Thanks in no small part to the Daily Mail’s long running hysteria over ‘paedophilia’ and ‘child porn’, merely glancing at their article which features a photo of Madonna’s ‘cheeky teen’ daughter (15) holding her breasts covered by a cone bra is technically enough to get you a minimum 1 year in prison under forthcoming EU laws. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2165718/Lourdes-poses-Madonnas-cone-bra-backstage-MDNA-tour.html
Several weeks ago, the Daily Mail published an article reporting on the Canadian homosexual psychopath who had filmed himself brutally murdering and dismembering his lover. The article gave the internet ‘meme’ title of the video, clearly in order that readers, many of whom will be children, can Google it and download it themselves. The psychopath explicitly stated that he made the video because he got turned on knowing that thousands of people would watch it online. At the time of the Daily Mail article, the killer was on the run in Europe, gloating in his new found infamy, and threatening to kill more people and to record their murders for others to watch online.
This is from a newspaper that is currently generating a huge artificial moral panic over the dangers of online porn to children, in order to have all porn blocked in the UK so that the middle-aged hags who make up the majority of its readership no longer feel sexually threatened knowing that their long suffering husbands have access to younger boobs and bums online.
The Daily Mail not only publishes ‘child porn’ in order to boost readership, it also incites and encourages the filmed murder and dismemberment of men as entertainment.
The way things are going, I wonder how long it will be until the police will wait near news stands waiting for men to buy copies of The Daily Mail featuring such pictures and charge them with ‘possessing child exploitation material’? The D.M. would be safe from prosecution as they would be merely cooperating with the Child Abuse Squad to help snare filthy peddos buying the paper. “Cut their nuts off” yell the mob.
Also, given that Madonna seems happy to allow her 15 year old daughter to be ‘sexually exploited’ (as the current laws would have it), then why is she able to adopt children from third world countries without being accused of ‘child sex trafficking’? Questions we will never hear answered.
The feminist worldview is highly sexually repressive. Porn is going to be an outlet for men under such repressive schemes; so the feminists reflexively suppress that too. The only porn ‘allowed’ in this PC world is the soft-core variety that is peddled as ‘news’. Sex scandals, sex crimes, &c. The purpose of the feminist establishment is doubly served; both by shaming sex as something ‘scandalous’ and ‘criminal’ while feeding the public’s suppressed sexuality.
On a similar note, here’s the the latest scoop from Downunder.
There’s also a clip (on the same page) of the TV news version of the same ‘shocking case’ but see it here also. (You’ll have to watch a 15 second advert first).
Note that the age of child ‘victim’ wasn’t stated in either article, other than that she was under 16 years old. Reading (or listening) between the lines though, I would conjecture or dare to presume that there was no coercion involved and that this was just a typical everyday event for members (including the ‘child victim’) of a local nudist’s /nature-lover’s club.
Of course as always there was this classic paedohysterical comment:
Prosecutor Anne Hassan said the fact the identities of the children in the 17,381 images were not known did not mean they were not victims.
“These are real victims, real children,” she said.
One thing for certain however is that the under 16 yr old ‘child victim’ clearly didn’t complain.
You can google the word ‘nudist’ or ‘nudism’ in image mode and find literally THOUSANDS of ‘child pornography’ images posted by countless nudists. All of those images would definitely qualify as child porn, however google are either unaware of their existence or perhaps are aware of them and are possibly logging the hits to them and forwarding the server logs the various ‘child protection’ and law enforcement agencies for future persecution purposes.
Another point to note in the news broadcast was the woman’s father’s comments, where he strongly implies that his 25 year old daughter is yet another ‘victim’ (of this dangerous paedophile) and couldn’t possibly have been a willing party to such a heinous crime…
The other point about a baby being ‘abused’ was rather scant on detail as well, thus could quite possibly mean that someone (a man of course) was merely holding a naked baby or the baby was otherwise indecently exposed?
In conclusion I would venture to say that the only mistake this couple made was that they took photographs of something they would otherwise be quite legally entitled to do.
There’s just no limit to paedohysteria, while another man’s life is probably ruined for nothing…
Alan:
It’s also amazing to me how many of us had grandmothers and great-grandmothers who married at 14-16 years old and successfully raised families. Now, it’s like within a few generations the whole puritanical Anglosphere thinks that people are ‘children’ into their mid-20s. Just this week, Obama’s healthcare plan was upheld by the courts, and it provides for dependent ‘children’ up to the age of 26! Already, in the US, 21 is considered a ‘minor’ in some instances.
It’s been suggested over here more than once that the so-called ‘Age of Consent’ be raised to 25.
Eric, yes your sooo right! I am one of those grandchildren too and I have left at least 3 comments on this blog alone, where I have mentioned that my maternal grandparents were married when they were 16 and 17 year olds (grandfather 17). My grandmother had her first child my (now late) uncle, when she had just turned 17.
Another interesteing fact about the pre-femi-hag-bull-dyke, sexual trade union era, up to about say 1970, was that nearly all marriages lasted to the ‘until death do us part’ stage too.
The word Divorce was almost regarded as an expletive when I was a kid growing up in the 1960′s and the only kids in my schools that didn’t have fathers were those unfortunates whose fathers had died…
Nowadays, kids don’t even mention the word ‘Father’ let alone ‘Dad’, more often it’s something like ‘mom’s best friend’ or ‘mom’s new friend’, not even ‘Step-father’!
And as for ‘mom’s': they’re probably not too sure what the word ‘husband’ actually means either, they’re a lot more comfortable and conversant with more PC terms such as ‘partner’ or ‘de-facto’!
Makes me sick!
Anyway, before I get too carried away…
Read one of my related comments here:
Alan:
I don’t know how people today can ignore facts like that. My mom (18); grandmother (19); gr. grandmother (15); gr-gr.grandmother (16). All just on my father’s side! It’s not exactly like this kind of thing was uncommon. How people now consider this ‘rape’ is beyond me—except that radical feminists consider all sex as ‘rape’ and socon feminists consider all sex as ‘sinful’.
My great-grandmother’s family, too, was from France. And yet the same cultural hypocrites condemn men who pursue foreign women too.
They consider (well, actually they want it to be so) that any normal male sexuality is demonized and then CRIMINALIZED, which is what this paedohysteria they have drummed up and used to indoctrinate about 98% of Western society with, is all about.
In their utopia, there will be virtually NO MALES, bar a few ‘drones’ they will keep caged up for sperm doning (for breeding by artificial insemination).
The raising of the age-of-consent laws is crucial to that cause and has thus far been frighteningly successful, where all but us (2%) can actually ‘SEE the timber in those trees’, so to speak – we can see what should be blatantly obviuous to everyone, but their propaganda has been so successful that everyone has been totally led down the path to doom: rather a ‘Pied Piper of Hamlyn’ scenario where the children in the story who all follow the piper: could be represented by almost everyone in our now sex-obsessed, paedohysterical society.
Normative male sexual behaviour is now considered by most folk to be the lowest of low behaviour: it is now reagarded by the masses as paedophilia, thanks to this propaganda drummed up by the self-interested, jealous femi-hags of the sexual trade union and everyone is terrified to dare to dissent or express any views that question the validity of the now DRACONIAN laws they have successfully had passed; in the (totally false) claim that they are needed to ‘protect children’.
If you know what we all know here, the feminists are the ones who are the worst child abusers of all, in the way they have USED them as an excuse or smoke-screen to convince those in power that men are all sick, perverted deviants and predators that all want to sexually exploit even their own kids!
Femisnists of course do not give a hoot about children, if they did, why do they insist that it is their freedom to choose to kill unborn babies via abortions?
If you want to read some really terrifying facts related to this, read Angry Harry and for something even more scary: Inqusition 21
Eric – here here I second that observation too.
A very common World War Two story is of soldiers returning from the war in 1945 and quickly finding a girl but having to wait until she turned 16 before they could get married. Does this mean that many of the soldiers we honor today are in fact disgusting peddo perverts? “Victoria Cross Awarded to Filthy Child Sex Rapist” – there’s a headline for ya Rupert.
Deano:
What I’ve always found fascinating is that child psychologists—people whom all these social engineers must have read—are all agreed that puberty is both biological AND psychological adulthood. Piaget, Freud, Montessori and others all accepted this as fact. At most, adolescence is a time of physical and emotional adjustment—normally no more than 2 years after puberty, and frequently less, under normal social conditions.
Feminists like the idea of ‘extended childhood’ because it fixates people emotionally in that transitional period of adolescence and makes them easier to control.
Also, too, the feminists want a monopoly on sex and reproduction for themselves and obviously younger women are a threat to monopoly. It’s no accident that feminists are really big into social and eugenic engineering: promoting sperm banks for themselves while foisting abortion clinics upon minorities.
Alan – thanks for the link. Yes it will be interesting to see what penalty, if any, the female partner gets for this. The usual defense is “He made me do it. I was scared for my life.” Then off she goes to sell her story to the gossip mags or some such.
I wonder how long it will be until someone is able to prove that the police planted such material on their computer. Interesting that in the Assange case as pointed out in this forum many times, there was no mention of his rape crime until he embarrassed big Government. Planting kiddie porn on HIS computer would have been too obvious – Assange would hardly be stupid enough to allow that to happen, so “RAPE!!!” was the next best thing.
And I wonder exactly what these huge image hauls are actually composed of. We often hear stories like these claiming that “over 100,000 images of shocking child abuse involving very young children were found”. I would be amazed if there were a small fraction of that number of such images on the entire internet. The number of men into raping small children is probably similar to the number of guys who would enjoy eating their own scalp. It just doesn’t accord with real life experience.
My guess is that if the cops find 100,000 images, then 99,900 are bog standard Penthouse style pictures. The remaining 100 probably feature 90 of girls that fit the new definition of child porn as in youthful looking 22 years olds, and the last 10 might feature tarty 16 year olds that would have been on page 3 of The Sun a few years ago. That’s all that’s required to get a conviction and getting convictions makes the cops look good and keeps the feminist lobby happy (for about 6 minutes which is as long as they can ever be happy!)
Y..ep! Meanwhile at other mRA blogs (and occasionally right here on this blog) they are vehemently condemning the likes of us as being ‘sick paedos’, whose one and only desire in life is to be allowed to fuck 12 yr old girls and get away with it, simply because we see what they have been effectively blinded (by feminist indoctrination) from seeing.
This to us of course, being the most Draconian and by far the greatest threat not only to men, but ultimately to the entire human race!
To my way of thinking (which is only simple common-sense and simple logical reasoning): the Draconian and psychotic laws surounding child pornography, thus the feminist definition of children, being directly linked to the ever-changing age of consent laws; is by far THE NUMBER 1 Men’s Rights Issue!
While I don’t have much, if any time for those manginas who call themselves ‘MRA’s', it saddens me that they cannot see the wood for the trees: what’s unfolding right before their eyes! They are like brainwshed zombies as far as this topic is concerned, but what is also likely is that most of those who ridicule us and are so quick to name, shame and scape-goat us, are actually behaving like text-book paedocrites!
So too are the police and other law enforcement personnel you mention above!
One day we’ll be saying to most of those misguided, wannabe MRA’s (or paedocrites) as they’re being carted off to prison for a few years of alternate sexuality, something like: “Well we tried and tried to warn you; hate to say ‘I told you so’, but all of you refused to listen to us”…
Alan:
Unfortunately, the mens’ movement in the US tries to pander to Social Conservatives. That’s going to be their downfall in the end; because Socon women hate men just as much as the Radfems.
Actually have you noticed a bit of that, (the mens’ movement in the US tries to pander to Social Conservatives) seems to be happening at The Spearhead just recently??
Actually now I think of it: of course you’ve noticed, you even made a comment about it earlier today!
Deano, yeah, you’re right:
@Deano
Yeah, you’re right:
They might be happy for up six days when their ultimate goal is finally accomplished:
When the governments finally agree to their demands for passing mandatory death penalties for ALL ‘paedophiles’ (in reality: sexually normal men and boys).
What they would love to see are huge crowds of paedohysterical public, gleefully laughing as thousands of men are hanged or simply clubbed to death in the streets for committing heinous crimes such as ‘downloading child exploitation / child abuse images’ (of 27 year old fully clothed models that look like they might be only 17 years old and ‘smiling provocatively’ or ‘posing in a lascivious manner’)…
The mantra: “Hang the filthy perverts” being chanted by the ghoulish crowds, heard echoeing all over the cities!
But cp legisalation isn’t a MRM issue, just read AVfM: those ‘MRA’s’ there will tell you…
speak the truth, by all means
however, you must be realistic — AVfM is a good example — they already have made enemies out of the (feminist) US/Western governments, not to mention the thousands of feminist organizations throughout the western world and endless millions of feminists/whiteknights
those interests would quickly seize upon any attack on paedohysteria (and it is a VERY lucrative hysteria, to say the least) as a defense for “raping children” etc etc, and then use that wedge to degrade, dismiss, and silence ALL the efforts by AVfM (or any other antifems attempting the same)
it’d be done quickly and effectively, with mass exposure
in this light, it’s not fair to disparage AVfM, or others, for not tackling this issue, as strategically it would be suicide
however, i agree that this issue is very much at the center of misandry, as expressed both by individual feminists, and by our matriarchal nations
woman’s psychosexual imperatives are at the (dark) heart of her controlling, selfish, and vengeful behaviors, including collective behaviors — so the issue will have to be addressed in larger forums, eventually
females are built to reproduce in their teens, and if they pass their teens unmarried (and thus, usually promiscuous) they will NEVER truly bond with any man, or husband . . . unfortunately, in the feminist/liberated societies of the modern west, simply “throwing open the gates” sexually would prove as much of a disaster as the current state of predation upon maleness and masculinity by women, the courts, cops, prisons, etc.
“however, you must be realistic — AVfM is a good example — they already have made enemies out of the (feminist) US/Western governments, not to mention the thousands of feminist organizations throughout the western world and endless millions of feminists/whiteknights
those interests would quickly seize upon any attack on paedohysteria (and it is a VERY lucrative hysteria, to say the least) as a defense for “raping children” etc etc, and then use that wedge to degrade, dismiss, and silence ALL the efforts by AVfM (or any other antifems attempting the same)”
I agree almost 100% Ray, and that’s why I don’t criticise AVfM at all for not discussing these issues.
I think our beef is largely when MRAs actually attack paedohysteria as not being a men’s rights issue, or stringently defend feminist laws on ‘child protection’.
Although I think Paul Elam’s attack on Jay Hammers was clumsy and somewhat cheap (at one point he declared his wish that Jay be raped in prison, and ‘dared’ him to sue him for calling (Jay) a paedophile), I fully understand why he did it, given that Jay was being an asshole troll.
I think it’s more the commentators at places like AVfM who immediately accuse you of being a paedophile if you criticise any feminist law that targets men as ‘paedophiles’.
This is the exact same tactic feminists and manginas are using when the men’s rights movement raises domestic violence or false rape accusations as issues (we all must be domestic abusers and rapists). And to be honest, I don’t really see that, for example, questioning whether the state has the right to burst through your home and arrest you for casually clicking on a picture of a 17 year old girl in a bikini is any more provocative than questioning rape culture, or even the seriousness of most rapes as being ‘worse than murder’ etc (as Paul Elam and others have done – rightly in my view).
And it does disturb me when I see commentators at AVfM saying things like ‘we MUST force society to accept that teenage boys are destroyed by sexual abuse’, right next to big ‘Donate Here’ buttons.
Reminds me a little of George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’, to be honest.
It’s also illuminating to note that not only does Angry Harry often question paedohysteria, so do the following published authors (in a far stronger way than Angry Harry, btw) :
Steve Moxon (The Woman Racket)
David Thomas (Not Guilty – In Defence of Modern Man)
Neil Lyndon (No More Sex War)
A noteable thing about these names are that they are all British.
It’s also noticeable that my site seems to have a far greater proportion of European readers than do most other MRA sites.
This is very much an American/Europe dichotomy.
As we’ve pointed out here before, less than ten years ago, tabloid newspapers in the UK and Europe were publishing topless or scantilly clad glamour photos of girls as young as 14 nearly every day. The age of consent is still 13 in Spain, 14 in Germany and Italy, and 15 in France, and 14 or 15 in most of eastern Europe (of course, feminists are making it more and more risky, even if these are still technically the official age of consents).
Suddenly, overnight, you were a paedophile if you even admitted that 17 year old girls could be sexy, or clicked on a single image of a woman who even looked 17 in a bikini or topless.
These new laws were all made by feminists. Any European MRA who is over 30 cannot possibly deny that these are men’s rights issues, It’s also important to realise that feminists do not have an end goal in sight. They are already starting to raise the age of ‘sexual protection’ to 21 or even beyond. This is the legislative creep that paedohysteria results in that even mainstream publications such as the Economist magazine has discussed :
http://www.economist.com/node/14165460/
The frightening thing is that British and European men under 30, even MRAs, will have internalized these new feminist norms and assume that the only ethical issue with these laws is that they are applied equally to men and women (just as nearly all American mras do).
As far as feminism seizing on the MRM as a ‘paedo friendly’ rights movement, I would adopt the same tactics as I do with Futrelle. Point to things like Germaine Greer’s published child porn, justified on the basis that ‘it’s time that women defended their right to appreciate the sexual beauty of adolescent boys’ :
http://www.amazon.com/Germaine-Greer-The-Beautiful-Boy/dp/0847825868
This book was lavishingly reviewed by a leading British sexual trade union feminist who campaigns against the evil male sexualisation of adolescent girls :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/oct/11/highereducation.news2
http://theantifeminist.com/natasha-walter-living-dolls-the-banned-review/
You couldn’t make it up, could you?
LOL—today on Yahoo news, the US media machine featured photos of 40 y/o Jada Pinkett Smith posing in a bikini (YUCK).
So far they’ve featured, in the six months or so, 48 y/o Valerie Bertenelli, 47 y/o Nicole Kidman, and the late Whitney Houston (48). Madonna, at 51, has also been featured.
That’s from America, where 48 y/o Sarah Palin—a domintrix with a dysfunctional family is also considered a national sex symbol.
I guess now that 26 has become the unofficial age of majority over here, these aging over-the-hill celebs are the ‘new normal’ in feminine beauty.
Eric,
They WISHED….
Deluded old hags, they are not kidding anyone apart from themselves, but I’ll give them 10/10 for trying.
I think most of us would ensure we just stay celibate before even considering any sexual contact with the likes of those has-beens…
On the other hand: everything the feminazi movement has accomplished so far in terms of draconian anti-male laws etc., started from seemingly harmless beginnings….
Scary thought!
Alan:
This is not out of the realm of possibility in the ultra-puritanical, hyper-paedohysterical, uber-feminist USA. The media could be consciously conditioning the sheep-like public here for a ‘new normal’ definition of childhood. Obamacare clearly defines ‘dependent children’ as up to the age of 26; and pundits/legislators here have brought up raising the age of consent to 25 more than once recently.
In my home of state of Washington, the legal age for purchasing tobacco is 18, but the law requires store owners to verify identification papers on anyone who is under 27.
Alan:
There’s been a big movement, especially among the ‘Game’ practitioners, to try and go ‘mainstream’ by reaching out to Socons. This is a HUGE mistake. Socon women have been educated and disinformed with same misandrist attitudes as the radical feminists. You don’t have to debate with any of these ‘tradcon’ females over here for more than a few minutes before their anti-male sentiments comes pouring out in spades.
All of the leading Socon American pundits: Thomas Fleming, William Bennett, David Horowitz, Sean Hannity—are unapologetic White Knights who pedestalize women and fan paedohysteria. Fleming has actually referred to the MRM as ‘louts’ and ‘jerks’ in several of his writings.