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.
70 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.
It is very worth noting the heavy censorship and co-opting of the "manosphere" into the corporate feminist framework, in preparation for intensifying the human trafficking hoax(right) and the #metoo agenda (left). This was a huge change that went almost unnoticed. If you read that CNN article, they censored and removed "problematic" men's issues, leaving behind only those willing to debate controversial side-topics such as Nazism, immigration, and (age-approved) homosexuality. Of course, these side-topics do not threaten feminist power at all, and in fact work in service of feminist power. Instead of solving real problems, these men are more interested in beating up each other, preventing men in dresses from threatening women's rights, and attacking other men for saying 15 year olds are hot. That's your 2025 censored, female approved "manosphere" aka a group of confused, violent baby boys looking for a pat on the head from mommy.
Well I'm old enough to remember when Mike Cernovich was writing the Danger and Play antifeminist blog, a man with dangerous ideas compared to the milquetoast f*ggot he is today. Of course, once he deleted his blog and censored himself, he survived the first manosphere purge, and was given attention and money. Coincidence? Of course not. Chateau Heartiste? Gone. Roosh destroyed all his helpful work and became a weirdo. Tom Torero was attacked by the media and killed himself. Andrew Anglin was the first censorship casualty where the corporate censors learned they could get away with it. And now we are left with the Elon Musk (WEF) approved "manosphere" where no real solutions to the destruction of men's lives by feminism are discussed, the best you get is a weird reach around from 'JD Vance' saying you should feel good if you're a man, and the feminist hoaxes are perpetuated forward without discussion.
anon69
Yeah, the "manosphere" is just controlled opposition and men who genuinely like to see men beat each other up. UFC barely qualifies as sport in my view and certainly has nothing to do with resisting feminism. I remember Cernovich too used to have a little bit of MRA in him but now is just another pedohysteria promoter.
The demise of the real manosphere is a combination of censorship and very few men with balls and idealism like I have to do something which does not pay off in some way just because it is the right thing to do. Feminism is for all intents and purposes unopposed. It will have to end in some other way than men fighting back. There is still hope that the culture somehow gets over it, like is happening fast now with the idea that men can become women, but it will have to happen in more diffuse ways than a tangible men’s movement.
Looks like I spelled his name wrong. It's "Ascending Pleiades".
I looked into the comment section of one of his videos and this what he had said to someone regarding the whole debate thing...
"I'm just notifying why I have comments on hold on this video. If I felt the lengthy conversations below should never prove useful or have continuation, which they might one day, I would have closed the comment section for good.
Firstly.
I think I've made my case clear enough on the matter of Child-Adult-S3x (CAS). I disagree with it. In short, I do not think it is at all a necessary behavior or function within our society. Kids aren't better off that conduct being permitted. Therefore, the risks associated with it cannot be justified.
Further, no pro-contact individual has yet provided me with a CONCRETE plan as to how society could go about allowing CAS while safeguarding children from cases of actual predation arising as a side consequence of our society being more permissive of the kind of circumstances connected with acting out CAS. Also, no plan has ever been laid out on how attitudes toward child-adult-s3x, which the pro-contact school of thought associate as the most dominant factor in how kids are harmed in cases of CAS, can realistically be altered in order to avert said mediation of harm.
Honestly, I feel I don't need to tolerate pro-contact people coming to my videos and insulting me as religious or implying I have low integrity or demand anything of me for having an opinion that contrasts with theirs. The fact that many pro-contact individuals don't get this, and continue to be so rude toward those with dissident worldviews, is incredibly off-putting and remind me of how I first became so pessimistic regarding having any kind of discourse with them. It is as though they intentionally seek to drive others into a perception of them as the most entitled, aggressive and zealous group there is. I don't know what makes them behave like this, and quite frankly I've lost interest in knowing.
Secondly.
"Mikem" still keeps spamming new comments about CAS, demanding my attention when I've given him that plenty already. He left a new comment just a few weeks ago on a different video, even though I've requested people not to discuss CAS in those other videos.
Still, In case I ever finish responding to Mikem's dozens of comments I haven't had time to critique, because I have a job and life beyond this godforsaken YouTube channel, I do not want any additional commentaries from him, as he probably will complain if I don't in my prospective response take into account every single essay of his on this, which again are numerous enough as they are. So that's the second reason why the comments are on hold and will be at least for as long as it takes for me to provide Mikem with a comprehensive response to dozens of comments and studies of his. It does take long, because I'm actually reading every single study he leaves and I've started already, as this topic is sort of interesting admittedly (despite how deranged some proponents of it may be).
To conclude, PLEASE, pro-contact folk, go discuss this somewhere else. I'm not your champion and I never will be. I know some of you may find this bitterly disappointing, for I've felt the same way toward multiple other YouTubers who have capsized my high expectations of them. So I actually feel you. Still, my videos are on defending non-offending MAPs, not to cater to a community seeking to condone something I myself vehemently oppose."
In that case, how much do you believe in "predation", Eivind?
Ascending Pleiades's YouTube channel's comment section is an amusing reversal of the usual normie spaces as apparently he is overwhelmed by people arguing in favor of sex with children. Good to see we can be the majority sometimes and I hope this foreshadows the end of the CSA panic!
As to “predation,” no I don’t believe in it in the sense used. The whole “sexual predator” thing is a perversely misleading metaphor at least aside from some extremely rare rapists. A predator wants to consume its prey; a MAP wants to make love to minors. Making love and predation is not the same thing at all. The term is flat-out delusional.
As to the “CONCRETE plan as to how society could go about allowing CAS while safeguarding children” he keeps hysterically demanding; well, if we do want to go overboard with hysteria then the very kind of feminist rape law which Norway is now proposing for all ages is as extreme as it can get, and it would also apply to minors. What more can you possibly ask for? The feminists already dreamt up the most extreme kind of “safeguarding” beyond which I literally can’t think of anything more extreme off the top of my head. I do not believe we need to go this far for children either, but now that women are fully infantilized, it is definitely time to quit demanding special safeguarding for children.
Also on a side note, please take back what I said about NARSOL earlier. They're a really good organization in the midst of this whole pedohysteria/sex panic, and it is really refreshing to see a group of individuals who want laws based on what is actually true and feasible, instead of catering to all of this fear mongering that's going on. They're mainstream and so they're the best thing we've got out there, even if I don't always 100% agree with them sometimes. I've watched a bunch of their videos and read their numerous articles, so suffice to say, they've got the facts and data and all of this other phenomenal information compiled and lined up. They're not pro-sex, and that's okay. At least we all relatively have the same major objective. At least they've got the truth and they're eye-opening, which is all I need really. My only gripe is that much of these laws stem from the sentences and legislation, which I believe they should be putting more thought and consideration into.
Like I said, I may not agree with every opinion from Emily Horowitz, but she's very intelligent and rational, which is exactly the kind of person needed to advocate for something like this. She's also very skillful at debating, so there's that.
I'm always trying to gather as much information and nuance as possible from wherever, so I can use it to help me write and guide my book later down the line. I went down a massive rabbit two-three years ago, so any whiff of information, facts, points, or opinions that is interesting and intriguing to me, I immediately save it and bookmark it, otherwise I'll lose it and forget about it later. Hopefully you all understand how crucial this book project is to me. This may actually "turn the tides" once it gets published. There is just so much knowledge that I need to compile it, so a normie doesn't have to go around and find little bits and pieces and hear what others consider "truth".
I wonder what AP thinks about teenagers then, since they are a lot different compared to "children", despite the congruent infantility society and pop culture places onto them.
Yeah, you're right about the whole predator. I believe it shouldn't really be used outside the animal kingdom, as it makes it seem every person who commits a sex crime or breaks a societal norm has some conniving, nefarious purpose. How can the media go about calling a teacher or adult who has sex with a teen a "predator", if they want to share and express love and affection, and give pleasure to those that want it? Far from sadism and advantageous scheming, don't you think?
Yes, I agree the very same information and analysis that NARSOL and Horowitz put out can be used to back up a much more decisive attack on the sex laws. They do all the heavy lifting for us showing how it is unfounded and then we just need to follow up with a bold political agenda against sex-exceptionalism.
I don’t think Ascending Pleiades can distinguish teenagers from children. In typical normie fashion in line with the CSA-hoax Zeitgeist, the “predation” and “harm” they believe in are tied up in abstract objects inextricably linked to being a “minor,” which of course is another abstract object. That this abstract object is superimposed on a fully sexually and mentally mature individual indistinguishable from an adult makes not the slightest difference. There will always be this miasma of “harm” from “predators” one must “safeguard” against to standards that can literally never be met because we are chasing a mirage of a mirage of a mirage where at the end of the day there is always more potential harm. Yes, even when the “predator” is being as romantic and loving as can be.
We need to knock down that whole metaphysical mindset before we can make progress.
Thank goodness he at least isn’t representative of the MAP movement! Anti-C MAPs are evidently rare enough to make him feel lonely in the comments.
Do you think that it should be legal to sexually touch a child without his or her consent? I'm assuming you (Eivind) don't believe so. What age do you believe children are competent and cognitively-able enough?
Speaking of the anti-trafficking hoax from another commenter.
There's a really good episode on it by the critically-acclaimed podcast series "You're Wrong About". Evidently, they also did an episode on sex offenders, but I was disappointed by that one because they stalled a lot and only touched on what's actually going on and what is wrong with the laws. Maybe that's just because I know too much and I've heard everything, but I prefer their episode on human trafficking, as they dismiss so much of the bullshit and hidden agendas and fear behind it. "Human trafficking" (I'm going to use this term lightly) is more likely to occur in the labor/work industry sense in poorer countries that aren't probably equipped or financially adequately enough, that it becomes disorganized and a complete mess.
The statistics, especially on rape and human trafficking are fucking horrible. Rape data, as the idea that there's an epidemic of sexual assault, violence, and harassment in the military, prisons, colleges, and other areas and spaces where men and women frequently congregate, is absurd. Human trafficking statistics are distorted, exaggerated, and often contact tricky language.
For example, the NCMEC counts all missing or most kids as trafficked (if some calls and believes so), even if the kid returns home safe and sound and wasn't "trafficked" at all. That data point is still there and doesn't get removed. Yet these statistics and many others are used to stir up fear and panic in the media.
There's also a huge, massive gap between kids who are reported missing versus those that literally disappear. 99% return home safely and within 24 hours.
Definitely check that out, Eivind. It's another mainstream, non-map piece that does the heavy lifting and doesn't buy into the complete pedohysteria.
They did other episodes on Stranger Danger and the Satanic panic, so you can check those out too. The one I highly recommend is the human trafficking episode. That, in my opinion, is their best episode because it destroys so much conventional wisdom. Take a listen when you get the chance.
https://yourewrongabout.buzzsprout.com/1112270/episodes/3883928-human-trafficking
I don't believe in either of those paradigms. Neither consent nor age of consent has any place in rational sex law.
Just like the current rape law in Norway until the change proposed now is not based on consent, we don't need it for children either.
What needs to be punished is the use of criminal forms of coercion, such as violence and extortion. This happens to coincide with lack of consent, but "without consent" by itself is a horrible way to define criminal sex, which leads to a whole nightmare of miscarriages of justice.
Why do you suppose Norwegian rape law held on for so long as coercion-based rather than consent-based? Even though the threshold of coercion got extremely diluted over several feminist reforms, the basic conceptualization was maintained to the present day. That’s because there is wisdom in it, don’t you think? It is insane to base something so severely punishable on something so flimsy and unprovable as a state of mind. That leads to all kinds of abuses, the kind of feminist nightmare to which we are now set to open the floodgates.
After decades to centuries of feminism we now have a huge body of evidence of what happens when the state tries to base sex crimes on “consent,” whether by age or the word of a woman as in the latest rape laws. And it is not looking good! It is a nightmare of injustice. That’s why we are here, because we saw how horribly wrong that goes. You invariably get a multitude of cases dragged before the courts that should never have gone there because there was obviously nothing crimeworthy in them. You simply cannot use so simplistic definitions to get real justice.
Yeah, I know both rape and supposed "trafficking" is a clusterfuck of false statistics. Good to see it exposed in more places.
Emily Horowitz is good on this too. In her recent interview which I linked to above she even managed to set me straight on a false statistic the feminists had managed to get stuck in my brain. And that's the idea that domestic violence is an equal problem in all social classes. But according to her own observations, those who engage in it are usually poor and non-white (plus it's not a one-way street of men beating up women, which I did know). I wouldn't have asserted the part about prevalence as confidently as she does because clearly she is even more informed than I am about the falsity of feminist truisms.
There are many more feminist lies than the metaphysical badness of sex.
"In her recent interview which I linked to above she even managed to set me straight on a false statistic the feminists had managed to get stuck in my brain."
Can you link it again? I can't find it.
Also, how do you italicize your words, sentences, or paragraphs? I'm always putting quotation marks after every quote.
Here is that interview again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTClqN3rBVU
You can use HTML tags to italicize and bold.
Unfortunately, Emily Horowitz supports #MeToo and apparently believes it was good and necessary overall, although it did make scapegoats out of some men without the money and power to deal with the accusations-a bit disappointing, but overall a good video.
Also, Vale Pope Frank the Wank,. There wasn't a bandwagon he wouldn't jump on, including raising the age of consent in the Vatican from 12 to 18.
-Anonymous 2
Well, I guess the glass is half full when it comes to Horowitz. I can totally get why being outwardly "pro-sex" isn't the best course of action for an mainstream organization in the United States. At least when it comes to recognizing, distinguishing, and ultimately mitigating moral panics, increasing "sexual violence" awareness as an alternative to sex offender registries isn't going alleviate the hysteria. That's kinda the "opposing-registry" goal Horowitz and other NARSOL members primarily agree upon and have in mind, but we all know that these harsh laws and sentences stem from feminist perspective of patriarchal prowess and romanticism of childhood innocence. Like what Eivind said not too long ago, they're doing the heavy lifting and we just have to focus on the sex exceptionalism moving forward. I don't consider myself an activist, but you are all welcome to fight for whatever you want. Just keep it rational.
Pope Francis, you mean? I think we know the purpose behind that particular bandwagon. The whole priest scandal forever ruined the reputation of the Catholic Church. The last thing they want is to look like a pedophile or be accused of one. The stereotype now is that most priests are sexually-repressed homosexuals using underage boys as outlets for their extreme tension.
Eivind, what are your thoughts on the term "Victim-blaming". Is it valid or in-valid, or both?
The term “victim-blaming” firstly begs the question whether there is really a victim? With so insane laws that is often not the case. If there nonetheless is an accuser, I would blame firstly the law and then partly the “victim” too, sure, for playing along with the charade. If she is a real victim, as in beat up or threatened, then I don’t blame her. I think a lot of supposed “victim-blaming” is confusing these things. Since the normies blindly accept any law, but also find it hard to accept that all this feminist-defined “rape” is real, we get this alternative outlet which is called “victim-blaming.” Perhaps there is a kernel of real victim-blaming too, which I don’t agree with. Andrew Tate is accused of this, but I can’t tell whether he really meant it that way for real rape or it was a way to denounce feminist corruption of rape law.
This new Norwegian concept of “rape” as sex without explicit consent will take this confusion to another level. Indeed, it will be the woman who is put on trial. Since the man was just acting normally, it will all hinge on what the woman did. Did any of her words or actions signify consent? That’s a weird way to judge rape, not by something the man did as in violence or threats that could constitute real rape, but this contrived new concept of her lack of consent. It really looks like a step back for women’s rights, except more convictions is always a victory for feminism and it will of course be men who are punished even though the women will be judged. We will explicitly have to blame the woman in order to acquit the man, so it sets the stage for a whole lot more victim-blaming of the deserved kind -- which of course should mostly be blamed on an insane law, but the normies can scarcely entertain the notion that there is anything wrong with the law. It will be funny to see what happens if the “victim” admits she consented in her head but she just didn’t state it. The new law says it is definitely rape, but there will be cognitive dissonance in the process of convicting and remains to be seen how much blame she gets for nonetheless accusing rape.
Victim-blaming is the gynocracy shifting the goal posts, again. If you don't accept there's a victim you call out the accuser's lies, therefore you are blaming the victim. Simple.
I don't quite know what to make of this, but it's probably a positive development-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKMDDu5ESYI .
-Anonymous 2
So the idea is young women are now more feminist than ever but men their age are not. So they resort to intergenerational dating to get feminist men and the age gap is okay as long as it’s for that reason and not because he is more rich or powerful.
I don’t particularly believe it. Must be a weak trend if it is real at all. But it does go to show the cultural power of the current “manosphere” defined by Andrew Tate and redpill. Their cultural influence is enough to inspire media stories about this supposed trend. Unfortunately this is neither a real manosphere since they left out the fight against the sex laws and I wish that other part were true but don’t know where to find all these young women supposedly looking for men my age.
Most likely, the entire story is made up to entice young men to be more feminist, wishful thinking that you have to be a feminist man to get laid and the redpill men are incels.
@Jack
I'm going to sidetrack here a bit.
Any sort of skepticism for a woman's role as a "victim" is considered victim-blaming. It's funny that we have to live in a world where we must constantly fear everything around us in our lives (crime, health, death). Not to mention that we also in a world we have to believe that women are being victimized 24/7, left and right, and all over the place.
You're right about the gynocracy. "Victim-blaming" and its uses are very similar to how "grooming" is used in modern vernacular. The term "grooming" is the perfect representation of the "Shifting the goalposts/special pleading" fallacy, as no one can exactly "pinpoint" what is actually considered "grooming" or the spark, let alone the conditions and requirements of what constitutes "grooming".
They would say "Well, he's said that he loved her and gave her a gift". Well, anyone can do that. For example, A man can tell his girlfriend that he loves and give her a gift on her birthday. Is that grooming? Did he "groom" his wife in order for her to appreciate her birthday? No, but unless you consider that all relationships in history were the result of grooming, then everyone has been hypnotized, some way or another. But who does grooming exactly? Is it the man or the woman? When the woman reciprocates, is she grooming him in return? No. Do both partners "groom" each other, to the point that the "grooming" cancels out? Are the normies trying to imply that grooming rewires one's brain when used in a romantic/sexual environment. It's funny how very many people are critically thinking about the usage and logic behind these terms. Funny how the normies don't question what they are told. If anything, I would say that they have been "groomed" by the propaganda and feminist/abuse media of being told that "grooming" exists, just like the lazy "victim-blaming" rhetoric.
So like with "victim-blaming", we take away from the idea that any sort of criticism, skepticism, or advice is considered the finger pointer, yet, what makes those particular transmissions so special, to the point that any usage upon that situation is considered "victim-blaming" is also not explained by the normies or feminist or whatever noun Eivind uses.
Just like with "grooming" and "victim-blaming", both of these terms are highly prone to all sorts of contradictions, inconsistencies, and cognitive dissonance". Both are the feminist and abuse-industry metaphor for the supposed "patriarchal power" that men impose onto women in order to suppress and dominate them throughout history.
This might be of interest:
https://aella.substack.com/p/ai-child-porn-will-probably-save
AI child porn will "save" children? Okie dokie. The film "Norwegian Offspring" has the moral that sex dolls can "save" women from sex. Unfortunately for the director and other feminists, they have to make the male sex drive into a parody which only exists their own fantasy plus a few hopeless wankers to make that work. Not saying Aella is a feminist, but she's a fruitcake sometimes.
Aella herself addressed the objection that men want the real thing:
This is almost but not quite true.
AI porn hasn’t taken off yet because it’s bad. It will absolutely take off once it’s indistinguishable from real people. I know this because I’ve seen some onlyfans girls use the most egregious face and body morphing filters known to mankind, and the vast majority of men have no idea this is happening. The vast majority of horny men are much dumber than you’d think. Doing online sex work, my numbers consistently go up the dumber I act. You’d hope that going XOXO HORNY PUSSY WET FOR U BB would not in fact cause money to pour in, but it does. In the war of men’s penises vs the AI, I am betting on the side of AI.
I cannot overstate enough how much the thing men get out of Onlyfans is not realism, but rather the sensation of interaction and influence. They do not want you, they want some facsimile of you. People’s desire for genuineness often conflicts with their desire for convenience, safety, fantasy fulfillment.
Yeah, Aella has lots of experience with the hopeless wankers I referred to. This has obviously biased her perception of male sexuality beyond what even her countless surveys can correct.
It is simple to demonstrate how wrong it is by considering how little the average OnlyFans girl makes. Any girl can make good money selling sex but only a few can make a living on porn.
She thinks horny men are too dumb to want the real thing because she is the one in a million most successful catering to just that demographic.
And isn’t AI porn already extremely realistic? Porn is a significant drain on the male libido, enabling a decently sized industry which can enrich a few girls like Aella herself if they work hard at it and get lucky, but it isn't seriously rivaling real sex for most men and I don't think AI will make that significantly worse.
About grooming, I appreciate Original Insight’s attempting an analysis of the concept. That was both astute and silly because it gets comical when we take the sex-abuse nonsense terms too seriously and try to unravel the logic. I am often guilty of that myself when I speak of the metaphysical badness of sex and the implications for Platonism and such. On the one hand they don’t deserve to be taken seriously as anything more than rationalizations for criminalization done for ulterior motives but on the other a “theory” with so dire consequences that men get life in prison ought to be able to stand up to scrutiny. So there is a place for it even though the result is pure comedy.
I see “grooming” as a way to apply a veneer of innocence on anyone you want to define as a victim. “Grooming” is innocence-washing. Any kind of free will or agency would impinge on the victim role, and we can’t have that in a victimocracy. Victims can’t be courted or seduced because that implies complicity; they can only be groomed, yes, hypnotized, selectively applied to sexuality only even though they are otherwise regarded as responsible for their actions. So, why is the concept of “grooming” seductive? Does this prove that people are prone to inexplicable hypnosis after all? Well, no, because ANY reason to punish someone you dislike is seductive. If you are a father of teenage girls you want to keep away from certain men you don’t care if the rationale is pure nonsense, and likewise if you are a feminist or old hag who wants to cash in on her former glory a second time by being a “victim.” The rest are spectators to the emperor’s new clothes and don’t object like they rarely do to anything that’s not bread and circuses. It doesn’t mean they truly believe it; it just fits into the power structures in just the right ways to be how society operates at the moment. “Grooming” is a story we tell about why the current power structures are justified, nothing more.
So Virginia Giuffre is dead by suicide. Wow!
Death of a liar. And disgusting Guardian article:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/26/virginia-giuffre-suicide-dead-aged-41
Yeah, disgusting article in CNN too:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/25/australia/prince-andrew-accuser-virginia-giuffre-dies-intl-hnk/index.html
“She lost her life to suicide, after being a lifelong victim of sexual abuse and sex trafficking,” her family said in the statement.
As if this is a result of “sexual abuse” rather than her own shameful personality. She managed to convince most of the world that she is a victim, riding high on the greatest hoax in history, but then managed to screw up that impression too when she thought she could lie just as easily about other things like a traffic accident.
"She" didn't do anything, if she even existed at all. The intelligence agencies did everything, she is simply an actress playing her part in the feminist hoax to Make Giuffre Abused Again. MGAA!
anon69
Wow, just when you thought the USA couldn't get any worse, you find out they have been sentencing thousands of men who break feminist hoax laws to "sex offense civil commitment" programs that are basically impossible to escape. Loony!
"These laws, mainly aimed at sexually non-conforming people who had not necessarily committed any violence, faded away within a few decades. But in the late 1980s and early 1990s, feminists increasingly called for an end to sexual violence while mass incarceration boomed. Politicians responded by creating the contemporary system of sex offense civil commitment."
"Ruby Brewer, a therapist who resigned after three years working at MSOP, told The Appeal that staff sometimes refer to the deaths of the people confined there as 'graduations.'"
Barely human scum that perpetuate these brutal feminist hoaxes are the most barbaric people on the planet.
https://theappeal.org/sex-offense-civil-commitment/
anon69
Eivind, have you ever thought of using alternative platforms like FreeSpeechTube to curtail censorship and potentially build an audience there? The site is run by members of Newgon, so I’m not sure how well known you are to that particular community, but since you are an ambassador, there’s a chance you might have some success, considering your recognition beforehand. However, newer videos don’t tend to get a lot of views and the original FreeSpeechTube site got shut down a while ago (few years ago) for some odd reason (perhaps you know why). So, maybe there’s a way to advertise yourself. It’s also a bonus too because you post videos any topic you want without the lurking conundrum of getting banned or taken down. I’m not saying you should abandon your YouTube Channel, but if you ever feel like speaking your mind on riskier subjects, you can switch back and forth between the two sites. Videos like your penny pots or plants or whatever can go on YT, while videos on the FSOC go on the other one, IMO. After all, Most of your YT commenters don’t seem to understand what you’re getting at and what your philosophy and stances are. All they seem say is that “children cannot consent” over and over again.
By the way, I created my first blog post. You can check it out by clicking on the profile with my username.
- Original Insights (Non-MAP)
Semi-relevant at least-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6rNRS7Iiq0 ,
if only because I haven't come across this kind of criticism of women's actions from this kind of femiservative paedocrite before.
These kinds of shows discuss right-wing concerns with a strong tendency to do so from women's POV. For example, they talk about illegals making the streets unsafe for women or Islamic communities not being big on women's education, things like that. Not that there's anything wrong with women's POV per se, but it's very much part of the business model of Sargon of Akkad and POTL, etc.
The linked video breaks the mold a bit. If only Carl Benjamin was prepared to REALLY piss women off.
-Anonymous 2
I wrote a blog post in Norwegian about the consent law in hopes of getting some traction on debating this here:
https://eivindberge.blogspot.com/2025/05/samtykkeloven-en-tjeneste-for-menn-og.html
Norwegian readers please help share. And if this doesn't get any attention then please stop whining about how I am not writing anything for a Norwegian audience because they clearly don't care.
Post a Comment