Argentinian Feminists Makes it Illegal to Praise a Sexy Woman’s Body

Argentinian feminists in the capital Buenos Aires have succeeded in making it illegal for men to compliment a sexy woman in the street . Any form of ‘sexual harassment’ in public, which includes cat calling and any comments referring to the body, is now subject to a possible fine.

As is the Modus Operandi with feminists the world over, this latest piece of legislation was forced through after the exploitation of a tragic and isolated case that shocked the nation – a 16 year old girl raped to death by two strangers. Presumably, demands to raise the Argentinian age of consent from 13 to 18 will be next on the Sexual Trade Union agenda, following the recent pattern of India (12 to 18) and Spain (13 to 16).

Odd that feminists in Europe do not call for legislation against the flood of refugees that have led to the assault, rape, and even murder of tens of thousands of young women in Germany and elsewhere. In fact, those same feminists are usually the most fervent open borders and ‘anti-racist’ activists.

Not so odd really. As readers here are well aware, all feminists are really interested in is preventing male sexual access to young, good looking females, and in so doing, raising their own pitiful sexual market value. They will seize upon isolated cases of sexual murder to push through legislation that further restricts the free sex market, whilst encouraging the import of millions of Islamic rapefugees in order to produce a genuine rape culture, as well as inevitable growing Muslim political influence, that will lead to young women dressing conservatively and fearful to go out alone.

Feminists Enforcing Sheria Law….Including Against Teens and Children

Femislamists have been pushing the benefits of Sheria Law hard in recent days.  Mandy Nolan, writing for ABC Australia, argues that banning botox is more of a feminist issue than banning the burka.

But as feminists, shouldn’t we care about the dialogue we create for the women who come after us?

What message are we sending our young daughters about the value of women as they age? That to be accepted we must not look “world-weary”? That we must hide our wisdom, the signs of our despair and joy? Our lives aren’t important anyway, so why not erase the roadmap?

And shouldn’t we examine the context of ‘choice’ that extends beyond personal interest?

If looking younger and more beautiful wasn’t such a powerful and intoxicating place for women to shape their identity, then why would there be a global, billion-dollar business in injecting a paralysing substance into our faces?

Ageing is the feminist frontier of our future. Sadly, it’s currently under-defended. We’re too busy ‘choosing’ to iron our foreheads instead of our husband’s pants. See, we really are liberated. We put self-interest first.

Feminists would much prefer to ban the idea that youth is attractive than they would the burka.  Instead of aging feminists like Mandy Nolan being forced by the free sexual marketplace to resort to botox to compete with younger women, they would rather opt for the Sharia solution – all women hidden and equalized behind a veil.

Meanwhile, the BBC, which acts these days as little more than a political propaganda machine for the promotion of Femislamic values, carried a story that girls in the UK are unhappier than ever.  This came from a femihag sex union lobby group children’s charity report that naturally put the blame on the ‘objectification’ of young women and girls.  The solution?  Ban social media, images of beautiful girls, as well as (perhaps most disturbingly) dietary advice that discourages children from becoming obese.

She suggested that media images and adults chatting about diets could lead to negative body images in children.

Parents can help boost body confidence, for example by praising children for acts of kindness rather than for their looks, she advised.

And finally the Guardian reports that 2,000 teenage jailbaits have been visited by the Sheria Morality Police (and no doubt scarred for life) in only three years in the UK for showing too much nubile flesh.

More than 2,000 children were reported to police in the UK for crimes linked to indecent images in the space of three years.

The figures, released following a freedom of information request, come amid concerns about sexting among young people, where they share nude pictures on their phones and social media.

London Under SHEria Law – Muslim Mayor Bans Bikini Posters

The femislamisation of the West continues apace.   London’s recently elected Muslim mayor, the first such ruler of a Western city in over 500 years, has already began the implementation of SHEria Law by banning images of slim models in bikinis from advertisements appearing on the London Underground and elsewhere.

The mayor uses a feminist justification for the ban – the images of healthy young women showing bare skin ‘body shames’ the average female Londoner. Femihag campaigners have been trying to force such a ban since last year.  We will see more and more of this as Muslim political power grows – feminist lobbying leads to Muslim politicians enforcing modesty and anti-sex laws under the guise of ‘protecting women’.

Feminism is a Sexual Trade Union so similar to Islam that it is not needed in Islamic societies.  Islam may treat women badly in many ways, but in the thing that most concerns the vast majority of women – their ability to sexually compete with other women who are younger, prettier, and more available – it serves their needs very well. Certainly much better than the free sexual market of the secular West.

After the Orlando shooting at the weekend, the question again arises as to how left-wing ‘liberal progressives’ can be so retarded and schizophrenic as to fail to see that support for Islam is completely incompatible with support for gay rights.  But really, it’s not so much more retarded or schizophrenic as the inability of Manosphere Conservatives and ‘Islamophobes’ in general to see that Islam is entirely compatible with ‘women’s rights’.

The Left will continue to support the mass importation of millions of gay hating Muslims, even when it leads to massacres as in Orlando, because feminism is the tail that wags the Left-Wing dog.  And for the Sexual Trade Union, the gay rights lobby are at present simply useful idiots in the need to present a sexually progressive and tolerant face to the world whilst feminists wage a brutal medieval war upon sex, and male sexuality in particular.

Feminism is a virus that manifests itself in sexually open societies – you could almost call it an intellectual syphilis.  The only way it can be contained is by having a society that is not sexually open and that conforms to female evolutionary mating strategies – i.e.  strictly enforced monogamy.

The effect of the feminist virus is not only to kill sexual openness, but to weaken the host society so much that an even more robust parasite, genetically related to the feminist virus – Islam – can fully take over the corpse of Western civilization.

Academic Argues Prostitution Should Be Legalized Due to Lack of Sex for Modern Men – Femiservative Disagrees

Telegraph writer Rebecca Reid vents her fury over a (female) academic’s call for prostitution to be legalized on the grounds of a ‘male sexual deficit’.  What the academic (Catherine Hakim) means by this is that women have traditionally barted sex for monetry and other reward.  Reluctantly, as women in general are not as horny as men.  Sex for women is a tool, whereas sex for men is a need.  Unfortunately, due to ‘female emancipation’, women no longer have the need to barter their bodies for financial compensation, leading to a lack of availability for sex for men, and the consequent need to redress this by legalizing prostitution. (may be behind paywall)

Hakim postulates that prostitution should be fully legalised – to many a perfectly reasonable stance on the debate. But it’s her reasoning that makes the suggestion painfully offensive.

Disinterested in the potential social, economic and health benefits of legalising sex work, Hakim suggests that prostitution should be legalised, because the empowerment of women has created what she terms a “male sex deficit.”

In short because men need sex and modern women aren’t providing it.

What selfish creatures we’ve become. All that working and voting and striving for equality? Well apparently it’s led to an international blue-balls crisis that only legalised prostitution can cure….

… Hakim believes that as women become more empowered, and therefore more financially independent, they are likely to withdraw sexual availability further. She writes that the “male sex deficit” is likely to grow in the 21st century, as women become increasingly economically independent and withdraw from “sexual markets and relationships that they perceive to offer unfair bargains”.

Which tells you everything you need to know about her attitude towards sex.

No wonder she wants to legalise prostitution. She seems to think every sexually active woman already is one.

And of course, she is correct in that assumption – all women are essentially prostitutes, and feminism is a prostitute’s trade union/cartel which operates to prevent competition and to artificially keep the price of sex high.

A few of the reader’s comments below the article are priceless…


‘The Shame of Being Straight’?

I’ve just read a nice piece from our friend Scarecrow, which itself appears to be a response to a Huffington Post article gleefully shaming an unfortunate man who attempted to organize a ‘heterosexual pride’ parade in which he ended up being the only participant.

Is heterosexuality treated as more shameful in today’s society than homosexuality? Or is the attempt to stand up for ‘heterosexual pride’ as comical as the Huffington Post suggests? According to one progressive reader there, it’s comical because ‘gay pride marchers are affirming their identity in the face of years of discrimination, whereas ‘white, christian heterosexuals’ face no discrimination or prejudice’.

It’s now half-a-century since the Stonewall riots took place, from which the Gay Pride marches orginate. Homosexuality has been legal in the UK since 1967, and for more than a century in some European countries. The USA has had laws criminalizing discrimination against homosexuals for over 30 years. With the recent gay marriage rulings, gays now have equality even in areas in which ‘equality’ makes little sense, since marriage is a contract between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreating and raising biological offspring in a stable environment.

Voicing an opinion against homosexuality, or even gay marriage, is now career suicide in the West, as well as social suicide for most people whose lives do not revolve around their local evangelical church. At the same time, heterosexual men are bombarded daily with shaming language everywhere they look, constant messages that men are at best ‘sexual objectifiers of women’ and at worst actual or potential rapists.

Age disparate homosexual relationships are still approved of both within and outside of the gay community. A recent example was Stephen Fry’s much publicised and lauded ‘gay marriage’ to a man decades younger than himself, a ‘man’ who in fact, in many photos looks like a teenage boy married to his grandfather. Male middle-aged heterosexual celebrities are routinely shamed if they date women more than a few years younger than themselves, even facing insinuations of ‘borderline paedophilia’ if they are seen out with women in their early twenties. This is despite the fact that, on account of their high sexual market value, they could easily date beautiful teenagers.

Stephen Fry
Equal relationship or ‘Equality’ relationship?

I recently dated a twenty year old Russian woman (who looks 2 or 3 years younger) in EASTERN EUROPE and was subjected to a constant stream of dirty looks and comments (I’m in my mid forties but look around 35). As a heterosexual male I would have no legal recourse to pursue claims of harassment or discrimination, but a homosexual couple recieving the same treatment would likely be able to invoke ‘anti-hate’ legislation against ‘homophobia’ (or at least have their complaints taken seriously by staff eager not to be seen as ‘homophobic’).

Whilst elderly heterosexual men in the UK, and now the USA, are being hounded and imprisoned for alleged sexual encounters dating from the anarchic 60’s, Alan Turing has been turned into a modern day saint and secular martyr for his ‘punishment’ (mild hormonal treatment) for sodomizing a 19 year old minor in the sexually conservative 1950’s.

Gay porn does not face the same stigma as heterosexual pornography. Indeed, feminists don’t have much to say about gay porn at all, unsurprisingly as it does not reduce the sexual power or market value of feminists. The UK recently added to the now extensive list of prohibited porn by criminalizing the viewing of ‘rape’ porn, including movies in which the actresses are clearly pretending to be ‘raped’ (which accounts for nearly all so-called ‘rape porn’). Although the law apparently would criminalize much of gay pornography (which invariably involves a dominant, often older male, roughly having sex with a younger passive ‘twink’), it is unlikely any homosexual man will be prosecuted through these laws anytime soon.

Despite this, and whilst admitting that gay men have it easier in today’s feminist anti-sex society than heterosexual men do, homosexuals are indeed still victimized – under feminist laws. In fact, as I have argued here before, it’s quite possible that more homosexual men are in British prisons today as sex offenders than at any time in history (as ‘paedophiles’ etc) or indeed, in such ‘homophobic’ societies as Russia.

Homosexuals ostensibly, and in many ways actually, do have it better than heterosexuals today, but the gynocracy paints over the fact that homosexuals are being criminlized and shamed just as heterosexual men are – largely due to the legendary homosexual appreciation and love of youth, the most natural aspect of male sexuality but the ultimate sin in today’s perverted society, and which no amount of forced gay marriage activist propaganda will ever end.

Gay and minority sex rights activism is a fake cause that feminist society has adopted in order to mask their brutal and retrograde war upon male sexuality. Female sexual puritanism wearing the mask of tolerance and progressiveness.

Gay marriage itself is an act of male submission – an attempt to force homosexuals to adopt and thus validate female defined conceptions of sexuality (monogamy and commitment) over male sexuality (the desire for multiple youthful partners). This is the female sexual imperative under the guise of tolerance to sexual minorities. In former days, women used to further their evolutionary mating needs through the dominance of Christianity and religion.  Now they play the same trick under the banner of gay rights ‘liberalism’.

Meanwhile, both heterosexual and homosexual men are locked up under an ever greater number of draconianly applied feminist sex laws, until the very worst is reached, and feminism merges with its cousin Islam, and the horrors of ISIS give a picture of what homosexuals and the rest of us can ultimately expect.

Isis Women Beat and Kill Pretty Young Girls for Looking At Clothes

Feminism and Isis are two sides of the same Sexual Trade Union coin.

Iraqi citizens said on Saturday in Mosul that an Iraqi woman was killed by ISIS women with Russian citizenship in Mosul, 250 miles north of Baghdad.

The citizens said, “The Russian women in ISIS have attacked Mosul girls, beating them severely in one of the clothing stores in the market of Asarghahana in the center of Mosul. They claimed the women had lifted their niqab to look at the merchandise as well as failing to uphold the rule of wearing the correct color himar specified to women, married women and widows as determined by the organization.

The Russians hit twelve married women, which caused the death of one of them aged 17, due to the severe beating she received.”

British School Bans Girls From Wearing Skirts Because It ‘Makes Male Teachers Uncomfortable’


Ms Pashley said: “We have a very simple school uniform, which we enforce strictly.

“On one occasion when a male member of staff challenged a female student on her skirt length, she retorted, ‘You shouldn’t be looking at my legs’.

“The male member of staff was understandably uncomfortable with this and reported it to me immediately. Male staff asked me to share this incident with the governing body when uniform was reviewed.”

But the parents of some of the jailbait schoolgirls aren’t too happy and have complained of double standards :

Another parent claimed that female staff at the school fail to set a good example. She said: “Some female staff wear high heels, short skirts and low-cut blouses.

Are they going to be wearing trousers?” The online protest petition says parents should have the right to buy school trousers or skirts without logos from whichever retailer they see fit.

Some parents even claim that preventing girls wearing skirts is a breach of their human rights.

Femislamization Latest – France to Make it Illegal for Women to ‘Dress Like Prostitutes’

SHEria law moved a step closer in France today with the news that plans are being drawn up by feminists to make it illegal for women to ‘dress like prostitutes’.

The legislation is aimed at cleaning up red-light districts such as Pigalle in Paris, long a notorious area of the French capital, where streets are lined with hookers.

French sex workers’ union, Strass, said the law was a “huge step backwards.”

“It is making criminals of women for how they dress, and victimizing prostitutes for doing their job and aggravating their working conditions,” said spokeswoman, Chloe Navarro.

French politicians will vote on the law next week.

Meanwhile, a Nevada Femihag has proposed that a new sex trafficking bill be amended to allow for the physical castration of ‘sex traffickers’.