Saturday, April 08, 2017

One in four Norwegian men are childless thanks to feminism

When I started out blogging for men's rights a decade ago, feminism was still commonly claimed to lead to more sexual freedom. However, it was obvious to me that this freedom only applied to women and alpha males, and feminism in fact led to more male sexual losers, which was one of my two big reasons for becoming an antifeminist (the other one being the hateful feminist sex laws). This dismal trend has now become an established fact supported by the official statistics and reported in mainstream newspapers. We have reached the point where almost one in four men are childless at 45 and probably never will have children, and not because they don't want to, but primarily because women are picky by nature and feminism empowers them to be more picky.
Tidligere i vår kom nye tall fra Statistisk sentralbyrå som bekrefter tendensen. Blant menn født i 1950, var det 14,8 prosent som ikke hadde barn ved fylte 45 år. For menn født i 1971 var det 23,7 prosent som var barnløse ved samme alder. Samtidig var 29,5 prosent av menn født i 1976 barnløse ved fylte førti; opp fra 16,3 prosent i 1950. Tilsvarende tall for kvinner ved 45 års alder er henholdsvis 8,4 og 15, 2 prosent – også økende, men ikke på langt nær like voldsomt. I befolkningen som sådan er nesten hver fjerde mann i Norge barnløs det året han fyller 45.
Back in 2009 I pointed out that rape is equality. My intention was not to promote rape, but I do think we should make society choose between forced equality for both sexes or for neither (and it doesn't need to be rape either, but some kind of subsidy or affirmative action to help male sexual losers). Remarkably, men have simply accepted forced equality for women while neglecting to claim it for themselves, so here we are in the present situation with so many male sexual and reproductive losers that wouldn't have existed without feminism and its coercive measures to empower women at the expense of men.

I no longer think the male losers will rebel. By all accounts, the vast majority simply accept their lot. But at least now they can easily inform themselves about the cause of their situation simply by reading the mainstream media. That is progress, as far as it goes.

80 comments:

Anonymous said...

Barn er jordens avksum

Eivind Berge said...

Det må du gjerne mene, men forskning viser at menn ønsker seg barn i omtrent like stor grad som kvinner. Da er det et mannesaksproblem at vi ikke får den muligheten på grunn av feministisk politikk.

Anonymous said...

While here we have the scum of humanity, they are not chasing child molesters, they are chasing healthy men who are attracted to women of childbearing age.

Https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3274707/paedophile-vigilante-group-dark-justice-win-landmark-court-ruling-giving-them-total-freedom-to-entrap-perverts/

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Like etter at mennesket ble stedfaste og begynte å dyrke jorden, kan det se ut til at faktisk så mange som 16 av 17 menn var barnløse:

https://psmag.com/8-000-years-ago-17-women-reproduced-for-every-one-man-6d41445ae73d

Dette skyldtes trolig mest at enkelte menn fikk store ressurser og slik tiltrakk seg store skarer av kvinner, sikkert i kombinasjon med krigstokter, kanskje mot nomadiske stammer, hvor mennene ble drept og kvinnene samlet i haremer.

Personlig vil jeg tro menneskene ble langt mer grådige etter at vi tok til jordbruket, da det kun var de aller mest grådige, krigerske og nådeløse menn som fikk reprodusere seg.

Etter at vi har hatt en periode der de fleste menn fikk reprodusere seg, noe som i følge Terje Bongard er helt essensielt for å ha et stabilt samfunn, går vi nå tilbake til en tilstand som ligner den første tiden av vår landbrukssivilisasjon. Dette skyldes selvsagt i stor grad feminismen, da kvinner av instinkt ikke vil ha menn med lavere status enn dem selv, og da heller foretrekker kunstig inseminering med høystatusmenn. Men "diminishing returns" eller minskende profittrater i en endelig verden må også ta sin del av skylden.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Forøvrig bør man ikke gi opp om man er 45, da det eneste kvinner ikke ser ut til å bry seg særlig med er alder. Har man først oppnådd tilstrekkelig grad av status, ressurser og posisjon som 65-åring, kan man meget vel skaffe seg ei fruktbar kvinne. Noe som viser seg i den økende tendensen med serie-monogami, hvor eldre menn med status er ettertraktede av unge kvinner, og begynner på et nytt barnekull.

Anonymous said...

Sosialistiske kvinner sier de kjemper for de svake, men velger seg alltid den "sterke" til sin make!

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Med kombinasjonen feminisme, minskende profittrater og økende robotisering ser jeg for meg at vi får langt flere lavstatusmenn i framtida:

http://forskning.no/arbeid-okonomi-teknologi/2017/04/en-ny-robot-forte-til-seks-arbeidsledige-mennesker

Fram til en kollaps vil vi derfor se en stadig større marginalisering av menn, og en opphopning av kvinner hos noen få menn med stadig større sosioøkonomisk status. Vi kommer til å ligne mer og mer på det tidlige jordbrukssamfunnet, fram til hele byggverket kollapser og vi går tilbake til en form for primitive stammesamfunn.

Anonymous said...

Jamen vil kollapsen overhovedet ske? Ingen af de dystre spådomme er gået i opfyldelse foreløbig.

Eivind Berge said...

Det ser ikke ut som noen kollaps er nært forestående, nei. Det er vanskelig å spå om fremtiden, og det ser ikke ut som Gail Tverberg har noe spesielt talent for det heller. Om hun har rett på litt lengre sikt gjenstår å se, men hun tok i alle fall feil om de katastrofalt lave oljeprisene vi skulle hatt nå. Økonomien går rimelig bra, og det kan ikke være bare flaks som holder den oppe så lenge. Jeg må konkludere med at risikoen for kollaps er mye mindre enn hva peak oil-teoretikerne skulle ha det til, og kanskje vi overhodet ikke får noen plutselig kollaps av hele den industrielle sivilisasjon.

Anonymous said...

Ditt problem Eivind Berge er at du tar ting som har en kjerne av sannhet og så blåser du det ut av alle proporsjoner. Hele din blogg og samfunnsideologi er preget av det. La meg gi eksempler:

Du finner ut at anonymiteten på internett ikke er sikker, derfor: skriver du under fullt navn, fordi "det ikke er noen vits å anonymisere seg uansett".

Oljeprisene er på vei nedover, derfor: "kommer hele samfunnet til å kollapse".

Du er motstander er positiv diskriminering derfor: "er voldtekt og likestilling to sider av samme sak".

Du er motstander av lovverket omkring uaktsom voldtekt, derfor: "skal alle politibetjenter drepes."

Seksualiteten til gutter og jenter internaliseres forskjellig i samfunnet, derfor: "kan hankjønn aldri bli seksuelt misbrukt av hunkjønn".

Det finnes MRAs som mener at seksuelle overgrep av kvinner underkommuniseres i samfunnet, derfor: "alle MRAere som mener dette er falske profeter, kun MRA som er enig med meg er ekte vare"

Du er en ihuga biologist, derfor: "hele samfunnsstrukturen er utelukkende basert på biologisme, alle andre forklaringer på ethvert på samfunnsmessige fenomener må forkastes som kvasivitenskap"

Osv. osv.

Det er greit nok å ha bastante meninger, men å male seg så til de grader inn i et hjørne, fører jo bare til at man er dømt til å fremmedgjøre seg fra samfunnet. Synet ditt er så til de grader unyansert at det er svært problematisk å ta deg seriøst. Det er synd, siden du er god til å skrive, og gir andre perspektiver på ting der humanvitenskapen råder. Men, total uvillighet til å åpne sine vanntette skott fører bare til at du drukner i ensporethet.

Takk!

Eivind Berge said...

Nei, det er du som overdriver. Mine meninger og resonnementer er langt mer nyanserte om alle de tingene. Din kommentar er bare en ignorant karikatur av det jeg faktisk sier.

Det er forøvrig Gail Tverberg som sier at lave oljepriser er forbundet med sivilisasjonskollaps. Jeg har bare sagt at hennes spådommer hørtes fornuftige ut (noe jeg tror i mindre grad nå), og som du ser er hun også langt mer nyansert i sin analyse:

https://ourfiniteworld.com/

Jeg skriver under fullt navn først og fremst fordi jeg er stolt av mine meninger, og dernest fordi jeg tror man blir tatt mer alvorlig slik. Jeg ville ikke valgt anonymitet selv om det var mulig.

Voldtekt ER likestilling, men dette er satt på spissen og ment mest som et slagord og jeg har forklart grunnene.

Jeg har aldri sagt at alle politibetjenter burde drepes, men at jeg støtter å sende et politisk signal fra mannsbevegelsen gjennom politidrap, og slett ikke bare om uaktsom voldtekt, men mot store deler av hele seksuallovgivningen. Jeg innser at her mangler det en systematisk fremstilling, og jeg er faktisk i gang med å skrive kommentarer om alle sedelighetslovene og hva de burde vært -- det kommer snart. Politidrap er bare et VIRKEMIDDEL (som jeg støtter moralsk, men ikke anbefaler) jeg nevnte i forbifarten i en mye større politisk kamp om definisjoner på seksuelt misbruk og overgrep. Og så ble det oppblåst fordi politiet valgte å gi det oppmerksomhet. Det er ikke realistisk at mannsbevegelsen skal vinne frem ved vold, og jeg er fokusert på å overbevise om seksuelle normer i stedet, først og fremst for dem som kanskje ikke har internalisert feminismens tabuer så dypt ennå.

Det er vanvittig mye dypere grunner til at kvinner ikke kan begå seksuelle overgrep enn at seksualiteten til gutter og jenter internaliseres forskjellig. Det bunner ut i forskjellig minste investering i avkom, med det resultatet at mannlig seksualitet overproduseres i forhold til etterspørselen. Denne overproduksjonen har gjennomgripende virkninger på våre liv, hvorav en av de mest selvsagte er at det er tull å snakke om kvinner som voldtar eller begår seksuelt misbruk.

Jeg har aldri sagt at hele samfunnsstrukturen utelukkende er basert på biologisme. Selvsagt er mye kulturelt betinget, men det finnes visse universelle sannheter om menneskenaturen som ikke varierer stort mellom kulturer. Kvinnelig seksuell selektivitet (med det som umiddelbart følger av det) er den aller viktigste av disse sannhetene, og faktisk den eneste jeg kommer på som er så robust dokumentert at jeg har en bastant mening om den. Det er likevel svært mye av samfunnsstrukturen som kan variere, og det har jeg aldri benektet. Jeg er mannsaktivist nettopp fordi jeg tror at vi kan endre på en god del ting, så lenge vi ikke benekter grunnleggende kjønnsforskjeller.

Eivind Berge said...

Det er mest skuffende at du tror mannsaktivisme bare handler om uaktsom voldtekt når det er så mange av sedelighetslovene som er urettferdige. Jeg trodde jeg hadde skrevet om masse annet også som aldri skulle vært kriminalisert, men har tydeligvis alvorlig sviktet i å kommunisere hva mannsbevegelsen dreier seg om, for kampen mot hatefulle sexlover er minst 99% av alt vi gjør slik jeg ser det, og uaktsom voldtekt er bare en liten del. Senkingen av kravet til graden av vold eller tvang i forsettlig voldtekt er faktisk mye mer alvorlig (som skjedde i den ekstreme reformen i år 2000 da vi også fikk uaktsom voldtekt), om jeg skal velge én ting som er aller mest provoserende med hele feminismen. Grunnen til at jeg ikke har tatt for meg alle paragrafene på en systematisk måte enda, men bare kommentert dem i tilfeldige innlegg, er at sedelighetslovene fremkaller et så eitrende hat i meg at de er vanskelig å konsentrere seg om i lengre tid. Å lese og skrive om hele straffelovens kapittel om sedelighet er nesten uutholdelig tortur for meg, men det kommer.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Trist for de som fulgte Tverbergs råd og gav bort alle sparepengene sine til veldedige formål. Hun mente jo at de uansett ville forsvinne i en nært forestående deflasjonskollaps.

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, heldigvis gjorde jeg ikke noe så drastisk. Spådommene hennes førte bare til litt unødvendige bekymringer for min del, samt at jeg dummet meg litt ut. Nå har jeg lært å ikke være så godtroende. Verden er altfor kompleks til at noen kan forutsi nært forestående omveltninger. Det nærmeste vi kommer er slike som erkedruiden som forteller oss hvilke langsiktige utviklingstrekk vi mest sannsynlig kan vente oss. Pluss at han traff blink på Donald Trump, men det var nok mest flaks.

Anonymous said...

When you go to jail and get raped, should we scream equality for the rapist! Your sick! Stop and rethink you're thinking patterns. Sicko!

Eivind Berge said...

Homosexuals already have sexual equality in their community. The heterosexual male sex deficit, however, is a real thing and it is not just me saying that. Check out this recent article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/male-sex-deficit-catherine-hakim-female-financial-autonomy-men-love-life-feminism-gender-a7634646.html

Thanks to Catherine Hakim for telling it like it is.

Eivind Berge said...

Imagine the political outrage whenever there is a female deficit of anything desirable. There is a male sex deficit which shows up any way you care to measure it. Do men want to amplify the problem by supporting feminism, or do something constructive about it?

Anonymous said...

The rational part of a teen's brain isn't fully developed and won't be until age 25 so under 25 cannot consent!

Øyvind Holmstad said...

På den annen side har de som fulgte Tverbergs råd om å investere i små sølvmynter gjort det meget bra. Disse har hatt en verdistigning på opp mot 25 prosent siden Tverberg anbefalte dette som en måte å berge sparepengene på.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

En meget god artikkel du lenket til i dag om inkonsekvensene mellom kjønnene grunnet de latente atferdsstrategiene i egg- og sædceller:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/male-sex-deficit-catherine-hakim-female-financial-autonomy-men-love-life-feminism-gender-a7634646.html

Her er forresten en god artikkel om den store diskusjonen mellom Tverberg og Reverse Engeneer om behovet for kokt og stekt mat:

http://forskning.no/meninger/kommentar/2017/04/vi-kan-ikke-leve-av-ra-mat-alene-raw-food

Det har vel vært en del forskning som konkluderer med at skjæreredskaper var det viktigste for utviklingen av hjernene våre på kompensasjon av fordøyelsessystemet, men jeg heller nå mer til å tro at ilden var den avgjørende faktor.

Anonymous said...

Apart from the fact that the "teen’s immaturity" concept is idle chatter (see link below), performing and enjoying sex fortunately has very little to do with rational abilities, otherwise creatures such as turkeys and lobsters would face major problems in fulfilling their marital duties...

http://drrobertepstein.com/pdf/Epstein-THE_MYTH_OF_THE_TEEN_BRAIN-Scientific_American_Mind-4-07.pdf?lbisphpreq=1

Taxi Driver said...

http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/9058993/

Eivind Berge said...

That is an example of absurdly misapplied laws. Was the problem here that the taxi driver got robbed or that the got "raped" by a woman? Only an idiot would think the latter deserves to be part of the charge. Calling it rape only serves to transform the taxi driver from a victim to a buffoon. But feminists are literally this stupid, and they now control the police and justice system, so this kind of charade goes forward.

Eivind Berge said...

By the way, I just wrote this comment in another discussion about the absurdity of women raping men:

http://thoughtcatalog.com/lorenzo-jensen-iii/2014/08/19-men-share-stories-of-being-raped-by-a-woman-nsfw/#comment-3251817689

It seems plausible to me that both women and men can orgasm from forced sex, but that is not the point. Women can't rape men because it is insane it regard forced sex with a woman as such a serious crime. I have been thinking about this for a long time, and today I finally came up with the perfect analogy to explain the meaninglessness of women "raping" men. I used to think it was like a reverse robbery, but it is more like stealing air. If someone broke into your house and filled a container with air, you can reasonably accuse them of breaking and entering, but the air theft is nonsense, because no one recognizes that you have lost anything meaningful by having air stolen from your property. Male sexuality is like that on the heterosexual market. It is worth something -- actually, it is essential -- but there is so much of it to go around that any man who claims injury by having it stolen is subject to ridicule rather than sympathy. So just like a burglary isn't aggravated by the theft of air, female violence is never aggravated by sexual violation. That doesn't mean women are free to assault men, of course, any more than people are free to break into your house to steal air, but we need to leave the "rape" nonsense out of the prosecution of the crime.

The taxi driver "rape" also illustrates this point. No one cares that he was "raped" by an attractive woman, I bet including the robbery victim himself, because it is impossible for men to sympathize with that. The taxi driver has lost nothing meaningful by the sexual contact (which I am guessing was just oral, which shouldn't be called rape under any circumstances). But we can all sympathize with assault and robbery victims. Miscategorizing these crimes as sex crimes does a disservice to the victims as well as the wrongly accused women who have done nothing worthy of the punishment for rape. And it turns the entire justice system into a freak show, which of course is the reason why these stories make the international news. Feminists will claim that they depict justice, but deep down we all know it is a charade.

Anonymous said...

I just have entered a feminist wiki and in an article they​ had put this lol they take this issues seriously


'''''TRIGGER WARNING This article or section, or pages it links to, contains information about sexual assault and/or violence which may be triggering to survivors. '''''

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, trigger warnings are a feminist affectation very much in style now. But I don't think it means they take these issues seriously, because it is exactly the opposite of how you reduce real trauma, says Wikipedia:

In an interview about trigger warnings for The Daily Telegraph, Professor Metin Basoglu, a psychologist internationally recognised for his trauma research, said that "instead of encouraging a culture of avoidance, [the media] should be encouraging exposure. Most trauma victims avoid situations that remind them of the experience. Avoidance means helplessness and helplessness means depression. That's not good."[9] Richard J. McNally, a Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, wrote in the Pacific Standard[10] that "trigger warnings are designed to help victims avoid reminders of their trauma, thereby preventing emotional discomfort. Yet avoidance reinforces PTSD. Conversely, systematic exposure to triggers and the memories they provoke is the most effective means of overcoming the disorder." McNally's article cites several academic studies of PTSD sufferers in support of these claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger

Anonymous said...

http://www.dagbladet.no/sport/der-spiegel---ronaldo-kjopte-seg-ut-av-voldtektsanklage/67488728

Du angriper ofte politimyndigheter og politikere, men ser deg sjelden angripe mediene, NAAR DET ER MEDIENE DU F;RST OG FREMST BOER ANGRIPE!!!!

For hvordan kan befolkningen bare staa aa se paa at redaksjoner uten videre sprer anklager som dette... det er redaksjonene som odelegger menn ... og helst de vellykkede opp og frem menn

Eivind Berge said...

Mediene har bare så mye makt som vi velger å gi dem. Det mulig å informere seg utenom, og publisere andre meninger, så lenge det varer.

Anonymous said...

Mennene som publiserer dette HELE TIDEN> er det komplekser...

Trikomhodet said...

Grunnen til at ingenting skjer er at det er så lett for norske menn å hente damer fra andre land. Greier du å holde på en jobb får du en inntekt som er høy nok til å få henne hit, og så lenge du er norsk og har puls og litt penger får du deg dame i mange land, og ofte ganske bra dame selv om du bare er en trøtt og trygdet trailersjåfør fra Trøkstad. Men om du er f.eks. høyere og sterkere og rikere enn snittet i verden (nordmenn er et av verdens største og sterkeste folkeslag), hvit, ikke så gammel og uten synbare deformiteter, og i tillegg kan tilby statsborgerskap til et av verdens rikeste land etc., så blir du nedrent av damer omtrent uansett om du er litt smart og seriøs. Bra damer.

Kort sagt, hvorfor gidde å risikere et 99%+ sikkert tap for omtrent alle personer i et slags mislykket omegaopprør der alle kommer til å hånle av det unngåelige blodbadet med deg og alle hjelperne dine i hovedrollen, når du bare kan dra og hente drømmedama så lenge du greier å være i arbeid noen år?

Er du ressurssterk nok til å organisere et opprør er du ressurssterk nok til å holde på en norsk jobb noen år, og på det første er det < 100% på å mislykkes, mens på det andre er det < 100% på å mislykkes for mange, med akkurat samme mål. :-) Med mindre du som Profeten foretrekker 4 koner, og ikke minst også de din høyre hånd besitter. Og om du er den typen, så er det mye smartere å lede et firma eller bare jobbe masse enn å lede en veldig midlertidig opprørshær.

Anonymous said...

Du Trikomhodet, du virker litt oppegaaende? Hva er det sim gjør at menn i vestlige redaksjoner uten videre publiserer anklager som denne:
http://www.dagbladet.no/sport/der-spiegel---ronaldo-kjopte-seg-ut-av-voldtektsanklage/67488728

hele tiden...det er jo galskap, helt absurd er det...

og de er på hugget spesielt når det er snakk om ressurssterke...

komplekser? hva?

Anonymous said...

Rumenske (les Romani) kriminelle har hærtatt Norge. Siden det er politisk korrekt å synes synd på alle som ikke er vestlig, hvit og mann, så har vi i Norge sluppet dem inn med åpne armer. Løsningen på problemet er jamfør enkelte politikerne ikke å stramme opp regler omkring tigging, men å "slå knallhardt til mot sexkjøpere". Det eneste aspektet som i denne sammenhengen allerede er kriminalisert er altså ikke godt nok. Hva er det KRF politikere tenker seg? Livstid i fengsel? Dødsstraff? Korsfesting?
Kristenmoralisme har jeg lite til overs for, men verre er det når den skal politiseres og påføres andre i samfunnet!

http://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/innenriks/nrk-dokumentaren-krf-vil-ta-sexkjpere/3423332946.html

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, jeg leste nettopp om det rumenske «tiggermiljøet» på en annen blogg, meget opplysende om hva det faktisk dreier seg om:

http://steigan.no/2017/04/19/sex-dop-og-tiggerkopp/

Og så er det liksom sexkjøpere som er problemet? KrF er drittsekker på linje med andre feminister. Jeg klarer ikke se forskjell på dem; kristenmoralisme og feministisk sexfiendtlighet er ett fett.

Eivind Berge said...

KrF vil altså omdefinere sexkjøp til «grov uaktsom menneskehandel» for å kunne straffe det hardere. Disse ondskapsfulle menneskene blir aldri fornøyd med mannshatet uansett hvor mye menn blir jaget og straffet. Enhver kriminalisering eller skjerping av straffenivået er bare begynnelsen på en ny eskalering.

«Menneskehandel» er et moteriktig samlebegrep for alt man vil kriminalisere, men det er bare tilfeldig. Hvorfor ikke bare heve straffen for sexkjøp? Eller omdefinere det til voldtekt først som sist? Alt sammen er like ondskapsfullt, men det spiller ingen rolle, for politikerne bare henger seg på den moralismen som er best egnet til å sette flest mulig menn i fengsel. Norsk politikk er en eneste stor konkurranse om hvem som kan være mest mannevond.

Eivind Berge said...

Jeg sliter med å forstå hvorfor en 16-åring kan bli dømt for å seksualisere to 17-åringer:

http://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/innenriks/jente-(16)-fikk-60-dagers-betinget-fengsel-for-deling-av-video-fra-fest/3423333243.html

Eller rettere sagt, jeg vet det er feministisk sexfiendtlighet som ligger bak, men jeg forstår ikke hvordan drittsekkene av noen dommere i Sandefjord tingrett får den interne logikken til å gå opp med at 17-åringer blir seksualisert av en person som liksom skal være enda mer aseksuell i deres forestillingsverden. Hvordan takler politisk korrekte mennesker den kognitive dissonansen som følger av et så forkvaklet verdensbilde?

Eivind Berge said...

Ved nærmere ettertanke er det slik jeg ser det:

Jeg tror det vi egentlig er vitne til når barn selv blir offer for barnepornoloven, til og med for å ta bilder av seg selv, er en form for æresetikk. Loven er forkledd som om det skulle handle om offer og overgrep, det er absurd å tolke det slik når det er barnet som straffes. I stedet har vi å gjøre med samme prinsipp som ligger bak æresdrap i enkelte andre kulturer. Barnets ære, eller uskyld eller renhet eller samme hva du vil kalle det, er viktigere enn barnet selv, slik at systemet godt kan finne på å drepe barnet for å gjenopprette æren. Slik sett er det en slags indre logikk i disse straffeforfølgelsene -- de er uttrykk for en etikk som nordmenn helst ikke vil bekjenne seg til, men som likevel lever i beste velgående her også. Det er staten som ivaretar æren i stedet for familien, og reaksjonene er litt mildere enn drap enn så lenge, men det er i bunn og grunn samme fenomen som æresdrap.

Legg merke til at det er ingen andre enn mannsaktivister som reagerer. For feministene er det den naturligste ting å holde mindreårige ansvarlige for seksualforbrytelser, selv om det i seg selv er en klar innrømmelse av at de er seksuelle vesener som kan ta seksuelle valg. Forestillingen om «overgrep» eller i dette tilfellet «overgrepsbilder» er altså en ren løgn, eller en myte man bruker til å innbille seg at det ikke er æresetikk man bedriver. Det er ikke seksualisering av barn som tar skade av det som er problemet, for de tar mye mer skade av straffen, men ære som må gjenopprettes, koste hva det koste vil.

Dette er også en av grunnene til at jeg ikke ser noe poeng i å forsvare vår kultur mot påvirkning fra for eksempel islam, for vi er ikke det grann bedre, og muligens verre.

Anonymous said...

http://www.tv2.no/2015/02/11/nyheter/abort/6558198

Var det noen som sa kvinnehat?

Anonymous said...

Kvinner har jo rett til å velge hvilke menn, eventuelt velge bort hvilke menn de vil. Det er ingen aktivisme i verden som kan frata kvinner den rettigheten. Så jeg spør meg om hva skribenten vil med dette. Jeg leser at han legger skylden på feminister, men kvinner vil jo velge de som man interesserer seg for, uavhengig av dette.

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, kvinner skal ha rett til å velge og velge bort menn. Poenget er at samfunnet ikke trenger å sy puter under armene på dem slik at de blir enda mer kresne, gjennom for eksempel kjønnskvotering, som er likestilling tvunget igjennom med vold. Og HVIS vold er et akseptabelt middel til å oppnå likestilling (noe jeg er motstander av), så er det rimelig at menn krever noe tilsvarende på de områdene vi har bruk for det, altså først og fremst på kjønnsmarkedet. Husk at feministene selv bruker slagordet «det personlige er politisk» -- så hvorfor skulle ikke vi?

Anonymous said...

Så du mener altså at færre menn får seg partnere i Norge fordi vi har kjønnskvotering? Det må du gjerne utdype!

Eivind Berge said...

Det mener jeg, fordi det fører til at færre menn blir akseptable partnere siden kvinner helst vil ha en mann med høyere status enn seg selv. Resultatet blir da at de mest attraktive mennene får seg flere kull med barn, mens det blir flere mannlige tapere som ikke får barn i det hele tatt. Denne trenden er et statistisk faktum; hvor mye som kan tilskrives akkurat kjønnskvotering vet ikke jeg, men jeg tror det er en av grunnene.

Anonymous said...

I just add this 4 all the feminist motherfukers:

Here the way to go: if she can bleed, she can breed. (yeah, your OWN little princess, precisely)

@ eivind: about rape you were right 8 years ago and you are now even more.

Allah Hafiz.

Anonymous said...

If she can bleed, she can breed. Ok. But what if she can't? Simply, it's just an healthy trainnig. :)

Well, the logic is simple. If the so called "pedophilia" is such an huge problem, it's because so called "pedos" do exists. If they can make up such a great problem it's because they are many. If they are many it's because nature / Allah stated that they are a necessity; probably useful to train little girls to sex from early age to make them better breeder and keep them away from the homosexual perversion. If you mind, the more the oppressive governments pass wrong laws against men (regoulars and pedos) and enforce them, the more the number of lesbians grow.

Pedos have just born in the wrong geographic areas an in the wrong era.

About the intersting artichle over the childless men, years ago I red something about the genocide against men, that are not considered Alphas by women, perpetrated by the feminist governments by keeping jail empty from real criminals to full them whit men who exercise their natural right to straight sexuality, keeping the in and allowing females to kill their babies with abortion.
Now we know that the Whole system was re-designed to pursue that aim: a genocide perpetrated without a real identifiable hand behind of it. A perfect automatic system built in the west and now expoted with war everywhere.

Hallah Hafiz

Anonymous said...

@ Eivind:
What happened to Emma? Are you still with her? Her blog is dead...

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, we are still together, she just isn't very much into blogging at the moment.

Anonymous said...

Oh... Cool! ^__^

Anonymous said...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9RJrH1XsAImKPw.jpg

No words, see for yourself

Eivind Berge said...

Hmm, who is that woman? An admirer?

Here is a strange Twitter account:

https://twitter.com/lienariena

Anonymous said...

Anyway, one thing is important to say, this muslim woman seems feminist because she mistakenly equates the love of a woman with that of a man, does not take into account that roger, besides having a sentimental emptiness would have a sexual one because the sexuality of man is aggressive and can not be compared to the mostly passive sexuality of a woman

Eivind Berge said...

She may say those things, but she seems so impressed by Roger's killer prowess that she would fuck him instantly. It doesn't matter what women say -- as a rule of thumb, if they are talking to you at all by their own choice, you can fuck them :)

And I bet she wouldn't have given Roger time of day before he went on his spree.

Anonymous said...

https://twitter.com/MarkKavenagh/status/820406953771839488

Eivind Berge said...

That tweet refers to this piece of feminist propaganda about supposed female "rape" of boys:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/true-stories/unspoken-abuse-mothers-who-rape-their-sons/news-story/25ad244866c90d0bceac6094e2523a7e

See the pattern here? It is always an ugly feminist cuntrag pushing the lie that women can sexually abuse boys, in this case Lucetta Thomas doing her PhD on this most politically correct of all subjects.

Anonymous said...

You could explain why a woman can not abuse a child (a real one) and why could not it be that there is sometimes trauma of the act? I am very interested in your opinion

Eivind Berge said...

To pick apart the content, even if this is true:

While some boys were mentally coerced into “a full sexual relationship” with their mother, Lucetta explains that others were on the receiving end of “incredible violence” if they tried to resist. Mothers might also withdraw of basic human needs, such as food and shelter.

Then the abuse isn't sexual, but those other things. Sex with a woman can never be worthy of the term "abuse" per se. Feminists promote a dogmatic belief that sex itself is traumatizing, by some unexplained magic mechanism, and that is a lie when the perpetrator is a woman. It is only true that sex can traumatize in cases of actual rape, which can only be perpetrated by men.

Of course women can abuse boys in other ways, and it can be damaging for their lives. But it is not the sex itself which caused the damage. For a small boy, sex is usually good, as the "victims" themselves admit, but can range from good to yucky isolated from other, actual abuse such as violence or threats. A feeling of yuckiness does not amount to abuse, however; that is the feminist fallacy. Kids also feel yucky when they have to clean the bathroom or do other perfectly normal chores, and there is nothing more to it. It takes real brainwashing to go from yuckiness to trauma, which is even admitted in the article:

"As a child he felt ‘yucky about it’. As an adult he has realised the experience was incredibly damaging."

Yes, who is doing the damage here? The feminists who are pushing the lie that this is sexual abuse!

And sorry, you can't blame your adult affairs and lust for whores on this "abuse" like the author gullibly accepts -- that is just male sexuality.

Eivind Berge said...

If a feeling of yuckiness can suddenly transform into something "incredibly damaging" many years later, I would like to know what kind of mechanism might lie behind it. To me this is clearly just as absurd as if I should suddenly realize that all the times I had to clean my room as a kid were horribly abusive and now makes me a damaged adult (on which I get to blame all my problems). Perhaps that kind of epiphany is possible given enough feminist indoctrination, but if so, then feminist indoctrination is the problem that we should be attacking.

So, what is the mechanism supposedly underlying the traumatization of "sexual abuse"? Feminists will spout some vague nonsense about "abuse of power" or "trust" -- which again doesn't explain how sex can be traumatizing. It is pure pseudoscience or covert moralism. If it were true that sex with women could traumatize on its own, then how come the traumatization only shows up when there is either some other (violent or emotional) abuse going on, or after a whole lot of feminist brainwashing?

Eivind Berge said...

Just look it at this drivel, it's painfully obvious that the sex was perfectly good and harmless and is later reinterpreted as "abuse" thanks to feminist dogma:

Hamish,* now in his 50s, was 12 years old the first time he recalls having sex with his mother.

“She had this big bedroom and if we were ever sick or anything like that we’d stay in her bed. One day she just initiated it, she just started touching me and it just went from there.

“She preyed on the fact I was coming into puberty and made me feel important and special,” he tells me.

From this distance Hamish now understands he was just a child when the abuse occurred; he was unable to consent to sex with an adult in a position of power.

At the time though, it was a different story: “I thought I was enjoying it and I thought I was grown up.”


Because of the abstraction that he was "unable to consent" -- based on feminist dogma, not reality -- he is now supposed to be traumatized. Never mind that he also suffered real abuse:

“It was a good household to be in when my mother was in a good mood and it was a horrible household to be in when she wasn’t,” he says, “she would threaten to kill us and she’d lock all the windows and turn on the gas.”

“I got hurt,” Hamish continues, pointing to a decades-old scar on his the top of his head.


Yeah, who wouldn't be traumatized by that? You don't need sex to explain the badness of that childhood! So why do these feminist scumbags insist that "sexual abuse" is the defining element? Because they are either clueless or evil perpetrators of sex-hostility.

Anonymous said...

"From this distance Hamish now understands he was just a child when the abuse occurred; he was unable to consent to sex with an adult in a position of power."

For these assholes every adult is in a position to power and to be able into abuse 24 hours at day 365 days of the year, and the other individual is a vulnerable child from 0 years to 17 unable to handle any relationship. Literaly they consider 16 years old as vulnerable beings... Absolutely freaks they are.

Eivind Berge said...

I am amazed by the incredible childishness of the people who buy into these "sexual abuse" stories and dignify the feminist cuntrags who study them as authorities.

Never once does this research question the meaning of "abuse"! Abuse is assumed ipso facto based on some simplistic assumptions which are never examined.

Feminist research is received by the gullible public as if it is emanating from the fucking pope of their religion just because it invokes the term "sexual abuse."

The saddest part is that even if sexual abuse were real in some sense, this line of research would never be able to uncover it. This is not how science works. In order to do science, you need to operate on the assumption that your theories are falsifiable, and you need to pay attention to alternative explanations of the phenomena you seek to study. When abuse is defined ispo facto because there is some predetermined relationship that is dogmatically defined as abusive, such as mother and son or teacher and student or because one person is under some arbitrary age, you can never falsify it and hence never scientifically prove it either. These relationships are deemed "sexual abuse" from start to finish regardless of the circumstances and outcome just by the magic of definitions, so all the research amounts to begging the question and assuming the antecedent. It is circular reasoning which will never be able to demonstrate any causal relationship between the "abuse" and traumatization because it is forbidden to even entertain the notion that there might be none.

Anonymous said...

You have noticed that all those films in sunday afternoon are all about anti-men nonsense of battered women or fleeing from the abusive husband or the typical strong woman theme that wants success and men do not leave her that, and in the middle it is always a film about "abuse and power" of a man (always a man) and a minor girl or a teacher (male or female) and student? Always both seem inappropriate and abusive almost like warning parents ans societiy to watch over these relationships to prevent it, is not it a coincidence that all this sounds or is close to feminism and these bullshit of age/power difference is abuse?

Eivind Berge said...

I quit watching TV long ago, but I know what you mean. The assertion that age/power difference automatically equals abuse if any sexual contact occurs has been repeated so many times that it has taken hold everywhere except the hard core of the Men's Movement. It is never explained, only asserted, but that is enough to convince most people through repetition.

"Abuse" thus becomes a Procrustean bed which prevents thoughtful analysis by its very definition. It is not even true that the adult is necessarily more powerful in these relationships, but that is never admitted. How does society manage to ignore the sexual power of young girls? And how come we still think men are powerful despite the extreme and continually growing risks they face for the slightest accusation? In the case of Tad Cummins and Elizabeth Taylor, for example, merely transporting her across state lines carries a minimum sentence of ten years, yet he was willing to risk that and infinitely more. It happened not because he was powerful, but because she was.

Anonymous said...

https://www.shitpostbot.com/img/sourceimages/gay-away-pills-57e1e3eaf082e.jpeg

Please can have a doctor prescribe this for Milo

Eivind Berge said...

France is about to get a president who was "abused" in exactly the same way as Elizabeth :)

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/24/opinions/macron-marriage-drexler-opinion/index.html

Feminists are struggling to deal with the cognitive dissonance of their hateful and absurd definitions of sexual abuse. Contrast that with the certainty with which they condemn men:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/21/opinions/how-the-adults-failed-tennessee-teen/index.html

Although laws differ from state to state, there's a reason teacher-student relationships are frowned upon, if not outright illegal. By nature, they are not consensual, even if the students involved think they are, and often they do. Some students may even think they're the ones who pursued the relationship -- that they "asked for it." They may like the attention, or the power they think the relationship gives them.

But what's actually happening, in every case, is that the student is being groomed to accept what is, most definitely, a form of sexual abuse. Whether it's by promising access to things a teenager doesn't have, but would like to -- money, a car, sexual knowledge -- or attention a student lacks, in every case the adult is in charge and manipulating the situation.


We must therefore, if we are a feminist, conclude that Emmanuel Macron does not love his wife, and cannot love her, because their relationship is abuse. He is a damaged abuse victim and if he dares to think otherwise then he must be brainwashed to feel his victimhood. This is what politically correct people literally believe.

Anonymous said...

Their kind of babble is so tedious, unimaginative and predictable. If you were to remove the most recurrent 5-6 stereotypical words, then only prepositions and conjunctions would remain.

Anonymous said...

Adults can not consent among them since their attractions are irrational and chemical in nature, which the brain is unable to process a logical process to act, putting the integrity and health of both lives and those of those who surround it as their own children. Now also is needed to tell that an adult always takes advantage of another adult, adult relationships are not fully consensual as they are based on the dependence of the other partner, for example cars and gifts, marriage and psychological dependence, this a type of sexual abuse. That is why relations between adults should be not only censored but directly illegal.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, feminist definitions of sexual abuse lead to the conclusion that adult sexual relations are abuse just as easily. You are a lot more dependent on your spouse than a teacher in one of your classes. It is absurd to make so much of this dependence.

Anonymous said...

No. Why are you at all times with feminism? You say so much 'feminism' and 'feminist' for everything that looks like a joke.

I'll tell you a story.

Once upon a time some sons of bitches called 'adults', these were a parasite caste of murderers, exploiters, perverts and sadists who held all power, exploited anyone who was not their caste, ie children , These had no value nor rights but to serve the adult oligarch caste. At first, given that they died at thousands since they were psychopaths, addicts to conquest, the death penalty and slavery, they needed their human cattle called 'children' or 'infants' to reach adulthood as soon as possible to supply losses. That is why in antiquity to the industrial age, adults were just those are entering puberty, not because they followed the natural order or loved them so much that they wanted to incorporate them into their restricted adult world, but to make them complicate their evil and exploit them better.

That is why they are called children, because their value is only to be someone's 'child'.

But with the industrial revolution, everything began to change, the adult parasite oligarchs as they no longer died so much, they no longer needed to supply their numbers, they no longer wanted to breed with those inferior beings so instead of making them adults the fastest, They would make it as slow as possible, maximizing obedience to the adult caste, they called them 'minors', because these 'under ages' are inferior or 'minors' in value to adults, who would be 'upper ages', these would all The rights and freedoms, and the minors would have nothing except what their adult masters allowed, as if they were slaves (in fact they would be).

So the minors could not vote or have official positions, drink, gamble, or have free agency, instead had curfews, had to obey every adult, boys could go to war to die for their oligarchs , They could work in factories, but in generally, age up in one place, age down in another, a man could marry an underage female serf. This was very annoying to a class of people, the a-bit-little privileged (they could not vote or many other things, although at least were in the adult caste) adult women, realizing that their sexual and social position was in danger with These 'dirty underages selfs' marrying their men, they decided to cut it out for the healthy way, they developed feminism, the counterpart to the patriarchy that so opress even in their own caste, just as supremacist, barbaric, discriminating and militant, They would stop at nothing to be the first of their caste and eliminate their long-suffering competitors.

You know what the joke is about this? That feminists did not invent the age of consent, only lifted it wildly, why? Because it was invented by the male oligarchs, who only saw women as fresh flesh, despised prepubertal girls (within their contempt and supremacy over children), since they were not useful for the caste , So they created it to eliminate anyone who had a strong sense of attraction towards children, and therefore a potential dissident to their oligarchy, but the shot backfired them, since feminists willing to cut for the healthy, the Fresh meat, they used it to castrate the male oligarchs, now they could only be with vermin of their same age kind, they can now sexually dominate men and with it, the caste.

Anonymous said...

But then there would be another change the sexual revolution, of course a revolution between the dominant caste, a revolution that was more, in Orwellian terms, than absolute sexual slavery, where the most totalitarian ideology of history developed, Liberalism, with a single premise: you are free to do what you want with your body and your life, as long as you are 'adult' (only determined by the oligarch adult caste). Now the exploiting caste of adults, heterosexuals and homosexuals, males and females struggling for supremacy equally, was absolutely free and 'minors', well, they were already absolutely slaves.

But change one thing, an adult could no longer do anything sexually with a minor (aka a child), because as it would violate the supreme rule 'sex (and any thing in life) is fine as long as they are both adults', adds feminism with its high age of consent and shame to the attraction to young people, and you have the world today .

And the new reaction called masculinism or MRAs? They were only marginalized males, that they were alone in several websites looking for to return to the point 2, that is to say, in the Victorian time where minors not have rights but you could buy 12-years-old prostitutes, well, that until to be accepted by mainstream society they resigned to sex with Minors, but no matter, were never anything, nor will be anything, another right-wingers reactionaries with no future.

So if sex with minors or where there is difference of age or position is prohibited or censored, it is not only because of feminism, it is because of adult supremacism where only adults, in their unequal hierarchical equality, can only be with each other. Like in a racial state. Adults with adults, and if ONLY if they allow, minors with minors, and decide on their lives, their bodies, their ideas and beliefs and their destiny, the most absolute form of slavery and equality. Where the child is despised, the young even more, where they are two separate worlds, where to be a child means to be less, only a servant to be groomed (in a non-sexual way) and served for adulthood, where is a hierarchy, of 'you are weaker', 'you are more ignorant than me', Where people only count to be adults, as if being human is being an adult and the other just a preparation.

You only support sex (and only sex nothing more) with minors because you are obsessed with feminism, and use it as a weapon, to hurt those who hurt you. That is that feminists oppress and restringe men of sex, not that minors are modern slaves. Like you said, if children have the same rights that adults, children are most time ungovernable. Instead you are a libertarian, no more government for adults! Without feminism, you are just another liberal hypocrite.

So feminists, MRAs, all adults who believe are more capacitated, if all of you think your master race (ups, age) is superior, go ahead, but stop enslaving minors, if adults are so capacited just invent a ship and go to hell on another planet, all of you become immortal and sterile and you can live forever between ' Consenting adults' with this repugnant 'Real Adult Sex'. Minors do not consent to servitude.

Eivind Berge said...

It is true that feminism didn't invent age of consent, only raised it wildly, from 12 to 16 to 18. But that has made all the difference, hasn't it? It is how we got into this mess of pretending sexually mature individuals are "children" who are "abused" when they act perfectly naturally. It is the difference between criminalizing pedophilia and normal sexuality.

So I think feminists really do deserve most of the blame.

I agree that the "anything goes as long as it is between consenting adults" trope is not as libertarian as it sounds. It enables immeasurable injustice because it leaves too much open to definitions and excuses draconian laws. So I try not to use that expression myself.

I don't think adults hate minors as much as they fear them. For good reason, since the laws are so draconian. A good place to start, if you want to break down the caste system which makes minors a separate class, is to make the sex laws less insane. This caste system defines minors as both inferior and incredibly superior at the same time (as soon as you are accused of any offense against them). It is really schizo.

Anonymous said...

Du er fyren som har dukket opp på tv, jeg kan ikke tro det!

Eivind Berge said...

Hva mener du med det?

Anonymous said...

It's very refreshing to see someone who's not a pedophile or hebephile question these things, Eivind, and I think you're pretty much spot on. Throughout the years I've come into contact with quite a few people (women, mostly) who tell me that they feel positively about having had sexual experiences with adults as minors. Some of these say they were as young as 8 when it happened. Now, it's not the norm to be interested in sexuality at that age, but it certainly isn't impossible either. Several of my friends were actively fantasizing and masturbating to porn at that age, and I myself started not too much later.

All but one of these people said they were met with cries of "you're in denial!", "you just have Stockholme syndrome!", and the like (just look at the recent Milo Yiannopoulos debaucle) when they shared their feelings about what happened. One woman was even called "Uncle Tom" for supposedly "enabling" pedophiles. Another was rather viciously attacked on a messageboard by someone who was raped as a child: "You should shut up! Can't you see you re normalizing pedophilic behavior!? Your story is not typical. I know, since I attend therapy group-sessions for survivors!"

It all seemed so obvious to me at that time: Of course she doesn't think this story is typical, because someone who had a positive relationship would not (voluntarily) attend that form of therapy! It's insane to think of what kind of a sample bias research on this topic must be plagued by. Just to illustrate, a recent study done on thousands of schoolchildren (6th-9th grade) in Finland shows that, of all who have had sexual contact with adults (5 or more years older, so no "close-in-age" exceptions), over 40% answer that they think of it as at least "fairly positive", with over a quarter saying "very positive".

https://services.fsd.uta.fi/catalogue/FSD2943/PIP/cbF2943e.pdf (see page 270 of the actual document, not your pdf-reader).

And this is 40% of all cases of sexual contact (including rape, bribery, blackmail etc.). The percentages would undoubtedly be even higher if these were excluded, and if cases involving very young children were excluded as well.

Of course, there is no chance of this every penetrating into the mainstream consciousness: it will largely go ignored. It is simply not allowed to add any nuance to this topic whatsoever. As you point out Eivind, these relationships are dogmatically called "abuse" regardless of the minor's current (or future) feelings.

Imagine if Andrea Dworkin got her way and all heterosexual sex was deemed rape because of "power imbalances". Women would be met with "he didn't love you, he was just grooming you for sex!" and "he only made you like the sex so he could use you more often. You were taken advantage of!" These statements are no-more easy to counter than they are in the adult-minor case, because that the relationship was "abusive" is taken as axiomatic truth.

No-one wants a free-for-all where grown men are free to "hit on" little kids, but I see no justice in creating harm where there didn't need to be any. We should be able to approach the topic with some nuance, and discuss the possibility of making exceptions in clear-cut cases where it it obvious that it was consensual, everyone knew what they were doing, and no-one got hurt.

Eivind Berge said...

Tank you for you comment, I completely agree. While I am not personally affected, it really bothers me that mainstream society is refusing to be honest about what might constitute sexual abuse. Instead we have pure dogma, including "research" which axiomatically assumes what it sets out to prove. Academic honesty is one casualty, and it gets so much worse. One would hope that laws purporting to address abuse and imposing some of the harshest punishments of the justice system could be evidence-based rather than dogma-based, but that doesn't appear to be likely any time soon.

If someone can go through all the motions of enjoying something and not be damaged in any discernible way -- yet still be defined as an "abuse victim" in denial -- then we are dealing with a metaphysical claim. What, exactly, is being abused then? Is it one's soul? I am not categorically dismissing metaphysics, but if you are going to make metaphysical claims, then at least be honest about it and not confuse it with the physical realm. For example, you might subscribe to some Christian notion of "sin." Fair enough, you are entitled to your beliefs, but don't pretend that you are conducting a scientific study of sexual abuse.

sestamibi said...

"I no longer think the male losers will rebel. By all accounts, the vast majority simply accept their lot."

If it were only a matter of large numbers of men not getting any, I would agree, but what we are seeing is a large scale effort to criminalize desire. When those men find themselves deprived of freedom for very lengthy periods simply because of their desire to get laid, then all bets are off. At that point, it becomes a matter of survival.

Anonymous said...

I'd just like to clarify a poorly-worded statement I made:

"It's insane to think of what kind of a sample bias research on this topic must be plagued by. Just to illustrate, a recent study done on thousands of schoolchildren..."

What I meant was that this study illustrated the opposite. It was performed on the general population, rather than on (presumably) heavily biased clinical samples.

Anonymous said...

Anon, all men are "hebephiles" by default, it is very unlikely that a man is not sexually or emotionally attracted to a pubescent, in fact if a man tells me he has never been attracted to a well-formed 12-years-old I simply do not believe he, it is not a rare specific attraction like children

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, I also think most normal men are attracted to pubescent girls. But it isn't the age they are most attracted to, and they can certainly be happy with older girls, so I wouldn't call it hebephilia by default. It's not like I went to college and thought, "Gee, these girls are too old, I wish I were back in middle school," and I didn't observe that attitude in any of my friends. A man who did that would be slightly deviant, I think. Doesn't mean hebephilia is abusive, but it isn't the norm either.

Anonymous said...

To the anonymous that quoted a acquaintance who said: "All but one of these people said they were met with cries of "you're in denial!", "you just have Stockholme syndrome!":

Your acquaintance should tell these people that Stockholm syndrome is a defensive mechanism that can only exist while a dangerous and serious occurrence is taking place or is imminent. If the danger happened in the past and has ended, it cannot be Stockholm syndrome by definition.

Anonymous said...

Well, I also have not met personally a single man who admits being attracted to a girl under 18, even a 16 year old in high school is absolute taboo besides living in a society where the 'adult sex' to call it somehow, is absolutely socially obsessive and something almost ideological as the foundation of society, I do not see many men really happy with older women, rather I see women taking advantage of manginas who believe that a high school is better because it has more conversation than a middle school IMO.

Anonymous said...

Being attracted to well-developed 12 year-olds (who look more like they're 16) from time to time is not an indication that a man is a hebephile at all. Whereas, if he's attracted to a 20 year-old because she could pass for 12 it very well might be.

While pedophiles and hebephiles will wax lyrical about how they love the personalities of underage girls (and for many this is sincere), at the end of the day, attraction is highly visual. So if one of them were to encounter an adult who had many juvenile traits, they would likely feel some level of attraction. Similarly for teleiophilic (adult-attracted) men who see a pubescent girl with well-developed traits. But this does not indicate an actual preference for pubescent girls. Actually, it's the opposite: he's attracted to her because she looks mature. Therefore it is erroneous to state that most men are hebephiles.

Anonymous said...

It is true that normally when you see men on the internet praise a minor girl is just because she looks well-formed adult, not because she looks or is adolescent. But it is important to make it clear that this society is encouraged by passive and active, direct or subconscious the fact that a grown adult has to be attracted to other grown adults, just as today is a growing number of self-proclaimed bisexuals , which IMHO are no more than straights that are alienated by the state-sanctioned androgynism and homosexuaslism, although there are some sincere bisexuals, of course but we are not a bisexual species by default, we are a straight one even if the 50% of humans are now self-proclaimed "bisex" o "curious".

Also what I do not say is that they are hebephiles by default (note that it was in quotes, although I may have explained it wrongly), but anyone with straight sexuality by default, can be attracted to someone who has reached puberty simply because they has a minimum sexual development and therefore susceptible to stimulate sexual desire, so it always a straight men will have a minimal stimulation to even a not very developed pubescent, nor just the developed ones, so it does not make hebephiles by default, but if by default inclined to pubescent as a post-pubescent, like their as partners or not, that is the point that I want to reach.