Anyway, it sure is a parable of our times. We all long for Lolita and can’t keep our hands off the archetype in some way or another, obviously including this feminist film crew, but they can only put a faint shadow of the real story on screen these days, with an adult actress of course. I have never been one for roleplay, but I don’t have anything against it either, so it might be an OK film unless it is ruined by too much sanctimonious preaching about how immoral it would be to do the real thing, which is what my prejudice tells me it will be.
Here is the trailer:
Here is the page for Cute at the San Sebastian Film Festival which contains a synopsis of the plot:
Troubled by forbidden feelings for his seven-year-old stepdaughter, Richard decides to leave his girlfriend. He retreats to his childhood home to renovate ahead of its sale, but his self-imposed exile is disrupted by the childlike presence of his mother's caregiver, Stella. He soon discovers her double life as a Lolita camgirl, and the two develop a transgressive surrogate father-daughter relationship. Their constructed reality begins to unravel when the stepdaughter he left behind reaches out.
Okay, he prefers a seven-year-old and is thus a literal pedophile rather than a hebe- or ephebophile, and I guess it is a little bit ballsy to make a movie about that. But I don’t like this obsession with pedophiles being “troubled.” In the trailer he is shown asking a doctor for some sort of libido depressant. This is so lame because unless you subscribe to the self-hate of the VirPeds or the pathologizing from the psychiatric profession, why in heaven’s name should a pedophile be more “troubled” and less able to control himself than other men who also can’t get the vast majority of females they desire? Why are ephebophiles (that is, normal men) not troubled by our jailbait attraction? Why are Catholic priests not troubled by their chastity vows? Why are not even the incels said to be troubled? It is assumed that pedos have a demon inside their head who is competing with their free will, in other words that they are necessarily ego-dystonic, which I suppose is exactly what the normies think and all the cruel attempts to “treat” them assume.
I don’t think there is any reason to assume pedophiles have less self-control than anyone else. We don’t have to assume you want to break the law either to dismiss this nonsense; there is a middle ground between sex offender and “virtuous” where you are just like anyone else in unrequited or impossible love rather than especially “troubled.” Perhaps someone with a prepubescent age of attraction can put it better than me and say exactly what is wrong with the view that you must be disordered while the rest of us are not, in a similar situation. I think either we are all “troubled” if we can’t have sex with anyone we like, or nobody is unless they have a problem with impulse control that is unrelated to age of attraction.
Judging by her answers when interviewed by her film school, Marlene does not have high hopes for her film herself either. She knows how feeble her take is next to Nabokov’s potent archetype. And I can’t blame her because even if she had deviated from political correctness and wanted to make a pedo-friendly or at least morally ambiguous film, our civilization cycle is now in the age of performance rather than innovation. It is impossible to supplant the archetypes that dominate our cultural imagination with new works of art. We can only perform Lolita now, and the other classics, not come up with new ones. This is yet another performance which isn’t even trying to be different than the now usual hate and is therefore no challenge to the real thing either, the one where Humbert HAD HIS FILL of Lolita (yes, so delectably put!) with no ageplay required; the one we shall revert to thinking about once this film is forgotten after the festivals no matter how many prizes it wins for being the most politically correct in the midst of the ongoing CSA moral panic.
28 comments:
Regarding the end of cultural innovation and us now being in an age of performance, I suppose we can say that the CSA hoax was the last major “innovation,” which occurred in the 1970s and is now replayed over and over in all the creative arts and culture at large.
In these botched loli stories the archetype being played out is primarily the CSA hoax rather than the Lolita myth per se.
In the original story there is no sex-negative character with whom any readers identify.
Think about that.
Lolita’s mother Charlotte is an impediment to loli love (briefly before dispatched by deus ex machina), but I never heard of anyone who identifies with her. All women want to roleplay as Lolita and none want to be Charlotte. Men of course want to love Lolita and have no hebesex-negative male character with whom we can even be invited to identify. Antisex is simply not a serious position in the book. For good measure there is even another serious girl-lover named Quilty with whom we can identify if we don’t like Humbert for some reason.
With these new stories ALL the characters are sex-negative, including the pedo himself. The result is nobody identifies with the characters except wanting to get back to the original Lolita and these new works are forgotten as soon as they have collected their prizes from the film festivals for being the best current politically correct embodiment of a trend nobody truly enjoys. This one might, thanks to the ageplay and lo and behold a seven-year-old overarching love interest might be cute enough to sell some cinema tickets too, but it remains to be seen how many and I will be surprised if it is not a net loss to the tax money propping it up.
https://apnews.com/article/harvey-weinstein-mimi-haley-sentencing-new-york-e8c07e74d64220ca5cbd16bb833be206
Another unfortunate loss for the MRA.
Weinstein will most certainly die behind bars.
Yeah, it ended badly for Weinstein despite also exposing the fraud of this type of rape accusations in the same trials when prosecutors had to give up on Jessica Mann. All the stories were just as weak as hers, but since feminists have succeeded in redefining all of sexuality into sex crimes, something will eventually stick against any man when there are enough accusations.
In a tiny piece of good news, it turns out that the film about Chris Hansen isn’t the mindless ass-kissing I thought it was:
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/23/entertainment/primetime-movie-chris-hansen-robert-pattinson
“Primetime” hits US theaters this week, but controversy has long been brewing. The real Hansen has made his outrage clear about what he’s described as “a complete work of fiction attached to a real name.” He’s complained that he was not consulted about the film, and that he was also barred from seeing it in previews without first signing a non-disclosure agreement. Using particularly pointed language given the subject matter at hand, Hansen accused the filmmakers of acting in a “exploitative or predatory manner” and being “sneaky” and “disingenuous” to produce an “insult” that is “essentially a horror film.” He’s probably right to be upset. In the movie, Hansen is portrayed as an egomaniac philanderer whose delusions become so all-consuming and chaotic that they eventually become fatal.
That’s some high-class irony... Chris Hansen being a “victim” of sneaky dishonest methods, is he? If he calls that a horror movie then what do we call his show? Of course, for all the lives ruined he deserves much worse comeuppance than an unflattering movie, but it’s a start, although the filmmakers are hateful normie antisex bigots themselves who don’t oppose such “predator hunting” in principle if it wasn’t done by an egomaniac philanderer.
Back to the subject of “Cute,” here is an interview with the director and actress Gina Jaqueline:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/san-sebastian-film-festival-cute-interview-onlyfans-gina-1236706379/
Much like the focus on Chris Hansen’s ego while ignoring the real problem, this is what passes for “nuance” on this subject. They think they are brave for confronting the taboo while being so utterly predictably hateful at the same time that I don’t think the film will bring any ideas to the table that deviate in the slightest from the standard CSA hoax.
The CSA hoax is the lie that childhood and sexuality don’t mix, not without causing “trauma.” It is the now religious belief in the false “innocence” of children. It is belief in an indisputable metaphysical badness of sexuality when associated with childhood in any fashion. “Of course, there is something unsettling with sexuality [being] connected with childhood” says Marlene Emilie Lyngstad in that Hollywood Reporter interview.
Of course, of course, of course we can’t begin to question this dogma in anything which gets mainstream attention, can we?
No wonder her movies flop when they are not the slightest bit original or controversial other than to touch the subject at all. She is just telling the normies what they have already heard ad nauseam, just another endless repetition of the CSA hoax. Only film festivals appear to be interested in her work as far as I can tell. But if she hadn’t been a normie she would simply be cancelled, so this is where we are stuck.
Another interview with Marlene,
https://cineuropa.org/en/interview/495748/
Which contains the following nugget:
The film asks the audience: should this man kill himself, or should he live? That is an important question.
Ouch lol! Well, that’s the depth of her sensitivity and engagement with the subject, daring to ask the only thing still open to “debate” without instant cancellation for the wrong answer I guess: is it enough to be a virtuous pedophile or do you have to be dead if you feel attraction to children?
Regarding the seven-year-old child actress, it gets weird. We knew children supposedly can’t consent to do anything sexual, but did you know they also can’t process the concept of acting in a sexual context and therefore need to be deceived about it, and that such deception is fine?
It was essential to cast the parents as well as the child because they would be central to the process... They guided me on the language to use with their daughter. The disturbing quality comes from the wider context, rather than her individual scenes. For her, those scenes were enjoyable: she was playing and developing a warm relationship with her fictional stepfather. She does not yet know the full context, but her parents will discuss it with her when she is old enough to process it.
This strikes me as creepy and more worthy of the label than most of what the normies call grooming. But whatever, I guess it’s acceptable in the interest of preserving the illusion of child innocence?
And finally, the director presents us with ideas to further expand the abuse industry, because we can never have enough notions of abuse!
The expansion of the internet has also created new dilemmas. These are not always about the direct abuse of children, but about representations and fantasies that may not directly harm an actual child while still contributing to the sexualisation of children and childhood. The film also asks us to take notice of less obvious forms of harm. Stella absorbs society’s message that she must be small to receive validation or possess value, and passes it on to the next generation. That, too, is a way of hurting children.
Well, who is doing the sexualization here, including deceiving an actual child into acting as a sex object without asking if she wants to play the role? But I guess this film is the “good” kind of sexualization since it’s in service of the CSA hoax, so it gets a pass despite being everything supposed to be verboten.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7mGlQeSbou0&pp=ygUkc3R1ZGVudHMgcmVhY3QgdG8gYXR0cmFjdGl2ZSB0ZWFjaGVy&ra=m
Something tells me that this kind of “experiment” wouldn’t be redone today.
Ah, the gorgeous teacher candid camera classic from 1965! I have seen it before, but thanks for the reminder that we are the sane ones who remain in touch with our sexual feelings while society went insane with antisex bigotry and repression. Goes to show it doesn’t have to be that way!
Here’s another pleasant reminder that mixing sexual attraction and young and teacher need not be the cataplectic red flags they are today:
https://honesterotica.com/portfolios/1592
These lovely Nous deux illustrations by Gaston de Sainte-Croix would signify an “abuse” story today and probably be considered child porn too. Can’t be retroactively criminalized though when already established as art, so they are safe to look at, showing us what so much “abuse” REALLY feels like! The girl is happy, the man is happy, everyone is happy, except now society went insane creating problems where there are none.
By the way, Cute did not win anything at the San Sebastian Film Festival. Is the CSA hoax losing its stranglehold? Probably not, but it’s not an automatic ticket to success either. It occurs to me that the title is Orwellian and an honest title would be “Disgust,” because the whole point is to extinguish cuteness and the director (if we take her at her word) is incapable of appreciating cuteness.
My suggestion, if anyone wants to make a truly successful film, how about dropping that tedious fake disgust angle and take some real pleasure in pleasure again? Look how happy people were without the CSA hoax! Look how they are beaming with pleasure in these classic counterexamples, both the video and illustrations. That’s what you should strive to recreate, and then maybe some real excitement will follow that we haven’t had in a long time because all the art is insufferably prudish.
https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/peoria-child-predator-sentenced-128-years-prison-release-date-set-august-2154.amp
“cHiLd PrEdAtOr”.
The fact that these sentences are so banal and elementary, you might as well make the analogy that this is the legislature’s version of handing out candy on Halloween.
The system is beyond fixing if it reaches the threshold where even violent, non-sexual (yes, that includes homicidal) crime is treated with significantly elevated mercy.
The reality tells us that from the very beginning, the system didn’t accidentally become “backwards” —just truly a playground for the judiciary to pleasure itself politically, vicariously, and sanctimoniously.
Yeah, this conviction is too banal to make sense of what he is supposed to have done beyond having “electronic devices loaded with child sexual abuse media.” They also mention “child molestation” and “sexual exploitation of a minor” and “public sexual indecency” but there is no hint as to what any of this actually means. Was it all image-based or what and is there even a “victim” directly related to these crimes, how old and so on and was there any harm? Why not bother to report this if it exists? A sensible public would demand some tangible details of something really bad to justify a 128-year sentence, but no, they are satisfied with words as vague as “witchcraft” because a witch-hunt is what it is. There is no substance to it and no one cares besides us.
It’s not just the lack of any mercy, but we don’t even bother to establish a comprehensible crime to begin with when it comes to sexuality. The label of “sex offender” by itself is enough to deserve infinite punishment with no further questions allowed. Or if “sex offender” is not enough, “child predator” certainly spells eternal condemnation.
Release date set to august 2154? Perhaps the honorable judges should be offered a course on human life expectancy?! Not even the bowhead whale lives that long.
I used AI to try and dig up some further details about how he got 128 years:
The conviction you are referring to is the case of Stiven Nissan Awshana of Peoria, Arizona, who was sentenced on September 18, 2026, to a 128-year prison term.
The extensive sentence length is due to the accumulation of statutory penalties across 16 separate criminal counts. The legal distinction between the charges helps clarify what the state prosecuted beyond the mere possession of downloaded media:
Breakdown of the Charges and Legal Definitions
• Child Molestation: Unlike possession of digital media, child molestation charges legally require physical, sexual contact with a minor. Under Arizona law, these are distinct from media-only offenses and indicate specific, physical acts alleged against a direct victim.
• Sexual Exploitation of a Minor: In this specific case, the initial Peoria Police Department booking papers specified that the exploitation counts included "Possession, Recording, and Distribution". The inclusion of "Recording" denotes the active creation or filming of illegal material, rather than just viewing or saving it.
• Public Sexual Indecency & Furnishing Harmful Items: The original case also brought forward counts of furnishing harmful items to minors and endangerment.
How a 128-Year Sentence is Reached
In high-profile sex offense cases, multi-decade or century-long sentences are rarely the result of a single charge. Instead, prosecutors and judges utilize consecutive sentencing. If a defendant is convicted of dozens of individual counts—where each image, video, or physical interaction can legally count as a separate offense—the mandatory minimum or prescriptive prison terms for each count are stacked back-to-back, rapidly resulting in an effectively infinite sentence.
As reported by FOX 10 Phoenix, the investigation also involved a co-defendant, Marina Bethyo, who faced 22 counts of child sex exploitation and child abuse before taking a plea deal on a reduced charge in 2025. Due to privacy laws protecting the identities of minors in criminal proceedings, specific personal details regarding the age and identities of the victims are routinely withheld from public media releases to prevent further harm.
Absolutely insane that they won’t even tell us the age of the “victims,” or what the “child molestation” was in any commonsense terms, yet all the normies accept 128 years as completely normal. Also, the woman appears equally “guilty” but is already released from prison while he serves beyond life. So the American justice system is like a casino on top of the other insanity, where you can get anywhere from nothing to life for the same crimes depending on the whim of prosecutors and what deals you take.
I'd like to know what Eivind thinks about this:
https://tass.com/society/2195265
Look, I don't know if this is some sort of ruse to get Eivind to open his mouth and be slammed as a ‘white knight’ if he replies to this comment or what, but just know that he is neither a proponent nor an opponent of capital punishment.
Yes, in the eyes of the public, the death penalty can be seen as schadenfreudic, though it can also be merciful when sparing someone the rot of enduring decades in prison until they die.
@anonyme
That's an inane comment The article is not about the death penalty but about the pussy pass under any pretext (unverified and unconnected CSA episode).
The articles about this poor women hardly ever mention the truly gruesome assassination she's guilty of.
Her guilt being certain she should have been executed a long time ago.
You evidently haven't read the entire article, and especially the reason why her execution has been halted.
"The ruling followed an active campaign by her lawyers, who argued that Pike’s childhood sexual abuse had not been taken into account during the proceedings in her case".
Pentobarbital not working, that's suspicious. It can happen if you develop a high tolerance for it. Like if you've been using/abusing it (or another barbiturate) for years while in jail. If you're an inmate on death row, building up a huge tolerance to barbiturates may be THE way to avoid execution.
A female boy kisser teacher let off the hook thanks to the testimony of the boy and his father:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/dad-student-had-inappropriate-relationship-113037223.html
Some would say a mother wouldn't have testified.
Very cute young (25yo) female teacher could have gotten 20 years but in this case the system was corrected from producing a horrendously bizarre evil verdict thanks to a sanity injection by the 16-year-old boy’s father and many other people:
The dad stated that, although his son is in counseling, he is not traumatized by what happened. He noted the teen is getting good grades in school, performing well on the football team and has already been accepted to colleges. He reportedly described him as "thriving" and noted he does not feel victimized. He said Lashombe should not go to jail or become a felon. He was not the only one.
KWTX reports that, at one point in the hearing, the judge noted that there were a lot of people in the room. When he was informed they were all supporters of Lashombe, he asked everyone to raise their hand if they were there in support of her. Everyone but the boy's mother and two people she was with reportedly raised their hands.
The boy's mother — who is divorced from the man who gave the testimony — was the only one arguing that he was impacted by the incident. She said he suffers from anxiety and depression and has been withdrawn from her and other family members. He stopped going to Catholic Mass and didn't want to go to his high school prom.
Yes, the mother presents as an evil feminist antisex bigot, but it looks like the explanation is more to do with a divorce conflict than a general tendency. It is true that women are more antisex-bigoted on average, but not THIS deranged. When such beautiful women go to prison for being nice to boys it is due to the mindless grinding of a sick system (literal AI doom, which is not a future problem but as old as bureaucracy) rather than evil will by any given individual.
I assume the many other people in the room who voted to save this teacher included women, so if women took a vote they would have saved her too. The problem is the insane system, which evil people try to exploit for ulterior motives like the mother and her two friends there.
This process was a rare marvelous glimmer of rule by common sense rather than a sick system, very heartwarming how they all got to raise their hands to prevent miscarriage of justice. I guess you can say men don’t get this opportunity, but I never heard of it before for women either.
What do you think of the Cornell 7 "rape" case, Eivind?
It’s called a “loophole” that women can still get voluntarily drunk and have voluntary sex and not be legally “raped” in some jurisdictions:
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/10/01/us/ny-rape-law-loophole-cornell
A “loophole” in the “all sex is rape” and “the only evidence you need is regret” regime that feminists have all but completely instituted worldwide by now.
Do I still need to say what I think about the redefinition of male sexuality into rape after 30 years of railing against it?
It’s about time some fresh young voices take over if we are going to have an MRA movement at all. This is the standard MRA stuff you don’t even have to be a MAP to appreciate if you care about basic men’s rights. My saying the same things over and over isn’t going to make a difference, so I’m not overly enthusiastic about analyzing every new iteration of the same old panic. When I was in college it was called “Take Back the Night,” then #Metoo and now “I am Jane Doe” is the slogan all women can use to get in on the panic about a supposed rape epidemic that we STILL need harsher laws to solve after fifty years of repeated feminist reforms giving them everything they asked for each time. It’s all the same and now so bland they don’t even have a feminist figurehead anymore or use their real names or need to because the entire culture is pushing carcereal feminism for them. When I was in college I had a girlfriend who told me she and her friends would make something up to say at “Take Back the Night” marches. It’s all about participation in what unites women in a feminist movement (that they no longer need), and men have no equivalent with mass appeal no matter how bad the laws get for us. I tried to help create it but it failed, and at this point I see no hope of men caring no matter how many “loopholes” women close in their quest to have men summarily imprisoned at the whim of any woman. Women consenting to sex is just another “loophole” to be closed because all sex is rape according to this culture, and if this loophole still exists in the law then it will be closed in the next round of feminist rape law reform. They asked for “yes mean yes” and got it but of course that isn’t good enough either and was misguided to ask for by feminist standards since it just creates another loophole.
With my lack of a significant following, when someone leaves a comment just asking what I think about this or that while offering no opinion of their own, I have reason to assume it is likely a troll too. If you are not a troll and genuinely interested in my opinion, then it helps to put in some effort stating your own opinion on the matter, preferably including how a sexualist movement should address it. If by doing so you convince me that you seem sincere, I am more likely to make an effort to reply as well.
There is an Epstein-hearing in Norway too now. Like as if anyone that's ever been in contact with him needs to be scrutinized.
The lazy journalists still use the wrong term "sexual abuse of a minor" about what Epstein was convicted for when he in fact were only convicted of paying for sex with a minor. It is really a mass psychosis going on around Epstein, and just like Michael Tracey is saying, no one is interested in looking at the facts of the case I was probably the first one to mention Michael Tracey on this blog. Tracey is now asking questions about the Cornell case and even named the accuser.
About Epstein again, the biggest norwegian newspaper have no problem stating falsely that Epstein was convicted of "child sexual abuse":https://www.vg.no/nyheter/i/XMvbag/journalist-julie-k-brown-avsloerte-omfanget-av-epstein-skandalen-hva-ga-de-ham-tilbake
Imagine that we can have a whole special investigation without getting the basic underlying fact right, or even bothering to look into it?
Epstein wasn’t even convicted of paying for sex with a minor. His guilty plea was for “soliciting prostitution” which is merely asking for it and it was only for adult prostitution since he thought the girl was 18. Okay, the underlying events were going through with paying for sex not just soliciting, and the girl was 17 even though she said she was 18, so it’s “close enough” to say Epstein has a criminal record for paying for sex with a minor even though that was not the formal charge.
But calling it “sexual abuse” is a plain lie. There is no “abuse” conviction whatsoever. “Soliciting prostitution” is a vice crime which does not assume a victim. It is an old-fashioned morality-based offence which is not grounded in feminist victimology and the women offering their sexual services are criminals too under this framework.
The investigation can only see back through a feminist lens which removes the vice paradigm and inserts feminist victimology. Sure, prosecutors were already then in the early 2000s retrofitting their vice laws with feminist ideology and considered Epstein an “abuser,” which is how he got such a draconian sentence for solicitation, but they couldn’t get him for “abuse” because he had no guilty mind intent on soliciting minors, which is the only way they could have legally framed it as “abuse.” To this day 18-year-old women are still arrested for providing sexual services in America. The whole victimology linking Epstein to a so-called CSA conviction rests on a girl one day under 18 being “incapable” of committing a prostitution crime herself like she could have one day later doing the same thing, due to teen brain myth nonsense, and so instead she is redefined as the most spectacular victim in history, which also opened the floodgates for all women connected to Epstein claiming the same victim status despite being adults at the time, and all his friends turned into child abusers by association.
Sadly there is no chance that an investigation sprung out of a mass psychosis will come to recognize its own psychosis, so the whole thing is too predictable for me to pay attention to. I already know the outcome will be just more mindless witch-hunting and a return to sanity will have to wait for a time probably beyond our lifetimes.
Eivind, if you have failed to create an MRA movement after 30 years, what percentage would you attribute to your own failings/approach, and what percentage to society or the futility of the task?
Asking Eivind about percenteges is trolling at it's worst.Please don't answer the fool!
Yes soliciting prostitution is something different than actually having sex with a prostitute. My mistake.
Still the biggest newspaper in Norway, who brags they are controlled by an editor and therefore are more trustworthy than any other media which are not, can't get the facts straight. No VG, Epstein was never convicted of child sexual abuse which you have stated several times in your newspaper. Your editor needs to resign A.S.A.P!
I know Eivind won't lower himself to reply to the stupid troll, but I would say that it's 99% the fault of society and 1% his responsibility. That 1% is his failure to switch to Substack.
https://www.abc15.com/news/crime/police-looking-for-more-victims-after-arrest-of-apache-junction-man-in-kidnapping-assault-of-young-woman
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hFMcAr7JLnQ&t=1s&pp=2AEBkAIB&ra=m
Post a Comment