Eivind Berge's Blog

By coincidence I just saw this story today:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/schoolgirl-broke-up-boy-day-31041007

A schoolgirl rejected flowers from a boy she broke up with just moments before she was fatally stabbed on a bus, it has been claimed. The 15-year-old girl was allegedly attacked with a “sword-like” knife during the incident in London this morning. A witness claimed the attacker tried to hand her flowers, which she rejected, before he allegedly stabbed her in the neck. The teen girl had been on a No 60 double decker bus in Croydon, south London, where it is claimed an argument between the pair broke out, the Mirror reports.

I am assuming the boyfriend is the same age or younger since his age isn't even mentioned. Totally anecdotal of course, but goes to show age segregation by no means guarantees the safety of young girls.

Now I see from another site the boy is 17:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12566905/Croydon-stabbing-girl-boy-bus-way-school-murder.html

So a little older but well within the "appropriate" range covered by staggered age of consent or just the current practice of not charging when close in age. It is delusional to think older men are more dangerous and I can hardly imagine a middle-aged man doing such a thing.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12552345/Men-sex-16-year-old-new-poll-Russell-Brand.html

According to the poll quoted in the article above, 1/3 of men think it's acceptable for a 30 year old man to have sex with a 16 year old, and only 15% of women do. 10% of men think it is acceptable for a 50 year old man to have sex with a 16 year old, but only 3% of women do. I wonder why the difference? What could the reason possibly be?

Yet our glorious leader is 'certain' that a 50 year old whore posting a bikini pic of herself on Instagram would be 100% in favor of allowing men to bang 13 year olds.

This disparity in views by gender is mirrored time and time again in polls asking whether it is acceptable to have sex with prostitures, sex robots, watch porn etc. etc.

And the real disparity is probably far greater. If I got a phone call or was stopped in the street by a 'researcher' asking me if it was acceptable to bang 16 year olds, I'd be tempted to just say no - of course a woman has no such fear and can say what she thinks. And men are just following the herd and the social consensus, whilst it is the women who are creating that social consensus.

The BBC are really pushing for an age of consent to 18 now. Feminists have been fighting for this for the last 160 years and more. Japanese born 'pansexual' now realizes she was groomed by a 31 year old man when she was 17 : https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66879351

I thought these pansexual and LBGT freaks were our natural allies according to your pedocel follower?

Imagine what a complete shithole the UK will be to live in when the age of consent is 18? You will probably get at least 5 to 10 years in prison for having sex with a 17 year old, who is already old enough to vote in Scotland.

Sadly, the fact is that females are evil, and men are cowards as well as only being slightly less evil. Female and male are supposed to compliment each other, above all through the spiritual union of an adult man fucking a teenage girl. Marriage once upon a time provided security for the past it hag as she managed the house and looked after the children.

To be honest, these laws or whatever shan't change anything: any man who fucks a female 18 or above is by definition a cuck who is eating three day on the counter left over meat all the same. The best is 11-15 anyway.

I curse that I was born into this world of anti-male hatred. Why was I brought here? To be scum because I have a healthy sexuality?

There is no doubt that women are far more politically sex-hostile than men. I am tempted to say democracy is inherently inhumane due to women's innate sexual selectivity or downright sex-hostility compared to men. Nonetheless there are still some genuinely sex-positive women, perhaps only 3% but remember this is presumably a cross-section of the population including postmenopausal women who arguably shouldn't be able to vote on this in my opinion. If you polled 16-year-old girls themselves I think they are far more positive. If women effectively become different persons with regard to sexuality as they age out of it, young women's opinion should carry most weight.

Also they rounded the male responses about 50-year-old man with 16-year-old girl down from 13% to ten, and this is also a cross-section including very old men with low libido and no hope of getting such an experience, as well as young jealous men. I would like to see a representative survey of 50-year-old men and can't imagine the level of self-loathing would be anywhere near 87%.

But again, democracy just doesn't work to deliver ethical sex laws. Intergenerational plus intersexual differences are too great. I am reminded of Ludovici's solution of sending the young men off to war, to which I now feel more sympathetic and I have serious misgivings about giving (older) women the vote. They probably should get to vote on other things but when it comes to criminalizing sexuality they clearly produce misandrist results.

I was just reading another example which goes to show our notion of an extended childhood of innocent angels is complete nonsense. Back in the Middle Ages Oxford had the highest murder rate in England because of all the young men from 14 to 21 years old. Today half of them would be "children" but historians don't see it that way:

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/28/uk/oxford-medieval-murder-capital-intl-scli-gbr/index.html

At the time, Oxford was one of the largest and most respected centers of learning in the West, attracting international scholars. It had a population of about 7,000 – 1,500 of whom are believed to have been students.

“(Oxford) was the perfect storm for violence,” Eisner said. Oxford students at the time were all male and typically aged between 14 and 21 years old.

“What it meant for Oxford is lots of young men, and young men can cause problems,” Eisner said, adding that these young men would not have had much social control, but would have had access to alcohol and weapons.

These are the group who are either so innocent they can't consent or so morally pure only they can be trusted with girls under 18 according to current delusions.

Also goes to show high school is a sham. We could go straight to university at 14 with no problems. Or at least no intellectual problems... young men will always be more violent.

Any of the opinion surveys should be assumed is false and misleading. They've already rounded down the 13% to 10% as the amount of men saying it's acceptable for a 50 year old man to date a 16 year old girl.

Everyone should look at what parts of these opinion polls could be manipulated and look for all the ways such polls could theoretically be manipulated. Polls like this are conducted by private firms, they aren't official elections. Even official elections are seldom honest and that's with defrauding an actual election supposedly being a crime. There's no law againt stuffing the ballot box on a Gallup poll or Pew survey or YouGov poll. YouGov is a private company, and its name with the "gov" in it probably at least subconsciously convinces some people that it'some kind of official or government poll.

People can be convinced to support a paticular ideology by being made to believe, through media outlets like the BBC that the majority of other people support that ideology. The corporate media is manipulating the masses into accepting a ban on age difference intimacy by claiming that the majority of people support such a ban. People are likely to go along with that not wanting to be left out. This fits into the rest of the mass media plan that shames men out of protesting a ban on being allowed to have intimate sexual contact with women much younger than him.

The owners of YouGov and other private polling firms are likely meeting with BBC and other corporate media conglomerates for this purpose. Even if a poll claims to be independent, interest groups paid for by the mainstream media companies can easily stuff the ballot boxes at said independent polling firm.

The cross section of men surveyed for this poll might be completely from a group of young men at a liberal university where they've been indoctrinated into femininst ideology, along with their dead relatives and friends, and biological females identifying (trans) as men.

Anyway the poll doesn't ask whether a particular 50 someting man thinks it's acceptable to have sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, or whether they're happy with their individual relationship and it's included sexual interaction. It's intended to evaluate other people whether they can be offended by the existance of that relationship to the point of socially accepting a ban on on that relationship that could pass parliament into law.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-27/one-in-30-brits-now-identify-as-lesbian-gay-or-bisexual

This is pure coincidence. The goal is not to eliminate the straight white man and the western civilizacion.

At 16 they are mature enough to have an sex reassignment, have an abortion and have anal sex, not for 28-year-old white straigth men aka pedophiles to be their boyfriends, don't you see that they could have healthy white children?!

Human progress is the age of criminal responsibility at 10, the age of you can have a sex change at 12, the age for have an abortion at 14 and the age of sexual consent at 21, heterosexuals only, stop hating progress and the rights of women and minorities, fascists!

In California you can have an abortion without parental permission at 16. The age of sexual consent is 18. California is recognized for being the woke paradise of the world, where all the global social media and communication companies are located, and the most recognized LGBT community in the world. Maybe some of you'll start putting the puzzle together.

Most importantly, I bet they didn't survey one single person under 18. And they don't care if younger teens disagree with raising the age of consent because the whole point is to "protect" them from their own volition. Of course there is no attention to Rind's scientific studies on positive or negative recall rates either, which find no significant differences between sex among minors or with adults or between adults, except for boys under 14 who have MORE POSITIVE experiences with women than adult men have with women (well explained by the evolutionary need-to-learn hypothesis and supported by other primate data too).

Of course they drag up politicized anecdotes instead like this former 16-year-old who is now on a vendetta against men, and mix it in with other alleged bad behavior. It's not like she had a worse experience with Brand than the adult women who also accuse him, so what does that even have to do with age of consent?

The last time teens in the UK themselves voiced an opinion to my knowledge they wanted to lower the age of consent to 12 (about 20 years ago as referenced in a previous thread).

“Also goes to show high school is a sham. We could go straight to university at 14 with no problems. Or at least no intellectual problems... young men will always be more violent.”

Agreed. Coeducation (as well as the prospect of mixing for those in sex segregated schools) in compulsory secondary schooling is, quite simply, the carrot for the young man spending 40 hours/week in quasi prison for exclusive access to prime girls throughout his peak sexual vitality. As any scrolling through comments on teen girls’ social media will demonstrate, teenage men affirm this gatekeeping.

BBC really pushing the hate against currently legal consent hard now, so we can get used to the idea of 17-year-olds being off-limits I suppose:

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66879351

Rina Sawayama: Therapy made me realise I was groomed at 17

"I was groomed," she tells the BBC: "It was by a school teacher."

Sawayama was 17 at the time. She says that's a time when a girl is often making choices she isn't ready for.

Now, aged 33, Sawayama says she looks back on that period of her life with defensiveness for her younger self.

"Seventeen to me is a child. You're in school. If a school teacher is coming onto you, that's an abuse of power," she says. "But I didn't realise until I was his age."

Oh, what esoteric knowledge you have to be 30 and female and therapeutically brainwashed to realize. Why do we let them push this crap on the rest of us?

I don't know almost any heterosexual man, young or old, right-learned or left-learned, who is in favor of relationships between adults and underage girls, everyone is against it, and considers it a negative behavior like sexual harassment or exhibitionism.

Most of them wouldn't even think about flirting or sleeping with underage girls. In fact, most of them only date women their own age, and they are very happy with that.

Even if a minor is developed as an adult (which is the only case that would like them, since they seem like an adult, it is obvious), they would not do it, because they are minors, and in a liberal society that is the limit, just as there is a speed limit, and a minimum age for working or drinking.

You don't agree with that, but it's the modern liberal society you live in. But NONE of them are lying, that's what being a normal man (heterosexual specifically) is like today. That's what all of you don't admit.

Hell, if even Robert Linday, who is one of your defenders, claims to be a teleiophole and that he doesn't like such young teenagers, is he also a liar and a feminist?

You are not normal heterosexual men, you are hebephiles and ephebophiles, that is what you are and will always be, whether you accept it or not. In fact, most of you are completely hebephiles, because almost no one likes girls as young as the people on this blog.

What you could defend is that society need to accept that if a sexually mature minor wants to have a relationship with an adult and there is no abuse, economic exploitation or manipulation, then let it be allowed, and legislation be made that truly protects minors and not simply that less than X age is abuse and more than X age is fine.

What you cannot do is go with lies and manipulations and turn it into the new reality, like the wokes and the LGBTQ+ community do.

Even the propaganda surveys for criminalizing more sexuality don't agree men are so happy with being limited to their own age, dude. At a very minimum we have 13% men who think men 50 and over dating 16-year-old girls is okay. You are also misrepresenting Robert Lindsay's views. When he speaks of normal men's maximal attraction to what you consider hebephile and ephebophile ages as if that's some kind of deviancy, he includes himself. He doesn't say attraction dramatically drops right after those ages and I am not claiming that either, but it certainly reaches a maximum there when we remove the politically correct filters. Porn-searching behavior reveals as much as well.

And then there are of course all the men who are accused or convicted and many more who commit statutory sex crimes whom girls never tell on. Are these some kind of "other" that you imagine you can conveniently tuck away in a category of pervert? Lol, no, and I have no interest in conforming to a norm just because it is a norm. One thing Russell Brand got right is when he allegedly told the 16-year-old "I don't care if you are 12, I just want to know where I stand legally." I don't condone his uncouth behavior with girls (which has nothing to do with their ages), but he certainly speaks for men in general when he admits we only care if a girl is 12 or 16 or 18 for legal reasons (and appearances if you want to pass as a normie). Russell Brand is a highly representative normal man, even a normie at the time working for the BBC. Now that the establishment has disowned him part of the public don't even believe he is in opposition and the sexual allegations haven't really blemished him either, so normal is he.

Therapy made me realize. That's the key right there. The therapy industry's purpose is to convince the interaction she likes was abusive.

Notice her name, hinting at South Asian ancestry, a culture where girl child marriage to adult men is widely practiced even today. The therapy system is the enemy and our mission is to take action against therapists and put them out of existence.

Even if only 13 percent approve of the activity, they have no right to tell people not to engage in the activity.

Indeed they have no moral right to criminalize just because they disapprove. Less than 13% of the population are gay too and yet most of us realize they should be free to engage in that lifestyle. We even celebrate smaller minorities.

Elianne Andam is the 15-year-old girl killed in Croydon:

https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/23820581.wellesley-road-croydon-stabbing-victim-named-elianne-andam/

Beautiful girl. Murderer can’t make the excuse that he didn’t know what he was doing because he was a clueless little child of 17. Yet this is what these born-again-in-therapy “grooming victims” are literally getting away with. Disgusting. If nothing else, even if you have no sexual interest in young girls the logical inconsistency should appall us.

A criminal age of responsibility at 10 is perhaps a tad lower than it needs to be -- although it can certainly be justified by mental competency -- but there is no fucking way 17-year-olds aren't responsible. And they are not selectively retarded for sex either. The reason why we pretend their brains are suddenly replaced with air as soon as sex comes up is because they are considered property -- of parents and the state and their 30-year-old future versions who invariably get to speak for them. And property isn’t served (from the point of view of their owners) by being blamed, even if it is in fact responsible. The rule is to maximize the value of property, for example by averting slut-shaming by holding men solely responsible for girls’ sexual decisions like Rina Sawayama so bluntly demonstrates. Only if the slaves interfere with others’ property are they blamed, hence the 10-year-old’s criminal responsibility even for sex crimes. It is a useful fiction we tell to serve slavers that their property is completely innocent unless there is a conflict with another slaver’s property. The “victim” narrative is pure nonsense unfortunately bought by gullible fools like the man-hating commenter above here. Including when the property he professes to rule over chooses to offer sex for money. They are just as responsible for that kind of consent too as young criminals are for their actions. There is no selective retardation for sex and none just because of a profit motive behind the sex either. Girls can understand prostitution as surely as they can understand shoplifting or other things we hold them responsible for from the age of 10. The age of criminal responsibility needs to be harmonized with sexual responsibility. Either raise the age of criminal responsibility to 18 and let people like the Croydon murderer off or lower age of consent to 10 or find a middle ground.

Did you know Edgar Allan Poe married his 13-year-old cousin Virginia Clemm when he was 27? And loved her deeply, which was mutual. Another eye-opener from Newgon to just how incredibly normal this is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXfIOjD1Wbc

Of course we all know Poe as a canonical literary hero but now his normal male attraction has retroactively been transformed into a political act for the MAP movement, because of the perverse antisexual hatred of our times.

Teens today are different animals. Remember when that famous Hollywood actor was outed for making advances towards that 17 year old woman? By herself! There is now more prestige for females to join the ranks of the victim than bedding a massive star. That story in the press was a turning point, because in the past girls would have died for the opportunity for a relationship with a matinée idol of the time, like Brando who fucked some 15year old bitchtress and Reagan who fucked Elizabeth Taylor at the same age according to her biography, even though that nasty poisonous man then introduced sex laws to persecute men. Humans really are CUNTS! Of course, there will be teen girls who still do fuck the stars of today, and now you can fuck and complain later, as with the Brand story. Makes me think that particular bitch who I mention must have been particularly sour and nasty, if you remember the story-- sorry-- I forget the actor's name, but he's hugely famous and it was mentioned here. I mean, she never even tried to get a free trip to New York and a nice hotel stay out of it.

Now most teenage girls are so vile and nasty that there are lots of them who will bait adult men on cam sites and then post their videos on youtube.

Sorry this is such a long post, but women are particularly unfriendly in the Anglocunt realms, and it is so bizarre watching pathé film type vids on youtube where girls are friendly and smiling to men in the street.

So, this is in keeping with the AF Theory of the Trade Union, a female is attracted by wealth and prestige, which is why some useless gang leader on benefits in a town in the north of England is edged out by a man with a house and a mortgage when it comes to dating fourteen year old girls, because femiscum society no longer affords value to a kind man with a job. No, the job of a man is to SHUT HIS FUCKING MOUTH and get with some past it hag and be a good cuck for rest of his useless life, take a vaccine and die. To be accused of rape by his own daughter, or to watch his son become a queer is something for him to look forward to in later middle age.

It is a horrible witch-hunt, painful to read. And the lying system calls consensual sex "grov voldtekt" and wants indefinite preventive detention for the father which is a potential life sentence. Also includes female sex offender charade. And the secret interrogation methods they use to extract testimony which the accused is not allowed to confront in court is taken to yet another level:

Sele har òg sendt eit krav til retten der han ber om at veslebroren skal møta i retten. Foreldra har sagt seg einige i det.

Retten skal ta stilling til dette fredag.

I utgangspunktet skal barn sleppa å forklara seg i rettssalen, men fordi guten no er over 16 år, meiner Sele at han har møteplikt.

Både aktor Ellen Cathrine Greve og bistandsadvokat Beate Hamre seier det vil vera belastande for guten å møta i retten. Dei meiner det heller kan gjerast eit nytt tilrettelagt avhøyr.

And imagine being expelled from the courtroom in your own trial when they do testify... makes my blood boil with seething hatred against a system which is pure tyranny and nothing to do with justice. No right to a jury either.

Yeah, this witchhunt where police construct allegations for abuse against families horrifies me. Its really bonechilling to watch police pressure and trick young persons into telling something that can be interpreted as evidence that they were sexually abused from absolutely nothing. Police are horrible scumbags.

Wow, that is evil and this is amazing evidence against the police and child protective services! All Norwegians should see it. Well done Tonje Omdahl for getting this published!

Once they get their claws into a family they can twist anything into abuse and most frighteningly they coerce accusations out of children while keeping them forcibly separated from parents. Especially eery here is they use an observation that she seemed to love her father too much as a basis for coercing her!

Denne politietterforskeren Tor Erik Riska Thorsen manipulerer meg til å beskrive at min far utfører vold og seksuelle overgrep. Barnevernet og politiet forsøket å bygge en vold og overgrepssak på min far. Iht det ble han pågrepet og satt i arrest og politiet besluttet ransakelse i bopel, og våre eiendeler ble beslaglagt på et halvannet år. Hege Michalsen som er (nåværende) og daværende barnevernsjef er involvert og ansvarlig for anklagene mot familien min. Hun utsatte familien min for det verste!

Det blir fremsatt i journaler og fylkesnemnda at jeg hadde et merkelig, intimt og nærliggende forhold til min far og det blir beskrevet som unormalt.

Hvordan kan en helt vanlig familiefar bli fremstilt for arrest mot mistanke om vold og seksuelle overgrep, uten at det er foretatt en tilstrekkelig undersøkelse? Det var ingen andre enn barneverntjenesten som antyda til at vi bodde i et hjem preget av strengt kontrollregime vold og seksuelt misbruk.

Jeg forstår ikke at det er fysisk mulig at en slik sak som denne, og flere tusen andre saker kan oppstå på bare synsinger og antagelser fra barnevernsansatte?? Det fremkommer ingen faglige argumenter for den påståtte omsorgssvikten de er så forferdelig bekymret over.

Journalføringene og rapportene fra hjemmebesøkene, div møter og fosterhjem og institusjonsplassering som for det meste er skrevet av to av saksbehandlerne i saken, Synne Skorpe og Solveig Steinsland. Og konsulent og saksbehandler Hege Braseth.

I papirene gir barnevernet veldig klare vurderinger på at vi lever under et kontrollregime, der de skriver at vi blir holdt mye hjemme. De har beskrevet min far som truende og farlig i møter og på hjemmebesøkene. Barnevernet beskriver også at han fremstår som en svært dårlig rollemodell for oss barna. Han har ikke den tilstrekkelige omsorgsevnen til å ta seg av oss. De påstår at min far har etablert en dysfunksjonell familiestruktur, der familiesystemet er lukket.

Barnevernet påpeker at det er en risikofaktorer i samspillet mellom barna og far. Og skriver dette: “Slik jeg vurderer det, er dette den faktoren som påvirker fars omsorgsevne mest.” Det er meldt falsk bekymring fra mange instanser. De som har meldt sin bekymring i saken er skolene, barne- og familieteam, politiet og anonyme meldere.

Den eneste måten å stoppe at tjenestemenn og "piker" utøve sin maktposisjon til å begå urettmessige inngrep, er å navngi dem i offentligheten.

Yes absolutely! Tonje Omdahl(20 y.o.) is a true hero. We need more people like her. She puts herself in the line of fire and dont hide her identity. Even if it means constant harassment from police that is of course backed up by spineless, piece of shit judges in our idiotic justice system.

https://fontene.no/debatt/hvorfor-skal-en-20-ar-gammel-aktivist-bli-domt-for-ytringer-som-apenbart-ikke-er-i-strid-med-loven-6.47.955776.ad1bd314a3

Highly recommended to see her speak here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9wqIIhpcRg

Remember this was done WITHOUT AN ACCUSATION. An insane amount of violence and coercion against the whole family just in the hope of extracting an accusation!

Highly recommended of course, but what about english subtitles ?

Transformed into a political act for the MAP movement: quite so, and this is sadly at the heart of the 'MAP delusion', a rather unfriendly coinage of TheAntifeminist. I say this because, again, most MAPs really are very good people who overthink things and waste their lives. Because they are so sensitive and kind they do not realise that every man wants to fuck 12 year old girls if they had a choice in the matter, and while the 'MAP' pines, the insensitive chad coach and gang thug fucks those girls hard. And the girl actually laughs at the MAP for being such a naive, thicko feminist, even if they don't have the words for it.

I spent a day in the V&A museum and briefly in the British museum after I had passed through their airport security, and a lot of the statues were of 13-16 year old girls, by my judgement. I also spend a lot of time looking at paintings on Bing images. I could post tonnes of Renaissance paintings of amorous or suggestive classical scenes where the girls are early teens. A lot of them, though, are more recent, 19th century and later. I discovered some who are entirely interested in young, adolescent girls. I am not talking about famous artists of young adolescence like Balthus or Chabas.

No, I mean even Victorian kitsch paintings or advertisements for Champagne. For example, just one very famous painting, not at all kitsch, is called L'Amour au Village, and there is no reference to the obvious age disparity, and on the French wikipedia I believe it is described as a man speaking ABOUT his love to a young girl. Ridiculous! In paintings such scenes abound where the love object is a young adolescent girl and the suitor an adult man.

L'Amour au Village: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Bastien_Lepage_LAmour_au_Village_2.jpg

One more thing, with regard to being intimidated by investigators, I wouldn't underestimate the emotional depth and common sense of little girls, seven or eight or nine years old. It's more the heart which blackens once they become older teens, though these days in AngloCunt nations I think already even by 14 years of age.

When everyday relationships and marriages like Poe's are criminalized, we either get political or downtrodden. Taste the difference between "sex offender" and "MAP." The latter has a political aura to it which says we refuse to be morally beaten into submission even as we are imprisoned. "Sexualist" does not do this trick because the public does not know the word and "MRA" does the opposite because the public assumes you agree with the sex laws. Our current hope is definitely with the MAPs, and most especially with the Newgon organization which is creating a body of work we can adapt to local chapters and translate to all languages.

I'm reading a new chapter by Bruce Rind in a book titled "Ideological and Political
Bias in Psychology" where he sums up the research and continuing delusions of the establishment. Rind's chapter is titled "Sacred Values, Politics, and Moral Panic: A Potent Mix Biasing the Science behind Child Sexual Abuse and Related Phenomena." A little taste:

The elements comprising the CSA moral panic began coalescing by 1976 in the wake of massive social, economic, and cultural changes over the previous decade, including the sexual revolution and then counterrevolution, the new emphasis on consent as the arbiter of acceptable sex rather than traditional morality, the women’s movement with its emphasis on victimization, the emergence of sexual victimology in response to women’s concerns, and legislation mandating increased attention to child protection, for which it began providing generous and durable funding (Jenkins, 1998, 2006; Lancaster, 2011; Nathan & Snedeker, 1995). These events led to establishment of a “child abuse industry,” with psychologists and related professionals playing a leading role in efforts at social control. In this role, they lent critical authority to the emerging view that CSA was especially harmful. Shortly afterward, moral panic erupted, first in allegations of satanic ritual abuse (SRA) in daycare in the earlier 1980s (always with CSA being a central element), and next in claims by adult psychotherapy patients in the later 1980s of repressed and recovered memories of childhood incest. Both involved bizarre accusations stretching the imagination, both were eventually discredited, and both illustrate how a discipline (psychology, psychiatry) can run amok when departing science to join a moral crusade.

These panics are detailed later. For now what is important to note here is a central argument that the moral panic acted as an extreme form of moral-political influence in biasing scientific understanding of the nature and effects of interactions classified as CSA. Because this panic is ongoing, it will not be obvious to many that any real or significant bias has been occurring, under the assumption that professionals have dealt with the issue rationally. The following section is presented didactically to illustrate just how biased professional opinion can be on sexual matters when morals and politics are deeply intertwined. It illustrates how morals can produce politics, how politics can produce morals, and how the two can corrupt science.

Two sets of therapists from professional organizations associated with SRA in daycare and recovered memories in therapy, respectively—the two major manifestations of the moral panic in the 1980s and 1990s—wrote critiques of our meta-analysis, and we responded. This exchange gave leading CSA experts the opportunity to defend their positions against a review article that critically and credibly called these positions into question. It also gave us a chance to respond as a second check on their claims and arguments. At stake was a sacred cow in the mental health field, which had had outsize impact on society and policy. Also at issue was whether psychology was simply a tool of morality and politics on this issue, as critics have charged it often has been on other issues (e.g., Foucault, 1978; Haidt, 2011; Kinsey et al., 1948; Szasz, 1990). In the end, these leading therapists failed to show that their positions were grounded in sound science. The evidence instead showed morality and politics in the background and foreground, speaking poorly for the psychology field, which had been deferring to these therapists and their colleagues, helping to enable the moral panic.

And on the female sex offender charade (and idea that minors are more bothered by adults in general), how the Kinsey data from 1948 already utterly destroys it (I do note, however, that boys over 14 are a teensy bit picky and prefer teen girls over women if they can get them, just like adult men):

In the Kinsey interviews, participants were asked how they subjectively reacted to their first postpubertal sexual experience in terms of enjoyment (with “much” being the top scale value) and emotionally negative response (e.g., fear, shock, disgust). In a series of studies, I analyzed these reactions in relation to whether the event took place between a minor (under age 18) and peer-aged partner, a minor and an adult, or an adult and another adult (Rind & Welter, 2014; Rind, 2017a, 2019b).

First postpubertal intercourse (coitus): Rind and Welter (2014). Adolescent boys having first intercourse with women enjoyed it “much” in 41% of cases (n = 548), as often as men having first intercourse with women (41%, n = 2546), but less often than boys having it with girls (60%, n = 1105). Adolescent boys aged 14 or under having first intercourse with women had nominally the highest rate of “much” enjoyment among all groups (63%, n = 116). For females, rates of “much” enjoyment were substantially lower: girl-peer male (12%, n = 455), girl-man (13%, n = 286), and woman-man (18%, n = 2898). The rate for girls aged 14 or under with men was 17% (n = 63), nearly the same as women with men. Rates of having any emotionally negative response were higher for boys with women (22%) than boys with peer-aged females or men with women (13% each), but half as frequent as reporting “much” enjoyment. Restricting cases to boys aged 14 or under with women, the emotionally negative rate dropped to 15%, on par with male peer-aged intercourse. For females, emotionally negative rates were 17% for girl-man intercourse, the same as woman-man intercourse and slightly lower than girl-boy intercourse (20%). The figure was 18% for girls 14 or under with men. In summary, based on large numbers of cases—quite large for this area of inquiry—and a diverse sampling (though not nationally representative), minor-adult sexual intercourse was clearly not characteristically a traumatic ordeal. Instead, it was experienced subjectively nearly the same as or little different from age-class-equal intercourse...

The foregoing empirical findings (Clancy, 2009; Felson et al., 2019; Rind, 2017a, 2019a, 2022; Rind & Welter, 2014) did not simply differ from expectations under the politically constructed “trauma view,” they were nearly opposite. The Finnish and Kinsey findings were especially probative, given their unusually large number of cases with reaction data, far exceeding other research in this area, and their representativeness in the one sample and wide diversity in the other.

The most weighty and saddest sentence in Rind's chapter is this:

Because this panic is ongoing, it will not be obvious to many that any real or significant bias has been occurring, under the assumption that professionals have dealt with the issue rationally.

This is unfortunately where we are. The normies literally believe psychologists are sane.

Morality tends to corrupt social science and moral panic corrupts it absolutely. That is a key lesson from this chapter. Morality, and the politics with which it is intertwined, can create blindness with respect to objective reality (Haidt, 2011). When sacred values within a moral system are at stake, Haidt continued, potent moral force fields will be roused, which in turn may well bias a social scientist’s method of inquiry and subsequent factual conclusions. In extreme cases, the moral force fields turn into moral panic, and then the bias is likely to be huge (Clancy, 2009; Jenkins, 1998)...

It has been argued that the current CSA moral panic is masturbation redux (e.g., Malón, 2010). To sum up the earlier discussion in this chapter, most academic professionals offering an opinion on CSA before the 1980s viewed it as either not harmful in the long term or only mildly so (Jenkins, 1998). But “almost overnight,” as Jenkins put it, by the early 1980s, CSA was transformed into an experience claimed to be almost uniquely harmful. As with masturbation, the pronouncement fit in with the demands of the times, had no real science behind, and helped to initiate a durable moral panic. Drawing this parallel between the two panics has not been intended by observers such as Malón or me to suggest any kind of moral equivalence between masturbation and CSA.

I am glad he included that last sentence, because masturbation truly is harmful with digital porn.

Lol! Madisyn Shipman is literally saying she had to pretend to be a little girl from 12-16 for the sake of that TV show, suppressing the sexually mature woman she was. A rare cultural moment of lucidity indeed!

Of course the next story will be some 17-year-old child who was groomed again.

No idea who this Madisyn is, but you guarantee she was fucking her way to the top from twelve years if it were to her advantage.

In ten years we will hear from her about how she was abused.

Yes, that would be the usual time for incentives to align so that accusing abuse is more profitable than basking in her feminine radiance. But we can hope that society isn't buying it anymore by then.

Absolute corruption. Moral panic. The truth is almost opposite to what they claim (at least boys under 14 enjoy sex with adult women MORE than adults do). Expert opinion on child sexual abuse including the coercive kind was it's mostly harmless before it changed overnight for unscientific reasons circa 1980, after which all the "science" supporting the panic has basically been a hoax, a front for politics and moralism especially feminism. Bruce Rind is not mincing words, and remember this is the most formal level of academic writing. It is the most important publication of the year 2023 for MAPs and men's rights. Too bad it is tucked away in a 960-page book that no one reads. It should be a cover story in Time Magazine or similar but of course they won't even mention it.

Evidence that even the forced kind of CSA is relatively harmless does not stop in the 1980s either. It continues even WITH the panic, after people have been brainwashed for four decades to be maximally damaged by it:

Fuller-Thomson et al. (2019) used a Canadian nationally representative sample to examine the extent to which individuals having had CSA later achieved “complete mental health” (CMH) as adults. CMH was defined as “being happy or satisfied with life most days in the past month, having high levels of social and psychological well-being in the past month, and being free of mental illness in the past year.” In the study, CSA was restricted to forced sexual experiences as a child with an adult, and cases were excluded if physical abuse or parental domestic violence co-occurred in order to attempt to identify the independent association between CSA and CMH. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of those with forced CSA achieved CMH, a rate only somewhat lower than that found in the general population (77%)—computing the effect size yielded OR = 1.80, of small magnitude according to Salgado’s (2018) guidelines that small, medium, and large odds ratio effect sizes correspond to 1.44, 2.47, and 4.26, respectively. That is, the “effect,” if causal, was not intense as defined previously (i.e., a large effect size). Note that although certain factors were controlled for in the design (removing co-occurrence of physical abuse and parental domestic violence), other confounds could still have existed, preventing any confident causal conclusion. In the results as they were, if non-forced or willing CSA had been included, which the Finnish study reviewed previously showed is frequent in the general population (Rind, 2022), the difference would likely have been even smaller (cf. Rind et al., 1998).

We don't support forced CSA of course, but we can put it into perspective as not especially bad compared to other kinds of abuse. There is no justification for having a separate ultradraconican category of crime for it or invasive child protective services breaking up families on the slightest suspicion.

I read the relevant parts of Ashley Biden's diary (stolen and now leaked all over the net) and can say this is yet another symptom of the hysteria. It is incredibly tame, consistent only with hearing all her life CSA explains all adult problems as the cultural narrative now goes as well as whatever sexual desire children come to feel spontaneously because they are supposed to be asexual. If anything sexual happened with Joe Biden he must literally have been a nepiophile and done it before she turned 3 or 4 years old and was able to form lasting memories, because she remembers no specifics except some "probably not appropriate showers" -- inappropriate by current hysterical judgment in retrospect, that is. And then she says she was "turned on when not supposed to be" -- again simply by the judgment of the moral panic no doubt -- and "beating my vagina due to overhearing parents having sex" -- okay, why can't she just admit that made her horny? No need to explain it with CSA you can't remember. And she showed boys her underpants in second grade and went on to have sex with friends at a young age -- congratulations for being a healthy horny kid is all I can say. It is sad that the moral panic infests everything including personal diaries and the conservatives are retards for taking this as evidence of anything unusual.

In the US, AOC laws are determined by the States and not by the Federal Government, although the Feds have vague laws on 'sex tourism' and a law against transporting underage girls across State Lines. The US Constitution actually says that laws enforced in one State have to be recognized by another: if marriage for example is legal at 14 in one state, they can't legally be charged if they move to another where the AOC is 18. However, this is NEVER enforced.

Many US States actually have Staggered AOC laws of their own and they are a nightmare to try and decipher. Worse still, many institutions over here pass their own laws forbidding relationships within their organizations and they get away with it. I've often said that American attitudes towards sex are like this strange cross between the Weimar Republic and Khmer Rouge Cambodia. It's a culture that's sex-obsessed with deviance and sex-negative with healthy sex drives at the same time.

Quoting Tonje Omdahl again, from her Facebook this time, to preserve her description of real child abuse with real psychological consequences perpetrated by the police that this society considers completely acceptable and necessary collateral damage to their war on imagined sexual abuse.

Første gang jeg fikk panikkangst var under plassering av akuttvedtaket. Det var helt grusomt. De voksne visste ikke hva de skulle gjøre, så jeg ble bare overrumplet med mas og spørsmål som: «Går det bra Tonje?» - «Hva skjer?» - «hvordan kan vi hjelpe deg?». Jeg var så redd. Jeg spurte hva de hadde gjort med pappa. Det ville de ikke svare på og jeg tenkte at de måtte ha gjort han noe fysisk. Men han satt i varetekt, siktet for vold og seksuelle overgrep mot barna sine.

Jeg satt sammenkrøpet i et hjørne av gangen som fører til fellesrommet, og jeg husker at jeg ikke hadde sluttet å gråte siden jeg ankom barnehuset tidlig på formiddagen. Jeg satt der og følte jeg hadde mistet hele kontrollen over meg selv. Jeg hyperventilerte, hadde svært vanskelig for å puste normalt og jeg trodde jeg holdt på å dø. Hjertet mitt sluttet ikke å slå. Synet mitt var uklart. Prikking og nummenhet i hele kroppen. Jeg var varm og svimmel så jeg hadde behov for noe kaldt å drikke men klarte ikke å holde plastkoppen engang, fordi jeg hadde så mye skjelving og risting i kroppen. Jeg følte meg helt kvalt av situasjone og sa klart i fra til ansatte i barnevernet om å oppholde seg i et annet rom. Jeg følte meg trygg på at brødrene mine var der.

Avslutingen på dagen var forfærdelig. Jeg hadde ikke fått kontakt med pappa. Uniformert politi kommer traskende inn på fellesrommet og beslaglegger mobiltelefonene våre, før barnevernet skiller meg og brødrene mine blir vi plukket opp av beredskapshjem og institusjon. Det er vondt. Jeg klarer rett og slett ikke å se tilbake på dette og se at dette er historien min.

Når politibrutalitet setter en uskyldig mann bak lås og slå. Heldigvis ble han ikke dømt. Men her kan du se at terskelen for en potensiell tiltale og føre bevis er svært lav. Han ble likevel dømt for omsorgssvikt fra barnevernet. De har redigert et bilde av faren min og forsøkt å dømme han for det.

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100024937389859

Considering how hard the state is trying to gag her with police harassment and trials she might not retain her freedom of speech much longer.

"Quoting Tonje Omdahl again"

Well, it would be interesting to have this translated.

Norwegian police have a "Child House" to which they kidnap and traffick children (often long distances since I think there is only one) to be interrogated to construct sexual accusations. I have long suspected this is a dystopian horror not just against men but for the children too and now we have proof. She details how she had her first panic attack there, when they refused to tell her what they had done to her dad or when she would get to see him again. She imagined he was being tortured in even worse ways than the solitary confinement he was in, and they would do nothing to dispel that idea as these national "experts" on child abuse are 100% geared on coercing, intimidating, and tricking accusations out of her.

She was 13 and stood up to them morally but had a mental breakdown. With small children it is much worse as they can more easily be lead into accusations. I don't know if they still do this, but many years ago I saw on TV the dolls with genitals they used to lead them on, trying to get them to enact sexual abuse even before they can talk.

Then they use video of those interrogations in court, where children under 16 don't get to testify. So there is no way to cross examine or confront your accuser. The "justice" system is a total farce and now that the jury is abolished too (which was the last bastion of sanity against this madness and actually used to acquit in a lot of sex cases) Norway does not have a justice system as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks for the summary. It would be good to have her YT video subtitled.

"He posed online as a 15-year-old girl to lure alleged sexual predators into meetings and expose them to authorities"

"The teenagers were 17- and 18-years-old. Lee punched one of them and accused him of being a pedophile"

That guy guy deserved to be killed.

No kidding he deserved it, but he is only reflecting the zeitgeist with 12 of 13 comments there still considering him a hero and only one being remotely sane:

A 17 yo mtg a 15 yo is not that crazy or weird. All the girls when I was at school were seeing guys a year or two older, and a lot of guys in my year were seeing girls a year or two younger. I'm not surprised he's been attacked catfishing a couple young guys into meeting him then physically assaulting them when an argument breaks out as he tries to out them as something they probably were not.

So a year or two older is borderline now...

Activism will pack more punch when older men start fighting back.

Cool stuff! Hope the 'vigilante' scum really took some time to die. Wonder why a seventeen and eighteen year old would fall for a fake fifteen year old girl, however. And I agree, I reckon they weren't born and bred in the USA. I am guessing they were immigrants from south of the border, or somewhere, and probably not necessarily the kind of people we would want living next door to us, so gang members probably.

So don't worry, the ordinary 'middle-class', picket fence abiding schmuck is still as much of a pathetic wimp as ever.

I can't find the age of that supposed minor victim either, but I find information on the law they use which indeed goes up to 18:

https://www.keglawyers.com/contact-minor-to-commit-felony-penal-code-288-3

WHAT IS CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 288.3?
Under PC 288.3, it is a felony to contact or communicate with a minor (someone under 18) with the intent to commit a felony such as kidnapping or a sex crime against that minor. This statute is defined as:

“a person who contacts or communicates with a minor, or attempts contact, who should have reasonably known they are a minor, with intent to commit a specific offense involving the minor.”

It is an insanely draconian grooming law similar to what Texas also got now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHPaiJjeJQM

Two years worse than the UK, but the audience isn't able to make local distinctions either as California rules the world on this matter.

Kalifornia Ueber Alles.
Anonymous 2

In a world where it is a felony to flirt with a 17-year-old, or people expect it to be even if their local laws haven't yet gone so far, it is clear that only "pedophiles" remain sane. That's what we will be called if we have any contrary opinion anyway, so might as well embrace it, or "MAP" to make it clear we are political.

It is poetic that Boopac Shakur the "pedophile hunter" was technically killed by a child. Both horniness and aggression peak in "childhood" these days, so that's actually where we should expect the most vigorous opposition to this dehumanizing antisexual regime.

And the literal holocaust begins:

https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/2023/10/01/death-penalty-for-child-rape-goes-into-effect-in-florida/

Death penalty for "child rape" goes into effect in Florida.

The law specifically pertains to child victims under the age of 12... Florida courts now have a green light to send child rapists to death row... It was a measure that received bipartisan support as it rose through Tallahassee. Upon signing it into law, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said: “These are really the worst of the worst. The perpetrators of these crimes are often serial offenders.”

Maria DeLiberato is the executive director of Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. She does not disagree. “Of course, Child sexual battery is one of the most horrific crimes that one can think of,” said Mario DeLiberato, Executive Director, Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty.

Of course it is bipartisan and even opponents of the death penalty make an exception for this. The only complaint is that it isn't quick enough.

“You’re also dealing with a living victim who would have to be a part of the inevitable decades-long death penalty process. A death penalty case is not quick. It doesn’t go away quickly. It languishes for years and years and years,” said DeLiberato... “So now, you’ve got this whole dynamic where a child is going to bear the weight of a possible death sentence to a neighbor, an uncle, grandfather, something that someone that they know that everybody in their family is not going to feel the exact same way about,” said DeLiberato.

How long until until this too creeps up to 18 and down to online "grooming" and sting operations?

"How long until this too creeps up to 18 and down to online "grooming" and sting operations?"

This is exactly correct. They will creep it up to 16 first. But basically it's the death penalty already now if you're caught breaking the christian conservative feminist age of consent in florida of 18 because they will put you on the registry and throw you in jail for decades.

The funny part is, these same christian conservative feminists are totally against trannies and act surprised that so many of their children are becoming trannies, when the tranny phenomenon is literally the direct result of the complete oppression and holocaust against normal male heterosexuality because it serves as an outlet for scorned men.

Everything sexual in these male feminist religious places is an affront to the innocent purity of their sweet little puritan angels who would never desire that dirty bad evil thing called sex, except for the big bad evil man who magically used his wizard powers to dazzle her into giving up her pussy. I remember when the left wing democrats used to make fun of these wet rag killjoy prudes, now that the democrats are all gay, there is no one to stop the evangelicals from ruining everyone's life. Except the crazy trannies of course! They actually seem to be unstoppable politically. Often I think about whether I should identify as a woman and put on a wig to reap the benefits - too much dignity for now, but that might change.

"A male teacher of 39 had some fully consensual sexual activity with a 15 year old slag he was teaching, didn't even have sex with her, but he's given a 12 year prison sentence with a minimum of serving 8 years before he can be considered for release."

This also happened to that fencing coach in Tennessee, except in christian conservative feminist faggot land, the penalty is 25 years in prison (22 years minimum) instead of 12.

anon 69

But it ISN'T Christianity, at all: it's the liberation of females, and female power. Christianity may be a horrible thing, but it has been around for 2000 years before the modern hell which really only began in the eighties for most people in the Western world.

This is what women want. I repeat, though Eivind Berge does not accept it: the female character is poison and this is the natural consequence of women being able to have autonomy over their own lives entirely without being under the control of men.

Yet we are seeing the sickening nature of females showing up at even young ages like 15.

Yes, they are poisonous.

As for Florida, it's bitter old people who live there, and they know full well of a time when it was perfectly normal to date middle schoolers. Just think about this, they THEMSELVES probably did it, and yet they will vote to poison younger generations. So, men are really not MUCH better.

This fencing coach. Did the girl become a snake too? Or were they just discovered? Are thirteen year olds already being super nasty?

RT has a good article against MeToo:

https://www.rt.com/news/584012-russell-brand-scandal-police-investigations/

Regarding the claim by MenAreCowards that the female character is poison: you are forgetting the extreme selection bias in these news cases. Accusations are actually remarkably rare given the current perverse incentives for accusing and how common illegal sex is. For every 15-year-old or younger girl who turns around and accuses her teacher like the nasty example above, there are something like 100 or maybe 1000 girls who remain protective of him after a sexual relationship. If you are not in an official position like teacher the risk is even less, with more than one in ten girls having such experiences and less than one in ten thousand accusing. We also know from the Rind studies that more intimate relations are more positively remembered, so no wonder she turned so hateful after less than intercourse, which when they have it ten or more times is associated with the most positive memories. Highest risk of all befall wankers and men like Amos Yee who never met the girl who accused him (why should she be loyal to him after so little?). And of course there are some bad apples who would accuse no matter what, including a lot of adult false rape accusers like the bitch who accused the cricketer in the RT story above, but they don't really reflect female character either. They are a very high number out of total accusations, but in absolute terms they are still rather low (with a possible exception for celebrities who act as magnets for precisely this type of woman).

It is unhelpful for our audience and wrong to give the impression that the risk is high. If I were to meet a 15-year-old girl today my perceived risk would be on the order of 0.02%. This reflects the fact that I am a nofapper and only interested in the kind of relationships that are most fondly remembered according to the Rind studies.

It would be insane to turn down an opportunity with a wonderful girl on account of such a low risk.

This is an extremely disturbing sentence in the RT story:

As a result of the widespread salacious publicity given to the matter, Gunathilaka’s trial took place before a judge alone – he having, in effect, been denied the right to a jury trial.

But I assume he did this voluntarily because he felt the publicity had hurt his chances with juries more than the risk of letting a judge decide? Otherwise Australia is even worse than Norway now.

Publicity is always a good thing. I disagree with RT that it shouldn't have been publicized. The worst horror of all is men just disappearing and being barred from naming their accusers as is in fact happening in the UK and Australia.

"If I were to meet a 15-year-old girl today my perceived risk would be on the order of 0.02%."

This is wishful thinking at best. How on earth do you calculate this ?
I don't think many male teachers would take the risk anyway.
Most of the time these relations are uncovered through social services, parents, jealous friends, people the girl confide in, a mislaid cellphone, witnesses in a public place etc. Notwithstanding the fact that the girl will change her mind in the course of time.

The odds were of course different before this time of hysteria.

I calculate it based on estimates of sexual behavior and statistics of convictions. In Norway it is even better at the moment because there is a current recommendation to the government by their appointed experts to lower the age of consent to 15. If that happens, all ongoing prosecutions will have to be abandoned as soon as it is politically decided, NOT just from the moment the new law goes into effect. So as a practical matter it might already be legal to have sex with 15-year-olds in Norway, if the law does change before they have time to put you on trial and convict you, which will take a year or two. Or maybe that won't happen, but in any case the punishment for sex with a 15-year-old is still not frighteningly draconian in Norway and I would probably do it even with a 100% chance of conviction.

I have experience with this from freedom of speech law. When I was accused of incitement in 2012 the law had changed but not gone into effect to where glorification of crimes was going to be decriminalized at some indeterminate future time. Simply because of that political decision the prosecution had to drop that part of the charges (plus I got acquitted of the rest as well) even though it took a few more years for the new law to go into effect.

If a girl loves you she is at least not going to tell right away... so it certainly makes sense to take into account anticipated future changes to the law. Of course, those changes mostly look like they will be for the worse, but there might be some exceptions too. There is pressure on Norway to harmonize the age of consent with our neighbors Sweden and Denmark who both have 15 rather than 16, and the government's experts themselves admit it's nonsense that 15-year-olds can't consent.

No, I don't have money to invest in stocks, but that might well be an opportunity for those who do. Or was until now it's probably too well known to go further. When it gets mentioned on a blog which has nothing to do with investing it is usually too late already, so I would sell now if I were you.

John Michael Greer's blog post this this week is "A Primer of Magical Combat." He is the world's leading occultist and former Archdruid in case anybody doesn't know.

https://www.ecosophia.net/a-primer-of-magical-combat/

"You win a magical struggle by formulating an ideal as strongly, precisely, and vividly as possible, while completely ignoring the other guy."

I'm not an occultist, but think there is something to this, because that's how the feminists won the sex war. They completely ignored reality and just came up with a fairy tale about groomed raped innocent girls. They took ignoring both men and girls to perfection (and boys and women too in the female sex offender charade) and made the culture play along, reifying their vivid fantasy in the justice system.

We really should ignore the other guy more and formulate our ideal more strongly, precisely and vividly. To the extent we can without getting censored or doing something too stupid.

Do I believe in magic? The way he defines it, why not?

Magic is the art and science of causing changes in consciousness in accordance with will. It doesn’t affect matter directly, and it can’t be used to overturn the laws of nature. Within those limits it can accomplish astounding things. If you examine your experience of the world, you’ll find that only a modest portion of it depends on the material realities that surround you: much more depends on what you perceive, feel, and think about those realities and the subtler social, psychological, and spiritual realities that also surround you.

When also keeping in mind that police resources are highly limited in relation to actual and potential sex crimes, the magical portion of the struggle does become very prominent. And just maybe more people will join us if we define our vision more vividly and precisely while IGNORING the police state more of the time. By magic we can only affect consciousness, but consciousness in turn can affect actions by us and others.

We can see the kind of countermagic I am talking about in action here:

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1707860438992433169

Jordan Peterson reduced to a whimpering ball of hysterical fright that they are going to lose their grip on the narrative by our simple expedient of using the word MAP. Lol! This word is so scary to him that it shall only be used over his dead body or the dead bodies of his followers whom he is trying to whip up into even deeper hysteria here.

He is able to be rational about some things but then on this he loses his mind like the normies or worse as he's trying to be a leading antisex bigot.

This is funny hysteria on part of the questioner, but at least he's complaining about lack of womanly signs rather than some imaginary line like 18 :)

https://twitter.com/ALT_uscis/status/1628082650102607886

A far more tolerant culture than ours in any case.

Jordan Peterson of the soft 'science' of psychology is typical of the kind of pseudointellectual that stupid graduates of the humanities departments only think are great thinkers because they have never engaged with the writers of the past.

As for the muslims, they are as bigoted and awful as Western feminists. Both are ultimately Sharia and it is all part of the plan that they are imported en masse into cuntries like the UShitA and UKunt et al.

I mean, seriously, there are not 'great' intellectuals like Foucault et al these days.

@ Eivind

Peterson knows how far he can go into his rebel attitude. In fact, most people agree with what he says about sex transition, genders etc...
He's good at debunking the paltry narrative of his opponents. Censorship (real or imaginary) makes him more popular.

His revulsion may not be fake (he's a father) but, essentially, he makes an enormous amount of money selling his "how to live" books.
A more nuanced opinion on the topic would have him immediately cancelled for ever.

By the way, I wonder if he's still friends with Camille Paglia.

Being a father has nothing to do with revulsion as to child sexuality. For centuries fathers gloried in the sexuality of their daughters, in fact praying they would be beautiful to marry off to wealthy husbands or sons of wealthy men. How many fathers throughout history used to naturally play with their daughters in a sexual manner? The idea of sexuality as something separate from all other feeling, rather than on a range of feeling and interaction is a modern aberration. This is also what used to be known between men as what we would properly call the homosocial, and why males were far more physical with each other. Feminism deliberately destroyed this. They are evil! This is also where pederasty found its expression, the temporary relationship between a man and an adolescent boy. Not permanent gayness, a modern perversion that boys are propagandised into thinking they are gays forever when they feel close intimacy with boys their own age or older men-- a California poison-- but my point is that all human interaction and contact is connected.

As for Peterson vs 'the woke', this is all a stupid canard that avoids the heart of the matter of societal oppression as discussed on this blog, the poison of feminism and the need for male sexualism.

He's not a serious public intellectual. Eivind Berge is and yet who is reading him? Who? Who? Posterity, which is to quite rightly admit defeat in this day and age.

And as for Camille Paglia, perhaps you hadn't heard, but she renounced her views on boylove as having been a positive thing. There was a clip on youtube.

"And as for Camille Paglia, perhaps you hadn't heard, but she renounced her views on boylove as having been a positive thing. There was a clip on youtube."

I didn't know but am not surprised. She had recanted her views on Madona before:)
I don't know if Paterson is really "serious" but he's certainly a public figure. And he's a father in this day and age not in classical Greece.
I agree with what you say on "permanent homosexuality" but it's no use calling a society "evil".There are conflicts of interests, changing balances of power and you have to fit in somewhere, though begrudgingly.

Feminism is literally evil, which is what I meant. So is denying boys the flourishing of their sexuality so that they learn to think they prefer cock to the beauty of fresh young girls.

It is evil itself! And it is the unleashing of female evil. And men like Savage and Fry who publicly advocate for our sons to grow up to become suckers of men's cocks are likewise.

Girl supposedly develops PTSD after being called "beautiful and charming" by an older man:

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/durham-university-post-grad-pervert-27856569

And that's the extent of the "abuse" alleged here, for which the man is jailed for 20 months.

We can forget about other wars like the little skirmish going on in Israel now. The war on sex is hands down the most insane that humanity is fighting, not least because there are no sexualists fighting back in any noticeable way.

I second the tactics described in the post above. Let's throw the tranny nonsense back at the fems in full force. The more Society descends into nonsense, the more it gets entangled into unintended consequences. Let's feed the beast until it chokes in its own vomit.

If underaged are allowed to transition at will (their own will preferably, or at least the will of their deranged parents) denying them the right to have sex will appear increasingly inconsistent.

On a similar note, we should cheer at transfemales scooping up victories in professional sport. No more professional sport for wymmyns, courtesy of feminism.

The charade may eventually go as far as all men having the right to register as females. With it may come the right to claim rape against the biological woman if we had a few drinks on a date while she didn't. Maybe people will not only be entitled to change sex but also to change age. In that case a man could register as "a child" ahead of a date, then claim child abuse. What a female offender charade that would be! Eivind would have a fit but I for one would have a ball.

In his prophetic book "The eighth Night of Creation", Swiss autor Jerome Deshusses wrote "There will come a time when nobody will understand anything any more". His vision of the apocalypse (intellectual mayhem) suits our days and age to a tee.

"If underaged are allowed to transition at will (their own will preferably, or at least the will of their deranged parents) denying them the right to have sex will appear increasingly inconsistent."

No, that's the argument right-wing feminists use to assert "wokism" leads to pedophilia. It's absolutely not the case. The likelihood is great that genderism, sex transition etc among minors is a way to feel sexual when everything else is forbidden. But it's out of the question that "feeling sexual" could lead to sexual relations before the right age. It's compensation.

For the right-wing feminists anything connecting minors to sexuality is evil of the worst kind.

No, none of that is working. Transsexual indulgence has peaked and is on its way out. They will be left with their mutilation and no special rights. They may get to keep their pronouns and use their preferred restrooms but nothing of consequence like winning at women's sports or going to women's prisons. There will be no transage rights either. Somebody already tried that and lost a court case. The only enduring hysteria is antisex.

Feminism is to sexuality as Hamas is to the Jews. There can be no peaceful coexistence because their program is fundamentally to destroy us. It was a mirage that you could be tolerated by registering a sex-change or be law-abiding in any other way. Every expression of sexuality is criminal; they just didn't get around to prosecuting everyone yet. The only good news is the system so lost the plot that sex laws can't tell the difference between real and imaginary sex. They are so busy prosecuting wankers and groomers of decoys that it is still RELATIVELY safe to have sexual relationships with girls.

Since they bark up the wrong trees so much it looks like the holocaust can be ramped up a hell of a lot more and it will still be safe enough to have meaningful relationships with girls. That's quite a funny outcome when you think about it. I can say things like nofap and get away with it because the authorities literally can't understand the difference between fiction and reality.

I even got my blog posts on nofap reinstated on appeal, haha! They don't even censor it anymore.

Why would they censor nofap Eivind? To them, as well as to some members of this forum, nofap is just harmless male self-flagellation. Whatever the reasons they censored you in the first place, nofap was not one of them IMO.

They want to censor nofap because masturbation is the only politically correct kind of sexual "expression." Except of course masturbation is not sexual expression but rather repression and diversion into asexuality. Refusing to fap therefore becomes a revolutionary act, and that's just the beginning because all the extra sexual energy which becomes available to nofappers is put into real life.

"the authorities literally can't understand the difference between fiction and reality."

How can you be deluded to the point of believing that while the authorities are after porn fappers, they will let you break age of consent laws IRL ?

It's because men are more and more wary of befriending underage girls that repression has to get busy with new virtual crimes.
Sex crimes are too popular and profitable not to be exploited.

They won't "let" me break the age of consent, but it stands to reason that they will have less resources to fight me the more they bark up the wrong tree. Why is that so fucking difficult to understand for you fappers?

It's not difficult to understand but it's illogical and dangerous. I personally don't give a damn about fapping. I never was addicted to it so I don't have to take a drastic ideological position to compensate for the lost opportunities allegedly due to early masturbation.

My answer was perfectly polite so I won't take any insult (fapper). I'm not american so I can do without "fucking" in a sentence.
If you don't wish me to comment, just tell me.

Okay, sorry about the personal insults, Amelio. I agree you are far from the worst promoter of fapping here either. That would be the AF who is absolutely obsessed with it to the point that I have to stop his comments.

I will only note that nofap as I promote it is not about curing an "addiction" (which I never had either), but making the most of your sex life. The most insidious fapping is when you don't realize there is anything wrong with it because you are blind to the opportunity cost and hence it doesn't resemble an addiction because you don't even have the idea that you should stop. Even if you didn't masturbate all that much and had early sex, you could probably have had more and better sex if you never masturbated whatsoever.

I will keep it polite but I want to ponder a bit more that the police are literally fighting imaginary crimes, because it is so profound on so many levels that this state of affairs can exist in the real world and not just in some episode of Star Trek or other fiction. It is as if -- or not as if, but literally that our enemy is content with fighting us in a video game or other simulation or just a crude fantasy like making particularly gullible men believe a vulgar decoy with half the IQ of a real teen girl, except of course their violence is real. And then we have on "our" side (to use a more polite word) onanists who buy into the same delusion that it is actual sexuality they are fighting over, and thence comes my exasperation that I inadvertently took out on Amelio, for which I am sorry. That was misplaced anger, but the philosophical bemusement with this absurd situation is not out of place and neither is my glee that the feminists and police are also degrading their efforts to fight actual sexuality by pursuing so many fantasies.

I appreciate thoughtful comments even if they disagree with me on nofap and it's only the AF who has gotten so nasty about it that I can't give him free reign.

Say you were into speeding and half the police force were preoccupied with writing tickets to videogamers for "driving too fast" in their games, wouldn't that be a mind-boggling fact? That is literally how absurd the situation is with sex crimes -- definitely worth noting though I do agree we should keep it polite amongst ourselves. Even the AF is welcome to comment if he can be polite again.

Morality corrupts the social sciences and moral panics corrupt them absolutely, as Bruce Rind says. How convenient to be able to explain away everything you can measure on an IQ test -- which they admit peaks during adolescence (the truth of the matter is puberty, but I guess they can say “around 16” to include every last latest bloomer) -- by having a separate kind of maturity for emotionally charged situations:

Public Significance Statement—Cognitive capacity—the basic cognitive functions that serve as the foundation for higher-level, complex thinking processes—reaches adult levels during adolescence (around 16). In contrast, psychosocial maturity—one’s ability to exercise self-restraint in emotional situations—reaches adult levels during the 20s. Importantly, in a study of over 5,200 participants, these distinct age patterns emerge across 11 diverse countries around the world. Thus, having two legal age boundaries that distinguish adolescence and adulthood—one for decisions typically made with deliberation and another for decisions typically made in emotionally charged situations—may be more sensible than having just one.

To be clear, these studies are not well designed to measure what they claim. Actual youth risk-taking does not match these claims. Read Joseph Bronsky’s book “An Empirical Introduction to Youth” for a solid debunking (which is also published two years later than the above, in 2021).

Quoting the APA from 2019 again:

Ultimately, these findings are consistent with the premise that youth are mature in some ways before they are mature in others. Put differently, young people may be mature enough to make decisions in the doctor's office, which requires deliberation and logical reasoning, long before they are mature enough to exercise good judgment when drinking with their friends, which requires self-regulation.

Let’s for the sake of argument indulge them a bit. There is an irony here because by this logic youth should also be able to make the kind of sexual decisions which result from deliberation. So if a teen girl is very much in love with you, they might explain away her consent by not being able regulate herself. But if she makes a cold calculation that she could use some more pocket money and decides to offer sex for pay, she is operating at the adult level. So it works in reverse of how the normies typically judge the blameworthiness of various sex crimes. Even by their own supposedly science-backed logic, they can’t dismiss consent when not made in the heat of passion. Girls who deliberate on whether to have sex have access to the same cognitive powers as the “fully developed brain” from at least 16, even if they supposedly can’t control strong emotions at the fully adult level until they are 25 or 30.

We have to conclude that a girl who is completely unattracted to you is most able to consent. So then the question is do the normies really want that kind of morality? It doesn't fit their “grooming” narrative because grooming is not held to be a passionate thing but rather subtle psychological manipulation that they SHOULD be able to resist. And teens at least as young as 16 and actually from puberty should be held accountable in exactly the same way as adult women when they deliberately decide to exploit their own sexuality for money. If anything, they are more responsible because presumably they are less able to put up with sexual disgust when they can’t control their emotions so well, so when they have sex with dirty old men it must REALLY be deliberate and the most morally pure kind of sex imaginable.

It really looks custom-made to accommodate transitioning just in time for the peak trans movement...

"...young people may be mature enough to make decisions in the doctor's office, which requires deliberation and logical reasoning, long before they are mature enough to exercise good judgment when drinking with their friends, which requires self-regulation."

But I'm sure that's just a coincidence :)

And in any case there are plenty of sexual decisions which are just as deliberate as the decision to have your genitals mutilated in the doctor's office, if not more so. Obviously there's no risk of grooming or power differential with doctors either... lol, they took that well into account as I just explained.

So just don't have sex with drunk girls and avoid them when they feel passionate about you, and then they are just like adults the rest of the time by APA logic.

I am actually impressed by how well that official view undermines a lot of current folk wisdom and legal concepts about impressionable youth. We are to believe now that 16 and 17-year-old girls are vulnerable to subliminal messaging and telepathy (“grooming”) which makes them do things they don’t really want to do, and they certainly can’t understand transactional sex. But this statement from the American Psychological Association undermines all that. It even makes it clear that lack of self-regulation should make it harder for youth to fake emotions, so we can’t have teenage prostitutes pretending to enjoy sex very well with ugly old men when they are actually disgusted. And on the other hand if they enjoy it THEN we can speak of more loss of self-control if we follow the “science,” but we all know men are unspeakably ugly just by being three years older according to contemporary wisdom, so this can rarely be a problem either. Altogether it makes a lot of current prosecutions seem like pure insanity, including most of the Epstein “abuse” which was very much centered on 16 and 17-year-old girls who by APA admission have full adult mental faculties of deliberation and premeditation -- anything they can understand in the doctor’s office which includes profoundly consequential decisions for their entire future sex lives now, they should be able to understand.

It is not a selective retardation for sex that psychologists believe in, but a selective retardation for passionate sex. In courts and public opinion this now gets distorted into a selective retardation for all of sexuality down to the slightest hint, to which they are hopelessly vulnerable and never responsible, but we see now that this is not the scientific view of the youthful brain, even if we grant the American Psychological Association infinite wisdom to interpret the science.

We have to call ourselves ephebophiles to be visible and create a community, just as there are gays, lesbians, transgenders, queers, etc. They could also say that being gay or straight does not exist, that we are all attracted to human people, and that they are artificial labels, but then how do they make a community and make themselves visible to the world? If we actively want -sexually mature- teenagers then we are ephebophiles, even if only from a political and social point of view, normal straight men will NEVER lift a finger for this, it is an empty hope, have Japanese straight men done something with the latest battery of feminist laws that have raised the age of consent? NO. Not even with the law that allows regret rape!! come on man, normal heterosexual men are a failure, and they will always be, either we create a sexuality for ourselves or we will be exterminated like the Palestinians.

PS: we are not the Jews killed at the hands of Hamas, we are the Palestinians killed at the hands of the State of Israel with the approval of the United States, the UK and the Commonwealth (what a coincidence, our enemies!), imagine if they didn't even call themselves Palestinians and not had an identity, "hey, we're just normal human people," come on man.

The political category you are searching for is MAP. Can jump on that if you want as it encompasses all forbidden sexuality due to age. Ephebophiles will never be a movement because it makes no biological sense as a separate category from normal men but also because it makes no sense to be a splinter group from the MAPs now that they finally got going with some political action. I stand with the MAPs -- have no problem identifying as a MAP when appropriate -- but also I try to form a larger sexualist movement against all "sex crime"-based oppression like the regret rape laws and so on.

Of course Israel had to respond to the terrorist attack but now it seems like they may be going too far and the situation you describe is becoming true. Historically that case can also be made. In the sex war we are definitely the underdog, so analogous to the Palestinians whether we are on their side or not. The Arab world as a whole is not very weak though especially when you take into account all the support that side has in our countries judging by current protests. France just banned them from protesting for Hamas but that doesn't make it go away.

As someone who fell for the Girlove Delusion, I am nonetheless a true 'MAP' as I am only emotionally and physically attracted to children and early to mid-teens. I have no interest whatsoever in a relationship with any adult. So let me tell you that all 'activism' has been tried and failed before. It failed in the 1970s when people were open to these ideas. It would utterly fail now. The evil feminists support anything that breaks apart the family and destroys the role of the parent, namely the father. So they support homosexual propaganda, instilling boys with a love of cock and the idea they should change their sex.

In the Netherlands the sexually free society was actually upheld in law, and the people of that country are now among the most hateful on earth of childlovers. Give up any idea of wasting your life on convincing people of this idea.

Stop trying to change the society you live in. Men are cowards and will go along with whatever society tells them to think rather than interrogating their own conscience. If loving fourteen year olds tomorrow in a shithole country like England and America was legal and socially acceptable, they would be hitting on every schoolgirl that moved. Today they hook up with some past it whore and talk when they are pissed about throwing bricks through the window of some lucky teacher they read about in the newspaper.

Just adopt nofap and try to achieve some happiness. Oh, if you MUST write, then let it be for future generations. But even Eivind Berge's writings will be supressed. Berge may get contacted by some horny schoolgirl who sees his movie, so that's good for him at least.

Those protesting Israel's bombing campaign are feminist, lgbtq remnants from the era of Jane Fonda and Tariq Ali mixed in with Sharia loving three day stubble and puffa jacket crowd who want to put their 11 year old daughters in burqas. Both are the enemy of child sexual liberation, for sure.

Not only would they be hitting on every school girl if it were legal or just socially accepted but writing songs about it again too like Steve Forbert as recently as 1980:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQQi0aj1XFU

School girl with your fancy looks?
Hey baby let me tote your books
Won't you try a little love you can't go wrong, darlin'?
School girl let me walk you home

Yeah, it's a hey, hey
Hey yes and the sun is sinking down its a going away
It's a hey, hey
Alright, every nighttime is the right time to say okay

School girl let me help you please
Have you studied 'bout the birds and the bees?
You can write a little paper on the rites of spring, baby
School girl sha la la le, yeah

School girl tell me what you say
Hey baby don't you turn away
Stop thinking over, honey, don't you want a romance?
School girl give me half a chance

And if a great poet comes along they will do even better, like Emily Dickinson on puberty:


It was given to me by the Gods —
When I was a little Girl —
They give us Presents most — you know —
When we are new — and small.
I kept it in my Hand —
I never put it down —
I did not dare to eat — or sleep —
For fear it would be gone —
I heard such words as "Rich" —
When hurrying to school —
From lips at Corners of the Streets —
And wrestled with a smile.
Rich! 'Twas Myself — was rich —
To take the name of Gold —
And Gold to own — in solid Bars —
The Difference — made me bold —

All I knew of her was in a stupid class when we were told she was depressed and isolated, but in Dickinson's day girls could benefit from their sexuality and being of interest to men. It's just like TheAntifeminist saying a while back that girls in Eastern and Europe and the Ukraine were interested in him, smiling, but I know for a fact that Ukrainian immigrants to the Ukunt have no interest in men whatsoever because it doesn't benefit them in a generous welfare society. In a feminist society women have no interest in being kind to men, and women are not interested in sexuality.

Females are quite happy without amorous intimacy. They can even go for a lifetime without it.

As for the song, I saw it first on that deluded girlover Xian's Agapeta, and, yes, all men want to fuck 12 year olds, and that realisation is why I give up entirely on any notion of improving society. I used to care deeply about the oppression of youth sexuality, genuinely, but now I realise that there is no such thing as moral truth in society, only a form of social cohesion masquerading as morality. Just as the realisation that young girls do not require my special devotion and that I haven't been given some 'gift' of sympathy with them, to treat them as mature, led me away from the Girlove Delusion. Well, any child who I've ever spoken to as an equal has looked at me as odd or given me disrespect. It's delusion!

I used to hate it when children were patronised but now I just generally hate.

I don't get this idea that you can't love young girls because most other men love them too. There is no conflict here except with the antisex bigots/laws and the usual competition for the prettiest girls which will always persist. And young girls are quite preoccupied with romance and sex. Their voice just gets horribly distorted now so that postmenopausal women who indeed can go without sex get to speak for them. Of course those are now only interested in perverting their lost youth into grooming and abuse so they can reap the benefits of feminist hegemony, but that's not the case with actual youth.

Emily Dickinson has more amorous poems too. Her childhood was normal, then she was somewhat secluded but did not turn into some sex-hating hag as is the norm now.

They would say he can handle the logic of chess but not the emotions...

We should be happy that the antisexual "morality" is a sham. That means it can more easily be rolled back. This secular kind of antisex is probably more fragile than the old religious kind which cared nothing about age gaps but at times nonetheless put up a lot of hostility to extramarital sex with the young. Remember that the new kind of "morality," to the extent that it is heartfelt, is entirely based on a lie about brain development, which as we have seen is now reduced to a supposed emotional deficiency rather than a cognitive one according to the psychological establishment. I think they either will have to find a new justification soon because it's hard to hinge so much hatred on so little, or give it up. It is exactly like race theories or the supposed inferiority of women which have come and gone because they were ultimately discredited by the science which dreamt them up in the first place when truth becomes more apparent.

But it might take a while because the supposed emotional immaturity of young people is damn near unfalsifiable, not really a scientific theory. Even the concept of emotional intelligence is pseudoscientific and can't be verified in adults, so how are we supposed to prove adolescents have it?

If the problem are the emotions, then they should at least allow child prostitution...

Another favorite Emily Dickinson erotic poem (#F430) which I hereby adopt as a nofap anthem.

A Charm invests a face
Imperfectly beheld -
The Lady dare not lift her Vail
For fear it be dispelled -

But peers beyond her mesh -
And wishes - and denies -
Lest Interview - annul a want
That Image - satisfies -

It signifies the badness of porn, obviously, but goes further and even captures the habit of many teen girls on Snapchat to only show obscured or partial views of their face for maximum effect. (Vail is an alternative spelling of veil.)

It is the recipe for maximal sexualization, contrary to the morons who think explicit images do that, and the best sex when you get to meet the girl. Emily Dickinson was way ahead of her time here (in 1862), giving the middle finger to both feminists and wankers while celebrating the girls who know how to present themselves most sexily.

Do notice that she uses the strongest possible words -- "annul a want" -- for the wanker's waste of his sex drive and destiny to miss out on enjoying the girl at all.

That's a hateful conservative antisex rag bragging that they were antisex all along to look holier than the liberals who now agree with them to hate sex harder than ever in this hysterical age, but it's good to get some history.

In 1979, ‘Home Office advisers argued that the age of consent be lowered from 16 to 14 and called for a dramatic reduction in statutory punishments for “consensual” sex with girls as young as 12, according to an internal 1979 research study obtained by the Guardian.’

We are told: ‘The authors of the study from the Home Office research unit suggested the overall age of consent be lowered so that “sexual behaviour with a girl over the age of 13 (the average age of puberty) is not criminal, provided that she was clearly as aware of what she was doing, and its implication as might be expected of a girl of 16”. Roy Walmsley and Karen White, the authors of the home Office booklet Sexual Offences, Consent and Sentencing, argued that many girls reach puberty before their tenth birthday and may not only want sex but initiate it themselves.’ How lovely, I just wonder where those authors are now? Ah, the 70s, when people in the Home Office thought girls of 13 should be fair game.

And let’s not forget the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) was gaining some traction among the idiotic and stupid. The Guardian: ‘PIE had been campaigning for the removal of any age of consent, arguing that a child of four should be able to communicate verbally and that at ten the majority of children can communicate their consent or otherwise to a sexual act.’

In 2013, Professor John Ashton, then president of the Faculty of Public Health, said the age of consent should be lowered by a year from 16 to 15. He said society had to accept that about a third of all boys and girls were having sex at 14 or 15, and the change would make it easier for 15-year-olds to get sexual health advice from the NHS.

If the conservatives did indeed oppose these initiatives to lower the age of consent more than the left they were historically more evil than I knew, but now both sides are equal scum who overbid each other to be more antisex. Pest or cholera, hateful or hatefuller than thou, I hate them all and there is no such thing as a good politician to find.

Despite all that hate she does manage to get the definition of "grooming" right:

This seems reasonable enough. The argument seems to be that it’s fine for 16-year-olds to go at it with each other, but fornicating with a 30-year-old is exploitation. In such cases the 16-year-old girl doesn’t really consent, she is ‘groomed’. I notice you can blame ‘grooming’ on all the idiotic mistakes you make as a young adult and look back on with regret.

So please, can someone protect the vulnerable 16- and 17-year-olds who despite the fact they will shout at their parents that ‘you can’t tell me what to do any more’ are now to have some sort of zone of protection that will hold the adult men who exploit their stupidity and vulnerability criminally responsible for such exploitation? Fair enough. I’m all in.

Grooming isn't some voodoo older men do; it's just a way for women to regret whatever they want and blame it on men. It might from that excerpt look like irony when Laura Perrins says she is "all in" with this scheme, but the tone of her whole article tells me she is serious. She knows it is irrational, but it's just too good for women to pass up another opportunity to get yet another legal weapon against older men with a staggered age of consent.

Funnily enough, there is one character in this story who comes across as even more disgustingly hateful than the author. The unbelievably creepy busybody cockblocking taxi driver:

It wasn’t just Alice’s mother who tried to protect from her having relations with Brand. A complete stranger, in the form of a taxi driver, tried to do the same. ‘As her taxi approached Russell Brand’s home, Alice remembers the driver begging her not to go inside. Recognising the destination, he had started to ask questions. Alice admitted she was 16 and still in school. She says the driver replied that his daughter was the same age and entreated Alice, “Please, I’m asking you not to go in there, you could be my little girl, and I would want someone to do this for her.” He offered to take her home without charge, but Alice insisted she was fine. “He had just such a sad look in his eyes,” she recalls.’

A male taxi driver. Goes to show the female sexual trade union is not always our worst enemy! It would be extenuating if he were trying to pick up the girl for himself, but he genuinely seemed to do it out of pure antisex hate against men in general, an extremely slimy sort of agecucked "altruism." Perhaps he was a Conservative too and on balance I can now say that they leave me with the most disgusting taste in the mouth. They are so happy with feminism and liberals that they have to go back to the 70s to find something to criticize about them, and all this self-righteousness on top of the antisex decides it if I have to chose between the two evils.

@MenAreCowards

How rotten your head and soul must be to justify and joke about that those who protest the Israeli bombings on Gaza 'are against sexual liberation', seeing the figures and images of the thousands of people injured and murdered. And 800 of the victims are children. And you call yourself a childlover.

Good point. The Gaza strip doesn't even seem to have an age of consent as far as I can find. You just have to be married and they are not against child marriage.

Dropping buildings on children is really not a good look for Israel and neither is this sort of hysterical antisex debate where the most liberal faction only wants a five-year age gap from 14, for which they are accused of pedophilia:

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-741881

Israeli far-right lawmaker Avi Maoz accused the Justice Ministry of attempting to normalize pedophilia within the country by altering Israel's age of consent laws.

Currently, the age of consent in Israel is 16 for all genders. However, that age of consent can go as low as 14, provided the other sexual partner was no more than three years older and both parties consented.

But according to Maoz, the Justice Ministry is trying to change this to an age gap of five years.

A bit of reminiscing from when liberals and even feminists had some good points.

https://archive.ph/T5kdi#selection-1601.542-1601.982

‘An underage lesbian usually knows many more legally adult lesbians than other minors. Despite social barriers, romantic and sexual relationships are frequently formed between women of disparate ages.’ …wrote Patricia Califia, then a member of the lesbian feminist scene for roughly twenty years, in Sapphistry describing the prevalence of paedophilia in the lesbian, feminist community. Such relationships she says may be threatened from the outside world, by families of the children and authorities concluding that ‘lesbians in such relationships often feel that they would be happier and safer if age-of-consent laws were repealed’ adding ‘[t]he rewards for such a relationship come from the women involved and the feelings they have for each other. In a less homophobic and violent world, it might be taken for granted that adults would teach adolescents about the art of sexuality as well as other aspects of life. If adolescents were not stereotyped as irresponsible, immature and unreliable, adults might be less reluctant to engage in intimate relationships with them. It would be clearer that such a relationship is a mutual exchange rather than a hierarchical, one way arrangement.’

And Germaine Greer was really something back when some feminists had the fortitude to dismiss the female sex offender charade:

Asked in 2003 why she prefers underage boys to adult men on television in Canada... she explained that underage boys are not only more beautiful than adult men but are also more ‘sexually active’, have ‘more erections’ adding that their ‘sperm runs like tap water’ before announcing that she had a ‘boy’ of her own.

SdB was also an angel compared to later feminism:

‘There is no other justification for present existence than its expansion toward an indefinitely open future’ …wrote foremost icon of feminism, marxist, communist, paedophile and advocate of paedophilia, Simone de Beauvoir (SdB) calling for a future free of any imitations, inhibitions, taboos, in the most seminal text in feminism, The Second Sex, in 1949, not long after she had been fired from her job as teacher in a school for girls in France for sexually abusing her underage students. This quote would become popular in feminism, cited by many proponents of this ideology calling for a future free of the restrictions of traditional morality, morality feminists claim is an oppressive construct of a conspiracy they call the patriarchy imposed on women to limit their freedoms and enslave them to men.

But now we have to look to Hamas for the sanest sex laws. That is literally what it has come to. Those who march for Hamas with Pride flags actually know what they are doing, I have to conclude.

To anonymous: I USED to be a childlover. I am no longer. Just that I am only emotionally and sexually attracted to them.

As for GAZA, I wasn't joking about it at all. I condemn the Hamas headchoppers as much as the Israeli bombing campaign.

I am simply pointing out who is protesting the Israeli bombing that I don't agree with. They are completely two different types of people.

Don't know why you thought I was justifying or laughing at it.

But I am NOT a childlover. I suffer no such delusions.

But you are certainly right about my head and soul being rotten.

One simply could not be otherwise in a male hating, sex hating, feminist emotional wasteland.

@Eivind

"She knows it is irrational, but it's just too good for women to pass up another opportunity to get yet another legal weapon against older men with a staggered age of consent."


That's the key. Reason takes a back seat when self-interest is at stake. Apart from fem militants why should women in general take to heart that issue ( the ever expanding realm of sex crimes)? The benefits for women are worth the possible denials of justice sex repression might entail
( for men mostly) . That's what they want to believe but they won't give it too much thought anyway.

Not surprised at all that your 'ephebophile' friend is a supporter of Hamas.

If there is no age of consent in Gaza, it's likely due to the fact that sex before marriage will get your dick cut off or worse. The age of consent is and was an underhand attempt by feminists to criminalize sex before marriage. When they raised it to 16 in the Victorian era, most people still married in their teens (and feminists wanted to raise it to 21, and still do). There is certainly no need for an age of consent when having sex outside marriage will get you stoned to death.

Why doesn't he go along to one of these pro-hamas rallies in London or Berlin and wave his 'child love' flag around. Or maybe hit on one of the Hamas preteen daughters. See what happens?

Yes, Israel has an age of consent of 16 like most places, but they seem relatively sane compared to most Western countries these days. And don't forget that Angry Harry, Tom Grauer, Judith Levine are or were all Jewish. Not to mention Epstein etc. That 'ephobophile' is probably the same guy who claimed feminists are our friends because Judith Levine is a 'feminist'.

And Palestinians are not the plucky underdogs. Israel a population of 6 million surrounded by half-a-billion arbas who want every one of them dead are the underdogs.

Article 155 of the Mandate Criminal Code Ordinance, No. 74 of 1936, in force in the Gaza Strip, states: “Anyone who goes to bed, in an unlawful manner, with an unmarried girl over 16 years of age but not yet 21, or aids or helps another to go to bed with her illegally, with the girl being a descendant of him or his wife, or when he is her guardian or entrusted with her education or care, shall be considered to have committed a felony punishable by five years’ imprisonment”.......

The MAP version of equality of injustice. A society that criminalizes all sex (outside of marriage) is better than a society that has an age of consent.

Feminism and Islamification have destroyed Europe. Didn't know that Israel was any saner, but France and Italy are certainly the most civilised countries in Europe with regard to attitudes towards sexuality.

I think you are onto something there, Anonymous 2. Especially conservatives have this need to periodically tamp down what they consider sexual immorality, and now they can't find a single person in the mainstream to attack. Oh they can find plenty of men to accuse, but no political opposition to hold that men like Russell Brand are anything but the devil incarnate if he actually had sex with a 16-year-old. So they dredge up a dead and buried proposal from the 70s to lower the age of consent to 13. Or PIE or whatever, while still living members like TOC are too obscure to be on their radar, as is this blog.

This is both a sorry and hopeful state of affairs for us, because those old writings are every bit as relevant as ever and more so now. It's not like those old activists were writing MS-DOS manuals. They were describing human nature which has not changed.

Pedobear may be sleeping but he is not dead. All it takes for old manifestos and rational evaluations of age of consent to be relevant again is for people to be interested and look for it. Meanwhile our self-appointed moral guardians keep attacking a dormant boogeyman, but they can't kill it.

The unmistakable AF.

So now to denounce the indiscriminate bombing of the civilian population, including children, is to support a terrorist group?

When I have defended any shitty law that exists in Gaza?

I don't like preteen girls, that's what you like, I like teenagers, and especially the more older ones, it is you, in any case, who is interested in following a religion that allows hebe or pedophilia.

You could become Jewish, one of their laws is that sex with girls under 4 is legal. And you can kill all the goyim, who are worse than animals, according to their books.

But you are right, the Israelis have the right to occupy Palestine because a book from more than two thousand years ago says that it is their land.

I do not support any feminist, they disgust me, in fact I came here now to criticize Eivind's positive position with certain feminists like Germaine Greer, although at least she is not so disgusting, as she admit that a male teacher falling for a 14/15 year old girl It's nothing vile or depraved.

I apologize for trying to give an identity other than "we're just another stupid straight men", you know, the ones who would kill you and all of us if they even knew you were looking at a 17 year and 11 month old girl, ah, those normal straight people like that taxi driver, that scum is the one that needs to be appealed to our cause... I understand.

Also, you need to know that the majority of heterosexual men really do not want to fuck pubescent and even less prepubescent children, in fact, many of them (at their 30's) prefer a 25 or 30 year old than even a 20 or 18 year old, but since you are an autistic hebephile masculinist, you think that everyone in reality only want to fuck 12 or 13 year old girls (which they are a combinayion of a very small women body with the head of a prepubescent girl lol) like you, It's just that their Karens don't want to let them fuck them.

A platform which has zero tolerance for my voice or the voices of any of my fellow activists is under attack by governments for not being antisex enough:

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/16/tech/x-australia-fine-hnk-intl/index.html

Australia issued a fine of $610,500 Australian dollars ($386,000) on Monday against the company formerly known as Twitter for “falling short” in disclosing information on how it tackles child sex abuse content, in yet another setback for the Elon Musk-owned social media platform.

Little do those morons realize that Emily Dickinson does more to sexualize children than the "CSAM" they claim to be fighting. There is a fine line protecting us activists from being hunted at the same level consisting only of the stupidity of our oppressors. When political speech becomes "child sex abuse content" too -- like Twitter is already considering it -- well, then we will disappear underground but the movement will persist then too as long as they fail to destroy all copies of our writings.

"Also, you need to know that the majority of heterosexual men really do not want to fuck pubescent and even less prepubescent children, in fact, many of them (at their 30's) prefer a 25 or 30 year old than even a 20 or 18 year old, but since you are an autistic hebephile masculinist, you think that everyone in reality only want to fuck 12 or 13 year old girls (which they are a combinayion of a very small women body with the head of a prepubescent girl lol) like you, "

No words. Eivind gets the kind of followers he deserves.

Returning to the Gaza conflict, it's largely irrelevant to anything we are discussing here. But it is ironic the way the BBC is insisting it must stay true to its impartiality and integrity by refusing to describe Hamas as terrorists, when they call people like Epstein 'paedophiles'. In fact, I'm sure I remember our old friend 'Holocaust21' complaining to the BBC that they were misusing the correct definition of a paedophile to describe men who had sex with teen girls. they actually replied back stating something like 'most people would understand a paedophile to mean somebody having sex with minors'. Well most people would describe armed individuals murdering, beheading, raping, abducting, disembowling, eye gouging pensioners, women, children in order to create terror, as 'terrorists'.

This is what I've been saying for years. There is no worse feminist than the "conservative woman", only sometimes outdone by her lackey pathetic hypocrite simp conservative male husband.

From Victorian England, to the Women's Christian Temperance Movement, to the PROTECT Act - all conservative feminists who have implemented the most extreme sex-fascism possible.

The taxi driver in the Russell Brand story was a conservative male husband, his behavior was from a combination of jealousy and impotence. As for conservative muslims who kill you for unmarried sex, I know they also allow temporary marriages for quick sex, but I'm not interested in their culture at all and refuse to look into any of it.

It's a good point that sex-fascists can now only attack ideas, as they've eliminated all the people who oppose them, yet the pesky ideas remain. They cannot possibly win this battle, so it's actually a full benefit scenario. I'm going to start an anti sex-fascist twitter profile to post writings from saner times, I think that would really hurt the sex fascists.

Extremists always try to destroy history, to remove cultural memories that remind others of what life was like before they came along; sex fascism is no exception, which is why they try so hard to hide "child sexual abuse material" aka videos of people under 18 enjoying their sexuality. It reminds me of all the hot videos that used to be online of happy people under 18 doing sexual things on random chat websites. The feminist government HATES that because it directly contradicts their abuse narrative that has been so profitable.

Right. The idea of people under 18 enjoying sex is... literally a crime. It's like the authorities are trying to maintain a gigantic vacuum in the air. So they need to keep sucking the air out of it at any cost, now fining Twitter for failing to do their part despite desperate efforts and on and on. It can't really be maintained, but they still think they can. They did manage to create a vacuum in politics to where only the idea remains in disembodied form...

Well, nature abhors a vacuum and it can't last long.

I like this analogy. Something like 20-50% of the sexual atmosphere has been turned into a societal vacuum -- depending on how you count, going by interest or activity or intensity either way it is a huge proportion. We are told the air doesn't flow there naturally and we are sick evil criminals if we think so. But it does anyway :)

How stupid this age of consent debate is.

Starting with menstruation, a woman is fertile and therefore acceptable for real sex.

Deviants, faggots and morons will have no qualms about admitting that they are attracted to things other than young women of childbearing age. But don't forget that normal is our thing, that you are attracted to young and fertile females. Theirs is a deviation, a defect.