Are All Feminists Rapists? A Thought Experiment

I believe that our primary goal as a men’s rights movement that defends male sexuality should be to seek the prosecution of leading feminists for attempted rape.

Last night I was threatened with death by several women via Twitter, for pointing out that 15 year old Russian Yulia Lipnitskaya is one of the most beautiful and graceful females on Earth – something undeniably demonstrated by the global media adultation she has been subjected to during the Sochi Olympics.  Those same women, who would like me murdered for admitting this obvious fact, recently tweeted their desire to ‘permanently look like a 14 year old Brooke Shields’.


How much more obvious does it have to be that feminist sex hysteria, and the constant criminalization and shaming of male sexuality, is the attempt to further the sexual opportunities of women?  Feminists would like to look like 15 year old girls, but if they can’t do that (which they can’t) the next best thing is to shame and even murder any man who dares to admit that finding 15 year old girls attractive is normal.

Attempting to co-erce another human being into sex is attempted rape under UK Law and under most sensible definitions, both legal and linguistic. This is what feminists are doing, and this is why they are rapists – or would be rapists.

However, one of my readers, the legendary tactical genius and stalwart of the men’s rights movement – Human Stupidity – has voiced his concern that he and most people do not, and cannot, ‘get’ the idea that feminists are rapists.  So I thought I’d try to illustrate my case through an analogy.  I’m sure there are better analogies out there, and perhaps my readers can suggest others, but this will do for now, that came off the top of my head as I read Mr Stupidity’s comment.  Here is my analogy and thought experiment – please take the time to read through it once or twice :

Imagine a barman who spikes every alcoholic drink at the nightclub he is working in with a drug that makes most women who consume it develop a paranoid delusion that sex with anyone but a barman is utterly perverted.  Further, the drug makes the women believe that sex with anyone but a barman will likely be punished with being brutally beaten and anally raped in prison as a subhuman pervert.  Part of the paranoid delusion is the belief that even woman who do not have sex, barmen or no barmen, are treated by society as probable perverts. Women who have not slept with barmen have been accused of being perverts by mobs, and burnt alive by them – or at least the women are made to believe this by the drug. Having sex with barmen, however, is ‘normal’.

As a result, despite the fact that there are far more attractive men in the nightclub, women are thus very keen indeed to have sex with barmen, and unsurprisingly, the barman gets regular sex with female clubbers.

Now imagine that for this drug to work most effectively, it has to be taken by many different women, many times, as its incredible effects are achieved partly by mass hysteria – other women whose drinks have been spiked developing similar delusions which then re-inforce those of other women. Therefore, the barmen are operating something like a ‘sexual trade union’, or as some others might describe it, a ‘cock cartel’. They are all in on this, all over the country – even globally – because they intuitively know that they must all act collectively and regularly spike the drinks of the women they serve with the drug for it to work on each individual woman and for each barman to improve his sexual opportunities.

The drug has a powerful effect on most women, but still the barmen are to some extent playing a numbers game. It’s not a case of spiking one individual woman’s drink and then knowing that she will have sex with him as a result. They have to spike the drinks of thousands of women, and further, to rely upon other barmen around the world spiking the drinks of thousands and millions of other women. And it is important to note that even then they don’t know which woman will ultimately have sex with them. In fact, any woman who does have sex with any individual barman might have had their drink spiked by a different barman. It might even be the case that the woman would have had sex with the barman even if her drink hadn’t been spiked. It is virtually impossible to prove in each instance of sex. We can only say that the barmen deliberately spiked the drinks of thousands of women in order to collectively improve their opportunities for sex by instilling a fear of not having sex with barmen into the minds of women, as well as a false sense of ‘normal’ and ‘perverted’ sexual attraction.

Now are the barmen rapists? I would say obviously they are, and they would be treated as such under most legal rape definitions in most countries, regardless of feminist ‘re-definitions’.

And you can be sure that every feminist on Earth would not hesitate to call them rapists and demand their imprisonment.

Especially if their lives depended upon it.

Definately not a 14 year old Brooke Shields.
Definately not a 14 year old Brooke Shields.
Brain bleach - 14 year old Brooke Shields
Brain bleach – 14 year old Brooke Shields


Three New Important Commenting Rules

Last night I was subjected to further death threats via Twitter.  Now this in itself isn’t anything very remarkable – you’re not a real manosphere blogger until Twitter death threats from skanky, violent, bitter ugly American women have become a routine part of your existance.  I will describe these particular death threats later in a longer post, but for now they are worth mentioning because their nature has crystalized in my mind three important new rules I would dearly like readers to follow.

The death threats followed my articles on the 15 year old Ice Skating sensation Yulia Lipnitskaya.  A group of ugly young(ish) American skanks have taken exception to these posts and declared that we are all ‘paedophiles’ at this site and publicly called on others to murder us.

Par for the course perhaps, but here’s the twist.  I took a look through some of their tweeting history and found the following comment :

‘I wish I could look like Brooke Shields at 14 – 16 forever’. 

This was re-tweeted approvingly by the other skanky hags.  So we deserve to be murdered for publicly pointing out the obvious – that 15 year old Yulia is beautiful and any normal man would agree (as evidenced by the global media attention and fawining that she is getting), but those same women openly admit to wanting to permanently look like beautiful 14 year old girls.

And if they can’t look like a beautiful 14 year old girl, they would like to have any man who finds beautiful 14 year old girls attractive, to be murdered.

Our good friend Emma the Emo believes that my attacks on ‘maladaptive female psychology’ make me akin to a radical feminist who hates and shames male sexual psychology because it ‘leads to men raping women’.

But here’s the difference.  Violent rapists have always been a small minority of men.  Furthermore, the number of male rapists who are willing to actually kill in order to obtain sex are a tiny minority of even the tiny minority of men who are rapists.

Unfortunately, the majority of women on this Earth not only support legislation and societal attitudes that they KNOW are wrong and evil, in order to improve their chances of obtaining sex, but they are willing to have innocent men murdered in order to improve their chances of obtaining sex.

So here are three important commenting rules that I want readers to follow.

1 – Everything I do here is working towards the goal of having feminist criminals charged with attempted rape,  Because rapists, or attempted rapists, is exactly what they are.  The attempt to co-erce others into sex is rape, and this was considered rape under English Law, before even feminists existed.  They are rapists, not under the ‘anti-feminist’ definition of rape, and not by their own inflated definitions of rape, but by the definition of rape under English Law.  If you do not support this, keep your thoughts to yourself, or you will recieve a permanent IP ban.

2 – If I read the phrase ‘men are the real problem’ or any other variation of this phrase, you will recieve a permanent ip ban.

3 – If you continually emphasise any other motivation or explanation other than sexual jealousy and attempted rape on the part of feminists for current sex hysteria, you will recieve a permanent ip ban.

Barbara Hewson – The Cult of Victimhood and the Limits of Law


Ideology of victimhood

We should be more critically aware of the prevailing ideology of victimhood, which developed in the 1970s, and dominates current thinking. Its mantra, ‘Believe the victim’, sums up the present climate of credulity.

The sociologist Joel Best describes how, ‘as this ideology became accepted by key institutions, it created a victim industry – a set of social arrangements that now supports the identification of large numbers of victims.’[vii] This powerful ideology has seven component beliefs:

  • Victimization is widespread;
  • Victimization has lasting consequences;
  • It is morally unambiguous: the victimizer is exploitative, the victim innocent
  • Victimization often goes unrecognized, even by the victims themselves. As Crown Prosecutor Nazir Afzal is wont to say: ‘They don’t know they’re victims.’
  • Individuals must be taught to recognize their own, and others’ victimization. This involves a process of re-education. It can amount to a conversion experience, sometimes of a religious intensity.
  • Claims of victimization must be respected (‘believe the victim’).
  • The term ‘victim’ can be disempowering. The terms ‘survivor’ or ‘recovering’ are preferable.

Victim advocates start with initially modest campaigns, addressing clear-cut, egregious examples of exploitation. Having gained social acceptance, they then typically expand the problem’s domain, to include a much wider range of behaviours, which they deem problematic. Thus, for example, we now operate expansive definitions of ‘abuse’, ‘trauma’, and sexual victimization. The definition of what ‘rape’ means in criminal law has also been expanded.

Steve Moxon – Hattie Hateperson deserves all she’s getting and more

There is no more deserving target for a come-uppance campaign than Hattie Hateperson, who is the most disgustingly man-hating PC-fascist in Parliament, and that’s saying something.

She is more than fair game here, being prurient in extremis when it comes to men and sex, having long proposed and continues to propose measures, no matter how absurd and extreme, to attack males (minors as well as adults) and male sexuality. She now wishes to criminalise the male party (but not the female) to consensual sex if a money transaction is involved, and she was prominent in raising the legal age-of-consent from the already absurdly high age 16 to age 18 for some categories of consensual sex. There is nothing the nasty witch wouldn’t propose on these lines. Witness her astonishing attempt to trash even the most basic sense of actual equality in her campaign to criminalise the purchase of sex but not its sale!

She is getting what’s long been coming to her, and may this continue until she’s rotting beneath her gravestone — when I’ll be there to deface it

The delicious irony is that her position in some respects back then actually was in line with objective evidence. There is a very strong case to reduce the age-of-consent from being, ludicrously, over half a decade over the average age of puberty. There is also a very strong case to prick the hysteria over child sex abuse when meta-studies have revealed little impact in terms of psychological sequelae, and what there is seems to stem from what may surround the abuse than the abuse per se (most notably censoriousness about sex). Then, of course, there’s the daft criminalisation of those who, instead of acting out, sublimate their paedophilia in viewing erotica, irrespective of whether they in any way supported the creation or dissemination through any payment; and whether or not any abuse was indirectly entailed in creating any image they viewed, as in montage or cartoon depiction — though this last is an issue nowadays rather than in Hattie-Hate’s NCCL pre-computer-image-high-tech days.

Hapless Hattie makes herself still more ridiculous in her marvellously lame riposte to The Daily Mail of censure for printing pictures of ‘very young girls in bikinis’, when these cannot be less than eighteen years old and don’t bare so much as a nipple or buttock!

Is she now attempting to up the age of what constitutes a child to … what? … a decade post-puberty? And how does this supposed abuse by The Daily Mail compare with supporting sex with pre-pubertal individuals – ‘children’ in all senses of the term?!

As for the newspaper here: albeit that it has long been in bed with the PC-fascist Left on the anti-male / anti-sex bandwagon – not least re the bogus notions of ‘paedophilia’ (surely set soon to be defined as sex with anyone under 35) as sex with post-pubertal individuals — The Daily Mail does also take the line that there’s a witch-hunt afoot. The paper has long highlighted the epidemic of ‘false rape’ allegations, when most of the media has been unswerving in its stupid mantra of “we must believe the ‘victim'”.

FemiHags Force Adidas to Stop Sale of ‘Sexual’ Brazil World Cup Tops

T-shirts withdrawn by Adidas for the Brazil World Cup.

Sports giant Adidas is suspending the sale of World Cup T-shirts after Brazil’s authorities complained they sexualised the country’s image.

One read “Looking to score?” next to a scantily-dressed woman; another printed a heart shaped like a bikini-clad bottom with the phrase “I love Brazil”.

Brazil’s tourism board, Embratur, says it is vehemently against any products that link Brazil’s image to sex appeal.

Adidas is one of the World Cup’s main sponsors and its ball provider.

Following the controversy, the company said it was withdrawing the T-shirts – a limited edition meant for sale in the United States.

“Adidas always pays close attention to the opinion of its consumers and partners,” its statement read.

“Therefore, it is announcing that these products will not be sold anymore.”

Earlier on Tuesday, the country’s tourism ministry had already criticised the products saying “any links between national icons and images with sex appeal” were against the country’s official marketing policies.

“Such an attitude indirectly contributes to committing crimes such as sexual child and adolescent exploitation,” it said.

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff also reacted, tweeting that Brazil was happy to greet tourists for the World Cup.

But her country was also ready to fight sexual tourism, Mrs Rousseff wrote.

In a statement, Brazil’s Embratur said that “Brazil does not tolerate this type of crime on its territory.”

Brazil says it has been trying to distance itself from the sexual stereotypes that marked the country for decades.

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff :


Ten Points/Memes On The Age of Consent

Here are 10 key points/memes to memorize and spread as far and widely as possible regarding the age of consent, and in particular, the validity of discussion of the age of consent, both within and outside the men’s rights movement :

1 / If the discussion of sex laws had always been taboo/forbidden, then homosexuality would still be illegal. Homosexuality is illegal in many countries, and being criminalized in several others. If we disallow discussion of (changing) sex laws in the West, we will be in a poor position to prevent similar attempts to surpress even discussion of the rights of homosexuals in countries where homosexuality is illegal. We criticise Russia for making it illegal to ‘promote’ homosexuality to children, yet those same ‘liberal’ progressives want to make it illegal to ‘promote’ (i.e discuss rationally) lowering the age of consent or to criticise any laws ostensibly protecting children. If discussing ‘child protection’ laws had always been off limits, Alan Turing would still be considered a child abusing pervert (he had illegal sex with a boy under the age of majority at the time).

2(and relating to 1)/ The age of consent in the UK was set at 16 (raised from 12/13) in a backward Victorian criminal amendment act (1885) that also criminalized homosexuality, punishable by death. The same law that Alan Turing was prosecuted under. Ironically, it is now effectively taboo to criticise one half of that backward 1885 bill (the age of consent of 16) and yet taboo, and even illegal, to support the other half of that same backward Victorian bill (the criminalization of homosexuality).

3/ The age of consent was set at 16 by puritanical feminists (suffragettes) in the UK, and that same bill (and age of 16) was a model for similar rises in the age of consent in the USA and elsewhere (also lobbied for by feminists/suffragettes). This is an important point to stress within the context of men’s rights.

4/ The social situation in the UK when the age of consent was raised to 16 was very different to today, and in fact, the ostensible justifications for raising the age of consent from 12/13 to 16 at the time do not even remotely apply in today’s world. For example, girls began puberty at around 16/17 in the Victorian era, whereas the average today is between 9 and 10. In the Victorian era, pre-marital sex was still heavily frowned upon, and the average age of marriage was significantly lower than today, so the the age of consent of 16 was effectively an attempt by puritanical feminists to criminalize pre-marital sex. Teenagers today are better educated (arguably) and far more sexually knowledgable. In 1885, only a small percentage of the population had the vote, whereas today the trend is to give 16 year old boys and girls the vote. There was little or no effective contraception, abortion was illegal and dangerous, there was no welfare state or safety net for girls who got pregnant and abandoned, no mandatory child support payments from absent fathers. Furthermore, the age of consent was raised in the midst of a hysterical moral panic involving ‘white slavery’ – the supposed epidemic of children being bought and sold as sex slaves in London. This moral panic has largely been debunked as merely an effort to sell Victorian tabloid newspapers.

5 (and relating to 4)/ The historical and evolutionary reasons for protecting the virginity of young girls no longer apply. Not only is virginity no longer prized while ‘sluthood’ is officially championed, the reasons stated above (contraception, abortion etc) have both loosened sex from reproduction and reduced the potential harm to the girl resulting from the likelihood of pregnancy.

6/ As the age of consent will always be arbitary, unless defined by a biological marker (such as most obviously the onset of puberty), it is imperative that rational discussion on where the line is set should be allowed. If it is so obvious that a 15 year old, one year below the line, cannot possibly consent to sex, to make even discussion of the question immoral or illegal, then the age of consent should be significantly higher than 15. But then one must agree that questioning of the higher end of the new age of consent must be valid, otherwise one would have to hold that the age of consent should be raised again…ad absurdum. In other words, one cannot hold that the current age of consent is manifestly and unquestionably right without slipping into absurdity.

7/ The age of consent is not some neutral ‘speed limit’. The labelling of young people (or anyone) as ‘victims’ is itself harmful and damaging to them. Only rational discussion can determine whether the harm caused is justified by preventing or correcting even greater harm. Those who wish to make discussion of the age of consent/child abuse laws illegal, are thus themselves child abusers damaging children with no rational justification.

8/ To suggest that those who argue for a lower age of consent are ‘self-rationalizing paedophiles’ is not only an ad hominen argument, it is also an absurdity. Surely it is the people who want rational discussion of a law forbidden who are ‘self-rationalizing’, and suffering from ‘cognitive distortions’, rather than those who want open, fair, and rational discussion based upon logic, science, and evidence? It also pre-supposes falsely that only one side in the debate (those arguing in favour of a lower age of consent) have ‘an interest’ in achieving their aim, and ignores the obvious fact that those arguing for a higher age of consent (invariably hags and paedocrites) certainly have a selfish interest in doing so. Furthermore, not only does it rely on the feminist lie that males attracted to teenage girls are ‘paedophiles’, it would also follow that homosexuals could not objectively think or reason about the ethics of homosexuality, including in countries in which homosexuals are persecuted.

9/ To remain silent on these issues is far more suspicious than to speak out on them, especially in relation to men’s rights activism. The persecution of elderly celebrities currently taking place in the UK, for example, is so obviously a men’s rights issue if anything is, that it would be suspicious to remain silent on it rather than speak out against it. These are feminist laws that result in the persecution of thousands of men, and more pertinantly, this persecution and witch hunting is becoming worse and more hysterical with every passing year. History may judge those of us who fail to speak out.

10/ Feminist age of consent and ‘paedophile’ laws, forever widening in their scope and definition, are an attack on normal male sexuality. It is the desire to eliminate sexual competition, or at least provide an outlet for the jealousy and sexual bitterness of older women, as well as persecute and demonize ordinary male sexuality and to shame the natural male preference for younger fertile females. Men are hard wired to find adolescent girls sexually attractive, and not only does this demonstrate the evilness of the feminist inflation and exploitation of the term ‘paedophile’, it also highlights the manifest absurdity of believing that any intrinsic harm could result from consensual sex with an adolescent (if it did, none of us would be here today).

Spiked – ‘Labour’s Pedo Problem, No Reason to Gloat’

Warning – A sick bag might be required when reading some of the comments below the article, and sadly, for some of the article itself.

So, yes, the gloating over Labour old (dirty) hands’ involvement with the creepy weirdos from PIE (many of whom are either dead or in prison) is understandable – the posturing post-Savile by the likes of Harman was irritating. But what those on the nominal right don’t seem to grasp is that they’re merely playing the same decadent game. That is, they’ve transformed an era in which politics, society, values and mores were different into a site of evil. This serves a function, of course. In morally groundless times, the transformation of a discrete era into a source of corruption allows politicians and pundits to orient themselves. That is, by attacking the past, by effectively demonising the ‘way we did things back then’, they can present ‘the way we are trying to do things now’ as in some ways morally superior. There are no good old days any more, just bad old days – a case not of golden ageism, but tainted ageism. This is a crusade all right, but it’s not for something; it’s against something. It is the affirmation of the present at the expense of the past and, as many people have found out, all who lived through it.

Dave Lee Travis faces sexual assault re-trial

Veteran DJ Dave Lee Travis has said his “nightmare is now going to go on” as he learned he is facing a retrial on charges of indecent and sexual assault.

Travis, 68, was cleared of 12 counts of indecent assault earlier this month but jurors at London’s Southwark Crown Court were unable to reach verdicts on two further charges and were discharged.

Earlier, Judge Anthony Leonard heard that prosecutors were seeking a retrial on the outstanding charges of indecent assault and sexual assault.

Reacting to news that he is to face a retrial on sex charges, veteran DJ Dave Lee Travis said: “The nightmare is now going to go on. All I can say is, this whole thing started when I was 67 and I just hope it will end by the time I’m 80.”

Last week, the Director of Public Prosecutions, repulsive feminist hag Alison Saunders, admitted that elderly celebrities were being tried for political reasons :

Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders has said Operation Yewtree – the police investigation launched in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal – has been a success, despite only four individuals being charged.

She told ITV News UK Editor Lucy Manning that the fact the CPS is able to bring cases forward showed the operation is a success.

She added that Operation Yewtree has “enabled us to have a public debate about abuse that has taken place some time ago.”

(**TRIGGER WARNING AND UGLY BAG WARNING – Video link contains disturbing images of Alison Saunders while being interviewed)

The victims of Operation Yewtree should get together to sue the crap out of not only the CPS, but individual members of the CPS behind this blatant witch hunt, such as Alison Saunders and Keir Starmer.