Human Stupidity Comment On Feminist Defined Male Sexuality

This comment appeared underneath JohnTheOther’s excellent reply to CNN’s ‘Are Men Stupid’ article :

Great article. It is also great to see that you attack feminist defined male sexuality.

I arrived at the men’s movement through interest in male sexual liberty and its restriction, be it age of consent issue (access to post-pubertal women), prostitution and simply sexual freedom.

Then I found out about father’s rights and the absurd enslavement of “good” family men. Really shocking. Did not know about it though I probably unconsciously avoided getting kids because of such laws. I had women that wanted my kids, no strings attached, just for their nice green eyes. I knew better and emptied out my condoms after use and checked if the condom wrappers still had air in them before use.

What still takes me aback is the great rift between the conservative father’s movement, that wants to make sure the perverts preying on their 17 year old daughters go to prison, and the sexual liberation anti-feminists.

It is very sad that the feminists disagree on prostitution and sexual liberty, but still invite SCUM authors and still don’t get a serious rift between the sexual liberation feminists and the main stream sex repressors. They agree but unite against men on all other issues they agree on.

On the other hand I am still dismayed that some great mens rights blogs got shut down because of a well known and very serious argument with well known writers of this great site. That rift could have ended in serious legal trouble, court and prison.

Men don’t need feminists to disturb their liberation movement, they destroy each other. This is very sad, and an issue that needs to be addressed.

While some people here would support lowering the age of consent to 16, very few would just support getting government out of adolescent’s bed rooms and scrape age of consent altogether or get it to protect only pre-pubertal children.

I keep repeating that that does not mean that people are free to prey on your daughters, it means that it should not be the government’s problem how you EDUCATE and CONTROL your daughter.

Also I don’t need to stress that age of consent draconian laws with absurd punishments (it should be a misdemeanor to err by 1-2 years) make women 5 years above the age of consent too dangerous to deal with (to be on the safe side don’t mess with anyone under 25. Even if you are only 20)

 

Notice this rather less perfect comment from the usually excellent ‘STU’ underneath the same article :

Hating on men for their sexuality, sex lives etc is one of the main tools feminists use to bring men down. Even men get on the bandwagon hating on other men for this. They should just shrug and say, so what. It’s all manginarism though, pretending to be horrified at the sex life of another man who has earned the wrath of the feminists. It’s all about…..yes……I’m not like that….I am……The One Good Man…….now…..how about a blow job.

We should just shrug and say so what, at any and all men’s sexual activity, apart from sexual activity with minors, or actual forced rape of course. In fact, we should have the same attitude for women to. Fuck as many men as you like, play on both sides of the fence, have all the fetishes and perversion that take your fancy……..fine by us….it’s only a problem when a woman uses her sexual activity to hurt men, cry victim, sexually out others to do harm, or make profit. I would put slutwalkers into that category as well.

 

“apart from sexual activity with minors, or actual forced rape of course”.

Now that’s odd, because STU here is putting having sex with minors (under 18) on the same level as forced rape, even though in bar a handful of Islamic medieval states, nowhere on Earth is it yet illegal to simply have sex with a consenting 17 year old.  Even in the US of A, the age of consent is 16 in most states.  In Europe, the average age of consent is 14.

Furthermore, despite being an experienced MRA, who appears to ‘get it’ as far as the understanding of feminist control of male sexuality is concerned, STU appears unaware or oblivious to the fact that it was feminists who created statutory rape laws in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Unfortunately, for some MRAs, feminist self-interested control of male sexuality is actually a good thing when it happens to agree with a conservative father’s desire for sexual control over his teenage daughter.

Analysis VS Posting News

Self-Styled ‘Radical Masculist’ Human-Stupidity complained recently that I hadn’t attempted any analysis of the video I posted previously, covering a televised stuido debate on John Mann’s bill to make it illegal to pay for sex with young adults under 21 in the UK (and, presumably, for British men abroad).

Some excuses on my part are that I’ve just come back from a two week vacation in which I only took with me my smartphone, and have had to catch  up on a lot of work, and also the fact that I’ve had laser eye surgery performed this week and I’m not supposed to be spending too much time staring at a computer screen.

Apart from those things, I have resolved to spend less time analysing and more time posting relevant links here.  I’m fortunate enough to have a small group of highly intelligent regular readers who leave comments below most of my articles, and who are probably more capable of dissecting the stories that I post here than I myself am.

I can only spend a limited time on this site each week, even when I’m not on holiday or recovering from surgery, so a balance has to be struck between writing and posting.  As we know, the news items I post here relating to the sexual trade union will get lost at r/mensrights amongst all of the links obtaining to cougars ‘abusing’ 15 year old boys, concern troll self-posts, male anorexia links etc etc, even if by some miracle they are approved by feminist moderator Ignoratis at all.

Most of my readers are familiar with the ins and outs of sexual trade union theory now.  I don’t claim any originality for or exclusive rights towards this theory – which is a patently obvious reading of the history and current state of the feminist movement, and which is just an extension of the writings of Lionel Tiger, Neil Lyndon, Angry Harry, Warren Farrell..with a bit of Ray Kurzweil thrown in for good measure (the only thing that distinguishes my theory is that, to the best of my knowledge, I am the only MRA/writer who has interpreted the entire history and driving force of feminism as a group reaction to technology constantly creating new and greater threats to the average woman’s sexual power).

I’m not even a very good writer – and quite awful if you compare my prose to the likes of Ferdinand Bardemu or other leading manosphere bloggers.  So my intention from now on is to write less and post more (once I’ve recovered from my surgery).

My regular readers are invited to help me here (beyond the posting of comments – which are much appreciated).  If any of you would like to actually post the articles that you spot and have been leaving in comments, then just e-mail me at schopenbecq at yahoo co uk

Your anonymity will be completely respected, and your articles will be posted as ‘guest’.  You don’t have to write anything – just post the link with perhaps a brief quote from the article.  I’ll reserve the right, of course, to edit any posts, or unaprove any that I think are not relevant.

A site that serves as an example of how I’d like this site to look is : Next Big Future  The blogger behind it just posts links to relevant articles and news stories with the occasional analysis and commentary thrown in when deemed necessary.

Anyway, if nobody wants to help out posting, then please continue leaving comments, which are much appreciated.  I apologise again for regular reader’s comments still occasionally going into the spam folder via the automatic filter – this happened several times while I was away.  I’m going to introduce a different system over the next couple of weeks, making use of the random verification code that has to be entered before a comment can be left.

Finally, returning to our good friend Human-Stupidity, who, like myself, is one of the handful of the 3 billion men on this planet with the balls enough to speak out against feminist sex laws that increasingly criminalize virtually all men.  Despite our rarity, even within the ‘men’s rights movement’, I do not accept the label of ‘radical masculist’ or ‘men’s rights extremist’ which HS appears not only ready to accept, but to champion (for some bizarre reason – thereby putting us on the same level as feminists calling for the extermination of all men, or ‘traditionalist’ MRAs who want to see the right to beat women as a key men’s rights goal).  As I have pointed out before, there is very little that I write on this site that any of the leading anti-feminists in history, from Schopenhauer to Ernest Belfort Bax to Angry Harry would disagree much with.  Steve Moxon devoted almost a chapter of his seminal ‘The Woman Racket’ to criticising paedohysteria, as did Neil Lyndon in his classic work (paedohysteria then being just imported from America in the form of ‘satanic abuse’ hysteria).  All the things I write about here relating to the legislating of male sexuality by women ARE central to any genuine men’s rights movement, despite what puritan Americans and spotty teenagers at Reddit might say. Women creating laws that benefit themselves sexually whilst leading to thousands of men being raped and beaten in prison, with further hundreds of thousands of men, if not millions, fearing that fate, IS a men’s rights issue – and will always be a central men’s rights issue.

Football Star Jailed for Five Years for ‘Raping’ Intoxicated Woman

Advice for multi-million pound footballers (soccer players) :  Next time you’re out on the town in  a typical British city, and hundreds of barely dressed intoxicated sluts are everywhere, each of them on the prowl for a fuck or a fight, bear in mind that even though most of these girls have no shame in fucking, pissing, vomiting, or even shitting in the street, ass cracks exposed to any passing strangers, they often do have enough dignity and sense of honour to put a burqa clad muslim virgins to shame.

In fact, enough dignity  for a judge to hand you 5 years of prison ass rape, as well as an utterly destroyed sporting career, if the woman happens to wake up sober in the morning feeling like a slut and with little recollection of what happened.

Teenager too drunk to consent

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ched-evans-team-mate-brands-victim-801734

A team-mate of a footballer jailed for five years for raping a teenager “too drunk to consent” has sparked fury by branding the victim a “slag” and “money-grabbing little tramp”.

Wales international Ched Evans cried hysterically as he was found guilty of the attack in May last year.

Following the verdict, the 23-year-old’s Sheffield United team-mate Connor Brown posted a foul-mouthed rant on his Twitter page.

The 19-year-old branded the law “a load of f*****g s**t” and showed his support for Evans by adding: “I’m with you geez”.

He then accused the 19-year-old victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, of being a “money-grabbing little tramp”, according to the Daily Mail.

He continued his extraordinary attack by writing: “If ur a slag ur a slag don’t try get money from being a slag (sic) … Stupid girls… I feel sick.”

The offending tweets, which were shared with his 776 followers, were later removed from his profile.

He later restricted his Twitter account so his tweets could not be viewed.

 

Note that the ‘Mirror’ newspaper is a kind of downmarket version of the Daily Mail, appealing to a largely female demographic and consequently filling half of its pages with articles relating to sex and relationships (from a woman’s point of view).

Related : http://eivindberge.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/how-dare-men-think-yes-means-yes.html

Porn – ‘The Real Mainstream Media’

http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/19/the-real-mainstream-media

According to Google’s DoubleClick Ad Planner, which tracks users across the web with a cookie, dozens of adult destinations populate the top 500 websites. Xvideos, the largest porn site on the web with 4.4 billion page views per month, is three times the size of CNN or ESPN, and twice the size of Reddit. LiveJasmin isn’t much smaller. YouPorn, Tube8, and Pornhub — they’re all vast, vast sites that dwarf almost everything except the Googles and Facebooks of the internet.

While page views are a fine starting point, they only tell you that X porn site is more popular than Y non-porn site. Four billion page views sure sounds like a lot, but it’s only when you factor in what those porn surfers are actually doing that the size and scale of adult websites truly comes into focus….

The main difference between porn and non-porn sites is the average duration of a visit: For a news site like Engadget or ExtremeTech, an average visit is usually between three and six minutes; enough time to read one or two stories. The average time spent on a porn site, however, is between 15 and 20 minutes.

Furthermore, “porn sites cope with astronomical amounts of data. The only sites that really come close in term of raw bandwidth are YouTube or Hulu, but even then YouPorn is something like six times larger than Hulu.” YouPorn also “serves 4000 pages per second, equating to burst traffic in the region of 100 gigabytes per second, or 800Gbps. This is equivalent to transferring more than 10 dual-layer DVDs every second.”

 

It’s sobering to think that there are dozens of sexual trade union lobby groups actively seeking to make all porn illegal.  Perhaps the largest of them, Morality In Media, has even succeeded in garnering promises from Presidential candidates that this will actually happen if they are elected.  That same organisation appears to want the mere viewing of porn made illegal, as it is with child porn, using the same spurious supply and demand arguments.  And yet you will hardly find a single men’s rights activist voicing any objection against this, despite feminist and femiservative lobby groups being perilously close to criminalizing virtual the entire male population.  John the Other is one of the few MRAs who defends a man’s right to view images of the opposite sex in private and not face being hauled away by the feminist state to be incarcerated as a result.   Yet even he is only allowed to voice his arguments on his own YouTube channel.  In fact, most MRAs will pretend that feminism is the cause of the ‘pornification’ of society, despite all the evidence to the contrary in the actions of feminist lobby groups and resulting legislative creep.

Meanwhile, British femiservatives continue to try to hold back the tide of technology by stoking moral panic over children and porn :

Children grow up addicted to online porn sites

A ‘guinea pig’ generation of children is growing up addicted to hardcore internet pornography, MPs were warned last night.

Four out of five 16-year-old boys and girls regularly access porn online while one in three ten-year-olds has seen explicit material, a disturbing cross-party report reveals.

It also cites figures showing that more than a quarter of young patients being treated at a leading private clinic are receiving help for addiction to online pornography.

‘One in three ten year olds’ has seen explicit material – well if ten year olds are sexually innocent, as feminists often hold that even 17 year old girls are, then what is there to worry about?  Children can’t possibly understand what they are seeing when looking at porn – just two adults doing very strange things to each other’s bodies.
I don’t doubt the figures quoted in the article, but more distubing than the statistics themselves is the continued and growing pretence that 16 and 17 year old ‘children’ are sexually clueless and innocent when they are, according to the Daily Mail itself, ‘regularly looking at hardcore porn’.
Technology continues to make sex accessible and open for everybody, and yet society, influenced by the sexual trade union and their religious loon allies of convenience, continues to try to ‘turn back the clock’ and enforce a morality and presupposition of ‘childhood’ innocence (i.e. teenage) that never even existed in their regressive medieval fantasy worlds.

Kate Winslet ‘Can’t Watch Herself Naked in 3D’

James Cameron’s ‘The Titanic’, a massive blockbuster originally shown in the 1990’s, has been re-released this week in 3D.  Kate Winslet, who was 21 when the film was originally made, has declared ‘I’ll be in the bar‘ when her famous nude scene is played in 3D.  Apparently, she just can’t bear to look at herself naked from all those years ago.  I wonder why….?

Kate Winslet at 21
kate winslet at 21 Titanic

 

kate winslet at 21 nude
kate winslet at 21 nude in the titanic

 

kate winslet now
kate winslet now

 

kate winslet without make up now

*UPDATE : China has censored out the offending nude 3D scene of Kate Winslet, fearing that horny Chinese cinema goers may grope the air hoping to get a kop of Kate’s breasts : http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/apr/13/china-censor-kate-winslet-titanic

Cameron gets tough on raunchy pop videos

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/9192366/Cameron-gets-tough-on-raunchy-videos.html

Explicit music videos made by stars such as Rihanna, Beyoncé and Madonna would be given 18 certificates and subject to greater restrictions to protect children, under plans being looked at by David Cameron.