Category Archives: Pornography

Spiked – ‘Who’s Afraid of Internet Porn?’

1 Reply

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13702/

(excerpt)

You would think all this must be a response something real, something that has actually happened – an outbreak of horrendous sexual assaults by porn-obsessed youngsters, perhaps. But no, this sudden media and political focus on internet porn is the product, not of events, but of advocacy research. A whole heap of it in fact, from the Children’s Commissioner’s report, ‘Basically… Porn is Everywhere’: A Rapid Evidence Assessment on the Effects that Access and Exposure to Pornography has on Children and Young People, to the 2011 NSPCC report Child Abuse and Neglect in the UK Today. And this has all been topped off with a few police stats about the number of sexual-abuse offences committed by under-18s in 2012.

In fact, ‘Basically… Porn is Everywhere’ is archetypal advocacy research. That is, undertaken by several academics, it is produced to confirm the existence of a problem and support a particular change in policy. The actual report itself is rife with uncertainty and methodological limitations, from the difficulty of defining ‘pornography’ in a highly sexualised culture, to problems of only having time to stage a couple of small workshops with, first, experts and second, a few young people.

Brooke Magnanti – ‘Miss World bikini ban: why it’s no victory for feminists’

4 Replies

Brooke Magnanti, formerly the famous prostitute blogger ‘Belle de Jour’, becomes the latest to articulate elements of Sexual Trade Union theory. But note also, like most ‘sex positive’ women, and indeed most ‘anti-feminist’ women, she appears not to have the slightest interest in justice, and certainly none in men’s rights, but simply speaking with regard to what she sees as the best (sexual) interests of women (like herself) :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/10105935/Miss-World-2013-bikini-ban-why-its-no-victory-for-feminists.html

(excerpt) :

For some time it’s been clear that the interests and tactics of certain types of feminism and certain types of religious fundamentalism not only converge, but seem to complement each other.

The consultation resulting from Rhoda Grant’s upcoming bill in Scottish Parliament hoping to “end demand” for sex work, for example, are dominated by radical women’s groups and conservative church members. Sometimes when it comes to the far right and the far left, you’d be hard pressed to tell the difference. Especially where sex might be involved.

And it continues to be surprising that many feminists seem to have no great problem with this. Sure, the ends some wanted have been achieved. Bikinis gone thanks to the Pope or Muslims or whoever it is this time. But at what cost? As they say where I come from (the US), ‘you got to dance with the one who brung you’. Such dirty alliances always, always, come with a hidden cost. It doesn’t take much imagination to see what outcome religious conservatives of any faith are aiming for when they order the womenfolk to cover up.

British Men to be Sent to Prison to be Anally Raped for Watching Videos of Women Pretending to be Raped

24 Replies

If proposals made yesterday by prominent feminist campaigners come into force, British men will soon be sent to prison, likely to be anally raped by other prisoners as ‘nonces’, for merely downloading and watching videos of women pretending to be raped. Being raped is widely acknowledged to be the number one sexual fantasy amongst women. In other words, men will soon be violently anally raped for watching, in their own homes, videos of women paid to play act the most popular female sexual fantasy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22803502

Laws controlling pornography in England and Wales need to be strengthened to make it illegal to download staged images of rape, campaigners say.

In a letter to PM David Cameron they say sexual violence as “entertainment” causes a “huge cultural harm”.

The deputy children’s commissioner for England is among those calling on the government to close the “loophole”.

The material, which does not break any laws as it feature actors aged over 18, is already outlawed in Scotland.

The campaigners say legislation introduced in 2008 was intended to make it an offence to be in possession of “extreme” pornography” but did not cover most simulated images of rapes or attacks.

David Fraudtrelle Paedocrite of the Month May 2013 : Stuart Hazell, David Futrelle, Amanda Platell

12 Replies

david futrelle

This is what a paedocrite looks like

Last month was a classic for straight up, stomach churning paedocrisy, and I’ve decided that the Fraudtrelle award should be shared between three worthy winners.

Stuart Hazell - It takes a special kind of subhuman monster to dislodge David Futrelle from his pinnacle as the world’s worst paedocrite, but Stuart Hazell, recently convicted of murdering 12 year old schoolgirl Tia Sharpe, certainly is that. Hazell tried to pin the blame for Tia’s murder on to his Somali neighbours, accusing them of being ‘the real bacon’ (prison slang for paedophiles) and claiming that other paedophiles had been grooming her online. After unemployed waster Hazell was arrested, hardcore violent child pornography was found on his computer. The Sexual Trade Union has been quick to exploit the case to demand new laws against porn and ‘paedophilia’. What’s likely to have happened is that Hazell made a pass at Tia (who was the daughter of a previous girlfriend of his) and had panicked and murdered her when she either refused or threatened to report him – knowing full well, as a former inmate, what would be in store for him as a prison nonce. In other words, paedohysteria was far more likely to have been responsible for Tia’s death than Hazell’s porn viewing habits were.

David Futrelle – The man himself again demonstrated his own disturbing schizophrenic paedocrisy by attacking a female MRA (Judgybitch) for arguing that 13 year old girls are not always the victims when they have affairs with older men. Little more than a decade ago, and Futrelle was raging against the early feminists for raising the age of consent from 12 to 16, claiming that they had been motivated purely by a desire to ‘control the sexuality of young girls‘.

Amanda Platell – In response to the Tia Sharpe murder, Amanda wrote a hack article for the Daily ~~Femiservative~~ Mail in which she admitted watching hardcore violent child pornography – something that she claimed was easily found via Google. Platell even told her millions of paedocrite readers the exact search terms they needed to type in to find the same videos, teasing them with descriptions of the ‘white pristine underwear’ that the 13 year old girl in the video she watched is wearing moments before she supposedly gets raped. In fact, Platell was likely viewing a professional ‘barely legal’ porn video of an 18 year old play acting at being younger and at being raped. Perfectly legal in the USA, but dubiously so in the UK with its insane feminist ‘virtual’ child pornography laws. Bizarrely, despite admitting to watching hardcore child porn in order to sell newspapers, she still has not been arrested to face a minimum 1 year prison stretch under recently introduced shEU legislation. However, she is apparently ‘under investigation’.

Stuart Hazell

Stuart Hazell

david-futrelle-manboobz-3

David Futrelle

amanda-platell

Amanda Platell

The Fifth Horseman’s Justification for Ignoring the Ugly Feminist Elephant in the Room

2 Replies

It’s been a permanent mystery to myself, and to several of my loyal and esteemed readers, why it is that the men’s rights movement, and the manosphere in general, has been so reluctant to focus upon, or even barely mention the fact, that feminists are invariably ugly, and that feminists give primacy in their lobbying campaigns to goals that invariably will in some way limit the freedoms of non-ugly women (and more importantly often criminalize or at least restrict the liberties of thousands or millions of normal heterosexual men).

This is the great Elephant in the Room when it comes to feminism and the men’s rights movement.

A lot of this reluctance can be explained by the conservative and even Christian dominance of the MRM (something which is gradually diminishing as the movement grows and the demographic widens). Given that the feminist war on male sexuality involves at its core, paedohysteria, a lot of it can also be explained by sheer moral cowardice and paedocrisy.

But recently 2 or 3 articles have appeared at the venerable institution of The-Spearhead which seem to be part of a growing and welcome trend for the elephant in the room to be finally recognised. I linked to one of them yesterday, and since then, Anti-FeministTech has guest written an article entitled ‘Feminists Object to Hot Women Showing Their Bodies’, detailing the efforts of UK feminists to have ‘Lad’s Mags’ which feature girls in bikinis and underwear to be banned or reclassified as nude and pornographic.

Two comments underneath the Spearhead article provide concise illustrations as to why the MRM has been so reluctant to see feminism as the Sexual Trade Union that it is.

The first, by an obnoxious paedocrite with the name ‘AF’ (I really hope that doesn’t stand for ‘Anti-Feminist’), who agrees fully with the man-hating feminists who want pictures of girls wearing bikinis to be re-classified as nudity :

Well, I have to say I agree with all this. The world was a MUCH better place when everybody dressed respectably, and women wore modest, feminine attire, not aggressively provocative slut-ware.

Wouldn’t you rather women presented themselves like this:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3285/2619072526_868630e47f.jpg

Than this:

http://www.lingerieinsight.com/pictures/gallery/Generic/SlutWalk%20web.jpg

The second, by the more cerebral and authentic supporter of men’s rights – The Fifth Horseman (author of ‘the misandry bubble‘) :

The problem with this is…. most people know that feminists are jealous of attractive women…but they think that is all there is to feminism, so think that feminists are harmless..

The real damage that feminism has done is top re-write laws in a manner that are incompatible with the basic rights enshrined in the Constitutions of all first-world countries. Most people don’t know about that.

By people thinking that feminists are just ugly, jealous women, the real harm of feminism is overlooked.

Although TheFifthHorseman is likely well-meaning, and is probably genuine in his belief that the possibility that ridiculing feminists as ugly jealous hags might serve to hide their very real danger and the crimes they are committing, he has in fact got things entirely the wrong way around.

It is the very fact that MRAs, and men in general, ignore the fact that feminists are blatently ugly jealous women that has allowed them to pass law after law that leads to thousands of men being raped in prison while simply serving no other end but to raise their own sexual market value (and those of their supporters – the mass of women) and to soothe their insane psycho-sexual jealousies. Feminists are trampling on basic human rights because they are ugly and jealous – there is no getting around this, however crude or even comical it can sound.

This site (and History of Feminism) is dedicated to illustrating that feminism has been from its 19th century Social Purity origins a sexual trade union for ordinary, not very attractive or downright ugly women. Despite the comment of TFH, I still believe firmly that it is important to highlight this truth, and that doing so has fundamental tactical value for our anti-feminist cause, and this is for the following reasons :

1/ we cannot hope to defeat an enemy if we are not fully aware of its true nature and its motivations.

2/ the men’s rights movement not only ignores the true nature of feminism and feminists, it largely ignores the crimes against humanity (or the male part of humanity) that feminists are committing through motives of jealousy and sexual self-interest – i.e. anti-male sexuality laws.

3/ pointing out that feminists are ugly, and that it is their ugliness that is directing their actions and their notions of ‘justice’ and ‘equality’ is likely to be a more effective tactical tool than anything we have tried previously, even if the cerebral amongst us do find it crude or even reminancent of the tactics of the schoolyard. Women are deeply susceptible to shaming. And they are right to be shamed over this – what amounts to the attempted rape of the male through sexual envy.

4/ it gives us a concrete and practical long-term activist goal – the prosecution of leading feminists for attempted rape. As I have argued in the past, and will argue in a more detailed fashion soon, feminists are almost certainly breaking existing rape/sexual harassment laws in most countries, if they are acting through selfish sexual motivations and seeking to simply restrict sexual alternatives for men. Although given the corrupt and misandric nature of the justice system in most western nations precludes any likelihood that such a prosecution would be successful in the near-term, the embarrassment factor for feminists would be absolutely monumental.

It’s time to point to the elephant in the room.

http://www.returnofkings.com/2099/the-9-ugliest-american-feminists (WARNING – Article contains disturbing images)

NSPCC and BBC Exploit Murder of Little Girl to Push for Web Bans on Porn

2 Replies

This week the murderer of five year old April Jones was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Little April’s murder hadn’t previously attracted much attention in the UK, quite surprising given that outbreaks of mass hysteria over thankfully rare child murders were becoming almost annual pagan liberal progressive summer fertility rites in the ~~PeadoPhiles~~ British Isles.

The reason April’s murder hadn’t generated hysteria and physical assaults on men who ‘looked like paedos’, as well as paediatricians, was because the nation was busily occupied with tales of Jimmy Savile groping 14 year old groupies in BBC dressing rooms. As I explained in a previous article written at the time, feminists no longer had to exploit the murder of little girls in order to inflate definitions of paedophilia and enable draconian legislation restricting sexual competition from nubile teenage girls.

However, the nation has now exhausted Jimmy Savile hysteria, and even showed some signs of guilt and capacity for minimal human compassion over the hounding of old age pensioners for fumbling horny teenagers half-a-century ago. So now it’s back to business as usual. The conviction of Mark Bridger for April’s murder, and the fact that porn, including violent child porn, was found on his laptop, has quickly prompted both the NSPCC and the BBC to shamelessly exploit her tragic death to urge for further censorshhip of pornography online (already a hot issue in the UK). Whilst the Telegraph quotes the NSPCC as claiming that April’s murder proves a link between child pornography and sexual violence against children, the BBC even appears to want to blur the distinction between violent child porn and legal pornography and support existing calls to block access to web porn in general :

The NSPCC, which as I have shown here previously and as is widely known in the men’s rights movement, is nothing more than a radical feminist sexual trade union lobbying group. Sickeningly, it has a yearly income of over £100 million. Typical of the feminist commitment to hard scientific evidence, and separation of correlation and causation, it bases its assertion of a link between viewing child pornography and actual crime against children upon the fact that one child murderer is found with violent kiddy porn on his laptop. Well what a surprise – a psychopath who fantasises about and then murders a little girl, also likes to look at violent child porn and rape videos online. Who would have thought that?

Actually, the only objective scientific study to look into the relationship between viewing child porn and child sexual abuse found that the link went the other way – looking at child porn reduces real child abuse. This is consistent with other studies that have looked at availability of adult porn and its impact on rape statistics, as well as general observation and the basic truth that both religions and feminists have tried to ban porn in the past, not because it increases rape, but because it provides a mastubatory alternative to real sexual contact with women. In fact, Naomi Wolf has explicitly stated this herself (essentially admitting that she and most feminists are rapists).

The NSPCC and other sexual trade union lobbying groups, including the BBC, want to shamelessly exploit the murder of children by psychopaths, and ‘prove’ a link between violent child porn, and even porn in general, to her murder, because porn in general, including supposed ‘child porn’ featuring nubile teenagers, brings down the sexual market value of feminists and the mass of women who support them, and who nod their brood mare head approvingly when they read such disgusting crap in the BBC and elsewhere.

If there was a causal link between viewing child pornography and the abuse of children, then those whose jobs it is to ‘research’ child porn videos, and who are ‘forced’ to watch such videos and images daily, should be closely monitored every day for the rest of their lives. Of course, people who are sexually attracted to children will tend to watch videos of children. Those psychopaths who fantasise about sexually hurting children, will also get turned on by watching videos of real children being sexually hurt. This concept seems too obvious for the average feminist to see or to admit to. In their world, no doubt, if we were forced to look at images of fat, frumpy, and old women constantly, we might finally turn our heads even when their haggard visages pass us in the streets.

Daily Mail Journalist Amanda Platell Faces Arrest for Viewing Violent Child Porn

7 Replies

Last Saturday I was reading the Daily Mail and found myself sickened even by the normal standards that a human and a man finds himself upon reading that femiservative exploitative rag (which now has strong links with the men’s human rights movement).

The reason for my nausea was an article by journalist Amanda Platell detailing the horror of child porn websites that are supposedly just a click away on Google, and which contain hardcore images of children being violently raped.

I was sickened for three reasons. Firstly, because her article is likely to have been wildly exaggerated, in the hope that Amanda and her female middle-aged readers can content themselves knowing that further draconian ~~teen~~ child porn laws are on their way after such an ‘expose’. Millions of pounds, and the efforts of countless police forces and IT experts worldwide, are poured into taking down child porn sites as soon as they appear online. It is highly unlikely that hardcore violent child porn sites could be found so easily via Google, as Platell claims, when Google bases its search alogorithm and ranks websites upon the basis of factors such as the age of a site and the number of visits it recieves.

Secondly, because the article, as well as appealing to the sexual insecurities of its female middle-aged readership, was also blatently appealing to the suppressed desires of the paedocrite male readers who make up the rest of that newspaper’s demographic :

One video I watched, of 24 minutes in length, came up when I typed ‘teen schoolgirls abused’ — another of Hazell’s searched-for phrases.
It starts with a sweet-looking girl in her early teens, walking home in her school uniform: long white socks, short skirt and, as we discover later, pristine white cotton underwear.
It’s a stilted performance. But while the girl is clearly acting a role, the fear in her face appears to be all too real.
A man is watching her in a car parked outside her house. His accent is a peculiar hybrid of British and American. We learn he’s been stalking the girl for weeks. He knows when she gets home from school that she is alone for an hour before her parents arrive back from work.
He tricks his way into her home and within minutes is violating her, before forcing her to perform a sex act on him. Then he rapes her, in every possible position, all captured in close-up. ‘No one has to get hurt,’ he says to the child, ‘if you do what I say.’ He tells her she’s ‘secretly enjoying it’.
His other repeated refrain is: ‘Don’t you tell a soul or I’ll come back and hurt you.’ And hurt her he does. Not forgetting his final phrase: ‘This is our secret.’

Of course, detailing the fact that the ‘sweet looking girl’ was wearing ‘pristine white cotton underwear’, was absolutely essential for journalistic integrity. It had nothing to do with titilating the subhuman paedocrite readers who would scream outrage and loudly demand to hang every paedo by the balls, whilst attempting to ignore their own massive hardon lest their wives should notice. And no doubt, the middle-aged wives reading that article could relive their own fantasy of being an innocent attractive young girl again, instead of aging old hags, young, pretty, and virginal enough to still attract even the the violent predations of thuggish males.

But the third reason I was sickened was because here was a Daily Mail journalist brazenly admitting to watching hardcore violent child pornography, with the intention of titillating her readers and selling more editions of her rag paper, and yet I knew she would not be arrested because, firstly she’s a woman, and secondly, she would claim she did so for the purpose of ‘research’ (the classic). In fact, I was ready to write an article here titled ‘ Daily Mail’s Amanda Platell admits to viewing child porn – no arrests made’.

However, I may have been wrong. It seems that Amanda Platell is rightfully facing investigation for viewing hardcore child pornography. The nation’s paedo-finder general, Mark Williams-Thomas (who led the Savile hysteria), reported her to the police – another example, it seems, of the accusers starting to accuse each other.

It is unlikely that Platell will face charges, given the corruption within the Metropolitan Police, but let’s hope it has at least given the paedophile and her editors some unpleasant moments.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2330640/My-journey-hell-internet-child-porn-We-asked-AMANDA-PLATELL-view-websites-twisted-mind-little-Tias-killer.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/25/daily-mail-journalist-admits-viewing-child-porn_n_3335486.html

Excellent Economist Magazine Article On Iceland’s Attempts to Ban the Sex Industry

3 Replies

Excellent article, however it would be nice for the Economist magazine to draw the obvious conclusion as to why middle-aged Icelandic hags are trying to ban an industry that reduces their own sexual market value, and also why they share that goal with Islamic nations that supposedly ‘oppress women’ (which leads to Western women converting to Islam at 4:1 ratio over Western men) :

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21576366-iceland-determined-outlaw-worlds-oldest-business-can-it-succeed-naked-ambition

ULTRA-LIBERAL Iceland wants to ban online pornography. It is just the latest step in its attempts to eliminate the sex industry entirely. In 2009 it introduced fines and jail terms for those who patronise prostitutes (whom it treats as victims). In 2010 it outlawed strip clubs. In February the government decided to take on the glut of smut online and floated the idea of banning violent or degrading pornography, which some Icelanders take to mean most of it. No country has yet wholly succeeded in controlling commercial sex, either through legalisation or criminalisation. But all over the world, particularly in rich democracies, policymakers are watching to see whether Iceland succeeds—and may follow in its footsteps if it does.

Iceland’s proposal is in its early stages and may lose momentum after an election on April 27th, which the government is expected to lose. But its plan puts it in some odd company. Saudi Arabia similarly bans strip clubs, prostitution and pornography. But it also stops women from driving, forbids them from travelling without a man’s permission and restricts their right to vote. In the World Economic Forum’s 2012 Global Gender Gap report, which compares progress in 135 countries towards sex equality, Saudi Arabia ranked 131st.

Iceland, however, is determinedly pro-women. Half the cabinet and 25 of the 63 members of Iceland’s parliament are female….