English Council Pays for Disabled Man to Visit Prostitute

A ‘man of 21 with learning disabilities has been granted taxpayers’ money to fly to Amsterdam and have sex with a prostitute.

His social worker says sex is a ‘human right’ for the unnamed individual – described as a frustrated virgin.

His trip to a brothel in the Dutch capital’s red light district next month is being funded through a £520million scheme introduced by the last government to empower those with disabilities. 

They are given a personal budget and can choose what services this is spent on.

Source : Councils pay for disabled to have sex with prostitutes

Good!  This is the most heartwarming story I’ve read in  a long time, save for the predictable outrage from the sexual trade union’s conservative mouth piece – the Daily Mail.

I spoke in my last post about the effects of the free sexual market in producing grotesquely varied outcomes in terms of ‘winners and losers’.  Feminism, and the overturning of ‘patriarchy’, has been the response of the mass of unattractive female losers.  The ‘Mystery Method’ and Game has been the response of male ‘losers’ (high IQ white betas).

In his novels, the French writer Michel Houellebecq discusses various solutions to the unfair outcomes produced by the free sexual market.  In Platform, an economic solution is proposed, consisting of a heretical defence of western sexual tourism to Asia.  Why shouldn’t wealthy, but obese or old westerners, trade their own sought after goods with the poor, yet sexually attractive members of Asian societies?  In the earlier and more popular Atomised, a more radical, femi-nazi type solution is presented – the abolition of sexual desire altogether, brought about through genetic intervention.  Even more inflammatory, he playfully suggests at times that teenage girls should ‘justify their spoilt existance’ by being encouraged to trade their sexual beauty for the gifts of the older men whose taxes already support their extended adolescent lifestyles.

Now, I wish to make clear I am speaking as an ‘anti-feminist’ and all round agent provocateur, rather than as a ‘men’s rights supporter’. But I agree wholeheartedly that the state should have no more or less right to redress the imbalances of a free sexual market than it does presently to correct those of the economic free market.

Why shouldn’t those with beauty and youth be encouraged to enter into mutually advantageous relationships with the less attractive, but wealthier (an example of this is ‘compensation dating’ in Japan)?  After a year of working 40 hour weeks, I’m now earning close to $2,000 a week.  Why should my hard earned work go towards supporting the family of 5 on welfare down the road through the taxes that I pay, and yet if I offered to take the 17 year old daughter out to an expensive dinner, with an understanding that my sexual needs would be catered for afterwards, I would face prosecution as a sex offender (payment for sex with a minor – even though above the age of consent)?

Of course, as I have always argued, the law that would prosecute me is itself a state attempt at redressing the imbalances produced by the free sexual market. But it is one that ONLY addresses the sexual disadvantages of older, unattractive women.  Because I cannot use my modest wealth to ‘buy’ sexual favours from the young and attractive, I am more likely to end up in a relationship with an older, unattractive woman who will herself profit from my income.

The actions of those English councils might appear to indicate the birth of a more enlightened and caring sexual age.  But the disabled young men with learning difficulties are actually being put at risk of being prosecuted for ‘paying for sex’ if it turns out that those Amsterdam prostitutes were trafficked (or more likely if they claim to have been trafficked to avoid deportation as illegal immigrants). 

This world, created by the feminists and their allies, both conservative and cultural marxist, is full of Orwellian contradictions.  We hold the highest value to be the reduction of human misery and inequality.  Few object to disabled people having financial compensation, privilages, and other support from the state, even the right to ‘compete’ at Olympic Games.  Yet the idea that sex is a human right, rather than something that must be arduously won in the free sexual jungle, is something that strikes most as absurd.  Even the feminists have to pretend that their sexual trade union laws are attempts to save ‘victims’ rather than honestly admitting that they are nothing more than attempts to preserve the sexual ‘rights’ of older, unattractive women in that cruel and ruthless sexual market.

Michel Houellebecq points out the contradictions inherent in a social democratic society where sex has become a commoddity.  In such a world, we ought to encourage classes of 16 year old schoolgirls to visit retirement homes and to give the lonely old men there one last blowjob before the dying of the light.  In my view, such a world would be fairer, more beautiful, and definitely more consistent than our present one.

PUAs, the Free Sexual Market, and Men’s Rights

An articulate and reflective PUA ruminates upon the moral issues of being paid by horny young males in order to help them get knee-deep in pussy :

Generally, we are getting students who are seriously vulnerable to the predations of women. Like a dog who chases a car down the street and then doesn’t know what to do when it catches up, like the fool who grabs a tiger by the tail, we in the seduction community are teaching guys to walk into a trap. What trap?

  • False paternity claims and ensuing child support that will cripple them financially
  • Emotional abuse from passive aggressive bitches who try to destroy your self esteem and your faith in humanity
  • STDs, some of which can ruin your fertility or harm your future wife
  • False rape claims that will see your reputation ruined, your career ended, and likely a long stint in jail just because some whore gets buyers remorse

Now I’m not going into the topic of whether the PUA life is a shallow one. That’s an oversold meme and I care little for it. I’m talking about this:

By encouraging naïve men to sleep with many women, we are exposing them to risks they don’t even know exist.

Like most in the MRM, I have an ambivalent attitude towards the PUA community.  Some argue that it gives men control, others that it makes you a slave to pussy.  At least this PUA guru is aware of the risks involved.

In brief, my politically incorrect view of ‘the Game’ is as follows :  The pick-up-artist community originated in multi-cultural centers such as Toronto as a response to the inability of white geeks, earning up-to 6 figure salaries, to compete with urban black men and other ‘naturals’ in the free sexual market. This ‘extension of the domain of the struggle’ constitutes the underlying theme of all of Michel Houellebecq’s novels. The economic jungle has extended into the private realm, yet with a different set of rules, a different set of winners and losers, and with no equivalent to taxation or a welfare safety net to reduce the worst discrepancies in outcome.  At least for men.  Older, unattractive women, the female losers in the free sexual market, have of course organised themselves through feminism into a highly effective sexual trade union that is making it increasingly dangerous or illegal for men to pursue young females. At the same time as allowing women themselves to easily cuckold their husbands and spend their massive divorce payouts in hunting for big bamboo, in nightclubs or on the beaches of Jamaica. 

The differing male/female responses to the creation of the free sexual marketplace surely tell us a lot about our respective psychologies, and why men’s rights continues to make miniscule headway in comparison to the march of feminism.  Men seem unable to policiticize their sexual rights (as normal, heterosexual men). Hell,  most men won’t even admit that women prefer black cock.  Of course, it’s true as well that most women won’t admit openly the even more obvious truth that men prefer teenage girls (many men won’t).  But every woman knows in her own head that it’s the truth.  This is why they are able to create world-wide political movements that transfrom social ethics within decades, whereas men can only come up with ‘the Mystery Method’, something that appeals to men individually, and our instinctive and primal need to compete with other men in order to get pussy.

Men analyse and compete, women politicize and unite.

Of course, it’s a good thing that men do not (or no longer) further their own sexual interests through the creation of spurious laws that criminilize white women having interracial sex, in the way that women have created laws that destroy men for even looking at younger females.  But it’s probably also true that the only hope for the men’s rights movement is if the much larger, and more relevant to young men PUA community can become in someway politicised.  Men too, have to learn that the personal has become political, and not just a game.

I would also add that, in my view, the efforts of the PUA community are an attempt to restore IQ to sexual selection (indirectly through the skill of the game, just as high male IQ was selected for previously indirectly via wealth/high status). In a sense therefore, PUAs are possiblenoble saviours of civilisation (along with Transhumanism).  (The Fifth Horseman made a great comment regarding this at Anti-Feminist Tech, I haven’t yet been able to re-locate the article for the link).

Other Articles seen around the web recently :

Flashing Teenage Breasts Could lead to 5 years prison for Male

A Florida man is facing five years in prison because he photographed two teenage girls flashing their breasts on the side of the road.

Robert Lee Blevins

Turns out, the girls were 15-years-old, according to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.

It is not clear if Robert Lee Blevins, 33, was aware of their age when he pulled his car up alongside them and snapped a photo.

This is why this blog exists, why its subtitle is the ‘rape of the male’, and why I have absolutely no regret in questioning the age of consent laws that underpin such madness.

And of course, taking photos of a bullied 15 year old girl dying in the street is pefectly legal, and no doubt will end up on a dozen sick American websites, with no objections from the FemiWhores, their sexual trade union ‘child protection’ groups, or Republican congressmen.

A glimpse of collective hysteria, 80 years into the past(misandry review)

The movie depicts an entire urban community in the grip of mass hysteria and fear as they struggle to track down and identify a child murderer. The police throw their full resources into finding the killer, but after eight months they still have nothing to show for their efforts. One of the problems that the overworked police force faces is a deluge of false allegations from a hyper-frightened public. In one poignant scene, a man who is walking down the street is approached by a little girl and asked what time it is. He gives her the time, but this act alone incites a mob of accusing onlookers, screaming that this man must be the child-killer and culminating in the police hauling him off to be questioned. Another scene shows a group of men sitting around a table in rapt attention as one reads them a newspaper article. That article prompts one of the paranoid men to accuse the one sitting directly across from him of being the killer. Threats between them ensue.

Women’s sexual peak rests atop a pile of lies (Paul Elam)

Where else but the current gender Zeitgeist can a woman with crows feet, sagging breasts, reduced sexual hormones, a vagina that does not lubricate as it once did, more difficulty conceiving and less ability to attract sexual partners of their preference, stand up and say “I am in my sexual prime,” and have everyone in their presence nod their head in agreement?

Only in a world where we tell women whatever they want to hear, no matter how ridiculous.

 

Hero White Knight UFC Fighter Curb Stomps Woman Hitter

27-year-old Huerta — who was once featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated — was in front of a bar in Austin around 2 AM on Saturday morning … when some other people began fighting.  Roger was near the scuffle … when he saw one of the men involved punch a female who was standing near the ruckus.

Once Huerta sees the woman collapse to the ground — he instantly tries to confront the attacker saying, “You just punched a f**kin’ girl.”

Moments later, Huerta takes off his shirt … slams his hat to the ground … and rushes after the man.

Chaos ensues and people scramble after the fighters, blocking the camera — but seconds later … a shirtless Huerta can be seen finishing his attack on the other man … who is sprawled out on the street.

People rush in to aid the bloody man on the ground — who eventually gets off the pavement — as Huerta walks away from the battle ground.

Austin PD tells TMZ that officers were called to the scene — but so far, no arrests have been made.

Huerta’s manager tells us, “I have not spoken to Roger yet about this incident, but I can say that it’s in his nature to be very protective of women.”

Sucker punching somebody weaker than yourself is obviously the height of cowardice.  But in this age of ‘equality’, does hitting a woman per sejustify getting a beat down from a professional fighter?  An assault so vicious,  that it might leave you eating through straws for the rest of your life?  Well, yes seems to be the general consensus to those commenting on (ex) Lightweight UFC fighter Roger Huerta’s white knight KO’ing of a big black dude who ‘laid his hands on a woman’.

On first viewing of the video, it does appear that the black guy is guilty of sucker punching a random white lady.  On second viewing, it would seem more likely that the white woman has done something personally to anger the black guy in the bar, perhaps even hit him (you can’t really tell because the video begins with a fight spilling out into the street and the apparent ‘sucker punch’).

But wherever you read this story, nearly 100% of the comments are fully supportive of Roger Huerta.  Don’t hit a woman. Period.  Nobody knows the background to the incident, but virtually every man who has watched the video would cheer if they learnt that the black guy’s life support machine had been switched off.

Dana White himself, president of the UFC, had this to say about the incident :

“In no way do I condone street fighting, but when a guy puts his hands on a woman he deserves to be knocked the [expletive] out. Good for Roger.”

I wonder if that quote will be remembered should the UFC ever follow the lead of other MMA promotions, and allow woman cage fighters to choke and pound each other in order to line promoter’s pockets?

1. Posted by The Great One Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:47 pm EDT

Good for Roger, i would have done the same damn thing. I am a fighter myself, but you NEVER put your hands on a woman under ANY circumstance. Good job Roger!
2. Posted by Horacio Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:48 pm EDT
  • That was great!!! nothing wrong at all
  • 3. Posted by mattis25 Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:48 pm EDT
  • Rogers the Man, that dude didn’t just punch her he wound up and EFFN NAILED HER. He’s the one who should be charged pin a medal on Huerta.
  • 4. Posted by capncalyx Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:49 pm EDT
  • SWEEEEET! I love a good street fight. Way to step up Roger and use your skills for something good. If i hit a girl id expect someone to knock me TFO too.
    My worst nightmare would be to pick a fight with a dude i didnt know was in the UFC.
  • 5. Posted by capncalyx Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:50 pm EDT
  • …btw i bet that dudes head will hurt for a WEEK!
  • 6. Posted by J magic Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:54 pm EDT
  • Good job Roger just shows that a man should never hit a women!!!!
  • 7. Posted by peter Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:55 pm EDT
  • Good for Roger. F$ck that dude up!
  • Of the hundreds of comments I’ve read, the following was a lone contrary voice:
    29. Posted by Angelcruise Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:42 pm EDT
    What if the Woman started the Fight, w/ her loose & stupid mouth… how many times has that happened…Equality?!!

    But what’s most disturbing  is the fact that although there is no dispute that Roger Huerta knocked the guy out, it appears that TMZ.com, who released the video, edited it to make it look as though he was also the man curbstomping him at the end of the video.  In fact, upon closer inspection it seems that this was not Huerta.  Yet when interviewed by TMZ the ex-UFC fighter was happy to go along with the story, and did not make any attempt to deny that it was he who was stomping on the man’s head as he lay on the ground.

    Chivalry is so ingrained into our society, even to the point of brutal violence, that a celebrity MMA fighter can happily boast to have curb stomped a defenceless man into the ground for ‘hitting a woman’, and know that he will be regarded as a hero without any legal repercussions to fear.

    I wonder who Roger should come to the aid of in this video?

    Brit Babe Arrested for Undercutting Muslim Rival at the Mall

    A BRIT holidaymaker has been charged with indecency after stripping to a bikini in the world’s largest shopping centre.

    The woman was walking through Dubai Mall fully dressed and wearing a low-cut top.

    But when an Arabic woman stopped her and criticised her clothing, the pair had a heated row which ended with the Brit peeling off to reveal even more flesh.

    Hundreds of bemused shoppers looked on as the Brit told the Arab woman to “mind her own business” before stripping off and walking around in her bikini, it was claimed.
    Security guards intervened and called the police, who arrested the tourist.

    The woman, whose identity is unknown, was questioned by officers in Bur Dubai police station and charged with indecency.

    A Dubai police source said: ‘The British woman was wearing a very low top and most of her legs were on display. We ended up questioning both women.”

    Brit Bikini Babe arrested after Dubai mall catfight

    Human Stupidity Part 2 – Ultimate and Proximate Explanations

    Ultimate/Proximate Explanations and a Happy, Sexually Free Society

    Whilst reading Human-Stupidity‘s blog last week, I came across something that he’s expressed quite brilliantly, and something that I happen to have recently been reflecting upon a great deal myself.  It’s something that really goes to the heart of the stupidity and irrationality of many of our current sexual mores :

    In antiquity, When the Bible and the Koran were written, there were no birth control nor genetic paternity tests. Drakonian laws against adultery and pre-marital sex gave men sufficient trust that they were investing their life’s work and effort in their own offspring and not someone elses kid.
    The Koran and the Bible were right, in their times: such laws could contribute to stability of family and society.  Religious dogma and zealotism, unfortunately, prevent any rational modern re-analysis of these topics in the face of birth control and DNA testing.

    Before reading HS’s post, I had made a similar point to a Christian feminist, who was trying to rationalise her sexual self-interest in having men locked away to be raped for having consensual sex with younger females. I’ll quote her directly, and it’s a simple argument that I’ve seen popping up quite often recently (for example, Welmer of the Spearhead makes it too) :

    The thing is, historically older men were able to have sex with attractive 15-year-olds because they married those 15-year-olds.

    But the thing is, historically, attractive 15 year olds would likely have fallen pregnant if they had sex with older men. 

    Whereas today :

    • 15 year old girls (can) have access to the contraceptive pill.
    • Contraceptives for men (condoms) are far more reliable than they were in times past.
    • 15 year old girls can have abortions if they do not wish to raise the child.
    • 15 year old girls will receive the support of the welfare state if they do decide to raise the child.

    To say ‘sex with teens has never been legal outside of marriage’ is meaningless.  Almost as meaningless as saying that pre-marital sex has never been legal outside of marriage.  Both are largely as true as the other (at least outside of the USA – the average age of consent in Europe is still under 15, fifty years after the birth of the free sexual market).

    Of course, a 15 year old girl getting pregnant in a high-tech society, which demands even working-class girls remain in education until their late teens and beyond, is still a very unwelcome thing and something that should be strongly deterred.  But what I am saying is that our instinctive abhorrence of men having casual sex with teenage girls is based largely upon presumed consequences that (should) no longer apply – that a teenage girl will likely be left pregnant and unsupported. What I believe, and what I’ve gone on record many times stating, is that we should largely replace ‘statutory rape laws’ with ‘impregnation of a minor’ laws.  To say the following might not win me approval in the men’s rights community, but the fact is, there is one essential moral difference between a man having sex with a girl, and a woman having sex with a boy.  The girl can fall pregnant.   This is the consequence that gives the act of sex its great moral weight.  And this, by and large, should be the only consequence that sexually aware teenagers should be legislatively protected against.

    When the brave and great JayHammers recently questioned the feminist age of consent laws that lead to tens of thousands of men being beaten and raped in jail every day, he was denounced and ostracised by dozens of other MRAs.  Yet these laws make NO rational sense in a liberal society in which even sexual trade union feminists proudly proclaim that a woman can enjoy sex without any moral or emotional consequences.  There is no basis in evolutionary theory whatsoever to believe that a teenage girl will be harmed by casual sex (other than through being impregnated).  There is, however, obvious evolutionary reasons why a 30 year old woman will claim that a 14 year old will be emotionally destroyed by having sex, whilst she herself goes clubbing every night hunting for young black cock.

    If you still maintain, as an MRA, that having sex with teenage girls is rape, then at least be consistent and equally side with the feminists who believe that pick up artists are rapists.

     Mummy’s Baby, Daddy’s Maybe

    ‘Sluts’ aren’t very popular in the anti-feminist community, to say the least.  I read one article only yesterday, and the tone of it, as well as the comments underneath, led me to  think I had slipped back to Biblical times, or modern Iran, watching a stoning in progress.  If this is men’s rights, then we may as well just convert to Islam, the largest ‘men’s rights movement’ in the world (and one that definately is growing).

    I can understand the evolutionary rationale for men disliking sluts.  And I myself can be appalled at the ignorance of feminists when talking about ‘double standards’.  I can also share in the disgust at the arrogance of a 30 year old woman boasting that she has slept with over a thousand men and yet appearing to have no inkling as to why a man would not want to share the rest of his life with her, now that she wants to settle down and ‘find love’.  It’s a valid distaste at the deluded arrogance of the modern woman that the great Bernard Chapin often captures in his brilliant Inferno’s.

    And yet, we now live in an age of paternity testing.  Why should ‘mummy’s baby, daddy’s maybe’ continue to have such a hold over us?  Surely, in today’s world, we ought to re-define a whore as a woman who sees her very essence and worth as consisting of her sexual asking price (i.e. a feminist) rather than a woman who simply gives pleasure to men cheaply.

    Once more, it seems that our moral interpretations of sexual behaviour are largely proximate cultural explanations for ultimate evolutionary explanations that should no longer have any relevance in our present society.

    And rationally uncovering the possibly irrational (now) evolutionary basis of our thinking should surely be the proper way we address moral questions relating to sex.   A society which increasingly becomes more distant and irrelevant to that in which our moral instincts evolved and which were later codified into religious law. Especially, in a society in which nearly a million men are sex offenders in America alone, and feminist judges have now won the right to lock them away indefinately.

    This article kind of ties up the common thread of the last few posts I’ve made.  I make no apologies whatsoever, as an anti-feminist, for talking about issues regarding the age of consent and teenage sexuality.  The more I read of the history of feminism (and at the moment I’m reading up heavily on the first wave), the less absurd becomes my claim that the driving force of feminism has always been the attempt of older unattractive women to restrict the increasing availability to men of young attractive females. In this sense, if you believe that current feminist age of consent laws, together with contemporary feminist driven ‘paedohysteria’, are just and proper, then YOU TOO are a feminist.

    I would, however, like to make the same disclaimer I have made before.  Any man who breaks an age of consent law has committed a great wrong, because (apart from moral issues of breaking any law) he has involved a younger, more vulnerable person in an act of criminality, and has exposed a teenage girl to inevitable damage at the hands of the feminist child abuse industry. 

    Finally, another reason I have focused upon this subject recently, is because others have.  Not only the excellent Human Stupidity, but also in the following brilliant pieces from Roissy and FB at Inmalafide :

    Roissy on Statutory Rape

    InMalaFide : Sweet Sanity On Statutory

    A picture tells a thousand words

    Castrated and Uncastrated world leaders

    Isn’t it odd that national leaders often personify the ‘stereotyped’ characteristics of the men they lead?  Who in this photo is looking away, or looking at their tie, whilst the sexy woman bends down, revealing her shape?  Which presidents are the leaders of castrated men, and which are the leaders of (still) uncastrated?  Berlusconi, who saw his abysmal poll ratings soar when caught cheating on his wife with 17 year old models?  Nope.  Nicolas Sarkozy, who is married to one of the sexiest women over 30 in France, who dines with Michel Houellebecq, and made Obama his bitch over attempts to extradite Roman Polanski?  Nope.  The Japanese President, who stood up to America and the FemiRapists over demands to criminalize the 99% of Japanese men who have ever clicked on an anime pic of a 25 year old cartoon character in a school uniform?  Nope. 

    Spotted at Roissy : Silvio Berlusconi Makes Bid For Alpha Male Of The 21st Century

    UPDATES : Added a poll and photo to Peak Female Sexual Attractiveness.  Please vote.  Also added a Anna Kournikova photo to Human Stupidity part 1.