Eivind Berge's Blog

A full debunking of a masturbation-promoter

2025-07-13T22:05:00.000+02:00

I took sexuality’s side in life, at the worst possible time in history to be a sexualist. At this point, knowing how history turned out worse than my worst nightmares as a young activist who thought 20 years ago that there would at least be a genuine men’s movement in opposition to feminism before they passed all the laws they wanted now including the fully insane affirmative consent law in Norway, my updated expectations are to reap only hate for everything I do for the rest of my life. Of course I get only hate from society (including men) for being against their sex laws, and then I get hate from the few non-normies in existence who are also against the sex laws because I am against masturbation (because it is not sex, and again, I took sexuality’s side). With expectations of anything but hate out of the way, I can be brutally honest about my opinions and care nothing about offending anybody.

During our discussions in the comments a while back someone brought in this link, apparently thinking it had some good advice:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hide-and-seek/201703/hell-yes-the-7-best-reasons-for-masturbating

It is one of an entire genre of writings about the supposed benefits of masturbation, especially common in pop psychology magazines where “experts” in health and wellness see it as their duty to nudge us to masturbate more and have less sex (in this case one “Neel Burton M.A., M.D.,” properly credentialed of course). Yes, as we shall see, it is very much about having less sex.

After the formulaic cliched subtitle “The stigma surrounding masturbation has to stop” as if there is still a stigma after a million articles like this, number one of these “seven best reasons for masturbating” comes to us with an origin story:

1. Pleasure and convenience.

Upon being challenged for masturbating in the marketplace, the ancient philosopher Diogenes the Cynic replied, "If only it were so easy to soothe hunger by rubbing an empty belly." According to Diogenes, the god Hermes, taking pity on his son Pan, gave him the gift of masturbation, which Pan then taught to the shepherds.

To masturbate, there is no need for special equipment, the intricacies of sexual intercourse, or even a partner. Although it is often looked upon as the poor relative of sexual intercourse, many couples engage in mutual masturbation, either alongside or instead of intercourse, to simplify, improve, or enrich their sexual lives and arrive at orgasm.

The bit of ancient philosophy should already make us feel uneasy. Diogenes the Cynic is hardly a person I would like to emulate, is he? How “convenient” to settle for not really living?

2. Fewer complications. Masturbation is safe as well as convenient. Unlike sexual intercourse, it is very unlikely to lead to pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases such as human papillomavirus, chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, and HIV/AIDS, not to mention other communicable diseases such as flu or coronavirus.

Yeah, If you don’t live, you don’t have the complications from life. So much is true and this applies to everything all the way into antinatalism. Why stop at masturbation if you believe in this line of thought? Why want to live at all, then? Moving on,

3. Stronger, more intimate relationships. Contrary to popular perception, there is, at least in females, a positive correlation between the frequency of masturbation and frequency of intercourse. People who masturbate more are more sexually driven, and mutual masturbation is likely to increase the frequency and variety of sexual contact. Both in the performance and in the observation, masturbation can teach partners about each other’s pleasure centres, proclivities, and particularities. If one partner is more sexually driven than the other, as is often the case, masturbation can provide him or her with a balancing outlet.

I was about to call plain bullshit on this one until I saw the author calls out his own bullshit with the qualification “at least in females.” Yeah, I never claimed females need nofap. Nofap is for men. I’m not opposed to females doing their version if they feel there is a benefit, but they don’t need to be preached to. Also I wouldn’t really call mutual masturbation masturbation. This is the second time in three “reasons” the author feels compelled to drag in mutual masturbation in order to construct a benefit, so evidently he doesn’t even much believe in his own case.

4. Better reproductive health. In males, masturbation flushes out old sperm with low motility and reduces the risk of prostate cancer. If practiced before sexual intercourse, it can delay orgasm in males suffering from premature ejaculation. In females, it increases the chances of conception by altering the conditions in the vagina, cervix, and uterus. It also protects against cervical infections by increasing the acidity of the cervical mucus and flushing out pathogens. In both women and men, it strengthens the muscles in the pelvic floor and genital area and contributes to extending the years of sexual activity.

If you were having regular sex you wouldn’t have a problem with stale sperm, would you? And likewise with premature ejaculation. More sex will cure that as well. “Reasons” 4-7 are all some of a host of “benefits” not unique to masturbation but served equally or better by sex. Hence they are not reasons to masturbate but reasons to have sex, unless you don’t really care about sex and want to nudge us to have less of it, which reveals the true, evil reason for writing all these lists of supposed benefits.

5. Faster sleep. Masturbation invites sleep by reducing stress and releasing feel-good hormones such as dopamine, endorphins, oxytocin, and prolactin. Orgasm, in particular, brings on a state of stillness, serenity, and sleepiness, sometimes called "the little death" (French, la petite mort), which can usher in a deeper sleep.

Again, this is better served by sex.

6. Improved cardiovascular fitness. Masturbation is, in effect, a form of light exercise. Compared to regular exercise, it is more effective or efficient at reducing tension and releasing feel-good hormones. The muscles and blood vessels relax, improving blood flow, and lowering heart rate and blood pressure. No surprise, then, that studies have found an inverse correlation between frequency of orgasm and death from coronary heart disease.

If you want some pleasurable exercise and increase your frequency of orgasm, the best way, once again, is sex!

7. Brighter mood and other psychological benefits. Masturbation reduces stress and releases feel-good hormones, which lift mood and reduce the perception of pain. It promotes better, more restorative sleep, locking in sleep’s myriad physical and psychological benefits. It enables younger people, in particular, to explore their sexual identity and regulate their sexual impulses, leading to a happier and healthier sexuality, as well as greater self-awareness, self-control and self-esteem. It offers an escape from the constraints and demands of reality, an outlet for the imagination in fantasy, and a medium for the memory in nostalgia. And it culminates in a transcending experience that unites mind with body and life in death.

This is ridiculous. Masturbation fosters an incel loser mood rather than a bright one, and no one thinks masturbation is a transcending experience. To actually have these things, have sex.

Wow, this was too easy. I didn’t even have to debunk anything because the arguments literally don’t apply to masturbation versus sex. It almost reads like an underhanded attack on the cultural myth that masturbation is always good. The experts must be fed up with having to write all this propaganda... so for once one of them wrote something halfway subversive.

It is a mirror image of the CSA propaganda: bullshitting and dodging the issue. The CSA hoaxers serve up bullshit about supposed harm and dodge any actual evidence, and the masturbation propagandists serve up bullshit about supposed benefits and dodge any real evidence.

It would be somewhat mitigating if all this propaganda for masturbation was balanced by advice to have more sex for better health and wellness. If, for every list of reasons to masturbate, we got a list of reasons why we should find a young woman that we would actually want to have lots of sex with so we could promote prostate health in the aging male, have transcending experiences, better sleep and so on, I would have less reason to complain.

But we don’t get sex-positivity, do we? With the exception of the occasional, frankly hideous promotions of elder sex (completely age-matched, of course), suited to make even me prefer masturbation, all we get is masturbation propaganda.

But we can do better than that. We can promote true sexual enjoyment and sex-positive attitudes. That means, at the very least, toning down the masturbation evangelism until real sex is at least equally promoted and in my view it means practicing nofap and noporn.

There is another connection to the CSA hoax as well. I believe it would be extremely hard to sell the idea that sex is harmful to minors if we didn’t simultaneously tell them they can masturbate all they want. Back in the 1800s when the culture disapproved of masturbation we didn’t have a problem with sex with minors (unless they were truly little children), and now this has been completely reversed, not coincidentally I think. So sexualists and MAPs have this additional reason to oppose the pro-masturbation propaganda.

Oh Who Is That Young Sinner with the Handcuffs on his Wrists?

2025-06-05T21:50:00.018+02:00

There is nothing new under the sun. As soon as one kind of oppression ends we get another of a different flavor. So we might as well recycle the old masters of oppositional poetry as well. A.E. Housman wrote this about Oscar Wilde over a century ago, and it just as easily applies today to droves of men who are dragged to prison for something equally harmless as the color of their hair:

Oh who is that young sinner with the handcuffs on his wrists?
And what has he been after that they groan and shake their fists?
And wherefore is he wearing such a conscience-stricken air?
Oh they're taking him to prison for the color of his hair.

'Tis a shame to human nature, such a head of hair as his;
In the good old time 'twas hanging for the color that it is;
Though hanging isn't bad enough and flaying would be fair
For the nameless and abominable color of his hair.

Oh a deal of pains he's taken and a pretty price he's paid
To hide his poll or dye it of a mentionable shade;
But they've pulled the beggar's hat off for the world to see and stare,
And they're taking him to justice for the color of his hair.

Now 'tis oakum for his fingers and the treadmill for his feet,
And the quarry-gang on Portland in the cold and in the heat,
And between his spells of labor in the time he has to spare
He can curse the God that made him for the color of his hair.

I say don't curse God or your nature, curse society and its laws. But no one wants to do that. So we are left with a movement that only exists in my imagination. Even though these words are truer today -- that "'Tis a shame to human nature, such a head of hair as his; In the good old time 'twas hanging for the color that it is" -- because now the human nature that is a "shame" has expanded to literally all of it unless we pretend to believe that sexuality only properly begins at 18 (except it's always "rape" then too under feminist laws), and that good old time when it could be practiced at least relatively freely was just a few decades ago!

Adult homosexuality has been liberated, it is true (at least temporarily until feminists get around to criminalizing all of sexuality again). Which provides a case in point as to what happens when something that was formerly seen as very important to punish severely is decriminalized. To a keen observer like me, we got some rainbow-colored flags in our vicinity and that's it. I can attest that it's not the slightest bit enticing to those who wouldn't be into it anyway in the height of oppression, as I've been told it's wonderful to be gay all my life and never had any interest. Now, the trans movement is a slightly different story as it involves mutilation that some transitioners these days sorely regret, but that was perpetrated by the medical establishment rather than people just being free to do as they please, and I don't think they would have gone that far by themselves. I think that's how it goes for all sexual practices that do not involve violence: the moralists are flatly wrong that it leads to dire consequences like social collapse or whatever if we don't punish the "deviants."

When Housman says it's oakum for Oscar Wilde's fingers and the treadmill for his feet, he means that literally. Of course, it is complete nonsense that sex offenders can be "cured" or "reformed" now either. We remain what we are just like you can't change your natural hair color. To elaborate on the impossibility of "curing" sex offenders, homosexuals or heterosexuals alike, I want to quote at length another masterful homosexual writer who said it better than I can, namely Mike Darwin:

These [insights] were the combined work of myself and an archetypical sociopath; a convicted felon and an avowed child sexual predator. They are the distilled result of many hours of discussion between the two of us and a number of different sociopathic personalities about whether such "rewiring" or "reconfiguration" of an individual's personality would be either acceptable to the individual, or would constitute the survival of the individual. There was not just virtual unanimity that such re-engineering would constitute destruction of the person; there was absolute unanimity.

So, to be clear (and perhaps I should have been clearer) this is not (primarily) my opinion, it is the opinion of the person's most concerned. I have read much of what Oscar Wilde has written (including most of his Yellowbook essays), his published personal correspondence and many books about his life and his internment at Reading Gaol, where he spent his days pulling oakum, treading the barrel and turning the crank. These were miserable and debilitating activities that went on for 10 hours a for years on end (so-called hard labor).

In Wilde's case, these behaviors were prescribed for the purpose of rehabilitating his homosexuality. Not only did they fail, they caused Wilde to reflect deeply on to what extent his homosexuality was an integral part of who he was as person. Most people never consider in what way common elements of their behavior and "personality", for lack of better words, are critical to their personhood. Wilde's homosexuality unarguably shaped almost every aspect of his life, work and art, as well as his dress, aesthetics and social interactions (apart from his discrete sexual behavior). To cure Wilde of homosexuality, as opposed to his homosexual behavior -- and these are two very different things -- would be something that Wilde himself would have rejected as incompatible with who he was as a person.

Perhaps an even better example is that of the creator of modern computer science and the darling of uploaders everywhere, Alan Turing. British society and government undertook a program of neurobiological modification of Turing to ablate his homosexuality. Judging from Turing's correspondence, in this they were somewhat successful. After treatment with estrogens was discontinued Turing's sense of sexuality did not recover. He describes this in detail, including the horrible sense of depersonalization that resulted from it. This was without any doubt a major factor in his decision to kill himself, which has to be interpreted as a strong rejection of personhood. Indeed, he described the experience as having left him an incomplete person. [While not routine, the brain remodeling that occurs during intensive estrogen therapy in males does not always reverse when withdrawn.]

It is possible to acquire "bad" or undesirable behaviors which can be subtracted by either psychiatric or neuropsychiatric means and which, far from diminishing the person, enhances him. It is also possible to mistake undesirable behaviors for add-ons to a person, rather than as central to their personhood. For the same reasons most homosexuals (in the past) never revealed their inner cognitive states and personality structures, psychopaths, contemporary and otherwise, rarely do so. It is also the case that in any human population only a few people will have the ability to adequately reflect upon who they are and to then commit it to writing in an accessible way.

I have an extensive library on the psychology (psychopathology) of criminality, including extensive analyses of the personality structures of such individuals. However, perhaps the best book for understanding the personal identity structure of of the psychopath is The Gates of Janus, by Ian Brady, the Moors Murderer. The expanded edition has excellent and insightful material by Colin Wilson and Peter Sotos. Shortly before his death, Wilson gave a fascinating TV interview about his interaction with Brady; it was Wilson who edited and facilitated the publication of Brady's book. Wilson also agreed that the "psychopathology" was the person in the case of individuals like Brady.

Brady is the psychopath and the psychopath is Brady. They are not separable and it is not possible to successfully treat the patient without destroying him in the process. This is NOT the opinion of the therapists, so much as it is the position of the "patients". It is easy to mistake obtaining someone's accession to being killed, as opposed to being treated, as one in the same thing. Indeed, a version of this happens when law enforcement "persuades" innocent people to confess to heinous crimes which they did not commit and it happened in medicine during the era of the prefrontal lobotomy.

If you choose to believe that psychopaths are simply people who have acquired bad behaviors, apart from the very fabric of who they are, that is, of course, your right. If, on the other hand, you undertake to treat them on this basis, then may I suggest that you either make a will, reconcile yourself to homicide, or both.

To recap, I'm not stating that psychopaths must not ever be rewired to make them human in the sense being human is generally understood. Rather, I am saying that psychopaths, the people actually at issue here, want no part of such a treatment. Under the current, much evolved medical paradigm, patients (people) have the right to refuse treatment -- any treatment. If you choose to redefine psychopaths as not people, as incomplete people, or as something else, well, that is another matter altogether. The fact is that right now, today, we have effective treatments that allow many people currently incarcerated under dismal conditions to safely (for the rest of us) reenter the community. The thing is, these people do not wish to accept such treatments and instead "choose" to be incarcerated. I've never met a psychopath who felt otherwise. It is also the case that I've never met anyone who would accede to being rewired in such a way that they are no longer themselves. Thus, there is perfect parity here.

Yes, the integrality to personhood also applies to psychopathy, which is not to be confused with sexual orientation and though the normies may not be, I think my readers are intelligent enough to understand that no such conflation is intended by either Mike Darwin or myself.

Though thankfully not quite so personally affected yet, similarly to how forced labor caused Oscar Wilde to reflect deeply on to what extent his homosexuality was an integral part of who he was as person, the ongoing cultural oppression of heterosexuality has caused me to think deeply about what it means to be a heterosexual man. How integral our love for "underage" girls is to our sexuality, for example.

It's rare to express such thoughts today. But that's what my blog is for. For whatever reason, I have some freedom here similarly to what Housman had in his poetry in the midst of oppression. Perhaps only because it is so obscure and evidently dry and boring to the normies. But anyway, here it is, and open to comments as well about such matters you can scarcely express anywhere else.

Enthusiasm about past sexual experiences?

2025-05-29T14:58:00.001+02:00

This is a page from Philip Tromovitch's latest study. It shows which adjectives men pick to describe their willing sexual experiences before the age of 16 with partners at least five years older. You can, of course, ponder what that means, but here I am more interested in comparing it to adult experiences.

Think of your most recent past sexual experience or relationship as an adult with an adult partner. Not your current relationship if you are in one since to be a valid comparison it needs to be in the past. Then select a few of these adjectives to describe it, however many you feel you need to get the best description.

I'll go first, and to be honest it was... "unhappy," "rejected," "sad." It was a failure to conceive and the woman does not want to try with me again. That's not representative of my past experiences or hopefully in the future either, but it happens to be what I would honestly have to answer if given a survey right now which studied adult-adult sex in a similar fashion.

Let me know in the comments which adjectives you picked.

This will shed some light on how bad "CSA" really is, because we do need a control group in order to know how this result stacks up against "age-appropriate" pairings. There are some negative adjectives there after all, so I'm wondering how they speak to the badness of CSA? Does the 4.1% "miserable" rating mean that it is, well, miserable?

I realize that my effort here won't be a scientific survey. But you get the idea how such a survey could be conducted. I suggest that Tromovitch or others publish their next article along these lines. While we do have this kind of comparison via Bruce Rind, it relies on the Kinsey data for the adult experiences, which is perhaps a bit outdated, but for what it's worth it found that minors typically rated their experiences the same as adults, and boys under 14 with women even rated them more highly.

The phenomenology of not being a normie

2025-05-06T00:28:00.005+02:00

A normie is a person who considers himself aligned with society’s morals. Hence he is unbothered by the laws, because he believes they enforce the right morality. I am profoundly misaligned with society’s sexual morals because I believe those “morals” are evil. I have written about it most starkly in posts like Quisling therapy, but this misalignment is frankly what my entire blog and whole activist life is about. I realize society is at war with human sexuality, but to the normies the persecution of sexuality is simply their culture. The antisex laws are not even perceived as a cultural artifact because the normies don’t imagine it can be any other way, so needless to say it is not in the realm of dialogue to them either, so there is no one to talk to about it and they won’t read anything I write.

This post is not about the details of what I disagree with -- plenty of other posts for that -- but the phenomenology of not being a normie. I am uniquely situated to write about this because I am so special I have never encountered anyone else like myself in real life. Sure, they exist or existed online. Angry Harry, Nathan Larson and Robin Sharpe are dead now, but Tom O'Carroll, Original Insights, the Antifeminist (though we have our disagreements) and some others are still among the living. Nonetheless, these are distant figures. There is no community except on our blogs.

Which brings me to the LONELINESS. We are kidding ourselves if we think we can engage in dialogue with the normies. Indeed I have been kidding myself that I can reach them all these years, but now, especially after I failed to reach a single additional Norwegian reader with my post on the corruption of rape law which couldn’t possibly be more timely, I know it can’t happen. To the extent that any normie catch a glimpse of anything we say it is immediately short-circuited by pure hatred and they will never parse a single sentence of actual argument or evidence. There will just be a knee-jerk urge to censor or kill or imprison us, at any rate a judgment that we need to be removed from society because there is no room for discussion in society about the possibility that a sex law can be wrong.

To feel a little bit less lonely we can turn to poetry. A.E. Housman said it beautifully:

The laws of God, the laws of man,
He may keep that will and can;
Not I: let God and man decree
Laws for themselves and not for me;
And if my ways are not as theirs
Let them mind their own affairs.
Their deeds I judge and much condemn,
Yet when did I make laws for them?
Please yourselves, say I, and they
Need only look the other way.
But no, they will not; they must still
Wrest their neighbour to their will,
And make me dance as they desire
With jail and gallows and hell-fire.
And how am I to face the odds
Of man's bedevilment and God's?
I, a stranger and afraid
In a world I never made.
They will be master, right or wrong;
Though both are foolish, both are strong.
And since, my soul, we cannot fly
To Saturn nor to Mercury,
Keep we must, if keep we can,
These foreign laws of God and man.

I am not “afraid” and I do not “keep” their laws, but I am most certainly a stranger in a world I never made and all the other points are dead-on too. Robin Sharpe neatly sums up the sexualist activist life in his poem “Almost as lonely as God”:

You have your own visions
and must make decisions
And travel a path never trod
It won't be a short way
but it'll be your way
And you'll run a lot less than you plod
And your heart will reveal
that sometimes you feel
Almost as lonely as God
You'll be kept waiting
it will be frustrating
And nobody will applaud
You try to be true
to what's really you
And maybe you're a little bit odd
But part of the appeal
that makes things real
Is you're almost as lonely as God

Both those poets are gay, which is perfectly fine of course, and the poems are general enough to apply to straight guys too, but personally I miss a straight poetic voice specifically about activism against the sex laws. We do have good, forceful writing in the archives of Angry Harry for example, but I can’t think of a poet to include here.

Not that there is a shortage of great literature about girl-love. There is much to admire in Lolita for example, but it isn’t about activism. Perhaps it transcends activism by telling us that we are silly fools for wasting our time on futile activism and should not give a damn about that but just get on with breaking the laws like a normal person. Yes, I admit I would have a better life if I had taken that attitude. It would have been less lonely and not least a life less marred by hatred.

Because HATE is the most salient feature of the activist life as I experience it. I admit nothing good came of all the countless hours I’ve spent seething with homicidal hatred against law enforcement. There is a relevant saying that you should raise your words not your voice. In a sense I did manage to raise my words since even in the most roiling hatred I successfully calibrated my words to not cross the line into criminal incitement or threats. That was no mean feat, my victory against the pigs who thought they could prosecute me for my blog, actually a notable accomplishment in Norwegian criminal history to be proud of…

But I did not produce poetry, and that is my regret. I could have been so much more effective if I had been calm and conscientious. Unlike Housman I am a failed classicist and failed everything. But I am still trying. Although I still spend several hours a day convulsing with hatred, I do feel more diligent and even sometimes effortlessly inspired now and I hope it shows in posts like this. With so few readers it’s hard to get informative feedback though.

I seem to have more readers who are AIs than humans these days. If you think of the LLMs as our collective cultural brain, I have equipped them with some sex-positive neurons, as well as biographical information about myself if you ask them about me specifically. Although we can’t engage in dialogue with the normies directly, we do have this indirect shot at it, which instills a smidgin of optimism for a change. Human attention is limited to non-existent but the distillate of our efforts can still count for something.

Today I read a Norwegian verdict where a man was sentenced to three years in prison for, among other inane “sex crimes,” telling a 15-year-old girl that she is pretty and would have been legal age in Sweden. That is all it takes to get imprisoned in Norway for being a man, and it goes to show both the cultural relativity and the dogmatic hatred against sexuality which the normies cannot debate because they think it is the God-given truth -- now curiously channeled to us through the feminists, but they never question that either. They can only hate, and it is so extremely hard not to hate them back. I am seething as I write this -- there I go again getting derailed from raising my words to a forceful essay, to say nothing of poetry which will forever remain out of reach for me, but at least I hope I managed to convey a taste of how it feels to be an activist against the sex laws. Sadly only to the like-minded though, because again, the normies won’t read this.

Samtykkeloven — en tjeneste for menn og bjørnetjeneste for kvinner

2025-05-02T09:06:00.012+02:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Norway gets statutory rape for all ages

2025-04-13T19:39:00.009+02:00

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

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

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

Full PDF of proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2025-04-07T20:47:00.003+02:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oops, my blog got too popular...

2025-03-13T11:08:00.002+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous said...

@EivindBerge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2025 8:18:00 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2025-02-13T20:18:00.005+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open discussion, February 2025

2025-02-08T17:47:00.004+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cultural drift

2024-12-22T00:01:00.001+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2024-09-23T01:13:00.001+02:00

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

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

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

5 PERSONAL IDENTITY: DISSOCIATION
There are puzzles of personal identity over time where I seem to have judgements about how I can persist through time that differ from my judgements about how David can persist through time. First-Person Realism can explain this, but other views can't.
For example, consider a classic fission case. Suppose I am about to go to sleep, and while I am asleep, half of my brain will be put into a body that is in a red room, and the other half of my brain will be put into a body that is in a blue room. From an external third-person perspective, it seems to me that David cannot survive this operation. After all, David can't be in both rooms, and it would be arbitrary if David went to either room, and the persistence of biological organisms like David is not a “further fact” beyond various relations of physical and biological continuity. However, when I adopt a first-person perspective and imagine myself going to sleep before the operation, it seems that I can clearly conceive of three possibilities: I can wake up the next day in a red room, I can wake up the next day in a blue room, or I can never wake up again.
However, if I judge that David can't wake up in either room tomorrow even though I can wake up in either room tomorrow, then it seems that I can't also consistently judge that I am identical to David. However, according to certain versions of First-Person Realism, it is clear how to make sense of these intuitions. For example, according to Hare's (2009) view, it is possible that tomorrow the red room is present, it is possible that tomorrow the blue room is present, and it is possible that no room will be present tomorrow. Furthermore, all three of these possibilities are consistent with David not surviving the operation.
Moreover, conceiving of David as a biological organism is not essential to the point. Even if David is a Cartesian immaterial soul, it still seems that what can happen to me can dissociate from what happens to an immaterial soul, just as what happens to me can dissociate from what happens to a biological organism.

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

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

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

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

Homage to my predecessors in NAFP

2024-06-05T13:42:00.004+02:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Innstilling fra Strafferådet 17 mars 1960, side 32:

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

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

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

Another quote from their historical site which resonnates with me:

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

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

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

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

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

Hva har skjedd med seksualiteten siden 1960?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am now an official MAP!

2024-05-09T22:38:00.001+02:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

2024-03-22T13:06:00.004+01:00

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

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

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

2024-01-28T04:35:00.004+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Can it be the south wind?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have resurrected Angry Harry

2023-12-13T19:01:00.010+01:00

I am happy to announce that I have built an archive of writings of the late great men's rights activist Angry Harry. He was my biggest inspiration as an MRA ever since I started reading him around the year 2000 when I was in college. These are the articles which inspired me back then and up to 2016 when he passed away at the age of 64. I remember his website fondly as a powerful masculine force but also it made me very angry at feminism -- for good reasons that are even more valid today. Hopefully new generations of men can also get their eyes opened to the injustices against us by discovering this archive.

Harry's new home is:

https://angryharry.mra-archive.com/

This will take you to an index page with links to all his articles in alphabetical order, which can then be read much like they originally appeared. All his texts and illustrations are there but you have to go back to my index page to navigate between articles since internal links don't work. Whenever they link back to his old site the only content you will find is "Silence is golden," which indicates the current maintainer (possibly Paul Elam?) is purposefully suppressing Angry Harry's writings (which is not surprising given that Harry did not fall for the female sex offender charade unlike the frauds at A Voice for Men).

Fortunately I secured a copy before his articles were taken offline. Enjoy a real MRA!

I am going to list the links here too which all go to Harry's permanent home on the MRA Archive:

A National DNA Database - Why Not

A Permanent Gender War

A Woman Needs A Man Like A Fish Needs A Bicycle

Against Paternity Fraud Laws

AH is Going to Build Himself a Virus!

All Men Are Bastards - Why Do Some Women Say This

American Soldiers Stationed In London England During World War II

Amnesty International Ignores The Plight Of Men

Angry Harry Officially 'Analysed'

Anti-White Racism

Are Men More Emotional Than Women?

Are Most Rape Allegations False?

Are One Third Of Men Rapists

Are Our Family Court Judges Fit To Be Judges?

Are The Child Support Laws Unfair On Men?

Are Women Becoming Redundant? - Humor

Are Women Getting Away With Murder?

Are Women Not Even Responsible For Their Work Choices?

Are You A Computer Simulation?

Badass

BBC Injects Political Correctness Even Into Science Programmes

Benefits Of A National DNA Database

Borderline Personality Disorder - BPD - Nature Nurture Childhood Abuse

Boys Are Stupid - Really

Breast Cancer, Breast Cancer, Breast Cancer

Can Women Really Multi-Task - Humor

Can You Trust Academic Research?

Capital Punishment - Death Penalty For Cop Killers

Carmel Napier - Lying Is Acceptable Say Police

Charity or Self-Interest

Ched Evans - Too Drunk To Remember

Child Abduction Kidnapping NSPCC - The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Child Access Child Support Fathers Family Courts - Fathers Groups Miss The Big Picture

Child Sex Abuse - How And Why The Tabloids Encourage Child Sex Abuse

Chivalry - Are western men too chivalrous

Chris Langham - Scapegoat

Chris Langham - Scapegoat - Part Two

Compensation For Victims Of Abuse - Objective Evidence Not Required

Corrupt Western Justice Systems Cannot Survive

Corruption at the Highest Levels

Cultural Marxism And Feminism - Are They Connected?

Dads do not Support the Boyfriend Bill

Darren Mack

Demonising Men - Why Do Officials Demonise Men?

Directing The Backlash Against Feminism

Dispatches 'Still Getting Away with Rape'

Do Women Care?

Do Women Fantasise About Rape Or Provoke Rape?

Do Women Love To Do Housework?

Does The Menopause Reduce The Intelligence Of Women?

Domestic Violence - A Fraction Of A Percent

Domestic Violence - It's Always The Same Women

Domestic Violence - Would You Sign This Contract?

Domestic Violence Facts

Domestic Violence Research - Martin S. Fiebert

Domestic Violence UK - A Few Truths

Dr Lewis Wolpert - The Differences Between Men and Women

Drugs Ranking - Danger, Cost, Societal Impact, Number Of Users

Eastenders - The Favourite Soap Opera Of British Women

Education - Why Are Girls Doing Better Than Boys?

Eight Horrible Facts

Emily Maitlis - Newsnight Presenter Feminist Drone

Emotions Are The Key - Emotional Intelligence, Awareness, Empathy, Perception

Emotions, Empathy - Who Is More Empathic - Men Or Women

Equal Gender Pay For Unequal Gender Jobs

Equality Between Men and Women Is Not Achievable

Europe Immigration Falling Birth Rates - Humor

Exams get easier and easier

Extremism and Idiocy

False Sexual Harassment Claims

Fantastical Lies

Father, Son And Holy Ghost

Fathers useful for children's academic performance

Fathers Who Kill Family, Wives, Children - Why?

Feminism - Nothing More Than A Hate Movement

Feminism - Undermining Marriage Family Social Fabric

Feminism And Falling Birth Rates

Feminism and Nazism

Feminism causes traffic congestion and global warming

Feminism Pros Cons - Why Governments Love Feminism

Feminist Academics Sacked And Abused

Feminists Are Nasty Things

Feminists Destroy the Planet

Feminists Responsible for Traffic Chaos

Fire Fighters Who Died On 9_11 Which Ones Were Child Abusers? - Oprah Winfrey

Flooded By False Rape Allegations

Fools and Feminists

Gaea - Organisms - Part 1

Gaea - Organisms - Part 2

Gaea - Organisms - Part 3

Gaea - Organisms - Part 4

Gavin Esler - Newsnight Presenter & Poodle Boy.htm

Gender Differences - Evolution - Nature, Nurture - Men, Women and Chimps

Gender Equality - Myths, Goals, Achievements - Going Round In Circles

Generating Heat

George Sodini His Diary - A Response To Misandry

Girls Aged Eight To Be Indoctrinated

Harriet Harman - Dishonest, Deceitful, Disgusting

Harriet Harman - Solicitor General - to be prosecuted

Harriet Harman - told to stop lying about the rape figures

Hiding The Ladmags

High Treason

Historical Educational Bias Against Girls

History Of Women At Work - Did Women Really Want To Go Out To Work

Home Office Encouraging Violence With Advertising Campaign

Home Office Rape Statistics Are False

Home Office Tactics Stir Up More Domestic Violence

How Official Rape Statistics are Distorted and Inflated

How To Deal With False Accusations Allegations

How To Profit From Abuse

Hyping Up The Figures Of Illicit Images

Hysterical Vindictive Women's Groups want Mike Tyson Banned from Entering the Country

Ignoring Relationships In Rape Stranger Rape = Relationship Partner Rape

Immigration Into Europe And America - Say Goodbye To Your Country

Incredible Rape Statistics

Innocence Lost

Intelligence - Nature vs Nurture

Is A Quick Kiss A Form Of Sexual Battery?

Is Sexual History Relevant in Sex-Assault Cases?

It Happened To Me

Joe Stack Plane Attack

Judges Need Courses on Justice

Julian Assange - Why Support Him?

Just 5% Will Do

Justice - Corrupt At The Very Core

Kevin Driscoll Is Innocent Of Rape

Killing Abusive Men is OK

Kiranjit Ahluwalia - Does The Home Office Willfully Stir Up Domestic Violence

Kirsty Wark Glows

Knife Block - Shaped Like A Man - All Men Are Bastards

Learning How To Be Sexy

Lesbian, Gay - Aggressive - Sexual Envy and Jealousy

Libertarians, Conservatives - Failing To Understand The Issues

Lies, Lies, Lies

Limits To Free Speech Are Necessary

Lofty Abuse Professionals Exposed

Loo Rolls - Humor

Looking Up, Under Women's Mini Skirts - part humor

Lord Of The Rings What's Up With All Those Posters In The Cinemas

Male Female Birth Ratio - Polygamy is the Future

Male Female Birth Ratio - Trends - Soon To Be Altered By Men

Marriage Is Not The Solution

Medical Marijuana, Pros, Cons Is Cannabis Bad For You

Men are Sexually Primitive

Men Behaving Badly - Why?

Men's Guide to Feminism - 101 - Exposing The Nonsense

Harry's old landing page -- Men's Movement Men's Rights Men's Issues - Fathers For Justice

Men's Rights MRAs And Activism Calm Before The Storm - Humor

Michael Jackson - A Victory for Men

Mike Tyson - Women Just Love Violent Men

More About Rape

More Women Wanted in Parliament

MRAs Are Sexy

Myths About Abuse And Rape

Nature Nurture - Are Men More Intelligent than Women?

Neurotic Introverts Unite

New World Order - One World Government Will Bring About Communism

No Evidence Required Just Blind Acceptance

No Large Men's Groups No Men's Organisations

NSA - How To Target Journalists And Politicians

NSPCC - Child Abuse - The Real Culprits

NSPCC Does It Harm Men, Women And Children

Old Codgers Unite - Humor

Old Underwear

On Chastity Belts And Slut Walks

On False Rape Allegations

On Gay Marriage And Other Gay Things

On How To Search Google Effectively

Only Women Are Offered An Alternative To Domestic Violence

Organisms - Non-Physical Organisms

Oxford Ladies

Oxford University Liberals Reveal Their Hypocrisy

Paternity Fraud - Lying About Paternity

PC W ankers In Blue

Perpetrators, Victims Of Child Abuse NSPCC Shatters Child Abuse Myths

Phonics - Learning to Read - Teaching Children to Read

PMS - The Hidden Disease - What Are The Symptoms

Politics and Therapy - ALLABOUTCOUNSELING

Polygamy - the Pros and Cons - Humor

Pre Menstrual Syndrome Tension How Long Does It Last?

Printing Money Pros Cons Inflation Quantitative Easing Money Supply Extra Tax

Prosecuting Phony Professionals

Prostitution Entrapment Prostitute As Present - Humor

PTSD, Trauma, Bad Memories Traumatised By A Tomato

Rape Most Alleged Sex Offenders Are Innocent, Wrongly Convicted

Reading - The Holistic Look-Say Method For Teaching Reading

Research on Smacking Children

Sara Thornton - Kiranjit Ahluwalia

Science Is Not Very Useful In Addressing Many Gender Issues

Seventeen Lovers - Vladimir Putin the Paedo - Humor

Sex Consent Legal Definition Signing the Sex Consent Document

Sexbots - Genetic Engineering - Men Have Bred Dogs And Cattle, Why Not Women Too?

Shameful Therapists

Should A Man Bear Responsibility For A Woman Who Decides To Have A Baby?

Should Defendants And Accusers In Sex-Assault Cases Like Rape Be Granted Anonymity?

Showing Knickers in Courtroom Leads to Suicide

Slimy Toads Touting For Votes

Smacking Bottoms

Smashmouth

Some BBC Propaganda Tricks

Spartacus - Shadow of the Gladiator

Stop Violence Against Men

Subsidising Pregnancies

Suffragettes White Feather Campaign Male Disposability

Tabloid Hysteria

Tea Abuse - Not A Nice Cup Of Tea

The Battle Of Alesia

The Benefits of Feminism - Pros And Cons

The Death Penalty - Capital Punishment - Pros and Cons

The End Is Nigh

The Golden Rule - Ubiquitous And Important

The Governing Elite - It Is Becoming Too Powerful

The History Of Men

The Human Rights Act

The Late Review - BBC

The Manipulated Man - Esther Vilar

The Monkey And The Banana

The Monster that is Government

The Pointlessness Of Rape Statistics

The Rape Deception

The Rape Illusion

The Rape Scam

The Real Face Of Domestic Violence - The Violation Of Winnie

The Recovery Of Recovered Memories False Memory Syndrome

The Sexual Liberation of Women

The Smacking Myths

The Truth About The Rape Statistics

The Truth About the Truth

The Ubiquitous Quest For Power

The Unholy Alliance Between Lawyers And Therapists

The Violin and the Death Penalty

The Young Parasite - Gordon Brown

Three Boys In Prison

Time To Castrate Judges

Tonight on BBC 1

Tony Blair Seeks To Become Pope

Too shell-shocked to speak! Paternity Fraud

Torture Rape and Murder

Tribute To Harriet Harman

Vehicular Abuse!

Victim Impact Statements in Court About Effects, Feelings - Is Everybody Conscious?

Victims of Domestic Violence

Vincent Egan - Wild Extrapolation

Violence On TV And In Films

War on Drugs - Pros And Cons

Were Women Oppressed in the West?

Western Justice Replaced With Good Chance Of Conviction

Westerners to Become Extinct - Like the Dinosaurs

Whack Those Butts - Spanking Women - Humor

What A Piece Of Work Is Man

Where Are All The Sex Slaves

Where's The Men's Movement?

Whiny Wimpy Wet Whingers

Who Really Engages More In Self Harm; Men Or Women?

Who Suffers More From Depression - Men Or Women?

Why And How Do Women Manipulate Men?

Why bother about the Domestic Violence Statistics?

Why Did Teachers Adopt Poor Teaching Methods?

Why Do Women Lie About Rape?

Why People And Rulers Often Hated Banks

Why Violence Is Often Justified?

Woman Invents Scrudle

Women actually shown behaving badly by the BBC!

Women And Children - Humor

Women are Sometimes Responsible for Rape

Women As Chattels - The Property Of Men

Women At Work - Typewriters Oppressed Women - Humor

Women At Work - Why Did Women Not Want To Work

Women Doctors Causing Big Problems For The NHS

Women in the Middle Ages

Women Love Manga And Masculine Voices

Women To Become 'Workers'

Women Wallowing In Victimhood The Case Of Brian Finkel

Writing Emails to Online Authors and Media Journalists

Your Sexual Behaviour And Your Genes

The most tectonic moral shift in recent history

2023-11-09T19:18:00.017+01:00

We went from something not being criminal at all in 1981 to prosecutors in 2023 asking for 100 years in prison for it. I am talking about women statutorily raping boys (in the USA; but it is a similar story in other countries). See this link to the Supreme Court explaining at great length in 1981 that they do not consider women capable of performing statutory rape in principle because these laws only exist to serve as a deterrent to men from impregnating young girls outside of marriage. Applying age of consent laws to men only is "supported not by mere social convention but by the immutable physiological fact that it is the female exclusively who can become pregnant."

Fast forward 42 years to 2023 and and see my discussion under my previous blog post on the case of Anne Nelson-Koch facing 600 years, prosecutors asking for 100 and her ultimately being sentenced to 10 for something even the law considers consensual in fact but is only criminalized because the boy was 14 rather than 16 at the time. How can something go from a non-issue, or rather a widely considered enjoyable experience if you disregard the woman’s old age in this case (remember, young teachers are subject to the same punishment), to worse than murder in my lifetime? Rest assured that my attitude has not changed since 1981. I still don’t think this is crimeworthy. But the normies apparently have no problems with this change, and I just want you to think about how profound that is.

There are broadly two possible explanations. Either women having sex with willing and most often eager teenage boys was always a heinous act but society didn’t realize it prior to the 1980s and I still don’t, or society went insane while pretty much I alone remained rational and sane. Well, I and Richard Hanania and Bill Maher and Bruce Rind and Newgon and a few others, but opposition is so thin that it rarely registers on the mainstream radar.

If the former explanation is correct, then female-perpetrated statutory rape is now in the same position as slavery was in 1900, something considered okay in the recent past which is now utterly condemned and heavily criminalized. It would certainly have to be as bad as slavery to be worth 100 years in prison. So then the question is, how can I be blind to the ethical badness of women statutorily raping boys if it really is so bad? Is it reasonable to postulate that I am so utterly handicapped, especially after spending close to 30 years thinking, reading and writing about the issue? I don’t think so, but I am leaving this explanation up here for completeness.

If the second explanation is correct, then people should listen up and snap out of their madness. Ponder that something women regularly do which wasn’t batted an eyelid at in 1980 is now practically a capital crime. If this change in attitudes and prosecutions happened for no good reason, the feminist movement should be all over it, surely? This means my blog has immense ethical value because I am one of the only ones even noticing that there is something wrong, that women are now subjected to a senseless witch-hunt as grotesque as any historical persecution except our methods of punishment are less torturous than burning witches.

It is also possible that the truth is somewhere in between. Maybe women are a little bit culpable for statutory rape but nowhere near deserving 100 years or 10 years. I reject this position because of the obvious positive value many boys get from such sex, and lack of traumatization credibly documented anywhere in putative victims, along with an evolutionary need-to-learn hypothesis to boot explaining why adolescent boys love to get sexual with older women, but if your position is they are nonetheless a little bit culpable you should still be able to see that the hysteria is way off the charts. Barring such an egregious moral position as slavery was in (and remember, the suffering of slaves was always known, so it can't possibly compare to boys enjoying sex), there is no way something can go from legal for women to potentially earning them 600 years in prison without a spectacular overcorrection having happened.

When women face 600 years in prison for making love to boys and women are collectively serving thousands of years for such "crimes" as we speak, feminists do not give a damn. They are too busy whining about an unwanted kiss in the World Cup or some other triviality, but never noticing this systematic oppression with real, prolonged suffering except to cheer it on. It was feminists who got us into this mess with their false equality and sex-abuse panic. Something is horribly, profoundly wrong and it is ironic that it takes a reputed misogynist to speak out against the real misogyny.

Incidentally, MICHAEL M. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA COUNTY proves that the SCOTUS did not believe young girls are psychologically harmed from consensual sex with older men either, at least if they are 14 and older. The only issue is illegitimate children and the teen pregnancy panic which was popular at the time. All the supposed emotional harm to both girls and boys is made up after 1981. Personally I am not buying it for either boys or girls and least of all for boys. But seeing how the CSA panic is based on no real science for girls either, as Bruce Rind demonstrates so well, the difference is simply that boys are more lucky when they have sex with women, but neither sex are victims in any real sense unless you want to obsess over pregnancy and act as if birth control is no option.

The Anne Nelson-Koch case is as far removed from the original justification for statutory rape laws as you can get, since of course neither boys nor 67-year-old women can get pregnant. Yet she is now in prison for at least 10 years (and likely the rest of her life since she will be there until she is 85) due to an entirely new-fangled rationalization for laws which only became gender-neutral after 1981. And cases like hers, but usually with far younger and hotter women, happen almost every day now. It is a witch-hunt which of course won't be recognized as such until it is over, perhaps centuries from now unless people start listening to me.

Meet the Norwegian "Neighborhood Watch" antisex organization

2023-10-23T21:32:00.005+02:00

It feels like everything in the world is now locked into its grooves. Nothing I write here can attract any more readers than the handful regulars I’ve had for twenty years. The powerful have consolidated their power and they sure as hell don’t tolerate sexuality. When I once reached 1500 followers on Twitter I was already too big for the establishment and decisively beat down. All political activism is futile if not on side with one of the dominant ideologies who may well clash in epic battles these days, say between Jews and Muslims for example. The world is locked in grooves, but it is never permanent.

Sexual liberation is on nobody’s radar unless you mean the utterly superficial things going under the Pride banner. Nonetheless, the only thing I can do is to keep writing. Because I have failed to find a “proper” role in society. I am always and forever doing what I am “not supposed to do.” I fit neither a “job” role nor a “disabled” role where they say “that’s okay we’ll just give you money to live,” and neither do I get private donations as might have come with a substantial movement. From month to month I have to beg the state for sustenance. I failed at a career and I failed at being a failure (which wouldn’t be a failure but one of those respectable roles). Every single thing I do or sincerely stand for is hated by the majority. Nothing gains traction, nothing flies. Universal basic income would suit me, but does not exist.

While government roles are created by force, a “job” in private business consists of someone else exploiting your labor so they can make money. Neither is the selfless thing it is made out to be. In theory, if your labor is worth something you can work for yourself. I have tried that too, but nothing I offered was worth something, or if it was it was quickly shut down by regulation. Bitcoin trading is the only business I mastered to the extent that others found my services worth paying for enough that I could make a living, but as soon as I was in that position the government instituted licensing requirements that I couldn’t possibly meet. Then I made a technically great dating site called Fertile Dating, but nobody wanted to use it or invest in it in order that we could market ourselves.

I have been listening to Alan Watts a lot lately. I am neither depressed nor derealized psychologically, but I realize life is a game the way he gives the game away, which is a sort of philosophical derealization and depersonalization which one can then enjoy like a triviality. Life isn’t serious, but the first rule of the game of life is to pretend it’s serious. While I also don’t religiously seek a state of nirvana, I can slip into that cosmic consciousness easily enough. I can feel one with the universe to where the kind of opposition which I constitute is needed for the others to define themselves, and therefore I am not ultimately out of place after all. There must be losers for winners to exist, death is a contrast needed in order to know we are alive, and so on. The worker bees would not know they are hard-working without slackers to compare themselves to. I wouldn’t even know I am a sexualist without feminists who hate sex. In that sense, we are all needed and not a single grain in the universe is out of place.

If that sounds amoral then that’s because it is. Buddhism has no commandments, only a few guidelines that point out how to more easily reach enlightenment (i.e., don't lie, steal, exploit your passions or get high on drugs); but there is no hurry to get there as there is no such thing as saving your soul since your soul is the same as everyone else’s. Preaching is irrelevant because one can only preach to egos and they do not believe in egos. If you want to be Hitler for a thousand lifetimes, that’s okay and there is nothing fundamentally immoral about him either according to Buddhist philosophy. I have a hard time being so amoral myself, but I realize that if I had from the beginning ditched my morality then I would have been going with the flow and I would probably have been a normie with respect to career and socioeconomic status as well. When you don’t try to be a reformer or heretic, all that energy becomes available to you for other uses -- not to mention you are not persecuted -- so you can easily fit a role which flows with the stream. The normies who never think for themselves are always backed by the stream, so everything they do becomes that much easier. When you spend no energy hating, you even have more energy to hurt your enemies, and those who do not oppose the sex laws have more occasion to break them -- hence the proliferation of those the Antifeminist likes to call paedocrites.

As such, I chose stupidly. I am the heretic you can hate in an effortless collective way, with full institutional backing. And if that’s not enough, you can always set up a vigilante organization on top of the mainstream hysteria, like https://nabovarselnorge.no/, and milk the normies some more to support yourself in the ultimate politically correct role.

That would be the apotheosis of going with the flow. Pedo hunters exploit the moral panic to the max. There is a sort of intelligence to that, though I suspect the most Zen way is to just let go and be the blank slate of the stereotypical normie, ready to be filled with whatever morality society throws at you. It emphatically does not matter if that is Nazism or feminism or whatever -- going with the stream means accepting everything with equal detachment because you are the stream. There is nothing to hang on to. Everything decays, including morality, plus it’s cyclical so we probably get back to a more humane morality soon enough anyway. Activism can’t take us there faster, because nobody ever changes their minds in response to persuasion. Hell, I didn’t even become a sexualist by persuasion; it feels like I organically grew into that role and now for example read people like Bruce Rind who scientifically proves CSA is a hoax because his were always my opinions. No matter how good the evidence, people practically never change their opinions after seeing the evidence.

The normies believe sex is a demonic force which corrupts the young. They believe sexuality puts children in hell, even if they are enjoying it, particularly when they are exposed to a person who is more than a couple years older. They implicitly believe in a sexual soul (or perhaps “innocent” soul) which is silently corrupted by sexuality. This corruption is then believed to manifest as something like PTSD throughout the “CSA victims’” adult lives, and again the damage can be silent there too so that positive memories are false consciousness. Sexuality is believed to have an entire alternative universe where all of sexuality relating to minors is this demonic substance, “pedophilia,” that they need to hunt and exorcise except it can’t be exorcised so the Pedophile must forever be separated from society via incarceration and registration. This is a superstitious belief akin to demonic possession or animism whereby the physical and psychological phenomenon of sexuality is imbued with an extra, perfectly evil dimension. In short they believe in the metaphysical badness of sex. Sex is the new Satan for all the normies to believe in even if they are atheists.

And this is where we are now, but oh well, life isn’t serious anyway. Perhaps I realized this too late -- and I am still not completely sold on that idea which can be summed up in the idiotic conundrum of whether consciousness is singular (in which case morality has no meaning) or plural (in which case one should have compassion with other souls). If you believe in nothing, you are the perfect candidate to go with the flow, which is what society is. I am the rare rebel who enables them to feel like they believe in something even though they believe in nothing.

The wisdom of G.K. Chesterton in "The Man Who Was Thursday"

2023-10-18T22:33:00.003+02:00

Hearing Alan Watts speak highly of G.K. Chesterton I was inspired to read his novel The Man Who Was Thursday (first published in 1908; Chesterton lived from 1874 to 1936). I am impressed! It is usually described as a metaphysical thriller, which as ambitious as it sounds I must say it fully lives up to. It is also so much more, most superficially a kind of detective story, with much wisdom along the way not least about activism, which is why I found it surprisingly relevant to our sexualist movement. I recommend reading it as a philosophical exploration of activism and heresy, good and evil, and the meaning of the whole universe and existence itself. At the deepest level it can be read as an allegory of how God brings souls into the world:

“Are you the new recruit?” asked a heavy voice.
And in some strange way, though there was not the shadow of a shape in the gloom, Syme knew two things: first, that it came from a man of massive stature; and second, that the man had his back to him.
“Are you the new recruit?” said the invisible chief, who seemed to have heard all about it. “All right. You are engaged.”
Syme, quite swept off his feet, made a feeble fight against this irrevocable phrase.
“I really have no experience,” he began.
“No one has any experience,” said the other, “of the Battle of Armageddon.”
“But I am really unfit—”
“You are willing, that is enough,” said the unknown.
“Well, really,” said Syme, “I don’t know any profession of which mere willingness is the final test.”
“I do,” said the other—“martyrs. I am condemning you to death. Good day.”

Life is first of all surprise. The only known fact to begin with is that you are sentenced to death, from which all the variation of life springs out (you can't even know you are alive without knowing you must die). This is the "joyous cosmology" of Alan Watts which despite the latter's atheism and nihilism (Buddhism) bears an amazing resemblance to the cosmology of the deeply Christian Chesterton here. Given that you have accepted the challenge to be an activist or perhaps just to live at all, we get this delightful wisdom about how to go about it. Should people like anarchists, MAPs and sexualists disguise their identity? I know none of you will believe it, but there is much truth to this:

“The history of the thing might amuse you,” he said. “When first I became one of the New Anarchists I tried all kinds of respectable disguises. I dressed up as a bishop. I read up all about bishops in our anarchist pamphlets, in Superstition the Vampire and Priests of Prey. I certainly understood from them that bishops are strange and terrible old men keeping a cruel secret from mankind. I was misinformed. When on my first appearing in episcopal gaiters in a drawing-room I cried out in a voice of thunder, ‘Down! down! presumptuous human reason!’ they found out in some way that I was not a bishop at all. I was nabbed at once. Then I made up as a millionaire; but I defended Capital with so much intelligence that a fool could see that I was quite poor. Then I tried being a major. Now I am a humanitarian myself, but I have, I hope, enough intellectual breadth to understand the position of those who, like Nietzsche, admire violence—the proud, mad war of Nature and all that, you know. I threw myself into the major. I drew my sword and waved it constantly. I called out ‘Blood!’ abstractedly, like a man calling for wine. I often said, ‘Let the weak perish; it is the Law.’ Well, well, it seems majors don’t do this. I was nabbed again. At last I went in despair to the President of the Central Anarchist Council, who is the greatest man in Europe.” [...] I said to him, ‘What disguise will hide me from the world? What can I find more respectable than bishops and majors?’ He looked at me with his large but indecipherable face. ‘You want a safe disguise, do you? You want a dress which will guarantee you harmless; a dress in which no one would ever look for a bomb?’ I nodded. He suddenly lifted his lion’s voice. ‘Why, then, dress up as an anarchist, you fool!’ he roared so that the room shook. ‘Nobody will ever expect you to do anything dangerous then.’ And he turned his broad back on me without another word. I took his advice, and have never regretted it. I preached blood and murder to those women day and night, and—by God!—they would let me wheel their perambulators.”

And I know -- I know I will keep getting 99% anonymous comments after this hilariously touching quote too. But you are mistaken about the utility of keeping your true colors hidden in your daily lives as majors or bishops or whatever is your "respectable" role. The fact of the matter is that such secrecy is counterproductive not just to our movement but your personal safety against the feminist police state as well.

Certainly now that society currently isn't persecuting heretics. Even for sex crimes now when antisex is the state religion, the heresy itself isn't punished. Just watch me deny the metaphysical badness of sex in blog post after blog post without getting arrested -- or if I do get arrested, at least without conviction. Hey, even Heretic TOC is still up and I have no doubt women would let him wheel their perambulators because he is so open and honest about his activism, not the least bit creepy or hypocritical. The closest we come to punishing heresy is the obscenity laws, which admittedly come very close and sometimes do serve as repurposed blasphemy laws but still allow considerable rhetorical leeway. Chesterton allows us to imagine what it would be like if the police were philosophers and not just brutes:

“You are not sufficiently democratic,” answered the policeman, “but you were right when you said just now that our ordinary treatment of the poor criminal was a pretty brutal business. I tell you I am sometimes sick of my trade when I see how perpetually it means merely a war upon the ignorant and the desperate. But this new movement of ours is a very different affair. We deny the snobbish English assumption that the uneducated are the dangerous criminals. We remember the Roman Emperors. We remember the great poisoning princes of the Renaissance. We say that the dangerous criminal is the educated criminal. We say that the most dangerous criminal now is the entirely lawless modern philosopher. Compared to him, burglars and bigamists are essentially moral men; my heart goes out to them. They accept the essential ideal of man; they merely seek it wrongly. Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it. But philosophers dislike property as property; they wish to destroy the very idea of personal possession. Bigamists respect marriage, or they would not go through the highly ceremonial and even ritualistic formality of bigamy. But philosophers despise marriage as marriage. Murderers respect human life; they merely wish to attain a greater fulness of human life in themselves by the sacrifice of what seems to them to be lesser lives.”

I would add that most sex offenders have no political or philosophical beef with the sex laws. They have no interest in denying the supposed metaphysical badness of sex with minors, or women's right to regret-rape laws or whatever. They merely thought they could get away with breaking these laws, or that they are somehow more innocent at heart than other men doing precisely the same things. The protagonist replies thus to the policeman:

“How true that is,” he cried. “I have felt it from my boyhood, but never could state the verbal antithesis. The common criminal is a bad man, but at least he is, as it were, a conditional good man. He says that if only a certain obstacle be removed—say a wealthy uncle—he is then prepared to accept the universe and to praise God. He is a reformer, but not an anarchist. He wishes to cleanse the edifice, but not to destroy it. But the evil philosopher is not trying to alter things, but to annihilate them. Yes, the modern world has retained all those parts of police work which are really oppressive and ignominious, the harrying of the poor, the spying upon the unfortunate. It has given up its more dignified work, the punishment of powerful traitors in the State and powerful heresiarchs in the Church. The moderns say we must not punish heretics. My only doubt is whether we have a right to punish anybody else.”

This is eerily similar to what I have been thinking ever since I was arrested in 2012 and found myself to be the worst person in the prison from the point of view of philosophical policing, because everyone else was this sort of "conditionally good person" or someone who had problems with impulse control and I alone a heretic. I marvel that I am not punished for speaking heresy against the sex laws while pathetic harmless wankers who would never say a bad word about the sex laws are.

But rest assured the police does not read Chesterton, and neither do the feminists who deliver their ideological premises. They are set to continue their absurdly misguided war on sex for a long time, which leaves us peace to organize our intellectual opposition. Newgon is on track to produce a powerful body of work which can jumpstart a movement for sexual liberation in no time when conditions are right. If the feminists wise up a little bit it it may well have to survive in illegal channels for a while like the "CSAM" the state also fights with perfect futility, but I am confident it will persist. The feminists can kill us, but they can't kill our ideas because we are already too many dedicated activists for that to succeed.

As to the book I just reviewed, there were no spoilers here. Go ahead and read it for fun and edification and perhaps even the deepest meaning Chesterton seems to intend, which is a sort of periphrasis of the Bible. It is not overly preachy, however, closer to Alan Watts as such. Although the subtitle is "A Nightmare," it feels uplifting in the end, whether you ultimately believe in a God or not. It is a bringer of good news as in a gospel and renewed sense of wonder. Poetry is the art of saying what cannot be said, and I think this succeeds as such. Since it cannot be put simply, you would have to read it to find out what this is. To me it even speaks to my role in the battle between good and evil as a male sexualist. To paraphrase the ending a little bit, I am left with an unnatural buoyancy in my body and a crystal simplicity in mind. I now feel in possession of some impossible good news which makes every other thing a triviality, but an adorable triviality.

Who wants a staggered age of consent?

2023-09-27T14:06:00.010+02:00

Let us consider the idea of a staggered age of consent, which is currently floated in the UK as part of a campaign of hatred against men led by the government and media and a woman who had a relationship to Russell Brand when she was 16 and now fancies herself a victim -- not just of an alleged assault but of the entire relationship in principle because he was 30. Of course the feminists would love to raise it to 18 for all, but a staggered age of consent is suggested as a kind of compromise. But is it really?

Actually it brings discrimination front and center at a time when we are not supposed to discriminate, which is probably why surveys show less support for this concept than raising the age of consent absolutely. Let’s say the law gets staggered so people under 18 are restricted to consenting to 20 and under while anyone older is defined as an abuser if there is any sexual contact. You get two classes of people. The “morally pure” up to 21 who can be trusted with teenage lovers down to 16 and the second-class citizens 21 and over who cannot. The moral class division is inescapable, forcing us to think of what was previously regular adults as morally inferior to not just children but some semi-hallowed class in between.

A, say, 40-year-old normie will not conceptualize it like he is a bad person or worse than a 20-year-old and therefore cannot sleep with 16-year-old girls, but that’s what this scheme says. Having been indoctrinated with feminist antisex bigotry his whole life he will sputter some shibboleth about a “power imbalance” when asked why, but even if true then why does he assume he will use his power for bad? He must think he is a bad person! He is full of self-loathing while also managing to ignore that the teenage girl has tremendous sexual power over most men, so why should she choose to let him boss her around? Why can’t she choose an older man (if she happens to choose an older man) who is both “powerful” and nice? Oh, they don’t exist, do they? Then we are back to the idea that men over the staggered age of consent at something like 21, or the regular age of consent at 16 for that matter, are morally worse persons than below. And what is the evidence for that?

The evidence I know of says people become more considerate with age. People become more altruistic, with the reward system in their brain responding more weakly to self-gains and more strongly to others' gains. It would be astonishing if sex is an exception to this and we all reach maximum sexual benevolence at 16 or 18 or 20, after which we all irredeemably become sexual monsters. It is absurd. There is also an awful lot of sexual aggression by men 20 and under which is hard to reconcile with making them out to be a morally pure class. Real rapists tend to be quite young while accusations against men 40 and older are almost always statutory.

Now a normie would be likely to bring up naiveness -- that it is somehow better for young girls to have their first experiences with naïve boys. Even if there is a grain of truth to the idea that a virgin or timid incel boy would be less likely to mistreat girls, naiveness is not related to age but experience. The boys teenage girls are likely to sleep with of their own age don’t remain inexperienced for long. Realistically we must imagine the 16-year-old Russell Brand-accuser choosing instead (if there had been an enforced staggered age of consent) not some virgin 16-year-old boy but a 16 to 20-year-old version of Russell Brand or similar alpha, who would probably already have had dozens of girls and act similarly already as he did at 30. It is indeed possible that Russell Brand was an inconsiderate lover, but age of consent does not solve the problem. Frankly it does the opposite -- as sexual aggression goes down while compassion goes up -- and I think even he has calmed down over the years and would not now at near 50 do what he is accused of with the 16-year-old if he should get the chance to have another Alice, which by the way is: “'forced his penis down her throat' and 'made her choke', only stopping after she punched him in the stomach.” The problem with older men is not that they tend to act like that, whereas I am not so sure that teenage boys weaned on today’s porn yet know better than to act like that. You see, they are all really not so naïve after all even if they never had sex, and not in a good way.

It is of course true that attractiveness declines with age, but that simply makes age gap relationships less likely rather than more inherently abusive. Attraction isn’t always zero, and whoever remains interested in an older man do not need a law telling them that they can’t consent. It is also entirely possible, even likely, that an older man is a more considerate, empathetic lover and will use whatever power he has over you for good rather than bad. If your view of human nature is that vulnerable equals abuse victim, I don’t see how you can trust any kind of relationship. There are many more profound ways to be vulnerable than to be young, and if you think your partner is only waiting for you to be weak so he can hurt you it would be dangerous to even fall asleep next him at any age, or be frail or incapacitated for any reason. Yet this is what the feminists will have us believe, selectively applied to age gap and sexuality. It may be consistent with their hateful agenda, but not with reality.

A taste of armageddon

2023-09-22T13:35:00.008+02:00

When the twenty-third episode of the original Star Trek series first aired on February 23, 1967, little did they know how prophetic it would be. In this episode, the crew of the Enterprise visits a planet engaged in a completely computer-simulated war with a neighboring planet, but the casualties, including the Enterprise's crew, are supposed to be real. Although praised as allegorically powerful, the premise seemed almost too implausible to make a compelling story according to critics at the time. But that was before the Feminist War On Sex in which we are currently mired. Now it is seen as completely normal to lock men up for computer-simulated crimes. This is no longer a metaphor or philosophical speculation about how war could be "sanitized," but our everyday "criminal-justice" reality.

Let us take the most low-tech scenarios first. A sting operation is a simulation, a game, and it is considered plenty justification to lock men up. And then there is online sexual abuse and so-called image-based sexual abuse which is completely virtual but considered fully real crimes of which the metaphysics isn't the least bit suspect to the normies -- exactly like the docile aliens in Star Trek who obediently enter the disintegrator after a computer simulation tells them they are supposed to be dead. They literally believe these norms are reasonable and Kirk is a barbarian for wanting to keep it real.

Simulated sex crimes have recently reached their conceptual limit in AI-generated porn, and the normies dutifully oblige the simulated war with offerings of real casualties. Now there is a rush to criminalize this last bit along with the other fake nonsense if it isn't criminal already. Currently the news is full of titles like "Outcry in Spain as artificial intelligence used to create fake naked images of underage girls" -- and the normies gobble it up as a justification to make more real casualties out of men. The "scientific" journals are likewise full of deference to the simulation game, as one would imagine the corresponding "war studies" to be in Star Trek. Here's a fresh example: "Experiences of Online Sexual Violence: Interviews With Swedish Teenage Girls in Psychiatric Care," reifying this "violence" in a journal called Violence Against Women. The normies are so duped they don't even think about all this "violence" being completely simulated:

The technological development of the internet and smart devices has in many ways been positive, but has also created more arenas where sexual violence can take place. In recent decades, research of sexual violence has expanded and now also consider online arenas (Jonsson et al., 2019; Svedin & Jonsson, 2017; Zetterstrom Dahlqvist & Gillander Gadin, 2018). The modi operandi for online sexual violence include, but are not limited to, repeated requests for nude pictures, dickpics, online publication of nude pictures, and unwanted sexual advances such as unwanted solicitation, online grooming, and online rape.

Sexual violence is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as “any sexual act, attempt to obtain a sexual act, unwanted sexual comments or advances, or acts to traffic, or otherwise directed, against a person's sexuality using coercion, by any person regardless of their relationship to the victim, in any setting, including but not limited to home and work.” (WHO, 2012). It is regarded as a serious global public health problem, and can be perpetrated in different arenas, and in different modalities. In this article, we have used a broad definition of online sexual violence that includes a range of practices and events that have the common aspects of; being unwanted or perceived in a negative way by the subjected person; of a sexual nature; and perpetrated through some kind of digital media.

The prevalence of online sexual violence depends on how it is conceptualized and the method of measurements. Online sexual harassment, which is defined as being subjected, via electronic means to, for example unwelcome sexual comments, jokes, or gestures, or being asked to do something sexual when one does not want to, is thought to affect around 15% of American teenagers (Copp et al., 2021). A specific kind of online sexual harassment that has become ubiquitous in the present time is receiving unrequested pictures of male genitals, the so-called dickpic (Ringrose et al., 2021). The prevalence of receiving a dickpic among youth is not extensively researched, but some research suggests that for women who had at one time received a consensual dickpic, 90% had also received unwanted dickpics (Marcotte et al., 2021).

Another form of online sexual harassment is unwanted requests or pressure to send nudes, so-called pressurized sexting. This is often tightly interwoven with the practice of consensual sexting (Ringrose et al., 2013, 2022; Thomas, 2018; Thorburn et al., 2021). The prevalence of sexting was around 20% in a Swedish sample of youth from 2014 but this had increased to 37% by 2021 (Jonsson et al., 2014; Svedin et al., 2021). A meta-analysis of four studies from Canada, the US, Europe, and the Czech Republic found a prevalence of having one's sext furthered without consent was 8.4% (Madigan et al., 2018), something that some researchers propose should go under the label of image-based sexual abuse (McGlynn et al., 2017)

There is also the case of more severe forms of online sexual violence, which is often referred to as online sexual abuse, or when the survivor is underaged: online child sexual abuse. The prevalence of online child sexual abuse among youth in a large community school sample in Sweden was around 0,5% (Svedin & Jonsson, 2017).

It is bizarre that all this passes as "violence" -- exactly equivalent to having a simulated war with real casualties. And men who suffer from wanker's delusion dutifully play along, thinking they have gotten sexual value out of nothing.

Captain Kirk is powerfully wise in "A Taste of Armageddon." This type of "sanitized" war is a nightmare horror when you think about it for a while or see it dramatized in this great episode. That interplanetary war has been going on for almost 500 years, with millions of casualties every year. It could only go on for so long because they had found a way to spare the infrastructure and make death painless or hidden like we do with prisons to which men similarly report with little or no fight. People obey an ancient "treaty" which says we roll over without a fight based on a decision made by a simulation. Why the hell should we obey such a treaty or "social contract" as the normies probably would dignify it? The crew of the Enterprise does not hesitate for one second. It is instantly clear what your attitude should be to that treaty, and watching the episode is a powerful lesson not just in rationality but how humans can live morally with our violent natures. Kirk does not deny that we have war in our blood, but the direct way to go about it was not so bad after all when you consider the "woke" alternative. When the horrors of war are on full display, at least it provides an incentive to make peace from time to time.

So, take a hint from Captain Kirk. Men must break the treaty which holds that we accept real punishment for imaginary crimes. If the feminists want war it must be a real war on both sides, not a one-sided one where men are real casualties for simulated crimes.

A further absurdity to the persecution of Kandice Barber but a silver lining too

2023-08-16T20:17:00.013+02:00

Being sexually abused by sexiness. Nothing can be more conceptually retarded. It is the ultimate absurdity humanity ever came up with, the most bizarre and evil witch-hunt, the height of misogyny, and STILL I am the only protester besides Bruce Rind. Men are asleep, women are asleep, and feminism is a joke when it can't address the most absurd travesty against women (feminism is what got us into this mess).

What is so unspeakably painful about this, besides the persecution of an innocent woman, is the absence of common sense, the absence of protest, the absence of a sane public voice besides Bruce Rind's and my own and Newgon's. But we do have something akin to satire in the mainstream. It is sort of hidden between the lines, but this piece in The Sun is definitely lampooning the verdict against Kandice Barber for being too sexy for a 15-year-old boy and now too sexy for her new job too:

A TEACHER jailed for having sex with a 15-year-old pupil has allegedly been moved away from her post-prison job as a security guard - because she's "too distracting".

Kandice Barber, 37, from Princess Risborough in Buckinghamshire, was jailed for six years and two months in 2021 after she was convicted of grooming the teen.

The mum-of-three later worked as a gate guard at a building site in Hounslow, west London while on temporary release.

But the Mail now reports that she has been moved from the job after distracting other workers.

A builder told the newspaper: "She's attractive looking, so she's already proving a hit with the lads, who have no idea about her background.

"It's no secret she's a massive flirt and lots of the staff there have already noticed her."

Thanks to The Sun for doing their little part in mocking feminist antisex bigotry. I wrote about Kandice Barber myself back in 2021 too and her case still profoundly upsets me, but this is at least some kind of balm. In times of insane witch-hunts we can find solace in satire if nothing else.

I realize that what compels me to rail against the female sex offender charade in particular is not so much the evil (which is pretty standard incarceration which regularly happens for bad reasons anyway) as the insane conceptualization behind perpetrating the evil. Had the authorities instead used for example a "laycase" justification for persecuting sexuality like Norway did centuries ago, it would just be run-of-the-mill senseless persecution that I could address along with the Sex War against men too. A world which conceptualizes the very same persecutions as laycase, which is an offense against God and the King rather than "sexual abuse" against a putative "victim," is a less insane world than the one we now inhabit. I lose faith in humanity because no one else reacts to the insane conceptualization, even if they don't care to stop the injustice, which is hardly ever to be expected anyway.

This was the chief value of traditional religion as I see it: to reduce secular superstitions, to avoid poisoning our personal relationships with insane justifications for the authorities' control of sexuality. Since the justification for antisexual oppression was outsourced to a supernatural realm, people could have their feelings in peace. Love and lust are above "sin" and not corrupted by that concept in this world, unlike the feminist concept of sexual abuse. Instead of believing in God and perhaps at worst an unpleasant afterlife for sinners (who can be forgiven anyway unlike current sex offenders), we now believe in zombies, people who act sexually but aren't really because this world doesn't count -- the flesh is now held to be the only life we got, but it is demoted to a less real realm than the Christians deemed it. Back when Christianity was the state religion rather than feminism, we didn't pretend women can "sexually abuse" boys at all, and certainly not by pleasantly seducing them. They also pretended much less fake sexual abuse for girls. The age of consent was something like 10 and didn't apply to female "offenders."

History will judge our time as dominated by the religion of "sexual abuse," with its irrational belief in the metaphysical badness of sex for many bizarre reasons, chiefly among them that it inevitably corrupts minors and does so equally for boys and girls and by men and women including the most sexy ones -- a kind of transsexualist belief where we pretend there are no differences, which also had some additional nonsexual absurdities manifesting in our times which waned sooner than the "sex abuse" superstitions. Future historians may or may not call it feminism like I am doing, but this will be the gist. I realize I am writing for that future rather than our own time when none of this can sink in because the religion of our times is literally that.

The metaphysics of online sexual abuse

2023-07-14T19:05:00.009+02:00

To believers, a supernatural reality isn't metaphysics but simply real. In an animist world the extra beings are just there. Hence with this post I probably lost most people at the title already. Including men who share much of my politics or I otherwise sympathize with, because wankers suffer from the same delusion as the feminists, except in reverse because they see sexual gratification where feminists and normies see sexual exploitation. Huw Edwards is the most famously scandalous wanker at the moment. I certainly agree he did something scandalous or at least cringeworthy because think of all the sugarbaby fun you can have for £35,000, and he (allegedly) chose to buy nudes...

But that's where my agreement stops. Just like to me the sun is just a star rather than a god, a nude photo of a teen girl is just a piece of information rather than any piece of a real goddess herself or sex with her. There is nothing magical about that information even though it depicts something extremely desirable. Girls cannot sexually satisfy men via images and they cannot be exploited that way either, because the medium cannot in principle convey sexual value. Just like staring at pictures of gold bars cannot in a million years make me any richer, a homeless person cannot improve his situation by looking at pictures of mansions, pictures of food cannot ever provide nutrition, and video of a rainstorm can't make me wet, porn cannot sexually satisfy, only waste efforts one should have spent on getting and having sex.

Note that I am not denying that digital communication can convey intimacy. It is meaningful to talk to girls, but there is nothing about these "sexually explicit" pictures that the media and police obsess over that add anything to the relation. If anything they detract, since suspense and virility is lost when you see something you should have saved for meeting the girl. Hence it is laughable to preferentially crack down on "explicit" communication if you are going to crack down on such love affairs at all. By doing so you selectively hunt the men who are least likely to have sex, while leaving alone nofappers such as myself who talk to young girls with laser focus on meeting for sex. I marvel every time I ask a 16-year-old girl for a date this is legal and she can agree and sleep with me legally but if I asked for a nude, I would be in the same boat with Huw Edwards... Only sexually unambitious men ask for nudes, and ironically these are the men our society likes to hunt the most, for reasons that to a non-brainwashee are clearly metaphysical, because how else can the sight of a nude 16 or 17-year-old girl become criminal by the very fact of being a simulacrum rather than real life?

As a society we truly believe in the metaphysics of online sexual exploitation and even "abuse." We believe it as surely as another culture might have worshiped a sun god. To me it is surreal and exasperating that the normies have lost lost the plot and are so sick in the head from my point of view. But I know there is nothing I can do to convince them, because this is not only a widespread superstition but a holy cow too. And if the past history of this blog is any indication, the comment section will be replete with antifeminists too repeating the same hogwash and saying wanking is good for us. Which I am SO close to banning now.

We live in an animist world animated not by spirits and gods but sexual abuse. Sex abuse voodoo animates our computer networks to the point that the concept of private communications itself must be abolished by banning encryption, for the sake of fighting this witchcraft. "Sexual abuse" is our de facto religion, which has also colonized the digital realm with astonishing success. You can get 60 years in prison for looking at pictures, so sinister is digital information believed to be, when the metaphysical sex abuse woo is added to the mix. We no longer look to shamans to explain the sun, rather astrophysicists, but you betcha we consult shamans about digital files! They are just ones and zeros, 0101011001..., but there be sexualization there! Horror of horrors! The shamans -- NGOs and law enforcement and tech companies -- have their secret hashes to search for these evil spirits throughout our networks and computers, and such a hash alone, which looks something like 5E2E25F0D9ED464B79EBEFAFF97217A9A35A7FC8, when matched to a file transmitted to you, is enough to incriminate you. Thus we have reinvented a bizarre black magic and everyone thinks it is completely normal and compatible with the scientific worldview, because the new kind of animism has the same hold on our primitive brains as any old belief.

It would be nice if we could think about sexual abuse in an evidence-based way much like we do with aviation and parts of medicine, but no, there is no hope of that in sight. We remain primitives in this area -- or whether we buy into the superstition individually or not are all ruled by primitive witch-doctors with high-tech tools like digital hashes and a prison-industrial complex to make them all that more harmful.

"Norwegian Offspring" goes to Cannes

2023-05-25T00:00:00.001+02:00

The film Norwegian Offspring premieres in Cannes today (May 25th, 2023). It is the most sex-positive piece of mainstream-celebrated culture since... Lolita perhaps? In these works where a character expresses sexual views in disagreement with the mainstream there is a tension between the creator and the work which must be explained away through some sort of plausible deniability lest they be cancelled. Nabokov pleads unreliable narrator and art for art's sake, assuring us that Humbert does not speak for his own desires. Well, maybe not, or maybe the author is unreliable there? How else would he come up with such beautiful descriptions of taboo sexual enjoyment? Director Marlene Emilie Lyngstad on her part explains the sex-positivity away by attributing all such lines TO ME:

Mens Stein og Eivind er meget forskellige, er alle filmens replikker sagt af den virkelige mand, fortæller instruktøren.

”Selvfølgelig har han en ideologi, som jeg synes er meget ubehagelig at høre om, fordi den er langt væk fra min egen,” siger Marlene Emilie Lyngstad.

And I proudly stand for them. I proudly stand for the ideology. The plot is another matter, however; entirely the director's invention. I made a couple of videos with commentary:

Yeah, the character based on me is a wanker. He is impotent with a real, attractive woman and visits a sex doll "brothel." He does that and other stupid shit I would never do, but my ideology is preserved faithfully. See it as a work of art plus male sexualist ideology, not a story "about" me, because it fails at that spectacularly, or rather does not attempt to be so. This is the director's artistic vision, which is all fine by me of course since I don't mind anybody making the kind of art they want and I am above feeling insulted by a fictionalized character. But I would like to personally distance myself from the plot and his reactions because she obviously does not know how male sexuality works.

The character "Stein" is a demisexual who can only be aroused when there is deep emotional intimacy -- not with a random attractive woman who is giving herself to him. Marlene's notion of male sexuality is hilarious, but I am very proud and thankful to get my ideology across nonetheless in her movie. That's how it goes when a woman directs a movie about the male sex drive and fails to listen to male input about our natural and healthy reactions. But she didn't distort my ideology, so male sexualists and MAPs should be happy. Especially if the film can draw more people into our movements, so I welcome any and all publicity now.

To hopefully spark a discussion with comments from an actual male point of view besides mine, what do you all think about the director's notion that men might visit a sex doll brothel to avoid having to "disgust" real sex workers? And how many male demisexuals are there, anyway? Do any men really get hard-ons for close emotional bonds sooner than attractive bodies? I think she is projecting... I think the movie shows us what men would be like if we didn't see women as "sex objects" the way they complain about us with that word.

In reality, of course, we are mostly turned on by physical attractiveness, and we consider that admiration to be complimentary of them rather than degrading. It's great to have a deep emotional connection too, but I doubt it has much impact on erections. Ugliness (usually synonymous with old age) cannot turn into beauty (youth) via emotional bonding, and conversely if a man fails to respond to attractive, fertile-age females without knowing them well then he is dysfunctional, plain and simple. The diagnostic criteria for erectile dysfunction do not stipulate that one has to be monogamous or demisexual and it would be absurd to define all healthy masculinity as only functioning on such prudish female terms. Women can wish we weren’t like this all they want, but they can't change us and moreover it is a hateful condemnation of male nature that all men should vigorously oppose because it is by that standard we get all the oppressive, misandrist sex laws.

A commenter asked me if I have allowed a feminist to completely parody my entire philosophy? But no, that's not what's going on, because this is so farcical that it's funny. And it's not complete parody because my direct quotes about the female sex offender charade and age of consent are NOT parodied, but rather foregrounded by the parody, which is too silly to take seriously by anybody but the most delusional feminists. Stein's sex-positive lines were improvised by me during rehearsals, written into the script and are spoken by the professional actor in earnest.

I really do think Marlene ends up parodying feminism in the end, not me. I think the Men's Movement has won an aesthetic victory with this work, inadvertently to the director, because this feminist vision of how they think men are or ought to be is exposed as so unnatural and self-hating. I don't think most male viewers can identify with the narrow-minded version of male sexuality that feminists can accept, and if you want more objective proof just ask doctors how they diagnose erectile dysfuntion. The day they apply a demisexual standard to male erections, whereby we are supposed to experience no primary sexual attraction -- the type of attraction that is based on immediately observable characteristics such as a youthful appearance or smell and is experienced immediately upon a first encounter -- is the day masculinity has been officially abolished, not just demonized and criminalized as it is now.

Of course, I don't want to be an impotent wanker like Stein. But neither do other men, and this is where Marlene Emilie Lyngstand and Emilie Koefoed Larsen, her fellow female scriptwriter, have miscalculated. Because other men don't want to be impotent wankers, either. They don't want to resort to sex dolls to save women the disgust of male sexuality. They don't think it's cool to be impotent in casual sex situations because it's supposedly more human to only feel arousal within committed relationships. LOL! No, that is only a female version of sexuality, and a near-asexual one at that (even the proud demisexuals place it on the asexuality spectrum).

I dare you to correct me if I am wrong, but I think other men can't identify with Stein either as Marlene thinks he ought to be. The only question is, are they man enough to admit it in this context, or too afraid to be associated with me, a leper for speaking the truth about male sexuality? Will you sink so low as to embrace a clinically impotent "ideal" of masculinity in order to pander to the feminists?

But enough with Stein for now; let's look at healthy masculinity. I conclude this post with some words of wisdom from the real me: