It appears to be a spin off of the sex trafficking panic itself, and follows the same tried and tested pattern of feminist lobbying based upon primal fear mongering. It employs a selection of harrowing anecdotes, together with incredible statistics seemingly plucked straight out of the air.  Lobbying then results in quickly passed anti-sex laws that just so happen to be supportive of the sexual needs and interests of the lobbier.  What is most interesting in this particular sex panic, is that whilst including all the usual suspects – trafficking, child abuse, the internet, another contemporary ingrediant is thrown into the witches brew.  ‘Islamaphobia’.  Hence the eager support of Geert Wilders and his now very influential populist parliamentary party.

Although it tends to be only expressed openly in right wing blogs, the underlying tacit assumption behind the ‘lover boy’ panic is that this is about muslim ‘paedos’ forcing their underage girlfriends into becoming prostitutes.  In the Netherlands, the figure of 5,000 is being bandied about.  Notice how the figures quoted by sexual trade union lobbyists regarding numbers of alleged victims is always nice and round -  5,000.  Not 3,843 or even 5,200, but 5,000.  Just as the number of women who were going to be trafficked into the world cup was a nice, tidy, and eminently quotable, 100,000. 

Currently, I can only spend a few hours a week devoted to this blog and to anti-feminist work.  Sadly, I am not in a position to deliver a researched critique into this figure or the truth or otherwise of the lover boy syndrome.  All I know is that laws that harm men (and that also restrict the freedom of young women and girls) should be based upon rigerous study, investigation, logic and argument.  Instead, it seems that a particular Dutch woman – Anita De Witt, has ignited this panic with a few anecdotal reports of alleged victims, set up a lobbying group, and within months convinced the Dutch government that a new law targeting men, ‘protecting the kiddies’ (which now includes 20 year old women), as well as having undertones of ‘stopping the Islamification of Europe’, is a sure fire vote winner.

Anita De Witt

But just one look at the homepage of her quickly formed lobbying group – StopLoverBoysNu, leads me to conclude that it most probably is the usual load of pants involving feminist self-rationalisations for stopping younger females from taking advantage of their own youth and beauty to earn money.

Just take a look at the following ‘ways to spot a victim’ that appear on her campaign group’s front page and tell me that these don’t apply to 90% of girls the world over at some point of their adolescence. Psychologists and health professionals normally refer to them as the typical symptoms of undergoing puberty in the 21st century, rather than ‘probable victims of lover boys’. In which case, if we lived in a civilised, non gynocratic white knight society, women like Anita De Witt would be locked securely away in asylums, or at least prosecuted for unfounded hate speech against men (and young women), and/or possibly even attempted rape  :

A sudden obsession with sexs and deviant standards.

A sudden interest for particular boys or older boys/men, lots of new contacts

Extra social behaviour ( they don’t want you to find out).

Fight with the people who she loves the most (family, friends etc.).

Problems at home.

Changes emotions very quickly, doesn’t see how situations can change.

Tired and loses weight (has to work at night)

Wears different clothes and make up, often very clean and challenging.

Psychosomatic complaints.

Selfinfliction.

Low self asteam, no realistic self image.

Easy to influence, can’t or don’t dare to indicate borders.

Gets calls all the time.

Sometimes have multiple cellphones, takes them with her all the time(even in the shower and to bed).

Taken from en to school by someone with a car or motorbike.

Depressive.

Starts smoking, or smoke more.

Drink, smoke weed or other drugs, doesn’t eat well.

Lot’s of money or expensive things(via loverboy or lovergirl)

Going out in extreem ways(most of the time it’s her work place).

Hangs out a lot, there are friends that fill up the emptyspot at home.

Extremely happy (cover up what’s really going on).

Withdraw a lot, sudden crying fits, rage (agression).

Exaggerated stories, acting tough, seeks attention that way.

Behaves different at other places (different worlds)

Irregular schoolvisits, got other things to do, too tired etc.

‘Walkaway-behavior’

Avoid subjects like prostitution.

Seems like having no identity

Even being ‘extremely happy’ is a definite sign that your blonde 13 year old daughter is being forced to have anal sex with strangers for 20 euros a time by gangs of muslim paedos.  It must be good to live in a nation as progressive and generally fucked up as the Netherlands. A decade ago the most liberal society on Earth, now caught up in the twin anti-enlightenment nightmares of feminism and Islamification… and the inevitable muddied and retarded white knight far right reactionary politics. I can only attribute the results of the survey that Dutch people are supposedly the most content in the world to the fact that they are probably all smoking the weed.  That Dutch men are fleeing their country on a scale that dwarfs even the white flight of the Brits, is a far more comprehensible reality.

Craig’s List Stops ‘Adult Service’ Ads

The online marketplace Craigslist has closed the controversial “adult services” listing in the US.

The company has not said why it took the decision, but it has faced an ongoing barrage of criticism from attorneys general and advocacy groups.

They have claimed the listing was a virtual tool for pimps and prostitutes.

Another notable victory for the feminist and American conservative closet pederast alliance.

SITE UPDATES

Restored photograph and added useful links and resources to the bottom of my key article ‘The Sexual Trade Union’. (If you have any links or resources yourself to share, please leave them in the comment section below the article).

Of course, this event has far wider implications than merely the age and the beauty of the prostitutes gazing out from the windows of the Amsterdam red light district.  Once again, look behind the visage, and feminist laws such as this reveal the entire strategy and truely ugly selfish motivation of the sexual trade union.  Feminists in the Netherlands could just as easily make an outright ban on prostitution as raise the minimum age to 21.  But the attraction of a move like this lies not only in making paying for sex with prostitutes less tempting to men (because young and nubile sex workers are forbidden) -  the greater motive is in setting the bar ever higher in what is acceptable for older women to control the sexuality of younger females, and to rule those younger women out of  bounds as sexual objects for men.

As often detailed on this site, little more than a century ago the age of consent in most countries was 12 or 13.  Contrary to what some conservative anti-feminists have written recently, pre-marital sex with ‘minors’ was not generally forbidden as such, although out of wedlock pregnancy was.  In fact, at this time there were estimated to be over 100,000 prostitutes in London alone, with probably the majority of them being under 18.  Feminism originated in (successful) campaigns against child prostitution.  Laws were passed that were lobbied for almost entirely by feminists (and fought against by anti-feminists, who at that time still had balls) decades before those same feminists had won the right to vote, or even in some cases, even called for the right to the vote.

Nobody could argue against laws preventing 12 year old girls hanging around street corners offering themselves for sex.  But 100 years ago, the deceitful modus operandi of the trade union was the same as it is today.  Those early feminists and suffragettes, such as Emmeline Pankhurst, could have lobbied for simple laws prohibiting under 16s from engaging in prostitution.  Instead, they successfully lobbied for a rise in the age of consent itself.  Again, despite the erroneous historical readings of 19th century social history by certain members of the men’s rights community, there was little support for the idea at the time (outside of feminist self-rationalisations) that 14 or 15 year old girls could not consent to sex.  The justification used by feminists was that an age of consent set at 16 would prevent child prostitution. 

Whether or not it was foreseen at the time (in the UK and USA) that such laws would later prosecute millions of men for having consensual sex with teenage girls, the magical age of 16 as the age of full sexual responsibility for girls was achieved, even in European countries such as Germany and Italy in which the age of consent itself remained lower (but in which feminists likewise had set certain sexual limits relating to the age of 16).

Fast foward to the last decades of the 20th century and the feminist sexual trade union successfully defined 18 as the limit for both prostitution and pornography, enshrined in international treaties that included the United Nations charter of ‘children’s rights’.   They achieved this with the assistance of America’s unique conception of a ‘minor’ (what a disgusting and revealing term) being somebody under 18 (Highwayman made an interesting comment about California’s high age of consent perhaps being specifically responsible for the propagation of this meme, for example through the medium of Hollywood).

Thus, even though the age of consent is still only 18 in a small number of American states and an even smaller handful of backward Islamic nations, the idea has spread around the entire world that there is something ‘questionable’ about having sex with a 16 or 17 year old, even in countries such as Spain and Argentina, free until very recently from the scourge of feminism, and where the age of consent is still 13.  In fact, given the merging of the virtual with the real worlds, there now is a very real danger everywhere in having a sexual relationship with a girl over the age of consent but under 18.  Every country in the world apart from Somalia and the USA has signed the UN charter on children’s rights which defines child pornography as any sexual representation of a ‘minor’ (the USA lobbied for the anti-sex elements of the children’s rights charter, but then refused to sign up to it because it would have also forced them to stop putting 16 year old black kids on to death row).  Therefore it is now still legal to have sex with a 13 year old girl in Spain (if you can avoid being lynched), but if you happened to text her 17 year old sister in any way describing the act, you could be prosecuted for creating child porn. 

The ‘virtual child pornography’ elements of the UN children’s rights charter were an attempt to fuzzy the border between the age of 18 and beyond, ‘childhood’ and adulthood.  But here at least was the idea that the pornographic model had to look under 18.  With this new prostitution law in the Netherlands, the common perception will quickly gain ground that even those aged 18 -21 are now unable fully to consent to sex, and even non-paid for sex with 20 year old women will soon become tainted with connotations of ‘paedophilia’ and ‘child abuse’.

Other countries will no doubt be quick to adopt this law – to bring their ‘child protection’ guidelines up to date with the Netherlands (in fact, it is amazing to consider, and a testament to the power of 3rd wave feminists and their sex abuse industry, that less than a decade ago, the age of consent itself in Holland was only 12).

Feminist shaming language will ensure that other countries will be quick to follow.  An example of this is playing out right now in Switzerland, one of the few places left in which 16 year olds can work as prostitutes.  16 year olds who are perhaps less than 13 months away from being able to serve as cannon fodder, and who in neighbouring Austria are deemed to be intelligent and experienced enough to be able to vote in general elections.

A chain of catch-up is established.  Soon most countries in the EU will have prostitution limits set at 21.  This will then be extended to pornography, and to ’relationships in which authority is involved’ i.e. teacher/student relationships at which the cut off point is presently 18.  Then, finally, the age of consent itself will be revised upwards to 21.  Countries slow to adopt the new consensus will be shamed as ‘kiddy abuse capitals’, and hysteria regarding fears of ‘paedophile sex tourism’ will be whipped up to rouse the mob into forcing their governments to sign up.

And then…well, you can see it coming now can’t you?  A ‘progressive nation’ will revise the minimum age for prostitution and/or pornography upwards to 25..the age of consent and extension of the definition of paedophilia will eventually follow..and the feminists and the ‘men’s rights supporters’ who secretly (or not) wish to have pre-marital sex criminilized will finally have gotten their wish.

Let’s just hope there will still be anti-feminists who can hear the screams of the millions of men being raped and beaten in prison as a result of these laws…men with no other voice to shout against the feminist sexual trade union.

Is Reddit Men’s Rights Getting Better? 

I’ve been a harsh critic of reddit.com/r/mensrights in the past, but lately there does seem to be more genuine men’s rights supporters standing their ground in the comments section over there.  I’ve just returned from my summer hols (apologies for lack of updates and slow comment moderation), but whilst I had a quick scan of Reddit, I came across possibly the best comment I have ever read there.  It was in reply to a redditor’s post asking what percentage of sex offenders were genuine perverts, and what percentage where there for urinating against the wall of a nightclub  :

also a lot of the sex offender terminology is an attempt to demonize the sexuality of men. terms like “predator” should really be applied to gold diggers, but they are reserved specifically for male sexuality by and large. since men are the biological pursuers of women, we can always be demonized as “predators” and “perverts” when in reality, it’s just a natural response to seeing a half naked girl. yet this feminist society shames male sexuality by telling us we are perverted for looking at huge half-covered, surgically enhanced tits. those tits obviously aren’t made bigger for breast feeding. they are made so that males WILL look.

women are really trying to have their cake and eat it too at the expense of men. on every facet women want to be equal to men while ignoring all the responsibility that men have to bear… even in sex offender cases where the woman is a female, the story is portrayed as something entirely innocent and benign, unlike the exact same situation where the genders are reversed. yes, even where sex is concerned, men must bear all the shame and all the responsibility. no longer are we allowed to call women sluts. no longer are we allowed to blame scantily clad women when they get raped. everything is the fault of men. men are bad. women are good. water is wet. case closed.

men need to start learning to say FUCK YOU to feminism. they need to start getting their balls back and learning to say NO to the entitlement mindset of today’s women raised under feminism’s permissive and abusive system. otherwise, men will forever fight a losing battle of trying to justify their natural sexual urges to women.

(rollinon

I’ve changed my mind about Reddit Men’s Rights.  I think that rather than ignoring it or trying to weaken it, the best policy of the (genuine) men’s rights movement would be to submit as many relevant articles and posts as possible, at the same time as engaging in upvoting genuine articles and downvoting those submitted by feminists or closet mangina idiot MRAs.

A ‘man of 21 with learning disabilities has been granted taxpayers’ money to fly to Amsterdam and have sex with a prostitute.

His social worker says sex is a ‘human right’ for the unnamed individual – described as a frustrated virgin.

His trip to a brothel in the Dutch capital’s red light district next month is being funded through a £520million scheme introduced by the last government to empower those with disabilities. 

They are given a personal budget and can choose what services this is spent on.

Source : Councils pay for disabled to have sex with prostitutes

Good!  This is the most heartwarming story I’ve read in  a long time, save for the predictable outrage from the sexual trade union’s conservative mouth piece – the Daily Mail.

I spoke in my last post about the effects of the free sexual market in producing grotesquely varied outcomes in terms of ‘winners and losers’.  Feminism, and the overturning of ‘patriarchy’, has been the response of the mass of unattractive female losers.  The ‘Mystery Method’ and Game has been the response of male ‘losers’ (high IQ white betas).

In his novels, the French writer Michel Houellebecq discusses various solutions to the unfair outcomes produced by the free sexual market.  In Platform, an economic solution is proposed, consisting of a heretical defence of western sexual tourism to Asia.  Why shouldn’t wealthy, but obese or old westerners, trade their own sought after goods with the poor, yet sexually attractive members of Asian societies?  In the earlier and more popular Atomised, a more radical, femi-nazi type solution is presented – the abolition of sexual desire altogether, brought about through genetic intervention.  Even more inflammatory, he playfully suggests at times that teenage girls should ‘justify their spoilt existance’ by being encouraged to trade their sexual beauty for the gifts of the older men whose taxes already support their extended adolescent lifestyles.

Now, I wish to make clear I am speaking as an ‘anti-feminist’ and all round agent provocateur, rather than as a ‘men’s rights supporter’. But I agree wholeheartedly that the state should have no more or less right to redress the imbalances of a free sexual market than it does presently to correct those of the economic free market.

Why shouldn’t those with beauty and youth be encouraged to enter into mutually advantageous relationships with the less attractive, but wealthier (an example of this is ‘compensation dating’ in Japan)?  After a year of working 40 hour weeks, I’m now earning close to $2,000 a week.  Why should my hard earned work go towards supporting the family of 5 on welfare down the road through the taxes that I pay, and yet if I offered to take the 17 year old daughter out to an expensive dinner, with an understanding that my sexual needs would be catered for afterwards, I would face prosecution as a sex offender (payment for sex with a minor – even though above the age of consent)?

Of course, as I have always argued, the law that would prosecute me is itself a state attempt at redressing the imbalances produced by the free sexual market. But it is one that ONLY addresses the sexual disadvantages of older, unattractive women.  Because I cannot use my modest wealth to ‘buy’ sexual favours from the young and attractive, I am more likely to end up in a relationship with an older, unattractive woman who will herself profit from my income.

The actions of those English councils might appear to indicate the birth of a more enlightened and caring sexual age.  But the disabled young men with learning difficulties are actually being put at risk of being prosecuted for ‘paying for sex’ if it turns out that those Amsterdam prostitutes were trafficked (or more likely if they claim to have been trafficked to avoid deportation as illegal immigrants). 

This world, created by the feminists and their allies, both conservative and cultural marxist, is full of Orwellian contradictions.  We hold the highest value to be the reduction of human misery and inequality.  Few object to disabled people having financial compensation, privilages, and other support from the state, even the right to ‘compete’ at Olympic Games.  Yet the idea that sex is a human right, rather than something that must be arduously won in the free sexual jungle, is something that strikes most as absurd.  Even the feminists have to pretend that their sexual trade union laws are attempts to save ‘victims’ rather than honestly admitting that they are nothing more than attempts to preserve the sexual ‘rights’ of older, unattractive women in that cruel and ruthless sexual market.

Michel Houellebecq points out the contradictions inherent in a social democratic society where sex has become a commoddity.  In such a world, we ought to encourage classes of 16 year old schoolgirls to visit retirement homes and to give the lonely old men there one last blowjob before the dying of the light.  In my view, such a world would be fairer, more beautiful, and definitely more consistent than our present one.

Generally, we are getting students who are seriously vulnerable to the predations of women. Like a dog who chases a car down the street and then doesn’t know what to do when it catches up, like the fool who grabs a tiger by the tail, we in the seduction community are teaching guys to walk into a trap. What trap?

• False paternity claims and ensuing child support that will cripple them financially
• Emotional abuse from passive aggressive bitches who try to destroy your self esteem and your faith in humanity
• STDs, some of which can ruin your fertility or harm your future wife
• False rape claims that will see your reputation ruined, your career ended, and likely a long stint in jail just because some whore gets buyers remorse

Now I’m not going into the topic of whether the PUA life is a shallow one. That’s an oversold meme and I care little for it. I’m talking about this:

By encouraging naïve men to sleep with many women, we are exposing them to risks they don’t even know exist.

Like most in the MRM, I have an ambivalent attitude towards the PUA community.  Some argue that it gives men control, others that it makes you a slave to pussy.  At least this PUA guru is aware of the risks involved.

In brief, my politically incorrect view of ‘the Game’ is as follows :  The pick-up-artist community originated in multi-cultural centers such as Toronto as a response to the inability of white geeks, earning up-to 6 figure salaries, to compete with urban black men and other ‘naturals’ in the free sexual market. This ’extension of the domain of the struggle’ constitutes the underlying theme of all of Michel Houellebecq’s novels. The economic jungle has extended into the private realm, yet with a different set of rules, a different set of winners and losers, and with no equivalent to taxation or a welfare safety net to reduce the worst discrepancies in outcome.  At least for men.  Older, unattractive women, the female losers in the free sexual market, have of course organised themselves through feminism into a highly effective sexual trade union that is making it increasingly dangerous or illegal for men to pursue young females. At the same time as allowing women themselves to easily cuckold their husbands and spend their massive divorce payouts in hunting for big bamboo, in nightclubs or on the beaches of Jamaica. 

The differing male/female responses to the creation of the free sexual marketplace surely tell us a lot about our respective psychologies, and why men’s rights continues to make miniscule headway in comparison to the march of feminism.  Men seem unable to policiticize their sexual rights (as normal, heterosexual men). Hell,  most men won’t even admit that women prefer black cock.  Of course, it’s true as well that most women won’t admit openly the even more obvious truth that men prefer teenage girls (many men won’t).  But every woman knows in her own head that it’s the truth.  This is why they are able to create world-wide political movements that transfrom social ethics within decades, whereas men can only come up with ‘the Mystery Method’, something that appeals to men individually, and our instinctive and primal need to compete with other men in order to get pussy.

Men analyse and compete, women politicize and unite.

Of course, it’s a good thing that men do not (or no longer) further their own sexual interests through the creation of spurious laws that criminilize white women having interracial sex, in the way that women have created laws that destroy men for even looking at younger females.  But it’s probably also true that the only hope for the men’s rights movement is if the much larger, and more relevant to young men PUA community can become in someway politicised.  Men too, have to learn that the personal has become political, and not just a game.

I would also add that, in my view, the efforts of the PUA community are an attempt to restore IQ to sexual selection (indirectly through the skill of the game, just as high male IQ was selected for previously indirectly via wealth/high status). In a sense therefore, PUAs are possiblenoble saviours of civilisation (along with Transhumanism).  (The Fifth Horseman made a great comment regarding this at Anti-Feminist Tech, I haven’t yet been able to re-locate the article for the link).

Other Articles seen around the web recently :

Flashing Teenage Breasts Could lead to 5 years prison for Male

A Florida man is facing five years in prison because he photographed two teenage girls flashing their breasts on the side of the road.

Robert Lee Blevins

Turns out, the girls were 15-years-old, according to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.

It is not clear if Robert Lee Blevins, 33, was aware of their age when he pulled his car up alongside them and snapped a photo.

This is why this blog exists, why its subtitle is the ‘rape of the male’, and why I have absolutely no regret in questioning the age of consent laws that underpin such madness.

And of course, taking photos of a bullied 15 year old girl dying in the street is pefectly legal, and no doubt will end up on a dozen sick American websites, with no objections from the FemiWhores, their sexual trade union ‘child protection’ groups, or Republican congressmen.

A glimpse of collective hysteria, 80 years into the past(misandry review)

The movie depicts an entire urban community in the grip of mass hysteria and fear as they struggle to track down and identify a child murderer. The police throw their full resources into finding the killer, but after eight months they still have nothing to show for their efforts. One of the problems that the overworked police force faces is a deluge of false allegations from a hyper-frightened public. In one poignant scene, a man who is walking down the street is approached by a little girl and asked what time it is. He gives her the time, but this act alone incites a mob of accusing onlookers, screaming that this man must be the child-killer and culminating in the police hauling him off to be questioned. Another scene shows a group of men sitting around a table in rapt attention as one reads them a newspaper article. That article prompts one of the paranoid men to accuse the one sitting directly across from him of being the killer. Threats between them ensue.

Women’s sexual peak rests atop a pile of lies (Paul Elam)

Where else but the current gender Zeitgeist can a woman with crows feet, sagging breasts, reduced sexual hormones, a vagina that does not lubricate as it once did, more difficulty conceiving and less ability to attract sexual partners of their preference, stand up and say “I am in my sexual prime,” and have everyone in their presence nod their head in agreement?

Only in a world where we tell women whatever they want to hear, no matter how ridiculous.

27-year-old Huerta — who was once featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated — was in front of a bar in Austin around 2 AM on Saturday morning … when some other people began fighting.  Roger was near the scuffle … when he saw one of the men involved punch a female who was standing near the ruckus.

Once Huerta sees the woman collapse to the ground — he instantly tries to confront the attacker saying, “You just punched a f**kin’ girl.”

Moments later, Huerta takes off his shirt … slams his hat to the ground … and rushes after the man.

Chaos ensues and people scramble after the fighters, blocking the camera — but seconds later … a shirtless Huerta can be seen finishing his attack on the other man … who is sprawled out on the street.

People rush in to aid the bloody man on the ground — who eventually gets off the pavement — as Huerta walks away from the battle ground.

Austin PD tells TMZ that officers were called to the scene — but so far, no arrests have been made.

Huerta’s manager tells us, “I have not spoken to Roger yet about this incident, but I can say that it’s in his nature to be very protective of women.”

Sucker punching somebody weaker than yourself is obviously the height of cowardice.  But in this age of ‘equality’, does hitting a woman per sejustify getting a beat down from a professional fighter?  An assault so vicious,  that it might leave you eating through straws for the rest of your life?  Well, yes seems to be the general consensus to those commenting on (ex) Lightweight UFC fighter Roger Huerta’s white knight KO’ing of a big black dude who ‘laid his hands on a woman’.

On first viewing of the video, it does appear that the black guy is guilty of sucker punching a random white lady.  On second viewing, it would seem more likely that the white woman has done something personally to anger the black guy in the bar, perhaps even hit him (you can’t really tell because the video begins with a fight spilling out into the street and the apparent ‘sucker punch’).

But wherever you read this story, nearly 100% of the comments are fully supportive of Roger Huerta.  Don’t hit a woman. Period.  Nobody knows the background to the incident, but virtually every man who has watched the video would cheer if they learnt that the black guy’s life support machine had been switched off.

Dana White himself, president of the UFC, had this to say about the incident :

“In no way do I condone street fighting, but when a guy puts his hands on a woman he deserves to be knocked the [expletive] out. Good for Roger.”

I wonder if that quote will be remembered should the UFC ever follow the lead of other MMA promotions, and allow woman cage fighters to choke and pound each other in order to line promoter’s pockets?

1. Posted by The Great One Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:47 pm EDT

Good for Roger, i would have done the same damn thing. I am a fighter myself, but you NEVER put your hands on a woman under ANY circumstance. Good job Roger!

2. Posted by Horacio Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:48 pm EDT

That was great!!! nothing wrong at all

3. Posted by mattis25 Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:48 pm EDT

Rogers the Man, that dude didn’t just punch her he wound up and EFFN NAILED HER. He’s the one who should be charged pin a medal on Huerta.

4. Posted by capncalyx Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:49 pm EDT

SWEEEEET! I love a good street fight. Way to step up Roger and use your skills for something good. If i hit a girl id expect someone to knock me TFO too.
My worst nightmare would be to pick a fight with a dude i didnt know was in the UFC.

5. Posted by capncalyx Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:50 pm EDT

…btw i bet that dudes head will hurt for a WEEK!

6. Posted by J magic Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:54 pm EDT

Good job Roger just shows that a man should never hit a women!!!!

7. Posted by peter Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:55 pm EDT

Good for Roger. F$ck that dude up!

I wonder who Roger should come to the aid of in this video?

A BRIT holidaymaker has been charged with indecency after stripping to a bikini in the world’s largest shopping centre.

The woman was walking through Dubai Mall fully dressed and wearing a low-cut top.

But when an Arabic woman stopped her and criticised her clothing, the pair had a heated row which ended with the Brit peeling off to reveal even more flesh.

Hundreds of bemused shoppers looked on as the Brit told the Arab woman to “mind her own business” before stripping off and walking around in her bikini, it was claimed.
Security guards intervened and called the police, who arrested the tourist.

The woman, whose identity is unknown, was questioned by officers in Bur Dubai police station and charged with indecency.

A Dubai police source said: ‘The British woman was wearing a very low top and most of her legs were on display. We ended up questioning both women.”

Brit Bikini Babe arrested after Dubai mall catfight

Whilst reading Human-Stupidity‘s blog last week, I came across something that he’s expressed quite brilliantly, and something that I happen to have recently been reflecting upon a great deal myself.  It’s something that really goes to the heart of the stupidity and irrationality of many of our current sexual mores :

In antiquity, When the Bible and the Koran were written, there were no birth control nor genetic paternity tests. Drakonian laws against adultery and pre-marital sex gave men sufficient trust that they were investing their life’s work and effort in their own offspring and not someone elses kid.
The Koran and the Bible were right, in their times: such laws could contribute to stability of family and society.  Religious dogma and zealotism, unfortunately, prevent any rational modern re-analysis of these topics in the face of birth control and DNA testing.

Before reading HS’s post, I had made a similar point to a Christian feminist, who was trying to rationalise her sexual self-interest in having men locked away to be raped for having consensual sex with younger females. I’ll quote her directly, and it’s a simple argument that I’ve seen popping up quite often recently (for example, Welmer of the Spearhead makes it too) :

The thing is, historically older men were able to have sex with attractive 15-year-olds because they married those 15-year-olds.

But the thing is, historically, attractive 15 year olds would likely have fallen pregnant if they had sex with older men. 

Whereas today :

• 15 year old girls (can) have access to the contraceptive pill.
• Contraceptives for men (condoms) are far more reliable than they were in times past.
• 15 year old girls can have abortions if they do not wish to raise the child.
• 15 year old girls will receive the support of the welfare state if they do decide to raise the child.

To say ‘sex with teens has never been legal outside of marriage’ is meaningless.  Almost as meaningless as saying that pre-marital sex has never been legal outside of marriage.  Both are largely as true as the other (at least outside of the USA – the average age of consent in Europe is still under 15, fifty years after the birth of the free sexual market).

Of course, a 15 year old girl getting pregnant in a high-tech society, which demands even working-class girls remain in education until their late teens and beyond, is still a very unwelcome thing and something that should be strongly deterred.  But what I am saying is that our instinctive abhorrence of men having casual sex with teenage girls is based largely upon presumed consequences that (should) no longer apply - that a teenage girl will likely be left pregnant and unsupported. What I believe, and what I’ve gone on record many times stating, is that we should largely replace ‘statutory rape laws’ with ‘impregnation of a minor’ laws.  To say the following might not win me approval in the men’s rights community, but the fact is, there is one essential moral difference between a man having sex with a girl, and a woman having sex with a boy.  The girl can fall pregnant.   This is the consequence that gives the act of sex its great moral weight.  And this, by and large, should be the only consequence that sexually aware teenagers should be legislatively protected against.

When the brave and great JayHammers recently questioned the feminist age of consent laws that lead to tens of thousands of men being beaten and raped in jail every day, he was denounced and ostracised by dozens of other MRAs.  Yet these laws make NO rational sense in a liberal society in which even sexual trade union feminists proudly proclaim that a woman can enjoy sex without any moral or emotional consequences.  There is no basis in evolutionary theory whatsoever to believe that a teenage girl will be harmed by casual sex (other than through being impregnated).  There is, however, obvious evolutionary reasons why a 30 year old woman will claim that a 14 year old will be emotionally destroyed by having sex, whilst she herself goes clubbing every night hunting for young black cock.

If you still maintain, as an MRA, that having sex with teenage girls is rape, then at least be consistent and equally side with the feminists who believe that pick up artists are rapists.

 Mummy’s Baby, Daddy’s Maybe

‘Sluts’ aren’t very popular in the anti-feminist community, to say the least.  I read one article only yesterday, and the tone of it, as well as the comments underneath, led me to  think I had slipped back to Biblical times, or modern Iran, watching a stoning in progress.  If this is men’s rights, then we may as well just convert to Islam, the largest ‘men’s rights movement’ in the world (and one that definately is growing).

I can understand the evolutionary rationale for men disliking sluts.  And I myself can be appalled at the ignorance of feminists when talking about ‘double standards’.  I can also share in the disgust at the arrogance of a 30 year old woman boasting that she has slept with over a thousand men and yet appearing to have no inkling as to why a man would not want to share the rest of his life with her, now that she wants to settle down and ‘find love’.  It’s a valid distaste at the deluded arrogance of the modern woman that the great Bernard Chapin often captures in his brilliant Inferno’s.

And yet, we now live in an age of paternity testing.  Why should ‘mummy’s baby, daddy’s maybe’ continue to have such a hold over us?  Surely, in today’s world, we ought to re-define a whore as a woman who sees her very essence and worth as consisting of her sexual asking price (i.e. a feminist) rather than a woman who simply gives pleasure to men cheaply.

Once more, it seems that our moral interpretations of sexual behaviour are largely proximate cultural explanations for ultimate evolutionary explanations that should no longer have any relevance in our present society.

And rationally uncovering the possibly irrational (now) evolutionary basis of our thinking should surely be the proper way we address moral questions relating to sex.   A society which increasingly becomes more distant and irrelevant to that in which our moral instincts evolved and which were later codified into religious law. Especially, in a society in which nearly a million men are sex offenders in America alone, and feminist judges have now won the right to lock them away indefinately.

This article kind of ties up the common thread of the last few posts I’ve made.  I make no apologies whatsoever, as an anti-feminist, for talking about issues regarding the age of consent and teenage sexuality.  The more I read of the history of feminism (and at the moment I’m reading up heavily on the first wave), the less absurd becomes my claim that the driving force of feminism has always been the attempt of older unattractive women to restrict the increasing availability to men of young attractive females. In this sense, if you believe that current feminist age of consent laws, together with contemporary feminist driven ‘paedohysteria’, are just and proper, then YOU TOO are a feminist.

I would, however, like to make the same disclaimer I have made before.  Any man who breaks an age of consent law has committed a great wrong, because (apart from moral issues of breaking any law) he has involved a younger, more vulnerable person in an act of criminality, and has exposed a teenage girl to inevitable damage at the hands of the feminist child abuse industry. 

Finally, another reason I have focused upon this subject recently, is because others have.  Not only the excellent Human Stupidity, but also in the following brilliant pieces from Roissy and FB at Inmalafide :

Roissy on Statutory Rape

InMalaFide : Sweet Sanity On Statutory

The Three Graces - Ancient Greek representation of fertility

At what age is the average female most sexually alluring to an ordinary, healthy, uncastrated male?  Is it even possible to ask this question in the climate of today, and expect a reasonably honest answer?  There have been a couple of good tries in the anti-feminist community recently, but such attempts inevitably end up with men playing the ‘I’m less of a paedophile than any other man here – feminists might be reading’ game. Perhaps, on such topics, we should follow the sage advice of Ludwig Wittgenstein, and accept that ‘of that which we cannot speak of, we ought to remain silent’?  At least this way some semblance of male dignity is preserved.

One things for sure.  The mangina respondents to this survey, faced with their scowling wives peering over their shoulders, didn’t remain silent when they clearly ought to have.

Well, I’m going to have a go at a politically incorrect, honest analysis of what evolutionary theory, and not the deluded wishes of 31 year old women, would predict men to find most attractive, age wise, in females.

But not today.  If something so politically incorrect is worth doing, then it’s worth doing well, and I need your help.  I’m asking readers like Highwayman, Frank, RR, and others, as well as other bloggers such as Human-Stupidity and Jay Hammers to give me some suggestions and advice.  Any links and resources would also be most valued.

Hopefully I’ll have the article completed before I allow my wandering eyes to put theory into practice on the beaches of the French riviera next month.  But for now, here is a sketch of some of the points I will be addressing :

The concept of ‘peak fertility’.  A mistake often made is to assume that because a woman reaches peak fertility (number of eggs produced) at age 22 or so, that this means that men will find her most attractive at 22.  False.  You also have to factor in the number of remaining years of fertility into the equation.  Also, the likelihood of the girl being a virgin or not (‘mummy’s baby, daddy’s maybe’).  For these reasons, even though an 18 year old may be slightly ‘less fertile’ than a 22 year old, ET would still predict that men would prefer the 18 year old. (and there are also good ET reasons why a woman would reach peak fertility some time after she has bonded with/attracted a male provider – I will explain these in the finished article).

Evidence through long-term history.  The well-established fact that the norm has been for men to marry girls shortly after the commencement of fertility (the menarche).

Evidence through recent history.  Whatever the situation in America, in Europe both ‘paedohysteria’ and the extension of paedophilia to embrace sex with ‘minors’ (a ‘minor’ itself being an imported American concept), is a very recent phenomenon.  Little more than 10 years ago, the most popular porn franchise in Europe was ‘channel seventeen’ – hardcore pornographic videos featuring 16 and 17 year old Dutch girls (now of course, illegal even to view due to American/’child protection’ group lobbying).  The most popular British newspaper, the ‘Sun’, reached it’s position (after almost folding in the 70′s) through publishing topless ‘page 3′ girls, often aged 16 or 17 (including the most famous of them - Samantha Fox).  Equivalents in Denmark and Gemany, such as Das Bild, regularly published topless photos of 15 year olds.  More risque tabloids, such as the British ‘Sunday Sport’ often held competitions for its readers to have sex with 16 year old pornstars.  In fact, it would often count down the days until one of their glamour models reached her 16th birthday, titilating readers with revealing bikini shots, until it could legally show her topless.  The market does not lie.

In Japan, which until the last few years had absolutely no taboos whatsoever on teenage sex, it was taken for granted that teenage girls were most attractive (and virtually all porn and erotica involved teenage girls). Train stations would have used schoolgirl panty vending machines. In Japan the school uniform is a symbol of male desire, just as the mini-skirt is in America.  Are Japanese men simply perverted?  Or is a more likely explanation that Japan, until the last few years, was free from anglo-saxon christian puritism, as well as sexual trade union feminism? (not to mention being free from America’s teen pregnancy rates, teen obesity levels, youth violence etc. But that’s another article….)

Statistical reasons relating to accepted criteria such as youthful skin, hip/waist measurements etc.  Here it would be most helpful if anybody could provide a link to any relevant charts/tables.

Removing mis-leading modern day factors : the average woman of today has a greater variety of make-up, hair styling methods, and clothes to choose from than even Cleopatra would have had access too.  And the application of all of these articifial enhancements to a female’s looks are ‘skills’ that improve over time.  These are major off-setting factors, but remember, we are talking about raw physical desire.  In the street, I see many sexually attractive 30 year olds.  In the swimming baths, without hair styling, make-up, jewellery, or expensive clothes, I rarely see any attractive woman over 22.

Feminism increases ‘paedophilia’ : Rising testosterone levels, as well as greater obesity, mean that the feminine body found in many 20 year olds of only 50 years ago, would probably be found more often in 14,15 or 16 year olds of today.

Is 14 y.o. Kendall Jenner really 8 years away from peak attractiveness (or 17 years!!)?

Kim Kardashian’s 14-year-old sister Kendall defends bikini photo shoot

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

The only immediate and obvious answers, it seems to me, lie in evolutionary psychology.  I don’t need to invoke ’cultural marxism’ for an explanation as to why 99% of the ways feminists screw men over happen to perfectly coincide with the reproductive needs of a heavy parental investment female simian in a free sexual ‘jungle’.  I turn to evolutionary psychology.

And this is exactly what the excellent Human-Stupidity.com has done with his analysis of how feminists have used their evolutionary sharpened verbal, gossip, and social manipulation skills to simply annihilate men and our sexuality in the 21st century sex war.  A war in which only one side has thus far turned up to fight.

In evolution, everything is result of an evolutionary arms race.  (cheetah and gazelle’s running skills, bacteria vs. our bodily defense system, …) Skills and capacities get honed over time, to solve evolutionary tasks.  Women, in evolutionary time, had the hard task to convince a much stronger man to assume his paternal role and take care of her offspring (which might be his, or even just his cuckold offspring).  In any argument, men had clear superiority with 2 powerful weapons

• economical superiority: men were the hunters, they had the meat, they also could defend and own territory
• physical superiority: men could always win an argument by brute force, by simple violence.

So to achieve some kind of evolutionary long term equilibrium, women must have developed some weapeons to counter men’s economical & physical power. What weapons could they have?

• Social manipulation: gossiping among women, ganging up together against the common enemy, making intrigues, badmouthing a man, destroying his reputation, manipulating the opinion of other men (and women).

Women would actually need the skills to win over other men to defend the female agenda. In order to counter men’s physical superiority, women needed to be better then men at these social manipulation skills.  They could not confront men clearly straight on, or else men could resort to the big stick argument. They would have to “con” men into doing what is in women’s interest, without men noticing.

Women would have to manipulate especially skillfully, when it has to do with reproductive success, with getting men to provide for them and their kids, with men staying away from other women.

So the historical stone age balance of power is:

• men have economical and physical superiority,
• women have verbal manipulation, cunningness, intrigue, social manipulation.

Nowadays, men surrendered their physical and economical power. Women maintained and expanded their verbal manipulative social power…

Read the complete article at Human-Stupidity.com

Although I have near completely given up on the men’s rights movement over the last few months, and any belief that it might become anything more than a tiny irritation upon the wrinkled skin of feminism, I still cling to the hope that the ever accelerating rate of technological change might eventually render the sex war meaningless.  I don’t think feminists can ever be defeated.  When you understand what feminism is, to believe that it can be is as silly as believing you can ‘defeat’ life itself.  The hope must be to somehow render feminism irrelevant for women, and in a way that is positive and fair to all men.

It’s a hope, but I don’t think a very great one.  Perhaps in 30 years time even feminists will be so happy, waking up each morning and being fucked by their king kong sex robots with their 20″ power drill black penises, that they won’t care if millions of men are doing similar with their perfect nubile 16 year old Anna Kournikova silicone replicants.  Unfortunately, women aren’t psychologically satisfied by the satiation of their physical sexual needs in the way that men can be. They will still feel ‘threatened’ and insecure by the ready availability to men of female beauty and youth. They will still want to take a legal hammer to those Anna sex bots, no matter how many electric black cocks they themselves are being happily serviced by.

Will feminists (or 'men's rights activists') allow men to wake up to 16 year old Anna Kournikova sex bots?