90 % of porn is boring

Internet is for porn. Internet offer you great many things than porn. You can name anything that you want to find on Google. But there is definitively a lot more porn on internet now than ten years ago.

In the early beginning, we boys looked for dirty pictures. Now, we can stream videos without paying for them. There are unbelievable amounts of videos and pictures that are "free of charge". At this point, I think I get damaged in some way? It can't be healthy to watch porn? There is no truth in porn. Why do I need porn, really?

I watch porn for my imagination and curiosity. Like I tend(ed) to fall in love (with more or less pretty girls I don't know), I need to trick or blind myself to get excited. Imagination is strengthening my natural arousal. That brings me greater pleasure. And I am damn pretty good about pleasuring myself. I just need some kind of inspiration for my brain to keep it going. In fact, I don't need porn. I can just use my imagination, like I did before. But porn may give faster arousal.

I can't any longer get excited over "normal" porn. I get very quickly bored. Almost all porn is boring to watch. That's because I have the feeling that I have seen things before. I know what happens. I know that an hour long porn video may take 3 days to shoot. I know that I just look at meaningless pumping, screaming or sucking action. Professionals don't arouse me. No!

I rather like real amateur porn videos. Once I have seen a new footage, I normally don't watch it a second time. Therefore, I never store porn on my hard disc. So, I must look for more if I want to keep my curiosity for porn.

I also think porn is damaging. If I am lucky spending quality time with a girl, I can't just tell her to bend over. Nor suck on her toes and breasts, lick her clitoris, nor run fingers into her vagina. That's not quite how thing will work well for both parts, I guess. Porn creates myths that we shouldn't respond to.

Female ski jumper landed badly

Anette Sagen, a front figure for female ski jumping, landed badly during test trials at Vikersund (Norway). She managed to fly 177 meter when the accident occured. Anette Sagen was sent directly to hospital. She hurt ankle and lower leg. Lucky for her it wasn't very serious, and she will be able to jump again in a few days.



Skeptics to female ski jumping may think this message supports that females don't belong in big hills. Today, female ski jumpers can only compete in 90 meter hills. But if it hadn't been for the fall, she would have improved her personal record. The fall is very typical, but not typical for women. Recently, the austrian Gregor Schlierenzauer, fell both in first and second jump during team competition in the same hill.



Both Sagen and Schlierenzauer are great ski jumpers!

Help women with child care!

What can I say about Womans Day? It's important to give women better rights everywhere in the world. It's proven that women spend more money on family, if they control family economy. Children will grow stronger with better nutrition and education. The position of the woman should be strengthened because it turns to be better for society. There is no reason to stick to old traditions and unfavourable views that suppress women. The most important thing is that womens income should be equal to mens income. That's because economy (resources) is the key to most the difficult situations, like war. Give therefore more power to women!



Women in Scandinavia are very lucky today. The Womens Day isn't that important to us scandinavians anymore. Nevertheless, women don't get equally paid for the same work position. E.g. female nurses get only 80 % of mens salary in Norway today. Females are not well represented in top positions either. Womens birth is the turning point in both cases. People expect that women must handle both childcare and management at the same time. And women get less paid as soon as they leave of absence. So, one of the solutions to this is to let fathers baby sit more.

Do not think that men can't handle childcare! The future is brighter through the females.

What's worse than both the climate crisis and the financial crisis?

From the point of view of Per Willy Amundsen, a Norwegian politican, apparently nothing is worse than the future immigration. He represents a party that demands to stop the immigration, especially muslims, because they worry about the future integration and increasing amounts of "parasites". The statements of P. Willy is quite shocking to me. Now, the global financial crisis strikes our small and open economy with great force. The result is fast increasing unemployment. And the climate crisis will require heavy investments in the future to avoid very serious global changes. Unfortunately, both come at the same time.



On second thought, the statement isn't that shocking after all. That is because his party (Fremskrittspartiet) wants to leave the control to the market forces. Profit is most desireable for them. And global warming, which isn't especially profitable, is actually out of the question. They deny the claims of global warming, unlike the other parties in Norway. And the financial crisis problably isn't that bad either, because they believe in the market. What cannot the market handle? (Is there any kind of lord that controls the economy?) The global warming and the financial crisis isn't a problem after all.

Fortunately for us, Norway have good regulations of the market, oil and other great resources to meet these challenges. What ever we do, there is always an alternative to buy us free. But we seem to not handle integration. Of course, both foreigners and the ethnic Norwegians are involved in this soup. The main reason that immigration take place is the need for employees. And for a second reason, love is crossing borders. Therefore, our country should be thankful to foreigners efford and love. Thank you!

Let's look on the graph below. It shows the increasing immigration to Norway. In 2060, it is expected that one out of four citizens is an "immigrant". But it's hard to define when an immigrant becomes a Norwegian.

It's not a good idea to look back to the 1950s, when Norway was a monoculture of ethnical Norwegians, only to think of they as real Norwegians. Oslo is today multicultural. But people are scared of changes. Changes that they aren't scared of once they become a reality. Like immigration to Oslo.

Good night!

Women still can't endanger themselves in sports

Do you notice anything unusual about these girls? The picture below is published through the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten (Scanpix).

The image shows the American World Champion in ski jumping, Lindsey Van, and the livelier bronze winner from Norway, Anette Sagen. In the world championship in Liberec, we witnessed the first major ski jumping competition for women. As we can see, they look happy! But when we look back to the 1930s, female ski jumpers were used as interval entertainment. People were amazed over seeing girls jump. Old prejudice has survived for a very long time since then.

A few years ago, I saw Anette Sagen in Holmenkollen for the first time. She was interval entertainment because she flew down the K120 hill without a problem. She landed on the 131 meter spot! Amazing! The hill record is 136 meters...

Surprisingly, women can't compete in K120 hills today. The old prejudices still live on. In the world championship in Liberec, Van and Sagen were only allowed to compete in the K90 hill. What a shame! Even the K90 hill competition for men remains from the past.

There is not a single reason to keep women from jumping, except that there should be more female competitors on a higher level first. But the reason for this must be obvious. The prejudice from the past is based on that females will hurt themselves in sports. If a boy is sent to the hospital, no one thinks that he is foolhardy. Just unlucky!

Hijab - a religious symbol on the police uniform?

A uniform is not supposed to change in form or character. The hijab is allowed head clothing on police women in UK and Sweden. Discussions have recently bloomed among Norwegians. Suddenly, I need to answer a question that I never have thought about. Is it OK to allow religious women to wear this religious piece of cloth on the police uniform?

Those who hate Islam will almost certainly protest against the hijab. Those women who fight against oppression from islamic regimes may also protest. And true liberalists would certainly make the question a personal choice, not a rule. I think it is a good idea to adapt the hijab to the police uniform, as seen in the picture above. On the contrary, a choice of a red kerchief may not be appropriate.

Some want to compare the Balaclava helmet with the hijab. What if the police wore those? Would that be unacceptable? Actually, the terror police (around the world) do use the balaclava today. But still, it is not a religious symbol anyway.



The hijab is very controversial. In many cases, both the hijab, niqab, and burqa are used to oppress women, mostly in islamic regimes. On the other hand, many women may feel free if they are allowed to wear these religious head clothings. Beware of their religious feelings! The denial of hijab on women's police uniforms is therefore excluding. Islamic women may not choose to be police women.



Don't forget that the hijab also opens up for the turban! The question must therefore be extended to include all religious head clothings. Should it be allowed to use all religious head clothings on police uniforms in any country? And are the original police uniforms really symbol free?



A hijab is definitively made a religous symbol. But the head clothing in itself is not religious. It's just covering parts of the face. Face cover in general is very useful in severe cold or sandy areas. Therefore, face cover can't be controversial. The real problem is the variety of religious symbols that can appear on a uniform, which is supposed to be uniform.

What do you think the todays police clothings symbol? I think they remind me of the military, military parades and military regimes. The military uniforms symbol force and power. You may disagree. I think it is better to include different varieties of uniforms, although they don't become perfectly uniform.

Do you mind?



Read more.

Creationism is a sketch

Many conservative Christians do not accept the Theory of Evolution. Modern Christians, as I define them, can combine evolutionism and Christianity with no problems. Fundamentalists cannot. That's why those kind of Christians are called fundamentalists. But whatever a person believes, creationism cannot be an alternative explanation of world creation. The evolutionism and other sciences are too advanced for such silly statements. Who does really believe that lions originally ate grass? Creationism is therefore only a sketch of imagination, not based on pure logic.


When I think of conservative Christians, the first country I associate with fundamentalism is the United States of America. Norway was by the way christianized in the 10th century. This was late compared to most countries in Europe. If I compare U.S. with Norway, I must pick a northern state with size of 125 000 square miles and 4,7 million citizens. In addition, I look for coast line and snow capped mountain tops. I think Minnesota is the most comparable state, although lakes and rivers remind me more of Finland.

In Norway, about 59 % of the population do "believe" in the Theory of Evolution. And one out of ten Norwegians (Christian conservatives or not) do not believe in Darwin. Those are bad numbers! But the resistance in U.S. is even greater! One out of three Americans do not believe in Theory of Evolution. A huge difference! Although Norway has extremely high percent of literacy.

I do actually know the leading spokesman for creationism in Norway, but I have never discussed the topic with him. I am rather disappointed over the physician I once knew. What does he have on his mind? He must be stubborn!

I divide religion and policy. It is unimportant to teach creationism at schools. Mainly because the idea of creationism doesn't make sense. For those who prefer to continue to believe in the Bible, that is their choice. But why should a whole society listen to their beliefs? That doesn't make sense either, if the answer is yes. The Bible is not the whole truth.

Yes. I am wrong. Creationism is not a sketch after all. It is written down and hasn't been updated in 2000 years.

Freedom of expression prevailed!

The government of Norway has suggested to remove a "sleeping" paragraph of blasphemy. The last convict got a 55 Euro fine in 1912 (todays value) for writing an article called "The Great Humbug". This further step, which has the Norwegian Parliaments full support, will theoretically increase the freedom of speech. But a small party in the government coalition, did almost a horse-trade when the Prime Minister of Norway gave the green light to continue protect religious feelings. The government only embarrassed themselves by doing so.



The small party, which is supported by mainly farmers and compete for Christian voters, suggested to extend the excisting paragraph of "racism". The paragraph of "racism" forbids among other things malicious remarks based on faith or view of life. The idea of the law extension was to stop offensive religious statements, or in other words blasphemy. The intellectualists raged over the suggested decrease in the freedom of speech. Suddenly there were criticism from every source, even from own members.

The Prime Minister of Norway held later a press conference to solve the misunderstandings. The day after pulled the leader of the small party the suggestion back. Freedom of expression is indeed an important fundament of the democracy. Only fundamentalistic regimes are interested in such laws that protects religious feelings, like Iran, Libya and Saudi-Arabia. The freedom of expression should, on the other hand, be used wisely.

The whole story ended in embarrassment. They should have known better.

May the Force be with the Man from Snåsa!

A healer has caught the attention of Norwegian media recently. Joralf Gjerstad is known as "the Man from Snåsa" (North of Trondheim) through a release of a book about him. This wizard has suddenly become a subject on everyones lips. It's not the first time it is written a book about his skills. But media didn't embrace the idea before now.



Many people support the idea that Gjerstad has helped them. There is absolutely something about him. He is certainly a respectable man. But does he really have healing skills? Science is based on probability. If healing really helps, it is like throwing a dice. Either you get low or high numbers. You'll never know. The outcome is equally high and low numbers over time. Science opens for coincidence. But science also opens for the Placebo effect. That is truly interesting. People that think they got real treatment, feel better condition than those who didn't get treatment (of any type).

Even Norwegian politicians have embraced this wizard. And the Minister of Health have been criticized for supporting his ideas. The defenders of healing have counter attacked the so called "arrogant" scientists. They claim that science can't explain everything. Discussing the healing science has been out of the question.

It's tempting for scientists to say that healing is complete rubbish. But science does not work this way, either. Science supports the idea of Placebo effect. You see? Who would actually tell a person with cancer that healing is complete rubbish? I would only feel sorry if I did. That would not make the ill feel better! "The man of Snåsa" is quite the opposite to this suggested lack of behaviour. He makes people feel better! And they thank him afterwards!

Personally, I do not think that tumors disappear by healing. On the other hand, healing can't hurt anyone. Unless healing replaces documentated treatment, which can be harmful (according to science). What really matters is that healers make people feel better.

Cheers!

She handled the War in Gaza very well!

I, a common Norwegian intellectualist, really enjoy reading newspaper debates and comments in Norwegian media (Aftenposten.no, Dagsavisen.no, VG.no etc). But since the start of Israeli bombardment of Gaza in December, the war discussions have occupied the newspaper columns every single day. It seems apparently that this conflict is the greatest in the world? I assume this isn't the truth! Anyway, the politicians and commentators can't resist telling how they would act to the real situation.

  

Norway is a peaceful nation. We think there is only a peaceful solution to any conflict. War is not the solution (The allied invasion of Iraq has been proven to be so). Norway has great resources (oil, gas) and solid institutions, though. I believe intellectualists think resources are the main reason to the Israel-Palestine conflict, not religion, terrorist groups nor ethnicity. 

The government has taken part in peace negotiations in the 90s. And the Noble Peace Institute is by the way in Oslo. Is this "peace image" the reason that people of Scandinavia apparently must be gifted or blessed experts in solving conflicts in the world? Cause Norwegians never war! Except resisting Nazi-German scum during WW2! We are so great that we right away should export free oil to poor Gaza. Oh right! 

Now, I get sick when I read about politicians getting support for their view on how to "handle" the war situation in Gaza correctly. It either refers to claims that "Israel has the right to defend themselves" or "The situation is very difficult. The attack on Gaza is illegitimate", or combinations of these statements. It is known that the parts are not willing to negotiate anymore, even during cease fire. The conflict is jammed.

Remember! We didn't handle the situation. It did not happen at all!