Underneath his video response to a ‘Morality in Media’ woman’s hysterical attack on a man she ‘caught’ watching Asian porn on a plane, the Amazing Atheist left the contact page link for that organisation. If you visit that page now, you see the following:
Underneath those two sentences is a third stating that your IP address has been recorded, together with your IP address (although they showed mine incorrectly). You are then re-directed to another of their videos, and another of their hags explaining why pornography is evil (a video that has now over 1,400 downvotes and less than 100 upvotes).
This is the arrogance of the psychotic individuals who make up the myriad lobby groups of the sexual trade union. They want half of the people on this planet to live in a world where any criticism of them, or of their laws on or attitudes to porn, leads you to fear having your door broken in by the FBI at 4 in the morning. And the reality is that their influence is such that they will probably have that power very soon, unless they are stopped right now or in the very near future.
The clock is ticking, time is running out. Do something now by e-mailing your thoughts to :
grassroots@pornharms.com (this is the sister site to Morality in Media)
Please be restrained and try to be reasonably civil, even though these people would have you raped and beaten in prison for simply questioning their assertion that porn is inherently evil.
I watched your YouTube video this morning, entitled ‘Man watched violent, child-themed porn on Delta flight – NO ONE CARED!’
You said that you wanted viewers to contact you with their thoughts…so here I am.
At first I was sickened by your racist, misandristic video, but then I collected myself and realised that, really, I ought to just pity you. I don’t mean to be cruel – but you’re obviously tormented by your bitterness at being plain and unattractive. You really need some professional help in order to overcome your transparent sexual jealousy of younger women, and in particular, of Asian females.
You appear to be simply rationalising your own sexual insecurities in order to demonise and criminalise men, and in order to limit the sexual power of females younger and better looking than yourself. Please stop it – you’re hurting men, and you are restricting the freedoms of thousands of young women and girls around the world. Seek help, and you might become a better person, able to live with yourself, instead of hating yourself and the world around you.
Perhaps you should take a lesson from your admission that ‘NO ONE CARED’. That’s right – nobody cares except bitter, unattractive, and aging women, who think they can rig the free sexual market in their own favour by shaming men and introducing law after law that criminilises male sexuality or restricts people’s freedoms. In my opinion, this is the equivalent of rape – on a massive scale. Your only hope of success in this is by your manipulative out of sight lobbying of governments, something that tramples upon democracy, the principle of rational and open debate, and the rights to freedom of expression and sexual self-determination for thousands or millions of people around the world.
Please…you’re degrading yourself and other women like you. Once again, I urge you to accept your limitations and to seek professional counselling.
http://timeguide.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/avatar-0-0/ (Leading futurologist claims that, in a couple of decades, people will be having sex through avatars, or wearing lenses that allow them to alter the look of their lover. Even without stem cell rejuvenation or surgery, you will be able to look like a beautiful 18 year old Asian girl! The laws that you are trying to introduce now are very short-sighted. You are a loser in the free sexual market today, but in 20 years time there will be no winners or losers, and you won’t have any reason to be sexually jealous or bitter anymore. Please seek therapy, and try to take a longer term view of your sex life.)
I know I posted an Amazing Atheist video only the other day, but this one is must watch and uploaded yesterday. He takes on Morality In Media (the sexual trade union organisation I talked about recently) – in particular, one of their representatives who has made a YouTube video describing her fury at ‘catching’ a man watching ‘child themed’ Asian porn on his iPad during a flight.
And here is the MIM hag’s video that he is responding to :
And here is the Morality In Media contact e-mail : grassroots@pornharms.com
According to the Justice Department: “Just about everything on the Internet and almost everything in the video stores and everything in the adult bookstores is still prosecutable illegal obscenity”
Betty Wein, former director of public affairs for ‘Morality in Media’ – the lobby group that is persuading the leading Republican presidential candidates to promise to ban most or all currently available pornography.
Most of you will probably have heard of the decision by Reddit to ban all of its infamous ‘Jailbait’ sub-reddits – which apparently had been devoted to the sharing of ‘sexualised’ pictures of clothed teenagers in bikinis and such like. Most men’s rights supporters will have become aware because Adrian Chen, of Gawker.com, has decided to link this issue to his wish to see r/mensrights shut down.
This has immediately put r/mensrights back on the defensive, with many MRAs there fiercely proclaiming that the only context in which ‘child porn’ and ‘paedophilia’ are men’s rights issues is in the cases of double standards in sentencing.
Of course, it’s pointed out quite correctly how odd it is that Adrien Chen want’s men’s rights banned next, instead of any of the clearly awful reddits still out there such as r/beatingwomen or r/nigger. In fact, it’s odd enough that legal (at least in America) pictures of clothed teenagers should warrant such attention ahead of such other subreddits. I’ve even read that there is a reddit devoted to pictures of dead babies…well I guess it’s no surprise that feminists and ‘progressive liberals’ would be more enraged at pictures of 17 year old ‘children’ in bikinis than creatures taking pride in looking at pictures of murdered babies.
In fact, it’s no surprise that feminists see pictures of jailbait and talk of men’s rights to be on the same level. Both, when it comes down to it, threaten to weaken the sexual value of women in a free sexual market. Instead of being cowards again, the men’s rights community should realise that it is the very power that the ‘child porn/paedophile’ hysterias give feminists and their allies over men that make it such an imperative to continue to question the underlying basis of those hysterias.
Personally, I wouldn’t be totally saddened to see the demise of reddit/r/mensrights. Yes, it’s a highly useful source of links and news pertaining to men’s rights issues, but the inherent nature of reddit itself means that the mens’ rights subreddit will always be vulnerable to false flag attacks and manipulation from other self-interested groups. The level of discussion there is typically absolutely dreadful – near imbecilic. To try to contribute even intermittently is to be dragged into a femi-troll hell. You end up arguing a point, usually of the nature – ‘is this really a men’s rights issue?’ – with somebody who is ostensibly also an MRA, then finally click on ‘his’ comment history and find that you’ve wasted an hour of your life discussing with somebody who has either never commented about men’s rights before, is a diaper wearing fetishist, or even a feminist troll. And this is all made worse by the poor moderation (improved since the imbecile Kloo2Yoo left and was replaced by Annarchist, but still having to suffer from the mangina like moderation of feminist supporting Ignoratisloyla).
The ‘advantage’ and appeal of Reddit lies in it’s community ‘upvoting’ system. But for a nascent, and still rather small political movement like men’s rights, this is its very weakness in terms of the potential it gives our cause to be manipulated by larger groups – such as feminists – as well as diluted by casual wanderers whose multiple accounts make up the majority of the 30,000+ ‘men’s rights supporters’ there (impressive only on paper). I still get far more visitors to this site coming from a link by InMalaFide than I do from r/mensrights. And if people feel the need for a reddit type service that cannot be manipulated or false flagged then I suggest they support Ferdinand Bardemu’s InBonaFide.
But back to the jailbait issue. Note the phrase ‘sexualised pictures’. What we’re talking about here is ‘jailbait‘. Although certain manginas are most often found boasting of their lack of ability to distinguish between pre-pubescent sexless children and hormone flushed large breasted ‘jailbait’, they seem to have found a way of exploiting the shock value of a ‘preteen’ reddit in this instance. But what I’m talking about here is ‘jailbait’ – clothed pictures of staggeringly attractive sexual beings that according to feminists are ‘sexualised’ and have become defined as child porn. Err, no, you can de-sexualise teenage post-pubescent girls, you can’t ‘sexualise’ them. These pictures might be sexual – any picture of an attractive 15 year old girl in a bikini is sexual to a healthy man – but they are not ‘sexualised’. Continue creating law after law that criminalise normal male sexuality in order to remove even images of such breathtakingly beautiful girls from the sexual market – but stop rationalizing your bitterness and jealousy by pretending that these post-pubescent teenagers are being ‘sexualised’.
When a man tells a young woman to stop dressing in public in a sexual manner, lest it increases the chances that they are sexually assualted, riots quickly ensue, and young slut walkers, most of whom are barely ‘adults’ themselves, go out of their way to exercise their feminist right to dress provocatively.
When women, or indeed, when a male feminist like Adrian Chen, tells 15, 16, 17 year old ‘children’ that any pictures of their even clothed bodies are obscene and pornographic, likely to lead to a lifetime of regret, shame, and bullying, then it’s just another divinely revealed secular truth, and any heretic like me who questions it is a sick bag pedo.
One of my readers posted an interesting link to the case of a 14 year old girl who became an ‘internet sex symbol’ after her Facebook photos were hacked into. The invasion of privacy involved is highly unethical, of course, but what the girl herself has to say about how the matter ‘ruined her life’ is illuminating :
It was a decision that she said ‘has ruined her life’.
‘When you’re 14 you don’t realise that the things you do really do matter at that point,’ she said in an interview on ABC News’ Nightline.
‘No one ever thinks that, ‘yeah, I’m going to take these pictures and it’s going to end up all over the Internet.’ You just do it for yourself.’
She was repeatedly called names and a ‘porn star’ at her high school after the photos spread online, from appearing in porn sites to popping up in advertisements.
Miss Varona thought the unwanted attention would eventually come to an end, but the problem has only worsened, she said.
A recent Google search of ‘Angie Varona’ drew almost 65,000 images.
There are also numerous unauthorised Facebook profiles, Twitter accounts and YouTube channels, all claiming to be Angie — one Facebook fan page has more than 41,000 likes.
‘[People were] telling me that I deserve everything that’s going to come for me, that they’re going to rape me when they see me because I want it and because I ask for it,’ she said.
I would confidently predict that most of the bullying, and likely the threats to kill her, came from her less attractive female peers. Again, this is being used as a feminist rationalisation as to why beautiful teenage girls should not post pictures of themselves in bikinis or revealing poses online – because they will be slut shamed by their peers, or because it might increase the risk of themselves being sexually assaulted or harassed. Yet overweight pug ugly feminist ‘slut walkers’ of 18 and 19 can turn the ‘right to be a slut in public’ into a mass political protest.
I should add that I use the word ‘slut’ in a non-judgemental manner. The male instinct to slut shame, whilst having a sound evolutionary basis, should be outdated so long as fathers have a right to paternity testing and the right not to support a child who isn’t their own. Personally, I think the men who are into slut shaming, whether of teenage girls or women, are scum – particularly the ones who are happy to bang ‘sluts’ themselves given the opportunity. But the nauseating fact is, feminists are only too happy to tap into this unwholesome feature of male sexual psychology when it suits their purpose of de-sexualising teenage girls.
Of course, 14 year olds are a little less mature than 18 or 19 year olds, and to a degree less able to foresee the consequences of their actions. The gap is hardly wide enough to justify the discrepancy, however – the ‘ right to be a slut’. And the same principle applies – if it is society’s fault for slut walkers being unable to express themselves sexually, then why shouldn’t 14 year old post-pubescent females be able to post pictures of themselves online without fear of bullying – something which the thinly disguised child slut shaming of feminists and Adrian Chen actually encourages?
Because ‘pedos’ jack off to such pictures? Aww, a beautiful teen posts sexy pictures of herself online and surprise, surprise, it’s not just 17 year old Justin Bieber look-alikes that click on them when they show up at the top of Google image search. And what harm is done exactly by a ‘dirty old man’ being aroused by a picture of a fertile young female who ticks all the boxes – youthful skin, pert firm breasts etc.? If a young girl is taught to despise older people (men) so much that she is somehow traumatised by the thought that an old lonely wrinkly might be spending a few minutes in bliss just thinking about her perfect body that he can never have outside of his imagination, then that is simply a problem for our not so civilised and progressive society – the first (and last) civilisation in history to turn the hatred of the old into the basis of social morality.
Personally, I’m somewhat pleased that these subreddits were removed – not that I visited them, or ‘researched’ them myself anyway – I’m far too aware of crazy feminist laws to do that. Whether or not they are legal or illegal in the USA, they are now illegal in most of the rest of the world, thanks to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Middle Aged Feminist Hags the Child. Removing such content makes it a little less likely for an ordinary Brit, a Canadian, or an Australian male that their government will have the power to break into their homes at 2 in the morning and seize them as a subhuman pervert. In this regard, the police forces of these countries are the biggest losers in Reddit’s decision.
Of course, as has been pointed out here before, thanks to the sick world of psychotically jealous feminists, pictures of ‘sexualised’ anime characters who look under 18 are considered just as illegal, and just as much defined as child porn, as are pictures of real jailbait teenagers in bikinis. Odd then, that the forum – SomethingAwful.com – which apparently led the campaign to have the jailbait reddits removed as child porn is apparently a hotbed of anime images and videos.
I was also struck by the following post by ‘BoggiDWurms’ on the *site of a professional male feminist, crowing over the decision to close down the ‘child porn’ reddits :
The anime girl certainly looks under 18, and if she was real she’d likely be stoned to death in a jiffy if found walking the streets of Taliban controlled Afghanistan like that.
The other ironic thing about that post and use of video, totally lost on the self-rationalising ugly aging cretins who frequent that site, is that Beethoven – whilst something of an idealistic mangina in his misguided support for the proto-feminist movements of the day (of which his opera ‘Fidelio’ is an example) – was probably an ‘ephebophile’ (if such a category does exist), or in their progressive language – a pedo.
I remember reading a biography of the great composer in which a contemporary is quoted as describing how, as a twenty something, Beethoven would wander around the main square of his hometown Bonn, looking bashful and love stricken at every pretty young teenage girl who caught his eye. It is thought that Beethoven, who never married and who seems to have had a rabid dislike of forming any committed sexual relationship, composed some of his greatest works inspired by the beauty of the upper-class teenage pupils who he was paid to give music lessons to, and who he often and invariably fell in love with – including the Moonlight Sonata, perhaps the most romantic and beautiful piece of of all – being dedicated to a 16 year old girl (remember too that in this period girls began puberty a little later than the present and historical norm). It is also thought that the ‘Elise’ of his famous bagatelle – ‘Für Elise‘ – refers to a Viennese slang word of the time for ‘slutty’ young teenage girls.
Like his near contemporary Schopenhauer, Beethoven would likely have satisfied his raging sexual lusts with the young adolescent serving girls who were the norm in well-to-do European households at the time.
It is somewhat sobering to think that, thanks to feminist laws, in prisons around the world, there are human beings as sensitive and creative as Beethoven being raped and beaten every day as subhuman animals for simply looking at pictures, in the privacy of their own homes, of ‘sexualised’ teenage girls. It is an even more disturbing thought that ‘progressive’ 21st century civilisation, which justifies the naturalness of homosexuality on the basis that some penguins have been observed to be ‘homosexual’, will not even allow a sensible debate as to whether a serious crime against male sexuality, if not humanity itself, is being committed.
Selena Gomez breaks down describing the threats and bullying she gets from other jealous female teenagers – of course, these ugly girls then go on to become purely objective ugly women, who create laws and define paedophilia purely on the basis of the interests of ‘children’, it being purely co-incidental that such laws also raise their own small and diminishing sexual market value. And shouldn’t Selena be more upset and traumatised by the thought that lonely old men might find ‘sexualised’ pictures of her stimulating?
*I never have and never will link to that disgusting site, in doing so giving it page ranking with Google. On that one thread alone, I saw :
1/ feminists declaring that they have ‘no problem’ with minors being prosecuted for uploading sexy pics of each other (notice that 16 year old girls are children in the context of ‘paedophilia’, but simply ‘minors’ when discussing whether feminists can have them prosecuted ‘for their own protection’).
2/ a feminist declaring that ‘they are armed and ready’ for men’s rights supporters. Needless to say, if I approved a comment like that here from a men’s rights supporter….
3/ an aging feminist invoking voodoo science and declaring that men who look at a picture of a 17 year old ‘child’ in a bikini are ‘stealing’ her sexuality – something akin to the primitive beliefs of African tribes who, never having seen a camera before, believed that their souls were being stolen when photographed for the first time. Also, again, something very like the medieval Christian and present day Muslim view of the importance of a teenage daughter’s virginity. Muslim fathers would honour kill their teenage ‘sluts’. Feminists are a little more sophisticated, and impose voodoo victim science on the poor girls.
Spotted on Reddit – the best reply ever to the misguided Men’s Rights supporters who insist that teenage boys are intrinsically abused or damaged by willing sexual encounters with older women (the context is the American woman jailed last week for 30 years for having sex with a 13 year old boy) :
Now, I need to make clear again that the double standard in sentencing, that this particular ruling is an exception that proves the rule, is indeed a disgrace, and rightly a highly prominant men’s rights issue. But let’s never forget that ‘statutory rape’ laws were created by the same self-interested feminists who would stick white feathers into the letterboxes of conscientous objectors and coal miners during the slaughter of WWI, and who cried with indignity at the suggestion that men were doing anything but simply their chivalric duty in allowing women to take the lifeboats, even before children, on board the sinking Titanic.
Equal injustice is no justice. I have little sympathy with this woman jailed for 30 years – her tears of self-pity will certainly be drowned out by the screams of the many more numerous male ‘sexual predators’ being raped up their anal passages, or being beaten to a pulp in their cells. Unlike a man, rape won’t be an acknowledged, if unofficial part of her sentence. She won’t have to spend every day of the next 30 years in constant fear of being beaten or murdered by other prisoners. And prison warders will likely give her sympathy rather than spit in her food as they bring it to her cell.
I have little sympathy for this woman, but these ridiculous sentences for statutory ‘rape’- feminist laws ‘supported’ by feminist cod science (and a large dose of American puritanism), are still a crime against humanity whether it is women or men who suffer from them. Unfortunately, women are unlikely to stop supporting these laws until women are made to suffer from them just as much as men (although I doubt even this will ever be enough – women, especially feminists, seem impervious to the suffering of other women, so long as their own sexual interests are furthered or maintained. Furthermore, these feminist laws, especially as they increasingly become extended to cover young adult women (see below), will always target men and the male love of youth, beauty, and fertility, than they ever will target the average woman).
Which brings me to some further disturbing thoughts I’ve had on the bill proposing to outlaw paying for sex with 18- 21 year olds in the UK. This will likely not just cover paying for prostitutes, but also for things like webcam services, adult dating services, and even paying for a membership to a porn site that uses 18-20 year old models (in other words virtually all porn sites – even MILF/Cougar sites often have 20 year old male actors and regularly have scenarios where the MILF seduces a much younger male and/or female). In fact, it will mean that the minimum age for pornography will be 21 in the UK if the bill is passed. The proposed bill makes pointed reference to ‘paying for sex and all related services‘.
This will be a further example of how these crazy laws are indeed crimes against humanity in a borderless online world, as they increasingly veer from the respective laws on these matters in America (protected to some extent as it is by a constitution that guarantees free speech and expression), and which is the home of the global entertainment industry – including porn. As it is, a European or Australian breaks ridiculous child porn laws every time he watches a YouTube video of a sexy girl dancing, or even a jailbait Miley Cyrus MTV video – all quite legal in the US. Soon, lucky Brits might find they could be at risk of prosecution if they don’t unsubscribe to any American (or indeed European) adult related websites that feature persons under the age of 21. Can the last man to leave the UK please remember to turn the lights out (and leave the toilet seats up)?
The government has insisted it is a “coincidence” that it bought a lot more tickets for Olympic beach volleyball than it did for the athletics.
Former Labour sports minister Gerry Sutcliffe asked if it was just an “oddity” that 410 volleyball tickets were bought at a cost of £26,000.
Civil servant Jonathan Stephens said tickets for staff were largely for weekend events and cost up to £90 each.
The event which met those requirements “turns out to be volleyball”, he said
Leave the poor f*****s alone. It must be hard work passing law after law criminalising male sexuality in order to win the vagina vote necessary to remain in office. Even political manginas need to have a good honest perv now and again.
Sounds like these government ministers might benefit from the following anti-feminist tip of the week :
The BBC reportsthat a key government body has advised that drug mules (women) are to be treated more leniently in the courts to drug ‘gangs and criminals’ (men).
People who smuggle drugs will face more lenient sentences if they have been exploited, under new guidelines.
The change in approach on “drug mules” forms part of new comprehensive rules on drugs offences from the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.
The council said judges should distinguish between those who have been exploited by gangs and criminals heavily involved in the drugs trade.
But it said large-scale drugs producers should expect longer jail terms.
The council’s role is to provide judges and magistrates with a set of broad guidelines so that sentencing is more consistent across England and Wales.
Last year the council carried out research into 12 women convicted of drug mule offences, all of whom received sentences of between 15 months and 15 years.
The majority of the women said they did not know that they had been carrying drugs when they arrived in the UK, although some admitted being suspicious. In most cases they had carried the drugs for someone they trusted or feared what would happen if they did not do so.
This fits in with the infamous advice that another advisory body, the Woman’s Task Force, gave to the government last year – that no woman should go to prison.
Like any libertarian, I agree entirely with Sir Richard, as I’m sure most of you do. I can honestly say that, for a variety of reasons, I have no interest in drugs myself, and have never taken illegal drugs. But isn’t it striking that it is perfectly acceptable to express opinions on the unfairness of existing drug laws, and little or no suspicion is cast on your personal likelihood of taking illegal drugs, and yet it is assumed that if a man calls into question laws on, for example, child porn, or the age of consent, then he must have a personal vested interest in doing so – even though such ludicrously defined feminist child porn laws criminalise far more people than do drug laws?
To dear American readers – in Europe and in most countries feminists have legally defined a man as a paedophile and a child porn downloader for merely once clicking on a YouTube video of a 17 year old dancing ‘sexily’ in her room. It is no excuse even if you did so because you were simply watching a video of Lady Gaga, and you happened to click on the thumbnail of a 17 year old imitating the dance that appeared in the sidebar (related videos), not knowing that she was under 18. In fact, the thumbnail itself might be enough for you to be thrown in jail. And the girl doesn’t even have to be 17 – she simply has to look under 18 (to a middle-aged jealous feminist hag judge). And simply viewing that one video (or thumbnail) will soon be enough to get you a minimum 1 year sentence under recently passed EUSSR legislation. How can anyone who calls themselves libertarian – wait a moment, scratch that. How can anyone who isn’t a f****g Nazi, NOT object to the state having that power over its citizens (men) especially a men’s rights activist?