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.

Deluded Daily Mail Writer Mocked For Claiming That Women Hate Her For Being Beautiful

Featured

Samantha Brick, a female writer for the Daily Mail, has caused viral lulz over an article published in the paper a couple of days ago – ‘Why women hate me for being beautiful‘.

While I’m no Elle Macpherson, I’m tall, slim, blonde and, so I’m often told, a good-looking woman. I know how lucky I am. But there are downsides to being pretty — the main one being that other women hate me for no other reason than my lovely looks.

If you’re a woman reading this, I’d hazard that you’ve already formed your own opinion about me — and it won’t be very flattering. For while many doors have been opened (literally) as a result of my looks, just as many have been metaphorically slammed in my face — and usually by my own sex.

I’m not smug and I’m no flirt, yet over the years I’ve been dropped by countless friends who felt threatened if I was merely in the presence of their other halves. If their partners dared to actually talk to me, a sudden chill would descend on the room.

Possibly an interesting and plausible article on female sexual jealousy, red in tooth and fingernail…until you see her photo…

samantha brick and husband

Nearly 5,000 comments have been left underneath her article, most of them unkind, to say the least.  Even unkinder things are being said about her on Twitter and Facebook.  Her article, and the backlash, is turning into a media event.  She has even been forced to deny that her claim was a PR stunt.

Why the fury?  The fact that she is evidently plain at best, and an utterly deluded crow faced old cow at worst, can’t explain it entirely.  The truth is, she dared to tell the truth about female sexual jealousy – the ugly emotion that drives female behaviour above all else.  The fact that she is so average looking, and yet probably does get occasional vicious jealousy from other even plainer women, just makes her betrayal even worse.

See also : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2125138/Samantha-Brick-Daily-Mail-writer-goes-viral-controversial-Im-beautiful-article.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

NSPCC Claims 60 British Children a Day Are Sexually Abused

It’s collection tin rattling time again for the radical feminist ‘child protection’ group known as the NSPCC, so what better than to throw out a shock statistic that every tabloid will lap up?

One child is being sexually abused every 20 minutes (or 60 a day)

A child was sexually attacked every 20 minutes last year and more than 400 offences reported each week.

The scale of sex crimes against children emerged yesterday after a Freedom of Information request by the NSPCC.

The statistics also revealed how only one in 10 accused were convicted, the charity said.
More than a fifth of the 23,097 victims were of primary school age and almost 1,500 were five or under.

The NSPCC published the figures yesterday after sending FOI requests to the 43 police forces of England and Wales.

A total of 14,819 offences were committed against 11 to 17-year-olds and girls were six times more likely to be abused than boys.

Jon Brown, head of the charity’s Sexual Abuse programme, said: “A concentrated effort has to be made if we are to start reducing this distressing level of offences.

“When you have a situation where more than 60 children are being sexually abused every day, something is very wrong.”

The poor conviction rate was particularly worrying, added Mr Brown.

Although every child sexually abused in the UK represents an individual tragedy, it remains prudent whenever dealing with a radical feminist lobby group, especially the NSPCC, to subject their collection tin rattling hysteria to a degree of healthy scepticism.

60 children a day are not being sexually abused according to these statistics – 60 children a day are reported to the police as being sexually abused.  Only 10% of these reports are sufficiently serious or credible to result in convictions.  Naturally, it is beyond any radical feminist hate group to admit to the possibility that thousands of men are being falsely accused of child sexual abuse, or that the majority of these reports are simply mistaken or the result of overzealous concerns.  In fact, a recent NSPCC ‘don’t wait until you’re certain‘ campaign will only increase the numbers of falsely accused men.

As said, every real case of child sexual abuse is an awful tragedy, but the only real statistic to be garnered here is that ‘only’ 6 British children a day are proven (through the courts) to have been sexually abused.  Compare this statistic to the fact that around 15 British children each day are killed or seriously injured simply crossing the road.

Furthermore, whilst this site has always condemned unreservedly any illegal activity involving underage children, the majority of those 6 sex abuse cases each day involve teenagers – and a sizeable percentage of those cases likely involve willing participation on the part of the ‘victims’, and in fact, will have only been legally defined as ‘sexual abuse’ as a result of campaigns by feminist groups themselves, including the NSPCC :

More than a fifth of the 23,097 victims were of primary school age and almost 1,500 were five or under.

This is meant to be shocking enough for you to reach for your credit card and make a donation.  However, one fifth of the victims being primary school age means that 4/5 weren’t.

The number of under 18′s (children under feminist legal definitions) in the UK is around 12 million.

6 children sexually abused a day = around 1,800 a year.   That means the chances of an individual child being sexually abused in a given year (and leading to a conviction) is around 1 in 6500.

Of course, not all of the non-convictions resulting from reports to the police about sexual abuse will be false accusations, and not all real incidents of sexual abuse will even be reported to the police.  So for the sake of argument, let’s suppose that the NSPCC might even be close to the mark and 60 children a day are being sexually abused in the UK.

That would mean that the odds for an individual child being sexually abused in an individual year are around 1 in 650.

Over 5,000 British children a year are killed or seriously injured crossing the road.  That equates to around a 1 in 2400 chance each year.  As indicated earlier, just as some cases of rape are worse than others, whatever feminists say, some cases of child abuse are worse than others.  A 5 year old being raped is worse than a 15 year old having a 25 year old boyfriend, or a 15 year old and her friends giggling at being flashed at in the park (or online) by an old man with a small willy.  Arguably, those latter two cases of sexual abuse are far less serious and damaging than a child losing a leg in a road accident.

Even granting the NSPCC’s spurious statistic, and even equivalating all ‘child sexual abuse’ with the seriousness of being killed or maimed, the fact remains that a child is slightly less than 4 times more likely to be sexually abused than she or he is to be killed or seriously injured crossing the road.  I cannot recall the NSPCC ever launching a campaign on road safety for children, or even mentioning the importance of improving road safety for children. Saving the lives of the thousands of children killed or maimed in road accidents simply doesn’t fall within its radical feminist sexual trade union lobbying agenda.

In a perfect world, no child would be killed or injured crossing the road, and no child would be sexually abused.  We seem able to accept the sad truth that beyond a few sensible laws relating to drink driving, the introduction of measures such as speed bumps to roads etc, and a certain level of education for children regarding road safety, we can never hope to completely ensure that no child will die in a road accident. Yet we seem completely unable to accept that, unfortunately, some children will always be sexually abused, no matter how much fear and hysteria we instill in their young minds, and no matter how many men we lock up, criminalize, or falsely accuse.

Accepting that the world is imperfect, and that the possibility of evil and harm will always be present within it, is the price we pay for having a functioning society.  Just as roads and traffic are essential to the infrastructure of a healthy society, so too are features of human existence such as the family, schools, and interaction between the young and the old.  Allowing feminists to exaggerate the scale of child sexual abuse, to inflate the definitions of child sexual abuse, and to pretend that (if only you give the NSPCC a little more money) that the sexual abuse of children can ever hope to be stopped completely, is undermining the very fabric of society, and doing more damage to children themselves than all the paedophiles in the world could ever do.


Other statistics concerning the dangers that children face :

Nearly 1 in 2 children in the UK is bullied, with 10% saying they had been bullied in the last 6 months according to a 1999 study (it is acknowledged by the handful of genuine child protection charities in existance that the problem of bullying has increased since then).

1500 children in the UK are diagnosed with cancer each year.  That’s over half the number of children involved in a sexual abuse crime resulting in a conviction.

According to statistics quoted by the NSPCC themselves, 7% of children suffer physical abuse.  A child therefore has a 1 in 14 chance of being physically abused by one or both of their parents, compared to a 1 in 650 chance of being sexually abused by anyone in a given year according to the NSPCC (and a 1 in 6500 chance of being sexually abused later proven by a conviction).  The NSPCC itself admits that mothers are equally or more likely than fathers to physically abuse their chilren.  Despite this, on the minority of occasions when the NSPCC decides to campaign against physical abuse (rather than more lucrative sexual abuse anti-paedo campaigns), the father is invariably depicted as the abuser.

To put the last statistic another way.  According to the NSPCC themselves, a child is anywhere between 20 and 200 times more likely to be violently physically abused by their own mother than to be sexually abused by anyone inside or outside of the family in a given year.  This is even more striking given the fact that the majority of laws and definitions relating to child sexual abuse have been set by radical feminists (such as the policy makers of the NSPCC) themselves.

See also :

(Angry Harry) The NSPCC Shatters Child Abuse Myths – Its Own Myths!

 

 

Transhumanist Interview with an Anti-Feminist

Our friend Hank Pellissier recently contacted me regarding a possible interview that would be published at the IEET.  Unfortunately, that wasn’t possible (permissible), but I answered his questions via e-mail anyway, and the results have been published at what appears to be one of the few transhumanist sites that aren’t 100% for the eradication of the male gender.

Interview with an Anti-Feminist

In terms of emerging technology – do you think sexbots will replace women, for many men? what about sexbots replacing men for women?

Sexbots are seen largely as a symbolic representation of the idea that technology may one day free men from their sexual dependence upon women. Personally, I think that the technology required for autonomous artificially intelligent sexbots to satisfy the psychological sexual needs of either men or women are decades away. Transhumanism itself is likely a safer bet for creating the ‘ideal’ sexual partner. Much of our discontent is rooted in the mal-adaptive and conflicting sexual psychologies that we still carry around with us – from male slut shaming of women in an age of contraception, abortion, and paternity testing, to the selfish female desire for monogamy and commitment in a partner (not likely to be conducive to happiness when sex becomes completely divorced from reproduction, when few people have children, and we are all living to be 1,000).

 

As far as physical technologies are concerned, much more exciting and immediate than sexbots are the roles that telepresence, augmented reality, and 3D printing will enable both men and women to benefit from the free sexual market. 3D printing will allow the cheap and easy production of realistic sex dolls that can be life-like replicas of anybody on Earth (or a fantasy ideal figure). Although this may sound disturbing and selfish, its real value will be when conjoined with tele-presence technology (in a sense, sex bots controlled remotely for virtual sex). ‘Sex bots’ will not replace men or women, but will instead be used to enrich the sex lives between men and women. Older women (and men) will be able to enjoy sex in the bodies of their youthful selves again, or in any kind of ‘improved’ or fantasy body that they wish. In addition, and probably much sooner than that, augmented reality glasses or contact lenses will allow a similar effect – your lover will see you as however you (or he/she) wishes you to appear. This will likely happen within the next 5-10 years. Finally, rejuvenation therapies will eventually mean that men and women can physically return to their younger selves, whilst bioprinting and cosmetic surgery could mean women literally changing their faces almost as easily as changing hairstyle. Ultimately, technology could even lead to individuals routinely swapping gender, or the very idea of gender itself becoming meaningless.

 

If my interpretation of feminism is correct – which I call ‘sexual trade union theory’ – then the forces driving feminism that are resulting in inequalities and unhappiness for both men and women, will largely disappear in the coming decades. Feminism has been the history of women trying vainly to close the free sexual market that disadvantages them as accelerating technological progess continues to open it at a faster rate. Quite soon, technology will actually come to women’s aid in this regard, and we will reach a kind of ‘sexual singularity’, in which the very notion of sexual competition – the cause of feminism as a sexual trade union – becomes meaningless. The criminalisation of male sexuality, and the unhappiness of women, will be over.

Older Woman ‘Girl Group’ Humiliated On Britain’s Got Talent

I’d vowed never to watch another female porn show ever again, and in particular, anything made by the Queen bitch of the format, Simon Cowell. But I tuned in last night and. mercifully, I didn’t see any children being exploited and visibly traumatised for life in the name of light entertainment for women (and homosexuals).  Instead, we were treated to the deliciously cruel spectacle of a group of older women being ritually humiliated and sacrificed in front of the baying coliseum mob.  Unfortunately, the YouTube video below doesn’t contain the televised pre-audition introduction of the group, in which the deluded old bags state their wish to strike a blow for the older woman and prove that girl groups aren’t the preserve of…girls…