Age of Consent Should Be 13 Says Prominent Barrister

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22459815

A prominent barrister specialising in reproductive rights has called for the age of consent to be lowered to 13.

Barbara Hewson said in an interview that the move was necessary in the wake of the Savile scandal to end the "persecution of old men".

She also said that complainants should no longer receive anonymity.

The NSPCC called her views "outdated and simply ill-informed" and said to hear them "from a highly experienced barrister simply beggars belief".

Her remarks come after a number of high-profile arrests from Operation Yewtree, the police investigation into historic sexual abuse following the Savile scandal.

The arrests have included Max Clifford, Stuart Hall and Gary Glitter among others.

Isn't it shameful that a female barrister can make such a plea, and yet when myself and my readers - all men's rights supporters - argue that issues surrounding the age of consent should at least be discussed in the context of men's rights, in order to stop the barbaric persecution of old men, we are effectively kicked out of the movement?

The Men's Human Rights Movement, however, would rather get into bed with the devils in the NSPCC - a collection of pure and utter evil radical feminists, interested only in enriching themselves whilst soothing their own psycho-sexual jealousies through the persecution of old men for decades old 'crimes', and the promotion of medieval hysteria that leaves millions of men demonised and in fear of ruin.

63 thoughts on “Age of Consent Should Be 13 Says Prominent Barrister

  1. theantifeminist

    Post author

    I've submitted the BBC article to r/mensrights.

    No doubt it will recieve a record number of downvotes and I'll likely be banned.

  2. Japan has an age of consent at 13...

    And it's not some 3rd world country filled with child abuse, it has one of the lowest child abuse and sex crime rates...

    Surprised that such a sex filled culture has such a low crime rate.

    On the other hand, in the US where everything is strictly illegal and enforced heavily... you get a ton of insane sex crimes.

  3. Deano

    I don't know anything else about Hewson apart from this article, but I feel she deserves a Victoria Cross for bravery! She puts it beautifully when she describes "the manipulation of the British criminal justice system to produce scapegoats on demand".

    A male barrister in her position would have already been arrested for saying this by now. They would 'find' stuff on his computer.

  4. Anonymous age 71

    I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I think it makes no sense for a man to even consider young women, that might even somehow be under adult age. It isn't as if there aren't a billion or more adult women on the planet.

    On the other hand, I live in Mexico. Here after roughly age 12, the decision to prosecute for sex with underage girls is made not by the cops nor the prosecutor. But, by her family or the girl herself if she feels she was mishandled.

    The Mexican culture has no false pretenses about female innocence and purity after puberty. If the family realizes the girl had "hot pants" (which is often the case) they may well decided not to prosecute. Unlike the Nifongs of the world.

    In my neighborhood there is allegedly a 47 year old woman. 35 years ago, she got herself pregnant by a 25 year old man. The parents all got together, and the pair agreed they would like to marry and raise the chidl together. That is what happened.

    They had 3 children who have all become productive adults. The only flaw was the woman hasn't especially changed, and it is alleged she has had her way with most of the men in the area.

    In the highly superior USA, we'd have tossed him in jail, and someone else would have been providing money for the future convicts.

    I like the Mexican system better than simply lowering age of consent. I am not saying all families are saints, but they do better than blind, mindless laws.

  5. jack

    @antifeminist: for info (not for publication) "prominant" should read "prominent"!

  6. theantifeminist

    Post author

    HaHa, thanks Jack. I'm not ashamed btw, everybody here knows I can't spell. Unfortunately, not only was I educated at one of the worst schools in the UK (since been shut down), I had one of those 'progressive' English teachers who didn't believe in teaching spelling or even grammer, and instead taught us only how to 'express' ourselves. On top of that, my father left school at 14 to become a farm labourer, and English wasn't his first language. Somehow I managed to get into one of the top universities in the world (only boy in my year to get to any university), despite this.

  7. Dog Meat

    One really interesting thing about this is that she doesn't appear to be recommending a phoney-baloney reduction in the AOC where it's only for people x years older but otherwise it stays the same or worse.

    I've always had this hunch that a section of the movers and shakers within society, even as they joined in in paedohysterical outrage, were actually hoping for this. They may have even decided they needed to push the hysteria bandwagon in order to get it to a point of absurdity where there was some political leeway for the AOC to be reduced.

    I can't prove it, but it's something I've long suspected.

  8. theantifeminist

    Post author

    @Deano Very well put.

    I used to be of the opinion that it was only the issues surrounding the age of consent - draconian sentences, sex offender's register, strict liability etc that were men's rights issues. But after Savile, there is no doubt in my mind. It should be clear that the age of consent in itself - that is the feminist high age of consent stretching into the teens, should be abolished, and that this is a key men's rights goal. Human-Stupidity once made a disclaimer here stating that it would be sufficient for a return to the old attitudes, i.e. the age of consent could still be 16, but it would be prosecuted only in serious cases or if the parents or the girl made a complaint etc. Unfortunately, as we're seeing now, all this can be retroactively exploited by feminists and paedocrites - even when you're dead. The age of consent should be lowered, period. This is the only way to protect men.

  9. theantifeminist

    Post author

    I’ve always had this hunch that a section of the movers and shakers within society, even as they joined in in paedohysterical outrage, were actually hoping for this. They may have even decided they needed to push the hysteria bandwagon in order to get it to a point of absurdity where there was some political leeway for the AOC to be reduced.

    That's an interesting point DogMeat.

    As Jack pointed out earlier, there is no way this can continue. At some point, powerful people are going to realise that the only way to stop this is a clear cut lower age of consent, and an end to the muddying of the waters above that age of consent (i.e. 'grooming' and 'child prostitution' laws above the AoC).

    I am feeling rather optimistic actually - we may finally be moving towards the end stage of this medieval backward hysteria that's been taking place the last decade or two.

  10. @theantifeminist

    A lot of relationships with young couples were happy and has no abuse whatsoever, however, the legal system has and pedocrites had to stick their nose into someone else's business when there is nothing for them to worry about.

    These relationships... possibly 18 year old high school senior and his 15 year old high school sophomore girlfriend has no abuse besides the fact that they had sex like all other couples do, and that's really the part that made this a no no? These are two kids in love and they're completely happy about it, no abuse, no beating, no threatening... nothing!

    a 21 year old women living with her abusive 21 year old husband, he doesn't have a job, he is an alcoholic, he screams at her all the time... How far does she have to go to even get a divorce and restraining order from this guy?

    a 15 year old girl has a 18 year old boyfriend, they're happy that they're together, they go to the same school and he walks her home everyday, her parents like him and they're just overall happy together. But when the police finds out, the legal system has to stick their nose into someone else's happy life and basically branded the girl as a victim when she doesn't even think so herself.

    There should be an age of consent, like you said, if the parents are fine with it and there is no actual abuse. It should be fine, and if the parents are not okay with it but there is no abuse, there should be something like a restraining order set, instead of jail time.

  11. theantifeminist

    Post author

    @Larner

    I'm not sure if you read DogMeat's previous comment, but...

    the general opinion here is that if a girl of x age can consent to sex with a 21 year old, she can consent to sex with a 40 year old, or for that matter a 70 year old. In other words, she can consent to sex. Unlike feminists, we do not believe that the amount of mitochondrial waste that has accumulated in a person's cells is good to reason to throw someone in prison to be raped for having willing sex with somebody younger. Yes there are feminist patriarchal arguments that state that all 'imbalances in power' are inherently abusive, but this an anti-feminist site, as the title and url suggests.

    This is the last time I will approve a comment where the thrust is 'what we're complaining about is 21 year olds being thrown in jail for having 16 year old girlfriends.'

    The reason for this is because this is a European men's rights anti-feminist site. Things generally aren't so bad over here that teenagers get thrown in jail for having sex with other teenagers. Comments such as yours simply validate attempts to introudce same age clauses whilst raising or affirming the age of consent in order to 'keep everybody happy' i.e. sexually jealous feminists/women and conservative fathers and men's rights simpletons.

    I also object to it especially when I post an article pointing to a leading female barrister stating explicitly that the aofc should be 13, when I state explicitly that the age of consent should be 13, and one of my other readers make an interesting point regards the refreshing fact that somebody public has argued that the age of consent should be 13 with no strings attached (i.e. only for same age couples). It also has slightly paedocrite overtones.

  12. jack

    There should be an age of consent, like you said, if the parents are fine with it ...

    Ideally, no! People cursed with meddling parents should get the same treatment before the law.

    Of course parents should be entitled to (mis)educate their children, but education does not translate into criminal law.

  13. Bob Jones

    @theantifeminist
    If you think /r/mensrights would ban you for posting an article like this, you clearly have spent little to no time there.

    /r/feminism would ban you in a heartbeat, though.

  14. Observer

    The discussion in mensrights reddit of the link to this post is full of downvotes, imputations of pedophilia and other ad hominems against those rationally discussing the issue. It's predictable that bad emotional arguments would result from this topic as too many redditors still buy into too much of the feminist frame of mind, even if they are /r/mensrights posters.

  15. Eric

    Anon71:
    My great-grandmother married at 15; my great-great grandmother at 16. The first had 6 kids, the other had 12. None of these offspring turned into the delinquent element that the modern US media assures is inevitable with teenaged mothers.

  16. Eric

    Antifeminist:
    "I state explicitly that it should be 13."

    It was actually at 12 in most of Europe for many centuries.

    When my cousin was in the military in Iraq, he told me that the government had set up clinics and a 90+ y/o Arab chieftain came in one day asking about impotence treatments. According to what he told the doctors, the younger members of his harem were tiring him out to the point where he could only have sex five times a week!

    I don't know what happened afterwards, hopefully he got his medication and went home before Hillary found out and had him shot! LOL

    But I've long believed that greater age differences are healthier for both the men and women involved.

  17. Eric

    I knew it wouldn't be long before one of Elam/Esmay put in their two-cents' worth on this proposal:

    http://www.judgybitch.com/2013/05/09/should-13-year-olds-be-having-sex-probably-not-they-shouldnt-be-fame-whores-either/

    Wherein the 'Equal Injustice for All' meme is spelled out fairly clearly, although she did give a fairly accurate analysis of Operation Yewtree. Her basic premise here is that US laws are the best, because an age disparity is taken into account. And better still if a few men are let off the hook for not knowing any better and a few girls get prosecuted too.

    Another troubling point in this article was that the Sheila seemed to imply that only 'unpriviledged' girls were interested in older men. History bears out exactly the opposite, wherever the AOC was lower, the higher-status teen girls were the ones who had the higher sexual market value.

  18. jack

    Her basic premise here is that US laws are the best, because an age disparity is taken into account.

    Yeah, so if selling cannabis becomes legal, only teenage sellers can sell to teenagers. Anyone more than 5 years the buyer's senior will be prosecuted.

    This stinks.

  19. jack

    The assumption I find disgusting is that a girl cannot choose the age of the man she wants to have sex with. She can have all the sex she wants, but please only with the local gang leader, not with any man of merit experienced in the ways of the world.

    Why then not introduce further measures? For example:

    - No more senior math or French teachers for girls. Only 19 year-olds with A levels.
    - No more experienced surgeons to remove girls' appendicitis or wisdom teeth. Medical school students will do.
    - ...

    Fact is, a middle-aged man should still work, make sacrifices, if need be die for the well-being and safety of younger girls. But Society should see to it that he gets nothing in return. Girls should never be allowed to pay him back, not even in the easy currency of sex.

  20. inclinedreader

    @Antifeminist:

    Yes there are feminist patriarchal arguments that state that all ‘imbalances in power’ are inherently abusive

    it just begs the question which side has more power in a relationship, and how they abuse it, if at all.

    Age is seen by feminists, but not only feminists, as an automatic, practically unfailing indicator of an "imbalance of power".

    Granted, the average 16-year-old may not have the kind of life experience that a 35-year-old has under their belt. But does this have to mean that the older person will invariably use their experience to exploit and abuse the younger person? An imbalance in experience doesn't simply equal a potential for abuse.

    And also, there are enough scheming conniving 20something women (sometimes they're even much younger than that) who can wrap any 40-year-old around their little finger in the blink of an eye. Now where is the imbalance of power in that?

    And on the other hand, who is to say that experience doesn't also mean a capability for providing more emotional security to the younger partner?

    Feminists also don't factor in this funny little thing called love when they talk about these things. Worse even, they do not accept that a teenager might actually develop deep feelings for somebody much older, and that those feelings should then be taken seriously and not dismissed. In this respect, the feminist narrative is almost always along the lines of emotional exploitation by the older person, who somehow messed with the younger person's head so that they think they are in love.

  21. I went to the trouble to find the reddit comments.

    http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1dzjaw/age_of_consent_should_be_13_to_stop_the_witchunt/

    Not as bad as I thought (banning), but still pretty disappointing.

    ===========
    @Anonymous age 71:
    very nice comment.

    The mexican system certainly is much better then the US system.

    It still exposes the young man to the whims of the parents. But most people agree that parents should have some rights to interfere in the life of 12 or 14 year olds.

    =====
    It is absurd how MRA think that it is the government's job to arrest men who have a happy relationship with a girl, with the consent of the parents. It is just mind boggling.

    And the imprisonment is mandatory. And it is for a decade or so.

    Why should government interfere at all. Why is any age of consent needed?

    People always confuse age of consent with age when they would want prohibit their daughters to have sex.

    Age of consent is NOT a recommendation to have sex at that age.

    You can have an age of consent of 10 and be of the opinion that girls ought not have sex before 18. But it is not a pressing issue where government needs to interfere.

    There are so many more pressing issues:

    draconian punishment should be given to binge drinking pregnant females, for example who cause fetal alcohol syndrome.

    Or to people who give junk food to obese children.

    Underage sex does not cause any such serious problems, when done with consent and with watchful parents.

  22. From the BBC article
    ==================
    Her remarks come after a number of high-profile arrests over allegations of historical sexual offences in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal.

    Among those to have been convicted is former BBC broadcaster Stuart Hall, who admitted 14 charges of indecently assaulting girls, including one aged nine, between 1967 and 1985.

    Ms Hewson described Hall's crimes as "low-level misdemeanours" which "ordinarily... would not be prosecuted".
    'Prurient charade'

    "What we have here is the manipulation of the British criminal justice system to produce scapegoats on demand. It is a grotesque spectacle," she said.

    "It's time to end this prurient charade, which has nothing to do with justice or the public interest."

    She argues for an end to complainant anonymity, a strict statute of limitations to prevent prosecutions after a substantial amount of time has passed and a reduction in the age of consent to 13.

    She said that "touching a 17-year-old's breast, kissing a 13-year-old, or putting one's hand up a 16-year-old's skirt" are not crimes comparable to gang rapes and murders and "anyone suggesting otherwise has lost touch with reality".

    The NSPCC described crimes such as Hall's as "incredibly serious" and said that "to minimise and trivialise the impact of these offences for victims in this way is all but denying that they have in fact suffered abuse at all.

    Poor woman. Saying such wisdom, such truth will cause her lot of trouble.

    How did she dare say such things?

    Anyone can support her amidst the uproar?

    Anyone in public is supporting her?

  23. Dog Meat

    I lie the way Jack laid out all the ways an age gap can be justified for no good reason if one were inclined to do.

    The controversy has spawnwed a couple of articles in the Daily Mail:

    Brooke Magnanti's article-
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/10047623/Making-sex-legal-at-13-is-pure-lunacy.html

    and Andrew Hough's article-
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/10045699/Allow-legal-sex-at-13-to-stop-old-men-abuse-persecutions-says-barrister.html

    Some strange things are found therein.
    Ms Magnanti claims the AOC in Spain and Portugal is low but still allows for older partners to be prosecuted if they appear to have abused their position. She says there is "considerable leeway". However, I've read about a teacher who slept with a 14 y.o. amd only lost his job, and note how vague it all is. "Considerable leeway". That could mean anything. And when one thinks about it, if people can be prosecuted this way for being with other people under 16, then that really is the AOC is those countries-except that it isn't. She's relying on lack of knowledge on the part of her readers and basically telling porky pies-far more wrong then right, anyway.

    Magnanti writes:
    'There is a trend in this country - perhaps everywhere, and perhaps not just now - to think "let's just change a law and solve all our problems”!'

    She appears to have contracted a case of pot-calling-the-kettle-black-itis.

    As far as her involvement with an older man in her uni days, SFW. I can't see how that's supposed to be related to anything, particularly.

  24. Dog Meat

    (cont.)
    Sorry, Telegraoph, not Daily Mail

    Magnanti also misrepresents the situation in the Netherlands. The AOC is 16 or 12 with an age gap, but she fails to mention that adults can still sleep with 12 y.o.'s if the child doesn't complain. Any report of such a relationship must be investigated by police but without a complaint FROM THE CHILD ONLY, the activity is deemed not to occur. At least that's how I understand it.

    Mr Hough's article is similarly tainted, not least with the inevitable hypocritical hand-wringing from Ms Hewson's law firm. I won't spoil the fun for those who haven't seen the article yet. Trust me, it's good.

    He quotes Ms Hewson :
    "'touching a 17-year-old's breast, kissing a 13-year-old, or putting one's hand up a 16-year-old's skirt'' are not comparable to cases such as the Ealing Vicarage rape or Fordingbridge gang rape and murders from 1986.''

    I take it he doesn't agree with eminently reasonable comments. He certainly doesn't say he does so. The most reasonable of those is the hand-upskirt complaint.

    BTW It never seems to be specified exactly what happened but surely there's a difference between digitally penetrating an unwilling victim (quite a nasty crime, I'm the first to admit), and misjudging the situation and doing far less than that.

    Both Mr Hough and Ms Magnanti seem to have some kind of strange liking for Voltaire's real name. Ms Hewson quoted Voltaire in a message to The Telegraph but they're calling him Jean-Francois Arouet most of the time. Why? Is it because if they said Voltaire, people would sit up and pay attention as he is someone who has a reputation for attacking the hypocrisies of his day?

    In Ms Magnanti's article, Ms Hewson is on record as stating we need to defend the right to express our opinions. This is towards the end of the article.

    At the top, Magnanti whines about how a "dude" from 300 years ago is hardly someone we need to be quoting now. Firstly, I wonder why not, if that person has sonething relevant to say, and secondly, is she saying that being prepared to speak one's mind is some outdated bit of guff from 300 years ago?
    She certainbly doesn't give the quote next to this condemnation of Ms Hewson, or anywhere in the article at all(I can't find the quote itself anywhere, inc. in Hewson's Spiked Online article).

    BTW There's another article by Malcolm Underhill in the same vein:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/10046962/Legal-age-of-consent-row-innocent-teenagers-at-risk-of-iniquitous-predators.html

    BTW2 Barbara Hewson's not a bad-looking sort!

  25. Dog Meat

    NB" The most reasonable of those is the hand-upskirt complaint."

    This is an editing mistake of mine and shouln't be there. Sorry for any potential confusion.

  26. theantifeminist

    Post author

    @DogMeat

    The age of consent in Holland has been raised to 16, and like all other European countries, they are muddying the waters even above that age.

    In fact, it is illegal to fail to report suspicion of an adult having sex with a person under 16.

    They are also introducing minimum ages of 21 for 'prostitution'. Add those to 'grooming' laws, and the age of consent in the Netherlands is effectively 21.

    They are also the only country in Europe to have American style 'paedophile' vigilante websites where the names and addresses of 'sex predators' (i.e. men arrested for having willing sex with 15 year old girls) are openly listed with invitations to assault or murder them.

    Paedohysteria in Holland is even worse than in the UK. Demonstrates how quickly a society can turn liberal and rational to completely backward within a decade.

  27. Dog Meat

    @theantifeminist-

    Wow, the grooming laws in Holland can apply if someone above a certain age chats up someone past their 18th birthday but under 21!?

    That's fucked up.

    Your post has enlightened me about a few things concerning Holland I didn't know before. I knew it was a paedohysterical place, but wow.

    However, I still believe that in spite of all of that, if an adult sleeps with a 12 y.o. and it comes to the attention of the police (and any suspicion must be conveyed to them by law), that if the young person makes no complaint, they still deem it to not be occurring-even with all the other stuff you mentioned.

    If I'm wrong about this, then I'm wrong;I don't care. I'm just curious and wanting to know one way or the other, that's all.

    It would be surprising if it hasn't been changed given everything else (including their over-the-top sex tourism laws), but AFAIK, it hasn't, and the AOC is still (sort of) twelve.

    And Brooke Magnani is still a liar about a lot of other things even if I'm wrong about this.

    I'm sure we can agree about that.

  28. Very bad news:

    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130405/spain-raises-marrying-age-14-16-0

    Spain announced Friday it is raising the minimum age for marriage from 14 to 16 while opening consultations to increase the age for consent to sex, which now lies at just 13, so as to combat child abuse.

    Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy's right-leaning government announced its decision to raise the minimum ages for marriage and sex in Spain, which are now among the lowest in the world, after a weekly cabinet meeting.

    The reforms are part of a broad plan approved by the government to protect children from abuse and exploitation, to be funded with a budget estimated at 5.2 billion euros ($6.7 billion) over the next four years.

    Spanish legislation allows a child to enter into marriage with a court's permission as young as 14. Defenders of children's rights fear that at such a young age some minors, even if only a small number, may be forced into unions.

    http://now.msn.com/spain-raises-age-of-consent-marriage-age

  29. The balance of power argument

    a) women get attracted to men with much more power then they have.

    b) one could argue that a 18 year old cute girl has enormous power

    About the age difference laws:

    a) they always create problem with mandatory ID check, ID verification, math requirements, legal counsel, sex law education etc.

    b) as you say: is a testosterone pumped 16 year old inexperienced teen really a better partner then a seasoned, experienced, reasonable 35 year old?

  30. Thanks for calling my attention to Barbara Hewson.

    I just published the first of several topics on Barbara Hewson. She is a courageous woman.

    http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/lower-age-of-consent-to-13-yes-barbara-hewson-lone-voice-of-reason

    After all, a "normal" person rooted in normal establishment promoting lower age of consent, in this day and age. She deserves all the support we can give.

    Anyone discovered any positive comments about her? She gets blanket criticism everywhere.

    Judgybitch, cited above, is one of the lone supporters. Well, she is not totally supportive, but to a large extent.

  31. inclinedreader

    @ Human-Stupidity:

    Very bad news:

    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130405/spain-raises-marrying-age-14-16-0

    Spain announced Friday it is raising the minimum age for marriage from 14 to 16 while opening consultations to increase the age for consent to sex, which now lies at just 13, so as to combat child abuse.

    This reflects what I have been saying all along; the feminazis failed at the EU level to achieve a blanket Europe-wide age of consent of 18 (try as they did, and they actually did made considerable efforts towards that end in the run-up to the new EU directive against "child" abuse), and now they are taking this battle to the member states level. With the same kind of baloney scare tactics and just as devoid of any basis in scientific fact as they did at the EU level.

    These laws, if enacted (proposals for an age of consent of 18, while not inevitable, must be expected; just look at how easily India passed an AOC of 18), will not save a single "child" from anything, and it will be 5.2 billion euros of taxpayer money flushed down the f*cking toilet just because some saggy-titted menopausal feminazis with fertility envy can't stand the fact that their time in the sexual market is up.

  32. Dog Meat

    @Human-Stupidity
    I've checked out what you've added to your site and will follow developments with interest.
    @inclinedreader
    I like to think I understand a lot about the way things work in the world of politics in a general kind of way, but what factors led to the defeat of this on an EU-wide basis?

    A few quick thoughts-

    As far as Rajoy goes, it looks like he's cynically doing this to get the femihags off his back/on his side. It's an easy diversion from all the austerity and corruption. It's tied with measures supposedly designed to alleviate child poverty so who could possibly be against it? Oo,I'm cynical. BTW it's great to see there's now no longer even one place in Spain with a drinking age below eighteen. That'll solve a lot of problems.

    Who know, it may not work.

    On the one hand, the femihags have powerful allies in the form of Unicef and no doubt other NGO's as well as the Catholic Church.

    On the other hand, moves to increase the AOC are moving out of their "natural habitat"-English-speaking countries, a few Northern European countries and a few other places, into territory that is culturally not so receptive and where until very recently the Left has asserted the desirability of a low AOC-something you simply don't find in, say, Britain, anymore.

    On the other hand again, raising the AOC is about the easiest thing for a politician to do and AFAIK nowhere has lowered their AOC. Everywhere there's been a lot of media and political focus on the subject, raising the AOC has won.

    Maybe they'll raise the AOC to 15 so it's 1 year below the new marriagable age, just as the old marriageable age was 1 year above the current AOC. That way, they can still say they've done something about it but have an AOC no lower than France and higher than Italy, so the feminazis can go and bug them instead.

    I'll try and find the link, but I've read that the AOC in Spain is actually still 12. I've seen it argued that the way the AOC was changed in 1999 was unconstitutional. I am not confidently asserting this to be correct, but the writer seemed to know what he/she was talking about. I wonder if anyone has actually been successfully prosecuted for sexual relations with a 12 y.o. since 1999?

    According to the article, Spanish MP's were surprised the AOC was so low when a case was brought to their attention involving a man who had sex with two boys, one aged 9 and the other aged 12. Interesting. Did these legislators honestly not know? I don't know what to make of that.

  33. theantifeminist

    Post author

    @DogMeat Your sources aren't very good. Femiservatives tried to raise the age of consent from 12 to 16 in 1999, but the Socialist party voted against it, and instead a compromise was reached and the age of consent was raised to 13. They also included a clause which criminalized sex with an under 16 if any kind of 'deceit' was used. That should have satisfied most rational people.

    Now the socialist party has been hijacked by left-wing feminists, as in every other country, so I can't see this plan being defeated. However, in Spain you can still discuss these issues quite rationally, and few people consider 16 and 17 year olds, or even 15 year olds to be 'children'. In fact, even 13 year olds are commonly referred to as adolescents rather than children (ninos). I imagine they will raise the age to 15 or 16.

    How outrageous it is that Spain is on the brink of insolvency, with the highest youth unemployment rate in the world (over 50%), and yet the most pressing issue facing 15 year old girls is NOT being allowed to have sexual relationships with older men (who likely have a job and means to support themselves and the relationship).

    5 fucking billion euros, and some asshats still doubt the existence of a child abuse industry. No wonder the men's human rights movement wants to jump on that bandwagon, even if it leads to thousands or milions of men being raped and beaten every day in their cells.

    Oh, and Google image search Anna Matos, the femiservative hag responsible (warning, sick bag required).

  34. Spaniard

    @theantifeminist

    Spaniard here, as usual this kind of changes are made because of some social event: (Spanish) http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/1624426/0/guardia-civil/suicidio-autor/crimen-salobral/
    To sum up: One 39 year old guy was dating a 13 year old girl, she decided to leave him so he killed her and himself.
    The "funny" thing is, what if they're only dating and they're not having sex? Is that also going to be illegal? If the age of consent is raised and another event like this happens, are we going raise again the age of consent?

    The most hypocrite thing about age of consent laws is this, compare
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
    and
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_infancy
    For some reason in most countries you are criminally responsible before you are able to consent.

    Also, now it's the perfect time to change this kinds of laws: age of consent, abortion, outlawing file sharing without profiting... people won't care about those in this particular moment.

  35. inclinedreader

    For some reason in most countries you are criminally responsible before you are able to consent.

    Are you kidding...

    The fast growing prison industrial complex needs new inmates just as urgently and desperately as the abuse industry needs new victims.

    Both industries have no raison d'etre if it isn't for ever more custodial sentences and ever more sex crimes.

    It does beggar belief that in our times, you are apparently too young to consent to things which if you are the "perpetrator" you are somehow all of a sudden well old enough to be held criminally responsible for.

    This can only be explained through a deep-set hatred towards young people and their sexuality.

    Which again brings us straight back to middle-aged feminists...

  36. Spaniard

    @inclinedreader

    Well, duh, I meant a "good" reason. Incarcerating people just to reach the quota doesn't really qualify as a "good" one.

  37. Eric

    Inclinedreader:
    Another example is America's absurd laws on alcohol consumption. The legal drinking age here is 21; but nobody between the ages of 18-21 is ever tried as a juvenile for violating them.

  38. Eric

    HS:
    I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Spain is being pressured strongly from American interests here. The fact that they are discussing this while their economy is sinking smells strongly that they may be about to get some American financial help---with certain 'conditions' attached.

  39. Dog Meat

    Here's the link about tyhe events precipitating the change from 12 to 13 in 1999:

    http://www.ageofconsent.com/spain.htm

    Unfortunately, I have not been able to get a bead on exactly where I got the info that some regard the change as constitutionally invalid and therefore claim the AOC is still 12.

    As I said, I do not claim to have the background knowledge to be able to assess this.

  40. Dog Meat

    @Spaniard

    I don't know Spanish but thanks for the link to the Spanish story.

    Is it true that under Spanish law, people aged 18. 19 or 20 who have no criminal history and are accused of a non-violent crime, are eligible to be tried as juveniles?

  41. Spaniard

    @Dog Meat

    Disclaimer: I'm NOT a lawyer.

    I had no idea about that, but doing a bit of research what you wrote was actually true, although it was proposal from 2003 and never came into force.

    The age of constent is currently 13 yearls old, it's on the Spanish penal code although having sex with someone between 13 (included) and 16 (excluded) by deceiving (whatever this means) him/her is also a crime.

    You could also read the news report here: http://www.thinkspain.com/news-spain/22113/el-salobral-murder-sparks-debate-over-minimum-age-of-consent although the man's age is wrongly reported, he was 39.

  42. Pingback:

  43. Pingback:

  44. Rmaxd

    Hi TAF,

    Could you explain how AVFM is in bed with the NSPCC?

    I havent seen AVFM supporting feminist child abuse NGO's

    thanks

  45. theantifeminist

    Post author

    @Rmaxd

    AVoiceForMen writers, including Dean Esmay and TyphonBlue, have supported raising the age of consent to 21 based on the assertion (backed only by femijunk child abuse ngo funded 'science') that adolescents engaging in willing sex with older partners will inevitably be emotionally scarred, as well as more likely to become 'child sex predators' themselves (a bit like werewolves).

    Paul Elam himself has stated that he finds the idea of a man finding teenage girls attractive to be 'nauseous'. In others words, the leader of the world's men's human rights movement thinks all men are subhuman paedophiles. He also strictly forbids any discussion, even in the comments section at AVfMen, of anything related to the age of consent (unless it is demands from puritan peabrained paedocrites to have it raised - in order to protect boys rights!).

    Meanwhile, from the BBC website today : http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/22617414

  46. jack

    A growing number of children are being sexually abused by other children, say charities.

    Wow! You might think this will divert attention from us presumed middle-aged paedos. It might, but at the same time I suspect what child-protection entities want is to broaden their range of prey. They are themselves the main abusers and by targeting children both as victims and doers they’ll double their quarry.

  47. Jack

    Here's a poem by John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, where a young woman is addressing a much older man with whom she is in love. A poem complete with genitalia and hand-job! Let us petition the education minister to have such filth banned from the literature curriculum!

    Ancient Person, for whom I
    All the flattering youth defy,
    Long be it e'er thou grow old,
    Aching, shaking, crazy cold;
    But still continue as thou art,
    Ancient Person of my heart.

    On thy withered lips and dry,
    Which like barren furrows lie,
    Brooding kisses I will pour,
    Shall thy youthful heart restore,

    [...]

    Thy nobler parts, which but to name
    In our sex would be counted shame,
    By ages frozen grasp possest,
    From their ice shall be released,
    And, soothed by my reviving hand,
    In former warmth and vigour stand.

    [...]

    Yet still I love thee without art,
    Ancient Person of my heart.

  48. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Thanks Jack, that's a beautiful poem.

    I had never heard of this guy before, but he sounds an interesting character.

    Johnny Depp, the oldest teenage heartthrob in the world, played him in 'The Libertine' : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Libertine_(2004_film)

    According to his wikipedia entry, he was friends with a 'Henry Savile'...hahaha (Savile is quite a rare surname).

  49. theantifeminist

    Post author

    I don’t know if you saw this while on vacation, but some deeply troubling news out of Norway:

    http://www.eivindberge.blogspot.com/2013/05/lex-berge-is-in-effect.html

    However much I regard Eivind as a hero for standing up for the sexual criminalization of men, and being one of only a very small handful of mras with the balls and integrity to do so, I totally and unreservedly dissociate myself from his statements inciting 'cop killing'.

    I mean Jesus Christ, we've got less than 5 men's rights bloggers who even can see that the feminist criminalization of male sexuality is a men's rights issue, and Eivind thinks that calling for cops to be killed is going to do anything but :

    1/ Turn every police force and police officer in the world a resolute unflinching enemy of the men's rights movement and a firm ally of feminists.
    2/ Ensure that every men's rights site in Europe is closely monitored by the authorities with the intention of taking us offline and off the streets at the earliest opportunity.
    3/ Provide an excuse for feminists to have any criticism of feminism defined as hate speech in Scandinavia and possibly the rest of Europe.
    4/ Personally have him (Eivind) locked up for years as an insane terrorist and other men's rights activists arrested.

    All this, as I said, when our numbers currently stand at about..ooh..four or five people? And despite our lack of numbers, and against the odds, we are having some influence in slowly establishing these sex law issues as valid men's rights issues, the men's rights movement arguably being the fastest growing political rights movement in the western world? I say against the odds, but obviously feminists criminalising millions of men, eventually all men, is clearly a fundamental men's rights issue, but we do need to establish that, and slowly but surely, we are. Eivind getting locked up, getting the nascent men's rights movement closely monitored, scrutinised, or outright banned, isn't to my mind a great achievement, or makes much tactical sense.

    In other words, I guess what I'm trying to say is, however courageous, heroic, intelligent, and educated Eivind is, tactically speaking, I don't think he's all there (and I would add to that his use of soundbites such as 'men and boys can't be raped', which although having a sound argument and point behind them, are just going to switch off 99% of men's rights supporters).

  50. Alan Vaughn

    @theantifeminist

    Eivind getting locked up, getting the nascent men’s rights movement closely monitored, scrutinised, or outright banned, isn’t to my mind a great achievement, or makes much tactical sense.

    I must agree - he's not doing us (or anyone else) including himself, any favours.
    It's very disappointing that he being such a cool, clear thinking and rational man otherwise, can allow such stupid thoughts, let alone hatred: destroy all the great work he's been doing.
    If he only focused on what really matters, (and what he so effectively advocates regarding feminist male sexuality laws etc.), some of those cops might even eventually, wake up to what's going on and how they especially, have been used and abused by feminists, but there's scant chance of that happening now...

  51. jack

    All the more so since what he had advocated at the time was to kill cops who came to arrest him for breaking misandric laws. This is not the same as advocating cop killing out of context. Don't forget though we can only read the English in his article. He seems to be making a point regarding Norwegian law more than anything else.

    Also, Eivind sees the police as the enforcement arm of misandry. He may be an embarrassment to the MRM right now, but when feminism turns really violent we may look back upon his eccentricities as being a visionary's.

  52. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Also, Eivind sees the police as the enforcement arm of misandry. He may be an embarrassment to the MRM right now, but when feminism turns really violent we may look back upon his eccentricities as being a visionary’s.

    if he doesn't get us all banned/arrested first. Otherwise, history may judge him differently...if it judges or remembers him (and us) at all, given that if the men's rights movement is killed in the womb feminists could probably wipe out a good 5 or 10% of the male population, or at least imprison that number of men for life, and nobody will have an inkling of any sense of injustice (and the few who do will be too afraid to speak out).

    It also puzzles me why offending women's feelings, who en masse vote for or otherwise franchise the feminists who make these laws, is ethically wrong and yet advocating for the killing of police for doing their job and upholding these laws, laws which even 90% of the men's rights movement do not appear to have any or much problem with, is a view we should at least 'understand'. Hell, we even debate here whether it is ethical to upset the feelings of the femihags themselves by calling them femihags, even though they are the ones actually making these laws, and making these laws simply because they are bitter at being old femihags.

    Well, to be honest, reading statements such as :

    'I said killing cops is the right thing to do for MRAs as activism against misandric sex laws.'

    makes me think that, really, despite the fact that Eivind is currently only one of a handful of MRAs on our side in criticising sex laws, it is prudent and ethical for myself, and certainly for any hope of a men's rights movement to survive long enough to grow sufficiently powerful to resist the feminist rape of the male, to publicly and fully dissociate myself from him, and to remove his link from my blogroll.

  53. Eric

    Alan:
    You might when the first case Eivind broke out, I raised the question on the Spearhead about the suspicious timing between that and the SPLC attacks on the MRM. That drew a rather unconvincing rebuttal from Fat-troll himself, who devoted a whole post to denying what I'd only hinted at.

    Just about two days before Lex Berge was enacted, Arthur Goldwag, Futrelle's henchman at the SPLC, was running blog posts about the MRM in a similar vein.

    All this leads me to suspect that Eivind is being used, unwittingly as a cat's paw in this whole anti-MRM campaign. That's why I advised him to take the high road here and concentrate on exposing the wire-pullers behind such laws.

  54. Eric

    Jack:
    "When feminism turns really violent, we might regard his eccentricities as visionary."

    I would argue that given the ease with which I've observed white-knights and paedocrites to be incited to violent action within the Anglosphere, the proper course of action would be to expat as soon as possible if all the barriers restraining them finally came down.

    If they decided to go on a full-fledged witch hunt, killing cops over here would be like throwing gasoline on the fire. Look at the recent case of Chris Dorner: the American cops don't take prisoners when cops are killed to make a political statement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>