Bit late with this re-blog but reader Alan wanted an article on Adam Johnson (an England international footballer jailed for 6 years for kissing and fingering a 15 year old girl), and Steve Moxon’s is better than any I could write.
Adam Johnson has done absolutely NOTHING wrong. He was vigorously pursued by a female who was several years beyond the age of puberty, who knew perfectly well what she was doing, and was well equipped (as evolution has equipped all girls) to deal with it. In most other countries she would have been over any ‘age of consent’. She facilitated and very willingly engaged in not sex but merely a mild sexual fumbling. The girl chalked this up as a sexual feather in her cap that she used to get her a lot of brownie points within her peer group. Enter the police, CPS and judiciary, and suddenly the girl was put in the position of inadvertent anatagonist to a famous footballer. As is so often the case, the queen bee and wannabes of her peer group seem to have decided she needed to be brought down a peg or two, and turned on her to invert her female prestige to ‘slut’ status, and consequently, with the collusion of the police and the CPS, she backtracked to try to make out that a little sexual fumbling with a A* male she found supremely attractive, somehow was ‘damaging’ to her and even non-consensual. It was, in no respect whatsoever, either. She suffered zero damage of any kind from Adam Johnson. Any damage — and clearly there was damage to her — was from the peer group she’d been so keen to impress and, most particularly, by the police, the CPS and the judiciary.
It is a 100% travesty that there was any charge against this man, let alone a trial, never mind a conviction and criminal injuries compensation paid to not the party who was the victim here. The victim was Adam Johnson. Everyone else involved were the perpetrators in this case.
With the average age of female puberty having fallen since Victorian times from 17 to ten, yet the legal ‘age of consent’ has remained at 16, then the law is an abomination and will have to be changed. It is scientifically illiterate to claim that a 15-year-old is a child. Not only have her bodily changes complete, but mental changes ensue actually before physical ones, so the claim of sexual immaturity is completely false. And why is the ‘age of consent’ 16 when the age of criminal responsibility is just ten? The answer: age ten is rationally deemed to be the end of childhood per se, whereas the additional six years beyond age ten represents deep-seated anti-male prejudice and sexual prudery.
We live in not neo-Victorian so much as uber-Victorian lunatic times where all men are considered far game to punish severely simply for having male sexuality. It is an atrocious disgrace, and the extreme hate-mongering ideology behind it is not long for this world
See also :
http://stevemoxon.blogspot.co.uk/ (not sure how somebody as intelligent as Steve Moxon can’t work out how to stop ‘imposters’ posting spam on his blog.)
“The BBC documentary ‘The Ascent of Woman: 1. Civilisation’ broadcast last night is perhaps the very worst nonsense ever put out as a documentary.
Most of the counter-factual shibboleths of extreme-feminist ideology were aired as truth, with not a single line of the script standing up to even cursory scrutiny.
Just to pick out a few of the most glaring absurdities, even just remembering from last night’s broadcast, without viewing again to make notes …..
* The veil is not emblematic of ‘patriarchy’ [sic]. It is a female intra-sexual phenomenon: a result of female-female competition for pair-bond partners. Inasmuch as there is male involvement it is at the behest of women who wish to project their spheres of interest and influence into the civic world of male-male competition, to get males to work for them as reinforcing agents.
* There is no such thing as ‘patriarchy’ [sic] – or ‘matriarchy’ [sic]. These are terns invented by cultural anthropologists both ignorant of the biological basis of social system and wishing to both explicitly and implicitly impose an ideological view. The sexes invariably are in tandem, so it makes no sense to view one sex or the other as being somehow in control. There is no such thing as a dominance interaction that is other than same-sex: dominance is never cross-sex. [The supposed ‘female dominance in species such as the ring-tailed lemur is in fact male deference to provide female feeding priority.]
* The sex of a deity says nothing at all about the ‘sexual politics’ [sic] of a culture. All cultures had both male and female deities, with female ‘fertility’ and male ‘sun’ deities, with male sacrificial supposed half-human / half-deity ‘go-between’ figures who sacrificed themselves to the ‘fertility’ goddess.
* ‘Civilisation’ did not begin at some arbitrary point in time, often mistakenly thought to be on the Tigris-Euphrates basin. Research reveals an ever further recession into the past, and no ‘quantum-jump’ of some former ‘non-civilised’ sociality into ‘civilisation’.
* Hierarchy in no sense recently emerged: hierarchy is inherent in and the very basis of male sociality in all cultures at all points in history and prehistory, and in all primates, mammals generally, and going back phylogenetically to before even the evolution of insects. Even the most seemingly ‘egalitarian’ hunter-gatherer / forager society features male hierarchy. It does not require resource disparities. On the very contrary, the surplus provided by farming in allowing a wider basis of signalling male mate-value, actually enhances egalitarianism in its wider sense – though there s no significant ‘flattening’ of hierarchy; this being impossible, given that the basis of distinguishing rank would simply shift to other criteria of genetic quality.
* An archaeological dig in no way can lead to any conclusion as to the ‘sexual politics’ [sic] of the people whose historical site is being investigated. Artefacts unearthed can be subject to wild speculation but are no basis whatsoever as evidence. On the very contrary, the scant finds in a dig are pegs for contemporary ideological bias.”