Barbara Hewson – Clifford’s Sentence has little to do with justice

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/cliffords-sentencing-has-little-to-do-with-justice/14981

(excerpt)

Thanks to prolonged campaigning by feminists, the sexual-offences regime, which Labour introduced in 2003, is much more draconian. Sentences have got longer, and if a judge goes against the prevailing popular mood, there will be an angry campaign to get the sentence lengthened. We now have a modern ‘social purity’ movement that drives the debate about sex crime, prostitution, pornography, and how the state should regulate sexual conduct generally. It is intolerant of the idea that one might apply a gradated approach to such offences, depending on the specific facts, and prefers a much more draconian approach.

It continually deploys the rhetorical device of ‘paedophile’ to sexual offending against teenagers, though this is wrong. Strictly, ‘paedophilia’ is a psychiatric disorder in a person aged 16 years of more, who is predominantly or exclusively sexually interested in prepubescents. But the continual misuse of the word whips up a mood of public anger and revulsion against those accused of historic sex abuse.

Actor James Franco (35) Shamed for Trying to Pick Up 17 Year Old Legal English Girl

Actor James Franco has been shamed and forced to go on to a chat show to apologize for trying to pick up a 17 year old British girl. The age of consent in the UK is 16, and 17 in New York State where Franco lives. Despite relationships with 17 year olds being fully legal, feminist and MSM sites only just stopped short of accusing the actor of being a paedophile :

http://jezebel.com/james-franco-tried-to-pick-up-a-teenage-girl-on-instagr-1557478837

http://www.newser.com/story/184862/franco-yep-i-tried-to-pick-up-on-teen-using-instagram.html

Last month, with the universal support of the MSM, the British Goverment officially cannonzied computer genius Alan Turing for taking a teenage (male) minor up the ass on multiple occasions, then trying to have the boy framed for a burglary that he had nothing to do with (probably because Turing feared the boy was going to report Turing to the police for abusing him).

This is how Jezebel describes a 35 year old heterosexual trying to pick up a legal 17 year old girl (and possibly not knowing she was 17) :

Anyway, from there, he tried to court her over Instagram and text. Which is fairly creepy because he is more than twice her age and she is still in high school.

This is how Jezebel describes Alan Turing, a 42 year old homosexual who repeatedly sodomized a 19 year old boy, then tried to have him arrested for a burglary he did not commit. The boy was still a minor at the time, and Turing was considered by both the law and the social norms of the day to be sexually abusing a child :

Turing, an important figure in the invention of modern computing, worked on code-breaking efforts during World War II. His reward: a 1952 conviction for “gross indecency” (i.e., homosexuality). Threatened with prison, he was forced into hormone treatments and committed suicide two years later.

Queen Elizabeth only just got around to issuing him a formal pardon.

David Thomas on Child Sex Abuse Hysteria and Men’s Human Rights (1993)

Today MHRAs believe that it is right for feminists to lock up men as ‘paedophiles’ for looking at, in the privacy of their own homes, pictures of 30 year old women with small breasts. Any MRA who claims even this as a men’s rights issue deserves, in the words of the leader of the MHRM, ‘to be fucked in prison like a little girl’.

But this hasn’t alway been the case. In the 1990s, the men’s rights movement was dominated not by puritanical American fathers, nor by puritanical American ‘liberal progressives’, but by common sense British fathers, and it was taken for granted that inflated feminist definitions of child sex abuse were attacks upon male sexuality. This very un-American attitude to feminist child sex laws lives on in the men’s rights movement today, with the likes of myself (British), Steve Moxon (British), Eivind Berge (Norwegian), Human-Stupidity (German/Brazillian), Chris Brand (British), and Angry Harry (British – and in relation to the trauma myth at least), all questioning feminist anti-sex dogma that leads to the destruction of the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, as well as boys (both as ‘abusers’ and ‘victims’), and with no end in sight to the legislative creep that follows from it.

Back in 1993, British father and journalist David Thomas published the first men’s rights work since Ernest Belfort Bax in the 1920’s. He devotes an entire chapter to discussion of child sex abuse hysteria, at that time taking hold of both the USA and the UK through ‘satanic abuse ritual’ panics. He takes it for granted, as a men’s rights supporter (and even as a father) that teenagers having willing sex with older men will NOT be harmed or traumatised, and to believe that they will is to believe in an absurd anti-male feminist construct. However, here he talks about the trauma myth in general, discussing how the obsession with abuse, and the insistance that victims will be traumatised for life, likely does more damage than the (real) abuse itself :

“It is generally agreed that a child who is compelled to have sex with an adult against his or her own will suffers lasting damage. Certainly that would be a common-sense view, and one with which, as a parent, I would instinctively agree. In August 1992, however, the New Statesman published a special issue devoted to opinions that were politically incorrect. One of its articles, by Edward Barrie, suggested that the after-effects of sexual activity might be less traumatic to children than had previously been supposed. In particular, he said :

“An enormous investigation was carried out for the German police by Dr. Michael Baurmann, who reported his findings in 1983. His team carefully assessed 8,058 young people of both sexes (more girls than boys) involved in illegal sexual relationships. They found that in many cases no harm was done – neither emotional nor physical. About 1,000 boys under the age of 14 took part in the study, and not one of those was found to have been harmed. Harm to the girls, when it occurred, was sometimes (not always) a result of the sex act itself, and sometimes the result of heavy-handedness by police, parents and others in the aftermath. Bauermann has shown conclusively that a child may well become a victim purely because victimisation is expected. More recent police department follow-up studies have confirmed the findings.”

Those findings, astounding though they seem at first glance, tally with the experiences of the solicitor whose letter about her experiences of abuse that I reproduced earlier in the chapter. They make me question whether the important social issue which both British and American society needs to confront is not abuse itself, but our apparent obsession with it.

Barrie remarks : “Perhaps most sinister of all, a young woman university graduate working on a doctoral thesis and pursuing the ‘harm done’ aspects of abuse, with help from….overseas experts, was denied a grant unless she came up with findings that would help the authorities ‘detect peadophiles’. She found this distortion of her views unacceptable.”

At this point the truth is clouded with exaggeration and confusion that one cannot do anything other than speculate about what is really going on. But when celebrities que up to reveal ever more lurid accounts of their childhood experiences, or publicise abuse helplines, the sickness to which they bear witness may just be the profound suspicion with which the Anglo-Saxon world regards sex. That, and the belief that the quickest route to public approval is to label oneself a victim – even if one happens to be a millionaire rock star, or a candidate for the presidency.

Consider, specifically, the determination with which some women seek to paint a picture of rampant sexual abuse, practiced entirely by men. Is this motivated by an altruistic desire to cure a social malaise, or just a fearful hostility towards male sexuality as a whole? Are they simply projecting their own terror onto children? Is there anything to choose between the dysfunction that causes an adult to seek out sex with children, and the dysfunction that persuades a doctor or social worker that she is surrounded, on every side, by a raging sea of sex abuse?”

See also : http://theantifeminist.com/david-thomas-mens-rights-sex-abuse-hysteria/

http://theantifeminist.com/why-mras-fail-men-feminist-sex-law-hysteria/ (this article was written before the take over of the men’s rights movement by American liberal progressives and its rebranding as the ‘men’s human rights movement’)

Angry Harry : Traumatised by a Tomato

The MRM Supporting the Age of Consent is like the Black Civil Rights Movement Supporting Laws Against Interracial Sex

*Before you read the following article, here are several recent must read articles revealing the disturbing thoughts of the (real) child abuse apologist David Futrelle :

David Futrelle – Feminists fighting child sex slavery used ‘coercive strategies to control the sexual behaviour of young girls’.

David Futrelle – Women and child victims of abuse should take more responsibility for their abuse because their innocence is ‘exaggerated’.

David Futrelle – Films that consist entirely of 14 and 15 year old children being sexually abused, made to eat shit, mutilated, raped, and murdered, can be great art AND sold in gay sex shops.

—————————————————————————————————————

The Men’s Rights Movement support of feminist age of consent laws can be compared to the Black Civil Rights Movement supporting the interracial sex laws made by white men.

Of course, the black civil rights movement did no such thing, and under no concievable circumstance could they ever be so immoral and stupid to do so.

Yet…we here at this site (and a handful of others) are in a minority when we say that men’s rights activists should not support the jailing of men for having sex with girls under the feminist age of consent, anymore than a supporter of black civil rights should support the jailing of black men for having interracial sex with a white female.

I would urge again all my readers to spread the knowledge that present day age of consent laws are almost entirely the work of feminists – from their origin in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, to their present day ever more draconian application and accompanying hysteria.

Here are a few useful facts to spread as far and wide as possible in 2014, both within the manosphere and without :

The age of consent in the UK was raised from 13 to 16 in a backward Victorian Criminal Law Act passed in 1885 – lobbied for largely by feminists.

That same backward Victorian feminist bill criminalized not only prostitution as well, but also homosexuality. In fact anything that appeared to threaten or lower the sexual market value of the average woman.

It was a similar story in the USA and other anglo-saxon and European countries – with puritanical suffragettes campaigning furiously for the age of consent to be raised, alongside laws against prostitution and homosexuality..

Alan Turing was convicted by the same act of parliament that raised the age of consent from 13 to 16. The feminists who lobbied for that bill had actually sought an age of consent of 21. We recently pardoned Alan Turing for having sex with a 19 year old (when he was 42), and now regard his persecution as a shameful episode in our moral history.

Anti-feminists of the Victorian/Edwardian era, including the first men’s rights activist Ernest Belfort Bax, opposed the raising of the age of consent on the grounds that it would criminalize ordinary male sexuality.

These early men’s rights supporters also pointed out the absurdity of feminists demanding that 18 year old women be given the vote and yet claiming that teenage girls and young women were incapable of making their mind up about sex, requiring state protection from men. Increasingly today, feminist dominated left-wing parties are lowering the voting age to 16 and yet at the same time effectively raising the age of consent to 18 or even beyond.

It is not possible to be neutral regarding what the correct age of consent should be. The age of consent is not a ‘speeding test’, as feMRA apologists in the MHRM have claimed. It involves forcing the traumatic and damaging ‘abuse victim label’ upon boys and girls below that age, even if they had sex willingly. MRAs who support the forcing of the ‘abuse victim label’ upon teenage boys and girls are doing so on the basis of feminist laws, arguments, and junk science. In other words, unless you believe that somehow feminists have ‘got it right’ on just this one issue, then MRAs who support the feminist age of consent are child abusers who damage and victimise children.

At the very least, ALL men’s rights supporters should accept that certain issues involved with the age of consent are undoubtedly men’s rights issues. These include the ‘strict liability’ that feminists fought so long and hard to achieve and which has jailed so many men for having sex with girls who lied about their age, and also the continuing feminist campaign to raise still further the age of consent to 18 or even 21 and older.

And to briefly answer the simple-minded objection that the age of consent is not a men’s rights issue so long as it applies equally to both men and women – this is equality of injustice at its most backward (and hurtful to men, and boys)! Interracial sex laws often applied to both black AND white men (for example, in apartheid South Africa), but it was manifestly apparent that the laws were aimed at black men, because it was (and is) more natural and more common for a black man to pursue a white woman than it is for a white man to pursue a black woman. In the same way, it is more natural and common, for basic reasons of evolutionary psychology, for men to pursue teenage girls than it is for women to pursue teenage boys. Furthermore, black civil rights leaders would not be so stupid to accept that interracial sex laws were fair, so long as they applied equally to both black men and white men.

This is why, when feminists restrict and punish normal male sexuality, it is and always will be a men’s rights issue, and those who deny this are either stupid, fraudulent, or simply cowards.

PUA LAIDNYC – How To Respond When A Hag Shames You For Dating Younger Women

Had to share this one with my readers. Like Heartiste, Krauser, RivsDiary, and GLL, Laidnyc is an example of a non-paedocrite PUA.

http://laidnyc.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/you-date-younger-women-because-youre-insecure-and-other-common-shaming-phrases/

(excerpts)

“You just like younger girls because they’re the only ones who fall for your PUA tricks! You like them because they are easier to manipulate!”

Let’s cut right to the core:

Feminists say things like this because they hate young, beautiful girls and believe they are all stupid.

Let me tell you something: when it comes to relationship dynamics, girls are wily and smart as fuck. They play most men like fiddles from age 12 onward. They think about relationships, talk constantly about relationships, and have many social interactions. Whether they want cock, money, attention, or commitment, they know how to get it.

Girls are not stupid, innocent victims.
They are predator, not prey.
Girls of every age are the manipulators far more often than they are the manipulated.

After age 24, women definitely do not get smarter about relationships. Their hamsters do get stronger, though, out of necessity.

(Besides, this premise is backwards. It is far easier to game older women into bed. They have less options and its likely been longer since they’ve had a good stiff dicking.)

“You have nothing in common with a girl that young!”

I don’t have anything in common with the girls I’m attracted to, and I like it that way. Its not a matter of age, its a matter of masculine and feminine.

I lift weights, she does yoga.
I order the steak, she orders the salad.
I watch Breaking Bad, she watches The Bachelorette.
I wear a suit, she wears a dress.

I don’t want a girl who sits on the couch watching football and scratching herself, because that’s my thing.

Having stuff in common sucks.

Wait, scratch that, I have a few things in common with the young girls I date: we both have high fertility and a deep passion for each other. Good enough for me.

“You date younger girls because you can’t get a girl your own age!”

Young girls being so in demand in the sexual market, any guy that can date one could easily pull an older one, he just doesn’t want to.

“No, really, an older woman would never put up with your shit!”

I won’t put up with her loose skin, baggage and jaded bitterness. Everybody wins!

“But Beyonce/ Salma Hayek/ Jennifer Aniston, etc is still hot!”

She’s overrated.

Take your favorite over 30 female celebrity that the media gushes about. There are at least 20 seniors at your local high school that are hotter than her. Some men may deny this, but their boners wouldn’t if given a bedroom test.

This is true despite the fact that those old female celebrities are hotter than 99% of women their age. If there’s no hope for them, there’s certainly no hope for average women.

Bonus: The high school girls wouldn’t need expert photoshopping and world-class makeup application to look hot.

‘Japanese young people don’t want love…or sex’

http://www.newser.com/story/176228/japans-young-people-dont-want-love-or-sex.html

Japan’s young people are not very interested in dating … but they’re not very interested in casual sex, either. According to a 2011 study, 61% of unmarried Japanese men and 49% of women aged 18 to 34 are not in any kind of romantic relationship—a figure that’s up 10% from five years prior. And a third of Japanese people under 30 have never dated at all. Meanwhile, another survey found 45% of women and more than a quarter of men aged 16 to 24 “were not interested in or despised sexual contact.” In Japan, they’re calling this new phenomenon “sekkusu shinai shokogun,” or “celibacy syndrome,” reports the Guardian, and it’s a big worry in a country with a rapidly shrinking population.

So what’s causing it? Some young professionals tell the paper that trying to balance a career and a relationship is “mendokusai”—too troublesome. “I don’t earn a huge salary to go on dates and I don’t want the responsibility of a woman hoping it might lead to marriage,” says a 31-year-old man who says he has simply ” learned to live without sex.”

I wonder also how much of this phenomenon is down to what appears to be a hardwired Japanese (male) sexual preference for adolescent girls, coupled with increasing regulation of such relationships between men and younger females?

10 years ago, the age of consent in Japan was 13, and a majority of Japanese schoolgirls were apparently engaging in ‘dates for gifts’ with older men. Due to Western and native feminist pressure, this has largely been obliterated.

While the aim of Japanese legislators might have been to encourage 20 something males to start coupling with 20 something females, it seems that Japanese men prefer not to be effectively raped by feminists, and choose instead to fap off to hentai porn and pictures of sweet Japanese teenies in bikinis.

Aaron Sleezy – ‘Why should it be “creepy” if an older guy takes a young woman?’

http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/why-should-it-be-creepy-if-older-guy.html

(excerpts)

Alek Novy occasionally speaks of the “pussy cartel”, i.e. a set of loosely enforced behavioral rules for women to make sure that the price of sex remains high through artificially limiting supply. Don’t let the economics jargon scare you off. It’ll all become clear in a moment. One example is “slut shaming”. If women were generally less discriminating about whom to have sex with, a lot of men would not even bother getting into a relationships. From this you shouldn’t deduce that I think that relationships are just about having sex. However, there are plenty of guys for whom sex only happens in relationships. Some are so pussy-whipped that they become the girl’s boyfriend without getting much sex at all. They are happy if she’s putting out once every three months. It’s great for the girl’s ego, but the guy should feel like a loser.

In a world where all girls are promiscuous you would see a much smaller number of couples. Women have to look out after another, though, and if they manage to convince a large enough number among them to only have sex in committed relationships, which used to mean “marriage”, while being supported by mainstream media bullshit such as the myth that sex is the most incredible thing on earth, then they surely manage to reel in enough suckers. However, to keep things in order, they may also want to ensure that men and women who pair up have roughly the same age. Otherwise, women around 30 would have to compete with women who are ten years younger, and it doesn’t take much imagination to picture how that would end. So, what better way than to “creep shame” guys and telling them that they have to take a woman their own age, and that they should also consider women who are older than them?….

….Imagine you lived in a world in which the more attractive men wanted to keep their options open and eventually settled for a much younger woman. They would go through a lot of women in their 20s. The women in their late 20s they meet may push for a relationship, but the guys just aren’t interested. Eventually, they may take a much younger girlfriend or wife. However, in the big picture this means that the young woman has gotten a guy that should, according to feminists, have been paired up with a woman his own age. With one more guy her age gone, that woman may now have to settle for a cat instead. Thus, there are cries that “there are no good men left”.

In an attempt to manipulate male behavior and shame them into marrying women their age, they get told that it is “creepy” if they lust after young girls. There are also plenty of young girls who like more mature guys, so you’ve got to tell them too that this is “creepy”, too. Sorry, horny young coed, you can’t fuck your tutor because it’s bad for the pussy cartel!

I wonder where Alek Novy got the inspiration for his Pussy Cartel theory from…?

Sex addiction may not exist say scientists

http://health.msn.co.nz/healthnews/8693918/sex-addiction-may-not-exist-scientists

A team of researchers using brain imaging to measure the reactions of people with “hypersexuality” and sex addiction have suggested that the conditions might not exist.

Scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles found that when exposed to images of drugs, cocaine addicts’ brains would show an immediate brain response, but the same wasn’t true when they showed professed sex addicts “visual sexual stimuli”.

“Potentially, this is an important finding,” UCLA scientist Nicole Prause said in a press release.

“We want to urge caution and thoughtfulness in thinking about how to treat these types of sexual problems,” she told CBS. “I don’t think we have a good grasp of what’s going on yet.”