And now in 2025, here we go again with another major sex law reform in Norway:
https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/foreslar-endringer-i-straffelovens-kapittel-om-seksuallovbrudd/id3097085/
Full PDF of proposal
Leading up to this there were some glimmers of optimism because the expert panel who reviewed the sex laws for the government in 2022 recommended lowering the age of consent from 16 to 15, decriminalize sex purchase and to legalize sibling incest. But nope, none of that is included. Apart of some cosmetic mitigation of maximum sentences (which is only proposed because they couldn't manage to get the courts to actually impose so draconian penalties as intended), it is all bad news. History continues straight on in the way it has done my whole life, towards more and more and more punishment for more and more of sexuality, this time to encompass 100% of it by default:
Leading up to this there were some glimmers of optimism because the expert panel who reviewed the sex laws for the government in 2022 recommended lowering the age of consent from 16 to 15, decriminalize sex purchase and to legalize sibling incest. But nope, none of that is included. Apart of some cosmetic mitigation of maximum sentences (which is only proposed because they couldn't manage to get the courts to actually impose so draconian penalties as intended), it is all bad news. History continues straight on in the way it has done my whole life, towards more and more and more punishment for more and more of sexuality, this time to encompass 100% of it by default:
«Bare ja betyr ja»-modellen tas inn som et nytt første ledd i voldtektsbestemmelsen i straffeloven § 291: Den som har seksuell omgang med noen som verken i ord eller handling har samtykket til det, kan straffes med fengsel inntil 6 år.
Make no mistake, this is statutory rape for all ages that is being proposed here. It is not a reflection of reality, but a new statutory requirement that we engage in a ritual to make sex legal. By default all sex is rape, and then we have to go out of our way to satisfy the law by getting some kind of explicit consent just for the purposes of not being a statutory rapist even though that is not called for by real life and the women we have sex with have not the slightest use for it (unless they later conveniently "regret" not going through the new ritual).
Translated to English, the new "rape" is when someone (or course usually a woman) "has not consented in either words or actions." She may well have consented in fact, but it is still legally rape!
In addition to introducing the radical feminist "yes means yes" paradigm, they also want to double down on the "no means no" model to once again lower the threshold there too:
And there is an underhanded exacerbation of age of consent in store for us as well:
Translated to English, the new "rape" is when someone (or course usually a woman) "has not consented in either words or actions." She may well have consented in fact, but it is still legally rape!
In addition to introducing the radical feminist "yes means yes" paradigm, they also want to double down on the "no means no" model to once again lower the threshold there too:
Dagens voldtektsbestemmelse videreføres som et nytt andre ledd i § 291, samtidig som den utvides med et nytt straffalternativ basert på «nei betyr nei»-modellen: Den som har seksuell omgang med noen som i ord eller handling gir uttrykk for ikke å ville det, kan straffes med fengsel inntil 10 år.
So, there is no longer a requirement of any violence that we associate with real rape (which was removed 25 years ago, the last time there was any kind of sanity in rape law) but now also no kind of threats or coercion whatsoever! It is enough to act against an expression of non-consent under this alternative (which is punishable with 10 years in prison versus 6 years for the statutory "yes means yes" kind of "rape").
For å styrke barns vern mot seksuell utnyttelse foreslår regjeringen at straffeloven § 295 bokstav c endres, slik at bestemmelsen rammer seksuell utnyttelse av en person under 18 år i en særlig sårbar «situasjon» i stedet for «livssituasjon».
While the age of consent is officially 16, this means that up to 18 they can use the excuse that you "took advantage" of a girl being in a "particularly vulnerable situation" and prosecute you anyway, even though she consented in fact and you went through the ritual required by the regular rape law. I expect the "vulnerable position" to be so loosely defined that it can mean nothing more than she likes you and was thus made "vulnerable" by her own feelings of infatuation, as is so well precedented by the "abuse of position" law which has already been used for decades in this way to convict teachers and coaches and so on.
Thus like clockwork, it is only more of the usual bad news once again. I expect all these changes to pass with little or no opposition (except perhaps the parts where sentencing is lowered) and as usual my voice will be ignored.
I know from experience with all the other escalations that the new reality with statutory rape for all ages will not be accompanied by any more men's rights activists in Norway, so at this point I don't even bother trying to recruit any. The pendulum has swung all the way back to leiermål (laycase) with literally all of sexuality criminalized, and nobody cares. Feminism is just religious bigotry in a new wrapping. I don't even take it seriously as feminism because life experience has taught me that it is the violence of the state against the individual which wins out in the end. Women didn't ask for this any more than they asked for leiermål; it is the inevitable result of cultural drift that bureaucratic violence becomes totalitarian every time and it takes a revolution to reverse it.
35 comments:
Why don't you send a serious but funny letter to the MPs? Robin Sharpe did it; you can read it here, written in italics at the very bottom of the page:
https://www.robinsharpe.ca/news.html
Yup, “the proposed law begs to be ridiculed” as he also says. As I’ve been hinting, that a woman can be raped while consenting is absurd. But we are so used to this with minors that I doubt the normies see it as absurd any longer. They are so well trained at this point that they won’t even notice that it gets applied to all ages. Each and every normie will live with a regime of zero tolerance for sexuality as if it is completely normal right up until they themselves get put on trial and even then not see anything wrong with the law in principle.
I am completely disillusioned that it is possible to raise a movement against any sex law, no matter how absurd and draconian. This hateful witch-hunt against sexuality will have to play itself out and end in some other way with the collapse of society, because only a few select individuals are able to see anything wrong with it. I’m glad we had a poet in our ranks too, but even he could not make a difference.
Alas, the only response among men will be that even more men are going to converge on Pattaya and Angeles City to have the sex pittance they are no allowed at home. The fact is, in many countries heterosexuality as a whole is illegal unless proved otherwise.
Yes, sex tourism can increase. That’s the sort of action men are capable of taking and I will too if can ever afford it. But it’s a rare gift to oppose any laws and opposing the sex laws is the rarest of gifts. While breaking them is common and now becomes unavoidable for 100% of the sexually active population (absolutely no one will make sure to get explicit consent every time), I expect nothing but apathy to the law itself.
The new “no means no” law is also horrible both because it can’t be a big deal if not worth resisting other than verbally, and it’s actually a terrible way to even pinpoint who isn’t consenting. You MUST define it in terms of force or threats for that. Many times have I had sex with a girl whose last words about it were that she wasn’t going to do it. Girls often like to have that plausible deniability that she wasn’t too interested and it just sort of happened to her. Now all that is “rape” and falsely so even by a standard of actual consent, which is most often silent but to which one must now add a ritual just for the purposes of being able to “prove” it in court. Which in turn makes the only thing a false rape accuser needs to lie about is her communication of consent, so I don’t think that “proof” will be worth anything unless perhaps you record it every time, which again is entirely unfeasible.
How much effort does it take to convince and change the mind of a supposed normie who has been fed nothing but anti-sex propaganda by the carceral state? Do you think that giving them a copy of "The Trauma Myth" by Susan Clancy would do the trick (because that book is one of the only few pieces of Non-MAP material that is mainstream)? In fact, since it is on your Wishlist, have you even read or at least aware of the contents entailed in that book, Berge?
I chuckle when I see MRAs deplore this means "written consent before sex". Even a written notarized consent won't wash. The woman can claim her signing was not consensual. For any other thing of course a woman's signature is binding. Only for sex it isn't.
Yes your voice will be ignored Eivind because all you do is write a little bit in your blog and a lot of time time fighting with 'the Antifeminist'. If you dont use this opportunity to get your point across in the mainstream media, or at least try, then all your work has really been futile.
"Den som har seksuell omgang med noen som i ord eller handling gir uttrykk for ikke å ville det"
Jeg lurer på hvordan denne formuleringen stiller seg når det er snakk om kjøp av sex. Ei hore vil jo ikke nødvendigvis ha sex med en klient, men hun vil ha pengene og har sex med klienten selv om hun egentlig ikke vil det. Hora kan gi uttrykk for at hun egentlig ikke vil ha sex men samtykker kun fordi hun får betalt. Ut fra det siterte vil det jo da satt på spissen kunne være voldtekt å ha sex med ei hore som kun vil ha pengene.
Domstolene ser jo på forarbeidene til lovene, så hvis en sak om påstått "voldtekt" på grunn av manglende samtykke av ei hore, så kan spørsmålet om hora ville ha sex eller ikke bli satt på spissen. I bunn og grunn er dette et utrolig dårlig juridisk håndverk.
It is already considered abuse or at least always illegal for Norwegians to have sex for money under a different law. Whether this can now be upgraded to "rape" because consent to do it for money does not meet the new requirement of consent is an interesting question. I would agree that it is one way to interpret it. If we are going to be so insane that we buy all the premises, then such a consequence is not far-fetched and it remains to be seen whether the courts will follow that logic or still apply some brakes powered by common sense. Those brakes may still exist to some degree but are worn awfully thin, now also with no jury to hold back.
Yes, I admittedly haven’t read “The Trauma Myth” yet, just heard it referred to a lot. I gather that this is a mainstream glimmer of skepticism against the CSA hoax that consensual sex leads to trauma. Around here as longtime MRAs or MAP activists we know this already firstly by common sense and then confirmed by studies of Rind et al. and the lack of any sound science behind the CSA dogma. So I am not sure what more I can learn from the book. Perhaps how to speak more convincingly to the normies? But did it even have a noticeable impact on CSA hysteria?
We are way past the point where a belief in trauma is needed to pass more laws against sex anyway. No one believes that a woman is traumatized if not presented with a sex consent document to sign every time, yet these insane new laws keep coming.
Yes, but I still go on social media and see that people still believe that being a minor in a sexual relationship will cause all a "myriad" of problems, like future sexual and romantic issues. Remember what I told you about the Zamora kid? The media and his blood-boiling parents were constantly expressing their outrage about how he'll being "ruined for life", despite the fact that from what I learned from an inside source that the complete opposite is true. He laughed in their fucking faces. I presume that if you tell him now that he was molested by a "monster", he'll refute back say that he was touched by an angel.
They will say that an adult-minor relationships would never work out from the start, and how early sex is going to contribute to deep, internal wounds in the psyche, blah, blah, blah...men and women taking control over the younger ones will cause future trust issues...blah, blah, blah. You get the idea.
They will literally make up every emotional and metaphysical excuse in the book because apparently everything underage is "sexual abuse". Remember the magic switch? 18 is grandiose.
I can recall where I was open on another platform about my criticism regarding police-operated sex stings, but the other commenters were so angry, with one individual saying that it'll "traumatize" them.
When you consider the ages of decoys in sex stings, they are typically no younger than 13, but fall usually in between 15 and 16 years of age, so I highly doubt that sex at this age would "traumatize" them. Yet, we still consider them "children" both legally and socially, even if Rind and colleagues warned against vague labels such as this.
It's funny because teens are encouraged to have safe sex with other teens, but it suddenly somehow becomes sexually, romantically, and psychologically detrimental when an older individual is involved? The disparity in logic and cognitive dissonance doesn't seem to resonate through the brain signals of a normie.
I dunno, because I'm probably speaking through the minds of a Reddit/Twitter user or a self-proclaimed "child development" expert because those people are highly "pedohysteric", even if any of what I just said has nothing to do with pedophilia.
It seems as though their anger stems from over-moralizing governments limits and restricted and the patriarchal "dirty old man" going around and doing whatever he feels is "okay". I legitimately think these people watch too much Law and Order: Special Victims Unit and Soft White Underbelly videos. I don't know if you are aware of those are, but they are extremely popular with general audiences. True crime is also there, which is just a fandom made up of amalgamated videos and podcasts of women talking about serial killers while putting make-up in the mirror. That last sentence is a joke, because true crime fanatics are very obsessive. Just pull up a video on police interrogation footage and see how many views those things get. Millions!
Another one bites the dust
https://www.news9.com/story/5e35d9295c62141fdee972ab/former-oklahoma-biker-against-child-abuse-member-charged-with-child-sex-crimes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9_W8SxvTRU .
I would consider Black Pigeon Speaks to be a fairly well-known vlogger, and the title itself his the bullseye.
-Anonymous 2
I didn't mean to completely ignore the obvious bad news from Norway.
I used to count Holland as the worst country in Europe outside the British Isles, but I reckon Norway is #1 now. I wonder if there's some sort of connection with Norway being the first country in the world to introduce foreign sex tourism/AOC laws back in 1989.
Back to Black Pigeon's video, he makes a few excellent points others either haven't done as forthrightly or not at all AFAlK:
-older female jealousy-no-one outside of our little world has called it out loud and clear the way he has
-talking about girls marrying at 15 being a normal thing throughout history, and not covering himself a bit by talking about husbands being close in age-
NOT 22 or something, or even down to 18, but using an age well under 18. I'm sure this has not been done before.
--the myth of the 25-y-o brain, a mainstay of femiservatives
Best of all perhaps, judging by the comment, his listeners actually get it.
-Anonymous 2
There is currently a mention of a new study by Philip Tromovitch (one of Rind's colleagues) on Boychat:
https://www.boychat.org/messages/1640273.htm
Good to see more original research. This is the honest kind that the abuse industry would never dare to attempt because it is designed to measure the truth of the matter rather than your prejudice; it poses a falsifiable question and could have gone either way.
The Multinational Life Experience and Personality Project (MLEPP) is collecting data for multiple investigations on human sexuality from general population samples of adults aged 18 to 59 in several countries. The initial phase of the MLEPP questionnaire asked respondents if they had experienced any sexual contacts, with a partner five or more years older than themselves, prior to puberty as well as in the period from puberty to age 16... These men overwhelmingly endorsed positive descriptors for their experiences. It is concluded that in general, men find their early, willing sexual contacts with older partners to be pleasurable, satisfying, and fun -- negative associations are uncommon.
This finding does not surprise me in the slightest, but it is notable that all the CSA hoax propaganda has had no measurable effect on boys even at the height of the panic, as this data was collected from 2014-17.
Berge, how does one argue against the whole “power or authority dynamic” excuse that the normies use?
The “power or authority dynamic” is obvious nonsense since it doesn't show up in the evaluations. When boys including the prepubescents grow up to be 18-59 without redefining their willing experiences to abuse because of "power dynamic" there is no reason to take the concept seriously at all. Children are perfectly capable of deciding if they want sexual contact regardless of a power dynamic; it's not some mysterious force that only later manifests as a feeling of having been abused if you didn't feel it at the time. The whole concept is thus demystified and needs to be thrown in the dustbin of history as the peculiar myth it was, a transient rationalization of insane laws and feminist taboos.
Now it's women in sport getting accused of "wrongly touching" other women:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cg5qev0948vo
Eivind, have you ever had a meaningful, continuous conversation or debate with a "normie"? If so, how did it go?
Debate seemed to be more possible in the early days. Before I was banned on Twitter I had many debates with normies.
My court cases and especially the last trial where I was awarded compensation for wrongful prosecution by the appeals court was a debate with normie judges by me and my lawyer which we won. It was only about the meta-question of freedom of speech rather than the issues themselves, however. The constant attempts by feminists trolls to have me shut down by reporting me to Google admins can also be seen as a debate which I am also still winning.
Beyond that, hard to think of good examples. The normies don’t show up here and we can’t debate them freely on their venues. This is not so much the normies’ fault, though. It is corporate monocultural totalitarianism which imposes censorship. We can have freedom of speech to debate the sex laws and we can have a place with lots of normies but we can’t have both at the same time. If we somehow did, I imagine debate would still be possible with some of them, but I can’t find such opportunities anymore.
"Before I was banned on Twitter I had many debates with normies."
How did those go? Did you change anyone's mind? Did they leave with a newfound perspective and assimilation or did they react viscerally and hostility when challenged their worldview, because if you did, then someone could've secretly reported you, which might've been the reason why you got banned on that platform. I'm sure that you don't care about Twitter anymore because of Elon's continuous "anti-pedomongering".
I've been reading your older blog posts recently and I remember that someone commented in 2015 about your blog appearing on a "child protection" website (never specified where). Looks like the feminists have been tip-toeing behind your back for years, though they could've been sporadic or all over the places, rather than coming from one specific online space. And yet, I don't think they're reading any of your posts or the comments to find subtle meaning and are instead firing nuclear rockets into your base.
That reminds me. Where they also the ones that flagged those specific comments from Google back in January (and the ones after), or was that from Google's automated system doing its job after those reports? I mean, I would think they would rather try to nuclearly annihilate the entire blog, than target specific comments.
This is why I think you shouldn't call yourself a "pro-pedophile" or a "MAP", Eivind, regardless if "words means whatever you want them to mean". The average person is going to see that and take it too literally, especially if they look into Youtube channel and discover that Nathan Larson video and read the comments.. That doesn't look on you. That kind of attention could force you, your blog, and the pro-sexualist species here (and perhaps all of your other accounts) into hibernation or extinction. Though, like I said, the feminists (the same ones or not) could've been behind your back for years, so they might've already made up their minds about you, well before you starting name-tagging the pedophile label. That I why I use the "Non-Map" title specifically because it literally suits me and it may be better for my survival online.
- Original Insights (Non-MAP).
I don’t let social media platforms dictate my ideology. If I am not tolerated somewhere, like Twitter definitely now under Elon Musk, I ignore it. You would have to be so watered down there that the message is lost. Andrew Tate probably represents the limits of how pro-sex you can be there, and the normies don’t discern a message against the sex laws in anything he says.
I think the feminists tried everything but my blog is still standing. If it falls, I will move to mra-archive.com. It’s just an archive now but you all should have it bookmarked just in case, since that’s where you will find updates from me if I can’t speak here anymore.
I will go to great lengths to have some kind of platform, ultimately on an onion link if I have to, but what I won’t do is change my message for fear of censorship. I also don’t think words like “non-map” have much bearing in that regard. Just look at which blogs actually get taken down. For example Scarecrow was not a map yet his blog is gone long before mine.
Yes, the meaning of words change. With “pedophile,” Nathan Larson nailed the new meaning when he said in his final manifesto that a pedophile is simply a man who is honest about his sexuality to himself or others. With that being the established meaning, I take pride in the label regardless of what sort of “stigma” it still has. Think of that stigma as a Wile E. Coyote moment. The normies “hate” pedophiles only because it hasn’t sunk in that it refers to us all. I have zero interest in pandering to that illusion which now rests on thin air, the outdated idea that pedophilia is different from normative sexuality.
As to changing people’s minds -- sure, that almost never happens and I can’t think of any clear examples of having had that effect either. Also people will rarely admit it if they do change their minds about something they have been vocal about, so it’s possible it has happened anyway. But this is just par for the course for any sort of politics.
Yes, the comments that got removed here were only caught up in automatic spam control and I have been able to restore all of them that I wanted to so far.
I think what matters nowadays is not that a handful of people come to your blog and change their views. What matters rather is that your views exist on the web for AI search engines to scoop them up and integrate them into their narrative. The mere presence on the Web may be enough. From what I understand AI only scours the web to pick up passages based on words, then knits those passages into a whole. The more blogs the better.
Eivind, are you familiar with these old 2012 Reddit posts regarding you?
https://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/comments/w6xiu/norwegian_mens_rights_activist_blogger_eivind/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Equality/comments/w6xkn/norwegian_mens_rights_activist_blogger_eivind/
https://www.reddit.com/r/SRSBusiness/comments/w6xgx/norwegian_mens_rights_activist_blogger_eivind/
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/xktn4/mens_rights_blogger_eivind_berge_is_aquitted_by/
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/wovip/norwegian_media_the_feminists_law_against/
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/26gzdk/eivind_berge_on_elliot_rodgers/
They all seem to clearly not understand you. Here are some example:
"Wow. That post about "rape is equality" wow wow wow."
"I don't know who he is. I don't care about his beliefs. If what they say he did is true, then it's good that he was arrested. That's it. I don't read into it because any more information is irrelevant."
"Somebody submitted an article about this in /mr with a title that was basically "man arrested for having a men's rights blog" and everybody was like "he was arrested for saying he wanted to kill cops, he isn't even an MRA".
"Ah, yes, but they will scream until they are blue in the face that they are in no way comparable to the other race/gender terrorist/hate groups. Though they spit the same twisted rhetoric as Neo-Nazis and idolize murderers. This man will be held up as a martyr. "Clearly seventy-seven body bags wasn’t enough, but I am fairly confident that you will be sorry one day." This is indefensible. I don't care how many MRAs want to come in here and frantically downvote us. If you call yourself a part of the same ideology as this sick fuck and many others? YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. Not us feminists who have not raped or murdered anyone."
Gross distortion much? I'm sure Reddit isn't your cup of tea either, right? These posts and comments are so old that I'm sure they are not of importance to you anymore, I assume.
I can say the same thing to both Jack and the last comment which brings up contemporary commentary on me from 2012: Yeah, I don't care what they said because I was writing for the future, as I've noted before, and the future arrived sooner than anticipated (I thought I would be dead before anything like this happened).
Now I've got a coherent ideology which is picked up by the LLMs, finally a type of reader who understands and disseminate it far wider than to my five regular commenters here.
And the old manosphere with its idea of "men's rights" that rejected my view?
It is reduced to this:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/13/us/understanding-the-manosphere-osullivan-tws/index.html
I'm really glad I didn't follow that path because they are so watered down they might as well be a feminist fan club.
But much of the appeal of male-oriented podcasters, whether they be meek or macho, is the same. They talk about physical fitness, they promote traditional (but not necessarily toxic) traits of masculinity and they often share a deep appreciation for mixed-martial arts (MMA), specifically the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC).
There is a war on our sexuality and the best they can come up with is this. There is no hint that anyone in the “manosphere” has any problem with the sex laws.
If we do finally manage to raise awareness in the mainstream that there is a movement against the sex laws it will have to be known as MAPs because anything to do with men’s rights or masculinity is clearly incapable of associating itself with a fight for sexual freedom.
Okay, I get it now. But what is the AI going to do with that kind of information? I don’t picture really anyone else on the outside inserting the “Who is Eivind Berge?” into their prompts. Is the whole AI appreciation here more on the archival side? The fact that AI knows you just enough that it shows that you are gaining traction? Is that what this whole spiel is, precisely?
No, that's obviously not the "whole spiel." I do have the ambition to lead a political movement that grabs actual power and gets things done if possible. But it's better than nothing to be on the archival side, recording opposition to the antisex witch-hunt while it was ongoing. Once it is over, the normies will claim they never believed in the CSA hoax or all these fake definitions of rape anyway, but I will be able to prove it if I am still alive or else be seen to history as one the few sane ones.
That reminds me, Eivind. Would you like for me to mention and discuss you and your blog in my “truth-on-sexualism” book? I’m already on the first draft and I’ll probably use my blog to keep updates and add my own spin to these kinds of topics. This summer, I’m hoping that the more time available for men would keep me on track. If you do give me permission to use your name, I’ll most likely will discuss that particular section before publishing, in case I don’t end up misconstruing anything regarding you or your blog. It could take a few years, but I’ll see if I can find a traditional publisher later down the line, so my book can reach a larger audience as much as possible. I feel like writing a complete book that organizes, critiques, and complies data on modern sexaulism and sex laws may be a way to reach a larger audience in quickest amount of time, in my opinion.
And no, I won’t be something like NARSOL. I won’t shy away from being as critical as possible when it comes to dismantling the sex panic. That’s the problem with most mainstream CJS reform. Some people (as in NARSOL and other activists) want to get rid of registry, but want more awareness for “sexual violence” at the same time. That to me, is a problem too because now you are risking the chance of creating more hysteria. Do they not understand why all these laws got established in the first place? How can one group want rational sex offender laws, but won’t advocate for something like AOC reform and decreased criminal sentencing? You see what I mean? That’s the kind of thinking I want. I’m not going to shy away and be a people pleaser. For example, if I’m going to be critical about police-operated sex stings, THEN I’M GOING TO BR CRITICAL ABOUT POLICE-OPERATED SEX STINGS. Period! I don’t care how controversial my opinions are, as I’m going to speak my mind, even though I don’t consider myself an activist. This is what truth is. It’s standing up for what you believe in and not playing around with bullshit and other fire.
There’s a reason why I call myself “Original Insights”. I can come up with ideas that nobody else is currently thinking of. In fact, I’ve been against these laws for not that long actually. Two years at most probably. Before that, I didn’t really care. I wasn’t a normie. I just had no idea what was going on. All I had was my own skepticism. Then suddenly, I realized the insanity that was occurring after I had watched The Sound of Freedom and left the theater with a very skeptical opinion about it.
Some of those long-winded comments in the last few months? That was me? Remember when you congratulated an anonymous user on an article about that sports coach who got ten years for sleeping with a 17 year old girl because he used it as an example to explain the dismantling of the current sex laws and ideology behind them in the cultural drift post? That was me.
Remember when that same anonymous comment called you an inspiration and you agreed? That was also me.
Screw all of this AF v. Berge nonsense. Let’s use our intellectual superpowers for external use, not internal use.
Last year, I was all over the internet trying to poke bears with sticks and challenge their usage of “pedophilia”. Most of the time, it didn’t end very friendly, but I did meet some rational folks here and there. I only discovered Eivind Berge after I went down a massive rabbit hole, that I found his YouTube channel in the comment section of an AscendingPleadies video. I haven’t commented on a Berge video yet, unfortunately.
- Original Insights (Non-MAP).!
Sure, use my name and information about me all you want. Can also quote any amount you feel like of my writings without worrying about copyright or anything like that because I just want to get the message out. I hope you find a traditional publisher and a huge audience.
NARSOL is a joke. Sounds like they latched onto the CSA panic to have an organization at all and then only try to get some mitigating points in sideways. The main agenda is always to whip up more CSA hysteria and NARSOL is no exception.
I want to be an exception or I wouldn’t bother with any kind of activism or organization. We don’t need yet another promoter of abuse hysteria. I won’t have ANY part in opposing "sexual abuse" until we can get the definitions right, because as a matter of fact the way it is defined now I am mostly IN FAVOR of "sexual abuse." I won’t shy away from the fact that the normies see me that way, but confront it head-on and proudly.
Awesome! You do you! That AscendingPleadies video, there was huge conversation you, him, and some other people, so what was that all about? From what I can gather about him, he has some good videos, but has an open anti-c agenda. Make of that what you will.
Yes, NARSOL is a bit of a joke, but it the best thing we’ve got so far. Emily Horowitz is the frequent spokesperson behind it, but has made it clear that she believes that there should be punishment for the possession of CP (which I don’t agree with). That to me, isn’t rational at it. She even wrote a book about sex offender laws in 2015 and even has a chapter titled “The child porn panic”, yet still believes in her cognitive dissonance. Very intelligent and brave, but she is still blind. She even said that in a debate, which she won.
https://youtu.be/SIt7-GcvLGk
I remember reading a comment on a NARSOL and they responded to someone saying that they criticize sentence lengths because they might be seen as “condoning or justifying criminal behavior.” That me is stupid. They are doing the bare minimum. Even Judith Levine (a self-proclaimed libertarian feminist), who is friends with Horowitz, is much better at criticizing the sex panic, because she wrote a book titled “Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex” in which she attacked much of the laws and reasoning behind AOC laws, CP, adult-minor relationships, etc. I know Levine is feminist, but she is not the radical kind you are thinking of and been very vocal about criticism regarding other feminists. I know, it’s not perfect, but it is the best we’ve got, in terms of mainstream activism. With my book, I’m hoping to change that by not “playing nice”.
Are you familiar with the people I just mentioned?
Even though NARSOL is not a pro-sex organization, their policy is not limited to the abolition of registers alone:
https://www.narsol.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/NARSOL-Civil-Commitment-White-Paper.pdf
https://www.narsol.org/about/assertions/age-of-consent-criminalizing-juvenile-sexual-activity/
https://www.narsol.org/about/assertions/forced-chemical-castration/
https://www.narsol.org/resources/domestic-international-travel/
It must be remembered that this is an organization in the paranoid United States, and if they immediately were to avocate for "sex, drugs and rock and roll", they would have no credibility at the national level.
Yeah, I give credit where credit is due, but I believe a lot of the problems stem beyond and outside the sex offender registries. Horowitz has written some great stuff actually. I just saw a bit of cognitive dissonance from her.
Yeah, I'm familiar with them and always thought they had many good points even though they don't go far enough in opposing the CSA panic.
I looked into what Horowitz has been up to lately and found this which sounds pretty good as far as it goes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTClqN3rBVU
In her book From Rage to Reason: Why We Need Sex Crime Laws Based on Facts, Not Fear (https://bookshop.org/a/12343/97814408...) (Bloomsbury Academic, 2023), Emily Horowitz shows how current sex-offense policies in the United States create new forms of harm and prevent those who have caused harm from the process of constructive repentance or contributing to society after punishment. Horowitz also illustrates the failure of criminal justice responses to social problems. Sharing detailed narratives from the experiences of those on registries and their loved ones, Horowitz reveals the social impact and cycle of violence that results from dehumanizing and banishing those who have already been held accountable.
But yeah, the sex offender registries are only the icing on the cake of the sex war. We don't even have them in Norway yet but we do have the hateful feminist sex laws which keep getting worse and can't be addressed by talking about registries and missing rehabilitation of sex offenders.
Ascending Pleiades is actually an example of debating a normie at length. He is exactly like a normie except willing to debate you ad nauseam. As usual nobody changed their views and I gave up out of sheer exhaustion.
He is a true believer in metaphysical CSA badness. You can show him all the studies which failed to find it and he will always give "harm" the benefit of the doubt that it is still there and we only need to look harder. Ultimately, you can't debate a superstition, because no amount of evidence will sway them that this invisible thing they are dogmatically sure of is not there.
I wonder what the thinks of this latest study of Tromovitch? I don’t have the energy to jump back into his YouTube threads, but if I did, I assume he would continue in the same vein of denying the boys and men their ability to know their own minds because surely the dogma is right they were abused.
Post a Comment