Carolina Courtland..peadohysteric who writes ‘romance’ novels of 200+ year old men and 16 year old girls
According to Carolina Courtland – feminist, ‘men’s rights supporter’, dating expert, and author of Kindle published ‘Teen Vampire’ novels, a man who has sex with a 16 or 17 year old girl is a paedophile. Similarly, any man who defends the legal right of men to have sex with legal age teenage girls is automatically a paedophile themselves.
Her ‘argument’ can be summarized thus – “16 year old girls are children because they dress like whores and get all the sexual attention and looks from men that I feel I am entitled to, and anyone who disagrees must be a paedophile”.
But is it ever o.k. for a man to have sex with a ‘child’ of 16? Well… yes, according to Carolina, it appears it’s fine if the adult is over 200 years old and a blood sucking vampire posing in the body of a 16 year old high school boy (the ultimate form of ‘grooming?’). At least if said adult child sexual relationship is fictional and you’re making money publishing it on kindle for women and children to buy.
But just don’t call it child porn….it’s female child porn ‘teen’ romance fiction.
http://stakedintheheart.com/2012/10/05/i-love-you-so-much-my-heart-bursts-out-of-my-boobs/
http://www.amazon.com/Sweet-Savage-Blood-Part-ebook/dp/B007BDSGFA
You can read an excerpt from the book at : http://fang-tasticbooks.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/interview-with-carolina-courtland.html but take care. I would advise checking your nation’s child pornography laws as they relate to written descriptions of adult child sex, especially as in this case it appears to be a description of violent rape. As far as I understand it, in the UK textual descriptions of adult child sex are not (yet) illegal, although plans are being made to change that (as I recently reported).
Well … indeed.
Another fake men’s rights supporter. As if a woman declared herself pro-men but then tried to justify / rationalize the draft or higher numbers of male suicides, etc.
Mojo
7 Oct 12 at 11:03 am
Thanks Mojo for pointing out to her on her blog that extreme paedohysteria is not compatible with being a men’s rights supporter (I found it after checking my statcounter).
Having said that, the father’s rights sites will probably still welcome her with open arms (although even they might share at least a little distaste at the sheer hypocricy of her publishing and profiting from child erotica).
This is why I will never allow any woman to so much as become a regular commentator here, let alone a writer.
theantifeminist
7 Oct 12 at 6:54 pm
The stupid thing is her target is Courtney Stodden (and Doug Hutchison). I almost want to show her a picture of a child, then a picture of a fully developed adult woman, and ask her which one big-boobed, long-legged Courtney Stodden most resembles. Can anyone really be so obtuse as to think she is, or looks like, a ‘child’? And if not, how can it be ‘pedophilia’ for Doug Hutchison to marry / sleep with her? Especially given she is actually of legal age.
The pedohysterics are irrational and desperate. I can see no explanation for it but yours, i.e. that they are spitefully jealous of more youthful / beautiful / feminine women.
Mojo
7 Oct 12 at 7:09 pm
Vampires….hmmmm.
There does seem to be a double-standard not only about paedohysteria with Anglo-American women, but with dangerous and dysfunctional men as well. For example, it only seems to qualify as ‘rape’ if it’s sex with anybody other than a lowlife. Apparently, it’s also alright to pursue teenaged girls, provided a man’s a vampire or some other kind of predatory male.
Eric
7 Oct 12 at 8:43 pm
this piece well-summarizes our matriarchies
they want to criminalize any and every aspect of maleness, including forcing men by “law” to be “attracted” to 40-year-old empowered princesses, who have been polluted by dozens of sexual partners over the decades during their “liberation” from the “patriarchy” while they were glorying in the construction of their gender-fascist gynocracy, showing men who was boss
at the same time, they dress their 10 year old “angelic” daughters in streetwalker clothes, parade them thru wal-mart and the streets and the schools, then pretend when some Evil Male looks at them, that some terrible crime has occurred
and indeed, a terrible crime HAS occurred — but not by the sucker who falls for the bait
then monstresses like Carolina Courtland take the evil one step further, and actually profit financially from the sick little scheme they have engineered . . . all the time pretending themselves Innocent Victims of Those Bad Men
when the use of children leads to the profit and empowerment of females and their femstate, it’s a GOOD thing
otherwise. . . it’s a felony
a very tidy sistem indeed
ray
7 Oct 12 at 9:06 pm
Spot on Eric.
These twenty/thirty something female Twilight groupies are reliving the fantasy of both being a beautiful virginal teenage girl again and of being seduced/raped by a tall dark predatory alpha male. At the same time, like our men’s rights comrade Carolina, they scream that 17 year old girls are children and that men who so much as look at them are paedophile perverts who need to be slowly tortured to death.
theantifeminist
7 Oct 12 at 9:08 pm
I’ve read quite often that the average ‘paedophile’ is a middle-class, no criminal record, high earning man with low social skills but with a better than average education – with IT being the most common area of employment.
Of course, these are the ‘paedophiles’ who end up being prosectued and sent down and therefore ‘identified’ for the purposes of statistics – in other words, these are the men who have sex with teens and are later prosecuted when the woman regrets looks back on having had sex with a ‘beta good guy’. Meanwhile, the girls who were seduced and banged as teens by the real predatory bastards most likely simply look back on it with a tingle in their gina.
theantifeminist
7 Oct 12 at 9:18 pm
I was just wondering (actually trying to think like a ‘normal’ [paedohysterical] person might think), if Carolina Courtland justifies this, or rather: exempts the male vampires in these scenarios from being branded creepy predatory, perverts on the grounds that the female child victims, immediately transform into immortal vampires; thus are no longer ‘human’ children, thus it’s not really ‘rape’?
(But when my own logic kicks in again, it tells me that the paedohysterics should regard this as 1000 times WORSE, but of course: to them death is nothing compared to a man even looking at a ‘child’. They will argue that the trauma a 17 y/o ‘victim’ suffers for the rest of her life from a say a dirty old 23 y/o white male, paedophile pervert looking at (molesting) her, is far worse than death).
Although, is a vampire ‘dead’? No.
Only the human (young girl) that formerly inhabited the (now) vampire’s body is deceased, so yes this should be regarded as much worse?
Also, since the male vampires are immortal: the paedohysterical witch-hunting public cannot gleefully lynch them and torture them to death or send them to prison for decades of beatings and ass rape, because soon the entire prison population would also become vampires?
(LOL… I think it’s funny, but the truth is quite possibly what I just attempted to describe, maybe)?
Alan Vaughn
8 Oct 12 at 12:15 am
Antifeminist:
Possibly the STU grrrlz look up teenaged girls’ sexual escapades with vampires, creepy celebrities, and dysfunctional thugs simply as vicariously indulging in sexual fantasy and don’t perceive it as any actual threat. On the other hand, responsible and mature men pursing girls of the same age is seen as a threat and has to be suppressed at all hazards.
I firmly believe that a huge part of this so-called ‘Bad Boy Syndrome’—that seems to infect American women more than anybody else—is instigated by feminist teachings. It isn’t a natural thing for teenaged girls anywhere to lust after vampires and similar males. At least I don’t think so…
Eric
8 Oct 12 at 1:56 am
Alan,
This might have interesting ramifications for the Jimmy Saville Case. Suppose it could be proven that Saville was really a vampire. He could plead ‘not guilty’ since, according the paedocrites themselves, he was only acting according to the nature of vampires, and that paedocrite writers themselves excuse his behavior. If he could show that he became a vampire before the allegations were lodged, then he should be off the hook.
Also, as you pointed out, Saville or any other vampiric corpse couldn’t be sent to prison; since they would bite the other inmates, turn them into vampires, and then the ‘epidemic of child sexual abuse’ would become 10x worse than it is.
I’m afraid the next step though, would be to have some expert like Ian Kerr come up and demonstrate that vampires can be destroyed by cremation; so the paedocrites would suggest a return to stake-burning as a preventative measure against all suspected paedophiles.
Eric
8 Oct 12 at 2:04 am
Ray:
What these women are doing are educating their little princesses on how to get along in ‘a mans world’. When they grow up, they’ll have learned to dress the same way at school and work, and then claim ‘sexual harassment’ for being looked at.
And to be totally consistant, the mothers would look on with approval if some drunken street-bum snatched one of their little darlings at Wal-Mart and got it on with her behind the trash dumpsters. ‘See, wasn’t that exciting? But if a real man ever touches you, call the cops and cry rape at once.’
And they wonder why men are marrying foreign women instead?
Eric
8 Oct 12 at 2:11 am
Eric… LOL!!!!!
You had me in stitches again…
Yes I understand your ‘reasoning’..
I did something today that I haven’t done in a few months: visited my old friend: Mr Human-Stupidity’s blog.
I saw your name in the recent comments list, so clicked it and found the post where you’d replied to a classic paedocrite-cum-moron, calling itself ‘normal_human_male’.
After having a near fit of laughter, I added a comment to support yours.
I think you’ll like it…
Alan Vaughn
8 Oct 12 at 2:55 am
You have made several incorrect comments.
First of all, thanks for plugging my book. (It’s also available in hardback.)
1. I am not a feminist. I’m one of the very few women who regularly points out the inequalities FOR MEN in our society and yet, you attack me. I don’t know what is wrong with you.
http://stakedintheheart.com/2012/08/07/do-any-women-work-at-the-dirty-difficult-and-dangerous-jobs-that-men-do-any-women-at-all/
http://stakedintheheart.com/2012/07/30/take-the-we-dont-need-any-men-in-our-town-challenge/
2. The teen characters in my book are VIRGINS, as in they DON’T HAVE SEX. THERE IS NO SEX in my book. So bringing that up to compare what I said about Courtney Stodden is an EPIC FAIL of your part.
3. And whether a man is a “pedophile” for having sex with a sixteen-year-old is up to the particular state law they are in. They vary.
Carolina Courtland
8 Oct 12 at 3:02 pm
And 15 years old girl looking like a 20s women.
Without a ID she could get into clubs and get beer for sure and many men in trouble.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2214306/Disney-star-Bella-Thorne-15-defies-years-red-leather-dress-studded-heels.html
Anonymous
8 Oct 12 at 9:31 pm
That being the entire purpose of this blog.
Paedophilia used to mean an unhealthy sexual interest by an adult (usually, but not limited to: an adult male) in PRE-PUBESCENT CHILDREN. I.e. a human child under the age of twelve (12) years.
However, it can now include a NORMAL sexual interest by NORMAL men in POST-PUBESCENT (physiologically) ADULT women, up to and including (depending on the US State), seventeen (17) years.
What this blog opposes is not only this ridiculous politically (feminist) influenced redefining of what was once a medical term for a sexual deviation, found in a very small percentage of adults, but also the adoption of oppressive and Draconian laws that evolved from that redefinition. I.e. it is not uncommon for men to be imprisoned for up to 30 years, not to mention the LIFE-LONG public naming and shaming that he and his family must suffer, (no) thanks to public sex-offender registries, as a s despised paedophile; for merely having a loving, fully consensual relationship with his sixteen year old girlfriend…
Furthermore: his girlfriend who loves him and was happy and emotionally and mentally normal and well adjusted: not only loses the man she loves forever, but has to be TOLD or indoctrinated (brainwashed) into accepting that she is a victim of a sexual predator. Ridiculous!
What makes these laws even more barbaric and sickening to us, is that many of us, who comment here have grandparents and other ancestors who were LEGALLY and HAPPILY married when they were 14,15 or 16 years old. Those marriages almost invariably lasted to the full “’til death do us part” stage and almost never ended in divorce with broken families of fatherless children as a result…
Our point is that the state (and its oppressive and heartless law) should not need to be involved in people’s personal and CONSENSUAL love lives at any time.
I will leave the first two points you raised to theantifeminist to discuss with you.
Alan Vaughn
8 Oct 12 at 10:26 pm
@theantifeminist
You might want to go back to that article just to see where I chipped in with my two bob’s worth…
Alan Vaughn
9 Oct 12 at 4:26 am
Carolina:
I haven’t read your Gothic novels myself. However, I would like to question you on a subject that I raised above: isn’t there a better literary love-interest archetype for young women than vampires?
The headlines in the news today mentioned that a convicted serial rapist/killer, Joran Vandersloot, impregnated one of his female groupies while sitting on Death Row. This issue of women pursing the most loathsome males—including fictional or would-be vampires—is really a serious social problem in my opinion.
A lot of MRAs might disagree, but I wouldn’t mind writers going back to the White Knight archetype; at least they were heroic and courageous figures in those old stories.
Eric
9 Oct 12 at 8:45 am
it should be noted that the actual psychiatric or medical definition of pedophilia hasn’t changed one bit, and still exclusively describes a persistent sexual attraction towards prepubescent children. It is still a far cry from the popular junk science definition that has been circulated in the mass media by feminists and moral conservatives and has even become the foundation of punitive anti-sex laws.
Even the highly controversial current attempts to include a definition of “pedohebephilia” in the upcoming fifth volume of the American Psychiatric Associations’s Diagnostics and Statistics Manual (DSM-V) have so far stopped short of declaring an attraction to more or less fully developed 16-year-olds an abnormal paraphilia.
inclinedreader
9 Oct 12 at 10:12 am
You’re dead right Ir, and I realized after posting the comment that I should have included something making that point, even if I’d just stated something like:
Paedophilia used to mean (and STILL DOES mean) an unhealthy sexual interest by an adult…
However, we’re dealing here with a paedohysterical feminist who really believes she can convince one or two (redditor class) mRA’s that: “I am not a feminist. I’m one of the very few women who regularly points out the inequalities FOR MEN in our society…”
So it probabaly doesn’t matter – it would have made no difference to her indctrinated belief that men who feel lustful desires towards young adult women are paedophiles anyway…
Alan Vaughn
9 Oct 12 at 10:34 am
Good reply Alan. I see she has responded to you and challenged you to give your views on the age of consent.
My view has always been that it is the legislative creep in terms of new laws and ever more draconian punishments that make this an undeniable men’s rights issue – in fact possibly the most pressing one. Not only that, but of course my belief that all this is what is driving femnism itself (the threatened older female in a free sexual market). I personally think the age of consent should be lower in the UK and the USA, but the issue and goal is not nearly so much to lower the age of consent, as it is to stop the draconian legislation around the age of consent and ever more ‘child protection’ hysteria and witchhunting involving an inflated and ridiculous definition of a child.
I would also advise readers to visit the link I gave to the excerpt of her book – it clearly describes a rape of a child, or something that is ‘symbolic’ of a rape of a child (i.e. a vampire sucking the blood of a virgin teen).
*EDIT : here is the excerpt – remember, she is describing a 200 year old ‘vampire’ and a 16 year old child -
theantifeminist
9 Oct 12 at 8:47 pm
And go back there today to see her reply and better: MY REPLY to her!
Alan Vaughn
9 Oct 12 at 9:34 pm
Are you going to respond to her comment above? (I responded to her 3rd point, but I thought since it was directed at you, only you should answer her, but I couldn’t resist the 3rd point, sorry…
Alan Vaughn
9 Oct 12 at 9:40 pm
You put the ball in the back of the net Alan!
Look at this earlier comment of hers :
17 year old’s are stupid and immature, but old enough to buy her child porn vampire novels!!
theantifeminist
9 Oct 12 at 9:46 pm
Schop, did you (or are you going to) tell her that?
I hope so, because as mojo said, you’re a better writer than me! LOL!
Alan Vaughn
9 Oct 12 at 9:53 pm
LOL, I’m sure she’s reading our comments here.
theantifeminist
9 Oct 12 at 10:06 pm
While it doesn’t actually describe per se: a sexual encounter or experience, it certainly would encourage a ‘child’ (according to her own and feminist approved, inflated definition of ‘child’) reader to mistakenly believe it does.
Her choice of various nouns and adjectives used to explain the scene and the (sensual, erotic and very pleasurable) sensations felt by both characters, would easily lead an experienced and accomplished literary expert to believe it is describing an experience that is at least very ecstatic, or even actual foreplay, preceding some sexual liaison…
Had this renowned author and very militant mra only chosen less provocative and sensuous verbalizations, I would have had to concede and agree with her response in defence of your original criticism:
It is technically true, however it could be argued similarly to how many anti-drug, puritanical wowsers who insist that smoking pot eventually leads to harder drugs: that 14, 15, and 16 year old children reading those novels would interpret such descriptions as valid endorsements of loving, yet lustful and erotic liaisons between a man and a YOUNG virgin woman. Furthermore: that such ‘children’ could and most likely would be so intrigued, that they would be very eager to experience the same ‘loving, sensual and erotic’ bonding themselves.
As much as Carolina would like to believe that teenage ‘children’ are “too stupid and immature” to give their consent for sex, they are not that stupid and immature to believe that these erotic vampire novels are real, or TRUE stories. They would therefore interpret them the same way anyone else who is capable of reading and comprehending them would: as erotic, sensuous and indeed sexually orientated love stories…
Alan Vaughn
10 Oct 12 at 12:27 am
Things are really heating up there now! Go over and back me up, please!
I’ve really upset her too – she now admits she isn’t an mra at all…
Alan Vaughn
10 Oct 12 at 1:01 am
Alan & Antifeminist:
I would still like to hear her defense of the ‘sexiness’ of vampires.
Zombies, vampires, serial killers, sadistic criminals, creepy celebrities: this is what the feminists offer to women as the masculine ideal?
Then again, they do offer men fat, loudmouthed cougars as the feminine ideal so…
Eric
10 Oct 12 at 2:41 am
Inclindedreader:
The media and femihag propagandists do this all the time: taking clinical terminology and attatching it to their junk science and pop psychology. Another I especially despise is, whenever someone is unjustly punished for a ‘crime’ with a ‘minor’, the media pundits talk about ‘the victim and her family gaining closure’ after the sentencing. Almost as if punishment of the offending party contributed something to the mental health of the so-called victims.
To the German Field-Theorists, who coined the term, ‘closure’ simply meant finding the solution to any complicated or difficult problem. For example, a scientist reaches ‘closure’ when he develops a formula that proves a theorem.
Other terms like ‘addiction’ ‘abuse’ ‘trauma’ &c are bandied about loosely by these people, only as a propaganda tool without any connection to these terms’ intent or actual meaning.
Eric
10 Oct 12 at 2:53 am
Eric,
It does contribute something, sometimes: It can totally and even chronically: destroy the ‘victim’ mentally and emotionally, when she sees possibly the only true love she’d ever known and ever likely to know again, being dragged off to prison for decades of ass-rape as a vile pervert.
Not to mention even MORE mental and emotional torment she will inevitably suffer at the whim of self-appointed expert: feminist ‘child psychologists’ and other ‘welfare officers’, who will attempt to indoctrinate her into accepting her enforced victimhood…
That is the REAL child-abuse and who they are really victims of…
Alan Vaughn
10 Oct 12 at 5:13 am
As would any human being with a basic grasp of the English language Alan.
It is clearly sexual in nature, it involves a ‘child’ of 16 years of age – according to the United Nations definition (and followed legally by most countries in the world), it is child porn.
Men can get locked up for simply kissing a ‘child’ on the cheek. I think it’s a fair bet that any man who put his teeth into neck of a 16 year old virgin – paralyzed by (‘erotic’) fear, he would be spending the next couple of decades being ass raped as a sex offender. I would put the odds of that as somwewhere between 100 and..100%, even where the age of consent is 16.
Men are locked up as paedophiles and child pornographers for asking children to, for example, show their feet on cam. We need neither literary experts, nor literal descriptions of penises, to see that Carolina’s vampire fantasies are sexual in nature.
theantifeminist
10 Oct 12 at 6:14 am
I wouldn’t dignify a site and a woman that profits from child porn.
I’m surprised you haven’t mentioned the fact that she’s a child pornographer Alan.
If some hag accused me of being a paedophile for defending actions that are legal in 99% of the countries in the world, I would refer back to the fact that my accuser was a child pornographer and a promoter and profiter of violent paedophile fantasies.
But that’s just me, you know my style (as does David Fraudtrelle, lol).
As for it not being a men’s rights issue, it’s been a men’s rights issue since Earnest Belfort Bax, the first MRA 100 years ago.
(and yea right, a woman who makes money from child porn has the right to tell us that feminists raising the age of consent to 18 in order to lock men away for fucking or even looking at nubile young women is not a men’s rights issue.)
theantifeminist
10 Oct 12 at 6:22 am
Yes, I agree that giving child porn any kind of ‘plug’, even if it is merely to expose the rank hyporcricy of a paedohysteric like yourself, does raise complicated moral issues.
Oh, so you’re a feminist with sufficient brain cells to realise that without men, women would be back living in caves, vainly trying to fend off wolves and other natural predators (actually, I’ve a feeling that might turn you on – at least the fantasy of it)? Congratulations.
See my other comments in regard to that lie. That’s like saying ‘asbstinance’ teen virgins who take it in the ass every day are still virgins and that therefore they are not having sex by definition. If I had a single picture of a 17 year old girl posing alone in a bikini I could be locked up for possession of child pornography, if a judge decided the photograph had any ‘sexual context’ – something which your erotic stories featuring succulent virgins and predatory vampires clearly have.
Well that’s not what you’re saying on your own site, accusing men who have sexual relations with legal aged 16 and 17 year olds of being paedophiles, as well as readers like Alan who defend them. Actually, a paedophile is an adult with a sexual obsession for pre-pubescent children. As long as you stick to 16 year old girls in your erotic teen novels, you’re not a paedophile fantasist, just a child pornographer.
theantifeminist
10 Oct 12 at 7:06 am
And she’s not an ‘admired author’ – she self-publishes teen vampire child porn fantasies on kindle, read mainly by a small group of female adult paedophiles who get off on fantasising that their aging cougar selves are beautiful 16 year old virgins again, stil ripe for the attentions of older male thugs and predators.
theantifeminist
10 Oct 12 at 7:18 am
Schop,
I think you may have missed my sarcasm there:
I said all that ‘nice stuff’ to offer a contrasting and hopefully, surprise response to her angry attack – to let her know that I am in control and I most ceratinly will never let her kind upset me!
She even resorted to using foul language, (and I very politely pointed it out to her) which is a definite sign that you’ve already won the argument.
Most kids even know that, but when someone cannot even suppress their obvious rage during WRITTEN discourse, its even funnier!
Anyway, that’s why I thanked her for allowing me to speak freely on her blog and don’t bear any grudges against her etc…
‘MRA’s are COOL and in control’.
Alan Vaughn
10 Oct 12 at 7:49 am
http://stakedintheheart.com/2012/04/16/why-women-would-rather-be-with-tommy-lee-than-you/
theantifeminist
10 Oct 12 at 7:52 am
I don’t doubt that this was your intention Alan, but there’s a danger of the satirical subtleties being missed and it being seen as a sign of weakness.
I think a better strategy would be to point out to her face that she herself is a paedophile fantasist who makes money from child porn.
theantifeminist
10 Oct 12 at 8:57 am
Agreed.
BTW, have you banned her from here? If you haven’t, she might be tempted to make a second attack.
Hopefully though, she will at least read this entire discussion and if she doesn’t attack you (asssuming she’s allowed to comment) it would mean she hasn’t dared return even to read, because using her last response (angry attack on me) as a guide: she is typically femihag by the way the TRUTH really offends her; thus her rage would again get the better of her and she’ll have plenty to say to all of us here!
Then she’ll be even more exposed as the TRUE ‘paedophile-cum-child-pornographer’ she is, according to the very laws she believes are fair and proper.
However, unlike me she may not even have the guts to return and try ‘correcting’ you again…
Alan Vaughn
10 Oct 12 at 9:26 am
Antifeminist:
And THAT is supposed to be a specimen of how pro-MRA women think? Bad-boys or dorks; I guess that’s how she sees female choices in men.
They wonder why we have doubts about how genuine all their ‘pro-male’ sentiments really are.
Looking at Carolina’s blogroll, BTW, the only Manosphere blog I saw linked was a PUA site run by a guy who’s a big admirer of RooshV.
Eric
10 Oct 12 at 5:50 pm
@theantifeminist:
Ok, go back and see Carolina’s latest reply with my response immediately following.
I think you’ll say it’s ‘fair’ and as always: polite and courteous, totally free of angry expletives…
Alan Vaughn
10 Oct 12 at 9:22 pm
…But I also told her to her face what SHE is.
Alan Vaughn
11 Oct 12 at 2:07 am
Alan:
I opined some on her thread too. They always seem to default to this inevitable pattern of NOT saying that they fear competition from younger women. Ever other reason comes up except that one.
Eric
11 Oct 12 at 5:57 am
Antifeminist:
As a side-note, Rookh posted an article on his ‘Anglobitch’ blog that’s worth checking out on this subject of Anglo female predeliction for lowlifes that Carolina is advocating. Futrelle went totally ballistic on it today on his blog.
These two topics: paedohysteria and female thug-chasing really seem to touch some raw nerves in the femihag community.
These two issues seem to make them madder than any other (maybe with the exception of discussing female obesity)! LOL
Eric
11 Oct 12 at 6:07 am
Eric, Indeed. I’m still sweating (but won’t hold my breath) on her returning here to commit virtual suicide (make a total fool of herself and ruin any reputation she may have had as an
AiorthiorAuthor), by attempting to rebuff theantifeminist‘s reply to her pathetic attempt at correcting “several incorrect comments” she said he made…Alan Vaughn
11 Oct 12 at 7:26 am
You certainly did Alan and I’m proud of you!
I notice she’s still claiming that her book isn’t intended to be erotic. And it’s funny that nowhere does she boast about being a ‘children’s author’, only a ‘teen’ author. Seems 16 year olds are children when it comes to punishing men for being attracted to them, but teens or young adults when it comes to selling porn to them and involving them in erotic female fantasies.
I wouldn’t be surprised if she fetishises Elizabeth Bathory, that infamous child murderer that I describe in my sidebar. A lot of Gothic, Twilight type females do – there are certainly stark similarities between Bathory and Carolina.
theantifeminist
11 Oct 12 at 8:49 am
Yes, excellent comment Eric, and very rational and logical too. I notice Alex made a great point too!
And yet she admits in the same article that the 16 y.o. gets loads of male attention in those figure hugging dresses. But she’s not jealous. Not jealous at all.
theantifeminist
11 Oct 12 at 8:57 am
Well maybe she didn’t INTEND it to be erotic, but when it contains numerous descriptions and explanations such as: “He groans in ecstasy as his lips make contact with her succulent, yielding flesh”…. it IS erotic whether she intended it to be or not.
Her denial of her true intention only proves that she is even more of a liar than a typical paedocrite such as our esteemed masculinist: ‘Aoirthoir An Broc’, where also similar to him: is the way she tries to cover her blatant lies by calling others paedophiles, when they merely question feminist AofC laws in effort to deflect attention from her very obvious ‘thought crime’!!
Alan Vaughn
11 Oct 12 at 9:38 am
16 year old ‘children’ to be allowed to vote on Scottish independence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9601885/Alex-Salmond-loses-battle-for-all-16-year-olds-to-vote-in-Scottish-independence-referendum.html
Only nowhere in that or any of the other news reports I’ve read does it mention ‘children’.
16 year olds are mature enough to decide issues that will have massive geo-political and economic consequences, yet not old enough to strip naked in front of a cam or have an affair with their teacher – and when they do, they are ‘child abuse’ victims. And of course, 15 year olds are little kids who can’t even consent to be kissed by an older person.
theantifeminist
13 Oct 12 at 5:32 pm
In other words: they’re only ‘children’ when they invalidate, or at least reduce the sexual value of older bitter, jealous, and much UGLIER femihags, the type that no man in his right mind would even consider in any sexual context and of course according to such femihags: any man so indifferent or disinterested in them is automatically a paedophile and should be burnt at the stake in public.
RIGHT Carolina?
Also, the Scottish Independent government might as well hold a referendum on whether or not a government should have any control (by ridiculous feminist law) or the right to intervene on the private sexual affairs of their citizens too, since their 16 year old citizens are recognized as being responsible enough to decide on who governs and on issues of major societal significance…
Alan Vaughn
13 Oct 12 at 11:56 pm
Hopefully, if we ever to become large enough and have the funds, we could go to the European Court of Justice and make a claim that restricting the sexual choices and autonomy of individuals old enough to vote is contradictory to seveal fundamental human rights contained in the European Citizen’s Charter – for example the right to a private and family life.
Austrian 16 year olds can already vote in their national elections, and indeed I think I’ve read that the EU itself wants the voting age reduced to 16 across Europe.
And here is the first men’s rights activist on the same theme 100 years ago :
http://www.marxists.org/archive/bax/1912/probs/08-feminism.htm
So since the time of Bax, things have become even more illogical.
EDIT : There is indeed an EU ‘inititive’ to grant voting rights to 16 & 17 year olds :
http://newrytimes.com/2012/09/25/fearon-supports-eu-campaign-to-lower-voting-age-to-16/
Note that Sinn Fein – the Irish political party that is supporting this, was ‘formerly’ the political wing of the IRA, the terrorist organization that amongst other things would regularly kneecap and torture 14 year old boys they suspected of ‘grassing’ and such like. Yet the IRA/Sin Fein’s former leader Martin McGuinnes became (stll is?) the education minister for Northern Ireland!!
Sinn Fein was also strongly against the recent lowering of the age of consent in Ireland from 18 to 17.
theantifeminist
14 Oct 12 at 7:49 am
Yes. In that case, the age of consent can’t be high enough, whereas voting rights for minors are touted as some kind of progressive humanist achievement, a mark of how much society values its teenagers’ opinions. But again, those opinions don’t count squat when teenagers make middle aged femihags feel (and look) ugly.
But if you listen closely, the point that minors should have voting rights is being made disingenuously. The idea is predominantly proposed by political parties of the left and alternative spectrum, because great portions of (very) young people tend to lean towards them. But those parties don’t care about young people (and some of the worst femihags and old-school feminazis that are every bit responsible for draconian anti-youth sex laws can be found among socialist politicians). For them, lowering the voting age is simply a sleight of hand to create new groups of voters to make up for having alienated all the other ones who have come to their senses and turned their backs on them. Teenage voters to them are just voting sheeple, or you could say useful idiots.
inclinedreader
14 Oct 12 at 8:46 am