‘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.

Are All Feminists Rapists? A Thought Experiment

I believe that our primary goal as a men’s rights movement that defends male sexuality should be to seek the prosecution of leading feminists for attempted rape.

Last night I was threatened with death by several women via Twitter, for pointing out that 15 year old Russian Yulia Lipnitskaya is one of the most beautiful and graceful females on Earth – something undeniably demonstrated by the global media adultation she has been subjected to during the Sochi Olympics.  Those same women, who would like me murdered for admitting this obvious fact, recently tweeted their desire to ‘permanently look like a 14 year old Brooke Shields’.

14-forever

How much more obvious does it have to be that feminist sex hysteria, and the constant criminalization and shaming of male sexuality, is the attempt to further the sexual opportunities of women?  Feminists would like to look like 15 year old girls, but if they can’t do that (which they can’t) the next best thing is to shame and even murder any man who dares to admit that finding 15 year old girls attractive is normal.

Attempting to co-erce another human being into sex is attempted rape under UK Law and under most sensible definitions, both legal and linguistic. This is what feminists are doing, and this is why they are rapists – or would be rapists.

However, one of my readers, the legendary tactical genius and stalwart of the men’s rights movement – Human Stupidity – has voiced his concern that he and most people do not, and cannot, ‘get’ the idea that feminists are rapists.  So I thought I’d try to illustrate my case through an analogy.  I’m sure there are better analogies out there, and perhaps my readers can suggest others, but this will do for now, that came off the top of my head as I read Mr Stupidity’s comment.  Here is my analogy and thought experiment – please take the time to read through it once or twice :

Imagine a barman who spikes every alcoholic drink at the nightclub he is working in with a drug that makes most women who consume it develop a paranoid delusion that sex with anyone but a barman is utterly perverted.  Further, the drug makes the women believe that sex with anyone but a barman will likely be punished with being brutally beaten and anally raped in prison as a subhuman pervert.  Part of the paranoid delusion is the belief that even woman who do not have sex, barmen or no barmen, are treated by society as probable perverts. Women who have not slept with barmen have been accused of being perverts by mobs, and burnt alive by them – or at least the women are made to believe this by the drug. Having sex with barmen, however, is ‘normal’.

As a result, despite the fact that there are far more attractive men in the nightclub, women are thus very keen indeed to have sex with barmen, and unsurprisingly, the barman gets regular sex with female clubbers.

Now imagine that for this drug to work most effectively, it has to be taken by many different women, many times, as its incredible effects are achieved partly by mass hysteria – other women whose drinks have been spiked developing similar delusions which then re-inforce those of other women. Therefore, the barmen are operating something like a ‘sexual trade union’, or as some others might describe it, a ‘cock cartel’. They are all in on this, all over the country – even globally – because they intuitively know that they must all act collectively and regularly spike the drinks of the women they serve with the drug for it to work on each individual woman and for each barman to improve his sexual opportunities.

The drug has a powerful effect on most women, but still the barmen are to some extent playing a numbers game. It’s not a case of spiking one individual woman’s drink and then knowing that she will have sex with him as a result. They have to spike the drinks of thousands of women, and further, to rely upon other barmen around the world spiking the drinks of thousands and millions of other women. And it is important to note that even then they don’t know which woman will ultimately have sex with them. In fact, any woman who does have sex with any individual barman might have had their drink spiked by a different barman. It might even be the case that the woman would have had sex with the barman even if her drink hadn’t been spiked. It is virtually impossible to prove in each instance of sex. We can only say that the barmen deliberately spiked the drinks of thousands of women in order to collectively improve their opportunities for sex by instilling a fear of not having sex with barmen into the minds of women, as well as a false sense of ‘normal’ and ‘perverted’ sexual attraction.

Now are the barmen rapists? I would say obviously they are, and they would be treated as such under most legal rape definitions in most countries, regardless of feminist ‘re-definitions’.

And you can be sure that every feminist on Earth would not hesitate to call them rapists and demand their imprisonment.

Especially if their lives depended upon it.

Definately not a 14 year old Brooke Shields.
Definately not a 14 year old Brooke Shields.
Brain bleach - 14 year old Brooke Shields
Brain bleach – 14 year old Brooke Shields

 

Ten Points/Memes On The Age of Consent

Here are 10 key points/memes to memorize and spread as far and widely as possible regarding the age of consent, and in particular, the validity of discussion of the age of consent, both within and outside the men’s rights movement :

1 / If the discussion of sex laws had always been taboo/forbidden, then homosexuality would still be illegal. Homosexuality is illegal in many countries, and being criminalized in several others. If we disallow discussion of (changing) sex laws in the West, we will be in a poor position to prevent similar attempts to surpress even discussion of the rights of homosexuals in countries where homosexuality is illegal. We criticise Russia for making it illegal to ‘promote’ homosexuality to children, yet those same ‘liberal’ progressives want to make it illegal to ‘promote’ (i.e discuss rationally) lowering the age of consent or to criticise any laws ostensibly protecting children. If discussing ‘child protection’ laws had always been off limits, Alan Turing would still be considered a child abusing pervert (he had illegal sex with a boy under the age of majority at the time).

2(and relating to 1)/ The age of consent in the UK was set at 16 (raised from 12/13) in a backward Victorian criminal amendment act (1885) that also criminalized homosexuality, punishable by death. The same law that Alan Turing was prosecuted under. Ironically, it is now effectively taboo to criticise one half of that backward 1885 bill (the age of consent of 16) and yet taboo, and even illegal, to support the other half of that same backward Victorian bill (the criminalization of homosexuality).

3/ The age of consent was set at 16 by puritanical feminists (suffragettes) in the UK, and that same bill (and age of 16) was a model for similar rises in the age of consent in the USA and elsewhere (also lobbied for by feminists/suffragettes). This is an important point to stress within the context of men’s rights.

4/ The social situation in the UK when the age of consent was raised to 16 was very different to today, and in fact, the ostensible justifications for raising the age of consent from 12/13 to 16 at the time do not even remotely apply in today’s world. For example, girls began puberty at around 16/17 in the Victorian era, whereas the average today is between 9 and 10. In the Victorian era, pre-marital sex was still heavily frowned upon, and the average age of marriage was significantly lower than today, so the the age of consent of 16 was effectively an attempt by puritanical feminists to criminalize pre-marital sex. Teenagers today are better educated (arguably) and far more sexually knowledgable. In 1885, only a small percentage of the population had the vote, whereas today the trend is to give 16 year old boys and girls the vote. There was little or no effective contraception, abortion was illegal and dangerous, there was no welfare state or safety net for girls who got pregnant and abandoned, no mandatory child support payments from absent fathers. Furthermore, the age of consent was raised in the midst of a hysterical moral panic involving ‘white slavery’ – the supposed epidemic of children being bought and sold as sex slaves in London. This moral panic has largely been debunked as merely an effort to sell Victorian tabloid newspapers.

5 (and relating to 4)/ The historical and evolutionary reasons for protecting the virginity of young girls no longer apply. Not only is virginity no longer prized while ‘sluthood’ is officially championed, the reasons stated above (contraception, abortion etc) have both loosened sex from reproduction and reduced the potential harm to the girl resulting from the likelihood of pregnancy.

6/ As the age of consent will always be arbitary, unless defined by a biological marker (such as most obviously the onset of puberty), it is imperative that rational discussion on where the line is set should be allowed. If it is so obvious that a 15 year old, one year below the line, cannot possibly consent to sex, to make even discussion of the question immoral or illegal, then the age of consent should be significantly higher than 15. But then one must agree that questioning of the higher end of the new age of consent must be valid, otherwise one would have to hold that the age of consent should be raised again…ad absurdum. In other words, one cannot hold that the current age of consent is manifestly and unquestionably right without slipping into absurdity.

7/ The age of consent is not some neutral ‘speed limit’. The labelling of young people (or anyone) as ‘victims’ is itself harmful and damaging to them. Only rational discussion can determine whether the harm caused is justified by preventing or correcting even greater harm. Those who wish to make discussion of the age of consent/child abuse laws illegal, are thus themselves child abusers damaging children with no rational justification.

8/ To suggest that those who argue for a lower age of consent are ‘self-rationalizing paedophiles’ is not only an ad hominen argument, it is also an absurdity. Surely it is the people who want rational discussion of a law forbidden who are ‘self-rationalizing’, and suffering from ‘cognitive distortions’, rather than those who want open, fair, and rational discussion based upon logic, science, and evidence? It also pre-supposes falsely that only one side in the debate (those arguing in favour of a lower age of consent) have ‘an interest’ in achieving their aim, and ignores the obvious fact that those arguing for a higher age of consent (invariably hags and paedocrites) certainly have a selfish interest in doing so. Furthermore, not only does it rely on the feminist lie that males attracted to teenage girls are ‘paedophiles’, it would also follow that homosexuals could not objectively think or reason about the ethics of homosexuality, including in countries in which homosexuals are persecuted.

9/ To remain silent on these issues is far more suspicious than to speak out on them, especially in relation to men’s rights activism. The persecution of elderly celebrities currently taking place in the UK, for example, is so obviously a men’s rights issue if anything is, that it would be suspicious to remain silent on it rather than speak out against it. These are feminist laws that result in the persecution of thousands of men, and more pertinantly, this persecution and witch hunting is becoming worse and more hysterical with every passing year. History may judge those of us who fail to speak out.

10/ Feminist age of consent and ‘paedophile’ laws, forever widening in their scope and definition, are an attack on normal male sexuality. It is the desire to eliminate sexual competition, or at least provide an outlet for the jealousy and sexual bitterness of older women, as well as persecute and demonize ordinary male sexuality and to shame the natural male preference for younger fertile females. Men are hard wired to find adolescent girls sexually attractive, and not only does this demonstrate the evilness of the feminist inflation and exploitation of the term ‘paedophile’, it also highlights the manifest absurdity of believing that any intrinsic harm could result from consensual sex with an adolescent (if it did, none of us would be here today).