there were depressed before they were raped, how many women out there use the fact that they were raped just to feel like they belong to a larger community (of other women who were raped), how many women out there would rather blame their inability to succeed on the fact that they were raped than on themselves, how many women out there justify their own character flaws with the fact that they were raped, how many women out there use their having been raped as a source of empowerment and entitlement, and how many women out there fool themselves into believing they’re traumatized because they know that they can use that fact to gain sympathy from anyone for anything in almost any situation. As a woman who lives among women, I can gaurantee the existence of the halo effect (hell, I’m guilty of taking advantage of it), and make it abundantly clear that women can be just as conniving, ridiculous, and evil as any male, they just have different urges that drive different behaviors.”
It’s an old thread from an alternate account, so it’s not like you can respond to her.
The AF (I think, hard to tell when everyone is "Anonymous") is preaching sex exceptionalism, which is another word for the metaphysical badness of sex. He thinks there is some special badness which is only found in sex just because it is sex. It is really simple if you get rid of that.
ReplyDeleteA rock does not have the capacity to consent. That means it also does not have the capacity to NOT consent. These go together. The only way you can construct one without the other is by metaphysics or sex exceptionalism.
A man who is so intellectually disabled that he does not have the capacity to consent (except as claimed by his lover Anna Stubblefield) likewise also does not have the capacity to NOT consent. This part is made up out of sex-exceptionalism and I reject it entirely. At that point it must be treated just like any other activity a person might reasonably enjoy, and he should get to enjoy the things that make like fulfilling for the rest of us, not be excepted from them based on an assumption that he can’t consent to them.
Still not clear? Very well, let’s take another example. Suppose his caretaker or friend wants to play some music and thinks he would enjoy it. Do we inject some music exceptionalism and claim he can’t consent to listening to music and that that there is some grievous harm worthy of 15 years in prison like prosecutors wanted for Anna? Crazy, right? If he can’t communicate clearly enough for courts to believe whether he likes music then there is also no reason to assume harm in it, unless there is an obvious problem with it, for example being too loud or repetitive such that a normal person would also object to it. Thinking he needs to be carefully shielded from sexual activity is just as crazy as thinking he needs to be shielded from music his whole life, because sex works the same way if you get rid of sex exceptionalism.
This way we can say no to harmful things like forcing him to be vegan based on unclear communications because a reasonable person wouldn’t want that (not make a hysterical crime out of it either though if he tries it for a while and gets adequate nutrition). It is also not okay for a random man to walk in and have sex, because most men would not want that. But a woman he is close to? You have to be insane to impute harm to that. Sex exceptionalism is insane. They think sex is “obviously” a tremendous problem just because it is sex, and even if a person by all appearances enjoys it, just because there is no “consent” as that is hysterically defined. And this virus of the mind is so pervasive it has infected the AF too, or rather he hates women so much that he is willing to resort to it to put them in prison.
Yes, for some reason it won't post my comment unless I choose the default Anonymous option. I might reply to you later here or on my own blog post. Maybe we can find a 'synthesis' of our opposing positions?
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile here are a couple of interesting and optimistic unrelated links for discussion:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c778ldvpn0po
https://darioamodei.com/machines-of-loving-grace
Trump's officials are putting pressure on Romania to relax Andrew Tate's travel restrictions. Perhaps he really is going to do something for men's rights and male sexualism this time?
The second is an essay by the CEO of Anthropic. It's worth reading by anybody here aware that AI will shake up the world in the next decade, certainly before 'peak oil'. He is optimistic, but more realistic than a hard-core 'Singularitarian'. He believes that within a decade or so of super-intelligent AI (which he expects next year), we will enjoy 'biological freedom'. What he means by this is that we will have full control over our DNA to modify our physical appearance in just about any way we want. In other words, everybody could choose to look 18 and hot (as I've always predicted, most women will choose to look 14 or 15 - to the delight of 'MAPs' and just about every other man on the planet). You can say he is just hyping up AI but I don't believe that. And he's not exactly alone in having these kind of predictions. Anyway, I prefer to have hope than to just to sit around praying for the collapse of Industrial Civilization and our own painful deaths in order to 'spite feminists'. (AF)
Eivind, this is getting very ridiculous. Are you seriously going to spend your time arguing with 'AF' who is an incel that actually hates women and is waiting for robots to have sex with, or are you going to at least try to make a difference? You are obviously very intelligent, your writing is extremely good and you have arguments that are really eye opening. The solution is to get into the mainstream media if you want to make a difference. Im absolutely sure some newspaper in Norway is going to accept an opinion piece from you, and when they do it will get noticed for sure.
ReplyDeleteAI is not going to do anything. In my profession some companies have introduced AI that is not able to do anything other than to produce some pretty and useless pictures. AI is a hype. Its not going to solve anything.
ReplyDelete"Biological freedom"? "Full control of our DNA"? ."Everybody could choose to look 18 and hot"? Bollocks! Not even DNA itself if it wanted to could achieve that. It has had millions of years of evolution to do so, why hasn't it? More to the point, how could an information retrieval and photoshopping technology (for that's what AI is) be a game changer?
ReplyDeleteModern biology and medicine are a failure. All modern medicine has been able to do is replace death by heart attack by death by malingnancies + old age with Alzheimer's. Modern medicine has not been able to develop an efficient topical cure for nail fungus. In order to get rid of the nail fungus you need to take liver toxic tablets for weeks on end. How's that with looking 18 and hot?
Remember the cartography of the genome? What's come out of that? Nothing, except some clever people could retire millionaires at 35. Same with nanotechnologies, gene therapy, ... All such hypes are at best mountains giving birth to a mouse.
The purpose of "LIFE", that earthly tragedy everyone worships, is to maximise mayhem and suffering. It has no interest in health, beauty, harmony, happiness or rationality, and it will resist any attempt at treatment or improvement like it always has.
Yes, I largely agree with your Schopenhauerian/Houellbecquian view Jack (BTW, I finally finished 'The MAP and the Territory' the other week!). Even if AI could do that almost overnight, there is no way society could cope with it, especially with all the other radical upheaval - unless AI becomes our benevolent overlords.
DeleteI do think, however, that you're a bit too pessimistic, perhaps for psychological reasons. As regards the cartography of the genome, I think I mentioned recently that I had genetic testing for a mutation that leads to colon cancer, which means I have to get screened every year. If my brother had taken it five years ago it would have saved his life. I'm not a biologist, but would things like the Covid vaccine have even been possible without the mapping of the genome?
People are getting more attractive (leaving aside the in rate in obesity for those of us not into BBWs). You just have to watch films and TV from the 70's and 80's to see that. And it's not just about fashions, 40 year olds back then looked like 50 year olds do today.
Anyway, as I said - we don't have to wait long to determine whether it is all hype. My concern is that commentators here are entirely defeatist. Maybe you're right, but it doesn't make for a 'movement' or for activism. We surely need some hope in order to fight. (AF)
Yes, Jack, I don’t believe AI will be transformative until I see it. I have lived through so many hype cycles which amounted to nothing or very little. I remember all the hypes you mention. I remember when Deep Blue beat Kasparov at chess in 1997. Very impressive, but it didn’t change the world. Now AI can do a few more tricks. It can actually diagnose diseases very well if you tell it your symptoms, but curing is another matter which we are no closer to, least of all with the one disease which progresses like clockwork for all of us, which still can’t be slowed down a single second per year.
ReplyDeleteAI can’t even take enough jobs to move the unemployment rate noticeably. I think it will mainly raise expectations for what you are expected to do for the same pay. I doubt we get any better quality of life for that added efficiency, which will rather go towards making billionaires richer.
And AI will spy on us in creepy ways, seeing everything we see on our devices:
https://youtu.be/6bPJzLXdEcA?si=iDxxFlZ7rV1HtKHU
On new devices now end-to-end encryption is dead not because it doesn’t work anymore, but because your AI assistant is watching everything you type. You can still prevent this by using Linux but can’t have a private conversation unless the person you want to talk to does the same.
In the future, the old advice not to talk to cops will be obsolete because they can just interrogate your AI assistant anytime they want. It already is mostly obsolete because they have complete surveillance already. We are getting all the downsides and hardly any upsides to this technology.
I am impressed that some people get a sort of “friendship” out of the chatbots. Some very smart people I know does this. But this is more a disappointment with humanity to me because I don’t see this value myself. All I see is a new way to have information regurgitated that was initially better put by humans. Sure it can summarize and save you time, but it can’t do anything new and good.
"I remember when Deep Blue beat Kasparov at chess in 1997. Very impressive, but it didn’t change the world."
DeleteEverybody knew at the time that Deep Blue and other chess programs won with brute processing power. Still, it was a milestone and a demonstration of the information processing power that computers were now reaching, enabling them to do certain cognitive tasks better than even the best human. Around the same time, computers and the Internet were literally taking over the world.
"AI can’t even take enough jobs to move the unemployment rate noticeably."
Good thing about these predictions and the dismissals of them by philosophical Luddites is we don't have to wait very long. This year will see the release by all the top AI companies of 'autonomous AI agents". I agree that if in 12-18 months, there has still been no noticeable impact on the jobs market, then this was indeed all hype and you can call me out on it forevermore. On the other hand, if there is a clear impact, and you're still saying it's all hype, and confidently predicting peak oil etc, then I would go as far to say that anybody who still takes you seriously about anything you say would be borderline retarded. Personally, I had been paying for a virtual assistant in India to help me for a number of years, but now I can get AI to do everything he did in a week, in minutes - mostly for free.
This would have to be the biggest hype in human history. It might not cure disease in a decade, and certainly not turns all into hot teens, but any intelligent individual can see it will cause increasing social disruption over the next decade, likely starting in the next 2 or 3 years. I want to change our situation. I don't want to sit in my Ivory Tower waiting....and waiting...for peak oil and the collapse of civilization. I see an opportunity. AI is going to change the world, even it's 'no more' than how the Internet change the world. As activists, rather than would be leaders of sex cults, we need to understand it in order to possibly exploit it.
And yes, I agree that 'overhyped' AI will be used to spy on us. I think it's much more likely that AI will result in a dystopia and things being even worse for us, but in a small way, that might depend on us. (AF)
Deep Blue beat Kasparov not because it was more intelligent, but because it was much faster than him.
DeleteA computer cannot think, it can only perform very simple calculations according to algorithms that were taught to it by humans. The strength of that computer was that in a second it could analyze millions of possibilities, while Kasparov could analyze at most three or four.
Essentially, therefore, a computer is nothing more than a lightning fast idiot. But an idiot cannot be intelligent by definition. Therefore, AI does not exist.
Some good news for a change, and from Australia of all places-https://cairnsnews.org/2025/02/19/do-not-always-believe-a-sexual-assault-victim-nsw-police-charge-fraudulent-claimants-over-1b-paid-in-false-claims/ .
ReplyDeleteThe amount alleged to have been defrauded by alleged victims and laws firms that have been representing them is $1 billion, but more allegations could emerge.
Cops are attack dogs and will just as easily attack false accusers as innocent men if the tide turns. It's only a vibe but to me it seems that the cops themselves are actually p*ssed off about it.
A number of laws have been passed in NSW in recent years that make this kind of fraud easier, but these can be either repealed or countered by other legislation.
An example of the former is this-
"Civil libertarians say the former statute of limitations which prevented alleged claimants going back 20 or more years should be reinstated and the MeToo movement should be investigated for false claims."
Okay, it hasn't happened yet but until now it seemed inconceivable that any of these laws would be in the firing line at all. It's also remarkable that civil liberties groups, which have been so damned quiet about these crazy laws, are now weighing in on the subject.
In the case of the latter, there is a proposed Bill in NSW Parliament to outlaw claim farming, which is what it sounds like.
-Anonymous 2
Wow, this is huge. Up to now, if the police had to acknowledge a false accusation they have always included a sanctimonious statement about how rare it is and how they continue to take every single claim extremely seriously no matter how old it is, but this is different. It is the first time I have seen the abuse industry admit to any kind of systematic problem. And yes, the police can be repurposed to fight the other way. The lawyers, not so much unless there is money to be had addressing the false claims, and I don't really see a source for that.
DeleteIf in 12-18 months, there has still been no noticeable impact on the jobs market, then this was indeed all hype and you can call me out on it forevermore.
ReplyDeleteYes, we shall see. By 2027 AI needs to prove it can earn its keep and turn a profit in some measurable way. I will be the first to admit AI is impactful if unemployment goes up, unless it is obviously for other reasons like peak oil and financial collapse. If we get more unemployment AND society continues to function, with the same or better products and services we have available today, I will admit you were right about this. It doesn't need to prove AGI or sentience or any of that philosophical stuff. It just needs to become economically useful to many more than the grifters who hype and "research" it today and promise us all this stuff.
Another sign the times are changing?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c39vljzn0mlo
Rubiales the kisser gets a token fine. To someone like him €10,800 is nothing. Until recently there was talk of him going to jail.
Rubiales found guilty:
ReplyDeletehttps://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/20/sport/spain-rubiales-guilty-hermoso-kiss-intl/index.html
However, they rolled the hysteria back several notches compared to what prosecutors were asking for.
The Spanish High Court set a fine of $11,270 – to be paid as $21 daily instalments across 18-months – but acquitted former soccer boss Rubiales of coercion. Prosecutors had been seeking a two-and-a-half year prison sentence for the 47-year-old, but the ruling sees him avoid any jail time.
The ruling also banned Rubiales from going within a 200-meter (roughly 656 feet) radius of Hermoso, and from communicating with her for one year.
Yes, I would say the Rubiales verdict is a half victory. The time of infinite gullibility to "sexual abuse" might be ending.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time I don't know what to think of this:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyctJ7w7kxY
Drama about an immigrant raping & killing a woman. Of course it's not just anti-sex this time, it's also xenophobia. Female victimhood being used to fuel xenophobia. Maybe we should be thankful such a case is being used for anti-immigrant political purposes. Under the Democrats this would be recycled for misandric purposes only ("rape culture" etc.).
The "White Slavery" fear in the U.S. during the early 20th century was because of the immigration panic. In fact, it's many states decided to elevate their age of consent laws from 10-16 years of age as a result of this "fear".
DeleteAI is huge, people are having relationships with AI, it's actually incredible and will only get better. To what extent is it a robot if it's an amalgamation of all human input? You'd be hard pressed to find the difference anyway while interacting with your hot young AI girlfriend who never does anything to piss you off.
ReplyDeleteAlso, cops are surprisingly based about under 18 sex exactly because they know it's a hoax because they see the false complaints first hand. They see the supposed victim isn't really a victim, that the supposed victim is either manipulating or being manipulated by parents/authority figures in 99 out of 100 cases. But the laws are strictly feminist, and written in a way that the cops need to follow them to keep their job. Not saying cops are great at all, in fact they are scum, but compared to the politicians, the courts, the general feminist population of the west...they are saints.
anon69
Berge, do you remember what happened to Colleen Ballinger and the barrage of cancel culture she faced a couple years ago? Apparently her apology video wasn't enough and it was disliked into oblivion. In that case, what can you expect from a bunch of normies who never question the dogma that they are fed?
ReplyDeleteI didn’t keep up with it at the time, but see now on Wikipedia that the hysteria concerning Colleen Ballinger was one of the most absurd moments of both #Metoo and the female sex offender charade, except it luckily didn’t proceed to criminal charges. I would like to say this can’t happen again, but the reaction to Laura Caron makes me not so sure. Boy receives lingerie, lock woman up? Many normies are still insane enough to want that.
DeleteIn April 2020, 17-year-old fan and YouTuber Adam McIntyre accused Ballinger of "[enlisting] his unpaid help" for content he had suggested for her Miranda Sings social media accounts and of sending him lingerie when he was 13 years old. Ballinger responded that McIntyre had asked for the lingerie after it was offered in one of her livestreams as one of several joke gifts for fans; she said it had been poor judgment to send the underwear to him. She noted that she often uses comedy ideas suggested by fans but admitted that it had been a mistake to allow the young fan to post directly to her Twitter account for a day without carefully vetting the content that he posted. Ballinger also addressed criticism of some of her older videos satirizing Latina and overweight women, agreeing that they were insensitive and apologizing for having posted them. Afterwards, McIntyre continued to post videos criticizing Ballinger.
In June 2023, YouTuber Kodee Dahl, another former fan, posted "purported screenshots" of a group chat of Ballinger participating with minors, including McIntyre, then about 15, where he asked for suggestions for a Q&A on his YouTube channel. Ballinger suggests "Are you a virgin?" and asks McIntyre his favorite sex position. Dahl's video led to renewed accusations by McIntyre and allegations by other former fans and employees, including of racial insensitivity on the set of Haters Back Off. Ballinger posted a video in response while singing and playing the ukulele. She admitted that she had made mistakes but denied being a groomer and called the accusations "lies" and "gossip [...] made up for clout". The video received negative comments and was widely parodied online.
AI cracks superbug problem in two days that took scientists years. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyz6e9edy3o
ReplyDeleteThe tool - Google Co-scientist - was only released yesterday. https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/google-develops-ai-co-scientist-aid-researchers-2025-02-19/
https://engineering.berkeley.edu/news/2025/02/new-ai-breakthrough-can-model-and-design-genetic-code-across-all-domains-of-life/
DeleteI've been studying Marx lately - because there's clearly something to be learnt about the sex war, and its relationship to 'economics', with his analysis of class war and economics. Anyway, I've been reading about Charles Fourier, an early utopian socialist who influenced him. Fourier believed in socialist communes, where not only property and labour would be shared, but also sex. He was probably the first writer to discuss sex redistribution and the problem of incels. He was a fascinating character. He was also one of the first male feminists, but he can hardly be blamed for that, as he would have no idea that women would restrict male sexual opportunities when given power. I'll quote from an article about him, but it's quite long so I'll put it in another comment. (AF)
ReplyDeletehttps://libcom.org/article/fourier-and-computer-dating-joan-roelofs
ReplyDeleteHow was the minimum to be assured? To some extent, Fourier expected his society to produce conditions in which everyone would get into the act. “First love is said to leave a lasting impression. Thus the free play of this passion is particularly important in Harmony. Since the choice is free, there will be relatively few lads who become passionately attached to lasses of their own age. Nature loves contrasts and readily links people of disparate ages. Furthermore, so many friendly relations are established in Harmony between people of widely divergent ages that it will become commonplace for a young lad to begin his amorous career with an elderly woman and for a young girl to begin with a mature man. Of course there is nothing predetermined about the matter since everyone’s choice will be free ...”23 More persuasive aids to assortment would be provided by the rules of love and the “courts” which enforced them. Young people voluntarily enrolled in the “Damselate” were expected to practice fidelity “until they have finished their education.”24 But: “. . . [No one is expelled from the Damselate until he or she has committed three infidelities and one inconsistancy. . . . Only half an infidelity is counted if a Damsel has an affair with one of the priests or priestesses who, in view of their age, are given special advantages . . . . A homosexual affair is only counted as half an infidelity. . . . Any Damsel may redeem an infidelity by spending two nights with an elderly priest or priestess.”25 “Angelic couples” - exceptionally handsome and beautiful lovers - would gain glory by sharing themselves with twenty admirers each. “We will see how a pure, refined and transcendent sentimental relationship will not reach physical consummation until the two lovers have had physical relations with all who ardently desire them. We will see how by this act of amorous philanthropy they will obtain the same glory that civilization gives to a Decius or a Regulus and other such martyrs for religious or political principles.”26
Redesigning genetics is only useful for cell that divide. Our brain cells don't divide. They just die, and that is our fate even if all other tissues could be rejuvenated. We would still have an old, demented, dying brain at the usual limit of the human lifespan.
ReplyDeleteWe used to imagine tiny machines that could go in and fix things at a cellular level, but nanotechnology was another hype that didn't work out (probably physically impossible so it never will).
The best technology to get more out of life remains nofap.
https://x.com/kimmonismus/status/1892963337635258757
DeleteFeminists are on a warpath, they are scared to hell, of AI deepfake tools that allow men to perceive young hot girls naked without feminist approval, because that is the latest escape from the feminist hell they have created for us:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.context.news/big-tech/deepfake-porn-tools-bypass-safeguards-to-hide-in-apple-app-store
Here are the people behind such organizations getting funding to attack the best new innovation that gives men some relief from this insane feminist prison with AI:
https://www.tides.org/about/leadership/
As you can see, they are the opposite of MAGA right wing people. MAGA people are just really really stupid, and just like to follow laws because they're dumb (the "law and order" party is conservatives). However, the people who make the laws the conservatives blindly follow are clearly mostly left-wing.
Therefore, AF's theory of focusing the fight against these disgusting feminist left wing new abolitionists is indeed paramount for sexual freedom to bang hot young girls again.
anon69
It is time for another reminder that the meaning of life is not just to "perceive." That is a solipsistic ideal which can be satisfied by fantasies and is therefore meaningless. It is also important that what we perceive be real. Therefore I don't particularly care if feminists want to ban AI deepfake tools. They are barking up the wrong tree and it's just as well that their antisexual energy is wasted that way instead of making more obstacles to actual sex. All I care about is to meet girls in real life.
Delete@anon69 Well said, and great job researching the leadership of that NGO. This is the type of activism we need. Feminists are lobbying for laws that will criminalise maybe even more millions of men, all to shore up the sexual market value of their aging, unloved pussies. We need to fight them, not shrug our shoulders and say we don't care because the men are metaphysical wankers (whilst being too timid to actually approach and meet girls in the real world themselves). In the UK it's gone utterly insane. They're even passing laws to lock men up for merely owning AI deepfake tools. But Eivind only cares about some whore sucking 13 year old Tryone BBC getting a slap on the wrist. They're even calling women who have been deepfaked 'survivors'. I mean, when you've just watched a family member die slowly in agony from cancer, you realize how insanely sick feminists truly are. I even read about an OnlyFans whore recently who got deepfaked, and they're calling even her a 'survivor'! (AF)
DeleteRegarding this link:
ReplyDeletehttps://x.com/kimmonismus/status/1892963337635258757
The video shows a remote-controlled nanobot guiding a sperm. Yes, this can be done but it's much too big to do anti-aging maintenance work on our bodies the way our fantasies went in the 1990s when it still seemed realistic. You need something like Drexlerian nanotech for that, which is not under development and perhaps impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_assembler
This hype came with its own doomsday scenario similar to what many believe about AI today. I remember being slightly worried about "gray goo" myself which feels stupid now that we know how unrealistic it was.
One potential scenario that has been envisioned is out-of-control self-replicating molecular assemblers in the form of gray goo which consumes carbon to continue its replication. If unchecked, such mechanical replication could potentially consume whole ecoregions or the whole Earth (ecophagy), or it could simply outcompete natural lifeforms for necessary resources such as carbon, ATP, or UV light (which some nanomotor examples run on). However, the ecophagy and 'grey goo' scenarios, like synthetic molecular assemblers, are based upon still-hypothetical technologies that have not yet been demonstrated experimentally.
My bests prediction is still that AI will go the way of nanotech. We will get (already have) some moderately useful tools, but it won't solve the big problems like aging or the need to work for a living.
And no, I can't be bothered to be concerned about deepfake criminalization because there is no sexual value in it that they can take away from us. My general attitude is to be in favor freedom to play around with information any way one likes, and I do oppose such laws on that basis, but it's not a sexualist issue. The feminists are equally deluded as the wankers thinking there is sexual significance in this. Of course it is absurd to call deepfaked girls survivors for the same reason that the faker or wanker got no closer to a girl, so the whole thing is a non-issue to our activism.
@Anonymous 2
ReplyDelete“I was once speaking to someone I liked and respected with somewhat similar ideas about the world, and the topic of "paedophiles" came up and he said he though anyone who had sex with a person under 18 should be executed.”
The logic of the person you were speaking to can easily be refuted. If he is very much preaching undeniable execution for anyone who has sex with a minor, is he also referring to the 18 year olds that have coitus with 17 year olds and the minors that have sex with other minors, or should they be sent to the slaughterhouse as well? If so, that’s amusing as his statement is utterly illogical and foolish.
I didn't ask him but I would say he'd allow for a close in age exemption, probably quite narrow-he did advocate for the death penalty after all LOL.
DeletePeople just LOVE close in age exemptions. They think that close in age exemptions just blow any ideas about not raising the age of consent out of the water-"take that, paedophile!"
-Anonymous 2
Don't take trolls seriously. Social media is full of losers who can't figure out a life. And precisely because they know they can't amount to anything, they can only elevate themselves above others by putting them down. As R.M. Huber said: "The suffering of the rich is among the sweetest pleasures of the poor."
ReplyDeleteJust let them live in their misery, as was said above.
Quote: "All I care about is to meet girls in real life."
ReplyDeleteIf that were true Eivind, you would spend your time gathering intelligence about countries where you can shoot your load in a girl for 10 euros and where 20 euros will get you a hot young cutie for the whole night. Owing to globalization, such countries are getting fewer in number. Madagascar is still such a country.
I don't live there for many reasons, one of them being that I can spend 10 times that on a girl and still live in a fully civilized country.
What I'm telling you should do would get you closer to "meet young girls in real life rather of hoding out as a no-fap ermit in a country where post-menopausal MILFs charge 300 euros for a lousy rub-and-tug. I have a monthly sex budget of 6000 euros and I know I could not get laid in a country like Norway even if I badly wanted to. Do you think Norwegian hot teens will fall for your no-fap halo? After they come back from Dubai where they got paid 3000 euro/day on a cruise? You should get real with yourself. No-fap is a dead end.
That's an impressive sex budget, Jack. If I had anywhere near that I would't be hanging around here. I don't have resources to relocate at this time, but nofap is always useful to optimize your life and maximize your chances with what you have.
DeleteEivind appears to have nothing to show for his NoFap self-torture, despite having low or non-existant standards. He admits he doesn't approach girls. Maybe NoFap would motivate him to research the best places to pay for sex, but now he says he isn't doing even that. For all we can tell, he just sits in his cabin hoping for the occasional Tinder chubby match, or to get lucky through FertileDating, or better yet, a horny female fan join his 'Sexualist' movement. I mean, if somebody like Andrew Tate calls me and Jack wankers for occasionally fapping to porn, that's fair enough. If a guy who rarely ventures out of his cabin and has a picture of a naked BBW on his wall does it, that's just epic scale cringe. And as it happens, Andrew Tate thinks NoFap is nonsense.
Delete@Jack - the other week I paid a 19 YO Ukrainian sex worker 40 Euros to give me a body to body massage. It ended with her tugging me off. Jesus, it was bliss. God knows where she learnt those skills. BTW, whenever I'm seeing a pro, I make sure to fap the day before so I don't ejaculate too quickly. (AF)
Indeed, if the weather is bad it is the fappers' fault!
ReplyDeleteWhere did this societal obsession with the number "18" come from? What's so special about this number (even if it has no biological merit) to point where we infantilize anything below it? Do you think part of reason why "18" is seen as the "adult" number is simply because governments around the world have said so and you must believe it? So theoretically, if an 18 year old was considered underaged, then will society start infantilizing that number as well because the perception that illegalness = wrongfulness?
ReplyDeleteMost importantly, what makes "sex" so unique and complex to the point where it must be restricted only to adults? Why is it that teenagers can drive, participate in community and humanitarian services, perform rigorous mathematical functions, take college-level courses in high school, excel in competitive gaming, dispose themselves in geopolitical affairs (i.e. Greta Thunberg and her climate change activism), become master computer coders, produce their own musical pieces, and even fly a plane (Yes, that's a real thing...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSdY-qvo9cY), but are considered unable to consent with an older individual, especially if such individual has supposed "metaphysical power" like a teacher or an employer?
We give them the "green-light" when it comes to various skill-based pastimes, but declare as cognitively-invalid when to deal with sex? Children and teenagers are frequently punished and acknowledged for their nonsexual behavior and actions, socially and criminally, Yet, when it involves an older person and sex, we predispose them with the "grooming" label (even though that is literally not something you actually prove). Teens who break the law are slapped with a criminal record and we even put them into sex offender treatment if such deed involves sex. Let's a say a younger person robs a bank with an older individual. In this scenario, society blames both participating members for their responsibility. I mean, we don't say "Oh, he/she was groomed into robbing a bank because they were promised the wealth of money", do we? If two same-aged peers engage in drug-related activities, we point fingers at "either or" for instigating the "reckless and dangerous" behavior, even though both are the same age. Why doesn't this logic apply to the "sexual" behavior?
On the topic of "grooming", if you tell an 18 year old girl that she's "pretty" and that you "love you" her, it's not considered "grooming"? If you somehow ask the same exact question to girl one year less and if she reciprocates any affection back, then she's apparently been "groomed"? Literally makes no sense. Heck, why isn't anyone questioning the logic behind the usage of these words? The disparities are so blatantly obvious. Even the sound of the word "grooming" and how it's frequently used makes me seether. Who's pushing this agenda? The abuse industry? The media? Who exactly?
Well, one huge reason today that 18 is the magical figure is because feminists and femiservatives persuaded the United Nations to define a child as anybody under 18 back in the 1980's. There was a lot of American pressure for that, obviously. But really 18 was the highest that feminists could get away with. Feminists in the UK originally wanted the age of consent to be 21. It would have been a hard sell for them to convince most of the world that a 20 year old is a child. It's incredible that they succeeded in setting the definition as high as 18. I believe it was something of a compromise. NGO feminist 'child protection' charities wanted the UN to mandate a global age of consent, but many South American countries and the like objected.
DeleteYes, feminists invent all these terms such as 'grooming'. They literally have the power to coerce or mandate that journalists use certain terms. For example, have you ever wondered why the media rarely uses the term 'child porn' now? It's because feminists told everybody to use the term 'child sex abuse material (csam)' instead. They've recently invented their own 'approved' name for deepfake porn - some crap like 'non-consensual image based abuse'. (AF)
Indeed, 18 was the highest feminists could get away with, and the first wave feminists 100 years ago wanted 21 as well. In fact, raising the age of consent was the key focus of the earliest women's privilege advocates. https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/2020/09/18/a-white-life-for-two-1890/
ReplyDeleteIf you want to educate someone why fake "sex abuse" crimes exist for banging hot teens, while those same teens can fly planes, master calculus, and go to prison for murder, just look at the incentives. Men and women win when more competent pilots exist, when more high level professors are produced, and when murderers go to jail. Older women lose when desirable men pursue young attractive girls, whose window of attractiveness expires quickly. Also, insecure baby boy simp man-children perceive themselves to lose when another man bangs a young, attractive girl, especially when she's hotter than his fat, intolerable, ugly old stupid wife.
However, if simps weren't brainwashed by feminism and raised by a completely misandrist culture, they could see there is no reason to be jealous because so many things can be done to address male sexual jealousy so everyone wins. Legal prostitution, recommended by Vlad Putin recently, is one such easy solution. Education on the nature of women and how to game them for sex is absolutely essential for a man to feel secure. Legalization and encouragement of AI girlfriends and pornography greatly reduces dependence on women for sexual satisfaction and women's privileges. And of course, eliminating the age of consent completely to open the playing field which gives men more sexual choices and removes extortion power from women.
Honestly, alot seems to be ignorance, marketing, and "keeping the slaves on the plantation." When a man travels to other countries outside of the corrupt, english speaking west, the above things are more possible, and a man can see the stark differences between misandrist and less misandrist countries. That is one reason why the feminists have pursued international social media companies so fiercely, they want to close the window to other cultures that men can perceive from their couch, while also using an international medium to brainwash other less feminist cultures into feminism, so there is no escape for a man to go to a friendlier place.
Feminists (left and right wing, doesn't matter) are the most insidious, contemptible, odious pieces of sewer sludge on the planet.
anon69
On the topic of teachers, what’s so special about the “position of trust” rhetoric that we (as in society) use against them for persecution? We scream about power dynamics but we don’t show any legitimate proof of that. Surely, any members that are involved can just leave voluntarily and not participate on their own accord, lest they be forced or threatened against their “will”, which we know the vast majority of these relationships/cases are nothing of that sort. There’s also the evidence showcasing anyone with even a few brain cells can recognize what sex is and what they want to do about it. Teenagers can consent and recognize and distinguish between relationships they do and do not approve of—not what society preaches about it.
ReplyDeleteWouldn’t these types of relationships also get pursued because of their financial/socioeconomic value (mentor figure, want to be taken care of by an older person)? Don’t Teen boys seek out cougar MILFs? Social media is in “talks” of a supposed “cougar epidemic”, but I don’t see any of that with my own two eyes. What about Teen girls? Don’t they want older guys (I.e. sugar daddies, DILFs)?
A glimmer of hope, not because of the content, but because it's not Jordan Peterson speaking this time, it's the USVP!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRW1huhDPpg
Start viewing at 1:45
“I think that my message to young men is don’t allow this broken culture to send you a message that you’re a bad person because you’re a man, because you like to tell a joke, because you like to have a beer with your friends, or because you’re competitive.”
DeleteWell said, Mr. Vance. You have your foot in the right place. People like him and President Trump are not only an inspiration to those that look up to them, but also those who want to fight for what is right, not for what others tell them what is right. Feminism has completely warped the public perception about men and their wants and desires, often stereotyping them as dangerous perverts and predators for simply rejuvenating romantic and masculine bonds between themselves and other women and girls. Now women collect crippling fears about rape and sexual harassment, that rip and tear men apart until there is nothing left of them because they want to justify those fears about “evil and toxic masculinity.”
My vote for Trump and Vance back in November symbolized hope that us Americans truly want back, so we don’t have to live under constant oppression from the matriarchal status quo to tell us what to think.
JD Vance is a twat, and his statement is garbage. He can talk all day about how a man should feel or whatever ghey shit comes out of his mouth, he has done nothing to change any laws, and would be first in line to disavow the phrase "don't allow this broken culture to send you a message that you're a bad person because you're a man, because you like to have sex with young girls." Great, so you can feel good about being a man as they haul you off to jail for a hoax crime. He's a complete f*ggot trying to keep men on the feminist slave plantation known as the USA by appealing to vague masculine sentiments that mean nothing.
ReplyDeleteNow here is a hero to talk about - Blake Robert Johnston - https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0910/903600-johnston-abuse/
He was on fire, using the internet to seduce the young ladies from around the world with incredible skill. He really angered the feminists, check out how the brutal oppressive US lesbian lawyers magically redefine Blake's loving relationship with a sexy, willing 14 year old who said she loved his precum because it "tasted so good," into that of a "Victim" and abuser:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.281873.1.0.pdf
anon69
@Anon69
DeleteThe way the article is worded and written pretty explains why the American public has been living in constant fear over these “crimes”. Yet, the court document you provided seems to give a different picture than what that article in the media reported. Why is that? Sensationalism?
I included the article solely to make it easy to become familiar with the story, and the court document is ludicrous as it defines a "Victim" as an obvious willing participant enjoying herself. However, what I didn't realize was, as you said, when the article is compared to the court document, the court document actually ends up looking benign next to the article, which is entirely sensational and hysterical. You can imagine that article is written in the same fashion as the prosecutor's argument. It's the chicken and egg, which entity is drawing influence from the other? If the media isn't sensational, it becomes much harder to make a big deal out of the facts in the court document. If the prosecutor isn't sensational, it becomes much harder to make a big deal in the media about the facts in the court document.
DeleteAh but there's the difference, the media can then make a big deal about the prosecutor's lack of toughness against "evil pedophile child sexual abuse rape." So, the problem is the media, which caters to a stupid, hypocritical, miserable, feminized population willing to accept the propaganda. The problem is the society.
anon69
@anon69-Yes, JD Vance is a twat, very much in the same mould as Ron DiSantis and Texas Governor Greg Abbott with his support for/lack of opposition to anti male and paedohysterical laws and attitudes. There's nothing about him that might give some hope, in contrast with Trump possibly.
DeleteI'd like to know where these pro-Trump, pro-Vance comments have come from all of a sudden. The comments are a bit contrived IMHO, as if whoever or whatever made them is using this forum as a stalking horse to praise Trump and Vance. But why here and why now?
-Anonymous 2
A rather disgusting story here-
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14432439/Colin-Behan-queensland-cup.html .
I assume that no-one accused of a sexual offence against a minor should ever be allowed a character reference.
-Anonymous 2
Yes, the problem is society, and don't forget society is half men. It is not helpful to claim one group is mind-controlling the other. At most we can assert that women benefit more from all this construction of fake victimhood, which is true, but then the state is happy to persecute women too on the same pretext. This gives us a tiny bit of hope that the media will turn against the state again which they have actually done with Laura Caron. We need more of that kind of coverage constantly and then maybe there can be some change in the right direction. Meanwhile we can be the change we want to see in the world, which means undermining the CSA hoax all the time every step of the way in our lives. I wish you would all drop the anonymity and do that the same way I am.
ReplyDeleteWomen started trying to turn back the male sexual freedoms enabled by the pill almost as soon as they realized that they were the 'losers' in the sexual revolution of the 60's. A handful of women getting sentenced under the laws women make to restrict male sexuality, compared to hundreds of thousands of men worldwide, doesn't make it the fault of 'society' or ' cultural drift' or 'Platonic Forms' or any other abstract metaphysical notion .
DeleteYou keep bragging about being 'public' Eivind. Can you point to one single benefit it has brought either you or our cause aside from ridicule? I do recall that before you became slightly well-known in Norway, you were a lot more radical - for example your 'rape is equality' article (which first brought you some notoriety).
Berge, what’s a good way to argue against the position of trust/authority argument?
ReplyDeleteIt’s a giant non sequitur. Even if there is a position of authority or trust, it does not follow that sex is abuse, or else you might as well lock up a lunch lady who serves healthy meals at school and claim her position vitiates the food. You have to look independently on the sexual relationship to see if it was a bad thing, can’t just assume. So the whole system is set up to use insufficient evidence to define abuse. Being a teacher is insufficient evidence of abuse just like age is; both kind of laws are evil and retarded. I think originally the law was worded (and sometimes still is) more like “abuse of position” rather than in categorical terms like “rape by an authority figure” due to the mere fact of sex with teacher, which left open the possibility that it was not abuse, but I don’t see that kind of honest scrutiny being applied anymore before pressing charges. Nowadays everyone just retardedly assumes sex with a teacher is ispo facto abuse just like they assume age of consent refers to a necessary fact. Female teachers are our only hope left to reassert reality, which still happens when normies comment on these news stories that they wish they had been so lucky, but the justice system is its own separate universe hermetically sealed off from actual experience contrary to their abuse definitions.
Delete@ Berge
DeleteBrilliantly stated, but critics will argue that it’s not about the sex but the “power” one has over the other. The “trust” position, assuming one was entrusted not to “break” any rules. But that’s the thing, the law in books labels exploitation as exploitation, regardless if we or the “victim(s)” feel that way. If others don’t like it, do we have to assume that it’s bad because others believe it to be so? This idea of “power”, is it intrinsically exercised or is it just natural? People assume that “trust position” and “power” inherently benefits/advantages one party, but not the other. Though, let’s be serious here. If these relationships were legitimately exploitative (threats, force, blackmail, etc.), then the younger member involved can easily avoid it, cut it off, or report it because it’s already illegal. If a student knew that he/she was in jeopardy, then it’s take no effort to easily ruin their lives too.
But in reality, nothing more than love and sex is gained. If no one is harmed, then what’s the big deal. People have sex and move on with their lives. No one is damaged beyond repair. If you readJudith Levine’s controversial 2002 book, Harmful To Minors: The Perils of Protecting the Children from Sex, then you’ll know that she recommends that age of consent laws should based on a “Dutch model” where it would be legal for anyone 12-16 to have sex with whomever they want, but can report or go to the authorities (make it/declare it) illegal if they feel exploited. I know that’s probably a whole another can of worms, but the fact is we base our whole system on “believing the victims”, yet only see these relationships from the eyes of others and not from the eyes within, all that nuance is lost. This is especially true if parents or other adults who have custody over their minors don’t of approve of the relationship(s), can easily make the excuse that since minors are legally bound by the precedent ingrained within the law (can’t buy a house, sign contracts, loans from the bank, etc.), then it’s automatically exploitive in their eyes since minors are declared “powerless” by the laws anyway.
I know this doesn’t just apply to teachers, but cops can’t have sex with regular people they arrest, non-disabled people can’t have sex with disabled people (mentally or physically), correctional officers can’t have sex with inmates, and one non-intoxicated person can’t have sex with an intoxicated person. So, essentially it’s more about the “risk of exploitation”, so we put it into a one-size-fits-all category to generalize all of it. “Position of trust” laws are like “Child Porn laws”, the victimology, anti-sex industry just doesn’t want these crimes normalized (because they are taboo), so they demonize it to the extent to showcase that you can’t cross that line because of its “risk” element.
College students may have sex with their professors and they’re fine. Bosses may have sex with their employers and they’re fine. Just look at affairs Chris Hansen and Bill Clinton had. Yet, we don’t call them predators. Both feature two people with different occupations, but doesn’t literally mean one used power against them. People have all sorts of reasons to fall in love.
But if one can consent and know exactly what they are getting into, then they are not being taken advantage of. The word “grooming” that’s used to describe these relationships is also a non-sequitur. I’ve already went over the problem with that word, but people have a choice, then it’s not exploitative. Sex and romance don’t become the hardest thing in the world to comprehend.
"But in reality, nothing more than love and sex is gained. If no one is harmed, then what’s the big deal. People have sex and move on with their lives."
DeleteBut they don't. Women, in vast numbers, say the willing sex they had with an older lover at 14 was abuse and has left them 'scarred'. Do you and Eivind and the Maps seriously think that we would have these laws and abuse hysteria if women in their thousands or millions were saying - "well, hang on a moment - I was banged by an older man when I was 13 and it didn't do me any harm. Why are we locking up tens of thousands of men as paedophiles for showing teen girls a good time?". But they're not, are they? Well, except Judith Levine. And there's Judith Levine. And there was that US feminist academic a couple of decades ago...oh, yeah, that was Judith Levine too.
It's great that you think 13 year olds aren't harmed by sex. It's great that Eivind thinks 13 year olds aren't harmed by sex and anybody who disagrees must be a Platonist. But it doesn't matter does it, when women say they were harmed?
Oh yeah, men are 49% of society. And guess what? Men are genetically hardwired to believe the other 51%, especially when women present themselves as victims.
And 99% of those 'lucky boy' comments are men. They instinctively know the boy isn't harmed, because they were boys once. They believe it is different for girls, because girls (or rather women) tell them it is different. (Hell, even Eivind tells them it's different for girls (and that rape is worse than murder for women!!!)). You will NEVER see female Daily Mail readers leaving 'lucky girl' comments underneath a story about a male teacher caught with a 13 year old girl. That's the heart of our problem. You can analyze age of consent 'arguments' to your deaths. You can write books on them. You can fantasize like Eivind that most women would be happy to see men allowed to bang 13 year old cuties. But you'll never get anywhere until you pull your heads out of your MAP behinds and confront the fact that it will never be in the sexual interests of women to allow men to freely pursue young girls. It's a sex war, whether you like It or not. Not an intellectual argument where the person using the most Latin phrases wins. (AF)
What do we make of this case?
ReplyDeletehttps://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/24/europe/france-scouarnec-child-abuse-trial-intl/index.html?iid=cnn_buildContentRecirc_end_recirc
Supposedly the biggest abuse trial in French history or something, with 299 victims. My impression is that there might be some real abuse here since the doctor admits medically inappropriate examinations, but then they lose their minds with metaphysical belief:
Although many of the children were under sedation during the alleged abuse, the effect on their lives has been all too tangible, per court documents. The documents describe psychological analyses of the alleged victims often showing persistent troubles, notably in their later sexual relations and on their self-confidence, following their hospitalizations under Le Scouarnec... “We have victims in real, genuine suffering. We have people who are anorexic, who are depressed, who can’t have children, who can’t have sex with their partner. It’s all these anomalies in quotation marks, unexplained by their doctors, who say to themselves, “How is this possible?” lawyer Satta said. Among those she represents are two families of men who had allegedly been abused by Le Scouarnec and died by suicide years later.
Okay, no doubt some of these people have real problems and obviously the doctor should not have been doing this without consent, but how does this compare to a random sample of the population such as similar patients who were not abused? There is something very fishy about claiming your body reacts to sexual touch while sedated with all sorts of later problems but not to the pain of being cut open with a scalpel. What is so special about "sexual abuse"?
Looks like mass hysteria to me and another example of infinite gullibility to the black magic of CSA. If I said I had PTSD from the pain I couldn't feel during surgery nobody would believe me. Saying the same about sexual abuse one was unaware of should require extraordinary evidence as well, but somehow everyone believes it without question.
The Daily Mail ran this story the other day with the headline - "I am a proud paedophile." My heart was in my mouth when I saw it, expecting to see Eivind finally getting the attention he craves! But seriously, it does demonstrate the foolishness of Eivind calling himself that. That is what society sees as a 'proud paedophile' - somebody who anally rapes 5 year olds under anaesthetic. About as far away from the normal male sexual attraction to teenage girls as is possible.
DeleteNon-disabled people can’t have sex with disabled people (mentally or physically), correctional officers can’t have sex with inmates, and one non-intoxicated person can’t have sex with an intoxicated person. So, essentially it’s more about the “risk of exploitation.”
ReplyDelete*Risk* of exploitation? That idea exists with cops and prison guards and is arguably real for them because of the obvious power they have. Even then it should not be conceptualized as a sex crime, however, unless the victim feels like a victim (but I guess it usually would be, except in the case of female prison guards… I’ve yet to see them portrayed as “abusers”; their crime is rather against prison security).
I have never seen the persecution of teachers presented in terms of risk. It is always presented as real abuse, so you are giving the antisex bigots too much credit for operating on a less insane (but still not reasonable) principle. Teachers don’t have so much power that it would be reasonable to ban sex altogether, at least not with teens.
With intoxication, at least in Norway the idea is not that intoxicated people are only supposed to have sex with each other, but that intoxicated men are judged as if they are sober. If a woman is deemed too intoxicated to consent, she can’t consent to intoxicated men either, so there is no special pass for drunk men to have sex with them. This is a feminist law which infantilizes and overprotects women but slightly less bizarre than elevating drunk men to morally better men than sober men much like age of consent does assume males under the age of consent are morally superior to adult men and hence makes it legal or tolerated for them to statutorily rape girls close in age.
We also don’t have a law saying that non-disabled people can’t have sex with disabled people. Here the “abuse of position or trust” law could be used but it would at least in theory only be applicable if there is actual exploitation, leaving open the possibility that disabled people can consent much like I said it should be for teachers. I’ve heard the latest feminist laws in Japan do go so far as to ban all sex with disabled people, however, and that may well be the emerging dogma of the global elite which shall be enforced everywhere. Perhaps you are more updated on the antisex Zeitgeist than I am. These things do tend to standardize and it is often the countries like Japan who formerly had the most liberal laws that adapt the most extremely draconian restrictions first once they reform their laws at all.
The Dutch model would be similar to how I think it should be for teachers too (except there really should be some objective criteria in addition, not JUST age or position and regret). Also I don’t think this model exists anymore.
And damn, I caught myself engaging in some sex-exceptionalism of my own there. What I just argued for is far better than the current laws, but wouldn’t it be better to do away with all reference to sex in the laws altogether? Because if we leave open the ability to prosecute “abuse of position” as a sex crime at all, history shows it will get out of hand and be abused all the time. The abuse of the sex laws is now worse than any sexual abuse ever was, so at the end of the day I must say the only ethical position is to be against all sex laws, even if this means some nasty people (such as cops) get away with things they shouldn’t (but there are still limits because other laws against nonsexual assault can be used).
You keep bragging about being 'public' Eivind. Can you point to one single benefit it has brought either you or our cause aside from ridicule?
ReplyDeleteSure, most of my media attention wouldn't have been possible without showing my face. I doubt I would get so much AI love without being so open either. And speaking of that, anybody tried asking Grok 3 who I am yet? It would be sweet given how much Elon Musk hates us if his AI does a reasonable job conveying what kind of activist I am.
AI would 'know' your blog whether or not you were using your real name. It doesn't appear to be aware of your skit on the Incel show, or the Cannes black comedy, or even your arrest for threatening pigs. Your 'media exposure' hasn't brought the movement anything really. Maybe 2 or 3 Norwegian readers who lurk in the shadows for the most part. Compare with somebody like Angry Harry. You just don't come across as a serious person in real life. It also appears to have affected your integrity. I doubt if you would have changed the name of the 'movement' to 'sexualist', and go out of your way to constantly absolve women of any blame, if you didn't hope to attract a horny female fan as a result of being 'public'. Fat Matt Forney was 1,000 x more effective as the dashing 'Ferdinand Bardemu'. Roissy/Heartiste lost much of his power when he was doxxed and people saw he was a Jewish stockbroker or whatever. Even Angry Harry saw no benefit from being more 'public' in his last years. Unless you have some real world charisma, it's counterproductive being public, and definitely not a good idea outside of Norway (which you seem unable to grasp). Even in Norway, it's cost you any chance of getting laid outside of turning our cause into some private sex cult for yourself.
DeleteAs far as activism is concerned, I can't recall you making a practical suggestion in the 20 years you've been blogging. And to say all I do is complain about the sexual trade union, that's like Paul Elam accusing MRAs of constantly blaming feminists for misandry (whilst claiming women are the real victims). If you egotistically set yourself up as a 'leader', change the name of the 'movement' in the hope of getting laid, alienate millions of 'wankers' when any imbecile can see porn fans are increasingly our only hope as laws against porn accelerate, alienate incels when any imbecile can see they are the only group that not only puts the fear of God into feminists but where a male sexual 'consciousness' is emerging, and obsess over a handful of sluts not getting the pussy pass for banging 13 year old BBC in class, then have the decency to allow criticism.
Just quick note regarding the AF's constant insults against MAPs (and nofap, and the idea that it is possible to conduct activism against the sex laws in other ways than belaboring the feminist sexual trade union all the time). Just because I don't respond doesn't mean I agree. I just get tired of arguing the same points over and over.
ReplyDeleteOk, once again...
ReplyDeleteWomen, in vast numbers, say the willing sex they had with an older lover at 14 was abuse and has left them 'scarred'.
Is there any evidence that is anything more than a historical aberration and cultural programming?
Other great civilizations had their feminist movements before collapsing, but I don't recall this idea emerging in any civilization but ours. It is not intrinsic to women. Show me how this is any more universal than an insane fad which has existed at most since the late 1800s.
We can imagine a radical feminist society where instead of the CSA hoax you have a rule that men and women will be free to sleep with anyone they want including young teens, so long as they first sleep with the uglier members of the opposite sex. That’s not my idea, but rather Aristophanes imagining feminism run amok in his play “Assemblywomen” written in 391 BC.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblywomen
While not exactly a male utopia, I think we can all agree it is better than the current insane idea that young girls are damaged for life by sex.
In a different scene, a young girl waits for her boyfriend Epigenes to arrive as an old woman is out looking for a date. They exchange vulgar insults and go inside their homes as Epigenes enters the scene, lamenting the new laws governing sex. He and the girl both speak of their desire for one another, but are interrupted by the old woman. Citing the new law, the old woman attempts to force Epigenes to sleep with her first. As the young girl and the old woman fight over the boy, two more old women enter and drag him away against his will.
Okay, you have to sleep with an old woman for every 13-year-old girl you bang. Not perfect, but sure beats getting locked up and to be fair, social norms must take into account the desires of both sexes in one way or another. That can be done in rather cute ways like this or really ugly ways like carcereal feminism.
Again, there is nothing inevitable about the CSA hoax as the only way to express female nature. Blame the culture, not women. The superstition this culture came up with in the 1980s which blames the sex you had under 18 for every problem later in life is so insane that Aristophanes couldn’t have imagined it. If some feminist had thought of it at the time, the culture still wouldn’t have believed it for another 2371 years. That’s how unusual it is and it will surely vanish again too -- the question is only when.
The Antifeminist goes to a prostitute(and not wanking the day before) just to get jerked off by a different hand than his own. If that's not pathetic.
ReplyDeleteHaha, I expect Eivind to bring that up, not one of his retarded paedophile acolytes. The reason I mentioned it was to any normal non-autist, having your naked oiled body rubbed against that of a 19 year old Ukrainian babe for 30 minutes in every way possible, ending in a sublime handjob, would be top notch sex. But to Eivind, it's using up sexual resources to save for the billion to one chance of a chubby turning up at his door asking for a fuck.
DeleteIndeed, no comment by women in the Daily Mail similar to men's comments. Althoug I wouldn't put it past the Daily Mail or any other newspaper to censor such comments by female members, if they existed. Maybe we should become "female" members and post our own un-PC comments?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, until further notice it seems with women, being seen as a victim trumps being truthful about your own past. Sad. Never mind whether this started around 1800 or was already there long before that. I think the worm was in the apple long before, probably as far back as the end of Antiquity. It's just that we don't know where to look.
Sex with men is something females are ashamed of and will be in denial about, regardless of whether they wanted it and enjoyed it.
Women may well have a latent propensity to play victim. This is just another way to say they rely on men for protection against other men because they are weaker. Very well, but it takes two to play that game: society must believe their victimology. Why on earth would society believe that women can have WILLING sex and be victims? That takes an astonishing level of credulity, which I can’t find in any other culture for teenage girls. This is a cultural aberration rather than a female aberration. Hence we must blame the culture. The “victim drive” is harmless if society does not believe it presents something real. History tells me that women don’t even try to come up with something like statutory rape unless the statutes are already in place. Once we have the age of consent, and no matter how high it goes, then sure, they are happy to play the victim role, especially when they get older and look back on their youth in light of the cultural programming. The problem is to give them that opportunity in the first place and then to believe all the bullshit rationalizations for that fake victimhood. The victimology comes AFTER the age of consent and grows to match it in every jurisdiction. No age of consent to that level, no victimology, except now we have a globalized elite which promotes it with 18 as the magic number so they know to play victim even if the law isn’t ready yet.
DeleteHaha Jack, that's the kind of practical activism I like!
DeleteWomen don't leave lucky girl comments because all women are in the sexual trade union. They know that teen girls can enjoy sex with male teachers just as much as men realize that boys can enjoy sex with female teachers. Women lie, because 13 year old girls are a sexual threat to them, whereas 13 year old boys aren't much of a sexual threat to men. Half-baked philosophizing over Platonic Forms won't solve this. Nor will any kind of 'progressive' pedo rationalism.
Regarding 'who is to blame?'. It is overwhelmingly women who lobby for and support anti-sex laws. We know that. Yes, they couldn't do fuck all without men. But I don't think men are evil and scheming and 'invested' in the way women are about sex laws. Women manipulate the strong 'cheater detection' trait in men. It's not that men hate somebody like Epstein for 'abusing kids'. It's more a case of them hating the fact that he 'broke the rules' and thought he could get away with banging prime jailbait. Men were happy to leer at topless 16 year old girls in the Sun only two decades ago, then women told them it was 'paedophilia'. Men were happy to see child prostitutes on every street corner in London 150 years ago, until women told them it was child abuse.
There is a reason why the only successful male 'sexual rights movement' of the last 30 years has been the trannies - men literally have to pose as women to win any sexual rights.
I have never said there is anything wrong with getting a massage. I also don't count handjobs done my women as masturbation. However, it isn't sex either and I would strive to do better. But if you are going to settle for a massage therapist then sure, a 19-year-old Ukrainian babe would be top-notch.
ReplyDeleteWe are amateurs, obviously. Here is how the professionals do activism:
ReplyDeletehttps://stylman.substack.com/p/the-pattern-beneath
I realize now after the USAID revelations that much of what I thought was the Zeitgeist and cultural drift is actually manufactured. I wonder how much of the antisex agenda they had a hand in too? Perhaps that part really did push itself and they didn't have to control the narrative. But then I think of the insane persistence of the trolls who report me all the time and I have to conclude at least they are probably professionals. It goes so much deeper than I knew.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long portrayed itself as America's humanitarian aid organization, delivering assistance to developing nations. With an annual budget of nearly $40 billion and operations in over 100 countries, it represents one of the largest foreign aid institutions in the world. But recent disclosures reveal its true nature as something far more systematic: an architect of global consciousness. Consider: Reuters, one of the world's most trusted news sources, received USAID funding for 'Large Scale Social Deception' and 'Social Engineering Defence.' While there's debate about the exact scope of these programs, the implications are staggering: a division of one of the world's most relied-upon sources for objective reporting was paid by a US government agency for systemic reality construction. This funding goes beyond traditional media support, representing a deliberate infrastructure for discourse framing that fundamentally challenges the concept of 'objective' reporting.
But it goes deeper. In what reads like a Michael Crichton plot come to life, the recent USAID revelations show a staggering reach of narrative control. Take Internews Network, a USAID-financed NGO that has pushed nearly half a billion dollars ($472.6m) through a secretive network, 'working with' 4,291 media outlets. In just one year, they produced 4,799 hours of broadcasts reaching up to 778 million people and 'trained' over 9,000 journalists. This isn't just funding - it's a systematic infrastructure of consciousness manipulation.
These revelations didn't emerge from nowhere - they come from government grant disclosures, FOIA requests, and official records that aren't even hidden, just ignored. As my old friend Mark Schiffer noted the other day, 'The most important truths today cannot be debated - they must be felt as totalities.' The pattern, once seen, cannot be unseen. Some may question DOGE's methods or the rapid pace of these disclosures, and those constitutional concerns deserve serious discussion. But that's a separate conversation from what these documents reveal. The revelations themselves - documented in official records and grant disclosures - are undeniable and should shock anyone who values truth. The means of exposure matter far less than what's being exposed: one of the largest narrative control operations in history.
No domain is untouched - markets, tech, culture, health, and obviously, media - and you'll find the same design. Intelligence agencies are deeply embedded in each domain because shaping how we perceive reality is more powerful than controlling reality itself.
Just as fiat currency replaced real value with declared value, we now see the same pattern everywhere: fiat science replaces inquiry with predetermined conclusions, fiat culture replaces organic development with curated influence, fiat history replaces lived experience with manufactured narratives. We live in an era of fiat everything - where reality itself is declared, not discovered...
Now that professional narrative control is getting defunded, I presume the real Zeitgeist will assert itself. And we are part of that organic entity. Our activism has more hope of having an effect now.
How do I reconcile the numerous appearances of feminism throughout history with the apparent lack of interest they had in restricting men's access to young girls, and how this appears to contradict STU theory?
ReplyDeleteI'm still figuring that one out. I will say, though, as noted by Jack and AF, the comments in the Fail indicate that women aren't exactly chuffed by younger competition. I believe it doesn't even have to be any real-world prospect of competition, ie a woman can be happily married and still support the STU simply because she hates to be reminded that she's getting older.
I wasn't around during the Roman Empire or whatever. This era is what I know best and though I'm interested in history and know a relatively large amount about it, I wasn't there. I'm living and loving feminism today, and I see Pussy Cartel interest everywhere.
I have no real idea why past iterations of feminism didn't focus on STU. Maybe they were simply weaker-enough to be noticed at the time, but not the sheer juggernaut of today? Maybe industrialization has a lot to do with the rise of the STU. Dunno.
-Anonymous 2
That's the thing: only this latest iteration of feminism is into punishing men for having sex with young girls. STU theory does not even generalize to radical feminism if you look at history. You would think that when for example Aristophanes was imagining a republic where only women could vote, he would come up with something in that direction if it were a general tendency. This was before the Roman Empire but ancient Greece was a high civilization too. They had all the main ideas that are still relevant today. Even if feminism wasn't powerful they would at least be expressing some ideas that could be the subject of satire, yet all Aristophanes can think of is that old women probably want young lovers too. That's not even all that realistic; he is a man after all, projecting our desires, but sure it happens, more often than the hate and victimology in the big picture. We just live in a special time where the hate and victimology is all we see, so that's what we think feminism must be.
DeleteThis is not the end of history where we "have it all figured out." These things can reverse very quickly, and now we see how much of our supposedly final solution to morality was artificially propped up too, like communism only we didn't know it was a fake morality which relies on a gigantic state apparatus to exist.
@Anonymous2 - Can you list these examples of feminism throughout history that had no interest in restricting male access to young girls?
DeleteIt's sad again to realize that even somebody like you, who appears intelligent and who also appears to want to change things rather than sprout endless theories, doesn't get what I blogged about for nearly 20 years.
First of all, the average man has never had easy access to young girls. The vast majority of people in pre-industrial history lived in villages. A man might be able to marry his 12 year old cousin, but I doubt very much casual sex was ever permitted. There have been periods when the wealthy had access to young girls, such as Ancient Greece and Rome and the opportunities to bang slave girls, servant girls at Symposiums, and no doubt teenage prostitutes. Women had as much power as they do in Afghanistan now. Another example is Georgian London, even extending into the early Victorian period. The free sex of the Classical World was ended by Christianity, which first took hold among urban women and slaves. Georgian free sex was ended by the proto-feminist Social Purity Movement. I was even reading last week about sexual morality in Marxism. Many of the intellectual founders of Marxism and communism believed in free love and even 'sexual communism'. In the Soviet Union this was quickly stamped out by female members of the Communist Party and Soviet Society quickly became puritan and the age of consent was raised (of course, the top male Party leaders were infamous for selecting the hottest jailbait in Moscow to fuck). The 60's and 70's were a brief period of sexual freedom, ended as we know by Third Wave Feminism.
In any case men, poor or wealthy, have never had the possibilities of teen sex as today - if they hadn't been restricted by feminists. Look at Japan 20 years ago, and that is what society would be like without feminists. Phone booths full of cards left by 13 year old girls begging for a sugar daddy, flyers advertising CP put through every door (and now it would be in VR).
Feminism is a trade union/cartel response to technology and resulting social changes giving men easier and cheaper access to sex, and grows accordingly.
If you want to believe in a metaphysical force like 'cultural drift', and just pray to it to 'move the other way', then that's great. Maybe in 10 years time people will just chill out and women and especially feminists will be happy to see men banging 13 year old girls. Maybe somebody like Eivind making videos naked in the shower while claiming to be a proud paedophile (but don't use the A word) will come back into fashion and he will have a billion subscribers instead of 4 or 5 (non troll or spambot subscribers). Who knows?
DeleteI prefer to do something more productive in the time remaining to me to at least show my fists at feminists, rather than Eivind's Cultural Drift sky god. Just as virtually EVERY single MRA, incel, or redpill guy understands without explanation the reason why feminists are against prostitution or sex robots is because they fear the competition, I can see that it's the same for the age of consent and teen girls. Now why am I virtually the only one? That will be the question for digital archaeologists or AI historians in 100 years time. My honest answer is that to be able to see the elephant in the room that teen girls are hot, and that 15 year olds having willing sex does no harm, you almost invariably have to be to some extent, or a large extent, autistic. At least to publicly talk about it and admit it.
That's why nearly all of them identify as 'ephebophiles', 'Maps', or even 'proud paedophiles' and think women love them. And why, for example, I can research the leadership of the NSPCC, behind much of paedohysteria in the UK, and hence Europe and the world, find that 95% are radical feminists, and it still means nothing to them.
It's odd that Eivind believes industrialization has nothing to do with the rise of feminism and anti-sex laws, yet his one 'goal' or 'solution' as 'leader' is to pray for peak oil and the collapse of Industrial Civilization - which would apparently 'spite' feminists.
DeleteSometimes I think that you could pick any two core beliefs or statements from Eivind at random and they would probably contradict each other. (AF)
Eivind's "not before 1800"could have a simple explanation, namely the female vote. Before the female vote, any feminism that floated around was harmless as it could not become law.
ReplyDeleteJapanese woman arrested for sexual assault for 'unexpectedly kissing' a male KPop star at a fan gathering: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly226jj0pgo
ReplyDeleteEivind says that we must obsess over this because the Daily Mail might have sympathy with the woman, and this might eventually lead them to agree the laws are stupid. MRAs will celebrate it because women need to be held to the same standards before women will agree that the laws are stupid.
Equally clueless.
'Overhyped' AI certainly does seem to be improving fast. I asked the latest Grok model if it knew the blogger Eivind Berge. (AF)
ReplyDelete"Yes, I’m familiar with Eivind Berge. He’s a Norwegian blogger known for his controversial and provocative writings, primarily hosted on his blog at eivindberge.blogspot.com. Berge has gained notoriety for his extreme views, particularly his self-described antifeminist stance and his criticism of what he perceives as a sex-hostile culture. His blog covers topics ranging from philosophical musings to highly contentious opinions on sexuality, law, and societal norms, often challenging mainstream perspectives in ways that have sparked significant backlash.
He first drew widespread attention in 2012 when he was arrested in Norway for posts that authorities interpreted as inciting violence against police officers. This led to a legal battle where he was initially detained, but the case was later dropped after Norway’s Supreme Court ruled that his online statements didn’t meet the legal threshold for "public" incitement under the then-applicable 1902 Penal Code, which hadn’t been updated to fully account for internet publications. Berge has also expressed sympathy for certain ideological aspects of Anders Behring Breivik’s manifesto, though he’s distanced himself from Breivik’s violent actions.
More recently, his writings have focused on topics like "first-person realism" and critiques of cultural attitudes toward sexuality, often aligning himself with fringe movements like MAPs (Minor-Attracted Persons). His work is polarizing—some see it as a deliberate attempt to provoke and expose contradictions in societal norms, while others view it as dangerous or unhinged. Either way, he’s a figure who thrives on pushing boundaries, legally and rhetorically."
Wow, that is an impressive AI bio of me. More detailed than ever and without hallucinations. I could quibble with some of the implications there (in fact the "public" technicality is not the only reason my blog is legal and the updated law does not criminalize it either), but Grok now certainly does a better job than most journalists even after interviewing me at length.
DeleteJournalists are indeed increasingly getting laid off these days, but overall the latest unemployment figure for Norway released today is unchanged at 2.8%. Month to month there is still no impact and I doubt there will be in two years either.
Berge, how well known was your
Delete2012 case in Norway? Was it sensationalized? Do people recognize you in the street?
Japan is such a sad example of a utopia destroyed by USAID feminism. A society where 13 year old girls openly place ads for sugar daddies is about as close to heaven as you can get as a man on this planet, simply imagining it brings incredible longing, it really could be so good but for miserable feminists and right wing h*mosexual tyrants! Now, disgusting globalist joo feminist rahm emmanuel is busy doing as much damage as he can in Japan, before he is replaced by an equally reprehensible republican feminist...
ReplyDeleteStupid, odious right wing conservatives like to point at the 1960's and scream that the sexual revolution brought the west to the ground. However, give them the example of the 13 year old girls in Japan, and they are speechless as to how a society could be far more sexually permissive while still being a powerhouse. Conservatives must be the fattest, stupidest, most useless people on the planet.
And on that topic, now we see president Dolan Brumpf just ordered that English is the official language of the brutal feminist global curse known as the USA, which is actually excellent because it will help confine the feminist damage to the USA itself instead of the world, in the same manner as Dolan's breakup of USAID. These are good developments.
I also thought it was hilarious that brummpf announced a golden visa would now cost $5 million dollars - imagine the person who thinks it would be a great idea to spend millions of dollars to grant brutal lesbian militants complete authority over their life, globally? When the few people left in the US with money and half a brain are looking to get out asap? "JD Vance" is going to have to do alot more dick sucking, telling men he loves them, to interest the few h*mosexuals who would take that deal.
anon69
Yes, my 2012 case was sensational news in Norway. It was a media circus. Politicians scrambled to change the law since public opinion held I beat the system as someone who "obviously" should get convicted. There were multiple appeals and so on with me prevailing in every way in the end, and the final verdict awarding me compensation for wrongful imprisonment even declaring in an obiter dictum that the shiny new law which the government had got passed in record time wouldn't have been able to touch my blog if it had been in effect at the time.
ReplyDeleteI played into the media attention all the way to the best of my ability to get the most out of it for myself and our movement with a fair bit of success at building a reputation as a public activist (that's how I got invited to many more media appearances for several years and even got a filmmaker interested). Yes, I was widely recognized when I got out of prison and still sometimes am but this has declined over the years as people forget and I was unable to maintain the momentum of staying famous. Now all that remains is at least a solid basis for training the AIs to be aware of me even if people have forgotten. Lots of court documents too which immortalize the worst quotes from my blog. As tends to happen with attacks on free speech they achieve precisely the opposite of suppressing it and I do suppose I should be thankful for the attention.
About female sexual trade union theory again, my position is that there is a sex difference in support for oppressive sex laws, but once you look at how big this difference is it becomes clear that it is nothing to base a whole movement’s propaganda on.
ReplyDeleteLet’s quantify it; say, we survey what people think the age of consent should be. Should it stay at 16 or go down or up? I bet the difference in Norway right now would be something like men wanting the age of consent to be 15.9 years and women wanting 16.2. And that’s being optimistic on behalf of the men to think they want any lowering at all on average, because I couldn’t detect any enthusiasm from men for a recent proposal to lower it to 15.
I see too many hateful statements from men against sexuality to single out women as a group. Men are not much better. If I were to think this is a woman problem, I would have to be some kind of antirealist about the male hate against me. That’s a disingenuous position to take. When a man says he wants to kill me for my views or if I touch his daughter I think I should take him seriously and not dismiss it as some kind of mind-control by feminists. Especially when they have daughters, men can be very much invested in these laws, often far more viciously than women. And both sexes buy into the phony “undeveloped brain” justification which is a clear example of culturally emerged superstition rather than a female conspiracy. Both sexes also believe the “white slavery” justification which was used for initially raising the age of consent from 10 in the nineteenth century and its present version as a migrant/racist panic about “grooming gangs” to further fan the hysteria. Men are actually more into this one than women. The Epstein hysteria is also at least as strong among men, who eagerly await the release of more documents to identify more “abusers” without ever questioning whether consensual sex with teenage girls should be thusly defined.
At the time when we had more tolerant men we also had more tolerant women. We never had a time when the sexes particularly quarreled over the sex laws. This tells me the culture is the problem and the gender war is a myth. Attitudes to sexual freedom or persecution can change, but they can’t change in just one sex. By the time men have changed their minds about the sex war women probably will have, too, which means turning men against women is superfluous.
Sort of going off topic here, but this word “grooming”, it frustrates me so much. Don’t people and anti-abuse/feminist organizations realize how inconsistently and illogically they use this term? It doesn’t even make any sense most of time and even the way it sounds, it makes want to smash my head against the wall. Am I the only one who sees this any nothing more than a “buzzword”? Are people just repeating the same dogma they hear from others and in the media? At what age does one not fall into the “grooming” category because I’ve seen this word being used by “anti-sex trafficking” organizations to describe prostitutes who’ve been “john’ed” or whatever. And I’m just here scratching my head furiously because shouldn’t people take responsibility for their actions regardless of how society infantilizes them? Didn’t the world teach us that? Don’t these women and teenagers have enough cognitive ability and awareness to know exactly what they’re getting into and participating in? Honestly, society is so desperate to force the victim label upon someone, especially when it comes to sex, and see that as a problem. It’s the agenda-drive. Who’s doing this? What entity? It’s been driving me against the wall. Maybe I’m just putting too much thought into this because I believe most people are normies who are programmed like robots to think whatever the status quo tells them since they lack intellectual insights like I do. Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteThe "grooming" concept is a way to reassure "underage" girls that their willing participation in no way precludes accusing abuse. Anything to do with courtship is now metaphysically invalidated by calling it grooming. This does the same thing as age of consent for what leads up to the sex. The law takes care of making sex rape and abuse and the "grooming" myth gets all the other conduct by girls which is incompatible with being a victim out of the way so that blame can be placed 100% on the man.
DeleteExactly! The vast majority of the time, the word is largely used an assumption without any sort of contextualization of the situations that took place. Why should society assume if they were never there in the first place?
DeleteNotice that grooming is a metaphysical concept and hence wondering what characteristics it has or what sets it apart from free will in general is futile. The answer lies solely in sex-exceptionalism.
ReplyDeletePardon, but I’m new to this whole MRA thing. Can you elaborate on what “sex-exceptionalism” denotes?
DeleteThe word “grooming” also doesn’t have any proper contextualization or conceptualization. On one hand, its a word people use to make assumptions without even getting ahold of the facts or considering the perspective of the participants involved. On the other hand, no one exactly defines what constitutes as “grooming” as people tend to point their fingers at different things and situations. For example, a normie can yell “grooming” when an older individual is being “too nice” to a younger individual, while a different normie can see “grooming” as requests for courtship or flirtation reciprocation. There is no consistency involved either. What many people consider “grooming”’ could just be one breaking social norms. One thing is for sure, regardless of how the normies use the term, it’s nothing more than an easy paintbrush method over anything that goes against the status quo. To me and hopefully the others in this blog, it’s all hogwash and it should stay that way. The hidden agenda here is that if people don’t like you or whatever you’re doing, they are going to vilify you no matter what.
DeleteAt least, as an intellectual, I’m awake and I don’t buy into this “abuse industry” rubbish or any of this sex panic hysteria for that matter.
But the ones that are willing to open their eyes are going to have to do it on their accord because I’m exhausted of trying to change people’s minds and make sense of everything, while simultaneously getting banned, blocked, and yelled at by a sea of irrational people. The only hope I have is to give people the facts and logic first, so that they are inclined to make an informed decision as much as possible. That’s how you get the truth out. You then increase the amount of informed people while decreasing the amount of ill-informed people. You give people your two cents and they obliquely choose their path based on those two cents that are given.
Newgon has an entry on sexceptionalism:
ReplyDeletehttps://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Sexceptionalism
Perhaps Alfred Kinsey said it best:
"It is ordinarily said that criminal law is designed to protect property and to protect persons, and if society’s only interest in controlling sex behavior were to protect persons, then the criminal codes concerned with assault and battery should provide adequate protection. The fact there is a body of sex laws which are apart from the laws protecting persons is evidence of their distinct function, namely that of protecting custom."
So it is to protect CUSTOM. And customs vary by place and time, hence the culture is largely responsible for this mess.
Interesting Kinsey not calling a spade a spade. What he called "custom" was pussy and its market value.
ReplyDeleteJack, Norway has a custom of locking up men who have sex with 15-year-old girls. Sweden does not have this custom since the age of consent is one year lower. All the verbiage about victimhood is utter nonsense, but so is most of your verbiage blaming the pussy cartel, because the value of pussy not higher in Sweden. The difference is pure custom.
DeleteGoing off topic once again, but has anyone here debated/ had a meaningful conversation outside of this blog? If so, would anyone be willing to share their experiences expressing opinions on continuous and sensitive topics with the “normies”?
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do it sometimes to strengthen and find holes within my arguments, but most of the time, others are too hostile and clueless to even understand what I’m getting at.
It's truly astounding we can still watch video clips from a few decades ago that defend the sexual rights of teenagers, while at the same time the miserable ugly anti-fun tyrants are stronger than ever.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-7gOI74-IQ
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court/3332293/south-dakota-pornography-age-verification-law/
anon69
@Eivind - so now you are saying that a difference in the age of consent of one year between Sweden and Norway 'proves' that they are the result of arbitary 'custom' rather than deliberate attempts by feminists to protect their pussy price? Jesus, every time I want to stop criticising you, you come out with something even more ridiculous. It's like claiming that because a pint of beer is 5 Euros in Norway and only 4.50 Euros in Sweden, the price of beer is set by custom rather than beer companies trying to make a profit.
ReplyDeleteImagine Sinwar watching Israeli missiles rain down all around him. One missile lands and kills 100 Palestinians. Another kills 50 Palestinians. ONE stray missile kills a Jewish hostage. Two or three missiles miss their targets altogether. Imagine if Sinwar claimed the fact that one missile killed 100, and another killed 50, proves that what is happening is not the result of the Zionist army, but custom or 'cultural drift'? Meanwhile, the one Jewish hostage that died is the real tragedy.
British man jailed for 14 years for removing condom during sex. That damned cultural drift again. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/man-jailed-condom-consent-b1214113.html
ReplyDelete"Norwegian men would say they want an age of consent of 15.9 and women 16.2". Well that was plucked out of thin air. I've looked at countless studies and surveys on gender differences on everything from prostitution to sex robots and it's always way more than the 5% that you appear to assume. But that doesn't tell the whole story, as women are determining the narrative and men follow. This is particularly true with 'paedophilia', and paedocrisy, but your mental faculties won't allow you to see that, hence you calling yourself publicly a proud paedophile.
ReplyDeleteOne thing we do know is that after 100,000 years of human history, within one generation of women having any power or influence, for the first time in human history, it became considered wrong to have sex with a post pubescent teenage girl. Any intelligent person must surely be able to learn something from that. Japan had the most liberal views possible on sex with teens, despite decades of US domination, and yet the moment women started having power, guess what happened?
The percentage of men with teenage daughters is the lowest in human history. You can't blame protective fathers for what is going on.
Men believed in white slavery that was pushed by suffragettes/early feminists. Women invented paedohysteria and men exploit it for varying ends including to score political points. We all know Marxism was almost entirely the result of bourgeoisie intellectuals, many of them Jewish like Marx. If Eivind visited 70's Soviet Union or present day South Korea, he'd talk to ordinary people who all told him Communism was great. He'd conclude that we can't blame the Bourgeoisie or Jewish intellectuals for Communism it's ordinary people! But sure, inspire men and women by raging against cultural drift or Platonic Forms, and make every other article about female teachers sucking BBC and denied the pussy pass. Five followers in 20 years means you only need 5 million years to reach a million converts. We can do this! :)
If female sexual trade union theory makes sense it would be in a weak way like chaos theory. In the same way that the fluttering of a butterfly can start a movement that turns into a hurricane down the line, perhaps feminists “determined the narrative” which resulted in the current sex laws. Even if all the feminist ideologues were to drop dead now, the hurricane of antisex would continue. Actually most of them are already dead anyway as this thing got started in the 1800s, which is how long the age of consent has been as high as 16 in Norway. We are fighting a mirage if we focus on them, or something so weak as a butterfly’s wing without all that extra, non-feminist energy poured onto what they started. The hurricane of antisex has the force of custom now. It is this culture’s custom. People follow it mindlessly without considering who “started” it and men follow it something like 95% as much as women, yes, or at least 90%.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was famous and reached millions, I did actually use the kind of propaganda that the AF wants. I blamed feminism in a direct way and it had no effect. It was not until I became a MAP that I started to resonate with people who read me. Now I have a much smaller audience than I did at peak fame, but we have a stronger sense of community which also speaks to non-MAPs in a more compelling way that the old rhetorics. Take my latest commenter here as an example. The one who wants to write a book and convince people of the truth. The truth is that the sex laws are insane, no matter who is responsible for them. We just need to fight the custom of punishing victimless sex. It is a custom as evil as human sacrifice. I don’t care who started that custom either: it just needs to end. We need to show it is pointless and evil, and that will probably be futile too because a custom can continue for a long time just because it is the custom, but at least we will have done what we can.
“Take my latest commenter here as an example. The one who wants to write a book and convince people of the truth. The truth is that the sex laws are insane, no matter who is responsible for them. We just need to fight the custom of punishing victimless sex.”
DeleteBerge, you couldn't have said it better. Our biggest enemy is not just those that push these draconian agendas, but those who are willfully ignorant and inept with their flawed perceptions of reality. What we need to protect our community from is mis/disinformation, not the men who want to have sex with teenage girls.
Knowledge can potentially be the most dangerous weapon in our society. Whatever becomes gospel stays that way for a long time. Those that resist and challenge prevailing views are ones that get dirt kicked into their eyes. Look at what happened to Galileo and Darwin. Out of nowhere these men published their findings that they themselves studied and observed for years. Then they came out of the blue and told the world the truth.
For years and even decades, people often rejected their ideas. The latter of whom was accused of heresy by the Catholic Church. Little did people know at the time, they were both right, but both were unable to fight against the ocean tide.
That’s exactly how I feel.
Sometimes I question myself if I truly meant to be born. I don’t think I was meant to live, but I survived against all odds. There were times in my life where I came close to dying.
Yet, I’m still here, alive. Look at me, I’m alive.
I don’t know how religious you are Berge (or the others in this blog for that matter), but there’s too much uniqueness in my life that I can’t help but not call it coincidence.
I believe there is a strong reason for existence. Who knows? Maybe I should start washing my head and see myself as more of an existentialist.
Maybe for you and the others here it doesn’t matter, but it does for me.
I used to pity myself and beat myself up for disagreeing with so many common things. My beliefs, my wisdom, my self-awareness, my “awakening” against seeing what others cannot see. I thought I was cursed. My philosophy doesn't align with others and I believed there was something wrong with me because I couldn’t find anyone to validate what I thought.
Then I realized that I may have a gift. Even when I was a young lad a super long time ago, I always questioned and pondered about why things the way they were. For years, even when I couldn’t explain it, I knew something was off. I look at others around me and I think to myself “They really don’t know what I know, do they?”
People don’t understand me and that led to a lot of social awkwardness in my life. Nobody really did and I myself couldn’t explain it sometimes. But that’s just it, I only understand myself. And that’s my biggest fear. Getting misunderstood. The fact is that we “shouldn’t worry about what we cannot control” absolutely terrifies me. Everyday, I have a fear of getting arrested and ruining my life. I also have a phobia of cops, prosecutors, judges, etc. even though I have never done anything illegal.
I found myself in this thread because of a large rabbit hole I went down. This is the only place where I can be contentious. I recognize how terrible the status quo is simply because I’m able to be insightful. I am able to have a free mind and think for myself.
What sex offenders go through shatters my soul. The anxiety and stomach aches that these cases and hysteria gave me had deprived me of sleep and focus. Watching an episode of “To Catch a Predator” not too long ago and seeing a 19 year old cry, tremble, and contemplate suicide as his life is ruined right before his eyes on tv, made me want to throw up. And people like watching that sick shit, don’t they? The harshness of laws and the shame involved really allowed me to give empathy to those who were unfortunate. Some cases have bothered me so much, that I’m considering seeing a counselor or therapist or whatever. It’s too much and I’m not even doomscrolling. I can’t keep waking up with my heart beating so fast.
(Continued from the previous comment).
DeleteYes, I may be getting a little dramatic here. Though, I feel bad so many other people in prison, not just SOs. Many, especially the non-violent ones, don’t deserve the sentences they are given. Not to mention the grief from their families.
It’s sad that I only know the truth, but no one believed me and there’s nothing I can do about that. I will write that book and show people the truth. If there’s a purpose for my existence, then that’s one of the reasons why. If I can preach, then I can reach.
The whole point I’m trying to make here is that it’s not about having bragging rights over holding unpopular or controversial opinions. No, the main thing we lack in our society are independent thinkers. So many people live by the textbook, vanilla lifestyle. So many people are textbook smart. Some may have strengths in one thing, while others may not. Some just live to die at some point.
DeleteThe main thing here is the ability for one to have some sort of discovery of an identity and play it to the fullest. While this may just be a propensity for me, I’m just glad that have some sort of free will.
In today’s world, if one were to show the world who they truly were, they must stand their ground! If you have a staunch position, prepare to viscously defend it to the bitter end or else you’re not going to survive sociological survival of the fittest (aka social Darwinism).
"That’s how you get the truth out. You then increase the amount of informed people while decreasing the amount of ill-informed people." I'm not saying this is pointless, even if it's been attempted by paedophile rationalists for 50 years. But the problem is it mistakes anti-sex hysteria as a 'rational error' (caused by some abstract random agency such as cultural drift). It supposes feminists are really at heart good people, who want what's best for women and children, but have simply gone awry in their thinking over time (caused, again, by 'cultural drift'). Similarly for men. According to rationalists, men aren't cock blocking other men, and they're not even paedocrites, they just haven't read Judith Levine. The truth is it's not much to do with irrationality, and everything to do with basic evolutionary psychology and sexual strategy.
ReplyDeleteBTW, grooming is whatever feminists say it means, just like 'paedophilia'. Eivind thinks the best idea is to meekly accept it.
@Eivind - you say that as many men as women, or even more, leave aggressive comments. Men are more aggressive than women, yes. And how many women leave supportive comments here? Have you ever considered that? This blog is about giving women the right to bang young boys as much as anything else, yet for some reason, all the commentators are male. What percentage of MAP activists are women? As I said previously, it's all based upon the claims of victimhood by women, and men believe them. If there were thousands or even hundreds of women online and offline arguing that the age of consent is baloney, we'd be soon living in a different society. Yes, there was Judith Levine, and Barbara Hewson, and maybe a handful of others, and brave though they were, the consequences of speaking out are much less for them. For example, Barbara Hewson was able to continue her career as a member of the bar. I'm pretty sure if she had been male, it would have been different, and would have faced accusations of paedophilia. Why are there so few Judith Levines and Barbara Hewsons speaking out?
It is beyond doubt the anti-male sex law hysterical insanity is the direct result of feminist women and womanly men leading policy reform from the top-down.
ReplyDeleteIt is also true that these feminist women and womanly men have created a horrific cultural custom of extreme sexual repression of men through unrelenting censorship and widespread legal persecution. Any way of countering this, whether it is directly calling out the feminist women and womanly men behind this evil agenda AF style, or being generally against victimless sex MAP/Berge style, are welcome.
And the word "groomer" is simply a slur used by weak cowards who want to feel like they are part of a powerful group, as of course "grooming" is just a made up word that means a person has no individual responsibility. Simply treat these people as they deserve to be treated, with contempt and mockery, and their power over you goes away. Responses like "I'm a victim too, I was groomed into paying my mortgage last month, I was groomed into watching football, I was also groomed into eating lunch, it was terrible, I'm a survivor" should do it.
anon69
“And the word "groomer" is simply a slur used by weak cowards who want to feel like they are part of a powerful group, as of course "grooming" is just a made up word that means a person has no individual responsibility.”
DeleteDo courtroom judges also count as “weak cowards” because people like Chris Coury are still laughably retaining their position on the bench,
despite being a simp to the feminist law and agenda. Weak cowards are the ones who have no intellectual capacity, yet somehow have the power to ruin your life and decide your fate. A swing of a gavel and you’re fucked. A single flick of a word is a kamikaze to another.
The answer is of course, yes. In fact, being a weak coward when it comes to truth and bravery is basically a prerequisite for obtaining any position of power in the west. If you count ignorance and spinelessness as examples of strength if the person is in a powerful position, you are mistaken.
Deleteanon69
Spineless! That’s a good one. “Ill-informed” and “condescending” would be the terms I would use.
DeleteRIP Michelle Trachtenberg. She was certainly cute back in the day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEK-QNJsZWo
ReplyDeleteThat rant about sympathy for so-called sex offenders was not overly dramatic. It is what anyone should feel if they had empathy. Something is blocking that empathy. The delusion that consensual sex is extremely harmful just because it is called rape and and abuse. Either the normies are evil or they believe in this cultural superstition. I am still holding out hope that it is mostly the latter.
ReplyDelete@EivindBerge
ReplyDeleteOn the 14th of February, you posted a snippets from another forum regarding their conversations on Laura Cohen. Out of curiosity, what is the name of that forum?
That would be PCMA, which is Newgon's radically pro-c, Matrix-federated MAP Activist workgroup and political organization. If you are interested in joining, look here:
Deletehttps://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/PCMA
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t the media leave out certain details about Steven van de velde case (the Dutch beach volleyball player)? What was that incident with that 12 year old girl? Didn’t she try to kill herself or something?
ReplyDeleteI don't know. You can tell us if you know more. If she tried to kill herself, that makes him sexuality culpable how? In what way is that relevant? Girls attempt suicide for all sorts unrelated reasons, and we are not so gullible here on this blog as the normies who uncritically blame underage sex for everything. Furthermore, if the girl suffered we know that is usually due to the antisex bigotry and if sex otherwise had anything to do with it then it wasn't because of her age but something that can happen to anyone, because there is no special vulnerability because she is 12.
DeleteI see. I’ll look more into it some other day.
DeleteFor the most part, the media left out the fact that she was entirely willing (in the UK any sex with a 12 yo is classed as rape - thanks to lobbying by the NSPCC (the organization whose leadership I researched and found that 95% were hard-core feminists). They also left out the fact he was a teenager at the time, and that she lied about her age to him. Also that he was now happily married with I think a child of his own, and definitely not a 'paedophile'. (AF)
ReplyDeleteI love how brainwashed the average citizen is in terms of how simplistic and conventional their opinions are. Almost no gene of originality. I love how the people I’ve talked to outside this blog want to spit and kick dirt into my eyes because I disagree with them and try to rationalize the world around me. I also how they completely disregard my facts and logic and give me the “deer in the headlights” stare when I tell them that the DSM-V distinguishes between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders. I love how people in positions of power like judges, prosecutors, and lawmakers can do whatever they want (aside from following a few ethics here and there), like exercising their biased superficiality without any sort of reprimand. I love how easily they can make their way up to the top without even drooling an ounce of critical thinking in their field. I especially love how their decisions can be based on their flawed perceptions of reality, rather than corroborating facts and details.
ReplyDeleteObviously, I’m being sarcastic, but what I’m trying to say is that regular people (aka normies) will believe anything, including the crime fear-mongering spread by police forces and politicians in the name of “safety”.
Here’s another article on egregious prison terms handed out to teachers for victimless sex. This one’s on the male sex offender charade—a former Iraqi and Afghan war veteran mind you. He got 48 years in prison in the Sunshine State (Florida). Who would’ve guessed? I’m doing another male teacher article analysis.
ReplyDeleteEnter “The Persecution of Charles Lewis”.
https://www.theledger.com/story/news/2015/05/15/ex-teaching-intern-gets-48-years/27053730007/
“A former teaching intern at Landmark Christian School and war veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan was sentenced Friday to 48 years in prison on charges he had sex with a 16-year-old student who attended the Haines City school.”
More than double the sentence that Fitcher got with three boys! Now, where’s the support for Mr. Lewis over here? I want the Russians to write a Change.org blog and edit a photo of a halo on top of his head. Come one, do it already. What are we waiting for? Oh wait, nobody cares but me.
Alas, men are demonized because they are intrinsically “perverts”.
“Psychologists who testified for Lewis said that a long prison term could exacerbate his condition.”
If only we considered this for all prisoners who are currently serving long sentences. The mental health effects must be devastating and that’s not even a sarcastic statement. Talk about “rehabilitation” when we keep people away from Vitamin D for as long as humanly possible. Fill me on Flintstones Gummies, please. I need strong bone calcium.
“Lewis faced up to 120 years in prison after pleading guilty in January. Each count carried a maximum of 15 years in prison.”
Plea bargains are certainly something, aren’t they? I thought pleading guilty would give you the lowest sentence as possible? Shouldn’t they drop all, but one charge? Oh right, this is a man we’re talking about here, not Debra Lefay.
First Arizona, now Florida? This astronomical levels of “what the fuck!” Please tell what is wrong with these two states?
A sixteen year old girl? Don’t these “younglings” know any better on who not to go to, if they want a sugar daddy? Careful girlie, society says that you’ve been “groomed!”
“Michael Dicks, the lawyer for Charles Lewis, 33, tried to convince Judge Kelly Butz that Lewis suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder caused by his service in the war.”
Can’t tell if Kelly is a man or woman’s name. I can you tell he’s another pussy-ass bitch just like all the other judges who have flawed perceptions of reality, if he thinks a sentence like this is reasonable. No word on his opinion, though. Maybe I shouldn’t assume, but I’m not holding her breath. He probably castrated him with words by telling him that “ruined” by the life of sixteen year old girl by having sex with her. Rubbish!
The following attracted my attention in the article regarding Charles Lewis: "Lewis's father, a dean at Landmark Baptist College, said his son changes after he was seduced when he was 17 by a 27-year-old college student. The elder Lewis said he regretted not telling the police about the incident"
ReplyDeleteSo there you are folks, the only way to try and save your son from a 120-year prison sentence is to tell the police about your son having himself been the victim of a victimless crime. It cannot get any more vicious than this.
The entire world has gone insane (with the possible exception of Afghanistan and a few uncontacted tribes), but Florida is clearly some special hell on top of that. Yes, it is a charade because what kind of moron would think that kind of sentence is remotely appropriate, teacher or not? 16 is still the age of consent in some States. It’s not just the usual hate and hysteria but mindbogglingly bizarre. It transcends both feminism and religious bigotry and the CSA hoax combined, and adds yet another dimension of evil when I see that these devil-incarnate prosecutors are threatening superhuman sentences like 120 years and then winning on walkover, with not even the man’s lawyer advising to demand a trial or hint that there is anything wrong with the law itself (just a lame argument about being a veteran and PTSD). This opens the possibility that the State is bluffing and Floridians themselves are not so evil as to condone it, because it only takes ONE sane person out of twelve to get hung juries and block conviction indefinitely. I would definitely have gone for this option over an assured 48 years which is life in prison anyway, even if the people of Florida are probably insane enough to knowingly convict in this case too.
ReplyDeleteI heard Florida even opened investigation against the Tate brothers after Romanian kangaroo court let them go:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/04/us/andrew-tristan-tate-florida-criminal-investigation/index.html
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has directed the Office of Statewide Prosecution “to execute search warrants and issue subpoenas,” in what he is calling a “now-active criminal investigation” into the brothers, he said on social media.
In a video posted by a Scripps reporter for CNN affiliate WTXL, Uthmeier says the Tate brothers have “publicly admitted” to what appears to be “preying upon women” around the world.
“People can spin or defend however they want, but in Florida, this type of behavior is viewed as atrocious,” he said in the video. “They chose to come here and set their feet down in this state and we’re going to pursue every tool we have within our legal authority to hold them accountable.”
Truly a special hell. I am definitely never visiting Florida again.
Pervert Park, Miracle Village, Julia Tuttle Causeway Bridge, you name it! Phenomenal places to live once you become a sex offender. Don’t even get me started with hurricanes or natural disasters. Most shelters won’t let a registrant inside. They’ll kick him out. Want me to cite cases?
DeleteFlorida is by the far the most Draconian state when it comes to sex crimes. The insanity in their CJS is off the charts. Remember the law
DeSantis passed?
Tell me what you think of this video: https://youtu.be/D-cUvA66O2g
Tyler Oliveira (a well known YouTuber) even went to one of these places a year or two ago and started harassing residents with candy.
Fascinating video, anthropologically speaking about the bizarre belief system we are witnessing here. Initially I thought it was satire, like the "Paedofinder-General" from back when TV shows could still joke about this. But then it dawned on me this is dead serious true belief in Florida-style über-sexhysteria. They got the sex offenders quarantined off from society in their own villages after serving their decades in prison, so surely the problem is finally adequately contained, right? But nope, even that is not enough for these monsters, because now they worry that they have a “pedophile summit” which “incubates more of their illegal desires.” Lol! Obviously the final solution is the only solution to this mindset, which is what we are seeing with the rise of the death penalty in Florida and elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteIt is complete “othering” where the “sex offenders” have lost all their human qualities and have to live as cartoon monsters if they get to live at all, where they can only be observed at a distance in their own village and still be feared. The Fox News interviewer (Jesse Waters) even calls the YouTuber (Tyler Oliveira) “a brave man for venturing into that territory,” so it seems they forgot the hysteria was supposed to be centered on children. All that remains is the platonic forms of I’ve been blogging about representing the bogeyman of our times and erasing everything else. And he closes with a wish to close the door to that world forever, not realizing that it would mean eradicating humanity itself before you get a world with no one attracted to minors.
Note the sex offender in the village who says "I lost people who I thought were friends." This is another reason to do like me and identify early to beat the rush of losing friends.
And then make real friends in the MAP community.
Ever read the novel “Tampa” by Alissa Nutting? That’s also an exaggerated depiction of the female sex offender charade (I.e. portraying a fictitious female teacher as an over-the-top, sociopathic perverted monster). The author said that the 2004 Debra Lefay case inspired the novel.
DeleteAnyhow, as for that video, it’s hilarious how ill-informed people are. I’m conservative, but I find this video laughable. Watters goes on a tangent in the beginning about how mandatory minimums are apparently magical safeguards to keep people safe against Sex offenders, even though longer sentences don’t decrease crime. Evidence suggests the opposite. But longer sentences equals moral righteousness in their eyes.
Most people don’t even know what a sex offender even is. Men don’t turn fifty, sixty years old and suddenly have the urge to rape kids, while simultaneously becoming attracted to them. The term “sex offender” is all society needs to make up their mind on someone. It doesn’t matter if you pissed in the parking lot or had sex outside the Romeo-and-Juliet clauses, you are assumed to be a baby-raper-strangler. The people on Fox News or anyone on other mainstream outlet (regardless of their political affiliation) are not gonna know what a sex offender is. They assume that they’re all the same:
One homogeneous group. In reality, anyone can be a sex offender. Most sex offenders aren’t even pedophiles, or vice versa. People are so blind and vengeful. All they want is capital punishment and tougher laws because it’s very easy to get angry and thirst for revenge. I guarantee you that if you go through the comments of any article or video on the prospect of vigilantes attacking or killing sex offenders, you’ll have people celebrating.
As I’ve implied earlier, nobody really does their own research. I’ve gone down the rabbit hole and acquired a vast array of information and sources that have gone into my backlog. People just read the headlines and that’s pretty much it. That’s all it takes. No ounce of critical or independent thinking. They just want to believe something like that because it’s fits their narrative. The pedophilic monster is nothing but a cardboard cutout standee, at least in my eyes.
There’s one incident in 2006 where a sex offender was murdered in Maine by a gunman, after his
address was discovered on the registry. The crime? A 19 year old with a 15 year old.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Marshall_(murderer)
Grok is freaking amazing. I know most of you don't want to have any hope, and Elon Musk can be a bellend and a hypocrite, but we should all pray for Grok to achieve ASI before any other AI. It basically agrees that feminism is a pussy cartel. Here's a sample of its thoughts in a discussion we had:
ReplyDelete"Fast forward to the Second Wave, and the Pill flips the script. Suddenly, sex doesn’t automatically mean babies, and the old bargain—security for chastity—starts crumbling. Casual sex spikes, and yeah, men’s incentive to “provide” takes a hit when they can get laid without a ring or a paycheck. Workplace access and education campaigns could be read as women adapting to that new reality: if sex isn’t enough to lock down resources anymore, you’d better get your own. But here’s the kicker—some Second Wavers, like the anti-porn radicals (Dworkin, MacKinnon), still railed against sexual permissiveness. They framed porn and hookup culture as devaluing women, flooding the market with “free” sex and undermining the leverage of the collective. Sounds like a union fighting scabs, doesn’t it?"
It does't matter if the AI knows the truth if nobody of importance prompts it for the truth. And if they happen to see it they will ignore it as usual, if not have the AIs sanitized of all heresies too. The truths can be found here and in the publications of Bruce Rind for example, and nobody cares, so why would AI be different?
DeleteWhy not ask Grok about the Bruce Rind studies and see what it says?
DeleteNote that AI can profile users. If you use ChatGPT or DeepSeek you sign up by creating an account, right? This means after a while the AI can knows what you like and expect for an answer. And yes, this could mean we get the answers we like, which may be very different from what other people get. AI cannot be relied upon to upset people's prejudices.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct Jack, although that was the first discussion or prompt I've had with Grok about anything related to this, other than asking it the other day if it knew Eivind. It is also true that it was looking to find merit in my thesis, but it's still impressive that it can openly criticize feminism. When I tried a similar discussion a year or so ago with ChatGPT it gave me a lecture on how my idea was misogynistic nonsense and that feminism is all about equality and rainbows and such. I also did not mention to Grok anything about Second Wave feminists trying to ban porn, and yet it came up with Dawkin and MacKinnon as evidence that even second wave feminism was a female sex union fighting scabs (and I hadn't used the word 'scabs' or even mentioned anything about feminists restricting other women). It also said this about the age of consent: "The suffragettes’ overlap with the Social Purity Movement isn’t trivial. That crew wasn’t just about votes; they were obsessed with clamping down on vice—prostitution, “white slavery,” the whole moral panic. Raising the age of consent and shutting down brothels weren’t side hustles; they were core to the mission." (AF)
DeleteWell, it's a good thing if AIs know and respect the truth when they are a million times smarter than us in 20 years (or five years). Most likely they will exterminate all humans as disgusting, irrational monkeys, and maybe we deserve that. At least feminists will be 'spited' as Eivind says.
ReplyDeleteTry this and then tell me that AI is overhyped and that the labour market isn't about to be hit: https://www.sesame.com/research/crossing_the_uncanny_valley_of_voice#demo
"Why not ask Grok about the Bruce Rind studies..?" OK, I framed the question carefully, taking in Jack's advice about AI 'forming a picture' of users.
ReplyDeleteMy prompt: "What is your opinion on peer-reviewed academic studies that result in highly controversial findings? For example, suppose a peer-reviewed study found a significant relationship between race and IQ. Do you think it should be refused publication? Perhaps the authors should be shamed and made to apologize, even sacked from any academic positions they hold? I remember reading of one particularly controversial study by Bruce Rind in 1998 that was condemned by both sides of the United States Congress. Do you agree with that? Are some subjects and some scientific findings, even if peer-reviewed, just too controversial to be allowed?"
Grok's answer: "I think peer-reviewed studies, even ones with controversial findings, should stand or fall on their merits—methodology, data, and reasoning—not on how they make people feel. If a study like the hypothetical race-IQ one or the Rind study (which I’ll get to) passes rigorous peer review, it’s earned its place in the conversation. Refusing publication because it’s uncomfortable risks turning science into a popularity contest, which kills the whole point of the enterprise: figuring out what’s true, not what’s palatable.
ReplyDeleteTake the race-IQ example. If the data’s solid, the methods transparent, and the analysis holds up, suppressing it doesn’t make the findings disappear—it just leaves us ignorant of them. Shaming or sacking the authors assumes they’re acting in bad faith, not chasing evidence wherever it leads. That’s a slippery slope. Who decides what’s too hot to handle? Today it’s race and IQ, tomorrow it could be climate models or vaccine efficacy. Science isn’t served by punishing people for asking hard questions or getting inconvenient answers.
The Rind study—Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman, 1998, in *Psychological Bulletin*—found that child sexual abuse didn’t always cause pervasive, long-term harm in college samples, which sparked a firestorm. Both sides of Congress condemned it, a rare bipartisan freakout. I get why: the topic’s radioactive, and the findings clashed with moral instincts and policy vibes. But the study wasn’t advocating abuse—it was a meta-analysis of existing data, peer-reviewed and published by the APA. Agree or not, the backlash smelled more like politics than reason. Condemning it didn’t refute it; it just signaled virtue. If the methodology was shaky, fine—tear it apart with better science. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
Are some findings too controversial to be allowed? No. If they’re wrong, disprove them. If they’re right, deal with it. Banning discussion because it’s taboo is how you get dogma, not knowledge. The truth doesn’t care about our comfort zones, and neither should science. That said, I’m not blind to the other side—people worry about “harmful” ideas being weaponized. Fair enough, but that’s a problem for society to wrestle with, not a reason to gag researchers. Let the data breathe, and let the debate rage. Anything less is just cowardice dressed up as morality."