Archive for January, 2012
Interesting YouTube video I just stumbled upon – a plain looking female twenty something frump honestly explains the lengths that women like her have to go to in order to compete in a free sexual market. In fact, most women, even those who were formerly beautiful girls, are as plain as this women is when they are without their makeup on by the time they reach their…oooh… mid-twenties.
Women spend 3 years of their lives in total performing this shit, all with the purpose of sending false sexual signals to men that they are still peak fertility, or rather peak attractive, teenage girls. Feminists call PUAs who do their own (psychological ‘alpha male’) version of this – ‘rapists’.
And of course, bleached hair, contact lenses, half a kilo of war paint, and 3 years of your life are only half of the battle. Women still need feminists to criminalise male sexuality at every turn, along with creating the most backward hysteria seen in the civilised world since the late middle-ages.
Millions of young Japanese women and girls visit my city every year, and each passing summer I’ve noticed that they never fail to look better and better. I’ve always been a veritable connoisseur of eye candy, but less than a couple of decades ago and Japanese girls were almost entirely invisible to me as I passed them in the street. They all seemed to look the same – little narrow eyes, black lifeless hair, identical skin tones… There was nothing about them to either notice or to tell them apart.
Yet now it’s rare for me to walk through any touristy part of town and not run into at least one or two Japanese girls that genuinely take my breath away. These days, they are stunning more often than they are not – some of them not only unique but seemingly arrived from another and more beautiful world entirely.
It’s all fake of course. For example, the beautiful big manga eyes that Japanese girls have ‘evolved’ within a generation are the result of operations and specially designed cosmetic contact lenses.
Not that there’s anything wrong with sexual forgery in a female. A man, at least, does not feel like he has been raped merely because the woman who has seduced him into bed tells him that she is 5 years older than he had presumed. And if you do wake up in bed next to a frumpy Japanese girl when you remember taking home a stunning anime like babe, then at least you won’t have to blame the distorted lenses of your beer goggles.
The increasingly fake beauty of Japanese women in particular point the way towards a near future where most people will be having sex with each other virtually – a world in which how you appear to your lover can be entirely tailored to their (and your) sexual tastes. Articifial though such a world may be, at least we can hope that the sexual trade union will have ultimately lost its very reason to be.
It’s like if in the Middle Ages they didn’t stop burning witches but they started burning magicians too
Spotted on Reddit – the best reply ever to the misguided Men’s Rights supporters who insist that teenage boys are intrinsically abused or damaged by willing sexual encounters with older women (the context is the American woman jailed last week for 30 years for having sex with a 13 year old boy) :
Now, I need to make clear again that the double standard in sentencing, that this particular ruling is an exception that proves the rule, is indeed a disgrace, and rightly a highly prominant men’s rights issue. But let’s never forget that ‘statutory rape’ laws were created by the same self-interested feminists who would stick white feathers into the letterboxes of conscientous objectors and coal miners during the slaughter of WWI, and who cried with indignity at the suggestion that men were doing anything but simply their chivalric duty in allowing women to take the lifeboats, even before children, on board the sinking Titanic.
Equal injustice is no justice. I have little sympathy with this woman jailed for 30 years – her tears of self-pity will certainly be drowned out by the screams of the many more numerous male ‘sexual predators’ being raped up their anal passages, or being beaten to a pulp in their cells. Unlike a man, rape won’t be an acknowledged, if unofficial part of her sentence. She won’t have to spend every day of the next 30 years in constant fear of being beaten or murdered by other prisoners. And prison warders will likely give her sympathy rather than spit in her food as they bring it to her cell.
I have little sympathy for this woman, but these ridiculous sentences for statutory ‘rape’- feminist laws ‘supported’ by feminist cod science (and a large dose of American puritanism), are still a crime against humanity whether it is women or men who suffer from them. Unfortunately, women are unlikely to stop supporting these laws until women are made to suffer from them just as much as men (although I doubt even this will ever be enough – women, especially feminists, seem impervious to the suffering of other women, so long as their own sexual interests are furthered or maintained. Furthermore, these feminist laws, especially as they increasingly become extended to cover young adult women (see below), will always target men and the male love of youth, beauty, and fertility, than they ever will target the average woman).
Which brings me to some further disturbing thoughts I’ve had on the bill proposing to outlaw paying for sex with 18- 21 year olds in the UK. This will likely not just cover paying for prostitutes, but also for things like webcam services, adult dating services, and even paying for a membership to a porn site that uses 18-20 year old models (in other words virtually all porn sites – even MILF/Cougar sites often have 20 year old male actors and regularly have scenarios where the MILF seduces a much younger male and/or female). In fact, it will mean that the minimum age for pornography will be 21 in the UK if the bill is passed. The proposed bill makes pointed reference to ‘paying for sex and all related services‘.
This will be a further example of how these crazy laws are indeed crimes against humanity in a borderless online world, as they increasingly veer from the respective laws on these matters in America (protected to some extent as it is by a constitution that guarantees free speech and expression), and which is the home of the global entertainment industry – including porn. As it is, a European or Australian breaks ridiculous child porn laws every time he watches a YouTube video of a sexy girl dancing, or even a jailbait Miley Cyrus MTV video – all quite legal in the US. Soon, lucky Brits might find they could be at risk of prosecution if they don’t unsubscribe to any American (or indeed European) adult related websites that feature persons under the age of 21. Can the last man to leave the UK please remember to turn the lights out (and leave the toilet seats up)?
The government has insisted it is a “coincidence” that it bought a lot more tickets for Olympic beach volleyball than it did for the athletics.
Former Labour sports minister Gerry Sutcliffe asked if it was just an “oddity” that 410 volleyball tickets were bought at a cost of £26,000.
Civil servant Jonathan Stephens said tickets for staff were largely for weekend events and cost up to £90 each.
The event which met those requirements “turns out to be volleyball”, he said
Leave the poor f*****s alone. It must be hard work passing law after law criminalising male sexuality in order to win the vagina vote necessary to remain in office. Even political manginas need to have a good honest perv now and again.
Sounds like these government ministers might benefit from the following anti-feminist tip of the week :
How to Take Photos of Sexy Girls on the Beach
Britain’s NuLabour party may no longer be in government, but its members are still seeking to further criminalize male sexuality, even from the opposition benches. John Mann, the Labour M.P. for Bassetlaw, has introduced a bill for an amendment to the 2003 Sexual Offences Act which would criminalize men who pay for sex with young adults between the ages of 18 and 20.
“I beg to move: That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to create an offence of paying for sexual services of a person under the age of 21 years; and for connected purposes….
…There is an important debate to be held on the rights and wrongs of prostitution and the laws that should have an impact on it, by my Bill does not deal with that. My Bill does one thing: it raises the threshold for the illegality of paying for sex. Of course there is a threshold, which is currently 16. Where someone is under 16, the huge consequences of the criminal law and imprisonment are involved because of the age of consent. But the moment the victim becomes older than 16 there are no punitive powers to deal with the person who is paying. I wish to see this Bill adopted by the Government at some stage solely and simply to raise that threshold, because by raising the threshold one raises the threshold. That may sound like a truism, but this approach will change the behaviour of those choosing to pay. The behavioural implication is there for those worried about breaching the criminal law and risking 14 years in prison because someone could be a minor of 15 and a half years old. On that borderline, threshold behaviour changes, so I would like Parliament to change that threshold to 21. In essence, that will take all the teenage years out of the real threshold and will change the behaviour of people who are paying. I am not making moral judgments about what people do as adults.
My Bill seeks solely and simply to raise that threshold. I think that raising the threshold will have a huge impact because the age group involved—older teenagers—must be given the space in which to turn around their lives. Our current legislative framework makes them the victims as, in reality, the powers available to the police, even though they are often wisely and deliberately not used, are to arrest and criminalise young people, which worsens their life chances and their chances of turning around the situation.
Notice the part of his speech that I have highlighted in bold – at first it reads rather like gibberish, but he appears to be saying exactly what I’ve always stated here as the true motivation behind higher and higher age of consent laws. The threshold must be raised to 21 so that men won’t even go near anyone who even could be under 21. I’ll quote him again :
The behavioural implication is there for those worried about breaching the criminal law and risking 14 years in prison because someone could be a minor of 15 and a half years old. On that borderline, threshold behaviour changes, so I would like Parliament to change that threshold to 21.
In other words, we are now entering the world in which I have always predicted that feminists and their mangina puppets would be leading us into – where men are beginning to face legal risks (from ‘child protection’ laws) for even seeking out adult women in their early twenties.
And given that most females in the UK complete puberty by the age of 16, how exactly can you distinguish between a 20 year old adult woman and a 21 year old adult woman? Obviously, the only sure way would be to only seek prostitutes who have obvious signs of aging – women in their late twenties or thirties.
This bill, if it becomes law, will have numerous consequences. A line will have been crossed in the sexual demarcation between ‘children’ and adults (already ridiculously defined by feminists at 18). Even young adult women over 18 can now fall under the ‘protection’ of anti-paedophile and child abuse laws. Just as the raising of the minimum age for prostitution and pornography to 18 has made having sex with 17 year old girls morally and socially dubious, even though the age of consent is still 16 in the UK and most other countries (or lower), soon simply having sex with 20 year old women will carry connotations of paedophilia and child abuse.
Note also that it will become legally hazardous to buy a 20 year old woman a meal before having sex, or even buying a young woman a drink in a nightclub, lest you be accused of ‘paying for sex’.
And this, of course, is the real intention. This is better for the average woman than the complete criminilization of paying for sex would be. With this law, with this discrimination between women under and over 21, the sexual market price of the older woman is again raised.
Thanks to Human-Stupidity for notifying me of this bill – I can only find it on two sites online – the link given above, and Adult World News, which appears to be related to the excellent Melon Farmers anti-censorship/sex positive (male and female) news website. But I can’t find it on any mainstream media site.
This is how politics works in the UK, especially the never ending barrage of anti-male sexuality legislation. A bill is introduced into parliament, the House of Commons and then the House of Lords debate it, and shortly after, the new law is announced on page 9 of the Daily Telegraph. There is no public debate – 99% of the public probably won’t be aware of it even when it has become law. And of course, in the present climate it is almost impossible to repeal sex laws (apart, of course, from those relating to homosexuality and trans-genders).
The BBC reports that a key government body has advised that drug mules (women) are to be treated more leniently in the courts to drug ‘gangs and criminals’ (men).
People who smuggle drugs will face more lenient sentences if they have been exploited, under new guidelines.
The change in approach on “drug mules” forms part of new comprehensive rules on drugs offences from the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.
The council said judges should distinguish between those who have been exploited by gangs and criminals heavily involved in the drugs trade.
But it said large-scale drugs producers should expect longer jail terms.
The council’s role is to provide judges and magistrates with a set of broad guidelines so that sentencing is more consistent across England and Wales.
Last year the council carried out research into 12 women convicted of drug mule offences, all of whom received sentences of between 15 months and 15 years.
The majority of the women said they did not know that they had been carrying drugs when they arrived in the UK, although some admitted being suspicious. In most cases they had carried the drugs for someone they trusted or feared what would happen if they did not do so.
This fits in with the infamous advice that another advisory body, the Woman’s Task Force, gave to the government last year – that no woman should go to prison.
Meanwhile, Sir Richard Branson told a parliamentary commission that he thinks that no drug user should go to prison.
Like any libertarian, I agree entirely with Sir Richard, as I’m sure most of you do. I can honestly say that, for a variety of reasons, I have no interest in drugs myself, and have never taken illegal drugs. But isn’t it striking that it is perfectly acceptable to express opinions on the unfairness of existing drug laws, and little or no suspicion is cast on your personal likelihood of taking illegal drugs, and yet it is assumed that if a man calls into question laws on, for example, child porn, or the age of consent, then he must have a personal vested interest in doing so – even though such ludicrously defined feminist child porn laws criminalise far more people than do drug laws?
To dear American readers – in Europe and in most countries feminists have legally defined a man as a paedophile and a child porn downloader for merely once clicking on a YouTube video of a 17 year old dancing ‘sexily’ in her room. It is no excuse even if you did so because you were simply watching a video of Lady Gaga, and you happened to click on the thumbnail of a 17 year old imitating the dance that appeared in the sidebar (related videos), not knowing that she was under 18. In fact, the thumbnail itself might be enough for you to be thrown in jail. And the girl doesn’t even have to be 17 – she simply has to look under 18 (to a middle-aged jealous feminist hag judge). And simply viewing that one video (or thumbnail) will soon be enough to get you a minimum 1 year sentence under recently passed EUSSR legislation. How can anyone who calls themselves libertarian – wait a moment, scratch that. How can anyone who isn’t a f****g Nazi, NOT object to the state having that power over its citizens (men) especially a men’s rights activist?
Iran’s supreme court has upheld the death sentence for a web programmer who faces imminent execution after being found guilty of developing and promoting porn websites.
Saeed Malekpour was picked up by plainclothes officers in October 2008 and taken to Evin prison in Tehran, where he spent a year in solitary confinement without access to lawyers and without charge.
A year after his arrest, the 35-year-old appeared in a state television programme confessing to a series of crimes in connection with a porn website. On the basis of his TV confessions, he was convicted of designing and moderating adult materials online by a court in Tehran, which handed down death penalty.
Malekpour later retracted his confessions in a letter sent from prison, in which he said they had been made under duress.
And to think that these f****rs are going to have nukes pointing at London, Berlin, Paris, Barcelona, in a couple of years! Unless, of course, we bomb them back into the stone age first, triggering, at the very least, a further collapse in the world economy if not World War III. Doesn’t life just get better by the day?!
Although a ‘permanent resident of Canada’, poor old Saeed Malekpour’s case hasn’t received much exposure in the west. Quite unlike that of the Iranian actress Golshifteh Farahani, whose nude spread in a French magazine has led to her being banished from her homeland – poor, poor thing. Well she might regret it as she grows older and no man except a few cougar loving perverts would want to photograph her naked. Then she might regret being confined to a free sexual market society in which 15 year old girls strut around in see through leggings instead of a society which puts to death pornographers. Maybe not – the Islamo-Feminist take over of France will probably have been completed long before she suffers her first wrinkle. The Iranian justice system will probably be positively liberal compared to France’s by then.
The western media are predictably treating the Iranian actress as some kind of feminist heroine – although revealingly, I haven’t even seen her mentioned on any feminist blog. And why should we be lauding a woman who has broken a sex law in another country anyway? Instead of ‘banning her’, why shouldn’t Iran demand her return, to be beheaded or stoned to death as a criminal sex tourist? And given that she is a sex offender, why shouldn’t we return her to them? (Or do states only own their male citizens? Do only men have to obey their nation’s sex laws when in a different country under different sex laws?).
The NYPD gleefully reported that the transactional value of the average female voter’s vagina in New York had risen slightly due to their heroic efforts in trapping Johns recently. The hard working pigs, posing as prostitutes, managed to successfully solicit and wreck the lives of 186 lonely men in just 4 days.
This video was posted at Reddit yesterday, the source being the excellent ‘Jeff’ who provided most of the links on my own ‘Myth of Sex Trafficking‘ page. He has his own YouTube channel collecting a number of similar videos, as well as hosting number of pages on sex trafficking himself.
The video link recieved quite a number of upvotes at reddit men’s rights, which is encouraging, and something of a trend I’ve noticed over the last year – although certain anti-male sexuality laws, based entirely upon the same lies and cod science of the very same feminists, are still somewhat taboo there, as within the wider men’s rights movement.
Meanwhile, the same poster also linked to the following story concerning a 17 year old American girl who pretended to be a victim of sex traffickers in order to hide her pregnancy from her parents : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073759/Christina-Almanza-17-faked-sex-trafficking-kidnap-hide-pregnancy-parents.html
A teenager pretended she had been kidnapped by sex trafficking gang to avoid telling her parents she was pregnant.
Christina Almanza called her parents and suggested that there was also another girl being held against her will who had been killed.
An Amber Alert was issued for the 17-year-old after she called her parents and claimed she had been abducted.
In a series of text messages Almanza allegedly told her parents that she and other females were being imprisoned in a basement and that she believed one of the other females had been killed.
Her parents immediately contacted police who launched a multi agency search, including the FBI and US Marshalls, for the missing teen.
But the abduction was a hoax and police said the teen came up with the idea in an attempt to get sympathy from her family.
‘Mademoiselle’, that beautiful French word meaning ‘young (unmarried) woman’, and that evokes immediately in English speakers the archetypal image of the pretty french girl, is set to be consigned to the history books.
The terms ‘Madame’ and ‘Mademoiselle’ were formerly used to distinguish between a married and an unmarried woman respectively, in times when such a difference had enormous social and legal importance. Just like Spanish and German equivalents of ‘senora/senorita’ and ‘Fraulein/Frau’.
Now of course, with women marrying much later in life, the terms simply denote the difference between a sexually desirable young female, and a woman past peak fertility (or rather past peak ‘attractiveness’).
It’s hardly surprising that the sexual trade union are no longer going to tolerate the use of this word. It is not enough for middle-aged feminists to create law after law that criminlises men who pursue their healthy genetically hard-wired preference for younger females. Like the totalitarian government of Orwell’s ’1984′, they believe they can eliminate such thought crimes alltogether by altering the language itself – they want to create their own feminist ‘Newspeak’. The erasing of words such as ‘Mademoiselle’ is merely the start.