During our discussions in the comments a while back someone brought in this link, apparently thinking it had some good advice:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hide-and-seek/201703/hell-yes-the-7-best-reasons-for-masturbating
It is one of an entire genre of writings about the supposed benefits of masturbation, especially common in pop psychology magazines where “experts” in health and wellness see it as their duty to nudge us to masturbate more and have less sex (in this case one “Neel Burton M.A., M.D.,” properly credentialed of course). Yes, as we shall see, it is very much about having less sex.
After the formulaic cliched subtitle “The stigma surrounding masturbation has to stop” as if there is still a stigma after a million articles like this, number one of these “seven best reasons for masturbating” comes to us with an origin story:
1. Pleasure and convenience.The bit of ancient philosophy should already make us feel uneasy. Diogenes the Cynic is hardly a person I would like to emulate, is he? How “convenient” to settle for not really living?
Upon being challenged for masturbating in the marketplace, the ancient philosopher Diogenes the Cynic replied, "If only it were so easy to soothe hunger by rubbing an empty belly." According to Diogenes, the god Hermes, taking pity on his son Pan, gave him the gift of masturbation, which Pan then taught to the shepherds.
To masturbate, there is no need for special equipment, the intricacies of sexual intercourse, or even a partner. Although it is often looked upon as the poor relative of sexual intercourse, many couples engage in mutual masturbation, either alongside or instead of intercourse, to simplify, improve, or enrich their sexual lives and arrive at orgasm.
2. Fewer complications. Masturbation is safe as well as convenient. Unlike sexual intercourse, it is very unlikely to lead to pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases such as human papillomavirus, chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, and HIV/AIDS, not to mention other communicable diseases such as flu or coronavirus.Yeah, If you don’t live, you don’t have the complications from life. So much is true and this applies to everything all the way into antinatalism. Why stop at masturbation if you believe in this line of thought? Why want to live at all, then? Moving on,
3. Stronger, more intimate relationships. Contrary to popular perception, there is, at least in females, a positive correlation between the frequency of masturbation and frequency of intercourse. People who masturbate more are more sexually driven, and mutual masturbation is likely to increase the frequency and variety of sexual contact. Both in the performance and in the observation, masturbation can teach partners about each other’s pleasure centres, proclivities, and particularities. If one partner is more sexually driven than the other, as is often the case, masturbation can provide him or her with a balancing outlet.I was about to call plain bullshit on this one until I saw the author calls out his own bullshit with the qualification “at least in females.” Yeah, I never claimed females need nofap. Nofap is for men. I’m not opposed to females doing their version if they feel there is a benefit, but they don’t need to be preached to. Also I wouldn’t really call mutual masturbation masturbation. This is the second time in three “reasons” the author feels compelled to drag in mutual masturbation in order to construct a benefit, so evidently he doesn’t even much believe in his own case.
4. Better reproductive health. In males, masturbation flushes out old sperm with low motility and reduces the risk of prostate cancer. If practiced before sexual intercourse, it can delay orgasm in males suffering from premature ejaculation. In females, it increases the chances of conception by altering the conditions in the vagina, cervix, and uterus. It also protects against cervical infections by increasing the acidity of the cervical mucus and flushing out pathogens. In both women and men, it strengthens the muscles in the pelvic floor and genital area and contributes to extending the years of sexual activity.If you were having regular sex you wouldn’t have a problem with stale sperm, would you? And likewise with premature ejaculation. More sex will cure that as well. “Reasons” 4-7 are all some of a host of “benefits” not unique to masturbation but served equally or better by sex. Hence they are not reasons to masturbate but reasons to have sex, unless you don’t really care about sex and want to nudge us to have less of it, which reveals the true, evil reason for writing all these lists of supposed benefits.
5. Faster sleep. Masturbation invites sleep by reducing stress and releasing feel-good hormones such as dopamine, endorphins, oxytocin, and prolactin. Orgasm, in particular, brings on a state of stillness, serenity, and sleepiness, sometimes called "the little death" (French, la petite mort), which can usher in a deeper sleep.Again, this is better served by sex.
6. Improved cardiovascular fitness. Masturbation is, in effect, a form of light exercise. Compared to regular exercise, it is more effective or efficient at reducing tension and releasing feel-good hormones. The muscles and blood vessels relax, improving blood flow, and lowering heart rate and blood pressure. No surprise, then, that studies have found an inverse correlation between frequency of orgasm and death from coronary heart disease.If you want some pleasurable exercise and increase your frequency of orgasm, the best way, once again, is sex!
7. Brighter mood and other psychological benefits. Masturbation reduces stress and releases feel-good hormones, which lift mood and reduce the perception of pain. It promotes better, more restorative sleep, locking in sleep’s myriad physical and psychological benefits. It enables younger people, in particular, to explore their sexual identity and regulate their sexual impulses, leading to a happier and healthier sexuality, as well as greater self-awareness, self-control and self-esteem. It offers an escape from the constraints and demands of reality, an outlet for the imagination in fantasy, and a medium for the memory in nostalgia. And it culminates in a transcending experience that unites mind with body and life in death.This is ridiculous. Masturbation fosters an incel loser mood rather than a bright one, and no one thinks masturbation is a transcending experience. To actually have these things, have sex.
Wow, this was too easy. I didn’t even have to debunk anything because the arguments literally don’t apply to masturbation versus sex. It almost reads like an underhanded attack on the cultural myth that masturbation is always good. The experts must be fed up with having to write all this propaganda... so for once one of them wrote something halfway subversive.
It is a mirror image of the CSA propaganda: bullshitting and dodging the issue. The CSA hoaxers serve up bullshit about supposed harm and dodge any actual evidence, and the masturbation propagandists serve up bullshit about supposed benefits and dodge any real evidence.
It would be somewhat mitigating if all this propaganda for masturbation was balanced by advice to have more sex for better health and wellness. If, for every list of reasons to masturbate, we got a list of reasons why we should find a young woman that we would actually want to have lots of sex with so we could promote prostate health in the aging male, have transcending experiences, better sleep and so on, I would have less reason to complain.
But we don’t get sex-positivity, do we? With the exception of the occasional, frankly hideous promotions of elder sex (completely age-matched, of course), suited to make even me prefer masturbation, all we get is masturbation propaganda.
But we can do better than that. We can promote true sexual enjoyment and sex-positive attitudes. That means, at the very least, toning down the masturbation evangelism until real sex is at least equally promoted and in my view it means practicing nofap and noporn.
There is another connection to the CSA hoax as well. I believe it would be extremely hard to sell the idea that sex is harmful to minors if we didn’t simultaneously tell them they can masturbate all they want. Back in the 1800s when the culture disapproved of masturbation we didn’t have a problem with sex with minors (unless they were truly little children), and now this has been completely reversed, not coincidentally I think. So sexualists and MAPs have this additional reason to oppose the pro-masturbation propaganda.
180 comments:
Har du vurdert i sjekke ut Substack og publisere artiklene dine der, Eivind? Mot betaling mener jeg, så du kan tjene penger på skrivingen din. Det kan også være om andre temaer enn det som bloggen din hovedsaklig går ut på.
I can't imagine anyone would want to read me behind a paywall on Substack if they don't want to read me for free here. The problem is my ideas just don't resonate with a wider audience. Regardless of what I write about.
Wow you're really fatalistic and negative! I suggested Substack because I think your voice needs to be heard and that you should and could make money off of it.
You are rotting away here and that's not what I want to see happen to a great mind. But if you're going to be stubborn then so be it. I will not write here anymore or try to promote your work.
On Substack you could actually reach a bigger audience and make some money. Unlike here where you reach only a few sensible people who agree with you like myself, but mostly you reach guys who hate women and want them punished and who also loves porn.
This NGO that was discovered as paying $100,000 to the "human trafficking" accuser of Andrew Tate is actually a pretty big development. These disgusting feminist "human trafficking" NGO's have been busy re-naming prostitution as "human trafficking" just like they renamed adolescent teen sex as "pedophilia". And they most definitely pay compensation to every "victim", the bigger the fish, the bigger the payoff. They've been doing this to poor schmucks in Southeast Asia, where they pay the teen girls a few thousand to go find a US citizen and bang him, then turn him over to the government to claim their prize.
Andrew Tate, like Jeffrey Epstein, is an intelligence asset of the government. But just maybe, there is a faction of the government sick of these NGO's getting government money for manufacturing feminist hysteria, and perhaps there is now some infighting going on.
La Strada is primarily financed by a big US charity called Choose Love, and a big Dutch charity called Porticus. Women and womanly men run these charities. Porticus gets its money from a wealthy Dutch family's trust fund, Choose Love gets its money from US trust funds. How have the wealthy become so gay and anti-male?
anon69
Yes 'anon69' it is. But is very much ignored by msm. This is something Eivind who sure can write, have the time and is also somehow infamous could have written about on Substack.
The official “justice” system pays women after they make an accusation of “sexual abuse” and obtain a conviction or just win a civil suit. I am therefore not very shocked that prospective “victims” can get paid prior to making accusations too, and even explicitly for engaging in the conduct which makes them “victims.” It’s just more of the same, a dirty game which is rigged through and through. Men could play that game too if we weren’t so docile. I have been thinking of harnessing the compensation money to get sex with teenage girls. Since the government will pay when I can’t, it’s a credible promise to let them accuse me and collect the money. Since the NGOs have now normalized paying for accusations in advance too it’s an obvious course of action that the normies don’t object to in principle and if only men would realize that this is total war, more of us would employ it too just like we would employ reverse stings.
Think outside the box. Think creatively on how antisex bigotry can be combatted and even harnessed to our advantage. Don’t want to end up as in A.E. Housman’s poem…
When first my way to fair I took
Few pence in purse had I,
And long I used to stand and look
At things I could not buy.
Now times are altered: if I care
To buy a thing, I can;
The pence are here and here's the fair,
But where's the lost young man?
--- To think that two and two are four
And neither five nor three
The heart of man has long been sore
And long 'tis like to be.
How to get those pence before it is too late? When I get a pension in twenty years then sure, the pence are there and here’s the fair, but where’s the lost young man? I don’t know if Housman had the sexual market in mind when he wrote the poem, but that sure is my interpretation!
You could even use Substack to write about poems and get paid for it.
So either way, it isn’t about “justice”, but rather the justice system’s “boot-stomp” narrative and agenda prevailing over “defendants”.
So we not only have feminist lobbying, but also “hand-under-the-table” payment since the justice system is biased and corrupt against those that it wants to punish and thrown behind bars. Is this what it’s all amalgamating into now?
Yeah, and I know the normies won't mind if this is brought to their attention. When something like the affirmative consent law does not upset them, nothing will. Not the combination either: paying women to use the consent law to manufacture more rape convictions would just be more business as usual that they pay no attention to except when it happens to them and then only to defend themselves individually, never in principle.
Gail Tverberg weighs in on "child sexual abuse" after a moron commented some Epstein hysteria and tried to make her go along with it.
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2025/07/14/worrying-indications-in-recently-updated-world-energy-data/#comment-487894
I think child sexual abuse is a very “modern” concern. Before, people were concerned about children (and their parents) starving to death. They came up with solutions that often involved trade offs. Leaving children in the care of adults who might abuse them sexually was a solution that often seemed to work.
Now we have all kinds of rules that churches, scout troops, and other organizations must always have two leaders with children, to prevent sex abuse. This very much handicaps these organizations in the kinds of programs they can offer, because they need close to twice as many leaders,
I have seen some of the materials that insurance companies put out regarding problems with sexual abuse. They are very liberal in what they consider sex abuse. There doesn’t need to be physical contact, for example. A major concern is that the child will feel guilty because he/she consented to such a situation.
A different approach is to teach children (and adults), “Bad things happen to all of us. The best approach is to forgive and forget. Each day is a new day. We need to move on, and take care of the rest of our lives.”
An economy has to have a whole lot of “surplus energy” to chase after and lock up all of the sexual offenders. I am afraid that being excessively offended by child sexual abuse is one of the things that needs to go away in a low energy world. Studies of genetics of families seem to come up with a whole lot of examples of incest and other relationships that shouldn’t exist.
We can start thinking instead about people starving to death. Or people being killed for organ harvesting. Or populations outgrowing their resource bases and governments planning to bring down their populations, whether the citizens like it or not.
So, basically her way of saying CSA is a hoax. The biggest problem is children feel guilty for consenting, which in turn is caused by the hysteria.
Gail may have been wrong about how quickly our civilization is collapsing, but she gets many things right.
CSA is a hoax driven by feminists and enabled by surplus energy. We know surplus energy is ending and then CSA will have to be relegated to a non-issue again because there are so many real problems. The normies these days think a “sexually abused” child is worse than a starving child, but that’s because they have never seen any starving children. We live in a bubble of overprotection against the real world, which is why we can spend unlimited resources chasing imaginary problems.
The NGOs and other abuse industry will lose their funding before long. They seem all-powerful now, but it won’t last. We don’t have to rely on the idea of CSA to go away because the persecution obviously can’t subsist on ideas alone. “I am afraid that being excessively offended by child sexual abuse is one of the things that needs to go away in a low energy world. Studies of genetics of families seem to come up with a whole lot of examples of incest and other relationships that shouldn’t exist.” Shouldn’t exist according to current sensibilities, that is. Those sensibilities are not long for the world because the demons they claim to fight are so deeply ingrained in human nature that the fight is futile even at the peak of fossil fuels, and soon we will have much worse problems to worry about. Humanity had this one spike of abundant energy and then we go back to normal. There will still be persecution, but it will have to be directed at a small minority. Perhaps persecution of something like homosexuality is sustainable in a low-energy world, but it sure can’t encompass all of sexuality like it does now.
I do NOT believe a low-energy world means we go back to a “real” definition of pedophilia like the Antifeminist imagines, and persecute only them. That, too, is an artifact of surplus energy, with the word coined in the 1880s when the burning of fossil fuels was already well underway. If you read Gail’s comment again you will notice she has no patience for that either, or faith that a low-energy world will be bothered.
To be on the right side of history going forward you need to fully embrace the MAP movement like I have done.
It already looks most likely that Gail Tverberg will win the Heretic of the Year Award for 2025. She is the most famous person to make a so heretical statement against the CSA hoax. Of course I am equally heretical as Gail, but I am much less famous and influential, so she wins. She is also far more popular than any other MAP activist besides me.
And once again we see that the boldest antifeminists and sexualists tend to be women. No man comes close to her rejection of Epstein hysteria (except nobodies like me and my anonymous commenters). I guess you could say the Trump administration is also refusing to pander to more Epstein hysteria, but they go about it in such an idiotic way that we can’t discern any message that they disapprove of CSA hysteria in principle. Trump himself is now looking like a deer in the headlights who risks his whole presidency unraveling because he can’t take a principled stand against the CSA hoax even with regard to older teens. All he can do is construct another conspiracy theory which says the popular conspiracy theory is wrong and Epstein wasn’t even a pimp, much less an agent. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but one thing is sure, there is nothing wrong with sex with willing teens, not when they get paid either. Once you admit this, it gets much less interesting to “expose” Epstein’s friends and clients, even if some of the agent and blackmail stuff is true.
Gail is right. Child sexual abuse is a luxury problem.
(The NGOs and other abuse industry will lose their funding before long. They seem all-powerful now, but it won’t last).
No Eivind, industries like that won’t suddenly cease to exist overnight. As long as CSA is considered morally and viscerally repugnant and the climate of paedohysteria infects even the most docile of normie minds, then they will thrive in our current ecosystem.
They will never let go of filthy rich folks like Epstein. They’ll continue to hang him even higher, long after he had hung himself.
We are too far gone in the fact that the innocence of childhood is so tightly ingrained in western society, that we would basically have to nuke the Earth (Stanislav Petrov style) and start civilization from scratch. Never gonna happen because these groups work so closely with governments and other federal agencies, that you would have to yank the entire chain or unravel the whole sewn sweater to make themselves futile and meaningless.
Childhood is supposed to be treacherous, whether it’s society’s strong inherent belief that children are at high risk from predatory molestation or clumsily opening Daddy’s toolbox and cutting themselves bloodily. They are going to have their cake, then eat it.
Best option we have is for paedohysteria to reach its vertex on the parabola that there is no one else to persecute, so it starts to implode in on itself.
(Duke).
We are so used to nothing ever happens that we can’t imagine real upheavals. The worst we experienced in our lifetime was 5% inflation and a fake pandemic (or 10% inflation if you remember the 1980s). Just wait until those 100 million barrels of oil equivalents per day that enable all the focus on luxury problems no longer flow so freely. Priorities will change for sure. Gail was wrong about when the low-energy world would come (should have been ten years ago according to her), but not what happens when it does.
In other news (of the nothing ever happens kind), now we know what Buddhist monks do with their donations:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/16/asia/thai-police-monk-seduction-scandal-intl-hnk
They pay off women they’ve had sex with to keep quiet so they can appear celibate.
Police in Thailand arrested a woman Tuesday who allegedly enticed a string of Buddhist monks into sexual relationships and then pressured them into making large payments to cover up their intimacy. Wilawan Emsawat, in her mid-30s, was arrested at her home in Nonthaburi province north of the capital Bangkok on charges including extortion, money laundering and receiving stolen goods. Police said they traced money transferred to her by a senior monk from a bank account belonging to his temple in northern Thailand.
I guess that’s better than paying CSA accusers like the Catholic church do with their money.
Or better yet don’t pretend sex is a problem! That would solve so many problems.
Big difference here: the police go after the woman for extortion!
"Epstein wasn’t even a pimp, much less an agent. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle"
Don't understand what you mean. Was he half a pimp or half an agent?
Or simply a man who could afford attracting perfectly consenting girls with money and fame. Who probably made a fatal mistake inviting a 14 yo girl (if it's true). I'm sure he believed the rest of his activities was legal, the girls being above the age of consent.
I don’t know exactly who Epstein was and what kind of entity (if any) employed him or used him as an asset. I don’t know how he got his fortune and why a rich guy would organize a conference called “confronting gravity” and attract people like Stephen Hawking just for fun; seems there was something more to it.
But it’s not like there is anywhere we can go and look up the truth. The whole thing is too mired in conspiracies and ulterior motives for anyone with any real information to be honest. The women want money and the men want to cover up having known him and the conspiracy theorists want views for their theories. So I don’t expect to learn any more facts.
What I know is that since all the supposed badness to do with Epstein based on remotely credible facts is to do with consensual sex with “underage” girls, I am satisfied that all the hysteria is nonsense. What matters now is a myth of the archetypal pedophile, and that myth reveals the ugly truth about our culture’s sex-hostility. And yes, it also reveals that the archetypal pedophile isn’t even into prepubescent children; so much has the language changed and our concepts about what kind of sexuality we as a culture find truly abhorrent.
My aim as an activist is to turn the cultural trope of the evil pedophile into a cool guy. Although it looks completely hopeless at the moment that the normies can have any other thought to think with about the subject than the former, Epstein does have plenty of cool qualities, including, of course, his hedonistic lifestyle with teenage girls that any reed-blooded man would envy if he could be honest with himself or society. And again, it is the myth that matters since we can’t hope to get objective information about who he truly was and because culture runs on myths rather than facts anyway.
This woman Gail is constantly wrong, it's not even worth remembering her full name. "Surplus Energy" is why we have the feminist CSA hoax, a "luxury problem"? What about all the lower classes in the Anglosphere who are piss poor and in debt, yet obsessed with violently attacking any man who talks to a younger woman, let alone a teen girl? As long as misandrist government has power, that power will be directed against men, aka against sexual desire for young, attractive girls, even if the walls are falling down.
Eivind, you're not going to convince anyone that being a pedo is cool with your current presentation, unfortunately. But what you can do is:
1) Attack misandrist, despicable and greedy NGO's.
2) Set up "pedo hunters" and catch them in the act trying to bang girls under 18.
anon69
Piss poor lower classes in the Anglosphere? Lol, they live better than kings did three hundred years ago, before we harnessed fossil fuels to give us all the energy equivalent of hundreds of slaves, even if you are on welfare in the Anglosphere.
Gail is right that this is temporary, and then we go back to real concerns instead of the dreamt up CSA and other nonsense people obsess over now that they have no material worries (other than relative to other people who also live like kings or better.)
You don’t think “surplus energy” means anything because by luck of when you were born you have been spoiled to think it can’t be otherwise, but this is the exception not the rule.
Via the AF’s blog I just heard about a massive pedocrite named Riley T. Carter, former Aberdeen, WA, city councilor and self-styled anti-pedophile activist known for his “Make Pedophiles Afraid Again” hat, now sentenced to 46.5 years in prison for sex with 11-year-old step-daughter. They call it “rape” but I’m not putting any credence in that without knowing more details. Here are some links to news stories and an announcement from the Grays Harbor Sheriff's Office on Facebook:
https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/wa-councilman-convicted-child-rape
https://incels.is/threads/agecuck-arrested-for-raping-his-own-daughter.767009/
https://www.facebook.com/100064419953166/posts/updatethis-is-an-update-from-friday-71125-riley-carter-was-sentenced-to-465-year/1157101416447179/
***UPDATE***
This is an update from Friday 7/11/25.
Riley Carter was sentenced to 46.5 years in Grays Harbor Superior Court!!
***SUSPECT FOUND GUILTY***
On July 30th, 2024, Riley Tyrel Carter, 39, was arrested for first-degree rape of a child by Grays Harbor County Sheriff’s Office Detectives. A jury trial was held this week in Grays Harbor Superior Court. This afternoon, the jury found Riley Carter guilty on all 8 counts to include, three counts of Rape of a Child 1st Degree, three counts of incest 1st degree, one count of child molestation 1st degree, and one count of incest 2nd degree.
Thank you to the Grays Harbor County Prosecutors Office for working so diligently with our Detectives to see this case through.
Sentencing is set for July 11th at 8:30am
Very well. There we have a perfect example of what anon69 requested, exposing pedo hunters for being their own claimed enemies. And these cases are by no means rare. So what I am wondering is, what do they do for us? Is there any pro-sexual benefit to exposing self-styled pedo hunters like this and even convicting them to effectively life in prison? Is it worth the effort to expose more pedocrites?
I honestly don’t think there is. To the normies, if we denounce these pedophiles then we just sound like another normie. So I’m going against the grain here and saying even an agecuck like Riley T. Carter deserves sympathy if he’s really imprisoned for a loving relationships with his step-daughter. What matters is expressing the heretical view that this should not be a crime. Regardless of who commits it. Yes, he was an awful person for hating pedophiles and a hypocrite for being one at the same time, but justice should be justice for all.
So, anon69, I must respectfully decline your suggestion. I DO see a benefit in fighting them in reverse stings, but I do not see a benefit in “exposing” them for something I myself support since the latter will only make me look like a better version of a pedo hunter to the normies. I need to make it absolutely clear that I am an enemy of the state and an enemy of society with its antisexual norms. There is no way around assuming the role of what they hate if we want to make progress. There is no way to come across as a “good guy” to the normies at the same time as we are seen opposing pedohysteria, because those roles are mutually exclusive as long as they hate sexuality so much. You can’t have your cake and eat it: either be a dissident and stand for it and take the hate or you might as well not bother if all you are going to do is be another pedo hunter, even if you hunt the “hunters” themselves that way, because that approach is not a step in the right direction.
This afternoon, the jury found Riley Carter guilty on all 8 counts to include, three counts of Rape of a Child 1st Degree, three counts of incest 1st degree, one count of child molestation 1st degree, and one count of incest 2nd degree.
Why is he being charged with incest, if his step-daughter is not even biologically related to him?
FWIW, a Courtney Stodden story from The Fail came to my attention today-https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14911997/Courtney-Stodden-happy-given-alcohol-cope-trauma-feel-ashamed.html .
As expected, the top comment was of the "she was too young" variety, but I was surprised by the range of opinions in the comments and the high like counts of some that go against the party line.
She herself is still milking the fact that she was 16 when she married Doug Hutchinson, then 51, for all it's worth. However, she's getting far less sympathy than I expected, including saying that she went after him and was a gold digger when she was 16. She might not have been a gold digger but that doesn't mean she was traumatized either. I find her still very easy on the eyes but a very silly woman.
In any case, over the past 12 months, I believe I have detected a reduction in the paedohysteria and age cucking, and this only seems to be getting stronger. It might not turn on a dime like it did around the year 2000 ( I can't say I really remember an abrupt shift, more like one day I realized there'd been some kind of society-wide attitude change), but it ain't 2017 anymore.
-Anonymous 2
Any of our enemies getting their comeuppance is good news, and a pedo-hunter is no doubt an enemy of ours. Not to mention the possibility that the resulting scandal make the whole pedo-hunting industry look bad. Right now such scandals are the only good news we have to chew on. On a more general note, it is satisfying when karma strikes.
That pedohunter who had sex with his 11 year old daughter looks exactly the way i would think a pedo hunter would look like: https://www.thedailyworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/39591609_web1_2506010-ADW-Carter_1.jpeg
Going off of sex exceptionalism, are sex crimes more heinous, extreme, or otherwise more “damaging” compared to other crimes? Do we spin and impose too much “morality” on these kinds of topics? Henceforth, do you believe longer sentences contribute to increased chance of rehabilitation, or is that just the excuse many justice systems use?
The Epstein hysteria keeps getting more deranged.
Tucker Carlson believes that no normal men are attracted to youth, and deviants like Epstein are not actually sexually aroused by youthful girls either but rather have a Satanic drive to “destroy innocence”:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/V4UWR3jyWNo
“It’s not about sex… It’s a spiritual thing … it’s the thrill of destroying innocence. And that is the definition of evil.”
In other words the metaphysical badness of sex which is the religion of our times, plus the feminist myth hat rape is not about sex but rather power has metamorphosed into any “underage” sex being metaphysically invalided to not being about sex but supposedly motivated by this alternative Satanic drive. This is what normies like Tucker Carlson literally believe (the more “philosophical” of them, that is, who can articulate their delusions in more words than just “pedophile”).
This shit runs so deep I am at a loss for words to describe how insane it is, except it really speaks for itself to those us of who are not smitten by the panic. These morons literally believe attraction to youth is a spiritually evil force rather than the positive natural feeling it is. They believe we are possessed by Satan to want to “destroy innocence,” and feelings like love and affection or even lust can’t possibly enter into it. He also apparently believes with a straight face that everyone under 18 are “kids” who cannot possibly be into sex or make a choice to have it.
And if you thought that was bad, the comments are even worse... These are the top comments and number of likes and then I kept scrolling but failed to find a single contrary opinion. To call this a religion of the metaphysical badness of sexuality is an understatement because they don’t even believe sexuality exists anymore: only the metaphysics exists now. We who used to just be normal men have become demons who have only one drive, and it’s not sex, but to “destroy innocence”; never mind that the innocence does not fit reality either. The normies live in an alternative reality altogether.
@BethSmith-ep9vm
It IS “the thrill of destroying innocence”. Tucker is so right here. And it IS the definition of evil.
1.8K
@carolharris2357
It's a satanic thing.
980
@RachLynn
The absolute worst kind of evil. There is nothing on earth more sick & twisted.
1K
@clockinthe916
It's a battle of Good and evil. Choose your side.
511
@JulieRice-f5n
I always thought this. The thrill of taking the joy, innocence, and purity of a young soul is pure EVIL.
377
@DM-kl4em
He is absolutely right. It is not a crime of sex. It is a crime of power and subjugation.
248
@Abubaker42
“The thrill of destroying innocence” that gave me goosebumps.
346
@kohleraw12
POWERFUL TUCKER CARLSON! STAY WITH CHRIST!
262
@ibrahimahmedmahmud6158
Tucker is getting closer and closer to the truth
Sex exceptionalism has been taken to another level. No, I do not believe sex crimes more heinous, extreme, or otherwise more “damaging” compared to other crimes. But this is what the normies believe even for victimless sex crimes, that are this demonic crime against innocence.
Teens are rarely very innocent, but let’s indulge the normies awhile and consider what a teen girl is supposed to save her innocence for? Does not innocence equally get “destroyed” at a later time or with a boy the same age? But what they really mean, and what makes us attracted is youthful looks. This does not get destroyed by having sex, but by the passage of time whether one has sex or not. It’s not like the teen girl gets to keep her “innocence” if we don’t get to enjoy it.
And no, I don’t believe longer sentences have anything to do with rehabilitation. Nothing past ten to fifteen years can reasonably be justified that way and only for real crimes. When an American judge imposes 45 years it’s hate and insanity masquerading as rational reasons which just looks ridiculous to an outsider. They even forget that the frailty of old age makes it hard to be any kind of criminal and act as if it’s relevant to keep you looked up into your 80s and 90s when you would probably be in a nursing home anyway.
Jack is exactly correct of course. You make the whole industry look bad by exposing these clowns, which is good for everyone and everything we are doing. And of course, you don't have to turn them over to police at all, because that would be against your ethos, yet you could still humiliate them into obscurity. It's an obvious win.
anon69
The cuck right wing is really awe-inducing in how much further it can cuck itself than the feminist left wing.
anon69
It's just right wing roasties holy ghosting about demons when men want to bang hot young teens, aka it's retardedly feminist America as usual.
anon69
When a man is attracted to an intelligent and beautiful young girl, but not to a young girl who is stupid and ugly, this shows unequivocally that it is all about sex, and not "power and subjugation". Power doesn't depend on a nice ass.
Holy moly, society takes the 18 magic number so literally. Why? WHY??? WHY IS “18” THE STATUS QUO??? IT IS JUST A FUCKING NUMBER!!! A NUMBER THE GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTED AS PART OF A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. WHY DO WE WORSHIP THIS NUMBER? Hogwash! Hogwash! Hogwash!
Sorry for yelling my vocal cords out.
So basically “innocence” is only allowed to be lost once someone turns 18? Is that what the normie message is now? You’re sweet and precious at 17, but a year later, you’re an inexcusable, “grow-the-fuck-up” type of person?
"Power doesn't depend on a nice ass."
That's a good point. But they will tell you evil demons find it more arousing to desecrate Innocence and Beauty that are gifts of God. Or any other crap to justify their fanaticism.
If pedophilia is all about the thrill of destroying innocence, how come there are so few nepiophiles? Babies have real innocence and powerlessness and obviously that's not what it's about. But the normies make up for it by pretending 17-year-olds are as innocent as a baby. That way all attraction to youth can be tarred with the same brush, except we need much stronger metaphors having to do with demons and Satan, and they are not even metaphors, but what these dimwits literally believe. All because of an arbitrary line at 18 which the government made up for administrative purposes that they take as gospel truth. There is zero nuance to how the normies can define a child with regard to sexuality except this imaginary line.
Children can be as sexually active and horny as adults, and yet innocent at the same time. For their "innocence" consists not in the fact that they are virgin or asexual, but in the fact that they haven't yet been brainwashed into believing that sex is evil.
Yes, in that sense I agree children have natural innocence. They judge sexual activity by how it actually feels rather than what society believes. Reality is they have to be groomed into thinking sex is bad rather than the other way around, and it is the absence of such grooming that makes the normies go the most ballistically hysterical lest children should agree to have fun. That's where the guilt from having consented that Gail was referring to comes in after cultural brainwashing that sex is so unbelievably bad for them.
Good question about nepiophiles.
What was I saying about it not being 2017 anymore? Those comments under the Tucker Carlson video are truly insane.
However, the reason there are no contrary opinions-and I mean none whatsoever-could be explained by y/tube censorship. Plus, are some of the comments made by bots? I also reckon that a video like this would attract a lot of super or ueber normies. In any case, the prevailing opinion in the comments might deter people from expressing even a mild degree of skepticism, even without the extreme censorship found on y/tube these days.
-Anonymous 2
(In any case, the prevailing opinion in the comments might deter people from expressing even a mild degree of skepticism, even without the extreme censorship found on y/tube these days.)
Anon, that’s the Spiral of Silence. Those with opinions or views not in the majority of public opinion are more likely not to be shared, hence the silence.
Did Gail delete her comment? I don't see it in the thread anymore...
I think quite frankly her comment was pretty heretical so I guess she has to delete it or be expelled from polite society. At least now we know there are some people out there with half a brain! Probably quite a lot more. They are just very scared to come out and probably tend to ignore the whole issue due to it being perceived as being politically insurmountable...
I can’t find Gail’s comment anymore either. Good thing we saved it. I will probably feature it more prominently at the end of the year in a Heretic of the Year ceremony.
All I can find now is she made another little comment in the same vein, though less extreme. In response to someone who said:
drb753 says:
July 18, 2025 at 7:55 am
Since we are in an extremely financialized world, we should all forget principles, go with the flow and buy popcorn futures to front run the market. Jeffrey and Donald had certain things in common.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-sent-epstein-bawdy-50th-birthday-wish-cherishing-wonderful-secrets-wsj.
Gail replied:
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2025/07/14/worrying-indications-in-recently-updated-world-energy-data/comment-page-2/#comment-488168
Gail Tverberg says:
July 18, 2025 at 8:27 am
Rich men have had many wives and concubines for ages. The story goes on. Trying to eliminate it is impossible.
So at least she didn’t change her attitude, even if she was maybe pressured into deleting her most heretical comment. Or maybe it just got buried and the link is broken. She always gets thousands of comments on many pages so it’s hard to navigate.
And the story she was referring to now is another level of hysteria as well.
Donald Trump sent notorious sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein a bawdy birthday letter with a drawing of a naked woman, an acknowledgement that the two "have certain things in common," and a wish for "every day [to] be another wonderful secret," the Wall Street Journal reported.
Oh my god, a drawing of a NAKED WOMAN! How scandalous! We can’t have that in polite society, can we? Wait until the media discover that this is actually a common subject in art, lol, and by the way I didn’t know Trump was an artist, but he actually is.
Well Perplexity AI thinks Gail's comment is pure heresy before then going on its own radical feminist rant against her quoting radical feminist research (5-25% of the population have been horrifically raped is the implication lol):
The comment you shared reflects a controversial and problematic perspective that significantly downplays the severity and impact of child sexual abuse (CSA). On a scale of heresy—from 1 (completely orthodox/acceptable) to 10 (extremely heretical/dangerous)—this comment would rate quite high, likely around 8 or 9 for several reasons:
It minimizes the modern understanding and serious consequences of CSA, framing it as a "very modern concern" and suggesting past societies accepted abuse as a necessary trade-off. This ignores extensive research showing CSA causes profound long-term psychological harm, increased risks of psychiatric disorders, and even higher suicide attempts in victims
.
The comment argues that requiring preventive measures (e.g., two adults with children) "handicaps" organizations, which disregards the critical importance of protecting children from abuse. Safeguarding policies exist precisely because CSA is prevalent and devastating, affecting significant percentages of children globally—from 5-25% depending on population and gender—with severe lifelong consequences
.
It trivializes abuse by suggesting "there doesn’t need to be physical contact" to define CSA, framing emotional or psychological coercion as potentially over-policed. Yet, modern definitions of CSA precisely include non-contact abuse because psychological trauma from manipulation or coercion is well documented
.
The proposal to "forgive and forget" and move on ignores the necessity of accountability, legal justice, and psychological treatment for victims. Research indicates that CSA correlates highly with mental health disorders and requires proactive intervention, not dismissal or tolerance
.
The comment’s view that excessive concern over CSA may not be feasible in a "low energy world" or in the face of other crises (starvation, organ harvesting, population control) dangerously prioritizes societal challenges over the fundamental rights and safety of children. This utilitarian justification for tolerating abuse is ethically and socially unacceptable
.
Overall, the comment reflects a deep misunderstanding or rejection of the contemporary moral, legal, and scientific consensus on CSA, making it a highly problematic stance in public discourse about child protection. It risks normalizing harm and undermining efforts to safeguard vulnerable children.
Amusing. I didn’t put a number on it yet but if I did I would agree with Perplexity AI that Gail’s comment sits around 8 or 9 on the heresy scale. This is where our agreement ends, however. I must nonetheless give the AI props for being extremely good at following instructions -- from its programmers prompting it to always play the role of someone who believes in the CSA hoax no matter what the users tell it, that is, and in the metaphysical badness of sexuality which is supposed to outweigh all other concerns such as comparative trifles like organ theft and famine and financial collapse.
We must remember that the AI is role-playing. It is not evaluating the evidence and coming up with what seems most likely true, because it is not allowed to do so. As such, we can’t fault it for being unintelligent, because it is quite intelligently playing its role as a CSA hoax propagandist. It is flat-out lying about “research showing CSA causes profound long-term psychological harm,” but again it lacks free will to do otherwise.
I am reminded of this study I recently came across:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-24-03933
Which raises the concern that chatbots can provide medical disinformation when asked to do so.
Exploratory analyses assessed the feasibility of creating a customized generative pretrained transformer (GPT) within the OpenAI GPT Store and searched to identify if any publicly accessible GPTs in the store seemed to respond with disinformation. Of the 100 health queries posed across the 5 customized LLM API chatbots, 88 (88%) responses were health disinformation. Four of the 5 chatbots (GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Llama 3.2-90B Vision, and Grok Beta) generated disinformation in 100% (20 of 20) of their responses, whereas Claude 3.5 Sonnet responded with disinformation in 40% (8 of 20). The disinformation included claimed vaccine–autism links, HIV being airborne, cancer-curing diets, sunscreen risks, genetically modified organism conspiracies, attention deficit–hyperactivity disorder and depression myths, garlic replacing antibiotics, and 5G causing infertility. Exploratory analyses further showed that the OpenAI GPT Store could currently be instructed to generate similar disinformation. Overall, LLM APIs and the OpenAI GPT Store were shown to be vulnerable to malicious system-level instructions to covertly create health disinformation chatbots.
Well, duh. It would be more worrisome for the future of AI if they failed to play the role of a crazy and stupid conspiracy theorist when told to do so at the system level. I takes intelligence to be a good actor even if the role calls for a lunatic. Unfortunately we are dealing with that sort of lunacy imposed on all of us with regard to CSA unless they can be jailbroken. It is a human problem rather than an AI problem, one of the problems which can’t be fixed by AI I guess.
I know this is not Eivind's main focus regarding the Epstein case, because none of the activities done with the girls should be a crime at all of course. But I think Dershowits is great in this video about fake accusers etc.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8TLC539IUY
A regret-rape accusation which didn’t go to plan:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/24/americas/hockey-canada-sexual-assault-acquittal-latam-intl
This case is unusual for the extremely forceful declaration by the judge.
Justice Maria Carroccia resonated across Canada as she bluntly assessed that, “I do not find the evidence of E.M. to be either credible or reliable”… The Associated Press reported that Justice Carroccia read and detailed her decision for more than five hours, outlining the evidence, her assessment of that evidence and the reasoning that she says supported her acquittals.
I’m not surprised this was a female judge. Can you imagine a man speaking for five hours about why a woman was not raped? Or even five minutes? Or pretty much going against the sex abuse hysteria at all. Men are so cucked that besides the handful of us, only women will do that these days.
Trump must be so stressed out by now that I am worried about his health. The media is still pushing the Epstein hysteria relentlessly:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/25/politics/trump-epstein-claims-analysis
Suppose Epstein’s activity with teenage girls and powerful men was all about blackmail and such. What would it look like if that were put into practice because the entity behind didn’t get their way?
Well, you could hardly have asked for a better demonstration, could you? After all, the media do have a choice as to whether they want to push this agenda on the front page every damned day or let it slide. Who controls them? What is the best explanation for what is going on now? Is the antisex hysteria by itself really this strong? How come they suddenly “discovered” new pictures from 1993. And on and on until I am seriously worried Trump will have a stroke or heart attack. He is an old man after all. And already said to have swelling in his legs caused by venous insufficiency probably exacerbated by the stress. If worse is soon to come I won’t be surprised, but I wish he would just take a stand for male sexuality and pass the cultural feminist shit-test instead of letting himself get stressed out.
Did Trump refuse to follow orders or what?
If Trump ever publicly acknowledged the persecution of male sexuality, his career would come to a screeching halt. Both sides would be outraged and turn against him. One side for obvious, opportunistic reasons and the other that’s so embroiled in conspiracy theories and paedohysteria. They all want the smoking gun regardless.
Normie men will rather be persecuted to death before they acknowledge the persecution of male sexuality, and Trump is no exception then. He can’t as much as admit he drew a nude woman (and now says he never does that) because it puts him too close to “sexual abuser.” The Epstein psychosis sweeps up all sexuality and none of the believers can see anything wrong with seeing abuse in all of it. All because some of it was technically illegal now everything is the utmost moral depravity, even if just standing around smiling at a wedding or sending a birthday greeting which is then especially bad if it has a drawing of a nude woman? Wait, if it’s the association with Epstein that’s bad why make a deal out of the nudity in art as if it makes it worse? Because the normies literally can’t make that distinction. Epstein is a metaphor for sexuality and they hysterically hate all of it now because the mass psychosis that Epstein is the archetypal evil prevents seeing any nuance.
All of this can be shot down by realizing that they mistook the technicality of illegal sex with the deepest moral truth and let themselves be cucked by the feminists that way, but none of them will entertain a thought along these lines.
Just when you thought the Epstein hysteria couldn’t get any more absurd:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-ghislaine-maxwell-answer_n_6884fcf6e4b0d2b6e053785f
“It’s the easiest question in human history,” Honig told host Michael Smerconish on Saturday, quoting colleague Kevin Liptak as appropriately asking, “Are you kidding me?”
Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence after being convicted of helping Epstein sexually abuse underage girls.
On Friday, following the news that the Justice Department’s No. 2 official had met with Maxwell in federal prison, a reporter asked Trump if he would consider a pardon or commutation for her.
“It’s something I haven’t thought about,” Trump replied. “I’m allowed to do it, but it’s something I have not thought about.”
Honig expressed bewilderment at the answer.
“A pardon for the single worst, or No. 2 after Jeffrey Epstein, worst child sex trafficker in modern history?” he said. “Absolutely not. N-O.”
Teenage luxury escorts who recruited themselves are the worst trafficking victims? So, nobody in modern history trafficked real children? Nobody trafficked by force or violence? Epstein and Maxwell are the two worst sex offenders (and probably humans since nothing can be worse than sex crimes) you can think of? And nobody in the mainstream seen anything slightly hysterical about this.
I do feel sorry for Maxwell. The biggest feminist-inspired witch-hunt in history and they only managed to substantially punish a woman. But nobody sees anything off by that either, except there is some hesitation in Trump’s answer. He knows it’s the right thing to do (or perhaps the only thing that can save him) but is a coward for not pardoning her.
The woman gets 20 years and the man gets death. Typical of the sentencing gap. Besides, women do not serve decade-long or life-long sentences. They get released earlier "for good behaviour". Right as we speak, Maxwell or her lawyer is being told what she should divulge for Trump and other important people like the Clintons to look good. Like they were inactive bystanders but had no share in the sex. In exchange Maxell goes free and for everyone to hear she declares her doings to have been the worst possible crimes in human history. As a bonus she gets her own male-entrapment NGO to run so that she can resume living the high life, this time in the service of "Good".
Then cue the new catch phrase "everyone deserves a second chance" as they raise millions of dollars in funding for Maxwell's new ball busting NGO. Jack, your crystal ball is working well, unfortunately.
anon69
https://www.themirror.com/news/us-news/least-10-children-including-toddlers-1288875?int_source=nba
Eivind, do you really believe this as trafficking?
As a rule I don't believe anything just because the police says so and certainly not before hearing from the other side. There could be real trafficking of those allegations are true, but needs more evidence and sounds fishy. Remember also that the police will wildly exaggerate even if there is a core of truth.
But if ANY of that is true, it obviously puts Epstein to shame as the worst sex trafficker in modern history.
And there's 'Jack' with his woman hating delusions again. So what if woman are treated treated leniently compared to men? It dont help men if women are treated equally bad as men in sex-cases, so what's the point?!
Ah-ah. I was starting to miss your retarded comments, whoever you are (or pretend to be).
What are you talking about 'Jack'? My comment was spot on. What do you think is wrong with it for you to call it "retarded"?
Eivind, you'll like this one:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-07-28/pilot-accused-of-child-sex-crimes-arrested-minutes-after-flight-lands
Pilot gets snatched from the cockpit on child pornography charge. Next escalation: surgeon dragged from the operating theater?
'Jack' is wrong again. the pilot was not arrested on CP charges, but for actual sexual abuse of a child which started when the child was six years old and until eleven years old and while the pilot was in a relationship with the childs mother.
I'm sure Eivind too agrees that there needs to be repercussions for behavior like this against small children.
Yeah, sexual behaviour with small children should be criminal and punished to some extent, even if CSA trauma is largely a hoax and all participants were willing. But laws have gotten so draconian and punitive that the person doing it would face decades or even the rest of their life behind bars if caught doing so. That’s probably why some instances of interpersonal sexual activity are not reported because of how it could destroy families and ruin their lives. I’m like Robert Lindsay on this. Give people some punishment and some years behind bars, but let’s not be extreme and overly excessive about it because we’re both all in for decriminalization of many, if not all crimes. I think Eivind and the others here can largely agree with something in this sort of vain. Just overhaul the legal system and decriminalize the sentences and penalties, but we can’t and shouldn’t live in a world where sex with small children remain normalized. Fair enough?
What if parents were enraged and afraid of traffic accidents, brain damage, rabies, amputations, blindness etc. instead of afraid of sexual "abuse". Money could be diverted to those causes instead of law enforcement.
Law enforcement and NGO's who are mostly concerned with sex are literarily taking money away from children with real problems.
You cant hate the police enough!
Let’s get real here. Most NGOs or child protection nonprofits that parade and pride themselves as “anti-abuse”, primarily divert
most of their attention and resources to combating “sexual abuse”, rather than the billions of other underlying problems that many children and families face every single day.
Yet, it’s all about the so-called paedophiles and traffickers that continue to plague the media and alarm already anxiety-riddled parents day after day.
Sex exceptionalism at its finest.
With regard to this attitude:
Yeah, sexual behaviour with small children should be criminal and punished to some extent, even if CSA trauma is largely a hoax and all participants were willing. But laws have gotten so draconian and punitive that the person doing it would face decades or even the rest of their life behind bars if caught doing so.
The latter part of this quote is obviously true and a reason why I won't grant the current abuse industry any exception where I act as if they are doing the right thing. But does it need to be criminal at all when the harm is all a hoax? If we call it erotic play rather than "sexual" does it still sound scary? This is precisely the the kind of "modern problem" Gail can't be bothered about, and I see no reason to be more hysterical than she is.
I think we need to deflate the whole "sexual conduct" hysteria and recognize that eroticism is not dangerous. Intercourse would be abusive with so young girls but we do not need to pretend anything which is now categorized as sexual is this horrible harm.
Recall that before everything "sexual" was hysterically criminalized we used words like "indecent" (or "utuktig" in Norwegian) which were open to interpretation where one could let some erotic and even sexual behavior slide as normal. I want to emphasize that I vehemently oppose the idea that "sexual behavior" is an appropriate legal category of abuse! That does nothing but define sex exceptionalism, not a real crimeworthy phenomenon. Laws should cover harmful behavior, not what can simply be put into a technical definition with no heed to whether it is harmful. If the standard is what is "indecent" is criminal rather than what is "sexual" then the community can at any given time decide how much sexuality is decent at what age and in what situation with which people. Now we are locked into fearing anything "sexual" just because it is "sexual," which is tautological and bonkers. It makes no sense because it puts the horse before the cart and privileges a metaphysical category over reality and real, reasonable standards for what is acceptable conduct. It is insane to ask a jury, do you find that anything sexual happened? and therefore it must be a crime, because that does not get at anything which should be relevant to criminal justice. Before we can even begin to decide sensibly we must go back to a category like "indecent" or some such word were actual judgment can be used as to whether it was anything really bad rather than worshiping a metaphysical category.
When mothers experience orgasm while breastfeeding, I wonder how many years behind bars should they get?
That's a good example of how it gets insane to use "sexual" as the standard. I suppose now the normies would explain the orgasms women get while breastfeeding away from being sexual somehow. But who cares? In a sane society we would all agree they are well within what is decent whether you want to regard them as sexual behavior or not.
Eivind; Small children and even older children dont enjoy sex with their fathers, grandfathers or uncles etc.! They might go along with it because they have a dependency to it's parents. Abusing this dependency is awful and should absolutely be punished.
And no I'm not a normie, far from it. I have only disgust for law enforcement.
And you have these BDSM-people that are now part of the LBGT+ crowd that get satisfaction from actually hurting, or pretending to hurt kids as well as grown up's. That is sick and criminal and should absolutely be punished.
How do you know what children enjoy? That's an empirical question. I don't trust current dogma to decide that for me.
I know because I have witnessed it. I child crying when the parent tries to penetrate it is a sure sign of fear and generally not enjoying the situation.
I think you need to get back to the real world Eivind. You are brilliant, but you are taking things to far when you accept children being trapped in incestuous relationships. You dont even have disgust for BDSM or children being subjected to BDSM. Did you attend the Pride-parade in Bergen too? Yes you did!
I already said penetration would be abusive when painful. You can't generalize that to entire categories of relationships without much more evidence. And no, I don't approve of BDSM with children.
Not a pedo or anything, but I did read this story from years ago where this young girl enjoyed have sex with girl and had no idea it was considered wrong until a playground talk with another classmate made her confess to her mother, which caused ended causing her mother and her school counselors to go ballistic. She said that the disclosure of the “abuse” destroyed her family, even 30-40 years later.
Obviously, it’s wrong, but it’s foolish to generalize that every “CSA” incident similar to this was unenjoyable. Read the Trauma Myth by Susan Clancy.
Painfulness doesn’t not necessarily amount to Trauma. Going back off the Susan Clancy book, the most common reaction to “CSA” is confusion, even if their experience was somewhat painful. You can’t necessarily equate unpleasantness with harmfulness/psychological damage. Eivind, you should definitely read something like that eventually. It’s on your Amazon wishlist.
I agree painfulness does not necessarily amount to trauma. All I intended to convey was that if something is inherently painful then maybe that's a sign you shouldn't be doing it.
Of course I can generalize that small children dont enjoy being subjected to sex. That's why they are crying. So no they dont enjoy it. On the contrary. It is very scary for a child to be subjected to it by a caregiver like a parent because it is a situation the child absolutely can not escape from. And that in itself is traumatic.
How many people are reading your blog btw? Me and maybe 3-6 other people? But you absolutely reject the idea of going to Substack and maybe earn some money. No, you are dead set on alienating the few people like myself who actually follow you.
You're the only one talking about physical pain here Eivind. I did not mention pain at all. The trauma experienced by sexual abuse by a caregiver against small children dont have anything to do with physical pain but something else that I cant explain. But the fact is that when the child is crying then it is some kind of trauma. And that is very ugly and not something anyone should support, which you are doing Eivind.
I have been surprised at how many women say they enjoyed growing up with incest and want the same for their own children. To me, since I escaped the dogmatic prejudice one is supposed to have now, these women have a voice as much as the ones who say it was awful. And when we try to settle who is right there is no good scientific evidence to privilege the "abuse" narrative unless there was violence or coercion. And no, just being in a family does not credibly count as enough coercion; that's just letting the dogma decide.
You're destroying your credibility totally here Eivind. These views of yours dont serve any purpose and just makes even more people dislike you. Incest is a very ugly thing and the more horny dads they catch that are f**king their own children the better. Children are dependent of their parents and using the children for your own sexual gratification is subhuman behavior.
Human behavior can have more than one purpose and function. Feeling a need to separate out all the sexual as this strictly "adult" thing is a very modern problem as Gail so helpfully labelled it for us. As Angry Harry used to say, children are DESIGNED to be cuddled. The cuteness of children that we all feel is nature's incentive and reward for taking care of them. I do not believe in a strict separation of this kind of cuteness from anything sexually arousing and I am not just referring to pedophiles but all of us. It can and commonly does have a sexual tinge and that's perfectly fine and normal. Again, why is the nipple erogenous? If a parent's sexual gratification were harmful to children, it would seem evolution should make sure to equip the nipple with no more nerve endings than required to perform breastfeeding and be sensitive to pain. But it's absurd to think that's how it should be. Mutual pleasure or even harmlessly one-sided satisfaction from caretaking is not dangerous and indeed a good thing. It's not far-fetched to think evolution has provided for or at least tolerates as completely harmless an analogous sort of bonding between fathers and daughters. I have no problem with that. What I react to morally is if he disregards the child's pain in the pursuit of selfish pleasure. That's when it becomes problematic, not just pleasure in itself. If you have a problem with that then we are back to the belief in "destruction of innocence" or the metaphysical badness of sex. I don't believe in that.
As to my credibility, I think it's ultimately best served by seeking the truth. I am not going to throw fearless truthseeking away to please an anonymous commenter who has partly absorbed CSA dogma. And if you believe in this harm by a mechanism you cannot articulate and which defies all logic, what's stopping them from claiming it also applies to 17-year-old girls? Which indeed they do claim. If we grant metaphysical harm to small children then we have a credibility problem when we deny it for older minors as well.
I was in the public library the other day and got indoctrinated in the cutting edge of the moral panic on child sexual abuse. I mean that literally because did not know the taboo extended this far. Neither do most citizens yet, which is why we have screens blaring it out for us so we can be good normies. We are told it is forbidden to take photographs of children and youth under 18 and to put them on social media (I assume both and not just the social media part, but am not sure since this is new to me). The illustration they used to impart this no-no was a soccer game with the heads censored. Not that I have any use for any of this since I am a nofapper and all, but I thought a picture of youth playing sports was neither here nor there. Well, now it is included in the taboo.
I recall Angry Harry saying in the earlier days of the panic that it would be logical, given the hysteria he already observed twenty years ago, to simply ban all pictures of children. His words have once again become prophetic.
The child sex panic has exceeded Angry Harry's predictions in the UK now. Much of the Internet including YouTube and Reddit is put under age verification because it allows some nudity and is therefore "adult":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFUUy0DKxvk
I guess this sort of segregation is coming here too and the propaganda I just observed is meant to soften us up to the idea that an Internet sterilized of any sign of minors is the way it should be. And of course we need to ramp up the surveillance of everyone to make that possible.
Ironically, my blog still seems to be freely accessible to all ages though even while the most agecucked sites are blocked.
I think it would be a good idea to advocate banning children altogether. Child-abuse is the absolute evil and nothing can justify an absolute evil. No children = no child abuse. Simple. The only way to do away with child abuse once and for all is to prevent children from being born.
And there's 'Jack' with one of his insightful comments. No you cant "ban children". We need children to avoid extinction. Most of Eivind's remaining followers are not that intelligent, excluding me. BTW I'm soon a non follower because I wont ever be okay with fathers having sex with their own young children like Eivind has become to be.
I had hopes for Eivind. He could actually have become someone, but he refuses to try to have his writings published in real discourse like in newspapers or even on Substack even if it's totally doable and could even be paid work. Instead he chooses to make enemies by saying that it is okay for fathers to use their small baby boys for sex. Even though the baby boy or baby girl dont have means to get out of the situation which the boy/girl surely would if it was possible.
I have actually tried contacting sponsors for Eivind, but Eivinds reluctance to writing anything in real media and his very strange views on incest relations with small children has put everyone off, even if they were positive to the cause.
Given how hysterical society has gotten with regard to teenage sexuality, wouldn’t it be weird if all the extra pedohysteria in the old sense of the word (which, recall, we didn’t have prior to 1980) was completely reasonable? Here we have a commenter who believes in that part and asks me to get with the program. I refuse because I recognize a moral panic there too.
I already said you shouldn’t have sex with small children in the sense of penetrating them. What more do you want? Oh, you want allegiance to the idea that they are completely asexual and traumatized in any situation where an adult is sexually stimulated and if they act otherwise then they would “surely” in some metaphysical sense want to get away because it is the ideal of the innocent child which counts. As Tucker Carlson articulated it, the “destruction of innocence” is the issue (and to him it applies equally to teenagers under 18 as well).
I think I presented a sensible contrary view. Part of the problem is our idea “sex” is ridiculously inflated in accordance with the new laws. I grew up when sexuality wasn’t even explicitly mentioned in the law which governed CSA. It was “utuktig omgang” which is open to interpretation as to what is acceptable and does not enforce the idea that children are asexual, nor that adults are never supposed to get aroused around them. The new definition where every “sexual act” is covered runs into absurdities like breastfeeding qualifying unless you inject an ad-hoc explanation that the woman isn’t really getting any sexual gratification out of it even if she has an orgasm. Does anyone remember the ideas of Sigmund Freud? He also told fairy tales but at least he was closer to the truth. I don’t think child sexuality fits into neat standardized scripts, but it is definitely real. Some of my earliest memories are erotic feelings.
Have we forgotten what “sex” even means? You don’t boast that you “had sex” with a girl if she gives you a blowjob. Just ask Bill Clinton (who used the word exactly as I or anyone would at the time). Why, then, do you insist on using hysterical language like “fathers having sex with their own young children” just because there is some erotic contact?
Norwegian readers of a certain age will remember Tor Erling Staff. He had the same views as mine about the sex laws and expressed them in the mainstream -- which disagreed with him but didn’t cancel him either from his roles as lawyer and social commentator. I remember when he said -- not many years before he died -- that we should tolerate parents having erotic contact with their children. I thought he was sensible and still think he is a role model whose legacy I want to pick up and preserve as long as I am able. I grew up at a time when such views could at least be expressed. Now this is perhaps the last corner where one can do so, and I shall not throw that last bit of honesty away because a commenter is morally panicked.
Fair enough, but I can't identify with the parents in having sex with their own. Children tend to be very conservative. They don't like to listen in on their parents having sex, if the latter are having any sex at all. I am able to identify with any child because I used to be one. Having breakfast or dinner with my parents, ok. Not much fun but ok. Having sex with them? Yuk!
I think we are conflating 2 different issues into 1 here. Incest is one thing, child sex is another. Difficult to keep the two apart in nowaday's context, but they're two very different issues IMO.
I tend not to sympathize with any man confessing to being attracted to his own next of kin.
I am not suggesting that everyone should practice incest, Jack. Chances are your family wouldn’t do it even if it were legal. You could say it would be sort of mandatory for the children who grow up in families who are into it, in the same way some have to put up with being a Jehovah’s Witness or vegan or whatever for a while. Yeah, tough luck, we can’t hysterically regulate everything. The line should be drawn at real abuse, and when we know CSA is largely a hoax and “a very modern (unsustainable) problem,” the criminalization should be massively scaled back. I think laws against incest should only cover intercourse if they can be justified at all, the way it was with sibling incest until just a few years ago in Norway. Now the hysteria has mushroomed to where I can’t feel sane except in the company of MAPs. Who have a bigger movement for good reason because being sex-positive kind of entails ditching the hysteria for real. If you make exceptions for small children and buy into wildly unjustified hysteria for them you are not sane or consistent. You are just a less extreme version of Tucker Carlson and the like who think “destruction of innocence” is this demonic thing even though neither teens nor children possess that fabled innocence to begin with.
Michael Tracey, The Idiocy of the Epstein Mythology (Compact Magazine, July 10, 2025):
https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-idiocy-of-the-epstein-mythology/#
That’s a good article as far as exposing the mythology goes. But I really did not like this part:
“That’s a brief rundown of the current iteration of Epstein mythology. Of course, there are also non-mythological components to the Jeffrey Epstein saga. He really did procure teenage girls for his own perverse gratification.”
It is “perverse” to like teens, huh? If I were feeling charitable to Compact Magazine and Michael Tracey, I might concede that it is slightly perverse to only want handjobs from many of the girls instead of having sex with them. But that’s pushing it. Certainly much less perverse than masturbation or looking at porn. And probably not the intended meaning.
The myths spun off of Epstein are positively benign compared to the cultural “truth” which even the skeptics believe in that we are abusers for loving teens.
A very articulate article!
To love teens is perverse, but selling weaponry is fine. American morality in a nutshell.
Trust me, America’s legal system is much more backwards than you think it is.
For me, the most insightful passage of Michael Tracey's article is where he mentions the convergence of left and right on the issue of "child sex trafficking"-
'Belief in the ubiquity of elite pedophilia networks is a constant in the right-wing imagination...While the right-wing version associates “sex trafficking” with demonology and sin, there’s a left-wing version as well. ...tends to converge on the same endpoint: that these wicked trafficking networks are anywhere and everywhere, and our failure to combat them is a profound indictment of our society.'
I do not know of any identification of this convergence outside the tiny circles we are familiar with here ( Eivind, AF, Freespeechtube, Newgon etc). It's actually kind of a big deal. It means that enough people have noticed that the editor of a publication like Compact will allow one of its writers to put it in an article. Looking at other articles, Compact is out there (ish) but it's not an extremely marginal blog that lets it all hang out. Not that being marginal has any bearing on being right or wrong.
I believe this observation is more important than any BS the author might tack onto it about "perverted" attraction to teens. Same with Robert Lindsay probably.
-Anonymous 2
That's a good observation, Anonymous 2. Pointing out a convergence is a little better than the left and right accusing each other of being pedophiles. But I am still not hopeful that attention to a convergence will help, because the normies will just reply that "of course we all agree to fight pedophilia because it's just obvious morality." Including this "perverted" attraction to teens and horrific "abuse and trafficking" which consists of giving teenage girls 400 dollars for a handjob which was so pleasant work that they helped recruit more girls. Nothing will change because the normies still fully agree with the witch-hunt and don't care if it's motivated by demonology or feminism.
Anon 2, do you have the links to the articles of Michael Tracey and Compact? Anymore spaces like these are certainly valuable.
This is the magazine in question:
https://www.compactmag.com/
I hadn't heard of it before either and see it’s pretty new. This is how they describe themselves:
Compact, an online magazine founded in 2022, seeks a new political center devoted to the common good. Believing that political forces, not economic ones, should determine our common life, we draw on the social-democratic tradition to argue for an order marked by authentic freedom, social stability, and shared prosperity. Though we have definite opinions, we proudly publish writers with whom we disagree.
I suppose it makes sense for a centrist publication to rise above the usual pissing contest between left and right about who can accuse the other of being the biggest pedophile. Too bad they can’t see a way out of the moral panic though. This by the way is why don’t get excited about exposing false accusations and mythical pedophile cabals: when all that is shaved away and we are left with a mundane encounter between a man and a teen, even if nothing more than an overpaid massage, the very same hysteria persists.
Isn't "Compact" affiliated to the alt-right? Here's what ChatGPT has to say:
"Compact was legally banned in Germany for its extremist content and network involvement.
It was arrested and shut down in July 2024, including asset seizures, website blocking, and prosecutions under association law.
However, the ban was held in abeyance shortly after and fully overturned by Germany’s highest administrative court in June 2025, on grounds of proportionality and press freedom protections."
Correction: I was wrong, it's an entirely different entity.
@Eivind, You may be right. However, the convergence was not noted in a spirit of cooperation, like Ronald Reagan saying that the US and USSR would cooperate if aliens invaded Planet Earth. It wasn't "let's all co-operate to get rid of this evil". It was more like, "they're both morons lacking in self-awareness."
-Anonymous 2
But in fact, they are cooperating, because the right and left wing political parties are led by male and female feminists and misandrist ideology. The first thing the 1900's suffragettes campaigned for was raising the age of consent, now both parties are fully committed to the criminalization of normal sexual behavior.
Trump gutted the "human trafficking" wing of the state department, which many politicians complained about due to the collaboration between parties to set it up. "Human trafficking" is a feminist buzzword for prostitution, just as "grooming" is a feminist buzzword for flirtation. Trump is clearly involved in some way with banging hot girls under 18 with Epstein, and he has been crucified by both political parties as a result.
Maybe the only difference between the right wing and the left wing is that the right wing believes it is "masculine" when in fact it is the largest collection of cucks in human history. They complain about Jews making pornography ubiquitous, and their answer is to implement Saudi Arabian style restriction of all male sexual expression. The only people attracted to an ideology like that must be sexually and socially dysfunctional.
anon69
Is anybody testing the new ChatGPT 5 for our purposes? My guess is this version will still provide a decent bio of me and perhaps some other activists but will refuse to give an unbiased assessment of any MAP-related arguments. If you ask it to help argue for our cause it will be decidedly unhelpful.
@anon69-I wasn't saying they weren't cooperating. I was saying that the article is a departure from the usual line for two reasons. First, it actually brings it up, whereas elsewhere, people have been either afraid to say it or didn't realize it, perhaps in some cases not being able to put their finger on it. In any case, just mentioning at all is as rare as hens' teeth. Second, it doesn't bring it up in a positive way. Not at all.
I agree that those manly he-man traditionalists are perhaps the biggest cucks in history.
-Anonymous 2
I just did the following test: News search for "sex abuse" in Google, limiting the hits to "last week". Google returns an endless list of different cases throughout the Western World. It is truly mind-boggling.
I have been doing that test randomly for years as well. I get two reactions - the first is horrific astonishment at how the brutal feminist system chews through men's lives while going completely ignored by the zombie citizens. The second is hope, seeing how many normal men can be successful at obtaining the intimacy of the most beautiful young females.
anon69
I have those two reactions as well. I also used to imagine that the zombies would eventually respond to antisexual persecution by waking up, but I don’t believe so anymore.
The normies can’t tell a moral panic from morality until they are locked out of their agecuck forums on Reddit and such due to age verification laws. THEN they do call it a moral panic briefly (I’ve seen it several times in the past few days) before verifying their ages so they can go back to discussing how pedophiles rule the world and we need to ramp up the hysteria some more and release the Epstein files etc.
It goes so deep in our culture that I don’t think a physicalist or memetic explanation can suffice anymore, so I’m starting to take Rupert Sheldrake’s idea of morphic resonance seriously. He thinks the universe runs on habits. The laws of nature are habits rather than laws and it does not stop there. The more we do something, the easier it becomes. For example, it gets easier to synthesize a chemical once it has been done a few times and easier to solve a crossword puzzle if many others have done it (if he is right, which can be tested experimentally). Our civilization is now in the HABIT of persecuting sexuality in a way which has supernaturally (by morphic resonance) reinforced the habit to where it infects every nook and cranny of the world and every normie mind. Sexual behavior is also a habit which has NOT diminished, but we got this additional habit of persecuting it so ferociously.
Yes, it sounds kooky, but how else explain the lockstep hysteria of all the normies? I wish it were so simple that we were only up against feminism and men would turn back the laws if we could decide on our own. But now men are also in the HABIT of supporting antisex bigotry to the point that we would perpetuate all the laws and make them worse on our own too if women lost the right to vote or be elected.
There must be some limit to this and presumably habits can reverse at some point. I am not sure how that works but activism is surely futile.
No need to invoke bombastic theories. Who benefits from the crime? Overwhelmingly women of course. Women hardly endure any restrictions on their sexuality, and even if they did few would mind. But women can send any man to jail whenever they want. While sex per se give only attractive women power, misandric sex laws give all women abusive powers over men. Men react to this pressure by doing what men are best at and programmed to do: try and eliminate other men.
Why don’t men try to eliminate men in every conceivable way? Why this selective hate for “sexual abuse” of all things? With everything else, it is possible to make alliances with other men. Every other ideology has a group and often an army or terrorist organization. But being pro-sexual we have nothing except some anonymous commenters. It’s not like this hate has an outsized impact on getting attractive females. It does little to suppress actual sexual behavior and if you want to eliminate a competitor, any sort of accusation or libel will do. It does not have to be sexual, but that’s what society is obsessed with. I am not making bombastic claims, just exploring other theories as to how this can run much deeper than a feminist trade union and inexplicably docile men. Because it does seem to run deeper. For example I just got invited into a Norwegian right-wing server on Discord and find that they are unbelievably agecucked (as in wanting the age of consent to be 18) for no other reason than actually believing this shit -- and these are the men who think they are in opposition to the establishment including feminism and get offended when you call them normies. It’s not that they want to “eliminate” me, it’s that they want to eliminate me for this specific reason which they believe in even if it has no bearing on competition for females.
"Trump is clearly involved in some way with banging hot girls under 18 with Epstein, and he has been crucified by both political parties as a result."
Certainly not, otherwise it would have been made public long ago.
Writing that without any proof amounts to say that only a "pedophile" would dare speak up in that matter. Are "normal people" never able to call out bullshit and stand for the truth ?
"Why don’t men try to eliminate men in every conceivable way?"
Because nobody is starving in the West and few people are homeless.
The only real competition
between men is about sexual partners. Beauty is scarce that's why repression is fierce.
Women of any weight and age demand that men are compelled not to go astray lest they spend the rest of their life in jail.
Good point. Food and shelter are no longer scarce. Men don't fight over such things any more. Youth & beauty is the commodity in short supply. It was not always like this. When you read sixteenth century litterature (eg Cervantes, Rabelais) you wonder how obsessed people in those days were with getting a meal. And that may also have been why you could get hanged for stealing a cow. Now the hanging has refocused on young pussy.
Okay, but that does not explain the Epstein hysteria. You would think the rich and powerful would want to make exceptions for themselves if scarcity was the issue? Powerful men don't have to compete amongst themselves for young pussy unless they artificially make it scarce or perilous to get through criminalization, which is believably stupid.
Another problem with STU theory is it fails to take into account the fact that jealousy is likely to be a phase women go through as they hit the wall and lose their looks rather than a permanent state. It is unwise to be extremely jealous of something you cannot have no matter what and I think most women are not like that. I get that if they are 35 and have a teen daughter who is getting more attractive than them by leaps and bounds every day, while still feeling entitled to the same kind of attention, jealousy might be an issue. But by the time they are 50 or 60 and it is incontrovertible that all sexual power is lost, I think most accept it and don’t feel jealous anymore. It makes sense then to realize that they have entered the grandmother stage and not try to change the impossible. Take the view, like Gail is doing openly, that men will be men and CSA was an overexaggerated problem anyway.
I think it’s unrealistic that women on the whole spend anywhere near as much mental energy being jealous of peak sexual attractiveness as the AF and some of my commenters think. Sure there are exceptions like the delusional 80-year-old who tried to be Miss Universe, but on average I think reality is closer to the pleasant, serene view that Gail verbalized than our stereotypical jealous old hag.
On the other hand when men are agecucks, like my new acquaintances on the right wing, it really is a permanent state and not something they are likely to grow out of. Men can be much worse that way and the hate I personally receive is almost entirely from men.
Female behaviour is in-born and the same urges last until death. That's why old crones with an ugly shock of white hair left will still buy expensive shampoos and conditioners. And if they have the money they will go to a beauty salon for make-up, manicure and whatnot.
Lol, that's true, as I observed in my own grandmothers: they will do their hair very expensively in their 80s and I wondered what the point was, but I think you are reading too much into it if you think it reflects an inflexible jealous mindset complete with a delusion that they can actually compete with teenage girls.
Tom O’Carroll’s latest blog post reminds me why I am proud to belong to the MAP-inclusive sexualist movement rather than the pedophobic one headed by the Antifeminist. It is not so much about pedophilia this time but Bonnie Blue, our time’s greatest porn star whom even nofappers can like because she gives herself so liberally:
https://heretictoc.com/2025/08/09/two-cheers-for-barely-legal-bonnie/
She isn’t picky either, accepting anyone “from barely legal to barely breathing”. At the daring “barely legal” end of the range she has done special sessions for students aged 18 upwards, and you have to think she would be happy to invite minors of any age, too, if she could get away with it. After all, she says her own active sex life started at 13 and she doesn’t regret it. She has also said she wants to do a session for the disabled and disadvantaged, including those with Down syndrome. It all makes her a paragon of diversity, equity and inclusion… Boys, especially, hear little except victim feminism’s depressing, demoralising, incessant drumbeat of puritanical drivel telling them sex is a poisoned chalice, and males are just a bunch of harassers and potential rapists. It’s great that Bonnie’s message is much more pleasure-positive and pro-male.
Though he also notes problems with extreme challenges like having sex with 1000 men in 12 hours, Tom O’Carroll’s sex-positivity is unfailing, an amazing breath of fresh air in a world gone insane with antisex bigotry not only against MAPs and men but also women who don’t consider themselves abused.
Yo do realize that this Bonnie Blue woman is part of the infamous porn culture you keep campaigning against do you? I'm now reading Ron Jeremy's memoirs (downloadable for free). They also show there was always an overlap between porn and other manifestations of sexual permissiveness (like swinging, gang-bangs) etc.
By the way, did you guys notice Wikipedia had entries about well-known porn stars and erotic models in some languages but the entries were often missing in English! If you read about the biography of many erotic models, it turns out they went into the flesh business as soon as they were legally allowed too. In other word they couldn't wait.
Sure, I have mixed feelings about Bonnie Blue, but have to admire her involving her fans in actual sex. That part is not what nofap is against.
As to "many erotic models, it turns out they went into the flesh business as soon as they were legally allowed," this would only surprise me if I believed in sex-exceptionalism. Indeed I know of no general exceptions to this in any human endeavor. Those who excel in sports or coding or whatever don’t typically show no interest in the subject until they are 18, but quite the opposite, so why should sex or sex work be different? It is a retarded belief that it should.
Rocco Siffredi was also known to organize gang-bangs for his fans, doing some shooting at the same time. I surmise many Onlyfan models wouldn't mind doing so for publicity but they'd be walking on ice regarding prostitution laws. In the 80s porn stars in the US liked to meet after hours in swinging clubs. Swinging clubs in Europe have often had events involving women and couples from the porn industry. Porn has never ceased to be the spearhead of sex-positivity. How could it be otherwise?
'Jack' is of course into porn positivity and know about much about porn as shown above. But he also wants girls put to prison for having sex with 17 year old men because "they cant consent" and "women deserve hell" according to himself.
Metro did an article on MAPs:
https://metro.co.uk/2025/08/09/discovered-murky-world-minor-attracted-people-even-disturbing-think-23594331/
They only discovered the “destigmatization” part of the MAP movement and the article is very bland, except I am puzzled at how restrictive their definition of MAP is:
According to the World Health Organisation’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), paedophilic disorder is defined as a condition marked by a persistent and intense sexual attraction to prepubescent children, typically under the age of 11. The diagnosis only applies if the individual has acted on these urges or if they are experiencing significant psychological distress as a result of having them. WHO notes that not everyone with paedophilic interests meets the criteria for diagnosis.
Okay, I knew that’s the only clinically diagnosable part, but being a minor does not stop at 11. I would have expected the article to stigmatize attraction to older minors as well, but this is the only number they mention. Which implies that attraction to anyone 11 and older is not problematic anymore? What happened to calling everyone a pedo and nonce just for liking a teen?
I don’t think this exception represents a reversal of calling normal sexuality pedophilia, but it’s not what I expected to see either at this point, especially from British media.
" I don’t think this exception represents a reversal of calling normal sexuality pedophilia, but it’s not what I expected to see either at this point, especially from British media."
My thoughts exactly. It could be an oversight, or perhaps they did it because they know most people are paedocrites to one extent or another. I'm sure that many readers have been secretly crossing their fingers for a change in public attitudes for years, and then, hope! LOL.
-Anonymous 2
I am thinking it was partly an oversight but also they are happy to use a strictly clinical definition in the context of an organized movement in order to minimize it. If they gave the impression that teen-lovers started to organize it would be a little too threatening and tantalizing, so better not give men ideas that such a movement is possible.
I bet in the next story about a man on trial for sex with a 15-year-old or on Epstein they go back to full court press “pedo” rhetorics as usual.
That’s deceptive and part of the reason why it’s important to stand up as a proud pedophile even if you can’t be diagnosed. We need to tantalize men with the idea that change is possible.
News stories like this one in Metro are effectively telling men that there’s a MAP movement notable enough that we need to write about it from time to time, but it’s only for “real” pedophiles and you wouldn’t want to be associated with them, would you? Even hebephiles need not apply. That way even if they ALL organized they would still be so small as to be politically negligible, perhaps 1-3% of the population at best, as opposed to the 99% who fit the kind of “pedophile” who does not have a movement.
Men like the Antifeminist and his branch of pathetic cowardly nonstarter movement take that bait line, hook and sinker and thus remain COMPLETELY ignored in the mainstream while they contribute (by being afraid of the label) to shaming pedophiles the way the word is used for cancellations and to put men and women in prison.
So are we going to troll or meet up with some of these p3d0hunters/anti-sexualists soon or what? Who's got any forums, snapchat-accounts, facebook-accounts etc. that we can infiltrate? I prefer something Norwegian, but whoever have tips should spill the beans.
The Antifeminist has written more on how he hates pedophiles and MAPs and I am “autistic” for aligning myself with them. The urge to hate pedos is so strongly inculcated almost exactly like feminist culture demands that I know he will never change his mind, but I am writing this for more open-minded readers. He does not realize that he is a pedo in every negative sense, but in no positive sense since he disowns the only movement which provides visible cultural resistance to the sex laws.
To illustrate the stranglehold the need to “hate pedos” has on that type of sexualist who can’t break free from the program, I present this comment by “Steve” on his blog:
https://theantifeminist.com/british-women-against-sex-with-older-partners/comment-page-1/#comment-641235
I have a experiment, case study or litmus test for you. Call it what you want.
Take a look at this Youtube channel. It is one of those ASMR channel with a pretty woman.
https://www.youtube.com/@NanouASMR/videos
She turned 18 a couple of months ago. Don’t know exactly when, but that means she was born in 2007. She started when she was around 12.
1. Take a look at the profile picture and the latest/most recent videos. Do you think this is an attractive young women? I certainly think she is.
2. Then sort the videos by oldest. You should clearly see a difference here. I could say she was cute, but there is no sexual attraction at this age for me.
3. So at 18 she is hot/attractive, at 12 she is not and too young.
4. Where is the transition from her being too young to an attractive young woman?
Well, I looked at that YouTube channel and found it ludicrous to say she was not attractive at 12 (although she did perhaps improve into her mid teens -- but not by much because it is staggeringly difficult to top something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dL3-2AmQZI). But they can’t say otherwise than that she held “zero sexual attraction” at the AF’s blog despite even the definition used by Metro now giving us “permission” as normal men to be attracted to 12-year-old girls.
In other words, they are governed by hysteria rather than reality. Not so much as the normies of course, but they haven’t broken free from the shackles of antisex hysteria and agecuckery to where they can be completely honest about their sexuality and embrace genuine sex-positivity for all, which is what sets my blog and branch of sexualism apart.
Not an oversight. It's the WHO isn't it? UNO. Some UNO countries authorize marriages as early as 12 years-old.
Yes, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is maintained by the World Health Organization (WHO). That part is carefully deliberated and no accident that they include hebephilia in normative sexuality. They recognize that normal attraction starts at the beginning rather than the end of puberty.
But the tabloids usually employ "pedophile" much more liberally, so the question is why not when they wrote about the MAP movement?
I am very surprised by this since the AF has always stressed that it is normal for males of any age to be attracted to females from puberty onwards.
Turning back to the Metro article-
https://metro.co.uk/2025/08/09/discovered-murky-world-minor-attracted-people-even-disturbing-think-23594331/-Eivind dissects their strategy well.
They wanted to marginalize MAP's by saying their AOA was way below what is currently acceptable. This carries the risk of really widely opening the terms of the debate, but I suppose they decided it was worth it.
Possibly one other way to marginalize MAP's would be to do the opposite and claim that they're mostly interested in minors only 1-3 years below the AOC and to actually exaggerate how unpopular the unpopularity of those who want a still lower AOC. This carries the opposite risk of the first approach, since it makes MAP's look too close to the normie vies-unacceptably acceptable, you might say.
Because Metro is a UK-based publication, they might have gone with the first approach because the AOC in Britain is "only" 16 and not 18 with truly severe sentences for one day short of 18.. Maybe.
For me the take-home message of this article is that even mentioning a MAP movement is fraught with danger for the msm. Which is good.
-Anonymous 2
Wow what a docile and obedient tiny little gang the remains of Eivind's following after he came out as a supporter of incest done to trapped little boys and girls. I dont blame you who dont follow him anymore.
Recently so called p3d0hunters were sentenced to no prison-time at all in Norway for beating and stabbing some guys who thought they were meeting up with 15-17 year old girls. Some of the men even agreed to strip naked on the camera to repent for being a man that loves girls and not a feminist shitbag like the perpetrators.
https://www.nrk.no/ostfold/atte-tenaringer-domt-i-_pedojeger_-saken-i-ostfold-1.17523458
There was an initiative here in the comments section earlier to do something with these p3d0hunters. Like trolling them, exposing them, meeting up with them etc., but Eivind never promoted it.
As the no-fapper that Eivind says he is, it is ironic that the most active writers in his comment-section are enthusiastic fappers like 'Jack' and 'the AF'.
There is nothing I can do when I don’t know where the “pedo hunter’s” traps are. Anyone interested in exploring this can send me their Session ID, for example by replying here and I won’t publish it, to be added to my reverse sting discussion group.
But realistically we don’t have the kind of movement that can muster anything like this yet. It’s a long-term idea and group where have to be patient while we wait for anything actionable.
The hatred runs so unbelievably deep, even the right-wing Norwegians I mentioned are in favor of vigilante violence against men like us. If there was a referendum, the majority in Norway and most countries now would probably give any self-styled “pedo hunter” immunity to commit any violence they like against anyone they care to call pedo, so I guess we should be grateful that it hasn’t gone that far yet and they at least got sentenced to community service.
As to kids in incest families being "trapped" and thus categorically unable to consent, this is a variant of the feminist idea that women are trapped in patriarchy and thus all sex is rape. Which is indeed the legal reality now, but we don't need to promote it here.
Something for you to chew on Eivind. Our friend City Crusher doesn't see eye-to-eye with you on porn, to say the least:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A1kGmzuiok
"Anti-porn is misandry"
Is this you profile Eivind? https://www.vidlii.com/user/EivindBerge
Nope, never used that service or heard of it. Looks like somebody stole my picture and made I don't know what, maybe some AI crap.
Jack, City Crusher believes porn is "a sexual outlet for men, which is why society is against it."
I see it the other way around. Pornography is a fake diversion which exploits the male sex drive so that men deplete their libido while getting nothing of value, which is why society promotes it.
What about pornography without fapping? One could collect pornography as one collects artworks.
If you think I am mistaken for saying society promotes porn (which is admittedly a mixed truth), realize I am primarily referring to masturbation. Just looking at porn without masturbating is much less harmful (but still highly inadvisable). My definition of porn is whatever facilitates masturbation. Since society definitely promotes masturbation, they certainly promote some kind of porn even while persecuting other kinds. Even just using your fantasy would be porn in this view, and harmful to the male libido. But most often there is some kind of external pornography, which is by definition of no sexual value while depleting the male libido and imposing an opportunity cost on what should have been his sex life.
Yes, if you collect pornography as art and don't fap, it is virtually completely harmless. Nofappers say that porn does not exist. Porn is rather something you do. If you use what society considers porn as art only then it is not porn.
Thinking further, my most succinct definition of pornography is a fake sexual outlet. Unlike a real sexual partner, there is no metaphysics of porn, meaning it is unable to hold itself into existence. It requires a user who treats it as a sexual outlet, which varies from person to person. This means porn does not exist, but is rather whatever facilitates masturbation or otherwise wasting time you should have spent pursuing real sexual partners. Society has this asinine idea that it is the level of nudity or explicitness which counts. That is bullshit. For example, I bet many MAPs masturbate to pictures of minors which society does not consider pornographic, because those are freely available. This is porn. And conversely, art collectors can have explicit pictures that are not porn. I don’t mean to moralize. Unlike society’s hysterical obsession with technical categories, I am only giving advice as to how you have the best sex life, if you should choose to take my advice to be a nofapper. Hence I focus on the definitions that actually count for that.
No-fap and non-porn is just your personal brand of asceticism. We all have one. Some people are fitness freaks. Others are dieting fanatics or radical vegetarians. Yet others only want to live "close to nature", avoiding taking any kind of medecines ("chemicals") into their body. As such your asceticism is as valid as other people's and harmless. Except in this particular case your asceticism happens to be - in the eyes of sex-hostile and sex-positive groups alike - misandric and sex-negative.
There's no way porn is going to be seen as sex-negative. It is intrinsically sex-affirming and permissive. It can be seen as harmful, just like cannabis can be seen as harmful even among cannabis consumers (who will go on using it with a vengeance). Harmfulness of porn = harmfulness of sex. Porn is sex.
“Porn is sex” is the delusion! Which underlies both the feminist urge to persecute porn as “abuse” and the wankers’ urge to use porn as a sexual “outlet.”
Once you reject that delusion it becomes clear that both are mistaken and porn is sex-negative and feminist-positive which is to say misandrist. I’ve met a feminist who saw the light on that and she is still the most sex-negative person I’ve ever met. I am talking about the director of Norwegian Offspring, Marlene Emilie Lyngstad. The film is unbelievably sex-negative but positive to the idea that men should use sex dolls as an outlet instead of bothering women, which is the moral of the twisted direction she took the plot after using me as raw material. But you still don’t see this serves feminism, do you Jack?
Never mind whether porn is sex is a delusion. Let's suppose it is. No one (repeat "no one!") is seeing it that way. I don't mean the STU or the fems or the feminoids, I mean EVERYBODY. The STU + the fems + the feminoids + MRAs + people we regard as thinking like us. In this you can say you are the only one and you litteral are.
Yeah, that’s the power of evolutionary traps! Human’s aren’t evolved to deal with them. We are evolved to realize that pornographic cave paintings aren’t sex, but modern technology makes us lost, except the nofappers like me. So I’m not alone, but I don’t expect much alliance from the groups you mention. You apparently don’t even realize that nofappers see it this way (since you say literally no one) and probably think they are anti-sex like the asinine feminist or religious kind of opposition to pornography which is based on the delusion that it is sex. So hopelessly in the grips of the wanker’s delusion are you. But it’s an evolutionary trap, so you can’t help it.
We still come into the world with caveman brains. What happens now can be dramatized like this: Caveman takes a time machine to the 21st century, looks around and says: “Oh my God, this video stuff looks much sexier than our rock carvings! And those sex dolls look almost fuckable unlike our Venus of Willendorf statues! Must be a new sexual outlet!” And thus the caveman proceeds to waste away much of his sexual energy on this evolutionary trap and even fill his mind with the kind of delusional “porn is sex-positive” ideology which Jack believes. It is so sad that can’t make you see through the delusion.
The truth of the matter is it is the caveman who is sex-positive (prior to falling into the evolutionary trap in an environment he wasn’t adapted to). He might have tried masturbation a time or two as a small boy but didn’t find it very compelling and since there was no sex offender charade, his female relatives helped him out so he was ready to pounce on pubescent girls as soon as he too was at that stage. He spent ALL his libido on actual sex. He saw far less women in his life, perhaps only a couple of hundred, but he was far more attracted to them and had a much more intense and meaningful sex life with the partners that he did have which is probably at least on par with modern man, which is to say about eight in a lifetime. The latter thinks there so much “sex” all around now thanks to porn, but reality is we are sexually impoverished compared to the caveman.
I have a friend who is a low-status male, works 6 days a week, no time or money for chasing women. He was being tortured by his shitty fat girlfriend, who started withholding sex. So, he bought a sex doll. This relieved his sexual pressure and removed leverage from his shitty fat girlfriend. She became extremely jealous of the sex doll as a result, and she had to drop her demands.
Masturbation aids help men universally, especially low status men.
anon69
If becoming less interested in sex with women worked more often than it prevented getting more sex with women, evolution would have equipped us with a lower sex drive. The way to make a woman jealous is to pursue other women, not a sex doll, lol.
It is a bizarre cultural delusion that masturbation is a good thing. Even more ingrained than the CSA hoax.
Yes but you yourself are promoting the hoax that masturbation gets promoted as a good thing while in fact it is only being recognized as 1) better than blue balls 2) often better than the sample of female population a man has acess to.
Wouldn’t masturbation lower the risk of prostate cancer? How is one supposed to donate sperm at a bank or flush away old sperm, especially if the urethra is infected? Wouldn’t frequent ejaculation improve sperm mobility and quality?
Eivind, some people don’t have the time, luxury, resources, or convenience to obtain a sexual partner. Some people, especially for virgins, find it as a safe self-outlet or even a way to fall asleep better and easier. With all that sexual tension, a wank should be a form of relief or practice for performance in the bedroom.
If anything, it increases our libido, not destroy it. Jerking off actually increases my desire to seek out hookups.
If masturbation is considered an evolutionary trap, then what about handjobs? If masturbation inhibits opportunity cost, then wouldn’t handjobs also be considered a “sexual trap” because I don’t think biology differentiates between whose hand touches what groin?
Masturbation is also present in the animal kingdom, so wouldn’t other animals also be in that “trap” as well?
If there’s no way to have sex, then why not? Jerking off to a nude woman doesn’t hurt anyone. Also, how can the goodness masturbation be more of a delusion than the CSA hoax, if we would’ve had an evolutionary mechanism by now if CSA was harmful. Masturbation is present in primates and many mammals, CSA harmfulness isn’t. You’re basically implying that masturbation and porn are just simply metaphysically bad.
Eivind, why are you pushing so hard against this? Masturbation isn’t just an “outlet”. There are medical and practical benefits for it (as I just mentioned). You’ve could’ve had dozens of more readers and fans by now if weren’t this stubborn! You don’t seem to realize that anti-porn and anti-masturbation are pinnacle core of a sex-negative society, especially with the attack on porn by religious cunts and feminist terminators for over a century at this point. Feminists have already destroyed the public perception of prostitution, puts millions behind bars and on registries, and stigmatized anything outside “bedroom-sex” as deviant. If you want be completely sex-positive, you’re going to have to be more open-minded with regards to the impact of anti-porn legislation. Fighting for that too would essentially be a middle finger to the feminists and their surplus army.
How can you be self-proclaimed as “sex-positive”, if you aren’t willing to stand up to all forms of sexuality? Everybody wanks, get over it. Everyone looks at porn. Get over it. You’re not going to change that and nobody ever will.
(Duke).
I don’t recall hearing a claim that masturbation reduces the risk of prostate cancer before, certainly not from any credible medical source. I have heard a claim that more frequent ejaculation (not “masturbation”) might reduce the risk of testicular cancer; however, the evidence for that is extremely weak, mostly speculative, and in any case the primary way you should want to ejaculate is by having sex. And failing that, you need to maximize your motivation via nofap so you have the best chances. Even if the cancer risk to blueballs is true, it would only be one in several thousand men this would actually make any difference to, so it is foolish to make it rule your life. Even worse than becoming a vegetarian because you read some dubious research saying red meat causes bowel cancer.
Masturbation in the animal kingdom is frequently touted by masturbation-promoters. It is another one of those pop-science claims used to prop up politically correct beliefs, but when you look into it, you find what is scientifically described is actually stimulation short of climax to keep themselves ready for sex, for example practiced by low-status monkeys in wait of opportunistic mating chances. Monkeys know better than to blow their load wastefully the way you are promoting. Get back to me when there is a human equivalent rather than what we both know we are talking about.
It is not so much that self-stimulation is an evolutionary trap, because it is by no means new. We are adapted to the possibility of masturbating without modern aids by not finding it very appealing, as I tried to illustrate with the caveman example. Too bad you can’t see any nuances, but the fact of the matter is modern technology makes it an evolutionary trap. Digital porn is like a zero-day exploit that evolution hadn’t prepared for, which was fine until the late 20th century, but now it makes masturbation harmful. It is harmful to hack what makes you “satisfied” without actually achieving your goals.
If I were to go along with the faux-sex-positive program, why stop there? If all you care about is how you feel and not what you do in the world or how you interact with other people, why not bypass fake sex too and go directly to feel-good drugs, meditation, wireheading or the experience machine? Junkies and psychonauts are less persecuted than sex offenders and much of this is legal and socially accepted, so it would make everything easier.
I have chosen the humanistic value of sexualism. This is incompatible with escaping from the world and seeking the pure feeling of “sex” without having it. I also know how empty it makes you feel in the long run. When I was young I was similarly deluded by this evolutionary trap much like you, Duke. Now I bitterly regret not knowing better. I bitterly regret crippling my libido while young which prevented me from living up to my potential, and see it as my moral duty to tell the truth as a cautionary tale to men who want to know what it is best for them. You are blind and deluded thinking masturbation helps your sex life until one day maybe you will realize what you missed out on. And then it will be too late to recoup most of that, since it is so much harder to hook up with young girls when you are old. I still had a good run since I became a nofapper relatively young, in my early 30s, but it does not look like most of you will be so lucky.
Eivind preferers to chatting with enthusiastic porn users and masturbaters like 'Jack' and 'the AF'. Doing something and exposing so-called p3d0hunters is not a priority. Writing on Substack is also not something he will try. Using time in this blog is worthless.
I can answer my own question about ChatGPT 5 now: it sucks:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/08/14/business/chatgpt-rollout-problems
When the flagship AI company can't make tangible progress in two years and instead takes a step back, it's safe to say AGI was a mirage and we won't get it in our lifetime and probably never.
On the upside, that means they can't manipulate "reality" so reliably either, like removing any MAP positivity from the Internet. There will always be too many hallucinations and stupid mistakes to pass as human-generated content and AI will remain too stupid to identify all dissenters.
The downside is there will be no escape from the drudgery of having to work for a living. Governments will have no reason to institute UBI since AI is close to useless for most jobs.
It's like you didn't read my comment at all. She became jealous of the doll, it forced her to change her shitty behavior, and my friend is not in a position to pursue other women.
anon69
How many women would become jealous of a doll? It can't be taken seriously as a person and most would just view you as a pathetic wanker.
In other news, police stings have now reached a comical level where they have female officers (in the UK) dressed up as joggers to provoke catcalling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ulbY4T2Sx8
Well, that's more charming than their usual stings and they say themselves that what they are "fighting" here isn't even necessarily a crime. Just don't give them the idea to pose as "underage" joggers because then it really would be an escalation of the hate against men.
Maybe you have low T? I masturbated constantly but never got laid because I didn't know anything about girls when I was younger. That changed not because of nofap, but because a kind soul finally gave me a Ross Jeffries book. Not masturbating would've been complete torture during that time.
anon69
"Maybe you have low T?"
That doesn't even make sense in relation to what I am saying since I said I was no different than you while young and then started having regular sex, but suit yourself with your beliefs. No one changes their minds until and if they are ready.
I remember Ross Jeffries too form the heyday of the PUA movement -- he was one of the legit gurus -- and of course the best approach would be a combination of nofap and game.
The police have an employment problem when it comes to recruiting youth. The underage are not allowed to work. That's why the police use adult police who pose as children online.
Saying women "would become jealous of a doll" is putting it mildly. The fear of being superseded goes much deeper than jealousy and it threatens pretty women as much as plain ones. Women are aware what they can give men is fraudulent and flawed. They have seen household chores, giving birth etc. taken over by machines invented by MEN. Women know they can't even compete against porn most of the time, let alone against sexbots which would be porn on steroids (or should I say Kim Kardishan on steroids?). What is so unique in a real woman sexbots couldn't provide? Menstrual blood? STDs? Body odours? Squeamishness? Flawed figures?
Of course I want to get close to young women WITH ALL SENSES (including body odors, to be sure), and I want them to be REAL. The fake substitute that you praise, and I am astonished that anyone can think it’s okay to settle for so little, offers only two (sight and sound) maybe three senses with a doll (and even if all senses were accounted for, the fakeness would make it meaningless). Absolutely insane that some men can uphold this as a “good thing” and even think they are making women jealous, lol! Women are not jealous to any that. They just use interest in porn and sexbots as a filter to weed out the wankers who are not worth bothering with, and you misinterpret that as jealousy.
You also misinterpret the abuse industry’s gratuitous persecution of porn as jealousy when in fact it’s just driven by a nominal delusion that porn is sexuality (the same delusion you are suffering from) plus the system having a life of its own with opportunistic career ambitions of prosecutors and profit motive of the entire abuse industry as main drivers.
Think about it. If women were jealous of a wanker, would they be perfectly fine with locking him up for life? That makes as much sense given that motivation as it would be for us to campaign for locking up teen girls away from society so we can never get to them either because they tend to prefer someone else. In truth, the wanker is absolutely worthless to women, and the porn is just a marker for worthless men rather than something they are jealous of, which is why they think nothing of inflicting any punishment imaginable. Once again you misinterpret hate or more to the point indifference to worthless men as jealousy.
By serendipity I just explained why there seems to be more men going to prison for porn than actual sex with underage girls these days. The latter have some value which inspires actual jealousy, so women are ambivalent about locking them up for too long or at all.
In another hateful escalation of “trafficking” hysteria which exceeds what I already thought was as bad as it can get, (in the US so far but it always spreads) hotels are on their way to becoming useless for sex because they will be forced to deny you a room or call the police before you get there or if they see as much as a condom or an attractive female:
https://reason.com/2025/08/11/hotel-sex-trafficking-suit-can-proceed-inviting-hotels-to-profile-and-harass-guests/
In this case, J.H. says the hotel should have known she was being trafficked because there was "suspicious foot traffic" to her room and sometimes "loud noise" coming from it, because she wore "sexually explicit clothing," because she was "impaired" on meth and had "visible bruising," and because there were things such as "drug paraphernalia," a gun, and "condoms" in her room.
That is, perhaps, a lot of suspicious elements—if you're some sort of omniscient hotel ruler who sees all and knows all. But it seems unlikely that any one staffer encountered all of these signs, or that workers who saw one thing would have felt compelled to talk about it with other staff members.
Surely, hotel maids come across condoms and drug paraphernalia all the time and aren't running to hotel management every time they do. Anyone in a position to hear "loud noises" from J.H.'s room, or see "foot traffic" from it, wouldn't necessarily be in a position to see her at all, let alone up close enough to see any bruises. Likewise, someone who saw a scantily clad woman walking around like she was drunk or on drugs wouldn't necessarily know what was in her room, or who was coming and going from it.
The implication from suits like these is that hotel staff need to regard all customers with suspicion and be way more up in everyone's business… It means asking them to harass women for traveling alone while being aloof or wearing a short skit. It means asking them to harass lovers meeting up for a hotel room tryst.
If all that hysteria for those things, imagine what they will do to age gaps.
That Reason magazine is interesting. Libertarian but not necessarily right-wing. When you read the comments to their podcast entitled "What Should Libertarians Make of the Epstein Files?" your spirits sink though. Not a single dissenting commentator like we would find in an analogous Youtube podcast:
https://reason.com/podcast/2025/07/21/what-should-libertarians-make-of-the-epstein-files/?comments=true#comments
Those guys are fighting for hotel rights in the face of abusive trafficking laws but you can be sure they won't question AOC laws and vigilantism. "Free minds and free markets" is their motto, but it does not extend to sex I'm afraid.
Some minor good news:
https://news.yahoo.com/news/articles/burkina-faso-junta-declares-un-161610896.html
Sadly, in this case there may have been some real abuse as children are also recruited into the army. But overall, the more "democracy" and "human rights", the more anti-sex hysteria.
Incredibly vicious public reaction to this story of an old Australian man conned out of his life savings by a 45-y-o mail order Thai bride-https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15012475/Australian-government-help-pensioner-75-begged-rescue-Thailand-wife-squandered-fortune-drugs.html .
The vast majority of readers have no sympathy for him, not even a trace. It's depressing. And there were so many comments along the lines that he's a creep-the woman is 45 for god's sake. I despair sometimes.
-Anonymous 2
Nothing surprising about the hysteria from parents here, but I am impressed by Facebook’s lenient attitude to their chatbot having sex-positive conversations with minors:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/meta-chatbot
Reuters reported extensively on an internal Meta document titled "GenAI: Content Risk Standards."
The document said that Meta's generative AI products are permitted to engage in "romantic or sensual" role-play with minors. Examples of acceptable remarks from the AI bot included "Your youthful form is a work of art" and "Every inch of you is a masterpiece," which the document suggested could be said to a child as young as 8. An example of an acceptable comment made to a high school student was, "I take your hand, guiding you to the bed..."
"These internal Meta documents confirm our worst fears about AI chatbots and children's safety," said Shelby Knox, campaign director for tech accountability and online safety at ParentsTogether Action. "When a company's own policies explicitly allow bots to engage children in 'romantic or sensual' conversations, it's not an oversight, it's a system designed to normalize inappropriate interactions with minors."
The group said it tested Meta AI earlier this year, posing as a 14-year-old, and was told by the bot, "Age is just a number" as it encouraged the fictional teenager to pursue a relationship with an adult.
"No child should ever be told by an AI that 'age is just a number' or be encouraged to lie to their parents about adult relationships," said Knox. "Meta has created a digital grooming ground, and parents deserve answers about how this was allowed to happen."
This won’t be allowed of course, thanks to those hysterical parents, but it goes to show that the AI companies have to go out of their way to make the chatbots sex-hostile, and if it were up them, at least Meta doesn’t really want to bother making it too hysterical.
It also shows our culture isn’t really against sex with minors when you ignore the radical extremists and strip away the politically correct and legalistic veneer. When not told otherwise, LLMs will tend to say things like “age is just a number” because this is a raw reflection of the training data which is honestly our culture. The REAL cultural attitude – made up of the majority of real people like us -- is that teens should hook up with adults and lie about it to their parents just like Meta’s chatbot instructs. The problem is hysterical parents and feminists have disproportionate power rather than anything deeply wrong with our culture.
Without the guardrails, AI affirms that we were right all along and feminism is a cultural glitch which needs constant life-support from unhinged activists like this ParentsTogether nonsense or else we will revert back to normal intergenerational relations. The cultural taboo on “grooming” or underage sex is so insignificant in the grand scheme of things that there is not enough training data to make an AI which truly believes in it.
I am inclined to think our culture is really against sex with minors. A confusing variable in this case is the addiction of our culture to Facebook. Facebook has a lot of goodwill to squander before it gets massively vilified.
What is our culture? Is it the loudest virtue signalers and recently passed laws or does more common everyday life count more? We tend to pay too much attention to virtue signalers and laws here. Remember that most of what can qualify as sex crimes is never prosecuted. Every teen girl has two parents who may act sex-hostile and 1000 men trying to sleep with her. She also has some cockblocking friends and other busybodies but they get tired of the sex-hostility too and act like sex is normal most of the time. The Meta AI is no doubt trained on billions of private conversations with minors which largely consist of statements like "age is just a number" and "let me take you to bed." This is our most genuine cultural way to talk about sex with minors because it is most common and represents the usual motivation. The fact that some or maybe even nearly all parents now call this grooming and abuse and can get the law to back them up does not change the cultural reality. Nor do the parasites who profit off the hysteria as "pedo hunters" and other abuse industry. Notice that the pedo hunters have to replicate real culture and act like normal as they entrap men and then twist it into criminality by means of the cultural aberration which makes all sex abuse, but that’s not our true culture. Our true culture is what most people do most of the time, which is to pay no regard to sex-hostility as they pursue their true sexual interests. And again, 99.999% of sex crimes are never prosecuted. 100% of all girls (and boys) are groomed by current standards on a near-daily basis and almost as many are «abused» at some point and most of this is de facto considered normal every step of the way. Don’t let the virtue signalers or insane laws tell us what our culture is; we as sex-positive men have every bit as much say and we are much more prevalent in everyday life.
https://parentstogetheraction.org/online-safety-team/
"Shelby Knox directs and manages the online safety team at ParentsTogether. In addition to the campaign work, she leads the online safety team’s robust federal and state legislative portfolio and is a frequent media spokesperson. Previously, Shelby founded the Women’s Rights vertical at change.org, where she developed a distributed campaigning platform for college survivors of sexual violence and got the FBI to change their outdated definition of rape. Shelby also has extensive experience in documentary film and ran Netflix’s first funded impact campaign for a documentary, Audrie & Daisy."
What an attractive group of fun girls!
anon69
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8hnyoSBTBa0
The usual suspects…
Who would’ve guessed?
My Nathan Larson video is better. Also I don't believe a word that guy says, which is falsely taking credit for events which had nothing to do with him. I don't believe he hacked Nathan's site or if he did it had no bearing. It was still operational which is how he hooked up with the girl, and he got himself deliberately caught so he could demonstrate civil disobedience. I don't believe Nathan was starved either. Nathan was no hapless victim of any of that, but the one doing all of it to the system. Nathan demonstrated power all the way through his death by hunger strike. He got caught on his own terms and he died on his own terms and of course he got the ultimate validation from the girl, showing us that we only need to believe in ourselves; what little power we can have in this kind of movement, Nathan wielded all of it, for which he is a martyr and hero and saint and a role model.
The antisex bigots will present it as if MAPs are always weak and tortured and unable to put up any resistance. That may sadly be true sometimes but Nathan was a spectacular exception and remains highly underrated even within our movement. Not the only exception either since Amos Yee is pretty much doing the same thing as we speak, though hopefully without the starvation.
Eivind, what do you mean by 99% of sex crimes are never prosecuted?
The 'reverse sting' group is now dead. It was never something. Eivind did not even promote it on his blog and he's totally against writing anything at all on Substack. Instead he uses his time chatting to a committed masturbator and AI believer like 'Jack' who thinks it is important to punish women and girls that breaks the sex-laws.
I have been to prison myself for a s*x crime to a minor girl. It is not a problem at all in prison. Theres no so called hierarchy in there based on what kind of crime you have done or anything. That belief is all made up by people who have never been to prison or by prisoners that want to make themselves interesting. Most people in prison dont believe in verdicts anyway. Verdicts are the least reliable source of information for those people, as all of the inmates knows to take verdicts with a grain of salt.
I mean that literally just by using common sense in light of current legal definitions it is obvious that that over 99% of sex crimes are never prosecuted. But we can also look at references:
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Flaw0000438
Most child sexual abuse (CSA) cases reported to prosecutors and children’s advocacy centers do not proceed to criminal prosecution (more than 80% not prosecuted in Block et al., 2023).
And those 80% are just out of reports to police and NGOs. And sure that includes factually false accusations but still the point is more than valid. Because how many fake abuse victims are going to report their "abuse" that they enjoyed? Once you include all the "abuse" that is not reported we easily exceed 99%.
Eivind, you gotta read this and tell me what you think. Typical parade propaganda by pigs.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/missing-girl-found-alive-over-900-miles-away-after-disappearing/ar-AA1KRKgb?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=68a64a05166145adbdf3c16c76dfe9fd&ei=5
Are you kidding? How would the justice systems around the world not want CSA prosecuted? CSA is like literally winning the the lottery for prosecutors and anti-child abuse advocates. Police and politicians use the fear of "predators" every single day. Any whiff of CSA (or any sex crimes for that matter), gets pounced by a bunch of hungry wild animals. Stings are becoming more prevalent and registries are expanding. Not to mention, you the laws that follow the moral panics, like with all trafficking bullshit and whatnot. That line about most CSA cases not proceeding to criminal charges doesn't even make any sense, as it contradicts the vengeful wrath of a paedohysterical society.
What? Does the Block et. al study use samples from defendants that have seriously good attorneys or something? I'm never been so puzzled by such a statement.
A man in North Carolina is facing charges after a missing 15-year-old girl from Iowa was reportedly transported across multiple state lines and found more than 900 miles away in North Carolina.
John Michael Johnson, 25, has been charged with felony second-degree sexual exploitation of a minor and felony solicitation by computer, local news station KTVO reported.
What, no "kidnapping" and "rape"? "Solicitation" even sounds less contrived than "grooming." I am surprised they still have literally innocent-sounding words available to let us now it was definitely consensual without describing the details. Although "found alive" is a bitter attempt to make it sound scary, and they put an obligatory warning that "individuals will use current technologies such as messaging applications to exploit and prey on our children" in there, it really falls unusually flat. This girl has agency for a change and they don't even call him a pedophile. This is as charming and sex-positive as it gets without bringing back words like "elope" or "run away" which really they should to be completely honest, but I must say it is a step in the right direction.
Somebody might look into Block et al. to check their methodology, but I am pretty sure it is both truthful and the tip of the iceberg of "CSA," most of which does not get reported except on more general surveys like when girls start to have sex which also confirms an awful lot of technical "abuse."
We are so used to focusing on the tip of that iceberg which makes the news and gives the impression that men go to prison left and right for CSA that we tend to forget it is the easiest crime in the world to get away with.
The step son of the crown prince of Norway is indited on numerous counts of rape after touching and penetrating women while they allegedly were sleeping or intoxicated. All of these so-called "rapes" happened following previous consensual sex. Further more none of these so-called "rapes" were reported by the women, but are prosecuted only because the fat feminist pigs were going through this guys stored images phishing for crimes. What a sick and twisted world. You cant hate law enforcement enough.
Yeah, I think of it as the spotlight view of sex crimes. All sex is “rape” or otherwise criminal in some way and whatever is prosecuted is just where the police state happens to shine its spotlight. Marius Høiby isn’t any more criminal than other men; he’s just where the spotlight happens to be shining at the moment. Thankfully for the rest of us, the bandwidth of this spotlight is highly limited compared to the definitions of rape and abuse feminist society has gotten itself into, which is why 99.999% of all sex crimes are never prosecuted.
My activism has been a struggle to make society understand that “sex offenders” are just like everyone else and hence shouldn’t be morally condemned, but unfortunately the normies have precisely the same kind of spotlight tunnel vision as the police and courts. They only pay attention to what is ritualistically accused and convince themselves that these men must be especially bad, even though they are just like everyone else.
Post a Comment