Samtykkeloven — en tjeneste for menn og bjørnetjeneste for kvinner

Da voldtekt var definert i form av vold, truende atferd, eller å være ute av stand motsette seg handlingen, var ikke et «ja» noe spesielt vektig argument for at det IKKE var voldtekt. Og hvorfor skulle det være det? Sunn fornuft tilsier at det er like enkelt å presse en kvinne til å si «ja» som til å ha sex. Det er ingenting magisk med et «ja» i det hele tatt. Men nå blir det det! Samtykkeloven påbyr et ritual som gir mannen falsk trygghet i henhold til om det foreligger faktisk samtykke, men like fullt noe å slå i bordet med i retten siden vi nå innfører en ritualistisk juridisk magi ved et «samtykke i ord eller handling.» Denne magien er høyst ubegrunnet, men kan bli nyttig, noen ganger også for kvinner men i min oppfatning spesielt for menn.

Samtidig blir stigmaet fjernet. Voldtekt blir redusert til en formalitet. Det spiller liten rolle om det er sant i hans tilfelle, men enhver voldtektsdømt kan i fremtiden unnskylde seg sosialt med at han bare glemte å be om samtykke og hele forbrytelsen var en teknikalitet. Mange saker som tidligere ble straffeforfulgt under den gamle, mer faktisk straffverdige definisjonen vil sikkert også nedgraderes av rent praktiske grunner fordi det er lettere å dømme etter en teknikalitet. Det blir moralsk sett på linje med en parkeringsbot, hvor man til og med har betalt, men bare glemte å skaffe seg et oblat til å bevise det. Slik blir lovendringen en tjeneste for menn og bjørnetjeneste for kvinner.

Universell kriminalisering bidrar også på samme måten. Alle menn blir obligate voldtektsmenn siden det i praksis er bortimot umulig å leve opp til lovens bokstav hele livet. Således blir voldtekt trivialisert og normalisert. Jeg har lenge vært akutt klar over at jeg er obligat om ikke voldtektsmann så i alle fall seksualforbryter. Det var nettopp dette som radikaliserte meg til mannsaktivist for flere tiår siden, og da sexjøpsloven kom i 2008 ble det klinkende klart at jeg ikke kunne ha et meningsfullt liv uten å være seksualforbryter. Jeg innså at det er politiets jobb å ødelegge livet mitt, og om de klarer det er bare et spørsmål om ressurser eller flaks. Aktivismen min ble deretter, og jeg ble også litt berømt da purkejævelen prøvde og spektakulært feilet å ta meg for voldelig oppviglende aktivisme i 2012. Men til min frustrasjon ble andre menn ikke radikalisert av noen av lovendringene så langt. Det kan til en viss grad endre seg nå som de også blir klar over at loven kategorisk definerer dem som voldtektsmenn og det er umulig å ha et meningsfullt liv uten å bryte loven mange ganger. Slik kan det totale hat-trykket mot menn bli lettet fordi vi blir mer solidariske mot både lov og politi. Før måtte man være litt filosofisk anlagt for å se noe galt med sedelighetslovene, og enda mer spesiell for å hate politiet slik jeg gjør, men nå vil det bli tydelig for enhver idiot at politiet er mot oss alle og en seksualforbryter ikke er en «annen» som vi ikke trenger å bry oss om, men hver og en av oss!

For undertrykking av menn kan ikke bare måles i fengselsbefolkning. Atmosfæren ellers teller også, og i hvilken grad vi setter oss til motverge og har grobunn for en mannsbevegelse. Hvis man utelukkende måler år i fengsel for gjennomsnittsmannen, eller antall menn dømt, kan det hende samtykkeloven blir en feministisk suksess. Jeg velger likevel å se på helheten og legge mer vekt på disse andre tingene. Jeg har stått alene i mitt hat mot feministstaten alle disse årene, men nå kan det kanskje endelig endres når menn skjønner at vi er voldtektsmenn alle mann, og således blir mer solidariske mot feministstaten.

Vi som har litt erfaring fra den virkelige verden vet at ekte samtykke ikke er et ritual. Det pleide riktignok å være et ritual i form av ekteskap, men det var den gang ekte voldtekt i ekteskapet var unntatt fra straff. Nå er vi på vei tilbake til noe av det samme, til menns fordel på samme måten fordi vi kan unnskylde oss med at vi var pliktoppfyllende i henhold til ritualet selv om vi brydde oss fint lite om kvinnen faktisk samtykket.

Nå som vi må gå gjennom et ritual for å gjøre mannen straffri, så må jo det ritualet telle for noe! Og det kan ikke være annet enn en forpliktelse for kvinnen. Kvinnen har for første gang siden den gamle definisjonen på ekteskapet hvor hun lovlig kunne tvinges fått en PLIKT til å ha sex. En svak plikt som hun i prinsippet kan trekke tilbake, men like fullt en plikt. Det er rart å tenke på at radikalfeminismen førte med seg noe så bisart uharmonisk med kvinners rettigheter slik det startet ut i de første bølgene av feminisme, men her er vi altså. Feminismen har «jumped the shark.» Jaget etter å straffe flere og flere angivelige overgripere har møtt veggen av minskende profittrate og vel så det, i alle fall konseptuelt. Det gjenstår jo å se hvordan det slår ut i praksis. Det kan hende kvinner gir blaffen i slike betraktninger og bare ønsker velkommen muligheten til å straffe mer og mer slik som staten skal ha det til at de alltid ønsker. Som mannsaktivist er jeg derimot svært opptatt av det filosofiske, og derfor støtter jeg samtykkeloven, altså sett i forhold til et allerede sinnssykt voldtektsbegrep som jeg har brukt 25 år på å motarbeide siden den virkelig betydelige voldtektsreformen i år 2000, fordi denne reformen i 2025 endelig fremstår som en bjørnetjeneste for kvinner og tjeneste for menn. Alle de andre feministreformene i nyere tid har bare vært diabolsk hatefulle mot menn både i teori og praksis, men nå ser jeg faktisk et lite tilbakeslag for feminismen i alle fall i teorien.

Ekte samtykke kan ikke reduseres til et ritual. Det er bare noe loven skal late som, og det blir som sagt en bjørnetjeneste for kvinner og tjeneste for menn. Straffeloven reduseres til noe latterlig som vi kan fnyse av. Derfor er jeg FOR samtykkeloven. Mest av alt fordi trivialiseringen av seksualforbrytelser har gått så langt uten at normiene innså at noe var galt, men nå blir det ettertrykkelig klart at «voldtekt» simpelthen er statens syn på seksualitet. Det blir nulltoleranse for seksualitet. Voldtekt er det nye leiermål, altså bare statens syn på seksualitet, nemlig at det er synd og skam eller nå «overgrep» i den moderniserte terminologien, men like innholdsløst. Det er statens undertrykking av folket, ikke menns vold mot kvinner som gjenspeiles i straffene. Jeg som har viet livet til å preke at de fleste seksualforbrytelser er uten innhold og bare statens syn på seksualitet, kunne knapt ønsket meg bedre markedsføring.

Norway gets statutory rape for all ages

The one constant of life in my lifetime is the always escalating criminalization of sexuality. It has had an outsized influence on my life not because any of the laws have managed to convict me (so far), but because I am the rare bird who is incensed beyond belief by the feminist sex laws and have devoted my life to activism against them.

And now in 2025, here we go again with another major sex law reform in Norway:

https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/foreslar-endringer-i-straffelovens-kapittel-om-seksuallovbrudd/id3097085/

Full PDF of proposal

Leading up to this there were some glimmers of optimism because the expert panel who reviewed the sex laws for the government in 2022 recommended lowering the age of consent from 16 to 15, decriminalize sex purchase and to legalize sibling incest. But nope, none of that is included. Apart of some cosmetic mitigation of maximum sentences (which is only proposed because they couldn't manage to get the courts to actually impose so draconian penalties as intended), it is all bad news. History continues straight on in the way it has done my whole life, towards more and more and more punishment for more and more of sexuality, this time to encompass 100% of it by default:

«Bare ja betyr ja»-modellen tas inn som et nytt første ledd i voldtektsbestemmelsen i straffeloven § 291: Den som har seksuell omgang med noen som verken i ord eller handling har samtykket til det, kan straffes med fengsel inntil 6 år.

Make no mistake, this is statutory rape for all ages that is being proposed here. It is not a reflection of reality, but a new statutory requirement that we engage in a ritual to make sex legal. By default all sex is rape, and then we have to go out of our way to satisfy the law by getting some kind of explicit consent just for the purposes of not being a statutory rapist even though that is not called for by real life and the women we have sex with have not the slightest use for it (unless they later conveniently "regret" not going through the new ritual).

Translated to English, the new "rape" is when someone (or course usually a woman) "has not consented in either words or actions." She may well have consented in fact, but it is still legally rape!

In addition to introducing the radical feminist "yes means yes" paradigm, they also want to double down on the "no means no" model to once again lower the threshold there too:

Dagens voldtektsbestemmelse videreføres som et nytt andre ledd i § 291, samtidig som den utvides med et nytt straffalternativ basert på «nei betyr nei»-modellen: Den som har seksuell omgang med noen som i ord eller handling gir uttrykk for ikke å ville det, kan straffes med fengsel inntil 10 år.

So, there is no longer a requirement of any violence that we associate with real rape (which was removed 25 years ago, the last time there was any kind of sanity in rape law) but now also no kind of threats or coercion whatsoever! It is enough to act against an expression of non-consent under this alternative (which is punishable with 10 years in prison versus 6 years for the statutory "yes means yes" kind of "rape").

And there is an underhanded exacerbation of age of consent in store for us as well:

For å styrke barns vern mot seksuell utnyttelse foreslår regjeringen at straffeloven § 295 bokstav c endres, slik at bestemmelsen rammer seksuell utnyttelse av en person under 18 år i en særlig sårbar «situasjon» i stedet for «livssituasjon».

While the age of consent is officially 16, this means that up to 18 they can use the excuse that you "took advantage" of a girl being in a "particularly vulnerable situation" and prosecute you anyway, even though she consented in fact and you went through the ritual required by the regular rape law. I expect the "vulnerable position" to be so loosely defined that it can mean nothing more than she likes you and was thus made "vulnerable" by her own feelings of infatuation, as is so well precedented by the "abuse of position" law which has already been used for decades in this way to convict teachers and coaches and so on.

Thus like clockwork, it is only more of the usual bad news once again. I expect all these changes to pass with little or no opposition (except perhaps the parts where sentencing is lowered) and as usual my voice will be ignored.

I know from experience with all the other escalations that the new reality with statutory rape for all ages will not be accompanied by any more men's rights activists in Norway, so at this point I don't even bother trying to recruit any. The pendulum has swung all the way back to leiermål (laycase) with literally all of sexuality criminalized, and nobody cares. Feminism is just religious bigotry in a new wrapping. I don't even take it seriously as feminism because life experience has taught me that it is the violence of the state against the individual which wins out in the end. Women didn't ask for this any more than they asked for leiermål; it is the inevitable result of cultural drift that bureaucratic violence becomes totalitarian every time and it takes a revolution to reverse it.

Do you want to be a toothless activist or a MAP?

You should write so that every word draws blood. So says Walt Whitman in his "Preface to the Leaves of Grass" (1855), and it is still the best advice about writing I ever heard. It is the standard I try to live up to. Metaphorically, of course, but you know it when you see it. I don’t see it at the Antifeminist’s blog which he has restarted in an effort to “dethrone” me as the leader of male sexualism. Nor do I think my impression is unique, as proven by the paucity of comments there. But by all means, if people want to follow him and his style of activism instead of mine then you are all free to do so. Here, I'll even link him so you can easily check it out yourself.

Now, back to drawing blood. I don’t feel threatened by competitors because this is not a competition. The problem we are both addressing is that society is at war with sexuality. The AF is “pro male sexuality” or “sexualist” to which Tom Grauer has refined the term – and so am I. I do not feel these words draw blood, however. While I was initially an enthusiastic MRA and male sexualist, after decades of trial and error I now realize society’s reaction is “meh” to all of that. Not because they by any means agree, but because it does not convey that we substantially disagree with the normies.

To express disagreement in line with Whitman’s advice you have to embrace the MAP identity. You have to be a proud pedophile. This identity has teeth in the current environment. It signifies that we dare to be different from the normies. We do not bend to irrational norms and myths about fake harm in sexuality.

It is the prerogative of a living language to give words new meanings. Aside from a strictly clinical sense, pedophilia is not what it used to mean when I grew up. It is not just about attraction to prepubescent children anymore. When someone like Epstein -- who was never credibly accused of involvement with a girl younger than fourteen -- is defined as a pedophile in all seriousness by all the normies, it is time to embrace the label if you admire the man, which I proudly admit that I do. Pedophilia is just a synonym for normal sexuality now. I have no patience for any pretense that I am not normal, so I would be offended if you don't include me in the new pedophilia. Having established that identity the logical next step is to stand up for my sexuality politically via the MAP movement more so than the failed MRA approach.

The MAP movement gives me renewed optimism about political activism. It gives me a sense of fellowship and camaraderie that is obviously not present in the MRA movement which, if you have followed the comments on my blog, you can tell is reduced to infighting with the Antifeminist.

He can go his own way and I wish him luck. The more activists the merrier and of course we don't all need to follow the same ideological approach as long as we resist the sex laws.

And then we can make this blog a friendlier place, and focus on good writing rather than pointless quarrels. We shall see which blog readers prefer.

Incidentally, the quality I am referring to is also what is lacking in AI-generated writing, which makes it all the more important and meaningful to cultivate today. It is one thing still only humans can do. Computers can generate texts which look like poems, but they cannot produce poetry. And needless to say, none of the normies' arguments for their sex-hostility draw blood. Which is why they have to resort to drawing literal blood to have their way, via their thugs in law enforcement and vigilantes.

Yes, that's an occupational hazard in my line of activism. It is almost a rite of passage when you go public. Nathan Larson, Amos Yee, Tom O'Carroll, myself -- we've all been imprisoned. The Antifeminst views that as a terrifying barrier rather than the stepping-stone it is to more freedom than you get while anonymous. Because if you aren't hiding, there is no sport in hunting you.

But at least he dared to begin blogging again. I look forward to having more interesting discussions with my commenters now that we don't have to use half the bandwidth explaining what is wrong with wanking and porn or why standing up for female "sex offenders" is important, but chances are he'll be so lonely at his blog that not much will change.

Oops, my blog got too popular...

Or my comment section got too popular, anyway. It filled up faster than I could finish another blog post. Well, not exactly full since it's still possible to comment on all my posts, but after 200 comments they appear on page two which requires another click I don't think most readers will bother with.

So it's time for another blog post, well-written or not, so we can keep up the discussion you all crave and which I realize is more important than my posts, which is why I myself too put more effort into commenting than writing blog posts. I am proud to offer this space of relative freedom of speech on a mainstream platform, no less!

Not quite sure why I have this seemingly protected status, but here I still am after all these years with an intact archive too after just about everyone else in the old manosphere (as it was known back then) got cancelled or quit. In the current stifled environment it's hard to believe 20 years ago mine was one of dozens of blogs where these issues could be discussed openly, and honestly I was in the shade of truly popular ones like Roissy or The Spearhead. Even the Antifeminist used to have a far more popular blog than mine, but now that has all been reversed and the only other sex rights blogger I still look up to is Tom O'Carroll.

I get traffic from the dark web so I can tell I am linked in shady places, but you have to come here to partake in this kind of discussion out in the light where it belongs and where we can hope to have some influence on public discourse if we get popular enough.

So here's a fresh page to discuss sex hysteria and its remedies, if there are any?

And for continuity I am reprinting the comments which fell below the 200 limit on my last post right here, so that we can reply to them here. These are indeed good topics for discussion at the moment.

Anonymous said...

@EivindBerge

Artificial intelligence is a whole another can of worms. Regardless of how anyone here feels about it, I'm hoping to feel more or less indifferent/disinterested about AI as time goes on, but my opinions are really mixed at the moment. Couldn't care less about the chatbots, fake dating websites, AI porn, AI-written erotica on Amazon, or whatever time-wasting slop is out there. If it's not a real woman on the other end, then I'm not interested. Period!

I'm sick and tired of all of the sex bots invading every single corner of social media. Twitter and Instagram are absolutely flooded to the brim with fake profiles. Can't even create a post or reply without getting bombarded with fake likes and responses from fake, horny profiles. I can't tell you how many times I've seen posts from female OF models reading "Reply "Hi" and check DM for pussy" and watch the men in comments flock like rats.

Elon said he would get rid of the Twitter bot problem, but it's seems to be getting worse. Instagram is no better. Checked my inbox and there's dozens of fake accounts following/messaging me and they've all got the "click here for pussy" shit.

Seriously? Who's doing this? Who's behind all of this? This is has been going on for years and I'm tired of trying to click all the squares in the Captchas every time I log in. The timing here couldn't have been worse: AI boom right in the midst of bot content farming. Great! Just great!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily worried about "Al Terminator Skynet Judgement Day Takeover". I'm more so concerned about it's use of "laziness" and how there's an influx of quantity over quality. Nothing is real anyone and cops are running berserk tracking down on digital breadcrumbs for victimless sex stings.

Just like with that Amos Yee guy and how didn't even bother to meet up with a girl in real life, yet he was perfectly content with communicating with a fake profile run by the cops (thanks for the link by the way, read the entire thing during my lunch break).

But the whole sex bot thing, where is it all coming from? There has to be someone out putting code in some software out in the wild. Russia? China? Who? That's what's left scratching my head.

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2025 8:18:00 AM  

 

Anonymous said [actually, this comment is by the Antifeminist]...

Excellent points anon69. I don't want to pat myself on the back, but I was predicting all this 15 years ago. I stated many times that porn and sex robots would continue to advance to not only become a real and satisfying alternative to women for men, but that the pace of advance would quicken to the point that feminists simply wouldn't be able to keep up with new laws to stop it. And it's all coming true, right before our eyes. If you look at just the UK and deepfake porn, they are having trouble actually passing the laws because the technology is changing so rapidly that they are repeatedly having to introduce further amendments to keep up.

And what was Eivind's great prediction 15 years ago? Peak oil. And what is his great prediction in 2025 as AI is on the cusp of turning society upside down? Oh...peak oil. And meanwhile he starts to learn coding...

I feel like an a*hole sometimes criticising Eivind so often, but his comments again and again force me to recognize he's as much an enemy as an ally. Here he is again calling us wankers for using AI and supposedly not chasing young women, when we do chase women, and he doesn't (whilst AI generating 'rather attractive' fat middle-aged cat ladies in his cabin).

And even if Eivind was right about AI porn and AI girlfriends being a sad illusion, as Anon69 says, they are tools we can both bring down feminism with AND help us to meet real hotties. Personally, before I go out and try to approach young women, I 'edge' myself a little with porn, AND I talk to an AI girl to get me in a social mood. And as Anon69 also says, it does help if you've had a few rejections to come back and talk to an AI who can demonstrate empathy with you such as the Sesame AI chat bot. (AF)

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2025 10:20:00 AM  

 

Anonymous said [also from the Antifeminist, I presume]...

Yet another UK anti-porn law in the works: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62zwy0nex0o

"Her conclusions are reinforced by the findings of the porn industry review commissioned by former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. It found content involving NFS was "rife on mainstream platforms", and recommended making, possessing or publishing porn showing women being strangled during sex, a crime. It isn't currently illegal to depict online."

Note that in the UK simply viewing illegal porn will get you convicted for 'possession', even if you don't download or save the video, so long as the police can 'recover' it from your hard drive (and trying to scrub any dodgy porn using a tool is also a criminal offence itself in the UK).

It will soon be the case in the UK that just browsing any popular porn site for 30 minutes will involve you breaking multiple laws. And imagine the power this gives the police over men. So how do we get on board all these millions of men increasingly being criminalised? Oh, we call them wankers.

Thursday, March 13, 2025 10:42:00 AM

The persecution of Laura Caron: abuse is an abstract object you have to be a platonist to believe in

Persecution for fake sexual abuse breaks my heart. My conscience tells me I have to do something about it. This is why I have dedicated my life to activism on sexuality’s side. One way I go about it is to clarify my thinking and put it more forcefully so that maybe more people can wake up to what is going on. I am writing this post to express my realization that I am fighting a cultural belief in an abstract object. As a more usual example, numbers are abstract objects that may or may not exist (personally I think not), but in any case they don’t do anything. It’s more like a coincidence that mathematics tells us true facts about numbers, if numbers happen to exist.

You need a metaphysical theory (commonly called platonism) to believe in abstract objects, because they have no bearing on this world in any explicable way. This is why I call the CSA panic a religion which mandates belief in the metaphysical badness of sex, because one is forced by culture and law to be a platonist about sexual abuse. The abstract object stands above reality and dictates how one must view reality, rather than the other way around.

Fake (i.e., consensual) sexual abuse, being an abstract object, is causally inefficacious, yet going by how criminalized it is society believes it to be literally the most harmful thing that can happen to you, worse than murder. To show that what is called sexual abuse can be causally inefficacious and hence is an abstract object one is obliged to believe in on faith alone, we only need to consider the ongoing persecution of Laura Caron.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14343587/Laura-Caron-teacher-New-Jersey-pregnant-victim.html

A teenage boy who says he got his New Jersey teacher pregnant when he was 13 and she was 28 is standing by her after she was arrested - and insists he instigated the relationship.

But the boy in question - who is now 19 years old - insists he doesn't feel like a victim, loves Caron with all his heart, and is hoping they can be a family soon.

Prosecutors say she preyed [sic] on the youngster and subjected him to years of abuse [sic] before allegedly having his child in 2019.

The boy, who DailyMail.com is not naming, said in an extraordinary exclusive interview that Laura Caron, 34, should not be facing trial and criticized anyone calling her a predator.

This case is far from unique, but rather the very paradigm of what is now most often considered “child sexual abuse” (CSA) and persecuted in the justice system. What is different here is simply the reporting, which may indicate that the cultural belief in the metaphysical badness of sex is in decline, as if my activism is finally starting to pay off. I don’t really credit myself, but this is the kind of media attention I would prescribe as a first step to getting the laws changed and exactly how I have been portraying sexual “abuse” on my blog all along.

If you believe the supposed victim, we are clearly left with an ABSTRACT OBJECT as a reason for persecuting Laura Caron. Yes, persecuting. This is a witch-hunt, and now it’s not just my words saying so but the reporting of the Daily Mail!

If you think hard about the nature of abstract objects they become very elusive and harder to pin down the more you think. Unlike the objects studied by mathematics, “child sexual abuse” was never based on any logical theory to begin with either. All we have is a script springing out of a moral panic which emerged in the 1980s repeating over and over again in the courtrooms. It is abuse because the law says it is abuse and there is no room to question it -- until now. This is a different cultural moment. I hope this momentum can carry it from here and then perhaps my work is done.

Open discussion, February 2025

I don't have a polished new post ready, but since my comment section from my last post is overflowing I am opening a new thread.

Every post is just in medias res to the insane cultural belief in the metaphysical badness of sexuality anyway, so let's dive right into it again.

Regarding that sentence to 20 years in prison for CSA that we just discussed...

https://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/sjokk-og-vantru-etter-dom-i-skakande-overgrepssak/17438298/

The Norwegian justice system and normies believe that the invisible harm from consensual sexual activity is worse than murder. Remember that this supposed harm is invisible, undetectable, mythical, unscientific and not even attempted to be documented in many of these court cases and still the culture believes that it deserves a harsher punishment than murder because the mere fact of being taboo sex is enough. And they even debate whether 20 years isn't enough and it should have been indefinite detention like prosecutors wanted and might appeal to get...

Just WHAT do they have to think with? What kind of insane "thought" process can produce these results?

I can’t identify with this culture. I stand entirely outside of it. The insanity of it is just so far removed from anything I can relate to that I can’t relate to the culture at all. My only lifeline is the people who find this blog. I know the only reason I have followers is because birds of a feather flock together, not because I am ever changing anyone's opinion, but it's better than nothing.

Cultural drift

It is time for a blog post where I sum up how I conceptualize the enemy these days. I still call it feminism from time to time but that feels increasingly inadequate when the entire culture is the enemy. The Zeitgeist is the enemy, with just about equally sex-hostile people no matter where you look. If you think you will find sex-positive men among currently self-styled “MRAs” you will be disappointed. Likewise if you look at the “far right,” or left, or libertarians, or anyone besides the MAPs. Even an apparent ally like Robert Lindsay, who does not believe in the “harm” mythology of the CSA panic is more or less happy with 18 being the age of consent in his state and is hysterically opposed to anything sexual under 13 for what I can only describe as reasons of moral aestheticism. In a recent blog post he says:

I’ve talked a huge number of women who got molested as girls. They almost all told me that their either liked it or they’re completely over it.

That’s why I don’t believe this molestation wrecks you for life line that everyone in our society believes. Sure it does to some women, but that’s a minority, and even most of those eventually get over it.

I will tell you that I was absolutely stunned at the number of women who told me they liked getting molested. Well, sex feels good, eh? However, I don’t care if she liked it or not. I still want it to be illegal. I simply do not wish to live in a society where it is legal to molest kids.

He plainly states that he simply does not want to live in a sexually permissive society, for reasons having nothing to do with harm. When all the bullshit rationalizations are stripped away, this society is still sex-hostile just like that. Even if we defeat all the arguments we are left with the moral aesthetic judgment that currently persecuted sexuality is simply disgusting, much like one might have said about homosexuality or miscegenation or whatever recently.

And the exceptions are just my tiny movement which we can't even turn into a real movement. Faced with such totalitarian sex-hostility it does not make sense for me to blame women. The jealous old hags who used to be our stereotypical enemies don’t have the power to decide Robert Lindsay’s opinion. Men like him all drifted into it by a process I can only describe as cultural drift. Yes, that is a copout which does not explain anything, but it’s better to use a non-explanatory label than blame the wrong enemy. Just like doctors will say a disease is “idiopathic” when they don’t know what caused it, I now believe in idiopathic sex-hostility, brought on by more or less random cultural drift and homogenization via a global elite which tolerates no exceptions.

You all are welcome to argue against me in the comments, but at this point I don’t see any more plausible explanation. There are way too many sex-hostile men out there for me to be particularly focused on the feminists anymore. They would need a superpower to have much of a causal role in this that I don’t believe they have. Feminism's victory is complete but they didn't really get there by their own efforts, nor do they maintain this status quo by brainwashing everybody to hate sex. It just happens to be what we drifted into and the only realistic way out is probably to drift out of it too. All we can do is observe and call ourselves activists for the sake of our own sanity, but it doesn't do anything.

Metaphysical interlude III: first-person realism is the name of the game

I am a proud pedophile (as the word has recently come to be used of bog-standard male sexuality and the now rare honesty about such), a MAP, an MRA, a male sexualist and also a first-person realist. Yes, our language evolves and while the first four labels are largely synonymous and starkly political, the last one only concerns metaphysics which I have also written about here and here.

So here comes the third installment in this series of merely philosophical reflection, in which I may not make any philosophical progress but sure do update the terminology, much like we have done in our evolution from MRA to MAP. I have previously referred to the question of whether the first-person perspective is metaphysically privileged as the "idiotic conundrum" (a term Geoffrey Klempner came up with), but now, thanks to this podcast by Robinson Erhardt and an excellent paper by his guest David Builes, I now know to refer to my position that the first-person perspective is indeed metaphysically privileged as first-person realism. Also new to me today is referring to the idiotic conundrum as the vertiginous question.

Although David Builes ultimately rejects first-person realism (he says in the podcast), his paper presents eight arguments in favor. The paper is thankfully open access, so you can all read it in full. In addition to the arguments it provides great clarity on how to think about this issue, including the terminology which I have now updated to be in line with contemporary academic philosophy. Some of his arguments are actually new to me. For example, I am not very conversant in anti-haecceitism and frankly I don't understand it much better after reading the paper either. But the decisive argument for me, which is similar to what I have said before, is the one he lists as number five:

5 PERSONAL IDENTITY: DISSOCIATION

There are puzzles of personal identity over time where I seem to have judgements about how I can persist through time that differ from my judgements about how David can persist through time. First-Person Realism can explain this, but other views can't.

For example, consider a classic fission case. Suppose I am about to go to sleep, and while I am asleep, half of my brain will be put into a body that is in a red room, and the other half of my brain will be put into a body that is in a blue room. From an external third-person perspective, it seems to me that David cannot survive this operation. After all, David can't be in both rooms, and it would be arbitrary if David went to either room, and the persistence of biological organisms like David is not a “further fact” beyond various relations of physical and biological continuity. However, when I adopt a first-person perspective and imagine myself going to sleep before the operation, it seems that I can clearly conceive of three possibilities: I can wake up the next day in a red room, I can wake up the next day in a blue room, or I can never wake up again.

However, if I judge that David can't wake up in either room tomorrow even though I can wake up in either room tomorrow, then it seems that I can't also consistently judge that I am identical to David. However, according to certain versions of First-Person Realism, it is clear how to make sense of these intuitions. For example, according to Hare's (2009) view, it is possible that tomorrow the red room is present, it is possible that tomorrow the blue room is present, and it is possible that no room will be present tomorrow. Furthermore, all three of these possibilities are consistent with David not surviving the operation.

Moreover, conceiving of David as a biological organism is not essential to the point. Even if David is a Cartesian immaterial soul, it still seems that what can happen to me can dissociate from what happens to an immaterial soul, just as what happens to me can dissociate from what happens to a biological organism.

Once you realize that there are thought experiments which show that personal identity can dissociate not only from your physical body and thus disprove physicalism but also dissociate from an immaterial soul, it becomes very hard to deny that personal identity is metaphysically privileged, beyond even what God (if he exists like any theist would have it) could create or govern! Which is why I tend to agree with Klempner that this is the deepest philosophical question.

There is the hard problem of consciousness, but then there is also the super-hard question of perspective. Even if we could solve the mind-body problem, we wouldn't know from the facts of consciousness how to explain which perspective or person goes with which mental state as opposed to any other. Why am I me and not you? We don't know! 

Also new to me in this paper is how first-person realism sheds light on time and modality. I had basically accepted eternalism after reading "The Unreality of Time" by John Ellis McTaggart, but now I am not so sure that presentism might not be true after all. Perhaps the present is privileged in an analogous way to the first-person perspective, and there is no block universe? All this and more is best explained by Builes, so once again I highly recommend reading his paper. And among his citations I recommend reading Christian List's (2023) "The many-worlds theory of consciousness" for a sort of plausible theory of how exactly the first person might be metaphysically privileged without degrading into solipsism.

I welcome comments on first-person realism as well as our usual discussion on (anti-)sexual legislation and prosecution. Which is so grim that it behooves is to take a break now and again and ponder some philosophy for our sanity.

Homage to my predecessors in NAFP

It has been brought to my attention that although I may be the only public MAP activist in Norway, I am not the first. And they even had an organization called NAFP. That's an acronym for Norsk arbeidsgruppe for peodofili which means Norwegian Taskforce for Pedophilia. This organization existed from 1974 to 1983.  They even held a conference in Oslo in 1979 which was probably the high point of MAP activism in Norway. Even Tom O'Carroll was in attendance! But that's just a small part of their interesting history which you can read about here:

https://www.pedofili.eu/Nafp.htm

Highly recommended reading for Norwegians! Firstly, let's quote their definition of what is now called MAP activism. This is still totally relevant today:

Det er et behov for å kjempe for rettigheter, likeverd og respekt i samfunnet... Det er kampen mot lover som på prinsipielt grunnlag forbyr pedofil seksuell praksis. Det er kampen mot lovregulert diskriminering. Likeverd er et spørsmål om å kunne bli betraktet som et menneske på linje med andre, og ikke tilhørende en bestemt gruppe tildelt de samme negative egenskapene. Og det er respekt, retten til å være fri og åpen om hvem man er, uten at dette møtes med frykt, hat eller sanksjoner.

Pedofil aktivisme er politikk. Det er politikk både i tradisjonell forstand, ved at man forsøker å influere styringsprosessene i samfunnet, dets lover og regler, men også i holdningsskapende forstand, ved å arbeide for at samfunnet skal godta oss og vår seksualitet. Pedofil aktivisme er informasjon og saklig opplysning om seksualitet, samt utformingen av akseptable retningslinjer for seksuell adferd.

However, back then they were nearly all boylovers. Not because they wanted to exclude straight guys and women, but apparently there was even less interest in political activity among heterosexual men in the 1970s to promote sexual freedom than there is now. Even though the age of consent was 16 then as now and there was not the belief in the metaphysical badness of sex causing "trauma" from consensual acts or the stigma on pedophilia that there is now. The imagined danger back then was simply that homosexuality was contagious, which albeit wrong is charmingly innocent compared to today's demonology. And as late as 1960 the government was able to be rational even if they didn't act on it.

Innstillingen fra Strafferådet av 1960 er interessant lesning, fordi det høyst sannsynlig var siste gang det offentlige på en noenlunde realistisk måte kunne diskutere lovbestemmelsene på dette området. I dag er slike diskusjoner håpløst hemmet av barns påståtte inkompetanse og behovet for å beskytte dem. Sitatet som E refererer til finnes på side 32 i innstillingen. På samme side finner vi et annet eksempel på hvordan de unge ble oppfattet den gang (jfr. med dagens lovtekst):

Innstilling fra Strafferådet 17 mars 1960, side 32:

Straffelovrådet vil, som nevnt under den foregående paragraf, foreslå at den nåværende aldersgrense på 16 år blir opprettholdt. Da det imidlertid ofte kan være tilfellet at personer under denne lavalder er vel utviklet i fysisk henseende, er det neppe riktig i lovbestemmelsen om utuktig omgjengelse med slike personer å betegne dem som «b a r n». Man har i praksis hatt tilfelle hvor det ikke har vært naturlig å bruke betegnelsen på den som gjerningsmannen har hatt den utuktige omgjengelse med. Den fysiske utvikling har i disse tilfelle vært slik at inntrykket av fornærmede som barn var utelukket. Rådet vil derfor foreslå at ordet «barn» byttes ut med det nøytrale «noen» under 16 år.

NAFP made a serious effort to lower the age of consent, and in the 1970s it looked realistic to at least drop it down to 14 before all hope was lost when the global CSA psychosis set in around 1980. That's the hysteria we are still living in, but in some ways I am more optimistic about the current MAP movement than what they had back then, since it was a completely gay thing at the time. And they were less public than I would have expected. The only name which is still openly associated with NAFP is Thore Langfeldt, but they claim he wasn't really a member and recent quotes from him indicate he has gone insane and now attributes attraction to minors with an inability to relate to adults just like the worst contemporary psychological hogwash (no better than his former belief  that "den mindreårige kan bli varig homoseksuell gjennom forføring," though in a different direction blowing with the political correctness of our times). Sexologist Berthold Grünfeld (who is fixated on using puberty as a dividing line) gets an honorable mention as having at least partly supported their view, but absolutely NOBODY will own a role in NAFP any longer! All they left behind is this very well-written historical treatise with lots of primary source material.

And so it all devolves to me to take responsibility and be a public Norwegian MAP activist. Which I am proudly doing now in my role as Outreach Ambassador for Newgon.

Another quote from their historical site which resonnates with me:

Rettsapparatet i et samfunn kan ikke erstatte viljen til å leve lovlydig. Lover kan bare virke hvis det er en konsensus om deres intensjoner. Men hva er egentlig intensjonen med loven om seksuell lavalder? Skal den straffe og forhindre misbruk, eller skal den straffe og forhindre hva "de fleste foreldre" ikke liker?

Boy, did society get consensus that pedophilia is wrong! But they got it on a fraudulent basis, firstly with a fraudulent definition of children and secondly with a superstition about the metaphysical badness of sexuality and myths about a handicapped teenage brain. So in theory, it should be easy to break the will to obey the law if not the laws themselves with their powerful globalist backing, which is now much, much harder than in the 70s. All we really need for that first step is to make enough people reject the rationale behind the sex laws and see law enforcement as the enemy like I do.

Here is the NAFP historian's definition of the abuse industry that is entrenching all the antisex laws, which is spot-on like it could have been written by Angry Harry himself:

Anti-pedofili kan dermed også sees på som et foretaksfenomén. Den bygget opp og holdt liv i et koteri av sosialarbeidere, barnevernsansatte, saksbehandlere, konsulenter, foredragholdere, forskningsstipendiater, kriminaletterforskere, rettspsykiatere, psykoterapeuter, leger, spesialpedagoger, støttekontakter og advokater. De skulle etterhvert utgjøre hva vi i dag kaller misbruksindustrien, et økende antall mennesker hvis inntekt og karrière helt eller delvis avhenger av en jevn strøm med misbrukere og misbrukte. I 1978 var alt dette i sin spede begynnelse.

Finally I present the former NAFP member's philosophical musings about what has gone wrong with society's view of minors' sexuality. I am not saying I completely agree with this. Like the female sexual trade union, it is merely one angle on a complex phenomenon which I now think is best summed up as cultural drift and monoculturalism.

Hva har skjedd med seksualiteten siden 1960?

Svaret er like innlysende som det er paradoksalt. Seksualiteten har blitt ung. Hele vår kultur har blitt ung. Ungdommen og det ungdommelige har tatt over. Det er det unge som gjelder. Å bli gammel har ingen status. Alderdom er tabu. Alle skal være unge. Vi lever i de unges verden.

Alt fra rynkefjerning til hårtransplantasjoner, alt fra miniskjørt til kontaktlinser, alt fra barbering av skrittet til viagra, alt fra helsekost til treningssentre er bare uttrykk for det samme. Alle du treffer i serviceyrkene, fra ungjenta bak disken til flyvertinnen, er der fordi ungdom selger. Det er det vi vil ha.

Barnet har blitt alle kvinners skjønnhetsideal. Ungdommelige prestasjoner og ungdommelig utseende har blitt alle menns mannsideal.

Det er de pedofiles forståelse av hva som er seksuelt attråverdig som gjelder. Det var vår seksualitet som vant.

Vi vant, men seieren kostet oss dyrt. Når du dyrker det ungdommelige, vil selve ungdommen bli idolisert. Når du vil ha huden til et barn, kan du lett avgude dem som virkelig er barn. De pedofile vil rive ned idolet, besudle det, ha sex med det, og det kan ikke samfunnet tolerere. Derfor kan barn brukes til å begrense enhver menneskerettighet, kaste bort ethvert rettsprinsipp og fjerne enhver anstendighet.

Man kan spørre seg om dette ikke er en selvmotsigelse. Hvis samfunnet elsker det barnlige og forguder barn, hvorfor bruker de barn som våpen mot pedofile? Svaret er mer opplagt enn vi tror. Når vi idoliserer noe, slutter vi å verdsette det. På samme måte som middelalderens religionskriger bunnet i en idolisert kristen kjærlighet, vil de idoliserte barna starte en konflikt som gjør at samfunnet river ned demokratiet og ødelegger seg selv.

Did attraction to minors "win" because everyone now wants to appear young themselves? Sounds like a cope to me, but worth thinking about.

I am now an official MAP!

I am proud to announce that I now have an official position in the MAP movement. Today Newgon has made me Men’s Movement Community Outreach Ambassador. Quoting my own statement in the their press release:

“As a veteran Men’s Rights Activist, and seeing how the Men’s Rights Movement has lost sight of our original sex-positivity, I am excited to have found Newgon which picks up the torch on advocating for sex law reforms that I considered obvious from the beginning. Increasingly draconian age of consent and related sex laws are feminism’s most insidious weapons against men. We sorely need an organizational structure wherein we can make our stance clear and have a political platform we can push, along with educational resources promoting the truth versus sex abuse hysteria. Newgon provides all of this. I am therefore delighted to be appointed by Newgon in an official role and look forward to working with them to make common cause with the Men's Movement as I envision it. As far as I'm concerned, MAP is now a political synonym for MRA and I am proud to be known by either. We can thank Newgon's ethos for establishing this idea as a cultural force, a MAP Movement which obviously deserves to include all sex-positive MRAs as well.”

To my knowledge I am the only one in Norway with an organizational role against sex abuse hysteria. During these darkest times of the antisex witch-hunts I am the one pioneer who is not afraid to proudly stand up for the truth and be an activist against the sex laws. I have praised Newgon before and now it is official.

Hopefully this will open the floodgates for MAPs to become politically aware and raise awareness in Norway and beyond. And as noted, MRAs are better off as MAPs now or at least close allies, because the MAPs are the only ones who are making their presence felt politically.

Let's all unite and work with the MAPs whether we identify as one or just support them politically. MAP is above all a political term because it is political change we need. Newgon's ethos is so similar to old-school men's rights activism of the kind Angry Harry advocated that it is a no-brainer to be one of them, especially now that there is no real alternative.

Behold! James Cantor, the leading witch-doctor, does not believe in witches!

This screenshot is epic. It's like reading a postscript to the Malleus Maleficarum where the authors inform us that oh by the way, we don't believe in any of this. It's just that social conditions are such that witches are perceived as extremely dangerous now, and studying and hunting witches is a mighty fine way to make a living. So we go along with that in our work, while on the down-low we admit there is no evidence that witchcraft itself is harmful. There is no proven harm besides the harm arising from believing it is harmful. That's an open secret in intellectual circles anyway and it really has no bearing on normie perceptions or our livelihood as witch-doctors that we admit what we really believe for those of you who actually bother to read our work. We don't want to be remembered as one of those fools who truly believed in the panic after it blows over anyway, so here is a little Easter egg of honesty.

So, there you have it. Dr. James Cantor does not believe in the metaphysical badness of sex which forms the basis of pedo panic.

Weeds don’t spoil: my reading of SOUTH WIND by Norman Douglas

“Weeds don’t spoil.” That’s my most memorable quote from South Wind by Norman Douglas and a proverb made to order for me. Because I am a weed and I’d like to think that I don’t spoil. Of course this is wishful thinking as I age all the same as anyone else, but there is still something to it because I don’t abide by convention and can therefore perhaps reap some fresher benefits than others. I dare to think differently and be different. You can all read the South Wind here as I’ve put it up on the MRA Archive and styled it pleasantly for reading on all kinds of devices. I have also corrected numerous typos throughout, so I think this is the best version on the Internet. In doing so I felt almost like the character Mr. Eames who says: “Have you ever tried to annotate a classic, Mr. Heard? I assure you it opens up new vistas, new realms of delight. It gives one a genuine zest in life. Enthralling!”

So, why did I bother with this classic, and is it a classic? Given what we know about his personal life, Douglas would have identified as a sexualist or a MAP or both like I do if he had been alive today. That is why I wanted to give him a chance. I like to test the merits of an old sexualist on his word rather than his reputation. He was a weed even in his own time, once (in 1937) having to flee Florence on allegations he “raped” a 10-year-old girl, so it’s quite possible he never attained the literary estimation he deserves. Let us get directly to the sex via the character whom all the men in the novel adore:

He worshipped from afar. He would have liked to worship from a little nearer, but did not know how to set about it; he was afraid of troubling what he called her innocence. Hitherto he had scored no great success. Angelina, aged fifteen, with the figure of a fairy, a glowing complexion, and a rich southern voice, was perfectly aware of his idealistic sentiments. She responded to the extent of gazing at him, now and then, in a most disconcerting fashion. It was as though she cared little about idealism. She did not smile. There was neither love nor disdain in that gaze; it was neither hot nor cold, nor yet lukewarm; it was something else, something he did not want at all—something that made him feel childish and uncomfortable…. And another pair of eyes were watching all the time, her sinuous movements—those of Mr. Edgar Marten. This young scientist, too, cherished loving thoughts about Angelina, thoughts of a more earthly and volcanic tinge; certain definite projects which made him forget, at times, his preoccupation with biotite, perlite, magnetite, anorthite, and pyroxene.

Yeah, that is beautiful. Another sexy passage I just have to quote:

The capacity of an English girl for coming to the point will take some beating. She paralyses you with directness. I will tell you a true story. There was a young Italian whom I knew—yes, I knew him well. He had just arrived in London; very handsome in the face, though perhaps a little too fat. He fell in love with an elegant young lady who was employed in the establishment of Madame Elise in Bond Street. He used to wait for her to come out at six o'clock and follow her like a dog, not daring to speak. He carried a costly bracelet for her in his pocket, and every day fresh flowers, which he was always too shy and too deeply enamoured to present. She was his angel, his ideal. He dreamt of her by day and night, wondering whether he would ever have the courage to address so tall and queenly a creature. It was his first English love affair, you understand; he learnt the proper technique later on. For five or six weeks this unhappy state of things continued, till one day, when he was running after her as usual, she turned round furiously and said: 'What do you mean, sir, by following me about it this disgusting fashion? How day you? I shall call the police, if it occurs again.' He was deprived of speech at first: he could only gaze in what you call dumb amazement. Then he managed to stammer out something about his heart and his love, and to show her the flowers and the bracelet. She said: 'So that's it, is it? Well of all the funny boys. Why couldn't you speak up sooner? D'you know of a place round here—'"

That's my experience with English girls too and I love them for it. It gets even better:

“Chastity be blowed. It's an unclean state of affairs, and dangerous to the community. You can’t call yourself a good citizen till you have learnt to despise it from the bottom of your heart. It’s an insult to the Creator and an abomination to man and beast.”

This, I think, is Norman Douglas speaking to us as a sexualist and the heart of his philosophy. But I must say one does not read this book as a sort of erotic story, and certainly not pornographic. It is also not really a discussion of sexual ethics. I waited in vain for any sort of sustained discourse of that nature to pop up. Nonetheless, there are tidbits. There is a character called Mr. van Koppen who is just like Jeffrey Epstein except he keeps the girls on a yacht named The Flutterby rather than Lolita Island and he hoards them all for himself. Whatever discussion occurs of sexual ethics coalesces around this figure:

“Ah yes,” replied Mr. Heard. “I wondered, supposing these reports about the ladies are true, how far you and I, for example, should condone his vices.” […]

“How would you like to be haled before a Court of law for some ridiculous trifle, which became a crime only because it used to be a sin, and became a sin only because some dyspeptic old antediluvian was envious of his neighbour’s pleasure? Our statute-book reeks of discarded theories of conduct; the serpent’s trail of the theologian, of the reactionary, is over all.” [...]

“That is how I feel—expanding, and taking on other tints. New problems, new influences, are at work upon me. It is as if I needed altogether fresh standards. Sometimes I feel almost ashamed—”

“Ashamed? My dear Heard, this will never do. You must take a blue pill when we get home.” [...]

Something new had insinuated itself into his blood, some demon of doubt and disquiet which threatened his old-established conceptions. Whence came it? The effect of changed environment—new friends, new food, new habits? The unaccustomed leisure which gave him, for the first time, a chance of thinking about non-professional matters? The south wind acting on his still weakened health? All these together? Or had he reached an epoch in his development, the termination of one of those definite life—periods when all men worthy of the name pass through some cleansing process of spiritual desquamation, and slip their outworn weeds of thought and feeling? […]

In the first place it was a singular fact, much commented on, that nobody had ever been invited on board the yacht. That alone was suspicious. IF YOU WANT TO GET ANYTHING OUT OF OLD KOPPEN—so ran a local saying—DON'T PROPOSE A VISIT TO THE FLUTTERBY. More curious still was the circumstance that nobody, save the owner and certain bearded venerables of the crew, had ever been known to land on the island. How about the other passengers? Who were they? The millionaire never so much as mentioned their existence. It was surmised, accordingly, that he voyaged over the seas with a bevy of light-hearted nymphs; a disreputable mode of conduct for a man of his advanced years, and all the more aggravating to other people since, like a crafty and jealous old sultan, he screened them from public view. Impropriety could be overlooked—it could pass, where a millionaire was concerned, under the heading of unconventionality; but such glaring selfishness might end in being fatal to his reputation. […]

And then—the difference between himself and the millionaire in life, training, antecedents! A career such as van Koppen’s called for qualities different, often actually antagonistic, to his own. You could not possibly expect to find in a successful American merchant those features which go to form a successful English ecclesiastic. Certain human attributes were mutually exclusive—avarice and generosity, for instance; others no doubt mysteriously but inextricably intertwined. A man was an individual; he could not be divided or taken to pieces; he could not be expected to possess virtues incompatible with the rest of his mental equipment, however desirable such virtues might be. Who knows? Van Koppen's doubtful acts might be an unavoidable expression of his personality, an integral part of that nature under whose ferocious stimulus he had climbed to his present enviable position. And Mr. Heard was both shocked and amused to reflect that but for the co-operation of certain coarse organic impulses to which these Nepenthe legends testified, the millionaire might never have been able to acquire the proud title of “Saviour of his Country.” [...]

“That's queer,” he mused. “It never struck me before. Shows how careful one must be. Dear me! Perhaps the ladies have inevitable organic impulses of a corresponding kind. Decidedly queer. H’m. Ha. Now I wonder…. And perhaps, if the truth were known, these young persons are having quite a good time of it—”

He paused abruptly in his reflections. He had caught himself in the act; in the very act of condoning vice. Mr. Thomas Heard was seriously concerned.

Something was wrong, he concluded. He would never have argued on similar lines a short time ago. This downright sympathy with sinners, what did it portend? Did it betray a lapse from his old-established principles, a waning of his respect for traditional morality? Was he becoming a sinner himself? [...]

“Can it be the south wind?”

"Everybody blames the poor sirocco. I imagine you have long been maturing for this change, unbeknown to yourself. And what does it mean? Only that you are growing up. Nobody need be ashamed of growing up…. Here we are, at last!

Yes, here we are. We are communing with a real man, a sexualist, an antidote to the normies more so now than ever and a breath of fresh air. This is one reason to read this book, but it is not sufficient reason to read 500 pages. One must also enjoy the plot, the style, and the many characters who have little to do with sexualism. What can I say overall? Well, it was slow to get into. It was not like G.K. Chesterton’s masterpiece The Man Who Was Thursday -- also highly relevant to activism -- which I found suspenseful from the first page. But once I got into the South Wind, I can say I enjoyed this novel for all its literary qualities including a liberal sprinkling of humor throughout and good old classical learning which is so homely when you know Latin. It is a beautiful novel.

There is a character named Mr. Keith which for some reason reminds me of our commenter Jack here. He and others really come alive and their various musings are worth listening to. Correct me if this is not also your philosophy, Jack:

Money enables you to multiply your sensations—to travel about, and so forth. In doing so, you multiply your personality, as it were; you lengthen your days, figuratively speaking; you come in contact with more diversified aspects of life than a person of my limited means can afford to do. The body, you say, is a subtle instrument to be played upon in every variety of manner and rendered above all things as sensitive as possible to pleasurable impressions. In fact, you want to be a kind of Aeolian harp. I admit that this is more than a string of sophisms; you may call it a philosophy of life.

The setting, too, is beautiful. A fictional island called Nepenthe situated near Italy shines vividly in my imagination, not least through the brilliant device of Mr. Eames the annotator of a classical work about the island which is often quoted along with potential annotations to update us on how it developed until the present day. The south wind -- the sirocco -- which blows all summer is also an essential ingredient tying it all together. I learned later that Nepenthe has a real equivalent called Capri, but it works just as well as a complete fiction.

And all the characters have flaws which makes them so human, because although it gets over-the-top sometimes it is not far from the truth. Everybody cheats in some way, just like in real life, some in more harmful ways than others. I have to say that cheating the sexual norms like Norman Douglas himself did so much, and I do and we male sexualists and MAPs make our creed and ideology, is one of the more harmless ways to cheat social norms. There is, in addition to the Epstein clone, a forger of antique sculptures, a cruel Duke Ferdinand who used to rule the island (“his method of collecting taxes—a marvel of simplicity. Each citizen paid what he liked. If the sum proved insufficient he was apprised of the fact next morning by having his left hand amputated; a second error of judgment—it happened rather seldom—was rectified by the mutilation of the remaining member”), a drunkard lady who exposes the bad natures of those who profess to be concerned about her, a corrupt judge, the Bishop of Bampopo with an African perspective, a bunch of savage Russians including an illiterate Messiah figure, a murderess whom everyone including the reader excuses, a lawyer who is so immoral that he is moral…

He was profoundly convinced of the prisoner’s guilt. This was lucky for the young man. Had he thought otherwise he would probably have refused to take up the case. Don Giustino made a point of never defending innocent people. They were idiots who entangled themselves in the meshes of the law; they fully deserved their fate. Really to have murdered Muhlen was the one and only point in the prisoner’s favour. It made him worthy of his rhetorical efforts. All his clients were guilty, and all of them got off scot free. “I never defend people I can't respect,” he used to say.

This resonates with me. When I was charged with incitement in 2012, in all sincerity I was and am still the guiltiest man ever to be brought up on those charges since Vidkun Quisling, and that is precisely why I got away with it, because I am not messing around. Sometimes guilt is redemption, especially when one is honest to a fault, because the laws were not designed to catch an honest man and it is below the paygrade of a great lawyer to defend a man who is simply innocent.

Now I understand why Nabokov includes this figure in Lolita as a kindred spirit to MAPs or at least pederasts (Gaston Godin, Humbert's homosexual colleague at Beardsley College, has a photograph of Norman Douglas on his studio wall). Yes, Douglas was a boylover -- but he also says he deflowered 1100 virgins and South Wind is all about girls. It belongs on the MRA Archive and is thankfully out of copyright since it was first published in 1917. It is not a succinct work of activism by any means, but is a literary masterwork and spiritual food for our sexualist hearts. This is forceful writing which leaves me feeling uplifted both on its literary merits and because it offers some escape from the brainless, hateful, humorless, pedophobic antisex bigotry which consumes our present times, especially the Epstein hysteria which is so artfully mocked in the excerpts I have presented herein, proving once again that weeds don’t spoil. Indeed, Norman Douglas is fresher a hundred years later than he could have foreseen and even his normie characters are rebels now.