Most PUA gurus don’t show the failures and the blowouts…for obvious reasons. Johnny Berba, however, believes in keeping it real. For every hot babe you approach and bang, you are likely to get at least a dozen who blow you out immediately – often in a more contempteous manner than this :
Tragic case of a 14 year old girl who appears to have fallen in love with her teacher, is discovered having consensual sex with him and thus force victim labelled and then made to testify against her lover and put him behind bars to be beaten and raped by other inmates, and then, tragically (but unsurprisingly) kills herself. Feminists and their media demand then that the ‘child rapist’ should have gotten a longer sentence.
Hanlon claims Rambold’s “pre-sexual grooming” of her daughter led to the pair having sex.
School officials learned of the relationship, and Rambold resigned.
Later that year, authorities charged Rambold with three counts of sexual intercourse without consent.
“It’s not probably the kind of rape most people think about,” Baugh said. “It was not a violent, forcible, beat-the-victim rape, like you see in the movies. But it was nonetheless a rape. It was a troubled young girl, and he was a teacher. And this should not have occurred.”
As the case wound its way through the legal system, the girl committed suicide. She was a few weeks shy of her 17th birthday.
I must make it clear that the actions of the teacher were terribly wrong, firstly because they were illegal, and secondly, and more importantly, they were illegal and involved a younger more vulnerable person, thereby leaving that person at the mercy of the predations of the Sexual Trade Union justice system and forced victim labelling, therapy etc
However, the girl would no doubt still be alive today if the age of consent was set at a sensible age, and if teacher student sex was a disciplinary matter rather than a criminal matter.
Excellent article by Ty Henry :
The upside of this is that we have an opportunity to re-evaluate our sex-crime laws, and hopefully shutter the SHIC. First, we must rethink how leisurely we throw around words such as “dangerous,” “predator,” and “victim.” The flasher is not dangerous; he is a creep, to be laughed at and shunned. Jessica Lunsford was a victim. The 16-year-olds who go to adult Spring Break and flash for Joe Francis are not. Michael Devlin, 40-something who befriended and abducted Shawn Hornbeck, is a predator, regardless of what Bill O’Reilly says. The guys in Adult chat rooms lured by geeks and actors pretending to be kids are not; they’re often just losers, and often just typical men. If you want to catch real predators, make the fake child nine, not 15. Next, we must acknowledge that for most Sex Offenders, treatment is the magic bullet. They have the lowest recidivism rate. Finally, understand that puberty makes one a sexual being. If John Walsh can date his future wife when he was 21 and she 16 1, then why can’t anyone else?
It becomes clear quite quickly that while Lose the Lads’ Mags may have cooked up a storm in the virtual world, that has not translated into bodies on the ground. In fact, there are about 35 anti-lads’ mags campaigners, a youngish crowd of mostly women, flanked by half as many journalists.
I’m about to go travelling again for a couple of weeks, so I think I’ll leave this up as a sticky. I’ll probably be able to update once or twice, but I’ll keep this as the top post until I come back – 10 websites you need to bookmark, visit daily, put in your reader etc.
Transhumanism/future tech :
Other must visit sites include (mention any I’ve missed in the comments below) :
ManWomanMyth (men’s rights), Laura Augustin (sex trafficking myths) , The Spearhead (obviously), KrauserPUA (best PUA blogger), AVoiceforMen (churlish to deny it), MRA Front (not updated regularly), Heartiste (good old Roissy), Chris Brand (very un-pc), JimCannotFixThis (excellent examination of the Saville hysteria), FightingAging (immortality is within reach), Johnny Berba (practical advice for PUA beginners).
If I see an interesting article or story when I’m away and I don’t have time to post it as an update, I’ll post the link in the comments below. Readers are invited to post anything they see of interest in the comments section too – I should be able to moderate comments fairly quickly.
They are called ‘bumsters’ in Gambia, ‘Rastitutes’ or ‘beach boys’ in the Caribbean and ‘sanky pankies’ in the Dominican Republic.
These are the men who, in increasing numbers, are providing sex in return for money or goods to women who want a holiday ‘romance’.
The men are invariably from impoverished families, have little or no education and are sometimes illiterate.
Most of the women are white, middle-aged or older and come from Europe and North America.
They travel alone or with female friends and often have a history of unhappy relationships with men at home.
Off-topic perhaps, but can any readers who insist that white women have no particular sexual attraction to black men explain why female sex tourists flock to the Carribean instead of, for example, Thailand, where there already exists a massive sex tourism infrastructure?
Charities and an MP are campaigning for tougher restrictions on sex offenders, saying the system is failing to stop grooming and exploitation of children.
The “Childhood Lost” campaign says police also need powers to restrict suspects who have not been convicted.
Nicola Blackwood MP is tabling an amendment to a bill to create Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Orders, similar to anti-social behaviour orders.
The Home Office said that it would consider the campaign’s proposals.
The UK has a range of powers designed to control sex offenders, including a general requirement that they inform the authorities of their whereabouts.
The BBC asks ‘Will we ever want to have sex with robots‘, and points to a number of intelligent people and statistics which suggest that we will..and rather soon. The first sexbot – ‘Roxxxy’ went on sale several years ago, and the robot’s makers promise a newer, more advanced version later this year, one that will be both mobile and independent.
However, this is the BBC, so the last word has to go to a feminist at the MIT, who appears to already be engaging in activism and lecture tours hoping to get these things banned :
In a survey earlier this year, one-in-11 of people – some 9% – told a YouGov poll for the Huffington Post in the US that they would be prepared to have sex with a robot.
That works out at over 25 million Americans – which could translate into a lot of robot sales.
Yet critics caution that we should not be too quick to embrace robots like Roxxxy.
“It is time to reconsider the premise that a robot is better than nothing,” says Sherry Turkle, psychologist and professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“Because, if you are trying to solve the problem of care and companionship with a robot, you are not trying to solve it with the people you need to solve it with – friends, family, community.”
“We may think we are only making robots,” she told this year’s meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “but really we are re-making human values and connections.
“The pretend self of a robot calls forth the pretend self of a person performing for it,” she said.
And that, she says is not promising “for adults trying to live authentically and navigate life’s real, human problems”.
Other feminists are already pondering the implications of sexbots for divorce. Will wives be able to sue for divorce if their husbands ‘cheat’ on them with a nubile sexbot?
And what could be more fraught with legal dilemmas than a love triangle among a married couple and a sexbot? How that might impact a divorce? That’s what Ziaja explores in her paper, “Homewrecker 2.0: An Exploration of Liability for Heart Balm Torts Involving AI Humanoid Consorts,” which she presented at the 2011 International Conference on Social Robotics that took place in Amsterdam at the end of November.
“If the doll’s owner becomes enamored with the doll, and leaves his spouse, can the spouse sue as she or he would be able to if the interloper had been human? And who would be sued? The manufacturer? Inventor? The AI itself?” she questions. “(S)o long as we’re intent on adding socially interactive AI into situations that would ordinarily be only human. … socially interactive robots need to be ‘safe to play with’ in a way that manufacturers of toaster ovens never had to imagine.”
Ziaja isn’t promoting or rejecting robot relationships (nor is she intending to offer legal advice); all she wants to do is explore what Levy suggests will be a not-too-distant reality. If humans and robots are going to get entangled romantically, what does that mean if things go awry? Her analysis, relying on heart balm torts, should make any spouse contemplating love — or just a roll in the hay — with a robot take notice.